Ron Paul? Isn’t he the guy that opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Both democrats and republicans are in the pocket of corporations anyway, so which side does it at this point doesn’t really matter. Although having a democratic president means SLIGHTLY less totally absolute fuckery and less excuses to do so, but O-boy still does it anyway.
Both parties right now are the opposite ends of a double sided dildo that fucks the american people. Which end is currently up your asshole doesn’t make a difference, you’re still getting fucked.
telling you guys, jello 2012
May I sig that? lol
No, I’m talking about people in GENERAL on both sides of this sadly drawn line. I’m not denying there are people out there that use their own mind and I am not pointing any fingers here. All I would ask is this…(To any who reads) Do you go and read these acts yourself? Do you understand the controversy that’s behind these acts?
No law based on banning smoking indoors was made by the federal government. All laws were made at state level, which is how it should be (It also goes along with one of my points).
Are you also telling me that if you owned an apartment complex you would ask the federal government to make decisions regarding your own smoking policy in your own building? You have the right given to you by the bill of rights to not allow smoking in your privately owned building. This is kind of what I mean about people not thinking on their own. Why is there really a law? And if someone really wanted to smoke in bed, how does a law stop him from making a decision? Maybe no law or not people die because of some absurdly idiotic person’s decision to smoke in bed and somehow fall asleep.
That is… EXACTLY what I believe. Can you defend yourself by not allowing certain actions not to be done on your own property? Can you not protect your OWN property? The federal government doesn’t own your belongings. So why do they need to protect something they don’t own when it is your responsibility? Seriously?
Yes, there is no doubt about it. If my actions harmed another person I would be responsible for their harm. And here in lies the false sense of security and fear that come from a dangerous servant who is turning into a fear full master.
Do laws stop stupid people from doing whatever action is against a law? Will the law actively stop that idiot from falling asleep with a cigarette in his mouth and start a fire?
Wow, I would like to see your sources of your Ron Paul Information.
He has been in Congress for 27 years. I highly doubt he doesn’t know government. If you read up on Ron Paul you would find information opposite of what you typed. If you want, I can hold your hand and link you information if you promise me to read it.
I don’t know much about Austrian School of Economics. But I will do my research and get back to you on that. But, have you read or seen what Ron Paul’s Economic stands are?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHE_0bCSIVM
https://fora.tv/2008/02/13/Ron_Paul_The_Weakening_of_the_US_Constitution
My apologies I misread.
Take note that we are in the 21st Century now. All Races are accepted and the ratio of all minorities to caucasians is right at if not above 50% now here in America. Maybe we no longer need the federal government to enforce such an Act now... Bottom line. And if there are issues of discrimination, leave it to the state.
The whole ‘raising the debt ceiling’ is nothing but political bullshit, feed for the cattle. You can’t solve debt by creating more debt lol… They’re turning this into a bigger problem by the day, and the future will pay for it.
I’ll just let Peter Schiff do the talking, hes one of the few who actually knows what’s happening.
Warning: Large post follows. Apologies in advance.
Yes. I do the research behind what I’m talking about prior to talking about it.
You miss my point.
You, as a member of society, are affected by the actions and decisions of others. In my apartment complex example, everyone in the country lives in that one building. One person’s irresponsible actions and decisions affect me.
I, as a member of society, have the right --no, the DUTY-- to protect myself, my loved ones, and my personal property from the irresponsible actions of others.
I, by myself, cannot stop my next door neighbor from smoking in bed. He can tell me to “fuck off” and I’d have to. However, there is a mechanism whereby I can make sure he’s responsible for his actions. That mechanism is government. Whether it’s local government where it comes to local matters, state government where it comes to state matters, and the federal government where it comes to federal matters.
That’s kind of idiotic, if you don’t mind my saying so. Laws don’t stop anyone from doing anything. Rape, murder, terrorist attacks… these will happen even with the most stringent draconian laws.
So, what are you saying here?
I’m still confused. What do you think laws are for?
Um, dude? Where did I say that the federal government owns my belongings?
I’m still not getting what you think laws do.
I’ll read anything you wish to provide but I’m still going to respond to it as I see it.
But, just being involved in government doesn’t mean that you know what the government does or what it’s there for.
Yes, I have. Which is where I got the notion that he’s an advocate of the Austrian School of Economics.
I watched this video.
The first mistake he makes is that the government is NOT regulating what you eat, drink, smoke, whatever. You can still do all those things. They aren’t telling you “precisely what foods you’re going to eat, how much you’re allowed to weigh, how much exercise you’re allowed to get” or anything like that, nor is there any evidence that we’re even going in that direction. He’s just wrong. And, if you don’t mind my saying so, a bit of a tinfoil hat wearing paranoid. What’s next? We didn’t land on the moon? Honestly…
Paul then states that “the federal government should not be involved in public education”. He earlier stated that he was for the Constitution. These two notions are in conflict because the Constitution allows for “the federal government” to “be involved in public education”.
Article 2, Section 2:
“[The President] … shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
So, Ron Paul is either for the Constitution and the Department of Education or is against the Constitution and the Department of Education. You can’t be for the Constitution and against the Department of Education because it would run in conflict with the powers enumerated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Now, he can be of the opinion that the Federal Government should not be involved in the DoE, but you can’t deny that it’s an enumerated power of the Federal Government.
Then he states that the courts legislate. Courts don’t legislate. He complains that Congress “passes laws willy nilly”, then complains about “courts legislating”. Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm…correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the “courts legislating” telling Congress that the laws they pass “willy nilly” are no longer enforceable? Those complaints are just kind of stupid, Paul. The Supreme Court isn’t “making rules”. He’s just lying here. Roe vs Wade was about a state making a law in contravention of the United States Constitution – 14th Amendment, clause 1. The Supreme Court didn’t make a law. They simply reiterated what the Constitution says states can do. And he’s wrong about what Roe vs Wade did.
It sounds to me that he just doesn’t know what government is there for. And there’s a bunch of cognitive dissonance in this entire video. Or, there should be for Paul
This video is over an hour long. tl;dw
If there’s something you want to point out in the video, I’ll be willing to watch.
No. Read the Constitution again. 14th Amendment, Clause 1. This is an enumerated power of the Federal Government.
Um…question. You’re in debt. You can’t afford to pay the debt with what you’re making now. You can only cut spending so much until you’re at rock bottom and cutting more will hurt you. So, you decide to try to get a better job that pays more money. You go to college. This creates more debt. When you get out of college, you have more debt than you had before you went in. With your college education, however, you can now afford to pay back the debt you had PLUS the new debt you incurred getting an education.
Do you agree or disagree?
The US government is nowhere near the limit in terms of being able to cut spending. They promised way too many liabilities to their citizens that just can’t be paid. College is in many cases not the solution. Quite a few college degrees are worthless, there are too many of them which decreases their value. The US needs to start producing more, save more and consume less. Instead of going into debt trying to get some useless college degree that takes 4 very important years off your life, go into the workforce and build up experience. You can always educate yourself at home in any things you deem necessary. Also, a college degree is never a guarantee for a job, EVER. So don’t think that you can just go to school and magically be able to pay off any debt (avoid debt at all cost anyway). Because what if you don’t find a job, you end up with massive debt that has to be repaid and you end up flipping burgers to pay for an education that didn’t help you at all.
The US can raise their cute little debt ceiling all they want, at one point foreign lenders will stop lending out their money. That’s when the US really goes into a world of shit, which ironically is needed in order to bring about the reality of the state the US economy is in. However, politicians will never let this happen, because they are fucking stupid and only care about themselves. They’ll let the Federal Reserve devaluate the currency to a point where you could get hyperinflation (provided I mention this is a worst-case scenario, but still possible). This is exactly what happened in post-WWI Germany, they couldn’t repay their debts and so they started printing money out of thin air which reduced the value of their currency to the point where you couldn’t do anything with it. This is basically how government steals all the savings from their citizens, they don’t have to take the money directly from your pocket - they just increase the money supply by ‘printing’ (now done in computers) money and decrease your purchasing power. This is also how pretty much all wars are financed, print the money and disperse the cost over the entire population through inflation (a.k.a ‘the hidden tax’). Talk about socialism eh. But that’s another story.
tl;dr - I disagree
Agreed. They can cut spending in many places but the right wing is just to cowardly to do so. And the Dems are, too.
Wait, you actually believe college education is going to be a guarantee for a job?
Just as you apologized for a lengthy post I am doing the same Danielsangeo
Let’s think your analogy through just real quick. From my position you are saying that if I make a decision here in California, that could possibly infringe on someones Life and/or Liberty. That you Daniel in Seattle, Washington will be affected by my actions somehow. Is that right?
You're "everyone in the country living in one building" analogy is far from realistic. My actions in California will not affect you in Seattle, Washington. Unless I decided to breach your internet security from my keyboard or whatever, you can use your imagination if you want. Or bring something to light I haven't thought about. Either way I encourage you to do so.
Let me just say that I am not against altering the U.S. Constitution, it was written by man and obviously has some holes in it that need to be filled(To prevent exploitation). Now, the U.S. Constitution protects you, me and all the people of this country. What do you think the U.S. Constitution is protecting us all from?
I agree that laws are designed to hold people accountable for there actions...(Your point right?) All I want to get across is that some laws can be written (Or Acts i.e. The Patriot Act, Protect IP Act...) that can go against what the U.S. Constitution stands for. The Protect IP Act is on hold but I have been reading through it to see what it states and what authority it is giving to people in Federal Government. What I have read so far is kind of scary, it's rules are very broad and General and completely goes against the 1st Amendment.
Do I think the Act should not go through, period? No, but the Act does need to be rewritten to be more specific. That Act gives government way too much power over what you look at over the internet despite the claim from the entertainment industry. Which I am all about these guys protecting their right of ownership of copyrights.
I never said you said "Government owns my belongings." I was merely displaying your way of thinking as I understood it, that goes toward the direction i mentioned based off of your apartment building concept which I apparently misunderstood.
I still stand on my point of, “if it belongs to you, it’s your responsibility to take care of it and protect it.” Moving on…
You act as if Federal Government is immune to corruption and abuse of power. As stated before and what Ron Paul suggests, the 1964 Civil Rights Act can be rewritten. You understand that that bill in itself deprives others of their liberties too right? Which is the controversy behind that bill. In this day and age such a an Act can be abused by those it protects too. If I was hiring for my business and I had to choose between a Caucasian and a Hispanic man and I chose the Caucasian man based merely on his ability to perform the job duties by looking at his past experience and the Hispanic man runs to the courts saying I hired based on skin color isn’t that just as wrong? Don’t deny that has not happened.
That’s an example of someone taking something designed to protect them and using it as a weapon for some sort of revenge. Let’s rewrite the act and make it up to date for today. Can you agree with that at least?
I want to end with your statement on Ron Paul being “a bit of a tinfoil hat wearing paranoid” . With some quotes from a couple of gentleman who probably know way more about a ruling power than most people today and then lightly touch on his economic views.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
George Washington
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
George Washington
The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.
George Washington
The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.
George Washington
A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.
Thomas Jefferson
A wise and frugal Government, which shall retrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
Thomas Jefferson
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson
Let the leaders of this nation make all the decisions for you instead of making your own and you qualify as having given your Liberty to someone else. My personal opinion.
Issues like Gay marriage and abortion shouldn’t be in the hands of Federal Government. It should be in state hands, but ultimately in the people’s hands. Unfortunately a good majority of people don’t see that.
As far as Economy goes. It’s obvious that whatever is in place now is not working. So, what’s wrong with trying a new approach? Our current system has been in place only since the early 1900’s.Which means we have done things differently before. Maybe the current system has run it’s course and we need something new? Ron Paul wants to Audit the Federal Reserve which is a PRIVATELY owned company that deals with U.S. dollars, and we don’t know what they are doing with it??? All these central banks are privately owned, in case you didn’t know. Regardless of the economic views Ron Paul has who is to say it is wrong?
“Austrian School economists generally hold that the complexity of human behavior makes mathematical modeling of an evolving market extremely difficult (or undecidable). They generally advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy.”
“In economics, laissez-faire describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.”
There must be some sort of regulation to keep corporations in check. But government shouldn’t be in the same room as corporate leaders behind closed doors working together EVER.
I’m sure I’ve missed something, there is just too much to cover.
I overall agree. I know/known people with degrees who make more money serving tables than they did in their major if they were even able to land a job. I don’t agree with doing something for fiat currency that means nothing. But some people aren’t single with no kids and have no choice but to work a better paying job.
Jeannotvb is absolutely right, just having a college degree does not Guarantee (Being the key word.) you a job. You’re lying to yourself if you think it does.
Actually, your actions in California will affect me here in Seattle if your actions affect the federal level (hence my line about the local, state, and federal governments). Things like health insurance are a thing on the federal level because health insurance affects interstate commerce. What you do in California in regards to health care affects me. What I do in Seattle in regards to health care affects you. It might not directly hit you in the form of a bill stating that $X.XX of your health care bill is caused by my actions, but my actions, if they are irresponsible WRT to health care, burden the system and, therefore, raise your health care costs which affect your wallet.
I would like to ask you. If I needed to protect myself and/or my property from actions coming from the federal level, how does one go about it?
I have never stated that no government organization could ever be corrupt. Indeed, corruption happens when people say that government doesn’t work and people ignore their civic duties. We are the government, after all. If we don’t do our civic duties, the government will simply bow to whomever is going to pay them (i.e., those with the biggest purse strings). That isn’t going to be me or you. They aren’t going to work for me or you. They are going to, inexorably work for those that fund their campaigns, Democrat, Republican, and Independent alike. Ron Paul is not immune either. As soon as he runs in disconnect with those that fund his campaign, those funders will, in turn, fund his opponents who will help those with the biggest purse strings.
It’s just economics.
We, as a people, have shirked our civic duties and then wonder why it’s turned to shit. Seems pretty simple, if you ask me.
Oh joy, I didn’t know we had our very own Paultards here. I had hoped those things would go away eventually, but they’re still plugging away, insisting on their crackpot “sound money” bullshit, among other things.
That idiot is a hardline libertarian and his policies would plunge this country into the worst financial and environmental crisis in history if they were ever enacted. Austrian economics isn’t even a sound economic theory, it’s a socio-political philosophy with no basis in reality – which is why not a single reputable economics school teaches it as anything other than history. Even Alan Greenspan toned that shit way down and took a much more realistic approach when he was Fed chairman. Paul, on the other hand, takes the drooling Peter Schiff approach. There’s a reason Ben Bernanke cringes every time Paul “grills” him, and it’s not because Paul is doing a good job. It’s because that bumpkin doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.
I find it offensive that anyone over the age of 18 would really believe that A.) abolishing central banking would be a better system than we have now and B.) that abolishing the FDA, Department of Education, CIA, FBI, EPA, and every other federal institution would be OK because, like, the magical market fairies will make everything better. Grow up.
You seem to know as much about economics as Bernanke (nothing) :lol:
Herp a derpy doo. I just told you, not a single top economics school teaches Austrian Economics. Not Harvard, not MIT, not the University of Chicago, none of them. That should be your first clue right there. The Austrian school is the economic equivalent of 9/11 Twoofas. They’re obstinate, fringe, empirically wrong, but incredibly outspoken.
Seriously, what an amazing amount of hubris it must take to say that you and a pro-homeopathy gynecologist know more about economics than all the top economists in the world. And don’t even get me started on Peter Schiff. His economic credentials are zero. None. Bet you didn’t know that the guy you love so much never even got an economics degree and hasn’t been a successful investor. Here’s just one of a million comprehensive critiques on the guy: https://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html
The libertarians can’t even answer some very basic questions. What do we do about various negative externalities that are currently handled through regulation? The invisible hand will take care of them. What about the ones that it doesn’t? Private charity will take care of them. How will we keep the environment clean if we abolish the regulating bodies? I’ll ignore this question and say that the government pollutes a lot. If I’m really crazy, I’ll say that all property should be private and it’s the property owner’s responsibility to take care of the pollution – if they want to. If we go to “sound money,” how will we avoid the enormous and unpredictable credit crunches that come with that system? Er, uh, well…
Sure, they always philosophize around some of the questions and come up with “what-if” scenarios that might sound plausible to a true believer, but they don’t really have any answers.
And that, friends, is why Ron Paul, as appealing as he may seem, is economically fucking crazy. He might be on to something with his personal freedoms thing, though. I don’t think he’s a bad guy, he just has some really, really bad ideas.
isnt roseanne running? omg guys vote roseanne
I dun’ no ‘bout u guise but Ima vote fo’ 'bama again.
I aint watch the news ‘r nuttin’ but he says he’s doin’ a good job, so ima believe him.
.>;;;
Urge to destroy world rising…
Excuse me while I decide on what to post in the World Domination thread.