Not really. He could spend the time shaking hands and kissing babies, but really, how many more voters is that going to bring to his cause?

Report  
skaboom (October 19, 2007)

Honestly, more than talking to a bunch of kids with Anti-Flag patches that are too antiestablishment to vote. People are stupid. Look at the 2004 election for proof. Throwing your name out there again and again and again and again at the demographics that vote in the highest numbers is the best way of getting elected. Sad, but so is the rest of the election process.

Report  
EyesLikeBombs (October 19, 2007)

I think it's a little different for Obama though, he's clearly the "hippest" candidate and getting the youngsters who might vote for him just because he's cool enough to listen to Jay-Z and has a sick crossover (http://video.on.nytimes.com/index.jsp?fr_story=ae07e83f2e95b2341 594531e2fe6b25c5a3f9c1b) may very well make up for the candidates who won't vote for him because he's (rather) black and smokes squares. I just think the myspace demographic is worthwhile in his case.

Report  
Autosuggestion (October 19, 2007)

That's what people said about Howard Dean in '04 and the way he was mobilizing people on the internet.

Report  
EyesLikeBombs (October 19, 2007)

Good point...except for the fact that his internet mobilization was wildly successful and not even close to a reason for his campaign's failure. (It was more due to media bias, in my opinion...)

That's like saying Kerry lost because he had two legs. Sure, he did have two legs, and he did indeed lose...doesn't mean they correlate though.

Report  
Autosuggestion (October 19, 2007)

Look at what I said.

There can be no "except for the fact that...." or Kerry two legs business.

I did not cite a single reason for Howard Dean losing, nor did I say that his campaign's use of the internet was unsuccessful. I didn't make a correlation or point to a cause of anything. I simply said that the things you are saying about Obama in this election are similar to what others said of Howard Dean. The fact that I said the name "Howard Dean" made you jump to a number of conclusions.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

They said he was (rather) black?

Report  
skaboom (October 19, 2007)

You have a point, but it's a gamble. In primaries, where there are lots of candidates, it pays to appeal to a niche audience. If there are 10 players in the game, winning 80% of the vote from 20% of the population is enough to get you on the presidential ballot. But once you're on the ballot, you have to appeal to everyone. If you try too hard to come across as "the young hip black guy that america's youth can relate to!" the larger portion of america who doesn't particularly care for that image is going to deal him a crushing defeat.

Report  
elephantdwarf (October 19, 2007)

the sad fact of the matter is this... black people don't vote for black people, and women don't vote for women. sure, they say they will, but in the end they don't. so if the main election is either hillary clinton(who i think is the fucking devil) or barack obama v. doody guiliani, this country is fucked, fucked, fucked even more than it is now.

While that song is catchy as hell, the 18-25 vote for the last presidential election was over 20%. It still didn't matter because more people overall voted. Hopefully, it won't dip under 20% this time.

Let's not forget that a person doesn't have to be 18 to participate in the Iowa caucuses, so mobilizing high school kids to his cause could be very effective, seeing as Iowa can act as a national trendsetter for the Feb. 5th primary elections.

you mean Mike Gravel? if you're gonna support him, at least get his name right

Report  
listofdemands (October 19, 2007)

shut down!
-nic

I'm all about Mike Gravel. Fuck Ron Paul.

I saw Obama this morning at ASU. Sort of underwhelming.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

Appalachian State or Arizona State?

Report  
David_Arquette (October 19, 2007)

Arizona State

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

Middle of the road 70s retread or racist, bigot asshole Libertarian..

tough call..

Report  
baseball (October 19, 2007)

i won't see a reply until tonight because i'm leaving work but...

where is all this racism you speak of?

i've watched him speak in debates and read his speeches in numerous places dating back to the 80's of Ron Paul chastising the justice system and war on drugs for how it's mistreated minorities specifically.....just a couple weeks ago in a debate he reaffirmed those beliefs and got a very large applause from a predominantly black audience

he sure doesn't come off racist, what am i missing? i can see how some of his stances could maybe be misconstrued as 'racist', but that'd be a stretch if you ask me

Report  
elephantdwarf (October 19, 2007)

i think he's getting it from his stance on protecting the borders. which i stand behind. a main reason the US dollar is worth so little right now is because people can't afford to pay for things, so they don't buy them. but i guess that's not so much because of the illegal aliens, but more so from shipping businesses overseas to cut costs. which im pretty sure he has a strong stance against as well. honestly i haven't had much time to pay attention to politics since school started. i need to make the time to catch myself up on what's happening.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)
I think an analogy may be in order here because there are a myriad of issues clouding our vision here. Yes RP is against the War On Drugs and correctly states that it is designed to target minorities. This is a simple acknowledgement of fact that does not speak to his views on race directly.

Ron Paul's supporters in general (the one's who'd heard of him before this year, say) are the same one's who will tell you that affirmative action and pandering to minorities is a HUGE problem in this country.

They don't hate black people, but blacks are demonstrably lazier they say. You see it all the time, black folks laying down on the job. And when a supervisor admonishes them, they claim racism and the supervisor gets punished/fired!!!! That is totally unfair..reverse racism!!!!

Whats worse, blacks are by and large not being victimized in this

show rest of commentI think an analogy may be in order here because there are a myriad of issues clouding our vision here. Yes RP is against the War On Drugs and correctly states that it is designed to target minorities. This is a simple acknowledgement of fact that does not speak to his views on race directly.

Ron Paul's supporters in general (the one's who'd heard of him before this year, say) are the same one's who will tell you that affirmative action and pandering to minorities is a HUGE problem in this country.

They don't hate black people, but blacks are demonstrably lazier they say. You see it all the time, black folks laying down on the job. And when a supervisor admonishes them, they claim racism and the supervisor gets punished/fired!!!! That is totally unfair..reverse racism!!!!

Whats worse, blacks are by and large not being victimized in this country, but by giving them everything for free we encourage a victimization mindset. This is all gospel to Paul supporters. Unfortunately it also spews from the mouths of Oreos like Tavis Smiley but that is another discussion.

Yes, the War On Drugs is a huge part of the problem in terms of incarcerating minorities. But make no mistake, law enforcement targets minorities all the time, not only on drugs. Consider the roundups of Hispanics taking place under the auspice of "catching illegals". The economic disparity imposed on blacks in this country very nearly makes us an apartheid state.

That is why it is so ludicrous to hear disingenuous cries of "Reverse Racism!".

That leads into my analogy with South Africa. Leaders like Nelson Mandela went to jail for socialist ideals. But when they got out they instead broke bread with the worst of the worst, the IMF and its insipid brand of neoliberalism. Oh, the ANC is in control alright, but that does not mean it has the support of black South Africans or that it represents blacks there. Quite the opposite. In turn there are now rumblings from whites in South Africa that they are emigrating because the government is "incompetent".

What is this but (slightly) veiled racism?

There is a proven 8% threshold in this country -- if more than 1 in 12 people in a neighborhood is not white, white people suddenly decide they need to move somewhere else for "better opportunities" or "a change of locale" or other concocted reasoning.

I understand that it can be difficult to perceive the layers of misinformation and deceptive presentation on, but if there is one thing you can bet your ass on its that Ron Paul is a racist fuck.
Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

Hey feel free to respond later by the way, I always check for comments for a couple days after a story so I'll probably see your reply and this is worth talking about.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

anti-Paul people have been spouting these accusations of racism left and right lately... i wonder if they saw the debate in which Dr Paul said the war on drugs should be abolished because it was hurting minority communities

...FOR ME TO POOP ON!
- Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog

Report  
EyesLikeBombs (October 19, 2007)

Hey loser, if you want to make your point, try having actual discorse, don't just bring your forwarded e-mail, copy and pasted bullshist here you lazy fucking faggot.

Report  
skaboom (October 19, 2007)

"you lazy fucking faggot."

:(

Report  
EyesLikeBombs (October 19, 2007)

I get intense sometimes.

Report  
Autosuggestion (October 19, 2007)

It's great that that is the closing line for a post arguing that "if you want to make your point, try having actual discorse."

Report  
jacknife737 (October 19, 2007)

I love how

"if you want to make your point, try having actual discorse"

was directly followed by

"you lazy fucking faggot"

thumbs up for the blatant homophobia

Report  
skaboom (October 19, 2007)

1. Way to copy/paste some bullshit bulletin you found online.
2. Most of those aren't true.
3. Of course Mr. Conservativepunk.com doesn't like him, because he's *gasp* a real conservative, unlike the neocons that run the Republican party now. I'm not a fan of conservativism in general, but real conservatives are far better than the big-business hypocrites that are in control now.

Report  
baseball (October 19, 2007)

If you don't believe that we need an agency like the FDA to make sure the products we eat and the medecine we take are not lethal or dangerous for our health - Vote Ron Paul.

you think that's why the FDA exists?? hahahaha

Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)

the SAME FDA that does not regulate organic foods, so you have no idea if something labelled organic is actually organic or not?

or the SAME FDA that legislates AGAINST NATURAL REMEDIES!

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

Dude, thank you. So few people realize that organic is a big scam.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)
a scam in a major way. whole foods stores are a ripoff. how can a packaged food item shipped from halfway across the earth not contain preservatives.

and wtf is the difference between natural and artificial? as if human beings and human catalyzed processes aren't natural... what humanist bullshit that is.

its like, you have someone saying "i like this because it doesn't contain preservatives", then they pour salt all over it.

or that if you bought an all natural extract and took it, or ate a food item that was not fortified with that particular extract, that would be healthy, but to pour the extract ont he food item you were going to eat, is processing, and thats unhealthy. even though your eating them seperately within 5 minutes.

all the terms used in the debate over food processes, such as "natural""artificial" "synthetic" "prese

show rest of commenta scam in a major way. whole foods stores are a ripoff. how can a packaged food item shipped from halfway across the earth not contain preservatives.

and wtf is the difference between natural and artificial? as if human beings and human catalyzed processes aren't natural... what humanist bullshit that is.

its like, you have someone saying "i like this because it doesn't contain preservatives", then they pour salt all over it.

or that if you bought an all natural extract and took it, or ate a food item that was not fortified with that particular extract, that would be healthy, but to pour the extract ont he food item you were going to eat, is processing, and thats unhealthy. even though your eating them seperately within 5 minutes.

all the terms used in the debate over food processes, such as "natural""artificial" "synthetic" "preservatives" "hormones" "antibiotics" i mean, noone buying this shit is a scientist and can test whats in there, and few people have any understanding why these things are in their food, and whether what is bad or not.

its the same attitude as your great grandpa refusing to fly in airplanes because "if god intended us to do that, he would've given us wings"

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

haha there is so much bullshit in this post, be glad you didnt write it

Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)
misrepresenting someones platform FTL.

give you an example

"If you think that openly homosexual soldiers should be kicked out of the army"

ron paul has never advocated kicking someone out for being homosexual. he said that if any sexual behavior, be it homosexual or heterosexual, interferes with your work performance, it is what should be looked at. he said this should apply to people regardless of sexual orientation. he then went on to say that rights are inalienable and are not taken from your sexual preference, and that only disruptive sexual behavior is the business of the military, and the rest of it should not be their concern.

Ron Paul has never advocated a theocratic government, thats proposterous misquoting.

when he says churches are more important than government, he means that churches should be the institutions of

show rest of commentmisrepresenting someones platform FTL.

give you an example

"If you think that openly homosexual soldiers should be kicked out of the army"

ron paul has never advocated kicking someone out for being homosexual. he said that if any sexual behavior, be it homosexual or heterosexual, interferes with your work performance, it is what should be looked at. he said this should apply to people regardless of sexual orientation. he then went on to say that rights are inalienable and are not taken from your sexual preference, and that only disruptive sexual behavior is the business of the military, and the rest of it should not be their concern.

Ron Paul has never advocated a theocratic government, thats proposterous misquoting.

when he says churches are more important than government, he means that churches should be the institutions of learning moral character and charity, NOT the government. meaning the government stays the fuck out of your life, and you go to church if you want to live a more conservative lifestyle, and you learn that information there. that is a SEPERATION. he finds that more important because he is a religious person, this does not mean he advocates FORCING religion on others. watch him explain this at the VALUES VOTERS summit on why he think PROSTITUTION AND DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGAL. how can you call a man a theocrat who goes to a freakin values voters debate and tells them that not only is pornography supposed to be ok, but drugs and prostitution too! and gets a cheer!

"If you think that the US doesn't need standardized education and that schools should have the right to teach creationism and ban sex ed and evolution"

you say that as if all schools who aren't created by the government will teach evolution and ban sex ed. you also say this as if the fed govt doesn't use education as a system of propoganda to promote criminal things like the federal reserve which illegally transfer the wealth of the middle class to elite bankers. theres nothing to stop you from opening your own school where you teach things like Ron Paul is a theocrat, the same rights which protect your ability to say uneducated offbase things on punknews.org.

if you think the UN is such a good thing, then why do they call their soldiers, who kill countless innocents each year, who are basically actors of imperialism essentially for the US or whoever hires a PR company to promote to the US Media "peacekeeping forces"... do you believe these peacekeeping forces have flower guns and bunny grenades?

they are imperialist militaries, and they crush poor countries over UN Resolutions, found by judgement of random global politics.

guoing to have to disagree with you there, champ.

Ron Paul is anti-war. That's great.

With regards to his other positions, he can lick me.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

explain why you're in favor of corporate welfare and the war on drugs

Report  
jacknife737 (October 19, 2007)

There’s more too it then that, such as his stance on abortion, gun control, minimum wage, environmental and immigration issues. Not to mention his isolationist stance with regards to international relations (and his apparent hostility towards the united nations)

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

yes, lets expand our presence around the world as opposed to going back to a system that worked for two centuries before WWII.

i'll give it to you on abortion... i dont understand why he isnt staunchly pro-life. he's against a federal ban on abortion, but thats not enough... he needs to support a federal guarantee of that right.

gun control? well Ron Paul is right, for the most part on that issue. why should big government take my gun away? its my right. arent punks supposed to be against government intrusiveness?

Report  
jacknife737 (October 19, 2007)

Well i've made my points, and you've made yours, this is just going to go around in a pissing contest.

"yes, lets expand our presence around the world as opposed to going back to a system that worked for two centuries before WWII.

One word, Darfur. Again, i could come up with some long reply to this, but all i'm going to say is, as i truely belive tha the US/ liberal democracies have an obligation to better this world.

" its my right. arent punks supposed to be against government intrusiveness?"

Got a chuckle out of this... but i'm not 100% against the private ownership of firearms, however i am 100% against the private onwership of handguns. Just take a galance at innercity homicide rates sometims.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)

research Darfur, its a civil war. why do we need to go into someone elses civil war. 3 militaries fighting is better than 2? explain why. you just got DUPED by a PR COMPANY SELLING A WAR.

just like what happened to you over iraq ;)

Report  
jacknife737 (October 19, 2007)

It may be a civil war, but a GENOCIDE is still happening. The solution to the scenario is called "peacekeeping".

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/specpk.htm

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

"just like what happened to you over iraq ;) "

Two totally different scenarios, and i was against the Iraq war from the start.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)
GENOCIDE is a spin term now. if both sides have an armed military its not genocide. genocide is when a state government, with authoritarian controls takes certain members of its society and kills them. its murder. actions of war are not considered murders.

GENOCIDE implies murder, not an act of war. if two sides are fighting one another and they happen to be of opposing ethnic or racial backgrounds, this is a war. if one side is not fighting and the other is, its genocide. in this case, both sides are fighting.

only the US and ISRAEL characterise that conflict as genocide. the rest of the world refer to it as a civil war.

what does the guy in the picture on wikipedia riding the camel have in his hand? boquet of flowers? no, its an ak47. thats what you call peacekeeping? i call it bullying, or picking sides in a fight that simp

show rest of commentGENOCIDE is a spin term now. if both sides have an armed military its not genocide. genocide is when a state government, with authoritarian controls takes certain members of its society and kills them. its murder. actions of war are not considered murders.

GENOCIDE implies murder, not an act of war. if two sides are fighting one another and they happen to be of opposing ethnic or racial backgrounds, this is a war. if one side is not fighting and the other is, its genocide. in this case, both sides are fighting.

only the US and ISRAEL characterise that conflict as genocide. the rest of the world refer to it as a civil war.

what does the guy in the picture on wikipedia riding the camel have in his hand? boquet of flowers? no, its an ak47. thats what you call peacekeeping? i call it bullying, or picking sides in a fight that simply isn't your business, that bc your not from there, dont speak the language, you dont know who is really right or wrong.

our intelligence told us iraq had wmds. this is the same spin team thats selling us on the "genocide" in darfur.

wake up, your pro war, and your supporting another war.

america needs to quit bullying everyone and let them determine their own fates. how it makes sense for us to go and kill an ethnic group in order to protect another ethnic group i dont get. its genocide when we do it to, one genocide does not fix another.
Report  
jacknife737 (October 19, 2007)
“GENOCIDE is a spin term now. if both sides have an armed military its not genocide. genocide is when a state government, with authoritarian controls takes certain members of its society and kills them. its murder. actions of war are not considered murders. “

Are you seriously suggesting that the government and Janjaweed attacks upon the non-Baggara civilian populace have not resulted in mass-murder/ethnic cleansing/genocide?

“GENOCIDE implies murder, not an act of war. if two sides are fighting one another and they happen to be of opposing ethnic or racial backgrounds, this is a war.”

Believe what you want, as many as 450,000 innocent civilians have died so far…

“what does the guy in the picture on wikipedia riding the camel have in his hand? boquet of flowers? no, its an ak47. thats what you call peacekeeping? i call it bullying, or

show rest of comment“GENOCIDE is a spin term now. if both sides have an armed military its not genocide. genocide is when a state government, with authoritarian controls takes certain members of its society and kills them. its murder. actions of war are not considered murders. “

Are you seriously suggesting that the government and Janjaweed attacks upon the non-Baggara civilian populace have not resulted in mass-murder/ethnic cleansing/genocide?

“GENOCIDE implies murder, not an act of war. if two sides are fighting one another and they happen to be of opposing ethnic or racial backgrounds, this is a war.”

Believe what you want, as many as 450,000 innocent civilians have died so far…

“what does the guy in the picture on wikipedia riding the camel have in his hand? boquet of flowers? no, its an ak47. thats what you call peacekeeping? i call it bullying, or picking sides in a fight that simply isn't your business, that bc your not from there, dont speak the language, you dont know who is really right or wrong.”

Well one can certainly take that attitude, the the western world did that in 94 with regards to Rwanda and up to 1,000,000 Tutsis (around 77% of ethnic Tutsis) were slaughtered

“our intelligence told us iraq had wmds. this is the same spin team thats selling us on the "genocide" in darfur.”

Apples meet oranges. You keep bringing up Iraq (in an obvious attempt to weaken my position) and the two arent’ comparable.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)
"You keep bringing up Iraq (in an obvious attempt to weaken my position) and the two arent’ comparable. "

they're very comparable. when a 3rd party living halfway around the world goes to war over intelligence rumors, some of the time mistakes are made and more innocent people are killed. in fact, name a situation in which our interventionist foreign policy SAVED anyone? our country enters into conflicts, and more innocent people die than would have.

"Are you seriously suggesting that the government and Janjaweed attacks upon the non-Baggara civilian populace have not resulted in mass-murder/ethnic cleansing/genocide?"

your saying this as if the attacks aren't motivated by defeating an armed rebel faction, of which there are many opponents. in fact, the sudanese government doesn't even claim to back the janjaweed, its only rumorous that they suppor

show rest of comment"You keep bringing up Iraq (in an obvious attempt to weaken my position) and the two arent’ comparable. "

they're very comparable. when a 3rd party living halfway around the world goes to war over intelligence rumors, some of the time mistakes are made and more innocent people are killed. in fact, name a situation in which our interventionist foreign policy SAVED anyone? our country enters into conflicts, and more innocent people die than would have.

"Are you seriously suggesting that the government and Janjaweed attacks upon the non-Baggara civilian populace have not resulted in mass-murder/ethnic cleansing/genocide?"

your saying this as if the attacks aren't motivated by defeating an armed rebel faction, of which there are many opponents. in fact, the sudanese government doesn't even claim to back the janjaweed, its only rumorous that they support them(sortof like the loose rumours that iran supports "terrorists in iraq".) in civil wars, innocent people die.. such as the US CIVIL WAR in which our own government burnt Atlanta, GA to the ground, disenfranchising and killing innocents after the battle was already won. saying that this is organizing death camps similar to the holocaust is a absolutely radical stretch. by the same standards our own military is committing genocide in Iraq, and Israel is committing it in Palestine.
Report  
jacknife737 (October 20, 2007)

*sigh*, this has turned, yet another thread into a pointless pissing contest, in which i have no desire to continue with. Again i still disagree with 100% of what you've posted (and dare i say, i'm more thin a little bit disturbed concering your views about the serbian/bosnian conflict).



Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)

its funny that you view the free exchange of ideas as a "pissing contest"

and that you find another persons desire to question what hes forcefed by the media and establishment government as "disturb"ing.

maybe you wouldn't feel your expression of ideas was pissing if you gave them more critical review.

might save a few lives next time your asked to comply with an illegal aggressive war.

Report  
jacknife737 (October 20, 2007)

"its funny that you view the free exchange of ideas as a "pissing contest""

Thanks for the best laugh i've had all day. This was an idiotic message board argument, that i actually feel dumber by participating in. You’ll probably realize this when you stop having illusions of grandeur.

"and that you find another persons desire to question what hes forcefed by the media and establishment government as "disturb"ing"

No, i find your apparent denial, that ethnic cleansing occurred in the Balkans during the 90s "disturbing".


Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)

heres an example of that genocide Clinton had us go police in the 90s...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s73Fb_FLAyo

check out the media fabrication that sold us on going in and attacking bosnians.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)

another good SELL YOU ON GENOCIDE video series about yugoslavia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7uuRKPFYI

Report  
jacknife737 (October 19, 2007)

You actually believe that the Srebrenica massacre never happened? And btw, posting a bunch of conspiracy theorist youtube videos isn’t going to help you prove your point, quite the opposite in fact.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)

how very bill o'reilly of you to call any evidence that doesn't support your mass media claim "conspiracy theories".

do you even know what the term means? it means a theory indicating collusion of more than one known agent to cause an outcome.

here, colloquially, its used to discredit an argument you dont feel like defending against. i.e. dissenting from any mainstream media source is a conspiracy theory, despite the fact that all the quoted MSM sources are politically motivated.

good job getting had by CNN.

Report  
jacknife737 (October 20, 2007)

so i take it your either an ultra-nationalist serb supporter, Islamaphobe, or Pat Buchana lite? You can spout off all the retorical, generic talking points you want, 8,373 human beings were slaughtered like animals in July of 1995 ( and this is supported by the International Court of Justice)

Seriously though, i'd consider seeking help, since your dangerously close to following the same mindset as holocaust deniers



Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)
nice ad hominem attack!

very bill oreilly again!

no i am not one of those things. im a libertarian who doesn't believe in paying my money towards foreign adventurism, nor do i see it humanitarian to send military into countries where you aren't aware of what the crisis TRULY is, for a fact, and try and shoot guns to solve someone elses conflicts. i dont see this as either a. an effective humanitarian act or b. any of my business

so since its both ineffective and causes more harm than good, then yes, i find it wrong.

i would say that since WWII and the fall of adolph hitler, we have killed as many innocent people in crossfires of our own foreign adventurism, in major conflicts in nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Korea, Vietnam, and countless actions in other nations such is whatever you want to call the area that

show rest of commentnice ad hominem attack!

very bill oreilly again!

no i am not one of those things. im a libertarian who doesn't believe in paying my money towards foreign adventurism, nor do i see it humanitarian to send military into countries where you aren't aware of what the crisis TRULY is, for a fact, and try and shoot guns to solve someone elses conflicts. i dont see this as either a. an effective humanitarian act or b. any of my business

so since its both ineffective and causes more harm than good, then yes, i find it wrong.

i would say that since WWII and the fall of adolph hitler, we have killed as many innocent people in crossfires of our own foreign adventurism, in major conflicts in nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Korea, Vietnam, and countless actions in other nations such is whatever you want to call the area that is now Israel, South America, and Africa, as Adolph Hitler did in his genocidal campaigns. so do i trust our government to report to me who it is we need to go get? no. and those who do are complicit in our nations murders when we go to wars that are not self defensive.

so, if you ask if i believe that we should use the fact that we opposed hitler and the holocaust as justification for attacking every other random country on earth until the place is blown to shit, no i dont. i dont follow the statist, interventionist policies of people like George W. Bush and his cronies, as you do, in believing the "morally righteous" US and our guns can fix any ole problem!

just because you vote for a democrat, and they do it in countries that Fall out Boy says are in trouble doesn't make it different than iraq. both are foreign adventurism, and both cause the death of millions of innocents.



Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

you're my hero dude. Two sensible posts on politics in one thread..on punknews??

rock on

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

yea i know it was a lame comment, but this is a punk website and it astounds me how many people on here support government

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)
QUOTEi'll give it to you on abortion... i dont understand why he isnt staunchly pro-life. he's against a federal ban on abortion, but thats not enough... he needs to support a federal guarantee of that right.QUOTE

I'm confused. Did you mean "staunchly pro-choice"? If so you are hilarious. You accuse me of not knowing anything about Ron Paul and yet aren't aware of his insane religious view or the fact that he's been the candidate of choice for TEOTWAWKI Rapture types for at least 10 years? Haw, you really do need to do some reading..

If you mean "staunchly pro-life" the rest of the sentence makes no sense

RPs appeal, other than being lionized on the internet as something he's not (sane, populist) lies with the Doomer fringe. His newsletter circulated primarily to survivalists. Paul's been on my radar for years, the guy's a purebred assho

show rest of commentQUOTEi'll give it to you on abortion... i dont understand why he isnt staunchly pro-life. he's against a federal ban on abortion, but thats not enough... he needs to support a federal guarantee of that right.QUOTE

I'm confused. Did you mean "staunchly pro-choice"? If so you are hilarious. You accuse me of not knowing anything about Ron Paul and yet aren't aware of his insane religious view or the fact that he's been the candidate of choice for TEOTWAWKI Rapture types for at least 10 years? Haw, you really do need to do some reading..

If you mean "staunchly pro-life" the rest of the sentence makes no sense

RPs appeal, other than being lionized on the internet as something he's not (sane, populist) lies with the Doomer fringe. His newsletter circulated primarily to survivalists. Paul's been on my radar for years, the guy's a purebred asshole. When you'd first hear about him? Earlier this year?
Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

i meant choice

and Paul is not a fundie

Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)

ron paul is a doomer in the sense that he feels america has slid into a police state. hes been saying that for 20 someodd years, and i have to agree with him.

hes coincidentally christian, though he would be the christian politician to get jesus out of your bedroom and social decisions. that is hardly what id relate to the christian coalition types like even buchanan. buchanan is the far right religious extremist version of ron paul

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

and the fact that he's a a captialist, imperialist devil. Or the fact that Libertarians are also the vanguard party for racism, nationalism, and bigotry in general.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

thats a fucking ignorant statement
Libertarians are very much anti-imperialist... do you know what the fuck isolationism even means? and i dont know where you get this idea about racism, nationalism, or bigotry from. i know Libertarians who think we should open up all the borders and scrap government - doesnt sound very nationalistic to me

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)
You've proven many times over that you don't know anything about Ron Paul OR the ideology of Libertarianism. The fact that Libertarians is a "Big Tent" and includes alot of yutzes who are enamored with being different and like the "freedom" talk does not change what Libertarianism is at base.

Ron Paul is a beacon of racism, nationalism, and bigotry. I hope you have the Stars and Bars on your pickup and where a white robe if you plan on fitting in with his core supporters. The fact that he is at the center of a dumbass "youth movement" internet campaign has as much significance as the shit-for-brains orchestrating it do.

Ron Paul considers government non-interference to be the highest form of freedom. I believe this has been debunked since John Locke at least. Funnily, Libertarians have a love/hate relationship with Locke. Not so much Hobbes, but

show rest of commentYou've proven many times over that you don't know anything about Ron Paul OR the ideology of Libertarianism. The fact that Libertarians is a "Big Tent" and includes alot of yutzes who are enamored with being different and like the "freedom" talk does not change what Libertarianism is at base.

Ron Paul is a beacon of racism, nationalism, and bigotry. I hope you have the Stars and Bars on your pickup and where a white robe if you plan on fitting in with his core supporters. The fact that he is at the center of a dumbass "youth movement" internet campaign has as much significance as the shit-for-brains orchestrating it do.

Ron Paul considers government non-interference to be the highest form of freedom. I believe this has been debunked since John Locke at least. Funnily, Libertarians have a love/hate relationship with Locke. Not so much Hobbes, but then Hobbes is their kinda cumbag. (With a modification here of there).

And all of your talk of isolationism means nothing, because the borders will still be open to capital and I'm pretty sure Ron Paul wants to spend even MORE on defense. From the standpoint of anyone who's studied political ideology, the guy barely makes any sense. Luckily we have a name for that: Libertarianism.
Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

haha i think Paul is the only one who has said we need to decrease our military spending
you obviously know nothing about his campaign or libertarian ideology

Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)
ron paul is a non interventionist. not an isolationist. isolationists are protectionist, which means no outside trade. ron paul is a non interventionist, who believes in international free trade... just no entangling alliances.

"Ron Paul considers government non-interference to be the highest form of freedom. I believe this has been debunked since John Locke at least."

support or it doesn't mean jack. who has debunked john locke? marx?

cuz thats who your nut hugging with this. The major political party which supports Trostkyist thinking is the NEOCONSERVATIVE movement. aka bill kristol, dick cheney, george w bush, the bush family, etc. these are the people who read LEO STRAUSS, were educated by him at university(paul wolfowitz). have you read LEO STRAUSS? have you read KARL MENGER? how are you debunking Locke unless you realize that your

show rest of commentron paul is a non interventionist. not an isolationist. isolationists are protectionist, which means no outside trade. ron paul is a non interventionist, who believes in international free trade... just no entangling alliances.

"Ron Paul considers government non-interference to be the highest form of freedom. I believe this has been debunked since John Locke at least."

support or it doesn't mean jack. who has debunked john locke? marx?

cuz thats who your nut hugging with this. The major political party which supports Trostkyist thinking is the NEOCONSERVATIVE movement. aka bill kristol, dick cheney, george w bush, the bush family, etc. these are the people who read LEO STRAUSS, were educated by him at university(paul wolfowitz). have you read LEO STRAUSS? have you read KARL MENGER? how are you debunking Locke unless you realize that your own belief system are best represented by the administration of George W Bush.. he is a trotskyist liberal, he is a big government govt solves my problems tax and spend liberal. he is a globalist interventionist, this is what claims to debunk locke. this is what claims to debunk our free society.

if you believe theres a difference between OBAMA and GEORGE W BUSH, you are a sheep. the only difference is who were bombing, not whether or not we are, what company we're bankrupting our middle class to give special benefits to...

politics as usual man, and your ROCK AGAINST BUSH rhetoric has been sold to you and bought, unthinkingly.

COMMIDIFY YOUR DISSENT.

statism is the opposite of libertarianism. these are on a different parallel than liberal and conservative. if you can't see this axis, and make a decision based on the fact that the government may not be ruled by someone you like. do you support giving totalitarian control of industries to the government, knowing our government elects people like GEORGE W BUSH for president???

do you want him running the FDA or the US MILITARY again?

the power grabs CLINTON did enabled the executive orders BUSH used to steal our civil liberties.

wake up, the founding fathers warned us this would happen, that absolute power corrupts absolutely
Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)
Some parts of your post make sense to me (the Marx part), some parts seem disconnected (the Trotskyite parts) and some parts are incoherent (Obama, liberalism stuff)

I don't know if all of this is directed at me or not but I'll try to sift through it

About Locke. OK, technically it was Hegel in Philosopy of Right who provided the critique of Kant (as opposed to Kant's Critique lol) and talked about abstract rights and then moved onto Civil Society and the State. Its not a particularly Left Wing work (understatement) but I agree with his basic formulation of Rights and also societal relations.

Locke contracted with Natural Rights with Civil/Political Society. Anyway, the point is Locke advocated for property rights as the basis of society but debated with Hobbes exactly how totalitarian soceity needed to be to enforce them. (Hobbes is a

show rest of commentSome parts of your post make sense to me (the Marx part), some parts seem disconnected (the Trotskyite parts) and some parts are incoherent (Obama, liberalism stuff)

I don't know if all of this is directed at me or not but I'll try to sift through it

About Locke. OK, technically it was Hegel in Philosopy of Right who provided the critique of Kant (as opposed to Kant's Critique lol) and talked about abstract rights and then moved onto Civil Society and the State. Its not a particularly Left Wing work (understatement) but I agree with his basic formulation of Rights and also societal relations.

Locke contracted with Natural Rights with Civil/Political Society. Anyway, the point is Locke advocated for property rights as the basis of society but debated with Hobbes exactly how totalitarian soceity needed to be to enforce them. (Hobbes is a bigger dickwad hence Libertarians go for him lol)

About Trotskyites. First, no one calls themselves a Trotskyite anymore really. Secondly, the Trotsky/Stalin split isn't as deep or as sharp as it once was in practice since the vast majority of Marxists (which is a contradiction in terms since we're a small minority) are unaffiliated these days. More importantly issues of vanguardism and statism have to take a backseat to rescusitating working class politics. There hasn't been a genuine "movement" in probably anyone's lifetime unless you are over 80.

But to get to your point, all of the neoliberal squad did indeed go through a Marxist/Trotskyite period. There is no conceivable way you can claim anything they do know is Trotskyite or Marxist though. At best you could say they are informed by Marxist knowledge of political economy which they are using AGAINST the working class.

As for statism, again, I don't see that happening as you claim. Castro may be an anomaly but even Cuba is more petit bourgeosie than anyone would like to admit. And Venezuela and Iran are definitely PB. That doesn't mean we shouldn't support them, or that I don't, in their efforts to achieve autonomy but its an undeniable truth.

So, I'm pretty sure you're getting confused somewhere. There is no such thing as a Trotskyite/Marxist liberal. There can't be because socialists and communists/Marxists are about as far from liberals as you can get.

I'm assuming COMMODIFY YOUR DISSENT was an attempted joke. No one will get it though :)
Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)
the reason im seeming disjointed here, is because you just don't know what a neoconservative is. I don't mean that derisevely, if you just haven't stumbled into it, i could see why the trotsky connection would seem disjointed. if you had read STRAUSS yet, which if you haven't stumbled into it, check it out, idk where you got exposed to Pol Theory, but some people dont teach it or explain its importance. he was a trotskyist socialist who taught ppl like Paul Wolfowitz, and other people who are a part of the Project for a New American Century, the neoconservative thinktank. everyone in the socialist banking elite establishment, advocates using his style of governing, which is a mix of Trotsky and Machiavelli, and most of Bush' cabinet call themselves Straussian. Bush himself is subordinate to this thinking, and they intend to use America's global military to force this worldwide r

show rest of commentthe reason im seeming disjointed here, is because you just don't know what a neoconservative is. I don't mean that derisevely, if you just haven't stumbled into it, i could see why the trotsky connection would seem disjointed. if you had read STRAUSS yet, which if you haven't stumbled into it, check it out, idk where you got exposed to Pol Theory, but some people dont teach it or explain its importance. he was a trotskyist socialist who taught ppl like Paul Wolfowitz, and other people who are a part of the Project for a New American Century, the neoconservative thinktank. everyone in the socialist banking elite establishment, advocates using his style of governing, which is a mix of Trotsky and Machiavelli, and most of Bush' cabinet call themselves Straussian. Bush himself is subordinate to this thinking, and they intend to use America's global military to force this worldwide revolution. This is now officially a well known fact. The Council on Foreign Relations generally promotes these ideals too, formerly secretly, though now they do it right out in the open. most establishment candidates in both parties belong to the CFR thinktank, which is a globalist, socialist thinktank. The reason people characterize neoconservatism as "trotskyist" is because it believes that this social reform can only happen due to a worldwide revolution, which happens continuously, and that this is possible currently through using the US Military(which is not probably true).

commodify your dissent was a joke touching on an old book about how corporatism has absorbed all of counterculture to provide for its needs. look at all the indie labels who are actually vanity labels of the big 3 or 2 or however many there are anymore. so kids think that buying Rock against Bush is some sortof revolutionary act, knowing that the bands they support are essentially establishment corporate types.

im totally up to speed on locke and hobbes and how they are now officially old, in fact th liberalism of locke and hobbes era, is what resulted in the moral relativism which brought on nietzsche and nihilism, however the idea that a free society that promotes greatness through individual liberty is still a goal to be reached, and if effectively defended, makes for a hell of a quality way of life if you are self reliant. when properly defended, i dont see a downside. i'd love to live that way. when it comes to me sacrificing my goals and hopes and dreams to go work in a textile mill because some government guy said that will provide best for poor people somewhere, im just not down. and going and butting into other peoples conflicts, im just too "moral relativist" or "nihilist" to see the benefit of adding more violence to a violent situation in hopes of reducing the amount of suffering of the people involved.

no amount of socialist good wishes or well intentions will change that fact to me.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)
Read this:

If the only kind of freedom that matters is that no one intentionally interfere with one's formal freedom of action, and not that one's opportunity set be large and full of worthwhile options, then freedom-lovers would have to oppose traffic laws, stop lights, and so forth, for interfering with freedom of movement. The result of a lack of such laws, however, is not actual freedom of movement, but, in areas of high traffic density, gridlock. (And, in areas of high traffic flow, grave danger.) To be sure, in a state of gridlock, one has the formal freedom to choose any movement in one's opportunity set--which amounts to being able to rock forward and back a couple of inches from bumper to bumper, getting nowhere. Some freedom! By contrast, if we give up certain formal freedoms--to run red lights and stop signs, to drive indiscriminately across lanes--we get in re

show rest of commentRead this:

If the only kind of freedom that matters is that no one intentionally interfere with one's formal freedom of action, and not that one's opportunity set be large and full of worthwhile options, then freedom-lovers would have to oppose traffic laws, stop lights, and so forth, for interfering with freedom of movement. The result of a lack of such laws, however, is not actual freedom of movement, but, in areas of high traffic density, gridlock. (And, in areas of high traffic flow, grave danger.) To be sure, in a state of gridlock, one has the formal freedom to choose any movement in one's opportunity set--which amounts to being able to rock forward and back a couple of inches from bumper to bumper, getting nowhere. Some freedom! By contrast, if we give up certain formal freedoms--to run red lights and stop signs, to drive indiscriminately across lanes--we get in return a vastly expanded opportunity set, including the ability to actually get to places one wants to go, more safely and quickly than if we hadn't given up those freedoms. The point of formal freedom of movement--the right to move around, without coercive inteference by the state or other people--is that it is instrumental to expanding actual opportunities to move around where one wants to go. Merely formal freedom of movement, with nowhere to move to, or nowhere worth moving to, is not an end in itself.
Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

you have so much to learn

things like traffic laws are debated; many Libertarians say that we do NOT have the right to run red lights or pass the speed limit because by doing that, we are infringing on the rights of others. i agree with this view, although i do think speed limits are too low on many highways.
but you do not have the right to do anything that infringes on the rights of others. anything else should be allowed.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)
Hello, amateur armchair philosophy and psudeo-intellectual wanna-be bullshit. Have you read Hobbes, Locke , Rosseau, Adam Smith, David Ricardo or even any of the phonies like Hayek, von Mises, Friedman, etc?

How 'bout Bohm-Bawerk?

If you are serious about being a shill for this shit, you have a lengthy reading list of ahead of you.

I'll spare you the trouble though and tell yoo plainly: its all capitalist made-up bullshit. None of the people peddling this stuff "believe" it in the first place, its a matter of whatever's convenient and serves a purpose at a given time. Not surprising that opportunistic jackals would adopt an opportunistic political "philosophy".

They know that "unfettered free markets" are Utopian pie-in-the-sky dreamland. They know that the truth is, and always has been, exactly the opposite. You may not be famili

show rest of commentHello, amateur armchair philosophy and psudeo-intellectual wanna-be bullshit. Have you read Hobbes, Locke , Rosseau, Adam Smith, David Ricardo or even any of the phonies like Hayek, von Mises, Friedman, etc?

How 'bout Bohm-Bawerk?

If you are serious about being a shill for this shit, you have a lengthy reading list of ahead of you.

I'll spare you the trouble though and tell yoo plainly: its all capitalist made-up bullshit. None of the people peddling this stuff "believe" it in the first place, its a matter of whatever's convenient and serves a purpose at a given time. Not surprising that opportunistic jackals would adopt an opportunistic political "philosophy".

They know that "unfettered free markets" are Utopian pie-in-the-sky dreamland. They know that the truth is, and always has been, exactly the opposite. You may not be familiar with the 19th or 20th centuries but they know them inside and out. Of course many of the flacks and toadies believe their BS and they'd love to welcome you into the fold as one.

Live on your kness or die on your feet
Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

*yawn*

not worth my time, sorry

Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)

the problem you have here in your rhetoric, is believing that free markets occured during those times.

try reading the trotskyist guys you are all about.

read STRAUSS. thats who is bringing this global permanent revolution that you want.

what do you think IRAQ is? what do you think motivates them. do you really buy the fact that george w bush does it for jesus? or did you not read the chapter in STRAUSS where he advocates you pretend to do it for a one god religion. this is trotskyism at work people, this is not some abstract thought, it is the accepted pol theory concept that the father of neoconservatism is trotskyism. they are the actors of the permanent revolution.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

Ummm, I don't know if you're serious or not but Trotsky is no the Father of Neoconservatism. You're entire basis for that claim seems to be that Jeane Kirkpatrick was once a Social Democrat, or whatever she actually was. (I think it was really Schactman but correct me if thats wrong).

I think Irving Kristol is the consensus "Father" of the movement which starts with some guys who are nominally leftists drifting first away from the anti-war movement of the Democratic Party and then toward Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

It has only the most dubious connections to Trotskyism.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)
no, i was saying STRAUSS is the father of neoconservatism, which he is. ole sell the wars Kristol's dad is accepted ALSO by SOME as the father of neoconservatism, however STRAUSS is more the one you'd hear about in Pol Theory classes because of his critiques of classical philosophers being required reading.

i have to call you out on your wikipedia referencing of neoconservatism... you can tell because you included their misquote that Barry Goldwater was a neoconservative. he was not, he and Reagan were libertarian leaning republicans, and the neoconservatives allied themselves with them because they both opposed stalin-style statist communism. only Wikipedia, because the article is currently fucked, would refer to Barry Goldwater as neoconservative. he defeated Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination in the mid 60s and he did so on a free market anti communist message.
<

show rest of commentno, i was saying STRAUSS is the father of neoconservatism, which he is. ole sell the wars Kristol's dad is accepted ALSO by SOME as the father of neoconservatism, however STRAUSS is more the one you'd hear about in Pol Theory classes because of his critiques of classical philosophers being required reading.

i have to call you out on your wikipedia referencing of neoconservatism... you can tell because you included their misquote that Barry Goldwater was a neoconservative. he was not, he and Reagan were libertarian leaning republicans, and the neoconservatives allied themselves with them because they both opposed stalin-style statist communism. only Wikipedia, because the article is currently fucked, would refer to Barry Goldwater as neoconservative. he defeated Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination in the mid 60s and he did so on a free market anti communist message.

right now there are two opposing strains in the republican party, one which allies itself with the Goldwater history, including people like ron paul and pat buchanan who are pro middle class anti elite, and another allying itself with neoconservatism, which is the Bush people and the current establishment crop, who are statist socialists who believe in inflating the currency to death and promoting the welfare/police state.

something most people don;t know about pat buchanan, who, in my opinion is a religious weirdo, however, when it comes to anti-globalist anti-elite pro-middle class advocating, he was the first person to go into the iowa caucus threatening to destroy the new world order, and those type of balls are what makes him a permanent force. he may have a sick little obsession with suppressing gay rights, maybe he even is a closet homosexual, but who is it that ruined daddy Bush' relationship with his corporate campaign contributors in '94 and cost him the election while being an incumbent war-victor president? the same Pat Buchanan who stomped him in NH that year, and caused him to have to flirt with the Christian conservatives and lose his NYC banker corporatist democrat support.
Report  
victim (October 20, 2007)
Well, I have to think how best to explain my largerl point so that'll be in the morning but I don't think Barry Goldwater is a neo-con and I hadn't looked at the Wikipedia. I did now and I'm not sure what its saying, you can find some dumb stuff on there.

The 'rightward drift' definitely (again these guys were Leftists in name only) predated Reagan and was especially a reaction to the anti-war movement. I don't personally know any prominent neo-cons from the period but my understanding is they were behind Goldwater in '76. Obviously they found their guy in '80 with Raygun.

I will talk about Strauss and socialism later today but I can assure you no Marxist or socialist considers any neocon to be one. I 100% don't see the connection between revolution (even "permanent revolution"), Trotsky and the NWO you seem to be dreading. Somewhere i

show rest of commentWell, I have to think how best to explain my largerl point so that'll be in the morning but I don't think Barry Goldwater is a neo-con and I hadn't looked at the Wikipedia. I did now and I'm not sure what its saying, you can find some dumb stuff on there.

The 'rightward drift' definitely (again these guys were Leftists in name only) predated Reagan and was especially a reaction to the anti-war movement. I don't personally know any prominent neo-cons from the period but my understanding is they were behind Goldwater in '76. Obviously they found their guy in '80 with Raygun.

I will talk about Strauss and socialism later today but I can assure you no Marxist or socialist considers any neocon to be one. I 100% don't see the connection between revolution (even "permanent revolution"), Trotsky and the NWO you seem to be dreading. Somewhere in there the players stopped trying to have a revolution and started establishing a hegemony. There is a large difference.

I actually think we may be closer on many issues than it appears, by the way because while you are constantly saying Trotsky, it appears that Stalinism (ie dictatorial state controlled socialism) is what you are really thinking of. From an "insider" so to speak, trust me when I say these polarities (Stalin/Trotsky) are long dead in fact if not in memory.

My next post will talk about vanguardism
Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)

no, im very up to date on socialism, trotsky believed that it could only be effectively sparked by a worldwide revolution, whereas Stalin was fine with managing the USSR state at the size and scope that it was.

i agree we probably have the same critiques about government,we just believe in opposite approaches to solve em, both based in lots of education; both of which have not been applied yet because they're relatively new theories.

the main reason i say what i say about globalists, is that they are the leaders in socialism in the world, and, by in large, the are de facto succeeding at installing it behind everyones backs. that canbe a good thing if you trust their judgement.

i dont know them that well, they give me a c student vibe, so i dont until proven otherwise.

Report  
victim (October 21, 2007)
Well, words get used in different ways to mean different things all the time, sometimes innocently, many more times intentionally to serve calculated agendas.

This is an instance of the latter obscuring the issue. Keynesian economic policy (which I know was much revered until Reagan at least given his famous statement: "We're ALL Kenynesians") has no ties to socialism. Globalization, which is kind of a misnomer by the way, has only the most pedantic of connections and is really a case of semantics.

Marx said that capitalism has to spread everywhere before it could be overthrown. This hardly makes Marx a capitalist. It also bears mentioning that history has played out differently than Marx anticipated: he felt that centers of capitalist wealth and power were most ripe for revolution. Instead, backwards semi-pastoral countries have been largely at the forefront.

show rest of commentWell, words get used in different ways to mean different things all the time, sometimes innocently, many more times intentionally to serve calculated agendas.

This is an instance of the latter obscuring the issue. Keynesian economic policy (which I know was much revered until Reagan at least given his famous statement: "We're ALL Kenynesians") has no ties to socialism. Globalization, which is kind of a misnomer by the way, has only the most pedantic of connections and is really a case of semantics.

Marx said that capitalism has to spread everywhere before it could be overthrown. This hardly makes Marx a capitalist. It also bears mentioning that history has played out differently than Marx anticipated: he felt that centers of capitalist wealth and power were most ripe for revolution. Instead, backwards semi-pastoral countries have been largely at the forefront.

About globalization: again, I don't accept it per se as such. Things that can be produced in the Third World or elsewhere are going to be and already are for the most part. Much of the current wave of job movement comes because an entire new bloc (Soviets) has been added to the world capitalist marketplace.

The other use of the term globalization -- often called "from below" -- is equally inevitable and the obvious and direct results of neocolonialism. NAFTA is just a drop in the bucket in this regard. It is tragic that so few consider today's immigrants vs those of two centuries ago. Then, they gallantly pursued the American Dream. Now they are criminals and, in a stunning absurdity, painted as oppressors -- they steal our jobs, bog down our health care system and drive up costs, etc etc

Nevertheless, we can make a lot of progress just by acknowledging that much of what you call socialism, and its practitioners, is nothing but neoliberal machinations. I know of no one who calles themself a socialist (sic) that believes in capitalist globalization, Keynesianism, OR Stalinism. I will reprint something here written by two dear friends of mine, which should illuminate all anyone needs to know about those of us who call ourselves socialists.

YOU ARE A FUCKING SLAVE

Debt is a big scam and permeates every aspect of our lives and keeps us all trapped.

We are awash in fear mongering to the point that we are all half-crazed.

The government is owned lock stock and barrel by corporations.

All of the politicians are a bunch of blood sucking vampires.

We are enslaved. We really, actually are. Walking and driving around and shopping blah blah is all window dressing. We are in prison. It is a big prison. "Seal the borders" for security? Hah. We are being sealed in.

We are in crazy land here, and ANYTHING we do to break out of that is worthwhile - almost nothing is happening to break out of it now - and we have absolutely nothing to lose.

People here are miserable - they are in pain and suffering.

We are intentionally being kept sick, demoralized, and fearful.

We can't see the trouble we are in, because we have nothing to compare to.

The national political discussion is a joke.

The Democratic party politicians should all be tarred and feathered and run out of town.

America is a society gone completely mad. We live in a big prison. It is pathetic. Fear keeps us locked in. We are so saturated with fear, that it would not be off the mark to say that fear is the only thing happening here, and that anything else is ruthlessly suppressed and punished. And we are all trustees. Anyone refusing the role of trustee is isolated and viewed and treated as a pariah. That is not to say that we cannot overcome this - not in the least. We have to fight, though, every hour of every day and break the spell.

Demoralization coupled with fear - all of the thinking and speaking around us everyday is just laced with those two.

Let's smash it up. Let's never rest until we do. Nothing else is anything but a waste of time.


Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)

libertarians do not believe in total elimination of government, individualist anarchists do, libertarians believe in RESTRAINT of government, and that governments primary concern is the protection of your individual rights to life, liberty and property. it is the peoples job to protect against certain power grabs by government, especially those which seem to be well intentioned, which, when a new party or person comes into power, are used to your detriment.

and have you been to major cities? we don't exactly have the traffic thing worked out. the term "gridlock" you use, is something that applies to our current traffic system ;)

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

The passage was intended to introduce the idea that there is more to "freedom" than non-interference. The traffic analogy is only that. Another example might be if you were to fall into a well. Clearly you are not being interfered with. Yet you are hardly "free".

I realized there are many jumbled "interpretations" of Libertarianism but make no mistake they are all Right Wing and all of them are pro-capitalist polemics against those who "get left behind"

Leave that shit to the corporate bootlickers.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)

corporations are a public institution, and are illegal in libertarianism. only contracts between individuals are allowed.

publicly traded corporations are PUBLIC institutions. these are not PRIVATE companies. in the US, big corporations that you hate are PUBLIC. private companies are small business, like mom and pop shops.

i understand why you have confused the two, because big government republicans have lied and called corporatism "free market" for so long, but limited liability corporations are simply not allowed in true free market economics.. only contracts between individuals, and without the public stock market you can't raise the kind of money to monopolize industries.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

One problem we're having here is that there is no real, existing Libertarian economic system to poin to and it would be hard pressed to exist in the current neoliberal global climate.

So to say what would be "illegal" under Libertarianism is kind..a tough sell.

Further, *I* don't claim we had free markets in the 19th/20th century -- thats what neoclassial economists are talking about when they say "free market capitalism".

Maybe their slip is showing?

But again, you are talking about unfettered access for capitalists. It is counter-historical to claim that they won't accumulate wealth over time and use that to curry political favor. History of the last two and a half centuries bears that out many times over.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)
i agree with you there. there is no real example of a libertarian applied economic system. the original intended constitutional american government was supposed to be, but it didn't make it past the first congress without perverting from it in practice.

however, using capital to accrue political favor isn't a problem as long as the amount of capital you are able to aquire only comes from actions tied to your name. this limits your ability to create monopolies, in fact makes it impossible.

its not a tough sell to say corporatism and statism are opposite to libertarianism, becuase it is only through elite global bankers that we even get corporatism. they were not given individual liberties and seperation from liability until after the 14th ammendment, and this is a fact. without this, competition limits capital growth for an individual. as in, if you dont

show rest of commenti agree with you there. there is no real example of a libertarian applied economic system. the original intended constitutional american government was supposed to be, but it didn't make it past the first congress without perverting from it in practice.

however, using capital to accrue political favor isn't a problem as long as the amount of capital you are able to aquire only comes from actions tied to your name. this limits your ability to create monopolies, in fact makes it impossible.

its not a tough sell to say corporatism and statism are opposite to libertarianism, becuase it is only through elite global bankers that we even get corporatism. they were not given individual liberties and seperation from liability until after the 14th ammendment, and this is a fact. without this, competition limits capital growth for an individual. as in, if you dont provide better and better service, you will lose out to an ingenious new way of doing business time and time again.

corporatism gives rise to a need for lobbyists to prey on government handouts, this leads to companies being so large that mom and pops can't compete; they can't get as low of wholesale prices because they can't buy in the same bulk, and this is what squeezes out the competition. if groups of thousands of people couldn't pool their money and make companies that noone owns and is liable for, then small businesses would be king, and would fight to the death for your dollar.
Report  
victim (October 20, 2007)

To make my point I will just outline your post:

1. You stating that libertarian economic theory has never really been applied

2. you saying that accruement of capital could be limited

3. lots of reasons why capital accruement has NOT been limited to this point in time

See, that third one is the sticking point -- they will always figure out ways to circumvent the system. Hell, the Civil War was like a booster rocket for the rich in America (just as one example)



Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)
i agree that there are ways to circumvent the system that failed it on this go round. however that doesn't mean its unsustainable... the US government could be reversed to a free market system in 2 generations at best, in our lifetime, with just legislative changes. sure it would probably require an economic shakeup, but we're on an unsustainable course that will reach total collapse if we don't try something.

the main failure that we have, is that there is not a strong enough defense against the power of government active in the US right now. although there is one growing as we speak.

the problem, however, is not capital being accrued by individuals, its too much capital in the hands of the public.

almost all of the money we float nowadays goes through the public sector via government and the stock market, both public institutions.


show rest of commenti agree that there are ways to circumvent the system that failed it on this go round. however that doesn't mean its unsustainable... the US government could be reversed to a free market system in 2 generations at best, in our lifetime, with just legislative changes. sure it would probably require an economic shakeup, but we're on an unsustainable course that will reach total collapse if we don't try something.

the main failure that we have, is that there is not a strong enough defense against the power of government active in the US right now. although there is one growing as we speak.

the problem, however, is not capital being accrued by individuals, its too much capital in the hands of the public.

almost all of the money we float nowadays goes through the public sector via government and the stock market, both public institutions.

more defense of the private contract would restore that to the citizens.

Report  
Cos (October 20, 2007)

Well, I'm glad one of my comments actually generated a shit-storm.

Look, I don't think Ron Paul is a bad guy with horrible ideas. He's got some good ones, as I think a lot of libertarians do.

BUT, he's got a stance on a lot of issues that I find very distasteful (abortion, gun control, no federal assistance programs of any kind). I understand why a lot of people are very excited about him (a friend of mine is, she drives me nuts), but Paul is just the '08 edition of John McCain (or even worse, the '08 edition of Howard Dean). He's too pacifist to get the nomination of party that's run its platform for the past 7 years as war, war, war. He's not going anywhere.

I'm cynical about change. I just don't think its going to happen overnight.

Report  
victim (October 20, 2007)

I don't think everyone who falls for Paul is automatically horrible just deluded. However, Paul is worse than just a bad guy with horrible ideas.

Because they're not going to be on MTV.

MTV is punx! Oi oi oi.

Republicans hate youth and eat babies.

Duh.

because obama is teh punx

Report  
yahay (October 19, 2007)

seconded

no, Whole Wheat Bread only have black people in their band

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

99% of the electorate fails to see your point

That's what she said.

oh man ur so controversial!!!

sweet neck tattoo, broski

He ain't black.

Erica, you should have come. He came up to hip hop and I was morningdrunk.

Report  
Lorraine (October 19, 2007)

it wasn't worth the cost of parking. :/ saving all my cash for the fest. parking today would be like 8 beers.

Report  
Lorraine (October 19, 2007)

it wasn't worth the cost of parking. :/ saving all my cash for the fest. parking today would be like 8 beers. Priorities - I'm sure you understand.

if they were up your ass you'ld know where to find them

- jones the bones

- stevejones8770@yahoo.com

Report  
Albert_Belle (October 19, 2007)

That's what she said.

they're politicians, they're all fake

(Disclaimer: this is not necessarily directed at you personally)

I'm honestly finding it hard to understand how someone can support both Paul and Kuchinich, their fucking miles apart in their ideologies

Report  
baseball (October 19, 2007)

big picture wise, sure

but they still hold common ground on some individual issues

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

-they're the only candidates who will eliminate corporate welfare
-they're the only candidates who will get our troops out of Iraq in January 2009
-they're the only candidates who will end the war on drugs
-they're the only candidates who will either eliminate or reduce the powers of the CIA and FBI
-they're the only candidates who truly respect our strict constitutional rights as US citizens
-they're the only candidates who will pull out of NAFTA and the WTO
-they're both Washington outsiders and have genuine personalities, unlike guys like Romney or Clinton

so yea, it makes perfect sense to like both candidates

Report  
jacknife737 (October 19, 2007)

One wants to take away a women’s right to chose, the other is pro-choice.

One supports the privatization of social security, one wants more governmental involvement.

They may both still wish to pull out of NAFTA/WTO, but one thinks that free trade is the answer to everything, the other does not.

One is against minimum wage; the other believes that the working class should be able to make enough to feed their families

One believes that the free market (vouchers) should control education, the other supports, the other does not.

One is 100% for the 2nd amendment, the other supports gun control

One is against stem cell research, the other does not.


Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)
i understand your point, and you're right that they have many vast differences

but you have to look at the big picture
Americans are ready for a revolution in Washington - we're tired of the same old political hacks who are afraid to speak out on the issues and have civil discourse during debates.
Kucinich and Paul are appealing to the same people because they provide an alternative.

no i dont agree with everything Dr Paul says. hell, i support universal health care and that is the opposite of what he wants. but at the end of the day, its not just about voting by the issues, its about voting for the candidate with the most integrity, the candidate who will change a fucked up situation in Washington and in the Middle East.
Paul and Kucinich will both do that, thats why i support both of their candidacies.
if they miraculously ran

show rest of commenti understand your point, and you're right that they have many vast differences

but you have to look at the big picture
Americans are ready for a revolution in Washington - we're tired of the same old political hacks who are afraid to speak out on the issues and have civil discourse during debates.
Kucinich and Paul are appealing to the same people because they provide an alternative.

no i dont agree with everything Dr Paul says. hell, i support universal health care and that is the opposite of what he wants. but at the end of the day, its not just about voting by the issues, its about voting for the candidate with the most integrity, the candidate who will change a fucked up situation in Washington and in the Middle East.
Paul and Kucinich will both do that, thats why i support both of their candidacies.
if they miraculously ran against one another, i'd probably go Kucinich at the last minute, but i'd be happyh with either
Report  
jacknife737 (October 19, 2007)

"Paul and Kucinich will both do that, thats why i support both of their candidacies"

I agree with you here. Paul/ Kucinich have raised some very interesting points, and have made this year's election a lot more enjoyable to follow. Now i may be very opposed to many of Paul's positions, but it is refreshing to see an Republican candidate who doesn't follow the typical "support our patriot or else your a traitor" mentality, which seems to have taken over the GOP as of late.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

exactly, even if you disagree with Kucinich or Paul it is great to have these issues raised again in a civil, intellectual manner

if only more candidates would do this

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

civil and intellectual? I challenge Dennis Kucinich's sincerity. His hippie-hip crap makes me roll my eyes but its a lot more insidious than that because of who its aimed at.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)

i agree with you there. that shit makes me cringe. the pandering he did on the homosexual issues debate, with the american flag with a heart and a peace sign in the middle is just outrageous. hes running for commander in chief of the US. its like, we dont want a military dictatorship, but we also dont want our defensive military armed with foam batons and flower nets.

its insanely naive to think that weakness to that extent could be an executor of a nation that wasn't torn apart by its neighbors.

Report  
victim (October 20, 2007)
Well, that doesn't bother me so much really what bothers me is all the quasi-Eastern religion crap aimed at the Yups. And the thing is, you know the guy doesn't know the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism..

Also, Kucinich is pretty much like every other pol, he's remade himself alot. He went on a "personal journey" over abortion. He used to 'pack heat' on the mean streets of Cleveland due to the "criminal element" if you catch my drift *cough*black*cough* In fact he also wore a black trench coat, eliciting some pretty unflattering comparisons (trenchcoat mafia..?)

More, he definitely played the race card while he was Mayor.

More current examples would be his refusal to distance himself from the DP (he lined up for Kerry which was a total sellout and says he will line up for Hilary/Obama/isthereanybodyelse). Combine with his gutless stan

show rest of commentWell, that doesn't bother me so much really what bothers me is all the quasi-Eastern religion crap aimed at the Yups. And the thing is, you know the guy doesn't know the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism..

Also, Kucinich is pretty much like every other pol, he's remade himself alot. He went on a "personal journey" over abortion. He used to 'pack heat' on the mean streets of Cleveland due to the "criminal element" if you catch my drift *cough*black*cough* In fact he also wore a black trench coat, eliciting some pretty unflattering comparisons (trenchcoat mafia..?)

More, he definitely played the race card while he was Mayor.

More current examples would be his refusal to distance himself from the DP (he lined up for Kerry which was a total sellout and says he will line up for Hilary/Obama/isthereanybodyelse). Combine with his gutless stance on I/P (he KNOWS its apartheid) and you have the perfect bastion of the "fringe" left"

I wouldn't worry about the military being declawed even if Gandhi were POTUS, we live in America lol
Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)

yeah, anyone who doesn't see I/P for what it really is is a coward.

we know its pandering, and it is truly the most criminal act to go unnoticed by any political group ever.

the fact that taking one side in the conflict auto-attunes you with religious or ethnic hatred, even when in defense of human rights, is just intellectually crippled.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

Yes and no.

A lot of fringe liberals (who are more a pressure group on the Democratic Party than Leftists in any real sense) are for "personal freedoms". They're all about disposable income and lifestyle choices, ya dig?

The appeal of Paul is immediate and obvious..they're dipshits.

The appeal of Kucinich is that he is a dipshit.

"Kucitizens" are a bunch of New Agey yuppie assholes who also happen to be (in most cases) closet racists. They are also amongst the biggest group of know-nothings on the planet (suburbanites). Its a hop, skip, jump, and a white hood from there to Paul.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

who do you support? just wondering.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)
I don't. I am for blowing up the system. Not the electoral system, the whole fucking thing.

That said, John Edwards has actually talked about, and campaigned on, Class and the poor. If you listen, no one else even talks about the class divide (except the Rich) and NO ONE else talks about the poor.

Now, its clear that Edwards is nothing different from Hilary or Obama as a politician, but every bit of agitating is important and Edwards has a very large pulpit to speak from.

I won't be voting for him or anything, but I support that message. Its THE issue in America and the world, there's no getting around it or ducking it. There is no working class movement in America (or anywhere else really) today. That has to change. If it doesn't, imperial wars won't stop, ecological calamity won't stop, ravaging of the Global South won't stop

show rest of commentI don't. I am for blowing up the system. Not the electoral system, the whole fucking thing.

That said, John Edwards has actually talked about, and campaigned on, Class and the poor. If you listen, no one else even talks about the class divide (except the Rich) and NO ONE else talks about the poor.

Now, its clear that Edwards is nothing different from Hilary or Obama as a politician, but every bit of agitating is important and Edwards has a very large pulpit to speak from.

I won't be voting for him or anything, but I support that message. Its THE issue in America and the world, there's no getting around it or ducking it. There is no working class movement in America (or anywhere else really) today. That has to change. If it doesn't, imperial wars won't stop, ecological calamity won't stop, ravaging of the Global South won't stop, immiseration on a global scale won't stop.

Bourgeosie counter-revolution in any part of the world that revolts won't stop either.
Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)

the real trick here, is realizing that when politicians talk bout the middle class, they now mean the poor.

because that is who the federal reserve and government have transferred that buying power to. essentially, the middle class of 10 years ago is actually poor now, in the sense they are totally indebted and dependent, many can no longer afford health care, etc. they still are called the middle class bc they reach economic brackets, but these brackets no longer have buying power, and ironically, you can't get medicare in them, despite the fact that you can't afford insurance. so its actually better to be poorer in that case.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

There is no middle class. There's the working class -- people who rely on their paycheck to survive and those who are set for life. Thats been true since the alte 1800s at a minimum.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)

there is definately a political term "middle class" which is used by certain candidates, economic theorists, etc. i agree that this is characterizable also as the working class. also the poor can be characterized this way, although there are two distinct categories in american statism.

poor/lower class= those poor enough to be a protected class and deserving of entitlements

middle class = poor people who don't deserve entitlements, and should have to pay for the lower class via taxation.

effectively, the net buying power of the middle class is lower than that of the poor in some cases, since they are not qualified for government entitlements.

Report  
victim (October 20, 2007)

I am not a tax expert but that puzzled for a while. If you are at the bottom of your income bracket (say only made it by $1) would you have been better off earning $1 less?

But, yeah, there is a term "middle class" but what I mean is that in terms of ideology there are only two -- workers and owners. Stratifying the workers is a divide and conquer tactic

Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)
yes, on more levels than just personal.

for example i have a friend who works a construction job,and is now having a kid, he makes about 20$ too much a month to qualify for medicare/medicaid, whichever program it is he was applying for. considering the fact that healthcare out of pocket for a husband/wife/child costs thousands a year, that 20 dollars a month is now money hes better off not making.

the same is true of corporate bottom line, corporations get taxed down deeper into brackets when they raise in bracket, meaning that its actually better to lose money on purpose via tax writeoffs to stay in a more favorable bracket. ultimately, since corporations are owned by random ppl who own stocks, who randomly change with the wind, no corporation will take a risk to gain significant profit anymore, bc its easier to just lose on purpose, make your bottom li

show rest of commentyes, on more levels than just personal.

for example i have a friend who works a construction job,and is now having a kid, he makes about 20$ too much a month to qualify for medicare/medicaid, whichever program it is he was applying for. considering the fact that healthcare out of pocket for a husband/wife/child costs thousands a year, that 20 dollars a month is now money hes better off not making.

the same is true of corporate bottom line, corporations get taxed down deeper into brackets when they raise in bracket, meaning that its actually better to lose money on purpose via tax writeoffs to stay in a more favorable bracket. ultimately, since corporations are owned by random ppl who own stocks, who randomly change with the wind, no corporation will take a risk to gain significant profit anymore, bc its easier to just lose on purpose, make your bottom line, downsize and merge.

the problem is it eats the productivity, and with no profits coming from the public sector, it increases the debt. essentially you are using for society the spoils of the past and future while offering no productivity in the present.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)

probably because they are both honest, and anti globalist.

i think the economic policies of either are both so contentious some people dont reaslly understand which one they like. they do know they dont like the new imperialist police the world police state america, and these 2 politicians oppose it.

i do see the way someone could like both myself.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

But that is only a thin veneer beneath which you find that neither of them seriously challenges the status quo. You have only to look at what they do to see that.



Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)

i disagree. both have lots of dissenting votes. both vote exclusively on principle. they are as change-oriented as a politician can be.

every smear you see about them is just that, a smear, they are so change oriented they have a "looney" reputation. have you seen how ron paul served up the conservative christians at the values voters debate?

he does not pander to anyone, he votes on principles, which he tells you ahead of time

same with kucinich. and where it comes to leaving other countries alone, yes. ron paul would empty 150 military bases and DISBAND THE CIA. this would result in a total stop of our corporatist pilfering of 3rd world nations. these are executive branch powers. if that isn't change, idk what is.

Report  
elephantdwarf (October 19, 2007)

don't forget about Ron Paul's stance on the Federal Reserve and the IRS. that is one of the issues im most interested in. we need to start printing our own money and cut all ties to the private banks. no other candidate that i've seen has even brought this up.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

Yes, banking cartels are a mechanism for increased imperial control but its largel right wing fable that monetary control is the real enemy. Things being denominated in capitalist dollars in the first place is the problem

Report  
elephantdwarf (October 19, 2007)
it's a nice dream thinking that society can exist without money, but it's never going to happen. the reason the US dollar is worthless is because of the Federal Reserve. money needs to be based on something tangible to be worth anything. right now money is just printed out of thin air(figuratively, obviously its not printed on thin air cause that would be, like magic man) and loaned to the american people directly from the Federal Reserve(which by the way, has nothing to do with anything federal, it's just a clever name to make people think the government actually has a hand in the printing of the US dollar), which immediately gains interest. how do you pay interest on 100%? by printing more money that, in turn, gets more interest put on it? this system makes absolutely no sense and is exactly why we are slowly transforming into some kind of third world country. we need to stop

show rest of commentit's a nice dream thinking that society can exist without money, but it's never going to happen. the reason the US dollar is worthless is because of the Federal Reserve. money needs to be based on something tangible to be worth anything. right now money is just printed out of thin air(figuratively, obviously its not printed on thin air cause that would be, like magic man) and loaned to the american people directly from the Federal Reserve(which by the way, has nothing to do with anything federal, it's just a clever name to make people think the government actually has a hand in the printing of the US dollar), which immediately gains interest. how do you pay interest on 100%? by printing more money that, in turn, gets more interest put on it? this system makes absolutely no sense and is exactly why we are slowly transforming into some kind of third world country. we need to stop getting our money from the rich private bankers and start printing it ourselves without direct interest placed on it. this is a big issue.
Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

What you're saying is obviously factually true re: the Fed, fiat currency etc. What you are not connecting into the puzzle is why this type of talk is always parroted by Right Wing ideologues. Trust me, it makes a difference.

And no, I don't agree with your assessment. Many, many societys in world history have existed without money or commodities per se. Further, to blame our nearly worthless currency for our economic ills is completely flipped around. I also don't agree that the dollar is going to totally take a plunge. You need to realize how heavily invested China is in US $$$ for one thing.

Dig a little deeper because right now you are just regurgitating reactionary, hard line conservative crap no matter how enticing it is to buy into it. We have a lot bigger problems than monetary policy.

Report  
elephantdwarf (October 20, 2007)

i dunno... i'm pretty sure the US dollar is worth about 4 cents right now. the amount of money put into the system grows and grows, it decreases what it's worth. but the more money that is out there, the higher prices will climb in stores. the thing is... there may be more money going into the system, but minimum wage has been essentially the same for years now. there's no way to live a healthy life off of minimum wage anymore. i dunno i might be getting off track, its late and ive been up a long time.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)

i dont think victim disagrees with this part, i think he disagrees with the fact that eliminating the federal reserve will fix anything. i, however, think he is wrong ;)

i think eliminating elitist control over money supply, over government entitlements, and over the military industrial complex, removing government controls on small business, and removing government entitlements being handed out to corporations in exchange for being "compliant" with a regulatory agency which is merely a handout box for corporations will cause a lot of positive change and money flow back into what he calls the "working class"

Report  
elephantdwarf (October 20, 2007)

i agree with you on all those aspects.

Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)

free market thinkers do not believe in using fiat money. they believe only in trading things which either have a value such as a commodity or item, or some kind of precious material which is limited, such as gold coins. banking cartels use inflation to transfer money from what you refer to as the working class, to the elite bankers or the government, or both.

Report  
victim (October 20, 2007)
In Marxist paralance all items and precious materials are commodities in that they are brought to market to be sold for a profit. I really can't answer most of your posts without going heavily into Marxist theory.

The idea is that wealth is transfered by extracting it from the labor of workers. This is because you are paid for an amount of labor time but the goods that your labor produces are worth more than you're paid. The capitalists claim this is an equitable arrangment bc they provide the capital and take the risks inherent in producing, marketing, and selling the commodity/product.

The lie in there is that all of their capital that they invest or "venture" is in fact appropriated from the common holdings especially in the form of private property. Which is my problem (OK one of my problems) with Libertarianism: you can't cling to private property

show rest of commentIn Marxist paralance all items and precious materials are commodities in that they are brought to market to be sold for a profit. I really can't answer most of your posts without going heavily into Marxist theory.

The idea is that wealth is transfered by extracting it from the labor of workers. This is because you are paid for an amount of labor time but the goods that your labor produces are worth more than you're paid. The capitalists claim this is an equitable arrangment bc they provide the capital and take the risks inherent in producing, marketing, and selling the commodity/product.

The lie in there is that all of their capital that they invest or "venture" is in fact appropriated from the common holdings especially in the form of private property. Which is my problem (OK one of my problems) with Libertarianism: you can't cling to private property and go very far afield of capitalism and private property automatically brings exploitation and immiseration.

And by private property I mean factories, equipment etc with little to no emphasis on personal belongings and family dwellings. The means of production is what's important.
Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)

the thing you dont see about the libertarian ideal, is that you dont have to work at factories. in this system a factory can't dominate an entire cultures profitability. theres nothing to stop you from going and buying up small farmland and sustaining yourself just off of the land. right now our government is too big for that, you would be taxed on the land and your works, which would mean you need to make in excess of what you need to pay your debt to others.

in free action you would have no such need, theres no reason why you would need to ever work for another man.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

Dennis Kucinich lined up for the Democratic nominee in 2004..where is the principle there? Further he voted "present" on the question of Israel/Palestine even though he (belatedly) has come to sympathize with the Palestineans.

And we haven't even come to his history as Mayor of Cleveland.

I'll leave Paul alone I've said plenty about him elsewhere in this thread. Although I have to ask this: why can Rapture-ready Doomers, Minutemen, and Klansman tell Ron Paul is on their side but you can't?

Report  
elephantdwarf (October 19, 2007)

you keep throwing around this "ron paul is racist and loves the kkk" bullshit. but i have yet to see you back this up in a decent manner.

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)
One of Paul's pieces that ran on antiwar.com not that long ago was titled The Fatal Conceit In The Middle East. Sounds innocuous enough except..except..

The Fatal Conceit is also the title of a book by Libertarian deity F A Hayek. You see it is easy to underestimate precisely HOW married to Libertarianism Paul is. This is what idiot (I might call them well-meaning in my more generous moments) totally miss.

They mistake Paul's Non-Interventionist talk with Pat Buchanan-style Republican Isolationism. The truth is they are nothing at all alike. For Hayek, and Paul too, the Conceit in question is any "planning" that would interfere with an unencumbered free market. And by unencumbered they both mean that the system operates regardless of how many people suffer or how much they suffer as a consequence.

But even that is not totally accurate beca

show rest of commentOne of Paul's pieces that ran on antiwar.com not that long ago was titled The Fatal Conceit In The Middle East. Sounds innocuous enough except..except..

The Fatal Conceit is also the title of a book by Libertarian deity F A Hayek. You see it is easy to underestimate precisely HOW married to Libertarianism Paul is. This is what idiot (I might call them well-meaning in my more generous moments) totally miss.

They mistake Paul's Non-Interventionist talk with Pat Buchanan-style Republican Isolationism. The truth is they are nothing at all alike. For Hayek, and Paul too, the Conceit in question is any "planning" that would interfere with an unencumbered free market. And by unencumbered they both mean that the system operates regardless of how many people suffer or how much they suffer as a consequence.

But even that is not totally accurate because it is more than "the strong and smart will survive and prosper" both because the game is rigged for the few at the expense of the many and also because the Libertarian ideology is first and foremost concerned with countering and stamping out any vestiges or traces of "collectivism". It is totally reactionary because it serves the interests only of a select few.

Paul plays this game where the ill-informed (such as every American liberal) will fall for the superficial trappings of what he says and writes. But underneath that is the "true" message intended for a much different audience indeed. The type that know exactly what he means when he invokes the term "Fatal Conceit"

It is not possible to say "I'm for Paul but not necessarily for all of his Libertarian policies". That is to mistake Paul entirely for something he's not.

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/01-libertarianbwz6rx. jpg

Here are some direct Paul quotes

Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

And here is the article Paul wrote but later retracted with the paperthin claim that an aide wrote it. Of course, the "expert" invoked in the article happens to be a nobody friend of..thats right, Ron Paul. Judge for yourself

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.am erican/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5

Here is Paul's comical explanation:

In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

(more evidence of Paul doublespeak -- me)

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time


Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)

those things quoted to Paul were not his quotes, they were written by other people in a newsletter he printed, unknowing to him.

and yes, i see what you mean when you say libertarianism throws some people to the wolves, and yes, it does, but any society does. you simply cannot make everyone happy and healthy and safe. thats the "well intentioned" yet foolish belief... to think that everyone can be happy, healthy, and safe. libertarianism just makes safe the people who are willing to do activities to ensure that they are, on their own. I dont find that a secret contention, its a self reliant attitude, and i don't find it cold or heartless at all, its just representative of reality, and what its like being born into a finite world with limited resources.

Report  
victim (October 20, 2007)
Of course people are always going to be unhappy. But I dispute what % of the world is "happy" right now. It certainly isn't an optimized % based on what could be done with the resources we have. Further there is a big difference between "happy/unhappy" and having basic human needs met. 80% of deaths in the Third World are due to unclean drinking water.

I am not really making a "greatest good for the greatest number" Benthamite argument but rather saying that the large mass of humanity has a common interest and the only thing stopping them from recognizing and acting on that interest are their oppressors.

It means this: the work-a-day til your 65 (now 70) and accomplish next to nothing lifestyle is NOT how things have to be. Only our slavish devotion to the meager crumbs our corporate overlords dole out prevents us from seeing that and act

show rest of commentOf course people are always going to be unhappy. But I dispute what % of the world is "happy" right now. It certainly isn't an optimized % based on what could be done with the resources we have. Further there is a big difference between "happy/unhappy" and having basic human needs met. 80% of deaths in the Third World are due to unclean drinking water.

I am not really making a "greatest good for the greatest number" Benthamite argument but rather saying that the large mass of humanity has a common interest and the only thing stopping them from recognizing and acting on that interest are their oppressors.

It means this: the work-a-day til your 65 (now 70) and accomplish next to nothing lifestyle is NOT how things have to be. Only our slavish devotion to the meager crumbs our corporate overlords dole out prevents us from seeing that and acting on it. Things don't have to be life this -- life shouldn't be work your shitty job and whither away.

There is plenty of time to talk about what we want to imlement after the fall of capitalism and whether words like 'socialism' and 'Marxism' are even needed. However, none of that rhetorical talk can blind us to the basic tenet that capitalism must fall.
Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)
i dont see capitalism as falling, i see it as being an idea not yet implemented.

our current mixed "managed" system holds the wealth primarily in the public sector, in government and in the stock market. between the two, almost all wealth is held. this means we are in de facto democratic socialism of some sort. where the random whim of the mobs and c student think tanks reassign wealth at will to whoever is crying the loudest.

ultimately, your business will not thrive unless it gets a contract with the federal government because of its "compliance" with some department regulation, which it can only get if it lobbies for it.

i can't see a system where your income is considered owned by the federal government, and you get back whatever portion they feel is unnecessary, and when thats not enough, they inflate the money out of your pocket, as

show rest of commenti dont see capitalism as falling, i see it as being an idea not yet implemented.

our current mixed "managed" system holds the wealth primarily in the public sector, in government and in the stock market. between the two, almost all wealth is held. this means we are in de facto democratic socialism of some sort. where the random whim of the mobs and c student think tanks reassign wealth at will to whoever is crying the loudest.

ultimately, your business will not thrive unless it gets a contract with the federal government because of its "compliance" with some department regulation, which it can only get if it lobbies for it.

i can't see a system where your income is considered owned by the federal government, and you get back whatever portion they feel is unnecessary, and when thats not enough, they inflate the money out of your pocket, as capitalism on any level.

you don't own any of your capital, your gold can be seized, or a capital gains tax applied to even it back down to the whims of the fiat dollar..a nd property taxes can at any time cause you to lose your land you "rent from the government".

the system we are in has none of the attributes of capitalism.

Report  
victim (October 20, 2007)

I'm not a liberal so maybe you can trust my judgment on this when I say this is one of the more important things to be said by a professed Democrat in a long time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php ?az=view_all&address=389x2087431#2094181

Report  
barrydonegan (October 20, 2007)

i agree with you all the way here. these plans have been in place a long time.

i think this is the real reason people like Dr. Paul are so popular.

its like, you may have a problem with his stance on abortion, but what the fuck difference does it make what things a woman can do with her vagina, when the rest of her body is in gitmo getting tortured without due process of law.

Sure if you're rating them on the hobo-meter

Gravel's a wack-job

Report  
victim (October 19, 2007)

Gravel was considered a likewarm Democrat in the 70s, especially by anti-war radicals. Its not his positions that have changed..

All the Democrats may as well give up. Stephen Colbert has joined the race.

if you don't mind me asking, what makes Obama so sincere exactly?

he has no conviction whatsoever and flip flops just as much as every other politician not named Ron Paul

he might be a good speaker, but it doesn't make him sincere

oh and before anyone jumps all over me, i'm not a Ron Paul supporter...he is consistent though

Report  
jacknife737 (October 19, 2007)

Its really more or less an impression that I get, when I listen to him speak. I just “connect” with him more then say I do with Clinton, or Edwards. He also seems a lot more honest, like with his admission of drug use while at university. Also he seems to be less partisan than other candidates, and actually seems willing to work with those who disagree with him. Not to mention that he and I agree on most of the major issues (except for same-sex marriage, I’m 100% for that).

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

your link suggests that you should be

how is he any more sincere?

- jones the bones

- stevejones8770@yahoo.com

Report  
Albert_Belle (October 19, 2007)

That's what she said.

Might as well start calling him President Giuliani. I bet money on it.

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

he'll make 9/11 a national holiday

Report  
barrydonegan (October 19, 2007)

or a annual occurance. hahaha.

Um, really?

Report  
fallingupwards84 (October 19, 2007)

yea really

As much as I think Guiliani is a smug little prick, I'd choose him over Clinton any fucking day of the week. I actually agree with more of his viewpoints than I thought I would after doing some reading.

This country is fucked if that stupid bitch becomes President.

billary clinton vs. doody pooliani. i'm moving the fuck out of america.

I'm 26 why?

obama = CFR establishment candidate.

if you dig Bush, Clinton, other Bush, other Clinton... hes your guy. too bad he wont win his party nomination anyway... bc look at the other names i just typed. those are your establishment choices.