Dear Jarod... Rand Paul won...

Banned said:
Double dumbass he won among the republicans. He was/is their chosen one until they choose another.

We are not talking of the leader of the USA, just the leader of the Republicans.

Who else have the vast majority of the republicans voted for lately to represent all of them?

And do not say a senator or representative since people in only one state or part of a state can vote for them.

Romney is the Republicans chosen one till they choose another.
Click to expand...

No dude, he's not. Once he lost the election he ceases to be a leader. He's sitting at home in San Diego right now. He is not leading the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh has more control over the Republican Party than Mitt Romney does. A leader doesn't necessarily have to do with votes. You either don't get that or refuse to see it.

The Republicans right now are leaderless which is why they are just flailing away. It's why some/many in the party were excited about Rand Paul's fillibuster because somebody in the party actually stepped up and did something.

Do you understand what a leader is or what a leader does? If you think Mitt Romney is leading the Republican Party right now then I don't think you do.
 
Jarod said:
When someone does not look smart, it does not take anyone to point it our... When however, people feel the need to go around trying to say someone does not look smart, I wonder what that person is truely showing about what he thinks about himself.
Click to expand...

So...
You're saying you're not smart! :palm:
 
Howey said:
If Paul "won" then why is he being resoundingly criticized by the leaders of his party?
Click to expand...

Which leader is that? You think McCain is a republican god or something? He's an idiot and one of the worst candidates that the republican party ever put forward, one of the old guard who have supported inane Bush policies, and needs to go away, to step aside for those who care about individual rights and the constitution.

That being said, the President really does have a right to use the military on US soil to respond to an act of war. The same people saying that he "can't" would have supported Bush blowing up airplanes full of US Citizens with military missiles on September 11, 2001.
 
They support Bizzniz!

Anyway, it's nice to see Rand score points on this issue, because of lot of his father's supporters have been claiming that he's sold out and wandered off of the reservation of peace and liberty in favor of the GOP machine. Perhaps they will reconsider, now.
 
cawacko said:
I'll bite. How do they support slavery?
Click to expand...

By supporting the past and present state of business structure; or wage slavery. The term was coined a lot throughout history, by folks ranging from mill girls and southern critics of norther labor practices, to left wingers of all sorts. But no matter who used it, it's weight was never diminished.
 
Sycamore said:
By supporting the past and present state of business structure; or wage slavery. The term was coined a lot throughout history, by folks ranging from mill girls and southern critics of norther labor practices, to left wingers of all sorts. But no matter who used it, it's weight was never diminished.
Click to expand...

I'll admit I'm not familiar with the term wage slavery. By business structure do you mean capitalism?
 
Damocles said:
Which leader is that? You think McCain is a republican god or something? He's an idiot and one of the worst candidates that the republican party ever put forward, one of the old guard who have supported inane Bush policies, and needs to go away, to step aside for those who care about individual rights and the constitution.

That being said, the President really does have a right to use the military on US soil to respond to an act of war. The same people saying that he "can't" would have supported Bush blowing up airplanes full of US Citizens with military missiles on September 11, 2001.
Click to expand...

There is a fine line. It our job to make sure that if drones are used it is because of a genuine threat and not a supposed threat.
 
Sycamore said:
By supporting the past and present state of business structure; or wage slavery. The term was coined a lot throughout history, by folks ranging from mill girls and southern critics of norther labor practices, to left wingers of all sorts. But no matter who used it, it's weight was never diminished.
Click to expand...
Only your own limitations placed on yourself can keep you in wage slavery. You sell your time, you choose your "chains". Even the idea, in a nation where you can succeed beyond your wildest dreams, that you are a slave because somebody supports the structure that allows you the freedom to succeed, is based on the "Newspeak" learned at "progressives" knees.

The belief that you cannot make it, that is your own, you have allowed fearful fools to convince you that you will always fail.
 
Damocles said:
Only your own limitations placed on yourself can keep you in wage slavery. You sell your time, you choose your "chains". Even the idea, in a nation where you can succeed beyond your wildest dreams, that you are a slave because somebody supports the structure that allows you the freedom to succeed, is based on the "Newspeak" learned at "progressives" knees.

The belief that you cannot make it, that is your own, you have allowed fearful fools to convince you that you will always fail.
Click to expand...

Empty rhetoric is empty.

The problem I see, is that unless you have the resources to start a business, you'll end up working for someone else - unable to control the source of your income. Those of poor circumstances will be even more subjugated to the will of an employer and often deplorable conditions - unable to control the source of their income, or escape their situations. This isn't something new. The need to generate income has always forced us into such a situation, whiter we like it or not.

And I'm sure you'd love to tell the 50% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck(1), or the 47% of American parents lacking the resources to put their kids through college(2), that they(and their children) can succeed beyond their wildest dreams.

1. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley's Poverty Manifesto.
2. http://voices.yahoo.com/poll-almost-half-american-parents-cant-afford-college-552408.html
 
Sycamore said:
Empty rhetoric is empty.
Click to expand...
And full of fear. Most empty rhetoric is fed to you at school and you have been fooled to believe it is wisdom.

The problem I see, is that unless you have the resources to start a business, you'll end up working for someone else - unable to control the source of your income. Those of poor circumstances will be even more subjugated to the will of an employer and often deplorable conditions - unable to control the source of their income, or escape their situations. This isn't something new. The need to generate income has always forced us into such a situation, whiter we like it or not.
Click to expand...
Utter rubbish. Start small, grow, and then work towards your goal. The only limitation on what you can do is the limitation you set on yourself, you let their fear invade until you won't even take a chance to make it.

Believe me, this is from somebody who started with less than you have ever thought.

Nor is there anything wrong with choosing to sell your time, you too are a product. If that is what you wish, then do it well. The measure of success is how close you've come to your goals, not what some other person has... what you call "wage slave" could be the goal of somebody living their dream. They succeeded, you just want to have an excuse to blame some other person than the one responsible for not even attempting to reach for your goal.

And I'm sure you'd love to tell the 50% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck(1), or the 47% of American parents lacking the resources to put their kids through college(2), that they(and their children) can succeed beyond their wildest dreams.

1. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley's Poverty Manifesto.
2. http://voices.yahoo.com/poll-almost-half-american-parents-cant-afford-college-552408.html
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I was there. Every business has a starting point, and if you truly feel in slavery then act to free yourself rather than ask for softer chains gifted to you from the government.
 
Sycamore said:
By supporting the past and present state of business structure; or wage slavery. The term was coined a lot throughout history, by folks ranging from mill girls and southern critics of norther labor practices, to left wingers of all sorts. But no matter who used it, it's weight was never diminished.
Click to expand...

The term was, indeed, coined by southern critics of northern labour practices, which is precisely why it is not a valid term to use in criticism of capitalism and industry. Afterall, these people had supported slavery, and viewed market liberalization as a threat to agrarianism and the way of life inside the South.
 
Threedee said:
The term was, indeed, coined by southern critics of northern labour practices, which is precisely why it is not a valid term to use in criticism of capitalism and industry. Afterall, these people had supported slavery, and viewed market liberalization as a threat to agrarianism and the way of life inside the South.
Click to expand...

It was also used by laborers in the factories those southerners criticized. Not to mention democratic reformers. Perhaps the only folks who discarded it were the government - which was used to violently shut down strikes -, righties, and employers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top