I can overexaggerate things too!
like waking up...
Your 9 million milligram cat is taking things to the next level, waking up that is.
Your cat initiates obtrusive door meowing. ABSORB IT.
Your cat tries sitting on, YOU SUMMON PIMP SLAP
Your cat gives up, you wake up and YELL AT IT
You can say whatever you want but he's one smart motherfucker [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3TltMNbgGQ&t=4m56s[/url]
Bernanke got fucking owned.
I thought this was going to be Splinter Cell: Conviction.
[QUOTE=Ultimate7MK;31445478]I thought this was going to be Splinter Cell: Conviction.[/QUOTE]
I thought it was a "above the influence" ad by the title
isnt this the guy that wants to legalize pot, heorin, crack, cocaine, and prostitution?
[QUOTE=Thugaim;31445388]You can say whatever you want but he's one smart motherfucker [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3TltMNbgGQ&t=4m56s[/url]
Bernanke got fucking owned.[/QUOTE]
He's still a libertarian nut-job though.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;31445921]isnt this the guy that wants to legalize pot, heorin, crack, cocaine, and prostitution?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and I can agree with those things. His economic policies I cannot agree with.
[QUOTE=duno;31445265]I can overexaggerate things too!
like waking up...
Your 9 million milligram cat is taking things to the next level, waking up that is.
Your cat initiates obtrusive door meowing. ABSORB IT.
Your cat tries sitting on, YOU SUMMON PIMP SLAP
Your cat gives up, you wake up and YELL AT IT[/QUOTE]
As I read that I pictured a Pokemon battle sequence...
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31446110]Yeah, and I can agree with those things. His economic policies I cannot agree with.[/QUOTE]
You'd rather live on debt than face it like a man and start fresh off with the gold standard?
I am voting for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul already has my vote.
I'm sold
[QUOTE=Thugaim;31452118]You'd rather live on debt than face it like a man and start fresh off with the gold standard?[/QUOTE]
He thinks federal government shouldn't exist and that all taxes are evil.
Nope, I'll take someone else thanks.
You need to spend to get out recessions. The rich should be taxed. Those are the facts, deal with it.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;31454440]He thinks federal government shouldn't exist and that all taxes are evil.
Nope, I'll take someone else thanks.[/QUOTE]
Libertarianism is not at all anarchism, if anything it is classic liberalism. There is a big difference between a wanted a restricted government and wanting no government. Either you don't understand or you don't want to understand.
To understand the tax issue, you have to understand the general philosophy which is that no tax is voluntary which means force is necessary and most libertarians disagree with any use of force. Another common view on taxes is that it essentially states that the government is entitled to all of your wealth, but they are just letting you keep some of it. To assert you can take some percentage of someone's income you must also assert that you are able to take all of that person's income. It's also good to understand that libertarian ideals aren't against revenue, but it coincides with the belief that a minimalistic government shouldn't need much revenue and that a government that tries to attain large revenue will spend.
[QUOTE=Smeetin;31454633]You need to spend to get out recessions. The rich should be taxed. Those are the facts, deal with it.[/QUOTE]
Who needs to spend? Also, the argument isn't whether the rich should or shouldn't be taxed, it is rather if they should be taxed a higher rate than the lower class.
Ron Paul is a fun guy. Like him or not as a candidate, you have to admit he's fun to have around. He's like Washington's teddy bear. Either he's your favorite candidate or a huggable loony.
I want to hear more about this Washing Machine.
Fuck Ron Paul.
He's a conservative disguised as a social and fiscal libertarian whose idea of America is a Christian one. He wants to give us more liberty by making the federal government practically useless, is opposed to gay marriage, wants and would support creationism being taught in schools, shut down most social programs, shut down all federal aid programs, undo half the decisions made in the supreme court, cut education and public school funding down to near nothing, let private corporations run things how they like with no interference and give states the right to make all their decisions for themselves with no binding federal statutes besides those specified int he constitution.
And then he calls on this no-compromise bullshit. Really, guy? Since Obama got in office EVERY decision he's made, EVERYTHING the democrats have tried to push they've been forced to compromise with the republicans in order to get it passed, except for one issue where they were backed into a corner. You don't want to compromise? Fine, fuck it, we still control the senate and the white house, let's just fucking go on and pass all the shit we like that has total democrat support. Let's see some tax hikes, new progressive laws, social programs, and gay marriage laws going, you fucks. See how much you don't like compromise then, asshat.
Fars I'm concerned, if you want to ruin this country and go backwards, then you can support Ron Paul.
And before you criticize me for criticizing him, look at his voting record and tell me that it doesn't scream extreme social and fiscal conservative. He says one thing and votes the other half the time, and then explains it away because it's his "personal beliefs".
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31472566']Fuck Ron Paul.
He's a conservative disguised as a social and fiscal libertarian whose idea of America is a Christian one. He wants to give us more liberty by making the federal government practically useless, is opposed to gay marriage, wants and would support creationism being taught in schools, shut down most social programs, shut down all federal aid programs, undo half the decisions made in the supreme court, cut education and public school funding down to near nothing, let private corporations run things how they like with no interference and give states the right to make all their decisions for themselves with no binding federal statutes besides those specified int he constitution.
And then he calls on this no-compromise bullshit. Really, guy? Since Obama got in office EVERY decision he's made, EVERYTHING the democrats have tried to push they've been forced to compromise with the republicans in order to get it passed, except for one issue where they were backed into a corner. You don't want to compromise? Fine, fuck it, we still control the senate and the white house, let's just fucking go on and pass all the shit we like that has total democrat support. Let's see some tax hikes, new progressive laws, social programs, and gay marriage laws going, you fucks. See how much you don't like compromise then, asshat.
Fars I'm concerned, if you want to ruin this country and go backwards, then you can support Ron Paul.
And before you criticize me for criticizing him, look at his voting record and tell me that it doesn't scream extreme social and fiscal conservative. He says one thing and votes the other half the time, and then explains it away because it's his "personal beliefs".[/QUOTE]
So much bullshit in one post.
[video=youtube;W2EgundG6bY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2EgundG6bY[/video]
watch until the end, epic ending. Also, can anyone find a high quality version?
[QUOTE=Smeetin;31454633]You need to spend to get out recessions. The rich should be taxed. Those are the facts, deal with it.[/QUOTE]
No those aren't the facts. They are quite wrong. Prove to me taxing the entire rich class will solve our debt problem. Or just pay our social security debt? If you took every penny from the rich (bill gates, warran buffett, celebrities etc etc) and every penny from mega corporations (exxon mobile, Walmart, Forbes 500) we'd only by able to run the country for almost half the year.
You cannot spend your way of out of a recession, that makes completely no sense. That's like saying you can spend your way from going bankrupt.
[QUOTE=Thugaim;31473763]So much bullshit in one post.[/QUOTE]
[quote]is opposed to gay marriage[/quote]
"Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be 'an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.'"
[quote]wants and would support creationism being taught in schools[/quote]
Ok, to be fair he completely avoids the question whenever asked.
[quote]shut down most social programs, shut down all federal aid programs[/quote]
"Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America's moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very least, reduce federal control over the provision of social services."
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, February 13, 2003
[quote]making the federal government practically useless[/quote]
"He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits"
"Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. In order to restrict the federal government to what he believes are its Constitutionally authorized functions, Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes, often opposed by a heavy majority of his colleagues."
[quote]cut education and public school funding down to near nothing[/quote]
"Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level."
To be fair then, he's opposed to federal funding for public schools.
[quote]let private corporations run things how they like with no interference[/quote]
"Paul also states that he has an opposition to virtually all federal interference with the market process..."
[quote]give states the right to make all their decisions for themselves with no binding federal statutes besides those specified in the constitution[/quote]
"Paul's positions on civil liberties are often based on states' rights, certain rights and political powers that U.S. states possess in relation to the federal government."
"Ron Paul believes there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, and that therefore the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn Texas' Homosexual Control Act. Ron Paul supports legislation denying legal recognition of same-sex marriage. He believes that the US Bill of Rights do not inherently prevent state governments from violating our civil liberties."
Sooo yea.
And as far as the compromise statements of mine go, read into Guantanamo, Health Care Reform, and really any major bill or idea that Obama has proposed in his presidency, and compare what they proposed to what they got, and why. In almost all cases, it's because republicans would refuse to vote on it until major revisions were done down to just the bare minimum of what was originally wanted, and even then many refused to vote in favor.
[QUOTE=Matt4019;31474663] If you took every penny from the rich and every penny from mega corporations we'd only by able to run the country for almost half the year.[/QUOTE] Not overexaggerating at all
[QUOTE=Matt4019;31474663]Or just pay our social security debt?[/QUOTE]
lol social security debt.
Social security pay-outs didn't exceed social security income until later last year. Social security has not contributed to our deficit or our debt, and that's only because increasing unemployment has lead to people calling in benefits sooner and more often. Fixing unemployment will prevent anything else. The SS 'debt' is non-existent and not worth mentioning compared to 'national defense' and military, which has very little revenue and makes up ~19% of our expenditure.
Even then, SS is fully funded with the excess revenue it's produced until 2037.
Post modified for correctness.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31474773']"Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be 'an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.'"[/QUOTE]
You don't at all understand the libertarian position on this which is that marriage isn't at all the government's business. This view is shown clearly when you add in the rest of that quote.
[quote]While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church — not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.[/quote]
There is a lot more to this, but it essentially comes down to not having the government forcing any definition of marriage and making it a private issue between two parties. There is some confusion in this because he did vote for the DOMA yet it wasn't because he's for a Federal definition of marriage but rather he wanted to counteract the courts from making a definition and give the state the power to do so.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31474773']Ok, to be fair he completely avoids the question whenever asked.[/quote]
Not really, especially when his view is that this is an issue that individuals and communities decide on. He doesn't think the government shouldn't dictate education and you even bring this up later.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31474773']"Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America's moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very least, reduce federal control over the provision of social services."[/quote]
I don't see the issue in not giving foreign aid to other countries. There is also good reason to be against many social programs, and it's is never that the programs don't have good intentions, yet rather that they always have unintended consequences. There's a lot more to this view and simplification is a major issue in these kinds of issues. You also have to understand that if became president he would not aim to eliminate all social services at once, rather he'd allow people to opt out of many of these mandatory programs.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31474773']"He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits"
"Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. In order to restrict the federal government to what he believes are its Constitutionally authorized functions, Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes, often opposed by a heavy majority of his colleagues."[/quote]
The Federal Government useless? From a historical standpoint the Federal Government was not at all meant to be powerful which is where the whole notion of a limited government comes about. Another part of the idea is that the larger the government becomes the more tyrannical it becomes. It seems like you believe the largest role of the gederal government is to provide welfare. And yes, he has often been the only no vote.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31474773']"Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level."
To be fair then, he's opposed to federal funding for public schools.[/quote]
Hey I guess the point you said he avoided earlier he actually answered. It's good to point out he supports it most on a local level.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31474773']let private corporations run things how they like with no interference
"Paul also states that he has an opposition to virtually all federal interference with the market process..."[/quote]
I can't really understand what you're doing here. I mean you keep quoting something that I assume is from some article against Ron Paul. Is that where you've gotten your whole opinion from? Anyway, what is implied is that he would support fraud and other illegal activities which isn't at all true. His opposition to regulation is that it is most always not needed and almost always lends itself to corporatism.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31474773']"Ron Paul believes there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, and that therefore the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn Texas' Homosexual Control Act. Ron Paul supports legislation denying legal recognition of same-sex marriage. He believes that the US Bill of Rights do not inherently prevent state governments from violating our civil liberties."[/quote]
Ok, even if you still think your right about every other point you've made, you can't argue this at all and it took a huge stretch for someone to even claim this. First of all, he recites the 4th amendment all the time and is known for being against anything that allows the government to invade upon people's privacy. He was one of the few who opposed the Patriot act when it was first enacted. He doesn't believe the government should have any say over what you can do in private which is why he argues for legalization of all drugs, and he certainly isn't for legislation that infringes upon people's natural rights. Most of this argument is coming from that fact that technically the Bill of Rights do not apply to the states, and that somehow recognizing that means that you're in favor of state infringing upon natural rights. Stating that the Federal court doesn't have to authority to strike down state law doesn't at all imply you are in favor of that law.
[QUOTE=Pepin;31480929]You don't at all understand the libertarian position on this which is that marriage isn't at all the government's business. This view is shown clearly when you add in the rest of that quote.
There is a lot more to this, but it essentially comes down to not having the government forcing any definition of marriage and making it a private issue between two parties. There is some confusion in this because he did vote for the DOMA yet it wasn't because he's for a Federal definition of marriage but rather he wanted to counteract the courts from making a definition and give the state the power to do so.
Not really, especially when his view is that this is an issue that individuals and communities decide on. He doesn't think the government shouldn't dictate education and you even bring this up later.
I don't see the issue in not giving foreign aid to other countries. There is also good reason to be against many social programs, and it's is never that the programs don't have good intentions, yet rather that they always have unintended consequences. There's a lot more to this view and simplification is a major issue in these kinds of issues. You also have to understand that if became president he would not aim to eliminate all social services at once, rather he'd allow people to opt out of many of these mandatory programs.
The Federal Government useless? From a historical standpoint the Federal Government was not at all meant to be powerful which is where the whole notion of a limited government comes about. Another part of the idea is that the larger the government becomes the more tyrannical it becomes. It seems like you believe the largest role of the gederal government is to provide welfare. And yes, he has often been the only no vote.
Hey I guess the point you said he avoided earlier he actually answered. It's good to point out he supports it most on a local level.
I can't really understand what you're doing here. I mean you keep quoting something that I assume is from some article against Ron Paul. Is that where you've gotten your whole opinion from? Anyway, what is implied is that he would support fraud and other illegal activities which isn't at all true. His opposition to regulation is that it is most always not needed and almost always lends itself to corporatism.
Ok, even if you still think your right about every other point you've made, you can't argue this at all and it took a huge stretch for someone to even claim this. First of all, he recites the 4th amendment all the time and is known for being against anything that allows the government to invade upon people's privacy. He was one of the few who opposed the Patriot act when it was first enacted. He doesn't believe the government should have any say over what you can do in private which is why he argues for legalization of all drugs, and he certainly isn't for legislation that infringes upon people's natural rights. Most of this argument is coming from that fact that technically the Bill of Rights do not apply to the states, and that somehow recognizing that means that you're in favor of state infringing upon natural rights. Stating that the Federal court doesn't have to authority to strike down state law doesn't at all imply you are in favor of that law.[/QUOTE]
Very good, fair enough. And while I'd definitely argue with you over the point of a strong federal government, and of the marriage not being defined, but I will say that the article was not at all anti-Ron Paul. With the exception of I believe two things I quoted, they were all directly from Wikipedia (and by extension the places that Wikipedia quoted them or cited them from).
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;31454440]He thinks federal government shouldn't exist and that all taxes are evil.
Nope, I'll take someone else thanks.[/QUOTE]
You are not well educated are you? But not surprised most liberals have no clue what they are talking about 90% of the time. He wants to cut all the Government spending, get you're facts straight before you post.
I think that both of you have presented good arguements but I think it's time to draw this argument to a close. Firstly I think we can agree that the government is there to look after essential services. Usually most governments take a percentage of people's income to fund their services so that the country can keep ticking over. Whether the idea of taxation is mandatory or not is it important to realise that a government is for the people and that sometimes that is forgotten.
So I think that we might agree that a government has to pay it's debts to it's debitors so somehow the books need to be balanced. However it is done it does need to be completed otherwise the government will not be able to do it's job in running the country.
See you later guys.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
