Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 88 of 88

Thread: One True Path to LibertyŽ

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Congratulations.

    Now comes the hard part. You have to come up with a good reason to go.
    Pretty close to some really good KC Barbecue. Beyond that I'm stumped.


    Oh wait, http://www.historicdowntownliberty.o...guing-history/
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 05-17-2015 at 12:14 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Of course it did.

    Without the Constitution, this land mass was nothing but gaggle of colonies founded by the British
    Unity OF THE PEOPLE occurred before the constitution, the paper formalized the agreement between states to recognize central government.

    The Declaration Of Independence (DOI) did more for the peoples unity than anything, which is why the war was won.

    The loyalists sabotaged the inclusion of the same principles or doctrines of philosophy which empowered the DOI in the creation of the first amendment. Leading to the lack of unity today and that which allowed the civil war.

    You are against those principles creating unity in the people today. The NWO loves you.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 05-17-2015 at 02:49 PM.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Unity OF THE PEOPLE occurred before the constitution, the paper formalized the agreement between states to recognize central government.

    The Declaration Of Independence (DOI) did more for the peoples unity than anything, which is why the war was won.

    The loyalists sabotaged the inclusion of the same principles or doctrines of philosophy which empowered the DOI in the creation of the first amendment. Leading to the lack of unity today and that which allowed the civil war.

    You are against those principles creating unity in the people today. The NWO loves you.
    Your reading of history is faulty. Tories were everywhere during the Revolution.

    And your reading of the present is faulty as well. You don't listen to others well enough to have the first clue what anyone believes. You only care if someone hangs on every word you say. And since literally no one on earth does hang on every word you say, literally everyone on earth is an agent in your eyes.

    Either that or the NWO pays you--to convince the world that the only people in the world who even mention the NWO have their heads so far up their asses they know nothing but what they had for breakfast...
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-18-2015 at 07:21 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.

  5. #64



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Your reading of history is faulty. Tories were everywhere during the Revolution.
    Hah! Change the topic, invent a red herring, WTF? Did you happen to post in the wrong thread?

    The people, meaning those that believed in rights and freedom not under English rule, Americans, separated by their beliefs in freedom and natural law, were united because the purpose of free speech worked in their communities at the scale, density and extent they existed. Therefore the war was successfully fought for independence.

    The Declaration of Independence expressed the unity.

    After that the constitution was created to attempt to unite the states with a similar unity, as if they were the people. They were not the people and as the abridging of the purpose of free speech has compounded, the states are less of the people.

    Therein is the reason this strategy WILL work.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ful-revolution
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 05-18-2015 at 08:52 AM.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Hah! Change the topic, invent a red herring, WTF?
    You chop a statement that illustrates my on-topic point, chop it off from the rest of my post, and say that, taken out of context, it looks like a red herring.

    Why, yes. That is how to create a red herring. You have illustrated the process nicely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    The people were united because the purpose of free speech worked in their communities at the scale, density and extent they existed. Therefore the war was successfully fought for independence.
    The people were not united. There were Tories among the colonists.

    The rest of that paragraph doesn't seem to mean anything, though it is composed of good English words. But if it logically follows from the assertion that all the colonists were united, then it's historically inaccurate too.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-18-2015 at 08:43 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    The people were not united. There were Tories among the colonists.
    Labeling, Tories were not Americans, they were colonists. The "people" used in the framing documents desctibes colonists who rejected that status and became Americans.

    The Tories were not and are not Americans in spirit, still infiltrators amongst "the people" which derived a good deal of the principles of the republic from the original people of the continent. The native people.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Labeling, Tories were not Americans, they were colonists. The "people" used in the framing documents desctibes colonists who rejected that status and became Americans.

    The Tories were not and are not Americans in spirit, still infiltrators amongst "the people" which derived a good deal of the principles of the republic from the original people of the continent. The native people.
    See, there's your answer. Labeling.

    All the non-agents are united. All one of you. And the world's 6,999,999,999 agents don't count. Not one of us.

    So, you're all set. What are you bitching about?
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    See, there's your answer. Labeling.

    All the non-agents are united. All one of you. And the world's 6,999,999,999 agents don't count. Not one of us.

    So, you're all set. What are you bitching about?
    You don't count because you do not want unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.
    It's only online that I find those that do not agree and accept that free speech has the purpose of enabling unity. Otherwise, it's all acceptance.

    Of course the infiltrations of government will fight hard to prevent unity on the web. That would be a disaster for their plan of tyranny, so your agenda is obvious as you oppose unity here.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    You don't count because you do not want unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.
    You don't listen.

    I do want unity adequate to that purpose.

    I wish you were providing it, instead of blathering endlessly on about something that isn't providing it.

    How loud do I have to scream it before you might condescend to hear it?

    You need to learn a lesson from Rush Limbaugh before it's too late. If you don't use your ears once in a while, they'll atrophy and fall off.
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.

  13. #71
    Am I missing out on the audio version of RPF?

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Am I missing out on the audio version of RPF?
    What?

    I can't hear you. Try switching to bold.
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Is there a Bomb Congress, the White House, and SCOTUS Into Smithereens model?
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Is there a Bomb Congress, the White House, and SCOTUS Into Smithereens model?
    You're thinking of the One True Path to Leavenworth (TM).
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    What?

    I can't hear you. Try switching to bold.
    If you don't use your ears once in a while, they'll atrophy and fall off.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    If you don't use your ears once in a while, they'll atrophy and fall off.
    Don't tell me, tell Rush Limbaugh.

    Oh, yeah, too late for him, isn't it?
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    [snip]
    If the purpose of all of this is actually to provide unity by making everyone agree that only losers are dumb enough to try to engage you in a meaningful conversation, on the other hand, it just might be effective after all.
    I wasn't going to say anything, but....
    "The Patriarch"

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Don't tell me, tell Rush Limbaugh.

    Oh, yeah, too late for him, isn't it?

    WHAT?

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    I do want unity adequate to that purpose.
    You contradict your own unaccountability.

    Free speech has the purpose of enabling that unity, but only by Americans agreement upon the fact will our social structures realize it and know the purpose is abridged justifying unity to compel the manifestation of the purpose.

    We often do not know what we had until it is gone. In this case we never had it, we had a facsimile. A fraud, half of a right.

    Americans need to know what they really lost, before they'll demand its manifestation.

    But you are against that unity and a lawful peaceful revolution, which is why you lost context on purpose in your reply.

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    I wasn't going to say anything, but....
    A lawful and peaceful revolution requires unity. If people are too misled to realize that there are inherent agreements already made under natural law; not meaning they consciously know them from their mislead state of mind; so they cannot overtly make them, they need some criticism for their ignorant hypocrisy.

    Or maybe they are covert agents simply working in their group to confuse and mislead. My actions are designed to separate the sincere from the pretenders and educate to the simplicity of using our right to define constitutional intent to enforce the constitution.

    Do you agree and accept that the purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 05-24-2015 at 08:40 AM.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    There is only One True Path to LibertyŽ! Get yours today!

    Imagine the pride and satisfaction you'll feel knowing that your One True Path to LibertyŽ is the only path to freedom you or anyone else will ever need!

    With One True Path to LibertyŽ, you can rest assured that you'll have the only genuine approach to freedom that can possibly be of any use or value!

    Easy to store! No messy dialectics! Comes with our official Certificate of Authenticity - available only with genuine One True Path to LibertyŽ products!

    One True Path to LibertyŽ comes in a variety of models, including Purist, Gradualist, Absolutist, Utilitarian, Anarchist, Minarchist and many, many more!

    Accept no substitutes! Supplies are limited! Order your One True Path to LibertyŽ now!
    Bump

  26. #82
    Found this review of Occam's book on Amazon. 1/5 stars.

    Occam's Banana's argument within One True Path to LibertyŽ has little relevancy to the failings of 'central planning', nor does his definition and treatment of socialism as such seem to be anything other than an apologetic reaction. This is not because central planning itself was not a failure, but instead because the theoretical framework which he holds to deduce this failure is untenable. Occam's Banana holds fundamental assumptions, the pivot around which his greater critique rests, that are found to be deeply wanting. The first, which is a mere prelude to the second, is his assumption of the role and function of money. Occam's Banana holds to the notion that money can only arise and function through 'the free interaction of individuals'. This single statement is riddled with complexity and means nothing in and of itself - however at the same time it is the general key to understanding the entire method employed by Occam's Banana in examining questions of political economy.

    After deconstructing it to the appropriate level, it simply means that money in a society not based on 'free exchange' will be arbitrary; i.e. will not represent price in accordance with an aggregation of individual choices. This begs the question, however - are prices formed on the market reflective of individual choice? Is the market mechanism the independent variable in price formation? Thus the problem has nothing to do with whether the state of the economy is in 'equilibrium' at any point in time - an argument that takes place between the Neoclassical tradition and everyone else - but whether prices are reflective of an aggregation of information of individual choices which takes its shape on the market. This cannot be true because the 'price mechanism', by which he means supply and demand relations on the market, is itself derivative of the accumulation and distributive process in capitalist production. Market relations, that is price relations, derive their shape at any point in time from the quantity of surplus value actually produced and its distribution. What appears to be the regulating force of individuals by virtue of their own self interested actions, i.e., the market mechanism of supply and demand, is in reality the superficial appearance that conceals the fact that the market mechanism itself is regulated by the capitalist class as a whole through their unique control of the process of accumulation. The distribution of surplus value is in turn conditioned on the mutual relations of economic classes and their relative economic positions. As these are socio-political relations, i.e., a they do not take place not on the market through marginalist 'analysis', it follows that whatever takes place on the market can take place only within the boundaries which events in the sphere of production (accumulation) and the peculiarities of the distribution of the social product (socio-political) establish.

    The classicsts in general, Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and their destructor, Karl Marx, shared in common this notion that distribution was something that happened not on the market but as a result of socio-political factors within their own historical context. Thus. the degeneration of economic theory finds its height in the attempted micro-aggregation of phenomena that are rooted in social relations, such as the determination of wages by the marginal disutility of labor interacting with the marginal productivity of capital, that this tradition represents. The main issue I see with this text is the audacity of basing an argument on the complexity of the price mechanism on the market without having an adequate description of the functioning and determinants of the price system itself. Of secondary importance is the fact that the problem was and is dynamism - the capitalist system, for all its faults, has proven to be extremely capable of espousing change. Planned economies could easily function as a refined form of redistribution, of simple reproduction or even reproduction with a surplus, which would be built off of the form of redistribution that lasted far longer than any form of capitalism has - Feudal societies allowed for reproduction, else we would not be here. What is in question here is not if they can exist or not based on some immutable laws, and not even so much the extent to which the technical structure allows for it, but whether or not the political structure is able to handle such responsibility without degenerating. This tradition not only opposes any political progression but hinders it because they consistently attempt to strip it of its legitimacy by contrasting a perfectly functioning economic system derived from the interaction of 'free' (by which they mean isolated) individuals with our own real social existence. This is called a self-fulfilling prophecy. This book is ultimately the basis for this line of thinking - in terms of immutable laws in the abstract that contrast the very existence we see in front of us. Ultimately, Occam's Banana's fiction is a far shot from the essence of not only socialism, but our material existence as well. His depiction of the former seems far more inline with state-capitalism, which is not only 'possible' but is an adequate first description of most of the twentieth century. In this indirect sense, his philosophical opposition to the centralization that capital had produced, and its constraining effects on freedoms, were quite correct. It is a shame he did not apply his critical mind to his own theology. The point which his entire argument within this book pivots, that central planning would fail because of the lack of a price system, reflects his methodology of simple cause and effect relationships on the individual level from which he believes all economic phenomena are derived.

    What I find ironic from this forum, however, is that Occam's Banana has built a following of zealots that rivals the radical Marxists. If you are a follower and this offends you, I assume you recognize that your dashing and simplistic categorizations of 'socialists' offends them just the same. Perhaps you should actually read Capital or many of its offspring's before you come to dangerous conclusions. Capital is about capitalism, not socialism. For those of you not willing to read Marx, I would recommend Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy - specifically his section on Capitalism, as the rest of the book is superfluous (also for those not simply under the constraints of time). Schumpeter was an adamant defender of capitalism and a lousy horseman. His work gets to the heart of the virtues and strengths of Capitalism, center stage for him being the entrepreneur's role in innovating the means of production. If you are serious and not only interested in the defense of your ideology, I recommend it over this. Of course, I recommend Capital over both...I simply am under no illusions that anyone on this thread will actually take me up on that.

    So, in conclusion I do recommend that everyone who plans to read this also challenge their mind and conventional wisdom with reading its counterparts, some of which I recommended above, to get a clear idea of what the real issues with both are. As for many of the other reviewers on this book, I find all these five star reviews very one sided. I would wager that they are all in one way or another affiliated with the Occam's Banana institute or the Austrian school in general. The plain fact is that Marx's socio-historic basis for his argument, whether one agrees with it or not, goes far beyond what Occam's Banana even touches in this text. The Socialist critique has no quarrels with markets or 'freedom', but the perversion of those elements when confined to the capitalist mode of production in which their product is concentration and centralization of power.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 01-10-2016 at 11:12 PM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Bump
    Damn. It's been almost three years ... where the hell did the time go ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Found this review of Occam's book on Amazon. 1/5 stars.

    Occam's Banana's argument within One True Path to LibertyŽ has little relevancy to the failings of 'central planning', nor does his definition and treatment of socialism as such seem to be anything other than an apologetic reaction. This is not because central planning itself was not a failure, but instead because the theoretical framework which he holds to deduce this failure is untenable. Occam's Banana holds fundamental assumptions, the pivot around which his greater critique rests, that are found to be deeply wanting. The first, which is a mere prelude to the second, is his assumption of the role and function of money. Occam's Banana holds to the notion that money can only arise and function through 'the free interaction of individuals'. This single statement is riddled with complexity and means nothing in and of itself - however at the same time it is the general key to understanding the entire method employed by Occam's Banana in examining questions of political economy.

    After deconstructing it to the appropriate level, it simply means that money in a society not based on 'free exchange' will be arbitrary; i.e. will not represent price in accordance with an aggregation of individual choices. This begs the question, however - are prices formed on the market reflective of individual choice? Is the market mechanism the independent variable in price formation? Thus the problem has nothing to do with whether the state of the economy is in 'equilibrium' at any point in time - an argument that takes place between the Neoclassical tradition and everyone else - but whether prices are reflective of an aggregation of information of individual choices which takes its shape on the market. This cannot be true because the 'price mechanism', by which he means supply and demand relations on the market, is itself derivative of the accumulation and distributive process in capitalist production. Market relations, that is price relations, derive their shape at any point in time from the quantity of surplus value actually produced and its distribution. What appears to be the regulating force of individuals by virtue of their own self interested actions, i.e., the market mechanism of supply and demand, is in reality the superficial appearance that conceals the fact that the market mechanism itself is regulated by the capitalist class as a whole through their unique control of the process of accumulation. The distribution of surplus value is in turn conditioned on the mutual relations of economic classes and their relative economic positions. As these are socio-political relations, i.e., a they do not take place not on the market through marginalist 'analysis', it follows that whatever takes place on the market can take place only within the boundaries which events in the sphere of production (accumulation) and the peculiarities of the distribution of the social product (socio-political) establish.

    The classicsts in general, Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and their destructor, Karl Marx, shared in common this notion that distribution was something that happened not on the market but as a result of socio-political factors within their own historical context. Thus. the degeneration of economic theory finds its height in the attempted micro-aggregation of phenomena that are rooted in social relations, such as the determination of wages by the marginal disutility of labor interacting with the marginal productivity of capital, that this tradition represents. The main issue I see with this text is the audacity of basing an argument on the complexity of the price mechanism on the market without having an adequate description of the functioning and determinants of the price system itself. Of secondary importance is the fact that the problem was and is dynamism - the capitalist system, for all its faults, has proven to be extremely capable of espousing change. Planned economies could easily function as a refined form of redistribution, of simple reproduction or even reproduction with a surplus, which would be built off of the form of redistribution that lasted far longer than any form of capitalism has - Feudal societies allowed for reproduction, else we would not be here. What is in question here is not if they can exist or not based on some immutable laws, and not even so much the extent to which the technical structure allows for it, but whether or not the political structure is able to handle such responsibility without degenerating. This tradition not only opposes any political progression but hinders it because they consistently attempt to strip it of its legitimacy by contrasting a perfectly functioning economic system derived from the interaction of 'free' (by which they mean isolated) individuals with our own real social existence. This is called a self-fulfilling prophecy. This book is ultimately the basis for this line of thinking - in terms of immutable laws in the abstract that contrast the very existence we see in front of us. Ultimately, Occam's Banana's fiction is a far shot from the essence of not only socialism, but our material existence as well. His depiction of the former seems far more inline with state-capitalism, which is not only 'possible' but is an adequate first description of most of the twentieth century. In this indirect sense, his philosophical opposition to the centralization that capital had produced, and its constraining effects on freedoms, were quite correct. It is a shame he did not apply his critical mind to his own theology. The point which his entire argument within this book pivots, that central planning would fail because of the lack of a price system, reflects his methodology of simple cause and effect relationships on the individual level from which he believes all economic phenomena are derived.

    What I find ironic from this forum, however, is that Occam's Banana has built a following of zealots that rivals the radical Marxists. If you are a follower and this offends you, I assume you recognize that your dashing and simplistic categorizations of 'socialists' offends them just the same. Perhaps you should actually read Capital or many of its offspring's before you come to dangerous conclusions. Capital is about capitalism, not socialism. For those of you not willing to read Marx, I would recommend Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy - specifically his section on Capitalism, as the rest of the book is superfluous (also for those not simply under the constraints of time). Schumpeter was an adamant defender of capitalism and a lousy horseman. His work gets to the heart of the virtues and strengths of Capitalism, center stage for him being the entrepreneur's role in innovating the means of production. If you are serious and not only interested in the defense of your ideology, I recommend it over this. Of course, I recommend Capital over both...I simply am under no illusions that anyone on this thread will actually take me up on that.

    So, in conclusion I do recommend that everyone who plans to read this also challenge their mind and conventional wisdom with reading its counterparts, some of which I recommended above, to get a clear idea of what the real issues with both are. As for many of the other reviewers on this book, I find all these five star reviews very one sided. I would wager that they are all in one way or another affiliated with the Occam's Banana institute or the Austrian school in general. The plain fact is that Marx's socio-historic basis for his argument, whether one agrees with it or not, goes far beyond what Occam's Banana even touches in this text. The Socialist critique has no quarrels with markets or 'freedom', but the perversion of those elements when confined to the capitalist mode of production in which their product is concentration and centralization of power.
    Bull$#@!! I have NEVER said or implied that Schumpeter wasn't a lousy horseman!

    Libertarian Party Mises Caucus
    "The libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party."

    Platform ˇ Our Actions

    Mises PAC
    (Libertarian Party membership not required)

    #TakeHumanAction ˇ Donate ˇ Merchandise


    HOME ˇ Facebook ˇ Twitter ˇ YouTube

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Damn. It's been almost three years ... where the hell did the time go ... ?



    Bull$#@!! I have NEVER said or implied that Schumpeter wasn't a lousy horseman!
    3 year bump.
    "The Patriarch"

  29. #85
    I think I saw some Chinese knockoffs on ebay.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  30. #86

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Any new models?
    I'm afraid not. My heart's just not in it anymore. I burned the factory down for the insurance money ...

  32. #88
    See Something, Say Something. Report Everyone who doesn't post on this forum in support of liberty as people who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior that indicate an interest, motive, intention, or capability of carrying out an act of violence; then the Government can keep us safe by getting rid of these "potential" trouble makers once and for all.

    https://babin.house.gov/uploadedfile..._bill_text.pdf



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Threads

  1. One True Path to LibertyŽ
    By Occam's Banana in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-07-2013, 09:04 PM
  2. The political process has failed. Time to embark on a much more effective path to liberty.
    By Kalebthefinn in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-18-2012, 12:39 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 02:22 PM
  4. The Reality of Ron Paul and The Path To Liberty
    By mrchubbs in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-09-2008, 02:21 PM
  5. is the Ron Paul liberty dollar true?
    By nyrgoal99 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 08:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •