Ron Paul

[Spry]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I am not sure what people mean by “follow the constitution” because it gives us a lot of leeway but he will gut most federal programs and laws. He will allow the states to do whatever the hell they want. The federal government has been key in overcoming so much discrimination. Under Paul that would regress.

Indeed.

Under Ron Paul, watch Biblical young-Earth creationism start being taught in schools, making American high school science graduates the laughing stock of the world.

ElbowStrike

Precisely. Kansas would remove evolution from the text books and San Francisco would have mandatory gay sex in the classrooms. It really would be a fiasco.

As far as fiascoes are concerned, I’m more interested in the ones that cost human lives.

And I’m not the only one.[/quote]

As a plumber once said, “Well there’s ya problem!”

If your country is full of dumb shits who are as irrational in their fundamental beliefs as your country’s so called enemy (radical Muslims) then you are doomed.

There appears not to be a problem with how your government runs itself. The problem is the American people (if what you say is true about Kansas for example) just not being very nice people.

[Gianacakos]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I am not sure what people mean by “follow the constitution” because it gives us a lot of leeway but he will gut most federal programs and laws. He will allow the states to do whatever the hell they want. The federal government has been key in overcoming so much discrimination. Under Paul that would regress.

Indeed.

Under Ron Paul, watch Biblical young-Earth creationism start being taught in schools, making American high school science graduates the laughing stock of the world.

ElbowStrike

Precisely. Kansas would remove evolution from the text books and San Francisco would have mandatory gay sex in the classrooms. It really would be a fiasco.

As far as fiascoes are concerned, I’m more interested in the ones that cost human lives.

And I’m not the only one.[/quote]

Like the fiasco of having Saddam ethnically cleanse an entire country? That certainly didn’t cost any human lives. Maybe Hitler should still be in power? Man I sure do wish we could have those days back.

[Beowolf]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Ron Paul = dead topic.

Come now, grasshopper…he’s far from being a dead topic just because you wish him to be so.[/quote]

He’s a dead horse, no matter how feverishly you beat him.

Talk about his ideas? Fine. But his candidacy is over.

[Regular_Gonzalez]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
With that being said though I just don’t hold enough confidence in people in general to believe that Libertarianism would work.

Freedom also means the freedom to fail. Stupid and lazy people will either adapt or perish.[/quote]

The problem I have with this is the negative effect that the failure of these people will have on those who aren’t stupid and lazy.

I would also feel like a major hypocrite if I suddenly fully embraced Ron Paul style libertarianism now that I already have a degree (which the Australian government picked up the majority of the cost for), no longer require public transport, can pay for my own health care etc.

[lixy]

[quote]Gianacakos wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I am not sure what people mean by “follow the constitution” because it gives us a lot of leeway but he will gut most federal programs and laws. He will allow the states to do whatever the hell they want. The federal government has been key in overcoming so much discrimination. Under Paul that would regress.

Indeed.

Under Ron Paul, watch Biblical young-Earth creationism start being taught in schools, making American high school science graduates the laughing stock of the world.

ElbowStrike

Precisely. Kansas would remove evolution from the text books and San Francisco would have mandatory gay sex in the classrooms. It really would be a fiasco.

As far as fiascoes are concerned, I’m more interested in the ones that cost human lives.

And I’m not the only one.

Like the fiasco of having Saddam ethnically cleanse an entire country? That certainly didn’t cost any human lives. Maybe Hitler should still be in power? Man I sure do wish we could have those days back.[/quote]

A fiasco is a humiliating failure. To speak of a fiasco, you need to have attempted something. And in the case of Washington, the only fiasco was that, despite the help of the major Western powers, Iraq was unable to annihilate Iran. I have absolutely no doubt that the Reagan administration would have liked nothing more than millions more dead bodies on the Iranian side.

Also, considering Turkey is America’s strongest ally in the region after the Zionist state, I’m sure Saddam’s inability to subjugate or exterminate the Kurds was viewed as a fiasco.

So, if the US wanted to save human lives, it was late by many years.

And for Heaven’s sake, can we once have a discussion on this board without referencing Hitler? I don’t really know what’s worse, the absurd notion that Americans single-handedly defeated 1940’s Germany, or the even more absurd idea that the US is benevolently saving the poor and oppressed.

[Spry]

[quote]lixy wrote:
And for Heaven’s sake, can we once have a discussion on this board without referencing Hitler?[/quote]

Nein! What’s everyone got against ole Hitler anyway?

Hitler:

1. Started with a Good Idea - A Supreme Race

BUT

2. Made a Logic Error - Genetic diversity is the way to go. Genetic uniformity is not.

AND

3. Poorly Implemented a Plan - Should have conquered Europe slower.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Gianacakos wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I am not sure what people mean by “follow the constitution” because it gives us a lot of leeway but he will gut most federal programs and laws. He will allow the states to do whatever the hell they want. The federal government has been key in overcoming so much discrimination. Under Paul that would regress.

Indeed.

Under Ron Paul, watch Biblical young-Earth creationism start being taught in schools, making American high school science graduates the laughing stock of the world.

ElbowStrike

Precisely. Kansas would remove evolution from the text books and San Francisco would have mandatory gay sex in the classrooms. It really would be a fiasco.

As far as fiascoes are concerned, I’m more interested in the ones that cost human lives.

And I’m not the only one.

Like the fiasco of having Saddam ethnically cleanse an entire country? That certainly didn’t cost any human lives. Maybe Hitler should still be in power? Man I sure do wish we could have those days back.[/quote]

The good old days.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
The problem I have with this is the negative effect that the failure of these people will have on those who aren’t stupid and lazy.[/quote]

The effect of lazy and stupid people is magnified by government nanny-ism.

I would also feel like a major hypocrite if I suddenly fully embraced Ron Paul style libertarianism now that I already have a degree (which the Australian government picked up the majority of the cost for), no longer require public transport, can pay for my own health care etc.

If you prefer, look at it as growing up, not hypocrisy. You’ve learned what you are capable of and now can be weened off the system.

Government intervention in the above sectors raises the price of the services provided by them. Government does not respond to profit or loss the way private industry does so therefore never adapts to consumer needs. If government was never involved it would have been cheaper and more people would have been able to afford those services. Let us not forget, when government taxes people for those above services it takes money from people who may not use them. How is that fair?

[zephead4747]

[quote]Spry wrote:
lixy wrote:
And for Heaven’s sake, can we once have a discussion on this board without referencing Hitler?

Nein! What’s everyone got against ole Hitler anyway?

Hitler:

1. Started with a Good Idea - A Supreme Race

BUT

2. Made a Logic Error - Genetic diversity is the way to go. Genetic uniformity is not.

AND

3. Poorly Implemented a Plan - Should have conquered Europe slower.

[/quote]

shouldn’t of attacked russia until all of the west was conquered, shouldn’t of let the japs attack the US.

[Gianacakos]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gianacakos wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I am not sure what people mean by “follow the constitution” because it gives us a lot of leeway but he will gut most federal programs and laws. He will allow the states to do whatever the hell they want. The federal government has been key in overcoming so much discrimination. Under Paul that would regress.

Indeed.

Under Ron Paul, watch Biblical young-Earth creationism start being taught in schools, making American high school science graduates the laughing stock of the world.

ElbowStrike

Precisely. Kansas would remove evolution from the text books and San Francisco would have mandatory gay sex in the classrooms. It really would be a fiasco.

As far as fiascoes are concerned, I’m more interested in the ones that cost human lives.

And I’m not the only one.

Like the fiasco of having Saddam ethnically cleanse an entire country? That certainly didn’t cost any human lives. Maybe Hitler should still be in power? Man I sure do wish we could have those days back.

A fiasco is a humiliating failure. To speak of a fiasco, you need to have attempted something. And in the case of Washington, the only fiasco was that, despite the help of the major Western powers, Iraq was unable to annihilate Iran. I have absolutely no doubt that the Reagan administration would have liked nothing more than millions more dead bodies on the Iranian side.

Also, considering Turkey is America’s strongest ally in the region after the Zionist state, I’m sure Saddam’s inability to subjugate or exterminate the Kurds was viewed as a fiasco.

So, if the US wanted to save human lives, it was late by many years.

And for Heaven’s sake, can we once have a discussion on this board without referencing Hitler? I don’t really know what’s worse, the absurd notion that Americans single-handedly defeated 1940’s Germany, or the even more absurd idea that the US is benevolently saving the poor and oppressed.[/quote]

While I agree the Hitler reference is old and tired, I also concede you most likely have a much better mastery of world history than I do; therefore, I use what I know. For a more modern analogy: Should the police of this country allow gang leaders to do as they please because fighting them costs human lives?
Of course America didn’t single=handedly defeat Germany, I didn’t intend to imply that. But, America also didn’t single-handedly overthrow Saddam did they? I think the failure is that the rest of the world doesn’t want to see this through.
I also did not try to imply the we are benevolent. As a side note, you certainly interpreted a lot from my small statement. We are protecting our interests (oil, not getting attacked by terrorists, etc…). These interests, in my opinion, are also things that benefit all or most developed countries and maybe even save the poor an oppressed from time to time. Of course you will disagree, and I respect that as one of the things that makes this world great. Thanks for the intelligent response though, I appreciate it more than you know.

[lixy]

[quote]Gianacakos wrote:
Of course America didn’t single=handedly defeat Germany, I didn’t intend to imply that. But, America also didn’t single-handedly overthrow Saddam did they? I think the failure is that the rest of the world doesn’t want to see this through. [/quote]

I see your point of view. However, I am yet to talk to a Brit, Estonian, Italian or Spaniard that talks about their soldiers defending their country, spreading freedom or any of the riff-raff that a good chunk of Americans are displaying vis-a-vis the war on Iraq.

I also did not try to imply the we are benevolent. As a side note, you certainly interpreted a lot from my small statement. We are protecting our interests (oil, not getting attacked by terrorists, etc…). These interests, in my opinion, are also things that benefit all or most developed countries and maybe even save the poor an oppressed from time to time. Of course you will disagree, and I respect that as one of the things that makes this world great.

My bad then for assuming that much. I come from a country that was still a colony half a century ago, so I naturally side with the underdog.

Had a fraction of what was spent on this madness gone to developing alternative energy resources, chances are that we might have cold fusion right now (I exaggerate for effect, but you get my point).

As far as getting attacked by terrorists go, we know for a fact that attacking Iraq made the US and the world in general more vulnerable. There’s pretty much a consensus on this in the intelligence community.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003272931_terrorintel24.html

Now, while the people involved in oil companies and other industries involved have indeed lined up their pockets and benefited greatly from the 2003 act of aggression, it is very hard to demonstrate that it has benefited the average American in a good way. Saddam, or any subsequent head of state in Iraq, had no choice but put his oil on the market. So I don’t really see how you can speak of “your interests” unless you own stock in the corporations that got awarded contracts in Iraq or the MIC. And even then, you’ll have to balance it out against all your tax-money that went into bombs and such. Also, I’m sure you feel the relentless increase in oil prices (117$/barrel as of yesterday) in your wallet.

Bottomline, if you really think the decision was made with your best interests in mind, you may want to think a little more.

Thanks for the intelligent response though, I appreciate it more than you know.

Thanks. As you can see from some brutal exchanges with other members of this board, you get a lot of the credit by assuming good faith and not giving in to emotions.

[Regular_Gonzalez]

When you look at the breakdown of income tax payments by income it is easy to understand why libertarian conservatism will never become popular with voters.

In the US, the top 5% of income earners pay around 50% of all individual income taxes. The bottom 50% on the other hand pay almost nothing in the way of income tax.

While most government programs are extremely wasteful and inneficient, the majority of the population are effectively contributing nothing to the funding of these programs. Why would these people care if the money of those much more successful than them gets taken to fund government programs.

Even if a lower income earner only derives a small amount of benefit from a public transport or public healthcare system, why would they want it scrapped when they are essentially receiving the service for free?

[kroby]

[quote]lixy wrote:

Had a fraction of what was spent on this madness gone to developing alternative energy resources, chances are that we might have cold fusion right now (I exaggerate for effect, but you get my point).[/quote]

Poppycock

[quote]As far as getting attacked by terrorists go, we know for a fact that attacking Iraq made the US and the world in general more vulnerable. There’s pretty much a consensus on this in the intelligence community.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003272931_terrorintel24.html

[/quote]

The only credible kind of information on this subject would be from terrorists themselves. Everything else is speculation and worthless. The Intelligence community? The same that didn’t expect to see the WTC fall after being targeted less than a decade earlier? You call what they think as fact? Bah.

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You are 9 months too late.[/quote]

No, just 3.

[Guerrero]

Go ask a black man or a communist about how much “utopian” it was.

The USA was a democracy, they had the right to vote, and they were a minority.

I don’t see anything wrong in them not getting their way.

If they don’t want to deal with democracy, start your own nation, or secede.

We all know what a success story Liberia is.

[lixy]

[quote]Guerrero wrote:
Go ask a black man or a communist about how much “utopian” it was.

The USA was a democracy, they had the right to vote, and they were a minority.

I don’t see anything wrong in them not getting their way.

If they don’t want to deal with democracy, start your own nation, or secede. [/quote]

Interesting. Do you draw the line at “vote”? The Jews had the right to vote for whomever they wished in post-WWI Germany.

I personally have no problem with the tyranny of the majority (as long as it remains non-violent), but I didn’t think people living in a republic would agree with me. In the US, there are plenty of documented cases of aggression perpetrated by government agents against minorities).

But let me guess…you’re not part of a minority, are you?

[Big_Boss]

[quote]Guerrero wrote:
Go ask a black man or a communist about how much “utopian” it was.

The USA was a democracy, they had the right to vote, and they were a minority.

I don’t see anything wrong in them not getting their way.

If they don’t want to deal with democracy, start your own nation, or secede.

We all know what a success story Liberia is.[/quote]

Nice “insight” you have,chump.

[Guerrero]

[quote]
But let me guess…you’re not part of a minority, are you?[/quote]

Obviously not, since my screen name, is my last name, and my last name, is in Spanish.

So no, I’m not a part of a minority.

Your profile says you are from Sweden, you wouldn’t understand the USA, you’re country is a homogenous nation, actively inviting non-westerners to settle there, for no apparent reason.

Our country is the other way around, we’re having growing racial tensions right now.

We’re involved in two foreign wars are in the middle of a really contentious election year.

[Guerrero]

Interesting. Do you draw the line at “vote”? The Jews had the right to vote for whomever they wished in post-WWI Germany.

The Jews also drew all that hatred because they insulated themselves within their own community and didn’t assimilate with the Germans.

I don’t think the Jews needed to get massacres, but it’s best not to be a bull in a china shop.

There isn’t really much enmity in the USA towards Asian Americans, mostly because they don’t challenge or seek support from the anglo plurality.

They also occupy technical positions instead of, managerial ones which I guess is seen as subordinate.

While it is, desireable that we all live in a peacable friendly society, the reality is that, it doesn’t take much to piss of a nation, when you’re not really a part of it.

Ie, a nation is an ethnic group of people who share similar traits and cultures, and you’re not it.

Better to form your own, or stay in your own.

Because otherwise you are the mercy of the nation’s dominant ethnic group.

[Big_Boss]

[quote]Guerrero wrote:

But let me guess…you’re not part of a minority, are you?

Obviously not, since my screen name, is my last name, and my last name, is in Spanish.

So no, I’m not a part of a minority.

Your profile says you are from Sweden, you wouldn’t understand the USA, you’re country is a homogenous nation, actively inviting non-westerners to settle there, for no apparent reason.

Our country is the other way around, we’re having growing racial tensions right now.

We’re involved in two foreign wars are in the middle of a really contentious election year.
[/quote]

I have a feeling you’re about to put your foot in your mouth.