NationStates Jolt Archive

Dare I hope? Is Dr. Paul actually doing so well as to have ABC out to get him?

ABC Reset Republican Debate Tally After Ron Paul Win?

Sunday, August 05, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

News Analysis

ABC TV apparently reset its tally of who won the Republican debate it broadcast on August 5, Sunday morning.

At 10 AM EST, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) was winning the debate with over 1,000 votes. Mitt Romney was next with 106. After the debate at approximately 11:10 AM EST when the tally was rechecked, ABC showed Ron Paul had just 445 votes. Second was “Nobody Won. I’m Voting Democratic.”

Of course, it could all be an innocent gliche, and perhaps ABC will explain these tallies or see fit to rectify them. But it has long been FMNN’s contention, along with others, that Ron Paul, an old fashioned Jeffersonian conservative, would serve as a metaphor and magnifying glass for America’s current political difficulties and expanding corruption.

The debate itself was apparently little promoted. In fact, ABC marketed the debate so shallowly that Drudgereport.com didn’t seem to carry a blurb about it on its front page, and neither did Google News.

To set the stage for the debate, ABC moderators began with polling numbers that showed Ron Paul at just two percent, yet the numbers on the ABC website, at 10 AM EST and again at the end of the debate (before the tally was reduced), showed him winning the debate, as he has before, by a wide margin.

A search of Internet sites revealed some confusion about the debates times and where it was airing. Posted one confused would-be viewer: "What a bizzare time to hold a debate and what a screwy format for a debate. It won’t air in my area until 11:00 am."

Ron Paul will likely win the online debate poll by large numbers in any case. But changing poll numbers always generates questions. ABC is said to have manipulated its comment boards before as regards Ron Paul. (Edited after posting.)
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=46813

Even with that reset, he still seem stio be winning:
Now that the debate's over, it's time to consider the winners and losers.

Who do you think won the Republican debate?

Ron Paul
4,080
Mike Huckabee
729
Mitt Romney
715
Rudy Giuliani
504
Nobody won. I'm voting Democratic.
427
Tom Tancredo
214
John McCain
165
Nobody. I'm waiting for Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich to enter the race.
150
Duncan Hunter
56
Tommy Thompson
50
Sam Brownback
29
Total Vote: 7,119
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

who gives a shit?


republicans won't win the 08 election anyways, so it's like watching a large group of losers decide who will lose the least


pretty lame if you ask me

Of course Ron Paul won, given that the other candidates were spouting such gibberish like McCain's "Being pro-life is a matter of national security!" statements.

OWA: The problem here is that ABC is corrupted if they keep resetting the tallies because Ron Paul is winning, which would be very bad news.

I love you Ronny!

Of course Ron Paul won, given that the other candidates were spouting such gibberish like McCain's "Being pro-life is a matter of national security!" statements.

OWA: The problem here is that ABC is corrupted if they keep resetting the tallies because Ron Paul is winning, which would be very bad news.

well, i understand the point, but it's still worthless


let ABC tamper with the losing side, it won't make much of a difference

who gives a shit?


republicans won't win the 08 election anyways, so it's like watching a large group of losers decide who will lose the least
pretty lame if you ask me

Not a given yet. The race is still the Donkey's to loose. They could well nominate Billary and hand the next 4 years to the Elephants. :(

Of course Ron Paul won, given that the other candidates were spouting such gibberish like McCain's "Being pro-life is a matter of national security!" statements.

OWA: The problem here is that ABC is corrupted if they keep resetting the tallies because Ron Paul is winning, which would be very bad news.

That's the big trouble. Was it a legit reset based on the bioased sampling of the net or not?

Not a given yet. The race is still the Donkey's to loose. They could well nominate Billary and hand the next 4 years to the Elephants. :(


i personally think hillary is the strongest candidate that the democrats have


you're an obama fan, aren't you? :)

well, i understand the point, but it's still worthless


let ABC tamper with the losing side, it won't make much of a difference

Okay, do you not understand why having one of the three major broadcasters in the United States being corrupted is a really, REALLY bad thing? Sure, right now they're just "tampering with the losing side" but they can easily air misinformation, leave stuff out, make "mistakes a la Fox" and so on and so forth.

People in this country get their news from either ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or Fox. Fox is bad enough as it is...we don't need two of them.

well, i understand the point, but it's still worthless


let ABC tamper with the losing side, it won't make much of a difference

Again, the Dems' can still loose it. Don't count your eggs quite yet...

i personally think hillary is the strongest candidate that the democrats have

She'd be the one if it were only the Dems voting. But in the general race, Billary's a looser for all of us. :(

you're an obama fan, aren't you? :)

I'm an odd duck in this case. I'm liking Dr. Paul followed closely by Obama. Billary falls somewhere around the Christofacist camp of Brownback, Hunter, et al in my books.

Okay, do you not understand why having one of the three major broadcasters in the United States being corrupted is a really, REALLY bad thing? Sure, right now they're just "tampering with the losing side" but they can easily air misinformation, leave stuff out, make "mistakes a la Fox" and so on and so forth.

People in this country get their news from either ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or Fox. Fox is bad enough as it is...we don't need two of them.

First Amendment.

They can report whatever they want to, however they want to

Again, the Dems' can still loose it. Don't count your eggs quite yet...

yeah yeah yeah, i know


i just feel like a kid in a candy store ever since the november election :D

yeah yeah yeah, i know


i just feel like a kid in a candy store ever since the november election :D

just make sure you don't choose the one that rots your polity....

just make sure you don't choose the one that rots your polity....

point taken and duly noted


my apologies

First Amendment.

They can report whatever they want to, however they want to
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Also keep in mind that the only reason the major networks have access to air waves is because the promised the government to keep the public informed.
Okay, do you not understand why having one of the three major broadcasters in the United States being corrupted is a really, REALLY bad thing?
They've all been corrupt for a long, long time.

It is possible that they eliminated multiple votes from the same IP address. Those Ron Paul groups spam internet polls. Shows they're just as mature as his understanding of the government.

First Amendment.

They can report whatever they want to, however they want to
And people will eat it up while the corrupt idiots turn the country in the wrong direction.

Sure, they have free speech, but they don't have the right to try and manipulate the American people.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Also keep in mind that the only reason the major networks have access to air waves is because the promised the government to keep the public informed.


no, they have a RIGHT to have access to air waves because of their inherint right within the united states constitution

a democracy cannot and will not function properly without a free, unrestricted media

corrupt or not, right or wrong, it is what it is because the United States is a democracy

And people will eat it up while the corrupt idiots turn the country in the wrong direction.

Sure, they have free speech, but they don't have the right to try and manipulate the American people.

have you not SEEN american politics before?

no, they have a RIGHT to have access to air waves because of their inherint right within the united states constitution

a democracy cannot and will not function properly without a free, unrestricted media

corrupt or not, right or wrong, it is what it is because the United States is a democracy
No, guy. The government owns the air waves and the networks have to abide by certain rules set forth by the FCC in exchange for free access to those airwaves. That's why there's no nudity of using of the word "Fuck" on network TV, why they continue to broadcast news shows that don't bring in as much ratings as other programs could, why every local news station is affiliated with a network, and why during the day educational children's programs are broadcast.

have you not SEEN american politics before?

Nope. I've never seen American politics before despite living in this country all my life.

It's bad enough as it is. We don't want it even worse.

Nope. I've never seen American politics before despite living in this country all my life.

It's bad enough as it is. We don't want it even worse.


i agree


but i think reform in politics should be a higher priority than reform in the media, especially since censorship of a FREE media is a little contradictory

No, guy. The government owns the air waves and the networks have to abide by certain rules set forth by the FCC in exchange for free access to those airwaves. That's why there's no nudity of using of the word "Fuck" on network TV, why they continue to broadcast news shows that don't bring in as much ratings as other programs could, why every local news station is affiliated with a network, and why during the day educational children's programs are broadcast.


well, they can monitor WORDS that are said, but they can't exactly start telling the media what they can and cannot report on, and HOW they can report on it

that's a very dangerous situation to find yourself in, ESPECIALLY in a democracy as fragile as america's

Dare I hope? Is Dr. Paul actually doing so well as to have ABC out to get him?

nah. i assume that they assumed there was a bug in their voting, because guys polling at 1% don't overwhelmingly win debates. little do they know the power of ron paul's internet fans to sway internet voting.

a democracy cannot and will not function properly without a free, unrestricted media

How about a free, accurate media?

well, they can monitor WORDS that are said, but they can't exactly start telling the media what they can and cannot report on, and HOW they can report on it
Yes they can actually. The news is not allowed to knowingly spread misinformation. Well, misinformation that isn't created by the government.
that's a very dangerous situation to find yourself in, ESPECIALLY in a democracy as fragile as america's
The American system is not in any danger. We have achieved a unique perversion of democracy that would allow full enfranchisement to continue even into a situation resembling 1984.
We've effectively made voting useless.
The outcome doesn't really matter because the same types of people will always win.

How about a free, accurate media?

that would be best


but who regulates it, and to what extent?

Honestly?

The more I see of Dr. Paul the more impressed I am with him. He is one of the last responsible conservatives, and I truly wish that people would consider him more thoroughly. He has held to ideals, and his faith in the Constitution is something that is refreshing after the past six and a half years of Bush.

Not only that, but he's a baseball fan, and there's nothing wrong with that.

nah. i assume that they assumed there was a bug in their voting, because guys polling at 1% don't overwhelmingly win debates. little do they know the power of ron paul's internet fans to sway internet voting.

Good old honest FS says what I knew but didn't want to believe. :(

Too bad, so sad...

that's a very dangerous situation to find yourself in, ESPECIALLY in a democracy as fragile as america's

While democracy is generally fairly fragile, I would tend to argue that the United States boasts one of the more robust democracies in the world. None of the classical enemies of democracy seem to be present, no internal civil strife, no dominant military personalities, no anti-democracy candidates (although we do have candidates with sketchy civil liberties records) and no threat of regional secession.

no, they have a RIGHT to have access to air waves because of their inherint right within the united states constitution

No they don't. The government owns the airwaves and the networks lease it. No one has the right to broadcast on the airwaves.

corrupt or not, right or wrong, it is what it is because the United States is a democracy
The US is not a democracy.

The US is not a democracy.

democractic republic


no need to play semantics pantless pervert :p

While democracy is generally fairly fragile, I would tend to argue that the United States boasts one of the more robust democracies in the world. None of the classical enemies of democracy seem to be present, no internal civil strife, no dominant military personalities, no anti-democracy candidates (although we do have candidates with sketchy civil liberties records) and no threat of regional secession.
1) The US isn't a democracy. It is a democratic republic. Mainly a republic.
2) There are no dominant military personalities because the government is in charge of creating them. You play politics to get your position. The last dominant military personality was the last 5 star general.
3) There are no anti-democracy candidates because the US system of government is run such that only 2 parties are viable.

While democracy is generally fairly fragile, I would tend to argue that the United States boasts one of the more robust democracies in the world. None of the classical enemies of democracy seem to be present, no internal civil strife, no dominant military personalities, no anti-democracy candidates (although we do have candidates with sketchy civil liberties records) and no threat of regional secession.


well the fragility of democracy of which i was referring to was the checks and balance system that has been overturned in favor of the executive branch as of late

you see, the democracy in america is only as strong as the people who support it, and more and more nondemocratic initiatives are being passed through legislation in congress in the name of security

and now one proposes to infringe upon the media's right to free speech in the name of accurate information, but my question is who is to monitor the media in terms of accurate information assimilation? Certianly not the government, heaven forbid

thus, the media, as corrupt as it may seem now, is much better off being FREE and left unrestricted then if the government were to monitor it.

plus, the article at hand has nothing to do with airwaves, but the internet

the poll was an ONLINE poll, not an ON AIR poll

so the "government owns the airwaves" is an irrelevant argument to make in this particular case

who gives a shit?


republicans won't win the 08 election anyways, so it's like watching a large group of losers decide who will lose the least


pretty lame if you ask me
Hmm...do you even know anything about Ron Paul, who he is and what he stands for?

He isnt just "the republicans"...he stands for something none of the rest of them do. Don't be ignorant to politics. It may be the the game of life, but it's hardly a game.

Hmm...do you even know anything about Ron Paul, who he is and what he stands for?

He isnt just "the republicans"...he stands for something none of the rest of them do. Don't be ignorant to politics. It may be the the game of life, but it's hardly a game.

no, you're right


i probably shouldn't have been so hasty as to say that, but I was just fairly pissed cause of the recent Congressional vote on bush's warrantless spying


i had to vent :)

1) The US isn't a democracy. It is a democratic republic. Mainly a republic.
A semantics issue I fully understand. The post I was responding to charged that the democratic elements of the US government were under strain.

2) There are no dominant military personalities because the government is in charge of creating them. You play politics to get your position. The last dominant military personality was the last 5 star general.
It would seem appropriate that the military should be subordinate to civilians.

3) There are no anti-democracy candidates because the US system of government is run such that only 2 parties are viable.

The primary reason that there are only two viable parties in the United States is a combination of size and history. The size issue is obvious, there are over 300,000,000 Americans, in a country that is geographically, fairly large. Two large parties can remain national parties, representing voters concerns, and having constituents in nearly all corners of the country.

Increasing the number of parties would break down the national party system, dividing the electorate regionally, rather than ideologically. Even now, with two parties we can see the taint of regionalism, and the development of extreme polarity that is born of regionalism.

Not to mention, the history of the American party system is closely linked to the history of the United States.

Even at that, having two major parties is not necessarily a bad thing. The nature of the American body politic, naturally, forces the two party's party lines to the center, the structure is nowhere near as rigid as the party structure in parliamentary democracies. In Congress, cross-party defections on key issues are not uncommon, look at the failed immigration bill, look at the Ports deal last year, look at the confirmation of Bolton, look at the confirmation of federal judges. American political parties are weak at controlling their members, once elected.

Hmm...do you even know anything about Ron Paul, who he is and what he stands for?

He isnt just "the republicans"...he stands for something none of the rest of them do.
He certainly stands for a lot more dead poor people than his competition.

I find it incredibly odd that so many people seem to think that Ron Paul is some sort of maverick. In actuality, he is a relic from a time when the wealthy were even less accountable to society than they are now.
His libertarian social policies mean nothing when coupled with the fact that so many would be too poor to enjoy them in any meaningful way.

His anti-war stance is nothing more than a result of his reactionary isolationism.
He is one of the last responsible conservatives
There is nothing responsible about conservatism.

nah. i assume that they assumed there was a bug in their voting, because guys polling at 1% don't overwhelmingly win debates. little do they know the power of ron paul's internet fans to sway internet voting.And you believe the fair and balanced polls I bet you also believe there is an online terrorist organization called Anonymous.

It would seem appropriate that the military should be subordinate to civilians.

At what point did I say they were? They are subordinate to politicians - not civilians. Civilians have no place in deciding if a general is promoted, the government does.


The primary reason that there are only two viable parties in the United States is a combination of size and history.
And a lot of gerrymandering and legal rigging.

The size issue is obvious, there are over 300,000,000 Americans, in a country that is geographically, fairly large. Two large parties can remain national parties, representing voters concerns, and having constituents in nearly all corners of the country.
Wholly irrelevant. This isn't 1862. The very reason that argument is wrong is the very reason the Electoral College is obsolete. Any candidate with the time and money can make his or her face known in any part of the nation. There is this thin called tv which broadcasts such that nearly every single person in the US, and no doubt every single voter, is able to see it. Any candidate can put a commercial on tv, get on a ballot, or get in a debate if the two major parties hadn't rigged it so that 3rd parties have to jump through hoops while they don't have to try at all.

Increasing the number of parties would break down the national party system, dividing the electorate regionally, rather than ideologically.
Oh yeah that is a totally excellent reason.


Not to mention, the history of the American party system is closely linked to the history of the United States.
No, it's not. It developed itself by itself.


American political parties are weak at controlling their members, once elected.Yet they are still ideologically opposed and split along party lines almost perfectly evenly making the winner whomever has the most seats in Congress.

There is nothing responsible about conservatism.


i second that

He certainly stands for a lot more dead poor people than his competition certainly.

I find it incredibly odd that so many people seem to think that Ron Paul is some sort of maverick. In actuality, he is a relic from a time when the wealthy were even less accountable to society than they are now.
His libertarian social policies mean nothing when coupled with the fact that so many would be too poor to enjoy them in any meaningful way.

His anti-war stance is nothing more than a result of his reactionary isolationism.I will take the dead and starving poor people over the warfare/welfare state that we live in today. I am sure there will be a lot less dead Arabs and poor Americans who go into the military meat grinder because there is nothing else they can do. Its better to have the death of a few thousand poor people than a mushroom cloud over Iran and a 3rd world war. (truthfully I believe a Paul presidency would be better for the poor in the long run but I am just going to go along with your view that Libertarianism kills the poor)

Take a gun to knife fight shall I?
I will take the dead and starving poor people over the warfare/welfare state that we live in today. I am sure there will be a lot less dead Arabs and poor Americans who go into the military meat grinder because there is nothing else they can do. Its better to have the death of a few thousand poor people than a mushroom cloud over Iran and a 3rd world war. (truthfully I believe a Paul presidency would be better for the poor in the long run but I am just going to go along with your view that Libertarianism kills the poor)
Who says you can't have both? Believe it or not, there are politicians who passionately believe in peace and an active domestic government (I thought this was obvious, apparently not). They just aren't Republicans... or popular. Ron Paul is barely one of those things and you seem to like him. Why don't you check out some of the hopeless candidates on the other side?

I will take the dead and starving poor people over the warfare/welfare state that we live in today.And most lefties want to eliminate the warfare aspect, or at least moderate it to some extent (Obama being the exception). I am sure there will be a lot less dead Arabs and poor Americans who go into the military meat grinder because there is nothing else they can do.Doubt it. there will still be few jobs thagt tey can do to support themselves, so the military will still be the best option for them Its better to have the death of a few thousand poor people than a mushroom cloud over Iran and a 3rd world war.So you want to se america turn into a poor isolationist third world country wth masses of technology? nice. (truthfully I believe a Paul presidency would be better for the poor in the long run but I am just going to go along with your view that Libertarianism kills the poor)how would free market economic policies help the poor? Brazil has them but the poor usually have to turn to crime to survive.

*quietly goes back to lurking in this thread*

Take a gun to knife fight shall I?

Who says you can't have both? Believe it or not, there are politicians who passionately believe in peace and an active domestic government (I thought this was obvious, apparently not). They just aren't Republicans... or popular. Ron Paul is barely one of those things and you seem to like him. Why don't you check out some of the hopeless candidates on the other side?Who the guy who wants to Bomb Pakistan or the lady who is an accomplice in this Genocide called the Iraq war by voting for it and every piece of legislation to support it.
To tell you the truth I would vote for Kucinich or Gravel if it was between them and any other GOP candidate besides Paul. I am not a fan of socialism but I would vote for those two because they seem to at least have souls.

Who the guy who wants to Bomb Pakistan or the lady who is an accomplice in this Genocide called the Iraq war by voting for it and every piece of legislation to support it.
I detest the both of them.
To tell you the truth I would vote for Kucinich or Gravel if it was between them and any other GOP candidate besides Paul. I am not a fan of socialism but I would vote for those two because they seem to at least have souls.
Myself, I'm a supporter of Kucinich. He's not a socialist, by the way.

no, you're right


i probably shouldn't have been so hasty as to say that, but I was just fairly pissed cause of the recent Congressional vote on bush's warrantless spying


i had to vent :)
Fair enough....but you shouldnt just blanket conservatism as irresponsible. There are so many branches of it. Ron Paul and the Neo-Conservatives couldn't be more different.
He certainly stands for a lot more dead poor people than his competition.

I find it incredibly odd that so many people seem to think that Ron Paul is some sort of maverick. In actuality, he is a relic from a time when the wealthy were even less accountable to society than they are now.
His libertarian social policies mean nothing when coupled with the fact that so many would be too poor to enjoy them in any meaningful way.

His anti-war stance is nothing more than a result of his reactionary isolationism.

There is nothing responsible about conservatism.
That's the most bullshit I've ever heard. He wants people to be able to have as much individual freedom as possible. Freedom to rule their bodies the way they want to, and freedom to make money how they want to.....the two ingrediants for the freedom to pursue happiness.....basically what our constitution wanted and what the original concept of European Liberalism wanted.

That's the most bullshit I've ever heard. He wants people to be able to have as much individual freedom as possible. Freedom to rule their bodies the way they want to, and freedom to make money how they want to.....the two ingrediants for the freedom to pursue happiness.....basically what our constitution wanted and what the original concept of European Liberalism wanted.
It's very hard to be free when you're poor or otherwise beholden to a plutocracy. As I said, it doesn't much matter how much control a person has over their bodies when they have to spend eighty hours a week in a factory.

As for "original ideas," has it ever occurred to you that sometimes things need a little updating, especially after major shifts in the way the world works take place? It was called the Industrial Revolution. It simultaneously made your dream of small government a nightmare and opened the doors to a greater amount of equality, that is if resources were channeled correctly.

And most lefties want to eliminate the warfare aspect, or at least moderate it to some extent (Obama being the exception).Besides Gravel and Kucinich they are all whores to their special interest masters.

Doubt it. there will still be few jobs thagt tey can do to support themselves, so the military will still be the best option for them So you want to se america turn into a poor isolationist third world country wth masses of technology?
Not dominating the World through military intimidation and international organizations like the IMF and World bank does not mean that you are an Isolationist. Show me where Paul has says he wants to become an isolationist.
nice. how would free market economic policies help the poor? Brazil has them but the poor usually have to turn to crime to survive.

*quietly goes back to lurking in this thread*Well I am not going to go into a economic debate with you but lets just say there would be more jobs in America if there was not so much regulation and taxing on businesses.
People go to China and other emerging markets because they can open factories and businesses much easier than in America and pay less taxes. That is why China is quickly catching up to America and will surpass us if we continue along with our backward socialist policies and our economically draining attempts at empire.

It's very hard to be free when you're poor or otherwise beholden to a plutocracy. As I said, it doesn't much matter how much control a person has over their bodies when they have to spend eighty hours a week in a factory.
In a modern soceity, there will always be people above and people below.
As for "original ideas," has it ever occurred to you that sometimes things need a little updating, especially after major shifts in the way the world works take place? It was called the Industrial Revolution. It simultaneously made your dream of small government a nightmare and opened the doors to a greater amount of equality, that is if resources were channeled correctly.
Small government is a possibility, it just needs people like Ron Paul to lead it to reality. As for equality. Equality is fake. How can there be equality in a world of unequal people?

I detest the both of them.

Myself, I'm a supporter of Kucinich. He's not a socialist, by the way.Well I consider people who call for Universal health care and other government policies socialist it makes it easier for my lazy brain to group them all together. What would he be called by the way?

there would be more jobs in America if there was not so much regulation and taxing on businesses.
People go to China and other emerging markets because they can open factories and businesses much easier than in America and pay less taxes. That is why China is quickly catching up to America and will surpass us if we continue along with our backward socialist policies and our economically draining attempts at empire.



people also die DAILY in many chinese factories and sweatshops

but who the hell cares? right? so long as the companies are yielding profits fuck the employees

and you couldn't be MORE wrong

european nations have STRICT regulations over commercial industries, and the yet THEY are more productive than american, the EURO is worth MORE than the dollar

so much for idea of no rules just right

In a modern soceity, there will always be people above and people below.
I would never suggest otherwise. However, I tend to think these things should be determined by merit, and not by birth, and even then, the lowest should not live in squaller while so much excess exists.
Small government is a possibility, it just needs people like Ron Paul to lead it to reality.
I am well aware that it is a possibility. We had it in the Gilded Age after all.
As for equality. Equality is fake. How can there be equality in a world of unequal people?
In the end, no man is worth more than any other. Our very ability to think abstractly and critically endows us with purpose. Some may be more intelligent, some may contribute more to society, but in the end, every man is equal and every man is capable of giving something to someone, even if that something is intangible; even if all his life all he's ever done is hurt he still has the potential to do some good to someone.

People go to China and other emerging markets because they can open factories and businesses much easier than in America and pay less taxes. That is why China is quickly catching up to America and will surpass us if we continue along with our backward socialist policies and our economically draining attempts at empire.
I know how to save businesses in America billions of dollars a year without repealing much needed taxes and regulation: have the government foot the healthcare bill. Look how easy that was. I give it a year or less before the big businesses start setting their lobbyists on support of government subsidized healthcare because it is costing them competitiveness vs European and Japanese industries.

Well I consider people who call for Universal health care and other government policies socialist it makes it easier for my lazy brain to group them all together. What would he be called by the way?
They, like myself are reformists. We hold no hatred or even a dislike of properly regulated capitalism.

european nations have STRICT regulations over commercial industries, and the yet THEY are more productive than american, the EURO is worth MORE than the dollar
It's because, you know, their employees actually get to live their lives without worrying they should have spent more time at the office.
It's much easier when you don't have to worry about your healthcare or even paying for your kid's university.

I would never suggest otherwise. However, I tend to think these things should be determined by merit, and not by birth, and even then, the lowest should not live in squaller while so much excess exists.
Not everyone rich is born rich.....You assume too much.
In the end, no man is worth more than any other. Our very ability to think abstractly and critically endows us with purpose. Some may be more intelligent, some may contribute more to society, but in the end, every man is equal and every man is capable of giving something to someone, even if that something is intangible; even if all his life all he's ever done is hurt he still has the potential to do some good to someone.
No, that doesnt show that we are all equal, that shows that we all humans. Some humans are still better than others, is my point. Whether better morally, smarter, more athletic, stronger....ect....we are not equal.

Of course Ron Paul won, given that the other candidates were spouting such gibberish like McCain's "Being pro-life is a matter of national security!" statements.

OWA: The problem here is that ABC is corrupted if they keep resetting the tallies because Ron Paul is winning, which would be very bad news.

Exactly; they want to keep a man like Ron Paul out of the White House because Ron Paul truly has the support of the people (at least Republican people) and he believes in actually obeying the Constitution, something the news media cannot and will not tolerate.

Dare I hope? Is Dr. Paul actually doing so well as to have ABC out to get him?


http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=46813

Even with that reset, he still seem stio be winning:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Probably. Ron Paul must be a dangerous threat to the powers that be. It is bad enough, but to be expected, that the news media wish to keep him from becoming a serious contender in the Presidential race, but even the REPUBLICANS tried to keep him out of the debates.

THAT tells me he's an honest man, trying to truly do what's best for the people, instead of trying to line his own pockets, something most other Republicans (and, it goes without saying, all Democrats) are notorious for doing, and the vast majority of both parties as well as the news media WILL NOT TOLERATE such people being elected to the White House, and therefore they are trying to sink/scuttle/destroy/discredit/whatever his campaign.

well, i understand the point, but it's still worthless


let ABC tamper with the losing side, it won't make much of a difference

No, it makes a lot of difference. It doesn't matter which side they're tampering with, if ABC is tampering, then they're corrupt and should be held accountable for it, or else who's to say they won't do it again in future Presidential races?

Soo.... some idiot Ron Paul forum somewhere did a fire mission / raid / whatever on the poll...

Not everyone rich is born rich.....You assume too much.
Most are. There simply is very little chance that someone born in the ghetto will even become middle-class. No matter how capable he is.
No, that doesnt show that we are all equal, that shows that we all humans. Some humans are still better than others, is my point. Whether better morally, smarter, more athletic, stronger....ect....we are not equal.
This isn't about making people equally strong, equally smart or equally moral. It's about how everyone is equal in the sense that everyone is equally entitled to the spoils of society. I acknowledge that the accumulation of wealth is currently too great an incentive to toss away. However, that is only true because of people like you and whoever educated you.

people also die DAILY in many chinese factories and sweatshops

but who the hell cares? right? so long as the companies are yielding profits fuck the employees

and you couldn't be MORE wrong
I am not going to sit here and tell you capitalism is perfect. I am going to say it is superior to all other economic models. Yes some of those companies treat there workers horribly but it is a dam sure better than starving to death out in the country side which was what was happening to millions of Chinese before
the Chinese economic boom. You can not sit here and tell me that the rapid industrialization of China has not benefited hundreds of million of Chinese and elevated them to middle class. If the factories are so bad than why do hundreds of millions of Chinese leave the countryside and go work in the factories?

european nations have STRICT regulations over commercial industries, and the yet THEY are more productive than american, the EURO is worth MORE than the dollar

so much for idea of no rules just rightThe Euro is worth more than the dollar because the US has spent over a trillion dollars on a BS war. The war and other social programs cost more money than the US government brings in. So the US funds it war and social programs by borrowing trillions of dollars from the Asians. The dollar is falling because the world is starting to figure out the US will never be able to pay the money back and confidence in the dollar is dropping making the dollar more and more worthless. The dollars decline is a direct result of the warfare/welfare state.

I am not going to sit here and tell you capitalism is perfect. I am going to say it is superior to all other economic models. Yes some of those companies treat there workers horribly but it is a dam sure better than starving to death out in the country side which was what was happening to millions of Chinese before
the Chinese economic boom. You can not sit here and tell me that the rapid industrialization of China has not benefited hundreds of million of Chinese and elevated them to middle class. If the factories are so bad than why do hundreds of millions of Chinese leave the countryside and go work in the factories?

The Euro is worth more than the dollar because the US has spent over a trillion dollars on a BS war. The war and other social programs cost more money than the US government brings in. So the US funds it war and social programs by borrowing trillions of dollars from the Asians. The dollar is falling because the world is starting to figure out the US will never be able to pay the money back and confidence in the dollar is dropping making the dollar more and more worthless. The dollars decline is a direct result of the warfare/welfare state.


actually, the Euro was worth more than the dollar BEFORE the Iraqi war

and Europe was and is STILL more productive than the US

why?

because workers are HAPPIER and don't have to worry about their healthcare and financial burdens

plus, they get vacations and other great benefits STANDARD

and as for china, you're proposing a post hoc argument

in a nation of over a billion people, obviously farming isn't going to work for everybody

that's not to say that farming is a bad living, but yes people will starve when over a billion people try to be farmers

and it's not that their economic system is SO GREAT that people leave the countryside, it's just that it's BETTER than what they may currently have, but considering what they had wasn't much either, that doesn't say a whole lot

personally, a human's life is worth more than just the amount of productivity they provide to a nation's economic system

that's where you and i differ

when i see a person, i see a human being

you see a dollar sign and a productivity level


i pity you

Soo.... some idiot Ron Paul forum somewhere did a fire mission / raid / whatever on the poll...

That was my first impression. Ron Paul supporters have few screws loose and I wouldn't put it past them to flood the poll either through coordination or automation.

Most are. There simply is very little chance that someone born in the ghetto will even become middle-class. No matter how capable he is.
Perhaps not in the ghetto...because ghetto culture is not compatible with the general American culture...and ghetto values are not compatible with general American values...but someone born not rich (not in the ghetto) has a very strong chance of getting rich. Florida is very good with that. If you do well in high school and on your SATs...Florida will pay 100% of your public University tutition...once you graduate from University...it's not hard to not be poor anymore. And the road to getting rich in America is probably the easiest road to getting rich in the world.
This isn't about making people equally strong, equally smart or equally moral. It's about how everyone is equal in the sense that everyone is equally entitled to the spoils of society. I acknowledge that the accumulation of wealth is currently too great an incentive to toss away. However, that is only true because of people like you and whoever educated you.
But thats the problem. Not everyone puts and equal ammount into soceity...so why should everyone take an equal ammount out of soceity? The accumulation of wealth, power and fame is a natural human incentive that has always been and will always be. People like me...in that regard...make up most of humanity. Welcome to reality, Neo Undelia.

That was my first impression. Ron Paul supporters have few screws loose and I wouldn't put it past them to flood the poll either through coordination or automation.

And then claim conspiracy if they get caught. I'm not saying it's a sure thing that's what happened, but it makes as much sense as ABC fucking with the results.

The Euro is worth more than the dollar because the US has spent over a trillion dollars on a BS war. The war and other social programs cost more money than the US government brings in. So the US funds it war and social programs by borrowing trillions of dollars from the Asians. The dollar is falling because the world is starting to figure out the US will never be able to pay the money back and confidence in the dollar is dropping making the dollar more and more worthless. The dollars decline is a direct result of the warfare/welfare state.
The USA has been in the borrowing hole since the War of 1812. The dollar is following because other nations are getting tired of propping it up.

I know how to save businesses in America billions of dollars a year without repealing much needed taxes and regulation: have the government foot the healthcare bill. Look how easy that was. I give it a year or less before the big businesses start setting their lobbyists on support of government subsidized healthcare because it is costing them competitiveness vs European and Japanese industries.You know I have heard that a universal health care plan would cost only a 100 billion dollars a year if done right. It is just that I have no faith in the whores who lead us. I am sure a universal health care bill would get earmarks to every special interest group out there and end up costing us over 10 times of the cost I projected earlier and end up being really shitty health care.

You know I have heard that a universal health care plan would cost only a 100 billion dollars a year if done right. It is just that I have no faith in the whores who lead us. I am sure a universal health care bill would get earmarks to every special interest group out there and end up costing us over 10 times of the cost I projected earlier and end up being really shitty health care.

I think that if you take the profit motive out of the health care system, we could spend what we spend today, cover everyone, earmark the living fuck out of the system and still come out ahead.

Perhaps not in the ghetto...because ghetto culture is not compatible with the general American culture...and ghetto values are not compatible with general American values...but someone born not rich (not in the ghetto) has a very strong chance of getting rich. Florida is very good with that. If you do well in high school and on your SATs...Florida will pay 100% of your public University tutition...once you graduate from University...it's not hard to not be poor anymore. And the road to getting rich in America is probably the easiest road to getting rich in the world.



that is a direct result of SOCIALISM

the government paying for your schooling is not capitalistic


capitalism says that no matter HOW well or poor you do in high school, you can still get into a university..........so long as your pocket book holds out

translation: you had better hope to god you come from a rich family


the very idea behind socialism is the concept that EVERYONE deserves a fair and fighting chance, and whereas capitalists CLAIM the same thing but then in practice they screw the poor and pander to the rich, socialists actually DO what they believe in, and they help the poor out.

best system of government that i can think of.

after all, the american constitution defines a legitimate, democratic government as one of the people, by the people, and FOR the people.

A government that does not provide its neediest citizens with the basic tools for a successful life is not a government FOR the people

But thats the problem. Not everyone puts and equal ammount into soceity...so why should everyone take an equal ammount out of soceity? The accumulation of wealth, power and fame is a natural human incentive that has always been and will always be. People like me...in that regard...make up most of humanity. Welcome to reality, Neo Undelia.
That's the problem with America.

Guy 1: "I'm an American."
Guy 2: "I'm an American too."
Guy 1: "I went to college for business and work as a CEO at a big company."
Guy 2: "I didn't go to college and have been working on the line at a car plant."
Guy 1: "I caused my company to go to ruin after working for 3 years."
Guy 2: "I have been working 40 hours a week for 30 years."
Guy 1: "I got millions of dollars in stock options and hundreds of thousands of dollars when I left the company."
Guy 2: "I earn just enough to get by and had my benefits taken away when Guy 1 was put in charge to help the company then was fired after Guy 1 destroyed the company."
Guy 1: "I made more money and had a higher position, I'm worth more as a human being than Guy 2"

I make two to three times as much as my friends, I don't see myself as being worth more than they are because I make more money.

And PS - besides Florida's system being very socialistic, it is highly irregular. Shitty reference, Cpt Capitalism.

And then claim conspiracy if they get caught. I'm not saying it's a sure thing that's what happened, but it makes as much sense as ABC fucking with the results.

of course its what happened

and of course abc fucked with the results. they probably went through and tossed out all the repeat IP addresses.

the question might be "why didnt the rest of the campaigns try to stuff the ballot box?"

of course its what happened

and of course abc fucked with the results. they probably went through and tossed out all the repeat IP addresses.

the question might be "why didnt the rest of the campaigns try to stuff the ballot box?"

Because the rest of the campaigns don't have a bunch of loony followers.

I was leaving a Target shopping center and around the 4 way stop at a major thoroughfare, Ron Paul supporters were on every corner with signs.

Because the rest of the campaigns don't have a bunch of loony followers.

I was leaving a Target shopping center and around the 4 way stop at a major thoroughfare, Ron Paul supporters were on every corner with signs.

sounds more like a cult than a political group

that is a direct result of SOCIALISM

the government paying for your schooling is not capitalistic


capitalism says that no matter HOW well or poor you do in high school, you can still get into a university..........so long as your pocket book holds out

translation: you had better hope to god you come from a rich family


the very idea behind socialism is the concept that EVERYONE deserves a fair and fighting chance, and whereas capitalists CLAIM the same thing but then in practice they screw the poor and pander to the rich, socialists actually DO what they believe in, and they help the poor out.

best system of government that i can think of.

after all, the american constitution defines a legitimate, democratic government as one of the people, by the people, and FOR the people.

A government that does not provide its neediest citizens with the basic tools for a successful life is not a government FOR the people
Don't jump to conclusions, America is not purely capitalist. No nation is and no nation will ever be. I beleive in capitalism and a small government...but I DO beleive that education is very important and I think Florida's system for scholarship for University works really well. America isnt 100% pure capitalist..and neither is Florida....

I'd never support socialism....I support a largely capitalist state...but with an eye towards education and the enviornment.

Don't jump to conclusions, America is not purely capitalist. No nation is and no nation will ever be. I beleive in capitalism and a small government...but I DO beleive that education is very important and I think Florida's system for scholarship for University works really well. America isnt 100% pure capitalist..and neither is Florida....

I'd never support socialism....I support a largely capitalist state...but with an eye towards education and the enviornment.

that's irrelevant

the point is that you used a COMPLETELY socialistic program to try and justify capitalism

doesn't work


as pantless hero said, it's also HIGHLY irregular in america

That's the problem with America.

Guy 1: "I'm an American."
Guy 2: "I'm an American too."
Guy 1: "I went to college for business and work as a CEO at a big company."
Guy 2: "I didn't go to college and have been working on the line at a car plant."
Guy 1: "I caused my company to go to ruin after working for 3 years."
Guy 2: "I have been working 40 hours a week for 30 years."
Guy 1: "I got millions of dollars in stock options and hundreds of thousands of dollars when I left the company."
Guy 2: "I earn just enough to get by and had my benefits taken away when Guy 1 was put in charge to help the company then was fired after Guy 1 destroyed the company."
Guy 1: "I made more money and had a higher position, I'm worth more as a human being than Guy 2"

I make two to three times as much as my friends, I don't see myself as being worth more than they are because I make more money.

And PS - besides Florida's system being very socialistic, it is highly irregular. Shitty reference, Cpt Capitalism.
Not everyone can be a CEO.....like I've already said. In every modern soceity, there will always need to be people above and people below. That's life.

As for Florida's system..I've already addressed it.

Don't jump to conclusions, America is not purely capitalist. No nation is and no nation will ever be. I beleive in capitalism and a small government...but I DO beleive that education is very important and I think Florida's system for scholarship for University works really well. America isnt 100% pure capitalist..and neither is Florida....

I'd never support socialism....I support a largely capitalist state...but with an eye towards education and the enviornment.

You better hope Florida's system stays in place, because the current round of tax cuts and the governor's refusal to allow for a tuition increase is threatening to shake the whole system apart. All the public universities have put caps on enrollment and hiring, and are still being forced to cut anywhere from 4-10% of their budgets. If you're not top tier, you may find yourself frozen out of UF or FSU, and if you're marginal, you might find yourself going to a community college because there's no room for you anywhere else.

Capitalism at work.

that's irrelevant

the point is that you used a COMPLETELY socialistic program to try and justify capitalism

doesn't work


as pantless hero said, it's also HIGHLY irregular in america
No..I'm just showing how it's not hard as hard to rise up in America as people are showing. America is mostly capitalist, but does have some social policies, that's just how America is...so why can't I use that as an example of how it IS possible to rise up in America?

I'm not trying to defend a "pure-capitalist" America because it does not exist.

The attack was made on rising up in America and I addressed it.

Not everyone can be a CEO.....like I've already said. In every modern soceity, there will always need to be people above and people below. That's life.

As for Florida's system..I've already addressed it.

it's not a question of people being above or below


it's this:

there should be no reason why 10% of the american population own over 80% of the wealth

that goes well beyond those above and below


that's where it becomes a difference between having MILLIONS of dollars and not having enough to feed yourself

THAT is a problem

Because the rest of the campaigns don't have a bunch of loony followers.

I was leaving a Target shopping center and around the 4 way stop at a major thoroughfare, Ron Paul supporters were on every corner with signs.

tell that to joe biden

he (or his campaign) was the one who tried to stack the deck at the cnn/utube democratic debate

No..I'm just showing how it's not hard as hard to rise up in America as people are showing. America is mostly capitalist, but does have some social policies, that's just how America is...so why can't I use that as an example of how it IS possible to rise up in America?

I'm not trying to defend a "pure-capitalist" America because it does not exist.

The attack was made on rising up in America and I addressed it.

you must understand


florida's education program, in that particular sense, has NO capitalism in it

it's COMPLETELY socialistic


so you can't use it as an example, well i guess you can, but it only furthers the call for socialism, not capitalism


i understand what you're trying to do, but it would be like if I was trying to justify a democracy by citing a politician who wasn't elected, but rather took over office

it's, well, contradictory in nature


i think this is well off of topic for the forum though

No..I'm just showing how it's not hard as hard to rise up in America as people are showing. America is mostly capitalist, but does have some social policies, that's just how America is...so why can't I use that as an example of how it IS possible to rise up in America?

I'm not trying to defend a "pure-capitalist" America because it does not exist.

The attack was made on rising up in America and I addressed it.

It's possible to rise up in the US--it's possible to rise up in Cuba, too, but the odds are long. The fact is that there's far more social mobility in more socialist countries, especially in western Europe, than there is in the US, largely because people in western Europe don't have to worry about being homeless or losing their health insurance if they take a chance on starting a business and fail. And what gives them that freedom? Socialist policies.

actually, the Euro was worth more than the dollar BEFORE the Iraqi war

and Europe was and is STILL more productive than the US

why?

because workers are HAPPIER and don't have to worry about their healthcare and financial burdens

plus, they get vacations and other great benefits STANDARD
Was Europe more productive than the US before 2001?

and as for china, you're proposing a post hoc argument

in a nation of over a billion people, obviously farming isn't going to work for everybody

that's not to say that farming is a bad living, but yes people will starve when over a billion people try to be farmers

and it's not that their economic system is SO GREAT that people leave the countryside, it's just that it's BETTER than what they may currently have, but considering what they had wasn't much either, that doesn't say a whole lotYou can not dispute life is much better for hundreds of millions of Chinese now under a more capitalistic economy than it was under a socialist one.

personally, a human's life is worth more than just the amount of productivity they provide to a nation's economic system

that's where you and i differ

when i see a person, i see a human being

you see a dollar sign and a productivity level


i pity youPity all you like if you pity those who are against the raping and theft of non violent productive people by a monopolistic government ran by whores who say they steal for the good of humanity than it does not speak much for yourself. The truth is you may see the human being but you do not see an individual with his own wants, strengths, weaknesses and dreams. You believe it is ok for one man to take from another for this hive mind concept of the greater good. I do not see anything higher than the concept of individual freedom and rights. That is why I am ok with some people starving and dying as long as the rights of all individuals are protected.(A true free market would create jobs but I will go with Libertarianism equals genocide of the poor for the argument).

you must understand


florida's education program, in that particular sense, has NO capitalism in it

it's COMPLETELY socialistic
Actually, it does, but TAA did a really shitty job of describing it.

Was Europe more productive than the US before 2001?

You can not dispute life is much better for hundreds of millions of Chinese now under a more capitalistic economy than it was under a socialist one.

Pity all you like if you pity those who are against the raping and theft of non violent productive people by a monopolistic government ran by whores who say they steal for the good of humanity than it does not speak much for yourself. The truth is you may see the human being but you do not see an individual with his own wants, strengths, weaknesses and dreams. You believe it is ok for one man to take from another for this hive mind concept of the greater good. I do not see anything higher than the concept of individual freedom and rights. That is why I am ok with some people starving and dying as long as the rights of all individuals are protected.(A true free market would create jobs but I will go with Libertarianism equals genocide of the poor for the argument).


you talk about the rights of the people, but really you're only talking about the rights of a very few wealthy elite


the right of the PEOPLE would be the masses who are employed by rich, greedy aristocrats who are only interested in yielding profits, not looking out for their workers

the rights of the PEOPLE would be tighter regulation on business

it would be affirming that the PEOPLE have a right to have a job without causing unnecessary risk to their health

the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE are upheld by the REGULATION of greedy corporations who would GLADLY harm people if it meant making another buck

It's possible to rise up in the US--it's possible to rise up in Cuba, too, but the odds are long. The fact is that there's far more social mobility in more socialist countries, especially in western Europe, than there is in the US, largely because people in western Europe don't have to worry about being homeless or losing their health insurance if they take a chance on starting a business and fail. And what gives them that freedom? Socialist policies.
No..you couldnt be more wrong there. There is SO much more mobility in America than Europe. In Europe the rich only associate with themselves...and there is almost no chance of becoming rich. It's true, in Europe it's much easy to have a life where you will be "comfterable"....but to become rich...it's near impossible. That's where America wins. This is not only my thought, but of all the Germans and Swiss (yes even Swiss) who I've been with all summer.

No..you couldnt be more wrong there. There is SO much more mobility in America than Europe. In Europe the rich only associate with themselves...and there is almost no chance of becoming rich. It's true, in Europe it's much easy to have a life where you will be "comfterable"....but to become rich...it's near impossible. That's where America wins. This is not only my thought, but of all the Germans and Swiss (yes even Swiss) who I've been with all summer.

forgive me, but a bliss summer vacation in europe does not make you an economic expert on Europe and America


just thought i would say

Not everyone can be a CEO.....like I've already said. In every modern soceity, there will always need to be people above and people below. That's life.
And the you hold the position that those above are worth more than those below? Very Stalinist of you.

No..you couldnt be more wrong there. There is SO much more mobility in America than Europe. In Europe the rich only associate with themselves...and there is almost no chance of becoming rich. It's true, in Europe it's much easy to have a life where you will be "comfterable"....but to become rich...it's near impossible. That's where America wins. This is not only my thought, but of all the Germans and Swiss (yes even Swiss) who I've been with all summer.
But are they advocating America's system as the better system? That's the relevant retort.

But are they advocating America's system as the better system? That's the relevant retort.

not really


it doesn't matter what a couple of random street people think


either way, it's uninformed opinions, which holds no more weight in this argument than mine or yours

forgive me, but a bliss summer vacation in europe does not make you an economic expert on Europe and America


just thought i would say
Actually, it was my fourth time in Europe. And half of it I spent studying German language and Comparitive Politics in Bavaria. Not to mention the people who told me exactly what I've just told you makes me alot more likely of knowing how they think than you.

And the you hold the position that those above are worth more than those below? Very Stalinist of you.
Worth more in the sense that it's ok to kill the ones below? No. Worth more in the sense that they contribute more to soceity on an individual level? Yes.
But are they advocating America's system as the better system? That's the relevant retort.
The general agreement was that education is better in Bavaria and Switzerland....but once you get the great education, it's very hard to actually do anything with your life over the level of "being comfterable" in Bavaria and Switzerland. America has opportunities like no other place in the world.

Actually, it was my fourth time in Europe. And half of it I spent studying German language and Comparitive Politics in Bavaria. Not to mention the people who told me exactly what I've just told you makes me alot more likely of knowing how they think than you.

i concede,

however you should be more careful how you say things, like for example "i spent this summer in europe" doesn't sound at all like "this was my fourth trip studying comparitive politics etc."

you talk about the rights of the people, but really you're only talking about the rights of a very few wealthy elite


the right of the PEOPLE would be the masses who are employed by rich, greedy aristocrats who are only interested in yielding profits, not looking out for their workers

the rights of the PEOPLE would be tighter regulation on business

it would be affirming that the PEOPLE have a right to have a job without causing unnecessary risk to their health

the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE are upheld by the REGULATION of greedy corporations who would GLADLY harm people if it meant making another buckYou act as if the government is some all loving and fair organization. The reason the elite are the elite is because of their close affiliation and control of government officials. Most of these huge corporations
get their contracts and monopolistic control of their industry because they no how to use the government to destroy their competitors. Government will always be filled with people who are nasty and vile and that is the reason it must be kept weak and small. You go on about the greedy capitalists who are selfish and only seek power over the average human but what happens when you get greedy government official who is in charge of a monopolistic government (Hitler, Stalin, Mao,). I will take my chances with the capitalist instead taking them with the Government tyrant.
.

You act as if the government is some all loving and fair organization. The reason the elite are the elite is because of their close affiliation and control of government officials. Most of these huge corporations
get their contracts and monopolistic control of their industry because they no how to use the government to destroy their competitors. Government will always be filled with people who are nasty and vile and that is the reason it must be kept weak and small. You go on about the greedy capitalists who are selfish and only seek power over the average human but what happens when you get greedy government official who is in charge of a monopolistic government (Hitler, Stalin, Mao,). I will take my chances with the capitalist instead taking them with the Government tyrant.
.


okay, you do make a good point

and i for one do agree with you that, under the current way politics in america is run, i do not necessarily trust the government when it comes to properly carrying out socialistic programs

but i don't think that means we should give all the power to the corporations that we KNOW are out to screw us

it means we should be putting all our energy into reforming the government so that it CAN better help we the people

No..you couldnt be more wrong there. There is SO much more mobility in America than Europe. In Europe the rich only associate with themselves...and there is almost no chance of becoming rich. It's true, in Europe it's much easy to have a life where you will be "comfterable"....but to become rich...it's near impossible. That's where America wins. This is not only my thought, but of all the Germans and Swiss (yes even Swiss) who I've been with all summer.

Try again (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm)

Try again (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm)
Oh, someone got pwned. It looks like anecdotal evidence isn't the best kind. Who would have thought?

Try again (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm)
Simply put, it's wrong when incorporated into the real world. It's hardly possible to become rich in Scandinavia when you have to pay such an insane ammount to the government in taxes, and it didn't even talk about Switzerland.

Simply put, it's wrong when incorporated into the real world. It's hardly possible to become rich in Scandinavia when you have to pay such an insane ammount to the government in taxes, and it didn't even talk about Switzerland.

okay, even assuming that you are correct


why would you favor a system where a very small amount of people can get INSANELY rich at the expense of the MAJORITY of the population living in poverty?

i don't see the justification of such a system


to me, the system where EVERYONE is better off, but sadly no not EVERYONE has the SLIGHT chance of being BILLIONARES seems much better.

okay, even assuming that you are correct


why would you favor a system where a very small amount of people can get INSANELY rich at the expense of the MAJORITY of the population living in poverty?

i don't see the justification of such a system


to me, the system where EVERYONE is better off, but sadly no not EVERYONE has the SLIGHT chance of being BILLIONARES seems much better to me.
Becauses it's just depressing. When you know that life is always going to be ok....but not gonna get much better. You just go to work...make your money...come home...become an alcoholic...and then go out again the next day to work. Sure you have money for your house...your kids have money for education and you don't have to worry about putting food on the table...but you also can't help but notice that life is going on without you...and you can't help but wonder..when you die, what will people remember you by? You've always just been OK. Nothing more and nothing less.

Swiss know that suicide an alcoholism is a big problem in their country....and they also know why.

Becauses it's just depressing. When you know that life is always going to be ok....but not gonna get much better. You just go to work...make your money...come home...become an alcoholic...and then go out again the next day to work. Sure you have money for your house...your kids have money for education and you don't have to worry about putting food on the table...but you also can't help but notice that life is going on without you...and you can't help but wonder..when you die, what will people remember you by? You've always just been OK. Nothing more and nothing less.


for a majority of americans, what you just described would be a dream come true

why would you favor a system where a very small amount of people can get INSANELY rich at the expense of the MAJORITY of the population living in poverty?

i don't see the justification of such a system
I had a thread talking about just this the other day!

Becauses it's just depressing. When you know that life is always going to be ok....but not gonna get much better. You just go to work...make your money...come home...become an alcoholic...and then go out again the next day to work. Sure you have money for your house...your kids have money for education and you don't have to worry about putting food on the table...but you also can't help but notice that life is going on without you...and you can't help but wonder..when you die, what will people remember you by? You've always just been OK. Nothing more and nothing less.
Guy, that's where it becomes your responsibility to find meaning in life.
More money isn't going to do that for you anymore than alcohol will.

Besides, what you're saying doesn't even make any sense. Scandinavia has lower incidence of alcoholism, and they have a much more equatable society.

Swiss know that suicide an alcoholism is a big problem in their country....and they also know why.
I thought it was Sweeden that had a problem with alcoholism, not Switzerland... and in Sweeden it's supposed to have to do with the lack of sunlight during much of the winter, not economics.

I had a thread talking about just this the other day!

i wish i would have seen it, i would have posted in it like no other!



what's your views?

You better hope Florida's system stays in place, because the current round of tax cuts and the governor's refusal to allow for a tuition increase is threatening to shake the whole system apart. All the public universities have put caps on enrollment and hiring, and are still being forced to cut anywhere from 4-10% of their budgets. If you're not top tier, you may find yourself frozen out of UF or FSU, and if you're marginal, you might find yourself going to a community college because there's no room for you anywhere else.
I missed this before because it was at the bottom of the page, but this is exactly what has happened it Texas. If you aren't in the top ten percent of your class, forget about going to any of the good state schools.

I thought it was Sweeden that had a problem with alcoholism, not Switzerland... and in Sweeden it's supposed to have to do with the lack of sunlight during much of the winter, not economics.
Really, its a bizarre argument to being with. People wanting to kill themselves because they can't be billionaires?

okay, you do make a good point

and i for one do agree with you that, under the current way politics in america is run, i do not necessarily trust the government when it comes to properly carrying out socialistic programs

but i don't think that means we should give all the power to the corporations that we KNOW are out to screw us

it means we should be putting all our energy into reforming the government so that it CAN better help we the peopleNo of course not I am no fan of corporations myself. But corporations are much easier to fight off than a tyrannical monopolistic government. Local towns across America are passing anti-big box store legislation Arcata California is one I know of that has done it. So if Wal-Mart can be defeated by local governments that means that corporations are powerful but they can still be defeated at a local level but what do you do if you get a tyrant in charge of a huge socialized federal government who has your medical records, psyche reports, and all the information from your internet use on you. They will have all access to all parts of your life and will be able to regulate everything you do. Corporations may be scary but the idea of a 21st century Stalin with the technology of today really scares the shit out of me. The sad thing is is that our government seems to be slipping ever closer to tyranny with our leaders who care less and less about what the citizens of USA actually think.

I missed this before because it was at the bottom of the page, but this is exactly what has happened it Texas. If you aren't in the top ten percent of your class, forget about going to any of the good state schools.

I'll take "Thank God I Go To Private School" for 200, Alex.

The sad thing is is that our government seems to be slipping ever closer to tyranny with our leaders who care less and less about what the citizens of USA actually think.

It doesn't help any that when the government tells people what to think, they eat it up.

It doesn't help any that when the government tells people what to think, they eat it up.You can think the American public school system for that. They should make 1984 mandatory reading in schools again.

You can think the American public school system for that. They should make 1984 mandatory reading in schools again.

Wouldn't matter guy, not with they way education is set up now.
What they should do is teach critical thinking, that is too say, students should have to regularly practice it.

No of course not I am no fan of corporations myself. But corporations are much easier to fight off than a tyrannical monopolistic government. Local towns across America are passing anti-big box store legislation Arcata California is one I know of that has done it. So if Wal-Mart can be defeated by local governments that means that corporations are powerful but they can still be defeated at a local level but what do you do if you get a tyrant in charge of a huge socialized federal government who has your medical records, psyche reports, and all the information from your internet use on you. They will have all access to all parts of your life and will be able to regulate everything you do. Corporations may be scary but the idea of a 21st century Stalin with the technology of today really scares the shit out of me. The sad thing is is that our government seems to be slipping ever closer to tyranny with our leaders who care less and less about what the citizens of USA actually think.


no offense, but that sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory

No they don't. The government owns the airwaves and the networks lease it. No one has the right to broadcast on the airwaves.

Just because the government claims it doesn't make it so. Might does not make right.

no offense, but that sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theoryI am not saying this is going to happen but it could. What makes America different from other countries, what makes us so special. We allow our government to lie us into wars, to pass legislation like the patriot act. We sit around and virtually do nothing as we are going trillions of dollars into debt on wars and government programs that our great, great,great grandkids will be paying for and say nothing. What would stop a tyrannical dictator from seizing power would the people stop it? As long as they could watch tv and drink beer I don't think they would give a shit.

Just because the government claims it doesn't make it so. Might does not make right.

So by what right does anyone else own the airwaves?

i wish i would have seen it, i would have posted in it like no other!



what's your views?
That it's seriously fucked up that there are some people who have private jets, 200 cars and 4 mansions while there are a lot of people who struggle to pay rent and buy food... more or less.

I'll try finding the thread. boop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534416)

Wouldn't matter guy, not with they way education is set up now.
What they should do is teach critical thinking, that is too say, students should have to regularly practice it.

you do that, soon you'll have kids questioning what they are told and demanding arguments and evidence for things. it'd be chaos.

Ron Paul might be further down the road to a free market than most Republicans, but he's got nothing to do with freedom. I'd be appalled if anyone who called themselves libertarian would vote for him.

The reason being that no one who opposes immigration (even the unofficial kind) can be libertarian.

That it's seriously fucked up that there are some people who have private jets, 200 cars and 4 mansions while there are a lot of people who struggle to pay rent and buy food... more or less.

I'll try finding the thread. boop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534416)

Oh, come on...surely if people make a lot of money they deserve to splurge. Don't begrudge people that.

Admittedly that's ridiculously opulent, but they have the money. Of course, they also have more than enough to be taxed more.

Frankly? The poorest of the poor in this world ought to live like middle-class America. If only that were achievable...

So by what right does anyone else own the airwaves?

Well, considering that radio waves aren't just floating around out there in space for broadcasters to hitch on, but are rather generated BY A TRANSMITTER SOMEBODY OWNS and sent out OVER AN ANTENNA SOMEBODY OWNS, I would say that whoever owns the transmitter and antenna has a legitimate claim to ownership of those radio waves.

A much more rational approach would be to treat spectrum space like land. Parties are initially allocated a certain range of frequencies over a certain geographical area, and then they are theirs to do as they want with--sell, bequeath, will, donate, trade, etc.--indefinitely. No "licenses", no content restrictions--it's just like land. It's yours to dispose of as you please.

And just like land, if you exceed your bandwidth or geographical limitations, you're trespassing--so you'd better make sure you don't.

Oh, come on...surely if people make a lot of money they deserve to splurge. Don't begrudge people that.

Admittedly that's ridiculously opulent, but they have the money. Of course, they also have more than enough to be taxed more.

Frankly? The poorest of the poor in this world ought to live like middle-class America. If only that were achievable...

his point is that the system is flawed when someone can make MILLIONS a year while another STARVES to death


and he's right

his point is that the system is flawed when someone can make MILLIONS a year while another STARVES to death
Except the truth is that there's nothing wrong with that.

Your livelihood is your problem. If you can't support yourself, tough shit for you--you're not entitled to enslave others.


and he's right
No, he's not.

That it's seriously fucked up that there are some people who have private jets, 200 cars and 4 mansions while there are a lot of people who struggle to pay rent and buy food... more or less.

I'll try finding the thread. boop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534416)

let's see if we can't revive it, shall we? ;)

A much more rational approach would be to treat spectrum space like land. Parties are initially allocated a certain range of frequencies over a certain geographical area, and then they are theirs to do as they want with--sell, bequeath, will, donate, trade, etc.--indefinitely. No "licenses", no content restrictions--it's just like land. It's yours to dispose of as you please.

adopting your analogy for the sake of argument, you do realize that land does come with all sorts community-imposed restrictions, right?

adopting your analogy for the sake of argument, you do realize that land does come with all sorts community-imposed restrictions, right?

Not legitimately.

his point is that the system is flawed when someone can make MILLIONS a year while another STARVES to death


and he's right

Her point, lad, but yes, she is correct indeed.

I just don't like it when people begrudge those with money spending it as they wish. It's their money.

Linus and Lucy: Oh, but the corporations are?

adopting your analogy for the sake of argument, you do realize that land does come with all sorts community-imposed restrictions, right?
And you realise you're talking to an Objectivist, right? What do you think he's going to say about anything community-imposed?

Exactly.

That being said, I find the idea of eminent domain appalling.

Except the truth is that there's nothing wrong with that.

Your livelihood is your problem. If you can't support yourself, tough shit for you--you're not entitled to enslave others.



No, he's not.

wow

it frightens me to think of the state society would be in if everyone had your opinion on this matter


you see, a career is only as good as one can attain

for example, how can a poor person even HOPE to afford a college education?

under YOUR attitude, all "financial aid programs" should be done away with because, after all, being poor is the poors fault, right?

you're absolutely right, i mean, hell, those poor people WANT to be poor

jesus, now it all makes sense, you're a GENIUS!!!!!!!

forget that economic hurdles, or circumstantial unfortunalities, or assholes like you exist, keeping much of the poor from attaining for themselves any hope of financial success

Her point, lad, but yes, she is correct indeed.

I just don't like it when people begrudge those with money spending it as they wish. It's their money.

Linus and Lucy: Oh, but the corporations are?

oh, sorry!

HER point indeed! :D

you're absolutely right, i mean, hell, those poor people WANT to be poor
Why do you insist on misrepresenting what he said?

The idea is that there is something morally wrong with someone walking up to your door and telling you that half of your house is now his just because he's (for whatever reason) having a tough time.

Over the decades and centuries people have thought of a lot of nice speeches and fuzzy concepts to make that situation look different than it is, but strip them away and all you have is one guy taking from another guy by force of arms.

Now, if you invited the poor guy into your house voluntarily, that would be fine. As would be scholarships, charities and donations to help people get into university.

Except the truth is that there's nothing wrong with that.

Your livelihood is your problem. If you can't support yourself, tough shit for you--you're not entitled to enslave others.



No, he's not.

ahem


my first ranting was my initial reaction to such........blatant ignorance


here's a much better rebuttal:


First off, it's not ENSLAVING people to ask them to pay a little more in taxes so that their fellow citizens won't STARVE to death or die of easily healed diseases because they don't have adequate or any health care insurance

actually, you're enslaving people into poverty by NOT offering them some form of assistance by a government that is SUPPOSED to be FOR THE PEOPLE.


It's selfish people like you who have a beef in the first place of helping their fellow human beings. I have no problem paying a little more in taxes for something that will help other people, and even MYSELF. Government social programs will help EVERYONE who qualifies for them, even you.

For example, as has happened to MILLIONS of americans in the past four years, you may be layed off of your job.

Uh oh.

Good thing that OTHER people care enough about you and your health to have paid, yes through their taxes, for government programs that will help you out in this difficult time of yours.


Plus, you forget that poor people work VERY hard for the little money that they receive. I deal with these people on a daily basis, and not ONE of them are any more lazy than you, or think that they can just get by with the bare minimum and hope that taxpayers will see them through for the rest of their lives.

That's not to say that there aren't a few bad apples in the bunch.

But if helping out a few bad apples means giving a majority of people in need the necessary resources to SUSTAIN THEIR LIVES, then my answer is YES, most definitely.

Your attitude is nothing short of selfish and ignorant. It should be your business if your fellow brother or sister starves to death or dies of a disease that could have been EASILY cured if they had the money to go see a doctor.

People who simply make more money are not better than those who make less.

And Kyronea makes a great point about corporations.

But I won't even go there because it's pretty self explanatory and I've typed too much already.

Why do you insist on misrepresenting what he said?

The idea is that there is something morally wrong with someone walking up to your door and telling you that half of your house is now his just because he's (for whatever reason) having a tough time.

Over the decades and centuries people have thought of a lot of nice speeches and fuzzy concepts to make that situation look different than it is, but strip them away and all you have is one guy taking from another guy by force of arms.

Now, if you invited the poor guy into your house voluntarily, that would be fine. As would be scholarships, charities and donations to help people get into university.


you are totally blowing this out of proportion


NO ONE is taking your house


this is all paid through taxes

taxes that build your roads, schools, etc.

I don't hear you bitching when they build another interstate so that you can get from here to there in less time

but here you are complaining about helping out another human being

how sad

Now, if you invited the poor guy into your house voluntarily, that would be fine. As would be scholarships, charities and donations to help people get into university.

I guess police and firefighters, who are funded by YOUR TAX MONEY (oh no the terror!) should be, what, privatized?


or maybe run off of pure donations?


yeah, what a great idea. i mean, i wouldn't want you to HAVE to give up your money through taxes to pay for OTHER people's security


no no no no, perish the thought, that would just REAK of communism


what about national defense? Your taxes shouldn't have to go there either, at least not by force

let's let the armed forces run off of complete donations


how brilliant of you

Why do you insist on misrepresenting what he said?

The idea is that there is something morally wrong with someone walking up to your door and telling you that half of your house is now his just because he's (for whatever reason) having a tough time.

Over the decades and centuries people have thought of a lot of nice speeches and fuzzy concepts to make that situation look different than it is, but strip them away and all you have is one guy taking from another guy by force of arms.

Now, if you invited the poor guy into your house voluntarily, that would be fine. As would be scholarships, charities and donations to help people get into university.
Oh now I'm just seriously disappointed, Neu Leonstein. Come on...is that the best strawman you can conjure up?

We're not talking about taking half of someone's house. We're talking about taxing sensibly, aiming those taxes mainly at those who can afford to lose more of their income than others can. We're also not talking about taking away all of their income. I know some idiots talk about that, but I certainly don't.

Oh, come on...surely if people make a lot of money they deserve to splurge. Don't begrudge people that.

Admittedly that's ridiculously opulent, but they have the money. Of course, they also have more than enough to be taxed more.

Frankly? The poorest of the poor in this world ought to live like middle-class America. If only that were achievable...
The system that allows such a disparity is what's wrong, not really that these people have worked hard and earned their money. Although I do think it's disgusting to splurge that much... I mean... what the fuck does anyone need any of that for?

The system that allows such a disparity is what's wrong, not really that these people have worked hard and earned their money. Although I do think it's disgusting to splurge that much... I mean... what the fuck does anyone need any of that for?

Who knows? But the way I see it, it's their money. They can spend it the way they wish, just as I spend my money the way I wish. It's only fair.

NO ONE is taking your house

this is all paid through taxes
And taxes couldn't buy me a house? It's got an opportunity cost there, all the stuff I could have done with the money I earned (earned, as in I gave up a part of my lifetime and my energy to help someone out in return for some money) but now cannot do because someone took it away from me.

Say you're paying 50% in taxes. If you got yourself a house for $200,000, or you got yourself a house for $400,000...doesn't that make a pretty big difference?

taxes that build your roads, schools, etc.
That's irrelevant. If these things are worthwhile, people would be willing to pay for them voluntarily. But instead of just asking for donations to keep the system going, they take your money and throw you in jail if you don't comply.

That money is equivalent to the time and effort I spent earning it. If I was making widgets for 8 hours and paid 50% in taxes, 4 hours of my life I was an unpaid labourer, working for someone else's benefit and without the opportunity to quit. That might not be the textbook definition of slavery, but it's worryingly close to it.

but here you are complaining about helping out another human being
Do you realise how much money people hand over to state welfare agencies across the world, and how little of that money actually gets to people who need it?

If helping others is what you're after, you're pretty much guaranteed to do a better job if you keep the money you pay in taxes and use it to help others yourself.

I guess police and firefighters, who are funded by YOUR TAX MONEY (oh no the terror!) should be, what, privatized?
No, I don't think competition in that sector would be physically feasible.

But, I actually thought of the sort of government I would consider the best: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528128

Dare I hope? Is Dr. Paul actually doing so well as to have ABC out to get him?


Wait. Popular press political polls are untrustworthy indicators of, well, pretty much anything?

Shocking. :D


Even with that reset, he still seem stio be winning[...]


...among those who bother to follow a debate, read the name "Ron Paul" on an internet website, and then actually vote for this "Ron Paul" at the primary. I don't have any hard data on exactly how many Americans in total would do any of the above, but I'd be willing to bet hot needles under my toenails that it isn't even remotely close to what is necessary to win a primary, never mind the actual election.

There's another "poll" of sorts that measures support for a candidate in terms of donations to campaigns. To the extent that financial support from extremely influential individuals and organizations indicates actual support for a campaign, one can clearly see that Paul should just stop embarrassing himself. (http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do)

Simply put, it's wrong when incorporated into the real world. It's hardly possible to become rich in Scandinavia when you have to pay such an insane ammount to the government in taxes, and it didn't even talk about Switzerland.

In other words, you've got jack shit as an actual reply. Glad we understand each other, and that you recognize your place in the conversation.

Dare I hope? Is Dr. Paul actually doing so well as to have ABC out to get him?


http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=46813

Even with that reset, he still seem stio be winning:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Happy news is how low Brownback is.
Of the people i MUST oppose on principle, i'm glad he's doing so poorly.

Happy news is how low Brownback is.
Of the people i MUST oppose on principle, i'm glad he's doing so poorly.

Who's worse--the god-pushers or the people who pander to them with questionable amounts of sincerity? I wouldn't vote for any of these fuckers even if I were leaving the country and pissed off, but I wonder who's worse--a true believer like Brownback or Huckabee or a panderer like Giuliani or Romney?

Except the truth is that there's nothing wrong with that.

Your livelihood is your problem. If you can't support yourself, tough shit for you--you're not entitled to enslave others.

I find it remarkable that you would refer to an enormously wealthy person as being enslaved simply because he or she is forced to pay taxes. No, I find it disgusting, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the actual horrors of slavery.

That's irrelevant. If these things are worthwhile, people would be willing to pay for them voluntarily.
They arn't willing to pay taxes so those things can be worked on. All the anti-tax people like to extol the theoretical generosity of people if they wern't being taxes, yet where is the proof?
"We need roads fixed? Well do it! What do you mean you don't have the money? Taxes to pay for it? No way, go get money off your money tree."

I find it remarkable that you would refer to an enormously wealthy person as being enslaved simply because he or she is forced to pay taxes. No, I find it disgusting, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the actual horrors of slavery.

Requiring a rich person to pay taxes to the people is slavery, but requiring the people to pay rent to the rich person is the free market.

It's actually kind of fascinating how quickly the rich person could adopt the same tactics as the state when doing so serves his or her interests.

[generic news program-type intro music] With the end of the elections, in an unbelievable turn of luck, the Libertarians win the Presidency and a majority of seats in Congress and begin instituting their anti-government pro-market agenda. The new Congress has officially abolished the IRS and income taxes are officially adjusted to 0%. In other news, all across the nation rent and interest levels skyrocket to all time highs, with landlords and other property owners insisting that the increase is necessary in order to balance their budgets and save the children. More at 11.

What it really comes down to is a bunch of rich parasites, who leech off of the backs of the laboring masses, arguing over whether their leeching should be called "taxes" or "rent." One wonders what would happen if they all went to hell and the laboring masses were in charge...

Who's worse--the god-pushers or the people who pander to them with questionable amounts of sincerity? I wouldn't vote for any of these fuckers even if I were leaving the country and pissed off, but I wonder who's worse--a true believer like Brownback or Huckabee or a panderer like Giuliani or Romney?

Ah - as in sincerity? Ideologues or opportunists?

I'm already against Rudy for reasons i'd expressed before, BESIDES his anti-weasel stance.

Romney sab'd himself already a couple of times, which means that even though there's a public record to ignore, there still IS a public record during the campaign time.
Rudy is doing better in that regard, obviously, but his notoriety is from the instances that make him so dubious a choice.

Brownback's history is a little shadier, and i don't know how many people here actually know what he's really after (given his pre-campaign history).

Huckabee? I don't really even know that guy, yet.

But Brownback really hit a personal nerve (as did Rudy - not his anti-weasel stance, mind you) with me, which is the principle i was referring to earlier.

You've been through this enough times to know what you have to do in this situation, so perhaps you know i've got a similar attitude about it right now.
:(

Oh now I'm just seriously disappointed, Neu Leonstein. Come on...is that the best strawman you can conjure up?

We're not talking about taking half of someone's house. We're talking about taxing sensibly, aiming those taxes mainly at those who can afford to lose more of their income than others can. We're also not talking about taking away all of their income. I know some idiots talk about that, but I certainly don't.You guys do realize that their is a gun in the room when taxes are involved. If you do not pay taxes you will get a letter if you do nothing about the letter you will get another letter ordering you to court. If you do nothing about that letter from court. A policeman will come and take you to one of the government rape rooms. If you resist going to the government sodomizing facility and tell the officer you will not go and fight the officer you will end up dead. So with taxes you have 3 choice get fucked economically, get fucked literally or get killed resisting the swat team who will eventually storm your house for your refusing to go along with state sponsored theft.

You guys do realize that their is a gun in the room when taxes are involved. If you do not pay taxes you will get a letter if you do nothing about the letter you will get another letter ordering you to court. If you do nothing about that letter from court. A policeman will come and take you to one of the government rape rooms. If you resist going to the government sodomizing facility and tell the officer you will not go and fight the officer you will end up dead. So with taxes you have 3 choice get fucked economically, get fucked literally or get killed resisting the swat team who will eventually storm your house for your refusing to go along with state sponsored theft.

This is also true when I fail to pay my private non-state landlord the private non-state rent. What's your point?

This is also true when I fail to pay my private non-state landlord the private non-state rent. What's your point?Your non state landlord steals 50% of your money? Your non state landlord will throw you in prison? Your non state landlord will kill you if you refuse to pay him. Who is your land lord Tony Soprano I really suggest you get the hell out of where you are living sounds very scary.

Maybe they lost votes for picking their teeth or people phoned back in and SAID I CHANGED MY MIND!!! maybe this was made easier since it was only ABC staff voting. Or maybe there is an ABC electoral college.

a conspiracy theory might be that only living people count - and someone was tracing all the votes and anyone who was voting was being hunted down --- and only a little over 400 of them survived the 'hunt'.


p.s. 445 votes for a presidential race vote?????? wow. True it is over a year away but whoa

Your non state landlord steals 50% of your money? ...Your non state landlord will kill you if you refuse to pay him[?]


No and no. But then, the state I live doesn't do either of those either. I'm lucky enough to live in a corner of the world where my masters are fairly civilized.

But that's not the point. The point is that I want to live free and unmolested. Yet the state and the landlord both claim exclusive and absolute dominion over access to land, each putting themselves into a position wherein they can demand payment of tribute (taxes and/or rent). I must comply or I will be deprived of my freedom. Show me the difference between the state and the landlord. I'm not seeing it.


Your non state landlord will throw you in prison?


I assume that failure to pay rent will be punished in free market utopia-land, yes?

Maybe they lost votes for picking their teeth or people phoned back in and SAID I CHANGED MY MIND!!! maybe this was made easier since it was only ABC staff voting. Or maybe there is an ABC electoral college.

a conspiracy theory might be that only living people count - and someone was tracing all the votes and anyone who was voting was being hunted down --- and only a little over 400 of them survived the 'hunt'.


p.s. 445 votes for a presidential race vote?????? wow. True it is over a year away but whoa

excellent possibilities. no way to know unless abc 'fesses up about it.


oh come on, it was a sunday morning in august. why would anyone be watching that debate and why would they bother getting out of bed to vote?

(it was today wasnt it?)

Dude, taxes are the price you pay for living in a society. If you don't want to pay them, buy some small island in the pacific somewhere and provide every damn thing for yourself. Good luck with the pirates.

well apparently 445 people did... but they have to get up for church anyway!!

Dude, taxes are the price you pay for living in a society. If you don't want to pay them, buy some small island in the pacific somewhere and provide every damn thing for yourself. Good luck with the pirates.

I tried doing this but Mr. Gates wouldn't fork up the dough I asked for.

well apparently 445 people did... but they have to get up for church anyway!!

ohhh yeahhhh

republicans

duh!

Your non state landlord steals 50% of your money?
I think you have some calculation problems.

Your non state landlord will throw you in prison?
Yes

Your non state landlord will kill you if you refuse to pay him.
I think you need to take your meds.

Dude, taxes are the price you pay for living in a society. If you don't want to pay them, buy some small island in the pacific somewhere and provide every damn thing for yourself. Good luck with the pirates.

I was at first tempted to call this a strawman, but on second thought I'm not sure. It is most certainly a strawman if and when directed to me, but probably not when directed toward some of the people I left behind in the "Libertarian" camp.

At any rate, I am perfectly happy to live in society and pay for its costs. I don't object to such, and no sane person would. What I do object to is the manner in which the costs are created and the manner in which the payment is collected. At the moment, in the state I live in, the payment is collected forcefully by a set of only-just-barely-democratically elected elites who then spend it on building a needlessly huge military force which is then marched all over the globe to kill as many poor foreigners and other "terrorists" as they can possibly catch.

Is this the "society" that I am supposed to support?

No and no. But then, the state I live doesn't do either of those either. I'm lucky enough to live in a corner of the world where my masters are fairly civilized.

But that's not the point. The point is that I want to live free and unmolested. Yet the state and the landlord both claim exclusive and absolute dominion over access to land, each putting themselves into a position wherein they can demand payment of tribute (taxes and/or rent). I must comply or I will be deprived of my freedom. Show me the difference between the state and the landlord. I'm not seeing it.The landlord does not have hundreds of prisons a police force and a Multi-billion dollar Army. So size, scope and power are one thing. However the other most important thing is you entered into a voluntary contract with the landlord for so much money a month. You could of pitched a tent in the woods or gone and got an apartment somewhere else but you chose to enter into Voluntary agreement with a certain landlord for a mutually benefiting arrangement you get shelter the landlord gets money. This is the main difference is that the arrangement is voluntary unlike the Country you were born in is just a Geographic location your mother happened to squat you out at. Your country is in no way voluntary it is just a matter of circumstance you have no control over it unlike the contract with you landlord where you actually had a choice to live there or not.



I assume that failure to pay rent will be punished in free market utopia-land, yes?Yes it will be punished by eviction and no there will be no Utopia in a Free Market.

Your country is in no way voluntary it is just a matter of circumstance you have no control over it unlike the contract with you landlord where you actually had a choice to live there or not.
I don't? Damn! And here I was pretty sure I chose to come to Japan and live here from the US; just as I was fairly sure that my wife and I are having discussions about which country we want to live in.

Pretty sure you can move to a different country.

I think you have some calculation problems.Add up Federal, State, Local, Social security, gas tax, sales tax, and every other bull shit tax and my estimates are probably a little conservative


YesShow me where someone was thrown in prison for not paying rent. I think someone is telling a whopper!


I think you need to take your meds.Are you saying I am mentally unstable for having a different view than you. Stalin also did that! Not very original.

I don't? Damn! And here I was pretty sure I chose to come to Japan and live here from the US; just as I was fairly sure that my wife and I are having discussions about which country we want to live in.

Pretty sure you can move to a different country.So you knocked on your moms womb and said mom I want to born in Buffalo, New York because the weather is just lovely there. I would also like to add that the US is one of the few countries who still expects you to pay income taxes even if you live in another country.

The landlord does not have...prisons a police force and a Multi-billion dollar Army.


Not until the free market advocates privatize them, anyway.


However the other most important thing is you entered into a voluntary contract with the landlord for so much money a month.


Incorrect. The landlord accquired exclusive ownership of the land (with the help of the law of the state, by the way). In this way, the landlord established a superior bargaining position which he or she can exploit to his or her advantage. Those of us without the wealth or favor of the state must bargain from an inferior position. I comply with the landlord or I die in the gutter.

"voluntary" is a poor choice of descriptor.


You could of pitched a tent in the woods


Assuming said woods aren't exclusively owned and controlled by another landlord and/or state...


...or gone and got an apartment somewhere else


What's interesting about this response is that I've never heard a free market advocate say "well, you could just move to another country if you don't like the taxes here." I wonder why that is.


Your country is in no way voluntary it is just a matter of circumstance you have no control over it unlike the contract with you landlord where you actually had a choice to live there or not.


People move to different countries all the time. Nice job invalidating your own point there. ;)


Yes it will be punished by eviction...


So the landlord will leave me to die of exposure on the street (at least until the owner of the private street evicts me again...I'm assuming that "no taxes" means "no public streets"). At least the state will house and feed me while I'm in prison. The state is at least slightly better than the private landlord in that sense.

Not legitimately.

so you didn't mean that the electromagnetic spectrum should be like land, but rather that it should be not like land, yes?

Are you saying I am mentally unstable for having a different view than you. Stalin also did that! Not very original.
You suggested people would be killed for not paying taxes. So yes, yes I am.

And you realise you're talking to an Objectivist, right? What do you think he's going to say about anything community-imposed?

Exactly.

oh, i know. but you see, he didn't claim that radio and tv ought be how he thinks land ought be but isn't. he claimed that they should be like land is. i'm just mocking his sloppiness.

That being said, I find the idea of eminent domain appalling.

what about dumping restrictions, and being banned from killing endangered species, and runoff regulations, and needing permits and certification to use high explosives, etc?

I was at first tempted to call this a strawman, but on second thought I'm not sure. It is most certainly a strawman if and when directed to me, but probably not when directed toward some of the people I left behind in the "Libertarian" camp.
No, it's directed at the "taxes are rape" crowd.

At any rate, I am perfectly happy to live in society and pay for its costs. I don't object to such, and no sane person would. What I do object to is the manner in which the costs are created and the manner in which the payment is collected. At the moment, in the state I live in, the payment is collected forcefully by a set of only-just-barely-democratically elected elites who then spend it on building a needlessly huge military force which is then marched all over the globe to kill as many poor foreigners and other "terrorists" as they can possibly catch.

Is this the "society" that I am supposed to support?
I didn't say you had to support the society, just that taxes are the price you pay for living in it, but if you don't like the way it's run then you should try to change it.

Incorrect. The landlord accquired exclusive ownership of the land (with the help of the law of the state, by the way). In this way, the landlord established a superior bargaining position which he or she can exploit to his or her advantage. Those of us without the wealth or favor of the state must bargain from an inferior position. I comply with the landlord or I die in the gutter. Inferior position? Why would you die in a gutter? I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.What's interesting about this response is that I've never heard a free market advocate say "well, you could just move to another country if you don't like the taxes here." I wonder why that is. Tell me a country with a free market I can move too.



People move to different countries all the time. Nice job invalidating your own point there. ;) You have no choice in the Country you are born in.



So the landlord will leave me to die of exposure on the street (at least until the owner of the private street evicts me again...I'm assuming that "no taxes" means "no public streets"). At least the state will house and feed me while I'm in prison. The state is at least slightly better than the private landlord in that sense.You left yourself to die on the street by your inability to live up to your agreement.

You suggested people would be killed for not paying taxes. So yes, yes I am.You resist the Police you will die. I do not know about the police where you live but if you resist the ones here they will kill you.

Inferior position? Why would you die in a gutter?


Go into any urban area. Note the people living under bridges in shopping carts and cardboard boxes. Contrary to the assertions of the free market types, these people do in fact exist.


Tell me a country with a free market I can move too.


So, how come your personal comfort is relevant, but apparently mine isn't? I must comply with paying rent or interest, but LEFTHANDEDSUPREMACIST gets to be choosy. Again, I wonder why that is.


You have no choice in the Country you are born in.


And I didn't get to choose when my parents moved the family into a rental apartment or when I had to take out loans (and thus interest) in order to afford to get educated. What's your point?


You left yourself to die on the street by your inability to live up to your agreement.

Then you put yourself in prison when you failed to pay taxes. You choose to remain living in a country, you choose to pay its taxes. (I'm assuming you won't like this conclusion, even if it is derived from your own rhetoric)

Tell me a country with a free market I can move too.

Well you see, that's a bit tricky seeing as there's this other market besides The Market and it's called the Marketplace of Ideas. Amongst intellectuals in the Western world it's much more free than the other Market, and, just like in the other Market, the best product, or in this case idea, wins.

Guess which kind of systems the vast majority of intellectuals support? I'll give you a hint; it's not a terrifying plutocratic hellscape.

You guys do realize that their is a gun in the room when taxes are involved. If you do not pay taxes you will get a letter if you do nothing about the letter you will get another letter ordering you to court. If you do nothing about that letter from court. A policeman will come and take you to one of the government rape rooms. If you resist going to the government sodomizing facility and tell the officer you will not go and fight the officer you will end up dead. So with taxes you have 3 choice get fucked economically, get fucked literally or get killed resisting the swat team who will eventually storm your house for your refusing to go along with state sponsored theft.


uh

are you mentally healthy?

There is nothing responsible about conservatism.

:confused:

Why would you say something like that? What is so irresponsible about conservatism? And no, I don't already know. Conservative politicians may be irresponsible, but that doesn't mean conservatism itself is irresponsible. And liberalism is not inherently any better.

No, I don't think competition in that sector would be physically feasible.

But, I actually thought of the sort of government I would consider the best: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528128

Ummm...... your favored governmennt would still require involuntary taxation of some kind. You are still advocating what you would call theft and (near?) slavery. A thief is a thief weather he steals 50% or .00000001% of the value of one's property.

No, it's directed at the "taxes are rape" crowd.

Well, you see, considering how insatiably greedy our government is, and how unmerciful they are about insisting on taking almost all of our money, and the inordinate amount of power the IRS has, taxes... pretty much ARE rape.

It would be a little different if the gov't were more benevolent and let US keep some of OUR money that WE worked for, and they didn't work for; they simply demand it at gunpoint.

:confused:

Why would you say something like that? What is so irresponsible about conservatism? And no, I don't already know. Conservative politicians may be irresponsible, but that doesn't mean conservatism itself is irresponsible. And liberalism is not inherently any better.
Liberalism can mean a great many different things, especially in the US.

The very reason Conservative politicians are irresponsible is because of their "ideology."

This new somethingawful article is relevant. :)

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/google-ron-paul2.php

This new somethingawful article is relevant. :)

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/google-ron-paul2.php

Somethingawful is always relevant.

All the anti-tax people like to extol the theoretical generosity of people if they wern't being taxes, yet where is the proof?
Well, it's hard to prove something works if it's never been tried. Nonetheless, there's a wealth of evidence from psychological experiments (example? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=531657)) that suggests that people are willing to go to some lengths to help others and the community.

If I'm wrong though and people don't like to pay for community projects, then in my view that means there's something wrong with community projects rather than with people.

You suggested people would be killed for not paying taxes. So yes, yes I am.
They would be thrown in jail. If they resisted sufficiently strongly, they would be killed.

It's not so much the question of dying or not as it is the principle of the threat of violence against you, your property or your liberty being used to take money. If a robber threatens to set fire to your car unless you give him your cash, then that's wrong even if he didn't end up acting on his threat.

Ummm...... your favored governmennt would still require involuntary taxation of some kind. You are still advocating what you would call theft and (near?) slavery. A thief is a thief weather he steals 50% or .00000001% of the value of one's property.
Don't you think I know that?

My problem is that I'm not an anarchist. There is nothing I have seen in terms of evidence to suggest that anarchism could work on anything more than a village-type basis. And even when it was tiny communities, they existed only because they were momentarily not being targetted by organised armed groups (ie states) or protected by them. As much as I like the theory of anarchism, the fact that people are so ready to hurt each other for personal gain or any other number of reasons just kills it for me. People like to talk about the Kibbutzim or the Ukrainian Revolution when they mean anarchism...I just see Somalia.

So some level of organisation is necessary to prevent the whole thing from turning into civil war, not least because property rights aren't worth jack if you've got armed bands shooting at each other in the streets.

My ideal government I described was an attempt to have that organisation, to minimise the cost of it and to offer the combination of democratic and personal choice that we don't get under the current system. The rest you can put down to my admission that there is such a thing as market failure and that it is in one's interest to pay for not having to suffer consequences, a service that the market cannot offer and that one individually cannot produce.

I suppose that's the only internally consistent (somewhat, at least) justification I can offer: the things that are paid by my compulsory flat tax are only things that impact the individual in question. They all deal with externalities of one form of another and could not be purchased on a private market, nor is it really possible to equitably provide the service without everyone paying the same amount towards it.

All other government services would be voluntarily chosen by the individual according to a simple cost vs expected benefit calculation. In that it's no different to a privately provided service, except that the scope of government is such that it could perhaps offer better economies of scale than private industry. But competition will sort that one out.

In other words, you've got jack shit as an actual reply. Glad we understand each other, and that you recognize your place in the conversation.
Actually, no. Just because you throw out 1 source, doesn't mean you win the conversation and doesnt mean the convo is over.
Even more so if the source doesnt even mention Switzerland, the country I was mostly talking about. (True I was also talking about Germany too) And even more true if the source is wrong, because it is virtually impossible to become rich in the Scandinavian welfare states when you are taxed so much of what you earn. It's very easy to be comfterable in Scandinavia and "middle class"...but it is NOT easy to become rich, which is why the Scandinavian model is going for in the first place. A more equitable distribution of income.

Well, you see, considering how insatiably greedy our government is, and how unmerciful they are about insisting on taking almost all of our money, and the inordinate amount of power the IRS has, taxes... pretty much ARE rape.

It would be a little different if the gov't were more benevolent and let US keep some of OUR money that WE worked for, and they didn't work for; they simply demand it at gunpoint.
Umm... You do get to keep some of your money, just not all of it.

As I said before, taxes are the price you pay for living in a society. If you don't want to pay taxes, then move onto your own island and be an individual free of taxation. But, like I said before, good luck dealing with the pirates.

If you take issue with the way your tax money is spent, then maybe you should become politically active and do something about it.

Umm... You do get to keep some of your money, just not all of it.

As I said before, taxes are the price you pay for living in a society. If you don't want to pay taxes, then move onto your own island and be an individual free of taxation. But, like I said before, good luck dealing with the pirates.

If you take issue with the way your tax money is spent, then maybe you should become politically active and do something about it.
One would hope that the comments we make here are just auxiliary to what we do in real life. I am actively pursuing tax reform because I do consider that the government is a poor steward of our money.

Our earnings are not an unlimited pool of dollars that exist for the government to use at its pleasure.

Don't you think I know that?

My problem is that I'm not an anarchist. There is nothing I have seen in terms of evidence to suggest that anarchism could work on anything more than a village-type basis. And even when it was tiny communities, they existed only because they were momentarily not being targetted by organised armed groups (ie states) or protected by them. As much as I like the theory of anarchism, the fact that people are so ready to hurt each other for personal gain or any other number of reasons just kills it for me. People like to talk about the Kibbutzim or the Ukrainian Revolution when they mean anarchism...I just see Somalia.

So some level of organisation is necessary to prevent the whole thing from turning into civil war, not least because property rights aren't worth jack if you've got armed bands shooting at each other in the streets.

My ideal government I described was an attempt to have that organisation, to minimise the cost of it and to offer the combination of democratic and personal choice that we don't get under the current system. The rest you can put down to my admission that there is such a thing as market failure and that it is in one's interest to pay for not having to suffer consequences, a service that the market cannot offer and that one individually cannot produce.

I suppose that's the only internally consistent (somewhat, at least) justification I can offer: the things that are paid by my compulsory flat tax are only things that impact the individual in question. They all deal with externalities of one form of another and could not be purchased on a private market, nor is it really possible to equitably provide the service without everyone paying the same amount towards it.

All other government services would be voluntarily chosen by the individual according to a simple cost vs expected benefit calculation. In that it's no different to a privately provided service, except that the scope of government is such that it could perhaps offer better economies of scale than private industry. But competition will sort that one out.

I thought you would have to know if you weren't completely intellectually dishonest. My point being is that you only disagree with many on here in degree, not in kind, of government intrusion. I don't see how your arguements can have much force when you advocate the same thing you're condemning.

Even the goods and services provided under the aegis of the welfare state could fit your criteria of externalities and market failure. Basically they're a form of insurance that any rational person would want, but that the market can't and won't provide. Taxes are premiums on the policy. Now the above statement is arguable and the forms it should take even more so, but I do not find an unreasonable assertion.

You're style of government is unlikely to become realized due to the great difficulty, probably a good thing, of realizing (semi)utopian visions of society, but of course you know that.

I don't see how your arguements can have much force when you advocate the same thing you're condemning.
Well, I'm not so much advocating as I'm grudgingly accommodating. The thing I'm condemning, I think, is not so much the fact that taxation exists at all, but firstly the fact that it's so high, secondly the fact that it takes more from some than from others and finally the fact that people are apparently okay with it and are quite willing to use all sorts of arguments to actually defend it.

"Taxes are the price of living in society." No they're not, they're what a group of armed men (and, more recently, women) charge us for stuff we didn't ask for. In it's current way of being collected and spent, it's protection money of the same sort the Mafia would charge you.

I can't honestly say "well, we can't have any compulsory taxation", but I can take it from this pedestal.

Even the goods and services provided under the aegis of the welfare state could fit your criteria of externalities and market failure.
Well, I don't think so. I don't get hurt (other than emotionally, I suppose) if my neighbour loses his job and gets kicked out of his house. And the police is around to make sure he won't come to try and live in my house without my consent, so that's already paid for.

The thing about welfare and infectious diseases is another matter though. Socialised medicine is clearly overkill...a broken leg isn't going to infect half the country. But only privately-paid for healthcare might mean that some poor people opt out and catch the plague or something. I suppose you could have an "anti-epidemic" department within the police that would take care of big contagious disease outbreaks, even if the costs aren't allocated 100% accurately.

Basically they're a form of insurance that any rational person would want, but that the market can't and won't provide. Taxes are premiums on the policy. Now the above statement is arguable and the forms it should take even more so, but I do not find an unreasonable assertion.
Some parts of the tax money do take that form, and I think my system incorporates them...the important bits with the flat tax, the optional bits (and since I can't tell who is rational and who isn't and what a rational person should want) are indeed optional. If you want to pay for an unemployment insurance scheme, you can do so both on the private market (if there's a company that would offer it) or through ticking the relevant box on your tax form.

But because the money I hand over in taxes is allocated by the time I hand in the form, I know what I'm paying for. Right now my tax money goes to election ads, internment camps for immigrants, locking up an Indian guy and shooting at people in Iraq. Considering that I could have bought a very nice exhaust system instead, which would have hurt a lot less people and made me quite a bit happier, one would be mad to not advocate some sort of system where it's the taxpayer directly rather than the politician who decides where the money gets spent.

You're style of government is unlikely to become realized due to the great difficulty, probably a good thing, of realizing (semi)utopian visions of society, but of course you know that.
Well, I would like to think that it's not utopian enough to be completely unattainable, though the change is pretty radical. The thing I am proud of though is that it doesn't require revolutions or any sort of violence to introduce. One just needs a political party with it as program and a few consecutive election wins.

Easier said than done though.

You have no choice in the Country you are born in.You aren't taxed from birth, either.

Well, you see, considering how insatiably greedy our government is, and how unmerciful they are about insisting on taking almost all of our money,They don't take your money, they take their money.

One would hope that the comments we make here are just auxiliary to what we do in real life. I am actively pursuing tax reform because I do consider that the government is a poor steward of our money.

Our earnings are not an unlimited pool of dollars that exist for the government to use at its pleasure.

:D as opposed to business leaders? :D :D :D

Trading one form of corruption for another is still corruption.

It's fine the way it is. People just need to get off their duff and watch their reps more.

:D as opposed to business leaders? :D :D :D

Trading one form of corruption for another is still corruption.

It's fine the way it is. People just need to get off their duff and watch their reps more.

While I may have only a miniscule amount of control over my government in the sense that I get to vote for my representatives, that's exponentially more control than I have over private businesses. I'll take what I can get.

Ron Paul has no perception of reality. The republicans hate reality.

:D as opposed to business leaders? :D :D :D

Trading one form of corruption for another is still corruption.

It's fine the way it is. People just need to get off their duff and watch their reps more.
It's not fine and it isn't about corruption as much as it is poor management. The government wastes huge amounts of money on well-intentioned, but poorly managed programs every day. If that weren't true, Social Security and Medicare wouldn't be on the verge of bankruptcy.

But in the private sector, it's MY choice how I spend MY money. Even with public utilities, I can decide how much or how little I want to use. I can even drill my own well, put up my own windmill and reduce my dependency further. Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about the thousands of dollars I surrender to the county, state, and federal governments every year. The only real choice I have in that matter is to work less -- and that idea that really appeals to me every April, by the way.

The only half decent thing Paul has said is about the Iraq War and US interventionist foreign policy, but even then he sounds more like a grumpy Chomsky-like history professor than a would-be President (not that that's bad, but it shows he knows he'll never get the nomination so he's saying uncomfortable facts), but the remainder of his policies are insane, such as cutting income taxes, abolishing the IRS, privatizing literally everything, I seriously think Libertarians like him need a dose of reality, I mean at least the neocons realize you need strong central government.

The only half decent thing Paul has said is about the Iraq War and US interventionist foreign policy, but even then he sounds more like a grumpy Chomsky-like history professor than a would-be President (not that that's bad, but it shows he knows he'll never get the nomination so he's saying uncomfortable facts), but the remainder of his policies are insane, such as cutting income taxes, abolishing the IRS, privatizing literally everything, I seriously think Libertarians like him need a dose of reality, I mean at least the neocons realize you need strong central government.
No, it's the other way around. The United States flourished with a weak federal government. And it would again, but we're too enamored of the security that big government can provide to ever head in that direction again.

:D as opposed to business leaders? :D :D :D

Trading one form of corruption for another is still corruption.

It's fine the way it is. People just need to get off their duff and watch their reps more.Tell me who has killed more through out history or even recent history. Business leaders or Government leaders?

k Libertarians like him need a dose of reality, I mean at least the neocons realize you need strong central government.Would that dose of reality be "a boot stamping on a human face forever" as Orwell said.

Go into any urban area. Note the people living under bridges in shopping carts and cardboard boxes. Contrary to the assertions of the free market types, these people do in fact exist.



So, how come your personal comfort is relevant, but apparently mine isn't? I must comply with paying rent or interest, but LEFTHANDEDSUPREMACIST gets to be choosy. Again, I wonder why that is.



And I didn't get to choose when my parents moved the family into a rental apartment or when I had to take out loans (and thus interest) in order to afford to get educated. What's your point?



Then you put yourself in prison when you failed to pay taxes. You choose to remain living in a country, you choose to pay its taxes. (I'm assuming you won't like this conclusion, even if it is derived from your own rhetoric)Your arguments are are insane and ridiculous I would like you to put up the deaths of all the individuals murdered by their landlords and compare them to the deaths of people murdered by Governments for you to continue along with this foolish argument. I want to see proof of the millions of people killed by their evil landlords. Because I sure as hell can find proof of Hundreds of millions of people killed by governments!

uh

are you mentally healthy?Resist a police officer and see how healthy you are afterwards.

Would that dose of reality be "a boot stamping on a human face forever" as Orwell said.

No, I am simply talking about the impracticality of anarcho-libertarianism which I believe is what Paul subscribes to, or at least extreme Libertarianism. The fact is, societies or nations exist as a coherent unit because each citizen agrees to give a part of their wealth to maintain this common public good, ie the society. This is practical because public assets can be shared by all people, Libertarians make alot of 'everyone is different' but in fact people using public transport usually don't care among themselves about the color of the bus. 'Shared public interest' means that we avoid the massive duplication of effort and waste which comes because of individualist policies.

No, I am simply talking about the impracticality of anarcho-libertarianism which I believe is what Paul subscribes to, or at least extreme Libertarianism. The fact is, societies or nations exist as a coherent unit because each citizen agrees to give a part of their wealth to maintain this common public good, ie the society. This is practical because public assets can be shared by all people, Libertarians make alot of 'everyone is different' but in fact people using public transport usually don't care among themselves about the color of the bus. 'Shared public interest' means that we avoid the massive duplication of effort and waste which comes because of individualist policies.No that is not what he subscribes to. States like California would still be able to pursue their socialist policies(as long as it did not interfere with the constitution).You would still have State Tax and Local tax you would just be rid of the socialist programs implemented by the federal government.

No that is not what he subscribes to. States like California would still be able to pursue their socialist policies(as long as it did not interfere with the constitution).You would still have State Tax and Local tax you would just be rid of the socialist programs implemented by the federal government.

W T F ?

Left, I wasn't talking about Marxism is that's what you meant, I was simply saying that having a central federal government that maintains public assets through revenue is a practicality, that's all.

W T F ?Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Check the bold. I was questioning your description of policies implemented by the Californian and Federal governments as socialist.

Left, I wasn't talking about Marxism is that's what you meant, I was simply saying that having a central federal government that maintains public assets through revenue is a practicality, that's all.Yes I agree with that if it is the public assets defined in the constitution. Everything else should be for the states to handle.

Check the bold. I was questioning your description of policies implemented by the Californian and Federal governments as socialist.Welfare, Public Schools, social security and many other unmentioned government socialist programs.

W T F ?

American-style "Libertarianism" approaches economic issues from the extreme right-wing. Thus, anything short of law-of-the-jungle "market" plutocracy must be authoritarian "socialism." Of course, such a myopic world view explains why the "Libertarians" can't poll better than 1.2% in any given election.

They can't seem to take the hint either.

Welfare, Public Schools, social security and many other unmentioned government socialist programs.

You need to do a bit more research on "socialism" pal.

American-style "Libertarianism" approaches economic issues from the extreme right-wing. Thus, anything less than law-of-the-jungle "market" plutocracy is authoritarian "socialism." Of course, such explains why the "Libertarians" can't poll better than 1.2% in any given election.

They can't seem to take the hint.I guess you are one who prefers the current warfare state and uses ridicule instead of debate. You sound like a Guiliani sort of person.

You need to do a bit more research on "socialism" pal.So tell me what is socialism and how are those policies not socialist.

I guess you are one who prefers the current warfare state and uses ridicule instead of debate. You sound like a Guiliani sort of person.

You would be wrong. Again.

You would be wrong. Again.You still have not shown me were I was wrong the first time. You just carried on senselessly about mass murdering landlords. While defending the idea of huge and powerful governments that are benign and have never hurt any one throughout history.

So tell me what is socialism and how are those policies not socialist.

Socialism constitutes ownership and control of X by the collective of autonomous individuals.

You reject the state, yes? Because the state uses coercion and force to accomplish its goals, yes? Thus, the state fails to respect the autonomy of free individuals, correct?

Ergo, state welfare, state public education, and state social security are not socialist.

EDIT: If you study your history of European political theory and ideology, you'll find a rich tradition of libertarians and anarchists who denounced the abuses of the state. You'll also find that they tended to call themselves socialists. That Marx guy came second.

EDIT AGAIN: See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism (This name is actually a redundancy in pretty much everywhere not the USA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph-Pierre_Proudhon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Godwin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell (Yes, that's right, your boy Orwell was a socialist :eek:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

Socialism constitutes ownership and control of X by the collective of autonomous individuals.What is the physical manifestation of the collective the only one I can think of is Stalin.

You reject the state, yes? Because the state uses coercion and force to accomplish its goal, yes? Thus, the state fails to respect the autonomy of free individuals, correct?

Ergo, state welfare, state public education, and state social security are not socialist.

QED.I do not mind when State governments preform the above programs you stated as long as they abide by the constitution. I would just move out of the more socialistic states and go to a more free market state.

EDIT: If you study your history of European political theory and ideology, you'll find a rich tradition of libertarians and anarchists who denounced the abuses of the state. You'll also find that they tended to call themselves socialists. That Marx guy came second.I know most Socialist have a good heart but I do not trust government at all. Can you blame I live in the United States? The only way I believe we can keep government under control is to make it as small and weak as possible.

What is the physical manifestation of the collective the only one I can think of is Stalin.


I suppose, then, that Augusto Pinochet is the sole representative of free-market capitalism?

At any rate, see here:


EDIT: If you study your history of European political theory and ideology, you'll find a rich tradition of libertarians and anarchists who denounced the abuses of the state. You'll also find that they tended to call themselves socialists. That Marx guy came second.

EDIT AGAIN: See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism (This term is actually considered a redundancy in pretty much everywhere not the USA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph-Pierre_Proudhon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Godwin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell (Yes, that's right, your boy Orwell was a socialist :eek:)

The only way [to] keep government under control is to make it as small and weak as possible.

ya think? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)


;)

So tell me what is socialism and how are those policies not socialist.

The US version of welfare is so far away from socialism its hard to know where to begin but lets try.

Firstly, my own view of socialism is primarily an economic one, where the economy is centrally planned by the government rather than left to market forces. By doing this the government hopes to guide the economy so that it benefits the majority of people rather than those with a vested interest in business and commerce, which socialists see as a result of rampant capitalism. Those industries and services which are deemed to be "public services", such as utilities, transport, etc, are taken into public ownership under the stewardship of the government. Thje idea of this is to provide these essential public services directly to the people without having to worry about satisfying shareholders and meet profit targets.

(May I just add this is only what I see as socialism, and not all of which I necassarily agree with).

Secondly, the US version of welfare is no where near what i have described. Many states have virtually privatised their welfare systems (most notably Michigan) and involvement by elected representatives is negligible.

In my opinion, there are definitely areas in where any government need to have dominance over private interest, most notably the armed forces, law enforcement, welfare provision, emergency services, healthcare etc. These areas are vital to the functioning of a society and nation, and private companies are not interested in running them, simply due to the fact that it is impossible or extremely difficult to run a profit from these. If there is no profit, there is no motivation for private companies to become involved is there?

So tell me what is socialism and how are those policies not socialist.

Maybe on the left, but not socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell (Yes, that's right, your boy Orwell was a socialist )Nobody is perfect.

He was a democratic socialist I believe, 1984 was just a commentary on the betrayal of the Revolution by Stalinism.

In my opinion, there are definitely areas in where any government need to have dominance over private interest, most notably...welfare provision, emergency services, healthcare etc.


There was a time in the United States when voluntary collective mutual aid groups provided welfare and medical services to their members extremely effectively. In fact, these collectives were so successful in providing those services that private business interests (who couldn't compete with the collective/mutualista in terms of either cost or price) and FDR's New Deal state both conspired together to crush voluntary mutual aid through regulatory measures, in favor of statist welfare. The politicos get more authority, and the profit business has less competitors. The capitalist and the state tend to be good buddies like that.

A good read:

From mutual aid to the welfare state : fraternal societies and social services, 1890-1967 by David Beito
Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, c2000

Available at your local university library, or other similar repository of insidious radical subversion.



These areas are vital to the functioning of a society and nation, and private companies are not interested in running them, simply due to the fact that it is impossible or extremely difficult to run a profit from these. If there is no profit, there is no motivation for private companies to become involved is there?

You're creating a false dicotomy, as alluded to above. The state and private/profit business are not the only possibilities. There is also that great mass we refer to as "The People." The People need simply to take their society back.

I do not trust government at all.

Except when its institutions safeguard private wealth?

There was a time in the United States when voluntary collective mutual aid provided welfare and medical services to their members extremely effectively. In fact, these collectives were so successful in providing those services that private business interests (who couldn't compete with the collective/mutual aid in either cost or price) and FDR's New Deal state both conspired together to crush voluntary mutual aid through regulatory measures. The capitalist and the state tend to be good buddies like that.

A good read:

From mutual aid to the welfare state : fraternal societies and social services, 1890-1967 by David Beito
Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, c2000




You're creating a false dicotomy, as alluded to above. The state and private/profit business are not the only possibilities. There is also that great mass we refer to as "The People." The People need simply to take their society back.


A very good example, but the problem is who actually stewards such schemes. In modern times such stewardship can only be provided by those experienced enough in running large organisations, and nowadays the majority of those people are from either big business or government.

In modern times such stewardship can only be provided by those experienced enough in running large organisations, and nowadays the majority of those people are from either big business or government.

At least until the People decide they want their society back.

1984 was just a commentary on the betrayal of the Revolution by Stalinism.

Wasn't that Animal Farm?

It's not fine and it isn't about corruption as much as it is poor management. The government wastes huge amounts of money on well-intentioned, but poorly managed programs every day. If that weren't true, Social Security and Medicare wouldn't be on the verge of bankruptcy.
Except that Social Security isn't on the verge of bankruptcy and a big part of the problem with Medicare is that the Republican Congress gave Pharma a license to steal in the most recent prescription drug program.

Many states have virtually privatised their welfare systems (most notably Michigan) and involvement by elected representatives is negligible.

May John Engler rot in hell.

:confused:

Why would you say something like that? What is so irresponsible about conservatism? And no, I don't already know. Conservative politicians may be irresponsible, but that doesn't mean conservatism itself is irresponsible. And liberalism is not inherently any better.
It is irresponsible to respond to everything that comes your way inflexibly and in a bellicose manner, which unfortunately conservatives have made a living out of.
As one of the more obvious understandings of insanity is doing the exact same thing in the same circumstantial settings and expecting different results ... not far from it is the conservative concept of not changing for anything and expecting optimal and typical results.

It is irresponsible to respond to everything that comes your way inflexibly and in a bellicose manner, which unfortunately conservatives have made a living out of.

And American Liberals haven't?

And American Liberals haven't?

In America, "Liberal" just means "ever so slightly less conservative."

And American Liberals haven't?

No, we haven't.

No, we haven't.

Are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombing_of_hiroshima_and_nagasaki) you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) sure (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml) about (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237) that (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309)?

Are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombing_of_hiroshima_and_nagasaki) you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) sure (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml) about (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237) that (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309)?

I'm absolutely positive. Go back and see what you replied to, then admit your idiocy.

Wasn't that Animal Farm?

Well yeah a direct one, 1984 was also a commentary about how socialism became 'oligarchical collectivism'.

I'm absolutely positive. Go back and see what you replied to, then admit your idiocy.

American "Liberals" have a long history of " bellicose" actions where in they did "[exactly the] same thing in the same circumstantial settings" while "expecting different results." If anything, the Republicans are [I]following in their grand tradition.

But I guess it's OK as long as theres a little "D" instead of an "R."

And American Liberals haven't?

If you have to ask .... :rolleyes:

No. Now move along.

American "Liberals" have a long history of " bellicose" actions where in they did "[exactly the] same thing in the same circumstantial settings" while "expecting different results." If anything, the Republicans are [I]following in their grand tradition.

But I guess it's OK as long as theres a little "D" instead of an "R."

Holy moley if that isn't a huge load of bullshit.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Thanks.

really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War)
So, you're saying it was the conservatives like Jane Fonda who were protesting the war and setting good examples of bellicosity?

sure (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml)
WTF? It's the yays - REPUBLICAN MAJORITY, not nays that passed that. Look how it turned out, hmmm?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html

Oh mods that's a 2005 article. Things have gotten MUCH MUCH BETTER since then, in between vacations and Sunnis walking away from the table and all.
:rolleyes:

Perhaps you can explain The Downing Street Memos, both Duelfer Reports, the German BND report, AND 9/11 Commission findings involving Iraq, eh?
Maybe, given huge, erroneous gleanings of the word "bellicose", it should be pointed out what "bellicose" means:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:bellicose&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
And it's a risk, i admit, to allow it to go on assumption that you understand what "inflexible" means. I could provide some more instances of republican bullshit to clarify, if you like.

Either you're in roleplay and are specifically intending people to respond with facts, which is cute, or you're in roleplay of an utter moron pov.
Anyone's guess. Perhaps time will clarify.

nah. i assume that they assumed there was a bug in their voting, because guys polling at 1% don't overwhelmingly win debates. little do they know the power of ron paul's internet fans to sway internet voting.

It's really easy to write a program make multiple votes. It can even work on ones which supposedly let you only vote once.

Members of this white sox board I frequent wrote a program to rig the annual Chicago Tribune all city baseball team vote a few years back. The Tribune reset the polls when they saw that the Sox had 99% of the vote in each position.

So, you're saying it was the conservatives like Jane Fonda who were protesting the war and setting good examples of bellicosity?

I'm saying it was good "Liberals" like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson who got the American involvement started to begin with. Yes, other "Liberals" protested, and indeed the poor outcome of the conflict reigned in the Democratic war machine to a great extent. However, the inflexible and bellicose among the American "Liberals" didn't go away; they simply became Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatives). Thus, the torch was passed on.

But it wasn't passed on completely. There were still plenty of "D"'s on the "Yea" side of the present conflict in Iraq.

But it wasn't passed on completely. There were still plenty of "D"'s on the "Yea" side of the present conflict in Iraq.

Having a "D" next to your name doesn't necessarily mean you're a liberal.

Soo.... some idiot Ron Paul forum somewhere did a fire mission / raid / whatever on the poll...

more likely they wrote an automatic voting program. It's simple enough.

WTF? It's the yays - REPUBLICAN MAJORITY, not nays that passed that. Look how it turned out, hmmm?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html


Of course, if those 81 nays (and 1 no vote) had voted the way American "Liberals" are supposed to vote, the outcome might have been quite different. But then, considering the senate vote which I also linked to, wherein Democrats made up an integral part of the "Yea" side, maybe not.

However, the inflexible and bellicose among the American "Liberals" didn't go away; they simply became Republicans. Thus, the torch was passed on. This sounds like the same thing republicans say lately when the obvious incompetence and outright evil of the administration and its supporters are brought to light ... "oh there's no difference between d's and r's".
"but, but Clinton" ...

But it wasn't passed on completely. There were still plenty of "D"'s on the "Yea" side of the present conflict in Iraq.
Funny how many experts seem to agree on how good an idea it was to invade, and the obvious consequences of extended stay with "a new kind of war".

So, given as much shit as there is now to deal with, perhaps it's kind of obvious what'll happen if we decide to just pull out abruptly. Or at least, given the cowardice that congress shows in large numbers, it seems like not many feel like risking too much while congress's approval as a whole is as low as it is. I should add that your last link right there, however, shows the integrity of congress as a whole.

Lamentable how one of the only guys with integrity in this particular administration had to move on so early ... especially after saying something along the lines of "If you invade Iraq, you OWN it."

Having a "D" next to your name doesn't necessarily mean you're a liberal.

(this is essentially my point. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12943988&postcount=228) If the people arguing with me right now don't actually identify with the Democrats [or American Liberals] they should indicate such so the unfortunate misunderstanding can be resolved)

Of course, if those 81 nays (and 1 no vote) had voted the way American "Liberals" are supposed to vote, the outcome might have been quite different. But then, considering the senate vote which I also linked to, wherein Democrats made up an integral part of the "Yea" side, maybe not.
The term "integral" here is obviously irrelevant. Thanks.
:rolleyes:

Having a "D" next to your name doesn't necessarily mean you're a liberal.

Robert Byrd?

This sounds like the same thing republicans say...


One need only examine my signature and nation page in order to find that I am no Republican


...lately when the obvious incompetence and outright evil of the administration and its supporters are brought to light


I do not contest the existence of this outright evil. In fact, I agree with that assessment 100%. I can simply see that the Democrats are, in fact, no better. Now or then.

The term "integral" here is obviously irrelevant. Thanks.
:rolleyes:

The Senate resolution would not have passed without the support of all those Democrats.

One need only examine my signature and nation page in order to find that I am no republican



I do not contest the existance of this outright evil. In fact, I agree with that assessment 100%. I can simply see that the Democrats are, in fact, no better. Now or then.
From a point of view of an independent moderate, which i usually am, after having been brought up libertarian, it's pretty clear that it's a matter of juggling battles and damage control.
I have to disagree with you, in general, though about democrats not being better. Admittedly, their persuasion is much softer and diplomatic in so many approaches, which isn't attractive when some friends of the administration (yes, Saudis) decided to bomb something pretty important to our people, for which we attack a great oil source that had literally
NOTHING
to do with 9/11 afterwards (while simultaneously backpedalling on human rights infringements and abuses in same Saudi country).

Wasn't a good time to be weak at all. Nor stupid. But we ended up with at least one. And then even worse, by hand of the administration and *BELLICOSE* republican dipshits.
The difference is, until only RECENTLY have *any* republicans come out of lockstep to start pointing out what was so fairly obvious to so many of us, and by far more of a number of democrats. Even ones willing to risk their careers.

The Senate resolution would not have passed without the support of all those Democrats.

No, your use of the term "integral" is irrelevant in the sense that it's redundant.

Seriously, are you suggesting a possible majority of independents?