i gotta admit i kinda have issues with his deregulation. while i believe we are over-regulated to the point of absurdity total deregulation would be catastrophic. we need regulations on shit like healthcare where if you get cancer they can't just drop you as an example
i'm *really* bothered with the republican war on the epa and what paul represents in that battle.
here goes:
if you deregulate on a federal level the monitoring of pollution of air and water, what happens? in georgia, over the last few years, we've suffered a lot of drought. it got so bad that in '08 or '09, there was a lawsuit amongst the states of georgia, alabama and tennessee over the rights that the states had to water coming from a small river in the northeast corner of georgia. so, use of water is already an issue amongst states.
now, if paul had his way, he would put the regulation of environmental matters in states hands. well if, for instance, ohio decides that they can relax their regulations of water toxicity in order to get some company to move there to create tax revenue...does that affect only ohio? no. it effects every state down the line that gets water from the ohio river. next thing you know, every state south of ohio has shitty water that they have to deal with and no added tax revenue to deal with it. this sort of thing is a very real possiblity. and there are many, many other issues of this sort that *will* come up if you seclude everything to states rights without federal regulation.
shane, it would be refreshing if you countered the new testament for once, seeing as its pretty excepted that the old testament is just a bunch of horseshit..it would make your opinion more valid
the fact that there is a new and old testament to begin with and they are vastly different validates that the entire bible is horseshit
DUMBLEDORE IS A FAGGOT DUMBLEDORE IS A FAGGOT DUMBLEDORE IS A FAGGOT DUMBLEDORE IS A FAGGOT DUMBLEDORE IS A FAGGOT DUMBLEDORE IS A FAGGOT DUMBLEDORE IS A FAGGOT DUMBLEDORE IS A FAGGOT DUMBLEDORE IS A FAGGOT DUMBLEDORE IS A FAGGOT DUMBLEDORE IS A FAGGOT DUMBLEDORE IS A FAGGOT
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
i'll keep believing following the constitution is what made our nation great, not ignoring it
I'm not sure exactly where Satan stands, but typically those knowledgeable about politics (and disagreeable to paul) takes issue with Paul on how he wants to go about doing it. Most would agree that his ideas seem all fluffy and nice, but if he actually goes about trying to make us financially responsible then it will devastate a lot of people that are dependent on the government for living. That it would be inhumane to do something like that.
I dont agree with that line of thinking for what it is worth.
although i think it's unhealthy as a society to send retards and disabled war veterans out into the cold, i'm not so tied up with his fiscal policy as i am with his deregulation measures. he thinks the market can correct all problems and i don't. it's a fundamental difference of opinion.
I can understand people having that stance because it does seem hard to believe that the free market will always provide a adequate solution when there is a need for society, however there are plenty of examples throughout history that do support this.
And also keep in mind that a lot of his deregulation stances is not total deregulation but more deregulation on a federal level. Ie... he is a big proponent of states having more regulation then the federal government. More like how Europe is ran, but not exactly.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
shane, it would be refreshing if you countered the new testament for once, seeing as its pretty excepted that the old testament is just a bunch of horseshit..it would make your opinion more valid
the fact that there is a new and old testament to begin with and they are vastly different validates that the entire bible is horseshit
The OT and NT are actually fairly consistent when you step back and put things into perspective of who was writing the books in these two collections of books. Sure you can pull bits and pieces here and there and say they are in opposition, but they are always only minor issues and not really apart of the main meat of the OT and NT. I kind of hate when people try and attack the accuracy of the bible, because I really believe that confuses the real issue that people should have with the bible.
That core issue is in fact the very existence of God. The OT starts out "In the beginning God...". In other words... 'Assume there is this magical all power being that created everything, okay? well then this is what he did'. I dont think any smart theologian would try and claim that the bible in and of itself proves the existence of God. A smart Theologian would instead claim that the bible provides something tangible to help strengthen your faith that this super natural being exists. People get so wrapped up in debating minor biblical contradictions when really that does nothing to disprove the existence of God, but really just draws people away from the real question which is "Putting everything I've learned aside... When I close my eyes do I really believe there exists this being we call God?"
no wake the old and new teastament are not fairly consistent at all if you read them, that was the whole point of havin a new testament because jesus said most of that all stuff doesnt really apply or is necessary. . he did implement some things that came from the old testament teachings like the ten commandments but for the most part jesus' teachings were pretty different than that of the old testament. obv the existence of a god is prevelant in both books, the existence of god is a main tenor of all religions...
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
edited January 2012
I have read both the OT and NT multiple times, Once straight through from Genesis to Revelations. if you'd really like to get into a theological debate about the accuracy of the core theme between the Old Testament and New Testament, I'd be more then happy to write you up a page or two summary. Like I just got done saying though, biblical consistency does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God, so I'd rather not spend the time talking about fairy-tales that dont matter since I dont believe in the existence of God our Souls or Heaven or Hell. I do however admire the general core theme of the bible. It's close to being a pretty good thing to base your life on (if you want to be a decent person (Funny that most people that do, miss the main point, and are actually pretty shitty people))
I have read both the OT and NT multiple times, Once straight through from Genesis to Revelations. if you'd really like to get into a theological debate about the accuracy of the core theme between the Old Testament and New Testament, I'd be more then happy to write you up a page or two summary. Like I just got done saying though, biblical consistency does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God, so I'd rather not spend the time talking about fairy-tales that done matter since I dont believe in the existence of God our Souls or Heaven or Hell. I do however admire the general core theme of the bible. It's close to being a pretty good thing to base your life on (if you want to be a decent person (Funny that most people that do, miss the main point, and are actually pretty shitty people))
it's like comic books and wrestling. good guys and bad guys change sides and opinions and nobody is ever wise to it
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
yes
harry browne
That's funny. I actually voted for Harry Browne in 2000, and hadnt really picked up on the third party at that time. I was a little less educated on the political process. I voted for Ross Perot that year.... Not because I thought he'd make a good president, but because I wanted to see what a successful business man could do in the office.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
lol. What happened between 1996 and 2000? Nader and Browne are pretty polar opposites politically speaking. My voting track record has been
1996 - Ross Perot 2000 - Harry Browne 2004 - Michael Badnarik 2008 - Ron Paul (wrote in, threw my vote away) 2012 - Ron Paul (ill write in again if I have too)
i stopped using my political opinion just to be "different" and started voting towards my beliefs. i think the local political landscape warped me. newt gingrich is originally from my district and bob barr is fairly local as well. i hated both of those guys and was looking for something opposite. republicans here are a special sort of derp. everyone is really christian. i saw the republican party as a front for christian organizations and wanted no part of them. now, i see the democrats as pretty similar. especially on a national level. i still have a ton of libertarian tendencies.
basically, i think the government should only be there for a select few reasons: to provide a monetary system and maintain value for that money, to protect us from those that would harm or control us (foreign and domestic), to protect our environment, to monitor monopolies, to provide infrastructure and to *responsibly* care for the unwanted (mentally ill, disabled). everything else seems frivolous.
i'm pretty realistic about things though and realized that almost none of how i feel will ever be carried out.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
basically, i think the government should only be there for a select few reasons: to provide a monetary system and maintain value for that money, to protect us from those that would harm or control us (foreign and domestic), to protect our environment, to monitor monopolies, to provide infrastructure and to *responsibly* care for the unwanted (mentally ill, disabled). everything else seems frivolous.
I feel like i'd be happy with that.
And can understand why your living in the bible belt has given you a unfavorable opinion on the christian collation. The people you mentioned are pieces of shit.
no , there not pieces of shit..... theyve just have had a warped view of the world since thats all they grew up in and have been brainwashed since children...i have lots of family in the south and georgia specifically and deep down there good hearted people who have just been taught some pretty backwards stuff...
a main part of our nations problem is the indoctrination we go through in public school specifically designed to make us think for ourselves as little as possible
Comments
here goes:
if you deregulate on a federal level the monitoring of pollution of air and water, what happens? in georgia, over the last few years, we've suffered a lot of drought. it got so bad that in '08 or '09, there was a lawsuit amongst the states of georgia, alabama and tennessee over the rights that the states had to water coming from a small river in the northeast corner of georgia. so, use of water is already an issue amongst states.
now, if paul had his way, he would put the regulation of environmental matters in states hands. well if, for instance, ohio decides that they can relax their regulations of water toxicity in order to get some company to move there to create tax revenue...does that affect only ohio? no. it effects every state down the line that gets water from the ohio river. next thing you know, every state south of ohio has shitty water that they have to deal with and no added tax revenue to deal with it. this sort of thing is a very real possiblity. and there are many, many other issues of this sort that *will* come up if you seclude everything to states rights without federal regulation.
And also keep in mind that a lot of his deregulation stances is not total deregulation but more deregulation on a federal level. Ie... he is a big proponent of states having more regulation then the federal government. More like how Europe is ran, but not exactly.
That core issue is in fact the very existence of God. The OT starts out "In the beginning God...". In other words... 'Assume there is this magical all power being that created everything, okay? well then this is what he did'. I dont think any smart theologian would try and claim that the bible in and of itself proves the existence of God. A smart Theologian would instead claim that the bible provides something tangible to help strengthen your faith that this super natural being exists. People get so wrapped up in debating minor biblical contradictions when really that does nothing to disprove the existence of God, but really just draws people away from the real question which is "Putting everything I've learned aside... When I close my eyes do I really believe there exists this being we call God?"
harry browne
Did you vote for Browne again in 2000?
i broke down and voted for kerry in '04 because i hated bush so much
i vote for myself as a write-in on most local elections
1996 - Ross Perot
2000 - Harry Browne
2004 - Michael Badnarik
2008 - Ron Paul (wrote in, threw my vote away)
2012 - Ron Paul (ill write in again if I have too)
basically, i think the government should only be there for a select few reasons: to provide a monetary system and maintain value for that money, to protect us from those that would harm or control us (foreign and domestic), to protect our environment, to monitor monopolies, to provide infrastructure and to *responsibly* care for the unwanted (mentally ill, disabled). everything else seems frivolous.
i'm pretty realistic about things though and realized that almost none of how i feel will ever be carried out.
And can understand why your living in the bible belt has given you a unfavorable opinion on the christian collation. The people you mentioned are pieces of shit.