Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? RON PAUL SAYS YES!

[quote name='dohdough']That logic is completely flawed considering the time and place.

This is what I said in another thread: You think that ending the war on drugs will stop institutional racism like Paul suggests? No. What he proposes would allow rampant discrimination worse then what we have now. The civil rights act of 1964 was less about eating at white establishments and more about access to political and economic enfranchisment of which they were actively denied. The "free market" didn't put those institutions under because THERE WAS NO ACCESS TO CAPITAL(for black people to act as a force in the market).

You say that the market will fix it, but you fail to acknowledge how the market was heavily leveraged IN FAVOR of whites and STRONGLY AGAINST black people. The market won't make corrections for people that are systematically not allowed to participate in it. This is why capitalism is fucked along with all of the right-wing harping about the free market and fucking bootstraps. It's all bullshit meant to keep certain segments of society disenfranchised.[/QUOTE]


sometimes you don't understand humour and that makes me sad, almost like the joke really is on you.
 
found a better site Beer 4 Paul which just lets you donate two-fours to some dude named Paul that lives with his grandma
 
[quote name='nasum'] found a better site beer 4 paul which just lets you donate two-fours to some dude named paul that lives with his grandma[/quote]

;) +1
 
The last time I talked to a Paul supporter I was told there was no evidence that climate change is happening and that a perpetual motion machine exists but it was bought by the oil companies.
 
[quote name='Clak']The last time I talked to a Paul supporter I was told there was no evidence that climate change is happening and that a perpetual motion machine exists but it was bought by the oil companies.[/QUOTE]

Well that's silly, climate change has always happened, so that's evidence right there.

And is the second part really so hard to believe? ;)
 
I love ron paul, I got to shake his hand at an event before the presidential election. When asked what I liked about him by others I have always said his economic policy. I'm not really into some of his policy, but I'm sure his cabinet would focus first on setting the economy straight before getting to the whole states can set their own agendas thing.
 
There was an awesome scene from Breaking Bad this past Sunday, where they look in the lab notebook of one of the meth lab cooks and he's got a random 'Ron Paul 2012' bumper sticker in there. Awesome.
 
I don't understand why liberals don't like the guy. He shares alot of the same ideas.
He wants to bring all the troops home immediately.
He's against the war on drugs!
He says prostitution should be legal.
He says all gambling should be legal.
He think you should be able to marry whoever you want.
He's against censorship.
He's against corporatism.
He's against the Patriot Act.
He's against subsidies for oil companies.

I think he's more liberal than most liberals.
And why are so many CAG members so hostile to Free Markets, yet frequent a website about getting the best prices for goods and services?
 
[quote name='chynco']I don't understand why liberals don't like the guy. He shares alot of the same ideas.
He wants to bring all the troops home immediately.
He's against the war on drugs!
He says prostitution should be legal.
He says all gambling should be legal.
He think you should be able to marry whoever you want.
He's against censorship.
He's against corporatism.
He's against the Patriot Act.
He's against subsidies for oil companies.

I think he's more liberal than most liberals.
And why are so many CAG members so hostile to Free Markets, yet frequent a website about getting the best prices for goods and services?[/QUOTE]
He's a racist homophobic theocrat. He's only against those things on a federal level and feels that the states can do whatever the fuck they want as long as it's in line with christian values.

Civil Rights Act? Gone.
Gay marriage? Gone.
Abortions? Gone.

Just because what he says may sound "liberal," it doesn't mean that his intent is. If he's so fucking liberal, then why is he a Republican? If you're so smart, why don't you tell us how he's more liberal than most liberals?
 
[quote name='dohdough']He's a racist homophobic theocrat. He's only against those things on a federal level and feels that the states can do whatever the fuck they want as long as it's in line with christian values.

Civil Rights Act? Gone.
Gay marriage? Gone.
Abortions? Gone.

Just because what he says may sound "liberal," it doesn't mean that his intent is. If he's so fucking liberal, then why is he a Republican? If you're so smart, why don't you tell us how he's more liberal than most liberals?[/QUOTE]

Paul's issue with the CRA was not that Jim Crow laws were annihilated, or that government discrimination was axed; if a bill simply removed those he'd vote for it with zero issues.

He doesn't think government should be involved in marriage at all, and consistently defends people associating with whom they choose. He stated as such in South Carolina in a Fox News debate as recently as a couple months ago, and in Iowa as well.

He catches flak from socons on both the marriage and abortion issues because his stance would allow states to determine their own policies on the issues.

He's more liberal than most liberals in Washington based on his opposition to government intervention in civil liberties. Depending on what side of the liberal fence one is on, throw foreign policy in as well.

I'll end my post by pointing out that his two closest political operatives, Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, are ancaps.

None of this is to say that you should support him as a political entity. However, a Paul administration would be more friendly to liberals than a fourth term of Bush. Inverted, a Kucinich administration would be more friendly to a libertarian than any of the Republican candidates outside of Gary Johnson and Paul.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Paul's issue with the CRA was not that Jim Crow laws were annihilated, or that government discrimination was axed; if a bill simply removed those he'd vote for it with zero issues.

He doesn't think government should be involved in marriage at all, and consistently defends people associating with whom they choose. He stated as such in South Carolina in a Fox News debate as recently as a couple months ago, and in Iowa as well.

He catches flak from socons on both the marriage and abortion issues because his stance would allow states to determine their own policies on the issues.

He's more liberal than most liberals in Washington based on his opposition to government intervention in civil liberties. Depending on what side of the liberal fence one is on, throw foreign policy in as well.

I'll end my post by pointing out that his two closest political operatives, Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, are ancaps.

None of this is to say that you should support him as a political entity. However, a Paul administration would be more friendly to liberals than a fourth term of Bush. Inverted, a Kucinich administration would be more friendly to a libertarian than any of the Republican candidates outside of Gary Johnson and Paul.[/QUOTE]
You literally don't know jack shit about Ron Paul. Just because he believes in decriminalizing weed on a federal level DOES NOT mean that he's for the legalization of it on a state level. Just because he says that it should be upto the states to decide on abortion or gay marriage doesn't mean he supports it on a state level either. This much is blindingly clear when you look on his website, op-eds, and speeches on how this is a Christian nation based in Christian values and does not believe in the separation of church and state.

Just because a few stances overlap with liberal ones doesn't mean that he's a goddamn liberal. Rothbard and Rockwell are staunch Austrian economicists. How the hell is that even remotely close to liberalism?
 
[quote name='dohdough']You literally don't know jack shit about Ron Paul. Just because he believes in decriminalizing weed on a federal level DOES NOT mean that he's for the legalization of it on a state level. Just because he says that it should be upto the states to decide on abortion or gay marriage doesn't mean he supports it on a state level either. This much is blindingly clear when you look on his website, op-eds, and speeches on how this is a Christian nation based in Christian values and does not believe in the separation of church and state.

Just because a few stances overlap with liberal ones doesn't mean that he's a goddamn liberal. Rothbard and Rockwell are staunch Austrian economicists. How the hell is that even remotely close to liberalism?[/QUOTE]

I'm well aware of the attempt forged by Rothbard, Rockwell, and Paul in the late 80s to troll social conservatives and paleo conservatives to libertarianism. I've also never stated he was a liberal in today's sense of the word; only that he sides with modern liberals on many issues, and that a Paul presidency would be more liberal than a fourth Bush term. Austro-libertarians in large part trace their history back to classical liberals of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

"Prohibition is not compatible with a free society."

"Government should not compel or prohibit any personal activity when that activity poses danger to that individual alone."

"Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government."

"All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are to be permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order."

"Government must obey the law it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior or manipulate social outcomes."

He's a voluntarist, not Mike Huckabee.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I'm well aware of the attempt forged by Rothbard, Rockwell, and Paul in the late 80s to troll social conservatives and paleo conservatives to libertarianism. I've also never stated he was a liberal in today's sense of the word; only that he sides with modern liberals on many issues, and that a Paul presidency would be more liberal than a fourth Bush term. Austro-libertarians in large part trace their history back to classical liberals of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

"Prohibition is not compatible with a free society."

"Government should not compel or prohibit any personal activity when that activity poses danger to that individual alone."

"Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government."

"All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are to be permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order."

"Government must obey the law it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior or manipulate social outcomes."

He's a voluntarist, not Mike Huckabee.[/QUOTE]
Just because you can trace libertarian theory back to classic liberalism doesn't mean that it's anything like classical liberalism. fuck it, do you even know about the things that Smith supported? Cause you're definitely showing how little you know about it in general. Smith is virtually a goddamn socialist by today's standards.

Not like Huckabee? Maybe you should do a little more research on what he actually stands for and not what you think he stands for.
 
[quote name='chynco']He's against corporatism.
...
I think he's more liberal than most liberals.
And why are so many CAG members so hostile to Free Markets, yet frequent a website about getting the best prices for goods and services?[/QUOTE]

I don't believe he's against corporatism for a second. Talk is cheap.

Can't speak for the others, but I love the free market. I'm against laissez-faire capitalism.
 
I don't have the time or desire to scoff at allegations of racism, homophobia, or even of being devoutly anything, so I'll just say, I really like him. His foreign policy is the single greatest attractor for me, but I don't think he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the nomination, and let's face it. All they are really competing to be is a Bob Dole (meaning they have to nominate somebody, but nobody has a chance of defeating Obama-well, maybe someone from his own party would have had a chance, but that ain't happening).
 
Watching Ron Paul this time around, I have realized that even though to me he is the best candidate - by a wide margin, and most closely mimics my own political views - even if he were elected president he'd likely be a disappointment just like Obama has been to the left.

People like Obama and Paul won't really be able to further their agendas as presidents - they would have to be dictators.

Ron Paul would make a fantastic short-term dictator but a mediocre-at-best president.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I don't have the time or desire to scoff at allegations of racism, homophobia, or even of being devoutly anything, so I'll just say, I really like him. His foreign policy is the single greatest attractor for me, but I don't think he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the nomination, and let's face it. All they are really competing to be is a Bob Dole (meaning they have to nominate somebody, but nobody has a chance of defeating Obama-well, maybe someone from his own party would have had a chance, but that ain't happening).[/QUOTE]

Well let's be honest - you have no time for facts so you stay in the realm of opinion because, hey, it's an opinion.

To put it more succinctly, you're completely full of shit.
 
[quote name='ShockandAww']I dont agree with him 100%, he rejects the theory of evolution and is a creationist for one. But absolutely I think he was by far the best candidate in the last elections. I would absolutely vote for him again if he was the best candidate. He seemed like the realest candidate I can remember.[/QUOTE]

why the fuck does that matter, or what relevant substance does it hold to politics? i've never understood the whole "omg hes religious" crap that romney/perry get. i wouldn't care if he was a pastafarian ffs, only the political views matter
 
[quote name='yahoosale14']why the fuck does that matter, or what relevant substance does it hold to politics? i've never understood the whole "omg hes religious" crap that romney/perry get. i wouldn't care if he was a pastafarian ffs, only the political views matter[/QUOTE]

What's funny is being religious is always bad for Republicans. But it's usually good for a Democrat.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Watching Ron Paul this time around, I have realized that even though to me he is the best candidate - by a wide margin, and most closely mimics my own political views - even if he were elected president he'd likely be a disappointment just like Obama has been to the left.

People like Obama and Paul won't really be able to further their agendas as presidents - they would have to be dictators.

Ron Paul would make a fantastic short-term dictator but a mediocre-at-best president.[/QUOTE]

Scratch a neocon find a fascist.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well let's be honest - you have no time for facts so you stay in the realm of opinion because, hey, it's an opinion.

To put it more succinctly, you're completely full of shit.[/QUOTE]

You portly, sharp-tongued man. You're absolutely ADORABLE!!

*Hugs and kisses,

berzirk
 
I suspect that many conservatives secretly figure that a benevolent* dictatorship is the most effective form of government. They really, really dont like democracy - from the 80's "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" propaganda, to union busting, to wanting as few people as possible to actually vote. They do understand that liberty and democracy are mortally opposed.

*agrees with them

I've personally cornered a libertarian into admitting this.
 
[quote name='camoor']Whatever. You're still full of shit.[/QUOTE]

Sigh. So really, I just find you to be a caustic whiner who takes differing opinions way too personally. I tend to be fairly lighthearted, especially when the exchange is done on a side forum of a videogame website. So rather than go back and forth and call you a poo-poo head, and have you call me a jerkface, I decided to patronize you and move on, while making a reference to the thread that seems to have really cemented your personal hatred for me.

So, that's the analyst/therapist breakdown of it. Or the analrapist view, if you will.

Don't worry, I'll even let you get the last word in, and promise not to reply. Start posting!

Love,

Berzirk
 
[quote name='thrustbucket'] What's funny is being religious is always bad for Republicans. But it's usually good for a Democrat.[/QUOTE]

What is this shit, seriously.
 
[quote name='IRHari']What is this shit, seriously.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing he just meant that being say a Mormon hurts republicans as you have the religious right that's pretty closed minded toward non-protestant denominations.

Where as liberal protestants have voted for Catholics etc..

It's not being religious that's a pro or con--you have to be Christian to have any chance in national elections. But on the right you really need to be a Baptist or Methodist. Though I'm not sure I buy that as I think most on the religious right would either still vote republican or live in states that always go republican and thus the religious right staying home wouldn't matter anyway.
 
Nah, I think he's not that intellectually deep.

If I had my druthers (and I do, despite not really knowing what "druthers" are), he's going to use this opportunity to bring up Jeremiah Wright.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']pre or post-millenialist? it's kind of a big deal.[/QUOTE]

Post or whichever one is considered "hard" Dominionist.
 
figured as much.

same folks who think that, by creating earthly conditions that mimic the Great tribulation, they will trigger the second coming of Jesus Christ.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I suspect that many conservatives secretly figure that a benevolent* dictatorship is the most effective form of government. They really, really dont like democracy - from the 80's "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" propaganda, to union busting, to wanting as few people as possible to actually vote. They do understand that liberty and democracy are mortally opposed.

*agrees with them

I've personally cornered a libertarian into admitting this.[/QUOTE]

this is a true statement, hell, even the most liberal of my teachers have said this.
 
I would like to inform your liberal teachers that they are wrong. A representative democracy is still a democracy. Find me a definition of Republic that EXCLUDES a representative democracy being a form of democracy.

Yes, we are a Republic. That is to say, we elect representatives, we do not have a monarch, and power is derived from the people.

The two words actually mean the same thing. The founders drew a distinction between the two terms temporarily as a way to be clear that what they were not proposing was a direct/popular democracy. Then a few decades later, the words went back to meaning THE EXACT SAME THING until the 1980's. The political spinsters at the time decided to try to bring back that useless distinction purely as a part of a larger messaging game. Republic sounds more like Republican, Democracy sounds more like Democratic. This was also the same time that they started calling it the Democrat party, of which there is no such thing.

So technically, we are a Constitutionally limited republic/representative democracy. There is no meaningful difference in their definitions
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If I had my druthers (and I do, despite not really knowing what "druthers" are), he's going to use this opportunity to bring up Jeremiah Wright.[/QUOTE]

Can't that be countered with John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc., rather easily?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I would like to inform your liberal teachers that they are wrong. A representative democracy is still a democracy. Find me a definition of Republic that EXCLUDES a representative democracy being a form of democracy.

Yes, we are a Republic. That is to say, we elect representatives, we do not have a monarch, and power is derived from the people.

The two words actually mean the same thing. The founders drew a distinction between the two terms temporarily as a way to be clear that what they were not proposing was a direct/popular democracy. Then a few decades later, the words went back to meaning THE EXACT SAME THING until the 1980's. The political spinsters at the time decided to try to bring back that useless distinction purely as a part of a larger messaging game. Republic sounds more like Republican, Democracy sounds more like Democratic. This was also the same time that they started calling it the Democrat party, of which there is no such thing.

So technically, we are a Constitutionally limited republic/representative democracy. There is no meaningful difference in their definitions[/QUOTE]

Need to bring back the whigs and tories.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I would like to inform your liberal teachers that they are wrong. A representative democracy is still a democracy. Find me a definition of Republic that EXCLUDES a representative democracy being a form of democracy.

Yes, we are a Republic. That is to say, we elect representatives, we do not have a monarch, and power is derived from the people.

The two words actually mean the same thing. The founders drew a distinction between the two terms temporarily as a way to be clear that what they were not proposing was a direct/popular democracy. Then a few decades later, the words went back to meaning THE EXACT SAME THING until the 1980's. The political spinsters at the time decided to try to bring back that useless distinction purely as a part of a larger messaging game. Republic sounds more like Republican, Democracy sounds more like Democratic. This was also the same time that they started calling it the Democrat party, of which there is no such thing.

So technically, we are a Constitutionally limited republic/representative democracy. There is no meaningful difference in their definitions[/QUOTE]
I usually say democratic republic, because that's what it is. Saying either or just isn't entirely accurate. Then I usually get someone saying "but in the pledge it just says republic". So what, "and to the democratic republic for which it stands" doesn't sound as good, get over it.
 
Hey, Paulistinians: check out the opening segment of the Daily Show tomorrow.

You'll understand why it's such a great program.

For serious.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I suspect that many conservatives secretly figure that a benevolent* dictatorship is the most effective form of government. They really, really dont like democracy - from the 80's "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" propaganda, to union busting, to wanting as few people as possible to actually vote. They do understand that liberty and democracy are mortally opposed.

*agrees with them

I've personally cornered a libertarian into admitting this.[/QUOTE]

That's interesting. I've heard more people comment that they wish Obama could take his agenda full tilt without the "stupid congress" getting in the way than I ever have for a conservative leader.

I'm not saying I wish for a dictator - I'm saying that the people that I would want to vote for would be disappointing for the same reason Obama has been; all of their "good ideas" would be deflected by a status quo congress.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm guessing he just meant that being say a Mormon hurts republicans as you have the religious right that's pretty closed minded toward non-protestant denominations.

Where as liberal protestants have voted for Catholics etc..

It's not being religious that's a pro or con--you have to be Christian to have any chance in national elections. But on the right you really need to be a Baptist or Methodist. Though I'm not sure I buy that as I think most on the religious right would either still vote republican or live in states that always go republican and thus the religious right staying home wouldn't matter anyway.[/QUOTE]

It's mostly just an observation of the media.
The religious sides of Republican candidates are routinely seen as "weird" or even "extreme" in the media. It's typically brought up in a negative light.

On the other hand, you often see Democrats cleverly invoke their religion or god at just the right moments so that they can get the "Oh good, he's still one of us" reactions.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's mostly just an observation of the media.
The religious sides of Republican candidates are routinely seen as "weird" or even "extreme" in the media. It's typically brought up in a negative light.

On the other hand, you often see Democrats cleverly invoke their religion or god at just the right moments so that they can get the "Oh good, he's still one of us" reactions.[/QUOTE]

Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with weird. I am a fan of many spiritual paths that would be considered weird by contemporary Americans.

However let's not sugarcoat it and call a spade a spade. Fundamentalists are extreme. Fundamentalists are dangerous. Fundamentalist politicians are a disaster.

Moderate Christians are moderate. Moderate Christians are rational. Moderate Christian politicians understand nuance and are open to compromise to get the job done.

The non-Fox news media have this one right.
 
When Democrats bring up religion its mostly kumbaya. When cons bring up religion its about bombing brown people smd lynching gay people.
 
bread's done
Back
Top