I, for one, like the TSA

[GreenLP]

I mean somethings got to cause this country to revolt. :)

[Tinnuhana]

I've had a couple of experiences with them. In one, a TSA employee went out of her way to help me getting my dogs through customs and on to their destination. That was in Detroit. And in NH. where they stopped me, I and the two TSA agents had a good laugh about my Gadsden flag I had in my pocket (okay, so they were NH TSA employees).
Although the TSA itself is a monolithic out-of-control creation of the state, the individuals working are just that, individuals. Some are embarassed about the whole thing, others are on power trips, some seem to be on power trips but are just afraid of losing their jobs during a depression. Not suggesting we go soft on the TSA as an institution, but maybe we should be handing out literature and talking with the people working to win them over. Just an idea.

[johnny.rebel]

I mean somethings got to cause this country to revolt. :)

I gotta agree. :D

Nothing more effective than a tyrannical government searching, and stealing from, the peasants before they are allowed to move from point A to point B, to cause revolt. While most of the indoctrinated followers simply accept it as if it makes them safer, some of us know who the real terrorists are and say, "Fuck you", "keep your grimy mitts off of me, shove your x-ray radiation up your ass, and give me back my 'Leatherman'."

[speciallyblend]

i gotta agree. :d

nothing more effective than a tyrannical government searching, and stealing from, the peasants before they are allowed to move from point a to point b, to cause revolt. While most of the indoctrinated followers simply accept it as if it makes them safer, some of us know who the real terrorists are and say, "fuck you", "keep your grimy mitts off of me, shove your x-ray radiation up your ass, and give me back my 'leatherman'."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ftg

[eugenekop]

One thing is to seek foreign isolationism (which I support), the other thing is to ignore real threats which can really happen as was proven in 9/11. No one is trying to tyrannically search people, it IS for your safety.

The problem is that the airline companies can't choose for themselves the security measures, and that those measures are mandated by the government. But saying that security measures are useless is very idealistic and shortsighted.

[Acala]

I've had a couple of experiences with them. In one, a TSA employee went out of her way to help me getting my dogs through customs and on to their destination. That was in Detroit. And in NH. where they stopped me, I and the two TSA agents had a good laugh about my Gadsden flag I had in my pocket (okay, so they were NH TSA employees).
Although the TSA itself is a monolithic out-of-control creation of the state, the individuals working are just that, individuals. Some are embarassed about the whole thing, others are on power trips, some seem to be on power trips but are just afraid of losing their jobs during a depression. Not suggesting we go soft on the TSA as an institution, but maybe we should be handing out literature and talking with the people working to win them over. Just an idea.

Nice post. I agree. Resist, but with love for your fellow man. It is fear, anger, and hatred that GOT us in this mess. It isn't going to get us out. And, after all, we want TSA employees to live in liberty also - but not as TSA employees.

[Acala]

I hope I am not just feeding a troll here, but just in case you are well-meaning . . .


One thing is to seek foreign isolationism (which I support),

I don't support isolationsim, Ron Paul doesn't, and most people on this forum do not. Most people here support the Founder's foreign policy of friendly relations with all and entangling alliances with none. So who are you talking to?


the other thing is to ignore real threats which can really happen as was proven in 9/11.

Oh, where to begin.

First of all, our bullying interventionist foreign policy caused 9/11. So the way to eliminate the threat of that happening again is to end the US World Empire and mind our own business. And that is really the main point.

Secondly, simply putting locking doors on cockpits or guns in the holsters of pilots would have stopped the threat of another 9/11. No giant new agency with expanded powers needed. No long lines and invasive warrantless searches. No domestic surveillance. Just install some locks and stop being scared little babies.

Thirdly, no amount of enhanced security will EVER stop a determined suicidal terrorist from killing people. All it does is further erode our freedom.

Fourth, when you live in fear and trade your freedom for the illusion of security the terrorists have already won.



No one is trying to tyrannically search people, it IS for your safety.

The f&*K it is!!! At best it is about expanding government power, control, and budgets. At worst it is about further training the public to give up their rights and to meekly submit to ever more invasive and abusive authority on the way to a totally unrestrained police state.


The problem is that the airline companies can't choose for themselves the security measures, and that those measures are mandated by the government.

Yes, that IS a problem, but not the main one. The main problem is that TSA is another big step towards a police state.



But saying that security measures are useless is very idealistic and shortsighted.

Being guided by ideals rather than the vagaries of fear, anger, hatred, ignorance, etc. is kinda what this movement is all about. So I will gladly wear the label of idealist. But shortsighted? No. Thinking that you can have a brutal world empire with no repercussions is shortsighted. Thinking that you can trade liberty for security and not end up in chains is shortsighted. Thinking that the government is a benign entity that is just here to help you is shortsighted AND ignorant of world history.

[Chester Copperpot]

I've had a couple of experiences with them. In one, a TSA employee went out of her way to help me getting my dogs through customs and on to their destination. That was in Detroit. And in NH. where they stopped me, I and the two TSA agents had a good laugh about my Gadsden flag I had in my pocket (okay, so they were NH TSA employees).
Although the TSA itself is a monolithic out-of-control creation of the state, the individuals working are just that, individuals. Some are embarassed about the whole thing, others are on power trips, some seem to be on power trips but are just afraid of losing their jobs during a depression. Not suggesting we go soft on the TSA as an institution, but maybe we should be handing out literature and talking with the people working to win them over. Just an idea.

Thats a good idea.. Like we could hand out information to people on how there is no perfect safety but with pilots now allowed to have guns and cockpit doors being made of reinforced steel, that this has more to do with preventing another 9/11 than people checking your body cavities

[eugenekop]

By isolationism I meant non interventionism. Now I support Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement in the radical cutting of the military budget, removal of all military bases, and in not going to futile wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. However the indisputable fact is that America IS the enemy of many states. It doesn't matter what are the reasons; being the enemy of so many people sometimes necessitates strict security measures.

I agree with you of course that it is not the function of the state to force these measures, but if what it takes to stop terrorists are intrusive searches, then so be it, I don't care about idealistic notions of freedom when I can be blown up to pieces.

You think that these measures are extreme, I do not necessarily disagree, but I don't see this as a fight between the individual and the state. Most people support these measures, otherwise they wouldn't have voted for the likes of Bush. You are in the minority that thinks otherwise, that's fine, but don't turn it into some romantic peasant revolt against the state. I think it is anachronistic and wrong.

Having said that, I agree with you on most points, I just disagree with the rhetoric.

[cindy25]

the problem is not with the low level employee, as they are just doing what they are told.

the back stops with OBAMA. he gave the order, he could end it.

[Bruno]

By isolationism I meant non interventionism. Now I support Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement in the radical cutting of the military budget, removal of all military bases, and in not going to futile wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. However the indisputable fact is that America IS the enemy of many states. It doesn't matter what are the reasons; being the enemy of so many people sometimes necessitates strict security measures.

I agree with you of course that it is not the function of the state to force these measures, but if what it takes to stop terrorists are intrusive searches, then so be it, I don't care about idealistic notions of freedom when I can be blown up to pieces.

You think that these measures are extreme, I do not necessarily disagree, but I don't see this as a fight between the individual and the state. Most people support these measures, otherwise they wouldn't have voted for the likes of Bush. You are in the minority that thinks otherwise, that's fine, but don't turn it into some romantic peasant revolt against the state. I think it is anachronistic and wrong.

Having said that, I agree with you on most points, I just disagree with the rhetoric.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2hef3vk.jpg

[Fredom101]

I've had a couple of experiences with them. In one, a TSA employee went out of her way to help me getting my dogs through customs and on to their destination. That was in Detroit. And in NH. where they stopped me, I and the two TSA agents had a good laugh about my Gadsden flag I had in my pocket (okay, so they were NH TSA employees).
Although the TSA itself is a monolithic out-of-control creation of the state, the individuals working are just that, individuals. Some are embarassed about the whole thing, others are on power trips, some seem to be on power trips but are just afraid of losing their jobs during a depression. Not suggesting we go soft on the TSA as an institution, but maybe we should be handing out literature and talking with the people working to win them over. Just an idea.

Excellent point. We must keep in mind that each TSA agent is an individual with their own human emotions and needs. We have to treat them that way if we expect to be treated like humans. It may not result in going through security unscathed, but treating them as humans gives us a SHOT.

[Fredom101]

Most people support these measures, otherwise they wouldn't have voted for the likes of Bush.

Most people did NOT vote for Bush, nor did most people vote for Obama. Election turnout is typically about 38% of eligible voters, so at best you're looking at about 20% of the population that actually voted for these guys.

[cswake]

By isolationism I meant non interventionism.I realize that English is probably not your primary language, but definitions are critical in discussions both in America and the world.

isolationism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/isolationism): A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.

noninterventionism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/noninterventionism): the doctrine that governments should not interfere in the politics of other countries.

[pcosmar]

http://i54.tinypic.com/2hef3vk.jpg

lol
"wrong turn at Albuquerque"

[sofia]

people will never revolt.

the elites know when to lighten up a bit.....before resuming their strangulation of us....

think of a snake suffocating a rat...he will lighten up so the rat doesnt struggle as much....until the rat is so weak that he cant struggle.......

if the public is too dumb to figure out that 9/11 was an inside job......they aint gonna figure out that TSA is part of a plan to install a total police state either

[ChaosControl]

I mean somethings got to cause this country to revolt. :)

You have more optimism in the American people than I do.
There is literally nothing that would make this brainwashed brain dead populace revolt against their divine ordained government.

[qh4dotcom]

I mean somethings got to cause this country to revolt. :)

Don't forget that the TSA is also groping thousands of folks who voted for Obama, they are getting the change they voted for.

[payme_rick]

I've had a couple of experiences with them. In one, a TSA employee went out of her way to help me getting my dogs through customs and on to their destination. That was in Detroit. And in NH. where they stopped me, I and the two TSA agents had a good laugh about my Gadsden flag I had in my pocket (okay, so they were NH TSA employees).
Although the TSA itself is a monolithic out-of-control creation of the state, the individuals working are just that, individuals. Some are embarassed about the whole thing, others are on power trips, some seem to be on power trips but are just afraid of losing their jobs during a depression. Not suggesting we go soft on the TSA as an institution, but maybe we should be handing out literature and talking with the people working to win them over. Just an idea.

I agree with handing out literature etc...

I think the TSA employees are individuals, of course, but it's sad when you have a group of individuals like this...

If we are to sit here and complain about how these scans and gropes are a violation of our rights, than we have to acknowledge that these TSA employees/individuals are making a dime off of the violation of the natural rights of the citizens of this country...

I read the article where the TSA agent was defending himself after being called a Nazi... I understand his shock and the differences with the end-result of Nazis and TSA workers (Nazi violating rights and forcing jews on a train-car = death; TSA agent violating your natural rights by groping/naked images: you go on to your destination), but the bottom line here is the violation of your natural rights... it's almost worse by a TSA agent if you think about it... A Nazi soldier/officer would either be shot on the spot or tried then shot/hanged for refusing to violate the natural rights of the jews (take orders)... a TSA agent can just say "ahh, you know what, this isn't right... I'm just going to collect unemployment and search for another job instead of violating the natural rights of these people..."

Not saying these TSA agents are pure evil, but they ARE part of the problem because they are more than willing to be paid to violate the natural rights of citizens here... but it's all because of security and "just the way it goes" mentality... over time, we as a whole, made up of invididuals, just do not give a shit... "time makes more converts than reason..", as Thomas Paine would say...

[denison]

You have more optimism in the American people than I do.
There is literally nothing that would make this brainwashed brain dead populace revolt against their divine ordained government.

^truth.

I can't envision it.

[Acala]

By isolationism I meant non interventionism.

Big difference. Isolationism is a perjorative term used to try and marginalize people who criticize the US World Empire.


.
However the indisputable fact is that America IS the enemy of many states.

Solely as the result of our brutal interventionist foreign policy. Stop kicking every hornet's nest on the globe and we will no longer be an enemy. Sounds like you buy into the "they hate us for our freedom" lie.

.
It doesn't matter what are the reasons;

It damn well DOES matter! If our foreign policy is making us less secure, the very first thing you do is fix the foreign policy. If, after we have ended the world empire, brought the troops home, and stopped messing around in other peoples' affairs, we are STILL being attacked, then talk to me about security measures at home.

.
being the enemy of so many people sometimes necessitates strict security measures.

No, what it necessitates is figuring out what you are doing that is pissing off so many people and then STOP DOING IT!


but if what it takes to stop terrorists are intrusive searches, then so be it, I don't care about idealistic notions of freedom when I can be blown up to pieces.

I have a thousand times greater chance of being killed by my own government than by any terrorist EVEN WITH the brutal world empire. Your idea of giving more power to the entity that poses by far the greatest threat to my life, liberty, and property is a foolish one.


. Most people support these measures, otherwise they wouldn't have voted for the likes of Bush.

Even if that is true, so what? I don't support democracy (mob rule). And this country was never intended to BE a democracy. Would you support a return to slavery if the majority did?


You are in the minority that thinks otherwise,.

I am very aware that my views are the minority. One look at the intellectual, physical, emotional, and political condition of the majority should make anyone proud and happy to be in the minority.


but don't turn it into some romantic peasant revolt against the state. I think it is anachronistic and wrong.

You think resistance to the state is wrong? I think it is glorious, heroic, patriotic, and admirable.


Having said that, I agree with you on most points, I just disagree with the rhetoric.

Actually I think we have diametrically opposed fundamental views on the proper role of the state and the individual in society.

[Anti Federalist]

You have more optimism in the American people than I do.
There is literally nothing that would make this brainwashed brain dead populace revolt against their divine ordained government.

That ^^^

You've got a better chance of seeing God than seeing Americunts revolt.

The state has now pretty much asserted the right to feel up the genitals of your pre pubescent child, and the Mundanes thank the state for it, in order to provide security theater to make it appear they are reducing a risk that is less than that of being struck by lightening.

The only thing that might put them out in the streets?

Take away their government cheese.

[Heimdallr]

I mean somethings got to cause this country to revolt. :)

Word.

[eugenekop]

I don't support democracy (mob rule). And this country was never intended to BE a democracy

United States was the first true democracy in the world and the best model for modern democracy which many countries including Israel copied. I don't see how you can think of America as non democratic country.


Actually I think we have diametrically opposed fundamental views on the proper role of the state and the individual in society.

No, we don't. Since we both support Ron Paul, I doubt our views can be that different.

[Heimdallr]

United States was the first true democracy in the world and the best model for modern democracy which many countries including Israel copied. I don't see how you can think of America as non democratic country.



No, we don't. Since we both support Ron Paul, I doubt our views can be that different.

I don't think you actually support Ron Paul. Read up on his views a bit more.

Also, get more educated on the difference between a Republic and a pure Democracy.

[jmdrake]

One thing is to seek foreign isolationism (which I support), the other thing is to ignore real threats which can really happen as was proven in 9/11. No one is trying to tyrannically search people, it IS for your safety.

The problem is that the airline companies can't choose for themselves the security measures, and that those measures are mandated by the government. But saying that security measures are useless is very idealistic and shortsighted.

Ummm....you do know that the underwear bomber's father told us ahead of time that he was a terrorist but our government claims the didn't have enough information to deny him his U.S. Visa right?

You do know that neither pat downs nor porn scans (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html) nor profiling would have actually helped against the underwear bomber right? (He was Nigerian. Profiling would have only looked at Arabs or North Africans). And what happens if/when we have a tampon bomber?

9/11 and the underwear bombing attempt both could have been stopped simply through good police work using available intelligence and the pre-9/11 legal framework. We had Zacharias Moussoui in custody. And FBI agent tried to get a FISA warrant to search his laptop, but justice department lawyers blocked her from even filing the request. They were not required by law to do this. Whether this was treason or just stupidity, it cost 3,000 Americans their lives. It's time to quit giving the government a pass on abject failure and allowing them to "increase security" on the backs of our freedoms.

[libertybrewcity]

Most people did NOT vote for Bush, nor did most people vote for Obama. Election turnout is typically about 38% of eligible voters, so at best you're looking at about 20% of the population that actually voted for these guys.

Presidential election turnout is usually about 60%. Midterms are much lower at around 35-45%

[jmdrake]

However the indisputable fact is that America IS the enemy of many states. It doesn't matter what are the reasons; being the enemy of so many people sometimes necessitates strict security measures.


You know, as much as I disagree with your conclusion, I will agree with this to a point. It certainly does matter why we are hated in the long run, but in the short run it doesn't. Even if we started radically changing our foreign policy, not all of the "terror cells" (if they even exist) would get the message.

That's why it's important to really understand 9/11 and the subsequent terror attacks. They were totally preventable without having any new "strict security measures". Even if you aren't going the "conspiracy theory" route, there was actionable intelligence that was suppressed or ignored that could have stopped the 1993 WTC bombing, 9/11 and the underwear bomber getting on the plane. The underwear bomber demonstrates this most starkly. His father told us he was a terrorist but the U.S. government refused to arrest him or even deny him his Visa.

Really, while some here are jumping on you, I find your participation in this thread quite instructive. Arguing "blowback" alone isn't enough to convince everyone to take their freedoms back. People need to know that the entire GWOT (global war on terror) is a joke.

[Acala]

United States was the first true democracy in the world and the best model for modern democracy which many countries including Israel copied. I don't see how you can think of America as non democratic country.

Sorry amigo, but you need to brush up on US history before you start expounding on it. In the meantime let me give you a nutshell. One of the few things that ALL the founders of this country agreed on was that democracy always had been and always would be a FAILURE. They differed on how the evils of democracy should be avoided - Hamilton and others favoring a strong executive to veto the majority, Madison and others opting for checks and balances among the branches of government, a wide dispersion of authority, and a strict limitation of powers to a short list of specifics (called the enumerated powers). Even this was not enough for the Anti-Federalists who demanded the Bill of Rights which specifically denies powers to the government and is clearly anti-democratic.

Unfortunately, we have drifted towards democracy over the years and have suffered for it. When we collapse in the near future, democracy will bear much of the blame.

I am assuming you are sincere. Based on that assumption, I will share with you the following: most of what you have learned in school and been told by the news media and by politicians is wrong. If you hang around this forum with an open mind you will learn much truth.


No, we don't. Since we both support Ron Paul, I doubt our views can be that different.

If you think people resisting TSA is "a peasant uprising" we are FAR, FAR apart in our views. If you think more government power keeps people safe, we are in different worlds. If you think "majority rules" is a good way to preserve liberty, you are flat out wrong.

But do stick around and read what people here have to say. An understanding of liberty does not come overnight, but it WILL come if you open your mind.

[eugenekop]

Let's see:



Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe, among others.

Yes.


He also proposes that the U.S. stop sending massive, unaccountable foreign aid

Yes.


Paul was the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have objected to and voted against the Iraq War Resolution

Yes.



"[This support has] been going on for more than 50 years, because there has been a pretty strong case made for the Jewish people being treated quite badly, and emotionally there was an argument for having a place they can call their homeland, and people bought into this. But even then there was no justification for us to be using our money for doing that. There’s one thing being friends, getting along with people and trading with people versus subsidizing them."[

Yes, but with reservation. America should stop the aid to Israel and should stop intervening in any way, but American firms should be able to continue selling weapons to Israel and to other countries.


Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle."

Yes.


Paul rejected the proposal for "[urging] the Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the UN Security Council fail to act.

Yes.


In 2000, Paul voted to end trade restrictions on Cuba.

Yes.


Paul advocates withdrawing U.S. participation and funding from organizations he believes override American sovereignty, such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the WTO, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

Yes.


Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating "conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."[43] He opposes many free trade agreements (FTAs), like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),[44] stating that "free-trade agreements are really managed trade"[45] and serve special interests and big business, not citizens.[46]

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional.[44] He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that "fast track" powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTAs on the country's behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTAs

Yes.


He believes illegal aliens take a toll on welfare and Social Security and would end such benefits, concerned that uncontrolled immigration makes the U.S. a magnet for illegal aliens, increases welfare payments, and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.

Yes.


Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic birthright citizenship.

Yes.


Calling the September 11, 2001, attacks an act of "air piracy," Paul introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and reprisal, authorized by article I, section 8 of the Constitution, would have targeted specific terrorist suspects, instead of invoking war against a foreign state.

No. Taliban should have been stricken because of harboring terrorists, but the war had to be very short, not more than a month.


Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially

Yes.


In order to restrict the federal government to its Constitutionally authorized functions, Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes,

Yes.


He would eliminate many federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education,[75] the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce,[76] the US Department of Health and Human Services,[76] the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service,[77] calling them "unnecessary bureaucracies."


Yes.


Paul would severely reduce the role of the Central Intelligence Agency; reducing its functions to intelligence-gathering. He would eliminate operations like overthrowing foreign governments and assassinations.

Yes.


He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits

Yes.


Paul's opposition to the Federal Reserve is supported by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory

Yes.


Paul said that he supports the right of those who engage in nonviolent resistance when they believe a law is unjust, bringing up the names of Martin Luther King, Lysander Spooner, and Mahatma Gandhi as examples of practitioners of peaceful civil disobedience; but he cautioned that those who do should be aware that the consequences could be imprisonment.

Yes.


Paul believes young Americans should be able to opt out of the system if they would like not to pay Social Security taxes

Yes.


Ron Paul endorses defederalization of the health care system. Paul also states that he has an opposition to virtually all federal interference with the market process

Yes.


In an interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Paul said he favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly on first class mail delivery by legalizing private competition.

Yes.


Paul argued against the $700 billion bailout proposal to purchase toxic debt during the economic crisis of 2008.

Yes.


Paul argued against the $700 billion bailout proposal to purchase toxic debt during the economic crisis of 2008.

Yes.


Ron Paul was one of two representatives to vote against the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act of 2007,[148] which states that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi Internet connection to the public, who "obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances"

Yes.


Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense.

No. I don't want cops to fear for their lives. I believe in the state more than I believe in criminals.


Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case.

No, I oppose juries, and favor judges.


Paul broke with his party by voting against the PATRIOT Act in 2001; he also voted against its 2005 enactment

No, I support the patriot act. Again, I fear terrorists more than I fear the state.


Paul voted against the REAL ID Act of 2005

No. I support REAL ID Act. Whatever makes the work of the police easier to catch criminals and terrorists, I support it.


Paul has spoken against the domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency on American citizens.

No. I support surveillance programs because they help weed out the mafia and other criminals.


Paul is strongly opposed to reintroducing the draft

Disagree. American should be always vigilant against potential attacks and train the population if needed. The draft is essential, even though it should be used only in the very extreme cases.


Paul opposes eminent domain. He wishes to "stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches." He opposes "regulatory takings .... Governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying 'just compensation'.”

No, I support eminent domain. Just compensation should of course be provided, but the damage to the economy when someone crazy refuses to move is too big to let it slide.


In 1997, Paul voted to end affirmative action in college admissions.

Yes.


To be continued...

[pcosmar]

To be continued...

Don't bother.
Educate yourself first.

Oh, and read my sig line.
:cool:

[eugenekop]

But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem

Yes.


Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"

No, I am strongly pro-abortion.


Paul supports stem-cell research generically

Yes.


Paul joined with his conservative colleagues in voting "no" on HR 2560, the Democrats' version of a federal ban on human cloning.

Yes. I support human cloning and any other kind of research.



Paul stated in August 2007 that at the state level "capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime," but he does not believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty

No, I support capital punishment for terrorists, mass murderers and those who are likely to murder again in prison.


Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education

Yes.


Paul supports the right of state and local school districts to implement education vouchers according to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, but he does not believe they should exist on a federal level.

Yes.


He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between and among the states or regions concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards.


Yes.


In an October 2007 interview, Paul held that climate change is not a "major problem threatening civilization." He declined to name any particular environmental heroes and affirmed no special environmental achievements other than his educating the people about free-market solutions rather than "government expenditures and special-interest politics."

Yes.


Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.

Yes.


He would support a tax credit for senior citizens who need to pay for costly prescription drugs. He would also allow them to import drugs from other countries at lower prices. He has called for health savings accounts that allow for tax-free savings to be used to pay for prescriptions.

Yes.


He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, observing that the Codex Alimentarius proposal would even require a prescription for basic vitamins.

Yes.


Paul favors the use of marijuana as a medical option. He was cosponsor of H.R. 2592, the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act.[235] He is currently a supporter of the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008

Yes.


Paul contends that prohibition of drugs is ineffective and advocates ending the War on Drugs

Yes, with reservations. I'm not sure we should legalize the really hard drugs which make the person lose all self control.


Paul has also stated that “The government shouldn't be in the medical business."

Yes.

[eugenekop]

Liberty is important to me. I am against government telling me how to build my house, which safety measures to implement in my business, how to spend my money and so forth.

However I fully support the government in trying to stop people who infringe on the liberty of others. If that includes surveillance, security measures and a national ID database, I am all for. I don't want the mafia to control business, and I don't want murderers and rapists on the street.

I am not completely familiar with American security measures, but I can tell you that in Israel, surveillance, Mossad operations, security checks in hotels and malls saved thousands of lives. Yes it is somewhat inconvenient, but I happily pay this price.

About democracy vs. republic. The origin of the word "Republic" is from Rome. The Roman republic barely resembled modern democracy or constitutional republic. You redefined the word "republic" to mean something else. In any case it is only semantics. Modern democracy includes separation of power and laws against the tyranny of the majority. Whether you call it democracy or republic doesn't really matter.

[Acala]

Liberty is important to me. I am against government telling me how to build my house, which safety measures to implement in my business, how to spend my money and so forth.

However I fully support the government in trying to stop people who infringe on the liberty of others. If that includes surveillance, security measures and a national ID database, I am all for. I don't want the mafia to control business, and I don't want murderers and rapists on the street.

I am completely familiar with American security measures, but I can tell you that in Israel, surveillance, Mossad operations, security checks in hotels and malls saved thousands of lives. Yes it is somewhat inconvenient, but I happily pay this price.

About democracy vs. republic. The origin of the word "Republic" is from Rome. The Roman republic barely resembled modern democracy or constitutional republic. You redefined the word "republic" to mean something else. In any case it is only semantics. Modern democracy includes separation of power and laws against the tyranny of the majority. Whether you call it democracy or republic doesn't really matter.

Yes, it DOES matter. And by your prior post you indicated that you believe the will of the majority should prevail. That is democracy and that is NOT how this country was intended to be governed. It is not semantics. It is a crucial distinction. The majority can take its opinion and ram it. That is how I define a limited republic.

As for your long list of policy issues, great! You don't suck as bad as other supporters of police states. But you still think government can be trusted with power when it has proved a thousand times that it cannot. Your fear does not justify my loss of privacy. Government needs to be hobbled so completely that it can barely get out of bed in the morning.

As for your fear of criminals, the brutal fact is that governments in the last century killed a thousand times more of their own citizens than all the terrorists and criminals in all of history. Your fears are misplaced and irrational. At least in THIS country. What Israel does is Israel's business.

[amy31416]

Eugene--you don't even understand the philosophical underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment, nor do you seem to care about gov't using it's power (that was first obtained to "keep us safe") against it's own citizens.

We here in the US are losing civil liberties every other day in the name of "safety" from bogeymen and if that's what you want, you're in the right place. I don't want it, and I won't tolerate it. Your country might want to try diplomacy with it's neighbors and learn to get along with them, or those "security" fences you guys keep building to keep the scary guys out will end up being fences that keep you imprisoned.

And yes, the US ought to stop their bullshit as well, both in foreign and domestic policy. We reap what we sow and it is not sustainable.

[eugenekop]

Israel and Britain have a democracy which have the same laws as America against tyranny of the majority, and the same constitutional rights. A modern western democracy has all these things, so the name itself doesn't matter when the systems are the same.

I agree with you that Americans have created a lot of hate, but to think that terrorism and hate will stop even with full isolationism is very naive. There are aggressors in the world that want to conquer, control and kill, irrespective of American actions.

[low preference guy]

I agree with you that Americans have created a lot of hate, but to think that terrorism and hate will stop even with full isolationism is very naive. There are aggressors in the world that want to conquer, control and kill, irrespective of American actions.

That might be true, and the U.S. should go after them. But it doesn't change the fact a policy of trade with all nations and alliances with none is the right one.

[eugenekop]

As for your fear of criminals, the brutal fact is that governments in the last century killed a thousand times more of their own citizens than all the terrorists and criminals in all of history

Examples?

[low preference guy]

eugene, why do you call the policy isolationism? How is it isolationist to aim to have unrestrained trade and travel with every other country?

[pcosmar]

Examples?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k07pirzBU34/ShqvbD48X4I/AAAAAAAABMA/4HavAN4wqJI/s400/waco.jpg

:(

Oh yeah, another democracy here.

http://sonicbomb.com/albums/album53/Nazi_german_atrocities.jpg

[eugenekop]

But it doesn't change the fact a policy of trade and commerce with all nations, and alliances with none, is the right policy.

Not entirely true. There is a clear division between western democracies and people with western mentality and people from non western uncivilized countries. The west should defend itself and its values. For example America could not have allowed the Soviet Union to conquer western Europe, and Britain could not have allowed Nazi Germany to conquer Poland. Some alliances make sense.

[eugenekop]

eugene, why do you call the policy isolationism? How is it isolationist to have unrestrained trade and travel between two countries "isolationist"?

No problem, I'll call it non interventionism, it is just a longer word. In any case I fully support it.

[low preference guy]

Not entirely true. There is a clear division between western democracies and people with western mentality and people from non western uncivilized countries. The west should defend itself. For example America could not have allowed the Soviet Union to conquer western Europe, and Britain could not have allowed Nazi Germany to conquer Poland. Some alliances make sense.

No, the U.S. should have allowed any country to do whatever the hell it wanted to any other country as long as America wasn't directly attacked. If capitalism is a good economic system and communism is inviable, the U.S. shouldn't have wasted resources to bring about a collapse that was inevitable anyway.

As for what the British do, they can do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't mess with us.

[eugenekop]

If Britain was upholding the principle of complete non interventionism as you advocate, she would have been conquered by Nazi Germany. It is just crazy to wait until all Europe is smashed to pieces by the Nazis and only act when the Nazis attack you directly, its crazy. You can't be idealistically completely non interventionist, sometimes alliances and preemptive strikes are essential.

[low preference guy]

If Britain was upholding the principle of complete non interventionism as you advocate, she would have been conquered by Nazi Germany. It is just crazy to wait until all Europe is smashed to pieces by the Nazis and only act when the Nazis attack you directly, its crazy. You can't be idealistically completely non interventionist, sometimes alliances and preemptive strikes are essential.

The British are not citizens of the United States. I don't care if the British uphold non-interventionism or not.

[pcosmar]

If Britain was upholding the principle of complete non interventionism as you advocate, she would have been conquered by Nazi Germany. It is just crazy to wait until all Europe is smashed to pieces by the Nazis and only act when the Nazis attack you directly, its crazy. You can't be idealistically completely non interventionist, sometimes alliances and preemptive strikes are essential.

Doubts. Hitler had no intention of attacking Briton.
But regardless of that it still has Nothing to do with us.
We kicked the British asses out.

They have been butting in ever since. Fabian Socialism pisses me off even more.
:(

[eugenekop]

But I am not discussing American policy of non interventionism, I am discussing a general policy of non interventionism. I understand that you don't care about Britain, but I am not discussing Britain, I am just giving Britain an example of the necessity of alliances in general. Moreover, there are international members in this forum as well, I think it would be fair to discuss other countries too, not only America.

[pcosmar]

You can't be idealistically completely non interventionist, sometimes alliances and preemptive strikes are essential.

Either totally ignorant,,,
or a Troll.

:(

[eugenekop]

Stop saying I am a troll, I am only discussing my genuine ideas.

A preemptive strike against Nazi Germany for example would have been very wise, a preemptive strike of Israel against Egypt in 67 was essential and crucial.

[Tinnuhana]

Could one distinction be that we can defend a friend but that there should be no treaties to do so? Wasn't that what made WWI so big? One assassination and everybody takes sides with their treatied allies.
Here's an idea: decide whether you want war, then have the women vote on it. If you still want to have it out with the "enemy", arrange a lacrosse game.
Then there's Lysistrata's idea. :D

[pcosmar]

But I am not discussing American policy of non interventionism, I am discussing a general policy of non interventionism. I understand that you don't care about Britain, but I am not discussing Britain, I am just giving Britain an example of the necessity of alliances in general. Moreover, there are international members in this forum as well, I think it would be fair to discuss other countries too, not only America.
Thee British Empire is AN EMPIRE
Not even closely related nor relevant to us in this country.

Add to that they are socialist. have a surveillance society. and are a fine exalple of what is wrong with both of those predicaments.

As far as members in other countries, Freedom is universal, but other countries need to work on that themselves.
No other country has our Constitution, or anything close to it.

[eugenekop]

Could one distinction be that we can defend a friend but that there should be no treaties to do so?

I agree, that's wise.

[StilesBC]

One thing is to seek foreign isolationism (which I support), the other thing is to ignore real threats which can really happen as was proven in 9/11. No one is trying to tyrannically search people, it IS for your safety.

The problem is that the airline companies can't choose for themselves the security measures, and that those measures are mandated by the government. But saying that security measures are useless is very idealistic and shortsighted.

No, it is not. The "threats" are absolutely insignificant compared to the total number of flights which they intend to "protect." In any other similar situation involving risk, using this many resources to to protect against such a small risk would be deemed ludicrous. It is only the emotional factor that has allowed it to become somewhat acceptable to most people - and those emotions have been toyed with. By government, by the media, and by so-called cool-headed people like yourself that will justify it.

The "terrorist threat" itself is a figment of your imagination. There are always going to be a few hundred or thousand crazy mofo's on this planet. There always has been, there always will be. We're no more at risk of getting killed by a terrorist today than we were 100 years ago, or 1000.

[pcosmar]

Stop saying I am a troll, I am only discussing my genuine ideas.

A preemptive strike against Nazi Germany for example would have been very wise, a preemptive strike of Israel against Egypt in 67 was essential and crucial.

A "preemptive" strike on Israel is about 50 years too late, but it would have made the world a safer place. ;)

It was preemptive measures against Germany that gave rise to the Nazi Party. (unintended consequences)

[eugenekop]

No, it is not. The "threats" are absolutely insignificant compared to the total number of flights which they intend to "protect." In any other similar situation involving risk, using this many resources to to protect against such a small risk would be deemed ludicrous. It is only the emotional factor that has allowed it to become somewhat acceptable to most people - and those emotions have been toyed with. By government, by the media, and by so-called cool-headed people like yourself that will justify it.

I think I agree with you. In Israel the story is completely different. For us it is very real. But for Americans I don't think the threat justifies the means at this point.

[low preference guy]

The problem is that the airline companies can't choose for themselves the security measures, and that those measures are mandated by the government.

So you agree that the government should stay out and let airlines choose their security measures? This is a very important issue, and you seem to be in agreement with most members of the forum on this one.

[eugenekop]

So you agree that the government should stay out and let airlines choose their security measures? This is a very important issue, and you seem to be in agreement with most members of the forum on this one.

Of course I agree. The free market should be responsible for safety and security measures, not the government. People should have the option to choose different risks according to their preferences and wealth.



It was preemptive measures against Germany that gave rise to the Nazi Party.

Yes, but I would have still supported preemptive strike against Nazi Germany.

[eugenekop]

What I was against is the idealistic adherence to freedom even when people are likely to die because of it. Security is as important as freedom for me.

[MelissaWV]

...
Yes, but I would have still supported preemptive strike against Nazi Germany.

If you are basing that upon hindsight, you're being ridiculously unfair and illogical. Pre-emptive strikes are decided on the information at hand at the time. It wasn't called for.

This is akin to all the folks who will crow about being entirely in favor of due process, but when the police bust in without a warrant and beat up the subject and get a confession... all of a sudden it's unfair that such processes should keep the criminal from being prosecuted. That only came about because of the hindsight which let people know that the victim of the unlawful search/arrest was probably not such a great person.

[Heimdallr]

Yes, but I would have still supported preemptive strike against Nazi Germany.

Maybe in that case, but you do realize that this kind of preemptive attack would validate the Nazi ideology. "See? The Evil Allies are aggressing upon the noble and peaceful German people!"


It would just give them more sympathizers and motivate them to fight harder. I dunno, Nazi Germany is a tough call.

[MelissaWV]

What I was against is the idealistic adherence to freedom even when people are likely to die because of it. Security is as important as freedom for me.

Then you are unlikely to have either.

[low preference guy]

Then you are unlikely to have either.

a short post by Melissa? it's a special day!

[eugenekop]

If you had lived in Israel in some periods in our history when every week some bus or restaurant would blow up, you'd understand that security is sometimes more important than freedom.

[pcosmar]

What I was against is the idealistic adherence to freedom even when people are likely to die because of it. Security is as important as freedom for me.
I disagree.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[johnny.rebel]

What I was against is the idealistic adherence to freedom even when people are likely to die because of it. Security is as important as freedom for me.
And that is what we love about the 2nd Amendment here in America. :cool:

[MelissaWV]

a short post my by Melissa? it's a special day!

Up.............................

up and away; that's what Superman used to say. Then he died, because people stopped believing in him. I may be mistakenly thinking of Santa Claus. Either way, it's saddening to read a post designed to derail, divide, and generally be pesky and obnoxious. It's like you have nothing to add, except to point out that you generally think in one-liners, and resent people who jot down paragraphs rather than post zingers in a consistent attempt to curry favor.

I digress, however, so Happy Thanksgiving to you and
......................yours.

[eugenekop]

I don't have all the details about Nazi Germany, but in 67 if Israel didn't preemptively strike Egypt, Israel would have been destroyed, I guarantee you that.

[MelissaWV]

If you had lived in Israel in some periods in our history when every week some bus or restaurant would blow up, you'd understand that security is sometimes more important than freedom.

Israel has world-famous security. Israel still has bombers that blow up places and people within their borders.

It would appear "security" is just an illusion and a matter of scale.

I feel pretty damned secure, and I don't need someone else to make it so. Maybe you should question why you are incapable of a similar situation for you and yours?

[eugenekop]

You feel secure because you don't live in a small country surrounded by hordes of enemies that wish to destroy it just because it is there. Trust me, you would have none of your pacifism if you came to live here for a few years.

[MelissaWV]

You feel secure because you don't live in a small country surrounded by hordes of enemies that wish to destroy it just because it is there. Trust me, you would have none of your pacifism if you came to live here for a few years.

I am not a pacifist. I'd rather rely on myself or trusted friends/family with a stake in my survival (other than keeping another drone alive) for comfort, support, and defense if it's needed.

Did you ever wonder why those hordes of enemies were so angry?

Did you ever wonder if it had more to do with you as a person, or with the Government you seem ever-eager to call to assist you with your own security?

Your guarantees are hollow, baseless, and mistaken.

[pcosmar]

You feel secure because you don't live in a small country surrounded by hordes of enemies that wish to destroy it just because it is there. Trust me, you would have none of your pacifism if you came to live here for a few years.

Perhaps it is the actions of the government, the lack of diplomacy and a rejection of principals that make the country unsafe.
"What you sow, so shall you also reap."
:cool:

[eugenekop]

Did you ever wonder why those hordes of enemies were so angry?

Yes, they don't want Jews in the middle of the Islamic land. They want Jews to be deported to some other place.


I am not a pacifist. I'd rather rely on myself or trusted friends/family with a stake in my survival (other than keeping another drone alive) for comfort, support, and defense if it's needed.

You might trust your family, but then some sophisticated Muslim countries will attack you and your family with tanks drones, and you will only have guns to defend yourself.

[MelissaWV]

Yes, they don't want Jews in the middle of the Islamic land. They want Jews to be deported to some other place.

You might trust your family, but then some sophisticated Muslim countries will attack you and your family with tanks drones, and you will only have guns to defend yourself.

I admire your ability to swallow those ridiculous stereotypes and cliches so elegantly.

Suffice to say, you know very little about my personal situation, and your assumptions are becoming laughably absurd.

You sound very much like someone arguing that someone whose house you've broken into doesn't have your favorite brand of beer in the fridge. The Middle East has been a hotbed for fighting for centuries. Poor little Israel? Give me a break. Defend yourselves, then, though it'll just be the Government doing it on behalf of the people, who would be cannon fodder in any such conflict if the lid was ever blown fully off.

I don't particularly adore my family, but I despise Government intrusion all in the name of "help." Government assistance rarely assists anyone but the Government. All of these advanced security measures will not do a thing to discourage or thwart the terrorist boogeymen that the Government swears are lurking around every corner in the USA, ready to detonate bottles of hair gel and rain destruction on the land of the free and the home of the brave (and probably hit a bald eagle in the process, those bastards!). Give me a damned break. All of this only costs, of course, extra money, time, and just a wee little bit of self-worth... but at least people will be safe!

Safe from what? What, precisely, does the TSA stop from happening? There are "no fly" lists that are not consistent or enforced with any kind of regularity. There are weapons which won't trigger the alarms and can be hidden where no groping will find them. There are cargo packages shipped in commercial planes that are not inspected in the intimate way the people sitting above them are. The pilots are still in control of the plane, which means that they could decide to meet their maker and take a couple of hundred souls with them. Bombs can very easily be detonated in the airport before the TSA checkpoint --- bombs that would take out people standing in the bottleneck created by the enhanced methods. There could be an attack at any large sporting event, or mall, or even the DMV. Black Friday might become a massacre!

How absurd, then, to concentrate on checking whether or not that busty grandmother waddling through security has a knife hidden under her sagging bosom.

They have, however, found an awful lot of drugs via the scan-or-grope method. No terrorists found, but lots of drugs. Do you still believe it's about security?

[jmdrake]

Liberty is important to me. I am against government telling me how to build my house, which safety measures to implement in my business, how to spend my money and so forth.

However I fully support the government in trying to stop people who infringe on the liberty of others. If that includes surveillance, security measures and a national ID database, I am all for. I don't want the mafia to control business, and I don't want murderers and rapists on the street.


And what happens when the murderers and rapists run the government?

See: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/mar/11/the-rape-of-american-prisoners/

The liberty movement is about protecting Americans from abuse by their government. It's not about turning American into an apartheid state like Israel. As for the national ID database, Nazi Germany was famous for having one. :rolleyes:



I am not completely familiar with American security measures, but I can tell you that in Israel, surveillance, Mossad operations, security checks in hotels and malls saved thousands of lives. Yes it is somewhat inconvenient, but I happily pay this price.


Why do you need all of that crap when in each instance there has been actionable intelligence before the attack? Seriously, why do you keep ignoring the fact that the underwear bombers father told us ahead of time who he was or that we had one of the 9/11 hijackers in custody along with his laptop prior to 9/11 but the investigation was blocked? Why give the government a blank check and more power when they haven't shown responsibility with the power they already have?



About democracy vs. republic. The origin of the word "Republic" is from Rome. The Roman republic barely resembled modern democracy or constitutional republic. You redefined the word "republic" to mean something else. In any case it is only semantics. Modern democracy includes separation of power and laws against the tyranny of the majority. Whether you call it democracy or republic doesn't really matter.

The word "Republic" is from Greece and it literally means "rule of law". Democracy means "rule of men".

YouTube - Republic vs Democracy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0)

[eugenekop]

Melissa, I don't disagree with you about STA. In Israel we always prepare for the war that already happened, in America you probably prepare for a terrorist act that already happened.

I guess America is still in post traumatic stress disorder since 9/11. I assume that if 9/11 was actually a mall blowup, you would be placing dozens of policemen in front of malls now.

[eugenekop]

The word "Republic" is from Greece and it literally means "rule of law". Democracy means "rule of men".

Eh?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic


The word "republic" is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair".

[eugenekop]

Wow, that's a really bad video. Its just an American centric propaganda pamphlet filled with lies and ignorance.

[jmdrake]

Eh?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

:rolleyes: You didn't fully read your own source.


A further set of meanings for the term comes from the Greek word politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia as res publica and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as republic. This is not a very accurate translation and the term politeia is today usually translated as form of government or regime. One continued use of this archaic translation is the title of Plato's major work on political science. In Greek it was titled Politeia and in English is thus known as The Republic. This naming is preserved for historic reasons, but is not considered accurate. Within the text of modern translations of The Republic, alternative translations of politeia are used.[19]

[jmdrake]

Wow, that's a really bad video. Its just a propaganda pamphlet filled with lies and ignorance.

Says the guy that posts from Wikipedia and ignores the fact that the Latins got the term republic from the Greeks. :rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

Eugenekop: You really need to educate yourself. Here's what Ron Paul has to say about a democracy versus a republic. It exactly jives with the video that you mistakenly call "propaganda".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul76.html

Sorry, Mr. Franklin, “We're All Democrats Now”

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, January 29, 2003

Introduction

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin told an inquisitive citizen that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave the people “a Republic, if you can keep it.” We should apologize to Mr. Franklin. It is obvious that the Republic is gone, for we are wallowing in a pure democracy against which the Founders had strongly warned.

Madison, the father of the Constitution, could not have been more explicit in his fear and concern for democracies. “Democracies,” he said, “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

If Madison's assessment was correct, it behooves those of us in Congress to take note and decide, indeed, whether the Republic has vanished, when it occurred, and exactly what to expect in the way of “turbulence, contention, and violence.” And above all else, what can we and what will we do about it?

The turbulence seems self-evident. Domestic welfare programs are not sustainable and do not accomplish their stated goals. State and federal spending and deficits are out of control. Terrorism and uncontrollable fear undermine our sense of well-being. Hysterical reactions to dangers not yet seen prompt the people — at the prodding of the politicians — to readily sacrifice their liberties in vain hope that someone else will take care of them and guarantee their security. With these obvious signs of a failed system all around us, there seems to be more determination than ever to antagonize the people of the world by pursuing a world empire. Nation building, foreign intervention, preemptive war, and global government drive our foreign policy. There seems to be complete aversion to defending the Republic and the Constitution that established it.

The Founders clearly understood the dangers of a democracy. Edmund Randolph of Virginia described the effort to deal with the issue at the Constitutional Convention: “The general object was to produce a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

These strongly held views regarding the evils of democracy and the benefits of a Constitutional Republic were shared by all the Founders. For them, a democracy meant centralized power, controlled by majority opinion, which was up for grabs and therefore completely arbitrary.

In contrast, a Republic was decentralized and representative in nature, with the government's purpose strictly limited by the Constitution to the protection of liberty and private property ownership. They believed the majority should never be able to undermine this principle and that the government must be tightly held in check by constitutional restraints. The difference between a democracy and a republic was simple. Would we live under the age-old concept of the rule of man or the enlightened rule of law?

A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority's demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

Subsequently, the same urge to accommodate majority opinion, while ignoring the principles of individual liberty, led to some other serious errors. Even amending the Constitution in a proper fashion to impose alcohol prohibition turned out to be a disaster. Fortunately this was rectified after a short time with its repeal.

But today, the American people accept drug prohibition, a policy as damaging to liberty as alcohol prohibition. A majority vote in Congress has been enough to impose this very expensive and failed program on the American people, without even bothering to amend the Constitution. It has been met with only minimal but, fortunately, growing dissent. For the first 150 years of our history, when we were much closer to being a true republic, there were no federal laws dealing with this serious medical problem of addiction.

The ideas of democracy, not the principles of liberty, were responsible for passage of the 16th Amendment. It imposed the income tax on the American people and helped to usher in the modern age of the welfare/warfare state. Unfortunately, the 16th Amendment has not been repealed, as was the 18th. As long as the 16th Amendment is in place, the odds are slim that we can restore a constitutional republic dedicated to liberty. The personal income tax is more than symbolic of a democracy; it is a predictable consequence.

Transition to Democracy

The transition from republic to democracy was gradual and insidious. Its seeds were sown early in our history. In many ways, the Civil War and its aftermath laid the foundation for the acute erosion that took place over the entire 20th century. Chronic concern about war and economic downturns — events caused by an intrusive government's failure to follow the binding restraints of the Constitution — allowed majority demands to supersede the rights of the minority. By the end of the 20th century, majority opinion had become the determining factor in all that government does. The rule of law was cast aside, leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was — a Constitution with rules that guaranteed a republic with limited and regional government and protection of personal liberty. The marketplace, driven by voluntary cooperation, private property ownership, and sound money was severely undermined with the acceptance of the principles of a true democracy.

Unfortunately, too many people confuse the democratic elections of leaders of a republic for democracy by accepting the rule of majority opinion in all affairs. For majorities to pick leaders is one thing. It is something quite different for majorities to decide what rights are, to redistribute property, to tell people how to manage their personal lives, and to promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars.

The majority is assumed to be in charge today and can do whatever it pleases. If the majority has not yet sanctioned some desired egregious action demanded by special interests, the propaganda machine goes into operation, and the pollsters relay the results back to the politicians who are seeking legitimacy in their endeavors. The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

This trend toward authoritarian democracy was tolerated because, unlike a military dictatorship, it was done in the name of benevolence, fairness, and equity. The pretense of love and compassion by those who desire to remold society and undermine the Constitution convinced the recipients, and even the victims, of its necessity. Since it was never a precipitous departure from the republic, the gradual erosion of liberty went unnoticed.

But it is encouraging that more and more citizens are realizing just how much has been lost by complacency. The resolution to the problems we face as a result of this profound transition to pure democracy will be neither quick nor painless. This transition has occurred even though the word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence, and the Founders explicitly denounced it.

Over the last hundred years, the goal of securing individual liberties within the framework of a constitutional republic has been replaced with incessant talk of democracy and fairness.

Rallying support for our ill-advised participation in World War I, Wilson spoke glowingly of “making the world safe for democracy,” and never mentioned national security. This theme has, to this day, persisted in all our foreign affairs. Neo-conservatives now brag of their current victories in promoting what they call “Hard Wilsonism.”

A true defense of self-determination for all people, the necessary ingredient of a free society, is ignored. Self-determination implies separation of smaller government from the larger entities that we witnessed in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This notion contradicts the goal of pure democracy and world government. A single world government is the ultimate goal of all social egalitarians who are unconcerned with liberty.

Current Understanding

Today the concepts of rights and property ownership are completely arbitrary. Congress, the courts, presidents and bureaucrats arbitrarily “legislate” on a daily basis, seeking only the endorsement of the majority. Although the republic was designed to protect the minority against the dictates of the majority, today we find the reverse. The republic is no longer recognizable.

Supporters of democracy are always quick to point out one of the perceived benefits of this system is the redistribution of wealth by government force to the poor. Although this may be true in limited fashion, the champions of this system never concern themselves with the victims from whom the wealth is stolen. The so-called benefits are short-lived, because democracy consumes wealth with little concern for those who produce it. Eventually the programs cannot be funded, and the dependency that has developed precipitates angry outcries for even more “fairness.” Since reversing the tide against liberty is so difficult, this unworkable system inevitably leads to various forms of tyranny.

As our republic crumbles, voices of protest grow louder. The central government becomes more authoritarian with each crisis. As the quality of education plummets, the role of the federal government is expanded. As the quality of medical care collapses, the role of the federal government in medicine is greatly increased. Foreign policy failures precipitate cries for more intervention abroad and an even greater empire. Cries for security grow louder, and concern for liberty languishes.

Attacks on our homeland prompt massive increase in the bureaucracy to protect us from all dangers, seen and imagined. The prime goal and concern of the Founders, the protection of liberty, is ignored. Those expressing any serious concern for personal liberty are condemned for their self-centeredness and their lack of patriotism.

Even if we could defeat al Qaeda — which surely is a worthwhile goal — it would do little to preserve our liberties, while ignoring the real purpose of our government. Another enemy would surely replace it, just as the various groups of barbarians never left the Roman Empire alone once its internal republican structure collapsed.

Democracy Subverts Liberty and Undermines Prosperity

Once it becomes acceptable to change the rules by majority vote, there are no longer any limits on the power of the government. When the Constitution can be subverted by mere legislative votes, executive orders or judicial decrees, constitutional restraints on the government are eliminated. This process was rare in the early years of our history, but now it is routine.

Democracy is promoted in the name of fairness in an effort to help some special-interest group gain a benefit that it claims it needs or is entitled to. If only one small group were involved, nothing would come of the demands. But coalitions develop, and the various groups ban together to form a majority to vote themselves all those things that they expect others to provide for them.

Although the motivating factor is frequently the desire for the poor to better themselves through the willingness of others to sacrifice for what they see as good cause, the process is doomed to failure. Governments are inefficient and the desired goals are rarely achieved. Administrators, who benefit, perpetuate the programs. Wealthy elites learn to benefit from the system in a superior fashion over the poor, because they know how to skim the cream off the top of all the programs designed for the disadvantaged. They join the various groups in producing the majority vote needed to fund their own special projects.

Public financing of housing, for instance, benefits builders, bureaucrats, insurance companies, and financial institutions, while the poor end up in drug-infested, crime-ridden housing projects. For the same reason, not only do business leaders not object to the system, but they also become strong supporters of welfare programs and foreign aid. Big business strongly supports programs like the Export/Import Bank, the IMF, the World Bank, farm subsidies, and military adventurism. Tax-code revisions and government contracts mean big profits for those who are well-connected. Concern for individual liberty is pushed to the bottom of the priority list for both the poor and rich welfare recipients.

Prohibitions placed in the Constitution against programs that serve special interests are the greatest threat to the current system of democracy under which we operate. In order for the benefits to continue, politicians must reject the rule of law and concern themselves only with the control of majority opinion. Sadly, that is the job of almost all politicians. It is clearly the motivation behind the millions spent on constant lobbying, as well as the billions spent on promoting the right candidates in each election. Those who champion liberty are rarely heard from. The media, banking, insurance, airlines, transportations, financial institutions, government employees, the military-industrial complex, the educational system, and the medical community are all dependent on government appropriations, resulting in a high-stakes system of government.

Democracy encourages the mother of all political corruption — the use of political money to buy influence. If the dollars spent in this effort represent the degree to which democracy has won out over the rule of law and the Constitution, it looks like the American republic is left wanting. Billions are spent on the endeavor.

Money in politics is the key to implementing policy and swaying democratic majorities. It is seen by most Americans, and rightly so, as a negative and a danger. Yet the response, unfortunately, is only more of the same. More laws tinkering with freedom of expression are enacted, in hopes that regulating sums of private money thrown into the political system will curtail the abuse. But failing to understand the cause of the problem, lack of respect for the Constitution, and obsession with legislative relativity dictated by the majority serve only to further undermine the rule of law.

We were adequately warned about the problem. Democracies lead to chaos, violence and bankruptcy. The demands of the majority are always greater than taxation alone can provide. Therefore, control over the monetary and banking system is required for democracies to operate. It was no accident in 1913, when the dramatic shift toward a democracy became pronounced, that the Federal Reserve was established. A personal income tax was imposed as well. At the same time, popular election of Senators was instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively interventionist. Even with an income tax, the planners for war and welfare (a guns and butter philosophy) knew that it would become necessary to eliminate restraints on the printing of money. Private counterfeiting was a heinous crime, but government counterfeit and fractional-reserve banking were required to seductively pay for the majority's demands. It is for this reason that democracies always bring about currency debasement through inflation of the money supply.

Some of the planners of today clearly understand the process and others, out of ignorance, view central-bank money creation as a convenience with little danger. That's where they are wrong. Even though the wealthy and the bankers support paper money — believing they know how to protect against its ill effects — many of them are eventually dragged down in the economic downturns that always develop.

It's not a new era that they have created for us today, but more of the same endured throughout history by so many other nations. The belief that democratic demands can be financed by deficits, credit creation and taxation is based on false hope and failure to see how it contributes to the turbulence as the democracy collapses.

Once a nation becomes a democracy, the whole purpose of government changes. Instead of the government's goal being that of guaranteeing liberty, equal justice, private property, and voluntary exchange, the government embarks on the impossible task of achieving economic equality, micromanaging the economy, and protecting citizens from themselves and all their activities. The destruction of the wealth-building process, which is inherent in a free society, is never anticipated. Once it's realized that it has been undermined, it is too late to easily reverse the attacks against limited government and personal liberty.

Democracy, by necessity, endorses special-interest interventionism, inflationism, and corporatism. In order to carry out the duties now expected of the government, power must be transferred from the citizens to the politicians. The only thing left is to decide which group or groups have the greatest influence over the government officials. As the wealth of the nation dwindles, competition between the special-interest groups grows more intense and becomes the dominant goal of political action. Restoration of liberty, the market and personal responsibility are of little interest and are eventually seen as impractical.

Power and public opinion become crucial factors in determining the direction of all government expenditures. Although both major parties now accept the principles of rule by majority and reject the rule of law, the beneficiaries for each party are generally different — although they frequently overlap. Propaganda, demagoguery, and control of the educational system and the media are essential to directing the distribution of the loot the government steals from those who are still honestly working for a living.

The greater problem is that nearly everyone receives some government benefit, and at the same time contributes to the Treasury. Most hope they will get back more than they pay in and, therefore, go along with the firmly entrenched system. Others, who understand and would choose to opt out and assume responsibility for themselves, aren't allowed to and are forced to participate. The end only comes with a collapse of the system, since a gradual and logical reversal of the inexorable march toward democratic socialism is unachievable.

Soviet-style communism dramatically collapsed once it was recognized that it could no longer function and a better system replaced it. It became no longer practical to pursue token reforms like those that took place over its 70-year history.

The turmoil and dangers of pure democracy are known. We should get prepared. But it will be the clarity with which we plan its replacement that determines the amount of pain and suffering endured during the transition to another system. Hopefully, the United States Congress and other government leaders will come to realize the seriousness of our current situation and replace the business-as-usual attitude, regardless of political demands and growing needs of a boisterous majority. Simply stated, our wealth is running out, and the affordability of democracy is coming to an end.

History reveals that once majorities can vote themselves largesse, the system is destined to collapse from within. But in order to maintain the special-interest system for as long as possible, more and more power must be given to an ever-expanding central government — which of course only makes matters worse.

The economic shortcomings of such a system are easily understood. What is too often ignored is that the flip side of delivering power to government is the loss of liberty to the individual. This loss of liberty causes exactly what the government doesn't want — less productive citizens who cannot pay taxes.

Even before 9/11, these trends were in place and proposals were abundant for restraining liberty. Since 9/11, the growth of centralized government and the loss of privacy and personal freedoms have significantly accelerated.

It is in dealing with homeland defense and potential terrorist attacks that the domestic social programs and the policy of foreign intervention are coming together and precipitating a rapid expansion of the state and erosion of liberty. Like our social welfarism at home, our foreign meddling and empire building abroad are a consequence of our becoming a pure democracy.

Foreign Affairs and Democracy

The dramatic shift away from republicanism that occurred in 1913, as expected, led to a bold change of purpose in foreign affairs. The goal of “making the world safe for democracy” was forcefully put forth by President Wilson. Protecting national security had become too narrow a goal and selfish in purpose. An obligation for spreading democracy became a noble obligation backed by a moral commitment, every bit as utopian as striving for economic equality in an egalitarian society here at home.

With the growing affection for democracy, it was no giant leap to assume that majority opinion should mold personal behavior. It was no mere coincidence that the 18th Amendment — alcohol prohibition — was passed in 1919.

Ever since 1913, all our presidents have endorsed meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and have given generous support to the notion that a world government would facilitate the goals of democratic welfare or socialism. On a daily basis, we hear that we must be prepared to spend our money and use our young people to police the entire world in order to spread democracy. Whether in Venezuela or Columbia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iraq or Iran, Korea or Vietnam, our intervention is always justified with a tone of moral arrogance that “it's for their own good.”

Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire building. “Promoting democracy” overseas merely becomes a slogan for doing things that the powerful and influential strive to do for their own benefit. To get authority for these overseas pursuits, all that is required of the government is that the majority be satisfied with the stated goals — no matter how self-serving they may be. The rule of law, that is, constitutional restraint, is ignored. But as successful as the policy may be in the short run and as noble as it may be portrayed, it is a major contributing factor to the violence and chaos that eventually come from pure democracy.

There is abundant evidence that the pretense of spreading democracy contradicts the very policies we are pursuing. We preach about democratic elections, but we are only too willing to accept some for-the-moment friendly dictator who actually overthrew a democratically elected leader or to interfere in some foreign election.

This is the case with Pakistan's Musharraf. For a temporary alliance, he reaps hundreds of millions of dollars, even though strong evidence exists that the Pakistanis have harbored and trained al Qaeda terrorists, that they have traded weapons with North Korea, and that they possess weapons of mass destruction. No one should be surprised that the Arabs are confused by our overtures of friendship. We have just recently promised $28 billion to Turkey to buy their support for Persian Gulf War II.

Our support of Saudi Arabia, in spite of its ties to al Qaeda through financing and training, is totally ignored by those obsessed with going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from a democracy. As a matter of fact, if democratic elections were permitted, the Saudi government would be overthrown by a bin Laden ally.

Those who constantly preach global government and democracy ought to consider the outcome of their philosophy in a hypothetical Mid-East regional government. If these people were asked which country in this region possesses weapons of mass destruction, has a policy of oppressive occupation, and constantly defies UN Security council resolutions, the vast majority would overwhelmingly name Israel. Is this ludicrous? No, this is what democracy is all about and what can come from a one-man, one-vote philosophy.

U.S. policy supports the overthrow of the democratically elected Chavez government in Venezuela, because we don't like the economic policy it pursues. We support a military takeover as long as the new dictator will do as we tell him.

There is no credibility in our contention that we really want to impose democracy on other nations. Yet promoting democracy is the public justification for our foreign intervention. It sounds so much nicer than saying we're going to risk the lives of our young people and massively tax our citizens to secure the giant oil reserves in Iraq.

After we take over Iraq, how long would one expect it to take until there are authentic nationwide elections in that country? The odds of that happening in even a hundred years are remote. It's virtually impossible to imagine a time when democratic elections would ever occur for the election of leaders in a constitutional republic dedicated for protection of liberty any place in the region.

Foreign Policy, Welfare, and 9/11

The tragedy of 9/11 and its aftermath dramatize so clearly how a flawed foreign policy has served to encourage the majoritarians determined to run everyone's life.

Due to its natural inefficiencies and tremendous costs, a failing welfare state requires an ever-expanding authoritarian approach to enforce mandates, collect the necessary revenues, and keep afloat an unworkable system. Once the people grow to depend on government subsistence, they demand its continuation.


[Note: This is a long speech and the forum wouldn't let me post it all. Follow the link and read the rest for yourself]

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[Brett85]

First of all, our bullying interventionist foreign policy caused 9/11.

Except that people here tell me that 9-11 was caused by our government and had nothing to do with foreign terrorists. So which is it? Was 9-11 caused by blowback? Or was it caused by our government? The funny thing is that 9-11 truthers can't believe in blowback since they don't think that terrorists have ever attacked us.

[eugenekop]

I did watch the video, and it is VERY bad. It tries to prove a point and introduces massive anachronisms and outright lies. But that is beside the point.
The point is that modern western democracy has laws against tyranny of the majority. In America it might be called republic, in Europe and in Israel it is just called democracy.

What liberals for example believe is that there can be no liberty when some people are poor and have few opportunities and some are rich and have all the opportunities. This is also a valid definition. So don't think that your definition of liberty is necessarily the only one or the best one.

[jmdrake]

I did watch the video, and it is VERY bad. It tries to prove a point and introduces massive anachronisms and outright lies. But that is beside the point.
The point is that modern western democracy has laws against tyranny of the majority. In America it might be called republic, in Europe and in Israel it is just called democracy.

What liberals for example believe is that there can be no liberty when some people are poor and have few opportunities and some are rich and have all the opportunities. This is also a valid definition. So don't think that your definition of liberty is necessarily the only one or the best one.

Who said you didn't watch the video? Are you just making stuff up now out of thin air?

I said you didn't fully READ your own source because you ignored what your OWN source said about Greece being the true origin of the word republic.

I also said you need to read Ron Paul's speech where he points out the difference between a democracy and a republic, that America was originally a republic, that America has become a democracy and how that is a BAD thing!

Really, I'm out. If you don't have the decency to actually read what's being posted to you in rebuttal than what's the point? I'll leave you to your own ignorance.

[low preference guy]

Except that people here tell me that 9-11 was caused by our government and had nothing to do with foreign terrorists. So which is it? Was 9-11 caused by blowback? Or was it caused by our government? The funny thing is that 9-11 truthers can't believe in blowback since they don't think that terrorists have ever attacked us.

it was done by our government to deceive Ron Paul into believing that it was blowback, so that he would denounce U.S. foreign policy and give the neocons a chance to call him unamerican.

[jmdrake]

Except that people here tell me that 9-11 was caused by our government and had nothing to do with foreign terrorists. So which is it? Was 9-11 caused by blowback? Or was it caused by our government? The funny thing is that 9-11 truthers can't believe in blowback since they don't think that terrorists have ever attacked us.

A) Does the word "multifactorial" mean anything to you?

B) Do you realize that there are people here with different opinions about 9/11?

[eugenekop]

Sorry, I just received a law rep by someone (not you) saying: You either did not watch it (likely) or have no concept of American Liberty or history.

[jmdrake]

Sorry, I just received a law rep by someone (not you) saying: You either did not watch it (likely) or have no concept of American Liberty or history.

Oh. Sorry then. :o

[low preference guy]

Sorry, I just received a law rep by someone (not you) saying: You either did not watch it (likely) or have no concept of American Liberty or history.

probably jmdrake, since he posted the same thing. i wouldn't care if i were you, even if it was someone else.

[eugenekop]

It was pcosmar, and I don't care about all the reputation thing, I just wanted to reply.

[jmdrake]

probably jmdrake, since he posted the same thing. i wouldn't care if i were you, even if it was someone else.

LOL. Again the "anti conspiracy theorists" posting "conspiracy theories". Whatever dude. Get a life. Your single minded hatred of people who question the official story of 9/11 is clouding your judgement.

[pcosmar]

Sorry, I just received a law rep by someone (not you) saying: You either did not watch it (likely) or have no concept of American Liberty or history.

That would be me. And I stand by that.

The John Birch Society did a great job with that documentary.
The whole thing is here.

Overview of America (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9014585970230568739#)

[Brett85]

A) Does the word "multifactorial" mean anything to you?

B) Do you realize that there are people here with different opinions about 9/11?

Yes, but it's just funny that I've been called a "troll and a "neocon" by people here for simply criticizing all of the nutty 9-11 conspiracy theories.

Also, Eugene shouldn't be called a "troll" or any other name simply for not agreeing 100% with a libertarian philosophy. Are all of us really supposed to agree on everything? Different people have different reasons why they support Ron Paul. Ron Paul has supporters who come from all over the political spectrum.

[jmdrake]

Yes, but it's just funny that I've been called a "troll and a "neocon" by people here for simply criticizing all of the nutty 9-11 conspiracy theories.

Ok. Maybe they should just call you nutty for believing that 2 planes can bring down 3 skyscrapers. ;)

[Brett85]

Ok. Maybe they should just call you nutty for believing that 2 planes can bring down 3 skyscrapers. ;)

Lol. Are you drunk? Two planes crashed into two separate towers, and another crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth plane was brought to the ground by passengers in Pennsylvania.

[pcosmar]

It was pcosmar, and I don't care about all the reputation thing, I just wanted to reply.

Don't worry. You will see a lot more when the triptophan wears off the forum.
;)

[pcosmar]

Lol. Are you drunk? Two planes crashed into two separate towers, and another crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth plane was brought to the ground by passengers in Pennsylvania.

That explains Building 7 , how?

[Liberty4life]

In the 2008 gop debates they were ask who would Ronald Reagan endorse, only one was actually endorsed by him Ron Paul.

[jmdrake]

Lol. Are you drunk? Two planes crashed into two separate towers, and another crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth plane was brought to the ground by passengers in Pennsylvania.

I take it you haven't heard of WTC 7 either.

YouTube - A Message From Bob McIlvaine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH9meDbrlP8)

Two planes struck the world trade center complex. Three buildings fell at that complex. Do the math.

[Brett85]

That explains Building 7 , how?

Because the debris from the two towers hit building 7, which caused fires and eventually caused the building to collapse.

[jmdrake]

Because the debris from the two towers hit building 7, which caused fires and eventually caused the building to collapse.

According to NIST the debris that fell didn't do any significant structural damage. And there have been buildings that have suffered much worse fires that didn't fall. Also WTC buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 all were damaged much worse than WTC 7 and didn't collapse. Regardless we still have two plane taking out three buildings. So clearly I wasn't drunk. ;)

[Brett85]

According to NIST the debris that fell didn't do any significant structural damage. And there have been buildings that have suffered much worse fires that didn't fall. Also WTC buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 all were damaged much worse than WTC 7 and didn't collapse. Regardless we still have two plane taking out three buildings. So clearly I wasn't drunk. ;)

Right. Sorry, I misunderstood what you were referring to at first.

[pcosmar]

Because the debris from the two towers hit building 7, which caused fires and eventually caused the building to collapse.

Bullshit.
You have to be both ignorant and friggin' stupid to believe that.
Or Deliberately Obtuse.

That was a Textbook Controlled Demolition.
It is obvious to even those that have believed the official story and is being reported in the MSM.

That house of cards is coming down.
:cool:

[Brett85]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes

This article better explains the collapse of Building 7 and also debunks the nutty conspiracy theories.

[pcosmar]

YouTube - Dancing Israelis on 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X63CQ-dXkwU)

[jmdrake]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes

This article better explains the collapse of Building 7 and also debunks the nutty conspiracy theories.

:rolleyes: That article is total BS, has been completely debunked and it depends on a theory of the collapse of Building 7 that the government later rejected as totally unscientific. The Popular Mechanics article even contradicts its own self. I would think by now that defenders of the official story would have come up with something credible instead of continuing to rely on that crap.

Something for you to read:

http://www.brianrwright.com/Coffee_Coaster/03_Book_Reviews/2008/080123_Debunking_911_Debunking.htm

But hey, don't take the "conspiracy theorists" word for it. Here is NIST accidentally debunking Popular Mechanics.

Original PM claim:

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

What NIST ended up saying:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Blindly linking to that old Popular Mechanics article is really evidence of not truly investigating 9/11.

[pcosmar]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes

This article better explains the collapse of Building 7 and also debunks the nutty conspiracy theories.

Debunked ? It is bunk.

And it has nothing to do with the Israeli Megaphone typist, who has no idea what he is talking about but loves the TSA.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes)

This article better explains the collapse of Building 7 and also debunks the nutty conspiracy theories.

The designers of the WTC designed it to withstand the impact of a 747. I call BS on the Popular Mechanics theory.

What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11 (http://www.bushstole04.com/911/wtc_designers.htm)

[MRK]

the designers of the wtc designed it to withstand the impact of a 747*. I call bs on the popular mechanics theory.

what the world trade center building designers said: Before and after 9/11 (http://www.bushstole04.com/911/wtc_designers.htm)

*707

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You feel secure because you don't live in a small country surrounded by hordes of enemies that wish to destroy it just because it is there. Trust me, you would have none of your pacifism if you came to live here for a few years.

Do you live in fear because thou does not preparest a table before you in the presence of your enemies?

[pcosmar]

*707

Details.
Relevance?

I'ld like to see this thread not get moved before the Forum members can wake up from their turkey overdose and respond to this troll that loves the TSA. (not the OP, the one that jumped in with his delusions about this Country)

[Brett85]

Details.
Relevance?

I'ld like to see this thread not get moved before the Forum members can wake up from their turkey overdose and respond to this troll that loves the TSA. (not the OP, the one that jumped in with his delusions about this Country)

The one who agrees with Ron Paul that 9-11 wasn't an inside job?

[jmdrake]

The one who agrees with Ron Paul that 9-11 wasn't an inside job?

:rolleyes: No. Poscmar was referring to eugenekop who was suggesting that a total surveilence society like Israel is a good thing because of 9/11. (Now you see why people push back against the official 9/11 story?) And for the record, nobody was talking about 9/11 truth until you brought it up. Up until then everybody was keeping all of the arguments within the frameworks of either democracy vs republic, blowback vs "we must be afraid" or "sensible security" vs holding the government responsible for its "incompetence". Unless you agree with eugenekop on the need for a total surveillance society, you just jumped in on the wrong side of the argument.

[pcosmar]

The one who agrees with Ron Paul that 9-11 wasn't an inside job?

Are you deliberately trying to derail this thread ? Or just trying to help the Foreigner that revels at the trashing of the 4th amendment?

[Brett85]

:rolleyes: No. Poscmar was referring to eugenekop who was suggesting that a total surveilence society like Israel is a good thing because of 9/11. (Now you see why people push back against the official 9/11 story?) And for the record, nobody was talking about 9/11 truth until you brought it up. Up until then everybody was keeping all of the arguments within the frameworks of either democracy vs republic, blowback vs "we must be afraid" or "sensible security" vs holding the government responsible for its "incompetence". Unless you agree with eugenekop on the need for a total surveillance society, you just jumped in on the wrong side of the argument.

I brought it up because "blowback" was brought up. I just pointed out that you can't believe in an inside job and "blowback" at the same time. I didn't mean to derail the discussion, however. I agree with the consensus that the TSA should be abolished and we shouldn't have a surveillance state.

[Brett85]

Are you deliberately trying to derail this thread ? Or just trying to help the Foreigner that revels at the trashing of the 4th amendment?

No, I apologize. The rest of my posts on this thread will be on topic. However, I think it's important to remember that "the foreigner" is probably still a Ron Paul supporter even though he disagrees with us on this issue.

[low preference guy]

I'ld like to see this thread not get moved before the Forum members can wake up from their turkey overdose and respond to this troll that loves the TSA. (not the OP, the one that jumped in with his delusions about this Country)

I didn't realize he loves the TSA. I asked him:


So you agree that the government should stay out and let airlines choose their security measures?

He responded:


Of course I agree. The free market should be responsible for safety and security measures, not the government. People should have the option to choose different risks according to their preferences and wealth.

So I am not sure how that's consistent with "loving" the TSA.

[jmdrake]

I brought it up because "blowback" was brought up. I just pointed out that you can't believe in an inside job and "blowback" at the same time. I didn't mean to derail the discussion, however. I agree with the consensus that the TSA should be abolished and we shouldn't have a surveillance state.

Fair enough. But your assertion that you can't believe "blowback" and "inside job" at the same time is flat wrong. Just look at the 1993 WTC bombing. The FBI had an informant inside the cell that made the bomb. The entire terror cell wasn't under the control of the FBI, just the bomb maker. This has all been admitted. So you have both "inside job" and "blowback" happening at the same time. It's called "using patsies".

YouTube - WTC 1993 was an FBI job (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2vpcABWJiY)

YouTube - Rare TV NEWS report about WTC bombing FBI Foreknowledge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs)

[pcosmar]

He responded:



And contradicted himself.
And thinks the us is a democracy. and that government 'safety" is preferable to freedom.
And on and on,,,,

[low preference guy]

And contradicted himself.

Do you have any specific quotes of him contradicting the answer he gave me and reveling about violations of the fourth amendment? I'm just curious because I wouldn't want to label him as such without evidence.

[jmdrake]

Do you have any specific quotes of him contradicting the answer he gave me and reveling about violations of the fourth amendment? I'm just curious because I wouldn't want to label him as such without evidence.

This:

I am not completely familiar with American security measures, but I can tell you that in Israel, surveillance, Mossad operations, security checks in hotels and malls saved thousands of lives. Yes it is somewhat inconvenient, but I happily pay this price.

[low preference guy]

This:

I am not completely familiar with American security measures, but I can tell you that in Israel, surveillance, Mossad operations, security checks in hotels and malls saved thousands of lives. Yes it is somewhat inconvenient, but I happily pay this price.

Considering his statement that he thinks the government should stay out of airport security, I'm pretty sure he refers to the security measures in Israel, not the TSA. I think you guys are going overboard calling him names, troll, someone who loves the TSA and revels in violations of the fourth Amendment, etc.

I'd rather give new comers the benefit of the doubt, even when I disagree with him, which is obvious from our exchanges about non-interventionism.

[Brett85]

Yes it is somewhat inconvenient, but I happily pay this price.[/i]

That sounds like all of the people at the airport that Fox News interviewed today. It was sad.

[Brett85]

Considering his statement that he thinks the government should stay out of airport security, I'm pretty sure he refers to the security measures in Israel, not the TSA. I think you guys are going overboard calling him names, troll, someone who loves the TSA and revels in violations of the fourth Amendment, etc.

I'd rather give new comers the benefit of the doubt.

Like I said before, Ron Paul supporters come from all over the political spectrum. The fact that he disagrees with us on this issue doesn't make him a "troll."

[pcosmar]

Do you have any specific quotes of him contradicting the answer he gave me and reveling about violations of the fourth amendment? I'm just curious because I wouldn't want to label him as such without evidence.

The answer he gave you was about some fantasy free market which does not exist in this or his country.
and the 14th amendment was not discussed to my knowledge.

Contradictions about supporting Ron Paul while advocating things contrary to Dr Paul's positions.
The Republic v Democracy discussion. And a comment about a very good and accurate documentary that he called,

Wow, that's a really bad video. Its just an American centric propaganda pamphlet filled with lies and ignorance.

The guy has NO Clue.
:(

[pcosmar]

Like I said before, Ron Paul supporters come from all over the political spectrum. The fact that he disagrees with us on this issue doesn't make him a "troll."

Well he's not a voter either. And from a country that is at the center of our problems.
A country that has a large and active propaganda branch
http://giyus.org/

I'll trust my gut.
:cool:

[jmdrake]

Considering his statement that he thinks the government should stay out of airport security, I'm pretty sure he refers to the security measures in Israel, not the TSA. I think you guys are going overboard calling him names, troll, someone who loves the TSA and revels in violations of the fourth Amendment, etc.


:rolleyes: So the TSA is "government" and Mossad is not? Do you realize how contradictory your statements are sometimes? Yes he was referring to security in Israel because he's in Israel. By analogy he would welcome similar widespread surveillance by the government in this country. The fact that wouldn't mind the "free market" doing what the Israeli government does in no way undermines the fact that he's "happy" about it.

And for the record I never called him "troll" or any other names. Of course I'm not surprised that you would falsely accuse me of doing that since you falsely accused me of attacking him earlier in the thread.



I'd rather give new comers the benefit of the doubt, even when I disagree with him, which is obvious from our exchanges about non-interventionism.

Somehow I doubt you'd give a new comer the benefit of the doubt if he disagreed with you on certain things such as 9/11. But I'm so glad that you're welcoming of people who are against RP's basic principles not only with regards to foreign policy or police state measures, but also with regards to the basic understanding of democracies versus republics.

[low preference guy]

And for the record I never called him "troll" or any other names. Of course I'm not surprised that you would falsely accuse me of doing that since you falsely accused me of attacking him earlier in the thread.


"you guys" =\= jmdrake

"probably X did something" =\= "X did something"

[pcosmar]

"you guys" =\= jmdrake

"probably X did something" =\= "X did something"

That would be me.
This post.


You can't be idealistically completely non interventionist, sometimes alliances and preemptive strikes are essential.

Either totally ignorant,,,
or a Troll.

:(

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2342/1799847392_ae6fd15125.jpg

Quietly hunting since 2007
;)
:cool:

[wildfirepower]

Most people did NOT vote for Bush, nor did most people vote for Obama. Election turnout is typically about 38% of eligible voters, so at best you're looking at about 20% of the population that actually voted for these guys.
If only 38% american people voted in elections how did Obama become USA President?

[low preference guy]

Either totally ignorant,,,
or a Troll.

So you would call Peter Schiff either ignorant or a troll, since he has argued in favor of preemptive strikes.

I'd rather at least try a bit to change their minds first. People like Schiff are certainly not the kind I would immediately put in the "ignorant or troll" category.

[agitator]

I admire your ability to swallow those ridiculous stereotypes and cliches so elegantly.

Suffice to say, you know very little about my personal situation, and your assumptions are becoming laughably absurd.

You sound very much like someone arguing that someone whose house you've broken into doesn't have your favorite brand of beer in the fridge. The Middle East has been a hotbed for fighting for centuries. Poor little Israel? Give me a break. Defend yourselves, then, though it'll just be the Government doing it on behalf of the people, who would be cannon fodder in any such conflict if the lid was ever blown fully off.

I don't particularly adore my family, but I despise Government intrusion all in the name of "help." Government assistance rarely assists anyone but the Government. All of these advanced security measures will not do a thing to discourage or thwart the terrorist boogeymen that the Government swears are lurking around every corner in the USA, ready to detonate bottles of hair gel and rain destruction on the land of the free and the home of the brave (and probably hit a bald eagle in the process, those bastards!). Give me a damned break. All of this only costs, of course, extra money, time, and just a wee little bit of self-worth... but at least people will be safe!

Safe from what? What, precisely, does the TSA stop from happening? There are "no fly" lists that are not consistent or enforced with any kind of regularity. There are weapons which won't trigger the alarms and can be hidden where no groping will find them. There are cargo packages shipped in commercial planes that are not inspected in the intimate way the people sitting above them are. The pilots are still in control of the plane, which means that they could decide to meet their maker and take a couple of hundred souls with them. Bombs can very easily be detonated in the airport before the TSA checkpoint --- bombs that would take out people standing in the bottleneck created by the enhanced methods. There could be an attack at any large sporting event, or mall, or even the DMV. Black Friday might become a massacre!

How absurd, then, to concentrate on checking whether or not that busty grandmother waddling through security has a knife hidden under her sagging bosom.

They have, however, found an awful lot of drugs via the scan-or-grope method. No terrorists found, but lots of drugs. Do you still believe it's about security?

Excellent post.

[pcosmar]

So you would call Peter Schiff either ignorant or a troll, since he has argued in favor of preemptive strikes.


Has he posted stupid shit on this forum?

If he did,, I would likely call him out on it.

As for myself, I am not a Schiff fanboy, He has some good positions (possibly) on economics.
He should stick to investment advice.

[payme_rick]

I admire your ability to swallow those ridiculous stereotypes and cliches so elegantly.

Suffice to say, you know very little about my personal situation, and your assumptions are becoming laughably absurd.

You sound very much like someone arguing that someone whose house you've broken into doesn't have your favorite brand of beer in the fridge. The Middle East has been a hotbed for fighting for centuries. Poor little Israel? Give me a break. Defend yourselves, then, though it'll just be the Government doing it on behalf of the people, who would be cannon fodder in any such conflict if the lid was ever blown fully off.

I don't particularly adore my family, but I despise Government intrusion all in the name of "help." Government assistance rarely assists anyone but the Government. All of these advanced security measures will not do a thing to discourage or thwart the terrorist boogeymen that the Government swears are lurking around every corner in the USA, ready to detonate bottles of hair gel and rain destruction on the land of the free and the home of the brave (and probably hit a bald eagle in the process, those bastards!). Give me a damned break. All of this only costs, of course, extra money, time, and just a wee little bit of self-worth... but at least people will be safe!

Safe from what? What, precisely, does the TSA stop from happening? There are "no fly" lists that are not consistent or enforced with any kind of regularity. There are weapons which won't trigger the alarms and can be hidden where no groping will find them. There are cargo packages shipped in commercial planes that are not inspected in the intimate way the people sitting above them are. The pilots are still in control of the plane, which means that they could decide to meet their maker and take a couple of hundred souls with them. Bombs can very easily be detonated in the airport before the TSA checkpoint --- bombs that would take out people standing in the bottleneck created by the enhanced methods. There could be an attack at any large sporting event, or mall, or even the DMV. Black Friday might become a massacre!

How absurd, then, to concentrate on checking whether or not that busty grandmother waddling through security has a knife hidden under her sagging bosom.

They have, however, found an awful lot of drugs via the scan-or-grope method. No terrorists found, but lots of drugs. Do you still believe it's about security?


lmao at the quote in bold... I'm just now having my first ever Big Red and Evan Williams toddy and I spit the first sip across the room... thanks...

[jmdrake]

"you guys" =\= jmdrake

"probably X did something" =\= "X did something"

Fair enough. So then when someone says "The government was probably behind 9/11" you'll quit freaking about it since it's not the same as saying "The government did 9/11". I'll pass that on and the truther wars will be over. ;)

[low preference guy]

Fair enough. So then when someone says "The government was probably behind 9/11" you'll quit freaking about it since it's not the same as saying "The government did 9/11". I'll pass that on and the truther wars will be over. ;)

lol. if you want to see someone with an unhealthy tendency to freak out, look at your posting history, even just in this thread.

[jmdrake]

lol. if you want to see someone with an unhealthy tendency to freak out, look at your posting history, even just in this thread.

:rolleyes: Here come the baseless accusations again. And you were making such progress. Let the record reflect that I was more than polite to person you are trying so hard to defend.

[low preference guy]

:rolleyes: Here come the baseless accusations again. And you were making such progress. Let the record reflect that I was more than polite to person you are trying so hard to defend.

wanting to see the evidence that he loves the TSA and revels in violations of the fourth amendment, so that i can judge him accordingly, is different from trying "so hard" to defend him in my book

[jmdrake]

wanting to see the evidence that he loves the TSA and revels in violations of the fourth amendment, so that i can judge him accordingly, is different from trying "so hard" to defend him in my book

That evidence has already been provided. But that wasn't what I was talking about. It was all your concern about "you/guys" (whoever "you/guys" refers to) calling him "troll" when that term was only used a few times in a thread of over 100 posts. Most people were attacking his positions and not calling him names. Anyway, it's been a long night. You're free to think whatever you want in "your book". Later.

[low preference guy]

Most people were attacking his positions and not calling him names.

my post wasn't directed at "most people".


You're free to think whatever you want

thank you. i wasn't aware of that. very useful information.


Later

awesome. hope you take care of everything else before coming back.

[GreenLP]

"The government did 9/11"
They did. ;)

[pcosmar]

wanting to see the evidence that he loves the TSA and revels in violations of the fourth amendment, so that i can judge him accordingly, is different from trying "so hard" to defend him in my book


What I was against is the idealistic adherence to freedom even when people are likely to die because of it. Security is as important as freedom for me.



However I fully support the government in trying to stop people who infringe on the liberty of others. If that includes surveillance, security measures and a national ID database, I am all for.
:p

[payme_rick]

:p

beat me to it... I don't know how that cannot be pro-TSA violation of the 4th...

[pcosmar]

I, for one, like the TSA


I mean somethings got to cause this country to revolt. :)

Back to the OP.
One can only hope. My anger is well known and sure.
I can't fight a war alone, but will take a place right up front if there are well maned rifles behind me.
:cool:

[jmdrake]

beat me to it... I don't know how that cannot be pro-TSA violation of the 4th...

That gurgling sound you hear is somebody's credibility going done the drain....again. ;)

[low preference guy]

:p

those quotes don't show that he loves the TSA or revels in violations of the fourth amendment.

making a general statement about security doesn't mean one would support every specific instance of government violation of people's rights. the TSA is one specific violation, and when I asked him if the government should stay out, he answered affirmatively, and i haven't seen any post indicating otherwise.

i disagree with many things the guy posted and i said so, but i don't trash him with unproven accusations.

[payme_rick]

those quotes don't show that he loves the TSA or revels in violations of the fourth amendment.

making a general statement about security doesn't mean one would support every specific instance government violation of people's rights. the TSA is one specific violation, and when I asked him if the government should stay out, he answered affirmatively, and i haven't seen any post indicating otherwise.

the dude said "Security is as important as freedom for me"... his words, no one else's... I don't take that as a "general" statement... it seems more like a "blanket" statement for his views...

the bickering back and forth over this guy's views is meaningless... he's obviously fine with natural rights being violated so that he can feel safe... that is well documented on this thread...

[YumYum]

Why were posts wasted on bickering when you guys could have asked the new forum member some important questions regarding Israel?

[pcosmar]

Why were posts wasted on bickering when you guys could have asked the new forum member some important questions regarding Israel?

It was well into the thread before he reveled his nationality. and his ignorance.
Attempts to educate were refused.

Then the other GIYUS folks jumped in.

[GreenLP]

I wonder what he thinks about the "dancing Israelis" at the WTC? :D

[payme_rick]

I read top to bottom, left to right and in tables if there are any... I just read "Yum Yum" and then saw a picture of Janet Reno... I'm disturbed...

[YumYum]

I wonder what he thinks about the "dancing Israelis" at the WTC? :D

I think that the majority of Israelis are sick of war. According to the former Israeli ambassador, 61% of Israelis want to make peace immediately with the Palestinians, even if it means going back to 1967 borders. Its the American Jews who want this continual war in the Mideast, not the Israelis. The American Jews I have talked to like the idea of a Jewish homeland that they can move to when the SHTF here in the U.S. I wanted to know where he/she stood.

[Vessol]

Meh, if it really does look close to revolution, they'll just pull a Goldstein or we'll go to war with Eurasia instead of Eastasia.

[YumYum]

I read top to bottom, left to right and in tables if there are any... I just read "Yum Yum" and then saw a picture of Janet Reno... I'm disturbed...

It's Janet Reno drooling.

http://www.weedbay.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=1553&c=4&userid=3

[Vessol]

Man..I think I'd choose to bang Bill Clinton before Janet Reno any day..

[low preference guy]

Why were posts wasted on bickering when you guys could have asked the new forum member some important questions regarding Israel?

some people would rather throw the troll accusation when some newcomer disagrees with one issue

[payme_rick]

some people would rather throw the troll accusation when some newcomer disagrees with one issue

I agree 100% there...

[payme_rick]

It's Janet Reno drooling.

http://www.weedbay.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=1553&c=4&userid=3

Now that you point it out I'm disturbed more... uhuhuhuhughuhguhgguhgughguhggggg...

[YumYum]

Man..I think I'd choose to bang Bill Clinton before Janet Reno any day..

:D

Has Reno ever been seen with a partner? Is she asexual or lesbian?

[GreenLP]

Its the American Jews who want this continual war in the Mideast, not the Israelis.
Figures. A lot of Americans like the idea of war, as long as it's far away and they don't have to participate.

[low preference guy]

I think that the majority of Israelis are sick of war. According to the former Israeli ambassador, 61% of Israelis want to make peace immediately with the Palestinians, even if it means going back to 1967 borders. Its the American Jews who want this continual war in the Mideast, not the Israelis. The American Jews I have talked to like the idea of a Jewish homeland that they can move to when the SHTF here in the U.S. I wanted to know where he/she stood.

he might answer you. i don't think he was banned or anything.

[pcosmar]

some people would rather throw the troll accusation when some newcomer disagrees with one issue

Not an accusation,
It was an either / or.

Either totally ignorant,,,
or a Troll.

And I stand by that assessment.
:cool:

[low preference guy]

Not an accusation,
It was an either / or.


And I stand by that assessment.
:cool:

do you also stand by the statement that he revels for violations of the fourth amendment?

[payme_rick]

do you also stand by the statement that he revels in violations of the fourth amendment?

revel in.... okay with.. potatoe... patato...

[YumYum]

Figures. A lot of Americans like the idea of war, as long as it's far away and they don't have to participate.

Right, and like the new member pointed out, he/she lives with real threats of attacks, while Americans are afraid of imaginary bogeymen. American Jews have the luxury of leaving Israel after visiting; Israelis don't. I was hoping to see if the new member distrusts the Israeli government the same way Libertarians distrust the U.S. government. Not all Israelis trust their government.

[low preference guy]

revel in.... okay with.. potatoe... patato...

some people have good intentions and are ignorant as to how to achieve their objectives. i think trying to have a civil discussion is better than going the extra mile to insult them and making unproven accusations. and yes, saying he revels in violations of the fourth amendment is going the extra mile to insult the guy.

and he wasn't being rude or anything. he was civilly stating his position that unfortunately many people believe, that he would give up security for safety. but that's no justification for throwing gratuitous and unproven accusations, especially when some other posters are trying to talk to him to change his mind.

[payme_rick]

some people have good intentions and are ignorant as to how to achieve their objectives. i think trying to have a civil discussion is better than going the extra mile to insult them and making unproven accusations. and yes, saying he revels in violations of the fourth amendment is going the extra mile to insult the guy.

and he wasn't being rude or anything. he was civilly stating his position that unfortunately many people believe, that he would give up security for safety. but that's no justification for throwing gratuitous and unproven accusations, especially when some other posters are trying to talk to him to change his mind.

okay, I agree with you there... fo sure...

[GreenLP]

Right, and like the new member pointed out, he/she lives with real threats of attacks, while Americans are afraid of imaginary bogeymen.
Yeah, but they came across like Israel has done nothing wrong to provoke those attacks. Hard to tell if they were a well-intentioned, but misguided Israelis, or a undercover Zionist.

[YumYum]

Yeah, but they came across like Israel has done nothing wrong to provoke those attacks. Hard to tell if they were a well-intentioned, but misguided Israelis, or a undercover Zionist.

How about a well-intentioned, misguided, undercover Zionist? :p

[pcosmar]

some people have good intentions and are ignorant as to how to achieve their objectives. i think trying to have a civil discussion is better than going the extra mile to insult them and making unproven accusations. and yes, saying he revels in violations of the fourth amendment is going the extra mile to insult the guy.

and he wasn't being rude or anything. he was civilly stating his position that unfortunately many people believe, that he would give up security for safety. but that's no justification for throwing gratuitous and unproven accusations, especially when some other posters are trying to talk to him to change his mind.

Polite and civil was attempted. Education was attempted.
The reaction to a very good video on the difference between Democracy v Republic.

Wow, that's a really bad video. Its just an American centric propaganda pamphlet filled with lies and ignorance.

WTF ?

[eugenekop]

I don't agree with Ron Paul on some issues, mostly on civic liberties. Do you agree with him 100%? Should it even be the goal? Blindly following a leader is not something someone should be proud of. How will we even able to convince other people to support the Libertarian movements around the world if we fight even amongst ourselves instead of calmly debating?

Anyway, as I already said, it seems to me that TSA are overdoing things, and it shouldn't be the government business anyway, but of the private sector.

About dancing Israelis or whatever, the Israeli soldiers were many times more humane in all of our recent wars than American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I personally don't hold impossible standards of the morality of soldiers in combat, in fact I think standards should be lowered. The goal of the war is to defeat the enemy, not to look nice on T.V.

[jmdrake]

some people have good intentions and are ignorant as to how to achieve their objectives. i think trying to have a civil discussion is better than going the extra mile to insult them and making unproven accusations. and yes, saying he revels in violations of the fourth amendment is going the extra mile to insult the guy.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rRFMexiNIyo/TEqJF_3RhEI/AAAAAAAAAFI/GtpNEn3w9tY/s1600/pot_kettle_black.jpg



and he wasn't being rude or anything. he was civilly stating his position that unfortunately many people believe, that he would give up security for safety. but that's no justification for throwing gratuitous and unproven accusations, especially when some other posters are trying to talk to him to change his mind.

Two people said he might be a troll. Using your own definition of civility they were being civil. You know the whole: "probably X did something" =\= "X did something" routine? You have one standard of civility for yourself and a different standard for others.

[jmdrake]

I don't agree with Ron Paul on some issues, mostly on civic liberties. Do you agree with him 100%? Should it even be the goal? Blinding following a leader is not something someone should be proud of. How will we even able to convince other people to support the Libertarian movements around the world if we fight even amongst ourselves instead of calmly debating?


Ron Paul - civil liberties - humble foreign policy = about 50% of the rest of the GOP that most of us don't support. And "civil liberties" is a huge part of "libertarian". Notice the root word "liberty". ;)

As for civility, overall this debate has been civil. There's been more animosity thrown around by your erstwhile "defenders" than by anyone else. Two people said you might be a troll about 4 times out of over 100 posts.



Anyway, as I already said, it seems to me that TSA are overdoing things, and it shouldn't be the government business anyway, but of the private sector.

But you're "happy" with the government doing it in Israel and in some ways you wish the TSA would go further. (National ID database). You want to believe that, fine. But then don't try to downplay it later.



About dancing Israelis or whatever, the Israeli soldiers were many times more humane in all of our recent wars than American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I personally don't hold impossible standards of the morality of soldiers in combat, in fact I think standards should be lowered. The goal of the war is to defeat the enemy, not to look nice on T.V.

Ummm.....either you didn't watch the dancing Israelis video or you had no idea what you were watching. These weren't Israelis soldiers in Israel dancing over the destruction of some Palestinian village. These were Israeli civilians pointing at the burning twin towers on 9/11, dancing, high fiving each other and filming the event. Draw your own conclusions about what that meant, but this was not some "impossible standard of morality of soldiers in combat."

[jmdrake]

Polite and civil was attempted. Education was attempted.
The reaction to a very good video on the difference between Democracy v Republic.


WTF ?

Oh yeah. I forgot about that. Sometimes people who complain about a lack of "civility" restrict the definition of "civility" to exclude their own actions. ;)

[Tinnuhana]

@eugenekop:
Would you like to see airport security in Israel run by the private sector?
(Somehow "private sector" sounds strange given the present pat-down techniques, eh?)

[eugenekop]

Would you like to see airport security in Israel run by the private sector?

I don't see why not. Why should anything be run by government when it could be run the private sector. Why should airports be public anyway? There could be competition between different airports if they were run privately.


Ummm.....either you didn't watch the dancing Israelis video or you had no idea what you were watching. These weren't Israelis soldiers in Israel dancing over the destruction of some Palestinian village. These were Israeli civilians pointing at the burning twin towers on 9/11, dancing, high fiving each other and filming the event. Draw your own conclusions about what that meant, but this was not some "impossible standard of morality of soldiers in combat."

I don't know what you are talking about. But know this, there are no better friends of America in the world than the Jews in Israel. In our independence day, half of the people raise not only Israeli flags but American flags as well.

[eugenekop]

But you're "happy" with the government doing it in Israel and in some ways you wish the TSA would go further. (National ID database). You want to believe that, fine. But then don't try to downplay it later.

As I said many times already, and without knowing all the facts, it does seem that TSA are too obsessive about security. But I don't think that the level of security should be decided by the government anyway.

I do support national ID database, we've just had a debate over this in Israel as well. If that will help the police crack down on criminals then of course I will support it. I don't see the disadvantages of this beside some irrational fear of the government.

[jmdrake]

I don't know what you are talking about. But know this, there are no better friends of America in the world than the Jews in Israel. In our independence day, half of the people raise not only Israeli flags but American flags as well.

That's a conclusorary statement which really has nothing to do with anything said. Most Iranians love America too. Same for most Saudis. The question is why were those Israelis dancing and cheering and did they have any connection with what happened?

Side note, do you think it's ok for Israel to celebrate the Irgun bombers?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1524552/Israel-celebrates-Irgun-hotel-bombers.html

It's fine if you do. I don't. But I'm just curious.

[jmdrake]

As I said many times already, and without knowing all the facts, it does seem that TSA are too obsessive about security. But I don't think that the level of security should be decided by the government anyway.

I do support national ID database, we've just had a debate over this in Israel as well. If that will help the police crack down on criminals then of course I will support it. I don't see the disadvantages of this beside some irrational fear of the government.

National ID's worked great in Nazi Germany. :rolleyes: I don't see being concerned about that as at all "irrational". I don't think Ron Paul is being "irrational" at all for opposing it.

YouTube - Ron Paul: A National ID Card? Outrageous! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9CZ5OUet3s)

Really, no libertarian or constitutionalist can support such a thing.

[Tinnuhana]

I see some of the dislike for the TSA here as being them overstepping their reason for existing; like the woman whose purse they went through, including her check book, and called her husband to make sure she wasn't absconding with his money. It's like the "lots of drugs found but no terrorists". There was an early event where one of us got stopped in a Missouri airport for having a cash lock box with money in it from selling t-shirts, etc. He had the good presence of mind to record the whole interrogation on his cell phone. So beyond the question of whether we need this much violation of privacy to keep us safe, there is the issue of "nosiness" in what's none of their business. This explains some of the strong feelings some on this forum have. It goes beyond trading freedom for security from terrorism. It is why many of us feel this is just a step towards a police state.
Is it true that many passengers on El Al flights are armed?

[Tinnuhana]

Good night all. Hope all you brothers and sisters in Liberty tone down the sibling bickering;)

[pcosmar]

I don't agree with Ron Paul on some issues, mostly on civic liberties. Do you agree with him 100%? Should it even be the goal? Blindly following a leader is not something someone should be proud of. How will we even able to convince other people to support the Libertarian movements around the world if we fight even amongst ourselves instead of calmly debating?


I agree with everything I have seen and heard from him at this point. I spent time researching him before I supported him in the first place. He has a solid 30 year+ record.
Secondly, he is not a leader. He is a spokesman/representative. He makes the distinction very clear. I don't follow him, he represents ME.

And though I have libertarian leanings I could care less about libertarian movements.
I want to see our constitution restored and followed.
That means an end to all foreign aid, and the elimination of most government agencies. Especially shit like the TSA.

[pcosmar]

Good night all. Hope all you brothers and sisters in Liberty tone down the sibling bickering;)
Good morning. ;)
I don't make the mistake of believing that everyone that posts here is my family, or even my friend.

Liberty has many enemies, and they are watching us. and opposing us.
:(

[eugenekop]

The journalist asked Ron Paul a very good question. What do you think will happen if the government will have your fingerprint. He didn't have an answer for it, because nothing will happen. There will be far less illegal immigrants, that's for sure. I do think the fear of the government is irrational. The fact that Nazis used it means nothing. The Nazis also built roads, should we condemn road building now?

[eugenekop]

I think you underestimate the damage of criminal activity. Countries with high corruption and mafia controlling their economy don't get investments. Watch Sopranos and see for yourself how difficult it is for the police to catch these bastards. If surveillance or national IDs are needed to improve police work, they should be implemented.

[jmdrake]

The journalist asked Ron Paul a very good question. What do you think will happen if the government will have your fingerprint. He didn't have an answer for it, because nothing will happen. There will be far less illegal immigrants, that's for sure. I do think the fear of the government is irrational. The fact that Nazis used it means nothing. The Nazis also built roads, should we condemn road building now?

You don't have a problem with it because you don't have a problem with a surveillance society. You already said so. That's ok. Not everyone has to believe in small government principles. But this is a small government movement. If you believe in big government you can support Mitt Romney. And Dr. Paul did have an answer for it. Maybe you just weren't listening. ;) The Bible talks about those who listen but don't hear or look but don't see. The first problem that Ron identified was the invasion of privacy. The second problem Ron mentioned was another unfunded mandate on business ($800 a pop). Your Nazi / road analogy is silly. All countries have roads. Not all countries have national ID cards. The Nazis identified people for the purpose of segregating them into groups. The who "yellow armband" idea. Now maybe you trust Obama not to do anything like that. (Oh yeah, I forgot. You're not even in America. ;) ) But many of us remember the MIAC reports where the Obama administration identified Ron Paul supporters and constitutionalists as potential terrorists. If there is a national ID card database, the government will expand it's use beyond simply getting a job. That's because the nature of government is to expand any idea beyond its original purpose. Some people are already into the idea of "profiling" certain groups based on their religion. (We've got to stop those "evil Muslims" after all). So yes, there is a reason to be concerned about the government having a new tool to nationally track who is going where when, buying what and hanging out with whoever.

[jmdrake]

I think you underestimate the damage of criminal activity. Countries with high corruption and mafia controlling their economy don't get investments. Watch Sopranos and see for yourself how difficult it is for the police to catch these bastards. If surveillance or national IDs are needed to improve police work, they should be implemented.

:rolleyes: See how the tyranny expands? At first its "lets catch the terrorist". Then it's "let's catch the illegal aliens". Next it's "let's catch the mafia". (And you're basing your argument on a stupid TV show? Turn off your television). The reason it's hard to "catch these bastards" is because the government has been caught multiple times bringing the drugs into this country. Instead of watching propaganda fiction, you should watch factual documentaries like American Drug Wars. Or if that's too "conspiratorial" for you, you should watch the segment on Fox News showing U.S. soldiers guarding opium fields in Afghanistan.

This country did just fine for over 200 years without a surveillance society thank you very much. And using your logic North Korea should be an economic paradise. After all it's the most surveilled society on earth.

The whole point of this movement is that we want to reduce the scope and power of government as opposed to expanding it for some fake economic reason.

[eugenekop]

You are distorting everything. I favor small government, that includes only police, courts, army and some basic infrastructure. I don't really care about drugs, I think most of them should be legal. I care about protection money that businesses pay to the Mafia. That's horrible, and the police is struggling to contain it. Making the work of the policemen even more difficult will make these mafias grow, so that finally all businesses will be "protected" by the mafia, just as it happens in south Italy or in Russia where the police are weak.

[jmdrake]

You are distorting everything. I favor small government, that includes only police, courts, army and some basic infrastructure. I don't really care about drugs, I think most of them should be legal. I care about protection money that businesses pay to the Mafia. That's horrible, and the police is struggling to contain it. Making the work of the policemen even more difficult will make these mafias grow, so that finally all businesses will be "protected" by the mafia, just as it happens in south Italy or in Russia where the police are weak.

No. I'm not distorting anything. You either are unaware of what you are saying or you aren't being straight with what you are saying. You favor "small government"? A massively expanded surveillance state by way of a national ID card is NOT the definition of "small government".

As far as the mafia protection rackets, what on earth do national ID cards have to do with that? Seriously? Anyway the "small government" solution to protection rackets is to allow honest shop keepers to better arm themselves.

[eugenekop]

Small government includes police, it doesn't include departments of education, energy, welfare and what not. Order and law have to be maintained, and we should not burden mere shopkeepers with defending themselves against the mafia. We want people to live in a free society, not being intimidated by criminals.

Massive surveillance is needed to stop the mafia, national ID cards are needed to weed the terrorists and illegal immigrants. The law has to be maintained.

[jmdrake]

Small government includes police, it doesn't include departments of education, energy, welfare and what not. Order and law have to be maintained, and we should not burden mere shopkeepers with defending themselves against the mafia. We want people to live in a free society, not being intimidated by criminals.

Massive surveillance is needed to stop the mafia, national ID cards are needed to weed the terrorists and illegal immigrants. The law has to be maintained.

You realize that Italy and Russia have national ID cards right? So by your own examples your idea is ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_document

By the way, stop distorting what I said. I never said that police departments were not part of "small government" (though some would argue that). National ID cards are not part of small government. There is a difference ya know. The best crime fighting is done by local law enforcement and they don't need a national surveillance grid to do their job.

[pcosmar]

Small government includes police, it doesn't include departments of education, energy, welfare and what not. Order and law have to be maintained, and we should not burden mere shopkeepers with defending themselves against the mafia. We want people to live in a free society, not being intimidated by criminals.

Massive surveillance is needed to stop the mafia, national ID cards are needed to weed the terrorists and illegal immigrants. The law has to be maintained.

Well first off, Police should not exist. Period. Certainly not in a free society.
"Order and law have to be maintained," That sounds very much like an authoritarian position.
You want to eliminate organized crime? eliminate unnecessary laws.
Eliminate Contraband and the Black Market disappears. There are few laws needed..
Moses was given 10. and 3 of those dealt with God Himself.
Jesus narrowed the focus, and said the whole Law was summed up in one. Love
Murder, Theft, Assault, and Fraud, and those can be handled at the very local level by an Elected Sheriff and the local militia.

You obviously have no concept of our Constitution. But those wise men that wrote it took all of these things into consideration.

[eugenekop]

You realize that Italy and Russia have national ID cards right? So by your own examples your idea is ridiculous.

I brought Italy and Russia as countries with under budgeted police departments and therefore an inability to put the mafia behind bars. National IDs are not meant to fight mafias as far as I know, yet they might be necessary to catch terrorists and illegal immigrants.


National ID cards are not part of small government.

Is there an official declaration of what is "small government" and what is not? I don't think there is such thing. I include national ID cards in my definition of small government. However I do not include welfare, education, health care, or subsidizes to businesses in this definition.

I also fully support Ron Paul in his position on foreign intervention. I support the removal of all American military bases, of withdrawal from most or all of the international alliances and organizations, of stopping any kind of intervention in world affairs. So again please don't twist my words in saying that I am opposed to humble foreign relations, because I do not.

[Travlyr]

I think you underestimate the damage of criminal activity. Countries with high corruption and mafia controlling their economy don't get investments. Watch Sopranos and see for yourself how difficult it is for the police to catch these bastards. If surveillance or national IDs are needed to improve police work, they should be implemented.
Eugene, you are missing the target. The real mafia are the counterfeiters. The fraud that they perpetuate causes massive corruption and destruction. Central banks are criminal organizations, and the police, media, & politicians ignore their fleecing of the people because they are bought and paid for, or ignorant.

Read Murray N. Rothbard's "The Mystery of Banking (http://mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf)." Or Ron Paul's "End the Fed (http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549193)." Or watch Eustace Mullins videos (http://labvirus.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/rip-eustace-mullins/) and read his book "The Secret of the Federal Reserve." And you will find the culprit to the world's economic problems and most modern social ills. Those books are easy to read and whoever takes the time will be leaps and bounds ahead of those who waste their time watching TV ... especially as the fiat money system winds down.

Limited government is defined in the Constitution for the United States of America. Michael Badnarik teaches Constitution 101.

YouTube - Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class 1 of 43 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s&playnext=1&list=PL1D2E5D87F354F8BD&index=43)

[jmdrake]

I brought Italy and Russia as countries with under budgeted police departments and therefore an inability to put the mafia behind bars. National IDs are not meant to fight mafias as far as I know, yet they might be necessary to catch terrorists and illegal immigrants.


Or to catch dissenters. Or to round up religious minorities. Or to make sure you are eating your vegetables.

Anyway, you've admitted now that you threw thew "mafia" argument in there for no apparent reason. As for "catching terrorists", there have been more terrorist bombings in Russia in the past decade than there have been in the U.S. So even on that level your idea of "small government" fails.



Is there an official declaration of what is "small government" and what is not? I don't think there is such thing. I include national ID cards in my definition of small government. However I do not include welfare, education, health care, or subsidizes to businesses in this definition.


Well if we all make up our own definitions as we go along then there is no such thing as "small government". You leave the police state in and take the social welfare state out. Someone from the left might leave the social welfare state in and keep the police state out. In the meantime the politicians "compromise" and government at all levels grows without bounds.

Anytime the government intrudes into our personal lives it is, by definition, not being "small". Maybe that's an element of "big government" that you are willing to live with. Not me.



I also fully support Ron Paul in his position on foreign intervention. I support the removal of all American military bases, of withdrawal from most or all of the international alliances and organizations, of stopping any kind of intervention in world affairs. So again please don't twist my words in saying that I am opposed to humble foreign relations, because I do not.

Quit lying and saying that I'm twisting your words! I never said you didn't support Ron's foreign policy. Although going back in the thread you did say that you supported preemptive war and that's not his policy on foreign intervention. The point that I was making is that once you take out a "little here" and a "little there", you no longer have a candidate that's any different from most of the rest of the GOP and you have no liberty movement. Support of a police state (total surveillance society) goes against everything this movement stands for. That is a decrease in personal freedom and a massive increase in the size and cost of government.

[jmdrake]

Eugene, you are missing the target. The real mafia are the counterfeiters. The fraud that they perpetuate causes massive corruption and destruction. Central banks are criminal organizations, and the police, media, & politicians ignore their fleecing of the people because they are bought and paid for, or ignorant.

Read Murray N. Rothbard's "The Mystery of Banking (http://mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf)." Or Ron Paul's "End the Fed (http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549193)." Or watch Eustace Mullins videos (http://labvirus.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/rip-eustace-mullins/) and read his book "The Secret of the Federal Reserve." And you will find the culprit to the world's economic problems and most modern social ills. Those books are easy to read and whoever takes the time will be leaps and bounds ahead of those who waste their time watching TV ... especially as the fiat money system winds down.

Limited government is defined in the Constitution for the United States of America. Michael Badnarik teaches Constitution 101.

YouTube - Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class 1 of 43 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s&playnext=1&list=PL1D2E5D87F354F8BD&index=43)

Excellent points, links and video! I'm all for expanding the liberty movement. But new recruits need to be open to learning what it's all about.

[eugenekop]

The central bank causes large bust and booms, it produces inflation which unfairly hits specific segments in the population, it creates a costly bureaucracy, it gives incentives for risky behavior, and it creates mis-investments in the economy. I am definitely in favor of abolishing it. But to say that once we do this there won't be people who will try to use violence to enrich themselves, and people who will demand protection money from businesses is of course very naive.

[Travlyr]

The central bank causes large bust and booms,
Which completely distorts investment opportunity.

it produces inflation which unfairly hits specific segments in the population,
Which is theft by definition.

it creates a costly bureaucracy,
Which is big intrusive tyrannical government.

it gives incentives for risky behavior,
Which causes social ills.

and it creates mis-investments in the economy.
Which are solved by laissez-faire free-market capitalism.

I am definitely in favor of abolishing it.
Which only the power elite oligarchy and criminals should be in favor of keeping them.

But to say that once we do this there won't be people who will try to use violence to enrich themselves, and people who will demand protection money from businesses is of course very naive.
Who said that?

[jmdrake]

But to say that once we do this there won't be people who will try to use violence to enrich themselves, and people who will demand protection money from businesses is of course very naive.


Who said that?

Nobody of course. But a common debate tactic of some is to twist the words of others and then say "Quit twisting my words". ;)

Anyway, the real question is, do you want to have one big protection racket to "protect" you from the others (i.e. a police state) or do you want to be able to arm and defend yourself (i.e. a free state)?

[Travlyr]

Excellent points, links and video! I'm all for expanding the liberty movement. But new recruits need to be open to learning what it's all about.
Thanks jmdrake. I agree a lot of new recruits are open to learning, and we are making strides of progress toward liberty. :cool:

[eugenekop]

Anyway, the real question is, do you want to have one big protection racket to "protect" you from the others (i.e. a police state) or do you want to be able to arm and defend yourself (i.e. a free state)?

I definitely want someone else to protect me. I am a software engineer, I know nothing about guns and I want to know nothing about them. I want to create software and sell it, and I don't want scary people to threaten my life and make this task impossible.

[pcosmar]

I definitely want someone else to protect me.

Avoiding personal responsibility. Not what Ron Paul would promote.

Also the lazy mindset that created police in the first place.
:(

[jmdrake]

I definitely want someone else to protect me. I am a software engineer, I know nothing about guns and I want to know nothing about them. I want to create software and sell it, and I don't want scary people to threaten my life and make this task impossible.

I thought everyone in Israel had to go through IDF training? :confused:

Anyway, if you don't know how to provide a service for yourself (in this case security) that doesn't mean that the government has to do it. You already said you'd rather have a private version of the TSA providing security right? Just expand that idea to other areas. You can hire private bodyguards. Or your company can do that. Or people on your city block can pool their resources and do that. All of that can be done through private enterprise. But a national surveillance network complete with national ID cards (or biochips) cannot be done through private enterprise because it requires the use of force on those who would rather opt out. Now if you want to require an ID card with an RFID chip and retina scan for someone to get into your place of business or your gated community, you can do that via private enterprise and in a free society.

The same thing goes for other areas of our lives. Most of us feel the need to go to a professional for our health for instance. But so far in America that has remained relatively private. Are there some risks? Certainly. Could a "national patient database" be helpful? Perhaps. If hospitals decided to do that on their own, no problem. Even if they share the information, as long as the patients are informed and can effectively opt out, no problem. But to force everyone to do that requires government....big government.

So in short, this movement is in a large part about trying to find solutions to problems that require the least amount of government. With respect to "security", if the same amount of security can be had without a national ID card (and I submit to you that it can be) then the question shouldn't be "Why not have one" but rather "Why have one"? Simple good police work would have kept the underwear bomber off that plane. No surveillance society was needed.

[jmdrake]

Avoiding personal responsibility. Not what Ron Paul would promote.

Also the lazy mindset that created police in the first place.
:(

Eh....efficient distribution of labor. If he wants to take a portion of his own check to hire his personal security that's not at all a position against liberty. Taking a portion of everybody's check to create a national surveillance network is an entirely different animal.

[eugenekop]

The rich will be able to provide better security for themselves and will be able to enslave the poor if you leave everything to money and the private sector. I don't want that.

FBI and national police with sophisticated equipment is needed to counter sophisticated and national criminals. That's just common sense. You don't send your local sheriff to deal with international money laundry schemers.

[pcosmar]

The rich will be able to provide better security for themselves and will be able to enslave the poor if you leave everything to money and the private sector. I don't want that.

FBI and national police with sophisticated equipment is needed to counter sophisticated and national criminals. That's just common sense. You don't send your local sheriff to deal with international money laundry schemers.

Then Cheap guns should be more available to the poor. And restrictions removed.

And why should washing money be illegal? Who wants dirty money? :confused:

[jmdrake]

The rich will be able to provide better security for themselves and will be able to enslave the poor if you leave everything to money and the private sector. I don't want that.

The rich are able to provide better healthcare for themselves too. What's the difference? Also the government right now enslaves everybody.



FBI and national police with sophisticated equipment is needed to counter sophisticated and national criminals. That's just common sense. You don't send your local sheriff to deal with international money laundry schemers.

You mean like Tom Delay? :rolleyes: Yes I feel soooooo much safer knowing that he's facing life in prison for doing something that shouldn't have been illegal in the first place. And sending Martha Stewart to prison for telling the press that she didn't break the law, when the government was unable to prove that she broke the law, really helps me sleep better at night.

If you're concerned about international criminals, look no further than the federal government.

YouTube - US Soldiers guarding opium in Afghanistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChIF6yvTL6k)

YouTube - Opium fields guarded by U.S. troops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clca6YtYvCI)

Or what about the federal reserve printing trillions and distributing it all without any oversight? And you're worried about people like Tom Delay?

[Travlyr]

I definitely want someone else to protect me. I am a software engineer, I know nothing about guns and I want to know nothing about them. I want to create software and sell it, and I don't want scary people to threaten my life and make this task impossible.
The police are not going to protect you. When you only have seconds to spare, the police are only a few minutes away. Take some responsibility for your life.

Here are the scary people defending their owner's printing press. Do you see the people with guns and clubs protecting the people sitting on the ground? :rolleyes:

YouTube - POLICE SURROUND PROTESTERS AND ATTACK - QUEENS PARK TORONTO - G20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaYbq484abs)

[GreenLP]

I don't know what you are talking about.
Stop playing coy. Every Israeli knows by now that a group of your citizens were filming the WTC before the first plane strike and celebrated after the building got hit.


The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11

The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. (1)

Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2)

"They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3)
[T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4)

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6)

"It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." (7)

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html


VIDEO: YouTube - Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw)


But know this, there are no better friends of America in the world than the Jews in Israel.
ROFL! That's because WE HELP SUBSIDIZE YOUR COUNTRY!!! I had a sugar-Momma once. She was my best friend too at the time.

[eugenekop]

The rich are able to provide better healthcare for themselves too. What's the difference? Also the government right now enslaves everybody.

If you have less health care than others it is not an infringement on your liberty, at least I don't see it this way. However when some rich guys demand protection money for your business that becomes an infringement on liberty. That's not the kind of society I wish for.

If you want to see countries with anarchy go to Russia, especially Russian in the nineties. There was no law there, no police force, it was absolutely terrible period. The mafia controlled everything, people were murdered by the thousands. No one invested in the country.