Community has been growing on me- although Chevy Chase is simple not funny.

Sorry, that was supposed to read "simply not funny".

Gaspumper, some of his earlier stuff was decent..
DerHabicht, The problem with running for president.. -*or really any political position*- is that the skills required to to receive the position.. are the complete opposite of the skills required to *be good* at the office

the guy we need for president is sitting on the 4th floor of that office building, hoping his boss won't come over and give him another boring speech about something the boss doesn't understand near as well as he the guy he's lecturing does..

|> The guy we need for president is sitting on the 4th floor of that office building...

Say, Perrin, on what floor would you happen to be right now...?

domenico - hes in his mothers basement

chase was part of the best bits of early snl, and he can trip over things better than anyone. interesting you should mention him since he is the ron paul of community.

OK, chase was funny in the past- he successfully carried "Fletch"- but he's just not funny anymore.

I hate all Republicans and especially Libertarians. They are the theoretical branch of the Right. I believe Government should protect people against consumerism. The trick-down economics has been discredited since Reagan. All Republican arguments are just so stupid sounding to me. They are so easy to discredit. They revolve around using catch phrases.

es absolutely Ron Paul being elected would diminish the USA's propensity to intervene in regional power struggles, which would mean that you'd both be less likely to have your country occupied by American troops, and you'd be less likely to receive support from those same troops if one of your neighbors was screwing with you. Having a world cop is a double-edged sword for sure.

And to all you people bitching about politics on Warlight - Get a grip, you opted in by clicking on the thread. If you don't like it, don't click on it. Personally I find it much more interesting than the standard "I got booted waah" and "Need help making a map" posts...

http://nynerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/reaganomics.jpg

|>I believe Government should protect people against consumerism.

What exactly do you mean by that? How are you defining consumerism here?

Also before you say something like 'all republican arguments are so easy to discredit' I think it's important to note Ron Paul is unlike the others in many ways. So just because a group has a lot of disagreeable ideas doesn't mean someone within the group can't have a lot of good ideas and ones counter to the group in general even. Best to ignore 'republican arguments' and focus specifically on the individual at hand when making a counterpoint to why you're against someone as they're their own person. Paul in particular doesn't use catch phrases like the others which is one of his challenges as he tries to explain things out and in debates there's really not time for that. Whereas people like Herman Cain epitomize short canned lines.

Consumerism -- Let's that a libertarian would want to do away with government interference. Therefore, a libertarian wouldn't want the government telling him or her how to sell his wares to the people. As an example, you could create ad for cigarettes that target young people and use cartoon characters to do it. You can create ads that use very good psychological tricks on the brain to convince you that you need something you can't possible need. In a libertarian world, one is rewarded for using this freedom to create wealth for himself.

I don't know a single thing Ron Paul said. I do know that Buffett pays 15% in taxes which is a lot less then his secretary. She pays about 35%. (I'm sure you all heard about that.) I think that rich should pay MORE. That would be about 45%. Obama has damn near broken his back trying to get a tiny 3% increase on the rich. So, yeah, I probably won't be listening to anything Ron Paul or any other person from the Grand Old Party has to say (GOP).

Everyone is being psychologically manipulated with ads. This happens with any system. That's the whole point of an ad is to manipulate someone into buying your product. The main and primary stipulation and restriction with libertarians is that the ad must not be fraudulent or dishonest. If it's dishonest then even under the libertarian system the government can facilitate punishment to the offenders. It's your job as an individual to be critical of a commercial and to be careful. It's your job as a parent to limit exposure to ads you don't agree with.
Placing your kid in front of a tv to be exposed to whatever the tv station wants tends to be irresponsible. It's your job as a parent to be responsible towards how a young child is exposed to ideas such that you can raise them proper and without excess negative influence. Plopping your kid infront of a tv set to a station that will almost certainly expose your kid to ads you don't want them to see is bad parenting. Instead you'd wish to carelessly place them infront of the tv and force upon these stations what they can and can't do with their own station. It's like walking onto someone else's property and telling them to shut up because you don't like what they're saying. What if you ran a small store and someone came in and demanded you take down a sign showing a product because you didn't like the product? How is that right? If you don't like how things are done in the store then don't shop in the store. If you've assessed a station to have low standards for ads then don't watch the station. But to forbid everyone from watching it if they're being honest? That seems wrong.

As for the Buffett and secretary thing well that's a misconception that Obama is happy to spew. He's not paying 15% taxes on income. He's paying 15% on capital gains. Invested money. When you work a job like the secretary you pay income tax. Then if you have money left over you can invest it and then pay some additional capital gains taxes. So if Buffett first earned that money and then invested it he would have paid 35+% taxes on the money and then an additional 15% on it. Why should people who save and invest money and who already paid 35% be then made to pay another 35+% tax on it? He just happens to be so rich he can live on the interest of his own money basically and doesn't need a real job. If you want to fight people making undue money off of interest like this you shouldn't blindly attack them and the capital gains rate as you'll just end up hurting investment money which could go to supporting more jobs and economic growth. You should fight inflation which is what robs the middle and lower income people and skews money in favor of the rich who can better avoid 'inflationary tax'. The best way to fight inflation is to reduce the spending and stop letting the federal reserve system print up tons of money which is what causes the inflation.

If you're going to claim to be against someone and something you shouldn't shut your ears and should atleast have a reasonable idea of what it is you are against. The idea of the original post was to fight media bias which also leads to lots of misunderstandings by the general public as they manipulate you in their favor. You want protection, but what's to keep the people who control the message from controlling it in their favor to your disadvantage so that they have you singing their tune? Everyone can be manipulated. Let the focus in regulation be nothing beyond honesty if you start allowing people to go after this or that type of message then you open up moral hazards and the door to control on what information you see and more to our detriment sometimes, what you don't see.

If you think TV ads should be regulated for their poor influence on kids perhaps you think Obama should be regulated out of an office for his deceptions too.

I am not concerned with the honesty of ads except in terms of pricing and health impact, which are both still regulated by the DoC and the FDA. The honesty of "news", however, is something that has slipped badly since Reagan undid whatever law it was that actually provided a code for regulation and enforcement of truth in the media. Although I'm sure Reagan pointed to flaws in the original law as part of the rationale for doing away with it, I think things were better when you had to be above a certain bar in factuality to call yourself a "news outlet".

As far as Buffett and capitol gains vs. income, you're absolutely right Doushi, and that's a huge part of the problem - the extremely rich do not make "income" as it is defined for tax reasons, so if for instance John Smith Sr. was a canny businessman and made billions, his son could inherit it all (with virtually no tax on the estate) and never work a day in his life or be productive in any way, and he'd pay only minimal capital gains taxes while living the high-life on investment dividends and short term speculation. Does this work for John Smith Jr? Sure. Is it a sustainable way to run an economy? Hell no! As the money cycles around, it needs to be repeatedly taxed in order to keep up the revenue stream that allows the government to provide services such as regulation of industry, national defense, grants for R&D, and provisions for the basic welfare of individuals. The acquisition of wealth can't be a one-way street or the economy stops providing opportunity for anyone other than those who are somehow able to amass enough capital to break into the elite happy koch brothers club. Redistribution of wealth, as much as the concept has been subverted into being a dirty phrase in the conservative lexicon, is one of the most basic and essential functions of all government, as any anthropologist could tell you. Build a strong middle class and you'll see a strong and thriving society, and that is in-part done by hitting the brakes on the power of the rich, and especially the power of rich corporations. Libertarianism = free markets, and free markets are the place where societies go to die while a few rich freaks ascend to the sky on a pile of bodies. Yay!

let's just empty out everyones bank account into the governments bank every january 1st... that'll teach those rich people to be smart with their money that the government has already taken their fair share out of!

Thanks for the lecture on how to raise my children, Doushebag. And thanks for that clarification on Buffet's tax rate. I didn't really read your droning reply because I knew all that. Yawn. I especially like how I mentioned concrete figures which you explained away to me. Typical repub.

Dude Vespasian, there's room for differences of opinion politically - Libertarians aren't so bad, I just think that free markets are idiotic and that the Tea Party libertarian movement has been basically purchased by corporate interests, though people on the ground floor can't see that or won't admit it. In any event, you're just regurgitating progressive talking points, whereas Doushi is having an actual discussion. I disagree with some of his viewpoints where I disagree with none of yours, but I still have to say that you're acting with a definite lack of grace and courtesy. Can't we keep it civil?

OK thanks for the reply, devilnis

I'm Russian and i don't care...

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/310205_2240614269036_1658430710_2115358_102726459_n.jpg

The implication on the rich seems to be that they got rich by stealing so we're justified in using the government to steal the money back. If there are two people and they both start working at the age of 20 let's say... Person A over the course of 40 years produces 1,000 widgets to sustain himself for all those years and then at the age of 60 finds himself unable to produce enough widgets anymore to sustain his accustomed lifestyle he then turns to the government to steal from others to take care of him in his later years. Person B works super hard and produces 3,000 widgets in just 20 years and retires at 40 having paid for himself for 20 years and now has a comfy amount of money to support himself for another 40 years. But wait... he's not working for 40 years clearly he doesn't deserve all that money and isn't contributing to society anymore so we should take his money to even things up! And we'll use it of course to support person B. How is that fair? If someone makes a lot of money it's presumably because they gave in a lot of wealth to society and instead of getting a good in return they have money which they will then use to get back what they put into the system in value. How is it fair to steal from them?

If I produce enough grains in one generation such that the next generation doesn't have to work to eat what right do we have to then steal it from them because we now have a person who doesn't have to work the fields to feed themselves grains?

What it basically sounds like to me is that a whole lot of people have been convinced the liberty and freedom type approach, the constitutional approach, doesn't work and that we shouldn't even bother trying for it. Let's just do everything we can with government and take care of everyone and steal from anyone that is rich because clearly their is no legitimate way to get double the wealth of another man.

If you stop using government for all these things then there is less power in it to use against the common person for special interests. It shoudl then be easier to keep things in line when it isn't trying to do a million things. With everyone trying to mandate all these things from the government constantly it just creates a flurry of special interests and people make deals to screw over their neighbors to get what they want.

And if we end all this inflationary stealing people wouldn't be able to live off the interest because interest rates should be naturally low if the currency isn't being actively debased. Interest is slavery and theft. Get rid of it and then people that get wealthy will progressively work down their wealth if they aren't working instead of being able to easily live off the interest. Why are we paying someone for not doing anything? Let's limit that and not outright steal.

"I especially like how I mentioned concrete figures which you explained away to me." What difference does a concrete figure matter? We're differing philosophically... arguing exact figures is irrelevant I think. That's what most politicians are doing, one argues for 24% and another 25% as if they're arguing some huge thing and are at serious odds. Then Paul comes in and asks "Why do we have it at all?" He wants us to step back and question what the role of government is and should be. Why we have what we have and what's really worth keeping and what's not. How does it help or hurt the cause of liberty and freedom?

If you made it through all that... thanks for reading it, hope it was worth it! Brevity is not my strong area.

Found these videos: http://www.dailypaul.com/184026/peter-schiff-taking-on-occupy-live-watch-here
Two part video of Peter Schiff talking to Occupy Wall Street people. Trying to talk to them about what the actual problem is and what they are really protesting. And also help them form a bit of a more cohesive movement in a way as the media likes to mis-portay things as something they're not. The movement also risks being hijacked by alternate interests so I like how it gets people discussing things. More general understanding and discussion is an all around good thing I think even if some of the people don't agree or have a different understanding of things.

I like at the end how he starts to get into it about minimum wage. I think people who fight for minimum wages are a bit confused on how businesses work. They fight like they're preventing everyone from being paid like a sweatshop worker, but that doesn't really seem to be how it works at all.

Should also be noted for minimum wage advocates that (as of 2007) only about 2.2% of people earn minimum wage and over half of those are under 25 years old. In a healthy economy workers naturally get paid more and it's really just preventing marginal workers from being able to work at all. And in a down economy like we are having now it may push that percentage higher, but all that line is really doing is preventing people who could earn some money and forcing them to be completely unemployed and 100% dependent on support from others to survive. Lots of people would be better off working below minimum wage right now and the economy would be the better for it as well, but we're preventing it under the guise it's for everyone's sake to prevent abuse. Seems like more than anything it just makes times like these worse as it makes are utilization of our man power worse and the recession hurts even more.

I think what I'm really trying to do in this thread (now) is spread understanding and try to understand myself why some people seem so staunchly anti-Ron Paul. Because to me he's got more honesty, integrity, knowledge, and understanding than all the others. Yet people seem to be convinced he's wrong on this, that, or the other, and that he'd be a bad President (and somehow worse than what we've been getting??). I just find it hard to get sometimes. Like is it more due to fundamental differences in belief or just misunderstandings or some kind of fear?

If you disagree with me please share why and what specifically you don't like about Ron Paul and why that's enough for you to like others more than him (or dislike him).

I can't believe I am getting into this on a gaming site... but here we go:

You don't understand why the most extreme candidate would garner criticism? I mean, I have supported radical liberal candidates, but I have always been aware that being to the far end of the spectrum comes with the obvious conclusion that the majority of the population will not agree with that politician's viewpoints. I mean, Ron Paul wants a complete overhaul of the country. He wants to completely deregulate the financial sector, completely abolish the tax system and go to a flat tax, abolish minimum wage, and go to the gold standard. These are all very large things. Of course it will be controversial. And I am no economist, but my understanding is that most of those things put more money in the hands of the rich and even further widen the very sizable wealth gap of the country (that is most obvious by increasing sales tax to 22% and abolish income tax which is at least somewhat skewed to taxing the rich slightly more). Oh, and getting rid of the Department of Education is frightening to me. Do we really want to go back to the 16th century where only the wealthy get educated? I realize we have major problems with our education system, but defunding public schools is just terrifying to me. While financial mobility is not that common now, I can't imagine it ever happening without free education for all. That being said, he has never really said what he wants to take the place of the Department of Education as far as I can tell and has been ambigous as to whether public schools should all be shut down (and who pays for them if they aren't).

And that isn't even his foreign policy, which doesn't resemble any other major politician since pre-WWII isolationism (for the record, I actually agree with him on a lot of things such as not entering into stupid random wars and eliminating the War on Drugs).

He also has said some terrifying racist remarks. Such as:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Ron Paul: because one's skin color should be the deciding factor in determining whether to try a youth as an adult (sadly, that happens anyway).

In any case, I don't understand how a Paulbot doesn't realize that he is an extreme candidate. Yet most don't. I think its because he calls it "The Constitutional Approach" so it sounds less radical. Like any other politician, he uses catch phrases that make it sound good. But there is nothing inherently constitutional about the gold standard or a flat tax. And it is blatantly unconstitutional to conduct prayer in public schools, which he proposes.