Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Ron Paul is a politician like any other, and he's no more our political messiah than Ross Perot.

Ron Paul wants what all politicians want, which is power and recognition. Only in the American mind, dominated by the two-party system, does someone whose views are a bit off-center suddenly seem exotic and apart from the cliches of "the politician".

The proof that Ron Paul is really just a politician like any other is the profound oversimplification of complex and willful ignorance that underlies his platform. It's politics as usual.

His platform is - and this too is typical of "politics as usual" - disingenuous. When people talk about "state/local government", what they really mean is "no government". And what they really mean by that is letting the rich and powerful do as they will with no effective check on their power. Corporations can operate freely between states and nations, and the only reason to dismantle federal authority in favor of state authority is to allow them to divide and conquer. This is completely obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense, and Ron Paul gives the spiel anyway to ensure he has his solid constituency - useful idiots and fat cats.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Aestu - I agree that all politicians are inherently fucktards.

I agree that most politicians are in it for themselves and care nothing about the common man, the constitution, civil liberties, etc.

What I'm saying is that at least someone like Ron Paul and Rand Paul are coming down on the side of liberty and freedom more often than not.

If you watch this and don't feel moved, or saddened that these warnings went unheeded, then I have no idea what to tell you.




This is why we've had our rights stripped and citizens have lost any semblance of hope or control in the political process. We've spent too much time fighting amongst ourselves, listening to media pundits....while the government and corporations have quietly started to turn this country into a police state.

Take a step back from your biases against individual politicians and look at everything as a whole.

If all politicians are corrupt, why are we so OK with them making so many decisions for us?






When one state fucks up. Only those people are affected. When one state finds a good way to do something, other states can use that as a template. Also, every state is also beholden to parts of the constitution and follow the same democratic processes as the federal government.

When the federal government fucks up, everybody is affected. Not to mention that in the end, if a state becomes unbearable to you, moving out of state is as easy as moving can get. It's a lot harder to move to a different country.

There's even a term for it: Laboratories of Democracy.

No, they can't. When and with what has this ever worked?

CA passed its own tougher version of the Clean Air Act. Doesn't mean shit unless every other state does it as well, and having done so they are now at a disadvantage against every other state that makes the choice to sacrifice what is the common good for the here and now.

Sales taxes. Every state has an interest in cutting sales taxes to nothing and then floating endless bonds to stay competitive in the here and now while corps keep them running around chasing their tails. Zoning ordinances. States constantly compete against each other - against the common interest - to get stuff for THEIR state - a military base, power plant, what have you - no matter how bad it is for the country as a whole.

So it comes down to power politics. Do you realize that if we had "state power", your state would get absolutely shit on by CA/TX/NY because they're bigger, wealthier and more powerful? Whenever a prison or nuclear dump has to get built, where do you think it would go? Whenever some high-capital business wants to set up shop, where do you think they'd do it? Whenever CA/NY/TX want to profit at the expense of the country by implementing some self-serving state policy, what would your state do about it?

There is NO CASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE WORLD where a loose federal government has worked better than a strong one. Every single case where a federal authority has been strengthened, the result has been better government. The Holy Roman Empire. The late Roman Empire. The Persian Empire. Medieval France. Pre-Raj India. Hell, even the Confederate States of America. They didn't just lose the war, they lost the peace, too - their system of government proved completely unworkable in matters non-military. The list goes on and on. Weak federal states don't work. Ever. Anywhere.

EDIT: Forgot medieval Italy

You didn't answer my question - why is it that only Americans with almost no knowledge of history or the world at large believe in this philosophy, and everywhere else in the world, and everyone who is aware of the world at large - thinks it's malarkey?



2000 election



That's true of absolutely anything.

It's true of corps, it's true of utilities, it's true of the armed forces, it's true of apartment buildings, it's true of bridges. Big things mean big trouble but bigness is necessary to get shit done.



No it isn't.

Job? Housing? Discrimination against carpetbaggers? Go read about the Okies.

EDIT: Hell, the very fact that we Americans have a vocabulary of disparaging epithets for people who move from other states should be evidence enough.



Ironically enough that term was coined in the context of defending arbitrary government power over business.

There's a term for a lot of things. It's still wrong, it's never worked, and it won't ever work. That term is one offhand quote from one judge 80 years ago that disingenuous libertarian fatcats have used to try to legitimize a philosophy of willful ignorance.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

One of the dumbest things you've ever said which is saying something.

Give me a fucking break.

Because that's life. Civilized society is based on the social contract. Accepting authority within defined boundaries.

Conversely, do you think the Average Joe is going to make all the right decisions...and when he doesn't...do you think he's just going to go die in a corner? How much power does one person really have? If the individual was as powerful as you make him out to be, the Bastille, the world of Oliver Twist, the secessions of the plebs, the Russian Revolution...on and on...none of that would have happened because people would have just conjured up things for themselves.

In reality, it just does not work that way, and only Americans believe this precisely because they have become spoiled by what they have to such a profound extent they take it for granted and don't appreciate what has brought their level of comfort and security to what it is.



BP disaster says hi

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Return to the state of nature, break our social contracts, hang Hobbes on a pole, and kick Locke out. Nonotrlyjk

Sweet crackers, you people are serious.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Are you serious?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Flabbergasted. People of the same species as me think Ron Paul is a good idea.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Okay - give me names of politicians and potential presidents that you think could change things for the better.

what makes you think anyone can change anything at all?

The President has very little power to change the direction of the country as a whole. America's problems are fundamentally social.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain to me how Wisconsin's Education Reform, New York's Taxes, California's Marriage Laws, Oklahoma's Drug Laws, Nevada's Prostitution Laws or Massachucett's Romney Care have a direct effect on someone from Minnesota.


If it drove energy out of state, it would seem to me that they got the clean air they wanted.

As far as pollution across state lines, that's actually something for the federal government. And there's far more effective ways keeping states surrounding California from polluting it than blanket standards.


The first three are empires, and limited federal power probably had little to do with their downfall.

Better government would also seem to be subjective.

I don't have well versed history of these places, so was it a limited federal government that were the major factor in their downfall, or were they limited federal governments that just happened to fall for other reasons?



My utilities go out, how has that affected you?

A bridge here in MN fell, if no federal taxes went towards it, what direct effect did it have on you?



Discrimination against carpetbaggers... lolwut. That term is so old and outdated that I bet a lot of people had to look it up.

Aside from changing jobs - which becomes very easy if you work for a big bad corporation who can just transfer you over, is the only thing aside from some paper work, that makes moving across state lines harder.

Having to move to Canada, would be a lot harder, even with the convenience of Canada speaking English and bordering the US.



We have a document that defines boundaries, but we've decided to shit on it.



Not quite sure what this is about. Pretty sure it was a federal government decision to open the waters (because coastal waters fall under federal jurisdiction) and private companies that made the mistake.



The idea of 'one size fits all' is crazy and I'm not a cat.

A rock will do a better job than someone who guts federal power. Ron Paul is a disaster waiting to happen, because the only ones of his ideas that have any chance of passing are the bad ones. It's great that he's honest and consistent and whatever, but not a single one of his "good" causes will survive Congress; the stupid and bad ones will. When you remove the air-freshener, all you're left with is a steaming pile of shit.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh