Bloomberg: Gov't has right to infringe on your freedom [Archive]

shane77m

03-25-2013, 08:16 AM

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

These words become more relevant as the days progress.

Spikender

03-25-2013, 08:22 AM

"I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom."

If anyone takes this man seriously after saying something like this, they deserve it. They just do.

Naw, I take that back. New York just deserves Bloomberg period because they keep electing his corrupt self.

whippoorwill

03-25-2013, 08:29 AM

I have a hard time feeling sorry for New Yorkers. In(fucking)deed.

jdcole

03-25-2013, 09:07 AM

How's about he and his government go fuck themselves?

jbauer

03-25-2013, 09:12 AM

kathy88

03-25-2013, 09:13 AM

It's one thing to know he thinks it, but to just come out and say it? FUCK YOU BLOOMBERG you psychopath.

Carlybee

03-25-2013, 09:23 AM

New Yorkers are Californians in leather jackets.

ClydeCoulter

03-25-2013, 09:29 AM

I would bet there are plenty of New Yorkers that hate this and all the other crap there. They don't deserve it.
Do they use voting machines or well accounted for ballots?

Quark

03-25-2013, 10:05 AM

juleswin

03-25-2013, 10:11 AM

Wasn't it a few years ago that people were bring up his name as the sensible republican? Now no republican worth thier salt would touch him talkless of nominate hi for anything.

I can imagine him now publishing a pamphlet of state mandated sex position with the selling point that it would save tax payers $X on missed work days and medical expenses. The man is a creep

NCGOPer_for_Paul

03-25-2013, 10:15 AM

Y'all realize that Rudy Guiliani even thinks Bloomberg is out of control.

Brian4Liberty

03-25-2013, 11:01 AM

Bloomberg is power-mad.

S.Shorland

03-25-2013, 11:06 AM

Is there constant picketing outside this lunatic's place of 'work'?

libertygrl

03-25-2013, 11:25 AM

New York citizens can suck it! They not only keep electing this ahole, but then they see themselves as leaders in our nation and think it is their job to spread their freedom crushing form of democracy to others that don't want it. FUNY

Hey, back off with the hate for New Yorkers. Bloomberg is the mayor of NYC and gets voted by the citizens of the city, not the entire state. There are over 8 million NY citizens and many are fighting the good fight. It's pretty lame to take it out on the entire population. We've been through hell over the past few years starting with 9-11 and most recently the devastation of Hurricane Sandy. We should be uniting and supporting one another as Americans rather than nit picking regional problems/differences.

It was the city council that caved into him being able to run for another term. And the election was actually very close:

Bloomberg Wins 3rd Term as Mayor in Unexpectedly Close Race ...

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg pulled out a narrow re-election victory on Tuesday, as voters angry over his maneuver to undo the city’s term limits law and his extravagant campaign spending provided an unexpected lift to his vastly underfinanced challenger, William C. Thompson Jr.

Unofficial returns showed Mr. Bloomberg with 51 percent and Mr. Thompson with 46 percent. The result will make Mr. Bloomberg only the fourth three-term mayor in the last century.

“Conventional wisdom says historically third terms haven’t been too successful,” the mayor told supporters at the Sheraton New York Hotel in Midtown Manhattan around midnight after a tense night of watching returns. “But we’ve spent the last eight years defying conventional wisdom.”

Still, the margin seemed to startle Mr. Bloomberg’s aides and the city’s political establishment, which had predicted a blowout. Published polls in the days leading up to the election suggested that the mayor would win by as many as 18 percentage points; four years ago, he cruised to re-election with a 20 percent margin.

The billionaire mayor had poured $90 million of his own fortune into the race, a sum without equal in the history of municipal politics that gave him a 14-to-1 advantage in campaign spending.

But the turnout appeared to be on track to be among the lowest in modern New York history as the mayor’s vaunted campaign machinery failed to deliver the surge of supporters his aides had predicted.

“Everybody was shocked,” a Bloomberg aide said.

Mr. Bloomberg had based his third-term campaign largely on the argument that the city has been better run since he ushered in an era of corporate efficiency and nonpartisan leadership at City Hall. He also pointed to his accomplishments in education, crime reduction and public health.

But voters from Park Slope in Brooklyn to Morrisania in the Bronx seemed torn.

While they praised his competence and intelligence, many were put off by what they saw as Mr. Bloomberg’s heavy-handed move to rewrite the law that would have limited him to two consecutive terms, saying it was obviously self-serving. The mayor had previously opposed any undoing of term limits, which voters had approved twice.

“The main reason I didn’t vote for Bloomberg was the term limits,” said Katherine Krase, a 34-year-old professor, voting at her local school in Park Slope.

At the same school, Gerni Oster, 34, said: “I think that Mayor Bloomberg is too egotistical and arrogant for me to vote for at this point.”

Exit polls indicated that 45 percent of voters said that Mr. Bloomberg’s handling of term limits was a factor in their decision not to vote for him, and roughly the same number said the mayor’s spending on the race was an important factor. Nearly 7 of 10 approved of his job performance.

Bill de Blasio and John C. Liu, both Democrats, were elected public advocate and comptroller, respectively.

The results in the mayor’s race are likely to be personally bruising to Mr. Bloomberg, a man of no small ego who told the public last fall that his financial acumen made him uniquely qualified to pull the city out of a deep economic funk.

Already, Democrats seemed emboldened by the outcome.

“We learned tonight that people do not forget easily,” said Representative Anthony D. Weiner, the Queens Democrat who considered, but then decided against, challenging the mayor. “A lot of people, whether they said it to pollsters or not, were offended by the term limits fight.”

And, addressing a crowd at the New York Hilton in Midtown, Mr. Thompson sounded like a man who was planning another campaign.

“The work we started during this campaign doesn’t end tonight, in fact, it’s just beginning,” he said.

Even those who backed the mayor seemed to do so reluctantly.

Stav Brinbaum, 37, a Web producer from Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, described his own vote for the mayor as “unfortunate.”

“I feel he bought himself the election,” Mr. Brinbaum said, and “ran a smear campaign against a nonexistent opponent.” But, he added, “He’s doing a really good job.”

“If there were somebody stronger running against him, I would have happily voted for them,” said Paul Ranson, 56, a designer also from Prospect Heights. “But there’s not, so I unhappily voted for Bloomberg.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign managers prided themselves on the their communications strategy, which flooded mailboxes, e-mail inboxes and television screens.

h ttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/nyregion/04mayor.html?_r=2&

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 12:21 PM

It's funny, I was watching a documentary about the revolutionary war and how the urban New Yorkers were mostly loyalists. Times might change but the people don't.

