Jesse Ventura has an entire chapter on RON PAUL in his new book

[Carlybee]

Ron Paul on Corporatism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwwXgPiySto

 

[Carlybee]

No, it's a weak position. That's why the rest of the post went untouched.

She doesn't want to admit it here in these forums, but she's lobbying for government restriction of free speech to certain groups. Nothing Ron Paul-ish about that.

You edited your post after I posted my reply. I suggest you cool it with your insinuation that i am lobbying for anything. Stop being a whiny bitch. You dont know me. Ive supported and donated to Ron Paul for years. Sounds like you are the one trying to squash opinion here.

 

[angelatc]

Ron Paul on Corporatism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwwXgPiySto

I don't do video. Did he say that corporations shouldn't exist? I seem to recall that he and his medical partner formed a corporation, presumably to sheild themselves personally from their professional liability. Does that make him a hypocrite?

This is why i hate liberals This is how they think - you can't draw them a straight line and have a decent conversation with them. They run away, shouting - "Hey - look over here!!!!" - because they can't actually support their positions with logic.

 

[angelatc]

You edited your post after I posted my reply. I suggest you cool it with your insinuation that i am lobbying for anything. Stop being a whiny bitch. You dont know me. Ive supported and donated to Ron Paul for years. Sounds like you are the one trying to squash opinion here.

ANother liberal trait. Name calling.

I'm not quashing anything. I'm telling you that your opinion is wrong and dangerous. Again - all 9 judges agreed that corporations have the right to free speech. You want to government to take that right away.

Own it.

 

[Carlybee]

So you are indeed a leftist?

It is the 4 leftist judges that wanted to suspend that right.

This is not a Ron Paul position. This is a dangerous, ignorant position.

The only real way to respond to your assinine assertion is to say GFY. Did you not notice the emoticon? Generally denoting my comment was a joke.

 

[Carlybee]

ANother liberal trait. Name calling.

If it quacks like a duck...and you sound like a neocon.

 

[angelatc]

At that point your beef is with the legal system. Its called tort reform.

SO you want to government to take away the rights of juries, too? This is getting interesting. Predictable, but interesting.

 

[mmink15]

So, has anyone read the chapter on Ron Paul from this book?

Before Ron Paul refined my political opinions, Jesse Ventura was the voice that "woke me up" and I'm curious to hear a quick summary of this Ron Paul chapter before I get the chance to read it myself. Sounds funny to say but a book titled "I Ain't Got Time To Bleed" by my grandmother's favorite pro wrestler absolutely started my journey to the Liberty movement about 10 years ago.

 

[angelatc]

If it quacks like a duck...and you sound like a neocon.

Yes, by all means, attack me personally instead of defending your position. Because shouting and bullying is the only way liberals ever accomplish anything.

 

[Carlybee]

I don't do video. Did he say that corporations shouldn't exist? I seem to recall that he and his medical partner formed a corporation, presumably to sheild themselves personally from their professional liability. Does that make him a hypocrite?

This is why i hate liberals This is how they think - you can't draw them a straight line and have a decent conversation with them. They run away, shouting - "Hey - look over here!!!!" - because they can't actually support their positions with logic.

Really? Hate is such a strong word. I dont hate them. I pity them. I also pity neocon shills. At the end of the day they all bleat like the little sheepies they are.

 

[angelatc]

Really? Hate is such a strong word. I dont hate them. I pity them. I also pity neocon shills. At the end of the day they all bleat like the little sheepies they are.

The irony is strong in this one.

 

[Carlybee]

Yes, by all means, attack me personally instead of defending your position. Because shouting and bullying is the only way liberals ever accomplish anything.

I dont negotiate with morons.

 

[Carlybee]

SO you want to government to take away the rights of juries, too? This is getting interesting. Predictable, but interesting.

Where did I say that? I was illustrating that your assertion that the damages be capped would fall under a legal system issue. I am personally against tort reform but you seem to take a lot of liberties with putting words in peoples mouths in order to advance your vitriolic accusations.

 

[cheapseats]

People don't lose their rights when they join groups...

Nor should they GAIN rights as a group.

and thus have the right to speak in groups - that's always been the case in America. The freedom to assemble.

Equating GROUP POLITICAL DONATIONS with the Individual's right to self-expression is a GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCT.

Like I said, all 9 justices agreed with me.

The only thing SUPREME about those Black Robes is the distinction granted them BY GOVERNMENT.

Corporate speech is no different than PAC speech, or Party speech, or Union speech.

AGENDA-BASED, all of it. With an eye on finagling DISCRIMINATORY ADVANTAGES over others.

I have no use for people who think that deciding which groups of people aren't entitled to speak freely is an ok for government to do.

And I have no use for GOVERNMENT-APPOINTED Black Robes decreeing that some groups are "entitled" to greater influence, if they can HOLLER LOUDER WITH MORE MONEY.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Yes, by all means, attack me personally instead of defending your position. Because shouting and bullying is the only way liberals ever accomplish anything.

Good Lord, angelatc. Carlybee is NOT a liberal.

You sound more like the liberal in this thread, advocating for the rights of groups. Individuals don't lose their rights when they join a group but they don't GAIN rights just because they join one (think: unions...now which political ideology strongly supports unions? It's not libertarians.)

You say you don't do video. OK, here's an article for you to read:

[h=3]By Susan Davis[/h]NEW ORLEANS–Republicans and tea party activists are fond of accusing President Barack Obama of being a socialist, but today party gadfly Ron Paul said they had it wrong.


“In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist,” the Texas Republican said to a smattering of applause at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.


“He’s a corporatist,” Paul quickly added, meaning the president takes “care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”


Supporters of the Texas lawmaker appear to represent a significant number of the 3,500 attendees here, fueling speculation that Paul is likely to win the straw poll later today. The Campaign for Liberty, Paul’s political outfit, declined to discuss how many of his supporters were at SRLC.


The Texan’s supporters often descend on political gatherings to vote for him in 2012 straw polls. In February, he won the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll with a hefty 31% of the vote.

Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/10/ron-paul-barack-obama-is-not-a-socialist/

 

[angelatc]

Yes, by all means, attack me personally instead of defending your position. Because shouting and bullying is the only way liberals ever accomplish anything.

And be sure to follow it up with a neg rep, too. Because that will obviously convince me that people who join together to do business should have less rights than other people.

Nothing says "weak argument" better than your behavior here.

 

[angelatc]

Good Lord, angelatc. Carlybee is NOT a liberal.

You sound more like the liberal in this thread, advocating for the rights of groups. Individuals don't lose their rights when they join a group but they don't GAIN rights just because they join one (think: unions...now which political ideology strongly supports unions? It's not libertarians.)

But libertarians support unions - they just don't think that the government should grant them special privileges. Note that unions have always been allowed political speech, while corporations have not. Political parties, all the other special interest groups...it was only corporate speech that was quashed.

There is no special privilege granted to corporations. CU restored access to a right they already had. Like I keep saying, over and over...all 9 justices agree with me. People have a right to assemble, and to speak as a group, even politically. Especially politically.

You say you don't do video. OK, here's an article for you to read:



Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/10/ron-paul-barack-obama-is-not-a-socialist/

Thanks for actually making a point. But the fact that corporations run our government is a problem with the government, not the corporations.

Look at it from the other end of the scale. Suppose that Maxine Waters got her way, and introduced a bill announcing they were going to nationalize the oil production and sales, and seize the assets of the oil companies.

You really think that the oil companies should not be allowed to produce commercials to fight this?

How about the GM bondholders that got screwed by Obama. Should they not be allowed to coproduce messages explaining exactly how he screwed them out of their property?

 

[angelatc]

Where did I say that? I was illustrating that your assertion that the damages be capped would fall under a legal system issue. I am personally against tort reform but you seem to take a lot of liberties with putting words in peoples mouths in order to advance your vitriolic accusations.

Tort reform limits the amount that juries can award. So that's what your proposal would do - take away the rights of juries to decide what punishment is appropriate, and giving that right to the government. I'm thinking that the corporations are totally on board with that, btw.

Something you said that you're against.

 

[affa]

ANother liberal trait. Name calling.

I'm not quashing anything. I'm telling you that your opinion is wrong and dangerous. Again - all 9 judges agreed that corporations have the right to free speech. You want to government to take that right away.

Own it.

Lol.

First off, you aren't responding to me. But your post is ridiculous.

1) conservatives name call just as much as liberals. It's not a 'liberal trait'. Hell, you're even calling someone 'liberal' as an insult (name calling) in the sentence itself.

2) Just because someone doesn't think corporations are 'people' doesn't imply anything about that person's opinion on what rights/privileges a corporation should, or shouldn't, have. Your logic is flawed.

The idea that corporations are people is one of the most dehumanizing concepts of the past century. The legal standing of a corporation (consisting of people, yes) can be established without assigning them the legal status of personhood, which brings with it a wealth of unintended consequences.

 

[angelatc]

Equating GROUP POLITICAL DONATIONS with the Individual's right to self-expression is a GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCT. .

This is a fallacy. Corporations are still forbidden from donating directly to campaigns. CU gave them them back the right to produce and broadcast messages.