Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

Wow I have supporters LOL – so where is this post, I must have missed it, as far as I know it was you that said –

Post 1213 of this thread.

Are you saying you got the ‘cripple’ idea from someone else?

Yes that is your opinion but that’s the problem you seem unable to back it up with any rational and reasonable argument other than your personal belief, while seemingly been unable to defend that opinion from criticism.

I mean you accept it is unfair but you then support ideas that would most likely make things a lot more unfair for the majority of people while making a few a lot more powerful.

Again the problem is that you seem unable to defend your ‘acceptable’ ideas from the many criticisms levelled at them.

Did the child choose to be born into disadvantage? Yes you can blame the parents, but is the child responsible for the parent’s decisions?

We been through that – the reason that people fought for welfare provision was because charities were not enough. Also charitable welfare suffered from the same deserving undeserving problem you still seem unable to address.

 

Indie

This seems a bit garbled – by George III’s time the British King was not an absolute monarch, parliament was in control by then and had got the right to depose of monarchs it didn’t want or choose those it did. The monarch only ruled with the permission of parliament. Remember that George I the first of the Hanoverian line had been a German who spoke no English and was chosen over others with much better claims to the throne.

Anyway as I’ve said above throughout history the advantaged (kings, nobles, wealth) have claimed some reason for their position, from it being down to divine will or better ‘breeding’ and that the Social Darwinism you seem to support is just another example of the advantaged justifying their position with some mumbo jumbo.

LOL the problem is that you don’t seem to like democracy and have even proposed that wealth should have the power to veto or block the vote of the majority.

 

Indie

Governments become necessary as a form of protection from both outsiders and members of the community….

Been here before - “As pointed out before protection is a vague term that is open to interpretation.Protection from harm, protection from exploitation, protection from hardship, protection in sickness (all can be argued to involve aspects of extortion and aggression).

I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them protection from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of protection.

The society is benefiting one over the other and if the ones getting the greater benefit are few compared to the others then that society is benefiting the few and not the many?”
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=20

 

Indie

LOL sorry I didn’t invent the term Social Darwinism and it is the term that was attached the ideas of people like Hebert Spencer who thought falsely that Darwin’s theories could be applied to unnatural man made social systems.

We have discussed this before (a few times) do you remember? I think originally here http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=413208&page=33

OK I’ll reprint the bit from Hebert

Herbert Spencer
And you have expressed your support for Hebert’s ideas in the past, and that is why for instance I think many of your ideas seem Social Darwinist in nature.

 

While the King was not an absolute monarch at the time, he is referred to directly, along with the legislative bodies, in creating the circumstances which led to the colonists declaring their independence.

Democracy has a purpose, but as it is used in a Constitutional Republic, it is only used to determine who the people allow to represent them in accordance with the Constitution, not giving them power to modify the Constitution to fit their own agenda or that of those who fund their campaigns. The U.S. is not intended to be ruled by a majority or a minority.

 

There is no one answer acceptable to each society, and the answers to questions you like to ask are best answered by members of each society as how to solve them in ways acceptable to all, leaving those who will not accept the solution the option to move elsewhere, next town, city, State, etc.

 

Okay, then you're referring to Social Spencerism?


What I support is providing assistance in a form that is most fitting to the circumstances with intent to reduce the need to being only temporary. Of course there are a very small number who may require permanent care, and they are a special case. A person who has lost their job is best helped by helping them to quickly find another job, not by lengthening the time they can continue to collect unemployment benefits. Aid should provide only the barest necessities of life, motivating those who receive it to get off it as quickly as possible.

 

Indie
WOW what a badly garbled post you produced – I hope I’ve got it in the right order?

*

Wow I have supporters LOL – so where is this post, I must have missed it, as far as I know it was you that said –Post 1213 of this thread. Are you saying you got the ‘cripple’ idea from someone else?

You said a supporter that’s all - can you actually produce this post that mentioned leg breaking, if not why not?

*

Yes that is your opinion but that’s the problem you seem unable to back it up with any rational and reasonable argument other than your personal belief, while seemingly been unable to defend that opinion from criticism.

Yes to what are you admitting you can’t back up your arguments in any rational or reasonable and if so why hold on to them?

*

I mean you accept it is unfair but you then support ideas that would most likely make things a lot more unfair for the majority of people while making a few a lot more powerful.

I’ve never said someone shouldn’t be paid a good wage for a good job. I’m just pointing out that being born into disadvantage gives people a disadvantage.

*

Again the problem is that you seem unable to defend your ‘acceptable’ ideas from the many criticisms levelled at them.

But is the knowledge accurate or just ‘accurate’ in your opinion? The former could probably be backed up rationally the latter probably not, and since you seem unable to defend your opinions….

*

Did the child choose to be born into disadvantage? Yes you can blame the parents, but is the child responsible for the parent’s decisions?

Is the child responsible for being born into disadvantage and for her parent’s decisions?
I mean slavery was legal once did that make it fair and just?

*

We been through that – the reason that people fought for welfare provision was because charities were not enough. Also charitable welfare suffered from the same deserving undeserving problem you still seem unable to address.

No

*

The same Ronald Reagan who spent billions of tax payer’s money on military Keynesianism and oversaw the ballooning of public debt?

LOL I think you need to do a bit of research on economics. As we’ve gone through before the neoliberal ideas that came to prominence during the Reagan years is the reason for many of the problems now being encountered.

*

Can you be specific? Most every country, is it most or every?

LOL, so you can’t actually be specific?

*

So why do you seem to want to give so much power and influence to a few? Why would you suggest that wealth should have the ability to veto the votes of the many? Both those things would probably shift de facto control to a wealthy minority.

LOL – quackery by any other name…

Why do you seem to support such quackery?

 

1. Is it? I think everything is in correct order.

2. I could go back and look, but then so can you.

3. I don't accept that 'it' is unfair, and life is more than fair for most people.

4. Is it the child's fault that he is born into advantage? Or are you blaming their parents for being responsible persons?

5. Do you ever tire of promoting Socialist nonsense and get out into the real world?

Lastly, Wealth now has the ability to veto the many, and that is why many would like to reduce the power of the Federal government to within the confines of the Constitution, taking away the ability of the Federal government to govern without need of consent of the people.

The issue presently is jobs for the unemployed, debt reduction, and confining government spending within the means provided by the taxes collected without increasing taxes or rates. Nothing else. And that is why there are those of us who support Ron Paul, who is not controlled by lobbyists or the wealthy, and would reduce not increase the power now exerted over government by the few, returning it into the hands of the people. If you prefer a Socialist form of government, work on your own or move to a more Socialist governed country. You are free to make that choice, without need of imposing it on everyone else.

And this post is NOT garbled, but I don't feel it necessary to respond to such nonsense as you continually put forth in a neat and orderly fashion. There will always be those who are poor and those who are rich, most people in the developed world countries can change their situation if they really want to.

 

Everybody who was in this thread got scared and ran off.

 

I've noticed the Indie trait too...

I've also wondered if he does this knowingly or unknowingly. Either way, you have a lot of patience Balbus.

 

Ron Paul wouldn't stand a chance even if he was going to preserve the environment.

 

1-that shit is unreadable

2-he looked when you posted it, and so did I-I suspect that you are calling me one of his supporters (ha.... just ask him about THAT), because I did quote you and describe the problems with your retarded "government breaks the rich guys legs" analogy.

3-it's amazing that you can read the computer screen, with how far up your anus your head seems to be jammed.

4-of course the child is not to blame, but to say that the child's parents are "responsible" is utter bullshit, responsibility does not mean stepping on anyone you see fit-and I see no problem with taking from children with SO much privilage that they will never notice a change in quality of life, to give a fair start to the children of those that their own parents scammed into poverty in order to achieve that privilage.

5-he seems to be trying to spread ideas that will help the real world-how is giving everyone an equal slice "nonsense"?

Removing the ability of the government to prevent that veto by wealth, simply because they don't use it much at the moment, will result not in less disparity but more.

 

Nah.... Still reading along. Quite entertaining actually.

 

I'm not voting this election

 

Already stated my opinion 3 times, just lurking now:lurk5:

 

You seem to be ignoring the unequal representation and hence power that results by collectivizing those entities into the form of the 'corporate person.' How is the collective corporate person in any way equal to the orphaned child or the ordinary citizen?

 

Outthere, think about what the gentlemen is actually saying; Capitalism in its entirety, isn't bad for America. Honestly, the far left is too extreme for me aswell. A lot of wealthy people earned there wealth and deserve to be investors/businessmen. The biggest and most corrupt industries have ties to our government, thusly passing laws THEY see to be fit. That is the problem in capitalism, that and, insider trading which allows the rich to get richer and the poor to take less. And (like many of the leftist believe,) "steal from the rich and give to the poor" right? building a welfare state economy, is not quite taking from the rich, but the middle class, redistributing wealth of the working-class down to those who can't work or go to college, because they will lose their foodstamps. It doesn't make any sense.

 

All I can say to that is "It it would be impossible considering how many on the Left, such as yourself seem to be fighting to occupy the location."