REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Downright Shocking.

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Monday, October 17, 2016 02:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9795
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:34 PM

FREMDFIRMA


I found this earlier today, it's a speech from Ron Paul back in 2002.

I'll drop it in as it's own post in a moment, but first I want you to think real hard on all the things that you, personally, think are fucked up in our government.. right ?

Then read the speech, and give me one reason, if you can, even one... not to vote for this guy.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:35 PM

FREMDFIRMA


"The other day, I made a huge "gaffe" on national TV: I told the truth about the crimes of the U.S. government. As you can imagine, the ceiling fell in, and a couple of walls too. Congressmen are supposed to support the government, I was told. Oh, it's okay to criticize around the edges, but there are certain subjects a member of the House of Representatives is not supposed to bring up. But I touched the real "third-rail" of American politics, and the sparks sure flew.

I was interviewed on C-SPAN's morning "Washington Journal," and I used the opportunity, as I do all such media appearances, to point out how many of our liberties have been stolen by the federal government. We must take them back. The Constitution, after all, has a very limited role for Washington, D.C. If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited. That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us.

Under liberty, we built the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most decent country on earth. It's no coincidence that the monstrous growth of the federal government has been accompanied by a sickening decline in living standards and moral standards. The feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill--working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but otherwise entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and out-of-control leviathan that we call the federal government wants to run every single aspect of our lives. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not America. It's not what the Founders gave us. It's not the country you believe in. It's not the country I believe in.

So, on that TV interview, I emphasized not only the attacks on our property, but also the decline of our civil liberties, at the hands of the federal police. There are not supposed to be any federal police, according to the Constitution. Then I really went over the line. I talked about the Waco massacre. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno claim those 81 church members, including 19 children, burned down their own church and killed themselves, and good riddance. So they put few survivors on trial, and threw them in prison for 40 years. We're not supposed to remember that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms--talk about an unconstitutional agency--rather than arrest David Koresh on his regular morning jog, called in the TV stations for big publicity bonanza, and sent a swat team in black masks and black uniforms to break down his front door, guns blazing. They also sent in a helicopter gunship, to shoot at the roof of a church full of innocents. The Branch Davidians resisted, and after a heartless siege of almost two months, and after cutting off food, water, and electricity, and playing horrible rock and roll through huge speakers 24 hours a day, the feds sent in the tanks to crush the walls of the church, and inject poisonous CS gas. Now, CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on Chemical Warfare. The U.S. could not use it in a war. But it could and did use it against American civilians. After the tanks did their work on the church, the place burst into flame, and all 81 people--men, women, children, and babies - were incinerated in a screaming horror. Did some feds set the fire? Did the flammable CS gas ignite, since without electricity, the parishioners were using lanterns? Did a tank knock over a lantern, striking one of the bales of hay being used against the thin walls as a "defense" against bullets? Or did the Davidians, as Clinton and Reno claim, kill themselves?

A new documentary- -Waco: The Rules of Engagement- may show, through FLIR infrared photography, FBI snipers killing the Davidians by shooting through the back of the church, where no media cameras were allowed. This film won a prize at the famed Sundance Film Festival. It was made by people who took the government's side, until they investigated. Whatever the truth, there's no question that an irresponsible federal government has innocent blood on its hands, and not only from Waco. And the refusal of corrupt and perverse liberals to admit it means nothing.

In my interview, in answer to a caller's question, I pointed out that Waco, and the federal murders at Ruby Ridge- especially the FBI sniper's shot that blasted apart the head of a young mother holding her baby- caused many Americans to live in fear of federal power. Then I uttered the sentiment that caused the media hysteria: I said that a lot of Americans fear that they too might be attacked by federal swat teams for exercising their constitutional rights, or merely for wanting to be left alone. Whoa! You've never seen anything like it. For days, in an all-out assault, I was attacked by Democrats, unions, big business, establishment Republicans, and- of course- the media, in Washington and my home state of Texas. Newspapers foamed at the mouth, calling me a "right-wing extremist." (Say, isn't that what George III called Thomas Jefferson?) I was even blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing! And by the way, I don't believe we've gotten the full truth on that either. All my many opponents were outraged that a Congressman would criticize big government. "If you don't like Washington, resign!" said a typical big-city newspaper editorial. But the media, as usual, were all wet. (Do they ever get anything right?) The average Congressman may go to Washington to wallow in power, and line his pockets with a big lobbying job for a special interest (so he can keep ripping-off the taxpayers). But that's not why I'm in Congress. It's not why I left my medical practice as a physician. It's not why I put up with all the abuse. It's not why I refuse a plush Congressional pension. I'm in this fight for a reason. I want to hand on to my children and grandchildren, and to you and your family, a great and free America, an America true to her Constitution, an America worthy of her history. I will not let the crooks and clowns and criminals have their way.

I'm in Congress to represent the ideas of liberty, the ideas that you and I share, for the people of my district, for the people of Texas, for the people of America. That's why I'm working to stop federal abuses, and to cut the government: its taxes, its bureaucrats, its paramilitary police, its spending, its meddling overseas, and every single unconstitutional action it takes. And not with a pair of nail scissors, but with a hammer and chisel. Won't you help me do this work? Not much of the federal leviathan would be left, if I had my way. But you'd be able to keep the money you earn, your privacy would be secure, your dollar would be sound, your local school would be tops, and your kids wouldn't be sent off to some useless or vicious foreign war to fight for the UN. But Jefferson and the other Founders would recognize our government, and our descendants would bless us. By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing.

Recently, I asked a famous Republican committee chairman- who's always talking about getting rid of IRS- why he engineered a secret $580 million raise for the tax collectors. "They need it for their computers," this guy told me. So the IRS can't extract enough from us as it is! The National Taxpayers Union says I have the highest pro-taxpayer rating in Congressional history, that I am the top "Taxpayer's Best Friend." You know I won't play the Capitol Hill games with the Capitol Hill gang, denouncing the IRS while giving the Gestapo more of your money. Or figuring out some other federal tax for them to squeeze out of you. I also want to abolish the Federal Reserve, and send Alan Greenspan out to get a job. The value of our dollar and the level of our interest rates are not supposed to be manipulated by a few members of the power elite meeting secretly in a marble palace. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, pure and simple. The only Constitutional money is gold and silver, not notes redeemable in them. Not fed funny money. Without the Federal Reserve, our money could not be inflated at the behest of big government or big banks. Your income and savings would not lose their value. Just as important, we wouldn't have this endless string of booms and busts, recessions and depressions, with each bust getting worse. They aren't natural to the free market; they're caused by the schemers at the Fed. President Andrew Jackson called the 19th-century Fed "The Monster" because it was a vehicle for inflation and all sorts of special-interest corruption. Let me tell you, things haven't changed a bit.

I also work to save our schools from D.C. interference. Thanks to the feds, new curriculums not only smear the Founders as "racist, slave-owning elitists," they seek to dumb down our students so they will all be equal. "Look-say" reading and the abolition of phonics has the same purpose, and so does the new "fuzzy" math, in which there are no right and no wrong answers. That must be what they use in the U.S. Treasury! It's certainly what they use in the U.S. Congress. But ever since the beginning of federal aid to education and accelerating with the establishment of the rotten Department of Education, SAT scores have been dropping. Schools, with few exceptions, are getting worse every year. To save our kids, we must get the sticky fingers of the feds off our local schools, and let parents rule. That's what the Constitution says, and the Bible too.

And then there's my least favorite topic, the UN. World government is obviously unconstitutional. It undermines our country's sovereignty in the worst way possible. That's why I want us out of the UN, and the UN itself taking a hike. After all, the UN is socialist and corrupt (many votes can be bought with a "blonde and a case of scotch," one UN ambassador once said). It costs many billions, and it puts our soldiers in UN uniforms under foreign commanders, and sends them off to unconstitutional, undeclared wars. When Michael New, one of the finest young men I've ever met, objected to wearing UN blue, he was kicked out of the American Army. What an outrage! Not one dime for the UN, and not one American soldier! Not in Haiti, not in Bosnia, not in Somalia, not in Rwanda. I know its radical, but how about devoting American military efforts to defending America, and only America? Such ideas, said one newspaper reporter, make me a maverick who will never go far because he won't go along to get along. Darn right! What does "go far" mean? Get a big government job? To heck with that. And I won't sell my vote for pork either.

When I walked through the U.S. Capitol this morning, I got angry. The building is filled with statues and painting of Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founders. Those great men sacrificed everything to give us a free country, and a Constitution to keep it that way. When I was first elected, I placed my hand on the Bible and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's exactly what I'm fighting for. But such ideas drive the liberals crazy. That's why I badly need your help. I've been targeted nationally for defeat. The Democrats, the AFL-CIO, the teachers union, big business PACs, the trial lawyers, the big bankers, the foreign-aid lobbyists, the big media, and the establishment Republicans want to dance on my political grave. The Fed, the Education Department, and the UN are anxious to join in. They can't stand even one person telling the truth. And they're terrified when that truth gains the people's support. Right now, four well-funded Democrats are competing to try to beat me, and a Republican is rumored to have been offered money at a secret meeting in Mexico(!) if he would try to knock me off in a primary.……

Join this fight for the Constitution, and stop those who want to rip it up, and throw it in the Potomac.

Together, we can join the Founders' fight. Together, we can make history. "

Sincerely, Ron Paul

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 2:21 AM

THEKNIGHT


I can give you plenty of reasons not to vote for this guy. He thinks that governments shouldn't take money from its people, keeping most for itself, giving out only a little bit here and there just to keep the misinformed masses happy. He thinks that the government shouldn't dictate every minute detail of how I live my life, from where I will send my kids to school (when I one day have kids), to whether or not I should be able to smoke a cigarette while eating a hamburger with extra cheese. He thinks that government should go and send my peers off to fight in some foreign land for an ambiguous reason (not that I am a fan of dictators) and should give contracts to their buddies. He thinks that government should not be able to go in and screw around with someone else's internal problem without being asked in, while at the same time talking about people coming into our country and messing with us like it is the worst thing in the world.

So in summary, I can give you various and sundry reasons not to vote for this guy, but none of them are really any good.

Paul for President '08

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 3:06 AM

HERO


He also wants to get rid of Federal Law Enforcement agencies. That way we can trust our counter-terrorism to the Vermont State Patrol...

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 3:41 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
He also wants to get rid of Federal Law Enforcement agencies. That way we can trust our counter-terrorism to the Vermont State Patrol...

H



Fed agencies perp all the terrorism and major assassinations in USASPP today. As they have for over 150 years. So getting rid of Uncle Scam gets rid of terrorism. Read Operations Northwoods and Gladio.

Fed terrorists refuse to arrest and deport 40-million homicidal illegal alien enemy combatants who demand overthrow of USA, with 200-million more on the way ASAP, thanks to Bush Jr's Security & Prosperity Partnership contract to merge USA with Mexico and Canada in 2005. Illegal aliens murdered over 45,000 US citizens so far, since 9/11/2001, including Nathan Fillion's boss in WAITRESS.
www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103
www.spp.gov

Or we could do what White House counsel and FBI agent G Gordon Liddy said on his radio show.

Quote:


"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots. Kill the sons of bitches. If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head."
-G Gordon Liddy, Nixon White House attorney at law, FBI agent, convicted Watergate felon, on his national neocon radio show in 1994
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy




Mafia trial lawyer Sir Rudy Giuliani Knight of the British Empire for dictator in 2008



Quote:


Yes, it's former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani in drag having his "breasts" shamelessly violated by "Apprentice" tycoon Donald Trump. Clip from new documentary GIULIANI TIME, by Kevin Keating, opens May 12 at Landmark Theatres' Sunshine Cinema in NYC. More at www.GiulianiTime.com.

"Mayor Giuliani — a former federal prosecutor who won notice for 'pursuing' the Mafia — had relatives linked to organized crime, including a mobbed-up cousin who was gunned down by FBI agents in 1977, a new book says. Lewis D'Avanzo, a son of the mayor's uncle and a guest at Giuliani's first wedding in 1968, was a 'ruthless and widely feared mob associate' who headed a massive stolen car ring, according to FBI documents and interviews detailed in Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, by Village Voice senior editor Wayne Barrett. Due in stores next week, the book sketches a largely unflattering portrait of the clan, depicting his father, Harold, as a hothead and the "muscle" behind a brother-in-law's loansharking operation, run out of a Brooklyn bar. Along with cracking heads, it says the mayor's father served time in state prison for a stickup, rarely held an on-the-books job and once was a gunman in a mob shootout in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. According to the book, Giuliani's cousin Lewis D'Avanzo was known as "Steve the Blond" and listed as armed and dangerous in FBI bulletins. His criminal record included a 10-year federal sentence for the armed hijacking of a truck loaded with $240,000 worth of mercury. The book alleges that he was suspected of taking part in several murders. D'Avanzo was gunned down by the FBI in October 1977, when he tried to run down an agent after being stopped on a warrant that accused him and two associates of transporting 100 stolen luxury cars. Quoting an unnamed friend of D'Avanzo, the book describes a 1962 shootout pitting a local mobster against the mayor's father and Leo D'Avanzo, Lewis D'Avanzo's father. The book says Leo was later sanctioned by mob bosses for shooting at a Mafia member. Leo D'Avanzo, who was known in family circles as a black sheep, ran loansharking and gambling operations out of a Brooklyn bar where Giuliani's father worked as a bartender. In his role as debt collector, his father 'broke legs, smashed kneecaps, crunched noses.' Joan Ellen D'Avanzo, a cousin who at one time lived with Giuliani when he was a youngster, became a drug addict who was beaten to death in 1973 at age 34. Her cause of death was listed as undetermined, but several family members said she was murdered."
—Michael R. Blood, New York Daily News, "Rudy's Kin Tied to Mob", July 06, 2000

"The father he celebrated so often was a pathological predator. His extended family harbored a junkie, a crooked cop and a murky mob wing. He dissolved his first marriage with a lie so he could appear Catholic when he remarried. The very personal jewelry his first wife found in her bedroom wasn't hers...."
—Wayne Barrett, Rudy!: An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Guiliani, "All in the Family: Crooks, Cops and a Junkie" (co-author of City for Sale)



Gangsta Govt loves you. Bend over.


"How can I get the Captain to shoot a cop in the face, and make it right? That extra moment of sadism - that's the thing that says it's okay, buddy, you're not up to spec, you're going down!"
-Joss the Boss, Firefly DVD, censored Episode 1 "Serenity"

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556

www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

PNTV banned at Gitmo!
www.piratenews.org/hollywood.html


Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 4:13 AM

THEKNIGHT


As far as I understand it, counter terrorism is in fact an interstate issue, which does fall in the realm of the federal government, even in a strict reading of the constitution. It is not so much a complete abolition of federal law enforcement, but more a reigning in on federal encroachment on the job of the locals. So as far as I understand it there would still be some things under federal jurisdiction, terrorism being one, cross state line issues being another, so counter terrorism would still fall under a federal jurisdiction. Unless its not. That didn't make too much sense that last bit, at least not in writing but it makes sense in my head. Hate it when that happens. I hope you can sympathize. Also Dr. Paul has an idea regarding fighting terrorism using privateers that is kinda ingenious in my book, but I am a strong believer in the power of the private sector. I don't claim to be an expert on anything, so outside input is appreciated. Talking things out is how we learn is how I look at it. So there you go.

Your man in Hong Kong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 4:50 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

He also wants to get rid of Federal Law Enforcement agencies.

Oh, you mean the ones that in the history of their entire existance have not prevented a single act of terrorism, yet have perpetuated numerous ones (See Also: COINTELPRO) against the very citizens they're supposed to protect ?

That just got caught illegally spying on US, and tried to cover it up ?

Boo-Ferkin-Hoo, lemme go find the smallest violin to play them a dirge.

I don't want protection, that road leads to a rubber room and a box of crayons in some state run facility so we can't harm ourselves.

I want freedom dammit, and any terrorista who does unto me or mine better damnwell hope he does for me in the first bite, cause if he don't his ass is MINE!

I think your real problem, Zero, is that like the rest of the parasitic leeches suckling the FedGov masquerading as "Public Servants", you'd be forced to go out and get a real job once the trough is empty.

{ } <-See this ? that's all the sympathy I have for you.

I've no intention of being nice: be advised.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 5:08 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


This speech is intriguing. I hear a lot about abolishing the majority of the Federal government and its services. I am interested in the idea of taking away the Federal income tax.

But I do find myself interested in how everything will operate and function in the absence of the Federal Machine.

I am not only interested in hearing what this man will NOT do, what he will TAKE AWAY, but I would also like to hear, precisely, what he will REPLACE all this with.

How does the government work, exactly, in his ideal scenario? He's said quite eloquently what it won't do and won't have. I want to hear what it will do and will have.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 5:38 AM

THEKNIGHT


I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that which governs least governs best. And that is what he would do. For the most part leave us to live are lives as we see fit. In absence of government run social service, private social service would arise. If you say that this is unrealistic, I humbly point you in the direction of Hong Kong, to the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals organization. They run schools, housing, public health care, social services for young children and the elderly and many other community services. They fund their operation by collecting rent from their many property holdings throughout the area. They spend over half a billion American dollars a year caring for the poor here in HK, and yet are able to cover that due to their private revenues. So this is how things would be replaced, those which go away would be taken care of by the private interests headed by philanthropic folk. As to how he would govern, he would protect our rights to life, liberty and property. That is all the government is there to do. It is almost midnight here so I will adjourn for the evening and hope to be able to catch up upon the morrow. I would say to play nice in my absence, but I know that is like trying to hold back the river with a plastic shovel.

I really need a better signature.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 5:51 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


duplication

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 5:52 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Well, that's interesting. I'm sure that private entities would come up with schemes to provide a variety of social services.

But let me start with basic things that are concrete and that I can put my hands on and wrap my mind around.

With no tax, how is an aircraft carrier built, outfitted, crewed, and operated?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 6:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Poor sod. He's living in some kind of fantasy-land. While I agree that the Federal government should be scaled back, there ARE things that ONLY a fedral government can do. For example, one state is sucking up all the water out of a river or belching pollution. Who do the downstream/wind states appeal to? One state pays poverty wages with no unemployment benefits, creating undereducated economic refugees in neighboring states. And who defends the borders? Who maintains sovereign rights over coastal waters? Who represents the USA interests vis a vis China, or with nations who strip-mine the open seas? Who can (hopefully) represent the population against multinationals?

It's a complex world, which gets more complex as it gets more and more crowded. States - and nations - no longer live in isolation from each other, separated by impasssble seas or miles of wilderness. Ron Paul doesn't seem to be proposing a viable alternate because wishing you were living 200 years ago just doesn't work.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 7:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Frem- waiting for you not to be nice. Hope you come out swinging.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 7:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


dang it! dbl!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 8:11 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh, you mean the ones that in the history of their entire existance have not prevented a single act of terrorism


Your forgetting the plot to set off a nuclear bomb in New York last year.

What plot, says you?

Exactly.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 8:26 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh, you mean the ones that in the history of their entire existance have not prevented a single act of terrorism


Your forgetting the plot to set off a nuclear bomb in New York last year.

What plot, says you?

Exactly.

H



And the plot to destroy LA with a fleet of alien squid from Neptune.

What plot, says you?

Exactly.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 10:01 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,


With no tax, how is an aircraft carrier built, outfitted, crewed, and operated?

--Anthony




Well of course they'll "steal" your tax money to pay for the defence of THEIR property, what were you thinking. There will be army's and border guards and cops with some taxes to pay for them, because they believe in those things and as such want you to pay for them too. Of course the things they don't believe the government should do -- ie the things they dont want to pay for will be axed.

I love Ron Paul, they should set up a foundation to clone the man, but the institutions set up to run a country of eigthteenth century gentlemen farmers and plantation owners won't cut it in the modern world. The Federal Government is too big and too free with other people's money, that's a long way from saying that no Federal government is a better option.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 11:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

While I agree that the Federal government should be scaled back, there ARE things that ONLY a fedral government can do.

Of course there are, that's why it's there - it's just out of control and someone needs to take the wheel, and soon.

Several of the things you mention fall under interstate commerce, which is one of the enumerated powers of the FedGov for the exact reason you state.

No one is saying abolishment, we're talking about hacking off a tremendous level of usurpation of authority and resources that needs to be addressed immediately if not sooner.

Border defense is in fact what the national guard was intended for, to some degree that's a state issue, but economically it's also an issue that affects interstate commerce as well - and our immigration policies are well overdue for a significant overhaul.

Coastal water issues are handled by respectively, the Coast Guard and the Navy, and Naval operations are also specifically enumerated to the Feds via Congress.

Article I, Sections 8,9,10 of the Constitution specifically provide for most of the issues you mentioned.

As well, international relations are also specifically Enumerated to the Executive, as per Article II, Section 2, requiring Congressional Approval of such in the number of two thirds of the present members.

I think you've misunderstood his position a bit, Siggy... they have both the means and authority to do the part of the job that is theirs, no one is saying we should remove that - what's being said is that they need to be LIMITED to that, and not given a blank check to chase every wild hair that suits their fancy with our money and resources.

And as for the aircraft carrier, why exactly do we need such a thing to defend our turf ? it's an offensive strike weapon, primarily.
If we put it back in our pants and redesigned our armed forces to defend our country instead of being an imperial war machine, we could cut a hell of a lot of that budget, and put much of it where it BELONGS, that being the after-action support of the young men and women who've served.

Our countries habit of crapping on the vets while denying them the needful medical care and resources we promised them is downright shameful.

If one feels we need an Aircraft carrier for national defense, then one tells our elected representatives that we want one, they vote on it, then vote on what funds they will appropriate for one, and then contract it via their responsibility as enumerated in Article I, Section 8.

We have a system in place for this, apparently not well understood, so lemme add a link here to clarify matters.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Ron's not proposing Anarchy here, he's calling for the FedGov to properly perform it's intended function.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 2:56 PM

THEKNIGHT


Thank you Frem. I guess I wasn't getting my point across as well as I thought, I was handling the domestic care issue part, but assumed that people would realize that the federal government would handle the powers that were enumerated within the constitution. I should have been more clear. You helped out with that. State Department would still exist to deal with international relations, Defence Department would still exist, just much more scaled back version that is more suited to modern warfare, ie wars amongst the people. There would still bea government, it would still do its job, just do the job that that piece of paper says it should, not what it thinks it can get away with.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 3:00 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

"And as for the aircraft carrier, why exactly do we need such a thing to defend our turf ? it's an offensive strike weapon, primarily.
If we put it back in our pants and redesigned our armed forces to defend our country instead of being an imperial war machine, we could cut a hell of a lot of that budget, and put much of it where it BELONGS, that being the after-action support of the young men and women who've served.

Our countries habit of crapping on the vets while denying them the needful medical care and resources we promised them is downright shameful.

If one feels we need an Aircraft carrier for national defense, then one tells our elected representatives that we want one, they vote on it, then vote on what funds they will appropriate for one, and then contract it via their responsibility as enumerated in Article I, Section 8.

We have a system in place for this, apparently not well understood, so lemme add a link here to clarify matters.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Ron's not proposing Anarchy here, he's calling for the FedGov to properly perform it's intended function.

-Frem





Hello,

I agree that an aircraft carrier is a 'projection of power' offensive weapon. In fact, that's pretty much what the whole Navy is. However, projecting power is sometimes needed for defensive purposes. (You may not agree. That's okay.)

But now, here's where I'm confused:

We decide we need a navy, including aircraft carriers, for national defense. Our leaders hear our plea. They vote on what funds they will appropriate for our Navy. Then... Well, don't they then tax us to get money for the Navy we wanted? And any other programs we cry out for?

I feel that I'm missing something rather obvious, but I can't figure out what it is.

How does a Federal government get the money it needs without taxing us for it?

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 4:07 PM

THEKNIGHT


There are legitimate ways for the federal government to tax us. They can tax commerce, some goods, and a few other things. It is primarily the income tax that would be abolished. So an aircraft carrier, which is a legitimate need of a legitimate military, would be funded through taxes, just not an income tax.

Here is what the constitution says on taxes:
Quote:


Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin
of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of
Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.
Quote:


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 4:26 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

There are legitimate ways for the federal government to tax us. They can tax commerce, some goods, and a few other things. It is primarily the income tax that would be abolished. So an aircraft carrier, which is a legitimate need of a legitimate military, would be funded through taxes, just not an income tax.



So they are advocating a country-wide sales tax to replace an income tax? Okay. It seems very much a half dozen of one, six of the other situation. But perhaps we'd be a less disposable society.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 19, 2007 8:32 PM

SERGEANTX


Ron Paul is the only politician I'm aware worthy of a vote.

The sad fact is, people don't want the kind of freedom, and responsibility, he advocates. We are living in a nation of people trained from birth to be good little consumer drones. Go to school, get a job, watch TV and don't ask questions. Our insecurities are reinforced through daily doses of fear supplied by our government, our media, our schools, our religions, etc...

I'd love to hear how anyone thinks this might change, but I'm not seeing how.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:08 AM

FREMDFIRMA


If you cut out the pork, the waste, and downright BS (google: bridge to nowhere - for a good example) then the existing taxes would more than cover it, with a surplus, even if you removed direct taxation of incomes.

It's pretty simple math, really.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:37 AM

THEKNIGHT


It would not be a national sales tax, though I would much rather that than an income tax. It is duties, tariffs, and excise tax. And with massive pork cut out those tax levels could be very low and the government could still do its job. And we would get to keep a much larger chunk of our earned income. That is how I believe it would work anyhow.

What do I know, I am just a college student. You know, the future.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:53 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Here ya go, have a look directly.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/budget.html

Just one measly example - under Dept of State and other..

We're gonna spend $4,452,000,000.00 Financing FOREIGN militaries ?

There's no Constitutional Authority or Justification for that, none, nada, zip.

That's just ONE measly item, mind you.
I could go through this thing with a chainsaw and not do the american people one whit of harm or even likely reduce actual services.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:02 AM

KANEMAN


"That's just ONE measly item, mind you.
I could go through this thing with a chainsaw and not do the American people one whit of harm or even likely reduce actual services."

It just may increase services!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:42 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

"It is duties, tariffs, and excise tax."


I don't think I know enough about taxes, because that sounded like someone saying, "We'll be replacing tax with tax, tax, and tax."

How do these other sorts of taxes work?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:11 AM

THEKNIGHT


While yes they are just essentially just a different sort of tax, they are not paid directly by the individual. Mind you I do not profess to be an expert on taxes, but at least these are not like cutting my income in half on the front end, and then still having to pay for these taxes anyway.
Quote:

a duty is a kind of tax, often associated with customs, a payment due to the revenue of a state, levied by force of law. Properly, a duty differs from a tax in being levied on specific commodities, financial transactions, estates, etc., and not on individuals; thus it is right to talk of import duties, excise duties, death or succession duties, etc., but not of income tax as being levied on a person in proportion to his income.

A tariff is a tax on foreign goods upon importation. When a ship arrives in port a customs officer inspects the contents and charges a tax according to the tariff formula. Since the goods cannot be landed until the tax is paid it is the easiest tax to collect, and the cost of collection is small. Smugglers of course seek to evade the tariff.

In the United States, the term excise means: (A) any tax other than a property tax or capitation (i.e., an indirect tax, or excise, in the constitutional law sense), or (B) a tax that is simply called an excise in the language of the statute imposing that tax (an excise in the statutory law sense, sometimes called a miscellaneous excise). An excise under definition (A) is not necessarily the same as an excise under definition (B).



Not, Repeat, Not an expert by anyone's definitions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA


There we go, took a little fiddling, but I figured this thread needed a bit of necromancy, as it was the original let's-bang-the-Ron-Paul-drum around here.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:59 AM

KANEMAN


"am not only interested in hearing what this man will NOT do, what he will TAKE AWAY, but I would also like to hear, precisely, what he will REPLACE all this with."


He would have most things that are "taken away" run at state level as opposed to federal level. As far as the income tax.....What did we do before 1913?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:06 AM

KANEMAN


"We decide we need a navy, including aircraft carriers, for national defense. Our leaders hear our plea. They vote on what funds they will appropriate for our Navy. Then... Well, don't they then tax us to get money for the Navy we wanted? And any other programs we cry out for?"


Where you are going wrong is thinking that the income tax pays for this. The income tax goes entirely to the 'illegal' federal reserve bank to pay down debt and inflation. Every cent.........

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:11 AM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Ron Paul is the only politician I'm aware worthy of a vote. The sad fact is, people don't want the kind of freedom, and responsibility, he advocates. We are living in a nation of people trained from birth to be good little consumer drones. Go to school, get a job, watch TV and don't ask questions. Our insecurities are reinforced through daily doses of fear supplied by our government, our media, our schools, our religions, etc...I'd love to hear how anyone thinks this might change, but I'm not seeing how.


Hear Hear Sargent! I've been waving around my magic wand...and my arm is getting tired as the mindless masses remain in the wasteland, yes, that would be the Joseph Campbell wasteland. If you have the time...do like I have done. I went to Ron Paul's web site and downloaded his position papers. I have convinced 4 other people to vote RP, and convinced one democrat to re-register Republican so he could vote in the primaries. It was so much easier to convince my neighbors than I thought. It's a small part to play but it felt great. Try it if you are so inclined! F the media/political complex!!!

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:06 PM

KANEMAN


"F the media/political complex!!!"

Mal, you can do better than that.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:49 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
..It was so much easier to convince my neighbors than I thought. It's a small part to play but it felt great. Try it if you are so inclined! F the media/political complex!!!



It's been a while since I posted that. Things are beginning to look more promising than I'd anticipated, at least on the internet. If we can just somehow crack the mainstream stranglehold...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:55 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Ahhhh.... it's threads like these that give me some small hope that maybe all is not lost, and we actually can stave off that impending civil war nobody ever likes talking about another generation or two.


Quote:

By Frem: ...give me one reason, if you can, even one... not to vote for this guy.


Well Frem, I can't think of.....

Quote:

Hero Buts In: He also wants to get rid of Federal Law Enforcement agencies. That way we can trust our counter-terrorism to the Vermont State Patrol...


Oh no he didn'? Nice jab there Lawyerman (I've just decided that's your new super-"Hero" name. Very apropos, don'tcha think?

Quote:

Frem Quickly Counters: I think your real problem, Zero, is that like the rest of the parasitic leeches suckling the FedGov masquerading as "Public Servants", you'd be forced to go out and get a real job once the trough is empty.


OHHHHH SMACKDOWN!!! 3...2...1... IT'S OVER! Who's the bitch now? I see you have yet to even come back for another dose of humiliation.... wonder why that is? Couldn't be that he's hitting just a little too close to home there, could it Lawyerman?

Seriously, nice reply there Frem. Saying what I've told him on several occasions now, and as always, putting just the right amount of whatever it is you put on your writing to leave welts when that's what you're aiming to do.

That'd be a pretty funny sight to see Lawyerman and Greenspan pouting in the same unemployment line, wouldn't it? I know I'm laughing now seeing it in my mind's eye....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:11 PM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
"F the media/political complex!!!"
Mal, you can do better than that.


How about this....Fuck them in the.........hmmmmmm.....You know what! You already took the best stuff Kane! Sandpaper, spikes, etc....OK, I'm workin on it!!!!

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 17, 2016 2:40 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL