1 of 2
1
Pros and Cons of Ron Paul—
Posted: 03 February 2012 11:18 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  2010-11-27

Ron Paul is a real aggravation to me because I like his radical policies to eliminate federal everything, but then he has to have this other major flaw; he is a creationist. Not just a someone who insincerely says he is a Christian based on the demographics of his constituency, Ron Paul is a real bible-thumper. In the end, after sizing him up…. http://theoccupymeme.blogspot.com/2012/01/pros-and-cons-of-ron-paul-different.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 February 2012 04:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

Yeah eliminate federal everything… and let corporations do whatever they want.

Brilliant. (<—-sarcasm , just in case like most Ron Pauler’s you have a serious case of Aspergers and can’t actually detect sarcasm…. )

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 February 2012 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  2010-11-27

In case you haven’t noticed, the federal government is allowing corporations to do whatever they want and in addition to that, they are creating federal regulations that protect and enable corporations to maintain a stranglehold on government. The DOD takes about 50% of the entire US budget. Lockheed Martin corporation takes about 30% of that money, managing privatized welfare in 13 states, all kinds of science funding, dating profiling on American Citizens. What would happen if there was no federal government? Down would go Lockheed, Northrup Grumman, Haliburton, Blackwater, GE.

Like my chart clearly stated, we need to take government back down to the local level. Local community owned banks. We don’t need mega corporations that skim off all the profits to the 1%. Localism is the way to revive the economy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 February 2012 07:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

Whatever the merits of localism- and I think there are massive unintended drawbacks to any implementation- it’s not what Paul wants. What Paul wants is to revive John C Calhoon’s “states rights”  which was the rallying cry for the Confederacy and the reason they offered why they should be permitted to go on owning slaves.

Old and very bad wine in new bottles.


The majority of companies you cite above are examples of what happens when people who despise government and regulation- which is just another name for law and order for corporations- when those kinds of people get a hold of the reins of power in government.  Thus Haliburton and Blackwater (now Xe)  etc etc. Republicans dont’ actually believe in smaller government and neither does Paul. He wants government off our backs and into our beds.


Come on. Paul is something like a cretin. He actually believes in the Jesus fairy tale- that alone speaks volumes.


Then he supposes that he can know- apriori and for all cases- that the best way for the federal government to conduct itself and the best possible result will be obtained across all matters if said government   just gets out of the business of governing as much as possible .

 

How does he acquire said knowledge about reality?  It’s his “philosophy”.  Why the fuck should I give a rat’s ass about someone’s “philosophy”?  He and his followers have an emotional affinity to a certain set of limited ideas involving what they imagine is their liberty and that is the sum total of their knowledge. It’s narcissistic and anti-scientific at the very least With one swipe they throw aside all economic studies that show government intervention and a centralized government are very effective at dealing with all sorts of problems from creating demand during a depression to pollution to fair employment practices to product safety to the environment to racism etc etc etc..  And I am supposed to take any of this seriously? 


It’s a complicated world and everything is intertwined in highly complex ways. If you really hate government that much then move to Somolia or even Mexico and see what happens when the population no longer identifies with their country and their government. Everyone is out for themselves and no one can be trusted to actually DO what it is they’re paid to do rather than take a bribe and look the other way.


The world is moving towards unification not dissolution and fragmentation and that’s a GOOD thing. WE are facing problems that are serious, worldwide and require a worldwide coordinated effort in order to be addressed.  Agenda 21 citing lunatics, Paultards, Ayn Rand amphetamine freaks, free market junkies ,“states rights” racist scum and environmental terrorists are not likely to like what the future is going to bring.  My suggestion to them is to not participate in society and instead spend a lot of time watching the Real Housewives of Wherever.

 

 

[ Edited: 06 February 2012 07:05 PM by softwarevisualization]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 February 2012 01:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  2010-11-27

I wouldn’t pick a leader that believes in fairy tales. But I work for FEMA and before that I worked for the USDA and I can’t even begin to tell you how retarded, dysfunctional and obese these federal agencies are.

When the constitution was signed there was less than 3 million people in the United States, spread out all over, and most lived on farms or ranches. They had no phones, no cars and extremely limited access to knowledge and resources. The constitution was a brilliant piece of work for then.

But now is different. With the Internet and digital technology everyone can possess a unique vote. Fully transparent Artificial Intelligence programs can count those votes.  In the future the Internet becomes an organism that connects the body of humankind.

It is easy to see why 200 years ago, Americans needed to elect representatives. But today, we no longer need representational government. We can fully inform ourselves and vote individually on every issue. For the first time in the history of man, we can have consensus government.

The younger generations love Ron Paul for a reason. They don’t care about his “constitution”, all they care about is freedom of the Internet which Ron Paul is willing to promise them. This is very attractive to young people.

The person I want to vote for to become President is Elizabeth Warren.
It is hard for baby boomers to comprehend that the younger generations will be authentically dependent on the Internet. Humans are already very cyber-dependent. This trend is not going to stop. In the next 20 years, the world wide web becomes a permanent dimension of human reality that to us seems a little fanciful. Tomorrow doesn’t look anything like today. We are living in an accelerating future.

My guess is that Ron Paul answers an evolutionary call. It probably doesn’t matter one bit about what Ron Paul spouts on about at all. It is most probably the consequences of Ron Paul’s beliefs and ideas that the young people find an inspiration to them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 February 2012 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

I agree with your post. I know that there are more arguments against direct democracy other than logistics. Supposedly, the representative is sanguine and will do what’s good for the constituents and the nation even if the constituents don’t agree. it’s not usually said so plainly in just those words, but that’s what representational government presumes.


I wonder if democracy hasn’t demonstrably failed and its dismantling is inevitable. i fro one sincerely hope not however when you look at global warming and the influence over the electorate the coal gas and oil companies have exerted, the only way to characterize this situation is special interest and big money have been effective enough in subverting the presentation of reality to the public to insure that civilization is going to collapse.


I am not saying it’s a sure thing; I am saying it’s possible that that’s true as of right now; that there’s nothing we can or will do to avert the total deconstruction of civilization - that it’s already baked into the cake of the future in an irremedial way. If that’s true, then the 30 year fight the oil and gas gas and coal industry has waged against reality has been a victory, however pyrrhic- and ugly- it may be. 


What that would mean is democracy has failed the crucial test of survival; it’s was a system which did not lead to society’s survival. That’s pretty much the definition of failure.


I would love to see Elizabeth Warren run for President.  Ron Paul is a   fruitcake: he just keeps getting older with no signs of change, no one really likes him and yet he still shows up annually.. .

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 February 2012 05:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  2010-11-27

A lot of people think that this is a democracy. I think that there has only ever been one kind of government; rule by the wealthy few. If we call it socialism or communism or democracy or fascism it is still just rule by the wealthy few.

And what people so dearly love about our country is that we are rich. Poverty is not free no matter what political or economic system you are talking about. In recent years, the playing field has been leveled in large part due to the way that the Internet has given 3rd world countries access to knowledge and resources. As they increase their standard of living, ours decreases.

Freedom is created and maintained by wealth, not by so-called democracy. The United States is in a large part a military dictatorship, especially since the Patriot Act. It also has a lot in common with socialism—police, fire, school, library, roads, parks etc. It just isn’t accurate to call this country a democracy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2012 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

<>

A little reality is needed here, just a little so as not to totally upset folks here.  Poverty is not an absolute.  It is subjective and relative.  Without a doubt, democratic republican societies have less poverty and a higher level of prosperity.  For instance, the poverty level in the U.S. is better than the middle class in dozens of other totalitarian countries.  Guess what, some folks in our ghettos even have HDTV and cell phones!  Democracy has resulted in the highest living standards in the history of the planet.  So much for failure…

[ Edited: 15 August 2012 10:36 AM by mormovies]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2012-08-11

He seems terribly confused as to where rights come from.

If your politician says it comes from a mythical figure, it’s a pretty good indication that you won’t be represented by him very well.  His loyalties lie elsewhere.  How such a person gets a nomination for anything important is both the mystery and the primary problem, while a person with the best base set-skill (consistent reliance on and application of reason) is disqualified from the process immediately.

 Signature 

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Hitch

I prefer the full-on embrace of reality to the spiritual masturbation that is religion.
~ S.A. Ladoucier

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people
~ M. Teresa, Fruitcake of Calcutta

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 10:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

This is one of the most articulate explanations I’ve read about rights and where they come from…

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 10:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2012-08-11
apologetica - 07 February 2012 05:08 PM

A lot of people think that this is a democracy. I think that there has only ever been one kind of government; rule by the wealthy few. If we call it socialism or communism or democracy or fascism it is still just rule by the wealthy few.

And what people so dearly love about our country is that we are rich. Poverty is not free no matter what political or economic system you are talking about. In recent years, the playing field has been leveled in large part due to the way that the Internet has given 3rd world countries access to knowledge and resources. As they increase their standard of living, ours decreases.

Freedom is created and maintained by wealth, not by so-called democracy. The United States is in a large part a military dictatorship, especially since the Patriot Act. It also has a lot in common with socialism—police, fire, school, library, roads, parks etc. It just isn’t accurate to call this country a democracy.

Well, not with such characters such as Kissinger still walking around with his freedom.  No, not a democracy.  Not one that respects the autonomy of other democracies.  And while it’s true that big corporations do affect the foreign policies of the US, this isn’t a result of democracy - just one that has been neglected, and tainted from within.

 Signature 

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Hitch

I prefer the full-on embrace of reality to the spiritual masturbation that is religion.
~ S.A. Ladoucier

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people
~ M. Teresa, Fruitcake of Calcutta

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

The U.S. was never set up as a democracy which is tyrannical rule by the majority.  We are a republic with a complex balance of powers to protect minority rights.  Our system is corrupted today by the collusion of government and big business.  Only government, however, has a monopoly on brute force- violence.  Business can only influence and tempt with money and favors.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2012-08-11
mormovies - 15 August 2012 10:38 AM

This is one of the most articulate explanations I’ve read about rights and where they come from…

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp

Almost.  She fudges her third point, reducing it to a rewording of the first statement she refutes. 
I prefer the explanations from Shermer (provisional rights) and Dershowit’s “Rights from Wrongs” secular explanation.

Clearly, without naturally evolved rules of engagement, we would have wiped ourselves out long ago. (long before the first codification of rights based solely upon superstition)

 Signature 

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Hitch

I prefer the full-on embrace of reality to the spiritual masturbation that is religion.
~ S.A. Ladoucier

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people
~ M. Teresa, Fruitcake of Calcutta

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 10:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2012-08-11
mormovies - 15 August 2012 10:43 AM

The U.S. was never set up as a democracy which is tyrannical rule by the majority.  We are a republic with a complex balance of powers to protect minority rights.  Our system is corrupted today by the collusion of government and big business.  Only government, however, has a monopoly on brute force- violence.  Business can only influence and tempt with money and favors.

And have, in spades.  Protecting the profit margin of companies like Coke, Pepsi, Dole, etc… in Central America, for example, has led to the removal of rights of people living in the area, to the point of removing a democratically elected leader in favour of a despotic one that will play ball with the US.

 Signature 

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Hitch

I prefer the full-on embrace of reality to the spiritual masturbation that is religion.
~ S.A. Ladoucier

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people
~ M. Teresa, Fruitcake of Calcutta

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

Dershowitz’s theory is somewhat solid but there’s are holes in it.  He seems to ignore individual rights.  I think man conceptualized rights even before complex societies existed.  Here’s a pretty good critique…

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/dershowitz105.htm

I would love to read Shermer’s if you have a link.  Thanks.

[ Edited: 15 August 2012 02:15 PM by mormovies]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2012 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

And have, in spades.  Protecting the profit margin of companies like Coke, Pepsi, Dole, etc… in Central America, for example, has led to the removal of rights of people living in the area, to the point of removing a democratically elected leader in favour of a despotic one that will play ball with the US.

How did U.S. corporations deprive citizens of rights?  Did they overthrow a democratic government?  Did citizens of Central America have extensive rights to begin with?

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed