Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on August 16, 2011, 01:52:46 PM
-
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/08/jon-stewart-ron-paul/41311/
Wow. The media lynches itself with the video clips he scrounged up.
-
This is new?
-
This is new?
Not new. Just more topical than normal, given the GOP primary system now in play.
-
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one that notices the obvious lengths that the paleomedia go to to avoid acknowledging Ron Paul. I was watching TV at lunch this week and they showed some poll results, and Ron Paul was second in the results, after Michelle Bachman. So, does the following discussion mention Ron Paul? No, the next screen has Michelle Bachman, Perry, and Romney. It's as if they show the graph real quick and then just try to avoid even mentioning the fact that Ron Paul exists, despite the fact that he was second in the poll results on their own poll. I remember seeing exactly the same thing in 2008. Ron Paul would get 1st place in some opinion poll, but then they don't even discuss him! It's as if the media can't bring themselves to outright falsify the data, but they can't stomach actually discussing Ron Paul or acknowledging him. It would be comical in its obviousness if it wasn't so malicious. I mean, in 2008 he had a &$(* blimp, which should have been crack for the media, but I guess the blimp just had the wrong name on it, so all you got was these "oh yeah, here's a 2 second picture of the Ron Paul blimp and now, let's discuss Obama's haircut!" What I can't figure out is how this comes about; I don't like to believe conspiracy things about the media being controlled by the spooky powers but how else do they show such obvious bias toward the powers that be? What are they afraid of?
See also: the 2008 rallys that got only token mention in the paleomedia.
-
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one that notices the obvious lengths that the paleomedia go to to avoid acknowledging Ron Paul. I was watching TV at lunch this week and they showed some poll results, and Ron Paul was second in the results, after Michelle Bachman. So, does the following discussion mention Ron Paul? No, the next screen has Michelle Bachman, Perry, and Romney. It's as if they show the graph real quick and then just try to avoid even mentioning the fact that Ron Paul exists, despite the fact that he was second in the poll results on their own poll. I remember seeing exactly the same thing in 2008. Ron Paul would get 1st place in some opinion poll, but then they don't even discuss him! It's as if the media can't bring themselves to outright falsify the data, but they can't stomach actually discussing Ron Paul or acknowledging him. It would be comical in its obviousness if it wasn't so malicious. I mean, in 2008 he had a &$(* blimp, which should have been crack for the media, but I guess the blimp just had the wrong name on it, so all you got was these "oh yeah, here's a 2 second picture of the Ron Paul blimp and now, let's discuss Obama's haircut!" What I can't figure out is how this comes about; I don't like to believe conspiracy things about the media being controlled by the spooky powers but how else do they show such obvious bias toward the powers that be? What are they afraid of?
See also: the 2008 rallys that got only token mention in the paleomedia.
Remember the Jan 2008 "Debate" on Fox news. They invited the "Top 4 GOP Candidates" which included Paul. Then the de-invited paul and invited Giulianni, who to date had about half the primary votes Paul had.
Or how about the early "debate" where they went quite a while ignoring Paul, and then finally came round to him with "And now a question for you, Mr. Paul. It's on electability: Do you have any, sir?" Ron somehow managed to not jump over the podium and choke the guy out, then gave a rousing response which touched on the root of the Republican party and how he was the only person holding to its original values. He finished it up with ". . . and you say I am not electable?" For his effort he got a standing ovation from the crowd.
They couldn't avoid letting that tidbit out during the live airing, but that question and response was edited out of the re-airing. That's right. When Fox re-aired the "debate", they removed it!
I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but this is as plain a conspiracy as there ever was.
-
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/08/jon-stewart-ron-paul/41311/
Wow. The media lynches itself with the video clips he scrounged up.
:laugh:
That was entertaining. And sad.
It's as if the media can't bring themselves to outright falsify the data, but they can't stomach actually discussing Ron Paul or acknowledging him. It would be comical in its obviousness if it wasn't so malicious.
Agreed. I think George Wallace would get more airtime than Paul does.
-
I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but this is as plain a conspiracy as there ever was.
The "conservative" media has had it in for Paul and his supporters for a long time....remember the "ambush" interview Debra Medina had on Glenn Beck....
-
What I can't figure out is how this comes about; I don't like to believe conspiracy things about the media being controlled by the spooky powers but how else do they show such obvious bias toward the powers that be? What are they afraid of?
See also: the 2008 rallys that got only token mention in the paleomedia.
Ron Paul represents an actual threat to the status quo for the parties and the media.
-
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." (The Usual Suspects)
The greatest trick the Powers-That-Be ever pulled was convincing us there are no conspiracies.
***
When Ron Paul talked about The Federal Reserve he became a man without a country politically. No one is allowed to get that close.
-
There is no conspiracy because the press isn't that smart.
Ron Paul is treated as he is because the press considers him Lyndon LaRouche (is that the right spelling?)
He has a VERY committed group of followers. However, most people think his acolytes are nuts, and although he has strong support among a small percentage of the population (as any libertarian would), he is unlikely to progress beyond that support because most people think he and his acolytes are nuts.
Most people will agree with at least some part of his positions. It is, however, the case that most people will find at least one position that he holds to be absolutely insane and suicidal, thus dooming his candidacy.
It's not a conspiracy. It's that his positions alienate anyone outside of libertarians. (His fiscal views will alienate liberals. His pollyannaish foreign policy views alienate conservatives. He's a libertarian candidate and he represents the best libertarians on their own would be able to achieve.)
Until Ron Paul proves he can win over more than roughly 12% of the electorate, he's unlikely to get much focus. His kooky supporters in 2008 have made people wary of trusting any poll where he does well.
-
I was not talking about Ron Paul, I was talking about The Federal Reserve. And that, in my opinion, IS a conspiracy.
-
There is no conspiracy because the press isn't that smart.
Ron Paul is treated as he is because the press considers him Lyndon LaRouche (is that the right spelling?)
He has a VERY committed group of followers. However, most people think his acolytes are nuts, and although he has strong support among a small percentage of the population (as any libertarian would), he is unlikely to progress beyond that support because most people think he and his acolytes are nuts.
Most people will agree with at least some part of his positions. It is, however, the case that most people will find at least one position that he holds to be absolutely insane and suicidal, thus dooming his candidacy.
It's not a conspiracy. It's that his positions alienate anyone outside of libertarians. (His fiscal views will alienate liberals. His pollyannaish foreign policy views alienate conservatives. He's a libertarian candidate and he represents the best libertarians on their own would be able to achieve.)
Until Ron Paul proves he can win over more than roughly 12% of the electorate, he's unlikely to get much focus. His kooky supporters in 2008 have made people wary of trusting any poll where he does well.
That's really it.
The committed Libertarian machine has an ability to affect straw polls and caucus results out of any proportion to his actual ability to win in a general election.
Frankly, I'm AMAZED the MSM hasn't glommed onto Paul as a sure-fire way to sink any GOP chances for winning back POTUS. I'd love to see a Libertarian America, however, until the LP actually builds a base at the local level, Ron Paul is nothing but 100 yard punt return/Hail Mary pass wishful thinking. The Libertarian/Ron Paul movement hasn't even been able to significantly affect the GOP the way the Tea Party has been able to bend them back towards more than just lip-service fiscal conservatism.
If the Tea Party, which is only two years old, if that, and has no central coordination can sweep that many Congressional seats, and bend the ear of the rest of the party as it has, but the LP which has existed for decades now has only Ron Paul... well, I think people can do the math.
-
If the Tea Partiers believe that "smaller government" alone is going to save American or turn it around--without addressing the kinds of things a Ron Paul does--they are wasting their time.
-
but the LP which has existed for decades now has only Ron Paul... well, I think people can do the math.
And Paul Broun. And Justin Amash. And Randall Paul.
-
And Paul Broun. And Justin Amash. And Randall Paul.
Aside from Rand Paul (who doesn't sound so much like a libertarian these days), as an informed voter and political junkie, let me say:
Who?
-
Representatives.
-
If the Tea Partiers believe that "smaller government" alone is going to save American or turn it around--without addressing the kinds of things a Ron Paul does--they are wasting their time.
Gotta start somewhere. Small govt is something you can campaign on in the present reality. Abolishing the Fed is not.
