Can I blow up stuff in Revoltistan? Give me some kewl laser guns and doomsday devices and I shall call you Master.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
10 Reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul
- Thread starter Invisible Pink Unicorn
- Start date
Can I blow up stuff in Revoltistan? Give me some kewl laser guns and doomsday devices and I shall call you Master.
I actually have a tenant working on industrial lasers.
I told'm I want a phaser.
We shall see.....we shall see....
But we'll start with Revoltistan's enemies.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Yep - I think Obama's proven that last point quite succinctly.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Write in this gal.....
Susanne Eman's bid to be world's fattest woman: 52st mother of 2 is 'supersizing' | Mail Online
OK...that was just an excuse to post this link.
Although her 'plight' does raise questions about socialized health care.
I'll vote for the candidate who would let deny her medical care.
Susanne Eman's bid to be world's fattest woman: 52st mother of 2 is 'supersizing' | Mail Online
OK...that was just an excuse to post this link.
Although her 'plight' does raise questions about socialized health care.
I'll vote for the candidate who would let deny her medical care.
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
One reason to not vote for him that stands out is the fact he is completely wrong about economics. The Austrian school is poo.
Do me a favor and answer this:
Does he deny "minority rights" or is he for majority rights?
Is he for denying women's rights, or is he for protecting the rights of the unborn?
Haven't other presidents proliferated a negative image of the US by keeping troops abroad, and invading other countries? And why would it worsen if we pulled troops out?
Does Ron Paul "discriminate," or is he for the protection of the family and preserving the sanctity of marriage?
Is Ron Paul for grabbing our guns, or is he for the our 2nd Amendement Rights?
While it is true that the school system is in trouble, it is due to Federal laws such as "no child left behind" which force a form of standardization which forces people to conform to the lowest denominator.
Or is he for freedom of religion?
"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."
- George Carlin
- George Carlin
2012 is gonna suck. All the candidates are horrid. Obama is plutocrat, Bachmann is a nutjob, Perry is Bush III, Paul is... Interesting. Why can't there be a GOOD option?!?!?!
There's never been one. We've always only ever voted for who we feel is the least evil.
"In Norway, we put the politicians next to each other and we gives the peoples rocks. Whoever's not dead at the end wins." --Skwisgaar Skwigelf, Metalocalypse
I think it's time for some "Norway" politics!
I think he says Scandinavia actually. In fact, it's been a while since I watched that, so that's just a paraphrase, not a direct quote.
I think it's time for some "Norway" politics!
I think he says Scandinavia actually. In fact, it's been a while since I watched that, so that's just a paraphrase, not a direct quote.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
E. Nato Difficile
Active Member
Libertarianism seems like the perfect union of unapologetic cynicism and naiveté: it's as if suspicion of the Fed and resentment over taxation excuse a quaint optimism about the free market.
But as I've been shown over and over again, Libertarianism is always exactly what its adherents say it is, and never anything that can be criticized.
Maybe a Libertarian could explain to me, let's just say for example, how we could avoid catastrophes like the BP oil spill in a Libertarian utopia, when it was the absence of responsible government regulation that allowed the disaster to happen in the first place. Is recommending government oversight of industry to preserve the environment really the same as advocating an Orwellian nightmare of totalitarian despotism?
-Nato
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
Generally it's a tragic oversimplification of issues that arises because people are frustrated about fixing government. Why fix something when you can rationalize that doing away with it will lead to better results?
Problem is the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul as well contradict themselves. They want the government to enforce property rights but don't want recourse for the inequalities that result from property.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Libertarianism is not opposed to government regulations which protect the rights of others. A certain amount of regulation is necessary.
As for the BP oil spill - there were plenty of regulations already in place - they just weren't being adhered to. No amount of government regulations will ever be able to completely offset the propincity of some people to disregard health and safety measures.
Actually the oil and gas industry is already one of the most stringently regulated industries in the world (as it should be). My husband is a "company man" (independent oilfield consultant) and he implements these regulations on a daily basis - and appreciates them. To his credit, there has never been a serious incident or accident on any location he's in charge of. But he's a stickler for safety and good management of local, state, and federal regulations and standards.
Libertarians would not be opposed to these regulations which truly protect the life and property of others.
The unfamiliar often hold such views based upon their fear of losing the comfort & security of the nanny state. But lucky for you, I'm here to help.
There's no reason to apologize for cynicism....tis central to us to distrust giving great power to government. People are greedy, mean, stupid,
power hungry & incompetent (among other things), so we favor having a smaller government with limited function. Preserving civil, social &
economic liberty are our goals. Generally, we would minimize the risks of governmental mischief by keeping it small, minimizing its financial
burden, & limiting its power by observing a strong constitution. I note that you're quick to use dismissive epithets like "naivete" & "quaint",
but they would also apply to your side of this dispute. We've lived with leftist & neo-con big government for a very long time now, & it ain't
work'n too well. Yet people keep expecting that pursuing the same failed policies over & over again will yield different results. Is that sane?
Who is stopping you from criticizing? Certainly this humble minarchist.
The ideal role of regulation is to manage problems which cannot be addressed in tort. Example: If I sell a house on land contract to a buyer who
fails to make the payments, then I can sue for foreclosure & be made whole. The BP oil rig is a different matter because some activities have
ill consequences which are so devastating & costly, that it would be impossible for the plaintiffs to be fully compensated for damage. Especially
in the area of protecting the environment, I see it as very libertarian to prevent others from suffering the effects of oil in our waters, mercury
in the air we breathe, lead in our soil, etc, etc. It is an important civil liberty to breathe clean air & drink pure water. As I see it, we need far
better regulation of oil rigs such as the one you mentioned....one which Obama gave a safety award just prior to the gaffe in the gulf. But I
oppose regulation which has costs greater than its benefits, & can be left to plaintiffs & defendants in the courts.
Last edited:
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
You seem to be ignoring the fact the nanny state arose because the policy of non-assistance failed during the Gilded Age.
I ignore nothing. Your opinion about the nanny state is not a "fact".
Let me give you a lesson on discussing things....if you have a rebuttal to an argument, then make it & support it.
If you want to make a claim, tis best if it's relevant & supported. If you want to express an opinion, don't gussy it
up by calling it a "fact". The issue is not failure of "non-assistance", but rather weighing the costs & benefits,
including unintended consequences. Your vaunted safety net (as implemented by our government) has also become
a bloated monster which saps the entrepreneurial spirit from its wards. Is society really better off as a result?
That is arguable.
The upshot of all this is that if you disagree with this way of seeing things, then don't vote for Paul. He ain't yer guy.
Last edited: