Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Balbus loves political debate... No more, no less, I believe.

 

Wow! I believe I've just met Balbus II . . .

Tell me more about Balbus.

 

Balb:

It's a matter of responsibility. The Left view appears to feel that it is governments function to redistribute responsibility among all the governed in order to create a semblance of equality wherever it does not exist. The Right view, in my opinion, is that each member of society is responsible for the results of their own decisions, and that they themselves, without government insistence, force or mandate, are free to exercise by free choice to aid and assist others where they see necessary.

Note that I said that "I might be seen as a little Left of center when it comes to my immediate family, friends or neighbors.", meaning only that those are persons who I have most direct knowledge of, or have 'by choice' made myself responsible for giving aid or assistance when I see a need. In such instances, I am capable of making decisions case by case as to what aid or assistance, if any, I should provide.

 

Storch

I’m sorry but frankly I find your arguments unconvincing they have too much of the maniacal laughter of the conspiracy theorist about them.

And you need to learn in life that not everyone might share your obsession, I don’t yours, to me what you say seems contradicted by other information, but the subject isn’t that interesting to me (and isn’t to others if the traffic on the thread I gave you is anything to go by, it seems mainly to be just you, posting one rant after another).

I’m more interested in what the best solutions would be and so far it seems you have given that little or no thought preferring to spend your time and energy hectoring people about supposed crimes.

I can only hope that one day you can move on.

 

Indie

My goal is to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential
This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable to me because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place where you would happily let people who have fallen into hardship through no fault of their own suffer or even die from want

But again we come to the problem that no one can decide to whom they will be born. So it cannot be their own decision, their own choice.
And the thing is that the greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and this long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

Again that seems to indicate that you see kindness, tolerance and understanding as a left wing trait. That helping others is to you left wing.

If you think that incorrect then please explain your thinking what ideas, actions and policies that you see as being ‘left wing’ do you practice toward your family and friends?

 

Storch

You seem to be acting like a troll in that response to another poster - and yes that is a warning.

 

Balb:

Why don't you start with your own neighborhood, and provide an example for others to follow.

You must view sports competitions as very unfair as they result in one team winning while another loses. It's natural that some individuals will succeed far greater than others, and I don't think people will die as a result, but more likely that the less successful will get even more than their fair share as a result. In less than 50 years about $15 trillion has been spent on social programs in the U.S. alone.

I don't see you spending any effort in trying to get people to take responsibility for bringing a child into the world, other than using that child as a means to shift responsibility to others who had no part in making that decision.

Again, you are ignoring what I did say, "Tolerance, understanding, and kindness are not qualities that I would call Left or Right wing, but simply human qualities regardless of political leanings." When I said "I might be seen as a little Left of center", it was not because I feel those traits to be Left of center, but recognize that many of those on the Left, such as yourself, attempt to use such traits as an emotional tool in expanding government powers in the name of creating more "fair" and "just" societies. In the real world there are times one should/must be intolerant, and even unkind, because one is understanding of the facts. There are consequences to life, and living, and the reduction of undesirable consequences are best attacked by the individuals who make up each society, not government. Emotions should play no part at all in creating the laws we all must live under, however they do play a large part in how we interact individually with each other.

 

Red: Flaming faggot commie scum
Blue: Straight up faggot
Green: Young idealist who while has a good heart, doesn't know shit about economics or how the world works. Will eventually drift to purple
Purple: A sensible person

Far Right: HURR SOCIAL CONSERVATISM PLEASE SUCK MY COCK

Far left: IM A LIBRULL DURRR

What does thread think of this?

 

Ehh.... close enough.

Indie, the main (and entirely destroying) flaw with your agruments is that they ALL insist on making things more fair by not taking from rich who TOTALLY worked for it.

The simple fact is that people do NOT get what they worked for. Many filthy fucking rich brats did NOTHING to deserve that yet still no choice they make could deprive them of it, and many poor people did NOTHING to deserve that and no choice they make could save them from that.

The idea that what happens to people is the result of their actions is actually very socialist, it involves NOT standing by and doing nothing, but fixing disparities so that people may make choices to better themselves. That would mean heavy education and rebuilding of slums, and that sort of thing. And the ones who need to be taxed to pay for that are those who did NOTHING to earn as much money an they magically make, which according to you is fair, because them having that money is often NOT the direct result of their choices (and when it is, it's generally because those choices limited the choices of others)

 

Indie

Could you please clarify what you where saying about - tolerance, understanding, and kindness – being left wing characteristics you seemed to be saying they are and they are not. Maybe it would be better if you explain your thinking - what ideas, actions and policies that you see as being ‘left wing’ do you practice toward your family and friends, but that you would not like being extended to the community?

 

Indie

I believe in fair competition you seem to favour rigged competitions

Remember we have been through this before and your views seem as irrational now as they did back in 2010 Post 243, Effort or Luck thread
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=400136&page=25

Why do you continue to hold onto ideas you seem unable to defend from criticism?

*

To explain again - In your system it is like having a race between two runners of equal potential but one has to carry a 100lb sack of potatoes while the other is unencumbered or that one runner is given a 50 meter head start in a 100 meter race.

You then stand at the winning line and praise and reward the winning advantaged runner while lambasting the other disadvantaged runner as not putting in enough effort.

It’s an unfair race that’s rigged in favour of the advantaged.

Now I would like to make the competition fairer by removing the disadvantages while you seem to want to make the race even more unfair by increasing the advantages of a few to the detriment of everyone else.

But in a rigged competition the advantaged are more likely to succeed than the disadvantaged.

 

Balb:

Again, you are ignoring what I did say, "Tolerance, understanding, and kindness are not qualities that I would call Left or Right wing, but simply human qualities regardless of political leanings." When I said "I might be seen as a little Left of center", it was not because I feel those traits to be Left of center, but recognize that many of those on the Left, such as yourself, attempt to use such traits as an emotional tool in expanding government powers in the name of creating more "fair" and "just" societies.

 

Balb:

So in your system, it is like having a race between two runners, one crippled and the other very healthy and athletic, and then breaking the legs of the more capable competitor to make the race more equal.

You have to recognize that humans, just like all life forms, are not all equal to one another, and in spite of the fact that some are greatly more successful than others, most everyone benefits to a much greater degree than they would have otherwise.

It's always a rich vs poor argument, which in my opinion should be seen as the rich present the poor with opportunities which would not exist if everyone was equally poor.

 

indie

This seems very telling of your thinking

One strange thing is that it would seem to imply you think ‘cripples’ cannot be healthy or athletic, I recently ran the London Marathon and many competitors in that race had disabilities and all were healthy and athletic they just happened to be disabled.

Can you explain what you mean by ‘crippled’?

You also seem to be implying that to you being born into social disadvantage is the exact same as being born with a mental or physical disadvantage and that an equal race between the disadvantaged and advantaged is impossible because the advantaged are physically and mentally superior. So in your mind the only way to ‘level the field’ is to ‘cripple’ the superior advantaged because it would be impossible to help the disadvantaged. It seems a very Social Darwinist viewpoint.

Again you seem to be suggesting that you think that those born into advantage are ‘naturally’ superior to those born into disadvantage?

But as pointed out the greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and this long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.
The advantage isn’t natural it is a social accident something no one can choose.

To repeat from just a few posts ago - you know we’ve been through this many times – you like to claim that your opponents are malicious utopians that want to force everyone to be equally poor.

It’s another of you con games.

As I told you many times, I don’t think total equality is possible, but I do think societies should be run in the best interests of everyone rather than just a few. I’ve also argued that their needs to be balance between the interests of wealth and the interests of everyone else.

I’d like to bring about societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity to all the habitants of fulfilling their potential and having a healthy and worthwhile life.

This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a worse society.
And that is why I can’t understand your thinking or that of other right wing libertarians and neoliberals, because they and you do seem to want to live in a worse society.

 

He'd also have to announce an end to mandated drug testing: one massive boondoggle that goes unmentioned.

 

Balb:

You argue nonsensically, the dictionary definition of crippled should suffice.

I don't dwell perpetually on what I might present as my disadvantages, socially, economically, or any other form. You seem to go out of your way to find some way to place blame on those who achieve the most success in life as the major cause or primary contributing factor making others less successful, which I don't buy into.

First of all, unlike you, I don't look at being born into wealth as providing an insurmountable advantage. I have a great many friends who have achieved enormous success, despite being born into very poor families.

And 'your' con game has been played out numerous times before, resulting in little more than oppression being shared more equally by the governed. What you really should do is create or join a commune with like minded persons, and perhaps after experiencing a greatly reduced lifestyle you might begin to reconsider what you refer to as rational and reasonable thinking.

Generally, societies are most fair when they are run by those who are immediate members of them.

 

Any hippie that wants to be left the fuck alone and be able to smoke weed legally, should vote for Ron Paul. It's common sense like wtf lol it's not even worth an argument with those who are anti dr. Paul, but you got to get through to these thick headed brainwashed robots

 

I would vote for Ron Paul, yes.:2thumbsup:

 

It's more like the able athlete, who just ran the cripple over in the parkinglot with their mazerati, not wanting to give the cripple crutches from HIS own personal stash that HE worked so hard to steal from the cripples grandmother.

Oh thank you mr billionare, for considering looking at the possibility of throwing me a bone after fucking me over so violently....

 

I donated lots of money to Paul in the last election; however I would now not vote for him only because I no longer wish to submit/apply/serve/be subject to THE UNITED STATES corporation.

Sovereignty is the path for me.

Blessings.