The House of Representatives vote which passed the legislative repeal of the arcane 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, included Republican Representatives Judy Biggert (IL), Anh 'Joseph' Cao (LA), Charles Djou (HI), Ron Paul (TX) and Ileana Ros Lehtinen (FL).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Faux News joins CNN in ignoring their own polls
If Ron Paul is going to sell all of us into slavery to the corporations, How come they mostly ignore him?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ron Paul isn't going to sell anyone into slavery to the corporations. He's simply going to remove the government safeguards that keep that from happening because he doesn't believe the government should be involved. I like Ron Paul in the sense that he's an honest republican: he's what republicans would look like if they weren't two faced and playing up the "Small government" roll for votes, but want big government for corporate welfare, ensuring mining rights, keeping their stock market propped up, and using our military to our economic advantage.
What i don't like is that we've tried his approach, pretty much from the end of the civil war to 1920 or so. There was nothing to keep corporations from owning entire states, all of the industry, and forcing people to work 16 hours a day on wages that couldn't buy the bare necessities from the company store(no minimum wage, no right to unionize). Children worked in the mines (no child labor laws) people died of lung cancer left and right (no OSHA)
States rights: States do not have rights. People do. I don't see why a state is an inherently better unit of government than the fed, especially given their track record of being the unit of government that held onto slavery and the suppression of blacks. Its still a unit of government with the power to send armed people to your house to enforce its will.
Corporations ignore him because the transition would be risky. Instead of the situation they have now where people are pretty complacent about being fleeced by corporations for MOST of their wealth, corporations would have to compete with each other to take ALL of it. They could go too far in oppressing people, and get a full on communist/socialist uprising on their hands. Every playground bully ultimately relies on the teacher to keep the kids from getting together and going lord of the flies on his ass.
Corporations ...They could go too far in oppressing people, and get a full on communist/socialist uprising on their hands.
I changed my mind. I'm going to vote for Ron Paul after all.
I didn't realize this was still going.
bump
Ron Paul isn't going to sell anyone into slavery to the corporations. He's simply going to remove the government safeguards that keep that from happening because he doesn't believe the government should be involved. I like Ron Paul in the sense that he's an honest republican: he's what republicans would look like if they weren't two faced and playing up the "Small government" roll for votes, but want big government for corporate welfare, ensuring mining rights, keeping their stock market propped up, and using our military to our economic advantage.
What i don't like is that we've tried his approach, pretty much from the end of the civil war to 1920 or so. There was nothing to keep corporations from owning entire states, all of the industry, and forcing people to work 16 hours a day on wages that couldn't buy the bare necessities from the company store(no minimum wage, no right to unionize). Children worked in the mines (no child labor laws) people died of lung cancer left and right (no OSHA)
States rights: States do not have rights. People do. I don't see why a state is an inherently better unit of government than the fed, especially given their track record of being the unit of government that held onto slavery and the suppression of blacks. Its still a unit of government with the power to send armed people to your house to enforce its will.
Corporations ignore him because the transition would be risky. Instead of the situation they have now where people are pretty complacent about being fleeced by corporations for MOST of their wealth, corporations would have to compete with each other to take ALL of it. They could go too far in oppressing people, and get a full on communist/socialist uprising on their hands. Every playground bully ultimately relies on the teacher to keep the kids from getting together and going lord of the flies on his ass.
The autocratic police state has done such a good job so far; why shouldn't we just keep giving them more money and power to protect us from freedom and peace? [sarcasm]
Perhaps a unit of government that lives nearer to its citizens and is more directly accountable than corrupt and incompetent statists in DC might suck less than what we have now. It might not suck less, but it might be worth looking into. What we have now doesn't seem to be working so well to me.
I would argue that the federal government has a pretty abysmal record of protecting individual human rights.
I changed my mind. I'm going to vote for Ron Paul after all.
Corporations ...They could go too far in oppressing people, and get a full on communist/socialist uprising on their hands.
Far be it from me to turn away a voter. ;)
Ron Paul technically took second place in the Iowa Straw Poll but lost the top spot by 152 votes
A tiny step away from tyranny is better than nothing.
