Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Politics As It Really Is

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 9:26:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The reptillian CIA is controlling the weather with fluoride, so the spying Jew bankers can vaccinate your children and teach them evolution.

Here are my sources:
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.infowars.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 9:33:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rand Paul is the counter to this madness. He supports freedom for all (except women)! He despises government funding of business (except earmarks)! He believes in creationism! He wants a good family structure (i.e. force women back in the kitchen by making them undergo sexual harassment in the workplace)!

Long live Rand Paul!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 9:40:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/21/2012 9:26:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The reptillian CIA is controlling the weather with fluoride, so the spying Jew bankers can vaccinate your children and teach them evolution.

You stole that from Skeptical Libertarians Facebook page.

Alex Jones doesn't blame Jews or theorize the Reptilians. Rubbish.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 9:50:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/21/2012 9:33:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Rand Paul is the counter to this madness. He supports freedom for all (except women)!

False. He supports freedom for women. He supports more freedom for women than Obama. Obama and the Liberal Democrats want women to undergo forced molestation and groping for simply not wanting airport TSA radiating them to ill health. And Obama has a 17 year old girl on his kill list. And Obama slaughtered women by the thousands in Pakistan and Yemen you don't complain about his atrocities against women.

He despises government funding of business (except earmarks)!

Earmarks don't fund business, they give money to districts for infrastructure.

He believes in creationism!

He is a Christian, but not a fundamentalist.

He wants a good family structure (i.e. force women back in the kitchen by making them undergo sexual harassment in the workplace)!

False. He is against all force. You want him to force businesses to operate your way. Sexual harrassment in the workplace defined by government includes things like staring at women and making jokes. You are fascist if you think that is harrassment and that government should institute force to stop people from using their eyes and freedom of speech.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 10:02:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/21/2012 9:40:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/21/2012 9:26:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The reptillian CIA is controlling the weather with fluoride, so the spying Jew bankers can vaccinate your children and teach them evolution.

You stole that from Skeptical Libertarians Facebook page.

Alex Jones doesn't blame Jews or theorize the Reptilians. Rubbish.

Oh right, he blames Satanists.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 10:09:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/21/2012 9:50:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/21/2012 9:33:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Rand Paul is the counter to this madness. He supports freedom for all (except women)!

False. He supports freedom for women.
Except the freedom to control their own bodies.
He supports more freedom for women than Obama. Obama and the Liberal Democrats want women to undergo forced molestation and groping for simply not wanting airport TSA radiating them to ill health.
Proof? I've never been groped at any airport by the TSA, and the scanners are not actually harmful.

Even if you do prove it, it's not an attack on women specifically.
And Obama has a 17 year old girl on his kill list.
This isn't an attack on women.
And Obama slaughtered women by the thousands in Pakistan and Yemen you don't complain about his atrocities against women.

Not an attack on women specifically.
He despises government funding of business (except earmarks)!

Earmarks don't fund business, they give money to districts for infrastructure.

No, it gives money to businesses to enact specific projects in a district or a state.
He believes in creationism!

He is a Christian, but not a fundamentalist.

He wants to teach Creationism in the classroom; he refused to deny this.
He wants a good family structure (i.e. force women back in the kitchen by making them undergo sexual harassment in the workplace)!

False. He is against all force. You want him to force businesses to operate your way.
Yes, because the corporate elite don't have a right to force me to do things their way if the conduct is unethical.
Sexual harrassment in the workplace defined by government includes things like staring at women and making jokes. You are fascist if you think that is harrassment and that government should institute force to stop people from using their eyes and freedom of speech.
You're misogynist if you want people to create a hostile environment for women just so that they have to cook your meals. Learn how to cook, moron.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 10:09:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/21/2012 9:33:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Rand Paul is the counter to this madness. He supports freedom for all (except women)!

This is a mischaracterization that would imply he doesn't believe in freedom for women, meaning he thinks they should be slaves. I imagine you say this because he is pro-life. Talk about overreacting (this coming from an adamant pro-choicer such as myself). Still, would it not be his position to return the position to a state level? Even for someone who is pro-choice like myself I don't think it's fair to see he doesn't support freedom for women.

He despises government funding of business (except earmarks)!

Have you ever actually considered the justification for earmarks? Also, even if you vehemently disagree with this, I'd say compared to some of our more important problems he wants to address - out of control debt/spending crisis, federal reserve currency manipulation, government shredding of constitutional civil liberties, the American military empire - to complain about earmarks seems a little silly. As for despising government funding of business in general, yeah, he thinks that is the most moral stance and in general the one that is most conducive to prosperity, and I, being a voluntaryist, generally agree.

He believes in creationism!

Who cares? I literally do not give a fvck about his personal beliefs as long as he doesn't force them onto We the People.

He wants a good family structure (i.e. force women back in the kitchen by making them undergo sexual harassment in the workplace)!

Now I am not sure if you're trolling or not. Suffice it to say that there is a difference between not thinking the federal government has a right to prevent "discrimination"/verbal harassment and "forcing women back in the kitchen by making them undergo harassment in the workplace". Businesses should have the right to discriminate in who they hire and who they allow into their business all they want; nobody's forcing anyone to be associated in any way with them. You think an openly discriminatory, bigoted business would thrive these days? No, even in the South people would feel too embarrassed/ashamed for such a business to stay afloat.

Long live Rand Paul!

K
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 10:10:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/21/2012 10:02:21 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/21/2012 9:40:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You stole that from Skeptical Libertarians Facebook page.

Alex Jones doesn't blame Jews or theorize the Reptilians. Rubbish.

Oh right, he blames Satanists.

Not quite. The people he blames just so happen to be Satanists. David Icke, who is not Christian and is anti-religion has gone into documented detail how the elites are in fact Satanists. A true example of being unbiased.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 10:16:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/21/2012 10:09:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/21/2012 9:33:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Rand Paul is the counter to this madness. He supports freedom for all (except women)!

This is a mischaracterization that would imply he doesn't believe in freedom for women, meaning he thinks they should be slaves. I imagine you say this because he is pro-life. Talk about overreacting (this coming from an adamant pro-choicer such as myself). Still, would it not be his position to return the position to a state level? Even for someone who is pro-choice like myself I don't think it's fair to see he doesn't support freedom for women.

I didn't mean to imply that he wants to enslave women. My intent was simply to highlight the fact that he doesn't like the idea of women having absolute control over their bodies.
He despises government funding of business (except earmarks)!

Have you ever actually considered the justification for earmarks?
I don't like the idea of redistributing wealth upwards.
Also, even if you vehemently disagree with this, I'd say compared to some of our more important problems he wants to address - out of control debt/spending crisis, federal reserve currency manipulation, government shredding of constitutional civil liberties, the American military empire - to complain about earmarks seems a little silly. As for despising government funding of business in general, yeah, he thinks that is the most moral stance and in general the one that is most conducive to prosperity, and I, being a voluntaryist, generally agree.

He believes in creationism!

Who cares? I literally do not give a fvck about his personal beliefs as long as he doesn't force them onto We the People.

He refuses to deny that he will support teaching creationism in public schools.
He wants a good family structure (i.e. force women back in the kitchen by making them undergo sexual harassment in the workplace)!

Now I am not sure if you're trolling or not. Suffice it to say that there is a difference between not thinking the federal government has a right to prevent "discrimination"/verbal harassment and "forcing women back in the kitchen by making them undergo harassment in the workplace". Businesses should have the right to discriminate in who they hire and who they allow into their business all they want; nobody's forcing anyone to be associated in any way with them.
Yes, they have a right to discriminate in hiring, but they don't have the right to sexually harass their employees, and Ron and Rand are in favor of sexual harassment.
You think an openly discriminatory, bigoted business would thrive these days?
Yes, and even if that had not been the case, without government intervention, they would be thriving still.
No, even in the South people would feel too embarrassed/ashamed for such a business to stay afloat.

I don't know about this one . . .there are some pretty scary communities, and even today, minorities are discriminated against pretty heavily and nobody cares.
Long live Rand Paul!

K
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 11:08:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/21/2012 10:44:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul, the disgraceful son of Ron Paul, endorsed Romney. What a f*ckhead.

https://www.youtube.com...

Rand Paul is playing politics to get ahead. Maybe it's machiavellian, but that's the name of the game. And maybe you disagree, and maybe I do too, but don't pretend it's such a clear cut decision. In politics, you can stay true to your principles in words and in actions (Ron) and refuse to compromise, even verbally, to get ahead and more successfully implement your vision. Or, you can do what Rand is doing, which is to compromise in words when necessary but not in votes/legislation, to make nice with the Party in rhetoric alone in order to be able to realize what his father envisioned - which is, a large scale libertarian freedom movement as a viable option for the direction in which the country is headed. Don't write Rand off so quickly. If he started to cave in on voting and policy proposals as well, then I'd hop off the Rand bandwagon, but until then, I view him as possibly the greatest hope for a big libertarian influence in American politics that we've got right now.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 12:45:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/21/2012 10:44:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul, the disgraceful son of Ron Paul, endorsed Romney. What a f*ckhead.

Gtfo. I have refuted that notion countless times. You don't understand the fact that Rand Paul never once compromised on policy. Not once. He stayed true to Paul Libertarian philosophy. His endorsement of Romney is moving the chess piece to victory.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 12:55:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/21/2012 11:08:44 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/21/2012 10:44:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul, the disgraceful son of Ron Paul, endorsed Romney. What a f*ckhead.

https://www.youtube.com...

Rand Paul is playing politics to get ahead. Maybe it's machiavellian, but that's the name of the game. And maybe you disagree, and maybe I do too, but don't pretend it's such a clear cut decision. In politics, you can stay true to your principles in words and in actions (Ron) and refuse to compromise, even verbally, to get ahead and more successfully implement your vision. Or, you can do what Rand is doing, which is to compromise in words when necessary but not in votes/legislation, to make nice with the Party in rhetoric alone in order to be able to realize what his father envisioned - which is, a large scale libertarian freedom movement as a viable option for the direction in which the country is headed. Don't write Rand off so quickly. If he started to cave in on voting and policy proposals as well, then I'd hop off the Rand bandwagon, but until then, I view him as possibly the greatest hope for a big libertarian influence in American politics that we've got right now.

Although if the goal is to play politics, why not compromise on legislation and votes as well?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 1:02:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 12:55:09 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/21/2012 11:08:44 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/21/2012 10:44:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul, the disgraceful son of Ron Paul, endorsed Romney. What a f*ckhead.

https://www.youtube.com...

Rand Paul is playing politics to get ahead. Maybe it's machiavellian, but that's the name of the game. And maybe you disagree, and maybe I do too, but don't pretend it's such a clear cut decision. In politics, you can stay true to your principles in words and in actions (Ron) and refuse to compromise, even verbally, to get ahead and more successfully implement your vision. Or, you can do what Rand is doing, which is to compromise in words when necessary but not in votes/legislation, to make nice with the Party in rhetoric alone in order to be able to realize what his father envisioned - which is, a large scale libertarian freedom movement as a viable option for the direction in which the country is headed. Don't write Rand off so quickly. If he started to cave in on voting and policy proposals as well, then I'd hop off the Rand bandwagon, but until then, I view him as possibly the greatest hope for a big libertarian influence in American politics that we've got right now.

Although if the goal is to play politics, why not compromise on legislation and votes as well?

Because that would defeat the whole purpose of actually carrying out the "libertarian vision" and would be a counterproductive setback to what he actually wants to achieve in terms of policy - and why should anyone then trust him not to compromise on legislation and votes in the future? Politicians who compromise on those things to "get ahead" in the party and the political establishment rarely reach a point where it's like "okay, now I'll vote and support policy exclusively true to my actual principles."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2012 4:00:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/22/2012 12:55:09 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Although if the goal is to play politics, why not compromise on legislation and votes as well?

Endorsement is harmless and in this case beneficial. Changing positions on policy to contradict Libertarianism but to conform to the status quo, that IS harmful.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat