AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?) - Page 5

post #161 of 376
5/20/11 at 7:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

That's a minimum age requirement genius.

Yes genius you have to be at least 35. You can't be president at 34. That's the lower age requirement as opposed to the hypothetical higher age requirement we were talking about ( I put it in terms that reflected our discussion ). Now if you going to start harping on semantics I will consider you desperate.
Anything else?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #162 of 376
5/20/11 at 7:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes genius you have to be at least 35. You can't be president at 34. That's the lower age requirement as opposed to the hypothetical higher age requirement we were talking about. Now if you going to start harping on semantics I will consider you desperate.

This isn't an issue of semantics.

You kept bringing up the minimum age requirement as if it was somehow relevant to the discussion of an upper age concern.

If you consider this an issue of semantics I will consider you ignorant of either the meaning of semantics or the different issues related to minimum or maximum age issues.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #163 of 376
5/20/11 at 7:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

This isn't an issue of semantics.

You kept bringing up the minimum age requirement as if it was somehow relevant to the discussion of an upper age concern.

If you consider this an issue of semantics I will consider you ignorant of either the meaning of semantics or the different issues related to minimum or maximum age issues.

It's the fact that there's already an age issue with the job It's just on the other end of the spectrum. And you were comparing it to jobs in general.

Now you're just being obtuse.

I guess you didn't know about 35.

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

Quote:
Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós)[1][2] is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata.

Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used by humans to express themselves through language.

At any rate what's relevent is that age is already an issue with this job because it's different from just any job.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #164 of 376
5/20/11 at 7:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's the fact that there's already an age issue with the job It's just on the other end of the spectrum. And you were comparing it to jobs in general.

You're trying to run for cover now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I guess you didn't know about 35.

You guess wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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

I know what semantics are. You quite obviously don't since you misused the term.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

At any rate what's relevent is that age is already an issue with this job

Yes...and we were discussing concerns about an upper age limit. Which does not exist in any law or clause in the constitution.

So back to the question: Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #165 of 376
5/20/11 at 8:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So back to the question: Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X?

They already can, when job performance is a concern. And I know this is a position you support (that an employer should have the right to discriminate for any reason), so why are you being so obtuse about your point?
Reply
Reply
post #166 of 376
5/20/11 at 8:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

They already can, when job performance is a concern.

I'm not entirely sure that's correct. But to my question: What is your opinion about this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

so why are you being so obtuse about your point?

I'm asking for your opinion on the question.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #167 of 376
5/20/11 at 8:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm asking for your opinion on the question.

Yes, you are, without first clarifying your opinion on the question, which, aside from being very rude, is typical of your argument style. We've been through this before.

I think I have the right not to even interview a 40 year-old ballerina, if I'm creative director at a ballet, do I not?
Reply
Reply
post #168 of 376
5/20/11 at 8:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, you are, without first clarifying your opinion on the question, which, aside from being very rude, is typical of your argument style. We've been through this before.

I think I have the right not to even interview a 40 year-old ballerina, if I'm creative director at a ballet, do I not?

Well I think as an employer you have the right to interview (or not), hire (or not) and fire (or not) anyone you want for any reason you want.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #169 of 376
5/20/11 at 9:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm not entirely sure that's correct.

It is correct. I am entirely sure.

In age limit may be legally specified in the circumstance where age has been shown to be a "bona fide occupational qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business" (BFOQ) (see 29 U.S.C.*§*623(f)(1)). In practice, BFOQs for age are limited to the obvious (hiring a young actor to play a young character in a movie) or when public safety is at stake (for example, in the case of age limits for pilots and bus drivers
Reply
Reply
post #170 of 376
5/20/11 at 9:09pm
Anyway...still waiting for your opinion.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #171 of 376
5/20/11 at 9:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It is correct. I am entirely sure.

In age limit may be legally specified in the circumstance where age has been shown to be a "bona fide occupational qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business" (BFOQ) (see 29 U.S.C.*§*623(f)(1)). In practice, BFOQs for age are limited to the obvious (hiring a young actor to play a young character in a movie) or when public safety is at stake (for example, in the case of age limits for pilots and bus drivers

So we've been talking about a job that seems unlike either of these examples (young actor to play a young character, pilots and bus drivers)...but instead a position that primarily involves management, leadership, policymaking, decision making, etc. Essentially an executive management position.

If we were to try to compare apples and apples...then...Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X (say a company division or department)?

We have some posters appearing to say that such discrimination is appropriate in the public sector for an elected official. One even going so far as to say it's probably because once someone gets to old they can't find their shoes.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #172 of 376
5/20/11 at 9:23pm
The following question is not addressed to anyone in particular:

Would you not say that in the case of the President of the United States, who can now, without the approval of Congress, order a military attack, this involves public safety? So an employer can refuse to hire a 60 year-old bus driver, but can not vote against an 80 year-old with his finger on the button?

Likewise. The lower age limit is absolutely a related issue.

Questions:

Why is there a lower age limit?
Are there concerns with youth that might affect the performance of the President? Why is 35 acceptable, but 30 is not? What if the person in question graduated from university at 20 and got a PHD by 25? Why can't there be exceptions?
Why is this age limit only relevant to the position of President?
Is the position of President more important than other positions, say, CEO of a large corporation?
Are there concerns with old age that might affect performance of the duties of the President?
Reply
Reply
post #173 of 376
5/20/11 at 9:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The following question is not addressed to anyone in particular:

Would you not say that in the case of the President of the United States, who can now, without the approval of Congress, order a military attack, this involves public safety? So an employer can refuse to hire a 60 year-old bus driver, but can not vote against an 80 year-old with his finger on the button?

Apparently we have tonton arguing that age discrimination (at least) is okay. Got it. I actually agree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Likewise. The lower age limit is absolutely a related issue.

Questions:

Why is there a lower age limit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Why is this age limit only relevant to the position of President?

Good questions. Until we answer these we don't know if it has any bearing on this question of an upper age.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Are there concerns with old age that might affect performance of the duties of the President?

Possibly. We should ask why no maximum age limit was put in when a minimum was.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #174 of 376
5/20/11 at 10:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Apparently we have tonton arguing that age discrimination (at least) is okay. Got it. I actually agree.

We agree on a lot. However, I only agree that age discrimination should be allowed when there's a valid concern regarding ability to perform the function of a job.
Reply
Reply
post #175 of 376
5/20/11 at 10:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We should ask why no maximum age limit was put in when a minimum was.

Possibly because Alzheimer's, and senility in general, were not recognized at the time, and perhaps because they were less of a problem. There was no Fluoride in the drinking water, for instance.
Reply
Reply
post #176 of 376
5/21/11 at 3:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

This isn't an issue of semantics.

You kept bringing up the minimum age requirement as if it was somehow relevant to the discussion of an upper age concern.

If you consider this an issue of semantics I will consider you ignorant of either the meaning of semantics or the different issues related to minimum or maximum age issues.

Be nice to Jimmac. Obviously it's a little gotcha point and I already explained about early-onset being 10% of the cases and starting in the 50's. Jimmac is clearly trying to prove the age point by being a literal example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, you are, without first clarifying your opinion on the question, which, aside from being very rude, is typical of your argument style. We've been through this before.

I think I have the right not to even interview a 40 year-old ballerina, if I'm creative director at a ballet, do I not?

The arts are nothing like considering someone in their ability to actually be productive. The arts are the anti-thesis of this in many ways because it's truly a case of style over substance and that is totally acceptable within the artistic realm but not what we want (but sadly what we have) for president.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Possibly because Alzheimer's, and senility in general, were not recognized at the time, and perhaps because they were less of a problem. There was no Fluoride in the drinking water, for instance.

Or perhaps they actually knew what the hell they were talking about and your concerns aren't valid. People didn't stop suffering from the same ailments back then. In fact you show the point in that they wouldn't have called it Alzheimer's. They'd just have addressed it as aging and as such likely been less understanding and more intolerant of it. Instead we have the opposite.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #177 of 376
5/21/11 at 8:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Odd comparisons between trying to run the world and flipping hamburgers aside...Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X?

It already happens... In fact, it's endorsed by the U.S. Government.
I will be forced to stop working when I turn 65... Regardless of my health or ability or experience. It is a government mandate. Up until 3 years ago, it was 60. (The change was made to the law for financial reasons and political pressure... They did no studies about age related health concerns.)

A personal vote can't be regulated... An individual gets to vote based on whatever criteria he chooses. If you wish to call his choices discriminatory, it still doesn't make them wrong at the personal level. Those same choices, if made by the "establishment" to determine if the person can even RUN for office... That WOULD be discriminatory.
And yes, there are certain jobs, mine included, that SHOULD have these age related safeguards in place. I am also of the opinion that POTUS could have such a limit, based on the huge risk to life taken on by the decisions he makes. (more citizens have been killed in our recent wars than in airline crashes in the same time period, yet it's ok to "discriminate" based on age for the airline pilot.)
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #178 of 376
5/21/11 at 8:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Be nice to Jimmac. Obviously it's a little gotcha point and I already explained about early-onset being 10% of the cases and starting in the 50's. Jimmac is clearly trying to prove the age point by being a literal example.



