Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Ron Paul is One of the Most Immoral Politicians in the United States

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 23, 2012, 12:03 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

When you’re listening to Ron Paul’s anti-war speeches, don’t get too enthusiastic. His other policies are abhorrent.

Ron Paul wants to cut Medicaid, Medicare and other welfare services, and give HUGE tax cuts for the corporations and the financial elite, making them even more powerful. In other words, what he’s really advocating is taking money from the poor and the sick, and giving it to the super wealthy. That’s abhorrent! Ron Paul is an ultra right-wing republican; he’s on the side of the 1%. Always remember that.

Ron Paul and all other so-called “libertarians” have the wrong answers; they are in reality advocating corporate tyranny.

What should be done is working to create a society based, not on “libertarian”, but libertarian socialist ideas: a society with a real participatory democracy where the workplaces are run democratically by the workers and the communities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY

145 Comments

145 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by beautifulworld (19202) 1 year ago

If it was really up to Ron Paul he would eliminate Medicaid, Medicare and other welfare services entirely. He would return us to a feudal economy. It is sad how people view his anti-war stances and think he is a good guy, but the reality is he wants to end the war spending, that is his real motivation.

He is all about a free market economy where workers, people who hold no capital, the majority of people, are controlled and exploited. All the supposed liberties you would have under this type of system would pale to the economic shackles you would find yourself in.

[-] 2 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Well said! :-)

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

You said: "All the supposed liberties you would have under his type of system would pale to the economic shackles you would find yourself in."

So true.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I'd rather have a bunch of Ron Paul republicans than Romney style republicans. We're going to have a "right wing" movement for a while and that's why I say that.

Libertarians are nowhere near as bad as the corporatism police state warmonger republicans that preach for a corporate rule and the same "free market" you're talking about, the same republicans that are fine with killing millions of civilians abroad in the name of stopping terrorism.

Just about all republicans want to end medicare and social security. But they don't want to end the trillions being given to banks and they don't want to end the wars.

I am not a libertarian, for one because I am for a living wage, but I'm not going to demonize anyone that values human life. Instead I'm going to work with them in trying to end the wars, and persuade them to more of a Kucinich domestic policy where we look out for others as a society. You all know I'm a huge Kucinich fan, and I only said this because of the many times I've seen Kucinich and Paul team up to tackle important issues like stopping the police state, stopping the theft of our rights, and stopping the banks from looting this country.

Also here are some of my thoughts on the supposed libertarian movement I shared with John32 the other day - "The libertarian movement put Rand Paul on a pedestal, and they're slowly finding out it's their own people killing their movement. Actually the self proclaimed libertarians proved they are full of fakes when the number of Gary Johnson votes were no where near comparable to Ron Paul's primary votes. Instead they either didn't vote or they voted for Romney. They didn't even back their own guy."

The Ron Paulers should be vigorously fought with logic in regards to their stance on minimum wage.

Self proclaimed libertarians vote republican. Self proclaimed socialists vote democrat.

No one backs their own voice anymore.

I'm looking forward to the downvotes and potential accusations from several people on this thread.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (19202) 1 year ago

I understand your position and respect it, but I still think Ron Paul is anti-war mainly because of money. Paul, like most libertarians and Austrian economists are obsessed with money over all else. Austrian economics, if ever instituted here, would be far more debilitating than the horrendous economic system we are in now.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Yes. The capitalist/state-capitalist system is responsible for way more death and destruction than the awful wars in Afg. and Iraq. Paul wants to deregulate this system even more than it is today, making it even more destructive and cruel.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Yeah, it always baffled me at first how Ron Paul is such an oddity...an anti-war republican?? -those two words don't even go together...it's like an oxymoron. Ron Paul would let you die in a coma if you didn't have health insurance and would expect you to beg your local church for charity money to pay your hospital bill (while you're still IN a coma) lol But like you have pointed out, wow what a clever way to trick "would-be-liberals" into supporting the right-wing agenda...

...It's almost as clever as Obama and "The Democractic Party" :-)

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19202) 1 year ago

This is one of the most important things people need to understand. Explaining this is not easy but it is critical if the 99% are going to be united in the right direction. A capitalist system with no checks and balances is not the answer, and that is what libertarians call for! It would bring devastating suffering to the masses and return us to Dickensian times. If we are going to stick with a capitalist system, for now, we must call for checks and balances, or regulations, that favor the masses, not corporations.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I vote for that. Let's start with a cap on profit mark-up. That is the one most important "checks and balance" we could apply right now.

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Wake up! We are already in a neo-fudealistic economy. We are servants.

"He is all about a free market economy where workers, people who hold no capital," Is this in reference to alternative currencies? Please elaborate.

Once again I ask for links to RP's connection to the 1% If we are to call this man out we need DIRECT connections to Ayn, GS, Koch, Bilderberg, CFR, and any other faux leadership in our current system.

Without evidence we are achieving nothing more than the same rhetoric that the GOP used against him.

[-] 7 points by beautifulworld (19202) 1 year ago

I am referring to capital as in money or assets that are used in production. Workers, generally do not hold capital. They may hold currency in some amounts in order to support themselves and their families but they do not own capital that is used to produce goods or services, and hence, they are not capitalists.

Ron Paul adheres to Austrian economics. Here is the wikipedia link that does a pretty decent job of describing Austrian economics:

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

You can find Ron Paul's writings on Austrian economics on sites like lewrockwell.com and mises.org.

Now, did I ever say he was linked to Goldman Sachs or the Kochs or any of that, though he is a big fan of Ayn Rand (named his son Rand)? No. I did not. Actually, if you have an understanding of economics what he proposes is even more sinister than what the corporate 1% greedy bastards have done. It seems more noble to eliminate the corporate cronyism that wreaks havoc on our economic system for so many people, but a completely free-wheeling unregulated economic system would be even more deleterious.

Austrians like to complain that the system is rigged for certain corporations, and yes, it is. This is a terrible thing. But, what they want in place of that is a completely deregulated economy. Now just because the economy is rigged quite favorably for the corporations does not mean we should throw out all regulation. Au contraire. What it means is that we need proper regulation so that the economic system benefits all people.

In a free-wheeling unregulated economic system the balance of power would fall squarely on those who already own capital. This is why, in the past, here on the forum, I have challenged people to ask Ron Paul and all these "libertarians" if they'd be willing to even out every American in terms of capital before instituting such an economic system. The answer would be a resounding no because they know damn well the advantage they would be at.

[-] 4 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

we just need to get back into the business of monopoly busting. what are all these regional big box stores but monopoly what is a handful of preselected choices but a monopoly. it's time we resurrect teddy roosevelt and put him back to work. now there is a republican president i could have supported. course he also left the republican party and started the progressive party.

[-] 3 points by agkaiser (1321) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Right on! Additionally, I like to differentiate between productive capitalism and the rentier capitalism of [usually absentee] owner/investors.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Brilliant comment and in compliment - http://www.nationofchange.org/dennis-kucinich-fiscal-cliff-why-are-we-sacrificing-american-jobs-corporate-profits-1356713202 - 15 minutes of pure sense from one of the last pro-99% Democrat politicians left in our country. Thank you for your excellent comment. Never Give Up Educating & Explaining! Occupy The Issues! Solidarity & best wishes for 2013.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (19202) 1 year ago

"We really have to decide who we are as a nation." - Dennis Kucinich

Yep. What do we care about? The people, the citizens? Or, just the corporations and shareholders? We, the people, the 99%, need to involve ourselves or these decisions will be made for us. The days of the apathetic American are over. Apathy has nearly killed us. We need to begin to face the fact that this mess we are in is OUR fault. We let it happen and we need to take responsibility to bring about the necessary change.

Thanks A4C for the kind words and all you do here. Solidarity and best wishes for the New Year to you, too.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Apathy In America is indeed the problem but I'm still reluctant to totally blame all Americans for this, although of course we do have a responsibility for our situation. However, our poor education system, materialism, militarism and just how far our democracy has been subverted and how our government has become captured by the corporations, can not be underestimated. Here's an example from my own state - http://www.nationofchange.org/new-details-emerge-about-dark-money-group-ohio-us-senate-race-1347545328 . OWS and people like you and others here are part of the real awakening that we all need. Never Give Up! Go Occupy! Solidarity and Happy New Year for 2013 and onwards.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (19202) 1 year ago

Interesting, I imagine that kind of thing is happening all over the country.

My point about apathy is that we have to take some responsibility for our situation. This all happened under our watch. It didn't have to be this way. It didn't have to get this bad. By realizing our societies' complicity in this we can realize how our society can change this. We don't have to accept things the way they are.

Happy New Year to you to A4C! Go Occupy in 2013!

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Ignorance breeds apathy and we didn't just become apathetic over night, no - it is by design I believe. From one point of view, it is always our watch, but we are too busy trying to get by, raise our kids, keep a roof over our heads and just trying to get by, to see the dots - let alone connect them. I think ONLY education and engagement can change this situation for our kids for whom Climate Change could well be THE defining issue.

http://www.nationofchange.org/katrina-all-over-again-1354611673

http://www.nationofchange.org/ongoing-war-after-battle-over-cliff-battle-over-debt-ceiling-1357137256 .

Never Give Up! Go Occupy! Solidarity!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Gotta get money out of politics.

https://movetoamend.org/

Public funding of campaigns

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Move To Amend is an important organisation and in 2013 OWS needs to consider alliances and forming a united front for The 99% especially with a view to the 2016 POTUS race. Dennis Kucinich will be out of Congress well before then & he, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders and other individuals & organisations, should soon start considering a forming a United Popular Alliance for The 99%. Thanks for your link and Never Give Up Trying To Expose The Money Trail! Occupy The Issues! Solidarity for 2013 and thereafter.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

YES - it is not just individuals that need to come together in support of actions - such as removal of corpoRAT personhood - but established groups as well.

AARP with The Sierra Club with the Union of Concerned Scientists with People for the American Way with..........................................

The sum of the whole being greater then the parts.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

'The sum of the whole being greater then the parts.' - Yes! Occupy a twinkle for that truth and check out Renneye's tune below. Never Give Up Connecting! Occupy A Broad Front! Solidarity and Happy 2013 to you, yours and all Occupiers - wherever we may be :)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Right back at ya - we have only just started.

2013 - the beginning/continuation of meaningful actions.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

An alliance outside the duopoly as you suggest would be great, I think we need to fight for the changes necessary to break the grip ofthe party duopoly though.

https://movetoamend.org/

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

http://www.opendebates.org/

Open primaries w/ automatic runoffs,

Election day holidays

Mandatory voting for all eligible citizens.

The party duopolies have frozen out 3rd parties, we must fight to improve accessibility.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

'Mandatory voting for all eligible citizens.'? Only IF there is a 'none-of-the-above' option! I'd also want International Electoral Observers and the removal of all electronic voting systems too. The Duopoly is Tyranny! Never Give Up Exposing The Oligarchy! Occupy The Alternatives! Happy New Year VQkag2.

[-] 3 points by Renneye (3343) 1 year ago

Yes A4C! Expose the Oligarchs!!

To balance out the onslaught of 'not so happy' news, please take a moment and smile...

A Better Place | Playing For Change

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVHOqrw3Jks

.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

'Freedom and Justice! It's the melody that let's us shine on. If you feel it through the music - we can make this world a better place' :) Thanks Renneye for bringing a tear to my eye and a glow to my heart on this grey winter's day :) Never Give Up Sharing The Joy! Occupy Good Vibrations! Solidarity and a very Happy New Year to you and yours for 2013 and thereafter with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uteBX4_wxXk :)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Good Find Good Share Very Uplifting Food to feed positive spirit of growth change for health and prosperity of ALL.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Happy New Year. A4C. Of course none of the above/write in/protest/no consent etc.

I'm not sure that e voting should be removed. Obviously, there is currently real questions regarding the cheating potential with e voting. But there is no question that people counting is rife with cheating.

I submit that we can better watch/verify/review e votes. In theend I believe this is what we will use. It CAN work.

I'm ok w/ observers.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Diebold? No Thanks! E-Voting is a terrible idea and totally corruptible if not corrupted already! If people counting physical paper is also susceptible, well we can recount and that is also why International and/or neutral observers and observers from all parties are essential.

What is the advantage of Electronic over Paper? Physical Paper can also be retained and recounted. Sometimes the older versions are better and futuristic and electronic is actually worse I think. I don't think that we can agree on this matter as I am VERY, VERY suspicious of electronic voting and baring the so called convenience and time saving for quicker results, I see NO advantages over a cross in box.

Never Give Up Occupying Transparency.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I am also VERY VERY suspicious of e voting. I am aware and disgusted by the Deibold issues.

I know there is great risk. But Imagine being able to vote at home. Print your vote out. Verify it the next day when the recount occurs. Consider that programs are hackable but also centralized and therefore more easily policed.

Code should be viewable by the public and citizens would be able to review for hacking.

millions of Hand counting can not be verified, even with observers. Technology is flawed but not evil. It's people who can be evil.

Hand counting introduces millions of potentially evil people, E voting only a few (pgms) and we should counter easily w/ citizens hack police.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

'Technology is flawed but not evil. It's people who can be evil.' - sounds a bit like 'gun-nut' arguments to my ear and yes, hand counting CAN be verified and audited and to say 'Hand counting introduces millions of potentially evil people', is too paranoid for my tastes.

E-Voting - http://www.nationofchange.org/taxonomy/term/142

'Does Voting Even Matter' - http://www.nationofchange.org/blogs/jill-dalton/does-voting-even-matter-1352262238 &

In Ohio - http://www.nationofchange.org/ohio-african-american-turnout-threatened-reduced-early-voting-and-faulty-ballots-1352299776 .

I think that voting is just about the last bit of individual pseudo-power we have left. People abroad give their lives to be able to exercise that which we see as a right and maybe by exercising this right for The99% can we change things for the better.

Never Give up Trying To Make Voting Relevant! Occupy Multi-party Democracy! Solidarity @ The99%!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ok. You win. I can't say I agree on hand counting being better, but I submit.

Perhaps the other voting/election/campaign proposals aremore agreeable to you.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

If voting were to be made mandatory, what will you support doing to the eligible citizens who refuse to surrender their freedom to vote?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"refuse to surrender their freedom to vote"? What does that mean?

Who has to do that? Do you mean what happens if someone don't wanna vote?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

If it's mandatory, it's not a freedom. So, yes, what happens if someone, for whatever reason, don't wanna vote?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Then they must be punished for their negligence in fulfilling their civic duty.

Perhaps a $25 fine that is not really enforced. Kinda like in Australia where they have excellent turnout.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Excellent turn out and yet the same corporate bought government problems.

So, if the fine isn't enforced, how will it be a punishment?

If the fine is enforced and payment is refused, what will be the punishment then?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Who knows, who cares, the point is, make it mandatory andwe will go from 63% turnout to 90%.

That can only be good right.? more people voting. yay!

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Ban All Racists and Homophobes who make posts like the link above and send Private Forum Messages like these below -

===========================================================================

shephen said 1 minute ago at Dec. 29, 2012, 3:23 p.m. EST (delete) If you faggots want socialism then maybe you should move overseas

shephen said 8 minutes ago at Dec. 29, 2012, 3:16 p.m. EST (delete) I thought it was a nice pic of mr and mrs chimp

===========================================================================

Stop Occupying Your Ass With Your Head!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Looks like someone got your message - the link above ( that you mentioned ) has been removed.

[-] 4 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Good, I approve & I'm pleased it was removed because it was vile and all racist & homophobic scum should be stomped on, on this forum if nowhere else. Solidarity & best wishes for 2013 @ you, OWS and all on this important forum. Never Give Up! Go Occupy!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Agree - and right back at ya.

[-] 2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

good post!

But I do believe that through decentralized forms of currencies and free energy we can take our economy back. I'm not well versed in Austrian economics, but I was aware he is in an expert in that field.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Jepp. He advocates tyranny - private tyranny.

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (19202) 1 year ago

That's it sff, and that is so hard to explain. Libertarians are very successful in talking about "freedoms" but when it comes to economics and the way they really want to set up the economic system it would be absolutely devastating to the majority of people. People would be "free" to paint their house any color they want and have all the guns they want, etc. but they'd have no money to buy the paint or the guns. They be in economic shackles, working merely for survival and to benefit the capitalists.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The thing is that in a capitalist/state-capitalist society, your personal freedom is determined, to a large extent, by access to resourses. If you're poor, you have very little freedom, if you're rich you have lots of it. Most libertarians seem to ignore this fact.

In a society where power overwhelmingly is in the hands of the wealthy, it doesn't make much sense to talk about "freedom", "voluntary agreements" and so on.

Real freedom is only achieved in a classless society.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/freedom-/

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (19202) 1 year ago

I agree with all you say so well there. Thanks for all you do.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Thanks :) Glad you agree.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I completely agree as well. Great points.

[+] -4 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

she team twinkles herself, nearly every comment has 3-5 twinkles on it. like those brownie points she gives herself really matter. LOL

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1321) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

It's unfortunate that the imbeciles, including Ron Paul, don't have a clue how immoral Ron Paul and libertarianism really are??!!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm glad someone said it.

I guess some have tunnel vision when it comes to their particular issue.

Everyone should remember it's real easy to say 'no war' when you know it will never come to pass or get support .

He's a phony.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

He's probably a phony in some cases, but I don't think that's the best way to describe him. He has stood his ground on many issues. I think immoral is a better word. He's advocating an ideology that suggests taking money away from disabled widows and giving it to the wealthy. Pure savagery.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

All the stands he takes are easy since he knows there is no risk of passage, and he doesn't have to run in any difficult race where it matters.

[-] -2 points by JH90 (-2) 1 year ago

"He's probably a phony in some cases, but I don't think that's the best way to describe him. He has stood his ground on many issues. I think immoral is a better word. He's advocating an ideology that suggests taking money away from disabled widows and giving it to the wealthy. Pure savagery."

So morality these days is stealing money from people who probably barely get by through an unconstitutional income tax to pay for others' social services? That's just ridiculous

I don't think enough of the posters understand TRUE free markets or the TRUE aspects of a free society. I see the main argument against free markets here as workers will exploit the employees and make them slaves, right? This video helps with that argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ttbj6LAu0A

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Capitalism is undemocratic, exploitative and immoral. I explained it here

You see, what I want is a society in which people are in control of their own lives; a society where people have a say in the things they're a part of and which affect them: Libertarian Socialism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY

The stealing is done by the wealthy who exploit and take over more and more resources.

Your video is nonsense. The fact that they compete does not change the fact that capitalists profit from the ones working for them. In fact, competition increases exploitation because one business will need to find people willing to work harder for less pay than the other. This is examplified by sweatshops in Indonesia etc. Also, to talk about "voluntary agreements" in a society where wealth and power is overwhelmingly concentrated on the owners and the financial elite is completely meaningless. The alternative? A society where people are in control of their own life, work and community: Libertarian socialism.

I understand the concept of free market capitalism very well. It's pure tyranny: PRIVATE tyranny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYxGkFxb7f4

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Free markets are an illusion, they are not possible.

The term itself is a misnomer.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i have long pointed out that legalizing marijuana and auditing the fed are not worth dismantling all regulation and taxation.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I support you and support what you say. I don't believe that Libertarians Understand Money, Understand Fiat Money, Understand Monetary Policy, Understand Economics, ... or understand how a gold standard would make all of us without gold totally whiped out.

That said, I think Ron Paul believes in what he says. I think he is more honest that 90% of of politicans. Does that help us? No. It just means here is one honest guy.

MMT Economists believe we can continue to create money, increase social programs, and kind of balance the amount of money in the economy by bench marking total money in circulation to the population. We know the government would shut down with out debt creation. Debt = credit = money. Governments must have credit to spend money. Credit is debt. Credit is money creation everyday to keep the government working.

Ron paul is wrong about cutting any social programs.

Libertarians want to cut social programs before all other programs. But Ron Paul is a fiscal conservative in that we know that military programs waste money, and government spending is more valuable to the economy if spend on R&D, or to stimulate construction or manufacturing. For instance spending on the war against drugs actually increase profits for drug dealers. There are better investments in the economy that will stimulate the economy.

So yeah, I guess Ron Paul has a lot of it wrong, but he has part of it right. But give the federal government some credit for increasing programs from the Clinton Era to a new high under Obama. What I see is a slight decrease for Job Training Budget fund to where there might be a an actual decreas in a time where we most need investment. This is very troubling. Less job training in a time of joblessness.

