RANT RANT RANT TL;DR VERSION RON PAUL SUCKS SHIT

To all Ron Paul supporters:

Are you guys fucking nuts? Did you think the 19th century was that great? Was it always puppies, lollipops, and sunshine? Before, when the government was “not involved in daily life” like it somehow is now, was it a wonderful time to live? Hell no.

To whoever says that Ron Paul is all about protecting the rights of the people on the internet? BULLSHIT. Guess who happens to be against Net Neutrality?

To whoever says America was founded, that there were no big companies, and Ron Paul is about bring that back: BULLSHIT. Who the hell founded Jamestown and Plymouth? Don’t believe that these people came here for freedom, those settlements were funded by their respective British companies. Corporations started America, and it has always looked out for them.

You say that the free market will somehow police itself, and everything will be right in the end. I ask you this: when the FUCK has the free market ever played fair? When did it police itself? When children in coalmines were losing limbs, when men and women in factories worked for 14 hours a day and got hurt, what did the companies say? “Tough shit kid, you shouldn’t of gotten hurt?” The market never policed itself. It has never, ever been about the consumer. “Buh buh buh the people can choose not to support them!” BULLSHIT. People are stupid. They’ll keep supporting them because they don’t know any better or don’t have a choice.

Please, let us go back to a time before child labor laws. Please, let us go back to a time where there were no unions and people really were just cogs in the fucking machine. Let’s go back to before the EPA, when rivers caught on fire when people dumped everything and anything into the rivers because they could. “But with private property rights they shouldn’t be allowed to do that!” BULLSHIT. They’ll keep doing it because it’s easier. Let’s go back where you could only buy lead-based paint, and every wall was fireproofed with asbestos. I wonder why you can’t buy those things anymore? Was it because companies who made them thought it was a good idea? No, they fought to keep this shit because it was easier and a hell of a lot cheaper. Let’s go back to a time when we have no FDA, so every meat packing plant is like The Jungle. Boy, it sure worked out great for the companies there! What a coincidence that it only stopped when the government stepped in!

How about we get rid of the Federal Reserve too, because as Ron Paul says that one institution alone is the cause for all recessions and depressions. All those panics and economic depressions that happened on a cycle in the 19th century, let’s just forget them. Remember when banks just closed down and everyone who put their savings in them got fucked because you couldn’t get your money back? Yeah, they called that every depression that ever existed until the FDIC. And hey, let’s get rid of all the public schools! What a fucking great idea, get rid of all the schools! And you say, “Well, they should just be home schooled” well tell that to the parents who aren’t qualified to be teaching their kids psychics and chemistry and trigonometry. “Well what about Private school?” Yeah, let make the parents pay for their children’s basic education. Let them fight it out. And then finally, let’s go back to a time when only white men with property could vote. Boy, how ingenious of our founding fathers to slip that little nugget in? Our country is based on the Protestant Ethic, is it not? That only the ones who own property have any rights?

To believe in Ron Paul is to believe in a man who wants to destroy modern society.

Just FYI, the EPA has done shit recently . . . jsut saying.

Also, right now parents do pay for their children to go to school, through their taxes. They just don't pay as much because people who don't have children are also paying for their children to go to school.

I don't know who I'll vote for, but I doubt it'll be Ron Paul. I've yet to really look at all the candidates running and such.

I never thought my economic history class would come in handy.

-The only 19th century depression was during the civil war era
-Government policy (or lack thereof) had a great part in the great depression


But I do see what you mean, though. Government regulations (why the fuck don't we just say "laws"? Because Libertarians can't abuse connotations?) stopped businesses from fucking you over, and taxes are good when they're spent wisely and don't get out of hand.

Notice how I also said "Panic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893

In fact, Wikipedia has a nice little bar on the bottom of those pages saying how many panics there where in the 19 century.

How much of an effect does the government have on a panic?

Well, we don't have them anymore since the start of the Federal Reserve and FDIC.

That's false cause. The federal reserve has aggravated the economy more times than not since its inception, as anyone who was lucky enough to be around during the glory days of the greenspan put and less than one percent interest rates can attest to.

Ron Paul is ridiculous in many ways, from his platform on illegal immigration to his support of homeopathy (which is odd coming from a practicing doctor), but most of his economics is sound.

A vote for Ron Paul isn't a vote to turn back time. Yes, we were in a pretty bad place back in the day of decreased regulation and whatnot, but it wasn't necessarily because of the regulation, but more because of the lack of universal access to information. In the age of newspapers, it's easy for companies to make more profits by ignoring problems with their products in search of the almighty dollar. However, now it's in the best interest for companies to be 'profit-seekers with a conscience,' as the shift towards 'green' firms and even things like the backlash towards apple's recent price discrimination can attest to. With the internet, 24-hour news channels and the profliferation of journalists looking to uncover the newest incident of company immorality, there's a much larger incentive for companies to care than there was in the 18th and 19th century. It's easily arguable that we don't need the epa, fda, et al anymore as the private sector uncovers greedy company profiteering at the expense of people faster than those government agencies do, and creates a wave of consumer backlash which cuts into a firm's bottom line much more and much faster than simply being good companies would.

Ron Paul is mostly for a shift in government size from the federal level to the state and local levels, which makes a whole lot more sense in 2007 than it did in 1787. Competition is a good thing, and it's actually possible in this day and age at the state and local level. People will vote with their feet.

I like what you bring to this topic, since you're an economics expert.

However, you're really digging into PR here, which is my field. I'll say this: Yes, it's important for big business to look upstanding and kind in the eye of the media, but how do you explain seemingly invincible companies, like Wal-Mart, or McDonald's? Without regulations, they would be fucking up far more than they already do.

I like Ron Paul. He makes it easy to single out the "Batshit insane libertarian" voters.

This is also true.

Libertarians are the worst of the left and the right put together.

Libertarians > Far right Republicans

Especially that religious right.

But he's not a libertarian.

LOL, yeah.

I think he's probably referring to the general philosophy of libertarianism, rather than the Libertarian party in the United States.

Right on the money.

Tell me bolt, how do you feel about the gold standard?

Can't wait for this response.

Why does a shift in government size from the federal level to the state and local levels make sense?

uh, what? So you like paternalist social policies with economic populism? I really wouldn't call it the worst of both sides.


The concept you described is about smaller government control and/or influence, which happens to be a major issue in the Republican party (not just libertarianism alone, which differs on the role of government).

State and local level governments are closer to the needs of the people living in said areas. What business does someone in California have in telling someone in Wyoming how to live? Each state is able to develop their own path with interests of the inhabitants being the highest priority. There is also the problem of funds, where the federal government restricts funds if a state doesn't change a policy.

Libertarianism is basically right wing utopianism which really falls apart with all its anarchist capitalist bullshit. There is not really much else to say about it.

And since the only two issues people would care to send to the state level are drugs and abortion, I don't foresee any problems between California and Wyoming.




And just what is there to gain from the average Joe by giving more power to the states? Socially, liberals will get ousted by conservatives in the Bible Belt. Financially, will there be a problem with distribution of wealth between state governments?

I only named two states, think of issues affecting every state. Here is another example, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/nyregion...amp;oref=slogin Why shouldn't they be allowed to set their own environmental standards?




What do you mean, the average Joe has more say in a state/local based government. The social conservative infringing on liberals issue can be reserved mattering on the state. The distribution part can be thought out among different state governments.

-Also to clarify (since this topic isn't about federalism), I am not a Ron Paul supporter.

That's just Bush being stupid. States should be able to enforce stricter standards but should not be forced to lower them.

so how do you feel about reinstating segregation? What about abortion being banned on a state by state level? Oh and don't forget anti-sodomy laws!

Tell me, Shocka, how do you feel about the gold standard?

Those are the same arguments I like to use in regards to leaving big decisions to states. Conservatives have a bad habit of taking away preexisting rights, and I could imagine certain states in the South taking full advantage of it.

What rights are you afraid of them taking away from you that aren't guaranteed by the constitution?

Not much is guaranteed by the constitution. There was a time when Americans could justify segregation with it.

Of course, segregation has to be brought up. Because having stronger state and local government authority means SEGREGATION, ITS THE SAME THING, RIGHT? No, that's a weak argument. It is not the same thing. Was state rights abused at one time by oppressive state governments (which took away individual freedoms), yes. But the United States isn't going to return to that, simple as that.

Abortion should be left up to the states (which deals with restricting doctors from performing abortions), sounds fine by me.

Anti-sodomy laws restricts individual freedom. My view on state rights aren't absolute (I just prefer states in having more power over their own state, not absolute control with no say by the supreme court for law) and your characterizing them as so. I think state rights should not restrict individual freedoms.

State rights has to do with the direction of each state, pertaining to education, health care, right to work laws, gay marriage/civil unions, marijuana laws, anti smoking laws, etc.

Also, gold standard sucks, Nixon for life.

This is getting off topic on Ron Paul and his philosophy and followers, I am not a Ron Paul supporter (though I agree with him on individual freedoms along with other things).

Get back on topic.

It's totally on topic. Ron Paul advocates state's rights more than any other candidate, and we're explaining to you why it's bullshit. Now, I agree that states can set standards for education, and that's because different cultures need to be educated differently. As for shit like marijuana, gay marriage, and health care? Fuck leaving those up to the states.

I don't want people in Arizona driving to California to smoke weed without fear.

I don't want young women taking flights to Vermont for an abortion.

And most of all, I don't want states with stronger Christian majorities to stereotype modern culture as "secular", and take a huge shit on any chance of progression.

It is not bullshit. Nothing you have described makes it bullshit.




So education is fine huh? So you have preferences, and if opinions are contrary to yours, you are against it.



Why? Will it keep you up at night?




Is that because your "pro-choice"? If you were "pro-life" would you think differently? Do you know that people have differences of opinion on abortion?



So basically you want America to go in your direction, no matter what. No one can have their own beliefs and vote in their own matter. Your way is the right way, and democracy be screwed, you're going to have it.

States rights are bad because everyone should think like me. Giving them the option NOT to is unacceptable.

Has anyone else noticed how nuts Ron Paul's supporters are online? Going on about how the voting machines were rigged in Iowa and New Hampshire because he didn't come in first in those states. They're delusional and refuse to acknowledge the fact he is nothing more than a fringe candidate.

Yeah, like, I'm libertarian leaning on a lot of stuff, but damn does he have some nuts on his side

I love Ron Paul just because he's so out there. I remember watching a FNC GOP debate where they included Paul and the moderators were rolling their eyes like, "God, why is here?"

Haha, yeah, I know. There is a personality cult surrounding Ron Paul on the internet.

2nd in nevada

So? The Nevada caucus was a joke, all the Republican candidates skipped it other than Paul and Romney. And Romney won it with like 52% of the vote and Paul came in second with 14% with a big whooping 6,000 votes. In real primaries where everyone is campaigning he can't place higher than 4th or 5th.

Ron Paul looks like Magneto.

Too bad the majority of Ron Pauls supporters still have their drivers permits

Why should you care what one person does to enjoy himself, if it doesn't harm you in any way? Not to mention, Arizona has passed the same Marijauna law itself a few times.

The other selling point of increased states rights is the ability for a state to break through and actually change law, using the Marijauna example again, so that once the other states see how much money it makes and retains for the first state(s) they'll follow suit, rather than have shitty federal regulation restricting the freedoms of individuals.

According to Paul, or any other Federalist/Consitutionist/Libertarian there wouldn't be an issue for gay rights with the states, because gay people are already granted any right that straight people are...life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc. Just because they don't have those rights now, doesn't mean they aren't already granted them.

The real reason he won't win nor anyone advocating freedom is people don't want to be free, not anymore, not that I can say they ever really have as I'm only a young man. Most people don't even like being happy, or working, or creating. So whatever really, lol.