Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!)


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 9:22:40 AM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

One hge curve ball is that i think in every courtroom we swear on the bible, "do you swear to tell the truth so help me God". 



It's more than just a curve ball. It's entirely inappropriate. After all, there are plenty of Muslims, Jews, other religions, and athiests in this country.

Not sure what we should replace the Bible and oath with though.

Hmm... how about "Cross my heart and hope to spit?" ...

< Message edited by subfever -- 11/18/2007 9:23:16 AM >

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 9:33:02 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


The biggest problem in politics today is that they deal with the symptoms and not the cause and while it takes on the appearance of "getting something done" we only become more entrenched in a failed system.

I agree SF that he has a very fundamental grasp of the problems we are dealing with at a root level where any change what so ever would have a huge impact in bettering many of the areas we all complain about daily on here.





Bingo!




Well and the problems are exacerbated by lack of constitutional education and a public who is disenfranchised from the process, combined by most schools teach primarily revisionist government making it nearly impossioble for people to get the "big picture" and bring the government back in line with the founders vision which can only be done at a root level.

Clipping the leaves of a weed does nothing to prevent its coming back at the next rainfall which in effect is the efficacy the greator majority of nondestructive legislation.


Where ron paul shines is that he understands how to give us what we want within the root values and vision of the constititution imo.







< Message edited by Real0ne -- 11/18/2007 9:35:28 AM >


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 9:35:24 AM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


The biggest problem in politics today is that they deal with the symptoms and not the cause and while it takes on the appearance of "getting something done" we only become more entrenched in a failed system.

I agree SF that he has a very fundamental grasp of the problems we are dealing with at a root level where any change what so ever would have a huge impact in bettering many of the areas we all complain about daily on here.





Bingo!




Well and the problems are exacerbated by lack of constitutional education and a public who is disenfranchised from the process, combined by most schools teach primarily revisionist government making it nearly impossioble for people to get the "big picture" and bring the government back in line with the founders vision which can only be done at a root level.

Clipping the leaves of a weed does nothing to prevent its coming back at the next rainfall which in effect is the efficacy the greator majority of nondestructive legislation.



Well put.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 10:06:32 AM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
Jeez, don't you guys know you can just affirm? No one has to swear oaths, it's even mentioned in the Constitution (IIRC). As a matter of fact, swearing oaths is forbidden in the bible so it's odd to make anyone swear an oath on one.

Yet another way religion and government just don't make any sense together.

(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 10:37:55 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Jeez, don't you guys know you can just affirm? No one has to swear oaths, it's even mentioned in the Constitution (IIRC). As a matter of fact, swearing oaths is forbidden in the bible so it's odd to make anyone swear an oath on one.

Yet another way religion and government just don't make any sense together.


Its been a while since I have been in court so its possible they are dropping the religious aspects by the wayside, however when I was younger they pulled out the bible.

I realize you do not like ron paul, so the question is who DO you like?   I mean you are putting ron paul no and Dr no and all that then the least you can do is give us someone who you feel desrves our vote that can do more or better for this country that he can.

Why dont you do that? 



.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 10:50:03 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
Churro, you're good at finding out and pasting info.
You should start another post like this on Hillary Clinton.
You'd be busy for a week! lol

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 10:59:18 AM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
Because that's not what this thread is about, of course. My purpose here is to simply warn others about what they might be getting in Ron Paul. To me he's not a lot better than the average Republican. At best, he's Republican lite.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 1:06:45 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Its been a while since I have been in court so its possible they are dropping the religious aspects by the wayside, however when I was younger they pulled out the bible.




Yeah... it's been ages since I've been in court too... but I'm not complaining!

Didn't realize though, that one need not swear oath on a Bible in court. But then, I never professed to be a Constitutional scholar either.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 1:07:09 PM   
GoddessDustyGold


Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
quote:

Things like "keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance," "the school prayer amendment" and "keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn" are all generally barred by the establishment clause.


I am aware that "under God" was added to the pledge.  It is not a big deal for Me.  Take it out again or leave it in. But the fact that you can state you do not recite the pledge at all shows Me that this is more than the "God" thing for you. 

quote:

I don't believe in the pledge of allegiance on any basis. I have almost always abstained from stating any part of it even since I was a young boy. The god bit was grafted onto an original version. More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

I don't waive or display flags either. And I don't care if people want to use the flag as underwear or clothing or bikinis. I don't even care if someone wants to burn the flag or deep fry it. If I lacked toilet paper I might use a flag as suitable replacement for such.

Pffft...!



All that shit is sham patriotism.



You are a globalist, plain and simple, and you will not be happy until everything is your way.  You have no national pride.  That is okay, but you have a tendancy to belittle anyone who does have national pride and feel they are less than worth your time.  Such a lack of respect for your fellow man is a shame. But you fail to see that even if some of these founders were "antiChristian" they were all Deists.  That is a belief in a higher power, and we happen, for sake of reasonable communication to refer to that "higher power" as God.  Not Jesus Christ.  Not Allah, not Buddha...just plain old "God". 

quote:

Now the courts could be wrong, but I fail to see how they are wrong in this case. To champion any one faith is to establish it and disparage other religious beliefs or the absence of such religious belief.


Who says that it is being championed?  This is a sore point with all the anti-Christian/anti-God folk.  Yet, it is not being championed at all.  It is simply the belief system at some level or another of the largest percentage of the citizens of this country.  I see it right here on these boards when the "Very Controversial" threads are started.  One person starts by syaing they don't believe and sometimes even why they don't believe.  Another person comes in and says they do believe and why.  Immediately this is taken as "shoving your beliefs down my throat".  If the believer started a thread stating they do believe and why, I am sure the non-believers would come in and state they don't.  Yet I don't see the believers accusing the others of "shoving their philosophy down their throats".  I am consistently fascinated at the double standard.  Stating I am a Christian is forcing someone else to agree.  Stating a "non-belief stance" is a right.  ?????????
I am expressing My religious beliefs by saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes is completely unacceptable these days. 

quote:

To be honest, I have a limit to how much I wish to discuss this issue because the devout want to be legally justified in their beliefs and I as a non-believer am not particularly inclined to simply give them their way on this issue either.


Bold emphasis Mine.
Yet they are legally permitted to hold these beliefs.  You don't want them to have that legal right.  The fact that you use the term "justified" is very telling, SMC.  That word means, to Me, that you feel Christians want to not only be allowed to worship in the manner they see fit and express their beliefs, but they want everyone to tell them they are right.  And that is not so.
The separation clause holds when a teacher is not hired because s/he was asked on the job application what his/her religion is (not permitted) and is not hired because s/he is not Christian or is a Christian.  S/he is not permitted to proselityze in the classroom.  That is a private matter for the family unit.  But it can be just as much proselityzing when a big deal is made about not praying or never using the word "God". 
My neighbor can put a nativity scene in his front yard and it is none of My business.  My other neighbor can display a large Menorrah and it is none of My business.  Another can fly a flag with a large pentacle and it is none of My business.  Yet a fourth can have a Buddha sitting on his front porch and it is non of My business.  My fifth neighbor can proudly display a Star of David in some manner and it is none of My business.  It is a way of legally expressing a religious or philosophical belief.  And it is none of My business.  If I am offended then I had best be prepared to lose My right to express My belief.
This does not seem to be a big problem for those who are in the "I don't believe in anything but the world" as they have nothing to express except indignation over the fact that they feel offensive beliefs are being forced on them if they have to even look at that nativity scene.   
When was I offended and shocked?  When My mother, told Me that they were cleaning off the doorway to their little church in a small Texas town.  This fine and upstanding evangelical Baptist community had someone or someones who had spray painted the words "dirty papists" on the door.  And when My niece was told she was not welcome at the "prayer around the flagpole" because she was a "Catholic".  Yes, Christian vs. Christian.  I have My own opinions on that, but that is for another day.  If you want tolerance you also have to be tolerant yourself.  And keep things in perspective.    I know people who are devout atheists.  The amount of drama regardng anything at all regarding God is actually funny.  There seems to be this pervasive fear that if they or their children are exposed in any way, shape or form that people even hold a belief in God, in whatever manner, that they might start to think for themselves or develop a faith of some sort.  It is such a fear, and I see it, that I feel sorry for them. 
I agree that there are pockets in this country where the bigotry and the forcing of beliefs exists.  Join the club or be shunned.  But they are truly only small pockets.  Don't like it, don't live there.
But stop being so damned senstive and feeling like any mention of "God" means that you are being forced to accept a belief system that is not comfortable for you.   The ten commandments are a symbol of the basis of the law.  It is not mean to be religious.  It is an example of the way laws are set down based upon that oldest of moral codes.  And it comes from the Old Testament...not from the New and not from Jesus Christ. 
We have strayed so far from the original intent of our founders that is sad.  

quote:

We might have to agree to disagree.


On that we can agree.

Edited only for a few typos and one punctuation error.  If there are more, please don't hold it against Me.



< Message edited by GoddessDustyGold -- 11/18/2007 1:14:27 PM >


_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom


(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 1:25:25 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro
---
Opposes unions generally:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst072798.htm

Right, because the free market will fix all of these things by itself....not.




Right to work must be free of coercion (By Ron Paul)

Most Americans say union membership should be voluntary

Most Americans would accept the notion that individuals should be free to work for whom they want, and that individuals should be free to hire whom they want, without having an third party telling them otherwise.


Unfortunately, this is not the case in the United States, thanks to the federal government. Under federal law, Congress has prevented employees from finding a job on their own, and then holding the job by their own merit. Instead, federal law has allowed labor unions to step in and dictate to both employers and employees everything including who can be hired, the terms of the contracts, the availability of promotions, and even the conditions that someone can be fired.


This is unconscionable. So much so, in fact, that polls report 80 percent of the American people believe these laws need to be changed. I'm one of those 80 percent who see the current state of the law as antithetical to a free society, and for that reason I am proud to be a cosponsor of the National Right to Work Act, H.R. 59.


The National Right to Work Act simply repeals sections of federal law giving union officials the power to force workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Compulsory unionism violates employers' and employees' constitutional rights of freedom of contract and association. Further, Congress has no constitutional authority to force employees to pay union dues to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. Perhaps more importantly, though, Congress does not have the moral authority to grant a private third party the right to interfere in the employment agreements between two free people.


Unions should be allowed to exist, as long as they are voluntary agreements between the people involved. In fact, we don't need more regulations on the unions or the employers or the employees. In fact, we need fewer regulations on the kinds of employment agreements people can reach, and allow people to choose whom they wish as their representative, if they so choose.


Unions can serve a beneficial service to employees and even employers. But never should unions have the benefit of the government force giving them power; that is intolerable.


After all, no single organization can be expected to "speak" for everyone. This is why there is so much controversy over the political spending of the unions. The union leadership, for many years, has grown "out of step" with many of its members. Yet thanks to the government, members have no choice but to continue paying dues, which are then used to promote causes they oppose.


A far better system is one of voluntary union membership. If a worker feels the union can represent them and they agree with the politics (or do not care), they are free to join the union. Likewise, an employee can choose to not join a union at all. In fact, a great market could open up, where several unions could exist, giving employees a choice of which union will best represent their interests with the dues they pay. But at every stage the agreements should be voluntary. Employees should be free to join or not join, and employers should be free to bargain with the unions, or not. The free market will sort out the details. The free and open market, not the heavy, restrictive hand of the government, will determine the best employment atmosphere, allowing for maximum freedom for the employees and the employers.


Americans must have a right to work -and hire - as best suits their needs. A government bureaucrat cannot mandate the conditions, and no single organization can do everything. As always, the principle of liberty and freedom will provide the maximum number of opportunities and options.

SMC, what's your problem with any of this? It sounds reasonable to me.



(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 1:54:19 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro


Ron Paul on race:

Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and wrote, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column: "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."

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html





Depending upon one's interpretation, Paul's comment very well may have been directed towards what Washington laughingly calls the criminal justice system.  Given the inefficiencies of the criminal justice system, we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

In other words, whites are far more likely to get fair treatment from the system than blacks.

Read what Ron Paul says on racism:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 2:51:00 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Because that's not what this thread is about, of course. My purpose here is to simply warn others about what they might be getting in Ron Paul.





So I guess then the only way we will find out who you think is the best choice for this country is who you do not warn us about?





_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 3:23:05 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
So Ron Paul is opposed to mandatory union membership, and is opposed to the promotion of racist stereotypes. 

The monster!  Good thing we have people here to warn us.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 4:39:40 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
As suspected, many people that claim to support the "individualism" of Ron Paul really just support his more bizarre views that align with those of the far-right fringe of the Republican party.

But Ron Paul is only a shade off from his fellow Republicans.

You can't be against multi-nationals and corporations and vote for Ron Paul. He doesn't have a coherent view on that.

You can't be against privatization. Ron Paul supports privatization all the way. Like most foolish libertarian types (most are disgruntled and overly idealistic Republicans) Paul thinks the Free Market will fix everything when we all know it doesn't. History is a long litany of proof that great wealth leads to monopoly and the Free Market has no controls for that.

If your gay, Paul is no friend to you.

Ron Paul is favorite among extremist white supremacist groups.

If your a woman that wants choice, look elsewhere.

This guy is in bed with the oil industry and wants to offer up subtle government subsidies so that the bloated oil industry can just keep going as is on the back of the taxpayer.

Paul opposes basis OSHA stuff that keeps American workplaces safer than those in China. If Ron Paul had a coherent stance on trade maybe your jobs wouldn't be going there.

With every way that Ron Paul seems to be giving you something on one issue, he's taking it all away in other ways.

Now maybe that's not exceptional among politicians. But Ron Paul is offered up as a maverick and I just can't see it. He is a maverick as compared to whom? Another Republican?


(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 4:56:48 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

As suspected, many people that claim to support the "individualism" of Ron Paul really just support his more bizarre views that align with those of the far-right fringe of the Republican party.

But Ron Paul is only a shade off from his fellow Republicans.

You can't be against multi-nationals and corporations and vote for Ron Paul. He doesn't have a coherent view on that.

You can't be against privatization. Ron Paul supports privatization all the way. Like most foolish libertarian types (most are disgruntled and overly idealistic Republicans) Paul thinks the Free Market will fix everything when we all know it doesn't. History is a long litany of proof that great wealth leads to monopoly and the Free Market has no controls for that.

If your gay, Paul is no friend to you.

Ron Paul is favorite among extremist white supremacist groups.

If your a woman that wants choice, look elsewhere.

This guy is in bed with the oil industry and wants to offer up subtle government subsidies so that the bloated oil industry can just keep going as is on the back of the taxpayer.

Paul opposes basis OSHA stuff that keeps American workplaces safer than those in China. If Ron Paul had a coherent stance on trade maybe your jobs wouldn't be going there.

With every way that Ron Paul seems to be giving you something on one issue, he's taking it all away in other ways.

Now maybe that's not exceptional among politicians. But Ron Paul is offered up as a maverick and I just can't see it. He is a maverick as compared to whom? Another Republican?




I easily poked holes into half the nonsense in your OP. If you keep it up, I'm going to have to poke holes in some of these as well...

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 4:59:08 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold
You are a globalist, plain and simple, and you will not be happy until everything is your way.  You have no national pride.


I don't know what you mean by any of that. I am not a globalist. And I do have pride in many things about the U.S. - the things that matter.

When the state starts telling you that the flag is important and that our role in the middle east is sanctioned by personal communications with a man in the sky, hold onto your wallet and hide your children because there's a war brewing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold
Who says that it is being championed?


If the state is involved, it's probably unconstitutional and everyone knows this. Hey, go argue with the higher courts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold
We have strayed so far from the original intent of our founders that is sad.


No, this is where you went off on some rant on people that perform hate crimes and are intolerant of others' views. I am generally fairly tolerant about almost anything. What I find odd is the way Christians think that ramming Christian ideas down everyone else's throats is actually cool. Like when they come to the door and want to know if you have discovered Jesus yet...

Me? I love Christmas displays in front of people's houses. I support the way others celebrate pagan holidays in whatever manner they choose.

Just keep the state out of it.



(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 5:04:42 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
That's truly hilarious, Subfever. Did you mean this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
...and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses.


Most people identify that as the problem right there: profit motive. You will not fix healthcare while it remains privatized in any way nor while it maintains any kind of profit motive.

Quoting the articles I myself cited isn't actually going to prove your points to anyone except some sycophantic Ron Paul nut.



(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 5:17:33 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

That's truly hilarious, Subfever. Did you mean this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
...and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses.


Most people identify that as the problem right there: profit motive. You will not fix healthcare while it remains privatized in any way nor while it maintains any kind of profit motive.

Quoting the articles I myself cited isn't actually going to prove your points to anyone except some sycophantic Ron Paul nut.





Paul understands what you do not. 40 years ago, the health system worked relatively well. It was government interference that created HMOs and other problems to the industry, not the lack of government interference.

Of course, a collectivist like yourself sees things differently. You want bigger government, and you want it to solve all problems for us. You seem to think there's really a free lunch somewhere, not realizing that even if the government did "solve" this problem for us, we'd soon be paying for it anyway... as the costs always trickle down to the taxpayers.  

Have you forgotten the I-80 thread already? Same principle.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 6:03:32 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
You seem to think there's really a free lunch somewhere, not realizing that even if the government did "solve" this problem for us, we'd soon be paying for it anyway... as the costs always trickle down to the taxpayers.


You can put words in my mouth all day long, it doesn't make them mine.

Who said anything about free? You sure have free on the mind - all the time, it's almost your only argument.

Let me explain something to you...

If you wanted to have high speed connections for the four computer's in your house you could do it at least in two different ways. One way might be to have a dedicated line for each computer, which might run $80-160 a month depending on what sorts of plans you choose. An alternative approach would be to get one high speed connection for only $20-40 a month and split the line among the four systems. Every computer will not be online at the exact same time hogging up all the bandwidth, it's more likely that most of the time only one or two computers will be accessing the internet at the same time. The neat thing is you can spread the cost and save a bundle while still getting almost exactly the same connection you would have had with four dedicated lines.

That's how universal healthcare works. It's not that its free, its that the cost is spread and only some few need it at any one time.

You could build a bridge for every citizen that needs to cross a river, or you could build one bridge that they all can share.

You could allow 50 electric utility companies to compete for customers and have thousands of wires and unique methodologies clogging up your city with all of their crap, or you could have one utility company for that purpose that is highly regulated to keep prices down.

Etc.

The Free Market doesn't create solutions like those.



(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) - 11/18/2007 6:49:23 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

And all this time I thought that all the inner city gangs were caucaision. You know, like the "Jets" and the "Sharks."
You mean I'm wrong?


I see the point you're trying to make.

However, I believe that when the playing field is truly leveled for all, the ethnic makeup of gangs will be directly proportionate to the ethnic populations.



Whites form violent "gangs" too... look at the United States government, the Mafia, the WTO... etc etc etc


The Klew Klux Klan is the oldest and one of the most powerful terrorist arganisations in the US.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The REAL Ron Paul (Just say no!) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109