Ron Paul Rises

[kuronosan]

Oblivious? Lol... It's widely documented in the medical world in plenty of fucking journals that the disease spread through the LBGT community during the Bathhouse outbreaks when the CDC first responded. Learn to epidemiology, please. Patient zero was believed to be bisexual, spreading it to stewardesses and other homosexuals who spread it through sex and IV drug use. Lack of regulation and testing caused spreading through transfusions as well.

If you're going to argue a point, you could at least know what you're talking about. I'm not attacking gay people in the slightest so get that ghetto shit out of here. I didn't study what I studied for nothing.

God damn Plow, I didn't think you liked the taste of your own shit so much.

[guartz]

I define economic oppression as specific attempts to prevent participation in the market or to prevent economic mobility, and not simply favoritism. If we're gonna have different definitions for this word, then i don't care to argue about this any further.

If i understood you right, you are saying that a government that allows for more individual freedoms is stronger politically (?), and the governments in western europe are a better example of that, while syria is an example of how politically unstable governments that have less individual freedom.

I disagree. Both totalitarian and democratic governments (i assume a government with more freedom is a democratic one) can be politically stable, and the real difference between them is how they achieve and maintain legitimacy. A democratic government doesn't have to kill its citizens by the truckloads to maintain legitimacy, because it justifies itself by the perception that it is controlled, to whatever degree, by the average citizen. How a government manages political instability, or whether there is stability or not, is also dependent on the culture and traditions that people use to govern, and whether there is security, a sense of consistency, and at least some economic stability.

But to an anarchist of any sort, all governments have to go. All of these nuances and distinctions, the differences between how states govern, the differences in the culture of governance, don't matter. You want to treat it all as if it were the same little evil. What's worse, you want to pretend that somehow, market processes are more egalitarian than the processes of democratic government. Actually no, what you say is that a society ruled by market processes is more free, with no coercion. More egalitarian treatement and results was never part of the equation, and in fact, you might find such utterences vile.

So people who aren't white, heterosexual, male, and rich, take note, a libertarian society or an anarcho capitalist society is not about maximizing equality, quite the opposite, it's about maximizing freedom. There is no pretense of balance, so caveat emptor.

Listen to yourself, Kuya. Favoritism does both - prevents participation and prevents mobility.

Secondly, a government that slays it's citizens has legitimacy? That entire paragraph of yours is filled with contradictions, it's like you want to disagree with me and you will say anything to do it. But I do agree it's more of a matter of perception then reality.

Lastly, brown, yellow, gay and poor people can be just as corrupt. Race, sex, wealth and sexual orientation has nothing to do with how people abuse the power they have. I think what you are trying to suggest is that because currently white rich men are in power, taking away their means of control will somehow yield more power to them. I'd actually like for you to explain that thought process to me. Because last I checked, the pretense of balance in a democratic society has long been lost.

[Rhinox]

I'm not going to bother continuing this conversation, but I have to point out 2 things:

Magic's first son was 10 when he got married.

You're justifying someone saying "don't be gay and don't do drugs and you're safe from aids."

A fucking DOCTOR, no less.

Few things.

Having kids =\= not being acloset case.

He specifically said it doesn't apply anymore because a bisexual ruined it for the rest of us.


Plow being plow.

[Mazmaz]

Oblivious? Lol... It's widely documented in the medical world in plenty of fucking journals that the disease spread through the LBGT community during the Bathhouse outbreaks when the CDC first responded. Learn to epidemiology, please. Patient zero was believed to be bisexual, spreading it to stewardesses and other homosexuals who spread it through sex and IV drug use. Lack of regulation and testing caused spreading through transfusions as well.

If you're going to argue a point, you could at least know what you're talking about. I'm not attacking gay people in the slightest so get that ghetto shit out of here. I didn't study what I studied for nothing.

God damn Plow, I didn't think you liked the taste of your own shit so much.

Well... the source I posted said that sex with bisexuals accounted for 6% of the cases within heterosexuals while IV drug use accounted for 64% of the cases. Where's your source?

[kuronosan]

Maz, are you serious? Read what I wrote again. The main reason for the spread was IV drug use. I couldn't have been clearer.

[Kuya]

Listen to yourself, Kuya. Favoritism does both - prevents participation and prevents mobility.

Secondly, a government that slays it's citizens has legitimacy? That entire paragraph of yours is filled with contradictions, it's like you want to disagree with me and you will say anything to do it. But I do agree it's more of a matter of perception then reality.

Lastly, brown, yellow, gay and poor people can be just as corrupt. Race, sex, wealth and sexual orientation has nothing to do with how people abuse the power they have. I think what you are trying to suggest is that because currently white rich men are in power, taking away their means of control will somehow yield more power to them. I'd actually like for you to explain that thought process to me. Because last I checked, the pretense of balance in a democratic society has long been lost.

Let's be specific then. Favoritism can prevent someone else's participation in a market, but they are not the same thing. Tax cuts are fiscal policy that benefit people with higher incomes. This sort of policy does not prevent anyone else's upward mobility nor does it prevent anyone else's participation in the market, but tax cuts do benefit some more than others, specifically rich people. If in your next post you continue with the definition of these words, i will ignore that part.

Legitimacy is a concept in political science which refers to people accepting being governed by a political body. This can be extracted either via respect or fear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

As for your third paragraph: Your problem is that you think of the state as a monolithic entity that represents a single group and a single interest, and at the same time, you focus almost obsessively on the state as a means to express power, and pay little to no attention to the private sphere. You think of state as power, but you never give the same importance to the family, the church, the work place, and the media as means of power.

For you then, it's incomprehensible to see that for the black man the most visible oppression came (and to some extent still does) from daily private life. That for women, the most visible and inmediate oppressor was the husband. That for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transexuals the inmediate and most pressing form of oppression came from private homophobic citizens in the shape of beatings and murders. And for you, because you see the state with a simple monolithic vision, and you see it as simply a tool for the stronger classes, it's incomprehensible to understand why the state would promote desegregation, promote abortion, why the state would attempt equal pay amendments, why the state would promote hate crime laws.

And your ideology, and others like it, whether on purpose or not, would seek to strip these groups of one of the means they have, and historically have had, to overcome both oppression from the state and oppression in private life. Is it really any surprise that most people who cling to anarcho capitalism and libertarianism are white, male, and more often than not, middle and upper class?

Furthermore, democratic representation and voting, as imperfect as it might be, is still far more egalitarian (one vote per person) than voting via the market place. Because in the market place, you vote with your wallet, but money is not distributed equally.

[Mazmaz]

Patient zero was believed to be bisexual, spreading it to stewardesses and other homosexuals who spread it through sex and IV drug use.

Sure you could've been clearer. This sentence made it sound like it was 50/50. Whatever though, now we know what you meant.

[Kuya]

Yea, his post was not clear. For example

Pretty sure it's widely assumed he got it from another man - but don't think that it's a "Gay disease" anymore... these days you can get it from anyone thanks to the growth of the LBGT community and specifically Bisexuals spreading it to Heteros...

Also, sex is not the only way to get it. If Magic was on the happy juice he could have shot up and got it fairly easily, sex-free. It would definitely explain the lack of extra-marital kids... think - rich black athlete? Yea, I went there.

Anyways, in the 80s and 90s HD needles as well as sex were both ways to spread HIV, so it's irrelevant.

What does the bolded mean?

[Rhinox]

I'm sure its old and probably already been posted but holy fucking shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7Rnl...eature=related

[Churchill]

Of all the things in that movie, I found that scene the most uncomfortable

[Cadsuane]

For you then, it's incomprehensible to see that for the black man the most visible oppression came (and to some extent still does) from daily private life. That for women, the most visible and inmediate oppressor was the husband. That for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transexuals the inmediate and most pressing form of oppression came from private homophobic citizens in the shape of beatings and murders. And for you, because you see the state with a simple monolithic vision, and you see it as simply a tool for the stronger classes, it's incomprehensible to understand why the state would promote desegregation, promote abortion, why the state would attempt equal pay amendments, why the state would promote hate crime laws.

And your ideology, and others like it, whether on purpose or not, would seek to strip these groups of one of the means they have, and historically have had, to overcome both oppression from the state and oppression in private life. Is it really any surprise that most people who cling to anarcho capitalism and libertarianism are white, male, and more often than not, middle and upper class?

Pardon the sycophantry, but this was astoundingly eloquent.

[Restrat]

Here's my favorite quote:

...the largest blood bank in San Francisco ... holds blood drives in the gay Castro district, where people give at three times the usual level. Either they are public spirited, or they're trying to poison the blood supply.

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_June90_p6.pdf

[guartz]

Let's be specific then. Favoritism can prevent someone else's participation in a market, but they are not the same thing. Tax cuts are fiscal policy that benefit people with higher incomes. This sort of policy does not prevent anyone else's upward mobility nor does it prevent anyone else's participation in the market, but tax cuts do benefit some more than others, specifically rich people. If in your next post you continue with the definition of these words, i will ignore that part.

Legitimacy is a concept in political science which refers to people accepting being governed by a political body. This can be extracted either via respect or fear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

As for your third paragraph: Your problem is that you think of the state as a monolithic entity that represents a single group and a single interest, and at the same time, you focus almost obsessively on the state as a means to express power, and pay little to no attention to the private sphere. You think of state as power, but you never give the same importance to the family, the church, the work place, and the media as means of power.

For you then, it's incomprehensible to see that for the black man the most visible oppression came (and to some extent still does) from daily private life. That for women, the most visible and inmediate oppressor was the husband. That for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transexuals the inmediate and most pressing form of oppression came from private homophobic citizens in the shape of beatings and murders. And for you, because you see the state with a simple monolithic vision, and you see it as simply a tool for the stronger classes, it's incomprehensible to understand why the state would promote desegregation, promote abortion, why the state would attempt equal pay amendments, why the state would promote hate crime laws.

And your ideology, and others like it, whether on purpose or not, would seek to strip these groups of one of the means they have, and historically have had, to overcome both oppression from the state and oppression in private life. Is it really any surprise that most people who cling to anarcho capitalism and libertarianism are white, male, and more often than not, middle and upper class?

Furthermore, democratic representation and voting, as imperfect as it might be, is still far more egalitarian (one vote per person) than voting via the market place. Because in the market place, you vote with your wallet, but money is not distributed equally.

Heh, you know you are skipping beats when your link doesn't include your interpretation of legitimacy. One reason for that is, you are simply wrong. If you can't even admit that, there is absolutely no point in arguing with you.

[Demosthenes11]

you're obviously wrong, because you are wrong

really?

[Milkster]

So why should people vote for Ron Paul over the other candidates? Without bashing anyone else and being able to defend and account for his views, why does RP deserve to become President?

[Synbios]

So why should people vote for Ron Paul over the other candidates? Without bashing anyone else and being able to defend and account for his views, why does RP deserve to become President?

For me there are three big reasons I support Paul.

First is he's not another "more of the same" guy. If Obama or any of the other repub candidates gets elected, its going to be business as usual for another 4 years, and business as usual is pretty fucking shitty. With Obama we will have raised taxes to pay for all the entitlement programs he likes to create and continue to support. With the other repubs we will probably start another war or spend retarded amounts of money (and not raise taxes to pay for it, i know double standards).

The second is that while Paul is an admitted jeso freak(athiest checking in), he wants to let the states decide on issues, not the federal government, and he doesn't want the federal government ruled off of "jesus laws". Sure if you're gay in Alabama this probably isn't what you want to hear but at least you will have states that let gay people get married, instead of a federal law prohibiting it (i know you could argue that the federal law could allow gays to marry, but I don't see how any other candidate, dem or repub, would get that passed).

The final reason is Paul actually understands what it takes to get our economy going again. We can't keep outsourcing jobs. We can't keep regulating companies out of the country. Does the keystone xl pipeline create dangers? Sure, but it creates jobs and a source of revenue for the country, which is what we should be looking at adding.

I fully admit my views are radical and different from others. Dr. Paul to me is the first candidate I've seen that actually addresses issues I'm concerned with (I'm 28 fwiw).

