Jump to content

Ron Paul Revolution!!!!


vanfullofretards

Recommended Posts

There were a huge number of publications in 1776—Pamphlets, books, newspapers—The wealth of knowledge hasn't changed since then. The technology we use to communicate has, but has the telegraph lead to more knowledge? No. It only lead to an ideology of "speed" which has lead to us first marveling and now accepting an accelerated volley of useless fragmented information. Novelty news or "news of today" has replaced "news" entirely. Also, like I said before, thinking takes time. You can't speed up learning. "Speed" simply adds to confusion. First the telegraph, then the penny papers, then the radio, then the tv, and now the internet have only served to irreversibly change public discourse from what it was in the 17th century and early 18th century: Rational, logical, poignant, and focused on things that actually mattered to the daily lives of readers.

 

 

Point being is that TED does not distribute MORE information than they had in 1776. People are creating robots now, so the fuck what? Does TED ever take the time to explain how this constant need for technology is healthy? Hell no, because TED isnt interested in a public discourse about why technology is good. It just assumes it's good, because if it didnt then people would question the value of TED and the internet and very possibly turn that shit off.

 

People didnt buy Thomas Paine's pamphlet because the printed word was a new novelty and they had to have one. Common Sense didnt obtain such popularity because it was sitting alone on every bookshelf. Consumers weren't screaming for Barnes and Nobel to open so they could buy the newest edition of harry potter. Conspicuous consumption didn't exist. These were people who feared the possibility of a famine and purchased goods only when it was in their self-interest to do so. Common Sense was one of the most culturally significant books ever written. Its logic is sound. It's argument is inspirational. It compels the reader to do something about a problem you can see right outside your doorstep. Even today it's one of the best reads you can have. I've posted it in the book section because it's so good. But no, EVERYBODY was reading and writing. There was no shortage of writing on book shelves and at speakeasy's.

 

I'm reluctantly running through a lot of ideas at high speed because this is the internet and the internet doesnt always allow for long discussions. My battery is also at 2%, which doesnt allow for long discussions either.

 

Finally, the point i find the most interesting in your post: What practical reason is there for buying a fast car? There isn't one. Buying a race car—on a budget or otherwise—is an irrational decision. You want to buy a car that's fast for the emotion you get in owning it. Emotion undermines rational behavior, which by definition of terms would mean it's an "irrational" behavior. A rational consumer would take the bus, move closer to work, and realize that highways are the untenable constructs of a society gone mad and petition for a change in city planning/insist on a less volatile infrastructure.

 

Edit: And as far as the rest of your example. You haven't deduced anything. All you've described is a man that stated he's been swayed by the power of emotion and then ends up not pursuing an impulse. That's the end of the scenario. It would've been irrational for him to buy a car simply because it's fast and he can afford it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The Convention is where delegates are meant to cast votes for the nominee, yet the Tampa Bay Times Forum was already plastered with embedded Romney banners, and additional 'Mitt' signs for people to hold were also smuggled in to make it appear that many are behind him. All Ron Paul material was promptly confiscated.

 

Six states filed to put Ron Paul into nomination while the rules still said it only took five states. Realizing this, the RNC met early Tuesday morning to change the rules in order to make the minimum needed as eight states, which Ron also would have had if the RNC had not decided to take the Ron Paul delegates away from LA and ME. One bus of delegates on the way to the RNC was essentially kidnapped for two hours, and arrived too late to vote on the matter said the RNC.

 

Rather than taking proper vote counts or listening to objections, several votes were clearly not unanimous, but this didn't stop the RNC "leaders" from ignoring the dissent. Video surfaced just after this video published, but a link is in the video showing that the teleprompter already had pre-approved results before the public vote was taken. Ron Paul's name and delegate totals were not allowed to be mentioned officially on the stage, even when he won the specific state.

 

The Republican Party has lost all hope, and the disrespect Paul supporters received will eventually be replied with "I told you so."

 

ALSO: click and watch the annotations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if the majority of the Republican party actually did not vote for RP in 44 states (I will give you 6 states, even though we both know that is not true), why are RP supporters trying to force his name on the ballot? If he was not selected by "The People", isn't that the "free market" at work?

 

The "Parties" are private organizations, are they not allowed to change their rules if they want? Trying to influence them for the minority, seems to go against RP principles. How come you are all against letting the "market" sort it self out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just another reason on top of other reasons that have occurred during this election process.

 

The market isn't free either, but you are right the majority did vote for Romney.

 

As far as changing the culture of the Republican party, it has changed a few times since the birth of the United States, why not change it again?

 

I also think it has, your just going to have to wait another 10-20 years before you see it, because the people mostly that shifted to the Libertarian line of thought are pretty much mostly younger Americans, and they are still in school, or just getting out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@cilone/sk i see what u did there

 

 

changing rules at the last minute? they are the ones who didn't let it sort itself out. If Romney was indefinably the winner, let the winner win & let the looser lose. What are they afraid of?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwdCrUOoR9g

 

 

 

 

 

@ ILOTSMYBRAIN, I just realized we posted the same video. different link though

 

 

I also noticed this is my 1 thousandth post. It is a noble one i must say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of what rules they changed, a private organization has voted on who it wants to represent them. Even if there is a market shift over a few years, how is it allowable under RP principles to allow a minority to change who the majority voted for? They very clearly voted for someone else, why not let that stand?

 

Under the "free market", RP has not been the publics choice, 3 times. Right or wrong, or good or bad, under his principles all you followers have been stating for numerous pages, you should allow the market to work. Anything less then that, makes you all hypocrites. Unless of course, you can explain how the "free market" principals do not apply to you. I would think that you would want free elections and that you all would lead the way in that, but I guess I am wrong. Changing th election from someone who was clearly the person who had the majority of the votes to someone else is fundamentally wrong based on all the liberty and freedom talking points that every RP follower has brought up for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of what rules they changed, a private organization has voted on who it wants to represent them. Even if there is a market shift over a few years, how is it allowable under RP principles to allow a minority to change who the majority voted for? They very clearly voted for someone else, why not let that stand?

 

Under the "free market", RP has not been the publics choice, 3 times. Right or wrong, or good or bad, under his principles all you followers have been stating for numerous pages, you should allow the market to work. Anything less then that, makes you all hypocrites. Unless of course, you can explain how the "free market" principals do not apply to you. I would think that you would want free elections and that you all would lead the way in that, but I guess I am wrong. Changing th election from someone who was clearly the person who had the majority of the votes to someone else is fundamentally wrong based on all the liberty and freedom talking points that every RP follower has brought up for years.

 

You don't know what a free market is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...
  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...