Options

Ron Paul, The Conspiracy '08

1235762

Posts

  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Don't worry private industry will take care of everything

    I'm sure Wal Mart's salt mines will carry excellent insurance plans

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I think there's such a backlash to Ron Paul on these forums because, while naivete is endearing in a child, it isn't in a Presidentiial candidate nor a political philosophy. I'm tired of Liberatrians and Paul supporters getting their say and no one doing anything about it. I mean, if you say something like we should withdraw from the UN then you'd better give me one hell of a reason to justify leaving an organization formed explicitly to prevent World War III, especially in the modern climate. If you want to cut the DoE then you'd better tell me what you'll be doing with those billions and how that's of equivalent value to providing public education. There's none of that. All I get is "rar government bad" which is just a load of horseshit.

    Look, I come from a poor urban area. I've got friends who rely on governmental aid to make a living. The guy that got me into tabletop gaming, my uncle, works for the IRS. You want to give me the "we needs ta be free from tha man!" line then you'd better start thinking about your propositions.

    Amen.

    What pisses me off about libertarians is that I'm supposed to take the rather specific beliefs (private industry is more efficient than the government, government is inherently corrupt, etc.) that support their "ideology" at face value, instead of challenging them. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. And then they get really pissy when you start knocking all the braces from out underneath them...

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    Libertarians...in popular media? About the only one I could think of would be someone like Bill Maher. Fox News has the nationalist end covered, and the other news networks seem to be lukewarm populist or liberal when they show their biases.

    CNBC. I'd assume the new fox business channel as well, but I'd have to actually watch it to be sure.

    moniker on
  • Options
    Alexan DriteAlexan Drite Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I think there's such a backlash to Ron Paul on these forums because, while naivete is endearing in a child, it isn't in a Presidentiial candidate nor a political philosophy. I'm tired of Liberatrians and Paul supporters getting their say and no one doing anything about it. I mean, if you say something like we should withdraw from the UN then you'd better give me one hell of a reason to justify leaving an organization formed explicitly to prevent World War III, especially in the modern climate. If you want to cut the DoE then you'd better tell me what you'll be doing with those billions and how that's of equivalent value to providing public education. There's none of that. All I get is "rar government bad" which is just a load of horseshit.

    Look, I come from a poor urban area. I've got friends who rely on governmental aid to make a living. The guy that got me into tabletop gaming, my uncle, works for the IRS. You want to give me the "we needs ta be free from tha man!" line then you'd better start thinking about your propositions.

    I'll take a quick shotgun approach to this:

    Here's a reason. The US currently sees no benefit from the UN in any way, the UN (rightly) tries to hamper American Power, and the UN is a weak ineffectual bureaucratic organization that has done little to prevent the disasters of the Middle East, South East Europe and Asia, and Africa. The UN is an extremely corrupt organization and every player in it tries to use it to their own ends, and when they can't, they ignore it.

    Conversely:
    The UN justifies Multitude vs Singlitude Morality. Encouraging a transnationalized world and punishing individual nations for going against the pack. Oh, you don't expressly agree with the normality of European Western Dominance? Sanctions for you!

    What power does the UN have to undermine hegemons, let alone the global hegemon that is the US? If the UN can't stop the US, a nation dedicated to the ideals of Western democracy and a history of peace and cooperation and diplomacy and tolerance, what will it do to stop the powers that come after the US falls from dominance?

    The UN is a joke, and a massive shakeup, like a US withdrawal, might pave the way for a new transnational organization that works within the best interests of America might emerge. Perhaps something formed off of the coalition of the willing, or a new NATO.
    ---
    Look there are arguments for withdrawal and arguments against those arguments (and arguments against those, until you get a 100 page post that ends with Godwin)... but broad statements like "leave the UN" are designed to appeal to specific elements of the republican primary system without actually being defensible. Paul is appealing to people who read articles by say, Claudia Rosett, that point out the shear horrible corruption and inefficiency of the UN as much as he's trying entrap Nationalists as much as he's trying to entrap Isolationalists, as much as he's appealing to anti-transnationalists as much as he's appealing to even those who are just upset that the UN tried to stop the US from doing stuff. (Which there is some significant overlap). He's appealing as much to people who get pissed when the supreme court draws on global morality as much as he's appealing to John Bolton supporters.

    His statement is necessarily broad and need not be nuanced at this point. And besides, it doesn't matter. As Ayn Rand once said
    "If he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours."

    Metapolitics! I support Ron Paul because he has a lot of crazy awesome ideas and I think it would completely mess with the Right Wing and Media establishments, or at least the right wing media establishments. Just the look on Sean Hannity's face when he said Ron Paul won the debate... so good. Is that a bad reason to vote for him? Because I hate Hannity?

    Alexan Drite on
  • Options
    PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The coalition of the willing

    Anybody who would ever say this in a non-sarcastic manner is wrong on every single level.

    I won't even try to go in depth and write a rebuttal to your argument, because it's just so damn stupid.

    Plutonium on
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    UN is only ineffective because one of its key members refuses to listen to anyone and is interested solely in pushing its own agenda. It would be in much better shape if your leaders were actually interested in international cooperation, and setting an example for other countries.

    Azio on
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The UN a inefficent joke? No impact on the "real world" Alexan, you are so off base that. Let me just present one UN agency and it will blow your arguments out of the water.

    You ever heard about smallpox? if not look it up on wiki. The WHO(world health organisation), a UN agency lead the fight againts that. They managed to make the smallpox disease go extinct in the wild. Imagine that a disease going from killing 2 million people in 1967 to extinct in 1979. infact the only place you can get smallpox today is in a US or Russian bio-weaponslab. That feat was made by the WHO. and is one of the greatest medical achivments of the 20th century. and its just one of many disease the WHO is dealing with.

    When it comes to Aids/Hiv, the WHO coordinates research programs worldwide. Making sure that there is as little replication of labour as possible. they host conferences and help to share information on a global basis, effectivly leading the fight. Without their coordination our current arsenal of anti-viral drugs would have been a lot smaller as diffrent programs would have replicated eachother. Their global impact would have been a lot less, since not everyone in this world is going to trust US FDA/CDC. Remember, a large portion of the world thinks AIDS is a US bioweapon against Africa. The WHO fights those rumors, by being impartial and unbiased

    It is having problems distributing enough medicines to cover those infected, but that is not the WHO's fault. The blame for that goes to PRIVATE fucking corporations, that want to force everyone to buy their precious(expensive) brand name anti-virals instead of generics versions of the same.

    And guess who(not WHO), is backing the Corporate stance? The US goverment. Guess who is making the WHO fight AIDS/HIV according to christian evangelical standards?

    The WHO is just one of many programs the UN has going and the world would be a worse place without it. As a libertarian, the World Intellectual Property Organisation(WIPO) should be of special interest to you. Its the part of the UN that protects all the patents and such. without it there would be no way for a US company to sue when someone overseas infringes on their copyright.

    PS. saying that we could ditch the UN and keep the WHO(and its sister agencies) is a weaksauce argument. Much of their effectivnes lies in their image of being impartial global agencies. If they became US puppets they would become as useless as you claim.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    MrRezisterMrRezister Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    In a very real sense, the Fed and the government are close to going over the spending limit of our nation’s credit card. We rely on foreign investors to buy our debt so our government can maintain its appetite for spending. Yet the market for US Treasury Bonds is rapidly shrinking as yield declines. Still the government will need an estimated $100 billion more for every year we “stay the course” in Iraq , not to mention what a possible conflict in Iran could cost.

    Yes, the money has to come from somewhere, but we are running out of sources to tap.

    Printing more money is the Fed’s typical answer, but we are on the verge of runaway inflation. We have printed so many dollars now that we are at parity with the Canadian dollar for the first time since 1976. Since the Fed stopped publishing M3, which tracks the total supply of dollars in the economy, we can’t even be sure how many dollars they are creating. Reported inflation is around 2%, but the method for calculating inflation changed in the 1980’s, largely at Mr. Greenspan’s urging. Private economists using the original method find actual inflation to be over 10%, which matches more closely the pain consumers in the real economy feel.

    The reality is that this type of manipulation of the markets masks where resources, or money, ultimately comes from. It comes from the taxpayer. The government doesn’t create Gross Domestic Product, they just limit and control how it is done. They then absorb much of the value produced in the economy through taxation and inflation, so they can squander our nation’s wealth with runaway spending.

    The Fed tries to keep up with government’s spending habits, but is sending inaccurate signals to mask bad monetary policy. Ultimately, we’ll get back on track financially only when government spending is held in check and the free market controls monetary policy, not the other way around.


    Edited to add Source:
    Ron Paul Library

    Clearly the man is a lunatic, amirite? I love threads like these, about any candidate, because it's a great opportunity to go back and look at what the candidate in question has said and/or written in the past. I would encourage everyone to check into the history of all the candidates, not just the ones you strongly support or disagree with.

    I like the excitement over Ron Paul, he's a unique character who seems truly interested in reducing the power of the federal government over the lives of the American citizens. I know that sounds blasphemous to most Republicans and Democrats alike, but I think it's refreshing, if unrealistic. I haven't been able to find a lot of references to Paul "dismantling" the entire federal government, but I have seen where he wanted to do away entire levels of bureaucracy and replace them with something that might be more efficient. If I had to choose between Paul's "dangerous" ideas about reducing government, and Hillary's "compassionate" ideas about government-required (but somehow not "government run") healthcare for everyone, I'll take the former, thanks.

    Some of his ideas make more sense than others, but I'm glad to see a candidate that stirs up some debate and attracts new voters. If he and Huckabee were able to team up and do away with the Income Tax (yes, and replace it with something else, don't go batshit) I think it could make for interesting times. It's funny that so many of the posters in the thread so far have been so quick to equate "Greater Freedom" with "Total Anarchy and Corporate Slavery". It's a scary, alarmist position, and Paul's actual words on the subject make a lot more sense than the strawmen created to represent them.

    MrRezister on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    Libertarians...in popular media? About the only one I could think of would be someone like Bill Maher. Fox News has the nationalist end covered, and the other news networks seem to be lukewarm populist or liberal when they show their biases.

    Penn and Teller. Matt and Trey. John Stossel. Joe Scarsborough. Tucker Carlson. Neal Boortz. That's off the top of my head. And those are just the major tools (Not simply self-proclaimed). Heck, there have been interviews where Stephen colbert has insisted that he isn't a republican, he's actually a libertarian. That has to be based on something.
    I know Paul has no love for the federal government providing healthcare, but when did he say he would abolish the Department of Health and CDC if he could? His On the Issues on healthcare doesn't mention that. Just that he would like to abolish Medicare and replace it with other optional savings plans.

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm

    Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:
    As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
    WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
    WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
    WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
    WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
    BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
    The US Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government.
    All able-bodied Americans have the responsibility to support themselves and their families.

    Oh, and it appears the libertarian solution and alternative for lack of federal government oversight groups would be lawsuits and private consumer protection groups. That seems silly given that there will be an information mismatch between consumers and corporations, but unfettered lawsuits could prevent some egregious malpractice by companies.

    Yeah, except that less regulations means less things to sue over, because it's hard to sue someone for something that technically isn't illegal.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    SnarfmasterSnarfmaster Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I think there's such a backlash to Ron Paul on these forums because, while naivete is endearing in a child, it isn't in a Presidentiial candidate nor a political philosophy. I'm tired of Liberatrians and Paul supporters getting their say and no one doing anything about it. I mean, if you say something like we should withdraw from the UN then you'd better give me one hell of a reason to justify leaving an organization formed explicitly to prevent World War III, especially in the modern climate. If you want to cut the DoE then you'd better tell me what you'll be doing with those billions and how that's of equivalent value to providing public education. There's none of that. All I get is "rar government bad" which is just a load of horseshit.

    Look, I come from a poor urban area. I've got friends who rely on governmental aid to make a living. The guy that got me into tabletop gaming, my uncle, works for the IRS. You want to give me the "we needs ta be free from tha man!" line then you'd better start thinking about your propositions.

    Amen.

    What pisses me off about libertarians is that I'm supposed to take the rather specific beliefs (private industry is more efficient than the government, government is inherently corrupt, etc.) that support their "ideology" at face value, instead of challenging them. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. And then they get really pissy when you start knocking all the braces from out underneath them...

    I'm sorry but private industry IS cleary more efficient than the government. Sit through a year of lowest bidder contracts, and state authorized vendors, and red tape in getting anything useful done and you'd understand. This is especially true in the field of education where everyone's children are being taught mostly by people that couldn't do anything else with their lives and wanted the awesome schedule and summers off. Working in a public school system coming from a private school education is quite a shock.

    Snarfmaster on
  • Options
    Alexan DriteAlexan Drite Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    The UN a inefficent joke? No impact on the "real world" Alexan, you are so off base that. Let me just present one UN agency and it will blow your arguments out of the water.

    You ever heard about smallpox? if not look it up on wiki. The WHO(world health organisation), a UN agency lead the fight againts that. They managed to make the smallpox disease go extinct in the wild. Imagine that a disease going from killing 2 million people in 1967 to extinct in 1979. infact the only place you can get smallpox today is in a US or Russian bio-weaponslab. That feat was made by the WHO. and is one of the greatest medical achivments of the 20th century. and its just one of many disease the WHO is dealing with.

    When it comes to Aids/Hiv, the WHO coordinates research programs worldwide. Making sure that there is as little replication of labour as possible. they host conferences and help to share information on a global basis, effectivly leading the fight. Without their coordination our current arsenal of anti-viral drugs would have been a lot smaller as diffrent programs would have replicated eachother. Their global impact would have been a lot less, since not everyone in this world is going to trust US FDA/CDC. Remember, a large portion of the world thinks AIDS is a US bioweapon against Africa. The WHO fights those rumors, by being impartial and unbiased

    It is having problems distributing enough medicines to cover those infected, but that is not the WHO's fault. The blame for that goes to PRIVATE fucking corporations, that want to force everyone to buy their precious(expensive) brand name anti-virals instead of generics versions of the same.

    And guess who(not WHO), is backing the Corporate stance? The US goverment. Guess who is making the WHO fight AIDS/HIV according to christian evangelical standards?

    The WHO is just one of many programs the UN has going and the world would be a worse place without it. As a libertarian, the World Intellectual Property Organisation(WIPO) should be of special interest to you. Its the part of the UN that protects all the patents and such. without it there would be no way for a US company to sue when someone overseas infringes on their copyright.

    PS. saying that we could ditch the UN and keep the WHO(and its sister agencies) is a weaksauce argument. Much of their effectivnes lies in their image of being impartial global agencies. If they became US puppets they would become as useless as you claim.

    Oh have I never heard of Smallpox? I should look it up on Wikipedia? Why is the assumption always that one's opponents are without knowledge if they disagree with you?

    and I mean this in a general sense. If someone disagrees with you, it means they are not aware of the information. Is it because our egos don't allow us to acknolwedge that someone might have the same information we have and disagree with our foundations?

    Do you honestly think I'm not aware of the arguments for the UN existing? The need for transnational organizations, or the desirability of them for certain specific goals? I was arguing against Librarian throne's assumption that people who want the US to pull out of the UN just throw the argument out without any base.

    There are plenty of good reasons to leave the UN, just as there are arguments for staying. You could have a whole thread on it attacking the UN from a variety of unique and different angles.

    But no, anyone who disagrees clearly is just ignorant.

    Alexan Drite on
  • Options
    Alexan DriteAlexan Drite Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    The coalition of the willing

    Anybody who would ever say this in a non-sarcastic manner is wrong on every single level.

    I won't even try to go in depth and write a rebuttal to your argument, because it's just so damn stupid.

    It is the name of the coalition forces. I did not choose it. I don't even choose to comment on its effectiveness or how much our coalition partners suck. If you were to ask me where to look for a new American alliance for a post-nato world though, I would start there.

    Alexan Drite on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You ever heard about smallpox? if not look it up on wiki. The WHO(world health organisation), a UN agency lead the fight againts that. They managed to make the smallpox disease go extinct in the wild. Imagine that a disease going from killing 2 million people in 1967 to extinct in 1979. infact the only place you can get smallpox today is in a US or Russian bio-weaponslab. That feat was made by the WHO. and is one of the greatest medical achivments of the 20th century. and its just one of many disease the WHO is dealing with.

    Apparently, Ron Paul is against mandatory vaccinations for soldiers.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul66.html

    The military can bar you for being gay, but the idea that they would bar you because you aren't vaccinated for a deadly disease? Absurd!

    I also like this quote: "No single person, including the President of the United States, should ever be given the power to make a medical decision for potentially millions of Americans."

    That's great, because I assume that less than a million people vote the president into office?

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I'm sorry but private industry IS cleary more efficient than the government. Sit through a year of lowest bidder contracts, and state authorized vendors, and red tape in getting anything useful done and you'd understand. This is especially true in the field of education where everyone's children are being taught mostly by people that couldn't do anything else with their lives and wanted the awesome schedule and summers off. Working in a public school system coming from a private school education is quite a shock.

    Public school job !!!= Awesome schedule.

    Also Summers off in most areas almost becomes "turn off your utilities and eat garbage to stay alive".

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    The coalition of the willing

    Anybody who would ever say this in a non-sarcastic manner is wrong on every single level.

    I won't even try to go in depth and write a rebuttal to your argument, because it's just so damn stupid.

    It is the name of the coalition forces. I did not choose it. I don't even choose to comment on its effectiveness or how much our coalition partners suck. If you were to ask me where to look for a new American alliance for a post-nato world though, I would start there.

    LOL, just LOL. You are aware that the coalition partnerers have all left right? And that the most pro-american leaders have been replaced, precisly because they join the "Coalition of the willing". Hell, the name was missleading to begin with. I remember the State of the Union speech in 2004, when he named all the coalition members. Seems he forgot to tell several of them that they where members. Several countries giving humanitarian aid to Iraq, found themselves given a promotion to glorious defenders of liberty in the coalition of the willing.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I think there's such a backlash to Ron Paul on these forums because, while naivete is endearing in a child, it isn't in a Presidentiial candidate nor a political philosophy. I'm tired of Liberatrians and Paul supporters getting their say and no one doing anything about it. I mean, if you say something like we should withdraw from the UN then you'd better give me one hell of a reason to justify leaving an organization formed explicitly to prevent World War III, especially in the modern climate. If you want to cut the DoE then you'd better tell me what you'll be doing with those billions and how that's of equivalent value to providing public education. There's none of that. All I get is "rar government bad" which is just a load of horseshit.

    Look, I come from a poor urban area. I've got friends who rely on governmental aid to make a living. The guy that got me into tabletop gaming, my uncle, works for the IRS. You want to give me the "we needs ta be free from tha man!" line then you'd better start thinking about your propositions.

    Amen.

    What pisses me off about libertarians is that I'm supposed to take the rather specific beliefs (private industry is more efficient than the government, government is inherently corrupt, etc.) that support their "ideology" at face value, instead of challenging them. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. And then they get really pissy when you start knocking all the braces from out underneath them...

    I'm sorry but private industry IS cleary more efficient than the government. Sit through a year of lowest bidder contracts, and state authorized vendors, and red tape in getting anything useful done and you'd understand. This is especially true in the field of education where everyone's children are being taught mostly by people that couldn't do anything else with their lives and wanted the awesome schedule and summers off. Working in a public school system coming from a private school education is quite a shock.

    What was that saying again? Oh, right - the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". When you can refute this (and you better show sources other than "my own beliefs"), then maybe you'll get me believing you. Until then, I'll just laugh at your bullshit.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Okay, Alexan, let's say for a minute that I agree with the argument that the UN is horribly ineffecient and counter to American interests. That, because the UN has acted to curb American authority in the world that America should leave the body.

    What happens if the UN imposes sanctions on us? How does the US go about re-establishing a worldwide organization similar to the UN with the UN still in existance? If the UN has collapsed, do you really think anyone will be in much of a mood to give it another go barring a major global war?

    Yes, the UN has not stopped all wars everywhere. What it has done is prevent local wars from rapidly going out of control (see World War I) and brought to light corrupt reasons to wage war (see World War II) to the best of the organization's ability. This is of course discounting all of the humanitarian aid the UN provides to struggling areas around the world as well as disaster relief and various other causes.

    Let's go back to your DoE quip. I was friends with all of my teachers in the public high school I went to. Every single one of them had summer jobs because, in the city's contract, there's three months with no income. Some worked at Miami University, some at local clubs, some at ESL centers. Three months off sounds sweet but it's unfortunate that it never quite turns out that way. And to say that public education isn't necessary to the continued existance of American civilization is to ignore why public education arose in this country in the first place. People have to read in order to look at a ballot and vote, after all. If the DoE is cut and schools are privatized, tell me what the federal government's doing with all that money. Tell me how privatization works for the vast majority of schools, and please don't assume ignorance on my past (Catholic educated until 8th grade).

    My issue with your last post is that you gave anecdotal evidence to support your point, something I can easily refute with my own anecdotal proofs. You also talk about how the UN is corrupt but I didn't see you cite any particular instances. If you want me to believe your argument you've got to, like I said in my earlier post, give me something other than the standard "here's my arguments with no facts" crap.

    LibrarianThorne on
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Speaking as the son of a public school teacher: Obviously some of them are pretty shit. Mostly gym teachers, but as in any profession you're occasionally amazed by what jackasses make it in.

    But some of them are the only goddamn thing that manage to pull you pack of illiterate mouth-breathing pond slime out of the goddamn swamp, and their reward for it is getting told to screw off by the people they helped, and those people's parents. The same parents that apparently feel like their little shit deserves to be let through even though he can't read in 8th fucking grade because dammit he's a special angel. Then for good measure being told that really no, they're living in luxury, they just can't tell yet.

    Basically: give your teachers presents on holidays, people, it's the only reason they aren't turning their classrooms into abattoirs.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    Alexan DriteAlexan Drite Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You ever heard about smallpox? if not look it up on wiki. The WHO(world health organisation), a UN agency lead the fight againts that. They managed to make the smallpox disease go extinct in the wild. Imagine that a disease going from killing 2 million people in 1967 to extinct in 1979. infact the only place you can get smallpox today is in a US or Russian bio-weaponslab. That feat was made by the WHO. and is one of the greatest medical achivments of the 20th century. and its just one of many disease the WHO is dealing with.

    Apparently, Ron Paul is against mandatory vaccinations for soldiers.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul66.html

    The military can bar you for being gay, but the idea that they would bar you because you aren't vaccinated for a deadly disease? Absurd!

    I also like this quote: "No single person, including the President of the United States, should ever be given the power to make a medical decision for potentially millions of Americans."

    That's great, because I assume that less than a million people vote the president into office?

    Actually only 538 People vote for the president.:P

    Alexan Drite on
  • Options
    flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    This may be the wrong thread for this, but I saw Gravel's name come up a couple times and dismissed as "crazy". What's wrong with him?

    He's pro-choice, pro stem cell research, pro universal health care, pro gay marriage, pro drug legalization, anti Iraq war, anti military action in Iran, anti Gitmo, anti Patriot Act, and one of the only Dems who is anti Mexico border fence.

    Not being defensive, but genuinely curious: what makes him crazy?

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    This may be the wrong thread for this, but I saw Gravel's name come up a couple times and dismissed as "crazy". What's wrong with him?

    He's pro-choice, pro stem cell research, pro universal health care, pro gay marriage, pro drug legalization, anti Iraq war, anti military action in Iran, anti Gitmo, anti Patriot Act, and one of the only Dems who is anti Mexico border fence.

    Not being defensive, but genuinely curious: what makes him crazy?

    His personality. There's more to politicians than their policy positions.

    moniker on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    This may be the wrong thread for this, but I saw Gravel's name come up a couple times and dismissed as "crazy". What's wrong with him?

    He's pro-choice, pro stem cell research, pro universal health care, pro gay marriage, pro drug legalization, anti Iraq war, anti military action in Iran, anti Gitmo, anti Patriot Act, and one of the only Dems who is anti Mexico border fence.

    Not being defensive, but genuinely curious: what makes him crazy?

    His personality. There's more to politicians than their policy positions.

    Many schizophrenics are for "less government involvement in private affairs", for instance.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    This may be the wrong thread for this, but I saw Gravel's name come up a couple times and dismissed as "crazy". What's wrong with him?

    He's pro-choice, pro stem cell research, pro universal health care, pro gay marriage, pro drug legalization, anti Iraq war, anti military action in Iran, anti Gitmo, anti Patriot Act, and one of the only Dems who is anti Mexico border fence.

    Not being defensive, but genuinely curious: what makes him crazy?

    His personality. There's more to politicians than their policy positions.

    His personality? He actually has personality. I don't see how his personality makes him crazy. It makes him bearable to listen to.

    Jasconius on
  • Options
    VerdancyVerdancy Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I'm sorry but private industry IS cleary more efficient than the government. Sit through a year of lowest bidder contracts, and state authorized vendors, and red tape in getting anything useful done and you'd understand. This is especially true in the field of education where everyone's children are being taught mostly by people that couldn't do anything else with their lives and wanted the awesome schedule and summers off. Working in a public school system coming from a private school education is quite a shock.

    Cite sources or get out. Your anecdotes are worthless, and that you take them as indicative of some greater social trend speaks only of your own ignorance. There are numerous instances of privatisation dragging down efficiency and safety standards.

    Verdancy on
  • Options
    Alexan DriteAlexan Drite Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    My issue with your last post is that you gave anecdotal evidence to support your point, something I can easily refute with my own anecdotal proofs. You also talk about how the UN is corrupt but I didn't see you cite any particular instances. If you want me to believe your argument you've got to, like I said in my earlier post, give me something other than the standard "here's my arguments with no facts" crap.

    I've got a post waiting in reserve that addresses some of the questions your post put forward, but before I post it I actually have three specific questions.

    First, what is the complaint? Your initial complaint, as I read it, was
    "There's none of that. All I get is "rar government bad" which is just a load of horseshit."

    Which I read and interpreted, perhaps wrongly, as saying you are upset with Paulites (or people who believe the US should leave the UN in general), because they don't have any argument at all. That they're putting out an absurd, almost to the point of trolling, statement like "We should leave the UN" without any thought applied to it.
    I see people say things like this all the time in regards to strawmanning their opponents positions, mostly when they have just argued with idiots, or sometimes when they just haven't bothered to read up on positions against their own.
    I think that might have been an unfair assumption on my part, and I apologize.

    The purpose of my post was simply a shotgun approach. Basically I was trying to convey that arguments exist, and not necessarily bad arguments, and these arguments are to some extent defensible if not always agreeable or strong. It's a good approach for showing well, stuff exists, but a bad approach to defend any specific argument or ideal, and probably a poor starting point for a debate. My point was "arguments exist, if you're interested you can google them up or hit a library or something and read some books on this, but since I'm kind of lazy I'm not going to bother with specific links or texts at the moment."

    Second question
    How much on this subject do you actually know? By any 'official' tally on the subject, the UN is a corrupt organization. Whether it's the recent trial of Vladimir Kuznetsov, to the UN's own reports by the OSIO, or reports by our governments GAO and the House and Senate Sub Committees on international relations.
    There is a very big reason why the US was threatening to cut funding in 2006, the event did not occur in a vacuum. You see complaints at a great many levels of the UN, from peacekeepers raping women in Africa to larger issues like millions of dollars of funds being funneled towards the highest members of the organization. And a lot of it is structural.

    If you don't know much on the subject I would highly recommend reading articles by Claudia Rosett, such as this one. Yes, she is a neocon. Yes she is an Editor for the Editorial page of the WSJ. She's also written more on the subject of corruption at the UN then anybody alive.

    I'd *start* there, but then work into other things like the Volker Commission, the House Committee on IR report on the UN from last year. UN corruption rarely is a hot button issue, so most of the articles on it you'll find are from about 2006, either when the US pushed the global commission on non-corruption or when the US was threatening to cut funding. Still, this is the internet, you pay for your archive access on newspapers for a reason. ;).

    The second corollary to this, is just how... fleshed out on the arguments do you know? I know you're disatisfied with the arguments put forth on an internet forum attached to a webcomic about video games. But, I mean... to what level of seriousness have you taken your oppositions arguments? The internet isn't always a great medium for this, since for any given argument you can get websites that range from say unsisevil.com to blogs to Christian Science Monitor to CSSNews to crappy opinion editorials, and those might be the source of 'good' arguments. The good stuff can be hard to find.

    And to what extent do you want to debate this topic? I mean, are you seriously needing an intellectual to flesh out this specific argument... or do you just want to make fun of sites like UNisevil and people who think the UN is going to declare a global jihad on Jesus.

    If, you seriously want this though I would suggest a new thread with a very... open and fleshed out first post. Something that tries to be fair and balanced to a few positions, and maybe flesh out your opinion on why the US should remain with the UN, despite its failings. Page 10 of a Ron Paul thread is not the place to begin a debate on whether or not the US should be in the UN.

    And the third question What, relevance does this have towards... uh this thread? I mean, yes Ron Paul has stated the US should leave the UN. Does that mean he could actually do it? The man also put out legislation saying we should have pirates attack Osama Bin Laden. It's clear sometimes the man puts out ideas and arguments which are intended to draw attention... troll? if you will. I mean, yeah, the dude could probably back up statements like the US should leave the UN, there are arguments for it, it doesn't mean that he would do it.
    More then likely he would just invoke a much hard line diplomacy towards the organization, appointing ambassadors that are critical of it and indifferent to the processes therein, at the same time encouraging the development of new global alliances and organizations that focus on American-centric goals and ideals.

    Kind of like Bush? Only, instead of making American Foreign Policy dedicated towards 'saving' the UN, it would just be to ignore it.

    And, if in time, the UN is shown to be ineffectual, and if his efforts are successful in building a world that doesn't need one... sure why not? Because, I don't see the UN as a body lasting into the 22nd century.

    I don't fault Ron Paul puts forth ideas. Some are crazy, and some are crazy awesome.

    Alexan Drite on
  • Options
    GaineGaine Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I mean, yeah, the dude could probably back up statements like the US should leave the UN, there are arguments for it, it doesn't mean that he would do it.
    More then likely he would just invoke a much hard line diplomacy towards the organization, appointing ambassadors that are critical of it and indifferent to the processes therein, at the same time encouraging the development of new global alliances and organizations that focus on American-centric goals and ideals.

    Kind of like Bush? Only, instead of making American Foreign Policy dedicated towards 'saving' the UN, it would just be to ignore it.

    And, if in time, the UN is shown to be ineffectual, and if his efforts are successful in building a world that doesn't need one... sure why not? Because, I don't see the UN as a body lasting into the 22nd century.

    Doesn't this seem to be a sort of self fulfilling prophecy? The UN doesn't have any powers that its members do not allow it to have, and having a founding and important member either actively working against it or ignoring it will lead to it becoming ineffective and obsolete.

    Bringing up who Paul might appoint to the UN also brings up the question of who he would appoint to many of these major agencies he would like to dismantle. He might not be able to take down OSHA or the DoE by himself, but unless Congress wants to spend the entire 4-8 years he's in office blocking his appointees, those appointees could very well do the job for him.

    Gaine on
    obamaprime1.jpg
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    I refer you to my replies to Savant. People are, I think, burned out on the topic.

    Can you link me to one of the Paul threads where being the cool kid isn't the primary objective?

    Organichu on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    I refer you to my replies to Savant. People are, I think, burned out on the topic.

    Can you link me to one of the Paul threads where being the cool kid isn't the primary objective?

    Can you link to ANY debate thread, ever, where that was not the primary objective?

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    I refer you to my replies to Savant. People are, I think, burned out on the topic.

    Can you link me to one of the Paul threads where being the cool kid isn't the primary objective?

    Can you link to ANY debate thread, ever, where that was not the primary objective?

    I guess I'm just innocent.D:

    Organichu on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited October 2007

    It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people,.

    IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!
    I like my public schools, they get a damn bad rap, this is another reason not to vote for this nutbar.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    dangerdoomdangerdangerdoomdanger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007

    It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people,.

    IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!
    I like my public schools, they get a damn bad rap, this is another reason not to vote for this nutbar.

    What?! Why?

    dangerdoomdanger on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Jasconius wrote: »
    I like Ron Paul because he can speak English fluently.

    I've seen some guys elected who can't do that.

    His policies on deconstruction of the government are based primarily on turning those agencies and other government entities into either

    A) privately run industries

    B) state controlled and regulated entities


    I mean, I do not know a whole lot about European politics, but it sounds like he wants to turn America into a very large version of the European Union.

    Not a horrible idea?

    The problem with this plan is that it would give more power to the local and state governments.
    The Illinois state, Cook County and City of Chicago governments are TERRIBLE.
    If you gave them a trillion dollars 90 percent gets sucked up by corruption, 9 percent goes to pork and 1 percent goes to payraises.
    The founders had no idea that a state government would ever get this bad.
    Wait a minute...
    They created a federal government that was bigger then all these entities in order to prevent us from going from hell in a handbasket. The one thats the only thing thats standing between Chicago and a complete derailment and rioting.
    Really, if anyone wants to make the federal government smaller for the states' sake, they should go to Illinois. They'll come away frightened, shattered maybe, but stronger, for they are not dead.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    We tried having the states have the majority of the power once. We called it the Articles of the Confederation.

    History Spoilers; it didn't work.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    dangerdoomdangerdangerdoomdanger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007

    It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people,.

    IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!
    I like my public schools, they get a damn bad rap, this is another reason not to vote for this nutbar.

    The education in America sucks. Public schools stomp out individuality. The text books overcomplicate subjects. A student's failure is not a teacher's fuck up. There is no emphasis on American culture, art or music, which is crying shame. There is an emphasis on memorization not understanding. Standardized tests.

    The system fails on multiple levels and needs to be completely redesigned.

    dangerdoomdanger on
  • Options
    SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited October 2007

    It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people,.

    IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!
    I like my public schools, they get a damn bad rap, this is another reason not to vote for this nutbar.

    The education in America sucks. Public schools stomp out individuality. The text books overcomplicate subjects. A student's failure is not a teacher's fuck up. There is no emphasis on American culture, art or music, which is crying shame. There is an emphasis on memorization not understanding. Standardized tests.

    The system fails on multiple levels and needs to be completely redesigned.

    I'm not sure if you're just contradicting Picardathon's opinion on the current quality of public schools or contending that they suck in principle; Locutus at any rate seems to believe the latter, so I'll debate it.

    I think almost everyone can agree public education has a lot of problems, but getting rid of the public school system is not the way to fix it.

    Suppose we converted to exclusively having private schools. They would obviously have to keep charging tuition, or else where would they get their funds from? Not everyone is going to be able to afford the tuition, which means we'd end up with a potentially significant number of people who can receive an education under the current public school system (lacking in various areas though it might be) but would not under the private system.

    Think of the limited opportunities those with only a high school diploma have, and then imagine what it would be like for people who didn't even get a middle school education. Sure, they'd be able to get jobs doing menial labor of some sort, but they'd have even less upward mobility than exists today. These people will still be able to vote (unless you intend to implement voting restrictions based on intelligence or education, which would basically be the death knell of democracy in our country). I don't know about you, but I'd be scared to have that many uneducated people potentially voting for our president and senators; how are they supposed to make informed decisions when they can't even understand the issues? Hell, that happens to some extent already, and look where it's gotten us.

    Smasher on
  • Options
    Randall_FlaggRandall_Flagg Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    On a related note, is anyone ever going to update alan keyes into the thread at the top of the forum?

    Randall_Flagg on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Verdancy wrote: »
    I'm sorry but private industry IS cleary more efficient than the government. Sit through a year of lowest bidder contracts, and state authorized vendors, and red tape in getting anything useful done and you'd understand. This is especially true in the field of education where everyone's children are being taught mostly by people that couldn't do anything else with their lives and wanted the awesome schedule and summers off. Working in a public school system coming from a private school education is quite a shock.
    Cite sources or get out. Your anecdotes are worthless, and that you take them as indicative of some greater social trend speaks only of your own ignorance. There are numerous instances of privatisation dragging down efficiency and safety standards.
    I'm sure the increased quality of private schools has absolutely nothing to do with the availability of a free public school system, either.

    And I'm sure private industry would be way better at regulating pollution, too; I mean, really, just look at how well they've done at increasing gas mileage over the last few decades.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007

    It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people,.

    IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!
    I like my public schools, they get a damn bad rap, this is another reason not to vote for this nutbar.

    What?! Why?

    Because we're a Representative Republic that is essentially a Democracy in most cases.

    Why shouldn't the government be concerned with the education of its populace?

    moniker on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people,.
    IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!
    I like my public schools, they get a damn bad rap, this is another reason not to vote for this nutbar.
    The education in America sucks. Public schools stomp out individuality. The text books overcomplicate subjects. A student's failure is not a teacher's fuck up. There is no emphasis on American culture, art or music, which is crying shame. There is an emphasis on memorization not understanding. Standardized tests.

    The system fails on multiple levels and needs to be completely redesigned.
    None of that requires total nor partial privatization.

    It's interesting to note that the single greatest achievement of the U.S. government is arguably compulsory education, and yet it's also pointed to as a huge failure by Libertarians.

    Thanatos on
This discussion has been closed.