Fuck Ron Paul

[barracuda]

My main concern is what he would do with programs that help the poor, social security, alternative energy, gay rights, and other things.

with those priorities, it doesn't matter who wins.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
– James Madison

demofake or republonazi. "trying hard, in the name of goodness, to get the poor a little more, doggonit". number one, you're thanking your slavemasters for all the crumbs they dispense.

As you're probably aware, not all the founders viewed the Taxing and Spending Clause quite so narrowly as did Madison. And subsequent Supreme Court decisions have affirmed the Hamiltonian interpretation to be appropriate with regards to the extent of the general welfare, specifcally in the case of the Social Security Act. But c'mon, when the federal government implements a tax on individuals and their employers with the expressly stated purpose of investing those monies within a specific fund for the purpose of securing benefits to the elderly in the form of a repayment of their own money, those benefits can hardly be considered as "crumbs" from the table of the slavemasters.

My general feeling is that guys like Paul and Gingrich are running for office simply as a way of securing more cash for their retirements in their various 527's or 501(c)(4)'s. Gotta have social security.

Homeland Insecurity has put out bulletins advising police departments all over america that Ron Paul supporters are to be "suspected of crimes" and are probably "domestic terrorist suspects".

Someone will probably ask me to link to this info but I can't do it at the present time without searching for it. You will have to do that on your own.

You are probably talking about the MIAC report which was rescinded in March of 2009. Homeland Security issued a similar report in 2006 which did not specify the good Doctor's supporters, but mentions a variety of domestic terrorist profile points which are certainly of interest, most of which can be seen reflected in this handy pamphlet from the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force issued about the same time:



This report was also removed after a popular backlash. Interestingly, and partly as a result of that backlash, Homeland Security has curtailed their analyses of home-grown terror threats for the last two years. Feel safer?

[Joe Hillshoist]

Less we forget Paul joked during the 08 campaign when a loud sound was heard back stage oh for a minute there I thought somebody shot Obama. Ha ha ha ha ha. Although he has a couple of positions I support, I have never doubted for a pico second that he is a shriveled up, racist turd. For most of the people who had his lawn signs out last time, that was his primary appeal.

right on bro

[Joe Hillshoist]

how, if you accept the assessment of society in my foregoing post, could you possibly conclude that the whole system itself isn't racist? the real racists are well hidden in cover. in fact they publicly claim to be pious on the race issue. and to prove it they campaign on getting more "assistance" to poor people (translation: more boodle for us).

i don't know if ron paul is a racist or not. i interpret him as opposing systemic mercantilist fascist (and yes racist) oppression and tyranny. a tyrant doesn't mind if the citizens hate him as long as they hate each other. it's about restoring liberty. if a person wants to be racist after that, they have to do it on their own dime. in that case, paul will be very disappointed if he is racist. seems to me you're straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. but if that turns you off so much, go ahead, vote "progressive" or whatever...

When he stops investing in and promoting mining companies that fuck over poor brown people in the third world then he might deserve some respect till then he is just another another dumbfuck enabler of fascism. Obviously the system is racist and colonialist and he takes full advantage of that.

He invests in companies that murder union officials in third world countries, that rort local populations and steal resources for a fraction of their value. And everyone thinks he is some glittering bauble of freedom.

When he is just another fuckead oligarch.

[eyeno]

My main concern is what he would do with programs that help the poor, social security, alternative energy, gay rights, and other things.

with those priorities, it doesn't matter who wins.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
– James Madison

demofake or republonazi. "trying hard, in the name of goodness, to get the poor a little more, doggonit". number one, you're thanking your slavemasters for all the crumbs they dispense.

As you're probably aware, not all the founders viewed the Taxing and Spending Clause quite so narrowly as did Madison. And subsequent Supreme Court decisions have affirmed the Hamiltonian interpretation to be appropriate with regards to the extent of the general welfare, specifcally in the case of the Social Security Act. But c'mon, when the federal government implements a tax on individuals and their employers with the expressly stated purpose of investing those monies within a specific fund for the purpose of securing benefits to the elderly in the form of a repayment of their own money, those benefits can hardly be considered as "crumbs" from the table of the slavemasters.

My general feeling is that guys like Paul and Gingrich are running for office simply as a way of securing more cash for their retirements in their various 527's or 501(c)(4)'s. Gotta have social security.

Homeland Insecurity has put out bulletins advising police departments all over america that Ron Paul supporters are to be "suspected of crimes" and are probably "domestic terrorist suspects".

Someone will probably ask me to link to this info but I can't do it at the present time without searching for it. You will have to do that on your own.

You are probably talking about the MIAC report which was rescinded in March of 2009. Homeland Security issued a similar report in 2006 which did not specify the good Doctor's supporters, but mentions a variety of domestic terrorist profile points which are certainly of interest, most of which can be seen reflected in this handy pamphlet from the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force issued about the same time:



This report was also removed after a popular backlash. Interestingly, and partly as a result of that backlash, Homeland Security has curtailed their analyses of home-grown terror threats for the last two years. Feel safer?

No that wasn't my point at all. But if you choose to paint it that way I won't protest because i'm not gonna take the time to do the research. My point is basically that he is one of the few, along with Kucinich, that dares speak against the federal reserve. That alone makes him stand out regardless of his other weak points he may have. Can't have anyone speaking against the fed reserve ya know, its just not fashionable these days.

[The Consul]

Funny how only in America is Ron Paul endorsed by a white supremacist leader named Ron Black. Also funny how he gets a pass for being a shriveled up racist turd just because he's supported an audit of the Fed Reserve. It is not ageist if it is the idea that stinketh forth from the shite. But whatever, he has as much chance of getting elected as Merril K. Riddick, who was a nice man.

[SonicG]

No that wasn't my point at all. But if you choose to paint it that way I won't protest because i'm not gonna take the time to do the research. My point is basically that he is one of the few, along with Kucinich, that dares speak against the federal reserve. That alone makes him stand out regardless of his other weak points he may have. Can't have anyone speaking against the fed reserve ya know, its just not fashionable these days.

Please show me an explanation of how auditing or destroying the Federal Reserve will lead to a more egalitarian society? How will it strike a blow against international capitalism and actually empower people to live with reduced impact on the environment? Its not like the banks and corporations are just going to roll over and say, "Ugh, ok, got us...the gigs up". Especially with Ron Paul since he is in favor of just letting them run rampant with no regulations, chasing cheap labor across the globe with no import controls...
See his protege's thoughts here regarding mining regulations.

[stefano]

It goes without saying that Ron Paul and I have equal chances of becoming the next president of the United States; this is why no one is covering his campaign. Now I like Ron Paul, but I also admit and understand that Ron Paul is a patsy, or a reliable stooge--the Denny Kuciny of the Republican Right, a convenient sheepdog to herd the slouches and stragglers back into the sheepfold. Asking why these people are included in debates and campaigns even as they are accorded the most seemingly disdainful treatment by the apparati of propaganda is to perceive a wrong note in what is really a skillfully modulated key. YOU'RE NOT DEALING WITH MORONS HERE! They reinforce the loyalty of the more ideological fringes of the parties while also ensuring that many marginal types hear some hint of hope, honor, decency . . . reform within the system. Well Ron Paul might not win, some libertarian somewhere is telling himself, but if he can at least run a campaign . . . You fool; you rube! Ron Paul is tolerated by the system he ostensibly opposes because his opposition is merely incidental; its effect is to strengthen the system by making it ever more inevitable. Ersatz intellectual diversity superimposed on the public facade of the ruling class is an affect overlying an underlying unanimity among the actually powerful.

[Elihu]

As you're probably aware, not all the founders viewed the Taxing and Spending Clause quite so narrowly as did Madison. And subsequent Supreme Court decisions have affirmed the Hamiltonian interpretation to be appropriate with regards to the extent of the general welfare, specifcally in the case of the Social Security Act.

let's remember, Madison is referring to the Constitution as it was written and ratified and regarding ss, how it remained for almost 150 years. (commence musings)The supreme court affirmed the SS & Medicare (and other) indulgences (my characterization) in what year? 30-33 or so? same time frn's gained their exclusive monopoly and domestic gold redemption was outlawed?

But c'mon, when the federal government implements a tax on individuals and their employers with the expressly stated purpose of investing those monies within a specific fund for the purpose of securing benefits to the elderly in the form of a repayment of their own money, those benefits can hardly be considered as "crumbs" from the table of the slavemasters.

i was more referring to "social assistance" programs. SS is "expressly stated" to be a pension and retirement system. in reality it is a ponzi. around 69 or so, as i understand it, the "specific fund" was tapped for general expenditure (major imperial conflict going on at the time) and replaced with treasury bills (ious). today there is nothing but t-bills in this fund. the payroll taxes designated are spent immediately. when the day comes that maturing t-bills can no longer be rolled in international debt markets, the iou's in the SS trust fund will only be payable out of tax revenue. how's that Hamiltonian scenario shaping up? something about arbitrary setter of values? the money has already been stolen imo.

(commence musings) so in high school history i always wondered why charles degaulle was such a bad character. turns out right around the time the federal gov tapped the SS trust fund, degaulle became concerned about the amount of dollars put into circulation by the US (major imperial conflict going on at the time). so, in perfect compliance with the Bretton Woods international agreement he sent a ship to NY to redeem FRNs for the amount of gold specified (think it was $35/oz). some other countries did too i believe. shortly thereafter, nixon "temporarily" forever suspended gold redemption. seems paying for a war across the world in gold would have bankrupted our dear land. but hey, we're the usa. no problem. and remember too prior to this abrogation, there was no currency speculation. there were no cds's, interest rate swaps or derivatives of any kind. graph the public debts of all western nations from this period in time. what? 90% or more accumulated since 71? something about there being no official liquidator of debt left in the international monetary system. unconnected? coincidence?

[Sounder]

stefano, thanks for the link to IOZ.

She is a hellaofa writer and thinker.

[Elihu]

Please show me an explanation of how auditing or destroying the Federal Reserve will lead to a more egalitarian society? How will it strike a blow against international capitalism and actually empower people to live with reduced impact on the environment? Its not like the banks and corporations are just going to roll over and say, "Ugh, ok, got us...the gigs up".

http://professorfekete.com/articles%5CA ... andard.pdf

it's not a specific or comprehensive answer bu it is a start.

When he stops investing in and promoting mining companies that f over poor brown people in the third world then he might deserve some respect...He invests in companies that murder union officials in third world countries, that rort local populations and steal resources for a fraction of their value...

you'd have to disqualify everyone in both parties on those grounds wouldn't you? and prosecute many corporations to boot.

And everyone thinks he is some glittering bauble of freedom. When he is just another fuckead oligarch.

i don't agree with your characterization.

[barracuda]

let's remember, Madison is referring to the Constitution as it was written and ratified

As was Hamilton.

and regarding ss, how it remained for almost 150 years.

Hamilton's interpretation has been sprinkled throughout the history of the country, including during Washington's presidency, for any number of justifiable reasons.

(commence musings)The supreme court affirmed the SS & Medicare (and other) indulgences (my characterization) in what year? 30-33 or so? same time frn's gained their exclusive monopoly and domestic gold redemption was outlawed?

Sorry, you lost me at "indulgences". If you think Social Security is an indulgence, we're not going to find much political common ground. But that's to be expected, since Dr. Paul's opinion is that SS is simply unconstitutional. I guess he thinks everyone should set up their own personal 501(c)(4) like he did look to their state legislature for help in their old age.

SS is "expressly stated" to be a pension and retirement system. in reality it is a ponzi. around 69 or so, as i understand it, the "specific fund" was tapped for general expenditure (major imperial conflict going on at the time) and replaced with treasury bills (ious). today there is nothing but t-bills in this fund. the payroll taxes designated are spent immediately. when the day comes that maturing t-bills can no longer be rolled in international debt markets, the iou's in the SS trust fund will only be payable out of tax revenue.

Of course. But that's because our government is corrupt, not because social support programs are inherently predisposed towards ponzi schemes, or were designed to function as such.

how's that Hamiltonian scenario shaping up?

I find it to be a perfectly usable constitutional rational for implementing socialism, to be honest, something Madison would probably choke on, but I heartily endore.

[Simulist]

Social Security and Medicare are not "indulgences." They are two of the few remaining things that make civilization (yes, even this one) preferable to anarchy.

[Elihu]

Social Security and Medicare are not "indulgences."

Sorry, you lost me at "indulgences".

Constitutional "indulgences". not in spirit or sentiment. plan to embellish later.

but in the meantime, what about the abominable wars? is there another candidate besides paul who has openly and publicly said they're a disgrace and that he would cease and desist immediately as CIC and bring the troops home? did you / can you hear the emotional responses from audiences when he drops those? applause doesn't fully encapsulate it imo. they're like black swans to the msm err prop organs (how do you do that cross out thingy?). is that credible? i think so. hypothetically, if the smorgasbord of goons each had one issue and we picked based on that alone what would anyone choose ahead of cease and desist? i know that's what i would pick. i don't understand how something as concrete and momentous as that can be trashed because a guy is "allegedly" a "racist" (among thousands in dc). i don't get it...

[Elihu]

A crowd of little girls wait anxiously for the opening of the toy store
so they can be the first to get Lisa Lionheart. ... When the doors are opened,
the crowd stampedes in. "Look," cries one girl, "it's Lisa Lionheart!"
...They almost make it, except an employee pulls a cart full of Malibu
Stacy dolls "with NEW hat" in their path. They all stop: "They changed
Malibu Stacy!" one exclaims. "She is better than ever!" says another.
... "Wait! She still embodies all the awful stereotypes she did before!"
Smithers is quick to point out, "But she's got a new hat."

[Pele'sDaughter]

they're like black swans to the msm err prop organs


Just highlight what is to be crossed out and click on the lower case s in the editor options.