Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[TribalSeeds]

Why can't I just move to Canada and apply for jobs?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

theres a new online mini-series thats gonna come out,its about agenda 21.

[youtubeif]TO9RxYQDAmg[/youtubeif]

That's Alex Jones.

 

[sac beh]

the govt now wants to regulate sugar like alcahol and tobacco and the news guy cuts a "beluchi line" of sugar on air.

This is an interesting idea actually. Especially when you consider that 1) sugar has some potential health risks with very few if any benefits, while cannabis has some potential health risks with very many benefits, and 2) cannabis is completely prohibited in most of the country, while sugar is completely unrestricted.

Now I know that not all cannabis advocates like legalization proposals that include taxing and regulating it like alcohol or tobacco. But I think a great many would prefer regulating cannabis over the current state of prohibition. So it makes you think, what in principle would be wrong with minor regulation of sugar, given the above points about its relative healthfulness (or lack thereof) compared to cannabis?

Also, I think the problem most people have with regulating food and consumables in this way is that they feel like the government is trying to make decisions for private individuals and trying to control how parents feed their children. But is that really the point of this type regulation? Parents are already very aware nowadays of the need to watch sugar intake and not allow complete unfettered access to sodas, candies and other food with high sugar content. What lags behind aren't parents and individuals but the high-sugar products available and companies who make them.

Aren't regulations like these more an attempt to fill the gap and support what most parents already know, but what food makers continue to ignore? In THEORY, in a free market, less demand for harmful high-sugar foods would create less availability of such products. But it doesn't always work like that in American capitalism and it often takes years for consumer sentiment about a pervasive consumable like sugar to actually affect changes in the food suppliers. This is in part the reason for the regulation of sale and production of alcohol and tobacco.

If this minor regulation of sugar worries you, are you also against the regulation of cannabis? Should both cannabis and sugar be allowed to produce by and distributed to whoever, whenever, with no restrictions at all, except those of the parent for example? Should cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol be freely available in schools? Should high-sugar products? Which is worse? Its interesting to think about.

 

[CannaBunkerMan]

I'll tell you what, if someone kicks in my door because I was suspected of adding sugar to my breakfast cereal, I WILL go postal.

SAY FUCK NO TO THE NANNY STATE

 

[ShroomDr]

Why can't I just move to Canada and apply for jobs?

Because you will be an illegal immigrant.

They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison

Following the rights movements You clamped on with your iron fists
Drugs became conveniently Available for all the kids
Following the rights movements You clamped on with your iron fists
Drugs became conveniently Available for all the kids

Ooh, I buy my crack, my smack, my bitch Right here in Hollywood

{Nearly two million Americans are incarcerated in the prison system Prison system of the U.S.}

They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison

For you and me to live in
Another prison system
Another prison system
Another prison system
For you and me


Minor drug offenders fill your prisons You don't even flinch
All our taxes paying for your wars Against the new non rich
Minor drug offenders fill your prisons You don't even flinch
All our taxes paying for your wars Against the new non rich

Ooh, I buy my crack, my smack, my bitch Right here in Hollywood

{The percentage of Americans in the prison system Prison system has doubled since 1985}

They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison

For you and me to live in

Another prison system
Another prison system
Another prison system

For you and me

Who for?
Who for?
Who for?

You and I

They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison

For you and me Oh baby you and me


Why? All research and successful drug policy shows That treatment should be increased
Why? And law enforcement decreased While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences
Why? All research and successful drug policy shows That treatment should be increased
Why? And law enforcement decreased While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences

Utilizing drugs to pay for secret wars around the world
Drugs are now your global policy
Now you police the globe

Ooh, I buy my crack, my smack, my bitch Right here in Hollywood

{Drug money is used to rig elections And train brutal corporate sponsored Dictators around the world}

They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison

For you and me to live in

Another prison system
Another prison system
Another prison system

For you and me

Who for?
Who for?
Who for?

You and I

They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison
They're tryin' to build a prison

For you and me Oh baby you and me

System of a Down - Prison Song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JaMBEIM0kM

 

[TribalSeeds]

Because you will be an illegal immigrant.



System of a Down - Prison Song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JaMBEIM0kM

So that means im entitled to a free education and health care, right?

 

[bentom187]

This is an interesting idea actually. Especially when you consider that 1) sugar has some potential health risks with very few if any benefits, while cannabis has some potential health risks with very many benefits, and 2) cannabis is completely prohibited in most of the country, while sugar is completely unrestricted.

Now I know that not all cannabis advocates like legalization proposals that include taxing and regulating it like alcohol or tobacco. But I think a great many would prefer regulating cannabis over the current state of prohibition. So it makes you think, what in principle would be wrong with minor regulation of sugar, given the above points about its relative healthfulness (or lack thereof) compared to cannabis?

Also, I think the problem most people have with regulating food and consumables in this way is that they feel like the government is trying to make decisions for private individuals and trying to control how parents feed their children. But is that really the point of this type regulation? Parents are already very aware nowadays of the need to watch sugar intake and not allow complete unfettered access to sodas, candies and other food with high sugar content. What lags behind aren't parents and individuals but the high-sugar products available and companies who make them.

Aren't regulations like these more an attempt to fill the gap and support what most parents already know, but what food makers continue to ignore? In THEORY, in a free market, less demand for harmful high-sugar foods would create less availability of such products. But it doesn't always work like that in American capitalism and it often takes years for consumer sentiment about a pervasive consumable like sugar to actually affect changes in the food suppliers. This is in part the reason for the regulation of sale and production of alcohol and tobacco.

If this minor regulation of sugar worries you, are you also against the regulation of cannabis? Should both cannabis and sugar be allowed to produce by and distributed to whoever, whenever, with no restrictions at all, except those of the parent for example? Should cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol be freely available in schools? Should high-sugar products? Which is worse? Its interesting to think about.

i respect your views on this, i just agree with the dr. that the free market does the best job of regulating it,and freedom of choosing what we put in our own bodies is our decision.
and to a degree parents have the responsability when there children want to make poor choices to lead them in a better direction.

as far as cannabis,i feel again that its our right to ingest what we please,and that the regulations fail in many aspects as we grow and smoke anyway,and it always brings about the blackmarket wich people mostly use to aquire drugs and then on the opposing side we have the police who ruin our lives,reguardless if its through a perscription or by the blackmarket.

so to open that sort of thing to the consumption of sugar i just dont agree with.

i beleive that more choice is the answer,that way we have the ability to choose a alternative to the big agro/food corporations poor offerings.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

For Romney and Paul, a strategic alliance between establishment and outsider

By Amy Gardner, Published: February 1

RENO, NEV. — The remaining candidates in the winnowed Republican presidential field are attacking one another with abandon, each day bringing fresh headlines of accusations and outrage.

But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul haven’t laid a hand on each other.

They never do.

Despite deep differences on a range of issues, Romney and Paul became friends in 2008, the last time both ran for president. So did their wives, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. The former Massachusetts governor compliments the Texas congressman during debates, praising Paul’s religious faith during the last one, in Jacksonville, Fla. Immediately afterward, as is often the case, the Pauls and the Romneys gravitated toward one another to say hello.

The Romney-Paul alliance is more than a curious connection. It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.

“It would be very foolish for anybody in the Republican Party to dismiss a very real constituency,” said one senior GOP aide in Washington who is familiar with both camps. “Ron Paul plays a very valuable part in the process and brings a lot of voters toward the Republican Party and ultimately into the voting booth, and that’s something that can’t be ignored.”

To ensure that they are heard — not just now but after Election Day, too — Paul and his followers are working to gain a permanent foothold in the Republican Party nationwide. One state at a time, Paul’s supporters are seating themselves at county committee meetings, and standing for election as state officers and convention delegates, to make sure their candidate’s libertarian vision is taken into account. The goal is a lasting voice for an army of outsiders that has long felt ignored and sees the nation headed toward ruin if things don’t change.

That is just fine with the Romney campaign, which would be happy to bring Paul’s constituency — perhaps the most intense and loyal in the country — into the fold.

Romney’s aides are “quietly in touch with Ron Paul,” according to a Republican adviser who is in contact with the Romney campaign and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss its internal thinking. The two campaigns have coordinated on minor things, the adviser said — even small details, such as staggering the timing of each candidate’s appearance on television the night of the New Hampshire primary for maximum effect.

