Liberty 1st Forum
Liberty 1st Forum
Home | Profile | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Liberty 1st Forums
 Three Rivers Area
 Ron Paul our man
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

AH.Free
Active Poster

131 Posts

Posted - 01/13/2012 :  10:28:19 PM  Show Profile
Ok fellow Americans this is our chance February 28th we have a chance to change the same old crap whether you are a republican or a democrat we need some one to get our jobs back from China that's what we need ,remember not too long ago everything was made in America

vblainev
Obsessed Poster

USA
1063 Posts

Posted - 01/14/2012 :  11:45:18 AM  Show Profile
If it wasn't for his foreign policy , I would consider him BUT we can't be isolationists! His thinking just doesn't make sense.
Go to Top of Page

cuzimrite
Obsessed Poster

1007 Posts

Posted - 01/14/2012 :  8:37:03 PM  Show Profile
Normally, I would not care about someone's age, but Dr. Paul needs to go back to his OB practice. The rigors of the job would prove, I believe, to hard for someone at 76.
Go to Top of Page

AH.Free
Active Poster

131 Posts

Posted - 01/15/2012 :  01:06:32 AM  Show Profile
Look what being global has brought us ,unemployment insecurity and furthermore none of this people care about us, read how they vote against us in the UN,This country of ours used to be the top of the world now all we got is people losing their homes and misery the demoRATS and the good for nothing lower than dirt form of life refriedcans all they do is send our kids to die at foreign wars and all for what? Not for our freedom. I know Paul is running as a refriedcan but he almost has to other wise we would not even consider him because 99 percent of Americans have been brain wash into a two party system
Go to Top of Page

Buck
Forum Admin

USA
6602 Posts

Posted - 01/15/2012 :  1:55:46 PM  Show Profile  Visit Buck's Homepage
I agree with Blaine. If it wasn't for his foreign policy stands I would consider him. I really admire the way he embraces liberty like no other prominent politician but I don't think most Americans are ready for the personal responsibility that comes with libertarianism. So I think, that at this point, we are doomed to choose between socialism and socialism light. And it will be that way until the house of cards we are building collapses upon itself.



Liberty First. Everything else second.
Go to Top of Page

AH.Free
Active Poster

131 Posts

Posted - 01/16/2012 :  8:34:16 PM  Show Profile
hey were we ready for the politicians we have now?
Go to Top of Page

Dru
Member

71 Posts

Posted - 01/21/2012 :  01:06:40 AM  Show Profile
Why must the U.S. push Democracy on foreign peoples? If they want liberty, let them fight for it. I agree with the isolationism. Until asked or attacked, let the world deal with their problems. We have our own to focus on.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire
Go to Top of Page

AH.Free
Active Poster

131 Posts

Posted - 01/22/2012 :  12:45:20 AM  Show Profile
You got it.
Go to Top of Page

pepa
Obsessed Poster

1650 Posts

Posted - 01/23/2012 :  1:46:17 PM  Show Profile
Why if Ron Paul would get elected he'd be like Reagan senile with Nancy and his Chief of staff consulting the stars.

After seeing Ron's son actions, it makes me wonder about just another Trojan horse.

quote:

"Three Rivers needs an Honest Joe in City hall." Pepa

Go to Top of Page

AH.Free
Active Poster

131 Posts

Posted - 01/23/2012 :  10:59:45 PM  Show Profile
RP is certainly not with out faults but look at the alternative that are running and don't talk or think of the guy with the big ears playing president big time incompetance
Go to Top of Page

Jim
Member

USA
57 Posts

Posted - 01/28/2012 :  09:19:57 AM  Show Profile
Perhaps the National Hurricane Center might want to name its next storm after Ron Paul -- an all-wet, incoherent blob fueled by hot air with no clear sense of direction that scares the living bejabbers out of people.
Go to Top of Page

Shutesie
Active Poster

USA
157 Posts

Posted - 01/29/2012 :  11:40:00 AM  Show Profile
Thank you Buck. I'm back to stir the pot.

1)
And that's why Ron Paul is running. He's running to show the hypocrisy of the republican candidates. They talk of small government but none of them truly want it. Especially in the areas of military might and in social issues. It's wrong for government to stop companies from polluting or endangering their workers. It's wrong for government to provide rules defining what can and can't be in our food or drugs.

But it's okay for the government to decide who we love and want to marry. It's okay for the government to control a woman's body. It's okay for the government to say yes you can kill yourself with cigarettes and alcohol but you can't kill yourself with marijuana or cocaine.

2)

The problem with isolationism in my opinion is that it would leave a hole for someone else to fill and that position might be filled with someone who is not thinking about our best interest. I absolutely agree that the 'policeman of the world' position we find ourselves in is of our own making. It isn't however something that we can get out of without some serious thought and deliberate movement. Most of the world has lost stomach for the 'price of liberty' and we - I REALLY MEAN OUR FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN - have filled that role. If we stopped doing the things we do someone like China may step in and they have no love for us.

What we can do is pay a lot more attention to the battles that we fight and the countries that we align ourselves. If you look at all the trouble spots in the world today many of the issues that exist can be directly tied to past involvements that we had with them. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc; the list goes on. This ends up being the same reason people give for isolating ourselves but I would say that things are not so black and white. We assisted in the removal of a democratic Iranian government that didn't like us to support a dictatorship that did. We assisted a resistance against Soviet aggression in Afghanistan then left them after we got what we wanted allowing the Taliban to take hold. We tied ourselves to dictators and suppressors of their people all over the middle east to get what we wanted - OIL - and then we wonder why groups like Al Qaeda gain support to do what they have done.

There seems to be a sense that if we free a people and give them democracy that they will like us. Freedom to choose means that you can choose to not like someone. Just because Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or Egypt may someday be free nations does not mean that they will like or support us.

When we decide to involve ourselves in the would we cannot have the mentality of Bush when he said 'your either with us or against us'. This country was founded on dissent and it needs to be an absolute requirement of government.

3)

quote:

socialism
noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.



I see socialism thrown around so often it should be one of those banned words like 'whatever' or 'ginormous'. We are not even close to a socialist state and Obama is not a socialist. The guys a millionaire for cryin' out loud, do you think he wants a socialist state?

This country has been, is, and we will continue to be successful as long as it moves forward balancing between protecting the success of individuals against protecting society as a whole. It fails when it goes too far in one direction or the other. We are not animals or at least we like to think we aren't. In the animal kingdom the predators would eat until the prey was gone at which point they would die off. Without the predators the prey would eat until the plants were gone and they would die off. The natural world balances life with death. We as a society try to keep a balance that doesn't require anyone to die to achieve that balance. The key difference is that the rules that we use to accomplish that goal are written by a government that in our case is suppose to be 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.'

The problem today isn't big government. The problem today is that we are no longer equal.

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.



Interestingly enough this statement goes against everything that capitalism is based upon. Capitalism is about someone being better than everyone else and that they should be rewarded for it. But capitalism is not the basis for the United States of America. It is merely a tool that we use to maximize our ability to achieve our goals.

The Supreme Court recently said that money equates to speech and that therefore you cannot limit it under the first amendment. The problem of course is that money isn't equal and that to me means this ruling goes against what this country stands for. I and I suspect most of the readers of this forum do not have the millions of dollars that corporations can throw behind the causes and people they support. And since as Romney says corporations are people they end up with a bigger voice than we get in government. As I said I don't think big government is the problem, goverment that isn't balanced is the problem. When government allows businesses to do what ever they want without regard for individuals that's a problem and the opposite is also true. Everyone comes to the table equally and we all compromise to achieve our individual goals without anyone one group be unfairly burdened. That's how it should work.

Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas. He also has some really out there ideas and he is absolutely necessary to remind us to really think about what we have government get involved in but I don't think he would make a good president.
Go to Top of Page

Buck
Forum Admin

USA
6602 Posts

Posted - 01/30/2012 :  12:18:25 PM  Show Profile  Visit Buck's Homepage
Nice answer Shutesie. I would argue that we ARE very close to a socialist state and I think our socialism is and will be like every other brand of socialism. Those at the top will start out rich and will remain rich during the socialism experiments so that fact that many of the people who trend that way have lots of money is not an argument that they aren't die hard socialists.

Good to see you back.


Liberty First. Everything else second.
Go to Top of Page

Shutesie
Active Poster

USA
157 Posts

Posted - 01/30/2012 :  4:42:39 PM  Show Profile
But that isn't socialism. Socialism is a economic system where the government runs the companies. In a socialistic system you would have 0% unemployment because theoretically they could give a job to everyone. That is the ideal and and that is the appeal to the socialist. Unfortunately for them the real world doesn't work that way. No government, for that matter no single company or person can perfectly match supply with demand like a free market. The reality is that capitalism is natural selection of the economy. It is Darwin's vision of the natural world placed on the market. It is a work of art in how well it does what it does.

But

Capitalism isn't perfect. It isn't perfect because people are involved in it. Without rules to define what can and can't be done it has the potential to be exploited just as badly as socialism.

I just don't see that the country is headed towards socialism as an economic model. Those rich people are smart enough to know that capitalism does a far better job of making them money than any government run entity would be able to accomplish. Of course, just as some think that companies can make everything alright if we just let them do what they do some people think that government can always fix everything. Neither is the case.

What concerns you and me for that matter is that we have to be careful that in our haste to prevent the bad things that happen to real people when capitalism does it's thing we remove from our system the very things that make our system work. We have to be careful that we allow businesses to fail, people to lose their jobs, people to extremely successful, people to fail at their attempts to be successful, etc. The system requires that risk and failure are equally matched to success. They generally don't happen at the same time. What I think we want as a society that cares about each other is a mechanism that prevents failure in our attempts to be successful from being a life and death situation. I think people generally want those social safety nets to exist to catch people that don't make it. We want systems that make the transitions caused by market forces more fluid. I, for one, think that things like having the unemployment agency not just handing out checks but also be set up to get people retrained and back into the work force. I don't think that the system will fail if we, through mechanisms privately or publicly run, prevent people that are affected by market forces to lose everything and have to start over from bottom. I would like to think that as strong as this country is we can set the bottom of the economic scale a bit above where the scale bottoms out at in third world countries without jeopardising the effectiveness of capitalism to improve our lives.

The trick is creating a balance. We see in Europe that many countries pushed too far trying to 'protect' people and it has become to expensive and removed for some incentives to succeed. Again, balance is everything. We also need to remember that exploiting the system is done at all levels. Exploitation is at the heart of capitalism ironically. That's the role a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is suppose to fill. We decide together the rules of the game and we all then play the same game. I don't think anyone would want to play Monopoly if it was rigged against you from the start. I think we all want a game that's fair and not a life or death endeavor.

Socialism would be the extreme result of the efforts of people to protect people from capitalism I just don't see it. Anymore than I think that the republicans want a theocracy.

That darn 'We the People' government will prevail sometimes it swings a little too far one way or the other but as long as people are paying attention there is hope.
Go to Top of Page

Buck
Forum Admin

USA
6602 Posts

Posted - 01/30/2012 :  7:40:31 PM  Show Profile  Visit Buck's Homepage
quote:
Socialism is a economic system where the government runs the companies.

Isn't that description of fascism and not socialism? I would suggest that Socialism is an economic system where the government runs the economy and not companies as you stated it. It may be a minor difference in the end but I think it is a difference that matters for this discussion.
quote:
Capitalism isn't perfect. It isn't perfect because people are involved in it. Without rules to define what can and can't be done it has the potential to be exploited just as badly as socialism.

Your right it isn't perfect. However I would put it up against any other model anytime. The problem with comparing the two is that Capitalism is a voluntary endeavor. By that the people who engage in it are free to do so. Also if you don't want to participate you can start a hippy commune and stay off the grid and no capitalist bureaucratic will come looking for you to make sure that you are buying your fare share. Socialism on the other hand is mandatory. If you don't participate a socialist bureaucrat will be around to make sure you pay your fare share and then some.
quote:
I just don't see that the country is headed towards socialism as an economic model. Those rich people are smart enough to know that capitalism does a far better job of making them money than any government run entity would be able to accomplish.

The "smart" rich will continue to move their money out of this Country and other countries will happily accept our dollars to go along with the jobs they have already got from us. It will be a lose win and those who don't won't have any choice in the matter.
quote:
Of course, just as some think that companies can make everything alright if we just let them do what they do some people think that government can always fix everything.

I don't think that either. I just think that companies will mostly do the right thing and as long as they aren't breaking any laws the government should leave them the hell alone. If they don't do the right thing they should be punished by the law and by consumers.
quote:
What concerns you and me for that matter is that we have to be careful that in our haste to prevent the bad things that happen to real people when capitalism does it's .............. I think we all want a game that's fair and not a life or death endeavor.

No substantive arguments there.
quote:
Socialism would be the extreme result of the efforts of people to protect people from capitalism I just don't see it. Anymore than I think that the republicans want a theocracy.

Socialism is about power, which is why you won't see much opposition from the establishment republicans as we head down this road. They know that he who holds the money has the power. The only thing they are worried about is that they get their portion of our money.
quote:
Anymore than I think that the republicans want a theocracy.

Don't kid yourself. There are way too many that would if the had the chance.


Liberty First. Everything else second.
Go to Top of Page

Shutesie
Active Poster

USA
157 Posts

Posted - 01/31/2012 :  2:39:47 PM  Show Profile
quote:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control




From the same dictionary as my socialism definition.

Interesting reading trying to define these terms. They often appear similar in nature with the lines very blurry. Fascism seems to have a larger nationalistic appearance being more of a political entity rather than a economic one. You will find some interesting reading if you choose to travel to the dark side.
Ownership of private property seems to vary depending on your source. Your comment rings true in many of the references I found. With business being owned collectively by the people and controlled by the state.

I would also not trade capitalism for anything else. It's all that and a bag of chips. I just think that there should be rules to how we play the game.

I think that the arguement could be made that at least initially socialism is voluntary too. It sounds really good on paper but the reality just isn't there. That is also the point where it becomes not voluntary. As the house comes crashing down you will need to force people to stay.

My biggest area of disagreement with you is on your belief that companies will do the right thing. The expansion of government and the regulations that 'stifle' business didn't magically appear. They are the direct result of business and industry not doing the right thing. FDA, EPA, OSHA the list goes on and on of government agencies created to regulate abusive and exploitive practices of businesses. Rat parts in meat, drugs that kill people, workers getting killed by unsafe working conditions etc, etc.i

If business always did the right thing we wouldn't need regulations. I read an article that said that according to the other oil companies the things that BP did were NOT best practices. These are other oil companies saying this not some government body. The spill in the Kazoo river, they knew the pipe had bad spots in it but did nothing. Companies are interested in one thing PROFITS and we the consumer and public are only considered in terms related to accomplishing that goal. Have you read any of the articles about Apple and the Chinese workers that build their products. It's slavery in the 21st century. You say to punish them if they do wrong, who says what's wrong and how many have to die. How many CEOs have gone to jail for killing their workers. How many BP CEOs were convicted of killing those 11 workers?

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Liberty 1st Forum © Liberty 1st Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000