[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;34268155]What insanity? I mean that as in what makes his supporters insane?[/QUOTE]
I showed you a video of Alex Jones, ALEX JONES. Endorsing Ron Paul. That man may be crazier than Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;34270174]I showed you a video of Alex Jones, ALEX JONES. Endorsing Ron Paul. That man may be crazier than Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro.[/QUOTE]
That's idiotic. You probably look at endorsements from people like Karl Rove as the only type of 'good american folk' you want endorsing your presidential candidates.
[QUOTE=a203xi;34270701]That's idiotic. You probably look at endorsements from people like Karl Rove as the only type of 'good american folk' you want endorsing your presidential candidates.[/QUOTE]
Who? I'm just saying the supporters say a lot about the candidates. You don't vote for the guy who's backed by all the big corporations and banks, so why would you vote for the guy backed by the neo nazis?
It's just like when George W. Bush endorsed John Mccain
[QUOTE=person11;34268197]I just imagined Ron paul literally exploding.
I don't like how the media is ignoring him.
Also, I do not like the music in that video. No need.[/QUOTE]
In order:
So did I at first
Yeah, I'd rather they expose than ignore.
It's a recording of a radio broadcast, so on occasion they can't perfectly cut out the music and/or commercials.
And now come to think of it, why did I bother defending a man I'd like to see in prison?
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;34271358]In order:
So did I at first
Yeah, I'd rather they expose than ignore.
It's a recording of a radio broadcast, so on occasion they can't perfectly cut out the music and/or commercials.[/QUOTE]
Good point
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;34268120]No it's the utter insanity of Ron Paul supporters.[/QUOTE]
What makes them insane? The reasons for why they support him seems very sane to me.
The thing I hate about Ron Paul is that his supporters (the ones coming from the more freedom/anarchist side of things) are [I]almost[/I] making a decent conclusion. They realise the injustices of the state and how important it is to abolish it. And then they try to limit the state [I]through the state.[/I] It just [I]doesn't work.[/I] If you believe in the abolition of the state, voting for it is effectively just [I]begging[/I] the state to stop limiting your freedom. And it's because we've been indoctrinated into a world where we're taught that voting is the extent of our political power when in reality voting is worse than doing nothing: you're effectively implying consent in whatever bullshit comes out of the government you said could steal your money.
If we followed our revulsion to violation of the non-aggression principle to its logical conclusion, we'd all see how vile the state is. The only channel we can exercise our freedom through is a very slow, very emotionally draining one. Ron Paul supporters need to realise they've only reached a half-truth. Just stop voting and stop supporting the government and teach your peers to stop supporting the government and eventually the state monopoly over force will dissolve away, because civil society's hierarchy is purely illusionary. Their monopoly over force is contingent on civil support and by granting them your support (voting) you're complicit in their crimes.
[QUOTE=Stalk;34272864]What makes them insane? The reasons for why they support him seems very sane to me.[/QUOTE]
They support him because they think that Rick Perry is a vampire and that Mitt Romney/Newt Gingrich would commit genocide.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34273708]The thing I hate about Ron Paul is that his supporters (the ones coming from the more freedom/anarchist side of things) are [I]almost[/I] making a decent conclusion. They realise the injustices of the state and how important it is to abolish it. And then they try to limit the state [I]through the state.[/I] It just [I]doesn't work.[/I] If you believe in the abolition of the state, voting for it is effectively just [I]begging[/I] the state to stop limiting your freedom. And it's because we've been indoctrinated into a world where we're taught that voting is the extent of our political power when in reality voting is worse than doing nothing: you're effectively implying consent in whatever bullshit comes out of the government you said could steal your money.
