• Ron Paul says he'll push through to convention no matter what
    213 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35715097]I said this: "Peacekeeping has been a success when the UN countries actually pay attention to it." And Rwanda is testament to this fact. That's nice, good thing I'm not arguing for that. Do you people actively not read my point, or do you just purposely do it? Like fuck, you're doing the exact same thing yawmwen is doing, arguing against a point that i haven't made. I have made it clear, fucking abundantly clear, that when you do interventionism for resource gain or political reasons (like contras), it's dangerous. And blowback can occur. I said this, and here you are, providing evidence against the point I SPECIFICALLY said I was against. I don't know if you just missed it, or you have reading comprehension issues, or maybe you're just incredibly stupid, I don't know, whatever the reason, learn to argue someone's point.[/QUOTE] has any president ever been neither non-interventionist or interventionist for resource gain?
[QUOTE=Hayburner;35715304]Your argument would make sense if it weren't for the fact that 90% of the gold in the world has already been discovered.[/QUOTE] Would like a source of this - and nothing from fox news, capitalismsavedmygrandmother.com, or libertyagainstcommunists.org or something like that. [editline]25th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Venezuelan;35715313]has any president ever been neither non-interventionist or interventionist for resource gain?[/QUOTE] Yes, George Bush is a good example. With his overly protective nature of the Iraqi Oil Ministry and haliburtons... do I really need to point out PMC's? As for non-interventionist, many times. Rwanda for example. There was nothing in Rwanda that the US cared about, and they weren't going to put their soldiers in danger for it.
I said neither :v: aka intervenes with selfless motives
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35715200] Well guess what, capitalism is a failure of an idea. Everything it supports, will eventually collapse. Without regulation, capitalism will form monopolies. This is an inevitable fact. It happened all the time during the advent of capitalism. [/QUOTE] Nope, Capitalism cannot have monopolies because a system with monopolies is by definition, not capitalism. Capitalism has to have little bar to entry into a market, a monopoly creates a major bar to entry. The idea behind a Capitalist system is that the government only involves itself when it needs to keep the rules fair. I.E. when a monopoly or trust is forming. What you are thinking of is Laissez-Faire, which as far as I can tell, Ron Paul never officially endorsed.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;35715284]I assume you used a thesaurus to learn a new word ("rhetoric", though it's a poor application for this situation).[/QUOTE] uh okay how about stupid then is that a better application for this situation? i think it is [QUOTE=Hayburner;35715284]Not to mention plenty of "Marxies" rely on "pointless rhetoric" to reach out to disenfranchised youth; it's been seen way too many times for you to deny it bro.[/QUOTE] pointless rhetoric referring to bullshit arguments that appeal more to institutionalized concepts of "reason" and "logic" rather than practicality and reality. maybe someone else cares about where the rights of man comes from, i couldn't be arsed, all i care about is that affirmative action seeks to empower people who are born with a significant disadvantaged placed upon them by an institution, and it's quite successful in doing so. i don't want to support Ron Paul because he doesn't support removing institutionalized racism or support a woman's right to her own body, the reasoning isn't important.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35715379]Nope, Capitalism cannot have monopolies because a system with monopolies is by definition, not capitalism. Capitalism has to have little bar to entry into a market, a monopoly creates a major bar to entry. [/quote] Well that's nice for capitalism, but it won't stay like that is the point. [quote]The idea behind a Capitalist system is that the government only involves itself when it needs to keep the rules fair. I.E. when a monopoly or trust is forming. [/quote] Then that's not capitalist, you're regulating capitalism. Even then, if Ron Paul isn't going for a free-market, he's going for what people like Ronald Regan did; be involved, sorta. It didn't work, it's not going to work. [quote]What you are thinking of is Laissez-Faire, which as far as I can tell, Ron Paul never officially endorsed.[/QUOTE] Yes he does, Austrian School economics is another word for Laissez-Faire. It doesn't fucking matter, the system will ALWAYS eventually collapse into a corporatist state. You are giving way too much power to the people who make the big money. You really thing someone like Alan Greenspan is this good caring guy who will run a fair business in the range of your capitalistic idea? Fuck no, the second this guy gets power, he's using it. Without regulation, and with a small government, money will become power. We're already seeing the beginnings of it. I don't give an utter shit what system of capitalism Ron Paul supports, ANY of it is dangerous. History proves this. [editline]25th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Venezuelan;35715374]I said neither :v: aka intervenes with selfless motives[/QUOTE] I don't know. Why does it matter? I'm not arguing that its been done in the past. That has fucking nothing to do with my point.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35715456]all i care about is that affirmative action seeks to empower people who are born with a significant disadvantaged placed upon them by an institution, and it's quite successful in doing so.[/QUOTE] That's where your ideas become delusion; it's not empowering them at all. If you really think that guilt, blame, and pride are all inherited and not earned then I reserve much of my own pity for you.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;35715516]That's where your ideas become delusion; it's not empowering them at all.[/QUOTE] says a white male?? i mean how do you figure it's not empowering them?
[QUOTE=thisispain;35715535]says a white male?? i mean how do you figure it's not empowering them?[/QUOTE] What makes you so sure I'm white? You're quick to jump to that conclusion and immediately berating me for it? Thanks for proving to me that your "payback" attitude is equal to racism, effectively making you a racist.
♫ [I]don't stop[/I] ♫ ♫ [I]belieeeeevin'[/I] ♫ ♫ [I]hold on to that feelin'![/I] ♫
[QUOTE=Hayburner;35715557]What makes you so sure I'm white? You're quick to jump to that conclusion and immediately berating me for it? Thanks for proving to me that your "payback" attitude is equal to racism, effectively making you a racist.[/QUOTE] Maybe you're not, but you're not doing a good job convincing us otherwise. Haymaker, can you argue a point that isn't god awfully dumb?
♫ [I]streetlight[/I] ♫ ♫ [I]people[/I] ♫ [editline]25th April 2012[/editline] god damn it goblin
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35715584]Maybe you're not, but you're not doing a good job convincing us otherwise. Haymaker, can you argue a point that isn't god awfully dumb?[/QUOTE] So should I add racism to the number of stupid things Governor Goblin has spouted out? "You certainly don't act like one of those negroes I've heard about, therefore you must be a white man"
[QUOTE=Hayburner;35715557]What makes you so sure I'm white? You're quick to jump to that conclusion and immediately berating me for it? Thanks for proving to me that your "payback" attitude is equal to racism, effectively making you a racist.[/QUOTE] wow look who's talking about jumping to conclusions. i wasn't sure you were white, that's why i put a question mark behind it and it refers to the concept of bias and perspective.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35715619]So should I add racism to the number of stupid things Governor Goblin has spouted out? "You certainly don't act like one of those negroes I've heard about, therefore you must be a white man"[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's what I said. You hit it! You are a very tragic person.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;35715557]What makes you so sure I'm white? You're quick to jump to that conclusion and immediately berating me for it? Thanks for proving to me that your "payback" attitude is equal to racism, effectively making you a racist.[/QUOTE] you said "them"
[QUOTE=The Aussie;35706362]Even though he's racist, and batshit insane on the economy standards. He does try to swing the republican party back from batshit country. He's got suprisingly modern views for an old person.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, an old worker of his who he fired being racist means he is racist. Oh wait, no that was just the media being stupid. You realize this has been debunked right?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35715489] Yes he does, Austrian School economics is another word for Laissez-Faire. [/quote] No, the Austrian school of economics is a school of economic thought that advocates non-interventionalism. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics"]The Chicago school of economics[/url] also advocates a free market and little government intervention. [quote]It doesn't fucking matter, the system will ALWAYS eventually collapse into a corporatist state. You are giving way too much power to the people who make the big money. You really thing someone like Alan Greenspan is this good caring guy who will run a fair business in the range of your capitalistic idea? Fuck no, the second this guy gets power, he's using it. Without regulation, and with a small government, money will become power. We're already seeing the beginnings of it. I don't give an utter shit what system of capitalism Ron Paul supports, ANY of it is dangerous. History proves this.[/QUOTE] How did these corporations get powerful in first place? Was it through government intervention? i.e corporate lobbying for government regulation that creates barriers to competitors entering the market, consumers' money becoming worth less due to the government magically injecting the economy with money out of thin air. Things definitely didn't get to this point by a totally free market (which there has never been in this country). I happen to disagree with a lot of Ron Paul's stances on things but I definitely agree with a lot of what he says about the economy.
no, humanity would not survive a completely free market for more than a decade
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35715489] I don't know. Why does it matter? I'm not arguing that its been done in the past. That has fucking nothing to do with my point.[/QUOTE] Your point was that non-interventionism is bad because we have a duty to help other countries. That has never really happened, it never will happen, and so clearly of the two things that actually have a possibility of happening non-interventionism is the preferable option
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;35720255]Your point was that non-interventionism is bad because we have a duty to help other countries. That has never really happened, it never will happen, and so clearly of the two things that actually have a possibility of happening non-interventionism is the preferable option[/QUOTE] You can easily argue that it's selfish throwing away American lives in *insert war here* like Vietnam for an example that everyone can agree on.
[QUOTE=Noble;35719425]No, the Austrian school of economics is a school of economic thought that advocates non-interventionalism. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics"]The Chicago school of economics[/url] also advocates a free market and little government intervention.[/quote] You missed my point. He said Ron Paul does not believe in Lazzie-Faire Capitalism. Ron Paul does, because he's into the ASofE, and I looked around his offical web forum and no one seems to think he's not. [quote]How did these corporations get powerful in first place? Was it through government intervention? i.e corporate lobbying for government regulation that creates barriers to competitors entering the market[/quote] lobbying is simply a way to bypass regulation and put influence in the powerful entity. In a free market, lobbying wouldn't happen simply because it wouldn't be needed. corporations can just do it and they ARE the power. [quote]consumers' money becoming worth less due to the government magically injecting the economy with money out of thin air. Things definitely didn't get to this point by a totally free market (which there has never been in this country). [/quote] No, it got this way because of the path to it. Deregulation, trickle down economics, putting full trust into corporations who are too greedy to do anything. And yes, letting them get away with it is the governments fault, but to answer their weakness with removing them will only worsen the problem. [quote]I happen to disagree with a lot of Ron Paul's stances on things but I definitely agree with a lot of what he says about the economy.[/QUOTE] Even though his economic policies are archaic and would drive any country it's implemented into the ground? [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Venezuelan;35720255]Your point was that non-interventionism is bad because we have a duty to help other countries.[/QUOTE] No it wasn't.
[QUOTE=Noble;35719425]No, the Austrian school of economics is a school of economic thought that advocates non-interventionalism.[/QUOTE] fyi the Austrian School of Economics is very close to pseudoscientific bunk [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School[/url] [quote][B]Austrian views are heterodox and mainstream economists are generally critical of its methodology.[/B][2][3][4][5] Whereas mainstream economists generally use economic models and statistical methods to model economic behavior, Austrian School economists argue that they are a flawed, unreliable, and insufficient means of analyzing economic behavior and evaluating economic theories. Instead, they advocate deriving economic theory [B]logically from basic principles of human action, a study called praxeology[/B][/quote] [quote][B]Austrians generally hold that testability in economics and precise mathematical modeling of an economic market are virtually impossible[/B].[/quote] [url]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school[/url] [quote]As the claims of Austrian economists are difficult to verify without empirical testing (and the same economists openly admit to it), [B]it is widely considered a pseudoscience[/B].[/quote] [quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises]Ludwig von Mises[/url] wrote of his theory, "[B]its statements and propositions are not derived from experience[/B]... [B]They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts[/B]."[/quote]
I like some of his ideas but his domestic policies are fucking insane. Especially his pro life policies. Libertarian my ass. He thinks goverment has the RIGHT to an outgrowth in your body. It defeats the idea of libertarianism when you embrace the concept that a part of your body is now goverment property.
Lobbying is an attempt to influence government officials political decisions and we all have the ability to do it. (i.e writing letters to your government representatives) though of course not with the same force as a corporation handing out political donations (which is wrong). In a free market, lobbying for government regulation wouldn't even be permitted, so the government would not be able to create artificial barriers to trade which prevent new competition from coming into the market. The reason corporations "can just do it and they are the power" is because the government helped them get to that point by introducing tariffs and subsidies. I'm not even sure what you mean by calling corporations "too greedy". They operate for profit, and how do you define when they are making "too much" profit. Do they not, when they make a lot of profits, reinvest their money? If it goes into banks, then banks have a motivation (profit through interest rates) to lend out money rather than hoard it, and so on. The idea is that profit is supposed to be a motivating force, I think calling it "too greedy" is just misleading and ambiguous. The money that corporations receive does not simply just get stuffed under their mattresses and disappear from the economy, the idea is that the money gets reinvested and spent. The idea is that they [b]have to[/b] provide what the consumer wants in order to maximize profit or no one will buy their stuff. Competing businesses will want to make the best possible product for consumers to gain their business and maximize their profit. I'm also aware of Austrian economics being considered pseudoscientific, but I think that's just due to it's nature, it relies heavily on logic to make it's judgements and they do put forward reasonable arguments that I have not yet seen good refutations of. I don't commit myself to this school of thought, just saying they make decent arguments in favor of the laissez-faire approach.
