RONY 2012

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
From a marketing perspective using the RONY 2012 tag line is a bad move. Most people have seen the KONY 2012 promotion and see it as a fraud. Why would you want to connect your brand with that campaign. Even if you are trying to get a different message across, it still carries the negative connotations of that KONY debacle.

Wasn't my idea.
I don't know what to tell you.

Who's idea was it?
It is your title.
You wrote it.
I am sure Ron Paul himself knows that it is Ronny with two n's.
So please tell us who's idea it was.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree

 

Oh not this again. Really? How many times do we have to say it?

GAH!

Fine, for the umpteenth millionth time, here's why I don't like Ron Paul's platform.

1. His stance on Abortion if enacted will make all abortions federal murder charges.

2. For some god knows reason he thinks that a $5000.00 tax credit will make up for the loss of income from a job when a poor person homeschools their children.

3. He's an open religious zealot who does the will of his god over the will of his constituents.

What side of history are you on? Oppression or Freedom?

I'll be on the side of freedom thank you, which means I won't be voting for Ron Paul.

Oh, this is a pro Ron Paul thread, which means that 12m8keall2c will let it stay right here in Political Madness instead of dumping it in the black hole that is Political Rivlary as he does with every single anti Paul thread.

Funny how that works isn't it?

Alright a post that I was looking for. That's cool man. If you don't like Ron Paul more power to you because you know why. Obviously, I disagree but who am I to try convince you otherwise.

But who do you support otherwise then? Who do you believe is a representative of freedom more so then Ron Paul?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

The founders themselves, while some being sympathetic to the abolitionist cause, recognized slavery as a valid and legal institution at the time.

I didn't say the "founders themselves", I said "early Presidents". And again, this just exemplifies why centralization doesn't work. One single opinion by one single group of people can cause all states to accept slavery. But again, this is not relevant because in today's modern world Human rights are agreed upon and acknowledged by a large range of nations , and no degree of state power is going to override those Human rights.

No it's not their right, and it should never be. It's none of the governments business to concern itself with whether or not a woman wishes to go through with an abortion.

And what if the Federal government were to make it their business hmm? I doubt any state would try to make such decisions, but if they feel that's the best way to do things in that state, it's their right to choose that. The result will be many people leaving that state, because the MAJORITY of states will not breach individual liberty in such a way. The states with the most freedom will likely attract more people, and the minority of states will be forced to follow the majority. That's why decentralization works so well, it offers the chance for people to try out a bunch of different perspectives and see what works the best, and gives people a choice to choose between the different options available.

It shouldn't be the government's business to tell me what I can and cannot smoke, on my own private property.

That's funny you should mention that, because many states are trying to legalize certain smokable herbs yet Federal laws often override their decisions, even in cases of medicinal use. It's impossible for ANY of the states to make up their own minds when one central authority is trying to dictate what can and cannot be done in EVERY SINGLE state.

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree


You don't have to tell me anything, I was just pointing something out that didn't sit right with me. Just seemed like a strange way of brining attention to ones chosen politician

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
From a marketing perspective using the RONY 2012 tag line is a bad move. Most people have seen the KONY 2012 promotion and see it as a fraud. Why would you want to connect your brand with that campaign. Even if you are trying to get a different message across, it still carries the negative connotations of that KONY debacle.

Wasn't my idea.
I don't know what to tell you.

Who's idea was it?
It is your title.
You wrote it.
I am sure Ron Paul himself knows that it is Ronny with two n's.
So please tell us who's idea it was.

I'm going to direct you to the 2nd video.

You need to chill girl

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
That's funny you should mention that, because many states are trying to legalize certain smokable herbs yet Federal laws often override their decisions, even in cases of medicinal use. It's impossible for ANY of the states to make up their own minds when one central authority is trying to dictate what can and cannot be done in EVERY SINGLE state.

Here I was all worried about my rights as a woman but hey, as long as he is going to let people get high, what do I really need my rights for anyway?

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree




I'm going to direct you to the 2nd video.

You need to chill dude.

edit on 25-5-2012 by FreedomXisntXFree because: (no reason given)

Why do you keep telling me to chill?
I could not be more relaxed right now. What does it do for you to pretend I am in a manic state you could begin to identify through online posts?
Seriously, what is that?
I cannot watch videos on this computer.
I still do not see how that absolves you from having written your own title to this thread.
You could have titled it anything but instead you copied the most ignorant part from a video you posted as your title?
I would love to say a third time why Ron Paul supporters sadden me but I am afraid it is being lost.

reply to post by muse7

However people don't realize that corporations can far more easily lobby a state government than they can the federal government.

Here's the thing about decentralization. It's far easier for an attacker to breach a single node in a network if that node oversees all other nodes in the network. However, a decentralized network based on a dynamic array of independent nodes is almost impossible to breach, because the attacker must breach a majority of the nodes before even putting a dent in the network. You can't destroy a P2P network simply by taking down a few nodes, the network is dynamic and adaptable and can easily handle the loss of such nodes without the entire network being breached. That's why torrent technology is virtually impossible to destroy, no one has the power required to launch a sufficient attach on all the nodes... together those nodes, although independent, create a robust network that can sustain vicious attack from all sides. But when you hang that network from one master node, it becomes extremely easy to attack because all one need do is breach the master node and the whole system crumbles.

simplified: it's easier to take control of the master node (federal government) and then use that power to dictate the rules of all other nodes (state governments) then it is to take control of all the independent nodes (states) in a decentralized network.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


So you don't like him because of his non-interventionist ideas? What is wrong with non-interventionism?

Seriously if his ideas are strictly American and no where else what is there to hate about that? He is trying to to good for our country as a whole....What is to dislike about that?...

Seriously I don't get it....Is Obama really doing the right thing as of now?

You want to know why I still support Ron Paul even though I don't agree with his Pro Life stance.....

Its because a majority of America won't agree with it and Ron Paul isn't going to become a dictator and FEDERALLY mandate abortions as illegal. I don't agree with that and neither does alot of people in the US. Besides you act as if thats his number 1 goal. His number one goal is fiscal issues.

So if you're really concerned that you will be needing an abortion in the next 5 years then you may have other problems. The way I see it is you're worried about something you may or may not need ever in the future.

I support Ron Paul first and foremost because of his stance on economic freedom. Sorry, I'm not a woman so abortion isn't at the top of my list of issues. Granted, I believe women should be entitled to do as they please with their bodies.

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree

But who do you support otherwise then? Who do you believe is a representative of freedom more so then Ron Paul?

Me? I would go for Virgil Goode He's an independent that has been both a democrat, and a republican. He, I believe is a person that is an actual independent and exactly what this country needs.

If you want my opinion on the state of politics in this country, I think that we should replace every last politician in office today with all independents. The only way to truly fix what is wrong with this country is to end the tyranny of the two party system.

In order to do that, we need to elect an independent president, that way, the country can see what happens when someone who isn't bent to the will of party politics can achieve.

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree




I'm going to direct you to the 2nd video.

You need to chill dude.

edit on 25-5-2012 by FreedomXisntXFree because: (no reason given)

Why do you keep telling me to chill?
I could not be more relaxed right now. What does it do for you to pretend I am in a manic state you could begin to identify through online posts?
Seriously, what is that?
I cannot watch videos on this computer.
I still do not see how that absolves you from having written your own title to this thread.
You could have titled it anything but instead you copied the most ignorant part from a video you posted as your title?
I would love to say a third time why Ron Paul supporters sadden me but I am afraid it is being lost.

I'd change the title if it made you feel better. You still haven't told me who you rather support. What candidate will give you the most freedom in your opinion? That is the whole point of this thread. Disagree or downright loathe Ron Paul ALL YOU WANT. I just want to know who you believe is the alternative bastion of freedom.

Unless you rather try to argue about the title of my thread and get absolutely no where and go round and round instead of just answering my initial question.

If not Ron Paul....who is the better alternative to freedom? Thats all I asked.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


This is not a computer network. It is the US. How does your analogy hold up when the state is attacking the rights of the people in that state or even as AZ tried to do, challenging another state within the network?
I am curious.

reply to post by Autumnal

How does your analogy hold up when the state is attacking the rights of the people in that state or even as AZ tried to do, challenging another state within the network?

I already explained that in another post. The people supporting that node abandon it and reject it. The majority decision of all the nodes in the network will most likely prevail and force the other nodes to follow the accepted rules of the network or risk being at a disadvantage. This will be especially apparent when the rules in question concern major operational freedoms possessed by the people supporting that node.

How does your argument hold up when the federal government is attacking the rights of the people in ALL states?

Or following our analogy, how can you defend the robustness of a network where the master node can attack the rights of all other nodes in the network and they can't do anything about it?

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree

 

But who do you support otherwise then? Who do you believe is a representative of freedom more so then Ron Paul?

Me? I would go for Virgil Goode He's an independent that has been both a democrat, and a republican. He, I believe is a person that is an actual independent and exactly what this country needs.

If you want my opinion on the state of politics in this country, I think that we should replace every last politician in office today with all independents. The only way to truly fix what is wrong with this country is to end the tyranny of the two party system.

In order to do that, we need to elect an independent president, that way, the country can see what happens when someone who isn't bent to the will of party politics can achieve.

I completely agree. The two party system is a Duopoly for the same means to an end. I believe the potential Romney vs Obama primary election is going to finally expose our political system. For years upon years Americans have been either voting red or blue and getting the same result no matter what.

Within the next decade or two I would hope we will have finally broken out of that paradigm.



I'm not trying to be a **** but you're boy Virgil donated to Ron Paul in 2008. However much weight that holds.

"In the 2008 Republican primary elections for President, the Federal Election Commission reported that Goode donated $500 to Republican candidate Ron Paul."

-Virgil Goode wikipedia page.

reply to post by Autumnal

This is not a computer network. It is the US. How does your analogy hold up when the state is attacking the rights of the people in that state or even as AZ tried to do, challenging another state within the network?

Huh? This is a site within a network that is worldwide including the U.S.....What does AZ have to do with ATS?

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Giving power back to the states MAXIMIZES individual liberties because it lets the people of each state have more say.

No, it simply trades one giant totalitarian regime for fifty smaller ones. When will states start giving power back to individual counties, because that gives the people of each county more say? And then those counties could cede power back to the communities, maybe broken up by school district. And then they could could, finally, cede all power back to the individual. We can be a "nation" of over three hundred million little sovereign nations, each of us having our own laws on our homestead. It'll be fun!

reply to post by iterationzero

No, it simply trades one giant totalitarian regime for fifty smaller ones.

Of course... you must be right. Why don't we just do away with all nations and create a one world government why we're at it. Surely having one giant totalitarian regime is better than having hundreds of smaller ones huh?

We can be a "nation" of over three hundred million little sovereign nations, each of us having our own laws on our homestead. It'll be fun!

Here we go again... taking things to the absolute extreme in order to dilute and discredit the concepts being discussed. Ron Paul is not saying we should take things to such extremes, he simply wants to spread out the power into more decentralized network (keep in mind a network is still connected) in order to BALANCE out the power and take away excessive power from central authorities who abuse and manipulate their positions. Everything in the world comes down to balance... but people like you only see things in black or white, up and down, left or right... you fail to see the middle points between decentralization and centralization. It's not about endorsing one or the other, it's about creating a sustainable balance between each component in order to establish a fairer and more balanced system. You thrive on excess and extremes, you manipulate the opinions of Dr. Paul by exaggerating his policies and twist them into something they're not.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
One single opinion by one single group of people can cause all states to accept slavery.

Slavery was a States issue during that period, not a federal issue. The Federal government did not enforce slavery laws, individual states did. The Federal government only took the action of ending slavery (for convenience, against confederate resistence during the civil war). Now speaking of a 'single group of people', howmuch support would the Federal government require inorder to legalize slavery again? You are aware that even during the civil war, the majority of the country still supported the legalization of slavery?

I doubt any state would try to make such decisions,

And I disagree, I'm pritty sure there will be some states out there that will make those decisions.

I don't agree with leaving my individual liberties completely in the hands of the State government. Clearly you feel comfortable with this, I don't.

The result will be many people leaving that state,

Look, this excuse of 'just leaving states' doesn't do it for me, at all. I believe in protecting individual liberties for all american citizens, period. No state should have the right to enforce laws that infringe upon your personal livelyhood decisions, the same goes for the Federal government. I don't care whether you believe what's unlikely or what is likely, individual liberties should be protected, period.

With this kind of reasoning, is it any wonder why Ron Paul doesn't sit well with many voters?

That's funny you should mention that, because many states are trying to legalize certain smokable herbs yet Federal laws often override their decisions,

I don't believe that government, State or Federal, has the right to outlaw marijuana. As a private property owner you should have the right to smoke whatever the hell you want, period.

If you think it's a good idea for States to have the power to infringe on the rights of Individual American citizens then that's your deal. Just don't try to tell me that individual liberties are a priority for people like you, or that Ron Paul, because this clearly is BS.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Slavery was a States issue during that period, not a federal issue. The Federal government did not enforce slavery laws, individual states did. The Federal government only took the action of ending slavery (for convenience, against confederate resistence during the civil war). Now speaking of a 'single group of people', howmuch support would the Federal government require inorder to legalize slavery again? You are aware that even during the civil war, the majority of the country still supported the legalization of slavery?

I am aware that it was a state issue, that is the whole point of this debate after all. The Federal government decided slavery was a legitimate choice for the states to make, so by the decision of one group of people slavery was fine. When they changed their mind the states no longer had that choice. It doesn't matter whether they are dictating whether something is allowed or not allowed, it's still the same thing. Their central authority has the final say and dictates what states can and cannot do. You completely ignore the fact the Federal Government often make absurd and irrational decisions. At least when the states have some reasonable degree of power to make their own choices the bad decisions of the Federal Government wont be so effective on all states. And how hard do you think it would be for states to make slavery illegal? Such extreme propositions are not going to sit well with people, the civil war turned out like it did for a reason.

And I disagree, I'm pritty sure there will be some states out there that will make those decisions.

I don't agree with leaving my individual liberties completely in the hands of the State government. Clearly you feel comfortable with this, I don't.

Yes there will be some states that make bad decisions, but once again how can you deny the Federal government doesn't often make bad decisions? You seem to have this unwavering faith in the Federal government, as if they can do not wrong... and that it's safer to put ALL OUR TRUST into one central body rather than trying to spread out that accountability and trust among the states, which is CLEARLY a much safer option than trusting one central authority to make all the decisions which effect all states.

I don't agree with leaving my individual liberties completely in the hands of the Federal government. Clearly you feel comfortable with this, I don't.

I believe in protecting individual liberties for all American citizens, period. No state should have the right to enforce laws that infringe upon your personal livelyhood decisions, the same goes for the Federal government. I don't care whether you believe what's unlikely or what is likely, individual liberties should be protected, period.

I have bolded the most important part of your statement, because it clearly shows the fault in your logic. The Federal government should have the right to enforce laws that infringe upon your personal livelyhood decisions, especially when those laws affect ALL STATES. I don't care whether you believe what's unlikely or what is likely, the Federal government WILL and HAVE created laws which infringe upon individual liberties. The best way to protect Americans from these types of laws is to create a more balanced level of power among the states so that the Federal Government can't enact these types of stupid laws which affect ALL Americans.

I don't believe that government, State or Federal, has the right to outlaw marijuana. As a private property owner you should have the right to smoke whatever the hell you want, period.

Yeah well that's too bad for you buddy. The Federal government doesn't like it... you don't have the right to smoke whatever the hell you want, so you and ALL OTHER AMERICANS need to deal with it!!!! Period.