PDA

View Full Version : A simple proposal of HOW to drastically SHRINK the government




Truth Warrior
12-02-2008, 10:40 AM
List and rank the current government functions 1 to N in order of overall importance with #1 being the top. Whack the bottom 80% and just see who complains. If nobody without a vested interest, then just do it again. :) BTW, this system scales very nicely both up and down.<IMHO> :D

Voilą a 96% reduction in government. Simple!

nickcoons
12-02-2008, 11:06 PM
List and rank the current government functions 1 to N in order of overall importance with #1 being the top. Whack the bottom 80% and just see who complains. If nobody without a vested interest, then just do it again. :) BTW, this system scales very nicely both up and down.<IMHO> :D

Voilą a 96% reduction in government. Simple!

1 - N/A
2 - Courts
3 - Police
4 - National Defense
5 - (I can't think of anything)

So now that we eliminate the bottom 80%, we're left only with option #1. I'm happy with that.

Pauls' Revere
12-02-2008, 11:40 PM
List and rank the current government functions 1 to N in order of overall importance with #1 being the top. Whack the bottom 80% and just see who complains. If nobody without a vested interest, then just do it again. :) BTW, this system scales very nicely both up and down.<IMHO> :D

Voilą a 96% reduction in government. Simple!

Close you almost had it!

Use the Pareto Analysis or more common known as the 80/20 rule. A statistical methodology where 20% of the causes are causing 80% of the problems. This you continue to do until all problems are eliminated. We studied this in my logistics course work.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pareto+analysis&aq=f&oq=
Use this in conjunction with the Bell Curve and standard deviation for "capture" and you've got dynamite in your hands.

xd9fan
12-03-2008, 06:04 AM
they are not going to go without a show of force.

Americans dont have the balls

Truth Warrior
12-03-2008, 06:24 AM
1 - N/A
2 - Courts
3 - Police
4 - National Defense
5 - (I can't think of anything)

So now that we eliminate the bottom 80%, we're left only with option #1. I'm happy with that. There are THOUSANDS of things that the government does. The "law factory" has been very busy over the last 220 years. :p They didn't get to a 4 TRILLION+ $ annual budget and a $100 TRILLION national debt Leviathan tyrannical monstrosity overnight, nor by just sitting on their hands. :rolleyes:

Factoid: It took 60 years cumulatively ( 1789 - 1849 ) to spend the very FIRST billion $.

Something to ponder.<IMHO>

lodge939
12-03-2008, 06:25 AM
1 - N/A
2 - Courts
3 - Police
4 - National Defense
5 - (I can't think of anything)

So now that we eliminate the bottom 80%, we're left only with option #1. I'm happy with that.
How is that working out for Somalia, btw?

Truth Warrior
12-03-2008, 06:34 AM
Close you almost had it!

Use the Pareto Analysis or more common known as the 80/20 rule. A statistical methodology where 20% of the causes are causing 80% of the problems. This you continue to do until all problems are eliminated. We studied this in my logistics course work.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pareto+analysis&aq=f&oq=
Use this in conjunction with the Bell Curve and standard deviation for "capture" and you've got dynamite in your hands. Pareto analysis and the 80/20 rule are my inspirations and chosen tool. Identify, separate and focus on the "trivial many from the essential few". The recursion part is my idea as far as I know. ;)

Thanks! :)

Truth Warrior
12-03-2008, 06:36 AM
they are not going to go without a show of force.

Americans dont have the balls You may be and probably are right.<IMHO> :(


"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F Kennedy

Truth Warrior
12-03-2008, 01:59 PM
bump

Mahkato
12-03-2008, 02:08 PM
Factoid: It took 60 years cumulatively ( 1789 - 1849 ) to spend the very FIRST billion $.

Source?

nickcoons
12-03-2008, 11:09 PM
[B]There are THOUSANDS of things that the government does

I misread your original post. For some reason, I thought you had suggested listing only the important things that government does, and then cutting off the bottom 80%.

nickcoons
12-03-2008, 11:09 PM
How is that working out for Somalia, btw?

Probably a lot better than most people (including yourself, I would imagine) are aware:

http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?contentid=4994
http://mises.org/story/2066

Truth Warrior
12-04-2008, 07:05 AM
Source? Soitinly. ;)

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf)
Table 1.1, PDF Pages 25 - 26

:)

BTW, you are the FIRST one EVER to ask. I find that very strange.

Thanks!

FunkBuddha
12-04-2008, 07:09 AM
I only have one request for a government function. Can we keep noaa.gov? It's the only thing I've found other than killing people that the government does well.

Truth Warrior
12-04-2008, 07:13 AM
I misread your original post. For some reason, I thought you had suggested listing only the important things that government does, and then cutting off the bottom 80%. So now, with your correct understanding, whatcha think? ;) :)

Truth Warrior
12-04-2008, 07:16 AM
I only have one request for a government function. Can we keep noaa.gov? It's the only thing I've found other than killing people that the government does well. Thanks and interesting but NOT the point.

:)

nickcoons
12-04-2008, 09:05 AM
So now, with your correct understanding, whatcha think? ;) :)

I think the 80% threshold removal process should be repeated until we're left with N/A. Your original post, I believe, suggested we could remove 96% of government (presumably with two iterations).. I guess that would be okay too :).

Truth Warrior
12-04-2008, 09:14 AM
I think the 80% threshold removal process should be repeated until we're left with N/A. Your original post, I believe, suggested we could remove 96% of government (presumably with two iterations).. I guess that would be okay too :). What year in fairly recent US history would ~4% of the current annual Federal government budget take us back to? ;)

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf)
Table 1.1 Page 25 - 26

Thanks! :)

nickcoons
12-04-2008, 05:48 PM
What year in fairly recent US history would ~4% of the current annual Federal government budget take us back to? ;)

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf)
Table 1.1 Page 25 - 26

Thanks! :)

1963, but that's not adjusted for inflation. With adjustments, I'm sure it would go back quite a bit further.

Truth Warrior
12-04-2008, 06:02 PM
1963, but that's not adjusted for inflation. With adjustments, I'm sure it would go back quite a bit further. Screw the inflation adjustment. The crummy Fed tool caused it. :p As I recall, we were NOT under governed then either.

Thanks for the math and look up. ;) :)

nickcoons
12-04-2008, 06:19 PM
Screw the inflation adjustment. The crummy Fed tool caused it. :p As I recall, we were NOT under governed then either.

Thanks for the math and look up. ;) :)

If we adjusted for inflation, your point that we weren't under governed whenever then was still holds true.

Actually, I'd like to see a table (if one exists) that shows all of these budget numbers adjusted for inflation. Which means we'd only have to adjust the numbers from 1914 forward.

HOLLYWOOD
12-04-2008, 06:31 PM
http://batr.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/federal_reserve_comic.jpg.w300h331.jpghttp://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/characteristics-of-good-governance.gif

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/fasc_notus_prima.jpg

Truth Warrior
12-05-2008, 07:07 AM
If we adjusted for inflation, your point that we weren't under governed whenever then was still holds true.

Actually, I'd like to see a table (if one exists) that shows all of these budget numbers adjusted for inflation. Which means we'd only have to adjust the numbers from 1914 forward. I've never been able to figure out just what year(s) we were EVER under governed. :p :(

You could use the price of gold as a pretty good proxy.<IMHO> Figure $20 per ounce as a good historic baseline SWAG.

There are inflation calculators, by year, on the web, here's one for ya. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)

FWIW, according to it, a $20.00 Gold Double Eagle ( ounce of gold ) in 1913 has the same buying power as $437.52 in 2008. :p :eek:

Truth Warrior
12-05-2008, 01:08 PM
Bump!

Deborah K
12-05-2008, 02:20 PM
http://batr.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/federal_reserve_comic.jpg.w300h331.jpghttp://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/characteristics-of-good-governance.gif

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/fasc_notus_prima.jpg

Where'd ya get the 'Good Governance' illustration? I like.

Truth Warrior
12-05-2008, 02:31 PM
Gee, where are all of those good conservative GOP "limited government" ( so called ), LP "less government" ( so called ) and Ron Paul "REVOLUTION" ( so called ) voter folks? :p :rolleyes: Must be just "cutting bait" ( so called ).

< ROFLMAO! > :D

bump

nickcoons
12-05-2008, 08:13 PM
I've never been able to figure out just what year(s) we were EVER under governed. :p :(

You could use the price of gold as a pretty good proxy.<IMHO> Figure $20 per ounce as a good historic baseline SWAG.

There are inflation calculators, by year, on the web, here's one for ya. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)

FWIW, according to it, a $20.00 Gold Double Eagle ( ounce of gold ) in 1913 has the same buying power as $437.52 in 2008. :p :eek:

Yeah, I know I can do it.. I was just hoping that it might have already been done and published online to save me the time :).

heavenlyboy34
12-05-2008, 08:37 PM
Gee, where are all of those good conservative GOP "limited government" ( so called ), LP "less government" ( so called ) and Ron Paul "REVOLUTION" ( so called ) voter folks? :p :rolleyes: Must be just "cutting bait" ( so called ).

< ROFLMAO! > :D

bump

Maybe they're hiding behind Sarah Palin. ;) (LOL)

heavenlyboy34
12-05-2008, 08:39 PM
bump for more TW rants :D

Pauls' Revere
12-06-2008, 01:55 AM
Pareto analysis and the 80/20 rule are my inspirations and chosen tool. Identify, separate and focus on the "trivial many from the essential few". The recursion part is my idea as far as I know. ;)

Thanks! :)

A quick ballpark standard deviation formula you can use is as follows:

(sigma)[square root of (n)] +/- (n)

where sigma equals: 1 or 2 or 3 etc.. standard deviations out from mean. At one sigma it is 68%, at 2 it is 98% and 3 is 99% and so forth.

where (n) equals the sample or quantity known.

For example: If I knew 23 people on average walked through a doorway then the upper limit would be approximately 32 and the lower limit would be approximately 13. Capturing about 98% on the bell curve, on average between those two with close to 98% certainty. This is gross formula and not the "fine tuned one" you would find in textbooks but it is easily remembered.

Now use this against the 20% which is found to be the cause of a particular problem and you can make drastic improvements in everything you do.

Granted, I have pissed people off at work but sometimes people have to break old habits. My boss loves how I saved them tens of thousands of dollars.

If you are interested in knowing bollinger bands on stock charts work in a similar way in that it tracks the standard deviation from the moving average.
$$$$$$$$$

;)

Truth Warrior
12-06-2008, 06:17 AM
bump for more TW rants :D That was just a micro rant, trust me, you really don't want to ever see me in full on rant mode :eek:, it ain't pretty. ;) :D

Truth Warrior
12-06-2008, 06:32 AM
Yeah, I know I can do it.. I was just hoping that it might have already been done and published online to save me the time :).

Just use the $437.52 per $20 that gets you back to the REAL money. We ain't exactly doing brain micro neurosurgery here.< IMHO > A broad axe works just fine for our purposes. ;) :D

Truth Warrior
12-06-2008, 06:51 AM
A quick ballpark standard deviation formula you can use is as follows:

(sigma)[square root of (n)] +/- (n)

where sigma equals: 1 or 2 or 3 etc.. standard deviations out from mean. At one sigma it is 68%, at 2 it is 98% and 3 is 99% and so forth.

where (n) equals the sample or quantity known.

For example: If I knew 23 people on average walked through a doorway then the upper limit would be approximately 32 and the lower limit would be approximately 13. Capturing about 98% on the bell curve, on average between those two with close to 98% certainty. This is gross formula and not the "fine tuned one" you would find in textbooks but it is easily remembered.

Now use this against the 20% which is found to be the cause of a particular problem and you can make drastic improvements in everything you do.

Granted, I have pissed people off at work but sometimes people have to break old habits. My boss loves how I saved them tens of thousands of dollars.

If you are interested in knowing bollinger bands on stock charts work in a similar way in that it tracks the standard deviation from the moving average.
$$$$$$$$$

;) Thanks! :) But that's just way overkill for the intended purposes here. At the macro level, 80/20 works just fine for the desired "less government" effect.<IMHO> Just gotta keep it simple enough for even a "brain dead" typical Congress critter to be able to maybe understand. :D

Truth Warrior
12-06-2008, 09:47 AM
Bump

heavenlyboy34
12-06-2008, 09:50 AM
You may be and probably are right.<IMHO> :(


"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F Kennedy

+1 :( ~bumpity bump~


That was just a micro rant, trust me, you really don't want to ever see me in full on rant mode :eek:, it ain't pretty. ;) :D

~apprehensive smiley here...in anticipation of a full on TW rant~

Truth Warrior
12-06-2008, 10:57 AM
Gee, where are all of those good conservative GOP "limited government" ( so called ), LP "less government" ( so called ) and Ron Paul "REVOLUTION" ( so called ) voter folks? :p :rolleyes: Must be just "cutting bait" ( so called ).

< ROFLMAO! > :D

bump bump

Mitt Romneys sideburns
12-06-2008, 12:55 PM
Im confused. I thought we were going to see a proposal on HOW to reduce the government. . .

nickcoons
12-06-2008, 01:44 PM
Just use the $437.52 per $20 that gets you back to the REAL money. We ain't exactly doing brain micro neurosurgery here.< IMHO > A broad axe works just fine for our purposes. ;) :D

That relationship is a fixed one and won't work for all years, or even most years. The impacts of inflation are more exaggerated the further we get from 1913.

Brooklyn Red Leg
12-06-2008, 01:46 PM
I say four rounds of Decimation of the Federal Employees, Elected, Appointed and Hired would do the trick. Make each group of ten select the one unlucky schlub to be offed, make them determine the manner in which said sadsack will be offed and then carry out the sentence. Rinse and repeat thrice more. :D

Truth Warrior
12-06-2008, 01:49 PM
That relationship is a fixed one and won't work for all years, or even most years. The impacts of inflation are more exaggerated the further we get from 1913. I think you're just parsing it too finely. The 1913 dollar was pretty much the 1789 dollar, in gold terms. Keep is simple. The reduction is for TODAY. We can't permanently whack the past. ;) :D This is NOT intended as an annual thing.

Truth Warrior
12-06-2008, 03:00 PM
I say four rounds of Decimation of the Federal Employees, Elected, Appointed and Hired would do the trick. Make each group of ten select the one unlucky schlub to be offed, make them determine the manner in which said sadsack will be offed and then carry out the sentence. Rinse and repeat thrice more. :D I think most would simply go in the first BIG 80% cut. ;) :D

anaconda
12-06-2008, 03:07 PM
Here's my proposal that the masses could get behind:

You take all of the big government agencies and fund only the payroll/benefits and tell them all to go home and take two years off on the back of the taxpayers to re-train themselves. And then they are cut off. Forever. We would save billions and billions in operating expenses during those two years and have no expenses at the end of the two years. Under these generous terms, their would be no public sympathy for them whatsoever. Contract firms will be hired for 6 months to sell all of the assets (buildings, plant, equipment) and return the proceeds to the Treasury. We will give them a 1% commission to dispose of the assets if they succeed in doing it in 6 months. Otherwise, we hire a new firm every 6 months. Their commission is paid from the proceeds only and will not be a tax burden to the citizens.

Wallah!

rockandrollsouls
12-06-2008, 03:08 PM
List and rank the current government functions 1 to N in order of overall importance with #1 being the top. Whack the bottom 80% and just see who complains. If nobody without a vested interest, then just do it again. :) BTW, this system scales very nicely both up and down.<IMHO> :D

Voilą a 96% reduction in government. Simple!

If only it were that simple.

Truth Warrior
12-06-2008, 03:14 PM
Here's my proposal that the masses could get behind:

You take all of the big government agencies and fund only the payroll/benefits and tell them all to go home and take two years off on the back of the taxpayers to re-train themselves. And then they are cut off. Forever. We would save billions and billions in operating expenses and have no expenses at the end of two years. Under these generous terms, their would be no public sympathy for them whatsoever. Contract firms will be hired 6 months to sell all of the assets (buildings, plant, equipment) and return the proceeds to the Treasury. We will give them a 1% commission to dispose of the assets if they succeed in doing it in 6 months. Otherwise, we hire a new firm every 6 months. Their commission is paid from the proceeds only and will not be a tax burden to the citizens.

Wallah! Different proposal? Start a new thread. ;) :D

Truth Warrior
12-06-2008, 03:18 PM
If only it were that simple. Geez, there's only ~600 of the major DC players, against 300+ MILLIONS of us. :rolleyes:

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

nickcoons
12-06-2008, 03:57 PM
I think you're just parsing it too finely. The 1913 dollar was pretty much the 1789 dollar, in gold terms.

I think that's basically what I said :), which is why we wouldn't need to adjust for inflation pre-1913.


Keep is simple. The reduction is for TODAY. We can't permanently whack the past. ;) :D This is NOT intended as an annual thing.

You're still talking about shrinking the existing and future government. I was simply saying that it would be nice to know what the federal budget was, adjusted for inflation, each year. To do that, you'd have to use a different ratio for every year that has passed since 1913.

Truth Warrior
12-06-2008, 05:13 PM
I think that's basically what I said :), which is why we wouldn't need to adjust for inflation pre-1913.



You're still talking about shrinking the existing and future government. I was simply saying that it would be nice to know what the federal budget was, adjusted for inflation, each year. To do that, you'd have to use a different ratio for every year that has passed since 1913. Just use the cumulative $438 per $20 gold and just call it a day.

438 / 20 = 21.9, reciprocal is 0.0456621004566210045662100456621. Apply that factor to to the current federal budget and see what it amounts to in 1913 $20 double eagles. You are now comparing apples to apples. Actual 2008 federal outlay apples figures compared to 1913 federal outlay apples figures yields the net growth between then and now. I think I did that right. ;) :)

anaconda
12-07-2008, 03:25 AM
Different proposal? Start a new thread.

No sir, this is how I would shrink the Federal Govt. Defund the whole thing and give the employees 2 years of salary. Then it comes to an end. Everything must go. Except explicit Constitutional provisions: militia, postal roads, ports, etc.

Truth Warrior
12-07-2008, 06:39 AM
No sir, this is how I would shrink the Federal Govt. Defund the whole thing and give the employees 2 years of salary. Then it comes to an end. Everything must go. Except explicit Constitutional provisions: militia, postal roads, ports, etc. Noted. Thanks. :) This thread was/is NOT a request for additional nor alternate proposals. Are you merely confused? ;)

Brooklyn Red Leg
12-07-2008, 07:13 AM
I think most would simply go in the first BIG 80% cut. ;) :D

Yes, but Decimation has such wondrous things going for it, which the Romans understood all to well. Its a natural tonic to have the government crooks be forced to choose (Democracy) which of their number (of 10) gets to be greased. They then have to choose (Democracy) in what manner to do it and who ultimately has the burden of initiating the force. That makes all of them (even the poor twit who gets killed) culpable for Murder. The blood will be squarely on their hands and the deed will be theirs and theirs alone, for the only 'honourable' thing to do would be to initially refuse and be executed for it. Given the atitudes of most government employess (especially those that are elected and/or appointed), I imagine few will take the honourable path. Most will submit to Justice and do the deed.

Afterwards, split them up into new groups of 10 (all new faces), rinse and repeat as necessary. Elegant, simple and there is a whole wealth historical precedent from which we can draw upon to give insights. :D

Truth Warrior
12-07-2008, 07:50 AM
Yes, but Decimation has such wondrous things going for it, which the Romans understood all to well. Its a natural tonic to have the government crooks be forced to choose (Democracy) which of their number (of 10) gets to be greased. They then have to choose (Democracy) in what manner to do it and who ultimately has the burden of initiating the force. That makes all of them (even the poor twit who gets killed) culpable for Murder. The blood will be squarely on their hands and the deed will be theirs and theirs alone, for the only 'honourable' thing to do would be to initially refuse and be executed for it. Given the atitudes of most government employess (especially those that are elected and/or appointed), I imagine few will take the honourable path. Most will submit to Justice and do the deed.

Afterwards, split them up into new groups of 10 (all new faces), rinse and repeat as necessary. Elegant, simple and there is a whole wealth historical precedent from which we can draw upon to give insights. :D Decimation is only 10%. :p I'm proposing an 80% whack in just the first round to clear out most of the major accumulated garbage. ;) :) Then we REALLY get serious in the second iteration.<IMHO> :D An integral part of the beauty of this idea/proposal is that the minarchists would probably jump on board too. ;)

Truth Warrior
12-07-2008, 12:48 PM
bump

Truth Warrior
12-07-2008, 03:26 PM
bump

anaconda
12-08-2008, 02:23 AM
Are you merely confused?

I did not read the instructions carefully enough. Apologies. Yet, whichever agencies you cut you could probably sell to the masses by providing the Federal employees with a generous severance.

1.FEMA
2.Homeland Security
3.All Federal subsidies.
4.FDA
5.Dept. of Agriculture
6. Dept. of Education
7. CIA
8. FBI
9 NSA
10. National Park Service
11. Aid to Foreign Countries
12. Entitlements.
13. Federal Reserve Bank.
14. Reduce Senate and Congress salaries to minimum wage.
15. Close all U.S. military bases on foreign soil

FindLiberty
12-08-2008, 04:07 AM
I'd look forward to 4/15/09 if this (OP whack list proposal) was a "required" page attached to all 1040 and 1040a tax forms.

Better yet, make government 99% voluntary funded - WE EACH DECIDE how much to "contribute" and where to designate our portion to be spent.

For my top 5, - the final 80% of 80%... single item wish list digestion process would give 180 day termination pay for 80% of the existing government employees, and eventually leave only the enumerated US Constitutional mandates. Funding for those mandated functions (e.g., military "for pirate protection at sea") must be capped at ~1% through taxes or free market competition user fees.

I'd expect to pay for weather forecasts or I could just look up into the sky myself for free...

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 05:41 AM
I did not read the instructions carefully enough. Apologies. Yet, whichever agencies you cut you could probably sell to the masses by providing the Federal employees with a generous severance.

1.FEMA
2.Homeland Security
3.All Federal subsidies.
4.FDA
5.Dept. of Agriculture
6. Dept. of Education
7. CIA
8. FBI
9 NSA
10. National Park Service
11. Aid to Foreign Countries
12. Entitlements.
13. Federal Reserve Bank.
14. Reduce Senate and Congress salaries to minimum wage.
15. Close all U.S. military bases on foreign soil I ain't cutting a thing, it ain't my government. I'm just making a suggestion and proposal of a possible how mechanism. ;) :)

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 05:57 AM
I'd look forward to 4/15/09 if this (OP whack list proposal) was a "required" page attached to all 1040 and 1040a tax forms.

Better yet, make government 99% voluntary funded - WE EACH DECIDE how much to "contribute" and where to designate our portion to be spent.

For my top 5, - the final 80% of 80%... single item wish list digestion process would give 180 day termination pay for 80% of the existing government employees, and eventually leave only the enumerated US Constitutional mandates. Funding for those mandated functions (e.g., military "for pirate protection at sea") must be capped at ~1% through taxes or free market competition user fees.

I'd expect to pay for weather forecasts or I could just look up into the sky myself for free... Just make the income tax a part of the 80% whack. Or do you think it would survive the first cut as a most important and essential 20% of government functions? How about if only the voters are taxed and regulated? That could result in some very serious and significant staff and associated cost reductions. :D

LibertyEagle
12-08-2008, 06:53 AM
I ain't cutting a thing, it ain't my government. I'm just making a suggestion and proposal of a possible how mechanism. ;) :)

If it isn't your government, why do you "submit" and pay the taxes?

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 07:54 AM
If it isn't your government, why do you "submit" and pay the taxes? Because consistent principled ultimate resistance to the criminal extortion would probably merely result in my highly untimely and hugely inconvenient early demise.

By way of helpful analogy, it ain't my Mafia either.

I just choose to consider it an annual payment plus interest on just one of the Viet Nam bug-out US military helicopters; shoved overboard from the air craft carrier because of overcrowding, and now still sitting at the bottom of the Gulf of Tonkin, that I chose to adopt at the time. When that's finally paid off, I'm then adopting a dud cluster bomb. But that's still a ways off.

nickcoons
12-08-2008, 09:31 AM
If it isn't your government, why do you "submit" and pay the taxes?

If stealing is wrong, why would you give your wallet to a mugger with a gun at your head? Wouldn't it be hypocritical to allow yourself to be stolen from if you philosophically oppose theft? That's essentially what you're asking.

Most people will give up their wallets to a mugger if death or injury is the alternative. Likewise, most people pay their taxes because they know that bad things are the alternative. Giving your wallet to a mugger or paying your taxes to the IRS are simply survival mechanisms and does not demonstrate an inconsistent philosophy.

heavenlyboy34
12-08-2008, 10:12 AM
If it isn't your government, why do you "submit" and pay the taxes?

In my case, it's because I don't want to become the next Irwin A. Schiff. I'd ruther wait until I have the firepower to fight the feds when the try to arrest me.

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 10:19 AM
If stealing is wrong, why would you give your wallet to a mugger with a gun at your head? Wouldn't it be hypocritical to allow yourself to be stolen from if you philosophically oppose theft? That's essentially what you're asking.

Most people will give up their wallets to a mugger if death or injury is the alternative. Likewise, most people pay their taxes because they know that bad things are the alternative. Giving your wallet to a mugger or paying your taxes to the IRS are simply survival mechanisms and does not demonstrate an inconsistent philosophy. Correct, and thank you. Well said. ;) :)

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 10:25 AM
In my case, it's because I don't want to become the next Irwin A. Schiff. I'd ruther wait until I have the firepower to fight the feds when the try to arrest me. Caution: testosterone poisoning often merely just gets one dead.

That's a major part of why the government strongly prefers the young guys to serve in the military.

LibertyEagle
12-08-2008, 10:56 AM
If stealing is wrong, why would you give your wallet to a mugger with a gun at your head? Wouldn't it be hypocritical to allow yourself to be stolen from if you philosophically oppose theft? That's essentially what you're asking.
The difference is that if I was stolen from, I would actively pursue a strategy to ensure the outcome would be different, if there were to be a next time.


Most people will give up their wallets to a mugger if death or injury is the alternative. Likewise, most people pay their taxes because they know that bad things are the alternative. Giving your wallet to a mugger or paying your taxes to the IRS are simply survival mechanisms and does not demonstrate an inconsistent philosophy.
It is inconsistent when you "submit" and then spend a great deal of your time in trying to convince others to likewise to sit on their butts and not take any actions to change the situation.

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 11:02 AM
The difference is that if I was stolen from, I would actively pursue a strategy to ensure the outcome would be different, if there were to be a next time.


It is inconsistent when you "submit" and then spend a great deal of your time in trying to convince others to likewise to sit on their butts and not take any actions to change the situation. Has the situation changed for the better from all of your stalwart actions over the years?

Give up while you're behind, you're merely digging us all in deeper. BTW, that's just an observation.

heavenlyboy34
12-08-2008, 11:05 AM
If stealing is wrong, why would you give your wallet to a mugger with a gun at your head? Wouldn't it be hypocritical to allow yourself to be stolen from if you philosophically oppose theft? That's essentially what you're asking.

Most people will give up their wallets to a mugger if death or injury is the alternative. Likewise, most people pay their taxes because they know that bad things are the alternative. Giving your wallet to a mugger or paying your taxes to the IRS are simply survival mechanisms and does not demonstrate an inconsistent philosophy.

+1

heavenlyboy34
12-08-2008, 11:07 AM
Caution: testosterone poisoning often merely just gets one dead.

That's a major part of why the government strongly prefers the young guys to serve in the military.


lol...ok, I'll heed that warning. :)

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 11:15 AM
lol...ok, I'll heed that warning. :) If you saw the movie "The Patriot", remember the tragic fate of the hero's two eldest sons. ;) :(

LibertyEagle
12-08-2008, 11:25 AM
Has the situation changed for the better from all of your stalwart actions over the years?

Give up while you're behind, you're merely digging us all in deeper. BTW, that's just an observation.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion about your goals.

LibertyEagle
12-08-2008, 11:26 AM
BTW Nick, you might ask TW what he thinks about you running for Congress.


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

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 11:29 AM
Thanks for confirming my suspicion about your goals. Yep, I confirmed yours about February, as I recall. Thanks for the continued and consistent reconfirmations. May I have another?

heavenlyboy34
12-08-2008, 11:57 AM
BTW Nick, you might ask TW what he thinks about you running for Congress.

TW doesn't vote and doesn't trust politicians at all, last time I checked.

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 12:05 PM
TW doesn't vote and doesn't trust politicians at all, last time I checked. Au contraire, I trust them completely, to be politicans. :p Except for one or two. ;) Pretty bad odds there.

Danke
12-08-2008, 12:22 PM
Has the situation changed for the better from all of your stalwart actions over the years?


Yes.

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/MoreVictories

LibertyEagle
12-08-2008, 12:25 PM
Im confused. I thought we were going to see a proposal on HOW to reduce the government. . .

:D

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 12:25 PM
Yes.

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/MoreVictories What are those current year US government outlay figures again? :D

HOLLYWOOD
12-08-2008, 12:31 PM
I only have one request for a government function. Can we keep noaa.gov? It's the only thing I've found other than killing people that the government does well.

Government has schemed to STEAL very well too!

Killin and Stealin is US governments Forte

I like NOAA and have been up to Boulder many times in all their buildings... cool stuff off of TIROS, GOES, DMSP satellites.

LibertyEagle
12-08-2008, 12:37 PM
Yep, I confirmed yours about February, as I recall. Thanks for the continued and consistent reconfirmations. May I have another?

What do you believe my goals to be, TW?

anaconda
12-08-2008, 12:45 PM
I did not read the instructions carefully enough. Apologies. Yet, whichever agencies you cut you could probably sell to the masses by providing the Federal employees with a generous severance.

1.FEMA
2.Homeland Security
3.All Federal subsidies.
4.FDA
5.Dept. of Agriculture
6. Dept. of Education
7. CIA
8. FBI
9 NSA
10. National Park Service
11. Aid to Foreign Countries
12. Entitlements.
13. Federal Reserve Bank.
14. Reduce Senate and Congress salaries to minimum wage.
15. Close all U.S. military bases on foreign soil


I screwed up yet again and did not follow the instructions of the OP. The above is my list of most useless or toxic government agencies. So here's my list of essential federal expenditures:

1. military (none on foreign soil)
2. congress: $8 per hour
3. Supreme Court system
4. Treasury
5. Cabinet Salaries ( Cabinet limited to 200 employees only, including administrative assistants)
6. All else must go.

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 12:50 PM
What do you believe my goals to be, TW? Exactly what they are IF you've told me the truth, and some additional ones that you may just not be even aware of or are ready for.

lucius
12-08-2008, 12:51 PM
Mojo Nixon - Burn Down the Malls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAoh_yteKkc

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 01:03 PM
I screwed up yet again and did not follow the instructions of the OP. The above is my list of most useless or toxic government agencies. So here's my list of essential federal expenditures:

1. military (none on foreign soil)
2. congress: $8 per hour
3. Supreme Court system
4. Treasury
5. Cabinet Salaries ( Cabinet limited to 200 employees only, including administrative assistants)
6. All else must go. Well the proposal was to leave 4%, size and cost, when it's all completed. The remainder would be the most essential government functions compared to now. ;) :)

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 01:07 PM
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/ron20paul20dont20stealdesk20sign.jpg

LibertyEagle
12-08-2008, 01:19 PM
Exactly what they are IF you've told me the truth, and some additional ones that you may just not be even aware of or are ready for.

You really are not able to answer a direct question, are you?

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 01:27 PM
You really are not able to answer a direct question, are you? Yes.

LibertyEagle
12-08-2008, 01:35 PM
Exactly what they are IF you've told me the truth, and some additional ones that you may just not be even aware of or are ready for.

Go ahead, TW. Tell us what you have cooked up in that mind of yours.

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 03:05 PM
Go ahead, TW. Tell us what you have cooked up in that mind of yours. I'm just winging it, based on how the thread goes. Simple! Got it? So far Nick has been the most constructive and helpful.

heavenlyboy34
12-08-2008, 03:11 PM
Well the proposal was to leave 4%, size and cost, when it's all completed. The remainder would be the most essential government functions compared to now. ;) :)

How long do you suppose it will take to eliminate the state altogether after that is accomplished? :confused:

Truth Warrior
12-08-2008, 03:20 PM
How long do you suppose it will take to eliminate the state altogether after that is accomplished? :confused: We have to get to THAT first, sometime. Until then it's just a moot point. Don't worry about the last ten miles now. The state still grows. :p :rolleyes:

anaconda
12-08-2008, 10:58 PM
Well the proposal was to leave 4%, size and cost, when it's all completed

Defense is about 20% of the budget. If we reduce the overall budget to 4%, defense will take an awful beating. We want our free society well defended. Will the portion of the remaining 4% dedicated to defense be sufficient to repel invaders and intercept incomings?

Truth Warrior
12-09-2008, 05:25 AM
Defense is about 20% of the budget. If we reduce the overall budget to 4%, defense will take an awful beating. We want our free society well defended. Will the portion of the remaining 4% dedicated to defense be sufficient to repel invaders and intercept incomings? Figure up the amount 4% of today represents. Not so very long ago that was the ENTIRE Federal annual outlay amount. Yep, the MIC will really be pissed. :D They just may have to figure out something else of REAL economic value to produce and sell. ;)

BTW, what happened to and with "defense" ( so called ) on 9/11? :rolleyes: Final "official" overall analysis of that day, "incompetent and inept", by their own admission. :p


http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/us_vs_world.gif



War is a Racket


By General Smedley D. Butler
http://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket

Truth Warrior
12-09-2008, 11:28 AM
bump.

anaconda
12-09-2008, 01:58 PM
Final "official" overall analysis of that day, "incompetent and inept", by their own admission.

Our military is very capable. They weren't really incompetent. Rather, I fear they may have committed conspiracy, mass murder, and high treason.

But my question to you is what amount of military spending, as a percentage of the current federal budget, would be sufficient for a strong and capable defense?

I know we could spend a great deal less. Especially with the thousands of nuclear weapons that we have.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
12-09-2008, 02:07 PM
Still confused as to what the "proposal" is. . .

Truth Warrior
12-09-2008, 02:08 PM
Our military is very capable. They weren't really incompetent. Rather, I fear they may have committed conspiracy, mass murder, and high treason.

But my question to you is what amount of military spending, as a percentage of the current federal budget, would be sufficient for a strong and capable defense?

I know we could spend a great deal less. Especially with the thousands of nuclear weapons that we have. The plan: Here's the available amount of money. There's the job. Just do it.

Ya know kinda like things get done in the real world. :D

Mitt Romneys sideburns
12-09-2008, 04:32 PM
The plan: Here's the available amount of money. There's the job. Just do it.

Ya know kinda like things get done in the real world. :D

Is this anything like the "strong dollar policy" proposal?

Truth Warrior
12-09-2008, 05:30 PM
Is this anything like the "strong dollar policy" proposal? Nope. Read the OP. Thread post # 1.

anaconda
12-09-2008, 06:45 PM
Here's the available amount of money.

If you please, I would be interested in your suggestion for a number for defense spending, in 2008 base year dollars.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
12-09-2008, 09:41 PM
Nope. Read the OP. Thread post # 1.

I did. There is no proposal there other than the statement that we need to shrink the government. This is much like the "strong dollar policy" of stating that it is in the US interest to have a strong dollar, though no plans on how to actually accomplish this are ever put forth.

heavenlyboy34
12-09-2008, 09:53 PM
Figure up the amount 4% of today represents. Not so very long ago that was the ENTIRE Federal annual outlay amount. Yep, the MIC will really be pissed. :D They just may have to figure out something else of REAL economic value to produce and sell. ;)

BTW, what happened to and with "defense" ( so called ) on 9/11? :rolleyes: Final "official" overall analysis of that day, "incompetent and inept", by their own admission. :p


War is a Racket


By General Smedley D. Butler
http://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket


It was all Clintons fault! Don't you know how to listen to your government and its propaganda machine? :eek:;)

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 05:55 AM
If you please, I would be interested in your suggestion for a number for defense spending, in 2008 base year dollars. Why on Earth would you ask me that? To what end? I ain't the government and I'm not going to be. I don't have the power and I don't want it. Is defense spending the #1 top priority? Who says? Who knows? How much of the overall 4% should be allotted to that? Hell if I know. It's neither my job nor call. They've got 4% of 2008 outlays to do ALL of the essential Federal government functions jobs. They can parse and haggle it out however they want. That's the job they're all paid very well to do.

I'm just attempting to stay on track and mission here, and to avoid mission creep. Keep it simple. Don't get all bogged down in the micro minutiae.

If we can just get the obvious kinks, if any, ironed out of this basic idea then some statist voter type can email it to their preferred "limited government" type Congress critters of choice, for staff consideration. Or not. Whatever.

BTW, currently we're being invaded from Mexico, of all places. Defense???

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 06:06 AM
I did. There is no proposal there other than the statement that we need to shrink the government. This is much like the "strong dollar policy" of stating that it is in the US interest to have a strong dollar, though no plans on how to actually accomplish this are ever put forth. Well then I guess this thread is just not intended for you. You just get what you get. Life's a bitch. Shit happens. Move on. Start a thread.

HOLLYWOOD
12-10-2008, 08:54 AM
Where'd ya get the 'Good Governance' illustration? I like.

http://wordpress.com/ (http://wordpress.com/)

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 09:02 AM
It was all Clintons fault! Don't you know how to listen to your government and its propaganda machine? :eek:;) I think that maybe I used to, but now I just don't remember, or do I?. ;) :D

pcosmar
12-10-2008, 09:20 AM
If you please, I would be interested in your suggestion for a number for defense spending, in 2008 base year dollars.

$0.00
Reinstate the 2nd amendment. Remove ALL restrictions( infringements) and let the people defend themselves.
I doubt that any nation would attack 300 million armed citizens.

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 09:44 AM
$0.00
Reinstate the 2nd amendment. Remove ALL restrictions( infringements) and let the people defend themselves.
I doubt that any nation would attack 300 million armed citizens. There's an idea I like. It sure seems to have worked well for the Swiss for quite some time now. Taking and keeping America, house by house, would prove to be a very formidable task for anybody.<IMHO> It also removes the other folks that "claim" that they can surrender us all, as a side benefit. ;) :cool:

Thanks! :)

yokna7
12-10-2008, 10:33 AM
How to shrink government?

Hmmm...how about we kick all the neo-cons and demons in the junk to render them sterile so they can't reproduce. The urchins.

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 11:24 AM
How to shrink government?

Hmmm...how about we kick all the neo-cons and demons in the junk to render them sterile so they can't reproduce. The urchins. Already working on a different idea. Thanks anyway. :)

Mitt Romneys sideburns
12-10-2008, 12:13 PM
Already working on a different idea. Thanks anyway. :)

No you arnt. There is no idea presented anywhere in your post other than the simple statement of "shrink the government". That is not a proposal on how to shrink it.

It would be like if you started a thread saying, "A simple proposal of HOW to drastically WIN a car race", and your following post said, "come in first place"

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 12:25 PM
No you arnt. There is no idea presented anywhere in your post other than the simple statement of "shrink the government". That is not a proposal on how to shrink it.

It would be like if you started a thread saying, "A simple proposal of HOW to drastically WIN a car race", and your following post said, "come in first place" Hmmm. I guess that it just goes over your head too, like most things seem to.

LibertyEagle
12-10-2008, 12:57 PM
Hmmm. I guess that it just goes over your head too, like most things seem to.

Please stop insulting other forum members.


+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member.

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner.

+ Any form of antagonizing other members is not allowed by non-established members.

+ No promoting of campaign tactics or other activity that grossly counter the morals or ethics of Dr. Paul.

Source: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

heavenlyboy34
12-10-2008, 01:07 PM
There's an idea I like. It sure seems to have worked well for the Swiss for quite some time now. Taking and keeping America, house by house, would prove to be a very formidable task for anybody.<IMHO> It also removes the other folks that "claim" that they can surrender us all, as a side benefit. ;) :cool:

Thanks! :)
Leagalized private ownership of military equipment (tanks, RPGs, F-16s-all the stuff the gov'ment has) would go a long way towards making statists think twice before taking us on.(IMHO) ;)

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 02:26 PM
Please stop insulting other forum members. I'm a forum member. Please stop insulting me.



+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member.

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner.

+ Any form of antagonizing other members is not allowed by non-established members.

+ No promoting of campaign tactics or other activity that grossly counter the morals or ethics of Dr. Paul.

Source: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22)


Don't you have some Texas GOP fortress to storm and straighten out somewhere? :rolleyes:

anaconda
12-10-2008, 02:26 PM
I ain't the government

Oh, but you are the government..

Dark_Horse_Rider
12-10-2008, 02:29 PM
Funny, that's sounds familiar... We the People ?

Not for some time now.

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 02:32 PM
Leagalized private ownership of military equipment (tanks, RPGs, F-16s-all the stuff the gov'ment has) would go a long way towards making statists think twice before taking us on.(IMHO) ;) Yeah, like that's ever going to happen. It would never even make it into committee. :p

anaconda
12-10-2008, 02:34 PM
$0.00
Reinstate the 2nd amendment. Remove ALL restrictions( infringements) and let the people defend themselves.
I doubt that any nation would attack 300 million armed citizens

Excellent proposal and I think we are finally discussing a relevant point in this thread. My concern with this is that I don't see much deterrent to an enemy carpet bombing us with nukes. Unless quite a few of the citizens buy hand-held heat-seeking missilie launchers or something. We should all be personally armed. But don't we need something supplemental? I believe that it might be possible to raise the money for defense through voluntary contributions. But then we have the issue of freeloaders getting defense without paying for it. Truth Warrior is on to a great idea with giving the bureaucrats a limited amount of spending power, but I wonder if 4% leaves us enough to provide for national defense. If 4% is good, why not 4 and a half? 5%? 6%? My point is that somewhere in our society we have to trade dollars earned for defense, whether it occurs through the private sector or the public sector. Whether it means pooling our money to build F-15's, or purchasing our own personal AK-47's or personal anti-tank rocket launchers. The dollar amout is relevant and the dollar amount can be represented as a percentage of anything you like (GDP, government expenditures, etc.). I can also imagine some scenarios whereby the citizenry could bypass the federal government in purchasing defense assets.

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 02:34 PM
Oh, but you are the government.. Uhh, yeah, of the Sovereign Nation of me.

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 02:37 PM
Funny, that's sounds familiar... We the People ?

Still hilarious even after all these years. :D

Not for some time now.

EVER!!!



:)

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 02:40 PM
Excellent proposal and I think we are finally discussing a relevant point in this thread. My concern with this is that I don't see much deterrent to an enemy carpet bombing us with nukes. Unless quite a few of the citizens buy hand-held heat-seeking missilie launchers or something. We should all be personally armed. But don't we need something supplemental? I believe that it might be possible to raise the money for defense through voluntary contributions. Whose pissed off at us? It's the government and the voters that constantly puts us all in danger.<IMHO>

Dark_Horse_Rider
12-10-2008, 02:45 PM
Whose pissed off at us? It's the government that constantly puts us all in danger.<IMHO>

" National Security is the chief cause of National Insecurity "

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 02:47 PM
" National Security is the chief cause of National Insecurity " Yep, I've noticed that too. Ironic, huh? ;)

Dark_Horse_Rider
12-10-2008, 02:51 PM
Hey TW

Funny how some people don't take notice when others have tried to insult you. :rolleyes:

pcosmar
12-10-2008, 02:53 PM
Excellent proposal and I think we are finally discussing a relevant point in this thread. My concern with this is that I don't see much deterrent to an enemy carpet bombing us with nukes. Unless quite a few of the citizens buy hand-held heat-seeking missilie launchers or something. We should all be personally armed. But don't we need something supplemental? I believe that it might be possible to raise the money for defense through voluntary contributions.

The Constitution did make provision for a Navy, And in these modern times I could see some limited AirForce as an extension. But only as a defense.
No standing Army. No "expeditionary" Forces.

Carpet bombing nukes???
For what purpose? to what end. Who would want to lay claim to a radioactive waste land?
Aside from the tactical ridiculousness, Have you ever traveled this land. Coast to coast and top to bottom. It is HUGE.

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 02:56 PM
Hey TW

Funny how some people don't take notice when others try to insult you. :rolleyes:



Yep, I've often noticed that too. They must just all be on her ignore list. :D Maybe I'm just her designated and assigned harassment target for the month. ;) Maybe it's just a ticket quota, like the cops. < LOL! >

anaconda
12-10-2008, 02:57 PM
Carpet bombing nukes???


I was only trying to make the point that a well-armed citizenry might be relatively defensless against certain types of warfare. High-altitude aerial bombing, for example. It wouldn't have to be nukes.

pcosmar
12-10-2008, 03:01 PM
I was only trying to make the point that a well-armed citizenry might be relatively defensless against certain types of warfare. High-altitude ariel bombing, for example. It wouldn't have to nukes.

And you might be surprised what some of us could build in our garage in an afternoon.:D

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 03:05 PM
Fertilizer and fuel oil, go BOOM. :D

anaconda
12-10-2008, 03:05 PM
Whose pissed off at us? It's the government and the voters that constantly puts us all in danger

Wanting to conquer a nation does not require that the agressor be "pised off." They may simply wish for the strategic location, natural resources, or to eliminate any potential future threat. Was Don Rumsfeld "pissed off" at Iraq? Doubt it. He was just gong for oil profits and global hegemony, in a bufoon kind of way.

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 03:10 PM
Wanting to conquer a nation does not require that the agressor be "pised off." They may simply wish for the strategic location, natural resources, or to eliminate any potential future threat. Was Don Rumsfeld "pissed off" at Iraq? Doubt it. He was just gong for oil profits and global hegemony, in a bufoon kind of way. Yep, and there goes 25% of the world's GDP. POOF! ;)

pcosmar
12-10-2008, 03:12 PM
Fertilizer and fuel oil, go BOOM. :D

I was thinking more of these folks,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2JAhYkHfXE

Now imagine, if they were unrestricted by Govt interference and defending themselves.

Oh yeah, There is a lot more where they came from.

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 03:16 PM
I was thinking more of these folks,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2JAhYkHfXE

Now imagine, if they were unrestricted by Govt interference and defending themselves.

Oh yeah, There is a lot more where they came from. I've got an old cookbook around here somewhere. ;)

pcosmar
12-10-2008, 03:23 PM
I've got an old cookbook around here somewhere. ;)

I remember a few lessons as well.
I have no doubt of the peoples ability to defend themselves, If they were allowed to do so.

LibertyEagle
12-10-2008, 03:28 PM
Hey TW

Funny how some people don't take notice when others have tried to insult you. :rolleyes:

Actually, I was off-line. Thanks for noticing. :)

Funny, I don't see anything in the Mod Queue that you have flagged. If you see a post that break the forum guidelines, please use the http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/report.gif to report it.

LibertyEagle
12-10-2008, 03:30 PM
Yep, I've often noticed that too. They must just all be on her ignore list. :D
Actually, Moderators don't have the fortune of being able to put someone on their ignore list.

Maybe I'm just her designated and assigned harassment target for the month. ;) Maybe it's just a ticket quota, like the cops. < LOL! >

Stop insulting forum members with such frequency and you'll be left alone. Deal?

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 06:04 PM
Actually, Moderators don't have the fortune of being able to put someone on their ignore list.

Nor do we with moderators, ask me how I know. :D So basically you have NO excuse.

Stop insulting forum members with such frequency and you'll be left alone. Deal?

"Ahh, the old "with such frequency" trick, I see." -- Maxwell Smart

PASS! I've learned too many times that you just can't be trusted. :(

How do I make out that protection racket check? :p



:rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
12-10-2008, 06:09 PM
I remember a few lessons as well.
I have no doubt of the peoples ability to defend themselves, If they were allowed to do so. Screw allowed to, I ain't Jewish and this ain't Germany. ;)

Mitt Romneys sideburns
12-10-2008, 07:08 PM
Actually, Moderators don't have the fortune of being able to put someone on their ignore list.

You dont know what you're missing.

Standing Like A Rock
12-10-2008, 09:36 PM
1: military defense
2: courts
----------CUT------------------
3: post office
4-n:everything else

heavenlyboy34
12-10-2008, 10:14 PM
Yeah, like that's ever going to happen. It would never even make it into committee. :p

I can dream, can't I? :o Isn't it funny how threads wind up sometimes? We started this thread about shrinking the gov'ment, now we're talking about mutually assured destruction against them. I love RPFs! :)

Truth Warrior
12-11-2008, 10:05 AM
1: military defense
2: courts
----------CUT------------------
3: post office
4-n:everything else I just thought that I might be able to count on some "minarchist" support for the idea. ;)

Thanks! :)

Truth Warrior
12-11-2008, 10:13 AM
I can dream, can't I? :o Isn't it funny how threads wind up sometimes? We started this thread about shrinking the gov'ment, now we're talking about mutually assured destruction against them. I love RPFs! :) Reality both rules and rocks!<IMHO> ;)

RPF threads are "lak a box of chocolates", to paraphrase Forrest Gump. :D

heavenlyboy34
12-11-2008, 10:47 AM
Reality both rules and rocks!<IMHO> ;)
+1 :)


RPF threads are "lak a box of chocolates", to paraphrase Forrest Gump. :D

lol, I would agree there. :eek::)