Near
Active Member
A six minute video with absolutely no substance at all.
Rand Paul Wins!!!
- Thread starter Dolce Vita
- Start date
kendothegreenwizard
Active Member
Your one line posts are about as substance providing as a cardboard cutout of the three stooges. Mo, Larry, the cheese. LOL@ U
If you had anything to say that was of any merit you might be taken seriously but since you are a one line soundbyte genius you will be taken for the red butted monkey you appear.
Go troll somebody else until you can say something that provides a semblance of intelligence. You only make yourself look like a silly little poohbutt with your one line digs.
If you had anything to say that was of any merit you might be taken seriously but since you are a one line soundbyte genius you will be taken for the red butted monkey you appear.
Go troll somebody else until you can say something that provides a semblance of intelligence. You only make yourself look like a silly little poohbutt with your one line digs.
granitestate
Well-Known Member
whos all that directed at....?
Dolce Vita
Active Member
haha someone gave me neg rep for starting this thread... what a n00b
Dude did you get all your points directly off MSNBC? Because not a single one of them HAS ANY TRUTH TO IT AT ALL!!! Rand Paul DOES NOT SUPPORT RACISM. What will it take to get this through your heads? He supports free will, free choice and non government intervention to tell you who or what you can do with your own property. Before you know it they are going to send illegal Mexican immigrants to your house for breakfast, all 14 million of them, if you don't like it or don't feed them all then you are a RACIST 100% RACIST !!!
kendothegreenwizard
Active Member
You are as nodrama pointed out reiterating the BSNBC soundbyte agenda word for word.
Rand Paul has repetedly said he would have voted for the Civil rights bill. He has never, not one time said he would look to or attempt to overturn the civil rights bill so your conjecture is nothing more than ridiculous hyperbole. As a libertarian he is of course against the federal goverment being involved in the affairs of states. . AS a true libertarian he does not believe the federal goverment has the right or the duty to pass laws that infringe on Business or property.
Do you think the federal gov't has the right to decide whether to take your home in order for a corporation to build a hotel on the site as the SCOTUS has determined they can.
Do you think the Federal gov't has the right to by passage of a bullshit commerce clause to determine for decades now how, what and where a product or commodity can be transfered, bought or sold in order to unfairly tilt the playing field in favor of corporate interests.
Do you think that the federal gov't has the right to transfer the economic future of our lives to a bogus and unconstitutional fiat system of banking as they did with the Federal reserve?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
ALL people have rights. Government does not have rights, it has powers granted to them by SOME of the people.
The majority that grants the government power over the minority often forgets that what goes around comes around. When a particular issue is seen as more important than the rights of EVERY INDIVIDUAL what happens? Eventually the issue will change to another and then it will be their turn to be disenfranchised. More reason to embrace consensual relationships and voluntaryism and reject majority rule in favor of live and let live. The right to choose who will be the next "ruler" is not a choice at all.
The majority that grants the government power over the minority often forgets that what goes around comes around. When a particular issue is seen as more important than the rights of EVERY INDIVIDUAL what happens? Eventually the issue will change to another and then it will be their turn to be disenfranchised. More reason to embrace consensual relationships and voluntaryism and reject majority rule in favor of live and let live. The right to choose who will be the next "ruler" is not a choice at all.
abe23
Active Member
Rand Paul is being called out for what he is. No, he's not a racist....he's an ideologue.
Frankly, I think we've had enough with ideology, especially the kind that tells us that free markets with less government regulation will ultimately do the right thing and regulate themselves. If you need to any evidence of why this doesn't work, I would suggest a visit to the gulf coast, a west virginia coal mine or bernie madoff's former offices might be a good place to look.
Maybe we can try pragmatism for a change...?
Frankly, I think we've had enough with ideology, especially the kind that tells us that free markets with less government regulation will ultimately do the right thing and regulate themselves. If you need to any evidence of why this doesn't work, I would suggest a visit to the gulf coast, a west virginia coal mine or bernie madoff's former offices might be a good place to look.
Maybe we can try pragmatism for a change...?
LOL you are Clueless on this issue abe. The coal mine in Va, the Deep Horizon/BP well and Bernie Madoff were ALL REGULATED BY THE US GOVERNMENT. Unfortunately the government regulators did not do their job, because the people in charge of the operations are bought and paid for to just gloss over these HUGE errors. Each and every one of them were inspected, audited or otherwise poked and prodded by US government regulators, and they were found to be doing NO WRONG. Its not the people who are to blame, it is the government once again not doing their job. You can find the US regulators in the Basement knee deep in internet porn.
Regulations don't do jack shit to help things, its been proven so many times, yet people will never learn. All regulations do is put up loopholes that certain anointed corporations can then use to gain ever larger shares of the market, putting the common man on the road to serfdom. Only when a crisis appears and the people of this country demand that heads roll does gubbermint ever do anything. And then the punishment is usually for some poor guy the real perpetrators throw to the wolves and he usually gets some 2 year sentence at club fed and some tiny fine that is worth a fraction that they stole.
Like this whole BP spill thing, the MAXIMUM fine the government can levy is 75 million. Thats like 2 weeks profit for BP, the will do whatever they want cuz the fine is tiny.
abe23
Active Member
Yes, they were caused by regulators not doing their job. When you appoint people who have spend their lifetime working for the oil, mining or finance industries to jobs that are meant to regulate those very industries, you end up with zero regulation and the outcome is the same.
How that is an argument for less regulation, I really don't understand....
How that is an argument for less regulation, I really don't understand....
Its not an argument for less regulation, its an argument against GOVERNMENT regulation.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Disagree, you just KNOW there are some substantial dreads under that cap.
abe23
Active Member
Non-government regulation? By who? Citizens? The fairy godmother?
see abe you are under the spell of the government nanny state, You believe that only government can solve these problems, but I am here to tell you that government only exacerbates these problems. Already BP has had its gasoline brand boycotted, their stock has fallen 30% since the incident, at this rate they will not exist as a company in 2 years time. None of this is because of the government, it is because of the will of the free people in this world. This is eating into their bottom line big time, and that says more to them than any government pencil pusher ever could.
abe23
Active Member
See and that's what makes you an ideologue, just like rand paul. Limited government regulation has a very important place and if you don't recognize that, you haven't learned anything from our country's history. If it weren't for 'regulation' we would still have segregated lunch counters, robber barons and trusts.
So you think having the entire southern coastline, fisheries, ecosystems and all ruined is just an accident or the price of doing business? My point is that I'm willing to pay the price of SOME government regulation and 'nanny state' if it prevents this sort of thing from happening.
What do you think our coastline and national parks would look like if, as you suggest, we let the market punish business for causing environmental disasters rather than having government regulation prevent them from happening in the first place?
So you think having the entire southern coastline, fisheries, ecosystems and all ruined is just an accident or the price of doing business? My point is that I'm willing to pay the price of SOME government regulation and 'nanny state' if it prevents this sort of thing from happening.
What do you think our coastline and national parks would look like if, as you suggest, we let the market punish business for causing environmental disasters rather than having government regulation prevent them from happening in the first place?
But its been proven that the government regulation DOES NOT WORK. The definition of insane is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Something else will have to be done, becasue what we are doing now DOES NOT WORK!! Get it through your head. Oh I have to use this new avatar because FDD banned NoDrama for calling YOU a WONDERFUL person. We won't make that mistake again.
abe23
Active Member
It has been proven not to work when you stuff regulatory agencies with industry insiders. And you aren't very specific either. The glass-seagull act prevented anything like the subprime crisis for 70 years, for example. Deregulation and regulation by insiders and lobbyists is the problem....the idea that some government regulation is necessary to prevent certain disasters is not.
EXACTLY!!! +rep So you DO see the corruption in the system! All the reg agencies are made of insiders, it has to be, who else would understand all the nuances of an entire commodity market for example? We don't NEED government to do this, I don't have a total Solution for the problem, but neither does government. My non solution costs nothing and has the exact same effect as the government tax funded non solution.
abe23
Active Member
Thanks....
The cost of not having any regulation would still be far worse. More pollution, more oil spills, more market crashes, more mine collapses. You pay for these things one way or another. Just ask some fishermen in the gulf.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
We cannot live forever by breathing air either, so does that mean we should stop? I know it sounds stupid, but the problem is that it is an issue of time, you give anything enough time and issues will not only crop up, but it will become obsolete.
Government regulation is never going to be able to stop every single bad thing that happens, and realistically that is not what it is there for. Times it goes too far (like banning weed) and sometimes it does not go far enough (like BP getting away with not having to spend the 500million for a blow out valve). But the reality is that we do better working together, and that is literally all the government is, we elect them, so that way they can hopefully do shit to make small improvements over large groups of people.
It doesn't always happen this way, and we need to make it more efficient, but that doesn't mean that we should stop, because the benefits of us all working together is so much better then all of us trying to bump through without any laws.
FYI, this is along the lines of something I wanted to say to you about your hate relationship with the FED.
People like the Paul's are not going to be able to do a damn thing. Not because some ancient Ninja clan that the Fed has locked in their basement to assassinate everyone that opposes them, but because the government is not going to destroy the one entity that actually works.
You want less government, you should then appreciate that the Fed was designed due to that very distrust of them being able to get shit right. The Fed is paid for through a buy in (wow is that a generalization) of banks in their systems. And the exact thing you're looking for, businesses regulating themselves, except they added in the government ties so that it is not just the banks making their own rules, so you have us pulling on the government while the government pulls on the Fed and the banks pulling on the Fed to pull on the government. Because nobody trusts anyone else not to fuck shit up.
And if you really wanted to end our banking system and Fed, all you would have to do is convince everyone to remove all their money from the banks, and poof, they would all fail and bring down the Fed and FDIC with it. Of course you would also create a global economic collapse, and reduce the standard of living until a better system was figured out, which could take longer than either of us have left on this planet (if you don't count the time it would take our bodies to decay).