Ron Paul pleases supporters at rally with his ideas of liberty - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783691] i figured you wouldn't, because your posts display that low a level of intelligence. feel free to reread it as many times as you need to.[/QUOTE] Right, tell you what. when you make a point that isn't your ramblings about people, plus insulting a concept that may or may not have been made by Noam Chompsky, AND pretend you have a point. I know what you're saying, it's that you really suck at saying it and it became confused and garbled. You can't post a John Stossel video then make a post like that and THEN insult my intelligence. At least pretend you know what the hell you're on about. oh and good job criticising me about how I only mock and flame, then do the exact same thing. Brilliant work.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783691]the whole environmentalist crap is just sensationalist garbage perpetuated by the banks to raise carbon taxes for their financial benefit.[/QUOTE] yeah i'm out. thanks a lot. if you think climate science is perpetuated by "the banks" to raise ??carbon taxes?? (the US federal government doesn't have carbon taxes) for the benefit of the banks (how banks benefit from taxes is beyond me but okay) then i'm pretty sure this is only going to end in intellectual disappointment.

[QUOTE=thisispain;34783712]yeah i'm out. thanks a lot. if you think climate science is perpetuated by "the banks" to raise ??carbon taxes?? (the US federal government doesn't have carbon taxes) for the benefit of the banks (how banks benefit from taxes is beyond me but okay) then i'm pretty sure this is only going to end in intellectual disappointment.[/QUOTE] So far he has sourced Ron Paul, CFP, and John Stossel. That should have been the final signs of intellectual disappointment.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34783710]Right, tell you what. when you make a point that isn't your ramblings about people, plus insulting a concept that may or may not have been made by Noam Chompsky, AND pretend you have a point. I know what you're saying, it's that you really suck at saying it and it became confused and garbled.[/quote] then what is your point? is it just to insult anyone you disagree with like some stupid child? it contributes nothing to the discussion, all youre doing is just talking shit. [quote]You can't post a John Stossel video then make a post like that and THEN insult my intelligence. At least pretend you know what the hell you're on about.[/QUOTE] please, at least have the decency to explain why you hate stossel so much. otherwise you just look like an asshole. at least i gave a reason or two why i disagree with chomsky.

god dammit why did i miss this, downtown is like fifteen minutes away

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34783726]So far he has sourced Ron Paul, CFP, and John Stossel. That should have been the final signs of intellectual disappointment.[/QUOTE] so far you have cited nothing and continued to make ad-hominem attacks. you havent even made a clear point of what youre standing or arguing for. THAT is the real sign of intellectual disappointment. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;34783712]yeah i'm out. thanks a lot. if you think climate science is perpetuated by "the banks" to raise ??carbon taxes?? (the US federal government doesn't have carbon taxes) for the benefit of the banks (how banks benefit from taxes is beyond me but okay) then i'm pretty sure this is only going to end in intellectual disappointment.[/QUOTE] we can discuss that topic upon another medium; i was hoping you would respond to my other points but it seems you have just given up. seems to me like.. surprise, [I]intellectual disappointment[/I].

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783570]the "corporate fascism" is a result of big government.[/QUOTE] The massive amount of power corporate and other private entities hold over the government is [b]not[/b] the result of "big government". It's the result of corruption, opportunism, and greed, among other such things.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783735]then what is your point? is it just to insult anyone you disagree with like some stupid child? it contributes nothing to the discussion, all youre doing is just talking shit.[/quote] You're right, I should contribute to the argument in your style. Make a confused nonsensical post. When ask for clarification, insult. um, yeah, that's about it. You're making yourself look silly. [quote]please, at least have the decency to explain why you hate stossel so much. otherwise you just look like an asshole.[/quote] Besides his near fanatical paranoia that the government is trying to kill him. With that whole bullshit about how they're going to force people to exercise and universal healthcare will be on par with free groceries and will kill your grandmother, he's a massive fucking hypocrite. He will defend the actions of a corporation that does something on par of a corrupt government offical or group that he would criticise them for. He works in buzz words. Barring all of that, he's not exactly intelligent. He's, frankly, kind of a big dumb idiot. He doesn't know anything about what he preaches. He went on and on about socialised medicine, none of it actually true. Couple this with his typical conservative TV host scaremongering that they typically do, then yeah, he isn't exactly someone I would entrust economics to. [quote]at least i gave a reason or two why i disagree with chomsky.[/QUOTE] No, you didn't. You went on about accountability, which made no sense and was a concept I have not heard from Chomsky ever. Your post made NO sense. Instead of explaining it or looking it over, you decided to do the decent thing after criticising someone for flaming and mocking and flamed and mocked. You gave one reason, which you probably took out of context and crafted in your own fucking head and used that to... I don't even know what the fuck you were on about.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783752]we can discuss that topic upon another medium; i was hoping you would respond to my other points but it seems you have just given up. seems to me like.. surprise, [I]intellectual disappointment[/I].[/QUOTE] i lost conconciousness after the first point.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783752]so far you have cited nothing and continued to make ad-hominem attacks. you havent even made a clear point of what youre standing or arguing for. THAT is the real sign of intellectual disappointment. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] we can discuss that topic upon another medium; i was hoping you would respond to my other points but it seems you have just given up. seems to me like.. surprise, [I]intellectual disappointment[/I].[/QUOTE] umm you didnt repsond to me either i think id call that a pretty severe intellectual disappointment

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;34783788]The massive amount of power corporate and other private entities hold over the government is [b]not[/b] the result of "big government".[/quote] then what is it the result of? if the government has the power to have swift control over markets, then how do you think corporations can get away with what they do? it isnt enough to destroy regulation that hurts them, they take it to the next level by lobbying for regulation that benefits them.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;34781489]ABORTION ISNT IMPORTANT HES NOT AS BAD AS THE OTHER GUYS[/QUOTE] Abortion VS. the economic collapse of the United States and the imminent, potentially nuclear war in Iran which may or may not dramatically affect the supply of oil in Europe There are [b]far[/b] more important issues than abortion to be considered in a presidential election. Social changes such as abortion and gay rights are inevitable in a society that supports them. I used to be a big Ron Paul fan. I'm not such a big supporter any more, as I disagree with a lot of his positions - however, I still voted for him in the Republican primary, because unlike Romney, he isn't a spineless corporate whore, and unlike every major candidate, Ron Paul would actually provoke meaningful discussion in the coming 2012 election. If Romney wins the candidacy, for most of 2012 we're just going to be hearing a lot of dumb buzzword bullshit back and forth until Obama wins the presidency. If Ron Paul wins the candidacy, we're going to see some goddamn [i]drama.[/i] [QUOTE=Hayburner;34783814]then what is it the result of? if the government has the power to have swift control over markets, then how do you think corporations can get away with what they do? it isnt enough to destroy regulation that hurts them, they take it to the next level by lobbying for regulation that benefits them.[/QUOTE] Corporations... well, corporate exploitation was a problem long before regulation. They have simply co-opted regulation as a weapon for their own dark designs.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783814] if the government has the power to have swift control over markets, then how do you think corporations can get away with what they do?[/QUOTE] uh if government was small then how would corporations not get away with thing just as much? right now the problem is that the government isn't going its job right when it comes to making sure the corporations can't exploit everyone for mass financial gain. making the government smaller doesn't mean corporations will stop exploiting anyone.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34783803]Besides his near fanatical paranoia that the government is trying to kill him. With that whole bullshit about how they're going to force people to exercise and universal healthcare will be on par with free groceries and will kill your grandmother, he's a massive fucking hypocrite. He will defend the actions of a corporation that does something on par of a corrupt government offical or group that he would criticise them for. He works in buzz words.[/quote] this entire paragraph just sounds like sensationalist generalizations, seems like youre the one taking things out of context. [quote]No, you didn't. You went on about accountability, which made no sense and was a concept I have not heard from Chomsky ever.[/quote] it's actually pretty much where thisispain got his first point from: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ[/media] [quote]Your post made NO sense. Instead of explaining it or looking it over, you decided to do the decent thing after criticising someone for flaming and mocking and flamed and mocked. You gave one reason, which you probably took out of context and crafted in your own fucking head and used that to... I don't even know what the fuck you were on about.[/QUOTE] no words for this

I would like an example of how corporations are getting away with shit because of 'big government' I'm fucking fascinated by this concept that regulating means they can get away with it. It's like if I want you to stop punching yourself in the head, and I agree to regulate it by having you watched at all times to prevent you from doing so. Then it turns out you do it MORE when someone is watching you.

[QUOTE=thisispain;34783835]uh if government was small then how would corporations not get away with thing just as much? right now the problem is that the government isn't going its job right when it comes to making sure the corporations can't exploit everyone for mass financial gain. making the government smaller doesn't mean corporations will stop exploiting anyone.[/QUOTE] the point is they can be held accountable when they have nobody protecting them. in a libertarian society government is there to protect basic individual and property rights as well as protect against fraud etc.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783841]this entire paragraph just sounds like sensationalist generalizations, seems like youre the one taking things out of context. it's actually pretty much where thisispain got his first point from: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ[/media] no words for this[/QUOTE] uhhh he said American libertarianism supports corporatism. You went on about Private and State tyrannies and accountability. Please tell me the jump here that I'm missing.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;34781459][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul[/URL] He said he wants the states to decide what to do regarding drugs, he's not going to federally decriminalize them. He pledged to never raise taxes. He's pro-life. He's against federal health care. He said global warming is a hoax, he also doesn't believe the government should get involved in regulating the environment. He's against the Civil Rights Act. He's also fine with letting states decide whether it's ok to invade your privacy.[/QUOTE] Let's take a closer look at this nutjob. •substantially reduce foreign travel •cut the top corporate tax rate to 15% (down from 35%) •cut funding (down from 2006 levels) for the Food and Drug Administration by 40% Centers for Disease Control by 20% Department of Homeland Security by 20% National Institutes of Health by 20% Environmental Protection Agency by 30% Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration by 20% •endorses defederalization of the health care system. •"access to health care is not a right, but a good whose value should be determined by the free market." America will turn into an even bigger corporate shit fest then it is right now if Ron Paul gets in. Fuck this guy.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34783843]I would like an example of how corporations are getting away with shit because of 'big government' I'm fucking fascinated by this concept that regulating means they can get away with it. It's like if I want you to stop punching yourself in the head, and I agree to regulate it by having you watched at all times to prevent you from doing so. Then it turns out you do it MORE when someone is watching you.[/QUOTE] gun manufacturers in the United States lobbied for firearm import bans so they could have a monopoly on the American gun market tobacco companies in the US lobbied for a ban on growing your own tobacco without a license for obvious reasons not all regulation is simply "watching corporations."

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783850]the point is they can be held accountable when they have nobody protecting them. in a libertarian society government is there to protect basic individual and property rights as well as protect against fraud etc.[/QUOTE] Who will hold them accountable? [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sector 7;34783860]gun manufacturers in the United States lobbied for firearm import bans so they could have a monopoly on the American gun market tobacco companies in the US lobbied for a ban on growing your own tobacco without a license for obvious reasons not all regulation is simply "watching corporations."[/QUOTE] That's lobbying, which is an effect of corporatism.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34783843]I would like an example of how corporations are getting away with shit because of 'big government' I'm fucking fascinated by this concept that regulating means they can get away with it. It's like if I want you to stop punching yourself in the head, and I agree to regulate it by having you watched at all times to prevent you from doing so. Then it turns out you do it MORE when someone is watching you.[/QUOTE] sigh again you missed the point. consider this scenario: 1. marijuana is legal, has many medical benefits, and can be produced by anyone easily 2. pharmaceutical companies want to push their poison to the markets but cant compete very well with marijuana and cant sell it due to the fact that anyone can produce it 3. said companies lobby for marijuana to be illegal and succeed, now they have eliminated an element of competition

