User Tag List

First 3111213141523 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 268

  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I have a fear that Munchies, Speed Gavroche, and Elfboy represent the future of the USA.*



    *I know Speed is French. He still strikes me as much more resembling of the USA's course than France's
    I think all three of them do and I also think that whatever is big in the US the rest of the world will be expected to adopt also.

    The fate of the Eurozone in some ways represents whether or not there can be an alternative to anglo-saxon way of capitalism, I'm increasingly begining to believe the world is fated to it.

  2. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    His politics if put in to motion would send us back to the 1700s yet this is somehow all made well by the fact that he opposes the war and gives vague support to legalized weed. Ron Paul reminds me of Obama 08, while Obama was an empty suit wrapped in meaningless buzzwords like "Hope" and "Change" Ron Paul has a batshit insane political philosophy wrapped in meaningless buzzwords like "Freedom" and "Revolution". I couldnt ignore it in 08 and I cant ignore it now.
    +1

    Always thought this and its the way of the world that while the left talks tough and does nothing in practice, the right will talk tough, mean it and everyone will be expected to live with the consequences of whatever shit storm they succeed in unleashing upon the world.

  3. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dala View Post
    My problem with Paul's policies (not Paul himself) is that we look at economics in fundamentally different ways. Paul seems to believe in what is essentially an economic free-for-all. Need medicine or food or protection? The market will provide. He appears to be absolutely confident of this, to the point where he is okay with throwing out hundreds of years' worth of consumer and worker protections and social safety nets.

    The problem is that history shows repeatedly and emphatically that not the case. An unregulated food industry gives you tainted baby formula. Unregulated banking gives you the current recession. Unregulated working conditions give you sweatshops. Unregulated policing gives you countless abuses. The reality is that there are information and power imbalances throughout society, and people in an unregulated environment will naturally take advantage of these.
    Does the heart good to read that someone, even if its just one other person, has the common sense that's not so common anymore.

  4. #124
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think all three of them do and I also think that whatever is big in the US the rest of the world will be expected to adopt also.
    The fate of the Eurozone in some ways represents whether or not there can be an alternative to anglo-saxon way of capitalism, I'm increasingly begining to believe the world is fated to it.
    actually, I'm kinda the opposite of this. I can guarantee you my views are not very popular in the US
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  5. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    actually, I'm kinda the opposite of this. I can guarantee you my views are not very popular in the US
    I think you're minimising the popularity of libertarianism in the US and also the diverse and disparite range of groups its likely to appeal to, I dont simply mean ranging from the moderate to the militant either, its appeal operates on the traditionalist, non-traditionalist/anti-traditionalist, patriotic, anti-patriotic, ideological, apolitical, selfish capitalists, non-governmental/anti-state altruists like the post from critical hit suggested.

    This thing has been gestating for a long, long time too, as far back as the beginning of the cold war when both the british and americans were trying to figure out what they stood for besides being anti-communist. I remember reading an essay by an American pundit about how they, at that time, were averse to use the words "individualist" or "individualism" because those were synonomous with selfishness and selfishness was still taboo then.

    The essay itself demonstrated to me that cultural shift which had taken place from that time, selfishness and all things associated with it being considered inevitable or at least legitimate and even a positive good (Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" doesnt shock like it once did or was intended to), but that's not the point, the article talked about the need to create an acceptable label for the values and they elected to use the terms libertarian and libertarianism. Prior to that those terms had been associated with radical immigrants or another school of "commie" thought.

    That's a long time ago, those elements became the libertarian party and about a dozen other similar groups, they were all interested in sponsorship by rich patrons and playing the long game. I'm sure that if even half of what came to light about the intelligence community's agitation against people like Abbie Hoffman are true that they probably were involved in supporting their opposite numbers and I see things like the Oklahoma bombing as direct legacies of the cultural and political undercurrents fomented during the cold war. I actually think that Ron Paul could be an officially sanctioned means of trying to manage or channel those elements in a manner that diffuses some of the domestic threat from them, while keeping it alive at the same time.

    With things like the Tea Party, which gets a disproportionate amount of air time and positive news coverage and air time, are significant enough and I only see them growing. In forums like this in the ninties I'd have been arguing against anarchists and other militant left wing dreamers but presently the discussions seem to be between a more or less united libertarian capitalist tendency and everyone else.

  6. #126
    Secret Sex Freak Hazashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    How can anyone not like Ron Paul?
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Not everywhere, but somewhere. A lot of people don't 'like Ron Paul because he pretty much wants to remove the federal government from everything.

    I don't have that problem. I actually do agree with him on some things, but on the things I disagree with him (definitely most things) I know I disagree with him from the moment he starts talking.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by andante View Post
    Considering how he's pro capital punishment and pro laissez-faire market, the dude's all over the map. Apparently his hypocratic oath = hypocritical oath.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by andante View Post
    He does believe that the Federal government should stay out of the decision for same-sex marriages. But he also supports the right for States to refuse to recognise same-sex marriages or unions from other States. In other words, he believes States right should trump everything else, which would allow more conservative States to retain their bigotry.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think Ron Paul is on the extreme right wing of the political spectrum, his vision predates any sort of organised societal level relief of poverty and most other aspects of modern economies or states, its not centre ground.

    Unless you think the Amish are centre ground.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I'm with you, there. He is consistent in his answers and clearly follows an ideology. I just have no respect for that ideology or its applicability in the real world of actual human beings.

    He's kind of like that crazy uncle who you want to like... if only he lived in your universe.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw"]Evolution[/YOUTUBE]

    Ill just leave this here.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    One problem with that is that people will involuntarily lose some of their rights while they cross state boarders. Imagine going on a road trip and suddenly getting pulled over because of a state-specific law that's discriminatory in nature. Also, the idea that people would freely move or walk away from their homes, many of which could be inherited is ludicrous, don't you think? In my opinion, such ideas only lead to the increase of rifts between people, which only promotes discord and noncooperation. We need to work together, not struggle and tear ourselves apart.

    That being said, I like a lot of Ron Paul's views (accountability, non-interventionalism, no nation-building, etc.) but I'm more inclined to believe in more socialistic ideals.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    If it were only the government's power vs. the individual we would be living in a different world. It is governmental power vs. corporate power. Individuals are losing freedom and power at the hands of both. Giving the states more power actually makes it easier for corporations to take control because the same money, influence and power goes much further at that level than at the federal level. State control is not equivalent to individual freedom.

    The original plan for the U.S. was to balance the large power structures so that nothing could take complete control. At that time there was not consideration given to the mega-corporation. It is a new power structure not accounted for in the constitution and as a result is throwing off the equilibrium. U.S. politics are set up as a win-win for corporations. With the Republicans (or possibly Libertarians) they win by privatizing profits, and when the Democrats are in they win by socializing debt.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    If their home state does not recognize their marriage, they will receive no benefit from being married. Thus they will have to move to obtain the same rights as other people. I could care less if people flew to other states to get married, but when their rights aren't recognized, that's fucked up.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yussa Tampon View Post
    Advocacy for leaving more stuff to the states is advocacy for giving us a chance to let mistakes like Orval Faubus happen. I will not be one to support such a position, and thus Paul fails my litmus.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yussa Tampon View Post
    Aye, I doubt my distrust in states would be applicable to the entire nation - there are some states that have their business in order something fierce somewhere, right? But I'm not insisting on a giant federal oversight for those states, either. Against the feds, I've got loads of negligence, to criminal levels; but for fuck's sake, what the hell happened to states saying "hey, we got a problem" and the fed saying "alright, what do you think ought be done" and a conversation happening? I'll tell you what happened - it ain't never existed, and that's the core of the entire issue. There is no teamwork, and I for one insist on teamwork.

    The feds are negligent by not insisting on that same teamwork.

    The states are equally negligent for that, but the states also have a healthy track record of turning that negligence to more venomous ends.

    I'm not scared that Paul would come by to hunt my kind down, but that he'd be fine with letting states' governors do that. Anyone shooting the "get the fed out of people's business" rhetoric makes a man the anti-Eisenhower to me, for it was only in getting the fed in people's business that my kind ever got any degree of justice.

    Seriously, how can I be expected to trust state government with no oversight when it elects men like Rick fucking Perry to governorship?

    Being a minority in some 200 different ways isn't mentally easy in our country; people are extremely bigoted and very bad at seeing how they're bigoted and even worse at caring about it once they see it.

    Whatsmore, I will take this Faubus thing to my grave - he ruined "states' rights" for me as a legitimate position, argument, et al. I, as citizen of Texas, should be able to say to any other state's governing authorities in the Union that "hey, X is fucked up, and you ought be permanently removed from office for doing X."

    "States' rights" removes the few damn teeth one has in forcing other states to be decent.

    One may say, "who am I to insist that they are indecent?"

    I'm a rational human being who cares about people and isn't willing to extend blind benefits-of-the-doubt to positions I know are able to accommodate bigotry based on past evidence. To hell with anyone who is less willing to be vigilant about bigotry than I am, because their laziness is just the poison needed to turn this nation's more bigoted pockets into even bigger shitholes. I will drag the ill-minded among us into the future kicking and screaming: their bigotry deserves no respect, and their feelings deserve no protection. Their decency is to be protected, so I will not be petty to them: but I would force them to inhabit the same space as the people they hate, and I would make them be good to those people, under massive penalty. Bigotry is the greatest enemy to a truly proper society, and I will always seek to kill it.


    But back on topic, Paul's consistency and rationale on several things are outright admirable. But he fails one of the most important things one can fail in this sort of discussion: he would make it easier for another Faubus to come into play, and I will not accept that in my commander-in-chief.

    He is a good man, I truly think - but he has crucial, and unforgivable, flaws that I refuse to endorse with my vote.

    I for one thing think he is an excellent civil servant; his simplicity is attractive as hell, and there is a place for him at the table as a result. That place is just not the President's place, in my opinion. Keep him a representative, or make him a governor, or just take him out of the legislature and let him be part of presidential staff someday. But I won't tolerate what is ultimately a careless, far too trusting man to be the HNIC.
    All this (although, to the lesser extent about being unforgiving towards bigots).

    Quote Originally Posted by dala View Post
    My problem with Paul's policies (not Paul himself) is that we look at economics in fundamentally different ways. Paul seems to believe in what is essentially an economic free-for-all. Need medicine or food or protection? The market will provide. He appears to be absolutely confident of this, to the point where he is okay with throwing out hundreds of years' worth of consumer and worker protections and social safety nets.

    The problem is that history shows repeatedly and emphatically that not the case. An unregulated food industry gives you tainted baby formula. Unregulated banking gives you the current recession. Unregulated working conditions give you sweatshops. Unregulated policing gives you countless abuses. The reality is that there are information and power imbalances throughout society, and people in an unregulated environment will naturally take advantage of these.
    This!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Yeah, that seems to be the shit part.

    If those other things would only just come in an anti-capitalist format.
    Wait, are you socially conservative and economically left-wing? I've rarely come across that combination, if that's the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think there's a major difference between hypocrisy properly so called and the inevitable contradictory nature of thinking, feeling and just life in what is, necessarily so I would suggest, an imperfect condition.

    Consistency and being devoid of any contradictions is the condition of something which can not grow, develop or change, something which is inorganic and dead. I would suggest that human beings and their social systems are characterised by growth, or potential for growth, and while you can perhaps argue about development or progress versus entropy and decay, on either an individual or collective/social systemic level, suggesting the alternative, that things should be dead is just wrong headed.

    Its part of the reason, incidentially, why I think some of the constitutionalist tendencies or really atavistic paleo-conservatives are wrong, at least in so far as they believe that humankind should seek to conform perfectly to a particular era or template and remain that way.
    Interesting, I haven't thought of that before.

    Quote Originally Posted by ICUP View Post
    How could anyone with a heart bash Ron Paul anyways? Sure, I'll say I don't agree with his views but, he's of a different ilk than most politicians. I don't just decide that hey, all people who are religious, are pieces of shit, and let's be frightened of them. I'm generally a little more complex, tolerant, and less-prejudiced than that lol........of course, then again, I've never been much into politics. I'm starting to get more into it.
    It's not that I don't like him, it's that I don't agree with most of his policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    the Founding Fathers are all good examples too, unless this forum is plagued by loyalists
    No, not all the Founding Fathers were religious-crazies, or at least not die-hard Christians, per se. This country was founded on religious freedom, NOT Christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    It's not ludicrous. I've known lots of people who have traveled to other states to get gay-married. Some flew, some drove and one couple rode a bus for 64 hours(round trip) because it's all they could afford. They don't have to leave their homes permanently.
    Why does someone even have to leave their state to get married? That's fucked up.
    MBTI: INFP
    Enneagram: 6w7, phobic
    Tritype: 6-9-2
    Instinctual Variant: Sx/Sp
    Temperament: Pure Supine
    D&D Alignment: Neutral Good
    Political Stance: Solid Liberal
    Religious Views: Atheist

    Fi > Ne > Ti > Fe > Se > Si > Te > Ni

    "Forgiveness means letting go of the past." ~ Gerald Jampolsky
    "I am justice!" ~ Light Yagami, Death Note
    "The choices people make tell you a lot about a person, but the reasons [...] tell you even more." ~ Albus Dumbledore (paraphrased)

    Tatiana ♥

  7. #127
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazashin View Post
    Why does someone even have to leave their state to get married? That's fucked up.
    Yes, it is fucked up. Ask the judicial system why.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  8. #128
    Secret Sex Freak Hazashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    Yes, it is fucked up. Ask the judicial system why.
    Perhaps because they glamorize the Constitution? Yeah, I'd say that's why.
    MBTI: INFP
    Enneagram: 6w7, phobic
    Tritype: 6-9-2
    Instinctual Variant: Sx/Sp
    Temperament: Pure Supine
    D&D Alignment: Neutral Good
    Political Stance: Solid Liberal
    Religious Views: Atheist

    Fi > Ne > Ti > Fe > Se > Si > Te > Ni

    "Forgiveness means letting go of the past." ~ Gerald Jampolsky
    "I am justice!" ~ Light Yagami, Death Note
    "The choices people make tell you a lot about a person, but the reasons [...] tell you even more." ~ Albus Dumbledore (paraphrased)

    Tatiana ♥

  9. #129
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazashin View Post
    Perhaps because they glamorize the Constitution? Yeah, I'd say that's why.
    What do you mean by glamorize?
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  10. #130
    Secret Sex Freak Hazashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    What do you mean by glamorize?
    As in, they believe in it more than reason.
    MBTI: INFP
    Enneagram: 6w7, phobic
    Tritype: 6-9-2
    Instinctual Variant: Sx/Sp
    Temperament: Pure Supine
    D&D Alignment: Neutral Good
    Political Stance: Solid Liberal
    Religious Views: Atheist

    Fi > Ne > Ti > Fe > Se > Si > Te > Ni

    "Forgiveness means letting go of the past." ~ Gerald Jampolsky
    "I am justice!" ~ Light Yagami, Death Note
    "The choices people make tell you a lot about a person, but the reasons [...] tell you even more." ~ Albus Dumbledore (paraphrased)

    Tatiana ♥

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] NF, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 08-27-2017, 05:28 PM
  2. [SJ] SJ, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-04-2017, 06:25 PM
  3. [SP] SP, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 05-15-2017, 03:39 AM
  4. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul Shouldn't be President is completly stupid or ignorant...
    By Munchies in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 01-13-2012, 01:47 PM
  5. [NT] NT, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 05:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO