Paul Ryan is a Marxist!

[Phatscotty]

Why does Mitt Romney hate freedom?

Republicans crush democracy, rig votes at their own convention. The future of America under Romney?

i don't even know what's going on here. link or explain?

There was a motion to modify the rules of future National Conventions to prohibit any candidates like Ron Paul from seeking delegates so that the Republican Party could insulate itself from insurgencies in the future. It was put to a voice vote and Boehner, as chair, said the yes votes won (you can be the judge from the video). There was a call for a division of the house (roll call vote), Boehner didn't "hear" it and declared the resolution was tabled (it can't be taken up again until the next convention in 2016 after Paul-like delegates have been excluded under the new rule) "without objection."

The Republican Party is secure! Paul is now drop-kicked in the trash bin of history with Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and John B. Anderson. In four years people will be like "remember that one fellow, Don whasshisanme? Don Paul, I think?"

This Episode Sponsored by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan - Keeping Democracy Safe from Democracy

If anything, the voice vote was a tie. There should have been a roll call vote.

This is bullshit, and John Boehner is a fucking boner. The Tea Party is gonna have to roll a special phatty for this son of a bitch.

[GreecePwns]

Any Ron Paul supporter that votes for Romney, or any Republican, now, is no true libertarian/constitutionalist/anything-other-than-mainstream-Republican.

Yesterday's debacle proved that the "change the party from within strategy" simply won't work. There is too much resistance by the establishment and too many obstacles being set up.

You must be voting for Gary Johnson after this, surely. Right?

[saxitoxin]

Any Ron Paul supporter that votes for Romney, or any Republican, now, is no true libertarian/constitutionalist/anything-other-than-mainstream-Republican.

Yesterday's debacle proved that the "change the party from within strategy" simply won't work. There is too much resistance by the establishment and too many obstacles being set up.

You must be voting for Gary Johnson after this, surely. Right?

see: Donald Trump

It's a fine balancing act. Romney has to keep Trump at arm's length in public, so he doesn't dilute his support among moderates and Democrats who have given up on Obama, but he needs Trump to peddle stories of a coming apocalypse so the dying embers of the Paul campaign don't buck to Gary Johnson. You'll notice Trump is usually silent, but each time Romney orchestrates a particularly violent purge of Paul supporters from the GOP it coincides with Trump making a public announcement of some conspiracy he's uncovered involving Obama. The Paul voters grumble but quickly fall back in line. You kind of have to respect Romney's genius in this regard.

[GreecePwns]

Hmm, I haven't heard anything about Trump recently (except for something about Twitter and Huffington).

[saxitoxin]

Hmm, I haven't heard anything about Trump recently (except for something about Twitter and Huffington).

Yeah, nine hours before Romney ordered the purge of Paul delegations, Trump - right on cue - organized a press conference to discuss Obama's birth certificate.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/n ... th/1248115

This is kind of the M.O. When Trump starts talking, it means Romney is preparing to have another batch of Ron Paul supporters taken out back and shot.

[thegreekdog]

Any Ron Paul supporter that votes for Romney, or any Republican, now, is no true libertarian/constitutionalist/anything-other-than-mainstream-Republican.

Yesterday's debacle proved that the "change the party from within strategy" simply won't work. There is too much resistance by the establishment and too many obstacles being set up.

You must be voting for Gary Johnson after this, surely. Right?

Who are you voting for? Surely not Barack Obama. Else, you're no true Democrat, you're just a mainstream Republican, right?

[GreecePwns]

Meh, I don't know who yet, but not Obama or Romney.

On one hand, the closest one ideologically to me would be someone on the far left (Alexander or Stein).

On the other hand, the reality is that the grassroots vs. established politics conflict >>>>>>>> the left vs. right politics conflict in terms of importance to me, which compels me to vote Johnson so the Libertarians can get one minuscule step closer to the 5% needed for FEC funding (thanks for pointing that out Saxi).

In NY, ballot access is determined by gubernatorial election results, so that won't factor in my vote.

[Woodruff]

A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.

Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a parasite/leech/moocher?

[john9blue]

A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.

Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a parasite/leech/moocher?

because businessmen contribute to their society.

nice regurgitation though

[Woodruff]

A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.

Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a parasite/leech/moocher?

because businessmen contribute to their society.

They do? Solely because of their position as a businessman? You sure you want to stand by that statement?

[john9blue]

A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.

Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a parasite/leech/moocher?

because businessmen contribute to their society.

They do? Solely because of their position as a businessman? You sure you want to stand by that statement?

obviously some detract from society more than they benefit it. but the majority of them are a positive force.

[patrickaa317]

A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.

Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a parasite/leech/moocher?

because businessmen contribute to their society.

They do? Solely because of their position as a businessman? You sure you want to stand by that statement?

I disagree with Scotty & John on this one. A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits with no intention of bettering their situation with the assistance given to them. Just because someone fell on hard times and needs a little support to get them through it, does not make them a parasite.

[Symmetry]

And indeed, the obvious one- just because someone receives benefits doesn't mean they don't contribute or haven't contributed to society.

Unless, of course, you see contribution to society in purely monetary terms.

[BigBallinStalin]

A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.

Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a parasite/leech/moocher?

because businessmen contribute to their society.

They do? Solely because of their position as a businessman? You sure you want to stand by that statement?

obviously some detract from society more than they benefit it. but the majority of them are a positive force.

The problem with your position, "businesses still contribute to society even though they're subsidized by the government," is that you have to ask, 'from whom did they get the money?"

Government? Sure, and where'd that money come from? Current taxpayers (taxation), future taxpayers (borrowing), all users of US dollar experiencing a decrease in purchasing power (from federal reserve's lending credit into existence (monetary policy)).


So, it's a zero-sum exchange. Wealth is taken from group A and given to group B involuntarily. Group B may add some benefit to others, but Group A will never be able to benefit anyone since their wealth was taken from them. In other words, you're leaving out the nature of this exchange and the opportunity costs.



(Back on-topic: Even Ayn Rand described the industrialists/capitalists who fed on the other industries through manipulated legislation as parasitic.)

[john9blue]

The problem with your position, "businesses still contribute to society even though they're subsidized by the government," is that you have to ask, 'from whom did they get the money?"

Government? Sure, and where'd that money come from? Current taxpayers (taxation), future taxpayers (borrowing), all users of US dollar experiencing a decrease in purchasing power (from federal reserve's lending credit into existence (monetary policy)).


So, it's a zero-sum exchange. Wealth is taken from group A and given to group B involuntarily. Group B may add some benefit to others, but Group A will never be able to benefit anyone since their wealth was taken from them. In other words, you're leaving out the nature of this exchange and the opportunity costs.



(Back on-topic: Even Ayn Rand described the industrialists/capitalists who fed on the other industries through manipulated legislation as parasitic.)

i thought we were talking about businessmen in general, not just people who take advantage of corporate tax breaks. obviously i'm not in favor of government intervention most of the time.