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

[QUOTE=McGee;34783957]so whats your point[/QUOTE] i thought it was obvious: not all regulation is good regulation.

Please let it be Paul vs. Obama in the finals.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34783958]So who's fault is this again? As far as I see, it's the lobbyists. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] Lobbyists aren't government, they're private.[/QUOTE] *sigh* they use the government to make further their agenda. how could you have not understood that by now?

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783962]i thought it was obvious: not all regulation is good regulation.[/QUOTE] regulation is no better than regulation in that sa thread it says why on the first page also free market doesnt exist

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783962]i thought it was obvious: not all regulation is good regulation.[/QUOTE] He never said all regulation is good regulation, you sillybilly.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783908]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.[/QUOTE] Libertarians change so often with their belief's it's hard to take then seriously, ignoring their flat out ass backwards core concepts in the first place. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hayburner;34783964]*sigh* they use the government to make further their agenda. how could you have not understood that by now?[/QUOTE] *sigh*? what are you roleplaying debate now? that means they're corrupt and assholes, how is this the fucking fault of regulation? What the fuck are you even arguing?

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;34783967]He never said all regulation is good regulation, you sillybilly.[/QUOTE] i never said he made that point, it was being spouted by some other people in this thread.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783964]*sigh* they use the government to make further their agenda. how could you have not understood that by now?[/QUOTE] yeah and ron paul wants to make that worse [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] what a libertarian is The Libertarian Party is the third largest and fastest growing political party in the United States. The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects its brand of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets, strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, and non-interventionism in foreign policy, i.e., avoiding foreign military or economic entanglements with other nations and respect for freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries. In the 30 states where voters can register by party, there are over 225,000 voters registered with the party. Hundreds of Libertarian candidates have been elected or appointed to public office, and thousands have run for office under the Libertarian banner. The Libertarian Party has many firsts in its credit such as the first party to get an electoral vote for a woman

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34783969]Libertarians change so often with their belief's it's hard to take then seriously, ignoring their flat out ass backwards core concepts in the first place.[/QUOTE] the core of libertarianism: people should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they don't keep other people from doing what they want the core concepts of libertarianism actually makes a lot of fucking sense, it's just the implementation in the real world that's the hard part [QUOTE=McGee;34783957]yo libertarianism pretty much says that the government isnt allowed to stop them from doing it so whats your point[/QUOTE] actually, SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA were all bills which allowed the government to seize internet domains if they were caught breaking copyright law in a literally free market, piracy would completely destroy any kind of information-based businesses

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34783969]Libertarians change so often with their belief's it's hard to take then seriously, ignoring their flat out ass backwards core concepts in the first place.[/quote] just when i thought you were starting to make better posts. [quote]*sigh*? what are you roleplaying debate now? that means they're corrupt and assholes, how is this the fucking fault of regulation? What the fuck are you even arguing?[/QUOTE] nothing gets past you, right?

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783979]i never said he made that point, it was being spouted by some other people in this thread.[/QUOTE] No one has that opinion here, you're just assuming.

hayburner is high [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] only explanation

Trying to explain my views is hard. It really is. One reason is because I have to juggle between people who think it's pointless to support a Republican in the first place, and people who think that just because I support Ron Paul, I agree with everything the man says or I somehow think he's a much better choice than Obama. To begin, will start by establishing my ideal situation for how this election will go, then, after the ideal is established, I will explain my reasoning. As the Republican process for selecting their nominee goes on, I support Ron Paul 100%. When Ron Paul wins the nomination, I completely drop my support and remain politically dormant. I will finally decide between Obama or Ron Paul after debates have been made and both sides present their arguments, their counter-arguments, their rebuttals, etc. Then, depending on who has presented the most logical arguments while dismantling those of his opponents, I decide on who to vote for. (Most likely, Obama.) Why do I support Ron Paul over the other 3 candidates? Process of elimination. Santorum wants to ban gay marriage and invade Iran. Newt Gingirch wants to get rid of child labor laws. Mitt Romney is at best a mini-Obama and at worst a corporate shill. What we have so far are hypocrites. They go on about "repealing Obamacare" and getting the gov't out of peoples' lives. Then they turn around and promote a brand of federal social conservatism that would be more invasive than anything Obama has or ever will do. Any one of them will fall flat on their face against Obama. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is radically different. He's better than the other 3 candidates because he is reliable and predictable. Traits that have been absent from politics for many years. When people criticize Ron Paul, sometimes they're not even fair. They dislike him because of his view on abortion and gay marriage, but that's really more of a critique of the entire Republican party directed at one man. Views like that are par for the course for Republicans. Judging him strictly as a Republican, he's better as he allows States to decide individually whether they want it legal or not, rather than pushing for a federal ban like some of his more zealous opponents. Is Ron Paul better than the other 3 candidates? Yes. That I will defend to the death. Is he better than Obama? I'll never be able to safely give an answer to this question until I see an actual debate. They're almost complete opposites, so seeing them clash would really be an eye-opener for both sides of the argument. So, to finalize so there are no misconceptions, the reason I pick Ron Paul is not because what we'll gain from him becoming President, it's what we'll gain from him being a [B]nominated candidate[/B] for President. The insight we could potentially gain from these two different political ideologies colliding on the debate floor will simply not be there if any of Ron Paul's opponents win the nomination instead. The election will be stale and boring with no one really gaining from the election itself. tl;dr Ron Paul for the Nomination. Wait for the dust to settle to decide who should be President.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34783994]No one has that opinion here, you're just assuming.[/QUOTE] it was implied. youve also been assuming alot of things too, were they implied or are you just making sweeping generalizations?

