Dr. Doom takes the plunge for Ron Paul

[Logical]

Though I really do not consider him the best possible candidate, I now realize that he is the best candidate that we are going to have a choice on.

Sooooooo

I pledge

To provide a donation on December 16th

Vote for him in the Republican Primary

Vote for him in the Presidential election either as the Republican party candidate, an independent or if required a write-in.

The field is pathetic
Rudy is a closet little Stalin waiting to happen.
Mitt has no convictions
Fred does not really want it
McCain is a nice old man who is past his time
The rest are all Mr. Irrelevants

on the other side unfortunately it is going to be Hillary:Lin:

Obama is the not quite ready for prime time player

Edwards just cannot get his train moving

So I am taking the plunge, I suggest you consider him as well.

Vote for a New Day and a New Way!!!

[BIG_DADDY]

Get the **** out of here

[BIG_DADDY]

you?

[BIG_DADDY]

the doomeister?

[Ari Chi3fs]

Right on Dr. Doom.

[SNR]

There's always room on the Paul Wagon. We saved you a seat right next to Taco.

[Nightfyre]

There's always room on the Paul Wagon. We saved you a seat right next to Taco.
I'm pretty sure it was just cuz no one wanted to sit next to taco lol ;)

[billay]

RON PAUL
RON PAUL
RON PAUL
We're more than just the internet! **** just donating money next step become a delegate! Which I will be signing up for on Dec 1. Already spoke to the Kansas GOP headquarters

[Taco John]

Woot!

Hop on board the bandwagon! We're going all the way to St. Paul and beyond!

You're right Jim. There's no one else worth voting for. We have a rare opportunity to put an honest man in power, who can shake up the system from the top and bring America back to her roots.

Thrilled to have you on board and DONATING! (That's awesome! I love to see a supporter jump on and immediately start talking about pulling their weight in this battle! Way to go, Jim!)

You just made my night!

Incidentally, there's a "money bomb" going on today as people are donating to honor the veterans... We've taken in a modest haul so far this morning... $30k since midnight. You can follow our fundraising progress here: [url]http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/ (http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/)

[Taco John]

This is a very interesting read... Democrats fearing The Paul (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/6/11258/6081)

[BucEyedPea]

Dig deep into those deep pockets of yours Dr Doom up to the maximum. Don't worry about Paul's other unconventional views. He needs to ask, convince and get congress on most of those. Maybe, we can at least get the budget back to year 2000 with him.

[BucEyedPea]

This is a very interesting read... Democrats fearing The Paul (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/6/11258/6081)
The Paul campaign recognizes decentralized, organic signs of Paul community, and then officially sanctions the congregation through post links on their website-- start going here. The Paul campaign didn't directly create ThisNovember5th.com, but they did create embrace the environment where it could happen.

See how decentralization can work. :)

[Adam]

Awesome!

[Fishpicker]

my faith in humanity is restored. Huzzah!!!

[patteeu]

Dr. Doom is an interesting combination of a guy who has to go against the grain to gain attention while at the same time needing to feel like he fits in. The Ron Paul campaign was made for people like Dr. Doom.

[BucEyedPea]

Of course as more folks drop for Paul patteeu goes after them with a personal attack. Just like he did to CHIEFS4EVR who never came back.

[banyon]

Of course as more folks drop for Paul patteeu goes after them with a personal attack. Just like he did to CHIEFS4EVR who never came back.

Actually he was on during the Chiefs game yesterday.

[patteeu]

Of course as more folks drop for Paul patteeu goes after them with a personal attack. Just like he did to CHIEFS4EVR who never came back.

That's not really true in most cases. In fact, I was the first to look at ferrarispider95's issue preferences and point him in the direction of Ron Paul. I don't remember ever attacking you for choosing Paul because it makes sense given your predisposition toward libertarianism AND against the war. Similarly, I don't think I criticized Adam or SNR.

CHIEFS4EVER and Dr. Doom earned my criticism because of their dramatic position changes. I've also criticized Taco for bouncing between the Libertarians, the Obama campaign, and now to the Ron Paul campaign.

[plbrdude]

ron paul is probly the only canidate who can restore integrity to the presidency.

[trndobrd]

Dr. Doom support = cover of Sports Illustrated preseason issue

[go bowe]

That's not really true in most cases. In fact, I was the first to look at ferrarispider95's issue preferences and point him in the direction of Ron Paul. I don't remember ever attacking you for choosing Paul because it makes sense given your predisposition toward libertarianism AND against the war. Similarly, I don't think I criticized Adam or SNR.

CHIEFS4EVER and Dr. Doom earned my criticism because of their dramatic position changes. I've also criticized Taco for bouncing between the Libertarians, the Obama campaign, and now to the Ron Paul campaign.oooh, oooh...

i want to bounce around too, but i'm stuck with hussein and ron...

if neither get the nomination, i probably will throw a dart to see who i'll support, if anyone...

[patteeu]

oooh, oooh...

i want to bounce around too, but i'm stuck with hussein and ron...

if neither get the nomination, i probably will throw a dart to see who i'll support, if anyone...

You're *this* close to getting one of my personal attacks that drives people away forever (or until the next Chiefs game whichever comes first).

[Nightfyre]

You're *this* close to getting one of my personal attacks that drives people away forever (or until the next Chiefs game whichever comes first).
Oh! oh! I want one. I need to get work done, but much like watching the chiefs, watching the planet go round is so horrifying I can't look away :)

[Taco John]

I've also criticized Taco for bouncing between the Libertarians, the Obama campaign, and now to the Ron Paul campaign.



Criticism that I bounced from the anti-war libertarian party, who didn't have a candidate, to the anti-war Obama party, and back to the anti-war libertrian/Republican Paul campaign is hardly valid.

[patteeu]

Oh! oh! I want one. I need to get work done, but much like watching the chiefs, watching the planet go round is so horrifying I can't look away :)

Sorry Nightfyre, you haven't flip flopped around like some of these other rudderless ragamuffins.

[BucEyedPea]

Hey patty, aren't you doing what that so-called "KosNut" was doin' here?

Doom puts up a thread announcing which way he's going in a goodwill manner and you come along and....nevemind.

[patteeu]

Criticism that I bounced from the anti-war libertarian party, who didn't have a candidate, to the anti-war Obama party, and back to the anti-war libertrian/Republican Paul campaign is hardly valid.

Back in the day, I didn't realize you were a one issue voter. In fact, weren't you supportive of the Iraq war at one point?

[go bowe]

You're *this* close to getting one of my personal attacks that drives people away forever (or until the next Chiefs game whichever comes first).drive away?

you're gonna have to use y0ur car to drive me away because i don't have a car of my own...

maby you c0uld get some cowboys on horseback to drive me away like a herd of cattle...

now if you were to offer me a half million dollars, i would gladly drive myself away, even if i have to catch a horse and saddle it myself...

[Chief Faithful]

I haven't made a choice yet because I am not familiar enough with the individual candidates, but I believe a Rudy / Hillary debate would be very entertaining.

[banyon]

You're *this* close to getting one of my personal attacks that drives people away forever (or until the next Chiefs game whichever comes first).

ROFL

[listopencil]

I'm leaning towards Paul myself. He's not Libertarian but he's closer to what I want than anything I've seen from the major parties in a long time.

[Adam]

Dr. Doom is an interesting combination of a guy who has to go against the grain to gain attention while at the same time needing to feel like he fits in. The Ron Paul campaign was made for people like Dr. Doom.

If that's true then Ron Paul should win in a landslide. You just described about 90% of the American population.

[Otter]

I jumped on after doing some reading and looking into what the competition has to offer. Volunteered for literature distribution over the weekend.

[Adam]

I jumped on after doing some reading and looking into what the competition has to offer. Volunteered for literature distribution over the weekend.

OMG! Another go-against-the-grain follower!

[alnorth]

The field is pathetic. If Ron Paul was a viable candidate, I would be strongly tempted to donate and support him in Iowa. Those positions I agree with he would have a lot of influence, and those insane positions I disagree with are irrelevant because he would never be permitted to implement, so its all good. If only he were somewhere at or above 15%....

But he's not. So once again I'm voting for the least of all evils. Currently I guess that is probably Romney... maybe Huckabee I dont know. I'm not going to be all that more depressed if Hillary won instead.

[Adam]

But he's not. So once again I'm voting for the least of all evils. Currently I guess that is probably Romney... maybe Huckabee I dont know. I'm not going to be all that more depressed if Hillary won instead.

Okay, so the way cauci work...when you show up, everybody votes, and any candidate below 15% is eliminated and his supporters have to pick someone else, correct? Does that mean that you would support Paul in round 1 just in case, and if he didn't make the cut you would throw in for one of the other guys? Just curious.

[alnorth]

Okay, so the way cauci work...when you show up, everybody votes, and any candidate below 15% is eliminated and his supporters have to pick someone else, correct? Does that mean that you would support Paul in round 1 just in case, and if he didn't make the cut you would throw in for one of the other guys? Just curious.

The Iowa caucus is different for Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans dont mess around, just a quick ballot, report the results to the county, argue about the platform and delegates to the county convention, and go home.

While the Republicans are finishing dinner and getting ready for the evening sitcoms, the Democrats are still at it. They have some goofy elaborate ritual where each corner or area of the room is designated for a candidate (including one place for "none of the above"), and everyone publicly walks to the area of their candidate to declare their vote. Anyone under a certain threshhold (10%? 20%? I dont know) gets declared "unviable", and those people must choose someone else or none of the above. There is a break while people of viable candidates try to pitch their candidate to the people who have to make another choice, then they revote, etc rinse and repeat. Those totals are finally reported to the county. Because of this oddity, a candidate who is not usually prominent but is the 2nd choice of a lot of people could end up doing a lot better than expected. I think none of the above also won once a long time ago.

[Taco John]

What's the point of voting in a primary if all you're doing is following who the rest of the sheep are voting for? Why not vote for a candidate who you believe in first, and then if he doesn't make the cut, vote for who *did* win down the line.

I'll never understand why people would vote for a lesser of evils in a primary. This isn't a betting match. It's voting for who you believe in... Or at least it should be.

[Logical]

Dr. Doom is an interesting combination of a guy who has to go against the grain to gain attention while at the same time needing to feel like he fits in. The Ron Paul campaign was made for people like Dr. Doom.
Oh yes, that certainly describes me. I am so well known for trying to fit in around here.

ROFLROFLROFL
Jesus patteeu, I expected more from you.

By the way I take this as a sign that the establishment is beginning to take notice. Patteeu is a well known follower of all things Bush. Back atcha buddy.:p

[Logical]

Dr. Doom support = cover of Sports Illustrated preseason issueI agree with this statement.

[alnorth]

What's the point of voting in a primary if all you're doing is following who the rest of the sheep are voting for? Why not vote for a candidate who you believe in first, and then if he doesn't make the cut, vote for who *did* win down the line.

I'll never understand why people would vote for a lesser of evils in a primary. This isn't a betting match. It's voting for who you believe in... Or at least it should be.

The primary is not a meaningless throwaway. If Guiliani wins, I officially do not care if Hillary or Rudy becomes president. I may not bother voting at the top of the ticket at that point. In the context of trying to get someone better than those two, Ron Paul is a complete waste of my time in the Primary, until he gets above "Ron Who?" in name recognition.

[Adam]

The primary is not a meaningless throwaway. If Guiliani wins, I officially do not care if Hillary or Rudy becomes president. I may not bother voting at the top of the ticket at that point. In the context of trying to get someone better than those two, Ron Paul is a complete waste of my time in the Primary, until he gets above "Ron Who?" in name recognition.

I get what you're saying, but think of it like this - unless the entire state of Iowa's caucus is swung by a single vote that results in a Giuliani victory, your vote isn't the "swing" vote anyway. Ever since I started voting a mix of Republicans and Libertarians, there hasn't been one time when I suddenly went, "DAMN! The Democrat won by one stinking vote! What was I thinking?!" Instead I am glad to know I voted my beliefs honestly and independent of whatever polls had shown. I'm not betting on horses, I'm voting.

[patteeu]

Oh yes, that certainly describes me. I am so well known for trying to fit in around here.

ROFLROFLROFL
Jesus patteeu, I expected more from you.

By the way I take this as a sign that the establishment is beginning to take notice. Patteeu is a well known follower of all things Bush. Back atcha buddy.:p

:LOL: Yes, the "establishment" is beginning to take notice of Dr Doom! haha

[Taco John]

The primary is not a meaningless throwaway. If Guiliani wins, I officially do not care if Hillary or Rudy becomes president. I may not bother voting at the top of the ticket at that point. In the context of trying to get someone better than those two, Ron Paul is a complete waste of my time in the Primary, until he gets above "Ron Who?" in name recognition.


At this point in the 1992 and 2003 election cycles, Bill Clinton and John Kerry were at 7 and 5% in the polls.

[patteeu]

At this point in the 1992 and 2003 election cycles, Bill Clinton and John Kerry were at 7 and 5% in the polls.

Ron Paul is an obscure representative. Bill Clinton was the head of the Governor's association and John Kerry is a longtime Senator. More importantly, Ron Paul has an extreme message while Clinton was what passes for a centrist in the democrat party and Kerry gave lip service to some fairly mainstream ideas, to the extent he took positions at all.

[go bowe]

You're *this* close to getting one of my personal attacks that drives people away forever (or until the next Chiefs game whichever comes first).eh, i'm not ascared of you...

but it would be very cool to have a few of those pantented patteeu personal attacks on hand to drive away unwanted trolls and the like...

i wonder if any of them could successfully rid the planet of denise...

nah, probably not...

[Mr. Kotter]

At this point in the 1992 and 2003 election cycles, Bill Clinton and John Kerry were at 7 and 5% in the polls.

:spock: Link?

You are absolutely and completely FOS....FTR, this is November 13.

[billay]

Kerrys polling numbers Dec 03'

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/opinion/polls/main589167.shtml

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=391

http://censorshipamericanstyle.com/PewKoppel.html

I'd love to find the ones of Bill Clinton that Taco John was talking about (not saying I don't believe him) but I tried a google search and have yet to find it.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Kerry was dead in the water late in '03. It's well-established, and Clinton was "in single digits" according to Wiki during the same time period.

The latter isn't exactly a rock-solid source, and I don't even know if it was anything other than a stab in the dark that he happened to get right, but if you do believe the Wiki, then I guess he's right :shrug:

[irishjayhawk]

Ron Paul is an obscure representative. Bill Clinton was the head of the Governor's association and John Kerry is a longtime Senator. More importantly, Ron Paul has an extreme message while Clinton was what passes for a centrist in the democrat party and Kerry gave lip service to some fairly mainstream ideas, to the extent he took positions at all.

To be fair, in '04, people weren't clamoring like they are now for drastic change. At least, not as much now.

[Taco John]

:spock: Link?

You are absolutely and completely FOS....FTR, this is November 13.


Good God.

You're the government teacher who claims he campaigned for the guy... Why do I constantly have to school you on matters surrounding Bill Clinton?




Published December 15th, 1991

This is an important day for one of the candidates who is still in the pack with single-digit poll numbers. Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas has been scoring points in recent weeks at the "cattle shows" where candidates strut their stuff before party faithful. (Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)





http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WO&p_theme=wo&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EADEA04DE9F4F5A&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

[Taco John]

Published October 22nd 1991
New York Times


Indeed, at this early stage, support for the six declared candidates generally reflects name recognition. Edmund G. Brown Jr., the former California Governor who announced his candidacy today, led with 12 percent, followed by Gov. L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia, with 8 percent; Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, 7 percent; Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas, 5 percent; Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, 3 percent, and Paul E. Tsongas, the former Massachusetts senator, 2 percent.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE3DD1F3FF931A15753C1A967958260

[Taco John]

Here's one that I really like... History repeating itself:

December 15th, 1991

The candidates who will appear on stage tonight do have one shadow over them, the possible candidacy of New York Gov. Mario M. Cuomo. The same NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed that 30 percent of Democrats and independents favor Cuomo for the nomination. Brown was the choice of 11 percent and the others were in single digits.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/74758202.html?dids=74758202:74758202&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=DEC+15%2C+1991&author=Dan+Balz&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Six+Democratic+Candidates+Step+Into+Debate+Spotlight+Tonight&pqatl=google

[Mr. Kotter]

Good God.

You're the government teacher who claims he campaigned for the guy... Why do I constantly have to school you on matters surrounding Bill Clinton?




Why do I waste my time with you? Every time I do, you prove yourself to be a bigger moron than I would ever really have imagined.


Your quote was:

At this point in the 1992 and 2003 election cycles, Bill Clinton and John Kerry were at 7 and 5% in the polls.

Bill Clinton announced his candidacy in late October 1991, during an election in which campaigning and debates began right around Labor Day 1991.

How long has Paul been an announced candidate, and how long have we been subjected to this ridiculously long campaign....here, in the now, in 2007????

Your words were: "at this point in the election cycle".....

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Seven months into the 1991 "election cycle" Clinton had already sewn up the nomination....dickweed.

:rolleyes:

[Taco John]

You clearly don't understand what "at this point in the election cycle" means. We're not talking about after the primaries. We're talking about at this point in time. All you just did was prove my point.

I realized that you just got embarassed. Don't make the damage worse by trying to spin Clinton's poll numbers AFTER the primaries, when we're talking about the short months before the primaries. Nobody's going to buy that.

[Mr. Kotter]

You clearly don't understand what "at this point in the election cycle" means. We're not talking about after the primaries. We're talking about at this point in time. All you just did was prove my point.

I realized that you just got embarassed. Don't make the damage worse by trying to spin Clinton's poll numbers AFTER the primaries, when we're talking about the short months before the primaries. Nobody's going to buy that.

Keep diggin'.....I know what I meant. If you want to create your own meaning for the phrase, be my guest. In either case, we are seven months into this election.....my point remains.

Of course, then...it was AFTER the primaries.....but, in the current campaign, we are now seven months into the current campaign. Keep on twistin' in the wind, if you choose.

Regardless, Ron Paul will not pull a Bill Clinton....no matter how grand your delusions.

[Taco John]

Anyway, like I said... at this point in the 92 election cycle, Clinton was polling in single digits. He cam out of nowhere to win New Hampshire.

[Mr. Kotter]

Anyway, like I said... at this point in the 92 election cycle, Clinton was polling in single digits. He cam out of nowhere to win New Hampshire.


And, as I just said in my edit:

Ron Paul is no Bill Clinton (thankfully, in some ways....)

The comparison is completely and utterly laughable. LMAO

[Taco John]

Of course not. Clinton has absolutely no integrity.

You didn't have to tell me what was obvious. I'm already quite clear that you don't have high standards in who you support for president.

[Mr. Kotter]

Of course not. Clinton has absolutely no integrity.



You'll get no disagreement from me about that.....of course, hindsight is 20/20.

OTOH, Paul doesn't possess a fraction of the political acumen, charisma, or appeal that Clinton did in 1991.

That said, he's the perfect candidate for someone as clueless about how the politcal process in the country really works.....as you are.

[Nightfyre]

OTOH, Paul doesn't possess a fraction of the... or appeal that Clinton did in 1991.

That said, he's the perfect candidate for someone as clueless about how the politcal process in the country really works.....as you are.
so full of shit.... I swear. Ron Paul fields a more consistently active, enthusiastic and generous political base than any candidate I can recall.

As for how the political process actually works, I think you'll find america is tired of the political process. Congress has an approval rating floating around 25% and the President around 30%. The people would like their liberty back, please.

[Taco John]

You're right that Paul doesn't have the political acumen of Clinton. Ron Paul would rather be right than be president.

[irishjayhawk]

That said, he's the perfect candidate for someone as clueless about how the politcal process in the country really works.....as you are.

How low can you go? Do the limbo!

[Cochise]

so full of shit.... I swear. Ron Paul fields a more consistently active, enthusiastic and generous political base than any candidate I can recall.

As for how the political process actually works, I think you'll find america is tired of the political process. Congress has an approval rating floating around 25% and the President around 30%. The people would like their liberty back, please.

Congress was in the low teens the last time I checked.

At any rate, this thread is full of lose.

[BucEyedPea]

Congress was in the low teens the last time I checked.

Yes and the breakdown on that was even lower for the Republicans. :grr:

[go bowe]

And, as I just said in my edit:

Ron Paul is no Bill Clinton (thankfully, in some ways....)

The comparison is completely and utterly laughable. LMAOlaughable?

it's good to laugh every now and then...

ya gotta have a good sense of humor to survive in the wilds of chiefsplanet...

c'mon, laugh some more... ROFL ROFL ROFL

[patteeu]

You'll get no disagreement from me about that.....of course, hindsight is 20/20.

OTOH, Paul doesn't possess a fraction of the political acumen, charisma, or appeal that Clinton did in 1991.

That said, he's the perfect candidate for someone as clueless about how the politcal process in the country really works.....as you are.

You didn't have to have hindsight to know Bill Clinton lacked integrity. The truth was available during the run up to the 92 election.

[SNR]

You'll get no disagreement from me about that.....of course, hindsight is 20/20.

OTOH, Paul doesn't possess a fraction of the political acumen, charisma, or appeal that Clinton did in 1991.

That said, he's the perfect candidate for someone as clueless about how the politcal process in the country really works.....as you are.Yeah. Ron Paul supporters are completely clueless as to how American politics actually works. :rolleyes: As opposed to people who say, "Hillary Clinton is da debbil. I'll take whoever's against her" or "I like Bush. He's a praying man and knows what it takes to keep the country safe."

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate whose supporters have given serious thought to why the support him.

[patteeu]

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate whose supporters have given serious thought to why the support him.

Please. I don't doubt that you've given a fair amount of consideration to your decision to support him, but Ron Paul has his share of support from the shallow thinkers (e.g. knee jerk anti-war, anti-establishment malcontents who just want to see the system shaken up).

[go bowe]

You didn't have to have hindsight to know Bill Clinton lacked integrity. The truth was available during the run up to the 92 election.it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is...

i mean, what does the word integrity mean?

one man's integrity is another man's freedom fighter, er... i mean political savvy...

or something like that...

[irishjayhawk]

Please. I don't doubt that you've given a fair amount of consideration to your decision to support him, but Ron Paul has his share of support from the shallow thinkers (e.g. knee jerk anti-war, anti-establishment malcontents who just want to see the system shaken up).

Don't the people in that category usually give it some thought? You know, to see that the establishment isn't working and thus they are malcontent about it. And then to have some idea or some person - that they believe in - to shake up the system?

:shrug:

[Logical]

Please. I don't doubt that you've given a fair amount of consideration to your decision to support him, but Ron Paul has his share of support from the shallow thinkers (e.g. knee jerk anti-war, anti-establishment malcontents who just want to see the system shaken up).

Hey, I don't mind admitting in the least that I favor Ron Paul because he wants to shake things up. The system is very broken and needs to be shaken up.

[penchief]

Dr. Doom is an interesting combination of a guy who has to go against the grain to gain attention while at the same time needing to feel like he fits in. The Ron Paul campaign was made for people like Dr. Doom.

Sorry Mr. patteeu, I must disagree. Dr. Doom is an interesting combination of someone that used to have authoritarian tendencies but now wants to do the right thing. And I believe that the Ron Paul Campaign is being sold by people like Taco and BEP as a remedy for those of us who want the "right thing" but don't know where to turn.

When, in reality, the right thing is for us not to buy into divisive political ideology at a time when the people of this country need to come together in order to make a difference. Libertarianism is the wolf in sheep's clothing. It is the fallback plan for the establishment. Both conservatives and neolibertarians enable that same economic status-quo that is currently dictating the conditions under which all Americans operate (conditions that are tilted way way in their favor).

[Taco John]

...the died in the wool extortionist class who actively rape the proletariat innocent with full predjudice, exemplifying the exceptional greed based economic system in which the extortion equates to a loss of equality and a plundering of the collective through means of oppression and exploitation...

There do I sound smart yet?

[irishjayhawk]

Sorry Mr. patteeu, I must disagree. Dr. Doom is an interesting combination of someone that used to have authoritarian tendencies but now wants to do the right thing. And I believe that the Ron Paul Campaign is being sold by people like Taco and BEP as a remedy for those of us who want the "right thing" but don't know where to turn.

When, in reality, the right thing is for us not to buy into divisive political ideology at a time when the people of this country need to come together in order to make a difference. Libertarianism is the wolf in sheep's clothing. It is the fallback plan for the establishment. Both conservatives and neolibertarians enable that same economic status-quo that is currently dictating the conditions under which all Americans operate (conditions that are tilted way way in their favor).

Because, you know, we're on such a solid foundation now. If I had to say anything about the current political ideology, I'd have to barrow Stephen Colbert's analogy: It's like the Hindenburg. It's soaring (out of control) but only a matter of time before the crash and burn.

On a more specific note, why can the country not "come together to make a difference" under Paul or Libertarianism. It's only the wolf in sheep's clothing if you are against it in the first place.

[ENDelt260]

Hey Vlad, I was reading today and noticed that in past primaries Independents could vote for Republicans, it's not going to go that way this go round.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_decline.htm#parties

If you wanna vote for Ron Paul in the primary, looks like you'll have to register Republican

[Taco John]

Penchief doesn't even know what a libertarian actually is... I even gave him a cartoon that explained it...

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8z1buym2xUM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>

[penchief]

...the died in the wool extortionist class who actively rape the proletariat innocent with full predjudice, exemplifying the exceptional greed based economic system in which the extortion equates to a loss of equality and a plundering of the collective through means of oppression and exploitation...

There do I sound smart yet?

You probably think you're smart because you're quoting somebody (that seems to be your standard operating procedure).

My guess is that you're quoting Karl Marx in some crass attempt to bait me into saying, "yes," or simply to deflect away from my legitimate gripe with neolibertarianism by citing some historical text written by some individual and in a way that you can use to paint me the way you want.

No matter what economic system you pray to, even you must admit that people exist who will exploit, oppress, torture, and even murder for the sake of treasure. Even though all of us are soldiers of fortune to some extent, that doesn't mean that we all have to be mercenaries.

[BucEyedPea]

Charm? Who's looking for charm?

Charm without substance has put some of the worst in office. Charmers often betray. Yeah! It would be nice if Paul had some more charm. Romney has that with his good looks, and tall chief executive look. Rude-y has as much charm as a mafiaboss and his lisp isn't charming at all in a leader.

However, Paul has a certain disarming unassuming sort of regular folk charm.

[penchief]

Charm? Who's looking for charm?

Charm without substance has put some of the worst in office. Charmers often betray. Yeah! It would be nice if Paul had some more charm. Romney has that with his good looks, and tall chief executive look. Rude-y has as much charm as a mafiaboss and his lisp isn't charming at all in a leader.

However, Paul has a certain disarming unassuming sort of regular folk charm.

He has the charm you describe. And I find myself falling for it like I fell for the Reagan charm and like some people fell for the Uniter, Not A Divider.

However, when a politician and his minions (whom call themselves libertarians) can't make the fundamental distinction between Darwinism and universal liberty, I have my doubts about just exactly where that road leads.

[BucEyedPea]

Paul is a statesman, like our Founders, not a politician.

[penchief]

Paul is a statesman, like our Founders, not a politician.

You may be right. How are you defining, statesman? As a spokesperson or as someone representing the popular will?

[Logical]

Hey Vlad, I was reading today and noticed that in past primaries Independents could vote for Republicans, it's not going to go that way this go round.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_decline.htm#parties

If you wanna vote for Ron Paul in the primary, looks like you'll have to register Republican

Damn, what is up with that. What is the point of being independent if you cannnot choose the parties Primary you want to vote in? Thanks for the info.

[Taco John]

here you go Jim:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm

[SNR]

Please. I don't doubt that you've given a fair amount of consideration to your decision to support him, but Ron Paul has his share of support from the shallow thinkers (e.g. knee jerk anti-war, anti-establishment malcontents who just want to see the system shaken up).From what I've seen, most of those people are voting Democrat. Any of them, although the Hillary supporters I've met I'm very suspicious of. They tell me their political views but they do it in such a way that makes me think they're part of a giant scheme to change their views once Hillary is in power. At least that's the feeling I get.

Paul's "worst" supporters are the 9/11 truthers who found out Paul was chilling with Alex Jones awhile ago.

[go bowe]

Why do I waste my time with you? Every time I do, you prove yourself to be a bigger moron than I would ever really have imagined.


Your quote was:



Bill Clinton announced his candidacy in late October 1991, during an election in which campaigning and debates began right around Labor Day 1991.

How long has Paul been an announced candidate, and how long have we been subjected to this ridiculously long campaign....here, in the now, in 2007????

Your words were: "at this point in the election cycle".....

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Seven months into the 1991 "election cycle" Clinton had already sewn up the nomination....dickweed.

:rolleyes:dickweed?

a dick growing like a weed?

or a weed acting like a dick?

nttiawwt

[Mr. Kotter]

...the died in the wool extortionist class who actively rape the proletariat innocent with full predjudice, exemplifying the exceptional greed based economic system in which the extortion equates to a loss of equality and a plundering of the collective through means of oppression and exploitation...

There do I sound smart yet?

Thank you, Taco Marx. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Kotter]

dickweed?

a dick growing like a weed?

or a weed acting like a dick?

nttiawwt

Dick as in prick. Weed as in noxious and insidious worthless piece of crap.

FWIW too, I do laugh quite often reading TJ's tripe. Zep's "Fool in the Rain" starts playing in my mind, very often reading his garbage.

;)

[listopencil]

There do I sound smart yet?


Man, I'm tired as hell. I read that and at first I couldn't get past, "What the **** is a 'wool extortionist'?" bouncing around in my head. Nice cartoon though.

[patteeu]

Don't the people in that category usually give it some thought? You know, to see that the establishment isn't working and thus they are malcontent about it. And then to have some idea or some person - that they believe in - to shake up the system?

:shrug:

No. They don't. My 10 year old is anti-establishment. Granted, she's probably more thoughtful than some Ron Paul supporters, but she's still not a political philosopher at this point in her life.

[Taco John]

You probably think you're smart because you're quoting somebody (that seems to be your standard operating procedure)es.


That was my penchief impersonation...

[patteeu]

Paul's "worst" supporters are the 9/11 truthers who found out Paul was chilling with Alex Jones awhile ago.

I won't disagree with you there.

[irishjayhawk]

No. They don't. My 10 year old is anti-establishment. Granted, she's probably more thoughtful than some Ron Paul supporters, but she's still not a political philosopher at this point in her life.

More ad hominems on Paul supporters. Seriously, I'm fairly sure that's all anyone's ever been able to say about them.

[Logical]

No. They don't. My 10 year old is anti-establishment. Granted, she's probably more thoughtful than some Ron Paul supporters, but she's still not a political philosopher at this point in her life.Way to avoid addressing the issue, did your 10 year old write that response for you?

[irishjayhawk]

1. Eliminating public institutions of higher learning by privatizing the entire system, stubbornly voting against all measures to increase public funding of universities. The G.I. Bill, which provided the broadest access to higher education the country has ever seen, is an atrocity for Paul... Higher education, on his view, is only something that should be available to students whose parents can pay for it. Let the market determine who can afford higher education... Paul believes, absurdly, that access to higher education is neither a public good nor something any citizen should have a right to.
------------
2. Destroying free public education at all levels K-12 and beyond (i.e. abolish the dept. of education, arguing that that all education should be a privately-owned venture, advocating home-schooling, opposing all public spending initiatives, eroding funding by eliminating taxes on the wealthy). Ron Paul believes that education should be treated just like any other commodity, like an iPhone, and purchased only if you have enough money to afford it. On his view, it is neither a social good nor a right that any fair or just society should try to ensure and nurture. Your parents don't earn enough to pay out of pocket for your schooling? Ron Paul says 'tough luck.'
------------
3. Staunchly opposing Universal Health Care and in favor of further privatizing a putrid for-profit system that rakes in billions in returns for its ownership while close to 50 million Americans are uninsured (as opposed to ZERO in Canada) and those that are insured get screwed, dropped or drowned in extremely costly co-pays and premiums. Ron Paul argues that if we'd just give the private insurance corporations more 'freedom', only then could they show their truly amicable intentions and the whole situation would be puppy-dogs and ice-cream. Remember: markets and deregulation solve all problems, democratic government creates them.
------------
4. Worsening the student debt crisis by further gutting (I say 'further gutting' because Bush and his GOP congress made putative cuts in 2005) programs like Pell Grants and Stafford Loans and giving even more of the student loan system over to a (corrupt, as we've seen from recent revelations in NY) billion-dollar for-profit industry. Ron Paul thinks we should slash all of it and only have unregulated private lenders who skim profits from college students' inability to afford high-priced tuition. Remember, education isn't a public good or a social imperative, its should be thought of as a mundane commodity (like frosted wheats) according to libertarians.
------------
5. Destroying the environment: in the 109th Congress alone, he voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to allow new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
------------
6. Destroying the progressive income tax (reverting to the regressive system in place during the Gilded Age), letting the rich get out of paying their fair share and depleting funding for social goods. On Ron Paul’s view, it’s ‘communistic and against liberty’ for Bill Gates to be expected to pay higher taxes than working-class single mothers.
------------
7. Making racist remarks such as "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." Paul was also part of a racist newsletter which made statements like, "only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions" and "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Ron Paul also believes that the Civil Rights Act was a MISTAKE which "reduced individual liberties"… and surprise, surprise: his reasoning is that the federal government should not have ended segregation because doing so violated “states rights.” Senators Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond also agreed with this thinking and filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Its also worth noting that the most prominent arguments against the abolition of slavery were driven by precisely the same rhetoric.



That happens to be the things people think make Ron Paul a "lunatic". It's from the facebook group I've mentioned before.

Most of it is flat out wrong.

[irishjayhawk]

------------
8. Supporting right-wing anti-choice laws and stripping women of reproductive rights. Ron Paul preaches a good deal about 'letting the states decide' on abortion, however, he has attempted to ban abortion at the federal level (Sanctity of Life Act). Furthermore, 'states rights' on the abortion issue is nothing other than a smokescreen for weakening legal and safe access to abortion.
------------
9. Opposing Church-State Separation: From keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to co-sponsoring the school prayer amendment to keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, this "strict constitutionalist" isn't a big fan of the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. He will tow the 'states rights' line here as well, but make no mistake about his support for allowing religious conservatives to demolish state/church separation (Read the bill he sponsored, the We The People Act). Ron Paul also believes the Constitution is "replete with references to God" even though it makes none whatsoever... so much for his billing as a 'Constitutionalist'.
------------
10. Supports the repeal of public programming like NPR, PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities... for all he the vitriol he may (or may not) spew at news outlets like Fox News, cable news of this sort is precisely the paradigm of commodified, corporatized, profit-obsessed 'news' organizations that unfettered markets both produces and nourishes. What if producing necessary, critical, in-depth, thoughtful and engaging journalism isn't the most lucrative option in a market rife with entertainment-kitsch 'news'? Is critical journalism therefore less necessary for any conception of democracy worthy of the name?
------------
11. Supporting right-wing anti-immigration legislation. This is where Ron Paul's nativist and Right-wing tendencies are most pronounced. Immigrants, even those who have lived here for decades, aren't human beings, for RP... they are 'aliens' who must be expelled from our society.
------------
12. Opposing worker's rights and virulently against workers organizing themselves against exploitative employers (has consistently voted against Employee Free Choice Act.) Note also that Ron Paul's politics view workers as commodities, not human beings who depend on the wages they earn from their labor to live on. According to free-market orthodoxy, labor laws establishing 40 hr work weeks and workdays, protections for workers, unionization, etc are all "rigidities" which disrupt a firm's ability to maximize profits most effectively. If it weren't for regulation of business we wouldn't have labor laws prohibiting unsafe work environments and child labor... of course these things were both popular during Ron Paul's favored period of American history: The Gilded Age.
------------
13. Fervently opposes raising the minimum wage, in favor of abolishing the minimum wage altogether (a standard libertarian belief.) Let me repeat this one more time: RON PAUL THINKS WE SHOULD ABOLISH THE MINIMUM WAGE ALTOGETHER. Remember, according to this logic we need to let businesses push wages as low as they want because to do otherwise is for democracy to lay its dirty hands on the immaculate 'free market'. The minimum wage, according to libertarians, forbids greedy employers from pushing wages low enough that they can take on more laborers without sharing any of the proportion of profits funneled straight to the top... thus their argument is that the minimum wage 'causes' unemployment (its unclear what good full employment is if the jobs being created pay poverty wages). However, the fact of the matter is that NO hard-working human being EVER deserves to work 40 hours a week for a pay check that cannot meet their most basic needs. Ron Paul opposes the minimum wage because it doesn't allow profit-hungry businesses to make wages LOW ENOUGH. Talk about having the wrong priorities. This should come as no surprise since just about all of Ron Paul's politics rest on a fundamental preference for the good of business over the good of society.
------------
14. Repealing Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and every other social program put in place since the New Deal... he probably thinks that Public Libraries are 'communistic institutions' and that if you cannot afford a book, you should just take personal responsibility and go out and buy it yourself (or write one yourself and then read it yourself.)
------------
15. Being content with genocide in Sudan and enabling the perpetuation of atrocities. Ron Paul voted against a bill that would have required the Federal Government to divest from corporations doing business with mass murders in Sudan. Instead of making a statement against nihilistic profit-obsessed corporations, RP preferred a masturbatory "No" vote demonstrating his isolationist and anarcho-capitalist 'street cred'.
------------
16. We shouldn't participate in the UN because it violates our sovereignty? This is precisely the kind of nationalist, right-wing tendencies we must reject in a world in which multinationals and capital have the ability to traverse boarders without any accountability to anyone. Like it or not, we are not living in the Gilded Age, and 'isolationism' circa 1890 (which Ron Paul endorses) should strike any sane person as absurd. Imperialism must be halted at all costs, however, it hardly follows that foreign affairs or international diplomacy as such are necessarily wrong on nationalist grounds. Nationalism, like Ron Paul, is a disease.
-----------------

Yes, Ron Paul is against the Iraq War, and so are Pat Buchanan and David Duke. The fact that he is against the Iraq war alone isn’t enough to actually make the guy worth a second look. He's also not the only person running for president who is advocating withdrawal (Kucinich (D) and Gravel (D), both of whom also have no chance of receiving a nomination, both advocate immediate withdrawal.) His non-interventionist (isolationist?) position on Iraq cannot be a compelling reason to suspend judgment about the lunacy of his other positions.

"But he's consistent throughout his whole career!" They will say. Yes, we agree, but since when is being consistently wrong about everything that matters a good thing?

Finish to the post above.

[patteeu]

More ad hominems on Paul supporters. Seriously, I'm fairly sure that's all anyone's ever been able to say about them.

I don't think "ad hominem" makes sense in that context. At least not in the logical fallacy sense.

This is just my observation. If the Paul supporters you know are all brain surgeons and astronauts then I can understand why you'd be surprised to hear it. But let me assure you that there are some pretty weird folks who flock to the libertarian cause. It doesn't make us all bad by any means, it's just reality.

[patteeu]

Way to avoid addressing the issue, did your 10 year old write that response for you?

What exactly was the issue that you think needed to be addressed? Whether it takes thoughtfulness to be anti-establishment? Anyone who's ever seen a punk rock show should be able to tell that the crowd isn't dominated by deep thinkers, but if anyone stands up on stage and shouts "f*ck the system" they're going to be met with a huge roar of approval.

[Logical]

What exactly was the issue that you think needed to be addressed? Whether it takes thoughtfulness to be anti-establishment? Anyone who's ever seen a punk rock show should be able to tell that the crowd isn't dominated by deep thinkers, but if anyone stands up on stage and shouts "f*ck the system" they're going to be met with a huge roar of approval.Maybe IJH response was too complex for you to respond to so I had made mine simple for you. Here I will repeat it.

Hey, I don't mind admitting in the least that I favor Ron Paul because he wants to shake things up. The system is very broken and needs to be shaken up.

You cannot acknowledge the system is broken?

[patteeu]

Maybe IJH response was too complex for you to respond to so I had made mine simple for you. Here I will repeat it.



You cannot acknowledge the system is broken?

I guess I didn't recognize that your fairly unspecific opinion required a response. I don't know what you mean by "broken", but I'll respond like this:

Would I like to see the "system" taken in a fairly radical new direction? Sure (as long as the direction is the one I prefer).

Do I think US society is going to collapse any time soon if we continue along the same establishment path we've been following for decades? Nope.

Do you feel like I've adequately addressed your need for feedback?

[Logical]

I guess I didn't recognize that your fairly unspecific opinion required a response. I don't know what you mean by "broken", but I'll respond like this:

Would I like to see the "system" taken in a fairly radical new direction? Sure (as long as the direction is the one I prefer).

Do I think US society is going to collapse any time soon if we continue along the same establishment path we've been following for decades? Nope.

Do you feel like I've adequately addressed your need for feedback?

Better, more sincere. Thanks

[Taco John]

Anyone who's ever seen a punk rock show should be able to tell that the crowd isn't dominated by deep thinkers, but if anyone stands up on stage and shouts "f*ck the system" they're going to be met with a huge roar of approval.


You'd be suprised.

[patteeu]

You'd be suprised.

Not really. I'm speaking from experience.

Just as I'm not saying all Ron Paul supporters are shallow thinkers, I'm also not saying that about all punk rock fans.

[go bowe]

Keep diggin'.....I know what I meant. If you want to create your own meaning for the phrase, be my guest. In either case, we are seven months into this election.....my point remains.

Of course, then...it was AFTER the primaries.....but, in the current campaign, we are now seven months into the current campaign. Keep on twistin' in the wind, if you choose.

Regardless, Ron Paul will not pull a Bill Clinton....no matter how grand your delusions.pull a bill clinton?

i thought that was hillary's job...

[Chiefnj2]

That happens to be the things people think make Ron Paul a "lunatic". It's from the facebook group I've mentioned before.

Most of it is flat out wrong.


I opened this thread for the first time and don't feel like reading through it. Are you saying the 16 points you posted are incorrect? Which ones are incorrect?

Thanks.

[penchief]

That was my penchief impersonation...

You were mimicking me? Or were you mocking me? Or were you actually quoting Karl Marx? How was it an impersonation of me?

Oh, I get it.....you were quoting Marx in order to pigeon-hole me by associating my socio-political beliefs with communism.

That's why you have no credibility with me. Your responses always seem to be insinuations based on some reference or someone else's quote instead of addressing the pragmatic reasoning for my concerns. You rush to parrot the party line (designed to marginalize) without actually listening to those who really do have concerns about the efficacy of lip-service libertarianism (i.e. neolibertarianism).

[penchief]

Because, you know, we're on such a solid foundation now. If I had to say anything about the current political ideology, I'd have to barrow Stephen Colbert's analogy: It's like the Hindenburg. It's soaring (out of control) but only a matter of time before the crash and burn.

On a more specific note, why can the country not "come together to make a difference" under Paul or Libertarianism. It's only the wolf in sheep's clothing if you are against it in the first place.

But the trends have been extreme since the start of the Bush presidency. It should be so obvious how much this administration has shilled for multi-national corporations. Corporations that really have no sense of loyalty, civic duty, or concern for the values and traditions of this country. One only has to evaluate who has really benefitted from this administration's policies for it to be blatantly obvious that they do not represent the people of this country.

On the more specific note, I agree that people can come together under any brand name or label. That said, it does no good if the new label only hides the old brand. IMO, neolibertarian economic philosophy enables those multi-national corporations and all others who want to exploit the true value of liberty, equity, and privacy for profit reasons to do so at the expense of our individual liberty and national sovereignty.

In fact, the neolibertarian stance opens the door even moreso than Bush's slight of hand. The only difference is that they aren't trying to hide it. The problem is that I don't think a lot of bandwagon neolibertarians (former conservatives and republicans) fully understand that. They're just grasping at hope, IMO.

[Nightfyre]

On the more specific note, I agree that people can come together under any brand name or label. That said, it does no good if the new label only hides the old brand. IMO, neolibertarian economic philosophy enables those multi-national corporations and all others who want to exploit the true value of liberty, equity, and privacy for profit reasons to do so at the expense of our individual liberty and national sovereignty.
I would ask you to back that up.

[patteeu]

I would ask you to back that up.

I recommend asking him to define "individual liberty". That's the source of the incompatibility between what penchief considers to be real libertarianism and what the rest of us use that term to mean.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Very simple really....

Do we want a strong America with freedom, removal of the poisons from food, closing the borders, Staying away from a one world government?

or 2 partys that take away all our freedoms, refer to the constitution as "IT'S JUST A GD PIECE OF PAPER", proliferate secrecy in government and stir SH!T up globally in our name? Welcome to the Military Industrial Complex at full bloom under UN control. 100 year war with a mandatory draft?

That's correct I Choose Ron Paul as the ONLY viable candidate with a chance.

[Taco John]

You were mimicking me? Or were you mocking me? Or were you actually quoting Karl Marx? How was it an impersonation of me?


Mimicking... mocking... yeah. I wasn't quoting anyone. I just made that stuff up on the fly based on your posting style. Long, superfluous socialist dialogues that show no real knowledge, or even mastery of the material, but confident in the lack anyhow.

[penchief]

I would ask you to back that up.

Their stand against government regulation and their stand against taxes. Those are the two biggest mantras of the right wing corporatists who want strip us of our govermnent by undermining it. In those two cases, neolibertarians intend to enable the power-grab in the same way as the Bush/Reagan conservatives have done.

I like to pay less taxes and I like to not have government telling me what to do. But I also recognize the need for balance. What's the difference if the government is dictating/limiting your choices or if some corporation is dictating the conditions under which we have to survive?

If clean air is better than toxin-filled air, why should some corporate entity get to impose unhealthy conditions on the population based soley on its desire to maximize profit if the government doesn't also have the power to regulate industry in ways that prevent such abuses?

It is my opinion that the same abuses we are now experiencing would continue unabated because the "free market" mantra for Bush/Reagan conservatives is exactly the same as neolibertarians (disaffected Bush/Reagan conservatives).

[penchief]

Mimicking... mocking... yeah. I wasn't quoting anyone. I just made that stuff up on the fly based on your posting style. Long, superfluous socialist dialogues that show no real knowledge, or even mastery of the material, but confident in the lack anyhow.

And then there's you.....

Always jumping on some bandwagon. Always promoting some theory or trying to sell some candidate by following the script and parrotting the talking points. You act more like a cheerleader instead of someone capable of carving out your own positions based on your own observations.

Mastery of the material? What material are we talking about? The material that you use to twist reality in order to promote your ideology? Just because you think you're so educated doesn't mean you have a better understanding. Some of the most "educated" people I've met have been some of the most oblivious to reality.

You are someone who jumps on bandwagons and then, all of a sudden, has all the answers. And when you're new beliefs are challenged, you resort to the "I'm more educated than you so you don't know what you're talking about" card. If you truly were more educated, you'd actually try to address concerns objectively and honestly instead of evading them.

I'm equally as unimpressed with you as you are with me.

[Nightfyre]

Their stand against government regulation and their stand against taxes. Those are the two biggest mantras of the right wing corporatists who want strip us of our govermnent by undermining it. In those two cases, neolibertarians intend to enable the power-grab in the same way as the Bush/Reagan conservatives have done.

I like to pay less taxes and I like to not have government telling me what to do. But I also recognize the need for balance. What's the difference if the government is dictating/limiting your choices or if some corporation is dictating the conditions under which we have to survive?

If clean air is better than toxin-filled air, why should some corporate entity get to impose unhealthy conditions on the population based soley on its desire to maximize profit if the government doesn't also have the power to regulate industry in ways that prevent such abuses?

It is my opinion that the same abuses we are now experiencing would continue unabated because the "free market" mantra for Bush/Reagan conservatives is exactly the same as neolibertarians (disaffected Bush/Reagan conservatives).
You do realize the libertarian philosophy does indicate that you can't infringe on others rights? Like a right to a clean and healthy environment...

[patteeu]

You do realize the libertarian philosophy does indicate that you can't infringe on others rights? Like a right to a clean and healthy environment...

You missed out on penchief's quiz about what libertarians would do to prevent environmental contamination in the absence of governmental regulation and enforcement. Do you have an answer for that?

[Adam]

You missed out on penchief's quiz about what libertarians would do to prevent environmental contamination in the absence of governmental regulation and enforcement. Do you have an answer for that?

I'm not sure of the Libertarian position, but I have heard Ron Paul's take on it. If I remember correctly, his idea is to basically sell most publicly owned land to private citizens, arguing that private citizens have a vested interest in taking care of their own land and that they tend to self-enforce sound environmental practices. Not sure if I agree with him on that idea or not.

[penchief]

You do realize the libertarian philosophy does indicate that you can't infringe on others rights? Like a right to a clean and healthy environment...

But how do you enforce it?

[Taco John]

But how do you enforce it?



What a stupid question... How do you enforce any law?

[BucEyedPea]

Well I'm gonna be putting up a solution thread on this subject that will shock your socks off when you see that it comes from what I consider a left-wing paper. Ideas are beginning to penetrate.

[Taco John]

If clean air is better than toxin-filled air, why should some corporate entity get to impose unhealthy conditions on the population based soley on its desire to maximize profit if the government doesn't also have the power to regulate industry in ways that prevent such abuses?



I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times: nobody has a right to pollute the air or the water. When government "regulates" it does so in order TO PERMIT industry to do POLLUTE BOTH.

[Taco John]

Always jumping on some bandwagon.



You just make things up as you go along, don't you... This is the first presidential I've been excited about since I first started voting 15 years ago...

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times: nobody has a right to pollute the air or the water. When government "regulates" it does so in order TO PERMIT industry to do POLLUTE BOTH.

:spock:

Yeah, a government *could* set it's regulation up that way. It could also regulate industries to curb excesses and abuses (like that child labor stuff). The free market does what will make the most money for the stockholders, and clean coal, and renewable, clean energy aren't exactly the most profitable at this juncture.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that whole late 19th/early 20th century movement in government regulation of industry was to stop the excesses of corporations, as they don't have the best interests of the workers at hand...I know, shocking. Who knows, maybe I need to lay off the shrooms, as I could have sworn that was why they tried that whole thing.....:shrug:

[Taco John]

Business isn't supposed to have the workers best interest in mind. The workers are supposed to have the workers' best interest in mind. Business is then supposed to respond to the marketplace -- that includes the marketplace of workers.

The company I work for attracts some of the best and brightest because of how they treat their employees. It's certainly not because of government regulations. It's because the best and the brightest dont just go to work for anyone.

[SNR]

Wow... almost 125 posts. That meets Skip's approval!

I didn't realize Dr. Doom's candidate endorsement was so serious to everyone that it would create such a big discussion. :)

['Hamas' Jenkins]

B
The company I work for attracts some of the best and brightest


Then how did you get a job there?

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

In reality, how do you expect the marketplace to react to a company like Wal-Mart who has scores of shittily-treated workers but provides low cost (low quality) goods? How are disenfranchised workers, who lack any semblance of organization and have no protection from labor laws (because gubment is the debil) supposed to band together when they are so imminently replaceable?

[Logical]

Then how did you get a job there?

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

In reality, how do you expect the marketplace to react to a company like Wal-Mart who has scores of shittily-treated workers but provides low cost (low quality) goods? How are disenfranchised workers, who lack any semblance of organization and have no protection from labor laws (because gubment is the debil) supposed to band together when they are so imminently replaceable?

Low blow 15 yard penalty.

[Taco John]

In reality, how do you expect the marketplace to react to a company like Wal-Mart who has scores of shittily-treated workers but provides low cost (low quality) goods? How are disenfranchised workers, who lack any semblance of organization and have no protection from labor laws (because gubment is the debil) supposed to band together when they are so imminently replaceable?



Which market place? The consumer market, or the employment market?

I don't shop at Walmart. I disagree with their practices. I also wouldn't work at Walmart. I hear that they treat their employees pretty shitty.

If people are willing to shop there, then so be it. If people are willing to work there, then they must not be too worried about it. How are they disenfranchised, if they are the ones at the wheel making the decision on whether they choose to work at Walmart or not?

[patteeu]

I'm not sure of the Libertarian position, but I have heard Ron Paul's take on it. If I remember correctly, his idea is to basically sell most publicly owned land to private citizens, arguing that private citizens have a vested interest in taking care of their own land and that they tend to self-enforce sound environmental practices. Not sure if I agree with him on that idea or not.

That may work for keeping trash off the ground, but it's not going to give people incentives to avoid spewing contaminants into the air and the water to any great degree.

[penchief]

Business isn't supposed to have the workers best interest in mind. The workers are supposed to have the workers' best interest in mind. Business is then supposed to respond to the marketplace -- that includes the marketplace of workers.

The company I work for attracts some of the best and brightest because of how they treat their employees. It's certainly not because of government regulations. It's because the best and the brightest dont just go to work for anyone.

I don't disagree with you. However, when Wall Street (the money-for-nothing ethic) get's involved, then it becomes something beyond the natural forces and common sense. Once that happens, speculation and free money have gained sway over both common sense and the marketplaces of demand, supply, and labor.

[Taco John]

I don't disagree with you. However, when Wall Street (the money-for-nothing ethic) get's involved, then it becomes something beyond the natural forces and common sense. Once that happens, speculation and free money have gained sway over both common sense and the marketplaces of demand, supply, and labor.



What you just said means nothing to me. It's just a bunch of words that have no meaning. Seriously. I can't pick out a thread of thought in what you just wrote.


And honestly, I'd be suprised if the people on your side of the argument could make any sense out of it. It's just a bunch of nothing...

[penchief]

Business isn't supposed to have the workers best interest in mind.

Then why don't they? Are you smoking some sixties' weed or what? If you think business has workers best interests in mind then you are more naive than even I thought. How about reading the tea leaves instead of swallowing the Kool-Aid?

The workers are supposed to have the workers' best interest in mind.

Then, how come everytime the workers speak out for themselves people like you call them communists?

Business is then supposed to respond to the marketplace -- that includes the marketplace of workers.

I agree, business is supposed to respond to the marketplace. But it is not entitled to manipulate the marketplace unfairly.

The company I work for attracts some of the best and brightest because of how they treat their employees. It's certainly not because of government regulations. It's because the best and the brightest dont just go to work for anyone.

Of course, the government only has to step in when business subverts the standards, not when those standards are exceeded. You have it good. You work for a company that chooses to do the right thing. How would you feel if you were among the majority of people who work for companies who like to manipulate the system in order to maximize profit at the expense of your hourly wage, your overtime pay, or your benefits?

[KC Jones]

I'm close to taking the plunge as well.

[plbrdude]

you might as well take the plunge. the good ole u.s. of a. is long over due for another boston tea party.

[Taco John]

How would you feel if you were among the majority of people who work for companies who like to manipulate the system in order to maximize profit at the expense of your hourly wage, your overtime pay, or your benefits?


I would feel like quitting and finding a better job. I'm not completely powerless. I hold the cards.

[penchief]

What you just said means nothing to me. It's just a bunch of words that have no meaning. Seriously. I can't pick out a thread of thought in what you just wrote.


And honestly, I'd be suprised if the people on your side of the argument could make any sense out of it. It's just a bunch of nothing...

The bottom line is that what you call the "free market (supply and demand)" really has no basis in the defense of your position, IMO. Wall Street (speculation) is the force that controls what our economy does, not supply and demand. To think othewise is to be naive.

That very same investment mentality (money-for-nothing) also plays a big part in why our government is being manipulated by elitist forces.

I don't get any satisfaction out of the fact that you are a tool. I honestly wish that you would see things more objectively so that you could understand my concerns rather than resorting to self-denial and to reactionary claims that I am anti-libertarian when it is you that lacks the concept of universal liberty.

[Taco John]

The bottom line is that what you call the "free market (supply and demand)" really has no basis in reality. Wall Street (speculation) is the force that controls what our economy does, not supply and demand. To think othewise is to be naive, IMO

Where do you get this stuff? You just make it up on the fly? What you just said would get you expelled from college. Where did you get your degree?

I love how you're always telling me how the system works, while simultaneously demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea how the system works. You know that saying that it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think that you don't know what you're talking about, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?


The investment mentality (money-for-nothing) also plays a big part in why our government is being manipulated by elitist forces.

:drool: Wow. The hits keep coming...



I don't get any satisfaction out of the fact that you are a tool. I honestly wish that you would see things more objectively so that you could understand my concerns rather than resorting to denial and reactionary claims that I am anti-libertarian when it is you that lacks the concept of universal liberty.


I wish what you said made a lick of sense. I like a good debate. I just don't know how I can take any of the mess that you're making and make any sense of it. You use no facts. You use no specifics. You use no established political models to base your statements on. You use no supporting evidence. You cite no one. You make no points. You draw no substantive conclusions.

Instead, you just say a bunch of generalized flowery stuff that apparently means something to you, but nobody else knows what the hell you're talking about.

Seriously... Nothing you say makes any sense, ever. I can't understand your concerns because you aren't able to communicate them worth a damn.

[penchief]

Where do you get this stuff? You just make it up on the fly? What you just said would get you expelled from college. Where did you get your degree?


Blah, blah, blah. You still never address my concerns directly. Why is that? You always resort to your supposed intellectual superiority. So far, you've said nothing that makes a difference.

I love how you're always telling me how the system works, while simultaneously demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea how the system works. You know that saying that it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think that you don't know what you're talking about, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?

Again, you've said absolutely nothing. Exactly how does the system work for you, in you opinion? You go into great detail about how I don't understand it but you have yet to utter a word that counters my position. You're a counter-attacker, not a clarifier.

:drool: Wow. The hits keep coming....

I can only assume that you were unwilling to address my assertion so you resorted to irrelevent sarcasm in an attempt to cover that base.

I wish what you said made a lick of sense. I like a good debate. I just don't know how I can take any of the mess that you're making and make any sense of it. You use no facts. You use no specifics. You use no established political models to base your statements on. You use no supporting evidence. You cite no one. You make no points. You draw no substantive conclusions.

And you make it a point to overlook the obvious. If you like a good debate you should find no lack of material to debate when responding to my posts. But you resort to deflection and irrelevent implications based on political differences rather than what I actually present as an argument.

Instead, you just say a bunch of generalized flowery stuff that apparently means something to you, but nobody else knows what the hell you're talking about.

You are unwilling to acknowledge the obvious for politially expedient reasons, IMO.

Seriously... Nothing you say makes any sense, ever. I can't understand your concerns because you aren't able to communicate them worth a damn.

The problem is not how I communicate my concerns. The problem is that you are unable to address them because your new ideology hasn't told you how to address them.

[Taco John]

Blah, blah, blah. You still never address my concerns directly. Why is that?


Because I have no idea how to. Nothing you say ever makes any sense to me. For instance the statement that the "free market (supply and demand)" really has no basis in reality. Wall Street (speculation) is the force that controls what our economy does, not supply and demand.

That doesn't make any sense. There's no "there" there. You say that the free market of supply and demand has no basis in reality without realizing just how goofy that statement is. Certainly you don't provide anything to back the statement up. It's as if I were to just blurt out that the moon is made of swiss cheese because there's a lot of cows in Texas, and then demand that people address this directly or they are dodging the question. Seriously... That's how bad it is.

Then you go on about how Wall Street (speculation) is the force that controls what our economy does, not supply and demand. Holy shit, dude! It's an amazingly horrible take. You couldn't provide supporting evidence of that one if you wanted to. I get that a socialist doesn't like Wall Street, and probably views it as an evil entity. But to say that the laws of supply and demand play no part in it is an spectacularly bad take.

[Nightfyre]

The bottom line is that what you call the "free market (supply and demand)" really has no basis in the defense of your position, IMO. Wall Street (speculation) is the force that controls what our economy does, not supply and demand. To think othewise is to be naive.

That very same investment mentality (money-for-nothing) also plays a big part in why our government is being manipulated by elitist forces.

I don't get any satisfaction out of the fact that you are a tool. I honestly wish that you would see things more objectively so that you could understand my concerns rather than resorting to self-denial and to reactionary claims that I am anti-libertarian when it is you that lacks the concept of universal liberty.
Have you taken economics or finance courses? Did you just dismiss what they said as fiction? Seriously, back this shit up.

[Chief Faithful]

The bottom line is that what you call the "free market (supply and demand)" really has no basis in the defense of your position, IMO. Wall Street (speculation) is the force that controls what our economy does, not supply and demand. To think othewise is to be naive.

That very same investment mentality (money-for-nothing) also plays a big part in why our government is being manipulated by elitist forces.

I don't get any satisfaction out of the fact that you are a tool. I honestly wish that you would see things more objectively so that you could understand my concerns rather than resorting to self-denial and to reactionary claims that I am anti-libertarian when it is you that lacks the concept of universal liberty.

Keep talking the popcorn is almost ready. I especially like the use of the word elitist it makes those guys, whoever the hell they are, sound really evil. So who is the good guy that counteracts all those bad forces?

[penchief]

Because I have no idea how to. Nothing you say ever makes any sense to me. For instance the statement that the "free market (supply and demand)" really has no basis in reality. Wall Street (speculation) is the force that controls what our economy does, not supply and demand.

The manipulation of our economy has very little to do with traditional economic factors, IMO. Supply and Demand may have been a very sound fair market theory of yesteryear, however, it is quite clear that manipulating the investment economy is the driving force of modern day economics in America. It has become speculation that moves money these days, not real forces like the "free market," supply, demand, or labor.

What I call a free market (fair market) and what you call a free market (unregulated market) are two different things. An unregulated market allows for the market to be corrupted and, therefore, not truly free. A regulated market in the spirit of fairness allows for a buffer against corrupt forces that rig a system to benefit those with the most power and influence (which impacts liberty in a very profound way, IMO).

That doesn't make any sense. There's no "there" there. You say that the free market of supply and demand has no basis in reality without realizing just how goofy that statement is. Certainly you don't provide anything to back the statement up. It's as if I were to just blurt out that the moon is made of swiss cheese because there's a lot of cows in Texas, and then demand that people address this directly or they are dodging the question. Seriously... That's how bad it is.

The goofiness is that the very same people who have corrupted the "free market" for their own benefit are still using the hot-button word, "free market," in order to continue leading those of you who live off of talking points by the your nose.

Nothing is goofy about what I say just because you aren't willing to ponder things beyond your own narrow indoctrination.

Then you go on about how Wall Street (speculation) is the force that controls what our economy does, not supply and demand. Holy shit, dude! It's an amazingly horrible take. You couldn't provide supporting evidence of that one if you wanted to. I get that a socialist doesn't like Wall Street, and probably views it as an evil entity. But to say that the laws of supply and demand play no part in it is an spectacularly bad take.

Uh, Enron made all that funny money and then shut down California on a political whim. Do you think that had to do with supply and demand? Or was it Wall Street (speculation), or politics (in cooperation with the Bush White House power-grab in order to replace a democratic governor with a republican in a traditionally democratic state)?

Haliburton, Exxon-Mobile, and others are making hellacious profits not because of the demand so much as because of their influence on the government and on Wall Street. Why are their profits going up while the consumer and the country are getting screwed?

Things that used to be economically connected (when it's bad, it's bad for everybody) are no longer connected. So yeah, I believe exactly what I'm saying because I see a basis in coming to that conclusion. You, on the other hand, are unwilling to recognize that the economic power-grab being perpetrated on this country enables conditions that cannot conform to the fundamental theory of supply and demand, but are driven by speculation and manipulation, instead.

[penchief]

Have you taken economics or finance courses? Did you just dismiss what they said as fiction? Seriously, back this shit up.

If you think that taking an economic finance course explains how the neocon/Bush elitist economy operates, then you are not taking advantage of your courses. What you should be doing is using that knowledge as a means to interpret the reality of what is actually taking place instead of trying to assign those traditional virtues to lies being propogated for the sake of consolidating wealth and power.

[Nightfyre]

Uh, Enron made all that funny money and then shut down California on a political whim. Do you think that had to do with supply and demand? Or was it Wall Street (speculation), or politics (in cooperation with the Bush White House power-grab in order to replace a democratic governor with a republican in a traditionally democratic state)?

Haliburton, Exxon-Mobile, and others are making hellacious profits not because of the demand so much as because of their influence on the government and on Wall Street. Why are their profits going up while the consumer and the country are getting screwed?

Things that used to be economically connected (when it's bad, it's bad for everybody) are no longer connected. So yeah, I believe exactly what I'm saying because I see a basis in coming to that conclusion. You, on the other hand, are unwilling to recognize that the economic power-grab being perpetrated on this country enables conditions that cannot conform to the fundamental theory of supply and demand, but are driven by speculation and manipulation, instead.
Enron was a reporting scandal. Consumer groups could easily replace and more cost effectively do the duties of the SEC. All the SEC even does is force companies to follow reporting requirements already in place provided by FASB. Fairness and comparability of companies is the number one goal of accounting standards.
Haliburton, Exxon-Mobile, all these other scenarios are in place precisely because of government contracting, which would be nonexistent in a free-market environment. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a semester away from my accounting degree.

[Nightfyre]

If you think that taking an economic finance course explains how the neocon/Bush elitist economy operates, then you are not taking advantage of your courses. What you should be doing is using that knowledge as a means to interpret the reality of what is actually taking place instead of trying to assign those traditional virtues to lies being propogated for the sake of consolidating wealth and power.
HELLO?! It is being done through the government. By eliminating the governments role and bringing about a free-market, you eliminate this.

[penchief]

Keep talking the popcorn is almost ready. I especially like the use of the word elitist it makes those guys, whoever the hell they are, sound really evil. So who is the good guy that counteracts all those bad forces?

The elitist are those who are stripping everyday Americans of their privacy and their civil rights. They are the ones who believe that corporations are entities with rights above and beyond those of the American people.

The elitists are the ones who think that clean air, clean water, untainted food, and a sustainable earth are hurdles to financial success. They are the ones who feel that they have the right to dictate the conditions under which all of us have to live. They feel they can deny access to education, health care, and upward mobility. They feel they can start wars and deny liberty. They feel they can buy our government.

[Nightfyre]

The elitist are those who are stripping everyday Americans of their privacy and their civil rights. They are the ones who believe that corporations are entities with rights above and beyond those of the American people.

The elitists are the ones who think that clean air, clean water, untainted food, and a sustainable earth are hurdles to financial success. They are the ones who feel that they have the right to dictate the conditions under which all of us have to live. They feel they can deny access to education, health care, and upward mobility. They feel they can start wars and deny liberty. They feel they can buy our government.
And whats even better about all of this, is that you will continue to vote for someone supported by corporate funding or special interests, or worse, not vote at all. You insist on bashing the ONE CANDIDATE who doesn't accept donations from such entities. Laughable.

[penchief]

HELLO?! It is being done through the government. By eliminating the governments role and bringing about a free-market, you eliminate this.

This is a fundamental difference that is worth noting.

You are correct. It is being done through the government. But that is the whole point of it.

They are doing it through the government because the government has always provided a buffer that protected the people. The government has always been the thorn in the side of greedy interests that have historically contradicted the ideals of universal liberty. They are using the very vehicle intended to protect the interests of the people by undermining it. They are corrupting the intent of our founding fathers, IMO.

Have you ever heard the saying, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?" Well that's what they've done. They've used their wealth and power to undermine the very mechanism intended to defend humanity against the excesses of greed and hubris to satisfy their greed and hubris. Not only have they worked to limit access to the essentials of upward mobility (education, health care), they've undermined America's security, her infrastructure, and her future prosperity in order to accomplish their economic coup de tat.

The only thing better for elitism than owning the government is no government at all. That is my point. The solution is not eliminating goverment. The solution is restoring it to its proper place as the vehicle that ensures universal liberty instead of a tool of the influential. They would love nothing more than to eliminate goverment. I'm sure you've heard the Reagan/Bush mantra of "starving the beast," right? Well, that's what they mean. The only problem is that they mean it for their own benefit and not yours.

It's time to restore government's virtue by kicking the foxes out of the henhouse. It's time to recognize that government plays a huge role in representing the interests of the people. In order to understand this, one only has to see how the interests of the people have taken a huge hit while the fortunes of the Cheneyburtons of the world have really taken off .

[Chief Faithful]

The elitist are those who are stripping everyday Americans of their privacy and their civil rights. They are the ones who believe that corporations are entities with rights above and beyond those of the American people.

The elitists are the ones who think that clean air, clean water, untainted food, and a sustainable earth are hurdles to financial success. They are the ones who feel that they have the right to dictate the conditions under which all of us have to live. They feel they can deny access to education, health care, and upward mobility. They feel they can start wars and deny liberty. They feel they can buy our government.

Who would these elitists be? I really don't know anyone who fits that description.

[patteeu]

And whats even better about all of this, is that you will continue to vote for someone supported by corporate funding or special interests, or worse, not vote at all. You insist on bashing the ONE CANDIDATE who doesn't accept donations from such entities. Laughable.

Is it really true that Ron Paul won't accept corporate funding or special interest funding but that he refuses to turn down white supremacist money?

[penchief]

And whats even better about all of this, is that you will continue to vote for someone supported by corporate funding or special interests, or worse, not vote at all. You insist on bashing the ONE CANDIDATE who doesn't accept donations from such entities. Laughable.

First off, I'm not bashing Ron Paul. On numerous occasions I've expressed my admiration for certain aspects of what he's attempting to do. I agree with much of what he stands for. I am inspired by much of what he believes because I also believe many of those things.

That said, what I have been bashing is the inability of Ron Paul salespersons to satisfactorily answer my concerns about the very things I have expressed in this thread. When I ask them to do so, all I get in return is accusations of being a communist.

Lastly, my candidate is Biden. I'm sure that he does get some money from corporations. But I also feel that he is independent-minded, wants to do what is right for the country, and not necessarily a corporate whore or an empty suit like most candidates, including Hillary, Obama, and just about everyone on the right except for Huckabee.

[Chief Faithful]

This is a fundamental difference that is worth noting.

You are correct. It is being done through the government. But that is the whole point of it.

They are doing it through the government because the government has always provided a buffer that protected the people. The government has always been the thorn in the side of greedy interests that have historically contradicted the ideals of universal liberty. They are using the very vehicle intended to protect the interests of the people by undermining it. They are corrupting the intent of our founding fathers, IMO.

Have you ever heard the saying, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?" Well that's what they've done. They've used their wealth and power to undermine the very mechanism intended to defend humanity against the excesses of greed and hubris to satisfy their greed and hubris. Not only have they worked to limit access to the essentials of upward mobility (education, health care), they've undermined America's security, her infrastructure, and her future prosperity in order to accomplish their economic coup de tat.

The only thing better for elitism than owning the government is no government at all. That is my point. The solution is not eliminating goverment. The solution is restoring it to its proper place as the vehicle that ensures universal liberty instead of a tool of the influential. They would love nothing more than to eliminate goverment. I'm sure you've heard the Reagan/Bush mantra of "starving the beast," right? Well, that's what they mean. The only problem is that they mean it for their own benefit and not yours.

It's time to restore government's virtue by kicking the foxes out of the henhouse. It's time to recognize that government plays a huge role in representing the interests of the people. In order to understand this, one only has to see how the interests of the people have taken a huge hit while the fortunes of the Cheneyburtons of the world have really taken off .

So you are saying government is the solution and Reagan, Bush and Cheney are elitists?

[Nightfyre]

This is a fundamental difference that is worth noting.

You are correct. It is being done through the government. But that is the whole point of it.

They are doing it through the government because the government has always provided a buffer that protected the people. The government has always been the thorn in the side of greedy interests that have historically contradicted the ideals of universal liberty. They are using the very vehicle intended to protect the interests of the people by undermining it. They are corrupting the intent of our founding fathers, IMO.

Have you ever heard the saying, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?" Well that's what they've done. They've used their wealth and power to undermine the very mechanism intended to defend humanity against the excesses of greed and hubris to satisfy their greed and hubris. Not only have they worked to limit access to the essentials of upward mobility (education, health care), they've undermined America's security, her infrastructure, and her future prosperity in order to accomplish their economic coup de tat.

The only thing better for elitism than owning the government is no government at all. That is my point. The solution is not eliminating goverment. The solution is restoring it to its proper place as the vehicle that ensures universal liberty instead of a tool of the influential. They would love nothing more than to eliminate goverment. I'm sure you've heard the Reagan/Bush mantra of "starving the beast," right? Well, that's what they mean. The only problem is that they mean it for their own benefit and not yours.

It's time to restore government's virtue by kicking the foxes out of the henhouse. It's time to recognize that government plays a huge role in representing the interests of the people. In order to understand this, one only has to see how the interests of the people have taken a huge hit while the fortunes of the Cheneyburtons of the world have really taken off .
Supporting claims with claims is a really bad habit. There can be no corruption with limited government, instead the power is truly in the hands of the people. Consumers decide which business practices are the most important by voting with their dollars. It is true that capitalism has and always will promote the chase of increased wealth. However, the wealthy will often redistribute the wealth back to the people, IE warren buffett, bill gates, and so on. They are smart enough to realize that the economy cannot carry on without money in the consumers' hands.

[Nightfyre]

First off, I'm not bashing Ron Paul. On numerous occasions I've expressed my admiration for certain aspects of what he's attempting to do. I agree with much of what he stands for. I am inspired by much of what he believes because I also believe many of those things.

That said, what I have been bashing is the inability of Ron Paul salespersons to satisfactorily answer my concerns about the very things I have expressed in this thread. When I ask them to do so, all I get in return is accusations of being a communist.
The environmental issues? You put the issue in the hands of the consumers. If the environment is important to people, then you will see it reflected in their product choices. You take money away from the EPA and their dumb requirements and give it back to the consumers. Corporate profits will go up, which will allow their responsibility to go up in a much more cost efficient manner than the choices presented by the EPA. Further, the wealthier individuals can influence these companies by purchasing stocks and voting for environmentally sound procedures.
Efforts to curve environmental issues by the government are all about arbitrary numbers set by policymakers who don't know the first thing about the problem. Put the issues back into the hands of consumer groups who can employ professionals in the field to achieve proper standards and comparisons and let the public know. Then the public can decide for itself.
The one thing that is sure out of this whole mess is that the government is responsible for creating market inefficiencies, bubbles, and taking the power out of the consumer's hands. By taking away the governments power you get rid of the inefficiencies and replace the systems with far more cost-effective ones, you get rid of the bubbles creating far more stable markets, and you get the consumer groups, who employ qualified experts of their choosing to evaluate the products and companies for the consumers so that the consumer can make the choice.

[penchief]

Supporting claims with claims is a really bad habit.

Supporting beliefs by articulating one's observations is valid. On the other hand, how can you can look at the economic and political factors that currently face this country and not be able to recognize the very distinct pattern as something beyond what is truly a free market? If what I attempt to point out is beyond your ability to be objective, then that is that. I can't help you.

There can be no corruption with limited government, instead the power is truly in the hands of the people.

That's not true. Corruption can and will exist in any size government. If the government is smaller it would just take less influence to corrupt it. Just look at how this administration has had to go through the hardship of having to stack all of the different agencies by appointing political partisans to corrupt those agencies. There has always been checks and balances. It's no mystery why the neocon Bushies in this country are trying to eliminate checks and balances. Because those checks and balances help preserve a government designed to serve the interests of the people and not the interests of the elite.

Consumers decide which business practices are the most important by voting with their dollars.

Consumers decide which products are the most affordable based on the products that are accessible. Manipulation of the market does not even provide the choices that would make a market truly free. Shutting down the electric car is a perfect example of market manipulation. The consumer really had nothing to do with that. However, the oil industry did.

It is true that capitalism has and always will promote the chase of increased wealth.

It is okay for capitalism to promote it. However, it is not okay for it to shelter it from competition or accountability.

However, the wealthy will often redistribute the wealth back to the people, IE warren buffett, bill gates, and so on. They are smart enough to realize that the economy cannot carry on without money in the consumers' hands.

Ronald Reagan proved that "trickle down economics" is a joke designed to do the same thing the "free market" mantra is meant to do; convince the masses of patriotic free-marketeers that their individual prosperity is just around the corner while those who peddle that propoganda get rich off the backs of the American people.

I can tell that you have read up on your economic theories but the real world takes those theories and uses them to twist the truth. Our current economic state is less about supply and demand than it is about energy futures, consolidation of wealth, and market manipulation.

[penchief]

The environmental issues? You put the issue in the hands of the consumers. If the environment is important to people, then you will see it reflected in their product choices.

Not if the path to profit does not allow for those product choices to be presented in a favorable way. If the choices aren't there (affordable and practical) then they aren't going to work. Industry deliberately works to protect profit by limiting choice.

You take money away from the EPA and their dumb requirements and give it back to the consumers.

You call them dumb requirements but most of those regulations came out of necessity. When you look at what was happening that preceeded those regulations, you would not call them all dumb. That said, profit is not the be all and end all of human existence. A corporation that doesn't care about it's civic responsibilities is not a corporation worth existing, IMO.

Corporate profits will go up, which will allow their responsibility to go up in a much more cost efficient manner than the choices presented by the EPA. Further, the wealthier individuals can influence these companies by purchasing stocks and voting for environmentally sound procedures.

You are so living in fantasy land. I don't mean that as an insult but you apparently haven't been around to see that history has already refuted this argument. People are greedy assholes. And it has already been proven that people will pursue profit at the expense of environmental degradation.

Efforts to curve environmental issues by the government are all about arbitrary numbers set by policymakers who don't know the first thing about the problem.

Just talking points, IMO. Many of the environmental regulations put in place since the sixties and seventies have done a great deal to improve the quality of life for you and your family.

Put the issues back into the hands of consumer groups who can employ professionals in the field to achieve proper standards and comparisons and let the public know. Then the public can decide for itself.

Duh, government? The arm of the people?

The one thing that is sure out of this whole mess is that the government is responsible for creating market inefficiencies, bubbles, and taking the power out of the consumer's hands. By taking away the governments power you get rid of the inefficiencies and replace the systems with far more cost-effective ones, you get rid of the bubbles creating far more stable markets, and you get the consumer groups, who employ qualified experts of their choosing to evaluate the products and companies for the consumers so that the consumer can make the choice.

But you also get rid of balance. I agree that the government has been a player that has often unduly influenced the free market. But not nearly as much as it has played a proper role in ensuring a fair market. IMO, the biggest threat to a free market is unfair competition.

[BucEyedPea]

Who takes the "American Supremacists" money aka those who believe in American exceptionalism even when it results in killing the brown folks of the ME? Who takes the "Executive Supremacists" money?

[patteeu]

If the environment is important to people, then you will see it reflected in their product choices.

Kind of like how people who care about living won't buy cigarettes?

[patteeu]

Who takes the "American Supremacists" money aka those who believe in American exceptionalism even when it results in killing the brown folks of the ME? Who takes the "Executive Supremacists" money?

I don't know, but when I find out, I'm going to consider voting for them.

[Fishpicker]

I don't know, but when I find out, I'm going to consider voting for them.

you will consider voting for the candidate who kills the most brown people?

[patteeu]

you will consider voting for the candidate who kills the most brown people?

Is that what she said?

As for me, I don't distinguish between brown people and yellow people and white people etc. I assure you that I'm not nearly as focused on race as some Ron Paul supporters are.

[go bowe]

Who would these elitists be? I really don't know anyone who fits that description.elitists?

what have you got against elitists any way?

i'm an elitist and i love every minute of it...

wouldn't have it any other way...