Ron Paul surging in SC...

WaveRyder

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

you're suggesting the government can provide for humanity better than humanity? You do realize your post equates to textbook facism, right?

Yes. Saying "there should be a minimum wage and it should be illegal to lie to your customers and sell them a product that doesn't work and will kill them" is FACISM!!

Saying "the people pay taxes that pay for these roads and bridges and infrastructure, the companies that use thos roads and bridges to ship their products to make billions should also pay for them" is FACISM!!

The facist will help a little old lady across the street. The libertarian will push her in front of the car and steal her purse.

you do well to read a history book or take a civics exam once in a while.

Prince Of Dorkness

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.

WaveRyder

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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.

sily stories? you brought up the old lady analogy

you couldnt be more incorrect. I am a libertarian. You are suggesting I am heartless and only help others when it serves me. You are wrong and have a sad perception of your fellow man.

Prince Of Dorkness

WaveRyder wrote:

and as far as minimum wage, ok your right. Lets make minimum wage a million dollars an hour then.

Really? That's your argument?

"If I can't pay people slave wages, I have to pay them some totally absurd number" and you're trying to make ME look like I don't know what I'm talking about?

Ugh. Arguing the Libertarians always ends up like this. I should know better.

Prince Of Dorkness

WaveRyder wrote:

You are wrong and have a sad perception of your fellow man.

I wonder where I got that?

Maybe from seeing how people will gleefully fuck over my community and family if it gets them votes, if it gets them donations for their campaign, if there's something in it for them.

Must be nice to be a white, Christian, heterosexual male. So much easier to tell people that they just have to work harder if we want to be like them.

WaveRyder

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

and as far as minimum wage, ok your right. Lets make minimum wage a million dollars an hour then.

Really? That's your argument?

"If I can't pay people slave wages, I have to pay them some totally absurd number" and you're trying to make ME look like I don't know what I'm talking about?

Ugh. Arguing the Libertarians always ends up like this. I should know better.

your suggesting the government should set an arbitrary minimum wage. Yeah, it looks good on paper, but the logic would imply that the level of wage could be set as high as a million dollars an hour or more. When America raised it's minimum wage, small businesses closed left and right, meaning less jobs. So, the peope who were fortunate enough to have a job did get paid more, but less people were working. You bleeding hearts are well intented, but it does more harm than good. There may have been a time in this country when a minimum wage was necessary but that pendulum has swung.

WaveRyder

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

You are wrong and have a sad perception of your fellow man.

I wonder where I got that?

Maybe from seeing how people will gleefully fuck over my community and family if it gets them votes, if it gets them donations for their campaign, if there's something in it for them.

Must be nice to be a white, Christian, heterosexual male. So much easier to tell people that they just have to work harder if we want to be like them.

im not defending those things. True liberty has absolutely nothing to do with race, creed or sex. its a lack of liberty that has created those social problems.

blueandwhite

WaveRyder wrote:

and as far as minimum wage, ok your right. Lets make minimum wage a million dollars an hour then.

How about keeping minimum wage at a reasonable rate that would allow lower income workers to continue to provide themselves with the basic necessities? It's amazing that the minimum wage is now being treated as some kind of welfare. Scrapping the minimum wage and basic workplace safety sounds an awful lot like making the US a new third-world country. Still, I suppose if your on the winning side (rich), that doesn't really matter.

WaveRyder

blueandwhite wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

and as far as minimum wage, ok your right. Lets make minimum wage a million dollars an hour then.

How about keeping minimum wage at a reasonable rate that would allow lower income workers to continue to provide themselves with the basic necessities? It's amazing that the minimum wage is now being treated as some kind of welfare. Scrapping the minimum wage and basic workplace safety sounds an awful lot like making the US a new third-world country. Still, I suppose if your on the winning side (rich), that doesn't really matter.

i feel that as the world gets smaller and communication becomes easier and easier, we'll need fewer and fewer regulations. People will be able to provide feedback and public backlash for inhouse policies in business and other organizations will be exposed. We wont need bureaucrats to do the exposing for us. If i go to a store all the time, tehn find out workers are treated poorly, ill shop somewhere else. We're not there yet, but it wont be long. The internet is changing everything and we're now able to hold everyone accountabw without much help from the federa government.

WaveRyder

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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.

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.

Prince Of Dorkness

WaveRyder wrote:

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.

I think we're done here.

WaveRyder

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

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

Prince Of Dorkness

WaveRyder wrote:

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:

WaveRyder

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

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?

Prince Of Dorkness

WaveRyder wrote:

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

kenny olav wrote:

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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".

WaveRyder

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

T

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

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

WaveRyder

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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

WaveRyder

http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Ron ... 57683.html

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.