I already addressed Eric3579 about the issue prior to your response...

We could continue in the vain as we have, spewing and manifesting fresh insulting and argumentative statements to lob at each other, the question begs itself be heard, however, why?

May we part, in all kindness and respect, agreeing favorably to disagree with each other? I wish not the previous recourse, me being of a somewhat indebted nature to you for your original kind welcome and aid in regarding my coming to the Sift.

I favor resolution, not dissolution in this matter,

Thank you,

Alastair

@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"

Not knowing how to properly coil a cable != contributing to the moral dissolution of future generations.

Also, I'm getting tired of this entire ridiculous fascination society in general seems to have with people "getting their hands dirty." I grew up surrounded by intellectuals, and though they might've been able to handle simple problems around the house, there were other things they spent their time learning how to do.

These were mathematicians, programmers, psychologists and physicists, and for all the usefulness of plumbers, mechanics and others of their ilk, these intellectuals provided other services to society which were quite honestly no less vital to its success. What they taught me was how to use my brain rather than my hands, and frankly, the world as I see it is filled to the brim with people are perfectly willing to get their hands dirty but who are astoundingly unwilling to ever use their heads.

I spent about a week this summer building a fence, and for all the shallow gratification of "honest labour," I would honestly really prefer it if I could just pay someone else to do it while I stayed inside, learning about the world and everything that goes on in it, instead of working outside like some sort of beast of burden.

If you happen to be one of those people who for some reason feel that digging holes and putting large sticks in them is a meaningful pastime, I will neither stop you from doing it nor judge you for your choice. So please, would you kindly shut the fuck up about how wonderful it is to "get your hands dirty" and just leave me to my Goddamn books?

Yeah. While I suppose there has to be some sort of limit on what can be deemed acceptable, it is also a very slippery slope. After all, should fantasy really be criminalized? Moral sickness is perhaps the most arbitrary concept imaginable, and history is rife with examples of just how dangerous it is to criminalize supposed moral dissolution.

Here's the long-list from a famous -hacked-to-bits and otherwise forgotten document's grievance rider which seems a poignantly appropriate reason enough to want to shove a vote up someone's ass and rotate it:

Of King George:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Someone needs perhaps to revise the list and start hoarding ammunition and conscripting, because methinks the "vote" be fast-resembling, fuck-all. I don't vote and I am damn sure not going to be quiet any time soon...Average Joe and Jane voters have already effectively been "opted out."

Article 1.
* All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
* Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
* No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
* All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
* Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
* Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
* (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
* (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
* (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
* (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
* (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
* (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
* (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
* (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
* (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
* (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
* (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
* (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
* (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
* Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
* Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
* (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
* (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
* (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
* (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
* (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
* Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Without unions, you are handing disproportionate power to the elites.

But in this matter, no one is talking about the complete dissolution of unions. There are only two things at play in WI... 1. A simple reapportioning of cost to benefits in terms of how much a public union member pays for medical care & retirement. 2. The right to collectively bargain when the average union pay & benefits exceeds the per capita average. They aren't trying to get rid of unions. They're trying to pull them back into a realm that is reasonable, fair, and financially possible. Right now the union contracts and benefits are not financially possible. Unions for years have gotten more and more for less and less to the point where the model is broken. All Walker is doing is trying to fix the system before it implodes and he as to fire thousands.

Now - the pessimist in me believes that the unions and Democrats would be PERFECTLY HAPPY if a GOP governor had to fire 12,000 people to balance the books. That way they could (like the protesters are doing) paint him as Hitler, evil, heartless, etc... But the fact remains that if the union had agreed to more reasonable terms, such an outcome would not be necessary. But rather than give up the right to collectively bargain when their members are ABOVE the per capita index, they would rather burn the house down. Pure idiocy.

The system may be flawed, but it will not work at all if people can simply "opt-out" and stay within the borders. Hence the "work with it or leave it" policy. If you want to help change the current system so that it will grow in the direction you prefer, then by all means do so. However, if you are advocating a complete dissolution of the system in favor of anarchy, then I will be the first to stand against you.

You, and others who make similar arguments, keep saying that the power needs to be taken from the police and put in the hands of the people. Are you high? The police *are* the people! I mean, let's break it down for a second. If there was suddenly no police, everyone would be forced by definition to be performing vigilante justice whenever they saw fit. Well, that just causes chaos, because anybody could at any time attack anyone else and claim self defense. A system like that cannot stand, and thus it would be necessary to task neutral parties with judging claims (the courts) and taking evidence and suspects into custody (the police). How the hell else could it be done? You think if there was suddenly no government that everyone would play nice? That's nuts!

If there are flaws with the government, then work to fix them. If there are corrupt police officers, then work to have them brought to justice. Starting over from nothing is completely absurd and would be of no help to anybody, except perhaps those who have the means to form their own police forces (gangs) and start their own little feudal societies based on their own whims.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Pretty damn good for 1964. Didn't quite get the dissolution of the city, if anything, citification has increased. But with the other stuff ... spot on.

You would have to be pretty naïve to not identify the attempt to indoctrinate the viewer with a "more open and accepting view" of sexual experimentation, namely homosexuality as was artistically illustrated by the two male characters sharing a bewildering rainbow-in-the-crotch experience. The concern we should have is WHY we would trust them to indoctrinate our Youth with social, sexual, or political messages of any kind. Remember when stories had "Morals" and not "Immorals"?

Additionally strange is the exaltation of Wayne Dyers quote. That guy is a moron and a fraud, and why it would be chosen for inclusion in a children's animation must make perfect sense to only fools. Unless of course, it was chosen to once again punctuate the blatant cry for acceptance of other peoples' unorthodox sexual orientation. Creatively, this animated short was clever until Teddy Newton added his own dissolute agenda.

...does this ^ guy get paid per moronic troll-like statement?

@all of you guys and girl

I think the answer is sheer pragmatism.

1. Separate Government from Corporations

- Elected officials may only collect contributions from Citizens. (Corporations are NOT citizens)
- Amounts may not exceed $200 per citizen (So that even the poorest of us can take part)
- Any and all investments must be sold before an official may be worn into office
- Any candidate currently or formerly in a corporate career position (CEO, upper management, etc.) must wait a minimum of 7 years before seeking public office

2. Limit Corporations

- No company may be awarded a charter without the consent of the State Commonwealth Convention.
- A Corporate Charter term may not exceed ten years.
- Any and all charter renewals must be reviewed and approved of by a jury of the Commonwealth.
- All corporate charters must include four Commonwealth Stipulations:
1) The understanding that Corporations exist only for the express purpose of expanding opportunities for a group of communities, the improvement & stability of those communities, and the preservation or improvement of the physical health & mental well-being (Happiness) of the individuals which comprise those particular communities.
2) Horizontal Management Structure
3) Profit & Gain Sharing Agreements
4) Failure to maintain the prior stipulations will result in a voluntary resignation of the Corporate Charter or the corporation shall otherwise be remanded to a jury of the Commonwealth to await restructuring or dissolution.


Since our current political and economic systems were set up by businessmen and bankers of the 16th & 17th centuries, it shouldn't be surprising that politicians and bankers act how they do.

Socioeconomic location determines how we are all socialized.
In the "upper crust" locations - greed, bribery, corruption and lack of concern for the commonwealth/"underlings" are standard and acceptable behavior.

Unless we collectively resocialize these rich/wealthy bastards, they'll continue to teach the next generation of rich bastards that those behaviors are perfectly normal for someone of their background.

My transplanted English prof pal from Oregon commented on the latest news here relative to himself and the students that pass for literate enrolled in the college he works for....he's pretty much in the same camp I'm in...don;t let your kids be defiled by public schools in the U.S...Texas is simply a more finely-focused lens of dissolution....and on your televisions so you had to look, huh??

Again, Robot monkey programming makes for obedient little wage-slaves-

Secondary public schools in general in the states, would not pass the 1945 US school litmus test of acceptable practice and curriculum-People have been duped into settling for a thin veneer of the real as opposed to a fine deep lustre...and all of you here, who have fingers to point, point the one that screams complicity, at the man or woman, or at that emasculated fucking male in the mirror....you too, Norwegian-

Oh yeah, and like bea, I spent plenty of time out of tis state as well, living, working, voting, etc. Cali, Oregon, Colorado, Washington State.....regions mean little in the grand scheme of the country as a whole-yer all in the same federal shit storm of idiocracy to the humans being.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^cindercone:
The point I was making is this: I propose that since our current society is Theologically based, the conversion to rational reasoning would be disastrous. Society would fail. If I proposed this, you might argue my proposal. You would argue that the new ascendant rationale could not be determined in advance, or you would argue that rational reasoning would ascend. So either an unknown reasoning would emerge, or we would be dependent upon a historically flawed human assumption of rational reasoning for anything short of total anarchy. THAT is the proof.

First of all, "society" has frequently changed the structure on which it is based throughout history, and though it has gone through some tough times as a result, it doesn't simply "fail". Furthermore, the fear of the outcome of such a change has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of religion in the first place.
Because of the nature of theological indoctrination, even in ideal circumstances it would take generations to remove religion from society. During that time, people will develop other moral codes, whether it is "enlightened self-interest" or something else. Those ethics will be hotly debated, but at least they won't be founded on irrational fairy tales, and therefor will not be available for use as justification for war.
>> ^cindercone:
Obviously, HE doesn’t spend the emotional energy arguing nuclear proliferation and abortion. For him to imply that gay marriage and abortion are issues that are only emotionally contested because of the presence of theology is ridiculous.
How can you say that? It is patently obvious that abortion and gay marriage are only contested on theological grounds. Even if you could find examples of non-religious people who are anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage (which I doubt), those would be so few in number as to be laughable.
The point is that these issues are stupid fights that are distracting people from the real threats to society. In order to move attention from a distraction to a real issue, you have to attack the distraction.


The fallacy here is that the smallness of the number of anti-abortion or anti-gay Atheists would be ridiculous while the smallness of the number of Atheists themselves wouldn't.
What is the percentage of Atheists that hold conservative such as anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion? I don't know. You don't either. In this context any counter proof for your feeling that there ain't no such people can't be simply dismissed on the grounds of being numerically insignificant.

All that said I'm an anti gay marriage Atheist. And in fact, the Soviet Union criminalized homosexuality from the 1930's up to it's dissolution. The law was only repealed in 1993. None of the 5 current communist states accept gay marriage either. Since communism is a generally Atheist ideology, there you have your share of anti gay marriage Atheists, historically and currently.

Just please let's not get on logical implication nonsense here. I know Atheism doesn't imply Communism. I'm not a Communist myself. But it's the other way around: Communism largely implies Atheism. Plus Communism provides you with the one instance of an Atheist society, so it's quite relevant to determine what kind of morals can exist in the absence of religious guidance.

The U.S. and Mexico don't need any malls, they need the Megamerge Dissolution Solution. Google it and find out.

>> ^spoco2:
Ahh, Ron Paul, so many people think you're some kind of god... and yet you spew forth shit like this.
This bizarre notion that people who get health care are somehow depriving others of property or wealth is such a weird concept. This thing of 'What I make I own, f ck off everyone else' is SUCH a selfish enclosed view of the world popularized by those who have already made it, or those that are still under the dissolution that they can become rich if they just 'work hard enough'
To try to equate : Government that provides basic 'rights' like health care, education, basic essentials with an 'authoritarian unconcerned about the rights of the individual'. WHAT? What utter bullshit. Really... You're saying it's someone's RIGHT to die because they can't afford to buy healthcare as compared to being able to live. I would say it's a government that CARES about the individual's rights to provide these basic services.
Public provided healthcare FUCKING WORKS you dipshit. There are PLENTY of countries (mine included) that show this. PLENTY. How the F CK do people like Ron here just put on blinkers? How do they NOT SEE that it's a GOOD THING to not have to worry about cost if you or a loved one has to have life saving care? Why should it be even on the agenda for a necessary procedure? Elective... sure, pay through the bum... if you want a pair of big tits, go right ahead and pay that out of your own pocket. But to have heart surgery to prevent you from dying, you shouldn't only be able to get that if you, or your family have amassed enough wealth to cover the expense.
Government should get out of the way? Oh Fucking please... yeah, because private industry does the best job at providing healthcare. What a steaming load of shit. Healthcare should be about making sick people better and keeping healthy people healthy, it SHOULD NOT be about making profit. And that's what the private industry does. Somehow giving private industry FREE REIGN on healthcare is going to suddenly make it all cheap and quality? Buuuuuulllll shiiiit.
Bureaucrats shouldn't be allowed to get between doctor/patient relationship... um, what about the current private healthcare system you have at the moment which makes the provider STOP before providing care to QUESTION the bureaucrats at the insurance company as to whether you're covered for a given procedure... THAT is insane. Here I walk into the hospital, get the care for me or my child, and walk out. No one asks if I can afford it, no one charges me anything, I just get the care, and I go home...
WHAT? Is he seriously suggesting that LICENSING of medical practitioners be abolished? And is he actually trying to say that homeopathy be treated like real medicine? FUCK me he is more of a fucking tool than I ever thought. He has no idea what he is talking about. To say that there is room for other treatments other than just purely medicinal is ok, but you can't just let everything in. You can say that someone swaying a stone over your stomach to cure your ills should be covered, because there is nothing to ever say that it works... kinda like homeopathy.
I love seeing stuff like this, this is a 5 minute segment that I can always point to when anyone tries to say that Ron Paul is some soothsayer. I can point at this and say, "Nope, he doesn't know what he's talking about, he is a right wing, me me mine type of personality who believes EVERYTHING is solved through competition somehow". "Oh, and he thinks that homeopathy is real medicine... how cute"

I upvote, because I want more people to find out what a fool he really is and to stop treating him like some kind of capitalistic messiah


Standing Ovation!