RONY 2012

I wonder if any of the RP supporters are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Willing to match any amount up to $150k (me obviously betting against RP) using a secured escrow account

PS: Yes, I like gambling...but in this case I believe to have a ridiculously high chance at winning. PM me if interested.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I wonder if any of the RP supporters are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Willing to match any amount up to $150k

How about putting 15 trillion dollars down? You Down? No, you ain't down you ain't nothing but a clown...

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree


I am against about 75% of Mr Paul's stated policies and promises, nothing more nothing less, I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, and he probably represents his area in a good fashion, I just don't like his stance on certain issues that affect me.

Do I like Romney or Obama? Not really, I don't think that there is anyone that is really good enough this time around, unfortunately that makes me a Ron Paul "hater" in your eyes..... or a troll or whatever. Last time I checked and you guys spot this all the time, there' free speech in this country, who are you to tell me who I should and should not like, I don't like what the man has to say, period dot....

Originally posted by MrXYZ


Why Ron Paul shouldn't and won't win:

- He doesn't have the support of the guys pulling the strings at the GOP...that alone will make sureche can't win.

So what if he doesn't have the backing of the establishment, are you actually okay with being told who to vote for, even if you don't like them, and being told what policies to support even if you don't agree with them?

- He wants to fix corruption in politics and the financial industry exploiting citizens by making them sign VOLUNTARY PLEDGES. That's so nuts, it's hard to take him serious.

So, making our politicians actually promise to do their job, in a way that makes it extremely difficult for them to backtrack, is "nuts?"

- Against gays rights...therefore treating them as second class citizens. Whenever a politician wants to infringe on the rights of a specific group, I'm against it.

He's not against gay rights, he believes that it's not the job of the Federal government, nor is it even a power of it, to legislate such matters, but is the job of the states. The closest thing to coming out against gay marriage that he's ever come is stating that he believes that marriage is a religious ceremony, that can be performed by a pastor for whomever he wishes.

- Against equal pay for woman.

He's against the Federal government legislating on such matters, as it is not a power of the Federal government.

- Against contraception, even though a majority is using it and it prevents STDs (even though it saves lives).

This is blatantly false, he believes that birth control is perfectly moral, it's just that immoral behavior often leads to the use of birth control.

[quote[
- Against companies being forced to not sell lead toys to children, aka against the EPA.


Once, again, he believes that the Federal government shouldn't legislate such things because it is not in its power. If you really think the states wouldn't create their own prohibitions on such things then I just don't know what to say to you.

- Against consumer protection...therefore making it super easy for the financial industry to screw us all over again.

Once again, not a Federal issue. Paul believes in the free market, and in the ability of the people to manipulate the market. If you have a problem with something, sign a petition, or get your state to legislate on the matter, just keep in mind that it's not a power of the Federal government.

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I wonder if any of the RP supporters are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Willing to match any amount up to $150k

How about putting 15 trillion dollars down? You Down? No, you ain't down you ain't nothing but a clown...

Nice ad hominem attacks, puts you lot in a great light

If I had that much money, I'd gladly bet it...I'm that convinced RP doesn't stand a chance

reply to post by Darkinin


You keep on repeating RP doesn't believe xyz should be regulated by the federal government...which is stupid if it demonstrably leads to bad outcomes. The world isn't black or white, so his stance being the same for everything is ridiculous.

And I don't believe his request for a voluntary pledges by politicians and investment bankers (aka asking them to do the right thing) is bad, it's just comically ineffective

Also, "free market" is a THEORETICAL concept that only works if all market participants act rationally...that's clearly not the case, and asking for "free market" is therefore equal to asking for companies to freely exploit their workforce and environment without restrictions. It's a ridiculous proposal...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Darkinin

 

You keep on repeating RP doesn't believe xyz should be regulated by the federal government...

Nobody believes XYZ

reply to post by Darkinin


Because I didn't wanna put such a large quote in my reply:

How is making sure that people are protected not the job of the Federal Government. States have limited resources and manpower to be doing these things, it also has a better chance of consistency from one state to another of some rules and regs are Federal in nature..

While I love the Constitution as much as the next person, there also isn't anything in there that specifically states the Federal Government CANNOT regulate education, health, etc... IN fact if I remember correctly, "Promote the General Welfare" is in there somewhere...

I certainly wouldn't want to live in a loose federation of squabbling states, just because of one man's twisted take on the Constitution. THAT is why I don't like Ron Paul and more so his supporters, the rigid, unbending interpretation of a document that is over 200 years old and could not forsee the issues we deal with these days..Not saying scrap it, I'm saying, just because there's no mandate in the document doesn't mean it's not legal..

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Darkinin

 

Because I didn't wanna put such a large quote in my reply:

How is making sure that people are protected not the job of the Federal Government. States have limited resources and manpower to be doing these things, it also has a better chance of consistency from one state to another of some rules and regs are Federal in nature..

While I love the Constitution as much as the next person, there also isn't anything in there that specifically states the Federal Government CANNOT regulate education, health, etc... IN fact if I remember correctly, "Promote the General Welfare" is in there somewhere...

I certainly wouldn't want to live in a loose federation of squabbling states, just because of one man's twisted take on the Constitution. THAT is why I don't like Ron Paul and more so his supporters, the rigid, unbending interpretation of a document that is over 200 years old and could not forsee the issues we deal with these days..Not saying scrap it, I'm saying, just because there's no mandate in the document doesn't mean it's not legal..

^^^ THIS!

Originally posted by FreedomXisntXFree

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.

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

Who said there was a "BASTION OF FREEDOM" out there to choose? It is pretty clear between the 3 that Obama is treading less on my personal rights. The other two want me to be a second class citizen.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
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.

I am not sure you understood what I asked you.

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

What argument is that?

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?

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

Our analogy? No, it is all yours and it still fails miserably at making any sense in a real way.

I believe that Ron P. has a legitimate chance of winning. He obviously has such a high chance of winning that they refuse to put him on the television. How is it possible that one man who was said to have 0% chance from the start is winning delegate votes with NO AIRTIME!! He has some serious number of supporters if you have not noticed.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Darkinin

 

You keep on repeating RP doesn't believe xyz should be regulated by the federal government...which is stupid if it demonstrably leads to bad outcomes. The world isn't black or white, so his stance being the same for everything is ridiculous.

You're assuming that the state government's wouldn't take on the duties shed by the government under his Presidency. If the people really want the regulation then their state government has every right to legislate however it wants, so long as it isn't prohibited by our Constitution.

And I don't believe his request for a voluntary pledges by politicians and investment bankers (aka asking them to do the right thing) is bad, it's just comically ineffective

Once again, the method makes it harder for them to backtrack, the only thing that would make it ineffective would be if the people don't care if their Representatives lie to them, which, sadly, is the truth much of the time.

Also, "free market" is a THEORETICAL concept that only works if all market participants act rationally...that's clearly not the case, and asking for "free market" is therefore equal to asking for companies to freely exploit their workforce and environment without restrictions. It's a ridiculous proposal...

It's in the best interest of all persons to act rationally, otherwise they do something that weakens them, and it's in the interest of all entities and persons to remain strong.

reply to post by vkey08


It certainly is the duty of the Federal government to protect us, to a certain extent. However, the government must only do so through those powers allowed to it by the Constitution. If you don't like how the Constitution is, that's perfectly fine, because the Constitution can be amended to allow whatever powers to the Federal government that you want. The reason we want things to go back to a "loose Federation" is that the powers granted to the government have yet to be changed, meaning that many of the powers currently exercised by our Federal government are illegal, making our country lawless.

If you want the Federal government to be all powerful, then you need to expand its power through Constituional amendment, legally.

reply to post by Darkinin


I'm going to state this again.. Where does it say in the document that providing nationalized health cars is illegal? Where does it say that the government cannot have standards that is applied across all 50 states and all territories? The point is it doesn't... it's open to interpretation, like anything else, and they do amend it, and have amended it over time. A good example of a Federal Law that is only there to provide clarity , The Civil Rights Act, something RP Is vehemently against, however, it expands upon the 1st Amendment, it's just clarity.

Also take Obamacare, yeah it's a really really crappy idea, it's been done in a crappy, piss poor haphazard manner and included a mandate that is definitely unconstitutional, the individual mandate. However, that is exactly the point, it will be struck down, it will be removed and everyone will move on, where is the problem in that? Do we needs some sort of Federal Standards for Health Care? Yes we most certainly do... are the states going to do that?? Massachusetts did, but I can almost guarantee New Hampshire wouldn't...

Are you THAT rigid that you cannot allow for some wiggle room in either direction?

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Darkinin

 

I'm going to state this again.. Where does it say in the document that providing nationalized health cars is illegal? Where does it say that the government cannot have standards that is applied across all 50 states and all territories? The point is it doesn't... it's open to interpretation, like anything else, and they do amend it, and have amended it over time. A good example of a Federal Law that is only there to provide clarity , The Civil Rights Act, something RP Is vehemently against, however, it expands upon the 1st Amendment, it's just clarity.

Nowhere, but that's not how the Constitution is written. The Constitution is written so that the Federal government only has enumerated powers. Unless a power is specifically granted to the Federal government, it does not hold that power, and the opposite is true for the states. If a power isn't granted specifically granted to the Federal government, or specifically denied to the states, the states have the right to use said power.

Also take Obamacare, yeah it's a really really crappy idea, it's been done in a crappy, piss poor haphazard manner and included a mandate that is definitely unconstitutional, the individual mandate. However, that is exactly the point, it will be struck down, it will be removed and everyone will move on, where is the problem in that? Do we needs some sort of Federal Standards for Health Care? Yes we most certainly do... are the states going to do that?? Massachusetts did, but I can almost guarantee New Hampshire wouldn't...

There is no problem in an illegal law being struck down, if anything it's good. As for a "need" for federal healthcare, what does it matter to you whether or not a group of people want healthcare, or not? Sure, government provided healthcare might be good, but it might also be bad, and it's up to the people of that specific group to decide that, for themselves. The only reason to not let a person or people decide for themselves is if you think they are incompetent, in which case you think that you, or some other person or people, is better or smarter than they are, and should decide for them, regardless of what those people themselves think is best for them.

Are you THAT rigid that you cannot allow for some wiggle room in either direction?

The law must have the strength of iron; if you allow the law to be manipulated in any which way then there is essentially no law to begin with, for the law can then be made to mean anything, or to not mean anything, that the manipulator wishes it to. The law must either have meaning, or none at all.

The fact is that you either support Ron Paul unconditionally.....or you are a Ron Paul Troll. It's the same attitude as any fundamentalist. You either accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, or you are going to hell. There is no in between. Criticism is not allowed. It's all or nothing.

reply to post by Darkinin


So you're seriously going to pretend all market participants act rationally, really? Comon', you can't be that delusional!

I think the biggest problem I see after reading through this is....

Whether you're a Ron Paul hater or Ron Paul lover......

Ron Paul lovers think the haters don't understand Ron Paul's policies.
Ron Paul haters think the lovers don't understand Ron Paul's policies.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

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?

You say this ...

Here we go again... taking things to the absolute extreme in order to dilute and discredit the concepts being discussed.

... then you say this. Now who is taking things to the absolute extreme in order to dilute and discredit the concepts being discussed? I never advocated a one world government in anything I said. If that's all you got out of it, you're being incredibly closed-minded and unimaginative.

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.

Essentially every state has modelled its internal system of government on the Federal government -- state executive branch, state legislative branch, state judicial branch. So you're advocating taking power away from "central authorities who abuse and manipulate their positions" and giving it to ... fifty smaller central authorities who have the same capacity to abuse and manipulate their positions. Can you explain how that will somehow lead to balance?

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.

You fail to see how fifty states with governments modelled on the federal government will simply duplicate the same totalitarianism you're decrying, just on a more granular scale.

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.

Given the little amount of effort I had to invest in "manipulating" his opinions, maybe you're just not seeing how flimsy they are in the first place.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Darkinin

 

So you're seriously going to pretend all market participants act rationally, really? Comon', you can't be that delusional!

Not everyone in the world will act in an intelligent way. However, they will naturally be punished for their poor deeds. Besides, as I pointed out in my original response, the states themselves can still legislate on matters that aren't specifically prohibited to them, or exclusively given to the Congress.

Also, just so everyone knows, calling another person, or group of persons, "delusional" or "fanatical" doesn't a good argument make.