Imagine there's no government
It's easy if you try
No paved roads below us
Above us only sky-mansions of the uber-rich
Imagine all the fantasy-prone misfits
Living for their masters
Because they voted Libertarian
Government control is freedom in your mind? Are we the most free when the state has the most power? This seems counter intuitive to me.
Or are you arguing that a government that is smaller than what we have now is no government?
Or you could stop the War on Drugs and dismantle all the Homeland Security/PAtriot act security state apparatus, use the proceeds and raise taxes as needed to provide universal healthcare. Since that would expand government, it would obviously be a more oppressive, less free state, right?
which candidate is running on that platform?
Edit- Cut down the quote for clarity.
Ron Paul technically took second place in the Iowa Straw Poll but lost the top spot by 152 votes
A tiny step away from tyranny is better than nothing.
WHOA. That's DAMNED close. I don't plan to vote for him at all, but Ron Paul vs. Michelle Bachmann isn't even a choice for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The autocratic police state has done such a good job so far
Funny thing. I've driven cross country twice and didn't have ANYONE stop me to check my papers. I just got in the car and went. Where is this alleged autocratic police state? Can police be annoying? Yes. Can police violate people's rights? Yes. Does that make a police state? No.
why shouldn't we just keep giving them more money and power to protect us from freedom and peace?
Name one government that hasn't wasted money. Can we waste less? Yes. Does wasting money make government illegitimate? Not unless you're an anarchist.
Perhaps a unit of government that lives nearer to its citizens and is more directly accountable than corrupt and incompetent statists in DC might suck less than what we have now. It might not suck less, but it might be worth looking into. What we have now doesn't seem to be working so well to me.
I've seen what ron paul is proposing. I'm not an economist, i have no idea what trying to go on the gold standard would do. But i DO know what happens when you completely remove government's ability to regulate anything: large corporations do everything and anything they can to make money no matter who it hurts or kills.
If anything, its at least harder and more expensive to bribe federal officials than state ones. If you took away national regulations, corporations would simply "state shop" around for one willing to have no minimum wages, no air quality control, and no meat inspection and operate from there, the same way they all incorporate in Delaware for the states protectionism.
I would argue that the federal government has a pretty abysmal record of protecting individual human rights.
But can you argue that its worse than the states? Ron paul's mantra is "all power to the states!" Which, to be fair, is how the constitution was originally set up. I just don't think its the best solution and the state's track record proves.
RP hasn't got a ghost's chance of being president, for the reasons already stated. He'll get a big slice of the vanity vote, and that's it.
Does the MSM ignore him? Yes. Like I said, he doesn't stand a chance.
Ask African-Americans how much better the states did at protecting their human rights.
That was my point.
Or you could stop the War on Drugs and dismantle all the Homeland Security/PAtriot act security state apparatus, use the proceeds and raise taxes as needed to provide universal healthcare. Since that would expand government, it would obviously be a more oppressive, less free state, right?
which candidate is running on that platform?
Edit- Cut down the quote for clarity.
That's actually fairly close to Mike Gravel's platform in the last election. I think Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader would run on slightly similar platforms.
WHOA. That's DAMNED close. I don't plan to vote for him at all, but Ron Paul vs. Michelle Bachmann isn't even a choice for me.Ron Paul technically took second place in the Iowa Straw Poll but lost the top spot by 152 votes
A tiny step away from tyranny is better than nothing.
Me neither...
I still wouldn't vote for any of them. ;-)Clearly Bachmann is the craziest of them, but some of Paul's stance on several issues or his beliefs in certain things are still a deal-breaker to me.
That's actually fairly close to Mike Gravel's platform in the last election. I think Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader would run on slightly similar platforms.
Or you could stop the War on Drugs and dismantle all the Homeland Security/PAtriot act security state apparatus, use the proceeds and raise taxes as needed to provide universal healthcare. Since that would expand government, it would obviously be a more oppressive, less free state, right?
which candidate is running on that platform?
Edit- Cut down the quote for clarity.
I actually like Kucinich a good deal. My main disagreement with him regards his handgun ban, but that's basically it. He is not running however. Im not familiar with Mike Gravel, gonna wiki him post haste though.
you don't say? This was going to go into the corporate malfeasance thread, but why bother?
He's got my vote
Quietly pecks for seed on the ground, then looks up.
I did miss something didn't I. Oh, wait aminute...,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
:::SNORT::::
It's like voting for Ross Perot, again. Great. Here comes a third party candidate to keep Obama in for another four years.
Yay! Media Censorship!
Anyways:
Ron Paul: Newsflash! Corporations are not people and are not entitled to individual rights! (I think that it is sad that anyone would need to be told that.)
Yeah. I figured I'd make it explicit. Sometimes people miss things when they don't want to see them.That was my point.
Ask African-Americans how much better the states did at protecting their human rights.
At the risk of side tracking the thread I feel I must point out that many northern states had laws that were more favorable to African-Americans than the federal government. The federal government passed things like the Fugitive Slave Act because of southern legislators that made things worse in the northern states.
I would also point out that many states favor greater individual freedom on issues like marriage rights, and the feds pass DOMA.
I get that there is a ton of history to support the general point, but I think the baseline of feds = more freedom and states = less freedom is problematic.
I take a far broader view of the federal governments mandate to protect individual rights from states and localities than Dr. Paul, but the states have certainly been ahead of the feds on a number of issues.
Yay! Media Censorship!
Anyways:
Ron Paul: Newsflash! Corporations are not people and are not entitled to individual rights! (I think that it is sad that anyone would need to be told that.)
I'm don't think I agree with that. I'd like to learn more.
Good points.
I won't vote for Obama.
Unless someone else takes the field, it looks like I may have to vote for Paul.
"OMG he's for ID in schools! OMG he's pro-choice! OMG he's..."
Don't care. I want my friends to have jobs. I want the economy to improve.
The social issues MUST take a back seat (not regress, I'm not saying that) until the fiscal issues are fixed.
Yeah. I figured I'd make it explicit. Sometimes people miss things when they don't want to see them.That was my point.
Ask African-Americans how much better the states did at protecting their human rights.
At the risk of side tracking the thread I feel I must point out that many northern states had laws that were more favorable to African-Americans than the federal government. The federal government passed things like the Fugitive Slave Act because of southern legislators that made things worse in the northern states.
I would also point out that many states favor greater individual freedom on issues like marriage rights, and the feds pass DOMA.
Essentially + 1. History is quite loud on this topic.
Good points.
I won't vote for Obama.
Unless someone else takes the field, it looks like I may have to vote for Paul.
"OMG he's for ID in schools! OMG he's pro-choice! OMG he's..."
Don't care. I want my friends to have jobs. I want the economy to improve.
The social issues MUST take a back seat (not regress, I'm not saying that) until the fiscal issues are fixed.
when you take your eyes off of social issues, they tend to regress.
Well I suppose that's a possible truth, but we've come so far with most of them, I don't think they really can go backwards, just kind of enter a holding pattern...
Of course, there's no real agreement about how to fix the economy...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
when you take your eyes off of social issues, they tend to regress.Good points.
I won't vote for Obama.
Unless someone else takes the field, it looks like I may have to vote for Paul.
"OMG he's for ID in schools! OMG he's pro-choice! OMG he's..."
Don't care. I want my friends to have jobs. I want the economy to improve.
The social issues MUST take a back seat (not regress, I'm not saying that) until the fiscal issues are fixed.
Can't help but agree on that... besides, at the risk of thread derailment - the fiscal issue is the war, and we do need to fix that.
And all of the Keynesian crap that's been used over the last 9-12 years has? Time to try something else.
Ask African-Americans how much better the states did at protecting their human rights.At the risk of side tracking the thread I feel I must point out that many northern states had laws that were more favorable to African-Americans than the federal government. The federal government passed things like the Fugitive Slave Act because of southern legislators that made things worse in the northern states.
I would also point out that many states favor greater individual freedom on issues like marriage rights, and the feds pass DOMA.
I get that there is a ton of history to support the general point, but I think the baseline of feds = more freedom and states = less freedom is problematic.
I take a far broader view of the federal governments mandate to protect individual rights from states and localities than Dr. Paul, but the states have certainly been ahead of the feds on a number of issues.
I was of course speaking of the Civil Rights era, a mere 50 years ago, not the slavery days. The role of the federal government has changed drastically since then.
Still your point that some states do grant more rights than the federal government is well taken. I do think in recent decades it's more often been the opposite. Or at least that the feds have allowed the states to great more freedoms without interfering.
Even in the case of DOMA, states have not been stopped from allowing same-sex marriages and all the state-level benefits that come with them, just not the federal recognition. Many states have of course gone the other way, enshrining rules worse than DOMA in their constitution.
I think the generalization is reasonable, but I think there are more exceptions to the generalization than is commonly believed or thought about.
It's also a valid observation that there is a great deal of variation in terms of advancing or retarding individual rights in terms of the states.
Good points.
I won't vote for Obama.
Unless someone else takes the field, it looks like I may have to vote for Paul.
"OMG he's for ID in schools! OMG he's pro-choice! OMG he's..."
Don't care. I want my friends to have jobs. I want the economy to improve.
The social issues MUST take a back seat (not regress, I'm not saying that) until the fiscal issues are fixed.Leaving social issues aside:
What does Ron Paul propose to do to improve the economy?
Cut spending, layoff tens of thousands of federal employees, slash the remaining safety net. Anything else?Right. Cut taxes even more, because that worked so well the last time.
Yeah probably. Considering that a) cutting spending has never been tried before (at least not in my lifetime), b) You cannot lay off tens of thousands of federal employees, as Abraham Spalding points out, there arent tens of thousands of Federal employees, c) making the safety net sustainable, again something that has never been tried in my lifetime.
I think the biggest part of his plan is the ending of our many many wars, including the War on Drugs
Oh my bad 5-6 years. Clearly that's not enough time.
I guess the way it works is the economy has to totally collapse before we see it work? lolwut?
As far as austerity measures, I seriously doubt we need to cut all entitlement programs to austerity levels to bring the deficit under control, but if you want to portray the situation we're in as "all in or all out", I suppose we can give it a try.
Heaven forbid we find out that a local community sticking together works better than on a federal level.
I guess we'll see how it works out for Greece (and I think I heard France was considering it too).
I guess we'll see how it works out for Greece (and I think I heard France was considering it too).
France's idea of "austerity" is that you retire at 62 with a full pension, instead of at 60.
It's a far cry from the current Republican idea of austerity, which is to slash social security, Medicare, and veterans' benefits.
I do like Paul's stance on entitlements though. Use the war fundings to prop them up, while giving us the chance to opt out.
I have no faith in the electoral process and earnestly desire to see the American government overthrown by a socialist-led proletarian revolution, but, that being said:
I think it's clear that Ron Paul's ideas are slightly out of line with the majority of the Republican Party leadership. In the case of the unlikely event that he is elected President, most of his avowed policies will be opposed in Congress by both parties. However, if he lived up to his promises, he would be able to put an end to America's depredations abroad and its stupid war on drugs. That is, of course, provided he doesn't get his ass taken out by the real owners of this country.
With that in mind, I guess if I can't have the dictatorship of the proletariat, I'd want Ron Paul in the White House and Congress jammed stuff with real liberals. Like DSA members.
And while I'm at it, I'd also like a million dollars, a night alone with Scarlett Johansson and a Pegasus...
How long has Ben Bernacke been head of the Fed?
Wasn't he appointed by Bush Jr? So, yeah. 9-12 years.
France's idea of "austerity" is that you retire at 62 with a full pension, instead of at 60.
It's a far cry from the current Republican idea of austerity, which is to slash social security, Medicare, and veterans' benefits.
I had heard they were looking at implementing changes not as bad but in the same vein as Greece, not just their retirement age increase.
But, again, we'll see how it works out.