More Importantly: If you get a bunch of Congressmen who actually do the small govt thing, you are a hell of a lot more likely to actually get the other stuff Ron Paul likes.
-
I was not talking about Ron Paul, I was talking about The Federal Reserve. And that, in my opinion, IS a conspiracy.
I do gotta say, it was kinda weird standing in the middle of the information security center for the Federal Reserve. Not as nice as you'd think, really, but quite good enough.
Combine lack of any economics education in the US with a short attention span. That's the amount of the conspiracy.
Ron Paul is ignored because the media wants him to be crazy, because it is better than the alternative. Is he? Sure, probably. So what? It is preferable to the alternative. Any politician, none of whom will admit it, is that it is politically infeasible to run the country responsibly. The only solution is to kick the can down the road and hope one dies before the bill comes due. This is the sane solution, honestly. It takes an insane man to think that he can accomplish the impossible, that is, a fiscally responsible government.
-
It takes an insane man to think that he can accomplish the impossible, that is, a fiscally responsible government.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
Americans are getting a bit more insane, then.
And Gallup is waking up. The media might pay a bit more attention to the crazy old uncle, soon.
-
Any politician, none of whom will admit it, is that it is politically infeasible to run the country responsibly. The only solution is to kick the can down the road and hope one dies before the bill comes due. This is the sane solution, honestly. It takes an insane man to think that he can accomplish the impossible, that is, a fiscally responsible government.
Andrew Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson)
-
Andrew Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson)
Are you implying Andrew Jackson was a responsible president?
Or that he was insane? I'll go with the latter, but I question the former.
-
Are you implying Andrew Jackson was a responsible president?
Or that he was insane? I'll go with the latter, but I question the former.
He's implying that what you perceive to be impossible, the removal of a central bank, is in actuality a historical fact. Andrew Jackson did exactly such a thing during his presidency and was wholly opposed to such private banks controlling the nation's money supply for the following reasons:
It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
It served mainly to make the rich richer.
It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.
Banks are controlled by a few select families.
Banks have a long history of instigating wars between nations, forcing them to borrow funding to pay for them.
Personally, I've always been fond of the following joke: "Irony is Andrew Jackson on a central bank note."
-
Old Hickory knew how to deal with the monied interests.
-
He's implying that what you perceive to be impossible, the removal of a central bank, is in actuality a historical fact. Andrew Jackson did exactly such a thing during his presidency and was wholly opposed to such private banks controlling the nation's money supply for the following reasons:
It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
It served mainly to make the rich richer.
It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.
Banks are controlled by a few select families.
Banks have a long history of instigating wars between nations, forcing them to borrow funding to pay for them.
Personally, I've always been fond of the following joke: "Irony is Andrew Jackson on a central bank note."
I've never implied it was impossible. I've flatly stated it is a foolish focus as other issues are far more important. SPENDING, for example.
-
Spending is far less important in my view than some other concerns.
-
Spending is far less important in my view than some other concerns.
Unless those other concerns are over-regulation, I'd have to disagree.
-
Unless those other concerns are over-regulation, I'd have to disagree.
Overregulation. Individual liberty. Tomato... tomahto...
-
Overregulation. Individual liberty. Tomato... tomahto...
On any given day, I feel much less oppressed by a perceived lack of "individual liberty" than I do by the out of control spending by my government. I'm more afraid of my children's future due to that spending than I am of anything else.
Also, a significant chunk of our out of control spending contributes to our lessening liberties (DHS, ATF, EPA, etc).
Chris
-
On any given day, I feel much less oppressed by a perceived lack of "individual liberty" than I do by the out of control spending by my government. I'm more afraid of my children's future due to that spending than I am of anything else.
Also, a significant chunk of our out of control spending contributes to our lessening liberties (DHS, ATF, EPA, etc).
This is a problematic idea.
Germany is about to balance its budget. So is Italy. Yet both of these countries are oppressive welfare states. German gun control has been elaborated on and discussed here extensively. So is Italian gun control. Russia is aiming to balance its budget within 3 years. Russia is sometihng between a fascist state and Tammany Hall, ruling forever.
America could balance its budget immediately by reducing spending to the levels seen in 2006 (where the Federal government reduced to spending 'only' 2.6 trillion dollars a year); this would allow America to gradually outgrow its debt, and blah, blah, blah.
This has nothing whatever to do with the price of tea in China.
You would still be living in a state that can arrest people and ruin their lives forever for attaching shoelaces to their guns. That imprisons marijuana users, growers, salesmen, and distributors. That... you know the drill, and I do not bother repeating it for you. Suffice it to say that all of those institutions existed in 2006 and they can persist at 2006-level spending.
Nor is imprisoning people and feeling them up at airports all that expensive. The TSA – including its actually-useful function – costs the American taxpayer, or his mythical children, 8 billion dollars a year. This is 58,000 people. America's military budget is 692 billion dollars, and I doubt you feel your freedom seriously threatened by the Marines, sailors, soldiers, and airmen. Far more money is spent on welfare of various kinds that is spent on the salaries of agents, regulators, etc.
For a comparison, BATFE budget is slightly over a billion dollars. TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is five billion. Except that billion-dollar budget does almost nothing but fund salaries for people whose job is to badger you, your children, and everybody else over the shape of their guns. In terms of oppressing the most Americans I'm quite sure BATFE wins out.
So is balancing the budget important? Sure. Very much so. But it is not the most important goal.
As for the debt... it's actually fairly easy to outgrow, but failing that America can just default. Default does not necessarily equal – as we have seen in Iceland – terrible starvation and people dying in the streets. Likely there'll be several years of economic malaise and then America will be prosperous again.
-
So is balancing the budget important? Sure. Very much so. But it is not the most important goal.
Wrong. It IS currently the most important goal. All the other things you are complaining about may still be important.
However, if we become Weimar or Argentina, all your other problems will never be solved. Preventing an Argentinian style or Weimar style collapse needs to be the primary goal. Advancing liberty is a secondary goal until such time as the collapse is not imminent.
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
Americans are getting a bit more insane, then.
And Gallup is waking up. The media might pay a bit more attention to the crazy old uncle, soon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/earthquake-rattles-washington-east-coast/2011/08/23/gIQAdypEZJ_blog.html
Washington just felt the earth move, but the epicenter was many miles away. Beware, Barry, it may hit home next year.
-
Wrong. It IS currently the most important goal. All the other things you are complaining about may still be important.
Innocent people are imprisoned. This seems to be very important.
However, if we become Weimar or Argentina, all your other problems will never be solved. Preventing an Argentinian style or Weimar style collapse needs to be the primary goal. Advancing liberty is a secondary goal until such time as the collapse is not imminent.
Uh?
America is neither Weimar nor Argentina, for several reasons:
1. America is far wealthier than either. A better model might be Iceland - which defaulted, had an economic contraction, and has already returned to growth.
2. A large fraction of America's debt is internal government debt - government agencies holding bonds. These could be dealt with without any default.
-
Advancing liberty is a secondary goal until such time as the collapse is not imminent.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to point out that there have been nations in recent history who were lead in some pretty regrettable directions with very similar justifications.
-
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to point out that there have been nations in recent history who were lead in some pretty regrettable directions with very similar justifications.
Indeed. You will note, however, I didn't say advancing liberty should be ignored, simply not given primacy. Nor did I say we should give up liberty in order to fix the problem.
-
Indeed. You will note, however, I didn't say advancing liberty should be ignored, simply not given primacy. Nor did I say we should give up liberty in order to fix the problem.
Agreed. Also no increase in Jeebuzing until we fix the bigger problem.
Nothing about taking care of the financial issues says that we have to backslide into hedonism and idolatry, collapsing into drunken saturnalias. ;/
I wouldn't mind a drunken saturnalia, though.
-
Agreed. Also no increase in Jeebuzing gun rights until we fix the bigger problem.
Nothing about taking care of the financial issues says that we have to backslide into hedonism and idolatry, collapsing into drunken saturnalias total disarmament. ;/
Oh, gee, look how badly that works.
-
clever word manipulation and use of strike-thru text
Oh, gee, look how badly that works.
Works fine.