The arts are nothing like considering someone in their ability to actually be productive. The arts are the anti-thesis of this in many ways because it's truly a case of style over substance and that is totally acceptable within the artistic realm but not what we want (but sadly what we have) for president.



Or perhaps they actually knew what the hell they were talking about and your concerns aren't valid. People didn't stop suffering from the same ailments back then. In fact you show the point in that they wouldn't have called it Alzheimer's. They'd just have addressed it as aging and as such likely been less understanding and more intolerant of it. Instead we have the opposite.

Quote:
Jimmac is clearly trying to prove the age point by being a literal example.

Not just by example as I'm not running for the office of the president. Moreover it's the logic behind this just isn't your ordinary job and we need someone at the top of their game for this. And I'm not trying to prove anything. I already have proved it and not by example but through logic.

Quote:
The arts are nothing like considering someone in their ability to actually be productive. The arts are the anti-thesis of this in many ways because it's truly a case of style over substance and that is totally acceptable within the artistic realm but not what we want (but sadly what we have) for president.

Sorry but MJ has already moved this discussion into the realm of any job by his question :
Quote:
Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X?

A 40 year old ballerina can't " produce " the same performance as that of a 19 year old. So there you go.

And actually it's a pretty big " Gotcha " point. But be nice to MJ trumpy. It's pretty obvious he hadn't thought this one through.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #179 of 376
5/21/11 at 9:11am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The following question is not addressed to anyone in particular:

Would you not say that in the case of the President of the United States, who can now, without the approval of Congress, order a military attack, this involves public safety? So an employer can refuse to hire a 60 year-old bus driver, but can not vote against an 80 year-old with his finger on the button?

Likewise. The lower age limit is absolutely a related issue.

Questions:

Why is there a lower age limit?
Are there concerns with youth that might affect the performance of the President? Why is 35 acceptable, but 30 is not? What if the person in question graduated from university at 20 and got a PHD by 25? Why can't there be exceptions?
Why is this age limit only relevant to the position of President?
Is the position of President more important than other positions, say, CEO of a large corporation?
Are there concerns with old age that might affect performance of the duties of the President?

Already answered this in an earlier post to Jimmac as far as why a Minimum age requirement. Why is it not lower? Because that was what was voted and agreed on. If you don't like it, vote to have it changed.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #180 of 376
5/21/11 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You're trying to run for cover now.




You guess wrong.




I know what semantics are. You quite obviously don't since you misused the term.




Yes...and we were discussing concerns about an upper age limit. Which does not exist in any law or clause in the constitution.

So back to the question: Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X?

Not on most jobs but on ones that require top performance yes perhaps they should. And MJ that's the point you're still attempting to gloss over. This isn't the same as any job you would find out there and there's already a minimum why shouldn't there be a maximum for the same reasons?

Quote:
You guess wrong.

Maybe you forgot.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #181 of 376
5/21/11 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Not on most jobs but on ones that require top performance yes perhaps they should. And MJ that's the point you're still attempting to gloss over. This isn't the same as any job you would find out there and there's already a minimum why shouldn't there be a maximum for the same reasons?

And yet there is an explicitly stated minimum but not an explicitly stated maximum. Odd.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #182 of 376
5/21/11 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Not just by example as I'm not running for the office of the president. Moreover it's the logic behind this just isn't your ordinary job and we need someone at the top of their game for this. And I'm not trying to prove anything. I already have proved it and not by example but through logic.

What did you prove? By what logic?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sorry but MJ has...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But be nice to MJ...

jimmac do you have a crush on me. I mean you seem to be rather fixed on me and what I say. You're not in love with me are you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's pretty obvious he hadn't thought this one through.

Well...I have actually. In case you did not catch it, I stated very clearly that I personally think any employer has the right to discriminate on who they hire for any reason they want to.

Many liberals however want to pick and choose when, where, who and for what reasons that discrimination is allowed. The boundaries and restrictions are typically vague and arbitrary. So, with our liberal friends here, I've simply been trying to clear up precisely when discrimination is ok and when it is not...in their opinions...not the laws (I can read those myself)...but their opinions. So far we've just had a bunch of hand-waving, side-stepping, misdirection and such.

Well...that plus one poster who posits that people of certain age can't even find their shoes.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #183 of 376
5/21/11 at 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

It already happens... In fact, it's endorsed by the U.S. Government.
I will be forced to stop working when I turn 65... Regardless of my health or ability or experience. It is a government mandate. Up until 3 years ago, it was 60. (The change was made to the law for financial reasons and political pressure... They did no studies about age related health concerns.)

Sad isn't it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

A personal vote can't be regulated... An individual gets to vote based on whatever criteria he chooses.

Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

If you wish to call his choices discriminatory, it still doesn't make them wrong at the personal level.

First, whether I wish to call it that or not, it is discriminatory. Secondly, I don't think I ever said it was wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Those same choices, if made by the "establishment" to determine if the person can even RUN for office... That WOULD be discriminatory.

Both are discriminatory. One is just codified into law and enforced by the use of force.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

And yes, there are certain jobs, mine included, that SHOULD have these age related safeguards in place. I am also of the opinion that POTUS could have such a limit, based on the huge risk to life taken on by the decisions he makes. (more citizens have been killed in our recent wars than in airline crashes in the same time period, yet it's ok to "discriminate" based on age for the airline pilot.)

You are correct, the President of the United States has way too much power. Finally someone said it. Whew.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #184 of 376
5/21/11 at 10:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What did you prove? By what logic?






jimmac do you have a crush on me. I mean you seem to be rather fixed on me and what I say. You're not in love with me are you?




Well...I have actually. In case you did not catch it, I stated very clearly that I personally think any employer has the right to discriminate on who they hire for any reason they want to.

Many liberals however want to pick and choose when, where, who and for what reasons that discrimination is allowed. The boundaries and restrictions are typically vague and arbitrary. So, with our liberal friends here, I've simply been trying to clear up precisely when discrimination is ok and when it is not...in their opinions...not the laws (I can read those myself)...but their opinions. So far we've just had a bunch of hand-waving, side-stepping, misdirection and such.

Well...that plus one poster who posits that people of certain age can't even find their shoes.

Quote:
jimmac do you have a crush on me. I mean you seem to be rather fixed on me and what I say. You're not in love with me are you?

Hey don't blame me! You're the one who had to give this " Gotta have the last word " reply!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #185 of 376
5/21/11 at 10:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And yet there is an explicitly stated minimum but not an explicitly stated maximum. Odd.


Yes and that's why I asked the question in my quoted statement. Face it!

Quote:
This isn't the same as any job you would find out there and there's already a minimum why shouldn't there be a maximum for the same reasons?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #186 of 376
8/16/11 at 1:53pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #187 of 376
8/16/11 at 5:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY

Good commercial. This Jon Stewart segment was amusing, btw.

In all seriousness though, Paul can't win. He simply is not going to get the support of the Republican establishment and the military-industrial complex.

As for me, I like much of what he has to say. But I think he's too extreme on:
  • The Federal Reserve
  • Political Isolationism
  • Iran building nukes
  • Military action w/o a declaration of war

The Fed is not going away. We should not go back to the gold standard, as there is no evidence that doing so is going to usher in economic growth and stability (quite the opposite...the money supply would collapse). As much as I agree with not sticking our noses all over the world and maintaining 700 foreign military bases, we can't just politically withdraw from world events. His position on Iran building nukes is one I understand ("we shouldn't tell anyone what to do"), but is not realistic nor practical given Iran's leadership and proximity to Israel. And military action does not always require a formal declaration of war. Opposing the Iraq war is one thing. Opposing the routing out of the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan and stabilizing the country is another.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #188 of 376
8/17/11 at 3:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Good commercial. This Jon Stewart segment was amusing, btw.

In all seriousness though, Paul can't win. He simply is not going to get the support of the Republican establishment and the military-industrial complex.

As for me, I like much of what he has to say. But I think he's too extreme on:
  • The Federal Reserve
  • Political Isolationism
  • Iran building nukes
  • Military action w/o a declaration of war

The Fed is not going away. We should not go back to the gold standard, as there is no evidence that doing so is going to usher in economic growth and stability (quite the opposite...the money supply would collapse). As much as I agree with not sticking our noses all over the world and maintaining 700 foreign military bases, we can't just politically withdraw from world events. His position on Iran building nukes is one I understand ("we shouldn't tell anyone what to do"), but is not realistic nor practical given Iran's leadership and proximity to Israel. And military action does not always require a formal declaration of war. Opposing the Iraq war is one thing. Opposing the routing out of the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan and stabilizing the country is another.

He's right with regard to the military. 100% right. And to say it's political isolationism is a lie. We will still trade with other governments and promote freedom around the world, even if we don't go around spending billions on bombing the shit out of every Muslim who has oil (we don't bomb the actual terrorists in the Philippines, now, do we?)
Reply
Reply
post #189 of 376
8/17/11 at 5:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

He's right with regard to the military. 100% right. And to say it's political isolationism is a lie. We will still trade with other governments and promote freedom around the world, even if we don't go around spending billions on bombing the shit out of every Muslim who has oil (we don't bomb the actual terrorists in the Philippines, now, do we?)

+1 This.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #190 of 376
8/17/11 at 8:01am
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
I'm fine with all that stuff, and I would be happy if he got elected. The parts of his platform that I disagree with are

- The gold standard, I want to keep a fiat currency
- Health care, I am a proponent of socialized medicine
- Total free trade - 99% free trade is fine, but you have to be able to retaliate when other countries do predatory things (like the current Chinese fixed exchange rate).

But if the rest of his platform got passed I would be OK with it - and I would love to have the foreign military bases closed and the war on drugs ended.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #191 of 376
8/17/11 at 8:46am
Yes to most of this. Against abolishing many of the Federal agencies he wants to kill. Against his views on education. Against his views on taxation. And many more. But it might be interesting (and might be disastrous) to see what happens if he's given a chance to really push his policies.
Reply
Reply
post #192 of 376
8/17/11 at 9:06am
I realize there's a little fanciful speculation going on here...but let's be clear if Ron Paul were to actually get elected President, there's no way he'd get nearly any of his policy prescriptions enacted.

At best he might be a speed bump to some of the worst policy and legislative actions of the right and left wing branches of the establishment statist party.

The system is too big and too powerful and too corrupt.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #193 of 376
8/17/11 at 9:20am
Speed bumps could be a disaster. The result of nothing changing will be nothing short of the end of the United States of America. That's one reason why 'conservative' is a damning label.
Reply
Reply
post #194 of 376
8/17/11 at 9:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Speed bumps could be a disaster. The result of nothing changing will be nothing short of the end of the United States of America. That's one reason why 'conservative' is a damning label.

More of a disaster than Hope™ and Change™ have been?

The whole premise is: "if we don't do something, things are going to get a lot worse".

"We", meaning government.

Has it ever occurred to you that the solution might be LESS government meddling in things, not more?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #195 of 376
8/17/11 at 9:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Speed bumps could be a disaster. The result of nothing changing will be nothing short of the end of the United States of America. That's one reason why 'conservative' is a damning label.

Uh huh.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #196 of 376
8/17/11 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Has it ever occurred to you that the solution might be LESS government meddling in things, not more?

Probably not.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #197 of 376
8/17/11 at 9:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

More of a disaster than Hope™ and Change™ have been?

Honestly, yes. Obama's 'Hope and Change' was mostly hope and was unfortunately very little change at all. No change ('conserving' the status quo outright) would have been even worse.

Quote:
The whole premise is: "if we don't do something, things are going to get a lot worse".

And that premise was absolutely correct. We (Obama and Congress) did almost nothing to fix what is wrong. And things got worse.
Quote:
Has it ever occurred to you that the solution might be LESS government meddling in things, not more?

Honestly, I've studied this. And history says 'no'. The only times in history that things got better was when there was more government regulation combined with Democracy and (yes) capitalism. Name one time in history when less government has led to progress. Go ahead.
Reply
Reply
post #198 of 376
8/17/11 at 10:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Honestly, yes. Obama's 'Hope and Change' was mostly hope and was unfortunately very little change at all. No change ('conserving' the status quo outright) would have been even worse.

Reducing government interventionism would also be a change form the status quo, would it not?

Quote:
And that premise was absolutely correct. We (Obama and Congress) did almost nothing to fix what is wrong. And things got worse.

The government did all sorts of things. That's why things got worse. Are you suggesting that government meddling in things is good, but it just has to meddle in the "correct" things the "proper" way?

Quote:
Honestly, I've studied this. And history says 'no'. The only times in history that things got better was when there was more government regulation combined with Democracy and (yes) capitalism.

Which libertarians have you read and studied?

Quote:
Name one time in history when less government has led to progress. Go ahead.

Let's see...there was this one time when a group of guys declared independence from oppressive, authoritarian government and founded their own country, which led to the greatest era of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.

Can't think of the name of it off the top of my head...

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #199 of 376
8/17/11 at 10:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Reducing government interventionism would also be a change form the status quo, would it not?



The government did all sorts of things. That's why things got worse. Are you suggesting that government meddling in things is good, but it just has to meddle in the "correct" things the "proper" way?



Which libertarians have you read and studied?



Let's see...there was this one time when a group of guys declared independence from oppressive, authoritarian government and founded their own country, which led to the greatest era of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.

Can't think of the name of it off the top of my head...


ahhaha!!!! Are you honestly trying to say there was less government regulation in America after the Revolution than there was under the British monarchy?
Reply
Reply
post #200 of 376
8/17/11 at 10:14am
jazzguru, It's really not worth it. You're wasting your time and energy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?)