|
On April 27 2009 12:02 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 11:30 FragKrag wrote:On April 27 2009 11:19 Mindcrime wrote:On April 27 2009 10:20 only_human89 wrote:On April 27 2009 08:55 KaasZerg wrote:
He can solve a economic crisis that was in the making for 10-15 years in a day. Government can spent money in more usefull ways then another douche buying another SUV. So pay your taxes (;.Keeping the goverment small is overrated. It isn't overated in the slightest. More government = less freedom every time. RON PAUL 2012 BITCHES. If more government equals less freedom "every time" then why are you shouting your support for a small federal government guy rather than an anarchist? wouldn't voting for an anarchist be oxymoronic As opposed to voting for Ron Paul, which is just moronic. I don't understand why people think it's individuals who are causing good/bad things to happen in government. It's the structures of our institutions that shape most of what goes on. Putting Ron Paul in office isn't going to change the interest group penetration in Congress or remove us from Iraq. If for some reason he actually won, he would get very little done.
yeah thats the lazy response. lets just let government take over the country and do nothing about it, there's nothing we can do!. it's like saying "i don't like government involvement either, but they are involved so w/e." but i agree its the people that need to take back the country not one man alone.
|
On April 27 2009 11:19 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 10:20 only_human89 wrote:On April 27 2009 08:55 KaasZerg wrote:
He can solve a economic crisis that was in the making for 10-15 years in a day. Government can spent money in more usefull ways then another douche buying another SUV. So pay your taxes (;.Keeping the goverment small is overrated. It isn't overated in the slightest. More government = less freedom every time. RON PAUL 2012 BITCHES. If more government equals less freedom "every time" then why are you shouting your support for a small federal government guy rather than an anarchist?
why would i be anarchist? i just want the federal government out of the picture and for the states to have more freedom to decide what's best for them. not everybody has the same beliefs. to have the fed's say "this is how it's going to be done for everyone rather you like it or not" is bull shit.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 27 2009 13:43 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 12:02 Jibba wrote:On April 27 2009 11:30 FragKrag wrote:On April 27 2009 11:19 Mindcrime wrote:On April 27 2009 10:20 only_human89 wrote:On April 27 2009 08:55 KaasZerg wrote:
He can solve a economic crisis that was in the making for 10-15 years in a day. Government can spent money in more usefull ways then another douche buying another SUV. So pay your taxes (;.Keeping the goverment small is overrated. It isn't overated in the slightest. More government = less freedom every time. RON PAUL 2012 BITCHES. If more government equals less freedom "every time" then why are you shouting your support for a small federal government guy rather than an anarchist? wouldn't voting for an anarchist be oxymoronic As opposed to voting for Ron Paul, which is just moronic. I don't understand why people think it's individuals who are causing good/bad things to happen in government. It's the structures of our institutions that shape most of what goes on. Putting Ron Paul in office isn't going to change the interest group penetration in Congress or remove us from Iraq. If for some reason he actually won, he would get very little done. yeah thats the lazy response. lets just let government take over the country and do nothing about it, there's nothing we can do!. it's like saying "i don't like government involvement either, but they are involved so w/e." but i agree its the people that need to take back the country not one man alone.
It's not lazy, it's accurate. I understand the problems of a significant federal government and I think they're still outweighed by the problems of a weak central government. I know I'm not going to change your mind about that since you've probably already read everything Ron Paul (and probably none of Hayek, interestingly) has ever written, but you should at least understand what is feasible and what isn't. You have to play by the rules of the organization or you don't get shit done, and those rules dictate the change you're looking for isn't possible.
Even Ron Paul plays by those rules to some extent (hint: check his voting record, he's a Republican, not an independent.) And what happens when he doesn't follow the rules, when he mouths off as if he's an expert? He gets 0 chair positions. And he gets put on House Financial Service instead of Ways and Means or Budget. And he gets put on House Foreign Services instead of Armed Services or Homeland Security. Nancy Pelosi owns his ass, and she's nice enough to let him enter the Capital Building.
Ron Paul is a nobody, except on the internet, where people don't bother to study actual economics or politics before they write about it. What you're proposing does not require him to win, it requires two or three consecutive Congressional elections where similar candidates also win, in order to make a truly anti-Federalist platform possible.
If you truly want to support the libertarian cause, you'd find and support other congressional candidates with similar view, rather than putting all your faith behind a single, insignificant figurehead.
EDIT: And yes, I believe Pelosi could actually have him physically prevented from entering the chambers if she wanted to.
|
On April 27 2009 14:42 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 13:43 only_human89 wrote:On April 27 2009 12:02 Jibba wrote:On April 27 2009 11:30 FragKrag wrote:On April 27 2009 11:19 Mindcrime wrote:On April 27 2009 10:20 only_human89 wrote:On April 27 2009 08:55 KaasZerg wrote:
He can solve a economic crisis that was in the making for 10-15 years in a day. Government can spent money in more usefull ways then another douche buying another SUV. So pay your taxes (;.Keeping the goverment small is overrated. It isn't overated in the slightest. More government = less freedom every time. RON PAUL 2012 BITCHES. If more government equals less freedom "every time" then why are you shouting your support for a small federal government guy rather than an anarchist? wouldn't voting for an anarchist be oxymoronic As opposed to voting for Ron Paul, which is just moronic. I don't understand why people think it's individuals who are causing good/bad things to happen in government. It's the structures of our institutions that shape most of what goes on. Putting Ron Paul in office isn't going to change the interest group penetration in Congress or remove us from Iraq. If for some reason he actually won, he would get very little done. yeah thats the lazy response. lets just let government take over the country and do nothing about it, there's nothing we can do!. it's like saying "i don't like government involvement either, but they are involved so w/e." but i agree its the people that need to take back the country not one man alone. It's not lazy, it's accurate. I understand the problems of a significant federal government and I think they're still outweighed by the problems of a weak central government. I know I'm not going to change your mind about that since you've probably already read everything Ron Paul (and probably none of Hayek, interestingly) has ever written, but you should at least understand what is feasible and what isn't. You have to play by the rules of the organization or you don't get shit done, and those rules dictate the change you're looking for isn't possible. Even Ron Paul plays by those rules to some extent (hint: check his voting record, he's a Republican, not an independent.) And what happens when he doesn't follow the rules, when he mouths off as if he's an expert? He gets 0 chair positions. And he gets put on House Financial Service instead of Ways and Means or Budget. And he gets put on House Foreign Services instead of Armed Services or Homeland Security. Nancy Pelosi owns his ass, and she's nice enough to let him enter the Capital Building. Ron Paul is a nobody, except on the internet, where people don't bother to study actual economics or politics before they write about it. What you're proposing does not require him to win, it requires two or three consecutive Congressional elections where similar candidates also win, in order to make a truly anti-Federalist platform possible. If you truly want to support the libertarian cause, you'd find and support other congressional candidates with similar view, rather than putting all your faith behind a single, insignificant figurehead. EDIT: And yes, I believe Pelosi could actually have him physically prevented from entering the chambers if she wanted to.
Well it's not about putting all my faith into one guy. Educating the American people and sharing my beliefs is more important. But I tell you right now if the dollar crashes the government will have no where to run and hide. In fact it probably would be a good thing. People will finally realize all this government regulation hasn't helped us. If it doesn't crash are kids will sure be pissed off becase they are the ones that the burdon will be left on.
|
On April 27 2009 13:45 only_human89 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 11:19 Mindcrime wrote:On April 27 2009 10:20 only_human89 wrote:On April 27 2009 08:55 KaasZerg wrote:
He can solve a economic crisis that was in the making for 10-15 years in a day. Government can spent money in more usefull ways then another douche buying another SUV. So pay your taxes (;.Keeping the goverment small is overrated. It isn't overated in the slightest. More government = less freedom every time. RON PAUL 2012 BITCHES. If more government equals less freedom "every time" then why are you shouting your support for a small federal government guy rather than an anarchist? why would i be anarchist?
because "more government = less freedom every time"
i just want the federal government out of the picture and for the states to have more freedom to decide what's best for them. not everybody has the same beliefs. to have the fed's say "this is how it's going to be done for everyone rather you like it or not" is bull shit.
You want states to have more freedom?
silly collectivist
|
On April 27 2009 12:02 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2009 11:30 FragKrag wrote:On April 27 2009 11:19 Mindcrime wrote:On April 27 2009 10:20 only_human89 wrote:On April 27 2009 08:55 KaasZerg wrote:
He can solve a economic crisis that was in the making for 10-15 years in a day. Government can spent money in more usefull ways then another douche buying another SUV. So pay your taxes (;.Keeping the goverment small is overrated. It isn't overated in the slightest. More government = less freedom every time. RON PAUL 2012 BITCHES. If more government equals less freedom "every time" then why are you shouting your support for a small federal government guy rather than an anarchist? wouldn't voting for an anarchist be oxymoronic As opposed to voting for Ron Paul, which is just moronic.
That response is full of win. Nice comeback.
|
|
|
When is that free healthcare coming?!
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
