Rand Paul for Kentucky US Senate Seat- Vote Nov 2010
- Thread starter Rez4frederick
- Start date
Does this mean we're all warm and fuzzy now?
IceCreamer
Active member
I was going to respond to this but naaa....
pmills
Active member
there's no denying that churches give to the poor, that whole idea was a tangent of trading your money for nothing... I'll admit it's not really a trade for nothing, however, what you are paying for, when donating to a church, is more about public self validation and a closed circle of caring than actually providing charity for those in need.
You don't need the church to play the middle man in doling out your donation. Also Church buildings are (for the most part) ridiculously ostentatious in their own right -- if the church was more centered around the ideals of charity perhaps i'd be more forgiving. However they are not -- it's not until long after the congregations leave that you see churches converted into homeless shelters. Soup kitchens are pushed into the basements of churches. Meanwhile, upstairs, you've got:
and you're going to tell me those are necessary to celebrating your beliefs.
Meanwhile, we haven't even mentioned the closed circle of caring... to keep this post a little shorter, would you at least grant me that churches are more opt to take care of one of their own (believers) or will couple their attempts to provide help for others with evangelizing them.
No, my point wasn't that churches do not donate to the poor, rather it's that they are wildly inefficient and more about a public show than anything else.
You don't need the church to play the middle man in doling out your donation. Also Church buildings are (for the most part) ridiculously ostentatious in their own right -- if the church was more centered around the ideals of charity perhaps i'd be more forgiving. However they are not -- it's not until long after the congregations leave that you see churches converted into homeless shelters. Soup kitchens are pushed into the basements of churches. Meanwhile, upstairs, you've got:
and you're going to tell me those are necessary to celebrating your beliefs.
Meanwhile, we haven't even mentioned the closed circle of caring... to keep this post a little shorter, would you at least grant me that churches are more opt to take care of one of their own (believers) or will couple their attempts to provide help for others with evangelizing them.
No, my point wasn't that churches do not donate to the poor, rather it's that they are wildly inefficient and more about a public show than anything else.
The same guys who fight for deregulation are the same assholes who pulled the wool over the American public's eyes and convinced them that all government activity is to better enslave them. Those guys are the big corporate assholes that hold up this shitty system we have. Governtment is meant to help, not be and handed over to profit making firms to run. Privatized police, medicine, and all other public services? Do you know what a shitshow that would be? Government services are not supposed to be profitable, they work towards the greater good, not the greater profit.
Let me also add, I would in some small way love it if the libertarians took over because then I could finally go around town and fuck other people up at my own free will and have no repercussions. I am going to Mad Max that shit.
Let me also add, I would in some small way love it if the libertarians took over because then I could finally go around town and fuck other people up at my own free will and have no repercussions. I am going to Mad Max that shit.
skiminnesota
Active member
Atlas Shrugged - second on the library of congresses influential books. rights behind the bible. 
Atlas really is the bible of "my" side. haha
Although IMO many of the ideas of Rand are far to dogmatic and polarizing for anything other than intellectual debates on NS. They also provide a solid starting point for personal exploration, and intellectual development. are her words absolute truth? no. do they provide a starting point from which to continue your exploration? yes.
if you ever have about half an hour look up John Stossel on FBN doing a special on Atlas Shrugged. its great. (youtube has the entire thing)
Atlas really is the bible of "my" side. haha
Although IMO many of the ideas of Rand are far to dogmatic and polarizing for anything other than intellectual debates on NS.
They also provide a solid starting point for personal exploration, and intellectual development. are her words absolute truth? no. do they provide a starting point from which to continue your exploration? yes.if you ever have about half an hour look up John Stossel on FBN doing a special on Atlas Shrugged. its great. (youtube has the entire thing)
skiminnesota
Active member
CHRIST,
does no one understand the idea of a government where there is a court system to insure that you do, what you legally contracted to do.
a government that protects its citizens from foregin invaders. along with providing a police force to protect its citizens from those that would infringe on your basic rights (which i outlined earlier) as a human.
as someone who considers myself to somewhat of a hybrid between a libertarian / conservative.
"my" side. would never support a society where people are allowed to run rough shot over one another. when you have a society like that, rules do not come out of reason, and respect for the individual. rather it becomes, by definition, mob rule. where the rules are made up by the gang carrying the most weapons.
morality ends at the point of a gun.
the purpose of government is to protect you from me violating your rights. and vice versa.
it is NOT to take my assets and redistribute them based on "need". when government invests, ask yourself, are they investing for an economic gain? or a political gain? in america today we have a political class that is concerned with one thing and one thing only. keeping their powerful, illustrious, and high paying jobs in washington.
Mitch - im on vacation this week and only get 10 or so minutes of internet a day. im gonna need more time to fully digest, your post. although like many times im sure ill be in agreement with some/much of what you said.
but like i said, its gonna take more time, and while on vacation, im gonna delegate my time to slaying northern, bass, and wallye. as of now my opportunity cost of NS is just to high
does no one understand the idea of a government where there is a court system to insure that you do, what you legally contracted to do.
a government that protects its citizens from foregin invaders. along with providing a police force to protect its citizens from those that would infringe on your basic rights (which i outlined earlier) as a human.
as someone who considers myself to somewhat of a hybrid between a libertarian / conservative.
"my" side. would never support a society where people are allowed to run rough shot over one another. when you have a society like that, rules do not come out of reason, and respect for the individual. rather it becomes, by definition, mob rule. where the rules are made up by the gang carrying the most weapons.
morality ends at the point of a gun.
the purpose of government is to protect you from me violating your rights. and vice versa.
it is NOT to take my assets and redistribute them based on "need". when government invests, ask yourself, are they investing for an economic gain? or a political gain? in america today we have a political class that is concerned with one thing and one thing only. keeping their powerful, illustrious, and high paying jobs in washington.
Mitch - im on vacation this week and only get 10 or so minutes of internet a day. im gonna need more time to fully digest, your post. although like many times im sure ill be in agreement with some/much of what you said.
but like i said, its gonna take more time, and while on vacation, im gonna delegate my time to slaying northern, bass, and wallye. as of now my opportunity cost of NS is just to high
Rez4frederick
Active member
"They support each member with great charity" So they give their money back to them after they have taken their cut? Wow! That is a great program! Sign me up! Seriously skiierman, quit trying to derail the discussion here with Obama and mormons or some other bullcrap. Argue the politics here without calling someone a "nutjob" or "racist" or some other coined term used by people with no backbone.
Im beginning to think this election is going to be landslide, i mean, its Kentucky, I imagine there are alot of Repubs in that state.
Check out this good site about his opponent Jack conway, (its not his official site, its the truth about him)
http://www.jackconway2010.com/
Im beginning to think this election is going to be landslide, i mean, its Kentucky, I imagine there are alot of Repubs in that state.
Check out this good site about his opponent Jack conway, (its not his official site, its the truth about him)
http://www.jackconway2010.com/
Rez4frederick
Active member
I disagree, you realize he already won the republican nomination right? So its him vs some no name democrat in Kentucky, I'd say he has a very good chance.
I dont think you can really call the Attorney General of the state a "no-name". if you mean he hasnt gotten national coverage for saying ridiculous crap, then ya he's "no name".also, the democrats are thrilled paul won. they did not want to battle with Grayson. they would much prefer to let paul lose the race for them by saying crap about repealing the civil rights act.never know, but I dont think its very likely. he is really not viable, just kinda sideshow
Then lets assume your wealth does not go "redistributed" anymore. So we are supposed to live like a disconnected community within our entire culture? Those people can't afford housing, lets not give them government subsidies, lets throw them on the street. Half a town can barely afford to buy food, they don't need food stamps, let them learn to hunt. Natural disaster? Better not call the government, I bet they can handle that one themselves, cause lord knows the government would fuck it up by spending too much money on it and being inefficient. What are we, cavemen? We shouldn't be moving backward living like people in the forest hoping to survive another winter. Government is inefficient, it spends money, that is obvious, but why don't some understand that it has always been that way.
The capitalist system in this country has indoctrinated people in a mode of thinking that if something doesn't make money, it should be thrown out. Anything for the greater good will never make money, that is a fact, it is not supposed to, government should always put people over profits. If anything, fight to make government more efficient, not just throw everything out and take us back to the stone-age.
High paying jobs in Washington? Why do you think they are high paying jobs, because the heads of private corporations and conglomerates are giving politicians money to go along with their ideals. It's not the politicians that are broken, it is the system that allows companies to reach into their pockets to swing politicians that is broken.
The capitalist system in this country has indoctrinated people in a mode of thinking that if something doesn't make money, it should be thrown out. Anything for the greater good will never make money, that is a fact, it is not supposed to, government should always put people over profits. If anything, fight to make government more efficient, not just throw everything out and take us back to the stone-age.
High paying jobs in Washington? Why do you think they are high paying jobs, because the heads of private corporations and conglomerates are giving politicians money to go along with their ideals. It's not the politicians that are broken, it is the system that allows companies to reach into their pockets to swing politicians that is broken.
skiminnesota
Active member
well the cold hard facts of my world would be: decisions /actions have consequences.
i know its not a popular subject, particularly with people my own age (about to be a JR in college) but the reality of the situation is when you make a decision or take an action. there is going to be an outcome. actions are not free of consequences. although in todays world people may try and make it that way. it simply is not so.
to your rather doom and gloom scenario i will paint a more pollyannish picture.
how about, instead of being addicted to the teet of government, people have to go through private charity? (you know the way this country was before FDR and that whole crowd?)
ive said it once and ill say it again, ive got no problem what so ever helping people. but giving freely of myself does not equate to what the government does when it levys a progressive income tax. along with all the other taxes government saddles the producers in society with.
maybe then we could get away from the quagmire we currently have ourselves in. one where more and more people are becoming nothing more than looters and moochers happy to ride the accomplishments of others instead of going out and producing. IE the welfare class that thinks it their right have food provided them, shelter over their heads, healthcare when they get sick. when people become entrenched in this mindset they have literally taken the role of slave holder. you and everyone else who is there to provide them their sustenance with no reward gained, is by definition a slave. someone who works for someone elses benefit with no gain to himself.
and no, government is in the world to do one thing and one thing only. protect the minority from the wrath of the majority. it serves to provide all people by maintaining freedom. free to fail, free to fly as high as your wings can take you. it is there not to insure your every want and need are met, it is there to administer justice.
/rant
i know its not a popular subject, particularly with people my own age (about to be a JR in college) but the reality of the situation is when you make a decision or take an action. there is going to be an outcome. actions are not free of consequences. although in todays world people may try and make it that way. it simply is not so.
to your rather doom and gloom scenario i will paint a more pollyannish picture.
how about, instead of being addicted to the teet of government, people have to go through private charity? (you know the way this country was before FDR and that whole crowd?)
ive said it once and ill say it again, ive got no problem what so ever helping people. but giving freely of myself does not equate to what the government does when it levys a progressive income tax. along with all the other taxes government saddles the producers in society with.
maybe then we could get away from the quagmire we currently have ourselves in. one where more and more people are becoming nothing more than looters and moochers happy to ride the accomplishments of others instead of going out and producing. IE the welfare class that thinks it their right have food provided them, shelter over their heads, healthcare when they get sick. when people become entrenched in this mindset they have literally taken the role of slave holder. you and everyone else who is there to provide them their sustenance with no reward gained, is by definition a slave. someone who works for someone elses benefit with no gain to himself.
and no, government is in the world to do one thing and one thing only. protect the minority from the wrath of the majority. it serves to provide all people by maintaining freedom. free to fail, free to fly as high as your wings can take you. it is there not to insure your every want and need are met, it is there to administer justice.