If we followed our revulsion to violation of the non-aggression principle to its logical conclusion, we'd all see how vile the state is. The only channel we can exercise our freedom through is a very slow, very emotionally draining one. Ron Paul supporters need to realise they've only reached a half-truth. Just stop voting and stop supporting the government and teach your peers to stop supporting the government and eventually the state monopoly over force will dissolve away, because civil society's hierarchy is purely illusionary. Their monopoly over force is contingent on civil support and by granting them your support (voting) you're complicit in their crimes.[/QUOTE]
Even if you are advocating for the abolition of the state, it can't be abrupt or at all sudden. It simply could not be accomplished in 4 or even 8 years.
Keep in mind, I do not advocate, at least not from a libertarian or anarchist perspective, the abolition of the state.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34273757]Even if you are advocating for the abolition of the state, it can't be abrupt or at all sudden. It simply could not be accomplished in 4 or even 8 years.
Keep in mind, I do not advocate, at least not from a libertarian or anarchist perspective, the abolition of the state.[/QUOTE]
I totally totally totally agree. Abolition of the state will take at least a 100 years. It's a generational thing. We need to drop the irrational, pathological compliance with state coercion (i.e. any coercion whatsoever) and the way to do that is to bring your children up to see how vile and evil it is. I'm not saying we should start a violent revolution: that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. We should merely condemn state coercion and spread the message (which is a rational, empirically justified one) to our peers. I don't think we should do anything as volatile as even refuse to pay our taxes because all that would achieve is getting us thrown in jail. The only way we can break out of the prisoners dilemma that is state coercion, is to have enough enlightened, rational people to become aware of the illegitimacy of state coercion. Until there's enough people, and this sort of global consciousness, condemnation is all we have. We we sure as hell ought to be condemning them.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34273978]I totally totally totally agree. Abolition of the state will take at least a 100 years. It's a generational thing. We need to drop the irrational, pathological compliance with state coercion (i.e. any coercion whatsoever) and the way to do that is to bring your children up to see how vile and evil it is. I'm not saying we should start a violent revolution: that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. We should merely condemn state coercion and spread the message (which is a rational, empirically justified one) to our peers. I don't think we should do anything as volatile as even refuse to pay our taxes because all that would achieve is getting us thrown in jail. The only way we can break out of the prisoners dilemma that is state coercion, is to have enough enlightened, rational people to become aware of the illegitimacy of state coercion. Until there's enough people, and this sort of global consciousness, condemnation is all we have. We we sure as hell ought to be condemning them.[/QUOTE]
Well I don't agree with that. I wouldn't say that taxes are evil any more than I would say that medicare is evil.
Well yeah that's because corporatism has somehow managed to become even more abhorrent and disgusting and evil than the forceful appropriation of private money (for the "common good") is.
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
of course, corporatism itself is propped up by statism purely in virtue of the fact that propping up shitty institutions is largely what statism is best at.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;34270847]Who? I'm just saying the supporters say a lot about the candidates. You don't vote for the guy who's backed by all the big corporations and banks, so why would you vote for the guy backed by the neo nazis?[/QUOTE]Obama was backed by terrorists then. And he won.
Well, Perry's dropped out. I'm going to assume that Santorum will drop out soon too.
Looks like the three major contenders will be Gingrich, Romney and Paul. Paul will probably drop out eventually, so I'm going to say it's a 50/50 split between Romney and Gingrich.
Ron Paul. I really hope he does get to run against Obama.
[QUOTE=Dwatring;34296246]Ron Paul. I really hope he does get to run against Obama.[/QUOTE]
If that were to happen, I'd put my money on Obama. Paul has a great support base to stand on, but outside of that base, there isn't much else. He has [I]very[/I] radical ideas, and even though I agree with some of them, I understand that they're too radical for the American public.
In all honesty, I'd love to see Paul elected. However, he probably won't jive with the American public.
My big beef with libertarians is they say "if the goverment spends money, it detracts from the private sector". Yes.. and? I'd rather give up some growth for the betterment of society and the sciences. Progressives aren't in favor in wasteful spending as they like to portray.
[QUOTE=fox '09;34296595]My big beef with libertarians is they say "if the goverment spends money, it detracts from the private sector". Yes.. and? I'd rather give up some growth for the betterment of society and the sciences. Progressives aren't in favor in wasteful spending as they like to portray.[/QUOTE]
The private sector isn't entirely bad, though. In big government, the bureaucracy functions extremely slowly. This means slow implementation of laws and slow implementation of other things, like the USPS or a park renovation. In this case, the private sector can come in and streamline the process, making it much more efficient.
However, privatized medicine detracts from the help of the needy, which is where I draw the line in privatization of the government.
Just finished watching the CNN Romney, Newt, and Santorum debate. Good to see CNN is fucking agenda pushing as ever as they practically made Paul sit and watch on the sidelines. The crowd was literally yelling "Paul" so he could finally speak.
I am going to vote for Romney over Obama, but Obama over Gingrich. I don't think America is ready for a Ron Paul yet.
This are just my opinions, Romney has the know-it-all when it comes to economy and that is what I think we need right now. More jobs. His current problems are very minor in my opinion, some cases of flip-flopping and this tax thing which shouldn't matter at all.
Gingrich really disgusts me. He had that big scandal when he was speaker, cheated on 2 wives, and has a very unstable attitude. He honestly frightens me. He is arrogant, has been caught lying, and has a big thirst for power.
Paul is great fun to watch debate and seems like a whole different type of person than all candidates in the past, but sadly his ideas are a little radical. There are also many issues I disagree with him on.
I didn't vote last election even though I was of age, mainly because I didn't like either McCain or Obama.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGtImPa5ygw[/media]
I rest my case
I don't care for any of them. But as long as they're against SOPA and PIPA, I'm satisfied.
Ron Paul for president.
Stephen Colbert is the best candidate.
[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;34310725]Stephen Colbert is the best candidate.[/QUOTE]
this. he would nonstop troll the US and probably do more than the majority of republicans
No that's like saying put Charley TigerBlood sheen for USA president and him putting us all in cells. #Truth
[QUOTE=Glitchman;34304137]I am going to vote for Romney over Obama, but Obama over Gingrich. I don't think America is ready for a Ron Paul yet.
This are just my opinions, Romney has the know-it-all when it comes to economy and that is what I think we need right now. More jobs. His current problems are very minor in my opinion, some cases of flip-flopping and this tax thing which shouldn't matter at all.
Gingrich really disgusts me. He had that big scandal when he was speaker, cheated on 2 wives, and has a very unstable attitude. He honestly frightens me. He is arrogant, has been caught lying, and has a big thirst for power.
Paul is great fun to watch debate and seems like a whole different type of person than all candidates in the past, but sadly his ideas are a little radical. There are also many issues I disagree with him on.
I didn't vote last election even though I was of age, mainly because I didn't like either McCain or Obama.[/QUOTE]
Don't think that just because Romney has business experience means that he'll be good for the economy. His policies are [i]slightly[/i] better, but not really any different from those presented by any other republican candidate these days: Give the biggest tax breaks to the highest earners and provide little relief to those who need it.
All of their plans are just trickle down economics in a slightly different form, which Republicans keep pushing some reason, even though all evidence shows it's been failing us for years. Simply getting rid of the Bush tax cuts would put us on track for eliminating the debt, but that would mean that rich people would actually have to help out for once.
[QUOTE=person11;34254340]Oh for the love of Christ.
The Federal Reserve is essential to the functioning of the Economy.
All Governments have Central Banks that perform the same duties as the Fed.
While I agree that the Fed needs to be regulated more tightly, I think that the idea of abolishing such an institution would wreck the American Economy[/QUOTE]
The problem is that the Federal Reserve is reckless and unconstitutional. I mean, we have a private bank run by an appointed madman printing our money.
Abolishing the Federal Reserve doesn't mean we we'll stop printing money, we just need to give the power back to the government itself.
I'm a hardcore right-wing Libertarian who loves the concept of privatization, but having a private institution control the printing of money is just wrong.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34313271]I'm a hardcore right-wing Libertarian who loves the concept of privatization[/QUOTE]
You said it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.