And, NetRunner's comment in five, four, three, two...

I wouldn't call that non-biased, or even completely factually correct. Some are accurate, others are not. Obama does not support invading Iran, and for some reason they didn't mention FISA. Oh, that's right, that's because Ron Paul did not oppose FISA.

As for the bit about health care plans, Obama's health care plan seems to say something more than "I believe in change".

Paul's plan is to deregulate the market, and cut people's taxes. That's essentially McCain's health care plan!

As for the comment about the internet, Paul opposes net neutrality, while Obama supports it.

I guess the question there is whether you think freedom means big networks should be able to use their money to monopolize the flow of information through the internet...or keep it how it is now.

Actually, I think freedom means freedom, and Democratic & Neo-Con freedom means bigger intrusive government telling us what is best for us.

Ron Paul on FISA: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr062008h.htm

Obama on FISA: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html

Ron Paul on Net Neutrality (it's about taxation and federal regulations, not access restriction): http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/videos/16731/The_Loop_One_on_One_with_Ron_Paul_.html

Ron Paul on Health Care: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Health_Care.htm

Actually, we just believe in laws, like libertarians do, we just think certain can laws lead to more freedom...like libertarians do. You guys are just picky about laws that involve taxes, or safety regulations.

About FISA, good to know RP did oppose it -- I was kinda pissed when I saw he ducked the vote, though I was pretty upset about how FISA went down generally. If Obama becomes President, we can petition the hell out of him to fix it (like he said he would). If McCain wins, we'll both be arrested if we try (and then tried and convicted of treason committed against a necessary tool in the war on terror, then executed).

The video you linked in response to my net neutrality claim was mostly about censorship (which I agree with him on), but when he was asked about net neutrality, he didn't seem to really understand the concept, and reiterated his opposition to it on the ideological grounds of "laws are never any good".

I don't think he'd support it, even if he understood it. It really comes down to how he feels about major news networks, and whether he thinks the various self-censored stories and biases in them are a problem, or if that's just how freedom works: major corporations will evolve and collude to mislead the public, freely.

Also, I'll at least mention that you're conceding my point about health care, since the vid definitely misrepresents both Paul's and Obama's positions on health care. (Paul's is grounded in political ideology, and Obama's...exists)

Obama is running for president. Ron Paul is not.

If that's an attempt at non-bias it fails miserably.

I have no other feeback on it, but as far as bias goes, this clip has it in spades, buckets AND truck loads.

Ron Paul was also against recognizing MLK's birthday as a federal holiday, and same with Rosa Parks.

There's a lot of retarded shit that Dr.Paul believes in, and through his "states rights" vision, he'd allow states to re-segregate schools, teach creationism, deny contraceptives, and let coroporations run amok, killing our economy, provide unsafe and unfair labor practices, dissolve unions, and rape our wilderness.

This video is about as un-biased as Karl Rove's nutsac.

^It sounds like the majority of Chicken Littles on here believe people are too weak and too stupid to know what to do with freedom. You need the Federal Government to teach your kids, because you're too stupid to choose the right education for them. You need the Federal Government to regulate everything, because you're too stupid to understand and exercise self-reliance.

Painting Ron Paul as a racist or a bigot because he believes in individual liberty, the Jeffersonian ideas of self-reliance and less Federal Government is not only unfair, it's also a misguided Hamiltonian principle, which says a lot about the Democratic & Neo-Con policies, to be honest. Very revealing.

Blankfist:

Is it really "stupid" to want to keep christianism and creationism out of our public schools?

Is it really "stupid" to want to keep public schools integrated?

Is it really "stupid" to want to prevent corporations from abusing their workforce, or dumping their toxins into our water and air?


And you can seriously piss right off with your retarded notion of "you need the state to teach your kids". That type of attitude has zero bearing on our society, and I am glad your ilk are as marginalized as you will always be.


Jeffersonian ideas weren't only about self-reliance. They were also about the seperation of church and state. "States rights" would kill that idea, and that is exactly what Ron Paul would love to see.

Oh jeez.

Blankfist, don't answer any of that. It's probably best that I just completely ignore you, as you think that anyone who isn't a strict Ron Paul/libertarian fiend isn't as smart as you are, and doesn't understand our constitution or what's best for our society. Only you have the key to this knowledge, and the rest of us, even those who've never voted for either GOP/DEM, are just a bunch of Obamabots or Neo-cons.

What a joke.

^Of course, I don't think it's wrong to want to keep religion out of our public schools or keep them open to everyone. No, that's a given when a school is owned and operated by our representative government. The real question is should our government run our schools? What right do they have to do that? Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the right to regulate and restrict education? It doesn't.

And, please, brush up on your history. Jefferson was for state rights. Remember he ran against the "Federalists".

And remember, every vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the "other" guy.

buttfist:
"Jefferson was for state rights. Remember he ran against the "Federalists"."


Jefferson wasn't for states rights when they went against our "inalienable rights". That's why the establishment clause was and is #1 in our constitution.

And the libertarian sham that Ron Paul is, wants to abuse the concept of "states rights" to allow discrimination, and fundamental christianism to run rampant through the states that push it. Which, under article 1, is against federal law. So which way do we go? Give the states the "right" to segregate, or follow the constitution?

Oh wait, I'm supposed to be ignoring you =]

^troll

>> ^volumptuous:
buttfist:

Ooooooh!

You *TOTALLY* nailed me. Yep, whenever you don't like what others say, just call em a troll. That's such a noble statement. The ultimate interwebs trumpcard.

Yes, the government should run education. Education is too important to give away to profit motives. Like anything else, the private sector is great at making high quality prep schools for those who can meet the entrance standards and afford the premium, but there is no financial incentive for them to create anything worthwhile for the underclasses and the need to turn a profit would only increase the cost without adding any educational benefit.

More importantly, Education is something that we the people should have some say over. Turning it over to corporations takes us out of the loop. For the last 8 years, our public school system has been run by an administration that shares your desire for corporate education and similarly despises public education. NCLB was, as intended, a disaster, designed to further degrade our education system, and to that aim succeeded greatly. We need big change in education for sure, but before that can happen, we need a government that gives a shit.

Here are some changes I'd like to see.
-Offering the option of trade school to struggling and disinterested students.
-Competitive pay to stave off the teacher shortage.
-Cutting jobs at the district/administration level.
-Allowing more freedom for teachers to teach as they see fit. Cookie cutter standards stifle creativity.
-More funding for the arts.

^DFT, I understand your concern. Corporatism is scary. Period. It's even scarier when it gets close to government. It's incommensurably devastating when it gets close to a government that is too large and too powerful.

I wasn't insinuating we should push education into the hands of Walmart or Texaco. Thinking that deregulating public schools would immediately put Ronald McDonald on the cover of our Social Studies books is thinking (and making policies) from fear instead of reason. Public school systems ensure our poor or middle class must accept mediocre, universal education where no child is left behind, thus the education is sub par at best. Private schools are currently too cost prohibitive, so they remain prep schools for the rich.

Making education a self-determined right allows for parents to homeschool OR for them to decide what is best for your child's education. That's fair, right? Creationism is already taught in private Christian schools. So what's the fear? You want to teach something else in your community, then start a school. Start an Anarchist School or an Atheist School. You could start that trade school for the disinterested children, DFT! Or just an educational facility that is fair to kids who aren't responsive to the current cookie cutter universally homogenized education. Without the costly bureaucratic restrictions and regulations, it would be easy to do. And affordable.

>> ^blankfist:
^It sounds like the majority of Chicken Littles on here believe people are too weak and too stupid to know what to do with freedom.

I think that's proven by the continued existence of the Republican party.

As a corollary, you should see the fact that the Libertarian party's best hopes are to hit 5% support in the Presidential election as proof of that.

To you, freedom necessarily means "you're on your own", to me, it means I don't have to spend hours researching farmers and grocers to be sure they're not using toxic pesticides -- it's just illegal for them to use them, and there's an enforcement apparatus that keeps them honest. The same way I have police out there to make sure my house isn't eternally being broken into.

Eternally having to operate under caveat emptor isn't freedom to me. Some things shouldn't have to be complex or difficult. I shouldn't have to be an expert on everything in order to function in modern society.

Education is a blurrier subject, and while I agree with the need for decentralized control of schools, I also think certain toxic things should be banned from schools, just like toxic pesticides. Things like the earth being flat, racial superiority, creationism, etc. Mention them sure, but they shouldn't be part of the curriculum.

"to me, [freedom] means I don't have to spend hours researching farmers and grocers to be sure they're not using toxic pesticides"

Haha. That's your definition of freedom? I doubt that is widely accepted.


" The same way I have police out there to make sure my house isn't eternally being broken into."

Where do you live? I'm going to move there, because everywhere I've lived in the past I never had a police sentry outside my house ensuring my house isn't burglarized. That's amazing. LOL.

Homeschooling and private school are already on the table for those who choose them, and I have no problem with that, so long as they are not funded with tax dollars.

I completely agree that we need options for kids who aren't responsive to traditional schooling. Not only do they waste their own time, but disrupt other students as well and are sometimes even abusive.

I've found (I've done a fair amount of teaching in various contexts) that very often, a student who does poorly in academic subjects will excel in a particular craft or art class. So wouldn't it be nice if these students could find a program that would allow them to focus on honing a useful skill and preparing them for a career.

I had an interesting conversation with a German over the summer, and she said that in her country, the higher levels of high school were only offered to students who a achieved a particular grade threshold. I think that is an interesting idea. I don't like the idea of kicking less successful students to the curb, but what if we offered them some practical alternative?

So yeah, I agree that we need new ideas (as well as a return to some of the 'old' ideas that allowed our educational system to thrive in past decades) and that neither dems, pubs, libs, greens or any party have engaged in the kind of outside the box thinking that we need, but I think vouchers (which I'm guessing is what you'd prefer) is just giving up. What is the major difference between the successful schools of our past and the problem schools of today? Population and per capita spending. In short, we have too many students and not enough funding.

You say affordable, I say efficient. I think there is some common ground here.

*yawn*, blankfist, you seem to have three standard responses to me:

1. Question the definition of words
2. Quote me out of context, and make a comment that indicates you entirely missed the point (and then demagogue the misunderstanding)
3. Accuse me of ad hominem (not currently in evidence, though I expect to hear it now).

My definition of freedom includes a level of freedom from responsibility. The full definition would take me a long time to consider and express fully, but it wouldn't be "absence of government", ever.

As for the bit about police, one Ron Paul's own campaign videos makes the same assertion (it's toward the end) about the laws protecting property bringing freedom.

In short, it's something you and I have in common, since neither of us are anarchists (or communists).

I'm just making the proposition that there are other aspects of our lives where more law can bring us more freedom.

Here's a good litmus test: do you think children are more free than adults, or vice versa?

DFT, What about those who do not wish to have kids and do not wish to pay for the kids of others? Why is it fair to forcefully steal from someone and give to someone else even if it seems like something that is for the greater good? I would ask we be mindful of the tyranny of good intentions. The power you give your government today will be perverted tomorrow, and the money you allow them will only be further increased.

I'm reminded of Animal Farm's commandments: "No animal shall kill another animal" turning into "No animal shall kill another animal without cause." And "All animals are created equal" turning into "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

Haha. Awww, NR, I was just having a bit of fun, is all. Sheesh!

NetRunner: "Here's a good litmus test: do you think children are more free than adults, or vice versa?"

I think children are free, of course. Free of being owned by the government. Having a right to their life (I'm not making an anti-abortion statement, either). I don't know what you're driving at, but any comment like "more law will bring us more freedom" is so fundamentally flawed that I'm unable to see any logical correlation from that and children being more free or less free than adults.

Blankfist, your argument reminds me of the classic Onion headline: Libertarian reluctantly calls fire department.

If you are serious about not paying taxes, supporting or utilizing public services, then start a commune. They never end well, but the group sex is fun while it lasts. Otherwise, I don't want to see you stealing my money by driving on the tax funded highway system.

Haha. I think the Libertarian would be okay donating to a local fire department or more specifically paying "user fees". It's the poor, lazy armchair liberal too preoccupied with his politics and art to get a "real job" that would be too poor to afford to contribute to a local fire department, so he'd ask we force that rich Libertarian to pay for him and all of us.

>> ^blankfist:
NetRunner: "Here's a good litmus test: do you think children are more free than adults, or vice versa?"
I think children are free, of course. Free of being owned by the government. Having a right to their life (I'm not making an anti-abortion statement, either). I don't know what you're driving at, but any comment like "more law will bring us more freedom" is so fundamentally flawed that I'm unable to see any logical correlation from that and children being more free or less free than adults.


Ahh, but can children go anywhere they please? Do anything they want?

Aren't they actually almost entirely ordered about by their parents? Aren't they deprived of making almost any significant choices about their lives?

What about their situation, from a libertarian perspective, makes them even the slightest bit free?

Government still places the same restrictions on them, plus additional ones (can't drive a car, can't buy beer, can't vote, can't own real estate, see an R-rated movie, etc.), so it can't be that.

>> ^blankfist:
I would ask we be mindful of the tyranny of good intentions. The power you give your government today will be perverted tomorrow, and the money you allow them will only be further increased.

I'm reminded of Animal Farm's commandments: "No animal shall kill another animal" turning into "No animal shall kill another animal without cause." And "All animals are created equal" turning into "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."


Me too, and did you notice the part where abandoning the equality part turned out badly for everyone but the pigs?

That's what I see the whole Libertarian/Republican/conservative philosophy as doing -- cutting the last ties we have to a sense that equality is important, so the pigs can get all the apples and milk.

...and I think we'd agree that by the time the pigs started changing the rules in secret, they'd stopped with the good intentions.

But they weren't subject to term limits, electoral competition, or C-SPAN, either.

In short, I see you as wanting to move all real lawmaking into private hands, where the rules are changed in secret, where the law is bent unfairly to benefit the pigs, and in the end, we'll all work harder for less food, and get sent to the glue factory when our usefulness is at an end.

You're more afraid of elected officials doing wrong than unelected capitalists, how strange. They don't even have good intentions, just selfish ones.

>> ^blankfist:
DFT, What about those who do not wish to have kids and do not wish to pay for the kids of others?


Here's my answer:
TOO FUCKING BAD

This is what society is all about, you douche. Rising tides lift all ships, innit?

That's the thing I really despise most about libertarians; their horrible selfishness, and utter disdain for those around them.

Societies are only as great as their poorest individuals. (weakest link in a chain) But you take the pure and simple concept of helping other people who don't have the means to help themselves, to mean that everyone can just sit on their asses at home and do nothing, and that's not what anyone wants. Especially not those who need help.

Selfish, selfish, selfish. I can't believe this kind of "fuck you, I got what's mine" attitude.

>> ^blankfist:
Haha. I think the Libertarian would be okay donating to a local fire department or more specifically paying "user fees". It's the poor, lazy armchair liberal too preoccupied with his politics and art to get a "real job" that would be too poor to afford to contribute to a local fire department, so he'd ask we force that rich Libertarian to pay for him and all of us.


So, to you, a society that says "let the poor burn" is morally superior?

Are all people who're poor lazy?

What's the income level that determines whether someone is too lazy to save? The market price of "fire service"?

Isn't that putting a price on human life?

Isn't that equating how much I earn to my value to society? Isn't that saying it's not worth society saving someone if their value isn't high enough?

>> ^volumptuous:
Oh jeez...
...and the rest of us, even those who've never voted for either GOP/DEM, are just a bunch of Obamabots or Neo-cons.
What a joke.


I believe the correct terms are "Obamatons" and "Assholes". Ha!

Selective fee-based firefighting? Wow. Now that's keepin' it Libertarian real. I will have to remember to visit your utopian commune during the rainy season when it's not on fire.

^Oh? You don't currently pay for your fire department? Wow, you and NR live in some great places! You with your free fire department and NR with his own police sentry outside his home. I'm moving there!

>> ^blankfist:
NR with his own police sentry outside his home.

You're turning into a Republican by not answering fair questions and repeating debunked talking points.

Then again, as a man of 87, it probably winded you just reading the thread.

??

So how are you two doing? Seen any good movies lately?

Nah. This was a great summer for movies, though wasn't it?

Yeah, some fun blockbusters fo sho. Issy and I just finished Iron Man and the recent BSG season. Both were fun.

I hear BSG is awesome. I've seen nary a one. Nary.

You guys see Dark Knight? That was even better than Iron Man, IMO.

Check out the BSG miniseries first. If you like it, check out the whole series. In the first part of the 3rd season, they riff on the Iraq occupation, with the Cyclons as Americans and the humans as 'Iraqi's/Insurgents'. It's smart and edgy and all that, you'd both dig it.

I dug both Iron Man and Batman. Apples and oranges, tho.

^ I'm a big fan of BSG, and I eagerly await the rest of the 4th season.

I also think people should be going back and watching select portions of Babylon 5...

^Nerds.