Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, January 03, 2008

With 23% of the vote, Congressman Ron Paul wins online survey

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

503jc69

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

This should be even more interesting, after this latest poll result, to hear the reason why FOX News is deliberately keeping Ron Paul out of their New Hampshire debate this January 6th. What are they afraid he might say?

Fergus Cullen, chairman of the New Hampshire State Republican Committee, confirmed Sunday evening to the Tribune that, yes, there will be a televised Fox News presidential candidate forum on Jan. 6, and yes, Rep. Ron Paul was not invited when the other candidates were a week or so ago.

"My understanding is that five candidates to that point had been offered spots but the event is still coming together," Cullen said.

The candidates invited to the forum/debate whatever you want to call it will be Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. Fred Thompson.

Cullen said the event, which is set to take place two days before the New Hampshire primary, will be held in the afternoon or evening at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H. When asked if Fox News, which is co-sponsoring the debate with the NH party, planned to invite Paul later, Cullen said he didn't know.

"It's really premature. Just the other day candidates started to accept invitations."

On Saturday, Paul called Fox News "scared of me." They "don't want my message to get out, but it will," according to The Boston Globe's Primary Source blog.

"They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."

On Sunday night, Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the campaign remains angry, and in the dark.

"We have not heard anything else today," he said. "[Fox] continues to ignore our calls."

Ron Paul (who absconded with Kucinich's platform) is being cannibalized by other Republicans already. How unexpected.

Only now Huckabee is stating that he will also "destroy" the IRS (according to Lou Dobbs). Romney wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and eliminate the estate tax, which makes him a total Bush crony in my eyes.

Suze Orman was on Larry King last night and states that she doesn't believe it will happen, there is "zero percent chance". Interesting.

Since I fully believe Hillary has already been given the presidency, what is the purpose of her disenfranchising democrats who expect the IRS to be dissolved? Because it was never going to happen - there never were any Republican candidates?

Every single morning people call Washington Journal in support of Ron Paul. Not just any kind of caller - intelligent, articulate and most importantly have an issue to tie them to Paul's platform. CNN every day dismisses Ron Paul, whether it's from their CG (computer graphics) even when mentioning his name, or in allowing asshats like Jeffery Toobin to blindside every major point to discuss with "he's nuts", or "that's crazy".

I don't want to vote for a Republican, but Hillary isn't a Democrat and Ron Paul doesn't strike me as too self-interested a Republican.

Oh, Dennis where art thou?!

I hear that train a' coming...
Right around the bend...

.........Republicans have been running on the "Big Lie" for so long, that an honest Republican is a bigger threat to them than any outsider............

. ........Go Ron Paul !!.........

Has anyone ever noticed that Paul wins every internet poll on the web? You've got to give it to his supporters - they know how to spam a poll.

"they know how to spam a poll"

happen to notice that ron paul took in more cash in the 4th quarter than any other gop candidate.... they sure know how to spam money too

"they know how to spam a poll." -anamerican

With $20 million raised in one quarter, those few spammers must have a ton of money. It was actually just 5 guys donating 1 dollar 4 million times, right?

Paul and Obama's support is proof of how hungry we are for public servants who look us right in the eye and tell us the truth - even when it's not what we want to hear but need to hear.

AOL and NOW Newsmax?
Where is the outrage from the left about these hack organizations? Where is the villification? The demonization? The obfuscation? The profanity laced left nation?
Oh, I forgot, they LOVE a namby pamby.

"Ron Paul doesn't strike me as too self-interested a Republican"

Care to elaborate?
Posted by elbow_grease at 2008-01-03 08:26 AM


You first - I need to hit my namby pamby quota.

Wow, something believable out of Newsmax. I guess there's a first time for everything.

With $20 million raised in one quarter, those few spammers must have a ton of money. It was actually just 5 guys donating 1 dollar 4 million times, right?
Posted by Incredibleplum at 2008-01-03 09:16 AM


It would be interesting to see the list of supporters and their donations. Especially considering some of his foreign policy statements. Hitler had lots of fans too. The idea that there are lots of crazies around to support a lunatic like Ron Paul is not surprising.

"Only now Huckabee is stating that he will also "destroy" the IRS..."

Actually, Huckabee has supported the Fair Tax for some time now and one of the main salients of the Fair Tax is the elimination of the IRS.

Here's an article by a Ron Paul supporter that addresses the Fair Tax:

www.nolanchart.com

ANAMERICAN

So, you call a populist physician Republican who happened to have it right on our not invading Iraq 'crazy'.

I don't care to use your measuring stick thanks.

Now, I have no problem with your opinion, AnAmerican, I support your right to feel whatever way you want. But if you don't mind me asking, what do you find so crazy about Ron Paul?

Will Ron Paul run as an independent if he's squashed by the Republican machine?

He says he's not planning on it, so who knows. I'm going to guess no.

Plum, a lot of what Paul says appeals to people - like getting rid of the IRS, for instance. It sounds nice, but the alternatives are not feasible or realistic.

And take a hard look at most of his supporters - neo-nazis, 9/11 truthers, etc. Facists know their own kind and he seems quite tolerant of their support and embraces it.

As much as I despise Hillary, I would vote for her over Paul if he were to get the Republican nomination. Hillary would certainly raise taxes, but Paul would sell our soul to the devil to keep peace with the fanatics in this world.

from Jest's article:

"People would get to take home 100% of their paychecks--not what's left after the government gets its part. They could use this money to buy stuff at essentially the same prices they are paying now."

That's frightfully naive. The fairtax claims to be revenue-neutral. This author doesn't realize we don't currently pay ALL the payroll, income, and corporate taxes when we buy a $1000 computer. We currently pay those separately. When we pay those together, along with sales taxes (7%) and state income taxes (5%) {which the fairtax suggests be collected here}, expect that $1K computer to cost $1420 before you walk out.

Oh, and nothing extra if bought on the secondary market. Anyone think that might "shake up" things a bit, when new autos come with a 40% premium, but used cars don't?

This author is trying to sell us on this idea: After adding in the amounts for corporate taxes, federal taxes and payroll taxes, the price won't rise. He misses the entire point of the FT: Of course the price rises, it now includes the computer, some payroll taxes, some corporate taxes, and some federal income taxes (plus, if the state wants, some sales and state income taxes), that's why you're paycheck is "bigger". If it's truly revenue neutral, as it claims, those taxes will still be paid. Only now, at the retail level. Anyone claiming "essentially the same prices" doesn't understand the concept.

but Paul would sell our soul to the devil to keep peace with the fanatics in this world.
ANAMERICAN

OR do as the Founding Fathers of this nation instructed!
You sound like you're fine with the situation as it is right now.
Go back to sleep.

AnAmerican, the alternatives to the IRS are feasible, in my opinion. All we need to do is reduce spending and put a much smaller sales tax in place. We don't need troops in Germany. We don't need troops in Japan. We don't need troops in Korea. We don't need troops in Britain. We could close down a shit load of bases and save ourselves tons of money. We could get rid of the department of education and let the states figure out their own education programs. We could get rid of NASA and let the free market work our own space program. We could stop corporate and most social welfare programs. Between all of these we could save tons of money and move our lower taxes to a much cheaper and easier to maintain sales tax.

I understand your point in regards to neo-nazi supporters, but Paul is not a neo-nazi, nor has he ever been affiliated with any similar group. Him being president doesn't mean he will cater to their agenda. And, yes, 9-11 truthers are as ignorant as the people who accept the facts as they were given. I myself believe that al-qaeda attacked us on 9-11, but the investigation into 9-11 hasn't gone far enough. If we want to prevent attacks like this in the future we need to investigate what happened the best we can and do better next time.

As part of that investigation we need to learn what motivates these people to hate us so fervently that they would willingly join such groups and commit suicide to destory a piece of the US. Then we need to stop it. What we've gathered so far is that many Muslims don't like our military bases in Saudi Arabia and don't like the force feeding of western ideologies. This is what Paul has been saying. They hate us because we are exploiting them. We would develop a similar culture under the same circumstances over time. In fact, the American Revolution wasn't a whole lot different. We wanted Britain to stop exploiting us, so we had ordinary citizens join militias and kill British soldiers.

"Only now, at the retail level. Anyone claiming "essentially the same prices" doesn't understand the concept."

We been through all this before, Dan. Now we have ANOTHER guy writing an article contradicting your hypothesis....you really SHOULD stick to manufacturing those anchors.

Plum, you are likewise entitled to your opinion.

Perhaps you need to read and understand the Muslim world a bit better before falling for the "its all our fault we were attacked on 9/11" line. Muslims are killing people all over the world that seemingly pose them no threat. Take a look at the Muslim attacks against Christinas in Thailand for example.

AOL and NOW Newsmax?

Where is the outrage from the left about these hack organizations?

Any poll that puts Paul first and Thompson second is suspect. The Wapo had an article explaining what to watch for and what to ignore in polls. Voluntary and online polls were way at the bottom of trustworthiness.

Hey AnAmerican if they don't want to be attacked they can change their name - Christina sucks anyway.

Speaking of the Fairtax, You people must remember that corporations DO NOT PAY corporate taxes, they pass them off to the consumer. Studies prove this. This is why you WOULD pay the same price with the fairtax, but this time its transparent, no IRS, only taxed when you spend, the transparency alone for business would be the biggest boost this economy has ever seen resulting in more revenue which would end up lowering that tax rate.

Ron Paul is a strict CONSTITUTIONALIST!! For all you who say he is crazy, it is you who are un-American at best according to the founders. Anyone who says Paul and Hilary/Obama in the same sentence as who to vote for I really don't understand your thinking, unless you are only voting on anti-war. Paul is the definition of finacial responsibility, limited government and individual rights. Democrats are all about entitlement programs we can't pay for. Bankrupt.

Perhaps you need to read and understand the Muslim world a bit better before falling for the "its all our fault we were attacked on 9/11" line. Muslims are killing people all over the world that seemingly pose them no threat. Take a look at the Muslim attacks against Christinas in Thailand for example.


Don't argue with Dr. Paul about it. That is the CIA's position on why 9/11 happened. It's in the 9/11 commission report. Read it.

Ahhh fuck it...THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM! It's so much easier to say that, even though it's a crock of shit.

"Will Ron Paul run as an independent if he's squashed by the Republican machine?"

He certainly could dominate the Libertarian field if he wanted to. I looked at their candidates the other day...yeecchhh.

We could close down a shit load of bases and save ourselves tons of money. We could.....

Plenty of fine ideas to save money but none of them really help the situation. The largest contributor to government spending, and the tax bill of the average American is the "National" Reserve. A conglomeration of international banks and bankers. We, being mere peons, are not allowed to know who runs this institution or what banks own what percentage. Our job is to shut the fuck up and pay them any "interest" rate they demand for the "money" they print and distribute to the government.

Every nickle, every cent paid in "income tax"--which as been stuck down by the Supreme Court 7 times for being unconstitutional--goes directly to the "debt" incurred from this illegal, immoral process. Not a single school, road, police station, tank, bomb, or National park is funded from "income tax", not one. If the "income tax" went away today, there would not be any effect whatsoever on government spending, none. Every program today would still be fully funded tomorrow. The only difference would be in the stock price of Chase Bank, National City Bank of NY, Bank of Commerce of NY, Bank of England... and their owners would suffer.

Ron Paul knows this. He can't say it, but his supporters probably know it too. Sadly only two Presidents have spoke out against the "Fed" and threatened to end it: Lincoln and JFK. They were offered an early retirement instead. Ron Paul's goldwatch is probably already in the mail.

"Take a look at the Muslim attacks against Christinas in Thailand for example." -AnAmerican

Good point, but I see the attacks on Christians as a response to the propaganda of the terrorist organization. The leaders of the organizations use religion to recruit. In using religion and throwing words around like "Jihad" they are appealing to the religious pride of the muslim masses. To use the American Revolution once again, it's similar to our use of the phrase "no taxation without representation" to rally the masses against Britain, when in reality the taxes that were considered a problem had a much greater effect on the rich Americans of the time, like the tea tax.

Attacking random Christian targets does not seem to be the focus of the terrorist leaders, but it seems to be a result of these leaders using religious fervor to act out in the name of Islam. The terrorist leaders have said they want us out of the middle east, and to stop supporting Israel. Why do we need to be there? Who cares about Israel, who has nukes and can take care of itself? We'll be far more protected by staying out of the foreign affairs of others (our foreign policy is what brought many people like Osama bin Laden power in the first place), and keep our troops in the US where they can watch our borders.

Absolutely. Fuck the Fed. Inflation wasn't an issue until we introduced the fed.

"income tax"--which as been stuck down by the Supreme Court 7 times for being unconstitutional"

Seven times? Do you have a source for that? I've heard of the Pollock case, where the SC ruled the income tax unconstitutional but only because it wasn't being apportioned among the states. Again, do you have a source?

Wow, something believable out of Newsmax. I guess there's a first time for everything.

Posted by RastaCyborg at 2008-01-03 09:43 AM | Reply

Translation: Only when someone agrees with me can they be correct.

Correction: Lincoln proposed the government itself issue "greenbacks" and set the value based on the reserve of gold and silver. He wanted the US government to print and distribute its' own money and leave out European bankers from the process. This is what got him killed.

Since the Fed didn't emerge from Jekyll Island until 1913, Lincoln couldn't have spoken against it. However, the idea that private banks controlling the money supply as being unconstitutional and against the main principles of the Founding Fathers remained a cornerstone of Lincoln's shortened term.

I'm sure multi-nationals would love the "fair tax" since they could export more profits home, especially if they import (Outsource) production as well. And basing tax on only certain purchases (like no tax on stock purchases) hits lower income families who already spend a disproportionate amount of their income on housing, food and childcare.
The article doesn't say if purchasers of products outside the country would pay import duties, either.

Import duties could still be levied, but foriegners would pay tax. Lower income people would qualify them for a prebate--they won't pay taxes. Business would relocated to the US, no taxes. More jobs for us.

"Every nickle, every cent paid in "income tax"--which as been stuck down by the Supreme Court 7 times for being unconstitutional--goes directly to the "debt" incurred from this illegal, immoral process. Not a single school, road, police station, tank, bomb, or National park is funded from "income tax", not one. If the "income tax" went away today, there would not be any effect whatsoever on government spending, none. Every program today would still be fully funded tomorrow."


That is the biggest pile of crap i've ever read.

Personal Income Tax---40% of government's income
Corporate Income Tax---17% of government's income
Mediare/medicaid/Social Security---35% of government's income


You can't spend medicare/medicaid and social security payroll taxes on bombs, etc. So that 35% you can't touch. So if you take away the income tax, you're left with 8% of our present budget. Sorry, but that won't pay for sheite.

I'm sure multi-nationals would love the "fair tax" since they could export more profits home, especially if they import (Outsource) production as well. And basing tax on only certain purchases (like no tax on stock purchases) hits lower income families who already spend a disproportionate amount of their income on housing, food and childcare.
The article doesn't say if purchasers of products outside the country would pay import duties, either.

Posted by northguy3

If you understood the how the fairtax worked you would know that with the VAT that most other countrys have products imported from other countries would be much higher. By a Ford made in Va and pay 23/30% at the time of purchase. By a BMW and pay the German VAT and the 23/30%. The Ford will have all the embeded taxes removed(all the taxes the company and the employees pass on included in the price of the ford. This would make american made products much more affordable. It could save the big three automakers. That alone should get the unions behind it.

Do you have a source for that?

*Eisner v Macomber* -established president for:

Coppage v Kansas

Brushaber v UP Railroad

Stanton v Baltic Mining

Tech v Lowe

Pollack v Farmers Loan and Trust

Watch
this It has an interesting lower case from your state where a man successfully beat an IRS charge for not filling a 1099 because there is no Federal Law that states you must file a 1099.

Sorry link didn't work:

www.youtube.com

Personal Income Tax---40% of government's income

That's right. About 40% of the government's revenue goes to pay the "debt" instituted by the Fed.

What was your point?

"Now we have ANOTHER guy writing an article contradicting your hypothesis"

Tell us, Jest, what does revenue-neutral mean to you?

All we have is ANOTHER willful idiot believing he'll get something for nothing. A full paycheck, and no price increases? More dollars chasing the same goods, and no price increases? Dream on.

You can't spend medicare/medicaid and social security payroll taxes on bombs, etc. So that 35% you can't touch. So if you take away the income tax, you're left with 8% of our present budget. Sorry, but that won't pay for sheite.

Your math is as poor as your understanding of this government.

Take away SS and the "income tax" and your are left with 25% of the current revenue, not 8%. Also, if you think SS "can't be touched" you haven't been paying much attention. Which frankly, isn't surprising at all.

All you people against the FairTax or have these "reasons" why it won't work, really just read the book once and then make your comments. Most of these reason I keep hearing make you sound like an idiot if you haven't read the book. If your still want more, in a month "FairTax answering the critics" comes out.

"Eisner v Macomber"

I read that case in a corporate tax class. That case did not rule that the income tax in and of itself was unconstitutional. That case held that a pro rata stock dividend was not income and could not be taxed. Huge difference. You're taking it out of context.

"Coppage v. Kansas"

My understanding of that case is that it gives employees the right to sign contracts with employers stating that they will not join a union. That has nothing to do with the income tax. Do you have anything, even dicta that would support your argument that this case stands for the idea that income taxes are unconstitutional?

I love how people bash Ron Paul for being "crazy" or "wacko" and then in the very next breath prove just how ignorant they are of the man's policies.

Unamerican, for example, dismisses whole policies (taxes for example) simply because he refuses to accept that there is any other "viable" alternatives. Aren't all tax alternatives viable? Or do you just feel uncomfortable saying things that haven't been said by politicians or members of the MS media who pander for a living?

Every major college in the country has a grass roots Paul support group made up of 18-22 year old kids who can speak more intelligently and in depth about policy that anyone in this thread has even come close to doing so far. It is sparking the most robust and vibrant political debates in recent history, and encouraged outside-the-box thinking. We DESPERATELY need that in today's political environment. And NO OTHER CANDIDATE is facilitating it! Instead, they are destroying it with meaningless crap sound-bites that then get repeated by morons in these threads like absolute truths when they are anything but.

Stop Paul-bashing unless you can actually articulate his policies without sounding exactly like a spoiled child who is not getting their way.

Voting is personal, and not to be judged by any one yardstick. But the more idiots we have parroting Romney, Giuliani, and Hillary rather than putting things into their proper context, the worst off our kids will be. That's the bottom line.

I don't think Paul has a real shot at the Republican nomination. He's not enough of a whore. Too bad he's running for the Republican nomination rather than running for president because he's one of the few candidates I could stomache voting for....

Yeah, what Kevin23 said!

"Brushaber v UP Railroad"

Had to look this one up. It actually stands for the exact opposite principle you cite it for, the court held that the income tax is NOT unconstitutional. I'm done reading your cases. It's obvious you haven't done your homework.

"So far as these numerous and minute, not to say in many respects hypercritical, contentions are based upon an assumed violation of the uniformity clause, their want of legal merit is at once apparent, since it is settled that that clause exacts only a geographical uniformity, and there is not a semblance of ground in any of the propositions for assuming that a violation of such uniformity is complained of.

So far as the due process clause of the 5th Amendment is relied upon, it suffices to say that there is no basis for such reliance, since it is equally well settled that such clause is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring, upon the one hand, a taxing power, and taking the same power away, on the other, by the limitations of the due process clause."

(Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR)

"Lincoln proposed the government itself issue "greenbacks" and set the value based on the reserve of gold and silver. He wanted the US government to print and distribute its' own money and leave out European bankers from the process. This is what got him killed."

Ron Paul's campaign attracts paranoid nutcases and extremists like shit collects flies. Crackpot conspiracy theorists, the John Birch Society, Stormfront, David Duke, etc., all love Ron Paul.

"your are left with 25% of the current revenue"

Which is what we're paying in interest on the debt. Gonna make it hard to pay off, never mind running the FAA, EPA, OSHA, FDA et al, never mind the Pentagon.

Oh right, the Paulies don't believe in safety regulations, just trial lawyers and we won't need a pentagon because everybody will love us.

Ron Paul is one of the great minds of the eighteenth century.

Joe,

It is very possible that the cases together present some sort of legal evolution of doctrine. In law school, that is how you learn. Rather than read millions of cases, you read a few cases less for what they meant specifically to those parties, and more for how was or could be used going forward. The most notable example is Brown v. Board. There was about 50 years of litigation upon which the case was built, and the only precedent on topic was what was overturned in the end.

So give the guy a chance to respond before you browbeat him with your "analysis".

Ron Paul and one of his followers

s239.photobucket.com

LOL

Bill O'Reilly,

"Ron Paul's campaign attracts paranoid nutcases and extremists like shit collects flies. Crackpot conspiracy theorists, the John Birch Society, Stormfront, David Duke, etc., all love Ron Paul."

I love the logic that if one "bad" person supports a candidate, that candidate is now bad by default. So if I hate Hillary, all I have to do is find one rapist who supports Hillary's bid, and I've done good work for her opposition? You've definitely been well schooled in BS American political tactics.

So who is NAMBLA endorsing this time around?

Joe,

You won't find any cases saying it's unconstitutional. If there really was 7 Supreme Court decisions saying this, the richest people in the country would know it and the trickle down effect would be rapid.

Pipe dreams that cost lots of money and time to believe.

That case did not rule that the income tax in and of itself was unconstitutional

It rules what constituted "income". Income is defined in that case for the first time as "gains or profits from corporate activity", not wages or labor. Wages are in effect the personal property of a person an not subject to any government tax.

it gives employees the right to sign contracts with employers

Again, it is the definition of "income" that is important here. And again it was held that the wages and labor of a person is his personal property to do with as he wished and the government should have no say in that equation. Both of these case said that the 16th Amendment gave the government no new taxing power. That, as your quote above illustrates, the Constitution can not, and does not take away taxing powers with the 5th and then re-institute them in the 16th. If you were not taxable before the 16th, you aren't taxable afterwards.

I'm done reading your cases

They aren't my cases, they are the Court's. Read what you want, Joe, or don't.


More nonsense Ron Paul bashing:

"Oh right, the Paulies don't believe in safety regulations, just trial lawyers and we won't need a pentagon because everybody will love us."

Way to show your grasp of the issues there genius.

Just once I want to see someone bash Paul who actually knows what they are talking about.

"I love the logic that if one "bad" person supports a candidate, that candidate is now bad by default. "

You might have a point, if somebody said that. We aren't talking about one "bad" person. We are talking about extremist political groups. How come they are all gravitating to Paul's campaign, and not to any of the other candidates? You think it might be because they think, as they should, that Paul is one of their own?

"Wages are in effect the personal property of a person an not subject to any government tax."

Except, that's not what the court said. You're interpreting the case more broadly than anyone who actually read the case would. That case only stands for the notion that a pro rata stock dividend that doesn't change your level of ownership in the company is not "income" and therefore is not subject to tax.

"And again it was held that the wages and labor of a person is his personal property to do with as he wished and the government should have no say in that equation"

And again, no. That may be the principle that underlies the holding, but expressly the holding only dealt with freedom of contract, which is not inherently tied to the income tax.

I noticed you had no response to the portions of Brushaber that I quoted, because you cited that case even though that one expressly held that the income tax is not unconstitutional.

Bill OReilly,

Why wouldn't a group who wants to be left alone from the government intervention and moral policing be supportive of a guy who wants to leave them alone. It is absolutely no different that a woman wanting to be free of government dictating what she can do with her body. Or a doctor wanting to be free to advise freely based on his expertise rather than some arbitrary legislative line in the sand.

You make zero sense, and show zero grasp of Paul's politics. You only want to tear him down without doing the research. Thats lazy, and irresponsible at best. Blatenyly retarded at worst.

We aren't talking about one "bad" person. We are talking about extremist political groups. How come they are all gravitating to Paul's campaign, and not to any of the other candidates?

Maybe because "libertarian" is the blank canvas that all these extremist groups can use to justify their positions.

"Just once I want to see someone bash Paul who actually knows what they are talking about."

Simply saying your opponents don't know what they are talking about isn't very persuasive. There's no rocket science here. Paul's record is out there. 100% rating from the John Birch Society. Excellent!

Kevin-

"It is very possible that the cases together present some sort of legal evolution of doctrine."

Perhaps they do. But none of the cases stand for the notion that the income tax is unconstitutional, even though they are misstated as representing that by people who support a repeal of the income tax. I'm against the income tax myself, I just don't lie about cases that had little to do with the income tax and pretend that they support my position.

Look up the Brushaber case yourself, or read any article about it you come by. You'll see that the court expressly ruled against every single argument of the unconstitutionality of the income tax.

"You only want to tear him down without doing the research"

There you go again with that stupid argument. I know more than enough about Ron Paul.

Ron Paul: Quackery Enabler

scienceblogs.com

Bill O-

I never said my "opponents don't know what they are talking about" ... you made that up.

I see your game here. Say nothing, then turn the tables when you get called out for saying nothing.

I've seen his record, Bill O. Care to discuss it in a meaningful way? Or do you just want to keep playing?

the court held that the income tax is NOT unconstitutional.

And "income" as defined by the Court and upheld in the case above is, gains and profits from corporate activity, not wages or labor. Wages, if they are to be taxed, must be done as defined by the Constitution: direct and apportioned

In his dissent to the Pollack decision, Justice Harlan stated:

When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds, except by apportioning the sum to be so raised among the States according to population, it practically decides that, without an amendment of the Constitution -- two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States concurring -- such property and incomes can never be made to contribute to the support of the national government

I don't agree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues, that said I don't think he'll be able to push through a lot of what he'd like to. I'm not for the removal of the federal government, I think it's important and has it's place. I'd like to see the removal of the IRS and the fair tax implemented. His views on education are short sighted, we need country wide standards, and I don't think we can rely on private business for all our services (NASA included). We see time and again private industry cannot be trusted, they will cheat scam and kill to make a couple of extra dollars. Look at what trouble we got in with the sub prime mortgage debacle. Who got us there? Corporations, that's who.

And Kevin, I wouldn't put as much pull in the opinions of 18 to 22 year olds. 18 - 22 year olds are retarded. I guess we could ask them what they think about politics, but we'll have to wait for them to put their bongs down and wait for them to finish up their games of guitar hero 3.

Amen BIGJOHN

Joe,

So what? Cases are reversed all the time. Precedent is more that the narrowly tailored final decision for the parties.

Big John,

Why would you blindly bash college students like that? I agree that, in general, age and wisdom are related. But lets not get carried away by believing all youth to be ignorant. My point was that we should be encouraging political growth, and it starts with the youth and good debate. That is exactly what Paul has done. Who cares who agrees with who. I never put any stock in that.

Please read to comprehend, not just to find fuel for your blind tirades.

"And "income" as defined by the Court and upheld in the case above is, gains and profits from corporate activity, not wages or labor."

Again, you're just wrong. Here is what the court stated verbatim:

For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term income,' *207 as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue.

After examining dictionaries in common use, we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909: Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined'
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 206-07.


You've also gone from saying that the Supreme Court held the income tax to be unconstitutional 7 times, to quoting a dissenting opinion. I think that says something about your argument.

Try Glenshaw Glass people, that is the Supreme Court's definition of income. Income is an accession of wealth from whatever source derived. Essentially everything you receive is income unless it is specifically excluded from income by the IRC. Essentially this definition EXPANDED the Court's earlier definition of income provided in Eisner v. Macomber, which defined income as a gain derived from labor, from capital, or from both.

If you don't think the IRC defines income see Sec. 61.

I am so sick and tired of these arguments. These bogus snake oil salesmen have no clue as to what they are talking about, it is just a scam to push the rich's tax burden on the middle class and the poor. I find every person who buys into Neal Boortz's bullshit absoulutely reprehensible and despicable.

Morevoer, no one has ever one a civil case using the argument that there is no authority for the income tax.

"I never said my "opponents don't know what they are talking about" ... you made that up."

Now you're just hair splitting. You called Paul bashers "ignorant"and "blind". You see, junior, the thing is, your previous posts can be read. You ought to keep that in mind when you say things like "I never said".

Kevin-

What's your point? Mine is that there are no cases which stand for the notion that the income tax is unconstitutional. Therefore your theory on precedent is irrelevant. BTW, precedent with regard to actual holdings is more persuasive then dicta that's taken out of context, like R8R is doing. You're just his cheerleader anyways. Show me some actual authority for what he asserts. He's failing miserably and could use your help.

It always seems to me that Ron Paul followers focus on one of his grand positions that resonate with them -- such as getting rid of the IRS, or "immediate withdrawl" from Iraq -- and then just ignore the rest of them.

For example, it seems that all those people on this site who support Ron Paul never discuss his staunch "pro-life' positiion and that he will reverse Roe v Wade and would criminalize abortion if given the opportunity.

Wow, "won" not "one" a civil case. People have been acquitted from criminal charges for not paying income tax but that is a higher burden of proof and it is tough to prove criminal fraud.

Now lets talk intelligently about policy:

"His views on education are short sighted, we need country wide standards, and I don't think we can rely on private business for all our services (NASA included). We see time and again private industry cannot be trusted, they will cheat scam and kill to make a couple of extra dollars. Look at what trouble we got in with the sub prime mortgage debacle. Who got us there? Corporations, that's who."

National education standards have breed two things: exceptions and more strings attached. First, federal money is mainly matching funds that go only to the schools who have the money to match in the first place (rich suburban schools), and who have no problems adhering to all the arbitrary politically motivated lines in the sand (rich suburban schools). They do nothing to elevate standards. Let the states do there own thing (as many have already done by refusing federal subsidies) and they will be able to innovate without being political. Thats better for everyone. Give me one good example where national standards helped without hurting more? Furthermore, opening the door to federal causes of action has made things very financially risky for schools now dependent on the fed money. Its a bad system with no need.

And the companies that got into sub-prime are being punished by the market. All IS right with the world unless you were dumb enough to buy into the hype and get a crap mortgage. The market forces will be much more helpful than 80 layers of government regulators and regulators of the regulators (all of whom are appointed from the industries they purportedly regulate too). So why do we need to make this economic problem political? Because it's there and it is convenient? Not good enough, sorry.

For example, it seems that all those people on this site who support Ron Paul never discuss his staunch "pro-life' positiion and that he will reverse Roe v Wade and would criminalize abortion if given the opportunity.

Posted by Bowa

Actually he said it was a state issue. Is that simple enough for you.

Joe,

Calling me names isn't helping your cause. You are the one trying to convince him that his cases mean something else. I'm just saying that precedent is MORE than what you are limiting it to. Being a lawyer is about making arguments...NOT strictly adhering to past rulings. So instead of lashing out, go read the cases again and look for potential arguments rather than ways he's wrong. You are simply regurgitating case briefs which are narrowly tailored to the parties. And that is just futile unless its a history report.

Now calm down.

Ron Paul: Crackpot


The July 29, 1985 issue of Barron's profiled [Ron]Paul, then settling into his new role as an investment guru following three terms in Congress. The magazine quoted a pitch letter for Paul's new investment bulletin:

Dear Friend. Will you survive the "new money"? You must be prepared, because within one year, the U.S. Treasury will impose a radically different currency on the American people. Government officials won't tell you the truth about this ominous new development and most of your neighbors will be caught napping.... I saw the ugly new bills, tinted pink and blue and blighted with holograms, diffraction gratings, metal threads and chemical alarms."

"So instead of lashing out, go read the cases again and look for potential arguments rather than ways he's wrong."

I already did that. I've posted quotes and analysis from every case he's cited. Post some cases yourself, or better yet, read them yourself. You'll see what they stand for and what they do not stand for.

Bowa,

"For example, it seems that all those people on this site who support Ron Paul never discuss his staunch "pro-life' positiion and that he will reverse Roe v Wade and would criminalize abortion if given the opportunity."

Ah yes, the seminal heart-strings issue. Dear god! The horror! The sky will fall!

No one man is going to reverse Roe v. Wade. Get a grip. Its political suicide, and Paul has said on nearly every occasion that moral policing will be his lowest priority. Next!

I'm all for smaller federal government, and that includes the federal government having a say in the abortion issue or gay marriage. And I'm pro-choice. What I like about making things like this a state issue is that because states have a smaller population my vote has more weight. When I vote for a representative I'm 1 in a few million rather than 1 in 300 million voting. It's even better at the local level (1 in a few hundred thousand or less). The closer we get to the individual the more freedom we really have.

"Calling me names isn't helping your cause. "

Waaaah!

This is the same guy calling Paul critics "ignorant", "blind", "retarded", etc.

American Elections are carefully managed to create the illusion of choice within a Deomcracy. Then along comes Paul and fucks the whole fraud up.

What's the Oligarchy to do? Assassinate, imprison, torture? These actions will be taken if necessary, but are generally avoided in order to permit the grand illusions to continue. Start by blocking media access.

because states have a smaller population my vote has more weight.

Posted by Incredibleplum

All politics is local.

It's alot easyer on the local level.

Joe,

I'm a lawyer. I've read more tax cases than you, I'm sure. I don't seek to prove anything other than your narrow focus. And you've admitted as much several times. If you want to start a policy debate with me, then start one. But don't pretend I have an ax to grind. I just don't like seeing half-hearted legal analysis that is turned immediately into an attack. And again, you've admitted as much. Get a grip.

Kevin,

I don't care if you're a lawyer. You've refused to do any research or offer real commentary on any of the cases we're discussing. Either talk about the actual cases and explain how my analysis is lacking, or see your way out of the discussion.

I'm a lawyer. I've read more tax cases than you, I'm sure.

Kevin, I am a tax attorney with an LL.M. in taxation. I am willing to take you on right here and now in a debate regarding the S.Ct's interpretation of income and how it has expanded over the years - the exact opposite of your contention.

Bill O-

Let me know if you ever think of a good point to make about Ron Paul. I'm still waiting.

*crickets chirping*

"I'm a lawyer."

Terrific. Just what we need around here, another fucking lawyer.

Taxman,

Really? I contended? Now I'm having this debate? Wow. Amazing.

Go back and try reading what I said this time. Then go after someone with an ax to grind. Comprehension is vital to communication. Or did they not teach that at your law school?

"Let me know if you ever think of a good point to make about Ron Paul. I'm still waiting."

I just keep quoting him, and documenting his record of crackpot statements. Sorry if his own words bother you, junior.

Ah, Bill O,

So much blind hate. So little substance.

Bill O-

You quoted him? I call BS.

Ron Paul, homophobe:


In the 1990s, like every far-right lunatic worth his salt, Ron Paul turned his frenzied attention to the Clintons. A 1993 direct mail piece from Paul ran through the checklist, missing nothing along the way:

What kind of a man is Bill Clinton? Our families tell much about us. Clinton's wife is a far leftist with very close female friends...

Your contention:

"It is very possible that the cases together present some sort of legal evolution of doctrine."

My retort:

You obviously know nothing about case law with regards to taxation. If you did have any experience in the field you would know that the S.Ct.'s defintion of income has expanded the definition of income and there is not "legal evolution of doctrine" stating otherwise.

Big John,

Why would you blindly bash college students like that? I agree that, in general, age and wisdom are related. But lets not get carried away by believing all youth to be ignorant. My point was that we should be encouraging political growth, and it starts with the youth and good debate. That is exactly what Paul has done. Who cares who agrees with who. I never put any stock in that.

Please read to comprehend, not just to find fuel for your blind tirades.

Posted by kevin23 at 2008-01-03 01:16 PM


Not all youth, just most of them. It was vapid narcissistic stupidity in the Vietnam era of college students that spoke volumes. Now I don't think that college students are that stupid anymore, but I still wouldn't put much stock in what an 18 year old thinks. That's all I'm saying.

I like some of RP's positions, and I'd vote for him. I'd vote for him knowing that he wouldn't be able to do all he wanted to do. I'm not naive enough to trust in the 'free market' whatever that really is. There is a real and important use of the government, especially the federal government. I don't know how these guys can think that there would even be a country without federal involvement. Companies and corporation have proven time and again that they need to be regulated. Without regulation there isn't even a 'free market' kind of ironic, no? Without regulation the 'free market' brings us things like monopolies doesn't it? And the 'free market' gives us Enron, gives us drug companies that sell crap that they don't voluntarily remove from the market when it kills people. It gives us the the sub prime mortgage crisis, it is apparent that these companies aren't smart enough to not be regulated.

Although I agree that there shouldn't be a bail-out, those companies should loose their shirts and the market go into a recession. A national recession because of some stupid companies have proven they can't do business.

And are you kidding me about national standards? Do you know when China became a major force? After the first emperor, who was the first to bring national standards to China and created a dynasty of prosperity. Without the government introducing standards businesses would be much less efficient. I don't believe I have to tell you this, it seems to me to be common sense. Without national standards you don't even have a 'nation'.

"You quoted him? I call BS."

Everything I post about Paul is documented, junior. Sorry.

Joe,

Its amazing how pissed I can make you just by telling you to do better research. Personally, I don't care about your little research project. I've heard it all before. But its obvious to anyone who has studied law that you are trying to do on the fly what takes even an expert months to do. Its just not going to work for me. So ignore me and keep spouting, or try to impress me. Either way, my motivation is elsewhere. And your credibility is gone.

Ron Paul: Mudslinger

A 1993 direct mail piece from Ron Paul ran through the checklist, missing nothing along the way:




What kind of a man is Bill Clinton? Our families tell much about us. Clinton's wife is a far leftist with very close female friends...

(Wink, wink.)

...(while her husband is a sexual playboy of John F. Kennedy proportions). A friend of mine who attended Yale Law School with Hillary says that she was known as the "class commie." Today, I guess, she is merely a pinko. And "Co-President" of the United States.

According to the Washington Times, Clinton's mother spends every day at the horsetrack near corrupt Hot Springs. According to The New Republic, as a nurse anesthesist, she once let a patient die while doing her nails. She was found to be criminally negligent, and then cleared. Her son Bill, the governor, then promoted the man who cleared her.

You may have read about the uproar over pardons of hardened criminals signed by a state senator who was temporary Arkansas governor during the inauguration. Now the Washington Times reports that the pardons were engineered by Clinton before he went to Washington. One of the criminals let out of prison was the son of a politician who had been exposing Clinton's black and white illegitimate children with photos and addresses. "Woods colts," they're called in Arkansas slang. Then they made a corrupt deal. The man agreed to shut up during the campaign; Clinton agreed to spring his son.

- the exact opposite of your contention

Well it's not Kevin's contention, it is mine. And apparently, after doing "my homework" I am completely wrong on the current interpretation of what constitutes personal income.

But its obvious to anyone who has studied law that you are trying to do on the fly what takes even an expert months to do.

It doesn't take months if you have already studied the cases. From what I understand, Joe has taken several tax classes and has more than likely covered these cases and analyzed them to a degree that you obviously haven't.

And your credibility is gone.

I would argue that Joe's credibility on this site is more intact than your non-existent credibility amongst posters here.

Kevin23,

Bill is a socialist who beleives in a bigger government, because they ALWAYS do it better, entitlement benefits, and has no regard for individual rights. He prefers a politicain who "stretchs" the truth for politcal gains to gain uneducated votes and doesn't see the value in a constitutionalist and how that relates to true freedom and individual rights.

Bill O-

Lets see it, sport. Tell me again how a few neo nazis gave him some money and that means he is sympathic to nazis.

Forgive me if I shit myself laughing at your "documented" proof. Next time I want to see something more than guilt by association. Ok, chief?

"Its amazing how pissed I can make you just by telling you to do better research"

Why would I be pissed about that? You talk of the potential that R8R's cases represent some legal doctrine I'm missing, but you lack the wherewithall to actually read the cases yourself and tell me what you think they mean, and cite authority for your opinion. Therefore, any opinions you have on my research abilities are irrelevant to me. I've read the cases and posted quotes and analysis. You've done nothing of substance.

"But its obvious to anyone who has studied law that you are trying to do on the fly what takes even an expert months to do."

I've got a semester left of Law School with an A Average in five tax courses, one of which dealt exclusively with the federal income tax. I'm not doing anything on the fly. I studied the Eisner case and others like it for weeks before R8R ever brought it up. To pretend as though I don't understand the case law when you're the one who refuses to offer any real analysis is absolutely hilarious.

Ah yes, Ron Paul, man of integrity and honor.

" According to the Washington Times, Clinton's mother spends every day at the horsetrack near corrupt Hot Springs. According to The New Republic, as a nurse anesthesist, she once let a patient die while doing her nails. She was found to be criminally negligent, and then cleared. Her son Bill, the governor, then promoted the man who cleared her."

--Ron Paul fundraising letter

Joe,

Your appeal to your own authority, or lack thereof, is enough for me.

There is nothing worst than knowing just enough to be dangerous. You'll know that one day.

Bill O-

The Washington Times???

HAHAHAHAHA

Joe any decisions as to what field you are leaning to once you graduate? You know Northwestern has a good LL.M. in tax program, right?

Kevin23, the black helicopters are looking for you! Be afraid, be very afraid!

So who are these shadowy forces who are plotting to dismantle our Constitution and surrender our sovereignty to a one-world government? Paul explained, in a 2004 interview:


They're certainly not known to a lot of people; it's actually what they're doing. But then again, it's not absolute secrecy. If you look around you can usually get the information. There was a time when nobody even knew who was a member of the CFR or the Trilateral Commission. I think it's a bad sign that they're not as secret as they used to be. They're bolder now. But there is an agenda. They're behind the scenes in many way--very secretive.

Taxman,

I'm sorry, I forgot you were the gatekeeper. Seeing as how I didn't even begin to debate, nor analyze tax law in this thread, nor any other, I'd say it took some pretty big balls and a leap of faith to conclude anything about me or my credibility on the subject.

And no, reading a few seminal cases in school does not equate to expertise. And no, analyzing a few cases, even well, does not equate to having a handle on a legal topic as huge and unstable as tax law.

You should know that.

"The Washington Times???

HAHAHAHAHA"

Joke's on you. That was your hero quoting the Washington Times.

Kevin-

You've descended further into irrelevancy. Put up or shut up. Tell me how and why I am wrong, or just stop talking.


Taxman-

I'm at a corporate tax firm right now and I'm hoping to be hired on. If wherever I end up working wants to pay for my LLM, I'll get it, but with the amount of debt I'm saddled with, I can't really afford to pay for it myself.

More spam from Google

Analyzing a few cases is sufficient when the issue is the Court's definition of income.

I'd say it took some pretty big balls and a leap of faith to conclude anything about me or my credibility on the subject

You're the one who insinuated you knew more about tax law than Joe, I would like to see proof. You say you have delved into tax issues, what issues, specifically, have you dealt with?

Bill O-

I'll admit you have entertained me during a slow work day. And you did it by saying nothing. While I agree you should have your own radio show, I personally make it a point to not engage an unarmed man in a battle of wits. I'd rather watch monkeys at the zoo. And I learn more.

But keep citing those awesome sources of yours. Sounds like you've really got him nailed to the wall. lol.

I too can google for crap. Its still crap.

Joe, I totally understand with the student debt issue. I lucked out because there ins't a school in LA with an LL.M. in tax program so I was treated as an in state student at UF and the tuition was $2,500. I will tell you that if you can get into UF and sign on with a Prof. you will be treated as an in-state student (or your tuition is the same). I had several friends who went that route at UF. If you want to know more let me know and I will email you with some relevant info, I just assumed you would want to stay up north.

I work at a corporate tax firm, blah blah blah, shut up already.

In the March 15, 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, Paul addressed the death of Vince Foster, whose 1993 suicide was twisted by the far-right enemies of democracy into a series of increasingly outlandish conspiracy theories alleging that Foster was actually murdered and that Clinton ordered it.


" There is another story that has gained some importance in the upper reaches of Washington, D.C. It alleges that Bill Clinton has long used cocaine, and that Foster was his "connection".... I (Ron Paul), am reminded about all the stories of CIA-Contra cocaine smuggling through the Mena, Arkansas, airport when Clinton was governor, and his supposed protection of the racket.

The cocaine speculation would explain certain mysteries. During the campaign, Bill never released his medical records.... [C]ould the reason for his reticence be DOPE? Clinton has perpetuated troubles with his throat and voice, which could be related to the nasal drainage a cokehead experiences. He is also an insomniac, which dopers are. None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting."

Hey BillOLiely, why don't you show us real "documentation" of these Paul fundraising letters instead of cutting and pasting undocumented crap from DailyKos?

Taxman-

"You're the one who insinuated you knew more about tax law than Joe"

Wow. Your really good at reading comprehension. Now you want to engage me because of something you think I insinuated. Don't you have a better tree to bark up? Like, say, the guy who actually argued the point. I just dont care enough. And a battle of resumes (pissing contest) is just stupid seeing as how no one can verify it anyway.

And no, something as complex as a foundational definition is not as simple as a few cases. Are you really a lawyer, or do you just play one on TV?

Joe,

Put up or shut up? That is exactly what I told you way back. Are we forgetting who did the initial popping off? I just said you should browbeat a guy based on 15 minutes of reading. Sheesh.

Too bad he's running for the Republican nomination rather than running for president because he's one of the few candidates I could stomache voting for.... Sully


Well you could get off your ass, register republican and vote in the primary instead of wasting time bitching on a thread...

If paul hates hillary so much, who cares, all conservatives do. Bill why don't you bitch about his policy or his voting record?

For those involved in the income and Supreme Court decision debate, tell me if you recognize these names: William Benson, Irwin Schiff, Thurston Bell, Lynne Meredith, Tommy Cryer.

You wonderful lawyers - what do you think of their tax court cases? Would you defend their positions in court? If you really believe you can take their position and win, why wouldn't anyone else?

Probably because most lawyers are smart and don't want to be disbarred for pissing off judges on timeworn arguments that all fail - with the courts quoting the court cases listed previously above as supporting position.

You'll never get the courts to rule against the income tax. The law must change, not the decisions.

Repugnant are you registered as a Dem? If you haven't picked a party you can vote for him still.

"just read the book once and then make your comments"

I have, as well as the websites. The websites get their own examples wrong, the advocates call a 30% tax a 23% tax, they don't mention the addition of local sales taxes and state income taxes at the retail level, they impose intra-governmental taxes, they don't address the overnight disparity of new vs. used, they assume a 20% overnight drop in wholesale prices, they don't have backup plans for a severe spending downturn or depression, and don't account at all for what I would call "conversion confusion". Worst of all, they claim fully one-fifth of our collective lives and monies go toward the tax systems. Not paying the taxes...dealing with the taxes.

Is that true? Is anyone spending 20% of their lives on taxes?

"I too can google for crap. Its still crap."

It's Ron Paul's own words, from his newletters and interviews. Sorry if you can't handle the truth, junior.

Maybe because "libertarian" is the blank canvas that all these extremist groups can use to justify their positions.

Posted by Bowa



Yeah thats the great thing about Freedom and Liberty anyone can express their ideas, even pea brains like you.

You prove every day that your position doesnt have to be justified to be expressed.

So, Kevin, you know nothing about tax law, because if you did you would realize that the definition of income is relatively an easy issue to research. What constitutes capital, passive loss, passive activity, general power of authority, etc, those are in-depth issues.

I have news for you, Ron Pauls already won. There are thousands of young people interested in politics, most of whom thought they had no one who was representing them. They have seen there parents and grandparents stand by or directly participate while there future is mortgaged to the hilt. The "individual" is not dead. They will, one way or another earn back their birthright as citizens of the United States. He may not get the Republican nod and he may not run as a third party, But he got the message out.

"Hey BillOLiely, why don't you show us real "documentation" of these Paul fundraising letters instead of cutting and pasting undocumented crap from DailyKos?"


Hey dipshit, here is the text of one of Ron Paul's fundraising letters.

groups.google.com

just to clarify... ron pauls wants to get rid of the irs and not replace it. all this talk about a fair tax should be in a huckabee thread but its not pauls position.
get rid of 700 bases over seas and we save a trillion a year.... no need for an income tax at that point

Repugnant are you registered as a Dem? If you haven't picked a party you can vote for him still.


Depends on the state you live in. some states have open primaries some are closed to the registered parties (typically republican).

find out here about your state here

www.ronpaul2008.com

Mine is closed so I am a registered republican.

Im old skool Goldwater style, and NEVER voted for Bushit.

" He asked if there was an international conspiracy to overthrow our government. The answer is yes...

--Ron Paul, August 30, 2003

Bill O-

If that is your idea of "truth" then I want no part of it.

I prefer things like voting records, policy creation, theory of government, etc. over things like "this one time he sort of alluded to this" or "someone in his campaign once issues a statement saying something like that".

See the difference?

Past musings and speculations into the personal lives of the Clintons, for example, would be nearly meaningless. His voting record on whether to spend a trillion dollars to babysit a terribly ineffective government in Iraq with American lives in hope it will inspire them to be a better society, for another example, carries weight.

Its really not difficult. But motivation is obviously lacking.

"I have news for you, Ron Pauls already won. There are thousands of young people interested in politics, most of whom thought they had no one who was representing them. They have seen there parents and grandparents stand by or directly participate while there future is mortgaged to the hilt. The "individual" is not dead. They will, one way or another earn back their birthright as citizens of the United States. He may not get the Republican nod and he may not run as a third party, But he got the message out."

The Emperor-- so they say-- has sent a message, directly from his death bed, to you alone, his pathetic subject, a tiny shadow which has taken refuge at the furthest distance from the imperial sun. He ordered the herald to kneel down beside his bed and whispered the message in his ear. He thought it was so important that he had the herald speak it back to him. He confirmed the accuracy of verbal message by nodding his head. And in front of the entire crowd of those witnessing his death-- all the obstructing walls have been broken down, and all the great ones of his empire are standing in a circle on the broad and high soaring flights of stairs-- in front of all of them he dispatched his herald. The messenger started off at once, a powerful, tireless man. Sticking one arm out and then another, he makes his way through the crowd. If he runs into resistance, he points to his breast where there is a sign of the sun. So he moves forwards easily, unlike anyone else. But the crowd is so huge; its dwelling places are infinite. If there were an open field, how he would fly along, and soon you would hear the marvellous pounding of his fist on your door. But instead of that, how futile are all his efforts. He is still forcing his way through the private rooms of the innermost palace. Never will he win his way through. And if he did manage that, nothing would have been achieved. He would have to fight his way down the steps, and, if he managed to do that, nothing would have been achieved. He would have to stride through the courtyards, and after the courtyards through the second palace encircling the first, and, then again, through stairs and courtyards, and then, once again, a palace, and so on for thousands of years. And if he finally burst through the outermost door--but that can never, never happen--the royal capital city, the centre of the world, is still there in front of him, piled high and full of sediment. No one pushes his way through here, certainly not someone with a message from a dead man. But you sit at your window and dream of that message when evening comes.

-Franz Kafka

""this one time he sort of alluded to this" or "someone in his campaign once issues a statement saying something like that"."

He didn't "sort of allude" to. He has stated those things in his newsletters and emails. His words. Not mine. Deal with it.

Taxman-

"So, Kevin, you know nothing about tax law, because if you did you would realize that the definition of income is relatively an easy issue to research. What constitutes capital, passive loss, passive activity, general power of authority, etc, those are in-depth issues."

Nice conclusion drawn from nothing. Logic evades you as well I see. A foundational definition is always subject to arguments, interpretation, and re-interpretation my friend. It is not as simple as reading a few cases, memorizing a definition and being done with it. YOU REALLY SHOULD KNOW THAT! If that were the case, the simple doctrine of res judicata would not take up 4 huge volumes of case-law.

In the March 15, 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, Paul addressed the death of Vince Foster...

Hey dipshit, here is the text of one of Ron Paul's fundraising letters.

groups.google.com

Posted by Bill_OReilly



I read it and it didnt say a damn thing about Foster, plus your quote was talking about Bills cocaine use. What does that have to do with Ron paul claiming the Clintons killed foster??


Kevin,

Do you believe these individuals are right in their interpretation of the law?

William Benson, Irwin Schiff, Thurston Bell, Lynne Meredith, Tommy Cryer.

The Rock the Vote crap didn't work because the kids are smarter than the dems give them credit. Like the girl that rated out Hellery for the planted question.

" He asked if there was an international conspiracy to overthrow our government. The answer is yes...

--Ron Paul, August 30, 2003

Posted by Bill_OReilly


Yeah and .... is there a point besides the obvious, that Ron Paul thinks our govt is corrupted by international banking who hold profits over soveriegnty and enslave the working class throug usury?

Bill O-

I can't believe you still don't get it. Wow.

Once when I stubbed my tow, I yelled out "f Jesus!" Does that mean that in every context I have a personal disdain for God?

THAT, my good boy, is why your brand of "evidence" is crap. Give me something that carries real weight, like maybe, what he's actually done, or proposes to actually do.


"just to clarify... ron pauls wants to get rid of the irs and not replace it. all this talk about a fair tax should be in a huckabee thread but its not pauls position.
get rid of 700 bases over seas and we save a trillion a year.... no need for an income tax at that point"

Posted by 503jc69 at 2008-01-03 02:33 PM


So gutting the military is the ticket?

In the March 15, 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, Paul addressed the death of Vince Foster, whose 1993 suicide was twisted by the far-right enemies of democracy into a series of increasingly outlandish conspiracy theories alleging that Foster was actually murdered and that Clinton ordered it.

He characterizes Hillary Clinton, without offering any evidence, as "Foster's ex-paramour"--in evident contradiction of Paul's other "theory" about the then-First Lady--and suggests that the "murder" was tied up in some way with the cocaine habit Paul accuses Bill Clinton of having:


There is another story that has gained some importance in the upper reaches of Washington, D.C. It alleges that Bill Clinton has long used cocaine, and that Foster was his "connection".... I (Ron Paul), am reminded about all the stories of CIA-Contra cocaine smuggling through the Mena, Arkansas, airport when Clinton was governor, and his supposed protection of the racket.

The cocaine speculation would explain certain mysteries. During the campaign, Bill never released his medical records.... [C]ould the reason for his reticence be DOPE? Clinton has perpetuated troubles with his throat and voice, which could be related to the nasal drainage a cokehead experiences. He is also an insomniac, which dopers are. None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting.

Bill O'

Ron Paul: I don't believe in evolution

www.youtube.com


My fav however is the Atheists For Obama movement, supporting one of those people who talk to, "an imaginary friend in the sky", lmao.

Don't you dare laugh at the Spaghetti Monster. He'll boil you in sauce for all eternity. ETERNITY, I SAY!!!

" like maybe, what he's actually done, or proposes to actually do."

How about, what's he actually said? But you don't want to hear that, you just want to change the subject.

"So gutting the military is the ticket?"

stop trying to police the world is the ticket.... operating 700 overseas bases costs tons of money, bring them home and put them on americas borders and the costs would be minimal in comparison.

why do you think the military gives more to paul then any other candidate? because he is soft on defense? please ... try again

For example, it seems that all those people on this site who support Ron Paul never discuss his staunch "pro-life' position and that he will reverse Roe v Wade and would criminalize abortion if given the opportunity.

Posted by Bowa


Well Bowa you show you penchant for ignorance again the only trouble with you is you spread it like cancer.

You obviously do not have a clue to his position on abortion. He has said time and again he doesn't think its a federal issue and should be decided either way by the states, get your facts straight, oh that's right you don't speak in fact, only fiction and slander.

Show me where Ron Paul says he would criminalize abortion.

Go on now...

"Put up or shut up? That is exactly what I told you way back."

If that's what you said, I've done so. I posted quotes from the cases and offered my analysis. If you disagree with any of that, do the same on your own. You won't. You'll continue to sit on the sidelines and pretend as though your supposedly more experienced outlook gives you the right to generally proclaim that you are correct without backing up anything you say.

I talked about precedential cases. You supposedly disagree with me but only say that "cases can be overruled" and "maybe the case law stands for something more." But you're not willing to talk about what that "something more" is. You're just going to sit around and waste time. I'm done with you.

"Ron Paul: I don't believe in evolution"

That's true. His hostility to science is jaw dropping.

scienceblogs.com

Show me where Ron Paul says he would criminalize abortion.

He's just trying to scare people with only one issue.

But at least Paul isn't a racist. Just ask David Duke.

www.davidduke.com

Petrous,

First, thank you for actually asking an honest question instead of trying to misinterpret something and attack for the sake of attack.

To be honest, I am not a big fan of the income tax. But the arguments made by the names you mention didn't persuade me of a vast injustice. Instead, it reaffirms the need to re-evaluate our constitution and possibly change it. That is the best method.

But I believe that convincing arguments can be made by lawyers and applied by courts dealing with how "income" is defined in the absence of other action and in the face of a glaring need. Courts tend to respond better to circumstances on the ground than do legislatures. At the moment, I just don't think people are at the level of recognizing any glaring need for change.

Ron Paul: I don't believe in evolution

The thing is Ron Paul actually repects other peoples individual rights to believe in something different.

He characterizes Hillary Clinton, without offering any evidence, as "Foster's ex-paramour"


OMG over a decade ago, Ron Paul along with hundreds of other poeple speculated that Hillary had an affair with FOster !!

Shock and AWE!!, thats IT, I have changed my mind about DR Paul !! the nerve, how can I ever vote for him now!



your points are becoming more pathetic Blowhard

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

"I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights"
-Abe Lincoln

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
-Ayn Rand

That's true. His hostility to science is jaw dropping.

Amazing, you found other blogers to cut and paste.


You are so special!

"Show me where Ron Paul says he would criminalize abortion. "

"Ron Paul's "libertarianism" famously does not extend to the right of a woman to control her body. In February he introduced H.R. 1094, "[t]o provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception."


Ron Paul: I don't believe in evolution"

Posted by Bill_OReilly




Show us these statements in a credible manner, else you are reduced to a slandering liar.



Ah Joe,

So much anger for one stupid point of analysis don't you think? I say look and dig deeper than the very surface before blasting a guy for having an honest discussion. You tell me to prove that you should? What a worthless debate you want me to have. Stupid even.

Forgive me if I continue reading the NY Times rather than appease your need to prove yourself to people who could care less.

Bill, are you seriously thinking of having an abortion.

If you are now would be a good time ... ..I mean right now.

"OMG over a decade ago, Ron Paul along with hundreds of other poeple speculated that Hillary had an affair with FOster !!"

Actually he passed along rumors that Foster was killed by the Clintons, and that Foster was Clinton's drug dealer. LOL.

Nice smackdown, Kevin.

I gives ya a funny flag.

"Show us these statements in a credible manner, else you are reduced to a slandering liar."

Hey dummy, watch Corky's youtube link. Paul says he doesn't believe in evolution. Period.

In February he introduced H.R. 1094, "[t]o provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception."

Posted by Bill_OReilly




Blowhard, whay all the BS and lies, you take a position of Dr. Paul and then twist and slander.

All it says is that federal control to determine abortion should be transferred to the states. it does not criminalize anyone as you suggest


Here is the meat of H.R. 1094

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Ron Paul on evolution:

scienceblogs.com

"You can't spend medicare/medicaid and social security payroll taxes on bombs, etc. So that 35% you can't touch. So if you take away the income tax, you're left with 8% of our present budget. Sorry, but that won't pay for sheite.

Your math is as poor as your understanding of this government.

Take away SS and the "income tax" and your are left with 25% of the current revenue, not 8%. Also, if you think SS "can't be touched" you haven't been paying much attention. Which frankly, isn't surprising at all."


r8rh8r---you're obviously retarded, so i'll be nice and break this down for you.

1. SS is 35%, PERSONAL income tax is 40%. You left out CORPORATE INCOME TAX, which is roughly 17%. Can't get rid of the IRS and still have the income tax. Sorry.

2. SS funds were BORROWED by the US government. They are part of the debt. The government cannot continue to take payroll taxes and use them for other things w/o eventually paying them back.

3. The debt service on the national debt is NOT 40%. In 2007, our debt service payments were a little under $430 Billion--which, with a 2007 budget of 2.77 Trillion, amounts to a little over 15.5% of government spending. But yes, it is a rediculous amount--and our insane spending needs to stop.

www.treasurydirect.gov


Now i support a lot of RP's ideas to some extent. But don't go spewing these BS numbers around--they're incorrect. Not only do they make you look foolish, but it gives people a reason to not vote for RP.

"2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."

In other words, each state is free to criminalize abortion. Thanks for proving my point.

For those of you posting crap about evolution and the other crap---WHO CARES!?!? This isn't an election for (a) a priest or (b) a scientist. This is a NON-ISSUE. There are plenty of reasons to not vote for RP--and NONE of them include the fact that he doesn't believe in evolution.

Well he must have changed his mind because in the last debate I watched the moderator asked all of the candidates who did not believe in evloution to raise there hands


Huckabee, Tancredo and Brownback raised theirs

Paul did not.



Regardless, personal belief in evolution is not one of my bigger concerns this election.

The integrity of our Country is.

Its the Ron Paul LOVEution.

"This is a NON-ISSUE. There are plenty of reasons to not vote for RP--and NONE of them include the fact that he doesn't believe in evolution."

Bullshit. It's very relevant whether the next President believes in 21th century science or 18th century "science".


"Ron Paul never discuss his staunch "pro-life' positiion and that he will reverse Roe v Wade and would criminalize abortion - Blowhard"

vs.


2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

------------------------------ --------------

if your too stupid to understand the major difference between Federalism and Central govt criminalization then your hopeless.


The proposal says nothing about Ron Paul criminalizing anything, in fact it says the exact opposite.

it says if ron Paul is president and he passes this law the descision to rule on abortion will be out of his (federal govt) hands and in state hands


Do you comprehend the words you post?!

Well at least Ron Paul has the support of neo-Nazi group Stormfront. That ought to get him a few votes.

patriotboy.blogspot.com

"if your too stupid to understand the major difference between Federalism and Central govt criminalization then your hopeless."

Huh? Criminalization is criminalization, and Ron Paul wants every state to criminalize abortion. Case closed.

Ron Paul: taking money from Nazis

www.msnbc.msn.com

Your really are dumb Orally, you dont even comprehend the basic facts of things you post.

No, states rights does not guarantee criminalization, you think California would elect a guy who will criminalize abortion? your niave if you do.

Show us where Ron Paul says he wants every state to criminalize abortion,!! yet another LIE from Orally.

you words are hollow and accusations are baseless orally

Case in point!

Bill you got a real thing for Ron Paul. Is it because he believes we are responsible for our selves? Does that scare you......Do you feel alone...helpless...

Want a pacifier?

Ron Paul: taking money from Nazis



So not are you only a liar, your a corporate media whore, nice!


among the 50000 donations he recieved one was a WS, want to digg up every donation for all other candidates too whore?

WTF is going on on this thread? Seems quite interesting. Seems we have someone one one side attacking those who support Ron Paul rather than Paul himself to hype a rather pathetic "enabler' argument, and some on the other side defending him like he's some sort of God. Repugnant has had some good posts.

Who's best for this country? that's the question I would ask-- I'm not looking for a second coming, but then again, I'm too old and rather cynical for that.

Paul has a decent voting record that's there for all to see-- but he still has to sit down and shit like everyone else.

just watching someone named bill oreilly spend his day spinning against paul confirms my vote for the good doctor

who do you support in this race bill?
hillary or julie-annie?

Who is O'Reilly gonna vote for? Did he say? We used to have a vulgar saying-- "If your gonna compare penis length, you gotta show yer own."

This thread is a-pauling! Here's a little joke to lighten the mood.

You know the easy way to tell Ru Paul and Ron Paul apart? One hardly shows in the polls, and the others' pole hardly shows.

I'd rather have Ron Paul taking donations from people he never met and doesnt agree with, even if they are unsavory..

rather than your likely choices who are all bought and sold through corporate interest and elite groups who control the candidate. ron paul is there to protect the average american.

Bill you are so pathetic. You can smell your fear...why else would you smear someone who has "no chance"?

Nobody is listening to you Bill. Your hot air is dust in the wind.

20 million raised Bill...and that isn't just Republicans and Independents. It's plenty of Democrats too who are sick of the total bullshit coming from the DNC. Kos knows it, that's why they can't slander Ron Paul fast enough. Who cares though...we got this far without the MSM...and we're gonna keep piling it on.

"So not are you only a liar, your a corporate media whore, nice!"

Everything I've posted is documented. That particular article stated clearly that Ron Paul's own spokesman said he would not return the money.

I know facts are annoying to you true believers, and the more facts I post, the angrier you get. Hahahaha.

Lame joke

Id laugh if it was funny though

FF AnAmerican! That was pretty good!

"You can smell your fear...why else would you smear someone who has "no chance"?"

No smears. Just facts and quotes. Nobody is afraid of a nutcase like Ron Paul. I would actually like to see him get the nomination. Once his record is exposed, he would suffer the biggest landslide defeat ever.

That particular article stated clearly that Ron Paul's own spokesman said he would not return the money.

yeah, soo?

worth repeating

I'd rather have Ron Paul taking donations from people he never met and doesnt agree with, even if they are unsavory..

rather than your likely choices who are all bought and sold through corporate interest and elite groups who control the candidate. ron paul is there to protect the average american.

BTW who is your candidate of choice Orally?

I know facts are annoying to you true believers, and the more facts I post, the angrier you get. Hahahaha.

Four years of psychology ... . This is more entertaining.

Well at least Ron Paul has the Unabomber vote.

shakespearessister.blogspot.co
m

I would take the Nazi money too, doesn't mean I am going to do what they want. Less money they have the better!

just to clarify... ron pauls wants to get rid of the irs and not replace it. all this talk about a fair tax should be in a huckabee thread but its not pauls position.
get rid of 700 bases over seas and we save a trillion a year.... no need for an income tax at that point

Posted by 503jc69 at 2008-01-03 02:33 PM |

How much does it cost to shut down a base? What happens to them we they're vacated? Should trouble arise in these areas what infrastructure would be used in their absence. Do you recommend ballistic nukes as the answer to all problems?





stop trying to police the world is the ticket.... operating 700 overseas bases costs tons of money, bring them home and put them on americas borders and the costs would be minimal in comparison.

why do you think the military gives more to paul then any other candidate? because he is soft on defense? please ... try again

Posted by 503jc69 at 2008-01-03 02:53 PM |

How much does it cost to shut down a base? What happens when they're vacated? Should trouble arise in these areas what infrastructure would be utilized in their absence? Do you advocate the use of ballistic nukes as treatment to all conflicts?



Show me where Ron Paul says he would criminalize abortion.

Go on now...


Posted by Repugnant at 2008-01-03 02:55 PM |

Ron Paul, during the debate asserted it should be left to the STATE and that in his opinion were it to be illegal it should be the DOCTOR who is prosecuted 1st.

and that in his opinion were it to be illegal it should be the DOCTOR who is prosecuted 1st.

Actually, he calls the doctor an "abortionist" and that is correct -- he would make it a criminal act for an "abortionist" to perform an abortion.

Good to see Ron Paul has the skinhead vote locked up as well.

dneiwert.blogspot.com

he would make it a criminal act for an "abortionist" to perform an abortion.

Posted by Bowa at 2008-01-03 04:03 PM


He would not make it a criminal act. He would leave it up to the STATEs. His opinion however, is that the doctor would be prosecuted 1st.

he would make it a criminal act for an "abortionist" to perform an abortion.


actually, no.. he wouldnt. It would be up to the state to determine the laws concerning these things.

understand Federalism?, its a simple fouth grade concept.

though prosecuting doctors would be the most logical step its no guarantee that would be the case

I like Ron Paul until it comes to foriegn policy.

Domestically Paul would accomplish little and likely nothing. He has 2 houses of congress to deal with.

We are not a dictatorship. Though it seems some would very much like that as long as it is their dictator in charge.

its a simple fouth grade concept.


They don't teach civics in fourth grade anymore.

This is how to color a pony.

There's a reason why NARAL gave Ron Paul a 0% rating


" As an obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 children, I have long been concerned with the rights of unborn people. I believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time.... Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. Because of this, attempts were made to fight against abortion using political convenience rather than principle...the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life... The worst offender of federalism is the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which not only indirectly surrenders the pro-life principle but actually directly undercuts the right to life by granting a specific exemption to abortionists! This exemption essentially allows some to take life with the sanction of federal law. By supporting this legislation, pro-lifers are expressly condoning a legal exemption for abortionists showing just how far astray some in the pro-life community have gone." -- Excerpted from " Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle" by Ron Paul

www.lewrockwell.com

I wouldnt expect Paul to accomplish much with congress other than spending cuts (much needed), however if he were to survive his term he would do a great service to the country by exposing waste and corruption that has been building like plaque on the heart of our nation.

We are not a dictatorship. Though it seems some would very much like that as long as it is their dictator in charge.


No one wants a dictator. We just want a new direction without the government and media trying to distract us with BS.

And when I say a new direction I mean one of rugged individualism. That is what created this country. We wouldn't have gotten past Roanoke Island if we couldn't depend on ourselves.

actually, no.. he wouldnt.

Actually, yes he would. He calls the life of an unborn a "fundamental right" and not one which could be abrogated by the States.

As he said in the essay I linked to above,

" Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life. In this way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral rights to life, liberty, and property. For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation."

AND

"The worst offender of federalism is the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which not only indirectly surrenders the pro-life principle but actually directly undercuts the right to life by granting a specific exemption to abortionists! This exemption essentially allows some to take life with the sanction of federal law. By supporting this legislation, pro-lifers are expressly condoning a legal exemption for abortionists showing just how far astray some in the pro-life community have gone." -- Ron Paul

You can try to say that Ron Paul would leave abortion rights up to the states, but his words and actions prove otherwise -- in fact, as his essay's chastisement of the "pro-Life" community for not being "pro-life" enough shows, he is the by far the most "pro-life" candidate in the field.

"get rid of 700 bases over seas and we save a trillion a year.... no need for an income tax at that point"


Really? A Trillion? Considering our entire 2008 defense budget is 725 Billion--i'm not sure how that number can be correct.


It must be fun to argue when unencumbered by facts.

Repugnant, this is worth repeating,

"Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade" -- Ron Paul

So while there might be reasons for you to support Ron Paul-- just remember that it is likely that you support him by ignoring completely positions that, for lack of a better term, you find "repugnant".

Which was my main point about Ron Paul followers in general in the first place -- that "It always seems to me that Ron Paul followers focus on one of his grand positions that resonate with them -- such as getting rid of the IRS, or "immediate withdrawl" from Iraq -- and then just ignore the rest of them."

Really? A Trillion? Considering our entire 2008 defense budget is 725 Billion--i'm not sure how that number can be correct.


It must be fun to argue when unencumbered by facts.

Posted by __b__ at 2008-01-03 04:25 PM |


Maybe he's taking into account the layoffs of future military personel not yet enlisted or born.

What part of the body-politic has been spared the cancerous ravages of corporate corruption? The entire system is marinated in a culture of violence and dishonesty. The real difference between the parties is minuscule but significant.

The Democrats have become the party of traditional imperialism spearheaded by Brzezinski, Holbrooke, Albright and the other guardians of Empire. These are the master-puppeteers who operate behind the scenes for the real powerbrokers. Their focus is mainly on Central Asia; controlling resources from the Caspian Basin, "pacifying" Afghanistan, rallying the EU to a greater role in NATO, and continuing the apocryphal "war on terror" into infinity.

The Republican Party has become the party of neoconservatives. Their operational plan is "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". It aligns the US with the foreign policy objectives of Israel's Likud Party. The focus is balkanizing the Middle East, undermining Arab nationalism, installing US-Israeli client regimes, and controlling the regions prodigious natural resources. It is a straightforward strategy for regional hegemony.

This is the real split between the parties, not the meaningless Democrat-Republican labels. Presently, the traditional imperialists have regained the upper-hand because the Bush bandwagon has swerved off the road and into the ditch.

What's important for voters is that neither party has any intention of restoring the Bill of Rights, slowing the outsourcing of jobs, or abandoning the war on terror.

excerpted from Mike Whitney @ Counterpunch

bowa , a quick search shows your assertion to be inaccurate..

Unborn Victims of Violence Act basically says that certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military...

Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states.

so if Paul were to turn abortion control over to the states as he has repeatedly said on the campaign trail, this law would not pertain.


bowa , a quick search shows your assertion to be inaccurate..

Actually, a quick search shows my assertion just the opposite.

What part of "For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation." did you not understand when Ron Paul said it?

Face it, Ron paul believes that the right to life of the unborn is a fundamental right that cannot be abrogated by the states -- and if he had his way, he would overturn "Roe v Wade" and prosecute those doctors who perform them.

Why are you trying to argue that Ron Paul is willing to allow any state to kill the unborn, when he has so strenuously argued that no government -- state or otherwise has a right to do so -- because he says that the unborn have a fundamental right to life.

bowa , a quick search shows your assertion to be inaccurate..

Actually, a quick search shows my assertion to be just the opposite. Completely accurate.

What part of "For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation." did you not understand when Ron Paul said it?

Face it, Ron paul believes that the right to life of the unborn is a fundamental right that cannot be abrogated by the states -- and if he had his way, he would overturn "Roe v Wade" and prosecute those doctors who perform them.

Why are you trying to argue that Ron Paul is willing to allow any state to kill the unborn, when he has so strenuously argued that no government -- state or otherwise has a right to do so -- because he says that the unborn have a fundamental right to life.

Wow! Bowa appears to be more worried about a single truth telling republican than the entire Dem field.

Damn, that's funny fer Spud!

Is Ron Paul a li'l nuts?

Spud likes to say that he appears half crazy at times but that the rest of the GOPhers appear to be 100% crazy all of the time so that gives him an enormous advantage.

Folk who are involved in his campaign are certainly waking up to the fact that media is not left and right as has been argued and asserted endlessly on this blog and elsewhere but the MSM are pro-corporate first and foremost.

Ron Paul aint a corporately pre-approved candidate like the rest of the righty tighty crowd and the MSM have been trying to give him his "Dean Scream" moment from the very start of his campaign.

Trying and failing.

So now they are just letting morons like Jeffrey Tubesox loose on 'em when they are not actively ignoring the man and his message furiously.

Spud is firmly commited to seeing Batack Obama getting the Dem nod and becoming the next POTUS.

He's captured me spuddish endorsement a while back (fer wotever that's worth) but on th eright Spud is endorse Ron Paul.

And not just because it pisses Bowa off neither.

Although, admittedly, that is kinda extra icing on the cake!

Spud luffs icing! Sweet! ^_^

Be Well.

He's captured me spuddish endorsement a while back (fer wotever that's worth)

It's worth NO-Thing. You're a Canook.


but on th eright Spud is endorse Ron Paul.

See above.

So while there might be reasons for you to support Ron Paul-- just remember that it is likely that you support him by ignoring completely positions that, for lack of a better term, you find "repugnant"...

It always seems to me that Ron Paul followers focus on one of his grand positions that resonate with them -- such as getting rid of the IRS, or "immediate withdrawl" from Iraq -- and then just ignore the rest of them."

Posted by Bowa



Actually your assumption is off base. first of all, abortion is not anywhere near the top of my priorities for selecting a president. It weighs no more heavier to me than Gay Marriage or whatever else social tool they can drag out every election to manipulate the right wing base.

So weighing the fact that Ron Paul want to make abortion a state issue does not make or break my confidence in him as a candidate.

www.ronpaul2008.com

I cant state it any more clearly than his website said when it put in huge print,

" " I am strongly pro life. Life begins at conception ... but, I do not believe this should be a federal matter. All issues of life and violence and crime and murder are dealt with at the local level. " "

Ron Paul himself says that as President he would refer law to the state on this issue and it would never be a descision he had to make, how fucking hard is this for you to understand?

bowa , a quick search shows your assertion to be inaccurate..

Actually, a quick search shows my assertion to be just the opposite. Completely accurate.

Face it, Ron paul believes that the right to life of the unborn is a fundamental right that cannot be abrogated by the states -- and if he had his way, he would overturn "Roe v Wade" and prosecute those doctors who perform them.

Why are you trying to argue that Ron Paul is willing to allow any state to kill the unborn, when he has so strenuously argued that no government -- state or otherwise has a right to do so -- because he says that the unborn have a fundamental right to life.



because he says it himself in bold print on his website.. NOW!!!

can u read 2 gud?

repeating again for the lame brained...

www.ronpaul2008.com


" I am strongly pro life. Life begins at conception ... but, I do not believe this should be a federal matter. All issues of life and violence and crime and murder are dealt with at the local level. "

rinse your head, repeat...

Ron Paul himself says that as President he would refer law to the state on this issue and it would never be a descision he had to make, how fucking hard is this for you to understand?

Its impossible for him to understand that someone would become president and REDUCE the power of the office.

The idea that Ron Paul would not use the office of the President as a way to covertly shuttle around his mistresses or force people to convert to his lifestyle because he knows what's good for you is a complete shock to Bowa.

Is it just me, or does anybody else think male gynecologists (like Ron Paul) are kind of creepy?

Spud cracks Repugnant up.

Repugnant wonders what Spud sees in Barrack that inspires him over Paul.

Repugnant doesnt trust Barrack because he is CFR, and will just be more of the same establishment politics.

Repugnant wonders who rocks harder
www.nashvillescene.com

but on th eright Spud is endorse Ron Paul.

Spud, you are a Canadian -- who cares who you endorse -- you don't have a dog in this hunt no matter what. All you are is a "voyeur" who seems to be more interested in the politics of the US then in his own nation. Nothing wrong with that of course-- I know that America is the greatest nation on earth in so many ways -- who wouldn't be more interested in it then their own. But the bottom line is -- who cares what a Canadian about our electoral process? I know I sure don't.

If anything, I think whenever any candidate gets almost fanatical support from a foreigner, it makes me even more suspect about that candidate -- what is in the best interest of America, certainly is not what is in the best interest of Canadians, or Britons, or the French -- and vice-versa. If I was a Canadian, I would be suspect of an American that had a fanatical support for a canuck candidate -- of course, I doubt that there are any americans, like you, who are so obsessed in Canadian politics.

Ron Paul campaign poster

www.ronpaulexposed.com

I think whenever any candidate gets almost fanatical support from a foreigner, it makes me even more suspect about that candidate -- what is in the best interest of America



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaa


who do you think owns the majority of the corporations that fund all of our mainstream candidates you monkey ass? International influence is inescapeable.

Bill O-

I just came back from a lunch and nearly choked on my own tongue laughing. You couldn't have done more spot-on impersonations of a weasel. You officially win a "Get out of the house more" award! The "get your nose out of Jeff Hannity's ass" award is later. I assure you your well in the running.

If Ron Paul can make you feel the way you do, he's got my vote.

Ron Paul: hypocrite

ap.google.com

Here is a clue Bowa, who we elect as President effects the entire world, just look what Bush has done, our economic structure can make or break other countries, so there is major interest all over the world in who we elect.


Face it the world is pissed at America in part because your dumbass voted for George Bush twice.

"If Ron Paul can make you feel the way you do, he's got my vote."

I don't really care about Ron Paul. I just like annoying his nutcase followers.

Another Paul campaign poster:

www.ronpaulexposed.com

get a life then

I don't really care about Ron Paul. I just like annoying his nutcase followers.

Well then Troll this is my last respose to you

Enjoy!

Ron Paul campaign poster

www.ronpaulexposed.com


Oh, poor tired Bill.

Why don't you dig up where Ron Paul forgot to floss one night in 1978? I'm sure that will really convince the people who are already ignoring you.

Ron Paul himself says that as President he would refer law to the state on this issue and it would never be a descision he had to make, how fucking hard is this for you to understand?

So when was he lying? Now or when he said this:

"every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice....Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder." -- Ron Paul
www.l4l.org

International influence is inescapeable

I never said international influence isn't. But I think we need a President that puts America first, and does not see himself (or herself) as either a "citizen of the world" or an "isolationist".


Ron Paul, in his own words:

"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable."

Poor Bill O. He's so adorable with his little links. Reminds me of the guy who stood out in the quad of my college every day handing out photocopied "information" to students that supposedly debunked the "myth" of evolution.

re: Paul and evolution - If Paul thinks we didn't evolve, then I guess he'd just have to settle for being in the republican majority. Its a stupid position scientifically, but nowhere near a vital issue of the day politically.

Ron Paul is the only guy sparking actual practical debate in this country from a grass-roots level. Clinton is more of the same. Obama is just a kinder, gentler Clinton with a nicer approach to new problems. 911 and Romney are jokers or Bush-lites depending on your viewpoint. Huckabee is about as original as a fart in the wind. Edwards is a calculating pretty boy with a fake "war-inspector" badge. Whose left to stir the pot of ideas? Ron Paul. Like him or hate him, talking about real stuff is the good part.

Ron Paul is as much a Republican as Lyndon LaRouche is a Democrat. I'd have a little more respect for Perot II if he actually had the nuts to run as a Libertarian. Wouldn't vote for him, though. But a lot of the economics professors at Caltech would be so very pleased.

Why are Ron Paul supporters so crazy?

www.fitsnews.com

"Poor Bill O. He's so adorable with his little links."

And you have absolutely no response to a single Ron Paul quote that I've posted. Cat got your tongue?

My response is simple: So What?

Show me something that matters to me and normal people, or run the risk of being all smoke no fire.

Something he might have said once in passing is about as helpful as as something I might have passed a few days ago.

"My response is simple: So What?"

Your response is definitely simple. You ignore the fact that his statements prove that he is a rightwing loon. Other than that, he's great.

Why are Ron Paul supporters so crazy?

Maybe because their candidate is crazy:

"Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime (an America with legalized abortion) has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder." -- Ron Paul

Saying that those who perform and have abortions are mass murderers to be compared with the Nazis, is about extreme as it gets.

And on top of that SPUD supports him.

:-)

Ron Paul's loony ideas about the gold standard:

www.gnn.tv

Proof is in the pudding. Not in your head.

"Paul's solution? Gold, young feller, gold! As with Bush and tax cuts, Paul has never found a problem for which gold was not the solution. A longtime proponent of returning the US to the gold standard, Paul's writings on gold--and there are a lot of them--are liberally sprinkled with references to the Federal Reserve, Bretton Woods, and the rest of the usual gang of tropes; they imbue the shiny, somewhat arbitrarily chosen metal with almost supernatural powers to save us from the impending doom that is always just around the corner but, somehow, never quite arrives. Fortunately, Barron's notes, the ever-helpful Paul had just the thing for the discerning gold buyer, "a coin dealer you can trust": Ron Paul & Co., Dealers in Precious Metals and Rare Coins."

If a monkey went to congress, voted intelligently, maintained principles, and actually stood up against the culture of greed and corruption that was all around them, and then ran for president against this bunch, I'd vote for them.

I really don't care that they habitually ate their own feces. Why? Because it effects me in absolutely no practical way. His personal views are just that. His record speaks for itself. You've yet to mention it. Might that be because nothing within it helps your cause? Or are you just that stubbornly ignorant where you'll define a man solely on the most extreme things he's ever said?

Ron Paul is the only guy sparking actual practical debate in this country from a grass-roots level

Kevin, Ron Paul is an oddity in the republican party that has allowed the anti-war Left to stick it to the GOP during this campaign season. That's the main core of his grass roots appeal. He appeals to the most extreme sides of the debate- both right and left -- and like most "purist" libertarians, many of his positions are not practical though they might hold an emotional appeal.


And gold may be an arbitrary metal (although history dictates otherwise) from one point of view, but a system based on nothing but supply and lagging or irrational indicators is nothing to write home about. Now the line is not arbitrary, but subject to constant politically motivated re-definition. I fail to see any clear moral high ground in the position that he's loony for his position on the gold standard. And the implication that he's evil for selling gold investments sounds a bit Chavez-esque to me. Talk about loony.

Bowa,

You sound like an agent for the status quo. Do you really fear change that much? You should meet some Paul supporters. All ends of the spectrum. Your blanket categorizations about his supporters being "extremists" is no better than the racist crap southern politicians spewed in the 50's and 60's. Trying to marginalize normal people and practical ideas never works. That's likely why he's making more money now than ever.

"His record speaks for itself. You've yet to mention it."

I've been mentioning it all day. His statements are part of his record, as well as his 100% voting record as rated by the John Birch Society, as well as all his cracked brain policy proposals like returning to the gold standard, abolishing progressive taxation, pulling out of the UN, etc.

"Bowa,

You sound like an agent for the status quo. Do you really fear change that much?"

Yes he does. Just ask his underwear. They are screaming to be washed!

"You sound like an agent for the status quo. "

The status quo sucks, but it beats going back to the 19th century.

You just listed some good ideas. Tell me why we need the UN. Tell me how supply side economics is superior to a system based on something tangible. Tell me why we need an income tax as opposed to, say, a consumption tax where those who consume more pay more, and normal people who live meagerly pay much less.

His record is looking pretty good. You are looking pretty loony. And what the hell does it matter what the John Birch society thinks of his record? Look at the actual record...don't steal someone else's view.

I fail to see any clear moral high ground in the position that he's loony for his position on the gold standard.

I think linking our economy, which is so integrated into a global economy to a finite commodity like Gold is pretty loony in this day and age. Especially if all the other major trading nations don't go along with it.

And since when does it matter what statements a man makes while he does his work. You really want to listen to our current president's behind-closed-doors views about, say, steroids? Or Hillary's personal views about, say, corruption in fund raising?

I know its hard when you are losing so badly, but try and keep your eyes on the ball.

"His record is looking pretty good. "

His record sucks. That's why those crazies at the John Birch Society love him.

"And since when does it matter what statements a man makes while he does his work"

Yeah, that's the ticket. Let's ignore what candidates actually say! Let's assume that Ron Paul doesn't believe a word he says!. You have a very unique approach to evaluating candidates. In fact, a loony approach, like the candidate himself.

You sound like an agent for the status quo

Kevin, Well, if you mean that I don't think that women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them are mass murderers and should be compared to Nazis, then I guess you are right.

If you mean that I don't think that the IRS and other federal agencies should be abolished, then I guess you are right.

If you mean that I don't think that the US cannot be an isolationist in the world, and we have a right and duty to protect our interests, support our allies and defend and promote democracy around the world as a moral prerogative...then I guess you are right.

If you mean that an outmoded system like the gold standard should be reimplemented..then I guess you are right.

etc. etc. etc.

Bowa,

I'm curious, where did you read that Paul wanted to re-establish the gold standard if elected president? I see nothing even close on his website. Are we even talking real life anymore, or are we in fantasy-land again where we get to take random past statements, take them out of context, and turn them into current into policy?

Ron Paul has always been in favor of bringing back the gold standard, idiot. Apparently his critics know more about his views than you do.

Bowa-

Thanks. You demonstrated exactly my point. People who dont like Paul dont even know his positions. Using the word "isolationist" really shows your true colors. Only a true parrot would say something that wrong.

You confuse Ron Paul with a made of caricature. The straw man technique. That's not going to fly with people who actually pay attention.

Bowa and Bill O-

Show me where in recent history he has said or written that he would bring back the gold standard if elected.

If you can't find anything recent, then admit to me you are a moron. Then all is forgiven.

While he criticized the move to supply side economics, he's not advocated bringing it back as president. I told you so is not the same as lets go backwards. Just like "isolationist" is VERY different than "non-interventionist".

Simple stuff.

Tell me why we need the UN.
Because, among other things, it is an important "safety valve" that allows nations a somewhat neutral forum to mediate various issues. I may not like a lot of what the UN has become since its creation after WW2, but I certainly can appreciate the reason and necessity for its existence.

Tell me how supply side economics is superior to a system based on something tangible.

Because our economy and the global economy is too large to link it to such a finite commodity like Gold -- we would never be able to mine enough gold to keep up with growth.

Tell me why we need an income tax as opposed to, say, a consumption tax where those who consume more pay more, and normal people who live meagerly pay much less.

Because a consumption tax would be the most oppressive and regressive tax on the poor that could ever be implemented -- the rich would figure out a way around paying the tax -- and a huge blackmarket economy would be created to avoid paying the tax -- resulting in huge damage to this nation on many levels.

"People who dont like Paul dont even know his positions."

You've used that phony response about a hundred times now. Get some new material.

"Show me where in recent history he has said or written that he would bring back the gold standard if elected. "

He has been preaching for a return to the gold standard for decades. If he "forgets" about it as President, what does that make him other than another lying politician?

Bowa-

"Because, among other things, it is an important "safety valve" that allows nations a somewhat neutral forum to mediate various issues. I may not like a lot of what the UN has become since its creation after WW2, but I certainly can appreciate the reason and necessity for its existence. "

A grand mission statement is not a justification. It is an excuse to exist. They do nothing of relevance anymore, and the power struggle within is such that it might as well not exist at all.

"Because our economy and the global economy is too large to link it to such a finite commodity like Gold -- we would never be able to mine enough gold to keep up with growth."

I'll bet your answer to inflation is to print more money, too. Back to econ 101 for you.

"Because a consumption tax would be the most oppressive and regressive tax on the poor that could ever be implemented -- the rich would figure out a way around paying the tax -- and a huge blackmarket economy would be created to avoid paying the tax -- resulting in huge damage to this nation on many levels."

What are you smoking? Its an equal tax on ALL commodities and possibly even investments. Poor people would pay only for the shit they bought. You could even exempt milk and bread if you so choose. Their inability to buy cheap Nike's is not going to tug at my heart. And the blackmarket slippery slope is a bunch of crap. We've got a much more difficult tax situation to moniter now, and there are no economic indicators nearly as good as sales tax revenue. Seems to me its a win-win. A bit of police work would do the rest.

Posted by Bowa at 2008-01-03 07:05 PM

Excellent response, Bowa.

Bill O-

You are desperate. And you can't comprehend. Next time get something more than "he said she said" before you pretend to know something.

I refuse to continue engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

""Show me where in recent history he has said or written that he would bring back the gold standard if elected. "

Shit, dude, he writes about it on his campaign website.

www.ronpaul2008.com

Bowa-

Bill O is your cheerleader? I'm so sorry. Maybe we should just stop now to avoid your embarrassment. I know I'd rather gracefully bow out then have to deal with a coalition of stupidity backing me.

"You are desperate. And you can't comprehend."

Still no arguments from you, nothing but whining and pointless responses like this. You're a waste of bandwith.

Good job Bill O-

You found exactly what I said. He thought it was a mistake to move away from it. The conclusion at the end:

"Americans should question why we have a central bank at all, and whose interests it serves. The laws of supply and demand work better than any central banker to determine both the correct supply of money in the economy and the interest rate at which capital is available- without the political favoritism and secrecy that characterize central banks. Americans should not tolerate the manipulation of our economy and the inflation of our currency by an unaccountable institution."

We should ask questions. Sounds perfectly reasonable. Where's it say he'd go back to gold? It doesn't. And who's stupid?

"What are you smoking? "

Idiot, everybody knows that consumption taxes are regressive. Who do you Paulbots think you're fooling?

"Still no arguments from you, nothing but whining and pointless responses like this"

The truth hurts don't it?

And you are the one who started throwing around accusations. I asked you to back them up. You proved you couldn't. You tried and tried. But nothing came out but meaningless crap. Thanks for the effort there, sporto. Next time try playing with yourself, you'll have more to show for it in the end.

They do nothing of relevance anymore, and the power struggle within is such that it might as well not exist at all.

Nothing? I can't find fault with UNICEF or the fight against AIDS that the UN is fighting globally and especially in Africa. As for power struggles in the UN-- isn't that the whole point -- that the power struggles between nations exist in a common legislative forum instead of always on the battlefield?

I'll bet your answer to inflation is to print more money, too. Back to econ 101 for you.

Nope. I think linking of our currency to the stability and credibility of our government is fine with me. But as a Ron Paul supporter who wants to overhaul the whole thing, I can see why you would be against "fiat money".

A bit of police work would do the rest.

Yeah, the federal government is going to implement a at least a 30% sales tax, and just "A bit of police work" is going to stop the rich from avoiding it, and prevent the creation of a huge blackmarket economy. What are you smoking?

Bill O-

"everybody knows that consumption taxes are regressive"

Gee that's funny. an across the board tax on all investments and goods is more unfair to poor people who don't buy them than taking a chunk of their income? You really are a wonder there retard. Time for a diaper change yet? You've already apparently missed your nap. I suppose you'll be out wandering the neighborhood later carrying on about those damn Paulites and how they want to legalize chicken screwing. Cute, but still retarded.

"And who's stupid?"

You. How many does he have to say he's in favor of the gold standard? He should stop talking about it if he's no longer in favor of it. Until then, he's an advocate of the gold standard. Period.

No Bill, you are just too stupid to comprehend that when he talks of the gold standard, it is in PAST TENSE! We shouldn't have moved. Never is it: move back now! He merely criticizes the role of the central bank.

I know. Your a bit slow.

"I asked you to back them up. "

I backed up everything, retard. And you have no response.

Keep on posting, junior. You just prove what a whacked out bunch of true believers Ron Paul cultists are.

Where's it say he'd go back to gold?

"The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better." - Ron Paul, 2006
www.house.gov

Sure sounds like a Ron Paul presidency believes that we should return to the gold standard -- "the sooner the better". Are you suggesting that a President Ron Paul would just do nothing and wait for the "chaos that one day will ensue" or would he take the actions necessary to prevent that chaos...ie. return to the Gold standard that he believes in?

Bowa-

You are so typical in your lame slippery slope, the world will end, BS arguments. No, a huge blackmarket will not overtake our lives.Police deal with this even today. It is well within their power and ability. What is more difficult is tracking down the rich tax evaders who shelter money and take advantage of a tax code only a few people understand.

And charity is hardly the reason for keeping the bloated UN afloat. Charity will happen with or without the UN. It already does. And its better!

"The sooner the better."

Bet that retard will still deny that Ron Paul wants to return to the gold standard.

Bowa-

You can't read! It says "We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent..."

So he says we'd switch if the circumstances and economic culture demand it. And he says he thinks they will demand it at some point in the future. Seems pretty reasonable to me. How's that mean he'd switch back as a policy?

Poor Bill-
Cant read. Cant think straight. I even imagine you've shit yourself several times over. Good stuff, my man. Good stuff.

"All this energy is remarkable since the FairTax is a bad idea, so bad you could call it the ScareTax....Implement the FairTax, though, and the U.S. will find its tax-scape taking on a certain sleaziness. Vendors will materialize on street corners selling that DVD player without tax.

Even citizens who never thought of breaking the law will snatch up those DVDs. Thirty percent is simply too great a take to ignore. Especially vulnerable will be younger people, who already view property rights as an option, not a given. Think Napster -- if you don't pay for downloads, you certainly won't feel the need to pay a sales tax six times the one your state charges."--
www.nysun.com

Much like "prohibition" -- overnight, millions of honest. law abiding citizens will be turned into criminals.

And on top of that, unless the 16th amendment is repealed first -- we would be saddled with both an income tax and an oppressive consumption tax. Like the VAT and Income tax in Europe.

So anyway you look at it -- the "Fair Tax" is anything but.

Bowa & Bill o-

Thanks for killing a dead day for me. Even though I still have absolutely zero respect for your analytical or comprehension abilities, I do believe you could still be gentlemen one day. In good time.

And with that, I'm out. Keep up the blind hate! I hear the girls love it.

Bowa-

Sorry missed the last post. Your best yet. DOOM AND GLOOM! THE SKY IS FALLING! CATS AND DOGS, LIVING TOGETHER! MASS HYSTERIA!

Maybe you should sell tin hats?

Good night ya silly bastard.

"And with that, I'm out."

Since you haven't responded to a single Ron Paul quote, you might as well run away.

"Maybe you should sell tin hats?"

I hear they sell them by the boatload at Ron Paul campaign events.

Bill O-

Since you missed it the first million times: here it is again:

SO WHAT???

Did you get it this time? Does it sink in? Your quotes are utter GARBAGE! They prove nothing. They mean nothing. and most of all, they mean everything to you. And you'll have it no other way. And thats what makes you so special. Like a little retarded snowflake. MMMMM.

So he says we'd switch if the circumstances and economic culture demand it. And he says he thinks they will demand it at some point in the future. Seems pretty reasonable to me. How's that mean he'd switch back as a policy?

Hmmm....let's see if I can follow your flawed argument:.

Rep. Ron Paul believes it is an "economic law" that currency should be linked to "things of real value"....such as gold and silver.

Rep. Ron Paul believes that "Chaos will one day ensue" if we remain on the "fiat money" system.

Rep. Ron Paul believes that the day "is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent"

Rep. Ron Paul believes "the sooner the better" that this chaos happens to our current system.

BUT

President Ron Paul would do absolutely nothing to try and prevent this chaos and return to a "gold standard" before catastrophic events happen which force the US to change its system.


Okay sure.

What are you smoking again?

Ron Paul? Who the hell is Ron Paul?

"Your quotes are utter GARBAGE! "

True. After all, Ron Paul uttered them. Glad you finally agree that he spouts nothing but "utter garbage."

""And with that, I'm out."

Promises, promises.

Ron Paul is smarter than you

"higher gold prices mainly reflect monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve. Dwelling on current events and their effect on gold prices reflects concern for symptoms rather than an understanding of the actual cause of these price increases. Without an enormous increase in the money supply over the past 35 years and a worldwide paper monetary system, this increase in the price of gold would not have occurred.

Certainly geo-political events in the Middle East under a gold standard would not alter its price, though they could affect the supply of oil and cause oil prices to rise. Only under conditions created by excessive paper money would one expect all or most prices to rise. This is a mere reflection of the devaluation of the dollar."

Ron Paul

Because our economy and the global economy is too large to link it to such a finite commodity like Gold -- we would never be able to mine enough gold to keep up with growth.


Gee, imagine a society where your static savings increases in value instead of Decreases in value, who could stand for such a thing?

You obviously need to support the private banks who dictate inflation because you know we don't expect the dollar to keep its value, after all its been proven that devaluing the dollar is great for America.

Bowa your logic is crippling...sad for you.

*Paper money permits the regressive inflation tax to be passed off on the poor and the middle class.
*
Holding gold helps preserve and store wealth, but technically gold is not a true investment.
*
Since 2001 the dollar has been devalued by 60%.
*
In 1934 FDR devalued the dollar by 41%.
*
In 1971 Nixon devalued the dollar by 7.9%.
*
In 1973 Nixon devalued the dollar by 10%.


RP

"after all its been proven that devaluing the dollar is great for America."

Nobody made that argument, dummy.

Wow, if the dollar has lost so much value, that explains why American's standard of living has declined to 1934 levels!

LOL.

Kevin:

BTW

Here's Ron Paul, on the floor of the Congress, advocating the abolishment of the federal reserve and actively pushing for the return to the "gold standard.":

"In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold." -- Ron Paul
www.house.gov

Bowa your logic is crippling...sad for you.

Not nearly as crippling as the "gold standard" was during the "Great Depression".

so your saying the gold standard caused the great depression?

Try agian history buff, the central banks called in all their loans and contracted the money supply.

"Blaming the gold standard for the Great Depression ignores the substantial monetary manipulations of the Federal Reserve System in the 1920s and 1930s--manipulations that would have been utterly impossible if the country had not already abandoned major elements of the gold standard and bestowed wide discretionary powers upon government monetary authorities. As Rothbard and many others have documented, the money and credit supply was substantially increased between 1924 and 1929 by the Federal Reserve, which then presided over just the opposite: a contraction of the money supply by one-third between 1929 and 1933. This was not the normal operations of an unfettered gold standard or of a free market at work; rather, it was the result of monetary mischief at the hands of government."


Your beloved masters at the Fed caused the great depression with the first great dip in the manufactured "economic cycle". If you weren't blind you would recognize it as a transfer of wealth from the prosperous middle class at the time back to the bankers.

Try reading about it before you regurgitate nonsense.

Stanford University Professor Milton Friedman stated: "The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression."

Yes the Gold Standard failed, but it was by design of those who controlled the gold, the central bankers who gained a private monopoly on the control of our money supply.

The gold standard appeared to be highly successful from about 1870 to the beginning of World War I in 1913-14. During the so-called "classical" gold standard period, international trade and capital flows expanded markedly, and central banks experienced relatively few problems ensuring that their currencies retained their legal value.

On Sunday, December 23, 1913, two days before Christmas, while most of Congress was on vacation, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. Wilson would later express profound regret over his tragic decision, stating:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world - no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Less than one year later Congress declared the 16th Amendment as having been ratified, although it wasn't, creating the Internal Revenue Service which became the de-facto collection agency for the Federal Reserve System. Its only duty was to tax the income of citizens to make the interest payments for the U.S. Government loans that would soon follow.

Under orders of the FED, on April 5, 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Presidential order 6102, which required all Americans to deliver all gold to their local Federal Reserve Bank on or before April 28, 1933.

Any violators would be fined up to $10,000, imprisoned up to ten years, or both for knowingly violating this order. This gold was then offered by the Fed owners to any foreign, non-U.S. citizen, at $35.00 per ounce. Over the entire previous 100 years, gold had remained at a stable value, increasing only from $18.93 per ounce to $20.69 per ounce.

In return the Fed loaned an endless money supply to our govt based on a usury system. This system was designed to keep the govt paying interest without paying the principal, all the while loaning the govt more money,

Since then, every U.S. citizen has become an asset of the government, pledged at a specific dollar amount to pay debt through future taxation. Thus, every American citizen is in debt from birth (via future taxation), and is, for all practical purposes, property of the creditors, slaves to the privately owned Federal Reserve System.

so your saying the gold standard caused the great depression?

No, of course not. But it certainly contributed to it.

Here's an article from the "Encyclopedia Brittanica" about how -- do they regurgitate nonsense too?

"Some economists believe that the Federal Reserve allowed or caused the huge declines in the American money supply partly to preserve the gold standard. Under the gold standard, each country set the value of its currency in terms of gold and took monetary actions to defend the fixed price....While there is debate about the role the gold standard played in limiting U.S. monetary policy, there is no question that it was a key factor in the transmission of America's economic decline to the rest of the world."
www.britannica.com

BOWA the federal reserve was created in 1913 and in less than 20 years had caused the great depression. The gold standard had been our countries monetary system since its inception and there where were all the crashes of the 1800s? There were none that I have ever learned about during that period. If you can find some, let us know.

The gold standard had been our countries monetary system since its inception, and where were all the crashes of the 1800s?*

screwed that sentence up.

I think you missed the point Bowa, the Gold standard was sabotaged by the people with all the control over our money supply, they caused the crisis then blamed the gold to force the president to render it illegal so that they could exchange it for a bunch of paper. they then hoarded most and sold some for profit in foreign markets.

Would you take a stack of gold for a tree in your yard if you had the power to do it? its economic alchemy

If you dont believe me then read the words of Kennedy

Dig it all here
www.jfklibrary.org

John F Kennedy
"The very word, secrecy, is repugnant in a free and open society, and we are as a people, inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings."

John F Kennedy
" ... there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it's in my control."

John F Kennedy
"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence; on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free
choice, on guerillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which as conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly-knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

Was Kennedy a conspiracy theorist too? How Ironic.

Ron Paul 10% in Iowa!!!! 10% and about .1% time being talked about in the press.

NewsMax is in good company:
Musilms Vote Ron Paul

Assalaamu Alaikum Brothers and Sisters,
You can help by sharing and sending this note to all the Muslims you know as well as by registering as a Republican and voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries in your state.
Till now Muslims and Americans have not had an American Presidential candidate that really suited their best interests. This election is unique in that we have a man running as a Republican that speaks the truth.
Brothers and Sisters, please vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries. It's our obligation to come together and try to stand up for not only our best interests, but the best interests of the entire Ummah.

I think linking of our currency to the stability and credibility of our government is fine with me.
Posted by Bowa



"after all its been proven that devaluing the dollar is great for America."
Posted by Repugnant


Nobody made that argument, dummy.
Posted by Bill_OReilly



It takes a pretty stupid or narrow minded individual to lack the ability of inference. Track the value of the dollar since we handed over control of our money supply to the FEDS - educate yourself and stop the utter nonsense.

"Track the value of the dollar since we handed over control of our money supply to the FEDS - educate yourself and stop the utter nonsense."

Speaking of being a dummy, the talking points about the dollar being down 95% or whatever since the Fed are stupid. Are Americans' standard of living down 95%?

"The gold standard had been our countries monetary system since its inception,"

Wrong.

"The United States adopted the gold standard de facto in 1873 after the end of the Civil War, reportedly in an attempt to restrict the growth of the money supply. In reality, the move was pushed for by prominent U.S. bankers who financed the Civil War with paper money, and wanted to redeem their loans at much higher values than they went out at. By tying the value of the dollar to gold, massive deflation drove the value of the dollar up thus raising the value of their loans."

www.gnn.tv

As a result, the latter half of the 19th century saw massive recessions that shook the country, including the depression of the 1870s. This culminated in the great depression of the 1890s, from which the American Federation of Labor (the largest union at the time) barely survived. The the sum result was to restrict working-class access to capital, and pave the way for the robber-baron era of early laissez-faire capitalism in the U.S. This was essential to the industrialization of the nation into a prominent world power.

And who do you support?

Supporting your 'crazy' accusations with half-cocked conspiracy theory about Nazis? And why, exactly is replacing the IRS with the fair tax unfeasible?

The people supporting conspiracy theories are Ron Paul and his supporters.

Be careful! The Black helicopters/Trilateral Commission/UN/Jewish bankers/Federal Reserve are out to get you! And steal your gold!

"And steal your gold!"

Posted by Bill_OReilly

Oh man, I haven't had any Acapulco Gold since 1970.

RonPaul.....You've been Billy Boated....

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable