done. will be interesting to see what he brings in today. Kind of think it's odd that they picked sunday as donation day, seems like weekdays would do better as more people are at their computers at work.
Ron Paul Money Bomb 6/5/11
- Thread starter papajohn56
- Start date
Maybe if there wasn't a huge income gap between rich and poor you wouldn't feel so hostile towards the less fortune lower classes who are 9 times out of 10 a victim circumstance.
To get back on topic, I really don't mind who anyone votes for or what their political views are, but I know the majority of Ron Paul supporters don't understand the full implications of a libertarian government. But I suppose this doesn't matter at it will NEVER happen.
As it was once well put:
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
-John Steinbeck
More like 9 times out of 10 a victim of Government. Welfare and other such programs only serve to keep people poor, and a minimum wage does the same especially to younger people and minorities.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk]YouTube - Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage[/ame]
The fact that people in the U.S. genuinely believe that the "market" is the answer to all of the problems and will CONTINUE to be the answer to all of our problems is beyond depressing at this point. Government is shitty and inefficient and screws up all the time, we all are aware of that. But there are a growing number of CERTAIN sectors and MASSIVE groups of people with massive amounts of problems that capitalism has NO way of ultimately "assisting" now or in the future and it continues to grow exponentially worse, ANY WAY you look at it. But hey, it is too easy to just say "its obama and the government dammit"
I agree with A LOT of the libertarian stuff...but to hear them argue that the "free market just takes time" to bestow advantages on individuals in the worst societal, financial situations on the planet makes me sick to my stomach. Also, the whole "let states decide, then you can just move if you don't like it...." I mean REALLY? it is the 21st century for gods sake, I don't believe sick people, gay people and women that need abortions should have to move out of the state if they live in a particularly conservative state, because the fed is just too big and this makes more sense to let states decide though? Ron Paul makes more sense than any of the republican candidates, but he ALWAYS has. I support the guy, but many of his beliefs just don't pass the "reality" test for me. BUT, that is JUST me. Once again, I do support the guy and he makes more sense than most.
I say screw it though, social conservative republicans can take the entire east coast. They can outlaw gay marriage, never worry about climate change initiatives because libtards "could very well be wrong", drill baby drill, outlaw ALL abortions, have very little gun control laws, get rid of the separation between church and state, turn Disneyland into an entirely christian-theme park, wage more international wars and neverending foreign-occupations, rigorously promote/enforce privatized health care, educations, everyone can drive hummers no need for ANY boosts to public transportation/overall infrastructure etc.
Meanwhile us liberal folk will take the West Coast. I'd like both sides of the country to then then report back in a few hundred years. Which side do you think would come out "ahead" in terms of actual HUMAN/SOCIETAL PROGRESSION?
The light at the end of the tunnel is that eventually we will have no other choice but to socialize things like healthcare anyway IMO. Love that Steinbeck quote, we have a very weird "pride" here that coincides with a heavy dose of capitlism AT ALL TIMES. Weird...I know.
But hey, I would vote for Paul of all the candidates for sure.
I agree with A LOT of the libertarian stuff...but to hear them argue that the "free market just takes time" to bestow advantages on individuals in the worst societal, financial situations on the planet makes me sick to my stomach. Also, the whole "let states decide, then you can just move if you don't like it...." I mean REALLY? it is the 21st century for gods sake, I don't believe sick people, gay people and women that need abortions should have to move out of the state if they live in a particularly conservative state, because the fed is just too big and this makes more sense to let states decide though? Ron Paul makes more sense than any of the republican candidates, but he ALWAYS has. I support the guy, but many of his beliefs just don't pass the "reality" test for me. BUT, that is JUST me. Once again, I do support the guy and he makes more sense than most.
I say screw it though, social conservative republicans can take the entire east coast. They can outlaw gay marriage, never worry about climate change initiatives because libtards "could very well be wrong", drill baby drill, outlaw ALL abortions, have very little gun control laws, get rid of the separation between church and state, turn Disneyland into an entirely christian-theme park, wage more international wars and neverending foreign-occupations, rigorously promote/enforce privatized health care, educations, everyone can drive hummers no need for ANY boosts to public transportation/overall infrastructure etc.
Meanwhile us liberal folk will take the West Coast. I'd like both sides of the country to then then report back in a few hundred years. Which side do you think would come out "ahead" in terms of actual HUMAN/SOCIETAL PROGRESSION?
The light at the end of the tunnel is that eventually we will have no other choice but to socialize things like healthcare anyway IMO. Love that Steinbeck quote, we have a very weird "pride" here that coincides with a heavy dose of capitlism AT ALL TIMES. Weird...I know.
But hey, I would vote for Paul of all the candidates for sure.
^^^
Welfare mentality. The problem with 9/10 'poor people'. Victim this, I deserve that, STFU and do something with your life, no one ever handed me shit and I know what being broke as fuck feels like.
The problem is that 9/10 of ALL Americans are POOR compared to the other 1/10 in this country. so you plan on being THAT 1 OUT OF 10 then BLOKBLOK? due to your hard work and persevering and rejection of "welfare mentality" and "picking yourself up by your own bootstraps" positive attitude?
Don't you think there is ANY valid reason why 90% of this country FEELS this welfare mentality that you speak of? Why is the problem with those 90% of "poor in comparison", and not the perhaps the free market that let the 1 outta 10 people take ALL of our cake behind the scenes and continue to exploit us? BECAUSE YOUR beloved often-unregulated "free market" is often to blame for these types of things when you research some history...global, not just U.S..
Welfare recipients and recipients of social programs are ALWAYS an easy target, but to me, these people should not be the target. human nature will ALWAYS abuse privileges and handouts, no one is going to argue that. But to say that welfare recipients are the ONLY PROBLEM in relation this clusterfuckle of economical problems is laughable at best. for every 100 that abuse the social programs in some way, the social programs SAVE lives and help people out of bad places in their lives and we have PROOF that many of these recipeients you speak of ultimately that go onto make this country a better place, etc. i'd recommend we set our sites on some of the "1 outta 10" guys at the top before going after people that do NEED the help, regardless of whether or not you think they will make something positive happen out of the help we give them.
Don't you think there is ANY valid reason why 90% of this country FEELS this welfare mentality that you speak of? Why is the problem with those 90% of "poor in comparison", and not the perhaps the free market that let the 1 outta 10 people take ALL of our cake behind the scenes and continue to exploit us? BECAUSE YOUR beloved often-unregulated "free market" is often to blame for these types of things when you research some history...global, not just U.S..
Welfare recipients and recipients of social programs are ALWAYS an easy target, but to me, these people should not be the target. human nature will ALWAYS abuse privileges and handouts, no one is going to argue that. But to say that welfare recipients are the ONLY PROBLEM in relation this clusterfuckle of economical problems is laughable at best. for every 100 that abuse the social programs in some way, the social programs SAVE lives and help people out of bad places in their lives and we have PROOF that many of these recipeients you speak of ultimately that go onto make this country a better place, etc. i'd recommend we set our sites on some of the "1 outta 10" guys at the top before going after people that do NEED the help, regardless of whether or not you think they will make something positive happen out of the help we give them.
Why has this "bootstraps" thing become the talking point for internet lefties lately? What the fuck do you think everyone on this forum is doing? Just about everyone here is a business owner or making extra money on the internet, not asking for a fucking handout. Do you seriously think that there's a true free market anywhere in the world right now? Because there isn't. Governments inject their bullshit into all of them. These problems are not the fault of a free market, because there's no free market to be at fault.
Stop with the relativistic bullshit, deal in absolutes. Someone who makes $250k a year may not be as rich as Bill Gates, but they are most definitely not poor. So what if a small amount are super rich? Why is that a bad thing at all? Why do you even care? What you should care about is yourself and your family, and on a grand scale, you should care about why the government is making it so that small percentage has more power just because government is easily swayed.
