Ron Paul to OPEN eyes !

I tried to rep you Bro., but it will not let me.

I have ho idea how many times, I tried in vain to explain that taxes pay for things that we in America take granted such as the fact that we do not really think twice about opening a can of green beans, or a soda, etc. Traffic lights, bridges the infrastructure of our nation needs a great deal of work not less work that is why I supported Obama's push to repair it.

The next Katrina will happen somewhere, sometime in this country. We need the government. I am not always happy with all of the decisions and red tape. The answer is to fix it.

 

Here in KY, Rand Paul the son of Ron Paul was elected Senator last year. His supporters ranged from conservative Republicans and Tea bag party backers, btw in the South there is no real difference between the two. But, he also had support from our wonderful KKK groups and their first cousins the 'Sovereign Citizens' who recently were exposed on 60 Minutes.

The Southern Poverty Law Center an organization that tracks hate groups says the following about them:

The strange subculture of the sovereign citizens movement, whose adherents hold truly bizarre, complex antigovernment beliefs, has been growing at a fast pace since the late 2000s. Sovereigns believe that they — not judges, juries, law enforcement or elected officials — get to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore, and they don't think they should have to pay taxes. Sovereigns are clogging up the courts with indecipherable filings and when cornered, many of them lash out in rage, frustration and, in the most extreme cases, acts of deadly violence, usually directed against government officials. In May 2010, for example, a father-son team of sovereigns murdered two police officers with an assault rifle when they were pulled over on the interstate while traveling through West Memphis, Ark.

The movement is rooted in racism and anti-Semitism, though most sovereigns, many of whom are African American, are unaware of their beliefs' origins. In the early 1980s, the sovereign citizens movement mostly attracted white supremacists and anti-Semites, mainly because sovereign theories originated in groups that saw Jews as working behind the scenes to manipulate financial institutions and control the government. Most early sovereigns, and some of those who are still on the scene, believed that being white was a prerequisite to becoming a sovereign citizen. They argued that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guaranteed citizenship to African Americans and everyone else born on U.S. soil, also made black Americans permanently subject to federal and state governments, unlike themselves.

Before you start praising someone and wanting to jump in bed with them you do your research and understand their motivations first.

If you want to read more check this out.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement

 

Can't see or WON'T see? Many of these candidates have had excellent educations and are not stupid. I can only deduce that they are DELIBERATELY cynically manipulating the racial and social animus that lies below the surface in the angry frustrated white working-class section of the electorate. Historically populist movements that end up unleashing violence that ultimately become hard to contain often begin by encouraging resentments against minorities by members of the majority community and a sense of grievance. And this grievance is almost NEVER against the real sources of white working-class troubles: outsourcing, government manipulation in favor of corporate interests, etc.

And if they're doing that cynically, to me they are all the more dangerous.

 

@ paniro187.

Your posts are appreciated and I am glad there is a small handful of intelligent people on this forum.

If you look at my earlier posts on politics NONE of these other posters have ever been able to refute any facts I presented to them they simply use a run around theory based on the their personal feelings that humans are incapable of doing for self.

After awhile it becomes frustrating when people attack without FACTS...
(and they call me blind)

I should not stoop their level and start name call but the indirect definition of idiot is, "lacking in common sense, perception, or normal intelligence."
They seem to fit the bill quite accurately.

 

The FDA is the group responsible for the ban/regulation on raw milk and people DO NOT want this regulation. People want the right to CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES. It's not just me getting my way it's people having the RIGHT to choose what they want be it raw or pasteurized milk.

America is SUPPOSE to be a republic just because the government tells me to do something doesn't make their influence right or legal.

You ARE WRONG ! Most Americans DO NOT agree with the FDA's ability to regulate food. People do not vote to put laws in places (anymore). Congress or the mayor has this power whether people like it or not.

Thanks to O'bama looks like Presidents can completely BREAK the law and go to war without congresses approval.

 

Co fucking sign

 

No one ever stated that governments can do no wrong. After all, when you have a system in which you have government officials from a conservative and liberal aligned Checks and Balances system, it'll affect some people for the better and others, not so much. But all in all, the effects won't be greatly big.

The most likely scenario is, if it weren't for government intervention with the New Deal, many minorities AND poor whites would still be pissing in pots back in the day and the economy would be far more divided by class and it would be an unequal footing for everyone. This would have grave effects to this day by a greater economic slump between classes.

Also, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while greatly helped open doors for a wide array of reasons, even to this day there are still restaurants and businesses that actually practice some form of racism, whether you believe it or not. In other words, without it, we would still have attitudes akin to the 1980s on social fronts. Oh and for the record, we also wouldn't have the amount of wealthy minorities and women in this case either.

You're being silly. Where's the proof on what's being stated here?

If everyone is being forced to get along with another, then there wouldn't be a lot of voluntary segregation in which many people often practice in this country. So I seriously don't see where government falls into this. Where's your rationale in this? If anything, you're still being paranoid because I sure as hell don't feel the government is forcing me to get along with anyone because they are white or of a minority status. You're too childish.

Sadly, the only person on these forums who feel that way are you and some of the other paranoid bunch who think there's an overreach in government. All of the crap you've spewed on these forums are all but a child's dream. Libertarians, while all good and decent people who are smart, tend to be incredibly naive because they think that government is overreaching their steps. There is such a thing as a Checks and Balances system in which all areas of government can remind one another that they are overstepping themselves.

And if you think a strict libertarian society will be better for EVERYONE? Then you're making a bold statement without any facts or thinking to back it up. If anything, in a strict libertarian society, people are free to discriminate whomever, chemical pollutants would be more abundant, and in general, our country would lack any measures of keeping its help up and thus, our nation would be ranked much lower in the good aspects and much higher in the negative aspects. And why is this? The majority of people are incredibly foolish, selfish, and dumb. And perhaps even much lazier as a whole than now.

No one on these forums feel negatively affected with some government intervention, even white people. Why? Because government actually benefits people through their nuances of programs. We aren't forced to used them if we don't, but the OPTION is there, especially for poor people who need those subsidies to give them some leverage. Honestly, if you like to think on libertarian principles, then it's all nice and dandy. But treating that concept like it's the perfect thing? You're delusional.

As it still stands, the best for government would be a government that's a hybrid of capitalism and socialist policies, which have been working quite well for not just the US, but also Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, The Netherlands, Germany, and other countries in which people benefited from it all.

 

I have actually refuted some of your facts but with no avail. :smt012

 

The fucker is a hypothalamus rat! Of course he won't listen because he's too stubborn!

 

I highlighted one specific sentence Paniro. Go back and read it instead of making a random comment without knowing what I was commenting on.

And yes, I googled it - although I already knew the answer.

 

I responded with LINKS. MSG # 52

 

The FDA is not the group responsible for the ban/regulation on raw milk within your state or any other state. There are several states that are allowed to sale raw milk. Each state made the decision to ban or not to. You can thank your local citizen on that ban.

The republic is suppose to be controlled by the people! This is exactly what is happening!

Your link makes only what I said more obvious. People are not happy with the fact that the FDA has too little of power. They are not happy with the fact that the FDA can not and wil not be able to check every drug and food supply so that it can be healthy for the american people. It is not against the FDA existing but thank you for that article.

People decided to place those ELECTED officials in. They have to live with their choices. Those elected officials are still americans and must vote most of the time with their people. Just last election, I voted on some bils that became law so you are wrong on that account.

Wars require approval by congress. This is not a war. I may not be happy with the third fight but I know when a war starts. which is at the approval of congress.

 

Like most people with far reaching ideas, their comments are unsupported, uninformed, exaggerations, misinformation and sound bites.

In many ways the government is our savior, against the onslaught of corporate interests that seek to gain ever more control and push their bottom line agendas. Without the oversight of government, corporations and financial market investors would reduce this country to a true land of haves and have nots.

It's not the government that tells you how to think, it's the corporations, lest you forget about the influence of advertising, lobbyists and marketers to affect our decisions in every aspect of our lives. Sure, governments regulate behavior, collect taxes and make some decisions that aren't popular. But, if they didn't we would have far fewer services than we do now. We certainly wouldn't have social security, minimum wages, safe working conditions and an attempt to minimize discrimination in the work place. We would not have had unions whose benefits migrated and have become commonplace for most workers.

I can't give the government full credit for the hiring policies that affect African Americans. It was the protests of those who had so long been denied equal assess to jobs. Later, government laws ensured that you couldn't pay a Black person less than a White person for the same job. Laws were also enacted to ensure that companies doing work with the federal government must not discriminate in hiring decisions based on race, age and sex. But, perhaps in your mind that's a bad thing, something intrusive and unnecessary. The only problem is that you don't have to look very hard to find companies in the news that routinely engage in such activity.

The very idea of governments trying to enforce safety rules to protect us on the roads through NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Admin.). How about regulating the food we eat to ensure that farmers don't use "nice" chemicals like DDT, or practices that seek to eliminate other diseases associated with improper processing, think mad cow disease, the young children that died after eating hamburgers from fast food outlets. Is this the kind of overreaching you mean? As a citizen you can smoke, drink raw milk and engage in most conduct that affects only yourself. But, if endanger the lives of others, someone should be accountable.

ALL white people might not have made the decision not to hire Black people. But, it sure didn't happen in any meaningful way until laws were passed. Often those who were hired faced the prospect of lower wages and no opportunities. So, you tell me why there would have been a change without laws. Oh yeah, that's right, Black people could continue to look forward to menial jobs in service areas.

This issue of going back to the Gold Standard is pure nonsense. Anyone who's studies economics understands that this system had problematic because it meant that all nations had to work together and agree to abide by the rules of the system, kinda like OPEC. We know how well that works. More important though, governments have shifted monetary policy toward full employment, to create a robust and stable economy. Though government spending without the assets is frowned upon, we now have a system that allows us to control the economy that we lacked previously.

It's an equally ridiculous argument to talk about social programs when defense spending is the by far the largest component of the federal spending. You obviously know very little about the details of social programs, how little they provide, and how little the recipient has to have to qualify for the meager assistance that they're provided.

I'm sure that nothing will change your mind though, because people like you are zealots, clinging to ideas like prophetic teachings. It would do you well to get out and research the validity of the concepts you throw about so carelessly.

 

Note to self: Rep points for swirlman07 for this post. Thank you!

 

No problem. As you said in your post, we have to at least attempt to meet this misinformation with an alternative that represents rationale and sanity. I don't give Americans a lot of credit, but in the final analysis I think that most people would understand that this guy has dangerous and unrealistic ideas.

 

And let's not forget...strict constitutional believers seem to not realize that by thinking it's a perfect doctrine will only further delude the real aspects of it altogether.

 

Yes, that bunch and the revisionists who try to change the interpretation of the constitution to suit their needs, for instance that reverse discrimination makes sense in a country where equality has never been achieved, please...

 

When that happens, we can no longer label them as conservatives. Rather, give them the name they so deserve: Reactionary Fascists.

 

Know your subject first.

Pres. Reagan invaded Grenada with ground forces and Pres. H.W. Bush invaded Panama with ground forces with no Congressional approval. Pres. Obama ordered a missile strike.

Trying to suggest that Pres. Obama set precedence or started a war is false.

 

Yes, a republic with a representative form of government. In case you didn't realize it. This means that the laws passed by your representatives, whether you personally like them or not, are legal. As another poster reminded you, get your facts straight. You're only demonstrated that you are capable of parroting what someone else has told you without knowing the accuracy of the information.