Hoarding is exactly what the government is doing right now by filling the SPR, and frankly it's the best thing that could happen. It drives prices up. High prices encourage demand destruction. They also finance new well development. The hoarded oil gives us a buffer to fall back on once shortages become more prevalent. High prices are what we need in order to adapt to what's coming, and the sooner they happen, the better.
Joined: Sep 17, 2006 Posts: 623 Location: No man's land
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
In the chart I referred to above, Ron Paul falls more into the authoritarian part of the spectrum than the libertarian part. This is because abusive power structures step in where government has stepped out. _________________ "It is no measure of health to be deemed sane in an insane society" J. Krishnamurti
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
All this just convinces me that my only hope is to complete my preps soon and call on the Powers for a fast crash soon thereafter. Otherwise it seems that freedom and possibly survival become...ah, highly unlikely. _________________ Dieoff is not a matter of masses of people just lying down and closing their eyes for the last time; it's messy and ugly, accompanied by much thrashing about.-gg3
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
Right wing libertarian's great weakness is that they don't understand that the govt, has already conceded most of it's power to corporations. I don't know exactly where Paul stands on this.
Everytime the idea of "freedom" comes up, several paradoxes are automatically activated. Is there a system that enhances personal freedom while honoring the planet, and respecting limits to growth? These may not be compatible concepts. In fact, the future, may rest on a reduction of personal freedom. We may have to compromise freedom to maximize human dignity.
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
Alcassin wrote:
1. Leaving things social/moral stand is funny - what's the problem with bribing politicians locally? Churches can fund it... corporations can fund it.
2. Libertarianism doesn't work - free market is built on permanent growth. Only growth in free market gives you the taste of freedom, because each year more and more products are available, once you cannot increase the productivity social structure freezes, and then collapses or becomes slavery.
Worse scenario - private property is so saint that you can chop your last tree, even if it means death of thousands.
If you don't pollute because you are enviromental freak you can be outcompeted, because those without concerns can maximize profit, cut the costs and increase productivity. Period. In free market you have permanent competitor, growth is higher, cost of this growth can be lethal
Even von Hayek noticed relation between social organization and growth of everything. But Hayek for libertarians is statist, commie, whatever...
I guess I sort of agree with that, but for different reasons. I think that libertarianism requires a low population density, and readily available wilderness. One of the central themes of libertarianism is lassez faire economics....for example people should be free to sell their labor to an employer or not, and they should be able to freely negotiate a wage without government interference. That's all well and good if there is empty land and you have the option of moving to the wilderness, building a cabin, hunting for food etc. If your only other option is to sleep on a street corner, beg for food, and get arrested every time you try to take a piss, then it's not like you have the option of telling the boss to sod off. It creates an non-voluntary bargaining environment. I think that libertarianism can work quite nicely at steady state, but only at relatively low population densities and with significant amounts of intact ecosystem available. _________________ "I was born in a deep forest
I wish I could live here all my life
I am made from stones and roots
My home, these woods and roads
All my life I loved this sound
Of the woods all around
Eagles fly where the winds blow free" -Korpiklaani
Joined: Jul 17, 2004 Posts: 480 Location: Amerika (most of the time)
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:27 am Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
I saw Ron Paul yesterday on CNN and it was like a breath of fresh air. He was articulate and extremely intelligent. He could talk about foreign policy and made some excellent points about inflation and the stupidity of the FED right now. He also didn't lean on stupid catchphrases. Ron Paul has just gained a supporter and I am going to give his campaign some money. (The only problem is that if he won I think he would be assassinated post haste). _________________ Simon's Law: Everything put together falls apart sooner or later.
I don't think of all the misery, but of all the beauty that still remains.--Anne Frank
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:06 am Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
Back in May when I first took notice of the man I wrote in this forum:
Quote:
As a socialist/environmentalist, I can't really get behind the hardcore libertarian agenda. Ron Paul still kicks ass though. He's pretty much the anti-politician in my view - a straight talker that cuts through the sound bite bullshit is like a fresh wind in politics, and perhaps even more so in American politics.
It's sad to see how he gets chewed up by the establishment for daring to do something as outrageous as speaking a little truth about 911/War on Terra. He holds plenty of nutty convictions that would be easier to critique without coming across like a delusional tool (Giuliani!), but that's a different story.
Paul has got balls though, and he refuses to back down. This earns him bucket loads of respect from me, even if his fundamental views on what government's role in society ought to be differs greatly from my own.
With this previous entry in mind it's interesting how much dislike I have these days for all things RONPAUL2008 rLOVEution BLIMP GOLDSTANDARD VAGINADOCTOR. Since Paul himself is pretty much a human constant and my own way of thinking hasn't changed significantly since May, I primarily blame his grassroot supporters for my change of heart. Paultards, Paulsies, RonPaulogists - whatever you wanna call them - are the most annoying group of people ever on the internet, and that says a lot. Pauls overly vocal, constantly trolling and spamming fans soil their hero with their zealotry much like religious freaks of all creeds do with theirs.
Joined: Jun 20, 2007 Posts: 455 Location: USS Poland
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:14 pm Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
nemo wrote:
Paultards, Paulsies, RonPaulogists - whatever you wanna call them - are the most annoying group of people ever on the internet, and that says a lot. Pauls overly vocal, constantly trolling and spamming fans soil their hero with their zealotry much like religious freaks of all creeds do with theirs.
I call him 'The Pope' and they are inquisitors.
Whenever I watch leftist movies on youtube there is always someone posting "Ron Paul R3volution" spam _________________ Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by
this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten
future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is
ours, chew and eat our fill.
RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! _________________ I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
Barack Obama, now the media's odds-on favorite to win the White House, is drawing effusive praise from the chattering classes.
"You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by this. . . . This is a huge moment," one commentator wrote.
An unreconstructed liberal? An African American hungering for a racial breakthrough? No, it was David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist, and he's got plenty of company on the right.
The media overall are being swept up by a wave of Obamamania, in which normally hard-bitten journalists watch the orator in action and come away dazzled by his gifts. A New York Times piece Saturday compared the Illinois senator to JFK and Martin Luther King in the same paragraph. A Newsweek cover story out yesterday gushed that Obama, "tall and handsome and blessed with a weighty baritone, knows how to bring along a crowd while seeming to stay slightly above it." The journalistic scrutiny usually visited on instant front-runners has been replaced by something akin to a standing ovation.
What's more, the applause extends even to pundits on the right, many of whom routinely denigrate Democratic politicians and yet are strikingly warm toward Obama. There is gratitude, to be sure, that he seems poised to knock off their longtime bete noire, Hillary Clinton -- especially if he wins today's New Hampshire primary -- but also admiration for his inclusive approach to politics and for his sheer talent.
"Who's not proud of this kid?" says Amanda Carpenter, national political reporter for the conservative site Townhall.com. "He has a story people feel good about."
Amazing. _________________ "Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
Joined: Jun 18, 2004 Posts: 690 Location: Western North Carolina
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:28 am Post subject: Re: Even Conservative Media Chorus Sings Obama's Praises
The CFR and the military industrial complex have long tentacles, and they are doing their damndest to make sure that their gravy train doesn't stop running.
There is but one candidate with any chance of winning this election who is not part of their game, and they are likewise doing their damnedest to make sure his message is not heard, hence he is known as an "internet phenomenon".
The good Dr. has cured my apathy, and whether he wins or not, he seems to be waking people up to the painful truth about our government and their propaganda machine.
Joined: Jun 18, 2004 Posts: 690 Location: Western North Carolina
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: Re: Arguments AGAINST Ron Paul?
Let's hear it for US troops staying in Iraq for 100 years. Let's hear for inflation! Let's hear it for big government and unsustainable deficits. let's hear it for the CFR and AIPAC! let's send our troops into Pakistan and Iran! Let's hear it for unlimited government surveillance! Freedom is authority (thanks Rudy).
Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray!
Yep, that Ron Paul really is crazy huh? What kind of nut-job wouldn't approve of those things?
What scares me is that people don't recognize the integrity of the man and the truth in his message. I guess they don't have time to read anything and like their opinions served up to them by the media. Ignorance of the issues is no reason for ad-hominems.
When people support the other candidates in this election, they seem to be supporting all the things listed in the first paragraph.
On freerepublic.com I wouldn't be surprised. But here of all places?
Yes, the internets never cease to amaze!
Joined: Sep 29, 2004 Posts: 2285 Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: Re: Even Conservative Media Chorus Sings Obama's Praises
Perhaps conservatives see Obama as easier to beat than Clinton. A lot of people I know, are suspicious of Obama's patriotism. _________________ "That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
