fuck ron paul...support the underdog. all behind Kucinich for a REAL change in shit
Name:
Anonymous2008-01-31 4:56
>>5 http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/kucinich-withdraws-from-presidential-race/ In a speech delivered in his hometown of Cleveland, Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich delivered an impassioned speech that said, in part: "I deeply and sincerely believe that we fought the good fight – in large part because of the support from all of you here and from hundreds of thousands of people just like you all across this country. I stood strong because you gave me strength. I spoke out because your voices needed and deserved to be heard. And I told the truth, no matter how unpopular or inconvenient, because, no matter how long it takes, the truth really will set us free." "I won't be President, but I can continue to fight for these important issues as a Congressman..."
Now go support Ron Paul.
Ron Paul supporters = ignorant and retarded organisms with no comprehension of economy, and with the world-view DERP DERP DERP NIGGERS NIGGERS DERP DERP DERP DERP, and also accuse people of being "sheep" when, ironically, they are in a fucking viral fad.
Luckily, internet retards are much less in number than IRL retards, so this Libertarian nonsense will never come to fruition.
>>17
I see that your clueless attitude towards economics is also reflected on your reading comprehension skills. Supporting libertarianism isn't ignorant, as long as you are a multi-millionaire or if you are a masochist who enjoys being a literal wage slave.
But yeah, the gold standard thing is pretty much retarded. Greenspan can take his dot-com bubble and shove it deep in his ass.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-07 8:39
lern2maximization of profit
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-07 11:59
In a true libertarian society, I should be able to murder anyone I wish for financial gain. The murder economy should not be government regulated and is a valid application of social darwinism, therefore it would be morally wrong for a Libertarian to tell me I cannot murder for personal gain.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-07 15:32
>>20
Libertarians support individual freedom and rights. Murder requires one person to infringe upon another person's right to live. Therefore, in a "true" libertarian society this would be illegal. Libertarians do not espouse social darwinism. They promote individuals being able to do what they want unless it directly interfere's with another person.
>>18
Complete lack of regulation (monopolies) is of course stupid but the arguement is that if an action infringes upon someone's right, like polluting factories messing up peoples' property, then the people can stop the company. Or when it comes to taxation, if people focused more on being financially literate and not spend spend spend then you wouldnt need government redistributing income so much just to baby the people.
Also, currency may not have to be tied to gold but the way banks can do what they want in today's electronic credit world... hell you need to tie it to SOMETHING.
>hell you need to tie it to SOMETHING.
the last millenium called...
The fallacy of libertarianism is its name, without regulations, free market would mean the accumulation of wealth on someone (well, it happens now too), and this would translate directly to power. This was a well known fact about the theory of anarcho-capitalism. But, you say, "libertarianism HAS a state, so it can regulate, it's just weak!" lern2reality. Capital has states in leashes with the "strong" states of today, a neutered libertarian state would mean the rich having absolute power - but hey, it would be competitive! Awesome!
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-07 16:32
>>21
Also, your English skills are on par with your understanding of economics - learn to spell.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-07 18:25
>>22
You take issue with the economic aspect of Libertarianism. True, a powerful corporation can gain undue influence. But you seem to think that powerful corporations are the only elements in a capitalist society.
You can argue capitalism vs. communism 'til the cows come home, but Libertarianism addresses more than just that. Libertarianism, at least the style Ron Paul reflects, has capitalism as a *side effect* of the overall relationship a government should have with the people. The people can do what they want as long as it does not interfere with another's right.
Your suspicions against the rich as being overly powerful is both understandable and excessive. Can the state not do the same thing to the people? Can the state not say what is good or bad for the people's wellbeing? You're thinking in absolutes here. Of course complete anarchy is just as bad as the other side of the spectrum but you hack at Libertarianism as if it was an anarchist philosophy bent on "maximizing profit" (or was that not you that said lern2maximization of profit"?).
Stripped down, Libertarianism is nothing more than blending a Democrat's social views with a Republican's economic views into one on the basis of simple individual freedoms.
Oddly enough, you seem to have ignored completely the social aspect of libertarianism...
>>23
My English skills are lacking? That's a first. I may not always place apostrophes in every single contraction, but i don't think i misspelled anything. Also, i get lazy. I don't feel like capitalizing "I's" unless it begins a sentence. I certainly don't think my spelling affected my eloquence. Your derisive tone, however, seems to have affected yours...
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-07 22:10
you guys ever read snow crash
that was a good book
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 3:15
>>22
If the government has little power, why would the corporations bother bribing them?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 16:53
>>24
Again, you aren't getting the extremely simple premise. I'm not going to give a flying fuck about your shitty rights if I'm more powerful than the god damn state. I said the fallacy of libertarianism was its name, and that addressed the social issues. No one is going to be liberated that way, and anyone who understands how free market works, from me to Adam fucking Smith knows this.
But yeah, at least you didn't pretend to know shit about economics unlike other retarded libertarians who repeated the same spoon-fed fallacious arguments, I have to give that to you. So I suggest you to get some knowledge on the subject of macroeconomics if you are serious about it, and then re-consider whether libertarianism would result in more freedom for the masses. You cannot have an opinion without having knowledge, the rest is idle talk.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 16:55
>>26
Not that "bribing" was mentioned anywhere in the post, let's assume that there was a government *that* powerless, then wouldn't the corporation who would then-be-bribing the government do whatever they were doing without even bothering to pay a bribe? Would they say "hay guys, if the state was a bit stronger, we would bribe them but look, they are too powerless let's not do anything illegal, it's sad"? Congrats on your pointless post with no premise and which replied to something that wasn't even there.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 19:45
>>27
Hrmrmmmrmm... *scratches head* You guys are talking about deregulation right? Wasn't Hong Kong and Taiwan more deregulated than even the US? Those places have a blend of a few big companies and a huge army of small *industrial* businesses. Especially Taiwan. *Yay for Comparative Politics class!*
Just throwing it out there, since im assuming (i guess it's obvious) post 27 was talking about big companies when he talks about the super rich.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-08 21:16
>>25
yeah, that was a good book... I like Neuromancer better - and I fucking HATE Bruce Sterling
singapore, luxembourg, hong kong, ireland and a couple of others if you follow the 'index of economic freedom' and 'economic freedom of the world report'.
HK and singapore have been centres of commerce in asia for centuries, and maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that that has more of an effect than their economic freedom level. There is also the face that while the two countries are the most economically free in the world, compared to the nations in their region, they're far, far more economically free.
In europe, Ireland and Luxembourg are the most economically free, and as you said, what we see in their cases are large companies moving their headquarters there in order to pay lower taxes, this especially has been the case for ireland the latest couple of years and has always been the case in luxembourg. However, if you look at the 'ease of doing business' report, released by , then luxembourg has a very low rank, whilst ireland has very high one, so you can't necessarily say that if you have a high level of economic freedom, you will have alot of entrepreneurship and small companies, but there does seem to be a relatively high degree of correlation between the two.
In general i think it's hard to say exactly what effect it has, once you leave the top 5 on the economic freedom list, the change in economic freedom from rank to rank is marginal, while there may be great differences in standards of living and GDP.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-09 7:32
NATIONS WITH THE HIGHRST ECONOMIC FREEDOMS ANRE THE RICHEST WITH THE LOWEST POVERTY AND EVERYONE GETS PAID A HIH WAGE. THIS GOES COMPLETELY AGAINST THE THEORIES OF MARX!
>>35
Same retarded fag got butthurt? Does he lack comprehensive capabilities in addition to his lack of knowledge over economic matters too? Aww, you poor little kid.
>>33
Learn to type, learn to read, then come back.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-09 9:23
>>33
NASHUNZ WIF HIGHEST MONIES AND LOWEST POVERTAH ARE MERCANTILIST NATIONZ THARFOR ADAM SMITH IS WRONG OH GOD I FORGOT THEY LOCK UP RETARDS AT THIS AGE OH GOD
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-12 0:52
Ron Paul said during the Republican debate..
- doesn't believe in separation of church
- creationism should be taught in schools
>>41
>god and religion never existed?
>god never existed
take the fucking hint.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-12 19:14
>>39
While I agree with you that I would never teach my children intelligent design or push a religion on them, I can only agree with you that far.
Since when is it the states decision to decide our metaphysical existence? Since when is it the states job to raise the children of America? Whether you like it or not, just as you cannot force your neighbor to not believe in God, you cannot use the government to force them to not believe in a god. This is part of a greater problem that is institutionalized schooling.
In the new world we give the state control of our kids, with the implied pretense that somehow they can raise our own children better than us. We give them up to institutions only efficient in boredom and stagnation because a single income is no longer enough to provide for a family. It is the disintegration of the nuclear family. Family members are now only friendly strangers. This is what conservatives talk about when you hear the sound byte 'family values'.
hey guise, explain me why all former ron paul supporters are obama fags now?
what the fuck?
i thought they were all libertarians and now they make a 180 degree turn go into the opposite direction
i'm a foreigner, so my opinion isn't worth much to you but i'd rather vote ANY republican than for the democrats because i gain more from fiscal freedom than from gay marriages and welfare for niggers