Ron Paul's partisans dig in after strong showing in Minn. caucuses - Polidicks

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;34625876]Population of Nordic countries: 25,251,000 Population of the USA: 312,991,424 Creating social service programs with the idea of beating other countries in mind will never ever work. There's just too many people.[/QUOTE] It seems strange that you discredit it on an assumption that it couldn't work on such a scale, what possible evidence do you have?

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;34628843]That makes no sense, if it's a state's right then why did he introduce a bill that would make it illegal nationwide? Also do you have any idea what happens when you destroy public education and the U.S. dollar? Total f---ing anarchy![/QUOTE] Illegal on the federal level, forcing the federal government to not give money when they shouldn't. Where did "destroying public education" come in? He wants to give the states the power to deal with education. 80% of America's history had no Department of Education and it got along perfectly fine. All the millions poured into that department, and people on this forum always chant "lol america is so stupid" still.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34629325]Illegal on the federal level, forcing the federal government to not give money when they shouldn't. Where did "destroying public education" come in? He wants to give the states the power to deal with education. 80% of America's history had no Department of Education and it got along perfectly fine. All the millions poured into that department, and people on this forum always chant "lol america is so stupid" still.[/QUOTE] The problem is that kids aren't taught how to separate facts from bullshit. In twelve years of school not once did we look at the concept of the "fallacy."

[QUOTE=imptastick;34620355]and said that gay marriage should be left up to the states, which is not directly opposing. [/QUOTE] He has supported and voted for federal anti-gay marriage acts numerous times, any of his "state rights" arguments, although fucked up and indirectly bigoted, is a flat out lie. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620652]Unless it's Ron Paul :v:[/QUOTE] Yeah okay, if I wanted a damaging psychopath right wing lunatic, I'd vote for any Republican at random.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmFBzuLJ6ac[/media]

[QUOTE=riceninja;34631033][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmFBzuLJ6ac[/media][/QUOTE] Fantastic, a Conservative talking about Conservative talking points and stating their views as if they are objective truths.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34629106]So you're saying that government will inevitably become irreparably corrupt, or already is? Well that's bollocks right out of the starting gate.[/QUOTE] Um it is already very corrupt. I'm not gonna speak for Scorpious but he never said irreparably to the best of my knowledge. The problem is that we have an incredibly corrupt system. We have corrupt regulations that benefits corrupt ex-regulators current-corporate stooges over the welfare of the public. We have a convoluted tax system that benefits 1% of the population while hurting the other 99%. We have a media and political game that is played around a series of buzzwords and red herring issues like health reform, the environment, and energy. For every ONE politician who legitimately cares about these issues, we have a ton more who are either too deep in the game(corrupt), or just plain greedy and want to fulfill their own(and their contributor's) interests. They put on a facade about giving us clean air, sustainable energy sources, health reform, but almost every single law they put on the books benefits a select few people. We need to seriously cut down the power of government and trim out most of the regulations in place. We need politicians to begin thinking "How does this benefit my constituents?" versus "How does this benefit my campaign contributors?"

[QUOTE=Bones85;34620254]-Opposes gay marriage -Does not believe the federal government should be involved in education at all -Supports gold standard -Supports death penalty -Wants to completely eliminate income tax -Wants to eliminate 5 cabinet-level agencies (Education, Interior, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development) -Introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the federal level I could go on and on. The fact remains that he's a moron and bigot.[/QUOTE] Replying to the gay marriage thing, he believes that marriage of ALL people should be a non-government issue. No state-sponsored marriage at all. Also, the income tax would be replaced with a sales tax, he's not wanting to fucking cut the entire federal budget. Oh, and the federal government really shouldn't be involved in education. It's FAR too widespread to be efficient (as are a lot of things, actually).

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34631514]Um it is already very corrupt. I'm not gonna speak for Scorpious but he never said irreparably to the best of my knowledge. The problem is that we have an incredibly corrupt system. We have corrupt regulations that benefits corrupt ex-regulators current-corporate stooges over the welfare of the public. We have a convoluted tax system that benefits 1% of the population while hurting the other 99%. We have a media and political game that is played around a series of buzzwords and red herring issues like health reform, the environment, and energy. For every ONE politician who legitimately cares about these issues, we have a ton more who are either too deep in the game(corrupt), or just plain greedy and want to fulfill their own(and their contributor's) interests. They put on a facade about giving us clean air, sustainable energy sources, health reform, but almost every single law they put on the books benefits a select few people. We need to seriously cut down the power of government and trim out most of the regulations in place. We need politicians to begin thinking "How does this benefit my constituents?" versus "How does this benefit my campaign contributors?"[/QUOTE] I agree it is currently corrupt, I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the idea that government will inevitably become corrupt, [I]no matter what.[/I]

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34631615]I agree it is currently corrupt, I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the idea that government will inevitably become corrupt, [I]no matter what.[/I][/QUOTE] [i]Some[/i] corrupt people are eventually going to get into office. It's when it's widespread that you get a problem. Hell, even a computer will get some data corruption eventually :v:

He actually supports the DOMA, which is Federal regulation. Also, sales taxes have a greater adverse impact on the lower incomes than they do the higher incomes. Also [quote]The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights." The Department of Education does not establish schools or colleges.[/quote]Basically, it exists to assist when need be for schools and insure student civil rights and privacy are upheld in schools. It does not start or maintain schools, it does not establish curriculum for schools, and the only involvement it has in regards to standards is the abomination known as the No Child Left Behind Act. Even more basically, it protects student rights and helps needy schools, that's all. It is also the smallest Cabinet-level department in the entire federal government. Frankly, the problem is that it does too little, not too much.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34631615]I agree it is currently corrupt, I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the idea that government will inevitably become corrupt, [I]no matter what.[/I][/QUOTE] It will if you let it. It is inevitable for government to slowly become corrupt. Power tends to corrupt itself, especially as it grows. It can be offset when the people are informed and motivated enough to take action, but as a whole, government tends to become more corrupt as time goes on.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34631647][i]Some[/i] corrupt people are eventually going to get into office. It's when it's widespread that you get a problem. Hell, even a computer will get some data corruption eventually :v:[/QUOTE] Well he didn't say that "inevitably there will be some level of corruption in a government". He said "Government naturally becomes corrupt, and big government always becomes corrupt."

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34631615]I agree it is currently corrupt, I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the idea that government will inevitably become corrupt, [I]no matter what.[/I][/QUOTE]What you should be questioning is the idea that "Big Government" inevitably becomes corrupt.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34631651]Also, sales taxes have a greater adverse impact on the lower incomes than they do the higher incomes.[/QUOTE] The proposed FairTax system would have rebates up to the poverty level.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34631661]What you should be questioning is the idea that "Big Government" inevitably becomes corrupt.[/QUOTE] I define "Big Government" as an entity that is inherently corrupt, so the argument would be mainly semantics. You're definition of "Big Government" might be different than mine, and mine is most likely different than the way the average conservative radio host defines it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34631668]I define "Big Government" as an entity that is inherently corrupt, so the argument would be mainly semantics. You're definition of "Big Government" might be different than mine, and mine is most likely different than the way the average conservative radio host defines it.[/QUOTE]That would be corrupt government then. Big government would be one with a strong central government, extensive reach, that sort of thing. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34631666]The proposed FairTax system would have rebates up to the poverty level.[/QUOTE]That just makes it even more inefficient and convoluted, and roundly unnecessary.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34631693]That just makes it even more inefficient and convoluted, and roundly unnecessary.[/QUOTE] Still better than reporting every single dollar that you make and hoping that everybody pays. It's a little more difficult to evade sales taxes. And people on the black market wouldn't really be paying income tax anyway.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34631720]Still better than reporting every single dollar that you make and hoping that everybody pays.[/QUOTE]Wouldn't you have to do that anyway to get the rebates? [QUOTE]It's a little more difficult to evade sales taxes.[/QUOTE]They could still get around it. That's the problem with our current system is the loop holes that allow people to dodge their taxes and get away with not paying at all, or paying nothing or very little when they should be paying far more. This is a major point from the Occupy movement is that tax law needs to be reformed so that they can't abuse these loop holes any more.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34631693]That would be corrupt government then. Big government would be one with a strong central government, extensive reach, that sort of thing. [/QUOTE] Big Government is a different brand of a corrupt government to me. A government can be small and corrupt as well. I'm talking about a certain phenomena that happens with governments when they grow in size and aren't checked by the people. I would rather call a government with strong, central authority and extensive reach by its specific name. Whether that is a military dictatorship, a theocracy, a social democracy, or whatever. A strong, central government can be either good or bad, corrupt or pure. However, I rarely use the term big government anyways when talking about corruption. I'm mainly iterating that when I read the words "big government", I am thinking about a specific thing.

