Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Great Ron Paul Quote

Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 9:32:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 9:09:08 AM, seraine wrote:


"Why don't they put you on a diet, you're a little over weight?" Classic.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 4:45:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 4:04:23 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
Now that the adult obesity rate is 34%, the government forcing fatties to go on a diet doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

Or in a Socialist economy we could just put certain standards on food production instead forcing anyone.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 4:53:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 4:45:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/14/2011 4:04:23 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
Now that the adult obesity rate is 34%, the government forcing fatties to go on a diet doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

Or in a Socialist economy we could just put certain standards on food production instead forcing anyone.

That's force since your forcing companies to only produce certain foods, forcing consumers to eat certain foods.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 5:04:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 4:53:17 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/14/2011 4:45:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/14/2011 4:04:23 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
Now that the adult obesity rate is 34%, the government forcing fatties to go on a diet doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

Or in a Socialist economy we could just put certain standards on food production instead forcing anyone.


But I enjoy fatty foods and I'm skinny.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 5:46:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Grain agriculture in the USA is heavily subsidized by the federal government, and it makes junk food cheap. That, more than anything, needs to go away, and I think the Ronpaulians are with me on that point. I would also advocate taxes on junk food, which I think is a good socialist part of the solution.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 6:02:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 4:53:17 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/14/2011 4:45:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/14/2011 4:04:23 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
Now that the adult obesity rate is 34%, the government forcing fatties to go on a diet doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

Or in a Socialist economy we could just put certain standards on food production instead forcing anyone.

That's force since your forcing companies to only produce certain foods, forcing consumers to eat certain foods.

There are no companies and the consumers can make their own sht if that's what they want to eat.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 6:07:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Even though I'm a democrat I sometimes prefer the direct honesty of republicans like this Ron Paul. "you're a little over weight" lol classic.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 6:11:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 6:07:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
Even though I'm a democrat I sometimes prefer the direct honesty of republicans like this Ron Paul. "you're a little over weight" lol classic.

Lol, never heard that one before.

And Ron Paul isn't anything like other Republicans.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 8:09:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 6:02:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There are no companies and the consumers can make their own sht if that's what they want to eat.

Individuals would voluntarily not start companies with the goal of making money?
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 8:40:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 6:02:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There are no companies and the consumers can make their own sht if that's what they want to eat.

Economics of scale.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 8:50:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The difference between what Ron Paul said and what most candidates say is that when they say it, it's a gaffe, when he says it, he meant to say it. I can't recall Paul ever having a George Allen Macaca moment.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 3:24:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 8:09:40 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/14/2011 6:02:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There are no companies and the consumers can make their own sht if that's what they want to eat.

Individuals would voluntarily not start companies with the goal of making money?

If they want money they should work, not have others work for them.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 3:50:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why isn't he so assertive today? Actually, things got pretty heated between him and Santorum the other night.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 3:55:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am now watching the longer interview and he could have said to Morton Downey, maybe they should make you stop smoking that cigarette before you die of lung cancer.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 3:58:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 3:55:37 PM, BennyW wrote:
I am now watching the longer interview and he could have said to Morton Downey, maybe they should make you stop smoking that cigarette before you die of lung cancer.

Correction I just got farther and he essentially did say that.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 4:24:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 3:50:35 PM, BennyW wrote:
Why isn't he so assertive today? Actually, things got pretty heated between him and Santorum the other night.

oh no, are they considering a divorce?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 5:27:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 3:24:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/14/2011 8:09:40 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/14/2011 6:02:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There are no companies and the consumers can make their own sht if that's what they want to eat.

Individuals would voluntarily not start companies with the goal of making money?

If they want money they should work, not have others work for them.

Oh so it's not force, you're just having a powerful government step in and ban certain things people can do.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 5:34:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 5:27:18 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:24:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/14/2011 8:09:40 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/14/2011 6:02:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There are no companies and the consumers can make their own sht if that's what they want to eat.

Individuals would voluntarily not start companies with the goal of making money?

If they want money they should work, not have others work for them.

Oh so it's not force, you're just having a powerful government step in and ban certain things people can do.

We ban murder, right?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 5:54:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 5:27:18 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:24:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/14/2011 8:09:40 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/14/2011 6:02:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There are no companies and the consumers can make their own sht if that's what they want to eat.

Individuals would voluntarily not start companies with the goal of making money?

If they want money they should work, not have others work for them.

Oh so it's not force, you're just having a powerful government step in and ban certain things people can do.

I never said it wasn't force. It very much is. I'd be nice if we could have these discussions with adhoms. That's all your case is, really. You use force!!! You are evul!!!!

Though, in my vision of an ideal society there would no force at all. So I'm a back and forth Anarchist.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 7:09:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 5:34:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
We ban murder, right?

Okay, you got me. We ban murder therefore it's okay to ban businesses.

Starting a business =/= murder

I don't know if you're being serious or if you're pointing out some obvious exception. I'm not an anarchist so I believe that one of the few jobs the government should have is to protect it's citizens from other people.

The point is is that FREEDO thinks a socialist society can somehow exist without applying force to innocent people. It can't exist. Either FREEDO is for using government force to directly kill businesses by confiscating their funds under the threat of imprisonment or worse or FREEDO allows people to be free to start companies. Unless of course you do believe that:

Selling goods and services at affordable prices = burying an axe into a small child......and therefore businessmen are no more innocent than murderers.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 7:17:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 5:54:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:

I never said it wasn't force. It very much is. I'd be nice if we could have these discussions with adhoms. That's all your case is, really. You use force!!! You are evul!!!!

It's evil because the people you wish to use force against are innocent people who pose no threat to society and cause no harm.

I'm not against shooting a bank robber, or confiscating the funds of a con man, or throwing a rapist in general. I'm against doing the same to small business owners or small business owners who made it to be billionaires

Though, in my vision of an ideal society there would no force at all. So I'm a back and forth Anarchist.

Well if you're for a socialist or communist type society with no government then that society wouldn't remain socialist or communist for more than a day. There's a reason every communist country in existence has had to implement a police state.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 7:20:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 7:09:53 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/15/2011 5:34:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
We ban murder, right?

Okay, you got me. We ban murder therefore it's okay to ban businesses.

Starting a business =/= murder

But it sets the precedence that government is allowed to ban people from doing certain things. Now, we have to go on to justification for each thing to be banned or not banned, but the act of banning is already viewed as acceptable.


I don't know if you're being serious or if you're pointing out some obvious exception. I'm not an anarchist so I believe that one of the few jobs the government should have is to protect it's citizens from other people.

The point is is that FREEDO thinks a socialist society can somehow exist without applying force to innocent people. It can't exist. Either FREEDO is for using government force to directly kill businesses by confiscating their funds under the threat of imprisonment or worse or FREEDO allows people to be free to start companies. Unless of course you do believe that:

Selling goods and services at affordable prices = burying an axe into a small child......and therefore businessmen are no more innocent than murderers.

That would depend on how one defines socialism. At it's very core, socialism is merely public ownership over the means of production (as opposed to private ownership). Government control is only one way that public ownership is managed, but it is not the only way.

I don't folow Freedo's political philosophy, so I really can't defend it too much. Namely because I don't buy into anything that requires people to all think a certain way for it to work (thus why I support totalitarianism, because even if they don't think a certain way, that no longer matters).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 7:42:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 7:20:41 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

But it sets the precedence that government is allowed to ban people from doing certain things. Now, we have to go on to justification for each thing to be banned or not banned, but the act of banning is already viewed as acceptable.

I don't care what's viewed as acceptable. I believe one of the few jobs the government should have is to make sure people don't harm other people. That sets the precedent that the government should be allowed to ban acts that cause harm to othe people. That doesn't set the precedent that the government should be allowed to ban various things you can do with your time and money, especially since businesses have the positive effect of employing people, providing goods and services at affordable prices, etc

That would depend on how one defines socialism. At it's very core, socialism is merely public ownership over the means of production (as opposed to private ownership). Government control is only one way that public ownership is managed, but it is not the only way.

That's what I think FREEDO supports

I don't folow Freedo's political philosophy, so I really can't defend it too much. Namely because I don't buy into anything that requires people to all think a certain way for it to work (thus why I support totalitarianism, because even if they don't think a certain way, that no longer matters).

Capitalism doesn't require everyone to think a certain way.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 7:57:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 7:42:23 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 8/15/2011 7:20:41 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

But it sets the precedence that government is allowed to ban people from doing certain things. Now, we have to go on to justification for each thing to be banned or not banned, but the act of banning is already viewed as acceptable.

I don't care what's viewed as acceptable. I believe one of the few jobs the government should have is to make sure people don't harm other people. That sets the precedent that the government should be allowed to ban acts that cause harm to othe people. That doesn't set the precedent that the government should be allowed to ban various things you can do with your time and money, especially since businesses have the positive effect of employing people, providing goods and services at affordable prices, etc

And there is your yard stick.



That would depend on how one defines socialism. At it's very core, socialism is merely public ownership over the means of production (as opposed to private ownership). Government control is only one way that public ownership is managed, but it is not the only way.

That's what I think FREEDO supports

I don't folow Freedo's political philosophy, so I really can't defend it too much. Namely because I don't buy into anything that requires people to all think a certain way for it to work (thus why I support totalitarianism, because even if they don't think a certain way, that no longer matters).

Capitalism doesn't require everyone to think a certain way.

For the free market to function as predicted by free market supporters (I'm assuming that capitalists support free markets, but correct me if I'm wrong) they do. One of the common calls is that during competition between companies, the better products win and the weaker products die.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 8:02:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I spoke with Freedo on this a few months ago (I think he supports the same thing). As he said...

"If there is need for something, it will be voted on.

Also, I know direct democracy can result in "voter fatigue" but I also know representative democracy is a sham. So I have come up with a middle ground. We elect an organizer who decides when and what everyone votes on, while only having the same voting power as everyone else."

Basically, in a free market, if the people like the store you've made, it will survive and do well, and if they don't, it will fail and you'll go out of business, so it is really in the hands of the people anyway (only they vote with their wallets). All this does is put it to the people before you go through a major investment, only to have a significant chance of failing miserably.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 8:04:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 7:57:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

I believe one of the few jobs the government should have is to make sure people don't harm other people.
And there is your yard stick.

I don't see why people should be banned from pretty much doing anything with a few minor reservations.


For the free market to function as predicted by free market supporters (I'm assuming that capitalists support free markets, but correct me if I'm wrong) they do. One of the common calls is that during competition between companies, the better products win and the weaker products die.

Yes. That forces companies to create buyable products. Regardless capitalism works despite many people holding thousands, perhaps millions of different viewpoints.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 10:53:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 7:09:53 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
Either FREEDO is for using government force to directly kill businesses by confiscating their funds under the threat of imprisonment or worse or FREEDO allows people to be free to start companies.

I am for using government force to directly kill businesses by confiscating their funds under threat of imprisonment or worse and not for allowing people to be free to start companies.

I have said it.

That is my view on property.

NOW

Either quarterexchange is for using government force to directly kill the ability to make use of resources as they please by preventing them or confiscating it from them under threat of imprisonment or worse or quarterexchange allows people to freely use any resource they can access.

In-case the meaning of this is going right over your head, I'm talking about property laws.

You can't tell me for one minute that I'm the bad guy here for supporting my view of how property should be instituted through the use of force when you want to do exactly the same.

You want Capitalism enforced. I want Socialism enforced. Guess what. Both of us are authoritarians. Become an An Cap then you will be logically justified in your nagging.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 10:55:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 7:17:45 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
Well if you're for a socialist or communist type society with no government then that society wouldn't remain socialist or communist for more than a day. There's a reason every communist country in existence has had to implement a police state.

Wow
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord