Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411281 Posts in 69324 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 11:03:09 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGeneralRon paul
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 41
Print
Author Topic: Ron paul  (Read 64414 times)
Capntastic
Community Friendlord
Administrator
Level 10
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #260 on: February 05, 2012, 03:18:20 PM »

Most women can afford to quit their job and find another job instead. (Of course it's not ideal, but it's a better option than getting raped)

First, where are you getting 'most' from?  Over half of the United States is below the poverty line, we're at around 10% unemployment, and if you up and quit without notice you can lose your accumulated benefits. 

Further, even if everyone in the US could exist without pay, implicitly defending rape by arguing that the victim has the choice to leave is going completely against the non-aggression principle that Libertarians claim their ideology flows from.  Someone is doing harm to you, and putting you in a situation where you either tolerate it or lose your job.  It's coercion, and unlike the 'violence of law', it's coercion you did not agree to.

Saying that not getting raped is better than losing your job, and one should abandon their livelihood for it is arguable, but why should it be a choice?  If you're being molested by your employer, they should be punished, and your job shouldn't be at forfeit for someone going out of their way to shit on your rights.  If Ron Paul groped your ass and you didn't work for him, that is clearly his fault.  Why should it be different because you work for him?  Is it because you become his property?  Does your personhood vanish the moment you sign on to work for someone?  Can your personal rights, which he and other libertarians see as being inherent above all else including law, be bargained away?  Is that not wildly inconsistent?

Saying that "well you were wearing those clothes, you were on the bad side of town, you were asking for it" to shrug off someone getting raped is indefensible.  The only person responsible for the rape/molestation is the person who did it.

You don't see libertarians saying "well of course they were asking to be robbed, having such a big house with nice stuff in it." Rich people too have the choice to not be conspicuously wealthy, they can move to a secluded area, etc.  And yet their suffering is not passed off as being their own fault when misfortunate strikes.

Why are tangible property rights to not have their golden toaster stolen from their home ranked higher than the right to not get tongue-kissed by Ron Paul because you work for him?
Logged
Nix
Guest
« Reply #261 on: February 05, 2012, 03:25:59 PM »

My biggest problem with Ron Paul and most fiscal conservatives/classical liberals is that they seem to live in a fantasy world where there are opportunities and business which offer everything for everybody at competitive rates. If your health insurance is too expensive and doesn't cover you well enough, just go find another provider with better rates and better coverage! Those fantasy insurance providers don't exist. If you're at a job that you got after a year of unemployment and job searching, just quitting and finding a new job isn't so easy. The world is a lot smaller and more limited than Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich would like to believe.
Logged
googoogjoob
Level 3
***


The Walrus is me.


View Profile
« Reply #262 on: February 05, 2012, 03:31:29 PM »

super joe you are my hero you have rescued this thread
Logged
Capntastic
Community Friendlord
Administrator
Level 10
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #263 on: February 05, 2012, 03:32:03 PM »

No Nix, don't you see, if the government didn't have an unfair competitive advantage by giving poor people food to live off of and welfare to buy basic necessities, companies would be free to drive down prices, because history has clearly shown that companies will always hire as many people as possible and pay them decent wages and not charge as much as possible no matter what their operating costs are.  It's not at all like mechanization has led to a huge reduction of the number of jobs required, while the labor pool grows every year.  It's not at all like corporations speculate on the price of commodities like grain and oil, which are inelastic and people require them, driving up the prices as much as they can by creating an artificial shortage, just so they can make millions while shitting on everyone else.  It's not like history has shown us that this happens every single time you let it.  

I don't know where you're getting the idea that these people live in a fantasy world where all it takes is hard work to succeed, because the free market, the invisible handed god, will provide for all who sing its praises.
Logged
Superb Joe
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #264 on: February 05, 2012, 03:39:01 PM »

Quote
There is the slight possiblity that he didn't really know what was going on in these newsletters, because not many people knew what newsletter are back then. I would think.
In 1996, he defended the news letters and made no claim he didn't know what was written in them. He heard the same criticisms but defended them: there is no possibility that he didn't know.
i like the fantasy idea that in the eyes of some, ron paul is still a viable candidate to take the highest office in the most powerful country in the world, to lead it and oversee the enormously complex political apparatus involved, because he doesn't actually hate blacks, he is simply blisteringly incompetent to the extent that for a period of decades he read nothing published in his name and had no control over it. they want a man who cannot control a newsletter, and is not curious as to why it is making him so much money, to run a country.
Logged
Capntastic
Community Friendlord
Administrator
Level 10
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #265 on: February 05, 2012, 03:40:58 PM »

Yeah, as said above, even if you do buy the Ron Paul as Mr. Magoo conception people have of him, it in no way improves his validity as a legitimate candidate.
Logged
PompiPompi
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #266 on: February 05, 2012, 03:42:13 PM »

Most women can afford to quit their job and find another job instead. (Of course it's not ideal, but it's a better option than getting raped)

First, where are you getting 'most' from?  Over half of the United States is below the poverty line, we're at around 10% unemployment, and if you up and quit without notice you can lose your accumulated benefits. 

Further, even if everyone in the US could exist without pay, implicitly defending rape by arguing that the victim has the choice to leave is going completely against the non-aggression principle that Libertarians claim their ideology flows from.  Someone is doing harm to you, and putting you in a situation where you either tolerate it or lose your job.  It's coercion, and unlike the 'violence of law', it's coercion you did not agree to.

Saying that not getting raped is better than losing your job, and one should abandon their livelihood for it is arguable, but why should it be a choice?  If you're being molested by your employer, they should be punished, and your job shouldn't be at forfeit for someone going out of their way to shit on your rights.  If Ron Paul groped your ass and you didn't work for him, that is clearly his fault.  Why should it be different because you work for him?  Is it because you become his property?  Does your personhood vanish the moment you sign on to work for someone?  Can your personal rights, which he and other libertarians see as being inherent above all else including law, be bargained away?  Is that not wildly inconsistent?

Saying that "well you were wearing those clothes, you were on the bad side of town, you were asking for it" to shrug off someone getting raped is indefensible.  The only person responsible for the rape/molestation is the person who did it.

You don't see libertarians saying "well of course they were asking to be robbed, having such a big house with nice stuff in it." Rich people too have the choice to not be conspicuously wealthy, they can move to a secluded area, etc.  And yet their suffering is not passed off as being their own fault when misfortunate strikes.

Why are tangible property rights to not have their golden toaster stolen from their home ranked higher than the right to not get tongue-kissed by Ron Paul because you work for him?
Oh god...
Well, all I am saying that given the options to get raped and to lose the job, I think women should pick losing the job. Regardless of whos rights got trampled, it's just common sense. It doesn't matter that her rights got trampled, it doesn't matter that "the attacker should be punished" I didn't say he shouldn't. (How does it help HER that her attacker will be punshied? Christ)
However, I think a lot of women choose to not quit their job eventhough there are bad signs. Maybe they are just in denial and confused and are not really sure what is going on. I think women SHOULD quit their job if there are bad signs, I am afraid some women don't do it in time.
You can't ensure all working environments will be 100% safe, I don't say you shouldn't strive for it, but we still don't have a robocop placed in every office.
And the safest way for a woman to prevent being assulted when there are bad signs is to quit the job. What else do you suggest her to do?
Logged

Master of all trades.
PleasingFungus
Level 7
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #267 on: February 05, 2012, 03:42:51 PM »

super joe, please marry me

(Also, Capntastic, http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=23703.msg685680#msg685680 was a fantastic post.)
Logged

Finished games: Manufactoria! International King of Wine!
And others on my site.
JutsBeaumont
Level 1
*



View Profile
« Reply #268 on: February 05, 2012, 03:47:36 PM »

