The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='IRHari']Jerk.[/QUOTE]
The fat girls are on top and they are millionaires. We can make fun of J.Lo's fat ass but not Clarkson's double chin or Adele's four orbiting moons?

[quote name='BigT']This almost makes me want to listen to a Kelly Clarkson album :D

Anyone who has enough sense to support Ron Paul (rather than the other stooges) is alright in my book![/QUOTE]
I see it as a rejection of this idea that we must go out and boycott some stupid singer because they said something we don't like. People vote with their wallet, and in this case they did. Good for Clarkson, good for Paul supporters and good for the respect of speech.

I always thought it was funny that we feel freedom of speech is so important that we demand our government to respect it (remember, the first amendment applies to government) and yet we don't seem to respect it in our personal or business lives. Every time someone says something we don't like we want to silence them through a boycott or we go after their jobs or we publicly try to shame them. If you criticize your boss it's over for you. On the Internet it's all about moderating everybody and banning people for what they say. We don't voluntarily adopt principles of freedom of speech when we don't have to.

In any case, Kelly Clarkson's only mistake was apologizing at all. Stand behind what you say and they can't touch you. Apologizing is like putting blood in the water where there is a school of angry sharks. That's when they know they've got you.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I see it as a rejection of this idea that we must go out and boycott some stupid singer because they said something we don't like. People vote with their wallet, and in this case they did. Good for Clarkson, good for Paul supporters and good for the respect of speech.

I always thought it was funny that we feel freedom of speech is so important that we demand our government to respect it (remember, the first amendment applies to government) and yet we don't seem to respect it in our personal or business lives. Every time someone says something we don't like we want to silence them through a boycott or we go after their jobs or we publicly try to shame them. If you criticize your boss it's over for you. On the Internet it's all about moderating everybody and banning people for what they say. We don't voluntarily adopt principles of freedom of speech when we don't have to.

In any case, Kelly Clarkson's only mistake was apologizing at all. Stand behind what you say and they can't touch you. Apologizing is like putting blood in the water where there is a school of angry sharks. That's when they know they've got you.[/QUOTE]
Free speech cuts both ways. If you feel like saying something stupid, I have the right to call you stupid. It's almost as if there's a social aspect of speech that goes along with the legal aspect of it! Who knew!:roll:
 
[quote name='dohdough']Free speech cuts both ways. If you feel like saying something stupid, I have the right to call you stupid. It's almost as if there's a social aspect of speech that goes along with the legal aspect of it! Who knew!:roll:[/QUOTE]
Yeah but it's a very disingenuous type of thing. Oh, I loved her music when I didn't know who the hell she's going to vote for but I hate her music after? Calling that fatso a cunt on Twitter (which I personally support) is a far cry from "oh I have my right to disagree with you and you have yours." The problem is that those who called her a cunt are the same kind of people who would assail Ron Paul for sexism and racism and other naughty things.

Saying "I disagree with you" is also a far cry from wanting to ruin someone's livelihood because you didn't like what they had to say. I don't agree with buying her records just because she supports a certain candidate, but it's definitely a backlash against petty guilt by association fallacies and silly boycotts over a singer's endorsement.

Modern interpretations of the first amendment have it protecting offensive speech for the most part, yet we don't internalize those ideals and we get upset and offended over many, many silly things. The first amendment applies only to government, but what I'm saying is if we think it's so great, let's make the first amendment a personal ideal to live by and dial down some of this hysteria over what comes out of people's mouths. And I suspect a lot of the hysteria is exaggerated or plain disingenuous in order to increase the likelihood that someone does lose their job or whatever.

dohdough, I find many of the things you say absolutely abhorrent and offensive, but I would hire you at my company if you were qualified for the position in play. I don't want to destroy you for those opinions. The problem is that many people literally want to destroy others for their dumb opinions.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Anyone that supports Ron Paul is a dumb piece of shit.[/QUOTE]

Another erudite post by dohdough... :applause:

You've convinced me, I was wrong... I'm now going to boycott Kelly Clarkson and will start campaigning for Obama!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']There should be substantially greater (i.e., *some*) rotation in the primary cycle order of states. This circus of the order in which states go is absurd. Iowa should not always and forever have first dibs. It is inherently imbalanced and unfair.[/QUOTE]

Sure, take away the only thing Iowa has...
 
[quote name='BigT']Another erudite post by dohdough... :applause:

You've convinced me, I was wrong... I'm now going to boycott Kelly Clarkson and will start campaigning for Obama![/QUOTE]

Even if Ron Paul is unelectable and personally immoral and abhorrent to common decency, he is the only candidate talking about certain issues that liberals and conservatives claim is paramount to their respective ideologies. A Ron Paul nomination means a thorough and honest debate over the Patriot Act, indefinite detention and endless wars with the current president who has taken liberal and progressive stances on these things in the past (and does not today).

An amazing article on Salon is making the rounds. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?
Click to expand...
 
There are some things Ron Paul says that Liberals agree with. The catch is that Paul is pretty open about keeping the federal government out of basically everything while a state government or corporation can do anything they want to you.

Also a Ron Paul nomination probably would not force any change in the official narratives, it is abundantly clear that most media outlets view as their job to justify the status quo and basically lie to people.
 
[quote name='BigT']Another erudite post by dohdough... :applause:

You've convinced me, I was wrong... I'm now going to boycott Kelly Clarkson and will start campaigning for Obama![/QUOTE]
Please...erudition is an anathema to most people, you included, and if it wasn't I wouldn't have made that comment.

[quote name='Spokker']Even if Ron Paul is unelectable and personally immoral and abhorrent to common decency, he is the only candidate talking about certain issues that liberals and conservatives claim is paramount to their respective ideologies. A Ron Paul nomination means a thorough and honest debate over the Patriot Act, indefinite detention and endless wars with the current president who has taken liberal and progressive stances on these things in the past (and does not today).

An amazing article on Salon is making the rounds. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/[/QUOTE]
The problem with Paul is that he's "liberal" on those pet issues in a superficial manner. Sure, he wants to end the drug war...but only on a federal level. Sure, he is all for reproductive rights...but only so the federal government can't dictate it's prohibition. Sure, he wants to end imperialism...but only to curb federal power. The list goes on and on and that's the framework he uses, which is an end to federal power without acknowledging that the reason for that federal power is that the states were fucking everything up.

Ending the drug war is a good thing, but allowing states to operate 50 different drug wars is ok because you know...states rights. Reproductive rights? Each state will have the ability to outright ban abortions if they "choose" to, which is what he really supports. Ending foreign adventurism? Not even close because he'd just hire pirates and mercenaries. Legalizing drugs? HA! He doesn't support drugs being sold in a "free market" and if states want to become more draconian about it, that's what he really supports as well.

It's all well and good on the surface, but it's one huge steaming pile of WTF underneath. Am I glad that he brings these issues up? Actually, no. Why? Because he's still irrelevant and a few issues that are so far right that they shoot over to the left doesn't give me a hard-on. I shouldn't even need to discuss why his conservative policies are dumb as shit either.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Anyone that supports Ron Paul is a dumb piece of shit.[/QUOTE]

I would actually argue that any liberal worth a grain of salt should be supporting Ron Paul in the primaries.

Let's face it - Obama's gonna win. Not a single one of the Republican candidates have a chance, unless something completely out of the blue happens.

So, instead of having an election full of the same old BS debates that we've been having for so long, why not have one where Obama has to speak on his record for, say, military spending? PATRIOT Act and crap? Gitmo? Why not root for the single Republican candidate that has the slightest chance of holding Obama's feet to the fire for issues that you're interested in?

...and, if nothing else, Ron Paul is the only candidate that FOX News seems to hate more than Obama. That, alone, should be worth registering for the Primaries under the Republican banner and voting for him.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Please...erudition is an anathema to most people, you included, and if it wasn't I wouldn't have made that comment.


The problem with Paul is that he's "liberal" on those pet issues in a superficial manner. Sure, he wants to end the drug war...but only on a federal level. Sure, he is all for reproductive rights...but only so the federal government can't dictate it's prohibition. Sure, he wants to end imperialism...but only to curb federal power. The list goes on and on and that's the framework he uses, which is an end to federal power without acknowledging that the reason for that federal power is that the states were fucking everything up.

Ending the drug war is a good thing, but allowing states to operate 50 different drug wars is ok because you know...states rights. Reproductive rights? Each state will have the ability to outright ban abortions if they "choose" to, which is what he really supports. Ending foreign adventurism? Not even close because he'd just hire pirates and mercenaries. Legalizing drugs? HA! He doesn't support drugs being sold in a "free market" and if states want to become more draconian about it, that's what he really supports as well.

It's all well and good on the surface, but it's one huge steaming pile of WTF underneath. Am I glad that he brings these issues up? Actually, no. Why? Because he's still irrelevant and a few issues that are so far right that they shoot over to the left doesn't give me a hard-on. I shouldn't even need to discuss why his conservative policies are dumb as shit either.[/QUOTE]

One of the things that irks me about the Paulettes is how honest they claim he is and how proud they are he can "argue" his positions.

Meanwhile when he was challenged on his healthcare stance (i.e. letting poor/sick people die) he tried sidestepping it by saying more or less "when someone chooses"... nevermind the fact many people do not have a "choice" or would under a glorious pure market based system.

He gets a pass because he looks like a character actor playing the wizened crackpot kooky uncle.
 
[quote name='Msut77']There are some things Ron Paul says that Liberals agree with. The catch is that Paul is pretty open about keeping the federal government out of basically everything while a state government or corporation can do anything they want to you.[/QUOTE]
You vote for who represents you in state government just like the federal government. As far as regulation goes, well, a state like California would still have CEQA even if NEPA went away. And CEQA is more than enough to block any environmentally-friendly transportation project in California simply because you don't want a train near your neighborhood. Those fighting for alternative transportation in California seem to be obstructed at every turn by well-meaning but flawed regulations and laws. Laying down a fucking bike path is an exercise in frustration at times.

The point is that regulation isn't always good and having a federal bureaucracy to deal with on top of the state just makes it that much harder.
[quote name='dohdough']
Ending the drug war is a good thing, but allowing states to operate 50 different drug wars is ok because you know...states rights.
[/QUOTE]
We already have 50 different drug wars and one really big one.
 
[quote name='Spokker']You vote for who represents you in state government just like the federal government.[/quote]

Interesting example, because one of the "states rights" Paul and other cons have a hard on for was the right to decide who and who cannot vote (and no this is still not settled).

As far as regulation goes, well, a state like California would still have CEQA even if NEPA went away. And CEQA is more than enough to block any environmentally-friendly transportation project in California simply because you don't want a train near your neighborhood.
Click to expand...

I live in NY, if New Jersey decided to allow people to spew toxic waste into the air that drifted to NY; what would be my recourse exactly?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Interesting example, because one of the "states rights" Paul and other cons have a hard on for was the right to decide who and who cannot vote (and no this is still not settled).[/quote]There are many things you could be talking about here but I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to.

At the very least, I don't think they'll be taking away black or women's suffrage if that's what you're talking about.

I live in NY, if New Jersey decided to allow people to spew toxic waste into the air that drifted to NY; what would be my recourse exactly?
Click to expand...
The federal government is already being woefully inefficient on this issue. States have taken matters into their own hands.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/21092

But in any situation in which pollution is a problem, understand that the optimal amount of pollution is not zero. Economic activity will produce some amount of pollution, pollution that is very much harmful. And even if New Jersey's pollution harms New York, would New York's pollution not be harming some other state?

A good overview of how property rights can be used to solve matters of pollution is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

There are many problems with the theorem, but it represents a starting point on this subject. Citizens' groups often band together and fight polluters. In my region a bunch of homeowners are fighting the local commuter rail agency that provides a public transportation service across the region. The agency is voluntarily complying even though I don't think they have to. They just want to be a good neighbor I guess. I just wonder if fares are going to go up which are going to encourage more people to drive :)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I would actually argue that any liberal worth a grain of salt should be supporting Ron Paul in the primaries.

Let's face it - Obama's gonna win. Not a single one of the Republican candidates have a chance, unless something completely out of the blue happens.

So, instead of having an election full of the same old BS debates that we've been having for so long, why not have one where Obama has to speak on his record for, say, military spending? PATRIOT Act and crap? Gitmo? Why not root for the single Republican candidate that has the slightest chance of holding Obama's feet to the fire for issues that you're interested in?

...and, if nothing else, Ron Paul is the only candidate that FOX News seems to hate more than Obama. That, alone, should be worth registering for the Primaries under the Republican banner and voting for him.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with this entirely and to those that think Ron Paul is admirable enough as a politician to garner presidential support at all I hope they really look over what he has written and done, rather than what has been written about him.

As bob has said, voting for this man will put shit like the patriot act and other war time things front and center. However the rest of the shit he supports will, such as his support for the dissolving of church and state, which he has been pushing since at least 2003, be brought to the front and center as well. He seems to really believe in dominionism and sees these laws and judicial ruling that separated church and state as nothing more than elitist bullshit that needs to go. Which scares me because of this countries obvious problems with homosexuals, muslims, women, and athiests rights. I am all for shouting cheers of support when he says shit like passing the defense authorization bill a "slip into tyranny". But anyone voting for him has to take the transgressions of his ideology into account as well, and I think for a lot of people, they will honestly be too glaring to ignore.

Personally I think it is funny that Paul has seemed to pull off an Obama in many ways, in that he seems to have found an issue that is popular enough to allow his other faults in ideology, as I perceive them anyway, to slip by undetected, similar to the way Obama was able to hide his platform of ending the use of coal as an energy source in coal friendly states. Oh well, only my opinion I suppose.

Edit- Think I will post this shit here for people to read. It is the earliest thing I could find explicitly showing his dominionist tendencies. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Oh and lest we not forget his statements not but half a year ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NyfnHOPAhHo
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cindersphere']I disagree with this entirely and to those that think Ron Paul is admirable enough as a politician to garner presidential support at all I hope they really look over what he has written and done, rather than what has been written about him.