[-] 1 points by aprescoup (1) 1 year ago

Could be considered valuable information were it not for the fact that Neo-liberalism might as well be called neo-libertarianism with the added "bonus" of embracing the neo-conservative agenda of full spectrum dominance, imperial distention, nuclear primacy, the right to pre-emptive strikes, and unconditional support for the State of Israel.

From another post at this site: <b>Forum Post: Neoliberal or Neoconservative-Who knows the difference?</b> - http://occupywallst.org/forum/neoliberal-or-neoconservative-who-knows-the-differ/ , may be worth while reviewing; not so much to defend the indefensible economic prescriptions of out of power right-libertarians, but to reground us in the here and now reality of the neo-liberal/libertarian globalization agenda: — http://www.skeptically.org/wto/id10.html

The monster Ron Paul is at best a wannabe — minus wars and the Fed — while the real monsters currently occupy the Obama administration.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i think it is pretty obvious we need a hybrid political system. this system absolutely must involve direct democracy and a technocratic meritocracy branch of government. two things noticeably absent from our current system. i advocate for the meritocracy solely on the grounds that government requires expertise beyond that of a politician to solve the complex issues that face us today. we need scientists, engineers, mathematicians, technologists, architects, designers, and all manner of artists to help us come up with the innovative solutions to answer the call to solve the monumental challenges that lay ahead. we also need to ensure that the peoples voice is heard and not marginalized by political grandstanding and big money. though i agree legislation removing the money from politics and regulation is a big part of what we need to ensure freedom and liberty. i also believe a direct democratic process like the swiss have would help ensure that it never happens again. as well as ensuring the peoples voice is heard and weighs heavily in consideration of policy.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No, we need a system in which people control their own lives, work and community: Libertarian Socialism. Institutions must be run democratically by the workers and the communities; when there's need for representation, it must be based on democratic process and must always be controlled from below.

Hierarchical and elite structures must be dismantled as much as possible, so that human freedom eventually can come to prevail.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

not going to work because people are stupid. or is there something about that you don't get? a technocratic meritocracy is absolutely essential so solve the crisis and problems we face as a species moving forward. i never suggested people should not run their own lives. however leaving it to the common man or politicians to come up with solutions to complex multi-faceted solutions has got to be one of the biggest fallacies out there insofar as politics are concerned. we need scientists, technologists, engineers, mathematicians, designers, architects, medical professionals and artists. people like this to identify and solve the complex issues that lay before us and to solve them it's the only way.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

We need the scientists, technologists and engineers of course; the point is that decitions must be made democratically by the participants - the workers and the communities.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i agree on many general issues they should and we should definitely emphasize local/regional governance. however, when it comes to issues we face that involve the need for a high level of expertise to simply leave the decisions in the hands of politicians or the masses and not experts who understand the intricacies of a given subject is a recipe of both ecological and social devastation moving forward. a political model like the swiss have with an additional technocratic branch of governance, an increased emphasis on localized governance and open source dialog by the citizenry would be the ideal model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_government

economically speaking i also believe we need to move to a green open source anarcho-syndical model based on government ownership of vital institutions and infrastructure not private and co-op ownership of production and business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

libertarianism = intellectual laziness

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

How many books have you read on libertarianism? How much time have you spent studying the data that they provide to prove their points?

I wouldn't call myself a libertarian - but i do agree with much of what they preach....the real battle they have is their argument is counter-intuitive. Who would think that by getting rid of a minimum wage it would actually help the poor? Noone. Who would think that by creating a currency that couldn't be manipulated it would help the poor and middle class? Noone. Who would think that lower taxes for everyone would help the poor and middle class? noone. - unless they've put the hundreds of hours it takes to actually understand the logic behind these ideas. That's the struggle of many of the ideas of a libertarian.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

This is exactly what I am talking about. This is the kind of failed crazed logic we are dealing with here. Despite all evidence to the contrary minimum wage is bad and taxing the rich is bad. The kicker is because I have not spent hundreds of hours brainwashing myself reading Ayn Rand I can't understand the complicated multi-dimensional concepts involved in such a divinely inspired philosophy as libertarianism. Please oh wise, libertarian redeemer bless me with your tactile understanding of the finer nuances of libertarianism in a way that us wittle people with small minds can understand! thanks!!!!!! :-)

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (1077) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

We all owe a debt of gratitude to Dennis Kucinich because he entered Articles of Impeachment against the War Criminals Bush and Cheney.So although almost all Americans went along with the Fake wars on"Terror,"Iraq and Afganistan,even after they knew that a campaign of lies going back to Desert Storm(babies dumped out of incubators in Kuwait)was behind ALL of it-a detailed description of the Criminal Conduct of the Bush Administration is part of the Congressional Record and can't be changed by Republicans of the Future.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i like dennis. i liked mike gravel even more in '08.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I'd definitely say people that voted to kill almost a million people in Iraq are more abhorrent. But I also consider MURDER to be one of the most heinous crimes.

Fuck Ron Paul in regards to his stance on social programs though. Agreed on that.

But also remember Boehner wants to bomb countries and cut all those programs.

I actually did a count, and on a Congressional level, more than 400 of them are abhorrent.

Don't forget about the people allowing trillions to be given to banks and Wall Street which are sabotaging the middle class.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I didn't say that he's the only one.

The point with the post was that people should always remember that RP is an ultra right winger advocating one of the most horrific ideologies there is.

Ron Paul wants to cut support to poor single moms, and cut taxes for the superwealthy, creating total private tyranny; he wants a system in which poor, sick people are left on the streets to die. That's pure savagery.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You're right, Ron Paul does not like Federal social programs and wants to cut them. And I can say to you that people also need to remember that from Obama to Paul Ryan leading members of the government voted to give Goldman Sachs billions of dollars and support a monetary policy that gives trillions to Wall Street.

They don't question capitalism either. Not even Ron Paul does.

Then they all lie to the people and say Afghanistan is for the freedom and not for the trillions in resources they're trying to "extract"

Silk Road

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Ron Paul wants to cut support to poor single moms, and cut taxes for the superwealthy, creating total private tyranny; he wants a system in which poor, sick people are left on the streets to die. That's pure savagery."

<sigh>

This just isn't true - the man spent years of his life as a doctor helping people....in many instances not making them pay at ALL for his services if they couldn't afford it at his own practice...spent time working at charity hospitals to help the sick who couldn't afford going to a regular physician. It really is a shame that your misunderstandings of what he preaches has led you to the beliefs that you hold about him.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Yes it's true. That's what he's advocating.

His profession, donations to charities and so on, does not change the fact that he advocates policies which will give huge tax cuts for the wealthy, and welfare cuts for the poor and sick.

Misunderstandings? He wants to give huge tax cuts to the 1%, and cut welfare services for the poor and working poor. Is this not correct?

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"he wants a system in which poor, sick people are left on the streets to die."

No it isn't what he's advocating....at all.

I've gone back and forth with you before struggle....until you're willing to sit down and read through a list of 3-4 books that I give you we can't really have a good conversation on this because you don't understand his position on things. LIke i said to someone else on here the economics are very counter-intuitive....that's his real struggle - getting people to actually sit down and try to understand things. It takes someone willing to think outside of their pre-conceived logic though. Give it a shot - might surprise you....it did me. Before i did I would say i shared many of the same beliefs you do now.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What am I missing?

He wants to give huge tax cuts to the 1%, and cut welfare services for the poor and working poor. Is this not correct?

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Unfortunately you're missing a lot - you don't understand that what he advocates is for the middle and lower classes....even though to you it seems like it isn't - like i said it's counter-intuitive. Seriously it's not something you can sum up in 2 sentences - you really have to dig into the books to get an understanding. What have you got to lose? If you go through it at least you would know for sure...perhaps it would just reaffirm your position - or maybe it would completely change your mind.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago
  1. Do you acknowledge that RP wants to cut welfare programs for the poor and cut taxes for the superwealthy?

  2. What information do you think is missing? If there's something you think changes anything in terms of my post, please present it.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Can i present it to you with 3 books?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No, you can present it with your own words, and quotes you think are important/relevant.

So let's try it again:

  1. Do you acknowledge that RP wants to cut welfare programs for the poor and cut taxes for the superwealthy?

  2. What information do you think is missing? If there's something you think changes anything in terms of my post, please present it.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

My point is you spend all of this time reading the many books on your side of the equation (like the Shock Doctrine which you recommended to me and i read)- but won't venture into understanding some of Ron Pauls views and how he came to those conclusions. I think it's a little strange to claim that a man who spent his entire life trying to help people in his private life (doctor, doctor who would cut fees for people who couldn't afford care, doctor who spent time working at local charity hospitals where he didn't get paid, a man who has practiced what he preaches in congress) is somehow immoral or wants to hurt people. Maybe its that he's put the years of time in it takes to understand the economy - rather than guessing at it and assuming because a certain way appears to help people at first glance it must be the way to go. Like i said, it is counter-intuitive....but the facts and data back up his position on many of these things....you just have to dig into it.

I don't have the time now - but i'll go over a few topics and lay them out for you...but it would be a lot better for you to dig into the entirety of it and come to your own conclusions through studying it. Why not? How can you be certain you're right until you've explore both sides of the equation? I have - i'm open to reading stuff on the other side....i've read Chomsky, Klein and others. Am i saying that I must be right because I'm more intelligent and that all others should agree? Not at all...people might read this stuff and still disagree....but at least they can say they've explored boy sides and can stand firmly behind their position with a firm understanding of the other sides positions.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Let's leave our personal collection of books out of this, shall we. It's irrelevant.

RP can do as much charity he wants, and he can study the economy all he wants, it doesn't change the fact that he wants to give ENORMOUS tax cuts for the wealthy, and CUT welfare services for the poor and sick. What he advocates is pure savagery, and that was my point.

I have other priorities right now than reading ultra right-wing ideology. I know very well what kind of ideology Gary Johnson, Ron Paul and the other ultra right wingers advocate.

So you've read "the other side"? (so you are in other words on the far right then..?) Well what do you think about libertarian socialism, then?

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

1) RP wants to cut all FED programs including the reserve. Limit spending of tax payer money. However, his term as congressman is over. So his policies on that are asinine.

2)Connection to multinationals or the 1%. As I have stated before and you refuse to address this.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Do you acknowledge that RP wants to cut welfare programs for the poor and cut taxes for the superwealthy, Ivy?

Whether he has connections or not is irrelevant to the forum post.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I do. RP does support privatization.

Once again why do you continue to subvert the truth? If those connections were made it would only strengthen your argument. I personally know of two connections to the 1%

Goldman Sachs, and Citibank. They donated directly to his campaign.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

It wouldn't strengthen (or weaken) my argument, because it's irrelevant to the fact that he advocates POLICIES which give the rich huge tax cuts.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

emboldening your words doesn't change that it would in fact strengthen your argument. You admitted above that you were ignorant to this subject, so consider my view. We can agree to disagree.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Yeah, they agree on most issues. I'm guessing Rand borrowed all the Ayn Rand novels from his dad.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

We are already in corporate tyranny. Please explain how your version would be worse than what we are currently living in, with specifics.

This is not a pro Paul or anti Paul question. Just a question.

Its my belief that corporations are not people, and they only have as much power as our dollars and our actions give them.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Corporations have a lot of power already, obviously. RP's policies will however make them even more powerful (as I explained in the post)

Capitalism shouldn't be deregulated, it should be more regulated and eventually abolished, so that human beings can be free.

"Its my belief that corporations are not people, and they only have as much power as our dollars and our actions give them."

The thing is that corporations have a lot of these dollars themselves. The corporations and the financial elite have the overwhelming power in society..

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

" he’s on the side of the 1%. Always remember that."

Links and connections to Koch, GS, FED, or any multinational?

I want everyone here to be on the same page so we can finally put this subject to rest.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I think you missed the point. Please read the post one more time.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Great post here and please also try to see - http://www.nationofchange.org/how-dark-money-helped-republicans-hold-house-and-hurt-voters-1356192842 - It Is NO Accident that RP is a Republican and NOT an Independent! Never Give Up Exposing The Duopoly, Plutocracy and Oligarchy! Occupy True Democracy! Solidarity & Happy Holidays to you and yours & you may have misunderstood ivyquinn!

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Thanks.

Happy Holidays to you as well:)

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

For insight into Republican proclivities, see - http://www.nationofchange.org/cerberus-collected-ex-government-opportunists-1356794316 & no matter how venal you may think they are, the truth is still shocking. Never Give Up Exposing Republican Lies & Deceit! Occupy The Issues! Solidarity and best wishes for 2013.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Thanks. The same to you.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I read the information you provided However, connection to Koch, GS, or other huge multinationals are missing. (in which should be included in follow up to your direct accusation on RP. If there is no substance to that claim, it's libel.) I would like to see this thread evolve with that information.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Why do you think that's necessary?

It's irrelevant.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Every facet of the truth is relevant. If we only look at one side of the story then we are ignorant to the entire picture.

For some reason this post is being -rep'd Seems out of place for a movement that is based on truth and justice...

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

There are lots of facts that can be provided, but which are irrelevant to the discussion.

The info you want is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything.

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

It does. It provides the entire truth for those seeking it. It ends the conversation over Dr.Paul and exposes him. Instead of rhetoric we provide facts. Every single time I bring this up, regardless of who the subject is, the evidence isn't provided. Provide the truth or it's a just another bias spin.

End the spin zone forever for the sake of intellectual consciousness.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Please elaborate on what you want information about, and how it changes anything in regards to the forum post.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

"Ron Paul is an ultra right-wing republican; he’s on the side of the 1%. Always remember that."

For this direct accusation you must provide valid proof of his connection to the 1%. IE: GS, Citibank, Koch, Bilderberg, CFR, or any other giant multinationals.

Providing this information is a non-biased look at RP's policies and exposes him. Without this information we are ignoring the complete truth and only makes us blind. That's why it is relevant. Expose the entire truth or it's disinformation.

*Once again I am being -karma'd SO I ask readers...why are you afraid to expose the entire truth? Is it because the truth would disrupt the narrative? I'm purely interested in the truth. Anyone that isn't is purely breaking the system apart.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"For this direct accusation you must provide valid proof of his connection to the 1%"

No I don't. One can support and advocate policies which favor the rich, without having any specific connections with them.

[-] -3 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Thank you for clarifying that you don't care for the truth and only your agenda.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

You're not making much sense.Whether RP has direct connections to some big corporations or not is irrelevant; the point with the post was that his policies will make the rich and the corporations even more wealthy and powerful.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I am. You are subverting the truth. Provide evidence. His time as a congressman is over. His policies and view are now asinine.

PROVIDE EVIDENCE WITHOUT BIAS FOR ALL POLITICIANS.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I haven't yet bother looking for such evidence. Whether it exists or not don't change the fact that he's advocating a political system which gives the rich huge tax cuts.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

The information is out there. We should be bringing this information forward so we can expose those supporting corp. tyranny. Which was the purpose of your post was it not?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

since you won't research the forum for info, here's a youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEJXe6zTXQw

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

thank you for this video. I have seen this one. Good information.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

His (original) party was co-founded by a Koch.

What more proof do you need?

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Links. Provide evidence of his current connection to Koch, GS, or any multinational. That's all I ask. Do this we can end the RP debate in this thread and move on to true issues.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah RP is history. Maybe you should be pushing his son Rand.

Aren't they on the same page.?

Has Rand gotten in trouble for racist views?

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I oppose Rand. The evidence points to him coddling GOP narratives. If RP was connected to any sponsors like his son I'd expose him. Hence my request for evidence.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

As far as Rand being racist,

I'd be open for discussion with this subject. I have never read anything that pertains to this issue but I'd be interested if anyone had links.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

He has retired. It's all over. Don't you know that?

And he never adequately explain the old racist newsletter he put out.

Clearly he is the wrong person to follow. I suppose he is ok on war/rights violations, but he is the worst on dealing with people in need.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Thank you for bringing this up. Lew Rockwell was attributed for most of what was said in those specific letters. RP had this to say (via truth.tv)

Ron Paul has dis-avowed the letters, says he didn’t write them, but also says he accepts responsibility because he should have known, since they were published under his name. He is right about that, he was negligent.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well drink this truth. RP is a racist republican who is OVER!

He supports his right wing wacko tea party Son Rand and you have devoted many comments here in RP's defense.

A waste of time at the very least. Damaging at most.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

RP is retired. Over. You MUST find a new standard bearer. Perhaps someone RP supports.

Does RP support his son Rand?

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

First of all I am a woman. Second of all Rand and Ron are career politicians that do spin off the truth for their benefit. Now let me ask you what are your qualms with seeking the entire truth?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

He supports Rand 100%.

Tree? Meet fruit.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Well technically he isn't retired. He is campaigning to block predator drone bombings. However, that isn't to say his intentions are pure.

Well I know for a fact that Rand didn't support Dr.Paul's campaign. He was attempting to discredit him, along with the rest of the GOP.

Once again I do not support RP. I do not support any politician. I support the thirst for truth and social obedience to bring about change.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No qualms in seeking truth. Sounds like a weak distraction on your part.

Ain't I just gave you the truth. For you it is most valuable to spend less time on the racist republican Rp (who deserves to be forgotten now that he is retired) and more time on the progressive truths that "we're in this together" Not "the repub/libertarian "you're on your own" mentality.

http://www.care2.com/causes/ancient-bones-acts-of-kindness-eons-ago.html

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

We are in this together. However you are twisting what I am saying. I'm asking for evidence. I found some evidence of his connection to Koch. I am now exposing him here:

ronpaulforums.com

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Sorry. Such accounts aren't public knowledge.

I'm also sorry YOU refuse to do the research.

One MIGHT look at the actions and words of his son, the Ayn Rander, Rand.

He's as close to Biblical evil as they come.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I figured as much. Ivy can't bring himself to acknowledge the RP support of Rand because it is evidence RP is just another right wing wacko.

Just like the rotten fruit he created.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I refuse to research? All I do is research. Once again, I do not support either Ron or Rand. I support the truth. I seek the truth. However, your attempted character assassinations, without evidence, are more damaging to the movement than RP'ers are.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Mr. P is a (R)epelican't.

Nothing more needs to said, as just on the basis of that alone his career is a lie.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

You aren't telling the truth yourself...you are spinning off your view without evidence of anything. You are no better than rush himself.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But RP is over! No need for evidence against him. I am not twisting anything.

I think all libertarians are not in step with the American values that will move our country forward and make real progress lifting all people up.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

His Congress run is over. He is campaigning to block predator drone bombings without congressional approval. However, we could say the same about Rand's vote for NDAA. No government should have the pull for mass murder. I think that there's a definite libertarian paradigm being propagated, and the truth surrounding this paradigm should be exposed.

You were twisting my words. I do not support RP or Rand Paul. I support no politician, other than Jill Stein.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Are you saying he's not a (R)epelican't.

Last time I looked there WAS an (R) after his name.

Will you also now claim that one of his BIGGEST promoters wasn't Alex Jones?

Or are you calling ME a liar for presenting the truth?

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I'm not saying his intentions are pure, all I asked once again is for SFF to provide evidence of connections to the 1%.

[-] -2 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

where is the proof, there was nothing in that video other than noam chumsky's vague (look at how intillegent I sound) beligerant babble.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What are you talking about?

[-] -3 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

What an idiotic statement Noam Chumsky makes at 4:40, "We're free people, the first free people , and this was destroying and undermining that freedom" What the hell does that mean? This just proves that sounding intelligent (and boring) doesnt make you intelligent, your still just an idiot! Go back to your government bailouts of the rich so a job might trickle down for your socialist family. LOL

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Are you serious? If so, you need to watch thru that video one more time.

[-] -1 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

What is his point in a nutshell i watched it for 5 minutes as long as I could stand his rambling of nothingness, and he didnt say anything, how can someone talk so long for that long and say nothing, I quoted the part that I stopped at because he wasnt speaking in a language I could understand. If he had something to say why doesnt he just say it, talking in circles doesnt make it easy to understand. (and no people that think and talk in circles are not better people than those who speak simply so others can understand, I will never suscribe to this philosophy). If anything I say the man killed his brain with too much book study so much so that he cant even speak in a language we can understand anymore.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

That's weird. I understand perfectly well what he's talking about - and english isn't even my first language. You need to look thru it one more time, because you obviously didn't pay attention.