Further proof that Ron Paul is the most sane person in Washington

[quote name='SpazX']Well dude you already said yourself that a paper from a 12th grader is better than your posts.[/QUOTE]

I'm not a fan of age discrimination. Everyone has different IQ's, even the young.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Because it's LAW Enforcement.

In a Democratic society the purpose of the Government is the people consent to abide by laws for the protection of the individual. A law with no penalty attached is not a law, it's merely a statement of desire (see immigration).

Because the government is the body of the law, they must execute all aspects of the law or the law is not theirs (the people's).

Law Enforcement can't be privatized for the same reason the court system can't.

The legal system (Government) and it's elected officials must execute all phases of the law: the establishment of the law, the execution of the law, and the judgement of the law. Those are also the three branches of government.

You can't privatize any branch of the government because the goal of a private entity is profit, while the goal of Government must always be the protection of the individual.[/QUOTE]

Bingo thrust!

Yeah I'll say for profit prisons, i.e. privatized prisons. All we see with that is more Draconian and absurd laws so more people can be jailed, to the profit of said corporation.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']I'm not a fan of age discrimination. Everyone has different IQ's, even the young.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't make your posts any better. Stop spouting off Ron Paulisms, you sound like 4chan.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Texas deregulated its energy market. I have over 30 companies to choose from when I buy power. There are fixed rates, variable rates, 100% renewable energy choices, 10%, 0%, you name it.

Four years after deregulation, the average electricity bill had gone up 57.7% in Texas, the largest state increase in the country.

Yay free market.[/QUOTE]

We've had similar problems with the deregulation of Baltimore Gas and Electric here in Maryland. It pretty much amounts to handing a whole bunch of infrastructure that was built by the government and footed by the taxpayers over to a private cabal who gets to profit off it for free.

And here I thought innovation and the American spirit was about investing your own money and putting your neck on the line, not receiving a fat slice of corporate welfare.
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']We've had similar problems with the deregulation of Baltimore Gas and Electric here in Maryland. It pretty much amounts to handing a whole bunch of infrastructure that was built by the government and footed by the taxpayers over to a private cabal who gets to profit off it for free.

And here I thought innovation and the American spirit was about investing your own money and putting your neck on the line, not receiving a fat slice of corporate welfare.[/QUOTE]

See all the great things thirty years of deregulation has done for the saving and loans industry and companies like Enron and all the others...
 
I also thought it was common knowledge that deregulation and corruption on Enron's end led to the brownouts in California as well as the price gouging that pillaged Californians of their earnings and helped, in part, lead to Gray Davis' recall election.

I thought it was common knowledge until I read the monumentally misinformed and naively simplistic "tax breaks to build an energy plant in india led to Enron's demise," courtesy of Ron Paul.

But I guess life is a bit simpler when you start your day of knowing the conclusion to everything in your head, merely using your brain to think of ways to fit within that framework.
 
[quote name='speedracer']But if the market is king, why defer to the government when your bacon is on the line? If the free market provides such better service at such better rates, wouldn't that be doubly so when lives are on the line? I'm hearing "we trust the market explicitly EXCEPT when we need quality and service guaranteed. Then we cannot trust the market". But if that's the case.. I mean wtf?

If that makes sense.[/QUOTE]

Free market police would only work if they received high pay for high performance, essentially becoming mercenaries. The advantage to this is that if you had enough money you could send high-tech paramilitary killers into the local ghetto to deal with the Crips who wasted your little brother. However, if you don't have enough money, or your criminal issues are minor and not profitable, what guarantee would you have of getting a better bang for your buck? If little Suzy gets her cat lost in a tree, does she now have to pay the fireman or police officer to get him down? Should she have to calculate the current market rate for getting cats out of trees versus the quality of service she would receive? Will there be FDIC insurance in case the privatized servant drops the rescued cat, resulting in injury to the animal? How much more wasteful bureaucracy would be created by attempting to "simplify" the system? :) I can see it now, once the police are privatized there will be a call for more government oversight :roll:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But I guess life is a bit simpler when you start your day of knowing the conclusion to everything in your head, merely using your brain to think of ways to fit within that framework.[/QUOTE]

I could say the EXACT same thing about left-wingers.

The things Ron Paul says make sense to me, but all I hear from the other side is slogans and blatent know-it-all-ery.

*reverse*

The things Obama says make sense to me, but all I hear from the other side is slogans and blatent know-it-all-ery.

---------------------------------

You see, at our level of debate there's no way for anybody to get anywhere. In order to get a make a good point you need to dig up all kind of hard evidence like statistics and detailed historical events. But it's more fun (this is a gaming forum, y'know) to post easy-to-read/biased articles, then spout out sarcastic slime afterwards (BOTH sides have been doing this, BTW).

I'm stepping out at this point, for the above reason, and because like I've mentioned before, gaming forums are dominated by snotty lefties who use spin and taunts to "debate".

Call me a coward, but I've been crazy to stick around this low-IQ thread* for this long... :roll:

*Your reply: "You made it that way, you greedy little money worshipper! :evil:"

(Y'see? Fun! :D)
 
Ron Paul places the fall of Enron squarely at the feet of tax incentives to build a plant in India. He doesn't look anywhere else.

He doesn't look at:
1) Enron Energy Services, an idea of Liu Pai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_Energy_Services
2) Enron's Blockbuster deal: http://www.internetnews.com/infra/a...ter-Kills-Video-On-Demand-Deal-with-Enron.htm
3) The *insane* idea to use mark-to-market accounting for long-term investment instruments that were so volatile in the market (energy) that they were literally lying about virtually every so-called 'asset' they had
4) Executives selling off stock at the same time they froze the stocks of employees, causing people to turn hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement savings into about $5,000. Enron stock peaked at nearly $90/share, and bottomed out as junk stock
5) The creation of offshoot corporations where more liabilities were hidden, which was the other side of the math equation that helped Enron bullshit their quarterly and annual financials in order to bamboozle their investors and the SEC. One shadow company where they disguised their liabilities? M. Yass. Think about it.

With regard to Enron, Ron Paul is at best woefully, woefully misinformed about the cacophony of problems surrounding that corporation. At worst, he is knowledgeable, yet deliberately withheld the bulk of the story because it can't be pinned on government in any way, shape or form. The India deal resulting solely from tax incentives is purely speculative, as there's no way to demonstrate they wouldn't have tried to move into the Indian market anyway. So Ron Paul's best argument for why Enron is not evidence of the failure of the free market comes down to nothing more than conjecture.

Your move, hombre.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']I'm not a fan of age discrimination. Everyone has different IQ's, even the young.[/QUOTE]

I actually read the paper, it wasn't very good (I especially liked the useless charts). It also barely had anything to do with what we were talking about as it had few points of comparison to the past.

But anyway, continue with myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Your move, hombre.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='SpazX']
But anyway, continue with myke.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='TurboChickenMan']

I'm stepping out at this point, for the above reason, and because like I've mentioned before, gaming forums are dominated by snotty lefties who use spin and taunts to "debate".

Call me a coward, but I've been crazy to stick around this low-IQ thread* for this long... :roll:

*Your reply: "You made it that way, you greedy little money worshipper! :evil:"

(Y'see? Fun! :D)[/QUOTE]


:roll:
 
I've decided that R.P. should have the last word.

Here, he explains exactly what is coming economy-wise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8URI8-BlRI

Do you you really think that sloganeering wind-up puppet Barry Soetoro is really going to do anything besides get perpetually quoted & interviewed by kiss-up mass media marxists?

(Take a good listen at yourselves. The above is an almost exact copy of your speech pattern. Just replace Barry with Ron, and marxists with profiteers... :drool:)
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']I've decided that R.P. should have the last word.

Here, he explains exactly what is coming economy-wise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8URI8-BlRI

Do you you really think that sloganeering wind-up puppet Barry Soetoro is really going to do anything besides get perpetually quoted & interviewed by kiss-up mass media marxists?

(Take a good listen at yourselves. The above is an almost exact copy of your speech pattern. Just replace Barry with Ron, and marxists with profiteers... :drool:)[/QUOTE]

Pro-tip:

If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the birther crap.

You and your ilk have done a really good job of turning people away from hearing arguments against the drug war, an interventionist foreign policy, and a growing surveillance state by being fucking lunatics.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Pro-tip:

If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the birther crap.

You and your ilk have done a really good job of turning people away from hearing arguments against the drug war, an interventionist foreign policy, and a growing surveillance state by being fucking lunatics.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for proving my point about your kind's argument methods! :D
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ron Paul places the fall of Enron squarely at the feet of tax incentives to build a plant in India. He doesn't look anywhere else.

He doesn't look at:
1) Enron Energy Services, an idea of Liu Pai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_Energy_Services
2) Enron's Blockbuster deal: http://www.internetnews.com/infra/a...ter-Kills-Video-On-Demand-Deal-with-Enron.htm
3) The *insane* idea to use mark-to-market accounting for long-term investment instruments that were so volatile in the market (energy) that they were literally lying about virtually every so-called 'asset' they had
4) Executives selling off stock at the same time they froze the stocks of employees, causing people to turn hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement savings into about $5,000. Enron stock peaked at nearly $90/share, and bottomed out as junk stock
5) The creation of offshoot corporations where more liabilities were hidden, which was the other side of the math equation that helped Enron bullshit their quarterly and annual financials in order to bamboozle their investors and the SEC. One shadow company where they disguised their liabilities? M. Yass. Think about it.

With regard to Enron, Ron Paul is at best woefully, woefully misinformed about the cacophony of problems surrounding that corporation. At worst, he is knowledgeable, yet deliberately withheld the bulk of the story because it can't be pinned on government in any way, shape or form. The India deal resulting solely from tax incentives is purely speculative, as there's no way to demonstrate they wouldn't have tried to move into the Indian market anyway. So Ron Paul's best argument for why Enron is not evidence of the failure of the free market comes down to nothing more than conjecture.

Your move, hombre.[/QUOTE]
I know this has absolutely nothing to do with Enron itself, but i just thought the bit about accounting was funny.

http://finance.yahoo.com/college-ed...ol-a-losing-game?mod=edu-continuing_education

"Enron-type accounting standards have become the norm," says William Henderson of Indiana University, one of many exasperated law professors who are asking the American Bar Association to overhaul the way law schools assess themselves. "Every time I look at this data, I feel dirty."
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I campaigned for Paul during the Republican primary. Want to try that one again?[/QUOTE]

Doesn't change the fact that the way you made your point was incredibly vile.

I still stand by my view that nothing is absolutely proven or disproven until a concensus has been made based on physical evidence which has been independently analyzed via the scientific method (this hasn't occured in a VERY long time - everything is politicized & spun nowadays).

P.S. I only made this post so it wouldn't look like I was running away from a losing argument. The people involved in this discussion remain either too simple-minded (the majority) or too lazy (me and maybe a few others) to ever reach a concensus... :roll:
 
I still haven't seen TurboChickenMan address the Enron posts above. Just because you have the last word doesn't mean you're right, right?
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Pro-tip:

If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the birther crap.

You and your ilk have done a really good job of turning people away from hearing arguments against the drug war, an interventionist foreign policy, and a growing surveillance state by being fucking lunatics.[/QUOTE]

:applause:
 
I know that was posted somewhere already because I replied to it, but I can't remember where it was.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ron Paul's stock is rising, huh?

Find out who won last year's CPAC straw poll.[/QUOTE]

quit being so negative. i would think youd like paul over 94% of other potential republican candidates.
 
I'm glad Rand's campaign rhetoric was just that; rhetoric.

He forced debate on the PATRIOT Act, and the Senate pushed a three month extension that passed 86-12. Rand Paul and Mike Lee were the only Republican NO votes.

I'm looking forward to six (and hopefully many more) years of Senate headaches because of Rand.

“The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history, is no doubt well-intentioned. However, rather than examine what went wrong, and fix the problems, Congress instead hastily passed a long-standing wish list of power grabs like warrantless searches and roving wiretaps,” Paul wrote his Senate colleagues on Tuesday.


“The government greatly expanded its own power, ignoring obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of a police state,” he added. “It is not acceptable to willfully ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution—in this case—the Fourth and First Amendments—in the name of ‘security.’”
Click to expand...

​
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']quit being so negative. i would think youd like paul over 94% of other potential republican candidates.[/QUOTE]

Of today? Without a doubt.

Historically, though, I would vastly prefer a more moderate Republican - the kind that doesn't exist in today's political environment. Like Nixon, or Reagan.
 
Based on what I know about him, I think Goldwater would probably be considered a liberal today. That just tells you how much the parties have changed.
 
Yow. That was some pretty creepy editing at the very end there. Not the sort of thing you want to view uncaffienated.

So...FOX is a kingmaker who supports all Republican causes except those of the fringe (i.e., Ron Paul, white nationalists). And they make things up to support their view. They start with their desired outcome and build the news backwards to lead in that direction.

Welcome to 1997, thrustbucket. Did you know NYPD Blue is still on the air?
 
I've never been in denial that there are many producers and higher-ups at Fox that are Republican party shills.
I've just never thought that sort of thing was really out of the ordinary for a major news network though.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I've just never thought that sort of thing was really out of the ordinary for a major news network though.[/QUOTE]

this is worded oddly. it reads like you expect to see the shilling occur on the program systematically.

but I don't think you do, based on past experience and the context of your prior posts.

go contrast Fox's coverage of the egyptian protests, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood, with their (muslim brotherhood's) op-ed from yesterday. you'll see the same thing. anything that doesn't fit Fox's worldview is distorted or omitted.

Let me simplify: anytime you see a news channel whose coverage you are satisfied with 100% of the time, or even close - you're being bullshitted. The news should reflect the real world, which means it involves facts, figures, and analyses that should disappoint, infuriate, and also reaffirm. For FOX viewers, that is not the case. There are no perspectives or facts presented that are unfortunate for the FOX viewer.
 
Hmm, but couldn't you get at least those first two thing by switching news networks? I mean if I watched fox news I know I'd eventually be infuriated and disappointed, kinda doubt reaffirmed, my opinion of them probably would be I suppose.

It is nice to know that fox news isn't really about shilling for conservatives, but rather the republican party. Which is weird since if Paul runs it will probably be as a Republican again.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Read his "We've Been Neo-Conned" speech to see why Paul is persona non grata in establishment circles.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

You'll find stuff about Fox in there, too.[/QUOTE]

I've been kind of wanting a quick concise short-list on what neo-cons believe and that article had it:

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
They accept the notion that the ends justify the means — that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
They express no opposition to the welfare state.
They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).
They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
Click to expand...
 
I've seen that list in a number of places. I don't believe it's complete, but what is does state is largely accurate.

Ron Paul is an astute critic. But his problem is that he thinks he can reclaim the party from neocons.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] I've seen that list in a number of places. I don't believe it's complete, but what is does state is largely accurate.

Ron Paul is an astute critic. But his problem is that he thinks he can reclaim the party from neocons.[/QUOTE]

Meh, I was one who believed Obama would change the way Washington works. We've all got some idealism in us I think.
 
I'm not sure about the welfare state part. Equality doesn't seem to be a priority at all for them, and all welfare programs get labeled as "entitlements".
 
After re-reading it, I believe its mostly correct. The statement is that they dont EXPRESS an objection to the welfare state. It may be that they have an opinion on the matter, but they dont write about it, nor or they asked to come on radio/tv to comment on that topic. They're pinpoint focused on this national security paranoia. If they care, they dont care that much.
 
Maybe they don't call it a welfare state, but they certainly have spoken out against programs associated with a welfare state.
 
Nah, guys like Bill Kristol dismiss the welfare state as an issue, whereas his father (godhead of the neocon movement) openly praised it and wished to expand it.

I also take issue with calling a welfare state (be it corporate or otherwise), with our current monetary and government system, as a means to equality. Put all three together, and you've got something more akin to class enslavement than any sort of equality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top