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.
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.
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.
Ron Paul's messages are simple:
End the wars
Those messages resonate across political and racial lines
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.
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.Anarchy is a form of liberty I only support when Iím in my own home. Alone!
Which one is truly the anarchist?
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.=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.
You are having a symantic argument with yourself.
I thought the inalienable rights were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?I support the idea that a person has certain inalienable rights, that among them are the rights to life, liberty, and property.
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.
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 06-11-2011 at 12:51 PM.
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.
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.
That's what I said. I also said that life liberty and property are among our inalienable rights, not the sum of them. As you inferred. Incorrectly.The original text of the Declaration was changed it doesn't say property.
Our rights come from neither the Dec. of Independence nor the Constitution.
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.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.