/rant
*TURBONERD*
Active member
on the other hand, she did make for some indirect damn good contributions to music! 2112 ftw
Private charity? No private charity will ever be as big as the government, even Bill Gate's charity pales in comparison to what kind of money the government can throw around. The government is the biggest entity that exists in our society, and it is run by the people, for the people. To do things that are better for people sometimes pisses others off, but a government is the only kind of entity that could make those types of laws. I can't smoke a fucking cigarette in a bar, I can't explain to you how much I hate that law, so I should go burn down town hall? Its for the betterment of the rest of society, not just what my selfish ass likes.
What this all really breaks down to is the question of, have you ever had to use these services? I have, I was on food stamps and other government subsides. I had to, I couldn't eat otherwise, end of story, by no means would I be where I am now if it wasn't for what I received for the government. Am I a leech on society that uses public services at every turn? No. Am I an insanely unique story? Hell no. Go down the street to where the real ghetto is and where people suffer so you see just how needed government help really is. Until you come to the point where you need it, you never realize how useful all these programs really are. Sure people abuse them, but that is the nature of man, and not something you can really change, only try to make better.
Progressive tax? Are you just insanely wealthy, or don't understand the proper concept of taxing? That type of tax does nothing but perpetuate a single group of wealthy people and keeps the rest underneath them. Rockefeller did it best, he was insanely wealthy, but was a philanthropist, he opened countless cultural centers, and funded many more things to serve the betterment of his fellow man. Now all the high class does here now is fund their own selfish endeavors of plastic surgery, mega yachts, and private jets. Maybe if the wealthy used their money for the betterment of man, I would be with you, but they simply do not, they do everything and anything to better themselves, no matter what it costs their fellow man(i.e. Bear Stearns, and Goldman Sachs).
What this all really breaks down to is the question of, have you ever had to use these services? I have, I was on food stamps and other government subsides. I had to, I couldn't eat otherwise, end of story, by no means would I be where I am now if it wasn't for what I received for the government. Am I a leech on society that uses public services at every turn? No. Am I an insanely unique story? Hell no. Go down the street to where the real ghetto is and where people suffer so you see just how needed government help really is. Until you come to the point where you need it, you never realize how useful all these programs really are. Sure people abuse them, but that is the nature of man, and not something you can really change, only try to make better.
Progressive tax? Are you just insanely wealthy, or don't understand the proper concept of taxing? That type of tax does nothing but perpetuate a single group of wealthy people and keeps the rest underneath them. Rockefeller did it best, he was insanely wealthy, but was a philanthropist, he opened countless cultural centers, and funded many more things to serve the betterment of his fellow man. Now all the high class does here now is fund their own selfish endeavors of plastic surgery, mega yachts, and private jets. Maybe if the wealthy used their money for the betterment of man, I would be with you, but they simply do not, they do everything and anything to better themselves, no matter what it costs their fellow man(i.e. Bear Stearns, and Goldman Sachs).
Sure, then let's stop the government from stealing all your money to send on subsides.
So the government stops giving subsidies, in the course of stopping that, they stop subsidizing farms for making cheap crops like corn and rice. The price for this crop drops insanely, they farms stop making such cheap crops cause the profit margin goes out the window. There is no price floor anymore that the government usually maintains through its subsides. The lower class is forced to buy more expensive food like chicken and beef. Not usually a big problem, but in this world there is no such thing as welfare or foodstamps, so now they are barely able to feed themselves. In the middle of all this the post office also loses its subsides, looks like you really wont get that two month late copy of freeskier mag. As time passes, we all know what happens when a portion of a population is forced to live in squander and go hungry, those chickens always come home to roost.
Your life has been touched by subsides since you have been born, live with it, they have been "stealing" your money before you took your first breath. If they didn't that breath wouldn't have lasted very long.
So the government stops giving subsidies, in the course of stopping that, they stop subsidizing farms for making cheap crops like corn and rice. The price for this crop drops insanely, they farms stop making such cheap crops cause the profit margin goes out the window. There is no price floor anymore that the government usually maintains through its subsides. The lower class is forced to buy more expensive food like chicken and beef. Not usually a big problem, but in this world there is no such thing as welfare or foodstamps, so now they are barely able to feed themselves. In the middle of all this the post office also loses its subsides, looks like you really wont get that two month late copy of freeskier mag. As time passes, we all know what happens when a portion of a population is forced to live in squander and go hungry, those chickens always come home to roost.
Your life has been touched by subsides since you have been born, live with it, they have been "stealing" your money before you took your first breath. If they didn't that breath wouldn't have lasted very long.
JahJahBinks
Active member
I am from Kentucky but am not 18.
sneezin
Member
taxing is basically saying the government knows how to use your money more than you do. One must follow their moral concepts rather than their own because the government claims to know whats right and wrong. why can't i donate that money to a different charity? hypothetically speaking who is to tell you that cancer is more important than world hunger? or vice versa?
rand paul is not a viable candidate at all. nor is his father, the modern day ross perot. it amazes me that otherwise clear headed, intellectual people are so smitten with this guy. not only smitten, but fanatical. the people I know who like him, and the people on this board who support him, go to great lengths to defend his ridiculous positions(I'm looking at you woozy ie austrian econ). otherwise intelligent cats who have drank the kool aid, I guess.
but something I would like to genuinely ask the ron paul lovers: why the strict adherence to the original constitution? is it not meant to be a guide that changes with the times, albeit slowly and difficultly? how could it not be?how could the writers possibly have predicted the conditions of today? they included provisions for the altering of it didnt they?
and dont forget, the drafters of the constitution were not infallible, they were slave owners, womanizers, and drunks just like the politicians of today. they specifically included a voting system that made it possible for the winner of the majority to not be elected, they werent trusting the common voter to make the right call.
so why the blind loyalty to a out dated document that was written 200 years ago? to remain pertinent, it has to change.
but something I would like to genuinely ask the ron paul lovers: why the strict adherence to the original constitution? is it not meant to be a guide that changes with the times, albeit slowly and difficultly? how could it not be?how could the writers possibly have predicted the conditions of today? they included provisions for the altering of it didnt they?
and dont forget, the drafters of the constitution were not infallible, they were slave owners, womanizers, and drunks just like the politicians of today. they specifically included a voting system that made it possible for the winner of the majority to not be elected, they werent trusting the common voter to make the right call.
so why the blind loyalty to a out dated document that was written 200 years ago? to remain pertinent, it has to change.
factory81
Active member
amtrak is old news
they have been a huge govt subsidy for years i hear. basically a dual partnership between amway and the govt.
i am as liberal as can be pending we have a way to pay for it without taxing us more. now that im in my early twenties. i hate taxes. i realize taxes are everywhere, and when i look at it..i get taxed out the ass. my income, my investments, my purchases from gasoline to food at the store, lift tickets, and car rental fees. taxes and fees make up 1/4th a car rental bill, my cell phone is another great example
USF charge. You guys know what a USF charge is? Back in the day if you lived in podunk town USA, and you had no telecom company. You would create a non-profit one for the community. Fast forward 80 years and now those telecom companies have no competition in these rural areas. And people there pay more for the same service when compared to other places. So as a consumer you are fucked, and now everyone can say they are fucked because the USF charge is a tax to give subsidies to these "independent telecom companies"
I am waiting for the govt to try and tax Amazon, not the internet, just Amazon.
they have been a huge govt subsidy for years i hear. basically a dual partnership between amway and the govt.
i am as liberal as can be pending we have a way to pay for it without taxing us more. now that im in my early twenties. i hate taxes. i realize taxes are everywhere, and when i look at it..i get taxed out the ass. my income, my investments, my purchases from gasoline to food at the store, lift tickets, and car rental fees. taxes and fees make up 1/4th a car rental bill, my cell phone is another great example
USF charge. You guys know what a USF charge is? Back in the day if you lived in podunk town USA, and you had no telecom company. You would create a non-profit one for the community. Fast forward 80 years and now those telecom companies have no competition in these rural areas. And people there pay more for the same service when compared to other places. So as a consumer you are fucked, and now everyone can say they are fucked because the USF charge is a tax to give subsidies to these "independent telecom companies"
I am waiting for the govt to try and tax Amazon, not the internet, just Amazon.
Rez4frederick
Active member
Nice, Woozy you are killing it. Seriously, the constitution was only written 200 years ago. That is about 4-5 lifetimes. The people that wrote it were looking into the future. They had experienced tyranny over in England and were sick and tired of that shit. That is why they left that bullshit and sent out to the wild west to face many hardships, but they would rather do that than put up with any more bullshit.
Yes, things have changed since then. But really how much has changed? Technology has changed alot, but people and society in general are still the same. Its not like our brains grew 500% since then. If the people who worked so damn hard to write the constitution and get everyone behind it saw the kind of shit people are trying to pull today, they would freak out and probably go on a shooting spree. If you don't think the constitution is viable anymore than you can just GTFO of America. Seriously, the only reason people don't think Paul is viable is because he is not a status quo candidate. He is like one of the founding fathers in modern day clothing so you should be proud you get to see a man like him in todays world.
Yes, things have changed since then. But really how much has changed? Technology has changed alot, but people and society in general are still the same. Its not like our brains grew 500% since then. If the people who worked so damn hard to write the constitution and get everyone behind it saw the kind of shit people are trying to pull today, they would freak out and probably go on a shooting spree. If you don't think the constitution is viable anymore than you can just GTFO of America. Seriously, the only reason people don't think Paul is viable is because he is not a status quo candidate. He is like one of the founding fathers in modern day clothing so you should be proud you get to see a man like him in todays world.
.Ben
Member
so are you saying its also ok to prevent blacks and women from voting? In my opinion its a good thing that laws change and it would be stupid to take a step backwards. If you think its ok for businesses to choose who can come into their establishment based on skin color, then is it ok for them to discriminate when hiring people? This would send minorities into a world of shit that would be your fucking fault. As well as all the others who support this idea.
i actually do think its ok for businesses to choose who can come in to their establishment based on skin color, and its ok to discriminate when hiring people. now, i would never use that businesses services for anything, and i would try to get others to stop supporting them. but i just dont think the government should tell you who you hire and who you let in your business. and these day's there would be far fewer businesses like that and the ones that did exist most likely would not last very long at all.
still salty from the spanking I gave your punk ass on austrian econ I see. this is the same kind of nonsense you were spewing in that thread until I schooled you, at which time you became strangely quiet.
just so you know, I was prepared to listen your views and not tear you apart this time... until you started in with the half ass insults.
have you acquired any more false degrees since then haha? fucking jackass, you realize you have zero credibility right?
its friday so I gotta go do some things but I'll get back with you soon
just so you know, I was prepared to listen your views and not tear you apart this time... until you started in with the half ass insults.
have you acquired any more false degrees since then haha? fucking jackass, you realize you have zero credibility right?
its friday so I gotta go do some things but I'll get back with you soon
.Ben
Member
so you think its ok for private colleges to deny someone based on their skin color too? Do you have any idea what this would do to minority groups? First of all by giving businesses the freedom to discriminate based on skin color is the same as taking away black people's freedom to work wherever they please. Your logic contradicts itself. In my opinion, the civil rights act allows more freedom than it takes away. Its completely ignorant to think that it is ok to deny someone entry to any business that is open to the public as well as to deny jobs to someone based solely on their appearance.
.Ben
Member
if you were reading my arguments it would be safe to assume that I think they are stupid wouldn't it? In my opinion they are the same stupid shit as denying someone entry to a business based on skin color. But also I could actually come up with a somewhat valid argument for why they are ok: women and men are anatomically as well as physiologically (hormonally) different and in my opinion it is dumb to say men and women are equal. But does that mean that womens only health clubs are ok? fuck no.
they sure as hell are ok, and they are a fantastic business model. Do you know how many women flock to these places because they are intimidated and creeped out by working out with a bunch of sweaty men? These places serve a very specialized need...businesses need to be able to make decisions like these.
not sure why you think thats jumbled, but I understand you are confused easily so I'll break it down for you.as I said, rand paul NOR his father are viable candidates. I've explained why I think rand paul WONT win elsewhere in this thread, so I'll explain why he sucks...
he is 100% pro-life and effectively anti-gay marriage. how is that libertarian? how does that jive with the idea of less government intervention? it doesn't. at all. he has associated himself with the tea-bagger party and lost any credibility he may have had(kinda like woozy when he claims to have degrees he doesnt)
already explained why ross perot, I mean ron paul, is a joker so I'll skip that for now. I hadn't seen that POLL(thats how you spell that, "law student"), interesting but pretty meaningless.
now back to my original question(which was genuine btw). you still with me woozy? you jumbled yet?
I admit I'm not a constitutional scholar, nor will I pretend to be to look cool on the internets, but my understanding is not exactly pathetic. I think the argument usually made is that the constitution is to be changed via amendments and enforced via supreme court decision. when amendments are made they can be removed ie the 18th(prohibition) by other amendments. the issue is that of enforcement, justices ruling based on their personal politics. which needs to be avoided, of course. so... whats wrong with this process?
as far as the ron paul claiming things are unconstitutional, check into the supremacy clause.interpreted as "a state statute is void to the extent that it conflicts with a federal statute". I guess you havent got that far in "law school".
also your objection to the 17th amendment is irrelevant. unfortunately you cant pick and choose the laws you like. if senators arent elected by popular vote, who should elect them? should they be appointed so we can see even more cronyism? so you are a fan of removing an amendment that allows our representatives to acquire office by other means that popular vote? wheres the people's involvement? some libertarian. you and rand, no government involvement except for, you know, stuff you likeyour politics are nonsensical because they are dogmatic, just like all ron paul cock chuggers. its like arguing with christians, its all faith based.
he is 100% pro-life and effectively anti-gay marriage. how is that libertarian? how does that jive with the idea of less government intervention? it doesn't. at all. he has associated himself with the tea-bagger party and lost any credibility he may have had(kinda like woozy when he claims to have degrees he doesnt)
already explained why ross perot, I mean ron paul, is a joker so I'll skip that for now. I hadn't seen that POLL(thats how you spell that, "law student"), interesting but pretty meaningless.
now back to my original question(which was genuine btw). you still with me woozy? you jumbled yet?
I admit I'm not a constitutional scholar, nor will I pretend to be to look cool on the internets, but my understanding is not exactly pathetic. I think the argument usually made is that the constitution is to be changed via amendments and enforced via supreme court decision. when amendments are made they can be removed ie the 18th(prohibition) by other amendments. the issue is that of enforcement, justices ruling based on their personal politics. which needs to be avoided, of course. so... whats wrong with this process?
as far as the ron paul claiming things are unconstitutional, check into the supremacy clause.interpreted as "a state statute is void to the extent that it conflicts with a federal statute". I guess you havent got that far in "law school".
also your objection to the 17th amendment is irrelevant. unfortunately you cant pick and choose the laws you like. if senators arent elected by popular vote, who should elect them? should they be appointed so we can see even more cronyism? so you are a fan of removing an amendment that allows our representatives to acquire office by other means that popular vote? wheres the people's involvement? some libertarian. you and rand, no government involvement except for, you know, stuff you likeyour politics are nonsensical because they are dogmatic, just like all ron paul cock chuggers. its like arguing with christians, its all faith based.
.Ben
Member
Are we arguing about whether this is a successful business model or if this is an acceptable busiess practice. I mean sure white supremacists are probably gonna flock to businesses that discriminate against blacks but that in no way makes it acceptable. And in my experience, I see no need for women's only health clubs because when I go to the gym, everyone just does their own thing and leaves eachother alone. Women who are creeped out just by the presence of guys are just dumb.
And again your argument doesn't justify discriminating based on skin color, just based on anatomical differences and physiological differences that have been scientifically proven to cause differences in behavior. these are two different things stick to the argument. Rand Paul in my opinion has lost all credibility as a libertarian for opposing the civil rights act in any way. People should be allowed to bring their business to any establishment they want and shouldn't be shot down because the business owner is racist.
And again your argument doesn't justify discriminating based on skin color, just based on anatomical differences and physiological differences that have been scientifically proven to cause differences in behavior. these are two different things stick to the argument. Rand Paul in my opinion has lost all credibility as a libertarian for opposing the civil rights act in any way. People should be allowed to bring their business to any establishment they want and shouldn't be shot down because the business owner is racist.
Rez4frederick
Active member
Tyran, Im happy to debate with you. But if you are just gonna use name calling and calling Paul a "kook" or some bullshit about a "living" constitution then you have failed already. That is the only thing people have to say about Rand who don't like him is that he is "insane!" or he is "crazy!". they don't actually argue his agenda or they start talking about Pro life bullshit to distract.
Like Woozy has said, Rand already WON the republican nomination. That means people voted for him to represent the republican party. Do you understand how the voting system works in America? People are getting more and more conservative as the days go on. The democrats don't stand a chance, and I feel the only reason Obama won is because his competition was McCain who nobody liked. I've heard that Ron is gonna run in 2012 which would be badass! Yes Obama is a good speaker, but he doesn't have a real vision to make the us better, he just listens to what people tell him.
Okay, Tyran, if you think Rand is not the right candidate. Why do you think Jack Conway is a better candidate? Elaborate please.
Like Woozy has said, Rand already WON the republican nomination. That means people voted for him to represent the republican party. Do you understand how the voting system works in America? People are getting more and more conservative as the days go on. The democrats don't stand a chance, and I feel the only reason Obama won is because his competition was McCain who nobody liked. I've heard that Ron is gonna run in 2012 which would be badass! Yes Obama is a good speaker, but he doesn't have a real vision to make the us better, he just listens to what people tell him.
Okay, Tyran, if you think Rand is not the right candidate. Why do you think Jack Conway is a better candidate? Elaborate please.
Rez4frederick
Active member
That was a good interview, although that guy is kind of a cocky bastard. Rand answered all of those questions with extreme intelligence and he is dead on about Bernanke. That guy needs to get the hell out of that job, terrible terrible job he has done.
PimpingPanda
Member
Dude, you are not very smart, are you? Do you know what profit, revenue, operating cost even means?If they have $3 billion in operating costs, and $2 billion in profits, they wouldn't lose a billion dollars a year. In fact, if they have $3 billion in costs, and 2 billion in profits, their Revenue would be $5 billion.
Fucking 14 year olds.
Fucking 14 year olds.
I think people call him kooky because of his affiliations mostly. tea party, sarah palin, etc. these are pretty zany characters in a lot of ways. while I generally agree hot button emotional issues such as abortion, gay marriage are essentially meaningless, in this case I think they give some insight into the character of the politician. not that he is against them per se, but that his whole stance is anti-government, or nanny state activity, yet he supports a regulating a basic right of women. I cant go along with that.I think conway is a better candidate because he supports the health care bill. I think its a step in the right direction. I already pay 40% of my income in taxes, I'd like to see some benefit to society for it. I know this is an unpopular position on this board, but thats ok. the argument I usually hear is that its expensive, but I believe out of the many, many things the government wastes money on, this is one that is worth the cost. this is just my opinion and I'm open to debate, but I think the baseline of quality of life should be higher for the most wealthy country in the world.
so there you go, flame on haha
so there you go, flame on haha