Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[shai]

You seem to define freedom a lot differently than I do. Make no mistake, the feds are trying end runs around the Constitution left and right. But, graffiti is illegal, and that's never stopped me from doing as I please. Recreational drug use, same thing. Public drinking, same thing.

 

What I think people are willing to sacrifice is based on the prevailing morality of the society at large. To continue on this train of thought, the definition of consensual crime is tied to this. This is a HUGE thing with Libertarians, sort of like when Aleister Crowley said "And it hurt no one...do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

 

That's what I live by. I live like an outlaw because I don't choose to subscribe to the prevailing morality of 21st century America. But, would I push that on anyone else because I thought it was ethically superior? NO. People make their own choices, and so do I.

 

THAT'S what being a Libertarian is all about, to me. Other people have different standards they apply to the ideology. That's fine, as it's a flexible worldview.

 

This thread SHOULD include some different perspectives from people as to the definition and nature of what being a Libertarian means to them. I'd certainly be interested in what people have to say on the subject.

[10sicz.chick]

You seem to define freedom a lot differently than I do. Make no mistake, the feds are trying end runs around the Constitution left and right. But, graffiti is illegal, and that's never stopped me from doing as I please. Recreational drug use, same thing. Public drinking, same thing.

 

What I think people are willing to sacrifice is based on the prevailing morality of the society at large. To continue on this train of thought, the definition of consensual crime is tied to this. This is a HUGE thing with Libertarians, sort of like when Aleister Crowley said "And it hurt no one...do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

 

That's what I live by. I live like an outlaw because I don't choose to subscribe to the prevailing morality of 21st century America. But, would I push that on anyone else because I thought it was ethically superior? NO. People make their own choices, and so do I.

 

THAT'S what being a Libertarian is all about, to me. Other people have different standards they apply to the ideology. That's fine, as it's a flexible worldview.

 

This thread SHOULD include some different perspectives from people as to the definition and nature of what being a Libertarian means to them. I'd certainly be interested in what people have to say on the subject.

 

honestly...one of our biggest problems is our labels for political states of mind and party names. i think that the constitution stands well on its own. What does that make me? i use to think i was free thinking, tree hugging hippie green conscious extremely liberal democratic chick. Apparently i am not. i define Constitutionalist as those that stand by the Constitution as the forefathers wrote and intended it.

[thinksmall]

what a police state looks like:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19347.htm

 

 

get your guy fawkes masks! srsly!

[Dawood]

this thread is a little slow....looks like Mr. Paul isn't doing so well.

[Blood Feast Island Man]

what a police state looks like:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19347.htm

 

 

get your guy fawkes masks! srsly!

 

robert catesby masks would be better

[lord_casek]

this thread is a little slow....looks like Mr. Paul isn't doing so well.

 

 

shit happens. i think most paul supporters are still in to write in his name.

i am.

 

i'm also busy with other things...

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

this thread is a little slow....looks like Mr. Paul isn't doing so well.

 

 

Well. He's basically assed out. The man has integrity though, I mean he's still campaigning and trying to win people over and spread his message and is still raising money from all over the place. Apparently the top three contributors to his campaign are people in the Army, Navy and Airforce. All things considered, the man still impresses me.

 

Too bad the rest of the country doesn't feel this way. We be fucked.

[shai]

(Cue "Don't Stop Believin' by Journey)

 

Remember how I said that the Ron Paul campaign was going to have some last ing effects? If it gets some of you guys off your butts and involved in making the world a better place, then it's a good thing.

 

Start going to city council meetings. Run for local office. Volunteer for an adult literacy program...or a youth arts program. Do midnight basketball. I do Food Not Bombs here. That's a good option...or help cook for Meals On Wheels. Offer to help out senior citizens or disabled people in your community. I do that too.

 

If you're committed to change, then do what you can in your community. Don't wait for Ron Paul or whoever else to fix things.

[russell jones]

Well. Apparently the top three contributors to his campaign are people in the Army, Navy and Airforce.

 

.

 

That's strange, since if it was up to him, most of them would be out of a job.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Not really, but okay.

[russell jones]

NO really. Paul wants to reduce the size of all branches of government. That includes the standing army.

[lord_casek]

NO really. Paul wants to reduce the size of all branches of government. That includes the standing army.

 

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/engelhardt

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

NO really. Paul wants to reduce the size of all branches of government. That includes the standing army.

 

 

Dude we're at war. I'm pretty sure we haven't met the mark set for recruits for years now. I highly doubt that this man will be tossing dudes out of the Military once he gets into office.

 

As far as just getting rid of people I doubt that is even legal. I'm sure he would post people on our borders and have troops doing other jobs at home rather than abroad.

[jerkspot]

(Cue "Don't Stop Believin' by Journey)

 

Remember how I said that the Ron Paul campaign was going to have some last ing effects? If it gets some of you guys off your butts and involved in making the world a better place, then it's a good thing.

 

Start going to city council meetings. Run for local office. Volunteer for an adult literacy program...or a youth arts program. Do midnight basketball. I do Food Not Bombs here. That's a good option...or help cook for Meals On Wheels. Offer to help out senior citizens or disabled people in your community. I do that too.

 

If you're committed to change, then do what you can in your community. Don't wait for Ron Paul or whoever else to fix things.

 

man this is the truth.

 

i definatly believe that while he isnt going to be president anytime soon his message is inspiring people to get out there and make a change in their community. defaintly a great thing.

[jerkspot]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com

 

it seems like the march is getting very organised. it certainly seems like he has sparked something.

 

any ron paul supporters making the trip to dc?

[russell jones]

Dude we're at war. I'm pretty sure we haven't met the mark set for recruits for years now. I highly doubt that this man will be tossing dudes out of the Military once he gets into office.

 

As far as just getting rid of people I doubt that is even legal. I'm sure he would post people on our borders and have troops doing other jobs at home rather than abroad.

 

 

You might want to read up on Libertarian views. They are generally against standing armies of any kind.

 

Paul would pull out the troops immediately. He would not have troops doing other jobs other than guarding the boarders. He would "other jobs" to private enterprise. Libertarians like Paul believe in making the government as small as possible. That means no big military expenditures except in cases of declared war.

 

My whole point in my last few posts is that many hear some good things about Libertarians, but they don't bother to look into the specifics. I would guess that would be the case for many in the military.

[russell jones]

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/engelhardt

 

casek, I read the article, which says nothing about Paul's actual views on the military, only that military personnel give more to Paul than other candidates.

 

I would think that considering your seeming support and experience with the views of Libertarians that you know they do not believe in standing armies in times of peace. Iraq is not a declared war.

[russell jones]

If you would like to see Paul's views on standing armies, consider this article he wrote. In it, he clearly warns against a large standing army and advocates for a far smaller force.

 

"April 25, 2006

Policy Is More Important

Than Personnel

by Rep. Ron Paul

 

President Bush has been under pressure to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom many view as the architect of a failed approach in Iraq. Even many ardent war hawks are unhappy with the secretary for not having more troops on the ground in Iraq, and for conducting the war less aggressively than they would like.

 

But the issue is not who serves as secretary of defense, the issue is how, when, and why the United States uses military force. It makes no sense simply to replace Mr. Rumsfeld with someone else who holds the same view, namely that it's the job of American soldiers and U.S. taxpayers to police the world. We should be debating the proper foreign policy for our country – utopian nation-building vs. the noninterventionism counseled by our Founding Fathers – rather than which individual is best suited to carry it out.

 

I happen to agree with Mr. Rumsfeld on the matter of downsizing the military as a whole and remaking it to reflect modern realities of warfare. A swifter, nimbler military would be better suited to tracking individuals like bin Laden who do not operate under the flag of any particular nation or army. The war in Iraq shows that we're trying to adapt our military to fit our foreign policy, rather than the other way around. For all our high-tech advantages, we are mired in a simmering urban civil war that does not play to the true strengths of our troops.

 

The old model of warfare, based on invading and occupying whole nations, is unsustainable. Both financially and in terms of manpower, American simply cannot afford any more Koreas, Vietnams, or Iraqs. Many people in the Pentagon understand that America's armed forces are not trained in occupation, policing, and nation-building. The best way to support the troops is through a sensible foreign policy that does not place them in harm's way unnecessarily or force them into uncomfortable, dangerous roles as occupiers.

 

It's interesting to note that our Founders warned against maintaining standing armies at all, both because of the taxes required to do so and the threats to liberty posed by a permanent military.

 

Consider the words of James Madison, often considered the father of the Constitution:

 

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home…"

 

Madison continues:

 

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

 

In other words, Madison understood that large military forces can become the tools of tyrants, and can bankrupt the nations that support them. Instead of debating who should be secretary of defense, we should be studying the writing of our own Founding Fathers. Perhaps then we will question the wisdom of an open-ended, vague "war on terror" and the realities of trying to remake whole societies in our image."

 

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8893

[angelofdeath]

well, your theory also discounts the fact that 'libertarians' can be in the military, and some want to serve in defense of the country and do their time and move on. some dont want to be life long military career men that go to war for dumb reasons. some actually believe in the just war theory.

 

just sayin'

[lord_casek]

russell: i'm aware. but i'm also aware that he wouldn't do all this at once. it probably wouldn't be a priority, either.

[russell jones]

I don't think it is a theory, unless Paul was lying in his article. I didn't say he would eliminate the military entirely, only that he would significantly reduce their numbers. I don't doubt that some Libertarians would like to be in the army, I just doubt that many in the military understand the full implications of supporting Paul. I could be wrong of course, but people tend to arrange their thinking around their next paycheck.

[russell jones]

russell: i'm aware. but i'm also aware that he wouldn't do all this at once. it probably wouldn't be a priority, either.

 

What evidence do you have to support that proposition?

[lord_casek]

I don't think it is a theory, unless Paul was lying in his article. I didn't say he would eliminate the military entirely, only that he would significantly reduce their numbers. I don't doubt that some Libertarians would like to be in the army, I just doubt that many in the military understand the full implications of supporting Paul. I could be wrong of course, but people tend to arrange their thinking around their next paycheck.

 

my neighbor, long time air force guy, also a paul supporter, is completely aware of dr. paul's

ideologies. thing is, he'd rather this country be in shape and then worry about the job status.

good thing is, he's trained and certified in a technical field where he wouldn't be out of a job for very long at all. but whatever. it's time for us to stop being world police and just focus on bringing our troops back home, getting our finances straight, and bringing back our countries good name.

[10sicz.chick]

(Cue "Don't Stop Believin' by Journey)

 

Remember how I said that the Ron Paul campaign was going to have some last ing effects? If it gets some of you guys off your butts and involved in making the world a better place, then it's a good thing.

 

Start going to city council meetings. Run for local office. Volunteer for an adult literacy program...or a youth arts program. Do midnight basketball. I do Food Not Bombs here. That's a good option...or help cook for Meals On Wheels. Offer to help out senior citizens or disabled people in your community. I do that too.

 

If you're committed to change, then do what you can in your community. Don't wait for Ron Paul or whoever else to fix things.

 

These things are wonderful and commendable...the problem is that they are treating symptoms rather than causes.

[10sicz.chick]

Dude we're at war. I'm pretty sure we haven't met the mark set for recruits for years now. I highly doubt that this man will be tossing dudes out of the Military once he gets into office.

 

As far as just getting rid of people I doubt that is even legal. I'm sure he would post people on our borders and have troops doing other jobs at home rather than abroad.

 

Not really at war.....invasion and occupation are more like it.

[10sicz.chick]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com

 

it seems like the march is getting very organised. it certainly seems like he has sparked something.

 

any ron paul supporters making the trip to dc?

 

i'll be there fo'sure.

[10sicz.chick]

russell: i'm aware. but i'm also aware that he wouldn't do all this at once. it probably wouldn't be a priority, either.

 

He'll pull them all out asap and keep them employed for a while by printing money out of thin air (since the fed is so good at that) then He will transfer the troops to civilian life. I expect that a educational package would be offered to the troops to give them a more appropriate and useful civilian skill set.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I'm sayin I doubt this man would toss everyone out and leave them stranded. He just isn't that type of guy. Not to mention is a Vet himself.

 

I'll be at that March in DC for sure.

[10sicz.chick]

I'm sayin I doubt this man would toss everyone out and leave them stranded. He just isn't that type of guy. Not to mention is a Vet himself.

 

I'll be at that March in DC for sure.

 

 

don't forget to make up a lot of RP and just general "freedom" slappers for DC.

i'll be making up a few hundred for the the trip.

[shai]

He'll pull them all out asap and keep them employed for a while by printing money out of thin air (since the fed is so good at that) then He will transfer the troops to civilian life. I expect that a educational package would be offered to the troops to give them a more appropriate and useful civilian skill set.

 

That's a noble idea, but you do realize that the military and the people who supply it have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for financial reasons.

 

Money on that scale doesn't roll over that easliy. Any state where the defense industry contributes a sizable amount to the economy is going to sya things like, "Of course we don't want war, but...what are all the people who are employed by General Dynamics/Lockheed/whoever supposed to do?"

 

I want everyone to keep one thing in mind- THERE IS NO OIL SHORTAGE. The prices are being artifically inflated to try to keep an economy based on impractical and unsustainable technology afloat. You talk about the gold standard, when what actually exists now is essentially a "petrostandard". At least with gold, it's much closer to being a finite and tangible number...so, the wealth of the people who have the most gold has a cap. Anyone sitting on huge oil reserves is sitting on undefinable and quite posibly infinite wealth.

 

Also, the petroleum based economy is something that should be getting a great deal of scrutiny as well, because it's just as intangible as the Federal Reserve, and does far more to ruin the planet in the long run.