Why SHOULDN'T Ron Paul be President? by Wulfenstar

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I still have a Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker on my car, so I can't oblige you.

Too bad the Tea Party does not embrace Ron Paul's vision, or he might have a chance.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:02 PM

Paul/Grayson '12. Or Grayson/Paul '12.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 6:30 PM

MINCINGBEAST

I'll gladly oblige you, though I'd rather dump in your lungs.

"Dr. Paul", beloved champion of neckbeards, is an intermediate step twixt Alex Jones and Ross Perot.

He has his appeal, in that he is marginally more direct than the establishment, but is an isolationist goldbug that favors the purity of his bad ideas over practical problem solving. The only thing in his resume that recommends him is that he was nearly humped on by Bruno. Also, he's raciss, yo.

More practically, could a figure like Paul successfully govern? Imagine him with a house full Republicans and a Democratic senate, blathering his libertarian platitudes.

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

Thursday, December 30, 2010 5:27 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Imagine him with a house full Republicans and a Democratic senate, blathering his libertarian platitudes."

Hello,

Well worth the price of admission.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Thursday, December 30, 2010 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Well worth the price of admission.

Haha. I'd pay to see that.

If he had a chance to actually get into office, with or without a congress full of Reps and Dems, I would regain my faith in the USA again.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

He's not a problem-solver. Someone who is THAT ideologically pure is not looking at the real world. No matter what happens, I suspect Ron Paul would keep pushing the same agenda, whether or not it was "working".

Not looking at the real world is what got us into this mess in the first place. I don't think we need an purist ideologue any more than we need corrupt politicians.

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

Thursday, December 30, 2010 7:56 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
I'll gladly oblige you, though I'd rather dump in your lungs.

"Dr. Paul", beloved champion of neckbeards, is an intermediate step twixt Alex Jones and Ross Perot.

He has his appeal, in that he is marginally more direct than the establishment, but is an isolationist goldbug that favors the purity of his bad ideas over practical problem solving. The only thing in his resume that recommends him is that he was nearly humped on by Bruno. Also, he's raciss, yo.

More practically, could a figure like Paul successfully govern? Imagine him with a house full Republicans and a Democratic senate, blathering his libertarian platitudes.

Years of huffing gas render some unable to understand the difference in the terms non-interventionist and isolationist, or that having fiat money is not as good as having money backed by something tangible. I think instead of running from Bruno he should have stayed in the room, pulled down his slacks, and gotten a blow-job...Clinton would have.

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

Thursday, December 30, 2010 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Someone who is THAT ideologically pure is not looking at the real world.

Yet "looking at the real world" is the excuse used for all the compromises that have gotten us where we are.

We've tried "looking at the real world." It's time to try governing on principles.

Quote:
Not looking at the real world is what got us into this mess in the first place.

What makes you say that? Corruption IS the real world.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Thursday, December 30, 2010 10:54 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sig pretty much covers it for me:

Quote:
He's not a problem-solver. Someone who is THAT ideologically pure is not looking at the real world. No matter what happens, I suspect Ron Paul would keep pushing the same agenda, whether or not it was "working".

I don't think we need an purist ideologue any more than we need corrupt politicians.

I think what she meant about not looking at the real world was about US (American voters) not looking at the real world...the candidates/elected officials/government/corporations know perfectly well what "real" is and how to manipulate it into looking UNreal, while making the UNreal look real...or at least possible...

Now, Grayson/Paul, while a joke, looks good to me. Both would say it like it is and I think Grayson could compromise and would be strong enough to lead, while Paul could idealogue all he wanted and get some good ideas out there. In my fantasy world, anyway...which is to say somewhat akin to Wulf's "real" world.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What I meant is that Ron Paul has honed his ideology until it is fully internally consistent, like mathematics or logic. So every question that comes up gets the same answer.

What is the answer to government oppression? Small government.

What is the answer to pollution? Small government.

What is the answer to foreign wars? Small government.

What is the answer to poor health? Small government.

What is the answer to poor education? Small government.

Ok, yanno what? We've BEEN there. So have other nations, which have experimented with various forms of government involvement and non-involvement. SOMETIMES small government IS the answer. But sometimes, it is not. Ron Paul is rigid in his thinking. There is a thing in mathematics I believe which is called a field. Everything in that field can be explained by everything in the field. But step out of that field, and things suddenly stop being explainable. Being internally consistent doesn't mean being right with respect to a larger context. Once you have become mesmerized by your ideology, and have spent so much time polishing it, you wind up believing it is perfect. You stop looking at the real world and start thinking you have the answer to everything. I don't think Ron Paul has the wisdom to realize that he just might not be right all the time.

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

Thursday, December 30, 2010 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is a thing in mathematics I believe which is called a field. Everything in that field can be explained by everything in the field. But step out of that field, and things suddenly stop being explainable. Being internally consistent doesn't mean being right with respect to a larger context. Once you have become mesmerized by your ideology, and have spent so much time polishing it, you wind up believing it is perfect.

*laughs*

I have to cop a plea here, being guilty as charged - Wendy just read that bit and then put on her pouty face and pointed at me all accusingly, since my own answer of not mistreating our young is kinda my answer to almost everything.

In my defense though, it really *IS* the root of so very many of our social, legal and pyschological ills - maybe not all of em, but damn sure enough to matter greatly, and one could do a lot worse than try solving that problem.

One could do a lot worse than let Ron Paul try to minimize government too - just cause a solution ISN'T perfect, is no reason to dismiss it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Thursday, December 30, 2010 9:29 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Not that it's not perfect, Frem, it may be exactly the wrong thing to do at the moment and make things much, much worse.

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

Thursday, December 30, 2010 9:44 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The government as it stands today is in a position to empower and feed corporations at the cost of the citizenry. This is because all wealth and power flows from business to government representatives, while the government representatives bleed the citizenry to feed the businesses.

Kneecapping the government is a good first step to reversing that, even if you don't think it's the ultimate step.

Ron Paul would strip control of our money from corporations and he would starve the military industrial complex near to death. This is why he will never be elected. But anyway, these are both highly desirable steps to the rehabilitation of our nation from one that services businesses to one that services citizens.

In short, Signy, you can't get where you want to go from here. But from there? It's a much shorter road.

In my opinion.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Thursday, December 30, 2010 11:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Kneecapping the government is a good first step to reversing that, even if you don't think it's the ultimate step.

This is where you lose me. You're proposing a universal response to a non-universal problem. "Government" isn't the problem. THIS government in SOME aspects is a problem. Believe it or not, the government has done a fairly credible job of protecting the environment... certainly better than the corporations. The government has done a better job than corporations looking out for our retired folks. The government has also done a better job at fostering basic research than the corporations. There are things government is good for. In other nations, government has done a damn fine job providing health care.. certainly better than our current health insurances! Government was also responsible for the internet, the interstatehighway system, sewers, water, libraries... which business would not take over unless they made it insufferably expensive and unavailable for most people.

Government has mixed motives. On the one hand, it doesn't want to alienate its wealthy supporters. On the other hand, it needs the vote of the masses. And so it compromises.

Business has NO such "mixed motives". Each business seeks to gain larger market share and higher profit. Eventually, one will win. But this is at the price of low wages and unemployment. And, you have no handle on forcing a corporation to change. Unlike a democracy, you have no vote in running a corporation. Don't like the wages you're offered? So what! Don't like getting screwed by the mortgage company? Ha! Let's see you do something about it! Concentrated capital got the economy constipated? Well, when do you supposed business is going to fix the problem, eh?

You see government as such a bogeyman, but the way I see it, there is a much more dangerous bogeyman to confront. You see "the government" as weakness of people who can't "do" for themselves; I see it as a way for people to do be able to do more together than separately.

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I see it as a way for people to do be able to do more together than separately.

I agree, if people were actually together.

Right now, we have two large factions, very roughly half and half: Reps and Dems. Whatever large, ideal government we have together will represent only one faction over the other. That is, even if the mixed motive were to be taken out of government, and government truly represented the direct votes of the people, it will still, at best, represent the votes of HALF the people. The other HALF will be forced to accept a form of government they dislike.

What if we had your ideal government functioning out of pure democracy, and the votes of the people (without any undue influence) ask for a Republican government? Would you still think it was so together?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 3:21 AM

WHOZIT

Ron Paul and his son Senator Paul are OK, but I'm hoping for Rudy Giuliani in 2012.

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 6:22 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"You see "the government" as weakness of people who can't "do" for themselves;"

Hello,

You see one man, though a hundred voices may cry out.

You see one mind, though a hundred thinkers have thought.

It is so hard to have discussions with you, because you so seldom discuss things with me. You discuss them with some icon of the opposition that stands in for me.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 8:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You see one man, though a hundred voices may cry out.

What are you saying? That there are a lot of anti-government people? I got that already. But I do what Wulf so kindly suggested: I look at the facts, and facts aren't determined by popularity contest.

Quote:
It is so hard to have discussions with you, because you so seldom discuss things with me. You discuss them with some icon of the opposition that stands in for me.

Well, Anthony, that is what I thought I detected in your statements. If I was wrong, I apologize; it wasn't my intent to place words in your mouth. I've had that happen to me enough, and I know how frustrating that is. I would really like to know what you think of government, then.

But I also noticed that you didn't address my main point, which is that corporations are far more dangerous than government, and when choosing which ones to take out first, I would take down the corporate structure.

There is one other point to consider: Who do you think is FUNDING this anti-government movement?

Corporations: Rupert Murdoch. The Koch brothers. The US Chamber of Commerce. Richard Mellon Scaife. Steve Forbes. ExxonMobil. Holland Coors (Coors Beer).

http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/?recipientID=395

Now, why do you suppose that is?

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 8:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Right now, we have two large factions, very roughly half and half: Reps and Dems. Whatever large, ideal government we have together will represent only one faction over the other. That is, even if the mixed motive were to be taken out of government, and government truly represented the direct votes of the people, it will still, at best, represent the votes of HALF the people. The other HALF will be forced to accept a form of government they dislike.

So what? First of all, that's assuming that the population is always split 50-50. What about if its 80-20? Or even 95-5? But that is the nature of taking collective action. Corporations will not like having to reduce pollution. I don't like not being able to park on the street Tuesday AM. Not everyone will always agree on everything.

Quote:
What if we had your ideal government functioning out of pure democracy, and the votes of the people (without any undue influence) ask for a Republican government? Would you still think it was so together?

Yes. We HAD a Republican government, UNDER undue influence, and I STILL think it is possible for people to work together.

I didn't believe in the legitimacy of the elections, nor did I support goals of that government. I worked like hell to change it. But even then, I didn't call for taking the government down. And this is why:
WE ARE A DEMOCRACY.

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 8:58 AM

MINCINGBEAST

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Years of huffing gas render some unable to understand the difference in the terms non-interventionist and isolationist, or that having fiat money is not as good as having money backed by something tangible. I think instead of running from Bruno he should have stayed in the room, pulled down his slacks, and gotten a blow-job...Clinton would have.

Meaningless distinctions. Military disengagement and total apathy to the internal affairs of other, weaker nations is essentially the same thing as isolationist protectionism. I like to think of my beloved America as a hammer, or an aidsy wiener--it ought to destroy whatever it touches. I encourage you to experience more brain damage, be it through huffing gasoline or smashing your skull into things. Only then will you see the true essence of things.

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 8:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To continue...

This is why I do not call for the destruction of government:

WE ARE A DEMOCRACY.
The Founding Fathers created a form of government which accomodates peaceful change. You don't have to pick up a gun. All you have to do is pull a lever (or punch a card, or what-have-you). EVERYTHING that this government does... from the way it sets up elections to the wars it wages overseas... is subject, eventually, to the will of the American people. We may cry and whine about corruption, but ultimately it is in our hands whether we tolerate it or not. If we wanted, we could take this government down at the next election. We could set up a process for vote of no confidence. We could elect a third party, and a fourth. We can do ANYTHING we want, if we want it together.

Frem and I have talked about what it takes to change society. If you want to change society, you either have a few people run 1000 miles in one direction, or you have everyone take just one step. Just one step.

Democracy is a powerful tool. We are still learning as a people its powers and limitations. I passionately hope.... and I guess this is one of my driving beliefs... that we will learn from our mistakes and become wise enough to be able to use this tool to control our destiny.

But you can't learn to control government if you eliminate it, and then subject yourself to the will of corporations.

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 10:07 AM

And they don't even have to know, or realize, they're taking that step...

For a fact I'd rather have the half-assed and desultory support of a million, than the flaming rabid support of a hundred (which, mind you, comes with its own damn problems) - but getting it in the first place requires manipulation of local media, because that's a key factor in getting folks on board, getting their ATTENTION - which is nigh-impossible when dependent on a mass media so compliant it qualifies as an echo box and propaganda arm, case in point, the protest you all missed.
(Especially YOU John, I was waiting to see if you picked it up, you slacker.)

Black-Out in DC: Pay No Attention to Those Veterans Chained to the White House Fence
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/19-1

Quote:
There was a black-out and a white-out Thursday and Friday as over a hundred US veterans opposed to US wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world, and their civilian supporters, chained and tied themselves to the White House fence during an early snowstorm to say enough is enough.

Washington Police arrested 135 of the protesters, in what is being called the largest mass detention in recent years. Among those arrested were Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who used to provide the president's daily briefings, Daniel Ellsberg, who released the government's Pentagon Papers during the Nixon administration, and Chris Hedges, former war correspondent for the New York Times.

No major US news media reported on the demonstration or the arrests. It was blacked out of the New York Times, blacked out of the Philadelphia Inquirer, blacked out in the Los Angeles Times, blacked out of the Wall Street Journal, and even blacked out of the capital's local daily, the Washington Post.

NOBODY in the mainstream covered it, it might has well have never even happened.

So short of pulling a Max Headroom, your only real option is to use trickery, manipulation and chicanery - or, as has been my local policy of late, refuge in audacity..

Consider this, just think how MANY resources, how MUCH money, is pissed down the drain by a political campaign while accomplishing exactly fucking nothing of any USE ?

Well, here's one for your notes, people.

See, I've been running a purposely-doomed-to-fail campaign for local office, but offering cookies and brownies with the campaign flyers, targetting in particular the disadvantaged and homeless...

This isn't to get elected, this is to bait other candidates into offering food-bribes in order to not be seen as "cheap", not just manipulating them into feeding the poor, but also edging them towards the mentality of linking socially beneficial stuff to their campaign - cause THINK about it, instead of hateful attack ads, annoying spam, and push polls, what if said candidate went to Habitat for Humanity and used that same amount of money to slap together a couple houses ?

You get the free media coverage (and don't have to offer an opponent equal time, heh heh), and you get the perception of benefactor rather than annoyance going on top of it, bonus points if you get there and knock a couple boards together yourself, even if your own efforts are minimal, the mere act of picking up a hammer shows you give THAT much of a shit, and people can relate to this.

So, short term, rook em into feeding people, cause otherwise they get scorned as cheap, a little carrot and stick shove in a socially useful direction...
Long term, get the politicians to see the BENEFIT of having their campaign connected to "good deeds", not even because they're any kind of human, but BECAUSE IT'S COST-EFFECTIVE.

This is kinda like the two kids with a cake trick, yanno, where one gets to cut it, and the other picks their share - using their own selfish greed against them to create an equality, third-way-thinking at its finest.

You wanna change the world, you gotta figure out HOW first - the devil is in the very details, and from there it's all a matter of scale.

Not that I am convinced whatever we're a Democracy in anything but name, mind you, cause the same "rules" Siggy is mentioning here, are the same "rules" they IGNORE when things don't go their way, case in point, THIS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_L._Berger

Quote:
In spite of his being under indictment at the time, the voters of Milwaukee elected Berger to the House of Representatives in 1918. When he arrived in Washington to claim his seat, Congress formed a special committee to determine whether a convicted felon and war opponent should be seated as a member of Congress. On November 10, 1919 they concluded that he should not, and declared the seat vacant. Wisconsin promptly held a special election to fill the vacant seat, and on December 19, 1919, elected Berger a second time. On January 10, 1920, the House again refused to seat him, and the seat remained vacant until 1921, when Republican William H. Stafford claimed the seat after defeating Berger in the 1920 general election.

So, what you gonna do when if/when you DO get someone "in" who can and will change things, and the rest of them fuckers refuse to acknowledge it, and simply ignore your ass.

THEN what ?

That's a question you'd damn well better be prepared long in advance to answer before you throw your hat in the ring, too.

Of course, nobody much LIKED my answer, but there you have it - funny how they'd almost have me back though, despite running me out of town on a rail not so very long ago.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 10:13 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Hes got to be better than what the establishment is promoting.

That's pretty specious reasoning. He's got to be better. Do you have ANYTHING remotely resembling evidence of this? If Dr. Paul's district in South Texas a libertarian paradise? Is the standard of living there

Quote:

Come on smarty BrownCoats... nut up and say why you wouldnt want Ron Paul to be Prez.

I notice a pattern with you, Wulfie. You like to ask others for THEIR reasons, THEIR opinions, but you never want to provide your own. Are you this willing to let others do your thinking for you?

How's about you start off by nutting up and giving us your list of reasons why Ron Paul SHOULD be President? Are you willing to take that Pepsi challenge?

This Space For Rent!

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 10:14 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Ron Paul and his son Senator Paul are OK, but I'm hoping for Rudy Giuliani in 2012.

Yeah, especially after the way he stood up to the rest of the GOP when it came to taking care of the 9/11 first responders!

Oh.

Fuck.

He didn't, did he?

Never mind, then.

This Space For Rent!

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 10:30 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Posted by Frem:

So, what you gonna do when if/when you DO get someone "in" who can and will change things, and the rest of them fuckers refuse to acknowledge it, and simply ignore your ass.

THEN what ?

That's a question you'd damn well better be prepared long in advance to answer before you throw your hat in the ring, too.

Bingo.

Suppose the stars and planets all aligned, and Ron Paul WAS elected Prez of this joint. What then? What can he MAKE Congress do? He has the power (allegedly) to order troops into combat (but not to declare war); does he have the power to order them OUT?

He can't pass a single law on his own. He can't do much of anything without the help of Congress. And even WITH the help of Congress - even with a supermajority of his supporters - he can't do anything if there's even one Senator willing to filibuster. Or willing to SAY he's going to filibuster.

What would be the gigantic change you Ron Paul supporters think you'd see if he were President? 'Cause I can just about guarantee that all of Obama's supporters thought the same things about him and his Presidency, and look how shiny THAT turned out!

This Space For Rent!

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 11:11 AM

WHOZIT

You libs should stay out of this thread, what would you care about this. You got Barry in in 2012, arn't ya happy?

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
What would be the gigantic change you Ron Paul supporters think you'd see if he were President?

For me, it's not about what President Ron Paul would do. We all know the Presidency is a figurehead position with very little power outside of granting individual favors to certain people.

For me, my faith would be restored if he is ABLE to be elected into office. I would believe again, as Signy says, that we ARE a democracy.

Right now, I don't believe we are a democracy. I believe the entire system is rigged against people with principles like Ron Paul. So his getting elected alone would prove me wrong.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 11:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Right now, I don't believe we are a democracy. I believe the entire system is rigged against people with principles like Ron Paul. So his getting elected alone would prove me wrong.

Well, maybe people just don't like what he stands for. Deciding that a system isn't a democracy because the guy you favor hasn't been elected is a logical fallacy.

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, maybe people just don't like what he stands for.

No, I mean, even if a majority of people did want him to be president, I don't believe he could get elected. I believe the system is THAT rigged.

But this issue of popularity does go hand in hand. If Ron were to be popular enough to be a real contender for the office, that alone would restore my faith in the American people.

Not going to happen. Either one.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 3:28 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, I see what you mean.

So, OOC, what kind of candidate (or which candidates) would you consider to be at odds with "the system" enough to be a signal of true democracy, should they be elected?

Ron Paul, for one. Grayson? Ross Perot? Ralph Nader?

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

Friday, December 31, 2010 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ron Paul, for one. Grayson? Ross Perot? Ralph Nader?

Yep. All of them. Kucinich too.

We're looking at anyone who really wants to fix the country. They may differ in how the country should be fixed, but they are serious about a major overhaul.

I believe the system is rigged so that it will never get that overhaul.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 3:10 AM

Faith and a token gesture of futility ain't good enough.

What *I* want is to seize or subvert control of certain Congressional Committies, most primarily the ones in charge of our fucking alphabet goons, cause that's where the iron fist of power lies, in those Committies - getting George Miller on our side (Labor and Education, plus heavy connections in the GAO) was the beginning of the end for the WWASPS Empire Hellcamps, and continues to kick ass on the front line of Educational Reform and Safety.
http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/05/gao-report-finds-hundreds-of
-a.shtml
http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2010/12/new-government-report-finds-
sc.shtml

Of course, the two linchpins I wanna topple are Reyes and Hoekstra (House Intelligence Committee), Reyes doesn't trust me but that's not so much an issue as he's a fuckin pansy who won't stand up to a cabal of barbarians who lie to him, spit in his face and laugh, despite him theoretically being in charge of them, while they trample all over every fuckin thing they're supposed to be protecting...

Just like with Conyers, a nutless sack of shit is worse than an empty chair, cause it prevents anyone who does have a pair from gettin anything done - and if Tierney wasn't such a goddamn pervert with a legion of skeletons in his closet he mighta been useful for a changing of the gaurd, but I digress.

On the other end, you got Hokey (Hoekstra) who hates my guts rather directly and personally cause not only is he one of those crazy-assed, wild-eyed hoo-rah christian crusader types, so long as, yanno, HIS ass isn't at any personal risk, of course, but he'd be happy as hell to send YOU to die for his cause, of course...

He's right in there with Mitt Romney, Mike Cox, Dick DeVos and Erik Prince, that whole cabal of islamophobic authoritarian jackboot lickers and religious wackos who want a new crusade, neo-con to the very fuckin core.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/11/29/tribune/p
rint.html
Oh, and he's an asshole besides.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/01/hoekstra-countryclub/
But where it gets personal is that I have shown up at a couple of his pathetic little stump speeches for his sycophantic slobberers, and verbally *humiliated* him, by simply asking him to "clarify" any of his astoundingly numerous and blatantly false statements, such as how we did actually find WMDs, or that Al Qeada was responsible for the leaks which revealed our intel boys were back to their old (illegal) games, stuff like that - and usually with a couple of my "damn bullygirls" to ensure that trying to throw me out would be certainly difficult, and extremely well documented on both video and audio... this jackass has actually bailed a speech before when he spotted me in the parking lot, got back in his car and ran like a bitch.

And *THAT* shithead is the ranking member of the Committee - thus target number one when it comes to knocking over the teakettles of state/local politicians, problem is he's in charge of a district full of the same kind of bushdick sucking nutwads, not to mention a little help from the "electronic advantage" thanks to the Secretary of State around here being a Republican goon...
(who always wins by the exact same amount of votes, every single year, and just happens to be in charge of the accuracy and integrity of the voting process, what a fuckin coincidence, right ?)

Anyhows, y'all are aiming too high, fuck the president, just a ventriloquists dummy sitting on a paper throne - get the goddamn COMMITTEES in your fist, if you wanna get anything DONE!

And don't pretend this is a democracy, ok, just the pretense makes me ill - in THEORY elected reps are supposed to be subject to their constituents sure, but that works about as well as Corporations being subject to their stockholders - in fact the difference between the US Gov and any other Corporation in truth escapes me cause other than a few surface differences they're the same bloody thing when it comes right down to it.

Not to mention if they lie to us, hide information from us, distort what they do so, and rig up the process so that impeaching or deposing them is all but impossible, they ain't really accountable, are they now ?

The word for the day is Totalarianist Oligarchy - which was my answer to the question of "What form of Government do we have ?" back in the fourth grade, which had me catching NO END OF SHIT from the administration, and mandatory "counselling" besides.

It is what it is, calling it anything but is just lying to yourself - and not cheating right back when playing a rigged game with a marked deck is a fools bargain any way you slice it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 5:56 AM

DREAMTROVE

Frem

govt will never solve the problem because it IS the problem.

why do you think they create these alphabet soup groups, or have private contractors? So the cretins behind the curtains can shift that power wherever they damn well please.

the key word in your rant is power. where the power really is. yes, sure, for the moment, your right. But do you really think they will let you have that power and use it for good?

a while back a friend of mine came up with a plan to take over a mainstream media company, and i pointed out that those companies.do.not have the power they do innately, they are granted it by govt charter. if you took it from them. theyd kick you out.

this is the problem with govt. the power of evil will always exceed the power of good because the need of evil for power far outweighs the need of good, because good can accomplish its goals without abuse of power and the use of force.

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 6:31 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
How's about you start off by nutting up and giving us your list of reasons why Ron Paul SHOULD be President? Are you willing to take that Pepsi challenge?

What's the title of this thread?

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 6:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The word for the day is Totalarianist Oligarchy - which was my answer to the question of "What form of Government do we have ?" back in the fourth grade, which had me catching NO END OF SHIT from the administration, and mandatory "counselling" besides.

Yep, yep, yep. I love it. Not that you had to be punished, but your awesome answer.

All good points, Frem. DT's points are good too.

I dunno. I truly, truly have lost all hope for change.

From your PRN thread, I read a comment on one of your links: "It's too late to change the system from within, but it's too early to start shooting the bastards," credited to some author talking about the Waco massacre.

I see and hear about more and more people, who like me, are jumping ship. I guess that is what people do when it is too late to change and too early to shoot.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 8:16 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sig made all the pertinent arguments I would have made, so I'll leave it at "what she said". I was GOING to bring up the point Mike did, but he nailed it:

Quote:
What then? What can he MAKE Congress do?

Not only would someone as foreign to the way things are like Ron Paul (or any number of the others mentioned), but once elected I'm not sure how much change he COULD make much change. I think he would be hampered in every direction by one or another faction.

So many people just keep saying "smaller government", "no government", without, in my opinion, being aware of the consequences of getting rid of our current form of government. You can't go back to Colonial "one man, one vote" all alone, and instead of democracy: What? Is there any other form of government which governs a HUGE country which is better? Yeah, some can point to small tribes or times in history where maybe there was a better form, but they don't count, they're unsustainable when you get a population such as ours.

So what's a VIABLE alternative; one that is proven to have worked which could work here? It ain't Ron Paul's vision...tho' he has good ideas and I admire him in some aspects, his idealogy wouldn't work either, I believe. Plus before even that, he wouldn't be able to change as much as he wants...look how many things Obama came in with, what battles he had to enact ANY of them (even the ones the Republicans thought were good ideas before he became President), look at how watered-down everything he DID get through ended up being. Presidents just don't have that much power, and I'm glad they don't, personally.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 8:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
So many people just keep saying "smaller government", "no government", without, in my opinion, being aware of the consequences of getting rid of our current form of government.

I think we ARE aware. It is just that we don't agree with you about the disastrous nature of those consequences.

I guess I am sensitive to the "you're not aware" argument in debate. People who disagree with oneself must be ignorant or evil or dishonest. Sometimes, people disagree despite all parties being smart, educated, and well-meaning--they just hold different values than each other.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 10:37 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Then please show me where any other form of government besides democracy has worked effectively. I know of none. Because until we can find one that works better, or we KNOW of how to make one work better (which we cannot, if we can't find one that was successful, we can only guess), extrapolating that doing away with what we've got would be disasterous, which is just my opinion, it can't be disproven factually.

Facts we know as of now can't prove or disprove whether another form of government would be beneficial or disasterous; given history, I believe it wouldn't be beneficial. There's nothing wrong with you having the opposing view, but neither of us KNOWS what the result would be, and I wouldn't advocate doing away with our present form because I believe it would be a mistake.

Please show exactly where I said anyone who disagreed with me was "ignorant or evil or dishonest". I said quite clearly that, in my opinion, those who think another form of government would be better haven't thought through all the parameters. That IS my opinion, and it's not intended to be disparaging of anyone else. Please don't speak for me.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
the key word in your rant is power. where the power really is. yes, sure, for the moment, your right. But do you really think they will let you have that power and use it for good?

Who said anything about using it for good ?

Hell, I'd settle for pragmatic villainy.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PragmaticVillainy

Remember my rant about how if we hadn't been so fuckin STUPID about it, we coulda had Iraq building statues of us and singing our praises WHILE they gave us any bloody thing we wanted, how we coulda co-opted the UN as an arm of our power instead of sending in a moron guaranteed to turn the whole world against us ?

Thing is, comes down to it, there's ways to get what you WANT, in a more efficient way that doesn't leave three quarters of the planet wanting to slit your throat, AND you get more out of it, plus the ability to enjoy it - ain't a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of how one goes about things...

Sure, you could spy on and harrass everyone till the whole world hates you and you become ineffective because at the end you can't get anyone to take your orders and you wind up like fuckin Mussolini - or you could get the bulk of people on your side, to the point where even if some dipwad was plotting to do something they'd not be able to get the resources or contacts to do it, and not only would the plebes not help em, and rat em out to you, chances are they'd wind up knifed and pitched in a dumpster, saving you the goddamn trouble.

Sure, fear works as a motivator, but it shouldn't be your goddamn protectees you're terrorising, especially not when you are dependent on THEM to pay the bills - something which *IS* going to bite them on the ass soon enough, just you watch.

You want your OPPONENTS shitting bricks, is what it is, and how to do that, is certainly not how they're doin it now, cause they ain't afraid of us, more like LAUGHING at us, grrrr.

In short, I want the job done right, and if you want it done right.....
Consider that no one around *here* has tried to shoot me, even though many of em maybe got pretty good cause to try ?

Quote:
How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?
-Verbal Kint

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Then please show me where any other form of government besides democracy has worked effectively. I know of none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia

Of course, you would then have to surmount the problem of being immediately attacked by EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT ON THE PLANET - since if the notion that we don't really need em catches on, they won't have any power any more.

My answer to that, theoretically, is to build the community around a very large, long ranged thermonuclear weapon, cause anything less wouldn't deter them a bit, they'd send a million to die to get a dozen of us.

Or alternatively, simply wait for humanity to grow up - our whole society is set up to maintain the status quo, to stifle and retard any emotional, social or psychological evolution, and yet in the end it WILL fail, like a sidewalk over a tree root, nature always, ALWAYS wins.

Civilization was but a first step on a longer path, not the end of the journey.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 11:16 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Catatonia only existed for three years, and was ANARCHIST Catatonia, so that's an example of an anarchy "form of government" if you will. It didn't work. And it wouldn't work on a large scale, in my opinion, as well as being a long time in the past and things having changed dramatically since then.

Wait for humanity to grow up? Like when? We haven't really grown in all our history, if you look at the forms of "government" throughout history...actually democracy, as far as I know, is one of the youngest forms, isn't it? Probably not, I'm sure it existed before we "thought of it", I just don't know examples.

My vision of humanity "growing up" would be our evolving...we carry so much genetic disposition from our past, even our earliest past, that I don't see us being ABLE to "grow" past those in our current form.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 11:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Mike, IF "the government" ignores our elected representatives... well, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

But we haven't gotten to that point yet, because people quite readily hand power over to corporations. Which is exactly what the "no government" crowd is doing, seeing as business is behind the whole concept.

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 12:34 PM

Quote:
Niki:
Please show exactly where I said anyone who disagreed with me was "ignorant or evil or dishonest".

You didn't.

You simply posited the "you are not aware" argument ("So many people just keep saying "smaller government"...without being aware of the consequences...").

I said I feel sensitive about the "you are not aware" argument because it implies ignorance of people one doesn't agree with. I segued into why I felt sensitive about it. I have seen it all too often, arguments that effectively state, "You are wrong because you are ignorant (or not aware), you are dishonest, you are evil, you are....fill in the blank." I have seen it all too often directed at myself. Wherefore the sensitivity.

Quote:
Please don't speak for me.

I wasn't. I was explaining why *I* didn't want to go in that direction of the "you are not aware" arguments. Personally, I would rather assume my debate opponent is intelligent and well intentioned than not.

I hope that clarifies where I was coming from. I meant no offense.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 12:38 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:

Civilization was but a first step on a longer path, not the end of the journey.

Thanks. I should add that to a compilation of the quotable Frem.

I still think that the govt. *wants* to be hated, but at this point, I find it hard to care what they want, I just want them gone.

Niki

Study prehistory. Functional govt. is so rare, hell, it's an oxymoron. Anarchy is the natural state. There are countless examples throughout the history of all of the inhabited continents.

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
And it wouldn't work on a large scale,...

Remember that thread about Derrick Jensen?

http://www.derrickjensen.org/

Remember what he said about cities and civilizations?

http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/3-Civilization.htm

The same thing goes for the idea of "large scale" countries, or empires, if you will.

I submit that the only way for empires or "large scale" civilization to "thrive" is through serfdom, have a "government" with a monopoly of force to rape the weak for resources for the benefit the privileged. That is what "government" was invented for, to sell a bill of goods to justify taking from the poor to give to the rich. Look at every government in history. That is what every single one has done.

Large scale empires achieve a lot of glory and riches for the wealthy class. It does it all at the expense of the little guy.

Poverty is a prison. A comfortable prison is still a prison. In my view, that is the exact purpose of government, to build poverty prisons. The different kinds of government only differ in how comfortable the prisons are.

Even leftists governments that are supposed to emphasize the poor--they only throw more scraps at the poor than others. How do I know? The poor remain poor, don't they? They never get out of prison.

I don't think people were meant for "large scale" communities. They were meant to be free in small, self-sufficient, sustainable monkeyspheres.

So trying to have "large scale" anarchy is trying to have a round square. Or for Derrick Jensen, an environmentally sustainable and non-violent city.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 4:10 PM

SERGEANTX

Ron Paul shouldn't be president because most voters don't want what he's selling. Even if he was elected on some fluke, the best he'd be able to do is veto everything Congress spit out. That might 'hold the line' on a lot of idiocy, but mostly it would just be seen as obstructionist and whatever he was able to change would likely be reversed by the next administration.

Most of the people cheering for limited government these days don't really want it in any consistent way. They want low taxes and their own privileged positions maintained as the status quo (by government). If and when the public is ready for a libertarian government, they won't need a "President Paul", because Congress will be full of like-minded representatives.

And, on a purely pragmatic level, I don't think he'd be a very good leader.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

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

Saturday, January 1, 2011 4:25 PM