Post by: yesitsloaded on November 05, 2007, 07:34:50 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 05, 2007, 08:27:05 PM
Post by: Finch on November 05, 2007, 08:53:08 PM
Nowhere. He cannot win the Repub nomination.
Well, we're screwed because no Pro-War republican will win the presidency.
Post by: Warren on November 05, 2007, 09:29:24 PM
I dropped a 1/4 c-note in as it was all I could afford. If I had the money I would do the whole 2300. If I had the money and the McCain-Feingold Anti First Amendment Act was never passed I would drop much much more.
Post by: Finch on November 05, 2007, 10:19:49 PM
If I had the money and the McCain-Feingold Anti First Amendment Act was never passed I would drop much much more.
Yup, we have freedom of speech...just not before an election.
Post by: Warren on November 05, 2007, 10:30:37 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 06, 2007, 02:00:10 AM
Nowhere. He cannot win the Repub nomination.
Well, we're screwed because no Pro-War republican will win the presidency.
And if Ron Paul was pro-war, he might find a few million additional supporters, myself included.
Post by: LAK on November 06, 2007, 03:05:59 AM
I suspect though that the oligarchs are well aware of the rising anger of millions on the ringside who now have no doubt that the so-called "republicans" previously fronted are complete fakes and will not tolerate another. So they will probably install a "democrat" wrestler as the "winning" contender this time around.
It will be business as usual with the usual sideshows over this issue or that. The war-on-a-noun will continue, the formation of the NAU will accelerate and we can look forward to progressive steps that way a la EU.
----------------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: jefnvk on November 06, 2007, 04:38:17 AM
Post by: K Frame on November 06, 2007, 04:58:20 AM
Don't forget the Bildebergers and the Council of 13 Jews who rule the world...
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 05:27:58 AM
"The ruling oligarchy's frontmen..."
Don't forget the Bildebergers and the Council of 13 Jews who rule the world...
Don't forget the Bildebergers and the Council of 13 Jews who rule the world...
Yep, that conspiracy talk tends to discredit. In my right-winger days, it used to bug me when Jim Quinn went on about Hillary being a Bilderberger, etc. Of course liberals are no stranger to that sort of thing, either. I gather that GWB was a bonesman.
The reality is that most of the mischief is done not by three fat men in a back room, but by about ten million petty bureaucrats, each one doing his own little part. I'm sure there are lots of smoky back-rooms out there, but no one of them is actually behind everything. Every politician makes shady deals, but they're all generally at cross-purposes.
It's a pity. If everything really was the word of a secret cabal, we could save the world just by hitting their next Secret Cabal Picnic with IEDs. If folks are willing to donate $4M to Ron Paul in honor of Guy Fawkes (I gave my $100), it should be easy to get folks to pony up for tons of explosives to take out the Secret Cabal.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 06, 2007, 05:44:51 AM
Ron Paul's idea of a foreign policy amounts to hiding under the bed.
Wouldn't those who seek to expand extremist islam be very happy with that sort of nonintervention? They'd have nothing stopping them at all!
Be interesting to see if some of the money came from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc...through various channels.
Also, WTF is with Paul not saying "go away" to the white supremacist and "anti-zionist" filth that's supporting him? Is he really that dumb and naive as to not realize what a liability they are?
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 05:49:25 AM
Really, I have to wonder how much of the money came from overseas.
That's illegal, of course. When I contributed, I had to give complete contact information and affirm that I'm a US citizen, not a straw donor, etc., etc. Their published statistics all suggest a large number of small donations, rather than the reverse.--Len.
Post by: GigaBuist on November 06, 2007, 06:38:53 AM
Really, I have to wonder how much of the money came from overseas.
Wait, I'm confused. Are we talking about Ron Paul here or Hillary?
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 06, 2007, 06:47:06 AM
Quote
Ron Paul's idea of a foreign policy amounts to hiding under the bed.
Actually he tried to get us to declare war on Iraq. His position is that if we are going to war, by God don't half ass it. He isn't anti war, he is anti useless police actions that never solve anything and only breed more global hatred of us. Not to mention he is only running for president, not dictator of the US. Even if elected nothing will magically change because we still have congress to deal with.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 06, 2007, 06:52:26 AM
That's illegal, of course. When I contributed, I had to give complete contact information and affirm that I'm a US citizen, not a straw donor, etc., etc. Their published statistics all suggest a large number of small donations, rather than the reverse.
Hillary's campaign has already found a solution to that annoying little hurdle: They launder the money through small donors.
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 06:57:03 AM
Quote
Ron Paul's idea of a foreign policy amounts to hiding under the bed.
Actually he tried to get us to declare war on Iraq. His position is that if we are going to war...
Good point! More generally, his stance on national defense includes putting guns in the hands of every citizen, fortifying our borders, and either fighting a war, or not fighting a war--none of this fence-squatting. And, of course, free trade.
That's hardly "hiding under the bed." It's more like holding a yard sale, with a big smile, a firm handshake and tasty hot-dogs--plus a 1911 on your hip and an M1A slung over your shoulder. (Hm. Sounds like last summer's yard sale at my house. Except I've only got a 9mm Sigma; I don't own a 1911.)
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 07:00:07 AM
That's illegal, of course. When I contributed, I had to give complete contact information and affirm that I'm a US citizen, not a straw donor, etc., etc. Their published statistics all suggest a large number of small donations, rather than the reverse.
Hillary's campaign has already found a solution to that annoying little hurdle: They launder the money through small donors.
Well, they're certainly laundering money--especially Chinese money--to beat the band, but not so much through small donors. At least, not very small.
In Ron Paul's case, however, there's currently no basis for suspecting that foreign donors are contributing illegally. There's certainly no basis for suspecting that his campaign is seeking such donations. Unlike probable-future-president Hillary.
--Len.
Post by: charby on November 06, 2007, 07:53:59 AM
Except I've only got a 9mm Sigma
I feel your pain.. I used to own a .40 Sigma
Actually I'm starting to like Dr Paul more and more each day.
-C
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on November 06, 2007, 09:01:47 AM
Post by: CNYCacher on November 06, 2007, 09:08:06 AM
I paid $100, it was the closest round number to what I could afford at the time.
I pay all my monthly bills on the 10th of each month, so the 5th actually worked well for Dr. Paul in my case.
Around this time next month, I will see what I can afford again.
I have NEVER contributed to anyone's campaign before.
My vote may never amount to anything, but I will vote with a clear conscience.
Post by: Finch on November 06, 2007, 02:08:10 PM
And if Ron Paul was pro-war, he might find a few million additional supporters, myself included.
Ron never said he was Anti-War. He is pro war, but the war has to be just. Iraq was not a threat to us and therefore not a just war. We should only go to war in defense of OUR nation.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 06, 2007, 02:08:56 PM
And if Ron Paul was pro-war, he might find a few million additional supporters, myself included.
I would definitely consider voting for Paul if I felt he could defend my country. Alas...
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 06, 2007, 02:36:50 PM
And if Ron Paul was pro-war, he might find a few million additional supporters, myself included.
Ron never said he was Anti-War. He is pro war, but the war has to be just. Iraq was not a threat to us and therefore not a just war.
Oh my. I think everyone else understood that I was referring to one specific war.
Quote
We should only go to war in defense of OUR nation.
Wow, did you come up with that all by yourself?
Post by: Finch on November 06, 2007, 04:13:16 PM
Wow, did you come up with that all by yourself?
Ahhh yes. Can't come up with a decent argument to counter so you resort to petty insults. Great Job.
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 04:26:04 PM
Wow, did you come up with that all by yourself?
Ahhh yes. Can't come up with a decent argument to counter so you resort to petty insults. Great Job.
Don't forget, Fistful is sarcastic. (He really is quite good at it.) He's agreeing with you, is his point. Except that he says Iraqis are a threat to the United States, and you say they aren't. I also say they aren't. They would be a threat if they tried to invade, but it would take them weeks and weeks to get here. We'll have plenty of warning to give them a warm reception at the beach when they land.
--Len.
Post by: Phyphor on November 06, 2007, 04:39:08 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on November 06, 2007, 04:54:50 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 06, 2007, 05:32:32 PM
Like they'd even get to the beach.
Sounds like you and Len don't understand it any better than Ron Paul does. "They can't invade us, therefore they aren't a threat."How quickly we forget...
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 06, 2007, 06:22:36 PM
Wow, did you come up with that all by yourself?
Ahhh yes. Can't come up with a decent argument to counter so you resort to petty insults. Great Job.
Don't forget, Fistful is sarcastic. (He really is quite good at it.) He's agreeing with you, is his point. Except that he says Iraqis are a threat to the United States,
Wow, Len. Thanks. My only correction would be that "the Iraqis" were not a threat to anyone. Rather, the former regime was a threat, as was the terrorist-friendly atmosphere it fostered.
"They can't invade us, therefore they aren't a threat."
How quickly we forget...
How quickly we forget...
Yeah.
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 06, 2007, 06:35:00 PM
Post by: Len Budney on November 06, 2007, 06:47:13 PM
Like they'd even get to the beach.
Sounds like you and Len don't understand it any better than Ron Paul does. "They can't invade us, therefore they aren't a threat."
Broadly true. They certainly pose no existential threat to the US.
Quote
How quickly we forget...
That's a tired line. The threat of a 9/11-style attack was not reduced by invading Iraq. It's the same as it was on 9/10/01. That, plus the fact that they pose no other sort of threat, is why invading Iraq served no defensive purpose. The blather about "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" is the most retarded statement made by a man known for retarded statements. But don't take my word for it--it was Homeland Security who said that Al Qaeda's operational capacity is approximately at 9/11 levels, and a "gut check" says that we're due for another major attack. (Either that, or someone ate too much pepperoni before bed.)
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 06, 2007, 07:26:40 PM
Oh, wait, he probably thinks he is offering real solutions. And that's just as sad.
Post by: Len Budney on November 07, 2007, 01:00:45 AM
Oh, wait, he probably thinks he is offering real solutions. And that's just as sad.
Arm the populace, fortify the borders, dismantle the empire and institute free trade. Sounds like a real solution to me.
--Len.
Post by: MechAg94 on November 07, 2007, 03:49:49 AM
Did we ever actually declare War against the Barbary pirates?
Anyone know? That would seem to be a pretty big precedent from our early years.
Quote
In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_WarI guess Jefferson didn't see the need to declare war to use the military to protect US interests or initiate regime change.
Post by: Len Budney on November 07, 2007, 03:59:15 AM
Quote
In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
I guess Jefferson didn't see the need to declare war to use the military to protect US interests or initiate regime change.
Jefferson's own view was that he could use the military in a purely defensive posture, but could not take the offensive without a declaration of war. By his orders, an American frigate captured an attacking Tripolitan vessel, disarmed it, and set them free otherwise unmolested. It was Hamilton (no surprise there!) who argued that a declaration of war was not necessary because Tripoli had formally declared war on the US. Congress apparently agreed, because they passed what amounted to an "authorization of force" but stopped short of a declaration of war.
I think that the Barbary war was a screwup
- , which did somewhat set the stage for 2003, but even so it isn't a direct precedent. Iraq did not declare war on the United States. To say that they have because they don't like us, and say mean things about us, is to beggar the concept of war to the point that we can invade any country whose leader says nasty things about us.
--Len.
- But a purposeful screwup. Hamilton wanted the President to have the power to make war unilaterally in the first place. It's only natural that he would undermine Congressional war-making powers the first chance he got.
Post by: LAK on November 07, 2007, 05:55:24 AM
Call them the Build n' Bugger, the Viertel Reich - whatever you please. Personally, I don't really care what they call themselves - what anyone else calls them by or tags them with.
Len,
Certainly; were Al Kidya and the so-called "jew haters" and others claimed to desire to "wipe [the state of] Isreal off the map" were who and what people are led to believe - they would have wiped out the most prominent and easiest targets first.
Funny - they haven't hit the biggest, fattest sitting ducks right in their own neighborhoods.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 07, 2007, 06:02:39 AM
Oh, wait, he probably thinks he is offering real solutions. And that's just as sad.
Arm the populace, fortify the borders, dismantle the empire and institute free trade. Sounds like a real solution to me.
--Len.
So an armed populace would have stopped airliners flying into buildings?
Post by: Len Budney on November 07, 2007, 06:23:33 AM
Oh, wait, he probably thinks he is offering real solutions. And that's just as sad.
Arm the populace, fortify the borders, dismantle the empire and institute free trade. Sounds like a real solution to me.
So an armed populace would have stopped airliners flying into buildings?
If some of the armed populace were present on the plane in question, then yes. Which is why government should be out of airline security: among other things, it would remove the federal prohibition of armed guards/pilots/passengers on planes.
Conversely, invading Iraq before 9/11 would not have stopped airliners flying into buildings. Nothing the federal government has done, before 9/11 or since, would have stopped airliners flying into buildings. So Ron Paul's solution would have helped on 9/11, where Bush's have not addressed that problem, while making all sorts of other problems much worse.
--Len.
Post by: LAK on November 07, 2007, 06:33:25 AM
It is really sickening to watch a true patriot and intelligent man like Ron Paul being denegrated while many who should know better are scratching their heads over their "real choices" out of the watered down trash being fronted for their eager consumption.
Was someone expounding on some old hat biz called assymetrical warfare? Nothing new; and Ron paul is certainly not ignorant of such things. It seems now that he has been further reduced to some kind of country doctor whose sophistication and professional career has been limited to delivering babies in farmhouse bedrooms.
I still would like to know how someone who flies commercial airliners into buildings can get onto the planes - but not the passenger manifests. That is interesting.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 07, 2007, 06:41:19 AM
Yeah, like a tenured professor out of touch with reality is "intelligent".
In a world where currencies now represent the price people are willing to pay for global goods, resources, products and services in millions of transactions every second, he babbles about a 19th century gold standard.
He might as well be talking about bringing back two-digit phone numbers and local exchanges with a voice operator in the age of the internet. Completely out of touch!
Post by: Len Budney on November 07, 2007, 06:45:41 AM
In a world where currencies now represent the price people are willing to pay for global goods, resources, products and services in millions of transactions every second, he babbles about a 19th century gold standard.
The ignorance of that comment is breathtaking. Hint: a gold standard does not mean that funds transfers will involve a man carrying sacks of gold on a burro. The only difference on a gold standard is that government won't be inflating the living daylights out of our currency. Rather, a dollar saved really will be a dollar earned, instead of steadily-shrinking.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 07, 2007, 06:47:19 AM
In a world where currencies now represent the price people are willing to pay for global goods, resources, products and services in millions of transactions every second, he babbles about a 19th century gold standard.
The ignorance of that comment is breathtaking. Hint: a gold standard does not mean that funds transfers will involve a man carrying sacks of gold on a burro.
--Len.
No, you're not understanding that the value of currency no longer has anything do with precious metal held by the US government.
It's GLOBAL goods and services! It's an infinitely complex web of world currencies that change as the perceived value of resources, goods and services from various countries change, from buyer to seller and all the middlemen. A transaction I just made for 1000 SDcards from Hong Kong was priced according to the fluctuation of the petrodollar vs. the yen based on the world oil situation and the perceived value of those SDcards on the world market, the political situation in Beijing, the Olympics, the weather conditions affecting shipping between the Pacific Rim and the US mainland... And my transaction was one of millions that occur per second, those transactions changing the value of other transactions, moving the world currency and goods exchange rates like Brownian motion in a liquid.
It is GLOBAL. It was way beyond gold held in US vaults a long time ago. The dollar is the petrodollar, traded and hedged and bet for and against as a global commodity, and right now in danger of losing dominance to the Euro. It has zero to do with gold. That's completely out of touch.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 07, 2007, 07:11:09 AM
I freely admit that some of his ideas are good, e.g. gun rights, the dismantling of the empire, a more US-centric policy, more freedom and less socialism. Due to them, I seriously considered voting for him, and am still agonizing over it. But, a lot of the stuff that he says sounds downright kooky because the kind of reforms he is talking about are either already impossible (e.g. the gold standard nonsense) or would take so many years (e.g. cultural changes necessary to abolish the welfare state) that he really should not be talking about them right now if he wants to be taken seriously. The disconnect with modern economic, demographic, and political reality is so pronounced at least in part of his statements that I find myself doubting his sanity at times. That is a dealbreaker, no matter how attractive other parts of his stance are.
Post by: LAK on November 07, 2007, 07:41:36 AM
It's global alright; global corporate-government socialist style. Ron Paul simply represents it's old antithesis - distinct nation states. If you think our country can somehow dance with this devil and walk away from the parts it does not like - like complete civilian disarmament, etc - you are the one completely out of touch.
What is at stake here is the survival of our nation. The issues Ron Paul address are te crux of the matter. We have a choice; either embrace the global village ideology and join the workforce on th big plantation - or detach ourselves from it.
The monetary system is the first element of control over any nation.
Post by: LAK on November 07, 2007, 08:11:40 AM
The sudden dismantling of the welfare state should not be as catastrophic as you imply. There is plenty of work in this country, and plenty of people that were they not spoon fed public money would have to go out and work - or NOT EAT. Period.
There is also plenty of private wealth in this country; all we need is a national leader who can open his or her mouth and challenge the Bill Gates, the Warren Buffets et all, and ask them to start rendering charity to their fellow citizens as opposed to sending it overseas. It is about time someone who can actually lead this country challenged these people and asked them to which country they have allegiance to. Which people.
The first step would be to boot out of this country every single illegal migrant identified. And that subject is as relevent and as good an example of the process as any.
In late 2001 when people like myself - and plenty of others - were stating it was absolutely necessary to do this and to secure our border, some responded much as you are doing now to the effect that it would be "an impossible task" and "take too long" etc. It's been six years now; and instead of moving towards better security of our nation in this way, including economically, these people have been allowed to stay here, more flood in, and we are being steered into a political union with Mexico and Canada.
Do you want your country or not? Is Rudy or Hillary going to put a stop to this? Obama? Any of the others?
Ultimately to say that Ron Paul is "out of touch", is some kook, or whatever other silly injective conjured up, is to embrace with open arms a North American Union. To becoming just another province in the global village, and to kiss your constitution and rights goodbye. To give them away.
Anyone who thinks we are going to continue to participate in the global village, run by a global criminal cartel, it's manipulated monetary system and "economics", and somehow thinks we are going to keep our constitution and rights is really dreaming.
Post by: Len Budney on November 07, 2007, 08:29:53 AM
In a world where currencies now represent the price people are willing to pay for global goods, resources, products and services in millions of transactions every second, he babbles about a 19th century gold standard.
The ignorance of that comment is breathtaking. Hint: a gold standard does not mean that funds transfers will involve a man carrying sacks of gold on a burro.
No, you're not understanding that the value of currency no longer has anything do with precious metal held by the US government.
I understand perfectly: that's the entire problem. Government itself severed that connection precisely so they could crank up the printing presses (metaphorically
) to fund out-of-control spending without corresponding tax increases.Quote
It's GLOBAL goods and services! It's an infinitely complex web of world currencies...
A gold standard is quite simple: absolutely nothing changes, except that the government is no longer capable of inflating the currency. The dollar is exactly as before, except that it's stable.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 07, 2007, 09:13:39 AM
Quote
What is at stake here is the survival of our nation. The issues Ron Paul address are te crux of the matter. We have a choice; either embrace the global village ideology and join the workforce on th big plantation - or detach ourselves from it.
Yes, perhaps we can go back to handcrafted pewter goods and woodcraft, and row them out to the global bulk freighters when they pass close enough...to be exchanged for weighed amounts of gold.
It's painfully obvious whom has had no exposure to international business. Who hasn't been able to see a company's global balance sheet scrolling new numbers by the second, as complex as nature itself, now.
It's no longer a guy counting coins and writing in a ledger, hate to tell you.
Quote
Anyone who thinks we are going to continue to participate in the global village, run by a global criminal cartel, it's manipulated monetary system and "economics", and somehow thinks we are going to keep our constitution and rights is really dreaming.
Oooooh...Is that the shadow government? Or the illuminati?
Post by: Len Budney on November 07, 2007, 09:18:27 AM
It's no longer a guy counting coins and writing in a ledger, hate to tell you.
By now we all know that you hate Ron Paul to the marrow of your bones, but why actually say silly stuff like that? Hard currency is handled no differently than fiat currency. The only difference is that one isn't allowed to increase the money supply by waving a wand and moving a decimal point. Electronic banking is unaffected, transfers and bookkeeping are unaffected, etc. NOTHING changes, except that inflation falls to zero and stays there.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 07, 2007, 09:22:23 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 07, 2007, 09:24:16 AM
And you're still not grasping the basic fact that the petrodollar, Euro, pound sterling, yen, etc...are all now intrinsically linked in the global flow of trade...
Which has nothing to do with whether the dollar is stable or not. All that affects is exchange rates.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 07, 2007, 10:02:18 AM
Len, you are partly right that electronic transactions of "paper money" anchored to gold is not impossible. But in modern economies, the control of the money supply is an essential tool, just as interest rates are. Without that control, it would be far more difficult to steer the economy in reasonable ways, i.e. preventing excessive inflation, deflation, recession, and overheating. I certainly do not believe it is in everybody's interests to return to a pre-1929 state of affairs. Greed and fear have to be mitigated at least to some extent, so that the natural fluctuations do not grow into hurricanes. Thus the gold standard would be a big problem and unnecessarily restriction. Its goals can be achieved by simply having voters keep politicians accountable for excessive inflationary spending. Such control is much more easily achievable than the gold standard. Of course, such control cannot be wielded by people who refuse to vote.
Post by: CNYCacher on November 07, 2007, 10:09:32 AM
Quote
Which has nothing to do with whether the dollar is stable or not. All that affects is exchange rates.
Yeah maned wolf, honestly.
All that a gold standard means is that the .gov can not print more paper money than it possesses in gold.
The first paper money was nothing more than a promise to give the bearer a certain mount in gold. Instead of carrying gold around with you, you carried the "promissory note" that you could take to the .gov at any time and get your gold back. Well, if I have a piece of paper that says "This is from the .gov and we will trade you this note for an ounce of gold at any time.", you might be obliged to trade me my piece of paper for a deer skin or something. And so on and so forth.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on November 07, 2007, 10:11:44 AM
CAnnoneer,
There is also plenty of private wealth in this country; all we need is a national leader who can open his or her mouth and challenge the Bill Gates, the Warren Buffets et all, and ask them to start rendering charity to their fellow citizens as opposed to sending it overseas. It is about time someone who can actually lead this country challenged these people and asked them to which country they have allegiance to. Which people.
There is also plenty of private wealth in this country; all we need is a national leader who can open his or her mouth and challenge the Bill Gates, the Warren Buffets et all, and ask them to start rendering charity to their fellow citizens as opposed to sending it overseas. It is about time someone who can actually lead this country challenged these people and asked them to which country they have allegiance to. Which people.
Gates
makes $6 billion charitable donation
BBC NEWS | Business | Buffett donates $37bn to charity
BBC News | YOUR MONEY | Bill Gates' $5bn donation
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) is the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world
Stingy bastards!
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 07, 2007, 10:26:35 AM
Post by: K Frame on November 07, 2007, 05:59:25 PM
Why?
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al, earned those millions/billions.
Why should any governmental entity or individual address how they spend their money, which they themselves earned?
At the point at which government, ANY government, starts telling me what I SHOULD be doing with my money is the point at which that government loses me.
Post by: Tecumseh on November 07, 2007, 06:45:49 PM
Nowhere. He cannot win the Repub nomination.
Well, we're screwed because no Pro-War republican will win the presidency.
And if Ron Paul was pro-war, he might find a few million additional supporters, myself included.
Are you in the military by chance? I remember reading that Ron Paul got the most donations from military personnel of any candidates. If your not in the military, why not?
Post by: Tecumseh on November 07, 2007, 06:48:41 PM
That's illegal, of course. When I contributed, I had to give complete contact information and affirm that I'm a US citizen, not a straw donor, etc., etc. Their published statistics all suggest a large number of small donations, rather than the reverse.
Hillary's campaign has already found a solution to that annoying little hurdle: They launder the money through small donors.
Do you have any proof? I would suggest that you prove this as it is a serious claim.
This wouldn't just be anti-Hillary projectionism. You have proof don't you?
Couldn't we say the same about Fred Thompson? Or Mitt Romney? Or some of the other GOP? Its nothing without proof... so please post some before you post anything else.
Post by: Len Budney on November 07, 2007, 07:06:29 PM
Do you have any proof? I would suggest that you prove this as it is a serious claim.
Hey, Tecumseh! Haven't heard from you since I was banned on THR in the great purge. Good to see you!
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 07, 2007, 07:19:31 PM
And if Ron Paul was pro-war, he might find a few million additional supporters, myself included.
Are you in the military by chance? I remember reading that Ron Paul got the most donations from military personnel of any candidates. If your not in the military, why not?
What do you mean, "why not?" Is there some reason I should be in the military?
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 07, 2007, 07:42:28 PM
Do you have any proof? I would suggest that you prove this as it is a serious claim.
This wouldn't just be anti-Hillary projectionism. You have proof don't you?
This wouldn't just be anti-Hillary projectionism. You have proof don't you?
Do a search. There was a recent thread on it. Hillary's campaign got contributions from Chinese immigrants to the tune of thousands of dollars per person, when each one of them could not afford it, unless they lie to the IRS. Where did the money come from?
As far as general Clintonian methods and campaign financing "irregularities", do a search for Peter Paul on YouTube. The more you like Hitlery, the more you need to see it.
Post by: roo_ster on November 07, 2007, 08:49:24 PM
Unfortunately, he can't get his support up above the margin of error.
Post by: roo_ster on November 07, 2007, 08:55:43 PM
Did we ever actually declare War against the Barbary pirates?
Anyone know? That would seem to be a pretty big precedent from our early years.
Quote
In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_WarI guess Jefferson didn't see the need to declare war to use the military to protect US interests or initiate regime change.
I addressed this in a previous thread:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=8716.msg144787#msg144787
Quote from: jfruser
Illegal? Not so much.
Not according to the COTUS or precedent as early as Pres. T Jefferson. We never declared war on the Barbary Pirates, yet TJ sent our boys over there to do their best:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
Naval and land forces sent to tame unruly, threatening Mohammedians by an American president. TJ, no less.
As much as I would prefer a Declaration of War whenever our boys are deliberately sent out to kill our enemies & break their stuff, I am under no illusion that doing so without a formal declaration is illegal. TJ had Congress bless his excursion to N Africa with something less than a declaration of war in a manner similar to how GWB had Congress bless his excursion to Iraq.
"Illegal" won't fly since at least TJ.
Not according to the COTUS or precedent as early as Pres. T Jefferson. We never declared war on the Barbary Pirates, yet TJ sent our boys over there to do their best:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
Naval and land forces sent to tame unruly, threatening Mohammedians by an American president. TJ, no less.
As much as I would prefer a Declaration of War whenever our boys are deliberately sent out to kill our enemies & break their stuff, I am under no illusion that doing so without a formal declaration is illegal. TJ had Congress bless his excursion to N Africa with something less than a declaration of war in a manner similar to how GWB had Congress bless his excursion to Iraq.
"Illegal" won't fly since at least TJ.
Post by: LAK on November 08, 2007, 02:39:15 AM
Quote
Why?
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al, earned those millions/billions.
I earned my money too. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al, earned those millions/billions.
Quote
Why should any governmental entity or individual address how they spend their money, which they themselves earned?
In the specific context of my post because it seems that these particular folk are very good at spreading their billions overseas - and at the same time are quite happy to see american people (who earn their money as well - but peanuts in comparison) pay for those who can not or will not work, or suffer health problems for which they can not pay here in our own country.
Quote
At the point at which government, ANY government, starts telling me what I SHOULD be doing with my money is the point at which that government loses me.
Well; we share the same basic opinion. You see, the government does not simply appeal to me to spend some of charitably - they steal a portion at source to give it away on my behalf. Under the threat of force if necessary.
Warren and Bill don't have to worry about their next car insurance premium, rent payment, regular preventative dental care, etc etc even after the gov has stolen a slice from them which they have not been able to have someone figure out a way to write it off for them. But Warren and Bill are evidently quite content with a corporate-government run socialist system that steals a big slice from those who do have to worry about such trivialities. While Warren and Bill are happy to send billions overseas.
Of course it boils down to the fact that folk like Warren and Bill do not have a country really; the world is their oyster - they have property all over the world and things like borders and passports are superfluous to them.
A national leader does [edit: now this was a typo and a half - my apologies] NOT have to tell these people what to do; he or she could however simply open his or her mouth and appeal to them.
Charity is a private issue and should come from private funds willingly - not stolen from private funds and distributed by government. Those with greater private wealth have traditionally been the greatest givers, and their concentratiion on their own country - if they actually have one - could eliminate the welfare system and return this country to as it was to start with and remained well into the 20th century.
------------------------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: LAK on November 08, 2007, 02:44:20 AM
All you have basically stated - in typical convoluted illuminist fashion - is that you are a global socialist. It's good for business - and evidently your business.
Glad to have you out of the closet though. And now we know why you really dislike Ron Paul so much
Post by: LAK on November 08, 2007, 03:13:17 AM
Quote
LAK, the big problem in your argument is that welfare-receivers are voters. In fact, they are the staunchest voter type, if there ever was one. And they are not just limited to stay-home breeders either. Large portions of the population are addicted to gov funding in one way or another. There is no magic wand to wave and wish them and their votes away.
We are not a democracy; and it is not "voters" who lead nations - for very good reason - and precisely why we have the electoral college. If we do not get national leadership to actually lead this country on a straight course it is imply going to be driven along the one the current leadership has it.
Besides, I think you are mistaken in thinking that the majority of people want to remain a welfare state. The media gives this impression, however the media is controlled by the same ruling oligarchy who wish to steer us down the current path. I do not know anyone personally who is happy about having money taken from their income forcebly and given away to anyone. And I know alot of people. Out of the people I meet on the street etc, a more casual basis or at work, the proportion of people that are quite happy to have their money taken is quite low.
Quote
For a policy to be meaningful, it has to be implementable. What Paul is talking about essentially makes certain he will not be elected. So all the preaching and posturing amounts to nothing.
It is only not implementable as long as the section of people who lend the key support of confidence to an openly fake political party line and media allow it to continue to exist. It can not last long without it. WE have until election time to pull the rug out from these people and break the hold they have on this country.
Quote
If on the other hand, Libertarians and Anarchists decide to force the issue by armed revolt, to invalidate all those votes by forcible seizure of gov, then we are talking about a civil war, not Pres Elections 2008.
The libertarians are not our friends; their platform calls for no borders. No borders - that means they support a North American Union. If the Libertarian Party and the Anarchists mount an armed revolt in 2008 - I am going to be fighting against them.
We do not want that to happen; we want to have some leaders in Washington that will actually lead this country and detach us from that criminal cartel that is running it now.
----------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Manedwolf on November 08, 2007, 03:58:24 AM
Manedwolf,
All you have basically stated - in typical convoluted illuminist fashion - is that you are a global socialist. It's good for business - and evidently your business.
Glad to have you out of the closet though. And now we know why you really dislike Ron Paul so much
All you have basically stated - in typical convoluted illuminist fashion - is that you are a global socialist. It's good for business - and evidently your business.
Glad to have you out of the closet though. And now we know why you really dislike Ron Paul so much
Uh...okay...
I'm in favor of business, so that means I'm a socialist. Riiiiiiiight.
*cue xfiles music on that one!*
I dislike Ron Paul because he's an out-of-touch loon with ideas that are right out of the 19th century, not the current realities of the world. He's the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich. I dislike his local followers because they're crazy anarchists who deliberately get themselves arrested and make the poor local cops carry them to the cruiser. I think one's been arrested like half a dozen times now.
Any other questions?
Post by: Len Budney on November 08, 2007, 04:26:31 AM
The libertarians are not our friends; their platform calls for no borders. No borders - that means they support a North American Union...
The North American Union is a socialist concept. You'll never find a libertarian who favors that. It would be more correct to say that libertarians support borders much more strongly than you do: we believe that every man's property is sovereign territory, and every property line a border to be defended, if necessary, with lethal force.
In today's context, BTW, "no borders" suggests a favorable view of illegal immigration. That's not true: we believe that nobody should be allowed anywhere without the permission of the property owner. In particular, for a Mexican to move to Poughkeepsie, he must comply with road-use contracts along the entire route, must have a lawful place to stay, and may not trespass. In effect, each immigrant must be "sponsored," in the sense that a property owner agrees to give him a place to stay, etc.
The vast amount of "public" property is one of the core issues in illegal immigration: since nobody owns the roads, they can travel freely; since government forbids "discrimination", stores and hotels are forced to accommodate them; refusal to rent to an illegal could be prosecuted as discrimination; etc. Private property is the best step toward controlling illegal immigration.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on November 08, 2007, 05:34:08 AM
And that should be Bill Gates or Warren Buffet's responsibility to come in and fix what government screwed up by putting MORE of their money (over what they already paid in taxes of their own) into it... WHY?
"Warren and Bill don't have to worry about their next car insurance premium, rent payment, regular preventative dental care, etc etc even after the gov has stolen a slice from them which they have not been able to have someone figure out a way to write it off for them."
Exactly. They're American success stories. They should be applauded as shining examples to what levels industriousness, intelligence, and skill can take you in America.
That's all.
If Gates and Buffet want to send their money overseas, it's no one's business but their own. Certainly not mine, and certainly not yours.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 08, 2007, 05:35:42 AM
"In the specific context of my post because it seems that these particular folk are very good at spreading their billions overseas - and at the same time are quite happy to see american people (who earn their money as well - but peanuts in comparison) pay for those who can not or will not work, or suffer health problems for which they can not pay here in our own country."
And that should be Bill Gates or Warren Buffet's responsibility to come in and fix what government screwed up by putting MORE of their money (over what they already paid in taxes of their own) into it... WHY?
And that should be Bill Gates or Warren Buffet's responsibility to come in and fix what government screwed up by putting MORE of their money (over what they already paid in taxes of their own) into it... WHY?
I'd ask the same question. And why is it anyone's call what these people want to do with their money? If Warren Buffet wants to build an ice sculpture for the people of Kenya, it's HIS MONEY!
Post by: Paddy on November 08, 2007, 06:20:24 AM
There, fixed it for you.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 08, 2007, 06:22:45 AM
"I dislike Ron Paul George Bush because he's an out-of-touch imperialist loon with ideas that are right out of the 19th 18th century, not the current realities of the world. He's the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich King George III. I dislike his local followers handlers anarchists corporate stooge neocons who deliberately get themselves should be arrested
There, fixed it for you.
There, fixed it for you.
Changing a statement 180 degrees does not "fix" anything. All you did was rewrite it to suit your own world view and skewed politics.
Post by: K Frame on November 08, 2007, 06:28:10 AM
What?
He'd NEVER do that!
Post by: charby on November 08, 2007, 06:43:46 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 08, 2007, 07:15:51 AM
It is only not implementable as long as the section of people who lend the key support of confidence to an openly fake political party line and media allow it to continue to exist. It can not last long without it. WE have until election time to pull the rug out from these people and break the hold they have on this country.
LAK, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Who are these people and how are you going to eliminate their influence? Only about 50% of the eligible actually vote, and among those that do, roughly half goes to each party. Where do the people you are talking about fit in that?
As far as the socialist state goes, it is difficult for me to believe that it does not have a wide support, because gov giveaways in one form or another are the bread-and-butter of Dem campaign promises. They always promise to tax the rich to finance social programs. That's pretty much all they do, and people vote for them, so they must want that.
Len, the Libertarian Party are for open borders according to their website. What you are describing is something very different.
Post by: Len Budney on November 08, 2007, 07:39:41 AM
Len, the Libertarian Party are for open borders according to their website. What you are describing is something very different.
I believe you. I don't know first hand, because I have nothing to do with the Libertarian party. It isn't recognizably libertarian, and very few libertarians belong to the Libertarian party. That's why most of us resort to the annoying phrase, "small-l libertarian." If a small-l libertarian talks about "open borders," he usually means something to the effect that immigration policy should be permissive; he doesn't mean that we shouldn't defend against invasions or keep out criminals or plague-carriers.
Being a bit of a hard-liner, I believe that border security should be privatized--in which case it would differ from today's border security, but would still involve defense against invading armies, criminals, etc. Some of the functions of border security would be decentralized in a fully-privatized market. For example, criminal background checks could be performed by cautious landlords and employers; they needn't only or necessarily be done at the border. That's related to my remark that "every property line is a border."
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 08, 2007, 09:41:12 AM
Being a bit of a hard-liner, I believe that border security should be privatized--in which case it would differ from today's border security, but would still involve defense against invading armies, criminals, etc.
Post by: Len Budney on November 08, 2007, 09:50:34 AM
Unlike the federal government's version of border security:
Post by: Paddy on November 08, 2007, 10:34:35 AM
Quote
I believe that border security should be privatized-
Because, after all, it's worked so well in Iraq.
Post by: Len Budney on November 08, 2007, 10:52:28 AM
Quote
I believe that border security should be privatized-
Because, after all, it's worked so well in Iraq.
We've covered that ground. Blackwater isn't "privatized security," because they still have government powers and protections. Real private security staff can be imprisoned for assault if they taze an old lady or a toddler, can be sued if said tazing victim dies, and in all ways is bound by the same laws as anyone else. If police services are privatized, then among other things you can shoot "cops" in self-defense.
--Len.
Post by: Waitone on November 08, 2007, 12:21:00 PM
Can't rule out sponsorship by Hillary's campaign either. It is clear to me she is in general campaign mode having concluded she has the nomination. She is kissing up to the illegal alien contingent with her kinda sorta qualified almost answer in favor of DL's for Noo Yark. It was a position in opposition to something like 60% of her base. The best predictor of the future Clinton is the playbook from past Clinton. A key play is the third party candidate who will shave just enough votes from the opposition so as to ensure a victory. Perot comes to mind. "Cynic" is a label I proudly wear when it comes to political events.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 08, 2007, 12:40:51 PM
The more conservative and united the right appear to be, the more the Dems see Hitlery as the kiss of death to their ambitions, because they know she is divisive and would mobilize the right even more than Kerry did. Thus a spectacle like Paul is useful to her in the primaries, because then the Dems see Reps as divided and already beaten, so the Dems would be more willing to gamble and nominate her. Therefore, a pitch to help Paul is in Hitlery's best interests.
Post by: Tecumseh on November 08, 2007, 01:15:42 PM
And if Ron Paul was pro-war, he might find a few million additional supporters, myself included.
Are you in the military by chance? I remember reading that Ron Paul got the most donations from military personnel of any candidates. If your not in the military, why not?
What do you mean, "why not?" Is there some reason I should be in the military?
If your not you should be. Simply so you can show your support by joining the war effort and fighting terrorists personally instead of letting others defend freedom while your at home posting on this website.
I mean afterall... you support the war on terror, the least you could do is fight in it.
Post by: Len Budney on November 08, 2007, 02:12:15 PM
Back to the OP. Paul's cash infusion came from the moonbat fringe of both wings.
Since we're just making things up without a shred of proof, I think Paul's cash infusion came entirely from lesbian midgets.
--Len.
Post by: Finch on November 08, 2007, 02:26:50 PM
Back to the OP. Paul's cash infusion came from the moonbat fringe of both wings.
Please provide your sources....
I'll hold my breath in anticipation.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2007, 04:26:14 PM
And if Ron Paul was pro-war, he might find a few million additional supporters, myself included.
Are you in the military by chance? I remember reading that Ron Paul got the most donations from military personnel of any candidates. If your not in the military, why not?
What do you mean, "why not?" Is there some reason I should be in the military?
If your not you should be. Simply so you can show your support by joining the war effort and fighting terrorists personally instead of letting others defend freedom while your at home posting on this website.
I mean afterall... you support the war on terror, the least you could do is fight in it.
Thanks for the tip.
Must I bother to refute such silliness?
Post by: roo_ster on November 08, 2007, 07:48:42 PM
There is one interesting thing about it, though: Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone not currently in uniform ought have no say in any use of force or foreign policy matter. Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete. And, incidentally, the makers of the chicken hawk argument would have to hold their tongue, as they are usually not current service members, either. There is a silver lining in every cloud...
Post by: Finch on November 08, 2007, 08:51:55 PM
Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete.
I'm sure we can consult our friend in "THE WAR ON TERRORRRR!!1!" Pakistan. They seemed to have done pretty well with destroying their own constitution in the name of freedom.
Post by: LAK on November 08, 2007, 09:51:39 PM
The whole "[not] free trade" corporate-government economic train is riding - directly supporting - a global socialist system with an agenda of a de facto elimination of nation states. The corporate-gov train riding this is so intimately intertwined with this political system one can not possibly say there is any difference between the two.
You can pretend to be indifferent to it, but that is what it is.
Post by: LAK on November 08, 2007, 10:16:42 PM
Skimming posts here I think some have addressed it already; but the LP supports open borders. That is part of their platform. It is noteworthy that few "libertarians" seem to know this.
Mr Irwin,
Quote
And that should be Bill Gates or Warren Buffet's responsibility to come in and fix what government screwed up by putting MORE of their money (over what they already paid in taxes of their own) into it... WHY?
Don't know how you extrapolated that from what I wrote above. I simply responded to CAnnoneer concerning eliminating the welfare state here. That would mean the elimination of that portion of taxation of persons by gov for all socialist programs. ALL of them. Cutting gov OUT of the business of charity - leaving charity to private persons. And going back to the founding of this country it has been the wealthier private persons and private institutions that have supported the genuine poor and unables when it comes to feeding and treating them for illness etc.I see nothing immoral or anything else by appealing to people with enourmous amounts of spare money to helping the poor in their own nation - if they call it their country - as opposed to sending it all to foreign nations.
Quote
Exactly. They're American success stories. They should be applauded as shining examples to what levels industriousness, intelligence, and skill can take you in America.
Right; sucess stories in America. They were not able to do it in India, Botswana or any other foreign country.
Quote
If Gates and Buffet want to send their money overseas, it's no one's business but their own. Certainly not mine, and certainly not yours.
If they have made billions in government contracts paid for by my and every other tax paying American it is my business as it is every other tax paying American. Especially when they are sending their apparent enormous surpluses overseas and are actively involved in a global geo-political agenda that is hostile to our constitution and national independence as a nation.
Ultimately Bill and Warren can do what they like with their money - as long as when I insist I keep all of mine as opposed to having it stolen at source to give away - they keep their mouths shut.
Post by: LAK on November 08, 2007, 10:33:29 PM
Perhaps only 50% vote because at least 30-40% of the rest realized long ago what a show it really is. You either believe that it is or you don't. If they have a chance to actually vote for someone who is going to actually lead the country instead of the role acting we have seen for decades they will likely vote.
The key is what is now being waged as a psychological war to prevent him from being heard when possible, and then to discredit what he intends to do and undo that affects their global agenda and the United States, and then sow despair on any chance of him gaining the WH. It is a matter of confidence.
Personally believe that support for Ron Paul is much higher than his most vocal supporters believe.
Post by: LAK on November 08, 2007, 10:44:52 PM
Quote
I'd ask the same question. And why is it anyone's call what these people want to do with their money? If Warren Buffet wants to build an ice sculpture for the people of Kenya, it's HIS MONEY!
Well, they already do; unless Warren does not pay income tax. What is the difference between taking money from people at source to give away to others - as opposed to letting everyone keep all their money (in the context of all socialistic programs) and encourage them to give to charity?
Who have I seen on those tv ads encouraging me to give more of my money away to others - is it not those two arch idelogical enemies George Herbert Walker thousand-points-of-light Bush and William Jefferson Rhodes Scholar Clinton?
Now just why is it we have to be stuck with a socialist welfare state imposed on us by the ideological upline of this oligarchy run by these people, and have our money stolen at source - and given the opportunity to shrug that yoke off our own backs can not encourage people to take up the slack for those who really need it as it was before the ideologiocal and forceful overthrow of this country over the last several decades??
Post by: Len Budney on November 09, 2007, 01:57:29 AM
Skimming posts here I think some have addressed it already; but the LP supports open borders. That is part of their platform. It is noteworthy that few "libertarians" seem to know this.
The reason few libertarians know this is that the Libertarian party has nothing to do with us. They hijacked the name. You seem to be defining libertarianism (small l) in terms of party membership. That's not so; it's a philosophy. One that the party left behind a long time ago.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 09, 2007, 02:05:04 AM
Post by: LAK on November 09, 2007, 02:28:16 AM
If an LP candidate runs for the WH - and gets installed I.. I uh .. I mean elected - he or she will be a Libertarian Party candidate - not "a libertarian". The LP is a trojan horse - just more syndicated WWF contenders.
Post by: Len Budney on November 09, 2007, 02:30:11 AM
If an LP candidate runs for the WH - and gets installed I.. I uh .. I mean elected - he or she will be a Libertarian Party candidate - not "a libertarian". The LP is a trojan horse - just more syndicated WWF contenders.
I just don't know what you're on about. The LP has nothing to do with me, or most other libertarians. Nothing you say about them means anything to me. Why do you even bring them up?
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 09, 2007, 04:50:10 AM
Manedwolf,
The whole "[not] free trade" corporate-government economic train is riding - directly supporting - a global socialist system with an agenda of a de facto elimination of nation states. The corporate-gov train riding this is so intimately intertwined with this political system one can not possibly say there is any difference between the two.
You can pretend to be indifferent to it, but that is what it is.
The whole "[not] free trade" corporate-government economic train is riding - directly supporting - a global socialist system with an agenda of a de facto elimination of nation states. The corporate-gov train riding this is so intimately intertwined with this political system one can not possibly say there is any difference between the two.
You can pretend to be indifferent to it, but that is what it is.
O_o
Were you told this by the eye atop the pyramid on the back of a piece of currency, perhaps?
Post by: Euclidean on November 09, 2007, 06:14:20 AM
I don't particularly agree with that and think there's plenty of other good reasons to establish meaningful physical security on the border, but one should criticize their stance with that in mind.
I've had others tell me I'm a libertarian and I guess if the shoe fits, wear it. Personally I abhor all political parties, as candidates should run on platforms not party tickets. Most people have this moronically simplistic belief that Party A are the good guys, Party B are the bad guys, and anyone who chooses neither of those is a wacko.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 09, 2007, 09:48:05 AM
Perhaps only 50% vote because at least 30-40% of the rest realized long ago what a show it really is. You either believe that it is or you don't. If they have a chance to actually vote for someone who is going to actually lead the country instead of the role acting we have seen for decades they will likely vote... Personally believe that support for Ron Paul is much higher than his most vocal supporters believe.
I don't know why they don't vote. Saying there are no alternatives is somewhat of a cop-out. There always are. For the conservatives, there was Ross Perot; for the leftists, there was Ralph Nader. Yet, at the times those ran, there was no marked increase in the general voter percentage. So, even when given alternatives, a significant portion simply don't vote.
Furthermore, refusing to vote does not accomplish anything but help maintain the status quo. If a disgruntled voter votes for a third party, the percentages tell politicians to readjust course and try to absorb those votes. But, if those votes are not cast in the first place, then you get "business as usual".
Post by: Len Budney on November 09, 2007, 09:50:55 AM
Furthermore, refusing to vote does not accomplish anything but help maintain the status quo.
The status-quo is a given. I just don't want to legitimize it by participating. After all, I'd hate for them to think I was stockpiling cannon balls at Concord just because my candidate lost and I'm a sore loser.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 09, 2007, 01:17:57 PM
O_o
Were you told this by the eye atop the pyramid on the back of a piece of currency, perhaps?
Were you told this by the eye atop the pyramid on the back of a piece of currency, perhaps?
Hee-hee.
Post by: Finch on November 09, 2007, 01:21:32 PM
If your not you should be. Simply so you can show your support by joining the war effort and fighting terrorists personally instead of letting others defend freedom while your at home posting on this website.
Sigh....
Terrorist are of absolutely no threat to my or anyone other Americans freedom. They are not beating down your door threatening to throw you into Guantanamo without right to trial. They are not bypassing the constitution with self written warrants. They are not ignoring the first amendment when those self written warrants are used and then subsequently the target of the warrant is threatened with a federal offence to even talk about the warrant that was just served without oversight of the judicial branch. Tell me how my freedoms are threatened by some third world podunk terrorists.
As I see it the only threat to my freedoms are coming from those we elect and those who think that we need to sacrifice said freedoms to protect us in the so called "War on Terror"
I mean afterall... you support the war on terror, the least you could do is fight in it.
If that is the least, what is the most I could do?
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 09, 2007, 01:36:26 PM
The status-quo is a given. I just don't want to legitimize it by participating. After all, I'd hate for them to think I was stockpiling cannon balls at Concord just because my candidate lost and I'm a sore loser.
That's an excuse to do nothing. You do not vote, you take yourself out of relevance. The politicians will not shed a tear; you make their job easier by eliminating yourself. They just move on to fighting over those who do vote. If on the other hand, you vote even if it is for a third party, they are forced to pay attention. The system is not yet so corrupt that voters wouldn't matter, but doing nothing to stem the decay will certainly land us there eventually.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 09, 2007, 01:43:19 PM
I mean afterall... you support the war on terror, the least you could do is fight in it.
If that is the least, what is the most I could do?
Good point. Joining the military is pretty close to the Most side of the scale.
But I think Tecumseh is on your side, Finch.
Post by: Len Budney on November 09, 2007, 02:15:46 PM
The status-quo is a given. I just don't want to legitimize it by participating. After all, I'd hate for them to think I was stockpiling cannon balls at Concord just because my candidate lost and I'm a sore loser.
That's an excuse to do nothing.
Stockpiling weapons is nothing?
Quote
You do not vote, you take yourself out of relevance.
Invade my home and say that.
--Len.
Post by: Patriot on November 09, 2007, 02:20:20 PM
That's an excuse to do nothing. You do not vote, you take yourself out of relevance. The politicians will not shed a tear; you make their job easier by eliminating yourself. They just move on to fighting over those who do vote. If on the other hand, you vote even if it is for a third party, they are forced to pay attention. The system is not yet so corrupt that voters wouldn't matter, but doing nothing to stem the decay will certainly land us there eventually.
Shh! Don't talk sense.
Knowest thou not that this is the turning point, yea, even the last battle, the ideological struggle of our time? Yet instead of occasioning between classes as Marx mistakenly envisioned, it is happening here and now between the two factions: the Honest Ordinary Exceptional Self-Governing American and the manipulative and immensely high-up forces that cravenly mislead the teeming masses through shadowy extra governmental corporate cartels that have penetrated and pervasively infiltrated government circles. You must understand that the major media outlets, the Federal Reserve, both major parties, Ralph Nader, the military-industrial complex, and the NAU are complicit in this fait accompli that we must unswervingly prevent. A dramatist might term it 'The Epic Battle of Our Time!,' 'Good versus Evil,' or 'All or Nothing!' [in high Kierkegaardian fashion]. And the interpretation is thus: "All" means electing The One [aka RP], and "Nothing" means that should he not win the GOP nomination, nothing else is worth doing May I inquire as to whether you are for Paul or against freedom/apple pie/and future of our great country? To paraphrasically borrow from religious tradition: "There is no candidate but Ron Paul, and myriad are his prophets."
Post by: Paddy on November 09, 2007, 02:25:24 PM
Quote
Stockpiling weapons is nothing?
Get real, Len. Whatever peashooters you can 'stockpile' don't amount to a second thought, let alone any kind of credible threat to people who can make your entire home (and everything in it) disappear from a mile (or more) away. What's that quote? "if you can't/won't stand up and fight while the war is still winnable.........."
Post by: Len Budney on November 09, 2007, 03:48:12 PM
Knowest thou not that this is the turning point, yea, even the last battle, the ideological struggle of our time...
You've been listening WAAAAY too much to George W.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 09, 2007, 03:50:09 PM
Get real, Len. Whatever peashooters you can 'stockpile' don't amount to a second thought...
I pretty much agree. What I don't get is why folks think the odds are better in the voting booth. More than half of all Americans are net recipients of government money. There's a majority right there.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 09, 2007, 04:36:22 PM
Get real, Len. Whatever peashooters you can 'stockpile' don't amount to a second thought...
I pretty much agree. If you agree, then why are you stockpiling weapons as a solution to the particular problem? What is your feasible solution?
Quote
What I don't get is why folks think the odds are better in the voting booth.
Because they are better. WashDC is still controllable. What politicians are still trying to do is do what they want when nobody is watching and nobody complains. When people do organize and act firmly, changes happen. If that weren't the case, we would now be stuck with amnesty or DREAM Act or other such nonsense. Instead, that is buried for the time being, and the SAVE Act is chugging along, due to the efforts of NumbersUSA, Lou Dobbs, the minutemen, Tom Tancredo, and a bunch of communities and organizations applying pressure the right way. If all these people had followed your philosophy, none of that would have happened.
If all you do is stockpile weapons, you help bringing about the day you would have to use them.
Post by: Len Budney on November 09, 2007, 05:06:52 PM
If you agree, then why are you stockpiling weapons as a solution to the particular problem? What is your feasible solution?
Bah. Have a beer on me and chill out.
Quote
Quote
What I don't get is why folks think the odds are better in the voting booth.
Because they are better. WashDC is still controllable...
Depends how out of control you think it is. The republic was mortally wounded in 1861 and lapsed into a coma in 1913. It isn't dead yet, but it's much farther gone than most people think.
Quote
When people do organize and act firmly, changes happen. If that weren't the case, we would now be stuck with amnesty or DREAM Act or other such nonsense...
I agree. The republic is not beyond recovery.
Quote
If all you do is stockpile weapons, you help bringing about the day you would have to use them.
That isn't all. For example, I also argue online for freedom. It mostly gets me labeled a kook, but if enough people join me on my soap box, there may yet be no need to resort to the cartridge box.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on November 09, 2007, 06:10:08 PM
Len Budney. First:
Quote
The republic was mortally wounded in 1861 and lapsed into a coma in 1913. It isn't dead yet, but it's much farther gone than most people think.
And then:
Quote
I agree. The republic is not beyond recovery.
That's it, Len. You're officially schizophrenic. Get help ASAP. You need medication.
Post by: Len Budney on November 09, 2007, 06:15:16 PM
That's it, Len. You're officially schizophrenic. Get help ASAP. You need medication.
Read more carefully. There's no contradiction. It's not dead; it's not beyond recovery; but it's much worse than most people think.
--Len.
Post by: Tecumseh on November 10, 2007, 08:50:49 PM
Nah, it is just the usual chickens--t chicken hawk argument. Worthy of a guffaw and maybe a snort.
There is one interesting thing about it, though: Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone not currently in uniform ought have no say in any use of force or foreign policy matter. Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete. And, incidentally, the makers of the chicken hawk argument would have to hold their tongue, as they are usually not current service members, either. There is a silver lining in every cloud...
Chickenhawk is a good way of putting it. I do believe they have a say but if one really believes it they should fight for it. Otherwise it is pretty cowardly to stand back and let other brave men and women do the dirty work that this person is advocating.There is one interesting thing about it, though: Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone not currently in uniform ought have no say in any use of force or foreign policy matter. Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete. And, incidentally, the makers of the chicken hawk argument would have to hold their tongue, as they are usually not current service members, either. There is a silver lining in every cloud...
Well if one feels so strongly about it then they would be over there fighting. Otherwise sending others to fight an enemy in a country who has not attacked us seems pretty sick.
Ask yourself why Ron Paul, an ANTI-WAR candidate got the most donations of all the candidates from veterans?
Seems like they dont want to fight for someone elses oil either?
Post by: Tecumseh on November 10, 2007, 08:56:18 PM
Get real, Len. Whatever peashooters you can 'stockpile' don't amount to a second thought...
I pretty much agree. What I don't get is why folks think the odds are better in the voting booth. More than half of all Americans are net recipients of government money. There's a majority right there.
--Len.
Post by: Bogie on November 10, 2007, 09:05:54 PM
Quote
Terrorist are of absolutely no threat to my or anyone other Americans freedom.
If "Terrorist" wastes my sorry ass while I'm standing outside my local Wally World waiting for the doors to open on Black Friday, I'm gonna come back and haunt you.
Because I won't be free. I'll be dead. But free to haunt.
Post by: Len Budney on November 11, 2007, 02:04:08 AM
Because I won't be free. I'll be dead. But free to haunt.
You seem consistently willing to give up any and all liberty in exchange for "security." The founders had lots to say about that attitude, all of it blistering.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 11, 2007, 02:23:04 AM
More than half of all Americans are net recipients of government money. There's a majority right there.
Got a source for that "statistic"?
40% of Americans pay no income tax at all. They're net tax consumers. About 6% of the population are employed by government. They're net tax consumers. Another 6% or so are employed by defense contractors, and hence derive their salary entirely from government money. They are net tax consumers. This suggests a crude estimate of 52% right there.
A more systematic study would include welfare, other government programs, and any jobs whose salary comes from government money, but it would easily exceed 50% of the population.
--Len.
Post by: LAK on November 11, 2007, 04:20:40 AM
When the libertarians enter a political topic - an election - the LP is as relevent as the "republican" party or the "democratic" party. That is why they came up.
Manedwolf,
Actually I am an Adept - I didn't need to look on any dollar bill. Besides, we all know that all that masonic symbology on the back of a dollar bill arrived there by accident, it wasn't drafted up by anyone in particular. Origiinally the back of a dollar bill was supposed to be blank, but the first ones rolled out of the press with that on them - and no one ever changed it. It's a great mystery as to how that engraving got there.
Post by: Len Budney on November 11, 2007, 04:22:16 AM
When the libertarians enter a political topic - an election - the LP is as relevent as the "republican" party or the "democratic" party. That is why they came up.
Ron Paul also has nothing to do with the libertarian party. In case it escaped your notice, he's running as a Republican.
--Len.
Post by: LAK on November 11, 2007, 11:44:15 PM
You've run a good discussion on here; I share your views on some things - some key issues. But some things are escaping your attention too; it was CAnnoneer who first brought up libertarians - not I. My responses ran accordingly.
Post by: Len Budney on November 12, 2007, 02:43:03 AM
You've run a good discussion on here; I share your views on some things - some key issues. But some things are escaping your attention too; it was CAnnoneer who first brought up libertarians - not I. My responses ran accordingly.
Granted. But there is no LP candidate in the race, so the LP is completely irrelevant here.
--Len.
Post by: roo_ster on November 12, 2007, 05:18:31 AM
Nah, it is just the usual chickens--t chicken hawk argument. Worthy of a guffaw and maybe a snort.
There is one interesting thing about it, though: Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone not currently in uniform ought have no say in any use of force or foreign policy matter. Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete. And, incidentally, the makers of the chicken hawk argument would have to hold their tongue, as they are usually not current service members, either. There is a silver lining in every cloud...
Chickenhawk is a good way of putting it. I do believe they have a say but if one really believes it they should fight for it. Otherwise it is pretty cowardly to stand back and let other brave men and women do the dirty work that this person is advocating.There is one interesting thing about it, though: Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone not currently in uniform ought have no say in any use of force or foreign policy matter. Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete. And, incidentally, the makers of the chicken hawk argument would have to hold their tongue, as they are usually not current service members, either. There is a silver lining in every cloud...
Well if one feels so strongly about it then they would be over there fighting. Otherwise sending others to fight an enemy in a country who has not attacked us seems pretty sick.
Also, the poster you are referring to, fistful, has spent time in the service. IOW, he has voluntarily put his tuckus into play and at risk for a time to be at the service of his country. I will attest that such involves no small amount of risk, even in peacetime. OTOH, the majority of folks squawking "chickenhawk" have not had the gonads to venture as much. Pardon me for discounting such bleats as worth less then the BTUs in the hot air used to make them.
IMO, the "chickhawk" argument is akin to playing the race card nowadays or to old-school marxists laying about with accusations of "bourgeois" this & that. It is not meant as a substantive argument, but is an attempt by the player to shut the debate down. As such, it ought to be pointed out as worthy of discounting.
Post by: Tecumseh on November 12, 2007, 10:10:00 AM
More than half of all Americans are net recipients of government money. There's a majority right there.
Got a source for that "statistic"?
40% of Americans pay no income tax at all. They're net tax consumers. About 6% of the population are employed by government. They're net tax consumers. Another 6% or so are employed by defense contractors, and hence derive their salary entirely from government money. They are net tax consumers. This suggests a crude estimate of 52% right there.
A more systematic study would include welfare, other government programs, and any jobs whose salary comes from government money, but it would easily exceed 50% of the population.
--Len.
Please explain with something than a biased opinion from a mainstream media source.
As for the net tax consumers, how many will be paying into the tax system or have paid into it?
And for the government employees, well would you get rid of the military, fire department, police department, FEMA, VA hospitals, LE agencies, road repair crews, parks and rec. people, etc?
Your crude estimate of 52% is unsubstantiated.
Post by: Tecumseh on November 12, 2007, 10:15:24 AM
Nah, it is just the usual chickens--t chicken hawk argument. Worthy of a guffaw and maybe a snort.
There is one interesting thing about it, though: Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone not currently in uniform ought have no say in any use of force or foreign policy matter. Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete. And, incidentally, the makers of the chicken hawk argument would have to hold their tongue, as they are usually not current service members, either. There is a silver lining in every cloud...
Chickenhawk is a good way of putting it. I do believe they have a say but if one really believes it they should fight for it. Otherwise it is pretty cowardly to stand back and let other brave men and women do the dirty work that this person is advocating.There is one interesting thing about it, though: Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone not currently in uniform ought have no say in any use of force or foreign policy matter. Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete. And, incidentally, the makers of the chicken hawk argument would have to hold their tongue, as they are usually not current service members, either. There is a silver lining in every cloud...
Well if one feels so strongly about it then they would be over there fighting. Otherwise sending others to fight an enemy in a country who has not attacked us seems pretty sick.
Also, the poster you are referring to, fistful, has spent time in the service. IOW, he has voluntarily put his tuckus into play and at risk for a time to be at the service of his country. I will attest that such involves no small amount of risk, even in peacetime. OTOH, the majority of folks squawking "chickenhawk" have not had the gonads to venture as much. Pardon me for discounting such bleats as worth less then the BTUs in the hot air used to make them.
IMO, the "chickhawk" argument is akin to playing the race card nowadays or to old-school marxists laying about with accusations of "bourgeois" this & that. It is not meant as a substantive argument, but is an attempt by the player to shut the debate down. As such, it ought to be pointed out as worthy of discounting.
I disagree. I am glad Fistful has served, the Chickenhawk label is incorrect. The correct label in my opinion would be a warmonger.
It is easier to suggest that people fight over there and are not over there. Please explain to me why the majority of veterans donations went to an anti-war candidate? This suggests that they are against the war in Iraq. Why can't anyone explain that to me? Are the veterans against the war? Perhaps they know the war is about corporate America desiring to get their hands on more money and oil. They seem to be prospering while the rest of America suffers.
Are we going to Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, North Korea, China, and other third world countries to liberate them like Iraq?
Post by: Len Budney on November 12, 2007, 10:34:34 AM
And for the government employees, well would you get rid of the military, fire department, police department, FEMA, VA hospitals, LE agencies, road repair crews, parks and rec. people, etc?
I hope it's clear that the answer is YES! Otherwise I've been communicating ineffectively here.
But to be quite clear, I fully support the putting out of fires, the repairing of roads, etc. Anyone who wants to do those things is absolutely free to go ahead and do them. They are only forbidden to rob people at gunpoint as "payment" for their "services," any more than McDonalds can start shooting people for not buying their hamburgers.
--Len.
Post by: Nitrogen on November 13, 2007, 09:23:35 PM
Post by: Waitone on November 18, 2007, 03:51:32 PM
Here is a guy who has followed the money. RP supporters may not want to read it since he obviously has a rather large bone to pick with RP. In any case he is convinced the money flow is not from principled supporters.
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_18469.shtml
Post by: Warren on November 18, 2007, 05:24:06 PM
This was a crap-wad of an article, not worth the enk it was printed on.
Post by: Finch on November 18, 2007, 08:43:19 PM
This horse looks pretty much dead, but since there is a chance of life left I'll throw out this one.
Here is a guy who has followed the money. RP supporters may not want to read it since he obviously has a rather large bone to pick with RP. In any case he is convinced the money flow is not from principled supporters.
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_18469.shtml
Here is a guy who has followed the money. RP supporters may not want to read it since he obviously has a rather large bone to pick with RP. In any case he is convinced the money flow is not from principled supporters.
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_18469.shtml
BWAHAHAHA.....BWAHHAHAHAH
So, a section of this article (used generously) is titled "So, how Republican is Republican candidate Ron Paul?" and it goes on to insinuate that because people from parties other than Republican donated money to his campaign, he is somehow not a Republican. What a joke.
I loved this little gem
Quote
Real Republicans need to be aware and unite to block this effort to hijack the party nomination.
Real Republicans? HA! Please show me this cheat sheet on what a "Real Republican" is. Does a "Real Republican" spend like a drunken sailor or invade nations of no threat to national security? If so, then yes, Ron Paul is not a "Real Republican"
Quote
He is also doing a great job of helping the left undermine the war on terror.
LMFAO this is great stuff. What war on terror? We had the oppertunity to wage a War on Terror but instead decided to go galavanting into Iraq for no freakin reason. The only reason War on Terror is even used is to make sure the American people are still scared enought to voluntarialy give up thier civil liberties.Quote
But even worse, he threatens the integrity of the Republican nomination process itself by relying upon non-Republicans to win the Republican nomination.
Yeah, God forbid people have a choice in the matter of deciding who becomes our President. After all, the sin of changing party affiliation because the guy you like is running on a different ticket is incomprehensible.Quote
Although he is running as a Republican, he actually has very little support from rank and file Republicans,
Maybe because those "rank and file republicans" are the ones who helped screw this country over so badly with horrible pieces of legislation like the "PATRIOT" act and Military commissions Act. So of course Ron Paul is not going to get support from those "rank and file" republicans. He is going to get support from real republicans. You know, the ones who actually support small government, limited spending, limited taxation, non-interventionism, etc...I could tear this joke of a journalist up all day, but I've better things to do....like wait for replies....
Post by: LAK on November 18, 2007, 11:18:41 PM
Ron Paul is getting support - hence money - from all over the place because he is taking a stand, and prepared to make a stand, and break the stranglehold an oligarchy riding a train called global socialism has had on our country for far too long.
---------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: GigaBuist on November 19, 2007, 06:07:40 AM
Quote
According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at www.opensecrets.org, Ron Paul’s top contributor is well known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the board of directors, has a long history of progressive political activism,
ZOMG $22K FROM THE GOOGLE!
Did this crank even read his own sources? The second source of funds on his own list credits the US Army for $21k in donations, the US Navy for $14k in the #3 spot.
Must be the vast liberal wing of the military or something.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 19, 2007, 09:59:31 AM
The "republican" party leadership has been neither republican nor conservative for decades it seems.
Ron Paul is getting support - hence money - from all over the place because he is taking a stand, and prepared to make a stand, and break the stranglehold an oligarchy riding a train called global socialism has had on our country for far too long.
---------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Ron Paul is getting support - hence money - from all over the place because he is taking a stand, and prepared to make a stand, and break the stranglehold an oligarchy riding a train called global socialism has had on our country for far too long.
---------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
If you want to make a visual image of that, his stand is in the basement, and he's whining out the window to a very small audience of wild-eyed people in tinfoil hats who then go bellowing and gibbering about the city until they get arrested.
Funny thing, I've never seen a Ron Paul sticker on a car that wasn't a failing rustbucket, same as Obama stickers. Could it be that he appeals to people who feel slighted by their own financial illiteracy in our capitalist system?
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 10:03:14 AM
If you want to make a visual image of that, his stand is in the basement, and he's whining out the window to a very small audience of wild-eyed people in tinfoil hats who then go bellowing and gibbering about the city until they get arrested.
...and who can come up with $4.3 million in a single day. Damn, that's one well-to-do "small audience of wild-eyed people"!
Post by: LAK on November 19, 2007, 11:25:54 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 20, 2007, 02:54:27 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 03:32:20 AM
If Ron Paul has "alot" of supporters, why isn't he polling worth a darn?
Lots of reasons: polls at this stage measure name-recognition more than anything else--which, in turn, is a direct function of media coverage. Paul is still clawing his way into the media's radar despite their determined efforts to pretend he doesn't exist....
Oh, I give up. You caught me. Remember that $4.3 million on Guy Fawkes day? Well, $3.9 million of it was me. I can't go on living a lie. It wasn't 37,000 donors; it was 37. The other 36 accounted for only $400,000 on top of the $3.9M that I gave. I feel better now that's off my chest.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on November 20, 2007, 05:12:06 AM