Bingo.

Ball licking suckups to the ruling class then.

Ball licking suckups to the ruling class now.

What Doomberg is saying is no different than what Ghouliani was saying twenty years ago:

What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/20/nyregion/freedom-is-about-authority-excerpts-from-giuliani-speech-on-crime.html

The Gau of New Amsterdam has been a PITA for freedom for over 200 years.

Fuck them, cut them, or us, loose.

I'm tired of dragging their sorry, statist, authoritarian asses through history.

Anyway, as long as New York City keeps itself contained and tamed I don't care what they do and whom they choose as their temporary slave-master.

But they don't.

Like a plague, their sickness spreads and infects the last vestiges of liberty left in the Benighted States.

Until the host dies.

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 12:22 PM

Is there constant picketing outside this lunatic's place of 'work'?

Prohibited.

That's a felony.

gwax23

03-25-2013, 12:44 PM

Neil Desmond

03-25-2013, 12:49 PM

That's the thing about freedom of speech: Bloomberg can say all the ludicrous things he wants all day; that doesn't mean it's true, right, just, logical, sensible, realistic, etc. etc. We also have the freedom of speech to call him on it. It's also a good thing we have separation of powers to keep people like this lunatic from causing a complete breakdown of society.

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 12:52 PM

Can people stop with the new york bashing because Bloomberg is an asshole. Thats like hating all americans because Obama is an asshole. There seems to be some sort of "Anti-Urban" feelings on this forum. That anything Urban is inherently evil or contrary to our movement and liberty. This guy is not widely liked I can say that much as a New Yorker. He removed term limits which explains why hes been in office so many times, that and the fact that there is only shittier opposition. I know its scary to say but the main opponents of Bloomberg are not people who are against what he is doing but people who dont believe he is going far enough.

The problem in new York is the old working class/middle class families left a long time ago for the suburbs. (The republican base) All thats left is the large government dependent welfare population, young hipsters from the midwest, and the elitist rich. (Democratic Base)

I'm sorry if you or other NY denizens, like cowlesy and libertygirl and malkusm and others are stuck behind enemy lines.

But the sad fact is, your fellow citizens have "elected" this man, willingly and enthusiastically and repeatedly.

If he was just using his money and power and position to make your lives miserable, that would be one thing, but he's not.

He's poking his nose into my business now, attempting to restrict my freedom (again) and that's just not acceptable.

I'm from NJ, a statist shithole second only to NYC.

I'm 20 years gone, and I didn't drag along any foul statist infection with me.

You need to do the same.

No thinking, rational person with the slightest bit of sense about their liberty should live under these Intolerable Acts and the authoritarians imposing them.

To stay only encourages them and enables them.

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 12:54 PM

Christian Liberty

03-25-2013, 12:55 PM

Can people stop with the new york bashing because Bloomberg is an asshole. Thats like hating all americans because Obama is an asshole. There seems to be some sort of "Anti-Urban" feelings on this forum. That anything Urban is inherently evil or contrary to our movement and liberty. This guy is not widely liked I can say that much as a New Yorker. He removed term limits which explains why hes been in office so many times, that and the fact that there is only shittier opposition. I know its scary to say but the main opponents of Bloomberg are not people who are against what he is doing but people who dont believe he is going far enough.

The problem in new York is the old working class/middle class families left a long time ago for the suburbs. (The republican base) All thats left is the large government dependent welfare population, young hipsters from the midwest, and the elitist rich. (Democratic Base)

Its not just Bloomberg, and I don't see how Republicans are even better. Granted, I live in NYS and I frequently spew venom about my own state. I don't hate everyone in this state, heck, I live here, but I hate how people in this state keep electing state-worshippers.

When I say "I dislike New York State" I really mean "I dislike the government in New York State."

What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

Freedom is slavery?

Neil Desmond

03-25-2013, 12:59 PM

http://i.imgur.com/dSPl0DM.gif
What? I did say "complete." Ok, fine - to avoid...a complete breakdown of society sooner rather than later. Is that any better?

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 01:00 PM

Freedom is slavery?

This is correct, comrade.

You are commended.

Christian Liberty

03-25-2013, 01:01 PM

http://i.imgur.com/dSPl0DM.gif

What? I did say "complete." Ok, fine - to avoid...a complete breakdown of society sooner rather than later. Is that any better?

As bad as our country is right now, dictatorship would be even worse. Nobody who could be trusted with that kind of power would actually want it (I can count the number of people I would even consider trusting with that much power on one hand). Checks and Balances do not totally eliminate tyranny, no system can, but it does prevent it from being even worse. At least it slows the sheep down.

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 01:03 PM

What? I did say "complete." Ok, fine - to avoid...a complete breakdown of society sooner rather than later. Is that any better?
No, I'm laughing at the idea that there is any sort of "separation of powers" anymore.

This is the age of the Unitary Executive at all levels in Amerika these days.

Called Kings, Pharaohs, Caesars, Lords, Fuehrers, among other things, at other times and places in history.

heavenlyboy34

03-25-2013, 01:06 PM

This. The only reason this man is in power is his 20 billion + fortune. He can pay off/buy votes as needed.
What? You mean the system laid down 200+ years ago doesn't work? Cronyism and vote-buying/tampering snuck in? YOU DON'T SAY!!!! :eek: ;)

heavenlyboy34

03-25-2013, 01:08 PM

This is correct, comrade.

You are commended.
Don't forget, Ignorance Is Strength. ;)

Christian Liberty

03-25-2013, 01:09 PM

This is correct, comrade.

You are commended.

Lol.

No, I'm laughing at the idea that there is any sort of "separation of powers" anymore.

This is the age of the Unitary Executive at all levels in Amerika these days.

Called Kings, Pharaohs, Caesars, Lords, Fuehrers, among other things, at other times and places in history.

I don't think what you say is quite true. We're rapidly moving in that direction, but as seen with Rand's filibuster, anytime (Admittedly not often) SCOTUS strikes down a law, anytime we see state nullification even tried, we aren't QUITE a one-man show yet. We're pretty close though. I still think what we have has in some ways prevented it from being even worse.

heavenlyboy34

03-25-2013, 01:11 PM

Bingo.