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783814]then what is it the result of?[/quote] Pretty sure I already mentioned what it was a result of. [quote]It's the result of corruption, opportunism, and greed, among other such things.[/quote] Yeah, I did. [QUOTE=Hayburner;34783814]if the government has the power to have swift control over markets, then how do you think corporations can get away with what they do? it isnt enough to destroy regulation that hurts them, they take it to the next level by lobbying for regulation that benefits them.[/QUOTE] The government has to have control over the market, though. For someone who claims to be so enlightened on economics and the problems facing the United States currently, to the point of possessing superior intellect compared to the rest of us mere mortals, it's rather hilarious you don't know this simple fact. Without all those bothersome rules, the free market could not exist. Even those strict regulations and coercive social policies and programs are necessary to help patch up what flaws there are with it. How is going to switch from having a "big government" to a "small government going to accomplish anything beneficial or rectifying in this situation? All it does is centralize the amount of power that's held. That's only going to make things worse.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34783862]Who will hold them accountable?[/quote] they would be violating basic protections put in place by the government ideal under libertarian values which i just described. it would be like asking "how does someone get held accountable for shooting somebody else?" [quote]That's lobbying, which is an effect of corporatism.[/QUOTE] yet you blame libertarianism for that, amazing.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34783862]That's lobbying, which is an effect of corporatism.[/QUOTE] if corporations have co-opted 'big government' to work in their favor, than 'big government' is a contributing factor to corporatism the ''s because I fucking despise that particular buzzword

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783869]sigh again you missed the point. consider this scenario: 1. marijuana is legal, has many medical benefits, and can be produced by anyone easily 2. pharmaceutical companies want to push their poison to the markets but cant compete very well with marijuana and cant sell it due to the fact that anyone can produce it 3. said companies lobby for marijuana to be illegal and succeed, now they have eliminated an element of competition[/QUOTE] this wouldn't happen with less people?

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34783852]uhhh he said American libertarianism supports corporatism. You went on about Private and State tyrannies and accountability. Please tell me the jump here that I'm missing.[/QUOTE] i have no idea where he got HIS definition of libertarianism, but the way he describes american libertarianism is so wrong on so many levels. he fails to realize modern libertarianism in america is essentially classic liberalism.

[url]http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3463044[/url] libertarianism is dumb heres 1360 posts why

[QUOTE=Sector 7;34783860]gun manufacturers in the United States lobbied for firearm import bans so they could have a monopoly on the American gun market tobacco companies in the US lobbied for a ban on growing your own tobacco without a license for obvious reasons not all regulation is simply "watching corporations."[/QUOTE] biggest of all, media corporations lobbying for bills like SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783937]biggest of all, media corporations lobbying for bills like SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA[/QUOTE] yo libertarianism pretty much says that the government isnt allowed to stop them from doing it so whats your point

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783869]sigh again you missed the point. consider this scenario: 1. marijuana is legal, has many medical benefits, and can be produced by anyone easily 2. pharmaceutical companies want to push their poison to the markets but cant compete very well with marijuana and cant sell it due to the fact that anyone can produce it 3. said companies lobby for marijuana to be illegal and succeed, now they have eliminated an element of competition[/QUOTE] So who's fault is this again? As far as I see, it's the lobbyists. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hayburner;34783884]they would be violating basic protections put in place by the government ideal under libertarian values which i just described. it would be like asking "how does someone get held accountable for shooting somebody else?" yet you blame libertarianism for that, amazing.[/QUOTE] Lobbyists aren't government, they're private.