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783979]i never said he made that point, it was being spouted by some other people in this thread.[/QUOTE] So you directly respond to him and not these "other people in this thread"? And who are these other people anyway? Combing through all four pages this thread's covered, I don't see anyone claiming that all regulations are necessarily good.

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;34784016]So you directly respond to him and not these "other people in this thread"?[/QUOTE] because he asked me what my point was. are you dense or something?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34782840]The question is, should people be forced to accept something by a central authority?[/QUOTE] Uh yes the federal government should enforce the idea that homosexuals are allowed the same rights as heterosexuals. How is that even a debate?

[QUOTE=Sector 7;34783987]actually, SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA were all bills which allowed the government to seize internet domains if they were caught breaking copyright law in a literally free market, piracy would completely destroy any kind of information-based businesses[/QUOTE] not to mention the constitution protects intellectual property so thats an open and shut case. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;34784027]Uh yes the federal government should enforce the idea that homosexuals are allowed the same rights as heterosexuals. How is that even a debate?[/QUOTE] should they execute me if i dare to think differently?

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34784032]not to mention the constitution protects intellectual property so thats an open and shut case. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] should they execute me if i dare to think differently?[/QUOTE] [B]You [/B]can think differently. But you can't be a governor of a state and deem them second class citizens, not worth the right to marriage or adoption because it goes against your personal code. People will just consider you an ignorant asshole instead of a tyrant.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34784020]because he asked me what my point was. are you dense or something?[/QUOTE] Clearly I'm not the dense one here, mate. And excellent job ignoring the second part of my post: [quote]And who are these other people anyway? Combing through all four pages this thread's covered, I don't see anyone claiming that all regulations are necessarily good.[/quote]

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;34784054]Clearly I'm not the dense one here, mate.[/quote] clearly you are if you continue to just ignore all the parts that you want. [quote]And who are these other people anyway? Combing through all four pages this thread's covered, I don't see anyone claiming that all regulations are necessarily good.[/QUOTE] you, goblin, thisispain, person11. you never made an attempt to say you didnt feel that way about it. you touted it as some supreme solution. yes you are being dense. this is going nowhere so please make meaningful posts instead of bickering or i have no reason to continue in this thread.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783254]when government is telling these organizations to buy mortgages from people who simply cannot afford housing[/QUOTE] No. This is a complete nonsense fabrication. The government didn't tell these companies to bet billions against their customers, the incentive was there and this was a problem that has been festering for decades. You took the far-right media spin hook line and sinker. You have to be a fool to believe that these banks that stood to gain huge profits from these actions would suddenly turn around and say "No no, it was the government's idea!"

[QUOTE=Raidyr;34784111]No. This is a complete nonsense fabrication. The government didn't tell these companies to bet billions against their customers, the incentive was there and this was a problem that has been festering for decades. You took the far-right media spin hook line and sinker.[/QUOTE] i'm not saying the banks didn't take advantage of the bad credit holders, but you cant ignore the moral high ground the government took with that situation. they basically started it.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34784069]clearly you are if you continue to just ignore all the parts that you want.[/quote] But I'm not the one ignoring all the parts I want. You are. Page 3 and this one are monuments to this fact. [QUOTE=Hayburner;34784069]you, goblin, thisispain, person11.[/quote] I have never claimed that all regulations are good regulations in my life, much less here. Goblin has not claimed all regulations are good regulations here. Thisispain has not claimed all regulations are good regulations here. Person11 has not claimed all regulations are good regulations here. [QUOTE=Hayburner;34784069]you never made an attempt to say you didnt feel that way about it.[/quote] So naturally you make the assumption that I feel all regulations are good regulations, and you assume the same about Goblin, person11, and thisispain. You really don't think things through all that well do you? [QUOTE=Hayburner;34784069]you touted it as some supreme solution.[/quote] No I didn't. [QUOTE=Hayburner;34784069]yes you are being dense.[/quote] Not really. You on the other hand... [QUOTE=Hayburner;34784069]this is going nowhere so please make meaningful posts instead of bickering or i have no reason to continue in this thread.[/QUOTE] At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or if you're just a genuine condescending slackjaw who's so self-absorbed in his own egotism and arrogant ways that he can't see as plainly as the rest of us can what a fool he really is. And I really don't care if you leave or not, mate. I'd imagine the rest of us don't either.

Hayburner must be busy burning all those strawmen he's built in this conversation.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34784069] this is going nowhere so please make meaningful posts instead of bickering or i have no reason to continue in this thread.[/QUOTE] I made a whole tower of meaningful and no one responded. Does this mean I win?

[QUOTE=Hidole555;34784162]I made a whole tower of meaningful and no one responded. Does this mean I win?[/QUOTE] no it measn it was bullshit

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34782161]lol are you seriously trying to say the wellbeing of a few people is more important than the wellbeing of our collective society?[/QUOTE] Tyranny of the majority bro.

you know i don't really understand how you can be against 'big government' but still obsessed with 'states rights' i mean, the state having so much power may as well be big government, what about town rights? county rights??? any government is big government why cant we all just live in communes and live in harmony :(

You got all those BATSHIT insane candidates, really no one there except for Ron Paul seems even a BIT intelligent and then you got Ron Paul. And you guys still aint happy because some of his points are not okay with you. This guy has the spirit of a real american president, the guys who led you through the world wars, the guys who could actually think for themselves.