"Freedom" thread or something

As bad as it may make me, I"m more excited about reading the decisions than actually having the results of the ruling. 

I blame the Federal Reserve for the lack of media coverage.

The Federal Reserve stole my virginity

The Federal Reserved Santorumed me. 

manofmystery wrote: Sigh, If only the Fed was flooding the market with sexy ladies instead of fiat currency.

Edited by KoS - March 31 2012 at 03:21

Ron Paul  has never and will never be considered a serious candidates by any member of the American population that was already in that Libertarian naive mindset. He has always been seen as a kook by the media and rightly so in all previous elections. I picked the year because it is pre-civil war, do your research.



Edited by KoS - March 31 2012 at 06:10

KoS wrote: Ron Paul  has never and will never be considered a serious candidates by any member of the American population that was already in that Libertarian naive mindset.

False. I was a neo-con when I became a supporter.

KoS wrote:  He has always been seen as a kook by the media and rightly so in all previous elections. I picked the year because it is pre-civil war, do your research.

Shouldn't you have picked a date at the end of the civil war?

KoS wrote: But in no way will I endorse a candidate such as Paul that will destroy economic and social growth. Fiat currency and the liberal use of interest rates is what saved us from having another Great Depression. In fact, because of the consequences of the Great Depression we started to back away from gold.

Cool story bro.

The fact that he is against the drug war only because it infringes on state rights and not a moral high ground of helping the minorities and the vulnerable.

False. He often cites the drug war as a war against minorities and the poor.

With his policies states will be able to use whatever reasoning to stamp out civil liberties and rights. He is opposed to the protection of those at the federal but not at the state level.

False. He thinks the States should provide those protections themselves. Much like you can support the freeing Iraqis from a dictator and still advocate against the Iraq War.

KoS wrote: Not to mention such things are Women rights, gay rights, and health care rights.

Same as the above sans the last one.

KoS wrote: To me it's absolutely immoral to have one of the richest and smarted countries not provide a basic level of healthcare. This, coming from a family history of cancer, diabetes and depression.

That's so awesome man. However, economics is a value free science. I agree with you, but it's a gigantic jump from that to forced provision of the service through a particular program.

KoS wrote:  You say Paul wants to deregulate those healthcare industries to provide what the markets needs, I say take a look at the financials of hospitals. Most rely on state and federal funding. Healthcare is not a profit industry. The costs of healthcare in almost all Western countries is lower than what an individual pays currently in the US. How can people be so heartless to say that because you didn't save or you didn't invest or you don't have the coverage to cover such unforeseen things such as cancer, aids, or any of the myriad of conditions that makes up human health.

That's not what people who support the view are saying. It's a deliberate distortion. I can't believe you to be that stupid. Paul himself has provided free care to many throughout his career. I provide free education to many clients. I think every human being should be well fed, clothed, and receive proper health care. That's completely independent from the issue of a governmental provision of goods. The narrow minded person such as yourself refuses to see any social solution to a problem besides the monolithic approach of centralized forced. In fact, you meld the entire idea of society and government to make thought of achieving goals through other social mechanisms impossible.

"I picked the year because it is pre-civil war, do your research."

No sh*t sherlock.
Yes, before the civil war, as in playing into your whole Ron Paul wants black people to be slaves again thing.

And why, why why do you keep bringing up the Zimmerman thing? Not even to get into a debate, I'm just curious.
It was a racially motivated killing. We all know that. At least I do. What else do you want?
Yes, the media circus was crazier about the Anthony case. A lot of us, myself included (before I went semi libertarian) thought it was disgusting how the whole thing was such a sh*tstorm.

I just do not know what you're trying to get at with everything you say, just a washing machine man you keep cycling the same stuff over and over.

I've also said like....10 times now Paul will not "go on" the gold standard but have the competition of currency.
For someone who majored on English you can't seem to read it.
If you are so against it, guess what? You can continue to use fiat currency, and if you are so positive about it then surely it'd eventually become the "winner" and gold standard money would die out. What are you so scared of?


The war on drugs IS biased against minorities, Paul said that and used it as one of his points against the war on drugs. If you read something by the enemy maybe you would've known.

We all hate the healthcare system, and if you recall I used to support universal healthcare, citing the moral and price reasons you mentioned. This is not news. Anyway:
You do know what we have now is NOT a free market healthcare, right? There's no competition.
I used to be with you "OMG look at what private healthcare has done" until I saw it's not really private.

Free market or universal would both be better than what he have now. I'm not fully decided on where I lean... probably some mix of both, which some Euro countries have.

I can keep going on but I wont.
You hate Ron Paul, he'll be the death of America, he's satan, fine.

I disagree of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it


Edited by JJLehto - March 31 2012 at 14:45

We're at the point where nothing should be shocking really.

But the court's majority said it's difficult for jail officials to know who's dangerous and who isn't among the 13 million prisoners they process each year because criminal records are often not available at the time of intake. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

I have a hint. If you arrest a guy on a warrant for an unpaid fine, I think you're probably in the clear. Regardless though, this demonstrates a perverse line of thinking. If officials don't know who is dangerous, meaning they have no reason to suspect an individual to be dangerous, then they may not act. How does the burden of proof get flipped?

Aren't our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, Pakistan, etc. the same thing a hunger game? They serve the same purpose.


Rob you might enjoy this, it's an interview with Brett Veinotte, talking about education. He and I share many views.