# Ron Paul 2012



## Alimination (May 4, 2011)

Would you vote for him?

His votes have been consistent for decades!
He's against the federal government! (Federal reserve, TSA, ect).

A hardcore constitutionalist! 

and best of all, the elite hate him! So they have every damn media trash talk him. What an awesome win if he wins.

If you don't know who he is check this out!


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 4, 2011)

I could certainly live with Ron Paul. It would be a huge improvement IMO. I also think Mike Huckabee would make a good leader as well.


----------



## synrgy (May 4, 2011)

Nope. I disagree with him on a number of platforms, even though I greatly admire his pragmatic approach to the political arena generally speaking.

After listening to a couple of his speeches, he almost had my support in 2008, but then I did more research and found that he's what I would personally define as 'bat-shit-crazy' when it comes to issues like immigration and abortion. Just my opinion, though.


----------



## Overtone (May 4, 2011)

I'd probably vote for him. I find some of the stuff he says/believes to be racist and a step back for American civil rights, but I still feel like he'd do a better job in office than the typical candidates. I feel like the really outrageous stuff he likes isn't something a president could unilaterally cause to happen. Besides that, Obama went into office with certain ambitions of changing things and those fell to the wayside as soon as he was surrounded by an administration. It's hard to say whether or not it would be the same way with Paul. But in general, I respect the kind of honesty and logic that Paul speaks with, and feel like he could make some good changes to how things are run.


----------



## Alimination (May 4, 2011)

I'm not sure bout the boarders. I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted them more enforced. Which is okay with me.

But for abortion. I know he's against them, but I know he wants to leave the states to decide.. which is what it SUPPOSED to be in the first place. The federal government cannot decide on that kind of a rule. It goes against the 10th amendment.


----------



## TXDeathMetal (May 4, 2011)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I could certainly live with Ron Paul. It would be a huge improvement IMO. I also think Mike Huckabee would make a good leader as well.



Interesting point you bring up, I agree on Mike Huckabee.


----------



## Guitarman700 (May 4, 2011)

Nope. Not for me. Although, there isn't a single candidate that I would vote for right now. We'll see...


----------



## mountainjam (May 4, 2011)

hes the only guy ill vote for.


----------



## aslsmm (May 4, 2011)

I would get off my fat ass and vote if he was a serious contender.
His views may be contray to a some of you but id rather has a ballsy honest president than one that says one thing then dose another or nothing at all.


On an ironic/funny note: i use to sale security systems door to door and i ran into a black dude that had these long ass dreadlocks. I never heard someone hate obama more. It was kinda funny. Shame on me cause i assumed that because he was black that his vote was for obama. He was all for ron paul.


----------



## Demiurge (May 4, 2011)

Alimination said:


> and best of all, the elite hate him!



Does this mean that he sits alone in the cafeteria at capital hill? 

Politicians are "the elite." Sure, I'm weary of politicians who are obviously out-of-touch with the general public, but I'm more weary of politicians that engage in pandering, populist jibber-jabber- it just seems like just another marketing ploy akin to if U2 tried to pass themselves off as an underground punk band.


----------



## krypter (May 4, 2011)

Ron Paul is a good guy to have around to shake things up a bit. I like that he exists. I truly do. 


He'd make a terrible, lousy, eye-brow-raising president. And a lot of his stuff is just WAY too far out there to make sense in an actual functioning world. 

But again, i like that he exists to keep people on their toes.


----------



## Alimination (May 5, 2011)

krypter said:


> Ron Paul is a good guy to have around to shake things up a bit. I like that he exists. I truly do.
> 
> 
> He'd make a terrible, lousy, eye-brow-raising president. And a lot of his stuff is just WAY too far out there to make sense in an actual functioning world.
> ...




I mean if he did ran for president, and whether he loses or not his message will spread. I mean switching currency from the federal reserve note (aka the dollar) to gold or silver may be outrageous to some people.

but when they realize that's how it used to be in the past.. when each dollar was worth one silver. Congress then created a central bank (the federal reserve) to create infinite amount of money, instead of asking the people for money which was one of the only thing congress could do! After all.. WE THE PEOPLE are the boss. We created congress, they work for us!
We tell them how much they can spend, not a central bank!

(kind of like a police officer taking a break and giving a gun to a regular dude in the street to go enforce when it's his job!!!)

Once people realize this slowly, and see how much of our rights have been taken by the fed and the banks, most of RP's goals don't seem so damn ridiculous.


----------



## Alimination (May 5, 2011)

Demiurge said:


> Does this mean that he sits alone in the cafeteria at capital hill?
> 
> Politicians are "the elite." Sure, I'm weary of politicians who are obviously out-of-touch with the general public, but I'm more weary of politicians that engage in pandering, populist jibber-jabber- it just seems like just another marketing ploy akin to if U2 tried to pass themselves off as an underground punk band.



Hahah!! I'm sorry lol, but by elite I meant the banks and investors... 

Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, The Rothschild, Rockefellers, The fed, ect...

Most politicians are the puppets! Most people don't even know that the Obama administration is OWNED by Goldman Sachs! Crazy shit eh? Go look it up, it's out in the open!


----------



## krypter (May 5, 2011)

Alimination said:


> I mean if he did ran for president, and whether he loses or not his message will spread. I mean switching currency from the federal reserve note (aka the dollar) to gold or silver may be outrageous to some people.
> 
> but when they realize that's how it used to be in the past.. when each dollar was worth one silver. Congress then created a central bank (the federal reserve) to create infinite amount of money, instead of asking the people for money which was one of the only thing congress could do! After all.. WE THE PEOPLE are the boss. We created congress, they work for us!
> We tell them how much they can spend, not a central bank!
> ...




yea...see, thats what i mean. A great idea in spirit, but wholy illogical, if not impossible, for the real, actual world.


----------



## Alimination (May 5, 2011)

Yeah! 

But I think it's far from impossible. Think about it! How many people have "awaken" just in the past... sayyy 4 years? I for one was a Obama and Bush follower till I educated myself. The numbers will multiply! Eventually people will find out!

As long as people empower themselves with education, and not be brainwashed by TV.

After all, if you know your history, this wasn't the first time something like this happened! BUT things will be easier if we deal with it now then delay it for later.


----------



## TXDeathMetal (May 5, 2011)

krypter said:


> Ron Paul is a good guy to have around to shake things up a bit. I like that he exists. I truly do.
> 
> 
> He'd make a terrible, lousy, eye-brow-raising president. And a lot of his stuff is just WAY too far out there to make sense in an actual functioning world.
> ...



you forgot to put this at the end of your post "TL;DR Ron Paul is a troll and I like the fact that he's a troll."


----------



## Kryss (May 5, 2011)

yes, he would get rid of the Fed which would be a major improvement and put us back on a gold standard. that right there makes him better than the others to me. get rid of these corrupt bankers screwjobbing the tax payer non stop. if you watched any of his debates with the other pubs last year he basically ripped all them on every question with ease. so what they did was start to skip over him and not ask him any questions during the debates or they would cut him off midway in his explaination of why the other answers from other people were wrong. the media likes to paint him as radical because of the fact he isn't one of those typical elite politicians. if he wins the nomination it would be probably the best thing for us right now. huckabee probably wouldn't be horrible either the others either i can't see them having a chance atm or they just don't have the smarts. christie could be interesting if he ran he doesn't take no chit from what i've seen of him. doubt he runs in this election though. if we get paul vs obama obama will probably lose. anyone else at this moment in time it would be tough to say. in debates i would expect ron paul to seriously just crush obama in front of all.


----------



## Explorer (May 5, 2011)

Ron Paul has seriously made the case that there should be no federal income tax, and that institutions which rely on a federal government shouldn't exist.

Which doesn't square with defending the borders, national defense, the FBI having the authority and power to investigate interstate crimes, diplomacy via the State Department, and so on. 

That sounds batshit crazy to me.

If anyone wants to argue that he's saying that, but also wants strong Federal institutions... doesn't that indicate a problem with funding? Or, for example, should soldiers and their families just get by on love of country? 

Cognitive dissonance at its best/worst. Just what everyone looks for in a successful politician, right?


----------



## Kryss (May 5, 2011)

to me ron paul is all about getting rid of the dead weight, go back to gold standard, slimming the gov't down. all the gov't needs to do is protect the citizens and uphold the law. hopefully he can just get a flat/fair tax that works and that would clear out a lot of the BS going on. you obviously have to pay for some gov't programs but there is no reason why we should have all this complex crap anymore. simplify it so loopholes are closed. the current direction to me is full of fail. i know i sure don't want to see people rioting like in greece and other countries because we let our politicians and bankers ruin our country. just my opinion. hopefully we the people can help reign it in but it worries me for sure that it never will be and we will be stranded in the downward spiral to the bottom.


----------



## Demiurge (May 5, 2011)

Alimination said:


> Hahah!! I'm sorry lol, but by elite I meant the banks and investors...
> 
> Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, The Rothschild, Rockefellers, The fed, ect...
> 
> Most politicians are the puppets! Most people don't even know that the Obama administration is OWNED by Goldman Sachs! Crazy shit eh? Go look it up, it's out in the open!



Couldn't quite find anything about Goldman Sachs owning the Obama administration. I'm interested to see what your sources are.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 5, 2011)

Alimination said:


> I'm not sure bout the boarders. I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted them more enforced. Which is okay with me.
> 
> But for abortion. I know he's against them, but I know he wants to leave the states to decide.. which is what it SUPPOSED to be in the first place. The federal government cannot decide on that kind of a rule. It goes against the 10th amendment.


 
I agree, but I've never understood how anyone can tell someone else what they're allowed to put into or take out of their own body... Regardless of the "moral issue" it's simply not anyone else's decision to make. Admittedly, I have some qualms with abortion in the cases where someone is just refusing to accept responsibility for being sexually loose but that's a different story for a different day...


----------



## krypter (May 5, 2011)

You folks do realize it is almost impossible to return to the gold standard right? Not like "oh its a bad idea" i mean, almost entirely impossible. 

There isn't nearly enough gold in the US to back our currency. And that means we'd have gold jacked up to $60,000.oo/ ounce. Thats just insanity on a whole new level. 


I see you guys _talking_ about the gold standard but why? Why do you want to return to that so badly? 

Not trolling, honestly asking.


----------



## Xaios (May 5, 2011)

Demiurge said:


> Couldn't quite find anything about Goldman Sachs owning the Obama administration. I'm interested to see what your sources are.



You're not doing it right! It's the chemtrails, man!


----------



## mountainjam (May 5, 2011)

Demiurge said:


> Couldn't quite find anything about Goldman Sachs owning the Obama administration. I'm interested to see what your sources are.



its not a conspiracy, just look at how many people in his cabinet, and every other past president for that matter, are filled with former goldman employees. same goes for the chairman of the fed.



krypter said:


> You folks do realize it is almost impossible to return to the gold standard right? Not like "oh its a bad idea" i mean, almost entirely impossible.
> 
> There isn't nearly enough gold in the US to back our currency. And that means we'd have gold jacked up to $60,000.oo/ ounce. Thats just insanity on a whole new level.
> 
> ...


if we would return to the gold standard, the value of the usd would dramatically increase. every time the fed prints money with no backing, the value of usd drops (inflation). its been dropping since 1913. so in theory, gold standard would be a reversal of the destruction to the usd, gold value would drop, paper money value would go up.


Xaios said:


> You're not doing it right! It's the chemtrails, man!



laugh all you want, chemtrails exist. in siskiyou county in northern cal, very close to where i live, it was recently on the voting ballot to decide if pacific gas and electric company should be allowed to cloud seed (aka chemtrails) to increase hydro electric dam output.


----------



## Alimination (May 5, 2011)

Damn okay, a lot to answer while at work so I'll post some for now and do some later.

Okay no income tax or institutions that rely on them. 
-First thing about that is... america existed a pretty long time in the past without income tax to begin with. Don't quote me on it, but I think the 22nd amendment came around 1913 which started the income tax thing. We did it before.. I'm sure we can do it again. I mean if it's a money issue thinking we don't have enough.. well dude they openly admitted they gave 1/3 of our money to foreign banks. Most of them in which provoked the issues in the middle east.

I mean if you believe in foreign aid.. look at guys like Mubarak.. we gave him Millions! Look what happened to now. We dethroned the king of Iran, and we got anti american religious radicals, we trained Afghanistan troops and they turned their backs on us with 911. Then there is Yugoslavia.. and I can go on and on... 

As for the FBI, I honestly not sure what to say about that. He hasn't said much about it. I'm not sure if he could pull that off, but all I know is that he's for smaller government.

------------
The Sources for Goldman Sachs thing Owning the white house and Obama

~Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor - CNN

~The White (Goldman Sachs) House

~Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

I mean google it! It's all over the web. I know some of you may think it's retarded but I think you if you haven't yet you should check out the documentary "Obama Deception" by Alex jones (yeah he can be nuts sometimes, but he makes some real good points.)




I'll try to answer more questions on my break.


----------



## mountainjam (May 5, 2011)

^^ i advise not to check out anything related to alex jones. even if what he says is true, he is just a fear monger giving people a sense of hopelessness


----------



## ROAR (May 5, 2011)

I can't vote for him because of his religious beliefs.
I disagree with them, although his view on marijuana legalization
are something we can get behind.


----------



## Alimination (May 5, 2011)

mountainjam said:


> ^^ i advise not to check out anything related to alex jones. even if what he says is true, he is just a fear monger giving people a sense of hopelessness



Well believe him or not, he makes great points about Obama in that video I posted. That's all I wanted to say in that post, not support him or anything.


----------



## aslsmm (May 5, 2011)

ROAR said:


> I can't vote for him because of his religious beliefs.
> I disagree with them, although his view on marijuana legalization
> are something we can get behind.


 

and you guys think ron paul is batshit crazy? seriously not voting for someone because of what they bellive religiously is a bit exagerated i think.

"well this guy dose support the constitution and would be a step in the right direction for america but i cant agree with his religion so ill go with the one who will continue to do nothing."


----------



## Xaios (May 5, 2011)

Not voting for someone based purely on their religion is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm a conservative Christian , but the lions share of my friends are quite liberal. When Stephen Harper won the majority in the Canadian federal election on Monday, my Facebook just EXPLODED with posts about how Stephen Harper was going to send women back to the Fifties, eliminate gay marriage and abortion rights and sell our souls to the American banking overlords.

My reply: "Knowing what you know about both my beliefs and how I conduct myself in life, if I were elected, would I do those things? No? Then what on earth makes you think Stephen Harper will?"


----------



## Randy (May 5, 2011)

mountainjam said:


> laugh all you want, chemtrails exist. in siskiyou county in northern cal, very close to where i live, it was recently on the voting ballot to decide if pacific gas and electric company should be allowed to cloud seed (aka chemtrails) to increase hydro electric dam output.



Why bother with that when they could just use HAARP?


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 5, 2011)

@ Xaios - He's a fascist communist racist and an all around bad guy bc he chose to affiliate himself w/ a party I "generally" don't agree with... That's why!!!!


----------



## Xaios (May 5, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> fascist communist racist



While I've heard the first and last descriptor used, I don't think ANYONE will ever accuse Stephen Harper of being a communist.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 5, 2011)

Xaios said:


> While I've heard the first and last descriptor used, I don't think ANYONE will ever accuse Stephen Harper of being a communist.


 
Oh I was just throwing out a bunch of words generally accepted as bad here in the US of A... 

To be honest, I don't even know who the man in question is.


----------



## mountainjam (May 5, 2011)

Randy said:


> Why bother with that when they could just use HAARP?



i have no idea. its been a little while, but i remember a few articles about it in the local newspaper. if i remember correctly, pg&e had been doing it for quite some time. eventually they got busted, a lot of residents backlashed against them, and eventually found its way to the voting ballot during the last ca governors election. I dont live in siskiyou county, and dont read the paper very much so im not sure what the results were.

dont hold me on the specifics about it, but without a doubt I know it was voted for by the people sometime in the past few months


----------



## Alimination (May 5, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> @ Xaios - He's a fascist communist racist and an all around bad guy bc he chose to affiliate himself w/ a party I "generally" don't agree with... That's why!!!!






He is libertarian, For the constitution, and for smaller government which is the complete opposite of fascism. If your going to have a reason to bash on him, find something better. I mean I get the people who don't like him because they fear social security going away. 
(even though I'm for that)

but to blurt out something random that he's racist and a communist.. give me a break.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 5, 2011)

Someone doesn't know a joke when they see it...


----------



## Alimination (May 5, 2011)

sorry just posted it now, didn't see the last other comments. lol

But I'm not gona lie! Every time I mention that, 70% of the time that's the response I get. -_-


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 5, 2011)




----------



## Xaios (May 5, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Oh I was just throwing out a bunch of words generally accepted as bad here in the US of A...
> 
> To be honest, I don't even know who the man in question is.



I figured as much. 

(Stephen Harper = Prime Minister of Canada since 2006. Leads the Conservative Party of Canada. Has been head of a minority government since he was elected in 2006. Re-elected in 2008 with more seats in Parliament than before, but still not enough for a majority, so he was still forced to spend way more stimulus money then he wanted at the behest of other parties, who proceeded to turn around and blame him for the country being in debt. In March, said other parties voted that the Conservatives were "in contempt of Parliament" and decided to dissolve government and hold another general election, our fourth one in seven years. Enough Canadians disagreed with that evaluation, or just didn't give a shit because the other parties have turned Parliament into a farce that frankly deserves contempt, that we've given the Conservatives a majority government. Everyone on the Left proceeded to scream bloody murder, pretty much accusing him of being just about every negative adjective you can think of, some of which can probably only logically be used to describe plants.)


----------



## krypter (May 5, 2011)

I see a lot of people saying its stupid to not vote for someone based on their religion. I respectfully disagree as i can't really see a Conservative Christian voting for someone who is vocal about being an Athiest. 

Could be wrong though.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 5, 2011)

Observation: Politics seems to be movitated more by prejudice than "facts."

Also, this thread (and all other political threads for that matter) helps to explain why almost all unnecessarily tedious processes are referred to as "politics."


----------



## Xaios (May 5, 2011)

krypter said:


> I see a lot of people saying its stupid to not vote for someone based on their religion. I respectfully disagree as i can't really see a Conservative Christian voting for someone who is vocal about being an Athiest.
> 
> Could be wrong though.



I see where you're coming from, but there's a reason for this particular occurrence. You're a lot more likely to see a progressive Christian than a conservative Atheist, so the political ideologies are more likely to mesh going one way than the other.

The other issue is that most politicians who are Christians (beyond the crazy neocons) don't go out of their way to advertise the fact, they get demonized for it anyway. A lot of people on the left have a preconceived notion that electing anyone who is a Christian is a surefire path back to the dark ages when witches were burned at the stake, despite fairly convincing evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (May 5, 2011)

krypter said:


> I see a lot of people saying its stupid to not vote for someone based on their religion. I respectfully disagree as i can't really see a Conservative Christian voting for someone who is vocal about being an Athiest.
> 
> Could be wrong though.


 
I'm inclined to agree. I know for a _fact_ that my parents wouldn't vote for an atheist. Or a muslim, for that hatter. Just look at how many people were going on about OMG OBAMA IS A MUSLIM!!!1! when he was running, as if it would have been a solid reason not to vote for him.

EDIT: And I mean even if the candidate was an atheist who otherwise agreed with my parents on all political issues. They just wouldn't want a nonchristian in the White House.


----------



## aslsmm (May 5, 2011)

im an anctive christian and id vote for a atheist..... depending on his policies and views of our government. besides where dose that leave all of the atheist in america? i really cant remember the last atheist canidate we had running. all of them are or pretend to be christian.


----------



## Xaios (May 5, 2011)

(@ Moff) Yes, but my point is that particular way of thinking is still stupid, no matter which direction it flows.


----------



## aslsmm (May 5, 2011)

Xaios said:


> I see where you're coming from, but there's a reason for this particular occurrence. You're a lot more likely to see a progressive Christian than a conservative Atheist, so the political ideologies are more likely to mesh going one way than the other.
> 
> The other issue is that most politicians who are Christians (beyond the crazy neocons) don't go out of their way to advertise the fact, they get demonized for it anyway. A lot of people on the left have a preconceived notion that electing anyone who is a Christian is a surefire path back to the dark ages when witches were burned at the stake, despite fairly convincing evidence to the contrary.


 

yup yup. the like link wouldnt show up on my screen so id post this to tell you i liked it


----------



## krypter (May 5, 2011)

Xaios said:


> I see where you're coming from, but there's a reason for this particular occurrence. You're a lot more likely to see a progressive Christian than a conservative Atheist, so the political ideologies are more likely to mesh going one way than the other.
> 
> The other issue is that most politicians who are Christians (beyond the crazy neocons) don't go out of their way to advertise the fact, they get demonized for it anyway. _ A lot of people on the left have a preconceived notion that electing anyone who is a Christian is a surefire path back to the dark ages when witches were burned at the stake, despite fairly convincing evidence to the contrary._




Well, on the second point, evidence (italics) suggests otherwise. We put Obama in the White House and he is a Christian. I'm a staunch Atheist and i support Obama all the way. 

But the reverse your first point, and anyone seeking to take away "moral" rights is most likely to be a Christian, rather than an Atheist. No Atheist would seek to deny homosexual couples the right to marry, for instance. 

Still, there are a very good majority of good practicing religious people who try their best to keep their faith a personal matter, and try very hard to not allow it to influence their political decisions. So nothing is ever a universal rule.


----------



## ROAR (May 5, 2011)

Looks like what I said was taken out of context.
I'm not voting for him because of his religion,
I'm not voting for him because of quotes like this:







Because that's completely wrong and I don't want
that for America. Because it's wrong.
Literally.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (May 5, 2011)

Yeah, I do agree that not voting for someone purely based on their religious beliefs is stupid, I guess I was just saying that I wouldn't be at all surprised if many people did just that. After all, plenty of people voted for Obama just because he's black, and that's no better a reson to vote for a politician.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I'm not bagging Obama at all. Just sayin'.


----------



## Xaios (May 5, 2011)

krypter said:


> Well, on the second point, evidence (italics) suggests otherwise. We put Obama in the White House and he is a Christian. I'm a staunch Atheist and i support Obama all the way.
> 
> But the reverse your first point, and anyone seeking to take away "moral" rights is most likely to be a Christian, rather than an Atheist. No Atheist would seek to deny homosexual couples the right to marry, for instance.
> 
> Still, there are a very good majority of good practicing religious people who try their best to keep their faith a personal matter, and try very hard to not allow it to influence their political decisions. So nothing is ever a universal rule.



Obama is kind of the exception that proves the rule in this particular instance, and he's also proof positive that christians can be social progressives as well.

Your second point is well made, and as a Christian, I concede that you are correct.

Also true, universal rules are dangerous assumptions. All I can say is that, more often than not, people will make assumptions based on a label, regardless.


----------



## Randy (May 5, 2011)

There's a few of Ron Paul's positions I agree with entirely and he's one of the only people asserting them. Then there are some really (IMO) radical ideas that are untested and would require essentially jumping right into without a safety net before we know if they'd work, a few of which seem like BIG ideas for little problems.


----------



## Overtone (May 5, 2011)

I see the conversation's moved on but I just wanted to throw it out there that bankers in the administration has been a theme for a long time now. Bush had Goldman people around him (Hank Paulson), Clinton had Citi people around him (Bob Rubin), and even the non-banking people (like Harvard professors) seemed to be pretty loyal to the banking system. For anyone interested in the subject Inside Job is a good documentary to watch.

And I agree that while a gold standard is better and a system with a smaller fed and treasury would be better, I have a really hard time thinking of a way to transition to that. It can't really be done at a time like this. But I guess the question would be "Do we suffer more from the transition or from the inevitable collapse that will happen if we don't transition." I honestly don't know if there's an answer to that question, since it's likely that either the transition will cause the collapse, or that a collapse will lead to transition. The latter seems more likely.


----------



## krypter (May 5, 2011)

Overtone said:


> I see the conversation's moved on but I just wanted to throw it out there that bankers in the administration has been a theme for a long time now. Bush had Goldman people around him (Hank Paulson), Clinton had Citi people around him (Bob Rubin), and even the non-banking people (like Harvard professors) seemed to be pretty loyal to the banking system. For anyone interested in the subject Inside Job is a good documentary to watch.
> 
> And I agree that while a gold standard is better and a system with a smaller fed and treasury would be better, I have a really hard time thinking of a way to transition to that. It can't really be done at a time like this. But I guess the question would be "Do we suffer more from the transition or from the inevitable collapse that will happen if we don't transition." I honestly don't know if there's an answer to that question, since it's likely that either the transition will cause the collapse, or that a collapse will lead to transition. The latter seems more likely.




Well put dude.


----------



## Alimination (May 5, 2011)

Overtone said:


> I see the conversation's moved on but I just wanted to throw it out there that bankers in the administration has been a theme for a long time now. Bush had Goldman people around him (Hank Paulson), Clinton had Citi people around him (Bob Rubin), and even the non-banking people (like Harvard professors) seemed to be pretty loyal to the banking system. For anyone interested in the subject Inside Job is a good documentary to watch.
> 
> And I agree that while a gold standard is better and a system with a smaller fed and treasury would be better, I have a really hard time thinking of a way to transition to that. It can't really be done at a time like this. But I guess the question would be "Do we suffer more from the transition or from the inevitable collapse that will happen if we don't transition." I honestly don't know if there's an answer to that question, since it's likely that either the transition will cause the collapse, or that a collapse will lead to transition. The latter seems more likely.




Yeah, I think the last president who wasn't funded by a bank group was JFK. I know he tried to shut down the central bank, but he got shot down obviously. Not saying it was an inside job (though it could be, hell no one will know) but it did happen just a few days before the bill would get signed.

It really is scary though if you think of those two scenarios. It's like either jumping off a burning plane for possible survival or stay in and know you'll die for sure. I know Ron did mention that he won't do any executive orders on shutting the fed down immediately, but he will educate the public on it. Honestly that's what I'm hoping for more. Because if everyone is in, this could be such a smoother road.


By the way he's in! He's running for Republican president 2012.  GOP debate is tonight.


----------



## Demiurge (May 5, 2011)

mountainjam said:


> its not a conspiracy, just look at how many people in his cabinet, and every other past president for that matter, are filled with former goldman employees. same goes for the chairman of the fed.



That's a far cry from the current administration being "owned" by Goldman Sachs as claimed as the OP. Sometimes a former employer is a former employer, and perhaps it's the expertise in a given field (such as economics) and not the continuity of an clandestine agenda is what a person takes to their next job. 75% of the people I work with used to work at one of my company's competitors- means nothing.

Just because a correlation with a scandalous interpretation is possible, doesn't make it credible.


----------



## Alimination (May 5, 2011)

Demiurge said:


> That's a far cry from the current administration being "owned" by Goldman Sachs as claimed as the OP. Sometimes a former employer is a former employer, and perhaps it's the expertise in a given field (such as economics) and not the continuity of an clandestine agenda is what a person takes to their next job. 75% of the people I work with used to work at one of my company's competitors- means nothing.
> 
> Just because a correlation with a scandalous interpretation is possible, doesn't make it credible.




I agree with you to a degree. Because I don't believe that a single private bank should work with the government to begin with. When this country started it never did. Guys like Thomas Jefferson even warned about it. Andrew Jackson fought it and destroyed it the first time it came.

When you look at how these massive organizations (The same ones that almost single handedly destroyed the dollar, AND bankrupt themselves just to get bailed out by the gov) "donate" millions of their own money to politicians out in the open, or the white house loaded with ONLY wall street members.. and then you look at our economy.. how the middle class is about to collapse yet wall street is at it's record finest?

Does that not tickle your balls not even a little? lol

Whether it's a conspiracy or not, it is our job as "the creators" of our government to keep an eye on them. We are responsible for our own child.


----------



## Dirtdog (May 5, 2011)

I will vote for Ron Paul but I doubt the majority would vote him due to his radical (constitutional) Ideas. I am a libertarian through and through.


----------



## Kryss (May 5, 2011)

good thread going here. right now more than anything we need a libertarian to reign in the pigs in washington. like a few other people pointed out to me the policies and what not are more vital to me than the religious faction. the guy could worship the flying spaghetti monster for all i care but if it looks like he is intelligent and he says the things that need to be said and changed then i'm all for it. less gov't control at the fed level and less spending need to happen. let the states govern themselves for the most part stay out of the social aspect and trying to control peoples lives. i hope he wins the nomination but i'm afraid because of being a libertarian the media will once again do everything they can to make sure he is ignored and passed by.


----------



## krypter (May 5, 2011)

But clearly worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster _IS_ a sign of intellect.



Raaaaamen.


----------



## Kryss (May 6, 2011)

true true  my vision of god would be jason becker sweeping on a 4 neck guitar like michaelangelo and playing 5 billion notes per second while drunk......even though he probably would just barely surpass the abilities of both Michelangelo and Petrucci 
he would probably be throwing donuts at yngwie all the while doing his sweeps. sorry to get off topic i was just thinking randomly.


----------



## Alimination (May 6, 2011)

Kryss said:


> true true  my vision of god would be jason becker sweeping on a 4 neck guitar like michaelangelo and playing 5 billion notes per second while drunk......even though he probably would just barely surpass the abilities of both Michelangelo and Petrucci
> he would probably be throwing donuts at yngwie all the while doing his sweeps. sorry to get off topic i was just thinking randomly.



Lmfao amen


----------



## xmetalhead69 (May 6, 2011)

Alimination said:


> By the way he's in! He's running for Republican president 2012.  GOP debate is tonight.



times like these make me wish I hadnt registered as an independent so I could vote in the primaries


----------



## Krauthammer (May 6, 2011)

The 1st debate has taken place. Thoughts? I thought the announcers asking the questions fell in line with trying to bait Paul. 

"So your saying that legalizing heroin and prostitution is an exercise for liberty?" 

You have to admire Dr. Paul, even with thick pretentious questions specifically aimed to get him to fuck up, the man sticks to his principles and consistent voting record. He strictly adheres to the constitution, which is tremendously respectable given the fact that his opponents raised their hands in favor of water boarding (torture) and perpetual war.

He is the 1 person on both sides that want to end these wars, no one else says that. As American candidates for president, how could there be votes for those that say that this is all necessary? Kill more to achieve peace quoth the status quo....

Edit: It is the State's right to decide on social issues per state, not the Federal Gov't


----------



## Alimination (May 6, 2011)

Krauthammer said:


> The 1st debate has taken place. Thoughts? I thought the announcers asking the questions fell in line with trying to bait Paul.
> 
> "So your saying that legalizing heroin and prostitution is an exercise for liberty?"
> 
> ...




MAN!! I can't belive I missed it! I heard he destroyed the debates!

But yeah I understand what your saying man! I totally agree with you 100%!
I'm glad he got a crowd going on him though! 

but ugh! go figure they'd give a lame question about drugs and prostitution. They tried to mess him over the last election debates. I'm glad he nailed it though. And yeah it is the state to decide, I don't understand why they give them these questions to start. :/


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 6, 2011)

^ i found last nights debate to be an exercise in futility. we're too far away from a primary to even consider candidates at this point, also consider the GOP heavy weights haven't even stepped into the ring. last night was a debate between the potential VP candidates (Cain for VP anyone?). 

while i agree with Paul on many issues, i disagree with him wholeheartedly on too many issues for me consider voting for him. for example his foreign policy is dated as hell, he wants to return to the isolation originally intended by the Founders, however he doesn't seem to realize that pandora's box was opened and that lid is damn hard to close. i dont agree on his stance on Israel, i find it foolish to throw your one democratic and military ally in the middle east under the bus, i also know for a fact that once RP gets his first "oh shit" briefing from the Joint Intelligence, half the shit he campaigned on would disappear. 

he's smart, but naive.. naive to a very dangerous fault, and i get the impression he's very stubborn. 

which leads to his final presidential bid ending fault.. he comes across as a bat-shit-crazy whiner with a tin foil hat and a shotgun in his closet. as pointed out by other posters his views come across as a little... sketchy... but there are some views he holds that were held by Reagan. the difference being Reagan was able to calmly and assertively communicate an idea to an audience in a fashion that made sense. the second Paul opens his mouth he sounds like he's complaining.. just full on complaining, its sounds awful, he says the right things but the manner in which he says it offends my ears. America won't vote for that, and the minute the general election starts you can bet a good sum of money the DNC will have a field day picking him apart. 

i want a charismatic but solid presidential candidate, one who can communicate the ideals i hold dear, and not sound like a crack pot...


----------



## Krauthammer (May 6, 2011)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> ^
> i want a charismatic but solid presidential candidate, one who can communicate the ideals i hold dear, and not sound like a crack pot...



I guess that it really comes down to what everyone's idea of America is. This is a huge turning point, not just in America, but the entire world. Do we want to return to a prosperous nation as it was before the Federal Reserve or accept the cardboard-cutout we are linked to to this day? I understand I am a bit skewed, the times are completely different from 100 years ago, 200 even more so. That was the era the Constitution was created. Different times demand different approaches. From what I read, and see on the street, is that more Fed intervention in the daily lives of American citizens creates more harm than it does good. 

IMO: Adhere to the principals, and apply it in this new generation. 

Dr. Paul wants to scale back federal gov't, and for good reason. How many regulations are in place to hinder economic/social growth? Stacks of papers are required more and more for even the smallest of business in anyone's hometown. All Fed red tape. Who can actually keep up with the volume? Walmarts and Best Buys. That awesome guitar shop on the corner street that doesn't say Guitar Center or SamAsh cannot compete and thus no strength in the world economy. 

If you want an actor, movie star, or another economic rapist, don't vote for Dr. Paul. Just stay home. 

And I mean that in the best way possible. I can say this because we are free, and thus you are free to make your own educated decisions.


----------



## mountainjam (May 6, 2011)

i caught the debate on fox news last night. anybody else think that the 29 person panel after the debate was totally fake and staged by fox?


----------



## Krauthammer (May 6, 2011)

mountainjam said:


> was totally fake and staged by fox?


----------



## Alimination (May 6, 2011)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> ^ i found last nights debate to be an exercise in futility. we're too far away from a primary to even consider candidates at this point, also consider the GOP heavy weights haven't even stepped into the ring. last night was a debate between the potential VP candidates (Cain for VP anyone?).
> 
> while i agree with Paul on many issues, i disagree with him wholeheartedly on too many issues for me consider voting for him. for example his foreign policy is dated as hell, he wants to return to the isolation originally intended by the Founders, however he doesn't seem to realize that pandora's box was opened and that lid is damn hard to close. i dont agree on his stance on Israel, i find it foolish to throw your one democratic and military ally in the middle east under the bus, i also know for a fact that once RP gets his first "oh shit" briefing from the Joint Intelligence, half the shit he campaigned on would disappear.
> 
> ...



I respectfully disagree about the foreign policy. Because well your referencing Pandora's box. How we opened this evil box of doom, and we should let it continue making a bigger mess until a possible chance of hope comes out of it.

Well I don't think that's a good idea, that we spend most of our hard work money to fund wars that we should never be a part of and to make worse.

Israel has been at war with these guys for with these guys for hundreds of years, and us messing in their affairs is insane! let them handle it! I'm pretty damn sure they have enough power to do so. Then we get all butt hurt when they attack us. Well no shit they would! We're provoking it! Just like how we provoked getting into WW I (supplying the Allies as a neutral country which lead to the sinking of the Lusitania).

and it's damn absurd that we give money to their damn enemies too!! We're making this "web of friendship" that is backfiring on us because not everyone is friends with your friends!

I don't think it's as hard as getting out of an insurgency (not war) as people make it. We just leave them the hell alone. If they seriously attack us, then we fuck them up right back, but we don't dethrone their leaders to promote democracy!

By the way don't think Democracy is a good thing! We're not even in a democracy, we are a Republic! There is a major difference!


As for the way they speak, eh I guess I could care less on that part. Hell they could have a lisp for all I care as long as they lead towards the constitution. lol


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 7, 2011)

okay.. apparently i dont like Paul and i am less conservative than people who do.. i will state again, i agree on a lot of issues with ron paul, many conservatives do. however, i believe he would be the most inept leader for conservatism, and constitutional-ism. he is the definition of the "party of no" we need a communicator. someone who can bridge the gap between undecided voters and us (conservatives). someone did it once in 80s, it can happen again. 

you can vote principle all you want, however if you choose the wrong candidate you lose. and when you lose more damage happens. he can't beat the DNC, not by a long shot. especially after this: Young Americans For Freedom Expel Ron Paul | RedState 

too easy of a target. pick someone who is harder to shoot down. chris wallace has already said that the hardest candidate to prepare for was Cain, simply because he has never held public office.. and lets face it, Cain was very impressive


----------



## xmetalhead69 (May 7, 2011)

I wish we could move away from all this 'left, right', 'democrat republican' 'liberal conservative' BS. Its all just stuff to divide us. sigh, i'm living in a dream world


----------



## Krauthammer (May 7, 2011)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> i dont like Paul and i am less conservative than people who do. i will state again, i agree on a lot of issues with ron paul, many conservatives do. however, i believe he would be the most inept leader for conservatism, and constitutional-ism. he is the definition of the "party of no"
> 
> "said that the hardest candidate to prepare for was Cain, simply because he has never held public office.. and lets face it, Cain was very impressive"



Is there proper recourse for desiring an American with a Constitutionalists' mindset and voting record? The Dems haven't had their say yet in proper televised debate for the initial test run of candidates, yet as a quote un quoted Republican, the only candidate that remembers and states on record that the States of America have the 1st and last say on what goes on in said State. The District of Colombia is inept, and deserving of a proper reassessment. 

Dr. Paul conveys the message that many Americans do not want to hear; to get rid of unnecessary Gov't intrusion, invasion, coercion, as well as intimidation to even consider a different side to the truth. The 1 person running for the highest office in the nation, the ONLY one that says we need the WAR(s) to end immediately, to bring our family and friends back home from continuing to fight for a prerogative assumption of declared freedom while destroying what little there is left at home, is, IMHO, the only one that should get votes, or even deserves votes. 

To vote a pro-war person, (one of those guys that raised there hands when asked to resume water boarding @ the republican debate this May 5th, 2011) ,you are just as guilty as the soldier to carry out the orders. Yet your hands would be clean, and free from the burden conducting the foreign/domestic policies that truly shape the lives of everyone across this planet that we all share, 

It may be callousness that make me sound like a heartless individual, I support my military for making it possible to express myself in such a demeanor, without them this would not be possible. I desire for all voting Americans to make the link that voting for a "continuation of the war on terror" "candidate" condemns our greatest asset to a fate that they no longer have in their hands; they do the job they are told to do, liberation or destruction. 

America "got" OBL, so the war should be over, right? You can declare war and opposition to an over-reaching country, you cannot wage war against an idea, terrorism. It has no country, follows no race nor religion. It is what it is, and has been ever since humans created civilization. Let's bring our people home, they belong here. Cain and the rest are as heartless as they come, very undeserving for the title of Commander-in-Chief. They will not hesitate to continue this atrocity committed on the other side of the planet, and of course at no cost to them, financially or personally. 

I want my family home in the USA, defending the USA, not doing missions in Afghan or Pakistan. I do have family over there, and I wish to see them again. Anyone Anti-War has my vote, and Dr. Paul is the only one that shares my sentiment. If there are others that say that war is BS, please let me know. I think I got the thumbs-up for waterboarding from 4 out of 5 debate participants, excluding my personal candidate. 

Makes me fucking proud.


----------



## krypter (May 7, 2011)

At no point in our history have we been as free, as a people, as we are right now.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 7, 2011)

Krauthammer said:


> stuff



waterboarding will continue, mark my words. if not by us, then by our allies for us (dont think we haven't done this already). you live in a dream world where clandestine operations dont need to dirty their hands to save our skins. quite frankly i was happy that four out of five raised their hands. then again, im a fan of wild bill donovan. 

as for Afghanistan, im against that part of the war front for entirely different reasons. mainly to do with helping a country of pedophiles.. but i acquiesce. my focus is on the terror threat on a much larger scale, and think we need to take a step back and reassess. 

but i know none of this will happen with any candidate elected. because every newly arrived president gets what i call the "oh shit" intelligence briefing. entailed this briefing are all the things that can go wrong, and will go wrong. after this, promises made on the campaign trail start to take a back seat, and if the promise is kept it's to a much lesser degree. 

so im more interested in a candidate that says "i will hold off on making that decision till i have all the information all the table, and can make the right choice" 

we can try and save money in the military, however this election is going to focus on domestic policies, rather than on foreign ones


----------



## Krauthammer (May 7, 2011)

Well, regardless of who is in and who will win the Presidency, I think whomever wants the job is completely out of their mind. Campaign promises have always been broken, and obviously the US cannot go back to the gold standard overnight, or get out of the wars in a day. Its a hell of an office to take over, with the country in the state that it is in.

Maybe I am in a dream world, but is it so wrong to really want peace? I get a little heated about this, seeing the news and correspondence on various forums and the like. Its detrimental to the mind to know that there is so much suffering in this world, and no one is willing to be the first one to not respond violence with violence. Its so difficult to do what should be so easy, just get along. 

I'm not naive to what happens, just have hope in the best of humanity. It is possible, but probably not in my lifetime.  

Ibanezsam4, your points are valid. I hear you. My apologies if I come off as some huge jerk or asshole (maybe the combination of both), but I appreciate the discussion.


----------



## Alimination (May 7, 2011)

Here's a pretty neat update on him since the last debate. He's doing real well!

The Ron Paul Moment | CAIVN


----------



## Treeunit212 (May 8, 2011)

I'm just gonna copy and paste this from the Obama vs Trump thread...

Ron Paul is a "small government" Republican that doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, voted against gay adoption, and wants the STATES to decide everything. Letting the states decide everything would make every state an entirely separate country just like the slave owning south wanted 150 years ago. HE IS A SELF PROCLAIMED CONSITUTIONALIST THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.



Enjoy.


----------



## Alimination (May 9, 2011)

Treeunit212 said:


> I'm just gonna copy and paste this from the Obama vs Trump thread...
> 
> Ron Paul is a "small government" Republican that doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, voted against gay adoption, and wants the STATES to decide everything. Letting the states decide everything would make every state an entirely separate country just like the slave owning south wanted 150 years ago. HE IS A SELF PROCLAIMED CONSITUTIONALIST THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
> 
> ...





 errmm.... I actually want to see what he has to say about him not believing in separation of church and state. Because that would go against everything he would go for. I know he's okay with gay marriage because he doesn't even believe the government telling you who you can marry. He believes government should protect our liberty not create laws from keeping it from us. 

The adoption thing, he didn't vote for because the fed was once again spending our money. Again the Fed's not aloud to spend money, it's congress who has to get permission from the people in order to spend the money. Hence why we have inflation and the dollar collapsing. It's not just that he's against it, he just votes against fed spending in general.

And why wouldn't you be for smaller government?
Why would you want the federal government to teach your schools, with the same textbooks and everything?

It's practically like micromanaging 

I mean there is a 10th amendment for a reason you know?


----------



## mhickman2 (May 9, 2011)

Ron Paul is quickly gaining more of my confidence for sure. Smaller government, dramatic reduction in government spending, less entitlement policies, inflation, and foreign policies are all issues that he wants to address if he does get elected. I like Huckabee's proposal of fair tax. It would certainly help solve the tax evasion epidemic we are experiencing from illegal immigrants, cash paid citizens, and criminals. His downside is his almost radical faith in his religious beliefs. I understand and support a nation under god, but to let his literature sway our government policies would be a disaster. I think and hope that we (citizens) focus on the real problems we have. Number one being our economy.


----------



## whiskey5 (May 9, 2011)

If he could move forward with legalizing pot if he were president, then I'd vote for him.

Keep the big companies out of how its distributed, set up a market where the consumer (me) has a choice. 

Not to mention the dollars saved in the criminal system, but let middle america families have a new/additional source of revenue.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 9, 2011)

That's the only thing you'd vote for? 

If it becomes distributed on a commercial basis do you know how difficult it'll be to keep the larger companies' fingers out of the cookie jar? Hell if it were simply legalized then consumers, hopefully, would be allowed to cultivate in their own homes much like any other plant (as it should be) and we can cut out the middle man if we see fit.


----------



## Alimination (May 9, 2011)

LOL

well me, I've never smoked or done any drugs my entire life, and I plan on keeping it that way, but I'm still pro legalizing these things. I mean RP put it the best way. Do you need the government to hold your hand? or are you adult enough to make your own decisions?

It's sad ..I'm not sure whether they're CIA agents or regular military soldiers but I've seen videos of them in the middle east cultivating opium and importing them into america. The fact is, they make more money off of us in prison. I mean hell, we are the number one country for having more prisoners then anyone else around the world.

Land of the free, home of the brave!


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 9, 2011)

^ I see what you did there...


----------



## Alimination (May 9, 2011)

Anthony said:


> wat



Lol!

Umm Alex Jones is a Radio Host, and a documentary writer. I guess you can say he's a "conspiracy theorist". Most of his videos talk about the banking cartel leading a front to a police state and a New world order. I guess some people take what he says as fear mongering, 

Though he does present some interesting facts once in a while that I check up on.


----------



## Explorer (May 9, 2011)

Alimination said:


> errmm.... I actually want to see what he has to say about him not believing in separation of church and state. Because that would go against everything he would go for.



Wonder no more, friend.

The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul



> The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.



Well. that certainly doesn't appear to be against what he'd go for, as those are his words. What specifically did you think he'd oppose?

A "strict Constitutionalist" who claims that all those writings by the Founding Fathers, in which they talk about separating church and state, don't exist? Or who isn't aware of them? That doesn't sound very informed to me at all.

Of those who have been taking about voting for Ron Paul, how many of you *don't* think that the US should primarily be a Christian nation? 

Because that is what you would be voting for.


----------



## Demiurge (May 9, 2011)

Explorer said:


> A "strict Constitutionalist" who claims that all those writings by the Founding Fathers, in which they talk about separating church and state, don't exist? Or who isn't aware of them? That doesn't sound very informed to me at all.



If that's what he really believes- that there should be no separation between church and state- that's fine; he can defend that position and let the voters decide if that's what they want. It is, however, misleading to pretend to be adhering to some orthodoxy when one really isn't- it just seems like another bone he's throwing out to a certain demographic, much like the bones he's throwing to other groups.

"Hey, tea partiers, I can use the word _Constitution_ a whole lot."
"Hey, religious people, I oppose the separation of church and state."
"Hey, young people, I think we should legalize it, too."
"Hey, Christian fundies, I oppose abortion."
"Hey, wingnuts, I buy all the conspiracy theories that you do."
"Hey, lower and middle class, I think that something is screwy with the financial systems."
"Hey, upper class, it's screwy system but it worked for me."
"Hey, conservatives, I think that the government should be smaller."
"Hey, liberals, the government's gonna have to be pretty big for awhile to maintain/regulate all those above-mentioned things at the same time."

There's nothing wrong with resisting the urge to play party lines, but the politician who promises everything to everyone is not going to be able to make good on everything.


----------



## Explorer (May 9, 2011)

It could well be that he is merely pandering. 

Now, the question arising from that assumption is... do you want to vote for a politician who is definitively pandering? How do you know that politician will remain true to what attracted *you* to vote for such a person?

If it is just pandering, then I'd definitely avoid such a liar, and vote for someone with not only integrity, but someone who values what I value... like, for example, the actual Constitution. *laugh*


----------



## Alimination (May 10, 2011)

Explorer said:


> It could well be that he is merely pandering.
> 
> Now, the question arising from that assumption is... do you want to vote for a politician who is definitively pandering? How do you know that politician will remain true to what attracted *you* to vote for such a person?
> 
> If it is just pandering, then I'd definitely avoid such a liar, and vote for someone with not only integrity, but someone who values what I value... like, for example, the actual Constitution. *laugh*



Pandering? He's been voting against the fed for decades O_O even before 9/11. If anything he's been sticking to his guns and his votes are more consistent then any other politicians I know.


----------



## Alimination (May 10, 2011)

I mean here is an old video of him in 1999.



Tell me this guy isn't consistent!


----------



## Alimination (May 10, 2011)

Also Explorer, By separation of church and state, I meant he was for laws banning certain things in the name of religion. Like gay marriage or whatnot. I don't care if he's for Christianity or not. Or believes that fellow Christians should act more Christian to prevent it from being lost (which is what that some of this letter seems to be implying to me).


----------



## Guitarman700 (May 10, 2011)

Of course he's pandering, they ALL do it. Just another politician to me, just another waste of time. That's just my opinion, though, whatever floats your boat, go for it.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 10, 2011)

^ I think somewhere along the way we got confused into thinking that at some point politicians would care about something more than their poll numbers...


----------



## Explorer (May 10, 2011)

I'm not worried about him pandering or not. At the point where someone believes that the US should be a Christian nation, although tolerating other faiths, that person has lost me. I wasn't the one who claimed he was just pandering, but I was pointing out that apologetics regarding that viewpoint which used "pandering" as an excuse is just another step towards failure. 

It's not bad enough that he doesn't believe in a Constitutional separation between church and state (his own words, so if you dispute this, your argument is with him), but his arguing that the Founding Fathers had no such thing in mind is directly refuted by, say, Jefferson's own writings on the subject. Ron Paul says that nothing the Founding Fathers wrote implied they wanted such a separation. Jefferson makes a liar out of him... or, at best, ignorant of what the Founding Fathers actually said.

*That* is what makes him akin to, say, the Tea Party, who talked big about the Constitution, but were against many of its provisions.

Anyway, in brief: Ron Paul wraps himself in the Constitution for political gain, but rejects one of its key provisions.


----------



## failshredder (May 10, 2011)

I think Ron Paul is both hilarious and pretty awesome. I'd consider voting for him.

This thread is TL;DR, but unfortunately most of the people who like Ron Paul also like tinfoil hats. This is why I don't like to get into political arguments (especially on the Internet): I don't want to associate with nutters.

Also this: Politics is the Mind-Killer - Less Wrong


----------



## Treeunit212 (May 10, 2011)

Alimination said:


> And why wouldn't you be for smaller government?
> Why would you want the federal government to teach your schools, with the same textbooks and everything?
> 
> It's practically like micromanaging
> ...



Because then you have states like Texas *deleting history they don't agree with.*

There needs to be a standard, otherwise states will begin to secede just by culture differences. Certain things are okay to have states be in control of (like speed limits and fireworks), but education is not one of them.

The first State to enact an autobahn will by my new home. 

Honestly, if 2012 rolls around and it's Obama v Paul (and Satan help me I hope it is Paul and not Trump...), it's gonna be a tough call for me. I like A LOT of Ron Paul's views, far more than any other Republican in recent history. It's just those religious things that make him a Republican that ruin it for me...


----------



## The Somberlain (May 10, 2011)

I'm not even going to bother arguing, as this smiley sums Ron Paul up for me


----------



## Holy Katana (May 20, 2011)

This entire thread: 

I'd rather cut one of my balls off than vote for Ron Paul. The things I agree with him on are insignificant compared to the things I not only disagree with him on but vehemently oppose. 

Second, he's not a libertarian. He's a paleoconservative. Paleoconservatives bear a passing resemblance to right-libertarians, but are more similar to old-school Republicans. Tend to be more socially conservative, but handwave that by saying that the individual states should decide on stuff, which wins them support from right-libertarians and minarchists. 

It's utterly sickening to see so much support for the man. I'd say it's worse than the near-worship of Obama that some liberals practice (the rest of them would likely be on the same boat had he not bent over backwards for big business and Wall Street shortly after inauguration). I ask you, why put faith in any politician? Why is it assumed that we need leaders in the first place? Are people incapable of leading themselves?

And this unwavering support for the Constitution that TS holds is absolutely hilarious. It's quasi-religious. Why so much reverence toward it? It's a piece of paper that was written over two hundred years ago. Certainly better ideas have been thought up since then, or at least I'd hope so. 

I know I'm coming off like a condescending asshole, but seriously, this is pathetic. Ron Paul is extremely reactionary, and it's utterly frightening to see all the support he's getting on this forum. Honestly, I don't feel too safe here now. I mean, really, I thought this place was pretty forward-thinking, but I guess that's just the most vocal members on here. 

Anyway, this godless treehugging pinko commie faggot is getting sleepy, so I guess I'll end this little rant.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 20, 2011)

Holy Katana said:


> This entire thread:
> 
> I'd rather cut one of my balls off than vote for Ron Paul. The things I agree with him on are insignificant compared to the things I not only disagree with him on but vehemently oppose.
> 
> ...



Marry me


----------



## Guitarman700 (May 20, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Marry me



Me too.


----------



## Mordacain (May 20, 2011)

synrgy said:


> Nope. I disagree with him on a number of platforms, even though I greatly admire his pragmatic approach to the political arena generally speaking.
> 
> After listening to a couple of his speeches, he almost had my support in 2008, but then I did more research and found that he's what I would personally define as 'bat-shit-crazy' when it comes to issues like immigration and abortion. Just my opinion, though.





Overtone said:


> I'd probably vote for him. I find some of the stuff he says/believes to be racist and a step back for American civil rights, but I still feel like he'd do a better job in office than the typical candidates. I feel like the really outrageous stuff he likes isn't something a president could unilaterally cause to happen. Besides that, Obama went into office with certain ambitions of changing things and those fell to the wayside as soon as he was surrounded by an administration. It's hard to say whether or not it would be the same way with Paul. But in general, I respect the kind of honesty and logic that Paul speaks with, and feel like he could make some good changes to how things are run.



These posts are pretty much how I feel about the man. I love his honesty and consistency in voting. I do have major issues with some of his platforms. In so far as my conservative side goes, I dig a lot of his views. The progressive side of me agrees with him on energy and some of his economic views but falters when it comes to his social views.

Personally I don't think any government body (State or Federal) should have any say in abortion or marriage.

I majorly agree with the man on legalizing drugs. Its funny, since I've never been a user of drugs but I can see how much money we have wasted on the "war on drugs" and cringe. Not to mention the huge percentage of the prison population that is there for nothing more than possession, or how those inmates are now essentially corrupted by prison life and may never be able to live normally in society again once they are released.


----------



## Alimination (May 20, 2011)

Holy Katana said:


> This entire thread:
> 
> I'd rather cut one of my balls off than vote for Ron Paul. The things I agree with him on are insignificant compared to the things I not only disagree with him on but vehemently oppose.
> 
> ...


 

LOL well let's all grab a beer, put on some obituary talk about him! It was the whole point of this thread good or bad. I mean a lot of people don't even know his existence. I didn't either back in 08 when I voted for Obama thinkin he was the only guy decent in office, but when I went to go vote I saw all these other parties that I didn't know existed. I'm sure there are a lot of guys like there out there that were like me. So I'm just throwing it out there. Plus I'm tired of hearing about gingrich and all the other lame-0s out there.


In other news he did come to my town in las vegas two days ago and I got a chance to sit and talk to him one on one. I personally thought he was a pretty cool guy.


----------



## Thaeon (May 20, 2011)

Alimination said:


> I mean if he did ran for president, and whether he loses or not his message will spread. I mean switching currency from the federal reserve note (aka the dollar) to gold or silver may be outrageous to some people.
> 
> but when they realize that's how it used to be in the past.. when each dollar was worth one silver. Congress then created a central bank (the federal reserve) to create infinite amount of money, instead of asking the people for money which was one of the only thing congress could do! After all.. WE THE PEOPLE are the boss. We created congress, they work for us!
> We tell them how much they can spend, not a central bank!
> ...


 

Creating a Federal Reserve system takes all of the real power out of the peoples's hands. We can argue, spit, and screem as much as we want but Wall St. and the Federal Reserve (a group of privately owned banks) have all of the real power. In fact, whoever controls the cash flow of the nation, owns that nation. I would much rather the collective voting citizens of the US sit in the driver's seat than an international banking syndicate.


----------



## Treeunit212 (May 21, 2011)

Thaeon said:


> Creating a Federal Reserve system takes all of the real power out of the peoples's hands. We can argue, spit, and screem as much as we want but Wall St. and the Federal Reserve (a group of privately owned banks) have all of the real power. In fact, whoever controls the cash flow of the nation, owns that nation. I would much rather the collective voting citizens of the US sit in the driver's seat than an international banking syndicate.



The one thing I agree with him on (other than the social liberties) is this. The Feds gotta go.

Let the Credit Unions run this bitch!


----------



## Explorer (May 21, 2011)

Thaeon said:


> I would much rather the collective voting citizens of the US sit in the driver's seat than an international banking syndicate.



And that's a valid point, and worthy of a discussion.

However, it's also a valid point that one might find a candidate who stands for that without said candidate also being the advocate for making the US a Christian nation, with no separation between church and state. 

To me, the idea of any form of theocracy is much scarier.


----------



## daemon barbeque (May 23, 2011)

Ron Paul is an interesting man.
His views on International relationships are spot-on. But his religious views erase the positive effect.
He likes social-public fundet hewalthcare, but with "church" in mind. Anything unchristian is tolerable, but not acceptable for him.
I like him. I think he is honest, concistent and open. But these are not allways the right qualities for the Top Dog, especially a religious one.


----------



## Alimination (May 25, 2011)

Here's an update on a speech he did here in Las Vegas if you guys are interested!


----------



## Explorer (May 25, 2011)

Sorry, but I don't have 27 minutes to see if the leopard has changed its spots... not that I'm expecting that.

"USA = Christian nation" is a huge non-starter for me.


----------



## Alimination (May 26, 2011)

He didn't mention Christianity once -_-

Anyways I said for those INTERESTTTEEDDDDD. I already knew what you were going to say so... Good for you mate!


----------



## Explorer (May 26, 2011)

Actually, I'm deeply interested. I hadn't really known anything about Ron Paul before this thread, and I can see both his appeal and why others never will. 

Something else I've found interesting, though, is how a lot of people didn't know about the whole Christian nation thing until they read about it in this thread. I think his having that core value is deeply relevant to this discussion, and apparently a few others have felt the same.

If someone running for office is opposed to a particular core American value (separation of church and state), do you feel that should be taken off the table? It seems to me that the only way to avoid that particular abandonment of the Constitution is to distract people with something else.

It's anyone's right to ignore something like that, but fortunately it's no one's right to shut down discussion of it.


----------



## Alimination (May 26, 2011)

Well the religion thing was never an issue for me to begin with because I never really gave a rats ass about politicians who are hardcore religious, as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights. Again, I mainly like him because of his part in the audit of the private bank.

But if it really is an issue for you, and if you do think he's a religious nut who wants america to follow in his belifes you can see his votes for yourself. Unlike most politicians he has the votes to back up what he says. You can check it out if you wish.

He's for the right of gays to get married.
He's for legalizing prostitution
Against the drug war
He voted for stem-cell research
He doesn't like abortion, but he want's the states to make that decision. 
Not really into capitol punishment, but wants the states to decide.

As I mentioned a few pages back, IF he did vote against it, it had the fed involved. Such as the fed defining what a true marriage is, or voting no with the Feds project on human cloning. *EDIT* because it's a breach of the 10th amendment which is to limit the federal government from making massive choices like this.

I mean I really don't know what to tell you after this if you still think he's for theocracy and such. lol


----------



## Holy Katana (May 26, 2011)

Yes, but then there's that whole free market thing and wanting to return us to the gold standard. 

I'm not a fan of markets in general, and I'm really not sure if returning the dollar to the gold standard would be feasible. Massive deflation, anyone? I agree that the Fed sucks, but certainly there's gotta be another way than the gold standard. Y'know, other than eliminating money altogether. 

I don't really know if I _want_ to vote, anyway.


----------



## Alimination (May 26, 2011)

What's wrong with the dollar being backed by gold or silver? That's how most of america was since her creation. Can you belive that a loaf of bread cost the same from the wasignton days to Lincoln's days? It's why our dollar was so strong to begin with. 

Since the creation of a private centeral bank, the dollars value went down over 90% because it isn't backed by anything... infact it's just paper.

I'm sure you can still find some dollars around that says it's "backed by silver", all the new ones call it "Federal Reserve Notes" a note is known as an IOU. To be blunt, it's worthless paper.


...and I'm interested in your thoughts on why a freemarket is bad. I've never heard someone say that so I'm kind of curious. lol


----------



## Holy Katana (May 26, 2011)

Alimination said:


> What's wrong with the dollar being backed by gold or silver? That's how most of america was since her creation. Can you belive that a loaf of bread cost the same from the wasignton days to Lincoln's days? It's why our dollar was so strong to begin with.
> 
> Since the creation of a private centeral bank, the dollars value went down over 90% because it isn't backed by anything... infact it's just paper.
> 
> ...


Don't patronize me; I know all of that. I'm aware of what fiat money is. Second, your justification for the gold standard more or less leans on a gigantic appeal to tradition, but then again, most of your politics does, since you're a strict constitutionalist from what I've gathered.

My opposition to markets, whether "free" or not, deals with a huge number of things, and seeing as I don't want to post a gigantic essay on it, I'm just going to tell you to read some anarchist theory (*ahem* _social_ anarchist theory, to keep the ancaps on here, like Thaeon, from mauling me like a puma on meth) to hear better arguments than I could make in the first place, at least off the cuff, and in a somewhat mentally exhausted state, as I am now.

A good, albeit rather lengthy (to the point that it's being published as a series of books now), place to start would be _An Anarchist FAQ_, which you can find here: An Anarchist FAQ | Anarchist news and information

Section C in particular, seeing as it deals with economics.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 27, 2011)

Alimination said:


> ...and I'm interested in your thoughts on why a freemarket is bad. I've never heard someone say that so I'm kind of curious. lol



Capitalism with limits, as it is right now, is horrid. Unrestrained, pure capitalism will be the death of us all.


----------



## Treeunit212 (May 27, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Capitalism with limits, as it is right now, is horrid. Unrestrained, pure capitalism will be the death of us all.



A fucking men.


----------



## Guitarman700 (May 27, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Capitalism with limits, as it is right now, is horrid. Unrestrained, pure capitalism will be the death of us all.



There aren't enough humping guy smilies to express my agreement with this statement.


----------



## Explorer (May 27, 2011)

Regarding Holy Katana's link to the anarchist website... that site seemed a little silly to me, in that it posits a utopian society. 

Enthusiasts of such systems always emphasize the fact that all people will have to act together to make it work, or try to avoid mentioning that. 

*Any* system will work if *everyone* works together, whether it be capitalism, Christianity, communism, and so on. What is really the proof of a successful system is how it functions when everyone is *not* working together. Will the weakest be protected? What happens when there is an invasion? 

If you have a system which claims to offer absolute freedom by removing rules, but then tries to impose them, then you're being intellectually dishonest. That website just falls in line with others of the same vein....


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 27, 2011)

There is no utopia. It's just a better system. You can do whatever you want, be it career or art or anything. At least you get to choose in a fairer society. You'll be much better off doing something that you love than something by necessity to just get by that you hate. If you get rid of positions where no one accomplishes anything like middle men and other things, everyone works something for less hours because more people are available, you automate jobs that people don't want to do with technology, every lives fulfilling lives and enjoy a more than modest living with access to healthcare that doesn't suck, and everything that satisfies needs once the economy can be made to provide for all through decentralized workers unions and good resource management. This is true freedom. This systems right now, capitalism, works, but poorly and unfairly, it has to stop before the whole plant goes bankrupt and everyone gets raped. It makes sense to a lot of people, its logical in continuing human socio political economic evolution.


----------



## orb451 (May 28, 2011)

How is that a "better" system than we currently have already? America as it is today provides you the opportunity to be just about whatever you want to be in terms of a career. It takes time and effort to choose a career path, why *shouldn't* you have to work to find something that you love to do? Does everyone just start out automatically with a plan or love of some field of work from day one? 

My point is, sometimes doing the shit jobs open up new opportunities for other work or career paths. You're still free to pursue those options. But none of it is, or should be, handed to you on a silver platter.

What it sounds like you're describing ArkaneDemon sounds an awful lot like an Anarchists' vision of a perfect world (i.e. Utopia). 

How does capitalism work poorly or unfairly?


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (May 28, 2011)

I don't see it that he would be better for this country.

Most of us should be able to agree on one thing. He will be a hell of a lot better than Sarah Palin.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 28, 2011)

orb451 said:


> How is that a "better" system than we currently have already? America as it is today provides you the opportunity to be just about whatever you want to be in terms of a career. It takes time and effort to choose a career path, why *shouldn't* you have to work to find something that you love to do? Does everyone just start out automatically with a plan or love of some field of work from day one?
> 
> My point is, sometimes doing the shit jobs open up new opportunities for other work or career paths. You're still free to pursue those options. But none of it is, or should be, handed to you on a silver platter.
> 
> ...



Let`s say you work in a factory making shoes. You are poor as fuck and have no education because your family was poor as fuck. You have to save up a lot of money to get an education that you want, but until then you have to work in this shoe factory.

So your boss hires you for ten bucks an hour. You work from nine to five just making the same shoes over and over. Let`s say you can make ten pairs an hour (though I think one can make more than that, but let`s round it to ten). The boss takes those ten pairs and makes twenty dollars of profit off of each pair. Per hour, you make him 200 dollars profit. You make ten dollars. He has one thousand people like you working there from nine to five. That`s 200 000 dollars profit that he`s making off of the workers, and he has to pay them 10 000 for the work that they do. The boss does...what? None of the work? Gets most of the profits for the least amount of work?

Who built the factory? Workers. Who makes all of the products? Workers. Who transports the products? Workers. Who makes most of the money? Land owners and the factory owner and the people up high in the company who do nothing.

Workers do everything in every country. Every single job. Yet there`s always someone above them, who takes a huge share of their profits. The workers do everything yet they don`t enjoy the product of their labour because it is taken away. But they can`t say anything, they`ll get fired, or they think that this system is the fairest way to go and never question it.

And yes, sure, in this type of system you can pick careers and whatever, but you`ll always be a wage slave, always. Unless you somehow make it to the point where you`re the one exploiting other people, in which case you`re just perpetuating a system of corruption, speculation and wage slavery to people who have to try to make it by doing something that they hate instead of having a real opportunity to do what they love.

For you see, we are all gears in a huge machine. Everyone contributes to society whether they know it or not. All those jobs that people say that only losers do because they have no education, or are just terrible, are necessary. My parents always bitch about garbagemen and how they`re useless, but garbagemen are vital. Everything is vital (minus all those people who do nothing like the people ruling or commanding).

You can`t put a numerical value on what someone does. Everything is needed. A garbageman is needed just as much as a doctor. You`ll use the garbage man 100 times a year, the doctor maybe once or twice. But without a garbageman everything would be covered in garbage and the whole planet would smell and people would get sick from it all, and without a doctor your illnesses would not be cured.

Money doesn`t work right now. And neither does the stock market. Money means nothing when you print trillions of dollars off every second. It means nothing. The stock market doesn`t make sense either. It`s just a bunch of numbers in a computer and a lot of market speculation, creating money out of nothing.

Interest, as we know it, doesn`t work. Put a dollar in, get two out? Seems logical. When you print a dollar out from the federal reserve, they loan it out to you. So when you have a dollar printed out, that very second you owe them more than a dollar. How do you pay that back? Print off more money...until you can`t pay the minimum payment on anything and the country goes bankrupt...and the planet goes bankrupt. What then?

Debt slavery is another thing capitalism is known for. Want to go to school? Loans. Pay off the loans for half your freaking life from then on, taking a chunk of your money every time you actually have some. Debt from credit card companies (whose only existence is to make money off of interest and debt). There`s entities out there that will _trade_ debt for profit, it boggles my mind.

It all boils down to all the workers doing all the work, yet the elite few controlling all the wealth and resources. It`s counter intuitive. If the shoe factory in the first example were to create twenty thousand shoes, yet the market is saturated, they`ll put the shoes in a warehouse somewhere, fire workers because they aren`t needed anymore, and twenty thousand shoeless people will remain shoeless because they don`t have access to something as basic as shoes.

Anarchism is not a utopia. Nothing is a utopia because there will always be downsides to everything. But anarchism offers ultimate liberty to live your life in whatever way you want to using one basic principle: you have the freedom to anything you want as long as you don`t infringe on anybody else`s freedom. It`s simple. No masters, no rulers.

I think someone in the Spain Protest thread said that if you take away people`s right to democratically vote their leaders, you`re just as bad as the rest of the people. I say: taking away people`s right to uneducatedly choose their dictators and slave lords and allowing a much much much better system to flourish that gives people more freedoms than under "democracy".

Oh dear god I`ve turned into Explorer in terms or post length


----------



## Explorer (May 28, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Anarchism is not a utopia. Nothing is a utopia because there will always be downsides to everything. But anarchism offers ultimate liberty to live your life in whatever way you want to using one basic principle: you have the freedom to anything you want as long as you don`t infringe on anybody else`s freedom. It`s simple. No masters, no rulers.
> 
> I think someone in the Spain Protest thread said that if you take away people`s right to democratically vote their leaders, you`re just as bad as the rest of the people. I say: *taking away people`s right to uneducatedly choose their dictators and slave lords and allowing a much much much better system to flourish that gives people more freedoms than under "democracy".*



Not "utopia," but "utopian." There's a difference. To give an example, anarchy is utopian because it relies on everyone being on their best behavior, and has no central authority or investigators in case of, say, a mobile rapist or child molester. Lynch mob justice, with no protection for those who might be wrongly targeted by those mobs. "He looks wrong, and is probably the one who did it... get him!" 

And regarding what you say... that sentence in bold is lacking a subject, or your overly long nominative phrase doesn't have a verb following it. 

What were you trying to say?


----------



## Treeunit212 (May 28, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Who built the factory? Workers. Who makes all of the products? Workers. Who transports the products? Workers. Who makes most of the money? Land owners and the factory owner and the people up high in the company who do nothing.



Marry me?


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (May 28, 2011)

Explorer said:


> What were you trying to say?



I too am perplexed by that last statement. The rest of the post was educated and well thought out, though there was a very evident anti-capitalist bias.

It didn't even use proper grammar.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 28, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Not "utopia," but "utopian." There's a difference. To give an example, anarchy is utopian because it relies on everyone being on their best behavior, and has no central authority or investigators in case of, say, a mobile rapist or child molester. Lynch mob justice, with no protection for those who might be wrongly targeted by those mobs. "He looks wrong, and is probably the one who did it... get him!"
> 
> And regarding what you say... that sentence in bold is lacking a subject, or your overly long nominative phrase doesn't have a verb following it.
> 
> What were you trying to say?



Control + F doesn`t yield a result for utopian on this page, but it does for utopia. And it doesn`t rely on everyone being on best behaviour, just as right now with capitalism it doesn`t require anything from you but pretty much a job. But I agree, under anarchism, you`ll have more responsibilities. To quote that first Spiderman movie: with great power comes great responsibility. You`ll have more to do if you want to get involved in things.

Example: you can either just do whatever career you want and hang out with your family and just chill at home, do family stuff. You still contribute greatly to society, and you will get all that you need. Or you can get involved in things like community activities of all sorts, on top of whatever you do. In the first case you contribute more to your family by spending more quality time with them, in the second you are more active with community events. In both cases you`re contributing to society in both ways, the first being career (or whatever you want), the second being an important part in your family`s development or the community`s social development.

As for crimes, I think that a lot of crimes would die down after a change of system stabilizes. If you take away the causes of crime, ie: poverty, corruption, etc, a lot of people will stop committing them. If your stomach is full and you have a good roof above your head, you won`t go out and steal a loaf of bread to feed your family, right?

Although, there`s some people that just want to watch the world burn. How do you deal with those people? I honestly do not know how answer that. I am not well versed enough in the art of anarchism to answer that, because I honestly don`t know yet what to say. I don`t think lynch mobbing would be what happens, but going through the current justice system and spend an absurd amount of money to find the person guilty and then throw them in a nice cell with cable and free food and everything for life isn`t the best option either. Somewhere in between maybe?

And yes, that last sentence makes no sense. Hoooooray sleep deprivation!

What I meant was: if you overthrow the current system, people will say "hey man you just took away our right to democratically choose our leaders" to which I say: "your right to choose your slaver was taken away by eliminating the slaver; if you can`t function without someone telling you how to run your life and stealing what you make without giving you an accurate recompense for your time and effort, you should stop calling yourself human."

But yeah, if you overthrow the system, and allow the next system to get stabilized and allow it to flourish, no one will object except the people who used to be the exploiters in the other system. No person who is currently poor as fuck working two minimum wage jobs to make ends meet will condemn the new system because it significantly improves not only their lives, but the lives of virtually every worker that exists, and pretty much everybody else. Once everybody`s needs are met, you can start increasing quality of life for all.

The whole point of the economy is not to increase GDP. That makes no sense. The word economy is about ECONOMIZING, not just buying random shit, and somehow make the country richer that way. Resources must not be wasted. Everything must be stabilized. 

The only problem I see with anarchism is actually getting there. I forsee that any revolution in the future will be squashed instantly or end up getting corrupted like how the Russian Revolution got raped by the Bolsheviks. The world powers have too much power to allow anarchism to grow. I still believe that anarchism (at least anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism) are the way to go eventually, but I don`t know if it will ever happen seeing how things are progressing now. There`s a part of me that hopes and vies for a great change to occur. I have faith in humanity, but that faith is waning. Only time will tell because time changes everything.

I should just get Alex to change my name to Explorer 2.0


----------



## orb451 (May 28, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Let`s say you work in a factory making shoes. You are poor as fuck and have no education because your family was poor as fuck. You have to save up a lot of money to get an education that you want, but until then you have to work in this shoe factory.



Which was the case for many that grew up in the 30's, 40's and 50's. So what? Work requires effort, attaining ones goals also requires effort. Is it the system's responsibility to take care of you, or your own? Is it the system's responsibility to ensure that you get the education "that you want" or your own? 



ArkaneDemon said:


> So your boss hires you for ten bucks an hour. You work from nine to five just making the same shoes over and over. Let`s say you can make ten pairs an hour (though I think one can make more than that, but let`s round it to ten). The boss takes those ten pairs and makes twenty dollars of profit off of each pair. Per hour, you make him 200 dollars profit. You make ten dollars. He has one thousand people like you working there from nine to five. That`s 200 000 dollars profit that he`s making off of the workers, and he has to pay them 10 000 for the work that they do. The boss does...what? None of the work? Gets most of the profits for the least amount of work?



Aren't you glossing over things a bit and oversimplifying? I mean in this example, and the over arching tone of your post, it seems like you really dislike the fact that there are people in power, over people who aren't. That there are successful people and people who work for them. First, if the boss is making 200,000 profit all you've taken into consideration is the workers' wages. What about overhead? What about the electricity to run the factory? What about the land the factory is built on? What if it's leased? What is that cost? What about the cost of medical insurance for each of the workers? They're all full-time employees, and he has 1000 of them, he would have to have some kind of coverage for their medical needs? What about his disability and workers comp claim premiums. If people are working in this factory, there might be an accident, he has to have coverage for that reason alone. What about the factory itself, is it owned or leased? I mean the building itself, the land might be separate or included. But it too has a cost. 

What about managing all the employees, departments, sales, shipping, marketing, distributor agreements, transportation and so on. All those things cost money and cut that profit number down. I think you've flattened your scenario to pre 1900's conditions where the whole business seems to run just off the backs of the workers. That management does nothing except sit back and collect allllllllllll the profits. But it's a falsehood. The world we live in at the moment doesn't work that way. There are costs for nearly everything that continually reduce the "boss's" take. Now in textile manufacturing since I'm sure you probably chose that for it's notoriously high margins, the costs are still there. Profits are being made, no doubt about it. But again, the market determines the price.

If people are willing to pay $300 for a pair of Nikes built in some sweat shop in a third world country, so be it. I really don't, and I'm serious, do NOT understand the guilt trip you're trying to put on people who own these companies and run them. 

Look at Apple computer, one of the few electronics companies that makes a tidy profit. For what? For the name, for the quality of their products and the fact that people are more than happy to spend the extra money in order to get that user experience. And why? Because Steve Jobs is, and has surrounded himself with savvy individuals that market well and deliver an above average end user experience. That company almost tanked in the mid 90's when he wasn't there. He came back and turned things around. And what? He should feel guilty about the workers in the Foxconn factory in Asia and their lot in life building iPhones and iPads because he does zero, zilch, nada? Absolutely not.

So point is, you're oversimplifying in your example for the sake of making it seem like the boss does nothing, collects all the profits and sits back and laughs. I would vehemently disagree with that sentiment. And that doesn't even touch on the fact that maybe, just maybe, some of the individuals working in factories are... wait for it... HAPPY doing the jobs that they do. Maybe they take great pride in their work. Maybe they don't aspire to be some over-educated, pompous, holier-than-thou, delusional whacko. What's wrong with them just working and doing their thing? Again, because they aren't paid $100/Hour to do it? Well tough shit. If they don't like it, WORK HARD. Get a raise, save money, educate yourself, bust your ass, get your hands dirty, network with people, if you're making shoes on the line, make the best god damned pair of shoes you can. Get noticed by management and if your work is exemplary, you *will* get noticed. 

But if you're going to sit back on your haunches and say "oh woe is me, I make shoes all day and the company makes a shit ton of profit, it's not FAIR! I WANT MY SLICE OF THE PIE" and expect some fundamental system change to do it for you, you're mistaken. And rightfully so. I don't understand people with entitlement issues. I really don't. 



ArkaneDemon said:


> Who built the factory? Workers. Who makes all of the products? Workers. Who transports the products? Workers. Who makes most of the money? Land owners and the factory owner and the people up high in the company who do nothing.



Who invested the money to pay the workers to build the factory? The boss. Who buys all the material needed to allow the workers to have *something* to create? The boss. Who buys all the tools that the workers use to build the shoes out of the materials he paid for? The boss. Who manages the partnerships with stores, the distribution channels, the marketing, the sales, the delivery, error correction, shipping issues, missed deadlines, the taxes, the bookkeeping, the payroll, the insurance costs, the medical coverage, vacation scheduling, innovation, and so on ad nauseum? Oh that's right, the boss.



ArkaneDemon said:


> Workers do everything in every country. Every single job. Yet there`s always someone above them, who takes a huge share of their profits. The workers do everything yet they don`t enjoy the product of their labour because it is taken away. But they can`t say anything, they`ll get fired, or they think that this system is the fairest way to go and never question it.



As opposed to who? Robots? Mexicans?  I mean come on man, who else is going to do "everything in every country"? Whom do you expect to do all the work? You want to flip things upside down and have the workers in charge and the boss's doing the grunt work? Would that make you happy? You want everyone paid the same from the top down? Regardless of experience, quality of work, job function? The guy in the mailroom at the shoe factory gets paid the same as the guy mopping the floor, who in turn gets paid the same as the guy making the shoes, who in turn gets paid the same as the factory floor manager, who in turn gets paid the same as the guy who owns the company? Gimme a fucking break. 



ArkaneDemon said:


> And yes, sure, in this type of system you can pick careers and whatever, but you`ll always be a wage slave, always.



If you think like a slave, then you'll always be a slave. That much is true. If your statement, on the other hand, were actually true, there would be NO big companies. None. Not one. Which came first then? The factory that started producing big profits, raping its workers and "keeping them down" or the guy, in his garage, that decided to invent something and then take that invention and market it, and sell it, and develop it, and turn it into the "next best thing"? 




ArkaneDemon said:


> Unless you somehow make it to the point where you`re the one exploiting other people, in which case you`re just perpetuating a system of corruption, speculation and wage slavery to people who have to try to make it by doing something that they hate instead of having a real opportunity to do what they love.



Again, what if they love what they already do? What if they're happy doing the job and work that they do, for the amount of money they get paid? What then? It sounds like you want a society of mediocre individuals. No innovation, no progress, just stagnant, "average" lives for all. No one is at the top, no one is at the bottom, there's no reason to do anything above and beyond because then you might become successful and if you're successful, you're evil. How dare you try to improve your situation in life.

Which is weird, because what you seem to be clinging to, is this notion that everyone's a slave and a cog in the machine and everybody ought to be allowed, or maybe even HANDED, the opportunity to change their station in life, totally disregarding the fact that some people are happy where they are, and totally sapping any individuals' desire to improve themselves, whilst simultaneously saying that they ought to do just that. Improve themselves and their station in life and "do what they love". What if there is no market for "doing what they love"? A society filled with artists? Is that what you're talking about??




ArkaneDemon said:


> For you see, we are all gears in a huge machine. Everyone contributes to society whether they know it or not. All those jobs that people say that only losers do because they have no education, or are just terrible, are necessary. My parents always bitch about garbagemen and how they`re useless, but garbagemen are vital. Everything is vital (minus all those people who do nothing like the people ruling or commanding).



My advice to you is to make peace with the "system". Learn to enjoy it and thrive in it, because *your* system or ideas for one, are never, ever, EVER going to happen in this country (USA). It wasn't built on some egalitarian ideal, nor on some socialistic, anarchic or other ideal. It was built and thrived on the backs of people busting their asses and in some cases living their entire lives in difficult, horrible conditions. But the work they put in, allowed the country to grow, and develop and allowed their kids or their grandkids an opportunity to have a better life than they did. And you want to take a raging shit on the success stories, the Dave Thomas' of the world, who had an idea and capitalized on it? Sorry man, I just can't agree with people who think hard work isn't a necessity or think that life should be "fair" for all. It's not supposed to be, never was, never will be. 



ArkaneDemon said:


> You can`t put a numerical value on what someone does. Everything is needed.



Well which is it? Is everything needed or not? Sounds like you're saying everything is needed and vital except the stuff you don't like or agree with. We should all be able to work in ho-hum environments, making ho-hum pay, all the same, across the board, with no desire to excel or exceed expectations. And that the root of all evil is money and the people who worked to get it. Right? You absolutely CAN put a numerical value on what someone does, that's your wage, that's what YOU agreed to as the worth of YOUR work and YOUR effort. Want more money? Work harder and smarter. Be "better" than the other guy. If you're unhappy making $10/hour, give up the position to someone who *is* happy making $10/hour and find yourself a job where you're paid a wage that makes you happy. But don't expect the system to hand you one. That's ridiculous to the point of being offensive.

I'm not going to go on quoting you paragraph for paragraph as I see no point. I get the gist of what you're saying and if I am mistaken, just let me know. Other than that, I appreciate you getting all wordy with me, and giving me a good excuse to get wordy back.  TL;DR, fucking god damned right, that's how I roll son


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 28, 2011)

Dear god...I`ll attempt to read and respond to that later, I don`t want to spend my entire Saturday debating politics on a forum, like this, it`s too nice out 

Someone else please debate Orb til I get back from biking or something


----------



## orb451 (May 28, 2011)

LOL, don't worry about it man, enjoy the day! I'm off to run errands and get shit done so any takers on his offer to debate me might be met with silence for a while


----------



## renzoip (May 28, 2011)

So, this thread went from being about discussing Ron Paul to discussing Capitalism? Interesting.

Well, I don't feel like arguing as I have to get going to band practice, but I'll leave this here 








also:


People are exploited overseas doing work that we wouldn't do because we live in the "developed" world, but why couldn't they be happy with the job they do?

Capitalism has reinforced colonial and semifuedual systems in the developing world, but why couldn't they just work harder to get noticed by the elites and possibly be promoted?

Why shouldn't we reward the hard work of individuals and multinationals who go exploit the land, the animals and the people of poor countries?

Give me a fucking break, if we don't see this type of stuff as much here in developed countries is because we export misery elsewhere.

Nothing is free in the market; "free market" is not free at all and does not conduce society to greater freedom


----------



## daemon barbeque (May 28, 2011)

Capitalism is not based on needs. Nor do Free Market. Demand and need are not the same. The Capitalist system is based on Greed, the promotion of greed, the greed for unnecessary but appealing, the greed for owning something that the other does not. It is based on Capital.
Orb said that the Capitalism, at least in the U.S. gives you the best possibilities.
Well, any system that requires money to drink clear water and eat something to survive is wrong anyway.
The Earth has water, but you haye to work and pay to have it. First we make it dirty so clean water becomes "expensive", than we bottle it and make money.
And people say this system is good. I say this system is fucked up!


----------



## Alimination (May 28, 2011)

Sweet mother of Odin....

I just got back to this forum after what, a day? and man.. there is no way in hell I want to read all of this. Lol!! XD


----------



## Guitarman700 (May 28, 2011)

This is the only forum where people can discuss and debate like this without all the throat ripping nastiness that's usually associated wit P&CE forums.
Great show, guys!


----------



## Explorer (May 28, 2011)

Funny... I thought one of the reasons workers work is because they *choose* to work. No one forces them to work, at least here in the US. 

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be fed if they *choose* not to work, of course. It can be the choice of others not to just support those who don't want to work.

----

Who builds the houses that some live in? The workers! So why don't the workers get the house, along with the land owned by someone else, and all the materials paid for by someone else? Why isn't it the law that somoene can deprive someone else of their possessions without paying for them?

Er... what?

And, for that matter, why don't the farmers keep all the food they grow for themselves?

It sounds like an argument against people being allowed to sell as they please, including selling their labor. I find that deeply humorous, given how much emphasis has been placed on how the current system removes people's freedom.

Why would you be against their having that freedom to profit from their labors? That is deeply inconsistent.


----------



## orb451 (May 28, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Capitalism is not based on needs. Nor do Free Market. Demand and need are not the same. The Capitalist system is on Greed, the promotion of greed, the greed for unnecessary but appealing, the greed for owning something that the other does not. It is based on Capital.
> Orb said that the Capitalism, at least in the U.S. gives you the best possibilities.
> Well, any system that requires money to drink clear water and eat something to survive is wrong anyway.
> The Earth has water, but you haye to work and pay to have it. First we make it dirty so clean water becomes "expensive", than we bottle it and make money.
> And people say this system is good. I say this system is fucked up!



So what, let's wind back the clock a few hundred years is that your idea of progress? Good luck with that.


----------



## daemon barbeque (May 28, 2011)

orb451 said:


> So what, let's wind back the clock a few hundred years is that your idea of progress? Good luck with that.



That is your answer? Is that the counter? You can do better than that Orb!
Pointing out the weaknesses is not turning the clock back, but push the people thinking FORWARD, and not saying "we have the best system, what's your problem bro? ". 
We exploid people in China, where we also look down on them and say their country and system suck. Well, if it wouldn't suck, we couldn't buy Laptops like underwear do we? So we all enjoy the capitalism since it fulfills our greed, but it fucks up everyone else. If you are okay with that, I can't argue with you.

The Capitalism is a notorious system. If you don't work for someone else, you just die. You can't just find food and eat. You can't even grow something for free and give people for free. It is forbidden. Look at the people suffering in Afrika. We did it, and we still do it. Our super duper Capitalism came with Collonialism, which just sucked out everyones life blood around us, and let them crippled. Everytime you buy something, you finance some expences for War, Technology you never need, companies who never did anything for you, politicians and diplomats who play golf whilst you try to figure out how to pay your Rent. This is Capitalism. Where 10% owns the whole money, and %90 work for them.


----------



## orb451 (May 28, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> That is your answer? Is that the counter? You can do better than that Orb!
> Pointing out the weaknesses is not turning the clock back, but push the people thinking FORWARD, and not saying "we have the best system, what's your problem bro? ".



What you see as a weakness, I personally have no problem with. I guess that's the fundamental disconnect between how you're coming at this issue and how I am.



daemon barbeque said:


> We exploid people in China, where we also look down on them and say their country and system suck. Well, if it wouldn't suck, we couldn't buy Laptops like underwear do we? So we all enjoy the capitalism since it fulfills our greed, but it fucks up everyone else. If you are okay with that, I can't argue with you.



I think capitalism fulfills a *need*, not necessarily people's *greed*. I'm sorry but I enjoy the things this country (USA) has to offer. In terms of technology, services and opportunities. I think they far outweigh an idealistic view of whether or not everything you want in life is provided to you at little to no cost.



daemon barbeque said:


> The Capitalism is a notorious system. If you don't work for someone else, you just die.



Notorious huh? To whom? You? People you know? And how is it that welfare mom's are able to sit on their fat asses watching Jerry Springer re-runs collecting government food, clothing and shelter? I think the system as it currently exists spends a lot of money helping people that who have no interest at all in contributing to society. They want things for free and exploit the system and loop holes in order to continue their lifestyle. So no, just because you don't work doesn't mean you whither and die in this country. If you want to whither and die, you're free to do so. Likewise, if you want to work, and put forth a modicum of effort, you might actually survive and thrive.



daemon barbeque said:


> You can't just find food and eat. You can't even grow something for free and give people for free. It is forbidden.



What??? What the hell are you talking about??? What prevents someone from panhandling on the street for *free* money from others willing to give it, and that person taking that money and buying a burger? Or what prevents the people living on the street from going to a church or shelter and getting food at no cost to them? Nothing. You make it sound like if you're not clocking into work 9-5 everyday that you just curl up in a ball and die. Sorry man, I don't think that's the case in this country at all. And forbidden? It's forbidden to grow food and give it away? Where did you hear that? I think you're grossly misinformed if you think that's the case. 



daemon barbeque said:


> Look at the people suffering in Afrika. We did it, and we still do it. Our super duper Capitalism came with Collonialism, which just sucked out everyones life blood around us, and let them crippled. Everytime you buy something, you finance some expences for War, Technology you never need, companies who never did anything for you, politicians and diplomats who play golf whilst you try to figure out how to pay your Rent. This is Capitalism. Where 10% owns the whole money, and %90 work for them.



OK I'm looking at the people in Africa, what am I supposed to be looking for? I see abject poverty and tribes/warlords that make it nigh on impossible to get aid to people that genuinely need it. I see corrupt governments as well. Is that what you're talking about? Was the whole of Africa's individual countries/states taken over and colonized by evil capitalists at some point? Am I going to hear about blood diamonds and gold next? 

Tell me, at what point do people individually, or countries themselves, have to stand up and decide their own fate? Is your view that since most of the world was explored and exploited at one point or another during the course of history that countries and individuals are free to wash their hands of every problem they have and just point fingers?

It sure seems that way. Seems like you want to point out British colonization and perhaps to a lesser but more recent extent American businesses growing globally as the sole reason for the world's ills. All the while ignoring people's basic responsibility to govern themselves and act in *their* own best interests. You're tying capitalism in with a slanted view of greed and equating the two as if they were the same. 

At least that's how it sounds to me. Capitalism is not the fairest system out there, that's why I whole heartedly believe in it. It best reflects my own personal beliefs on life. That if you work hard, you can make something of yourself and succeed. These silly socialist and anarchic-socialist and communist-socialist systems don't work. They haven't worked and they will never work. Capitalism, whether you like it or not, or whether you want to admit or not, is the best we've got right now. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't think that just because you and a handful of people you know don't like it, that it's suddenly going to go the way of the do-do. Like I said to ArkaneDemon, make peace with the system and live a happy, productive life. If you're hell bent on changing the system, then back the socialist movement's candidate or whomever you think best represents you and your beliefs.

I mean earlier in the thread it sure seemed like people were having a good laugh at Ron Paul for being "batshit loco" in some of his views, and then to hear some of you adamantly supporting this anarchic-socialist nonsense as if it's common sense and likely to happen is mind boggling. My point is, if you want to take a giant shit on a system that works, flawed as it might be, and try to convince me at least, that *your* way is better, even though time has shown it fail over and over again (socialism/communism) then good luck. 

Anarchy, whatever the "purist" interpretation of it is, is as much of a pipe dream as "pure" Libertarianism, if not more so. I liked Ron Paul when he called himself a Libertarian. When he started switching parties to be more "mainstream" or to curry favor with voters, he lost me. I don't mind that he adopts mainstream views, or that he's out to lunch on some issues, I've never in 35 years (17 as a voter) run across a candidate that represents every. single. ideal. That I have or hold dear. There is always some compromise. Nothing wrong with that. I think a lot of you guys are thinking in strict, fundamental terms as if things are black and white. You're either a greedy capitalist pig, or some enlightened savant because you read some book on Anarchy or imperialist America 

It's the grey areas in between that count. Die hard this, die hard that, and for what? More of the same.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 28, 2011)

This thread is giving me a fucking headache, I have like forty pages worth of shit to rebuke. Everybody cool your shit while I write, because every time I check back there`s more shit I have to quote and write about and I can`t keep up 

I don`t have the patience to finish this tonight. Maybe in the morning. If I come back and find fifteen more pages to read I swear to god


----------



## Holy Katana (May 29, 2011)

Wow, shitstorm's a-brewin'. 

I may or may not reply to Orb's big ol' American rugged individualism narrative. It's a pretty tired line, to be very frank, and he's always come off to me as the resident jaded guy in his thirties who's already made his mind up about everything, so it's worth wondering whether having a debate with him serves any real purpose. Probably not. I find it kinda funny that he said anarchism would never happen in the US, though. Funny thing is, there were a lot of anarchists in the US back in the day. Tended to be more individualist anarchist, but still anti-capitalist, albeit still pro-market (mutualists, in other words). Emma Goldman being a notable exception, as she was a social anarchist, but was influenced by the egoist anarchist Max Stirner to an extent. She was actually an immigrant from what's now Lithuania, but spent a good amount of time in the US. She's interesting in that, as I mentioned earlier, she has an individualist streak in her philosophy, even though she was more or less an anarcho-communist. That's something I really like about her. But yeah, historically, there was a pretty rich anarchist movement here in the US, and I wouldn't be surprised if anarchism experienced a growth in popularity here in the near future. I'm not saying it will, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. I'm also not saying it would become commonplace if it did, just that it would be seen as less of a fringe viewpoint due to larger numbers of self-identified anarchists.

Uh, anyway, I'll drop in if shit gets too deep, but I've been trying to avoid political debates recently, as they make my anxiety worse (I have GAD and am on Valium; it's kind of serious). So I'm just going to see how this all plays out for now. Right now, it's getting pretty tense, and I'm interested to see how the two sides respond. It's a pretty standard capitalism vs. socialism debate currently, and I've participated in more than a few of those. I'm interested to see how the counterarguments develop, as they _tend_ to go in a certain way (and eventually devolve to arguments about semantics, like most other discussions about politics do), and it would be interesting if someone went with a different angle. 

I'll say one thing, though: if you believe that unfettered capitalism is really the ideal system for humanity, I'd say you are likely either A.) at least somewhat naive or B.) at least somewhat sociopathic.


----------



## daemon barbeque (May 29, 2011)

orb451 said:


> What you see as a weakness, I personally have no problem with. I guess that's the fundamental disconnect between how you're coming at this issue and how I am.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Aaah, I see that debating world problems with a self centred conservative do not bring something new, refreshing, or even useful on the table.
You are able to enjoy your "possibilities" in the U.S.A only because you exploid the rest of the world! I know you are okay with that, and that ends our discussion. You like to be the big dog, the bully. Neither you are interested with so many homelss peopel, veterans and others who cannot work, afford a normal life like you. They can't fulfill the American dream! Giving them a shelter or some clothes might make you feel good. But that is not a life.
Look at Afrika closer. They had everything they needed before collonialism. Now they have Religion,automatic weapons. Who sell them all of this?Capitalism is the "key" to profit from this situation.
We buy the "low cost" raw materials which was gathered with violence,rape and murder. We enjoy the low prices although we know it involses Piracy.
Oh, and we keep on giving them new weapons so we still can profit. Hail to the Capitalism.


Capitalism is based on capital, and not human. Capitalism uses human to serve the system. We need a system that serves human!


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 29, 2011)

Holy Katana said:


> I'll say one thing, though: if you believe that unfettered capitalism is really the ideal system for humanity, I'd say you are likely either A.) at least somewhat naive or B.) at least somewhat sociopathic.



I copied all that I needed to reply to into a Word document, and when I saw that there were about 2100 words to dissect, I said fuck it. As much as I really want to correct the naiveté and ignorance in those paragraphs, such as 



orb451 said:


> It sounds like you want a society of mediocre individuals. No innovation, no progress, just stagnant, "average" lives for all. No one is at the top, no one is at the bottom, there's no reason to do anything above and beyond because then you might become successful and if you're successful, you're evil. How dare you try to improve your situation in life.


 and 



orb451 said:


> I just can't agree with people who think that life should be "fair" for all. It's not supposed to be, never was, never will be.



I was in bed last night thinking about this stuff, and whether or not I should bother or not. That last quote made me want to punch Orb in the mouth, and this is coming from a huge anti-militaristic, pacifist, borderline hippie person who hasn't been in a fight in 6 years.

 In the end, his warped opinion on whatever were talking about in this thread, and a lot of other politically based threads doesn't really matter. What he wants to believe is fine. However, this isn't the final system. I bet back when feudalism was around, people were just like him: "hey man it's not supposed to be fair, work harder and you'll get a bit more bread from the lord on top of the hill." There will be a change eventually, when this poorly designed system crumbles, and either something really good or something very, very bad will happen.

 I'm talking either a huge dictatorship, or people organizing themselves and creating something better. But if a change of system comes along to something better, there will be people who will oppose it, unrightfully so, but they just don't want to have responsibilities and obligations, they just want to live life vicariously and survive like a bunch of animals. We should try to separate ourselves from animals by evolving the socio-political sphere of society to something better. And this _will _happen, nothing can ever stay constant. 

 Humans are petty. We think we're better than other species when we act just like them. Bees: they have workers, they have a queen, when the queen dies, they make another one, they go to war, etc. So many animal species do this kind of stuff. There's a lot of altruism in nature that you rarely see in humans, because we've been so desensitized to other people's suffering and injustices, and we call them normal because of the system.




orb451 said:


> I just can't agree with people who think that life should be "fair" for all. It's not supposed to be, never was, never will be.



Life isn't going to be fair ever with this kind of attitude. 

I'm out though, I don't want to say much more in this thread except that Ron Paul sucks, to bring it back on topic. You guys continue


----------



## orb451 (May 29, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> ...Your Opinions...



First, the word is exploit, not exploid. And what you see as exploitation, I see as business. I think you're taking it a bit too personally. 

Let me ask you this, what kind of system would *you* like to see as a replacement to capitalism? Socialism? Communism? Anarcho-communism? What system do you think works and scales up to the macro level and not just the micro level? 

And that's a question for ArkaneDemon and Holy Katana as well.

I'm really not seeing how being pro-capitalist makes someone a bully. If you see things so black and white, that's your business. Homeless people and veterans especially do concern me. Veterans in particular should be *well* taken care of if they need help. There's zero excuse for a "homeless veteran". None. I would LOVE to see more money, GIVEN to them for their service. People bitch about teachers getting the shaft with benefits and salaries, VETERANS and armed service members should be the ones getting paid much more than they do currently. I'm all for it. And again, is that not a socialist ideal? To give to some people who otherwise wouldn't have or get their own slice of happiness? So don't try feeding me this line of bullshit like I don't care about those people. I find that deeply insulting but I probably shouldn't, because you don't know me and if you think by a few paragraphs on here that you suddenly do, you're mistaken.

My concern for other homeless people, the poor in general and those that "can't afford to live like I do" starts with a question. How did they end up there? And the answer varies and is complicated. When the answer to the question is simple such as they're poor because they're lazy, slothful, dysfunctional shit heads, my feeling is: too fucking bad. Why should I help those that have no interest in helping themselves? When the reason they're poor, homeless or uneducated is because they chose a life of drugs, crime and the "easy way out", then again, my response is: too fucking bad. I want people to work for a living. I want people to contribute to society. To pay their taxes and obey the laws. If they don't like how things run, then work within the system to change things. Vote. Get an education. But don't fall back on excuses and expect someone or something to solve all your problems.

So because some unscrupulous groups decided to sell weapons to people willing to buy them, and then use those weapons for their own unscrupulous purposes, we should disband the whole of capitalism? Is that what it boils down to? That and things like it for the most part? You've done a great job of equating capitalism with evil and greed, but completely glossed over and ignored the benefits. Essentially you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. 

Holy Katana,

Pot calling the kettle black much? I'm naive because I believe capitalism works for the USA? And I'm potentially a sociopath as well? Priceless.  Here we go again with the black and white logic. Something is either this, or it's that. Is that how the world works? First, I'm not saying "unfettered capitalism" is the best system for humanity. I'm talking about things in the USA. And we have a hybrid model here. Medicare and Social Security are as close to socialism as we're likely to get. But as they currently stand, they're pretty far from "unfettered capitalism". I think capitalism works for the USA, but it does need boundaries, as any system does. People like to throw around this free market jargon like it's a dirty word. And more over, they like to throw it around as if it's all conservatives wet dream. And lastly, they like to throw it around as a blanket statement that they think covers everything, every business and every individuals' ultimate goal or end-game.

Let me tell you that it's not. There are limits. As there should be, for any sane individual, group, government or company. And again, this goes back to black and white logic. If yours is such that you only see things in binary terms, then I'm sorry, that's something you'll need to get over.

None of you are answering my questions directly so here's a few direct questions and if you're "too tired" or "too strung out" on meds or band practice or life in general, then don't bother responding at all. Send me a PM sometime when you're lucid and on your game.

Where are the limits with Anarchism? Where specifically is an individual prohibited or restricted from pursuing a goal? What if an individual's goal, in an anarchic society, is to make money, a lot of money? What boundaries are there to prevent him from exploiting others in the same way that capitalism does? Isn't one of the tenets of that system: do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't hurt someone else? My question is, who and what stands in the way of someone doing just that? Doing what they want or love, and in the process (either purposely or inadvertently) hurting someone else? 

I mean to me, it sounds like anarchism works in very small groups. And everyone in the group has to agree to the same basic rules. Isn't that the direction the discussion went a few pages back? And wasn't it pretty much acknowledged that it worked in small groups and so long as people agreed to go in the same basic direction, but failed when you scaled it up?


----------



## orb451 (May 29, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> ...Your Opinions...



If my opinions don't really matter to you or in general, I really couldn't care less. But just remember the exact same thing applies in reverse. And more over, there are more of "me" out there than there are of "you" although certainly not on this forum. Like I said to you and others, MAKE PEACE with the system. Isn't that what hippies are all about? Peace and love and all that shit?

Let go of your "rage" against this machine we call life. You're wasting your time and energy that you could put towards making your lives better or more fulfilled. Call me jaded mid-30's guy, I've been called worse. It is you who will learn over time that life is a challenge, it's difficult and would happily kick you in the nuts when you're down. It doesn't owe you anything.


----------



## daemon barbeque (May 29, 2011)

orb451 said:


> First, the word is exploit, not exploid. And what you see as exploitation, I see as business. I think you're taking it a bit too personally.
> 
> Let me ask you this, what kind of system would *you* like to see as a replacement to capitalism? Socialism? Communism? Anarcho-communism? What system do you think works and scales up to the macro level and not just the micro level?
> 
> ...



No Orb, I don't boil down anything. You told me that you see it as business. That's where greed comes to the game. Business means you do something and get benefits from it. A good businessman get's higher profit from what he does. That means, he actually earns more from what it's worth. That's the system of Capitalism. The main problem lays here, since to have a high profit, you have to "Exploit" the others. Keep the wages low, let people work more than they should,put pressure on vendors to keep their prices low, use Stock Market to make money from money. All these things are "business", and the ones who do these things are good Businessmen.
Now where is "human" here. Right, human is the exploited one. The Profit is the master, and it decides what and how the system should do, to keep it going as it is.

Check the veterans. You stated that they should be taken care of well. Let me tell this, why? Because they served their country? Why should someone serve a country from the beginning, just because he/she was born there? And who are we to decide who is worth to be taken care of, or better said who is worth to live better than the others? Veterans are also Exploited to be a "well used" point. They can't function as a normal citizen anymore, after having all those "experience" in wars.


I am not a Communist, nor am I a real Anarchist. I think we shouldn't rely on the systems from the past, but we should think about something new. The Capistalist system, the current monatery system, and the current taxing system should go. It creates more suffering than joy, and it sucks the living force out of billions of people.


----------



## renzoip (May 29, 2011)

orb451 said:


> I think capitalism fulfills a *need*, not necessarily people's *greed*. I'm sorry but I enjoy the things this country (USA) has to offer. In terms of technology, services and opportunities. I think they far outweigh an idealistic view of whether or not everything you want in life is provided to you at little to no cost



I don't think so. Diamonds, $300 nikes, and many of the technological luxuries that facilitate our lives are not exactly needs that the system is fulfilling. It's supply and demand; supply that is controlled by the capitalist and demand that is coerced upon consumers. Again, free market = Not free at all. Also, people enjoy the things this country has to offer in terms of technology, service and opportunities too, but that doesn't suddenly make everyone make feel fine about enjoying it at the expense of others around the world. Who says socialists/anarchist/communist want things for free? A basic safety net to help people afford health, food, education, and housing are not exactly freebies.





orb451 said:


> Notorious huh? To whom? You? People you know? And how is it that welfare mom's are able to sit on their fat asses watching Jerry Springer re-runs collecting government food, clothing and shelter? I think the system as it currently exists spends a lot of money helping people that who have no interest at all in contributing to society. They want things for free and exploit the system and loop holes in order to continue their lifestyle. So no, just because you don't work doesn't mean you whither and die in this country. If you want to whither and die, you're free to do so. Likewise, if you want to work, and put forth a modicum of effort, you might actually survive and thrive.



The problem comes from the fact that since the capitalists system alienates people from themselves and each other. You are no longer you, but rather the product of your work or the success of you work in the capitalist system. Therefore, those who do not work or are unsuccessful suddenly become less worthy to the capitalists. To me this is where the whole oppressive right wing narrative of "*insert minority of choice here* don't work, have 6+ children, live of the government, therefore they are scumbags and deserve less rights" comes from. Again, why tying to see the larger picture when minorities are easy to pick on? 





orb451 said:


> What??? What the hell are you talking about??? What prevents someone from panhandling on the street for *free* money from others willing to give it, and that person taking that money and buying a burger? Or what prevents the people living on the street from going to a church or shelter and getting food at no cost to them? Nothing. You make it sound like if you're not clocking into work 9-5 everyday that you just curl up in a ball and die. Sorry man, I don't think that's the case in this country at all. And forbidden? It's forbidden to grow food and give it away? Where did you hear that? I think you're grossly misinformed if you think that's the case.



You have to be kidding me, lol. There is something called private and public property, there is something called loitering. One can try to beg for money in the streets and buy food like you said. But that what kind of life is that? Also, you expect homeless to just walk into a place and get a job? I assume an employer would totally give a job to an applicant who has no address, no transportation, and no means of contact... 

And yes, you may not see that in the US as much, but that's because we have exported misery to other countries, so we can live in nice bubble of "democracy, liberty and prosperity" as the expense of oppression, dictatorship and poverty





orb451 said:


> OK I'm looking at the people in Africa, what am I supposed to be looking for? I see abject poverty and tribes/warlords that make it nigh on impossible to get aid to people that genuinely need it. I see corrupt governments as well. Is that what you're talking about? Was the whole of Africa's individual countries/states taken over and colonized by evil capitalists at some point? Am I going to hear about blood diamonds and gold next?


 
There is no denying in of countries own faults when it comes to their problem of development. However, you cannot just forget about their history. And don't tell me colonialism happen 100 or 500 years ago, get over it; that's what the capitalist want everyone to think; who should people listen to the perpetrator tell them now to get over it and move on? How convenient...

On the other hand, you may speak about individual countries, but countries are not like individuals. Colonialism is rooted in the principle of "divide and conquer." On one side, you have small powerful elites that benefit from serving as a middle man between the colonizer and the colonized, and then you have the great majority that suffer. Though shit, right? 

It is no coincidence that all former colonizers are now what we call the developed world, and what 3rd world countries have in common is that they were plundered from their natural resources, robbed from their identities, and divided among the population. So, the relation of power still prevail, that's why development is a slow lengthy process. In the meantime, poor people try escape and move to developed countries where they become minorities. Funny how capitalism works on a larger scale.



orb451 said:


> Tell me, at what point do people individually, or countries themselves, have to stand up and decide their own fate? Is your view that since most of the world was explored and exploited at one point or another during the course of history that countries and individuals are free to wash their hands of every problem they have and just point fingers?
> 
> It sure seems that way. Seems like you want to point out British colonization and perhaps to a lesser but more recent extent American businesses growing globally as the sole reason for the world's ills. All the while ignoring people's basic responsibility to govern themselves and act in *their* own best interests. You're tying capitalism in with a slanted view of greed and equating the two as if they were the same.



Let's see... at the point where they try to escape their countries however they can so that they can make a more decent living in the very own countries that are exploiting them. At the point where they sacrifice everything so that their children can get an education in countries where they have no type of welfare system, or when they send remittances to help their families. Capitalism says you can have a near perfect life is you work hard. This is only applicable when you live on a stable country where you have a basic safety net, liberty, and are able to access opportunities. But then again, these countries enjoy such features precisely because we have historically supported colonization and now exploitation through dictators that are favorable to our interests. So how can we tell people in the middle east/africa/latin america to stand up and decide their own faith when we ourselves supported their authoritarian/governments? Also, when they have attempted to decide the own self determination by electing someone not favorable to US interests, we respond with violence through direct military action, funding civil wars, or economic sanctions. So yeah, about people standing up and deciding their own fate.... 



orb451 said:


> At least that's how it sounds to me. Capitalism is not the fairest system out there, that's why I whole heartedly believe in it. It best reflects my own personal beliefs on life. That if you work hard, you can make something of yourself and succeed. These silly socialist and anarchic-socialist and communist-socialist systems don't work. They haven't worked and they will never work. Capitalism, whether you like it or not, or whether you want to admit or not, is the best we've got right now. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't think that just because you and a handful of people you know don't like it, that it's suddenly going to go the way of the do-do. Like I said to ArkaneDemon, make peace with the system and live a happy, productive life. If you're hell bent on changing the system, then back the socialist movement's candidate or whomever you think best represents you and your beliefs.



Making peace with the system and trying to go with the flow is what the capitalists would like the opposition to do. Capitalism conduces people into conformity by putting them in a cycle of wake up-work-consume-get imbecilized by mainstream media-repeat. Then they tell us that there is nothing wrong with doing this; maybe this is the case, but it also happens to serve the purpose of sedation and domination by the very own capitalists that are suggesting you to keep working. 

Finally, just as capitalism has evolved, so have other systems like communism, anarchism, and democracy itself. Therefore, just because you are not a happy capitalist does not mean you want to turn the clock back. Of course, you should always back the candidate that represents your views, but activism is also a good strategy. Specially when you are in a system that is controlled by 2 parties that represent similar views as far as you are concerned.

Ok, Im totally done discussing this. We can go back to ron paul. Orb, I'm not trying to come be a jerk and I'm not directing any statement personally at you. Just want to clear that up. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion as much as I appreciate everyone elses. 


Longest.Post.Ever.Made.By.Me *dies*


----------



## aslsmm (May 29, 2011)

orb i love your political guts but fuck man, let's try to simplify. 

all in all i have spent the last 2 hours reading evertything word for word. this is what i found to be the meat of the thread,

1: every one agrees on some major point with ron paul and would "love to see" it come to play out, example smaller gov or no fed res or something like that.

2: every one disagrees with him on a smaller point although they seem to think it is a big point, example seperation of church and state or his stances on abortions and homosexuality.

so IMO if he can demolish the fed reserve and do nothing else, wouldnt that be a the biggest thing any president has done since kennedy? i mean after JFK the pres has alway done what ever the fuck he wanted after he was in office. kinda like the GF that gives BJs till you get married, after that your lucky to catch a peek when shes stepping out of the shower. 

im just saying this, kids saying the plege of alligance in school, the dollar claiming that america trusts in god, gay marriage and adoption, abortions and legal drugs are all on a level below the economy. if paul can give the fed res the finger and take the power back "RATM" then maybe america will last long enough to debate/solve these other lesser albiet big issues.


----------



## Explorer (May 29, 2011)

Here's what i've learned:

Being able to vote in a representative democratic republic is slavery.

Working for someone else is slavery.

It is desirable to overthrow that system and to force everyone to accept another system, without their consent. 

Do I have that right? I hope so, because those are all points which were made with a straight face. 

I understand that you may feel that everyone has been brainwashed but you. You're not the only one to have felt that way, in whatever country or during whatever time period. I've written elsewhere about cascade logic and lack of insight, but it bears repeating when someone goes there.

Without getting into the grand theory of why your imposed dictatorship is better than one which people have actually chosen their representatives, perhaps a simple question will grant you insight as to why people are seeing a flaw where you are not.

*Explain simply how your system allows parents to better ensure the safety and successful future of their offspring than the current system.*

That's it. You currently have access to schooling, technology, food and so on. You're talking about changing rules, imposing something where someone else may decide to impose something harsher after you're no longer the dictator. 

*What rules will restrain Leviathan better than the current system, and prevent a new Leviathan from arising?*

(Hopefully you know what I'm taking about. If not... take that as a need for more insight.)


----------



## orb451 (May 29, 2011)

renzoip said:


> I don't think so. Diamonds, $300 nikes, and many of the technological luxuries that facilitate our lives are not exactly needs that the system is fulfilling. It's supply and demand; supply that is controlled by the capitalist and demand that is coerced upon consumers. Again, free market = Not free at all. Also, people enjoy the things this country has to offer in terms of technology, service and opportunities too, but that doesn't suddenly make everyone make feel fine about enjoying it at the expense of others around the world. Who says socialists/anarchist/communist want things for free? A basic safety net to help people afford health, food, education, and housing are not exactly freebies.



One quick note, I'm going to reply to your post as you did to mine. If you don't want to respond again on here, do so in a PM or not at all, the choice is yours. Also, as with you and the others I'm arguing/discussing/debating with, I too appreciate the back and forth.  

However, one thing I don't like is: "I'm just going to go on at length about what I think and then exit the discussion". That's equivalent to having a face to face conversation about something and then mid way through, when you hear something you don't like, turning and walking away whilst trying to get the last word in. I'm not in this discussion to "win" or "convert" anyone or to get the last word in. But if you quote me, it makes me think you're talking directly *to* me and I feel obliged to respond. Let it go on as long as people are willing to post and things remain relatively civil.

That said, you said it yourself, it's supply and *demand*. If there is no demand for goods, there is no market for them. If there is no market for them, they won't be produced. The other thing going on in America at the moment is a *demand* for goods at low prices. People *demand* and often times think they are *entitled* to products at absurdly low prices. The market sets the price for goods and services, the market has spoken and demanded low prices. Businesses, since they are not charities, are trying to make money and meet the needs of the consumers. How can they do that if they don't lower their own costs?

And how do you lower your costs? Exporting the labor. We were a nation of producers at one point. That stopped and now we are a nation of consumers. Don't get me wrong, I see the cycle and I dislike it. But, whereas some of you want to place the blame solely on the businesses, I see the blame as being shared by both the businesses and the individuals. 

Another interesting thing that has happened is a shift from goods that last, to goods that are engineered to be obsolete or break, after a period of time. The production of "in the hands" widgets has gone from buying a widget that lasts years and does it's job well, to buying a widget that lasts maybe a year or two or less, then breaks, or requires service or replacement.

But to your point, if you feel badly enough for the people around the world that are exploited for their work, how are you able to type on a computer? Or a phone? I assume then that you make your own clothes, grow your own food, and if you work, you do so using public transportation or biking/walking? I mean, it's one thing to preach that the world is evil because of capitalism and it's another to practice what you preach. Not you personally Renzoip because I don't know if that's the kind of life you're advocating but that goes for any and all that say that capitalism is evil. We're on a music site right? What about any and all of your guitars? All made by hand by yourselves right? 

And my point is NOT that: "ah ha, you buy goods and services too, therefore YOU are evil!!!". My point is, how badly do *you* personally feel, about the things that you have or have acquired, that *may* have been built, using exploited resources or labor from 2nd or 3rd world countries, that you in turn, enjoy? Things that allow you to express yourselves creatively, and so on? How bad? How many nights do you spend staring at the ceiling unable to sleep because some poor bastard in Southeast Asia got a buck fifty a day and no bathroom breaks making your guitar, or amp, or distortion pedal or cab, or effects unit? I ask because I'm interested in your level of guilt. Not because you're part of the system, because if you even *have* a computer to type on and read this, you ARE part of the system. That's a given.

I ask because I'm interested in just how guilty you feel about it and how soon you plan to give up your worldly possessions and practice what you preach. And after you're done answering that, you can *then* ask *me* how guilty *I* feel about the goods and services *I* buy with money that I have earned.



renzoip said:


> The problem comes from the fact that since the capitalists system alienates people from themselves and each other. You are no longer you, but rather the product of your work or the success of you work in the capitalist system. Therefore, those who do not work or are unsuccessful suddenly become less worthy to the capitalists. To me this is where the whole oppressive right wing narrative of "*insert minority of choice here* don't work, have 6+ children, live of the government, therefore they are scumbags and deserve less rights" comes from. Again, why tying to see the larger picture when minorities are easy to pick on?



I don't think that's true at all.  If you *think* like you're a gear in the system or a wage slave, then that's all you'll be. If you *think* that you can actually accomplish something, by doing good work, by being the best you can be, by using whatever talent or skill you have to make your life or the life of those around you better, then *that* is what you will do. 

I didn't know the Right wing *had* a narrative. But I think you're stretching things if you think the Right wing has an oppressive narrative designed to keep minorities down. That cards been played a million times and it too, is getting old.




renzoip said:


> You have to be kidding me, lol. There is something called private and public property, there is something called loitering. One can try to beg for money in the streets and buy food like you said. But that what kind of life is that? Also, you expect homeless to just walk into a place and get a job? I assume an employer would totally give a job to an applicant who has no address, no transportation, and no means of contact...




What does public and private property have to do with growing your own food? I'm not saying you go plant a tomato garden in the middle of City Hall's land or something. There are public gardens, where I live, not more than a mile away, for people to plant their own food and eat it. The gardens are shared by all in the neighborhood. What's the problem? 

I'm not saying that Joe Homeless, wreaking of piss and feces walks into Microsoft headquarters and gets a 100K/year job. I'm saying that if some homeless people *are* willing to work and are *able* to work, that there are programs to get them off the streets and into regular jobs. They might not be the most glamorous jobs, but they'll *earn* their money and are free to spend it on the things they want. What's the big fucking deal with that?



renzoip said:


> And yes, you may not see that in the US as much, but that's because we have exported misery to other countries, so we can live in nice bubble of "democracy, liberty and prosperity" as the expense of oppression, dictatorship and poverty



And again with the guilt trips. When do they end? And when do people bitching about it, pony up and practice what they preach? When do you go "off the grid" and live happily in the woods off the land, the way they did a few centuries ago?




renzoip said:


> There is no denying in of countries own faults when it comes to their problem of development. However, you cannot just forget about their history. And don't tell me colonialism happen 100 or 500 years ago, get over it; that's what the capitalist want everyone to think; who should people listen to the perpetrator tell them now to get over it and move on? How convenient...



What is convenient is that it starts to sound like an ever growing and all encompassing conspiracy. The "illuminati" or some such group have organized all these different governments and businesses together, working in tandem to *take* your money and keep you down. That's what is convenient.



renzoip said:


> On the other hand, you may speak about individual countries, but countries are not like individuals. Colonialism is rooted in the principle of "divide and conquer." On one side, you have small powerful elites that benefit from serving as a middle man between the colonizer and the colonized, and then you have the great majority that suffer. Though shit, right?



Countries should be afforded their own right, to their own destiny. I would be thrilled if the USA stopped getting involved in other countries affairs. Absolutely thrilled. Let's take care of our poor, hungry and homeless and THEN worry about the rest of the world's ills. But the hippies don't like that. They want us to take blame for fucking the world up in the past, and then complain when we try to intervene to help them in the present and future. It's a no-win situation. So what's the winning move? Don't play the game. 



renzoip said:


> It is no coincidence that all former colonizers are now what we call the developed world, and what 3rd world countries have in common is that they were plundered from their natural resources, robbed from their identities, and divided among the population. So, the relation of power still prevail, that's why development is a slow lengthy process. In the meantime, poor people try escape and move to developed countries where they become minorities. Funny how capitalism works on a larger scale.



And again with the colonialism. You're tying colonialism and population expansion, discovery, in with capitalism. Hilarious. 

I think the rest I already covered, and if not and you want answers, just ask. I didn't see anything new in the last few paragraphs.


----------



## Explorer (May 29, 2011)

aslsmm said:


> 1: *every one agrees on some major point with ron paul* and would "love to see" it come to play out, example smaller gov or no fed res or something like that.
> 
> *2: every one disagrees with him on a smaller point although they seem to think it is a big point, example seperation of church and state* or his stances on abortions and homosexuality.



So... on what basis do you think removing impediments to theocracy is a minor point?

Your attempt at minimizing his tossing out parts of the Constitution just shows how little understanding you have of the importance of the Constitution, and how it is the basis for protecting the rights of all.

You may feel that those rights are a minor quibble, that things like due process, protection against police invading your home without a warrant, against communist witch hunts, are just overkill. That puts you outside the American mainstream.

Like Ron Paul.

Sorry, but stating that caring about Constitutional protections is just a silly idea is foolish... well, if you care about American values, at least.


----------



## orb451 (May 29, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> No Orb, I don't boil down anything. You told me that you see it as business. That's where greed comes to the game. Business means you do something and get benefits from it.



Perhaps to you that's the definition. My definition of business is providing goods or services that the market wants or needs. The market made up of HUMANS. People. Exercising their "free will" to buy what they want or need. 



daemon barbeque said:


> A good businessman get's higher profit from what he does. That means, he actually earns more from what it's worth.



A business can exist and succeed without the need for "ever growing" profits. They can reach an equilibrium with the market and a certain level of profits provided the business is in the control of individuals or a group, that agree that "that is enough". I think you're conflating businesses with those beholden to stock holders. And stock holders that demand an ever increasing return on their investment. I would agree, that that is greed driven. That you have to out do yourselves quarter after quarter in order to maintain a business. And I agree that there are a LOT of businesses that fall into this category right now. However, I don't think that the solution is to abandon the system because some have chosen to exploit it. That is where boundaries are needed. And this is from someone who believes the government should be smaller and less intrusive. With the caveat that there are instances when endless profit growth leads to severe problems.

Look at the home mortgage industry. Preying on people who were greedy themselves and dumb enough to not read the fine print when making the biggest purchase of their lives. And look at the banks that were happy to take people's words for it and allow them to make that purchase, without doing their own due diligence to determine if those people could actually afford the payments they were agreeing to. I would have let them fail. Same with the auto industry. Let them fall flat on their faces. It would have meant short term misery, instead of the long term misery we're in now.

But believe it or not, I do think that some businesses go "too far" or are purely profit and growth driven and yes, I think that that's bad. I just don't think that the solution is scrapping the capitalist system.






daemon barbeque said:


> You stated that they should be taken care of well. Let me tell this, why? Because they served their country?



Yes. If they're on active duty and deployed somewhere, they should be compensated accordingly during and especially *after* they have finished serving.



daemon barbeque said:


> Why should someone serve a country from the beginning, just because he/she was born there?



Ummmm, maybe that's how you *think* it works, or maybe that's how it works in your country but at the moment, here in the USA, military service is voluntary. We have a mix of people and they choose to serve for their own individual reasons, as they should.



daemon barbeque said:


> And who are we to decide who is worth to be taken care of, or better said who is worth to live better than the others? Veterans are also Exploited to be a "well used" point. They can't function as a normal citizen anymore, after having all those "experience" in wars.



Perhaps the veterans you know are unable to function. I know several veterans that have served in combat, including a Navy SEAL who served on missions in Afghanistan and my anecdotal experience contradicts the notion that these people come back used up and unable to function in society because of the horrors they've seen. 




daemon barbeque said:


> I am not a Communist, nor am I a real Anarchist. I think we shouldn't rely on the systems from the past, but we should think about something new. The Capistalist system, the current monatery system, and the current taxing system should go. It creates more suffering than joy, and it sucks the living force out of billions of people.



What then is your idea of a future system, something new that could or should work better?


----------



## Explorer (May 29, 2011)

Sorry, one more thought before we head out to the movies...

When people toss out words like "slaves" and "slavery" incorrectly, it completely removes their credibility. It might hurt it even more if none of your family has ever been been a slave while you're tossing around those words.

It's like complaining to a friend about how they've raised the price on something by a quarter, and you keep insisting to her that you're being raped... and she's actually been raped, sexually assaulted and penetrated without her permission, violated.

Do you think your lack of sensitivity and understanding, or your huge sense of entitlement, will make her sympathetic to your self-described plight?

Any of your friends have grandparents or great-grandparents who were actually slaves? Tell them your theories, using those same words, and see if they agree with you.

If not, you're doing language wrong.


----------



## orb451 (May 29, 2011)

Explorer said:


> So... on what basis do you think removing impediments to theocracy is a minor point?
> 
> Your attempt at minimizing his tossing out parts of the Constitution just shows how little understanding you have of the importance of the Constitution, and how it is the basis for protecting the rights of all.
> 
> ...



Where in the constitution does it say there should be a clear separation between church and state?

I think you're being intellectually dishonest Explorer. I think you want to cling to Jefferson's notions on the separation of church and state and somehow think the rest of the founding fathers believed the same things, or more over, that they would have had an issue with "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance or on US currency.

There is no clear separation of church and state here in the USA. I think what the founding fathers and authors of the constitution wanted was a level religious playing field. They didn't want one religion or another to become "state endorsed" as with the "Church of England". I think they wanted it left to the individual to choose. And their idea of "God" was a deists view, not necessarily a Christian, Catholic, Jewish or Islamic view. 

But, over time, the USA has or is a *primarily* Judeo-Christian nation. My question is, so fucking what? If it chaps your ass that much that it says "god" on the currency or "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance or "god" on most state or federal buildings somewhere, I recommend you get over it.

Obama mentions God in nearly every address he makes to us, as did George W. and every president going back through history. I think they use the word generically, with the intention that the individual interprets God to mean whatever they personally want. Whether that's Allah, Jesus, Budda, the flying spaghetti monster, etc.

And again I ask, so what?

Let me allay your fears, the USA, as fucked up as we are, is not going to become a theocracy. We already are. But, we are on the far edge of the scale. And we're not going to get to be like "Iran" or others so long as people are still able to vote, and disagree, and voice their opinions. When they take away our right to vote, be worried. Till then, don't worry about it.


----------



## orb451 (May 29, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Sorry, one more thought before we head out to the movies...
> 
> When people toss out words like "slaves" and "slavery" incorrectly, it completely removes their credibility. It might hurt it even more if none of your family has ever been been a slave while you're tossing around those words.
> 
> ...



What removes someone's credibility is incessant pedantry. Words have different meanings to different people dude. Get over it.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 29, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Let me allay your fears, the USA, as fucked up as we are, is not going to become a theocracy. We already are. But, we are on the far edge of the scale. And we're not going to get to be like "Iran" or others so long as people are still able to vote, and disagree, and voice their opinions. When they take away our right to vote, be worried. Till then, don't worry about it.


I would think that taking away (of any) rights would be something to worry about, and I've not noticed any atheist politicians pulling for bans on gay marriage.


----------



## aslsmm (May 29, 2011)

Explorer said:


> So... on what basis do you think removing impediments to theocracy is a minor point?
> 
> Your attempt at minimizing his tossing out parts of the Constitution just shows how little understanding you have of the importance of the Constitution, and how it is the basis for protecting the rights of all.
> 
> ...


 

i like how you can point out my minimal insight when you cant even read my short post all the way. like i said they are big issues just not as big as the economy. Yeah we can all be like you and turn a blind eye to our collapsing country but then there wont be a country to give us the rights we claim. 

once again im going to state that they are all big issuses but the economy is the biggest right now. the economy is due to the fed res fucking us up the ass.

next time you try to quote me include the full quote. when you dont it shows how much insight you lack.


----------



## Randy (May 29, 2011)

Busy Sunday, eh guys?


----------



## orb451 (May 29, 2011)

Randy said:


> Busy Sunday, eh guys?



LOL 

It's been a while since we had a good ol' fashioned brawl in here man


----------



## aslsmm (May 29, 2011)

i have a 10 hr shift doing in home care with a dementia patient so ive got the forums for sanity right now haha. 

it always gets more busy when comments by a certain someone are made with half quotes and twist the intention of comments. 


funny thing is every time ive been banned its cause ive joined in on one of the political threads. youd think id learn my lesson.....

last time i got banned i made a friend right highlord????? created a hatchet just to burry it.


----------



## orb451 (May 29, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> I would think that taking away (of any) rights would be something to worry about, and I've not noticed any atheist politicians pulling for bans on gay marriage.



And I haven't noticed many atheist or agnostic politicians gaining power or enough influence to sway things.

The thing is, with gay rights, they're not taking *away* their right, those opposed to gay marriage want to deny them the right fundamentally. And yes it's for religious reasons, but they are entitled to oppose it if they choose and we are free to vote accordingly when the issue comes up.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 29, 2011)

aslsmm said:


> i like how you can point out my minimal insight when you cant even read my short post all the way. like i said they are big issues just not as big as the economy. Yeah we can all be like you and turn a blind eye to our collapsing country but then there wont be a country to give us the rights we claim.
> 
> once again im going to state that they are all big issuses but the economy is the biggest right now. the economy is due to the fed res fucking us up the ass.
> 
> next time you try to quote me include the full quote. when you dont it shows how much insight you lack.


He may have done that just to show exactly what he was responding to (I just came in late and I'm not going to read through the whole thing to see if you're right about him nitpicking . just tossing that out there), I do that usually.


aslsmm said:


> last time i got banned i made a friend right highlord????? created a hatchet just to burry it.


Step 1: Punch each other in the face
Step 2: Buy each other a beer
Step 3: 
Step 4: Go to PC&E
Step 5: See Step 1.


orb451 said:


> And I haven't noticed many atheist or agnostic politicians gaining power or enough influence to sway things.
> 
> The thing is, with gay rights, they're not taking *away* their right, those opposed to gay marriage want to deny them the right fundamentally. And yes it's for religious reasons, but they are entitled to oppose it if they choose and we are free to vote accordingly when the issue comes up.


True, but I don't think that they would even if they did have sway (you said it yourself, it's for religious reasons ).

I think that they ARE taking it away, since before, apart from having certain churches (or priests or whatever) refuse to do it and being able to just go elsewhere, but now the issue is making it illegal.
Entitled to disagree and such, yes, but I don't think that we're entitled to vote rights *away *from people (especially not when it's "I don't like *GROUP OF PEOPLE*, let's not let them *RIGHT EVERYONE HAS".*


But this isn't a gay marriage thread (or.... is it? ) so, on topic: Anyone who says that they are for a theocracy (or the basic idea of it, without using the exact word), will not be getting my vote. Sorry, Ron: So close. 

EDIT: Holy crap it didn't feel like I typed that much: I've got orb451itis.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (May 29, 2011)

highlordmugfug said:


> on topic: Anyone who says that they are for a theocracy (or the basic idea of it, without using the exact word), will not be getting my vote.


 
I can't help but wonder how broad the difference is between a theocracy and a democracy in which the majority of the voters espouse the same religious ideals.


----------



## renzoip (May 29, 2011)

orb451 said:


> One quick note, I'm going to reply to your post as you did to mine. If you don't want to respond again on here, do so in a PM or not at all, the choice is yours. Also, as with you and the others I'm arguing/discussing/debating with, I too appreciate the back and forth.
> 
> However, one thing I don't like is: "I'm just going to go on at length about what I think and then exit the discussion". That's equivalent to having a face to face conversation about something and then mid way through, when you hear something you don't like, turning and walking away whilst trying to get the last word in. I'm not in this discussion to "win" or "convert" anyone or to get the last word in. But if you quote me, it makes me think you're talking directly *to* me and I feel obliged to respond. Let it go on as long as people are willing to post and things remain relatively civil.



Well, to me it's more like having a conversation in a forum where people are not face to face and they only have limited time to post what they want to say. As interesting as I find this discussion, I don't have all day not do I wish to stay all day doing this. Also, I'd like to say, I'm not here to win or to convert anyone, I'm sure we can all tell where each one of us stands. We are just exposing our view points and explaining why we hold one position and not the opposite of it. Now I quoted you because your post provided a platform for the opposite of my position, and I could break it down and expose why I disagree with your position on so many levels, that's it. If you want to respond to me directly that's cool, but there is nothing that compels you to do so. 



orb451 said:


> That said, you said it yourself, it's supply and *demand*. If there is no demand for goods, there is no market for them. If there is no market for them, they won't be produced. The other thing going on in America at the moment is a *demand* for goods at low prices. People *demand* and often times think they are *entitled* to products at absurdly low prices. The market sets the price for goods and services, the market has spoken and demanded low prices. Businesses, since they are not charities, are trying to make money and meet the needs of the consumers. How can they do that if they don't lower their own costs?
> 
> And how do you lower your costs? Exporting the labor. We were a nation of producers at one point. That stopped and now we are a nation of consumers. Don't get me wrong, I see the cycle and I dislike it. But, whereas some of you want to place the blame solely on the businesses, I see the blame as being shared by both the businesses and the individuals.
> 
> Another interesting thing that has happened is a shift from goods that last, to goods that are engineered to be obsolete or break, after a period of time. The production of "in the hands" widgets has gone from buying a widget that lasts years and does it's job well, to buying a widget that lasts maybe a year or two or less, then breaks, or requires service or replacement.



I understand the business cycle, so no problem there. However, I don't see "the market" as some invisible force that works on its own and sets the prices freely. I know that businesses attempt to get consumer what they want at the most profitable price. But this is the same rationale used by drug traffickers, kidnappers, and human traffickers. There may be demand for whatever service/commodity, the so called market is only concerned on getting it but not on how they get it. If people want it and its profitable, the market is wiling to overlook things like exploitation, degradation of the environment, risking the health of people, torture of animals, etc. At no point is there concern for the well being for people/animals/environment. 

I understand businesses are not charities, that in itself does not justify the above mention issues. Therefore, if business were left alone or aided by the government to grow with little regulation, then the damage done would be even worst than it is now. These issues cannot be solve merely by means of supply an demand, there is more to human life and society than that. That's why I argue that capitalism in itself is not good nor fair nor free.



orb451 said:


> But to your point, if you feel badly enough for the people around the world that are exploited for their work, how are you able to type on a computer? Or a phone? I assume then that you make your own clothes, grow your own food, and if you work, you do so using public transportation or biking/walking? I mean, it's one thing to preach that the world is evil because of capitalism and it's another to practice what you preach. Not you personally Renzoip because I don't know if that's the kind of life you're advocating but that goes for any and all that say that capitalism is evil. We're on a music site right? What about any and all of your guitars? All made by hand by yourselves right?
> 
> And my point is NOT that: "ah ha, you buy goods and services too, therefore YOU are evil!!!". My point is, how badly do *you* personally feel, about the things that you have or have acquired, that *may* have been built, using exploited resources or labor from 2nd or 3rd world countries, that you in turn, enjoy? Things that allow you to express yourselves creatively, and so on? How bad? How many nights do you spend staring at the ceiling unable to sleep because some poor bastard in Southeast Asia got a buck fifty a day and no bathroom breaks making your guitar, or amp, or distortion pedal or cab, or effects unit? I ask because I'm interested in your level of guilt. Not because you're part of the system, because if you even *have* a computer to type on and read this, you ARE part of the system. That's a given.
> 
> ...



Alright, so this is another great misconception about leftists or anyone who does not like capitalism. If you read real socialist literature/critical theory (not US democrat/liberal/hippie narrative), you will see that at no point do they advocate that leftists just abandon society and go live in the wood and become hermits. For one, you cannot change capitalism by escaping from it. In fact, you cannot. This is because socialism itself is a product of capitalism; it's all about structures. It is useless to think of socialism by itself; socialism only exist inside its relationship to capitalism. Therefore, at no point is there an opposition to the technological advances, commodities, or the infrastructure created in capitalism. 

In fact these are essential in order to achieve change, you get me? You uses the system's own infrastructure and technology and use it against it. This is why for instance, Twitter and Facebook played a crucial role in the Arab Revolutions, this is why groups like Anonymous and the Anti-capitalist that demonstrated in the g-20 summit were computer nerds, this is why historically many revolutionary figures have been middle class professionals. 


Also, are we discussing politics or are we talking about my lifestyle? If you want to know about me personally, sure, I'll share some info. I do try my best to buy American products that are made by people paid decent salaries and have decent jobs, I play Carvin guitars, Mesa Boogie amps, and a Fractal Audio Axe Fx. A large part of my clothes are also made here in the US by young people like me. I am vegetarian and I try to eat organic, no leather/fur/suede, I read Al-jazeera news and other left-leaning news outlets/literature on my laptop and my smartphone. Now in order to fund this lifestyle (which can get pricy at times) I work for a family owned business (I'm lucky not to work for some corporate a-hole).

Again, people think that leftist are either hippies living their own little world, or poor angry peasants, or guerrillas. This isn't true. I can work hard, earn money and make a good living for myself, and find happiness doing things that I like and spending time with my family/friends even if I don't like the system. And can try to be pro-active in advocating change if I chose to as well.

I do feel bad for the people who are suffering from exploitations, and I use the means that I have in order to convey my message against the system that exploits them. I don't really see the contradiction right wingers like to point call out. I am confident on my ability to be competent and using my talents to improve life for me and my loved ones. That doesn't mean the reality of poor working people around the world is the same as mine or that these people shouldn't be treated with decency and dignity; I do not look at the world through the lens of my personal reality.

Right wingers would like you to think that you can just get away from it all and let things be. But all that does is make you live a lie and let the cycle of capitalist degradation of the planet continue. I'm sure many civil rights activist would have liked to move to another place where they didn't have to deal with all the shit they did, but that wasn't the point. 



orb451 said:


> I didn't know the Right wing *had* a narrative. But I think you're stretching things if you think the Right wing has an oppressive narrative designed to keep minorities down. That cards been played a million times and it too, is getting old.
> 
> And again with the guilt trips. When do they end? And when do people bitching about it, pony up and practice what they preach? When do you go "off the grid" and live happily in the woods off the land, the way they did a few centuries ago?
> 
> What is convenient is that it starts to sound like an ever growing and all encompassing conspiracy. The "illuminati" or some such group have organized all these different governments and businesses together, working in tandem to *take* your money and keep you down. That's what is convenient..




The right wing does have a distinct rhetoric focused precisely of blaming the ills of the system on minorities IMO. Not all right wingers are racists but all racist are right wingers. Yes, the card is getting old, but what do you expect if a group of people within the right wing are giving them every motive to play it? Don't tell me the right wing would do otherwise if it was the opposite case.

As far as guilt trips, some see them as guilt trips. Others see it as just history and reality. You may not like to be reminded of them, but you cannot undo the past.If you do not like them, then you can try to contribute to the change instead of telling people to conform and just be happy with the way things are 

Again, living in the wood may be nice but it does not change things or make them better. Keep in mind that what anti-capitalist feel bad about is the oppression of others, not just themselves. So one could live comfortable and happy, and still speak out against the evils of capitalism. 

Conspiracy? Hmm... I don't think so, they capitalist are pretty obvious in what they are trying to do. Right-wing governments in developing countries work closely with businesses/elites, the military and the clergy in order to keep the oppressive order alive, and these governments work closely with the interests of US/Europe; this is a well know fact. And it definitely not convenient, at least not for poor working people. 





orb451 said:


> Countries should be afforded their own right, to their own destiny. I would be thrilled if the USA stopped getting involved in other countries affairs. Absolutely thrilled. Let's take care of our poor, hungry and homeless and THEN worry about the rest of the world's ills. But the hippies don't like that. They want us to take blame for fucking the world up in the past, and then complain when we try to intervene to help them in the present and future. It's a no-win situation. So what's the winning move? Don't play the game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with the first 3 sentences. Idk what the hippies may like, as I'm not a hippies. Some hippies are leftists but not all leftist are hippies, and leftist are definitely not democrats. As far as real leftists are concerned, democrats are just center-right and republicans are just the right. Now, whether the US takes the blame is kind of irrelevant if they do nothing to change their foreign policy. Change, that's what it comes down to. The US is a lousy helper, if a helper at all. The best thing to help countries is not too intervene IMO. Look at all the lives lost and all the damage cause by the US trying to impose their 3rd world version of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Look at Latin America, the past 10 year that the US has shifted its focus to the middle east has actually resulted in positive changes in the region in terms of economic, democracy, and human development. This isn't US-hating rhetoric, you can love your country without apologizing/justifying/advocating what you think it is doing wrong. 

Finally, colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism are definitely tied together as far as leftist are concerned. I see them as an evolution form one system to the other in order to preserve the same balance of power that has prevailed since colonial times. Also, capitalism has reinforced the colonial structures of oppression that remain alive in many former colonies. "Who controlled the past now controls the future, who controls the present now, controlled the past" 


Hope this is at least interesting to read


----------



## Explorer (May 29, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I can't help but wonder how broad the difference is between a theocracy and a democracy in which the majority of the voters espouse the same religious ideals.



I'd guess that the differences would depend on how many protections there are for the minority. If there are none or few, then there'd be no reason for the majority to respect the minority. 

I'd say that we're lucky that the Puritans lost on that one. They left Europe not because of religious intolerance, but because they felt others were *too* tolerant. They did establish a theocracy in New England. 

As a musician, I suppose I'm even more grateful, given that they outlawed musicial instruments where they could. 

----

An interesting aspect to the idea of the US being a Christian nation is that the majority of Supreme Court cases dealing with protection from imposition of religion are filed by Christians, upon Christians. 

Given that, how much of a majority actually exists, if each group is counted as separate when there are doctrinal differences sufficent to file suit?


----------



## Holy Katana (May 30, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Holy Katana,
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black much? I'm naive because I believe capitalism works for the USA? And I'm potentially a sociopath as well? Priceless.  Here we go again with the black and white logic. Something is either this, or it's that. Is that how the world works? First, I'm not saying "unfettered capitalism" is the best system for humanity. I'm talking about things in the USA. And we have a hybrid model here. Medicare and Social Security are as close to socialism as we're likely to get. But as they currently stand, they're pretty far from "unfettered capitalism". I think capitalism works for the USA, but it does need boundaries, as any system does. People like to throw around this free market jargon like it's a dirty word. And more over, they like to throw it around as if it's all conservatives wet dream. And lastly, they like to throw it around as a blanket statement that they think covers everything, every business and every individuals' ultimate goal or end-game.



I was under the impression that you were a right-libertarian, and were in support of unfettered capitalism. Apparently not. Sorry for being mistaken. Second, you misinterpreted what I said. I said if you thought unfettered capitalism -- that is, a completely free market without any interference from the government, whether or not it could be potentially helpful for the market -- was the ideal system for humanity, then I believe there would be a tendency for you to be either at least a little bit naive or a little bit sociopathic. That doesn't hold for someone who believes it should have limits. It's not black-and-white logic; it's an observation I've made about people who want a completely free market. They tend to come in two primary flavors: people who put complete faith in the market to create a perfect society, and people with social Darwinist tendencies who fully embrace the dog-eat-dog competition and don't care what happens to people who can't keep up. Those are two extremes, though, and there are people who aren't quite at those extremes, but tend to lean one way or the other at varying levels. Then there are people who don't believe either of those things. And even then, if I said it applied to anyone in support of capitalism, I didn't say you were both. I didn't even say you were either. I said it was _likely_ you had at least slight tendencies of one or the other, but then I didn't know you weren't a right-libertarian. Trust me, I'm not a very black-and-white person. I'm not saying that all right-libertarians are cripplingly naive or complete sociopaths. But anyway, that's beside the point.

Medicare and Social Security are influenced by European social democracy, not socialism. Social democracy is sort of a mixed system that holds that capitalism's faults can be fixed by means of a gigantic welfare state. Most socialists do support welfare programs in a capitalist system, as they make capitalism more livable, but ultimately, they serve the purpose of pacifying the workers. I think it's only humane, though, and being against such programs in hopes of making workers so miserable and angry that they can't take it anymore and hence revolt more quickly is, while logical from a purely utilitarian standpoint, extremely cruel. Yet I've heard a couple of people advocate exactly that. And I agree, they're very far from unfettered capitalism. I didn't know you were in support of the system as it is right now, like I said. I was under the impression that you were in favor of privatizing all public services except the most basic ones, like law enforcement and military.

I was only throwing around the free-market jargon because I was under the impression that that's what you wanted. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. 



orb451 said:


> Let me tell you that it's not. There are limits. As there should be, for any sane individual, group, government or company. And again, this goes back to black and white logic. If yours is such that you only see things in binary terms, then I'm sorry, that's something you'll need to get over.



See above. I wasn't aware that wasn't your thing. I'm not trying to think in black-and-white terms, honestly. It's something I think is a problem with many (even most) political ideologies, and something I actively try to avoid. However, it's a characteristic people often have, because it's easier to think in those terms. Dichotomies generally aren't good, though, because they're usually too simplistic, especially if one tries to reduce everything to a single dichotomy.



orb451 said:


> None of you are answering my questions directly so here's a few direct questions and if you're "too tired" or "too strung out" on meds or band practice or life in general, then don't bother responding at all. Send me a PM sometime when you're lucid and on your game.
> 
> Where are the limits with Anarchism? Where specifically is an individual prohibited or restricted from pursuing a goal? What if an individual's goal, in an anarchic society, is to make money, a lot of money? What boundaries are there to prevent him from exploiting others in the same way that capitalism does? Isn't one of the tenets of that system: do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't hurt someone else? My question is, who and what stands in the way of someone doing just that? Doing what they want or love, and in the process (either purposely or inadvertently) hurting someone else?
> 
> I mean to me, it sounds like anarchism works in very small groups. And everyone in the group has to agree to the same basic rules. Isn't that the direction the discussion went a few pages back? And wasn't it pretty much acknowledged that it worked in small groups and so long as people agreed to go in the same basic direction, but failed when you scaled it up?



The limits with anarchism? Well, that depends entirely upon what people have agreed on. For example, in anarcho-communism, money doesn't even exist, and instead goods and services are distributed via a gift economy, where stuff would be given away as "payment" for the person's labor, and unwanted stuff could also be given away, too. Although not all anarcho-communists are against trade (many are, though), just trade that involves money. 

I think that ideally, the entire world wouldn't be anarcho-communist, though, because there are definitely people who wouldn't want to be involved in it. And so in a hypothetical stateless society, there could be various communities doing their own thing, many of which would likely still use money, perhaps involved in trade with other communities that have similar systems. So, let's take your hypothetical individual who wants to make as much money as possible. Well, they'd probably have to work longer and harder than other people to get that money, although people would be paid more in general due to the fact that the hierarchy in workplaces would be dissolved, and so you wouldn't have middle management or executives who are paid a larger sum, even though they do less work. And of course, since there's no government, there wouldn't be any taxes. I suppose overhead would still exist, but all in all, people would be paid more. I don't really know a whole lot about how stuff like mutualism works, so I can't really say too much. Also, in mutualism, everyone owns their own means of production, which they can either use alone or in a co-op. And there's also a market. That's about all I know about mutualism, though. As for anarcho-syndicalism, it depends, but most don't seek to abolish money. 

Are you asking about law enforcement or something? Like, what would prevent someone from just taking someone's money? Well, that's something people have been talking about for a while now, since obviously that's important, and there have been various ideas as to how that would be dealt with. Well, there are no laws, of course. So you're probably thinking, "What's stopping someone from exploiting another person?" To be honest, I don't know. There are various alternatives proposed to laws and police, but I don't really know very much about them. I can see why you asked it, but I don't think that the fact that I don't know makes my views any less legitimate. I don't know, but I can know. It's not like it's something that's a burning question throughout anarchist circles, although it's often asked by non-anarchists and newcomers to anarchism (and I'm a relative newcomer, having not even been an anarchist for a year). And there are different answers to the question. I'm not trying to dodge your question; I just don't know enough to answer it completely. I mean, in an anarcho-communist society, it wouldn't even be possible to acquire _more_ money, since as I explained earlier, there's no money to begin with. And I've been focusing my learning about anarchism primarily on anarcho-communism, as that's the form I'm the most interested in. 

I know this post is very long and convoluted, and I probably didn't reply satisfactorily to you, but I tried. It probably doesn't make you think of me or any of the other anarchists here as any more than a bunch of goddamned punks who won't grow up, but I tried.


----------



## orb451 (May 30, 2011)

Holy Katana said:


> ...Your Comments...



Well we definitely have a difference of opinion with respect to capitalism. But, I really appreciate you taking the time to answer and also for being honest about what you know and what you don't know about the system you're advocating.



Now get off my fucking lawn ya PUNKS!


----------



## fwd0120 (May 30, 2011)

Epic thread is epic.

So my view is, this obama thing has kinda run it's course, he a bit of a noob, it 'prolly takes him 3 hours to change his strings. I would vote for RP maybe if he won the primary, but some of his views are out there and/or slightly extreme (don't read "extremist"  ) . imo, Herman cain get's my vote, seems the most reasonable to me. NOT newt gingrich, he's annoying. palin needs to seriously shut up, B/c she's digging herself into a deeper hole everytime she opens her mouth .

That is all, and in the words of dennis miller "It's just my opinion, I could be wrong"

/thread


----------



## orb451 (May 30, 2011)

renzoip said:


> I understand the business cycle, so no problem there. However, I don't see "the market" as some invisible force that works on its own and sets the prices freely.



No definitely not, but a business produces a good or service, determines what its cost should be and then brings it to the market. The market, being made up of consumers, determines if the good or service being made available is worth the money that the company is trying to charge. If it is, the product can attain some level of success. If not, the market speaks and the business must listen and adapt accordingly. Now a variety of things come into play when initially setting the price for goods and services and as time goes on, more things come into play that can either raise or lower their price.

I think this is a philosophical difference between your opinion and mine. I don't see the word *profit* and automatically think that that's bad. Nor do I look at the phrase *increased profits* is necessarily bad. It's all about context to me. You said you own(ed) an AxeFX, me too, now the new AxeFX-II is coming out and the price is slightly higher than a current *new* Ultra. So if the market is willing to pay $2199 for the new unit and Cliff makes some additional money, I have zero problems with that. Maybe not you, but some on here sure make it sound like making *any* profits is bad, let alone higher profits. And importantly, the new price point for this thing may be higher *both* because it's a better unit and that's what the market will bear, AND because it costs Cliff more to produce it. It seems the point of increased costs to both the consumer (cost of living, inflation, etc) and increased costs to producers (higher transportation costs, union strikes, taxes, etc) can cause things to go up in price, thereby making it *seem* as though corporations making these things, are just doing it to "stick it to you, the end user/consumer". 




renzoip said:


> I know that businesses attempt to get consumer what they want at the most profitable price.



I don't think so. Look at the AxeFX, if he came to market with his new Axe-II and tried charging $5999 for it, *some* would probably still buy it, but the majority most likely wouldn't. What if the Axe-II costs him $1000 to make and the current price is $2199, that's still a lot of profit, but again, doesn't take into account overhead, etc. Assuming for a second at the end of the day, Cliff walks away with $500 for every unit sold, he could bring the device to market and try to sell it for 6K and take home 3 or 4K in pure profit for himself. But he can't. The market most likely won't allow it.

Apple could try to trade on their name and charge $1500 for an 16GB iPod touch. But the market would likely not allow it. So no, businesses can't get the consumer what they want at the *most* profitable price. They have to take into account what the costs per unit are to make them, as well as what similar past products have sold for, as well as what their competition is selling for. And that's still grossly oversimplifying things. But you get my point right? It's not like they make a widget and then arbitrarily pick some insanely high price with huge margins in order to bilk consumers. A lot of things come into play to set that price and set their profit levels.



renzoip said:


> But this is the same rationale used by drug traffickers, kidnappers, and human traffickers. There may be demand for whatever service/commodity, the so called market is only concerned on getting it but not on how they get it.



No, I think you're wrong there too. Drug traffickers, human traffickers, etc are in it for the profits only. And they are in it explicitly because it exploits others and affords them high profits. This is completely different than a legitimate business that can actually try to provide a good or service (a legal one) that people want or need. Sure they both make a profit, but where one's goal is *solely* profits (e.g. traffickers), and another is profits and legitimate goods and services, the similarities stop there. 

If you look hard enough, somewhere in everyone's supply chain, there is likely to find what a bleeding heart would call "exploitation". I mean it's almost as though because someone actually had to work for a living, that they're being exploited. That's one thing I just don't understand.

Again, look at the AxeFX, it's made in the USA but the components are manufactured overseas. Look hard enough at some IC or chip in the thing and you're likely to find some company in Asia that's producing them and paying their employees what *we* would consider a shit wage. My point is, if you look hard enough, EVERYTHING has its problems and drawbacks. But again, does that stop us from buying these things? Do we really *need* them? Or do we just *want* them because they make our lives more enjoyable?

I don't feel guilty at all because I buy things that *may* have come from someplace where someone *may* have been *exploited* according to a bleeding hearts definition of the word exploitation. I just don't. 



renzoip said:


> If people want it and its profitable, the market is wiling to overlook things like exploitation, degradation of the environment, risking the health of people, torture of animals, etc. At no point is there concern for the well being for people/animals/environment.



Yes, because again, the market is made up of people. People decide where and how to spend their money. And yes, most people don't give a shit if someone, somewhere down the food chain is getting the shaft in some way. I mean honestly, do you expect them to care more than any of you, if you're buying and selling some of the same goods that they're buying and selling?



renzoip said:


> I understand businesses are not charities, that in itself does not justify the above mention issues. Therefore, if business were left alone or aided by the government to grow with little regulation, then the damage done would be even worst than it is now. These issues cannot be solve merely by means of supply an demand, there is more to human life and society than that. That's why I argue that capitalism in itself is not good nor fair nor free.



Well if you truly understand how businesses work and the role they play in the USA, what is so hard to understand about profits and capitalism? I agree, a completely unrestrained company, like an unrestrained individual would easily provide an avenue for corruption and greed. There are some people, if they were unbound by laws, that would rape, steal and murder. And likewise there are some people, with restrictions removed, who would live normal, healthy, sane lives because they have some sense of decency. I think to a certain extent that businesses would do the same. Some would grow easily out of control if allowed to, and others would maintain a certain profit level with as little damage to the market as possible.

Look at your own family business, they provide a good or service right? And they make some sort of profit to sustain the business? If there were no regulations, would, in their own environment, grow out of control? Would they try to become the local behemoth, squashing competitors and trying to monopolize their market segment? I'm going to go out on a limb and say no, they probably wouldn't. Are they beholden to stock holders? No, right? Don't think that just because a company isn't publicly traded that they have to be a mom n' pop shop. I work for one of the largest minority owned companies in the USA with offices all over the world. It's publicly held and family owned. And I used to work for another company that was in a totally different market segment, that was 5 times the size, I'm talking BILLIONS of dollars per year in revenue that took amazing care of their employees, also family owned and privately held, in business for over 100 years. 

And my point is, without restrictions and regulations these large companies too, would unlikely swell and swallow competitors and try to monopolize the market or suddenly start charging $500 for a wrench or whatever. But, I'm not in favor of an unrestricted market because there needs to be boundaries. However, I'm sure we would differ in where and how much restrictions and regulations we'd put on businesses or the market.




renzoip said:


> Alright, so this is another great misconception about leftists or anyone who does not like capitalism. If you read real socialist literature/critical theory (not US democrat/liberal/hippie narrative), you will see that at no point do they advocate that leftists just abandon society and go live in the wood and become hermits. For one, you cannot change capitalism by escaping from it. In fact, you cannot. This is because socialism itself is a product of capitalism; it's all about structures. It is useless to think of socialism by itself; socialism only exist inside its relationship to capitalism. Therefore, at no point is there an opposition to the technological advances, commodities, or the infrastructure created in capitalism.



OK, duly noted. 



renzoip said:


> In fact these are essential in order to achieve change, you get me? You uses the system's own infrastructure and technology and use it against it. This is why for instance, Twitter and Facebook played a crucial role in the Arab Revolutions, this is why groups like Anonymous and the Anti-capitalist that demonstrated in the g-20 summit were computer nerds, this is why historically many revolutionary figures have been middle class professionals.



Again, I gotcha, you turn the system's components in on itself to initiate or sustain change.




renzoip said:


> Also, are we discussing politics or are we talking about my lifestyle? If you want to know about me personally, sure, I'll share some info. I do try my best to buy American products that are made by people paid decent salaries and have decent jobs, I play Carvin guitars, Mesa Boogie amps, and a Fractal Audio Axe Fx. A large part of my clothes are also made here in the US by young people like me. I am vegetarian and I try to eat organic, no leather/fur/suede, I read Al-jazeera news and other left-leaning news outlets/literature on my laptop and my smartphone. Now in order to fund this lifestyle (which can get pricy at times) I work for a family owned business (I'm lucky not to work for some corporate a-hole).



OK, no problems here, but I would say that you're lucky to be in that kind of position.



renzoip said:


> Again, people think that leftist are either hippies living their own little world, or poor angry peasants, or guerrillas. This isn't true. I can work hard, earn money and make a good living for myself, and find happiness doing things that I like and spending time with my family/friends even if I don't like the system. And can try to be pro-active in advocating change if I chose to as well.



Again, that's fine, I think the change your advocating is unlikely to come in the next few generations, but yes, you're free to try.




renzoip said:


> I do feel bad for the people who are suffering from exploitations, and I use the means that I have in order to convey my message against the system that exploits them. I don't really see the contradiction right wingers like to point call out. I am confident on my ability to be competent and using my talents to improve life for me and my loved ones. That doesn't mean the reality of poor working people around the world is the same as mine or that these people shouldn't be treated with decency and dignity; I do not look at the world through the lens of my personal reality.



But it kinda sounds like you do look at it through your own lens (as we all do) because you *are* able to do all the things you want, in a capitalist system, whilst trying to change the system itself. If you didn't have a family business to fall back on, where would you work, how would you make your living? What if your income was cut and you couldn't afford the things you want and had to buy cheaper goods and services? My point is, I think you're taking for granted the kind of situation you're in.




renzoip said:


> Right wingers would like you to think that you can just get away from it all and let things be. But all that does is make you live a lie and let the cycle of capitalist degradation of the planet continue. I'm sure many civil rights activist would have liked to move to another place where they didn't have to deal with all the shit they did, but that wasn't the point.



I think it's some people, not some Right Wingers that think that way. I don't think its as clear cut down party lines, there is only so much change that you can force down peoples' collective throats. You can show a hundred people a picture of an aborted fetus and some may change their stance on abortion and others won't care. Likewise, you can show a hundred people the horrors of the workers of the world in Asia and elsewhere toiling day in and day out to make myriad products and some will care and some won't. Instead of attacking capitalism, you should attack apathy. And I know you probably already do, and that's great, but when you attack capitalism, you need to have on hand a viable alternative that scales well and allows people the same lifestyle that they're used to. If you can't put a viable alternative system on the table, the moment you bring the horrors of capitalism to the masses, don't expect the masses to swoon over your ideas. 




renzoip said:


> The right wing does have a distinct rhetoric focused precisely of blaming the ills of the system on minorities IMO.



Again, this is your opinion. In my opinion, as a minority member, I don't see it that way at all. Let's call it how it is for a second, and abandon political correctness. There are, unfortunately, a subset of Black, Latino and White communities that *happily* accept a hand out instead of a hand up. There are large swaths of people of almost every color that will gladly exploit a welfare system in order to escape having to work. And unfortunately, these people have spoiled it in some people's eyes, for the rest of them. My wife is a social worker here in Los Angeles, she works with Latino families on domestic violence and sexual abuse cases, she's not a Republican or a conservative (registered Democrat) and she tells me about the families that need help and the families that are slothful trash. The ones with 5 kids, 4 different dads, living in studio apartments or hotels. They have no desire to work, and happily accept all the help the system offers.

I don't think it's distinctly "Right Wingers" that have a problem with people leeching off the system. Anyone with common sense should have a problem with people doing that. Shouldn't matter what party you're from. And I've never really gotten the impression that Right Wingers in particular want to blame me, the minority member, for the "ills of the system". I don't get that guilt trip at all. What I've seen though, is people getting lumped in with the bad apples. That definitely happens, but to varying degrees. And there is reason behind it, even if you fail to acknowledge or accept it. Some of the most conservative, ultra Right Wing people I've come across don't have problems with minorities provided they're working and contributing to society. But none that I know have tried blaming the "ills" of the system on minorities. Maybe I haven't met enough skinheads or separatists though. 



renzoip said:


> Not all right wingers are racists but all racist are right wingers.



This statement is just so horribly wrong, I don't know where to begin. I don't know if I should even address it, but I feel compelled to.

All racists are Right Wingers huh? So Brown Pride and Black Pride movements are Right Wing movements? Really? Somehow I don't think the national "Get the fuck out of here and go back to yer' country" rallies are ethnically mixed. I don't think you'll find Black Power advocates marching next to White Power advocates because they're both from the Right Wing. So no. I think you're wrong. Completely, 100% wrong if you think that all racists are Right Wingers.

Racism doesn't flow in *one* direction. It's not White vs. All others. I've met bigots and racists from every racial group that we have names for (Negroid, Mongloid, Caucasian) and several subset ethnic groups. 

You really lost me on this one man, truly. 




renzoip said:


> Yes, the card is getting old, but what do you expect if a group of people within the right wing are giving them every motive to play it?



Victim mentality, that's what I see more and more of. "Oh woe is me, I'm a minority and I'm a *victim*!!! The *man* wants to keep me down, tell me I'm worthless and deport me to someplace else!!! What can I do!!! All Republicans and the Right Wingers of the country want me out!!!"

It's bullshit man, total unadulterated bullshit.



renzoip said:


> Don't tell me the right wing would do otherwise if it was the opposite case.



Do what, play the race card? Say the Black and Brown people of the USA are trying to keep *them* down when the time comes? I'm sure some will, and some won't. Same as today. Some minorities want to hinge their plight in life on White folks keeping them down and others don't bother. So what?




renzoip said:


> As far as guilt trips, some see them as guilt trips. Others see it as just history and reality. You may not like to be reminded of them, but you cannot undo the past.If you do not like them, then you can try to contribute to the change instead of telling people to conform and just be happy with the way things are



Well if you're living in the past, expect the past to continue. If you want to initiate change, have something reasonable as an alternative to the current system.




renzoip said:


> I agree with the first 3 sentences. Idk what the hippies may like, as I'm not a hippies. Some hippies are leftists but not all leftist are hippies, and leftist are definitely not democrats. As far as real leftists are concerned, democrats are just center-right and republicans are just the right. Now, whether the US takes the blame is kind of irrelevant if they do nothing to change their foreign policy. Change, that's what it comes down to. The US is a lousy helper, if a helper at all. The best thing to help countries is not too intervene IMO. Look at all the lives lost and all the damage cause by the US trying to impose their 3rd world version of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Look at Latin America, the past 10 year that the US has shifted its focus to the middle east has actually resulted in positive changes in the region in terms of economic, democracy, and human development. This isn't US-hating rhetoric, you can love your country without apologizing/justifying/advocating what you think it is doing wrong.



And you can hate your country deeply whilst pretending that you love it. You may not like the way things are, or are going, and all I can recommend is that you vote for change. Just don't expect everyone to agree. And that's the beauty of America in a nutshell, the freedom to disagree.



renzoip said:


> Finally, colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism are definitely tied together as far as leftist are concerned. I see them as an evolution form one system to the other in order to preserve the same balance of power that has prevailed since colonial times. Also, capitalism has reinforced the colonial structures of oppression that remain alive in many former colonies. "Who controlled the past now controls the future, who controls the present now, controlled the past"



How can you call that systematic evolution and be opposed to what we have now? If it's evolutionary, then this, at the moment is the best system we have. It is the one that is most predominantly adopted and accepted to work. But you don't like the evolutionary direction that it's taken, and so you want to branch off and mutate to some other system. After Capitalism, what is there? What's the next big system that's going to work for the world? I don't see a viable alternative on the horizon.


----------



## Xaios (May 30, 2011)

TL;DR. Holy fucking hell, TL;DR.


----------



## The Somberlain (May 30, 2011)

Reading through this, it seems that I am not that radical after all

1. Anarcho-socialism for me is an ideal, a utopia, and it is very, VERY unlikely that we will ever reach it.

2. The market is imperfect, not evil, not quashing humanity, but imperfect

3. Any system will be as imperfect as humanity

4. The market, since it is imperfect, requires greater Keynsian and some Proudhon influences

5. A better system would have a more equal balance between the government, the market, and the people. If these three categories have a system of checks and balances, much like our government, society would be fairer

6. The nation state is becoming increasingly extraneous in a globalizing environment, a beefed up UN/IMF and localized councils would provide a better governing body than the soon to be obsolete nation state (I can explain this more if you wish)

7. Evolution, not revolution is the key


----------



## Treeunit212 (May 31, 2011)

Explorer said:


> *Explain simply how your system allows parents to better ensure the safety and successful future of their offspring than the current system.*
> 
> That's it. You currently have access to schooling, technology, food and so on. You're talking about changing rules, imposing something where someone else may decide to impose something harsher after you're no longer the dictator.



*ACTUALLY...* Going to a respectable college and earning just a four year degree can easily put you into debt for up to 30 years. My friend who plans on going to a four year private art school is expecting to owe $160,000.

If that's not slavery, I don't know what is.



aslsmm said:


> orb i love your political guts but fuck man, let's try to simplify.
> 
> all in all i have spent the last 2 hours reading evertything word for word. this is what i found to be the meat of the thread,
> 
> ...



I'll say this... If he doesn't cave into the Republican bases idea of taxing less and spending more on military while cutting vital programs like Medicare and welfare, I'd consider voting for him. Fuck the Fed.

Also, I think Orbs idea of Capitalism is very shallow. The idea behind it is great, but look around you. Look at places like Flint, MI where the "free market" nearly destroyed it, and then nearly bankrupt my entire state, while the current (Republican) Governor is cutting funds to schools and giving them to the Businesses that refuse to create jobs for locals. Every town in the country is slowly turning into Flint, and it's not going to get better unless we get our profit driven heads out of our asses and look a little farther than the camera at Fox News is willing to point.

Are Canadians complaining with their free Healthcare? No. Do they still get their Iphones and hunting rifles? Yes. How about Britain? They ACTUALLY have a Royal family that owns the country, yet their majority Socialist party keeps the country balanced and happy. Norwegians work less and make more, and are the happiest and longest living people on the planet.

So why the fuck is "the most powerful Country in the world" in the shitter?







Thanks Reagan. Good thing your hard work as an Actor earned you the title of President, therefore beginning this downward spiral we're still getting out of 30 years later.

Your witness, Republicans of SS.org.


----------



## The Somberlain (May 31, 2011)

I will answer your question, Treeunit, and it is quite simple:

A. With great power comes great responsibility, and yeah...
B. That great power is in the hands of the few, who just happen to be irresponsible.


----------



## Treeunit212 (May 31, 2011)

The Somberlain said:


> I will answer your question, Treeunit, and it is quite simple:
> 
> A. With great power comes great responsibility, and yeah...
> B. That great power is in the hands of the few, who just happen to be irresponsible.



Another great way of putting it. Reagan was the one who started picking apart Banking Regulation.

Government Sachs.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (May 31, 2011)

To sum up how I feel about Ron Paul. Let's see...

He's a bigot. He opposes women's rights. He opposes gay marriage (I've only heard religious based arguments which appose gay marriage. Never heard a valid secular argument, and probably won't ever hear one...). He wants a theocracy. He's a fundi who wants to impose his beliefs on the rest of society, like most fundis. He endorses bullshit alternative medicines. He believes vaccines contain "cancer virii", mercury, aids, etc. and the only purpose they serve is to harm children. He says fluoride gets "put" in the water to dumb us down/sterilize/make us sick. He doesn't even understand what fucking fluoridation is, fucking christ. All from a former doctor, a gynecologist? 

He's a conspiracy theorist proponent and supporter of other conspiracy mongers. He's either ignorant, ill-educated, ideologically driven or all of the above. His ideas are obsolete and/or absurd. They might have worked 200 years ago when most everyone was a bogot, a christian, all about "family values", etc. but they do not mean shit in today's world.

In short, he's a moron. =P


----------



## Explorer (Jun 1, 2011)

Funny. I was talking to a friend who is one of the "lost boys" of Sudan after my last post about slavery. He shook his head sadly at all the claims of knowing what slavery is. He served in an army until he escaped, while his sister was sold in the north as, yes, a slave.

He's here in the US now, has a decent job where his employer helped sponsor him, helped him get his fiance over here, and where they've made a good life. They had twins a year ago, and he is able to work, as opposed to being a slave.

How is it that he's so out of touch with what slavery really is, and some of you are so spot on? 

*laugh*


----------



## renzoip (Jun 1, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Funny. I was talking to a friend who is one of the "lost boys" of Sudan after my last post about slavery. He shook his head sadly at all the claims of knowing what slavery is. He served in an army until he escaped, while his sister was sold in the north as, yes, a slave.
> 
> He's here in the US now, has a decent job where his employer helped sponsor him, helped him get his fiance over here, and where they've made a good life. They had twins a year ago, and he is able to work, as opposed to being a slave.
> 
> ...




Well, I definitely feel happy that your friend was able to escape his situation and make it here to the US and that he was able to turn his life around and provide good for his family. Having that said, you gotta keep in mind that he is here in the US, with a legal residence (I assume). If he would have instead gone to Bolivia to work on the mines where your employer does not give a damn about you or your family, your life expectancy is short, and you have no access to education. Or if he was living in a country without legal documents, then he would be more prone to being exploited and taken advantage of by employers.

Life in the US can be nice under the right circumstances. But still, if you want to talk about capitalism, you gotta look at the larger world-wide picture. Not every place is like the US and not everyone who wants to be in the US can be here, and not every country provides opportunities for their talented people. So it's of very little use to judge using US standards.


----------



## Alimination (Jun 1, 2011)

Cyanide_Anima said:


> To sum up how I feel about Ron Paul. Let's see...
> 
> He's a bigot. He opposes women's rights. He opposes gay marriage (I've only heard religious based arguments which appose gay marriage. Never heard a valid secular argument, and probably won't ever hear one...). He wants a theocracy. He's a fundi who wants to impose his beliefs on the rest of society, like most fundis. He endorses bullshit alternative medicines. He believes vaccines contain "cancer virii", mercury, aids, etc. and the only purpose they serve is to harm children. He says fluoride gets "put" in the water to dumb us down/sterilize/make us sick. He doesn't even understand what fucking fluoridation is, fucking christ. All from a former doctor, a gynecologist?
> 
> ...


 

Good job! Hands down the most ignorant Rp comment I've heard all year! 

On a side note, I found this quote today on the web that I thought I should share. I thought it was kinda neat.

"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy." 
 Daniel Webster


----------



## Explorer (Jun 1, 2011)

renzoip said:


> Well, I definitely feel happy that your friend was able to escape his situation and make it here to the US and that he was able to turn his life around and provide good for his family. Having that said, you gotta keep in mind that he is here in the US, with a legal residence (I assume). *If he would have instead gone to Bolivia...*
> 
> Life in the US can be nice under the right circumstances. But still, if you want to talk about capitalism, you gotta look at the larger world-wide picture.



First off, I was relating to P- the claims of slavery from those who live in North America. I don't recall anyone posting from Bolivia. Basically, P- thought, more specifically, that those who kept using the slavery word were idiots who had no idea what it was to be a slave, what it was to have both parents killed and being forced into slavery, and who were probably middle- and upper-class kids who had little work experience and were likely supported in great part by their parents. 

And, if you want to talk about capitalism, you can decide that you'll not allow talking about the US as an example. It's your choice to omit the US from your posts, and no one can fault you for making your own choice on that. Similarly, others can make their own choices, neh?

I wasn't one of the ones talking about capitalism in the first place, just about how some use the word slavery without really knowing anyone who could explain to them how foolish they might appear. 

Anyway, enough of the off-topic in this thread for me. I was responding to the slavery thing. I earlier posted about my problems with Ron Paul. If you want to discuss how terrible capitalism is, or how superior another system is in granting rights to everyone (including the right to decide ones own destiny), I'll happily read such a thread.

Cheers!


----------



## aslsmm (Jun 1, 2011)

@explorer














dose this mean you not posting in this thread any more? hurray!! now we dont have to worry about overly dramatic examples or scenarios and passive insulting slams for every other post we put up.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Jun 1, 2011)

He's only pointing out fallacies guys. He's also much kinder than I. For he is at least trying to explain to you without using crude or sometimes cynical scenarios and the lowest of the low moments of stupid politicians as I would. 

Speaking of which. @Alimination: Care to explain why I am so ignorant? Exactly where was I inaccurate or spreading false information? I'm guessing we aren't using the same definition of the word as I do not sport a tin-foil hat. Alex jones is a DIPSHIT. He ignores actual evidence and backs up his claims with more claims. He never produces anything of value. Except when he steals others reporting that are actually credible and claims it was all him. He's completely delusional. I'm not joking. It's up to him to produce solid evidence of his claims. You can't say "Prove Obama isn't a reptoid!" or "Prove that he isn't from Africa." or that the TSA aren't "child molesters and baby rapers". He's a total ass. You can't prove a negative and it's a fallacy he relies most upon the most which his faithful listeners do not understand. Other than arguments from ignorance, from final consequence, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and good ol' argument from authority. He's also very friendly with Mr. Paul who also actively shows his support for a lot of the same (stupid) causes which Alex does.


I listen (still) to Alex's show every so often. I read and listen to his interviews with other reporters. He's a fraud to an extent, and he makes a lot of money from incredulous people. I'm glad that when I briefly _was_ a fan of that moron that he never made a penny from me. He once claimed his internet costs were almost $400k a month and passively pandered his fans to help pay for a bill that never existed. No fucking host or ISP is going to charge that much for monthly bandwidth use. He shouted about those potassium iodate tablets when it's completely useless in a radiation situation. Not to mention you get more radiation just from being in a concrete building than we've gotten from Japan. We get enough potassium iodate/iodine for optimal thyroid function just from eating everyday foods and more can be harmful to our organs. Oh, and of course, he was selling the shit from his online store! All the while sensationally talking about how everyone is running out of the stuff in order to drive up his own sales. How fucking self-serving can you be? 

He has actually convinced himself that he helps people. If not and he intentionally Lies For Jesus (Which is what the invention of many of the conspiracies are for, to discredit the works of science) than he is pure fucking evil. What a Fouchebag (new word just for him). He also panders fraudulent alternative medicines such as that Silver Lungs stuff, and other colloidal silver products, homeoptathic, and "homeopathic-like" products which are scientifically proven to do nothing. He should be laughed off the face of the earth. Just like anyone else with absurd or abhorrent beliefs who acts upon and/or propagate them. 

Ron Paul included. He hides it well, but if he ever got elected (which will probably never happen, too fringe and he and other nutter love to inflate their numbers...) we would all get raped. This country to turn in a theocracy, ruled by the Bible and his other paranoid and fear run ideologies. Prove me wrong  I'll stop wasting my time now, it's not like any RP supporters are going to actually process any of this for realz. But only tell me how "iognorant" I am or that I am a "disinformation agent." Or whatever multitude of slurs and things they want to tell or accuse of me because they've forgotten or never learned how to use logic.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 1, 2011)

@aslsmm, and others who may feel the same as he/she:

As always, even if you believe I am guilty of such, if you feel that someone has been insulting or harassing, report that post to the mods. If they feel that you are correct, the person reported will have action taken against them.

And, if you wish to have my positions stated clearly so that you can report it concisely, they are the following:

Someone who is against the separation of church and state is not a Constitutionalist.

Those who argue against separation of church and state being an important American value are disregarding Jefferson's writings on such, which the Supreme Court uses to understand the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Those who talk about capitalism being slavery have no clue what real slavery is, and my friends who have first-hand experience with actually being slaves feel that those who assert capitalism and slavery are the same are clueless idiots.

One should be able to choose whether one wants to use the US as an example of capitalism in action.

If someone doesn't want forum members to comment in a particular way on a public thread in a public forum, that person should not put it in public. If it goes on a public forum, that person should be ready for viewpoints which are counter to theirs, regardless of how much of a fan that poster is of their particular subject. 

----

I'm sure there were more points, but report away, friend. The mods' actions will tell you if there were actually hurtful and baselessly argumentative posts as you assert, or if you are wrong.

Good luck!


----------



## The Somberlain (Jun 1, 2011)

I love you Explorer!


----------



## orb451 (Jun 1, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Someone who is against the separation of church and state is not a Constitutionalist.



Why not? Where in the US Constitution does it say that there should be a clear separation of church and state? What line? What amendment? Go look for yourself:

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

If you're going to try to lecture people on something, at least have the fortitude to back up your claims. Especially when you're almost *always* espousing your opinions as though they are fact, and then on top of that, asking for people to back up *their* claims for things that are clearly opinion in an effort to make yourself look smarter than you are.

Here's a definition of "Constitutionalist':

constitutionalism - definition of constitutionalism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Read it carefully. Parse it. Interpret it. Then figure out what it means and come back here and you can tell us how you think it applies to Ron Paul and after you've done that, you can once again, come back and state where in the U.S. Constitution it states clearly and unambiguously that there should be a separation of church and state. 

I can save you some time if you don't want to do that though. Just concede that you are wrong. You clearly don't know what the definition of "Constitutionalist" or "Constitutionalism" are, and have ascribed your own views to their meaning. You've then gone ahead and asserted that Ron Paul has no interest in the separation of church and state (which he may very well NOT have), and then taken it another step into dementia by asserting that if he has ever described himself as a Constiutionalist, that it must meet *your* criteria for the definition of the word, and therefor since *you* cannot understand how anyone could possibly be in support of the U.S. Constitution whilst simultaneously having no interest in the separation of church or state, that they are loony. Out to lunch. I would just argue that you're not, once again, being accurate with words and definitions. And it's hilarious that someone who wants to call out others on words and their definition and meaning would make such an egregious mistake.



Explorer said:


> Those who argue against separation of church and state being an important American value are disregarding Jefferson's writings on such, which the Supreme Court uses to understand the intent of the Founding Fathers.



Jefferson's writings eh? I don't suppose those writings appear in, or actually *were* the U.S. Constitution? No, they were not and did not appear in the U.S. Constitution. However important it might be for Supreme Court justices to use his writings on the matter while trying to understand the intent of the founding fathers remains secondary, distantly, to the fact that there is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution about the separation of church and state. There is Freedom of Religion as part of the First Amendment. And as I said earlier, I think it's pretty clear what that means. You obviously must think it means something more than it does if you think it outlines in clear, uncertain terms, that there is to be a clear separation between church and state.

I think most rational people can interpret the First Amendment to mean exactly what it says, that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It doesn't say congress shall make every effort to curtail and abridge a local, state or government official, building, monetary note, song, placard, bumper sticker or poem from containing the words "God" or any allusion to a higher power or deity. The First Amendment doesn't say anyone attempting to hold public office in service of state or federal government shall be a sworn atheist and shall not make mention of, nor believe in personally, any "God" or deity above himself.




Explorer said:


> Those who talk about capitalism being slavery have no clue what real slavery is, and my friends who have first-hand experience with actually being slaves feel that those who assert capitalism and slavery are the same are clueless idiots.



Again with the insults. No? Because you said "my friends feel...". If my friends feel like you're an asshole, would you find that vaguely insulting? No? Good for you! But who are you to tell others how they should interpret things? Isn't that best left to them? Aren't they free to decide whether your complacency with respect to friends thinking or calling others idiots is tantamount to your tacit agreement? I mean with respect to insults, not stating opinions as facts, lest there be confusion.



Explorer said:


> One should be able to choose whether one wants to use the US as an example of capitalism in action.



What does that have to do with? 



Explorer said:


> If someone doesn't want forum members to comment in a particular way on a public thread in a public forum, that person should not put it in public. If it goes on a public forum, that person should be ready for viewpoints which are counter to theirs, regardless of how much of a fan that poster is of their particular subject.



Hey look, we agree!


----------



## aslsmm (Jun 1, 2011)

The Somberlain said:


> I love you aslsmm!



Awe shucks.


----------



## Alimination (Jun 1, 2011)

@cyanide anima

lol jesus don't shit yourself bro.

First of all I didn't mention anything about Alex related to ron paul. If your talkin bout the video I posted in the first page, I was explaining the banking elite.. which they already talk about on national every damn TV station and web. No point in arguing they're fake.

Anyways I already listed my reasons on why he isn't for theocracy, apposes gay marriage, blah blah and all that other stuff in a previous post. 

As for the conspiracy theory stuff. Like it or not that's his fan base. But I'll tell you this... have you heard him once mention 9/11 was an inside job? or anything like that out of his mouth?


----------



## hereticemir (Jun 2, 2011)

Hell Seven String,

Many members in this thread have made some strong points. Within this thread I fill we haven't really attacked the meat and potatoe issues. When America was created we where founded as a republic in the constitution It say and I Quote " We The People". America today is consider a demorcracy That same system that lead up to the fall of Rome because of politicians side note it funny how that name has not changed since it was created. They spent time arguing over the most mundane issue for their own personnel gain not the peoples. But what exactly did they give the people of Rome so they wouldn't revolt the gladiatorial games Modern day UFC the olympics while they raised taxes and sent inocent people off to war to kill more inocent people for interest within those countries. They divided the people through left wing/ right politics, through sports, people would really behind a slave that might have been kidnap from the same counrty as them or that person might be criminal from their distract. They also gave them and us the Baboloyian slave system the 5 day work week with you guessed it a day to gather your self and and another day for religous worship, You should read about that system theirs all types of fun stuff in that doctrine. Moving to my point stricly IMO. That is the same thing that is happening in America the people are sepperated fighting over these movie actors a.k.a so called politicians and not once have any of these people followed through they are all talk no action. Or they manipulate us into thinking national health care is good for are country that we need secruity cameras every where, police can search you, your house, car with out warrant and the president can take us to war with out congress a symbol of the republic " We the People" approval. Now all the minor issue that we are fight over in this fourum is redicules IMO. All i see is that we as brothers and sisters in this counrty are truly divided who cares about abortion, religon when america is on the verge of collapse and another great depression we should have bigger fish to fry like getting coporation and banks out of are political system stripping are president of all his unnecessary power try war criminals for their crimes against Americans, developing countries, the world. I mean come on we want to start a fight with Libya because the nationalized their oil and the Rothschild, J.P. Morgan, and Rockefeller bloodlines can't get their Fix i mean cut. We need to come together as people, Human being, brothers and sisters before we can even think about fixing are country let alone the world.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Jun 2, 2011)

Did I mention 9/11? No. But now that you have I do remember Paul was involved in the reinvestigation of 9/11 and had some affiliation with the 9/11 truthers. Mr Paul is selective of the things he brings up. He's too smart to directly say something which borderline constitutes treason. He says now that he has "abandoned" that viewpoint, as far as 9/11 goes.



He still speaks in the "conspiracy language". He uses all the common key phrases they have defined for themselves which only have meaning to the crazies. There is a definite connection in that regard, he supports them, they support him. They are almost inseparable. Ron Paul is far from mainstream so that's the only support he can get.

@hereticemir: That whole umm, paragraph is a really long red-herring.

edit: Don't shit myself? I didn't, but this is some pretty serious bid'niss. This whole Ron Paul "movement" is preying upon the things people _don't_ know.


----------



## Alimination (Jun 2, 2011)

lol conspiracy language

It sounds questioning your government even with a legit excuse is an act of conspiracy theory. What makes you think government is all trustworthy at all? We got guys like Nixon with water gate all the way to John adams atempting to limit free speech. Just ask guys like George Carlin... government is not here for your best interest! Why wouldn't you be for questioning them? 

and to be dead honest, I would rather be sided for a guy who cheers for people sharing their own oppinion then have their gaurds kick them out of a building for asking a question. Freedom of speech was meant to be controversial.

and I beg to differ, again I started out as a Obama worshiper, till I later discovered guys like RP or Michael Badnarik. Eventually I began educating myself on all aspects of government and constitution. Can't say that I knew shit when I was routing for both bush and obama. :/ I feel that most RP supporters are the same.

Edit: I totally agree with hereticemir.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jun 2, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Why not? Where in the US Constitution does it say that there should be a clear separation of church and state? What line? What amendment? Go look for yourself:





You're kidding, right?

First Amendment:

*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."*

Article IV:

*"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."*

Welcome to America.

Sorry, but what little credibility your opinions had is now lost in my eyes.


----------



## hereticemir (Jun 2, 2011)

Well i can see my statement had nothing to do with Ron Paul but we could argue all day and still not solve anything. Ron Paul is the under dog chances of winning are minimal fox and cnn and csnbc demonize and or completely black him out in the media. Obama has a billion dollar relection campaign fund all the other candidates are jocks and not even serious about being president. Congress is about to pass a very dangerous bill that will pretty much give Obama the ability to become a dictator. The rest of the world see's Americans as having a very narrow view of the world and life in general. Well fuck it if electricity is raised to 300-1000 a month depending on what the new global currency is we will all be playing metal on good old grandpa guitars. Here I'll leave you with a nice quote from one of the ruling bloodlines and if you a want credible source for my information I'll be happy to oblige my friend.
* "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." &#8212;  Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863 *​ * "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" &#8212; Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild*


----------



## hereticemir (Jun 2, 2011)

He still speaks in the "conspiracy language". He uses all the common key phrases they have defined for themselves which only have meaning to the crazies. There is a definite connection in that regard, he supports them, they support him. They are almost inseparable. Ron Paul is far from mainstream so that's the only support he can get.

@ Cyanide_Anima

Well how did this word conspiracy come about. I see a word word that automatically discredits someone with no knowledge or significant backing with facts. I could be a conspiracy nut for saying Fox News corporation and CNN are completely bias news networks the modern day equivalent to fascist Nazi Germany and are used to confuse minds and dumb us down because most Americans not saying you will take every thing on the channel as truth no research involed word of mouth. I mean the German population did not they were losing the war until two weeks before they where invaded.


----------



## synrgy (Jun 2, 2011)

hereticemir said:


> Congress is about to pass a very dangerous bill that will pretty much give Obama the ability to become a dictator.





Care to elaborate on that little gem?


----------



## orb451 (Jun 2, 2011)

[QUOTEreeunit212;2507778=T]

First Amendment:

*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."*
[/QUOTE]

What part of my post above escaped your reading comprehension skills? All of it apparently. I didn't quote the text above with quotation marks but I put exactly that. 

Read what you quoted and what I quoted again. How is that a "clear" separation of church and state? All it says is, that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 

I think you must believe that is very clear and unambiguous or you wouldn't come in here asking if I was kidding. I have to ask you the same thing. Are you kidding or just trolling? What part of the above quote don't you understand? It means congress is not allowed to setup a law with respect to ESTABLISHING a state sanctioned, endorsed or approved of religion. It's not talking about a separation of church and state for if it were, it would say so. Explorer mentioned Jefferson's writings on the matter, which seem pretty clear and unambiguous. Why leave the notion out of the U.S. Constitution? Why? Because that's not what they intended. They didn't want a "Church of America" as in a "Church of England". They didn't want one faith garnering more favor than any other and wanted the PEOPLE to decide what religion they wanted to follow so that no one would be restricted from practicing their faith.

But go ahead and keep on thinking it means they didn't want God mentioned here or there, keep on thinking it means they wanted a line between faith and government. In other words, keep right on being wrong. 

[QUOTEreeunit212;2507778=T]
Article IV:

*"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."*
[/QUOTE]

Again, so what does this mean to you? Seems pretty clear that they aren't going to require that you pass a test on the Qu'ran in order to serve in congress, likewise you're not going to get grilled by a Rabbi should you try to serve in office. That no religious testing will be required as a qualification. Pretty fucking simple. Yet the meaning eludes you and you think it means that *they* mean that they wanted a separation of church and state. They just didn't want religious beliefs to serve as a qualifier for whether or not someone could hold office. Which falls neatly in line with their First Amendment saying that they shall make no STATE or federal religion. That because you passed a test on Judaism that somehow you're more or less qualified to serve in public office.

[QUOTEreeunit212;2507778=T]
Welcome to America.
[/QUOTE]

Welcome to reading comprehension 101.

[QUOTEreeunit212;2507778=T]
Sorry, but what little credibility your opinions had is now lost in my eyes.[/QUOTE]

The feeling is mutual.


----------



## hereticemir (Jun 2, 2011)

Right now there is a bill in congress called the national defense authorization act. With in this bill their is a component called the world wide war provision. This will give any president the ability to go to war with out the approval of congress. You can look it up yourself on C-Span.org/ and put in search National defense authorization act.

The world wide provision act is located under section 1034 of the bill it would authorize the United States to use military force anywhere there are terrorism suspects, including within the U.S. itself. Also the term terrorist is a very broad term it can be used against people who protest so called dissenter and any one who might have a problem with a political administration. It would turn are police and military into a " gestapo".

@ Synrgy


----------



## synrgy (Jun 2, 2011)

hereticemir said:


> Right now there is a bill in congress called the national defense authorization act. With in this bill their is a component called the world wide war provision. This will give any president the ability to go to war with out the approval of congress. You can look it up yourself on C-Span.org/ and put in search National defense authorization act.
> 
> The world wide provision act is located under section 1034 of the bill it would authorize the United States to use military force anywhere there are terrorism suspects, including within the U.S. itself. Also the term terrorist is a very broad term it can be used against people who protest so called dissenter and any one who might have a problem with a political administration. It would turn are police and military into a " gestapo".
> 
> @ Synrgy



I don't know where you've been for the last decade or so, but we've ALREADY had a President go to war without Congressional approval. The bill you're referencing is completely redundant, since our President _already_ has that authority, and we've already been using those provisions against those we believe to be -- or harbor -- 'terrorists'.


----------



## Alimination (Jun 2, 2011)

Yeah gona have to agree with synrgy. Lybia was also done under the UN and not under congress. It's such a joke. 

It's why I'm heavily against guys like the TSA or the patriot act. How could we possible further protect our 4th and 10th ammendment if we can't even eliminate such simple and obvious crimes? ...oh right.. terrorists as a scapegoat.

But you gotta remember the age old rule. The only reason government gets away with things is because the people let them.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Jun 3, 2011)

Alimination said:


> lol conspiracy language
> 
> It sounds questioning your government even with a legit excuse is an act of conspiracy theory. What makes you think government is all trustworthy at all? We got guys like Nixon with water gate all the way to John adams atempting to limit free speech. Just ask guys like George Carlin... government is not here for your best interest! Why wouldn't you be for questioning them?
> 
> ...



Must you assume everything of me? An appeal to a comedian to support an idea? Sure, Carlin was a smart guy and right about a lot of things. But he did go way off on some paranoid ideas, especially toward the end of his amazing life. He would always rail about his "perfect" logic, yet committed many fallacies in the process. Including red-herrings! Babbling on about why you distrust the gov't and the shit politicians have pulled in the past does not mean they are raping babies and building a world government. Something like certain individual politicians fucking up and screwing over citizens does not equate to the government being evil intrinsically. That's completely ridiculous.

Sure, the last 30 years have been fucked, I'm with you on that. But the government as a whole's purpose is to provide social and economic stability, which it does. Sometimes better than others. I do question my government. A LOT. I'm a skeptic by nature and naturally question everything. For example, I'm not really a big fan of Obama. He was a let down to many progressives such as myself. He's a politician like all others and will lie and bluff their way into office. He did many things he said he wouldn't and didn't do many things he said he would. But a presidents individual power is limited, he is not a fucking dictator. lol. 

As for the conspiracy language thing. This is true. Phrases like "New World Order", "World government", "Big Pharma", "they" in many contexts, (and many others...) and references to the Bilderberg group, Trilateral Commission and other similarly targeted non-governmental organizations are complete paranoid conspiracy-oriented phrases and completely give one's idealogical underpinnings away. Not to be a dick, I'm actually really trying to be nice here so that you may actually look into what I'm saying, but your arguments have no legs, they are fallacies. Bilderberg for example, is a completely harmless organization. It's a relationship building club, so that bonds can be established and strengthened to aid in and facilitate better business relationships. At the Bohemian Club they have a sign-up sheet in order to enter, the one week a year the club is actually present. All that is required too enter is to sign the sign-in sheet at the front desk, and be a member, of course. Many people have gained entry. It was fairly simple. They dressed casually, walked passed the front desk with a drink or newspaper in hand and were free to roam. There is NO security there, as many claim. There are some fun videos on youtube demonstrating this.

As for learning why these arguments are lame:

Logical Fallacies

These guys are really ideologically driven. They follow a predetermined idea and cherry pick to support it, completely ignoring almost all the contrasting evidence, or creating a straw man out of it and railing on that. They are often disingenuous and will completely turn on a dime when they see support of an idea waining. Ron Paul did that with the 9/11 stuff. When no other politicians with credibility were going to support "9/11 Truth" so he dropped it, later changed parties, and said "Absolutely not!" when asked if he believes in a 9/11 conspiracy. Not many critically thinking people can take most libertarians seriously. They have far too many misconceptions of what government's role is, how it runs, the ideas of our forefathers, and apparently have never read today's constitution. When they do reference it, it is usually an older revision which has since been amended. 

You see how they bait you guys yet? I felt like an ASS when I realized it because I had told some friends about 9/11 and all that shit. Notice how these ideas sometimes engross you and are urged to spread it yourself? I fell for the fallacies because the proponents poisoned-the-well when they portrayed the "evidence", they bash this idea that "They" are all EVIL and that the gov't is evil by design. 

Notice how the conspiracies are almost often scientific in nature: vaccines, fluoridation of the water supply, chemtrails, TSA scanners, nuclear power, s.m.a.r.t. power grids, modern medicine. Do you notice how these guys attack secular organizations like planned parenthood because it clashes with an ideology absolutely born out of religious dogma? And when that is pointed out, often these guys will attempt to "level the playing field" by boldly stating that science is also a religion, when it's not at all. As if by stating that science is also a religion that it is invalid? Apparently, they don't even understand what they are stating. Science is a _methodology_ not a dogma, science is constantly changing and evolving in order to improve and they hate it because it has the potential to 'disprove' their nonsense. Dogma is mostly static, only incrementally changing with the times in order to keep the sheep herded. They also take snippets of interviews with engineers and scientists out of context, and presented all of this from a distorted angle.

They also attack secularist and humanist organizations. They hate Bill Gates for example because he is an open athiest. He also has done and continues to do so much good for this world it isn't even funny. Oooh, he runs the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation and helped to start Planned Parenthood. He must be a fucking Nazi. :/ He does things for the betterment of humanity, not because a god told him what to do, or because he fears the lash. People like me do not hate religious people. I think the _people_ are great. But those ideas can poison society when they come in fundamentalist form. Such as Alex Jones, Glen Beck, RP, The Constitution Party, and many others. In order to get people who are not religious on boat the ideas need to have the appearance of a non-religious idea. These guys are not retarded, or stupid, but misguided and driven by ideology. Not reason, rationality, betterment of humanity or science. They do it for their selfish, harmful, sectarian beliefs.

Hmm, maybe I should be nice more often.... Just because one conveys something in a slightly cynical, satirical, or maybe drawn out to absurd lengths in order to illustrate something everything I say/type just goes in one ear/eye and out the other.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jun 3, 2011)

orb451 said:


> What part of my post above escaped your reading comprehension skills? All of it apparently. I didn't quote the text above with quotation marks but I put exactly that.
> 
> Read what you quoted and what I quoted again. How is that a "clear" separation of church and state? All it says is, that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> 
> ...






I'm not even going to bother.

Seriously, who has time like this to sit here and pick apart something they shouldn't even give a shit about?

(Orb does)

My eyes hurt now.

Edit: SO. MANY. QUOTES. x.x


----------



## fwd0120 (Jun 3, 2011)

[insert trollface here]


----------



## Explorer (Jun 4, 2011)

Two on-topic comments:

I'm surprised that some might not be aware of Jefferson's writings on the separation of church and state, given that the Supreme Court used them as a clear description of what the Founding Fathers intended in the Constitution. If someone wants to say that Jefferson never wrote that stuff, or that he never meant it, I'd be interested in seeing the evidence of that. Otherwise, one can read for oneself what the intention was, and why that intention has been carried out.

With that said, the point isn't that Ron Paul has stated that he wants a theocracy. What he specifically said/wrote is that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, and that he believes the US is a Christian nation. By extension, he is one of those who doesn't believe in what Jefferson and the Founding Fathers intended, or in what they put into the Constitution. If someone wants to post a link to where Paul repudiates his earlier opinions, which still appear on his website IIRC, that would likely be the only way to argue against Ron Paul's own words.


----------



## Alimination (Jun 4, 2011)

Dude trust me I'm with you lol I ain't a conspiracy theorist either. I know what you mean. 

(WEELLLL!!! minus the birth certificate thing. I mean I wasn't before!!! until he released it on the government page. Being a professional CG artist and graphic designer it was forged real real badly. Actually, it was so bad it looked like a newbie did it lol) but I have no comments on it's purpose, not sure why it came out the way it did, but we could leave that to another topic on sevenstring. lol

Everything else from Haarp, area 51 (though I do belive in aliens  hehe), trilateral commission, builderburg, ect I don't belive in either really. ..not gona lie though, I do find it fascinating so I do read up on it. 

But on that note, I still believe there are a lot of corrupt politicians nowadays that are just told what to do. I forget when it came out, but one of the senator of New York claiming the 3 branches of government are the president, *edit* house, and senate? ...reeally? It just makes you wonder how these guys got their positions in the first place you know?

My thing is, we should be harder on them, like a parent is to a spoiled child.
------

Going back to everything else, you can't deny that their has been a major power grab on the executive branch, and how our pussy congress won't do shit. I know some of you may disagree with me, and that's fine, but if you haven't noticed I'm a major constitutionalist. I just want my government to stop putting laws, restricting me, stop letting unelected bureaucrat control my currency, not censor things I love, or tell me what I should do with my money. 

Only thing I want them to do is back me up, when someone trys to infringe on my liberty, and that's really the only thing I care. 

I don't care about FEMA, I don't care about social security, I don't care bout government controlled schools, foreign aid to other countries, and more importantly.. I don't care about being protected from the evil turban wearing sand niggers (It's okay.. I'm middle eastern ). 



anyways I'll write more later. Gona enjoy the weekend with my family. Have a good weekend yall. I'm goin-a-guitar huntin'.


----------



## Thaeon (Jun 5, 2011)

Explorer said:


> And that's a valid point, and worthy of a discussion.
> 
> However, it's also a valid point that one might find a candidate who stands for that without said candidate also being the advocate for making the US a Christian nation, with no separation between church and state.
> 
> To me, the idea of any form of theocracy is much scarier.


 

Fortunately at this particular time, the immediate threat isn't a theocracy. It's the economy. No president will be perfect. No on is arguing that Paul is perfect. Just that he could possibly be the right man for the current job. I don't like the idea of a theocracy either. But I don't think he's really suggesting that we merge the church with the state. And if he were, there aren't enough people in congress who think that way to ratify that kind of unconstitutional law. As to finding another candidate who is like him without the religiousity, its irrelevant because we haven't found one, there isn't one running, so its really a moot point. These are the men we have to choose from. 

Another related opinion of mine is that its really dumb that you can't vote cross part in the primaries. Everyone should be allowed their opinion of the best person out of each party. I've never understood that.


----------



## krovx (Jun 7, 2011)

Just read this whole thread, very interesting read. Thank you all! Long time lurker, new member 

Granted, I see the injustice of capitalism when we export labor and what not, capitalism is an efficient and ravenous beast. However, I enjoy many of fruits of this system as well. I think when approached with prudence it is a system that can promote an enjoyable life. Here is an idea an economics professor gave me regarding capitalism, let me know what you think.

He considered thinking of capitalism of industrial countries as an evolutionary theory. What is the cause of the exportation of labor? The rise of the middle class and the desire for two conflicting things 1.) to be paid the highest wages, 2.) to pay the least for goods. This creates a consumer economy that then exports its labor in an effort to satisfy these desires. However, what happens in these new areas? The rise of the middle class again. This process continues, and if you look in our world, it has been happening for the past 100 or so years. Japan at one time was such a place, it began exporting its labor as well. Look at Japan now. Right now, China is the head industry, soon it will be overburdened and have to export as well. What is left? Africa, some other parts of Asia? His prediction is that in 80-120 years there will be no one left 'to exploit' in terms of cheap labor. This will cause huge shifts in global & macro economics. Possibly even military policies. The rise of capitalism usually results in the ability to provide more social services, or the ability to take care of the needy. This rise of the middle class increases the quality of living. Once crappy conditions soon become transformed, offering better life. For me this is just a natural process that will soon make the world a better place, but it takes time and as others have mentioned it is imperfect because it involves human beings. Granted, it is easier for me to look at this theory and not as one who is currently exploited as cheap labor. I know this is greatly simplified but it appears to be happening. For me, capitalism needs some boundaries or rules, otherwise, play ball! Let people choose their livelihood, reward those who invocate, create, risk, and work hard. Help those who need it, universalize opportunities if possible, especially education. 

Not sure where I stand politically but I am for jobs, healthcare, education, freedom of religion, and gun rights


----------



## RenegadeDave (Jun 10, 2011)

Read the first page, and none of the middle. 

I was kind of shocked at the fact that Ron Paul has been nearly a prophet since '98. His call on our foreign policy was dead nuts accurate. His call on our fiscal policy is dead nuts accurate, his call on Fannie/Freddie is dead nuts accurate. 



The first 3 minutes outline why bombing Iraq and Afghanistan would galvanize the radical element of Islam against us in an area where they would fight each other for power otherwise. Then from 3 minutes to -6ish minutes he predicts the fall of the housing market (a full 5-6 years in advance) and the toppling of the dollar and the rise of gold. From then on it's a shill for his campaign as president. 

I will say he's the most objective candidate that either party has fielded. Most R's and D's see what they want to see, Paul has called a spade a spade forever. Time just keeps proving him right again and again. 

The problem is he's not received the blessing of the Republican aristocracy so he'll have a total uphill battle because his policy is as damning to the GOP establishment as it is to Liberals.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 10, 2011)

There is one issue on which he most definitely does not call a spade a spade... although some don't think of his viewpoint on it as a issue as far as they're concerned, as they agree with him.


----------

