[quote]orion wrote:
why would corporations be interested in a free market? [/quote]
Interesting.
Off-topic: Who then is likely to be interested in a free market? I know for a fact that free market is killing little businesses. What kind of investors are supposed to be benefiting from it?
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
why would corporations be interested in a free market?
Interesting.
Off-topic: Who then is likely to be interested in a free market? I know for a fact that free market is killing little businesses. What kind of investors are supposed to be benefiting from it?
[/quote]
Those who invest in the right companies?
And then of course all customers, which is everybody.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The beauty of the libertarian philosophy is that it is rooted in natural law. All things will fall into order if we allow it to happen. It is a major point of arrogance for man to think that he can control anything–systems control themselves based on natural laws. The laws of economics, for example, don’t change because man has written laws to benefit certain individuals.[/quote]
Hmm, I’m not sure you have this exactly right.
The ultimate “natural law” is survival of the fittest. We all know what kind of society that would bring us. Roving gangs. Woohoo, sounds like fun!
People are not altogether little angels just looking for ways to bring light into other peoples lives.
Anyway, whether or not man can control anything, he can certainly design systems and influence systems.
Getting “all ideological” about the concept just makes it very clear to me that there is “wrongness” to it somewhere at some level.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Here’s a question for you lot: Why is Paul having trouble raising as much money as the other folks? I mean, shouldn’t corporations be throwing money at him since he advocates a free market?[/quote]
No, he advocates 50 free markets… 
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hmm, I’m not sure you have this exactly right.
The ultimate “natural law” is survival of the fittest. We all know what kind of society that would bring us. Roving gangs. Woohoo, sounds like fun!
[/quote]
That is exactly what we have today. It is survival of the fittest but we still have the capacity to take care of the weak. That does not go against natural law–in fact, it is impossible to go against natural law. We can write legislation but natural laws will always override man-made law.
Correct–but man “learned” a long time ago that it is in his best interest to “get-along” and use other men for their benefit. We are social creatures because we do not have the capacity to breed and dominate like other species.
There will always people who are power-mad whom desire dominance. There is no getting around that. We also mustn’t forget that man existed many millennia before the advent of organized government.
I believe man is extremely arrogant to measure civilization in terms of his ability to rule–there are so many better measures for that. Natural hierarchies exist and have always existed. Centralized government is unnecessary.
Yes, however, we are not the only animal that can change our environment…though, we are the most advanced species that have. Just by existing animals change the ecosystem–we cannot just look at in terms of our ability to use science and technology. Just because we may have a better understanding of the impact of our influences doesn’t give them anymore legitimacy or not; though I believe we must respect the rights of others if we expect ours to be respected.
[quote]
Getting “all ideological” about the concept just makes it very clear to me that there is “wrongness” to it somewhere at some level.[/quote]
Agreed. Philosophy is only so useful. We must be practical sometimes too. I believe the hallmark of achievement lies exactly where ideology and prudence meet. I am still looking for that line.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
First of all, it’s Doug Thompson, not George Thompson which alone should speak volumes about your attention to detail.[/quote]
Oh yes, so important.
[quote]Second of all, the article that you quoted in it’s entirety regarding the false source was written several years PRIOR to the article containing the “goddamn piece of paper” quote. So what is it’s relevance? and what was your point?
I will credit you for bringing one valid point to this discussion - Bill McTavish did say that the article was speculative. But seeing as I admitted myself the article was controversial and tenuous I am failing to see how you have furthered your point that it was debunked in 2002 (three years prior to it’s being written) and regarded as urban legend.
Now am I being libertarian enough? I certainly questioned your suspicious dismissal of the quote. I’m really curious as to what grants you the ability to know the truth so well that you don’t even have to bother looking things up before you go ahead and speak out about them completely misinformed. Now I’m really curious about your next reaction. Are you going to admit that you botched this one and misspoke before really doing any research or will you try to find new evidence that this quote is urban legend and was debunked in 2002?
On second thought - I don’t really care. This is typical of many of the right winged responses I see around here, people tossing around information before bothering to check the facts or conduct any research. When you did try to research the topic a little bit you were more concerned with supporting your own point than finding out the truth. Your end product was a mismatched conglomeration of half truths and speculation. Congratulations.
In the end, I really don’t care whether or not the quote is true. I am a little more surprised that people have such a hard time believing George Bush could say something like this. The Bush administration has done more harm to our civil liberties than any other administration in our nation’s history. This says a lot more about their blatant disrespect of the constitution than anything which may or may not have been said behind closed doors.[/quote]
Fantastic and illuminating. First, you post a “quote” - dubious at best - and someone takes out its already shaky legs. Then, you whine about “researching the topic” when it is quite clear I looked into the ridiculous quote more than you, as you simply quoted it - despite its on its face being pretty unlikely - like a mindless lemming.
And then you top it off by suggesting “you don’t even care if it is true” - which is hardly surprising: what matters is ideological congruence regardless of a statement’s truth.
“It may be untrue, but it oughta be true!” - not good enough. You say “this says more about their blatant disrespect…” - but, see, here is the thing: it doesn’t say a thing about it at all because it is has been shown to be a fabrication.
Poor Ron Paul - a decent, principled man whose entire campaign has been undermined by his followers.
Today was Ron’s birthday. He celebrated with a large BBQ in Texas.
This coming saturday is the Texas Straw Poll.
Wednesday is the next Republican debate.
Gonna be an exciting week!
Youtube Video:
David Walker says America is on the Brink of Bankruptcy. Who is he? The U.S. Comptroller General.
We are witnessing history in the making, gentlemen.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Fantastic and illuminating. First, you post a “quote” - dubious at best - and someone takes out its already shaky legs. Then, you whine about “researching the topic” when it is quite clear I looked into the ridiculous quote more than you, as you simply quoted it - despite its on its face being pretty unlikely - like a mindless lemming.
And then you top it off by suggesting “you don’t even care if it is true” - which is hardly surprising: what matters is ideological congruence regardless of a statement’s truth.
“It may be untrue, but it oughta be true!” - not good enough. You say “this says more about their blatant disrespect…” - but, see, here is the thing: it doesn’t say a thing about it at all because it is has been shown to be a fabrication.
Poor Ron Paul - a decent, principled man whose entire campaign has been undermined by his followers.[/quote]
I’m sorry, I thought you might have said something about how you were completely wrong and the quote was never debunked and never considered urban legend. I also thought you might have been able to tell that the articles you submitted had nothing do with the quote whatsoever except the one adjective describing that quote as “speculative”.
I’d really love to waste my time discussing this meaningless topic with you more but I’m afraid that until you can actually back up your claims about the quote being “fabricated”, “debunked” or “urban legend” I’m going to have to disagree with you and the other Bush cheerleaders on this one.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
I’m sorry, I thought you might have said something about how you were completely wrong and the quote was never debunked and never considered urban legend. I also thought you might have been able to tell that the articles you submitted had nothing do with the quote whatsoever except the one adjective describing that quote as “speculative”.
I’d really love to waste my time discussing this meaningless topic with you more but I’m afraid that until you can actually back up your claims about the quote being “fabricated”, “debunked” or “urban legend” I’m going to have to disagree with you and the other Bush cheerleaders on this one. [/quote]
You mean outside of the information I posted, where the Capitol Hill Blue author admits that his primary “insider” has scammed him across an entire swath of his quotes? This, even though it sounds like he is making it up?
Newsflash: the burden is on him to show it was true, not on other people to disprove that is wasn’t.
The author’s credibility is essentially zero - even the cleanup guy hired to come in and clean house on the site said the article was suspect.
And yet - in the face of all this, your inclination is to believe the article, despite the fact that the “evidence” cuts the opposite way. That tells me more about your willingness to believe anything you read as long as it fits into your wild-eyed ideology than anything you type.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Today was Ron’s birthday. He celebrated with a large BBQ in Texas.
This coming saturday is the Texas Straw Poll.
Wednesday is the next Republican debate.
