TheoHuxtable.. Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 (dramatic voice) (Ron Paul's voice) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I just want to say the dude above me is a huge fucking faggot. Id slay you homie, but I see you're one of those types who even when they get a rebuttal act like the response is meaningless and fact less. Who do you support, or are you too chicken shit to admit it? I've told this man to do this several times, he won't. He'll just sit in this thread and troll. Quite hilarious, sometimes I'm game to deal with him bust most of the time...:lol: :lol: :lol: . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 What is hilarious is when not a single Ronnie Paulie supporter is able to even talk the basics about his policies and history. Aways trying to change the subject away from anything critical of him. Whenever anyone brings up anything critical of him, the first thing out of all your mouths is "He stands for Liberty and Freedom". You did that just on the last page. No substance or depth to any one of you. That is what is funny. Keep up the good job dodging the facts. :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 (Al Jazeera panel discussion) Pretty interesting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Theo, our decline definitely makes sense, if you consider that all countries eventually decline or disappear. I am not quite sold on the fact that they are calling the United States an Empire. 235 years, makes us a very young country. The Romans and Turks had a Empire, but they are obviously not around anymore, which just goes to what I am saying. I hear alot of people saying that the United States is the best country in the world. I always ask "according to what?". There are numerous stats that show we are not the greatest. Just because I say I am the baddest motherfucker out there, does not make it so. This is one of the reasons that I think are decline is coming. As a whole, Americans are not rational people. Our egos will guide us to a decline or worst. This is also why i am not to fond of so-called "patriots". Being very proud of your country is one thing, being a fanatical that that is unable to take a self-view of yourself is totally different thing. I personally think that the United States is going to proudly beat it's chest right into non-existance. We are going to decline, without a doubt. But that might not be a bad thing in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 There are some cool things about America but a lot I disagree with, I certainly wouldn't consider it the best country in the world, also I find it funny that a lot of the very patriotic people in the US are actually getting a raw deal, like healthcare etc why is it that poorer people seem more patriotic? I see that over here as well. America is great because of the potential opportunities that people may have but it isn't perfect and I doubt I would live there given the choice, but would visit. Then again I am the least patriotic person there is, I don't even understand why someone would be patriotic it is just land no different to land all over the world was just pure chance I ended up here but each to their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Decy, I think it comes down to a psychological need to belong to something bigger. Patriotism to me, is along the same lines as being a fan of a sports team or fraternal organization like the Freemason's. People just do not like being alone, so they belong to groups. There is also a need to feel better then something else, anything else. Even the most downtrodden in society feel they are above some other people. It is just the way people operate. I am with you, land is land, and people are people, regardless of where you are located. Until someone can prove that because you were born someplace, that it makes you better then someone else, I will continue to think we are all equal. I might think someone is an asshole or dumb as shit, but I am not better then them. The way this is related to ronnie paulie is that the supporters of him are so into his "cult", that they are unable to objectively look at him and even acknowledge flaws or missteps. If it was not him, the same supporters would follow something else and probably be the same way towards that thing. After he loses, there will be a brief period of depression (I am not sure that is the best word to describe it, maybe a profound lack of direction is a better way to say it) and then they will move on to something or someone else. This is just a normal psychological process that everyone does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I agree Cilone, as you could probably guess I dont support sports teams either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 So we aren't sure if America is an empire, but all empires collapse, and America will too. Patriotism is bad. Got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 blind patriotism is bad, all I meant was I don't understand patriotism. I wouldn't say America is an Empire, it isn't claiming ownership of the lands it invades like in the British Empire etc. However it is a major superpower and inevitably will collapse at some point, nothing lasts forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 So we aren't sure if America is an empire, but all empires collapse, and America will too. Patriotism is bad. Got it. I see you have a well thought out viewpoint. Why is it you can not bring anything other then ideological nonsense to any discussion? Also, whenever some one poses a valid critique of something you say, you either do not respond or spit out this dumbshit. Are you seriously that blinded to reality or rational discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 No, I was making fun of your post because you are all over the place. You said you weren't "sold" on America being an empire. Then you said all empires collapse, citing the Turkish and Roman empires, than you said "you see what' im saying here". Which to me didn't make sense. You contradicted yourself and than at the end of it said "you see what I'm saying". No, I don't think anyone does. Ideological nonsense? Okay, so you ask me to explain positions, and then I do, through what I believe our RP's ideological standings on said issue's. Perhaps I could be wrong here and there, and I will admit I am no expert in the many area's that are discussed here, but overall I think I have a basic understanding, which allows me to discuss these things at all. How am I to explain or at least attempt to answer your questions or defend positions that you are attacking if I can't use the ideology that the man follows and I also happen to believe (for the most part). I respond to almost all of your "critique's", and then you ignore what I say or transform it into something I didn't say. Which more than one person besides myself has pointed out. Rational discussion's take part in this forum all the time, and have for years, I've done it up until now pretty well I think, look in the mirror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Oh and by the way, is RP still a fringe candidate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I certainly wouldnt consider him fringe anymore, he doesn't tow the republican party line but I think he seems to be getting more air time and certainly is getting quite a bit of support and being considered to be less the kooky uncle. Looking at the Republican candidates I personally think I would vote RP over any of the others, they are all bat shit crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 You obviously do not understand what I am saying. I think you do not understand alot of what people say. If you think you explain positions, you are even more confused then I previously thought you were. You have not talked about Austrian Economics, which I brought up with you a few days ago. This is the backbone of his policies and they should be realistically critiqued in real world scenarios. Nor have you been able to talk about the newsletters seriously. You actually posted a link to a fact sheet from someone named Tunk, at the same time ignoring valid aspects of logical contradictions from ronnie paulie. You seem to think that him saying that he did not write them or read them, count as a valid response, while completely ignoring his name/signature on them, video of him promoting them, and him getting almost 1,000,000 from them. But you think Tunk's fact sheet is a response? As for the empire thing, you are grasping and just showing how little reading comprehension you actually have. I will break it down. - America is young and not an empire. - Everything fails at one point or another. Including America - All other countries and empires will fail or decline at one point What is so hard to understand about that? Go back to surfing youtube and letting other people tell you what to think, because you obviously have trouble thinking for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Oh and by the way, is RP still a fringe candidate? Actually he very much is. Compared to a majority of Americans, he is very much fringe. Just because he is able to organize his supports online and able to get them to seem much more numerous then they actually are, does not change the fact that he is still a fringe candidate. His viewpoints are not even inline with the majority of his parties viewpoints. "3 (often the fringes) the outer, marginal, or extreme part of an area, group, or sphere of activity : his uncles were on the fringes of crooked activity. • ( the fringe) the unconventional, extreme, or marginal wing of a group or sphere of activity : the lunatic fringe of American political life | rap music is no longer something on the fringe." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 You whole post is the same old thing from everyone of his supporters. No substance. When called into doubt, bring up freedom and liberty, even though no one is arguing those points. He wants to give more freedom to corporations and let them do what they think is the best for their own interests, which is to make more money. These are the same corporations that got us to where we are currently and ronnie paulie wants to give them even more freedom because he thinks that they will fix something if they are able to run wild. I understand exactly what a "free market" is. What I do not think you understand is, what a "free market" will do. Which is trade your current level of freedom from being controlled by the government (incompetence) into being controlled by corporations (greed) to maximize their profits at the expense of everyone involved, to include the environment. If you think that oil companies that are currently polluting the environment and ruining drinking water to make more money because it is cheaper then being responsible are operating this way because of government regulations, what do you think they would do in a free market? Especially if there are numerous different state and local laws for a pipeline that runs across the country? Do you really think they would clean up their act? Do you think that the property rights argument will stop them? Most of that free market nonsense applies only to localized markets, where it may work on a very limited basis, not to large multi-national companies. Say what you will, I am done with this. I have made my point and there is zero evidence that austrian economics actually would work and the main reason for that is that it seems to be the only thing in this universe that is not able to have a mathematical theory behind it. You failed to respond to any of this? Or did you and I missed it, please fell free to quote yourself and show me where I missed that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Looking at the Republican candidates I personally think I would vote RP over any of the others, they are all bat shit crazy. Decy, that is why the GOP is not going to win in a general election. That do not have any decent candidates. Romney seems to be the only one staying out of trouble and will probably be the only one to stand a chance in a general election. I also think the only reason ronnie paulie is still going, is because the rest of the candidates are horrible, so it is easier to stick out more. Everything about his economic policies are what makes him so horrible. From the gold standard to giving corporations totally free rein, will lead this country into disaster. But when you bring up valid concerns about this and ask how will this work in a real world environment, none of his supporters are able to realistically reply and resort to internet forum nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 You whole post is the same old thing from everyone of his supporters. No substance. When called into doubt, bring up freedom and liberty, even though no one is arguing those points. Good because you can't. He wants to give more freedom to corporations and let them do what they think is the best for their own interests, which is to make more money. These are the same corporations that got us to where we are currently and ronnie paulie wants to give them even more freedom because he thinks that they will fix something if they are able to run wild. To me this question really boils down to corruption. If you understood why our economy collapsed to begin with you would realize it wasn't a lack of regulation that lead to this. It was the banks that did it, and they did it because laws we're changed and business that wasn't normally allowed to be conducted was, people tried to take advantage and as a result a bubble came about. It burst, lots of people lost lot's of money and now we are here. When people hear "free market" they think that law's all of a sudden disappear, in a free market there would still be laws blocking fraud, which is what you need to be concerned with. Of course there are more issue's with lobbying and as I mentioned earlier corruption, but if you think RP is in favor of either of these you are mistaken. I understand exactly what a "free market" is. What I do not think you understand is, what a "free market" will do. Which is trade your current level of freedom from being controlled by the government (incompetence) into being controlled by corporations (greed) to maximize their profits at the expense of everyone involved, to include the environment. We are ALREADY controlled by the banks and corporations. What are you talking about? Look at Obama's cabinet, look at the board members at the Federal Reserve. Look at the donations. Look who receives them, look who doesn't. No system is perfect and would be without peoples attempts at greed, exploitation and other forms of corruption. To see how you combat these things further you can read my previous response above. If you think that oil companies that are currently polluting the environment and ruining drinking water to make more money because it is cheaper then being responsible are operating this way because of government regulations, what do you think they would do in a free market? Especially if there are numerous different state and local laws for a pipeline that runs across the country? Do you really think they would clean up their act? Do you think that the property rights argument will stop them? Again, a free market doesn't allow certain things, property rights are to be enforced as well as personal liberty rights. I do, if enough attention is brought to the issue and public outcry demands it yes. Just as you see with other issue's. Of course you can't wipe away damage already done, but you can be held responsible for you actions, does this mean it will resolve the issue of pollution entirely? No, but we as human beings need to solve this problem, and that's a collective response, not an individual one. Is the entire world ready to move away from fossil fuels? No, is this RP's fault. No. Most of that free market nonsense applies only to localized markets, where it may work on a very limited basis, not to large multi-national companies. Oh yeah? You come up with this all by yourself? Say what you will, I am done with this. I have made my point and there is zero evidence that austrian economics actually would work and the main reason for that is that it seems to be the only thing in this universe that is not able to have a mathematical theory behind it. For someone done with something you sure seem to spend a lot of time not being done with it. And the rest of what you said is absolutely hilarious. I'd talk about it more but this guy already did. http://www.tommullen.net/featured/austrian-economics-is-scientific-keynesianism-is-not/ There you go. Dismissal countdown commence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 First here is a link to one that refutes your link: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm Now, your whole argument seems to hinge on that things are bad already. Maybe that is because these same corporations are not being sufficiently regulated. For example, look at the SEC and see that they are not able to bring criminal convictions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-judge-accuses-sec-of-misleading-court/2011/12/29/gIQAsprOPP_story.html"In a recent case involving a Citigroup mortgage deal in which investors allegedly lost more than $700 million, he rejected a settlement under which Citigroup would pay $285 million, saying it was “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.” Maybe if there was more regulation, corporation would not be allowed to do this, but you and your kind want to give them more power. There might still be laws, but if there is no enforcement and/or there is even minor corruption, these laws are easily circumvented for larger corporations. How much corruption do you think there will be if there are even less laws and regulations? As for property rights, this is more reactive then proactive and it assumes that the property owners have the same resources as the companies that want to abuse their properties. For example, say there is a leak of oil in the High Plains Aquifer. It would take a few years for this to be found out. Then the extremely wealthy oil company would stall the legal actions from the average home owner who can not afford high price lawyers to help them. The whole time they can not drink their water. Don't forget the that the farms over this aquifer supply a large amount of the food for the US. So, how does property rights stop this? We need a proactive regulatory agency with the "teeth" to enforce the regulations and laws. So far, property rights have not been able to stop any large corporation, yet all of your kind seem to think giving them more power will stop them from taking advantage average people. This is like a bully beating up a kid, and the kid pleading for some one NOT to do something, because it might aggravate the bully more. Like I said "Most of that free market nonsense applies only to localized markets, where it may work on a very limited basis, not to large multi-national companies." When it comes to corporations that have more money then a lot of countries, how are state laws, going to stop them when they can throw money at people to make the problems go away? Maybe in high crime areas, we should lower the enforcement of police. According to your logic, the criminals will stop committing crimes, because the "people" will object to it. The whole free market thing boils down to giving businesses less regulation and letting the market sort it out. The problem with this is that the market will only sort things out to their own benefit and profit, while the "people" are the cost bearers and they are the only ones who will suffer. It is totally reactive and not proactive. Waiting for something to go bad before the market might fix it (only if it is profitable for them) is a nonsensical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Here is a major part of why we are in this mess currently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act This is because they took these regulations away, that banks were allowed to cause a large chuck of the problems they have caused. Now you say, we should take even more regulations away from them? Maybe if the Glass-Steagall Act was still in place, we would not have gotten into this mess in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 "We are ALREADY controlled by the banks and corporations. What are you talking about? Look at Obama's cabinet, look at the board members at the Federal Reserve. Look at the donations. Look who receives them, look who doesn't. No system is perfect and would be without peoples attempts at greed, exploitation and other forms of corruption. To see how you combat these things further you can read my previous response above." I took another look at this. So, you want to give these same board members more free rein to do what they want? If they are already bribing and cheating, why would you think they will stop in your "free market"? Because the market will make them? Is that really what you are saying?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 NO. I want the Federal Reserve to cease to exist, and I want a president who will select a better group of people to surround himself with to get things done. I also want laws to be enforced and people who conduct bad business to go out of business, and those who commit fraud should go to prison instead of being propped up reinstated, and allowed to conduct the behavior they have over several decades. Laws that were put into place were taken away, I already said this, the people who regulated knew what was going on and did nothing, you can't grasp this fact. If the laws that were on the books were being enforced, and the so called regulators you depend on actually did their job, we wouldn't be here. They gave out trip A ratings, they denied everything. How can you even say with conviction that more of these people and more of this will stop what happened from happening again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 So, you think that too much government is the cause of all of this? I am saying that the agencies that are in place to take care of this, should be allowed to. Because of businesses being allowed to do whatever they want to make a profit, is the reason we are here, not because of too much regulation, which is what you are advocating being loosened. I grasp every point you are making, I just do not understand how you think that by providing less oversight of these businesses, will result in them acting properly. If they are allowed to get away with all this and still be in accordance of the law ad regulations, how do you figure that with less laws and regulations they will get better? I am not proposing more rules for them, I am saying that the agencies that are in charge of regulating these industries should be given the "teeth" to do the job, not be disbanded, like ronnie paulie wants to do. As for the federal reserve ceasing to exist, that is a whole different argument that I would be willing to get into, but we currently have this one going on. It seems to me that you think that the regulators currently have the power to do their jobs. Or maybe you do understand that the politicians are the ones taking away those "teeth". Either way, how does taking those agencies away, help the problem? It would seem like we need to get rid of the politicians as the best option, but that is not a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 TYT critique of Ron Paul's illogical absolutism: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPS Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo8JliBedk8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 ^ I guess if you do not understand our treasury bonds, you will fall for that commercial. I can see china from my front porch. I better get armed and protect my property from the chinese communist bastards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 its also been clarified i think multiple times now that china does not own most of our debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 It depends on what kind of debt you are talking about, but that is a correct statement. But that does not stop me from digging trenches around my house and buying and building fully automatic positions at every corner of my 1/2 acre. Just in case the slit eyed hoards come over the hill. Just saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 You think that's what that commercial represents? I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.