Pon Raul, 200012379

It's that dude who is agains evolution and abortions?

take into consideration in his job he's the one who has to scoop the zerglings out of trailor trash's vags, the unimaginable horrors would make anyone insane (a.k.a pro-life)

... and social security, medicare, the department of education, separation of church and state, the civil rights act, etc...

Nooooooooooooooooooooo! Electing Ron Paul into office will turn my investment strategy on its head. I much prefer Bernanke and Obama inflating... ;p

gb2/b/

Ron Paul is fucking insane.

batshit insane.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/opinion/kr...o-die.html

How about you go directly to the source and develop your opinion on his answer instead of reading this nutter fake-alien-invasion-to-boost-economic-activity Krugman? The least you could do.

Has it not crossed your mind that his opinion may be that he agrees with Krugman? I watched the debate and what Krugman wrote is spot-on.

Spot-on when advocating forcing people to be compassionate. Nice one, Paul!

I love how socialists persevere to eliminate the problem of scarcity (especially in health care). USSR called and they said it hadn't worked all that well, but I'm sure they were using a biased econometric model. This time it will be different, right? ;)

He was making a diagnosis regarding the degree of compassion displayed by the G.O.P. and its supporters, and his diagnosis was spot-on. I know you like to strawman at every turn when it comes to discussing economics, but surely you can do better than evoking Soviet Russia to discuss publicly-funded healthcare. At least be original with your talking points.

He was diagnosing rubbish. Only a liberal or a RINO (which constitutes most of the GOP btw) can't see irony in coercing someone into being compassionate by forcing him to give up part of his income.

Soviet Russia was just an extreme example of how socialists want to organize society (or health care for that matter) and I mentioned it to mock you. Be my guest and give an example of a functioning socialized medicine system. And the garden of Eden doesn't count.

I'm officially done trying to talk some sense into you. You'll get the mother of all empirical cases when this rotten "third-way" system collapses in a few years. Have fun investing in T-Bills.

He was diagnosing rubbish. Only a liberal or a RINO (which constitutes most of the GOP btw) can't see irony in coercing someone into being compassionate by forcing him to give up part of his income.

First of all, nobody's being coerced into being compassionate, and nobody's arguing that such a policy be put in place. Last time I checked, social security and medicare are not about telling people how to feel and what to think.
Second, nowhere in your post do you address Krugman's argument, namely his diagnosis of the level of compassion displayed by the G.O.P. and its electorate. If anything, you're proving his point. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Soviet Russia was just an extreme example of how socialists want to organize society (or health care for that matter) and I mentioned it to mock you. Be my guest and give an example of a functioning socialized medicine system. And the garden of Eden doesn't count.

No, it's not an "extreme example", it's a stupid straw man (again). You can look at pretty much any developed state to see examples of (entirely or partly) publicly-funded health care systems.

I'm officially done trying to talk some sense into you. You'll get the mother of all empirical cases when this rotten "third-way" system collapses in a few years. Have fun investing in T-Bills.

You're not "talking some sense" into anyone. You haven't even presented a single argument. You're just blabbering about "socialists" and "Soviet Russia" because your talking points do not have enough of a basis in reality to allow you to defend them when confronted with facts. Be my guest and stop talking, you did not have anything intelligent to say to begin with.

apparently the Russia related butthurt is still strong in Poland. so much that they pull out the c word at the first notion of the government sponsoring anything.

Be my guest and give an example of a functioning socialized medicine system

Sweden. They can work quite well if the people in charge know what to do. Your USSR example was not adequate at all.

Apparently not - 1 and 2

I actually live in Sweden and have used their health care system, which works perfectly. Linking me random posts and blogs on the internet, surely discredits the Swedish health care system, right? Not.

Just let it go and do something more productive with your time.

like walling on pickups


WOAH WHO SAID THAT

"USSR called and they said it hadn't worked all that well"

USSR called and they said it had worked so well that other countries had to become more socialized in order to prevent revolutions.

yea, what naghokez said and i'm also not too fond of you doing the cccp bait. atleast put in some effort, please :/

He is still a fucking genious compared to the rest of that fucking party.

fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking

seriously you republicans need to commit mass suicide or some shit. edit: suicide, not murder. you already got that covered.

Ron Paul in Star Wars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWY-FHRLrdc

this is the greatest thing that I have seen in my entire life.

He's neither a flip-flopper nor a hypocrite, I'll give him that, but most of his ideas are absolutely terrible and his views belong to the 19th century. His son Rand Paul is even worse.

Which terrible ideas and 19th century views would those be?

for example: creationism, lack of support for the separation of church and state

can the US get over this shit already? it gets fucking annoying. we're in the 21st century ffs

i'm from the most religious (read that "superstitious") backwards ass country in the EU and nobody brings this shit into discussion on a pollitical level

Probably because they just assume there. But here the politicians talk about this to "reassure" their religious voters. The US is a longggg way away from ever having an openly atheist or agnostic president.

Yes I'm sure that's why he co-sponsored this:

"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer. Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools."

He clearly supports seperation of church and state to the extent that the constitution declares.

I also don't personally see how him not believing in the theory of evolution is that relevant compared to many more important issues. That's why his stance on it wouldn't bother me.

It's nothing about creationism per se. It's just that I'd be hesitant to vote for somebody who believes in Santa Claus.

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war." -Ron Paul

He's a fucking lunatic.

How does that make him a lunatic? Failing to see why he has you raged enough to label him such. My guess is you're one of these aggressive atheists who are so vehemently anti-religion it completely dominates their outlook on everything in life. I'm not even remotely religious, but to me, people who look down on religion to such an extent are much worse than hardcore religious types.

Ah, the old "I'm not religious, but..." argument, as if it would make your otherwise invalid point valid. It doesn't. Nice attempt at a personal attack, rather than addressing what Ron Paul said.

Ron Paul wants theocracy - specifically Christian. This should be offensive to every atheist, every member of any other religion, and simply anyone with the slightest bit of common sense.

If you interpret what he said as wanting theocracy, then you're perhaps mentally ill, as I alluded to earlier. Either your understanding of what he is saying, or your understanding of theocracy, is completely wrong. What he says directly contradicts your claim of him desiring theocracy. He adheres to the constitution, which doesn't allow for theocracy.

Speaking of valid points, and btw I'll insult you all I want If I feel like it, you being completely wrong in your interpretation, can't possibly have a valid point. Now, feel free to be your usual, predictable self, add to your twelve thousand plus posts on this site, as you vainly attempt to prove to the zero people who are going to read your posts, that you are somehow correct.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

This fantasy is theocracy, and he isn't even correct about the founding fathers. His reasoning for legislating on sodomy/abortion/marriage/equality is ALL religious. He has ties to several radical pro-theocratic groups, and doesn't even try to hide it.

Why do Paul supporters always seem to know next to nothing about him?

"Why do Paul supporters always seem to know next to nothing about him?"

The ironing is delicious. Also please stop replying to me, I don't have the stamina to deal with a 12000 posts "internet champion".

stamina brains

The ironing is delicious.

Stay in school.

It's a joke quote, you complete spastic.

You're a joke.

You're fat.

I wish.

It makes him a lunatic because he's fucking re-writing history. The "Founding Fathers" followed the philosophy of Deism, obeying reason while observing the natural world, holding little regard for organized religion.

His rhetoric and beliefs are so primitive, yet so many young people seem to support him. Boggles my mind!

When has the American youth, or general American population for that matter, not boggled your mind? We have a long standing tradition of blindly supporting our politicians in a manner too idiotic to be considered naive or ignorant.

That's really not true. Some of the "founding fathers" were very religious and several were greatly devoted to their religious beliefs and held positions in their churches (Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, John Jay, very likely John Adams, etc.). Many have used the "what would the 'Founding Fathers' do?" argument to argue both sides of this question; for and against religious beliefs. However these arguments totally disregard the context in which these men lived and voiced their opinions. Many who were not direct emigrants from England, or other western European nations, still very strong perspectives of the imposition of religion on every facet of life (legal, civil, personal, etc.). Their religious beliefs can be considered very pious by today's standards, but for them they were undoubtedly critical of Catholicism and state-sponsored churches like the Church of England (aka Church of Henry).

"...people who look down on religion to such an extent are much worse than hardcore religious types."

There's reasons to be very critical of religions and their followers and to be "hardcore" about it in certain respects (such as steadfast refusal to accept scientific inquiry as man's primary means towards gaining knowledge; instead they turn towards their religious doctrines for answers). This type of behavior by many (if not most) of the religious in the world is unacceptable on both moral and rational levels.

But there is also a number of things to which every person should aspire to that religions have nurtured in people over the course of human history; namely having principles in an "ideal" sense. Some secularists are so adamant about everything being evidenced by "scientific fact" (as if there was such a thing), that they lose sight that life does require first principles that will never be proven "right" or "wrong" since the natural world does not make moral judgments. To live life in the purest of secularist mindset would be accept "might equals right", "life is tentative, meaningless, and roughly insignificant in the grand scheme of the natural world", etc. That's no way to "live" life.

There's reasons to be very critical of religions and their followers and to be "hardcore" about it in certain respects (such as steadfast refusal to accept scientific inquiry as man's primary means towards gaining knowledge; instead they turn towards their religious doctrines for answers). This type of behavior by many (if not most) of the religious in the world is unacceptable on both moral and rational levels.

Why do you assume everyone wants to be rational?

But there is also a number of things to which every person should aspire to that religions have nurtured in people over the course of human history; namely having principles in an "ideal" sense. Some secularists are so adamant about everything being evidenced by "scientific fact" (as if there was such a thing), that they lose sight that life does require first principles that will never be proven "right" or "wrong" since the natural world does not make moral judgments. To live life in the purest of secularist mindset would be accept "might equals right", "life is tentative, meaningless, and roughly insignificant in the grand scheme of the natural world", etc. That's no way to "live" life.

That just opens up existential philosophy. You create your own meaning.

I don't assume people want to be rational. In fact, that some people refuse to look at evidence contrary their belief systems, they are very much irrational. I would say that religion, more often than not, informs the moral aspects of life rather than the rational. And when people are led by moral edicts that are derived from ancient and superstitious beliefs (such as is evidenced by the Catholic Church's role in denouncing the use of condoms) that all sorts of needless suffering happens. I would say, contrary to your comment, that many people are ensnared by beliefs that make them VERY irrational. What the "want" is irrelevant since, I think we would both agree, that want is bounded by rational and moral capacity. Those who are retarded, both mentally and emotionally, have abnormal desire-belief systems. Someone who thinks their people is the "chosen people" will undoubtedly have a different desire-belief system than someone who does not.

And I don't think it opens the door to merely an "existential" philosophy; these questions have been raised by the Pre-Socratics and probably beyond just as much as Kierkagaard, Heidegger, etc. Xenophanes of Colophon's epistemology, dated somewhere between 6th and 5th century BCE, had an enormous influence on successive philosophers in his argument that the truth of reality is unknowable and that humanity will always be reduced to assumptions in their behavior and beliefs about the world. Later, Plato attempted to construct a moral philosophy that was based very much on the lack of any divinity. Though he does in, the Republic, use his "noble lies" to reinforce social cohesion vis-a-vis religion, the motive of the philosophy is derived from first principles, as argued by Socrates from the outset of the Republic, rather than only any belief in a deity. You can see these themes throughout philosophy's history. Cartesian doubt, again a first principles philosophy. Spinoza's Ethics was demonstrated (though not perfectly) geometrically. Again, the same story about assumptions, the same assumptions made by geometry.

In other words, we write the "rules to our games" and try to live accordingly. And even today, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, a theorem in mathematical logic that has applications in any coherent system of logic, has settled the question of whether there can ever be a perfectly logic system of anything that includes only true statements and without any assumptions. It cannot be done. And so we will always find ourselves forced to establish first principles.

Somehow I don't see you subscribing to Kierkegaard's school of thought.

You just said we write the rules to our game. Do you think a set of assumptions will always point you in a given direction?

Why don't you share your opinions. I've shared enough of mine.

I thought you wanted to justify what you said. Oh well.

I'm sure you're dying to know. But since you have nothing to contribute, c'est le vie?