I'm not in the 1% of wealthy by any means, but I live in a pretty wealthy neighborhood (Acura NSXs, Boats, Corvettes and Ferrari's in the driveways on my block) and I decided to talk a bike ride across the train tracks today to just see what's out there and I was shocked how poor the lower middle class is which is just about two miles west of me.
I totally understand the "welfare mentality", you can literally feel the hopelessness when going through those areas so what are they supposed to think? That it just takes hard work? When everyone they know is poor and fighting eviction or only eating McDonalds because they can't afford to pay $1.99 a pound just for apples?
Puhlease
Let's be real, as douchy as John Edwards has proven to be he was right about one thing: There are two Americas.
This forum only understands one, heck Ron Paul's fanbase only understands one and while what the democrats have been proposing for years MAY NOT be the answer there's no way in hell Libertarianism is.
The problem is pervasive in our thinking, America is a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy. Do I know what the answer is?
NO.
But, I can tell you that Ron Paul's idea of having the government get out of the way is dead wrong.
The government offers more hand ups than it holds people back and the only reason everyone doesn't understand that is because they think that they're better than their peers.
The difference between having a few thousand in the bank and having millions in brokerage accounts is exponential. People here need to stop thinking that just because they fancy themselves as entrepreneurs or motivated that they're better than the poor.
Because they're not.
Everyone wants to do better, we're all just a product of our social environment.
If you want a humorous look at the whole idea of social constructs in American society just watch "Trading Places" with Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd.
People only ask for a handup when they think it's easier than asking for a handout. People stop asking for a handout when they learn they don't need it.
You can't just go to a poor neighborhood and say "stop asking for handouts you poor, lazy, welfare taking motherfuckers!". Just like you can't just go to a morbidly obese people and say "stop eating you fat pig!".
It's deeper than that.
Much deeper than that and that's why Obama was elected, because he provided hope. The hope that most people who are now conservative take for granted.
Too many people feel alienated because the wealth disparity is the greatest it as ever been. They just need a little hope and a little opportunity.
The problem is there is a massive amount of people and you can't just manufacture opportunity.
BTW Papajohn. If you think objectivism works if everyone is doing it I think you're incorrect. Objectivism only works if society as a whole rejects it.
Anarchy isn't the answer.
I understand that there is not a TRULY free market like you speak of, but why do libertarians then turn right around and tell me "Well, uh, if the frikin government would just stay out of the free market and let it work we might be alright after all". To me that is beyond a misinterpretation, is is just a clear-cut difference of human values. No politics involved really. We value things and certain groups of people differently I guess.
What I am saying to you all here is that there should NOT be a profit-motive in certain areas of our lives. That is my opinion.
In my life, I have learned that dealing in absolutes is not a way I'd like to live as it doesn't make any sense when I truly examine the world around me. The beauty of us humans is that we aren't machines...we don't have to think in absolutes. At least I like to think so...the subtle "humanistic" nuances make life work living to me.
What I am saying to you all here is that there should NOT be a profit-motive in certain areas of our lives. That is my opinion.
In my life, I have learned that dealing in absolutes is not a way I'd like to live as it doesn't make any sense when I truly examine the world around me. The beauty of us humans is that we aren't machines...we don't have to think in absolutes. At least I like to think so...the subtle "humanistic" nuances make life work living to me.
I beg to differ. Poor people would've been in a worse conditions if it wasn't for welfare and minimum wage. Try talking to poor people from countries where there wasn't welfare or minimum wage laws.
They get milked like cows.
Experienced Haiti, and these people have no bathrooms, republic services(trash) systems... they just burn it...
Houses are still just in rubble, people just leave fecal matter right in the middle of the street.
These people would love to be in what Americans know as the projects.
This.
Not everything a society does has to be for profit if it can't be, at least not if it's designed to benefit a society at whole. A great example of this is fire and police services. Americans don't expect these services to turn a profit and I think that eventually we will learn to not expect the same of healthcare.
"you should care about why the government is making it so that small percentage has more power just because government is easily swayed"
I believe campaign finance reform is at least a step in the right direction here. But really, I believe that a small percentage of people are using the government structure for their own purposes and benefit because they are insanely wealthy and their wealth is continuing to grow exponentially under our current system. Their wealth is the only reason they are there. You could argue that government allows them to be there, sure. And, in my humble opinion, A LOT of this wealth was gained through the work of hardworking less fortunate folk at the bottom of the pile. And so it goes....
Whoever has the most money in this country gets what they want. The people with the most money in this country would like to keep the status-quo I'd think....and they currently have the power to do so. But yet 90% of us out there are supposed to be mad at JUST the government, and not the actual OFTEN ILLEGITMATE/ILLEGAL process with which they arrived at these ungodly amounts of corporation money?
Lots of things are to blame, but it all leads back to who has the most government "sway", aka MONEY. We can all agree on that. Still doesn't change the fact that 90% of us will likely never be heard no matter how much "internet hustling" we do, and THAT is why the "welfare mentality" is so prevalent today in the U.S. THAT is why I care so much. Legitimately-gained wealth is surely not a problem with anyone discussing this here I'd hope...
I believe campaign finance reform is at least a step in the right direction here. But really, I believe that a small percentage of people are using the government structure for their own purposes and benefit because they are insanely wealthy and their wealth is continuing to grow exponentially under our current system. Their wealth is the only reason they are there. You could argue that government allows them to be there, sure. And, in my humble opinion, A LOT of this wealth was gained through the work of hardworking less fortunate folk at the bottom of the pile. And so it goes....
Whoever has the most money in this country gets what they want. The people with the most money in this country would like to keep the status-quo I'd think....and they currently have the power to do so. But yet 90% of us out there are supposed to be mad at JUST the government, and not the actual OFTEN ILLEGITMATE/ILLEGAL process with which they arrived at these ungodly amounts of corporation money?
Lots of things are to blame, but it all leads back to who has the most government "sway", aka MONEY. We can all agree on that. Still doesn't change the fact that 90% of us will likely never be heard no matter how much "internet hustling" we do, and THAT is why the "welfare mentality" is so prevalent today in the U.S. THAT is why I care so much. Legitimately-gained wealth is surely not a problem with anyone discussing this here I'd hope...
lol @ the people who thinks he can't get the nomination.
He started last election around this time polling less than a percent, then ended around 8-9%. His followers are so die hard he definitely doesn't lose voters. He's starting off this time around 12%. If he gains another 8% like last time he'll easily win with a 20% majority.
The difference this time around is, his followers are already prepared and organized so it won't be any time wasted. He's got better funding. And the Kuccinich and Gravel supporters aren't there to split his vote (they took about 6% collectively last time). Granted a few tards will go over to Gary Johnson, but those people can't be recruited, they just like to sound like they're better than everyone by voting for the biggest underdog they can find.
The big question this time will be whether or not Ron Paul will organize an actual legit national campaign. I understand why he couldn't last time as he didn't really have any money until around November, but still he's not one of those well organized people.
He started last election around this time polling less than a percent, then ended around 8-9%. His followers are so die hard he definitely doesn't lose voters. He's starting off this time around 12%. If he gains another 8% like last time he'll easily win with a 20% majority.
The difference this time around is, his followers are already prepared and organized so it won't be any time wasted. He's got better funding. And the Kuccinich and Gravel supporters aren't there to split his vote (they took about 6% collectively last time). Granted a few tards will go over to Gary Johnson, but those people can't be recruited, they just like to sound like they're better than everyone by voting for the biggest underdog they can find.
The big question this time will be whether or not Ron Paul will organize an actual legit national campaign. I understand why he couldn't last time as he didn't really have any money until around November, but still he's not one of those well organized people.
The way you phrase this sounds like you're implying that you do support some government role in regulating predatory marketeers.