Then it's a misnomer calling it "Big Government". Its still corruption in the government IE: Corrupt Government. Size is entirely irrelevant. It's really clever word play to try and scare people away from centralized governance.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34631740]Wouldn't you have to do that anyway to get the rebates? They could still get around it. That's the problem with our current system is the loop holes that allow people to dodge their taxes and get away with not paying at all, or paying nothing or very little when they should be paying far more. This is a major point from the Occupy movement is that tax law needs to be reformed so that they can't abuse these loop holes any more.[/QUOTE] The goal is that you [I]don't[/I] report income at all, and tax rebates (and therefore tax rates) as a whole would be decreased. Tax rebates are kind of part of the problem anyway.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34631757]Then it's a misnomer calling it "Big Government". Its still corruption in the government IE: Corrupt Government.[/quote] It's not really a misnomer. It's like saying that calling a computer a Mac is a misnomer because it is still a computer. There are different degrees of corrupt governments. Bunching all of them together is simplistic [quote]Size is entirely irrelevant.[/quote] Not at all. A big, corrupt government is going to affect the people inside the country more than a small, corrupt government. Let's say that one government is libertarian and corrupt, and the other is socialist and corrupt. In the first, the government is mostly limited(being libertarian, it has very little power at all), and so it's corruption can't spread as far or as profoundly as the socialist government who provides a wealth of services and controls large parts of the economy. In the socialist government, because government has such power, it's corruption also roots itself deeper into society. When the socialist government is corrupt, the health system, welfare system, major industries are all greatly affected. However in the libertarian government, police and defense might be affected, but not much else is, and certainly not to the extent of the socialist government. [quote]It's really clever word play to try and scare people away from centralized governance.[/QUOTE] Maybe it is. Maybe I'm a product of the buzzwords myself. However, I call them as I see them.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34631772]The goal is that you [I]don't[/I] report income at all, and tax rebates (and therefore tax rates) as a whole would be decreased. Tax rebates are kind of part of the problem anyway.[/QUOTE]So basically everyone would get a rebate regardless of income level? Then why not just eliminate the rebates entirely and have the tax rate set lower? And the problem with the current system of tax refunds/rebates is people who should not having them abusing the system so that they get them. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] It's still a corrupt government body, and the extent is only limited by how said corrupt government chooses to exert itself. Remember, its a corrupt government, its not playing by the rules to begin with. So any ideas that size/limitations will somehow prevent them from greatly impacting society are entirely naive. It will abuse its power regardless because it is corrupt. The problem is, again, not the size but the corruption itself.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34631798]So basically everyone would get a rebate regardless of income level? Then why not just eliminate the rebates entirely and have the tax rate set lower? And the problem with the current system of tax refunds/rebates is people who should not having them abusing the system so that they get them.[/QUOTE] The rebate is a flat amount based on the household size. It assures the overall tax rate is more progressive.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34631861]The rebate is a flat amount based on the household size. It assures the overall tax rate is more progressive.[/QUOTE]Not really, because household size is a crap indicator of income level.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34631870]Not really, because household size is a crap indicator of income level.[/QUOTE] But it IS a good indicator of poverty level, which is what it's supposed to do.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;34622683]"fuck what the constitution says, fuck state rights, what if we elect someone stupid?" you have WAY more control over your state government than the federal government, placing an emphasis on states rights gives people more interaction with their government and not only that, IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL any rights not given to the federal government fall to the states, deal with it[/QUOTE] And Pennsylvania just declared its the Year of the Bible and was bought out by the Natural Gas industry. Sooooooooo. State governments tend to be 10 times worse then fucking Congress.

[QUOTE=Shoe Phone;34623243]I'm surprised there are so many anti-Paul FP'ers. We're supposed to be the informed youth yet there are so many of you essentially advocating big government. You want more government in your life? Cool, vote for one of the many corporate backed puppets that will surely do what's best for you. However, those of us that don't want four more years of government expansion, wars, and a crumbling economy will be voting for Ron Paul.[/QUOTE] Fuck da government pigz we r yung fuck da police fight da powa

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34631657]Well he didn't say that "inevitably there will be some level of corruption in a government". He said "Government naturally becomes corrupt, and big government always becomes corrupt."[/QUOTE] Over time, all governments eventually degrade into corruption. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes it comes quicker. The less people in government means more scrutiny on fewer people. The larger the government, the more difficult it is to keep track of every little aspect. In a sense, Jefferson said the same thing when he said the tree of liberty should be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. Governments naturally degrade over time, and when they reach an unbearable point, should be remade clean again. (Not to say we should have a bloody revolution right now.)