The missing thread on GOP and Tea(party) plans,probabilities and possibilities for 'Merica (and us) II

Wage zombie, you are blinded by the right/left paradigm and by the understandable yet faulty assumption that the US Federal Government is a force for good in the US, exactly how the elite in power behind the scenes want you to see it.  Obama is (or has become) their corporate puppet even though he talked a hopeful change game.  Ultimately I see that he betrayed his peoples hopes; no wonder so many people are REALLY upset with him and looking for alternatives.  Yes, Ron Paul is talking quite a fierce game and talk is cheap as we saw with Obama.  Ending the Fed's iron grip, and thereby the power to control the financial game outside of the democratic process, has only been attempted once this century;  in June 1963 by JFK (excutive order 11110) and we all know how that ended.  Lyndon Johnson's first act on his plane out of Dallas was to rescind that executive order.  Sure, we would have to see how far Paul can walk his talk. As head of the House finance sub-committee his first course of action is to see if he can get his congress to audit the Fed.  Coward?  If he is successful in walking his talk, he will put his life on the line.  Sofar he has been swimming against the stream of his own corrupted mainstream political party.  One can call all that hardly being a coward.  

Ron Paul wants to restict people's choices?  His book, the Revolution A Manifesto - Chapter 5 states: "Freedom means not only that our economic activity ought to be free and voluntary, but that government should stay out of our personal affairs as well".  In his book he is even railing against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act based on personal freedoms.  Haven't heard that from any serious politician, even in Canada. 

Oh hell I give up.

Ron Paul rocks. I wish I could be "free" from the tyranny of the federal government, and let Ron Paul and the religious wrong set out for me what it means to be free. So, I may not have freedom over my body, or the freedom to chose who to love, or the freedom to resist corporate oppression, but Goddamn, Ron Paul says he's against war, and you know, that is all I need really. I'm just a woman after all, and I can't be trusted to make up my mind. I need Ron Paul to do that for me. I can't wait to join the libertarian party, so I can advocate for other people's control over my body.

Down with your propping up of a corrupt and nasty system, and for standing behind a man whose issue list is slightly to the right of Bush.

Anyways, if this is the absolute best you have, well, my condolences.

George, 1568-1648, 80 year revolt against the Spanish started by the first Prince of Orange who wound up slaying the dragon of the federal monster of that day: Spanish rule and with it founded the Dutch state/became the new establishment in that country.  The issues are similar, just a different form/different time: taxation and personal freedoms.  I am still proud of that history and remain stubbornly suspicious of 'great powers'.  Am I the establishment (Prince) or am I the revolution (Orange)?  I think it is always good to ask ourselves that question.  From freedom to fascism (American filmmaker - Aaron Russo) opened my eyes; we can never take our freedoms for granted. 

critique of a debt-based, private bank-created money system is not to 'support Ron Paul'.

and use of 'wackos' is offensive.

we need taxes in the meantime to curb the power of private money, to track private money, and to help fund social programs.

Yes, I agree, boom boom this is a serious potential problem and important to expose (thanks!).  As Jesse Ventura says: follow the money and you will get your answers.   Just as the Rockefellers and their Standard Oil empire have in the past, a few ambitious people intertwined with big oil, big pharma, big insurance, or big banking money with a little political imagination and sophistication can again easily corrupt an idea that in principle may fix the problems.  Hopefully the Americans have learned or will learn from their current merry-go-round debacle in progress.  I am glad Canada places strict limits on corporate contributions to the political process.  I believe that is half the US problem which feeds this 'big corporation/big government' Federal monster.  The other half is that there is NO democratic control over the public money supply.  In addition to this, in the US, corporations are pretty "stealth" about their contributions, see  http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A  which is another item to watch, also for Canada.  During US campaigns, the various associated loonies with creative names can buy all the TV adds they want and with that a few wealthy people can distort the entire process (how democratic!?), while it will not even register with the majority of the voters that they are being had (again) by some very narrow interests.  That approach also gives the false idea that there is a 'balanced' debate when the debate about the real problems is not even taking place.  The left/right yelling match gives the appearance of democracy, but how is this democracy when the two main problems are not even discussed?   That Goldman Sachs was Obama's second largest campaign contributor should have tipped quite a few hopers and dreamers off...

Sidenote for Boom Boom: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_conservative_conclave_protest

Good to see that some Americans are keeping an eye on the Koch brothers...  But, may I add  some questions after reading the article: why this infringement on personal liberties of the demonstrators by the authorities (in riot gear)?   What was so controversial requiring demonstrators to come out, why is the underlying debate not getting any air-time?   I think the mainstream\lamestream press has become so lazy and/or corrupted that a) they do not cover the real issues b) assume that the public's sense for news is satisfied when they are confirmed in their left/right paradigm and yelling match.  The overall message is: don't think, don't discuss what really is relevant, keep moving!  What did we learn from this article ?  Very little!   Is this democracy?  No, to me this is a sophisticated farce!  The unconcious civilization in action.

Prince_or_Orange wrote:

George, 1568-1648, 80 year revolt against the Spanish started by the first Prince of Orange who wound up slaying the dragon of the federal monster of that day: Spanish rule and with it founded the Dutch state/became the new establishment in that country.  The issues are similar, just a different form/different time: taxation and personal freedoms.  I am still proud of that history and remain stubbornly suspicious of 'great powers'.  Am I the establishment (Prince) or am I the revolution (Orange)?  I think it is always good to ask ourselves that question.  From freedom to fascism (American filmmaker - Aaron Russo) opened my eyes; we can never take our freedoms for granted. 

So what do you think of the Dutch East India Company founded in 1602 and the basis of the Netherlands imperialism?  Armed corporations roaming the world with their own navies and armies.  Does Haliburton have navy ships or does it only have land and air weapons?

only

Quote:

In 1602 the States General form a Dutch East India Company, with extensive privileges and powers. It is to have a tax-free monopoly of the eastern trade for twenty-one years. It is authorized to build forts, establish colonies, mint coins, and maintain a navy and army as required.

Read more:http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa61#ixzz1CdJCpe8n

Yes, sorry guys, the Americans learned many of their capitalist/imperialistic as well as stubbornly independent ways from the Dutch.  The first govenor of New Amsterdam, Stuyvesant, actually named "Wall Street" (at that time a defensive wall against the British invaders) go figure!  

 About Indonesia, yes, 350 years of 'bringing Christianity' (as it was sold in the old country), didn't do much good for this largest Muslim country in the world and sounds earily familiar to the same hokey sloganism of the American empire.  The Vereenigde East India Company is generally recognized as the first publically traded multi-national (going back to 1608).   

Ok, first of all (and that may explain perhaps some of your indignations about my positions) I don't think money-making has to necessarily be a dirty business.  Although, looking back at history, I definitely recognize that quickly it could become exactly that, and for sure will become that in a big corporation/big government set-up as the US empire has become.   Looking at where Holland is today, there is hope for the American empire to reform itself in a positive direction.  Transparancy, a healthy media, and ensuring that power does not concentrate in the hands of a few, is a start.  I agree, where are all the serious American journalists?  Do they basically wind up in landfills, as in Russia or South America?  That is probably the hardest to accept out of all this with all the "freedom this, and freedom that American propaganda".  They are only as free as the BS they are fed through the lamestream media.  Glad I can be reflective about that and feel superior in Canada.

George, you mean Roscoe from the Dukes of hazzard?  I hope I am a little more intelligent and hipper than that....  Believe it or not, but as a young idealist before I came to Canada I was in the socialist, pacifist camp in the Netherlands.  The Americans must have seriously corrupted me!!

George/Stargazer, let me explain some more.  I was a comfortable Canadian Mahatma Ghandi style pacifist, until 9/11.  At that time I bought into, what I now understand is an orchestrated lie, that we will always have haves and have-nots and that this is bound to create serious conflicts in the world.  Yes, I was had, by certain corrupt elements of the American empire's elite who send the innocent young men of their poor neighbourhoods to die in foreign lands for profit while creating death and destruction at home and abroad.  I was had by a farce democracy.  By journalists not doing their job.  Yet, it is through a few good American patriots like Jesse Ventura, Richard Gage, Aaron Russo, (and journalist) Alex Jones that I was told many truths about this horrible lie.  I feel betrayed by their system, by their lies. This calls to me for a (hopefully bloodless) revolution.  If I was living in the US right now, that is what I would do: start a revolution (as the people from www.wearechange.org are trying) and have these criminal portions of the elite face the rule of law  OR (if I cold not do that) I would move out, to Canada or Netherlands probably. What can correct the monster?  Not a few yapping, idealistic Canadians. It will have to be reformed from within. Ron Paul is a start, he will build awareness about the problem, after that they can go from there.     

"Patriots" in the US tend to be extremely right wing zealots - and armed to the teeth!

No, just relying on personal experience. I've gotta get "Deer Hunting" sometime. I'll see if it's on Amazon.

ps: Can't believe they made "Dukes of Hazzard" into a movie! Are there really enough yeehaws to make a profit on that??? Never underestimate the stupidity of the USA, I guess is the lesson.

I watched 'Bonanza', but really was just waiting for 'The Big Valley'  which followed it.

It just goes to demonstrate once again the lack of coherence when it comes to explaining right wing ideology.  In a feeble attempt to gain credibility, one first has to couch their language in terms that really only have to serve toward convincing oneself of their own benevolence, while at the same time drawing up lists of disposable people.  But sheesh Stargazer....I hope you don't feel this way about everyone taking swipes at the left.

Roscoe here  .   Glad to be able to create some rousing here; where would rabble be if we all agreed?  Yes, it is easy to get lost in the left-right yelling match; this is exactly what is happening in the US while in the meantime the Federal monster plots ahead, unabated.    As I told you, I am done with those irrelevant yelling matches.  And in fact, loving self-deprecating humour, I include myself in that group of yapping, idealistic Canadians.  I am not even taking myself as serious as you seem to take me Stargazer.  Interesting that Ron Paul is also trying to break through this divide with his discussions with Ralph Nader.  Let's not loose track of the forest when focussing on the trees.  As a one-track 'big picture or, sure I can even admit that,  'one-track focus' guy (typcial male),  the only thing that should matter is slaying the Federal monster and if that fails, exposing it for what it is.   All other personal liberaties you hold dear and refer to, I cherish them too.  We will have lots of those, IF we can retain our freedoms.

I hear all these things about Ron Paul being a bigot etc.  I have a hard time believing that when a) his main issue is personal liberties  (and not just for men).  I fully realize that when someone asks him for his opinion about abortion, he is allowed to have one.  That does not mean everyone needs to agree with it, nor should that become the only thing we talk about - a very good reason why I mentioned we should keep that (and religion) out of the Federal debate all together  b) I read that the 4,000 + babies he helped deliver is a big reason why women have wound up carrying him in his congressional district over the years, even though he is out of serious lockstep with his Republican party (no to Iraq was a big one for example).   Obviously these women trust his judgement; how big a sexist bigot can he be?   You would prefer Michele Bachmann or Ms. yelping Palin?  Just because they are not men?  Now, that is sexist!    Ok, ok, I will  now...

Prince_or_Orange wrote:

I hear all these things about Ron Paul being a bigot etc.  I have a hard time believing that when a) his main issue is personal liberties  (and not just for men).  

Personal liberties for some and repression for others. You keep insisting that he is neither right nor left but that is disingenuous at best.  All of the issues below are indeed left/right issues and he is clearly on one side not the other. You are not for a woman's rights if you tell her that her choice could cause her to face the death sentence in some states. Protecting the unborn is certainly not protecting women's liberty.  However he seems real clear about protecting the rights of the corporate oil elite. And of course it follows that if property rights are the foundation of all rights then people without property have their rights built on a sand foundation that property rights can erode.

Quote:

Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)

Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008)

Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)

Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)

Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996)

Replace Medicaid with volunteer pro-bono medical care. (Apr 2008)

Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007)

Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Oct 2007)

Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007)

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)

Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)

Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Sponsored bill banning student visas from terrorist nations. (Jan 2003)

 If there is a voice of reason in American politics it is Bernie Sanders not Ron Paul.  He doesn't need the umbrella of the establishment Democrats like the Paul's hide in the establishment Republican party.  

 http://sanders.senate.gov/

Prince_or_Orange wrote:

Sir George, I am not defending Ron Paul's voting record on other matters.  Nor I am saying I agree with his personal opinions on a number of items.   I am ok with that, as I believe in the underlying 'freedom of religion and expression' issue.

Fucking people over who don't deserve it is never ok. Permitting people the leeway to do such a thing is exactly what people are having to contend with now. Libertarianism merely seeks to constitutionalize the process.

Quote:

Fundamentally I feel that most of these items should receive no interference or "propaganda coaching" from Federal agents, but be left up to the good manners and morals of the good folks of 'Merica. And failing that (because you seem to imply that a good number of Americans don't have any morals or manners or can't or should not be allowed to think and act for themselves)

Generations of conditioning have ensured that by and large, they have long ago ceased to think and act for the common good, but precisely for themselves, which is the core essence of capitalism. The latest health care debate is evidence enough that they've given over all ability to act in their own interest. And you would have them become the arbiters of minority and marginalized rights when they have provided scant evidence of even being remotely aware enough to insist on their own rights.

Quote:

My main point is that we have, serious, much bigger fish to fry.

There isn't anything bigger than corporate inspired wars, human rights, oppression, poverty, hunger, dying from the effects of health care rationing which favours ones financial position, etc.

Quote:

Yes, you can call me a fiscal conservative. I like to pay my bills.

Just like all the bailed out fiscal conservatives on Wall Street.

Quote:

Keep yourself busy with that say the criminal portions of the elite, it gives us a chance to loot the planet.

The Pauls of the world are, and act on behalf of, the criminal portions of the elite, all of whom intend to continue looting and pillaging as they've always done. As soon as you've fallen for an anti-gubberment hook line and sinker by taking out libertarianism frustrations on the poor and marginalized with a right jab, you become a tool of the elite. A dupe.

Prince_or_Orange wrote:

Men (and woman), you guys are radical rabblers, when are you going to do something about it?  I don't see Joe Bageant or Ralph Nader running for Presidential office in 2012.  Are you condemming yourself to a lifetime of babble or are you starting the revolution in a different way? 

I gave you a good alternative within the rigged American system that I could support as having a progressive vision. He has managed to be elected as an Independent Senator and doesn't seem to be beholding to any corporations or to wall street or the liberal elite for that matter either.  As a Canadian I don't expect to tell Americans how they should conduct their affairs.  I only wish Americans would show the same respect to the rest of the world.  

Some of the largest corporations are far bigger in economic clout than many of the US States.  That is the game you seem to not be seeing. Like in the coal mines of West Virginia where the business owners control the local politicians and the regulations suffer.  Paul has no ideas on how to control the corporate world his ideas are all based on undoing the few restraints left on their power and influence.

This is what the State regulation of corporations will bring to the people who work for a living.  The Paul answer to the lack of enforcement of proper federal mining regulations is too call for the almost non existent regulatory regime of the Sate to take precedence.  So does anyone know how much money Blankenship pumped into the Ron and/or Rand Paul "freedom" campaigns?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/10westvirginia.html

http://blogs.alternet.org/swashzone/2010/04/08/don-blankenship-“mine-u...

Okay, I don't even know what this thread is about anymore. 

But Prince o' O, I don't understand why you made a second account. Roscoe isn't banned, but based on what you've said here, you are. Bye.

As for the rest of youse, I don't know why people just snap at the bait that the trolls lay out. It's all fun and games until the thread gets derailed by Ron Paul FFS.

George: don't use the phrase Canuckistan.

Maysie wrote:

George: don't use the phrase Canuckistan.

Why the hell not?  And "Canuckistan" is a word, not a phrase.

I used to use "Saskatchistan" and, for a while, "MusialthemanisStan" in my geographic identifier.  Many babblers used a variation of "stan" in their profiles at the time.

Such usage was, back in those Audraic days of babble bliss, considered just fine.

What's changed since then?