Republican Nomination?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you do not understand libertarian ideals, that seems to be the problem. They are not pro big business. They wouldn't even support big businesses they'd be a large problem for them. I also don't believe that 10% in the caucas is a grass roots revolution, I do KNOW though that it is much more than expected 3 months ago, and that it is more than most libertarian thinking people thought would be possible in the Republican party. The problem is you (as most other people) have bought into the constant government propaganda of how great and awesome it is and what endless stuff it does for us and how horrible everything would be if it didn't exist. Wal Mart provides cheap, good goods to basically everyone in the US. It is an amazing store, but all the leftist bullshit propaganda makes it seem to be the devil.

You don't pay much attention to what I say, or have said, in regards to my personal beliefs.

"Hands off my money" is already the guiding principle of this nation, because the government is already owned by private business. That makes the problem two-fold; the government meant to be run and regulated by teh people, for the people, and the fact that business already owns the government.

Why don't you take this chance to explain to me, and everyone else, what libertarian principles are, in regards to a business that reaches a Wal-Mart level.

Yeah, cheap, high quality goods that poison our children with lead paint and kill our pets with bacteria. The "government propoganda" you mention is that it's the Chinese trying to kill us, when in reality it's a direct result of business' in this country being given the freedom to dictate their own standards via buying huge chunks of the government. Sorry, but the average consumer isn't informed enough to rely of libertarian ideals.

You accuse others of being ignorant of reality and of buying into propoganda, when you've done exactly that by assuming that Ron Paul is fighting for the little guy's wallet and his liberty, because you've been told that he's the candidate of the younger generation.

I like RP, you know this. But I have a hard time believing he's going to be the only person employeed in the White House after his revolution.

Originally posted by Devil King
You don't pay much attention to what I say, or have said, in regards to my personal beliefs.

I think I have mostly.

Originally posted by Devil King
"Hands off my money" is already the guiding principle of this nation, because the government is already owned by private business. That makes the problem two-fold; the government meant to be run and regulated by teh people, for the people, and the fact that business already owns the government.

It is not though. People pay more than half of their money to the government. Big businesses owning the government can only happen with big governments anyways, so that's hardly the fault of libertarians.

Originally posted by Devil King
Why don't you take this chance to explain to me, and everyone else, what libertarian principles are, in regards to a business that reaches a Wal-Mart level.

Same as for everyone else. Use the free market as well as you can.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, cheap, high quality goods that poison our children with lead paint and kill our pets with bacteria. The "government propoganda" you mention is that it's the Chinese trying to kill us, when in reality it's a direct result of business' in this country being given the freedom to dictate their own standards via buying huge chunks of the government. Sorry, but the average consumer isn't informed enough to rely of libertarian ideals.

Yeah, that happens on a daily basis. There's piles of dead children with pets up their asses piling up in the US. One in one children in the US die because of Walmart killing them before the age of 3.

Besides, poisoning people would be illegial in a libertarian society just as much as in most others. Besides, stop applying standards of your socialist/lobbyist government to libertarian standards. They have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

By the way, I only accused you of it after accusing me of it. I don't think you buy in to propaganda, just saying that accusing is easy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think I have mostly.

It is not though. People pay more than half of their money to the government. Big businesses owning the government can only happen with big governments anyways, so that's hardly the fault of libertarians.

Same as for everyone else. Use the free market as well as you can.

Yeah, that happens on a daily basis. There's piles of dead children with pets up their asses piling up in the US. One in one children in the US die because of Walmart killing them before the age of 3.

Besides, poisoning people would be illegial in a libertarian society just as much as in most others. Besides, stop applying standards of your socialist/lobbyist government to libertarian standards. They have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

By the way, I only accused you of it after accusing me of it. I don't think you buy in to propaganda, just saying that accusing is easy.

Over half? This is news to me. 7 years of cutting taxes and we're down to only 50 percent? What were we paying in taxes before Bush and the Republican revolution of 2000?

And when did I say there were piles of dead babies? I didn't. You applied that dramatic overstatement to my point. No one is watching business in this country, because they own teh government. That isn't a matter of opinion, they have since private business began producing more money than the economy.

Nor am I applying lobbyist standards to libertarian ideals. I'm applying reality to the situation as it stands right now in the US.

Again, what would a libertarian say about Wal-Mart?

It all comes down to what I said in my last post, most consumer-citizens aren't informed enough to exercise libertarian ideals on a national basis. Most people would call me a libertarian, but I break from that concept on education, as you might have figured out by now.

Originally posted by Devil King
Over half? This is news to me. 7 years of cutting taxes and we're down to only 50 percent?

Well, I don't have the stats. It was a random number. Too much is what it meant.

Originally posted by Devil King
and when did I say there were piles of dead babies? I didn't you applied that dramatic overstatement to my point.

An exaggeration to make a point. If you supply as many people as Wal Mart does shit will happen, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for it, but it certainly doesn't mean it is evil and should be abolished or whatever some of those leftist idiots think.

Originally posted by Devil King
Nor am I applying lobbyist standards to libertarian ideals. I'm applying reality to the situation as it stands right now in the US.

Yes, and that is not libertarian. The US isn't libertarian at all, really. It's strong on libertarian rhetoric, that's about it though.

Originally posted by Devil King
Again, what would a libertarian say about Wal-Mart?

That it is a decent business mostly that ****s up sometimes and has to be punished accordingly.

Originally posted by Devil King
It all comes down to what I said in my last post, most consumer-citizens aren't informed enough to exercise libertarian ideals on a national basis. Most people would call me a libertarian, but I break from that concept on education, as you might have figured out by now.

You are in a way. I just think that people talk Ron Paul down. It wasn't an incredible amazing victory for libertarianism, it was impressive given the circumstances though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I don't have the stats. It was a random number. Too much is what it meant.

Originally posted by Bardock42
An exaggeration to make a point. If you supply as many people as Wal Mart does shit will happen, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for it, but it certainly doesn't mean it is evil and should be abolished or whatever some of those leftist idiots think.

And you think it's just Wal-Mart? If it was just Wal-Mart, something could be done about WM specifically. It's a large number of retailers that have been allowed to write their own standards for the last 20 years. This is why I don't understand people who think that "hands off my money" isn't already the guiding principle of our government.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, and that is not libertarian. The US isn't libertarian at all, really. It's strong on libertarian rhetoric, that's about it though.

so you're saying that teh government isn't unfairly influenced by big business?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That it is a decent business mostly that ****s up sometimes and has to be punished accordingly.

So you're saying a libertarian would say that they shouldn't be punished for being a big company? No one thinks they need to be "abolished" because they are successful. But a truely economic libertarian ideology allowed to rule, such as the total free market economy, which makes up teh rules because it's based on an unspoken agreement between the producer and the consumer, is going to allow for exactly what Wal-Mart has done, which is to bankrupt small town economies and drive the "little guy" out of business. And they can do it because the people who shop there are doing exactly what you're talking about. How does the little guy make a buck that the government can't touch if he's greeting people at Wal-Mart for minimum wage (if he's lucky) and not allowed to work over 36 hours a week and who is ineligiable for company benefits, much less is he going to be able to afford his own?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are in a way. I just think that people talk Ron Paul down. It wasn't an incredible amazing victory for libertarianism, it was impressive given the circumstances though.

Not given the attention and money he's been given by the "it's not really a long shot" notion that a majority of his supporters seem to think is teh reality of the situation.

Originally posted by Devil King
And you think it's just Wal-Mart? If it was just Wal-Mart, something could be done about WM specifically. It's a large number of retailers that have been allowed to write their own standards for the last 20 years. This is why I don't understand people who think that "hands off my money" isn't already the guiding principle of our government.

Because that would be a totally different approach towards "hands off my money", one that wouldn't deserve the name, one that should be called "use the government for my advantage", one that is not related to what libertarians mean when they say "hands off my money".

Originally posted by Devil King
so you're saying that teh government isn't unfairly influenced by big business?

No, I agree with that. That's a problem semi-socialists governments have though. Only if the government has vaguely defined and very strong powers it can and will happen. A small, closely defined government, is not able to be manipulated by either big businesses or union lobbyists. Lobbyism would be entirely pointless. I don't like how you imply things though. Libertariansim is not equal to big business control, on the contrary.

Originally posted by Devil King
So you're saying a libertarian would say that they shouldn't be punished for being a big company?

No, of course they shouldn't be punished for being a big company. Just like a small company shouldn't be punished for being a small company, or an individual not being punished for being an individual.

Originally posted by Devil King
No one thinks they need to be "abolished" because they are successful. But a truely economic libertarian ideology allowed to rule, such as the total free market economy, which makes up teh rules because it's based on an unspoken agreement between the producer and the consumer, is going to allow for exactly what Wal-Mart has done, which is to bankrupt small town economies and drive the "little guy" out of business.

The little guy has no right to be in business, if what they supply does not appeal more to the consumer than what a big business offers consumers shouldn't be forced to buy stuff from him. If a small business can compete it would survive in a libertarian society, if it can't, then that's no ones problem, I'm sure if they had some skill in their trade they might get a manager job with Walmart though, so they will be alright.

Originally posted by Devil King
And they can do it because the people who shop there are doing exactly what you're talking about. How does the little guy make a buck that the government can't touch if he's greeting people at Wal-Mart for minimum wage (if he's lucky) and not allowed to work over 36 hours a week and who is ineligiable for company benefits, much less is he going to be able to afford his own?

That would be pretty easy, if the government would just not touch their money. Wages should be determined by supply and demand just as everything else.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not given the attention and money he's been given by the "it's not really a long shot" notion that a majority of his supporters seem to think is teh reality of the situation.

W-what?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The little guy has no right to be in business, if what they supply does not appeal more to the consumer than what a big business offers consumers shouldn't be forced to buy stuff from him. If a small business can compete it would survive in a libertarian society, if it can't, then that's no ones problem, I'm sure if they had some skill in their trade they might get a manager job with Walmart though, so they will be alright.

No, if a small business isn't viable, then it doesn't exist. But what happens when a company becomes so massive that it can offer product X for 4 dollars less than it's competitor? Evweryone buys X at that retailer. Eventually, the massive company forces the competition out of buisness and the whole nation is shopping for everything at that retailer. Then, it gets to set it's own prices and the price of product X will go back up 4 dollars, maybe beyond. Wal-Mart is already doing this. They can, because once they get so massive, they start buying the manufacturers, the raw material retailers, employing the consumers and paying them less. How does that employee pay for their education, their child's education, their private industry insurance? Simple...the company starts to pay for all of it. This is an economic model that was employeed in the south during teh reconstruction and beyond, and what ended up happening is that a given company ended up owning entire towns.

Originally posted by Devil King
No, if a small business isn't viable, then it doesn't exist. But what happens when a company becomes so massive that it can offer product X for 4 dollars less than it's competitor? Evweryone buys X at that retailer. Eventually, the massive company forces the competition out of buisness and the whole nation is shopping for everything at that retailer. Then, it gets to set it's own prices and the price of product X will go back up 4 dollars, maybe beyond.

Then someone else can provide it cheaper again. In a libertarian society, I see that it won't necessarily work in the piece of shit the US has now.

Originally posted by Devil King
Wal-Mart is already doing this. They can, because once they get so massive, they start buying the manufacturers, the raw material retailers, employing the consumers and paying them less. How does that employee pay for their education, their child's education, their private industry insurance?

In your society they'd be taken care for with all the huge disadvantages come with it. In mine they'd have enough money to afford that, as there would be large amounts of wealth and cheap insurance.

Not to forget the billions of altruists who believe so strongly in Public Health they'd provide for the poor privately.

Originally posted by Devil King
Simple...the company starts to pay for all of it.

Also a possibility.

Originally posted by Devil King
This is an economic model that was employeed in the south during teh reconstruction and beyond, and what ended up happening is that a given company ended up owning entire towns.

Not in a libertarian society.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Then someone else can provide it cheaper again. In a libertarian society, I see that it won't necessarily work in the piece of shit the US has now.

Not if the company owns every step of the process. What do you really expect people to do, hear about Wal-Mart consumer A getting lead poisoning from a baby rattle and storming in droves the nearest competitor? And if it won't work in teh piece of shit US, then it is irrelevant to this election.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In your society they'd be taken care for with all the huge disadvantages come with it. In mine they'd have enough money to afford that, as there would be large amounts of wealth and cheap insurance.

How do you figure that? How is the variable of hard workers and do-nothingers not still a factor? Eventually the poor just wither away? If yes, we feel the same. But it isn't good politics.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not to forget the billions of altruists who believe so strongly in Public Health they'd provide for the poor privately.

For some reason, the billions of do-gooders don't seem to be footing the bill.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also a possibility.

And how is that not EXACTLY what you are saying the government is guilty of doing? Only now, you have a private business telling the people to go **** themselves or stay here and be dependant on us?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not in a libertarian society.

Again, there are too many people, on top of the too many people who are not bright enough to look out for themselves. This is how it happened then, and it's how it could happen now.

(Population reduction is where all my ideas start, not finish)

Originally posted by Devil King
Not if the company owns every step of the process. What do you really expect people to do, hear about Wal-Mart consumer A getting lead poisoning from a baby rattle and storming in droves the nearest competitor?

Yeah, I would expect something like that.

If a company owns every aspect of the process. But only if it owns every, it might get problematic, that's pretty much impossible though. So hardly important.

Originally posted by Devil King
And if it won't work in teh piece of shit US, then it is irrelevant to this election.

It won't work in the US now. That doesn't mean that processes that are necessary to create such a situation can't be started and aren't needed.

Originally posted by Devil King
How do you figure that? How is the variable of hard workers and do-nothingers not still a factor? Eventually the poor just wither away? If yes, we feel the same. But it isn't good politics.

They would eventually. There'd be much more jobs. And much less living costs.

Originally posted by Devil King
For some reason, the billions of do-gooders don't seem to be footing the bill.

Indeed. So why should anyone?

Originally posted by Devil King
And how is that not [b]EXACTLY what you are saying the government is guilty of doing? Only now, you have a private business telling the people to go **** themselves or stay here and be dependant on us? [/B]

Because that's a) not what would be happening and b) a private contract between free individual people. And not mandated by a majority.

Originally posted by Devil King
Again, there are too many people, on top of the too many people who are not bright enough to look out for themselves. This is how it happened then, and it's how it could happen now.

It wouldn't be a problem that there are so many people, I believe. It works for any amount.

Originally posted by Devil King
(Population reduction is where all my ideas start, not finish)

Did anyone see Ron Paul on Jay Leno last night?

Part 1
YouTube video

(for some reason, this first link will not work right...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pxdmNzKNfU

Part 2
YouTube video

Also, here are the current stats for New Hampshire:

http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html

Thanks for that link. It looks like Rudy, Mike, and Ron Paul are all close in percentages.

McCain won New Hampshire.

Since this thread is the unofficial Ron Paul thread, RP is currently in 5th place (again), just behind Guiliani... "impressive."

Originally posted by Robtard
McCain won New Hampshire.

Since this thread is the unofficial Ron Paul thread, RP is currently in 5th place (again), just behind Guiliani... "impressive."

Oh well, he should ride the Republican thing at list till February and then go independent. Maybe he can get a few votes for libertarianism.

Originally posted by Robtard
McCain won New Hampshire.

Since this thread is the unofficial Ron Paul thread, RP is currently in 5th place (again), just behind Guiliani... "impressive."

I am mostly a Ron Pauler. My vote is still up for grabs. If elections were held today, I would vote Ron Paul. I am open to changing my mind because unlike Ron Paul, I don't make the best decisions the first time around and stick with it for 20 years.[/ron paul plug]

I apologize for contributing to this thread being so much about Ron Paul.

The Results of the New Hampshire Primary are as follows (96% of precincts reporting):

John McCain: 86,802 votes (37%)
Mitt Romney: 73,806 (32%)
Mike Huckabee: 26,035 (11%)
Rudy Giuliani: 20,054 (9%)
Ron Paul: 17,831 (8%)
Fred Thompson: 2,808 (1%)
Duncan Hunter: 1,195 (0%)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am mostly a Ron Pauler. My vote is still up for grabs. If elections were held today, I would vote Ron Paul. I am open to changing my mind because unlike Ron Paul, I don't make the best decisions the first time around and stick with it for 20 years.[/ron paul plug]

I apologize for contributing to this thread being so much about Ron Paul.

Okay... thanks for making those statements; there's nothing to apologize about.

Originally posted by Robtard
Okay... thanks for making those statements; there's nothing to apologize about.

It "sounded" like you were a little upset that everyone was like "Ron Paul, Ron Paul...HOORAY!!"...I contributed a lot towards the discussion of Ron Paul. I should have covered more points from the other Republican candidates. I apologized to you because I thought you were right about this being too much about Ron Paul. I may have read too much into your post, but can you blame me for thinking cynicism on your part? (Don't take that as an insult.)

Ron Paul is actually doing pretty good for a guy whose only media coverage is telling people that he blames 9-11 on America (which is BS. RP doesn't believe that...but he is using a rather bullheaded debate style introducing a very reasonable foreign policy). His reasonable foreign policy wouldn't work for the unreasonable middle east though. He responsibly blames America for more then most people do, and he does it for logical reasons, not political ones. But some countries would interpret that as weakness.

I wouldn't vote for RP to help him win. But I would vote for Paul just to make people listen to him. I think McCain will and should win the republican nomination.

Paul has one of those nightmare situations in politics: he has dozens of good ideas that no other candidate has; but he has only has one that makes him the wrong guy for the job.

Tragic. He has a foreign policy that won't work because it is too logical...and that drags down all the rest of his campaign.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Ron Paul is actually doing pretty good for a guy whose only media coverage is telling people that he blames 9-11 on America (which is BS. RP doesn't believe that...but he is using a rather bullheaded debate style introducing a very reasonable foreign policy).

In fact he is not even saying that.

Originally posted by Quark_666
His reasonable foreign policy wouldn't work for the unreasonable middle east though. He responsibly blames America for more then most people do, and he does it for logical reasons, not political ones. But some countries would interpret that as weakness.

And then they would use that weakness to invade your country with their large, well equipped armies.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I wouldn't vote for RP to help him win. But I would vote for Paul just to make people listen to him. I think McCain will and should win the republican nomination.

Why?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Paul has one of those nightmare situations in politics: he has dozens of good ideas that no other candidate has; but he has only has one that makes him the wrong guy for the job.

What do you mean?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Tragic. He has a foreign policy that won't work because it is too logical...and that drags down all the rest of his campaign.

No idea how you figure that.