Ron Paul is an Idiot!

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Depends on your definition of Capitalism. I take Capitalism to mean a government that serves the interests of corporate power. That is to say a government run by corporations. This is a form of collectivism. To direct shared resources to special interests. (Corporate welfare and regulations that favor large corporations).

Since Ron Paul is a free market economist, he is absolutely against unfair/monopolistic trade practices, and therefore VERY anti Capitalist.

Folks tend to confuse free markets with capitalism, some intentionally.

Read F.A. Hayek - 'The Road to Serfdom' - This is the book that woke Ron Paul up back in the 70's.

Oh, and your definition of capitalism makes no sense. Capitalism is defined as the private ownership and control of of the means of production and distribution of goods. Therefore there is no room for government intervention into the market in a capitalist society.

So I think you're confused on that point.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Oh, and your definition of capitalism makes no sense. Capitalism is defined as the private ownership and control of of the means of production and distribution of goods. Therefore there is no room for government intervention into the market in a capitalist society.

So I think you're confused on that point.

Your right on the definition but wrong to say no room for government. Private ownership implies laws and systems of justice to define and protect ownership - government has a huge role in that and as such as an appreciable affect on the market whether or not there are any other intervention within it.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Your right on the definition but wrong to say no room for government. Private ownership implies laws and systems of justice to define and protect ownership - government has a huge role in that and as such as an appreciable affect on the market whether or not there are any other intervention within it.

Protect ownership? From whom? The only people who can take ownership FROM you is the government themselves, so you're saying it's their job to make sure they don't take shit from you?

That's like putting a pedophile in charge of little league baseball.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Oh, and your definition of capitalism makes no sense. Capitalism is defined as the private ownership and control of of the means of production and distribution of goods. Therefore there is no room for government intervention into the market in a capitalist society.

So I think you're confused on that point.

Capitalism is a murky term like 'conservative' or 'liberal'. Free Market Capitalism must be entirely separated from government and completely unregulated and can only exist in a society based on individual liberty and the rule of law. Free Market Capitalism does not exist.

What most folks refer to Capitalism THESE days cannot be accurately referred to as Free Market Capitalism because of heavy government influence of our markets and monopolistic monetary control. A a planned economy, economic controls and the distribution of collective resources (property) by the government to industry. This is demonstrated by how regularly industry seeks government intervention into markets. In this sense, what we call Capitalism is more accurately described as Corporatism.

Corporate control of government is best described as Fascism.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Protect ownership? From whom? The only people who can take ownership FROM you is the government themselves, so you're saying it's their job to make sure they don't take shit from you?

That's like putting a pedophile in charge of little league baseball.

Umm no, regular folk can take property from you, forcefully or reneging on contracts etc etc and government has created laws and enforcements to ensure you are protected from them or get justice if you are wronged.

Maybe you forget but government does have some utility, its not always evil

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Your right on the definition but wrong to say no room for government. Private ownership implies laws and systems of justice to define and protect ownership - government has a huge role in that and as such as an appreciable affect on the market whether or not there are any other intervention within it.

The laws must respect private property, but when government PLANS the economy, free enterprise does not exist. Government planning includes subsides and the transfer of resources to industry, and the creating of policies that favor certain industries or contractors.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

The laws must respect private property, but when government PLANS the economy, free enterprise does not exist. Government planning includes subsides and the transfer of resources to industry, and the creating of policies that favor certain industries or contractors.

The term I am most familiar with is "mixed economy."

We are currently somewhere between a planned economy and pure capitalism and politics drives what direction we go in. I am for lower taxes, but the corporate welfare policies and subsidies should also be scaled back at the same time in order to let the market work properly. Business does not just lobby the government for lower taxes and less regulation. They also lobby for legislation that helps their business even if it hurts somebody elses. That is the problem when the government gets involved with more and more protectionism and planning.

Imagine if the Horse and Buggy people had a huge lobby back when the automobile was invented? They would have the government come down on that thing as a dangerous contraption and a threat to public safty!

[LibertyLoungeLizzard]

Well Well, what do you guys think about all the support he gets from our troops, why do you thinks he so popular if he is such an "idiot"? I sincerely ask this, I am neutral when it comes to Ron Paul, but I'll take him over some other candidates.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Umm no, regular folk can take property from you, forcefully or reneging on contracts etc etc and government has created laws and enforcements to ensure you are protected from them or get justice if you are wronged.

Maybe you forget but government does have some utility, its not always evil

You're absolutely right, but what you said is misplaced in what we were talking about.

You said my definition of capitalism (the people control the means of the production and distribution of goods) and what it implies (the government cannot pass regulation upon the market in a capitalist society) was false because it is the government's job to protect our ownership. Because of what I said, I thought you were talking about our ownership of the means to produce and distribute goods, which cannot just be stolen by some vagabond.

And even if they could, the government would not be regulating the market by making sure that one person does not infringe on the rights of another person (which, as you said and I agree, is most certainly their job).

[Observer]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I think Ron Paul is smart, but I must admit, the libertarian circle jerk for him does annoy me...

The one dumb thing he does support is abolishing just about every Bureaucratic office (IRS etc). Bureaucracies are a necessary evil to carry out the duties of the President, it needs reform yes and some do indeed need to be eliminated. But wholesale dumping would cause more problems than it would solve, not to mention shock our system that is built upon it.

Oh, but did you catch Wolf Blitzer tonight? He had the honorable Governor Huckabee on tonight espousing exactly that. NOW, he's decided (after listening intently to Ron Paul) that when he's elected president, he will do away with the IRS. And added before he left the air, "It won't do any good to reduce taxes if you don't cut spending." That's probably not verbatim, but the same words fell out of his mouth as the last words from Ron Paul in last night's debate.

The audacity of it! I could be embarrassed for him except that I can't stand him. If you can find a video of the debate before last night's, watch the almost trance-like look he has on his face as he listens to Ron Paul, clinging to and absorbing every word he says.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Observer

Oh, but did you catch Wolf Blitzer tonight? He had the honorable Governor Huckabee on tonight espousing exactly that. NOW, he's decided (after listening intently to Ron Paul) that when he's elected president, he will do away with the IRS. And added before he left the air, "It won't do any good to reduce taxes if you don't cut spending." That's probably not verbatim, but the same words fell out of his mouth as the last words from Ron Paul in last night's debate.

The audacity of it! I could be embarrassed for him except that I can't stand him. If you can find a video of the debate before last night's, watch the almost trance-like look he has on his face as he listens to Ron Paul, clinging to and absorbing every word he says.

I don't get it. Why would you be upset if some of Paul's ideas became more mainstream and got accepted by more and more people?

[Observer]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I don't get it. Why would you be upset if some of Paul's ideas became more mainstream and got accepted by more and more people?

Because it's not genuine!

Everyone on the stage (with the exception of possiby Tancredo and Hunter) laughed and snickered (like 13 year old girls do to intimidate their competition) when Paul presented his ideas. Being aware of Paul's following because of his message, each one of them decided then and there that his ideas were worthy of adding to their platform. In other words, they thought his ideas were laughable until they realized how it generated a following and votes! The rest on the stage are chameleons!! They change as often as traffic signals!

Ron Paul is the only genuine person (excepting Tancredo and Hunter) in the lineup. Each one of the rest have flip-flopped several times on several issues.

Romney, for example, was for "pro-choice" when he ran for governor;

McCain, as late as early summer 2007--was in cohoots with Teddy Kennedy, for Pete's sake! to master-mind the Amnesty bill! Now, knowing how unfavorable amnesty was with the people, and that he wouldn't never get the votes of the majority of the American people because of it, he changed to anti-immigration.

When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he actually tried to put a Mexican embassy in Arkansas!! Tried to give free tuition to children of illegal aliens. But now, he's anti-immigration! Come on!!

In the words of Max Brantley, "In the 1992 contest with Bumpers, Huckabee used campaign funds to pay himself as his own media consultant. Other payments went to the family babysitter.
In his successful 1994 run for lieutenant governor, he set up a nonprofit curtain known as Action America so he could give speeches for money without having to disclose the names of his benefactors. He failed to report that campaign travel payments were for the use of his own personal plane" an article you can find more about him here in Max' article "The Dark Side of Mike Huckabee". Not only was he for illegal immigration, as he claims he's not now, he was/is a crook, too!

Fred Thompson is just too much! He is a faux conservative. You can read all about him here.

And Guiliani?? I don't even know where to begin!

The only person in either line up, Democrat or Republican, who can prove he is consistent on each and all issues is Ron Paul. The only person in either lineup who will follow the Constitution and rule of law is Ron Paul. Anyone who can't see how sweet life would be under a constitutional government, and/or doesn't want to see it or doesn't have a clue how sweet it would be, must be hopeless socialist.

The rest of the candidates (with the exception of -possibly- Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo) are Council on Foreign Relations members. If you don't realize the significance of that, then you haven't done your homework. If you have and it doesn't matter to you, you're part of the problem.

Thank you for asking, Donkey!

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Observer

Because it's not genuine!

Everyone on the stage (with the exception of possiby Tancredo and Hunter) laughed and snickered (like 13 year old girls do to intimidate their competition) when Paul presented his ideas. Being aware of Paul's following because of his message, each one of them decided then and there that his ideas were worthy of adding to their platform. In other words, they thought his ideas were laughable until they realized how it generated a following and votes! The rest on the stage are chameleons!! They change as often as traffic signals!

Ron Paul is the only genuine person (excepting Tancredo and Hunter) in the lineup. Each one of the rest have flip-flopped several times on several issues.

Romney, for example, was for "pro-choice" when he ran for governor;

McCain, as late as early summer 2007--was in cohoots with Teddy Kennedy, for Pete's sake! to master-mind the Amnesty bill! Now, knowing how unfavorable amnesty was with the people, and that he wouldn't never get the votes of the majority of the American people because of it, he changed to anti-immigration.

When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he actually tried to put a Mexican embassy in Arkansas!! Tried to give free tuition to children of illegal aliens. But now, he's anti-immigration! Come on!!

In the words of Max Brantley, "In the 1992 contest with Bumpers, Huckabee used campaign funds to pay himself as his own media consultant. Other payments went to the family babysitter.
In his successful 1994 run for lieutenant governor, he set up a nonprofit curtain known as Action America so he could give speeches for money without having to disclose the names of his benefactors. He failed to report that campaign travel payments were for the use of his own personal plane" an article you can find more about him here in Max' article "The Dark Side of Mike Huckabee". Not only was he for illegal immigration, as he claims he's not now, he was/is a crook, too!

Fred Thompson is just too much! He is a faux conservative. You can read all about him here.

And Guiliani?? I don't even know where to begin!

The only person in either line up, Democrat or Republican, who can prove he is consistent on each and all issues is Ron Paul. The only person in either lineup who will follow the Constitution and rule of law is Ron Paul. Anyone who can't see how sweet life would be under a constitutional government, and/or doesn't want to see it or doesn't have a clue how sweet it would be, must be hopeless socialist.

The rest of the candidates (with the exception of -possibly- Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo) are Council on Foreign Relations members. If you don't realize the significance of that, then you haven't done your homework. If you have and it doesn't matter to you, you're part of the problem.

Thank you for asking, Donkey!

People are allowed to change their minds on subjects. That's how our brains should work. A main problem with Paul supports - among many - is that they think their candidate is the only one who is allowed to support an idea. You attack the others because they laugh when Paul spouts his nonsense...then you attack when people actually say they accept Paul's ideas. It's that "Paul or nobody" attitude that makes you guys look like you do.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

People are allowed to change their minds on subjects. That's how our brains should work. A main problem with Paul supports - among many - is that they think their candidate is the only one who is allowed to support an idea. You attack the others because they laugh when Paul spouts his nonsense...then you attack when people actually say they accept Paul's ideas. It's that "Paul or nobody" attitude that makes you guys look like you do.

Way to generalize.

I'm sure most of us are like me, and don't care WHO does it, as long as it gets done.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Way to generalize.

I'm sure most of us are like me, and don't care WHO does it, as long as it gets done.

nice generalization

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

nice generalization

Big difference between "I'm sure most" and "a problem with Paul supporters."