Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[cunt sauce]

check out and discuss: The Myths of "Libertarian" Economics (http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=139664)

[Fist 666]

Also, I am still waiting for a working definition of the social contract. If you want to employ this as a basis for the legitimacy of taxation then it, as a concept, must hold integrity.

i thought i had a more complete response about a social contract until this society v state element came up.
yes, i am framing them as one thing, i don't know how american society could exist without the constitution or the government that is loosely guided by it.

google defines society:
1.The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
2. The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.

both of those require some sort of agreement by a majority or a leader (government or state) as to what is beneficial to the group.

yes?

[angelofdeath]

The other thing you said that was quite interesting to me was that colonial times would seem like relative anarchy compared to now. I see your point, the federal or colonial government would have little influence on or power over people in 18th century America. But at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution, most people's lives, and the course of their lives, were far more prescribed than our lives today. Most people did what their parents did. The church had more control over their lives. Communities were smaller and closer, people were shamed out of bad behavior and encouraged into good behavior. We have much more freedom to choose our direction in our jobs, relationships, where we live, etc., because many social controls are modified or non-existent. Our freedom to choose a career is a double edged sword as well, since we are also free to fail. In 18th century America, the prodigal son would return and the community would pick him up. 20-21st century prodigal son may have no one or where to return to. We have welfare of course, but libertarians want to abolish it, even though its predecesor no longer exists and its successor is not apparent.

To summarize, we live in a fundamentally different world than 18th century Europeans and Americans. Indeed, the opening of the 20th century was a sea change from the end of the 18th. What is freedom and what is not freedom has changed, it is never universal, and never as simple as you seem to make it out to be.


i think the concept of freedom under natural rights theory has always been universal and always will be. for instance, i dont think people could ever think human chattel slavery was 'freedom.' yet when people are chained to the state, they think this is freedom.

i think your first paragraph up there addresses a key point. hobbes vs locke. if humans are free, do they have to rely on themselves and communities? or when humans are free, do they kill each for looking at one another cross ways? the very heart of the debate is...is liberty the mother of order or the daughter? im thoroughly convinced liberty is the MOTHER of order, not the other way around.
given that all state invervention has unintended consquences, i think its quite clear the state creates many more problems than it solves.

in refererence to welfare you cannot negate the fact that the state has replaced the family and the community in these areas. i think you realized this but didnt really blame the government for taking away the community/family aspects of the sitaution you talked about above. if the state no longer acted as the 'safety net' people would be forced to rely on themselves. its in effect a moral hazard. you tend to act differently if you have something to fall back on. if you have 5 million in cash sitting in a bank account, you probably dont really care if you boss at your job fires you all that much. if you have nothing to fall back on at all, you might really try to do your best at your job and do as much as you can to excel, get promoted, open your own business, etc. but if you have a high social safety net, it creates a moral hazard type situation, not unlike the bail outs. people take risks, and do stupid things, knowing full well they have the government to fall back on. which is why we have this new phenomenon among hipsters and im sure familiar to many on this board....leaving your job, getting unemployment and traveling for a year while collecting a check. or college kids with parents paying 30K a year for school, on food stamps shopping at the farmers market.


i also think the 'inflexibility' of a particular philosophy is a good thing, especially when used for the 'right' purpose. of course, i would of liked hitler to be a bit more 'flexible' instead of instituting the 'final solution...' but i digress
if you believe that you own your self, you are necessarily against slavery in all its forms. any power over you that you did not consent to is illegitimate. in the the same way you cant just be 'a little bit pregnant...' you are either free or your arent. to me there is nothing capable of 'flexing' on that. you are either enslaved or you are free and any arbitrary power over you is necessarily evil, unless you consent to it. now, the situations in which you may live might not be stalinist russia, just like there probably were some well treated slaves on certain plantations, but the fact remains you are still a slave.

[angelofdeath]

Considering America is a society that is resposible for eachother's wellfare through the state, wouldnt that be a rejection of society? Senior services, public roads, public schools, fire departments, etc. By not paying for those what is your stance on society?


this is akin to saying you are against slaves if you dont praise the slave owner. after all the slave owner is responsible for the slaves welfare. by not supporting the slave owner, you are 'rejecting' the slaves.

[angelofdeath]

Or maybe im misunderstanding what you're trying to say. If you were to not partake in anything related to the state: I.E. not pay taxes, not vote, only use private schools, private libraries, private zoos, private roads, private soup kitchens, products from private companies who've never taken advantage of public loans, never pay into or take out of social security, never purchase property within the state, never use a public fire department or call the police.... if you had no part in any of that, what's left for you to connect to your fellow americans with?


WOW. by not calling the police or using a government loan, you cannot connect to your fellow americans?
GOT DAMN, public schools brain washed the F out of you. just sayin, that is probably the siliiest thing you have EVER written.



What do you think about 12 year old Middle Americans allowed to plow fields for $2 under minimum wage? That currently exists.

so what you are saying is someone is breaking the current law, so another law will fix this. got ya. makes perfect sense. those stupid murderers dont pay attention to murder laws, so now we gotta lock up peaceful gun owners who have aggressed against no one, because its possible to use a gun to kill someone when a deranged murderous criminal gets a hold of one.

joel salatin, a well known person in the 'food' culture today, who is a hero of the left if there ever was one, has a great theory that says the reason why we have roving teenage gangs today is because the things kids used to do to wear them out, where they went to bed at 8pm is now illegal.
what about parents? where are the parents in these situations? something is telling me that we dont have millionaires sending their kids off to 'plow fields' (what are these 12 year old kids operating 100K tractors all by themselves?) making 2$ an hour.

[angelofdeath]

Dude, austrian economists aren't the only people who are academics in the field of Economics. There are plenty of economists that instruct on the college level that are Keynesian, Austrian, Marxian, Syndicalist, etc. The only people who say shit like "if you ain't da free market, you don't know da economics" are fucktards that live on the Ludwig von Mises institute and haven't gone on in economics past their undergrad.

keynesianism, marxian, and obviously 'syndicalist' have been completely discredited.

[CILONE/SK]

It amazes me how narrow minded AOD is for his own point of view. It seems that he thinks he has all the answers and if we just went along with his thought process, we will be living in utopia.

[angelofdeath]

i thought i had a more complete response about a social contract until this society v state element came up.
yes, i am framing them as one thing, i don't know how american society could exist without the constitution or the government that is loosely guided by it.

google defines society:
1.The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
2. The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.

both of those require some sort of agreement by a majority or a leader (government or state) as to what is beneficial to the group.

yes?

i'll let the person this was addressed to respond fully, but...
i dont think 'order' requires a state or government at all. nor to customs, etc need to be given to people from down on high.
i see individuals not groups. if people want to voluntarily interact, that is their choice. i dont think a monopoly on force with official sanction to use legal violence against people who have aggressed against no one, is needed to tell individuals what to do.

[cunt sauce]

keynesianism, marxian, and obviously 'syndicalist' have been completely discredited.

links or it didn't happen.

Why don't you refute the libertarian critique (from an anarchist perspective) in the other thread?

[angelofdeath]

check out and discuss: The Myths of "Libertarian" Economics (http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=139664)

i'd rather run by nuts over a cheese grater, but i'll say this and move on:

the marxist labor theory of value is completely false, and the subjective theory of value is correct, because your thread has absolutely no value to me. if LTV is correct, i would have to agree it has value.
consumers wants and needs are subjective. period.

if you dont believe that, try telling your boss that you think digging a foundation for a house with a teaspoon is just as effective and valuable as me using a back hoe.

[CILONE/SK]

Is this thread even about ronnie paulie anymore? Or is it about the AOD and Aussie Francis make believe world?

Even their so-called Libertarian thoughts are diverging from Ron Pauls. Also, I find if very hypocritical that AOD does not even vote, yet he has such a large opinion about politics.

When was the last time any of you have discussed how he is doing on his campaign or anything else related to it??

[Fist 666]

i think we decided a while ago that it made just as much sense to discuss/debate libertarian theory in the ron paul thread, instead of starting a new thread.

[CILONE/SK]

But is it really libertarian theory that is being discussed? It seems to be a blend of a few different viewpoints.

Is there a name for a viewpoint that is only about the selfish wants of individuals who deny reality?

[Soup forgot his password]

haha so you think white guys do white guy stuff and Mexicans do Mexican stuff and that's what constitutes pluralism? How simplistic. Anyway I should have known better than to bother engaging with our local npr podcast expert. Of course you're right dude, you are always right! Right?

I don't know what white guy stuff is, but I definitely don't only speak spanish, work for $4/hr and stand on the side of the road waiting for someone to give me unskilled manual labor.

"Pluralistic Society
A society comprised of people from numerous different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Although some integration and acculturation is only natural, a pluralistic society is one that acknowledges and allows for the cultural diversity of its citizens."

While you're at it, why not expound on whether a "brick wall" really can't "talk back."

And what's with the constant name changes?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

It amazes me how narrow minded AOD is for his own point of view. It seems that he thinks he has all the answers and if we just went along with his thought process, we will be living in utopia.

No, just no. In fact if you read Libertarian philosophy you would realize the argument against this "utopia" that people like you attempt to create. There is no utopia.

[CILONE/SK]

You assume a positive utopia is what I am talking about. I am talking about the 1800s hard labor in the field utopia that you idiots idealize.

All of you make it seem that if you are not breaking your back, you are not suppose to get paid a decent wage.

Your "no utopia" statement backs this up.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Breaking your back? What are you talking about? Wages?

All I was saying is, Libertarian philosophy acknowledges that a utopia is not obtainable. So attempting to do such with legislation, and expanding government is just not going to solve the problem at hand.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Also to associate Libertarian philosophy with some kind of Amish lifestyle is comical. Carry on.

[CILONE/SK]

Ok, so a utopia is not attainable. Lets all just work in factories and fields for less then minimum wage, because that is what our labor is worth comparatively.


You truly are learning disabled, aren't you?

[Spambot5000]

i thought i had a more complete response about a social contract until this society v state element came up.
yes, i am framing them as one thing, i don't know how american society could exist without the constitution or the government that is loosely guided by it.

google defines society:
1.The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
2. The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.

both of those require some sort of agreement by a majority or a leader (government or state) as to what is beneficial to the group.

yes?

"American society". Case in point.

I think it is quite a complex topic though. I think this definition is fairly satisfactory, although I do not accept laws, in the positive sense, to be a key characteristic of a society. I would more so accept 'living laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Ehrlich)', as an outcome of shared customs, to be an contributor to society. So, premised by saying positive laws are not an intrinsic aspect of society, how can you say fundamentally that what goes on within the borders of the USA is American society? Why is society attributable to a national base unit? On a larger scale, is the West also a society? Or on a smaller scale, do cities or neighbourhoods have societies? Why does a society depend on being homogeneous within a geographical area? Perhaps do societies exist as intersecting networks? Are graffiti writers, for example, members of a society that cycling enthusiasts are not?

As per my post earlier, I see society to be a multiplicity of forms. There is no one society, but many, that people intersect with often at the same time. As the state is virtually all pervasive, it influences many of these multiple forms, yet at no point does it fundamentally define them. Even if society was to be attributed to the social interactions born of national institutions and forms of order it would not solely be a characterised by the state, but also of the social norms belonging to those who interact with these institutions and forms of order. In this way even a 'national' society is one that is larger that the state. In accordance with this characterisation the state perhaps enables, yet exists within, society.

[Spambot5000]

I don't know what white guy stuff is, but I definitely don't only speak spanish, work for $4/hr and stand on the side of the road waiting for someone to give me unskilled manual labor.

"Pluralistic Society
A society comprised of people from numerous different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Although some integration and acculturation is only natural, a pluralistic society is one that acknowledges and allows for the cultural diversity of its citizens."

While you're at it, why not expound on whether a "brick wall" really can't "talk back."

And what's with the constant name changes?

This definition just points to the inadequacies of classical pluralist theory. Assuming that you find society to be a property of state institutions then historically there have only ever been a small fraction of states who have not been pluralistic in some way.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Ok, so a utopia is not attainable. Lets all just work in factories and fields for less then minimum wage, because that is what our labor is worth comparatively.


You truly are learning disabled, aren't you?

What? Who even said this? It is ultimately up to yourself to get educated and get out in society to be productive, you determine your own self worth. If you do nothing to raise the value of your contribution to society why should you have status over someone who has?

Why do you assume that in a society structured in the way that I see it should be structured you assume a backwards transition back to the middle ages?? Or whatever time period you feel is more accurate. I see no reason for this connection.

Yeah, I have multiple learning disabilities. One of them includes discussing things of this nature over the internet with you.

[Soup forgot his password]

This definition just points to the inadequacies of classical pluralist theory. Assuming that you find society to be a property of state institutions then historically there have only ever been a small fraction of states who have not been pluralistic in some way.

At this point It's not theory. It's a word with a definition. Maybe it was theory 2000 years ago when people actually talked like you but since then we've got the word "pluralism" written down in dictionaries. Society isnt property of the state. "The State" as in Public Wellfare, Public Education, Public roads, public utilities, public services, and public institutions is the commonwealth of society.

Do you actually have a grasp on libertarianism (or the english language) or are you going to continue to sink this conversation into the abstract with rhetoric and philosophy? Rhetoric and philosophy are pretty cool in a conversation about rhetoric or philosophy, now they're used by pseudo intellectuals who dont actually have a grasp on the conversation.

[CILONE/SK]

What? Who even said this? It is ultimately up to yourself to get educated and get out in society to be productive, you determine your own self worth. If you do nothing to raise the value of your contribution to society why should you have status over someone who has?

Why do you assume that in a society structured in the way that I see it should be structured you assume a backwards transition back to the middle ages?? Or whatever time period you feel is more accurate. I see no reason for this connection.

Yeah, I have multiple learning disabilities. One of them includes discussing things of this nature over the internet with you.

The way you see things only applies to small towns and simple labor trade arrangements. It does not apply to multi-national corporations and financial markets that do not involve labor, which are the cause of the financial failures we currently are having and the libertarian nonsense does not include in their viewpoints.

You seem pretty naive and are willing to disregard the realities of todays global markets.

[Soup forgot his password]

Cilone really? Lotsbrains says utopia doesnt exist and HE's naive about the realities of global markets? Cmon now.

[Soup forgot his password]

joel salatin, a well known person in the 'food' culture today, who is a hero of the left if there ever was one, has a great theory that says the reason why we have roving teenage gangs today is because the things kids used to do to wear them out, where they went to bed at 8pm is now illegal.
what about parents? where are the parents in these situations? something is telling me that we dont have millionaires sending their kids off to 'plow fields' (what are these 12 year old kids operating 100K tractors all by themselves?) making 2$ an hour.

I think if you can pay a bunch of 12 year olds $3/hr BELOW min wage then you dont have to shell out 100k for a tractor, but I could be wrong. Cheap manual labor is at least why there's hardly a machine in the factories where apple products are made (which is also where the highest suicide rates are in china). Anyway 12 year old labor is an existing reality in the mid-west. Children are allowed to plow fields on non-school hours if they're 12 or older, and by law they're payed below min wage because they are minors. Everywhere else the minimum working age is 16 and paid minimum.

I dont limit the "gang" phenomena to out of work kids. I think adults partake in gang activities as well. Most crime happens in blue collar areas where the antisocial unskilled uneducated laborer can make a living by lifting heavy things and using their body. And during the era when blue collar work fueled most of small-town america, nightly barfights was just part of the culture. What you see happening in gentrified areas is a reduction in crime, because people who make a living by being social, mild mannered, and educated generally dont partake in any of the same barfighting activities. Overall crime in America is on the decline. I see that being in conjunction with an increasing demand for white collar work, and blue collar work drying up.

I agree that kids need to have chores and develop positive activities and hobbies, but child labor laws are there to protect kids from being sold by their parents/orfanages into indentured servitude as was popular in the 17-1800's in america, and still popular in developing countries. Right now kids who drop out of highschool and start working have 20% unemployment. College grads float around 2%. Imagine the unemployment rate if Jr high kids were allowed to drop out and perform work.

[Spambot5000]

At this point It's not theory. It's a word with a definition. Maybe it was theory 2000 years ago when people actually talked like you but since then we've got the word "pluralism" written down in dictionaries. Society isnt property of the state. "The State" as in Public Wellfare, Public Education, Public roads, public utilities, public services, and public institutions is the commonwealth of society.

Do you actually have a grasp on libertarianism (or the english language) or are you going to continue to sink this conversation into the abstract with rhetoric and philosophy? Rhetoric and philosophy are pretty cool in a conversation about rhetoric or philosophy, now they're used by pseudo intellectuals who dont actually have a grasp on the conversation.

haha of course it is theoretical! Pluralism, like all concepts of the social sciences, doesn't exist in an objective sense, it is a theory or analytical tool to explain certain social phenomena. Anyway, we've had similar conversations in the past and given how shit seems to spark between us I'm not that keen to repeat them. The scope of politics, or the focus of certain social disciplines spring to mind. You will say 'check the dictionary brotard' and I say 'the dictionary is not always that precise cornball', or something like that. Can we not and say we did?

[Soup forgot his password]

it's not a social science theory you moron. "Pluralistic society" is a term used to decribe a melting pot of people. Cut the pseudointellectual bullshit. Frank you're a child who doesnt know anything actually about economics so you resort to stupid arguments like "how accurate is the dictionary, really?" Get off the computer and go play with kids your own age.

[Fist 666]

yep. taking a turn for the worse...

[Soup forgot his password]

Thats not true Im having a perfectly reasonable discussion with AOD.

Frank's just being annoying and using rhetoric to dislodge my argument. The problem he hasnt realized yet is that rhetoricians use the ole "What do words mean, really" argument not to be constructive in conversation, but to melt language down to a meaningless pile of shit. You use it to piss off your english teachers when they ask you to write an essay on a subject and you write an essay about why being forced to write on that subject is insidious and intrusive to free thinking. It's a good way to get a C on a paper and piss off everyone who cares about the subject, without doing any of the assigned reading. I used to do it all the time.

To bring this back around to a subject of libertarianism/ron paul, the discussion of libertarianism has always been state capitalism vs free market capitalism. That's the subject. This thread should be entirely made of examples of where state capitalism and free market capitalism either fucked up or made things better and thats it.... but it's not, and here's my theory on why: I don't think the average 12ozer knows that much about state capitalism or free market capitalism. I think when someone says they're libertarian they think it means you're antiestablishment or you're such a deep thinker that you're constantly questioning what is reality and how to rethink society. On this page we see Frank raging against the insidious and oppressive nature of the dictionary, which is great in the context of LSD but when the subject is ruled to specifically State capitalism vs free market capitalism, it's fucking annoying.

Thats all i have to say about that. And back to Libertarianism/Free Ron Paul.

[Spambot5000]

Yeah I'm not going to bite. Save your oh so witty insults.

In the meantime I am happy to continue to discuss the nature of society and its relationship with the state with anyone else. Although I realise it is starting to veer a bit off topic.

[Soup forgot his password]

I think not posting would've meant the same thing but whatevs.

[angelofdeath]

I think if you can pay a bunch of 12 year olds $3/hr BELOW min wage then you dont have to shell out 100k for a tractor, but I could be wrong.

i realize your creating this story here to appeal to peoples liberal sensibilities and make some case against free trade, etc, but what in the hell are farmers who are trying to make money... 'plowing' with exactly? what are these 12 year olds using shovels? teaspoons? what farm in 21st century america 'plows' with 12 year olds pulling a plow board? maybe im just knitpicking at your semantics here, but you are making a totally silly case about 12 year olds plowing with any farm equipment.


Cheap manual labor is at least why there's hardly a machine in the factories where apple products are made (which is also where the highest suicide rates are in china). Anyway 12 year old labor is an existing reality in the mid-west. Children are allowed to plow fields on non-school hours if they're 12 or older, and by law they're payed below min wage because they are minors. Everywhere else the minimum working age is 16 and paid minimum.and what exactly is wrong with this?
i started 'working' when i was 9 or 10. when i did this, i was able to save enough money to make all other lazy non working kids to shame. and i credit this with the reason why im able to live the lifestyle that i am, because i learned work ethic at an early age. i was able to purchase a few items that cost in excess of 1000 dollars by the time i was 13. i was able to save enough money by the time myself and some non working high school graduates, that they could not understand where my money came from. they knew nothing of work and making money. they only knew running around, doing stupid shit, and screwing off waiting for their parents to give them a few bucks. see, the thing with stuff like the minimum wage that you support is that it attempts to solve these imaginery problems, while outlawing a kid working for their neighbor on their farm, ranchette or property, to make side money. do you really intend to outlaw a 12 year old kid who is DYING to make some money in order to buy x, y, z the freedom of choice to voluntarily contract with a guy across the fence to do a little work and make a few bucks when he isnt in school? its not 'by law' they are FORCED to be paid 'less than minimum wage' its the fact that is what their labor is worth. do you really think an 8 year old who rakes leaves for a neighbor can do so just as fast and efficient as a 30 year old landscaper with a crew of 3 guys with leaf blows and tree shredders? use your noggin.

I dont limit the "gang" phenomena to out of work kids. I think adults partake in gang activities as well. Most crime happens in blue collar areas where the antisocial unskilled uneducated laborer can make a living by lifting heavy things and using their body. And during the era when blue collar work fueled most of small-town america, nightly barfights was just part of the culture. What you see happening in gentrified areas is a reduction in crime, because people who make a living by being social, mild mannered, and educated generally dont partake in any of the same barfighting activities. Overall crime in America is on the decline. I see that being in conjunction with an increasing demand for white collar work, and blue collar work drying up.i dont see 60 year old well off adults going into crime full time.
usually poor kids get into crime because they dont have any other viable options. and since the government has outlawed things like drugs, gambling, prostitution and other things that organized crime revolves around, therefore making them highly lucrative jobs, they attract kids with low producitivity. it makes economic sense to them. and since the state has outlawed legal work for children under the age of 18 effectively in most areas, where else do they turn when they have no options?




but child labor laws are there to protect kids from being sold by their parents/orfanages into indentured servitude as was popular in the 17-1800's in america, and still popular in developing countries. do you really think in 21st century america where the poor have iphones, cars, and air conditioning that they are going to sell their kids into indentured servitude? why not just disallow 'selling kids into slavery' but legalize the right of a child to contract and rake leaves legally for a neighbor? so long as there is consent, the parents consent and the kids consent, what in the hell is the problem? in effect by advocating the illegality of a 15.9 year old or a 17.9 year old (where ever the legal age limit is where you live)from legally obtaining a paying job, you are making it illegal for a kid to earn money and learn responsibility.

i mentioned a well known virginia farmer in a previous post. this guy has local neighbor kids knocking down his door trying to work on this farm. he cant legally hire them until they are 18 because in virginia you have to be 18 to operate a cordless drill. in fact, the irony also is, a 16 year old can drive a F250 that weighs 10K lbs down the highway going 70mph, but he cannot employ anyone under 18 to operate one of his tractors. the ideology that backs your beliefs on economic intervention is the reason for this. you have a sitaution here where both sides mutually agree, the kids are going to the employer for work, and the employer cannot hire them.

Right now kids who drop out of highschool and start working have 20% unemployment. College grads float around 2%. Imagine the unemployment rate if Jr high kids were allowed to drop out and perform work.what you are essentially saying is that the state owns children and owns their parents and has a right to tell them what kind of education they need. you see in a free society people are able to make good and bad decisions. if they make a bad decision that is their choice. the obvious incentive is to try to get more education. however a college education is getting to be totally worthless. we have this new thing going on where kids to go college till they are in their late 20's and then they just move back into their parents house.

its in peoples best interest to try to increase their productivity. its what people do. when you get a better paying job, its because you increased your productivity some how. getting more education is a way of increasing their productivity. if people dont want to do that, that is entirely up to them. maybe someone is happy cutting grass for a living instead of programming computers. this is just freedom of choice.

[Decyferon]

but AOD it isn't that bad because schooling is free for kids, you remove state education and start charging $20k a year for schools then you will see kids being forced into work because their parents cannot afford to send them to school.

This is why if you look at the issues one by one they dont seem so bad but if you scale it all out to real world then it doesn't hold up the same

[CILONE/SK]

I am wondering how the Libertarian theory holds up to the derivative markets? There is almost no labor involved in these markets since it is almost fully based on speculation and not necessarily tied to supply and demand.

Also, how do Libertarians feel about capital gains? Almost all extremely rich people, live off of capital gains. There is zero labor involved, yet there is a vast amount of money being made for the rich.

Would all this go away in a "Gold Standard"?

[angelofdeath]

but AOD it isn't that bad because schooling is free for kids, you remove state education and start charging $20k a year for schools then you will see kids being forced into work because their parents cannot afford to send them to school.

This is why if you look at the issues one by one they dont seem so bad but if you scale it all out to real world then it doesn't hold up the same

home schooling is almost free. you give a kid the best education possible ,1-12 grades, for what it costs to send a student to school for 1 year.
and they produce the best results. this is undeniable fact.
there are plenty of interesting numbers floating around.... state schools are 24K per student on average per year. private schooling is average of 7K per year. hell, alot of people that own normal houses are paying that already to fund public schools.

if there is a demand for schools, a supply will meet it. which is why you have such a variety of services and goods in all other non government sectors. food, you can buy bulk rice for 50 cents a pound, or you can by caviar for 50$ an oz. you can buy a cheap used honda or your can buy a mercedes benz. you can home school, you can send your kids to a cheap private school, expensive private school or an ivy league private school. i dont get it, you have to pay for your hamburgers, clothes and iphone, why shouldnt one bear the true cost of their education and decide which education is best for themselves?

you are stuck in this paradigm where because the government has essentially monopolized something, that without the government providing this service, it cant possibly happen in the private sector. its sort of like how the soviets thought that without government, they wouldnt be able to eat. they thought waiting in line was normal and anyone who talked about private property rights and free exchange in food was met with your typical response...'but if we have private markets in food, everyone will starve, the food will be poisoned, and only profiteers will be engaged in food distribution.' yet that was what was going on with state provided food. yet when you look at reality, the state schools dont educate, cost twice as much as a much better private education, if not multiples more when compared to home schooling, and a high school diploma of 1950 is what a college degree MIGHT be worth today. state education has dumbed down generations. and we are told without the government having a monpoly on schools, everyone will be getting dumber, yet this is what is happening with the monopoly.

if public schools are tops, then obviously the president and vice president wouldnt be sending their kids and grand kids to private schools, they would go to public schools with the rest of the mundanes. typical political hypocrisy

[Fist 666]

i'm not trying to just hit you with a side comment as you accuse me of, but how is homeschooling free?
in a 2 parent household it cuts the potential earned income in half, let alone the cost of the homeschooling program and books, extra meal consumed at lunch (not via a terrible lunch program thru the schools), increased use of power and water during the day, etc

[Decyferon]

just because some people can afford to send their kids to private school is fine, not veryone can therefore it is better to have a public education system too for those people that cannot afford to choose.

Also home schooling is pretty hit or miss if you ask me, depends on the intelligence level of the parent, and the points Fist makes are very valid too.

[Decyferon]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/04/ron-paul-tells-piers-morgan-only-honest-rape-merits-abortion/

Ron Paul tells Piers Morgan only ‘honest rape’ merits abortion

[angelofdeath]

i'm not trying to just hit you with a side comment as you accuse me of, but how is homeschooling free?
in a 2 parent household it cuts the potential earned income in half, let alone the cost of the homeschooling program and books, extra meal consumed at lunch (not via a terrible lunch program thru the schools), increased use of power and water during the day, etc

i'll admit nothing is totally 'free' as in there is no such thing as a free lunch. everything is a trade off.
but if you want to look at those sort of costs, you might as well look at how much kids cost in general, i mean you have to feed them, clothe them, you have to stay home with them before they are old enough to go to school or pay for a baby sitter, you have to organize baby sitters if you send your kids to school and work to watch them before or after you get off, or if you send them to school you lose the income you could potentially have by working more hours, but instead you have to leave work early to pick up your kids. these are all sort of technical problems that are different for each family. for some families if one person is driving an hour to work every day in an SUV and only making a minimal salary, it might make sense to just stay home, save the gas, let the husband work a couple more hours and have hte kids home schooled. who actually eats the slop they serve at schools anyway? when i went to half of my schooling in a public school, i didnt eat it once.

i'd also like to point out, without state requirements and over sight that is quite burdensome in some areas, the costs could be reduced much further. most of the arbitrary requirements for text books, etc are just BS filler anyway that doesnt even matter. it boils down to the principle of ownership. who owns you and your children? you and your family or the state? what gives them the right to dictate to anyone how they are teaching?

when you compare the cost of schooling a child in public school with federal and state funding is on average 24K per student. i have an acquaintance who home schooled their family of 5 in alaska, all 5 kids mind you, for a grand total of 8-10K. total, not per kid. that is for k-12. that is half the cost of one year of public school. one child is in 7th sfg, another got a scholarship to harvard at age 16 the rest are just finishing up their formal home schooling.

[angelofdeath]

just because some people can afford to send their kids to private school is fine, not veryone can therefore it is better to have a public education system too for those people that cannot afford to choose.

sure thing, just stop throwing people in cages if they dont pay for your public schools.
that is all i have ever asked.
put down the guns and let people alone.

but your response shows that you cannot let what im saying sink into your head.
the COST WILL FALL BECAUSE THERE IS A DEMAND FOR LOW COST SCHOOLING. usually the left is constantly telling me how excessive the market is, how they are undercutting people and selling stuff to cheap, now you are trying to tell me that in this one case where money can be made, capitalists will not seek profits. atleast keep a consistent argument. how can they make money by charging 1 million dollars per year when poor people can only afford the equivalent of their property tax payment @ 2000 per year? the market will allocate resources and give consumers what they want. it is what it always does.

your response also neglects to take into account the incentives put forth by the state itself. for instance if people were made to bear the true cost of their lifestyle and the goods and services they consume, if the state was severely scaled back, they would have to reorganize. the incentive would no longer be to rely on the state, it would be to rely on yourself. if you knew you had to pay for your kids schooling and that it might cost a couple thousand a year, first off, you'd have that property tax school tax and income tax back in your pocket, so you have an instant 30-50% raise right there. but you would also have the incentive to seek better jobs, increase your productivity, perhaps welfare queens might have to seek husbands who want to excel in life instead of stay in the slum system and stay on welfare with 5 different kids and slinging crack on the side. they might want to have more interest in that nice young 'dorky' guy their mom was telling them about at church.
you see, the basic lesson of economics is to look at everything, not just what is seen. you have to look at what is unseen. you cannot see what options would become available in abundance, just like they always do when freedom flourishes. all you see is a bunch of kids being trotted off to 'free' indoctrination camps in yellow prison buses.

you see when you subsidize something you get more of it. its basic economic law. if you subsidize the poor or the uneducated you get more of it. this is the reason the poverty rate has remained basically unchanged since johnson declared war on it. when they declared war on drugs, we went from pot to cocaine to crack and now have meth taking over the country.

its not at all unlike the 19th century conundrum of 'if we free the slaves who will pick the cotton?!?!'
if someone in 1830 told you that in 150 years these big steel machines running on dinosaur piss would be using using gps technology to pick it, would you believe it?
it will be the same without government schools. maybe in 100 years the very idea of sending kids off to mini concentration camps based on the prussian model to create good obedient factory workers and patriotic state lovers, will be totally scrapped and kids will be taught alternatively and the previous methods would seem as barbaric as forcing enslaved africans to ' pick the cotton.'

Also home schooling is pretty hit or miss if you ask me, depends on the intelligence level of the parent, and the points Fist makes are very valid too.all the more incentive for the parent to become intelligent.
there is no utopia my friend, all we can ask for is the freedom to choose.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

The way you see things only applies to small towns and simple labor trade arrangements. It does not apply to multi-national corporations and financial markets that do not involve labor, which are the cause of the financial failures we currently are having and the libertarian nonsense does not include in their viewpoints.

You seem pretty naive and are willing to disregard the realities of todays global markets.

Says who? You?

Corruption is the system we live under, you can not simply dismiss this and say it "won't work" because of the situation we are in now, we did not follow a free market to get into this mess, you don't understand this, you think we are already in a free market, and you think this is the reason for our economic turmoil. You are wrong.

Please explain the realities of today's global markets, drop some knowledge bro don't just make blanket statements and move forward as if they are fact. Or as if you have any idea as to what you are claiming.

[Decyferon]

You may not have realised but people dont earn huge amounts of money, even if they increase their productivity in their job they still wont earn more money for it, so without a public education system I would have to work another job so maybe 70+ hours a week work just so my son can go to school.

So he would suffer because he would never see his father because I would be forced to work just so he could go to school. This would also be unbenficial for me because I would always be tired, no leisure time, no family time.

Many people are too skilled for their jobs because there are not jobs out there, you makeit seem like they can just walk up to their employer or another empolyer and walk into a job, that does not happen.

Also I said education should not be ran to make profits, it should be to provide an education to everyone, if you start runnign the education system solely to make a profit then the level of education would suffer, teachers wages getting cut back, cutting spending to non profitable subjects like art.

Also with the home schooling arguement, so if the parent isn't intelligent enouogh to be earning enough money in a job to send their child to school what makes you think they will be intelligent enough to provide a complete education?

[CILONE/SK]

Please explain the realities of today's global markets, drop some knowledge bro don't just make blanket statements and move forward as if they are fact. Or as if you have any idea as to what you are claiming.

I am wondering how the Libertarian theory holds up to the derivative markets? There is almost no labor involved in these markets since it is almost fully based on speculation and not necessarily tied to supply and demand.

Also, how do Libertarians feel about capital gains? Almost all extremely rich people, live off of capital gains. There is zero labor involved, yet there is a vast amount of money being made for the rich.

Would all this go away in a "Gold Standard"?

Not once has anyone address how a "free market" will affect markets like these. Not once.

Tell us how the "free market" will affect these markets, especially since they are not based on a goods/labor arrangement.

In fact, when you get down to it, the whole stock market is not necessarily based on your simplistic models either.

How would this work out in a "free market"?

[CILONE/SK]

You may not have realised but people dont earn huge amounts of money, even if they increase their productivity in their job they still wont earn more money for it, so without a public education system I would have to work another job so maybe 70+ hours a week work just so my son can go to school.

So he would suffer because he would never see his father because I would be forced to work just so he could go to school. This would also be unbenficial for me because I would always be tired, no leisure time, no family time.

Many people are too skilled for their jobs because there are not jobs out there, you makeit seem like they can just walk up to their employer or another empolyer and walk into a job, that does not happen.

Also I said education should not be ran to make profits, it should be to provide an education to everyone, if you start runnign the education system solely to make a profit then the level of education would suffer, teachers wages getting cut back, cutting spending to non profitable subjects like art.

Also with the home schooling arguement, so if the parent isn't intelligent enouogh to be earning enough money in a job to send their child to school what makes you think they will be intelligent enough to provide a complete education?


Don't forget that in a for-profit classroom, if they start failing people, then less people will want to attend that school. So, their grades become artificially high and that market gets corrupted. In the end, the whole system gets debased and education becomes something meaningless that you will need just to compete. The competitive market necessitates that they need a good graduation rate, if not, the schools profits will take a hit and they will lose business. You already see it in the for-profit colleges out there now, people just getting a piece of paper with no real education behind it.

There are more variables involved, but if all schools were for-profit, this is what would happen to a more extreme level.

[angelofdeath]

You may not have realised but people dont earn huge amounts of money, even if they increase their productivity in their job they still wont earn more money for it, so without a public education system I would have to work another job so maybe 70+ hours a week work just so my son can go to school.

you just criticized me for my resistance to forceful taxation because i 'didnt want to pay for anything' and now you are telling me you want everything for free.
hmmm...
you still dont get it.
if state schools were abolished, schools that people could afford would pop up. imagine if we had government monopolized food stores and they sold rice for 20$ a pound. you would have us believe that if we allowed freedom, that the price would go to 200 a pound and no one could afford it. yet in all your other posts , you are complaining about 'big business' charging to 'cheap of prices' putting ''mom and pop stores' out of business. and you think that these greedy business men would not come up with a satisfactory schooling method that people can afford?


So he would suffer because he would never see his father because I would be forced to work just so he could go to school. This would also be unbenficial for me because I would always be tired, no leisure time, no family time.that may be true, but lets remember it is living standards and productivity that gives us leisure. lets not forget when people were flocking their horrible lives on the farm to make more money in a horrible factory, they were bettering their lot in life. it wasnt THAT long ago when people were working 12 hours a day just to put food on the table, they werent spending their extra income on iphones and vacations. because their labor was worth so little that they had to work that many hours.

the way to get rich is to increase your productivity. get better skills if you want to work less and make more money.


Also I said education should not be ran to make profits, it should be to provide an education to everyone, if you start runnign the education system solely to make a profit then the level of education would suffer, teachers wages getting cut back, cutting spending to non profitable subjects like art.why should teachers make more money when they cant even teach the kids anything at the rates they currently make?
state schools fail horribly at providing an education, so i think you are arguing a moot point.
basically you are in favor of free schools, that you dont have to pay for, your neighbor does, and if he doesnt you send in the guys in uniforms with badges and guns to extract the revenue, and to top it off, you dont even want children educated, you want them indoctrinated and dumbed down.

Also with the home schooling arguement, so if the parent isn't intelligent enouogh to be earning enough money in a job to send their child to school what makes you think they will be intelligent enough to provide a complete education?i dont know, seems similar too..'what if the parents are not capable of feeding their kids?' or 'what if they feed their kids something that i dont like?' if you base your entire case on the cases that hardly ever happen, it just gets plain stupid.

what if parents choose to stay home and teach their kids but have a high labor productivity?
plenty of people do this.

you are asking questions similar to...'what if we let private industry build bridges... instead of government?'
'why how will they pour the concrete or set the beams?' 'how will they span the distance?'
these are just technical problems that get ironed out.

i already said you can have your public school, if you just dont throw people in jail if they dont fund.
but since i have already demonstrated by having you say it with your own mouth, liberals do not put thier money where their mouths are. they like to talk a good game about compassion, charity, etc. yet when it comes to their own dime, they recoil at the very thought of putting their own money down. if all the liberals and statists just voluntarily pooled their own money and set up their own private voluntarily 'public' institutions, they could just shut the F up and get on with their lives and leave the rest of us alone.
perhaps you should ask warren buffett, michael moore and al gore what they would do in those situations and since they the funds to fix all those problems, take up the issue with them.

i'd also say that given the number of people who justify the entire coercive school system on teh fact that 1 person in a state might not be able to 'adequately' educate their children to the specifications of other people.... that these people are illustrating a demand to fund a non profit institution to take care of these kids on a totally voluntary basis. after all there is plenty of demand for red cross services, why not free private school services? look at all the free information on the internet, probably in 20 years the internet and free distribution materials will make formal schooling irrelevant. the destitute and homeless have plenty of private shelters and soup kitchens, why not a bunch of free private schools?
you are illustrating the demand for this by making your post.

[Decyferon]

and I have said it before you don't like it where you live and the rules and laws that entales then you can move, I don't need to give up 100% of my wage just have a fair taxation policy for everyone

living atandards in America are not the best in the world, if I remember rightly they arent in the top 10, because of the shitty labour laws you have and the number of hours people have to work.

[CILONE/SK]

state schools fail horribly at providing an education, so i think you are arguing a moot point.

This statement is just wrong. I am not saying that there are not bad schools out there, but there definitely are great schools out there that prove this statement wrong.

It would be just as wrong to say that all private schools are great schools, which in not the case either.

AOD is making the assumption that private schools are great and public schools are bad.

[angelofdeath]

and I have said it before you don't like it where you live and the rules and laws that entales then you can move, I don't need to give up 100% of my wage just have a fair taxation policy for everyone

and i've said it many times before, what gives the govt the right to rule in teh first place? that is the question.
according to you if a bunch of guys move into your neighborhood, declare themselves the rulers, tax everyone at 50% just because, and a few of the gangs friends consent to their behavior, then they allow you people to vote on a few different 'leaders' and you dont like their policies....your answer to this is 'well, i dont like these guys, so i just got to move.'
instead of kicking their asses out of your neighborhood.
that is all a government is. a gang with a flag. that is how all governments came around.
the very question is what gave them the right to rule in the first place, where did the people consent and what gives them the power to run everyones lives?

[Decyferon]

they havent declared themselves ruler, they have been democratically elected, that is the difference

[Realism]

and they produce the best results. this is undeniable fact.


Can you cite something that backs this up?

I agree that most public school systems leave something to be desired but I'm not sure that warrants home schooling being undeniably the best route for everyone.

[angelofdeath]

oh oh ok.
so the neighborhood puts forth a bunch of tyrants to be 'elected,' 51% vote for them, 49% vote against them, but to bad. move.
hitler was elected by democratic election.
so much for democracy.
those stupid ass jews should of just moved. same with those stupid property title clinging kulaks in the ukraine.
if you dont like the democratically elected government, just move.
duh.
those stupid idiots making trouble for everyone.

[CILONE/SK]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ^coming from someone who does not even vote.

[Decyferon]

so now democracy isnt good enough, jesus christ, I said move if you don't like the rules that much.

But democracy and government are better than complete anarchy, which is what you want, even though you think there would be some kind of order there.

[angelofdeath]

Can you cite something that backs this up?

I agree that most public school systems leave something to be desired but I'm not sure that warrants home schooling being undeniably the best route for everyone.

i thought it was pretty common knowledge home school students typically score 15-30%+ above public schools.

that being said, in no way am i attempting to say homeschooling is 'for everyone.' i apologize if i said or implied that. im merely pointing out a cheap alternative to produce a top quality student that solves a few of the problems others have thrown at me. that is the beauty of a free society, there is no central plan. each individual plans for themselves and decides what is best.

[angelofdeath]

so now democracy isnt good enough, jesus christ, I said move if you don't like the rules that much.

But democracy and government are better than complete anarchy, which is what you want, even though you think there would be some kind of order there.

i'll take it you concede the point to me, because my argument obviously smashes yours.

even if was talking anarchy....
what keeps you from entering your neighbors house when ever you want? is it really the police force or is it the non permission of the owner and their property rights?

[Decyferon]

no I do not concede the point at all, I just cant be bothered to argue with you.

you believe whatever you want and have as much fait in it as you like, I just know it will not work in a real world and that most people would be worse off because of it, but that doesnt matter to you because it is their choice to be worse off.

[Decyferon]

i'll take it you concede the point to me, because my argument obviously smashes yours.

even if was talking anarchy....
what keeps you from entering your neighbors house when ever you want? is it really the police force or is it the non permission of the owner and their property rights?

i would be more concerned about being arrested and thrown in prison thhan having a fight with a neighbour. It is the same reason I dont walk into a supermarket fill mytrolley with my shopping and just walk out because I dont want to be arrested and put in prison.

but mainly because it is wrong.

[angelofdeath]

so you believe its wrong... and your morals tell you this and property rights back it up....yet you are trying to say that in an anarchist society there is no order.

[Decyferon]

because that is me, not everybody. If I thought I would get away with it I would have no problem robbing a supermarket blind, ok I wouldnt break into peoples homes but big businesses then yea I will take everything I can because I know they do the same to me with every chance they get.

[CILONE/SK]

But, Decy, don't you know that in a true free market, there is no crime, because everyone respects everyone else?

[Decyferon]

also in your family idea where mum is homeschooling the kids and dad is out working 70 hours a wekk to provide, what happens to them once his company decides they can get cheaper labour in china? They say to him you can keep your job but take a 50% pay cut or you will be fired. What happens then? Where does he get help from when he is unable to find another job? This is where your idea always falls down for me because they have to rely on the charity of others (which will not happen) you need a welfare state to help in these circumstances.

[Decyferon]

a free market only runs on the premise that everyone is only interested in self interest, this means that chairty and help to people in need would not be there because it isnt in their self interest.

[angelofdeath]

a free market only runs on the premise that everyone is only interested in self interest, this means that chairty and help to people in need would not be there because it isnt in their self interest.

this is just ridiculous.
people give to charity because its makes them feel good. because they feel good, it is their own self interest that makes them give. why do private soup kitchens, the red cross and other voluntary charities exist today? is government forcing people to fund them?
im a radical liberty advocate yet i believe 100% in voluntary charity.

[angelofdeath]

also in your family idea where mum is homeschooling the kids and dad is out working 70 hours a wekk to provide, what happens to them once his company decides they can get cheaper labour in china? They say to him you can keep your job but take a 50% pay cut or you will be fired. What happens then? Where does he get help from when he is unable to find another job? This is where your idea always falls down for me because they have to rely on the charity of others (which will not happen) you need a welfare state to help in these circumstances.

what happens if the family on government welfare gets hit by a car on a government road by a state worker? huh huh huh huh huh ?

[Decyferon]

and that is great that you are AOD, however as previously mentioned when I worked for a bank, the vast majority of people dont care about charity and do not give to charity, therefore there would be a need for welfare.

[Decyferon]

what happens if the family on government welfare gets hit by a car on a government road by a state worker? huh huh huh huh huh ?

has nothing to do with the scenario I proposed so I will just assume you have no answer to that

[angelofdeath]

because that is me, not everybody. If I thought I would get away with it I would have no problem robbing a supermarket blind, ok I wouldnt break into peoples homes but big businesses then yea I will take everything I can because I know they do the same to me with every chance they get.

but the question is how is order kept without the government, correct?
if you break into my house or you try to push carts out of super markets without paying, there is generally some sort of private security mechanism, be it an armed home owner or an armed security guard.


ps. i love how you equate your yearning for actual theft from someone to the exact same as you voluntarily giving your money to apple for your iphone. in your view, apple stole your money. so did you rape your first girlfriend on the first date or did you persuade her get in the sack with you? after all, no difference.

[Decyferon]

I dont own any apple products, yes I paid for my phone, however I pay for my electric and gas through a company that decides to hike its prices higher than the increases it costs them to buy the electric/gas. This gas company is part of a larger corporation that also owns supermarkets so yea I would have no problem in stealing from them because they steal from me, I dont have a choice in the matter because all the energy companies increase their prices at the same time, they manipulate the market as PRIVATE companies and they remove the choice to go to someone cheaper service because they ALL increase their prices.

nothing to do with government, infact the UK government hass stepped in before to stop them increasing prices like this before.

[angelofdeath]

has nothing to do with the scenario I proposed so I will just assume you have no answer to that

i think it has everything to do with the discussion at hand....its just a crazy off the wall made up scenario to try to veer the discussion off course. my question is just as relevant as you.

i mean, what happens if anyone loses a job? what happens if someone cuts off their fingers eating a steak?

if you lose a job, you should have savings to fall back on. just like any other normal person who relies on themselves and not anyone else.

whats your next question? 'what does the one legged, wheel chair bound, homosexual, buggy whip maker do that works 70 hours a week when the automobile comes along if we dont have a central government with the power to assassinate citizens without a trial?'

[Decyferon]

No my next question would be, with the cost of living so high nowadays with fuel, energy costs etc always rising above inflation, and with wages being stagnant with no real increases in wages in years and years how is someone supposed to save when their whole income is being accounted for in basic living needs like heat food and shelter?

I ask you legitimate real world questions and you come back with nonsensical crap

[Decyferon]

oh and dont say they should increase their productivity because their employer isn't going to put up their wages because it doesn't work like that in the real world.

Also in the real world there isnt a huge selection of jobs so they can't just leave their job and move elsewhere.

Should they just say ah fuck having a life I will now work 120 hours a week?

[angelofdeath]

and that is great that you are AOD, however as previously mentioned when I worked for a bank, the vast majority of people dont care about charity and do not give to charity, therefore there would be a need for welfare.

as i stated previously, the first lesson of economics is to look at the unseen not just the seen.
you only see a state handing out money. but what if people suddenly were able to keep 30-50% of their incomes? perhaps maybe people such as yourself, do gooder types who say we need government welfare would just kick out 10-15% of their new raise from not paying taxes to a much more efficient private charity.

it is estimated taht 70% of govt welfare programs revenue is consumed in just administration and bureaucracy. imagine if we had a private industry funded by all the former government welfare lovers, im sure even a bunch of socialists, even while paying their administrators exuberant un market based salaries could do a much better job than that and get more money to the people who need it, not just the govt workers.

[Decyferon]

no they wouldnt they would use that extra money to benefit themselves, ok some might give it to charity however most would not they would buy more TVs get that new car etc

how many people when they get an unexpected windfall give it to charity, barely any, they go on holiday or something.

[angelofdeath]

I dont own any apple products, yes I paid for my phone, however I pay for my electric and gas through a company that decides to hike its prices higher than the increases it costs them to buy the electric/gas. This gas company is part of a larger corporation that also owns supermarkets so yea I would have no problem in stealing from them because they steal from me, I dont have a choice in the matter because all the energy companies increase their prices at the same time, they manipulate the market as PRIVATE companies and they remove the choice to go to someone cheaper service because they ALL increase their prices.

nothing to do with government, infact the UK government hass stepped in before to stop them increasing prices like this before.

i think you'll find that these 'private' companies are in fact government granted monopolies. nearly all governments have decided its in our best interest to limit who can provide power and water to us mundanes to 1 or 2 companies, therefore creating a classic monopoly situation in which the government has manipulated the market to allow them to over charge/go above market rates.
its not really a free market if the government restricts competition and tells them everything they can and cant do.
this the very thing the US left england for....mercantilism.

[Decyferon]

they are private companies, it was better when they were nationalised.

And you think that if these companies were allowed to do whatever they wanted they wouldnt monoplise the market further? that is just naive

[angelofdeath]

No my next question would be, with the cost of living so high nowadays with fuel, energy costs etc always rising above inflation, and with wages being stagnant with no real increases in wages in years and years how is someone supposed to save when their whole income is being accounted for in basic living needs like heat food and shelter?

I ask you legitimate real world questions and you come back with nonsensical crap

i would say, lets get the government out of those sectors, because if you take off your class warfare goggles, you'll see that it is the sectors with the most government, energy, housing, etc that have the highest rising prices. so if you separate them, you'll once again see falling prices. if you look at sectors where there is relatively little intervention, you see falling prices. electronics, clothing, etc. its no coincidence. if you got rid of the central bank, you would eliminate inflation. in fact, gas in the US has almost remained constant since the great depression, if not cheaper. ..if you price gas in constitutional money, silver. if you average it out, a gallon of gas in 1930 was about 10 cents a gallon, back when we had silver dimes. how its 3.50 a gallon which is about what a silver dime is worth.

i find it odd that you raise these sorts of questions. because you act as though people are not in debt up to their eye balls, going on vacations, buying new cars, etc. these same people who 'cant make ends meet' are usually much better off than you pretend. if someone is truly that bad off, i want to go in their house and i want to NOT see a couple of things. i dont want to see a flat screen tv, i dont want to a computer, receipts for dinners out, a cable bill, netflix, iphones, vacation plans, new cars in the drive way, fancy new clothes with the holes already cut in them, expensive junk food or 15$ a pound microwaveable bacon or any toys out back like motorcycles, jet skis or quads.

if people want to save, they can do it. if members of my family can earn meager salaries for their entire lives and accumulate a decent amount of capital, anyone can. fact is people want to spend, they want ht ebiggest house they can get by with, the baddest car and the most stuff they can get their hands on. it just baffles my mind to think that you cant see this.

you mentioned schooling earlier...i think if the average family cut out all their vacations, iphones, cable bills, new cars every 3 years and stuck to the basics, and also were allowed to keep all of their earnings, giving them a 15-30-50-60% raise automatically, they would be in money up to their arm pits and could give all the money they wanted to voluntary charities and pay for schooling that would be fractions of the cost of public schooling and twice as good. and since the incentives and moral hazard of the welfare state was gone, the people seeking welfare type services would shrink exponentially as most people on the system are capable of providing for themselves, they just choose to take the easy route because its easily available. why work for 8$ an hour when you have no skills, when you could work the system a bit and make more than that just staying home sulking and feeling sorry for yourself and having to listen to everyone tell you how bad you have it?

[angelofdeath]

they are private companies, it was better when they were nationalised.

And you think that if these companies were allowed to do whatever they wanted they wouldnt monoplise the market further? that is just naive

yes, privately owned but given privileges they dont have in a free market by the state.
how is this a free market?
the government uses its power to give them privileges. this the very basis of moussilini style fascism/corporatism.

they are only allowed to 'monopolized' the market because THE GOD DAMNED GOVERNMENT USED THEIR POWER TO DO IT. THEY GAVE THE COMPANIES THE LEGAL ABILITY TO HOLD A MONOPOLY.

do you see a difference?
government says there can only be 1 power company, any other people offering these services go to jail. you are saying this is a market situation.
yet it is totally legal for walmart to seek a monopoly by opening up as many stores as they can and 'running the others out of business.' they havent been able to do this. all the targets and other stores are in competition with them.

and you think your government schooling education is beneficial? you cant even understand the difference between a government sanctioned monopoly and a free market.

[Decyferon]

I beg to differ based purely on personal experience, my biggest luxury is having the internet in my home, I have the skills and experience and should be earning much much more than I do but cannot because companies just dont pay enough because they look at what other people are paying for similar roles and match that, it doesn't matter if I do twice as much work I wont get paid for it. I dont have a flat screen TV, I dont have a big car (hell I dont even drive) I dont have fancy toys like jet skis etc I rarely ever buy clothes mainly when mine are worn out.

So no I cannot afford to save, even if I did the amount I would be able to save would be so meagre that if I did lose my job I would be fucked.

That is why I can't see it because I know most people are in the same situation that I am in.

[Decyferon]

yes, privately owned but given privileges they dont have in a free market by the state.
how is this a free market?
the government uses its power to give them privileges. this the very basis of moussilini style fascism/corporatism.

they are only allowed to 'monopolized' the market because THE GOD DAMNED GOVERNMENT USED THEIR POWER TO DO IT. THEY GAVE THE COMPANIES THE LEGAL ABILITY TO HOLD A MONOPOLY.

do you see a difference?
government says there can only be 1 power company, any other people offering these services go to jail. you are saying this is a market situation.
yet it is totally legal for walmart to seek a monopoly by opening up as many stores as they can and 'running the others out of business.' they havent been able to do this. all the targets and other stores are in competition with them.

and you think your government schooling education is beneficial? you cant even understand the difference between a government sanctioned monopoly and a free market.

a monopoly is a monopoly whether done privately or government sanctioned

government doesnt say there can only be 1 power company, I can think of 5 or 6 off th etop of my head I can choose from. If one of them raises the prices then the others all follow suit. Even though those price increases are more than any increase they have in production.

[Spambot5000]

a monopoly is a monopoly whether done privately or government sanctioned

government doesnt say there can only be 1 power company, I can think of 5 or 6 off th etop of my head I can choose from.

They create barriers to entry into the market. I'm sure we have discussed this stuff before.

[Decyferon]

the energy business hass been pretty open in the UK it is mainly the existing companies making it difficult for new companies to enter the market place.

[angelofdeath]

a monopoly is a monopoly whether done privately or government sanctioned

government doesnt say there can only be 1 power company, I can think of 5 or 6 off th etop of my head I can choose from. If one of them raises the prices then the others all follow suit. Even though those price increases are more than any increase they have in production.

if these private monopolies are in existence, please point them out to me, i havent been able to find any. even the so called monopoly of standard oil was never above 25% of the market and the guy kept bringing prices DOWN. we must not confuse large market share with monopoly. if someone has a large market share in a totally free market it just means they are best at what they do and people are voluntarily trading with this company for their goods and services. you can logically deduce this.

all govt granted monopolies exist in sectors like power, gas, cable, telephone, etc. these markets are locked up tight if they havent just given one company sole monopoly privileges.

monopolies cannot exist in a free market where there is free competition and free entry. all areas are different with power, but suffice it to say its not a fairly free market like there is in electronics. if not given full out monopoly privileges, the barriers to entry and restrictions and regulations make competition non existent. and once they get in power they use their money they acquire from being able to charge higher than market level rates to further influence the government in their favor.

and then you get to get on forum on a computer that you bought from a capitalist company that exploited a chinese guy out of his labor (something you are against) and say that 'see, look at that 'private' company, they are doing horrible bad things!' all the while ignoring the frame work of government around it that allowed, encouraged and forced the situations to happen.

you see, regulations benefit the big companies, they dont benefit the small companies.
food is the perfect example. nearly all food regulations are written hand and hand with the USDA/FDA and existing big businesses. they seek largely to limit competition. who benefits more from a regulation that says you need a 150$K USDA approved cheese making kitchen to sell a pound of cheese to your neighbor? a company that has 25% of the cheese market share or a company that has .000025% of the cheese market share? if you are just trying to sell some cheese to your local community and you have no start up capital, when are you going to start your cheese business? this is merely an example of how regulations hurt 'the little guy.'

[cunt sauce]

Ron Paul Exposed As White Supremacist By Anonymous (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/01/ron-paul-exposed-as-white-supremacist-by-anonymous/)

"And it looks like the jig is officially up. Hackivist group Anonymous has announced that not only have they decimated the websites of avowed White Supremacist group American Third Position (A3P) during Operation Blitzkrieg but, in the process, they claim to have accidentally uncovered close ties between the racist group and Ron Paul. Not just the Ron Paul campaign, but Ron Paul himself."





Here's the Communique from Anon:


Jamie Kelso and American Third Position Hacked and Destroyed; Private Emails Expose Blatant Racism and Ties to Ron Paul/ (http://pirasec.com/)



Fellow anons: we are pleased to bring you the dismantling of a major US-based


white supremacist network known as the "American Third Position"(A3P). These


racist losers have chapters across the US, operate several white power websites,


forums and online stores, and are even running a candidate in the 2012


elections. Although they try hard to maintain a professional public image to


camouflage their vile racism, we're now airing all their dirty laundry all over


the internet. Contained in this major dump are several thousand private forum


messages, personal emails, internal organization notes, names, phone numbers,


home addresses and other information on all of their members and supporters.


It’s time for these cowardly suit and tie white supremacists to sleep with one


eye open. Scared much?





In addition to finding the usual racist rants and interactions with other white


power groups, we also found a disturbingly high amount of members who are also


involved in campaigning for Ron Paul. According to these messages, Ron Paul has


regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with


their board of directors. Ron Paul's racist politics and


affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant,


anti-abortion and against gay marriage -- not to mention having authored the


racist "Ron Paul Papers" and receiving financial support from other white power


groups (pictured with Don Black from stormfront.org). Hard to believe Ron Paul


draws some support from the left and the occupation movements, especially now


that it is confirmed Ron Paul hangs out with straight up racist hate groups.





We put extra effort in ruining the life of A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso. On top of


being on the board of directors of A3P, former $cientologist, and high ranking


Ron Paul organizer, he also is the account owner of german nazi forums and store


nsl-forum.org, rhs-versand.com. We went ahead and wiped those websites off the


internet as well, dumping private messages and order information. Aside from us


releasing his information such as his social security number, address, resume


and private discussions, we also heard some folks went on a joyride with Kelso's


credit card and made some lulzy purchases, including sex toy purchases and


making donations to the Anti Defamation League and many others. Oops.





We call upon not only other antifascists but all those opposed to white


supremacy to utilize this information and make hell for these white nationalist


scumbags. It is essential if we wish to live in a world free from oppression to


expose and confront racists at their jobs, their schools, at their homes and in


the streets.





No Dialogue! No sympathy! Destroy White Supremacy!





*** DEFACED WEBSITES:


A3P sites:


http://american3rdposition.com


http://www.whitenewsnow.com


http://merlinmiller2012.com


http://virgilgoode2012.com





German Nazi forums and store:


http://www.nsl-forum.com


http://www.rhs-verdand.com





*** DOWNLOAD FROM:


http://www.nazi-leaks.info


http://www.p4rtyvan.net





Other articles on A3P:


http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/


american-third-position


http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/Backgrounder:+American+Third+Position.htm





http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=


com_content&view=article&id=940


http://ladylibertyslamp.


wordpress.com/2010/07/12/american-olympic-gold-medalist-joins-white-supremacist-


political-group/

[Decyferon]

that is something I dont get about liberty arguements, if people are completely free why have anything like immigration, surely that is infringing on someones freedom by not allowing them to move freely where they want.

I didn't know RP was anti abortion etc that is just completely hypocritical (as is the racism etc)

[angelofdeath]

perfect timing cunt!
as soon as a certain faction runs out of ammunition in a debate, its time to pull the race card and put forth some gigantic conspiracy theory about how your opponent is a closet klansmen, descended from aryan jew burning christian separatist holocaust denying nazi worshipers.

sorry dude, you just lost all credibility. to think that the guy who gets in front of the nation and says that the drug war is evil perpetrated on minorities and has stated that 'racism is nothing but an ugly form of collectivism' is some how a neo nazi....cmon now.

[Decyferon]

wouldnt be the first hypocritical politician AOD!!

[CILONE/SK]

I wonder if he is going to have a money bomb to combat racism or to celebrate his last place in the primaries?

[angelofdeath]

that is something I dont get about liberty arguements, if people are completely free why have anything like immigration, surely that is infringing on someones freedom by not allowing them to move freely where they want.

I didn't know RP was anti abortion etc that is just completely hypocritical (as is the racism etc)

to me, abortion is a non issue.
but i'll make his pro life case.
the government was supposed to exist to protect life and liberty in the first place. it has decided that certain humans arent humans are capable of being murdered without prosecution. in the same manner the govt decided blacks were sub human and could be enslaved.

now, if you want to talk about what to do about someone who cant pay for their kids education when they lose a job, i want you to justify how a person can be murdered up until 1 second before they are born, as is legal in the sate of new jersey.

i have an entirely different theory on abortion than RP. my position is that it is legal to evict the fetus, but you just cant kill it. the basis for abortion theory of hte pro choice variety is that the womb is private property and the fetus is a trespasser. i'll buy that even though the person necessarily invited the fetus in there, but forget that. i'm going to go out on a limb and say that in a couple hundred years if not sooner, it will be medically possible to evict the fetus, yet not kill it.

[angelofdeath]

wouldnt be the first hypocritical politician AOD!!

so you honestly believe RP is hitler?
haha, really?
jeez, its worse than i thought. i thought you had at least an ounce of gray matter up stairs.

[Decyferon]

no I dont think he is Hitler AOD haha then again not every racist is hitler, that is just going to extremes. I am just saying hypocrasy and politicians isn't something new.

I don't believe someone should be able to terminate a pregnancy at 9 months it is too far gone the baby has developed at that point, but through medicine we know how a fetus develops and have set standards for abortion, I completely believe it is the mothers choice.

[angelofdeath]

no I dont think he is Hitler AOD haha then again not every racist is hitler, that is just going to extremes. I am just saying hypocrasy and politicians isn't something new.

I don't believe someone should be able to terminate a pregnancy at 9 months it is too far gone the baby has developed at that point, but through medicine we know how a fetus develops and have set standards for abortion, I completely believe it is the mothers choice.


as i said, i consider abortion a non issue, especially in presidential politics. but i would like to point out, in some states, new jersey i know for a fact unless it was recently banned, its totally legal to abort the baby while the mother is in labor. no joke. abortion is an area of contention in the liberty movement, both sides make compelling cases and i dont think taking either side makes anyone a lesser advocate of liberty or a hypocrite.

you are right hypocrisy and politicians go hand and hand, however, i think every now again there is an exception. RP is that exception...i dont think having some shady supporters means the candidate is a racist. im sure some black racists supported obama, does that mean obama is a black racist? i'd say no.

[CILONE/SK]

He might not be a racist, but he does have a habit of things coming out under his name, which he denies knowledge of after an issue is raised about it.

At a minimum, no one knows if it is him talking or one of his supporters. Which means his word is very questionable.

[cunt sauce]

perfect timing cunt!
as soon as a certain faction runs out of ammunition in a debate, its time to pull the race card and put forth some gigantic conspiracy theory about how your opponent is a closet klansmen, descended from aryan jew burning christian separatist holocaust denying nazi worshipers.

sorry dude, you just lost all credibility. to think that the guy who gets in front of the nation and says that the drug war is evil perpetrated on minorities and has stated that 'racism is nothing but an ugly form of collectivism' is some how a neo nazi....cmon now.



Why don't you address the content of the post, AD HOMINEN ONER.

This shit just popped up on my Facebook News Feed an hour ago from a homie and it's relevant to this thread, I'm not posting it because I'm "running out of ammunition".

If you can't critique the information presented by Anonymous, you obviously aren't comfortable in your position. SORRY BROH, BUT UR HERO'S A BIGOT RACIST FUCK.


Not to mention, a militarized border is a barrier to the Free Market. Using the state to prevent owners from purchasing cheaper labor violates your economic theory. True Libertarians (like myself) are not against immigration.... This is nationalism, folks.

[angelofdeath]

Why don't you address the content of the post, AD HOMINEN ONER.

This shit just popped up on my Facebook News Feed an hour ago from a homie and it's relevant to this thread, I'm not posting it because I'm "running out of ammunition".

If you can't critique the information presented by Anonymous, you obviously aren't comfortable in your position. SORRY BROH, BUT UR HERO'S A BIGOT RACIST FUCK.


Not to mention, a militarized border is a barrier to the Free Market. Using the state to prevent owners from purchasing cheaper labor violates your economic theory. True Libertarians (like myself) are not against immigration.... This is nationalism, folks.


well, first off, RP isnt my hero, nor is he a totally free market advocate. he is a constitutionalist, not an anarchist.

there have been tons of people who have spent the time to critique the various conspiracy theories about why RP is a racist, but i have better things to do with my time. usually people of your thinking think any white person with more than 5$ in their pockets are racists, so its really a moot point.
'racist' carries little to no descriptive value these days. its sort of like 'constitutionalist' i mean obama claims to be a constitutionalist yet also claims the right to assassinate americans without a trial.

i agree with you that a militarized border is not indicative of a free market.
however, in a society with property rights, there is no such thing as a right to 'immigrate' only a right to 'emigrate.' the right to say immigrate to your neighbors property means you must have permission to enter said property. essentially saying that there is a right to immigrate is basically the same as forced integration.
hoppe makes a very compelling case on this issue.

[Spambot5000]

Not to mention, a militarized border is a barrier to the Free Market. Using the state to prevent owners from purchasing cheaper labor violates your economic theory. True Libertarians (like myself) are not against immigration.... This is nationalism, folks.

I think you will find libertarians on both side of the divide are pro migration. I certainly am.
Quite apart from a rights based argument, pretty much everyone would be better off in absolute terms in a context where they can migrate freely.

I have posted this article talking about the economics of migration before, but its so good its worth a repost.
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.25.3.83


*Note; I don't disagree with AOD. I am speaking specifically about migrating through national borders.

[angelofdeath]

*Note; I am speaking specifically about migrating through national borders.

indeed...
i think people not taking this into account skews the discussion on many levels.

[Spambot5000]

True, the issue of cross border migration gets conflated with a range of notions including that of welfare and access to public services. My thoughts on migration is that borders should be completely open yet migration becomes solely a process of the will of the immigrant. They will make decisions based on their knowledge of the land and society of the place they wish to migrate, as they are best placed to do so. Where government facilitates, through grants or subsidies, then seeds migrants into areas according to abstract social engineering principles is where migration is its most problematic.


To anyone interested;
I am presently reading Heyak's 'Law, Legislation and Liberty' and made a comment in passing differentiating society and the state as the former being an outcome of a social organic growth and the latter being a range of institutions born of deliberate design. I don't entirely agree with this as he continues to frame society as a property of state borders and thus does not account for social orders which exist within or across national borders, but I'm sure he will expand on this concept later. Just thought I would share as it is relevant to the previous conversation.

[CILONE/SK]

What class are you reading this in?

[Spambot5000]

RON PAUL IS RACIST! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Cn4svUfd0&feature=related)

[Soup forgot his password]

before I start these are some great responses btw

i realize your creating this story here to appeal to peoples liberal sensibilities and make some case against free trade, etc, but what in the hell are farmers who are trying to make money... 'plowing' with exactly? what are these 12 year olds using shovels? teaspoons? what farm in 21st century america 'plows' with 12 year olds pulling a plow board? maybe im just knitpicking at your semantics here, but you are making a totally silly case about 12 year olds plowing with any farm equipment.
Im really just trying to state facts and let people decide for themselves if the scene of 12 year olds working the fields works within their own sense of moralism. Im on the fence about it. I would prefer if kids learned how to build rockets and build weather balloons and dream about space and sharks... but there are very poor developing parts of the world that need kids to have strong work ethics to survive.

I also think the age of "if you work hard every day and keep your nose to the grindstone, you will be rewarded for your hard work." is over in America. You have to be smart about it and for the most part that means not getting locked into an unskilled labor job early on and sacrificing education. I'm a liberal on most things but I wouldnt say Im a hardcore democrat. There are many instances when I think taxes, tarriffs, and subsidies are just a bunch of broken hammers... and not every instance of poor economic growth and joblessness needs to be treated like a fucking nail.


and what exactly is wrong with this?
i started 'working' when i was 9 or 10. when i did this, i was able to save enough money to make all other lazy non working kids to shame. and i credit this with the reason why im able to live the lifestyle that i am, because i learned work ethic at an early age. i was able to purchase a few items that cost in excess of 1000 dollars by the time i was 13....
Look the statistics are in. Highschool dropouts have a 20% unemployment rate. College graduates have a 2% unemployment rate. The workforces and companies of our parents (Saturn, Kodak, and hundreds of others) are dead and gone. The business models that made them successful are failing. You can't just recommend your children the same career path you took because that career path rarely still exists. Statistically speaking, the best career advice you could give a kid is to stay in school and graduate college.

I agree that kids need direction and chores and jobs but theres a difference between working for your family and working to support your family at age 12 or even 16. That responsibility shouldnt be handed to a kid and a kid should never be forced to take care of their deadbeat parents. That's one instance of wellfare that I think is crucial to give kids a chance at having a normal childhood and become positive and productive members of society.

i dont see 60 year old well off adults going into crime full time. What 60 year old do you know is still in the blue collar workforce? Most 60 year olds who worked their whole lives have happily retired by now because they grew up in a good time for blue collar labor. The begining of a real decline in manual labor started in the early 70's and has continued to now. The barfights im referring to were always between factory workers fighting over girls, status, and whatever else. Old dudes are too old to keep that shit going.

usually poor kids get into crime because they dont have any other viable options. and since the government has outlawed things like drugs, gambling, prostitution and other things that organized crime revolves around, therefore making them highly lucrative jobs, they attract kids with low producitivity. it makes economic sense to them. and since the state has outlawed legal work for children under the age of 18 effectively in most areas, where else do they turn when they have no options?
Oakland in the 70's is a great example of this. From WWII onward california became an industrial powerhouse since we manufactured most of what was used to combat the japanese and nazis. California Alone quickly rose to having the 4th highest GDP compared to all the other countries in the world. We had a lot of manual labor and a lot of America flocked to areas like Oakland to get work. These workers were able to buy cars, houses, boats, all on a factory worker's salary. Then the 70's rolled around and the tipping point came and machines took over the factories. Unions and politicians fought back against machines by creating tax inscentives and other government inscentives for companies to use less machines and more labor, but the reality is it's just not profitable anymore.

And like i mentioned earlier manual labor has always attracted anti-social people who can't work white collar jobs because they're just not that way. They dont value social skills and higher education because the money for manual labor was more than enough.

Now in the 70's you have families falling apart because Dad's plan of working in a factory isnt something Junior can emulate because all the jobs are disappearing, including dad's. Junior's parents are also of the antisocial blue collar breed so Junior has two needs: One, he seeks a job. And two, he seeks a healthy family relationship elsewhere. Blue collar areas look down on education because historically people have been moderately successful without it. Plus college is expensive and seen as some poncy white collar b.s. The only other option for youth in Oakland is Gangs or pimps and prostitution because they provide both money and a very tight sense of family.

And in the 70's that what you saw in Oakland, more pimps and prostitutes than anywhere else in the country. Also a whole lot of crime, civil rights groups fighting for social change and so on... all spurred on by unemployment and an economic downturn.



do you really think in 21st century america where the poor have iphones, cars, and air conditioning that they are going to sell their kids into indentured servitude? why not just disallow 'selling kids into slavery' but legalize the right of a child to contract and rake leaves legally for a neighbor? so long as there is consent, the parents consent and the kids consent, what in the hell is the problem? in effect by advocating the illegality of a 15.9 year old or a 17.9 year old (where ever the legal age limit is where you live)from legally obtaining a paying job, you are making it illegal for a kid to earn money and learn responsibility.

I would say there's a large poverty level in america where people don't have iphones or air conditioning, or even bedsheets on their mattress. This christmas I donated about a grand in crap to a single mother and her two kids who didn't even have a vacuum cleaner. I literally spent a thousand dollars on things I completely take for granted. If children in america didn't have access to public education and a modicum of wellfare you better believe that those parents would be forced to put their children into some sort of sweatshop work program like you saw in 1700's and 1800's America.

i mentioned a well known virginia farmer in a previous post. this guy has local neighbor kids knocking down his door trying to work on this farm. he cant legally hire them until they are 18 because in virginia you have to be 18 to operate a cordless drill. in fact, the irony also is, a 16 year old can drive a F250 that weighs 10K lbs down the highway going 70mph, but he cannot employ anyone under 18 to operate one of his tractors. the ideology that backs your beliefs on economic intervention is the reason for this. you have a sitaution here where both sides mutually agree, the kids are going to the employer for work, and the employer cannot hire them.
I know the farmer you're talking about (think I saw him on food inc) but not the details surrounding the incident you're reffering to. In either case. Those are state laws. http://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/hrswork.shtm
That kid could get a farm work permit in New York and many other states. I think that kid that is banging on their neighbor's door is running away from some other issues at home as well. There's a lot of ways for kids to make money. A ten year old became half a millionaire for jailbreaking the first iphone. A kid in my hometown made a million dollars on some torpedo pool toy. Those free thinking and generally considered "white collar" jobs are perfect to inspire kids to do great things.

Also considering farming is rarely profitable anymore, and most American farmers do farming on the side, how responsible is it to assimilate a child into farming? Unless that child becomes a chicken savant chances are he too will be hurting for money his whole life without a college degree.

what you are essentially saying is that the state owns children and owns their parents and has a right to tell them what kind of education they need. you see in a free society people are able to make good and bad decisions. if they make a bad decision that is their choice. the obvious incentive is to try to get more education. however a college education is getting to be totally worthless. we have this new thing going on where kids to go college till they are in their late 20's and then they just move back into their parents house.

its in peoples best interest to try to increase their productivity. its what people do. when you get a better paying job, its because you increased your productivity some how. getting more education is a way of increasing their productivity. if people dont want to do that, that is entirely up to them. maybe someone is happy cutting grass for a living instead of programming computers. this is just freedom of choice.

Considering homeschooling is legal in most states (california requires a teaching credential) and public educations are optional I dont know how you could assume the state owns children or parents.

And college education is the exact opposite of worthless. It's just becoming more popular so many industries are becoming more competitive. If you get an undergrad in biotech you're looking at a guaranteed 80k salary, and well into 6 figures by halfway through your career. If you get a degree in building sandcastles the job market is probably going to be a lot tougher.

And I dont know if it's in people's interest to work hard. Tenured teachers rarely work hard, but that doesnt mean public schools suck. I've had overpaid private school teachers slack on their jobs just as much. And there are as many dumb harvard grads as there are dumb UC grads, so students dont necessarily like to work hard either. It's all about monetizing incentivizing an optimal workflow, which is a lot harder to do than just say "free market capitalism" or "state capitalism" works the best. There's social and cultural influences on how people work. The chinese will work in factories until the bones in their hands disintegrate, and THEN maybe complain. Americans no so much. There's a reason why state capitalism works so well in china and why there's no fucking way we could emulate a chinese economy here in america, even when we too are state capitalists.

[angelofdeath]

Look the statistics are in. Highschool dropouts have a 20% unemployment rate. College graduates have a 2% unemployment rate. The workforces and companies of our parents (Saturn, Kodak, and hundreds of others) are dead and gone. The business models that made them successful are failing. You can't just recommend your children the same career path you took because that career path rarely still exists. Statistically speaking, the best career advice you could give a kid is to stay in school and graduate college.

i dont doubt your statistics are right.
but what you are talking about is the productivity of workers. things constantly change. this is life. especially life in the world where we have such a high standard of living compared to life before the industrial revolution when we had hundreds of generations of farmers essentially doing the same thing.

if you have a college education, you generally have a higher productivity than someone who dropped out in the 9th grade. this is a given.

when the car came out, it put black smiths, farriers and buggy whip makers out of business. it pushed these people to pursue different career paths. the question then becomes are americans better off with the car that everyone can afford, or should we of retarded the advent of the car in favor saving the inefficient jobs of the blacksmith, farrier and buggy whip maker?

I agree that kids need direction and chores and jobs but theres a difference between working for your family and working to support your family at age 12 or even 16. That responsibility shouldnt be handed to a kid and a kid should never be forced to take care of their deadbeat parents. That's one instance of wellfare that I think is crucial to give kids a chance at having a normal childhood and become positive and productive members of society.

the double edged sword of that belief is that it is illegal for a neighbor kid, if you actually follow the law, to go next door and work at a neighbors back yard business. even if they want to.

i dont think you'll find to many people who are in favor of forcing a 12 year old to bring home the families bacon. but as i pointed out a while back, child labor existed because we didnt have a high standard of living in the days when it took place. most of time children worked. children worked the farms until the family was well off enough to just have the father go to a job in town to pay the bills. before this, having children was viewed as a way of getting more workers. this was because the whole family had to work 12-16 hours a day, the whole family, just to put food on the table. whereas with a higher living standard, investment in capital goods and labor saving equipment, people are able to work much less and enjoy more leisure. before the government started heavily taxing and regulating the average blue collar worker in the last half to quarter of the 20th century
the man was able to saddle the entire house hold's bills.

What 60 year old do you know is still in the blue collar workforce? Most 60 year olds who worked their whole lives have happily retired by now because they grew up in a good time for blue collar labor.

i dont know THAT many 60 year olds, but all that i do know, that arent govt workers who retired at age 50, are still working.


Now in the 70's you have families falling apart because Dad's plan of working in a factory isnt something Junior can emulate because all the jobs are disappearing, including dad's. Junior's parents are also of the antisocial blue collar breed so Junior has two needs: One, he seeks a job. And two, he seeks a healthy family relationship elsewhere. Blue collar areas look down on education because historically people have been moderately successful without it. Plus college is expensive and seen as some poncy white collar b.s. The only other option for youth in Oakland is Gangs or pimps and prostitution because they provide both money and a very tight sense of family.

And in the 70's that what you saw in Oakland, more pimps and prostitutes than anywhere else in the country. Also a whole lot of crime, civil rights groups fighting for social change and so on... all spurred on by unemployment and an economic downturn.

i'd say there are plenty of jobs available to blue collar workers, but i dont view machinery and labor saving devices as a detriment. if we just want jobs, we could just shut down all the tractor trailers and put back packs on people and have them walk the goods to where they need to go. we dont want jobs just for jobs sake, we want productivity. i like to use the example of digging a house foundation with tea spoons as opposed to back hoes. or the buggy whip makers vs cars.

i'd go out on a limb and say that the areas of 'crime' are largey centered around things prohibited by government. prostitution, drugs, etc. all these areas would not be the lucrative areas of employment that they currently are if they were legalized.


I know the farmer you're talking about (think I saw him on food inc) but not the details surrounding the incident you're reffering to. In either case. Those are state laws. http://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/hrswork.shtm

hey, i dont care if its a state, city, town, county commission or federal government making up these stupid laws, they are horrible.

That kid could get a farm work permit in New York and many other states. I think that kid that is banging on their neighbor's door is running away from some other issues at home as well. There's a lot of ways for kids to make money. A ten year old became half a millionaire for jailbreaking the first iphone. A kid in my hometown made a million dollars on some torpedo pool toy. Those free thinking and generally considered "white collar" jobs are perfect to inspire kids to do great things.

i still dont see why you feel the need to decide for kids, and their families what is gainful employment or what should be done to pass leisure. look, i used to go next door and work on my neighbors little farmette. he would pay me. he also ran an electrician business off the property. a business owned the land, what i was doing was illegal. it seems very high and mighty to sit back and feel that you have a right to decide what is best for others, their families and tell someone what they can and cant do.

most kids dont have the brains to be child prodigy's. but most kids who want some extra cash to supplement their allowance, can rake leaves or cut grass. in my circle of friends work was anathema. i was the only kid that i knew of that actually did work for their allowance. be it cutting grass, helping with various house projects, etc. all the other kids got their allowances handed to them. they thought i was the 'weird' one when i spent my saturdays at my grandfathers or my neighbors doing various projects to get a little extra money.

to take it even further, the same farmer im talking about (yes the guy from food inc) refused to just give his kids allowances. his farm is a huge business. they do well into the millions of dollars in revenue every year. he made his kids start their own side business. at an early age, they tended their own rabbits which then later turned into a fairly decent business for the entire company. they tended their own chickens and sold the eggs to people at church. since after all, this is on property owned and operated by polyface inc, and since the animals are all owned technically by polyface inc, they are probably breaking the law and breaking child labor laws.

you would have me believe that the stories of this guys son at age 8 running a 60 hp tractor while his dad picked up hay on the back of the wagon as the kid drove by is detrimental because he is working for a 'corporation' and getting paid very little if anything.

i dont think anyone is running away from anything. why do i feel this way? because at one time i was one of those kids and i wasnt running away from anything. i wanted to do actual work and i wanted actual money.

there is a guy who lives a few houses down that has a produce stand. i watched his son who was 10 bug the living hell out of him for months trying to get him to run the register. one day i stopped by and his son was operating the register and he was boxing up peoples food. i found out later on that a state food 'police man' gave him a visit, told him he cant have his son doing any work on that stand or at his farm and the neighbor kid that used to come over and sort fruit and beans from their farm couldnt do that either. yet it was what these kids wanted. they wanted to be like the dad. yet you are trying to tell me this is justified state intervention.
from what i gather, the guy told the regulator to fuck off, and went on about his business.
soon enough, he got in trouble for some 'code' violation and was fined. all because of the ideology that says people have a right to rule others and tell them what is best.


Also considering farming is rarely profitable anymore, and most American farmers do farming on the side, how responsible is it to assimilate a child into farming? Unless that child becomes a chicken savant chances are he too will be hurting for money his whole life without a college degree.

personally, i dont know and i dont care. im not in the business of giving advice or telling people what is best for them, im merely pointing out that govt has no right to tell people what to do. if they want to be farmers, that is their choice.


Considering homeschooling is legal in most states (california requires a teaching credential) and public educations are optional I dont know how you could assume the state owns children or parents.?

really, you cant see this?
if a child is part of a family, and a family has a natural and universal right to educate their child, why do you have to ask the permission from the government to do so? why do they need a school exemption? if the state didnt own the kids, you would not have to ask permission to educate them how you see fit. you know it wasnt to long ago home schooling was frowned upon if not full out illegal in many states. there was even some cases, like the wacky fundamentalist guy in utah who took his kids out of public school to home school them. he ended up shot and killed at his mail box...for home schooling his kids. who owns who? if you dont pay a property tax, they take your house. who really owns it? if you own your house, it cannot be legally stolen by someone else. they claim ultimate domain over your property. just like they claim ultimate domain over your children. if you fail to report that you have school age children that are being home schooled, you dont follow the states arbitrary guidelines and requirements, dont get a permit to do so, the state has the legal right to take your kids and send them to school and/or throw your ass in jail. who has ultimate authority over who? from my limited knowledge on the subject the state with the best home schooling legal framework is idaho. you dont have a state bureaucrat over your shoulder and you can basically do what you want.

And college education is the exact opposite of worthless. It's just becoming more popular so many industries are becoming more competitive. If you get an undergrad in biotech you're looking at a guaranteed 80k salary, and well into 6 figures by halfway through your career. If you get a degree in building sandcastles the job market is probably going to be a lot tougher.

hey, some degrees are good no doubt. some others arent worth the paper they are written on. which is why you have these holier than thou kids coming out of college with no experience, having to move back in their parents basement because they cant get those 80K a year jobs they were promised. i heard a lawyer on a radio show say that she graduated college with 200K in student debt, and cant find a job. for 2 years the mythical high paid job she was promised is non existent. she waits tables. is she better off for going to college or could she of not incurred the 200K in debt and just went right to waiting tables?

And I dont know if it's in people's interest to work hard. Tenured teachers rarely work hard, but that doesnt mean public schools suck. I've had overpaid private school teachers slack on their jobs just as much. And there are as many dumb harvard grads as there are dumb UC grads, so students dont necessarily like to work hard either. It's all about monetizing incentivizing an optimal workflow, which is a lot harder to do than just say "free market capitalism" or "state capitalism" works the best. There's social and cultural influences on how people work. The chinese will work in factories until the bones in their hands disintegrate, and THEN maybe complain. Americans no so much. There's a reason why state capitalism works so well in china and why there's no fucking way we could emulate a chinese economy here in america, even when we too are state capitalists.

some tenured college professors at state funded schools make roughly 1100$ per hour. i cant really say if this is a market wage because it is a wage determined by government.
sure, there are good teachers, bad teachers at both institutions. the problem with governemtn teachers if you cant get rid of them no matter how bad they are. in most places the union rules, labor laws and bureaucratic malaise make it impossible to get rid of a bad teacher.

i think the facts bear it out though, public schools trail well behind private methods of education.

people have become lazy because they have the bureaucratic mindset. people such as yourself and government tell people they should work less. look at the govt's retirement program. they retire people at age 50 making 50-80% of their highest salary for the next 40 years of their life till they croak. they then start their new business at age 50 and are making serious money. this is very common in the fire fighter and police world. look at the govt's retirement program with social security. they incentivize people to retire at age 62.5 or 65, stop being productive, sit at home and watch tv and rot away. then they spend the rest of their lives rusting and rotting out because they dont get any physical or mental activity. there full time job is going to the doctors. what a way to go out. society has been some so wealthy that they can afford to do this BS. they can literally get something for nothing, so they just do nothing. nothing really wrong with this, but when it transfers to people with low skills or productivity...you get people who dont want to even do the hard work necessary to make ends meet.

[Decyferon]

sorry AOD just so I understand are you saying that if someone chooses to home school their child there should be reviews of the parent to see if what they are teaching is actually correct?

I know here in the UK schools are subject to audits etc by the education regulator, homeschoolers would also have to fall under that audit requirement. Otherwise people could be teaching theirs kids the world is flat and 4 + 4 is 10.

I think the US laws need to be changed, it isn't hard to get rid of a teacher who is underperforming same as in any job if you are underperforming it is eqasy to be fired

[angelofdeath]

i cant remember the name of the movie/show at present, but it detailed pretty well how the teachers unions and various labor laws protect the bad teachers from being fired. its a pretty shitty system/racket they have going on.

i dont think the radical notion of parents having control over their childrens education is that silly.
after all, since the schools are doing such a bad job, it couldnt possibly be any worse at home. but this aside, its a rights perspective. some people do bad things in the eyes of others. you think my beliefs are bad and dangerous. i dont.
why not just have the state take over kids completely and house and school them until they are grown perhaps only giving parents visits on the weekend for an hour or two. do you really think that if you were given freedom to teach your kids, you would teach them 2+2=5? is that why you favor these laws because you might do the wrong thing?

after all, parents could keep the kids in a dirty room, make them eat the wrong food, tell them racist things and instill it in them, not give them enough play time, tell them that corporations or evil and they only eat food raised on their land...i mean the list is endless. to think that sending a kid to a school 6 hours a day is going to be the end all be all and correct all the perceived mistakes made by the parents is just silly.
what next, putting a compliance officer in every house to make sure kids arent eating to much salt, HFCS, and to make sure they are brushing their teeth properly? to make sure the kids room is properly cleaned? to make sure the house is OSHA compliant to assure no possible harm could come to the child? regulate how much and what type of TV they can watch? i mean the ideology of ownership you place on everyone in society is appalling and never has a logical end unless its the total state controlling and micromanaging every single aspect of human life. and they are well on their way.

[Soup forgot his password]

i dont doubt your statistics are right.
but what you are talking about is the productivity of workers. things constantly change. this is life. especially life in the world where we have such a high standard of living compared to life before the industrial revolution when we had hundreds of generations of farmers essentially doing the same thing.

if you have a college education, you generally have a higher productivity than someone who dropped out in the 9th grade. this is a given.
There is that about a college degree: it shows you're capable of completing something and therefor you look more productive, but that's not the only difference between a highschool dropout and a college grad. Highschool dropouts generally have social problems so a college grad also has a level of social adeptness. A highschool drop out would rather work than continue being a part of school. That work is unskilled labor and their skillset is easily replaceable. Most importantly a college graduate is a professional in a field of study and therefor is far more employable than a highschool dropout.

when the car came out, it put black smiths, farriers and buggy whip makers out of business. it pushed these people to pursue different career paths. the question then becomes are americans better off with the car that everyone can afford, or should we of retarded the advent of the car in favor saving the inefficient jobs of the blacksmith, farrier and buggy whip maker?

Before the industrial revolution everything was hand made, which meant only a supermega rich few could actually afford anything. The industrial revolution was a middle finger to high society and their highly ornate and decorative clothing/houses/furniture as things could now be produced modestly and cheaply with an emphasis on practicality, rather than furniture with fucking lions feet for legs. It was also the rise of the blue collar worker as every new factory employed hundreds of workers who could make a living by just using their bodies. Look at modern architecture vs anything before the 1900's. We went from victorian houses to boxes by Frank Wright because we wanted to make beautiful and modern things for the working man and say fuck you to the wealthiest 1%. Eames invented the first plastic chairs and lamps because he wanted to make things as cheap and functional as possible for your everyman.


Before industrial revolution
http://www.furniturestyles.net/european/english/misc/1850-papier-mache-3.jpg

After industrial revolution
http://www.chairblog.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Eames-LCM-at-Wright.jpg

Same with clothes. Pre industrial revolution people had ONE set of clothes. Now we have goodwill for all the shirts we dont wear because we're all too fat (except for me).

The overall quality of life for the working man VASTLY improved because of the industrial revolution. There was the largest redistribution wealth in American history. The problem is that we praised the wrong people. We praised and glamourized the entry level blue collar worker, as you see in sculptures and depictions all throughout detroit. We should've been praising and glamourizing those who invented the assembly lines, the adequate power grids, the city planners and engineers who made it all possible because those are the jobs that have survived all these years.

Now the issue americans have is buying things beyond their means. But that's a high class problem that only happened because of the success from the industrial revolution. Lower and Middle Classmen started to buy that poncy high class lions feet chair bullshit again because it's human nature to be a bunch of peacocking douchebags. The focus from practicality shifted back to pre-industrial revolution ornate bullshit. And the market did what it always does, makes whatever people want to buy.

If we still had that early industrial revolution mentality, cars and houses and chairs would be cheap and practical. But they're not and we've created a market of shit we can't really afford, because we like to pretend.

I think of it like this: Right now the biggest contributor to market bubbles are the "high beta rich" these are guys who, within a year, start with nothing and make a few million. There's a culture amongst the high beta to buy lots of houses, yachts, planes, lambos, etc even if only a couple years ago they hardly had cab fare. This behavior created an artificial bubble of luxury superyachts with helicopter pads and submarine bays. You're a yacht company. One year you get an order for one superyacht. You prepare for next year and make/sell ten super yachts. Next year you make 40 super yachts but nobody buys any because your customers was really just one customer that went fucking bankrupt. And now you went bankrupt too because you have a bunch of luxury yachts for a market that didnt really exist. That on some level is the state of the world's ENTIRE economy.

So yes. We are all better off because of the industrial revolution. We are also a lot dumber with money because of it too.


i still dont see why you feel the need to decide for kids, and their families what is gainful employment or what should be done to pass leisure. look, i used to go next door and work on my neighbors little farmette. he would pay me. he also ran an electrician business off the property. a business owned the land, what i was doing was illegal. it seems very high and mighty to sit back and feel that you have a right to decide what is best for others, their families and tell someone what they can and cant do.

I agree with you that kids should by law be allowed to mow their neighbor's lawn, paint their fence, all the shit every kid did when they were growing up, but to allow a kid that age to become a full-time employee at a company is where I draw the line. Can you imagine working a cotton gin while learning your shapes and colors? That's too oldschool for me.


I'll come back to this in a bit and respond to the other parts of the post.

[angelofdeath]

There is that about a college degree: it shows you're capable of completing something and therefor you look more productive, but that's not the only difference between a highschool dropout and a college grad. Highschool dropouts generally have social problems so a college grad also has a level of social adeptness. A highschool drop out would rather work than continue being a part of school. That work is unskilled labor and their skillset is easily replaceable. Most importantly a college graduate is a professional in a field of study and therefor is far more employable than a highschool dropout.

i wouldnt go as far as saying that someone who drops out of high school will always remain unskilled.
it used to be high school drop outs (and its still true today) could get a job say, doing something like changing oil in a shop. in a year or two if he works hard and wants to learn, he'll be a full fledged mechanic. in a few more years he'll be making as much as the guy who taught him and it doesnt matter a lick whether he passed algebra 2 or learned 2 foreign languages in high school.

im not arguing with you at all that someone with more skills or a higher level of education is tends to have a higher productivity. in fact is reinforces what ive said in many of my previous posts.

all im critiquing is the very idea that just by getting a college degree you will be successful.
lets not forget most of the college graduates, just skated through, got 4 years of partying out of the way insulated from the real world and then you get in the real world only to find out you have to go back to school to get more education to do what you really want, or you just go do something that hardly lives up to your education.


Same with clothes. Pre industrial revolution people had ONE set of clothes. Now we have goodwill for all the shirts we dont wear because we're all too fat (except for me).

The overall quality of life for the working man VASTLY improved because of the industrial revolution. There was the largest redistribution wealth in American history. The problem is that we praised the wrong people. We praised and glamourized the entry level blue collar worker, as you see in sculptures and depictions all throughout detroit. We should've been praising and glamourizing those who invented the assembly lines, the adequate power grids, the city planners and engineers who made it all possible because those are the jobs that have survived all these years.i dont disagree with any that and have said similar things in my past posts, however i dont think 'city planners' had much to do with it.


I think of it like this: Right now the biggest contributor to market bubbles are the "high beta rich" these are guys who, within a year, start with nothing and make a few million. There's a culture amongst the high beta to buy lots of houses, yachts, planes, lambos, etc even if only a couple years ago they hardly had cab fare. This behavior created an artificial bubble of luxury superyachts with helicopter pads and submarine bays. You're a yacht company. One year you get an order for one superyacht. You prepare for next year and make/sell ten super yachts. Next year you make 40 super yachts but nobody buys any because your customers was really just one customer that went fucking bankrupt. And now you went bankrupt too because you have a bunch of luxury yachts for a market that didnt really exist. That on some level is the state of the world's ENTIRE economy.this is good.
however, i think what you are leaving out is that the federal reserve which gave us the housing bubble from cheap below market interest rates and cheap credit, fueled the housing bubble which made the average american feel rich and gave them ability to use their house as an ATM. they counted how much their house went up every year as part of their income.
but other than that omission, you are pretty much accurately describing the federal reserve induced bubble economy.

I agree with you that kids should by law be allowed to mow their neighbor's lawn, paint their fence, all the shit every kid did when they were growing up, but to allow a kid that age to become a full-time employee at a company is where I draw the line. Can you imagine working a cotton gin while learning your shapes and colors? That's too oldschool for me.
i dont think a kid could run a cotton gin when they cant spell, but i realize you are still trying to make this point about child labor. which you neglect to realize wouldnt happen unless you lived in a card board box behind a grocery store.

the problem with all these regualtions is because the bureaucracy that writes them doesnt take into account all the variables and we end up with a case such as you are making, 8 year olds picking cotton after being sold into indentured servitude, being the basis to make it illegal for a neighbor operate a cordless drill on the weekends your farm stead. so we end up making the 'child slavery' illegal which hardly anyone would protest, but we also make it illegal for normal every day things that all parties consent to illegal, like a neighborhood kid sorting corn or watermelons on the weekends in order to fill up his piggy bank.

these regulations arent scalable. the pro government person only sees 4 year old slaves and monsanto. they dont see a neighbor's kid that plays with your kid, coming over on the weekend to gather eggs and getting some monetary compensation in return.

i think there is a subtle ommission here on your part...
it ultimately boils down that you believe people are either evil or stupid a combination of both. and because of that, we need to create an organization with a monopoly on violence that can force people to do certain things. yet, at the same time, what prevents those same evil and stupid people from taking the helm of the state and governing? if people are stupid and evil, then so is the government. which actually makes the situation worse in my opinion. atleast when you just have stupid or evil people, they have no affect on the rest of the world or anyone elses rights. but you put them in charge of an institution with a monopoly on violence and you have a recipe for disaster.

[Decyferon]

I would go with the people are evil and stupid comment, because generally speaking they are the worst you can think of them

[angelofdeath]

so, it makes sense then to appoint these evil and stupid people to rule over us and make them our masters? that dog dont hunt

[Decyferon]

AOD I agree most if not all politicians are idiots and scum just like the people they represent, you seem to think that my belief in having a welfare state and public education as some sort of endorsement for the current situation, which I do not endorse in the slightest.

Thw whole system needs to be changed, politicians should not be able to get rich from working in politics, there needs to be some kind of drive to make for a better place which none of them have at the moment. Business should not be allowed the power to lobby government and have their own personal interests and agendas pushed forward, because they are companies NOT people.

Just because I say I agree with being taxed for these ends does not mean I am happy with the situation as it stands, I personally wish we could burn it all to the ground and start over.

[angelofdeath]

interesting concept, burning it to the ground and starting over. you dangerous heretic!

i still think my point is crystal clear, but i realize it brings into question an entire world view. i'll repeat one last time:

if people are dangerous, stupid and evil, why should we appoint them to rule us?

[Decyferon]

I said most not all, there are good people out there but there is also a lot of ignorance and stupidity. Dont ask me how to get the good people into politics though!!

I just think that if you look to those countries with weak governments there is rife corruption, crime no social help and the countries are going to shit (look at most of Africa). If you removed that in America what would stop armed gangs just plucking up bits of land and claiming it their own (pretty much how things worked before we had governments). A criminal or someone prepared to commit crime doesnt care about your rights whether written in law or not. So why would they care about your property rights?

[angelofdeath]

the reason why a criminal would be concerned about my property rights is because he'll have to meet resistance in order to attain my property. i've always been a firm believer in pointing out that a peice of paper stops no crime, even in situations like where we use the constitution to tell politicians we have a right to free speech, etc.

i think its a sort of bad comparison to compare say somalia, a third world country with a destitute population, with a rich country like america. i've had this debate dozens of times, so in keeping more on the topic, i'll leave it at that.

but it is a very telling position you let loose in the first line of your last post. the part about not asking you how to get the few good people in politics and remove the rest of the idiots, and dangerous and stupid people. well, tell you what, when you figure that out, give me a call, until then, i'll just go ahead and stay to myself.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Didn't know where to throw this, so I decided to throw it in here...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2012/02/07/253-secret-police-murder-and-cover-up/

Unreal story.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/420831_363955300283794_100000079827051_1464865_209 432514_n.jpg

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLHhK3zrXTM&feature=youtu.be

This guy is fringe. Bat shit crazy, and has been supporting the KKK secretly for decades.

He talks about freedom, just so he can throw black people back into slavery and have all women in whorehouses and children working in farm fields and factories.

White Power!

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqsyzTrWS0g&feature=player_embeddedDid%20Maine%20GOP%20Blatant ly%20Cheat%20Ron%20Paul%20out%20of%20a%20Victory?

Say what?

[McLovin]

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/224271_6952316685_6233046685_323450_7125_n.jpg
guy looks like kevin smith

[Aerosol Farts]

http://tthu.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Ron-Paul-Drives-A-Lincoln-Town-Car.jpg

Ron Paul seems like a stand up guy. I found this site that listed (http://thatsthehookup.com/headlines/what-car-does-your-candidate-drive-romney-newt-santorum-ron-paul-obama/#more-21724) off each candidate's cars and personally I think you can learn a lot by what someone drives. Douchebags usually drive douchey cars. Case in point, Newt and Rick.

http://tthu.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Rick-Santorum-drives-German-Audi-A6.jpg

http://tthu.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Newt_gingrich_drives_a-Mercedes-Benz.jpg

Personally, I think the President of the United States should be driving American made whips, eating American Made Beef and fucking his interns with an american made cigar.

[Decyferon]

I don't like Santorum or Gingrich but they drive nice cars whereas Ron Paul drives what looks like a piece of crap!

American cars are poorly made, usually with very cheap interiors (especially in comparison to european cars) and outdated technology, which is why they tend to be so much cheaper.

[Aerosol Farts]

First of all I am sorry that most of the American cars you get in London are pieces of shit...like Ford Escorts and all that crap. But, the reason why American cars are more expensive than whatever European manufacturer you speak of is because of wages and tariff's. European countries tax outsiders heavily so European cars sell better in Europe and support jobs. In America European cars are way more expensive which is why people buy American...except for Asian brands, and Asian brands are the cheapest because they pay their employees in rice and noodles. I agree that German cars are probably the best in the world, but what kind of a message does it send to have the president of a country driving an import? What does the Queen drive and the PM?

[Decyferon]

im not talking shit like ford escorts etc I am talking Chrysler 300C/ Ford Mustang/ Cadiallac /Corvette etc

I wouldnt care what car the leader of a country drives, I think it says more that they drive something good rather something not as good just because it comes from their own country. I dunno what the Queen or the PM drive because they are both fucking idiots that I really don't care about, probably Jaguars, or mercedes, what does it matter they are all pretty much owned by German companies anyway!

Also American cars are not more expensive that the german cars even in europe, they might be more expensive than they are in America but American cars are still cheaper than the Mercedes, BMWs etc

I am not saying I don't like American cars I am saying they are known for using cheap materials, look at the corvette, it is plasticy as shit whereas it's European equivilents are technologically better, made with better materials (carbon fibre body panels not molded plastics etc

[Aerosol Farts]

Look man, for the most part I agree with you...American cars do not have the same fit and finish as let's say even a volkswagon, however, you have to define which European cars we are talking about. No one would ever put a Ford Mustang in the same class as a Mercedes Benz...not even a C-class, they just aren't made for the same uses. What I will say is this...the Chevrolet Corvette (a car I really don't like because only middle aged balding gym rats drive them) is a bad-ass piece of machinery for the price. Sure the interior is plastic and ugly, but it will woop most cars asses on the road and on the track and that has been proven by the boys over at Top Gear. As tested by Top Gear TV show

1:17.6 – Koenigsegg CCX (with "Top Gear Wing")
1:18.4 – Pagani Zonda F
1:18.9 – Maserati MC12
1:19.0 – Enzo Ferrari
1:19.5 – Ariel Atom 2 300
1:19.8 – Porsche Carrera GT
1:19.8 – Lamborghini Murciélago LP640
1:20.4 – Koenigsegg CCX [2]
1:20.7 – Ascari KZ1
1:20.9 – Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren
1:21.2 - Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano
1:21.9 – Ford GT
1:22.3 – Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale
1:22.3 – Porsche 911 GT3 RS
1:22.4 – Chevrolet Corvette Z06 <-------------------------------------------------
1:22.5 – Noble M15
1:22.9 – Ferrari F430 F1
1:23.2 – Ferrari F430 Spider F1
1:23.7 – Lamborghini Murciélago (retested)[3]
1:23.8 – Pagani Zonda C12 S 7.3 (mildly moist)
1:23.9 – Aston Martin DBS


Faster than Ferraris? Lamborghinis? You gotta at least respect that. All for $75,000 USD.

[Decyferon]

Yea I am not denying corvettes are fast, not so great on the corners but shit hot in a straight line.

If you look at the price point of the high end caddies they are in competition with C class mercs, BMW 5 series etc and the Mustang is also quite pricey over here so in comeptition with the smaller 3 series etc

The fit and finish of most of the American cars I have seen and been in has been comparable with the cheapest Renault or Peugeots, it is like they try to have a quality finish without using quality products so it all seems flimsy and superficial.

Bit of a derail of a RP thread, but like I said I do like American cars (maybe old ones more than new but hey I wouldnt say no to a new mustang or Challenger).

[McLovin]

Etch A Sketch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pLrwINs1o)

[amprok]

if ron paul had his way in 2008, my son wouldn't be a citizen.

ron paul, rethinking birth right citizenship (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html)

dude is a racist piece of shit. people look past it, because he's against the war, and wants to leglize weed and what not, but the dude is nothing short of being a racist piece of shit.

[nsmbfan]

still doesn't deter from the fact that he's the best of the worst

maybe your 5 posts validate this claim, but imho you probably aren't gonna vote anyways. due to your status.

amirite?

[amprok]

still doesn't deter from the fact that he's the best of the worst

maybe your 5 posts validate this claim, but imho you probably aren't gonna vote anyways. due to your status.

amirite?


my status is totally legal, i vote for every election, state, local, school board, whatever... which is why this pisses me off. Ron Paul wants to end birth right citizenship, something so fundamentally american, it's a prerequisite to become president. My (now) wife and I were not married when she got pregnant.

AND she's here legally, has a job, has two masters degrees, a doctorate, and is a -very- productive member of society.

My son was born in america. As we were not married, he wouldn't become a citizen automatically through me if Paul had his way. My wife is here legally, but not a citizen. (hence birth right citizenship)

So either Paul is a fucking idiot, who doesn't see that there people here legally that would have serious ramifications to this law. (unlikely, the dude is smart)

or be, the dude is a racist piece of shit. (more likely, if you read his article, and the claims of upwards of 75% of babies born in Houston hospitals are children of illegal immigrants).

i know most (all) candidates suck and all but, trying to un-naturalize babies because their parents are brown is especially fucked up. it's even more fucked up because Paul isn't an idiot. this is calculated race baiting.

TL/DR. Ron Paul is a racist piece of shit, that convinces moderates that "he's not that bad" because he doesn't want to be in iraq and is down with the weed.

seriously, fuck this guy.

the only thing worse than a racist, is a smart racist. paul is a very smart racist.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

So, only people who think that people should become citizens automatically, when crossing the border or get amnesty for being here illegally (and I'm not even referring to your specific case) aren't racist's?

I'm not RP but I think his problem is, someone comes here illegally, and they have children and now their children are citizen's, I would imagine he looks to this as a loophole in the system. Why should someone breaking the law (regardless of skin color I may add, you can be white and do this as well) upon entering the country automatically have their children become citizen's?

I think it's an interesting position and question. I won't even start to point out several points that counter the fact that he is a racist, but they are abundant if you open your eyes.

You don't have to like the position or agree with it, but to just throw it out there that he is a "smart racist" is basically saying there is no grey area on the issue.

Would you even say there is a immigration problem in the U.S.?

EDIT:

Also, there is this guy who get's a pass for some odd reason even though he wants gay's thrown onto a space ship and hurled into the sun (obvious distortion) and slips up and does things like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1L63_ERDW8

[Soup forgot his password]

Yep. Only people who think immigrants, regardless of visa, should be allowed to stay in america and raise their families here with all the benefits you or I have, are unracist, unclassist, and politically correct. It also makes way more economic sense.

Immigration, inclusion, taking care of the poor and needy, and constitutional rights for all are REAL American ideals. Consitutional rights for SOME and tough immigration laws are ideals of modern right wing religious morons who want to reap all the benefits of other people's hard work.

Regardless of politics, if what you want is whatever makes sense economically, then you don't want to make immigration laws any harder, or too easy. The way things are, for the most part, weed out the people who come here to just reap benefits. If you've immigrated here to america, legally or illegally, you've undoubtedly come here to work hard. That in of itself makes what they're doing honest.

[amprok]

When someone makes claims that 75% of babies born in texas hospitals are the children of illegal latino immigrants, that is clearly race baiting.

the number is -grossly- exaggerated. he's not an idiot, he's exaggerating on purpose to angry up the anti-immigrant (almost exclusively white) voter.

more importantly, punishing a child for their parents crime, is heroically non-american. that's the kind of shit they do in south korea.

what did i do for my citizenship? nothing. not a god damn thing. i was born here, im a citizen. this is america, that's how it works. birth right citizenship. it's a prerequisite to presidency.

so he's not "punishing the law breaking parents who cross the border illegally". he's punishing the new born infant, who has done nothing wrong. the infant who -like me, and presumably most people on here- did NOTHING to earn their citizenship aside from being born in america.

dude is a piece of shit.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

See your misinterpreting the rule or at least how I see it should be.

You become a citizen, your children inherit that. If you aren't a citizen how is your child now a citizen? Or why does this make sense? Also it is the parent that put the family in this situation, not the United States of America.

You can argue that any parent being punished for any crime they commit is also punishing their children. I don't see this as a valid point, you are responsible for your actions. I may disagree with the law, but that is another argument.

I also don't think you answered any of the points I brought up earlier, but I am used to this kind of "debating" in this section of the forum, specifically this thread.

[Soup forgot his password]

Two things:
1. If a child born in America isn't American, what are they?
2. IT doesn't matter if they are illegal or not, because if they're here they're working harder than anyone. Illegal workers use social security numbers that aren't theirs to work, which means your unemployment/retirement is being paid for by illegal workers, and they never see a dime of it. Illegal workers don't get to retire.

The way the system works right now, nobody can come into america and freeload. Its not possible. If you're here, you're working your ass off. Plain and simple. Those guys sitting out front of Home Depot aren't on vacation. They're providing for ten other people.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

It's not about freeloading to me, it's more of principle, if you want to be American then become a citizen, if you don't then stay where you are from.

Perhaps this is not logical to you, or everyone else, it's just how I view things.

BTW: Anyone can be American, it's not a bias towards any particular group of people. After all, we are all Immigrants at one point, or descent from one (except Native American's). I don't know enough about the actual process in becoming a citizen, perhaps that is biased, or takes too long, I can't speak on it. If you are taking steps to become a citizen you should be allowed to do that, but staying here and making no attempt to become one, and crying about the laws and how they don't help you to me doesn't make sense.

Just another point, please don't make this out that I condone police brutality towards anyone who isn't American that is here, the police or any other authority agency should be held to a standard when dealing with anyone. But if you are involved in activity that is criminal, expect discipline, and if you aren't American or trying to become American you should be shown the door.

[nsmbfan]

my status is totally legal, i vote for every election, state, local, school board, whatever... which is why this pisses me off. Ron Paul wants to end birth right citizenship, something so fundamentally american, it's a prerequisite to become president. My (now) wife and I were not married when she got pregnant.

AND she's here legally, has a job, has two masters degrees, a doctorate, and is a -very- productive member of society.

My son was born in america. As we were not married, he wouldn't become a citizen automatically through me if Paul had his way. My wife is here legally, but not a citizen. (hence birth right citizenship)

So either Paul is a fucking idiot, who doesn't see that there people here legally that would have serious ramifications to this law. (unlikely, the dude is smart)

or be, the dude is a racist piece of shit. (more likely, if you read his article, and the claims of upwards of 75% of babies born in Houston hospitals are children of illegal immigrants). i can also say that Houston, TX, not Thailand, is the #1 place in the world to purchase underage sex. fuck children for cash. sad but true, blame the influx of cartel influence.

i know most (all) candidates suck and all but, trying to un-naturalize babies because their parents are brown is especially fucked up. it's even more fucked up because Paul isn't an idiot. this is calculated race baiting.

TL/DR. Ron Paul is a racist piece of shit, that convinces moderates that "he's not that bad" because he doesn't want to be in iraq and is down with the weed.

seriously, fuck this guy.

the only thing worse than a racist, is a smart racist. paul is a very smart racist.


i was born in houston. i can speak on that subject, and without proper figures in front of me i can still say that 75% is about right.



my question to you is why OF ALL THE THINGS you could have beef with a politician about, why focus on supposed racism? i understand your viewpoint and how you could substantiate a claim of racism based on the fact that he's not just an idiot , but rather a smart racist(?).

ok no im done arguing this one, you've blown this way out of context and cited zero sources. if THAT'S the mid you're slinging at this guy, it's pretty fucking watery mud.

suspected troll. rook

[nsmbfan]

citizenship is crazy expensive and hard to obtain

my homey met his wife online, she was canadian, $10,000 and 2 years later, she got a paper saying she could work here and get married. they're doing fine but the process was grueling.

asking mexicans to go thru the proper channels is ridiculous.

[nsmbfan]

Those guys sitting out front of Home Depot aren't on vacation. They're providing for ten other people.

the main issue here is sending money back to 8 of them back in the old country. ever cash your check at a mexican store? western union... guaranteed. banco popular

aside from that, you're right soup.

idc if you're white black or mexican, everyone sucks the systems tit when they have to.

[amprok]

ok no im done arguing this one, you've blown this way out of context and cited zero sources.

I'm having trouble digging up the source, but when the article was published, it was fact checked, and proven to be an exaggeration. I'm at work now, and don't have time to look it up but i encourage you to.

These numbers are more than a little similar to his newsletter that he supposedly didn't write, that had his name on it, that claimed that "most blacks in oakland are probably criminals and should be feared"


it's not way out of context if he repeatedly makes race based accusations about crime and population numbers using grossly exaggerated statistics.

either he's a total idiot with math. (which i doubt) or he blows numbers up to angry up his base. (much more likely).

and seriously, 75% of children born in dallas have illegal parents? seriously, no. i mean, i've never been to dallas, but i really doubt that the vast majority of children of any city that large have undocumented parents. that's insanity, and when it's done in the name of boosting voters....

[Soup forgot his password]

It's not about freeloading to me, it's more of principle, if you want to be American then become a citizen, if you don't then stay where you are from.

Perhaps this is not logical to you, or everyone else, it's just how I view things.

BTW: Anyone can be American, it's not a bias towards any particular group of people. After all, we are all Immigrants at one point, or descent from one (except Native American's). I don't know enough about the actual process in becoming a citizen, perhaps that is biased, or takes too long, I can't speak on it. If you are taking steps to become a citizen you should be allowed to do that, but staying here and making no attempt to become one, and crying about the laws and how they don't help you to me doesn't make sense.

Just another point, please don't make this out that I condone police brutality towards anyone who isn't American that is here, the police or any other authority agency should be held to a standard when dealing with anyone. But if you are involved in activity that is criminal, expect discipline, and if you aren't American or trying to become American you should be shown the door.

It's not logical to me because I actually know the immigration laws in most of the states. Immigration laws aren't designed for immigrants to come here, work honestly and be rewarded with american citizenship. The lives of immigrants are at the whim of beurocracy, politicians, and how overwhelmingly racist the majority of voters are. Look at recent changes to immigration laws in Alabama. Their entire economy is built on illegals working there to gain citizenship. And now they recently changed the law to scoop up anyone who is still illegal and deport them. Their parents will be separated and thrown back into mexico during THE bloodiest war in Pan/South American History. It doesn't matter if they've lived here for 20-30 years and have absolutely no connection to anyone in Mexico. It doesn't matter if the Children don't even speak spanish. They're all going to mexico.

I didn't do anything to be american. I just happened to be squirted out of an american vagina. Same with you. You didn't do anything to be american, and for all you know your great great grandma was an illegal immigrant who didn't fill out the proper forms before you your great grandpa was born.

My ancestors, eight generations ago (which by your logic makes me more of an american than most people and probably you, because most families haven't been in america for 200 years) bribed an official in china to forge papers so that they could leave china and enter america legally. MOST immigrants from china in the early 1800's did the same, so only the rich chinese came here "legally." The rest didn't.

We are all here illegally. All of us. Get over it.

And heres the other thing, MEXICANS are a mix of latin, european, and NATIVE AMERICANS THAT WERE DRIVEN OUT BY WHITE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. So by you're own logic its their ancestral land. They should at least be allowed to garden it.

[amprok]

I agree with the above post. But immigration is almost a secondary issue here.

While I -admittedly- am very sympathetic to immigration issues. this law (and ron paul) is directly targeting brown infants, and punishing them for the crimes of their parents.

This is 100% un-American. In america, we don't punish the children of criminals for their parents crimes. we just don't.

In america, you are born here, you're american. end of story. it's a fucking prerequisite to presidency, it's that intrenched in american culture.

[Soup forgot his password]

Actually the people voting for that law may be targeting mexicans but it'll affect all immigrants. Read up on Alabama's immigration laws that were recently passed. Voters voted for it because they hate mexicans, but what also happened is a BUNCH of scientists/engineers at a Mercedes factory in the state all got deported as well. Not to mention all the crops in Alalabama are picked by illegal immigrants. So now Mercedes is planning on moving their plant to another state and crops are all rotting in the field. Their economy instantly went from bad to worse.

[amprok]

Yeah, I followed Alabama pretty closely, (and arizona).

That's what's wrong with knee jerk reactions to immigration laws. Why Ron Paul is either A) stupid or B ) racist.

My son, again, is a perfect example.

My (now) wife was here legally. Has a doctorate, 2 masters degrees, 2 jobs, and has been here since she was a child.

BUTTTTTTT

She speaks spanish, and is brown, and because of that, MY son would be denied citizenship.

I doubt Ron Paul gives a fuck about me. (white, middle class, over educated, etc) but he gets a hardon fucking with my son because his mom's brown.

Seriously, fuck Ron Paul.


I'll never understand the logic of:

"The economy is bad, let's get rid of an entire sector of the working force so they will no longer spend money, ANNNNND raise the cost of basic services and needs for EVERYONE. that'll totally fix the economy!!!"

[Soup forgot his password]

She speaks spanish, and is brown, and because of that, MY son would be denied citizenship.

Im more or or less on your side about this thing but this, right here, needs to be cited.

[amprok]

Im more or or less on your side about this thing but this, right here, needs to be cited.


Ron Paul: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html)

As we weren't married at the time, i would have no legal guardianship over my son as my (now) wife isn't a citizen.

My son was born to a permanent legal alien. His mom, hispanic, his dad, some cracker born in the USA. If Paul had his way, my son would be denied citizenship, and deported to fucking Italy of all places.... as that's where my wife's family happened to be when she was born.

[CALIgula]

hate to interrupt the birthright debate but,

ron paul wants to sell off the national parks.
i love the national parks.

also, most of the white supremacists (including don black and david duke) support ron paul.
i hate white supremacists.

ron paul is pro-life.
i am pro-choice.

ron paul wants us to not support our long time ally, israel.
i think we need to show solidarity with israel.

ron paul doesnt want sanctions on iran.
i think sanctions are our best option (other than war) from preventing iran from getting a nuke.

..and the list goes on.



i will give him credit for a few things:
wanting to pull troops out of the war (which obama has done in one war and has set a timeline for the other)
wanting to reduce govt size
wanting to end the fed
etc.

but on so many issues, i just can't agree with him and so will not vote for him....plus the guy is about 94 years old as fuck.


meh, agree or disagree with me....i dont really care...just giving my 2 cents.

[Fist 666]

i'm w/ you cali (except for FUCK israel).
but i agree with more of what he says, and disagree with less of what he says compared to my other two choices.

i'll vote 3rd party on pointless principle. for me voting against the 2 party system is as important for 'merica's future as any other 'issue,' though its far from hot-button status.

[Cunt_Eastwood]

my status is totally legal,

or be, the dude is a racist piece of shit. (more likely, if you read his article, and the claims of upwards of 75% of babies born in Houston hospitals are children of illegal immigrants).

i know most (all) candidates suck and all but, trying to un-naturalize babies because their parents are brown is especially fucked up. it's even more fucked up because Paul isn't an idiot. this is calculated race baiting.


seriously, fuck this guy.

the only thing worse than a racist, is a smart racist. paul is a very smart racist.

I was going to say you sound like an angry messican, but I see you're a fellow whiteboy, who also love spanish women(props)

Look man, im not saying I totally agree with ending the status for illegal babies, but you gatta look at it for what it is, a deterrent. If illegals cant have citizenship'd kids then thats a huge set back to their already difficult piece of the American dream pie.

Also I think its unfair to say this is just targeting brown people. I know it, you know it, the fucking average joe's all know that this is focused at the hispanic population, but I dont see it as racist(on paul's part) truley. That law would apply to everyone white/black/brown/yella/whatever, and trust me the law will enforce it no matter youre color.

Two things:
1. If a child born in America isn't American, what are they?
2. IT doesn't matter if they are illegal or not, because if they're here they're working harder than anyone. Illegal workers use social security numbers that aren't theirs to work, which means your unemployment/retirement is being paid for by illegal workers, and they never see a dime of it. Illegal workers don't get to retire.

The way the system works right now, nobody can come into america and freeload. Its not possible. If you're here, you're working your ass off. Plain and simple. Those guys sitting out front of Home Depot aren't on vacation. They're providing for ten other people.

No one can come into america and freeload?
where do you live?
Immigrants of every nationality come to this country and freeload off of government funds and illegal means.

Fuck outta here you bleeding heart retard.


hate to interrupt the birthright debate but,

ron paul wants to sell off the national parks.
i love the national parks.

also, most of the white supremacists (including don black and david duke) support ron paul.
i hate white supremacists.

ron paul is pro-life.
i am pro-choice.

ron paul wants us to not support our long time ally, israel.
i think we need to show solidarity with israel.

ron paul doesnt want sanctions on iran.
i think sanctions are our best option (other than war) from preventing iran from getting a nuke.

..and the list goes on.



i will give him credit for a few things:
wanting to pull troops out of the war (which obama has done in one war and has set a timeline for the other)
wanting to reduce govt size
wanting to end the fed
etc.

but on so many issues, i just can't agree with him and so will not vote for him....plus the guy is about 94 years old as fuck.


meh, agree or disagree with me....i dont really care...just giving my 2 cents.


Can you post link's to any of your claims?
I have heard nothing of him wanting to sell the parks, even though the only people who use them are surviovalist and mexican drug gangs.

White supremacist support him so what? He cant control that, in the 08 election I read a fucking article where Tom Metzger and other nut cases said they respected Obama more than McCain and all this other shit, dosent mean you shouldnt like Barack.

I am also pro-choice/abortion, but you gatta understand he has to respresent atleast some of the backward ass policy of the right-wing party to even make the numbers he does, and he was a doctor who birthed something north of 4,000 babies? I kinda understand

Also Fuck Israel, way more trouble than it worth, and they fucking spy on us more so than the Russians in the cold war.

Oh and by the way Obama didnt end the war in iraq, he actually had tried to extend it. The end of the war was actually signed in legislation during Bush's last year, in a near ditch effort to save face Obama bearly sped the process up after failing to extend it.

Just sayin

[amprok]

ron paul on private land/public parks. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/10/21/349536/ron-paul-public-lands/?mobile=nc

I know it's a liberal site, so just scroll down the the youtube video if you want to hear him speak on the matter.

[keso cheese]

Yeah Ron Paul is so racist! http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2012/03/ron-pauls-racist-past.html

[keso cheese]

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p613/Joshkward12/ronpaulracist.jpg

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnougFhipQw&feature=youtu.be

[Soup forgot his password]

Finding out if Ron paul was actually being racist is about as irrelevant to this election as finding out if santorums dying daughter's kooch has aids. He wasnt ever gonna win. Ron pauls entire existence is to rattle cages at the gop and up the tv ratings. Hes an idea man so the weirder the better.

[amprok]

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p613/Joshkward12/ronpaulracist.jpg

while this picture is cute and all, it's notably older than his newsletters, which bared his name, even though he claims he didn't write them.

so while in the -what im guessing- late 60's, early 70's he might have been more tolerant, as he grew older, he got more conservative. a phenomenon that is not entirely uncommon.

Ron Paul's Newsletters.
in 1989: "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'", and "

"I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

He also made similar comments about blacks in oakland in the mid 90's. The 95% quote is particularly similar to his (now proven wrong) statement that 75% of babies in Houston have illegal immigrant parents, and should be punished for their parents crimes. (usa! usa!)

Other issues of intolerance. He's against the civil rights act, he's against most environmental protections, he's against the americans with disabilities act, etc etc.

Making huge sweeping statements about entire ethnicities again, and again... i don't see how his racism is even remotely questionable.

and i -do- feel it's important to bring up even though he is essentially a lame duck.

the dude is smart. super fucking smart. and he has really good policy issues on certain things. (drug war, iraq, etc) so he attracts otherwise moderate or liberal minded people through these issues, and for -whatever reason- they are able to look past his massive racist commentary, lies, and a desire to punish babies because of their parents crimes.

[Cunt_Eastwood]

Well keep this simple.
I dont outright support law and order but look at it like this.

In order to enjoy the services here in the USA, you must by law(which is the rules of the land) be a citizen of this country, period. Im not going to argue you how difficult the legal way to do this is, and that dosent pertain to the arguement.

If I squat the house next to you, which shouldnt matter because no ones using it right?
So I squat the house next to you, I get a job and pay no taxes(giving nothing back into the pot), I hook an illegal line up stealing your cable and electricty that YOU pay for, and I send my kids to the schools, call the fire dept. because my BBQ is on fire, and go to the hospital and have a kid then foot them the bill because I have no money, is that right?

And on a sidenote it wouldnt matter if I was a Voulenteer fireman who reads to blind school children in my sunday school bible class and have two PhD's, at all. Because why, im breaking the law and im fucking stealing. Regardless of motive, sob story, or standing in the community.

I say all that to say this, why is his unorthadox way to curb a large segment of the population to enforce the laws which are actually the duties of the executive office which he is applying for, have to be racist?

Why cant it be racist when a group of people perpetuates illegal activity on a large scale onto another?
Why is it not racist that so many illegals dissrespect the laws of America and yet want to live here and rape the benefits?

Answer that shit you fucking crybabies
/noamericafuckyeahoner

[amprok]

It's pretty easy to answer, and also exposes how little you know about immigration.

First, illegal immigrants DO pay taxes. I mean, if they work, they pay income tax, and pay into medicaid and what not). these services they don't actually reap either. They pay into them, automatically, but never actually glean from them as they are illegal and to be like "hey, i have no ssn and im not a citizen, but i'm going to run down to the government office and register for medicare" would be insanity.

. Also, assuming they rent, or own a house, they pay into that with taxes. and assuming they occasionally eat food, and perhaps buy stuff, they pay sales taxes on that through sales tax.

The idea of illegal immigrants not paying taxes would require them to be: jobless, steal everything they consume, be homeless, and run around naked because they couldn't buy clothes. these actions would obviously get them noticed/deported.

If there is one thing that illegal immigrants do, it's fly under the fucking radar. Not draw attention to themselves.

Second. It doesn't fucking matter. You can be as shitty to illegal immigrants as you want. That's part of being american. Believe whatever the fuck you want.

What causes me to skip a beat, is when you start punishing their children for shit their parents did. That's what Ron Paul is trying to do.

I'm going to make the assumption that you were born in america. And by virtue of being born in america, you didn't have to do shit to "earn" your citizenship. It's called birth right citizenship, and it's fundamentally american. It's a god damn prerequisite to being president.

Ron Paul wants to deny children birth right citizenship because of crimes their parents committed. Children that are brown. Children who's parents are brown.

[Cunt_Eastwood]

Yes they do pay some taxes, but all those guys outside of the home depot, all those guys cutting your neighbors grass, all those guys roofing, 80% dont pay a lick of income taxes.

And most the time they dont even have a fake ssn, for most of the work an illegal can get is under the table anyway, albeit the reason that people hire illegals, theyre cheap and they cant fight you.

They might not draw directly out of SS/Medacaid, but when they go to the ER for gun shot wounds, child birth, etc etc, who's paying for it? They surely dont.

Also home ownership again dosent mean that they neccesarily are paying taxes, theres alot of underground renting where as long as you have the rent on the 30th of the month, fuck it.
Not to mention several families live in one dwelling usually, so EVEN IF they pay, theyre covering alot of them with one house bill. Which if they all use one house, they should only have to pay for one, my whole reasoning to this example is to show they dont pay the same across the board as citizens.

Illegals do fly under the radar, except when theyre running into nuns and sorority girls drunk driving in the wrong lane.

And im not purposely being ''shitty'' to illegals, ive said it once and will reinstate that I have no beef with illegals, im sympathetic to their cause, most ive met and worked with were hardworking generally nice people.

I was born in America, no I personally didnt do shit, but my parents were naturalized citizens when they had me on American soil. If you want to look at it as the kids are getting punished for their parents, look at it as that ive been rewarded because of mine.

And you really need to get off this Ron paul hates brown people shit, its ridiculous.
His policy and laws would effect every child regardless of color, including WHITE canadians and so on and so forth.

Just because his policy directly could effect you, and I feel for you protecting your child but you cant let that make you think that your kids a target because of his skin. If anything blame those breaking the laws and making a political environment where politicans have to take such drastic measures and take away focus from more serious problems.

[amprok]

And you really need to get off this Ron paul hates brown people shit, its ridiculous.
His policy and laws would effect every child regardless of color, including WHITE canadians and so on and so forth.

i totally would, if he was talking purely about immigration as a general issue. But when he buttresses it with claims of 75% of infants born are born to illegal latino immigrants, it becomes a race issue. especially when that number is wrong. it's race baiting.

you are correct, in that you were "gifted" citizenship by your parents, –as was everyone, in the history of america– by being born here. What Ron Paul is doing is trying to literally redefine who is, and isn't "american" and using latinos as the scape goat to do so.

[Soup forgot his password]

Look ron paul didnt write any of the racist crap in those newsletters. His constituants did. He just signed off on the publishing, so you cant confirm if hes racist or oblivious. If i was to guess id say oblivious. Also the whole "having to take responsibility for something dumb a constituant said" is something every politician has to deal with. We'd love for politicians to vote only for laws theyre personally informed about, write their own newsletters, speak out about current events they personally read about... But thats not how its done. Politicians hire underlings to tell them when to get mad, what to say, what to publish....ron Pauls the anchorman on the ron paul show.

[amprok]

that's his claim for sure. he didn't write it, his constituants did....

so, while i feel thats complete bullshit.... i've never had a news letter published, named after me, full of racist shit... i assume most reasonable, non racist people can say the same. i imagine most reasonable non racist people wouldn't sign off on publishing shit like that...

and the grossly exaggerated numbers sound way-to-familiar to his birth right numbers.

95% of blacks are criminals. (only a racist shit head would think so).
75% of children born in dallas are born to illegal immigrants. (only a racist shit head / or idiot would think so).

maybe it's a coincidence? i doubt it. but the birth right thing was written by him, signed by him, and he stands by it. so even if the newsletter was just him being an idiot and not reading what he was publishing (best case scenario, he's an idiot), he still makes claims about immigrant (specifically latino) populations, as a way to angry up the white vote.

[Soup forgot his password]

Look man you're making liberals look like retards right now. NO POLITICIAN writes their own newsletter. OF COURSE he didnt write that shit. Whether he was aware of what was in the newsletter is a fucking coin toss, but even if that coin landed heads and he happened to read THAT issue of his own propaganda you still arent able to claim that he's a racist for letting it go. It's a moot point. Pick your battles.

[amprok]

honestly, i could give a shit about how i make liberals look. soft ball liberals are just as bad as conservatives.

i've worked in politics professionally. believe it or not, at least at the state level (representatives and senators, up to governor really) they read their shit. maybe not every law that comes up to vote, but everything that comes out under their name is read, and re-read.

trust me. my job as a graphic designer was to design things like; their newsletters, their mailers, their websites. there were endless rounds of revisions and changes on every piece i did, because they read their shit, and re-think it, and think about how it will play out in the next coming elections. everything is hyper calculated.

even their little diatribes on the floor are precalculated because all that shit is recorded and used against them in attack ads every election cycle. unless ron paul is an idiot, he did the same. the fact that he's stayed in politics for as long as he has leads me to believe he isn't an idiot.

if i was to give him a pass on the newsletters, the birth right issue, IS a race issue, with almost identical language as the news letters.

i'm not going to give him a pass on his racist ass news letters because he was -at best- to lazy to read them before they went out the door. especially if he pens almost mirror image shit like ten years later.

[Soup forgot his password]

What about hardball liberals? You care about how you make them look?

Im sorry, I'm a graphic designer too and being a graphic designer isnt even CLOSE to being involved in the actual political process. You make pretty pictures, fix kerning and decide if a page should be two columns or three. You weren't even an intern involved in gathering news articles for a mayor.

What politician did you do newsletters for? And when you say "they" you mean the actual politician, or an editor for the newsletter? Politicians have ARMIES of interns, publicisits, lobbyists, and constituants all telling them what to do and say, what to react to, and how to vote. Im shocked you think all it takes to call a politician a racist is to say "most people in oakland were involved in criminal activity in the 90's." in a publication written by someone else. And to top that, anyone living in Oakland in the 90's probably was. I want to know what the rest of that article said.

And I REALLY want to know what politician you worked for.

[Decyferon]

I dunno if he is racist or anything like that but the guy is retarded if he allows documentation to go out under his name and he isn't aware of the content. Even if he wasn't aware of it, it is his newsletter, it falls on his head and his reputation for whatever is written in it.

I dunno if UK politics is different but I have always been around politics, both my parents were heavily involved and I grew up with people that are now in parliament and even though RP might not have written it, it is his responsibility, so whether or not the intent was there it is damaging to his reputation. I don't know of any of the politicians my parents worked for would have signed off on something like this unless they had either read it or it was a trusted aide that wrote it who knew the candidate would have been happy with the content. So he is either a sloppy politician who doesn't deserve to be elected or he is a racist.

[amprok]

And I REALLY want to know what politician you worked for.


i worked for the entire house, not just one rep, but all of them. i was a part of the communications team for the house of representatives here. just one side of the aisle, and just at the state level. not the national.

the communications team consisted of writers, journalists, and 5 graphic designers. (one of which was me). and each representative had 2 assistants. so each piece that went out, was checked, and rechecked, and rewritten, and rechecked -endlessly.

i now purely work freelance, but have lots of connections from from my time in politics so i continue to do shit like web work, mailers, newsletters and what not for individual candidates. mostly mayoral, or low level town politicians, an occasional governor here and there. def nothing too big.


either way. i promise you. none of the shit i ever worked on had claims of 95% of whatever being criminals. only the shittiest short term politician would put out shit like that on accident. i mean you would have to refuse an entire shared staff of people to prevent shit like this.

and this is exactly why i hate liberals. the left is too hippie to take a stance on anything. ron paul is a perfect example.

a dude who has a history of making repeatedly racist claims, and nobody wants to touch it because they don't want to make anyone uncomfortable.


oh it's cool. he wants to deport infants, and while thats fucked, lets not mention it because he wants to legalize weed. pathetic.

[Decyferon]

but essentially he can say what he wants as he has no chance of getting elected

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/apr/15/colorado-further-evidence-ron-paul-will-challenge-/

Colorado, so racist.

[Soup forgot his password]

and this is exactly why i hate liberals. the left is too hippie to take a stance on anything. ron paul is a perfect example.
Hahaha you think it's liberal of me to not care if Ron Paul is racist or not? Im basically saying "so what if he's not 100% politically correct?" He's been running for President every election year since I can remember and hasnt even come close to winning in the primaries. Why all of a sudden require his views to represent the general populous? That's not a liberal's take on Ron Paul at all. That's centrist at best. Neither side is worried about him winning any election, and if he actually was racist AT WORST that would make him a republican Al Sharpton, and when was the last time anybody gave a shit about him pumping a black fist at some mexican baby?

The reason why we're debating ron paul is because of all of his other controversial talking points. End the fed, abolish the public sector, privatize the parks, etc. That's why he's a 117 page thread in every crossfire section of every forum on the internet.


Anyway, why cant you say what state and political party you worked for as a graphic designer? And who peer reviewed the newsletter? Did every politician have their own newsletter? Was a party newsletter? Was any newsletter actually written by any politician and did that newsletter reflect only on them? You said you were upset for ron paul not writing his own newsletter but now you're saying the newsletter you worked for was written by a team of journalists, writers and constituants.

[amprok]

honestly, those are all pretty legitimate points.

to clarify, the liberal comment was directed at liberals in general, not necessarily you. but whatever, you are correct in that it probably doesn't' matter as he's the tea party's ralph nader. (i could complain about nader just as much).

Why can't i say what state/party? I could, but i don't see the point in divulging too much personal information on this site.

Every politician did not have their own newsletter, some did, some didn't. it varried rep to rep. every rep put out at least a couple mailers a month, some much more, some almost none. some had a large web presence, or tv presence or whatever. it varies.

Some of the reps wrote their own shit, and then handed it off to our team to re-write edit, some wrote their own and refused all edits, some dictated to their assistants, who wrote it, and then the rep read it, etc etc.

the house in any state is pretty fucking big. we had almost 100 reps that we worked for, so it really varried by rep to rep.

the point being, -not one single piece of collateral ever went out- that was not proofed, reproofed, and ultimately signed off on. if you're a designer, im sure you understand the sign off procedure.

each rep had to sign off on each piece. it would be real hard/next to impossible for something as big as "95% of blacks are criminals" to be produced without the individual politician really pushing for it to go out.

i mean, there is a massive team of people to keep the politician from looking like idiots. fuck, i mean we had dudes on staff who's only job was to monitor their facebook pages, and twitter accounts to make sure they didn't post anything stupid, let alone anything printed.

[Soup forgot his password]

I just think it's proper to declare what side your biased towards. If there was a radio contest they'd make sure you're not an employee of the station. Kind of the same thing.

[amprok]

i work for the democrats at the state level.

i support the democrats -at the state level, in my state- 100%.

national democrats are garbage.

obama is a piece of shit.

i'll prolly vote for the piece of shit anyways come election cycle because he's slightly less of a piece of shit than Romney, and third parties in the states never go anywhere on the national level.

that's the nickel tour of my politics.

[Soup forgot his password]

It's funny seeing people turn on obama, especially the "intellectual democrat" group who wanted him in there. I voted for him. He hasn't done anything but good for this country. I'd love for you or anyone else to prove me wrong.

[amprok]

i can think of a ton of areas that obama's been completely limp dick about.

but the three issues that crush him for me are:

the patriot act (invoked under bush, extended under obama).
the animal enterprise terrorism act. (invoked under bush, extended under obama.)
and cmu's being used to house "domestic terrorists" (those in violation of the the animal enterprise terrorism act, or the patriot act, etc)

dude has continued almost every bush era policy.

[Soup forgot his password]

Oh come on, AETA? You're mad at him for continuing AETA? Like abolishing AETA is high on the list of things to do right now? Animal rights activists shouldnt fuck with other people's livestock. Why is changing the label from "terrorist" to "felon" important right now? Meanwhile Obama has made it possible for millions of americans (Including me) to be eligible for insurance for the first time and not be inelligible due to previous conditions. NO insurance company wuold give me so much as a QUOTE because I fell down and hurt my knee 4 years ago. I hadn't had insurance since.

He's boosting diplomacy in the middle east, doesn't sound like a fucking warmongering idiot, ended the Iraq war, and that 2008 $700b stimulus package everyone's so hacked off about has been PROVEN to have positively increased the size of the economy by 6%. That may seem small, but so is $700b, and that's POSITIVE growth, directly related to the stimulus. Compare that to BUsh's administration which made job killing regulations and unnecessary tax breaks to the rich that put the federal government in a deficit to begin with. Bush BROKE the federal government. Obama's made improvements to my personal life while dealing with the most incompetent congress in United States History. That's not hyperbole. They've been able to agree and pass the FEWEST laws in congressional history.

What person seriously compares Obama to Bush?

[Spambot5000]

...and that 2008 $700b stimulus package everyone's so hacked off about has been PROVEN to have positively increased the size of the economy by 6%. That may seem small, but so is $700b, and that's POSITIVE growth, directly related to the stimulus.

Care to offer a source to support this claim?

[Soup forgot his password]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/stimulus-boosted-us-gdp-b_n_693150.html
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-10-29/economy/30767973_1_third-quarter-growth-economy-stimulus
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/morning_report_white_house_say.html

[Cunt_Eastwood]

Yea imma call bullshit.

I keeo hearing all this nonsense the economies improving, and all that going on around here is shit closing down and people losing their jobs.

Change bruuuuh

[Soup forgot his password]

Good to know your opinion can't be swayed by stupid things like facts.

[Fist 666]

ndaa.

[Soup forgot his password]

That's Congress that passes tax laws and budgets.

[Fist 666]

yeah, presidents don't have any say in that shit...

i think he's been better than bush was or than mccain would have been, and better than romney could be, but i'm not a fan

[Soup forgot his password]

That's really all im saying. He's still a politician, and you've gotta judge a politician by the times. Washington owned slaves while preaching liberty and justice for all, Obama was saddled with the worst congress in history and the biggest debt in history while preaching he's gonna fix it. And sure, prez gets a SAY in a bill but only before and after it goes through congress... and with this congress NOTHING goes through. And if you dont believe me here's my source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8

[Spambot5000]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/stimulus-boosted-us-gdp-b_n_693150.html
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-10-29/economy/30767973_1_third-quarter-growth-economy-stimulus
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/morning_report_white_house_say.html

Thanks for the links. On this topic I would make two brief points.

1. Stimulus growth is not quality growth. Economic action based on stimulus is not necessarily going to be sustained in absence of state support, nor does it necessarily reflect genuine economic improvement. Dumping federal money into Solaris is a neat example. Which leads to the second point;

2. GDP is a poor measure of economic well-being. It measures transactions rather than value, which is why the broken windows fallacy is trumpeted by Keynesians after every natural disaster.

[amprok]

Oh come on, AETA? You're mad at him for continuing AETA? Like abolishing AETA is high on the list of things to do right now? Animal rights activists shouldnt fuck with other people's livestock. Why is changing the label from "terrorist" to "felon" important right now?

i don't care if it's animal rights activists, or white supremacists. things like free speech are important to me, and fundamental to the constitution. a law that sends people to prision for running controversial websites is fucked up. l encourage you to look into the shac7 case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Huntingdon_Animal_Cruelty#2006:_SHAC_7_.28U.S ..29) people went to jail for -literally- running a website. even the aclu (http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-letter-congress-urging-opposition-animal-enterprise-act-s-1926-and-hr-4239) has issues with aeta.


Meanwhile Obama has made it possible for millions of americans (Including me) to be eligible for insurance for the first time and not be inelligible due to previous conditions. NO insurance company wuold give me so much as a QUOTE because I fell down and hurt my knee 4 years ago. I hadn't had insurance since.

this is something i really support that he's done, and has nothing at all to do with my concerns about CMUs or the AETA.


He's boosting diplomacy in the middle east, doesn't sound like a fucking warmongering idiot, ended the Iraq war,

we're still in afganistan.
we're still shoveling money towards israel.
we're a hop skip and a jump away from iran.


and that 2008 $700b stimulus package everyone's so hacked off about has been PROVEN to have positively increased the size of the economy by 6%. That may seem small, but so is $700b, and that's POSITIVE growth, directly related to the stimulus.

i support(ed) the stimulus plan. again, this has nothing to do with AETA or CMUs.


Compare that to BUsh's administration ....

seriously, being better than bush isn't an impressive bar to jump. is he better than bush? yes. is he a shitty person who extended the patriot act, aeta, cmu's etc? also, yes. just because he's better than bush doesn't mean he gets a pass when he does unconstitutional shit.




Obama's made improvements to my personal life while dealing with the most incompetent congress in United States History..

mine too. but lets not forget that when he took office in 2008, he took both houses. he had the same set up bush did. white house, house, and senate. but national democrats are fucking useless and did next to nothing with the triad, and then lost one of the houses. now they have a n incompetent congress, but it's their own fucking fault for not moving when they had the chance.

What person seriously compares Obama to Bush?

i don't really see it as a comparison. bush did shit that destroyed civil liberties, destroyed them. the patriot act is one of the darkest moments in american history.

obama took office and had the opportunity to end it, but instead, EXTENDED it. it's not a comparison, it's a direct continuation.

[Soup forgot his password]

Im not saying being better than bush is an accomplishment. Im saying obama has to crawl out of the hole that bush dug, and hes doing that.

No other presidential canidate was ever going to cut diplomatic ties to israel, leave afganistan. Im shocked that we even declared iraq over.

Obama didnt create aeta. It was on the books before he got there. It wasnt on his HUGE bucket list before he was president. Why expect it to be on there now? Congress has been barely capable of passing a federal budget let alone healthcare or even sign off on an endgame for iraq.

And he doesnt have the same setup bush did. Dems were willing to comprimise, and reps had majority in senate and congress. Dems have half now, which means reps still hace the power to vote no and stagnate the process. Which they do. If youve been paying attention at all you know irs the republicans that are vetoing every fucking chance they get and are unwilling to budge on anything.

And obama explained that hes changed his inital stance on the war after learning about everything that is going on. He extended three parts of the patriot act until the end of this year. Frankly i trust his administration to use that power a lot better than bush who lied about wmds. Well see if it gets renewed.

[Soup forgot his password]

Jeeze I gotta stop posting using my phone. Look at all those spelling and grammar errors.

Thanks for the links. On this topic I would make two brief points.

1. Stimulus growth is not quality growth. Economic action based on stimulus is not necessarily going to be sustained in absence of state support, nor does it necessarily reflect genuine economic improvement. Dumping federal money into Solaris is a neat example. Which leads to the second point;

2. GDP is a poor measure of economic well-being. It measures transactions rather than value, which is why the broken windows fallacy is trumpeted by Keynesians after every natural disaster.

Uh Solaris lied about their growing debt. They're like Greece if the European Union was the Economic Stimulus bill. They're not exactly an example of what happened most of the time. In fact they failed because chinese ad japanese solar companies were MORE subsidized than Solaris. What's your keynesian blah blah blah have to say about that?

And if you don't like GDP, recommend another metric for measuring how the economy is doing. Oh that's right nobody has one.

[amprok]

Im not saying being better than bush is an accomplishment. Im saying obama has to crawl out of the hole that bush dug, and hes doing that.

No other presidential canidate was ever going to cut diplomatic ties to israel, leave afganistan. Im shocked that we even declared iraq over.


agreed. like i said, i will likely vote for obama in the next election.


Obama didnt create aeta. It was on the books before he got there. It wasnt on his HUGE bucket list before he was president. Why expect it to be on there now?



nope. but he extended it. why would i expect it to be there now? because i expect, perhaps naively, any president to support free speech and the right to decent. and i question anyone who is willing to overlook such things because the target is controversial.

free speech and the right to decent are fundamental. fuck -any- president that doesn't support these things.




Congress has been barely capable of passing a federal budget let alone healthcare or even sign off on an endgame for iraq.






agreed. congress is way shittier than obama. honestly, that is the thing that i love about the democrats and the thing that, at the same time, i hate about the democrats. each rep has a totally unique opinion and vote, unlike the republicans who have a much more streamlined party voice. it's a blessing and a curse.



And he doesnt have the same setup bush did. Dems were willing to comprimise, and reps had majority in senate and congress. Dems have half now, which means reps still hace the power to vote no and stagnate the process. Which they do. If youve been paying attention at all you know irs the republicans that are vetoing every fucking chance they get and are unwilling to budge on anything.



this is the case now. but in 2008, when he took office, the dems took both houses. he had the exact same setup that bush had. when the republicans had all three houses they; cut taxes, declared two wars, and disolved civil liberties.

when the democrats had all three houses, they had a pissing match with each other, eventually lost one house, and are now stuck with republicans who vote no on everything. but it's the democrats fucking fault for not moving when they had the chance.


And obama explained that hes changed his inital stance on the war after learning about everything that is going on. He extended three parts of the patriot act until the end of this year. Frankly i trust his administration to use that power a lot better than bush who lied about wmds. Well see if it gets renewed.


i trust this administration more than the bush administration but seriously, that doesn't say much.
obama is pushing a 4 year legacy of continuing civil rights erosions spear headed by the bush administration, –if anything– i'd guess he'd extend the patriot act, and the aeta again.

anyways, to go back to your original question:


He hasn't done anything but good for this country. I'd love for you or anyone else to prove me wrong.


he has. extending the legacy of aeta, and the patriot act are not good things for this country, and they aren't good things for democracy.

ironically, on these issues, ron paul of all people (going back to the original content of this thread) ron paul is -way- better on these issues. way better.

[Soup forgot his password]

Really your whole argument against Obama is that he's focusing on the wrong things to win your vote. Instead of focusing in budgets and healthcare like he's been doing he should be busy reversing all the things that the last administration enacted. OR you don't understand why Obama doesnt have time to find alternatives to the patriot act and AETA.

My thing is, how is the AETA constitutionally wrong? If someone goes onto someone else's land and messes with their livestock, they're not respecting other people's constitutional rights. Do people who don't respect other people's constitutional rights deserve to be given constitutional rights of their own? I personally don't think so. Either you live and die by the constitution or you dont get the same rights as those who do.

[amprok]

you clearly don't read my posts.

Really your whole argument against Obama is that he's focusing on the wrong things to win your vote.


i already said, i'll likely vote for him.


Instead of focusing in budgets and healthcare like he's been doing he should be busy reversing all the things that the last administration enacted. OR you don't understand why Obama doesnt have time to find alternatives to the patriot act and AETA.

it's not a matter of reversing anything. it's just a matter of not signing extensions. (which he signs).



My thing is, how is the AETA constitutionally wrong? If someone goes onto someone else's land and messes with their livestock, they're not respecting other people's constitutional rights. Do people who don't respect other people's constitutional rights deserve to be given constitutional rights of their own? I personally don't think so. Either you live and die by the constitution or you dont get the same rights as those who do.

you obviously didn't look into the shac7 case.

they weren't charged with going in and fucking with livestock. i don't where youre getting that from. they were charged with running a website (http://www.shac7.com/case.htm). -nothing more-.

that's what's unconstitutional. trespassing and fucking with livestock (wherever youre getting that from i have no clue) is illegal. running a website on the other hand -should- be covered under free speech.

the aclu wouldn't be concerned about the right for people to trespass. they would however /and are concerned about free speech and civil liberties.


Do people who don't respect other people's constitutional rights deserve to be given constitutional rights of their own? I personally don't think so. Either you live and die by the constitution or you dont get the same rights as those who do.

therefore, by your logic, obama, through supporting the aeta and the patriot act, doesn't deserve constitutional rights.

[Soup forgot his password]

I. You said you didn't like obama and the only reason why you'd vote for him is because you didn't like the other candidates. You're going back on what you said and acting like Im just making this up.

II. Not really. He renewed three parts of the patriot act. Most of the patriot act is indefinite.

III. When you're presenting new information to a discussion it's YOUR job to cite it and bring it into the forum. Not mine. That said, I got it from the first sentence of the "AETA" wikipedia article. That's what AETA is designed to protect against: Animal rights activists who want to physically interfere with livestock for food or science. I havent found anything on shac 7. Every article i've read talks about why Shac 7 is against animal cruelty, not what they did to be arrested. They say its because they had a website against animal cruelty, but really? THAT'S what they did to be arrested? There's thousands of websites against animal cruelty.

IV. Couple things before I continue this. You need to post a few links:
a. Obama supporting AETA
b. Obama Supporting the Patriot Act
c. An authenticated report on Shac 7 about why they were arrested. Not some press release from the accused.

And no that's not what Im saying at all. If a rapist is thrown in jail, the jailer still deserves constitutional rights. How much sense does it make for the jailer not to deserve constitutional rights for being a jailer?

[amprok]

Read my fucking posts.
god damn dude.


i'll prolly vote for the piece of shit anyways come election cycle because he's slightly less of a piece of shit than Romney, and third parties in the states never go anywhere on the national level.



read my fucking posts.

i've always said i would vote for obama. always.

Renewing -any part of the patriot act- is unconstitutional. if he renewed 3 parts, or the whole thing, fuck him. he's unconstitutional.

i've cited a ton of shit. and links. you clearly don't click on them.

regarding shac 7. i know several of them on a personal basis. so trust me.
they were -litterally- arrested and housed in cmu's for running a website.

the only news source that covered it with any legitimacy was democracy now.
here is an interview with Andrew Stepanian from shac 7, who was housed in a cmu for "conspiracy to violate the animal interprise terroism act, for his role in running the website.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/25/exclusive_animal_rights_activist_jailed_at

here is another article you wont read.
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/3/first_member_of_shac_7_heads

Heres a quote for the article above, that you wont read.
The activists are with a group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or SHAC. Unlike other cases, the activists were never accused of causing physical damage. Instead, they were convicted of targeting Huntingdon workers, shareholders, and associates by posting personal information about employees and their families on the internet. The case has drawn scrutiny from civil rights advocates who say groups like SHAC have been singled out because they campaign against major corporations. The FBI has called animal rights groups the nation’s number one domestic terror threat.

here is obamas stance on the aeta you wont read.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13857

here are examples of how it violates the constitution. these people were arrested and charged as terrorists under the aeta. these are the fbi's notes, gleaned fromt he article you wont read i posted above.

specific "threatening incidents" beginning in October 2007:

-- on October 21, 2007, demonstrating outside a U of C professor's residence in El Cerrito, CA; wearing bandanas to hide their faces; trespassing on his front yard; chanting slogans; and accusing him "of being a murderer because of his use of animals in research;"

-- on January 2008, demonstrating outside the private residences of several U of C researchers; dressed in black and wearing bandanas to hide their faces; marched, chanted, and chalked "defamatory" comments on sidewalks outside their residences;

-- on February 24, 2008, "attempted to forcibly enter the private home of a Santa Cruz U of C researcher; when her husband opened the door, a struggle ensued and he was hit by an object;" one of the individuals charged then yelled, "We're gonna get you;" and

-- on July 29, 2008, "a stack of flyers titled 'Murderers and torturers alive & well in Santa Cruz July 2008 edition' was found at the Cafe Pergolesi in Santa Cruz;" they contained names, addresses, and telephone numbers of several U of C researchers and said "animal abusers everywhere beware we know where you live we know where you work we will never back down until you end your abuse;" the defendants were charged with producing and distributing the fliers after which "two firebomb attacks outside researchers' Santa Cruz homes (occurred), both of which are still under investigation by the FBI."



so, while trespassing on someone's lawn is illegal... it's not a terrorist act. chalking side walks and yelling people, while distasteful, are not terrorist acts. burning someone's house down, is certainly a terrorist act -fine. making pamphlets on the other hand isn't. the aeta lumps both groups (the pamphleteers and the arsonists together) obama supports this. anyone who gives a shit about the constitution or free speech wouldn't. free speech only works if it's free. even if distasteful.

I don't understand your last point at all. something about rape? no clue what youre talking about.

basically, you are too in love with obama to see through the bullshit. you're actually arguing with someone who is already going to vote for obama, because you cant stand anyone to talk bad about him.

[Soup forgot his password]

Yeah you've got some mental issues or something because my description of what you said is exactly on-point with what you just quoted yourself saying.

And you sound like a dumbass 9/11 conspiracist on the rest of it. You just cited the ONLY article on the ENTIRE internet that has anything connecting Obama with AETA. "The only article I wont read" I READ IT before you posted it. I wanted you to find a real fact-based news source. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY ONE. If you google AETA Obama, THIS THREAD is in the top search results. That's how unfounded your whole argument is.

Basically, you're getting mad at me for quoting you as saying things you actually said. Mental issues. I think im done on this subject. Agree to disagree.

[amprok]

There aren't a lot of articles on it, because shit bag liberals are willing to ignore things that make them uncomfortable. You're as bad as the bush era neocons who refused to hear a single counterpoint to the bush administration. Worse actually, because youre getting butt hurt hearing counterpoints to Obama from someone who supports him.

bravo.

[Soup forgot his password]

There aren't a lot of articles on it, because shit bag liberals are willing to ignore things that make them uncomfortable.

You know what else there arent a lot of articles on? Obama smearing shit all over your mom's tits. That must be a liberal coverup as well.


http://i.imgur.com/sAPHH.png


YOu know what bugs me about you? In a few threads you've agreed with me and suppored my views on a lot of topics, but the things you say are completely unfounded and untrue, which makes ME look bad even though I can back up everything I say. Its lying conspiracist dipsshits like you that make not just liberals look bad, but EVERYONE. You post ONE article/blog post from a no-name website known to post 9/11 conspiracy theories and New world order bullshit, and soon as I say "that's not good enough" you launch into "liberals arent ready to hear the truth and blah blah blah blah."

Punch yourself in the dick and start over. Or don't.

[amprok]

are you claiming the aeta doesn't exist? are you claiming that the patriot act doesn't exist?

really?

are those your claims?

seriously?

I don't believe in 911 conspiracy's. i believe in liberal apathy. case in point -you.

[amprok]

Main stream advocacy group, Center for Constitutional Justice's on the Shac 7 case.
http://ccrjustice.org/us-v-SHAC7

The Case
In 2004, the US indicted six SHAC-USA activists and the organization itself for conspiracy under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA). The AEPA criminalizes conduct “causing physical disruption of an animal enterprise” which “damages or causes the loss of any property.” 18 U.S.C. §43(a)(1-2). ‘Damages’ include “loss of profits” and the AEPA does not exempt lawful protest activity (thereby criminalizing effective lawful protest activity). 18 U.S.C. §43(d)(3). All six activists were convicted and sentenced to four to six years. No evidence was submitted that the SHAC7 participated in the unlawful protest activity, directed it, or even knew of it in advance – only that they ran the website.

and again, i know several of the people convicted. it's not like they are fucking imaginary.

ccr filed suit last december in regards to the shac 7 case. Here is the court filings.
http://www.ccrjustice.org/files/Blum%20v%20Holder%20Complaint.pdf

56. The “SHAC 7”—Darius Fullmer, Andrew Stepanian, Kevin Kjonaas, Joshua Harper,
Plaintiff Lauren Gazzola, and Jacob Conroy—were convicted in March of 2006 and
sentenced to between one and six years in prison. None of the SHAC 7 were shown (or even
alleged) to have personally engaged in property destruction. Rather, the convictions rested
on the defendants’ advocacy and involvement in running a website which reported on both
lawful and unlawful actions in the campaign against Huntington Life Sciences.
57. On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals explained that, while much of the
political speech on the SHAC website was otherwise protected by the First Amendment, “in
context, the speeches, protests, and web postings, were all tools to further their effort [to
pressure businesses and individuals to divest in Huntington]” and thus violated the Animal
Enterprise Protection Act. United States v. Fullmer, 584 F.3d 132, 156 (3d Cir. 2009).

[Soup forgot his password]

are you claiming the aeta doesn't exist? are you claiming that the patriot act doesn't exist?

really?

are those your claims?

seriously?

I don't believe in 911 conspiracy's. i believe in liberal apathy. case in point -you.

Please cite where i said any of those things. Thx. And after that cite why you're in support of Shac 7, why they were wrongfully accused of advocating violence and the physical endangerment of people and livestock invovled in farming and science. Cite why this is the pile of shit you want to stick your flag in because your method of debating with me is more than just dumb, it's boring—Two things I wont stand for while debating. Not to mention the problem I have with this post of yours is the exact same problem I've had with you all along: your whole argument is based on things nobody said and shit that didn't happen the way you said it did. THAT'S how you're conspiratorial. I want something a little less biased than a press release from the attorney who's making money by defending Shac 7.

[amprok]

the center for constitutional justice isn't a "lawyer making money" it's a massive non profit law group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Constitutional_Rights

you claim that "obama has done nothing but good". yet, he supports both the patriot act, and the aeta. both of which are unconstitutional.

i never said i support the shac 7. i support free speech.

i never claimed it's okay to advocate violence. i support free speech. (even if distasteful).

[Soup forgot his password]

Are you a robot? You keep saying the same thing over and over and over. I feel like im talking to an automated telephone who's only programmed to say "Obama supports both the patriot act, and the aeta. both of which are unconstitutional." Like you've reached a limit on brain capacity and can't think beyond that. I asked you why you think Obama supports AETA and the patriot act, you just say "he autosigned an extension on some provisions." Like that means something. You probably think he's a warmonger of a president because he passed a military budget too. It would follow the same logic.

I asked you why you think AETA is unconstitutional and you regurgitate ONE press release over and over and over again that simply states, "These guys ran a website that advocated violence towards livestock and people involved in science and farming." Without even thinking "Do I support the advocation of violence towards people and livestock?"NOR can you confirm that that's the only charge they were convicted of because all you can find is a blog post on a conspiracy website and a press release from their attourney. I dont give a fuck if they're a civil rights group or not. If they're the appointed attourney in defense of SHAC 7, they're doing it for the money. What's funny is YOU think like a stupid fucking liberal. Pull your head out of your ass and try again.

[amprok]

These are the two points I keep beating on, because we haven't moved past them. You insist that Obama's done nothing but good, but I disagree, and I'm using these two examples to illustrate that.

Seriously, CCR isn't some lawyer working for money. It's a massive civil rights organization that's been around since the 60's. I promise you, as I know several of the Shac 7 people personally, they have NO money to hire a lawyer. This shit is pro-bono. It's laughable to think anyone is making money off this case, especially the defendants or defense lawyers.

Read up on CCR, the massive civil rights organization "doing it for the money".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Constitutional_Rights

And for the 200th time. This case had nothing to do with livestock, god damn dude. And if it did, I've never heard of an animal rights group advocating for violence against livestock. (insert pull your head out your ass comment).

It has nothing to do with if I support advocating for violence through rhetoric. It has to do with free speech. Something that is constitutionally guaranteed. That is what I support, no matter how vile the speech is, I support the right to speak it.

I support white supremacy groups espousing whatever bullshit they believe.
I support born again christian groups going off on whatever anti gay shit they believe.
I support militantly pro-life groups advocating for violence against planned parenthood.

So long as it's purely rhetoric, I support the right to speak. I think anyone concerned with free speech would understand. I would expect a president to be held to a high standard.


Here is a NYTs (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/nyregion/03animals.html?_r=1) article from after the ruling:
Although federal prosecutors presented no evidence that the defendants directly participated in the vandalism and violence, they showed jurors that members of the group made speeches and Web postings from 2000 to 2004 that celebrated the violence and repeatedly used the word "we" to claim credit for it.

[Fist 666]

this thread is cursed.
it doesn't matter who comes in here to "talk" it turns to this shit within 10 posts, every time.

[Spambot5000]

Jeeze I gotta stop posting using my phone. Look at all those spelling and grammar errors.



Uh Solaris lied about their growing debt. They're like Greece if the European Union was the Economic Stimulus bill. They're not exactly an example of what happened most of the time. In fact they failed because chinese ad japanese solar companies were MORE subsidized than Solaris. What's your keynesian blah blah blah have to say about that?

And if you don't like GDP, recommend another metric for measuring how the economy is doing. Oh that's right nobody has one.

You're quite hostile aren't you.

My point was that GDP should not be over-relied on as the basis of economic measurement. To say that the stimulus was proven to work because it reflected in GDP growth, is not necessarily to say that the stimulus package had a net benefit for Americans -for reasons I have already mentioned.

[Soup forgot his password]

@ Spambot

You do realize this is the nth time we've had a discussion about GDP, don't you? OHHHHH that's right you're not actually talking to me, you're using my post to launch into a libertarian thing about the GDP for all your avid readers. Hate to break it to you but nobody but me and two other people are reading anything in crossfire and we know all about GDP.

If you are talking to me, a lot of things are tied to GDP growth. Employment rates for example, are related to GDP growth. In fact its not even worth arguing with you over what the value of GDP is. If you dont think it has value, you should go find some. Every economist and person in the world already has.

@ Amprock
I already gave you a list of requests and questions you needed to respond about but you ignored all of them and continued to repeat yourself like, again, an automated hotline at the limit of its abilities .... I dont see why I should have to repeat myself just because you continue to. if you dont want to respond. fine. If you want to continue to make things up ok.

And to clarify, Im not insisting on Obama being anything. You can feel free to cite where I've been insistant on Obama being good or bad. What i've insisted on is you citing where your information comes from. You can't because you don't have any sources. Being a graphic designer for a newsletter must mean you get information "unfiltered" by newspapers and credible sources.

If you dont post another newsletter I'm going to count this discussion a loss. I've been asking you this entire time to post SOMETHING about Obama supporting the patriot act and AETA, but you haven't. I've asked you to post an article showing what exactly the Shac 7 organization was doing prior to being arrested but you havent. I've asked you to find a credible source citing why they were arrested but you haven't.

And the word "livestock" refers to animals on farms or for science. In the case of Shac 7, it would refer to beagles for science. THe term "livestock" is very clear in the definition of what AETA is designed to protect. So to answer your question, where i got the term "livestock" from. I got it from the actual AETA law as it's written. Whered you get YOUR information?

[Spambot5000]

@ Spambot

You do realize this is the nth time we've had a discussion about GDP, don't you? OHHHHH that's right you're not actually talking to me, you're using my post to launch into a libertarian thing about the GDP for all your avid readers. Hate to break it to you but nobody but me and two other people are reading anything in crossfire and we know all about GDP.

If you are talking to me, a lot of things are tied to GDP growth. Employment rates for example, are related to GDP growth. In fact its not even worth arguing with you over what the value of GDP is. If you dont think it has value, you should go find some. Every economist and person in the world already has.


Wow. Again I come to the realisation that it is impossible to interact with you. I made a point which you can take or leave. Discussion or no discussion; I don't care. Yet, you come out all guns blazing, determined to highlight your superior knowledge and, in contrast, my 'real' agenda. All based on a half reading of what I have said. Amazing...

I'm out.

[Soup forgot his password]

Nobody wants to talk to you about GDP. Get it now?

[amprok]

I posted court documents from a main stream civil rights organization that was working pro bono on the shac 7. that is hardly a "newsletter".

I also provided a link to a New York Times article about it. Not a small no name news letter either.

Either of those sources should be reasonable. Either way, I'm not sure why it's up to me to provide source after source, if you're just going to refuse them and write off Center for Constitutional Justice as some shady lawyer making a quick buck.

This conversation has gotten so far off track -probably my fault.

The whole point of the derailment was that you claimed Obama has done "nothing but good".

I claim that he's done some shitty things, like supporting the AETA (which is where we got way side tracked) and the Patriot Act.

You refuse to believe the AETA is that bad, that the main stream civil rights group is just some lawyer making money off of the case... which would rad if it were true, but hilariously inaccurate, and the New York Times article is some newsletter from a fringe group.

That's fine. You also interject "pull it your head out your ass, blah blah comments", which is fine.

You admit that the patriot act was extended (or at least parts of it) but for whatever reason that doesn't bother you.

So we're at a loss. Not a -agree to disagree-, but a loss. You think extending the patriot act is a good thing (?) and you think the AETA isn't as bad as some shitty little news letter called the New York Times claims it was, and that some main stream civil rights organization is just some shady lawyer.

I could keep posting link after link, but it appears that you'll just ask for more, claim i have my head up my ass, and insist that Obama can do no wrong.

So whatever. Here are the crazy 911 conspiracy links that you'll just discredit that I already posted.

Democracy Now (left, but pretty mainstream news outlet). and (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/25/exclusive_animal_rights_activist_jailed_at)


ACLU expressing concerns (VERY VERY main stream civil rights group) (http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-letter-congress-urging-opposition-animal-enterprise-act-s-1926-and-hr-4239)

Center for Constitutional Justice (semi main stream civil rights group that's been around since the 60's)
(http://www.ccrjustice.org/files/Blum%20v%20Holder%20Complaint.pdf)

and a new york times article (one of the most respected newspapers in the world) (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/nyregion/03animals.html?_r=2)

Court documents from the National Lawyers Guilde asking for the Obama Cabinet to repeal the AETA (more shady lawyers looking to make a quick buck i think.)
(http://www.nlg.org/Beyond%20AETA%20White%20Paper.pdf)
But whatever, the ACLU, CCJ, New York Times, and Democracy Now are just fringe news letters and shady lawyers. and Obama can do NO wrong.


Obama extends the Patriot Act via the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022505562.html)

Obama signs extensions on the Patriot Act via the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_867851.html)

Obama supporting the AETA can be pointed out simply by looking at those in Shac 7 who are still in prison from the case.

But Obama has done nothing but good.

[amprok]

also...

i'm down to talk about GDP.

[Soup forgot his password]

From the NYT article

During the three-week trial, defense lawyers acknowledged that a Web site run by Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty posted home addresses and other personal information about animal researchers and others. But the activists said they were simply trying to shame their targets into dissociating themselves from the company, Huntingdon Life Sciences, and they disavowed any involvement with the vandalism, death threats, computer hacking and pipe bombs against those on the Web site.

Although federal prosecutors presented no evidence that the defendants directly participated in the vandalism and violence, they showed jurors that members of the group made speeches and Web postings from 2000 to 2004 that celebrated the violence and repeatedly used the word "we" to claim credit for it.


Keep in mind that this is coming out of a post 9/11 america where we were directly endangered by people who advocated violence over mass-media.

Prosecutors also produced telephone records indicating that the president of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Kevin Kjonaas, called a man charged with bombing a California biotech lab shortly after the explosion.

I knew there was more to this than just a website ran by some humanitarians against dogs being used for scientific research. And you wonder why he has his lawyer present during the interview.


While the bill provides an exemption for “lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise,” that exemption applies only to claims of economic “disruption” and not claims of economic “damage.” It also does not necessarily cover the entire range of expression protected by the First Amendment, which covers more than a lawful “reaction” to a “disclosure of information.” Ordinary persons would not understand which activities are prohibited and which are lawful.

In other words, the difference would be what Occupy Wallstreet did to the Port of Oakland. It would provide expemption to people who protest on private property and blockade people from doing their work, but that same exemption doesnt apply to damage or loss of property.

[Soup forgot his password]

Crap i accidently lost half of my post.

Here's the gist (all from that NYT article, btw)

Shac 7's president is associated with a convicted bomber
Shac 7's director is threatening scientists on tape shouting "The police can't protect you."
Shac 7's website condones violence, death threats, and posts the names and home addresses of scientists.
Shac 7 was convicted by a jury of piers.
Shac 7 was sentenced to 7-21 years. One of whom was out in 31 months.
Shac 7 was the ONLY example of any one ever being convicted under AETA, which is a twenty year old law.

So why would eliminating this law be important to Obama? Currently he has to deal with missle launches in Korea, nukes in Iran, China's navy threatening US, Healthcare reform, Social Security Reform, Immigration reform, and a million other things. Why would he take a stance that would make him look like he's in defense of a violent and retarded organization against scientific research? The flipside of the coin is that by defending Shac 7's right to make violent threats against Scientific Researchers, you're infringing on the consitutional rights of those scientists. Why put that on Obama? And what politician would do something differently in Obama's shoes? You can think of Obama as being a piece of shit for being a politician, but don't say he's a piece of shit over other politicians. How much sense does that make?

[Realism]

Tough shit hippies, AETA rules

[nsmbfan]

http://i.imgur.com/ztz9Y.jpg

wooooooooo!!!

[McLovin]

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/91689761

[McLovin]

http://i46.tinypic.com/5oyu0k.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL7BE34898EFC5C04E

[ipod90]

^
Unavailable.

[Cunt_Eastwood]

Rand Paul endoresing Romney almost made me vomit.

[Soup forgot his password]

Why would that make you almost vomit? Isn't Mitt Romney's every libertarian's dream? He comes from a very successful business/financial background. I would think from a libertarian perspective having a wealthy businessman run America would be perfect.

[Cunt_Eastwood]

Im not a libertarian.

Also anyone who hears Mitt Romney and dosent want to vomit must wipe their ass with dollar dollar bills yall.

[Spambot5000]

Why would that make you almost vomit? Isn't Mitt Romney's every libertarian's dream? He comes from a very successful business/financial background. I would think from a libertarian perspective having a wealthy businessman run America would be perfect.

Romney is definitely not a libertarians dream candidate; he is a socially conservative corporate puppet.


In other news, Peter Schiff gives a good speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0WhDs7-MXKc) at the Fraser Institute.

[nsmbfan]

we have more pages in this thread than we had voters for Ron Paul at my polling place


smh


The elite bought everything. There's nothing left but ACTUAL REVOLUTION. Grab your brooms everybody!

[Soup forgot his password]

Romney is definitely not a libertarians dream candidate; he is a socially conservative corporate puppet.


In other news, Peter Schiff gives a good speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0WhDs7-MXKc) at the Fraser Institute.

You're only proving my point. Libertarians are conservatives who believe in the rights of corporations.


Edit: and to add to that video that you posted, greece didnt fail because of government stimulus. It failed because the government lied about its finances when it entered the EU. Germany, Great Britain, all the other countries in the EU that are trying to keep greece afloat have stimuluses as well, so you can't logically come to Pete's conclusion.

[McLovin]

....

http://politisite.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Libertarian-Nolan-Chart.png (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAiYlaGxyV0)


Most who are voting for romney feel it is their only chance to boot obama out. Most dont even like romney but prefer him to obama.

[Spambot5000]

You're only proving my point. Libertarians are conservatives who believe in the rights of corporations.


Edit: and to add to that video that you posted, greece didnt fail because of government stimulus. It failed because the government lied about its finances when it entered the EU. Germany, Great Britain, all the other countries in the EU that are trying to keep greece afloat have stimuluses as well, so you can't logically come to Pete's conclusion.

facepalm.jpg

[Soup forgot his password]

Why are you facepalming? Milton Friedman was an economic advisor for Ronald Reagan.

Conservatism:
Limited government spending
Fewer taxes
Small government
Limited state wellfare
Fewer corporate restrictions


Libertarianism:
Limited government spending
Fewer taxes
Small government
Limited state wellfare
Fewer corporate restrictions

You're in australia so you might not understand what our political parties believe. "Conservatism" isnt a universal term across every country. Then again if you don't know something you shouldn't be arguing either.

[/quote]Most who are voting for romney feel it is their only chance to boot obama out. Most dont even like romney but prefer him to obama.[/QUOTE]

If that's the case then why isnt Santorum or Ron Paul winning in polls? Mitt Romney's a more popular canidate for a reason. People like the idea of placing a businessman in the oval office. Mitt Romney takes bankrupt businesses and helps them turn a profit again. He downsizes them, trims fat, restructures the management and then flips them for a profit. A lot of people want that to happen to the American Government. They also like the idea that he's a self made man and has spoken out against lobbiest's influence in congress.

I'm not saying those are reasons to vote for a president. Im just saying that's a libertarian's wet dream. Ron Paul's a talking head/politician. Mitt Romney's an actual businessman.

Oh and that depiction of what it means to be libertarian is retarded. That's a false dychotomy. Republicans and democrats both attempt to give americans personal and economic freedom. They just have different ways of doing it. The way libertarians go about it is identical to conservative republicans.

[Spambot5000]

Why are you facepalming? Milton Friedman was an economic advisor for Ronald Reagan.

Conservatism:
Limited government spending
Fewer taxes
Small government
Limited state wellfare
Fewer corporate restrictions


Libertarianism:
Limited government spending
Fewer taxes
Small government
Limited state wellfare
Fewer corporate restrictions

You're in australia so you might not understand what our political parties believe. "Conservatism" isnt a universal term across every country. Then again if you don't know something you shouldn't be arguing either.


I wrote a reply explaining the shared interests and then the differences between American libertarians and conservatives, as well as why Romney is not even remotely a favourable candidate for libertarians. Then I had a sharp realisation; you are a retard and I would be wasting my time to rebut such a stupid point. Go read a wiki page or something...

[Soup forgot his password]

Easy there tiger

http://cdn.gs.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/mr-rage-quit-300x300.jpg

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://lewrockwell.com/yk/ron-paul-wont-endorse-romney.html

Romney is not a Libertarian dream.

[CILONE/SK]

^I guess that is a well thought out article with valid points from both sides of the spectrum.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Not even an article, but I don't think it's advertised to be unbiased, everything on that website is delivered from a biased perspective.

Which would actually work in the case of Romney being a dream candidate if he actually was one because he would be endorsed by Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell.

So what exactly is your point?

And if you can please support the opinion that he is in fact a dream candidate for Libertarians other then he's made a lot of money in the private sector.

[CILONE/SK]

Your blind obedience to ronnie paulie is quite amusing.


My point is that you made a statement and provided a link that does nothing to back up that statement.

I never said that he was a dream candidate.

I actually have not said anything for awhile here. i have not needed to, Ronnie Paulie is failing on his own.

So, what was your point again in your previous post?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Soup forgot his password]

Skimmed the video looking for where they talked about WHY ron paul wasnt going to endorse Mitt Romney and I couldnt find it. Sifted through the ramblings of a half dozen topics and called it quits.

Went through old GOP footage instead and found myself captivated by Ron Paul's foreign defense plan to dismantle FBI, CIA and every other intelligence gathering service America has.. And he wants congress to decide what military action happens where. He literally has no idea what's been going on in the middle east for the last 40 years.

Still nothing on why Mitt Romney's not a great canidate for libertarians.

Maybe I should run for president.

[Decyferon]

Boris Johnson for President (he was born in the US) he is the retard London Mayor

[Realism]

Guys, you uninformed sheep can't say the libertarian system will fail without any proof.

But I can say it will flourish, and be right.

[CILONE/SK]

I hope you are being sarcastic, because that does not make sense.

[Realism]

I'm making a typically sound libertarian argument.

Wake up you lamb.

[CILONE/SK]

Damn it, I like the government controlling my every move.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

He briefly touched on why Ron Paul won't endorse Romney. The video is long so I doubt you'd listen to the entire thing for a small soundbite.

Ron Paul won't win the nomination but denying the change that he has sparked within the party is par for the course for in here, what else is new.

Keep trolling. Keeps the discussion alive. And Spambot I get it.

[CILONE/SK]

Again,



no substance provided,




as usual.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Was that an introspective post?

[CILONE/SK]

That was a reality based post.

[CILONE/SK]

If you had something of substance, you would have posted it. You don't because of either two things:

One: Ronnie paulie does not have anything

Two: you do not understand Ronnie paulies videos enough to articulate them here.

[Spambot5000]

Not really a RP issue, but I listened to an interesting panel discussion hosted by Cato on government intervention and housing costs recently. I thought I'd share (http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/death-life-affordable-housing).

[CILONE/SK]

I would think that you libertarians would not like anything to with the Koch brothers. They for the most part own Cato and are pushing a far right agenda on it. Since the brothers are in the top .01% of people advocating their corporate rights over everyone else.

They actively work to limit freedoms when it is against them making a profit.

I guess if they give you a web cite, you are willing to give up anything.:lol:

Even if you agree with the message, you should learn who is paying for that message.
BTW, who do you think runs the show for funding for Romney? Also, who do you think funded getting Ronnie paulie out of the way for Romney to nab the nomination? So far Romney has not spent one dollar of his own money.


Do some research.

[Spambot5000]

I would think that you libertarians would not like anything to with the Koch brothers. They for the most part own Cato and are pushing a far right agenda on it. Since the brothers are in the top .01% of people advocating their corporate rights over everyone else.

They actively work to limit freedoms when it is against them making a profit.

I guess if they give you a web cite, you are willing to give up anything.:lol:

Even if you agree with the message, you should learn who is paying for that message.
BTW, who do you think runs the show for funding for Romney? Also, who do you think funded getting Ronnie paulie out of the way for Romney to nab the nomination? So far Romney has not spent one dollar of his own money.


Do some research.

You dunce. You think I don't know about the Kochtopus? There is a plethora of libertarian writing rallying against their influence. Google that shit. Even still, this does not mean that nothing published by the Cato institute has any value. Lrn 2 critical thinking br0!

[CILONE/SK]

You call me a dunce, yet you are pushing a web cite from someone who is actively against your own ideals.


Either you are the dunce or you are a sellout.

[Spambot5000]

Your simple mindedness amuses me. Carry on.

[Soup forgot his password]

To quote Rothbard, "There are too many dicks on the dancefloor."
By which i believe he was referring, "In many years time when the great internet hath been invented, I will inspire a following of dipshits who will refute all concessions with the proverb, 'google it.'"

Spambot, you havent thought about killing yourself enough today.

[Spambot5000]

Considering that Cilone, Realism and yourself are not only ignorant of, but hostile towards, libertarian theory; why should I spoon feed you easily accessible materials?

[CILONE/SK]

I am hostile towards you and others that think you know something and refuse to even consider other view points, not libertarians.

If it was not because of this thread, I would not have in-depth looked up all the libertarian craziness.

In fact, right now, I currently love talking to most libertarians, because most of them do not know shit about it, except for what ronnie paulie tells them. When i am schooling them on their limited knowledge and posing real world scenarios to them, I can actually see their self righteousness draining from their bodies.

Most libertarians in America, would not even bother if it did not support a free market for weed. A majority of them do not even understand the free market, but they just want to smoke weed, so they will vote for ronnie paulie.

So, do not think I hate them as a whole. I hate them for individual reasons, that they bring up as soon as they start talking.

BTW, I am fully supportive of your constitutional viewpoints and a few other viewpoints, but when it comes to Austrian Economics, I can not see any conceivable way to give businesses more freedom then they already have, which is more then 99.9% of all Americans.

BTW, before I forget....
























































Fuck you and your self-rightousness Frankie. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Soup forgot his password]

Realism is being funny. Cilone doesnt understand funny. Your only defense is to be dismissive.
I've disputed every single point you've ever made in Ch 0 and reduced you to petty quips.

Seriously why the fuck does someone in another country even care about Ron Paul? You guys sport libertarianism like Americans sport Native American paraphanalia, or post war "cleansed" Polish sport Judiasm. I cant even name a politician from Australia as it it's about as useful as memorizing the names of muppets on sesame street.

[CILONE/SK]

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s10/joesmith_207/goodfellas-tommy.jpg

[Spambot5000]

You give yourself a little too much credit my friend. At a guess I have probably made less than 10 posts this year. You haven't kept me in check, I am busy and have generally lost interest in arguing with intellectual pygmies. As far as time sink's go, this site is well down my priority list.

With regards to my interest in Paul, I have explained this before. I tentatively find him interesting in so far as he appeals to Austrian theory, of which I loosely adhere. More generally, I read widely about policy and have an interest in any politician or think tank that values real freedom. I am an anarchist and so I appreciate anarchistic tenents when I see them.

With that sir, I bid you good day.

[CILONE/SK]

Fuck you and your self-rightousness Frankie. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Frankie, your last post pretty much sums up your attitude as I described it.