Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 63

Thread: The Age Of Ron Paul video

  1. #41
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045552]I haven't attacked anything. I'm just pointing out that Ron Paul is not a peace loving hippie who's only policy is to end wars for ever. Ron Pual would fundementally dismantle the Federal government as it exists today. I believe that is something that is worthy of real honest debate not to be glossed over by people drinking the cool aid who through out Unconstitutional as if it were a fact.[/QUOTE]

    Did you miss my point about compromise?

  2. #42
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,809
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045543]My grandfather paid into SS never got a dime out. My grandmother did get SS into her 80's but she also worked into her late 70's and paid taxes into her late 70's pretty much a wash. My father is in his late 80's works full time and pays a huge multiple in taxes to what he gets out in SS. My wife and I have been paying into SS now for close to 40 years with at least another 9 or 10 to go before we get a dime of it which will be taxed based on our income.

    Personally I have no doubt that my family would have been able to parlay the SS and Medicare taxes we paid into a huge retirnment fund only to be stolen by my kids and grandchildren at some point down the road. Thankfully the government squandered it and kids like you are going to have to keep me fat and happy until I demand a feeding tube at 90 something.[/QUOTE]

    ..and what, you're proud of it?

  3. #43
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4045553]Which is radical change...from where we stand today.

    And the issues he promotes that are not strictly a "return", are also viewed even today as radical change.

    I maintain, as I did last election, he has no chance and never will.

    In the two-party system, he will never get enough of the Replucan Core, and he will never convince enough Demiocrats to switch over (despite their claims). He has baggage just like the rest, and he espouses an ideal of thrify and limited Govt. the masses of the moderate realm won't support becuase they think they'll lose out the most (and the probably would).

    He may be right, but he and many of his idea are unelectable.[/QUOTE]

    I agree that Paul has no chance and never will. Even he knows that. That's not what his message is about however.

    His message is the same as yours - the 2 party political system in place now is being abused. It's become nothing more than a tool for the see-sawing of power hungry monsters. They snip in the papers day in and day out - but know this: Democrats love Republicans and Republicans love Democrats. They have an unspoken "wink, wink" agreement to maintain control. They thrive off of each other and they need each other. They can't exist unless the other one survives. Both are threatened by the prospect of compromise. Because with it, they are no longer needed.

    Paul is providing hope for a new generation of thinking. The reasonable middle. Those whose voices are drowned out in the noise and then are forced to choose one of two relentlessly hypocritical extremes. But Paul is the first step in breaking that pattern. His running is a means of spreading the message that we don't have to pick one or the other. Hopefully it gains momentum and in a decade or so, a new, young dynamic candidate with a honed message will emerge. But it has to start somewhere. I see it as the only hope for this nation. Like you say, this nation is becoming more and more divided. Some form of war is inevitable. Not a geographical, take up arms kind of civil war, but a whole new animal...
    Last edited by JetPotato; 06-10-2011 at 03:08 PM.

  4. #44
    [QUOTE=freestater;4045589]..and what, you're proud of it?[/QUOTE]

    I'm proud to be an American and I have no problem putting in more in taxes then I take out in benifits.

    I don't find older people who have paid into a system for their entire lives voting their self interest in a Democratic society as a problem either.

    I wouldn't be proud to be calling anyones grandma and grandpa leaches who have worked and paid into a system all their lives.

  5. #45
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4045588]Did you miss my point about compromise?[/QUOTE]

    Why would I want a person who stands for radical change to lead the country to a compromise? We need some basic tax reform, less regulation, a more open playing field. I think the country is mostly great on any comparitive basis. I have no desire to radically change it to some unknown that might be a complete dissaster. That's not the leadership and judgement I want leading that compromise.

  6. #46
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,809
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045601]I'm proud to be an American and I have no problem putting in more in taxes then I take out in benifits.

    I don't find older people who have paid into a system for their entire lives voting their self interest in a Democratic society as a problem either.

    I wouldn't be proud to be calling anyones grandma and grandpa leaches who have worked and paid into a system all their lives.[/QUOTE]

    coming from someone who thinks they have a right to other peoples' money, I'm not surprised.

  7. #47
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045609]Why would I want a person who stands for radical change to lead the country to a compromise? We need some basic tax reform, less regulation, a more open playing field. I think the country is mostly great on any comparitive basis. I have no desire to radically change it to some unknown that might be a complete dissaster. That's not the leadership and judgement I want leading that compromise.[/QUOTE]

    Restoring liberty is not radical change. It's what we have been striving for since July 4, 1776.

  8. #48
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4045592]I agree that Paul has no chance and never will. Even he knows that. That's not what his message is about however.

    His message is the same as yours - the 2 party political system in place now is being abused. It's become nothing more than a tool for the see-sawing of power hungry monsters. They snip in the papers day in and day out - but know this: Democrats love Republicans and Republicans love Democrats. They have an unspoken "wink, wink" agreement to maintain control. They thrive off of each other and they need each other. They can't exist unless the other one survives. Both are threatened by the prospect of compromise. Because with it, they are no longer needed.

    Paul is providing hope for a new generation of thinking. The reasonable middle. Those whose voices are drowned out in the noise and then are forced to choose one of two relentlessly hypocritical extremes. But Paul is the first step in breaking that pattern. His running is a means of spreading the message that we don't have to pick one or the other. Hopefully it gains momentum and in a decade or so, a new, young dynamic candidate with a honed message will emerge. But it has to start somewhere. I see it as the only hope for this nation. Like you say, this nation is becoming more and more divided. Some form of war is inevitable. Not a geographical, take up arms kind of civil war, but a whole new animal...[/QUOTE]

    :yes:

  9. #49
    [QUOTE=freestater;4045756]coming from someone who thinks they have a right to other peoples' money, I'm not surprised.[/QUOTE]

    We live in a representative democracy and our representatives legislate law by its very nature restricts liberty. It's a fact of life in most of the world including the good old USA embedded right in our Constitution.

    Anarchy is a form of liberty I only support when Iím in my own home. Alone!
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 06-11-2011 at 06:56 AM.

  10. #50
    regardless, support of Ron Paul led to this....
    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5rJI5e0jBU[/url]
    nothing like watching an empty suit run down the street.

  11. #51
    [QUOTE=sunmou;4045889]regardless, support of Ron Paul led to this....
    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5rJI5e0jBU[/url]
    nothing like watching an empty suit run down the street.[/QUOTE]

    Good for them. Hannity is poison just like Keith Obbermann.

  12. #52
    Ron Paul's messages are simple:

    The constitution
    Fiscal responsibility
    Freedom
    End the wars

    Those messages resonate across political and racial lines

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,809
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045886]We live in a representative democracy and our representatives legislate law by its very nature restricts liberty. It's a fact of life in most of the world including the good old USA embedded right in our Constitution. [/quote]


    We live in a Constitutionally-limited Republic, not a democracy. Democracy is majority-rule. As Benjamin Franklin so aptly put it, "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner". In a Republic, the property rights of citizens is sacrosanct. In a democracy, meh.. not so much.



    [quote]Anarchy is a form of liberty I only support when Iím in my own home. Alone![/QUOTE]

    You support the idea that our property is susceptible to the will of the majority, and that laws may be enacted to take property from one to re-distribute to another. I support the idea that a person has certain inalienable rights, that among them are the rights to life, liberty, and property. I believe that governments should be instituted to protect those rights. Sycophants will always exist to rally the cry for more and more powers for government and more and more truncations to the Natural Rights of Man.

    Which one is truly the anarchist?

  14. #54
    [QUOTE]=freestater;4045921]We live in a Constitutionally-limited Republic, not a democracy. Democracy is majority-rule. As Benjamin Franklin so aptly put it, "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner". In a Republic, the property rights of citizens is sacrosanct. In a democracy, meh.. not so much. [/QUOTE]

    I said a representative democracy and the Constitution has clearly given taxing authority to the legislature who are our democratically elected represenatives. The taxing authority has given congress the right to take your property from day one.

    You are having a symantic argument with yourself.

    [QUOTE]I support the idea that a person has certain inalienable rights, that among them are the rights to life, liberty, and property.[/QUOTE]

    I thought the inalienable rights were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    [url]http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html[/url]

    [QUOTE]CHAPTER 16|Document 12

    Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris

    25 Dec. 1783Writings 9:138
    The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

    All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 06-11-2011 at 12:51 PM.

  15. #55
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,809
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045944]I said a representative democracy and the Constitution has clearly given taxing authority to the legislature who are our democratically elected represenatives. The taxing authority has given congress the right to take your property from day one.

    You are having a symantic argument with yourself.



    I thought the inalienable rights were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?[/quote]

    The original text was life, liberty, and property. The last part was changed to try to circumvent slave-owners using it as a tool to perpetuate a crime against humanity. Funny how you mention it while arguing that you have a right to the proceeds of the labor of others, against their will or not.

    [quote][url]http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html[/url][/QUOTE]

    Franklin's quote concerned paying taxes for the support of government, not to be redistributed to one's neighbor. If you can't see the difference between the two, I can't help.

  16. #56
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,809
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045944]I thought the inalienable rights were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?[/QUOTE]
    ... and life, liberty, and property (pursuit of happiness) are [I]among[/I] your inalienable rights, they are not the sum of them.

  17. #57
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045944]I said a representative democracy and the Constitution has clearly given taxing authority to the legislature who are our democratically elected represenatives. The taxing authority has given congress the right to take your property from day one.

    You are having a symantic argument with yourself.



    I thought the inalienable rights were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    [URL]http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

    By Ben Frankiln's accounting, the top 1% can keep all but 98% of their property. So much for the flat tax....;)

  18. #58
    [QUOTE=freestater;4045961]The original text was life, liberty, and property. The last part was changed to try to circumvent slave-owners using it as a tool to perpetuate a crime against humanity. Funny how you mention it while arguing that you have a right to the proceeds of the labor of others, against their will or not.



    Franklin's quote concerned paying taxes for the support of government, not to be redistributed to one's neighbor. If you can't see the difference between the two, I can't help.[/QUOTE]

    All taxation is taking property against the will of a person regardless of how it's being distributed.

    The original text of the Declaration was changed it doesn't say property.

    The right to tax is in the original and the amended constitution. You keep ignoring that liberty and rights are restricted by the Constitution as well as recognized. Government has function, function needs money, money comes from the people by the force of law not by their charity.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 06-12-2011 at 09:48 AM.

  19. #59
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4045914]Ron Paul's messages are simple:

    The constitution
    Fiscal responsibility
    Freedom
    End the wars

    Those messages resonate across political and racial lines[/QUOTE]

    A bizzarre reading of the first amendment of the constitution to eliminate the separation of church and state, not to mention a desire to repeal the 17th amendment to consolidate power in the states, not the people.

    An antiquated belief that we need to return to the gold standard

    Freedom from federalism in the interests of ramping up state dominance

    Renegging on our close alliance with Israel and an extreme version of isolationism

    Ron Paul is, as most zealots, useful as a counterpoint in a large legislative body, but would be a horror as president. I don't think he would be able to pass a single major piece of his agenda if he were actually elected.

  20. #60
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,809
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4046093]All taxation is taking property against the will of a person regardless of how it's being distributed.[/quote]

    not true. point-of-use taxes.

    [quote]The original text of the Declaration was changed it doesn't say property. [/quote]

    That's what I said. I also said that life liberty and property are [I]among[/I] our inalienable rights, not the sum of them. As you inferred. Incorrectly.

    Our rights come from neither the Dec. of Independence nor the Constitution.

    [quote]The right to tax is in the original and the amended constitution. You keep ignoring that liberty and rights are restricted by the Constitution as well as recognized. Government has function, function needs money, money comes from the people by the force of law not by their charity.[/QUOTE]

    so does that mean that the government is free to tax at any rate it wishes? 99%? There's no restriction? A government to take property at confiscatory rates, or to selectively place the burden of government on a few and allow others to actually feed from the few under color of law IS anarchy. When the law amounts to; "The law is what we tell you the law is", it ceases to be law, and is instead a dictatorship.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us