Third place last time I checked!
Third place last time I checked!
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
The feeling I get is that a lot of people equate libertarianism with anarchism, which is simply not true. There are basic things for a society to function like roads, police, courts and military. It's just how much government we need is where we disagree.Originally Posted by knuckleboner
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Dr. Love (02-05-2012)
What people really need to realize is in a democratic republic, the citizens are the government. The politicians are just hired help. Employees if you will. What happened is we became successful and that success made us lazy and apathetic. You can't be that way when you are the boss or your employees will take advantage of you and invite their friends in and loot the place. This is exactly what has happened with this country. People need to grow up and start acting like they own this place again.
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Pink Spider (02-05-2012)
Then why is China turning into a superpower because of market reforms and deregulation? I'm not saying that their market is completely free by any means, but it just goes to show that deregulation has great economic impact and impact on well being. A lot of these people have went from peasant farmers to middle class in one generation. Markets work. Free markets, more so.
I'm not saying that markets are free from personal responsibility, but what happens if a government controlled industry fails? A lot of people are out of work. What happens in an industry that is deregulated with lots of competition? One company is out of business while there's many more hanging around. A free market is actually overall safer from collapse and more stable.
Regulation is a complicated issue. You have to have some or you end up with monopolies and other abuses in the private sector. But then too much regulation kills commerce. It can turn into a form of tyranny. Right now in the US regulation has taken a strange turn to where the regulators basically work for the corporations who bought up the politicians. So instead of regulating an industry as a whole they leave one company alone to do whatever it wants and then focuses on the competition to run them out of business or make it impossible to compete. I would say that's the sign of a corrupt government and a broken system. It's no longer regulation, it's racketeering.
Government is power period. Historically giving governments too much power usually always end up bad. I think the big mistake we have made and are making is giving the government too much power over our lives. It's into everything now and then if you haven't noticed, it's breaking the supreme law of the land and grabbing more power for itself. It amazes me people still want to give this beast of a government more power when it's clearly shown it's irresponsible and not worthy of such.
Last edited by Nitro Express; 02-05-2012 at 03:09 AM.
I think a lot of people mistake corporatism for free markets, when they are not the same thing.
Pink Spider (02-05-2012)
Most people don't understand basic finance or economics. I used to work for a finance company and people just didn't get future value and when you would try and do them a favor and make the total value of the loan quite a bit less they would get pissed and accuse me of trying to rip them off because the amount they paid a month was more. They had no idea how amortization worked. Not a clue.
A corporation is simply a legal entity owned by shareholders. Legally the shareholders are not legally liable for the acts of the corporation. It has nothing to do with the market at all. Corporations can be part of a free market or they can be a monopoly. Capitalism has nothing to do with corporations even though a corporation can participate in capitalism which is owning your own assets and selling products and services in an open and free market. What we have now is not a free market but racketeering and the government itself has merged with the abusers. One set of companies can do whatever the hell they want. There is a revolving door between Washington DC and companies, and the politically connected never go to jail. Barrack Obama participated in real estate price fixing in Chicago. His neighbor who also participated in the fraud got ten years in prison. Timothy Geithner got caught not paying his income tax. Nothing happened to him but then of course he is head of the Treasury Department and that's over the IRS. All sorts of this kind of shit going on in the government that supposed to regulate markets to keep them honest.
I blame the media. But, I think things are changing thanks to the internet. More people see this stuff going on. A politician like Paul never would have been given the time of day if left to the corporate media alone. He's the internet's candidate and that scares the old media, who picks and chooses who we listen to. Another example of how regulation (the corporate media) works vs a free market (the internet).
Dr. Love (02-05-2012)
The media is obviously bought and paid for. I couldn't find the actual video on You tube. Someone must have removed it but David Rockefeller was actually thanking specific media channels for their cooperation in providing biased news that furthered the multinational corporate agenda. If you read Mr. Rockefeller's memoirs he says it frank. The world would be better ruled by academics and multinational corporate interests than the democratic systems that have been tried. In other words he see's democracy as a huge failure and would like to go back to feudalism ran by a few elites. I guess if you are in the top 1% it's not a bad plan but it sucks if you aren't.
The only video that covers a bit of Mr. Rockefeller's thank you to the media is this conspiracy video.
Ron Paul is the first internet candidate. The establishment Republican media has constantly told people he can't win so don't waste your vote but if you do a little research on your own, Ron Paul is holding his own. The media is trying to scar voters away from him because he threatens the Federal Reserve gravy train. Mitt and Obama will leave the establishment in place. I think they want to get Mitt in there because he's more of a go getter than Obama. I think they didn't get as much done with Obama as they had hoped. George Soros was spot on when he said there isn't much difference between Miit and Barrack. Newt must have made a lot of enemies because none of the heavy hitters and supporting him. Only the freaks like Sarah Palin.
Ron Paul could very well win. He can pull a lot of votes from both sides. He's popular with voters on both sides.
Last edited by Nitro Express; 02-05-2012 at 04:15 AM.
agreed.
i went hyperbole for effect.
but, i still say, in general, ron paul's domestic beliefs (while sincere) take the country more towards the laws of the jungle. there is value to funding social safety net programs. maybe not the exact ones we have now, sure. but overall, i think i benefit from the fact that there isn't a larger section of the population unable to provide for themselves.
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Not saying I disagree entirely, but I'll pose this question:
How did the nation get by for over a hundred and some odd years without them?
They didn't...
The streets were lined with dead bodies with homeless destitutes eating their rotting flesh...
Nanny State programs changed all of that...
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
When the hounds of hell are unleashed and the world starts to burn, I'm just going to stay frosty.
edit: no full versions of songs until the album is released, turkey!
Last edited by Dr. Love; 02-05-2012 at 08:35 PM.
No you didn't Nitro...
Oh shit. Sorry. I got carried away in the music and failed to realize I was posting contraband. Whoops!
For the record I did pre-order the album. I would never intentionally rip off VH.
no worries!
Nevada tally isn't in yet and there's over 200 precincts where voter fraud appears to have occurred. Charges of fraud are all over the internet now. Seems these precincts have more votes than they had voters.
Imagine that...
I was having a major Vangasm and reached nirvana and forgot about the petty legal ways of this mortal world.
Seems to be a lot of voter fraud tied to Romney but then the big Bush political machine has given it's blessing. Lot's of dead people voting I guess. Shit. Newt must have pissed off the heavy hitters with something he did.
I wouldn't vote if I was dead...
how peculiar.
Republicans can't seem to get an election right....
See also: Iowa
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Dr. Love (02-06-2012)
Must be why they are pushing all those election reform bills in every state, worried about voter fraud ...
Yeah right...
Seriously though, Paul had similar issues in Nevada last go around... There were reports of fraud and blacklisting, with Paul supporters being singled out and excluded from becoming delegates. Paul spent the last 4 years building up his campaign there and putting his people in key positions throughout the Nevada GOP.
It seems a little strange that at the end of the day he wound up with 100 less votes than he had last time. There was even a televised part of the caucus in Clark County where Paul took 60% of the votes in the precinct. It just doesn't add up. You could make the case that it was an anomaly but I kind of doubt it given that he is doubling (or more) his vote totals everywhere else.
Alex Jones talked about that in depth on his sunday broadcast...
Iowans can't get an election right at all, no matter which party.Republicans can't seem to get an election right....
See also: Iowa
See 2004
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Sounds like the polls are more rigged in Nevada than the casinos are.
Um, China might not be the greatest example of libertarian virtue. And many of their economic policies, which include heavily subsidized relocation deals for multinational corp's by the central gov't, are Keynesian "mixed" economics on steroids and growth hormones. Not too mention the fascist, corrupt whores in their central gov't which isn't getting smaller...
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Umm, that was Ohio....
Thank God...
One less inbred swamp vote to count......
Yep, exactly right Nick. Good intentions, bad example.
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
No, Iowa fucked up worse, by picking the shitty candidate who made Ohio so easy for Chimpy and Rove to stealUmm, that was Ohio....
China knew communism was a failure so they wanted the modernization that capitalism brings but with the control communism has. At the end of the day the government has all the guns so to speak. They might act nice and say, go to it and build your business but what's to keep them from taking it from you after you have built it up?
We can blame governments but frankly I think a lot of the problems stem from the people themselves. It just amazes me that people bank with banks who treat them like crap and charge fees to keep your money in their bank when there are other alternatives like credit unions and locally ran banks. It amazes me that anyone shops at Wall-Mart. Frankly, you are going to get the kind of government and commerce that you enable. All I know is the con artists are having a heyday because the public are so stupid.
I was really, really tired when I wrote that. I'm surprised that it was semi-coherent.
I didn't mean to imply that China is a good example of libertarianism. At all. I only meant to use China as an example for what happens when you go from an totally regulated economy to even a mixed market economy. When looking back, is probably not even part of the discussion. The second part didn't make sense an hour later either.
Lesson learned. Never go into economic rants at 4am.
kwame k (02-07-2012)
OMG YOU GUYS!! RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT!
:p
Romney's lead dips despite wins: Poll
by patricia zengerle
washington | tue feb 7, 2012 5:58pm est
(reuters) - despite his strong showing in early state contests in the race for the republican u.s. Presidential nomination, mitt romney's support nationwide has dipped slightly during the past month, according to a reuters/ipsos poll released on tuesday.
Romney was backed by 29 percent of republican voters in the telephone poll conducted february 2-6, down from 30 percent in a survey in early january, although the change was within the poll's margin of error.
The results suggest romney - despite his vast advantages in organization, fundraising and momentum after victories in new hampshire, florida and nevada - still has many doubters among republicans nationwide.
"he still hasn't really convinced all the republicans across the country that he's the guy to get behind," said chris jackson, research director for ipsos public affairs.
The former massachusetts governor's three rivals in the race to oppose democratic president barack obama in the november 6 u.s. Election were in a virtual tie for second, the poll showed. The gaps between the three were within the poll's margin of error.
support for ron paul, a u.s. Congressman from texas, grew by 5 percentage points to 21 percent. That moved him into second place and ahead of former house of representatives speaker newt gingrich, whose support slipped to 19 percent from 20 percent.
support for rick santorum, a former u.s. Senator from pennsylvania, rose by 5 percentage points to reach 18 percent, putting him just behind gingrich, according to the poll.
Republican strategist doug heye said romney's nationwide poll numbers were being held down partly because he is the front-runner in the republican race, making him a target for his rivals.
"the other candidates are all piling on romney," heye said, "and that's going to have an effect."
the reuters/ipsos poll also showed obama's approval rating ticking upward during the past month, a period in which favorable reports on the economy seem to have given his re-election effort some momentum.
Obama's approval rating in the new poll was 48 percent, up from 47 percent in january. His disapproval rating was higher, though: 49 percent, unchanged from last month.
"american popular opinion is not really changing abruptly," jackson said. "obama's in a good position, but ... This race could become much more competitive very fast if the economic news does not continue to be positive."
the u.s. Unemployment rate in january was 8.3 percent, down from 8.5 percent in december. A jobs report last friday was unexpectedly strong, and appeared to boost claims by obama and his re-election campaign that the economy, although still shaky, was continuing to recover.
The poll offered some encouraging signs for obama.
In a survey of registered voters, obama led romney, 48 percent to 42 percent, in a head-to-head match-up, a slightly larger margin than last month.
With gingrich as the opponent, obama led 50 percent to 38 percent - down slightly from the 52 percent to 38 percent advantage obama had in the january poll.
Is romney conservative enough?
In the republican race, many conservatives have worried that romney is not sufficiently conservative to be the republican nominee to face obama.
Gingrich, santorum and paul both have tried to stake a claim as the conservative alternative to romney.
Gingrich and santorum both have had shining moments during the state-by-state race for the republican nomination. Paul, known for his libertarian views, has shown the ability to consistently attract a core of loyal supporters.
Santorum won the iowa caucuses on january 3 by a razor-thin margin over romney, and gingrich shocked romney with a 12 percentage point victory in south carolina on january 21.
For the most part, however, the campaign has been dominated by romney - and punctuated by attacks on gingrich's character by romney's campaign and an independent "super pac" that supports the former massachusetts governor.
Romney has a strong organization and is maintaining a lead that is likely to build over time, heye said, boosted in part by the gingrich and santorum campaigns' lack of a broad organization.
Neither gingrich nor santorum submitted enough voter signatures to get on the march 6 primary ballot in the key state of virginia, for example.
"people tend to forget that," heye said.
Paul has not come close to winning any of the first five states to vote in the republican nomination process, and has stumbled to fourth-place finishes in the hotly contested contests in south carolina and florida.
But paul's campaign has built a following among those who support his calls for dramatically lower taxes, a $1 trillion cut in the u.s. Budget and much less u.s. Military involvement overseas.
"this poll further illustrates that ron paul is emerging as the real conservative alternative to mitt romney," paul spokesman jesse benton said in a statement.
The reuters/ipsos telephone poll of 1,033 adults included 881 registered voters, of whom 503 were democrats, 405 republicans and 125 independents.
The margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for all respondents; 3.3 points for registered voters; 4.4 points for democrats; 4.9 points for republicans; and 9.6 points for independents.
true. i'm a big fan of libertarianism, generally.
but, i think ron paul's impression of how much government is far less than most.
just because the nation, as a whole, could get by, didn't mean that it was the right thing to do. prior to social security, almost half of all seniors lived below the poverty line. would the country have survived without it? yep. but i think we're better off for it.
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
