By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Ron Paul warns of a Fascist Takeover in America

badgenome on 27 February 2012
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
 

How's that? People currently don't forfeit their right to speak freely just because they come together in a group, but that's exactly what you're suggesting they do. That's eviscerating the First Amendment, however you justify it.

As for public funding, I'd rather not be forced to pay for the political campaigns of people I don't support while being prevented from supporting the candidates I do like, thanks.

Then what do you suggest? Until Citizens United is overturned, things are only going to get worse, not better. We can talk all we want about "getting government out of big business" but how the hell is that going to happen if big business is the group telling government to help them, and that they have to listen because big business has the money to get them elected that no-one else has?

The only way to get even a libertarian solution to work is to at least temporarily cripple the ability of businesses to participate.

Wow. You weren't kidding before when you said you were influenced by fascism, were you?

How exactly would you even go about overturning Citizens United, short of amending the Constitution? Furthermore, why would you even want to? Precious little has changed, other than the government being blued in to the fact that it has no right to suspend the First Amendment to ban books or movies because it's too close to an election for its liking.



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 27 February 2012

Okay I'll stop bullshitting around here for a minute (sorry I kind of just imagined I was a fascist leader). This question actually popped up in my head while I was about to load my next bowl of weed.


Is it possible for a fascist nation to be a peaceful nation or does being a fascist nation always lead to war? I mean that would be interesting if there was a peaceful fascist nation that just pumped out manufacturing goods instead of weapons.



badgenome on 27 February 2012
Rath said:

I don't believe it's really abridging freedom, I believe it leads to a more free and fair democracy.

If you look at the countries which rank highest in freedom indices - most of them actually have reasonably tough electoral spending laws.

You don't believe it's abridging freedom to tell a group that they can't release a movie?



MrBubbles on 27 February 2012

i hope one day the chinese manage to crush the rebellion and retake the mainland.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

mrstickball on 27 February 2012
Joelcool7 said:
Well yes and no to comparing Ron Paul to Hitler. I am not saying he is Hitler but if any of the Presidential candidates are mimicking how Germany went Nazis it would he Ron Paul. Also I am not paranoid the world is running out of resources fast and as global population levels grow so will poverty rates.

I remember right after the Occupy Protests got big hearing a DoD staffer talking about how if Americans would turn that violent and protest that much and call for an American spring. It only reassured the fact that the biggest threat to national security is now home grown extremists.

Say Ron Paul gets elected. He cannot save the US from its debt. The military while it is huge. Social services and tax incentives and such actually make up what was it 75% of America's annual spending. The military is expensive but cutting it even cutting it entirely would not save America.

P.S I have friends in the US Forces one who just finished his service coming back with PTSD. See the reason America needs its military at home is the poverty rates. Even if employment levels rise the fact is America will never fully recover. Also if and when America defaults on its debt

Joe, I hate to say it, but you have no freaking clue about Ron Paul.

He is the only candidate that wants to cut social welfare spending and balance the budget. The whole military issue is about 25% of his entire platform. If you bothered doing ANY research on him, you'd understand that his platform is about ending 5 major federal departments and balancing the budget by reducing the government in every area - not just the military.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
mrstickball on 27 February 2012
sethnintendo said:
Okay I'll stop bullshitting around here for a minute (sorry I kind of just imagined I was a fascist leader). This question actually popped up in my head while I was about to load my next bowl of weed.


Is it possible for a fascist nation to be a peaceful nation or does being a fascist nation always lead to war? I mean that would be interesting if there was a peaceful fascist nation that just pumped out manufacturing goods instead of weapons.


Generally, fascism is entirely about nationalism and national pride. Its always wound up marginalizing specific elements of society and the world. Its always "Us vs. Them".

Did every fascist nation go to war? No. But I wouldn't call them peaceful. Any nation that had attachment to fascism around WW2 had come to power through violence and subjugation. Even if they didn't declare war externally, they found death internally.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Mr Khan on 27 February 2012
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
 

How's that? People currently don't forfeit their right to speak freely just because they come together in a group, but that's exactly what you're suggesting they do. That's eviscerating the First Amendment, however you justify it.

As for public funding, I'd rather not be forced to pay for the political campaigns of people I don't support while being prevented from supporting the candidates I do like, thanks.

Then what do you suggest? Until Citizens United is overturned, things are only going to get worse, not better. We can talk all we want about "getting government out of big business" but how the hell is that going to happen if big business is the group telling government to help them, and that they have to listen because big business has the money to get them elected that no-one else has?

The only way to get even a libertarian solution to work is to at least temporarily cripple the ability of businesses to participate.

Wow. You weren't kidding before when you said you were influenced by fascism, were you?

How exactly would you even go about overturning Citizens United, short of amending the Constitution? Furthermore, why would you even want to? Precious little has changed, other than the government being blued in to the fact that it has no right to suspend the First Amendment to ban books or movies because it's too close to an election for its liking.

The point is that there are quicker steps to take rather than radically reforming so many sectors of American governance, just radically reform one.

There would, i imagine, be other ways to end-run around citizens united without having to mess with the first amendment (namely making requirements across the board, universal caps on donations at a fairly low level).

Then there's the whole underlying question of whether speech is equal to money



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

MrBubbles on 27 February 2012
homer said:
Iran did not publicly deny the holocaust to my knowledge. I thought that was a mistranslation and was actually more of Iran mocking certain European countries who claimed to have free speech for making it a crime to deny the holocaust or something in that nature.


hes called it a lie and a total fabrication a number of times. although he has used the laws against denial in some european countries to attack free speech claims.  but no, hes made it pretty clear that he doesnt believe it occured (or that even if something did happen the event(s) were essentially nothing and made into something only for the sole purpose of creating israel).

the only alleged mistranslation that im aware is regarding "wiping isreal off the map"  comment...which really doesnt hold much weight either as far as im concerened.  because all translations involve israel not existed.  even the most common which is variations on "will disappear from history" which i saw even ron paul make on cnn yesterday actually speaks of worse atrocity when you consider it.  it involves the elimination of anyone who knows that israel exists and destruction of all evidence of it and then imposing a new history without it.  billions dead.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

badgenome on 27 February 2012
Mr Khan said:

The point is that there are quicker steps to take rather than radically reforming so many sectors of American governance, just radically reform one.

There would, i imagine, be other ways to end-run around citizens united without having to mess with the first amendment (namely making requirements across the board, universal caps on donations at a fairly low level).

Then there's the whole underlying question of whether speech is equal to money

There is already a cap on donations. Citizens United changed none of that. Again, all the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United is that the government can't infringe on the free expression of a group of people just because it's "too close" to an election or primary. So it is pretty clearly 100% about speech, and not at all about money.

Actually, I'd say it's all about politics. The same people who think allowing Hillary: The Movie to be aired or advertised within 30 days of a primary undermines the republic seemed to have no trouble whatsoever with Fahrenheit 9/11 being advertised and released on DVD within 30 days of the 2004 presidential election.



Rath on 27 February 2012
badgenome said:
Rath said:

I don't believe it's really abridging freedom, I believe it leads to a more free and fair democracy.

If you look at the countries which rank highest in freedom indices - most of them actually have reasonably tough electoral spending laws.

You don't believe it's abridging freedom to tell a group that they can't release a movie?


Do you believe it's abridging freedom to tell someone they can't yell fire in a crowded theatre? Do you believe it's abridging freedom to tell someone they cannot lie to defame another person?

There are already limits on free speech based on the fact that not having those limits would abridge other freedoms. I believe that electoral laws that curtail spending are the only way to hold free and fair elections.