this post is so absurd, i had to copy and paste in on my facebook wall. already has 20 comments. thanks for giving us a good laugh today.
And I'm sure you left out the context that I was intentionally parroting your absurd "if you have to have a minimum wage it has to be a million dollars an hour" nonsense. And probably left out your asinine "if people knew a big corporation treated their workers unfairly, they wouldn't shop there" bullshit which is almost as dumb-ass as saying "ketchup is a vegetable."
And of course you're not going to give me a link to your Facebook so I could point that out or defend myself.
Just like a Libertarian bully would do.
So you're just like Ron Paul... go out of your way to discredit people because it serves your purpose.
this post is so absurd, i had to copy and paste in on my facebook wall. already has 20 comments. thanks for giving us a good laugh today.
And I'm sure you left out the context that I was intentionally parroting your absurd "if you have to have a minimum wage it has to be a million dollars an hour" nonsense.
And of course you're not going to give me a link to your Facebook so I could point that out or defend myself.
Just like a Libertarian bully would do.
So you're just like Ron Paul... go out of your way to discredit people because it serves your purpose.
I think we're done here.
how does the minimum wage thing have to do with the little old lady thing?
Did you even graduate high school?
i go out of my way to speak the truth...you discredit yourself by calling libertarians "self-serving." Freedom is not self-serving. it serves everyone equally.
its hilarious when ppl say that others who want freedom are selfish....cracks me up
Post edited by WaveRyder on
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
i go out of my way to speak the truth...you discredit yourself by calling libertarians "self-serving." Freedom is not self-serving. it serves everyone equally.
Wow... and you have the nerve to tell me that what *I* said was absurd. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
i go out of my way to speak the truth...you discredit yourself by calling libertarians "self-serving." Freedom is not self-serving. it serves everyone equally.
Wow... and you have the nerve to tell me that what *I* said was absurd. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
FREEDOM does serve everyone equally. its up to the individual to take advantage of it. You really ought to study up on the founders and why this country was created in the first place. We revolted because of too many people in Europe thinking like you. And Ron Paul stands for state rights. If states had the power, not the federal govt, youd be free to live in a fascist state of your choice. I could live in a state that cared about freedom. But instead, this idea that the federal govt should tell the states what to do makes all 50 of them fascist. quit ruining it for the rest of us. idiot
and what makes you think its okay for the government to take the fruits of my labors? Technically, that's stealing. Shoudnt i be able to spend my money the way i wish if i EARNED it, thief?
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
FREEDOM does serve everyone equally. its up to the individual to take advantage of it.
"fuck over anyone if it serves you to do it, there's nothing stopping you."
this idea that the federal govt should tell the states what to do makes all 50 of them fascist. quit ruining it for the rest of us. idiot
ok wait... you're telling me that having federal laws means we're no better than the Nazis?
and I'm the "idiot."
and what makes you think its okay for the government to take the fruits of my labors? Shoudnt i be able to spend my money the way i wish if i EARNED it?
Who said you can't?
But you didn't' EARN that all by yourself.
You made that money on the backs of the taxpayers of the country.. we provided the electricity infrastructure to power your factory, the sewers and drainage for all the toilets and sinks in your factory, the roads you used to drive your goods to stores, handle the economic bedrock so people can pay for the products. We also built subways so people could get to work at your factory and get to the stores to buy your products.
And when your factory caught fire... who paid for the firemen who put it out and saved your workers?
When you were robbed, who paid for police to come find the man who did it?
When your factory was picketed by a bunch of smelly hippy "occupy" protesters, who paid for the riot police who showed up and the pepper spray they shot into their faces?
The world does not revolve around you. And it's the selfish "libertarians" who conveniently forget that once it comes time to pay back into the system that enabled them to make those fruits of their labors.
You don't like it?
Move to Somalia where there is no government to tax you. See how many fruits you make there.
Ron Paul's campaign is a scam.... "but he's the only honest candidate" No. He's a scumbag like the rest of them. He knows he can't win. I've been watching this shit for over 15 years. It's just another phony revolution... there's an entire industry behind it... it's a road to nowhere but political zealotry... and libertarianism is not about freedom anyway. http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolitio ... arian.html
Hey Kenny,
I scanned this article and it makes some arguable points (particularly though, depending upon your frame of political reference) ... but it leads me to another question given some of your other posting in this thread,
what ARE your political views? By which, i mean, what do you reckon "the solution" is? Communism? Anarchism? etc? Do you subscribe to an -ism or can you sum up a coherent alternative to ANY of this?
I'm not calling you out, i'm searching for info on your background, so i can understand your gripe.
Also I'm trying to illustrate a broader political point which is that views can either sound attractive or unattractive depending on which frame of reference you view it though.
For example, either the constitutional republic of the United States can be viewed as a gift from the brightest of the brightest forward thinking minds of the day ... a gift which should be cherished and restored. This view would lend "attraction" to "Libertarian" views which almost always are interpreted as being in-line with or held in accordance to constitutional principles.
On the other hand, our system of constitutional republic can be viewed as a yoke tied to us as a bait-and-switch imperialist scheme, which keeps us in the confines of legalism and a political-economy which doesn't suit the greatest needs of the greatest people, but actually acts as a system for entrenching, supporting, and protecting an elite class -- the class that created the system.
I tend to think it is a little bit of both, and I actually think the constitutional system is worth saving. Franklin wouldn't have personally disowned his son over the fact that his son maintained allegiance to England throughout the Revolutionary War if the whole thing had been a sham.
Honestly, I think the US Republic was probably one of the greatest experiments the world has ever known. You can argue that it has failed, that it was destined to fail, or that it - in truth - never really worked in the first place, but I'd like to hear those arguments coming out of your mouth before I ascribed them to you without knowing.
I dunno.
Lemme hear back from you, and then i'll babble on some more,
I can give you some pro-Ron and some not-so-pro-Ron points of view but I'll hold off a bit.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
A libertarian doesn't do anything unless there's something in it for them. That's the whole central idea of "self interest" that they bang on all the time. I do not want someone like that running the country.
That is a pretty jaded take on things.
I'm not sure how you extrapolate EXACTLY that mantra from "libertarianism", as it is generally defined more around it's name sake than off of motivation, unless you refer sort of to the theme of "voluntary association" which is a sort of subset ideal of personal liberty -- the fundamental construct behind libertarianism.
Putting aside the textbook definition of the term, even if we take your argument to be quazi-valid, it still calls in to question general theory of human behavior.
I firmly believe (and have seen demonstrated in a wide cross section of people in my own life) that altruism is a innate human characteristic. It may be more or less suppressed by the demands of life (there are more people now than ever before competing for limited goods, of course it is a more stressful world these days) and constraints of money, but almost every one i've ever met has at one time or another demonstrated to me their desire to simply do something good for someone else, just to do good.
Sure, we can argue the underlying psychological rationality that doing something good "for no reason" really is a reason in itself because the act of doing something kind makes the doer feel good about him\herself ... but really all you've done is sort-of semantically dissect and rephrase the original supposition - altruism is an innate human characteristic.
Anyhow, if you assume that theory of altruism to be true, it stands reason that you should advocate for the system which most freely allows the individual to follow this instinct out. In a system of coercion and force this tendency is (almost by definition) diminished given that the individual is under strict compulsion. In a system of personal liberty (given that he\she is not overburdened with the demands of personal daily existence -- ie. providing for food\shelter\safety for themselves -- eg. working all day) this tendency is actually amplified.
You could then argue that the free-market republic fails to allow for proper expression of altruism because the demands of providing are never able to be fully met in the near term by most of the population and therefore the system is "rigged" or what-have-you ...
however ... i would argue that the system does\did work just fine. That there are several over-bearing "outside" pressures acting on the system (or constitutional republic) that are causing the excessive burdens on the working\middle\lower class ... and that attempting to work to solve these other issues would render the system adequately functional and not in need of a "revolution".
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Ron Paul's campaign is a scam.... "but he's the only honest candidate" No. He's a scumbag like the rest of them. He knows he can't win. I've been watching this shit for over 15 years. It's just another phony revolution... there's an entire industry behind it... it's a road to nowhere but political zealotry... and libertarianism is not about freedom anyway. http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolitio ... arian.html
Hey Kenny,
I scanned this article and it makes some arguable points (particularly though, depending upon your frame of political reference) ... but it leads me to another question given some of your other posting in this thread,
what ARE your political views? By which, i mean, what do you reckon "the solution" is? Communism? Anarchism? etc? Do you subscribe to an -ism or can you sum up a coherent alternative to ANY of this?
I'm not calling you out, i'm searching for info on your background, so i can understand your gripe.
Also I'm trying to illustrate a broader political point which is that views can either sound attractive or unattractive depending on which frame of reference you view it though.
For example, either the constitutional republic of the United States can be viewed as a gift from the brightest of the brightest forward thinking minds of the day ... a gift which should be cherished and restored. This view would lend "attraction" to "Libertarian" views which almost always are interpreted as being in-line with or held in accordance to constitutional principles.
On the other hand, our system of constitutional republic can be viewed as a yoke tied to us as a bait-and-switch imperialist scheme, which keeps us in the confines of legalism and a political-economy which doesn't suit the greatest needs of the greatest people, but actually acts as a system for entrenching, supporting, and protecting an elite class -- the class that created the system.
I tend to think it is a little bit of both, and I actually think the constitutional system is worth saving. Franklin wouldn't have personally disowned his son over the fact that his son maintained allegiance to England throughout the Revolutionary War if the whole thing had been a sham.
Honestly, I think the US Republic was probably one of the greatest experiments the world has ever known. You can argue that it has failed, that it was destined to fail, or that it - in truth - never really worked in the first place, but I'd like to hear those arguments coming out of your mouth before I ascribed them to you without knowing.
I dunno.
Lemme hear back from you, and then i'll babble on some more,
I can give you some pro-Ron and some not-so-pro-Ron points of view but I'll hold off a bit.
exactly....wish i could articulate like that
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
A libertarian doesn't do anything unless there's something in it for them. That's the whole central idea of "self interest" that they bang on all the time. I do not want someone like that running the country.
That is a pretty jaded take on things.
I'm not sure how you extrapolate EXACTLY that mantra from "libertarianism", as it is generally defined more around it's name sake than off of motivation, unless you refer sort of to the theme of "voluntary association" which is a sort of subset ideal of personal liberty -- the fundamental construct behind libertarianism.
Putting aside the textbook definition of the term, even if we take your argument to be quazi-valid, it still calls in to question general theory of human behavior.
I firmly believe (and have seen demonstrated in a wide cross section of people in my own life) that altruism is a innate human characteristic. It may be more or less suppressed by the demands of life (there are more people now than ever before competing for limited goods, of course it is a more stressful world these days) and constraints of money, but almost every one i've ever met has at one time or another demonstrated to me their desire to simply do something good for someone else, just to do good.
Sure, we can argue the underlying psychological rationality that doing something good "for no reason" really is a reason in itself because the act of doing something kind makes the doer feel good about him\herself ... but really all you've done is sort-of semantically dissect and rephrase the original supposition - altruism is an innate human characteristic.
Anyhow, if you assume that theory of altruism to be true, it stands reason that you should advocate for the system which most freely allows the individual to follow this instinct out. In a system of coercion and force this tendency is (almost by definition) diminished given that the individual is under strict compulsion. In a system of personal liberty (given that he\she is not overburdened with the demands of personal daily existence -- ie. providing for food\shelter\safety for themselves -- eg. working all day) this tendency is actually amplified.
You could then argue that the free-market republic fails to allow for proper expression of altruism because the demands of providing are never able to be fully met in the near term by most of the population and therefore the system is "rigged" or what-have-you ...
however ... i would argue that the system does\did work just fine. That there are several over-bearing "outside" pressures acting on the system (or constitutional republic) that are causing the excessive burdens on the working\middle\lower class ... and that attempting to work to solve these other issues would render the system adequately functional and not in need of a "revolution".
exactly again
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
i think that makes like 15 state straw polls now. i know, i know, its just a straw poll. but it shows hes got a great campaign and awesome organization and dedicated supporters.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
FREEDOM does serve everyone equally. its up to the individual to take advantage of it. You really ought to study up on the founders and why this country was created in the first place. We revolted because of too many people in Europe thinking like you. And Ron Paul stands for state rights. If states had the power, not the federal govt, youd be free to live in a fascist state of your choice. I could live in a state that cared about freedom. But instead, this idea that the federal govt should tell the states what to do makes all 50 of them fascist. quit ruining it for the rest of us. idiot
and what makes you think its okay for the government to take the fruits of my labors? Technically, that's stealing. Shoudnt i be able to spend my money the way i wish if i EARNED it, thief?
Where's this notion that if Ron Paul's vision came through, we would have 50 variations of utopia in each state? Someone else referenced it in here several weeks back. Is this something RP envisions, or something his followers project? Regarding his domestic policies, what I picture is a larger economic disparity between states.
Can someone describe what it would look like if we went back to the gold standard and how that transition would happen? Same with the Fed's power being reduced.
FREEDOM does serve everyone equally. its up to the individual to take advantage of it. You really ought to study up on the founders and why this country was created in the first place. We revolted because of too many people in Europe thinking like you. And Ron Paul stands for state rights. If states had the power, not the federal govt, youd be free to live in a fascist state of your choice. I could live in a state that cared about freedom. But instead, this idea that the federal govt should tell the states what to do makes all 50 of them fascist. quit ruining it for the rest of us. idiot
and what makes you think its okay for the government to take the fruits of my labors? Technically, that's stealing. Shoudnt i be able to spend my money the way i wish if i EARNED it, thief?
Where's this notion that if Ron Paul's vision came through, we would have 50 variations of utopia in each state? Someone else referenced it in here several weeks back. Is this something RP envisions, or something his followers project? Regarding his domestic policies, what I picture is a larger economic disparity between states.
Can someone describe what it would look like if we went back to the gold standard and how that transition would happen? Same with the Fed's power being reduced.
i was simply stating pauls stance on necessary govt. but yeah, i bleed the issues together. my bad. as far as an explantion, im not sure what it would look like. anybody?
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
i was simply stating pauls stance on necessary govt. but yeah, i bleed the issues together. my bad. as far as an explantion, im not sure what it would look like. anybody?
I guess we have different ideas of what "necessary" is.
Ron Paul's campaign is a scam.... "but he's the only honest candidate" No. He's a scumbag like the rest of them. He knows he can't win. I've been watching this shit for over 15 years. It's just another phony revolution... there's an entire industry behind it... it's a road to nowhere but political zealotry... and libertarianism is not about freedom anyway. http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolitio ... arian.html
Hey Kenny,
I scanned this article and it makes some arguable points (particularly though, depending upon your frame of political reference) ... but it leads me to another question given some of your other posting in this thread,
what ARE your political views? By which, i mean, what do you reckon "the solution" is? Communism? Anarchism? etc? Do you subscribe to an -ism or can you sum up a coherent alternative to ANY of this?
I'm not calling you out, i'm searching for info on your background, so i can understand your gripe.
Also I'm trying to illustrate a broader political point which is that views can either sound attractive or unattractive depending on which frame of reference you view it though.
For example, either the constitutional republic of the United States can be viewed as a gift from the brightest of the brightest forward thinking minds of the day ... a gift which should be cherished and restored. This view would lend "attraction" to "Libertarian" views which almost always are interpreted as being in-line with or held in accordance to constitutional principles.
On the other hand, our system of constitutional republic can be viewed as a yoke tied to us as a bait-and-switch imperialist scheme, which keeps us in the confines of legalism and a political-economy which doesn't suit the greatest needs of the greatest people, but actually acts as a system for entrenching, supporting, and protecting an elite class -- the class that created the system.
I tend to think it is a little bit of both, and I actually think the constitutional system is worth saving. Franklin wouldn't have personally disowned his son over the fact that his son maintained allegiance to England throughout the Revolutionary War if the whole thing had been a sham.
Honestly, I think the US Republic was probably one of the greatest experiments the world has ever known. You can argue that it has failed, that it was destined to fail, or that it - in truth - never really worked in the first place, but I'd like to hear those arguments coming out of your mouth before I ascribed them to you without knowing.
I dunno.
Lemme hear back from you, and then i'll babble on some more,
I can give you some pro-Ron and some not-so-pro-Ron points of view but I'll hold off a bit.
First, thank you for taking the time to read the article and responding with some very arguable points yourself. I'll be happy to clarify my thoughts on the questions you raise.
I have an idea of what 'the solution' is, but I'm not sure how to get there, based on the reality of how people behave in a global economy. On a community level, it may not matter if it's libertarian system, or a communist system or something in between. But on a global level, or on a national level (esp with a very large nation such as the USA) any system can be used to exploit people. I think we need to bring government and economics back down to a more local level, but how?
I agree with this view that you stated: "On the other hand, our system of constitutional republic can be viewed as a yoke tied to us as a bait-and-switch imperialist scheme, which keeps us in the confines of legalism and a political-economy which doesn't suit the greatest needs of the greatest people, but actually acts as a system for entrenching, supporting, and protecting an elite class -- the class that created the system." I think it's evident that the people who founded this country wanted to protect themselves as a ruling class (though allowing for dissent within that class) especially when you consider how Presidents and Senators were originally elected. Even though there has been some democratization within the Federal system since then, it's minimal, and the entrenched parties don't seem to be having any problem staying entrenched.
I think the US Constitution is extremely outdated. I think the Office of the President is far too derivative of monarchism and should be abolished. We should also abolish the Senate. Instead we should have a unicameral legislature in which multiple parties are given proportional representation, and they would decide upon a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would of course not have the powers that we currently give to one person - the President. He would simply represent the general will of the parliament and act as a figurehead (cause apparently people need one). This system is not necessarily the best, but it's much better than our current system, although I doubt Americans will ever want to change it. "Our system that our founders gave us is a perfect system of checks and balances". Bullshit. It protects the legal class. If you want to keep the government in check, limit their power and make the way that representatives are elected much more simple (a single nationwide vote) and perhaps most importantly, we should implement 100% public funding of elections.
I doubt anything I just described will ever happen. Definitely not on a Federal level. Maybe what needs to happen is that the US government gets broken apart... I think states should secede from Washington... that doesn't mean that states have to make enemies of each other... and maybe some states will stay united... such as the New England states. I personally would love to live in the United States of New England.
The founders of the US Republic may have never imagined that one government would rule over 50 states from sea to sea, and from the arctic to the tropics, and that it would maintain military bases all over the world. Maybe some of them would have liked to know that it would someday, and maybe some of them would be horrified. I'm guessing Alexander Hamilton would love it. Benjamin Franklin, not so much.
I'll say this about Ron Paul: it might do us some good to have him serve as President for one term, if he really would deconstruct the American empire. But I don't take him seriously. I don't take anyone seriously who wants to preserve and continue to buy into the mythology of our system.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Tomorrow night we are having a Ron Paul debate watching party. The last one was last minute and had an attendance of over 200. Threads like this energize me more to get out and get this man the Presidency. I actually get the exact same energetic feeling when I hear other blowhards like Rush and Levin yap on and on.
Tomorrow night we are having a Ron Paul debate watching party. The last one was last minute and had an attendance of over 200. Threads like this energize me more to get out and get this man the Presidency. I actually get the exact same energetic feeling when I hear other blowhards like Rush and Levin yap on and on.
Thanks for the motivation PoD!
So I'm like the bran muffin that makes your crap come out faster?
Meh...move been called worse.
Enjoy your party. That boob has zero chance at anything other than the talk show and book tour that he's actually promoting at the moment. The one you're paying for. He knows it, I know it, you know it.
Tomorrow night we are having a Ron Paul debate watching party. The last one was last minute and had an attendance of over 200. Threads like this energize me more to get out and get this man the Presidency. I actually get the exact same energetic feeling when I hear other blowhards like Rush and Levin yap on and on.
Thanks for the motivation PoD!
+1
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Enjoy your party. That boob has zero chance at anything other than the talk show and book tour that he's actually promoting at the moment. The one you're paying for. He knows it, I know it, you know it.
We might as well just openly say it.
actually, we're paying for advertisement in South Carolina right now, and the right to have a huge voice at the Tampa Convention this summer....win or lose.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
and if you're done using silly stories like that to make absurd arguments, we can actually talk.
If you want me to believe that Ron or Rand Paul would ever help a little old lady across the street, you must think I'm stupider than Ron and Rand Paul.
A libertarian doesn't do anything unless there's something in it for them. That's the whole central idea of "self interest" that they bang on all the time. I do not want someone like that running the country.
Sometimes I get a peek at the thought process that effectively cancels out my vote and I get depressed. This is one of those times.
and if you're done using silly stories like that to make absurd arguments, we can actually talk.
If you want me to believe that Ron or Rand Paul would ever help a little old lady across the street, you must think I'm stupider than Ron and Rand Paul.
A libertarian doesn't do anything unless there's something in it for them. That's the whole central idea of "self interest" that they bang on all the time. I do not want someone like that running the country.
Sometimes I get a peek at the thought process that effectively cancels out my vote and I get depressed. This is one of those times.
and if you're done using silly stories like that to make absurd arguments, we can actually talk.
If you want me to believe that Ron or Rand Paul would ever help a little old lady across the street, you must think I'm stupider than Ron and Rand Paul.
A libertarian doesn't do anything unless there's something in it for them. That's the whole central idea of "self interest" that they bang on all the time. I do not want someone like that running the country.
Sometimes I get a peek at the thought process that effectively cancels out my vote and I get depressed. This is one of those times.
my money says this guy isnt voting in the Repub primary so try not to slit your wrists.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
and if you're done using silly stories like that to make absurd arguments, we can actually talk.
If you want me to believe that Ron or Rand Paul would ever help a little old lady across the street, you must think I'm stupider than Ron and Rand Paul.
A libertarian doesn't do anything unless there's something in it for them. That's the whole central idea of "self interest" that they bang on all the time. I do not want someone like that running the country.
Sometimes I get a peek at the thought process that effectively cancels out my vote and I get depressed. This is one of those times.
my money says this guy isnt voting in the Repub primary so try not to slit your wrists.
It's just the worst case scenario of what political discourse has turned into that bums me out. Debate policy all day long, as that's how we learn. But this idea of attacking straw men, making bizarre accusations, and just lobbing hate...ugh.
It's just the worst case scenario of what political discourse has turned into that bums me out. Debate policy all day long, as that's how we learn. But this idea of attacking straw men, making bizarre accusations, and just lobbing hate...ugh.
Meh.
That tends to happen when every debate has a big section where all the candidates argue over which one of them hates me the most... the one who has a government-funded clinic that aims to "cure" me, the one who supports bringing back the Texas law where I'd get thrown in jail for having sex in my bedroom, the one who says on a battlefield I'd be more interested in blowing you than fighting, the one who says that a child would be better having a father in prison and mother in a drug rehab clinic than me as a parent, the one who blames me for the Tsunami in Jakarta or the one who would call me a "fruit" (Ron Paul being the "fruit" one, by the way).
Yes... I know... that POD guy just talks so much about "gay this" and "gay that" all the time... can't he see there are bigger issues to YOU? and it's all about YOU, isn't it?
The fact that I get a vote just like you must be so... demoralising.
Don't worry... my community only accounts for about 2% of the population. Although that makes it a bit confusing as to how about 25% of the debate is about us and how to take more away from us than has already been taken.
...
The fact that I get a vote just like you must be so... demoralising.
...
thank goodness voting isnt compulsory eh?
If it was, I think we'd be in better shape.
i think making voting compulsory when people dont even know what it is theyre voting for or against, and especially when they mostly dont give a fuck is not a good situation. it certainly doesnt improve the quality of candidate i can tell you that.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It's just the worst case scenario of what political discourse has turned into that bums me out. Debate policy all day long, as that's how we learn. But this idea of attacking straw men, making bizarre accusations, and just lobbing hate...ugh.
Meh.
That tends to happen when every debate has a big section where all the candidates argue over which one of them hates me the most... the one who has a government-funded clinic that aims to "cure" me, the one who supports bringing back the Texas law where I'd get thrown in jail for having sex in my bedroom, the one who says on a battlefield I'd be more interested in blowing you than fighting, the one who says that a child would be better having a father in prison and mother in a drug rehab clinic than me as a parent, the one who blames me for the Tsunami in Jakarta or the one who would call me a "fruit" (Ron Paul being the "fruit" one, by the way).
Yes... I know... that POD guy just talks so much about "gay this" and "gay that" all the time... can't he see there are bigger issues to YOU? and it's all about YOU, isn't it?
The fact that I get a vote just like you must be so... demoralising.
Don't worry... my community only accounts for about 2% of the population. Although that makes it a bit confusing as to how about 25% of the debate is about us and how to take more away from us than has already been taken.
why should the govt have anything to do with our sexuality and who we choose to form relationships with? Ron Paul sure doesnt support that. But its obvious you let your sexuality define you.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Ron Paul And Gay Marriage
Author: Chris Harris
Published: May 19, 2011
I heard a very sharp caller defending and explaining the position of Dr. Paul on the issue of same sex marriage.
He contended that Ron Paul does not believe the federal government should define it in either way, that he believes they should be completely out of the business of certifying marriages. Since when does a religious ceremony that predates our government need the federal governments seal of approval?
I read some pieces written by Paul and it is generally accurate. Gay advocates and those on the right who want marriage only between a man and a women both should support the position of Ron Paul. He asserts that it is not the power of the federal government to decide either way and for everyone with one broad paint brush. What is right for those in San Francisco may not be right for those in Texas. If thousands of miles away the government decides for everyone they are going to violate someones liberty. Powers not specificly defined for the federal government are left to the state.
If you don’t want the ideals of Texas forced on you, then be consistent and don’t wish to force your ideals on them. The most common sense approach to ensuring liberty for all.
(Im using these states as examples only, nothing intended)
Ron Paul said:
“Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.”
His point is one of being against unnecesary government intervention. Invention for your side…or invention for theirs.
For our gay readers and those who support same sex marriage, which I generally do as well, here is some more of Dr. Paul’s words.
“If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. ”
Ron Paul is not voting against the liberty of gay individuals to practice the religious right of marriage, he is voting against the federal governments right to force anyone to adhere to another states decisions.
This means he is also votiong against other states outlawing your local decisions.
He was letting the states decide, which in turn means he supports your states right to support gay marriage. This also means that if Texas outlaws gay marriage, Ron Paul supports your states right to not agree with that as well.
His position is one of personal liberty and more localized decisions which in turn better serve more local cities desires and local populations wants and needs.
While his personal view seems to be that he does not personally feel same sex marriage is right for him, what liberals, gay voters and the left should respect is that he is consistant in his belief that for or against gay marriage in your state you should not have a one size fits all federal law forced on you.
If the Christian right wanted to pass a ban on gay marriage in all 50 states, liberals would be strongly against it. Those same liberals would find that Ron Paul is with them in his belief that the federal government should not force this on them.
If the left wanted a federal law forcing gay marriage on all states, he would be in their corner.
Ron Paul is the only candidate pure and consistent in his every view, and those on both sides of this issue would benefit from his view of not forcing the left or the right’s ideals on everyone.
State rights are the only way to achieve the liberty that is right for your state.
If gay voters want the government to stay out of their personal lifestyle choices, they should also want it to stay out of the choices of others. Liberty is not given by the government being involved, it is only taken.
Comments
And I'm sure you left out the context that I was intentionally parroting your absurd "if you have to have a minimum wage it has to be a million dollars an hour" nonsense. And probably left out your asinine "if people knew a big corporation treated their workers unfairly, they wouldn't shop there" bullshit which is almost as dumb-ass as saying "ketchup is a vegetable."
And of course you're not going to give me a link to your Facebook so I could point that out or defend myself.
Just like a Libertarian bully would do.
So you're just like Ron Paul... go out of your way to discredit people because it serves your purpose.
I think we're done here.
Did you even graduate high school?
i go out of my way to speak the truth...you discredit yourself by calling libertarians "self-serving." Freedom is not self-serving. it serves everyone equally.
its hilarious when ppl say that others who want freedom are selfish....cracks me up
Wow... and you have the nerve to tell me that what *I* said was absurd.
FREEDOM does serve everyone equally. its up to the individual to take advantage of it. You really ought to study up on the founders and why this country was created in the first place. We revolted because of too many people in Europe thinking like you. And Ron Paul stands for state rights. If states had the power, not the federal govt, youd be free to live in a fascist state of your choice. I could live in a state that cared about freedom. But instead, this idea that the federal govt should tell the states what to do makes all 50 of them fascist. quit ruining it for the rest of us. idiot
and what makes you think its okay for the government to take the fruits of my labors? Technically, that's stealing. Shoudnt i be able to spend my money the way i wish if i EARNED it, thief?
"fuck over anyone if it serves you to do it, there's nothing stopping you."
ok wait... you're telling me that having federal laws means we're no better than the Nazis?
and I'm the "idiot."
Who said you can't?
But you didn't' EARN that all by yourself.
You made that money on the backs of the taxpayers of the country.. we provided the electricity infrastructure to power your factory, the sewers and drainage for all the toilets and sinks in your factory, the roads you used to drive your goods to stores, handle the economic bedrock so people can pay for the products. We also built subways so people could get to work at your factory and get to the stores to buy your products.
And when your factory caught fire... who paid for the firemen who put it out and saved your workers?
When you were robbed, who paid for police to come find the man who did it?
When your factory was picketed by a bunch of smelly hippy "occupy" protesters, who paid for the riot police who showed up and the pepper spray they shot into their faces?
The world does not revolve around you. And it's the selfish "libertarians" who conveniently forget that once it comes time to pay back into the system that enabled them to make those fruits of their labors.
You don't like it?
Move to Somalia where there is no government to tax you. See how many fruits you make there.
Hey Kenny,
I scanned this article and it makes some arguable points (particularly though, depending upon your frame of political reference) ... but it leads me to another question given some of your other posting in this thread,
what ARE your political views? By which, i mean, what do you reckon "the solution" is? Communism? Anarchism? etc? Do you subscribe to an -ism or can you sum up a coherent alternative to ANY of this?
I'm not calling you out, i'm searching for info on your background, so i can understand your gripe.
Also I'm trying to illustrate a broader political point which is that views can either sound attractive or unattractive depending on which frame of reference you view it though.
For example, either the constitutional republic of the United States can be viewed as a gift from the brightest of the brightest forward thinking minds of the day ... a gift which should be cherished and restored. This view would lend "attraction" to "Libertarian" views which almost always are interpreted as being in-line with or held in accordance to constitutional principles.
On the other hand, our system of constitutional republic can be viewed as a yoke tied to us as a bait-and-switch imperialist scheme, which keeps us in the confines of legalism and a political-economy which doesn't suit the greatest needs of the greatest people, but actually acts as a system for entrenching, supporting, and protecting an elite class -- the class that created the system.
I tend to think it is a little bit of both, and I actually think the constitutional system is worth saving. Franklin wouldn't have personally disowned his son over the fact that his son maintained allegiance to England throughout the Revolutionary War if the whole thing had been a sham.
Honestly, I think the US Republic was probably one of the greatest experiments the world has ever known. You can argue that it has failed, that it was destined to fail, or that it - in truth - never really worked in the first place, but I'd like to hear those arguments coming out of your mouth before I ascribed them to you without knowing.
I dunno.
Lemme hear back from you, and then i'll babble on some more,
I can give you some pro-Ron and some not-so-pro-Ron points of view but I'll hold off a bit.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
That is a pretty jaded take on things.
I'm not sure how you extrapolate EXACTLY that mantra from "libertarianism", as it is generally defined more around it's name sake than off of motivation, unless you refer sort of to the theme of "voluntary association" which is a sort of subset ideal of personal liberty -- the fundamental construct behind libertarianism.
Putting aside the textbook definition of the term, even if we take your argument to be quazi-valid, it still calls in to question general theory of human behavior.
I firmly believe (and have seen demonstrated in a wide cross section of people in my own life) that altruism is a innate human characteristic. It may be more or less suppressed by the demands of life (there are more people now than ever before competing for limited goods, of course it is a more stressful world these days) and constraints of money, but almost every one i've ever met has at one time or another demonstrated to me their desire to simply do something good for someone else, just to do good.
Sure, we can argue the underlying psychological rationality that doing something good "for no reason" really is a reason in itself because the act of doing something kind makes the doer feel good about him\herself ... but really all you've done is sort-of semantically dissect and rephrase the original supposition - altruism is an innate human characteristic.
Anyhow, if you assume that theory of altruism to be true, it stands reason that you should advocate for the system which most freely allows the individual to follow this instinct out. In a system of coercion and force this tendency is (almost by definition) diminished given that the individual is under strict compulsion. In a system of personal liberty (given that he\she is not overburdened with the demands of personal daily existence -- ie. providing for food\shelter\safety for themselves -- eg. working all day) this tendency is actually amplified.
You could then argue that the free-market republic fails to allow for proper expression of altruism because the demands of providing are never able to be fully met in the near term by most of the population and therefore the system is "rigged" or what-have-you ...
however ... i would argue that the system does\did work just fine. That there are several over-bearing "outside" pressures acting on the system (or constitutional republic) that are causing the excessive burdens on the working\middle\lower class ... and that attempting to work to solve these other issues would render the system adequately functional and not in need of a "revolution".
If I opened it now would you not understand?
exactly....wish i could articulate like that
exactly again
i think that makes like 15 state straw polls now. i know, i know, its just a straw poll. but it shows hes got a great campaign and awesome organization and dedicated supporters.
Where's this notion that if Ron Paul's vision came through, we would have 50 variations of utopia in each state? Someone else referenced it in here several weeks back. Is this something RP envisions, or something his followers project? Regarding his domestic policies, what I picture is a larger economic disparity between states.
Can someone describe what it would look like if we went back to the gold standard and how that transition would happen? Same with the Fed's power being reduced.
i was simply stating pauls stance on necessary govt. but yeah, i bleed the issues together. my bad. as far as an explantion, im not sure what it would look like. anybody?
I guess we have different ideas of what "necessary" is.
First, thank you for taking the time to read the article and responding with some very arguable points yourself. I'll be happy to clarify my thoughts on the questions you raise.
I have an idea of what 'the solution' is, but I'm not sure how to get there, based on the reality of how people behave in a global economy. On a community level, it may not matter if it's libertarian system, or a communist system or something in between. But on a global level, or on a national level (esp with a very large nation such as the USA) any system can be used to exploit people. I think we need to bring government and economics back down to a more local level, but how?
I agree with this view that you stated: "On the other hand, our system of constitutional republic can be viewed as a yoke tied to us as a bait-and-switch imperialist scheme, which keeps us in the confines of legalism and a political-economy which doesn't suit the greatest needs of the greatest people, but actually acts as a system for entrenching, supporting, and protecting an elite class -- the class that created the system." I think it's evident that the people who founded this country wanted to protect themselves as a ruling class (though allowing for dissent within that class) especially when you consider how Presidents and Senators were originally elected. Even though there has been some democratization within the Federal system since then, it's minimal, and the entrenched parties don't seem to be having any problem staying entrenched.
I think the US Constitution is extremely outdated. I think the Office of the President is far too derivative of monarchism and should be abolished. We should also abolish the Senate. Instead we should have a unicameral legislature in which multiple parties are given proportional representation, and they would decide upon a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would of course not have the powers that we currently give to one person - the President. He would simply represent the general will of the parliament and act as a figurehead (cause apparently people need one). This system is not necessarily the best, but it's much better than our current system, although I doubt Americans will ever want to change it. "Our system that our founders gave us is a perfect system of checks and balances". Bullshit. It protects the legal class. If you want to keep the government in check, limit their power and make the way that representatives are elected much more simple (a single nationwide vote) and perhaps most importantly, we should implement 100% public funding of elections.
I doubt anything I just described will ever happen. Definitely not on a Federal level. Maybe what needs to happen is that the US government gets broken apart... I think states should secede from Washington... that doesn't mean that states have to make enemies of each other... and maybe some states will stay united... such as the New England states. I personally would love to live in the United States of New England.
The founders of the US Republic may have never imagined that one government would rule over 50 states from sea to sea, and from the arctic to the tropics, and that it would maintain military bases all over the world. Maybe some of them would have liked to know that it would someday, and maybe some of them would be horrified. I'm guessing Alexander Hamilton would love it. Benjamin Franklin, not so much.
I'll say this about Ron Paul: it might do us some good to have him serve as President for one term, if he really would deconstruct the American empire. But I don't take him seriously. I don't take anyone seriously who wants to preserve and continue to buy into the mythology of our system.
Thanks for the motivation PoD!
So I'm like the bran muffin that makes your crap come out faster?
Meh...move been called worse.
Enjoy your party. That boob has zero chance at anything other than the talk show and book tour that he's actually promoting at the moment. The one you're paying for. He knows it, I know it, you know it.
We might as well just openly say it.
+1
actually, we're paying for advertisement in South Carolina right now, and the right to have a huge voice at the Tampa Convention this summer....win or lose.
Sometimes I get a peek at the thought process that effectively cancels out my vote and I get depressed. This is one of those times.
Agreed.
my money says this guy isnt voting in the Repub primary so try not to slit your wrists.
It's just the worst case scenario of what political discourse has turned into that bums me out. Debate policy all day long, as that's how we learn. But this idea of attacking straw men, making bizarre accusations, and just lobbing hate...ugh.
I'm planning on it.
mostly so I can help get the worst candidate going.
I don't have any fear that the president will win reelection, I just want more "oops" moments and funny skits on SNL.
Meh.
That tends to happen when every debate has a big section where all the candidates argue over which one of them hates me the most... the one who has a government-funded clinic that aims to "cure" me, the one who supports bringing back the Texas law where I'd get thrown in jail for having sex in my bedroom, the one who says on a battlefield I'd be more interested in blowing you than fighting, the one who says that a child would be better having a father in prison and mother in a drug rehab clinic than me as a parent, the one who blames me for the Tsunami in Jakarta or the one who would call me a "fruit" (Ron Paul being the "fruit" one, by the way).
Yes... I know... that POD guy just talks so much about "gay this" and "gay that" all the time... can't he see there are bigger issues to YOU? and it's all about YOU, isn't it?
The fact that I get a vote just like you must be so... demoralising.
Don't worry... my community only accounts for about 2% of the population. Although that makes it a bit confusing as to how about 25% of the debate is about us and how to take more away from us than has already been taken.
thank goodness voting isnt compulsory eh?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If it was, I think we'd be in better shape.
i think making voting compulsory when people dont even know what it is theyre voting for or against, and especially when they mostly dont give a fuck is not a good situation. it certainly doesnt improve the quality of candidate i can tell you that.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
why should the govt have anything to do with our sexuality and who we choose to form relationships with? Ron Paul sure doesnt support that. But its obvious you let your sexuality define you.