As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Ron Paul, The Conspiracy '08

jotatejotate Registered User regular
edited December 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
The previous RP thread seems to have fallen off the board. With the recent RP derail of the Stephen Colbert thread, I think it's worthwhile to start anew.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXfDHXpP87o

Focusing towards his monetary policy in the above video, it seems as though he's interested in moving towards some kind of dual currency. It almost sounds as though he's talking about nationalizing something along the lines of the Liberty Dollar along side the US Dollar. Giving the people an option to deal in a currency based on gold/silver or a currency maintained and fluctuated by the fed.

I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of monetary policy is limited at best, but how reasonable is this? Does it throw a kink in the "He wants to revert to the gold standard and is therefore insane" argument? How feasible is it to allow people the choice of a gold/silver backed dollar while also relieving the fluctuations that would have previously led to major depressions?

(I'd prefer if we could leave the "doesn't matter, he's a bigot" argument for at least the second page.)

jotate on
«13456762

Posts

  • Grey GhostGrey Ghost Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    They wanna ban him on Capitol Hill, cause it's die mothafuckas die mothafuckas still!

    Seriously though, couldn't you just bump the old thread? Although it does seem the debate has burned itself out.

    Grey Ghost on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Thanatos on
  • Locutus ZeroLocutus Zero Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I don't know nothin bout no gold standard. But when I see him talking about getting rid of the department of this and the department of that and reading the constitution instead of asking a lawyer, I get a tear in my eye. He's the one politician I've ever heard that shares half of the views that I do and I know he will never win.

    Locutus Zero on
    Locutus+Zero.png
  • GaineGaine Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The very idea of a dual currency in a single country doesn't seem ... problematic?

    Gaine on
    obamaprime1.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I don't know nothin bout no gold standard. But when I see him talking about getting rid of the department of this and the department of that and reading the constitution instead of asking a lawyer, I get a tear in my eye. He's the one politician I've ever heard that shares half of the views that I do and I know he will never win.

    Yeah! Who needs some nanny state OSHA telling me what limbs I can and can't have ripped from my body at work? Sheer Bolshevism!

    moniker on
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Gaine wrote: »
    The very idea of a dual currency in a single country doesn't seem ... problematic?

    With a constantly shifting exchange rate between the two legal tenders that all businesses would have to keep track of in order to accept both?

    I cannot imagine how that could possibly go wrong.

    Senjutsu on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Gaine wrote: »
    The very idea of a dual currency in a single country doesn't seem ... problematic?
    Of course not! It's not like we've ever tried it before. And if we had, it certainly wouldn't have been repealed in less than ten years.

    Thanatos on
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    But when I see him talking about getting rid of the department of this and the department of that

    Like the Department of Education? The FDA? OSHA? Social Security? Medicare? Department of Health?

    Yeah, we better get rid of those deadweight assholes pronto, huh?

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Locutus ZeroLocutus Zero Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Yeah! Who needs some nanny state OSHA telling me what limbs I can and can't have ripped from my body at work? Sheer Bolshevism!
    Well, without knowing a lot of detail about OSHA, it'd rather let work conditions be up to the person signing the paychecks and person cashing them. I understand the desire to save people from dangerous jobs, but they don't have to work at dangerous jobs, and every regulatory agency takes a little freedom away from Americans.

    As for Education, Social Security, and Medicare, yeah, those need to go too. It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people, or make sure they put away saving for when they are older, or make sure they get medical care. As for the FDA and DoH, I'd have to look into it more before I made a decision. I know I'd at least want to scale the FDA back.

    Locutus Zero on
    Locutus+Zero.png
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    Well, without knowing a lot of detail about OSHA, it'd rather let work conditions be up to the person signing the paychecks and person cashing them. I understand the desire to save people from dangerous jobs, but they don't have to work at dangerous jobs, and every regulatory agency takes a little freedom away from Americans.

    You...you really think we should go back to The Jungle (not that modern meatpacking is a fucking cakewalk or anything)?

    Are you that fucking retarded.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Well, without knowing a lot of detail about OSHA, it'd rather let work conditions be up to the person signing the paychecks and person cashing them.

    You understand this has been tried?

    You understand it went poorly?
    I understand the desire to save people from dangerous jobs, but they don't have to work at dangerous jobs, and every regulatory agency takes a little freedom away from Americans.

    Laws against sodomizing babies take a little freedom away too, but it doesn't follow that since a good deal of freedom is good, completely unfettered freedom is fuckawesome.