Gonna be an exciting week!
Youtube Video:
David Walker says America is on the Brink of Bankruptcy. Who is he? The U.S. Comptroller General.
We are witnessing history in the making, gentlemen. [/quote]
great video - I hope more people are becoming aware of this
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You mean outside of the information I posted, where the Capitol Hill Blue author admits that his primary “insider” has scammed him across an entire swath of his quotes? This, even though it sounds like he is making it up?
Newsflash: the burden is on him to show it was true, not on other people to disprove that is wasn’t.
The author’s credibility is essentially zero - even the cleanup guy hired to come in and clean house on the site said the article was suspect.
And yet - in the face of all this, your inclination is to believe the article, despite the fact that the “evidence” cuts the opposite way. That tells me more about your willingness to believe anything you read as long as it fits into your wild-eyed ideology than anything you type.
[/quote]
There is no clear cut evidence either way… so while it hasn’t been proven, neither has it been disproven.
Strangely, a lot of politics happens without proof being available. People are left to decide for themselves based on whatever breadcrumbs they have followed.
Sadly, both sides are masterful players at unproven mischaracterization, really adding nothing but divisiveness and confusion. Yay.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
great video - I hope more people are becoming aware of this[/quote]
Not likely, unless it was featured on E! and filmed out of Paris Hilton’s love canal.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You mean outside of the information I posted, where the Capitol Hill Blue author admits that his primary “insider” has scammed him across an entire swath of his quotes? This, even though it sounds like he is making it up?
Newsflash: the burden is on him to show it was true, not on other people to disprove that is wasn’t. [/quote]
Newsflash: That article about the “insider” was written THREE FUCKING YEARS before the “goddamn paper” quote! For the love of god, read my post before you start disputing it and shut the fuck up about this stupid quote.
Here’s a not-so-good video in support of Ron Paul:
“All of our lives…we’ve been waiting…for someone to call our leader.”
What
???
That’s not what I’ve been waiting for.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Fantastic and illuminating. First, you post a “quote” - dubious at best - and someone takes out its already shaky legs. Then, you whine about “researching the topic” when it is quite clear I looked into the ridiculous quote more than you, as you simply quoted it - despite its on its face being pretty unlikely - like a mindless lemming.
And then you top it off by suggesting “you don’t even care if it is true” - which is hardly surprising: what matters is ideological congruence regardless of a statement’s truth.
“It may be untrue, but it oughta be true!” - not good enough. You say “this says more about their blatant disrespect…” - but, see, here is the thing: it doesn’t say a thing about it at all because it is has been shown to be a fabrication.
Poor Ron Paul - a decent, principled man whose entire campaign has been undermined by his followers.
I’m sorry, I thought you might have said something about how you were completely wrong and the quote was never debunked and never considered urban legend. I also thought you might have been able to tell that the articles you submitted had nothing do with the quote whatsoever except the one adjective describing that quote as “speculative”.
I’d really love to waste my time discussing this meaningless topic with you more but I’m afraid that until you can actually back up your claims about the quote being “fabricated”, “debunked” or “urban legend” I’m going to have to disagree with you and the other Bush cheerleaders on this one. [/quote]
He has done a hell of a job debunking it. You have done NOTHING to prove it might be remotely true.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Newsflash: That article about the “insider” was written THREE FUCKING YEARS before the “goddamn paper” quote! For the love of god, read my post before you start disputing it and shut the fuck up about this stupid quote.[/quote]
Yes, and the point - again - is that the guy has essentially zero credibility to produce such an outrageous story by his own admission.
The story isn’t about Bush’s golf score - it is about him basically making a treasonous statement with regards to his duty to uphold the Constitution. Such a serious claim would have to have bulletproof support - well, for non-Ron Paul numbskulls at least - otherwise, readers should remain skeptical.
Not you.
If someone wrote it and published it on an internet site, you run it up a flagpole and salute it without ever “daring” to question such an outrageous story. Not my problem to fix - just pointing out how ridiculous the claim is and how ridiculous it is for anyone to put any stock in it.