Hey I need some Help

[Working Poor]

I have started a thread in another forum about Ron Paul and why I am for him. You can read it here:

http://www.talkwhatever.com/showthread.php?t=10634

If you want to register and join in the discussion that would be great! In the mean time I am looking for good links from vailid resources about the trillions of dollars missing of our money. Does anyone have some links to good articles? Thanks in advance!!

[Working Poor]

Thank you Mr. Coons for coming over and kicking some butt!!

[nickcoons]

Thank you Mr. Coons for coming over and kicking some butt!!

I'm trying :). The forum seems to be filled with hard-core liberals (in the modern sense), and they are difficult minds to open.

[Working Poor]

I think the fact the post is getting read by others is so good though you never know who might read it and start thinking for themselves instead of expecting the government to do it for them...

[Lou337]

Here's a pdf presentation in slide form from the Government Accountability Office. The slide showing our liabilities is on page 6.

$52 trillion dollars worth of liabilities.

http://gao.gov/cghome/d08417cg.pdf

*Hope link shows up*

[Working Poor]

Also nick the one person "roz "is being antagonistic to a liberal on another thread there so don't let her debate get you down lets keep plowing the field.

And Lou there doesn't seem to be a link there buddy...

[familydog]

I'm trying :). The forum seems to be filled with hard-core liberals (in the modern sense), and they are difficult minds to open.

*applause*

[ARealConservative]

I'm trying :). The forum seems to be filled with hard-core liberals (in the modern sense), and they are difficult minds to open.

You are doing a great job!

you should stress the difference between direct and indirect taxation.

Some founders quotes are around talking about the evil of voting from government coffers that would of fit into that discussion as well when she quoted Locke.

You aren't going to convince her - she has a bleeding heart and that is her outlook for government. But you can crush her arguments for anyone else that comes along to read them.

People don't like to be on the losing end of debates, so they will see if they disagree with you, they are on the losing end.

[nickcoons]

You are doing a great job!

you should stress the difference between direct and indirect taxation.

Some founders quotes are around talking about the evil of voting from government coffers that would of fit into that discussion as well when she quoted Locke.

There are plenty of things that I probably could have said. But I'm very long-winded (as you've no doubt noticed from my posts on this forum), and on multiple occasions, my messages got kicked back stating that I was beyond the 10,000 character limit :).


You aren't going to convince her - she has a bleeding heart and that is her outlook for government. But you can crush her arguments for anyone else that comes along to read them.

People don't like to be on the losing end of debates, so they will see if they disagree with you, they are on the losing end.

You're probably right that I won't convince her. She seems well-spoken, which means she's likely been involved for quite some time and has a vested interest in her views. And I agree that passers-by can gain something from observing the discussion.

In my last post, I'm taking a different approach. Most liberals don't like the religious right to legislate their beliefs on to others (i.e. no gay marriage, banning abortion, that sort of thing). I'm trying to demonstrate to her that imposing her ethics on society via legislation, even though her ethics may be different, is fundamentally the same, and is equally as oppressive.

In the end, I can only hope that she has a reasoning mind, and that she's come to her current conclusions out of naivety, not out of emotion; because the former is easier to fix.

[amy31416]

It's funny that bleeding heart types can't understand the simple fact that if you donated directly to causes, rather than running the money through the filter of government, the people who need help would get more assistance for less money.

[My First Name Is Paul]

How about arguing from a different perspective? The old federation vs. republic argument of let the states decide.

I am in favor of letting states become socialist societies if that is what those states prefer. I am in favor of this because it supports my argument of freedom. For some people, government is their god. Why shouldn't there be a place for them in this world? And freeing up all of the taxes sent off to the federal government would give them in their state more money to spend on their government programs to rid the state of all evils.

By keeping these interests at a state level, it is likely that both sides of the argument would be happier as they would both experience some greater measure of success.

So my argument in this case would be that I am in favor of letting liberals pursue and even achieve their goals in such a way that it allows those in favor of limited government pursue and achieve our goals. Isn't that freedom?