    Senjutsu on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Yeah! Who needs some nanny state OSHA telling me what limbs I can and can't have ripped from my body at work? Sheer Bolshevism!
    Well, without knowing a lot of detail about OSHA, it'd rather let work conditions be up to the person signing the paychecks and person cashing them. I understand the desire to save people from dangerous jobs, but they don't have to work at dangerous jobs, and every regulatory agency takes a little freedom away from Americans.

    You might want to look into it, then. Also, what a collective action problem is and the disparity of power that exists between management and individual 'line' workers.

    moniker on
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Well, without knowing a lot of detail about OSHA, it'd rather let work conditions be up to the person signing the paychecks and person cashing them.

    You understand this has been tried?

    It's called "The ninteenth motherfucking century."

    Familiarize yourself with it.
    You understand it went poorly?

    This is an understatement for humorous purposes, but since you don't think we need OSHA, I'm don't really trust you to catch the fucking subtlety.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    As for Education, Social Security, and Medicare, yeah, those need to go too. It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people, or make sure they put away saving for when they are older, or make sure they get medical care. As for the FDA and DoH, I'd have to look into it more before I made a decision. I know I'd at least want to scale the FDA back.
    Countries with robust, federally-regulated education and healthcare are in much better overall shape than countries without those things.

    I know idiot right-wingers like to fantasize about a wonderful Randian utopia where the invisible hand of the free market guides us collectively to prosperity, but it's complete fucking bullshit.

    Azio on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    As for Education, Social Security, and Medicare, yeah, those need to go too. It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people, or make sure they put away saving for when they are older, or make sure they get medical care. As for the FDA and DoH, I'd have to look into it more before I made a decision. I know I'd at least want to scale the FDA back.

    Even when society and the government prosper and benefit infinitely from people being educated, healthy, and not subsistent gerontocrats?

    moniker on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Yeah! Who needs some nanny state OSHA telling me what limbs I can and can't have ripped from my body at work? Sheer Bolshevism!
    Well, without knowing a lot of detail about OSHA, it'd rather let work conditions be up to the person signing the paychecks and person cashing them. I understand the desire to save people from dangerous jobs, but they don't have to work at dangerous jobs, and every regulatory agency takes a little freedom away from Americans.

    As for Education, Social Security, and Medicare, yeah, those need to go too. It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people, or make sure they put away saving for when they are older, or make sure they get medical care. As for the FDA and DoH, I'd have to look into it more before I made a decision. I know I'd at least want to scale the FDA back.
    You realize that if we could trace the single thing that has most contributed to our success as a nation, there is a very high likelihood that it would be compulsory education and the elimination of child labor (the two go hand-in-hand), right? What you are advocating is pretty much the elimination of civilization in this country.

    Thanatos on
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    I think to be a libertarian you have to utterly ignorant of everything from 1777-1970.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Locutus ZeroLocutus Zero Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Well, without knowing a lot of detail about OSHA, it'd rather let work conditions be up to the person signing the paychecks and person cashing them.

    You understand this has been tried?

    You understand it went poorly?
    I understand the desire to save people from dangerous jobs, but they don't have to work at dangerous jobs, and every regulatory agency takes a little freedom away from Americans.

    Laws against sodomizing babies take a little freedom away too, but it doesn't follow that since a good deal of freedom is good, completely unfettered freedom is fuckawesome.
    If the people want regulation, they will only buy products that are regulated by private 3rd party agencies. If they don't, they deserve what they get.

    And yes, sodomizing babies is a freedom we don't have. It is one of the jobs of the government to take away our freedom to rape one another. We are glad to give up this freedom in exchange for being protected from others.

    You are willing to let the government dictate your work conditions in exchange for not having to work in other ways to dictate them. I am not.


    Edit: to respond to a bunch of you:
    I know most people say "What system can we set up to get a good country?". I approach it more like this: "What is the Right, most Free way to run things?", with the outcome secondary. Not that I don't think about the outcome, but I'd rather fail the right way (not that I think we would fail) than succeed the wrong way.

    I understand tat at this basic level most people disagree. This is the foundation for all of this disagreement.

    Locutus Zero on
    Locutus+Zero.png
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    suilimeA wrote: »
    I think to be a libertarian you have to utterly ignorant of everything from 4,000 BC-1970 CE.
    Fixed

    Azio on
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    You are willing to let the government dictate your work conditions in exchange for not having to work in other ways to dictate them. I am not.

    That's fine. I'm sure you'll enjoy working in Liberia

    Senjutsu on
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    Every regulatory agency takes a little freedom away from Americans.

    By the way:

    This. Is. A. Fucking. Lie.

    Positive freedom and negative freedom -- if you don't know the difference, you should probably stop having opinions on things, but I'll help you out and break this shit down for you.

    (1) Negative freedoms: Freedom from. These are the freedoms we're used to thinking about. Freedom from censorship, freedom from regulation, freedom from taxation.

    (2) Positive freedoms: Freedom to. These are the freedoms that affect our daily lives just as much, if not moreso, and yet are not enshrined a 220 year-old document, and so people have a tendency to forget about. Freedom to get a good education. Freedom to earn a living wage. Freedom to support your family.

    Or, in the case of OSHA: Freedom to not get your fucking limbs cut off at your job or at least if they do you can have some freedom to legal fucking recourse.

    So. No.

    You. Are. Wrong.

    I swear to god read some fucking political philosophy that happened after 1800

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Well, without knowing a lot of detail about OSHA, it'd rather let work conditions be up to the person signing the paychecks and person cashing them.

    You understand this has been tried?

    You understand it went poorly?
    I understand the desire to save people from dangerous jobs, but they don't have to work at dangerous jobs, and every regulatory agency takes a little freedom away from Americans.

    Laws against sodomizing babies take a little freedom away too, but it doesn't follow that since a good deal of freedom is good, completely unfettered freedom is fuckawesome.
    If the people want regulation, they will only buy products that are regulated by private 3rd party agencies. If they don't, they deserve what they get.

    And yes, sodomizing babies is a freedom we don't have. It is one of the jobs of the government to take away our freedom to rape one another. We are glad to give up this freedom in exchange for being protected from others.

    You are willing to let the government dictate your work conditions in exchange for not having to work in other ways to dictate them. I am not.
    Then feel free to move somewhere that does not use standards to protect its citizens from abusive employers, such as Nigeria.

    Azio on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    You are willing to let the government dictate your work conditions in exchange for not having to work in other ways to dictate them. I am not.
    What exactly are you saying here? Seriously, I don't get the second part. I mean, I realize that the comment itself is stupid, but beyond "working conditions are already illegally bad in some places" I don't know why, because I don't know what you're saying.

    Fencingsax on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    RIP my thread, and possibly this one.

    Wasn't this a Ron Paul thread?

    MKR on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    (I'd prefer if we could leave the "doesn't matter, he's a bigot" argument for at least the second page.)

    First off, why?

    Second off, it's not really a debate so much as a statement of fact. When you get the endorsement of Stormfront, well...that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If the people want regulation, they will only buy products that are regulated by private 3rd party agencies.
    This is simply wrong.

    Thanatos on
  • Locutus ZeroLocutus Zero Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    A couple of you guys are kinda being dicks about it. I understand my thoughts aren't popular and will never happen and most of you think they are outright wrong.

    I guess I'm just going to end it here. I could go on but I really don't want to be the one guy that everyone else is like "wtf is this idiot talking about". To see the summation of what I was trying to say, read the edit in my last post.

    Locutus Zero on
    Locutus+Zero.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    RIP my thread, and possibly this one.

    Wasn't this a Ron Paul thread?

    Ron Paul is in favor of dismantling almost all of the federal government that doesn't involve building roads and keeping tanks off of them. He's also a gold bug and wants us to be more isolationist than Hoover. Granted the Wilsonianism that Bush has touted wasn't exactly a good idea, but our withdrawl from the WTO, United Nations, et. al. is worse in ways that words simply cannot properly explain.

    moniker on
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    If the people want regulation, they will only buy products that are regulated by private 3rd party agencies. If they don't, they deserve what they get.

    Yeah, fuck those poor people who do the low-paying jobs that we need someone to perform in order for society to function who are unable to accrue the proper buying leverage to actually have any kind of choice, especially since now they don't have minimum wage! Serves them right for making all my daily conveniences possible! What fucking assholes they are.
    You are willing to let the government dictate your work conditions in exchange for not having to work in other ways to dictate them. I am not.

    Grammar bad you.
    I know most people say "What system can we set up to get a good country?". I approach it more like this: "What is the Right, most Free way to run things?", with the outcome secondary. Not that I don't think about the outcome, but I'd rather fail the right way (not that I think we would fail) than succeed the wrong way.

    You're operating under the mindfuckingly false pretense that negative freedoms are the only freedoms.

    You.

    Are.

    Wrong.

    Now, you could argue that they're the only freedoms that matter, but freedoms are freedoms, and you can't say that we'd be "more free" without government.

    How free were the people who worked in coal mines in the 19th century? Or the factory workers? How free can you be when you are forced to work 16 hours a day to barely be able to support your family because you grew up poor so you didn't have the freedom to get an education, so now you don't have the freedom to earn a living wage?

    How fucking free are you then?

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    A couple of you guys are kinda being dicks about it. I understand my thoughts aren't popular and will never happen and most of you think they are outright wrong.

    I guess I'm just going to end it here. I could go on but I really don't want to be the one guy that everyone else is like "wtf is this idiot talking about". To see the summation of what I was trying to say, read the edit in my last post.

    Respond to my posts.

    Seriously.

    You need to learn this shit. It is vital to your growth as a human being.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    A couple of you guys are kinda being dicks about it. I understand my thoughts aren't popular and will never happen and most of you think they are outright wrong.

    I guess I'm just going to end it here. I could go on but I really don't want to be the one guy that everyone else is like "wtf is this idiot talking about". To see the summation of what I was trying to say, read the edit in my last post.

    Don't take you ball and go home just because people were "rude" enough to point out the flaws in your ideology.

    If you think they're wrong, correct them. If you can't, and you're sticking to your flawed ideology anyways, you're irrational.

    Senjutsu on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    RIP my thread, and possibly this one.

    Wasn't this a Ron Paul thread?

    Ron Paul is in favor of dismantling almost all of the federal government that doesn't involve building roads and keeping tanks off of them.

    WHAT!? So called "internal improvements" are unconstitutional!
    Andrew_Jackson.jpeg

    Couscous on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    (I'd prefer if we could leave the "doesn't matter, he's a bigot" argument for at least the second page.)

    First off, why?

    Second off, it's not really a debate so much as a statement of fact. When you get the endorsement of Stormfront, well...that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
    Because the first page was supposed to be reserved for how shitstormingly bad his government deconstruction policies are. And you ruined it. Jerk.

    Fencingsax on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If we are going back to the Founding Fathers' vision, why doesn't he support a new Bank of the United States?

    Couscous on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    jotate wrote: »
    (I'd prefer if we could leave the "doesn't matter, he's a bigot" argument for at least the second page.)

    First off, why?

    Second off, it's not really a debate so much as a statement of fact. When you get the endorsement of Stormfront, well...that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
    Because the first page was supposed to be reserved for how shitstormingly bad his government deconstruction policies are. And you ruined it. Jerk.

    Accept the standard of 25 posts per page. Neophile.

    moniker on
  • CatoCato __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    jotate wrote: »
    The previous RP thread seems to have fallen off the board. With the recent RP derail of the Stephen Colbert thread, I think it's worthwhile to start anew.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXfDHXpP87o

    Focusing towards his monetary policy in the above video, it seems as though he's interested in moving towards some kind of dual currency. It almost sounds as though he's talking about nationalizing something along the lines of the Liberty Dollar along side the US Dollar. Giving the people an option to deal in a currency based on gold/silver or a currency maintained and fluctuated by the fed.

    I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of monetary policy is limited at best, but how reasonable is this? Does it throw a kink in the "He wants to revert to the gold standard and is therefore insane" argument? How feasible is it to allow people the choice of a gold/silver backed dollar while also relieving the fluctuations that would have previously led to major depressions?

    (I'd prefer if we could leave the "doesn't matter, he's a bigot" argument for at least the second page.)

    Yeah, I'm not sure how it is supposed to work.

    Wait.

    Let me climb into my time machine and go backwards one hundred and twenty years when bimetallism was all the rage in American politics.

    prh_01_img0053.jpg

    Cato on
  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Well, this thread went from zero to shitstorm at impressive speed.

    Why not go all the way and accuse Ron Paul of wanting to crucify us on a cross of gold.

    Savant on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Edit: to respond to a bunch of you:
    I know most people say "What system can we set up to get a good country?". I approach it more like this: "What is the Right, most Free way to run things?", with the outcome secondary. Not that I don't think about the outcome, but I'd rather fail the right way (not that I think we would fail) than succeed the wrong way.

    I understand tat at this basic level most people disagree. This is the foundation for all of this disagreement.

    Even if you weren't completely misunderstanding the concept of freedom (what good is the right to freedom of the press when you don't have the freedom to learn how to read, asshole?) you are basically saying that the means justify the ends. No, I did not get that backwards. Yes, it is as retarded as it sounds.

    Daedalus on
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    This would actually be much, much worse than bimetalism

    Senjutsu on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Anyway, let's talk about Ron Paul. For some reason I keep hearing about him everywhere, despite the fact that he's pretty fucking crazy. Like, there are Ron Paul stickers all over my campus, for instance. I think that it's so refreshing to have a politician (a Republican, no less) that actually believes in something and isn't the usual talking-point soulless dipshit that they're willing to overlook the point that he's completely fucking batshit fucking loco.

    Daedalus on
This discussion has been closed.