If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US News)   Ron Paul quietly mumbles something as staff turns off auditorium lights   (usnews.com) divider line 135
    More: Sad, Ron Paul, White House correspondent, political cartoons  
•       •       •

6144 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 9:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-11 12:39:42 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: I'm libertarian and distrust corporations as much as I do the government, and I'm VERY anti-consumerist.


Curious what you mean by that. For me, one of the earliest (and most important) forms of consumerism was food labeling. How much fat, cholesterol, salt and sugar is in this product? Not to mention a list of the horrible chemical preservatives and coloring agents used. My mom has to eat a very sodium-restricted diet. Forty years ago, she would just have to die, because she would be eating food loaded to the gills with salt. Now we can choose foods that are low- or zero-sodium. And as a result, there are many food producers who provide foods tailored for people with special dietetic needs.

Are you opposed to food labeling? God knows the corporations were when it was first pushed. "END OF LIBERTY," they screamed, "END OF AMERICA. GUBBMINT INTRUSION."

Same thing when the government required seat belts in all cars. How they screamed! "THEY CAN'T TELL US HOW TO RUN OUR BUSINESSES!"

Are mandatory seat belts something you oppose?
 
2012-11-11 12:49:44 PM

Kibbler: Are mandatory seat belts something you oppose?


Wrong question to change a libertarian's mind - he'll answer instantly and unequivocally "yes". Because it should be our choice whether or not we die in a car accident, and if we don't, we will support car makers that put in seatbelts. Or some shiat.

Food, water, and air safety, on the other hand, are good arguments, as is deforestation and other resource depletion (big government approach: "ok, you can only cut this percentage of the trees and then leave it to regrow, or you can plant n trees for every one you cut"; libertarian approach: "well, we cut all the trees in the world down, now what?").
 
2012-11-11 12:55:25 PM

nekom: St_Francis_P: He has Friends in High Places.

He must. Don't get me wrong, it's good to hear a fresh new take on things, even if it is wrapped in total batshiat crazy, but he was never EVER a serious candidate. Yet he gets more publicity than someone such as, say Jill Stein, who has a completely reasonable left wing platform.


"Completely reasonable" was the first problem, "left wing" was the other. Neither one is ever "interesting" enough to get press because why should we return to the economic systems that worked in the 1950s?
 
2012-11-11 12:58:10 PM

Shaggy_C: Lichtenstein didn't give women the right to vote until the 1980s, and abortion is entirely illegal in all circumstances. Their tax rate is 1.2%. It's about the closest to a Ron Paul ideal as you can get in the real world - aside from the fact that the country is almost entirely dependent upon external nations to keep the economy running.


There are more companies registered in Lichtenstein then there are people.

yousaywut: Ron Paul is about as racist as you are. But I am sure you are aware of the fact that the letter you are speaking of was written by another and completely disavowed.


And before disavowing them he took full credit for them several times.
 
2012-11-11 01:01:35 PM
there are bits and pieces of wisdom in Ron Paul, he just has a bad way of explaining it and comes across as a nut job to some.

He would be about the only republican I would vote for
 
2012-11-11 01:03:59 PM

clambam: I'll go with "taking in more money than you've allocated for in the budget" as a suitable definition of a surplus, not "you can't call anything a surplus until we've completely cleared the debt back to zero." That's not the way it works, Ron.


But you contradict yourself - Bush put the wars "off the budget" so that way he could look better fiscally than he actually did. By your definition, he did a great job of bringing the country near a surplus, since according the the allocated budget he was only a few hundred billion from even. The simple fact of the matter is that the budget is nothing but a sham projection, given that the President and Congress decide what is left in and what is left out. What matters is the cold hard dollars at the end of the year and whether the nation's debt has grown or lessened. In every year since Eisenhower's presidency, the debt owed by this nation has grown. Moreso under Republicans, I will add, though Barry O is doing his best impression of a Republican with his repeated tax cuts coupled with profligate spending. I have hope that as the economy improves the next few years that we'll reign in some of the stimulus mentality and start to see the real Democrat (i.e., the fiscally responsible) in Obama emerge.
 
2012-11-11 01:05:09 PM

DemonEater: Kibbler: Are mandatory seat belts something you oppose?

Wrong question to change a libertarian's mind - he'll answer instantly and unequivocally "yes". Because it should be our choice whether or not we die in a car accident, and if we don't, we will support car makers that put in seatbelts. Or some shiat.

Food, water, and air safety, on the other hand, are good arguments, as is deforestation and other resource depletion (big government approach: "ok, you can only cut this percentage of the trees and then leave it to regrow, or you can plant n trees for every one you cut"; libertarian approach: "well, we cut all the trees in the world down, now what?").


It doesn't matter what you ask them. They all play the same game: 'I support the good regulations, but I don't support the bad ones'. So somehow there will magically be clean air and water, safe food, etc, while they simultaneously rant about the EPA, FDA, etc.

The issue is that anyone who supports even slightly more regulation than them is instantly put in the "authoritarian" box, while none of them, regardless of where they sit on the spectrum, allows themselves to be pinned down on any issues. It doesn't matter how crazy Ron Paul is, you can't hold them to that, but the guy you voted for fails to close gitmo? Well you are an ignorant sheeple.

Push the issue any further and you find yourself mired in a discussion about the intentions of the founding fathers and some cop-outs about states rights and how we can better control a state government than we can the federal government. It is an argument you can't win, because you can't punch the gaseous cloud that is their views.
 
2012-11-11 01:07:03 PM

Stoker: The article calls him a Libertarian. He's a Republican at heart and registry.
If he wasn't, he would have endorsed Gary Johnson "for the cause".
Two time partisan quitter.


Gary Johnson was a Republican who was a two-time partisan quitter. Lost the primary, went Libertarian.

Their goal is to steal votes from the democrats, it is uncertain if their outcome is more that, or more the opposite.
 
2012-11-11 01:12:09 PM
I think Paul is a good "springboard" into challenging the GOP paradigm. But if you get hung up on him as a person, instead of him as someone who was able to question the GOP doctrine (how successfully is up for debate), then you get lost in some of his more... eccentric views.

Ron Paul got me off the GOP establishment's teat in 2007. But I continued to develop and rethink my political views; he is not the be-all end-all of libertarian leaning Republicans.

For example, I'm not a dogmatic libertarian. I don't think government is evil and has no place. I certainly believe in government's role in infrastructure, utilities, public services, safety net, defense, etc. The scale of that involvement, I think, is out of control right now. But that doesn't mean I think we need to start just slashing and burning without thinking through syllogistic effects or planning for mitigation and transitional measures.

I also am not really into the whole propensity for attracting racists. I don't think that libertarianism is racist, but I think that racists have the ability to hijack it a lot easier than we are comfortable admitting.

Any way, I respect the hell out of RP, and am grateful in his movement's role in breaking me out of the neoconservative hivemind. But I'm not exactly getting in line to eat a mile of his shiat just to see where it came from. And for some reason, that line seems to be very long, and has a lot of weirdos in it.
 
2012-11-11 01:12:40 PM

Shaggy_C: clambam: I'll go with "taking in more money than you've allocated for in the budget" as a suitable definition of a surplus, not "you can't call anything a surplus until we've completely cleared the debt back to zero." That's not the way it works, Ron.

But you contradict yourself - Bush put the wars "off the budget" so that way he could look better fiscally than he actually did. By your definition, he did a great job of bringing the country near a surplus, since according the the allocated budget he was only a few hundred billion from even. The simple fact of the matter is that the budget is nothing but a sham projection, given that the President and Congress decide what is left in and what is left out. What matters is the cold hard dollars at the end of the year and whether the nation's debt has grown or lessened. In every year since Eisenhower's presidency, the debt owed by this nation has grown. Moreso under Republicans, I will add, though Barry O is doing his best impression of a Republican with his repeated tax cuts coupled with profligate spending. I have hope that as the economy improves the next few years that we'll reign in some of the stimulus mentality and start to see the real Democrat (i.e., the fiscally responsible) in Obama emerge.


Split hairs much?
 
2012-11-11 01:13:18 PM
i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-11 01:16:49 PM

Smackledorfer: DemonEater: Kibbler: Are mandatory seat belts something you oppose?

Wrong question to change a libertarian's mind - he'll answer instantly and unequivocally "yes". Because it should be our choice whether or not we die in a car accident, and if we don't, we will support car makers that put in seatbelts. Or some shiat.

Food, water, and air safety, on the other hand, are good arguments, as is deforestation and other resource depletion (big government approach: "ok, you can only cut this percentage of the trees and then leave it to regrow, or you can plant n trees for every one you cut"; libertarian approach: "well, we cut all the trees in the world down, now what?").

It doesn't matter what you ask them. They all play the same game: 'I support the good regulations, but I don't support the bad ones'. So somehow there will magically be clean air and water, safe food, etc, while they simultaneously rant about the EPA, FDA, etc.

The issue is that anyone who supports even slightly more regulation than them is instantly put in the "authoritarian" box, while none of them, regardless of where they sit on the spectrum, allows themselves to be pinned down on any issues. It doesn't matter how crazy Ron Paul is, you can't hold them to that, but the guy you voted for fails to close gitmo? Well you are an ignorant sheeple.

Push the issue any further and you find yourself mired in a discussion about the intentions of the founding fathers and some cop-outs about states rights and how we can better control a state government than we can the federal government. It is an argument you can't win, because you can't punch the gaseous cloud that is their views.


You can try to hold them to the official LP platform, but that one has been sanitized and is often vague, and in the case of Paulestinians they aren't actually Libertarians.
 
2012-11-11 01:19:55 PM

clambam: Split hairs much?


You're using bad numbers and drawing major conclusions from them; that's not splitting hairs, that's damning your very argument at its core.
 
2012-11-11 01:35:54 PM

Shaggy_C: clambam: There was a surplus

Just look at the national debt numbers. If we actually had a surplus, why has the national debt increased every year since 1957? It's a shell game, transferring money from social security into the general fund and calling it revenue. It's double-counting money and it's not reality any more than taking a cash advance on your credit card and calling it a raise.


I'm fairly certain that real debt and debt-to-GDP ratio both fell at the very end of Clinton's presidency.
 
2012-11-11 01:55:52 PM

Hanky: sorry, Ron, there are reasons for having a Federal government


Yes, you are absolutely right. . . .

Much in the same way that if there was no such thing as human stupidity, Standup comedians would have nothing to talk about.
 
2012-11-11 01:57:50 PM

Kibbler: TheEdibleSnuggie: I'm libertarian and distrust corporations as much as I do the government, and I'm VERY anti-consumerist.

Curious what you mean by that. For me, one of the earliest (and most important) forms of consumerism was food labeling. How much fat, cholesterol, salt and sugar is in this product? Not to mention a list of the horrible chemical preservatives and coloring agents used. My mom has to eat a very sodium-restricted diet. Forty years ago, she would just have to die, because she would be eating food loaded to the gills with salt. Now we can choose foods that are low- or zero-sodium. And as a result, there are many food producers who provide foods tailored for people with special dietetic needs.

Are you opposed to food labeling? God knows the corporations were when it was first pushed. "END OF LIBERTY," they screamed, "END OF AMERICA. GUBBMINT INTRUSION."

Same thing when the government required seat belts in all cars. How they screamed! "THEY CAN'T TELL US HOW TO RUN OUR BUSINESSES!"

Are mandatory seat belts something you oppose?


1) I think you have anti-consumerist confused with anti-regulation. Those are two different things.

The simple libertarian basis behind government is this: Maximum freedom/ liberty/ whatever you want to call it; with minimal government intrusion. Government's role should be to a) Promote healthy competition by drafting policies that encourage growth and investment; b) Protect its citizens from corruption and coercion (regardless of the initial source).

I don't have a problem with food labeling. That's giving you, the consumer the power to make choices that affect your life and well being. No corporation should have the power to decide what, and how much of a substance you get to put into your body- unless you make the personal choice to do so.

Seatbelt laws work much the same way, though it's common sense that belts save lives; if you choose to go without and get into a serious accident- you have to deal the with consequences of that choice. I don't think seatbelt laws should be primary offenses, however.

So when I say I'm anti-consumerist, that means I'm against being force-fed dogma of always needing to have the 'next best thing.' To wear or use a certain brand because it's associated with a various lifestyle or personality type. I believe that if you have a brand- that's great, but so are many others. So I don't get caught up in all that riff-raff.

2) I'm not anti-regulation. I'm against OVER-regulation, or knee-jerk regulation. I believe in the 'invisible hand' theory of government regulation where state or federal policy is created and used as a guide by which safe, efficient, fair, and honorable business is conducted. I think there is too much of this mentality that government can solve all of our problems with the pen. As opposed to a much broader thought that perhaps all that is needed is a bit of self-control and moderation, COMBINED with simple regulation. When laws are simply drafted because of broad-based incompetency due to lack of federal oversight of laws already on the books...then that's just asinine.
 
2012-11-11 02:07:32 PM

Alphax: So he's retiring? Guess he'll still tilt at Government windmills or something.

His fixation on having a government too weak to work is really strange.


You assume that a government that "works" is a good thing. That's the whole concept behind the checks and balances of our Federal system. . . You quite literally break government ON PURPOSE so that it CAN'T work any more than what is necessary to avoid chaos.

A government that "works" is pretty much any government in history that's decided it wanted to start "eliminating" it's own citizens, outlawing dissent, and doing it very efficiently (See: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, North Korea, etc. . .). After all, government can't "work" very well when people are not lock step with it's policies.

And to feed your leftist views on a superficial level, this is also why we can't have a government that is "run like a business". A business is supposed to be as streamlined and effective as possible, while if a government attempted the same thing, it would end up as just a giant police state dystopia. If the government was 100% perfect at implementing it's policies we'd probably have at least half of the population in prison, with the other half of the population employed as jailers.
 
2012-11-11 02:08:11 PM
Shaggy_C: "...but they[Ron Paul's ideas] don't work in a world where the United States is depended upon for both economic and military security worldwide."


It takes guts to examine one's own beliefs, and it's unfortunate for the rest of the world that the remaining superpower has many cowards among it's citizens who either willingly or through ignorance refuse to confront the way their nation has attained that power.The notion that The US is a "Global Force fo Good" is the perspective of people with their heads up their asses and no regard for the lives of the people around the world who've had their lives destroyed in the interests of protecting American corporate profits and access to cheap resources, mainly other people's. I think the majority of Americans are good and moral but many are clueless about how the "American Way" gets projected beyond your borders, and are incredibly quick to whine like absurd little biatches when someone suggests you perhaps stop being such fat, greedy sacks of shiat and maybe, perhaps kinda think about having some regard for the the way your consumption habits are fed and how it fundamentally affects the lives of people in the countries where your flatscreen tv's and running shoes come from. The only thing the US has been "depended upon...worldwide" is to undermine democracy and deny others what you cling to yourselves.
 
2012-11-11 02:20:41 PM

daveUSMC: I think Paul is a good "springboard" into challenging the GOP paradigm. But if you get hung up on him as a person, instead of him as someone who was able to question the GOP doctrine (how successfully is up for debate), then you get lost in some of his more... eccentric views.


I'm not trying to attack you, but don't you find it a bit obtuse or insensitive to call his racist and homophobic opinions and actions merely "eccentric"?
 
2012-11-11 02:31:51 PM
img818.imageshack.us

If you spend decades telling everyone that the world is going to end tomorrow unless we do what you say, eventually people will quit listening.
 
2012-11-11 02:32:33 PM
That racist old farkstick needs to get the fark off of the national stage before embarrasses us anymore than he already has.

He's only interested in 'libertarian' values so long as it gives him the ability to be shiatty to non-white people and to get women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.
 
2012-11-11 02:35:10 PM

austerity101: daveUSMC: I think Paul is a good "springboard" into challenging the GOP paradigm. But if you get hung up on him as a person, instead of him as someone who was able to question the GOP doctrine (how successfully is up for debate), then you get lost in some of his more... eccentric views.

I'm not trying to attack you, but don't you find it a bit obtuse or insensitive to call his racist and homophobic opinions and actions merely "eccentric"?


Since when is someone's "opinion" what you vote for? You vote for their policies. Now, we could actually debate his supposed "racist" opinions all day, but I never once saw anything even remotely racial in nature to legislation that he either voted for or proposed. Nobody is perfect, and I'm the first to admit that some people get into a bit of a messianic fervor regarding Ron Paul, rather than looking at his message, but it's so often that you find people trying to tell the truth are the ones smeared by the press, while real bad guys are left alone.

I mean, we had Democratic Senators that were former KKK members, and I saw nothing but apologetic responses by the media when it was brought up. Certainly, someone writing some idiotic things in a paper newsletter decades ago that merely put your name at the top to market it is no where near as bad as actually being a member of the KKK.

This whole "Libertarians are racists" meme is getting quite old, and is completely untrue. Libertarians are NOT Conservatives, NOR are they Republicans, although from time to time Republicans try to wear a "libertarian" banner. A Libertarian merely believes that people are all individuals and should never have violence initiated against them by any other organization/group/individual. Other than that, anyone who is a "Libertarian" can differ quite wildly how they interpret that.

/for the record.
 
2012-11-11 02:57:46 PM

austerity101: daveUSMC: I think Paul is a good "springboard" into challenging the GOP paradigm. But if you get hung up on him as a person, instead of him as someone who was able to question the GOP doctrine (how successfully is up for debate), then you get lost in some of his more... eccentric views.

I'm not trying to attack you, but don't you find it a bit obtuse or insensitive to call his racist and homophobic opinions and actions merely "eccentric"?


Well, I think most of the racism/homo stuff floating around is pretty indirect or ancient when it comes to him. And, because I respect a lot of his ideas, specifically with regards to foreign policy (which is pointedly important to me...), I'm not willing to write him off and throw around insults at the guy.

Can't we save insults for LImbaugh, Coulter, and the turd pundits? And like I said, I'm not a Paulbot. He just planted the seed and pushed me out of the neocon door.
 
2012-11-11 03:14:54 PM

Shaggy_C: GAT_00: RON PAUL is somewhere between Grandpa Simpson and Time Cube on the relevancy scale. Crazy old man who doesn't know a damn thing about anything but somehow has millions of deluded fans who hang on his every word like a cult.

"Doesn't know a damn thing"? He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school. There's nothing wrong with his views from a conceptual framework, but they don't work in a world where the United States is depended upon for both economic and military security worldwide. If he were a candidate in say, a Liechtenstein or Monaco, his ideas would be quite compelling.


Yeah, I actually like a lot of his policies. They just ignore America's position in the world, as well as our population's culture. If our population were a little less insane, I'd be all for isolationism (who am I kidding, I'm for it now, within reason). The gold standard just mathematically doesn't work, but thinking a bit about our economy never hurts.
 
2012-11-11 03:19:05 PM

daveUSMC: Can't we save insults for LImbaugh, Coulter, and the turd pundits? And like I said, I'm not a Paulbot. He just planted the seed and pushed me out of the neocon door.


I would argue that we should save our insults for the people who actually mean the hatred they spread and demonstrate and not waste it on a bunch of trolls, personally. Limbaugh, Coulter, and the like aren't actually vying for (or holding) public office.
 
2012-11-11 06:08:22 PM
Ron Paul will be like Ross Perot. In 20 years, we will look back and realize that he was right about most things.
 
2012-11-11 06:25:34 PM

machoprogrammer: Ron Paul will be like Ross Perot. In 20 years, we will look back and realize that he was right about most things.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-11 06:35:34 PM

Shaggy_C: He has a very strong understanding of the federal reserve system and various economic theories, particularly the Austrian school.


The difference between Austrian School Economics and Astrology is that Astrology will occasionally get something right.
 
2012-11-11 06:38:19 PM
I like his foreign policy and stance on the drug war.
 
2012-11-11 06:48:04 PM

fenianfark: [i47.photobucket.com image 500x375]


I heart that.

And it is totally getting sent to the RON PAUL 08 kid I know... who was biatching about over-regulation killing his failed business... that is Dad funded and that was run like crap (an opinion I had before I knew him as a friend of a friend, then I found out *that* was the business he was griping about and had to run outside for a cigarette to hide my laughter, good times).
 
2012-11-11 06:52:27 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: machoprogrammer: Ron Paul will be like Ross Perot. In 20 years, we will look back and realize that he was right about most things.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x224]


A guy goes to see his barber, who's Italian, and says "Just want to let you know I won't be in for a few weeks. I'm going to Italy with the wife." The barber says "Really? What airline are you taking?" The guy  says "AirItalia." The barber says "AirItalia? Tha's a terrible airline. You would have been better off taking SwissAir. Where are you going in Italy?" The guy says "Rome." The barber sys "Rome? Bad mistake. Florence is much nicer. Where are staying in Rome?" The guy says "The Europa." The barber says "Another mistake. The Metropole is much nicer. Anything special you want to do while you're there?" The guy says "We were hoping to get an audience with the Pope." The barber says "An audience with the Pope? You'll be lucky to get within a half a mile of him."

A few weeks later the guy's back from his trip and he goes to get a haircut. The barber says "Oh, you're back. Tell me, was I right about what I told you?"The guys says "You know, you could not possibly have been more wrong about every single thing you said. First of all, AirItalia is a wonderful airline, I'd fly it again in a second. Secondly, Rome is the most beautiful city on earth, I can't wait to go back. Third, the Europa is a beautfiul hotel, we were waited on hand and foot, I'd recommend it to anyone." The barber says "What about your audience with the Pope?" The guy says, "Funny you should mention that. My wife and I were visiting the Sistine Chapel when a secret door opened in the wall and a priest beckoned to us. We followed him down a corridor to an exqusitie Renaissance chapel, and there was the Pope! I kissed his ring he blessed us and then gave us a private audience. When the audience was almost over I said to him, 'Your Holiness, you must see thousands of people every day. Why of all the people in St. Peter's did you choose to give us an audience?' The Pope answered 'Well, my son, I've been Pope for seven years now. Twice a day I go out and bless the pilgrims in St. Peter' Square. There are always at least 10,000 people there and half of them are men So how many men have I seen since I became Pope? You do the math. And in all that time, out of all those men, after all these years... that is the worst haircut I've ever seen in my life!'"
 
2012-11-11 11:31:09 PM
Paul who?
 
2012-11-11 11:33:25 PM

WitchyWoman: How can a doctor have such a cavalier attitude about the livelihood of thousands of people?


Doctors have no special claim to morality.
 
2012-11-12 04:22:15 AM
One day America you will look back and feel stupid for not paying attention to this man.
 
2012-11-12 05:49:44 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Paul said Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney "was hit because ... one issue he was correct on, he opposed the [auto industry] bailouts, and the people in the Midwest voted against him: 'Oh, we have to be taken care of.'"

fark you, Mr. Paul. That wasn't just about certain people "wanting to be taken care of." It was a measure to stop our economy, as in the U.S. economy, from completely melting down.


That's also a very interesting position to take coming from a guy who has spent 3 decades collecting a government check.
 
Displayed 35 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report