[Working Poor]

I am looking at the number of reads on thread over there which now is at 210. How many of those people are sitting on the fence when it comes to voting? How many are going to vote for Ron Paul as a result of reading this thread?

How many people will be influenced by what some one has read there?

I think engaging people at other forums in debates without doing any name calling or spewing negativity could be helpful in getting more people to see what we see.

Ron Paul followers have been labeled as fanatics and spammers by some and we want to avoid being labeled in that way at all cost. I want to thank all of you who have joined the debate there and all who have offer links and feed back here as well. You guys rock!!! :cool:

[AmericaFyeah92]

How about arguing from a different perspective? The old federation vs. republic argument of let the states decide.

I am in favor of letting states become socialist societies if that is what those states prefer. I am in favor of this because it supports my argument of freedom. For some people, government is their god. Why shouldn't there be a place for them in this world? And freeing up all of the taxes sent off to the federal government would give them in their state more money to spend on their government programs to rid the state of all evils.

By keeping these interests at a state level, it is likely that both sides of the argument would be happier as they would both experience some greater measure of success.

So my argument in this case would be that I am in favor of letting liberals pursue and even achieve their goals in such a way that it allows those in favor of limited government pursue and achieve our goals. Isn't that freedom?

great point. I say, if the people of state X want a socialist government, let them. whereas if the pople of state Y want a libertarian government, let them.

[nickcoons]

I am in favor of letting states become socialist societies if that is what those states prefer. I am in favor of this because it supports my argument of freedom. For some people, government is their god. Why shouldn't there be a place for them in this world? And freeing up all of the taxes sent off to the federal government would give them in their state more money to spend on their government programs to rid the state of all evils.

By keeping these interests at a state level, it is likely that both sides of the argument would be happier as they would both experience some greater measure of success.

So my argument in this case would be that I am in favor of letting liberals pursue and even achieve their goals in such a way that it allows those in favor of limited government pursue and achieve our goals. Isn't that freedom?

No, not really. Socialism is the antithesis of freedom (unless you're suggesting that literally 100% of people would unanimously want this, which is probably not what you're suggesting).

Here's an example. Let's say that own property in a state, and everyone around you votes that they want to take your house to further the good of society for some reason. You are the only vote opposing this (obviously, because it's your property). Is this okay because it's at a state level instead of a federal level?

The only way a state could rightfully do this would be to become a large home-owners associations. An HOA can restrict what the property owners can do, because the HOA existed before the property, and anyone buying property in an HOA community must sign a document agreeing to terms before they can transfer ownership. While HOAs are sometimes horribly-managed, there is nothing wrong with this arrangement. The only reason this works is because everyone must agree to the terms before becoming property owners within the jurisdiction of the HOA. If anyone owned property there before the HOA came into existence, and therefore did not agree to the terms as a condition of purchasing, they could not be rightfully bound to the jurisdiction of the HOA.

For a state, this would work exactly the same way. To do this in a moral way, you'd have to put into place the state's authority before the property owners existed, or you'd have to have all current property owners unanimously agree to the terms and agree to make sure that those that they transfer property to agree to be bound by those terms. Not very likely.

I would argue that in a practical sense, it's better to have government oppression (i.e. welfare, drug laws, universal health care, etc) at a state level than at a federal level because it's easier to fight. So from that perspective I would support, as an incremental improvement, taking usurped powers from the federal government and (temporarily) giving them to the states.. then I'd focus on fighting my state's government for my freedoms.

[My First Name Is Paul]

Honestly, I'm not clear on the HOA discussion you made as I don't think any state would get away with passing such a ridiculous ex post facto law, although they could use imminent domain to create state owned properties. But even how much of that they'd actually get away with is debatable.

You truly support my argument when you state that you'd support it on an incremental basis. It is my hope that people in opposition to your opinions on government policy would also agree with supporting a republic for the very same reasons - that it would bring them one step closer to achieving their goals. And what I think would likely happen is that some states would move closer to more socialist policies while others would move towards more free market type policies. Both sides would win.

[yongrel]

Nick, after reading your discussion on the other forum, if I were in Arizona you would have my vote. Awesome posts!

[nickcoons]

Honestly, I'm not clear on the HOA discussion you made as I don't think any state would get away with passing such a ridiculous ex post facto law, although they could use imminent domain to create state owned properties. But even how much of that they'd actually get away with is debatable.

I didn't suggest that a state become an HOA, I was just using an HOA as an example of how an organization has consented authority over the property of others. The state does not. For the state to rightfully (totally different from "legally") exert their will on your property, you would have to either enter into that agreement as a condition of purchasing the property, or you'd have to enter into it afterwards. Since 100% of a state's population would have to do so in order to institute socialism in a free society, and since 100% of a state's population would never do so, socialism cannot exist in a free society.

"Majority" does not make "right", only voluntary consent of all those involved does. And in the case of a state, this would mean unanimous consent.

[nickcoons]

Nick, after reading your discussion on the other forum, if I were in Arizona you would have my vote. Awesome posts!

Thank you. Perhaps you know some people in Arizona that you can send my way :).

[My First Name Is Paul]

US Congressional Candidate in 2010, Arizona's 5th District:
http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com

So if you were elected, would you work to support turning all of the U.S. into a free market society, or would you work to strengthen the republic by supporting states' rights?

[nickcoons]

So if you were elected, would you work to support turning all of the U.S. into a free market society, or would you work to strengthen the republic by supporting states' rights?

I don't see those as being mutually exclusive. Supporting states' rights would go a long way toward promoting a free-market society across the entire country. In a sense, the states would be competitors, and states that embodied a free-market system would win over states that chose to become socialist, because people flee from socialism if they have a choice.

Since I would take an oath to uphold the Constitution, I would do just that. Which means that I would not attempt to exert any authority over a state where the Constitution did not allow. And if a state wanted to be socialist, I would not sponsor or support a bill that forcefully put an end to that choice. Besides, it wouldn't be necessary, because socialism is unsustainable in the long-term, and they would end up having to reform themselves.

There are sometimes issues where constitutionalism and libertarianism clash. I've written an article about it that you may be interested in:

http://www.nickcoons.com/blogs/comments.php?blog_id=90

[My First Name Is Paul]

There are sometimes issues where constitutionalism and libertarianism clash. I've written an article about it that you may be interested in:

http://www.nickcoons.com/blogs/comments.php?blog_id=90

"I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake." -A Man For All Seasons

I left a comment!

[amy31416]

Thank you. Perhaps you know some people in Arizona that you can send my way :).

I have an aunt and uncle in your district! I emailed them about you and will see what they have to say. :)

[angelatc]

I think the fact the post is getting read by others is so good though you never know who might read it and start thinking for themselves instead of expecting the government to do it for them...

Quoted for truth. Plant seeds, and the liberty forest will grow.

[anonymous6728]

Google Wantagate april 26 2008 and apparently the Bushes and the Clintons have stolen trillions from the public over the last 20 years and are doing everything from being discovered and arrested.

Throw in the Galactic Federation of Light, the Vatican, and rumors of people being cloned that were assassinated and you have the biggest hoax on the internet.

On the other hand, when you look at all the underworld figures Clinton pardoned, you know somethings wrong somewhere. Here's a taste of the scandal if you haven't had the pleasure of reading about it.

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2008/02/lee-emil-wanta.html

...tumbling down the rabbit hole.

[Working Poor]

Okay back to my original request for help in finding some verifiable sources with links to money being unaccounted for.

Nick? anybody?

[Working Poor]

Just wanted ya'll to know that my thread on Ron Paul @ talkwhatever.com got the "thread of the month" award with lots of help from folks here thanks for going over there and posting especially to Nick Coons for all his input!!