One advantage for Romney is that Paul’s presence in the race helps keep the GOP electorate fractured. But there is also a growing recognition that the congressman plans to stay in the contest over the long term — and that accommodating him and his supporters could help unify Republican voters in the general election against President Obama.

“Ron Paul wants a presence at the convention,” the adviser said — and Romney, if he is the nominee, would grant it.

What Paul and his supporters would demand, and what Romney would offer, are subjects of some speculation. One Paul adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk freely, said prime-time speaking slots for Paul and his son Rand, the junior senator from Kentucky, are obvious goals. On the policy front, Ron Paul’s priorities are reforming the Federal Reserve and reducing federal spending. So promises to audit the Fed and to tackle deficit reduction seriously could appease the congressman and his supporters, the adviser said.

Less likely are concessions on foreign policy, where Paul’s non-interventionist stand is at odds with that of Romney and most other Republicans.

Infiltrating the party

For Paul’s campaign, playing the inside-outside game has required nudging activists into the party system, even as he and they remain wary of it.

“I’ve been involved in politics for 20 or 30 years,” Paul told an enthusiastic crowd in a Spartanburg, S.C., hotel ballroom in January. “One of the reasons I became frustrated with the whole process is that the rhetoric could be so different. Republicans would say one thing, but then, when they get into office, they haven’t done a heck of a lot.”

Paul paused, and his audience cheered loudly as he added: “Have you ever noticed that?”

The crowd that day was characteristically scrappy and diverse: a man with a ponytail and a camouflage hunting jacket, a young mother with two small children, a doctor and his wife, and a well-dressed, young professional couple.

Yet the insurgents are executing a concerted strategy to infiltrate the Republican Party. Five Paul supporters, for instance, sit on the state GOP’s central committee in Iowa, where their candidate finished a strong third in the Jan. 3 caucuses. In Nevada, the vice president of the state GOP backs Paul. In Virginia, Paul supporters are lining up to attend county and district conventions to influence the election of national delegates.

In Reno, regional coordinator Wayne Terhune used a slide show on a recent weeknight to teach volunteers how to participate in a Republican precinct meeting to help Paul win delegates in the state’s caucuses on Saturday. He has tutored packed rooms at Denny’s as well as smaller crowds in the campaign’s Reno headquarters, located in a low-slung office building alongside the airport.

In a tiny conference room with a water cooler and two dogs on the floor, Terhune told the volunteers not to allow paper ballots out of their sight once votes take place — and to dress neatly and inconspicuously, so fellow Republicans won’t be disinclined to elect them as caucus delegates.

A common refrain is to “cover your tattoos and cut your hair,” said Paul’s campaign manager, Jesse Benton, who often tells coordinators to “dress for business, because we mean business.”

“You’ll nominate yourself,” Terhune told the room. “They’ll probably have you give your speech. Have a meeting a day ahead so all the Ron Paul people know who the other Ron Paul people are, so you can vote for them. Then you give a generic speech, and the non-Ron Paul people say, ‘Oh, he’s solid, I can vote for him.’ ”

Terhune also urged the volunteers to pull out their iPhones and record the proceedings on caucus night if party officials “don’t play by the rules.”

Teaching the establishment

Paul’s infiltration strategy began in 2008, after his last presidential bid, when he saw the potential to continue building his movement by working within the Republican Party.

But the idea took off in 2010 when Paul’s son Rand ran for Senate. On an outsider, small-government message very similar to his father’s, Rand Paul won the Republican primary that year against an opponent who was handpicked by Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader and senior senator from Kentucky.

Then, quite strangely, the establishment and the Pauls came together.

At McConnell’s request, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent an adviser to Kentucky to watch over Rand Paul’s general-election campaign — “to be the grown-up in the room,” according to one Washington Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

The adviser, Trygve Olson, developed a friendship with Rand Paul, and the two realized that they could teach each other a lot — to the benefit of both candidate and party. Olson showed Paul and his campaign establishment tactics: working with the news media, fine-tuning its message. And Paul showed Olson — and by extension, McConnell — how many people were drawn to the GOP by his message of fiscal responsibility.

One day that year, at Paul’s request, McConnell joined him for a tea party gathering in Kentucky, according to a Republican who was there. “Who are these people?” McConnell asked, bewildered by the dearth of familiar faces at a political event in his home state.

And at Rand Paul’s suggestion, Olson joined his father’s presidential campaign this year, basically to do what he did for Rand: help bring the Paul constituency into the Republican coalition without threatening the party. It’s probably no small coincidence that the partnership helps Rand’s burgeoning political career, too.

“You can dress in black and stand on the hill and smash the state and influence nobody, or you can realize the dynamics and the environment and get involved in the most pragmatic way to win minds and win votes and influence change,” said Benton, the campaign manager. “That’s what we’re trying to do.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...01/20/gIQAf8foiQ_story.html?wprss=rss_linkset

Maybe he's starting to get it.

 

[bentom187]

well this is just media spin because theres no way to the whitehouse without pauls supporters and deligates,mitt's favorability is dropping among certain groups and its only been 4-5 states in so far,plus this is conveiniently placed not too far off from when jack welch and his wife made a statment that pauls supporters had to be appeased because the nominee will need them,[YOUTUBEIF]cbbrBmUi9Y4[/YOUTUBEIF].
like all things mitt, its just a bait and switch entisment.

alot of supporters would just leave because mitt is polar opposite of paul,and hes never just set aside his beleifs for political gain its probabley not gonna happen now either.

we will win through delegates,and alot of people beleive its no one but paul, or else write in.

 

[ShroomDr]

So that means im entitled to a free education and health care, right?

Im no expert on Canadian foreign policy.

But im pretty sure most countries discriminate against US citizens when it comes to healthcare.

IE, i think a Mexican, Colombian, Aussie, etc would have an easier time getting healthcare in Britain than a US citizen. I think canada might be the same, but i dont know.



I dont think you wanted an answer; just to make an allusion to US foreign policy. Well, its not just US foreign policy, its worldwide policy.

You cant just move anywhere to get a job. No matter how much you want to, without 'papers' you are an 'illegal'.

 

[dagnabit]

Maybe he's starting to get it.

get what?

i like the sources in that article btw

"one senior GOP aide in Washington"
"a Republican adviser who is in contact with the Romney campaign and spoke on the condition of anonymity"
" One Paul adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk freely"
"according to one Washington Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly"

thats either the scariest subject on the planet and these people are all afraid or someone made up some bullshit.

 

[TribalSeeds]

Im no expert on Canadian foreign policy.

But im pretty sure most countries discriminate against US citizens when it comes to healthcare.

IE, i think a Mexican, Colombian, Aussie, etc would have an easier time getting healthcare in Britain than a US citizen. I think canada might be the same, but i dont know.



I dont think you wanted an answer; just to make an allusion to US foreign policy. Well, its not just US foreign policy, its worldwide policy.

You cant just move anywhere to get a job. No matter how much you want to, without 'papers' you are an 'illegal'.

Its true, I can't. People expect the U.S. to allow it, even if other countries don't. I couldn't move to Mexico and enroll in a public school, get a job and go to a free clinic.

 

[Avenger]

This is an interesting idea actually. Especially when you consider that 1) sugar has some potential health risks with very few if any benefits, while cannabis has some potential health risks with very many benefits, and 2) cannabis is completely prohibited in most of the country, while sugar is completely unrestricted.

Now I know that not all cannabis advocates like legalization proposals that include taxing and regulating it like alcohol or tobacco. But I think a great many would prefer regulating cannabis over the current state of prohibition. So it makes you think, what in principle would be wrong with minor regulation of sugar, given the above points about its relative healthfulness (or lack thereof) compared to cannabis?

Also, I think the problem most people have with regulating food and consumables in this way is that they feel like the government is trying to make decisions for private individuals and trying to control how parents feed their children. But is that really the point of this type regulation? Parents are already very aware nowadays of the need to watch sugar intake and not allow complete unfettered access to sodas, candies and other food with high sugar content. What lags behind aren't parents and individuals but the high-sugar products available and companies who make them.

Aren't regulations like these more an attempt to fill the gap and support what most parents already know, but what food makers continue to ignore? In THEORY, in a free market, less demand for harmful high-sugar foods would create less availability of such products. But it doesn't always work like that in American capitalism and it often takes years for consumer sentiment about a pervasive consumable like sugar to actually affect changes in the food suppliers. This is in part the reason for the regulation of sale and production of alcohol and tobacco.

If this minor regulation of sugar worries you, are you also against the regulation of cannabis? Should both cannabis and sugar be allowed to produce by and distributed to whoever, whenever, with no restrictions at all, except those of the parent for example? Should cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol be freely available in schools? Should high-sugar products? Which is worse? Its interesting to think about.

The problem with any government regulation is it just fosters special interest and government corruption.

"When the Sugar Police Go Marching In
by Karen De Coster

Recently by Karen De Coster: A Planet of 'No Judgment'





Dr. Robert Lustig has been a formidable voice of reason, as a scientist, in explaining why sugar and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) wreak havoc on the human body. He has correctly called HFCS a toxin because of how our livers are unable to process this government-subsidized monstrosity. Dr. Lustig is a Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, in the Division of Endocrinology at UC San Francisco – no small rank. Lustig also has had several collaborators on his many sugar and fructose studies, most of who have done remarkable work in fructose biochemistry, pediatrics, and other admirable fields.

This issue of toxic foods as a societal menace has been a dear topic of mine for many years because of the very obvious fact that a society whose food supply is built upon a foundation of processed, high-margin, phony foods, genetically modified foods protected by a patent system, and massive corn subsidies – all of which fuel an omnipotent, industrial food culture brought about by government intervention and policies that favor the corporate-socialist structure – is anything but the result of a free market.


Unfortunately, this is a fact that so many bookish but buffoon libertarians still cannot grasp. The same government that puts policies into place that favor and prop up the industrial food machine is the same gaggle of authoritarian bullies that raid small farms, oppress small food producers, deter artisan food production, and stamp out personal food choices to ensure society’s collective "safety." No small feat, but then again, when you have a monopoly on violence under the pretense of government by the people and for the people, folks tend to think that whatever the ends, the means to such ends must surely be filled with good intentions.

In his recent presentation called "How to Have a Sweet Ending" at the UCSF Center for Obesity, Assessment, Study and Treatment, Dr. Lustig presents his ideas for social interventions to reduce sugar consumption. Lustig is an admitted prohibitionist who says that since educational efforts have failed to reduce sugar use, the U.S. government must intervene and force behavior changes upon the citizenry. He believes that a massive policy of taxation, regulation, and interdiction, at both a societal and an individual level, is necessary to force the reduction of sugar consumption. He has, in fact, called for a global policy to eradicate sugar addiction. Is this the new One World Anti-Sugar Order? He believes that if enough people get sick – from obesity, vitamin deficiencies, AIDS, etc. – an issue of personal responsibility rises to the level of a public health issue, and that necessitates a totalitarian campaign on the part of government and its agencies to intervene and radically alter behavior via force.

This is the same mentality that shaped the FDA’s recent power grab known as the Food Safety Modernization Act (HR 2759) which will allow the feds to assume arbitrary powers that extend over any individuals who manufacture, process, pack, distribute, receive, hold, import, or grow food. Lustig is not calling for a few misplaced laws, here and there, to protect you from yourself. Rather, he is trying to justify a global crusade against freedom of food choice on the basis that "our toxic environment cannot be changed without government/societal intervention."




Among Lustig’s suggested interventions are controls on advertising and marketing, government counter-campaigns (taxpayer-funded, government propaganda), and raising prices via actual price fixing and/or taxation. Moreover, he advocates a policy that mimics the iron law of alcohol policy – reducing the availability of sugar-based products by way of age limits for purchase ("carding kids for Coke"), licensing and zoning controls on sales outlets, and regulating the hours of operation and density of fast food outlets through a series of government-issued permits.


During his presentation, Dr. Lustig explicitly praises the Nordic model of having government control the availability of products that special interests want eliminated from society. He touts the "success" of alcohol prohibition and tobacco taxes, and my response is – where and when? Any time that government intervenes to prohibit mutually beneficial exchanges – whether it is alcohol, sex, or yes, sugar – the result will be failure, plus the creation of additional, new problems that need more government intervention to resolve. The only sensible notion that Lustig suggests is the elimination of the villainous corn subsidy. But he kills off that moment of reason when he follows that comment up with a proposal for subsidizing other, more desirable products in place of corn.

Dr. Lustig also praises the San Francisco ban on selling toys with Happy Meals, and he admits, joyfully, that he was a part of that goon campaign against McDonald’s. He refers to the tactic of offering toys with Happy Meals, to help sell children on the meal choice, as "coercion." The word coercion is properly defined as the use of force, intimidation, harassment, or threats – but McDonald’s executives are not standing at the counter twisting the arms of parents or using aggressive maneuvers against children to "force" them to buy Happy Meals. The Happy Meal toy is an enticement and a marketing ploy, but not a coercive act. On the other hand, government mandates that restrict, regulate, or eliminate mutually beneficial exchanges are acts of aggression and coercion.


Admittedly, I despise McDonald’s, sugar, HFCS, and the processed food nation that America has become thanks to the government’s coercive campaigns such as the dietary guidelines and food pyramids; the quasi-governmental, propaganda-ridden organizations such as the American Dietetic Association and the American Heart Association; and the criminal gangs known as the USDA and the FDA. However, to think that the establishment of another gigantic and interventionist bureaucracy can drastically alter behavior through oppressive intervention machinations borders on a mental disorder. Behavior meddling on the part of the monopolists of violence – government – has never worked throughout history, and that isn’t something that is going to change because the Waffen-SS sends out its marching orders on sugar.

I like Lustig as a scientist and as a brilliant proponent of the facts who can shred the myths and lies of conventional wisdom as presented by the Big Food interests and their government lackeys, but knowing that he is a raging proponent of rigorous despotism to deter disapproved behaviors puts him on the side of the regime’s iron-fisted War on Obesity. The only honorable and peaceful strategy for changing eating behavior is to shape and influence food choice through education and the application of free market principles to make wholesome products available to those who desire to buy them.

July 23, 2011

Karen De Coster, CPA [send her mail] is a libertarian accounting/finance professional during the day, and she spends her personal time dissenting and writing and resisting. She writes about the TSA, the medical establishment, Big Pharma, Big Agra, the Banksters, the Corporate State, health totalitarianism, lifestyle fascism, bailout nation, the military-congressional-industrial-medical-pharmaceutical complex, and essentially, anything that encroaches upon the freedom of her fellow human beings. She is a proponent of food choice and the natural, eco-ag farming community, and she opposes the Fed's anti-food choice totalitarianism. This is her LewRockwell.com archive and her Mises.org archive. Check out her website. Follow her on Twitter @karendecoster.

Copyright © 2011 Karen DeCoster"

 

[komrade komura]

Ron Paul 2012 - Just can't do it....If I must vote, 5 things I must consider

Ron Paul 2012 - Just can't do it....If I must vote, 5 things I must consider

Insane Sativa Rant follows:

1. FOREIGN POLICY: Who will demand change to our cruel and exploitative foreign policy? There are so many appalling contradictions between our founding ideals and the way we interact with others in our planetary ecosystem as to be almost comical if told as a story,completely unbelievable, but is in fact a murderous reality.

Ron Paul offers a foreign policy based on the Golden Rule and offers the only way we will ever quit killing one another. I treat you with the same respect I would like.

I am a citizen of a country that has 5% of the worlds population yet uses 20-25% of its strategic resources and we will kill anybody who tries to fucking stop us!

This shit has been tried many times before from greece and rome to germany and britain. Bad ending every fucking time. Dead children who ain't done a fucking thing to us.

Can't support it, won't pay for it...and yes, I fucking left...so shut up with that same old 'love it or leave it shit'! Looking like 1930's Germany to me...moving fast to a police state. Drones are now flying missions inside the borders...and they ain't just for illegals.

Besides, how the fuck can someone be illegal anywhere on this planet...that shit just seems illogical. We are 99% identical as a species and all we concentrate on is that fraction of difference? Go where I want...GROW where I want.

RON PAUL FOR SECRETARY OF STATE....or at least UN Ambassador de Estados Unidos

2. JOBS: Who will raise hell with every factory shipped overseas...written into legislation by representative who are being paid by those who benefit from it?

Who can always be counted on to stick up for the people of our country?

Right now Bernie Sanders is the only one in congress I see who seems to be raising hell. He is a socialist...but that shouldn't surprise anyone. That's what socialists do.

If the whores of our government can make policies and tax rules to make it easy to export jobs for the benefit of their campaign contributors, then they can make them to do the opposite. And it is FUCKING OWED. It is their debt to us for the harm they have caused when they sold their souls to remain in the political ruling class. Fucking scumudda earf!

To quote Ronald Reagan: “ Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”

He nailed it.

(disliked almost everything he did but the person seemed nice ..in a 'grandpa's running things' kind of way, apologies to central america)

Our representatives should remember that historically when the people finally realise how badly they have been screwed, the outcomes have often been much more dire for the rulers than a mere legislative solution. Last chance seems to be approaching fast. Army on the streets soon? Then it only takes some matches. Need some?

3. CURRENT JOB HOLDER: Let's be frank: Obama was a bust. He turned bankster friendly shill faster than a egyptian cop unclogs a drain in a torture room.

He is simply not up to the job, not the right man for the job. Oratory without action means that the historians will only remember what he said but accomplishments won't be on the register of notables.

And you people who keep telling me 'just wait until his next term'?

You can sell that shit to the tourists.

He suffers from Spinal Minimus. If he is just a coward when backed into the corner by the echo chamber of conservative wing nuttery, then fuck him. Until he is willing to pick a fight and then smack the bullies in the mouth, I got no respect.

If he is already paid off for the after office life, then fuck him for selling out, he works for us da mudderfucker.

If he thinks he is doing a good job, then he is delusional and not fit for office due to his mental health...and fuck him, retarded or not.


4. TAXES:

Me: Hey, Ms. Ideal Candidate, do you support increasing taxes on the wealthy?

Ms. Ideal Candidate: What?! Are you kidding me? Of course I do. Come back until you have serious questions!


When the tax rates paid for trading money are less than that for actually doing something of value, strange shit will happen and has. C'mon, it's simple math. It doesn't require much analysis it is so obvious.

Oh yeah, the largest transfer of wealth in human history from the tax payers to the financial industry...that's the weird shit that happened.

Wasn't any justice, nobody went to jail..bonuses are back now, banksters call on the cops now when people protest.

The closest thing to justice was a joke in 2008:

Q: How do you get a banker out of a tree?
A: Cut the fucking rope

That money could have put several generations of our people through university or other types of training. Fuckwads!

Unfortunately the banksters and their whores who suck them off for money in the halls of congress fail to understand that they are breaking rule one for parasites: don't kill the host!


5. HEALTHCARE: A candidate must support universal healthcare. A simple conclusion:

HEALTH CARE IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.
(IF THIS CONFLICTS WITH THE PROFIT MOTIVE, WELL ALL APOLOGIES, IT IS THAT IMPORTANT.)

Naw, fuck the apologies.

Got socialised medicine where I live now and it it pretty good. Also nice to know that I can NEVER go bankrupt due to medical bills. FUCK YEAH...more of that please.

Healthcare also includes clean water, clean air and good schools.

Doesn't it seem illogical on a planet that is 75% water that we would ever have to pay for it or that we would ever permit it to be a life or death circumstance for so many people?

I only consider voting in times of war because only then is it a matter of life and death. Direct democracy is the only logical model to eliminate this ruling class forever.

Meanwhile back in reality, despite war circumstances, it seems appropriate to include other factors in the decision making process to optimize the outcome, else I wind up with Ron Paul:

Great on foreign policy and cannabis but bat shit crazy on so many other things. He forgot that Ayn Rand wrote fiction...real melodramatic crap that can't hide the massive propaganda stain.

Sorry, am more an Orwell person since it more closely resembles the real world. In a world containing Dostoevsky, he was inspired by Ayn Rand?

WTF? No kidding? Really? Ya gotta be shitting me.

Perhaps it was the attraction to the strong sexually assertive woman characters in her writing, bound only by their own moral code and they take what they want. Makes sense in a tie me up and spank me sort of way. Fuck! The image of a naked and bound Ron Paul, red ass cheeks elevated towards the sky in blissful submission is in my head now. Not a proud moment.

For the record: Ayn Rand DID NOT solve the ancient riddle faced by conservatives since the dawn of time:

- a moral argument for being such selfish bastards.

Sorry assholes your quest is not ended.

However, in no way do I advocate a communist government. They too have many contradictions between their ideals and their historical execution towards those ends...and a huge fucking body count to prove it. Quite frankly, it is not a destination I want to arrive at.

But perhaps it is time to give other soap box preachers a microphone.

I was shocked at the answer I arrived at one night recently when I asked myself a simple question:

if I know of a proposed piece of legislation before congress right now that will have a large effect on myself and my family, would I feel better knowing a republican or a communist voted for it.

The party of Lincoln has sunk that far

...bested by that followers of a half-wit.

To me it looks like Marx defined the problem pretty well (extreme concentration of wealth, widespread poverty..which should have seemed pretty fucking obvious back in his time...the dark days of the industrial economy...just needed to step outside and breath deeply back then...or visit any number of prisons for the poor)...but his solution is just bat-shit insane and has resulted in some of the biggest clusterfucks in human history. East Germany? Nicolae Ceaușescu? Stalin? Mao?

But don't worry, I vote absentee...from a state that has the worst record in all human fucking history of counting the ballots and gave us another failed texan presidente....hahaha. So you your vote won't be needed to block mine and might actually mean something.

Press the Green button on your remote control to vote for the 2015 Defense Appropriation Bill...Press the Red button to vote against. Please remember to first swipe you finger over the identification reader. You have 24 hours to vote. Please turn to C-span1 to see arguments in favor and against, C-span 2 for the reading of the bill.

Banish the whores of babylon with democracy 2.0

 

[komrade komura]

Any society which creates more laws than can be known and understood by a citizen is just fucking with you.

 

[sac beh]

The problem with any government regulation is it just fosters special interest and government corruption.

"When the Sugar Police Go Marching In
by Karen De Coster

That's an interesting article, but it doesn't address the questions I raised. Further, the author makes some interesting points, but also makes many sweeping conclusions that aren't backed up by anything except for (I can only assume) her unwavering faith in free markets. For example,

He touts the "success" of alcohol prohibition and tobacco taxes, and my response is – where and when? Any time that government intervenes to prohibit mutually beneficial exchanges – whether it is alcohol, sex, or yes, sugar – the result will be failure, plus the creation of additional, new problems that need more government intervention to resolve.

Apart from that statement being false, it doesn't have any reasoning behind it except for her general appeal to the idea of free markets being free because they have no rules. This latter idea is one that I find a lot of libertarians appealing to without much reasoning behind it. We've never seen and never will see a theoretical free market of the Adam Smith type. So I guess its hard to say for sure what its character would be.

But in a democratic society there must be structures and rules in place to facilitate democratic decision-making and opportunity for free action of individuals. There also must be arbiters and facilitators of exchange in markets. Not even Smith's theoretical markets are completely without rules. Now, whether these are "government" or some other label is just superficial. What matters most is that they are democratic, ruled by the people or the pueblo. But the idea that they not exist at all doesn't sound possible to me.

I'm not saying that I'm all for the regulation of sugar in the ways mentioned. But I think those who oppose these types of regulation perhaps aren't opposing them on the best grounds, aren't putting their best foot forward, with blanket appeals to the idea of a "free market" being better than a regulated market--not to mention the lack of explanation for how the former could even exist.

I do know that if I had the option, I would happily trade the regulation of sugar for the legalized regulation of cannabis (it only makes sense given the comparable health effects of sugar vs cannabis). But others would rather it be prohibited and wait for a theoretical free market to exist.

 

[sac beh]

All of that is a bit of a tangent to this thread, since we're talking about Ron Paul here, and from what I hear Ron Paul isn't anti-regulation but rather anti-federal regulation (correct me if I'm wrong). So while moving from federal to state regulation of these issues doesn't solve the problem libertarians say they have (which is, in principle, with regulation itself), it does bring decision making to a more local level which certainly increases the effectiveness of democracy.

 

[GP73LPC]

well this is just media spin because theres no way to the whitehouse without pauls supporters and deligates

couldn't agree more...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

So what's the spin?

 

[monkey5]

~~"And you people who keep telling me 'just wait until his next term'?

You can sell that shit to the tourists." ~~ Now, thats funny! Thank you for posting that one! monkey5