Republican Nomination?

Started by Devil King60 pages

Originally posted by Mr Parker
please provide evidence of that for me to see.I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears on a video at youtube he wants to open it up so this would be news to me if you have proof of that.We got to get Ron Paul in.

He is the ONLY candidate of EITHER party who wants to abolish the federal reserve and the IRS and as i said before,is the only one who has never raised taxes.He was running as an independent because he is aware of how both parties only represent big business and big government and not the people, but independents never win so he decided to run on the republican ticket since he was originally a republican.

Glad to see there are others out there as well aware of how important it is to get Ron Paul in there as well as the polls show.Whats depressing is how people dont know about the real Guliano and have put in as many votes for him.Mccain would be bad enough,he is very corrupted but Guliano is an extremely evil and corrupted man.if he or Hillary gets in,were screwed BIG TIME. 🙁

One of many available on youtube:
YouTube video

I believe his exact words were: "ABSOLUTELY NOT"

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Devil I assume you ARE going to answer my question I posed ya? 😉

sure did 💃

Can't really talk shit about people not knowing the real "Guliano" when you can't spell his name correctly, yourself.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, the government is what keeps people homeless?

Not necessarily. I don't think it does help very much though.

Originally posted by Devil King
I wouldn't deny that a lot of our system keeps people homeless. But, as I've asked from the beginning of our conversation, I'd like to know how a feasible government is going to prevent it from happening, and remedying it as it is now.

I think it is not the governments responsibility. I believe a free market would be better at it than what we have now. I think altruists could help with it. Churches, etc. Of course in the end it is solely the responsibility of the homeless person.

Originally posted by Devil King
Still don't? As in to imply you're still in school?

I go to a public university.

Originally posted by Devil King
And the only reason you haven't been kicked out is because you're paying for it?

Nope, I haven't been kicked out because the school system doesn't ask for anything. Because I do well enough to just continue. It doesn't support hard work. It is a problem not a solution.

Originally posted by Devil King
Or are you just coasting along with a C average? (Or whatever it is in your country) Personally, I think it's a ****ing shame that most people in this country, like our current President, only get a college level education because it's the only way you can get a leg up in our system. (granted, he had much more going for him....which is why I feel your solution is an inane one that would propogate this kind of situation) It's the only way to be taken seriously, and as it is, you're finishing college at least 40K in the red. (or in your system, 40K in the red after middle school)

That's the problem though. It is made to be the only way. And that is partly the fault of public education imo. Employers just look for an education as if that necessarily makes one better than another. There are extremely stupid people with a degree and there are extremely smart people without a degree. It is a problem in our society that is strongly supported by government interference I believe. I also believe that in a truly free market education would not necessarily cost anywhere as much and I am of the opinion that not everyone needs to go to college. College should be for the best, not for everyone that can put a finger up their arse.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sure, you could excel in your system. And by the time you're prepared to undertake a course of study that will result in a degree for your specific area of interest, you'll be up to your eyeballs in debt, paying off student loans from kindergarten at 18%. (unless you think a private buisness like a bank should have it's interest rates set for it by the state government)

That's not true. That's your scenario applied to my system. I'd rather have a debt and an excellent education than the mediocre shit we get through public schools though.

The problem is that people always apply regulated market problems to free market systems as if they weren't different scenarios altogether.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, it's the only one we've really talked about. What are some others?

Charities. Work programs. Cheaper alternatives. Homeschooling. Community schooling. Autoditactism. Less necessity of a degree.

Originally posted by Devil King
I know it's not a reality. And, personally, I'm glad it isn't.

Until the people that actually pay for it say no.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not when the baby is public education.

Especially when it is.

Originally posted by Devil King
sure did 💃

Can't really talk shit about people not knowing the real "Guliano" when you can't spell his name correctly, yourself.

Well thanks for posting that for me,I wasnt aware of that.I think he's just saying that so the people who select these candiates-we dont elect them,they're selected by people in high positions of power in the government,that those people will consider him as a candidate.He knows if he voices against them,he doesnt have a prayer.Wouldnt be the first time someone said they would go along with the government but their actions after becoming president were different than what they said.

Kennedy only got elected because he promised he would lay off the mob so the mob fixed it for him to get elected,but after being elected,him and Bobby went after them with everything they had.But thats a whole other story for another time and another section.
Well seeing that video,I am going to have to talk to my fellow Ron Paul supporters here in my city about this and find out from them what they know about this.A lot of them are in contact with him so I'll find out soon enough if my theory on this is correct about him.

okay NOW I can talk shit about that corrupted bastard.Giuliani. 😄

Yup, Ron Paul attracts the conspircacy nuts and general kooks; they almost have fanboy like mentally towards him it seems.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not necessarily. I don't think it does help very much though.

