[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B0Q109uQ7o"]Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul, Kutztown University Nov. 21, 2011 - HQ - YouTube[/ame] Chomsky on Paul..
Is R-Money a Job creator? http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/0...ucts-american-airlines-to-sack-13000-workers/ Joshua Gotbaum, director of The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) – the federal agency that helps secure failed pension plans – said “before AMR takes such a drastic action as firing 13,000 workers and killing the pension plans of 130,000 employees and retirees, it needs to show there is no better alternative. The company had failed to provide even basic financial details.”
If you think Obama is less dangerous than Paul then you need a serious reality check homie. Obama has no problem sending young men and woman to possibly die overseas for no good reason at all Instead of searching for videos and articles that bash ron Paul, why don't you do the same for Obama
As in any election, we have to search not for the best possible candidate but for the best AVAILABLE candidate.. So far, Obama beats any of the 4 remaining repugs.. Yes, including the so-called libertarian that runs with them and has no problem letting people die in US soil... 1. I don't search, they just pop up like daisies.. 2. That's your job, come up with reasons to vote for Paul or reasons not to vote for Obama. Mine is already done, thanks to Nuts, R-Money, RuPaul and Sanctorum (google it, no need to call him names )...
I really don't care if you like Ron Paul or not, but I do care that you think Obama is a good/best option. Shit, it's better to not vote at all then to vote for Obama. I've looked at plenty of reasons to not vote for Paul. Your job is to look at all sides, so I urge to look for anti Obama material. I've posted plenty of it p.s. I posted a video a while back of Ron Paul talking about his ACTUAL healthcare policy
I was being sarcastic, if you missed it... Of course i've done my own research which had led me to decide that I'd rather have Obama than have my vote help any of the four repugs into office... Or a so called libertarian... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/libertarian-illusions_b_1207878.html Libertarians defend their single-mindedness on three separate grounds: ethical, economic, and political. Ethical libertarians, exemplified by the late novelist Ayn Rand, hold that liberty is the only true virtue. Rand claimed when a rich man responds to a poor person's plea for help (even by giving mere pennies), the rich man actually debases himself. This view is the opposite of Christian charity and Buddhist compassion, according to which moral worth is achieved by helping others. Economic libertarianism claims a more pragmatic position, that economic freedom in the marketplace is the sole true source of prosperity. Yet economic theory dating back to Adam Smith and up to Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman has explained why society should turn to government when the conditions of market competition do not apply. The affirmative role of government includes public education, promotion of science and technology, environmental protection, and the provision of infrastructure. Friedman and Hayek both championed a state guarantee of basic needs for all citizens. Political libertarianism is the idea that only the strict devotion to liberty will preserve liberty, and that government intervention is "the road to serfdom," in the famous words of Hayek. Hayek wrote his defense of free markets in 1945, in the shadow of fascism and communist totalitarianism. He warned his readers in Western Europe not to endorse state ownership of industry because public ownership, said Hayek, would eventually undermine political freedoms. The idea of limited government in the defense of liberty clearly taps into America's founding history as well, tea party and all. Libertarianism has many historical roots. Some of the darker roots are the self-justification of powerful social groups that wish to deny society's responsibility to weaker and poorer members of society. Racism and libertarianism have had their dalliance, as Ron Paul's personal journey makes plainly evident. Even today, Paul opposes the civil rights legislation of the 1960s on the ground that society has no right to deny the "liberty" of racist behavior. Even if Ron Paul himself is no racist, he gives comfort to racists.
If you've done all the research then you wouldn't be supporting Obama lol How can you support this guy: 1. Escalated our many wars 2. Started an unconstitutional war 3. Signed away our rights 4. Continued many bush policies 5. Bailed out the corps 6. Was a corporate lawyer 7. His top campaign contributors were banks like Goldman sachs 8. He put former Goldman sachs employees in to positions of power 9. He speaks like your typical politician! All rhetoric and general answers, pointing the finger at the other guy, saying words that appeal to our emotions 10. He is gearing up to attack Iran How could you support 4 more years of this guy? It don't matter if your a Ron Paul lover/hater, dem or rep, Nazi or alien, Obama is a threat to our country.
Who is the alternative? Ron Paul certainly not, not R-Money, Nuts or Sanctorum... So who is left (none all of them are rigth wingers )? Not voting actually adds to the problem, since it allows a reduced amount of people to dictate the direction of the country, a little bit like the Iowa Caucuses... Bottom line is that you either believe that the system is flawed but it is possible to fix it, or that you need a full fledged revolution to install a new system. I still believe in the system and within that look for the better, not the best alternative, hoping that eventually we will recapture the system and make it work for the people, which I agree with you, it does not. Regarding Paul, I do not believe that his extreme individualism is the solution to our problems, au contraire, extreme individualism has brought the present crisis to us; in short, he's not the solution, he's part of the problem, as much as Obama or any of the current candidates can be.
There is no alternative bc I'm sure Obama will win. But as a person who realizes this system is corrupt and flawed, your job is to educate others and not give in to the system by voting for Obama. You are directly feeding the fire that you are trying to extinguish. It doesn't make sense. Change will come from awareness not voting I strongly disagree that individualism has brought thus crisis upon us. The herd mentality is to blame. The whole 'are you a rep or dem' thing. People have such a need to be in a group or team and then defend that team whether right or wring, which is just crazy! Putting ourselves in groups just divides us and makes us easier to control and manipulate. What we need are more individual thinkers to get us out of this mess. Following the crowd has not worked out at all. I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Paul anymore, but to suggest he is part of the problem is crazy man. If he was part of the problem why is he constantly bashed and given less air time than all the candidates by the mainstream media. Why does the mainstream media love to ignore him? Why is he the candidate with the most campaign contributions from the men and women in the military? Why is Ron Paul the second most popular candidate among young people? You can agree or disagree with his way of thinking, but don't say he is part of the problem. We need more politicians like Paul that don't give in to the status quo and do what the money tells them to do
Do not waste your time with the so called liberal/commie/socialist who will only be happy when the United States turns into the Soviet Union or North Korea. The founders of the United States were real liberals, classical liberals because they believed in freedom. These so called liberals are tyrants who believe that we have to be slaves of the government in order for society to function. This country became the wealthiest in the history of mankind with the idea of individual freedom placed in the United States constitution. Individual freedom leads to prosperity, collectivist societies lead to poverty and death and if you dont believe me just look at how many people died under Mao and Stalin, a little over ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION PEOPLE. I will let Tony Montana explain why I hate collectivist societies: "Hey, you? You a Communist or something? How would you like it they tell you all the time what to think, what to do, you wanna be like a sheep, like everybody else. Baa baa? You want a stoolie on every block? You wanna work eight hours a day and you never own nothing? I ate octopus three times a day, damn octopus is coming out my ears, damn' Russian shoes are eating through my feet. Whaddaya want?"
Oh please enlightened libertarians answer a few questions about your society in order to let me know how things will be run in your utopia: 1. Will there be any money? Who will print it? If a gold standard is used, who will keep the gold safe? 2. Will there be traffic laws, Street signs and lights? Who will enforce this rules? 3. How will you fund your army? How will you keep them professional if that means having a gigantic government agency? Who will develop, build and maintain their weapons? Or should a volunteer army defend us from the red army in case of invasion? 4. Will there be courts? How about lawyers, policemen, firemen? What if I burn trash or pot in my backyard but the fire extends to my neighbor's property and the toxic fumes reach a school. 5. Who will pay for roads, rails, lights, etc? 6. If a homeless, uninsured, poor man dies in the street or in the door of a hospital, who should bury him?
Just to lighten the mood. I'll admit it. I too have been disgusted by the NWO since they revealed themselves in 1996... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfQ3IH-TWVI"]Formation of the New World Order - YouTube[/ame]
I'm pretty sure he isn't advocating a society with no govt. He is advocating limited govt that mostly does what you talk about in your questions. And he isn't advocating no taxes at all, just no taxes on labor
That is a local issue, it is up to each state to decide what to do with their homeless and poor, federal government intervention creates more poverty and if you dont believe me just look at the Obama presidency. More people have died from not being able to pay their electric bill under Obama's watch and more will die if we collapse and become North Korea which is your dream country.
You think the new world order is all a joke and a game but they have a nasty plan to kill 90% of the population with a man made virus. If you dont believe me then read what Obama's science czar wrote and how wonderful he thinks it is for the majority of us to be dead http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-s...totalitarian-population-control-measures.html. But hey, I guess death and slavery are cool for people who think North Korea is the greatest nation on earth like you.
Look brah, I don't think people are looking to fundamentally "change" this country like is currently being done by your hero's Van Jones and George Soros. Instead my understanding is that Ron Pauler's, Tea Partiers, Preppers, Anti-World govt/UN, simply want to restore this country to being strictly guided by the Constitution, instead of walking all over it. Whats really funny is how much this nwo guy is being made fun of for using Alex Jones as a source when we have Dapip using a baised liberal radical such as Noam Chomsky.. Things like having a President who doesn't hide the fact that he would love to be able to "bypass" congress to get things done his way and to be able to bring real change is is way more radical and worrisome than wanting to bring back a President who puts Americans first. Obama cites the barriers created by the constitution as unfortunate and according to him, a flaw in the founders ideologies. Sorry, but I think I'd rather side with this country's founders, rather than 1 president, who is fundamentally changing this country in ways unforeseen. Had the NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA etc been passed during the bush era, you libs woulda cried foul in the best way you know, OWS style anarchism. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-K-3y5Ka-E"]Crush one Obama - YouTube[/ame] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72503.html Even the Obama girl has abandon the messiah and thats cause she wanted his man juice. How guys can still be all over his nuts is beyond me.
Like I told you before, do not waste your time defending me or trying to convince the commie, he wants the United States to turn into North Korea. Anything different than that and you are fanatic who wants poor people to die.
To be honest with you, I thought that you were against every level of government hence my questions.. I see that your grudge is mostly against the federal government. That clarifies a lot, still that doesn't make you a libertarian, more of an anti-federalist. BTW, the US was not most prosperous up until 1913, probably was the most prosperous nation on Earth from 1945 until the 1970s. And, no, I don't want the US to become N. Korea. S. Korea would be far more interesting, with better education and universal health care. And finally, so you will abide by stupid laws and taxes if they were issued by your State or Local government? What prevents states from being as intrusive as the federal government? http://www.dumblaws.com/ Florida: A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing. New York: A person may not walk around on Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket California: No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour. Alabama: Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.
That would be up to the citizens of each state to decide if they are dumb enough to support those initiatives. This is the reason we are in the situation we are in, we became complacent, happy and fat and forgot to utilize our power as the bosses of this great nation. Most people stop caring about politics and that is how the cancer of the banking cartel grew in this country. We must get rid of the banking cartel in order to cure this great nation.
The US has had the biggest GDP in the world for over a century. Having that back in 1913 does not prove anything. Regarding the rest of the discussion, you are right in that complacency lead us to the current situation and, granted you have reasons, to distrust the Federal Government. However I would like to hear if it's OK for the states, not only to have dumb laws or, say create a universal healthcare system or maybe create an income tax to pay the State's federal taxes. I would like to hear what you think of public funded hospitals or schools at the state level, just to see how you propose to face those issues at the local levels.
States are free to do whatever they want as long as their citizens want it to happen. If citizens of a state want to be socialized and be like New York, Massachusetts and California where the states are bankrupt because of their lets take care of everybody attitude then that is up to them. States are allowed to create their universal healthcare system like Massachusetts and turn their state into an unlivable place where taxes are so high that you can not live there unless you are rich. Funny how Mitt Romney put into law an universal healthcare system in Massachusetts when he was governor and jacked up taxes to pay for it and what did he do when he stopped being governor? He moved to New Hampshire where there is no state income tax and where there is no universal healthcare. Shows you the hipocrisy of these big government loving bankster puppets. States have many ways to collect taxes besides trying to tax the bosses of the state, the people. There are tolls, parking meters, sales taxes, basically taxes on the usage of the state's infrastructure. Just look at the states that have not been as badly hit by the economy like New Hampshire, North Dakota and Montana were taxes are low or have no income tax. Schools and hospitals owned by the state are fine as long as not all hospitals are owned by the government and private hospitals are allowed to operate freely and compete with the state's hospitals. For low income people having state runned schools are fine as long as the bosses which is us are allowed a say on what the curriculum will be for their children. States can collect enough revenue to maintain these public facilities up to the standards of the people.
Totally wrong reading. The US became the biggest economy in the world just around 1870, but its GDP per capita was still inferior to those of the UK and Germany up until the start of WWI, meaning that only because of the war was the US able to leapfrog the other two super powers. Regarding the size of the economy, the US economy TODAY is bigger than the next two countries (Japan and China) and only until 2030 will China leapfrog the US (as total GDP, not per capita GDP) What you really have to look at is median/average income and wealth concentration: In 1913, adjusted per inflation the average income was about 12k per family; today is about 4 times that. During our run into the Great Depression, the top 10% income earners held over 40% of the total, which after FDR and WWII decreased to 30 to 32%. After the Reagan "Revolution" the share of the top 10% has balloned again to over 40%. Yes, poor people here is better off than in India, but that doesn't mean that that's right Mr. RMoney... I would recommend you to pay more attention to Norway, Sweden, Singapore, South Korea and even China, Brasil and Russia; all these are economies where the government is heavily involved in economic planning and sometimes production too. The government trying to run and control the output of every single economic activity ruinned the USSR, but central planning is needed for major economic growth. Granted, central planning can go wrong too, but deciding which infrastructure projects or what economic sectors is usually not a small task and at least in theory, the Federal Government want all the US to benefit from economic properity, not only the states that agree (or disagree) with its policies. huh? Why do you say that I am fashioned after Romans or Greeks style of democracy? Rome decay started when the democracy became a farce and expansion and Empire were the only ways to pay for their lifestyles. Not all the Greek ancient cities were democratic and even those that were, did not have a universal democracy. The US democracy is flawed in similar ways with empire and stratification at the root of their problems. So what if your state decides to become one of these states? Would you move to Montana or South Dakota? What about standards and guidelines? Who should set those? Are private businesses required to follow any in your world vision? Just to let you know, most of the best healthcare systems in the world are run by government and offer universal coverage, like in Japan, France or England. The US system is awfully expensive and leaves too many people with little option than the Emergency Room (shortly after followed by bankruptcy). And Romney care works, makes health affordable and less people die. Hopefully Obama Care will follow suit. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/26/412348/why-romneycare-is-woking-in-four-graphs/?mobile=nc Well, maybe the Massachussetts people wanted big healthcare, but it was not his personal choice.. Oh wait... He was for it before he was against it... As with everything, it depends on how much services you want and how much you're willing to pay. You see the US problems as people paying too much for unwanted/unrequested services, which I conceed is a big part of the problem (we're being sold too much protection in the form of military and invasive justice systems). But people like their Social Security, their Medicare, their army, etc, etc., so I really do not see any other form of paying that which is not taxes of some form, even if they’re collected by states and then transferred to the Federal Government. The other part of the equation is also facing issues: Thanks to W’s tax cuts we are not collecting enough money to fund everything that is in place, so the most powerful people (usually the richest) are calling for balancing the equation with cuts of services that help poor people!!! Montana and North Dakota are the smallest state economies in the US and they receive heavy agricultural subsidies from the federal government. New Hampshire is not a big state either and benefits from its proximity to bigger economies. They're basically small agricultural towns in a big territory, not big densily populated economies that rely heavily on industry, services and with dense populations. They did not crashed as bad basically because they were never part of the bubbles (which were caused by lose government regulation if you ask me, not individual irresponsibility as some say). So, you are pro-government programs for poor people? Socialist!!!!! Public School systems are fine, as long as they're properly funded and high in the government/people priorities. South Korea is ranked as having the best education system in the world and guess what.. Is run by the central government!!! Finland that also has a 100% public education system is very close in second!!!
Ladies and Gentlemen: We're proud to present you, the Food Stamp President of the United States!!! [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AnuDkXlX0o"]Food Stamp President(s) - Oh SNAP! - YouTube[/ame] LOL...
Well, they are ahead of us because the criminals in power put brain damaging toxins in the vaccines, food and water and most people are so dumbed down they can not even tell you what the three branches of government are. Before 1913 the USA had the best education system in the world, the most intelligent, all of the greatest inventions of that era were made by American scientists, they were the rockstars back then. Intelligence was looked up to, not ridiculed like it is now. Sports were not the main thing men worried about, they saw it as entertainment for children.