One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[Sibirsky]

They have a very flexible labor market. And other than the level of taxation, regulations are straight forward and easy to comply with. And are not costly. It's easy to do business there.

Yup! That'd be what I'm talking about (big governments aren't inherently complicated ones)! How would you like to see something like that Stateside, Sibirsky?

I don't like their level of taxation. Almost everything else would be an improvement.

[Death Metal]

>Making it easier for businesses to do business will make economy worse.

If by do business you mean exploit consumers and employees... yes.

[Sibirsky]

The lack of regulations hurt the economy.

Banks and lenders used dirty tricks and legalese to put people into contracts that they could possibly pay, and to have it more expensive to get out of these deals.

The insurance companies can deny you coverage because you neglected to not that you had a cold last month.

Some states allow employers to fire people without a reason. Sometimes they don't even have to pay you for the week when they do so (personal experience).

Deregulation would make things worse.

What lack of regulations?

You can quit your job at any time, for any reason. Why should your employer not be given the same right?

[Sibirsky]

Paul wouldn't do that either.

It would be many other things. Like removing certain regulation, lowering taxes, lowering spending...

What kind of Paul lover are you? Paul wants both of those things. Haven't you read his beliefs and statements? Obviously not...

Paul lover?

He would allow competing currencies and would audit the Fed. Nothing more.

[Hereticland]

Oh good, there's never been an authoritarian ruler then.

After all, the power is divided by 196.

Hitler, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-il, Stalin. authoritarians.

Paul? wants to take power from the fed and give it to the 50 states.

yeah, so the governors of the 50 states can turn into authoritarian rulers .. not to mention the private companies that'll be run like third world dictatorships.

[Dempublicents1]

>Approves of States making their own choices about Gay marriage to make it so that most americans get their choice.
>this somehow makes him scared of Queers.

You know how you make sure "most Americans get their choice"? You leave it up to said Americans, instead of putting it in the hands of the government - any government.

Approving of state governments being able to discriminate based on sex doesn't make it so that most Americans get their choice. It makes it so that some Americans get to make choices for others that should only be made by individuals in the first place.

[Death Metal]

And not pay you for the hours you worked because they fired you just before you clocked in 35 hours?

[The Aryan Nations]

Hitler, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-il, Stalin. authoritarians.

Paul? wants to take power from the fed and give it to the 50 states.

yeah, so the governors of the 50 states can turn into authoritarian rulers .. not to mention the private companies that'll be run like third world dictatorships.

Governors, similar to presidents, have no power past signing Legislation, etc.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Banks and lenders used dirty tricks and legalese to put people into contracts that they could possibly pay, and to have it more expensive to get out of these deals.

They've got these guys called lawyers. You should always consult one before entering a long-term contract, especially if it seems too good to be true and too complex to examine. They spent a long time in school to learn what the dirty tricks are in contracts, and are fluent in legalese.

The insurance companies can deny you coverage because you neglected to note that you had a cold last month.

I can't deny that such practices are immoral, but then again I'm the one calling for a national healthcare system.

Some states allow employers to fire people without a reason. Sometimes they don't even have to pay you for the week when they do so (personal experience).

A strong labor union could help with that. But even if it doesn't, they can't do that too often without having serious problems finding candidates to take up positions with them out of mistrust. Do your part, warn people about businesses engaging in immoral practices. Get the word out!

[The Aryan Nations]

>Approves of States making their own choices about Gay marriage to make it so that most americans get their choice.
>this somehow makes him scared of Queers.

You know how you make sure "most Americans get their choice"? You leave it up to said Americans, instead of putting it in the hands of the government - any government.

Approving of state governments being able to discriminate based on sex doesn't make it so that most Americans get their choice. It makes it so that some Americans get to make choices for others that should only be made by individuals in the first place.

you seem to not understand the concept of voting. i suggest you read up on why a republic works.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Yup! That'd be what I'm talking about (big governments aren't inherently complicated ones)! How would you like to see something like that Stateside, Sibirsky?

I don't like their level of taxation. Almost everything else would be an improvement.

Well, now! That is an issue we can come to compromises on. It's a much better starting line than disagreeing on the very structure of the system. I'm heartened by this as an American Social Democrat.

[Death Metal]

Banks and lenders used dirty tricks and legalese to put people into contracts that they could possibly pay, and to have it more expensive to get out of these deals.

They've got these guys called lawyers. You should always consult one before entering a long-term contract, especially if it seems too good to be true and too complex to examine. They spent a long time in school to learn what the dirty tricks are in contracts, and are fluent in legalese.

The insurance companies can deny you coverage because you neglected to note that you had a cold last month.

I can't deny that such practices are immoral, but then again I'm the one calling for a national healthcare system.

Some states allow employers to fire people without a reason. Sometimes they don't even have to pay you for the week when they do so (personal experience).

A strong labor union could help with that. But even if it doesn't, they can't do that too often without having serious problems finding candidates to take up positions with them out of mistrust. Do your part, warn people about businesses engaging in immoral practices. Get the word out!

Lawyers are expensive, and legal councilors can lie about their credentials to your face. Also, whose to say those lawyers aren't also their lawyers?

And you can also be denied employment for being in a union in some states.

[Sibirsky]

And not pay you for the hours you worked because they fired you just before you clocked in 35 hours?

Source

[Death Metal]

And not pay you for the hours you worked because they fired you just before you clocked in 35 hours?

Source

It happened to me. By Dish Network.

[The Aryan Nations]

Source

It happened to me. By Dish Network.

not a source. no pic no proof, so to speak.

i can just as easily claim i am Bill Murray. it doesn't make it true.

[Sibirsky]

Source

It happened to me. By Dish Network.

Anecdotal.

[Sibirsky]

It happened to me. By Dish Network.

not a source. no pic no proof, so to speak.

i can just as easily claim i am Bill Murray. it doesn't make it true.

Bill!

[Socialdemokraterne]

Lawyers are expensive, and legal councilors can lie about their credentials to your face. Also, whose to say those lawyers aren't also their lawyers?

Is a consultation with a lawyer prior to entering a long-term contract like a mortgage more expensive than defaulting because you cannot meet the terms of that contract and losing your house (for the mortgage example)? As for the other part, that's highly improbable. Besides, I'm pretty sure an attorney who lies to your face about what's in a contract could be disbarred.

And you can also be denied employment for being in a union in some states.

Hmmmm....now that doesn't rub me the right way at all. But I did leave a plan B for you.

[The Aryan Nations]

not a source. no pic no proof, so to speak.

i can just as easily claim i am Bill Murray. it doesn't make it true.

Bill!

[Socialdemokraterne]

Bill!

Loved you in "What About Bob" and "Stripes", Mr. Murray!

[Death Metal]

Unfortunately too late for me.

Oh, and while they didn't outright say it, I was probably fired for putting people on the DNC list when they told me that they themselves were on the Federal Do Not Call list.

Yes, they ignored the federal DNC.

I have proof of that btw.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2009-03-25-do-not-call_N.htm

EDIT- By the way, there's a LOT of things Dish Network did that were shady to downright fraudulent, but unfortunately they were very careful about us not taking documentation home so I have little proof other than federal fines against them.

But trust me: DO NOT GIVE DISH NETWORK ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION. Not even your name.

[Dempublicents1]

Authoritarian implies power is held by one.
dividing power by 50.
paul isnt authoritarian.

No, it doesn't. It simply implies that power over the individual is held by the government. This isn't "dividing power by 50", because it wouldn't be 50 separate entities all sharing power over the same set of people. Assuming no new government powers were granted (which they would be under Paul's ideals, thus expanding government power), the power wielded over a given individual would be exactly the same, simply wielded by a different government entity.

Your argument is akin to saying that, because there are more people in California than in Delaware, a law passed in California would be more authoritarian than the exact same law passed in Delaware.

Hardly. He would give the state citizens the right to choose whether or not they want an authoritarian government.

One could just as well argue that anyone who supports these powers at the federal level is giving all US citizens the right to choose whether or not they want an authoritarian government.

Let's face it, if you live in a small 3 electoral state, your vote doesn't count in a federal election anyway, so there isn't much to lose for someone who lives in my state for example, which is rather liberal, and if it weren't for the federal government, would be doing great. (we would have legal gay marriage and medical marijuana)

Suppose I stated that men should have the "right" to own women. I don't think anyone should do it, mind you, just that it should be allowed. And I'd be fine because nobody I know wants to enslave me. What would you think of that position?

The argument that states should have the "right" to do something that no government should have the power to do doesn't increase individual liberty, especially not when talking about powers currently denied to all levels of government.

[The Aryan Nations]

Authoritarian implies power is held by one.
dividing power by 50.
paul isnt authoritarian.

No, it doesn't. It simply implies that power over the individual is held by the government. This isn't "dividing power by 50", because it wouldn't be 50 separate entities all sharing power over the same set of people. Assuming no new government powers were granted (which they would be under Paul's ideals, thus expanding government power), the power wielded over a given individual would be exactly the same, simply wielded by a different government entity.

Your argument is akin to saying that, because there are more people in California than in Delaware, a law passed in California would be more authoritarian than the exact same law passed in Delaware.

Hardly. He would give the state citizens the right to choose whether or not they want an authoritarian government.

One could just as well argue that anyone who supports these powers at the federal level is giving all US citizens the right to choose whether or not they want an authoritarian government.

Let's face it, if you live in a small 3 electoral state, your vote doesn't count in a federal election anyway, so there isn't much to lose for someone who lives in my state for example, which is rather liberal, and if it weren't for the federal government, would be doing great. (we would have legal gay marriage and medical marijuana)

Suppose I stated that men should have the "right" to own women. I don't think anyone should do it, mind you, just that it should be allowed. And I'd be fine because nobody I know wants to enslave me. What would you think of that position?

The argument that states should have the "right" to do something that no government should have the power to do doesn't increase individual liberty, especially not when talking about powers currently denied to all levels of government.

its your right as an american to believe that. as much as you liberals hate freedom of expression, it is a fact that you retain that right. this is not Canada (but my opinions on Canada are for a different thread)

[Socialdemokraterne]

its your right as an american to believe that. as much as you liberals hate freedom of expression, it is a fact that you retain that right. this is not Canada (but my opinions on Canada are for a different thread)

Come on, man. Don't drop the "all you liberals think ___" bomb. You're catching me in the blast.

[Milks Empire]

its your right as an american to believe that. as much as you liberals hate freedom of expression, it is a fact that you retain that right. this is not Canada (but my opinions on Canada are for a different thread)

Come on, man. Don't drop the "all you liberals think ___" bomb. You're catching me in the blast.

Pretty sure that fits the definition of trolling as given in the OSRS.

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.