ron paul.

[moreluck]

Just don't get sick...without insurance. Ron would let you die, and feel good about it afterwards because he had stuck to his "core principles".

I'm not for him.......I named the only positive I see in him.

 

[av8torntn]

Just don't get sick...without insurance. Ron would let you die, and feel good about it afterwards because he had stuck to his "core principles".

Why do you feel that without government you are helpless?

 

[av8torntn]

What does legalizing drugs mean then?

"Congressman Paul believes states have the right to legalize the sale of drugs -- all types of drugs, even heroine. The 76-year-old candidate justifies his position by stating that the prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the 1920s. But what he fails to mention is that once prohibition was repealed, per capita consumption increased threefold, increasing the incidences of health issues, welfare, and traffic-related deaths related to alcoholism."

So your position is that if the federal government stepped out of the way all states would legalize all drugs? I must say I think that is an odd position as there are still counties in my state where alcohol is illegal.

 

[moreluck]

So your position is that if the federal government stepped out of the way all states would legalize all drugs? I must say I think that is an odd position as there are still counties in my state where alcohol is illegal.

Who's to say how far it would go. If you think it'll be a little recreational pot smoking......."Now who's being naive, Kay?"

I didn't say all states would do anything.....but if even one just said "make all drugs legal" that's too many!! Can't risk it!

 

[MrFedEx]

Why do you feel that without government you are helpless?

Why do you feel that no government is the answer? That's clueless. Libertarians tend to be free of compassion and full of "principle", which is great as long as you've got yours. I don't see many poor Libertarians. Government is a necessary evil when you have multiple needs and wants from multiple constituencies in a large society. Unfortunately for you (and Ron Paul), most people see Libertariansim for what is really is... a crackpot scheme that only works within utopian bounds, and benefits a tiny fraction of society.

Maybe you and Hoaxter can get together and make the "free market" really free so we can all take "personal responsibility" to a new level. Crazy, and completely unrealistic. Yet you still believe.

"Without government, the scum rises to the top."- MrFedEx

 

[av8torntn]

Why do you feel that no government is the answer? That's clueless. Libertarians tend to be free of compassion and full of "principle", which is great as long as you've got yours. I don't see many poor Libertarians. Government is a necessary evil when you have multiple needs and wants from multiple constituencies in a large society. Unfortunately for you (and Ron Paul), most people see Libertariansim for what is really is... a crackpot scheme that only works within utopian bounds, and benefits a tiny fraction of society.

Maybe you and Hoaxter can get together and make the "free market" really free so we can all take "personal responsibility" to a new level. Crazy, and completely unrealistic. Yet you still believe.

"Without government, the scum rises to the top."- MrFedEx

Are you afraid to answer the question or just incapable? My money is on incapable.

 

[moreluck]

"Without government, the scum rises to the top."- MrFedEx

What if the government IS the scum?

 

[MrFedEx]

Are you afraid to answer the question or just incapable? My money is on incapable.

I am not helpless without government. Unlike you, I realize that government has a legitimate and necessary function in our society. Yes, sometimes it goes overboard, but eliminating large chunks of it is nonsense (your answer). I am simply saying that you are ignoring reality when you say we don't need government. The absence of government is called anarchy, and that's what a Libertarian USA would look like.

Now that I've answered your question, answer one for me. What happens when you let the "free market" loose to make everything "right"? Since it isn't really a free market, how is an imperfect correction mechanism going to accomplish anything meaningful? There are so many special deals and loopholes for big corporations that the market is anything but free. It's rigged from the start. Isn't that a basic reality that you and Ron Paul fail to understand?

 

[MrFedEx]

"Without government, the scum rises to the top."- MrFedEx

What if the government IS the scum?

I'm mocking his tagline. I would say that politicians are generally scum, not the government itself. If we cleaned up campaign financing and held some of these crooks (on both sides) feet to the fire, the government would function as intended, or at least much more effectively than it does. No lobbyists, no special deals, no pork for the home state.

 

[av8torntn]

I am not helpless without government. Unlike you, I realize that government has a legitimate and necessary function in our society. Yes, sometimes it goes overboard, but eliminating large chunks of it is nonsense (your answer). I am simply saying that you are ignoring reality when you say we don't need government. The absence of government is called anarchy, and that's what a Libertarian USA would look like.

Now that I've answered your question, answer one for me. What happens when you let the "free market" loose to make everything "right"? Since it isn't really a free market, how is an imperfect correction mechanism going to accomplish anything meaningful? There are so many special deals and loopholes for big corporations that the market is anything but free. It's rigged from the start. Isn't that a basic reality that you and Ron Paul fail to understand?

I don't think you answered my question but we can put that aside for now. Maybe you can possibly answer this(I doubt it). Where did I say that we don't need government?

You ask what happens when you have a free market. I would be happy to address that question but then you try to attack a free market by saying we have no free market I have a little difficulty following your logic or lack of logic. I'm also thinking your use of a straw man argument(libertarian USA) is very weak and needs a little work.

Unlike you, I understand that government could have a legitimate function in society. That function could be to provide for the common defense of the states and protect certain individual freedoms somewhat like a Constitutional government that would allow citizens to govern themselves. I can see no possible way to have a free society where a large central government provides goods and services to it's citizens or requires private companies to play that role.

If government is rigging markets for large companies, as you say, and Paul wants to eliminate government, as you said, how the heck could a government, that didn't exist, rig a market for a company,that couldn't exist, because you claim that everything exists because of government?

 

[MrFedEx]

I don't think you answered my question but we can put that aside for now. Maybe you can possibly answer this(I doubt it). Where did I say that we don't need government?

You ask what happens when you have a free market. I would be happy to address that question but then you try to attack a free market by saying we have no free market I have a little difficulty following your logic or lack of logic. I'm also thinking your use of a straw man argument(libertarian USA) is very weak and needs a little work.

Unlike you, I understand that government could have a legitimate function in society. That function could be to provide for the common defense of the states and protect certain individual freedoms somewhat like a Constitutional government that would allow citizens to govern themselves. I can see no possible way to have a free society where a large central government provides goods and services to it's citizens or requires private companies to play that role.

If government is rigging markets for large companies, as you say, and Paul wants to eliminate government, as you said, how the heck could a government, that didn't exist, rig a market for a company,that couldn't exist, because you claim that everything exists because of government?

A weak response, as I expected. I always hear Libertarians say "let the market decide". Fine, that makes sense if the market isn't corrupted. Since the market is corrupted, letting the market decide is a bad idea, as in if we the government had let GM fail. I'll grant you that government can be wasteful and needs to be cut back in certain respects (like the military), but a large federal government seems a necessity given the size and complexity of our country.

I realize that Ron Paul doesn't want to completely eliminate the federal government, but he'd like to prune it all the way to the ground, which is nonsense. We don't need a Department of Education or an EPA? These are national concerns that exceed state capabilities. And our government is rigged in favor of large companies. Ron Paul wuldn't really change that because Libertarians are huge fans of privatization, believing (falsely) that private industry can always do a better job than government. Isn't that a huge gift to Corporate America?

And where did I ever say that "everything exists because of government"? Sometimes government helps, and sometimes it hinders. It isn't perfect by any means, but a Libertarian USA would be a disaster. There's a reason Paul never gets more than 7 or 8% of the vote, and that's because 92 to 93% of Americans think he's crazy. Count me as one of that number.

 

[av8torntn]

Since the market is corrupted, letting the market decide is a bad idea, as in if we the government had let GM fail. .

But GM did fail. They ended up going through bankruptcy. The world did not end as you would have us to believe.

Overall I would say that you believe what you are told and cannot explain why or at least that is the way it seems.

There's a reason Paul never gets more than 7 or 8% of the vote.

If i showed you that was a lie can we assume everything else you post is also a lie? This is going on the assumption that in your little world 21.4 is greater than 7 or 8.

On a side note I have to admit that when you say the markets are corrupted by government and the solution to a corrupt market is more government but you cannot explain why is very amusing.

 

[MrFedEx]

But GM did fail. They ended up going through bankruptcy. The world did not end as you would have us to believe.

Overall I would say that you believe what you are told and cannot explain why or at least that is the way it seems.



If i showed you that was a lie can we assume everything else you post is also a lie? This is going on the assumption that in your little world 21.4 is greater than 7 or 8.

On a side note I have to admit that when you say the markets are corrupted by government and the solution to a corrupt market is more government but you cannot explain why is very amusing.

A lot of people wanted GM to fail, as in going out of business. They thought the bailout was a crime. Too bad it was a complete success. Ron Paul may get 21.4% in a primary, but overall, as in a general election, he gets around 7 to 8%.

Where did I say that the solution to a corrupt market is more government? The solution IMO, is better government, as in campaign reform and the elimination of lobbying. That doesn't necessarily mean more government. It might actually mean less.

I actually do my own thinking, while you seem to parrot Libertarian talking points and factoids. I can't believe they trust you flying an airplane, because that requires good judgement. Oh, and I've been flying for over 20 years, so my judgement must be fairly good.

 

[av8torntn]

A lot of people wanted GM to fail, as in going out of business. They thought the bailout was a crime. Too bad it was a complete success. Ron Paul may get 21.4% in a primary, but overall, as in a general election, he gets around 7 to 8%.

Where did I say that the solution to a corrupt market is more government? The solution IMO, is better government, as in campaign reform and the elimination of lobbying. That doesn't necessarily mean more government. It might actually mean less.

I actually do my own thinking, while you seem to parrot Libertarian talking points and factoids. I can't believe they trust you flying an airplane, because that requires good judgement. Oh, and I've been flying for over 20 years, so my judgement must be fairly good.

So was it a lie when you said Ron Paul never gets more than 7-8% of the vote in an election or were you just wrong? Maybe it was your poor judgement that forced you to make that false statement? Whatever it was I'm sure you'll be a good little extreme leftist and blame someone else.

as in campaign reform and the elimination of lobbying. That doesn't necessarily mean more government

How can less government ban lobbying? How can less government regulate campaigns? You can't be a sudden convert to self regulation.

 

[moreluck]

You say a lot of people wanted GM to fail......but it's not like those people hate GM. I have two Chevys. I like GM. But, I think there are natural consequences in business........those consequences need to happen and no one should be swooping in like Superman to rescue anything.
GM woudl've come back stronger than ever and no taxpayer money was needed.

No different than rescuing your teen over & over again.....finally, they need to experience the consequences or they never learn.

 

[klein]

You say a lot of people wanted GM to fail......but it's not like those people hate GM. I have two Chevys. I like GM. But, I think there are natural consequences in business........those consequences need to happen and no one should be swooping in like Superman to rescue anything.
GM woudl've come back stronger than ever and no taxpayer money was needed.

No different than rescuing your teen over & over again.....finally, they need to experience the consequences or they never learn.

I agree, they should have never used the Tarp program either, and let all the banks fail, and people losing all thier savings, including homes.
Would have been the best thing for America.
For people start from scratch with no assests and no debts.
And the country, too.
Let it default !

However Romney would have been saved with his money being overseas

 

[av8torntn]

Oh, and I've been flying for over 20 years, so my judgement must be fairly good.

Why was it good judgement to post that lie? This is the problem many people have with you leftists. You feel like you can use anything to justify your position even if it is not true. I'm supposed to somehow defer my judgement to you because you feel you should have the best judgement for everyone and are willing to lie to make a point. This, of course, is not limited to just you but is a pattern by people from your view.

It on the surface seems like a fair question. If you do not have good enough judgement to not lie about something meaningless why should I trust your judgement about something larger like health care, campaign finance, or manufacturing? In my opinion when you lie about the little things you tend to lie about the larger things and you obviously demonstrated poor judgement with your lie on here so I see no reason to trust your judgement on health care or manufacturing.

Oh and I'm not a libertarian so I don't really see a need for you to keep claiming that I am. I'll defer to libertarians to defend what I see as your misstatements about them.

 

[moreluck]

I agree, they should have never used the Tarp program either, and let all the banks fail, and people losing all thier savings, including homes.
Would have been the best thing for America.
For people start from scratch with no assests and no debts.
And the country, too.
Let it default !

However Romney would have been saved with his money being overseas

So they let you drink on this job too??? Geez!

 

[klein]

Just making a point. You disagree with bailing out GM, but bailing out banks was ok !
If banks went under, people could live mortgage free (those that had a mortgage, anyways).

But, on the other hand, those with savings would have nothing.


Hmmmm, makes me wonder, would that be called socialisum, after capitalisum fails ??? Good subject for wkmac !

 

[moreluck]

Just making a point. You disagree with bailing out GM, but bailing out banks was ok !
If banks went under, people could live mortgage free (those that had a mortgage, anyways).

But, on the other hand, those with savings would have nothing.

The only people who live mortgage free is the squatters like OWS!!