Ron Paul = America opening its collective anus and preparing to be fucked by the-corporate-guys-who-own-everything harder than it’s ever been fucked before. No lube.
Every non-Obama candidate is a joke, but so is every Obama candidate. The tradition of the presidential campaign is a stage show and has been for a long time.
I would bet money that his career will end in a flurry of gay affair allegations. It’s like throwing a stone in the air. It’s going to come down. It’s just a matter of when.
Yet another reason why I’ll never buy a car. 
Gas to expensive for my broke ass.
If you didn’t notice- that’s actually whats happening right now. Ron Paul is against all corporate bailouts and for minimizing government power so they can’t hand out special favors to lobbyists who are trying to get a piece of the pie. If government powers are limited, people can’t lobby for all kinds of crazy favors because there’s nothing to hand out. All the corporate guys who own everything support Romney and Obama- they don’t fund Paul’s campaign for a reason.
Nah dude you can have a nice-button down and some good jeans and walk around some neighborhoods in Queens, NYC and get stopped and frisked for being black on a wednesday night.
Freaking gas prices added with car payments, insurance payments, and maintainance… yeah… fuck that shit… o_O
He may have noticed what you’ve just said, if he’d actually listened to anything Ron Paul has ever said. Ever.
And yet when you remove all the regulations you’re just asking for monopolies, environmental catastrophes, and all kinds of injustices to their workers. Bye bye equal opportunity employment, and hello discrimination. Bye bye unions, hello lower wages, less benefits.
Basically instead of government and corporations working together to fuck people over, you’ll just have corporations working with eachother to fuck people over and no government regulations or power to stop it. At least the constituents have some say in what the politicians do (albeit minimal). What say do workers at a company get lmao??
The really wealthy people own all of the capital and means of production. That’s why they WANT less government, less federal owned stuff and programs. So that they can be in control and basically have free reign. Take away the safety nets, and federal funding and they get all those people to work for THEM, instead of for the government. To profit directly off of their labor, and have more control.
This is my understanding of how things work and what will happen.
A better solution is just to limit the power of corporations and their influence on the political system. Overturn the Citizens United decision, and get the money out of politics.
Reform the ineffective government programs
cut the defense budget
subsidize alternative energy sources and sustainable architecture/agriculture.
…Idk man reform the schools and the healthcare system.
Or just fuck it, revolution let’s go.
If you think the weird sadomasochistic relationship that the corporate and political spheres have now is bad, what do you think that a corporate sphere of this size would do in a completely deregulated environment?
Do you think it’s going to play nice? Do you think it’s going to develop a sense of social responsibility?
Or do you think it’s going to do what it always does anytime it gets off the leash–gobble up or destroy small companies, collude from company to company to raise prices while allowing quality control to lapse, defraud the shit out of people as hard and often as possible, discriminate against consumers for anything without reprisal, fuck the environment in the eyehole, and generally do very bad shit with zero transparency and accountability? How in the name of James Wong does this sound like a good idea?
EDIT:
Sorry. Hang on.
Okay, I just drank some Kool-Aid. Go Ron Paul! Nothing could possibly go wrong!
Well this is a pretty big subject but there’s lots of material to read, like when it comes to monopolies- they’re almost literally impossible without some type of government intervention to keep them afloat. Look up Dominick Armentano and read up some of his research when it comes to that subject.
The really “wealthy” people are in control and have free reign because of the power of the Federal government- not in despite of it. Without special favors, its impossible to actually become wealthy without satisfying consumers. The safety nets we have are already insolvent and the federal government has routinely taken money out of the social security fund for example to be spent on other things in the first place.
Be in control of what and have free reign over what? Any specifics? I rather have people work for a company like Microsoft or Apple than work for another war manufacturing company making tanks and bombs for the government- so I’m not sure what you mean by “Take away federal funding and get those people to work for THEM”.
Lol workers have a hell of a lot more say at a company than any constituents have with politicians. Everyone voted for Obama because they thought he was a peace candidate- and he’s the furthest thing from it. At least you have some choice of who your employer is. But if you’re the 49% minority in a vote for some lawmaker- you’re powerless.
Presidential elections are now a joke, whichever candidate has more advertising is statistically more likely to win. Now corporations can fund candidates, you might as well choose between which corporations you like at this point.
If you honestly think theirs a difference between republicans and democrats at this point you need to look at the acts that got passed in the past decade, all republicrat bull shit with slight concessions to either side.
The whole system is fucked, nothing is going to change about it until people get off they’re ass’ and realize that the government is fucking us.
My entire point is that it is the regulations themselves that’s giving corporations too much power- they’re the ones that write the bills for the regulations in the first place. Whats your idea of social responsibility? You’re responsible for yourself and whoever else you decide to be responsible for. A company exists to provide a product or service- and it lives and dies depending on if people like it. Unfortunately now we have a system of corporate profits and social losses. Instead any company that doesn’t perform well should be allowed to go bankrupt.
Get off what leash? There’s always been a huge regulatory environment in this country. Regulations don’t prevent bad behavior, what they do is make consumers assume everything is a-ok. If the Federal government for example guarantees your bank deposit, people now have less of an incentive to care what kinds of loans their banks are making(and now neither does the bank since there’s no risk of losing your customer’s money).
Some more specific examples would make it easier to talk about it. Like when it comes to the environment- all you need is enforcement of private property laws which is one of the things the government should be doing. But since the government owns the majority of the land in this country, what happens instead is known as the “Tragedy of the commons”.
If two companies decide to collude together to raise prices- that creates an opportunity for another company to come in and give lower prices. Of course in this imaginary “deregulated environment” of yours- you’ll have to assume like I am that there is no regulatory barrier of entry to the market which would mean anyone can compete in the marketplace since you don’t need to pay upfront for a license/permit and wait years to be approved by whatever municipality/city/state.
Internet run businesses is great example of that- compared to a brick and mortar store there’s a hell of a lot less regulation to run into if you want to sell something through the internet- so alternative choices and prices are all over the place.
Ron paul isn’t against normal fraud laws- prosecuting the people at Enron simply required that- but the government decided to create the Sarbanes-Oxley act afterwards which is the biggest waste of money ever. As an accountant myself I’ll tell you from experience that it does nothing to prevent anything ever.
But either way- he’s also the only one talking about ending the war on drugs and bringing all the military home. Those two things alone makes him a better candidate than anyone in decades.
I’m not well read on monopolies or anything, but I recall from history that it took government intervention to break up the monopolies. Large corporations often form mergers for the mutual benefit of both, and actually the government has to stop them sometimes because it might cause a monopoly.
You’re right that’s how some of the wealthy got their money. So we just reform instead of shrink the government. Seriously just try and think of the negative consequences of shrinking the government. Tell me why republicans and so many wealthy Americans are so ardently for it? Because it will greatly benefit them. Less regulation. Run wild. (I’m not trying to be class-ist or anything. I don’t hate rich people)
By in control of them, I mean that the money generated from their labor will go directly towards their companies. Privatization. People are basically an asset, and if they are working for someone else then you are not making money off of them. They can’t profit from federally employed people. They can’t privatize what the government owns. The name of the game is acquiring and investing in capital, and getting people to work for wages (ideally as low as possible to maximize profits) in order for the company > and the owners to make more.
Really? Because last time I checked the CEO’s and the board members don’t include their entire staff in their meetings. Employees have next to no say in what the company does. Why do you think that so many people are so scared of losing their jobs by speaking out or having different opinions. Either way you’re wrong on this one. The people have more power in government, the only problems is they either don’t care or aren’t able to assemble enough people to make a difference. Work = voluntary dictatorship while you are in their house. Government = ~democracy (which to me is better than a dictatorship).
Don’t really feel like discussing more because I got things to do.
Keep drinking that Ayn Rand kool-aid :tup:
Obama talked about that too. What makes you think Ron Paul will be any different?
How much can he get done if he’s got a divided Congress that won’t like him. I think if he gets elected it will be just as much failed promises just like Obama.
Changing heads doesn’t do anything. The system is broken man. I actually might vote for him just to make some libertarians sad when he fails lololol
That’s why I recommend Armentano- its actually really interesting to find out that the government tries to break up companies that aren’t hurting consumers at all- and don’t even have 60% of market share.
Those republicans are not for shrinking government like you think they are. If you’ll notice, they’re all for increasing the size of the military and certain industries- and just want spending reductions in other areas, that’s what guys like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are all about. When the government spends millions of dollars on weapons we don’t need- money that could’ve been used for just about anything else instead- like consumer goods such as refrigerators or clothes- I’d say shrinking the government has huge positives. The only power a company can have if there’s less regulation is “Do you want my product, yes or no?” That’s about it. They write the regulations and that’s why they run wild.
Why support having lots of Federally employed people? Where does the money come to pay for these guys? A company needs to provide a good service or product so they can earn enough to hire people and pay them. The Fed doesn’t have to worry about that and just takes money through taxes to pay for something useless like the TSA. I’m all for ending those types of departments- they’re the biggest waste of money ever.
Might want to wonder why was it that at one point in time the US was the largest creditor nation in the world, with the highest wages, and produced the lowest cost products- and the companies had huge profits? People who earn money through wages sell their labor and the better you are, the more money other companies are willing to pay for it. There’s competition for labor too. If the problem is that the cost of living is way too high so the wages aren’t enough…well in that case we’d have to look at why the cost of living has been going up- and that has everything to do with the government’s monetary policy and why the purchasing power of our currency has been dropping every single year.
Depends on what company you work for- I’ve worked in all sorts of companies some with terrible management, and others were the CEO would go right up to you and ask you what you think. The people absolutely don’t have more power in government- that’s never been the case. Tell that to all those protestors that get beat up by the police every other day and nothing gets done. To call work a voluntary dictatorship doesn’t make any sense- because a dictatorship removes the entire “voluntary” thing. Work is an agreement that you decide to come into or leave.
Powerful government is enforced at the point of a gun and if you don’t like it, go to jail. And if you’re a government employee even better because its more likely that you have more rights than anyone else. Like how if you’re in congress “insider trading” isn’t such a big deal for some reason. Or if you’re a cop you can literally shoot someone to death and get put on a desk job whereas anyone else would be rotting in a cell.
To call this back and forth Republican/Democrat thing we’ve had for such a long time a democracy is a joke don’t you think?
uhh ok.
Well as president he doesn’t need congress to pardon every non-violent drug offender or to bring the military home. Obama never talked about bringing the military home, he openly talked about putting more troops into afghanistan and going into pakistan during his presidential campaign.
And hey let’s say you’re right and changing heads doesn’t do anything. Then you prove my point that people have absolutely no power when it comes to government.
Whoa hold up, Bowza. We can’t have people who actually work and have first hand knowledge of how businesses work up in here. Doomsday theory crafting only!
My favorite part of 4 dollar per gallon, is that no one is calling out Obama. No one is saying shit. but oh noes, when W was president that he was a fucking scoundrel working for oil companies. but hold up, isn’t Obama heavily endorsed by BP?
Fucking joke.
Failing to restrict power is not the same thing as giving power.
I’m not going to write a paper here, but the abstract would probably start with “Don’t do things that fuck people over.”
Hang on. We’re talking about the United States, right? I realize there’s an outside chance that you’re from a different country that also has a candidate named Ron Paul running for president.
What is your thesis here? Is it that regulations have failed to prevent bad behavior, and therefore should be done away with? That’s not an argument for deregulation, so much as an argument for better regulation.
Because there’s no way that pollution that occurs entirely on one’s own property could possibly affect somebody else’s.
Yeah, we saw this happening all over the place during the construction of the railroads. Smaller competitors popping up like mushrooms on a log.
How much competition do small brick-and-mortar or online businesses really provide for Time-Warner and GE?
This is not an argument for deregulation, so much as an argument against wasteful, knee-jerk legislation.
If you isolate the conversation down to one or two key issues, whichever candidate has the best stance on those issues is going to be better than any other candidate. This does not mean that person is a good candidate, save for that provisional situation.