Tea party types aren't going to allow a backslide of 2A rights, any more than they'll be granting surgical licenses to ice-cream vendors so they can give government subsidized abortions out the back of their vans to all the underage kids. ;/
And over-sanctimonious 2A types aren't going to be empowered to "federalize" a bunch of CCW standards and put tiresome burdens on the more free States, to comply with lowest common denominator CCW policies of shytholes like CA.
Things will stay "as is" until the current crisis is resolved.
-
No, it doesn't work fine. That is, your plan works fine for things you don't care about, because you don't care about them.
If "jeebuzing," (whatever that may be) is a bad thing, then we shouldn't be doing it at all. But if it is a necessary function of government, neglecting it is, well, neglectful.
But, hey, at least you're consistent in wanting the GOP candidate to alienate himself from 2A supporters just as much as other parts of the base.
-
Agreed. Also no increase in Jeebuzing until we fix the bigger problem.
Nothing about taking care of the financial issues says that we have to backslide into hedonism and idolatry, collapsing into drunken saturnalias. ;/
I wouldn't mind a drunken saturnalia, though.
And you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say don't work to increase liberty. I said it is a secondary goal.
Notice the difference: it's not a matter of saying "STOP ALL THAT "LIBERTY" CRAP, IT ONLY HURTS US WITH THE AUTHORITARIANS WHO ALSO ARE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE, SO, CAN IT, LIBERTARIANS!!!!!"
I said that addressing the imminent collapse is the first aim. I would never say it is the most important aim, only the most urgent. Triage says you address the most immediately threatening wounds first. The cancer you have may kill you more certainly than the bleeding gash in your leg, but you address the gash before the cancer.
-
This is a problematic idea.
Germany is about to balance its budget. So is Italy. Yet both of these countries are oppressive welfare states. German gun control has been elaborated on and discussed here extensively. So is Italian gun control. Russia is aiming to balance its budget within 3 years. Russia is sometihng between a fascist state and Tammany Hall, ruling forever.
America could balance its budget immediately by reducing spending to the levels seen in 2006 (where the Federal government reduced to spending 'only' 2.6 trillion dollars a year); this would allow America to gradually outgrow its debt, and blah, blah, blah.
This has nothing whatever to do with the price of tea in China.
You would still be living in a state that can arrest people and ruin their lives forever for attaching shoelaces to their guns. That imprisons marijuana users, growers, salesmen, and distributors. That... you know the drill, and I do not bother repeating it for you. Suffice it to say that all of those institutions existed in 2006 and they can persist at 2006-level spending.
Nor is imprisoning people and feeling them up at airports all that expensive. The TSA – including its actually-useful function – costs the American taxpayer, or his mythical children, 8 billion dollars a year. This is 58,000 people. America's military budget is 692 billion dollars, and I doubt you feel your freedom seriously threatened by the Marines, sailors, soldiers, and airmen. Far more money is spent on welfare of various kinds that is spent on the salaries of agents, regulators, etc.
For a comparison, BATFE budget is slightly over a billion dollars. TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is five billion. Except that billion-dollar budget does almost nothing but fund salaries for people whose job is to badger you, your children, and everybody else over the shape of their guns. In terms of oppressing the most Americans I'm quite sure BATFE wins out.
So is balancing the budget important? Sure. Very much so. But it is not the most important goal.
As for the debt... it's actually fairly easy to outgrow, but failing that America can just default. Default does not necessarily equal – as we have seen in Iceland – terrible starvation and people dying in the streets. Likely there'll be several years of economic malaise and then America will be prosperous again.
+1
The problem with the Tea Party is that all of this at root is not about smaller government or cutting spending, although those are vitally important (though less important than pursuing energetic growth policies), it is about EMANCIPATION.
-
Indeed. You will note, however, I didn't say advancing liberty should be ignored, simply not given primacy. Nor did I say we should give up liberty in order to fix the problem.
Need I pull out the 'political capital' card?
-
Back to Ron Paul...
Today I listened to not one but three supposedly conservative talk jocks lambaste Ron Paul: Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, and even Mark Levin. Medved dismisses Paul as a fool and a loser, Hewitt treats him as a joke and won't take calls from Paul supporters, and now Levin is ready to tar Paul as an anarchist, neo-Confederate, and appeasement apologist.
Who knew that trying to roll away from stone from The Federal Reserve could make you so many enemies, even in your own party?
-
Back to Ron Paul...
Today I listened to not one but three supposedly conservative talk jocks lambaste Ron Paul: Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, and even Mark Levin. Medved dismisses Paul as a fool and a loser, Hewitt treats him as a joke and won't take calls from Paul supporters, and now Levin is ready to tar Paul as an anarchist, neo-Confederate, and appeasement apologist.
Who knew that trying to roll away from stone from The Federal Reserve could make you so many enemies, even in your own party?
It's not his stance on the Fed. It's his pollyanna isolationism. (At least for Levin, I don't really listen to the other two.)
-
Back to Ron Paul...
Today I listened to not one but three supposedly conservative talk jocks lambaste Ron Paul: Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, and even Mark Levin. Medved dismisses Paul as a fool and a loser, Hewitt treats him as a joke and won't take calls from Paul supporters, and now Levin is ready to tar Paul as an anarchist, neo-Confederate, and appeasement apologist.
Who knew that trying to roll away from stone from The Federal Reserve could make you so many enemies, even in your own party?
Those three are likely the most pro-GOP establishment talkers on the radio. Toss in Hannity and your would indubitably have the top four GOP hacks on the airwaves. They make Limbaugh look like a paragon of political objectivity.
So, of course they despise Paul and any who might pull votes or support from the right flank.
-
It's not his stance on the Fed. It's his pollyanna isolationism. (At least for Levin, I don't really listen to the other two.)
You should learn about Paul from Paul himself, not from whomever it is that has shaped your view of him. That is, unless you merely don't know what "isolationism" means, in which case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism is a good start.
-
It's not his stance on the Fed. It's his pollyanna isolationism. (At least for Levin, I don't really listen to the other two.)
To the muscle-flexing Neo-Con contingent any lost opportunity to project military power appears to be "isolationism." We're in three theaters of war (at least) right now, with ten years of fighting under our belt, and the Caliphate would seem to be advancing, not retreating. I think what Paul and others are questioning is the strategy and, equally to the point, who really benefits from it all.
-
To the muscle-flexing Neo-Con contingent any lost opportunity to project military power appears to be "isolationism." We're in three theaters of war (at least) right now, with ten years of fighting under our belt, and the Caliphate would seem to be advancing, not retreating. I think what Paul and others are questioning is the strategy and, equally to the point, who really benefits from it all.
OEF also has combat ongoing in the Phillipines and the Horn of Africa.
-
You should learn about Paul from Paul himself, not from whomever it is that has shaped your view of him. That is, unless you merely don't know what "isolationism" means, in which case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism is a good start.
Ok. I see he likes to call his policy "non-interventionism." Whatever he wants to call it, it's still pollyannaish isolationism. (or, if it would make you happy, I'll start calling it "pollyanna non-intervensionism.")
-
Ok. I see he likes to call his policy "non-interventionism." Whatever he wants to call it, it's still pollyannaish isolationism. (or, if it would make you happy, I'll start calling it "pollyanna non-intervensionism.")
That would make me happy, thank you.
-
Ron Paul is guilty of believing that nation-building should start with the American nation and the American people. You'd think after decades of smart (as Obama would say) interventionism we'd have more to show for it in the national self-interest and the popular self-interest than declining global influence and respect and pending national insolvency. Anyone who believes that what we've done is really about "protecting America" is indeed a sorry Pollyanna.
-
I said that addressing the imminent collapse is the first aim. I would never say it is the most important aim, only the most urgent. Triage says you address the most immediately threatening wounds first. The cancer you have may kill you more certainly than the bleeding gash in your leg, but you address the gash before the cancer.
Perhaps I have not made myself clear.
I am a believer in morality. If you do not share my moral world-view, stop reading now because I'm definitely not going to persuade you. In my worldview, when legislators (and voters) vote - for example - to ban marijuana, then - effectively, 51% [or 90%, I don't care] - are pointing a gun at the people who do want to consume it, and threatening them with violence. We live in a society with a free press. The people who do this are morally complicit.
They share the moral responsibility. Because they know - after all, it is not a secret - and they keep doing it. It is not like we live in a society where the prisons for drug users, and dealers, and the brothel owners, and the sawed-off-shotgun owners are secret.
The nine-to-five working, black-tie-wearing, middle-class fellow who voted for McCain (or whatever equivalent to McCain exists in the British, French, and Japanese political systems) is morally responsible for what is happening. The fellow's parents who voted for Johnson over Goldwater are morally responsible for what is happening. The fellow's grandparents who voted for FDR are morally responsible for what is happening.
You want me to focus my entire effort on figuring out the debt obligations (every Western country has massive debt obligations) created before I was born by the people who gave us - in America, the NFA, in Israel the Firearms Licensing Act, in Europe - the European Union? Because there might be an economic crisis? Rather than on the fact that innocent people are in prison? Please understand: In my view it is as moral for the state to imprison people who refuse to obey its ban on attaching shoelaces to semi-automatic rifles as it is for a bank robber to shoot a teller because they refuse to open the vault.
The very point of libertarianism is that it is a political and moral system revolving around individual liberty. If it were about settling the national debt it would be called debtarianism. Therefore, the primary moral role of the libertarian is to oppose violations of individual liberty.
This is, thus, my only and primary moral role. I am opposed to the monetary system as it exists because it helps maintain control over every individual's bank account, and create money to fund the prisons and judges and enforcers. But the system would be as evil if it balanced its books.
So there's going to be a default? So the black-tie-wearing middle-class fellow is going to be unemployed for a few years before the economy gets itself back on track*? There is such a thing as payback.
These people built a system around a series of tiny regulations, and laws, and rules, all of them seeking to encourage us to be only one thing: little tie-wearing drones, working the nine-to-five and arguing what we're supposed to be afraid of. They've encouraged this system. They siced the governemnt on people who owned a gun that was of the wrong type, smoked the wrong grass, made the wrong food, tried to steal our children for schools that would make them into more tie-wearing drones. Because of people exactly like these, I live in a place where I cannot own a rifle, cannot carry a knife, cannot go shopping without having people pat me down. The exact list of indignities is different where you live but it still exists. In Europe there's still another list of indignities. It doesn't matter.
And now their system is running out of steam and they might be out of a job? Why do they not deserve it? Is it not the form in which God - if there is a God - makes justice on their system, with its truancy officers, with its reporters, with its SWAT cops and chain gangs and whatever other form of violence there exists against the human spirit and dignity?
Let me put it to you in the most honest and brutal form I can: I hate them all. I look into the eyes of the reporter, the pundit, the economist, the politician, every single person who holds a position of power. The more power you have, the more moral responsibility you have.
They have created this system, they have run it off the cliff pedal-to-the-metal. It does not deserve to be saved, nor do I care if it is saved. It is evil and immoral. They are evil and immoral.
I care about the political struggle inasmuch as it is a political struggle of liberty versus slavery. If tomorrow a politician wins who fixes the budget and maintains the system, I have won nothing. If they deregulate some minor industries around the corners (for a while), and enough economic growth has been generated to take them back from the brink (as I think they will) I have won nothing.
That's all I am here for. And if they do it wrong - if they miscalulate and they are taken, hurtling, to the abyss of economic disruption and 20% unemployment, and they lose their ties and second cars? Well, they have had it coming. The people they've hurt have had it worse.
*That's the worst thing that's going to happen. Anybody inventing ideas of civilization ending? they're just scaring you. Probably for profit.
-
As much as I would love Micro's awesome post to be the last word, I couldn't pass this up:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc7%2Fs720x720%2F313991_631601403591_3006413_33805549_1161184742_n.jpg&hash=07df43b3e7725d0618e1eb169ccd43c1ea4f314e)
Do those graphs seem a little off to you?
-
As much as I would love Micro's awesome post to be the last word, I couldn't pass this up:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc7%2Fs720x720%2F313991_631601403591_3006413_33805549_1161184742_n.jpg&hash=07df43b3e7725d0618e1eb169ccd43c1ea4f314e)
Do those graphs seem a little off to you?
As in, Ron Paul's line ought to be 3 times the size of Mitt Romney's or that it's blatantly obvious the Paulians skewed the results?