As bob has said, voting for this man will put shit like the patriot act and other war time things front and center. However the rest of the shit he supports will, such as his support for the dissolving of church and state, which he has been pushing since at least 2003, be brought to the front and center as well. He seems to really believe in dominionism and sees these laws and judicial ruling that separated church and state as nothing more than elitist bullshit that needs to go. Which scares me because of this countries obvious problems with homosexuals, muslims, women, and athiests rights. I am all for shouting cheers of support when he says shit like passing the defense authorization bill a "slip into tyranny". But anyone voting for him has to take the transgressions of his ideology into account as well, and I think for a lot of people, they will honestly be too glaring to ignore.

Personally I think it is funny that Paul has seemed to pull off an Obama in many ways, in that he seems to have found an issue that is popular enough to allow his other faults in ideology, as I perceive them anyway, to slip by undetected, similar to the way Obama was able to hide his platform of ending the use of coal as an energy source in coal friendly states. Oh well, only my opinion I suppose.

Edit- Think I will post this shit here for people to read. It is the earliest thing I could find explicitly showing his dominionist tendencies. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Oh and lest we not forget his statements not but half a year ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NyfnHOPAhHo
[/QUOTE]

He has many more ties to anarcho-capitalists and Catholics and Jews than he does to dominionists (chief among them Gary North). He's even had open homosexuals and atheists run several of his campaigns and hold staff positions. He drops a number of dogwhistles, those who are familiar with the philosophy of voluntaryism will catch them. Sometimes he's less subtle:

[quote name='The Ten Principles of a Free Society']
1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.


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


3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.


4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.


5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.


6. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people's money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.


7. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.


8. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.


9. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.


10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.[/quote]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']He has many more ties to anarcho-capitalists and Catholics and Jews than he does to dominionists (chief among them Gary North). He's even had open homosexuals and atheists run several of his campaigns and hold staff positions. He drops a number of dogwhistles, those who are familiar with the philosophy of voluntaryism will catch them. Sometimes he's less subtle:[/QUOTE]
Quite right in keeping my use of dominion in question, however I tend to apply the term broadly rather then just to North's brand of Christian Re-constructionists.

And I am sure he has had a few openly homosexual and atheistic supporters help his campaign, but on the other end he has had open ties with many more people who wish to restrict the right of those two peoples as well. If anything, to me anyway, it shows he is a hollow candidate the same as the rest and has simply found an issue that gives him the political cleavage he needs.

I can't really speak on his views on voluntaryism, mainly because I have always seen him as a straight non-interventionist. Also on the fact that I have never really looked into voluntaryism, as I always saw it as a political fools gold. But I must admit that I don't know anything about his ties to voluntaryism and how tight-nit they are to it's policies.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Quite right in keeping my use of dominion in question, however I tend to apply the term broadly rather then just to North's brand of Christian Re-constructionists.

And I am sure he has had a few openly homosexual and atheistic supporters help his campaign, but on the other end he has had open ties with many more people who wish to restrict the right of those two peoples as well. If anything, to me anyway, it shows he is a hollow candidate the same as the rest and has simply found an issue that gives him the political cleavage he needs.

I can't really speak on his views on voluntaryism, mainly because I have always seen him as a straight non-interventionist. Also on the fact that I have never really looked into voluntaryism, as I always saw it as a political fools gold. But I must admit that I don't know anything about his ties to voluntaryism and how tight-nit they are to it's policies.[/QUOTE]

At its most basic level, voluntaryism is non-interventionism. So you more or less pegged it. The Ten Principles statement I quoted is the epilogue of his most recent book, and is a voluntaryist declaration. Many of Paul's legislative directors have been ancap/voluntaryist (including his current and previous legislative director), as well as a couple chiefs of staff.

I view his associations as more policy based than philosophically based. His long lasting associations all tend to fall into a libertarian or otherwise limited government spectrum and are more principally based, with some semi-frequent coalitions with Barney Frank, Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson existing. Matthew Stoller, former Grayson staffer, wrote it about that here:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I would actually argue that any liberal worth a grain of salt should be supporting Ron Paul in the primaries.

Let's face it - Obama's gonna win. Not a single one of the Republican candidates have a chance, unless something completely out of the blue happens.

So, instead of having an election full of the same old BS debates that we've been having for so long, why not have one where Obama has to speak on his record for, say, military spending? PATRIOT Act and crap? Gitmo? Why not root for the single Republican candidate that has the slightest chance of holding Obama's feet to the fire for issues that you're interested in?

...and, if nothing else, Ron Paul is the only candidate that FOX News seems to hate more than Obama. That, alone, should be worth registering for the Primaries under the Republican banner and voting for him.[/QUOTE]

One of your posts where I agree with everything you say. Especially the bolded part, I really truly believe this would be good for the country.

Those issues don't get enough debate, especially because the media sees them as having bipartisan support and therefore no longer controversial.
 
[quote name='Spokker']There are many things you could be talking about here but I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to.

At the very least, I don't think they'll be taking away black or women's suffrage if that's what you're talking about.[/quote]

Like Jim Crow they won't take it away outright but they are trying to make it much more difficult for certain demographics that usually don't vote their way.

The people being effected are not necessarily minorities (College students are a favorite target. But in general conservative "policy" only makes sense how obsessed with race many are.

But in any situation in which pollution is a problem, understand that the optimal amount of pollution is not zero. Economic activity will produce some amount of pollution, pollution that is very much harmful. And even if New Jersey's pollution harms New York, would New York's pollution not be harming some other state?
Click to expand...

FYI in one of your links the problem with the feds being inefficient is that the EPA was systemically weakened when cons were in power.

In the hypothetical I made NJ is allowing businesses to ignore practices that would reduce pollution to save money.

Your view tends to lead to a race to the bottom for short term advantage.

I have had this conversation before and no doubt your next response would be "well you can just move to state that doesn't allow corporations to poison your drinking water for a dollar.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']At its most basic level, voluntaryism is non-interventionism. So you more or less pegged it. The Ten Principles statement I quoted is the epilogue of his most recent book, and is a voluntaryist declaration. Many of Paul's legislative directors have been ancap/voluntaryist (including his current and previous legislative director), as well as a couple chiefs of staff.

I view his associations as more policy based than philosophically based. His long lasting associations all tend to fall into a libertarian or otherwise limited government spectrum and are more principally based, with some semi-frequent coalitions with Barney Frank, Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson existing. Matthew Stoller, former Grayson staffer, wrote it about that here:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html[/QUOTE]

I thought non-interventionism allowed for the existence of a state and was really only meant to be an international doctrine. Voluntaryism seemed to me to explicitly trade the state for small communes, much like the Epcot looking dome communities in the 60's.

About the article, and this is a tangent so tune out if you want to, I think Stoller is completely correct about liberals that have decided that democracy is not an export product. However many liberals do, including liberals like Jefferson who had big plans for increasing the size of the US and taking Cuba from the French. However I completely agree that to non interventionists that support democrats, it is a big hole to fill.
Personally I really do see the charm of Paul's policy, however the salient issues of the next few years are going to be ones that are going to be detrimental to anyone that believes in a social safety net. And the issues voters put forth will all fade away before the end of that first election year, when everyone starts freaking out about their wallets again.
 
[quote name='evanft']Honestly, I'd have to see the whole context of that to fully judge what he said.[/QUOTE]
They asked him about two of those issues over the weekend.

This clip includes HIV/AIDS at 3:00 and sexual harassment after. Listen very closely to how Chris Wallace words the question on HIV/AIDS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH3Dd4CfJLg
As for the minority comments, it's just common sense if you believe in equal rights.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Like Jim Crow they won't take it away outright but they are trying to make it much more difficult for certain demographics that usually don't vote their way.[/quote]Ron Paul doesn't support Jim Crow and a voter ID law would hurt his young supporters anyway.

FYI in one of your links the problem with the feds being inefficient is that the EPA was systemically weakened when cons were in power.
Click to expand...
When a Republican is in power (and they will be again someday) the EPA is weak and when a Democrat is in the EPA is strong. Instead of this flip-flopping of environmental regulation (where long-term projects to reduce pollution suffer) it would probably be better to let the market and property rights to set the optimal amount of pollution instead.

This is one of the problems with the federal exchange of power every few years. Long-term and environmentally-friendly projects like high speed rail and other transportation programs suffer because these projects require real leadership. Obama was able to usher in a high speed rail plan within his first two years of office, but has now had to radically scale back those plans with no future funding in sight. When a Republican gets in, it's over until a Democrat gets back in. Nothing is accomplished.

Instead of a state like California sending its dollars to the federal government so Ray LaHood can decide that the initial construction segment be constructed in the Central Valley and nowhere else, even though our state would be far better served by starting high speed rail in the Bay Area or Southern California, California could keep its money and fund its own rail network based on local needs. California, a solidly democratic state, could maintain bold leadership on this long-term plan without federal involvement. I think the Feds came in and just mucked everything up when all is said and done. And the money is taken from the state anyway (California is a donor state). We are basically begging them to give us our money back based on their strict conditions.

That's just my example based on what I'm currently working on.

Your view tends to lead to a race to the bottom for short term advantage.
Click to expand...
I would support market based solutions to pollution up to and including a carbon tax. Tax the offending act if it is harmful. Ron Paul would probably split with me on this, but I still think it's better than saying "Okay, all cars have to get 40 MPG" or something. You can see his stance on the environment here: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Environment.htm

I believe in a free market but we can use taxes and subsidies to deal with positive and negative externalities after a rigorous public debate. The problem today is that we often subsidize the bad things! Ron Paul wants to end subsidies for oil companies. This would explode investment in alternative forms of transportation. Another problem is that taxes and subsidies are often based on political whims than more rigorous analyses by economists and scientists.
 
Ron Paul did more or less support Jim Crow.
He hides behind the usual mealy mouthed bullshit like his son. Actually doing something about inequality is somehow diminishing freedom to them.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ron Paul did more or less support Jim Crow.
He hides behind the usual mealy mouthed bullshit like his son.[/QUOTE]

Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act for reasons related to property rights but he opposed Jim Crow laws and felt they were illegal.

He is asked about this in this video at about 5 minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M62grtXpV4
The government cannot force equality. It can only foster equality under the law.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Please...erudition is an anathema to most people, you included, and if it wasn't I wouldn't have made that comment.


The problem with Paul is that he's "liberal" on those pet issues in a superficial manner. Sure, he wants to end the drug war...but only on a federal level. Sure, he is all for reproductive rights...but only so the federal government can't dictate it's prohibition. Sure, he wants to end imperialism...but only to curb federal power. The list goes on and on and that's the framework he uses, which is an end to federal power without acknowledging that the reason for that federal power is that the states were fucking everything up.

Ending the drug war is a good thing, but allowing states to operate 50 different drug wars is ok because you know...states rights. Reproductive rights? Each state will have the ability to outright ban abortions if they "choose" to, which is what he really supports. Ending foreign adventurism? Not even close because he'd just hire pirates and mercenaries. Legalizing drugs? HA! He doesn't support drugs being sold in a "free market" and if states want to become more draconian about it, that's what he really supports as well.

It's all well and good on the surface, but it's one huge steaming pile of WTF underneath. Am I glad that he brings these issues up? Actually, no. Why? Because he's still irrelevant and a few issues that are so far right that they shoot over to the left doesn't give me a hard-on. I shouldn't even need to discuss why his conservative policies are dumb as shit either.[/QUOTE]

Ron Paul is not perfect, but his ideas are a step in the right direction. Ending the federal aspect of the "War on Drugs" would have a huge effect. Local governments would go bankrupt trying to wage such a war. Sure, it would be a better thing probably if everyone gave up on the drug war, but one has to also respect the limitations of the jurisdiction of the federal government... I do not believe that we have an unalienable right to do certain drugs... so, if a local government decides to ban them, then despite my disagreement with the principle, I would still support their right to do that!

Overall, the main reason that I support Ron Paul is because he is the most likely of all the potential candidates to support our freedom and liberties (Gary Johnson would too, but he's less mainstream).

...on the other hand, Obama has simply continued the Bush tradition of eroding our liberties... did you notice how he signed the NDAA over the weekend... I should probably shut up before I get droned... :D
 
[quote name='chiwii']Thanks for posting that article. It was very interesting.[/QUOTE]

Yes - it was. :D

As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='chiwii']Thanks for posting that article. It was very interesting.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, the Salon article that was posted is great! The analysis is very well done... it brings up some points about the predictably irrational parts of human nature that guide our choices.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Ron Paul doesn't support Jim Crow and a voter ID law would hurt his young supporters anyway.

When a Republican is in power (and they will be again someday) the EPA is weak and when a Democrat is in the EPA is strong. Instead of this flip-flopping of environmental regulation (where long-term projects to reduce pollution suffer) it would probably be better to let the market and property rights to set the optimal amount of pollution instead.

This is one of the problems with the federal exchange of power every few years. Long-term and environmentally-friendly projects like high speed rail and other transportation programs suffer because these projects require real leadership. Obama was able to usher in a high speed rail plan within his first two years of office, but has now had to radically scale back those plans with no future funding in sight. When a Republican gets in, it's over until a Democrat gets back in. Nothing is accomplished.

Instead of a state like California sending its dollars to the federal government so Ray LaHood can decide that the initial construction segment be constructed in the Central Valley and nowhere else, even though our state would be far better served by starting high speed rail in the Bay Area or Southern California, California could keep its money and fund its own rail network based on local needs. California, a solidly democratic state, could maintain bold leadership on this long-term plan without federal involvement. I think the Feds came in and just mucked everything up when all is said and done. And the money is taken from the state anyway (California is a donor state). We are basically begging them to give us our money back based on their strict conditions.

That's just my example based on what I'm currently working on.

I would support market based solutions to pollution up to and including a carbon tax. Tax the offending act if it is harmful. Ron Paul would probably split with me on this, but I still think it's better than saying "Okay, all cars have to get 40 MPG" or something. You can see his stance on the environment here: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Environment.htm

I believe in a free market but we can use taxes and subsidies to deal with positive and negative externalities after a rigorous public debate. The problem today is that we often subsidize the bad things! Ron Paul wants to end subsidies for oil companies. This would explode investment in alternative forms of transportation. Another problem is that taxes and subsidies are often based on political whims than more rigorous analyses by economists and scientists.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Spokker']Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act for reasons related to property rights but he opposed Jim Crow laws and felt they were illegal.

He is asked about this in this video at about 5 minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M62grtXpV4
The government cannot force equality. It can only foster equality under the law.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...market-based solutions? The Gilded Era and Industrial Revolution would like to have a word with you.

As for property rights, how do you feel about the Emancipation Proclaimation?

[quote name='BigT']Ron Paul is not perfect, but his ideas are a step in the right direction. Ending the federal aspect of the "War on Drugs" would have a huge effect. Local governments would go bankrupt trying to wage such a war. Sure, it would be a better thing probably if everyone gave up on the drug war, but one has to also respect the limitations of the jurisdiction of the federal government... I do not believe that we have an unalienable right to do certain drugs... so, if a local government decides to ban them, then despite my disagreement with the principle, I would still support their right to do that!

Overall, the main reason that I support Ron Paul is because he is the most likely of all the potential candidates to support our freedom and liberties (Gary Johnson would too, but he's less mainstream).

...on the other hand, Obama has simply continued the Bush tradition of eroding our liberties... did you notice how he signed the NDAA over the weekend... I should probably shut up before I get droned... :D[/QUOTE]
More freedom my arse. He supports more freedom and liberty to those that already have power. The powerless will still have less "freedoms" and "liberty." As if those terms meaning anything.

[quote name='UncleBob']Yes - it was. :D[/QUOTE]
No it wasn't. It was herpy derpy support based on the most superficial evidence.

Problem: We have too many poor people but we have social safety net based on progressive taxation.

"Liberal" solution: Let's raise marginal tax rates on the higher income earners to provide better infrastructure/resources to lessen the number of poor and the affects of poverty.

Ron Paul solution: Taxes are theft and coercion, so let's eliminate taxes and the social safety net to allow churches and private charities to take over.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...market-based solutions? The Gilded Era and Industrial Revolution would like to have a word with you.[/quote]He addressed this argument on The Daily Show in September, 2011: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...exclusive---ron-paul-extended-interview-pt--3

As for property rights, how do you feel about the Emancipation Proclaimation?
Click to expand...
Deprecated and made redundant by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

A Ron Paul presidency in which the reinstitution of slavery is the goal would be checked by the thirteenth amendment as the Obama presidency should be checked by the 4th amendment.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
No it wasn't. It was herpy derpy support based on the most superficial evidence.

Problem: We have too many poor people but we have social safety net based on progressive taxation.

"Liberal" solution: Let's raise marginal tax rates on the higher income earners to provide better infrastructure/resources to lessen the number of poor and the affects of poverty.

Ron Paul solution: Taxes are theft and coercion, so let's eliminate taxes and the social safety net to allow churches and private charities to take over.
 
[quote name='chiwii']It seems like strengthening social safety nets is one of the most important issues to you. Some "liberals" might give a higher priority to other issues.[/QUOTE]
If we end our militaristic adventures around the world, it may make the welfare state much easier to swallow and to fund actually.
 
[quote name='Spokker']He addressed this argument on The Daily Show in September, 2011: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...exclusive---ron-paul-extended-interview-pt--3[/quote]
Are you shitting me? A Daily Show clip is your defense? Even a pseudo-intellectual like Stewart was owning Paul on all his points.

Socialism doesn't equal authoratorian dictatorship, he confirmed that it's ok for states to oppress it's citizens, and a bunch of other stupid shit. "Chasing jobs away" because of fiat currency and high taxes? Give me a fucking break. If we make it "illegal" to fuck up someone's property(and it already is :roll:), who the fuck is going to enforce it after we've stripped power from government from federal to local levels? Are we going to sue eachother in a privatized judicial system? I mean seriously, do you even consider the implications of these policies beyond minimum wage driving down the wage floor(it doesn't)?

Deprecated and made redundant by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

A Ron Paul presidency in which the reinstitution of slavery is the goal would be checked by the thirteenth amendment as the Obama presidency should be checked by the 4th amendment.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the fucking question and you know it. You're not going to get away that easily.

If the Civil Rights Act was over-reaching in terms of private property, then the Emancipation Proclaimation was an over-reach of EPIC fucking Proportions when we all clearly know that slaves were considered property, both culturally and by law.

And if you think that Ron Paul is right about the Civil Rights Act and thinks that race relations got worse because of it, you're completely fucked in the head.
 
[quote name='chiwii']It seems like strengthening social safety nets is one of the most important issues to you. Some "liberals" might give a higher priority to other issues.[/QUOTE]
Which is funny because I was clearly using that issue as an example. But feel free to name some of those issues and relate them to some of Paul's seemingly "liberal" stances so I can compare them for the nth time.

[quote name='Spokker']If we end our militaristic adventures around the world, it may make the welfare state much easier to swallow and to fund actually.[/QUOTE]
What difference would ending imperialism make when your entire argument is based more on agency than economics. I highly doubt that you'll change your mind on welfare just because we can "afford" it.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Are you shitting me? A Daily Show clip is your defense? Even a pseudo-intellectual like Stewart was owning Paul on all his points.[/quote]I didn't see any "owning" in that clip. It was a respectful exchange of ideas as per usual for The Daily Show. In any case, I posted the clip because it presents Paul responding to someone making the Industrial Revolution argument.

Are we going to sue eachother in a privatized judicial system?
Click to expand...
The courts are so overburdened that there are actually private courts. You might see a retired judge being paid to hear cases. But courts are in the constitution so we wouldn't have exclusively private courts.

If the Civil Rights Act was over-reaching in terms of private property, then the Emancipation Proclaimation was an over-reach of EPIC fucking Proportions when we all clearly know that slaves were considered property, both culturally and by law.
Click to expand...
Slavery is unconstitutional and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Jim Crow laws were also unconstitutional and school segregation was in fact overturned by the Supreme Court. All of those laws were unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are too hung up on words to the exclusion of reality. So slavery would be banned but the quasi serfdom like what was seen in sharecropping would be fine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='chiwii']It seems like strengthening social safety nets is one of the most important issues to you. Some "liberals" might give a higher priority to other issues.[/QUOTE]

About the only issue I could see true liberals agreeing with Paul on is stopping military interventionism.

And I think Obama has done enough on that front to keep votes of liberals who care about that, with sticking to withdrawing from Iraq, making other countries take the lead in Libya etc.

Pretty much all of Paul's other platforms go against most of the liberal staples on major issues. Especially anything related to taxation and social services which are arguably the main issues to liberals.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']About the only issue I could see true liberals agreeing with Paul on is stopping military interventionism.

And I think Obama has done enough on that front to keep votes of liberals who care about that, with sticking to withdrawing from Iraq, making other countries take the lead in Libya etc.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention the Bush/Obama attack on our privacy and crap like Gitmo. I'd really love to seem some feet held to the fire there.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act for reasons related to property rights but he opposed Jim Crow laws and felt they were illegal.

He is asked about this in this video at about 5 minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M62grtXpV4
The government cannot force equality. It can only foster equality under the law.[/QUOTE]
:rofl: Ron Paul would support anything in the name of property rights. That's because property is what he values more than anything else. fuck equality, it's mah propertah dammit!
 
[quote name='Spokker']

Slavery is unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
Really? So it took decades for them to come to that conclusion, rather than coming to that conclusion from the very beginning? That makes perfect sense.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']About the only issue I could see true liberals agreeing with Paul on is stopping military interventionism.

And I think Obama has done enough on that front to keep votes of liberals who care about that, with sticking to withdrawing from Iraq, making other countries take the lead in Libya etc.

Pretty much all of Paul's other platforms go against most of the liberal staples on major issues. Especially anything related to taxation and social services which are arguably the main issues to liberals.[/QUOTE]
There are true liberals who support military intervention. Just saying.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']There are true liberals who support military intervention. Just saying.[/QUOTE]

Didn't mean to imply otherwise. Though I think they more support it for humanitarian reasons, so I don't think many were every in favor of the Iraq invasion.

But things like Libya, sure. But I'd think most liberals prefer that be done through international coalitions as was done in that case, rather than unilateral action by the US.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Didn't mean to imply otherwise. Though I think they more support it for humanitarian reasons, so I don't think many were every in favor of the Iraq invasion.

But things like Libya, sure. But I'd think most liberals prefer that be done through international coalitions as was done in that case, rather than unilateral action by the US.[/QUOTE]
I thought the justification of the Iraq invasion was waged on humanitarian reasons?
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I thought the justification of the Iraq invasion was waged on humanitarian reasons?[/QUOTE]

Not really. It was mostly BS about them having WMDs and ties to al qaeda. Only when that started not to pan out, did they start spouting off about Husseins human rights abuses etc.

In any case, there wasn't any urgent, current humanitarian need to get him out of power in 2003 like there was with Libya last year with Gaddafi threatning to slaughter citizens.

If we wanted to oust Hussein for humanitarian reasons we should have acted in the 80s when he was loosing chemical weapons on Kurds etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top