2012 Presidential election thread
- Thread starter Peter Joseph
- Start date
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
King Richard
Hello there
King Richard
Hello there
I don't know if you guys are watching this GOP debate on Bloomberg but this broad is fucking HOT.
Matt
Active Member
Honestly, a Chinese presence in Texas might make it better there.
Though I agree with that for the most part.
Though I agree with that for the most part.
Dak
mentat
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
Rick Parry
Member
- Oct 4, 2011
- 35
- 0
- 6
Rick Parry
Member
- Oct 4, 2011
- 35
- 0
- 6
http://www.ology.com/politics/did-herman-cains-999-tax-plan-come-simcity-4
I have to admit this Cain guy is comic geunies.
I have to admit this Cain guy is comic geunies.
King Richard
Hello there
The order of my hatred for the GOP candidates is as follows:
1. Herman Cain - He's a liar and doesn't know what he's talking about.
2. Rick Perry - What are you even fucking talking about most of the time?
3. Michele Bachmann - ugh
4. Mitt Romney - This guy is slick and so full of shit. Prototypical politician. How anyone could be willing to vote for this weasel is beyond me.
5. Rick Santorum - lol He's totally harmless but is he ever an annoying antagonizing little bastard. His foreign policy is shit.
My favs: Ron Paul with Newt Gingrich in a distant second.
1. Herman Cain - He's a liar and doesn't know what he's talking about.
2. Rick Perry - What are you even fucking talking about most of the time?
3. Michele Bachmann - ugh
4. Mitt Romney - This guy is slick and so full of shit. Prototypical politician. How anyone could be willing to vote for this weasel is beyond me.
5. Rick Santorum - lol He's totally harmless but is he ever an annoying antagonizing little bastard. His foreign policy is shit.
My favs: Ron Paul with Newt Gingrich in a distant second.
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
You like Newt? lol, fuck that guy. If I had it my way, it would be Ron Paul vs Dennis Kucinich (who is running against Obama for the dem nomination, much to the chagrin of the DNC). While I'm fantasizing, a Michelle Bachman/Sarah Palin sex tape would get leaked and Jimmy McMillan would run as an independent, just to make the presidential debates between Paul and Kucinich interesting.
Dak
mentat
King Richard
Hello there
I meant out of the candidates left who are in the running he's a distant second. I'm not high on him by any means, but he's certainly more tolerable than those other fucktards.
Dak
mentat
I can barely tolerate Ron Paul due to his statism, so anyone more extreme than him evokes nothing less than loathing and outrage from me. Gingrich would fall into that category.
Ron Paul mistakenly believes limited government can still work and is moral. The good thing is he at least wants limited government, unlike the rest of the candidates; sociopathic liars in suits.
Ron Paul mistakenly believes limited government can still work and is moral. The good thing is he at least wants limited government, unlike the rest of the candidates; sociopathic liars in suits.
King Richard
Hello there
Einherjar86
Active Member
It amuses me that you expect candidates running for a position of state leadership to advocate a complete rejection of statism. Only revolution will bring about a complete overhaul, and it's unlikely an elected politician is going to be in the vanguard of such a movement.
Furthermore, the source of freedom as a value derives from societal convention; it's not an inherent trait. The value of freedom is actually only understood in relation to the subjection of others.
Dak
mentat
Of course I don't. Ron Paul at least adheres to the oath of office (unlike the rest of the politicans we have), and that I have to respect. He believes in limited government for generally the same reasons I believe in no government, he just obviously hasn't made that next logical step. He has definitely had a huge positive influence during his time in office, on starting many people on the path to anarchism/voluntaryism.
Of course, and if there was a politician in the forefront, it wouldn't be a legitimate revolution of (at least my own) desired type. I don't even think "revolution" is what is needed, at least not what the word generally brings to mind. Massive non-compliance. Not this mindless rioting bullshit.
You need to elaborate on the first statement, because the way I perceive it makes it sound ridiculous.
@KR: What one(s)?
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
I would be a full-fledged anarchist except for the whole "I like civilization" part. Anarchy and an advanced civilization are not compatible, and as far as I can tell, this is not debatable.
Dak
mentat
I disagree. There are plenty of very cogent arguments that society is less advanced than could be, due to the repression inherent in coercive systems.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
The proper services of government = police, armed forces and the law courts. All of this being funded voluntary. These services are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interest directly, therefore the citizens should and would be willing to pay for such services, just as they pay for insurance.
Anarchy (as a political concept) is a naive abstraction. A society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first idiot criminal who came along and who would accelerate it into the chaos of gang warfare. but the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy - even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral could not function in a state of anarchy, it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of government.
Similar threads
