Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ron Paul's farewell speech More

Ron Paul's farewell speech

Comments Filter:
  • That is short by his standard. I'm sure we'll see more of him later, in one form or another. Cult leaders seldom just fade off into obscurity, even when they claim to be aiming to do so.
    • Somewhere on there it mentioned this was Part 1.
      Likely he'll take some holiday time and read Atlas Shrugged into the Congressional Record.
      But why do you think he, himself, is a 'cult leader'. If anything, he's attempting to be a cult of liberty planter.

      • Somewhere on there it mentioned this was Part 1.

        That sounds more like it. Ron Paul is probably just slowing down a bit in his old age. He'll be back soon enough.

        Likely he'll take some holiday time and read Atlas Shrugged into the Congressional Record.

        Well since he doesn't respect copyright - or other peoples' time - I could see him doing that. And of course then he would bitch about the record being too long, after reading a book nearly the size of a phone book into said record.

        But why do you think he, himself, is a 'cult leader'. If anything, he's attempting to be a cult of liberty planter.

        He may not have set out to establish a cult, but a cult is what he leads now. As an excellent example of this charge, look at slashdot's own roman_mir who is co

        • Well since he doesn't respect copyright...

          You say that like it's a bad thing...

          The man simply wants to return to the Gilded Age, as if the 19th century was a good thing. Replace 'liberty' with privilege, and you will get the real gist of their message.

          • Well since he doesn't respect copyright...

            You say that like it's a bad thing...

            Are you saying then that you are against all forms of copyright?

            The man simply wants to return to the Gilded Age, as if the 19th century was a good thing. Replace 'liberty' with privilege, and you will get the real gist of their message.

            I've been saying that a lot longer than you've been trolling me. Indeed Ron Paul wants to go back to the 50's - the 1850's. Stripping workers of all their rights as human beings is a great step in that direction.

            • Are you saying then that you are against all forms of copyright?

              Yep... The world would do just fine without it.

              And I'm not trolling you. You're being all hysterical again. I've always been aware of his intentions. But, considering the known corruption of the major players, who will never get my vote regardless of the opposition, I'm still willing to experiment to see what he would do when granted real influence, just like with the greens, which I actually prefer. Having little to none makes it very easy to

              • Are you saying then that you are against all forms of copyright?

                Yep... The world would do just fine without it.

                Well, at least you were direct with your answer that time. I happen to disagree with you, but you have shown repeatedly that you are not here to have a discussion.

                And I'm not trolling you.

                This time, possibly not. You do, however, have an established history of trolling me. That said, just because you are not trolling me at this exact moment does not give me reason to expect you will not return to your previous ways.

                You're being all hysterical again.

                I am not familiar with this new meaning to the word "hysterical" you seem to be applying here.

                Personally, I believe he would become a team player pretty quick

                You must not be p

                • This 'trolling' you speak of is purely a figment of your imagination. That you continuously bring it up is a sign of hysteria:
                  A psychological disorder whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms, selective amnesia... without an organic cause. Maybe the term 'neurotic' is more appropriate.

                  Anyway, I don't believe he was trying 'hijack' anything as much as he was trying to avoid being shut out arbitrarily. Don't take that as a defense of the man, just that there was indeed

                  • This 'trolling' you speak of is purely a figment of your imagination

                    The truth supports my statement, and not yours. But I can't stop you from lying if that is what you insist on doing...

                    That you continuously bring it up is a sign of hysteria:

                    You don't understand hysteria, do you?

                    A psychological disorder whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms, selective amnesia... without an organic cause.

                    Funny how none of those symptoms are present. Thank you for again disproving yourself, it's nice to not have to do it for you. If you have been trying to stalk me in person, and have observed those symptoms, you have been following the wrong person.

                    Maybe the term 'neurotic' is more appropriate.

                    Can you find a definition for that which contradicts your assertions as well? That would be swell..

  • He shows no sign of being against corrupt, overbearing local authority, protection from which we need the feds, who unfortunately is owned by business that wants to protect its own interests. Hence the wars and prohibition, etc. I only wish that he did get equal treatment from the press, so that the public could have more easily and accurately vetted him. I have little doubt he would still come out smelling a hell of a lot better than Romney, who looked more like a sleeper democrat.

    Anyway, for the convenien

    • See, if more authority were retained locally, two things could occur:
      Social media could be used to expose and hold corrupt officials honest from below (with Bloomberg and Emmanuel sort of making that point laughable), and
      The federal government could have an oversight, instead of executive role.
      As it is, the slackers get ensconced federally, and they become above the law.

      • The federal government could have an oversight, instead of executive role.

        That I find very acceptable, as long as their oversight can have real teeth when needed, and can be removed when the job is finished. We definitely need protection from the locals who place themselves above the law also. You know, I really don't disagree with your basic premise, but I am much more interested in real autonomy for the individual above all authority, not just specific types, liberty for everybody. And I also understand t

        • The other point where we seem to disagree strongly is where the power is coming from. I still insist that the feds are the means, not the end, and we have to address that before we can move on. So far your argument s have continued to be simple recitations of boilerplate talking points.

          Which came first, the individual, or the state
          We all seem to admit, in various degrees, the need for a state, but how is the separation maintained, so that the state is stable, but doesn't steamroller the individual?
          You ca

          • Obviously the state evolved from the individual, or rather multiple individuals. The question should be, what motivated the creation of the state. Was it greed of commerce protecting its interests, or the real desire for a method of resolving a dispute? Which, to me, should be the sole purpose of the state. If there is no dispute, there certainly is no need for the state. But right from the beginning, the taste of power corrupted the authority, and it grew from there, with the state(which includes the churc

            • Was it greed of commerce protecting its interests, or the real desire for a method of resolving a dispute? Which, to me, should be the sole purpose of the state. If there is no dispute, there certainly is no need for the state.

              I don't understand how protecting property is defined as 'greed', or how the creation of the state had to have a single driver.

              You're seeing the state as the great satan without noticing its source of power and what really drives policy.

              I don't think the idea of a state, itself, is go

              • Ownership of raw natural resources is not a right, god given, or otherwise. It is in fact a state/corp granted privilege. Your claim that they are god given or a natural entitlement is specious at best.

                What gives satan a chuckle is watching you try to differentiate the state from the merchants that own it.

                Is this pure flamebait?

                No, but I consider your theory that man has 'fallen' to be. Man has to rise first before he can fall.

                Are 'we' to feel 'shame' that we've yet to bring about Heaven on earth?

                Consideri

                • So, past your double-talk and snide contradictions:
                  • Do you identify any concept of private property? Does your (unabashedly brilliant) notion of 'natural resources' mean that we can always identify the un-ownable elemental component in anything, as a means of justifying the tyranny of the many over the few?
                  • If may has was never elevated, and therefore cannot fall, how is there any moral differentiation? How is heaven not hell?
                  • "Domination over one's environment (without causing permanent damage) is acceptab

                  • There are no contradictions. That's just you grasping at straws.

                    I think I've already pointed out to you that you own what you make, or pay others to make. There is no right to block access to natural resources beyond those acquired through physical might, or unanimous agreement.

                    Outside of man's reason or superstitions, morals don't exist in nature. What is simply is. There is no 'bad' or 'good'... or 'heaven' or 'hell'. That may appear contradictory, being that man, and his 'reason' is just as natural as ev

                    • I think I've already pointed out to you that you own what you make, or pay others to make. There is no right to block access to natural resources beyond those acquired through physical might, or unanimous agreement.

                      I watched the silliness of this notion play out in Afghanistan. Your 'unanimous agreement' is mostly unattainable. There is always someone with nothing to lose willing to claim (perhaps with justification) that they'd a prior claim to the resource in question.
                      Closer to home, there is always a K [wikipedia.org]

                    • I watched the silliness of this notion play out in Afghanistan.

                      Another complete distortion. Afghanistan is nothing but the story of domination and subjugation. There is no valid claim, prior or otherwise. You either 'shit or get off the pot' seems strangely appropriate. The pot ain't yours. Please, don't try to contort that into some absurd justification for home invasion or displacement from your dwelling or the land you are actively cultivating. The fruits of your labor are yours to enjoy, along with the

                    • . . .the story of domination and subjugation.

                      Which is a good working definition of government, you may admit.

  • Now that he retires to his couch of perpetual indulgence, can we at least agree that his son is a badly degraded copy?

    Rand is the worst thing possible: a libertarian with an endless sense of personal entitlement and zero civic regard.

    Rand's only saving grace is that he is so unlikeable and is so incapable of self-examination that he'll never go anywhere. He'll maybe do a term or two and people will realize he's not his pappy.

    • Now that he retires to his couch of perpetual indulgence

      I don't believe for a second that ron paul will genuinely retire. We will see more of his sermons as time continues on. He will never stop trying to bring our country back to the 50's - the 1850's.

      can we at least agree that his son is a badly degraded copy?

      He has sold too many of his cult members on his son being the next chosen one. You are right, though, Rand is not an impressive one in any meaningful way.

      Rand is the worst thing possible: a libertarian with an endless sense of personal entitlement

      Which he got from his dad, literally. His dad paid for him to go to college, hence he has no sense of what that really cost.

      and zero civic regard.

      R He got that from his dad as

Slashdot Top Deals

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Close