Ron Paul Should Run as a Third Party Choice.

[Dr.Drock]

Do the Libertariantards always keep about 3 'why I am a Libertarian' threads going in here at all times?

Seems to me they might have some issues with insecurity.

Lol adorable.

We're the ones with insecurity problems, but you come into EVERY SINGLE Ron Paul thread and instantly try to turn every debate into the typical republicrat/democan style discussion of nothing but personal insults and stupid pictures.

 

[SniperFire]

Do the Libertariantards always keep about 3 'why I am a Libertarian' threads going in here at all times?

Seems to me they might have some issues with insecurity.

Lol adorable.

We're the ones with insecurity problems, but you come into EVERY SINGLE Ron Paul thread and instantly try to turn every debate into the typical republicrat/democan style discussion of nothing but personal insults and stupid pictures.

Please. I recognize a bait thread when I see it.

In this instance, I am happy to oblige and aid in destroying the myth that is lame-ass dreamworld Libertarian theory.

 

[SniperFire]

Do you have a point in bringing it up then?

Yes. Libertarians are totalitarian fools who think anyone who does not agree we should 'end the Fed' are morons.

I assume you have a better reason for calling libertarians totalitarians than they think people who disagree with them are wrong.

Would you outlaw a majority of locals in a town from passing a tax to expand a soup kitchen to feed the 4-5 people who are starving to death in the streets everyday?

If no, would Libertarianinsm, as a system of government, quickly cease to exist?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am free to think you are a moron and you are free to think I am a moron. We are even still free to say so. Libertarians would like you remain free to think and say what you feel and you think this is somehow totalitarian.

If you snapped your fingers and had a perfect Libertarian law state, would you prevent locals from banding together and starting a taxpayer supported soup kitchen welfare program that the majority deemed to be a good idea for 'the greater good'?

Would you stop such a thing from being voted upon and passed, or would you be willing to watch your Libertarian society fall apart and rendered completely unworkable?

Those are your choices. Pick one.

Were said taxpayers being coerced into paying taxes, or were they voluntarily make contributions to said soup kitchen welfare program? If the former then they're being robbed, if the latter then they're simply engaging in charity which no libertarian opposes.

Even the anarcho-capitalists, who could also be called voluntaryists, say that if you want to have a "state" then you're free to do so in an anarcho-capitalist society. You simply may not coerce others into living under your state. You could setup your own monarchy, your own communist commune, your own republic, or your own whatever. The only thing not permitted would be coercion. If somebody wants nothing to do with your state then they're free to reject it.

 

[SniperFire]

I am free to think you are a moron and you are free to think I am a moron. We are even still free to say so. Libertarians would like you remain free to think and say what you feel and you think this is somehow totalitarian.

If you snapped your fingers and had a perfect Libertarian law state, would you prevent locals from banding together and starting a taxpayer supported soup kitchen welfare program that the majority deemed to be a good idea for 'the greater good'?

Would you stop such a thing from being voted upon and passed, or would you be willing to watch your Libertarian society fall apart and rendered completely unworkable?

Those are your choices. Pick one.

Were said taxpayers being coerced into paying taxes, or were they voluntarily make contributions to said soup kitchen welfare program? If the former then they're being robbed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you snapped your fingers and had a perfect Libertarian law state, would you prevent locals from banding together and starting a taxpayer supported soup kitchen welfare program that the majority deemed to be a good idea for 'the greater good'?

Would you stop such a thing from being voted upon and passed, or would you be willing to watch your Libertarian society fall apart and rendered completely unworkable?

Those are your choices. Pick one.

Were said taxpayers being coerced into paying taxes, or were they voluntarily make contributions to said soup kitchen welfare program? If the former then they're being robbed.

So you weren't actually interested in discussing the point I see. Regardless, the absence of coercion is not totalitarianism. The exact opposite, actually.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Do the Libertariantards always keep about 3 'why I am a Libertarian' threads going in here at all times?

Seems to me they might have some issues with insecurity.

Lol adorable.

We're the ones with insecurity problems, but you come into EVERY SINGLE Ron Paul thread and instantly try to turn every debate into the typical republicrat/democan style discussion of nothing but personal insults and stupid pictures.

Please. I recognize a bait thread when I see it.

In this instance, I am happy to oblige and aid in destroying the myth that is lame-ass dreamworld Libertarian theory.

Saying Ron Paul should run as a 3rd party is a bait thread?

I doubt you'd see it that way if someone said a neocon should for 3rd party, say Romney or Gingrich. You'd probably just politely disagree. But since it's Ron Paul, and any mention of a real conservative's name offends you, you come to every Paul thread and flame as much as you can.

 

[LibertyForAll]

In sniperfire's mind if the majority wanted slavery it would be ok and it would be totalitarian to attempt to prevent it.

 

[Oddball]

The Fed doesn't print money.

WTF do you think "quantitative easing" is, s0n?

The Fed buying up assets and treasuries. Quite different than printing money, that's what the Treasury does.

I know how the Fed counterfeiting scam works...Even though the Fed doesn't print up the "money" themselves, they are the ones who issue the debt for the Treasury to do so.


So, if they have no money of their own and merely issue authorization to issue debt, what does the Fed use to buy up assets and treasuries?

 

[Oddball]

Do the Libertariantards always keep about 3 'why I am a Libertarian' threads going in here at all times?

Seems to me they might have some issues with insecurity.

Why is it that snot nosed neocon college boys think that they can run around defining what libertarianism is and isn't?

Seems they have some issues with needing to be the smartest little shits in the room.

 

[Rocko]

WTF do you think "quantitative easing" is, s0n?

The Fed buying up assets and treasuries. Quite different than printing money, that's what the Treasury does.

I know how the Fed counterfeiting scam works...Even though the Fed doesn't print up the "money" themselves, they are the ones who issue the debt for the Treasury to do so.


So, if they have no money of their own and merely issue authorization to issue debt, what does the Fed use to buy up assets and treasuries?

They're a private company. We don't get to see their balance sheet.

 

[Rocko]

WTF do you think "quantitative easing" is, s0n?

The Fed buying up assets and treasuries. Quite different than printing money, that's what the Treasury does.

I know how the Fed counterfeiting scam works...Even though the Fed doesn't print up the "money" themselves, they are the ones who issue the debt for the Treasury to do so.


So, if they have no money of their own and merely issue authorization to issue debt, what does the Fed use to buy up assets and treasuries?

If you're saying that programs like QE CAN lead to the necessity of printing money, then of course that is correct.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Fed buying up assets and treasuries. Quite different than printing money, that's what the Treasury does.

I know how the Fed counterfeiting scam works...Even though the Fed doesn't print up the "money" themselves, they are the ones who issue the debt for the Treasury to do so.


So, if they have no money of their own and merely issue authorization to issue debt, what does the Fed use to buy up assets and treasuries?

They're a private company. We don't get to see their balance sheet.

Private companies don't have their chairmen appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The Fed buying up assets and treasuries. Quite different than printing money, that's what the Treasury does.

I know how the Fed counterfeiting scam works...Even though the Fed doesn't print up the "money" themselves, they are the ones who issue the debt for the Treasury to do so.


So, if they have no money of their own and merely issue authorization to issue debt, what does the Fed use to buy up assets and treasuries?

They're a private company. We don't get to see their balance sheet.

And you defend this? Oh boy

 

[Rocko]

I know how the Fed counterfeiting scam works...Even though the Fed doesn't print up the "money" themselves, they are the ones who issue the debt for the Treasury to do so.


So, if they have no money of their own and merely issue authorization to issue debt, what does the Fed use to buy up assets and treasuries?

They're a private company. We don't get to see their balance sheet.

Private companies don't have their chairmen appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

It's technically private. good point though.

If not the Fed, what? You would be more comfortable with the money supply being controlled by Goldman Sachs or perhaps BHO?

 

[Rocko]

I know how the Fed counterfeiting scam works...Even though the Fed doesn't print up the "money" themselves, they are the ones who issue the debt for the Treasury to do so.


So, if they have no money of their own and merely issue authorization to issue debt, what does the Fed use to buy up assets and treasuries?

They're a private company. We don't get to see their balance sheet.

And you defend this? Oh boy

What's the alternative?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They're a private company. We don't get to see their balance sheet.

Private companies don't have their chairmen appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

It's technically private. good point though.

If not the Fed, what? You would be more comfortable with the money supply being controlled by Goldman Sachs or perhaps BHO?

It's a public-private hybrid. As to what I think should ultimately replace the Fed, competing currencies. Let the people decide what they want to use as currency.

 

[Dr.Drock]

They're a private company. We don't get to see their balance sheet.

And you defend this? Oh boy

What's the alternative?

Not being aware of a potential alternative isn't grounds to support what's in place.

Google "alternatives to the federal reserve."

 

[Rocko]

Private companies don't have their chairmen appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

It's technically private. good point though.

If not the Fed, what? You would be more comfortable with the money supply being controlled by Goldman Sachs or perhaps BHO?

It's a public-private hybrid. As to what I think should ultimately replace the Fed, competing currencies. Let the people decide what they want to use as currency.

GS would have all the power. They are in fact "to big to fail". It would be much more of an oilgarcy.

 

[Oddball]

They're a private company. We don't get to see their balance sheet.

And you defend this? Oh boy

What's the alternative?

Article 1, Sections 8 & 10 and credit issuance in the hands of the productive.

Y'know...Following that "Constitution" thingy that we all hear so much about from neocon poseurs.