Ron Paul announces presidential bid.


Off-Topic Discussions

801 to 850 of 1,385 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, like, we're just putting the blame on me for anything we want now?

Unbelievable.


Evil Monkey wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
GM Goblin King wrote:


Undercut by the Chinese. The freemarket solution is to treat our workers like they treat theirs, then we can compete!

Mmm-hmm. Tell it like is, Comrade GM Goblin!

Man, must be getting so close to Fall with all the strawmen popping up .....

Don't federally subsidize an industry you can't compete in then. Or did the fact the Chinese can undercut us somehow escape notice when they were handing out pallets of cash?

Are there any industries where they can't uncercut American industries?

Scarab Sages

Kryzbyn wrote:
Return social security to a hands off bucket, and what goes in stays in.

You mean using what SS is supposed to be for and NOT for paying for stuff like two invasions and budget shortfalls?


Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Return social security to a hands off bucket, and what goes in stays in.
You mean using what SS is supposed to be for and NOT for paying for stuff like two invasions and budget shortfalls?

Yes. Exactly.

Scarab Sages

TheWhiteknife wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Return social security to a hands off bucket, and what goes in stays in.
You mean using what SS is supposed to be for and NOT for paying for stuff like two invasions and budget shortfalls?
Yes. Exactly.

I'd love to see someone actually stand up for it.


I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how Dr. Paul, who is allegedly a great threat to the corporate/banker hegemony that currently rules the United States, has managed to maintain for over twenty years an office in a body that is one hundred percent (absolutely without exception) owned and controlled by said corporate/banker hegemony.

Dr. Paul says and does exactly what everybody else in our government says and does: exactly what he is told to by his masters. He SOUNDS different because your owners thoroughly understand that the best way to deal with any opposition is to control it.


Or perhaps they don't actually own 100% of Congress. 75-80% is sufficient to control the body as a whole. Allowing a few outliers maintains the illusion.

Which is essentially the same thing, rather than having a few of their pawns act counter to their interests, they just allow a few ringers in, as long as they don't actually threaten the game.


Watching ron now -will give him a chance, although the stage is crowded.


Ron Paul might state that he's a strict constitutionalist, but how can anyone be sure when his own Statement of Faith contains nuggest like these:

Ron Paul wrote:

… I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.

It is God Who gave us life. As He is free, so are those He created in His image. Our rights to life and liberty are inalienable.

I am running to Restore America Now, and by that I mean that it’s time to protect and promote the basic God-given rights inherent in the promise of America.

We must stand for life — not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval.

(emphasis mine)

Also, how is it okay to be against government mandated discrimination, but okay with it if it happens on a state level?
Will the US really work if it's "reduced" to a collection of "kingdoms" with their own separate laws and as little as possible federal oversight?


Quote:
Ron Paul might state that he's a strict constitutionalist, but how can anyone be sure when his own

I'm pretty sure that his religion has a state church separation clause either in the system, or at least enough within the religion to make state church separation compatable.

Quote:
We must stand for life — not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval.

-The case for abortion is pretty much based on whether or not you think that a fetus at x stage is alive. The civil religious discussion has a pretty thorough hash of this.

Quote:
Also, how is it okay to be against government mandated discrimination, but okay with it if it happens on a state level?

Because under the constitution the states can pretty much do whatever the hell they want except print money deal with Indian tribes and collect tarrifs on things crossing state lines.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Because under the constitution the states can pretty much do whatever the hell they want except print money deal with Indian tribes and collect tarrifs on things crossing state lines.

The list is quite a bit longer than that. For starters the constiution says that states:

May not use religion as a requirement to hold public office. (Article 6 not the 1st amendment)
Must adopt a republic as their form of goverment.
Must abide by decisions of the supreme court.
May not grant their citizens special privelges which are denied to citizens of other states.
May not impose duties on imports not just things that cross state lines
May not grant citizenship
May not enter into a treaty
May not declare war
May not create a standing army unless approved by Congress
Must allow for trial by jury
May not pass an ex-post facto law

I could continue


The list is quite a bit longer than that. For starters the constiution says that states:
May not use religion as a requirement to hold public office. (Article 6 not the 1st amendment)

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

-Is a strictly federal regulation. Texas STILL has theirs on the books.

Must adopt a republic as their form of goverment.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

ie, the federal government must be a republic.

