Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

28 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41997993)

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.

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41998259)

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.

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41998711)

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 completely incapable of discussing anything any more without placing it in the context of something that Ron Paul has said. There are numerous other slashdot devotees of Ron Paul as well, who refer to his "predictions" and other such bullshit as if they are discussing a new prophet coming to earth.

The real problem, though, is that his promises of liberty are just empty lies. Ron Paul's economic plans would be horrifically economically and socially destructive for well over 99% of the US population. Liberty doesn't mean shit when you are enslaven to your master with no way to ever break the bondage and nobody is able to help you. Or, as other people have said, it is impossible to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps when you have no boots.

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42000493)

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.

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42001535)

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.

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42001965)

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 spout off. Personally, I believe he would become a team player pretty quick, or be run off (or worse) if he actually tried to do anything, pretty much how the Obama regime is acting right now. Like all the others, he's a hired hand... by the plantation owners. But I can't confirm that without giving him a shot. Since you like to play the 'lesser evil' game, I presently consider him the 'lesser evil' compared to Obama/Romney, but I give even odds that he would prove me wrong on that.

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42002421)

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 paying much attention. Ron Paul and his followers show total contempt and disregard for the system. They planned to hijack the nomination process to get their savior the nomination, regardless of the will of the people. Ron Paul followers openly despise democracy as that is what Ron Paul tells them to think. Why would he play with anyone if he had power?

Like all the others, he's a hired hand... by the plantation owners.

That part is true. The difference between him and most other hired hands though is that few of the other hired hands are so convinced they could some day take over. Most of the other hands just want to aid the owners, Ron Paul wants to usurp the owners and then take all their actions to the extreme.

I presently consider him the 'lesser evil' compared to Obama/Romney

You clearly have a different idea of evil than I. Workers in the US have very few rights remaining that haven't been given up by the conservative establishment, and Ron Paul wants to ensure that those are tossed out with the trash sooner than ASAP.

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42002637)

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 an organized effort made against him. The hijacking came from the other side. I don't believe your criticisms in this case are rational.

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004153)

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...

Anyway, I don't believe he was trying 'hijack' anything as much as he was trying to avoid being shut out arbitrarily.

He specifically told his followers to contact delegates directly and encourage them to pledge to his cause regardless of what their state polling indicated. He was in the primary process for some time and had a chance to plead his case; he was shot down by the voters and hence decided instead to go around them.

Don't take that as a defense of the man, just that there was indeed an organized effort made against him.

Organized effort or not, he encouraged his followers to actively try to circumvent the election process.

The hijacking came from the other side.

Perhaps you don't understand what hijacking means in the sense of an election?

I don't believe your criticisms in this case are rational.

You are not exactly an expert on rational arguments.

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004357)

Seek help [urbandictionary.com]

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42004815)

Thank you for again proving my point. I can't say I find this the least bit surprising. Can I get a journal entry from you in my honor now?

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42006163)

No. You're just boring.

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007211)

Yet you keep replying to me...

Re:Wow, only 48 minutes? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007817)

Compiling, running backups,resizing partitions and formatting... Trying to extract something interesting from you. Apparently the barrel appears to be dry, nothing but dregs. It beats watching the clothes dryer spin, not by much, but hey, waddya gonna do?

He, too, shows ignorance of the pre-civil war era (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41998243)

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 convenience of the viewers, here is the transcript [ronpaul.com]

Re:He, too, shows ignorance of the pre-civil war e (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42006429)

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.

Re:He, too, shows ignorance of the pre-civil war e (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007687)

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 the need for universal standards for some things, the same rules of the road, so to speak, for everybody. The feds should be little more than a national court to resolve disputes, but it has to treat the poorest individual as well as it treats the biggest corporation. It has to be the voice of that individual, in theory through the states' representative, but when that rep becomes totally corrupted, strong oversight must be able to overcome that. I agree that the feds are way out of bounds, especially with its all powerful bureaucracy, but it has been that way since before the ink dried on the contract. It has been a slow boil all along There is nothing really dramatic in this era over any other. I still maintain that the underlying issue this time around is the loss of privilege for a specific group of people. That is what's at stake, and they are pissed, actually scared of what's to become of them. I hope I don't have to spell it out, because I can't, not without being written off completely. I say they should relax.

I am very disappointed that Ron Paul didn't go through a real process of public attention and inspection. It would have been most interesting. He was written off way too early, but the real power brokers have too much to lose by letting people focus on real issues.

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. I see it all over the 'net. There's a much bigger, critical issue you seem to want to avoid, and the reasons for that have already been documented in many places also. A lot of what I've read on the matter was written in the 30s by people who were living it. We are dealing with psychological exploits, and why propaganda is such an effective tool. These things should put the federal government, in fact all government, into a more fitting perspective. And be careful with social media. That can be a real poisonous well to drink from that would only exacerbate the problem. It is a real fountain of gossip and false accusations. The noise level alone could render it completely useless.

Now for the sappy part:
Thanks :-)

Re:He, too, shows ignorance of the pre-civil war e (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42016643)

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 can say I'm engaged in "simple recitations of boilerplate talking points". OK. There really isn't anything new under the sun. Each generation thinks it's the first to discover the current form of rock'n'roll.

And be careful with social media. That can be a real poisonous well to drink from that would only exacerbate the problem.

It's a crowning irony of the Internet that such a powerful tool, born to have a catalytic effect on human knowledge, has such a crappy signal-to-noise ratio.
Welcome to the fallen condition of man.

Re:He, too, shows ignorance of the pre-civil war e (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42027813)

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 church) becoming a protectorate of commercial interests. As such, mass media propaganda and thus much of your argument is wagging the dog. You're seeing the state as the great satan without noticing its source of power and what really drives policy.

Welcome to the fallen condition of man.

Reverse that thought. It's not that man has fallen. It's that man has never risen to use that knowledge he possesses. We are still as biologically reactionary as single cell bacteria. We have yet to climb out of the primordial soup.

Re:He, too, shows ignorance of the pre-civil war e (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42034063)

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 good or evil. The worship of the state; that moment when the state took on some value greater than the sum of its constituents in the mind of some Progressive twit: that was a moment of sublime evil that probably caused Satan a chuckle.

It's not that man has fallen. It's that man has never risen to use that knowledge he possesses. We are still as biologically reactionary as single cell bacteria. We have yet to climb out of the primordial soup.

I can't fathom what you might mean here. Is this pure flamebait? Are 'we' to feel 'shame' that we've yet to bring about Heaven on earth?

Re:He, too, shows ignorance of the pre-civil war e (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42068703)

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?

Considering that we are quite capable of doing just that without suppressing biological urges, yes. In that manner man has fallen. Man is bringing hell on earth, and each other. Domination over one's environment (without causing permanent damage) is acceptable. The mad desire for domination over man is not. If your deity approves, then it is evil.

Re:He, too, shows ignorance of the pre-civil war e (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42069723)

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 acceptable. The mad desire for domination over man is not."Who owns the definition of 'permanent'? Is it ManBearPig? How is government itself not a 'mad desire for domination over man'?

I love it when you mix libertarian posturing with trolling.

Re:He, too, shows ignorance of the pre-civil war e (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42070075)

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 everything else that exists, but I will say it is not for the sake of argument. Either way we have the ability to make life very pleasurable for everybody that isn't a greedy bastard who can't function without the subservience of others.

If you cut off a finger, it doesn't grow back. That's 'permanent'. If you clear cut a forest, the soil might run off with the next monsoon so that nothing can grow there ever again. That would be 'permanent' damage. So your obligation would be to replant the trees. When you abandon your mines, you are obligated to remove the tailing ponds and other poisons to avoid the contamination. Do you have some kind of difficulty understanding these very simple concepts of cleaning up after yourself?

My libertarian posturing... You really are a funny guy!

Re:He, too, shows ignorance of the pre-civil war e (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42073337)

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 Kelo [wikipedia.org] . As noted by Ancient Commenter Solomon:

And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.
I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

Re:He, too, shows ignorance of the pre-civil war e (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42073573)

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 full consequence of potential damage you impose on others in the process.

Re:He, too, shows ignorance of the pre-civil war e (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42078343)

. . .the story of domination and subjugation.

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

Today I am the luckiest man on the f... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42011497)

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.

Re: Today I am the luckiest man on the f... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42015199)

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 well. Ron Paul has no regard for what the people think or want. Ron Paul would be the first one to outlaw popular voting altogether and have only the chosen ones allowed to select leaders.

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.

He did likely choose the right state to move to, though. He could last a while in Kentucky.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>