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

[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] It's more like I want to punch people in the head, and you have the power to let me do it. So I make sure you get elected again, and in return I get to punch more people in the head. Examples include everything from the patent system to corn subsidies. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] And yes, I realize that subsidies are from the 30s and the Great Depression. But why do you think they're here NOW?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34781042]That's a good one. Not really a message I can believe in.[/QUOTE] u r so edgy w/ ur shadowy koal guy avatar an ur rebel dun give no fukks posts i wish i wuz as cool as u r

[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] if by "few" you mean "Slightly over 50 percent of the population" i see the well-being of our collective society as an amalgam of the wellbeings of it's component subgroups.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34786230]if by "few" you mean "Slightly over 50 percent of the population" i see the well-being of our collective society as an amalgam of the wellbeings of it's component subgroups.[/QUOTE] I highly doubt that every single woman in the US would want or need an abortion.

[QUOTE=MrBob1337;34781011]As long as he doesn't let his batshit personal beliefs get in the way, it'll be fine.[/QUOTE] too bad everyone knows he will

[QUOTE=JustGman;34786452]too bad everyone knows he will[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.lucknet.com/Horoscope_news/uploaded_images/free-psychic-chat-rooms-748291.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34786296]I highly doubt that every single woman in the US would want or need an abortion.[/QUOTE] every single woman should have the right to an abortion; therefore abortion is an issue which affects every single woman. just because everyone might not use a right doesn't make the right any less important.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34786756]every single woman should have the right to an abortion; therefore abortion is an issue which affects every single woman. just because everyone might not use a right doesn't make the right any less important.[/QUOTE] I'm not contesting that. But I will say that things like internet censorship (that are happening [i]right now[/i]) are more important than abortion laws that will almost certainly not happen on a federal basis any time soon.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34786897]I'm not contesting that. But I will say that things like internet censorship (that are happening [i]right now[/i]) are more important than abortion laws that will almost certainly not happen on a federal basis any time soon.[/QUOTE] why? how can you judge abortion to be less important than internet censorship?

End of the tyranny of the federal government by empowering the state governments with similar powers as the fed! [editline]21st February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34786923]why? how can you judge abortion to be less important than internet censorship?[/QUOTE] let's face it, the answer is obvious [editline]21st February 2012[/editline] Besides, internet censorship isn't necessarily inherently bad

[QUOTE=Contag;34786954]Besides, internet censorship isn't necessarily inherently bad[/QUOTE] [i]What[/i]. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34786923]why? how can you judge abortion to be less important than internet censorship?[/QUOTE] Because it's not being blocked on a federal level right this very second as internet freedom is.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34786977][i]What[/i]. [/QUOTE] What is difficult about that for you to understand?

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34786977][I]What[/I]. [/QUOTE] I'd rather have control over my own body than be able to look at pictures of cute cats all day. Human rights come first.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34786977] Because it's not being blocked on a federal level right this very second as internet freedom is.[/QUOTE] it could be if we elected an anti-abortion president. just because the threat seems less present does not mean it should be treated like less of a threat.

Does anyone even know what Hayburner was arguing for? All I saw was a ton of ad hominems floating around, and then just this low monotone grumbling for the rest of his posts. Seriously, I need some help here. It's like trying to argue against R2D2 strung out on methamphetamine without someone to translate his seemingly pointless beeps and whizzes.

[QUOTE=Sanius;34787014]I'd rather have control over my own body than be able to look at pictures of cute cats all day. [/QUOTE] And concurrently, I'd rather people not view child pornography, and that traffickers in such material are dealt with. Obviously the implementation is problematic, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal

[QUOTE=joes33431;34787020]Does anyone even know what Hayburner was arguing for? All I saw was a ton of ad hominems floating around, and then just this low monotone grumbling for the rest of his posts. Seriously, I need some help here. It's like trying to argue against R2D2 strung out on methamphetamine without someone to translate his seemingly pointless beeps and whizzes.[/QUOTE] Honestly, I haven't got a fucking clue. Libertarianism and Ron Paul, I guess. He was trying to lecture us all about economic shit it's obvious he himself doesn't understand in the slightest; and come hell or high water he wouldn't admit he was being a blatantly stupid, condescending ass. We should exile him to NationState's General Discussion forum. He'll fit in quite well there.

[QUOTE=Hayburner;34782845] utilizing monetary policy to create economic booms is (evidently) a failed Keynesian idea. [/quote] Nope, Keynes said to use fiscal policy. Monetarists (post-keynesian) said to use monetary policy. Modern economics say to use both fiscal and monetary policy. [quote] all these booms do is extend credit to individuals which creates false growth and incorrect price signals, leading to bad investments since credit is so freely available and the risk associated with it is virtually negligible. hence the term "boom and bust cycle", these bad investments cause the bust and the entire economy suffers. [/quote] Boom and bust cycle is also known as the business cycle. Most economists today say to use counter-cyclic policies. That means increase the money supply and government spending during the "bust", and decrease spending and the money supply during the "boom". [quote] unless ron paul is elected this trend in our economy will continue. sure, the gold standard is inherently flawed, but for fuck's sake, why would fiat money be any better? gold cannot be created out of thin air and therefore has an intrinsic value attached to it.[/QUOTE] If you took a high level university class on economics you would know that we can manipulate the money supply to increase overall income. You can actually increase employment by inflating the money supply. The real question is how much inflation are you willing to accept for a low enough level of unemployment. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] The Phillips Curve shows the relationship of inflation to unemployment [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve[/url]

[QUOTE=Sanius;34787014]I'd rather have control over my own body than be able to look at pictures of cute cats all day. Human rights come first.[/QUOTE] Because obviously the freedom of speech isn't a fucking right. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;34786989]What is difficult about that for you to understand?[/QUOTE] It's a fucking right.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34787223] It's a fucking right.[/QUOTE] The freedom to look at child porn?

[QUOTE=Contag;34787246]The freedom to look at child porn?[/QUOTE] That's not what I fucking meant and you know it.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34787294]That's not what I fucking meant and you know it.[/QUOTE] Well, that's what every internet freedom reducing bill is going to be about in rhetoric, either that, terrorism or copyright law. You were saying that all internet censorship is wrong. I said that it wasn't necessarily wrong. You said it was a right. What else am I supposed to take from that other than it is a right to look at child porn?

[QUOTE=Contag;34787341]Well, that's what every internet freedom reducing bill is going to be about in rhetoric, either that, terrorism or copyright law. You were saying that all internet censorship is wrong. I said that it wasn't necessarily wrong. You said it was a right. What else am I supposed to take from that other than it is a right to look at child porn?[/QUOTE] You're supposed to not be an idiot and realize that CP is covered by a different set of laws.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34787385]You're supposed to not be an idiot and realize that CP is covered by a different set of laws.[/QUOTE] So I'm an idiot because you're wrong about child pornography? Half the attempts to censor the internet are framed about 'protecting the children' and similar rhetoric

[QUOTE=person11;34781191]Are you a female? If not, you may want to shut up and stop trying to claim that abortion is [I]not[/I] an important issue.[/QUOTE] Seeing how abortion is such a sensitive issue as a developing body is destroyed, I don't see how wanting it to be banned is an insane viewpoint.

[QUOTE=person11;34782792]Wanting the states to decide on Abortion means effectively banning it in all the conservative states. I will not stand for that.[/QUOTE] get the fuck over it, they're already trying their absolute hardest to do it, with great success Most of you guys are missing the big picture, stop worrying about contraceptives and stupid shit like abortion because we may be invading Syria and Iran within the next 6-8 months. Rise up with the people in your state if you don't want crap laws passed, if you're going to take it like a group of pussies then frankly you deserve it. Check out this cool warmongering propaganda by the fox news equivalent in the UK [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a8MdKnm3fw[/media]

[QUOTE=Contag;34787407]So I'm an idiot because you're wrong about child pornography? Half the attempts to censor the internet are framed about 'protecting the children' and similar rhetoric[/QUOTE] What? No. Infringing upon someone's rights is inherently wrong. Child pornography is also wrong. However, the two are separate issues and need to be approached differently. Child pornography is a very specific problem (in regards to the Internet as a whole, which general censorship would target). It's the difference between a sniper and a nuke.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34787488]What? No. Infringing upon someone's rights is inherently wrong. Child pornography is also wrong. However, the two are separate issues and need to be approached differently. Child pornography is a very specific problem (in regards to the Internet as a whole, which general censorship would target). It's the difference between a sniper and a nuke.[/QUOTE] So you agree that internet censorship [I]can[/I] be a good thing?

[QUOTE=Contag;34787533]So you agree that internet censorship [I]can[/I] be a good thing?[/QUOTE] No, internet censorship is bad. Blocking CP is good. The difference is how widespread it is. "Censorship" implies that it's a system based around it.

oh fuck it this is worthless