I just find economic mindset's like Ron Paul's as funny just because it's basically the mindset that Regan adopted for the US (trickle-down economics/supply-side economics, or, give bonuses, benefits, tax-breaks, trust, etc into the corporate leaders/suppliers as it will theoretically trickle down to the consumer, therefore boosting the economy). After the US adopted trickle-down economics, we started to become one of the worlds largest creditor nations to the worlds largest debtor nation, and the economy never got back to the height it once had. Proof that it simply doesn't work, because it basically assumes corporations are out to get into the best interests of the US people. This ESPECIALLY accelerated when globalization happened - because now companies don't really have any reason to keep the majority of their workforce onshore, AND they get government benefits/bonuses/etc. Meanwhile, the US consumer sees none of this benefit at all, and we actually suffer because of globalization decreasing our spending power, further throwing the economy back into a shithole. What did we have before reganomics? We had what FDR started as a part of the new deal, which is one of the factors that gave the US a massive economic boom, and recovered us from the great depression (along with WWII happening). Basically, we had demand-side economics. Where the CONSUMER got the tax breaks and bonuses to boost a capitalist economy going through a rescessive cycle, giving them inscentives to spend. AKA increasing demand, which boosts the economy. You need this government intervention to get over ressecions. Recessions are proven to happen in any capitalist system, because of how it works. It follows trends of economic boom to economic downturn. Demand-side economics is used during recession, to make it so the recession isn't an extreme one (like the Great Depression), and to help the economy recover quicker (which is usually does). Supply-side economics does the "same thing"... except it doesn't actually work, as we give power to the suppliers, who turned out to jsut run off with the profits, and when Globalization happenend, they used it to develop factories and relationships offshore in places like china. Which means, the economy never truely recovered. We still use supply-side to this day, it's why the huge bank bailout had to happen. And its what people like Ron Paul adovocate, because clearly they didn't get the memo that corporations do not exsist in the best interests of the US population, they exist in the best interests of their global profit levels. Granted to Ron Paul's credit, I don't think he intends to give lots of tax breaks to corporations, rather he intends to do nothing - which will just mean the recessions that happen in the US can actually go into extremes, both in length and severity. Either way, we're going to see the economy suffer and the US never fully get out of debt situations untill we switch back to demand-side economics, like what we had before Regan was around. This will never ever happen though, unless we get an iron willed politician who is uncorruptable to come around and put it into place. Because right now, it's impossible to switch back to demand side in our current situation, due to how powerful corporate lobbysts are, and how much it is in their best interests to keep supply-side going.
It occurs to me that Ron Paul is Ra's Al Ghul from the Batman series. Both are on a massive crusade that they think will save the world, but they go about it in an incredibly dangerous, ineffective, and even hypocritical manner. Each one has a group of fiercely loyal followers who will defend them to the death no matter the circumstances. They are both incredibly old and seemingly immortal. They both have started to go crazy with their age. There are far more ways they are alike, that is just a few.
[QUOTE=Noble;35723929] The idea is that profit is supposed to be a motivating force, I think calling it "too greedy" is just misleading and ambiguous. The money that corporations receive does not simply just get stuffed under their mattresses and disappear from the economy, the idea is that the money gets reinvested and spent. The idea is that they [b]have to[/b] provide what the consumer wants in order to maximize profit or no one will buy their stuff. Competing businesses will want to make the best possible product for consumers to gain their business and maximize their profit.[/QUOTE] Uh yeah it kind of fucking does. This is the MAIN reason why Ron Paul's trickle down style economics has failed in the past. Reagan proved what a failure it was - the money did NOT trickle down. It stayed in the top. If you want to tell me that corporations are these essential organs to an economy, than maybe you should REALLY fucking look at how they historically operate.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35725768]Uh yeah it kind of fucking does. This is the MAIN reason why Ron Paul's trickle down style economics has failed in the past. Reagan proved what a failure it was - the money did NOT trickle down. It stayed in the top. If you want to tell me that corporations are these essential organs to an economy, than maybe you should REALLY fucking look at how they historically operate.[/QUOTE] If you want to say that corporations are [I]not [/I]essential organs to an economy, then maybe you should REALLY fucking look at how economies [I]without [/I]corporations and companies have fared historically.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35725810]If you want to say that corporations are [I]not [/I]essential organs to an economy, then maybe you should REALLY fucking look at how economies [I]without [/I]corporations and companies have fared historically.[/QUOTE] Such as? I'm not saying to remove corporations completely, and I'm going to say this again because I know you have an utterly shitty time understanding points - I AM NOT SAYING to COMPLETELY remove corporations. I am saying they need to be watched like a fucking hawk because they can never be trusted. [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] Do you want me to repeat the point, or has it registered?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.