[Synbios]

Oh and how damning is it that Gingrich and Perry can't get enough signatures to appear on the Virginia primary ballot. And to top it off, Virginia doesn't allow right in candidates. Should be interesting.

[Plow]

Few things.

Having kids =\= not being acloset case.

He specifically said it doesn't apply anymore because a bisexual ruined it for the rest of us.


Plow being plow.

Just saying, he caught AIDS from unprotected extra-marital sex with presumably many women, but has not a one illegitimate child?

you're a fucking moron just like everyone else trying to lend credence to one of the things that makes RP look the absolute worst when you consider he's a fucking doctor

[Plow]

also monkey aids has been around for 30,000+ years and there's someone talking about how they think they know who was "patient zero"

even in the U.S. it was 5 guys

which makes me wonder about the burger place, fuck

holy fucking shit! what I said was so outrageous wasn't it??? surely, you'll now be able to prove that Obama was marginalized/was not allowed into a debate because of his views on Israel (WHOOPS NOPE)/and was ignored/held in contempt by the MSM to such an extent, that they reframed voting results

Obama was not. Obama experienced the same kind of attacks that every candidate has to endure in the theater of American politics.

Yeah, I mean, remember all that shit about McCain being a Muslim that wasn't a true citizen and wants to destroy America?

go back to mondoFES, seriously

[Elvis]

Yeah, I mean, remember all that shit about McCain being a Muslim that wasn't a true citizen and wants to destroy America?

go back to mondoFES, seriously

Pathetic reply from an ignorant troll.

What the hell is mondFES supposed to mean?

The anti-Muslim remarks made about Obama were primarily anti-Muslim remarks applied superficially. The anti-Muslim remark falls into the nexus of fucking-stupid along with the Birther conspiracy movement. Obama is not a Muslim. Furthermore, the CONTEXT in which he is 'accused' of being a Muslim is that he is a Muslim terrorist or a fundamentalist Muslim - although, that's being very generous to the idiots who equate being Muslim to being a terrorist.

The MSM (maybe FOX news) did not 'accuse' Obama of being a crypto-Muslim-terrorist. It was ordinary idiots who were ridiculed for being idiots. And guess what? HE WON THE ELECTION.

For 2008, the advertising industry polled several advertising campaigns and listed Obama's image/campaign as the most successful.

Obama Wins! ... Ad Age's Marketer of the Year
At ANA Gathering, Marketing Pros and Agency Bigs Tap Barack Over Apple, Zappos

Just weeks before he demonstrates whether his campaign's blend of grass-roots appeal and big media-budget know-how has converted the American electorate, Sen. Barack Obama has shown he's already won over the nation's brand builders. He's been named Advertising Age's marketer of the year for 2008.

Mr. Obama won the vote of hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors gathered here at the Association of National Advertisers' annual conference.

Mr. Obama won the vote of hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors gathered here at the Association of National Advertisers' annual conference. He edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. The rest of the shortlist, selected by Ad Age's editorial staff, was rounded out by megabrand Nike, turnaround story Coors and Mr. Obama's rival, Sen. John McCain.

About the Association of National Advertisers.

His political opponent stood up for him at a crucial moment as well. In fact, McCain did not say 'no, being a Muslim does not mean you are a terrorist.' He said, 'No, he is a good man.' The 'he-is-a-Muslim'-claim was such a 'smear' because it originated from a part of our country that is so fanatically Islamophobic. McCain couldn't even say that there is nothing wrong with being Muslim.





[EDIT: Was 'Arab' not 'Muslim' - but the same slur-context (of a conspiratorial nature) exists. Totally irrelevant to Obama.]

I would call you stupid, but it's pointless. You are so effortlessly ignorant and anti-intellectual with your mendacious nonsense that it only reinforces ANYTHING I ever say.

And plow, come to MW and do your Google/Wikipedia-song-and-dance. The many Jewish, Israeli expats, Israelis anti-Occupation activists, Palestinians from Gaza/West Bank/diaspora, liberal Zionists like Prof. Jerome Slater, etc. etc. commentators will be much more civil to your bullshit but nonetheless, expose it for the bullshit that it is.