Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Just watch this and learn something about what he talks about when he refers to cutting.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duhaz-WYl3k&feature=g-u&context=G244ed2cFUAAAAAAAAAA

 

You'll realize that lots of things that you automatically include will be cut aren't. Or perhaps you're getting your information from places that what you to think this way.

[Realism]

^ I never mentioned his military cuts. That aspect of his campaign I do agree with. That clip did not refer to any of the other things he plans to cut/privatize/etc.

 

If he were elected, four years from now there'd be just as much, if not more, grumbling as there currently is about Obama from people who bought into a candidate with a few good ideas and strong rhetoric who didn't come through on half the shit he talked about. Maybe I'm cynical, but thinking that all of these policies of his would work smoothly (or even be enacted in the first place) is foolish.

 

Whatever. No one is going to change anyone else's mind here.

[Guest]

[angelofdeath]

^ I never mentioned his military cuts. That aspect of his campaign I do agree with. That clip did not refer to any of the other things he plans to cut/privatize/etc.

 

If he were elected, four years from now there'd be just as much, if not more, grumbling as there currently is about Obama from people who bought into a candidate with a few good ideas and strong rhetoric who didn't come through on half the shit he talked about. Maybe I'm cynical, but thinking that all of these policies of his would work smoothly (or even be enacted in the first place) is foolish.

 

Whatever. No one is going to change anyone else's mind here.

 

i think you are slightly off base with what a president can do.

a president cant pass laws, but he can do things he has jurisdiction. since RP is only politician to have such consistency and a will to be Dr. No, there is absolutely no reason to assume he wouldnt act on the things he is able to affect. obama said he would shut down gitmo, respect civil liberties, was against the patriot act, bring the troops home, etc etc. these are all things the president has total authority over. he increased government power in all those areas. RP could easily make the patriot act of no force by refusing to enforce it. he WOULD shut down gitmo. he would not be torturing bradley manning or assassinating US citizens.

 

i am definitely not naive enough to think that RP is the savior. the US govt is the biggest most powerful body on earth. and libertarians arent the dictator type. i view his campaign as a huge education effort. its the ron paul speaking tour. anything to get people on the ideas of liberty the better. if RP managed to actually stay alive in office, and even removed executive tyranny, it would be worth him taking office.

[TheoHuxtable..]

I wonder if L. Ron Paul will run 3rd party. One of his campaign staff said it wouldn't happen. But who knows. He may do it to make a "statement."

 

L. Ron Paul has done well thus far, but he has no chance of getting the Republican nomination. The establishment wouldn't allow it.

[jib25]

Someone explain to me the meaning of 'EVOL' picked out of the word Revolution and what that's got to do with anything? Is it like a word search game? If so, I see 'VOL' which can stand for volume in cook books... do I get points for that?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Look at the word backwards.

 

No points for you.

[blk]

Roo Powl 2012

 

[angelofdeath]

Someone explain to me the meaning of 'EVOL' picked out of the word Revolution and what that's got to do with anything? Is it like a word search game? If so, I see 'VOL' which can stand for volume in cook books... do I get points for that?

 

the revolution logo was created by ernest hancock of freedomsphoenix.com. he had previously used the logo for a local campaign in arizona. the idea is the revolution is a revolution with love. google around for ernest hancock and the logo and im sure you'll get a bunch of hits.

[angelofdeath]

I wonder if L. Ron Paul will run 3rd party. One of his campaign staff said it wouldn't happen. But who knows. He may do it to make a "statement."

 

L. Ron Paul has done well thus far, but he has no chance of getting the Republican nomination. The establishment wouldn't allow it.

 

personally, i think its entirely possible.

my theory is if he loses the nomination and they dont give him a speaking slot at the republican convention, he'll go third party. he isnt running for congress again. he is 'all in.' to use his words.

 

personally, looking at the history of the sort of conservative based movements....you had goldwater who failed. but those goldwaterites eventually put a not quite as hardcore 'goldwaterite' in the white house (reagan) a few years later. it could even be his son in say 2020 or something. who knows.

 

personally, i dont care. politics offer real no solution to any problems. america wont be saved by electing someone, its just impossible. it would be a step in the right direction though. what ron paul has done has changed the conversation and is bringing more people to the liberty side than anyone else could possibly have done.

[McLovin]

probably been posted already, good campaign video

[Balance]

woah, 105. i have a lot of reading to do.

 

bottom line before i read anything though, libertarianism is fucking stupid. with that said, i like Ron Paul better than everyone else in the mainstream presidental field.

 

after reading some of the pages, i'll elaborate more

[angelofdeath]

bottom line before i read anything though, libertarianism is fucking stupid.

 

this is why politics are not a viable solution to free people.

 

the very foundation of these united States is the idea of individual liberty. and the majority of americans think it is 'fucking stupid.' they believe in the right to rule others. the rest of the people have this radical notion that other people arent their property.

[McLovin]

 

good stuff.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.vdare.com/articles/more-on-ron-paul

 

More in here, few critics. I just took the part I liked. Go figure.

 

_______

Some readers misunderstood the point of my previous column, “America’s Last Chance.” I am endorsing the U.S. Constitution and making the point that Ron Paul is the only candidate for president in either party who is committed to resurrecting the Constitution. Without the Constitution we cease to be American citizens and become subjects of a tyrannical police state. My complaint is that the only candidate who could

 

bring back the Constitution cannot be elected because of the inflexibility and sectarianism of his base. Possibly there are more worthy third party candidates, but they have no prospect of visibility. Ron Paul is visible, and the opportunity is going to waste.

 

I hope readers will spare me their comments about how important their various single issues are. There are many important things. The question is: what is the over-riding important thing?

 

Civil Liberty, essentially the accountability of government to law that serves to protect the innocent, is the historic achievement of the English over many centuries from its beginnings with the foundation for common law established by Alfred the Great in the 9th century through Magna Carta in the 13th century to the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century. If this human achievement is lost, it is unlikely to be resurrected. If the Constitution that Bush and Obama have murdered stays in its grave one more presidential term, no one will be able to re-establish the Constitution’s authority.

 

And please, no prattle from libertarians about “natural rights.” The only rights we have

 

are rights achieved by centuries of human struggle that we have the wits and strength to retain.

 

And no prattle from left-wingers who denounce the Constitution for not protecting slaves and native Indians. The Constitution did not establish universal justice. The Constitution protected the people covered by it. Over time rights were extended. During the past decade the Constitution lost its power. Today rights depend on the subjective opinion of the executive branch. This is tyranny. We should be unified in our opposition to tyranny.

[Realism]

I'm sorry, but anyone who truly thinks we're living in a tyranny is delusional.

 

I bet that will ruffle a lot of feathers in here, but it is fucking retarded. Just because there are certain injustices and shitty class divides in our society doesn't render it a tyranny. Yeah, yeah, I know America is becoming a total dictatorship and we're on the slippery slope to work camps and numbers tattooed on our foreheads. The Constitution must be explicitly interpreted in every instance and things are exactly how they were in the 18th century.

 

I realize that most people in this thread will probably pounce on me for not "getting it" and being complacent, but it's a matter of common sense. We are in a far better position than the citizens of dozens of other countries. Do I think other countries do it better than us? Sure, but I also think those countries tend to employ social democracies, which I'm guessing probably horrifies most of you as well.

 

Once again, no one is going to change anyone else's mind here, but I had to get that out of my system.

[Fist 666]

libertarian rhetoric relies heavily on dichotomy and hyperbole, so slavery and tyranny are thrown around pretty freely.

[Realism]

It's stupid. Rhetoric like that reminds me of angsty teenagers.

 

GOD MOM WOULDN'T LET ME HAVE THE CAR THIS IS TOTALLY NAZI GERMANY

[Fist 666]

THIS HOUSE IS A FUCKING PRISON

[angelofdeath]

I'm sorry, but anyone who truly thinks we're living in a tyranny is delusional.

 

I bet that will ruffle a lot of feathers in here, but it is fucking retarded. Just because there are certain injustices and shitty class divides in our society doesn't render it a tyranny. Yeah, yeah, I know America is becoming a total dictatorship and we're on the slippery slope to work camps and numbers tattooed on our foreheads. The Constitution must be explicitly interpreted in every instance and things are exactly how they were in the 18th century.

 

I realize that most people in this thread will probably pounce on me for not "getting it" and being complacent, but it's a matter of common sense. We are in a far better position than the citizens of dozens of other countries. Do I think other countries do it better than us? Sure, but I also think those countries tend to employ social democracies, which I'm guessing probably horrifies most of you as well.

 

Once again, no one is going to change anyone else's mind here, but I had to get that out of my system.

 

i'll tell you what is retarded is that people think that freedom is radical.

its absolutely insane.

 

in the 18th century, british colonials threw off their own government for injustices that pale in comparison to what people live under today. people like you would consider what those colonials lived under to be anarchy. govt was relatively insignificant in their lives. a major part of the american revolution was the british taxing a morning beverage at a few percent. now, every dollar made in america is consumed by 50-60% by government. americans are paying up to half of their incomes to government. every single thing people do is regulated, taxed, or declared illegal.

 

just because some other countries are further down the road to tyranny doesnt mean americans are free.

 

think of it like this:

 

america is just the healthiest patient in the cancer ward.

 

the logic you are using is like saying...well, this guy over here in the cancer ward has 2 years to live but is guaranteed to die. what is he fucking complaining about...this guy over on this end only has 2 months to live!

[angelofdeath]

libertarian rhetoric relies heavily on dichotomy and hyperbole, so slavery and tyranny are thrown around pretty freely.

 

there may be some truth to that...however, you just miss the levels of tyranny or slavery.

 

for instance, if a chattel slave is given the right to choose which plantation he lives on, what he eats for dinner and how many hours a day he works....well...his comfort level is high on the 'im doing ok' side. whereas if he is being whipped everyday for speaking out of turn, not being able do anything that isnt commanded by the master, etc his comfort level is on the 'suck' side.

 

but the fact is, they are both still slaves. we are just talking about the severity of the situation.

 

the anti freedom people tend to think that if people are sort of free, that they are free. sort of like if the chattel slave is 'sort' of free. he might be slightly freer than others, but fact remains, he is still enslaved.

[Decyferon]

AOD just out of interest, with your belief in a free market, what are your views on child labour laws? that is a government regulation that restricts the freedom of the empoyer right?

 

What about the government protectionist policies that the founding fathers adopted to protect american trade that actually helped your country to flourish? (and that all developed countries have benefitted from protectionist policies, subsidies etc and have all flourished).

[angelofdeath]

AOD just out of interest, with your belief in a free market, what are your views on child labour laws? that is a government regulation that restricts the freedom of the empoyer right?

 

i think you are taking the mainstream hysterical view of this topic.

 

the reason children were working back in the 1800's is because if they didnt, the family couldnt eat. think about it. the level of prosperity was so low that children (persons under the age of 18, lets set the definition right now) had to work on the farm to contribute to feed the family. hell, having kids during these situations was viewed as having more help on the farm.

 

if you can see this illustration, that a subsistence level low technology family farm needed kids to help out, you can see that as the living standard rose, children didnt need to work. when the father was able to go to work to make enough money because his productivity was so high his family didnt have to work....children didnt work.

 

the point can also can be illustrated by how rich a person is. it was only the poor families where kids were working, correct? in another words the robber baron's kids werent working in a coal mine for negative infinity in wages correct?

 

but lets look at the real world effects it has today. we can plainly see most people are rich enough that kids dont have to work in order to put food on the table. the living standard of everyone has surpassed this. lets look at it how a 15 year old cant work some place because of a child labor law, so they go out and join a gang. a well known hero of the 'local food' movement has put forth this thesis and the case is rock solid. because of child labor laws, his neighbors kids cant come onto his farm and work and get paid. however, they can come over and do chores all day without payment. and because they cant get paid, the incentive is to go screw off because kids time isnt occupied. this same farmer has people who he cant hire that are knocking down his door trying to get a job on his farm, because in order to run an electric screwdriver or run a tractor for pay in his state, you have to be 18. the government outlawed his job.

 

so given that we have a level of prosperity that children arent needed to work in order to eat, do you still hold the naive view that a law is what is stopping 6 year olds from working in coal mines? and even if we totally ignored economics and economic reality, do you really think a company can come in an put a gun to your 5 year olds head and force them to work?

 

 

What about the government protectionist policies that the founding fathers adopted to protect american trade that actually helped your country to flourish? (and that all developed countries have benefitted from protectionist policies, subsidies etc and have all flourished).

 

those policies didnt help the country flourish, they retarded innovation. but that being said, the actual founding generation didnt enact protectionist tariffs, those came later. the tariffs were relatively much lower than say the tariffs under lincoln.

 

if protectionism is 'helps' then surely it would help if we enacted a 100% tax around you. everything that comes into your house has to be taxed @ 100%. would you still say you are flourishing?

[Realism]

I can't even engage in this.

 

It is not the 18th century. It would not work. It is a fucking pipedream. Yes, I'm sheep, I'm a fascist, I'm buying into the lies that my government feeds me, I'm complacent and ambivalent. Say whatever you want.

 

I'm sure you are rife with examples of governments that collapsed because they took on too much, went too far, whatever. Please give me an example of a government successfully regressing all of its general policies to the ones it had 200 years ago.

 

You explain child labor as being necessary for the times; in other words, it "fit" and doesn't today. One could easily apply the exact same logic to the argument that we should revert to an explicit/hardline interpretation of the Constitution that was in place in the 18th century.

 

I am all for reforms, and would like to see several things changed in our government. This is simply not a realistic path to those goals.

[McLovin]

this might sound stupid, im not much for politics and i don't cut the butter like most of you do but i think it would be better to have a body of presidents then just one. two heads are better than one- like 5-10 presidents i think would make more sense to run things. why does there have to be just one person? i think 200 years ago it was easier to run the country than today - less problems less people. sometimes there could be like 4 or 5 people running that really have their heads one their shoulders yet we throw them away along with their ideas that could have potentially made this country better. anyone else understand where im getting at? this is all hypothetical btw

[angelofdeath]

Please give me an example of a government successfully regressing all of its general policies to the ones it had 200 years ago.

i love responses that start with...'im cant even engage in this...'

and then they proceed to make an argument against the very thing they said they cant engage in...but i digress.

 

 

i do not seek to 'return' to anything. i seek to abolish state control over my life. big difference.

although, america is the perfect example of successfully regressing all its general policies to a situation its citizens previously were living in.

the american revolution was viewed by most americans who supported it as returning their common rights they held as englishmen. basic rights. the english government did what governments do...it grew and the colonials threw off its shackles in favor of shackling themselves to another government which in turn grew and became the most powerful entity on earth.

the constitution is a myth, it either authorizes the government we have today or was powerless to prevent it.

 

You explain child labor as being necessary for the times; in other words, it "fit" and doesn't today. One could easily apply the exact same logic to the argument that we should revert to an explicit/hardline interpretation of the Constitution that was in place in the 18th century.

 

im not really saying that...what i am saying is that most of human history children 'worked.' this is just reality. to deny is to deny reality. and they didnt work because their parents were evil or because boss men with white moustaches forced them to by putting guns to their heads. they worked to keep the family afloat. it was only when capitalism made people rich enough that one or two people in the family could work to provide for the entire family did kids not work in any way at all.

 

as for a government being 'necessary' for the times...liberty is universal. the issue of free speech or a free press is universal. it doesnt matter if it is today or 200 years ago. if you are going to have a government all it is supposed to do is keep the peace. thats it.

all im asking is if you want to have a much more powerful government, dont chain people to it who dont consent to it. that is the very definition of slavery. being forced to do something or be ruled by someone against your will.

 

I am all for reforms, and would like to see several things changed in our government. This is simply not a realistic path to those goals.

 

in 1850, being an abolitionist, if i told you that if we abolished human chattel slavery that in 150 years we'd be harvesting cotton with big steel machines that run on dinosaur juice and that were guided by these things in the sky called satellites, you'd call me a crazy radical and that such a course was not 'a realistic path to follow.'

 

you'd still be asking...'but if we get rid of slavery, who will pick the cotton!?'

[CILONE/SK]

Can someone tell me who is currently in last place in the Republican Primary? I seem to have forgotten about whoever it was, because they never had a chance.

 

BTW, If I lived in a trailer in the Carolinas and was a mechanic with no future, who would I vote for?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I can't even engage in this.

 

It is not the 18th century. It would not work. It is a fucking pipedream. Yes, I'm sheep, I'm a fascist, I'm buying into the lies that my government feeds me, I'm complacent and ambivalent. Say whatever you want.

 

I'm sure you are rife with examples of governments that collapsed because they took on too much, went too far, whatever. Please give me an example of a government successfully regressing all of its general policies to the ones it had 200 years ago.

 

You explain child labor as being necessary for the times; in other words, it "fit" and doesn't today. One could easily apply the exact same logic to the argument that we should revert to an explicit/hardline interpretation of the Constitution that was in place in the 18th century.

 

I am all for reforms, and would like to see several things changed in our government. This is simply not a realistic path to those goals.

 

 

 

This is kind of long and I don't expect you to watch all of it, but it isn't necessary.

 

This isn't the 18th century either, or any prehistoric time period where you think these philosophies only work.

 

You'll pretty much get the message after watching 10-15 minutes. It wasn't a complete roll back in policy, but it was the opposite of what we are doing now, and well, listen.

[Realism]

in 1850, being an abolitionist, if i told you that if we abolished human chattel slavery that in 150 years we'd be harvesting cotton with big steel machines that run on dinosaur juice and that were guided by these things in the sky called satellites, you'd call me a crazy radical and that such a course was not 'a realistic path to follow.'

 

you'd still be asking...'but if we get rid of slavery, who will pick the cotton!?'

 

Of course I'd call you crazy. It's not like those things rolled around in 1860. You're acting like they were early in the natural progression of technology, instead of developing about a century later.

 

We're not talking about 160 years from now...we're talking about right now...and it's not a realistic path to follow. Will Ron Paul's philosophies dominate government in a hundred years? I can't say, they very well might, but it's not gonna happen now.

 

And yes, I realize that I've engaged in it, but whatever. It doesn't change how much I'm shaking my head at my monitor.

[angelofdeath]

Of course I'd call you crazy. It's not like those things rolled around in 1860. You're acting like they were early in the natural progression of technology, instead of developing about a century later.

 

We're not talking about 160 years from now...we're talking about right now...and it's not a realistic path to follow. Will Ron Paul's philosophies dominate government in a hundred years? I can't say, they very well might, but it's not gonna happen now.

 

And yes, I realize that I've engaged in it, but whatever. It doesn't change how much I'm shaking my head at my monitor.

 

so what you are basically saying is abolitionists in 1800 were absolutely nuts for advocating the abolition of human chattel slavery because they couldnt end it over night. whereas i'd say they were 100% correct and in the right all along.

i'd rather advocate a noble goal and freedom in my vocations and philosophy, instead of limiting myself to what can be achieved tomorrow.

 

advocating the freeing of chattel slaves in 1800 didnt result in their liberation in 1801. it was a process. when wilberforce was screaming from the rooftops that slavery was evil, it took something like 30 years before the british parliament passed a bill banning the slave trade. it took ron paul 30 years to bring the monetary issues and federal reserve to the fore front. i dont care if its not going to happen tomorrow, it is still worthy of taking the morally right path NOW and advocate what is just.

 

change not occurring over night should not deter anyone.

im not concerned with what other people want, im concerned with what i want and that is to be left alone. if others dont want to be left alone, that is all fine and dandy, all im asking is to just leave me alone. you can have all the government you want, just give me my exemption card. i wont ask the government for anything and in return they can just leave me alone