Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
What You Might Not Know About Ron Paul, and Why You Should Know It
Americans are hoping for a revolution, but I'm not sure the kind of revolution a Ron Paul America would bring will be what many think it will. Don't go with a warm feeling after watching a video or getting an email. Don't do that to the rest of the world. Look for yourself, then look again.
What You Might Not Know About Ron Paul,
and Why You Should Know It
by Bov
January 8, 2008
Sitting on the slippery cool back seat of my inlaws' car as we ease our way through the crawl of holiday traffic in Middle Georgia, I see a sign in stencil spray-painted red white and blue lettering, standing amongst the tall reeds and grasses lining the front a strip mall that reads, "Ron Paul 2008, Save America." We're in Ron Paul country here, in Middle Georgia. I have seen no mention of any other candidate, only fading "W'04" stickers here and there. And the other day it was announced that Paul has raised more money than any other Republican candidate, a surprising development for just about everyone.
Over Christmas, while wrapping presents, we finally got a chance to watch Glen Beck's hour-long interview with Paul and I could really see why average people get excited by him, why he gives them hope -- aside from his willingness to talk about the terrible mistakes and Orwellian draconian policies that the US is currently engaged in, with shocking openness, he is also a man who has cared for people as a doctor, and that compassion, on some level, shines through in his simple sensible statements. Americans, used to Hollywood style performances at campaign time, rolled out by the corporate media machine like a prescription drug, complete with gushing orchestral music, bringing us breathlessly to the finish, are caught off guard by the surprising words he utters -lies, cover-ups, cheats - his lips tight and his voice earnest, and our own feeling of childish excitement over this breaking of all the corporate media rules.
What if?
That phrase pops into one's head when we hear Paul open up the absurdities that we live with each day, and knock them down before our eyes.
Wow, what if we really could?
What if we could bring everyone stationed all over the world back home, those installed in foreign countries to protect the corporate interests, to infiltrate, manipulate or clandestinely "regime change" other governments?
What if we really could . . . walk out of Iraq, end the phony racist `drug war,' massively reform the IRS? It is a fantasy of many that we didn't even know we had until Paul opened it up for us. Writer Bill Douglas, in his essay advocating Paul for OpEdNews, focuses on a key issue that resonates with just about everyone:
"If you peel back the layers of what is making life the most miserable for Americans and theworld, you find one over arching issue . . . "the military industrial complex." The decline of the US standard of living, the collapse of the US dollar, and the growing hatred of America worldwide are explained by that one phrase."
Why a Liberal Progressive Can AND SHOULD Support Ron Paul
Bill Douglas, December, 24, 2007, opednews.com
The positions that Paul is taking, that no other corporate candidate has dared to, resonate so deeply with Americans that many don't look much further into what Paul is really about. When I talk to Paul supporters, I find that indeed most are unaware of his voting record or much about his work in Congress. They know that he has been a doctor and is a "Constitutionalist" and is against the war, imperialism and for tax reform. Lance Selfa, in his article for socialistworker.org, "A maverick, but not the good kind", tells us:
"Paul has managed to attract support from a wider layer of people, including those opposed to the Iraq war. To them, Paul comes off as a straight shooter who speaks unpopular truths against a two-party establishment that would rather not listen."
A maverick, but not the good kind
Lance Selfa, Oct. 12, 2007, Socialist Worker
Paul appears to want real fairness and he shows that he is willing to be labeled a radical to get there, which is touchingly American. Given that, Dr. Paul, I'm sure, would agree that voters should look at the whole picture, not just single issues. But when I actually tell Paul supporters some of the little known facts about him -- perhaps his steadfast protection of oil industry interests over the years in his voting record - they seem confused and come back as though awakening from a sleep, rubbing their eyes, "I hadn't heard that. . . . surprising. It seems like a mistake, or something. Can you send me a link?"
Americans are desperate because they have begun to realize the truth beyond even the financial crises in full swing right now and worsening by the minute: that America is indeed entering fascism - is practicing it -- but of the candidates they can choose from, only Ron Paul will confirm even just this for them, on NBC's Meet the Press.
"We're not moving toward a Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism," he said. "Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business."
Ron Paul defends seeking funds for Texas district
Bennet Roth, Dec. 24, 2007, The Houston Chronicle
When we hear him say these statements, Ron Paul gets under our skin and we fall in love, at least for a moment - its been so long since we heard truth uttered on corporate media that we swoon. Many have been waiting for 8 years or more for someone besides Michael Moore and Ralph Nader to say something - anything -- to make sense with reality. Paul tells us:
". . . The federal government . . . overrules state laws where state laws permit medicinal marijuana for people dying of cancer. The federal government goes in and arrests these people, put them in prison with mandatory, sometimes life sentences. This war on drugs is totally out of control. . . Prescription drugs are a greater danger than, than hard drugs."
MR. RUSSERT: "But you would decriminalize it?"
REP. PAUL: "I, I, I would, at the federal level. I don't have control over the states."
Meet the Press' transcript:
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), John Harwood and Chuck Todd
Tim Russert, Dec. 23, 2007, msnbc.com
So what are the facts on Paul, anyway? Russert brought up some. What is the price we must pay for what seems like common sense? What are the votes, history and positions behind the curtain that most don't know, haven't thought about, or believe don't matter? Because the real question is about what we are asking people to give up when we tell them that they should vote for Ron Paul.
It seems there may be a very high price to pay, but most have no idea of it. And with Paul's positions shifting noticibly between interviews, it's hard to even know where exactly he stands on areas like welfare and his constitutional amendments. In this essay I'd like to look at what some are saying about him, and mention what little I do know, and why these might be important to know about.
A lot of how change is happening in the US today is by duping people - lies, scams, cover-ups and media manipulation - and some of us have had to become experts at un-duping, or debunking, just to cope with reading the internet these days. Now it's time to take a close look at Ron Paul. Because the real costs of what we must give up in exchange for Paul's `radical' ideas that can and do work, are being cast aside by most, stoked by the "Revolution" Paul promises, the man who has protected the Texas oil companies for most of his career in Congress.
CONTENTS
Property Rights, Human Rights
The Truth Candidate
The Bush Fantasy Candidate
The Internet Candidate
The Rorschach Campaign: Ink blots and Issues
The 'Dismantling of Big Government' But What Does it Really Mean?
The Constitutionalist
Ron Paul and the White Supremacists
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime: The Price of Ron Paul
Conclusion: A Glimpse of Ron Paul America
and Why You Should Know It
by Bov
January 8, 2008
Sitting on the slippery cool back seat of my inlaws' car as we ease our way through the crawl of holiday traffic in Middle Georgia, I see a sign in stencil spray-painted red white and blue lettering, standing amongst the tall reeds and grasses lining the front a strip mall that reads, "Ron Paul 2008, Save America." We're in Ron Paul country here, in Middle Georgia. I have seen no mention of any other candidate, only fading "W'04" stickers here and there. And the other day it was announced that Paul has raised more money than any other Republican candidate, a surprising development for just about everyone.
Over Christmas, while wrapping presents, we finally got a chance to watch Glen Beck's hour-long interview with Paul and I could really see why average people get excited by him, why he gives them hope -- aside from his willingness to talk about the terrible mistakes and Orwellian draconian policies that the US is currently engaged in, with shocking openness, he is also a man who has cared for people as a doctor, and that compassion, on some level, shines through in his simple sensible statements. Americans, used to Hollywood style performances at campaign time, rolled out by the corporate media machine like a prescription drug, complete with gushing orchestral music, bringing us breathlessly to the finish, are caught off guard by the surprising words he utters -lies, cover-ups, cheats - his lips tight and his voice earnest, and our own feeling of childish excitement over this breaking of all the corporate media rules.
What if?
That phrase pops into one's head when we hear Paul open up the absurdities that we live with each day, and knock them down before our eyes.
Wow, what if we really could?
What if we could bring everyone stationed all over the world back home, those installed in foreign countries to protect the corporate interests, to infiltrate, manipulate or clandestinely "regime change" other governments?
What if we really could . . . walk out of Iraq, end the phony racist `drug war,' massively reform the IRS? It is a fantasy of many that we didn't even know we had until Paul opened it up for us. Writer Bill Douglas, in his essay advocating Paul for OpEdNews, focuses on a key issue that resonates with just about everyone:
"If you peel back the layers of what is making life the most miserable for Americans and theworld, you find one over arching issue . . . "the military industrial complex." The decline of the US standard of living, the collapse of the US dollar, and the growing hatred of America worldwide are explained by that one phrase."
Why a Liberal Progressive Can AND SHOULD Support Ron Paul
Bill Douglas, December, 24, 2007, opednews.com
The positions that Paul is taking, that no other corporate candidate has dared to, resonate so deeply with Americans that many don't look much further into what Paul is really about. When I talk to Paul supporters, I find that indeed most are unaware of his voting record or much about his work in Congress. They know that he has been a doctor and is a "Constitutionalist" and is against the war, imperialism and for tax reform. Lance Selfa, in his article for socialistworker.org, "A maverick, but not the good kind", tells us:
"Paul has managed to attract support from a wider layer of people, including those opposed to the Iraq war. To them, Paul comes off as a straight shooter who speaks unpopular truths against a two-party establishment that would rather not listen."
A maverick, but not the good kind
Lance Selfa, Oct. 12, 2007, Socialist Worker
Paul appears to want real fairness and he shows that he is willing to be labeled a radical to get there, which is touchingly American. Given that, Dr. Paul, I'm sure, would agree that voters should look at the whole picture, not just single issues. But when I actually tell Paul supporters some of the little known facts about him -- perhaps his steadfast protection of oil industry interests over the years in his voting record - they seem confused and come back as though awakening from a sleep, rubbing their eyes, "I hadn't heard that. . . . surprising. It seems like a mistake, or something. Can you send me a link?"
Americans are desperate because they have begun to realize the truth beyond even the financial crises in full swing right now and worsening by the minute: that America is indeed entering fascism - is practicing it -- but of the candidates they can choose from, only Ron Paul will confirm even just this for them, on NBC's Meet the Press.
"We're not moving toward a Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism," he said. "Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business."
Ron Paul defends seeking funds for Texas district
Bennet Roth, Dec. 24, 2007, The Houston Chronicle
When we hear him say these statements, Ron Paul gets under our skin and we fall in love, at least for a moment - its been so long since we heard truth uttered on corporate media that we swoon. Many have been waiting for 8 years or more for someone besides Michael Moore and Ralph Nader to say something - anything -- to make sense with reality. Paul tells us:
". . . The federal government . . . overrules state laws where state laws permit medicinal marijuana for people dying of cancer. The federal government goes in and arrests these people, put them in prison with mandatory, sometimes life sentences. This war on drugs is totally out of control. . . Prescription drugs are a greater danger than, than hard drugs."
MR. RUSSERT: "But you would decriminalize it?"
REP. PAUL: "I, I, I would, at the federal level. I don't have control over the states."
Meet the Press' transcript:
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), John Harwood and Chuck Todd
Tim Russert, Dec. 23, 2007, msnbc.com
So what are the facts on Paul, anyway? Russert brought up some. What is the price we must pay for what seems like common sense? What are the votes, history and positions behind the curtain that most don't know, haven't thought about, or believe don't matter? Because the real question is about what we are asking people to give up when we tell them that they should vote for Ron Paul.
It seems there may be a very high price to pay, but most have no idea of it. And with Paul's positions shifting noticibly between interviews, it's hard to even know where exactly he stands on areas like welfare and his constitutional amendments. In this essay I'd like to look at what some are saying about him, and mention what little I do know, and why these might be important to know about.
A lot of how change is happening in the US today is by duping people - lies, scams, cover-ups and media manipulation - and some of us have had to become experts at un-duping, or debunking, just to cope with reading the internet these days. Now it's time to take a close look at Ron Paul. Because the real costs of what we must give up in exchange for Paul's `radical' ideas that can and do work, are being cast aside by most, stoked by the "Revolution" Paul promises, the man who has protected the Texas oil companies for most of his career in Congress.
CONTENTS
Property Rights, Human Rights
The Truth Candidate
The Bush Fantasy Candidate
The Internet Candidate
The Rorschach Campaign: Ink blots and Issues
The 'Dismantling of Big Government' But What Does it Really Mean?
The Constitutionalist
Ron Paul and the White Supremacists
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime: The Price of Ron Paul
Conclusion: A Glimpse of Ron Paul America
For more information:
http://911review.com/articles/bov/RonPaul_...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
CA Presidential Primary: POLITICAL PARTY STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
The Libertarian Party supports your right to:
* Keep what you earn. Reduce or eliminate taxes whenever possible.
* Run your own business and enjoy your property. Reducing regulations and paperwork creates more jobs, higher pay, and lower prices.
* Educate your children as you see fit.
* Choose your own lifestyle. The government shouldn't consider you a criminal because of your choices in relationships, recreation, or medical treatment.
* Truly equal treatment under the law regardless of race, gender, religion, sexuality, or personal characteristics.
* Own a firearm. Self-defense is a right, not a political favor.
The Libertarian Party supports your right to:
* Keep what you earn. Reduce or eliminate taxes whenever possible.
* Run your own business and enjoy your property. Reducing regulations and paperwork creates more jobs, higher pay, and lower prices.
* Educate your children as you see fit.
* Choose your own lifestyle. The government shouldn't consider you a criminal because of your choices in relationships, recreation, or medical treatment.
* Truly equal treatment under the law regardless of race, gender, religion, sexuality, or personal characteristics.
* Own a firearm. Self-defense is a right, not a political favor.
For more information:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/poli_stat...
CA Presidential Primary: POLITICAL PARTY STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
Republican Party
Top Priorities:
* Promoting an economy that creates new job opportunities for all Californians
* Improving our state's education and health care systems to improve our quality of life
* Protecting taxpayers by limiting taxes and forcing government to live within its means
Republican Party
Top Priorities:
* Promoting an economy that creates new job opportunities for all Californians
* Improving our state's education and health care systems to improve our quality of life
* Protecting taxpayers by limiting taxes and forcing government to live within its means
For more information:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/poli_stat...
The truth is out there somewhere if you look for it. Fact or fiction. You decide.
http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/01/09/new-hampshire-vote-fraud-confirmed-ron-paul-votes-not-counted/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/01/09/new-hampshire-vote-fraud-confirmed-ron-paul-votes-not-counted/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
What exactly are you saying we should know that we don't know?
Lots of links and info here --
Bradblog Calls Vote Fraud in NH
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/09/18471296.php
Bradblog Calls Vote Fraud in NH
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/09/18471296.php
This is a piece of art. How long did you work on this?
You definitely destroyed my hope in Ron Paul. Your paper has much depth into the conflict between property rights vs human rights. Ron paul was a lot more Federal power vs State power, which really interested me. However, I never went into his ideas much, at least not in such depth.
I Always had a question in my mind that I never could answer when he claimed : that the reason why there was such power in so few hands ( military industrial complex, for example) is that this power was close to the federal government. And that it tended toward monopolies. If the states would have jurisdiction over Health, education or whatever, they could have more choice, or it would create an environment where you could have more players in the field.
My question was: well if the federal governement had no jurisdiction over these agencies, how will these agencies or corporations (pharamceutical industrial complex, for example), or monopolies be destroyed because now the states have power over it? Would it not be the other way around? That if the power goes to the states, it'S the corporations and monopolies that would have power over the states.
Basically, I'm not sure about either of the two outcomes.
At least, Ron paul got me reading the federalist papers.
It's funny, but from all the candidates, I would still vote for Ron Paul, because at least, there would be a real discussion on the intent of the consitution. And libertarians would at least never forbid someone to say contradicting views. if he's being a true constitutionalist, he would at least have to obey the constitution if proven that for example, a Natoional bank is constitutional because it is a means to centralize imports and export duties, excise taxes and to coin money and regulate the value of it (All powers vested in the federal governement). If the Federal governement has the power to do these things, it must also have the means to do it, so a national bank is implied in the power vested in the federal governement.
He couldn't refute this...but as I think again, he might try calling upon the free markets to decide.
But it's certain that if you mix free market and property rights over human rights, this might be the most destructive force of human ideas.
Anyways, this is a really good work!
You definitely destroyed my hope in Ron Paul. Your paper has much depth into the conflict between property rights vs human rights. Ron paul was a lot more Federal power vs State power, which really interested me. However, I never went into his ideas much, at least not in such depth.
I Always had a question in my mind that I never could answer when he claimed : that the reason why there was such power in so few hands ( military industrial complex, for example) is that this power was close to the federal government. And that it tended toward monopolies. If the states would have jurisdiction over Health, education or whatever, they could have more choice, or it would create an environment where you could have more players in the field.
My question was: well if the federal governement had no jurisdiction over these agencies, how will these agencies or corporations (pharamceutical industrial complex, for example), or monopolies be destroyed because now the states have power over it? Would it not be the other way around? That if the power goes to the states, it'S the corporations and monopolies that would have power over the states.
Basically, I'm not sure about either of the two outcomes.
At least, Ron paul got me reading the federalist papers.
It's funny, but from all the candidates, I would still vote for Ron Paul, because at least, there would be a real discussion on the intent of the consitution. And libertarians would at least never forbid someone to say contradicting views. if he's being a true constitutionalist, he would at least have to obey the constitution if proven that for example, a Natoional bank is constitutional because it is a means to centralize imports and export duties, excise taxes and to coin money and regulate the value of it (All powers vested in the federal governement). If the Federal governement has the power to do these things, it must also have the means to do it, so a national bank is implied in the power vested in the federal governement.
He couldn't refute this...but as I think again, he might try calling upon the free markets to decide.
But it's certain that if you mix free market and property rights over human rights, this might be the most destructive force of human ideas.
Anyways, this is a really good work!
I have followed Ron Paul since 1988 when I first voted for him. If the author Bov actually thinks that Ron Paul shifts on his positions, he/she is sadly uninformed. There are only two issues that I have observed Ron Paul changing his stance on:
1. The death penalty. He used to support it, but now opposes it. I personally support it, but I understand and appreciate the arguments against it. It is just one issue. I don't agree with anyone on everything.
2. Immigration. Even here, Dr Paul's position had the underlying basis then as it does now: quit giving benefits to illegals and thus eliminated most of the incentive to come here (which I totally agree with). But over the years, his stance has hardened on immigration and I disagree with him on ending automatic birthright citizenship. So here is a second issue, but one I can easily overlook since I agree with him on about everything else.
Some say he flip flopped on abortion since he ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1988, but they would be wrong.
Contrast that with ANY of the other candidates running for the GOP nomination. Or with Hillary who says one thing and does exactly the other. Why doesn't anyone talk about that?
America needs a president like Ron Paul. He is the most principled candidate running and he will get my vote, even if I have to write it in.
1. The death penalty. He used to support it, but now opposes it. I personally support it, but I understand and appreciate the arguments against it. It is just one issue. I don't agree with anyone on everything.
2. Immigration. Even here, Dr Paul's position had the underlying basis then as it does now: quit giving benefits to illegals and thus eliminated most of the incentive to come here (which I totally agree with). But over the years, his stance has hardened on immigration and I disagree with him on ending automatic birthright citizenship. So here is a second issue, but one I can easily overlook since I agree with him on about everything else.
Some say he flip flopped on abortion since he ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1988, but they would be wrong.
Contrast that with ANY of the other candidates running for the GOP nomination. Or with Hillary who says one thing and does exactly the other. Why doesn't anyone talk about that?
America needs a president like Ron Paul. He is the most principled candidate running and he will get my vote, even if I have to write it in.
The link you provided, which correctly states that the US was assessed dues in August, 2007 of roughly $1.96 billion dollars, is fine. However you misleadingly interpreted it as an annual fee while comparing it to the department of defense budget.
"Fact: US dues to the UN currently amount to $1.96B.
Fact: the Pentagon budget in 2008 was $469B"
Your journalism is not only dangerous but despicable as well. You quote Dr. Paul as saying:
"We are still paying far beyond our fair share at the United Nations. We get stuck with responsibility, and the financing, and the burden, and the men lost, all too often. I think the thing we should be concerned about from the United Nations, (the damage that is done to us, and the potential damage that is likely to come), the greatest threat is that we have over these years been willing to turn over to the United Nations much of the control of our foreign policy and when we go to war. And that has to be changed."
But then somehow forget to mention that for the months listed in your other reference, the US financial burden is between 30%-50% the entire dues levied against ALL other members. A fact that backs Dr. Paul's assertions up very well.
Additionally, your infinite wisdom forgets to take into account that the reason the US needed to go to war, with Iraq essentially unilaterally, was because the UN refused to enforce their own resolutions.
"Fact: US dues to the UN currently amount to $1.96B.
Fact: the Pentagon budget in 2008 was $469B"
Your journalism is not only dangerous but despicable as well. You quote Dr. Paul as saying:
"We are still paying far beyond our fair share at the United Nations. We get stuck with responsibility, and the financing, and the burden, and the men lost, all too often. I think the thing we should be concerned about from the United Nations, (the damage that is done to us, and the potential damage that is likely to come), the greatest threat is that we have over these years been willing to turn over to the United Nations much of the control of our foreign policy and when we go to war. And that has to be changed."
But then somehow forget to mention that for the months listed in your other reference, the US financial burden is between 30%-50% the entire dues levied against ALL other members. A fact that backs Dr. Paul's assertions up very well.
Additionally, your infinite wisdom forgets to take into account that the reason the US needed to go to war, with Iraq essentially unilaterally, was because the UN refused to enforce their own resolutions.
For more information:
http://globalpolicy.igc.org/finance/tables...
As a former, and honorably discharged United States of America Air Force member, I have managed to stumble upon one of the greatest men in my lifetime, Ron Paul. He is not like the others who want to keep the big corporations in big money, and our government in debt, or fighting a fight that cannot be won, he is for the little guy/girl like me, who is struggling paycheck to paycheck to do the right things in my life for me and my family.
Personally, if I had my way I would not be paying income taxes, but unfortunately that is not my choice, I would not be wearing a seat belt, but that once again is not my choice, and the list goes on. Ron Paul is not perfect, nor am I. We are human beings just trying to get along and teach our children right from wrong in hopes that become productive and prosperous adults. Ron Paul wants to help our country get back to our roots. We need to bring our troops home and start caring about our own country here at home. Our country's economy is in the toilet, but you don't hear that from our government or the media much, they do not want you to know. I would be more apt to give someone a helping hand if I knew the government wasn't helping them too, I would also try to encourage them to work or give them direction that might help them in order to do so. We as human beings have a lot of compassion, but when the government gets involved and uses funding to help those that just don't want to work, or even want to be part of society, well the human compassion is then compromised. I love this country dearly, and I will do whatever it takes to defend it from foreign or domestic intruders, and I woud do that for any American citizen, and not for our government or big money making war companies. I will not allow the politicians and the media of our nation continue this scam. We the People are done, and will not just sit back and let this crap continue. Wake up America and read.
Don't let the media tell you who will be our next President, don't let the pollsters do it either, do not let our ballots be counted by a machine. American citizens need to realize that WE THE PEOPLE are in charge, not our voted in officials, or our Government. I am one person, but I am an American citizen, and will not allow our government or the big corportations to dictate to me anything in my life any longer, I have rights and will make sure that I do whatever it takes to stop my civil liberties and freedom from being taken away from me or my family. Please join me, and change America, check out Ron Paul, and give him your support. Ron Paul is our last chance to make a real change in America, and make the people of America "WE THE PEOPLE' again. Thanks for reading, and know that I am sincere about loving this country and our people.
http://ronpaul2008.com
Personally, if I had my way I would not be paying income taxes, but unfortunately that is not my choice, I would not be wearing a seat belt, but that once again is not my choice, and the list goes on. Ron Paul is not perfect, nor am I. We are human beings just trying to get along and teach our children right from wrong in hopes that become productive and prosperous adults. Ron Paul wants to help our country get back to our roots. We need to bring our troops home and start caring about our own country here at home. Our country's economy is in the toilet, but you don't hear that from our government or the media much, they do not want you to know. I would be more apt to give someone a helping hand if I knew the government wasn't helping them too, I would also try to encourage them to work or give them direction that might help them in order to do so. We as human beings have a lot of compassion, but when the government gets involved and uses funding to help those that just don't want to work, or even want to be part of society, well the human compassion is then compromised. I love this country dearly, and I will do whatever it takes to defend it from foreign or domestic intruders, and I woud do that for any American citizen, and not for our government or big money making war companies. I will not allow the politicians and the media of our nation continue this scam. We the People are done, and will not just sit back and let this crap continue. Wake up America and read.
Don't let the media tell you who will be our next President, don't let the pollsters do it either, do not let our ballots be counted by a machine. American citizens need to realize that WE THE PEOPLE are in charge, not our voted in officials, or our Government. I am one person, but I am an American citizen, and will not allow our government or the big corportations to dictate to me anything in my life any longer, I have rights and will make sure that I do whatever it takes to stop my civil liberties and freedom from being taken away from me or my family. Please join me, and change America, check out Ron Paul, and give him your support. Ron Paul is our last chance to make a real change in America, and make the people of America "WE THE PEOPLE' again. Thanks for reading, and know that I am sincere about loving this country and our people.
http://ronpaul2008.com
For more information:
http://ronpaul2008.com
"the UN refused to enforce their own resolutions."
And someone was talking about dangerous and despicable journalism?
And someone was talking about dangerous and despicable journalism?
BECAUSE THE CANDIDATE AGAINST NEOCON-ZIONISTS WAR .
To day the only significant struggle is between the supporters of war and those against wars .
the remaining struggles are secondary
To day the only significant struggle is between the supporters of war and those against wars .
the remaining struggles are secondary
He's anti-immigrant- legal or not.
He's anti foreign aid- for everyone.
He's against the laws that protect our environment and our endangered species
He's anti foreign aid- for everyone.
He's against the laws that protect our environment and our endangered species
I disagree with a lot of Ron Paul's positions, but looking at the big picture, I think he is the best man for the job of President.
His abortion stance is retarded, as is his immigration stance. But every politician has some stupid opinions.
His abortion stance is retarded, as is his immigration stance. But every politician has some stupid opinions.
Classic.
I vote for ones who don't, especially when they involve things like privatizing the nation and putting property rights above human rights.
I vote for ones who don't, especially when they involve things like privatizing the nation and putting property rights above human rights.
Ok, not really simple. A little hard to swallow, actually. This the perspective of some of us who have libertarian leanings. It's the main ideas I personally look at in rejecting socialism, and why I like Ron Paul. What I like to refer to as "feel good" politics and laws are usually short term solutions and detrimental over the long run. Part of the danger of these social programs is our reluctance to give them up, to become dependent on them. But it's comfortable to have them. Not nescessary. T
he basic truth is that most of us are not wired to be altruistic all the time. Sorry, for those with altruistic leanings, it's incredibly human to view other people's thoughts and motivations through our own perspective of what is right and wrong. I'm doing it here, right now, as a matter of fact. I think I've got more evidence to back me up, but that is my opinion. I believe human behavior is just as much a part of evoluionary biology as physical traits. Our brains are physical organs and their operation is just as subject to survival of the fittest as everything else on the planet. Evolutionary changes are gradual, they cannot be forced.
So let's think about altruism, which is the foundationof and requirement of such systems as communism and socialism. Altruism doesn't get you far in a survival situation. We as humans have been in a kill or be killed situations for thousands upon thousands of years. That primitive, even savage behavior that allowed us to survive to this 'enlightened' period of civilization isn't going anywhere soon. We still have to acknowledge that we will be somewhat selfish, we can't help it. It's part of our survival mechanism. Everything in nature will show a tendency to become gluttenous in response to easy access to a need. It's built in. We have evolved to gorge in the spring, summer and into the fall to be able to survive the winter. So when we see greed, it's basically someone gorging on plenty in a subconcious fear of famine (food or material).
And there is another factor to consider. Group together peaceful animals, and then place one predator in the group. Will the predator learn to eat grass? Seriously, that predator will go on a rampage, with little defense from the herbivors. Humans have predators amongst us. They come in many forms, but the personality type is well known. Sociopaths would be the most recognizable name for them. Let's not get confused,a sociopath doesn't always end up as a serial killer, though serial killers would be sociopaths. A sociopath is someone who has no concept of guilt or fear. None. A sociopath is someone who self-preserves only and always. Power attracts them, for obvious reasons. They are well-suited to ruthlessly run businesses, and even excel in places where fear and regret can be a hindrance. Dangerous jobs such as police and military, even firefighting are well-suited for sociopaths. Not a terrible thing because they do these jobs well. However, a sociopath fits in only for self preservation or because they enjoy the niche where they are. But if your destruction is to their advantage they will do it. With no regret. None. The sociopath is after personal gain with no empathy for who has to suffer for it.
Here's the scary part: 4% of the human population are sociopaths. That's one in every 25 people. So if everyone is on the same page and being peaceful and getting along, there is this 4% who are the wolves amongst the sheep. And they would love to become the shepherds. If they are the shepherds there is no one to stop the slaughter. I think when you see a politician who will do or say anything to get ahead, you are observing a sociopath in action. The same as a CEO who will screw over anyone for a buck.
Which brings me to why I have libertarian leanings. I don't want a position of unquestionable (or close to it) power open that can be filled by this type of person. Which is why I like to balance liberty with reasonable limits. Basically everything balanced to prevent exploitation by any group. If any group gains too much monitoring power, too much power to control others, with little oversight, a beacon goes out to those who will abuse that power. Once they are in, they move to get more power, and even less oversight. And they will sell it however they have to. Do it...:
"for the hungry"
"for the poor"
"for the children"
"for your safety"
"for your health"
"or you could, possibly, someday die. Maybe sooner than you had to."
"Because they don't want you to..." (it doesn't matter who they are. The best bit is they are being told you don't want them to, which is why they don't want you to, lol)
So while the altruistic fight for justice, the rest fight for their own group, and a few fight only for themselves. Which is why I want balance. I am a centrist, if nothing else. I fight for libertarianism because I feel we are traveling way too far into authoritarianism and we are not pulling back, we are picking up speed. If there was too much freedom to the point that we had approached uncheckable chaos, I would push the oher way. Everything in moderation. This approach will ensure the health and happiness, and well being of the largest group of people. This approach must also continously plan for the future, hence encouraging the best results to be planned out before a crisis demands a badly done "quick fix".
Just as an after thought for those who think more governement programs is good:
The DMV is a governement program. Most governement programs operate in a similar way. Trust me, I've been there. There's a reason I'm not anymore. But I digress. I'll leave you with this: Imagine going to the DMV for your healthcare, or trying to get the Federal Reserve to listen to your grievances (good luck finding out who to talk to). If that frightens you, it's time to take a closer look at what greater socialism means for society.
he basic truth is that most of us are not wired to be altruistic all the time. Sorry, for those with altruistic leanings, it's incredibly human to view other people's thoughts and motivations through our own perspective of what is right and wrong. I'm doing it here, right now, as a matter of fact. I think I've got more evidence to back me up, but that is my opinion. I believe human behavior is just as much a part of evoluionary biology as physical traits. Our brains are physical organs and their operation is just as subject to survival of the fittest as everything else on the planet. Evolutionary changes are gradual, they cannot be forced.
So let's think about altruism, which is the foundationof and requirement of such systems as communism and socialism. Altruism doesn't get you far in a survival situation. We as humans have been in a kill or be killed situations for thousands upon thousands of years. That primitive, even savage behavior that allowed us to survive to this 'enlightened' period of civilization isn't going anywhere soon. We still have to acknowledge that we will be somewhat selfish, we can't help it. It's part of our survival mechanism. Everything in nature will show a tendency to become gluttenous in response to easy access to a need. It's built in. We have evolved to gorge in the spring, summer and into the fall to be able to survive the winter. So when we see greed, it's basically someone gorging on plenty in a subconcious fear of famine (food or material).
And there is another factor to consider. Group together peaceful animals, and then place one predator in the group. Will the predator learn to eat grass? Seriously, that predator will go on a rampage, with little defense from the herbivors. Humans have predators amongst us. They come in many forms, but the personality type is well known. Sociopaths would be the most recognizable name for them. Let's not get confused,a sociopath doesn't always end up as a serial killer, though serial killers would be sociopaths. A sociopath is someone who has no concept of guilt or fear. None. A sociopath is someone who self-preserves only and always. Power attracts them, for obvious reasons. They are well-suited to ruthlessly run businesses, and even excel in places where fear and regret can be a hindrance. Dangerous jobs such as police and military, even firefighting are well-suited for sociopaths. Not a terrible thing because they do these jobs well. However, a sociopath fits in only for self preservation or because they enjoy the niche where they are. But if your destruction is to their advantage they will do it. With no regret. None. The sociopath is after personal gain with no empathy for who has to suffer for it.
Here's the scary part: 4% of the human population are sociopaths. That's one in every 25 people. So if everyone is on the same page and being peaceful and getting along, there is this 4% who are the wolves amongst the sheep. And they would love to become the shepherds. If they are the shepherds there is no one to stop the slaughter. I think when you see a politician who will do or say anything to get ahead, you are observing a sociopath in action. The same as a CEO who will screw over anyone for a buck.
Which brings me to why I have libertarian leanings. I don't want a position of unquestionable (or close to it) power open that can be filled by this type of person. Which is why I like to balance liberty with reasonable limits. Basically everything balanced to prevent exploitation by any group. If any group gains too much monitoring power, too much power to control others, with little oversight, a beacon goes out to those who will abuse that power. Once they are in, they move to get more power, and even less oversight. And they will sell it however they have to. Do it...:
"for the hungry"
"for the poor"
"for the children"
"for your safety"
"for your health"
"or you could, possibly, someday die. Maybe sooner than you had to."
"Because they don't want you to..." (it doesn't matter who they are. The best bit is they are being told you don't want them to, which is why they don't want you to, lol)
So while the altruistic fight for justice, the rest fight for their own group, and a few fight only for themselves. Which is why I want balance. I am a centrist, if nothing else. I fight for libertarianism because I feel we are traveling way too far into authoritarianism and we are not pulling back, we are picking up speed. If there was too much freedom to the point that we had approached uncheckable chaos, I would push the oher way. Everything in moderation. This approach will ensure the health and happiness, and well being of the largest group of people. This approach must also continously plan for the future, hence encouraging the best results to be planned out before a crisis demands a badly done "quick fix".
Just as an after thought for those who think more governement programs is good:
The DMV is a governement program. Most governement programs operate in a similar way. Trust me, I've been there. There's a reason I'm not anymore. But I digress. I'll leave you with this: Imagine going to the DMV for your healthcare, or trying to get the Federal Reserve to listen to your grievances (good luck finding out who to talk to). If that frightens you, it's time to take a closer look at what greater socialism means for society.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$200.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network