Rand Paul: Dem Race Now a Choice Between ‘Socialism and Corruption’

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
“They were not easy years. You have to understand, I was raised in a lovely neighborhood, as was Mitt, and at BYU, we moved into a $62-a-month basement apartment with a cement floor and lived there two years as students with no income.

“It was tiny. And I didn’t have money to carpet the floor. But you can get remnants, samples, so I glued them together, all different colors. It looked awful, but it was carpeting.

“We were happy, studying hard. Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time.

“The stock came from Mitt’s father. When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitt’s birthday money year to year — it wasn’t much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education.

“Mitt and I walked to class together, shared housekeeping, had a lot of pasta and tuna fish and learned hard lessons.



“We had our first child in that tiny apartment. We couldn’t afford a desk, so we used a door propped on sawhorses in our bedroom. It was a big door, so we could study on it together. And we bought a portable crib, took the legs off and put it on the desk while we studied. I had a baby sitter during class time, but otherwise, I’d hold my son on my lap while I studied.

“The funny thing is that I never expected help. My father had become wealthy through hard work, as did Mitt’s father, but I never expected our parents to take care of us. They’d visit, laugh and say, `We can’t believe you guys are living like this.’ They’d take us out to dinner, have a good time, then leave.

“We stayed till Mitt graduated in 1971, and when he was accepted at Harvard Law, we came east. He was also accepted at Harvard Business School as part of a joint program that admits 25 a year, so he was getting degrees from Harvard Law and Business schools at the same time.

“Remember, we’d been paying $62 a month rent, but here, rents were $400, and for a dump. This is when we took the now-famous loan that Mitt talks about from his father and bought a $42,000 home in Belmont, and you know? The mortgage payment was less than rent. Mitt saw that the Boston market was behind Chicago, LA and New York. We stayed there seven years and sold it for $90,000, so we not only stayed for free, we made money. As I said, Mitt’s very bright.

“Another son came along 18 months later, although we waited four years to have the third, because Mitt was still in school and we had no income except the stock we were chipping away at. We were living on the edge, not entertaining. No, I did not work. Mitt thought it was important for me to stay home with the children, and I was delighted.

“Right after Mitt graduated in 1975, we had our third boy and it was about the time Mitt’s first paycheck came along. So, we were married a long time before we had any income, about five years as struggling students. …

“Now, every once in a while, we say if things get rough, we can go back to a $62-a-month apartment and be happy. All we need is each other and a little corner and we’ll be fine.”
-Ann Romney on struggling

Yeah and about 400k in todays dollars worth of stock stupid cunt
 

The_Herban_Legend

Well-Known Member
I am not a Marxist. However, if I were, I would not be ashamed of it, and I don't think I have ever met a Marxist who was ashamed of it, nor do I think they should be.

Are you a McCarthyist?
I am not saying there is anything to be ashamed of. You didn't answer the first time so I thought you might not want to admit to it. LOL on the McCarthyist question. No, I am not, but your buddy, bucky, fits the label.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I am not saying there is anything to be ashamed of. You didn't answer the first time so I thought you might not want to admit to it. LOL on the McCarthyist question. No I am not but your buddy bucky fits the label.
You're right that UB is my buddy, but I don't think he's a McCarthyist. He is a liberal, which is a form of capitalism but I think his views fall slightly left of center. I like egalitarians.
 

The_Herban_Legend

Well-Known Member
What have you read by Marx?
I have read his communist manifesto and I think his political views in regards to social and economic policy are not the answer. I know you are a big fan of his because I think you used to have his picture on your profile? Are you a communist?
 
Last edited:

The_Herban_Legend

Well-Known Member
My question is as concise and straightforward as can be. You said you consider yourself an egalitarian. I want to know if you think communism is the way to achieve that? Don't get paranoid my friend, I am not trying to "pigeonhole" you.
When I have more time, tomorrow, I will once and for all destroy your theory, "labor creates all wealth".

EDIT: As a matter of fact, I will make a new thread and invite you in tomorrow but you may not want to speak after I unravel all the holes in your theory.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Capitalism is forced redistribution. Private property is a gov't granted right which requires gov't to enforce and causes people to be goaded into selling labor. The owner of said property then keeps the excess value of said labor while paying a pittance of a wage and the laborer is then taxes in addition.

That's redistribution of wealth. Labor creates all wealth.

I'm not arguing the merits of capitalism as it presently exists. I am a FREE MARKET advocate. You keep trying to place me in the wrong camp there.

Government can grant protection for favored property owners, but that doesn't mean private property arises from government. Private property begins with the self owned person and proceeds to that which he acquires on a justifable* basis. Whether government recognizes, protects or offends a property right, it would exist anyway.



*original owner, or creator or acquired property in a consensual exchange
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
My question is as concise and straightforward as can be. You said you consider yourself an egalitarian. I want to know if you think communism is the way to achieve that? Don't get paranoid my friend, I am not trying to "pigeonhole" you.
When I have more time, tomorrow, I will once and for all destroy your theory, "labor creates all wealth".

EDIT: As a matter of fact, I will make a new thread and invite you in tomorrow but you may not want to speak after I unravel all the holes in your theory.
Do I think communism is a way to achieve considering myself an egalitarian? I would consider myself an egalitarian no matter the system we live under.

You have been trying for quite some time to argue your stance about the creation of wealth and to no avail, I would be surprised if you had anything really new to offer.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I'm not arguing the merits of capitalism as it presently exists. I am a FREE MARKET advocate. You keep trying to place me in the wrong camp there.

Government can grant protection for favored property owners, but that doesn't mean private property arises from government.
Property rights come from gov't, so that does in fact mean that private property arises from gov't. This in turn destroys your first statement because capitalism can not exist with out gov't, since private property arises from gov't. Your emphasis upon FREE MARKET proves only a red herring, since no market can be free from constraint if resources and infrastructure are privately owned through gov't enforced privatiztion.

Privatization is authoritarian by nature.
 
Last edited:

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Property rights come from gov't, so that does in fact mean that private property arises from gov't. This in turn destroys your first statement because capitalism can not exist with out gov't, since private property arises from gov't. Your emphasis upon FREE MARKET proves only a red herring, since no market can be free from constraint if resources and infrastructure are privately owned by gov't enforcement.

Privatization is authoritarian by nature.
Okay. Let's clarify what I mean when I say "government". I don't mean self governing individuals, I mean a coercion based entity claiming ownership over others etc.

A coercion based government deprives people of a property right, that of the right to own themself, the most basic right.

Your free market analysis as being the same as capitalism is wrong.

Below is an excerpt from an article found at the Center for a Stateless Society, thought you might find it interesting.


In the contemporary parlance, it is largely supposed that a capitalist is one who favors a free market economic system, yet this wasn’t always the case. In the nineteenth century, as the descriptor capitalist came into more frequent use, it was virtually always deployed as a term of abuse, in identification of exploiters; it was simply not synonymous with free markets. In fact, using the word capitalism to signify free markets mostly evinces historical illiteracy and a willful ignorance of the anti-capitalist origins of libertarian thought. A capitalist is, practically by definition, one who exalts capital, who emphasizes the importance of its holders, as against the workers, in the process of production. Early liberals and libertarians never confused or conflated capitalism and free markets, and we shouldn’t either.

Before we consider capitalism as a term, a few words on libertarian are in order. Joseph Déjacque, the French anarchist and communist, is credited as the first to use the word libertarian, titling his radical periodical Le Libertaire (the French counterpart of the English “libertarian”) in 1858. In the preceding year, Déjacque had used the word in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, rebuking him for his attitudes on women, describing him as a mere liberal, not a libertarian. If we honor its original use, then, libertarian is simply and straightforwardly a synonym for anarchist, one who opposes all forms of coercive authority, desirous of an anarchy that is, in Proudhon’s words, “the absence of a master, of a sovereign.” It is important to remind the contemporary reader of the birth of the word libertarian because of its historical association with anti-capitalist thought. As Iain McKay argues, the “original, correct usage” of libertarian is as “an alternative for anti-state socialist.” We cannot understand early libertarian thought (that is, early anarchist thought) without understanding its negative assessment of capitalist social and economic relationships.

It is noteworthy that the form capitalist long predates capitalism — by over two centuries, according to some accounts (see, for example, Fernand Braudel’s — and was originally reserved for describing the owners of capital, the employing classes, rather than more broadly denoting, as it frequently does today, capitalism’s ideological adherents. The renowned economist and historian Deirdre McCloskey observes that the Oxford English Dictionary places the first documented use of “capitalist” in 1792, in the agriculturist Arthur Young’s Travels in France. But even if the Dictionary is confining itself to English language uses, Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism, certainly availed himself of the term prior to 1792, engaging it to describe those who invest or employ capital. With few exceptions, the earliest uses, those prior to the twentieth century’s recasting the word as an equivalent of “free market,” identify the capitalist with the interests of capital, that is, the interests of the owning classes. And very often, particularly in the nineteenth century, with socialism in the ascendant, the term was used pejoratively.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I am not saying there is anything to be ashamed of. You didn't answer the first time so I thought you might not want to admit to it. LOL on the McCarthyist question. No, I am not, but your buddy, bucky, fits the label.
i don't think mccarthy went after racists like you, as i do.

good job on ignoring me though.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Okay. Let's clarify what I mean when I say "government". I don't mean self governing individuals, I mean a coercion based entity claiming ownership over others etc.

A coercion based government deprives people of a property right, that of the right to own themself, the most basic right.

Bullshit liberturd propaganda
TL;DR

The problem you're having here is that you seem to think rights are derived from ownership, as if liberty and property are synonymous. They're not. Human rights are derived by the very fact that people are not property. Hopefully, by clarifying this for you, you will see that your bullshit extreme right wing "philosophy" is based on a fallacy.

People are not property RobRoy. Also, 13 year old children don't have the wherewithal to make informed consent to have sex with adults.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
TL;DR

The problem you're having here is that you seem to think rights are derived from ownership, as if liberty and property are synonymous. They're not. Human rights are derived by the very fact that people are not property. Hopefully, by clarifying this for you, you will see that your bullshit extreme right wing "philosophy" is based on a fallacy.

People are not property RobRoy. Also, 13 year old children don't have the wherewithal to make informed consent to have sex with adults.
Oh, now you're playing the Pedo game and have abandoned any discussion of property rights etc. Okay.

At which age did your lawyer tell you, you were old enough to consent to anything? (Turned the lawyer b.s. around on you didn't I ?)

Did you agree or disagree with your lawyer ? Which age do you think you gained the wherewithal to consent?
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Oh, now you're playing the Pedo game and have abandoned any discussion of property rights etc. Okay.

At which age did your lawyer tell you, you were old enough to consent to anything? (Turned the lawyer b.s. around on you didn't I ?)

Did you agree or disagree with your lawyer ? Which age do you think you gained the wherewithal to consent?
I see you have abandoned trying to defend your extreme right wing "philosophy" since it is based on a fallacy at its core. I'm not the one playing pedo games either, that would be you, since you think 13 year old children can consent to have sex with adults.

I don't have a lawyer.
 

The_Herban_Legend

Well-Known Member
i don't think mccarthy went after racists like you, as i do.

good job on ignoring me though.
This will be the last time I respond to you because my time is valuable and ...well... your life has no value to me. Calling me a racist only exemplifies your ignorance. What race am I? What race am I racist towards? You lack a college education and morals for that matter. You are nothing but garbage in my eyes and those who continue to engage with you, are only fueling your ignorance.
 
Top