In this, we agree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think it is not the governments responsibility. I believe a free market would be better at it than what we have now. I think altruists could help with it. Churches, etc. Of course in the end it is solely the responsibility of the homeless person.

So you want to reduce the solution to a canned food drive?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I go to a public university.

Then I assume that the German public schools are something akin to ours. We have hugely prestigious public schools. Public schools that function effectively on public funds and standards, as well as the tuition of it's students.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nope, I haven't been kicked out because the school system doesn't ask for anything. Because I do well enough to just continue. It doesn't support hard work. It is a problem not a solution.

So the school system functions the same way you think government should?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the problem though. It is made to be the only way. And that is partly the fault of public education imo. Employers just look for an education as if that necessarily makes one better than another. There are extremely stupid people with a degree and there are extremely smart people without a degree. It is a problem in our society that is strongly supported by government interference I believe. I also believe that in a truly free market education would not necessarily cost anywhere as much and I am of the opinion that not everyone needs to go to college. College should be for the best, not for everyone that can put a finger up their arse.

and you feel that the solution is to limit the advancement possiblities of the smart people who can't afford an education? (Again, don't forget the smart guy with loads of potential that has nothing to offer a lending institution to get the money he would need to go to school)

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not true. That's your scenario applied to my system. I'd rather have a debt and an excellent education than the mediocre shit we get through public schools though.

The problem is that people always apply regulated market problems to free market systems as if they weren't different scenarios altogether.

No, it's your scenario all teh way. You want to eliminate the public school system because it places the financial burden on the taxpayer's/victim's shoulders. In it's place, you want a system based on academic acheivement that the acheiver has to pay for totally himself, because in his infinite cleverness and resourcefulness, he's found a way to pay for it with a loan that has to be paid back with interest, but the government shouldn't be allowed to interfer with either the student or the banks effectiveness to operate as a private entity?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Charities. Work programs. Cheaper alternatives. Homeschooling. Community schooling. Autoditactism. Less necessity of a degree.

I'm all for less necessity for a degree. But, what do we do with all teh people who already have them and think that they've done all the hard work (and spent the money) so the next fellow should too?

I'm all for the self taught! I have done a great deal of this on a number of subjects that interest me.

Cheaper alternatives to loads of debt? Tell me how both happen in your solution?

what do you mean by work programs? Is that like aptitude for something should be your career?

Homeschooling I do not support.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Until the people that actually pay for it say no.

Until the people who pay for it say no, what? To paying for it? They're the ones who are using it!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Especially when it is.

Why especially?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yup, Ron Paul attracts the conspircacy nuts and general kooks; they almost have fanboy like mentally towards him it seems.
It's a way of the New World Order to discredit the only person that could stop them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's a way of the New World Order to discredit the only person that could stop them.

Counter-Conspiracy FTW!

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Well thanks for posting that for me,I wasnt aware of that.I think he's just saying that so the people who select these candiates-we dont elect them,they're selected by people in high positions of power in the government,that those people will consider him as a candidate.He knows if he voices against them,he doesnt have a prayer.Wouldnt be the first time someone said they would go along with the government but their actions after becoming president were different than what they said.

Kennedy only got elected because he promised he would lay off the mob so the mob fixed it for him to get elected,but after being elected,him and Bobby went after them with everything they had.But thats a whole other story for another time and another section.
Well seeing that video,I am going to have to talk to my fellow Ron Paul supporters here in my city about this and find out from them what they know about this.A lot of them are in contact with him so I'll find out soon enough if my theory on this is correct about him.

so, you're saying he DOES believe it was a conspiracy, but is saying otherwise for what ever reason? Assassination, electability, etc? Kind of smashes the idea that he speaks truth to power.

It's also a lovely way of saying "I know the truth, I just can't tell you". Most of the RP supporters in your city know him? Are in contact with Ron Paul? That's almost as fantastic as are the numbers of lawyers, doctors, geneticists and nobel prize winners we seem to have here on KMC.

If I lived in the states I'd vote Paul.

Who the heck would vote for Rudy?

Originally posted by Devil King
In this, we agree.

Good.

Originally posted by Devil King
So you want to reduce the solution to a canned food drive?

No, no. If you guys can afford it you can built mansions for homeless guys. I just want to reduce it to not take hard earnerd money from people that don't want to pay for it.

Originally posted by Devil King
Then I assume that the German public schools are something akin to ours. We have hugely prestigious public schools. Public schools that function effectively on public funds and standards, as well as the tuition of it's students.

We have basically solely public schools. There's not much business for private schools I guess. The standards are alright, the cost immense.

Originally posted by Devil King
So the school system functions the same way you think government should?

Don't understand that analogy.

Originally posted by Devil King
and you feel that the solution is to limit the advancement possiblities of the smart people who can't afford an education? (Again, don't forget the smart guy with loads of potential that has nothing to offer a lending institution to get the money he would need to go to school)

No. I believe my solution would not limit the possibilities it would increase them and also support them on the way more. And there isn't any smart guy with loads of potential that has nothing to offer, that would go against the definition of potential.

Originally posted by Devil King
No, it's your scenario all teh way. You want to eliminate the public school system because it places the financial burden on the taxpayer's/victim's shoulders. In it's place, you want a system based on academic acheivement that the acheiver has to pay for, because in his infinite cleverness and resourcefulness, he's found a way to pay for it with a loan that has to be paid back with interest, but the government shouldn't be allowed to interfer with either the student or the banks effectiveness to operate as a private entity.

Yes. Just what you derive from it and say would happen is not logically supported by the scenario. I don't think the government should interfere. All the people that think there should be public education are very welcome to give all their money to ensure the education of everyone. They just can't use mine. It would never be a worse system than we have now.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm all for less necessity for a degree. But, what do we do with all teh people who already have them and think that they've done all the hard work (and spent the money) so the next fellow should too?

Nothing. They have that degree and can do with it as they see fit. If it is not worth as much anymore as they thought that is no ones problem but theirs. Besides, something like that wouldn't happen overnight, it is a deep change in society, there wouldn't be people that thought it would be worth a lot and then found out it isn't.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm all for the self taught! I have done a great deal of this on a number of subjects that interest me.

The public school system goes against that though.

Originally posted by Devil King
Cheaper alternatives to loads of debt? Tell me how both happen in your solution?

There would be much cheaper schools. You know you pay an extremely large amount of money for schools? Just because it doesn't show up on a bill doesn't mean we don't pay for it. In a free market there would be room for cheap schools. The education might be slightly worse than it is today, but there would still be education. Together with the other points I brought up it would likely be better than what we have now.

Originally posted by Devil King
what do you mean by work programs? Is that like aptitude for something should be your career?

I meant there could be schools that you can visit part time with a job. Those would be possible. I mean, why shouldn't people pay for their education?

Originally posted by Devil King
Homeschooling I do not support.

Good reasons too.

Originally posted by Devil King
Until the people who pay for it say no, what? To paying for it? They're the ones who are using it!

But they aren't. The people that pay the most for it don't get anything in relation to what they gave back. The public schools still kinda work because they leech from the most productive people. People without children or that had and use private education pay just like those that use it, just that on average they pay much more (being richer). I am sorry but Bill Gates doesn't have to drag along a hundred children of lower class families. It's not his duty. It's thievery.

Originally posted by Devil King
Why especially?

Because it is the topic of our conversations. And one of the programs that should be absolutely cut. Without anything taking it's place in the government.

Well if you intend to do good things for the people as president when elected,sometimes you GOT to lie as kennedy did to get elected.Thats just my theory on why he is saying that now. I dont know why else he would reverse his stance he had before when he was saying he didnt believe the official version.Like i said,this is a surprise to me since in the years before,thats not what he was saying then.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Well if you intend to do good things for the people as president when elected,sometimes you GOT to lie as kennedy did to get elected.Thats just my theory on why he is saying that now. I dont know why else he would reverse his stance he had before when he was saying he didnt believe the official version.Like i said,this is a surprise to me since in the years before,thats not what he was saying then.

WTF, one second, Ron Paul is the man who stands by what he says and he's the only candidate that tells it (the truth) like it is; now he's just lieing to get elected?

like I said,,kennedy did the same thing.wont be the first time.I dont know WHY he has reversed himself on his stance,got to ask him.all I know is thats not what he was saying originally for the past few years and NOW he is saying something different on it.if you got an explanation for WHY he has reversed his stance on it,Im all for it but he HAS reveresed his stance on that for some strange reason.Maybe he's fearful of his life on that if he kept up,whos knows.I dont know the guy so i dont know why he has reveresed himself on that stance,just that he has.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, no. If you guys can afford it you can built mansions for homeless guys. I just want to reduce it to not take hard earnerd money from people that don't want to pay for it.

so then you see no point in government as long as its existence involves your money.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We have basically solely public schools. There's not much business for private schools I guess. The standards are alright, the cost immense.

and what makes it so expensive? A government that has no expectations, or a private sector that knows an education is what everyone wants and needs, so they can freely decide how much an education will cost?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't understand that analogy.

In that the government shouldn't expect anything, because it should serve the people. But the people should expect nothing from a government they have no reason to fund, because they can do better on their own.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. I believe my solution would not limit the possibilities it would increase them and also support them on the way more. And there isn't any smart guy with loads of potential that has nothing to offer, that would go against the definition of potential.

So, where's the advancement opportunity? No potential to succeed or pay back, why would a bank lend him any money? Or should he sit around hoping a Magwitch will come along or that he'll win the lottery?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. Just what you derive from it and say would happen is not logically supported by the scenario. I don't think the government should interfere. All the people that think there should be public education are very welcome to give all their money to ensure the education of everyone. They just can't use mine. It would never be a worse system than we have now.

No, there's not. But the government is set up as a representative body. It doesn't represent though; and you feel you have no say, despite having a vote. So your solution is to abolish public education, rather than fixing the representative failures of the government?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nothing. They have that degree and can do with it as they see fit. If it is not worth as much anymore as they thought that is no ones problem but theirs. Besides, something like that wouldn't happen overnight, it is a deep change in society, there wouldn't be people that thought it would be worth a lot and then found out it isn't.

nothing what? It might not be your problem their degree is worthless, but it's your problem when they have one and think you should have one too in order to effectively accomplish the task for which they're going to pay you a living.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The public school system goes against that though.

Of course it goes against it, you're being educated, rather than educating yourself.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There would be much cheaper schools. You know you pay an extremely large amount of money for schools? Just because it doesn't show up on a bill doesn't mean we don't pay for it. In a free market there would be room for cheap schools. The education might be slightly worse than it is today, but there would still be education. Together with the other points I brought up it would likely be better than what we have now.

Cheap schools, that are mired in cheap opinions. If the education is worse than it is now, then why change the system?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I meant there could be schools that you can visit part time with a job. Those would be possible. I mean, why shouldn't people pay for their education?

People do. And a great many of them are still living below the poverty line, or are one pay check away from all of their hard work collapsing in on them and having ther homes taken away from them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good reasons too.

too, what?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But they aren't. The people that pay the most for it don't get anything in relation to what they gave back. The public schools still kinda work because they leech from the most productive people. People without children or that had and use private education pay just like those that use it, just that on average they pay much more (being richer). I am sorry but Bill Gates doesn't have to drag along a hundred children of lower class families. It's not his duty. It's thievery.

So hard work is irrelevant to actual accomplishment? That, too, screws over the little guy. You know who it will benefit? People like Bush, who got what they have because they were born in teh right family.

Gates is a bad example, because he does a lot for poor kids and education (which does a lot in the round for his business, as well!). That might be your point. But he gives way more money to the cause than do most people in his position. (and even then, it's got a lot to do with taxes)

Because it is the topic of our conversations. And one of the programs that should be absolutely cut. Without anything taking it's place in the government. [/B][/QUOTE]

and that's why our conversation will continue.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
got to ask him.

🙄

Originally posted by Mr Parker
like I said,,kennedy did the same thing.wont be the first time.I dont know WHY he has reversed himself on his stance,got to ask him.

What if he lies again, for election reasons?

Originally posted by Robtard
What if he lies again, for election reasons?

Oiy, how about what he said about the Lincoln? I made that accusation a number of posts/days ago, regarding his true feelings. I'm just glad he said it. Maybe people who support him for surface, catch phrase reasons will wake up to exactly what he thinks now that he's said it.

Originally posted by Devil King
🙄

okay lets put it this way,find someone in his family or has known him for years you can trust and ask THEM why he is saying something different now.Ross Perot had his family threatened when he was running for president because he brought up issues people in high positions of power did not want him to bring up,wouldnt be surprising to me if thats why he has reversed what he was saying originally.I know some people that talk to him so hopefully I'll have some answers from them soon when I show them that video.

Originally posted by Devil King
Oiy, how about what he said about the Lincoln? I made that accusation a number of posts/days ago, regarding his true feelings. I'm just glad he said it. Maybe people who support him for surface, catch phrase reasons will wake up to exactly what he thinks now that he's said it.

Unfortunately, sometimes the tail does wag the dog.