haha
just in case you are not just trolling...

Quote :

"so, when you invent a magical fairy tale, it almost matters. now, for real life? you assume that the police would be the only way to protect your magic wand establishment. Since you are going to make a shit ton of money selling your wares, you can also afford to hire your own security firm, because, as we all know, the police are under no obligation to defend any particular person or place. moreover, if people are actually threatening you in the lawful operation of your business, then there is a problem, and it is not with you. it is with the idiots threatening you. end of story."

You missed the "net effect" part. Actions don't exist in a vacuum, they have consequences that can add up over time. Unchecked racism adds up over time to create an unstable situation. You're saying 2 things in this quoted part that I know you don't believe. 1) you're now claiming the use of force is NEVER justified, which I know you don't believe. And 2) you're saying that if one population manages to marginalize another population through "legal" means, it's A-OK (you might actually believe this second part, but it would fit with your M.O. of not being too bright).

Quote :

"moreover, you are suggesting that the mere act of someone else threatening you makes what you do unethical. either that, or you are guilty of circular logic, saying that it is immoral to use the police to defend you when you do something immoral without actually showing that what you were doing was immoral in the first place. and then you also assume that all whites will starve unless they obtain your magic, food-generating wand, another obvious fallacy. Now, if your shop were also specifically preventing whites from being able to eat, then we'd have a different situation. "

Wow. Way to miss the point. The unethical thing is a status quo where one groups greed/racism results in another's demise, a true free State shouldn't allow this.

And i'm not saying all whites would starve, nor would it be necessary for all whites to starve to make what the blacks are doing unethical; but it's clear blacks would have the upper hand in not starving, and over time this would definitely have a measurable effect.

What you and NRR are neglecting is that human societies aren't supposed to be about getting everything you can, all the time. To live in a society and civilization with other people, you MUST sacrifice something (this applies for any stable form of government, democracy or otherwise). It just so happens that if you want your society to thrive, you might actually have to treat people fairly on your own property, whether you want to or not.

If you want to live in a world where you never have to sacrifice anything, then find an abandoned island somewhere and prepare for a sad, lonely life.

9/13/2011 12:19:04 AM

Quote :

"This is a senseless position if you believe in tax-payer funded police forces."

That's true.

Quote :

"If I owned a store that sold cheap magic wands that created food from thin air, but i only sold them to black people, this would obviously piss off all the whiteys. They would eventually threaten violence against my store or people coming to my store, which would require police to step in. But, if the net effect of my store was that blacks got abundant cheap food while the whites starved, it would be unethical for public tax dollars to go towards defending this status quo."

Let's use a plausible example, like I own a store that sells cheap food that discriminates against all non-blacks. In that example, I'm a complete and total idiot. I'm reducing the number of possible buyers in the market based on some trivial physical attribute. That reduces my ability to compete with other local stores that aren't operated by fools, and accordingly don't discriminate against (what would otherwise be) paying customers.

9/13/2011 12:56:17 AM

9/13/2011 1:24:28 AM

Crowd yells "No"...Ron Paul says yes.

9/13/2011 10:11:13 AM

Ron Paul didn't say let them die, he stated how things were handled before government intervention... churches, family, and friends looked out for each other.

9/13/2011 3:28:45 PM

haha. republican crowds are so blood-thirsty.

they don't want government to pay for the sick, but they'll gladly pay for their government to continue executions.

Ron Paul really screwed himself by not running as an independent. He's not gonna win, so he might as well have run independently instead of trying to win over a base that will never bother to open their minds.

9/13/2011 4:07:08 PM

when is the last time an independent won a Presidential election?

9/13/2011 5:15:51 PM

^

9/13/2011 5:20:26 PM

Quote :

"when is the last time an independent won a Presidential election?"

Dude, did you even read what I wrote? He's not gonna win period, let alone the Republican primary. There are too many git-r-done types in the republican base that cheer at the mention of executions and want people to die if they don't have health insurance. The new Republican party has shifted hard-line to the right, so someone like Paul doesn't have a shot because he makes people uncomfortable by not echoing the company line. He could do more damage on the political landscape by running as an independent and getting his message across through a larger medium than by trying to win over a base that will never accept him.

Even as a liberal, I don't always mind listening to him until he starts going full-retard libertarian.

9/13/2011 6:43:09 PM

Quote :

"haha. republican crowds are so blood-thirsty."

Watch them pull their hair out when President Obama gets re-elected.

9/13/2011 6:47:37 PM

If Obama gets re-elected, you'll hear a bunch of angry people calling radio shows the next day.

If Obama loses, it may not be safe to go outside the next day.

9/13/2011 8:55:20 PM

huh?

9/13/2011 9:35:27 PM

Probably some racist reference to rioting.

9/13/2011 10:00:02 PM

I hope Obama wins so I can have 4 more years to pack my bags.


unless ron wins of course.

[Edited on September 13, 2011 at 10:06 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2011 10:05:43 PM

RP said it best.

"What he should do is what everyone wants to do and assume responsiblity for himself.
...
That's what freedom is all about; taking your own risk. "

People need to stop being immature. Life is a big responsiblity and we must all learn to take care of ourself. It appears that parents these days forget to teach their children this. Take responsiblity for yourself. If you REALLY want this country to do better (morally and financially), you'll do your own part in taking responsibility for yourself and not depend or use the government system as a crutch or fallback. The roll of our government has intervened too much in our personal life these days and each generation gets accustomed to this "lifestyle." Be your own person.

[Edited on September 13, 2011 at 10:18 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2011 10:16:26 PM

Quote :

"Probably some racist reference to rioting."

Or it's just a recognition that conservatives have 0% of the market share in politically-oriented riots, mobs and menacing the public, especially those that include violence.

9/13/2011 10:49:58 PM

I am legitimately confused. Is your racism so latent that I'm just not picking up on it? I don't even, I....are you sayin'....

...huh?

9/13/2011 11:19:14 PM

Here is my point:

Liberalism encourages a feeling of entitlement.

Liberalism urges those on the lower-ends of social scales to stand up and be heard.

Liberalism tells people to blame other people for most or all of their problems.

"Progressives," by definition, have less respect for traditions and previously established orders of society. In fact, they even place less value on having an orderly society.

Thus, these groups have established a monopoly on the use of mobs and riots. When such mobs occur, liberals who don't participate will excuse them as the natural response to oppression.

An Obama loss will upset this group more than most Presidential losses for many reasons.

Therefore, there is a high probability that there will be riots, roaming mobs, etc. if he loses.

This really isn't that hard to put together. If Obama had lost in '08, do you really think his supporters would have gone home sulking into the night? This one doesn't have as much kindling under the potential fire (maybe), but I've already reserved my vacation from work for next election time. I live in Durham, and there is no way I'm going to be around.

When Obama WON, I nearly had to call the cops a few times, because of being approached with "What you think, now?! We own this bitch!" and taunting at a gas station, and then later the same thing at the grocery store (which did have a few small groups stealing things in their exuberance).

If that's what I get from an Obama victory, what should I expect from an Obama loss?

And the question stands: where are the conservative mobs? where are the Tea Party riots? In the last 20 years, can you think of a major riot or mob with violence stemming from the political right in any Western country? Dozens come to mind of liberal hordes getting physical in the name of social change. A liberal ideology embraces and endorses violence and upheaval of society to get 'justice.' The right generally does not.

The left has a monopoly on this stuff, and an Obama loss would piss off those in that monopoly. That's my entire point.

9/13/2011 11:52:57 PM

Quote :

"Dude, did you even read what I wrote? He's not gonna win period, let alone the Republican primary. There are too many git-r-done types in the republican base"

He would never have gained this much publicity without running as a republican. Hell, there are other Republicans who decided to run that were never even included in these debates (Gary Johnson). It simply costs too much money to run a successful campaign as an independent with mostly grass roots funding and expect to have a decent shot at being voted in as president. It's the downfall of our two party system. Basically a free-thinking candidate must decide which party he most closely relates to and do the best he can there. It's also a shame because many people will lump Ron PAul as just "another republican tea-bagger" instead of listening to his ideas.

9/13/2011 11:59:02 PM

9/14/2011 12:14:31 AM

^ Some republican HE is.

9/14/2011 12:48:27 AM

Quote :

"When Obama WON, I nearly had to call the cops a few times, because of being approached with "What you think, now?! We own this bitch!" and taunting at a gas station, and then later the same thing at the grocery store (which did have a few small groups stealing things in their exuberance). "

Oh bullshit. I lived in Memphis fucking TN at the time and nothing like this occurred. Y U scared of darkfaces, bro?

To Paul's defense, he didn't say to let the guy die. He's right in that most hospitals would have done something for him, especially if it was one affiliated with a religious group. They have funds for this stuff.

This still isn't a sustainable model for the funding of health care, though. Catastrophic insurance, at the least, should be mandatory.

[Edited on September 14, 2011 at 11:11 AM. Reason : x]

9/14/2011 11:09:03 AM

Quote :

"This still isn't a sustainable model for the funding of health care, though. Catastrophic insurance, at the least, should be mandatory."

The federal government paying for it is unsustainable as fuck. If you're saying that there's a half-life on human compassion, then we're not going to make it far as a species anyway.

Insurance mandates just don't work. For those that can afford it, they would have bought it if they wanted it. For those that can't afford it, they either can't buy it or someone else has to buy it. Either way, whatever "free care" they get is not going to include state of the art cancer treatment or end of life services. There just aren't enough resources to keep every person alive for as long as possible.

9/14/2011 11:32:57 AM

Insurance companies wouldn't exist unless they make money; they make a TON of money every year too. Free health care/insurance coverage is a helluva oxymoron. Mandating auto insurance makes sense to me and I fully support it as you could be liable for someone else's health. Mandating it for yourself is another story. You should be able to do whatever the hell you want with your life as long as it doesn't put anyone else in harms way. The idea of trying to save people from themselves is just foolish.

9/14/2011 11:48:01 AM

I don't particularly like the way his is anti-evolution and pro-life. But, seeing as how he has such a hard-on for states rights, I don't think he'd mandate intelligent design taught in schools or try and get rid of row v. wade.

9/14/2011 11:50:11 AM

Quote :

"If you're saying that there's a half-life on human compassion, then we're not going to make it far as a species anyway."

So what are you doing to help others not need a government to help them?

9/14/2011 11:56:21 AM

Quote :

"I don't particularly like the way his is anti-evolution and pro-life. But, seeing as how he has such a hard-on for states rights, I don't think he'd mandate intelligent design taught in schools or try and get rid of row v. wade. "

He would love to get rid of row v. wade and let the states decide individually. And he wouldn't mind if the states decided to ban abortion or teach intelligent design as science. Though I'm not sure if he really disbelieves evolution since he is a doctor. He could just be pandering to the evangelical republican base.

9/14/2011 1:10:28 PM

Ron Paul's Uninsured Campaign Manager Died from Pneumonia/Exhaustion During the 2008 Election. He left his mother with $400,000 in medical debt. Paul held a fundraiser, but could only raise $50,000 for his right hand man.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/09/ron_pauls_campaign_manager_die.html

Charity doesn't work, and it especially doesn't work for people who don't know someone popular. Complete socialization of all aspects of healthcare(including government-mandated doctor salary caps) is the only thing that will fix this.

[Edited on September 14, 2011 at 7:13 PM. Reason : .]

9/14/2011 7:12:53 PM

^http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRpD3YQmqvo

As a matter of fact, the government has caused the price of medical care to explode.

9/14/2011 7:24:54 PM

half a mil in medical bills? christ, did he have platinum coated cancer? jesus, who can afford that?

9/14/2011 7:25:56 PM

Pretty much no one. If you're not rich, uninsured, and you get really sick/injured, you're totally fucked. A few days in the hospital will bankrupt the vast majority of people. Do you realize how expensive health care actually is?

The answer, though, is not to just mandate that everyone be insured. The solution is to figure out why costs are absurdly high.

9/14/2011 7:32:27 PM

Quote :

"you're now claiming the use of force is NEVER justified"

strawman.

Quote :

"you're saying that if one population manages to marginalize another population through "legal" means, it's A-OK"

except that I don't see how your example marginalizes anyone. it's a claim that is central to your analogy which simply can't be supported.

Quote :

"Wow. Way to miss the point. The unethical thing is a status quo where one groups greed/racism results in another's demise, a true free State shouldn't allow this."

And yet, you haven't even shown that anyone's demise would be a certainty.

Quote :

"It just so happens that if you want your society to thrive, you might actually have to treat people fairly on your own property, whether you want to or not."

which is a PERSONAL decision, not one that should be mandated by government.

Quote :

"can you think of a major riot or mob with violence stemming from the political right in any Western country"

ummm... did you just kind of completely forget about the KKK?

Quote :

"Charity doesn't work, and it especially doesn't work for people who don't know someone popular."

it's easy to say it doesn't work when you've already sapped the ability of the people to even be charitable through inane taxes.

Quote :

"The solution is to figure out why costs are absurdly high."

and we basically already know why. no one in government wants to listen to the answer, though, because it won't garner them any votes or campaign dollars

9/14/2011 11:13:52 PM

Quote :

"The solution is to figure out why costs are absurdly high."

kickbacks, mandates, ridiculous policies and exemptions as well as...wait for it...the government.

9/15/2011 1:16:53 AM

won CA straw poll.

9/18/2011 10:49:39 AM

^^ There's also our societal expectation that doctors take a cost-no-object, unlimited-resources approach to medicine.em.


If you don't have health insurance, there's a pretty good chance that you're a fucking moron.

That said, health insurance isn't the problem*. The cost of healthcare is the problem.


*= Except that we DO need to alter our tax structure to remove the tax incentive for benefits packages, which would allow us to divorce health insurance coverage from employment. THAT's the only thing I'm aware of that causes fucked-uppedness with healthcare insurance.

9/18/2011 12:26:46 PM

ron paul 2016

9/18/2011 1:28:37 PM

Quote :

"Except that we DO need to alter our tax structure to remove the tax incentive for benefits packages, which would allow us to divorce health insurance coverage from employment. THAT's the only thing I'm aware of that causes fucked-uppedness with healthcare insurance."

Unfortunately that was called "extreme" by Obama during the health care fiasco last year. It's so annoying that everyone agrees that we need major changes, but in their heart, no one wants to actually implement any big changes. The government's willingness to kick the can down the road never ceases to amaze.

9/18/2011 2:39:53 PM

Quote :

"Except that we DO need to alter our tax structure to remove the tax incentive for benefits packages, which would allow us to divorce health insurance coverage from employment. THAT's the only thing I'm aware of that causes fucked-uppedness with healthcare insurance."

well, with the concept of health insurance, yes. but gov't mandates on what insurance must cover is also most certainly a problem

9/18/2011 2:54:58 PM

Tea Party: We really distrust the government, except when it comes to executing us

9/19/2011 10:35:16 AM

Ron Paul is opposed to the death penalty.

9/19/2011 11:16:56 AM

^At the federal level, and only because of the general injustice currently present in the system, wrongful convictions, over-reaching laws, etc.

It's not a moral or principled disagreement with it. It's a "we're so messed up we shouldn't be killing anyone" position."

9/19/2011 12:04:57 PM

Why can't we just let the market figure out executions?

9/19/2011 12:38:07 PM

Quote :

"^At the federal level, and only because of the general injustice currently present in the system, wrongful convictions, over-reaching laws, etc. It's not a moral or principled disagreement with it. It's a "we're so messed up we shouldn't be killing anyone" position.""

Yet they support State government doing it? I don't understand where this arbitrary cut-off is. Why do they trust the State over County? Or township? Or municipality? Why is the "Trust them to kill us" line drawn between State and Federal, of all places?

[Edited on September 19, 2011 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2011 1:09:47 PM

In the video clips I looked up, Paul only spoke about the federal level. In general, he says he does that on a lot of issues because he is a federal lawmaker.

Sometimes he mentions what he thinks would be okay for states to do, but very, very rarely does he say what a state should do or what he would do as a state lawmaker. That's just Ron Paul.

9/19/2011 1:30:18 PM

Yes, it's just Ron Paul, we've never heard the "Well it may not be popular on the national scale, but we'd be fine leaving oppression of ____________ group to the states" line before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_States%27_Rights_Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

Some of us happen to think a human right should be a human right regardless of which state you reside in, and we recognize the same old rhetoric these Southern politicians have used since the Emancipation Proclamation to defend their "peculiar institutions".

[Edited on September 19, 2011 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2011 2:22:32 PM

Why hasn't this thread been locked yet?

9/19/2011 2:23:54 PM

on that note lets lock any thread that even hints at obama's "success."

9/19/2011 2:31:57 PM

Quote :

"Some of us happen to think a human right should be a human right regardless of which state you reside in, and we recognize the same old rhetoric these Southern politicians have used since the Emancipation Proclamation to defend their "peculiar institutions"."

Any government with the power to "protect human rights" (whatever those are) has to power to destroy human life, and it usually does exactly that.

What's interesting is that you think human rights should be protected at the federal level. At the same time, the monetary policy being used to fund these "protections" is destroying lives on the other side of the globe.

9/19/2011 2:42:39 PM

^^^^Surely you didn't think I was saying that Ron Paul is the only one with that take on things.

Quote :

"Some of us happen to think a human right should be a human right regardless of which state you reside in, and we recognize the same old rhetoric these Southern politicians have used since the Emancipation Proclamation to defend their "peculiar institutions"."

I guess Northern abolitionists were really persuaded by that Southern rhetoric, given that half a dozen states directly fought the Fugitive Slave Act before the Civil War with nullification and assertions of the rights of states.

States fought the Alien and Sedition Acts, and defended the first amendment guarantees for their citizens (the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798).

Today, those same rights have been (or are being) asserted to fight federal marijuana laws, TSA abuse, federal restrictions on what medical treatments a patient can choose to get, and a dozen other threats to personal freedom.

What more could a liberal want? Is the centralization of power, and the unstoppable reach of one level of government, really going to be friendly to liberty?

[Edited on September 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM. Reason : a]

9/19/2011 2:47:53 PM

Quote :

"At the same time, the monetary policy being used to fund these "protections" is destroying lives on the other side of the globe."

go on...

9/19/2011 2:56:30 PM