Must abide by decisions of the supreme court.

-Keep in mind that without the ability to legislate to the states the ability for the SC to decide anything about the states was pretty much limited to interstate conflict.

Quote:
May not grant their citizens special privileges which are denied to citizens of other states.

Now that one is simply false. Alaska writes everyone in the state a check from the oil company.

May not impose duties on imports not just things that cross state lines

-Listed

May not grant citizenship

-Granted

May not enter into a treaty

Granted.

May not declare war

Yup.

May not create a standing army unless approved by Congress

-Citation? The intended purpose of the second ammendment seems to run contrary to this.

Must allow for trial by jury

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

-Only applies to federal cases.

May not pass an ex-post facto law

A federal prohibition only.

If you have something saying that those prohibitions were supposed to apply to the states as well as i'd like to see them.

Also please please PLEASE note, I am not saying, nor do i think, that the way they originally set it up is the best or even a feasible way to run the country in 2011, i'm just saying that it IS how they set it up.


Evil Monkey wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
GM Goblin King wrote:


Undercut by the Chinese. The freemarket solution is to treat our workers like they treat theirs, then we can compete!

Mmm-hmm. Tell it like is, Comrade GM Goblin!

Man, must be getting so close to Fall with all the strawmen popping up .....

Don't federally subsidize an industry you can't compete in then. Or did the fact the Chinese can undercut us somehow escape notice when they were handing out pallets of cash?

China totally subsidizes their solar industry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Benicio Del Espada wrote:
China totally subsidizes their solar industry.

And their currency ...

And their companies ...

And just about anything else except labor unions and worker rights...

Yay for Communism!

Soooo ....

Let's start a trade war and block their imports!

...Oh yeah. They hold $900 BILLION in our T bills.

Guess what? That means we can't do S*!% to them. And that is the fault of BOTH parties spending like drunken sailors on leave.

Ergo, we need some fiscal sanity before we have to give them Alaska in trade.

Enter ... Dr. Paul ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evil Monkey wrote:
Ergo, we need some fiscal sanity before we have to give them Alaska in trade.

As long as Sarah Palin has to go as part of the trade, I might be OK with that...


Curious wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Because under the constitution the states can pretty much do whatever the hell they want except print money deal with Indian tribes and collect tarrifs on things crossing state lines.

The list is quite a bit longer than that. For starters the constiution says that states:

May not use religion as a requirement to hold public office. (Article 6 not the 1st amendment)

Which is why it's ironic that several states* still have laws against non-Christians (or non-believers, depending on how you read it) holding office and are thus unconstitutional.

* Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee


BigNorseWolf wrote:


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

-Is a strictly federal regulation. Texas STILL has theirs on the books.

Just because Texas has a law does not make it constiutional.

If it is federal regaulation then what is the meaning of the phrase "United states and the several states"

Quote:

Must adopt a republic as their form of goverment.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

ie, the federal government must be a republic.

The reference is to the goverment formed by the state in admission process but I will agree to disagree

Quote:
May not grant their citizens special privileges which are denied to citizens of other states.

The refernce is to legal privelges. So Alaska can not pass a law that only people who live in Alaska are allowed to own a car. The Alaska fund pays to people who meet a resident requirement. Since any US citizen can move to the Alaska and meet the requirement it is allowable.

Quote:

May not create a standing army unless approved by Congress

-Citation? The intended purpose of the second ammendment seems to run contrary to this.

section 10 article 1

"No state shall without the consent of congress lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in times of peace."

The second ammendment uses the term militia which was not intended to be a standing army. Interesting enough the President is the commander of all state militia forces.

Quote:

Must allow for trial by jury - Amendment six and seven requires jury trials.

ex post facto law requirement - article 1 section 10


Quote:
If it is federal regaulation then what is the meaning of the phrase "United states and the several states"

Its a two parter. All government officials, state and federal, are bound to the constitution. Federal government officials can't have a religious test.

Quote:
The reference is to the goverment formed by the state in admission process but I will agree to disagree

I don't see it in the new formation of states section. I think the intent was to keep popular uprisings from taking over state governments.

Quote:
The refernce is to legal privelges. So Alaska can not pass a law that only people who live in Alaska are allowed to own a car. The Alaska fund pays to people who meet a resident requirement. Since any US citizen can move to the Alaska and meet the requirement it is allowable.

Gotcha.

Quote:

section 10 article 1

"No state shall without the consent of congress lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in times of peace."

The second ammendment uses the term militia which was not intended to be a standing army. Interesting enough the President is the commander of all state militia forces.

Fine fine, no state armies then, toss it on the list.

:

Quote:

Must allow for trial by jury - Amendment six and seven requires jury trials.

ex post facto law requirement - article 1 section 10

I see it, i just don't think that it has to apply to the states. The founding fathers (who were not NEARLY as unified as people seem to think) would probably argue over whether the point was to apply it to the states or not.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


May not create a standing army unless approved by Congress

-Citation? The intended purpose of the second ammendment seems to run contrary to this.

A standing army is one made up of full time soldiers while a militia is (usually) unpaid volunteers.

In any case this one is steeped in history and is really more applicable to the situation in the U.S. circa the late 1700's through about the mid 1800's.


Evil Monkey wrote:
Benicio Del Espada wrote:
China totally subsidizes their solar industry.

And their currency ...

And their companies ...

And just about anything else except labor unions and worker rights...

Yay for Communism!

Actually, from what I've been reading in the past year or so, China experienced a pretty big strike-wave which led the CCP to raise the minimum wage.

Which led the multinationals (or at least some of them) to leave their factories in the Special Economic Zones and move on to Vietnam and India where labor is even cheaper.

Yay capitalism!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Evil Monkey wrote:
Benicio Del Espada wrote:
China totally subsidizes their solar industry.

And their currency ...

And their companies ...

And just about anything else except labor unions and worker rights...

Yay for Communism!

Actually, from what I've been reading in the past year or so, China experienced a pretty big strike-wave which led the CCP to raise the minimum wage.

Which led the multinationals (or at least some of them) to leave their factories in the Special Economic Zones and move on to Vietnam and India where labor is even cheaper.

Yay capitalism!

Which will lead to their workers making more money, thus demanding a higher standard of living, raising another group of people up from oppression .

Yay for capitalism indeed!


Because that worked so well in Latin America.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Because that worked so well in Latin America.

The land of la Mordita? Pray tell, has Communism fared any better there?


No, not really. Most of the time the communists keep getting gunned down by death squads paid for and trained by the United States.

Cuba was able to do some amazing things with health care and education, but they, of course, were artificially propped-up by the much richer Soviet Union. The Castroites weren't real big on freedom and democracy, either, but few Latin American countries are for very long.

And I don't know what "mordita" means, but I have heard the word "maquiladora." Fun places, those.


No pure -ism can work on its own, that's why things run best with a mix of several, both capitalism and democratic socialism.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

No, not really. Most of the time the communists keep getting gunned down by death squads paid for and trained by the United States.

Cuba was able to do some amazing things with health care and education, but they, of course, were artificially propped-up by the much richer Soviet Union. The Castroites weren't real big on freedom and democracy, either, but few Latin American countries are for very long.

And I don't know what "mordita" means, but I have heard the word "maquiladora." Fun places, those.

La Mordida (previous spelling mistake mine: Lo siento, I do not speak much Spanish.) directly translates as 'the bite'. It is slang for 'bribe' and is customarily used to denote the lovely Latin custom of having to pay off every government (or anyone really) official to actually do their job. Those who can pay, get services. Those who can't, don't get services. As far as I know, this operates under every type of government tried there.

As for the maquiladoras, I'm sure the folks working there are happy they have that job, considering their other options. Of course, it drains jobs that US workers could do (at ten times the cost), but try and erect some trade barriers against that. We can't even keep the border shut from illegal immigration or drugs. Make them maquiladoras illegal and they'll just move deeper into Mexico and make a whole new black market.

Has there been a Communist government big on democracy and freedoms? Just curious. How about a Communist country that people have clamored to immigrate to? Illegally? How about a Communist country that allows its citizens to emigrate if they wish?

And, believe it or not, I agree with GentleGiant. No true 'ism' ever works. Pure Libertarianism is just as pie-in-the-sky as Das Capital (and a kissing cousin IMO. The State withering away..Lulz aplenty). The crux of the discussion is just how much of Ism A, how much of Ism B. Does a strong Federal system work better than a more loose-union-of-states system? I dunno, ask the EU right about now.

Strong federal government works for certain things. Infrastructure. Defense. Long term investments like space exploration. It seems to do a poor job of fiscal policy, mayhap because it's always Someone Else's Money. It's easy to spend when it isn't yours. And pork = votes. At least it did, hopefully that paradigm is changing a bit.

With globalization it's all too easy to shuttle jobs around to where they're cheapest (as with maquiladoras). The plus side is that the wages may seem poor to Westerners, but to the poor shmuck used to working a rice paddy or a sugarcane field it looks like heaven come to earth.

The scut jobs will fly around the globe: China, India, Vietnam. Then maybe some of the more stable SubSaharan African nations or some of the North African nations undergoing Arab Springs next as the last group of nations' workers begin to prosper and demand higher wages. As long as transport is cheap. LCD* will always win. Heck, I just read that workers in China debone salmon caught in the North Sea which are then sent to America. Imagine that, it's cheaper to hire someone to fillet a fish thousands of miles away from its origin and it then hits markets thousands of miles from there before going bad.

Also, the genie is out of the bottle. Protectionism is unworkable. Read a little history about the last time during a fiscal crisis we decided to put big tarrifs up to save 'American jobs'. We didn't have a trading partner holding 900 billion on us then either. China they can use that leverage to scuttle any protectionist legislature we try.

*LCD- Lowest Common Denominator.


Evil Monkey wrote:
stuff

Yeah, that's why I advocate international labor organizing, otherwise it's going to be a global race to the bottom. And I have a hard enough time making a living at $11.50 an hour, I don't know if I could do it on $3/a day.

My comments above weren't motivated so much by my belief in international socialist revolution, although that's always fun to talk about, but as one of those workers who really can't afford to have my standard of living lowered.

I'm sure the maquiladora workers who are working are happy to have a job. If they're one of the (tens of? hundreds of?) thousands of female employees who have disappeared over the past bunch of years, though, they're probably not so thrilled. These aren't the Lowell mills. One of the reasons that labor is so cheap in these countries is because of the appalling lack of rights, social or political, that some of us are lucky enough to enjoy. And I am highly skeptical of your faith in low-wage manufacturing jobs' ability to wrench India or Vietnam out of poverty or raise them out of oppression.

Anyway, no, there have been no sustained periods of stable democracy in any of the so-called Communist countries, as I'm sure you're already aware. If you're trying to persuade me that the Stalinist model doesn't work, don't bother. I'm already convinced.

Of course, there haven't been many stable periods of democracy in the non-Communist countries, either. Even in our relatively free United States, the black population has only meaningfully enjoyed the vote EDIT: nationally for what? half a century? And the countries that historically and to this day provide the American corporations with cheap raw materials and now labor? Even worse.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yeah, that's why I advocate international labor organizing,

Kali ma, shakthi deh!


Union Thugee wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yeah, that's why I advocate international labor organizing,

Kali ma, shakthi deh!

Hee hee!

How long have you had that avatar ready to go?

Sczarni

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Union Thugee wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yeah, that's why I advocate international labor organizing,

Kali ma, shakthi deh!

Hee hee!

How long have you had that avatar ready to go?

I just thought of the alias today and went looking for a good pic. This one seemed to scream "Indy! Cover your heart!".


Well-played, stooge of the plutocracy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
stuff

Well, despite the meme that Libertarians want to become slaves of the corporations, I detest most of the multinats. Especially Monsanto, the Great Food Satan. They make reams of laws in collusion with the government, so that if needs be they can beggar anyone without a legal team on retainer. And we let them in the name of 'safety'. The roadblocks to getting any business started today are staggering. And the petty bureaucrats get their pound of flesh at every turn. And Krishna forbid you piss one of them off, then the building/heatlh/Environment inspector comes out to make your life suck.

As you said earlier, workers will organize, as they are starting to do in China. You can't infuse a population with prosperity and expect them to remain compliant forever. I'm certain there will be a Tianamen II eventually, despite the draconian efforts of the CCP. India is rapidly becoming a nation to contend with. Even Brazil is beginning to become a force in the Southern Hemisphere.

I'm sure the Mexican border cities (one of which I saw and travelled through first hand whilst stationed near it.) would love it more if the government wasn't in the pocket of the drug cartels, thus allowing the many people there to become prey to whatever twisted crap goes on. Or the many folks in the colonias of Ciudad Juarez who are looking to just make enough to raise a family, or maybe duck over the Rio Grande to somewhere where they might have a chance of living under the rule of law, rather than the sad mess that they suffer under. I helped build a family a house there. I saw how they live. But you know what? They were trying to improve their life as best they could. as do we all.

So what to do? Keep pumping up a president who appoints Monsanto and other corporate stooges to his 'Czar' positions? Vote for a bible-thumping dominionist who focuses on social issues while Foggybottom goes broke?

Or maybe, just maybe, vote for someone that both parties seem to want to vilify. Someone the media on both sides is ignoring. Someone who has been a lone voice in the wilderness for 20 years, trying to show how the government in collusion with these massive multinationals and the lawyers are stealing the treasury dry.

Liberty's Edge

I just thought I'd point out, though I don't know why I'm back in this thread as I am a poor political arguer, Libertarians do not want to be slaves of the corporations. As I pointed out to some of my friends, there are three types of economic spending: two of which the government is currently playing tug of war with (Corporate Spending and Public Spending). When we want the government out of the market, we mean we want the government to stop spending money altogether so that individuals can keep their income, savings, and inheritances and invest it into the Market. I call this market spending, and it doesn't involve the government at all. Beauracracy has been found to be fairly inefficient in market spending. We also don't think governmental regulations on businesses are good for the market. Small businesses don't need a hand out, they need an open hand. And corporations that are "too big" to fail should perhaps fail so that a more sound business can rise into that corporations' space.

Corporate Spending is the governmental interference with corporations. The ability of large industries to effectively purchase votes in congress, beauracratic inventions of the Federal Government, tsars and other advisory positions, are all aspects of the corporate interference that we see both to and from big business. They are mostly dangerous to free market practices as there are many hidden and blatant interferences with the Market and business cycles.


Evil Monkey wrote:
Or maybe, just maybe, vote for someone that both parties seem to want to vilify. Someone the media on both sides is ignoring. Someone who has been a lone voice in the wilderness for 20 years, trying to show how the government in collusion with these massive multinationals and the lawyers are stealing the treasury dry.

You forgot: "Who isn't also a far out religious nut and doesn't believe in evolution, despite being a doctor."

And you're absolutely right, are you going to organize a campaign to get Ralph Nader or Mike Gravel to run again? :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You also forgot: "and who wants to keep government from helping people in any way or putting any limits on what corporations do or protecting the environment."

Yes government can collude with Big Money to screw us over, but if government isn't allowed to interfere, Big Money can screw us over pretty well all on it's own.
And some people will be screwed over just by luck or circumstance or a roll of the genetic dice. Government must be kept from helping them at all costs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Which is better is better than colluding with business to screw us over, no?

I would rather stand with my fellow peasants against Monsanto (for instance) while an uncaring and impartial government watched, than have to stand with my fellow peasants against Monsanto, aided and abetted by the government. (aka what will continue to happen if President Obama is re-elected or if Romney/Santorum/Cain/Perry/Bachman is elected.)

Also- Evil Monkey, you impress me with your Monsanto hate. They strike me as pure unrelenting evil. Like the kind of evil that very well could doom humanity. Imagine if the Terminator seed would have ever made it to market?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:

Which is better is better than colluding with business to screw us over, no?

I would rather stand with my fellow peasants against Monsanto (for instance) while an uncaring and impartial government watched, than have to stand with my fellow peasants against Monsanto, aided and abetted by the government. (aka what will continue to happen if President Obama is re-elected or if Romney/Santorum/Cain/Perry/Bachman is elected.)

The problem is, when it really comes down to it, that no single President can really fix these things. It requires a major campaign finance reform and a complete overhaul or abandonment of corporate lobbyism.

Guess who's going to vote for these things? The very people who enjoy the benefits of them.


"GentleGiant wrote:
And you're absolutely right, are you going to organize a campaign to get Ralph Nader or Mike Gravel to run again? :-)

*shrug*

I voted for Nader in 2000. I respect his positions, and I have a soft spot for the underdog. I detest the fannish worship both of the proponents of the mainstream parties seem to offer. Voting party lines for an inferior candidate to punish another party is stupid. I vote the person, not the party. If I was going Democrat I'd probably lean towards Gravel. Although I have reservations about some of his stances, he seems more committed and real than many other Dems.

And as for Dr. Pauls religious stance? It is a personal choice, not one he is actively trying to legislate, unlike some of his contemporaries. So, would I vote for someone who honestly believes these things, yet has time and again said that his beliefs aren't going to be part of his legislative agenda, rather than either someone on the Right who is totally committed to doing just that or the current president who spent 20 years in a pretty radical Christian congregation? Yeah, I'll do that.


GentleGiant wrote:


The problem is, when it really comes down to it, that no single President can really fix these things. It requires a major campaign finance reform and a complete overhaul or abandonment of corporate lobbyism.
Guess who's going to vote for these things? The very people who enjoy the benefits of them.

I agree. I think that the seperation of business and state should be just as important as the seperation of church and state.


I would rather stand with my fellow peasants against Monsanto (for instance) while an uncaring and impartial government watched, than have to stand with my fellow peasants against Monsanto, aided and abetted by the government. (aka what will continue to happen if President Obama is re-elected or if Romney/Santorum/Cain/Perry/Bachman is elected.)

Exactly how are you going to win that fight? If there are NO government controls then Monsanto hires Blackwater , a tank, and an apache helicopter to bust up your peasant revolt. Viva las shadowrun!


BigNorseWolf wrote:

I would rather stand with my fellow peasants against Monsanto (for instance) while an uncaring and impartial government watched, than have to stand with my fellow peasants against Monsanto, aided and abetted by the government. (aka what will continue to happen if President Obama is re-elected or if Romney/Santorum/Cain/Perry/Bachman is elected.)

Exactly how are you going to win that fight? If there are NO government controls then Monsanto hires Blackwater , a tank, and an apache helicopter to bust up your peasant revolt. Viva las shadowrun!

I was operating under the assumption that murder would still be illegal. Anarchy would be pretty bad.

Edit-Do you really really believe that a government that completely separated itself from business would allow wanton murder and destruction of private property or was that just a strawman?

Also How would you win the fight against government backed Monsanto? All they would have to do is call in a favor (not even have to hire anybody!) and have a platoon of marines, a tank, and an apache helicopter bust up your peasant revolt. and it would all be paid for with taxpayer money.


Quote:
I was operating under the assumption that murder would still be illegal. Anarchy would be pretty bad.

Well, without government involvement i'm kind of at a loss as to exactly how you plan on doing anything to a megacorp.

Quote:
Edit-Do you really really believe that a government that completely separated itself from business would allow wanton murder and destruction of private property or was that just a strawman?

I don't think that you can totaly divorce a government from buisness if government is stoping wonton murder and destruction of private property. Businesses will have more private property, hence a vested interest in the government response.

Quote:

Also How would you win the fight against government backed Monsanto? All they would have to do is call in a favor (not even have to hire anybody!) and have a platoon of marines, a tank, and an apache helicopter bust up your peasant revolt. and it would all be paid for with taxpayer money.

So as you can see, money, government or not, does nothing to change the outcome. Unless its you AND the government you're hosed.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

I was operating under the assumption that murder would still be illegal. Anarchy would be pretty bad.

Well, without government involvement i'm kind of at a loss as to exactly how you plan on doing anything to a megacorp.

Maybe like this?

Quote:

Edit-Do you really really believe that a government that completely separated itself from business would allow wanton murder and destruction of private property or was that just a strawman?

I don't think that you can totaly divorce a government from buisness if government is stoping wonton murder and destruction of private property. Businesses will have more private property, hence a vested interest in the government response.

This makes no sense. The government already protects private property and they dont allow murder. But you believe that separating business from government will suddenly mean that murder will be ok? I really dont see your reasoning.

Quote:

Also How would you win the fight against government backed Monsanto? All they would have to do is call in a favor (not even have to hire anybody!) and have a platoon of marines, a tank, and an apache helicopter bust up your peasant revolt. and it would all be paid for with taxpayer money.

So as you can see, money, government or not, does nothing to change the outcome. Unless its you AND the government you're hosed.

Fair enough. Which candidate is that again? Once again, I would rather have to only fight the corporations instead of the corporations AND government.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Well, without government involvement i'm kind of at a loss as to exactly how you plan on doing anything to a megacorp.

Like this.


Maybe like this?

Ok, now i'm REALLY confused. Exactly how is filing a lawsuit with a government entity NOT involving the government or getting it on your side?

Quote:
This makes no sense. The government already protects private property and they dont allow murder. But you believe that separating business from government will suddenly mean that murder will be ok? I really dont see your reasoning.

Monstesso does something you don't like.

Your options are sue them (which is government involvement) or take illegal actions (which will spark government involvement)

Quote:
Fair enough. Which candidate is that again? Once again, I would rather have to only fight the corporations instead of the corporations AND government.

Nader. No ones bothered buying him out yet because he can't win.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Maybe like this?

Ok, now i'm REALLY confused. Exactly how is filing a lawsuit with a government entity NOT involving the government or getting it on your side?

Quote:
This makes no sense. The government already protects private property and they dont allow murder. But you believe that separating business from government will suddenly mean that murder will be ok? I really dont see your reasoning.

Monstesso does something you don't like.

Your options are sue them (which is government involvement) or take illegal actions (which will spark government involvement)

Quote:
Fair enough. Which candidate is that again? Once again, I would rather have to only fight the corporations instead of the corporations AND government.

Nader. No ones bothered buying him out yet because he can't win.

A) Suing is government involvement. An impartial and aloof government, which is what I said I wanted. I still do not see how that would allow business to kill people willy-nilly. Nice try though.

B) I didnt know Nader was running again.


Quote:
A) Suing is government involvement. An impartial and aloof government, which is what I said I wanted. I still do not see how that would allow business to kill people willy-nilly. Nice try though.

I had no way of knowing exactly how "uncaring and impartial" you wanted your government to be. It allows businesses to kill people willy nilly by being uncaring about them killing people and not caring about it while the corporations have the resources to hire the force of arms necessary to gun people down. If that seems too callous to be believed, I've been somewhere that was how it worked. So I'm not straw manning, i just didn't understand what kind of limits you did or didn't want.

An impartial judiciary decides the law. The law is written by lobbyists for the mega corporations. If you want to change that, you need to change how the funding works. In other words, you need to get together with your fellow peasants AND the government against the corporations to say "We're not going to let you do that" There is no workable "peasant only" option.

B) I didnt know Nader was running again.

He's not. So you're out of luck.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
A) Suing is government involvement. An impartial and aloof government, which is what I said I wanted. I still do not see how that would allow business to kill people willy-nilly. Nice try though.

I had no way of knowing exactly how "uncaring and impartial" you wanted your government to be. It allows businesses to kill people willy nilly by being uncaring about them killing people and not caring about it while the corporations have the resources to hire the force of arms necessary to gun people down. If that seems too callous to be believed, I've been somewhere that was how it worked. So I'm not straw manning, i just didn't understand what kind of limits you did or didn't want.

An impartial judiciary decides the law. The law is written by lobbyists for the mega corporations. If you want to change that, you need to change how the funding works. In other words, you need to get together with your fellow peasants AND the government against the corporations to say "We're not going to let you do that" There is no workable "peasant only" option.

B) I didnt know Nader was running again.

He's not. So you're out of luck.

A) Then we are in agreement. Thats what I am talking about: the separation of business and state. Lobbying should not be allowed. (at least in its current state, wherein heaps of cash equals political favors) Where I work at, if any of our buyers are found to accept any gift from a vendor, they are fired. Would be a good model for politics, methinks.

B) Once again, exactly my point. Out of this years crop of candidates, all but one is guaranteed to continue the status quo. And given the choice of standing alone vs corporations or standing alone vs megabusiness and government, I know which I would rather have.

Edit-I would like to point out that the "impartial and uncaring" government that I want doesnt mean that they just wouldnt do their jobs, rather I want them to no longer pick favorites based on how much cash has been thrown at them or how politically favorable their actions are.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
A) Then we are in agreement. Thats what I am talking about: the separation of business and state. Lobbying should not be allowed. (at least in its current state, wherein heaps of cash equals political favors) Where I work at, if any of our buyers are found to accept any gift from a vendor, they are fired. Would be a good model for politics, methinks.

Yes. And it's a mark of how little elected "representatives" actually represent us, insofar as all decisions at a government level trend in exactly 180 degrees the opposite direction.


As an aside, if the libertarians can promise me the return of magic, megacorps, and elves, orks, dwarves and trolls roaming through the streets on their way to a 9-5, then I will vote libertarian so fast, it will make dunkelzahns head spin!

801 to 850 of 1,385 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Ron Paul announces presidential bid. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.