Nov 15 - Ron Paul's Last Speech to Congress: 30+ Strangely Ordered Questions

most viewed right now
 206
Image(s) inside To GILF or Not to GILF
32 comments
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 143
Video inside Jamie Foxx's Hairline Strikes Again...
43 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 109
Video inside Cop Followed Him Into His Drive Way For A Broken Brake Light...
28 comments
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 91
NBA GS fans, how worried are you?
65 comments
@sports

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 6 years ago '10        #41
SoFresh170 28 heat pts28
space
avatar space
space
$13,042 | Props total: 2996 2996
no doubt in my mind the government is cutting him a huge paycheck for him to go away for good
 11-16-2012, 12:23 PM         #42
TUNES707 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
why didnt any of you vote for him if you love him so much.................
 11-16-2012, 12:35 PM         #43
Got Cheeve? 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 BlackRepub85 said:
I did, but this country is basically a two party system. If you're not in one of them it's almost not worth it. The only 3rd party I think that even made a dent was ross perot.
And that was only because Perot was fu*king LOADED.

Money is what makes it a two party system. Everyone puts their eggs in two baskets. That's what's stopping a third party from being taken serious. Sadly.
 6 years ago '07        #44
CadillacVyse 1013 heat pts1013
space
avatar space
space
$28,682 | Props total: 20813 20813
 Got Cheeve? said:
And that was only because Perot was fu*king LOADED.

Money is what makes it a two party system. Everyone puts their eggs in two baskets. That's what's stopping a third party from being taken serious. Sadly.
I disagree. I think there are a few factors that contribute to why Americans stick with two parties.

Take Cenk Ugyr from the young turks. He is far from an obamabot. But he voted for Obama
His dilemma is what many face. He liked other progressives more than Obama. But having Romney in office would be more detrimental to the progressive movement than Obama. So you take the short term slight choice than someone who more aligns with you.

That brings me to my next point...poor consumerism. Americans are too short sighted and don't want to sacrifice. We rather take OK and tolerate it...if progressives voted for Stein and libertarians for Johnson...you may no win this immediate election but you would start to force candidates to accommodate to your views for votes.

I've said it b4, I'll say it now, and continue to say it til proven wrong. Modern Americans are pussies. We want to be given everything. Our gen will never demand something massive like the civil rights movement!
 6 years ago '07        #45
RubbahBandMayn 6 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$13,315 | Props total: 6448 6448
 CadillacVyse said:
I disagree. I think there are a few factors that contribute to why Americans stick with two parties.

Take Cenk Ugyr from the young turks. He is far from an obamabot. But he voted for Obama
His dilemma is what many face. He liked other progressives more than Obama. But having Romney in office would be more detrimental to the progressive movement than Obama. So you take the short term slight choice than someone who more aligns with you.

That brings me to my next point...poor consumerism. Americans are too short sighted and don't want to sacrifice. We rather take OK and tolerate it...if progressives voted for Stein and libertarians for Johnson...you may no win this immediate election but you would start to force candidates to accommodate to your views for votes.

I've said it b4, I'll say it now, and continue to say it til proven wrong. Modern Americans are pussies. We want to be given everything. Our gen will never demand something massive like the civil rights movement!
 11-16-2012, 01:52 PM         #46
Got Cheeve? 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 CadillacVyse said:
I disagree. I think there are a few factors that contribute to why Americans stick with two parties.

Take Cenk Ugyr from the young turks. He is far from an obamabot. But he voted for Obama
His dilemma is what many face. He liked other progressives more than Obama. But having Romney in office would be more detrimental to the progressive movement than Obama. So you take the short term slight choice than someone who more aligns with you.

That brings me to my next point...poor consumerism. Americans are too short sighted and don't want to sacrifice. We rather take OK and tolerate it...if progressives voted for Stein and libertarians for Johnson...you may no win this immediate election but you would start to force candidates to accommodate to your views for votes.

I've said it b4, I'll say it now, and continue to say it til proven wrong. Modern Americans are pussies. We want to be given everything. Our gen will never demand something massive like the civil rights movement!
Just to be clear your disagreeing that money plays the biggest part in people not taking third parties serious and saying it's because Americans are too pus*y to vote for the guys they really like, like Stein and Johnson?

If so, I agree with your view, but would say it's both. The money not being behind guys like Stein and Johnson is why Americans don't take them seriously as realistic candidates. I voted for Johnson in this election. Yet everyone who asked me if I voted for Romney or Obama and I said Johnson told me I wasted my vote and hurt Romney. Which is the problem, people think voting for them is basically like not voting, or voting against someone. People don't take them serious because they don't see these guys. They're not on TV, they're not in debates, we're fickle like that. How do they get on TV and in debates? Money. All the the money is thrown at two parties and no one else can compete.

It's the whole chicken and egg dynamic. People COULD just vote for guys like Stein and Johnson. But we aren't, even though some like myself are (not to bang my drum, I'm no better than anyone.) So how do we motivate people to make that leap? Money. If these guys had anywhere close to the campaign budgets people would listen to their policies with more respect, and we'd actually have a f!ght on our hands. Which is another insane thing about this system, we got debt issues and all kinds of monetary problems yet we're blowing billions on fu*king campaigns? One of which (the loser) will be flushed down the toilet anyway and in this election's case — the more expensive one.



I agree with what your post though, like I said, I just think both play a role.
 6 years ago '05        #47
autoraptronix 12 heat pts12
space
avatar space
space
$4,627 | Props total: 393 393
 Billdotel said:
the same voter suppression that you and all the other liberal blowhards were ranting about just 2 weeks ago?

I said the Civil Rights Act (that racist-newsletter-writting-Ron-Paul is against) PREVENTED the voter suppression that would've stopped minorities from voting. "Liberals ranting" and court f!ghts also made a difference.

The Justice Department used it to block voter suppression laws in a few states and no doubt without it there to deter republicans these laws would have probably been effect before Obama began his political career.

 Billdotel said:
Interesting you didn't mention his drug policy that would save many minorities from going to jail or how he would pardon all non-violent offenders (which would roughly be 40% of minorities in prison).

He doesn't have any positions. He has pick up lines he throws out to see what sticks and to who. Occupy is hot? Then he's pro-occupy today. The crowd wants to let uninsured people die outside the emergency room?? Then its they made that choice and they have to live (or die) with it. The people are tired of prohibition? Lets not just make it legal but let every non violent offender out (some of the worst criminals are non-violent. see wallstreet & D.C.). After all, this is the same guy who made his money off soliciting white supremacist groups for donations..for racist literature he published in his own name.


I don't really have respect for people that say whatever is hot at the moment, just to play into a character they're playing for their audience. Ron Paul was smart tho. Hit enough fringe causes and you'll tap into enough orphaned activists to support you financially and worship you like a rockstar for giving them a voice. It was his shtick, and now he gets to retire. Good riddance.


Last edited by autoraptronix; 11-16-2012 at 02:31 PM..
 6 years ago '11        #48
keen77 3 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$2,252 | Props total: 1 1
 6 years ago '07        #49
kyhoopsgoat 420 heat pts420
space
avatar space
space
$18,945 | Props total: 5052 5052
Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it's wrong.
 11-16-2012, 03:58 PM         #50
redacted 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
I like the points he tried to make with these questions. All that stuff needed to be asked. The Government does regulate a lot of sh*t that makes you scratch your head like...Why is there a law or mandate on this? A bill passed for this, but not *add something you find a lot more important than light bulb technology, or toilet water flow*

Problem is the messenger. I could give a fu*k less about the newsletter thing. It's out of my control. I can't stay mad at sh*t I can't alter. I heard about it, shook my head, and kept it moving.

His Civil Rights rant...Out of line. Dude's far from anyone's perfect candidate. I don't get how some could ride or die for him like they owe the man their lives.

Ron Paul is a lot like some of these underground rappers with a loyal minority base. He's got all his attributes in one quadrant, and the rest of his stats are sh*t. He may be lyrical(informative), but he ain't saying sh*t people can really chill to, or doing it in a way that's appealing to the ears(lacking style, personality, etc.)


He could ghostwrite for the next republican candidate. Doubt anything would come from that though.

since there's such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do
 6 years ago '07        #51
Dotel 30 heat pts30
space
avatar space
space
$6,146 | Props total: 1596 1596
 autoraptronix said:
I said the Civil Rights Act (that racist-newsletter-writting-Ron-Paul is against) PREVENTED the voter suppression that would've stopped minorities from voting. "Liberals ranting" and court f!ghts also made a difference.

The Justice Department used it to block voter suppression laws in a few states and no doubt without it there to deter republicans these laws would have probably been effect before Obama began his political career.




He doesn't have any positions. He has pick up lines he throws out to see what sticks and to who. Occupy is hot? Then he's pro-occupy today. The crowd wants to let uninsured people die outside the emergency room?? Then its they made that choice and they have to live (or die) with it. The people are tired of prohibition? Lets not just make it legal but let every non violent offender out (some of the worst criminals are non-violent. see wallstreet & D.C.). After all, this is the same guy who made his money off soliciting white supremacist groups for donations..for racist literature he published in his own name.


I don't really have respect for people that say whatever is hot at the moment, just to play into a character they're playing for their audience. Ron Paul was smart tho. Hit enough fringe causes and you'll tap into enough orphaned activists to support you financially and worship you like a rockstar for giving them a voice. It was his shtick, and now he gets to retire. Good riddance.
First of all you are a hypocrite I looked through your mindless diatribes and not once did you denounce Barack Obama's ties to racist so really racism isn't a big deal to you.

Secondly when did he ever propose a bill that lets people die outside of hospitals? You are delusional.

Third: He is against the drug war and has been since he was elected to congress. That would be taking a position


Last edited by Dotel; 11-16-2012 at 04:07 PM..
 6 years ago '05        #52
autoraptronix 12 heat pts12
space
avatar space
space
$4,627 | Props total: 393 393
 Billdotel said:
First of all you are a hypocrite I looked through your mindless diatribes and not once did you denounce Barack Obama's ties to racist so really racism isn't a big deal to you.

Secondly when did he ever propose a bill that lets people die outside of hospitals? You are delusional.

Third: He is against the drug war and has been since he was elected to congress. That would be taking a position
First: "Obama's ties to racist"


Second:

[video - click to view]


Third: He won't even own up to his own racist newsletters, authored and published by him. He has NO CREDIBILITY.
 11-17-2012, 12:06 AM         #53
conscious thug 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
How long before Ron Paul claims he had no role in writing his farewell speech?
 6 years ago '05        #54
Vancouver 11 heat pts11
space
avatar space
space
$2,451 | Props total: 126 126
 tupacnasfan said:
And we're better off, because big government is just awful.
You don't understand how capitalism works, do you?

Libertarian capitalists want a world in which everyone is free to get rich and don't have to give back unless they want to (ha!). Capitalism also creates inequalities because profit is made through the exploitation of labour. Not everyone can get rich, that's a fantasy. The American dream is not real. Some people have to be poor for others to be gloriously rich. That's the way capitalism works. So when you hear a person like Ron Paul complain about government, you should really look critically at what his alternatives are. The world of libertarian capitalism is not a better world at all. We have seen the beginnings of it since the Reagan years when America started deregulating its economy in major ways and continued to do so under Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. The government did not necessarily shrink during these years, but it did move its power into different sectors, away from public welfare. The result as has been growing, not decreasing inequality, and an awful recession when the inevitable crisis of capital accumulation did hit (I say inevitable because there will be another, and another, and another).
 6 years ago '05        #55
Vancouver 11 heat pts11
space
avatar space
space
$2,451 | Props total: 126 126
Also, libertarian capitalists say they want small government, but of course they still want government to uphold property rights and etc., so they can make staggeringly high amounts of money because, oh yeah, they're the land owners. This sh*t is so obvious and so flimsy. I've read John Locke, which is basically what Libertarian capitalists use, and the sh*t is a horrible text written by a lawyer/land owner/slave owner.


Last edited by Vancouver; 11-17-2012 at 03:13 PM..
 6 years ago '07        #56
MOTTAFOOKAH 4 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$11,512 | Props total: 1299 1299
Great questions.. @ yall acting like Ron Paul aint in on the game too.. dude is a Jezowit
 6 years ago '07        #57
MOTTAFOOKAH 4 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$11,512 | Props total: 1299 1299
 Vancouver said:
You don't understand how capitalism works, do you?

Libertarian capitalists want a world in which everyone is free to get rich and don't have to give back unless they want to (ha!). Capitalism also creates inequalities because profit is made through the exploitation of labour. Not everyone can get rich, that's a fantasy. The American dream is not real. Some people have to be poor for others to be gloriously rich. That's the way capitalism works. So when you hear a person like Ron Paul complain about government, you should really look critically at what his alternatives are. The world of libertarian capitalism is not a better world at all. We have seen the beginnings of it since the Reagan years when America started deregulating its economy in major ways and continued to do so under Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. The government did not necessarily shrink during these years, but it did move its power into different sectors, away from public welfare. The result as has been growing, not decreasing inequality, and an awful recession when the inevitable crisis of capital accumulation did hit (I say inevitable because there will be another, and another, and another).
You had me with the first sentence. After that you had me like You do not have freedom without capitalism.. the pursuance of the individual's own self interest and objectives.. What is more free than that? You have never seen that though, and never will. That is the problem.
 6 years ago '05        #58
Vancouver 11 heat pts11
space
avatar space
space
$2,451 | Props total: 126 126
 MOTTAFOOKAH said:
You had me with the first sentence. After that you had me like You do not have freedom without capitalism.. the pursuance of the individual's own self interest and objectives.. What is more free than that? You have never seen that though, and never will. That is the problem.
I'm not talking about taking away people's abilities to pursue their own self-interest. I'm saying that capitalism only gives that opportunity to a few people because profit is based on exploitation, so naturally most of us have to exploited for the profit of others. There is hardly any upward mobility in this situation. Libertarian capitalists like Paul want this system to be free of any taxation or regulation so that the exploiters can exploit freely, but they still want the government to uphold property rights, so they can keep exploiting the majority of the population and get rich. I can't fu*k with that no way.

I'm a libertarian socialist, by the way. I want some representative government, where necessary, liberty, radical democracy, and equality. You can call me an idealist, I don't mind.


Last edited by Vancouver; 11-18-2012 at 03:30 AM..
 6 years ago '04        #59
JBeezy 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$14,014 | Props total: 519 519
 Vancouver said:
You don't understand how capitalism works, do you?

Libertarian capitalists want a world in which everyone is free to get rich and don't have to give back unless they want to (ha!). Capitalism also creates inequalities because profit is made through the exploitation of labour. Not everyone can get rich, that's a fantasy. The American dream is not real. Some people have to be poor for others to be gloriously rich. That's the way capitalism works. So when you hear a person like Ron Paul complain about government, you should really look critically at what his alternatives are. The world of libertarian capitalism is not a better world at all. We have seen the beginnings of it since the Reagan years when America started deregulating its economy in major ways and continued to do so under Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. The government did not necessarily shrink during these years, but it did move its power into different sectors, away from public welfare. The result as has been growing, not decreasing inequality, and an awful recession when the inevitable crisis of capital accumulation did hit (I say inevitable because there will be another, and another, and another).
 Vancouver said:
Also, libertarian capitalists say they want small government, but of course they still want government to uphold property rights and etc., so they can make staggeringly high amounts of money because, oh yeah, they're the land owners. This sh*t is so obvious and so flimsy. I've read John Locke, which is basically what Libertarian capitalists use, and the sh*t is a horrible text written by a lawyer/land owner/slave owner.
Sounds to me like you don't know sh*t about free market capitalism or what RP has been advocating. You're confusing real free markets with crony capitalism. Corporate welfare, subsidies, bailouts, etc....is not capitalism. Secondly, the existence of the Fed is hardly a free market creation or something RP advocates. Our monetary policy does more to harm the middle and lower classes that the "evil" capitalists.

Please tell us about the "deregulation of the economy in major ways". Please don't mention the repeal of Glass-Steagall or the housing market. Only one provision of Glass-Steagall was repealed; the one preventing the same holding company from controlling both a commercial bank and an investment bank. During the crisis, stand alone institutions, both investment and commercial failed and they all held mortgage backed securities.

Glass-Steagall didn't prohibit commercial banks from investing in securities and it didn't prohibit investment banks from issuing short term commercial paper (used to fund holdings of of mortgage-backed securities) or investing in securities. Not to mention, mortgage backed securities were AAA rated and the regulators didn't require much capital for the purchases. Let's also not forget that the federal government was forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't pay them back.

I fail to see how the government protecting property rights is some sort of contradiction to "libertarian capitalists" ideals. The government is SUPPOSED to protect freedom, preserve liberties and prevent others from infringing upon the rights of others. Wouldn't you agree with that? Why shouldn't that include property or land a person owns? Lastly, "libertarian capitalists" like RP follow the Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, etc....
 11-18-2012, 03:17 PM         #60
ROFLSTOMP 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 JBeezy said:
Sounds to me like you don't know sh*t about free market capitalism or what RP has been advocating. You're confusing real free markets with crony capitalism. Corporate welfare, subsidies, bailouts, etc....is not capitalism. Secondly, the existence of the Fed is hardly a free market creation or something RP advocates. Our monetary policy does more to harm the middle and lower classes that the "evil" capitalists.
Welfare, subsidies and bailouts can absolutely exist as part of a capitalist economy, we can observe them right now. After all, capitalism is nothing more than private ownership of the means of production, anything after that is just that, an after thought. All this talk of 'crony capitalism' and 'corporatism', as if to imply we aren't living in textbook capitalist economies, is flimsy.

First line of Wikipedia:

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.
What you do after that has no bearing on whether or not the economic system is capitalist. You can give out all the welfare you want, bail out as many banks as you want, encourage reckless lending, etc, and the system is still capitalist. Only when the means of production cease to be under private ownership does an economy cease to be capitalist.

Free market capitalism is undoubtedly more pure, but that doesn't make other economies with private ownership somehow not-capitalist.
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 64
ashley graham killing it i'm sold yo!
65 comments
23 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 38
Kanye West working on MY BEAUTIFUL DARK TWISTED FANTASY
64 comments
1 day ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 36
Man hit dog with baseball bat because he ate his Whopper
101 comments
20 hours ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 24
DONT LET THESE TRAPS FOOL YOU! Here's how to effectively avoid them.
109 comments
21 hours ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 16
Image(s) inside Rosey Got Thickkkkkk
56 comments
23 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 14
Video inside May 22 - Kaepernick Lawsuit Reveals Evidence Teams Think He's a Starter
60 comments
21 hours ago
@news
most viewed right now
 14
Image(s) inside Fresh Prince Of Bel Air Mansion 2018
73 comments
23 hours ago
@movies
most viewed right now
 11
May 22 - Deadly Chinese Fentanyl Is Creating a New Era of Drug Kingpins
61 comments
21 hours ago
@news
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy