Gravel fans

[aravoth]

Gravel fans have been spamming my videosusing them to promote there canidate somwhow. It's wierd, I don't wanna block them, but It just pissing me off. Anyway, I thought I'd share that with you.

[LibertyOrDie]

I had someone post this in the comment section of my CFR video:

Why NOT To Support Mike Gravel & Why To Support Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9qCZvIuTWY

I don't know if I would go as far as this video claims, but Mike Gravel actually says he thinks a global institution ( like the UN? ) to impose a carbon tax around the world. IMO any organization from outside the U.S. shouldn't have any power to tell us what to do, let alone demand payment.

[angrydragon]

I'd leave the comments aravoth, at least they're adding to the number of comments.

[ThePieSwindler]

I'm swindlerofpies on there, ill help you out in shooing them off.

And talk about a candidate who is the exact opposite of what ron paul stands for! Sure gravel is anti war, but he is also a populist and a socialist, and heck, he is AGAINST the constitution and has called it UNDEMOCRATIC! NO SHIT gravel, democracy = tyranny of the majority. Guy must not know much about the history of this nation, or anything the founding fathers warned about. I actually dislike gravel as much as any of the other democrats except hillary. Sure hes honest and serves his purpose by grilling the frontrunners, but he wants huge government social programs, and is a left-wing populist. No thanks.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Gravel fans have been spamming my videosusing them to promote there canidate somwhow. It's wierd, I don't wanna block them, but It just pissing me off. Anyway, I thought I'd share that with you.

Mark them as spam. :)

[angrydragon]

Plus Gravel is in debt, 30+ thousand.

[ronpaulitician]

The power of YouTube lies in the videos, not in the comments. Let them talk, let them increase the view count. That'll bring in new people who will view your videos, and be exposed to the message of liberty and to its vehicle, Ron Paul.

[BuddyRey]

And talk about a candidate who is the exact opposite of what ron paul stands for! Sure gravel is anti war, but he is also a populist and a socialist, and heck, he is AGAINST the constitution and has called it UNDEMOCRATIC! NO SHIT gravel, democracy = tyranny of the majority. Guy must not know much about the history of this nation, or anything the founding fathers warned about. I actually dislike gravel as much as any of the other democrats except hillary. Sure hes honest and serves his purpose by grilling the frontrunners, but he wants huge government social programs, and is a left-wing populist. No thanks.

1. Isn't RP somewhat of a populist too? (I sure hope he his. I want this damn border CLOSED! :D )
2. How do you define "socialist"? If you define it as someone who believes that public healthcare should be availible for those who can't afford private insurance, would you agree with this interpretation of the Nolan chart?





http://www.reformthelp.org/pics/NewNolanChart.gif




Hehe...sorry. I couldn't help myself! I'm not trying to rib ya. Just curious as to why people think free healthcare for poor people = socialism.

[ThePieSwindler]

1. Isn't RP somewhat of a populist too? (I sure hope he his. I want this damn border CLOSED! :D )
2. How do you define "socialist"? If you define it as someone who believes that public healthcare should be availible for those who can't afford private insurance, do you agree with this interpretation of the Nolan chart?

http://www.reformthelp.org/pics/NewNolanChart.gif

Hehe...sorry. I couldn't help myself!

A populist is essentially someone who believes it is the Common Man against Evil Corporate Corruption. What populism fails to factor in is that the government creates the evil corporate corruption for the most part, because in a truly free market the corporations are only held accountable by the consumers, so they must have the consumer's best interest in mind if they wish to succeed. Populists also love "democracy" and "majority". A populist likes government regulation to protect the consumer from the evil corporations. Ron Paul is not a populist.

A socialist is someone who believes that the distribution of wealth and property is either directly subject to communal benefit, or subject to indirect control by the state. A more simple definition is "sharing the wealth" and government social programs. National health care is but one example of this, but Gravel is also is a big fan of direct democracy. He's essentially a social democrat (not Democrat, democrat, look the term up). Free health care for poor people that is provided by the government is not free, because you take from the taxpayers to fund it. Then, you give the poor "standardized" care that does not cultivate the doctor-patient relationship. You also have poor people who have to wait weeks if not months to receive care because of the lines and waiting lists. But the socialized health care unit does not have to prioritize patients because it does not matter to them, they are not trying to make a profit or cater to consumers. You will also see fewer and fewer people entering the medical profession the more socialized health care becomes, because it also limits the freedom of doctors, as they essentially become employees of the state. I'm not sure about you, but i dont want to go through 4 years of medical school and 6 years of residency just to work under the state system and not have as much freedom of mobility or freedom to practice as you choose. Think of it as being a public defender, except as a doctor and not a lawyer. Few who are eligible to practice will care for the poor, because they will all want freedom of mobility and freedom of choice in where they practice and how they conduct business. So the rich will have superior care, costs will still remain high in the health care industry, though the poor won't have to pay for it... directly, that is. And you will help to obliterate the middle class and lower middle class.

Why can't people afford private insurance? Because insurance is intended to cover everything, even visits for a sore throat, and it covers everything because the consumer doesn't have to pay. The HMOs then love to max out prices on everything in the healthcare industry, since it doesnt matter because the consumers arent paying. Thus everything needs to be covered by insurance, so poor people without insurance can't go to the doctor to get a sore throad checked out, or to get basic prescription medication, because of a 100 dollar copay and a 300 dollar cost for a bottle of pills that cost 20 dollars before the HMO act and ERISA law. Sorry i turned this into a healthcare debate but you begged the question.

[specsaregood]

I just happened across the Gravel forums the other night when we were doing the Radio Ad fundraising to see if they had anything close to the community/grass roots activism that we have. http://www.gravel2008.us/forum
He doesn't even have 1% of Ron Paul's support.

[AlexAmore]

I just happened across the Gravel forums the other night when we were doing the Radio Ad fundraising to see if they had thing close to the community/grass roots activism that we have. http://www.gravel2008.us/forum
He doesn't even have 1% of Ron Paul's support.

Omg I never been there before but those Gravel supporters are really something else. Some of them are so flaming liberal that they call it a "corporate education system"...when it's so obvious how the government are effectively the "educators" through the public school system and the media.

Evil evil corporations....that's all I hear from them. :rolleyes:

Makes me sick. I thought I could endure their forums, but I sadly can't.

I saw someone make a long post BEGGING for MIke Gravel to do something like pop his head out and be a leader as some point. The response?

"Yout totally miss Mike Gravels message. The motto is "let the people decide" its not "ill hold your hand like ron paul because im so great ill come in and save the world buy lecturing people about the consitution". Gravel has let people know that it is them and only them who will beable to change government not one person. I think the ideals that seperate RP and Mike Gravel are that everyones depending for Ron Paul to fix everything, to me that lazy and a impossible task. Where as Mike Gravel wants to give us the tools we need to make real change in government called the NI4D."

LOL he actually thinks Ron Paul is holding our hand through our grassroots efforts.

God help me.

I swear it's post after post of this type of nonsense. They also greatly misrepresent, through lies and half truths, Ron Paul's beliefs many times, so I don't want anyone to think i'm the bad guy for ranting about Mike Gravel's supporters.

[BuddyRey]

This "Direct Democracy" actually sounds like a pretty great idea to me. I'm not sure why so many are against it.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

well.. because it doesn't work. :) want direct democracy? Then slavery would still exist.. mob rule. Most Americans were against interracial marriage when it came to. I'm liking this decentralized campaign we currently have with Dr. Paul.

[skyorbit]

From my Blog http://blog.myspace.com/anarkyisorder
Ron Paul has much better shot then Gravel or Kucinich
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=163381710&blogID=289161861

Tracy

[JosephTheLibertarian]

"better" is not it... they're not even in the same ball park as Dr. Paul!

[BuddyRey]

well.. because it doesn't work. :) want direct democracy? Then slavery would still exist.. mob rule. Most Americans were against interracial marriage when it came to.

But our legislators were all slave-owners too, including the Founders! It doesn't make sense to give absolute power over imperfect people to OTHER imperfect people. Most Americans are decent, honest folks who have a keen sense of right and wrong, and, to me, it makes perfect sense to give them the power to legislate for themselves. That's why I don't understand the charges of socialism people are making toward Gravel. It seems to me that abolishing government the way we know it is the precise OPPOSITE of socialism...extreme anarchism. What better answer to the problem conservatives and libertarians have with "big government" than to have no government at all?

[ThePieSwindler]

This "Direct Democracy" actually sounds like a pretty great idea to me. I'm not sure why so many are against it.

Read up on what the founders had to say about democracy in a direct form. There are three kinds of tyrannies, really. The tyranny of an individual, or a dictator. The tyranny of a few, or an oligarchy. And the tyranny of the majorty - a direct democracy. Direct democracy is ok for things like town budget propositions and such, and works well at a local, and sometimes even a state level. But direct democracy on a wide scale ensures that the whims of the majority will always be preferenced. Its hard for a system of checks and balances to work on the majority populace, and doesn't really fit in well with the constitutional republican model.

[ThePieSwindler]

But our legislators were all slave-owners too, including the Founders! It doesn't make sense to give absolute power over imperfect people to OTHER imperfect people. Most Americans are decent, honest folks who have a keen sense of right and wrong, and, to me, it makes perfect sense to give them the power to legislate for themselves. That's why I don't understand the charges of socialism people are making toward Gravel. It seems to me that abolishing government the way we know it is the precise OPPOSITE of socialism...extreme anarchism. What better answer to the problem conservatives and libertarians have with "big government" than to have no government at all?

Because then the majority will rule over your life. Because then there will be nothing to protect you from the majority imposing its will upon you. Gravel is not a socialist because he wants direct democracy, it has nothing to do with that at all. He is a socialist because he wants government control of many many social programs, health care being one of them. Gravel is what i would call a social democrat. Read up on socialism, social democracy, and then gravels platform. Gravel wants large government, very large government. Opposing big government, socialism, and direct democracy does not mean libertarians or conservatives are advocating no government, stop setting up a strawman by dealing in extremes. Ron Paul is advocating a return to limited constitutional government, based on the principle of the rule of law, with the Natural Law as the basic underpinning of the entire system, that is, the protection and maximization of individual liberty. Government is needed to protect that liberty, to referee, and to make sure people do not infringe upon the liberties of others.

[AlexAmore]

But our legislators were all slave-owners too, including the Founders! It doesn't make sense to give absolute power over imperfect people to OTHER imperfect people. Most Americans are decent, honest folks who have a keen sense of right and wrong, and, to me, it makes perfect sense to give them the power to legislate for themselves. That's why I don't understand the charges of socialism people are making toward Gravel. It seems to me that abolishing government the way we know it is the precise OPPOSITE of socialism...extreme anarchism. What better answer to the problem conservatives and libertarians have with "big government" than to have no government at all?

Learn what socialism is...:rolleyes:

Google and wikipedia are your friends.

[aravoth]

another thing. Some guy is sending me messages telling me that libertarianism is as close to fascisim as you can get. I'm trying...real hard, to figure out just what the hell he is talking about. I'll be honest, I'm at a loss....Someone wanna tell me how this dunderhead came to that conclusion?

[skyorbit]

"better" is not it... they're not even in the same ball park as Dr. Paul!

Well, you write a better article targeted at Kucinich and Gravel supporters to encourage them to support Ron Paul. I'm not the best writer.

Maybe you could give me some better suggestions for the title.

Tracy

[JosephTheLibertarian]

actually, no. Fascism is collectivism.. Libertarianism is individualism.. it's closest to anarchism, NOT fascism! Socialism is pretty close to fascism.......

[BuddyRey]

Learn what socialism is...:rolleyes:

Google and wikipedia are your friends.

So, socialism means empowerment of the people through the abolition of a dillydallying, do-nothing government that, when it does manage to get something done, only succeeds in making matters worse?

Crap...I guess I'm a socialist then. :D

[JosephTheLibertarian]

socialism: collectivism

libertarianism: individualism

that is all you need to know.

[buffalokid777]

A populist is essentially someone who believes it is the Common Man against Evil Corporate Corruption. What populism fails to factor in is that the government creates the evil corporate corruption for the most part, because in a truly free market the corporations are only held accountable by the consumers, so they must have the consumer's best interest in mind if they wish to succeed. Populists also love "democracy" and "majority". A populist likes government regulation to protect the consumer from the evil corporations. Ron Paul is not a populist.

One thing to consider....

A corporation is a "Group"...basically a group of investors and their workers.

When the rights of a "Group" overtake the rights of an "Individual" it is here where the populist and libertarian find common ground..

[JosephTheLibertarian]

One thing to consider....

A corporation is a "Group"...basically a group of investors and their workers.

When the rights of a "Group" overtake the rights of an "Individual" it is here where the populist and libertarian find common ground..

yes.. but we need to deregulate the economy, so businesses would essentially structure themselves, not in the way government dictates. Labor unions would form naturally in a free market.

[AlexAmore]

So, socialism means empowerment of the people through the abolition of a dillydallying, do-nothing government that, when it does manage to get something done, only succeeds in making matters worse?

Crap...I guess I'm a socialist then. :D

Socialism actually is the opposite of individual empowerment. Socialism encourages people to be lazy because the the government will take care of it....like they took care of Hurricane Katrina or something....

If you like socialism so much, maybe you could check out a real a socialist hospital! Walter Reed Army Medical Center is a real crowd pleaser :rolleyes:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Socialism actually is the opposite of individual empowerment. Socialism encourages people to be lazy because the the government will take care of it....like they took care of Hurricane Katrina or something....

If you like socialism so much, maybe you could check out a real a socialist hospital! Walter Reed Army Medical Center is a real crowd pleaser :rolleyes:

I don't mind free money, but you have to look at the system itself: is it lousy? yes.

1. Everyone suffers
2. Businesses leave
3. Stagnant economy
4. Low quality health care
5. Low technology rates
6. Inflation
7. Corruption
8. Sameness

just that kind of thing

Democratic Socialism is a system of convenience... would I like the perks? yes. Do I think it's an effective economic system? NO

[buffalokid777]

yes.. but we need to deregulate the economy, so businesses would essentially structure themselves, not in the way government dictates. Labor unions would form naturally in a free market.

The only way that could happen successfully....is if the Lobbying power of corporations was taken away from them....and given to the individual once again...

As long as corporations can afford to lobby congress and individuals can't.....

the populist and libertarian can find common ground IMO.

Why deregulate the economy while groups like "Corporations" can lobby the government and individuals can't (Unless they have a boatload of money)?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The only way that could happen successfully....is if the Lobbying power of corporations was taken away from them....and given to the individual once again...

As long as corporations can afford to lobby congress and individuals can't.....

the populist and libertarian can find common ground IMO.

Why deregulate the economy while groups like "Corporations" can lobby the government and individuals can't (Unless they have a boatload of money)?

We need to ensure that government does NOT regulate the economy :)

[BuddyRey]

Socialism actually is the opposite of individual empowerment. Socialism encourages people to be lazy because the the government will take care of it....like they took care of Hurricane Katrina or something....

If you like socialism so much, maybe you could check out a real a socialist hospital! Walter Reed Army Medical Center is a real crowd pleaser :rolleyes:

I think you're misinterpreting my point. Direct Democracy would, effectively, put all legislative power in the hands of the people, encouraging them NOT to be lazy or wait for the government to take care of it.

I detest GENUINE Socialism, but most people just use "socialist" as a catch-all insult for any politician they don't like.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think you're misinterpreting my point. Direct Democracy would, effectively, put all legislative power in the hands of the people, encouraging them NOT to be lazy or wait for the government to take care of it.

I detest GENUINE Socialism, but most people just use "socialist" as a catch-all insult for any politician they don't like.

How do you prevent mob rule? I've looked into DD.. it has been debunked. We need to concentrate on reforming the system we have.... let's stick to reality.

[buffalokid777]

We need to ensure that government does NOT regulate the economy :)

I agree that deregulating the economy can be a good thing...but ONLY if groups such as "Corporations" don't have the power to lobby congress.....

[cujothekitten]

This "Direct Democracy" actually sounds like a pretty great idea to me. I'm not sure why so many are against it.

Direct democracy is essentially mob rule. Just because the majority agrees on something doesn't mean we are freer, for instance:

Lets say the majority of people in America decide that only creationism should be taught in school. Would direct democracy be a good thing then?

How about if the majority decided medical marijuana wasn't beneficial and voted against its use.

If the majority voted to suspend habus corpus would it make us freer?

The philosophy of liberty tells us you can't use force against another person and you can't get a group of people to use force against another person. Direct democracy is the force of the majority against the minority. When I was younger I thought it was a good idea but after the last 12 years it now scares the crap out of me.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I agree that deregulating the economy can be a good thing...but ONLY if groups such as "Corporations" don't have the power to lobby congress.....

yes.. we really need to separate ECONOMY from GOVERNMENT.

GOVERNMENT - defend the country and defend our liberties

ECONOMY - service the people. Competition. Want a doctor? Doctors would be there to compete for you, technology + competition will decrease the overall cost, then there will be optional insurance or charity to fill in any gap that *may* exist. Want a taxi ride? There should be people there to provide the service for you.

Why can't I hop into my car and become my own taxi? That's the point to a FREE market. I current cannot do this in America. I would be fined or arrested :)

[cujothekitten]

another thing. Some guy is sending me messages telling me that libertarianism is as close to fascisim as you can get. I'm trying...real hard, to figure out just what the hell he is talking about. I'll be honest, I'm at a loss....Someone wanna tell me how this dunderhead came to that conclusion?

What's his username? I have a feeling I've had a debate with this guy.

[AlexAmore]

I think you're misinterpreting my point. Direct Democracy would, effectively, put all legislative power in the hands of the people, encouraging them NOT to be lazy or wait for the government to take care of it.

I detest GENUINE Socialism, but most people just use "socialist" as a catch-all insult for any politician they don't like.

A Direct Democracy...so what happens if the majority want to bulldoze my house for a highway? How do I combat that? Say i'm a 64 year old man with very little energy.

[BuddyRey]

How do you prevent mob rule? I've looked into DD.. it has been debunked. We need to concentrate on reforming the system we have.... let's stick to reality.

Just for the sake of argument, who says "mob rule" is something to be prevented? Human beings are intelligent, capable, and emotionally attuned creatures who shouldn't have to led around like cattle by the self-serving, plutocratic oligarchs both elected and unelected who are currently running this country into the ground.

I'm not an anarchist per se, but I'm interested in hearing people's take on this.

[aravoth]

What's his username? I have a feeling I've had a debate with this guy.

DontVoteRonPaul

he's on youtube. Talks about how big his brain is. Brags about being Ivy league. Thinks he knows everything about economics because he's taking classes on it. Says shit like "don't get into it with an ivy league econ student or you'll get destroyed". Then I say "hey, wasn't bush Ivy league?", then he fumbles about something, can't make a counter point so he points out any and all grammatical errors I made in addressing him. Using that as a means for proving that he is indeed the master of the universe. The guy is so ill-informed it kills me. I feel bad for the little guy.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Just for the sake of argument, who says "mob rule" is something to be prevented? Human beings are intelligent, capable, and emotionally attuned creatures who shouldn't have to led around like cattle by the self-serving, plutocratic oligarchs both elected and unelected who are currently running this country into the ground.

I'm not an anarchist per se, but I'm interested in hearing people's take on this.

I like Anarchism, don't get me wrong...... but I don't see it happening without revolution :) then I'd support voluntary associations, but it just cannot be done without revolution.

So.. I'll stick with Libertarianism :) for now!

[AlexAmore]

Just for the sake of argument, who says "mob rule" is something to be prevented? Human beings are intelligent, capable, and emotionally attuned creatures who shouldn't have to led around like cattle by the self-serving, plutocratic oligarchs both elected and unelected who are currently running this country into the ground.

I'm not an anarchist per se, but I'm interested in hearing people's take on this.

Human beings for the most part are not intelligent, capable, and emotionally attuned. You actually contradict yourself by saying "they shouldn't have to be led around like cattle"....well of course they shouldn't have to be, but they are because they aren't very intelligent!

Most Americans are Christians. Sorry, but I don't want to be ruled by them.

If Ron Paul gets elected I will have been proven wrong and I will love it.

[cujothekitten]

Just for the sake of argument, who says "mob rule" is something to be prevented? Human beings are intelligent, capable, and emotionally attuned creatures who shouldn't have to led around like cattle by the self-serving, plutocratic oligarchs both elected and unelected who are currently running this country into the ground.

I'm not an anarchist per se, but I'm interested in hearing people's take on this.

Humans are emotional before they are intelligent. Put enough fear into them and they'll vote for or against anything.

[AlexAmore]

I like Anarchism, don't get me wrong...... but I don't see it happening without revolution :) then I'd support voluntary associations, but it just cannot be done without revolution.

So.. I'll stick with Libertarianism :) for now!

Anarchism is a nice idea but eventually a government would form. It's the natural evolution of human society.

[cujothekitten]

DontVoteRonPaul

he's on youtube. Talks about how big his brain is. Brags about being Ivy league. Thinks he knows everything about economics because he's taking classes on it. Says shit like "don't get into it with an ivy league econ student or you'll get destroyed". Then I say "hey, wasn't bush Ivy league?", then he fumbles about something, can't make a counter point so he points out any and all grammatical errors I made in addressing him. Using that as a means for proving that he is indeed the master of the universe. The guy is so ill-informed it kills me. I feel bad for the little guy.

It's not the guy I debated but it sounds just like him. Holy cow there are some ill informed people out there.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Humans are emotional before they are intelligent. Put enough fear into them and they'll vote for or against anything.

yes.. this is why "closet Anarchists" like me believe in voluntary governments / organizations :p and to "sack" tyrants! but... Libertarianism is a great compromise for me!

[cujothekitten]

Anarchism is a nice idea but eventually a government would form. It's the natural evolution of human society.

The point of anarchy isn't so much no "groups" it's no "rulers". In anarchy you have the choice not to participate. If a socialist wanted to start a collective and tax the members of that collective I would simply not join and wish them well. If our government gave us the choice of non-participation it would pretty much be an anarchy society.

You should check out this youtube user… he’s an anarchist and one of the smartest guys around. www.youtube.com/LibertyIsNotGiven

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The point of anarchy isn't so much no "groups" it's no "rulers". In anarchy you have the choice not to participate. If a socialist wanted to start a collective and tax the members of that collective I would simply not join and wish them well. If our government gave us the choice of non-participation it would pretty much be an anarchy society.

You should check out this youtube user… he’s an anarchist and one of the smartest guys around. www.youtube.com/LibertyIsNotGiven

EXACTLY. I will take Libertarianism as a compromise in order to reign in reform and CHANGE! :p

[AlexAmore]

yes.. this is why "closet Anarchists" like me believe in voluntary governments / organizations :p and to "sack" tyrants! but... Libertarianism is a great compromise for me!

Voluntary government is what we have as a constitutional republic. Nobody forces anyone to go into it and drafts should be illegal.

In anarchism you would have giant corporations running the nation. They might be mean and could make demands or else shut down your power supply or whatever if you don't pay them extra money on such and such date or if you don't give them your property...ect. Imagine what microsoft could do if they had an authoritarian ass**** in charge in a nation with no government.

That's why we have governments; so when you agree to a contract, you can be assured that both parties will follow it, or else you can go to court (government) where you can present evidence and have a jury of your peers (by the people, for the people) observe....ect.

I know America currently isn't perfect, but we definately need a government and of course the founding fathers had a very good idea for a government that would protect our freedoms.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

uhh you got anarchism ALL wrong lol

Anarchism is about doing what you want to do and associating with what you want to associate with. Want to live in a socialist system? Join others that want to as well, or, start your own! Once you are forced to do anything, you would then have the right to rebel. These would be the basic tenets of anarchism - Voluntary Social Interaction. That's what it means when the systems say "anarcho communism" or "anarcho capitalism" they're systems where people that voluntarily believe in these things band together to try and make it work.

We would all be, essentially, our own nations. And, for the record, I'm a Libertarian.. Isn't everyone entitled to their utopia?? :D

[AlexAmore]

uhh you got anarchism ALL wrong lol

Anarchism is about doing what you want to do and associating with what you want to associate with. Want to live in a socialist system? Join others that want to as well, or, start your own! Once you are forced to do anything, you would then have the right to rebel. These would be the basic tenets of anarchism - Voluntary Social Interaction. That's what it means when the systems say "anarcho communism" or "anarcho capitalism" they're systems where people that voluntarily believe in these things band together to try and make it work.

I have the right to rebel now. How do you think America got started? Through rebellion from the King! There is no "Right to rebel" lol.

Anyways in a libertarian nation you can join private communities who are socialist or who are complete opposites...nobody would stop you.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I have the right to rebel now. How do you think America got started? Through rebellion from the King! There is no "Right to rebel" lol.

Anyways in a libertarian nation you can join private communities who are socialist or who are complete opposites...nobody would stop you.

well.. we currently don't live in a society that preaches "voluntary social interaction." We have government weather we like it or not :p that's not anarchism. Anyway! Yes, I'll settle for Libertarianism, let's be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, that's the ticket! I meant... right to revolt :D I feel safe having a police to protect me from a pack of murderers, very true.

[AlexAmore]

I just think that if you magically appeared in a an anarchist society you would see a lot of unintended consequences....kinda like blowback. That's all i'm saying. Having a constitutional government would protect you from any unintended consequences AKA blowback.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I just think that if you magically appeared in a an anarchist society you would see a lot of unintended consequences....kinda like blowback. That's all i'm saying. Having a constitutional government would protect you from any unintended consequences AKA blowback.

Let's just that say it would be very unpredictable. You're right, I prefer Libertarianism, but I'd have to say my utopia would be a place where everyone interacts with everyone on a voluntary basis. This is similar to the closet communists that pretend to be democratic socialists, I only differ in that their ideal is collectivism whereas mine is individualism.

[AlexAmore]

Let's just that say it would be very unpredictable. You're right, I prefer Libertarianism, but I'd have to say my utopia would be a place where everyone interacts with everyone on a voluntary basis. This is similar to the closet communists that pretend to be democratic socialists, I only differ in that their ideal is collectivism whereas mine is individualism.

I agree with you on that. If we were both in our ideal worlds, we would probably meet each other! ;)

[ThePieSwindler]

Man that "quill" guy is a total idiot. He's been spinning the same article, the "war on religion" article, as though Ron Paul wants religion to take over. He then says "Ron Paul is a terrible candidate because hes anti gay anti choice pro-religion pro-business free market capitalist" and more mindless drivel. He then says this:


Ron Paul believes that the government actually can endorse religion, can fund religious interests, and can involve itself in religion any way it wants to short of establishing an actual State Church, such as the Church of England. That is wrong. That's not what Madison or Jefferson said when they wrote the thing, but he's allowing his religious opinions to influence his interpretation of the Constitution, which sends up red flags all over the place.

Gravel fans seem to mostly be far-left social democrats who have no regard for the constitution at all, much like their candidate! He also claims that gravel wants to "reform" the federal reserve... but cannot back that up and i have found nothing about that anywhere. Yes he wants to get rid of the IRS... but replace it with a national sales tax. He also shows his populist bent by wanting higher taxes for the "rich" (and middle class as well), and fewer taxes for the poor. Why are the poor any more important than the hard working upper middle class? That is the hallmark of populism - claiming you are all about helping the poor against the rich. I have nothing against the poor but they have no right to take money from the upper or middle class either. Only a free market system with lower prices and a stronger dollar will truly help the poor for the long haul.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Block him from posting and mark all of his postings as "spam." If you catch him spamming other Dr. Paul videos, inform the uploader on how to deal with this sack of shit.

[ThePieSwindler]

Block him from posting and mark all of his postings as "spam." If you catch him spamming other Dr. Paul videos, inform the uploader on how to deal with this sack of shit.

He's just distorting Ron Paul's words. When Ron Paul talks about the churches eclipsing the state in importance, he means in everyday local life. He means in terms of welfare, care for the poor, and as voluntary cultural centers. Does anyone (well besides a left -wing Gravel socialist) actually think government bureaucrats are better than churches in caring for the poor and helping people and the community? I'm an agnostic and i see religion as much more beneficial to humanity and the poor and needy than the state, because they actually truly care and are genuine in their care. Most "wars of religion" are "wars of the state in the name of religion to rally fervor". No one is forcing anyone to participate in religion, beceause CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting thereof. Seperation of church and state simply means the religion has no affect on policy making and politics, and the state otherwise stay out of religion. Making laws like "no ten commandments in a courthouse" is the state intervening. As long as they don't actually use the ten commandments in their judicial decisions, who REALLY cares if a stone statue is standing there? And i hope they are at least following the commandments that says do not steal and do not kill :-p.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Does that guy ever sleep? He messaged me lastnight and said that "I can't let him win" what an asshole!

[mdh]

Man that "quill" guy is a total idiot. He's been spinning the same article, the "war on religion" article, as though Ron Paul wants religion to take over. He then says "Ron Paul is a terrible candidate because hes anti gay anti choice pro-religion pro-business free market capitalist" and more mindless drivel. He then says this:



Gravel fans seem to mostly be far-left social democrats who have no regard for the constitution at all, much like their candidate! He also claims that gravel wants to "reform" the federal reserve... but cannot back that up and i have found nothing about that anywhere. Yes he wants to get rid of the IRS... but replace it with a national sales tax. He also shows his populist bent by wanting higher taxes for the "rich" (and middle class as well), and fewer taxes for the poor. Why are the poor any more important than the hard working upper middle class? That is the hallmark of populism - claiming you are all about helping the poor against the rich. I have nothing against the poor but they have no right to take money from the upper or middle class either. Only a free market system with lower prices and a stronger dollar will truly help the poor for the long haul.

I like Gravel because he sees the same questions and societal problems that Dr. Paul does, and that libertarians have for decades. His answers to them are different, however.

On the one hand, I don't agree with all of his answers - some of them sound unhelpful, a few of them sound harmful even. Some sound like they have the potential to turn out well, too. The National Initiative, if well thought out and implemented (pending answering some very big questions about how to properly implement such a thing), could be really neat. If Gravel won, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to trying such a thing just to see if it is workable or not.

On the other hand, you have the other candidates - all of the other candidates - who either do not see these problems, or want to make the same problems even worse, not even try to offer solutions.

Mike Gravel hasn't gotten a lot of traction though. Despite being the only principled Democrat candidate, his rhetoric doesn't sound too much different than the others, when they get up there and spew bullshit. Ron Paul was able to break out in a big way in the debates because what Dr. Paul says is different from the rhetoric being spewed by the other Republican candidates. We all know that every Democrat besides Gravel and Kucinich wants to keep the war in Iraq going indefinitly, no different from every Republican candidate besides Paul, but they all *say* they don't to garner votes. Most people don't pay attention to the disconnects between rhetoric and actions.

Facts: Gravel is far and away better than every Democrat candidate. Gravel is far and away better than every Republican candidate except for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is far and away better than Mike Gravel.

[ThePieSwindler]

I agree, mdh. Gravel IS far an away better than any of the other Dems, but that doesn't say much for Gravel. I dislike gravel because he really does not believe in the original intent of the constitution, or really even the constitution itself at all, and most of his solutions, while they are well intentioned and show he is principled, are still the wrong solutions. Sure, i respect that he calls out the frontrunners on their lies and half-truths, and i like that he does actually give a shit about the people and not about power, even if he goes about caring for the people in the wrong way. Simply put, i respect him, i do not agree with him on anything really, except the war, some foreign policy issues, and the war on drugs. He is good on education too.

[skyorbit]

Man that "quill" guy is a total idiot. He's been spinning the same article, the "war on religion" article, as though Ron Paul wants religion to take over. He then says "Ron Paul is a terrible candidate because hes anti gay anti choice pro-religion pro-business free market capitalist" and more mindless drivel. He then says this:



Gravel fans seem to mostly be far-left social democrats who have no regard for the constitution at all, much like their candidate! He also claims that gravel wants to "reform" the federal reserve... but cannot back that up and i have found nothing about that anywhere. Yes he wants to get rid of the IRS... but replace it with a national sales tax. He also shows his populist bent by wanting higher taxes for the "rich" (and middle class as well), and fewer taxes for the poor. Why are the poor any more important than the hard working upper middle class? That is the hallmark of populism - claiming you are all about helping the poor against the rich. I have nothing against the poor but they have no right to take money from the upper or middle class either. Only a free market system with lower prices and a stronger dollar will truly help the poor for the long haul.

Excelt that Ron Paul has been adamently against Faith Based initiatives.

Tracy

[qednick]

I think you're misinterpreting my point. Direct Democracy would, effectively, put all legislative power in the hands of the people, encouraging them NOT to be lazy or wait for the government to take care of it.

I detest GENUINE Socialism, but most people just use "socialist" as a catch-all insult for any politician they don't like.

The best example of "direct democracy" is Switzerland and it works quite well for them as they also boast of having the world's smallest government.

In Switzerland, if the government pass a law and, within 90 days, if you can get at least 50,000 signatures on a petition protesting that law, the government is forced to hold a public referendum on that subject, the results of which become binding in law.

Sounds like a pretty cool system to me.

[aravoth]

Block him from posting and mark all of his postings as "spam." If you catch him spamming other Dr. Paul videos, inform the uploader on how to deal with this sack of shit.

I want to, but the second I do I'll get a million messages from far left people yelling about how the government has to regulate everything, and how dare I regulate thier bullshit.

[LibertyOrDie]

I want to, but the second I do I'll get a million messages from far left people yelling about how the government has to regulate everything, and how dare I regulate thier bullshit.

I've gotten "quill" to admit that he was wrong on a few things and he sent me this youtube mail message:



The plain truth is that there is no more political party in the country more tightly gripped by the Religious Right than the Republican Party of Texas. The fact that Dr. Ron Paul's policies so closely mirror those of the Dominionist movement in his own state and his own Baptist denomination is simply too much of a coincidence to accept!

I know the country needs a charismatic leader with a plan, but -not this one-. There are other candidates who are more deserving of your support.

I'm going to leave you guys alone. I only spam this video because I truly feel electing Dr. Ron Paul would be a grave mistake that our country would not recover from within 50 years, not just on church-state issues but on many others.

Peace.


His biggest problem, is he believes that Ron Paul's Religious beliefs fall into the same hard-core "Evangelical" beliefs of George W. Bush. And no matter what proof you show him, he will not believe anything else.

He bases his views off of this youtube video series - Theocracy Watch: Dominion Theology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc8XS-PxFFA

The problem right off that bat is that some of this video is warning against actions that are constitutional ideas ( such as smaller government ), which he believes is a warning sign of someone attempting to implement a Theocracy in the U.S.A. This logic can't be argued with, it is too absurd - it is like saying all Muslims are Islamic Terrorists because all Islamic Terrorist are Muslim. Obliviously, you can see the circular irrationality of this argument.

[FSP-Rebel]

Gravel fans are those 9-11 truthers that don't like the free market which Dr. Paul proposes. I met one at the gym the other day. I'm a truther btw--a good one.:D