Rand Paul for Kentucky US Senate Seat- Vote Nov 2010

Wow this one really brought some retards out of the woodwork. Half of you tools were already below 5 on the karma-o-meter!

Did any of you actually watch that msnbc interview or did you just close your eyes and listen to one phrase that you have been programmed to hear? 'tea party, racist'
 
I dont think anyone is going to stop driving/buying bottled water/going to McDonalds just because there is less government regulation...

Sure i try to buy more ethically produced products, but the bottom line is that most people are just going to buy the cheapest products.
 
And then when something happens, such as the spill, people scream that the government took too long to intervene.

Can't please everyone....
 
Sorry, it was more of a ramble on my part. I agree with you.

When business is all fine and dandy, conservatives (and others, don't want to generalize) stress less government regulation (Obama is a socialist, etc). Then, when something like this occurs, it's: "Obama wasted time, Obama should have intervened earlier."

I was just merely making an observation.
 
1260445289_panda-slide.gif


WWWWEEEEEEE!!!!!

*boink*
 
GOP turn-out for the kentucky primary was 1/3rd the turn out the democratic primary.

there is no news with rand paul other than he just looked racist as fuck on maddow's show.

the group with the most motivated base = yay win
 
How does the contingency of my customer support act as a mechanism to protect the human rights of others?

1. People remain ignorant of immoral corporate practices

2. People who agree with the immoral corporate practices will continue to sustain said corporations

 
Libertarianism is amusing because it assumes people can own property without the assistence of others. But this is not true. If you leave your house to go to work and somebody breaks in and claims it, how is the house not theirs now? Because others than yourself agree that you have property rights to the house and are willing to help you enforce those rights, in more developed communities through courts and police powers. The only true libertarians in this world push grocery carts full of their life possessions and live under bridges.
 
this isn't true at all. Libertarians recognize the right to own property, the notion that all property is free is not a libertarian value. They don't believe you own property with the assistance of the govt. Private transactions.
 
I like the sound of that, it would probably be more effective, That's a bit drastic, Libertarians aren't anarchists, after all. A small measure of government is a great thing, especially when it protects your individual liberty from the individual liberties of others. Government exists only to keep us safe from foreign and domestic threats, IMO. The problem is defining just what constitutes an example of each.
 
actually. i drive a semi truck with all my worldly possessions in it. lololololol

the court system, the police, the military. all legitimate functions of government. they seek to serve all citizens. you have a few essential rights in life. they dont come from god, they dont come from government. they are essential to life.

they are:

the right to ones own life. (meaning that someone else cannot kill or mame me)

the right to property. (whats mine is mine, yours is yours)

without these 2 essential rights. the world as we know it cannot function. (they are actually incredibly close anyway)

The functions of government is to protect and uphold rights. not destroy them.

my rights impose no call to action on your part. or another being. they simply require you to abstain from using force against me. you cannot destroy my life, or my property. likewise i must respect your rights as a human.

however it should be pointed out, a right is more a right to an action to obtain something. you have no right to food, or shelter. you have the right to obtain them, through legal, and ethical means (IE not infringing on others property rights) likewise once you have achieved certain things, they are yours by right, you created, produced, they are your property.

Mans right to his own life is the source of all rights. the implementation is property rights.

lol who am i kidding. ill never be able to say it as well as John Galt did -

"The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."
 
Ah okay.

Whilst i agree with some of the fundamental ideas behind Libertarianism, it seems like it just wouldnt work in practice. What is to stop a few successful corporations from taking over and having an monopoly/oligopoly on the market, thus erradicating the whole 'small business/free market' thing?
 
...unless it requires that you have to give up some of your 'property'

quoting another post i liked

"Other people are not your property, but you can rent them." Which also happens to be capitalism.
 
Monopolies are difficult to gauge. On the one hand, it destroys competition and limits what the consumer can purchase, often resulting in a severe drop in quality. On the other hand, it's tough to turn your nose up at a company who reaches the top of its field to a point where people can't compete. Part of me thinks it's wrong, the other part is still unresolved.
 
I dunno about you but I use it as it was intended. The comment you just made contributed nothing to the site or discussion... therefore you are now a 4. But even if you're a complete idiot and I see you help someone else out in another thread, I'll bump ya up to solid 5. Karma.

 
You're right, I don't use it. I know who the solid members are, the ones that make quality contributions to the site - I don't need a system for that. But that's another discussion for a different time.

But by saying "ooooh I bumped you down on your karma!", you are implying that you believe people actually care about karma. If you use karma, great. Just don't make a post every time you do it.
 
god you are so fucking gay. how can people take you seriously in life when you take something as useless as points on an internet forum so seriously? grow the fuck up you jackass kid.
 
lolololololol

the free trade of my time for your money is by definition, equatable. atleast to a point, otherwise, in a free market place where both parties are free of physical coercion, the trades must be of value to both parties---otherwise the trade wouldnt happen.

do you make trades if you stand to gain nothing?

Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason.
 
free to give. some religions demand that you "give" (then its not a gift) some dont.

i have no problem giving freely of myself to my fellow man. but i do so on one set of terms only. mine. :)

 
can we get off this whole religion thing?

you wont get anyone including myself to beat the drum of religion on NS. so lets get back to what was earlier being discussed.

besides, whos to say they dont help the poor? until you post financials for said church, imma go out on a limb and say they do, help those less fortunate..
 
And the point was that they spent $96m on buying a stadium to convert to a church and you don't need a stadium or a church to help the poor.
 
youre looking at the wrong religions boy. i'm not mormon but i know for a fact that their members are required to donate a lot to the church- and for good purposes. yea the church might be insanely rich, but they support each member with great charity. its really cool to see a church really helping out their people.
 
Yet if this company were to be called "government" you would have a hissy fit? However, because it is under the ownership of someone else that changes it?

Don't give me anything about competition. A government fairly competes when it is given the power to do so by the people. Not to say that either situation should happen but the load of hipocracy here kills me.

Skiierman is 100% right. Ron Paul may be consistant, but he is consistantly impractical. It's like half of the idiots in here. Stick to your beliefs shouldn't count for anything if they are inconceivable and wrong when judged by everyone else.
 
Are you saying religions that build churches and things dont donate to the poor?

Name a large religion that doesnt do such a thing, and i'll give you a cookie.

Catholics? How does the vatican build all those cathedrals and stuff? Sure, back in the day, they sold 'indulgences' to get money for them, but now, they are one of the largest fundraising entities for the poor. The Franciscan order, especially - Just think Friar Tuck from the Robin Hood story if you need any explanation there...

Mormons? They build churches all over the place too.. Whenever I'm in Oakland i just stare up at this massive Oakland Tabernacle and it glows bright gold at night way up on the hill next to the forest.. but a lot of their money goes to the poor, and sending people on missions to help out the people in developing nations... they do a lot of good...

the evangelicals? yeah... as you can see here, they transform old, unused basketball arenas like the LA forum, and the old arenas in Dallas and Houston into their churches, but what else would such places be good for? Would you rather they be torn down and be wasted space? They use them to congregate, and grow their donation base so they can help more people in the longrun... dont think so short-term.

The muslims and orthodox christians also build massive mosques all over the place... and, though they are not quite as elaborate as the catholic cathedrals and mormon tabernacles, they still hold the same basic functions...

You would maybe think The Buddhists and Hindus are typically minimalists when it comes to congregation places, but look at all the large buddha statues, and elaborate buddhist temples in southeast asia... Those didn't just appear out of nowhere... The Hindus are not off the hook either - Hell... look at the flag of Cambodia... they have a depiction of Angkor Wat right in the middle of it - which is a massive Hindu Temple complex...

If you're going to target a religion that does not give to the poor, check out scientology... and read L. Ron Hubbard's quote -

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

He started it in 1947. All the aforementioned theologies had already been developed, and giving to the poor for years now.

correct me if i'm wrong, but i doubt a cent from the church of Scientology has gone towards the poor...

 
Capital investment is work? Hm... You cannot simply encapsulate property meaning like that. America wouldn't be America, it would still be a mix of Sioux and thousands of other tribes. Yet the same people that preach this freedom of property are so proud of the history of this country? I think that's a very childish view of the inherent rights of man.

Now you are getting into an argument about the definition of work and what production comes out of work. Also, who deserves it. You can't simply throw such a minuscule quote at an issue larger than volumes upon volumes of debated topics.

There are circumstances to everything. That ideal is just as far-fetched as a utopian society. So many considerations and the like. Yet people criticize others' beliefs because it they aren't feasible, then throw this at them? What's mine is mine works real well if you have a lot and "earned" it, but what's yours is yours can really suck being dealt a tough hand.

Has someone earned a lot of things all their life? Just to give an example if there were two stories side by side, a man who used welfare money to do something bad, or a man who inherited his father's business of which he had no part in and did something bad with that money, which would you be more outraged about? I can promise you the welfare money story would run rampant in the homes of a lot of people in this thread. Yet at the core, they are both taking something they didn't earn. I'm sure the people I am talking about would deny this, but if it really were to happen I can promise those would be most of the results.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top