Options

Ron Paul, The Conspiracy '08

1568101162

Posts

  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Talous wrote: »
    How about the Walter Reed Veteran hospital?

    Walter Reed was outsourced to a private firm, as was addressed, I seem to recall, in this very thread.

    But you're not interested in actual reading, are you? You just wanted to show up and get your big blubbery man-cry on.

    And who outsourced it to a private firm, bubba?

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    And who outsourced it to a private firm, bubba?

    What in the name of all that's holy are you blathering about? If the customer of a private firm is the government, that proves the inefficiency of government?

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Seriously, Talous, why don't you read this? It explains why we don't buy Paul's brand of crazy.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Sami wrote: »
    Conservativism: We always knew it was a form of mental retardation, science backs us up. More at 11.

    Academics are biased liberally anyway

    Not even remotely true, and the people who usually say what you just said tend to be the people who didn't actually get into higher ed.

    Haha. I have already graduated from "higher ed" and let me tell you. I was the only "conservative" in my entire department, with the exception of one guy who was craaaaazy. Maybe it is different by geographical location, but Georgetown was in no way middle of the road.
    One school is an excellent sample size. Also, you are wrong, seeing as how I know a bunch of people who go to Georgetown who are conservative. And they aren't exactly the only ones.

    I never said my story was indicative of the vast majority of schools, just that the previous statement where people who think academics are liberal only say that because they didn't "get into higher ed" is patently false. That's almost the same argument as "people who watch Fox News are rednecks who falsely believe the press has a liberal bias."
    I don't think anyone thinks that every viewer of Fox News is a redneck. Nor do I think that they believe that every viewer of Fox News falsely believes that.

    For instance, I watch Fox News, and I only believe that the vast majority of Fox News viewers are rednecks who falsely believe the press has a liberal bias.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Talous wrote: »
    And who outsourced it to a private firm, bubba?

    What in the name of all that's holy are you blathering about? If the customer of a private firm is the government, that proves the inefficiency of government?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-bid_contract

    I think that the government is responsible for who it contracts out to, yes. It's not the policy of a free-market country. Of course I also happen to believe that health care for the military ought to be provided by military doctors. But I see why that is not possible at this time.

    As far as the environment goes, Ron Paul is obviously not for government aid for alternative energy sources. He said this regarding Global Warming, though:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=5vbMly74cZ8

    I didn't find much, and I honestly don't know much about his views on alternative energy sources. I think he would be considered 'weak' by environmentalist groups.

    Edit: I'm reading that list of why Ron Paul sucks according to the PA forums right now to maybe understand what's with these scathing attacks.

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2007
    What do I think of Ron Paul? I think that he won't get elected. And like all candidates who have no chance of getting the nomination, or ever need to think seriously about what they'll do when and if they're in office, he can afford to hold any crazy idea he wants while he continues his ego-stroking exercise.

    Sure, I've studied economics and know what a terrible idea the gold-standard would be, but so what if he wants one? It's not like we'll ever have the misfortune of seeing it implemented. Same goes for any of his other ideas.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Talous wrote: »
    And who outsourced it to a private firm, bubba?

    What in the name of all that's holy are you blathering about? If the customer of a private firm is the government, that proves the inefficiency of government?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-bid_contract

    You realize that corporations do this exact same thing all the time, right? The head of security of my former company spent an asston of money hiring all his buddies' consulting firms at exorbitant rates - and no, the corporation in question will not be "punished by the market" for its inefficiency, nor was the dude in question, because this is the real world and not a goddamn econ 101 textbook fairytale. Anyway: corruption and nepotism aren't exclusive to one domain or the other, and if you think they are, that speaks more of your naivete than of reality at large.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If he were an actor he would have a much better chance.

    Also, Ron Paul would not replace the US Dollar. He would allow competition. People can still have their fake money and leave it's value in the hands of the Fed.

    OR

    They can use a competing currency which may or may not retain it's value over time better than the dollar.

    The idea is free market over government regulation, not necessarily "fake money is stupid, let's back it with something".

    Jasconius on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Ahh, so 2 currencies at the same time. I see we're striving for a model of inefficiency here.

    shryke on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Seriously, Talous, why don't you read this? It explains why we don't buy Paul's brand of crazy.

    Actually, very little of that explains anything. Only half- if that- of those complaints are actual, legitimate complaints about Ron Paul's worthiness of the title of POTUS. And I say legitimate insofar in a "if you completely disagree with many standard Republican ideals" type of way. Very few- 10 or less- of those 23 bulleted points are meritorious "anyone who is this way is a bad candidate" points that can actually be argued.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    You realize that corporations do this exact same thing all the time, right? The head of security of my former company spent an asston of money hiring all his buddies' consulting firms at exorbitant rates - and no, the corporation in question will not be "punished by the market" for its inefficiency, nor was the dude in question, because this is the real world and not a goddamn econ 101 textbook fairytale. Anyway: corruption and nepotism aren't exclusive to one domain or the other, and if you think they are, that speaks more of your naivete than of reality at large.

    I always find it amusing when the people who insist that a CNBC online poll where Ron Paul polls at 75% has more validity than the scientific random sampling polls where Ron Paul polls at 2% seem to think that they can lecture other people on economics.
    Jasconius wrote: »
    If he were an actor he would have a much better chance.

    Also, Ron Paul would not replace the US Dollar. He would allow competition. People can still have their fake money and leave it's value in the hands of the Fed.

    People can do that anyway.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States

    It's sort of like hearing the argument defending Ron Paul's stance on prayer in public schools, insisting, "He's not in favor of mandatory or sponsored prayer, he's just saying that kids should be free to pray if they so choose without being fed to the lions." While ignoring the fact that kids already have that right to begin with.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    BTW, the most ridiculous Rondroid argument I got to hear from since yesterday:

    "Ron Paul isn't a racist!!! If he were, then why in the world would he be against abortion, which is more likely to kill black babies than white babies!!! Do you think that there are any white supremacists who would be against abortion after hearing that?"

    I'll let you think about that one for a while.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Jasconius wrote: »
    If he were an actor he would have a much better chance.

    Also, Ron Paul would not replace the US Dollar. He would allow competition. People can still have their fake money and leave it's value in the hands of the Fed.

    OR

    They can use a competing currency which may or may not retain it's value over time better than the dollar.

    The idea is free market over government regulation, not necessarily "fake money is stupid, let's back it with something".

    So he doesn't want to crucify us on a cross of gold, he wants to crucify retailers on a cross of conversion rates. Gotcha.


    To go back to Elki's point.
    Kissinger wrote:
    college politics is so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.
    When you have nothing to lose you can easily afford to be a dogmatist. You can also afford to be a hypocrit when it comes to funding shrimp. Ron Paul has nothing to lose and so there you go.

    moniker on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    BTW, the most ridiculous Rondroid argument I got to hear from since yesterday:

    "Ron Paul isn't a racist!!! If he were, then why in the world would he be against abortion, which is more likely to kill black babies than white babies!!! Do you think that there are any white supremacists who would be against abortion after hearing that?"

    I'll let you think about that one for a while.

    I wouldn't. It's not good for your mental health.

    shryke on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    To go back to Elki's point.
    Kissinger wrote:
    college politics is so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.
    When you have nothing to lose you can easily afford to be a dogmatist. You can also afford to be a hypocrit when it comes to funding shrimp. Ron Paul has nothing to lose and so there you go.

    Yeah, what is up with that Shrim thing anyway? It's like people are supporting Forest Gump here or something.

    shryke on
  • Options
    imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Let's just stop calling him crazy, and instead call him nuts. Ron Paul wants ultimate deregulation and isolationism. Both of those things are bound to failure. Government is supposed to bring about certain basic structures so that economy can bloom, including a common denominator for interstate commerce, defense, etc. If he's against the institutions that make these things possible, he's not arguing libertarianism, he's arguing anarchy.

    Yeah, pass.

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    libertarianism is pussified anarchism, though. He's just making it nice and obvious.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    1) Ron Paul currently has the most annoying supporters on the internet, by far.

    This was nearly all personal opinion. I'm going to delete all of the *'s that were firm opinion and generally baseless.

    2) Ron Paul would make a horrible president.

    * Ron Paul is not a consensus builder. By any means.

    Most would agree that this is true. So do I.

    * Ron Paul has stated that he will gut a lot of our nations most important programs. He's the one presidential candidate who would have made Bush's performance during Katrina look good.

    You place a lot of value on these programs that have utterly failed to protect our country (Total Failure on 9/11), provide domestic aid (miserable Katrina response), and an government education system that fails our children. Why do we need to keep failed programs (and have the same people run them)?

    * Ron Paul is completely indifferent to the concerns of his constituents. Blacks being denied the right to vote and sit in the front seat of the bus? Screw 'em.

    He was actually one of four or five candidates to go to PBS's debate that was held with a primarily black audience. Meanwhile Mitt Romney was at an IHOP and the other 'top tiers' thought they had more important places to be. Sounds like you're trying to smear Ron Paul? I have no idea why. As far as the Civil War is concerned, he said that we should have paid for the release of all of the slaves like every other civilized nation did.

    * Ron Paul has stated that he will freely exercise his veto power. Right now, people are frustrated by congress because they're not doing more, and Ron Paul will make it even tougher. The democrats can't even pull in enough votes to beat the fillibuster, much less a veto.

    Who's to say he won't support the democrats on most of their issues so long as their constitutional?

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wm1Ln3_keEE


    3) Ron Paul has never proven himself as a leader.

    * The man has served ten tems in congress. What has he actually accomplished in all that that time? Be specific.
    * The man can't even run an 8 page newsletter. What makes you think he can run an entire country?

    http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

    Read that house.gov Bio and tell me again that he has a weak service record (weaker than Hillary's or Obama's or McCain.


    5) Ron Paul is a hypocrite

    * He claims that he wants to treat gay people and straight people exactly the same in the military, while also claiming that gays should not be allowed to serve openly. Please resolve how both statements can be true.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE According to quite a few Christians he's apparently not strong enough on this issue.

    This is what he has said.

    * Ron Paul argues that there is a war on Christianity, and that this should be a robustly Christian Nation.

    Paul on Evangelicals: http://youtube.com/watch?v=D1kDMtRfJso

    Ron Paul on enforcing values to 'Value Voters' (hint: He tells them the opposite of want they want to hear): http://youtube.com/watch?v=WRi8tswSkB4

    On Abortion Ron Paul (after Hunter) is for letting states and communities decide what is right for them:
    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/10/19/vv.hunter.paul.cspan?iref=videosearch

    * Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist, and he claims that the constitution is replete with references to god. Wait, what?

    So what? The founding fathers were Diests. The mentioning of God in the constitution does not necessarily change interpretation.

    * Ron Paul has written earmarks for items that benefit his own state, for things that definitely are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution (e.g., subsidies for the local shrimp industry).

    Ron Paul on Earmarks:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY

    6) Ron Paul is a racist

    * Already been covered.

    Who wrote this shit? Does Bill O'Reilly frequent the fucking PA forums all of the sudden?

    7) Ron Paul is an ideologue who's out of line with mainstream America

    * Ron Paul's top priorities are not in line with the hot button issues of the next election, with the exception of Iraq. We want healthcare, not a chance to dismantle the federal reserve.
    * Ron Paul's views on the top issues, with the exception of Iraq, are not in line with America. Check pollingreport.com for examples.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=JXfDHXpP87o Even Alan Greenspan agrees that we might not need the central bank anymore. Maybe it's the ideologues who are making mainstream America out of touch with reality. As far as health care, Americans don't always know what's in their own best interest. No competition in health care isn't necessarily good. Right now the government is responsible for the state of health care by the way it sticks it's fingers into it. Last night Ron Paul brought up the very valid point that the health industry is the only one in which advances in technology have not brought the cost down.

    Watch Ron Paul from the debate last night: http://youtube.com/watch?v=34AMCPcnu50


    8) Honestly, just like 9/11 was the best thing to happen to Bush, Bush was pretty much the best thing to happen to Ron Paul. If Bush had never been president, if the country never went to Iraq and the PATRIOT Act and illegal wiretapping had never occurred, then what exactly would Ron Paul have to campaign on? Be honest.

    Well those are actually huge issues. However Ron Paul's changes would be widespread, the greatest change would be decreasing the size of government. I'll leave it to you to do the research as a free-thinking citizen.

    If you watch these videos and research more on your own without listening to demagogues, you will see how rational Ron Paul indeed is. Please stop your ridiculous smearing. I bet most of this stems from your first point on his annoying followers? Who gives a shit? It's the message that counts ladies and gentlemen.

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    * Ron Paul has stated that he will gut a lot of our nations most important programs. He's the one presidential candidate who would have made Bush's performance during Katrina look good.

    You place a lot of value on these programs that have utterly failed to protect our country (Total Failure on 9/11), provide domestic aid (miserable Katrina response), and an government education system that fails our children. Why do we need to keep failed programs (and have the same people run them)?

    Simply because a Republican President staffed agencies he doesn't really want to have exist, like FEMA, with cronies/patronage positions on top of the continuation of the 'starve the beast' mentality which kills those institutions out from the inside doesn't make those programs utter failures. You also aren't really pointing to who or what will provide the same services that we need an improved response on or how they will act more efficiently. What is Ron Paul's proposal to improve education, intelligence services, and disaster responses?
    On Abortion Ron Paul (after Hunter) is for letting states and communities decide what is right for them:
    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/10/19/vv.hunter.paul.cspan?iref=videosearch

    For one, a woman's right to choose is constitutionaly protected. For two, how does confederate views mesh with his views towards government in general? Punting responsibility to the states in order to stay consistent with his personal beliefs doesn't really seem like a good idea or an endearing quality.
    * Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist, and he claims that the constitution is replete with references to god. Wait, what?

    So what? The founding fathers were Diests. The mentioning of God in the constitution does not necessarily change interpretation.

    The founding fathers were not a monolithic entity with a single set of agreed upon views towards governance, and the sooner people start to recognize this the better. Also, how can you seriously claim to be a constitutionalist (What does that mean, anyhow? Obama abides by the constitution too.) and not know what's in the constitution? For instance, it being an athiestic document and one which disavows religious tests for public office. Being so buddy buddy with the founders Paul should also be aware of the Treaty of Tripoli too.
    If you watch these videos and research more on your own without listening to demagogues, you will see how rational Ron Paul indeed is. Please stop your ridiculous smearing. I bet most of this stems from your first point on his annoying followers? Who gives a shit? It's the message that counts ladies and gentlemen.

    That's rather naive. Especially given that we're talking about politics.

    moniker on
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    libertarianism is pussified anarchism, though. He's just making it nice and obvious.

    I know you're not an American, but the Constitution of the United States is not pussified anarchism. You're entitled to that opinion, though. If you're not talking about Ron Paul's version of libertarianism you've got the wrong thread.
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Let's just stop calling him crazy, and instead call him nuts. Ron Paul wants ultimate deregulation and isolationism. Both of those things are bound to failure. Government is supposed to bring about certain basic structures so that economy can bloom, including a common denominator for interstate commerce, defense, etc. If he's against the institutions that make these things possible, he's not arguing libertarianism, he's arguing anarchy.

    Yeah, pass.



    Ron Paul isolationist? Hell no. He wants trade, he doesn't want tariffs, but he also doesn't want war or nation building. Watch this video and you will be proven to be ignorant regarding Ron Paul's foreign policy. And I fucking hate this kind of false ignorance.
    CNN Late edition 5/10/07:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=qD9eO7qToTk
    Kudlow & Company Part 1 8/10/07:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_vPUqPTims
    Ron Paul On CNBC Kudlow & Company 10-9-07 On Spending:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TvrpciWgfk

    As far as the rest of your question: Ron Paul is against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT being involved in those things you spoke of: "certain basic structures so that economy can bloom, including a common denominator for interstate commerce, defense."

    By no means is that anarchism. If you read the constitution you will see that it is not outdated, "quaint", or antique. The people who wrote it were pretty fucking intelligent and a whole lot of debate went into it's drafting.

    As a citizen of the USA I suggest that you read your government documents and become knowledgeable about ALL of the candidates.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    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
    Talous wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    libertarianism is pussified anarchism, though. He's just making it nice and obvious.

    I know you're not an American, but the Constitution of the United States is not pussified anarchism.

    Good thing she said Libertarianism, not The Constitution.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I know you're not an American, but the Constitution of the United States is not pussified anarchism.
    Anything that allowed the Bank of America and protectionist tariffs be created to be created is not a libertarian document.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    You may be shocked and amazed to learn that Ron Paul does not, in fact, hold an exclusive monopoly on interpretation of the Constitution. Leaving aside for the moment that the men who wrote it vociferously disagreed on its boundaries, millions of Americans appear to approve of the over two centuries of established precedent and interpretation that the modern system is based on. I know I for one enjoy having a reasonable degree of confidence that my can of baked beans is free of surplus human fingers.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Most people who reject competition to the Fed actually do need to hear what Greenspan has to say. The guy ran the thing for quite some time, and even agrees that the necessity the Fed is not necessarily written in stone. Backed currency can stifle the economy can it not? OK, yes, it can, what it won't do is continue to plummet in value to an uncertain floor.

    When the US Dollar was converted to a fiat system, it was worth over 20 times as much as it is today. Todays dollar is only worth 4 cents of that dollar and it continues to fall as a result of printing new money to pay bills instead of borrowing it, and other shitty practices.

    I'm pretty sure that Alan Greenspan knows more about money than any of us do, if the man says on national television that it might not be a bad idea, then I'm willing to side with that.

    Jasconius on
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    I know you're not an American, but the Constitution of the United States is not pussified anarchism.
    Anything that allowed the Bank of America and protectionist tariffs be created to be created is not a libertarian document.

    It didn't. Look up Andrew Jackson's war on the bank.

    But hey, I'm nice enough to have googled it for you.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+jackson+bank+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    When the US Dollar was converted to a fiat system, it was worth over 20 times as much as it is today.
    So? Inflation over a long period of time isn't a bad thing.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    libertarianism is pussified anarchism, though. He's just making it nice and obvious.

    I know you're not an American, but the Constitution of the United States is not pussified anarchism. You're entitled to that opinion, though. If you're not talking about Ron Paul's version of libertarianism you've got the wrong thread.

    The Constitution is not a libertarian document, so...yeah.
    Ron Paul isolationist? Hell no. He wants trade, he doesn't want tariffs, but he also doesn't want war or nation building.

    In what way is advocating our withdrawl from the UN, WTO, World Bank, and NATO not isolationist?

    moniker on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Jasconius wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that Alan Greenspan knows about about money than any of us do, if the man says on national television that it might not be a bad idea, then I'm willing to side with that.

    Yeah, that's not going to fly. Neither Greenspan nor anyone else has sufficiently explained how we are to find a new mountain made of gold every time real wealth and/or productivity increases.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    I know you're not an American, but the Constitution of the United States is not pussified anarchism.
    Anything that allowed the Bank of America and protectionist tariffs be created to be created is not a libertarian document.

    It didn't. Look up Andrew Jackson's war on the bank.

    But hey, I'm nice enough to have googled it for you.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+jackson+bank+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    Fun Fact: Andrew Jackson wasn't a founding father. Guess who actually had something to do with the writing of the constitution and thought the bank wasn't unconstitutional? The Supreme Court also ruled it was constitutional.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Talous wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    I know you're not an American, but the Constitution of the United States is not pussified anarchism.
    Anything that allowed the Bank of America and protectionist tariffs be created to be created is not a libertarian document.

    It didn't. Look up Andrew Jackson's war on the bank.

    But hey, I'm nice enough to have googled it for you.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+jackson+bank+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    Fun Fact: Andrew Jackson wasn't a founding father. Guess who actually had something to do with the writing of the constitution and thought the bank wasn't unconstitutional? The Supreme Court also ruled it was constitutional.

    Fun fact: he was arguably our worst president ever with little to no regard for The Constitution. In fact he broke it's tenants on a fairly regular basis.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    libertarianism is pussified anarchism, though. He's just making it nice and obvious.

    I know you're not an American, but the Constitution of the United States is not pussified anarchism. You're entitled to that opinion, though. If you're not talking about Ron Paul's version of libertarianism you've got the wrong thread.

    Finally, an entertaining crazy person! This is awesome.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    You may be shocked and amazed to learn that Ron Paul does not, in fact, hold an exclusive monopoly on interpretation of the Constitution. Leaving aside for the moment that the men who wrote it vociferously disagreed on its boundaries, millions of Americans appear to approve of the over two centuries of established precedent and interpretation that the modern system is based on. I know I for one enjoy having a reasonable degree of confidence that my can of baked beans is free of surplus human fingers.

    But this is what I don't get. Cool, you're fine with a bit more taxes to avoid fingers in your beans. Fine. Sounds kosher to me.

    But not wanting to pay those taxes and being fine with those risks (or rather, wanting to investigate those risks yourself)... I mean, I can see you disagreeing with that- I can definitely 100% see that. But I don't see how you can call it crazy/retarded/absolutely off the wall. You're acting like Ron Paul supporters literally say

    "I support Ron Paul because I like fingers in my beans and I formulate thought without actually thinking a harr hee dooooo my brain is made of the pulp of tangerines".

    I mean, maybe they're wrong. Maybe. Debatable, and you have a large majority of this forum agreeing with your position. But the whole "all of this shit is insane nutjob wacko" just strikes me as resultant of your personal annoyance with some of the guy's mannerisms and his fans. His ideas aren't literally borne of an inbred relationship. People are seriously overstating the 'ridiculousness' of his arguments.

    If you have a strong argument (and like I said, a majority of very smart people on this forum agree with you so I'd say your argument is pretty strong) it's just so inane and counterintuitive to stoop calling his stuff insane. It's really not insane at all.



    edit: pardon language. ESL, trying to type quickly because of the nature of the thread. No time to proof read for clarity.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Most people who reject competition to the Fed actually do need to hear what Greenspan has to say. The guy ran the thing for quite some time, and even agrees that the necessity the Fed is not necessarily written in stone. Backed currency can stifle the economy can it not? OK, yes, it can, what it won't do is continue to plummet in value to an uncertain floor.

    The dollar is worth the fair market price that the global marketplace has agreed upon. Why are you opposed to letting markets determine the dollar's worth?
    When the US Dollar was converted to a fiat system, it was worth over 20 times as much as it is today. Todays dollar is only worth 4 cents of that dollar and it continues to fall as a result of printing new money to pay bills instead of borrowing it, and other shitty practices.

    And?
    I'm pretty sure that Alan Greenspan knows more about money than any of us do, if the man says on national television that it might not be a bad idea, then I'm willing to side with that.

    So did Friedman, but their blind faith in the market doesn't exactly make them right. Particularly given that there are plenty of other scholarly and experienced voices out there who disagree rather strongly.

    moniker on
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Talous wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    libertarianism is pussified anarchism, though. He's just making it nice and obvious.

    I know you're not an American, but the Constitution of the United States is not pussified anarchism. You're entitled to that opinion, though. If you're not talking about Ron Paul's version of libertarianism you've got the wrong thread.

    Finally, an entertaining crazy person! This is awesome.

    Yeah that's a cool argument.

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    But not wanting to pay those taxes and being fine with those risks (or rather, wanting to investigate those risks yourself)... I mean, I can see you disagreeing with that- I can definitely 100% see that. But I don't see how you can call it crazy/retarded/absolutely off the wall. You're acting like Ron Paul supporters literally say
    You don't see how the bolded is crazy? If I ever have to investigate something to make sure it is sanitary and eating it won't make me a cannibal, something is horribly wrong.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The other day I took my dollar bill and bought a candybar. Either my dollar is worthless, or the candybar is worthless. Or, just maybe, the dollar bill is doing the job it was intended. To allow me to get a candybar.

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Talous wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    I know you're not an American, but the Constitution of the United States is not pussified anarchism.
    Anything that allowed the Bank of America and protectionist tariffs be created to be created is not a libertarian document.

    It didn't. Look up Andrew Jackson's war on the bank.

    But hey, I'm nice enough to have googled it for you.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+jackson+bank+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    Fun Fact: Andrew Jackson wasn't a founding father. Guess who actually had something to do with the writing of the constitution and thought the bank wasn't unconstitutional? The Supreme Court also ruled it was constitutional.

    Fun fact: he was arguably our worst president ever with little to no regard for The Constitution. In fact he broke it's tenants on a fairly regular basis.

    Fun Fact: This is why pointing to the founding fathers should not be considered a position of strength in debates.

    moniker on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    But not wanting to pay those taxes and being fine with those risks (or rather, wanting to investigate those risks yourself)... I mean, I can see you disagreeing with that- I can definitely 100% see that. But I don't see how you can call it crazy/retarded/absolutely off the wall.

    It's not that complicated, despite the Matrix-like agility you have heretofore displayed in eluding points like speeding bullets.

    Lemme lay it out for you, once more, with music. There are exactly two possibilities here.

    1) Ron Paul abolishes the FDA, like some of his followers keep suggesting, and human fingers turn up in my food. This is not fiction, this shit actually happens in places with insufficient regulation. Libertarians have a new "freedom" to celebrate (the freedom of cannibalism, apparently) so at least they're happy, but fuck them, I have fingers in my food that aren't mine.

    --- OR ---

    2) He punts the responsibility for food regulation to the states, like his followers keep also suggesting. Now there's a crazy-quilt patchwork of laws governing this shit so I have to do an hour of googling just to decide if I want my God-damned Van Kamps today. Meanwhile, since the regulations still exist to some degree or another, there hasn't been a net gain in freedom, so there's a run on Bounty extra-absorbent towels for libertarians to cry into before starting their assault on the state regulations. Result: nobody's happy.

    What compelling choices! What a shining fucking utopia!

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    You may be shocked and amazed to learn that Ron Paul does not, in fact, hold an exclusive monopoly on interpretation of the Constitution. Leaving aside for the moment that the men who wrote it vociferously disagreed on its boundaries, millions of Americans appear to approve of the over two centuries of established precedent and interpretation that the modern system is based on. I know I for one enjoy having a reasonable degree of confidence that my can of baked beans is free of surplus human fingers.

    But this is what I don't get. Cool, you're fine with a bit more taxes to avoid fingers in your beans. Fine. Sounds kosher to me.

    But not wanting to pay those taxes and being fine with those risks (or rather, wanting to investigate those risks yourself)... I mean, I can see you disagreeing with that- I can definitely 100% see that. But I don't see how you can call it crazy/retarded/absolutely off the wall. You're acting like Ron Paul supporters literally say

    "I support Ron Paul because I like fingers in my beans and I formulate thought without actually thinking a harr hee dooooo my brain is made of the pulp of tangerines".

    I mean, maybe they're wrong. Maybe. Debatable, and you have a large majority of this forum agreeing with your position. But the whole "all of this shit is insane nutjob wacko" just strikes me as resultant of your personal annoyance with some of the guy's mannerisms and his fans. His ideas aren't literally borne of an inbred relationship. People are seriously overstating the 'ridiculousness' of his arguments.

    If you have a strong argument (and like I said, a majority of very smart people on this forum agree with you so I'd say your argument is pretty strong) it's just so inane and counterintuitive to stoop calling his stuff insane. It's really not insane at all.

    Not everyone looks back wistfully to the Gilded Age and consider the public service that muckrakers produced (such as Sinclair's The Jungle) in new laws are paragons of civilized advancement. I'm certainly enjoying the lack of cholera outbreaks, personally. I could probably do the necessary research for a scholarly article opposing Paul's policies and more specious claims, or point to historical examples of their inevitable failures with a thick amount of backing, but this is an internet forum to hold a conversation in; not a publication agency for my thesis submittals.

    moniker on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    I love how the crux of my point is sidestepped with dramatics.

    I'm not saying that deregulation in the food industry would be a good thing. I'm saying that there are valid enough arguments for it that you can't call it retarded. You can't say that it was developed by people in a mental institution.

    It (food deregulation) is supported either in full or in large part by many, many people in the US of varying backgrounds who live normal, sane lives.

    You personally find the conclusion unconscionable and out of the question. The man is not suggesting, though, that we replace all of our M1 Abram Tanks with pink unicorns.


    edit: moniker, that was directed at jabob.

    Organichu on
This discussion has been closed.