Can't Deny Ron Paul raised over 3.5 million today

[Perd Hapley]

O_o

Were you told this by the eye atop the pyramid on the back of a piece of currency, perhaps? 

Hee-hee.   

[Finch]

If your not you should be.  Simply so you can show your support by joining the war effort and fighting terrorists personally instead of letting others defend freedom while your at home posting on this website. 

Sigh....

Terrorist are of absolutely no threat to my or anyone other Americans freedom. They are not beating down your door threatening to throw you into Guantanamo without right to trial. They are not bypassing the constitution with self written warrants. They are not ignoring the first amendment when those self written warrants are used and then subsequently the target of the warrant is threatened with a federal offence to even talk about the warrant that was just served without oversight of the judicial branch. Tell me how my freedoms are threatened by some third world podunk terrorists.

As I see it the only threat to my freedoms are coming from those we elect and those who think that we need to sacrifice said freedoms to protect us in the so called "War on Terror"

I mean afterall... you support the war on terror, the least you could do is fight in it.

If that is the least, what is the most I could do?

[CAnnoneer]

The status-quo is a given. I just don't want to legitimize it by participating. After all, I'd hate for them to think I was stockpiling cannon balls at Concord just because my candidate lost and I'm a sore loser.

That's an excuse to do nothing. You do not vote, you take yourself out of relevance. The politicians will not shed a tear; you make their job easier by eliminating yourself. They just move on to fighting over those who do vote. If on the other hand, you vote even if it is for a third party, they are forced to pay attention. The system is not yet so corrupt that voters wouldn't matter, but doing nothing to stem the decay will certainly land us there eventually.

[Perd Hapley]

I mean afterall... you support the war on terror, the least you could do is fight in it.

If that is the least, what is the most I could do?

Good point.  Joining the military is pretty close to the Most side of the scale. 

But I think Tecumseh is on your side, Finch. 

[Len Budney]

The status-quo is a given. I just don't want to legitimize it by participating. After all, I'd hate for them to think I was stockpiling cannon balls at Concord just because my candidate lost and I'm a sore loser.

That's an excuse to do nothing.

Stockpiling weapons is nothing? 

You do not vote, you take yourself out of relevance.

Invade my home and say that.

--Len.

[Patriot]

That's an excuse to do nothing. You do not vote, you take yourself out of relevance. The politicians will not shed a tear; you make their job easier by eliminating yourself. They just move on to fighting over those who do vote. If on the other hand, you vote even if it is for a third party, they are forced to pay attention. The system is not yet so corrupt that voters wouldn't matter, but doing nothing to stem the decay will certainly land us there eventually.

Shh!  Don't talk sense. 

Knowest thou not that this is the turning point, yea, even the last battle, the ideological struggle of our time?  Yet instead of occasioning between classes as Marx mistakenly envisioned, it is happening here and now between the two factions: the Honest Ordinary Exceptional Self-Governing American and the manipulative and immensely high-up forces that cravenly mislead the teeming masses through shadowy extra governmental corporate cartels that have penetrated and pervasively infiltrated government circles.  You must understand that the major media outlets, the Federal Reserve, both major parties, Ralph Nader, the military-industrial complex, and the NAU are complicit in this fait accompli that we must unswervingly prevent.  A dramatist might term it 'The Epic Battle of Our Time!,' 'Good versus Evil,' or 'All or Nothing!' [in high Kierkegaardian fashion].  And the interpretation is thus:  "All" means electing The One [aka RP], and "Nothing" means that should he not win the GOP nomination, nothing else is worth doing  May I inquire as to whether you are for Paul or against freedom/apple pie/and future of our great country?  To paraphrasically  borrow from religious tradition:  "There is no candidate but Ron Paul, and myriad are his prophets." 

[Paddy]

Stockpiling weapons is nothing? 

Get real, Len.  Whatever peashooters you can 'stockpile' don't amount to a second thought, let alone any kind of credible threat to people who can make your entire home (and everything in it) disappear from a mile (or more) away.  What's that quote?  "if you can't/won't stand up and fight while the war is still winnable.........."

[Len Budney]

Knowest thou not that this is the turning point, yea, even the last battle, the ideological struggle of our time...

You've been listening WAAAAY too much to George W.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

Get real, Len.  Whatever peashooters you can 'stockpile' don't amount to a second thought...

I pretty much agree. What I don't get is why folks think the odds are better in the voting booth. More than half of all Americans are net recipients of government money. There's a majority right there.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Get real, Len.  Whatever peashooters you can 'stockpile' don't amount to a second thought...

I pretty much agree.

If you agree, then why are you stockpiling weapons as a solution to the particular problem? What is your feasible solution?

What I don't get is why folks think the odds are better in the voting booth.

Because they are better. WashDC is still controllable. What politicians are still trying to do is do what they want when nobody is watching and nobody complains. When people do organize and act firmly, changes happen. If that weren't the case, we would now be stuck with amnesty or DREAM Act or other such nonsense. Instead, that is buried for the time being, and the SAVE Act is chugging along, due to the efforts of NumbersUSA, Lou Dobbs, the minutemen, Tom Tancredo, and a bunch of communities and organizations applying pressure the right way. If all these people had followed your philosophy, none of that would have happened.

If all you do is stockpile weapons, you help bringing about the day you would have to use them.

[Len Budney]

If you agree, then why are you stockpiling weapons as a solution to the particular problem? What is your feasible solution?

Bah. Have a beer on me and chill out.

What I don't get is why folks think the odds are better in the voting booth.

Because they are better. WashDC is still controllable...

Depends how out of control you think it is. The republic was mortally wounded in 1861 and lapsed into a coma in 1913. It isn't dead yet, but it's much farther gone than most people think.

When people do organize and act firmly, changes happen. If that weren't the case, we would now be stuck with amnesty or DREAM Act or other such nonsense...

I agree. The republic is not beyond recovery.

If all you do is stockpile weapons, you help bringing about the day you would have to use them.

That isn't all. For example, I also argue online for freedom. It mostly gets me labeled a kook, but if enough people join me on my soap box, there may yet be no need to resort to the cartridge box.

--Len.

[Paddy]

Len Budney.   First:

The republic was mortally wounded in 1861 and lapsed into a coma in 1913. It isn't dead yet, but it's much farther gone than most people think.

And then:

I agree. The republic is not beyond recovery.

That's it, Len.  You're officially schizophrenic.  Get help ASAP.  You need medication.

[Len Budney]

That's it, Len.  You're officially schizophrenic.  Get help ASAP.  You need medication.

Read more carefully. There's no contradiction. It's not dead; it's not beyond recovery; but it's much worse than most people think.

--Len.

[Tecumseh]

Nah, it is just the usual chickens--t chicken hawk argument.  Worthy of a guffaw and maybe a snort.

There is one interesting thing about it, though: Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone not currently in uniform ought have no say in any use of force or foreign policy matter.  Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete.  And, incidentally, the makers of the chicken hawk argument would have to hold their tongue, as they are usually not current service members, either.  There is a silver lining in every cloud...

  Chickenhawk is a good way of putting it.  I do believe they have a say but if one really believes it they should fight for it.  Otherwise it is pretty cowardly to stand back and let other brave men and women do the dirty work that this person is advocating.

Well if one feels so strongly about it then they would be over there fighting.  Otherwise sending others to fight an enemy in a country who has not attacked us seems pretty sick. 

Ask yourself why Ron Paul, an ANTI-WAR candidate got the most donations of all the candidates from veterans?

Seems like they dont want to fight for someone elses oil either? 

[Tecumseh]

Get real, Len.  Whatever peashooters you can 'stockpile' don't amount to a second thought...

I pretty much agree. What I don't get is why folks think the odds are better in the voting booth. More than half of all Americans are net recipients of government money. There's a majority right there.

--Len.

Got a source for that "statistic"?

[Bogie]

Terrorist are of absolutely no threat to my or anyone other Americans freedom.

If "Terrorist" wastes my sorry ass while I'm standing outside my local Wally World waiting for the doors to open on Black Friday, I'm gonna come back and haunt you.
 
Because I won't be free. I'll be dead. But free to haunt.
 

[Len Budney]

Because I won't be free. I'll be dead. But free to haunt.

You seem consistently willing to give up any and all liberty in exchange for "security." The founders had lots to say about that attitude, all of it blistering.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

More than half of all Americans are net recipients of government money. There's a majority right there.

Got a source for that "statistic"?

40% of Americans pay no income tax at all. They're net tax consumers. About 6% of the population are employed by government. They're net tax consumers. Another 6% or so are employed by defense contractors, and hence derive their salary entirely from government money. They are net tax consumers. This suggests a crude estimate of 52% right there.

A more systematic study would include welfare, other government programs, and any jobs whose salary comes from government money, but it would easily exceed 50% of the population.

--Len.

[LAK]

Len,

When the libertarians enter a political topic - an election - the LP is as relevent as the "republican" party or the "democratic" party. That is why they came up.

Manedwolf,

Actually I am an Adept - I didn't need to look on any dollar bill. Besides, we all know that all that masonic symbology on the back of a dollar bill arrived there by accident, it wasn't drafted up by anyone in particular. Origiinally the back of a dollar bill was supposed to be blank, but the first ones rolled out of the press with that on them - and no one ever changed it. It's a great mystery as to how that engraving got there.

[Len Budney]

When the libertarians enter a political topic - an election - the LP is as relevent as the "republican" party or the "democratic" party. That is why they came up.

Ron Paul also has nothing to do with the libertarian party. In case it escaped your notice, he's running as a Republican.

--Len.

[LAK]

Len,

You've run a good discussion on here; I share your views on some things - some key issues. But some things are escaping your attention too; it was CAnnoneer who first brought up libertarians - not I. My responses ran accordingly.

[Len Budney]

You've run a good discussion on here; I share your views on some things - some key issues. But some things are escaping your attention too; it was CAnnoneer who first brought up libertarians - not I. My responses ran accordingly.

Granted. But there is no LP candidate in the race, so the LP is completely irrelevant here.

--Len.

[roo_ster]

Nah, it is just the usual chickens--t chicken hawk argument.  Worthy of a guffaw and maybe a snort.

There is one interesting thing about it, though: Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone not currently in uniform ought have no say in any use of force or foreign policy matter.  Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete.  And, incidentally, the makers of the chicken hawk argument would have to hold their tongue, as they are usually not current service members, either.  There is a silver lining in every cloud...

  Chickenhawk is a good way of putting it.  I do believe they have a say but if one really believes it they should fight for it.  Otherwise it is pretty cowardly to stand back and let other brave men and women do the dirty work that this person is advocating.

Well if one feels so strongly about it then they would be over there fighting.  Otherwise sending others to fight an enemy in a country who has not attacked us seems pretty sick. 

Such views on particular requirements to hold particular views are inimical to representative republican government.

Also, the poster you are referring to, fistful, has spent time in the service.  IOW, he has voluntarily put his tuckus into play and at risk for a time to be at the service of his country.  I will attest that such involves no small amount of risk, even in peacetime.  OTOH, the majority of folks squawking "chickenhawk" have not had the gonads to venture as much.  Pardon me for discounting such bleats as worth less then the BTUs in the hot air used to make them.

IMO, the "chickhawk" argument is akin to playing the race card nowadays or to old-school marxists laying about with accusations of "bourgeois" this & that.  It is not meant as a substantive argument, but is an attempt by the player to shut the debate down.  As such, it ought to be pointed out as worthy of discounting.

[Tecumseh]

More than half of all Americans are net recipients of government money. There's a majority right there.

Got a source for that "statistic"?

40% of Americans pay no income tax at all. They're net tax consumers. About 6% of the population are employed by government. They're net tax consumers. Another 6% or so are employed by defense contractors, and hence derive their salary entirely from government money. They are net tax consumers. This suggests a crude estimate of 52% right there.

A more systematic study would include welfare, other government programs, and any jobs whose salary comes from government money, but it would easily exceed 50% of the population.

--Len.

So how many of those people sucking up taxes are children?  How many are housewives, housedads, retired, disabled, clergy, other tax immune people, working for cash, or some of the contractors overseas who dont pay these taxes ?  How many of those people are not even living in the United States?  How many are students?

Please explain with something than a biased opinion from a mainstream media source.

As for the net tax consumers, how many will be paying into the tax system or have paid into it? 

And for the government employees, well would you get rid of the military, fire department, police department, FEMA, VA hospitals, LE agencies, road repair crews, parks and rec. people, etc?

Your crude estimate of 52% is unsubstantiated. 

[Tecumseh]

Nah, it is just the usual chickens--t chicken hawk argument.  Worthy of a guffaw and maybe a snort.

There is one interesting thing about it, though: Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone not currently in uniform ought have no say in any use of force or foreign policy matter.  Thus, our transformation from representative republic to authoritarian military regime would be complete.  And, incidentally, the makers of the chicken hawk argument would have to hold their tongue, as they are usually not current service members, either.  There is a silver lining in every cloud...

  Chickenhawk is a good way of putting it.  I do believe they have a say but if one really believes it they should fight for it.  Otherwise it is pretty cowardly to stand back and let other brave men and women do the dirty work that this person is advocating.

Well if one feels so strongly about it then they would be over there fighting.  Otherwise sending others to fight an enemy in a country who has not attacked us seems pretty sick. 

Such views on particular requirements to hold particular views are inimical to representative republican government.

Also, the poster you are referring to, fistful, has spent time in the service.  IOW, he has voluntarily put his tuckus into play and at risk for a time to be at the service of his country.  I will attest that such involves no small amount of risk, even in peacetime.  OTOH, the majority of folks squawking "chickenhawk" have not had the gonads to venture as much.  Pardon me for discounting such bleats as worth less then the BTUs in the hot air used to make them.

IMO, the "chickhawk" argument is akin to playing the race card nowadays or to old-school marxists laying about with accusations of "bourgeois" this & that.  It is not meant as a substantive argument, but is an attempt by the player to shut the debate down.  As such, it ought to be pointed out as worthy of discounting.

I disagree.  I am glad Fistful has served, the Chickenhawk label is incorrect.  The correct label in my opinion would be a warmonger.

It is easier to suggest that people fight over there and are not over there.  Please explain to me why the majority of veterans donations went to an anti-war candidate?  This suggests that they are against the war in Iraq.  Why can't anyone explain that to me?  Are the veterans against the war?  Perhaps they know the war is about corporate America desiring to get their hands on more money and oil.  They seem to be prospering while the rest of America suffers. 

Are we going to Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, North Korea, China, and other third world countries to liberate them like Iraq?