Ron Paul

[Order 66]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

i had a friend of mine tell me that if ron paul was president everything would be wonderful

i'm hearing this alot too. seems like ron paul is to 2012 as obama was to 2008

[Debaser]

You silently bailed on the rick perry thread after I responded to your nonsense.

Your lack of self awareness is pretty hilarious as you resort to ad hominem attacks quite frequently as your lack of depth on topics at hand leave you nothing else whenever I feel like wasting my time talking to you.

Let me clue you in: I have little interest in lifting the scales from your eyes. The only occasional compulsion to respond comes from the desire to inform the rest of readers on this board how ignorant and confused you are on just about everything.

But I realize you do not need any help from me to show how hilariously misinformed you are. All one has to do is read your unintentionally sad/hilarious posts.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

That's the biggest chickenshit answer you could give. You haven't dismantled anything but you may want to start on your inability to recognize ad-hominem personal attacks does not an argument make.

dude you don't even have a consistent ethos

i know that you think that means you're ahead of the curve but it ends up when you make absolutely idiotic contradictory statments that pretty much go against what you said already. remember that act that was repealed in the 90s that you complain about all the time, dude? THAT'S REGULATION.

ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST IT

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Sounds like regurgitated msm pap...


Extremely pro-life: Do you realize he's a doctor who's delivered thousands of babies? This is a non-issue for me personally on whether I would vote for a candidate, but nice to know you would hold it against him.

Yes, I know he's a doctor. So what? No shortage of pro-choice doctors in this world. As a congressman, Ron Paul has submitted bills to declare that life begins at conception. He has previously declared that abortion is "the greatest moral issue of our time".

So Ron Paul's greatest issue is a non-issue to you, natch. I do not have a desire to put someone like this in the position to appoint judges.

It's nice to know you don't really think through things to figure out why someone who's pro choice would hold it against him.

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

A goldbug nut: And??????? Your point is? Most goldbugs have been called nuts since the price was $300 an ounce. It's now $1800, but non-thinking retards such as yourself would never listen to such nuts and as such, the dollar has lost 50% of its value over that time while Gold has risen 500%. That is nuts when you think about it, but remember gold-bugs have been right about the economy while those who call Golbugs "nuts" have been wrong.

If you know anything about economics, a weak dollar is not a bad thing. In many situations it's quite advantageous to lower the value of your currency (it promotes exports, it's how a country "grows" out of debt, it's historically the only way to do so). If having a weak currency is so bad, then why does China manage their entire economy in order to artificially depress the reminbi? (hint, check out the prices at walmart). You have confused the conventional definition of the word "weak" as "bad" with the economic definition of "weak currency" as simply meaning "low".

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theorist: Well, here's the biggest indicator that goldbugs could look to to understand why Gold was destined to rise in value while the dollar would lose its purchasing power. But what conspiracy theory are you railing about against Ron Paul regarding the Fed? They exist. They print money backed by air and that's a big reason why the economy sucks right now.

i dunno where to start here. go read a book or something. every. single. important. economy. in. the. entire. world. uses. fiat. money. There are plenty of really important reasons why. Maybe it's time to sit back and ponder why the entire world and every single economics professor and economist thinks its a good thing but only Ron Paul and esoteric webpages disagree.

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Repeal Anti-Trust Laws: This is an esoteric argument that's been building for decades. If you care to engage, here's a good start: http://mises.org/Books/antitrust.pdf Many lawsuits brought on by the government have been attacks on entrepreneurial success and efficiency.

"Hey I don't know anything about this, unable to explain my position in any meaningful way, so I'l just cop out with a link to a website that agrees with what I think my opinion is even though I haven't read it or understand it."[/quote]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

repeal the 14th amendment: Two-words, Anchor Babies. It's not just that illegal immigrants come over the border to have their children, its that they get a welfare check for each child they bear. There's a bunch of illegal mexican women here in California with 3 and 4 kids getting up to 4 grand a month in welfare for years on end. I see the movement to repeal the 14th amendment as a desire to stop that fraud.

Isn't it amazing how Ron Paul cares so much for the freedom and liberty of unborn babies -- unless the parents are brown. then fuck 'em. they don't deserve the same god given rights that us americans have. god given rights stop at the border, apparently.

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Disagrees with the Civil Rights Act: He disagrees with it on the issue of the Fed infringing on property rights. This could be libertarianism as feudalism as some suggest and I might agree. He'd be better off dropping the rhetoric from this altogether but as a pol he's being consistent in his beliefs.

No, that's a myth. His beliefs may be consistently applied, but his philosophical libertarian principles are a mess. Take it from a more rational libertarian, Wil Wilkinson:

As a rule, libertarians have an unhealthy tendency to apply their principles without due regard to America's history of state-enforced slavery, apartheid, and sexism, or to the many ways in which the legacy of these insidious practices persists to this day. Paul represents this tendency at his worst. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Paul has argued, led to "a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society."

It’s hard to interpret Paul’s position on this matter in a kind light. During the last campaign season, James Kirchick revealed in the pages of this publication that in the late 1980s and early 1990s Paul had published newsletters under his name containing rank bigotry against African Americans and gays. Paul claimed he did not write the columns in question or even know about them. Whether you believe that or not, the newsletter scandal highlighted Paul's longstanding ties with figures, such as Lew Rockwell, with a history of catering to racist and nativist sentiments for political gain.

But let’s give Paul the benefit of the doubt, and assume his opposition to anti-discrimination legislation is a principled stand untainted by prejudice. Even then, it’s not so clear his stance is underwritten by his stated principles. Paul's third principle of a free society says that "Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments." I follow Ron Paul enthusiasts in endorsing this principle wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, it's hard to say exactly what "justly acquired property" amounts to in a country built in no small part by slave labor on land stolen from indigenous people. How much of Thomas Jefferson's property was justly acquired?

These issues get complicated fast. Most of us think there's a sort of statute of limitation on the sins of our fathers, and for good reason. But it’s absolutely undeniable that the distribution of property and power in America partly reflects hundreds of years of constant and systemic violation of precisely those rights Paul claims to prize. Anti-discrimination legislation indeed puts some limits on rights to property and free association. But in light of America's cruel history of official social, legal, and economic inequality, it's hard to see these limits as "arbitrary," even if we want to pretend, for the sake of social peace, that the distribution of property reflects a history of mostly just acquisition.

Again, it appears that Paul is least tolerant of ambiguity and complexity when it muddies the case for protecting privilege. To deny that structural discrimination, with or without the backing of the state, can limit an individual's liberty more injuriously than a sales tax requires the triumph of dogmatism over commonsense. But Paul’s career is a case study of such bullheadedness. Not only does he deny that anti-discrimination statutes have anything to do with promoting liberty, he insists, again and again, that anti-discrimination policies have only heightened resentments between man and woman, black and white, and do nothing whatsoever to improve social amity. He would have us believe that the enormous gains over the past several decades in racial and gender equality, the dramatic rise of mixed-race marriages, and the happy detente in the gender wars have all occurred despite recent attempts to rectify centuries of legal oppression through law.



I know you didn't read that. It's the internet, you disagree with it, so why bother.

Now scurry back to your fringe websites and google search for someone else's opinion you don't fully understand and regurgitate it here as a rebuttal and embarrass yourself again.

[The Omega Concern]

originally posted by Debaser:

"Hey I don't know anything about this, unable to explain my position in any meaningful way, so I'l just cop out with a link to a website that agrees with what I think my opinion is even though I haven't read it or understand it."

[/quote]

Quite the contrary, I studied up on anti-trust legislation while the NFL lockout was on this summer. It's a legal monstrosity of a topic going back over a century and the NFL case highlighted a lot of the legal arguments of it, but philosophically, anti-trust laws allow pervasive and encroaching reaches of the government into virtually all business everywhere. Over time its become another political tool for crony capitalism and feeds the beast much more than it helps the little guy or companies that cry monopoly.

So Ron Paul's greatest issue is a non-issue to you, natch. I do not have a desire to put someone like this in the position to appoint judges.

It's nice to know you don't really think through things to figure out why someone who's pro choice would hold it against him.

I get it. You are pro abortion. Aside from incest and rape, you'd rather the hedonist have the day in this debate and exist in the cognitive dissonance of believing life begins sometime after conception to relieve them of their guilt. Unfortunately for the woman who get them, they find out too late abortions are a physical detriment and a soul suck. Even then, that wouldn't prevent me from voting for a candidate who hold an opposing view if they could fix the damn economy.

If you know anything about economics, a weak dollar is not a bad thing. In many situations it's quite advantageous to lower the value of your currency (it promotes exports, it's how a country "grows" out of debt, it's historically the only way to do so). If having a weak currency is so bad, then why does China manage their entire economy in order to artificially depress the reminbi? (hint, check out the prices at walmart). You have confused the conventional definition of the word "weak" as "bad" with the economic definition of "weak currency" as simply meaning "low".

China is a bad example for one and weak currencies mainly bail out the bankers who bring the brinkmanship in currencies to begin with as they play countries against each other and squeeze them dry over and over through the decades there's too many examples to list.

You list slave waging Wal-Mart like its some standard, not some nightmare reality. We are importing that Chinese trend here by allowing Wal-Mart to run congress into political favors that makes it all too easy for them to take over towns and kill the small businesses that used to service those towns.

i dunno where to start here. go read a book or something. every. single. important. economy. in. the. entire. world. uses. fiat. money. There are plenty of really important reasons why. Maybe it's time to sit back and ponder why the entire world and every single economics professor and economist thinks its a good thing but only Ron Paul and esoteric webpages disagree.

And every single one of those economist and professors knows the average life-span of Fiat currencies is 27 years. Every 30 to 40 years the system needs a re-boot as Nixon did with the USD by taking it off the Gold standard in the early 70's. The trajectory of the actions by the Fed and the Government made it easy for those in the PM's market to cry the sky is falling on the dollar by the late 90's. Those that understood the chaos to come (which is now) got in then and have profited greatly. Like me.

But what do I know? I just played a hunch Neil Cavuto was wrong about the Stock Market going to 40,000 and that Gold was a lost relic and why would anyone buy it. I figured he knew alot more about business than I did but jack shit about prophecy.

[Eulogy]

so you hate the government but you really want it to monitor every single uterus in the country?

[The Omega Concern]

No. It's a tricky subject, c'mon. Abortion should be discouraged at every step, which could be turned into a proponent argument for the 'abortion pill' or other methods, which is less of an issue from the physiological angle of abortions but kinda misses the point on the morality of the consequences of sexxxxxxx.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

No. It's a tricky subject, c'mon. Abortion should be discouraged at every step, which could be turned into a proponent argument for the 'abortion pill' or other methods, which is less of an issue from the physiological angle of abortions but kinda misses the point on the morality of the consequences of sexxxxxxx.

so you want the government to legislate morality? it's not tricky. you're just a fucking idiot.

[The Omega Concern]

Where did I say that? The morality is there whether government addresses it or not. Don't assume the government as the sole arbiter of morality. If you read between the lines I realize the ultimate choice is on the woman but society's role on the subject should'nt allow government to promote it.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Where did I say that? The morality is there whether government addresses it or not. Don't assume the government as the sole arbiter of morality. If you read between the lines I realize the ultimate choice is on the woman but society's role on the subject should'nt allow government to promote it.

how is the government promoting it by making it not illegal? the only reason the federal government is involved is because state governments tried to launch themselves into women's uteri.

go fuck yourself. i can't believe you taught children. jesus christ.

you'd think a batshit conspiracy theorist would at the very least be consistent. goddamn it.

[The Omega Concern]

I'm more skeptic than theorist as I'm more interested in the conspiracies than the theory's.


And government promotes sex through the education system by employing health aids and measures that encouraging safe-sex with condoms. The flaw in the logic is that it literally promotes the act that causes pregnancy (and the spreading of STD's). But you can't fight the inertia of the education bureaucracy by installing a matrix that if you speak against it, as I just have with simple logic, it changes to the logical point. It doesn't work that way; there's jobs, pensions and reputations to protect not to mention the relentless brainwash of the hedonistic young into the fallacy of sex with no harder consequence than the taking of a pill to prevent or abolish the baby making outcome.

[Tchocky]

You heard it here first, folks. If schools didn't teach kids and teens about sex and if they don't provide teens condoms to promote a less risky lifestyle, teens won't want to have sex. Thinking otherwise just means you're okay with our liberal education system indoctrinating our youth by promoting promiscuity and hedonism under the guise of sex education.

SEE THE LIGHT, PEOPLE!

[Eulogy]

holy shit

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

I'm more skeptic than theorist as I'm more interested in the conspiracies than the theory's.


And government promotes sex through the education system by employing health aids and measures that encouraging safe-sex with condoms. The flaw in the logic is that it literally promotes the act that causes pregnancy (and the spreading of STD's). But you can't fight the inertia of the education bureaucracy by installing a matrix that if you speak against it, as I just have with simple logic, it changes to the logical point. It doesn't work that way; there's jobs, pensions and reputations to protect not to mention the relentless brainwash of the hedonistic young into the fallacy of sex with no harder consequence than the taking of a pill to prevent or abolish the baby making outcome.

Good lord I don't even know where to start

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

I'm more skeptic than theorist as I'm more interested in the conspiracies than the theory's.

So you like the sound of the conspiracies but don't care about the details of them or, you know, the evidence on why they are individually true or false? Sounds about right from your posts.

[Eulogy]

theory's

[The Omega Concern]

originally posted by Tchocky:

You heard it here first, folks. If schools didn't teach kids and teens about sex and if they don't provide teens condoms to promote a less risky lifestyle, teens won't want to have sex. Thinking otherwise just means you're okay with our liberal education system indoctrinating our youth by promoting promiscuity and hedonism under the guise of sex education.

SEE THE LIGHT, PEOPLE!

At least you show reasonable deduction skills. However I would say thinking otherwise means you're not really thinking at all and would rather dissociate yourself from facing the morality of the choice. In this case, Abortion and "safe sex". If the sad outcome for a girl/woman is an abortion they should know the physiological realities and greater chances of womanly complications later on in life. Such info is an anethema to the current health doctrine and therefore cannot be part of the curriculum. At least not in our public schools.

Some of you may consider that an enlightenment and progessive but its an indoctrination regardless and one that I think is backwards because of the logical fallacy of condoms to begin with: It's a promotion of the act that causes pregnancy.

[The Omega Concern]

originally posted by reprise85:

So you like the sound of the conspiracies but don't care about the details of them or, you know, the evidence on why they are individually true or false? Sounds about right from your posts.

I research conspiracies all the time which means all I do is analyze the details. Don't confuse conspiracy theory with conspiracy fact.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

At least you show reasonable deduction skills. However I would say thinking otherwise means you're not really thinking at all and would rather dissociate yourself from facing the morality of the choice. In this case, Abortion and "safe sex". If the sad outcome for a girl/woman is an abortion they should know the physiological realities and greater chances of womanly complications later on in life. Such info is an anethema to the current health doctrine and therefore cannot be part of the curriculum. At least not in our public schools.

Some of you may consider that an enlightenment and progessive but its an indoctrination regardless and one that I think is backwards because of the logical fallacy of condoms to begin with: It's a promotion of the act that causes pregnancy.

Oh my godddd who told you women aren't told of potential complications of abortions?

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

I research conspiracies all the time which means all I do is analyze the details. Don't confuse conspiracy theory with conspiracy fact.

You're going to have to indulge me, because I have no idea what you are talking about. How are you able to weed through what is true or false? You don't seem to have much of a filter, and you also don't seem to be like "this is a possiblity" but very sure that your conspiracy theories/the CTs that you subscribe to are fact.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

At least you show reasonable deduction skills. However I would say thinking otherwise means you're not really thinking at all and would rather dissociate yourself from facing the morality of the choice. In this case, Abortion and "safe sex". If the sad outcome for a girl/woman is an abortion they should know the physiological realities and greater chances of womanly complications later on in life. Such info is an anethema to the current health doctrine and therefore cannot be part of the curriculum. At least not in our public schools.

Some of you may consider that an enlightenment and progessive but its an indoctrination regardless and one that I think is backwards because of the logical fallacy of condoms to begin with: It's a promotion of the act that causes pregnancy.

I was told about complications possible in abortion starting from 5th grade, you're talking mid-90s. It's not a topic schools don't talk about. Same with possible complications of birth control. They talk about a wide range of things, and get into more details the older the class. Of course.

Teaching that sex is taboo and should be treated as some high and mighty thing only for procreation or in marriage or whenever else you personally think is just as much indoctrination as you say the current setup is. Kids think about sex, and have sex. They will do it no matter what the school tells them, and best to tell them how they can reduce possible harm if they do decide to have sex.

The morality of the choice? To have an abortion? That's personal to everyone and honestly most people don't flippantly decide to have abortions. It's not just throw away no emotions attached. Don't be stupid.

BTW, don't assume people don't engage with you because they don't have reasonable deductive skills. Much of what you say is self evidently wrong and/or dumb and needs no reply.

[JokeyLoki]

Wow

[Trotskilicious]

lol

[reprise85]

too harsh?

[lala]

maybe there should be a thread where you discuss all your candidates

[jammin]

that anchor baby bullshit up there is some of the most dangerous racism in the US right now. this is the sort of speech that justifies the 'crime suppression sweeps' in arizona.

normally i'm not a big proponent of anecdotal evidence, but omega concern should make an effort to talk to an illegal immigrant or two, as should ron paul for that matter, and see what they go through and why they go through it.

ron paul is a fucking racist and this needs to be noted by everyone.

part of me wants to make a long post about this, but the rest of me says this guy's gotta be trolling with all that.

eta; that new republic article is spot on

[Nimrod's Son]

i don't think anyone questions why illegal immigrants want to come here. i'd do it myself if i lived in mexico. you come to the US, take advantage of the system, and worst case is you maybe get sent back home, but probably not.

the problem is that it's gotten so far out of hand that they're helping to bankrupt the country, and certainly the state of California.

[Trotskilicious]

rick perry was born a mexican woman

[Trotskilicious]

Erika Peralez

[dean_r_koontz]

this problem would have been properly sorted out a long time ago if the american spirit wasn't about using very cheap, illegal immigrant mexican labour. heck that's one of the things that makes texas so great and rick perry knows it.