Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[CILONE/SK]

Double post

[CILONE/SK]

Defining fringe is not going to be easy, because for the most part, that means you are backing a losing candidate. No one wants to be on the losing side. So, with that said, I think fringe is any candidate that holds viewpoints that a majority of Americans do not support.

Considering how many Americans there are and how many voted for him in the past, I consider him a fringe candidate, because if more people shared his viewpoints, they would have voted for him, but the last two presidential elections RP was in, he did not even come close to being a front runner.

We can argue all day about the legitimacy of our election process, but in the end of the day, it does not matter, because it is the system we have and the only one we use.
Notice, I did not get into what his viewpoints actually are, because for this, it does not matter. What matters is if he is supported by a large amount of Americans that are willing to vote for him, and he has proven that is not the case.

[Zig]

OK... this is a forum so I'll leave it to others to chime in on your definition of fringe. I think you have accurately pinpointed certain aspects of what makes something fringe, but overall I feel your definition is very very weak especially when applied to this overall argument we've been having.

On your point about the military support also, once again RP is leading in donations among the GOP candidates in 2011... his active duty donations more than doubles all of the GOP candidates COMBINED. This also occurred in 2008.

http://youtu.be/Mew81eqquEM

Let me ask you this CILONE, are these active duty members of the military who are donating to RP part of his "fringe support"? Would you consider them fringe as well?

[CILONE/SK]

Romney is leading the funding of the GOP candidates. You will have to show the source of your numbers to include the military numbers for 2011.

My side of this is not weak. You just keep trying to bring in his viewpoints to support your side, but you fail to realize that it does not matter and what matters is that he is not supported by a large portion of the population that can affect a national election. You have not shown anything that supports he has a chance against a front runner like Romney. If he has no chance in hell of getting elected, odds are that the American people do not largely support him and if he is not supported by a sizable chunk of the population, this would make him a fringe candidate. Arguing that his viewpoints make him mainstream, means you are arguing something different then if he is fringe or not. The only place his viewpoints come into this, is if they are supported by a large enough population of Americans to be able to affect a national election, and his history of elections show us that he does not have that support. If you want to argue about the validity of his viewpoints, we will have to redefine what we are talking about.

As for the military, I really do not want to get into it, because honestly, unless you are well versed in the military, you probably would not be able to understand the dynamics of my culture in the military.

[Zig]

You are either skimming through my posts and not reading entirely or you just have poor reading comprehension. Romney is most definitely leading the funding of the GOP candidates, but what I was referring to was not the overall funding. I was actually clearly referring to the military donations for 2011, and I posted my source which was the youtube video. Not an entirely credible and thread worthy source, but I'm certain the numbers are accurate if you do a little research on your own.

As for your claim that I am attempting to bring RP's viewpoints into this debate to validate my argument, this is wrong because the only reason I was even bringing up RP's ideals were to correct your inaccurate statements about them. Originally you stated that not only was RP fringe, but so were his supporters. It's necessary to discuss the ideals of a candidate if you are making claims that his views are only supported by a marginal population of Americans. When I question you about this, you avoid answering.

You can hold yourself above others because of your military experience, since it seems like you are thumbing your nose at me in your last response, but it really is irrelevant because you've proven to me that your definition of fringe is based off numbers alone. The actual literal definition of the word fringe has little to do with numbers and statistics, so you have to clearly and precisely define why you believe RP and his supporters are fringe which results in a discussion of his policies and his ideals. Let's make it clear though that the only reason I was discussing them was due to your inaccurate statements about RP in general.

You didn't answer my question about whether or not the active duty military personnel who are overwhelmingly supporting Ron Paul through individual donations to his campaign in both 2008 and 2011 should be considered fringe according to your definition, which is based off of statistics. But then again you have pretty much avoided every question I've thrown your way so I don't expect a good answer from you.

I'm certain if this conversation were to extend into a debate about RP's policies we would also learn how severely you misunderstand them.

[CILONE/SK]

How can you say that although only a small portion of the population supports a candidate, his view points make him mainstream? Being mainstream implies that a large part of the population supports him. You are trying to redefine the argument into whether his viewpoints are right or wrong. You keep trying to go there, because you do not have anything else. I have read your post numerous times and you have not provided one single thing to support your side except for items that rely on the validity of his viewpoints and not on wither they are accepted by the American people as being mainstream. He is fringe because he is not supported by enough of the population to make a difference.

As for the military, I call bullshit on those numbers because they are too low. I would have to see the source that came from to buy off on that. There are a few million serving and if even 10% donated to a candidate, those numbers would be higher. If those numbers are right, that just shows us that what I was saying is true, a majority of the military are not political, so those that donated are fringe, because they represent a small portion.

If you get your referenced from questionable sources, maybe that is why you can not logically reply to if he is fringe or not, without talking about the validity of his viewpoints. His viewpoints are not what makes him fringe, he is not supported by mainstream Americans and that makes him fringe.

[Zig]

How can you say that although only a small portion of the population supports a candidate, his view points make him mainstream? Being mainstream implies that a large part of the population supports him.


I've already expressed in the long response with orange text about your point on what is and isn't mainstream and what generates large polling numbers in elections. I'm not going to repeat myself. You also seem to be implying that Ron Paul's support is small and insignificant...

I am not attempting to redefine, or control, or even discuss that validity of his viewpoints. I really don't know where you are getting this from, I haven't in any of my responses stated anything about the validity of RP's viewpoints or even whether or not his ideals are right or wrong. Obviously I support them, because I support his candidacy for president but I haven't ever stated or attempted to debate them in all of my responses to you.

Those numbers aren't bullshit, I can assure you of that. I'm not going to research shit for you. If you find numbers that are to the contrary and you have a burning passion to prove me wrong feel free to research them yourself and post it here, otherwise those are the numbers and you clearly misunderstood me in your previous response.

[CILONE/SK]

You seem to have a comprehension problem. Those numers are extremely small compared to the number of actual military personnel. You threw it out there, back it up. You seem to not be able to back anything up.

You have nothing to back up that he is not fringe and you keep saying you provided prove that he is not fringe. You have not. It is that simple. You do not even provide me anything to argue against, unless I agree that his viewpoints are wrong, which is what you want and I am not doing.

I am really begining to think that you have further issues other then being a RP knob slobber. You might actually be slightly mentally retarded.

Back up your points or shut the fuck up.

[Zig]

:rolleyes:

[Zig]

here is your source, you can look through them yourself:

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q2/C00495820.html
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q2/C00495820/A_EMPLOYER_C00495820.html

taken from RonPaulForums.com, thread is here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?303482-Ron-Paul-Most-Donations-From-the-Military!

article about it here:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5223477.html

[Zig]

Here are the latest Poll results putting Ron Paul at 9%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_0719.pdf

So... let's see according to you...

Newt Gingrich must be fringe since he is at 6%
Oh look Rick Perry must be fringe, he's only sitting at 11%
Pretty much everyone there is fringe besides Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney according to your statistics right?

[CILONE/SK]

You do have a comprehension problem.

What you do not understand is that the donatations from the military for all candidates is extremely small considering the over all size of the military. You do realize their are a few million military, right? You seem to think that retires factor into support from the military. I am here to tell you that some guy from WWII has no idea about the military of today.

You are drawing conclusions that the military supports someone based on such a small percentage of donors. That would be a wrong conclusion. The military for the most part is non political.

The case for newt being fringe is actually very strong. He probaly is going to end his campaign soon. As for the rest of them, they represent more mainstream republican view points or tea party view points. They are more mainstream then RP. At least the tea party seems to be, we will see if they impact the election like the last time. Because if they do not, they will be fringe too.

I have never said that RP can not get money from his supporters. He has definitely attracted a small group of people that are willing to help him along, but that does not mean there is enough of them to impact a national election.

His viewpoints make him fringe and the results of previous elections back that up. He is on the same train as before. I will give you that he will get more votes then before, but it still will not be enough to do anything in the primary. He is not attracting the more mainstream voters, or at least in big enough number to make a difference.

[CILONE/SK]

Also straw polls have been shown not to make a difference at election time.

So keep trying, good job with the stats, too bad that they do not support what you are saying because of other factors.

It makes me laugh that you used a RP forum to back up your points. This just shows that you are not able to be objective.

[Zig]

I didn't use a RP forum I used the FEC official website. The RonPaul forum is where the number crunching originated, which is worthy of posting here since it is indeed the original source. The FEC is the source I linked you to so that you could prove the numbers you called "bullshit" to yourself.

Of course your point about the military being non-political is something I've already agreed with, and obviously the military overall can not officially endorse a candidate. This is common sense, the point is that Ron Paul has received in 2008 and in 2011 the most military active duty individual donations to his campaign. My question to you, which you're still ignoring, was whether or not these supporters are considered the fringe of America today. My point is not to say that the United States military endorses Ron Paul, so there can't be any conclusions drawn on that issue by myself. Where you're gettlng that from? I don't know. Seems like you are the one who can't comprehend, and I think your responses thus far consistently show that but I'll leave it up to others to decide.

My point's so far have been,
Ron Paul can raise as much money as other candidates and in some cases more,
RP can generate substantial political support,
RP has a large grassroots following that consists of a diverse populace including retired and active military who are not considered the fringe of this country,
RP has substantial name recognition among Americans, including successful mediums such as books and notoriety on television
RP has credibility in the Congress from serving 30+ years,

You claim RP's following is small, insignificant, and fringe pointing to the nomination result statistics in his previous campaigns as proof of your claim. I've already addressed the biased and corrupt nature of our election system in America, and you've chosen to disregard that probably out of disagreement. Actually you just said "live with it, this is all we've got." if I remember correctly. You're completely dismissing the realities of elections and ignoring why candidates like RP get pigeon holed into categories and labels people like you create for them, which in turn effect the amount of reach these politicians have to generate national election numbers and campaign funds that other selected corporate front-runners enjoy. Surprisingly RP has overcome most of these obstacles and today is in the mainstream limelight of GOP contenders because they are forced to pay attention to someone who has generated his amount of support,. Many people listen to him and agree with him, but you call this a small fringe minority. You accuse anyone who supports RP of being a "RP disciple", or sucking RP's cock, but let's be realistic here... if you had to debate someone who advocated for RP's presidency you would fall flat on your face when it came time to discuss his policies and ideals. Instead, you resort to childish insults, a condescending attitude, and you tell people to shut up when you don't like what they're saying.

I think I've already made a pretty strong case against your claim that RP is fringe, and that his supporters are fringe, so I'll let others decide here on their own what they think. I never try to force RP down anyone's throats, and I actually have respect for whomever it is people individually decide to support for president. In fact, unless someone is openly engaging in conversation and debate about it, I see it as none of my business. You on the other hand have something against RP and those who advocate on his behalf when you clearly don't understand what he stands for or what he represents, and you attempt to mitigate the amount of support he has by labeling him and foreshadowing possibilities you realistically can't know the outcome of. In the end you've succumb to the fact that RP's 2011 campaign has already generated more support and you've predicted he will get more votes, so you are in fact admitting that his following has grown since his previous campaigns. In my original response to you, this was something I happened to mention immediately and was part of my original point. I'll stress again that I've never disagreed with you that RP will have an enormous struggle ahead of him to acquire the nomination, and I am naturally a skeptic so I'll admit that I don't think it will happen but I'll leave it off with saying that I continue to disagree with your point that RP is fringe and that his supporters represent a small fringe minority of Americans.

[CILONE/SK]

I didn't use a RP forum I used the FEC official website. The RonPaul forum is where the number crunching originated, which is worthy of posting here since it is indeed the original source. The FEC is the source I linked you to so that you could prove the numbers you called "bullshit" to yourself.

Of course your point about the military being non-political is something I've already agreed with, and obviously the military overall can not officially endorse a candidate. This is common sense, the point is that Ron Paul has received in 2008 and in 2011 the most military active duty individual donations to his campaign.which are a very small part of the military, so that is considered a fringe element, what do you not get about that??? My question to you, which you're still ignoring, was whether or not these supporters are considered the fringe of America today.I have addressed it, but I guess your comprehension problem is preventing you from reading it My point is not to say that the United States military endorses Ron Paul, so there can't be any conclusions drawn on that issue by myself. Where you're gettlng that from? I don't know.because that is what you implied, are you sure you do not need mental help? Seems like you are the one who can't comprehend, and I think your responses thus far consistently show thatfor sure you are dumb. but I'll leave it up to others to decide.

My point's so far have been,
Ron Paul can raise as much money as other candidates and in some cases more, Never said he couldn't, but it still will not matter, because unless he can transfer those to votes, it will not make a difference
RP can generate substantial political support,What the fuck does that mean? If you are talking about getting other politicians to go along with him, you might want to rethink that and look at his voting record. If you are talking about his cult, they are vocal and dumb like you, but they are still not as numerous as mainstream candidates
RP has a large grassroots following that consists of a diverse populace including retired and active military who are not considered the fringe of this country, Large???? Then why did they all not vote for him? Or did they and they are not as large as you think they are, because they did not even make a dent. Here you are implying the military supports him and yet you say you are not saying that. You are wrong about it either way.
RP has substantial name recognition among Americans, including successful mediums such as books and notoriety on televisionBeing a celebrity, does not mean shit, what do you not understand about that? He has had name recognition for a long time and it has not helped him before. In fact, his name is associated with being fringe. hahaha
RP has credibility in the Congress from serving 30+ years, So, the longer you serve, the better chance you have of being mainstream?? His district voted for him, as soon as his district is going to be re-districted to include more minorities, he bailed. He can not get past the local level when it comes to elections

You claim RP's following is small, insignificant, and fringe pointing to the nomination result statistics in his previous campaigns as proof of your claim. what do you not understand about the election process that makes you think that it does not matter??? In what other ways do people get elected to president??? So, if you think it is unfair because your guy does not get a chance, that is because he is fringe and does not go along with the mainstream process. If he were mainstream, he would get more supportI've already addressed the biased and corrupt nature of our election system in America, and you've chosen to disregard that probably out of disagreement.Because you want to use this as a reason he does not get support and unless we have another system, he has to deal with it Actually you just said "live with it, this is all we've got." if I remember correctly. You're completely dismissing the realities of elections and ignoring why candidates like RP get pigeon holed into categories and labels people like you create for them, which in turn effect the amount of reach these politicians have to generate national election numbers and campaign funds that other selected corporate front-runners enjoy. actually you are the one dismissing this, because it is what the process is. Right or wrong, he has to deal with it or not get elected. What don't you understand about that?Surprisingly RP has overcome most of these obstacles and today is in the mainstream limelight of GOP contenders because they are forced to pay attention to someone who has generated his amount of support,. Many people listen to him and agree with him, but you call this a small fringe minority. Being a celebrity and on TV does not mean you are not fringe. He has not overcome anything, he is reliving the previous elections with the same exact talking points he had thenYou accuse anyone who supports RP of being a "RP disciple", or sucking RP's cock, but let's be realistic here... if you had to debate someone who advocated for RP's presidency you would fall flat on your face when it came time to discuss his policies and ideals. Instead, you resort to childish insults, a condescending attitude, and you tell people to shut up when you don't like what they're saying. You are the one who is failing to make your point, you keep saying the same things and reaching the same false conclusions, because you are a RP knob slobber who is blinded from the truth. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think I've already made a pretty strong case against your claim that RP is fringe, not reallyand that his supporters are fringe, they areso I'll let others decide here on their own what they think. I never try to force RP down anyone's throats,actually you do, by linking bullshit to crossfire to support your cult and I actually have respect for whomever it is people individually decide to support for president. In fact, unless someone is openly engaging in conversation and debate about it, I see it as none of my business. You on the other hand have something against RP and those who advocate on his behalf when you clearly don't understand what he stands for or what he represents, and you attempt to mitigate the amount of support he has by labeling him and foreshadowing possibilities you realistically can't know the outcome of. In the end you've succumb to the fact that RP's 2011 campaign has already generated more support and you've predicted he will get more votes, so you are in fact admitting that his following has grown since his previous campaigns. wrong, RP is doing exactly what I thought he would, I have stated that he will get more votes then last time, but it will not be anywhere near the amount to make a difference.In my original response to you, this was something I happened to mention immediately and was part of my original point. I'll stress again that I've never disagreed with you that RP will have an enormous struggle ahead of him to acquire the nomination, and I am naturally a skeptic so I'll admit that I don't think it will happen but I'll leave it off with saying that I continue to disagree with your point that RP is fringe and that his supporters represent a small fringe minority of Americans.because there are not that many of them, if there were, that would have reflected at the voting booth last time., it was only two years ago

Do you have anything else or are you just going to ignore reality some more? Show me proof that he is mainstream, with mainstream ideas that are supported by a majority of Republicans, at least enough that he has a chance in hell of getting the primary.

you can disagree all you want, but that does not make you right. Ron Paul is a fringe candidate. Like I said before, type "fringe candidate" into google and tell me who is covering the whole first page. I have answered your questions and provided valid points against them. What else are you going to ignore and say I am not answering?

[Zig]

anyway...

Great interview of RP
Ron Paul: 'Freedom Is a Young Idea and We're Throwing It Away'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXKrdE2x5og


Transcript
JEFFREY BROWN: And finally tonight an interview with Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul.

It's the first in our series of conversations with the contenders seeking to take on Barack Obama in next year's election.

Judy Woodruff sat down with the congressman from Texas on Capitol Hill earlier today.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congressman Ron Paul, thank you for talking with us.

REP. RON PAUL, R-Texas: Good to be with you today.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You're running against a long list of Republicans seeking the presidential - the Republican presidential nomination, many of them very conservative - one in particular, Michele Bachmann, appealing to the tea party. Why are you more qualified than any of them?


Ron Paul: 'Freedom Is a Young Idea'
REP. RON PAUL: I see them as defending the status quo much more so than I do because, you know, if you look at my foreign policy, nobody's coming close, although they're getting more sympathetic. I want to bring all the troops home. When it comes to personal liberties and what's going on at our airports, I don't like the Patriot Act, and they tend to support the Patriot Act. When it comes to monetary policy, they try to avoid it , yet money is one-half of all our transactions. We're in a mess; so I concentrate a whole lot on the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. And of course, the spending is big issue with me, but it's been that way for a long time.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, speaking of spending, Washington is in the grips right now of this huge divide - split over what to do about the debt limit, what to do about the deficit. You have said you've never voted to raise the debt limit, which pits you against not only the president and the Democrats, but the Republican leadership, both houses of Congress, most of the business community. Are they wrong when they say this would lead to an economic calamity? Are they just not telling the truth?

REP. RON PAUL: I think they're misled. I think they believe what they're saying, but I think they don't understand economic policy because they're afraid of a default, and they've been frightened. But this is the way so often government works. They try to frighten the people, such as frighten people about being attacked by nuclear weapons that don't exist so we go to war needlessly. But the bailout - frighten the people so you bail out everybody, and forget about the people who are losing their houses. So, yes, there's a lot of that.

But my point is, is it's serious; the debt is too big. You can't solve the problem of debt by raising the debt limit, and that's what they were trying to do.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But you've been - you've had this position for years and years. But the decades you've served in the Congress, you haven't been able to win folks over to your point of view. What makes you think you can win a majority over if you were president?

REP. RON PAUL: I think there's a big shift because I can compare what's happening now to four years ago, and it's dramatically different. But, even last year we noticed a big difference, say, on the monetary issue.

So maybe I don't have as much influence in direct legislation here, but the people - I believe I am closer to the people, because the people are scared and are sick and tired of it and they want smaller government.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, on this question of spending and cutting, you've said you would bring the government's budget into balance the first year in office you were president. We're talking, what, over a trillion-dollar deficit. What would you cut?

REP. RON PAUL: OK. I would start with military operations overseas. They hurt us and they hurt our national defense. And we can save hundreds of billions of dollars when you add up all the militarism and all the foreign aid and all the mischief we create, why do we have troops in Korea and Japan - all these things. So you could save a lot. That wouldn't be enough.

Then you'd have to start cutting spending on the programs that aren't essential like the Department of Education. We spend a lot of money; it doesn't improve education. The Department of Energy - we don't need Department of Energy. All those subsidies in Department of Agriculture - we don't need that. We don't need the intervention of the Department of Commerce. You can go on and on.

But you don't have to go and cut health care or medical - or Social Security in order to start getting our house in order.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But you have talked about dramatically scaling down or reforming Medicare and Social Security. And so what would those programs look like if you could wave a magic wand and make it the way you'd like it?

REP. RON PAUL: Well, I haven't talked a whole lot about that. Most of the time, I talk about is, if we'd have acted responsibly, we wouldn't be facing this crisis.

I would like to offer young people going into the workforce the chance to opt out, opt out of Social Security. But that won't work unless you do these cuts I'm talking about, the militarism as well as all these departments that make no sense at all. You could do that, but politically, it's difficult because the other day, when we were voting on this resolution for the budget - the debt increase, I said, there's two groups: One group wants to - won't cut a nickel out of the military and the other won't cut a nickel out of entitlement system. And that's why we're at this point.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You've also spoken of big changes in Medicare, structural changes. How would you change Medicare?

REP. RON PAUL: Well, once again, I haven't emphasized that at all. But I would want people to opt out of the system. I would want people to have medical-savings accounts. Young people should be able to opt out and build up a medical savings account and take care of their own programs.

But that won't work unless you're willing to cut spending. And I think the most popular place to cut is all this spending overseas and the corporate welfare in this country, because most of the money that we spend here that's supposed to poor really helps the large corporations, say, the housing bubble. Who got help?

See, the rich got bailed out. They got bailed out both by the Congress and the Federal Reserve. And they were making all the profits. So it was - it's corporatism that is so bad, whether it's medicine or even in education or the military-industrial complex. It's corporatism. That is the welfare that is huge compared to the welfare of food stamps.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But without some government regulation, which I know you are against, what's to keep corporations from running - doing whatever they want?

REP. RON PAUL: Well, because I talk about a lot less regulation - I don't like the regulatory agencies, but that doesn't mean the free market doesn't have regulation. The regulations in the free market are much stricter because if a company gets into trouble and goes bankrupt, the law - the economic law, which should be enforced by government, that company goes bankrupt. So instead of bailing them out, these companies should have gone bankrupt.

But you have sound money and free markets; you can't counterfeit money, like the Federal Reserve does.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And just to be clear, what would the Federal Reserve look like under a Ron Paul presidency?

REP. RON PAUL: Well, there's two different things. My goal would be, there's no need for the Federal Reserve. Under a presidency you don't get rid of the Federal Reserve overnight. In my - even in my book, "End the Fed," I don't say we should close the door and walk away. I ask for competition.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let's go to some of the international issues you touched on very quickly. You want to bring troops home. What should the U.S. footprint be internationally? What is the U.S. role in the world?

REP. RON PAUL: Well, it should be a footprint of trade and friendship, as we were advised and as the Constitution permits. The footprint shouldn't be a military footprint. It shouldn't be -

JUDY WOODRUFF: So bring -

REP. RON PAUL: The footprint we're leaving now - our drone missiles dropping bombs and killing innocent civilians, launched from the United States with computers. That's not the kind of footprint I want.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Afghanistan. How quickly would you bring the troops home?

REP. RON PAUL: As quick as the ships could get there. It's insane on what we're doing. And I'll tell you one thing about this business about the military: We just had a quarterly report, and they listed all the money that all the candidates got from the military. I got twice as much as all the other candidates put together on the Republican side, and even more than Obama got, which tells me that these troops want to come home as well because they know exactly what I'm talking about.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Two other quick things internationally. You said you opposed the U.S. raid into Pakistan that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. You also are - would do away with, in essence, the CIA. Why do - why did you oppose the raid, and what would you put in the place of the CIA?

REP. RON PAUL: Well the question to me was, could it have been done differently? I was just saying it could be done differently. I mean, all this does was raise questions. And I predicted that this would lead to a lot of resentment. And just think of the chaos in Pakistan and the mess that we have; we both bomb them, and we give them money, and then the people hate their own government because their own government's a puppet of ours.

My frustration with bin Laden was, it took so long.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And the CIA, you would -

REP. RON PAUL: I would - I don't think the CIA should be a military arm of the government dropping bombs secretly. You can't even - you can't even separate the two. You don't even know who is controlling the bombing of this country now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Couple of questions about your campaign. You have a son who was elected to the United States Senate, a Rand Paul from the state of Kentucky. This is your third try for president. There was some talk that he was looking at running for president. How did you discuss that between the two of you, that it was going to be you and not him who was running?

REP. RON PAUL: We never talked about it. It never came up.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Never had a discussion?

REP. RON PAUL: It just never came up.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, Congressman, you look healthy. You certainly keep up a vigorous schedule. You would be 77 years old if you were elected president upon taking office, which is quite a bit older than the oldest president upon taking office, Ronald Reagan. Is age at all a factor for you in this campaign?

REP. RON PAUL: I think it is. I think age is very important, and sometimes I meet people when they're 45, and they're very old. And I think it's the age of the ideas a person's presenting, and is that person able to present these ideas? Freedom is a young idea. It's only been tested for a couple hundred years. And we had a taste of it, and we're throwing it away.

But what I see others are doing, the others, especially - and many of the other candidates, they have old ideas. It's totalitarian, it's the control of government, governments policing the world, militarism, telling people how to run their lives, running the economy, telling people what they can put in their mouths and whether or not they can even drink raw milk. It's just - it's just absolutely out of control.

But the idea that individuals are free, that they have a natural right to their life and the liberty, they ought to be able to keep the fruits of their labor, that is a young idea. So I would say, people ought to go with a young idea and somebody that can express them. And interestingly enough, it's the young people that fully endorse my campaign.

JUDY WOODRUFF: We are watching that. Spoken very passionately. Congressman Ron Paul, we thank you for talking with us.

REP. RON PAUL: Thank you.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I don't understand how you can hear any of that and think "what a bad idea".

Apparently freedom is a fringe idea though.

[Zig]

I don't understand how you can hear any of that and think "what a bad idea".

Apparently freedom is a fringe idea though.

Well, as easy as it is for you and I to listen to that and relate to it, you have to understand that there are many Americans who think we should be bombing these countries and waging war against them. There are many people who believe that these wars are just, righteous, and that there is a legitimate terrorist threat that will overwhelm the world if we don't do anything about it. There are many people who believe America does no wrong in the world and that our military is formed of pure angels who fight for the cause of God directly under his command (am I going to far? sorry...).

I think you can sense my sarcasm, but realistically even though I disagree with CILONE that RP is fringe, he has a point that the mainstream of this country still supports war mongering totalitarian hand picked corporate candidates who embrace and reinforce the status quo. Unfortunately there is still a large majority of Americans who literally have lost touch with what exactly freedom is, or what our Constitution represents, or what America is supposed to represent in the world. I personally don't blame them because it's the result of consistent propaganda, bad education, corruption, misinformation, etc.

[CILONE/SK]

Unfortunately there is still a large majority of Americans who literally have lost touch with what exactly freedom is, or what our Constitution represents, or what America is supposed to represent in the world. I personally don't blame them because it's the result of consistent propaganda, bad education, corruption, misinformation, etc.

This is exactly what I think of you and your RP cult. Of course, except for the large majority part.

I think most of you have seriously lost touch with what this country represents. You ways will disenfranchise many Americans, for the benefit of a few.

You want to isolate America with your nonsense foreign policy.

You want to sell out America by letting corporations do anything they want with your "free market".

You want to let the most needy Americans go without help, with you insistence that private charity will be able to provide the level of help needed.

You want to destroy the dollar and the worlds economy by getting rid of the fed, returning to the gold standard, and not raising the debt ceiling to pay for stuff that has already been approved by congress. Although this will cause many, many Americans to lose their jobs and entering America into another depression.

Bottom line is that not a single thing that RP supports is based on reality and on hypotheticals that many experts disagree with. You talk about founding fathers and freedom, but you are the people that the founding fathers would despise, because you are actively looking for ways to knock down our country and you are doing it under the guise of freedom an being a patriot.

I oppose libertarianism because it ignores that the wealthy have a disproportionate level of influence on society and law already. The transition to a libertarian dystopia would further exacerbate this disparity of treatment. The elimination of those parts of the government most disparaged by libertarians would unduly and unfairly impact those parts of society least able to offset their loss. When this loss is coupled by the institution of a "fee for service" or voluntary tax structure (advocated by many libertarians) the net-net result is that the wealthy would have a disproportionate level of access to clean food, justice, police protecton, fire protection and other services, while the poor would be left to fend for themselves as best as they could.

You and your fellow RP knob slobbers would ruin this country faster then anything short of an invasion.

[CILONE/SK]

I don't understand how you can hear any of that and think "what a bad idea".

Apparently freedom is a fringe idea though.

Little comments about freedom are cute, but they do not provide substance and shows how easily swayed you are.

[Zig]

i just have to laugh at you now man, you're funny. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

i can't wait to see someone here just destroy that argument you just posted, that's fuckin perfect man. perfect.


You want to destroy the dollar and the worlds economy by getting rid of the fed, returning to the gold standard, and not raising the debt ceiling to pay for stuff that has already been approved by congress.


this is the best one right here. oh now WE'RE destroying the dollar? omfg you're hilarious.


You talk about founding fathers and freedom, but you are the people that the founding fathers would despise


ahahahahaha... oh man... oh... i'm havin a heart attack here. more shit you couldn't possibly know that you're so certain of.

[CILONE/SK]

What is funny is that you are an idiot follower who can not provide anything and you wait for someone else to say something.

If I am wrong, grow some balls and say it yourself and provide proof.

[Zig]

What is funny is that you are an idiot follower who can not provide anything and you wait for someone else to say something.

If I am wrong, grow some balls and say it yourself and provide proof.

oh man call me more names bro you're hurtin my feelings

i'm done arguing with you lol, you're not worth the effort. seriously.

[CILONE/SK]

At least I can think for myself and provide viewpoints that are my own.

[Zig]

good for you bud, pat yourself on the back.

whats funny is i could have sword i've heard your talking points, err i mean thoughts, come from television

[CILONE/SK]

Do you have another youtube video as proof of something? hahaha

[CILONE/SK]

good for you bud, pat yourself on the back.

whats funny is i could have sword i've heard your talking points, err i mean thoughts, come from television


Nice edit of post, to include the misspelling. Too bad for you I do not watch tv, so you are wrong again. Some Netflixs, but that is it. I do not even have cable or dish.

[Zig]

i edited the thread to add the second line i really don't care how i spell on this forum, and seriously? you're going to resort to spelling insults now too? wow...

[CILONE/SK]

^zig = joke

[Zig]

This is exactly what I think of you and your RP cult. Of course, except for the large majority part.

I think most of you have seriously lost touch with what this country represents. You ways will disenfranchise many Americans, for the benefit of a few.

You want to isolate America with your nonsense foreign policy.

You want to sell out America by letting corporations do anything they want with your "free market".

You want to let the most needy Americans go without help, with you insistence that private charity will be able to provide the level of help needed.

You want to destroy the dollar and the worlds economy by getting rid of the fed, returning to the gold standard, and not raising the debt ceiling to pay for stuff that has already been approved by congress. Although this will cause many, many Americans to lose their jobs and entering America into another depression.

Bottom line is that not a single thing that RP supports is based on reality and on hypotheticals that many experts disagree with. You talk about founding fathers and freedom, but you are the people that the founding fathers would despise, because you are actively looking for ways to knock down our country and you are doing it under the guise of freedom an being a patriot.

I oppose libertarianism because it ignores that the wealthy have a disproportionate level of influence on society and law already. The transition to a libertarian dystopia would further exacerbate this disparity of treatment. The elimination of those parts of the government most disparaged by libertarians would unduly and unfairly impact those parts of society least able to offset their loss. When this loss is coupled by the institution of a "fee for service" or voluntary tax structure (advocated by many libertarians) the net-net result is that the wealthy would have a disproportionate level of access to clean food, justice, police protecton, fire protection and other services, while the poor would be left to fend for themselves as best as they could.

You and your fellow RP knob slobbers would ruin this country faster then anything short of an invasion.

didn't i already call you a joke? i mean you're pretty much just repeating what i say to you back, it's like you're a little child seriously.

but on some real shit, this quotation above... THAT's a joke.

alright i'm seriously going to have to ignore you... i feel like i'm participating in the destruction of this thread so i'm going to chill out for the sake of others.

get your last word in child.

oh and stop PM'ing me.

[CILONE/SK]

Do you have anything? anything at all? Please help yourself.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

This is exactly what I think of you and your RP cult. Of course, except for the large majority part.

I think most of you have seriously lost touch with what this country represents. You ways will disenfranchise many Americans, for the benefit of a few.

You want to isolate America with your nonsense foreign policy.

You want to sell out America by letting corporations do anything they want with your "free market".

You want to let the most needy Americans go without help, with you insistence that private charity will be able to provide the level of help needed.

You want to destroy the dollar and the worlds economy by getting rid of the fed, returning to the gold standard, and not raising the debt ceiling to pay for stuff that has already been approved by congress. Although this will cause many, many Americans to lose their jobs and entering America into another depression.

Bottom line is that not a single thing that RP supports is based on reality and on hypotheticals that many experts disagree with. You talk about founding fathers and freedom, but you are the people that the founding fathers would despise, because you are actively looking for ways to knock down our country and you are doing it under the guise of freedom an being a patriot.

I oppose libertarianism because it ignores that the wealthy have a disproportionate level of influence on society and law already. The transition to a libertarian dystopia would further exacerbate this disparity of treatment. The elimination of those parts of the government most disparaged by libertarians would unduly and unfairly impact those parts of society least able to offset their loss. When this loss is coupled by the institution of a "fee for service" or voluntary tax structure (advocated by many libertarians) the net-net result is that the wealthy would have a disproportionate level of access to clean food, justice, police protecton, fire protection and other services, while the poor would be left to fend for themselves as best as they could.

You and your fellow RP knob slobbers would ruin this country faster then anything short of an invasion.

After reading this...

What is funny is that you are an idiot follower who can not provide anything and you wait for someone else to say something.

If I am wrong, grow some balls and say it yourself and provide proof.

And than this, I realized that you don't even grasp the message.

All of your rebuttals are mainstream media talking points. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Maher type stuff.

The funny part to me is Zig isn't even a Libertarian, let alone a "RP knob slobber". Keep trying though, entertainment for me.

[CILONE/SK]

Typical, when someone does not support Ron Paulie, say that they are repeating mainstream media talking points.

I do not watch any of them and like I have said numerous times that I do not even have cable, dish, and do not watch TV.

The only two that are going to reply somewhat intelligently to my post is AOD and Harold Holt. The rest of you just do what you say I am doing, repeating talking points except for doing it from the RP side.

What is funny about your post is that you said mainstream media talking points, yet you say that RP is not fringe. If he was not fringe then the mainstream media would be supporting his message more.

I do not grasp the message, because it is misguided. Feel free to tell me why I am wrong.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Right.

[CILONE/SK]

Talking shit and not backing it up, seems to be an issue for a few of you.

[Zig]

http://files.sharenator.com/trollface_WRAPPEDinBACONs_FIRST_PIC_DUMP-s469x428-137060.jpg

obvious. troll is obvious.

[CILONE/SK]

Asking someone to back up their viewpoints in a political thread should not be looked down upon. Yet, some of you like to throw out viewpoints and question others, yet provide zero facts to back them up. Then you try to be dismissive about them.

Your actions resemble that of a troll more then anyone elses.

Go find some youtube videos top back up your bullshit. hahaha

[Zig]

you ignore everything people say to you, and ask for proof of stuff they've already explained. you're a troll. go to the official FEC website and prove to yourself facts you called bullshit.

[CILONE/SK]

This is exactly what I think of you and your RP cult. Of course, except for the large majority part.

I think most of you have seriously lost touch with what this country represents. You ways will disenfranchise many Americans, for the benefit of a few.

You want to isolate America with your nonsense foreign policy.

You want to sell out America by letting corporations do anything they want with your "free market".

You want to let the most needy Americans go without help, with you insistence that private charity will be able to provide the level of help needed.

You want to destroy the dollar and the worlds economy by getting rid of the fed, returning to the gold standard, and not raising the debt ceiling to pay for stuff that has already been approved by congress. Although this will cause many, many Americans to lose their jobs and entering America into another depression.

Bottom line is that not a single thing that RP supports is based on reality and on hypotheticals that many experts disagree with. You talk about founding fathers and freedom, but you are the people that the founding fathers would despise, because you are actively looking for ways to knock down our country and you are doing it under the guise of freedom an being a patriot.

I oppose libertarianism because it ignores that the wealthy have a disproportionate level of influence on society and law already. The transition to a libertarian dystopia would further exacerbate this disparity of treatment. The elimination of those parts of the government most disparaged by libertarians would unduly and unfairly impact those parts of society least able to offset their loss. When this loss is coupled by the institution of a "fee for service" or voluntary tax structure (advocated by many libertarians) the net-net result is that the wealthy would have a disproportionate level of access to clean food, justice, police protecton, fire protection and other services, while the poor would be left to fend for themselves as best as they could.

You and your fellow RP knob slobbers would ruin this country faster then anything short of an invasion.


I put this out here, ready to back it up and all I get is the two of you talking shit and trying to dismiss it without providing anything at all.

Yet you call me a troll.

[CILONE/SK]

you ignore everything people say to you, and ask for proof of stuff they've already explained. you're a troll. go to the official FEC website and prove to yourself facts you called bullshit.

All the FEC link you provided showed, was that he received political donations. It did not back what you were saying up. You used a youtube RP political mash up video as back up. Give me a break.

[CILONE/SK]

here is your source, you can look through them yourself:

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q2/C00495820.html
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q2/C00495820/A_EMPLOYER_C00495820.html

taken from RonPaulForums.com, thread is here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?303482-Ron-Paul-Most-Donations-From-the-Military!

article about it here:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5223477.html

Here are your links. Show me how the FEC links back up that the military supports Ron Paul???? Does the Ron Paul Forum, which is obviously unbiased :lol:, show us that??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Zig]

your kidding me right. you really are serious?

man you really can't comprehend anything going on this this thread involving me talking to you. i didn't post a ron paul video in order to back up anything i said, i posted it in contribution to this thread which has numerous ron paul videos. not everything is about you.

the political donations were from active duty military, it's all over the news, it's all over articles on the internet and the proof is right there on the FEC official website. i don't know what more you need to comprehend that. you called it bullshit, you were wrong. you can't own up to being wrong?

why don't you post something to back up your points on what you are saying about RP being fringe, and all of the misconceptions you have about his policies and his ideologies. back up the statements you've made in this post:


You want to isolate America with your nonsense foreign policy.


It isn't isolationism; it's non-interventionism.


You want to sell out America by letting corporations do anything they want with your "free market".


prove that point. back it up.


You want to let the most needy Americans go without help, with you insistence that private charity will be able to provide the level of help needed.


more proof, i need examples and valid sources that private charity isn't more effective than government welfare.


You want to destroy the dollar and the worlds economy by getting rid of the fed, returning to the gold standard, and not raising the debt ceiling to pay for stuff that has already been approved by congress. Although this will cause many, many Americans to lose their jobs and entering America into another depression.


show us how RP's policies would destroy the dollar rather than the Federal Reserve's policies over the last 70 years. prove your point.


You talk about founding fathers and freedom, but you are the people that the founding fathers would despise, because you are actively looking for ways to knock down our country and you are doing it under the guise of freedom an being a patriot.


prove your point on how the founding fathers would despise someone like RP.



I oppose libertarianism because it ignores that the wealthy have a disproportionate level of influence on society and law already. The transition to a libertarian dystopia would further exacerbate this disparity of treatment.


prove this. elaborate and back up your point if you're going to make statements like this

you've also said other wildly inaccurate shit in this thread that i don't need to bother asking you for proof for, but since you are doing it to everyone i think you should probably notice that you aren't backing anything up that you are saying. you're just throwing ridiculous accusations into the thread and claiming that you know everything.

[CILONE/SK]

You obviously are not serious about dealing with facts.

Your links do not show what you said they do, which is that the military supports RP.

[Zig]

i edited my post so prove your points than

so we can see how much of a dumb ass you actually are some more

[CILONE/SK]

i edited my post so prove your points than

so we can see how much of a dumb ass you actually are some more

How about you actually show me how I am wrong? You are being the troll now.


Nowhere on those FEC links, which are the only ones you have provided that could be said to be valid links, does it show about the military supporting RP. They do not even show how much the military gave as a whole.

[Zig]

PROVE POINTS BRO. PROVE POINTS.

[CILONE/SK]

You are being a troll because you failed to even back up the simplest points. Now you are saying for me to prove something, when you can not even offer counter points.

Your just mad because you failed.

Hahaha

Zig= failure at life

I will be happy to discuss my points if you provide something that you do not agree with, but I know you won't, because you have nothing and can not tell the difference between facts and opinions.

So unless you have a viewpoint or something counter to mine, stop being a little bitch.

[Zig]

I'm a failure at life now, rofl you don't even knowwwww me. Tired of being polite around here... jump off my dick you confused little tool. You can't discuss shit because you don't know how to have a fucking conversation without calling people names and insulting them, since you learned how to have discussions about as well as you learned how to fucking read. That's probably why you can't understand Ron Paul, the Constitution, or what the fuck the meaning of liberty is because you're an ignorant bigot who thinks he knows everything. Don't think I'm mad either because I'm not, I have a huge fucking smile on my face that you've stooped so low...

/FAGGOTVOICE

ZIG PROVE YOUR POINTS WHILE I SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK I WANT WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT. OH BUT YOU... YOU HAVE TO PROVE LITERALLY EVERYTHING YOU SAY HERE WITH SCHOLARLY CITATIONS AND CREDIBLE SOURCES. MAKE SURE YOU GET THAT NOTARIZED TOO PAL!

ZIG WHATEVER YOU CALL ME I'M GOING TO CALL YOU RIGHT BACK! IM A JOKE? NO YOU'RE A JOKE! I CANT COMPREHEND? NO YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND! IM A TROLL? NO YOU'RE A TROLL! DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? CAN YOU PROVE SOMETHING? NICE UTUBE SOURCE THERE PAL, OH BTW YOUR FEC SOURCES ARE BULLSHIT BRO! OH MY BAD ACTUALLY THOSE ARE FACTS.

man this crossfire shit is too good.


why don't you post something to back up your points on what you are saying about RP being fringe, and all of the misconceptions you have about his policies and his ideologies. back up the statements you've made in this post:

Quote:
You want to isolate America with your nonsense foreign policy.
It isn't isolationism; it's non-interventionism.

Quote:
You want to sell out America by letting corporations do anything they want with your "free market".
prove that point. back it up.

Quote:
You want to let the most needy Americans go without help, with you insistence that private charity will be able to provide the level of help needed.
more proof, i need examples and valid sources that private charity isn't more effective than government welfare.

Quote:
You want to destroy the dollar and the worlds economy by getting rid of the fed, returning to the gold standard, and not raising the debt ceiling to pay for stuff that has already been approved by congress. Although this will cause many, many Americans to lose their jobs and entering America into another depression.
show us how RP's policies would destroy the dollar rather than the Federal Reserve's policies over the last 70 years. prove your point.

Quote:
You talk about founding fathers and freedom, but you are the people that the founding fathers would despise, because you are actively looking for ways to knock down our country and you are doing it under the guise of freedom an being a patriot.
prove your point on how the founding fathers would despise someone like RP.

Quote:

I oppose libertarianism because it ignores that the wealthy have a disproportionate level of influence on society and law already. The transition to a libertarian dystopia would further exacerbate this disparity of treatment.
prove this. elaborate and back up your point if you're going to make statements like this

you've also said other wildly inaccurate shit in this thread that i don't need to bother asking you for proof for, but since you are doing it to everyone i think you should probably notice that you aren't backing anything up that you are saying. you're just throwing ridiculous accusations into the thread and claiming that you know everything.


go for it.

[CILONE/SK]

You repeated yourself again and you still have not provided a counter argument. You can not tell the difference between facts and opinions.

Do you even have an opinion of your own? You say I am wrong and you do not say why.

Go search YouTube and find something to repeat, because you have nothing and can not form a reasonable opinion.

Zig= repeated failure

Go back to being a fry cook at mcdonalds and let adults deal with items and issues that are obviously too far above your level of understanding.

Unless you can tell me why I am wrong, shut the fuck up.

[Zig]

and I'M repeating myself. you're nonsense bro. nonsense.

[CILONE/SK]

If I am totally wrong, show me where those FEC links show anything about military contributions related to your point that the military supports RP.

This should be simple if you are not full of shit.

[Zig]

you're a fucking idiot seriously. and i don't really ever call ppl shit on here, but you are definitely fucking stupid.

[CILONE/SK]

Hahaha. You have nothing. Thank you for making my point.

[Zig]

No, I'll get it for you. But you clearly are stupid that you can't read it for yourself and see for yourself from the official source. I mean seriously, it really just shows your level of intelligence. I'm not even trying to be a dick but that's the cold hard facts here. You're a moron.

[CILONE/SK]

Show me then how it shows anything about military support for RP.

[Zig]

let's make this VERY clear. which i've already elaborated on in previous posts....

here...


Also, your point about the military was a good one and I agree with it somewhat, in that those who've donated to RP in 2008 represent a small minority of the military, as well as the fact that most of the military doesn't vote and is conservative. That's probably true, but also keep in mind that many veteran and inactive military also supported RP in the 2008 campaign as well.


here...


On your point about the military support also, once again RP is leading in donations among the GOP candidates in 2011... his active duty donations more than doubles all of the GOP candidates COMBINED. This also occurred in 2008.


and here...


You are either skimming through my posts and not reading entirely or you just have poor reading comprehension. Romney is most definitely leading the funding of the GOP candidates, but what I was referring to was not the overall funding. I was actually clearly referring to the military donations for 2011, and I posted my source which was the youtube video. Not an entirely credible and thread worthy source, but I'm certain the numbers are accurate if you do a little research on your own.


So to summarize, I've never stated that the ENTIRE MILITARY SUPPORTS RON PAUL. never. It seems to me that this is what you're insinuating, so please read and comprehend what I'm saying. I'll say it for you slowly.


Ron.... Paul... has... received... the... MOST... (big word coming up) in-di-vi-du-alll... active... duty... military... do-na-tions... to... his... cam-paignnn... in... 2008... AND... 2011... out... of... all... of... the... GOP... con-tennn-derrsss.........

In 2011 he also has received more than Barack Obama as well.

OK. I hope you understand all of that. Here is the source again:
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q2/C00495820/A_EMPLOYER_C00495820.html

you can tally it all up yourself. on the left side are the employers, and on the right side is the donation amount received. i'll work on getting that list for you since you're too retarded to tally the numbers yourself, but it's going to have to wait another day because it's late and i'm done talking to you because your basically a fucking idiot and a BIG waste of my time. it's just like a fucking disease I can't stop responding to your stupidity. i don't really know why, I guess this is entertainment for me.

[CILONE/SK]

Where does it show individual military donations? The link only shows contributions by employers.

You may be right when you say that the individual contributions from service members go to RP more then any other candidate, but your link does not show that. This goes to show that you are not able to come to reasonable conclusions and that you are not able to tell the difference between fact and opinion, which is what I have been saying.


You should stay off YouTube. Hahaha
Another failure by you.

[Zig]

I apologize to others who could possibly be annoyed by the continued conflict here, and I really don't want to hijack this thread.

I wish there could be some actual intelligent discussion going on here, even if you disagree with Ron Paul or you don't support him... I DO respect that. If your argument against his policies aren't mainstream media talking points that are accusing RP of being racist, labeling him and lumping him into a category, and are actually fair and comprehensible... I may disagree, argue, and debate with you about why liberty and the constitution is important to me... but for the most part I will agree to disagree and respect your position. I've done this in the past with people here who I personally have felt have a misunderstanding or different perspective of the constitution than myself. Usually after I express myself, I let it go and keep it moving.

I also don't normally resort to insulting people or being THAT condescending. I know I do it sometimes, and I hope I've never gone too overboard on anyone here because regardless of the fact that we hold different views I don't want to come across as a dick who thinks he knows everything. I'm still personally very young (turning 26) and am always learning more. Conversations and arguments I've had here with people like christo, frankie, theo, and others that I disagree with have always made me take a step back and rethink my own positions, and I've learned a lot from being here on how other people can reflect and view our world. For the most part I'm sure anyone on here knows that I try to be as respectful as possible. I encourage that here on 12oz crossfire because this place, unlike other forums, actually has a lot of intelligent people who hold a wide range of diverse opinions and there are some VERY good conversations and debates that take place here. I've only been here for a short time, and I've already learned a lot more than I would have visiting forums and websites filled with people who share the same views and just agree with each other all day.

I'd like to contribute more to this thread, and I always attempt to contribute something important. I apologize again for the ping pong between me and CILONE but unfortunately it's probably going to continue...

I feel this is a very important article from Ron Paul concerning our national debt and why it is important for us to understand what it will mean if America DOES default, and what it will mean if we continue to patch up a flawed system that is already broken.

Ron Paul Appeals To America: "Default Now, Or Suffer A More Expensive Crisis Later"
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ron-paul-appeals-america-default-now-or-suffer-more-expensive-crisis-later#comments


By Ron Paul, op-ed first posted in Bloomberg

Default Now, Or Suffer A More Expensive Crisis Later

Debate over the debt ceiling has reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, with each side trying to outdo the other in a game of political chicken. If you believe some of the things that are being written, the world will come to an end if the U.S. defaults on even the tiniest portion of its debt.

In strict terms, the default being discussed will occur if the U.S. fails to meet its debt obligations, through failure to pay either interest or principal due a bondholder. Proponents of raising the debt ceiling claim that a default on Aug. 2 is unprecedented and will result in calamity (never mind that this is simply an arbitrary date, easily changed, marking a congressional recess). My expectations of such a scenario are more sanguine.

The U.S. government defaulted at least three times on its obligations during the 20th century.

-- In 1934, the government banned ownership of gold and eliminated the right to exchange gold certificates for gold coins. It then immediately revalued gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35, thus devaluing the dollar holdings of all Americans by 40 percent.

-- From 1934 to 1968, the federal government continued to issue and redeem silver certificates, notes that circulated as legal tender that could be redeemed for silver coins or silver bars. In 1968, Congress unilaterally reneged on this obligation, too.

-- From 1934 to 1971, foreign governments were permitted by the U.S. government to exchange their dollars for gold through the gold window. In 1971, President Richard Nixon severed this final link between the dollar and gold by closing the gold window, thus in effect defaulting once again on a debt obligation of the U.S. government.

Unlimited Spending

No longer constrained by any sort of commodity backing, the federal government was now free to engage in almost unlimited fiscal profligacy, the only check on its spending being the market’s appetite for Treasury debt. Despite the defaults in 1934, 1968 and 1971, world markets have been only too willing to purchase Treasury debt and thereby fund the government’s deficit spending. If these major defaults didn’t result in decreased investor appetite for U.S. obligations, I see no reason why defaulting on a small amount of debt this August would cause any major changes.

The national debt now stands at just over $14 trillion, while net total liabilities are estimated at over $200 trillion. The government is insolvent, as there is no way that this massive sum of liabilities can ever be paid off. Successive Congresses and administrations have shown absolutely no restraint when it comes to the budget process, and the idea that either of the two parties is serious about getting our fiscal house in order is laughable.

Boom and Bust

The Austrian School’s theory of the business cycle describes how loose central bank monetary policy causes booms and busts: It drives down interest rates below the market rate, lowering the cost of borrowing; encourages malinvestment; and causes economic miscalculation as resources are diverted from the highest value use as reflected in true consumer preferences. Loose monetary policy caused the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble, and now is causing the government debt bubble.

For far too long, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy and quantitative easing have kept interest rates artificially low, enabling the government to drastically increase its spending by funding its profligacy through new debt whose service costs were lower than they otherwise would have been.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats sought to end this gravy train, with one party prioritizing war spending and the other prioritizing welfare spending, and with both supporting both types of spending. But now, with the end of the second round of quantitative easing, the federal funds rate at the zero bound, and the debt limit maxed out, Congress finds itself in a real quandary.

Hard Decisions

It isn’t too late to return to fiscal sanity. We could start by canceling out the debt held by the Federal Reserve, which would clear $1.6 trillion under the debt ceiling. Or we could cut trillions of dollars in spending by bringing our troops home from overseas, making gradual reforms to Social Security and Medicare, and bringing the federal government back within the limits envisioned by the Constitution. Yet no one is willing to step up to the plate and make the hard decisions that are necessary. Everyone wants to kick the can down the road and believe that deficit spending can continue unabated.

Unless major changes are made today, the U.S. will default on its debt sooner or later, and it is certainly preferable that it be sooner rather than later.

If the government defaults on its debt now, the consequences undoubtedly will be painful in the short term. The loss of its AAA rating will raise the cost of issuing new debt, but this is not altogether a bad thing. Higher borrowing costs will ensure that the government cannot continue the same old spending policies. Budgets will have to be brought into balance (as the cost of servicing debt will be so expensive as to preclude future debt financing of government operations), so hopefully, in the long term, the government will return to sound financial footing.

Raising the Ceiling

The alternative to defaulting now is to keep increasing the debt ceiling, keep spending like a drunken sailor, and hope that the default comes after we die. A future default won’t take the form of a missed payment, but rather will come through hyperinflation. The already incestuous relationship between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury will grow even closer as the Fed begins to purchase debt directly from the Treasury and monetizes debt on a scale that makes QE2 look like a drop in the bucket. Imagine the societal breakdown of Weimar Germany, but in a country five times as large. That is what we face if we do not come to terms with our debt problem immediately.

Default will be painful, but it is all but inevitable for a country as heavily indebted as the U.S. Just as pumping money into the system to combat a recession only ensures an unsustainable economic boom and a future recession worse than the first, so too does continuously raising the debt ceiling only forestall the day of reckoning and ensure that, when it comes, it will be cataclysmic.

We have a choice: default now and take our medicine, or put it off as long as possible, when the effects will be much worse.


CILONE, I'll get the list for you. You clearly don't comprehend the way the money is tallied up. I'm sorry you can't understand it, I'll see what I can do to get a list that even a child could understand just for you. I can't promise anything because, me personally... I'm not going to waste my time creating that list for you since all of the data is right there and my point is already proven by the source link, but if I can get someone on a RP forum to do it for me I'll post it here.

[CILONE/SK]

Nice try in switching the topic at hand. you have zero critical thinking skills and cannot even read a basic FEC query without misunderstanding it.

Hahaha
Zig = 26 year old failure

[russell jones]

Stop calling each other names and being fucking retards! Thank you. :)

[Zig]

damn casek that spambot bodied you.

[KM4RT]

:lol: walkermark spambot and this chinese dude

[Decyferon]

hahaha that casek comment from the spambot has to be one of the best spams I have seen, no wonder he has so many props!

[Zig]

hey btw I never got that list for this thread but here is a link confirming the facts:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jul/23/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-members-military-have-given-him-far-/

[CILONE/SK]

OK. I hope you understand all of that. Here is the source again:
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q2/C00495820/A_EMPLOYER_C00495820.html

Now that you found a link to back yourself up (days later), please explain how the FEC link you so strongly insisted backed you up, does so? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Active duty military in September 2010 (numbers are similar to what is in the military today) = 1,133,699 actual link that is relevant (http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1009.pdf)

Amount that Ron Paul received from people who listed their occupation as military, per Polifact = $25,000

Amount that Ron Paul's people say he received from the military = $34,480

For the sake of debate, lets say that everyone who donated money, donated only $200 (which is when they start to list the occupations), which would give RP the maximum number of people who donated, since they did not go lower then $200 for anyone when they figured out those numbers, the maximum number of people who contributed to Ron Paul from the military is only 172 people!!!

$200 donations to Ron Paul x 172 service members = $34,4000

Never mind that some people gave more then $200, which would mean even less people gave money to him, that would still mean your whole point does not really make any bit of difference.

172 people out of 1,133699 people (just active, although you did include retires at previous points) = .00015172%

Zig's military point that he tried to make = not much of a point in any way you look at it, unless you are trying to say that the military is not really political.

BTW, RPs point of "tells me that these troops want to come home as well because they know exactly what I'm talking about." is not really supported by this data either.


FACTS!!! nigga, learn to use them.

[Zig]

nah i'm done with you you're a waste of time and you haven't backed up anything you've said, you just demand proof from other people because you make no sense and can't articulate a consistent argument.

was i wrong about the facts I posted here? the facts you called bullshit? can you admit you were wrong about that? i don't think so... i post it days later because i have a life and other shit to do rather than sit here and bullshit with you.

i'm done here unless you want to start elaborating more on your Ron Paul hatred, because that's always funny to read.

you're telling me i can't use facts, that's fucking hilarious. you called the facts bullshit, you're delusional as to what is actually happening in this thread.

[CILONE/SK]

I did not say you were wrong about this link you posted today. I said you were wrong about the link you originally posted, which is the same one you kept insisting was proof of your point. You still have not shown us how that original link from the FEC proved your point. So with out a doubt you are full of shit and you just happened on a article by chance that supported what you said, because if you had it before, you would have posted it.

Regardless you and RP do not have a point when both of you say that the military gives more money to RP then any other candidate, because 172 people or less do not mean anything when you are talking about over a million people. It is impossible to draw any reasonable conclusions from that small of a percentage.

Go back to playing your video games and trolling for anti-ron paul forums, just like a true ron paul knob slobber.

[Zig]

Can you explain to me what you THINK my point was? I don't think you even understand what my point was.


You still have not shown us how that original link from the FEC proved your point.


The point was that he raised more than any other GOP candidate, and President Obama when it came to active military donations. The FEC link absolutely, definitively proves that point. You asked me for a LIST of the military employers from that FEC source and I said I MIGHT be able to get that for you if someone else on RP Forums would do it for me, because quite honestly I'm not going to waste my time doing simple reading and math for you. No one responded to my request for this list... probably because they also see how much of a waste of time doing something like that is. All the information is right there on the page... a list is not necessary. Politifact only further confirms the legitimacy of my original source...


Regardless you and RP do not have a point when both of you say that the military gives more money to RP then any other candidate, because 172 people or less do not mean anything when you are talking about over a million people.


WTF... are you talking about. The point has nothing to do with how many people are in the military... it has to do with how many active military donated to political candidates and who out of all the political candidates received the most donations. Seriously, WHAT are you talking about?


Go back to playing your video games and trolling for anti-ron paul forums, (LMAO ???????????????????) just like a true ron paul knob slobber.


Dude... you should go back to Channel Zero because Crossfire... it just aint for you.

[CILONE/SK]

Can you explain to me what you THINK my point was? I don't think you even understand what my point was.



The point was that he raised more than any other GOP candidate, and President Obama when it came to active military donations. The FEC link absolutely, definitively proves that point. You asked me for a LIST of the military employers from that FEC source and I said I MIGHT be able to get that for you if someone else on RP Forums would do it for me, because quite honestly I'm not going to waste my time doing simple reading and math for you. No one responded to my request for this list... probably because they also see how much of a waste of time doing something like that is. All the information is right there on the page... a list is not necessary. Politifact only further confirms the legitimacy of my original source...



WTF... are you talking about. The point has nothing to do with how many people are in the military... it has to do with how many active military donated to political candidates and who out of all the political candidates received the most donations. Seriously, WHAT are you talking about?



Dude... you should go back to Channel Zero because Crossfire... it just aint for you.

The FEC link you posted shows ALL employers who contributed to RP, not military employers (what the fuck is a military employer?). Unless of course, the Dropkick Murphy's are a military employer. hahaha Read your own link. Show me one person on the link who is in the military!!!

Just admit you posted a link that does not show anything you have said it does and also while you are at it, you failed to provide anything to make any of your points. You consistently fail to back up anything you have to say. No one jumps in for you, because you are wrong.

The point you tried to make was that the military supports RP because of the donations he has received from them are more then any other candidate, including the president.

My counter point was that those donations do not matter, because they only show that a maximum of 172 people (more likely less) donated money to RP and that the military is not political.

You failed to provide another point or anything else to back up anything you have said. Just admit you are wrong, if not, GO AWAY, because I am not going anywhere.


You are not that intelligent and have failed again.

Zig + Crossfire = fail, please try again

[Zig]

The point you tried to make was that the military supports RP because of the donations he has received from them are more then any other candidate, including the president.


That was never the point I was trying to make, my point was simply that the military overwhelmingly supports Ron Paul over every other GOP candidate. The point was proven through the donation numbers for active military of both 2008 and 2011. I don't expect anyone to jump into debates here in support of my arguments, I don't do it for anyone else and to even suggest that I'm expecting that is ridiculous.

What YOU'RE twisting my point to become, and insisting on what I was supposedly insinuating with my statement about RP's military support is wrong. If you feel differently, quote me on where I said what you are claiming was my point. It was never my point, because what I've written here is and always will be clear and precise.

Part of your counter-point makes sense, and I've already agreed with you that the military overall is not political and does not engage in political support for presidential candidates. I've already agreed with you that a majority of the military is politically apathetic, are you claiming I challenged you on that point? I was immediately in agreement with you, so I can't understand where this resistance from you is coming. Possibly from arguments with other people you label RP slobknobbers? and you are just rushing to judgement about what I believe and what I represent? I have no idea...

The FEC link speaks for itself, I really don't need to explain it to your or anyone else any further.

Honestly this whole military thing was never even part of my original point that RP isn't fringe. It's a petty thing you happen to be picking on because I think you don't want to respond to anything else I've brought up. Maybe your sticking with what you feel you know best since you have experience in the military and you think you have some sort of credibility on that front. I'd still like to hear you explain how Ron Paul's suggested monetary policies would destroy the dollar, and how the Federal Reserve's policies haven't over the past 60 years. I'd also like to hear you explain a lot of the other stuff you threw out there so wildly, but the only person here that is responsible for proving his points is me obviously. And when I attempt to prove them, my sources are bullshit and my points get incredibly distorted...

[CILONE/SK]

"The FEC link speaks for itself, I really don't need to explain it to your or anyone else any further."

You are full of bullshit and a lier. The link has nothing to do with what you have said and you know it.

"That was never the point I was trying to make, my point was simply that the military overwhelmingly supports Ron Paul over every other GOP candidate."

That was your point, because if it was not, why even bring it up??? 172 people is nothing, it is not even a statistical deviant. You were just throwing RP bullshit out there to con people who will not look up your bullshit.

"Honestly this whole military thing was never even part of my original point that RP isn't fringe. It's a petty thing you happen to be picking on because I think you don't want to respond to anything else I've brought up"

You failed to make your point with the fringe thing and provided no "real" arguments about why he was not fringe. Also, i have addressed every thing you have brought up and provided valid arguments against them. You just can not hold your own.

"I'd still like to hear you explain how Ron Paul's suggested monetary policies would destroy the dollar, and how the Federal Reserve's policies haven't over the past 60 years."

This is what you have always tried to steer the argument towards and you get mad because I do not fall for it. the reason i will not discuss it, is because your side has only hypotheticals and nothing historically to prove anything. There is nothing to argue against, so I do not bother. Also, all you will do is cut and paste from the on RP website.

"And when I attempt to prove them, my sources are bullshit and my points get incredibly distorted..."

Because your sources are Youtube videos that are RP campaign materials and FEC links that do not show anything related to what you say they do.

Zig = continual failure.

[Zig]

smh whatever guy

[CILONE/SK]

^hahahaha, you have nothing,

Go away.

[angelofdeath]

You failed to make your point with the fringe thing and provided no "real" arguments about why he was not fringe. Also, i have addressed every thing you have brought up and provided valid arguments against them. You just can not hold your own.


i dont think there is any denying that in todays world, the view of true limited government is 'fringe.' but look at the implications of this. its a sad day when quoting the very law of the land as stated in the bill of rights is considered 'fringe.' this shows how far down the road to serfdom the US is. consider what created this country. the freest people on earth rebelled against 'tyranny' that any libertarian today would DIE to live under. these people were taxed at something like 1% of gdp. and outside cities, laws were largely unenforceable. you could easily escape and evade, move to new territory and live free. living in a state less section of america was not only achievable, it was reality for thousands of frontier folk. and since the government was insignificant at this time, the gdp wasnt comprised of the phony numbers we have today which include government spending as some sort of productive good. consider that this country was created by resistance to its central government, secession from it, and using the combat triad to achieve this freedom. this is literally what created the nation state today known as the US. yet, if someone merely mentions this, they are branded an 'extremist.'

point being, its a sad state of affairs when the exact ideals, beliefs and policies which created this country are 'fringe' or 'radical' or 'extremist.' when in reality, the beliefs held by many if not most in this country are some where in the ideological spectrum, between mitt romney/sarah palin and hillary/obama. so the term 'fringe' isnt the most descriptive. but what does it really mean to be 'extreme?' it means that you wont compromise. if means that you hold to various principles and wont give them up. you cling to what is honorable. what is 'extreme' in various other situations? lets take murder. i'd be labeled an 'extremist' because i think all murder is evil, whether its done by government, a criminal or whatever. whether its by a predator drone or a wiffle ball bat. i'd rather stick with the extremists, than the 'moderates.'

i missed the whole argument about RP and the military and dont really see a need to go back and go over it, but im assuming its based on some semantical error on either side. i dont think there has been any denying that RP received the most MONEY from individual soldiers atleast in the last race (not sure about this one) which would also lend one to state that the 'military' backs RP the most, as far as putting their money where their mouths are.

This is what you have always tried to steer the argument towards and you get mad because I do not fall for it. the reason i will not discuss it, is because your side has only hypotheticals and nothing historically to prove anything. There is nothing to argue against, so I do not bother. Also, all you will do is cut and paste from the on RP website.

the austrian business cycle theory not only has 100% correct theories on these issues, it has all of history on its side to prove them.
to deny this is to simply not understand one lick of economics.

[CILONE/SK]

So you would want to go back to the days when America was founded? Tell me how does it feel not to use anything that was funded by our government? Roads, sewers, I can go on and on. Because if you use that stuff and you are advocating for a so-called free nation, that makes you a hypocrite. I really like how you changed "fringe" to "extreme" and then made a extereme point of using murder to back up what you are saying. Too bad " fringe" is the right word and the word that fits RP. If a majority of Americans fall within a political boundary, and RP knobslobbers fall out side of that, they are fringe and no matter how much you try to change the argument, "fringe" is the right word to use. And since RP advocates for us to default on the debt, which would leave an untold many of people without jobs and the ability to provide for their families, I will call him and you un-American and against all that America stands for. I already think you are a hypocrite based on your extreme stance against murder and you owning weapons that are only for that purpose. See how easy it is to make extreme statements like you are so fond of doing. Government of that era would be out of place today as the tarriffs and scientific knowledge of that era.

As for the military, if you think that a maximum of 172 service members out of over a million, donating money to RP means that the military supports him, you are wrong. If you can not see the numbers for what they are, you are severly blinded.

It is kind of hard to counter your point about Austrian economics when you do not say anything except that it is 100% correct. I can counter and say that it is 100% wrong and not provide anything to back that up, just like you did, but I will ask you to show me one comparable nation in this world that has a economy based on Austrian economics that is succeeding? Verbal hypothetical arguments are always easy to use, because they are just opinions, but when you actually have to use real world situations, most of those hypothetical arguments do not hold up.


I am on my phone, so excuse any typos.

[CILONE/SK]

I almost fell for what peoPle like you try to do, which is change the subject or narrowly define the argument to fit your cut and paste agendas.

How about instead of arguing about Austrian economics, we talk about RP and his views on the economics of America and not on some Austrian economist who has no play in the policies of present day America?

You fuckers sure are tricky and try to switch the arguments to something that does not apply and you can easily defend because it is all hypotectical/opinion.

[angelofdeath]

So you would want to go back to the days when America was founded?
Tell me how does it feel not to use anything that was funded by our government? Roads, sewers, I can go on and on. Because if you use that stuff and you are advocating for a so-called free nation, that makes you a hypocrite.


this statement and logic is extremely troubling.
do i want to return to 18th century life? no. do i wish people lived by the non aggression principle and lived under a non tyrannical government? yes. do i think that living under an essentially non binding grossly less tyrannical (by many magnitudes) government as it was in 1774 would be better than living under the largest government in the history of the world? i think you can answer this question for yourself.

you are making a few false assumptions. most notably that the government is responsible for all human progress, which is absolute nonsense. government didnt give us the personal computer, the iphone, indoor plumbing or air conditioning.

you see, it is the principles of liberty that dont need to change. society can and does.
for instance, the principle of liberty expressed in the first amendment protects free speech. there is no further elaboration needed. you and i both know that only hand cranked printing presses existed in the 18th century, yet the same principle that protected that is protecting speech printed off on an electronic printing press, or typed on a computer today.


the other part of your post that is based on faulty logic is that you neglect to address the fact that one does not have a choice whether to use private roads, sewers if they live in a city (i have septic), even down to using cash. why? governments hold a monopoly on roads. governments hold monopolies on waste water services. it is illegal to transact in anything but federal reserve notes. can you really be considered a hypocrite for advocating freedom while you are forced to live under another type of system? i think not. are any of the other myriad of groups advocating change, all 'hypocrites' if they are still forced to live under the existing system?

I really like how you changed "fringe" to "extreme" and then made a extereme point of using murder to back up what you are saying. Too bad " fringe" is the right word and the word that fits RP.


fringe and extreme in these cases are essentially synonymous. and you have continually called me an extremist and fringe in your same arguments and used them interchangeably.

but obviously you didnt read what i wrote. i agreed with you that RP is 'fringe.' that is because americans want government to run their lives. RP doesnt. but i think it is folly to deny that he has interjected lots of issues that concern the 'fringe' into the daily debate on CNN, FOX, etc. you never heard any one talk about the FED, monetary policy, etc. before 2007/08


And since RP advocates for us to default on the debt, which would leave an untold many of people without jobs and the ability to provide for their families, I will call him and you un-American and against all that America stands for.

you sound like sean hannity.
this is spin at its best.
if you owe someone a million dollars and your income is 100K. does it make any sense to go and borrow more money to pay back a debt? and if you do this, how does it make your situation any better?
since when did america stand for the USG holding 70 trillion, 4 TIMES THE WORLD GDP, in debt and unfunded liabilities. do you realize that every single american has a debt burden of something in the neighborhood of 300K just to pay off the deficit? this is normal? you cannot solve a debt and spending problem by more debt and spending. you only multiply the problems.

it seems as though, a debt this high is extreme. but to question it and say..'gee, im PREEEEETTY sure we arent going to be able to pay that back....' a person such as my self is labeled as 'extreme.'

I already think you are a hypocrite based on your extreme stance against murder and you owning weapons that are only for that purpose. See how easy it is to make extreme statements like you are so fond of doing.


haha.
are you really that blinded by your partisan nature that you cannot distinguish the difference between MURDER and SELF FRICKING DEFENSE? no where have i stated i was against all violence, i am merely against initiated force not in self defense. do you understand the difference between murder and self defense? you see, if someone tries to kill me with a .45, i'd sure like to have my .45 to try to shoot him. there is this thing called 'justifiable homicide.' that means, if someone tries to kill me, i am within my rights to kill him in self defense.

As for the military, if you think that a maximum of 172 service members out of over a million, donating money to RP means that the military supports him, you are wrong. If you can not see the numbers for what they are, you are severly blinded.

i dont tend to say the military supports ron paul. what is undeniable that of the people that gave money to political candidates, RP got the most donations.
say what you will about the rest, i could really care less.
i have trouble believing a guy that is essentially against everything the modern interventionist military stands for would be supported by them. so say what you will about me. i think we agree on this point, even though you seem to just wanting to argue about nothing.


It is kind of hard to counter your point about Austrian economics when you do not say anything except that it is 100% correct. I can counter and say that it is 100% wrong and not provide anything to back that up, just like you did, but I will ask you to show me one comparable nation in this world that has a economy based on Austrian economics that is succeeding? Verbal hypothetical arguments are always easy to use, because they are just opinions, but when you actually have to use real world situations, most of those hypothetical arguments do not hold up.

the ATBC is the only theory that has successfully and sufficiently explained the panics and depressions present in the economy.

do you also believe that we have to 'test' the theory of gravity? or do you acknowledge that it is correct? you understand, gravity is a theory, correct?

austrian economics is not a system, it is a school of thought. its simply the STUDY of human action. it is a normative science, it is not linked to politics. you can use austrian economics for good or bad. for instance, austrian theory merely states that government manipulation of credit, the monetary unit, etc will cause the business cycle. it doesnt say that the government must cease this activity. you could theoretically be an austrian economics understanding nazi and use the truths espoused by austrian theory to crash the economy.

to merely show that excessive money printing and credit will wreck and economy, take a peak at zimbabwe. printing money is inflation. one of its consequences is rising prices and a devalued monetary unit. which is why zimbabwe has billion dollar notes and people taking wheel barrows of this stuff to go buy a loaf of bread. this is simple austrian theory and economics 101... printing money results in it being devalued. and it is being illustrated for all to see.

[Decyferon]

I sometimes think America should default, then everyone would finally realise how fucked up the situation would get for them, and it would be a great slap in the face of the tea party extremists who seem hell bent on screwing over America.

People dont seem to understand it will have a worldwide effect and good luck to America getting any kind of credit facilities at a decent rate if your credit rating gets downgraded, and that will then affect everry American with loans, mortgages etc.

If you think a default is the best idea then you are frankly not looking at the bigger picture. Your country would be deemed as more worthless than Greece, who hassnt yet defaulted because the Euro cuurency countries are fighting to stop the same thing happening to the Euro zone.

[angelofdeath]

I sometimes think America should default, then everyone would finally realise how fucked up the situation would get for them, and it would be a great slap in the face of the tea party extremists who seem hell bent on screwing over America.


i tend to sort sympathize with the first part of your post. it would show everyone how much debt we are in. it would show everyone the reality of the situation. however i think you are drawing the wrong conclusion. am i right in assuming that you think we should just keep borrowing forever and forever ad infinitum and never stop? do you run your household like this?

i'll be honest and go out on a limb here and say that i dont think anyone is 'hell bent' on 'screwing over' anyone in this situation. its not the INTENTION, but it is the unintended consequences of fiscal recklessness. no matter what the outcome is, it will be disastrous. if the US borrows more money, that means more taxes taken by force and it means increasing the debt burden on every american. therefore setting the stage for a bigger crisis in a few more years. it also means the FED is going to print more money, therefore lowering the value of those bills in circulation, which in turn will affect the poor more than anyone. imagine if the poor are now dealing with paying 10-15 dollars a gallon for milk?

the US will default one way or another. there is no possible way to pay the debt back. they will not cut spending. governments always grow until the point of collapse. the question is do we want to delay the inevitable of the debt crushing everyone? or do we want to deal with it now? put this in alcoholic terms. should you just quit now and deal with the consequences of being an alcoholic or should you keep on drinking in order for you to keep doing what you are doing?

the real question is whether the US defaults on its debts now (no way they can pay it back, because they wont cut spending) or will it default in the form of paying back its debts in less valuable money? they already did this in 1971 when they closed the gold window. how will this affect the poor, or say the retired on social security when their checks cant buy anything because the value of their money is worthless?

as far as im concerned, i say keep on borrowing, keep on spending. USG: collapse.

and good luck to America getting any kind of credit facilities at a decent rate if your credit rating gets downgraded,

this is probably the best argument FOR default.
the last thing the USG needs to be able to do is borrow more money.
you cant fix an alcohol problem by continually drinking more alcohol.

If you think a default is the best idea then you are frankly not looking at the bigger picture. Your country would be deemed as more worthless than Greece, who hassnt yet defaulted because the Euro cuurency countries are fighting to stop the same thing happening to the Euro zone.


you are actually convincing me that default IS the best idea. i say let the USG go bankrupt, hopefully it will shut down and stop tyrannizing the populace. let them fall. :D

but in reality, you are missing the forest for the trees. the USG does not 'default' if they are not allowed to borrow more money. they bring in enough money each money to pay the military, pay social security, AND TO SERVICE THE DEBT. etc. the problem is, no one will allow the bloated parts of government to die on the vine.
people say its crazy if we just capped spending at LAST years level. that is to extreme. people say its extreme to eliminate the income tax. but the truth is, if income taxes were gone tomorrow, the federal government would still be the size it was under the last year of bill clinton. and need i remind you this was still the biggest government on earth. there is absolutely no reason why we cannot start bringing home troops from around the world, stop bombing libya, and cut away the useless waste and departments that do nothing but oppress the people and distort markets. we'd still live under the biggest government in the world.

[Decyferon]

It wont just be the government that wont have credit facilities, American banks wont be able to borrow to help small businesses, people needing new homes, it isnt something that will just affect the governments ability to obtain credit.

Im not saying the government doesnt need to cut back on spending, it completely does, but the way to raise capital is remove all the Bush tax breaks for higher earners and corporations. The Republican option puts all the pressure on the lower and middle classes and that isnt fair when the top 2% get everything and dont give anything back.

You actually had a surplus before Bush came into power so after the Republicans fuck up the country they then refuse to come to a universal approach to correcting what they essentially started. Not to say Obama hasn't been spending too much as well, he isn't blameless but he took on a sinking ship.

with a default they will still be able to borrow money, but the rates at which the government and US financial institutions get money would be horrible rates and that will ultimately get passed on to the American public, a default really is not the best idea.

[CILONE/SK]

Your whole argument is based on opinions, which are yours and what you believe. There is nothing to suggest that your opinions are right or wrong, since they are founded on hypothetical situations. I can say the opposite is what will happen, but there is nothing to say that I am right.

To suggest that there should be less government because that is what was in place in the past, is being extremely naive to the complexities of today's world. There us nothing to say that big business will not ruin America with it's unbridled capitalistic urges. That is what I think will take place if we do as your kind wants us to do. Can I prove it? No, but you can not prove it will not happen either. That is my point, we can go round and round in this topic, but without substaniative proove or theory, it is all based on hypotheticals and opinions. And austrian economics are surprisingly void of any kind of mathematical equations compared to other economical theories.

You like to lump people into categories like you saying I watch hanity, but the truth is I have never seen one thing from him. I have tOld you that before.

I do not think people like you who support the debt ceiling being raised will ever be able to understand the point of, what good is balanced budget or anything else, when people are dying because they can not get medical care, they are starving because they can not afford food, and the unemployed or those working for slave wages are suffering just because companies can do make more money then they will ever need.

BTW I will never agree with you about the weapons thing. No need to continue that.

[CILONE/SK]

The above was written before you and defy started talking. Hard to stay on top of threads from a phone.

But AOD. I do think you can not see the forest for the trees if yOu honestly think the best option is to default.

[Zig]

Tell me how does it feel not to use anything that was funded by our government? Roads, sewers, I can go on and on. Because if you use that stuff and you are advocating for a so-called free nation, that makes you a hypocrite.


Should we also be thanking the government for the sun coming up in the morning? It isn't necessary to worship government because we use the services they provide with the tax money that we give them. Let's not also forget how poor most of the roads and sewers are in urban areas, and how much better our infrastructure and nation could be overall if our tax money were used for better purposes rather than military, policing, and security.


And since RP advocates for us to default on the debt, which would leave an untold many of people without jobs and the ability to provide for their families, I will call him and you un-American and against all that America stands for.



I sometimes think America should default, then everyone would finally realise how fucked up the situation would get for them, and it would be a great slap in the face of the tea party extremists who seem hell bent on screwing over America.

People dont seem to understand it will have a worldwide effect and good luck to America getting any kind of credit facilities at a decent rate if your credit rating gets downgraded, and that will then affect everry American with loans, mortgages etc.

If you think a default is the best idea then you are frankly not looking at the bigger picture. Your country would be deemed as more worthless than Greece, who hassnt yet defaulted because the Euro cuurency countries are fighting to stop the same thing happening to the Euro zone.


RP advocates for defaulting on our debt now to save ourselves from a larger, more significant, farther reaching, and more devastating crisis further down the road that would be inevitable. We aren't safe from the blowback that will occur due to the irresponsibile behaviour of our government and the fed when it comes to our monetary policy. His suggestion is to allow a default so that we can withstand the brunt of whatever crisis may occur, and work on reforming our monetary policy to better reflect what is written in the constitution and to revitalize our economy from the ground up rather than patching up a failing system. It's the same kind of argument that was made when we were deciding whether or not to bail out the banks in 2008. Three years later, and our problems still aren't fixed due to those decisions.

I agree with you Decy that it will have a worldwide effect, and that Americans will suffer, but I don't think that RP or anyone who supports him isn't sentimental about the seriosuness of the situation. There are however, choices and decisions that we must make as a society to get to the root of the problems that are causing instability in our global markets, and we have to truly understand what is causing that instability for us to solve those problems. Today in Washington, the struggle is between those who have differing opinions on what the causes are for the problems that are occurring. You're absolutely correct with your predictions of how devastating a defaut could be, so now take that scenario and imagine what could possibly occur if we patch up the problem with quick fixes now and further down the road we face more crisis that is unable to be fixed with quick solutions. Now our global market will be facing an even wider reaching, more devastating crisis that could rapidly deteriorate and become uncontrollable. We have to face the real causes of this instability now before it's too late.

[CILONE/SK]

^ did you copy and paste that from an RP campaign flyer?

So you think it is ok to have millions of middle class and lower people suffer because we should confront this now and not later? You really believe that it is better to not revoke the bush tax breaks and default in the debt then to come up with a real working solution?

It amazes me how you can say you understand what a default will do to the world and then say that you want this to come about because the alternative might be worse.

Stay home playing video games kid, while me and the grown ups discuss real issues.

[Decyferon]

the thing is it isnt about quick fixes, that is all the republican party are talking about at the moment, You need to remove ALL tax cuts that the bush administration put in place for high earners and companies. Cuts need to be made in government spending, there is no reasson for the US military to be so large, they could cut down spending on that, also there are government programmes that arent needed that can be cut I'm sure, as long as you aren't making cuts that will affect the poorest and most needy. It wont be easy for everyone, but I don't se why the rich and huge companies should be able to get away scott free while THEY expect the rest of you to suffer.

[CILONE/SK]

^word

[Zig]

the thing is it isnt about quick fixes, that is all the republican party are talking about at the moment, You need to remove ALL tax cuts that the bush administration put in place for high earners and companies. Cuts need to be made in government spending, there is no reasson for the US military to be so large, they could cut down spending on that, also there are government programmes that arent needed that can be cut I'm sure, as long as you aren't making cuts that will affect the poorest and most needy. It wont be easy for everyone, but I don't se why the rich and huge companies should be able to get away scott free while THEY expect the rest of you to suffer.

I understand, but the cuts are not going to solve the problem. Are you grasping the enormity of what is occurring in the financial markets? The country will eventually default due to the increased inflation of the dollar, it's almost a foregone-conclusion. We can raise the debt limit, which will probably pass, but the bills will be paid with bad money so in essence we as a nation are constantly defaulting on our debt. That's why nations like China have come out on record as having considered the U.S to have already defaulted.

This is why RP, and I'm glad this discussion is happening in this thread, but this is why he advocates that the philosophy of government in this country has to change in order for us to fix our economic problems. Have you listened to Ron Paul when he says this? In order to sustain a healthy economy in this country we have to define what the role of government should be, what the role of government currently is, and debate these fundamental issues that are at the root of our economic problems. No one in Washington is even interested in discussing these topics, and that's why we aren't coming to any real solutions on what needs to be done.

If we're interested in avoiding a default for the well being of the average citizen, we could also follow Dennis Kucinich's advice on the matter:


"Here is what we should do to avoid default: increase the debt ceiling with no strings attached.
"Here is how to get out of debt- End the war -- save One Trillion over ten years. Repeal tax cuts to the wealthy- Save another trillion.
"Medicare for All: end the four hundred billion yearly subsidies for health insurance industry.
"Renegotiate trade agreements with workers rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles- save millions of jobs and billions of dollars.
"The Fed creates money out of nothing and gives it to banks. Why should our country go into debt, borrowing from banks when we have the constitutional power to create money and invest in jobs?
"We can have another New Deal where we put millions to work rebuilding our bridges and transportation system.
"We can have a Works Green Administration where NASA is the incubator of jobs designing and engineering wind and solar micro technologies for private sector manufacturing, distribution, installation and maintenance in millions of homes, saving money, energy and protecting the environment.
"We are the United States of America, the greatest country on earth. We envision wealth. We don't default. We create wealth. We don't default. We build wealth. We don't default."


I'm a middle class citizen, my family doesn't have much money. I work and give money to my family in order for my parents to be alright, and I've lived in what would be considered poor neighborhoods my entire life. There isn't much that I don't understand about how a default would effect me and my family, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my liberty and my freedom for my well-being, especially when I know that further down the road I will be in the exact same situation or possibly much worse.

[CILONE/SK]

You obviously do not understand the consequences of a default if you think it is a better alternative to another course of action.

To advocate a course of action that will cause so much harm to the poor and middle class is idiotic.

What good is the balanced budget if people are suffering?

[Zig]

yea yea buddy i don't understand anything, go play my video-games, i heard you like twenty times in this thread. it's getting old.

[CILONE/SK]

Because you are a retard.

You are saying that we should drive our car into a wall and wreck it and possiblly kill people in it, because maybe at some point we might run out of gas for the car.

why the fuck would we willfully inflict such a damaging thing as a default intentionally, when their are other options available?

[Decyferon]

I do understand the enormity of the situation this is why the debt ceiling should be raised now so you dont default now, you then remove all those tax breaks which will start generating income into the governments bank, you cut programmes which will then be less tax payer money going out and remaining in, you also cut spending in areas like the military, keeping mooney in the bank.

All of that is a whole lot more productive than defaulting then trying to deal with it afterr your credit with the whole world has gone to complete shit.

I seriously don't think that people realise the impact of a default and down grading of credit rating (not you Zig, just a lot of America in general). It isn't so much the default that is a problem it is the AAA credit rating down grade that will kill you in the long run.

[Zig]

I do understand the enormity of the situation this is why the debt ceiling should be raised now so you dont default now, you then remove all those tax breaks which will start generating income into the governments bank, you cut programmes which will then be less tax payer money going out and remaining in, you also cut spending in areas like the military, keeping mooney in the bank.

All of that is a whole lot more productive than defaulting then trying to deal with it afterr your credit with the whole world has gone to complete shit.

I seriously don't think that people realise the impact of a default and down grading of credit rating (not you Zig, just a lot of America in general). It isn't so much the default that is a problem it is the AAA credit rating down grade that will kill you in the long run.

I will agree with you that something should be done for the short-term, in recognition that we don't want people all around the world to suffer, but we also need to directly confront the reasons behind why we continue to face these enormous economic crises where we are put on the brink of disaster continuously, or it will continue to occur until we no longer have any option to fix it for the short-term. Most of Washington doesn't want to address those issues, and RP is one of the very few who talks about them openly. If you can admit that, than I can admit that something should definitely be done to alleviate the current crisis and we can then work on instituting policies that revert our economy back to a healthy situation which respects the law and respects our constitution. Like I said, we should listen to RP when he brings up the fact that no one in Washington wants to discuss what the role of government should be, and what the philosophy of government should be. These discussions/debates would lead to real solutions for the instability we face.

And you're probably correct about your statement, I really don't think a lot of Americans understand or comprehend just how serious the situation is around them at all.

[CILONE/SK]

RP has stated that he will not vote for any bill that will raise the debt level. This just shows that he is ok with Americans suffering.

Letting us default is on par or worse then any terrorist attack that America has dealt with so far, when you take into consideration the amount of people it would hurt.

[angelofdeath]

Your whole argument is based on opinions, which are yours and what you believe. There is nothing to suggest that your opinions are right or wrong, since they are founded on hypothetical situations. I can say the opposite is what will happen, but there is nothing to say that I am right.


how is the accurate prediction of the housing collapse and dot com collapse by the likes of peter schiff and others of the austrian strain, 'hypothetical' situations? what more proof do you want? the examples that prove basic economic theory are countless. nixon installed price controls on gas, we had shortages. FED inflates, our dollar declines.

very few except the die hard marxist types are going to actually say that american rose to the top of the food chain in productivity and living standards because we had TO MUCH GOVERNMENT. it is precisely that we had a largely free economy that the country has created the wealth that it has. capitalism works. the examples of how it works are literally everywhere around you.

To suggest that there should be less government because that is what was in place in the past, is being extremely naive to the complexities of today's world. There us nothing to say that big business will not ruin America with it's unbridled capitalistic urges.

big business is just as anti capitalist as you are. they want bail outs, subsidies, monopoly privileges, protectionism, and the rest. this is not capitalism, this is corporatism. the market is much harsher on business than government. imagine if we had capitalism, all the big businesses that are 'unbridled' would no longer be bailed out and propped up by the FDIC, the bail outs, and the federal regulatory apparatus. big agri would no longer be protected from competition from smaller producers. their subsidies would be gone. the reason why most of these 'unbridled' businesses have gotten so big is because of government, not because of the market.

And austrian economics are surprisingly void of any kind of mathematical equations compared to other economical theories.

that is because austrianism studies human action, not hypothetical controlled situations on a chalk board where you need a graduate degree in math to figure them out. all those equations teach you is what will happen on that chalk board, not in the market place.

You like to lump people into categories like you saying I watch hanity, but the truth is I have never seen one thing from him. I have tOld you that before.

never said you watch him, just that you are using his reasoning. 'you are anti american if you disagree with me.'


I do not think people like you who support the debt ceiling being raised will ever be able to understand the point of, what good is balanced budget or anything else, when people are dying because they can not get medical care, they are starving because they can not afford food, and the unemployed or those working for slave wages are suffering just because companies can do make more money then they will ever need.

BTW I will never agree with you about the weapons thing. No need to continue that.

how exactly does the government, the largest most intrusive government EVER, not being allowed to borrow more money equate to people starving in the street?
the fedgov brings in 200 billion a fucking month. all they have to do is stop engaging in your peace keeping action in libya for a couple weeks and there is nothing to worry about. numerous people have proven that if we dont raise the debt ceiling, we have enough money to service the debt, send out social security checks and pay the soldiers. there is NO reason do default. if they do, they are choosing to fund research on snails in new mexico instead of servicing the debt or building bridges to no where.

your basic hysteria behind your points on this thread are that there is no waste in government, that all government is necessary and that we need more. this is not the case. we can trim atleast 1 trillion of the debt and no one in the US would even notice. we'd still be living under the biggest most intrusive government in the history of the world.

i figured you couldnt understand self defense vs murder. most libs think that the mere possession of a firearm=murder. so its not surprising.

[CILONE/SK]

And you're probably correct about your statement, I really don't think a lot of Americans understand or comprehend just how serious the situation is around them at all.

You say this, yet you want America to default because you want to deal with the problem before something else happens???

Like I said, you do not know what you are talking about and you are a retard.

[Zig]

RP has stated that he will not vote for any bill that will raise the debt level. This just shows that he is ok with Americans suffering.

Letting us default is on par or worse then any terrorist attack that America has dealt with so far, when you take into consideration the amount of people it would hurt.

And this is why I don't agree with RP 100% of the time like you are claiming. I completely understand why he would take that position though, it reflects his voting record accurately. He is a man of precision. Your second statement about the terrorist attack thing though is really an overstatement, and even if he did vote to not raise the debt ceiling it isn't RP's fault that we are in the situation we are in currently so you can't place the blame of a default on his shoulders. RP's policies did not put us into the economic situation we are in.

[CILONE/SK]

AOD. You make good points, but for me to provide substance to refute them, I will have to do so from my home computer and not my phone. I will be glad to when I get home or tomorrow. Unlike Zig, at least you give me something of substance to post against.

[Zig]

ahhaha get off my dick damn

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

You obviously do not understand the consequences of a default if you think it is a better alternative to another course of action.

Why don't you outline the consequences and other courses of action, and compare them to what would happen if we default, o' wise one.

To advocate a course of action that will cause so much harm to the poor and middle class is idiotic.

What is already happening to the middle class? It's already being destroyed. What do you think happened with the bailouts? How about the unemployment level? Inflation?

What good is the balanced budget if people are suffering?

Dude there will always be suffering. No government policy or involvement will end this. Are you that delusional? Look at Katrina, look at how our government is handling the rescue workers that rushed down to ground zero to save people, only to be exposed to harmful chemicals that would slowly kill them years later, virtually being ignored.

Are you also implying that the end of America is a better solution than a portion of the population suffering? What would happen in a complete collapse? I would imagine much more wide scale suffering.

[CILONE/SK]

Zig he might not have caused them, but if he propels them, then he is just at fault. And if the default causes a depression, then it is definitely as much of a danger to America as a terrorist attack.

[angelofdeath]

the thing is it isnt about quick fixes, that is all the republican party are talking about at the moment, You need to remove ALL tax cuts that the bush administration put in place for high earners and companies. Cuts need to be made in government spending, there is no reasson for the US military to be so large, they could cut down spending on that, also there are government programmes that arent needed that can be cut I'm sure, as long as you aren't making cuts that will affect the poorest and most needy. It wont be easy for everyone, but I don't se why the rich and huge companies should be able to get away scott free while THEY expect the rest of you to suffer.

decy, i would respond to your other post, but this is getting to big to debate and im not sure how much further im going to debate it.. but....

i agree with you 100% the first place to cut is the military. the first thing we could do is stop the actions in libya, followed by bringing home troops from japan, germany, iraq, 'stan, etc. this would be an enormous benefit to the country. this wont happen. but even this wont even really address the problem. you could privatize and eliminate much of the federal government. they write literally 76,000 pages of laws PER YEAR. we have government agents shutting down kids lemonade stands and fining them. things are beyond out of control.

but the main point i wanted to address is the 'bush tax cuts.' eliminating the 'bush tax' cuts wouldnt even BEGIN to help solve this crisis. i fail to see how anyone keeping their own property is getting away 'scott free.' if i go to work and bring home my money, im not getting away with anything, i am within my rights. but this topic illustrates the main divide. the pro gov types think any means are ok as long as the end result is reached. crack a couple eggs to make an omelette type thinking. while i contend, you cannot violate someones rights to get what you want. we'll never agree on that so no use in trying.

the problem with not honestly addressing the debt issue is that it will NEVER get solved. all the cuts proposed have been on future spending INCREASES. nothing is actually cut. only in DC is a reduction in spending increases considered a CUT. the pols in DC are trying to balance the budget over 10-30 years. the problem is they wont be in office in 10-30 years. nothing binds future law makers. so any deal they come to to balance the budget over 10 years will NEVER happen. its a line in the sand right now. both sides should put up or shut up. republicans should not give in unless they get cuts. obama should find something to cut.
the problem is the pro gov types wont cut anything, even the most meaningless useless spending. the anti war crowd wont even think about voting to bring home the troops or cut funding. this is the situation we are in. nothing is going to fix anything.

the beauty for me is if they dont find anything to cut and keep stacking the house of cards, (debt) higher, they will collapse the government. this is probably the best outcome.

[angelofdeath]

Because you are a retard.

You are saying that we should drive our car into a wall and wreck it and possiblly kill people in it, because maybe at some point we might run out of gas for the car.

why the fuck would we willfully inflict such a damaging thing as a default intentionally, when their are other options available?

na, i think the analogy he is putting forth is more along these lines:

uncle sam is a heroine addict. addicted to debt. instead of addressing the problem of heroine addiction, the pro government types keep telling uncle sam to keep shooting dope. the people who want to solve the problem keep trying to take the heroine away. to 'raise the debt ceiling' is like giving the junky more dope

[angelofdeath]

* edit *
already covered this in a previous post

[CILONE/SK]

Lostbrain and the rest of you, to say that a default of our debt is a better alternative then the outcome of raising the debt ceiling is just plain dumb. There is no possible way the resulting interest raises, depression, and many other damaging problems it will cause, outweigh the issue of a higher debt level. To think so, just shows that you are not in touch with real world issues and are talking in hypotheticals only. If we are talk straight numbers, then you are right, we should let us default and grow strong again. But the problem is we are not just talking numbers and balance sheets, we are talking about people's life's. The damage a default will do to millions of people is not worth it if there are other options. To think that it is ok to write people lives off because we need to balance thE budget is a sign that no matter what anyone says, you will not see the light.

I hope each and every one of yOu who advocate not raising the budget feels the full effect of those decisions.

[CILONE/SK]

Also lostbrain, a default will be many times more damaging then Katrina and you bringing up Katrina shows you do not grasp the magnitude of a default.

[angelofdeath]

Lostbrain and the rest of you, to say that a default of our debt is a better alternative then the outcome of raising the debt ceiling is just plain dumb. There is no possible way the resulting interest raises, depression, and many other damaging problems it will cause, outweigh the issue of a higher debt level. To think so, just shows that you are not in touch with real world issues and are talking in hypotheticals only. If we are talk straight numbers, then you are right, we should let us default and grow strong again. But the problem is we are not just talking numbers and balance sheets, we are talking about people's life's. The damage a default will do to millions of people is not worth it if there are other options. To think that it is ok to write people lives off because we need to balance thE budget is a sign that no matter what anyone says, you will not see the light.

I hope each and every one of yOu who advocate not raising the budget feels the full effect of those decisions.


i could go on a tirade about how all these problems are problems caused by to much government. to much reliance on government. to much fiscal irresponsibility and a search for a government solution to everything, but im not.

the problem with your post is that you are assuming and drinking the koolaid by believing that the USG will not pay its debt if we dont allow it to borrow more. can we say ponzi scheme? since when hitting the limit on one credit card and opening a new account with a higher limit a solution to a debt problem? is the USG better off with more debt or less debt?

the other problem is, the USG gets 200 billion a month in $$$$. this is enough to cover everything considered essential including servicing the debt. we might have to lay off a few bureaucrats and allow them to find productive jobs at their market wage (below legislative minimum wage presumably) and we might have to stop lobbing bombs at civilians from predator drones, BUT the USG does not have to default.

im curious as to what you think would really happen if the US did default and how exactly this would affect me. please lay it out, should be an interesting read.

by not addressing this issue now, but not cutting spending, but keeping the charade going.... the catastrophe that is INEVITABLE due to government's fiscal recklessness, will be a true TEOTWAWKI situation, not just a simple situation of a lost job. we will have riots in the streets, break down of society, etc.
thankfully, im self reliant enough to have prepared for such situations. unlike most other sheeple. they would rather wait for their hand outs than to provide for themselves and take the necessary steps to be prepared for the inevitable.

[Zig]

stop being a retard aod

[CILONE/SK]

AOD, you are making my point, you are talking about the level of debt, when we should be talking about the damages of not raising the ceiling.

You have valid points, but can you say honestly that we should let the default happen in a few days?

[Decyferon]

AOD I know you hate taxes, Im more talking the taxes of the super rich corporations that get huge tax breaks, not to mention without taxes the US would be truely fuck with no way of generating any income and with your debt you would be screwed. I dont want this to descend into another pro/anti tax discussion though and I'm sure you don't either.

[CILONE/SK]

:lol: Zig, your mother is a whore.

[Decyferon]

I would also like to point out that as an outside observer I would actually like to see what would happen if a default happened, not to see the American people suffer but the repercusssions on government and business, however as a US default would indirectly affecct me I dont want it to happen.

pure voyeur status here haha

[angelofdeath]

AOD, you are making my point, you are talking about the level of debt, when we should be talking about the damages of not raising the ceiling.

You have valid points, but can you say honestly that we should let the default happen in a few days?

we have different opinions on the repercussions of a 'default.' i have the view, namely, that its all a charade. its nothing. all the 'essentials' will still be paid. spending levels will simply resort back to what they were when obama took office. i still thought government was INSANELY huge then. there is no real difference.

i dont really get what this deadline is all about anyway... from what im getting out of it, its more centered around vacation time (aug 2) than anything else. they just want to 'strike a deal' before they all get to go play golf.

but have no fear, you'll get your debt increase. the USG will borrow more money, they will shackle everyone to it with this debt, and future generations will be be living under this crushing weight.

maybe im just weird, but i've always thought that if i max out all my credit.... that the last thing i would do is try to get another credit account to pay off the previous debt i incurred. the first thing i would do is cut out all my needless spending. i'd pay down the debt, i wouldnt dig myself deeper.

the 'best' case on this would be simply that the US declares bankruptcy and starts over again. i dont think it is going to be this simple. there will be civil unrest and a depression wont even be the beginning of it. its just a matter of when, not if.

[angelofdeath]

AOD I know you hate taxes, Im more talking the taxes of the super rich corporations that get huge tax breaks, not to mention without taxes the US would be truely fuck with no way of generating any income and with your debt you would be screwed. I dont want this to descend into another pro/anti tax discussion though and I'm sure you don't either.

well, lets not forget that shareholders are essentially those with tax burdens. they get double taxed. they pay corporate taxes and then they half to pay taxes on their personal income/dividends/capital gains. and lets not forget that these 'corporations' merely arent just some separate entities from society. it would not surprise me that most corporation denouncing lefties with retirement accounts are all invested in these companies. and they'll have a fit if their retirement accounts go down in monetary value.

just an observation i'd like to throw out there.

but on the taxing tip, if the USG eliminated the federal income tax, the government would still have the same revenue we had the last year of the clinton adminstration/first year of bush's reign. its not as radical as it sounds

[CILONE/SK]

See AOD, that is why we will never agree. I think you view the debt as a simple checking account and that there are credits and debits, but I see it as so much more complex. I think I have told you before that I think you look at it to simplistically.

Either way, I am cool if you are and willing to agree to disagree.

It is Friday and I am done with work and about to go get a pint.

[angelofdeath]

its obvious we'll never agree, but i would like to hear what exactly you think is going to happen if they dont allow the USG to borrow 2 more trillion dollars. just to grasp how much money this is... there are 2 trillion seconds in 64,000 years. we are not talking chump change.

the problem with allowing government to continue to grow is that the government has already reached a gargantuan level. remember 'to big to fail?' the USG is the ultimate 'to big to fail.' to further stack the deck of cards will result in a much more harsh crash and collapse. this minor situation is nothing compared to what it will be if it continues longer. due to its behavior the fedgov will collapse in the biggest collectivist car crash in history. beleeee-dat.

and to touch on decy's point about raising taxes one last time....
if we raised taxes on the people making over 250K a year to a rate of 100%, we would barely fund the budget for 4-6 MONTHS.

[CILONE/SK]

Phones about to die and I am heading out, will elaborate tomorrow on that.

[Decyferon]

AOD it isnt about raising taxes it is about removing the taxx breaks that these companies and very rich people have that mean they pay less tax than most, I have not once mentioned raising existing taxes just to remove those extra advantages the very rich few have taken advantage of for years.

[angelofdeath]

AOD it isnt about raising taxes it is about removing the taxx breaks that these companies and very rich people have that mean they pay less tax than most, I have not once mentioned raising existing taxes just to remove those extra advantages the very rich few have taken advantage of for years.

same thing goes....
removing a few 'loopholes' would amount to an insignificant amount. probably less than taxing all people making over 250K a year @ 100%.

you mentioned previously that we need to repeal the bush tax cuts... which is why i mentioned that if we made the tax rate 100% on people making over 250K a year.... we'd only fund the government for 4-6 months.

this is simply to illustrate we need to CUT and we need to cut DRASTICALLY. at least 10% right off the top of everything ASAP

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Dude there are plenty of things that can happen, I'm not saying that the default option is the only option, but I am certainly not a fan of raising the debt ceiling because that is temporary relieve, that will only prolong the recovery.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

But AOD people are SUFFERING!

[Zig]

yo it's been like 2 days bro where are your responses you can't have a life.... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[CILONE/SK]

its obvious we'll never agree, but i would like to hear what exactly you think is going to happen if they dont allow the USG to borrow 2 more trillion dollars. just to grasp how much money this is... there are 2 trillion seconds in 64,000 years. we are not talking chump change..

AOD, if we default on the bills that the US owes, numerous things will happen. But lets first understand that we are not necessarily borrowing money to pay for future items, this is money that we need to pay for things already voted on or legally incurred, like bonds. Our government has already said they will pay these things and now, some of the government, RP knobslobbers like Zig and teabaggers want to renig on their obligations. If we do not pay our bills, similar things will happen as if a regular person does not pay their bills. Credit worthiness goes down, which makes it hard to get more credit, which is not a realistic thing to strive for, because wether you like it or not, the government has obligations to the people to pay for things and it can not do that on just taxes alone. This downgrade will lower the value of the dollar, which will have worldwide implications. All of a sudden, when the dollar goes down, many people will find themselves with alot the same amount of money they had before, but it will be worth alot less and it will not be able to go as far as it could before, which will mean that not only can those people buy less, but that also equals a less amount of money going into businesses, which will then equal job losses due to lower profits. It just keeps building on itself. It will lead to a depression until another country, like china injects its currency to fill the gap from the dollar.

Another things that will happen, is that medicare/medicaid and social security will not be funded or at a minimum, it will be funded nowhere near the level that is needed. There are many many people that are relying on these items to actually survive. I am not talking about able bodied people, I am talking about elderly people that are not able to work or support themselves anymore and people with mental and physical problems, that are also not able to work. The government has promised that they will take care of these people and if they renig on that promise, it will actually cause some people to die, and that is not an exaggeration, it is reality.

The bottom line is that people will be out of jobs, have less money to support themselves and everyone will be stuck in a cycle that keeps building on itself. It will cause great hardships for at least a few generations of Americans.

I am still a firm believer that a balanced budget or a government that spends within its means does not mean shit, if the people are unemployed, hungry, and have no hope to better themselves, which will be what happens if we do not pay the bills that we legally incurred and have already voted on once before. I think it is bullshit that we have to vote on the debt ceiling for items that have already gone through congress. I wish the president did invoke the 14th amendment and let it go all the way to the supreme court.

the reason we will never see what will happen is because they will vote on it tomorrow and iot will pass, because the clear headed people in congress realize what will happen and also the Republicans know that the independents will look directly at the teabggaers when they do not get their healthcare or SS. Like I said, a balanced budget or surplus do not mean shit, if the people are not taken care of like they were told they would be. People are funny, they love waving a flag and standing up for a cause, until it affects them, then they will flip flop and turn against you quick. How many RP knobslobbers or teabaggers will still be saying the same old things when they do not get their retirement or SS checks and can not pay their rent or mortgage? How about if they get sick and there is nothing they can do to pay for medical care? Do you think that they will support the politicians that allowed the default to happen when they are personally suffering, regardless of how much they supported it before when it did not affect them?



Zig, I have a job and have to work and pay my bills to include a mortgage, unlike you who lives at home with your parents and plays video games, because you are a kid and do not have a full time job yet. So, go back to your RP youtube hunt and let us know of all the biased info you find and believe. How is the FEC link working for you? Are you able to figure out how it backs your point up yet???? You are a joke who can not hold your own in any kind of discussion. So, go away, punk.

[Zig]

yoooourr retarrddeddd broooo... punk.. retard... idiot... back up your points wheres the back up? wheres the facts? thats all opinions bro, opinionnnsss rofl

clear headed people in congress rofl thats a good one

[Zig]

Ron Paul: Of course, that’s why I want to stop the borrowing. I think it’s irresponsible to keep borrowing. If you have a debt problem, how do you solve the debt problem by raising the debt? See, that doesn’t make any sense to me, and it’s a spending problem and the Congress and the people don’t want us to really quit spending. Anytime you would have a token little cut, they yell and scream. So this crisis is going to evolve. I think everybody’s talking about default, but there’s not going to be any default in the sense that we’re not going to send the checks out and pay the interest; that’s not going to happen. Look at the bonds today, they did quite well, interest rates are going down, nobody’s worrying about it. But the default comes when we just print the money and pass it out, and the default comes because people are going to lose their purchasing power in the dollar, and that’s where the real problems come out.


CILONE = :confused: :confused: :confused:

[CILONE/SK]

Hahaha Zig = never has anything intelligent to say.

How about you actually get a real job and support yourself?

What is comical is that all you can do is cut and paste a RP speech instead of replying yourself, because you truly are that much of a RP bitch. How about you come back and tell me that you must cut your way out of a recession? because that is he is basically saying, and I will come right back at you with, we need to spend our way out of a recession. It is two different schools of thought and is another reason why me and AOD will never agree.

But your problem is that you actually do not have any original thoughts and are just another cut and paste RP knobslobber.

Are you able to actually come up with something that is not cut and pasted??

hahaha, I am still laughing over how much of a dumbass you really are.

[Zig]

last time i checked this thread was titled RON PAUL rofl

how do you know so much about me? my job, my habits, where i live, who i hang out with... pretty HILARIOUS how much you actually don't know. sooo judgmental you are... why do you try to make everything so personal? is it because you can't BACK UP YOUR POINTS. rofl.

all i'm asking is that you back up your points with facts, and if you can not do that... shutup and gtfo this thread. :lol:

Points you have yet to prove and back up with facts:

I think most of you have seriously lost touch with what this country represents. You ways will disenfranchise many Americans, for the benefit of a few.
You want to isolate America with your nonsense foreign policy.
You want to sell out America by letting corporations do anything they want with your "free market".
You want to let the most needy Americans go without help, with you insistence that private charity will be able to provide the level of help needed.
You want to destroy the dollar and the worlds economy by getting rid of the fed, returning to the gold standard, and not raising the debt ceiling to pay for stuff that has already been approved by congress. Although this will cause many, many Americans to lose their jobs and entering America into another depression.
Bottom line is that not a single thing that RP supports is based on reality and on hypotheticals that many experts disagree with.
You talk about founding fathers and freedom, but you are the people that the founding fathers would despise, because you are actively looking for ways to knock down our country and you are doing it under the guise of freedom an being a patriot.



Are you able to actually come up with something that is not cut and pasted??


You know what's also hilarious... you talk about how people on here can't articulate their own thoughts and how we're all a bunch of RP knobslobbers... but you go googling to search for other people's arguments and steal their very own words and writing to prove YOUR points, acting as if YOU created it. At least I am giving credit where credit is due. Nice internet plagiarism RETARDDDD LOL.


YOU
I oppose libertarianism because it ignores that the wealthy have a disproportionate level of influence on society and law already. The transition to a libertarian dystopia would further exacerbate this disparity of treatment. The elimination of those parts of the government most disparaged by libertarians would unduly and unfairly impact those parts of society least able to offset their loss. When this loss is coupled by the institution of a "fee for service" or voluntary tax structure (advocated by many libertarians) the net-net result is that the wealthy would have a disproportionate level of access to clean food, justice, police protecton, fire protection and other services, while the poor would be left to fend for themselves as best as they could.


ORIGINAL SOURCE:
http://www.politicalhotwire.com/general-political-discussion/11803-why-libertarianism-doesnt-work.html#post304989

johnlocke - March 2007
I oppose libertarianism because it ignores that the wealthy have a disproportionate level of influence on society and law already. The transition to a libertarian dystopia would further exacerbate this disparity of treatment. The elimination of those parts of the government most disparaged by libertarians would unduly and unfairly impact those parts of society least able to offset their loss. When this loss is coupled by the institution of a "fee for service" or voluntary tax structure (advocated by many libertarians) the net-net result is that the wealthy would have a disproportionate level of access to clean food, justice, police protecton, fire protection and other services, while the poor would be left to fend for themselves as best as they could.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Back up your points or shut the fuck up.


:D

[Zig]

Ron Paul: The Black Swan of Politics - Justin T.P. Quinn
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/quinn-justin1.1.1.html


I remember once arguing with an honest young atheist, who was very much shocked at my disputing some of the assumptions which were absolute sanctities to him (such as the quite unproved proposition of the independence of matter and the quite improbable proposition of its power to originate mind), and he at length fell back upon this question, which he delivered with an honourable heat of defiance and indignation: "Well, can you tell me any man of intellect, great in science or philosophy, who accepted the miraculous?" I said, "With pleasure. Descartes, Dr. Johnson, Newton, Faraday, Newman, Gladstone, Pasteur, Browning, Brunetiere – as many more as you please." To which that quite admirable and idealistic young man made this astonishing reply – "Oh, but of course they had to say that; they were Christians." First he challenged me to find a black swan, and then he ruled out all my swans because they were black. The fact that all these great intellects had come to the Christian view was somehow or other a proof either that they were not great intellects or that they had not really come to that view. The argument thus stood in a charmingly convenient form: "All men that count have come to my conclusion; for if they come to your conclusion they do not count."

~ G. K. Chesterton

A recent article titled "Ron Paul's dilemma" makes the case that "Ron Paul may be in the ultimate damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation as next month’s Ames Straw Poll draws closer."

If Paul polls fourth or fifth at Ames, it will feed the existing narrative that he is a second-tier candidate with a devoted but small legion of fans. Ames will be, at best, a wash. If, on the other hand, Paul finishes first or second, it will feed the narrative that he’s a straw-poll paper tiger with a small but devoted legion of fans that swamped Ames from around the country. The media will give itself permission to ignore the result and instead focus on the "serious" candidates.

Rasmussen makes the unfortunate factual error of stating that Ron's "legion of fans" could "swamp Ames from around the country." The Ames Straw Poll is only open to Iowa residents. A simple Google search could have prevented that mistake and allowed him to reword it differently, though at the expense of weakening his argument. A victory in Ames would not mean that Ron Paul is backed by a small group of fanatics that crawled out of the woodwork, but that he has strong core of support within the key state of Iowa. Let us ignore that fact for now.

Instead, lets focus on the substance of Rasmussen's opinion: The Ames Straw Poll is very important, but only if Ron Paul doesn't win. It doesn't matter whether or not Ron wins, or even how many percentage points he wins by. The Iowa Straw Poll can help every other candidate, but it can only hurt Ron Paul. The voters at Ames can have no bearing whatsoever on Ron Paul's viability as a candidate. A vote for Ron Paul ipso facto makes it irrelevant.

You see, Ron Paul supporters don't count, even though they are the paragon of what the ideal political activist would be. They are arguably the only true grassroots activists in existence right now. They don't wait for direction or leadership from Ron Paul himself. Rather, inspired by Paul's ideals, they act on their own. Nothing else in history comes close to what they've accomplished.

It was Ron Paul supporters, not the Ron Paul campaign itself, that invented the "money bomb." Money bombs are online fund-raising events, often held on dates with great historical and political significance, which seek to generate a large amount of donations within a short period of time. Such events are marketed through "viral advertising" where individuals take the initiative and spread the news of the event through online vehicles such as social networks, YouTube, and online forums. People who might think that their small contribution to the campaign might not make a difference, or who otherwise might not "get around to it," find themselves encouraged by a large number of their peers to take an active part in these events and donate larger amounts more often than they otherwise would have. By seeking to set ever higher records in hourly, daily, and weekly fund-raising, money bombs can generate millions of dollars in free advertising in the media as well.

Remember the Ron Paul Blimp? Once again, Ron Paul supporters acted on their own initiative to make something happen. At 200 feet long, it beat out the Goodyear Blimp as the largest blimp in North America. It also cost $600,000 to fly for the six weeks it was in the air, and might not even get off the ground this year. Flying over the eastern seaboard, it generated over $2 million in publicity. The blimp needs to be flying over Iowa now, but there seems to be little interest in it! A single money bomb could do it, easy.

Let us imagine for a minute a Mitt Romney blimp or a Mike Huckabee blimp, constructed and financed by grassroots supporters independent of their respective campaigns. They would be praised from the rooftops for their creativity and initiative. They would be asked, "What is it about Mitt Romney that gives you so much hope?" With such a spontaneous surge of enthusiasm and devotion for this man, some may begin to wonder, could he be The One? We'd never hear the end of it, but because it was part of the Ron Paul Campaign, nay, the Ron Paul Movement, it is referred to as a desperate publicity stunt of questionable legality.

In every campaign in the history of campaigning, a lost run for office means that interest in the candidate mostly dies out, but not for Ron Paul. Supporters of Ron Paul are qualitatively different from those who support other candidates. Jack Hunter summed it up perfectly.

Ask the average Paul fanatic what they like about him and all you will hear nothing but specific policies: "Follow the Constitution!" "End the Fed!" "End the War!" Paul is the purest example of what I like to call "philosophical conservatism" in that what he believes – strict adherence to limited government and Constitutional principles – is more important to him and his followers than how his party perceives him.

Even after Ron Paul lost the 2008 Republican nomination, the Ron Paul movement remained a force to be reckoned with. It was Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty that forever changed America's political landscape. It was the tireless efforts of the Campaign for Liberty that made the Federal Reserve a national issue. Through countless emails, letters, and phone calls made by people who were educated about the Federal Reserve and Austrian Business Cycle Theory, HR 1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, gained some 319 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. The Senate version, S. 604, had 32 cosponsors. So great was the movement to "End the Fed," the majority of Americans are not only conscious of the Fed's existence and activities, but are radically opposed to it. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke now feels the need to have futile press conferences to try and win over the people.

A common soundbite you'll hear in the news nowadays (if you still watch it) is that "many are coming around to Ron Paul's points of view." The truly astonishing thing is that any politician can posses a sound, logical form of thought in the first place, much less convince people of anything. Scott Conroy's Doomsday Scenario may prove to be true, as the "famously devoted supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul wipe the sweat off their brows without batting an eye and descend on the campus of Iowa State University to propel the libertarian-leaning icon to yet another straw-poll victory". This, for Conroy, would be a tragedy. If Ron Paul were to win in Ames, the sanctity of the event and the godly wisdom of all who attend would have to be called into question.

Yes, it is very true that it is not how high a candidate can get in the national polls, but how many of his supporters he can actually get out to vote that wins elections. If you show up to vote for Ron Paul, however, well then, you're just some crazy fanatic who's part of the ever growing cult of Ron Paul worshipers. You are like a pestilence that swarms GOP events to drown out the voices of more reasoned minds, a sacrilegious abuse of the Holy Democratic System. Your votes are not to be regarded with the same reverence as those offered up to the other lying, thieving, murderous scumbags that always get elected president. You are at best an outlier, at worst, a very real threat to our political way of life. The Ron Paul Movement, the greatest grassroots campaign in political history, could destroy Iowa's position as an early primary state, and ruin the chances of any grassroots campaign for a small-name politician of ever being competitive in presidential politics ever again.

The establishment media would like to completely ignore Ron Paul by not even including him in the polls. When they can't ignore him, they use a very simple formula. On the eve of an important straw poll, say he can't win. When he does, downplay the results as meaningless. Now, on the eve of the Ames Straw Poll, they are hedging their bets with doublespeak; The Ames Straw Poll is very important, but only if Ron Paul doesn't win. It's a strategy that will likely stretch well into the primary season, but this can only work for so long.

When it becomes too obvious that the Ron Paul movement is taking over the country, they will resort to blatant lies and deception. This is precisely what Fox News did earlier this year when they tried claim that Ron Paul was booed at the 2011 CPAC by playing the clip from 2010. When Bill Hemmer asks Ron Paul how he felt being about booed, he laughs in a very odd, juvenile way. The way his tong moves around in his mouth, almost as if he is savoring the opportunity to humiliate Ron Paul, I imagine him once being a large, fat bully in the fifth grade. Ron Paul in fact got a standing ovation when he was announced the winner of the 2011 CPAC Straw Poll. Such an amateurish attempt at deception was quickly found out, and Fox News via Hemmer was forced to publicly apologize for their "honest mistake."

How far will the mainstream go in order to stem the tide of the Ron Paul Revolution? They already say it threatens to destroy the presidential primary system. Will they go as far as Glen Beck did, and group Ron Paul supporters in with terrorists? Perhaps a bombing or a mass shooting will be blamed on the anti-government Libertarian movement. A so-called "Libertarian Bomber" would be just the excuse needed to send federal troops to arrest people at Ron Paul rallies.

It all makes one wonder how accurate those polls are that place Ron at around 10%. It's clear that the media sees his supporters as a mere factor that skew the polls away from results that are more "representative of America." The fact is that Ron Paul does represent America. He opposes the wars, he opposes the income tax, he opposes further burdening the country with more debt, and he wants to restore sound money and end the Federal Reserve. What the media doesn't want is for Americans to figure this out.

They want people who like Ron Paul to think he can't win; his victories don't matter; he's a "fringe candidate;" only kooks support him; best to support someone else who actually stands a chance. The establishment wants to create a self-fulfilling prophecy that a Ron Paul presidency is a hopeless cause. Their plan won't work. Once the false paradigm is shattered and the people see the truth, Ron Paul will become President of the United States, and it will be all thanks to those "Ron Paul fanatics," the Black Swans of Politics.


Sounds familiar.

[CILONE/SK]

So you want me to back up something that is my own opinion? Which is every single thing you cited.

When I ask you to back something up, it is something that you hold as a fact. You seriously can not tell opinion from fact. You cut and pasting a Lew Rockwell article proves that. He worked for RP from as his congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982 and also from many times throughout the years. Do you honestly think that anything he writes about RP is not biased? Also, there are strong indications that he wrote the racist shit from the RP newsletter. Someone had to write it and put it in there, it was either him or RP????

I really like how you refuse to actually write your own opinions and 100% of the time you use the words of others.

You do not deny still sitting at home and being supported by your parents, so I will assume it is true. Go back to playing with video games until you can talk you points for yourself.

You are a joke, without a doubt.

[Zig]

no response to that plagiarism? hahaha

[CILONE/SK]

BTW I really like how you do not counter point amything I had to say.

Could not find a YouTube video or bias website to copy from?

[Zig]

you don't bother to counter anything i say and completely ignore shit so i'm just laughing at you now. yo google another argument and plagiarize it, it might work out for you this time maybe we won't find out.

[CILONE/SK]

no response to that plagiarism? hahaha

No need, I saw something that was able to say what I wanted to say.

I am still able to talk my points, which you have proven you are not able to do.

What is sad is that you spent time googling my posts. It just shows how pathetic you are.

Did your mom make your breakfast this morning before giving you allowance?

[CILONE/SK]

you don't bother to counter anything i say and completely ignore shit so i'm just laughing at you now. yo google another argument and plagiarize it, it might work out for you this time maybe we won't find out.


You must really be blind. You really have not said anything. How do you counter an opinion based in biased info?

Anything you offered up with substance, I have shot down.

[Zig]

so let me get this right

if YOU see something that is able to say what YOU want to say, YOU'RE allowed to cut and paste it here without SOURCING it and pretend like it's YOURs.

but if I come here and copy and paste an article, or a statement from a credible source or politician and I make sure it's citated... I can't do that to back up my points right?

makes sense.

[Zig]

ahaha the only thing you've shut down is your brain

[CILONE/SK]

Wrong, I am not getting on you for cutting and pasting only, I think you are an idiot because that is all you do.

You are not able to tell the difference between fact and opinion. You take biased articles and present them as fact, which would not be a problem if you are able to talk it in support of them.

Although I disagree with AOD, he is at least able to talk his points. You are not able to. It is that simple.

[Zig]

got huge double standards going on around here

you know why I googled your shit, because I was re-reading it and realized you can't write that well. rofl.

[CILONE/SK]

Not one thing you have said is in support of your own points in the last few pages. You dI not even offer a counter point to my points.

I have a feeling where you stand on the debt ceiling, but since you have not even posted that, how should we know?

Learn to come up with your own opinions and learn to talk them.

[Zig]

you just keep saying nothing ive said matters or doesnt support my arguments, your clearly stupid man i don't know what to say to you lol

THE GUY WHO PLAGIARIZES OTHER PEOPLES ARGUMENTS TELLS ME TO COME UP WITH MY OWN OPINIONS. CLASSIC 12OZ.

[CILONE/SK]

You googled them because you are a loser who has alot of free time because you are supported by your parents, so yOu have alot of time.

[CILONE/SK]

you just keep saying nothing ive said matters or doesnt support my arguments, your clearly stupid man i don't know what to say to you lol

Show us where you wrote your own opinion in anything in the last few pages and talked them to back them up?

[Zig]

its the other way around actually but you know nothing about my life stop pretending like you know me

[CILONE/SK]

^ that is what I thought, full of bullshit and not a single ounce of original ideas.

Your mom is calling you for lunch, you better hurry up before she gets mad and takes away your allowance.

[CILONE/SK]

Double post

[Zig]

lol you know nothing about me why do you sound so sure? my mom is calling me for lunch are you serious with this bullshit? you're funny bro... first dude i know here bringing up mom jokes like what fucking level of maturity are you at? fuckin pathetic.

you got nothing go plagiarize some more people who come up with arguments for you.

[CILONE/SK]

I have clearly said why I am against not raising the debt ceiling, which is the opposite of RPs view points. Where have you said anything that you think?

Just went back and looked, all you did was resay RP talking points. Can you think for yourself?

[Zig]

seriously CILONE? where have I said anything that I think? man you are something else. yea i gtg i'll be back to this comedy later

[CILONE/SK]

Just like I thought. Go google RP talking points and get back to us. Hahaha

Or better yet, go play WoW and tell us how that is going.

[angelofdeath]

wow.
this thread really went down hill. copy and pasting and other shenanigans...etc.

back to the thread at hand.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/174717-when-a-cut-is-not-a-cut

" Instead, the "cuts" being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases. This is akin to a family "saving" $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. "

[Fist 666]

this thread is terrible.

[CILONE/SK]

wow.
this thread really went down hill. "

AOD, before ziggy boy started with bullshit, I was waiting on you to reply about the debt ceiling post I made in reply to you asking what I thought would happen.

[Zig]

yea i ruined this thread my bad guys

:rolleyes:

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

So you want me to back up something that is my own opinion? Which is every single thing you cited.

When I ask you to back something up, it is something that you hold as a fact. You seriously can not tell opinion from fact. You cut and pasting a Lew Rockwell article proves that. He worked for RP from as his congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982 and also from many times throughout the years. Do you honestly think that anything he writes about RP is not biased? Also, there are strong indications that he wrote the racist shit from the RP newsletter. Someone had to write it and put it in there, it was either him or RP????

I really like how you refuse to actually write your own opinions and 100% of the time you use the words of others.

You do not deny still sitting at home and being supported by your parents, so I will assume it is true. Go back to playing with video games until you can talk you points for yourself.

You are a joke, without a doubt.

Lew Rockwell doesn't really write any of the articles on his blog, he will post clips from interviews on his radio show, but almost all of the articles are written by other sources. It is a libertarian website, with libertarian related content, but how is that any different from you posting something from MSNBC or anything else that clearly favors a more liberal, socialist type ideology.

I could go grab post's where Zig makes a claim, and than explains this claim, regardless of the fact if it is right or wrong. I'll say this again, Zig isn't even a libertarian, so accusing him of 90% of the things you accuse him of is 100% false, and just discredits any kind of points you might have made in any of those post's.

I agree though this thread has gotten rather......silly.

[angelofdeath]

yea i ruined this thread my bad guys

:rolleyes:

i dont think it was you although (all i caught out of the last couple pages was where you called dude out on plagiarizing... serious LOLZ by the way) ... as cilone has this bad habit of not really debating in depth points. he sets the stage in broad generalities, someone refutes specific points, and then he goes back to saying the same exact thing he started with in a broad general talking head newspeak/talking point after someone spent 10 minutes refuting the general argument. then someone responds to this broad statement again and he says the same thing he originally said and after a few rounds it descends in general name calling over debating opposing philosophies on a G-damn internet forum.

i'd personally like this thread to just be a thread about specific ron paul related type issues, but whatever. i'd even suggest if cilone wants to go start a obama thread, i'll stay out of it and i would rather debate specific issues in separate threads.

[CILONE/SK]

You have said that Zig is not a libertarian before, but I have to call bullshit on that. There is no way in hell he would rock Ron Pauls dick so hard if he was not totally down with that thought process.
He always posts RP propaganda and uses biased RP youtube videos to push him extremely hard.

I find it difficult to believe that Ziggy boy is not a through and through libertarian, but I could be wrong, but we do not know, because he never offers his point of view on things, unless you count him posting pro-RP material.

As for Lew Rockwell, I understand he does not write much anymore, but he is RPs nigga and anything coming from him or his website is severely biased, much more so then MSNBC or Fox News being biased. To use it as a source for anything does not make sense, unless you want to discuss opinions. You can find anything on the internet to support your position one way or another

Bottom line is that he does not explain his position clearly. Just because he thinks something, does not make it so. If he wants to clearly discuss RP, I am more then willing, but when anyone uses bullshit reasoning to support their position, I will call them out on it. Youtube videos from RP campaigners and blatantly biased libertarian websites are bullshit reasoning.

BTW, I think most RP supporters are severely brainwashed and not capable of separating fact from opinion. I think RP is taking them all for a ride, because I call bullshit on him not running for congress because he wants to concentrate running for president. I think he is not running, because his district was re-districted and he knows he will not get elected again with so many minorities in his new district. So, he says he wants to concentrate on trying to be the president, but unless you are one of the most brainwashed RP supporter, you have to see that he does not have a real chance. So he sits back and says some things to supporters and collects money for his campaign, which he will then keep when he does not even win the primary. Nice little scheme. It is positive on both ends. If he loses, he keeps the money. If he wins the primary but loses the election, he keeps more money. If he wins both, then he is the president. Nice little retirement fund plan.

No matter what, his ideas are not mainstream and if implemented, do nothing to take care of the middle class, poor people, sick people or anyone other then big business and the rich that will benefit from his free market bullshit. I have very little patience for people like him or his supporters. I think they embody selfishness and will leave alot of Americans to suffer if they get their way.

This whole post is just my OPINION and if you ask me to back it up, Fuck You. If someone wants to discuss something concerning RP, I will be glad to, but leave the biased nonsense at the door and be willing to discuss him objectively without the campaign bullshit.

BTW, if you do not like what I have to say, Fuck You again, I am not here to be liked or to go along with the flow to not ruin threads. I will talk my opinions and if I am wrong, so be it, but at least I do more then some people here and actually talk about what I think is right.

In the end, fuck you all:lol: :lol: :lol: This is 12oz, not some bullshit RP forum.

[CILONE/SK]

i dont think it was you although (all i caught out of the last couple pages was where you called dude out on plagiarizing... serious LOLZ by the way) ... as cilone has this bad habit of not really debating in depth points. he sets the stage in broad generalities, someone refutes specific points, and then he goes back to saying the same exact thing he started with in a broad general talking head newspeak/talking point after someone spent 10 minutes refuting the general argument. then someone responds to this broad statement again and he says the same thing he originally said and after a few rounds it descends in general name calling over debating opposing philosophies on a G-damn internet forum.

i'd personally like this thread to just be a thread about specific ron paul related type issues, but whatever. i'd even suggest if cilone wants to go start a obama thread, i'll stay out of it and i would rather debate specific issues in separate threads.

hahaha, coming from you who does not debate how events will affect real people and sticks to hypothetical theories that are not proven and can never be proven, because they do not involve any statistical equations. So unless it comes around that they are put in place and we can see if they work, all that Austrian Economics, is just a thought/opinion. And you want to get into specifics about an opinion?? If so, I can have an opinion that is counter to yours, and neither of our opinions will matter will, because they are just opinions. If I am wrong, show me one country that has successfully used your theories in real life and is comparable to the US. There is not one.

And if I copied a brief statement from someone who stated something better then I could, SO?? It had no facts in it, I was not using it to back up my point, and it was a OPINION that I 100% agreed with. At least It was not a bullshit FEC link that had nothing to do with the discussion.

So Fuck you:lol: :lol: :lol:

[ipod90]

Classic 12oz comedy in here. Doesn't matter whether its RP or Obama in power were all fucked anyway.... Idiocracy is here to stay.... Oops I mean turn on your tv your favorite show is on.

[angelofdeath]

hahaha, coming from you who does not debate how events will affect real people and sticks to hypothetical theories that are not proven and can never be proven, because they do not involve any statistical equations. So unless it comes around that they are put in place and we can see if they work, all that Austrian Economics, is just a thought/opinion. And you want to get into specifics about an opinion?? If so, I can have an opinion that is counter to yours, and neither of our opinions will matter will, because they are just opinions. If I am wrong, show me one country that has successfully used your theories in real life and is comparable to the US. There is not one.

And if I copied a brief statement from someone who stated something better then I could, SO?? It had no facts in it, I was not using it to back up my point, and it was a OPINION that I 100% agreed with. At least It was not a bullshit FEC link that had nothing to do with the discussion.

So Fuck you:lol: :lol: :lol:


thanks for proving the points in my post right.

but this line is just absolutely ridiculous.
"coming from you who does not debate how events will affect real people and sticks to hypothetical theories that are not proven and can never be proven, because they do not involve any statistical equations. "

you are actually trying to say that a school of thought that ONLY studies human ACTION does not address human action, BUT a chalk board full of nothing but hypothetical controlled situations that you need a ph.d in math to dissect, DOES study human action?

i mean seriously dude, i just dont know what to say. honestly. im at a loss for words.


*enter 'F you!' posts and an exact repeat of your previous post. *

[CILONE/SK]

Like a typical RP supporter. You have nothing unless him or another one of the Libertarian jerk offs, say you do.


Edit: Refer to my post two below, which I address the comments you made when you edited your post and added shit.

[angelofdeath]

i have nothing?
i dont even understand what you are trying to say. as usual. always a bunch of gobblety gook.

[CILONE/SK]

Classic 12oz comedy in here. Doesn't matter whether its RP or Obama in power were all fucked anyway.... Idiocracy is here to stay.... Oops I mean turn on your tv your favorite show is on.

I am willing to bet that you do not even vote. So fuck you too. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[CILONE/SK]

you are actually trying to say that a school of thought that ONLY studies human ACTION does not address human action, BUT a chalk board full of nothing but hypothetical controlled situations that you need a ph.d in math to dissect, DOES study human action?

How can it be a study of anything related to economics and not have a way to prove any of it??

You keep saying that it only studies human action, then why the fuck is it a school of economic thought??

Basically it is a bunch of people who think they are right, yet there is no way to prove any of it, unless it is put in place somewhere. And I have asked you a few time before to show me that place, if there is one that is comparable to the united states.

You fuckers just get mad that I do not fall down your little rabbit holes trying to debate these theories, which would be pointless, because that is all they are THEORIES and OPINIONS. I would rather talk about how REAL events affect REAL people. Anything less, is just bullshit.

[Zig]

this dude is the ultimate troll or he's seriously fucked up in the head

[CILONE/SK]

at least I say what I think, unlike you.

[CILONE/SK]

If you want, I will discuss RP with you, but you do not seem to be able to do that without using RP campaign bullshit as links to support your points.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

So then you don't want to discuss it.

This thread is about HIM, how can you discuss his views without using them?

[CILONE/SK]

I want to discuss HIM and his viewpoints, not campaign bullshit. If you need to use campaign rhetoric, you have already given up on the discussion.

BTW, Fuck you, since everyone is getting a fuck you tonight. I want to make sure I do not leave anyone out. hahaha

[Decyferon]

My personal opinion of RP is that I like some of his ideas others I don't, I cant subscribe to one particular political viewpoint. I tend to look at what I think would work best and that should be implemented.

There should be less regulation for smaller business at the moment there is too much red tape to jump through and starting a new business is hard enough, however I don't agree that all business should be less regulated, once you get to a certain level there should be a need to regulate.

Government spending does need to be reigned in however I don't agree with getting rid of welfare.

America shouldnt be so high profile in so many countries around the world, at the moment your foreign policy is too invasive, it needs to be toned back a bit, less spending on the military less presence all around the world.

But to be honest I don't know that much about RP, I don't think anyone outside of the states has really heard of him, I have certainly never ever seen him on the UK news.

[angelofdeath]

see, decy's post is well written and doesnt call anyone who posts in this thread a 'knob slobber'

while its obvious we dont agree on much, your post above seems to say otherwise and you'd be a good alliance to have from an ideological standpoint if some of those things are your actual goals.

the only thing i'll address is the regulation thing. we must realize that big business is usually the one behind or writing the regulations in the first place. this is because it is sort of a quasi protection and a way to seek a quasi monopoly through government regulation. example. who benefits more from a food regulation that says you need a half a million dollar USDA regulated facility in order to sell 1 steak to a neighbor up the road? a guy raising 15 beeves a year or a CAFO/feed lot operation? who benefits more from a cab license monopoly that costs a couple hundred thousand to get? someone trying to start a small time transportation service or a cab company that has 200 cabs?

the only problem is the game of politics is very bad at equal treatment which is why it is impossible for the state to do warm and cuddly things like regulate only the businesses you dont like, without hurting the ones you do like. all these policies are 1 size fits all. the food regulators for instance dont care if you are raising and producing the safest food in the world in your back yard/kitchen or whether you are producing food so bad you have to irradiate everything and run everything through chlorine baths 40 times... both producers are in the same category and have to meet the same arbitrary idiotic requirements at their facility. its not about food safety, its about market access. since i tend to follow blackstones 'rule of 10'... that is its better for 10 criminals to go free in a justice system than 1 single innocent man be imprisoned, i must support repeal of all regulations except those that protect property rights and protect against fraud. (assuming we have a government in the first place) and this is ignoring the other economic consequences of such actions, but just on a practical every day standpoint.

imagine if we took all the regulations you like... minimum wage/living wage, 8 hour work day, 3 weeks vacation a year, 25 sick days, paid holidays, requiring companies to have air conditioning, 50% taxes, 75% corporate tax, a bajillion workers 'safety' regs and dropped them overnight into a third world country. how many workers would still have jobs the next day? none. imagine we legislated that everyone in the world is only allowed to work at their current wage for 2 hours a day. who would have enough money to live? very few. the only reason we are able to get away with having so much of this stuff today is because we are so productive and technologically advanced. a tick is able to get more out of a large healthy animal than from a small dying one. and that is what taxation, regulation and like is... a parasite on productivity.

check this decy... this is the essence of why excessive regulation is ALWAYS detrimental: (PS it falls perfectly inline with your view that smaller business needs less regulation)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84pg7HFJ9Fc

[CILONE/SK]

See AOD, I agree with decy 100% and I was agreeing with you until you stated

"i must support repeal of all regulations except those that protect property rights and protect against fraud."

Why is it a all or nothing approach with so many different things for you?

Can you sit there and say that we can trust a oil company to not pollute the environment and to pay all the clean up from the messes that they make? Or how about a company like Walmart, who runs all small business out of most communities it enters?

During the period between the civil war and WWI, America was very much so unregulated. Most markets were controlled by very few men and they merged whole markets into Too Big to Fail companies. This unregulated market system resulted in an even worse environment for new business to enter the market. They also did not take care of their environment and allowed basically slave labor, just because they could. The regulations are a result of alot of their actions. This is the closest period we get to your "Free Market" and it did not work except for the people who were making all the money.

I think the major difference between me and you in this regards, is that you think that the goal is for all business to make as much money as possible, and I do not. I am on the side of taking care of people and the business community proves time and time again that if they are not sufficiently regulated, they will do ANYTHING to make a profit at the cost of the people and the environment.

BTW, I will concede that there needs to be more ability to allow small businesses to start, but the reason that is not there, is because of the corruption of our political system allowing regulations to stop this. But I think it is because of big business doing this, because they do not want competition and they get laws and regulations to stop it. Even this is caused by a lack of regulation of business and allowing them to influence the political system to benefit themselves only.


BTW, I still think you are a RP knobslobber.

[angelofdeath]

Why is it a all or nothing approach with so many different things for you?

Can you sit there and say that we can trust a oil company to not pollute the environment and to pay all the clean up from the messes that they make? Or how about a company like Walmart, who runs all small business out of most communities it enters?



alright, you drew me in one last time.
pollution first and foremost is a property rights issue. if you cannot understand this, than there is no further reasoning with you. as of right now, it is essentially impossible for private property owners to sue a company that pollutes their property because the government has a monopoly on pollution controls. you cant dump a bunch of junk on your neighbors property without their permission just like an oil company shouldnt be able to dump a bunch of oil on your property. but you act as if an oil company wants to spill oil. dont realize that they LOSE money when they spill oil? that it costs them billions? which is it, are they greedy, dog eat dog, do anything for a buck or is their sole purpose to dump their product everywhere?

just like how you cannot kill someone to achieve your ends (well, your ideology allows for this since you support a coercive government doing this to someone if they dont comply with your wishes) a business cannot kill someone to achieve their ends, nor invade their property rights. but your government does not allow this to correctly play out in a market frame work. in fact, they tend to subsidize industries that are highly detrimental. take for instance the price anderson act which limits the liability of a nuclear power plant. imagine that, the government essentially saying...'its ok! nuclear waste in your back yard? no big deal, that power company isnt liable anyway.' governments have allowed for a certain level of pollution.

not to mention, the US federal government is the largest single polluter on the g'damn planet and you are trying to tell me they can effectively solve this problem of negative externalities in a market ? you've got to be kidding me.

walmart is a great company. they are efficient. consumers have decided that they'd rather shop at a walmart than at a higher priced 'small business' in most areas. walmart didnt run anyone out, consumers did. by the same logic that says we need to get rid of walmart because they are to efficient and run out small business, is nothing but a way of breeding inefficiency in a market. if consumers didnt demand better prices and didnt want certain things, walmart wouldnt exist. by your logic, we should also be subsidizing the horse and buggy industry because henry ford came up with a better way to cart people around and destroyed 'small businesses.'


During the period between the civil war and WWI, America was very much so unregulated. Most markets were controlled by very few men and they merged whole markets into Too Big to Fail companies. This unregulated market system resulted in an even worse environment for new business to enter the market. They also did not take care of their environment and allowed basically slave labor, just because they could. The regulations are a result of alot of their actions. This is the closest period we get to your "Free Market" and it did not work except for the people who were making all the money.

economic ignorance.
did you ever see what the conditions and 'slave' labor wages were OUTSIDE of the factories? they were FAR worse which is why people FLOCKED from rural america to a city in order to work for these slave wages. low wages are only relative. if a persons productivity is so low, they cannot make exuberant wages. example.
who makes more money and who is more productive. a back hoe operator or a guy doing the same excavation job with a tea spoon? your logic would say that the guy using the teaspoon should make just as much as the back hoe operator. and this example is the exact illustration of why capital goods/investments and technology is need to increase everyones living standards.

the oil 'monopolies' of the 'robber barons' which you are referring to were never monopolies. they were efficient at what they did and they gained a large market share. there was still free entry, which means there was the ability for companies to compete. this happens all the time, which is why a certain company can be the best for a certain period and is soon eclipsed by someone else, usually out of left field who is more innovative. by extension you would also have to believe microsoft is the sole monopolizer of the computer industry, yet some how i manage to type this on a mac.

an 'unregulated' environment makes it so anyone can enter into business. to deny this is to show that you are blinded by nothing but marxist based ideology. big business writes half the regulations on the books today to protect them from competition.

I think the major difference between me and you in this regards, is that you think that the goal is for all business to make as much money as possible, and I do not. I am on the side of taking care of people and the business community proves time and time again that if they are not sufficiently regulated, they will do ANYTHING to make a profit at the cost of the people and the environment.

the more money a business makes, means the more consumers want their products and services. this benefits all. how can we conclude this? because if consumers didnt go into the transaction seeking to benefit, they wouldnt do it. do you purposefully go to a store to buy food because you are forced to or because you seek no benefit from the sustenance of the food?


BTW, I will concede that there needs to be more ability to allow small businesses to start, but the reason that is not there, is because of the corruption of our political system allowing regulations to stop this. But I think it is because of big business doing this, because they do not want competition and they get laws and regulations to stop it. Even this is caused by a lack of regulation of business and allowing them to influence the political system to benefit themselves only.

this is why your ideology is flawed. there are no exceptions to mine. for instance, murder is murder. there are no exceptions. if you kill someone not in self defense, you just murdered someone. no exceptions.

your ideology says, we need detrimental and tyrannical rules and regulations on this evil business, but we need to subsidize this small start up business that does warm cushy things like makes recycled hippy dippy green sustainable whatevers. your ideology says the minimum wage is great, YET has exceptions for high school students, the handicapped, etc because without it they wouldnt be able to get jobs. if an ideology/law has exceptions, it shouldnt be instituted in the first place.

but you are right, big business lobbies for regulations to protect them from competition. i want to get rid of these protectionist regulations to allow real competition. you want to some how keep tyrannical regulations, but allow only certain companies to be exempt from them for a certain period of time which is silly. did you watch the video i posted earlier? obviously not.

if we had a free market, the political system would not be available for such behavior. it would only exist to protect property rights, you rachel maddow cunt licker

[CILONE/SK]

Your whole argument is flawed. You equate the amount money a company makes to the level of good it is for the people. You do not take into account anything to do with the well being of the people. To write off pollution as a property rights issue us just basically nonsense and just shows us how much you would sell this country out to business. Tell the people that are victims of fracking in PA and NY that can not drink their water, that it is only a property dispute. How about air pollution?? Is that also a property dispute?

Also to write off the era of barons as they just have a good market share is denying history. They overwhelmingly controlled Americas money, that is why people worked for them. They were ruthless in crushing even the smallest competition. They made it that you either worked for them as slave labor for slave wages or you just did not work and went hungry.
This was the closest time your theories came into existence in our history and it was a complete failure for the American people. Except of course for the top select few who controlled those businesses. You can personally deny history, but that still does not make what really happened go away.

You are right, we can not continue this conversation. The main reason is you are revising history and there is nothing productive that can happen in a discussion when one side refuses to view history as it really happened.

I am ok with us disagreeing, but what I do not get with you is how can you be so much for America and yet you are so willing to advocate for Americans to be at the whim of businesses and the ability of their profits. Do you not understand that no company will ever choose the people over their profits? ThE road you advocate leads to slavery to companies for the American people. There is a reason that Austrian economics has never been put in place. It just does not work and there is nothing to suggest that it would work for a country thE size of the US.

BTW, how many people and businesses did walmart put out of business and out of jobs? You say they are efficient. I say they are killing America by killing jobs.

Like I said you are for business and I am for the people, you Hayek ball licker.
I am done, because we will never agree and we think the end state of America should be something totally different from each other.

[Zig]

I don't think your ideas are for the people at all. It sounds to me like you are for big government and regulation, because you feel that big business has had it's shot at a "free market" system and abused the system causing harm to the people. History does show that America has suffered under the abuses of the "free market" system by corporations, but again it really doesn't sound to me like you listen to the man you hate most very often. If you did you would have already heard his argument that it wasn't free market capitalism that allowed big business in America to run rampant, but it was corporatism in harmony with big government, the military industrial complex, and a monopoly over our monetary policies by the Fed who have hurt the American people the most and led us through crises after crises due to their abuse and greed (and also war). I would assume that your answers are to give the people who are seated in power of this very structure, this very system that you claim has abused and enslaved the American people, the reigns on controlling the new and improved system that simply throws out everything this country was built upon under the guise that we can't be free and have liberty because we take advantage. It sounds like Chris Matthews when he says to Ron Paul, "Total freedom doesn't work." So are we supposed to throw out the idea of freedom and liberty in this country because our government, corporations, and the military industrial complex abused our system and broke the law for their own interests? Then we put ourselves in further danger... and as you said previously, we exacerbate the dilemma because we give further power to the very same people who are continuously putting us in crises situations.

As Ron Paul would say, the problem in this country is not the fundamental ideas written in the Constitution such as Free Market Capitalism, Freedom, Liberty, the Bill of Rights, etc. People like you want to demonize the fundamental ideals in this country that have been here since our nations founding and attempt to make others believe that these ideals have put our nation in danger and should be thrown away and replaced by over-regulation, big government, and tyranny because we are too irresponsible, greedy, and selfish to control ourselves. The reality is that corporations, big government, the military industrial complex, and the Federal Reserve monopoly of printing fiat money is to blame, and has been breaking the laws of the Constitution for over 60 years. These are the reasons why corporations have been able to run rampant and why our economy constantly faces instability and a new crises every other 3-4 months, among many other devastating effects to our nation.

Socialism vs Corporatism
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=806

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care "exchanges". Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

Similarly, Obama's "cap-and-trade" legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in "carbon trading." This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.

To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President's agenda.

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President's policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term -- corporatism -- forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.


Ron Paul's policies force the nation to debate the philosophy and ideals of the role of government, so when you discuss Ron Paul you MUST engage in idealistic conversation or you are simply not understanding the candidate.

[angelofdeath]

Your whole argument is flawed. You equate the amount money a company makes to the level of good it is for the people.

if microsoft makes a bunch of money selling computers, parts, whatever, super cheap, it also means that the poor are more easily able to afford a computer. it means people voluntary gave money to microsoft. through this competition of the market place, computers that were unattainable to anyone except the US government with its unlimited supply of money, could afford one. now a poor person can run a lap top they got for 500 bucks on their couch. capitalism raises living standards, benefitting ALL.


To write off pollution as a property rights issue us just basically nonsense and just shows us how much you would sell this country out to business. Tell the people that are victims of fracking in PA and NY that can not drink their water, that it is only a property dispute.

if someone has a right to the water, (most of these cases were of government controlled municipal water supplies as far as i understand) then the people have a right to not having pollutants dumped in the water.

on a more simpler level, if someone poisons my well by whatever means, this is an invasion of my property. seems pretty simple to understand. this 'country couldnt be sold' to business because they would be liable personally for their pollutants. such as polluting my well, or your water supply.


They overwhelmingly controlled Americas money, that is why people worked for them. They were ruthless in crushing even the smallest competition. They made it that you either worked for them as slave labor for slave wages or you just did not work and went hungry.

you are forgetting that people were already living in poverty stricken conditions on farms. they moved from these farms to the cities. do you purposefully move to seek worse conditions? the conditions america was in then, is not unlike what many third world countries are in today. if we put the US regulatory system in place in a third world country, how many people would remain employed, the next day? NONE. are people better off or worse after this?
if it is possible to pay someone slave wages or else, why arent doctors making minimum wage?

You are right, we can not continue this conversation. The main reason is you are revising history and there is nothing productive that can happen in a discussion when one side refuses to view history as it really happened.

its not revising history, its about telling the truth. something you didnt learn in your youth propaganda camp.

I am ok with us disagreeing, but what I do not get with you is how can you be so much for America and yet you are so willing to advocate for Americans to be at the whim of businesses and the ability of their profits. Do you not understand that no company will ever choose the people over their profits? ThE road you advocate leads to slavery to companies for the American people. There is a reason that Austrian economics has never been put in place. It just does not work and there is nothing to suggest that it would work for a country thE size of the US.

you are demonstrating your ignorance. werent you the guy who first said a long time ago that you were not interested in the 'economics of austria' when austrian economics came up? i think so.

austrian economics is not a 'system' to be instituted, it is a study of human action.

no one chooses 'people' over profits. you do not go to work for the benefit of your employer, you do to work to benefit yourself. correct? do you work for free? do you give all your income to the needy? do you have a house? why dont you give this house to someone who needs it worse than you? do you have two eyes? you know, you only need one to function, why not give a blind person your other eye?

you have this troubling theory that commerce and free exchange, billions of people voluntarily purchasing goods and services within a frame work of private property, is a bad thing and that no one benefits. you can deduce that everyone benefits from an exchange in the ex ante sense because if they didnt, they would not partake in the trade to begin with.

but being the moderate that i am, im perfectly willing to allow you to live in socialist splendor if you allow me and my type the ability to live in liberty.
you have never answered this statement nor addressed. this simply shows that you have no use for allowing other people to live how they want, or opt out of your belief system. why not allow us each to go our separate ways?

BTW, how many people and businesses did walmart put out of business and out of jobs? You say they are efficient. I say they are killing America by killing jobs.


every time a walmart opens up, the lines are so long at the register you cant even go to one. i dont even like going to walmart because the demand is so high for its goods, i dont like the wait in line. people LOVE walmart. walmart didnt put people out of 'jobs' they are providing jobs. walmart didnt displace mom and pop, consumers did. walmart is simply giving consumers WHAT THEY WANT.

in the same sense, henry ford put the horse and buggy industry out of existence, yet EVERYONE is better off. people found more productive work elsewhere, people were able to get cheap cars, everyones living standards have risen. would you rather have horses and buggies for the sake of jobs or so you want a car? we dont want jobs, just so we can have jobs. we want productivity. ideally no one should have a job, but this will never occur because we live in a world of scarcity. as long as there is demand, people will be attempting to meet this demand. in fact, if capitalism made it so that we could own a little box, and you hit a button to get whatever you want and you didnt have to work at all, the government would probably outlaw this box on the basis that it damages jobs, not seeing that capitalism has made it so no one has to work anymore.

Like I said you are for business and I am for the people, you Hayek ball licker.
I am done, because we will never agree and we think the end state of America should be something totally different from each other.

this type of stuff is why its hard to take you seriously.
you continually feel a need to descend into silly childish name calling whenever someone challenges your world view. you are calling zig a video game playing child. he calls you out on copy and pasting shit and passing it off as your own and you dont even respond and keep on calling him a clown.

there was another guy just like you on a gun forum i frequent. he claimed his debate opponent wasnt in the 75th ranger regiment. the guy in question produced paper work, ID, action shots, and shots of him holding up corresponding data related to the posts to show that it was him. the troll kept on debating the same stuff and denying everything. just like you.
sorry dude, i just cant take you seriously, although you are giving me an opportunity to flap my gums about this stuff. you continually go back to broad general rebuttals to in depth arguments i have put forth in previous posts. you dont take the debate to the next level, you keep trying to keep it on the MSNBC sound clip level.

[Zig]

Paul's Vote Against Raising Debt Ceiling
http://uselectionnews.org/pauls-vote-against-raising-debt-ceiling-i-never-have-i-never-will/854678/

“While it is good to see serious debate about our debt crisis, I cannot support the reported deal on raising the nation’s debt ceiling. I have never voted to raise the debt ceiling, and I never will.

“This deal will reportedly cut spending by only slightly over $900 billion over 10 years. But we will have a $1.6 trillion deficit after this year alone, meaning those meager cuts will do nothing to solve our unsustainable spending problem.

“In fact, this bill will never balance the budget. Instead, it will add untold trillions of dollars to our deficit. This also assumes the cuts are real cuts and not the same old Washington smoke and mirrors game of spending less than originally projected so you can claim the difference as a ‘cut.’

“The plan also calls for the formation of a deficit commission, which will accomplish nothing outside of providing Congress and the White House with another way to abdicate responsibility.

“In my many years of public service, there have been commissions on everything from Social Security to energy policy, yet not one solution has been produced out of these commissions.

“By denying members the ability to offer amendments and only allowing an up-or-down vote that will take place in the hectic time between Thanksgiving and Christmas, this Commission essentially disenfranchises the vast majority of members from meaningfully participating in the debate over reducing spending and balancing the budget.

“Furthermore, despite the claims of the bill’s proponents, there is nothing to stop the commission from recommending tax increases.

“One of the reasons why I humbly suggest that I am the most qualified Presidential candidate is my experience to see and understand the long track record of failure, disappointments, and bad recommendations made by such commissions.

“Times like these require statesmanship and steady leadership, which I and the grassroots activists who have joined my campaign believe I am uniquely qualified to provide.

“What should bother Americans most is that under cover of this debt ceiling circus, we learned from a recent GAO one-time, limited audit that the Federal Reserve secretly pumped $16 trillion into American and foreign banks over three years. All of the Fed’s fat cat cronies were taken care of at the expense of the American public.

“To put that into perspective, our entire national debt is $14.5 trillion, and our annual deficit will be about $1.6 trillion, meaning the Federal Reserve created and appropriated more than our entire national debt to banks around the world in a few short years. We have been fighting in Congress these past few weeks over raising our debt ceiling by $2 trillion, an amount the Fed secretly gave away to just one big bank.

“For decades, politicians have promised future restraint in exchange for hikes in the debt limit. We are always told that we must act immediately to avoid a crisis. But time and time again, politicians reveal themselves to be untrustworthy, and we soon find ourselves in a crisis being led by the same folks who wish only to maintain the status quo.

“I believe in the great American traditions of free markets, sound money, and personal Liberty. But we are moving far away from what made us the greatest nation in human history. We must cut spending and balance our budget now, before it is too late.

“Let me be clear. The cuts we must make will not be easy, and there will be difficult times in the short run. But I have the greatest confidence that if we come together as a People, work hard, and do the right things, our country will be back on track in no time and on its way to unprecedented prosperity. But, if we continue to print money and pyramid debt, we will destroy ourselves and lose the promise of America forever.

“These difficult times require a President willing to stand against runaway spending. If elected, I will veto any spending bill that contributes to an unbalanced budget, and I will balance the budget in the first year of my term. I will not allow the Federal Reserve to destroy the value of our money by shoveling dollars into the pockets of its banker friends.

“I remain committed to working on behalf of the American people to drastically reduce spending and implement fundamental changes that will reform government and restore our nation’s prosperity.”

[angelofdeath]

i like how they portray the 'cuts' in the media.

the base line is going up by 9 trillion in 10 years. they are simply increasing spending by 7 trillion instead of 9 trillion.

i dont know where yall come from but if i am only spending slightly less than my insane spending increase, this is not a cut. only in DC is a reduction in an increase a 'cut'

[CILONE/SK]

AOD the reason it is hard to debate with you is because you continually use a false base as your starting point.

Bottom line is companies will pay their employees the very minimum that they can get away with at the same time they will to work their employees ad hard as they can get then to. Profits are all they care about. Nothing you stated says otherwise. You are talking about supply and demand. I did take it to the next level by starting to show you that there is more to America then just profits for business being the end result of everything which is what you imply. The government is not there to make a profit, it is there to take care of their people. To be so close minded to think that a free market will solve everything shows me that you are not willing to debate anything.

I will continue to think that you and you kind want to sell out America to the highest payer, which is reflected in your posts. It is what will happen if there was a socalled free market that was in place in the US. There is a reason that it did not work before WWI and there is no country doing it now. It does not work, if it did, people like you would be pushing the statistical data to back it up, yet there is none.

You are for business and not the people, to deny this after your posts just shows how extreme you are, even if you say you are a moderate.

An America that takes care of business and not people is not America.

[Zig]

i like how they portray the 'cuts' in the media.

the base line is going up by 9 trillion in 10 years. they are simply increasing spending by 7 trillion instead of 9 trillion.

i dont know where yall come from but if i am only spending slightly less than my insane spending increase, this is not a cut. only in DC is a reduction in an increase a 'cut'

it's kind of like when the stock market drops 900 points and than goes up 100 points the next day and they call it a "surge". media spin at it's finest.

[CILONE/SK]

i like how they portray the 'cuts' in the media.

the base line is going up by 9 trillion in 10 years. they are simply increasing spending by 7 trillion instead of 9 trillion.

i dont know where yall come from but if i am only spending slightly less than my insane spending increase, this is not a cut. only in DC is a reduction in an increase a 'cut'

This post just shows me that you view our economy as a simple check book and do not take into account the human lives that are directly affected by these cuts.

A balanced budget or significant cuts, do not mean shot when there are people suffering. Not once has any if you address taking care of people. If all you think about is the bottom line, injecting your thoughts on politics is wrong, because the US government is not a business that has profit margins. It is suppose to take care of the people, ecspecially over global companies.

To think only about the bottom line is why your theories will not work and why Ron Knobslobber will never get elected. He does not care enough for the American people and they see that, which is why he can not win in his new district.

[Zig]

The government is not there to make a profit, it is there to take care of their people.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I will continue to think that you and you kind want to sell out America to the highest payer, which is reflected in your posts. It is what will happen if there was a socalled free market that was in place in the US. There is a reason that it did not work before WWI and there is no country doing it now. It does not work, if it did, people like you would be pushing the statistical data to back it up, yet there is none.


The entire success and prosperity of America can be accredited to true free market capitalism. There's your statistics buddy.


An America that takes care of business and not people is not America.


You don't want to take care of the people, you want government to take care of us (you just said it) and own us like slaves. You want business to be enslaved by big government regulation, you want tyranny and you want it in replacement of liberty. Your ideas are old.

[CILONE/SK]

^ and your ideas do not work. If so, where?

[CILONE/SK]

To say that you stand for liberty, yet back a candidate that will lead us to more job loss and suffering because of it, just so a market can correct itself, does not make sense.

[Zig]

^ and your ideas do not work. If so, where?

I'll say it again for you...

The entire success and prosperity of America can be accredited to true free market capitalism. Why do you think America became the strongest, freest, most prosperous nation on earth? Because government took care of us? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[CILONE/SK]

Was that before Roosevelt enforced the Sherman Act or after that? Because before that was when your ideas were being used and America was not doing so good, but after that is arguably when America went to becoming a great country.

Your way did not work, history shows us when it was tried, it only benefitted a few.

[angelofdeath]

AOD the reason it is hard to debate with you is because you continually use a false base as your starting point.

this seems to be your fall back position when you cannot comprehend a basic argument.

Bottom line is companies will pay their employees the very minimum that they can get away with at the same time they will to work their employees ad hard as they can get then to. Profits are all they care about. Nothing you stated says otherwise. You are talking about supply and demand. I did take it to the next level by starting to show you that there is more to America then just profits for business being the end result of everything which is what you imply. The government is not there to make a profit, it is there to take care of their people. To be so close minded to think that a free market will solve everything shows me that you are not willing to debate anything.

im sure, if asked, employers would like to pay their employees negative infinity and if asked employees would like to make positive infinity. the two meet at something called marginal revenue product. i know this is going to be WAY above your head, but the reason why a doctor doesnt make 1 cent an hour is because the market values his labor at a higher wage. the reason why an employer cant pay a worker with a MRP of 20$ an hour, 1 cent an hour is because there is another employer who will pay more money. and they always tend to MRP. this is the same reason why a business cannot charge 1 million for a paper clip, as you would have us believe. no one would buy it. if a business offers a job at to low of a wage, no one will take it. if you were offered a job to do your exact job today at 1$ an hour, would you take it? or would you seek to maximize your 'profits' on your labor services elsewhere?
'
everyone looks out for their own self interest, they all seek profit. what i fail to see is how you think that you or a 'greedy corporate businessman' is are any different. i also fail to see how a 'greedy corporate businessman' that you will spend countless hours saying 'only seeks profit...' but when this same guy is sent to DC he looses his urge to seek profit.
i just heard on the news the other day that joe biden is collecting rent from the secret service. the secret service pays him for using an extra house on his property as a base. so to rephrase, joe biden gets close to the best executive protection services on the planet, and then charges the federal government 13K a year for the privilege. if we agree humans seek profit, what makes you think they automatically lose this behavior when they go to DC?

governments are not instituted to take care of people. not this one anyway. this government was instituted to protect rights.

i do not think the free market will 'solve' 'everything.' there is no such situation. there will always be human problems. what the market does, which is nothing more than you or me engaging in voluntary action, is puts the right incentives in place, and properly allocates resources. which is something the government cannot do.

There is a reason that it did not work before WWI and there is no country doing it now. It does not work, if it did, people like you would be pushing the statistical data to back it up, yet there is none.

wait, you are saying, that for over 100 years we havent had a free market. then you are saying that if it did work, we'd have 'data' to back it up. what sort of childish logic is this? 'na na na boo boo, you havent had a market in 100 years because of government! show me statistics within the last 100 years showing it works!"

but this aside, everything the market provides is all around you. it is the reason why you are even capable of posting idiotic marxist notions to an internet forum from your cell phone. yet you think that all these innovations and advances just exist without free exchange bringing them to us.

every time you give someone 3$ for a dozen eggs, it is the market at work. every time you go to work and you exchange labor for a paycheck, it is the market at work. every time you voluntarily transact in any manner, it is the market at work.

You are for business and not the people, to deny this after your posts just shows how extreme you are, even if you say you are a moderate.

i place no distinctions. im not 'for' any group. im for maximum liberty for all. im not 'for' one group over another. im for equal rights for all, special privileges for none.

[angelofdeath]

To say that you stand for liberty, yet back a candidate that will lead us to more job loss and suffering because of it, just so a market can correct itself, does not make sense.

liberty is not synonymous with security, material possessions, wealth, or anything other than the ability to live your life how you want without interference as long as you never aggress against another persons liberty/property.

we have a phony economy. its built on a house of cards. your solution is to stack the cards higher.

its like being a heroine addict. instead of confronting the problem and reversing the course of action, your solution is to give the guy more heroine and claim you are helping him. the first step is to acknowledge the problem and begin to reverse course.

[CILONE/SK]

See, AOD you keep going back to how a market functions and say nothing about caring for the people. The bottom line is not the only thing that matters. This is why RP will never be elected. A good elected official takes care if there people. This is something you do not get.

Like I said, there is a reason your system has not been used in human history. It does not work and the majority of people see that. Regardless of how you try to twist my words. A free market is not the answer to anything except for companies who want to make maximum profits on the backs it the people. A free market does nothing for the people.

Not once have you addressed taking care of the people. You talk about liberty, but you can not see that in a free market, liberty is gone and the bottom line of companies is in it's place.

[Zig]

Your way did not work, history shows us when it was tried, it only benefitted a few.


The way you are advocating benefits the few more than you understand. When the people have liberty is when they can protect themselves from monopoly and corruption. Ron Paul was discussing these topics 25 years ago...

Antitrust Laws Actually Promote Monopoly
http://www.lppgh.org/2008/02/20/antitrust-laws-actually-promote-monopoly/

Above is a worthy discussion about the anti-consumer / pro big and connected business fraud that is anti-monopoly legislation with Ron Paul. While the video is some 25 years old, the content is perfectly valid today (if not also a testament to the consistency of Ron Paul since then).

A great myth perpetuated by those in government and many in academia is that absent regulation, the free market will do its utmost to increase profits via anti-consumer actions, with one of the biggest crimes being the formation of monopolies. As such, we endure day after day, year after year, ever more corrective reactions from Congress in the form of regulations that we are told will curtail the natural exploitative faults of the free market, thus improving the economy as a result.

Yet, when you dig just a little beneath the surface, you’ll find that’s an assumption built on a faulty premise. What you’ll see is that these many legislated regulatory actions are actually fixing the economic / market reaction to a previous legislated intrusion, and in many cases serve not to be pro consumer, but rather pro-big business and very much anti free market competition. These laws not only often fix prices artificially high (either outright or via anti-trade legislation), they flat out create massive hurdles — bureaucratic or otherwise — that serve as barriers to entry for legitimate free market competition.

A great example today is all the cries for further regulating the credit, banking, housing, and mortgage systems to “prevent further abuse and recklessness.” In reality, the bubble that is bursting was created by a money monopoly granted to the Federal Reserve and its many member banks, who are quite literally entitled to legally counterfeit. They call it fractional reserve banking, but in no uncertain terms the entire banking system engages in the constant and ongoing printing of money and credit out of thin air, which they in turn use to create loans and mega finance deals.

It was the artificial price fixing of credit and money well below the natural market rate that enabled and fueled the housing, mortgage, and credit bubbles into the stratosphere. Had the rate of money instead been free market controlled by a more honest currency, as demand for hot money loans increased, rates would have risen, nipping each of those bubbles in the bud. Instead, the printing presses of the banking system kicked into high gear and the bubble was off to the races.

Now that said bubble is in its corrective phase (yes, painful but natural and necessary to correct the massive clustering of errors it permitted), the Banking system wants to print more money and credit to bail-out the very problems their created thanks to their monopoly on money and credit. Meanwhile, our trusty servants in Congress are getting in the act by engineering stimulus packages while promoting even more legislation that will “fix the banking system.” Others want to regulate ratings agencies who failed to properly measure risk, failing to understand that prior regulation prevented competition from entering the market and restructured / bastardized the system into its current highly corrupted form. Yet the illiterate among us shout loudly from the rooftops, the Capital’s steps, or their media perches blaming “the free market” for creating this folly. Bunk! Absolute Bunk!

Alas, save for one or two in Congress — Ron Paul being the only politician getting any press, and now barely any at all — NOBODY bothers to address the real manufacturers and profiteers of the crisis: The massive banking cartel led by the privately owned Federal Reserve and its many member banks. Their highly lucrative monopoly is preserved, and so too are their highly important contributions and lobbying efforts that keep most of Congress firmly in power.

In other cases “pro competition” legislation creates a ramshackle set of rules that hamstring the particular sector of the economy so badly that the consequent market place is the consumer equivalent of some hodge-podge Frankenstein creature. The health care system in the U.S. is a prime example, where the heavily regulated byproduct — which is nothing but what’s left of the free market attempting to create something usable given the draconian rules governing it — ends up being a real disaster for consumers. Prices keep getting more expensive rather than cheaper, and the consumer continues to feel ever more compromised — which is the exact opposite of the norm in a truly free market.

Meanwhile, those major players that are most politically connected and capable of lobbying are the ones who dominate the industry, while the environment is so hostile to new entries that few bother to attempt to compete. The result? A defacto, legislatively-created monopoly for major hospital conglomerates, pharmaceutical companies, and regional health insurers. All levels of government get into the act, each exacting a toll to gain access, and each limiting the free market from doing what it otherwise might.

And, yet, these same politicians who soak up dolling out favors at the trough have the gal to blame the free market for being inadequate at providing good consumer products when what we’re all stuck with is a Frankenstein of their own making!

Meanwhile, the uninformed and socially motivated consumers and voters see the system only on the surface, and they demand change. The politicians are quick to blame free enterprise, and they propose more solutions to solve the problems created by decades of prior meddling. Meanwhile, steering the new legislation are the same ones benefiting from the old. They’ll have the economies of scale to deal with the new rules, while smaller players will invariably be knocked from the playing field. It’s always the same story.

This is a mess. Remember, if government forcing us into one of their solutions is the answer, you’re asking the wrong question! A true free market (one where businesses, industry trade groups, and other special interests are prohibited from hijacking freedom and economic resources in their favor) is naturally competing with itself to deliver ever more affordable quality to consumers. The natural tendency always is a better product for a lower price as entrepreneurs continually attempt to redefine efficiencies and opportunity in the search for profits.

If you want consumer driven solutions that please the most people, don’t force them into shoe-box solutions created by compromised politicians who are themselves experts only at politics and government. Let the market compete freely and openly, and then — and only then — will order start to be restored to an economy that increasingly is being exposed as systematically rotten to the core, having been slowly eaten from within by special interest parasites steering legislation in their favor.


I'm not saying I agree with everything here, just showing that with a little research your arguments have already been touched upon. They've been refuted 25 years ago by Ron Paul and you should study him more before you go raising war against him and his advocates.

[Zig]

Like I said, there is a reason your system has not been used in human history. It does not work and the majority of people see that. Regardless of how you try to twist my words. A free market is not the answer to anything except for companies who want to make maximum profits on the backs it the people. A free market does nothing for the people.


You should also stop pretending that libertarianism is in the minority, and your view is in the majority. This is another spin tactic the media uses to marginalize movements. The reality is that people in America aren't for more regulation, more government, more spending, etc. The vast majority of Americans want government out of every aspect of our lives and not controlling us. Whether or not they completely agree with RP's views is debatable, but to insinuate that Americans overwhelmingly support your argument here is ridiculous.

[angelofdeath]

See, AOD you keep going back to how a market functions and say nothing about caring for the people. The bottom line is not the only thing that matters. This is why RP will never be elected. A good elected official takes care if there people. This is something you do not get.

please show me an elected official that 'takes care of the people.'

not only am i not being taken care of, I DONT WANT TO TAKEN CARE OF.
which is why the only solution is for you and your totalitarian nanny state leviathan government to go your way, and me to go my way. i wont force you to be free, how about you not forcing me to comply to your wishes?


Like I said, there is a reason your system has not been used in human history. It does not work and the majority of people see that. Regardless of how you try to twist my words. A free market is not the answer to anything except for companies who want to make maximum profits on the backs it the people. A free market does nothing for the people.[/quoote]


once again, repeated basic generality on your part to try to refute a complex argument on my part.

ILL SPELL IT OUT ONE MORE TIME. THE FREE MARKET IS SIMPLY VOLUNTARY INTERACTIONS AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS. THE FIRST MOMENT ANYONE BARTERED, TRADED, SOLD OR BOUGHT A PRODUCT OR SERVICE, WAS THE FIRST TIME WE HAD A FREE MARKET.


[quote]Not once have you addressed taking care of the people. You talk about liberty, but you can not see that in a free market, liberty is gone and the bottom line of companies is in it's place.

we already had this stupid ass discussion. it was very long. i said 'there are alternatives to using a coercive state to rob people to give it to other people.' you said there isnt and even said that without the coercive state you would NOT engage in voluntary charity.

would you rather be actually poor in a third world country, or would you rather be poor in america? capitalism has made it so the poor can have computers, cars, air conditioning, own their own home and voluntarily pay 200$ a month for cable.

not only that but your 'poor' statistics are so skewed you might as well not even cite them. first and foremost they base the 'rich' persons income on their 'net' pay. matters not that they are paying 45-60% of this in taxes. do you look at your net pay or do you look at your bring home pay? what matters to you and affects you? exactly.
and the 'poor' income DOES NOT INCLUDE GOVERNMENT BENEFITS OR SUBSIDIES. so until you and your gang of thieves in government can present to me some honest stats (probably no such thing, but for conversational purposes) on who is actually 'poor,' and who is having 10 kids with different fathers driving escalades, talking on iphones and paying 200$ a month for cable while receiving welfare, then you can come talk to me.


my offer still stands. im willing, as a moderate, to allow you to institute your policies in DC. lets start small. you can create a socialist utopia in DC and once you eliminate poverty, crime, etc, etc then we can talk about moving to other parts of the country.

hint: your policies have been in affect for 100 years. we still have all these things and they are getting worse. good job.

it used to be in america you have the opportunity to be whatever you wanted to be, limited by your own abilities and aspirations. now everything we do is regulated, controlled and taxed by the government.

thanks to your mindset, we now have the food police shutting down KIDS LEMONADE STANDS!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/8243-midway-ga-police-shut-down-kids-lemonade-stand


'what about the poor!!???!!'

how about making it so the poor actually have the incentive to work and how about making it so they can start a business without the stasi state in the state capitols and in DC smacking them back down

[angelofdeath]

The way you are advocating benefits the few more than you understand. When the people have liberty is when they can protect themselves from monopoly and corruption. Ron Paul was discussing these topics 25 years ago...

Antitrust Laws Actually Promote Monopoly
http://www.lppgh.org/2008/02/20/antitrust-laws-actually-promote-monopoly/


I'm not saying I agree with everything here, just showing that with a little research your arguments have already been touched upon. They've been refuted 25 years ago by Ron Paul and you should study him more before you go raising war against him and his advocates.

"but you see zig, all this is based on false bottoms and hypotheticals. because RP doesnt 'care about the poor' every other view he puts forth is meaningless. and since i dont understand anything at all about economics and the laws of such, i'll keep on saying the 5 second talking points i stole off another message board posted by someone else." - Cilone

:cool:

[CILONE/SK]

Libertarians are in the minority. Democrats and republicans are in the majority. There is no denying this. To deny this is a blatant lie. They have only once received more then 1% of a presidential vote. They have no members in congress, the senate, and no governors. Even RP had to switch parties from them to stay elected.

If this is not a minority, what is?

[Zig]

"but you see zig, all this is based on false bottoms and hypotheticals. because RP doesnt 'care about the poor' every other view he puts forth is meaningless. and since i dont understand anything at all about economics and the laws of such, i'll keep on saying the 5 second talking points i stole off another message board posted by someone else." - Cilone

:cool:

I mean it sounds to me like the guy drank the anti-Ron Paul kool-aid and actually knows nothing about his policies or his ideals. All of his arguments are based off talking points from the media, and none of what he is saying even breaks that surface level. It can easily be researched, it takes literally maybe 5-10 minutes to find 25 year old rebuttals to his weak arguments. He's probably a gung-ho Obama supporter who is spiteful towards Ron Paul because a) RP is a GOP candidate and b) RP is critical of the Obama administration. I notice most of RP's biggest enemies are Obama supporters. There is nothing wrong with that though imo, and I'd rather see another Obama presidency over any other candidate if it isn't going to be RP... but if you are going to align yourself as an enemy of RP and his advocates you should at least do yourself a favor and actually study him and know what you're talking about before you start trying to wage internet warfare.

[angelofdeath]

Libertarians are in the minority. Democrats and republicans are in the majority. There is no denying this. To deny this is a blatant lie. They have only once received more then 1% of a presidential vote. They have no members in congress, the senate, and no governors. Even RP had to switch parties from them to stay elected.

If this is not a minority, what is?

i agree with you the true libertarians a minority. no doubt. no need to remind you that this country was founded by a tireless 3% of the population that was actively involved in resisting british tyranny. ideological revolutions are nearly always 'won' by tireless minorities.
i think what zig is trying to say is that most americans lean libertarian as they are finally realizing government is simply to big. '

RP started out as a republican, he left the republican party to run as a libertarian in their party for 1 year, then went back to being a republican. he only to run for president in 88.

you must also not confuse all libertarians as being Libertarian party members. there is a difference between being an ideological libertarian or leaning in this manner and being part of that party. the LP is a joke. they nominated bob barr last election. 'nuff said.

[CILONE/SK]

AOD you keep making my point. All you care about is yourself and the bottom line. America is for all Americans, not just you. As a politician, they have to look out for all their people, even if some people do not want that like you. This causes rules and regulations to be put in place to take care of the people, because without them companies will run rampant and ruin this country. Also it means that you can reasonably isolate yourself from everyone else, but you can not create your own country, which is what you are basically implying. We as Americans have to live together in one way or another.

you can keep repeating your free market nonsense, but reality is that it will never be proven (because it cant) and it will never happen and people like you will stay in the minority.

It is kind of concerning how you seem to hare the ideals of America so much, yet you are constantly saying you are for them. Everything you say will lead to the downfall of America financially faster then any other option out there. And with they way you all are advocating not raising the debt ceiling proves that. By not raising it, it will force a depression on America and anything that does that is bad for the American people.

[CILONE/SK]

I mean it sounds to me like the guy drank the anti-Ron Paul kool-aid and actually knows nothing about his policies or his ideals. All of his arguments are based off talking points from the media, and none of what he is saying even breaks that surface level. It can easily be researched, it takes literally maybe 5-10 minutes to find 25 year old rebuttals to his weak arguments. He's probably a gung-ho Obama supporter who is spiteful towards Ron Paul because a) RP is a GOP candidate and b) RP is critical of the Obama administration. I notice most of RP's biggest enemies are Obama supporters. There is nothing wrong with that though imo, and I'd rather see another Obama presidency over any other candidate if it isn't going to be RP... but if you are going to align yourself as an enemy of RP and his advocates you should at least do yourself a favor and actually study him and know what you're talking about before you start trying to wage internet warfare.

Zig you drank the Kool aid. You must not realize that you can find anything on the Internet. You find a rebuttal, but it is from RP. That sort of defeats the point, since I am sure that RP is not going to say that he is wrong. That is like asking someone to explain why he wrong about something he believes fully. It just will not happen and does not make sense.

BTW I have looked deeply into him and I think he would be horrible for America, but good for business.

Do not write off what I am saying by assuming I do not know what I am talking about. You are the one who keeps bringing campaign rhetoric into this.

[Decyferon]

just as devils advocate but if it was just 3% of the population what gave them the right to talk for the other 97%? I know they stood up and did something but if the numbers were that low then how do they know that that is what people wanted?

just throwing it out there mainly because this thread is getting a bit tiresome.

[CILONE/SK]

^ English guy has a good point

[angelofdeath]

just as devils advocate but if it was just 3% of the population what gave them the right to talk for the other 97%? I know they stood up and did something but if the numbers were that low then how do they know that that is what people wanted?

just throwing it out there mainly because this thread is getting a bit tiresome.

great curve ball.

the 'three percent' theory is that 3% of the population was all that were actively engaged in resisting oppression from GB in the 18th century. it is estimated that an additional 10% of the population aided the 3%. another 20% supported the cause ideologically, but didnt actively participate. 1/3 were loyalists and another 1/3 didnt care either way. so essentially the revolution was fought and oppression thrown from their shoulders by 1/3 of the population.

your point your making about 'how do we know what the people wanted...' can be said about ANY level of democracy less than 100% unanimous consent. the part that is ignored in the equation is that the people already had representative local governments. so to the extent that you believe a government is legitimate, (im not touching this in this debate) it was done by the republican principles of the day.

[angelofdeath]

AOD you keep making my point. All you care about is yourself and the bottom line. America is for all Americans, not just you. As a politician, they have to look out for all their people, even if some people do not want that like you. This causes rules and regulations to be put in place to take care of the people, because without them companies will run rampant and ruin this country. Also it means that you can reasonably isolate yourself from everyone else, but you can not create your own country, which is what you are basically implying. We as Americans have to live together in one way or another.

you can keep repeating your free market nonsense, but reality is that it will never be proven (because it cant) and it will never happen and people like you will stay in the minority.

It is kind of concerning how you seem to hare the ideals of America so much, yet you are constantly saying you are for them. Everything you say will lead to the downfall of America financially faster then any other option out there. And with they way you all are advocating not raising the debt ceiling proves that. By not raising it, it will force a depression on America and anything that does that is bad for the American people.

since you keep regurgitating the same nonsense...
i'll make one distinct point

the down fall of the US government is not the same as the down fall of the american people. just like the down fall of the german government was not the same as the down fall of the german people.

[CILONE/SK]

You are the one who keeps saying the same free market bullshit over and over. You are advocating the demise of America, even if you think it is just the government.

I will end with that.

[angelofdeath]

thank goodness.

[CILONE/SK]

Fine go back to your 3% militia. Good luck with finding fertilizer bombs and land to isolate yourself from the real world.

[angelofdeath]

umm, i thought you were going to 'end with that.'

[CILONE/SK]

I was just wishing you good luck. If you do not want it, fine, fuck you then hahaha

[El Mamerro]

if someone has a right to the water, then the people have a right to not having pollutants dumped in the water.


Three quick questions:

-Under this scenario, who defines what is a pollutant? Who pays for the research, testing, and labeling of a substance that is a pollutant?

-How does a property owner become aware that his property is being polluted? Is he supposed to pay for constantly testing his water supply?

-Would a company allowed to offer payment or incentives towards property owners to allow the company to pollute their property (I believe I already asked this one once)?




Not looking to hear how the current system fails to do this properly or whatever, just curious what the new paradigm could be.

[angelofdeath]

Three quick questions:

-Under this scenario, who defines what is a pollutant? Who pays for the research, testing, and labeling of a substance that is a pollutant?

-How does a property owner become aware that his property is being polluted? Is he supposed to pay for constantly testing his water supply?

-Would a company allowed to offer payment or incentives towards property owners to allow the company to pollute their property (I believe I already asked this one once)?




Not looking to hear how the current system fails to do this properly or whatever, just curious what the new paradigm could be.

there is an obvious problem with municipal water supplies since they are not privately owned but held in common by everyone. this is a tragedy of the commons type scenario and the real issue with this is first and foremost, privatization. so to simplify, lets talk about a spring on someones property or a well.

if i own a well, it is my responsibility to determine what is in it. when you purchase a house with a well, you get a well water test and see whats going on. the government doesnt determine someones well water quality. pollutants will be determined just the way a person who buys raw milks determines what a contaminant is. individuals determine what is safe on their own. the govt tells us you cant drink raw milk and others think you can and praise its health benefits. i would imagine, most people would consider a pollutant in drinking water to be anything that is detrimental to their health. i'd much rather choose to drink spring water from a capitalist company that bottles it than drink municipal water from most cities. why? because capitalists make money on having pure water... governments incentives are backwards in providing good products to their 'customers'

if i am concerned about my water supply at my house, i have to pay to have it tested. i do not have government water. i have spring water. its not that outlandish. we have forensics to determine who commits murders, i see no reason why forensics cannot determine who/what is committing a trespass (pollution)

i guess anything is possible, but i doubt, someone would allow their spring to be polluted by a company that poisons the water. if someone else wants their water supply polluted, i guess that is their choice.

and im all for a gradual transition to this type of system, my main concern is to remove the govt monopoly on these types of regulations and allow companies to be liable for their actions, allow them to be sued easily, and make them personally responsible to those affected not to just pay a fine to the government.

[Zig]

Zig you drank the Kool aid. You must not realize that you can find anything on the Internet. You find a rebuttal, but it is from RP. That sort of defeats the point, since I am sure that RP is not going to say that he is wrong. That is like asking someone to explain why he wrong about something he believes fully. It just will not happen and does not make sense.

BTW I have looked deeply into him and I think he would be horrible for America, but good for business.

Do not write off what I am saying by assuming I do not know what I am talking about. You are the one who keeps bringing campaign rhetoric into this.

Seriously, I didn't drink the kool-aid for Ron Paul. I was a big supporter of RP in 2008, but not enough to even donate a single dollar to his campaign. About the most I did was switch over to the Republican party so that I could vote for him to be the nominee. After his failure in 2008 I never got involved in Campaign for Liberty, and if you knew me personally you could ask any of my friends that I disagreed with a lot of his rhetoric about Obama and his pure libertarian-ism during those turbulent times of the early Obama administration. The only reason I'm on here defending him in this thread is because I enjoy posting on 12oz, and I thought your original statements about him were unfair. Like ILOTS said, I am not 100% libertarian or even go as far as aod would go in some of his posts about the limits of government. But I do support RP as a presidential candidate in 2012, and I do believe in limited government and the the original and pure meaning of the constitution. I would die for those ideals, I really would. I would suffer and struggle and give up my well-being to protect what I believe is liberty. I don't agree with you that government is supposed to take care of it's people, I don't think there is any evidence to support that statement either. From my perspective, all of government's attempts to support, protect, and help it's people have failed miserably and in most cases produced the opposite effect over the long-term. That is what I genuinely believe as an independent man living on this earth, it has nothing to do with Ron Paul or his rhetoric or his campaign. I personally believe that our government is corrupt, and power corrupts, so I don't want more power for a government that is already out of control and attempting to regulate every aspect of our lives. I want a step backwards in the other direction, and RP is the ONLY candidate advocating that. That's why I support him. It isn't because I agree and hang onto every single word he says, it's because of what he represents and where his policies will lead this country.

Honestly, I have respect for you CILONE, even though I don't respect your manner of debating, but you stood by your guns and you took on several of us in this thread to get the point across that you disagree with RP's ideals. There is nothing wrong with that, I don't expect everyone in America to support RP and agree with him. I honestly don't even care that you came at me personally, and I don't take it personal... because at the end of the day you don't know me and I don't know you. We have vastly different opinions on what is best for the world, but for all I know you could be a chill dude in person even though your a fucking troll on the internet. I think we both have good intentions and want the best for the world, I don't think you are malevolently spinning and twisting facts... but I do think you are falling into some of the more general RP hatred that has been injected into the mainstream media and other information outlets.

Do you really feel that RP and his policies would destroy America? I think that's unfair to say entirely, because RP's policies for the most part have only been shortly attempted in early American history and quickly replaced with what we have today. Are you saying that the system we have today hasn't slowly eroded and destroyed this nations wealth, prosperity, freedom, and liberty? The way I see it is the complete opposite. I see the policies that have generally been known as the "status quo" in this country to be the policies that are leading us to our incremental destruction. What I see is a nation that used to be prosperous, free, intelligent, independent, and have the most liberty on the face of the planet become the most unstable, nonfunctional, corrupt, militaristic, tyrannical police state we know today. These aren't RP's policies that brought us here to this point... these are the policies and legislation of big government, regulation, federal reserve, military industrial complex, security industrial complex, big brother, big sister, nanny state, etc. etc. that have created all of these crises we face. This is a system that isn't even just American, it's globalist and instituted in nations all around the world.

I get it though. I really understand your view, and the views of others who have sincere and legitimate concerns for taking care of those who can't help themselves, protecting the environment, etc. I live in poor neighborhoods where I see people picking up welfare checks, EBT's, food stamps, social security, planned parenthood... I understand the necessity to HELP. I also understand RP's perspective though, and I don't see it as you describe... "caring only about yourself". I see it as being self-sufficient, being responsible, being independent. When you can help yourself, you can help others, you can help your surroundings, and you can protect them too. Relying on government to do this, in MY OPINION, is NOT helping. We are creating a society that is DEPENDENT, and we are losing all of our self-sufficiency... expecting government to be there to take care of us when we make mistakes, when we are irresponsible, when we do DUMB things. From the experiences of history, we should understand that government can not take care of us and should not be expected to take care of us, or police the world, or protect us from the boogey-men. I also feel that government takes advantage of this, and instead of creating legislation that would enable us as a society to be more self-sufficient, they irresponsibly and lazily encourage us to be dependent on them. All it leads to is special interests taking advantage of us, using us as guinea pigs for social experiments, treating us like cattle, enslaving us to their "benevolent systems of care".

That's the way I feel, that is honest and genuine straight from the heart because I have no regrets about posting my own thoughts and my own ideas here on this forum. It isn't campaign rhetoric at all, it's WHY I support RP for president, regardless of whether or not I agree with him 100% on every single issue. I can sit here and guarantee you that even IF he was elected president, that I WOULDN'T be happy with a RP presidency either.

[KING BLING]

I haven't been here in years but watching Paul and the other less main stream candidates get snubbed during the Republican debates made me sick and made me nostalgic for Ch0. In true Fox fashion it was pretty much a reality show about Minnesotan politics with a few of the typical Republicans getting a small segment of time to try to make strong blurb statements that will carry into the weeks pundit shows and blogs. Debates are a sham anyway, but I was surprised not to see a conversation here especially because all I wanted to see was Paul, Cain and Gingrich but only Gingrich got attention of the 3 because he went full force. Anything from the debate you felt good about Paul fans?

[screaming hand logo]

jon stewart had a good bit on how fox news wouldn't even mention his name after the iowa straw pull or whatever. worth watching.

[christo-f]

Since returning to my own country and finding it turning in to a ridiculous nanny state where politicians and lobby groups want to save us from everything (seriously, the Health Professional Association is trying to have happy hour banned. They are banning happiness....), I can certainly see the value in the argument of over-regulation and allowing people to live their own lives. After living in China for way too long I can also see the value of competition and the benefits of a strong market based economy where rationality is the decider.

That being said Ron Paul is a fruit loop and left to his own devices he would destroy the USA with his ideas on foreign policy alone.

Even 65% of the living standards that the US enjoys requires the US to be interconnected with the rest of the world in economic behaviour alone. Were economic activity exists so must military power or some one gonna come along and take your economic from you. It is painfully clear to me that RP simply doesn't understand the threats in the world and how geopolitics works. The argument 'if we just left people alone they'd leave us alone' is so naive it's astounding. If that were the case there would be no war in history, everyone would just be leaving each other alone.

History quite clearly shows that there are many reasons for aggression, irrationality, mistrust, fear, resource security, greed, prestige/ego, etc. A leader is responsible for protecting the nation. For a leader to think that isolationism or even passive engagement is a form of defense is to open your nation to massive risk and to be irresponsible.

I think Ron Paul the Messiah would be an irresponsible president based on his foreign policy alone.

[christo-f]

This is hardly a reasonable comparison to make. Paul advocates non-interventionism, not isolationism as China did in the era you speak of. As I'm sure you know, the Chinese state considered itself the centre of the civilised universe and grossly underestimated the the power of these western barbarians who were skirmishing on the coastline trying to secure port space and trade networks. By comparison, Paul is pro free-trade, which eliminates much of the source of this conflict to begin with. There was so much more to the conflict between the European powers, the US and Japan and the Chinese nation. Trading rights was barely even it, to be completely accurate. Imperialism and colonialism based on access to resources along with security concerns were at the heart of conflict in China. Even if China was trading with the British the Japanese would have attacked, for starters.

Secondly, trade interests have increased international war, not reduced it. Two countries who's resource supply and markets have little relation to each other have less chance of going to war as they are less of a potential threat to each other. It doesn't mean they won't go to war, just that there is one less point of friction or fear that can spark conflict.


You often accuse people of sounding like chicken little, I think you have now demonstrated a propensity to the same behaviour. This line of argument would suggest that no other nations bar the US and perhaps some of their allies benefit from trade. This idea is patently untrue.
What?! I think you misunderstand me. It's not that aggressive powers will block all trade, they will block the weaker naval power in order to gain concessions out of them (whether that be cheap access to their resources, fee access to their market, tribute, whatever). I mean there are ample historical examples of this that one can point to but the two world wars are the easiest places to start in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.

However, focussing purely on the cost to US citizens, even if transport became more expensive in absence of US gov naval protection, this increased cost would be offset by the dramatic decrease in government spending paid for through taxation.
I simply don't understand your reasoning here. it's not that the transport would become more expensive it's that it could become non-existent.

It is one of the great fallacies of a statist position that looks at the current role of state actions and argues without any particular gov institution there would be chaos and disorder. There is very little that a government can do that can't be replicated by private action in a more efficient way. Wholesale theft and oppression of a citizenry may be one exception, leading an entire nation to war may be another.
If a nation were to have a private military establishment other nations wouldn't even have to fight against it to conquer their territory. They'd just have to pay it 5% more and tell it to turn on its own people.

Under your paradigm of market principals it would be irrational for a military not to turn on its own people when offered more money. That means you'd have to ally with a number of other nations in order to balance against the richest nation.

Or you could just trust in their good nature and hope for the best......

[christo-f]

This statement is disingenuous. What R. Paul is talking about is reducing motivation towards negative engagement. Quite obviously there are many reasons why a nation or political organisation may negatively engage with another, the consequences of interventionism and blow-back are just two forms of these which exists within a spectrum of others. Yet, if blow-back is identified as a concept with explanatory power factoring in several major cases of negative engagement since the terms conception, surely it is a reasonable response to attempt to neutralise this motivation to warfare or other manoeuvring.

So if we can move past such simplistic and misleading arguments which present a binary outcome of either non-interventionism preventing war or not, we can see that the real argument is if non-interventionism reduces the frequency or severity of war or other negative engagement. The most obvious way to answer this question would be to look backwards to find historical comparisons. Yet all of the historical examples you have mentioned have been much more an issue of the relative power between nations/political units than interventionism or non-interventionism. Indigenous Australia could have hardly lead a forward deployment policy preventing British conquest, for example.

And that is exactly the point. Indigenous Australia was non-interventionist but it made ZERO difference to their fate. What did make a difference was the power balance and their occupation of fertile land and fresh water sources. The English didn't give a shit whether the Abos were interventionist or not, they made their decision on opportunity and possibility of victory. Seriously, nations do NOT form foreign policy along moral lines such as "well they never did anything wrong to us, we really shouldn't fuck with them".

Nations can and do take advantage if it is in the interests of a leading administration. The US is perfect proof of that and so is any other imperialist or colonialist nation.






See y'all in another few months for my next post.

[angelofdeath]

Under your paradigm of market principals it would be irrational for a military not to turn on its own people when offered more money. That means you'd have to ally with a number of other nations in order to balance against the richest nation.


or the people could just vote in a tyrant like they always do and then this guy then turns the military against their own people.

its rather simplistic to say what you just said though. if this were the case, insurance companies would just not pay for peoples doctors visits, break current contracts with their customers, and only pay for the doctors visits who pays the insurance company 1 penny more.

and it also negates the fact that the largest part of a 'private' defense force, is the people its self. the militia in some capacity or form. it starts at home by being armed and extrapolates from there. but i see no need to actually discuss alternatives to a standing govt military or even assistance forces on a private level because RP is not an anarcho capitalist nor is advocating privatizing the military

[CILONE/SK]

Hey AOD, I found a place for you to live in your own private lalala land

lalala land of delusional retards (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html)

[angelofdeath]

i was hoping you died, but guess im not that lucky.

to bad, your 'island' and private 'lala land' thing could never work though, because the US will not let you renounce your citizenship unless you claim citizenship in another country. nice try though

[CILONE/SK]

I was hoping you went to a real libertarian country, with a free market, no taxes, no gun laws, everything you have ever wanted you unamerican piece of shit.

BTW, that country is Somalia.

[angelofdeath]

dude, you have to be the biggest idiot i have ever seen on here. you literally waited... what 2 weeks to post on here until you see one of my posts pop to the top? what a clown

[CILONE/SK]

Not really, I just read that article this morning and thought of your delusional theories. The article was only released 2 hours ago. So, stop thinking so much of your self and go back to building your fertilizer bombs and being a homegrown wannabee terrorist.
BTW, how come you hate everything that America is, and yet you still call yourself a patriot?? hypocrite.

[Decyferon]

I think an experiment like that island would be quite interesting to see, but I would imagine you would have to be remarkably Rich to live there and I can see the spin on low crime rates as basically they are so rich they don't need to go out stealing.

[CILONE/SK]

But, what about pirates? What would stop it from being overrun with people who want to kidnap the rich people? If the answer is guns, then what would stop this from becoming a self imposed prison when they are constantly on guard from people trying to get at them?

[Decyferon]

They would need to pay someone to defend their borders, or volunteer themselves, because if they don't have a military they would be pretty fucked.

Definitely doesn't seem the sort of place for poor people

[angelofdeath]

Not really, I just read that article this morning and thought of your delusional theories. The article was only released 2 hours ago. So, stop thinking so much of your self and go back to building your fertilizer bombs and being a homegrown wannabee terrorist.
BTW, how come you hate everything that America is, and yet you still call yourself a patriot?? hypocrite.

for being so confrontational on message boards debating politics, you dont really have any grasp on what some of your arguments actually mean.

a patriot is one who is devoted to ones people and place. a nationalist is one who is undyingly devoted to its government. your mistake is thinking that a patriot is one that defends their governments actions no matter what. if this were the case, the 'patriots' of the american revolution, would in fact be 'home grown terrorists making fertilizer bombs' or whatever other dumb comments you are trying to come up with at the time. but i dont seem to ever recall referring to myself as a 'patriot.'

[angelofdeath]

no further proof needed to classify this guy as a clown:

props: 07-13-2011 02:08 PM CILONE/SK For no neg props since we have argued in a few threads

negaprops: 08-16-2011 11:19 AM CILONE/SK fuck you and your anti-american theories


hahahhahaaha

[CILONE/SK]

your mistake is thinking that a patriot is one that defends their governments actions no matter what.

Never said that or implied that. You are wrong again, like so many other times. You really like to assume alot about what people say and mean.

[angelofdeath]

They would need to pay someone to defend their borders, or volunteer themselves, because if they don't have a military they would be pretty fucked.

Definitely doesn't seem the sort of place for poor people

i think the whole thing could be written off as totally infeasible because govts would certainly find a way to crush this the moment it was attempted. they like their cattle on the ranch.

there have been some attempts to do things involving 'sea steading' type things like having gambling operations just outside of the jurisdiction of various governments. didnt last long from what i remember

[CILONE/SK]

no further proof needed to classify this guy as a clown:

props: 07-13-2011 02:08 PM CILONE/SK For no neg props since we have argued in a few threads

negaprops: 08-16-2011 11:19 AM CILONE/SK fuck you and your anti-american theories


hahahhahaaha


You have nothing, do you?

From your austrian bullshit, that is not based on any type of actual system to your pro-guns bullshit, that is only valid when you are living a solitary life, just like you are. Everything you say is based on unrealistic nonsense.

[angelofdeath]

dude, i've argued with you and refuted everything you have ever written and now you are saying i 'have nothing?' cmon.

you have some serious problems... your propping/negapropping is very illustrative of this.

[CILONE/SK]

Most of what you have said has been based on other libertarians like your self. When it all comes down to it, there is zero substance to anything you have said. It has ALL been unproven theories that will tear apart this country if put into place.

BTW, the time I gave you props, was based on you never giving me Negs no matter how much we argued, nothing else. But you wishing me to die is a whole other thing. For that, I will call you out and tell you to go fuck yourself.

[angelofdeath]

Most of what you have said has been based on other libertarians like your self. When it all comes down to it, there is zero substance to anything you have said. It has ALL been unproven theories that will tear apart this country if put into place.

BTW, the time I gave you props, was based on you never giving me Negs no matter how much we argued, nothing else. But you wishing me to die is a whole other thing. For that, I will call you out and tell you to go fuck yourself.

so wait, your repackaged rachel maddow transcripts are fine and dandy, have substance, and are all 'good' but if i express an ideology you disagree with it has no 'substance?' cmon man. just cmon.

the liberal BS you espouse is the very thing that HAS 'torn this country apart.'

i like a conversation with a lefty, such as decyferon who actually will formulate his argument, debate it and not resort to childish antics and the actions of the typical forum troll such as yourself.

[CILONE/SK]

You keep trying to label people to fit your stereotypes to let you easily dismiss people with your libertarian playbook. To bad, I can not tell you one thing about rachel whoever, I do not watch tv.

I have no problem discussing your rhetoric, but for you to continually deny facts is pointless to everyone.

Tell me one country even close to the size of the US that has successfully implemented your bullshit theories and we will have a discussion, but until that happens or you admit, you do not know everything and can possibly be wrong, you are full of shit.

The reason there has NEVER been a country that in the history of mankind has implemented your bullshit theories, is because it does not work for anyone except for the wealthy.

If is is the best way forward for this world, why has it never been used before??????

[angelofdeath]

You keep trying to label people to fit your stereotypes to let you easily dismiss people with your libertarian playbook. To bad, I can not tell you one thing about rachel whoever, I do not watch tv.

thats cool. whether you watch maddow or not, i'm here to tell you, your views are exactly the same as hers.

Tell me one country even close to the size of the US that has successfully implemented your bullshit theories and we will have a discussion, but until that happens or you admit, you do not know everything and can possibly be wrong, you are full of shit.

The reason there has NEVER been a country that in the history of mankind has implemented your bullshit theories, is because it does not work for anyone except for the wealthy.

If is is the best way forward for this world, why has it never been used before??????

this country 'successfully implemented my bullshit theories' when it was created. what on earth are you talking about? open a history book for a second.

so, it can be seen your entire post is wrong and based on faulty logic, because my 'bullshit theories' were the basis of this country.

if anything, your pro gov propaganda is in fact what is faulty. it has been continually discredited. socialism and regulation has been the biggest failure in mankind. but the basic premise seems to be... the berlin wall fell, the soviet system collapsed, its a failure, so lets try it in the US. sounds like the greatest path to take for sure.

[CILONE/SK]

Wrong, because your way failed when it was only implemented a little bit before at the turn of the 20th century. The New Deal was a result of that bullshit.

You say that our country was founded on it, but you are wrong, it was founded on Freedom and Liberty, which are words you use to pull the uninformed in and you do not tell them about all the austrian bullshit that goes along with your theories that will sell this country out to the highest payer.

On the surface, your liberty lines seem very reasonable, but so does the con man when he is trying to sell you something you do not want to buy. It is not until you get past the nonsense, that you see the truth. Too bad for me, that most Americans do not dig for the truth and are easily conned.


By the way, I really liked how you do not have an answer to my question, but we both know the truth. Not one single country has successfully implemented your bullshit. Not one, and that is because it does not work. You can cite whoever you want to back up your theories, but without mathematical equations to back it up, it will stay a theory. Everything in this world, down to the atoms in a single grain of sand has a mathematical system to back it up (the hard part is filling in the variables). Why does your system not?? Is it that special, it does not need numbers? I think you all like that it doesn't involve anything that you can prove, so you can always say you are right because it has never been put in place to see. hypocritical conmen, every last one of you.

[angelofdeath]

Wrong, because your way failed when it was only implemented a little bit before at the turn of the 20th century. The New Deal was a result of that bullshit.

You say that our country was founded on it, but you are wrong, it was founded on Freedom and Liberty, which are words you use to pull the uninformed in and you do not tell them about all the austrian bullshit that goes along with your theories that will sell this country out to the highest payer.

On the surface, your liberty lines seem very reasonable, but so does the con man when he is trying to sell you something you do not want to buy. It is not until you get past the nonsense, that you see the truth. Too bad for me, that most Americans do not dig for the truth and are easily conned.


By the way, I really liked how you do not have an answer to my question, but we both know the truth. Not one single country has successfully implemented your bullshit. Not one, and that is because it does not work. You can cite whoever you want to back up your theories, but without mathematical equations to back it up, it will stay a theory. Everything in this world, down to the atoms in a single grain of sand has a mathematical system to back it up (the hard part is filling in the variables). Why does your system not?? Is it that special, it does not need numbers? I think you all like that it doesn't involve anything that you can prove, so you can always say you are right because it has never been put in place to see. hypocritical conmen, every last one of you.

hahahaha.

me: my ideology was the same ideology that founded america.
you: your policies or ideology was never instituted, anywhere, and never will be. you are an anti american piece of shit

hmmm, mathematical equations.

if i trade an item for another item, both parties benefit in the ex ante sense.
lay this out for me in an mathematical equation and please, please, tell me why on earth you need a mathematical equation to explain that if someone gives you 15K for your car your are selling for 15K, that you are satisfied with this transaction.

[CILONE/SK]

Nice way of not replying. Do you have anything at all???

BTW, our country was not founded on your bullshit theories and you know it, regardless of whether or not you will admit it.

[CILONE/SK]

If you really think austrain economics is as easy to explain as your example, you are truly blinded.

[angelofdeath]

not replying to what?
what do you want me to say that i havent said to you a million times before?

what is my ideology? that i believe in freedom for all, special privileges for none. believe everyone has the right to life liberty and property and that these are inalienable rights that cannot be taken away. i believe government is best which governs least. i believe when governments infringe on natural rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish said government. this country was founded on these very same principles. it was founded by resistance to oppression. resistance to oppressive mercantilism, taxation, martial law, and various other civil liberties violations.

in fact, probably the best depiction of my overall philosophy can be found in the declaration of secession, aka declaration of independence.

read it here: http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm
its obvious you never have before.

this philosophy of classical liberalism is the same philosophy that governed the country atleast until 1861 and largely until the progressive era and its statism. believe it or not, americans were largely free until this time. regulations and rules were limited largely to those protect property rights. taxes were not direct on the american people. we had a quasi militia type defense system. the constitution was largely followed (for what thats worth). the very things i argue for WAS america at one time. there was no welfare state nor much else of anything that wasnt enumerated in the constitution its self.

as far as a study of human actions, aka austrian economics, as i've told you many times before, its not a system. its a study of economics. it cannot be 'instituted.' it merely explains how markets work. nothing more, nothing less. it is not tied to politics whatsoever. but, you tend to keep arguments circular, ignore truth and reason and go back to your olbermann talking points.

[angelofdeath]

If you really think austrain economics is as easy to explain as your example, you are truly blinded.

look, if you cant come up with an equation to explain that you are happy when someone gives you 15K for your car you are selling for 15K or you cant see a need to even do so, therefore proving my point... just say so.

[CILONE/SK]

Just like a typical conman. State something that everyone can agree to and do not tell them about the other bullshit that is attached.

If you do not understand what I am implying, I will break it down for you, but I think you understand everything I am saying, but you just do not like it.

No one has a problem with the freedom or liberty aspect of your bullshit, what they have a problem with is the economic side of things. To say that they are not attached to politics or they are not a system, is a outfaced lie. You just have to look at RP to see that they are all combined. To elect someone who is a libertarian, like RP, is to elect someone who believes in your economic bullshit.

Also, to say that America started to go down in 1861 because of the progressive movement is you just denying facts again. The facts are that from then until the enforcement of the sherman act, you conmen were implementing libertarianism in the US. The result was monopolistic gouging, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly, a quarter of the population was out of work, five thousand banks failed, destroying the savings of 9 million families, wall street was discredited by insider trading and collusion with banks at the expense of investors, farmers were breaking out into open revolt, miners and jobless city workers were rioting. (BTW, I did copy some of those examples, so fuck you)

After Roosevelt, our country went into one of its greatest periods. Now you are advocating for this country to return to one of its worst periods of social injustice.

Keep trying to twist the argument into one for/against liberty when I am not arguing that with you. You do this alot when you are losing. Too bad, that these tactics are straight from the libertarianism play books and are easily spotted. I have no problem with the freedom and liberty side of your movement, except for RPs anti-abortion hypocrisy.

BTW, you still have not named one country or have explained that the whole austrian economics bullshit that goes hand and hand with libertarianism is not founded on anything other then some guys saying "I think this will work". So, keep trying to change the subject to something that no one is actually arguing about.

[CILONE/SK]

look, if you cant come up with an equation to explain that you are happy when someone gives you 15K for your car you are selling for 15K or you cant see a need to even do so, therefore proving my point... just say so.

You obviously do not have anything of substance to back up any of the bullshit you talk about. Keep trying to simplify things, because that is all you understand. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[CILONE/SK]

BTW, you not able to show where your bullshit theories have ever been successful, are just a sign that you lost. Good job voting for someone that is going to lose. How does it feel being on the losing team?

[angelofdeath]

No one has a problem with the freedom or liberty aspect of your bullshit, what they have a problem with is the economic side of things. To say that they are not attached to politics or they are not a system, is a outfaced lie. You just have to look at RP to see that they are all combined. To elect someone who is a libertarian, like RP, is to elect someone who believes in your economic bullshit.

AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS IS A VALUE FREE SCIENCE.
as i stated previously, you can understand austrian economics and be a totalitarian. for instance, you can understand that central bank manipulation of credit creates the business cycle. now, on a political level, if you dont want the business cycle, you advocate eliminating the central bank. if you want the business cycle, you want the central bank.

libertarian and being a student of austrian economics are not the same.

[quot]Also, to say that America started to go down in 1861 because of the progressive movement is you just denying facts again. The facts are that from then until the enforcement of the sherman act, you conmen were implementing libertarianism in the US. The result was monopolistic gouging, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly, a quarter of the population was out of work, five thousand banks failed, destroying the savings of 9 million families, wall street was discredited by insider trading and collusion with banks at the expense of investors, farmers were breaking out into open revolt, miners and jobless city workers were rioting. (BTW, I did copy some of those examples, so fuck you)[/quote]

hmmm...
so wait. you are saying that a philosophy that states one is not entitled to infringe on the rights of others the same ideology that condones and supports slavery?

and thanks for another round of copying and pasting. at least you are admitting to your plagiarizing this time around. but wait... i forgot, you do not look to any outside sources to come to your conclusions. :lol:


After Roosevelt, our country went into one of its greatest periods. Now you are advocating for this country to return to one of its worst periods of social injustice.

social injustice. ah, what a great soviet term.
our country entered into a time of relative prosperity after roosevelt and after the end of ww2 because america turned largely to a free market approach as the new deal, which prolonged the depression was officially ended and the war time domestic measures were largely repealed.

I have no problem with the freedom and liberty side of your movement, except for RPs anti-abortion hypocrisy.

freedom and liberty are a package. you cannot support the 'freedom and liberty' side of the 'movement' while supporting oppressing economic liberty. liberty is a package. liberty is nothing but the freedom to do whatever you want, so long as you do not initiate force against another human or their property.

RP is a federal politician. as such he must support the constitution. the constitution does not mention abortion, so it is a state issue as he has continually stated before. he has no position on it as far as the federal government is concerned.

BTW, you still have not named one country or have explained that the whole austrian economics bullshit that goes hand and hand with libertarianism is not founded on anything other then some guys saying "I think this will work". So, keep trying to change the subject to something that no one is actually arguing about.


austrian economics does not 'go hand in hand' with libertarianism. this is just false on its face. austrian economics is merely a school of economic thought. there is also public choice, chicago, neo classical, etc.

austrian economics, once again for the 1000th time is not a system, it is merely a school of thought that studies human action. libertarianism is the only theory that addresses political issues namely, you dont mess with me, i wont mess with you.

[angelofdeath]

You obviously do not have anything of substance to back up any of the bullshit you talk about. Keep trying to simplify things, because that is all you understand. :lol: :lol: :lol:

you are just getting funny now. your arguments are entirely circular and offer nothing new nor do they progress.

you keep trying to tell me i need an equation to understand human action. you cannot produce one nor want to produce one to state various facts related to human action. can you also produce an equation that tells me the sky is blue?

[angelofdeath]

BTW, you not able to show where your bullshit theories have ever been successful, are just a sign that you lost. Good job voting for someone that is going to lose. How does it feel being on the losing team?

how does it feel to have voted for obama who is the most statist president to date who has resided over the largest government in the history of the world?

the 'your team' mentality on this exactly illustrates why you are a tyrant and why your policies are those that should be resisted. you believe imposing your will on others, i dont. im willing to let you live in your soviet splendor, and you refuse to do the same for me. one cannot have a rational discussion with someone who is willing to have you jailed if you resist their idea of how society should function

[CILONE/SK]

See, this is what you do. When you do not want to address something you do not like, you bring up points that have no bearing on what we are talking about, so that you can address a topic you are comfortable with. You do realize that you do not actually address anything I have said and you are only spouting rhetoric?? Maybe you do not see it. Not once did you address anything except to say that libertarianism is not the same as austrian economics. I am here to tell you that it is the same thing. To make it easy to understand, I will explain it to you with this example. There are many different kinds of the color blue, but ultimately they are all fucking blue, regardless of the different shades they are.

Austrain economics is not a school of thought as you keep saying. All you are trying to do with this argument is change the argument.


Keep trying to change the subject, you still have not shown us one time where your theories have been successful. In fact you tried to state nonsense about before 1861, but that was based on denying facts about history and have been proven to have actually failed. Funny thing about facts, they do not change, no matter how many lies you say.

[CILONE/SK]

how does it feel to have voted for obama who is the most statist president to date who has resided over the largest government in the history of the world?

the 'your team' mentality on this exactly illustrates why you are a tyrant and why your policies are those that should be resisted. you believe imposing your will on others, i dont. im willing to let you live in your soviet splendor, and you refuse to do the same for me. one cannot have a rational discussion with someone who is willing to have you jailed if you resist their idea of how society should function

More assumptions based on your misguided viewpoints. Show me one time where someone is jailed for resisting an idea of how society should function?? Show me one time where I have stated that we should force everyone to live exactly the same way??

You make assumptions and go to an extreme situation to try to support them. And you call me un-rational.

[CILONE/SK]

you are just getting funny now. your arguments are entirely circular and offer nothing new nor do they progress.

you keep trying to tell me i need an equation to understand human action. you cannot produce one nor want to produce one to state various facts related to human action. can you also produce an equation that tells me the sky is blue?

Here is why the sky is blue motherfucker:

Some numbers that AOD can not understand (http://moreo.phys.utk.edu/adriana/electro08/CarruthRayleigh.pdf):lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


By the way AOD, I really am into how you keep trying to redefine our argument. too bad, when it all comes down to it, your theories are bullshit and do not work. You are unable to prove otherwise.

[angelofdeath]

More assumptions based on your misguided viewpoints. Show me one time where someone is jailed for resisting an idea of how society should function?? Show me one time where I have stated that we should force everyone to live exactly the same way??

You make assumptions and go to an extreme situation to try to support them. And you call me un-rational.

its not an assumption.
for instance, if you pass a law that says i cannot own a certain firearm, what is the consequence if i break this law? just slap me on the wrist? or do i ultimately end up in jail? if someone wants to cut my grass and i pay him 5$ an hour and he willingly does it, this is an illegal transaction according to you, since you support the minimum wage. what is my penalty for breaking this law? i get fined. if i refuse to pay the fine, a warrant is issued for my arrest. if i sufficiently defend myself from this very law that you say does not affect me one iota, the LEO's claim the right to SHOOT me for resisting being put into a cage. what if the guy i paid the 5$ an hour to doesnt file a 1040 form? what happens to him if i refuses to pay the fines, back taxes, extortion fees and levies? he winds up like irwin schiff. if you say one must pay for your kids school, pay for someone elses housing or food, are you trying to tell me with a straight face that this is NOT telling someone how to live?

your policies shape how society functions. everything you advocate runs the lives of other people.
but i dont blame you specifically because you dont realize what your views entail. you do not understand that all your policies necessarily involve violence against non conformists. perhaps you should dwell a bit on this and think really hard on this....before your next one line response restating the exact thing i just replied to.

[angelofdeath]

Here is why the sky is blue motherfucker:

Some numbers that AOD can not understand (http://moreo.phys.utk.edu/adriana/electro08/CarruthRayleigh.pdf):lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


By the way AOD, I really am into how you keep trying to redefine our argument. too bad, when it all comes down to it, your theories are bullshit and do not work. You are unable to prove otherwise.

hey, if you need read all that just to look outside and see that the sky is blue, that is your loss

[CILONE/SK]

^ more extreme examples.

How does any of that address what we are talking about. Keep trying to change the argument, sooner or later you might win, hahahaha.

BTW, I do love how you just tried to change it to support your anti-tax bullshit. What else do you have? I am still waiting to see where your bullshit has been successfully implemented.



You sure can not answer a question to save your life.