WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Pro Wrestling > Kane endorses Ron Paul

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Kane endorses Ron Paul  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2007 03:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
Heretic



Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3883
Status: 
Offline
I've found libertarianism strangely very popular on wrestling message boards. More popular than in real life anyway.

People don't like Ron Paul's ideas because they'd rather have social security and fire departments.



____________________
Nick Hoodwinkel Jerkwinkel
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2007 05:05 pm
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
The Ultimate Sin
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown, Sri Lanka
Posts: 9877
Status: 
Offline
Isys Ephex wrote: I'm not really sure why everyone dislikes Ron Paul's ideas so much...

I am all for free market. putting the responsibility back in the individual, and not policing the world.

Good to hear.  Who the fuck are you???



____________________
May I offer you some salt and vinegar chips?
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2007 06:04 pm
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50235
Status: 
Offline
People don't like Ron Paul's ideas because they'd rather have social security and fire departments.

No one from our generation is going to have social security, we're just paying into it.  And no Libertarian wants to eliminate fire departments.  That's like those ridiculous political commercials that goes "A vote for so-and-so is a vote for pedophilia" or "Did you know that so-and-so voted for a bill in favor of killing puppies back in 1992?"  Please.

Last edited on Fri Dec 28th, 2007 06:05 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2007 06:43 pm
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
Kid_Naitch



Joined: Tue Oct 30th, 2007
Location: IOWA
Posts: 4903
Status: 
Offline
Isys Ephex wrote: I am all for free market. putting the responsibility back in the individual, and not policing the world.

Those things are all great in moderation, but the fact is that government services are necessary if we want to keep people from completely checking out of society. And, like it or not, the U.S. does set an example to the rest of the world, so to completely withdraw and saw 'let it be' sets a terrible precedent. That doesn't mean we should go poking wasp's nests with sticks, ala the Middle East, but sometimes diplomacy and intervention is warranted, i.e. North Korea, Darfur, Afghanistan. Who knows, maybe even Pakistan in the upcoming years.



____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Dec 28th, 2007 07:05 pm
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50235
Status: 
Offline
I'm willing to take it in moderation at this point.  But it's clearly been heading to the other extreme the last 8 years, that's not even a debateable point.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Dec 29th, 2007 01:31 am
  PM Quote Reply
21st Post
Isys Ephex

 

Joined: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 28
Status: 
Offline
thank you guys for letting me know your actual thoughts on Mr. Paul's ideas and not just flaming me

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Dec 29th, 2007 06:42 pm
  PM Quote Reply
22nd Post
The Ultimate Sin
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown, Sri Lanka
Posts: 9877
Status: 
Offline
Isys Ephex wrote: thank you guys for letting me know your actual thoughts on Mr. Paul's ideas and not just flaming me
Oh I wasn't flaming you.  That was my version of "welcome to the board."  I don't remember seeing you around here before.  So again, who the fuck are you?



____________________
May I offer you some salt and vinegar chips?
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Dec 30th, 2007 07:26 am
  PM Quote Reply
23rd Post
Isys Ephex

 

Joined: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 28
Status: 
Offline
no no i was being serious like alot people when you ask questions like that will just blast you but none of you guys really did

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Dec 30th, 2007 07:42 am
  PM Quote Reply
24th Post
sek69



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 5509
Status: 
Offline
I've still never figured out why for all the valid reasons one could have for not wanting to vote for her, the anti-Hilary brigade usually only can come up with "CUZ ITS HITLERY, DUH".

I mean, yeah there's baggage but she's pretty much the only person with experience and electability running this year. Obama's getting the rub from Oprah right now, but when the chips are down you know it's going to be Hill-dog vs Rudy in November.



____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Dec 30th, 2007 07:52 am
  PM Quote Reply
25th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50235
Status: 
Offline
My main reason is because Hillary is anti-business and the most likely to reverse Bush's tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, which will send an already tenuous stock market (and economy in general) into the toilet.   Iraq's a huge issue but so is the economy, the devalued dollar, the threat of recession, etc.   Mitt Romney is the only one with a legit track record in the business world who really understands these issues, but I'd never vote for him based on his social stances and bottom line is I don't give a shit about being PC, let's call a spade a spade, if you have the religious beliefs that he has then you're a fucking retard with some serious problems, right up there with Bush and Bin Laden on the coo-coo meter.  Rudy is fairly clueless about everything other than getting his face on TV and working in a 9/11 fear mongering reference into every sentence, I'm very amused that he's FINALLY being seen as something of a national joke because New Yorkers have known that for years.  And Obama, well who knows, he's never done anything and has no concrete stances on many issues so he's a crap shoot trying to get by on a likeable personality and a "gee whiz" attitude.

If there was one mainstream candidate I might've voted for, it might've been Bloomberg had he run as an Independent.  I like the guy's straight-shooting "Fuck You" attitude, I love his business background, I have respect for his intelligence, I don't see eye-to-eye with his social stances but they're not THAT oppressive considering the competition.  But he's not running so I'm back to voting for the no-name Libertarian (not Ron Paul, who has been Republicanized and is a little nutty) who will get 20 votes while keeping my fingers crossed that whatever loser gets elected doesn't fuck this country up even worse than Bush did (which on the bright side would be nearly impossible unless half the population of the U.S. was killed). 

Last edited on Sun Dec 30th, 2007 08:01 am by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Dec 31st, 2007 01:36 am
  PM Quote Reply
26th Post
Heretic



Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3883
Status: 
Offline
I don't think countries should be run like businesses. Countries are countries and businesses are businesses. For one thing, I'd observe that businesses are benign dictatorships, which is why I'm always puzzled whenever bona-fide, chapter-and-verse-quoting libertarians trot out that old saw.

On a more subtle polemic front, good governments (note the qualifier) should be motivated by quality of life issues. Businesses are motivated by profit, with quality-of-life enhancements hopefully--- but not necessarily--- a side effect of their profiteering.

As far as a business is concerned, whenever the profit motive and the quality-of-life motive are in competition, the profit motive always wins and the quality-of-life motive always loses. That's why I don't want countries run like businesses.

I think we should have libraries, police and fire departments, and health care whether there's profit in it for anybody or not. These things are few of many examples which should be the province of well-run governmental agencies rather than private businesses--- or governments pretending to be businesses, or fidiuciary agents for businesses. Notice the qualifier "well-run" once again.

Dogmatics will argue that there isn't any such thing, but that's nothing more than the irrational tenet of a religiously held point of ideology ("the private sector can do everything better than government can"). Trying to convince a libertarian of the flaws, impracticalities and irrational zeal of their arguments is like trying to convince a born-again Christian fundamentalist of the flaws, impracticalities and irrational zeal of their arguments. I've given up trying, frankly.

Governments like ours aren't perfect by any means. But they are at least directly accountable to the vox populi in a way that private businesses aren't. They are at best accountable to the vox populi of their shareholders, and their shareholders are hardly enfranchised on a one-person-one-vote -principle. I would rather have direct input into an agency that is motivated by the improvement of quality of life than to have indirect input at best, or no input at all, into a private corporation that is motivated by profit first and quality of life indirectly at best, or not at all.

I'm sorry that some people have bought into the right-wing meme of Hillary-as-bogeyman, out to emasculate big business and bring about a socialist state. (Although I suppose in Libertarian-Land anybody who believes there is a function for government in anything is a socialist.) As it happens, Hillary Clinton is by far and away the Democrat most well-funded by corporate donors, which is why she was, not coincidentally, the odds-on favorite and presumptive nominee for the better part of a year.

But go ahead and believe that instead, Hillary Clinton hates big business even after taking all their money and was the presumptive nominee because a clique of liberal-socialist academics somewhere--- and not major corporate media conglomerates--- run the media.

By the way, this is in a nutshell why I am not supporting Hillary Clinton in the primaries either.

Last edited on Mon Dec 31st, 2007 01:39 am by Heretic



____________________
Nick Hoodwinkel Jerkwinkel
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Dec 31st, 2007 01:44 am
  PM Quote Reply
27th Post
HBF



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 17866
Status: 
Offline
No disrespect to Kane and his wealth of knowledge about politics, our economic system, and international relations, but I reserve the right to back the candidate that Hornswoggle supports.

Last edited on Mon Dec 31st, 2007 01:44 am by HBF



____________________
"That's what a pre-med degree will get you kids, nearly correct spelling and pissing in a bowl on Skype"-SRossi on Sunny
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 07:24 pm Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2     
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Pro Wrestling > Kane endorses Ron Paul Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems