Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul Freedom Writer Educates an Obama Fan If you really don't know why this revolution is going to take a while, read this. We've got a lot of teaching to do.by John Armstrong
(libertarian)
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
NOTE: When reading this article, you can substitute the words "Ron Paul" with the name of any of the thousands of people his message has inspired who will be seeking office over the next three decades.
In a previous article I issued a challenge: if you support Barack Obama or any other candidate besides Ron Paul, read this article to find out what the President is actually supposed to do and why it is important, and then convince me that your candidate would be better at doing it than Ron Paul.
If anyone could pull it off, I vowed to publicly change my allegiance and post a picture of my voting for their candidate on this website in November. You'll have to click the link above to see the full chain of discussion that led to this, but this particular comment is so ridiculous and simultaneously emblematic of what we are fighting the Revolution against, and why fighting it ever became necessary in the first place, I had to repost it here followed by my response. Enjoy.
YOU don't understand the Constitution. YOU don't understand the fact that it was written 220 years ago in very, VERY different times. Our Constitution is one of the shortest in the world. It is this way intentionally. It is not meant to be a limiting factor in the growth of our nation - the very opposite, in fact. Ron Paul and his supporters operate under this idea that anything not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution should just not be allowed. Do you have any idea what that actually entails? There are hundreds of programs that do a great deal for this country that Ron Paul would just destroy without a second thought. Ron Paul, for example, wants to get rid of the Department of Education. Do you have any idea what that means to me? The Department of Education pays my way through college. If it weren't for the DoE, I would not be in college right now. And you think you can improve on that process? How?
Listen, I stated from the beginning that I have no desire to explain why I support Obama. I don't need to justify you why. That's why it's MY decision and not yours. But as this conversation continues, I find a more pertinant question to be: why do YOU support Ron Paul? All I ever hear from you people is "let's bring back liberty!" and (direct quote-ish) "high school economics would show you why Ron Paul is the best candidate." I've never heard a single concrete statement why he is the best.
So go ahead. Give it a shot. I don't think you can.
If you really believe the first part of what you just wrote, I can understand how you wouldn't believe that I could respond. You probably don't believe A-Rod can hit a hanging curveball out of the park either. Regardless of what you think, YES I CAN! educate you, young man. Read on.
First, if you'd actually read the previous article, you'd already understand this, then again, maybe you wouldn't. And although you have repeatedly dodged the question of why Obama, your candidate, is a better candidate to do the job than Ron Paul (notice, I said "do the job" not "win the election") I will be courteous enough to answer the question you asked me before addressing your other silly little points.
Why do I support Ron Paul?
The Job the President Swears to do on inauguration day is this:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I support Ron Paul because he has a 20 year voting record that shows that he will, without fail, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Thus I'd say "the best of (his) ability" is pretty damned good.
This whole Constitution thingy may not mean much to someone who has decided to support a candidate who voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, but just because you are ignorant (not stupid, but ignorant) doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to vote for whom you choose; it is YOUR decision, as you stated. You also said that you had no desire to explain why you support Obama. If I supported Obama and were asked to consider a simple question like "what is a President actually supposed to do?", discovered that I had no clue, and after actually learning the answer realized that my candidate was completely unfit for the job, I probably wouldn't have any desire to explain why I supported him either.
While you didn't point out that Obama was a constitutional law professor, another reader did so I'll address that here in order to save space in the comments below. As a constitutional law professor, Barack Obama would be expected to possess profound knowledge of the Constitution. As a priest, men like James Porter would be expected to possess profound knowledge of why they shouldn't molest little boys. I'm sure that priest could give a wonderful knowledge based pretty speech about how atrocious molesting children is minutes before playing "want a lollipop" with little Billy. Barack Obama actually gave a knowledge based Pretty Speech about how atrociously the reauthorization of the Patriot Act violates civil liberties (you know, the ones the 4th Amendment that outdated Constitution thing-a-ma-bob protects) immediately prior to his announcing that he would be voting FOR it. Pretty speeches don't keep little boys from getting molested, nor do pretty words keep our Constitution from getting raped.
I care about what someone says far less than I care about what they actually do. Integrity is not standing for what you "believe in" it is created by doing what you say you will do. Ron Paul said he'd defend the Constitution, so he voted NO on that bill instead of giving a pretty little speech before voting YEA. If I had a gun to your head and gave a nice speech about how horrible murder is right before I pulled the trigger, it wouldn't make me any less guilty or you any less dead.
But since what someone says seems to matter more to you than what they do here's what Dr. Paul had to say about his vote. This is what he said about the bill while the Senators were off coming up with some compromises that somehow allowed Obama to feel okay about voting in favor of since the amended bill didn't violate the Constitution quite as much and it. You can understand this difference by imagining my killing you quickly with a gun instead of bludgeoning you with a hammer. Not quite as bad, I suppose. The link also addresses your absurd assertion that the Constitution is somehow irrelevant because it is 220 years old. I'll continue that explanation for your sadly confused mind below.
Let me simplify this for you: The Constitution of the United States is nothing more than a Contract between we the people and our Government. It is a contract created by "We the People" in which we spelled out plainly the role of government. You should read the "P.S." section of the article linked at the top of the page if you actually care to find out how and why Politicians have convinced you that the Constitution is no longer relevant. It's written in terms even you can understand, and addresses an issue many Ron Paul supporters have slightly confused: Voting based on your beliefs or on "issues" is the dumbest thing you could possibly do. Now to your specific claims that I don't understand the Constitution.
As you noted, the Constitution is 220 years old and was written in very, very, Very different times. Again, the Constitution is a contract. So is marriage. If your Grandparents were married 50 years ago, and Gramps decided to pop a little blue pill and hire a hooker only to have grandma walk in and catch him violating the "forsaking all others" clause of their contract, she probably would care, right? Why would she? When that Contract was made way back in 1958 that was a very, very, Very different time. Just as violating a marriage contract intitially weakens and ultimately destroys a marriage, violating The Contract does the same thing to our Country. I could take this metaphor much further if you'd like, but I won't do it here in order to conserve space.
I have deleted this paragraph four times. Your comment about the length of the Contract is so absurd I don't know where to start. It's absurd because your assertion that the Contract was never meant to inhibit the growth of the Country is dead on. Where my brain keeps hearing twilight zone music is when I read the rest of what you wrote. It seems that you are saying "we (as in the government) obviously should be able to do more than what that short little thing allows" and then go on to equate the "growth of our country" which was caused by the freedom of our people with the growth of government and all of its agencies. Despite your political views, an absolute economic fact is that lower taxes promote growth. Think about it, if the government received 100% of your income, why would you work? By limiting the government (and thus taxes) the country does grow. So to simplify this, just understand that The Contract is short for two reasons.
1. So any citizen can read and understand it since it is so important.
2. Because it doesn't take a long, complicated contract to list all of the powers we the people decided to grant the Federal Government.
Your assertion that the government should obviously be doing more since the Contract is short is absolutely ludicrous. Congress can make all laws needed to enforce the powers granted in the contract, but none that aren't. Yet they do it anyway, and every time they do you lose a little more freedom (either in terms of economic freedom or civil liberties). I'm not okay with that. The only thing that has grown because of the Contract violating laws and regulations enacted is the government and its power--exactly what the Contract's length was intended to prevent.
In fact, our country growing larger is more of a reason for decentralization of power. Think about it like this: If you ran a business with 10 workers, you could do a good job of establishing all the policies because you'd have time to spend with all of the workers and find out what they needed to get the job done. If you ran a business of 300 employees, it would be much harder and you'd need other people managing segments. Running a business of 300 million would be absolutely impossible if you tried to control everything. The only decisions you could possibly make as the leader of a large organization without a decentralization of power would be ones that limit people's freedom in an attempt to force compliance, thus robbing them of their desire and creativity. On the contrary, if you had people you trusted underneath you to make decisions based on core principles that everyone ascribed to (unalienable rights, if you will), and allowed these trusted unit leaders to come up with specific policies for behavior and compliance that worked for their team based on what their team told them they needed to get the job done instead of trying to figure out was best for them by talking to a few of them, your business would be far more successful.
If the Founders limited the role of the federal government at a time when it probably could have done a pretty decent job of calling all the shots for the country by listening to the people, why would you possibly believe that it makes sense for it to be so large at a time when there is no way they could possibly know what policies are truly in the best interest of the people due to the country's size? The functions of the Federal Government that were truly necessary would grow in direct proportion to economic growth as total tax revenue (not tax levels) increased along with production. It won't take you long to see that this is not what is happening if you Read this.
In a moment too ironically thick to fabricate, an ad from the Federal Government telling parents that their kids didn't need a drug dealer to get drugs because they could just get them from their parents' medicine cabinets popped up when I went to get the above link. The War on Drugs is a different story for a different time, but I can't resist putting a little bit about it in here since it fits so perfectly. We the people have spent over $50 Billion dollars this year in taxes and the devaluation of our currency via government efforts like that nice pop up ad and legal enforcement of a prohibition policy that we the people never authorized them to create. But the Politicians decided it would be a good idea to protect people from themselves so they went ahead and created it anyway. By the way, the Contract was created solely to protect our rights from being infringed upon by others, including our government so that we could freely make our own choices--even if those choices kill us. As Thomas Jefferson, who wasn't at the Constitutional Convention but still had an impact on it from his work in Virginia said:
Of liberty I would say that...it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Even if those actions may kill you. If you are like Ron Paul who has never even seen anyone smoke marijuana or you are a drug fiend, your personal beliefs should have nothing to do with the way you vote. When they do, as 1 in 4 black men between 20-29 who are locked away (the majority of which are non-violent drug offenders) can tell you, someone else's rights are always affected even if they didn't violate anyone else's, when the government (I really mean politicians running the government) decides to do something about a problem without the consent of the governed.
In response to this comment:
"Ron Paul and his supporters operate under this idea that anything not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution should just not be allowed."
All I can say is this:
Dude, this isn't an "assumption" under which we operate; it is a Contract. And the Contract can be changed. If the people see a need great enough to amend (change) it, thus sacrificing some liberty in order to allow the government to solve some problem for them they can. But unless the people directly authorize the Contract's being changed, the Politicians simply aren't allowed to do something simply because they want to solve a problem for someone.
Read The last line from Article 1 Section 8. Which laws may Congress pass according to that? Exactly--the ones based on executing the powers government was given in the Constitution. Just to make sure this was perfectly clear since that line says that Congress can make these laws but doesn't expressly forbid it from making other ones, the 10th Amendement was passed.
I can just imagine the Founders writing the Bill of Rights. When they were considering Amendment 10, many of them were probably saying, "Isn't it obvious that this has already been settled back in Article 1?" And the other ones probably said, "Yeah, but damn it, you know how government is. If there is a loophole that will allow them to gain power, they'll use it. Don't you remember that war we just fought? We're not writing this for us, we're writing it for the people who will have given nothing for the freedom that we just pledged our live, liberty, and sacred honor to win. If we want to make sure they understand how important this is, we have to be very, very specific about the importance of limiting the role of the federal government." And the other guys going, "Oh, all right, this seems pretty damned redundant to me, but we might as well throw it in--but after this I'm done."
They should have added 25 more amendments that repeated exactly the same thing over and over so that it would have been enough of an oddity that even the people who slept through history and government class and possessed minimal knowledge of the Contract between them and their Government would have at least remembered that strange part that was repeated over and over again. Although the Founders were smart enough to forsee changes being necessary and providing a way for the contract to be amended by the people when those changes happened, they weren't smart enough to envision a time when Americans would take their freedom for granted to the extent that they wouldn't even bother reading the simple one page Contract.
Tonight at dinner I asked a college student who was eating with me came to mind when she thought of the Constitution. Her reply was "A list of rules", and I asked "rules for who to follow", and she said, "the people." No wonder Obama is so hell bent on making sure everyone gets a college education where professors who depend on a large federal government for their jobs can "explain" how complicated "politics" is and how "complex" the issues we are facing as a nation are.
Which brings us to your point about the Department of Education. I do understand what it would entail to abolish all of these Contract violating programs, and so does Ron Paul. He doesn't want to go back to the dark ages. He doesn't want to abolish these agencies without a second thought as you suggest. It is because he has given second thought to something that no other politician has--whether or not these programs should even exist based on their cost vs. their benefit and whether or not they are allowed to even exist under the Contract.
Even he knows that entitlement programs couldn't be cut immediately. In his economic stimulus plan, these programs and the military were the only two areas of government where funding wasn't frozen or reduced. If a person is incredibly obese, you can't have him run 25 miles a day and consume 500 calories--he would die. But you can get him to stop eating copious amounts of junk food and walk a little bit. As he gets healthier, he can do more. The longer he sticks to it, the healthier he will become and the more he'll be able to do without assistance. This is a process, not an event. People who vote for Politicians expect the event of their election to solve our nation's problems. People who understand the root cause of these problems understand that it is a long hard process, but it is worth it. We're not in horrible shape right now (if we were more people would listen to a candidate like Ron Paul), but just as the guy who was once in shape but started making poor choices and turned into the obese guy we were just talking about will eventually die if he continues to make those same choices our country will do the same.
America's government has become incredibly obese. This is the War on Obesity we should be fighting. And you can bet your sweet ass that if government starts paying for national healthcare, the War on Obesity won't be far behind ironically making government even more obese and unhealthy. Here's a great website if you'd like to help put our government on a diet.
All of these programs help some people, but they also hurt others. I had DoE loans as well. But I worked 80 hours a week during my college summers to pay them off. How can you be okay with a family's money whose children decided not to go to college paying for your education? Have you thought about how that hurts them? Probably for the same reason I was--I didn't understand the Contract so I was okay with its being violated as long is its violation benefitted me.
If these programs didn't exist, you'd be able to afford your own college education and the private sector would be healthy enough that if college really were a good education, loans would be available to you through them. If society felt that ensuring people had a college education was important and had half of their income back two things could happen: they could provide help for their fellow citizens through giving or they could decide the Federal Government would be the best way to address the issue, change the Contract to allow them to do it and give up part of their economic freedom to allow them to enforce that mandate given to them by the people. As of now, the word "education" is mentioned exactly zero times in the Contract.
And by the way, the DoE doesn't "pay" for your college education. I do. You're welcome. And the part that isn't paid for by people like me who are taxed at a very high rate is paid for by the middle class through an inflation tax when the government uses another way to get money it doesn't have--the printing of money from thin air by the mandate of a private bank called the Federal Reserve. As long as you pay your loans back, it isn't that big of a deal but grants and other things like that (which I also had) hurt everyone who doesn't receive them. Thanks to those of you older readers who helped me pay for school, sorry you didn't get to do it by choice. And thanks for the rich guys who gave me a scholarship for my first year and told me that I was smart enough to find a way to stay there if I wanted to--you were right. I'm sorry that you can't do more for people like me.
If you support Obama, I'm guessing you aren't okay with the War in Iraq. Unfortunately, you probably don't support the war because you "feel" that it is "wrong" instead of not supporting it because it violated your Contract since it wasn't issued by Congress as outlined in Article 1, Section 8. If you understood this, you'd understand that simply voting for someone because you're "sick of the status quo" (which I just heard an Obama supporter at this coffee house say was the only thing to consider when you decided to vote) may end the war but it wouldn't solve any problems because it doesn't address the real issue.
Fixing something of value by "changing it" is like having a '57 Chevy that's rusted out and doesn't run that well and deciding that it needs to be changed. It is a car that when in great condition has incredibly high value, but to simply "change" it would imply doing something along the lines of changing its tires. This would help improve performance, but before long the tires would wear down and need to be changed again. If you made enough changes, it eventually wouldn't even resemble the thing that once was worth a great deal when in great condition. If you really wanted to make this car worth something, you'd have to Restore it. America doesn't need change, we need a restoration. It's harder, and it takes longer, but it's worth it.
Just voting for someone who believes something doesn't give them the right to do what they believe in if they are elected. It would if this were a one-branch straight democratic form of government, but it isn't. It is a republic. And until the Contract is scrapped completely (and there is a clause in Article Five that would essentially allow the PEOPLE to do this if we wish) and we start all over again, it is still the Contract in effect for this country.
Obama is right when he says "we" need to do something about the problems facing America. But "we" are the people. If he is elected, he will be the government. By "uniting" people under the banner of "Yes WE Can!" he is further confounding the situation by basically saying that if he is elected "we" give him the right to do what he wants to "change" America. If "We the People" were fully free, I'm quite certain that 300,000,000 people would do a better job of solving a problem than 536. If "We the People" decided to allow the government to solve the problem, "we" could change the Contract and allow them to do it. Doing it any other way is always going to divide the country because half of it is going to disagree with any "change" made.
Voting for anyone who doesn't understand this is no different than saying, "I don't really give a damn if someone else's rights are violated as long as the rights being violated aren't mine, and I believe in the cause for which those other people's rights are being violated." If you can't read that last sentence and see it everywhere from Iraq, Gitmo, our overcrowded prisons, and the Patriot Act, you are dumber than you seem.
There was once another country which was facing problems and wanted change. The people of that country allowed another great speaker to rise to power in the late 1930's. He was incredible at eloquently and passionately explaining what he saw as the major problems his country was facing. The solution to these problems was "Change", all the people had to do was chant a catchy slogan in unison, believe that he was actually right about the cause of the problems, give up a little freedom, and all their problems would go away. Everyone knew there were problems, but not everyone agreed with his assessment of the cause of those problems or his Final Solution to them--but they didn't speak up, or stand up for the people whose property was taken or destroyed as they were categorized solely as a collective group with no individual rights and carted away. By the time these few good people may have decided to actually do something, it was too late.
So if you are an Obama supporter and won't change your vote after reading this article, please encourage your candidate to show his integrity by keeping his word about his Oath in order to truly return the power to the people he inspires.
Since that isn't likely to happen, have fun voting for your charismatic candidate, I think I'll stick to the boring old man who never changes who I know I can trust to protect my rights by fulfilling his Oath no matter what. And it might not matter this year, but I still believe enough in America to think that when it does happen it won't be too late. The Revolution is nigh. Our Obama is out there somewhere. We can't wait to meet you.
As always, unlike the NFL, any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings on other blogs or social network sites is expressly granted to anyone for the cause of Restoring our Republic.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 222 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
John, you find the way to word feelings that i find bottled up inside of me demanding to get out. because i read what you said, i will better be able to defend myself in my own life.
This article proves that he's merely a tool for the world government and promoter of a tax to be paid to the UN to fuel its totalitarian control over us and to redistribute the wealth to other countries.
"A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."
"The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000)."
"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."
An Obama presidency would be racist and a disaster for the USA.
In one of Obama's campaign offices, there is even a flag with a picture of a murderous Marxist dictator on it!
Read the rest here: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2008/ck_02131.shtml
I have heard that ridiculous comment about the cost of education soaring should we (heaven forbid) dispense with the Department of Education. Here is a reference for you. When I began college in the Texas State University System in 1952 each Engineering student was required to take 21 semester hours each of the first two semesters. My total tuition for each semester was (ready?) EXACTLY $25. And, I am not talking per hour.
Of course there was no NEA, low overhead, average teacher salary of $7200 per annum for nine months, and a small subsidy from the Texas taxpayers.
By the way, unlike today, Teachers graded the students and education was the goal. I met algebra at 8:00 AM six days a week and the professor reminded us that he believed in homework. He promised not to mention it if we missed a day, but that he would remind us if we missed the second day. Then for emphasis, he told us if we missed the third day he would kick our a$$ out of school. And, you know, he could do it!
Now, I hire people and my how our educational system has advanced. They are dumber than dirt. I have served on the remedial education board of our local University. 97% of the students coming into that program fail the math test and 85% fail the English test. And, the tests are elementary.
If I remember correctly, we were the most literate nation before public education. I believe that today after public education we are now number 7. And, if I remember correctly the first State Board of Education and the first Public High School and the first Truancy Laws began in Massachusetts.
Interesting that you bring up accurate observation of literacy and the board of education. To be precise, the decline started in 1961 and it wasn't just the dept of education but was date coincident with the start of federal funding for psychology learning/teaching programs. Academic level never recovered.
And this other guy supports Obama, why exactly? Oh that's right, he doesn't HAVE to explain why...but apparently YOU did.
And the lack of explanation proves there is no GOOD reason to support any candidate except Ron Paul for the job.
If only they would actually spend that good ol' DoE money on EDUCATION [actual history, math, real science, LOGIC] instead of INDOCTRINATION [government is always right, history is all wrong, etc.].
[def.] American: noun, 1. a person residing in the USA, 2. a slave to Television
I found it quite difficult to read your entire article. Actually I gave up after reading about 25% of it.
(I, it should be noted, am a large contributor to the Ron Paul for President campaign and, if I voted, would certainly vote for Ron Paul.)
You are in dire need of someone to proofread your articles. I hereby volunteer; qualifications upon request.
I would point out one factual error: I, one of The People, never went into contract with anyone concerning The United States. ("The Constitution of the United States is nothing more than a Contract between we the people and our Government. It is a contract created by 'We the People' in which we spelled out plainly the role of government.")
I would be very happy if you and other readers herein would direct your attention to the (rather long) article posted at this website: http://halebobb.com/treason.htm Mr. Spooner, whose words are featured in the above article explains most eloquently who "the people" were who created the contract. You will see quite plainly that I was not one. Mr. Spooner is not a "black helicopter" enthusiast; I'm sure he's never heard of The Bilderberg Group...
Nik on RonPaulRadio this Valentines morning put it perfectly - supporting Obamination is 'trendy' - it's a real yuppie thing to say you support a black man.
True Native Americans scorn their 'apples' - red on the outside, white on the inside. True Blacks scorn their 'oreos' - black on the outside, white on the inside. Obama is an oreo. I have heard him referred to as 'charismatic' - but then heard him interviewed and could Not understand how that word could be used to describe such a weak man. He is being allowed to run by the CFR insiders. This truly is dangerous.
I think mandatory elementary, middle school, and high school Constitution classes would turn this country around 10 years after implementation. This will never happen because the powers that be can't afford to have the majority of American citizens know what's in the Constitution.
What that reader wrote made me so F'ing furious.Quote, "The Department of Education pays my way through college. If it weren't for the DoE, I would not be in college right now."I’m a 38yo middle class, hard working computer programmer from a blue collar family. I fix my own old cars (even put an engine in), I fix my own old fixer upper house (plumbing, masonry, carpentry, roofing, electrical,… you name it, I’ve done it. I’m being taxed to death. I want kids and want to help pay for their college but with my income paying this moocher’s college through the DOE, (among the million other programs I didn’t vote to pay for), I don’t think I’ll ever have the money to have children and I do want them. I won’t just have kids without planning well for their future. I don’t want to rely on anyone else but myself. I’m a true hard working American that believes in our freedoms. I’m not some socialist communist moocher.I say this guy should get the hell out of our country (go to Russia) and get his free education from somewhere else. I worked in High School, I worked in college, my parents helped when they could and I had to pay back CC debt after I got out which took many years.
Hey guy that wrote that response, if the government didn’t tax so high, deflate our currency, then you could get a job, save and pay your own way through college. Take it from my unborn child’s future…. Ggrrrrrr (add revenge quotes here)
Excellent article - your best to date by far. Might want to touch up the grammar and see if dailypaul or some other site would post it.
Thanks for the nice read.
I have to go to class, so I cannot take the time to respond to your novel just yet. I would, however, like to address Watcher's point.
I pay income tax. It amounted to about $0.50/hr of my wages at my last job. Of course if you added that up over time it'd be a pretty significant amount. And yes, if the government didn't tax that, I'd have more money right now. However, the same guy who wants to lower these taxes so I get more money also voted against raising the minimum wage, somehow thinking that private corporations who are only concerned with money want to give me a raise for no apparent reason. So if I vote Ron Paul, I look forward to lower taxes...on my much lower wage. Great.
Also, fuck you for telling me to go to Russia. I worked my ass off in high school to get grades and test scores good enough to earn my scholarships and my aid money. Don't you EVER insinuate that I didn't earn that. By the way, the DoE will pay your kids college too. You just have to apply - it's really easy.
Eloquent and direct...nice 1-2 combo. Anyone w/ any brains at all can see that RP is the only one w/ plans laid out that will actually work, and the integrity to follow through w/ them. However, it's unfortunate that the majority of the country is so stupid, they believe anything that comes out of the TV. Only we, the few who can think for themselves, can see what is plainly going on, and until that changes, we, the few, are screwed.
Watcher, I'm in the same boat. I decided that I'm not going to just have kids and mooch off the gov.(taxpayers) it ain't right! although I am 35, my clock is about to expire and the revolution won't change things that quickly.
Charles, didn't you get that BoE paying for your college is from the taxpayers ie.-me??? I payed 35% of my income last year to taxes and made only 45K. I took home around 28K, all because I owned my own business which by the way went under w/ Real Estate as it was a brokerage. AND I worked my a$$ off about 60-70 hours a week without health insurance. Why even bother going to college, when you get out you'll be facing this?? I went for 4 years and had a GPA of 3.8 when I graduated... sending resumes out now and up against grads who work for less. Good luck w/ reality when you graduate....you'll find out soon enough what we're talkin bout.
I just want to reply to Charles. Charles, would you goto your neighbors' house and point a gun at him and tell him to fund projects that you like but he may not? If you wouldn't, then why woudl it be OK to allow the govt to do the same? That's what these taxes for YOUR education amounts to. if you had studied a little harder, or gone to a private school (like I), you might just have realized that on your own. It's nice to know that you worked hard to earn good grades, but does that make you somehow more special than anyone else w/ the same kind of grades that worked their way through college and graduated more than 50 years ago? I think the opposite holds true there. You feel you are "entitled" to it, and that is what is wrong w/ todays' generation. You've had everything handed to you for the very minimum of efforts and you've become spoiled because of it. Yes, you EARNED your grades in HS, but that should not "entitle" you to a college education funded by John Q. Taxpayer. That only thing your grades should have earned you was your HS Diploma. Right now, you should be learning that, in real life, you have to PAY for the things we want, not rob your nieghbor for it. Since my tax money is going to your education, I'd like to recommend an ethics class, and maybe even a Bible study class so that you can better understand morals. Most importantly, learn to be self-sufficient, and stop asking for handouts, you bum...earn it yourself, that's the way real men walk. Can you grok that?
God Charles! You are really getting ripped off! That "education" you're getting free with my tax dollars just isn't working! You are so unbelievably ignorant it's not funny!
You plan on getting minimum wages after graduating college?? Are you majoring in dishwashing?
Scholarships are indeed earned, but your aid money is directly stolen from those of us who work and redistributed to thieves like you.
Yes, go to Russia. They are devolving back to authoritarian Communism, a system you will be very comfortable with. Or you could go to Cuba. They have free healthcare, you know?
PS I earn upwards of 40X the minimum wage per hour. And I never could afford college...
Charles, I didn't say you didn't earn the grades to go to college but I am paying for part of your college and you DID NOT earn that from me. No offense but I don't know you and I don't want to pay for it.
What Theresa said is correct, wait until you enter the world of where the destruction of the middle class exists. I don't have time to point out everything right now; working, paying for your class.
good luck getting a straight thorough answer from anybodys campaign. I've targeted Hillary, Obama, the Huck and McCain in some of their blogs. Ofcourse my comments get deleted or just ignored by bloggers. i just posted one on ABC, it was under the title" obama disses mccain", please some of you guys log onto there and help me get an answer out of these people. i have been banned from posting on the site,but i can blog on some topics. don't know why?
I agree it could have been shorter, but it's still a great read.
I'm not sure exactly how you can posit a pro-consitution argument as a sound bite, but this is what I've been toying with:
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. When you ignore it, you ignore the rule of law. There is no public good without the rule of law.
Of course, the last bit is I suspect what Obama supporters disagree with most sharply: they'd probably argue that the rule of law must bend to the public good. At that point we inject fifteen pages of objectively collected empirical data and classical western dialectic into the argument, thoroughly crushing that notion but also competing with American Idol for America's attention.
Charles...
People like you need to realize that minimum wage jobs are for kids who need a job during High School or during the summer...maybe even college students, but to a lesser extent. Anyone who thinks that society should foot the bill to make their minimum wage job pay them enough to live comfortably really should move to Russia.
Secondly, raising minimum wage is one of the fastest ways to kill off the middle class. Where do you think that money comes from? The corporation has to foot that bill, and then they pass it on to customers. So great...John A. Dumbass at McDonald's now makes $8.50 an hour, but the college intern down the street making $10.00 just lost a good deal of buying power, because now he must pay $7.50 for a Big Mac Meal instead of $5.50. When minimum wage goes up, most other jobs don't compensate for that. Lower taxes puts more money in your pocket AND increases the amount of money businesses are allowed to keep, resulting in lower prices. Sure, John A. Dumbass at McDonald's won't be able to live comfortably, which gives motivation to get a better job and/or seek higher education, but those on the lower end of the middle class are saved from joining the ranks of the poor. Where did the determination to work hard to better your situation go in this day and age? Everyone thinks everything should be given to them...
Guess what, I worked my ass off in High School to get good grades. Then after school I went to work and worked my ass of to make money to feed and clothe myself. Then I went to college and repeated the same routine. Going to High School and getting good grades does not constitute "working your ass off" if that is all you had to do.
Oh, and last but not least, no the DOE will not automatically pay for you. Your operating under the whole notion that you pay into the system, and then the system pays you back, but that isn't how it works.
The DoE did not help me on the basis that my parents make too much money. Together, they net about $100k/year(before taxes), with two college-aged kids to put through college, and one highschool aged kid who has to go to a private school because of the low quality public schools in our area.
So, my college is funded by scholarships, private loans that I must pay back, and my hard work while going to college, because I realize that my brothers need the help from our parents more than I. The system gives me nothing, and yet I am expected to pay for your sorry ass? No thanks, I rather need my money at the moment.
I think everyone is being a little too harsh to convince Charles of anything. The more you push the more he will dig in his heels. We are attacking his beliefs and we all take those very personally.
Charles, you might just want to go away and think this over. Don't worry about going toe to toe with this whole comment section. It is your vote like you said and I think everyone here would agree that they really want more informed voters. John's original article about voting based on who could best fulfil the job description (Oath) is an important point of view to consider but you will have to come to that on your own. The bottom line is that the government is overspending now and that equates to a loss in buying power for you and me. All the wonderful, well intentioned, programs of the other candidates are ignoring that because they know that people are greedy and want something for nothing. So the govt. makes promises that are sweet. The people eat them up. Many don't even realize that THEY, themselves are the ones paying to keep the promises. That's great when you like the promise but what about those that don't and don't benefit? They get robbed. If you really want to know what all the people talking about HS Econ class are referring to please watch this short vid:
It is a short video on the history of the Federal Reserve and where our money comes from. It explains why the money in your pocket is losing value as you read this. The system has only one possible outcome and that IS inflation.
If you do anything at all regarding this article, please first watch this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
I think it will help you see where we Ron Paul people are coming from when we talk about liberty. Please watch it even if you never post again here. Then if you are curious about why people keep using the "socialist" term when talking about all the other candidates please watch this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA
It is about Idividualism Vs. Collectivism and will explain why many think it is important that the constitution be upheld over someone espousing this or that new program. Namely so that we will all have the leeway to think and do and be all we are capable of as a species. Best wishes on your journey and in your education.
First off I'd just like to say I never "dodged" the question in regards to why Obama is my candidate of choice. I flat out said I would not answer it because it is virtually meaningless to explain to you when nothing I can say will remotely change your mind.
You guys often say that Ron Paul's voting record shows that he will defend the Constitution. I say that is one way of interpreting it. I have little doubt that this is his intention; I'm not calling him a liar by any means. But what you see as supporting the constitution, I quite often see as contrary to the health of the country. Ron Paul often votes against pro-abortion legislation not because he is against abortion per se, but because he claims the states have the rights to decide. Of course then he tries to ban abortion at the federal level (Sanctity of Life Act), so I guess he's not above the feds telling us what to do as long as its in line with his beliefs.
I fully understand that taxes pay for my education (among other things). I have no problem with this. The vast majority of American citizens have no problem with this. I mean, if you want to sit there and say you specifically pay for my education because you pay taxes, then I guess I can say I pay for my education as well because I, too, pay taxes. Also, while some of my aid money is in the form of grants, a large portion is private scholarships that are in no part funded by you.
I'm not at all OK with the war, obviously. I don't like the fact that it was not approved by Congress; however, Congress has had a few opportunities to cut off funding to it and has failed to do so. This is part of the reason why their approval rating is lower than Bush's. By the way, Congress has the power to declare war, not fight it. The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the military, a power granted to him by the Constitution. As such he has complete command over the United States armed forces and, given the funding, can pretty much deploy them at will. This sucks, especially considering my previously-mentioned fact that Congress rarely denies funding. You can try all you want to prevent the President from ordering troops around, but ironically you'd have to violate the Constitution. Even more ironically: I sort of agree with you here. Commander-in-Chief sounds great when it's George-fucking-Washington. Doesn't work so well with civilians.
I think we all understand that when a President is elected, a significant majority of the population basically gets shafted. This why we have the House, so if the will of the people changes quickly they can elect new representatives rather quickly. This is also why we have the Senate, so the people can't get pissed on a whim and elect crazies to the government. Checks and balances...it works pretty well until you get an authoritative president and a pussy-whipped Congress. This is one way in which I think a Ron Paul presidency would be good: checks and balances would work to their full extent because Congress would absolutely hate everything he is trying to do, not to mention the Supreme Court.
How dare you compare Obama to Adolf Hitler. Are you fucking crazy? Both are eloquent speakers, both are politicians, and both want change. Obama wants change by getting rid of Bush. Hitler wanted change by KILLING JEWS. Do you see the disconnect there? I don't understand if you just got angry or what near the end of your essay, but you sounded almost as racist as Ron Paul himself.
Oh, yes, I pulled that shit out. I love mentioning Ron Paul's newsletter because there are basically two sides to it: either he wrote some of the most racist bullshit in recent memory, or he didn't. I for one think he did, and if you were to say otherwise you'd basically just be hoping, becuase 'ol Ronny's statements on the matter have never been clear. However, if I become the devil's advocate and believe for a moment that what was written in the Ron Paul Political Report was NOT written by one Ronald Paul of Texas, then it raises a great question.
If Ron Paul does not have the organizational capacity to run a newsletter, how can he possibly run the most powerful government in the world?
I am task and trade educated. This means after a very basic high school education, reality and survival took all options away. So I learned what I was made of. What were my strengths and weaknesses? I built character and I learned discipline. To the amazement of many I achieved personal and financial success all without the D.O.E. diplomas are nice and in allot of cases necesasary, Lord knows. However is this who we are or is our over educated population missing the point of a well crafted contract called the Constitution and Our Bill of Rights. Without this document my education, the color of my skin, how much money I have or don't have, or any of many things would define who I am. Me and only me determines who or what I am. These are our rights and without them we are nothing, a mere tax paying unit, a number, a class low middle or high. I am free to make choices there for I am not entitled to anything. With this document we are equal without this document we are vulnerable to the powers to be.
Interesting conumdrum you present concerning Dr. Paul's organizational abilities, Charles. I don't think it is valid though. He did have another job and sometimes people to whom we delegate matters let us down. I have never heard a racist remark exit Dr. Paul's mouth. If you have heard such a remark please enlighten me. It occurs to me that if he would be willing to put racist remarks in writing he would certainly have verbalized them.
As far as income redistribution is concerned I believe it is inefficient in the extreme. You have to hire all those folks to manage the program so that the net effect is moving people from the productive to the non-productive sector of our ecomomy. And, welfare of any description really destroys people. A sense of entitlement and dependency never helped anyone.
I worked my way through college. I worked a 40 hour week and went to night school for the last four years. I would study until midnight and leave for work the next morning before the wife and kids were up. They only saw me on the evenings when I didn't have class or weekends. There was no Department of Education and yet I got it done.
I had an unusual year this time around and my tax bill to the Feds and State came to about $700-thousand. I cannot imagine what my taxes would have been if it had not been for John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. I fear it went down a black hole when it could have been used to produce more jobs in the private sector. Of course, they were only FRN's. So, I just think we have been going the wrong direction for a very long time.
BTW, minimum wage laws are nothing more than a prohibition against you and I making mutually agreeable contracts.
Best.
Like I said, I don't think there is much evidence that the racist remarks were his opinions, but as far as I know he has yet to definitively deny it. Frankly, I don't care how busy you are, if you can't prevent your own newsletter from printing phrases such as "fleet-footed negro," you don't deserve to be president.
And as for minimum wage laws, regardless of the economic impact of them, it's just another example of Paul's unfounded trust in corporations to do the right thing for no apparent reason. Given that Paul supporters are so pissed at corporate media for ignoring him (which may be a good thing considering the newsletter, which they would just eat up), I don't see how you can support getting rid of so many corporate restrictions.
Your reference to Dr. Paul's Sanctity of Life Act leads me to believe that you posess a different conception of liberty than Dr. Paul. If you accept the definition of life as the organic phenomenon that distinguishes living organisms from nonliving ones, then to cause that phenomenon to cease in a human would certainly mean that you have deprived someone of their life. You have murdered them. If the constitution is going to protect (human) life then it appears that there is ample case to consider his proposal constitutional.
If our government no longer heeds the constitution, then the citzens have no protection. What would prevent the government imposing mandatory abortions? That is the purpose of our constitution. Without it we are naked.
S am
PS If my suspicion was correct and you didn't watch the vids (esp Philosophy of Liberty) I posted then it will be difficult to reach an understanding.
The real problem with Corporations is their collusion with government. When oleo came out the butter industry immediately lobbied congress for price controls. This has been going on for a long time. Congress should pass no laws that do not foster and encourage competition and all Corporate welfare should stop. Under those circumstances the free enterprise system would self regulate. Most employment in this country is in small business. Without the collusion of government small business can drive big business to be competitive or hit the road.
Dr. Paul believes in freedom not Corporations, because in a free environment, cream rises to the top.
I am sure you assign altruistic motives to those who pass the minimum wage laws. On the other hand, I just think they are buying votes from those who can't see what is really going on.
The government power brokers play games to befuddle the masses. The Bush tax cuts are a prime example. They had the immediate effect of spurring the economy. But the effect cannot be sustained unless the tax cuts were accompanied by a corresponding reduction in spending. It is like a first order differential equation. The first guy gets the benefits, but with the money supply expanding inflation soon takes over and costs rise in proportion.
Government, not business, is the problem. Freedom is the answer. That is why I support Dr. Paul.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." - L. Long
Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee; their entire purpose for running for president is simply to become the president. They will say and do anything to acheive that goal. To the contrary of the entirety of what they say, their sole and only goal is to be the President of the United States. There is nothing in their individual documentable history that demonstrates anything altruistic in their character. The goal is to feed their egos, to achieve that career goal, to wield the big stick, to be the "Leader of the Free World", to have hot and cold running blow jobs like good ole' Bill (and be able to lie to the entire country and get away with it). The aphrodesiac of power has over loaded their power of reason and like any drug addict they will say and do anything to get that fix.
And from what I have seen and experienced on other forums and blogs, the detractors of the freedom message will say and do anything to seperate Ron Paul from any vote at all, even if it's only one. The truth is irrelevant to these people; derailing the Paul candidacy is the point.
And if they manage to get the Paul supporters distracted, angry and off track, so much the better.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-15 03:28:41
Charles,
Your response was eloquent. Well stated. However, your education must continue. It will be Saturday or Sunday before I can get to it, but I won't neglect my responsibility to enlighten you as my fellow citizen.
And you could change my mind, by the way, all you'd have to do is prove to me that he is the best candidate.
And after re-reading the last article, I do apologize for some of the demeaning words like "silly" when responding for shock effect.
Thanks for writing such thorough responses, and being a good sport about their repostings. I'm sorry that I have failed to help you see the simplicity of this so far.
I will address one issue here though: The Adolf Hitler analogy is fair. Had it been based solely on speaking ability, then it wouldn't have been. I will respond more fully this weekend, but this is why it's fair: Obama has no problem violation the Contract as his voting record shows.
Because of this, there is nothing to safeguard our freedom or impede the growth of the federal government.
Hitler's solution was not to kill the Jews. His solution was to use the problem he blamed the Jews for creating as a reason to grow the federal government's power to the point that individual citizens had no rights or protection against government aggression. It was only after the government had succeeded in wresting all control of power from the people that the Jews were killed.
I'm not implying that Obama would round up people and kill them. I am implying that by not keeping his Oath of Office, there is nothing to stop the people's rights from being violated or the government from growing to the size where he (or the next President who continued this pattern) could. And even if it wasn't done in concentration camps, or nobody was ever killed, once our freedom is gone we might as well be dead.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-15 03:45:30
RM,
I thought about this with the Fox News thing a while back when people were busy boycotting Fox instead of knocking on doors.
Ron Paul is not going to win this election by winning primaries. His only chance is in a brokered convention which looks quite unlikely to happen. And then, it would take a massive movement by the people to get him the nomination.
But to even focus on the election is missing the point, and I did the same thing when I wrote articles about how he should hire Karl Rove and how poorly he was campaigning. The election may have gotten us interested, but it is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
This is the opening stanza of the Second Revolution. This time it won't be done with guns, but it will be done with ammo. I'm trying to provide as much as possible for my fellow revolutionaries. I may never help Charles unravel the tangled web of deceit and see the simplicity of all this, but his postings are so perfectly typical that my colloquial, plain language responses can be used to help enighten the supporter of any candidate in this or future elections.
It may not be until Dr. Paul is dead, but there is zero doubt that the only options available for our country after a few more elections of people who have no idea what their job is will be either for this Revolution to succeed or to start all over as an EU style government with a new Constitution. I prefer the former, which is why I am doing all I can to arm the troops early.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-15 03:58:10
Doc,
You're welcome to proofread my articles, but if you'll notice they get cleaner as time goes on. I go back again and again and again--After they are posted. You just happened to be among the first to read it. I also write when I'm tired and sloppy since I work all day and into the evening which doesn't help.
Email me and I'll be glad to give you my login info; you can edit whatever you'd like as long as you don't change the meaning.
I haven't read your link yet, but it sounds like a sovereign citizen movement thing from the way you described it. I am slightly familiar with this, but will read the article nonetheless.
And if the Constitutution isn't a Contract, I don't know what is. There's clearly consideration, clearly defined expectations, etc. To argue this point is counterproductive. Simplicity sells. By my estimation, I'm about 6 months away from being able to understand this stuff well enough to put it into 1-3 incredibly powerful paragraphs. Right now, I'm flushing out ideas myself to get to this point.
When I am writing, I don't choose the words, they write themselves. Sorry if they didn't do a good job of that ;).
In my opinion, the individual and (very) personal point of the vote is very much what it is all about. And for the "establishment" to have it's full effect on We The People, they will have to take as many votes as they can. You see, this is about power, this is about control. So yes, this is even about the establishment taking as many of the votes as they can, for the purpose of showing and telling us that they are very much in control and demonstrating to us that we will toe their line.
And to win this war they know that they are going to have to demoralise us to the point that we all lay down and either quit or die, and to show the sheeple that resisting them is futile.
This war is as much about attaining a goal as it is about proving a point.
It occures to me that I should probably add that I know and understand that this war doesn't end in November, as should we all.
And neither will the establishment stop with simple demoralisation, otherwise they wouldn't have enacted laws such as the Patiot Act or H.R. 5122 [109th]: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which now legally allows the federal government the legal authority to turn the US military against the US citizens, should they decide that we are a threat.
oh. my. God. this article was phenomenal. it summarizes everything I love about Ron Paul and his campaign and his ideals (and then some). this kind of intellectual stimulation is good for anyone who doesn't want his brain to turn to mush two months after he graduates from college.
"And as for minimum wage laws, regardless of the economic impact of them, it's just another example of Paul's unfounded trust in corporations to do the right thing for no apparent reason."
No, Charles, it's an example of how Ron Paul understands basic economics...something that nearly all other candidates and politicians in Washington don't understand.
Further, regarding the "comparison" of Obama to Hitler, you should to read "Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. It was written in 1944 about England's move towards socialism, from which Germany's Nazism was born, despite the ongoing war with Germany. I'm sure that Obama's motives for his socialist ideas are good, but then so were Marx's when he devised the socialist system. It's the result that matters. And socialism leads to facism.
Not to mention that socialist/collectivist ideas go completely counter the ideas that this country were founded on and are totally and completely inefficient ways to help those that need it most. Basic economics tells us this, and history shows that free market solutions are the best, most efficient way to pull people from poverty and to grow wealth for a nation. It has been shown in nation after nation, in every decade. East and West Germany were the poster child for controlled test cases in the argument for collectivism vs. individulalism.
You are also wrong in your assumption about free market capitalism being about hoping corporations "do the right thing". That's the bueaty of free markets. The motivation of the people involved in the markets are not important. What is important is that the transfer of resources between disinterested parties increases the personal wealth of both, and thereby increases the "size of the pie" for the nation as a whole. In fact, history has shown that free markets, without wage laws, actually help minorities more than having wage laws. Price supports increase supply and lower demand, meaning employers can be more descriminate in the people they hire...as shown by employment and compensation of blacks in the 40's and 50's when inflation had in effect nulled the minimum wage.
To help you get a beter understanding of the basic concepts of free market economics, I suggest checking out Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, A Citizens Guide To The Economy. Another great read with regard to free markets and how they relate to liberty and freedom is Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom.
Its not worth argueing with Charles, he's of the younger generation where the state has become his mom and dad. He thinks because he got good grades in high school (like who didn't), he deserves to have everyone else pay his way through school. His reality will dramatically change in the future when he realizes that Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, McCain are all from the same mold. The only guy being completely blacklisted from the main stream media is Ron Paul because his message will actually change what this nation has become, a f-upped mess. If Obama actually meant what he sometimes preaches, he would be blacklisted as well so its obvious the media knows better.
So vote for Obama, but when you get out of college and your taxes on your 40hr a week job are at 50% of your pay, don't come back crying to us because we probably will have moved to Canada by then or even Switzerland(my favorite), where fascism is still somewhat under control. You seem to be a smart kid, but you lack wisdom which only come from years of living through BS... Your not there yet. I recommend you really read and study what people here are telling you, they may just know something you don't and actually lived throught it.
I'm still trying to sift through the cognitive dissonance of an "eloquent" argument that contains f-bombs and assorted other profanity. If you can't state your arguments cleanly, calmly and without resorting to personal attacks, it's usually a sign that the arguments need work.
Of course, that's par for the course in the national "debates", so perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised. Style (disagreeable at that) over substance, and all that.
I have three kids. Both my wife and I have college degrees and are making allot more then min wage.
I am barely making ends meet. Fifty years ago, a family could get by with just one person working in most cases.
We have greatly increased the size and scope of our government since. I believe that this is the cause of my current financial situation.
Charles, I personally believe that if we change the
Casualty, permit me to reinforce your comment, as I am probably the only guy around here old enough. When I graduated from college in 1961 after nine years on and off night school I went to work in Texas for Collins Radio making $610 per month. I bought a new home and the monthly payment on the mortgage amounted to 15% of my monthly income. I bought a nice used car on a two year note. And, with only me working we still had discretionary funds left over each month. Now, in the same town it takes 40% of the combined income of both parents to pay for housing. The cost of government started to accelerate about this time and the mothers began to march on the meat market, as though the butcher had anything to do with it, and the feminists were complaining about equal opportunity, equal pay, and the glass ceiling and yet none of them were asking why they had to work. They just did not see the growth of government moving people from the productive to the non-productive sector of our economy as the cause. Smoke and mirrors. Your comment is dead on.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-16 01:27:37
Charles,
This article just happens to be about Obama. You could just as easily insert any other candidate's name (minus the incredible speaker aspect) and make the same argument.
RON PAUL = KKK I cannot believe you bought into the conspiracy garbage Ron Paul has been using to trick people into voting for him. It has all been debunked. The map Ron Paul shows of the scary NAFTA Superhighway is a real-life map of how the highways in the US stand TODAY. And I do not want some answer back about how the media and every other candidate is controlled by the Bildeberg group. Why is Ron Paul the only politician in the world that is not controlled by this secret group? Typical politician scare tactics. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html Read Ron Paul's own website and tell me he is not the definition of RACIST. There is a mountain of evidence that points to his involvement in the KKK. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/ http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/27/011749.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CywY2581UFQ&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5isJiavJXpY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCLfJCqIEN8&feature=related http://www.mediamouse.org/features/072007michi.php http://phenry.dailykos.com/ On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amen 04/25/2007 House Roll Call No. 259 110th Congress, 1st Session Passed: 425-1 (see complete tally) H. Con. Res. 7, amended, to call on the League of Arab States to acknowledge the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan and to step up their efforts to stop the genocide in Darfur, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 425 yeas to 1 nay, Roll No. 259 Your beloved Ron Paul voted nay. You think he is a good guy? Think again. I got this source from www.congress.org. I could go on and on, but I do not think it is necessary. Ron Paul would be the worst thing to ever happen to the US and the Constitution!
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-17 16:35:15
supervoter,
Let me translate your answer for the audience:
"I believe that groups have rights; not individuals, therefore, it is okay for a candidate to vote for things if they sound good and seemingly accomplish an ideological purpose, regardless of evidence that such measures ultimately fail or worsen the problem they were proposed to fix, and I'm okay with these votes even if the vote violates a Contract they swore to uphold which inevitably violates the individual rights of American Citizens."
Your comment here is related to neither the article nor the string of comments preceding it. There is no cost to become a columnist here so why not type your rant out in a column where other's can comment instead of polluting this comment section with COMPLETELY debunked libelous swill? The following remarks are for those that believe Ron Paul is a racists. The rest of the waking world can simply skip to the next comment.
Then you referenced Ron Paul's web site which only served to back up the Good Doctor's reputation as a freedom loving, libertarian constitutionalist. When you write your column, perhaps you can reveal your “mountain of evidence” since it seems to be missing in the links that you gave. Maybe you thought if you just posted links it would look like you had done some credible research. I watched the videos you posted. The CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer seems fair enough if you get past the flashy graphics and listen to Ron's rebuttal. Granted, that rebuttal wouldn't mean much if he didn't have the record to back it up. Unfortunately for you, the president of NAACP from Texas, Nelson Linder, who has known Dr. Paul for 20 years, unequivocally vouched that Ron Paul is not a racist. Here is the address:
The media mouse link does not mention Ron Paul at all! Duh.
The dailykos link you gave was CORRECT when they stated, “And it's worth reiterating that there's no indication that anyone at the national or Michigan campaigns were familiar with Gray's affiliations; nor is it reasonable, as De Angeli states, to expect that the campaign perform background checks on every volunteer coordinator for each of 83 counties.”
So, here is my link for your edification supervoter:
You probably want to read it through before you write your column.
The saddest part of this whole thing is that if you really loved the kernel which made the USA great then you could perceive that Dr. Paul's position is truly in the favor of you and your children. Whereas the positions of every other candidate's position is in favor of business (and ultimately the banking industry). We were a great nation; we were the place people wanted to escape to because of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are seeing them systematically destroyed and sitting by passively without care for those that will inherit our dept, our chains.
Congratulations, you have just derailed a wonderful comment section and sadly I am guilty of the cardinal sin of feeding the trolls.
Sam
PS Please take the time to write an article so that others can hear your point of view.
I'm going to address the one and only thing that you mentioned that was new, and that hasn't already been throughly debunked. You mentioned the vote about Darfur being 425 congresscritters vs Ron Paul. Did you stop to wonder why? Did you take the time to research "Dr. No's" position?
I haven't either myself, but having read part of his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" I can tell you that Ron Paul has a history of standing up and saying 'NO, Not authorized by the Constitution' even if he's the only one saying it. We as Americans have no clue what is actually going on in Darfur, we don't know the history, we don't know the situation, and we presumably aren't going to do anything except "condemn" it. Why not? Because there is no blood money to be wrought from it. We already have enough war to keep the Military Industrial Complex chugging for years, no need to start something else.
Dr. Paul also has a history of voting NO against these sorts of votes because they can often lead to further, more "strongly" worded condemnations. Those stronger condemnations often include threats by the U.S. Gov't. These are the same type of threats that we made in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and many other resolutions like it. These are the same kind of resolutions that darn near got us embroiled in the middele of a Lebanese-Israeli war in the early 80s (which Dr. Paul also voted NO against mind you, luckily congress came to their senses that time). These are the same kind of resolutions which are currently being used to "browbeat" Iran, and will likely be used as a justification for our next war in the neo-con "Democracry" Domino Plan for the Middle East.
Lastly, and most importantly these resolutions have little to no basis in the Constitution, and have little value outside of political puffery. YES, the goings on in Darfu are deplorable, but I'm not personally in the mood to pick up a rifle and go to Sudan to shoot people over it. Nor am I ready to "volunteer" my neighbors to do so. As such I'd just as soon the congress critters keep their damn nose out of it unless it directly affects us.
Furthermore (I had my ride home from work to steam about this!) Supervoter let me suggest that if you are that concerned about Darfur you put YOUR time, YOUR money, or YOUR ass on the line to do so. I am sure there are several organizations out there that would be happy to accept your aid or services. Why not instead of asking your country to do it for you, you just put up or shut up? Here, let me help: Join the UN! Volunteer for your blue beret right there if your bleeding heart is up to the strain.
I normally don't intend to be a jerk, but I'm tired of people claiming that "our" government should do something that those people themselves are unwilling to do. Its a friggin cop-out.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