I am willing to contribute critique to your theories and your reasoning (if it's needed).

I'm just going to assume you know and understand nothing...

... and this is the only response you can come up with to seem like you know a very ambiguous something without stating what the something actually is.

You care too much about what others think.

Then why are you the one asking me what I think?

I am not interested in what you think per se. Rather, I'm interested how that ties into my knowledge and reasoning of the world and whether can I learn something new from it or understand it well enough to point out a flaw.

So you're convinced, before you understand it, that there's flaws in it. That's very good reasoning on your own!

EDIT: Instead of wasting my time, why don't you go read some books and think for yourself. Then return to this discussion when you have something of substance to add.

You seem intent on seeking out things I did not say in my statements.

Then clarify exactly what it is you are trying to say...

Do you think a set of assumptions will always point you in a given direction?

What do you mean by direction? I don't think first principles should be accepted depending on their "direction" but rather the value of the principle itself.

There is no inherent value in any principle unless you decide to establish it. What I meant by direction was having the same assumptions as somebody else point your life philosophy in roughly the same direction, ending up in similar territory.

To live life in the purest of secularist mindset would be accept "might equals right", "life is tentative, meaningless, and roughly insignificant in the grand scheme of the natural world", etc. That's no way to "live" life.

Giving meaning to something that has none is no way to "live" life. Secular reasoning does not equate to "might equals right", and I can't see how you would possibly think that. We have the ability to reason, and we understand that cooperation is beneficial to everyone as a whole. The only thing holding that progress back is the validation given to such delusions as "meaning".

In the purest sense, it does. To accept the theory of evolution as the natural state of affairs, and if we wish to lives our lives as "naturally" as possible, then it is an easy step towards "might equals right". And that's not even new with Darwin's revolutionary idea. You can go back to Plato's Republic and find Thrasymahcus make essentially the same argument about justice before Socrates begins his society building. "Justice [or morality, depending on your edition] is the interest of the strongest." (aka, might is right).

I do agree that cooperation does happen. But only to a limited extent. It happens when individuals are on the same footing and both have vested interest in a certain issue. But both in a "state of nature" and even in the realm of the morally ambiguous situations, you will find people acting in their own best interests despite opportunities to cooperate for the benefit of the "greater good". Politics in America is a very extreme example of this, but we also see it in our everyday lives when in common pool resources (such as fisheries) are exploited relentlessly when there is nothing at stake for the individual but a great deal is at stake for the group.

Even the smallest of organisms have evolved community/cooperation, and greed is merely a result of artificial scarcity. We could grow beyond these issues, if not for conservatives.

Artificial scarcity? So when an alpha-male ape kills, or subordinates, a nearby male ape to his will, this is only because of some artificial scarcity? Or when one buck kills another in a fight over females in the group? Is that some sense of community/cooperation?

Don't take my word for, here's an excerpt from a recent NY Times profile on Richard Dawkins,

At the time, the predominant popular view of evolution was that animals and insects worked together, albeit unconsciously, and that natural selection acted on individuals to do what was good for their species. Cooperation, again unconscious, seemed woven into nature.

Professor Dawkins’s voice slides playfully into High David Attenborough style as he mimics the mellifluous tone of BBC documentaries of the time:"The dung beetle is the refuse collector of the natural system, and where would we be without them? And male deer fight but take care not to kill each other.”

He stops. “That sort of thinking was pretty dominant in the culture.” Artful pause. “And it’s plain wrong. I wanted to correct that ubiquitous misunderstanding.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20d...wanted=all

What are you getting at? Each of those animals exists because of a whole host of cells working together, while also being host to several beneficial outsiders. They travel in herds, and require mates.

Animals don't have artificial scarcity, because they aren't intelligent enough to avoid it - but most animals still cooperate to some extent. We are a species that is defined by our cooperation and community, but due to broken social systems, artificial scarcity gives us greed.

Yeah, conversation is dead. If you're really going to stand by the cooperation thing then that's your prerogative. It's entirely wrong, but you're entitled to be wrong.

Not sure I understand you correctly about the cells comment, but you're also implying that cells are conscious of their cooperation??? By that same logic, I guess that means that there's cooperation in hydrogen and oxygen when they choose by their own volition to pair up and make this cool thing called "water"...

No, I'm saying that cooperation is ingrained in every single cell, and complex organisms wouldn't even exist if not for it. Cooperation is ingrained in evolution, because it is a useful trait for survival. Intelligence is what merely allows us to be completely cooperative, since we can control scarcity - or, better yet, remove it.

The kind of supervenient argument you're making is only in words and not mechanisms. If a group of rocks cooperate to make a landslide, does that mean that the landslide is a communal, cooperative entity? I don't think so. But then again this is only how you choose to use the word "cooperate" or define the properties of "landslide".

Cells are capable of reacting to their environment, and rocks are not. Terrible analogy.

I think you're the one making a terrible analogy by saying that cells cooperate (which is a silly thing to say since their interactions can be explained by chemical reactions, not a desire to cooperate) and therefore its only natural that humans are cooperative.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that cooperation has been key to the survival, and advancement, of all life. Your assertion that a secularist position would have to be one of "might makes right" is just plain wrong - both through biological history, and social reasoning.

To be honest, with a naturalist worldview, there really doesn't exist a desire to cooperate that's any different from chemical reactions.

Accepting a naturalist worldview doesn't mean you can't follow all the rules we have now (you only realize how arbitrary they are).

Also, mechanisms such as empathy seem to be in opposition to what you said.

I didn't say accepting a naturalist view of the world was in opposition to having first principles. I am saying that the first principles have nothing to do with science which is why philosophy (and a general historical and sociological view of religions) is important.

You can see empathy in people and you can also see extreme amounts of hate, apathy, cruelty, and so I'm not sure how the existence of empathy "seems to be in opposition to" what I've said.

I would say they have much to do with science in the sense that you use logic and the scientific method to establish your principles.

The amount of suggested empathy and the average viewpoint I see around me seems to suggest that it isn't quite might is right, but even if, what's wrong about it in the way it is now?

Let's just agree to disagree. Its not worth either of our times to continue this.

I can't force you to talk.

Mainly abolishing the counterfeiting monopolist. Don't you know that in the 21st century we are supposed to be ruled by infallible technocrats with Ph.D's in economics? ;D

Yes exactly, these people want to take good care of us. Plus they wear such nice suits, they know what's best.

rand paul... lulz. wonder, where he got the name from :d

Nope!




Chuck Testa.

ron paul? really?

time to move to canada

take it easy, It's ESR, he "only" wants him as the new QL community manager:)

this country scares me, though. people trying to vote for that alaskan bitch and ron paul? >.<

The worst thing what you can do to yourself is to care about politics... go kiss a girl and forget about Ron Paul and the others:)

you're right, i shouldnt care about which direction my country is going in. i should be a blind, happy, ignorant citzen!

ot: women are more infuriating than politics atm .__.

lol internet derp

No, not at all! If you think that politics really decides the "direction" of your country, you must ignore my advice, and please carry on with scaring stuff:)

it's just a circle conversation, no point. you're going to provide opinion vs my opinion and itll do nothing but waste time and bandwidth. but really, you should see how dumb american people get around election times... it's seriously scary.

It's the same in every country (fyi: I was there at election times) , and I don't want to waste your time an bandwidth, I just gave you and advice, that's all:)

Bad advice.

stop following me please:(

I'm not, honest :(

It's just that advising people to be politically-apathetic because you disagree with how politicians run your country is the best way to shoot yourself in the foot.

yes, you do:( From my point of view, you are a young man who thinks he is smart and sharp and every time you hijack-talk to me I have a feeling you think you are superior and want to make me feel bad. You know nothing about me, and I did nothing to you what would deserve such disrespect. If you can't treat me like someone who is on the same level as you, I must ask you again to stop following me please.

Anyway - just like the other times - if you would listen more carefully:

Where did I advised him to be politically-apathetic? Did I tell him not to go to vote, or anything like that?

(edit:typo)

I genuinely do not even remember replying to you in other threads, except for when you told someone that according to you he was wasting his time by making a video exposing a cheater. Google tells me I asked you once if you had watched an episode of The Office, but I can't find or recall anything else. I'm sure I've replied to you elsewhere since you seem to remember me doing so, but what I mean is that it's absolutely nothing personal - you're presenting your views on a public forum, and since I happen to disagree with them I decided to reply to your post.

What you advised him to do (stop caring about politics) is pretty much the definition of being politically apathetic - and I think that is a bad advice.

I was thinking like you once, but politics is (sadly) not what you think.
When I was 30 I was thinking something like this (not the same and I didn't know about this video, but quite similar):


Today I understand a lot more about the world, and my opinion is much more detailed and way much worse tbh. Humans are a true miracle of the universe, a magnificent species living on the most beautiful planet one can imagine, and one of the worst cancer like disease people can have is politics (and we don't have a cure yet). It's an important reality show (with some serious outcomes indeed), and it's rotting humanity from the inside out, period.

edit: and just to make things clear, it's rare that I share the same view with Mr Carlin (and I don't do now), but this was an exception

Again, political apathy only serves the very people you are critical of. I'm not familiar enough with Hungarian politicians to have an informed opinion about them (I only know that Viktor Orbán and his party tried to pass a legislation to control the media that should have absolutely outraged any citizen in favor of democracy - I don't know to which extent the initial text of the legislation was finally adopted but it blows my mind that this did not create a bigger scandal in the country and in Europe), but it is quite simply wrong to declare - like populists usually do - that in politics everyone is rotten and everyone is the same. It's just not true.

While I agree with what you said, I for one have a hard time finding ANY political party that I'd ever consider voting for in my country. Admittedly there's quite a big corruption problem in France but that's not the only reason.

I do vote though, but only to prevent the Jamerio parties from getting too many voices.

Easy, PS! And this time either Aubry or Hollande :)

not voting does not have to be a sign of political apathy btw, and the way you seem to think that aubry = hollande is slightly worrying to an outsider like me :p

what about the GDR, i know next to nothing about french politics and don't speak the language, they (or rather the commies) used to big in france?

I'm not saying they're the same, I just think they're the two best candidates in the Parti Socialiste primary (as opposed to Royal for example) :p

UPR?

Politics is the weapon of "the very people I'm critical of", so your or my relation to politics it's irrelevant to them.

Thank you for the nice example about the media-regulation-law btw, nothing serious really (except the extensive media-hype about it). They made the law pass with some minor modifications, and they manipulate the media just as hard as they did before and truly not a single bit harder. That's the whole point about politics for these people, that parties and their laws are nothing to them, because they own every party and -because of that - they are also above any and all laws.

What about the people and their social evolution and their advance as a species? "Fuck them, they must do it our ways", and indeed, whatever they throw at us will do because they are trolling us with politics, and they use these attention-whore puppets (who call themselves politicians) to do the dirty work for them.
You don't need to come up with complex arguments like the media-regulation or health-care, you can come up with subjects like "is the sky blue?" and you will always find enough people for both side's of the argument, and the outcome is also irrelevant because they will do what they want both ways, and the people are happy because "they had a choice".

Looking at the big picture, do you think that if democrats won twice as much in the last century as republicans did, the USA would have been a different country now, with an entirely different history path? I honestly doubt that, because (in the long run!) a country is defined by the the people living there and not by the puppets and the celebs running the show.

But I agree with you about not all politicians are "rotten and... same", of course not, but all these honorable and righteous people are not the big fish out there, and will never gonna make an actual difference in questions where these puppet-masters want to achieve something. Other than that, they can enter the history books as a respectable citizens of their country.
But politics is a domination "game", and soon as they want to achieve something against these predators, they are required to "give up" their humanity and transform into a cruel and relentless alpha-males like the enemy, or they gonna lose huge (which will eventually happen since - sooner or later - they would run out of money or become something they fought against.)!

This is all about money and power now like never before, a neocorporatist mess where countries, presidents and parties are all function like business-animals in an economy test-chamber or they will simply affect nothing with their minuscule "vote-share" and with their "holy quests".

Imo, the only way politics could evolve and clean itself is with total 100% transparency of every players on a global scale. That might prevent politics falling into a pit full of lies like where it is now, because that's what they do for the living, they lie to the "sheeps" in every question and - more importantly - the most crucial and serious questions will not even get on the table of politics, ever.

edit: lol, that's a wall:D I'm sorry;)

Yeah we need the government to take care of us, cause we don't know how to wipe our own asses...

thats not what i meant at all, but good luck with that

US federal government structure A.D. ~2020:

President: Jonesy
Vice-President: Jonesy's mom
Vice-Vice-President: Jonesy's clone
Vice-Vice-Vice-President: Jonesy's dog
Secretary of State: Vedic
Secretary of Commerce: Jamerio (yeah i know, not American. They'll make it work)
Secretary of Defense: walter
Secretary of Education: Advent
Secretary of Health and Human Services: kdawg
Secretary of Justice: raythenoob
Secretary of Labor: SyncError
Secretary of Treasury: fatal1ty

eagletear

haha

this sounds a lot better than some alternatives. I'm also pretty sure that advent (TM) is Canadian, though I have no clue what the laws are regarding this.

I hope Bachmann wins so that USA will finally hit rock bottom and bible belters will be asked to gtfo.

Bachmann is polling even lower than Paul. Perry is just as bad as Bachmann, but he's polling at the top.

What do americans think of Dennis Kucinich? Don't know if he will run for anything this time though.

He's relatively unknown to most voters - less so than Paul, and they'd basically be competing on some of the same issues. As long as the Paul supporters keep ignoring all the crazy shit that he spews, Kucinich probably doesn't have a chance.

Nope, he's worse. I will continue my trend of voting against him every chance I get. The 2-year budget plan for Texas is the most depressing piece of legislature I've ever read.

Hard to say that either are worse, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them run together. =X

you can read pieces of legislature?

I'm hoping that Obama wins so that America finally hits rock bottom.

Sure he is crazy, but even if he got in it's not like the president has any authority these days. Special interest groups just have too much influence. That being said, in my opinion Libertarianism is a childish and counter-productive philosophy that (were it to be implemented) would hinder our progress even more than the mess of a society we live in today.

Your argument is so eloquent and well supported by facts that you convinced me!

What does that old senile guy (Ron?! what kind of name is that?) know anyway? And who needs constitutions, these days? Ancient folly.

Obama, Yes We Can!

Governments save us!

You are right, constitutions are an ancient folly. I couldn't have put it better myself. Also you shouldn't assume that I am a fan of Obama, I said nothing to imply that.

totally insane

Don't care much for politics, especially in USA, but damn those republican candidates get worse and worse almost each year.

And I still can't believe what a distorted view on "socialism" americans have. No wonder they are against anything remotely affiliated to a "socialist" concept.

Oh, how against those Yanks are!

Speaking of a distorted view of socialism, I think Belgium is quite the case. You are the ones who have nice buildings in Brussels and flags with gay yellow stars and on the other hand in south-eastern Poland I see what little economic freedom we had diminishing firsthand when my family members complain about stupid regulations stifling small business.

This stupid Cohesion Fund and misty images of one currency are the only things that keep the propaganda alive. Money's already drying up, now I'm waiting for the Greeks and Italians to kick euro in the ass so that we evade it.

I just love how you associate the whole of the EU concept to Belgium alone. Being the political capital of EU has nothing to do with the way Belgium runs as a country.

I said something you understood something else, no biggie. Like I said, I don't care much about politics so I won't drag this along.

I just love how you associate the whole of the EU concept to Belgium alone.

Where have I written that? All I said was that main EU builings (most located in Brussels) are nice but they are this nice as a result of a redistributionary policy, the bad consequences of which can be observed outside the capital of EU.

I'm at least glad I didn't get an argument whether EU is a socialist organization.

I agree, having gay yellow stars is the biggest political crime in history.

he's not actually from Belgium :P

The amount of religious nut-jobs that can get to the top in politics is ridiculous.

I do like Ron though.

lol

Ron Paul gets a lot of bad mouthing, to be sure. US media hate him as well, which doesn't help.

If majority of people were actually capable of thinking for themselves, a limited, strictly defined government (=what Ron Paul champions, regardless of his personal beliefs or habits) would be a natural option. There wouldn't be so much reason for calling Paul a "nutjob".

But that's like saying "the world would be a better place if it were not full of morons", lol. Utopia. Morons always vote for other morons and populists -- that's the vicious circle of "rule of majority" aka democracy (cf. "republic" and "constitution").

All the more reason why voting stations should give a lengthy exam to every one wanting to vote, basic questions about politics and a simple 1000 word essay.

Too fucking stupid to vote? Don't know your candidates platform in the slightest? Too fucking bad, next.

That's what was required in the US if I remember correctly: exam in the knowledge of Constitution, exam in English, proof of owning property and $2, which were much more valuable at that time.

Apparently that was in place to prevent black people from voting in the southern states.

If that's really the case, I consider it reasonable in the environment where blacks were at that time regarded as slaves. Now times have changed but the principle to put a "barrier to entry to vote" still holds for me.

Why would it be a natural option? Please provide some reasons (I'm genuinely interested).

The mainstream rubbish media is breaking records: Bachmann won the Iowa strawpoll by the skin of her teeth over Ron Paul and she got all the media coverage the next day.

Ron Paul hammered the opposition in the California strawpoll and nobody even mentioned it apart from MSNBC, who were going on and on about how it means shit.

Now that it's become quite likely that Ron would crush Perry in Texas, the strawpoll in that state has been mysteriously cancelled.

Media is shit, apart from Jon Stewart ;D

lol, that is just surreal

funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQr9sTBC7ck

oh GOD what HAVE I done

it's rather surprising to me this thread got any attention at all, though the type of attention it received is considerably less surprising.

the issue of economic liberty is a very polarizing one, though I'm not entirely sure of the roots or motivations involved at all times and from all parties. what I'll never understand is the extreme lack of reasoned discourse. the overwhelming majority of this thread, which admittedly I only skimmed to this point (but you'll hopefully forgive me--I have extensive experience in these types of discussions from all corners of the internet), is comprised of, generally, one or the other of "liberals" (this is the meaning of the term in contemporary America culture; if you have issues with terminology you're probably exactly the kind of person I'm discussing anyway) and either "conservatives" or libertarians thumping their chests about how insane their interlocutors are, or, comparatively, just how sane their own worldview is.

I don't get it. neither is going to convince the other. from my personal perspective, it does seem that the "liberal" camp more frequently than not is more guilty of committing logical fallacies and being unamenable to critical discussion. I think this is an indication of the site's demographic, as well as perhaps indicative of the general trend of political alignment in the largest western world. you won't see too many "neoconservatives" on ESReality, and if you do they're probably not being very sincere, so it would stand to reason that you might observe more level-headed, open-minded, logical people coming out from the more libertarian camp.

I don't care which side you are on. I think that if you are so invested in these ideas that you resort to calling people insane and are not given to introspection, you are part of a growing problem in our progressively global society. whether it's a serious problem or it's a bigger or smaller problem than perhaps damaging economic belief/principles, I don't know. I'll be the first to admit I don't know anything about economics. what I do know of it suggests to me that it is anything but some sort of top-down, deliberately manufactured "system," depending upon your definition of it, at least. you could define it to be the de facto, but in casual conversation I think there is a shared understanding among everyone that "the economy" refers to something considerably more organic. for this reason alone, perhaps, it is hard to empathize with left-leaning thought. this, however, does not mean that such thought lacks utility.

perhaps it does. perhaps it does not. but I do not care. why are people so seemingly intent on debating "issues" than principles and motivations? liberty is the most important value I can think of. without liberty, there is nothing, and the country in which I live was founded upon this idea, uniquely, in a way that only one other country I can think of (Switzerland) to date has even come close to paralleling. if you don't agree with that, I wouldn't say you're "entitled" to that, but I won't stop you from feeling that way, as that is precisely the idea. you can come to the USA if you like, but please don't try to usurp that core idea; if you find such fault with it, perhaps you should consider relocating to a more politically welcoming nation, like Sweden. regardless, I do not think that anyone's apparent "entitlements" to any arbitrary conception of life amenities is foremost to liberty itself.

here is a great interview with Penn Jillette, who seems to share my thoughts on these sorts of things more often than not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN3-3oNmOMo