Quote
However, I think a lot of women choose to not quit their job eventhough there are bad signs. Maybe they are just in denial and confused and are not really sure what is going on. I think women SHOULD quit their job if there are bad signs, I am afraid some women don't do it in time.
Some Women Cannot Afford To Quit Their Job
Logged
PompiPompi
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #269 on: February 05, 2012, 03:54:20 PM »

My biggest problem with Ron Paul and most fiscal conservatives/classical liberals is that they seem to live in a fantasy world where there are opportunities and business which offer everything for everybody at competitive rates. If your health insurance is too expensive and doesn't cover you well enough, just go find another provider with better rates and better coverage! Those fantasy insurance providers don't exist. If you're at a job that you got after a year of unemployment and job searching, just quitting and finding a new job isn't so easy. The world is a lot smaller and more limited than Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich would like to believe.
My biggest problem with liberals is that they think they can make everyone in their country wealthy and still be competitive in the world market.
Which translates to, what do you prefer? Better average wealth(Capitalism)? Or Better minimum wealth(Liberal)?
The problem with liberals is that they are trying to "save everybody". You can't have 0% crime rate, you can't have 0% poverty. There are always going to be poor people. The question is, are going to run the country as if you can make everyone wealth and eradicate crime? Or are you going to run the country by looking at numbers and statistics and saying things like "Hmm, I am going to put resources to prevent rape, on account of murder. That will get an improvement of 0.5% less violent crimes. I am going to put resources into A, which will make more people poor and more people starve to death, but it will improve the economy in the long run".
I think liberals are not aware that bottom line, those are the kind of decisions people in the office face.
They deal with peoples lives ON AVERAGE, if you try to "save everyone" it's impossible.
I know it sound cold, and I want to have 0% crime and 0% poverty, but it's impossible and the next best thing you can do is to approximate and optimize.
Logged

Master of all trades.
Capntastic
Community Friendlord
Administrator
Level 10
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #270 on: February 05, 2012, 03:54:48 PM »

Oh god...
Well, all I am saying that given the options to get raped and to lose the job, I think women should pick losing the job.

And the safest way for a woman to prevent being assulted when there are bad signs is to quit the job. What else do you suggest her to do?

First:  You didn't cite your claim for 'most' people being totally fine with dropping their source of income at the drop of a pant.  Do that, or stop saying things like that.  Also, harassment can happen to both men and female so I'll use neutral pronouns.  Not gonna try to nail you on saying "women" explicitly, but you should be aware!

Second, wrt first line:  There shouldn't have to be a choice.  A person entering employment shouldn't have to make the choice of "lose your job or let me drink pudding out of your hair while masturbating.".  It's coercion, pure and simple.  Working for someone does not give them the right to force you into those situations.  

Third:  I'm not saying a person who is under threat of molestation or rape shouldn't try to extricate themself from the situation.  Leaving a parking lot because your boss is lurking there in a fursuit with a hole cut out around the dick is a good idea.  No one's disputing you should flee and call the police.  But to be in a situation where you're dreading going to work because your boss does that is unacceptable.  Yes, you probably don't want to work there.  Luckily, in most situations, your boss is going to be a middle manager or similar who can be fired and replaced for being A TOTALLY SHITTY PERSON.  They should be forced to leave, not you.

Again, why should it be different if Ron Paul is exposing himself to his female aides or random children on the street?  Why should him being your employer mean that it's not entirely his fault, and that if you disagree with him showing you his notoriously clean ass, it's your own fault for sticking around?  Especially when, as has been stated, people need jobs to live, doubly so under a libertarian system.
Logged
Superb Joe
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #271 on: February 05, 2012, 03:55:36 PM »

is this pompii guy for real
Logged
Superb Joe
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #272 on: February 05, 2012, 03:59:25 PM »

My biggest problem with liberals is that they think they can make everyone in their country wealthy and still be competitive in the world market.
Which translates to, what do you prefer? Better average wealth(Capitalism)? Or Better minimum wealth(Liberal)?
The problem with liberals is that they are trying to "save everybody". You can't have 0% crime rate, you can't have 0% poverty. There are always going to be poor people. The question is, are going to run the country as if you can make everyone wealth and eradicate crime? Or are you going to run the country by looking at numbers and statistics and saying things like "Hmm, I am going to put resources to prevent rape, on account of murder. That will get an improvement of 0.5% less violent crimes. I am going to put resources into A, which will make more people poor and more people starve to death, but it will improve the economy in the long run".
I think liberals are not aware that bottom line, those are the kind of decisions people in the office face.
They deal with peoples lives ON AVERAGE, if you try to "save everyone" it's impossible.
I know it sound cold, and I want to have 0% crime and 0% poverty, but it's impossible and the next best thing you can do is to approximate and optimize.

seriously. read these words everybody.
Logged
Capntastic
Community Friendlord
Administrator
Level 10
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #273 on: February 05, 2012, 04:07:09 PM »

My biggest problem with liberals is that they think they can make everyone in their country wealthy and still be competitive in the world market.
Which translates to, what do you prefer? Better average wealth(Capitalism)? Or Better minimum wealth(Liberal)?

You know that macroeconomics and microeconomics are two entirely different things, right?  A totally 100% socialist country with literally no idea of 'personal wealth' can still produce goods and export them to the rest of the world.  And why is competing on the global market important?  Do you think that even if America de-regulated everything and gave corporations 100% power they would be able to keep up with China who has both literally a billion more people and a notoriously hideous track record for pollution, human rights, worker suicide, etc.  Why turn yourself into a monster just to compete with them in them?

Are you going to cite your claim that most people don't really need jobs?
Logged
PompiPompi
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #274 on: February 05, 2012, 04:13:01 PM »

lol, because people like to work hard if they get some sort of compensation. "No personal wealth" means they don't get a compensation.
What reason do I have to work hard if I am going to get the same either way?
That's for socialist.
But liberals believe they can save everybody, they even believe they can save you from yourself.
Logged

Master of all trades.
ink.inc
Guest
« Reply #275 on: February 05, 2012, 04:14:33 PM »

wat
Logged
PompiPompi
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #276 on: February 05, 2012, 04:17:35 PM »

wat
Well, liberals are too afraid you will harm yourself in numerous ways. Don't you remember with clinton, and then they did an Apple\big brother movie of her?
Logged

Master of all trades.
ink.inc
Guest
« Reply #277 on: February 05, 2012, 04:18:11 PM »

that was a commercial

Logged
Nix
Guest
« Reply #278 on: February 05, 2012, 04:21:30 PM »

It's not about fucking compensation. There are plenty of lazy poor people, but there are many more people who work their fucking asses off from dawn to dusk but still have to rely on food stamps and struggle to pay the bills. Is that right? No it isn't. Liberals don't want to make everyone wealthy. Not everyone wants to be wealthy. In fact, most people just want enough money to live comfortably. Liberals want poor people who work their asses off to have at least a minimal standard of living above the poverty line.
Logged
PompiPompi
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #279 on: February 05, 2012, 04:21:34 PM »

My biggest problem with liberals is that they think they can make everyone in their country wealthy and still be competitive in the world market.
Which translates to, what do you prefer? Better average wealth(Capitalism)? Or Better minimum wealth(Liberal)?

You know that macroeconomics and microeconomics are two entirely different things, right?  A totally 100% socialist country with literally no idea of 'personal wealth' can still produce goods and export them to the rest of the world.  And why is competing on the global market important?  Do you think that even if America de-regulated everything and gave corporations 100% power they would be able to keep up with China who has both literally a billion more people and a notoriously hideous track record for pollution, human rights, worker suicide, etc.  Why turn yourself into a monster just to compete with them in them?

Are you going to cite your claim that most people don't really need jobs?
I didn't say people don't need a job, I said you can quit your job and not starve. Because, err, you might find another job? If you quit your job it's not like you can never work again.
Logged

Master of all trades.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 41
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic