Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

To address your last paragraph first, you do not like direct elections, etc-so it does not seem that you have much room to talk about the negative aspects of having others mix up contracts on you-and if I didn't like direct election, I could even use that direct election to choose someone who would abolish it.

Part of the binding contract in question allows for, in strictly defined circumstances, the amendment of that contract.

You want ron paul to give people the greatest voice in government, but you want to do that by abolishing direct elections? Not sure I follow.

The constitution called for people apparently wiser than me to have the power to amend it, as you think it should, and they did so in such a way as to let me have a hand-this is government working exactly as you say it should-so what's wrong?

Was there a question about state's rights here, that I missed or something? Blah blah blah tenth amendment, we know, so?

A broad worldview does not mean looking to government to create rules and apply them equally to all, that has rather little to do with the broadness of your view-and even less when those rules are designed so that when applied to rich people they prosper, but when applied to poor people they become poorer. What is ANY broader about this view, than one that says that everyone deserves an even shot at success in life, regardless of the sins (from gamboling to insider trading, causing respectively poverty or wealth) of their fathers?

Also, what about the 18th amendment? Yeah, it's now a part of tho constitution......

So, again, how can you possibly want a strict interpretation of the constitution, but, just not the parts you don't like? It says that it can be amended, and that was a part of the original document, so it's clearly NOT changing the rules on anyone who agreed to the original document if, 200 years later, we have some changes that have been conducted in accordance with the rules for such changes.

 

What are you talking about? Where in my last post did I say I do not like direct elections?

Amendment by who?

Once again, where do you 'think' that I said I do not like direct elections?

No, the Constitution called for the people and the States to be the ones with the power to amend it, not simply those who we elect to represent us, or the Judges they appoint to adjudicate the application of it through reinterpretation based upon accomplishing their own agenda.

Do you not recognize the fact that the U.S. is not a single State, but 50 sovereign States?

You seem to base having an equal shot at achieving success, requiring government action to assure more equality in the results by imposing the failures upon all of society. That is not the function of government.

Yes, the 18th amendment remains a part of the Constitution, although it was repealed by the 21st amendment. The same would be true if the 16th and 17th amendments were repealed, they would remain in the Constitution.

I didn't say that at all. I would like to feel that our elected politicians and Judges (Supreme Court Justices) along with all the citizenry had the same interpretation of the Constitution based upon the original intent, and changes to how it is interpreted be made only through the process of amendment, leaving both the governed and those who we allow to govern us with a clear understanding of how to interpret it. Then the application of it would leave little to argue over.

 

Standard dodging bullshit from individual. Starting at the beginning, paragraph for paragraph, other than the two that I note should be read as a pair:

you didn't say that in your last paragraph, I was applying other things you said to what you said in your last paragraph, as they ARE related.

Amendment by those who have been tasked with running the government, as outlined by the constitution, dipshit.....

You said you don't like an amendment that moves in the direction of direct elections, so, it follows, that you don't like direct elections. You have also said, all over the place, that the US is not a democracy but a republic, and you DO NOT LIKE DIRECT ELECTIONS.

The constitution has been amended in accordance with it's own guidelines, and judges having the common law power to alter it has been established from very shortly after it was written, well within the lifetimes of the founders, by the FIRST JUSTICE.

The us a powerful federal government, and 50 weak state governments. We tried it the other way around with the articles, and the US was going down the tubes, THAT'S WHY THEY WROTE THE FUCKIN' CONSTITUTION, WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO. BECAUSE NOT HAVING A REAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS GOING TO TURN US BACK INTO COLONIES.

You keep saying what I seem to think about equality (despite me repeatedly correcting you) -but where do you get your ideas on equality? Equality before the law, for instance-if the actions of your father can fuck you over, how about the son of a murderer is summarily imprisoned? And where the fuck do you get the idea that the government just does not do anything? The government does have, as you say, the responsibility and right to make laws and enforce them, why should a law only punish, when a law might say that, for example, someone with no reasonable shot at an acceptable standard of living, through no fault of their own, be looked after to a degree? WHY not? WHY should the government only recognise physical crimes against others? Society is a social construct, and it does not end at "don't murder everyone", why is it more okay to blame the guy who's not paid enough flipping burgers to make his rent and food bills for his own situation, than it is to blame a rape or murder victim for asking for it? I guess if he was rich he would just walk away from his obligations, but people gotta eat and he could even be jailed if he did that. I do not want failure spread, rather I want the totally useless fruits of massive success to a degree that are totally un-usable by the "owner" to be spread around society, to help those who invariably lost out when the very-rich got that way.

And as an appendage to that last paragraph, you should recall, by now, that I support taxing to a point that does not effect the quality of life of the taxed, and a vastly simplified tax code with no allowance for offshore banking. HOW is it spreading failure if it does not effect those people being taxed? You're not successful by ANY means that matters, you would not be taxed any more than now, if as much. The same would hold with people making five times what you do-and probably a lot more.


This is quite true, what is your point? My point concerning those amendments is that they ARE there, and they ARE a part of this constitution-there is no tiny government clause, no citibank clause-the constitution does not agree with you. The constitution's writer was all about the "yeoman farmer", the person you want to have to surrender vastly more spending power than people who have ten thousand times his net assets.

Most people have the same interpretation on the things we're talking about, other than YOU. The problems are law enforcement and "tough on crime" assholes perpetually attacking the bill of rights.

 

It's a sad day people, Ron Paul has openly declared defeat.. He stated today that although his delegate count was slowly growing it would not be enough to win the nomination. So... everybody go for GARY JOHNSON

 

You accuse me of dodging with a response worded so incoherently?

Please explain what you are trying to say, moron.

No, I have not said that I do not like direct elections. And yes, the U.S. is a Republic and NOT a Democracy.

Where do you find Judges given the power to 'alter' the Constitution?

You obviously have no understanding at all of the Constitution, it did not set out to create a Centralized Federal government with greater powers than the States or the people, but to Unite the sovereign States as one Nation with the powers of the Federal government enumerated within the Constitution being those which the people and the States consented to in becoming a member.

Don't you ever get tired of the rich vs the poor argument? Those who possess great wealth have taken nothing from the poor. The wealth of a Nation is its productivity, and if you want a share you should participate, not look for government to give you a handout. Aside from that there are charitable organizations who will provide most basic needs while you find a way to participate in the labor force. Where did you obtain the belief that the working members of society owe you something?

Considering that 10% of $1,000 is $100, and 10% of $1,000,000 is $100,000, a flat tax on EVERYONE with no loopholes would tax the rich much more than the poor, and if everyone was liable for taxes government spending would be much easier for the people to control.

Obviously you wish to ignore the effect the 16th and 17th amendment, along with the Federal Reserve act have had on how our government operates, and the debt we are continually accruing.

Perhaps "most" people on a site which, predominately supports a Left wing (neoMarxist?) agenda.

 

Individual

Trolling - any more of this and I will ban you.

 

cmon bro do u even know what trolling is... it's not a personal attack. you can do better, individual is far from a troll

he is just stubborn like most of the people here posting continuous remarks, just tell him to lay off the insults.

 

Originally Posted by RooRshack View Post
Amendment by those who have been tasked with running the government, as outlined by the constitution, dipshit.....

SO it's one rule for the Left and another for the Right? Or should I have simply used dipshit in my response?

Perhaps you should post a list of acceptable vulgarities and pejoratives to select from. I'll make note of 'dipshit' for future use when needed.

 

If nothing else, let's hope some of the Republicans in the House and Senate take note of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Scott Walker, and a few others who are less apt to compromise in ways which at best only create larger and more difficult problems to be solved in the future.

 

Indie

LOL – sorry but this is hilarious, I mean go and look at your posts, you are incredibly closed minded. You seem incapable of questioning any of your ideas even when you can’t even address let alone refute the many criticisms of them. Your world view rather than been broader seems blinkered and myopic.

I’m unsure what you mean – is this a continuation of your irrational ‘shit happens’ argument that seems to be based on the quackery of Social Darwinism?

 

Indie

Problem here is that you still are unable to defend right wing libertarianism against the charge that it would give more power and influence to wealth (at the expense of all other groups).

And the problem that you don’t seem to what to give ‘the people’ the greatest voice in their government having proposed the idea that wealth should have greater voting power to block the majority vote if needs be.

LOL – you love rhetoric and slogans but you seem incapable of defending you statements from criticism.

All these things have outstanding criticisms that remain unaddressed; you know it, I know it and anyone that has followed your post would know it too.

But I know and you know that rather than answer those criticisms you will evade – you’ll claim you can’t remember and ask me to repeat (although I have done many times) or you’ll say you have addressed them (although you’ll be unable to produce any evidence) or…or…or

Why can’t you address the criticisms of your views?

 

Indie

Oh and again this has been covered

Eliminating progressive taxation in favour of a flat tax does not affect everyone equally the higher you go the more you get but the less you ‘need’ it.
Take the 10% across the board –

100 = 10

1000 = 100

10,000 = 1000

100,000 = 10,000

1,000,000 = 100,000

10,000,000 = 1,000,000

100,000,000 = 10,000,000

1,000,000,000 = 100,000,000

Up to a 100,000 the sums you get back are not that great, I mean the “average price of a new car — $28,929 including financing, according to Comerica Bank's latest Auto Affordability Index”. Now the average wage in the US is around $40,000 (and remember many are below that).

But once you step over ten million you are getting a good return but you probably are less likely to really need it. And a billionaire gets a hundred million dollars that will buy a lot of lobbying.

The power of wealth in US society has always been great (the political system was set up for that) but its power and influence has grown with the lowering of the tax rates.

Fall in top rate tax 1945 - 94%, 1970 – 70%, 1982 - 50%, 1990 - 28%,
2010 – 33%

And as pointed out

Fall in Capital Gains tax 1979 -35%, 1978 – 28%, 1981 – 20% 1987 – 28%, 1997 – 20%, 2003 – 15%
*

Also as pointed out during the period when the top rate tax was relatively high the US was doing very well economically something that it probably could have sustained if it hadn’t chosen to follow anti-communist and neoliberal policies.

*

So let us take 1970

Lowest rate 14%

Average salary 7,500 dollars

Tax rate of over $4000 19% Tax rate on over $8000 22%

Tax rate on over 200,000 was 70%

1000 = 140

10,000 = 2200

1,000,000 = 700,000

10,000,000 = 7,000,000

 

Indie

Man you are funny so anything to the left of your rather extreme right wing ideas is neoMarxist?

 

Individual

RE: Trolling

I usually give people a bit of leeway, politics can get people hot under the collar so I let some things slide (I used to let it slide completely but learnt my lessen on that).

You were give that chance already but continued and were given your first official warning on the 11-23-2011.

This is your second official warning.

Balbus

 

I admit, my responses are probly hard to read, we go in such tight circles that it's really hard to take you seriously, and I don't have the patience to make a bunch of little quotes or colour my text or whatever.....

But I answered exactly what you said, exactly in order, and did say so.

As for where you called me a moron, I was obviously talking about where you asked WHO is amending the constitution-a question that was out of place, and meaningless-we know exactly who is amending it, and IT says that they may, no matter what you say about the "intentions" of those who wrote the thing.

You are very clearly lacking some basic mathematical skills-the wealth of a nation is finite, no matter how many little green slips they print. If you have a whole lot, someone has less--there is no such thing as "making" money, and if it puddles it is damaging the rest of the country and it's society.

Yeah, the fed's evil, because we let it be and it's run by mentally retarded organ grinder monkeys...... Get over it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bBx2Y5HhplI

This guy is buttloads richer than individual, but does not agree about wealth and freedom from taxes.

edit-power to judge constitutionality, effectively altering the constitution by choosing interpretation, was established by the first supreme court justice of the US, very quickly. And again, no, the constitution was written because of the abysmal failure of the articles of confederation-we kept the same name, but the reason our country has a name that sounds like an international union, and has a name for "provinces" that makes them sound like nations, is that that's how it was, UNTIL the constitution changed that.

 

Yes Bal, I too find our conversations quite hilarious. You should take a closer look at your own ideas. It would appear that you believe failure of one person is caused by the success of another, therefore those who are successful are indebted to those who have failed, through no fault of their own, of course. You look for a worst case example and exploit it as though it is the norm, and then imply that it is I whose world view is blinkered and myopic. It's a waste of time to even try and refute what I can only describe as irrational emotional argument.

Essentially what I was trying to point out is that it is both fiscally and socially irresponsible for government to seize the property (wealth) of one group of society as the means of supporting another group of society, recognizing that wealth is not a finite quantity, but a product of those who seek it. Government provided handouts does not create wealth but only debt. Government should concern itself with creating an environment in which jobs are most likely to be created, allowing the job creators, the private sector, to do what only 'it' can do, create jobs and profits rather than debts. It's somewhat difficult to think we are making progress when the National debt exceeds $16,000,000,000,000 with Federal deficit spending exceeding more than $1,000,000,000,000 going forward, and unfunded liabilities ranging upward of $100,000,000,000,000. On top of that every single State of the Union has enormous outstanding debts, and unfunded liabilities, which in addition to the Federal governments are growing each and every day. So you might say that quackery Socialist programs is what has brought us to the point we are at currently, as well as the EU it would appear.

 

I've figured out a big part of your understanding problem, individual.

You have a mystical understanding of money. Perhaps once upon a time some well meaning adult told you that you can do anything you set your mind to, and if you want a million dollars you can make it in america?

As I said, im my post above, there is finite money-even if everyone really was equal, using your plan (fight it out, but with fists made of money) someone would lose, and lose everything, because there are people who will take anything they can.

I don't think you contest that the government may make laws to prevent you from kicking people in the teeth, and to punish you if you do. If you do the monetary equivilent of kicking someone in the teeth, they lose everything, they could even die. Money is a social construct, but it has become a very important one, and can effect the wellbeing of individuals--WHY do you not think it's the government's business?

Unless you think, maybe, the government also has no business telling you not to kick people in the teeth? Or maybe only your LOCAL government can do that? Maybe you're just saying the same basic things as the angsty teenage "anarchist", and you don't want to be told what to do by anyone, but you're old enough to think that an anarchist is something like a commie, so you don't use that word and say "constitution" instead?

Then when nobody's trying to make you act nicer than you are now (of course you're only not nice because they're trying to make you, duh!) you'll occasionally do SOMETHING for SOMEONE, and be a hero of teenage angst (err..... old-fart angst), with slip-ups in which you acknowledge that you're not the center of the universe.


Rant time's up, bed time's begun.

 

Indie

I do all the time, and I’ll defend them against criticism and if I can’t I’d change them. You seem unable to defend your ideas but still hold on to them and I wonder why?

Oh you really should read the posts rather than just making up what you think is in them. I mean can you explain how you came to this conclusion?

Has a child earned the ‘success’ of being born into advantage? Should a child be blamed for being born into ‘failure’?

LOL - that’s because you don’t seem able to refute what you describe as these irrational emotional arguments, I mean if they are so irrational shouldn’t that make them easy to refute?

BUT instead you claim hilariously that you are not doing so because it would be a waste of your time – oh come on man do you think that works?

If you could refute them you would, you’d gleefully pound them into the ground then dance on the remains, the fact you are not doing that I think is proof enough that you can’t.

Is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

 

Indie

Again the deserving/undeserving argument we’ve had several times and which you prefer to ignore rather than address.

This old self serving argument claims that the deserving and productive are those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. While the undeserving are those who do ask for ‘handouts’ thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who contribute nothing to society but public debt and so don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

And as I pointed out at the time this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance.

To me it’s not a handout it should be an investment a way to improve the social and material infrastructure (and therefore the economy).

I agree – try reading Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

 

Indie

Been covered -

After WWII the US’s national debt was up to around 117% of GDP it was brought down in just 36 years less than one generation (by 1981 it was down to 32.5%) until successive right wing and neo-liberal policies (tax cuts and anti-communist military spending) from the 1980 onward increased it cumulating in the profligate spending and tax cuts of the Bush Admin. At the same time the free market ideology (deregulation, hollowing out of manufacturing and a belief that the ‘new’ markets were safe) set up the financial sector for a fall and has caused the debt to rise to around 80-90% of GDP.

The problem isn’t ‘government’ the problem is a right wing, wealth supported, neo-liberal, free market ideology that hijacked the system.

Try - The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=435209&f=36


Fall in top rate tax
1945 - 94%
1970 – 70%
1982 - 50%
1990 - 28%
2010 – 33%


Rise in top levels of pay
In the 1950’s CEO pay was 25-50 times that of an average worker that has risen to 300-500 times by 2007.
A bigger gap than any other developed nation.

Trade deficit
1960 – Trade surplus of 3.5 billion
2008 – Trade deficit of 690 billion
(The last time the US posted a trade surplus was in 1975)

Decline in manufacturing
1965 - Manufacturing accounted for 53% of the US’s economy.
2004 – It accounted for 9%
The Economist (10/1/2005) stated: “For the first time since the industrial revolution, fewer than 10% of American workers are now employed in manufacturing.”