Ball licking suckups to the ruling class then.

Ball licking suckups to the ruling class now.

Yeah, but back then New Yorkers at least had good reason for their opinion in that regard. Now there's no fucking excuse.

heavenlyboy34

03-25-2013, 01:12 PM

How the hell is this guy in office? I don't understand the world anymore.
Comfort>freedom in Amerika...Land Of The Unfree, Home Of The Slave.

Neil Desmond

03-25-2013, 01:18 PM

No, I'm laughing at the idea that there is any sort of "separation of powers" anymore.

This is the age of the Unitary Executive at all levels in Amerika these days.

Called Kings, Pharaohs, Caesars, Lords, Fuehrers, among other things, at other times and places in history.
Oh, I see. Carry on.

Romulus

03-25-2013, 01:18 PM

This guy has extended his term limit by HOW LONG?

HOLLYWOOD

03-25-2013, 01:48 PM

TRANSLATION: I'm a Billionaire surrounded by armed thugs with a license to murder and I control government through our exclusive Fascist Club... look poor or mouth off and I'll find a reason to imprison or kill you.

QuickZ06

03-25-2013, 02:29 PM

Seriously, what bad cannot be said about the man????

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 03:35 PM

I don't think what you say is quite true. We're rapidly moving in that direction, but as seen with Rand's filibuster, anytime (Admittedly not often) SCOTUS strikes down a law, anytime we see state nullification even tried, we aren't QUITE a one-man show yet. We're pretty close though. I still think what we have has in some ways prevented it from being even worse.

Around the edges, perhaps there is that illusion.

But the fact is the FedCoat Executive has claimed the right to smoke your ass, a US citizen, on US soil, whenever he feels like it.

Just because it is not happening by the thousands every day is only because they, for whatever reason, don't want to right now.

That will soon change.

Marenco

03-25-2013, 06:08 PM

It's funny, I was watching a documentary about the revolutionary war and how the urban New Yorkers were mostly loyalists. Times might change but the people don't. Anyway, as long as New York City keeps itself contained and tamed I don't care what they do and whom they choose as their temporary slave-master.

It's like what Thomas Jefferson had said:

''The mobs of the great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body.''

PaulConventionWV

03-25-2013, 06:11 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/25/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-government-has-right-infringe-/

I wonder why he would want to force mothers to breastfeed, considering its actually good for the child. I would expect him to do whatever's worse for the children.

jclay2

03-25-2013, 06:25 PM

This man just doesn't stop. Clearly delusional. From zerohedge:

“Everybody wants their privacy, but I don’t know how you’re going to maintain it. It’s just we’re going into a different world, uncharted, and, like it or not, what people can do, what governments can do, is different. And you can to some extent control, but you can’t keep the tides from coming in.”

“The argument against using automation, it’s this craziness– oh, it’s Big Brother. Get used to it.”

TheTexan

03-25-2013, 06:27 PM

I have a hard time feeling sorry for New Yorkers.

Unfortunately New York is a leading indicator of where this entire country is headed...

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 07:14 PM

I wonder why he would want to force mothers to breastfeed, considering its actually good for the child. I would expect him to do whatever's worse for the children.

Because, as I've said a million times, the "what" does not matter.

It is the compliance that counts, that is all.

The thrill of being able to bend millions of people to your will, to make millions of people comply with your every whim...that is the mother's milk of a tyrant.

The fact that the edict may (wearing seat belts, not drinking too much soda) or may not (using cancer causing CFLs, not having pain medication) be good for you, matters not at all.

FrancisMarion

03-25-2013, 07:16 PM

Just leave this long hair country boy alone.

lx43

03-25-2013, 07:20 PM

Its a shame we can't Tar and Feather this fascist pig.

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 07:22 PM

Its a shame we can't won't Tar and Feather this fascist pig.

FTFY

lx43

03-25-2013, 07:27 PM

FTFY

Plus rep. lol

lx43

03-25-2013, 08:00 PM

FTFY

Has AF ever tard/feathered a politician? lol Just between us.

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 08:10 PM

Has AF ever tard/feathered a politician? lol Just between us.

No sir...that would be illegal.

lx43

03-25-2013, 08:17 PM

No Free Beer

03-25-2013, 08:38 PM

TheTexan

03-25-2013, 08:53 PM

Technically he is right. I mean, think about the 1st Amendment and the whole "you can't yell fire in a theater" or whatever. The politicians have created a system where our Rights aren't absolute anymore.

We don't have rights because we're not people. We're slaves. We're owned by the bankers, and kept in line by their gestapo. Anything that we own, anything that we do, it's because they allow us to.

It seems every time I see theft, oppression, or tyranny, it can always be traced back to bankers. Always. Bloomberg himself got rich off the finance industry.

Dr. Paul was right; the bankers have got us by the balls.

No Free Beer

03-25-2013, 09:04 PM

We don't have rights because we're not people. We're slaves. We're owned by the bankers, and kept in line by their gestapo. Anything that we own, anything that we do, it's because they allow us to.

It seems every time I see theft, oppression, or tyranny, it can always be traced back to bankers. Always. Bloomberg himself got rich off the finance industry.

Dr. Paul was right; the bankers have got us by the balls.

The problem with this train of thought is that we are the market. We decide what passes and what doesn't. It's our own damn fault.

Moreover, it's not as simple as saying the bankers own us. The law is a very complex beast. It's not as simple as saying "the government is screwing us" or not.

TheTexan

03-25-2013, 09:07 PM

The problem with this train of thought is that we are the market. We decide what passes and what doesn't. It's our own damn fault.

The problem is this nation is full of children that have never known responsibility and are not of sound body & mind to make these kinds of decisions and have absolutely zero business voting.

It took 200 years, but the bankers have successfully reversed man's evolution back to the level of a farm animal.

BAllen

03-25-2013, 09:08 PM

He must be a zionist.

No Free Beer

03-25-2013, 09:16 PM

The problem is this nation is full of children that have never known responsibility and are not of sound body & mind to make these kinds of decisions and have absolutely zero business voting.

It took 200 years, but the bankers have successfully reversed man's evolution back to the level of a farm animal.

Like I said, it's our own damn fault.

I would also suggest that we have made amazing strides as well (as a country).

TheTexan

03-25-2013, 09:16 PM

Moreover, it's not as simple as saying the bankers own us.

It is that simple. They own the politicians. They own the media. They own your wallet. (Literally and figuratively, as seen in Cyprus)

Like I said, it's our own damn fault.

It's not really anyone of this generation's fault. This brainwashing has been going on for a very long time. I consider myself lucky to have broken out of it. That shit has an iron grip over most people's minds that will be with them until the day they die.

I would also suggest that we have made amazing strides as well (as a country).

Interesting that you say that. How so?

No Free Beer

03-25-2013, 09:26 PM

It is that simple. They own the politicians. They own the media. They own your wallet. (Literally and figuratively, as seen in Cyprus)

It's not really anyone of this generation's fault. This brainwashing has been going on for a very long time. I consider myself lucky to have broken out of it. That shit has an iron grip over most people's minds that will be with them until the day they die.

Interesting that you say that. How so?

With all due respect, you act as if it is as simple as bankers owning us. I do not see it like that at all. I think there are some power brokers in the world, but they aren't sitting around a round table with a globe in the center, drawing maps on how to conquer the world. And please, don't bring up Bilderberg, I am quite aware of that.

There are many reasons for our downfall, and banking is one of them.

You ask me about the strides we've made.

As ONE example, I would just point to the 13 Amendment.

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 09:34 PM

As ONE example, I would just point to the 13 Amendment.

Great...

So instead of one small minority group being unjustly enslaved and oppressed, we all got enslaved.

And before you go on and talk about iron shackles and whippings, don't bother.

There are an infinite number of conditions of slavery and indentured servitude, the condition of the appearance and illusion of freedom, while in actuality confined to a gilded cage, is most likely the worst, because it enslaves the mind.

No Free Beer

03-25-2013, 09:36 PM

Great...

So instead of one small minority group being unjustly enslaved and oppressed, we all got enslaved.

There are an infinite number of conditions of slavery and indentured servitude, the condition of the appearance and illusion of freedom, while in actuality confined to a gilded cage, is most likely the worst, because it enslaves the mind.

First of all, how does ending slavery for everyone create slavery for all?

Moreover, the second half of your comment doesn't have anything to do with the 13 Amendment.

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 10:04 PM

First of all, how does ending slavery for everyone create slavery for all?

Moreover, the second half of your comment doesn't have anything to do with the 13 Amendment.

1 - The process by which that Amendment came to be, created a Leviathan state that has consumed us all.

2 - Huh?

There are an infinite number of conditions of slavery and indentured servitude, the condition of the appearance and illusion of freedom, while in actuality confined to a gilded cage, is most likely the worst, because it enslaves the mind.

Amendment 13:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Christian Liberty

03-25-2013, 10:07 PM

It
's not really anyone of this generation's fault. This brainwashing has been going on for a very long time. I consider myself lucky to have broken out of it. That shit has an iron grip over most people's minds that will be with them until the day they die.

I'm breaking out of it. Which is making conversation with those who haven't very tough. And frustrating.

I hate the brainwashed world.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That's what they say. What they mean is:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, OR IF WE RENAME IT "THE DRAFT" shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

No Free Beer

03-25-2013, 10:10 PM

1 - The process by which that Amendment came to be, created a Leviathan state that has consumed us all.

2 - Huh?

Amendment 13:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

please elaborate.

TheTexan

03-25-2013, 10:13 PM

With all due respect, you act as if it is as simple as bankers owning us. I do not see it like that at all. I think there are some power brokers in the world, but they aren't sitting around a round table with a globe in the center, drawing maps on how to conquer the world. And please, don't bring up Bilderberg, I am quite aware of that.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy. I'm talking about human nature. Most people have an inherent desire to try to control everything, very often with good intentions. That desire to control is usually held at bay simply because they lack the economic resources to take action on it. But not bankers.

Bankers by the nature of their profession have control of very large amounts of resources, and through simply the passing of time, they have accumulated more power and influence than any class in the history of mankind.

There are many reasons for our downfall, and banking is one of them.

There are two root causes of our downfall. The first is the tragic loss in the War of Northern Aggression, and the second is the invention of "Modern Banking." Every reason for our downfall can be tracked back to one of those two.

Specifically, though, the Federal Reserve, through it's artificial liquidity, is responsible for:
1) The funding of the police state
2) The funding of the countless wars
3) The funding of the welfare state
4) The funding of massive government
4) And much more.

The bankers profit from this activity enormously. It's why they do it. And guess who loses, enormously? The people.

It's a vicious fucking cycle, that if you were to fully grasp your head would spin. As the bankers profit more, they get more powerful. As they get more powerful, they profit more. And similarly, the people lose, more, and more, and more. The progression of this can be seen clearly over the past 100 years, and their power has risen exponentially just in the past 10 years. It looks to be reaching a disastrous climax, which would be preferred, because the alternative is that it continues on its current course to a World Bank which will herald a century of wars and violence and strife and starvation and given man's current capacity for warfare, most likely the extinction of mankind.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class."

I'm honestly not sure how after so much exposure to these forums, Need For Beer, that you still yet remain blind to the global dominance, theft, and oppression that the bankers have suffered upon this world.

You ask me about the strides we've made.

As ONE example, I would just point to the 13 Amendment.

The 13th amendment didn't really do much. Blacks were still treated like slaves, and continued to suffer greatly at the hands of white men, for many decades to come. It was a cultural and a moral issue that legislation couldn't fix.

Not to mention, that in the process of "freeing the blacks", a whole country was enslaved. As always, it's one step forward, and two steps back.

Anti Federalist

03-25-2013, 10:19 PM

please elaborate.

See post number 69.

No Free Beer

03-25-2013, 10:23 PM

I'm not talking about a conspiracy. I'm talking about human nature. Most people have an inherent desire to try to control everything, very often with good intentions. That desire to control is usually held at bay simply because they lack the economic resources to take action on it. But not bankers.

Bankers by the nature of their profession have control of very large amounts of resources, and through simply the passing of time, they have accumulated more power and influence than any class in the history of mankind.

There are two root causes of our downfall. The first is the tragic loss in the War of Northern Aggression, and the second is the invention of "Modern Banking." Every reason for our downfall can be tracked back to one of those two.

Specifically, though, the Federal Reserve, through it's artificial liquidity, is responsible for:
1) The funding of the police state
2) The funding of the countless wars
3) The funding of the welfare state
4) The funding of massive government
4) And much more.

The bankers profit from this activity enormously. It's why they do it. And guess who loses, enormously? The people.

It's a vicious fucking cycle, that if you were to fully grasp your head would spin. As the bankers profit more, they get more powerful. As they get more powerful, they profit more. And similarly, the people lose, more, and more, and more. The progression of this can be seen clearly over the past 100 years, and their power has risen exponentially just in the past 10 years. It looks to be reaching a disastrous climax, which would be preferred, because the alternative is that it continues on its current course to a World Bank which will herald a century of wars and violence and strife and starvation and given man's current capacity for warfare, most likely the extinction of mankind.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class."

I'm honestly not sure how after so much exposure to these forums, Need For Beer, that you still yet remain blind to the global dominance, theft, and oppression that the bankers have suffered upon this world.

The 13th amendment didn't really do much. Blacks were still treated like slaves, and continued to suffer greatly at the hands of white men, for many decades to come. It was a cultural and a moral issue that legislation couldn't fix.

Not to mention, that in the process of "freeing the blacks", a whole country was enslaved. As always, it's one step forward, and two steps back.

I am not ignorant when it comes to the influence of the banks. I'm saying that there are many reasons for our downfall and the downfall of freedom and it isn't just/simply banking. That's my point.

About your 13 amendment answer, how was the passing of the 13 amendment a means of enslaving us all?

TheTexan

03-25-2013, 10:48 PM

First of all, how does ending slavery for everyone create slavery for all?

You may or may not know this, but the civil war was not fought over slavery. It was fought over secession.

Yes, slavery was a major contributing factor of why the South seceded. But slavery was not the reason the North invaded the South. The North invaded the South because it feared that if the South were allowed to secede, that the American Experiment would fail, and that the democracy would shatter into many pieces. This is perfectly evident in Lincoln's speeches and correspondence, and generally any honest historian will quickly admit that the war was started because the South's secession threatened the "Indivisible union."

The issue of slavery only came about later in the war. And not for any moral reasons, or any kind of righteousness, or desire to free the slaves, but out of wartime necessity. The British and the French, because of their trade alliances with the South, threatened to enter the war to help on the South's behalf, which would have been a decisive victory for the South. The Emancipation Proclamation served to make such a move politically unpopular in Europe, as Britain and France strongly opposed slavery, and prevented them from entering the war, which was ultimately responsible for the North's victory.

Back to the South's secession, though. I believe, very strongly I might add, that every group of people have a natural right to self determination. This is the right that the South was trying to exercise. The South decided it no longer wanted to be a part of the United States, and the North decided they wouldn't let that happen. In effect, the North declared that they had the right to hold the South to the Union against its will, and as history makes clear, the North was willing to sacrifice the lives of close to a million men to make that happen.

By Lincoln's act of invading the South to keep it in the union, the South was made a slave. By extension, though, the North was also made a slave. The precedent that was set was that the United States are indivisible and if you try to leave it you will be murdered. This was a very dangerous precedent to set.

From that point forward, secession was taken off the table. If the Federal Government decided that something was constitutional, and a state vehemently disagreed, there was zero recourse. You don't like it? Deal with it, the Federal Government told them.

Even the threat of secession could have possibly kept the Federal Government at bay. But with the threat of secession off table, the Federal Government was no longer bound to the Constitution. Instead, the Federal Government was then only bound by a simple majority. If a majority of elected representatives said a law was constitutional, guess what, it's constitutional. Or Else.

Lincoln's victory in the War of Northern Aggression meant the death of the Constitution, the enslavement of the states, and a precedent of centralized limitless power that we continue to struggle with to this day.

heavenlyboy34

03-25-2013, 10:54 PM

No sir...that would be illegal.
So? You already do several "illegal" things each day. ;)

tfurrh

03-25-2013, 11:10 PM

Even the threat of secession could have possibly kept the Federal Government at bay. But with the threat of secession off table, the Federal Government was no longer bound to the Constitution. Instead, the Federal Government was then only bound by a simple majority. If a majority of elected representatives said a law was constitutional, guess what, it's constitutional. Or Else.

Mine eyes have seen the glory

cheapseats

03-26-2013, 07:25 AM

: Bloomberg: Gov't has right to infringe on your freedom

Rand Paul ALSO sez government has the right to infringe on your freedom, when he advocates for SHORTER PRISON SENTENCES rather than for legalization of marijuana (wine & beer) and decriminalization of "hard drugs" (hard liquor).

[Yes, I KNOW that gen-yoo-ine Libertarianism would repeal the prohibition of all drugs, but that ain't happenin'.]

Rand Paul ALSO sez government has the right to infringe on your freedom, when he calls to privatize (read that, incentivize) TSA rather than rein in that beast and slash "our" EXTRAORDINARY spending on it.

[ELIMINATION of TSA ain't happenin', either.]

Pericles

03-26-2013, 08:34 AM

"I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom."

I do think there are certain times that I should shoot anyone who tries it.

cheapseats

03-26-2013, 08:56 AM

I do think there are certain times that I should shoot anyone who tries it.

There's a lotta real estate between SHOOTING someone who tries to infringe on your rights, and PURPOSEFULLY RESISTING said efforts &/or INFRINGING RIGHT BACK.

Not saying YOU, but some seem weirdly willing to EXTINGUISH people whose property rights they would not so much as scratch.

No Free Beer

03-26-2013, 02:21 PM

You may or may not know this, but the civil war was not fought over slavery. It was fought over secession.

Yes, slavery was a major contributing factor of why the South seceded. But slavery was not the reason the North invaded the South. The North invaded the South because it feared that if the South were allowed to secede, that the American Experiment would fail, and that the democracy would shatter into many pieces. This is perfectly evident in Lincoln's speeches and correspondence, and generally any honest historian will quickly admit that the war was started because the South's secession threatened the "Indivisible union."

The issue of slavery only came about later in the war. And not for any moral reasons, or any kind of righteousness, or desire to free the slaves, but out of wartime necessity. The British and the French, because of their trade alliances with the South, threatened to enter the war to help on the South's behalf, which would have been a decisive victory for the South. The Emancipation Proclamation served to make such a move politically unpopular in Europe, as Britain and France strongly opposed slavery, and prevented them from entering the war, which was ultimately responsible for the North's victory.

Back to the South's secession, though. I believe, very strongly I might add, that every group of people have a natural right to self determination. This is the right that the South was trying to exercise. The South decided it no longer wanted to be a part of the United States, and the North decided they wouldn't let that happen. In effect, the North declared that they had the right to hold the South to the Union against its will, and as history makes clear, the North was willing to sacrifice the lives of close to a million men to make that happen.

By Lincoln's act of invading the South to keep it in the union, the South was made a slave. By extension, though, the North was also made a slave. The precedent that was set was that the United States are indivisible and if you try to leave it you will be murdered. This was a very dangerous precedent to set.

From that point forward, secession was taken off the table. If the Federal Government decided that something was constitutional, and a state vehemently disagreed, there was zero recourse. You don't like it? Deal with it, the Federal Government told them.

Even the threat of secession could have possibly kept the Federal Government at bay. But with the threat of secession off table, the Federal Government was no longer bound to the Constitution. Instead, the Federal Government was then only bound by a simple majority. If a majority of elected representatives said a law was constitutional, guess what, it's constitutional. Or Else.

Lincoln's victory in the War of Northern Aggression meant the death of the Constitution, the enslavement of the states, and a precedent of centralized limitless power that we continue to struggle with to this day.

But, in order for the amendment to become an amendment, the states had to support them.

Illinois (February 1, 1865)
Rhode Island (February 2, 1865)
Michigan (February 3, 1865)
Maryland (February 3, 1865)
New York (February 3, 1865)
Pennsylvania (February 3, 1865)
West Virginia (February 3, 1865)
Missouri (February 6, 1865)
Maine (February 7, 1865)
Kansas (February 7, 1865)
Massachusetts (February 7, 1865)
Virginia (February 9, 1865) - ratified by the Unionist Restored Government of Virginia
Ohio (February 10, 1865)
Indiana (February 13, 1865)
Nevada (February 16, 1865)
Louisiana (February 17, 1865)
Minnesota (February 23, 1865)
Wisconsin (February 24, 1865)
Vermont (March 8, 1865)
Tennessee (April 7, 1865)
Arkansas (April 14, 1865)
Connecticut (May 4, 1865)
New Hampshire (July 1, 1865)
South Carolina (November 13, 1865)
Alabama (December 2, 1865)
North Carolina (December 4, 1865)
Georgia (December 6, 1865)

No Free Beer

03-26-2013, 02:30 PM

Moreover, it was not just about the 13th Amendment, but a lot happened before, like Dred Scott case

The Gold Standard

03-26-2013, 02:35 PM

The problem with this train of thought is that we are the market. We decide what passes and what doesn't. It's our own damn fault.

Moreover, it's not as simple as saying the bankers own us. The law is a very complex beast. It's not as simple as saying "the government is screwing us" or not.

This makes no sense. "We" are not the "market". The market is the whole matrix of voluntary exchanges between free individuals. There is nothing voluntary about having a government thug shove a gun in your face or beat the fuck out of you.

The Gold Standard

03-26-2013, 02:41 PM

I am not ignorant when it comes to the influence of the banks. I'm saying that there are many reasons for our downfall and the downfall of freedom and it isn't just/simply banking. That's my point.

About your 13 amendment answer, how was the passing of the 13 amendment a means of enslaving us all?

The passing of the 13th amendment by itself didn't not enslave us. The illegal slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Americans that led up to the passing of the 13th amendment, and ended any doubt what would happen to a state government that defied the will of the federal government, eliminated the environment where anyone had any hope of being free from the control of the central government.

No Free Beer

03-26-2013, 03:44 PM

This makes no sense. "We" are not the "market". The market is the whole matrix of voluntary exchanges between free individuals. There is nothing voluntary about having a government thug shove a gun in your face or beat the fuck out of you.

I am talking about the banking industry.

Secondly, I don't think the government is "beating the fuck" out of me.

Quit listening to everything Alex Jones says.

No Free Beer

03-26-2013, 03:50 PM

The passing of the 13th amendment by itself didn't not enslave us. The illegal slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Americans that led up to the passing of the 13th amendment, and ended any doubt what would happen to a state government that defied the will of the federal government, eliminated the environment where anyone had any hope of being free from the control of the central government.

I think you make a very good point and I would say that I agree with you in terms of state sovereignty. However, what led to the 13 Amendment was much more than simply the Civil War; look at Dred Scott.

This is my whole point. We are losing our freedoms on all fronts, not just by banking.

DamianTV

03-26-2013, 08:21 PM

... due process of law ...

paulbot24

03-26-2013, 08:33 PM

Oh sure, NOW he understand the meaning of the word "infringe." Fascist elitist greasy little baby weasel with his lips stuck to the Communist Manifesto.

TheTexan

03-26-2013, 08:55 PM

But, in order for the amendment to become an amendment, the states had to support them.

Illinois (February 1, 1865)
Rhode Island (February 2, 1865)
Michigan (February 3, 1865)
Maryland (February 3, 1865)
New York (February 3, 1865)
Pennsylvania (February 3, 1865)
West Virginia (February 3, 1865)
Missouri (February 6, 1865)
Maine (February 7, 1865)
Kansas (February 7, 1865)
Massachusetts (February 7, 1865)
Virginia (February 9, 1865) - ratified by the Unionist Restored Government of Virginia
Ohio (February 10, 1865)
Indiana (February 13, 1865)
Nevada (February 16, 1865)
Louisiana (February 17, 1865)
Minnesota (February 23, 1865)
Wisconsin (February 24, 1865)
Vermont (March 8, 1865)
Tennessee (April 7, 1865)
Arkansas (April 14, 1865)
Connecticut (May 4, 1865)
New Hampshire (July 1, 1865)
South Carolina (November 13, 1865)
Alabama (December 2, 1865)
North Carolina (December 4, 1865)
Georgia (December 6, 1865)

You apparently have a difficult time grasping the meaning of "Or Else."

TheTexan

03-26-2013, 08:58 PM

We are losing our freedoms on all fronts, not just by banking.

You say that but you have yet to substantiate that claim..

No Free Beer

03-26-2013, 09:32 PM

You say that but you have yet to substantiate that claim..

The problem with your logic is the following:

You point out that the 13th Amendment created a more enslaved people's, country, way of life.

However, before you can point to the fact that Lincoln went after the south not for slavery, rather, in order to protect the union, you mus first look at WHY the South wanted to separate. That reason was because SLAVERY and you cannot dance around that. The Dred Scott case stated that the South was correct and that the North was wrong. The Court, made up of almost all Southerners, stated the Constitution allowed all states had the right to have slavery and the North had no right to ban it.

The South then said that since the North banned slavery within their borders, they had all the right to secede, which I would argue they did.

Lincoln then offered to buy the slaves from the South and/or allow the South to retain their slaves, and the South essentially said no.

Now, people all of a sudden say that it had everything to do with states rights and not slavery, but the whole point of separating WAS SLAVERY, which the southerners perceived to be their property.

So the question begs, are you willing to defend the act of holding people against their will in order to protect the white man's property rights? In other words, does a white mans property rights trump the rights of other people, in this case, black people?

You claim that we are now all slaves (which I would claim is right to an extent, but not because of this ruling), yet you ignore the fact that a group of people were subjected to slavery --- something you claim we are subjected to now today --- and complain about it.

With all due respect, although I see your point, I think you are a bit naive.

TheTexan

03-26-2013, 09:42 PM

The problem with your logic is the following:

You point out that the 13th Amendment created a more enslaved people's, country, way of life.

However, before you can point to the fact that Lincoln went after the south not for slavery, rather, in order to protect the union, you mus first look at WHY the South wanted to separate. That reason was because SLAVERY and you cannot dance around that. The Dred Scott case stated that the South was correct and that the North was wrong. The Court, made up of almost all Southerners, the Constitution allowed all states had the right to have slavery and the North had no right to ban it.

The South then said that since the North banned slavery within their borders, they had all the right to secede.

Doesn't matter why the South left, the South had a right to secede. Are you saying they didn't? Either you didn't read my novella from earlier, or I'm not understanding your point.

Lincoln then offered to buy the slaves from the South, and the South said no.

After the war had already started.... and the South was winning (or would have, had France or Britain entered as they were going to)

Now, people all of a sudden say that it had everything to do with states rights and not slavery, but the whole point of separating WAS SLAVERY

That's not in question... you still entirely missed the point. Please read my small novel from earlier? I think you skipped over it entirely...

So the question begs, are you willing to defend the act of holding people against their will in order to protect the white man's property rights? In other words, does a white mans property rights trump the rights of other people, in this case black people?

Of course not. If volunteers from the North had chosen to go to war to end slavery I would be all for that. But that is exactly the opposite of what happened.

The North went to war to end secession and that's what they did. All other points aside, if the North had freed the slaves and then left (or maintained a presence solely for the purpose of upholding the freedom of slaves), I would be fine with that too.

But again, that is not what happened.

The end result of the war was that one form of slavery for another. Noone was freed.

TheTexan

03-26-2013, 09:45 PM

No Free Beer

03-26-2013, 09:48 PM

You apparently have a difficult time grasping the meaning of "Or Else."

And what the fuck do you think the Federal government would do if all of those states said "fuck you"?

come on, man.

TheTexan

03-26-2013, 09:50 PM

And what the fuck do you think the Federal government would do if all of those states said "fuck you"?

come on, man.

Huh?

No Free Beer

03-26-2013, 09:51 PM

Lincoln freed the slaves!!111!!

All hail the great liberator!!

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/assets_c/2011/03/Abraham%20Lincoln%20riding%20a%20grizzly%20bear-thumb-600x337-45749.jpg

For fucks sake, the brainwashing on this subject has no fucking boundaries

I am not saying that Lincoln did this to free the slaves.

What I am saying is that he did what he felt was necessary to protect the Union. I would be on your side and say that the Federal government doesn't have that authority to override what the states want. At the end of the day, our system was set up in such a way wher ethe states have the approve measures for the Federal government to employ them.

However, you seem to be willing to overlook the fact that people's natural born rights were abused, while saying "we are enslaved!" Don't you see the hypocrisy?

TheTexan

03-26-2013, 09:54 PM

I am not saying that Lincoln did this to free the slaves.

What I am saying is that he did what he felt was necessary to protect the Union. I would be on your side and say that the Federal government doesn't have that authority to override what the states want.

Correct. The Federal Government has no such authority. The states, as sovereign members of a voluntary union, have a right to leave that union at any time for any reason.

However, you seem to be willing to overlook the fact that people's natural born rights were abused, while saying "we are enslaved!" Don't you see the hypocrisy?

Lincoln's War traded one form of slavery for another. The shackles may be gone, but the threat of the whip and noose remains ever present.

No Free Beer

03-26-2013, 09:57 PM

Correct. The Federal Government has no such authority. The states, as sovereign members of a voluntary union, have a right to leave that union at any time for any reason.

Lincoln's War traded one form of slavery for another. The shackles may be gone, but the threat of the whip and noose remains ever present.

In a sense, yes.

You are correct.

However, my overall point is that this is not as easy as "hey this should have be done. That was wrong."

Also, the 13th amendment isnt the sole reason why our country is in bad shape, nor is it simply the banks that have brought our country down. It's a mix of many things, such as military industrial complex, the federal reserve (banking), complacency, our education, etc. I could go on and on.

TheTexan

03-26-2013, 10:09 PM

Also, the 13th amendment isnt the sole reason why our country is in bad shape

The 13th amendment itself didn't do any harm, but neither did it do much good.

, nor is it simply the banks that have brought our country down. It's a mix of many things, such as military industrial complex, the federal reserve (banking), complacency, our education, etc. I could go on and on.

Military industrial complex is funded by the bankers.

Lincoln's war is a major cause of the complacency. When you are literally helpless against your oppressors, as this nation has been since Lincoln's Doctrine of "Or Else", you give up hope, and instead try to make the best of it, and embrace the tyranny. The welfare state is another contributor to the complacency, which is, of course, funded by the bankers.

Education, while it is a cause, is not a root cause. The education system produces state-loving debt slaves because their teachers are state-loving debt slaves. Their teachers are state-loving, because - again - Lincoln gave them little choice. And they are debt slaves because bankers control higher education. The vast majority of economics professors teach a form of Keynesian economics. Professors are bought and paid for. Just look at their salaries. How do they get paid so much? Yup. Big government. Which was funded.. by... the bankers.

Are you starting to see a common thread here?

TheTexan

03-26-2013, 10:26 PM

Income Growth For Bottom 90% In America Since 1966 Is... $59!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-26/income-growth-bottom-90-america-1966-59

Nearly all of the wealth that has been created by the technological advancements over the 50 years, all the automation, the internet, and all the increased production that goes with it, all of that went to the top 10%. (ie, the bankers)

Just as it was designed to do. This was the goal of their fraud from the very beginning.

Ask yourself this, Need For Beer. If people today weren't struggling just to put food on the table, due to this theft, might they take a bit more time to learn about what is really going on in this country?

Modern banking == Modern slavery. Keep people barely fed, with barely a roof over their head, and they will be your willing servant for their entire lives, as the bankers figure out which whore's ass they want to snort coke off on their yacht.

Anti Federalist

03-26-2013, 11:49 PM

Secondly, I don't think the government is "beating the fuck" out of me.

Well, then, I'd suggest you aren't thinking hard enough.

DamianTV

03-27-2013, 12:22 AM

I'd say they are beating the fuck out of me. No opportunity to provide for myself. No access to Health Care due to lack of being able to provide for myself. I feel like a criminal who's crime is that of poverty, and Im not the only one in this boat. Problem is, this boat isnt big enough to hold all the people in it with me and there is no end of the people pouring into the boat. News flash. The boat is sinking.

---

Lincoln: Greenback. That is all.

S.Shorland

03-27-2013, 04:39 AM

Lincoln the vampire slayer now Lincoln starring Daniel Day Lewis.Wonder where these films come from.The first Pirates Of The Carribean posters were bedecked in Union Jacks when we supported you in the Iraq War.I'm sure there have been documentaries about Hollywood and American Government Policy.

cheapseats

03-27-2013, 05:49 AM

It is that simple. [The bankers] own the politicians. They own the media. They own your wallet.

You leave out the pesky reality of generalized INERTIA among American Taxpaying Citizens...some complacency, some fear, some cowardice, some ignorance, some trauma/disability. Combine all THAT with ideological differences (fueled by politicians and fanned by media), voila, ANALYSIS PARALYSIS.

You leave out the infuriating unwillingness of millions and millions of "Little People" to hold oh-so-few "Important People" to the same standards, regulations, laws, prescriptions, proscriptions and punishments to which "Important People" systematically subject "Little People".

cheapseats

03-27-2013, 05:59 AM

Because, as I've said a million times, the "what" does not matter.

It is the compliance that counts, that is all.[/B]

I spy LOTS of compliance...WAY more compliance than resistance, INCLUDING in the Liberty Moovement.

"Rand HAS TO play the game to 'win'."

SHOW OF HANDS: How many "Liberty Lovers" submit to TSA, for travel that does not "HAVE TO" be made by air? (This includes ALL elective travel in the continental U.S.)

cheapseats

03-27-2013, 06:08 AM

Its a shame we can't Tar and Feather this fascist pig.

I dare say, we wouldn't if we could.

otherone

03-27-2013, 06:11 AM

You leave out the infuriating unwillingness of millions and millions of "Little People"

Add together those who voted for Romney and those who voted for Obama to get a true picture of what is wrong with this country.

cheapseats

03-27-2013, 06:12 AM

Rand Paul ALSO sez government has the right to infringe on your freedom, when he advocates for SHORTER PRISON SENTENCES rather than for legalization of marijuana (wine & beer) and decriminalization of "hard drugs" (hard liquor).

[Yes, I KNOW that gen-yoo-ine Libertarianism would repeal the prohibition of all drugs, but that ain't happenin'.]

Rand Paul ALSO sez government has the right to infringe on your freedom, when he calls to privatize (read that, incentivize) TSA rather than rein in that beast and slash "our" EXTRAORDINARY spending on it.

[ELIMINATION of TSA ain't happenin', either.]

Rand Paul ALSO sez government has the right to infringe on your freedom, by (ridiculously? malevolently? cowardly?) postulating that hemp SHOULD be legal but marijuana should NOT.

A Son of Liberty

03-27-2013, 06:31 AM

I spy LOTS of compliance...WAY more compliance than resistance, INCLUDING in the Liberty Moovement.

"Rand HAS TO play the game to 'win'."

SHOW OF HANDS: How many "Liberty Lovers" submit to TSA, for travel that does not "HAVE TO" be made by air? (This includes ALL elective travel in the continental U.S.)

I do not have to fly for work, but so far I have refused to fly since the inception of the invasive TSA procedures... much to the displeasure of my wife, to whom I owe a trip to Paris.

On more than one occasion, I have vetoed a trip because it would have required flying. It's bad enough the many incarnations of the state badgers me, steals from me, nit-picks me, demands permit applications from me... I won't be letting them grope me, and I'll be damned if I'll let them grope my wife.

cheapseats

03-27-2013, 06:34 AM

Add together those who voted for Romney and those who voted for Obama to get a true picture of what is wrong with this country.

To get an even truer/worse sense of how bad it is, consider how many "free thinkers" on this very board hold firm to the CONTRIVED "reality" that a third-party candidate can never win the presidency.

cheapseats

03-27-2013, 06:47 AM

I do not have to fly for work, but so far I have refused to fly since the inception of the invasive TSA procedures...much to the displeasure of my wife, to whom I owe a trip to Paris.

On more than one occasion, I have vetoed a trip because it would have required flying. It's bad enough the many incarnations of the state badgers me, steals from me, nit-picks me, demands permit applications from me... I won't be letting them grope me, and I'll be damned if I'll let them grope my wife.

Right on.

I'll guess that your wife would be MORE than "displeased" if you became the spineless go-along-to-get-along automaton that Overlords want you to become.

Why Are Freedom Fighters Still Flying? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381169-Why-Are-Freedom-Fighters-Still-Flying

No Free Beer

03-27-2013, 07:15 AM

The 13th amendment itself didn't do any harm, but neither did it do much good.

Military industrial complex is funded by the bankers.

Lincoln's war is a major cause of the complacency. When you are literally helpless against your oppressors, as this nation has been since Lincoln's Doctrine of "Or Else", you give up hope, and instead try to make the best of it, and embrace the tyranny. The welfare state is another contributor to the complacency, which is, of course, funded by the bankers.

Education, while it is a cause, is not a root cause. The education system produces state-loving debt slaves because their teachers are state-loving debt slaves. Their teachers are state-loving, because - again - Lincoln gave them little choice. And they are debt slaves because bankers control higher education. The vast majority of economics professors teach a form of Keynesian economics. Professors are bought and paid for. Just look at their salaries. How do they get paid so much? Yup. Big government. Which was funded.. by... the bankers.

Are you starting to see a common thread here?

I could go on and on about the South and how they opposed succession from the North first, but that's a whole different argument