Do you honestly think that just because some bunch of clowns associates themselves with one candidate or another that said candidate supports their agendas or ideologies?
Are you dense? I wrote:
Regardless of his own views on race, Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of racist "White Nationalist" groups...because Ron Paul's anti-Federalist agenda would...gut society's ability to clamp down on [them]. Your reading comprehension skills need work.
Are you really scared of what could happen without the government there to protect you? Society as a whole has mechanisms to control radical elements. Everything balances itself out in the end.
I see you didn't bother reading the link on the Klan. State and local authorities were entirely ineffective in dealing with them, it took the Feds to bring them down.
I support Ron Paul because the CIA and other Federal entities do more to threaten my life than they do to protect it. They do more to endanger America than they do to lift it up.
The CIA is just one agency, I don't see their actions as a compelling argument to get rid of nearly the enitre Federal government. I see them as an argument to get rid of, or at least reign in, the CIA.
The "problem" with freedom is that you need to let people do what they will do. If you don't like white power rallies and propaganda, go ahead and counter them.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have freedom of speech, I'm saying they shouldn't have the freedom to act on their ideas.
If you get attacked for it, get those people thrown in jail. If the authorities won't take your side, get the authorities replaced or move somewhere else.
Your idea that the answer to racist violence and intimidation is to "just move somewhere else" is akin to saying "let them eat cake".
Regardless of his own views on race, Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of racist "White Nationalist" groups like Stormfront and the National Alliance. This is because Ron Paul's anti-Federalist agenda would go so far as to gut society's ability to clamp down on violent racist groups. Read the history of the Klan, and you'll understand why their idealogical descendants are so keen on the idea of decimating the Federal government as Paul advocates.
Lunix is one of the most powerful contraceptives evar....It is an operating system that was the result of really crappy reverse-engineering efforts to create a free version of UNIX. Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox are the perpetrators behind this travesty. Tons of people use it, especially hippies, and no one really likes it except the terminally uncool. Most of them use it in violation of SCO's intellectual property rights. To use Lunix legally, one must pay a $699 license fee to SCO for each processor that runs the Lunix kernel.
I don't think scaling down the Federal government necessarily means removing ALL such roles.
Exactly. We have to look at each issue in terms of practicality and ethics, and make a rational decision. Reducing the size of the Federal government is not a bad thing per say, but it's foolish to do it for its own sake.
This all came up in the context of Ron Paul, who advocates a government so limited that it is unable to play some of those necessary roles. Paul believes the government's only obligations are to run the military, defend the borders, back money with gold, and protect the explicitly defined Constitutional rights of its citizens. This concept of a government's responsibility to its people and human civilization is fundamentally different from my own, which is why I don't support him for the office of chief executive.
I am not speaking of the government's legal responsibility to enforce laws enacted by Congress, I am talking about our responsibilities to society. I am saying that some of those responsibilities are best fulfilled by a centralized Federal government. For example, things like NASA or the USGS.
Paul wants to reduce the federal government to what it was 100 years ago or so. This doesn't mean turning over powers and responsibilities to private interests, it means eliminating those powers and responsibilities
You don't "eliminate" responsibilities, you just become irresponsible by ignoring them.
I am not saying to put it into private corporate interest's hands
You're not saying it, but that's what would end up happening if Paul's idea of our Federal government were implemented.
So you are saying that if Ron Paul removes the department of homeland security or the department of agriculture or the department of education that corporations are going to assume the role of policing us and giving subsidies to farmers and interfering with our schools?
Not at all, I'm saying that wealthy interests would take advantage of deregulation to consolidate power for themselves. It would be the Robber Baron era all over again. I'm also saying that private capital and State governments would fail to pick up the slack in important areas like science and infrastructure.
That's not to say that deregulation is never a good thing, or that the Federal government hasn't become too expansive and powerful. State government should have more flexibility on some issues. The problem with Ron Paul's approach is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. It's foolish to look at any problem and reflexively say "the answer is deregulation and the market" without considering the practical implications of each case.
The more government becomes involved in regulation, the more it becomes a power broker which causes special interests to start influencing the whole show.
And without the government being involved, all that power goes directly to the special interests - they no longer have to influence the show, because they're running it.
Ron Paul wants to disassemble the parts of the Federal government that are illegal as defined in the Constitution.
That sounds all well and good (and I could agree that we have some departments and agencies that need to go), but his interpretation that everything besides the military/police is illegal is impractical and immoral. We have certain responsibilities to the society that we come from, and private industry won't fulfill some of them because they're not profitable.
I mean this is what happens when we trust the government to make our decisions for us. Police don't knock on the door anymore and announce themselves...they burst in guns blazing, and over what???
I agree that the militarization of the police is a big problem, but putting it in private hands would almost certainly make it worse.
he would not give back the money because it would be better served promoting the message of freedom than in the hands of a known racist.
Quick, go tell all those industry groups and lobbyists over in DC to stop donating to political campaigns. After all, candidates taking the money they offer is an insult, apparently.
If you don't want to support Ron Paul, that is fine, but don't use this as an excuse
My real problem with Ron Paul is his blind adherence to an idealized concept of the Free Market. He wants to completely disassemble the federal government and turn its powers and responsibilities over to private interests.
What his political philosophy doesn't address is that not everything that is good for society is profitable, and not everything that is profitable is good for society.
I first became aware of this during the physical act of love. A profound sense of fatigue and emptiness followed. Luckily, I was able to interpret these feelings correctly - loss of essence.
the Big Bang (the version that leaves out a Creator)
Huh?
What became the "Big Bang" theory was initially proposed by a Catholic priest, and the church embraced it as consistent with their doctrines. Lemaitre himself always said that his theory had no implications at all regarding the existence of God.
No, no, this is completely different from any of those things. Now you'll be using Apple products and services, so it will all be inherently much better in a magical way that can't be described using pathetic human words.
Don't worry, the Ron Paul internet zombies have all kinds of talking point rebuttals to that. Some crap about how taking their money is the ultimate insult - maybe someone should tell that to all those industry groups and lobbyists in DC.
I wonder how well it would go over if he took money from radical Islamic fundamentalists.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he's the five-assed monkey.
Are you dense? I wrote: Regardless of his own views on race, Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of racist "White Nationalist" groups
Are you really scared of what could happen without the government there to protect you? Society as a whole has mechanisms to control radical elements. Everything balances itself out in the end.
I see you didn't bother reading the link on the Klan. State and local authorities were entirely ineffective in dealing with them, it took the Feds to bring them down.
I support Ron Paul because the CIA and other Federal entities do more to threaten my life than they do to protect it. They do more to endanger America than they do to lift it up.
The CIA is just one agency, I don't see their actions as a compelling argument to get rid of nearly the enitre Federal government. I see them as an argument to get rid of, or at least reign in, the CIA.
The "problem" with freedom is that you need to let people do what they will do. If you don't like white power rallies and propaganda, go ahead and counter them.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have freedom of speech, I'm saying they shouldn't have the freedom to act on their ideas.
If you get attacked for it, get those people thrown in jail. If the authorities won't take your side, get the authorities replaced or move somewhere else.
Your idea that the answer to racist violence and intimidation is to "just move somewhere else" is akin to saying "let them eat cake".
people usually don't get buried for three days after dying.
Under Jewish custom people are buried as quickly as possible, ideally the same day.
I'm non-observant, but this practice has always struck me as a lot more sane than pumping the dead full of preservatives and putting them on display.
The charges [of racism] are baseless bullshit.
Let's talk about the underlying issue then.
Regardless of his own views on race, Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of racist "White Nationalist" groups like Stormfront and the National Alliance. This is because Ron Paul's anti-Federalist agenda would go so far as to gut society's ability to clamp down on violent racist groups. Read the history of the Klan, and you'll understand why their idealogical descendants are so keen on the idea of decimating the Federal government as Paul advocates.
Lunix is one of the most powerful contraceptives evar ....It is an operating system that was the result of really crappy reverse-engineering efforts to create a free version of UNIX. Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox are the perpetrators behind this travesty. Tons of people use it, especially hippies, and no one really likes it except the terminally uncool. Most of them use it in violation of SCO's intellectual property rights. To use Lunix legally, one must pay a $699 license fee to SCO for each processor that runs the Lunix kernel.
I don't think scaling down the Federal government necessarily means removing ALL such roles.
Exactly. We have to look at each issue in terms of practicality and ethics, and make a rational decision. Reducing the size of the Federal government is not a bad thing per say, but it's foolish to do it for its own sake.
This all came up in the context of Ron Paul, who advocates a government so limited that it is unable to play some of those necessary roles. Paul believes the government's only obligations are to run the military, defend the borders, back money with gold, and protect the explicitly defined Constitutional rights of its citizens. This concept of a government's responsibility to its people and human civilization is fundamentally different from my own, which is why I don't support him for the office of chief executive.
I am not speaking of the government's legal responsibility to enforce laws enacted by Congress, I am talking about our responsibilities to society. I am saying that some of those responsibilities are best fulfilled by a centralized Federal government. For example, things like NASA or the USGS.
Paul wants to reduce the federal government to what it was 100 years ago or so. This doesn't mean turning over powers and responsibilities to private interests, it means eliminating those powers and responsibilities
You don't "eliminate" responsibilities, you just become irresponsible by ignoring them.
I am not saying to put it into private corporate interest's hands
You're not saying it, but that's what would end up happening if Paul's idea of our Federal government were implemented.
So you are saying that if Ron Paul removes the department of homeland security or the department of agriculture or the department of education that corporations are going to assume the role of policing us and giving subsidies to farmers and interfering with our schools?
Not at all, I'm saying that wealthy interests would take advantage of deregulation to consolidate power for themselves. It would be the Robber Baron era all over again. I'm also saying that private capital and State governments would fail to pick up the slack in important areas like science and infrastructure.
That's not to say that deregulation is never a good thing, or that the Federal government hasn't become too expansive and powerful. State government should have more flexibility on some issues. The problem with Ron Paul's approach is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. It's foolish to look at any problem and reflexively say "the answer is deregulation and the market" without considering the practical implications of each case.
The more government becomes involved in regulation, the more it becomes a power broker which causes special interests to start influencing the whole show.
And without the government being involved, all that power goes directly to the special interests - they no longer have to influence the show, because they're running it.
Ron Paul wants to disassemble the parts of the Federal government that are illegal as defined in the Constitution.
That sounds all well and good (and I could agree that we have some departments and agencies that need to go), but his interpretation that everything besides the military/police is illegal is impractical and immoral. We have certain responsibilities to the society that we come from, and private industry won't fulfill some of them because they're not profitable.
I mean this is what happens when we trust the government to make our decisions for us. Police don't knock on the door anymore and announce themselves...they burst in guns blazing, and over what???
I agree that the militarization of the police is a big problem, but putting it in private hands would almost certainly make it worse.
he would not give back the money because it would be better served promoting the message of freedom than in the hands of a known racist.
Quick, go tell all those industry groups and lobbyists over in DC to stop donating to political campaigns. After all, candidates taking the money they offer is an insult, apparently.
If you don't want to support Ron Paul, that is fine, but don't use this as an excuse
My real problem with Ron Paul is his blind adherence to an idealized concept of the Free Market. He wants to completely disassemble the federal government and turn its powers and responsibilities over to private interests.
What his political philosophy doesn't address is that not everything that is good for society is profitable, and not everything that is profitable is good for society.
Just listen to what Ron Paul's own supporters have to say about him.
Oh, and did I mention he took money from those people?
It's a commie plot to make us all autistic
I first became aware of this during the physical act of love. A profound sense of fatigue and emptiness followed. Luckily, I was able to interpret these feelings correctly - loss of essence.
I can assure you that it has not recurred.
the Big Bang (the version that leaves out a Creator)
Huh?
What became the "Big Bang" theory was initially proposed by a Catholic priest, and the church embraced it as consistent with their doctrines. Lemaitre himself always said that his theory had no implications at all regarding the existence of God.
Cocaine isn't poison. Other than the addictive properties, it's a very benign drug.
Really? I find that it annoys the hell out of me when people blow a bunch of coke and won't shut their damn mouths.
You must be new here.
to me, it's like walking into a very feminine beauty parlor, or a lingerie department as a man. It's very alien and uncomfortable
That's not a bug, it's a feature. They know their target demographic.
No, no, this is completely different from any of those things. Now you'll be using Apple products and services, so it will all be inherently much better in a magical way that can't be described using pathetic human words.
Don't worry, the Ron Paul internet zombies have all kinds of talking point rebuttals to that. Some crap about how taking their money is the ultimate insult - maybe someone should tell that to all those industry groups and lobbyists in DC.
I wonder how well it would go over if he took money from radical Islamic fundamentalists.
The problem is the health insurance industry. By the time we get rid of the incumbents, they've already bought off a new batch of politicians.
Ever been to the UK? They don't exactly eat healthy there either.
And people expect them to make Federalized Healthcare work. I guess its all about what agendas you push.
National Healthcare does work. Ever wonder why the US has a lower life expectancy than the UK, France, or even Cuba?
Agreed. How is Rock Band a geek gift?
A real geek gift would be a DIY electric guitar kit, not some lame Guitar Hero crap.
Again, I think you're giving them too much credit.
To you an I, seeing four octets as an IP is obvious. To some low-level government employee, it's just a bunch of meaningless numbers.