Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:01
manofmystery wrote:
Never understood how chanting a script in unison helps a cause. Just comes across as mindless following (especially when the group even repeats "mic check" ). Dr. Paul handled it beautifully, though:
Great handling as you said. It's a shame the the only reason many people who would otherwise vote for Ron Paul don't is because he's labeled a republican...
That would be a great picture if I thought they were about to storm the bank.
Never TheDoctor. The law-enforcing, government-protecting robots in blue will never ever the f**k ever storm a bank or anything owned by the powerful and/or wealthy; they will attack the weaker people. No matter who holds their reins.
I don't know about "never", but the way things currently stand and considering who has bought and paid for our government, I must agree with you that it will not happen.
Never. Check your history. Last timeI checked, even in collectivist paradises as China and Cuba and the old CCCP, the police never lifted one finger to defend anyone but those in power.
I consider the Scandinavian countries to be much more of a "paradise" than China, Cuba and the CCCP. So, the only solution considering your statement is to have complete and total anarchy. Not just a libertarian utopia. But no government whatsoever, no organized power at all, no corporations, no collections of people that in anyway have any influence over any other person or group of people. I'm sure you can see this is unrealistic.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:07
TheMasterMofo wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I don't buy this. Before pepper spray,
they would just get a nightstick to the back of the head, like they
still do today when the cops are brave enough in their riot gear to get
within arms reach of the protesters.
Wouldn't a nightstick be more "peaceful" than a gun, too?I'd list it as a slightly better alternative to a gun, too. Same concept as pepper spray.
Yes but how is that relevant? I'm saying that pepper spray existing hasn't led to more police brutality because they're more likely to use spray than a gun. I'm saying that before pepper spray there was still brute physical force.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:12
The T wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
Never understood how chanting a script in unison helps a cause. Just comes across as mindless following (especially when the group even repeats "mic check" ). Dr. Paul handled it beautifully, though:
Great handling as you said. It's a shame the the only reason many people who would otherwise vote for Ron Paul don't is because he's labeled a republican...
He could be labeled a socialist and running against a block of wood and I'd give my vote to the block of wood. No matter what he's labeled, the truth remains that he's a neo-con dressed up in libertarian clothing.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
That would be a great picture if I thought they were about to storm the bank.
Never TheDoctor. The law-enforcing, government-protecting robots in blue will never ever the f**k ever storm a bank or anything owned by the powerful and/or wealthy; they will attack the weaker people. No matter who holds their reins.
I don't know about "never", but the way things currently stand and considering who has bought and paid for our government, I must agree with you that it will not happen.
Never. Check your history. Last timeI checked, even in collectivist paradises as China and Cuba and the old CCCP, the police never lifted one finger to defend anyone but those in power.
I consider the Scandinavian countries to be much more of a "paradise" than China, Cuba and the CCCP. So, the only solution considering your statement is to have complete and total anarchy. Not just a libertarian utopia. But no government whatsoever, no organized power at all, no corporations, no collections of people that in anyway have any influence over any other person or group of people. I'm sure you can see this is unrealistic.
Scandinavian countries, the typical paradise mentioned by collectivists, (especially Sweden) have reached their status in part du to free-market policies in the economic sector. Also, those societies of highly-organized, order-oriented people with small populations have much more chance of success with a centrally directed economy than totally enormous and heterogenous societies like the US. And yes, but "anarchy" is not anarchy at all. The anarchy that you have been fed, with fires in the streets and people killing each other, no I don't want that. I want something very close to anarchy where market laws and collaboration eventually take the place of the central government. You can read a lot about these ideas from the likes of Murray Rothbard who pretty much came up with the notion of anarcho-capitalism. You'll find countless analysis and theoretical explanations of how a society with private police, private law, private everything would work in favor of everybody. But yes I would favor a world without a central big government and without a police that can do whatever they want without punishment, especially harming those that people think they are there to protect. Remember: the police is not a people-protecting force, it is a law-enforcement force and if the law says one thing they will follow it disregarding who they are hurting in the process.
And yes my contempt for law-enforcement forces goes way back before I became a Sith Lord....
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:15
The Doctor wrote:
The T wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
Never understood how chanting a script in unison helps a cause. Just comes across as mindless following (especially when the group even repeats "mic check" ). Dr. Paul handled it beautifully, though:
Great handling as you said. It's a shame the the only reason many people who would otherwise vote for Ron Paul don't is because he's labeled a republican...
He could be labeled a socialist and running against a block of wood and I'd give my vote to the block of wood. No matter what he's labeled, the truth remains that he's a neo-con dressed up in libertarian clothing.
Joined: May 20 2009
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 220
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:22
The T wrote:
Ask that to people like Rodney King. Yeah no damage can be done with nightsticks.
Obviously that's a pretty ridiculous conclusion to arrive at from what I said. I would absolutely love to be shown where I said that nightsticks can do no damage because I'm pretty astounded that you knew I said that when I didn't even post it anywhere on these forums!! Good work!
Would you rather be hit in the chest by a nightstick or shot in the chest by a gun? It'd be a pretty easy decision for me. I never said anything about a nightstick not hurting, I just said it's less so than a gun.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:22
The Doctor wrote:
He could be labeled a socialist and running against a block of wood and I'd give my vote to the block of wood. No matter what he's labeled, the truth remains that he's a neo-con dressed up in libertarian clothing.
What are you talking about? Explain please because you're ridiculously off base.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: May 20 2009
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 220
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:24
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Yes but how is that relevant? I'm saying that pepper spray existing hasn't led to more police brutality because they're more likely to use spray than a gun. I'm saying that before pepper spray there was still brute physical force.
And I'm saying, to go back to my original point, that people are always trying to give "less violent" options for police, but ultimately those options are still painful and they;re used more frequently because they fall under the banner of "less violent".
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:28
TheMasterMofo wrote:
The T wrote:
Ask that to people like Rodney King. Yeah no damage can be done with nightsticks.
Obviously that's a pretty ridiculous conclusion to arrive at from what I said. I would absolutely love to be shown where I said that nightsticks can do no damage because I'm pretty astounded that you knew I said that when I didn't even post it anywhere on these forums!! Good work!
Would you rather be hit in the chest by a nightstick or shot in the chest by a gun? It'd be a pretty easy decision for me. I never said anything about a nightstick not hurting, I just said it's less so than a gun.
Calm down Mofo, I agree with you on many issues. I'm just so ani-police brutality that can't imagine one way of brutality being "less bad" than another but yes, I recognize you never said nightsticks can do no damage.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:32
TheMasterMofo wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Yes but how is that relevant? I'm saying that pepper spray existing hasn't led to more police brutality because they're more likely to use spray than a gun. I'm saying that before pepper spray there was still brute physical force.
And I'm saying, to go back to my original point, that people are always trying to give "less violent" options for police, but ultimately those options are still painful and they;re used more frequently because they fall under the banner of "less violent".
And I'm saying going back to my point, that since the option of using your fist or a nightstick has essentially always existed, these measures just change the form of violence to once I consider equivalent rather than increasing the likelihood of a cop to use violence.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
That would be a great picture if I thought they were about to storm the bank.
Never TheDoctor. The law-enforcing, government-protecting robots in blue will never ever the f**k ever storm a bank or anything owned by the powerful and/or wealthy; they will attack the weaker people. No matter who holds their reins.
I don't know about "never", but the way things currently stand and considering who has bought and paid for our government, I must agree with you that it will not happen.
Never. Check your history. Last timeI checked, even in collectivist paradises as China and Cuba and the old CCCP, the police never lifted one finger to defend anyone but those in power.
I consider the Scandinavian countries to be much more of a "paradise" than China, Cuba and the CCCP. So, the only solution considering your statement is to have complete and total anarchy. Not just a libertarian utopia. But no government whatsoever, no organized power at all, no corporations, no collections of people that in anyway have any influence over any other person or group of people. I'm sure you can see this is unrealistic.
Scandinavian countries, the typical paradise mentioned by collectivists, (especially Sweden) have reached their status in part du to free-market policies in the economic sector. Also, those societies of highly-organized, order-oriented people with small populations have much more chance of success with a centrally directed economy than totally enormous and heterogenous societies like the US. And yes, but "anarchy" is not anarchy at all. The anarchy that you have been fed, with fires in the streets and people killing each other, no I don't want that. I want something very close to anarchy where market laws and collaboration eventually take the place of the central government. You can read a lot about these ideas from the likes of Murray Rothbard who pretty much came up with the notion of anarcho-capitalism. You'll find countless analysis and theoretical explanations of how a society with private police, private law, private everything would work in favor of everybody. But yes I would favor a world without a central big government and without a police that can do whatever they want without punishment, especially harming those that people think they are there to protect. Remember: the police is not a people-protecting force, it is a law-enforcement force and if the law says one thing they will follow it disregarding who they are hurting in the process.
And yes my contempt for law-enforcement forces goes way back before I became a Sith Lord....
Aha! So you admit you've fallen to the dark side.
My point was, not about fires burning in the streets and people killing each other on a whim. But rather it was that unless you can prevent people from forming groups for the sake of gaining wealth (corporations) or power or influence, then you are always going to have people in a position of power over those who do not have power. It cannot be prevented. My point is that it is better to have those people in positions of power bound by law and order instead of given free reign to trample on the rights of others. And yes, governments often wind up being controlled by the rich and powerful to the point that it becomes an evil that must be destroyed and rebuilt in a more protective and collective role. Which will last until the cycle begins again. Without government though, without checks on private actions, you will still have people rise to positions of power, it just won't be called government. And unlike our government, which at least theoretically is controlled by checks and balances and a nominal duty to protect all citizens, a private individual in a libertarian utopia would have no such checks on his power and would therefore be free to use his power for unbridled greed and selfishness.
I am not saying that the government we have now is doing its job properly. Far from it in fact, but that government controlled by the will of the people is much preferable to no government control.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:39
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
He could be labeled a socialist and running against a block of wood and I'd give my vote to the block of wood. No matter what he's labeled, the truth remains that he's a neo-con dressed up in libertarian clothing.
What are you talking about? Explain please because you're ridiculously off base.
Economic libertarianism (which I'm sure you will agree he is) + social conservatism (his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade for one) = neo-con. The one area where I would say he does not fit the neo-con philosophy is in his stance on foreign intervention.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
That would be a great picture if I thought they were about to storm the bank.
Never TheDoctor. The law-enforcing, government-protecting robots in blue will never ever the f**k ever storm a bank or anything owned by the powerful and/or wealthy; they will attack the weaker people. No matter who holds their reins.
I don't know about "never", but the way things currently stand and considering who has bought and paid for our government, I must agree with you that it will not happen.
Never. Check your history. Last timeI checked, even in collectivist paradises as China and Cuba and the old CCCP, the police never lifted one finger to defend anyone but those in power.
I consider the Scandinavian countries to be much more of a "paradise" than China, Cuba and the CCCP. So, the only solution considering your statement is to have complete and total anarchy. Not just a libertarian utopia. But no government whatsoever, no organized power at all, no corporations, no collections of people that in anyway have any influence over any other person or group of people. I'm sure you can see this is unrealistic.
Scandinavian countries, the typical paradise mentioned by collectivists, (especially Sweden) have reached their status in part du to free-market policies in the economic sector. Also, those societies of highly-organized, order-oriented people with small populations have much more chance of success with a centrally directed economy than totally enormous and heterogenous societies like the US. And yes, but "anarchy" is not anarchy at all. The anarchy that you have been fed, with fires in the streets and people killing each other, no I don't want that. I want something very close to anarchy where market laws and collaboration eventually take the place of the central government. You can read a lot about these ideas from the likes of Murray Rothbard who pretty much came up with the notion of anarcho-capitalism. You'll find countless analysis and theoretical explanations of how a society with private police, private law, private everything would work in favor of everybody. But yes I would favor a world without a central big government and without a police that can do whatever they want without punishment, especially harming those that people think they are there to protect. Remember: the police is not a people-protecting force, it is a law-enforcement force and if the law says one thing they will follow it disregarding who they are hurting in the process.
And yes my contempt for law-enforcement forces goes way back before I became a Sith Lord....
Aha! So you admit you've fallen to the dark side. Which in real life is actually the Jedi side but whatever...
My point was, not about fires burning in the streets and people killing each other on a whim. But rather it was that unless you can prevent people from forming groups for the sake of gaining wealth (corporations) I don't want to. People gaining wealth is good for people who depend on them and for whom they create jobs or power or influence, then you are always going to have people in a position of power over those who do not have power. It cannot be prevented.True. But.... My point is that it is better to have those people in positions of power bound by law and order instead of given free reign to trample on the rights of others. Government has free reign to trample on the rights of others. And Since corporations and powerful people have a big central entity to go to bed with and make love with, they happen to share that power to do as they please. Ask the bankers and the bailout recipients for first-person stories... And yes, governments often wind up being controlled by the rich and powerful to the point that it becomes an evil that must be destroyed and rebuilt in a more protective and collective role "Collective" how? Shared ownership of everything? This group ends up becoming the elite, but with far more power than before. . Which will last until the cycle begins again. Without government though, without checks on private actions, you will still have people rise to positions of power, it just won't be called government. There CAN be private actions. Even nowadays, if a company does something bad to you, you can sue it, force it to pay, etc. You have some recourses. Try suing the big central government. Try making police officers pay for their abuses. And unlike our government, which at least theoretically is controlled by checks and balances and a nominal duty to protect all citizens, a private individual in a libertarian utopia would have no such checks on his power and would therefore be free to use his power for unbridled greed and selfishness. The checks would exist. They would be private. No big difference. The error lies in thinking that no government=no law.
I am not saying that the government we have now is doing its job properly. Far from it in fact, but that government controlled by the will of the people is much preferable to no government control.Government is NOT controlled by the will of the people.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:48
The Doctor wrote:
Economic libertarianism (which I'm sure you will agree he is) + social conservatism (his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade for one) = neo-con. The one area where I would say he does not fit the neo-con philosophy is in his stance on foreign intervention.
Actually that's not the formula because it ignores foreign policy, but even so. No.
How is he socially conservative? Ending the drug war, ending bans on homosexual marriage, etc. are socially conservative?
Abortion doesn't fit on the compass of social conservative or liberalism. It's an entirely different issue. Even so, you're confusing a statement about federal power with one of conservative social values. The constitution doesn't really have the power to tell the states how to legislate a medical procedure so it should be overturned. That does not allow or disallow abortion. It's just sticking to Constitutional powers.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:50
The Doctor wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
He could be labeled a socialist and running against a block of wood and I'd give my vote to the block of wood. No matter what he's labeled, the truth remains that he's a neo-con dressed up in libertarian clothing.
What are you talking about? Explain please because you're ridiculously off base.
Economic libertarianism (which I'm sure you will agree he is) + social conservatism (his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade for one) = neo-con. The one area where I would say he does not fit the neo-con philosophy is in his stance on foreign intervention.
You post=total ignorance of neo-con. I used to ignore it so I won't judge. But neo-cons are no libertarians in the economic front. They are market-handlers of the worst type, they are the type that want to de-regulate some areas while keeping other tightly regulated to favor their friends in some industries. They are war-crazy, and they are usually religious to a point where they want to mix church and state. You basically have the more distorted view of Paul I've encountered. Even people who don't like his ideas won't label him a neo-con....
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:52
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
How is he socially conservative? Ending the drug war, ending bans on homosexual marriage, etc. are socially conservative?
Yes I forgot that one too. Yes, Ron Paul wants to let addicts choose their fate and people decide for themselves what the hell to do with their bodies. He has been accused of promoting drug use by saying that he would de-penalize heroin and everything else. Yes such a paleolithic neo-con....
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: November 22 2011 at 12:02
Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in.
In 1997, Paul introduced a Constitutional amendment giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United States
In 1997, Paul voted to end affirmative action in college admissions.Paul criticizes both racism and obsession with racial identity:
As for gay marriage: Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism". Not quite as clear cut as supporting gay marriage. In fact, it is so called "judicial activism" which has made the first real inroads into gay marriage.
In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries
Shall I go on?
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 22 2011 at 12:02
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I have no problem with someone not liking him, but at least accurately represent his views.
Of course. Nobody want to control likes and dislikes of people (others do that, particularly collectivists). But don't distort the truth so much. And saying Ron Paul is a neo-con is quite far from the truth. Hell, he might be the worst person on earth! (of course I don't think so) But a neo-con he is not.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:01
"Occupy" Protests
Topic Options
manofmystery wrote: