Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Ron Lawl Mic checked!! In Keene NH. Just 20 minutes ago

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 21, 2011, 6:01 p.m. EST by OccupyGUY23 (0) from Keene, NH
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Video will certainly come up. News teams were there but we certainly know that they will announce nothing regarding this victory for Occupy Groups across the world

297 Comments

297 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 11 points by SGH4Freedom (34) 8 years ago

Seriously? Ron PauI is NOT AN ENEMY to the 99% wtf are they doing wow. He has been taking on the ridicule and mal treatment BY HIMSELF for over 30 years, before the 99% noticed a thing (yes all of us).

Its like malcom x said "If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."

Don't let the controllers win by allowing yourself to be mis informed, the internet has plenty of resources to educate yourself, this is no excuse. ... Ron PauI 2012.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

He's not our friend either.

He's something of a pawn.

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

RonPaul on the Issues:

Total free market capitalism.

Free market health care.

Repeal Roe v. Wade.

Eliminate capital gains and estate taxes.

Eliminate the EPA.

Repeal ban on assault weapons.

Undermine UN arms control efforts.

Go to his website and read it yourself.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

Total free market capitalism.- I'm gonna be very rich one day - leave me be
Free market health care.- I aint gonna die and I dont care if you do
Repeal Roe v. Wade.- I'm a man and men control women's bodies
Eliminate capital gains and estate taxes.- capital gains tax? -
i WANT to tax the capitol - damn socialists.
e state tax? states want to tax electronics - huh?
Eliminate the EPA.- I buy my air at the local scuba shop and I, like most
responsible people - I make water and drink my own
Repeal ban on assault weapons.- how can we protect ourselves from the
mobs who want to take my stuff? I also want a pepper weapon -
sneeze em to death
Undermine UN arms control efforts.- if everyone has bombs - everyone will
be afraid to use them. Ask Archie Bunker.

The only one I like more than ron is rand.
The apple didn' t fall far from the tree
and they are both wormy

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I've been there. It makes me ill.

[-] 2 points by infectionxxx (3) 8 years ago

R0N PAUL is not a pawn, and he is certainly one of our ONLY friends in Washington. R0N Paul has more balls than any of the "anonymous," because he's taken ridicule, abuse, and flak for fighting for our most basic freedoms over the last 30 years(He NEVER changes his positions).

He worked his way through Med. School, and made his own living as a doctor. He CANNOT be bought. Lobbyists don't even bother.

Dr. R0N PAUL is the only man who refuses the FAT congressional pension(considers it immoral), and is only accepting 40k a year when he becomes president to lead by example unlike Obama(500k/yr).

Research the man, he's the only one who stands up to our careful scrutiny. Dr. R0N PAUL 2012! THINK FOR YOURSELF 99%er's!

---P.S. Your script that turns R0N PAUL into RON LAWL doesn't work if you change an "O" to a ZERO. Happy Holidays.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 8 years ago

lol Malcolm X would probably kick Ron Paul's racist ass.

[-] 3 points by infoassurance (25) 8 years ago

You are a fool Laurence Martin / Laurence Diotel. Ron Lawl is the ONLY ONE to actually support the protestors. He's been against the wars for years and his entire message is about Liberty, staying out of other country's affairs and something you don't appreciate on here... FREE SPEECH.

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

Ohhh. Nice. Divide and conquer. Someone wrote a racist article in his newsletter and now blacks don't advocate Peace, Liberty and Freedom anymore? Real cool. So much for not serving a political bias. Do you even know who Malcolm X was?

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

Ron.Paul is a friend of OWS and against the bank bailouts? Really?

Why did he say this at the debate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqau48Wz4O0&t=0m5s

It's a simple question.

[-] 4 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

Joe, you didn't watch that video I guess. He and Dennis Kucinich are the only voices against the Federal Reserve, which is the source of this financial crises. in fact, RP is much more vocal than DK.

[-] 5 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

I agree. RP and DK are the only honest politicians out there.

[-] 3 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

two of my heroes......Kucinich and Paul

[-] 2 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

Me too. I just received the YouTube link (see js290 above), it's very good footage. Don't miss it.

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

Paul/Kucinich for prez.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

could you explain to me how going back to the gold standard would be beneficial to those who have no gold or investment in futures? or was I miss informed about this aspect of his plan?

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Yes, you are misinformed....

1)where is the peoples gold from Fort Knox? Thats the gold used to back up our currency. On paper gold can be divided endlessly so the excuse there is not enough gold is bogus. Also a goldstandard ( or any other standard that represents somethng of universal intrinsic value, is to keep countries accountable towards one another). As it stands today, the U.S gets to dictate to the world how many dollars are in circulation through the Federal Reserve. If there be a goldstandard or any other standard ( does not necessarily have to be gold) the U.S would not have a monopoly on currency!

time to pick up that book!

Sound monetary policy is to creat accountability for money which would prevent monopoly!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

and how do you suggest we convince the other nations who sighed on to Bretton woods, that we want to change the rules that they now are prospering from. China has a lot of our money and they would not be happy if we changed our minds in the middle of the game. a different standard than the fiet system would make all the American Dollars in chin's coffers worthless. do you agree? we would have to give them all of fort nox, or at least a big portion.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Correction...China has a lot of our bonds that are............worthless today.

If IF you had paid attention..RUSSIA has introduced a return to the gold standard at the G20.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/g20-summit/5072484/Russia-backs-return-to-Gold-Standard-to-solve-financial-crisis.html

CHINA IS buying up goldmines RIGHT here in the US.

http://dailyreckoning.com/china-enters-the-gold-market/

THIS IS ALL OLD NEWS!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

well thank you for the links.

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

Very good video. I will spread it to everyone I know before the elections.

[Removed]

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

What about this one where Ron.Paul talked about the wonderful housing market 7 years ago?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn0EApd5wgw&t=1m39s

What about that?

[+] -5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

Really? Is that what you heard?

[-] 1 points by magik (4) 8 years ago

What did you hear JoeTheFarmer?? He said NOT to blame the victims (victims meaning the 99% who got screwed!!!) Please, listen to that video clip again (if you listened to it at all). You are really not understanding what he is saying. Ron Lawl IS A FRIEND of OWS! He has the same gripes as OWS and has been warning of this financial collapse for years! He saw this coming!

[-] 0 points by mio (5) 8 years ago

Definitely did not watch the video at all, how silly of JoeTheFarmer.

[-] -1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

could you explain to me how going back to the gold standard would be beneficial to those who have no gold or investment in futures? or was I miss informed about this aspect of his plan?

[-] 4 points by Gmartine (106) 8 years ago

Dr. Paul has advised that we should legalize competing currencies. For example, I give my friend's son guitar lessons and she gives my daughter horse riding lessons. Under current law this is illegal. The thing about a gold standard is that at least you are not being robbed constantly by the Federal Reserve.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

barter is NOT illegal - but it's cute to say it is-
just pay tax on t he transaction

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

a currency is the glue that holds a nation together, at least i believe. different currencies would entail different nations. if you'd like you can see my train of thoughts more clearly at, http://www.citicommons.com/contributors/jesse-heffran ,here. the fed is just devaluing money because the political process is broken and the job creators, ones with aspirations and currency, are waiting for a political solution. no?

[-] 1 points by Gmartine (106) 8 years ago

Actually we trade in currencies all the time in the international markets. It is very simple. The choice is do you want to be able to own your wealth or do you want a quasi-government agency stealing your wealth through inflation.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

If we were to divide the nation’s currencies into different segments, wouldn’t it be the beginning of state successions along the lines of currency boundaries. Also, say we could live with fifty currencies, or so many regional currencies, and still be one nation, wouldn’t that be the same rational that the United Nations is arguing for when it wants currency matters and trade to be addressed in its halls.

[-] 0 points by Gmartine (106) 8 years ago

an international currency is much more dangerous than localities determining their own trade. We have a local farmers market who create credits for the vendors and people who participate. This is technically illegal but it really helps the local economy.

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

i was not suggesting one currency. i believe that would just fix the world problem for a few at the expense of others. I am suggesting a political mechanism, like our federal government used to be, to address trade problems internationally. market forces rely too much on winners and losers. and the losers always feel wronged by the system, then start screamin' foul or evil conspiracies at foot, which I don't buy.

[-] 1 points by E42 (3) 8 years ago

Its not about instantly decreeing all dollars worthless (thereby bankrupting me, you, bill gates, and virtually everyone in between with the exception of gold mining companies and a few saavy investors.)

rather it's saying that the dollars would be linked to a set amount of gold. "dollars" as an entity would still exist but each dollar would stand for a set amount of gold, thereby preventing a government from merely "creating" dollars in excess of the gold backing it to 'lend' to their favorite corporate donors, or to fund foreign wars or wars on drugs that, if people were required to pay out of pocket for, would be politically untenable.

[-] 2 points by E42 (3) 8 years ago

(e.g.: you take the biggest anti-muslim anti-drug bible belter and tell him "O.K. sure we'll wage wars on drugs, muslims, gays, whatever you want, but it'll cost you. And not 'cost you in some distant future or in some vague deficit sense, i mean, heres a bill for the actual cost of those policies" and watch how fast he changes his tune)

in other words, "dollars" are titles to wealth. and creating titles to wealth does not create more wealth"

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

that sounds logical. and all those things you despise, i too am not proud that my nation partakes in. but those are political matters, not currency problems. maybe, if more people participated in policy creation through the internet, then those atrocities could be done away with. no?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

but in order to do international trade we would have to get everyone else to change their Brenton wood agreements. it seem less messy to just redistribute through political processes. I am not being difficult. i am just looking at it from a world perspective, then working my way down to the different world segments. if you are mad at the fed, tell the one percent to stop hording or entice China to give back our money through diplomatic means.

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

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

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 8 years ago

The heart of the Redemption scheme is one of the oldest and most dearly held of all patriot myths: the Federal Reserve conspiracy. In 1909, according to this myth, the United States could no longer pay its debts and entered into negotiations with international bankers, who gave the U.S. a 20-year moratorium on paying its debt in return for the establishment of a Federal Reserve Bank to be owned by international bankers. Two decades later, suggests the myth, the United States defaulted on this debt and went into bankruptcy, which is what really started the Depression. Four years later, in 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, by creating a “national emergency” and taking the country off the gold standard, ended legitimate constitutional rule. From that point on, the government operated largely through deception (as to its unconstitutionality), deliberately mixing public, private, and martial laws, rules and practices. Redemption theories in particular reference House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192), passed in 1933, which they interpret as a declaration of bankruptcy

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

so you are saying, my nation for my whole life has been in a state of receivership. Well, if that is the case, then why has my standard of living, when I don't compare it to the Jones', always been good. And why did it only take an act of terror to implement the patriot act. if we were under receivership, couldn't the bankers just take our rights with a stroke of the pen.

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

Good questions. It is called an incremental society. We "citizens" consent to all of this because we don't realize we have a choice. The govt has always been a solid rock growing up and questioning it was a secondary thought to most. Especially for those who had their hands tied into the river of free money from the govt (politician bribery, welfare, credit cards and business loans). Until the economic bubble popped no one had a reason to question the system. And yes, the bankers could have taken our shit any time but it would be at the risk of discovery. If we wake up and see what is happening, we can recognize that governments are suppose to be representing the people. Then we can take steps to getting the corporate shrills out and reinstating our constitution.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

you don't believe that our government acts the way it does because a big proportion of people don't vote or can't.

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

I do believe that. But what can you do to get those people to vote? And why do you think they don't vote? There are several things that make someone not care about voting. The biggest factor is the fact that most men and women here in the US are constantly worried about themselves. We have future anxieties when we're kids and past anxieties like debt when we grow up. The economy is set up so that the only people who have time to fully analyze current affairs are the ones who already have money and don't need to think about debt. No one tries to look outside this paradigm because they're too busy trying to free themselves. Fluoride is another proven factor in our docile nature. Sickness is another. We are the sickest nation in the world on top of being the biggest consumers in the world. Coincidence??

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

I agree with every word you wrote. but we chose to be consumers. just like we can choose to think about others before we rise the ladder of success. kinda like what is happening now

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

We chose to be consumers just around the time that our government demonstrated the value of Game Theory during the Cold War. Game Theory assumes every opponent in the world will betray you if given the opportunity so the only way to defend yourself is to look out for yourself. AND ONLY YOURSELF. This is how we became so obsessed with our ego's. This is also the reason we have suicides, eating disorders and "mental disorders." Anyone who doesn't conform to society (the way it is) will fall into one of these categories because they don't know there is any other way. How do we wake these people up? Well, I plan to start by energizing myself and other occupiers to get the fluoride out of our water. We have already started a buy-local campaign. I also plan to vote for Ron Lawl for his 1 trillion cut and his competing currencies (legalizing bartering). But that is just me ;). As for the people on the ladder of success... well, their ladder will be pretty crowded with people trying to get down once we start bring our own gold-backed ladders.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

how would china feel if we changed our accounting practices? and if we decided to go with gold, wouldn't we have to give allot, if not all, of it to china? that would leave us in the same predicament. no? google Bretton woods and fiet money.

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

China is already weaning itself off our debt. This is why we see a lot of problems coming to a head. China will not be a problem unless we initiate a trade war. WTO has got to go and we need to start USING our diplomats.

[-] 1 points by SapereAude (9) from New York City, NY 8 years ago

The US are bankrupt and withdraw attention from Europe and the Middle East and focus on their new masters in the pacifics. Because the Chinese own them. You cannot start a trade war as the weaker party. The US strategists imagine a strategic focus on Asia but they don't have a strategy. And they do not realise that the United States became their poodle. Just like the British Empire became the poodle of the US.

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

the solution: Allow competing currencies. Let the federal reserve notes hyper-inflate or deflate (depending on how fast the people can transfer their funds). Truck those notes over to the Chinese. We have to remember that currency does not have to be backed by gold so the physical gold displacement isn't necessarily an immediate issue. Let the chinese have our dollars if it's the dollars they want. I suspect they'd rather have our free trade so it's in their best interest to be civil.

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

plus we need to stop thinking in terms of debt if we want to overcome the fed. Our income taxes go directly to the banking cartel known as the fed to go toward our "debt". I assume if China wanted to collect on our "debt" with them they could accept free trade as payment.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

cool, i can get behind both of those statements. i just feel that when the fed is used appropriately, and not by a ayn rand pupil, greenspan, that it is a good mechanism to usurp political stalemates. those of us who are in debt will find that the bankers will loose in the long run if money devaluation happens quicker than compound interest rises. no? if our political system was not obfuscated, redistribution would happen peacefully through voting. and then the job creators, middle america, would have money to expand.

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

The problem lies in the fact that it is a bank. The Federal Reserve is not federally operated and does not have a reserve. Therefore, it is only a bank to control interest rates and make risky loans to puppet governments and gambling banks. The fed charges interest for theses loans, nobody knows who collects this interest. It would be better if we had an actual reserve and an actual system of increasing our money supply for infrastructural purposes. But the establishment would rather this topic be discussed as a fringe idea.

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 8 years ago

Not I, the far right has for many many years.

[-] 4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

Sorry - I'm not a Lawl fan. I know many who are. Banks getting a bail-out is - to my mind - not the issue.

The issue is the circumstances that made the bailouts necessary, the instances of fraud in the sub-prime market that as yet have not been brought to a court of law.

The issue is the banks holding that bail-out money, and not circulating it, not lending it.

The issue is new bank fees, even when they refuse to circulate the money in their possession.

That's my opinion. IF the bailouts hadn't taken place we would all think we were back in the 1930s.

[-] 2 points by parish32 (16) from Mt Wolf, PA 8 years ago

The bad investments have to be liquidated. The longer that they prolong the liquidation, the worse that things are going to get. FDR's policies did not end the depression - his policies made the depression worse. We only got out of the depression once we came home from WW2.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

That is a misconception. You may cling to it if you wish. I will not vote for anyone who holds such views.

Why?

I will explain - in the faint hope that somehow it may click -

The depression was caused by over production. Car makers, for example, did not understand that the market was limited in size, and the efficiency of the production line permitted them to produce far more goods than the market could absorb. Once they reached market saturation people stopped buying, the production line stopped, and everything fell apart.

And so now we have planned obsolescence. This is fact that I hate, I think it a poor solution.

As for the length of time it took to emerge from the depression, it is wrong to blame FDR or his policies. War in Europe demanded tremendous raw material and manpower, and this demanded sacrifice on the part of the American people.

You may prefer that people starve in the streets when market instability produces widespread economic failure -

I do not.

I will not vote for anyone who says flat out - FDR policy as a whole was bad for America - that such statements seem to appear far and wide is nothing more than a demonstration of the ability of deregulationists to disinform and to market nonsense.

[-] 1 points by OccupyGOP (39) 8 years ago

There is no such thing as overproduction, efficiency is a good thing. If a company goes bankrupt because it cannot sell its products for a profit for whatever reason those assets can be purchased cheaply by others who can then sell profitably at the new lower market prices (or if there is no demand for the product they can retool and produce something else that is in demand). FDR's policies caused people to starve in the streets, he was trying to keep the price of food from falling by destroying food. They actually killed cows and buried them in pits while literally millions of people were starving to death. The market was bringing prices down which helps poor people but FDR was trying to protect big agribusinesses who might have gone bankrupt, thus allowing their assets to be purchased on the cheap by individuals who could put them to use producing food at a lower cost to feed the poor. FDR caused the depression to last much longer than it would have if he had simply allowed the normal market clearing process to work, trying to prop up prices is not good for poor people.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

There is no such thing as overproduction, efficiency is a good thing.

You should have studied harder in history class.

If there are one million people clamoring for an Edsel or a Model T, and there are two companies producing these products that are in demand, and if both companies produce enough cars to meet three quarters of that demand then obviously there is a problem. I presume you are no better at word problems than you are at history, so here:

1,000,000 does not equal -

750,000 times 2

It is less than the total of 750,000 times 2, by one third.

Now. Consider. This took place before the era of planned obsolescence.

What does this mean? It means that instead of reaching market saturation and staying there for 5 years, it means they reached market saturation for far longer.

Perhaps you would benefit if you were to

Occupy Your Mind

for a bit, before you spout more jibberish.

[-] 0 points by thersalwysnxtyr (5) from Traverse City, MI 8 years ago

we are headed for the 30s right now. the bailouts and the spending glut only serve to up heave our natural ability to create a stable economic structure. take a look at the depression of 1920. the dip was steeper than that of the great depression, but because liquidation was allowed to happen, within a year they not only recovered, but the structure of the economy was better than before. and we dont even know about it. we have now had 2 crystal clear examples of economic intervention (this one and the great depression), that are seemingly endless.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

had gm failed for example, there would have been one million more Americans out of work.

It's like a complex eco system. Since that eco system transports food to people, we need to be very careful in how it falls apart.

no bailouts is a no solution solution.

[-] -1 points by thersalwysnxtyr (5) from Traverse City, MI 8 years ago

liquidation is a solution. it means that those resources that GM owns get sold to ford or toyota or kia, etc. they take that equipment and that market void and continue to make vehicles. those people might not all get their jobs back, but new jobs are created to offset the fall in jobs, and, if successfully run, there are more jobs available in the future. the liquidation took it out of the hands of the irresponsible, and put it in the hands of the more responsible.

there is no good reason that they couldnt turn a profit given their market share. instead, the bailout rewarded the irresponsible people and subsidized the structure that has proven itself faulty.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

nice theory. Too bad it couldn't have worked at the time.

The entire auto industry shrank by the time GM took that bailout. No one was interested in purchasing their equipment.

What you are suggesting is simply a dream that does not fit the reality in any way shape or form.

[-] 1 points by OccupyGOP (39) 8 years ago

There is always someone interested in purchasing equipment it is just a matter of price. If there is no demand for cars (which of course is not true billions of people across the planet want cars it is just a matter of providing them at the right price), then that equipment could be retooled and used to produce something else that is in demand. If GM went bankrupt it would have allowed for entrepreneurs to purchase plant and equipment for cheap and they could then produce at a lower cost thus making them more competitive which allows them to create more jobs. Propping up prices with bailouts does not help poor consumers, it only helps fat cats on the receiving end of taxpayer funded corporate welfare.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

You must be a college student, first year perhaps. A member of the young repelicans . . .

Such speculation occurs to me because only someone young and inexperienced would propose such theory using GM as the example. The reason repelicans avoid discussion of this portion of the bailout is because it can quickly discredit their entire position on everything from the bailouts were bad for the economy to FDR's new deal was bad for the people.

It can quickly be shown thus:

Estimates are that over one million jobs would have been lost, had GM not been kept afloat. Over One Million Jobs. I would presume that each job represented an income far in excess of thirty thousand dollars annual income.*

That is: Thirty Thousand Dollars, Times One Million People. Suddenly it is clear that is a lot of money taken out of the economy on an annual basis. Some of that money supports housing debt - already an economic sector in disarray. Some of that money goes to the treasury, in the form of taxes, whether income, sales, or other. Tax revenue is already depressed. Some of that money goes to support local businesses in the communities where it is earned - another sector of the economy feeling pressure.

those plants would have shuttered and remained idle for years.

And I know well some of the reasons repelicans found that bailout so objectionable - a private company taken over by a government who then asserts partial ownership? and who goes so far as to remove its CEO?

HEAVENS!

Interestingly enough, that ceo had made statements about a year earlier indicating that there was no need for GM to seriously consider production of an alternative energy motor vehicle, because there was no demand, and that there was no demand because there is no global warming.

A green economy is coming. CEOs who do not see and accept this position placetheir corporations in a very dark and very dead end.

If you intend to be a mouth piece for lies, I suggest you return to your study. You have much too learn. Just be aware that by the time you are ready the repelican party will already have ceased to be.

z

[-] 4 points by Gmartine (106) 8 years ago

Ron Lawl or Dr.Paul? Hopefully they were respectful towards Dr. Paul. He has been fighting the corrupt banks, the military industrial complex and police state before many of the 99% have been alive.

[-] 3 points by WarmItUp (301) 8 years ago

Unfortunately he also wants to make it so your water and food are not regulated, that is where I draw the line, you can eliminate the department of homeland security but I want my childs drinking water to be regulated

[-] 3 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

You are uninformed. I am a liberal who has checked out Ron Paul for the past six years and he is the most misunderstood of his time. I do have to say, American libertarians don't do a very good job explaining libertarianism. it comes with the territory. But if there is a lone soul standing for the Rule of Law...it is Ron Paul.

[-] 6 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Sorry, but you are uninformed. Lunar Op is the ultimate pro-corporation, free-market, anti-environment candidate out there. He makes Herman Cain look like Gil Scott-Heron.

Please read his positions on the issues before you go spouting any more nonsense.

[-] 2 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

I understand this board is riddled with administrators in order to keep Liberty off the platform.

If you cannot distinguish between Herman Cain and co ( the rest of the Rep candidates ) and Ron Paul, I suggest you keep out of the exchanges because you make yourself an utter fool by inserting yourself.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

An utter fool spouts lies as truth. Look at Lunar Op's issues page before you start making claims to the contrary.

That being said, it would be very interesting to see him in a real debate with BO.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

I came to this country with my eyes wide open 24 years ago. Your Gay Military personell would beg for political assylum in MY homecountry when I was a teenager. You want to lecture me on WHO stands for WHAT? You got to be kidding me. As a diehard liberal I have checked out every single position this man stands for. If you cannot grasp how to follow the logic of the Constitution you do not deserve its benefits. This is the epitome of public education in THIS country and trust me, I have kids, I know what is wrong here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QkmLnNEvdU Why don't you do your bloody homework on the Federal Reserve buddy?

Ron Paul: "Libertarianism is the enemy of all racism" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnPnAJeVuvw

Ron Paul on Gays in the Military( btw RP did vote to get rid of DADT) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnRkUJjazU&feature=related

Ron Paul Talks About Abortion - Republican Debate (9/22/2011) For the morning after pill and for abortion with regards to rape! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHm4UF0EJWo

Ron Paul: Offensive War Is Un-American! Close All U.S. Military Bases around the World! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fOUb9YZYUM

Ron Paul: End Marijuana Prohibition Now! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHBCsPYuKIs&feature=relmfu

On Ground Zero Mosque Issue - Ron Paul on Sanjay Gupta's Show ( on hate and Islamophobia) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ2wil9kx7E

Ron Paul - "Read the Constitution!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibJfK1XfY8w

Ron Paul Destroys Rick Santorum On Iran! - Iowa Republian Presidential Debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi12aVa3psc

You and your ilk are not going to silence those who did do their homework!

[-] 2 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 8 years ago

The constitution is a somewhat reactionary document. Those who worship it are extremely reactionary. There is nothing liberal/progressive about you. That lie is the worst thing.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Ok...one question.

Explain to me what the Bill of Rights is and whom it applies to.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

It isn't the constitution, for one thing. Hence the term "amendment."

[-] 1 points by OccupyGOP (39) 8 years ago

The bill of rights and all amendments to the constitution for that matter are by definition part of the constitution. Have you ever read it?

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

The initial point was that the constitution, as written, was a reactionary document. It reflected conservative Federalist values, made more prominent by the absence of Jefferson, Paine, Henry and Samuel Adams. The Bill of Rights rectified many of the anti-Federalists' concerns - doesn't change the character of the original as written. Many aspects of that reactionary nature remained - or otherwise Jefferson's ideal of the "informed masses" would have beat out the aristocratic tendencies of the Republican form.

Yes, I have.

[-] 0 points by OccupyGOP (39) 8 years ago

"It isn't the constitution, for one thing" Your words not mine; the bill of rights and all the other amendments are part of the constitution today contrary to your objectively false claim. No one ever said anything about the constitution minus the amendments, the point you responded was about the bill of rights which are part of the constitution as it stands.

That being said I agree with you that the anti federalists were right, Patrick Henry was right the constitution was flawed, his "great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility—and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves" has proved true. That does not mean that the liberal progressive national socialist agenda is good, go read Patrick Henry over again http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html he is a staunch advocate of states rights and individual liberty he would be a Ron.Paul supporter if he were alive today he would not be in favor of further empowering the national government, giving king like power to the President to send armed forces to foreign nations, giving the federal government the power to force individuals to purchase health insurance etc.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

"war against the states"

Says everything we should know about you. We'd have either slavery or a divided union, had it been up to you, apparently. I think Ron Lawl is of the same mind, and so your support makes sense.

Good luck with that.

[-] 0 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

The anti-Federalists would have been horrified to find out that the states did less to protect civil rights than the federal government. They were wrong for the right reasons.

Lincoln would have converted them all, and in the same moment turned many of the Federalists into states' rights proponents. In fact, that's exactly what happened, and so the factions re-aligned - until the 60s, when it happened again.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Oioioiii...You want me to spell it out for you?

What is it and to WHOM does it apply?

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Blah blah, blah blah blah, Hayek, blah blah blah liberty blah. Blah?

Just as useful as any other conversation with you. So, thanks, I've enjoyed it.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

exactly....blah blah blah is all you can give me!

That in itself says enough!

Now go study what the Rule of Law is supposed to be because it is NON existent today!

[-] 0 points by OccupyGOP (39) 8 years ago

The constitution is the reason we have a president, congress etc. Are you saying you don't think that the people elected to those positions should uphold their oath to the supreme law of our land? What are you in favor of? A free for all where anyone elected to those positions can do whatever they want? I say we enforce the law and demand that it be obeyed, lest we end up in a dictatorship.

[-] 0 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Why don't you look at Lunar Op's positions on the issues and debate them here?

[-] 2 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Why should I educate those cannot grasp their own Constitution and do their actual homework by viewing the vids I posted?

You are here to continue the propaganda that Ron Paul is a lunatic while it is our current President who is not only violating the Constitution on a dialy basis ( read left wing Constitutional Attorney Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com for daily updates on this ) but also let the Bush adminstration off for warcrimes like torture.

Your agenda and that of a few others is quite appearent for those of us who have lived on other continents, speak other languages and have travelled the world. The United States is an isolated , indoctrinated and poorly educated country and a hardcore Banana Republic. Its too bad you feel compelled to hold up the Status Quo and resort to intellectual dishonesty.

[-] 0 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Keep avoiding the issues and insulting those who challenge you. That makes a great case, but not for what you think it does.

Do not speak for me. I don't support BO any more than Lunar Op.

Anytime you want to debate Lunar Op's positions on the issues, I will be happy to oblige. Until then you are just foaming at the mouth like a rabid squirrel.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Who is doing the namecalling and the censorship here?

This site does not allow for the name Ron Paul to be typed in normally and secondly who the hell is Lunar Ops? See what I am saying? Start practicing what you preach!

Not to talk about your reference to me as 'foaming at the mouth like a rabid squirrel"

You do NOT want debate because that is not your perogative. Your perogative is to make Ron Paul and his supporters all to be lunatics and your strategy is to namecall often.

So bring it on. One topic at the time and I will guide you through the Constitution ;)

[-] 0 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Read the rules to see why his name was changed. "Lunar Ops" is an anagram of RonPaul.

Stop doing the things you accuse me of. I'm still waiting for you to debate Lunar Op's positions on the issues.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

'I am still waiting for you to debate Ron Pauls positions on the issues'

Start with watching the links I posted . Pick one and I will lead you through them

;)

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Start with the third post from the top: RonPaul on the Issues

It's kind of hard to miss.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

RonPaul on the Issues:

Total free market capitalism.

Free market health care.

Well yeh..for those who believe we have true free market capitalism. We don't! We have Corporatism...which is the merger of Government with Corporations and Banks.

If we would have had free market capitalism, the government would be SEPARATED from the market doing what it is supposed to do 1) hold corporations accountable legally and 2) provide oversight.

Today, we have government aiding corporations not just financially but also with legislation. Top excecutives of corporations interchange their positions with govt and visa versa. Take a Dick Cheney. CEO of Halliburton and a Condi Rice..former CEO of Chevron and the list goes on and on and on.

Adam Smith talked about the requirements of true free market in his book Wealth of Nations and Antonia Juhasz touches on this very subject as well in her book 'The Bush Agenda' invading the World, one economy at the time.

page 85) 'I have always found this to be one of the most glaring examples of the failure of corporate globalization. Adam Smith, the eighteenth century economist, philosopher and founder of modern day capitalist theory, asserted the the key tenet of a FREE MARKET and the ONLY way for the invisible hand to operate is if consumers have PERFECT information which means complete access to all information about the goods they may wish to buy. In the age of globalization, production is so far removed from the consumer and so hidden by the producer that it is virtually impossible for consumers to make informed decisions and hold companies accountable for destructive, harmful, unjust, unethical or even illegal practices'

YOUR government is aiding in the process to ensure corporations do not have to include information on their labels through the forever revolving door between corp and government and individuals moving back and forth in high govt positions to CEO positions in Big Corp.

This should be made impossible. Either you work for the Govt or you work for a big Corporation but the horrendous amount of people that move back and forth so they can ensure legislation is written to enhance big corporations and banks is devastating.

[-] 5 points by WarmItUp (301) 8 years ago

Sorry But I have watched him at most of the debates (granted he doesn't get much time, but everytime he says he wants to get rid of regulating water and air and eliminate the epa and the Fda I just cringe, why does everyone have to be so extreme, you can eliminate the excess but why would you eliminate testing childrens toys for lead that come in from china do you really think the corporations are going to regulate themselves, Please read Upton SInclaires the Jungle to remember what living in a libertarian society was like. We did already live through that kind of government, we had child labor we had terrible food quality people would die from chemical poisoning at factories. It is not all about deregulating everything, the things that keep us safe have some value. We deregultaed the banking industry under the bush presidents in within years they used those new deregulations to make risky bets and destroy the economy some regulations need to be in place clearly, and htis is coming from a person who is fiscally conservative I don't like seein gmy tax dollars spent but I do want to be safe from bankers gambling my pension and companies dumping toxic wast in my streams

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

The premise you are starting with is that only government can regulate business activity.

This is an incorrect premise so moving down in thought from this premise will lead you to bad conclusions.

A centralized regulating system simply makes it easier for businesses to control (by giving a few contributions to the Congresspeople who sit on the committee who overseas the regulating agency) as well as attracts those who are corrupted to hold that power so they can receive favors (cushy positions after their public service term are done). In return they allow the businesses themselves to create the regulations which are easy for existing businesses to deal with but make competing against the business hard - by increasing the overhead costs of lawyers needed to start and increase the time until any profit is had in the hopes new competition will run out of money by then. Additionally checks of regulation are few and far between and all of the above takes time and money to process.

Conversely a distributed regulation system faces none of those problems. It allows spontaneous regulation and constant feedback with no additional costs. It is incorruptible as there is no power network. If there is a gross violation due to force or fraud the court system exists to correct and the more gross the violation the larger the punishment will be. This distributed regulation system occurs naturally in the market via social pressure, and consumer reactions - augmented with the just role of government in prosecuting force or fraud we achieve an equilibrium without cost and being much much harder to corrupt.

[-] 0 points by googlerothbard (2) 8 years ago

Upton Sinclaire's THE JUNGLE is a work of fiction which was put together in order to promote Teddy Roosevelt's initiative of creating the FDA. It was just propaganda! Also, Ron Lawl does not want to just give everybody free rein to do what ever they want, there would still be property rights, fraud laws; laws against the use of force, and coercion; and the strongest regulator known to man, the market place.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

But again...true free market capitalism has requirements that need to be in place.

1) sound monetary policy

2) a solid legal justice system.

We have neither today.

And it is NOT Libertarianism failing today. It is Corporatism ( welfare for the rich) that is.

The deregulation that happened under Reagan and Co....was the deregulation of Keynesian economics backed by fiat currency, today's system and NOT deregulation of free market capitalism.

Our current system is a collectivist system...that is failing.

Free market capitalism is not a collectivist format.

[-] 0 points by WarmItUp (301) 8 years ago

Why would a legal justice system be necessary in a totally deregulated society, there would be no regulations to enforce lets get rid of the judicial branch of government too while we are at it, lets call it what it is Anarchy. No government sounds like what you really are talking about. I used to actually like Ron P. until he started saying really extreme things. I sure as hell do not trust corporate america to regulate themselves, what planet are you on.

[-] 1 points by FattyFatty2x4 (13) from Anchorage, AK 8 years ago

The Legal Justice System(or judicial branch of government) is there to enforce the law and protect our constitutional rights, not regulations made up by federal agencies. There is a big difference between a regulation and a law.

[-] -1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 8 years ago

A "libertarian" society isn't a totally deregulated society. You can't destroy someone else property (thus the term "property rights"). There are also crimes in which people's liberties are violated (rape, theft, murder, assault, slavery, etc.).

So you would still need a judicial system when a factory pollutes the water, air, or soil on your property and you want to sue them.

But, also, we don't elect Kings. In reality, even if Dr. Paul is elected President there is still a Congress that actually writes all the laws. President Paul wouldn't be able to bring about a complete libertarian government, he'd be able to work on things like ending the wars, and corporate welfare, and auditing the fed, and also try to balance the budget, you know, things he can hopefully get a majority of the Congress to work with him on, but with other things, remember, he'll be working with people on it. That is the world we live in.

So, it really is about stopping the Wars and corporate welfare. Everything else assumes too much power from the President (even with the Bush and Obama power grabs).

[-] 3 points by WarmItUp (301) 8 years ago

that is the most realistic sensible post I have hear from a ron p supporter all night. So far it has been name calling and negativity and people not being able to explain their position clearly

[-] 4 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 8 years ago

That is a major challenge for all people right now; learning how to communicate. Once we learn how to communicate without putting people down, we will accomplish great things as people.

[-] -1 points by js290 (19) 8 years ago

Deregulation doesn't work because of our fiat monetary system. There's inherent regulation in fiat money. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-18-2007/alan-greenspan

"If you have an entity that can print, actually manufacture as much money as it wants, and you have legal tender laws… now the government is the master, and the people are the servants." http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/10/11/Metro/25360.html

[-] -1 points by WarmItUp (301) 8 years ago

I am for getting rid of the fed I don't need to be convinced of that, like I said I could go for Ron P. If it was just get rid of fed, and homeland security but when we get into bodies that regulate safety and how banks can trade I want them regulated, do we get rid of regulations on insider trading, it is not so black and white as you all are making it, why can't we have less regulation, not total deregulation, some regulations actually protect your pension from being gambled away in illegal trading. Or do we all put our money under our mattress in a Ron p. Society

[-] 1 points by googlerothbard (2) 8 years ago

If my pension got gambled away in illegal trading or without my consent that would be theft and a breach of my contract, that would be signed with the company that would be doing the trading, so there would be laws that would cover that.

[-] 1 points by js290 (19) 8 years ago

Don't underestimate your power as a consumer to regulate. You just need a monetary system that doesn't rob that power from you.

[-] -2 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

It is...it is THE requirement necessary for true free markets., Adam Smith talked about it. Friedrich Hayek talked about it.....

Free Market Capitalism CANNOT exist without these requirements. They are THE regulation for free market.

Maybe time to actually pick up a book? Because that is what I did.

And FYI Corporate America IS regulating itself.....NOW! Through the Lobbying process where government is in bed with Big Corp and Banks with government being the corrupting link instead of being the referree doing the oversight and accountability.

I am on the planet of information instead of rethoric and not knowing what I am talking about.

[-] 6 points by 666isMONEY (348) 8 years ago

Greenspan (ultra libertarian) was against regulation by the SEC and that's why we have the trouble we're in. http://www.flickr.com/photos/666_is_money/3187334305/

Fed isn't the problem, the persons running it and money/markets are.

We don't need "sound money" but to abolish money.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

But Greenspan was NOT practicing anything he preaches, just like Ronnie Reagan and Milton Friedman.

Also Greenspan somehow believes the Fed Reserve is ABOVE anybody in government.

According to our Constitution NOBODY is above the law nor the Rule of Law. Everybody has to answer to someone within our Constitutional Scheme!

Out of his own mouth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QkmLnNEvdU

[-] -2 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

Green span is a sell out who was paid off to do the 666 business,

money is a tool like a hammer,

[+] -4 points by enjoiskaterguy (16) 8 years ago

Libertarianism is strictly opposed to central planning of the monetary system so Greenspan could not have been a libertarian, but a Keynesian ,central planner.

[+] -5 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

What is extreme?, corporate America only has power through centralized govt and they squash their competition through the boom and bust cycle monopolizing the system from the top down.

Govt is there to be objective non partisan and enforce voluntary contracts, when the govt is the one making and breaking contracts who do you turn to?

Rule of thumb when govt gets involved with the economy it distorts the market and has no pricing mechanism, when this occurs market signals are misinterpreted and it swings capital in sectors it most likely would have never done.

So prices go up and quality goes down hence the DMV, until it hits its unsustainable limits (like a ponzi scheme) the bubble collapses and we have what we have.

the next bubble is the financial sector and especially BONDS/fiat currency the route of this evil

[+] -4 points by economicsguy (16) 8 years ago

And people used to die from scurvy and we lined our classrooms with asbestos.

Yes, things were rougher in earlier times. But we learn and improve.

I think you're confusing what keeps us safe. One thing huge regulating bureaucracies like the FDA ensure is opportunity corruption, inefficiency, and powerful lobbyists (like drug companies) to tilt things more in their favor than that of the public.

No company operating in a free market will survive very long making unsafe products.

As for deregulating the banks and the resulting mess that's more complicated to explain, because it's part of a larger problem -- the inflationary environment and distorted markets caused by the Federal Reserve.

[-] 3 points by WarmItUp (301) 8 years ago

No, agecies like the FDA do not ensure corruption and lobbyists, deregulation has made it easier for lobbyists to have access to those agencies, if we make some minor regulations such as corporations can not lobby congress only single human voters can. that little piece of regulation would quickly get rid of the problem and make sure our food is safe to eat. you can't just say I can put poison in your food and the market will regulate that eventually, some things like tobacco smoke take decades to cause cancer how do suppose the free market deals with things like that, especially when it comes to the safety of children who are not old enough to know better. why can't you just have some safety regulations, I would totally be on board with Ron P. if he focused on cutting spending and not on cutting all safety regulations can you see how that is a waste of your time as no one in their right mind would ever give up their safety fo rsome idea that the free market will protect us better than a National Health Institute Scientists that knows that cigarettes kill

[+] -4 points by RobWaters (-4) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

You say that like it would have a chance in hell at passing in the first place. When the problem is a corrupt government getting in bed with big biz (like the FDA and monsanto), you shouldn't expect that government to willingly stop their practices. This is just common sense.

And as a last point, he has never once said that he would eliminate all regulations, just that they would be handled at the state level. You already have an EPA in your state, why would the one in Washington be better suited to your needs? Why not just have ANOTHER EPA at the UN and follow all their rules too?

I would suggest doing a little research into what Dr. Paul is actually advocating, and not just parroting whatever you hear.

[-] 2 points by WarmItUp (301) 8 years ago

I am parroting what I hear from Ron Lawl speaking in the debates, if I am not understanding correctly he and his supporters are not doing a good job of explaining. I want government out of most of my life but I want regulations where they are effective and no we do not need the redundancy of 50 of hte same agencies when one of them is enough. and all the name calling and the negativity that I keep hearing from R.P supporters are really turning me off, I am not 100% against him I like ending the fed and military and some other ideas but it is just too extreme and black and white what most of you are saying

[-] 2 points by economicsguy (16) 8 years ago

You are missing the difference in LEVEL of regulation. The further away from the problem the more waste, inefficiency, room for corruption there is.

Look at the Department of Education. That's a federal level solution to local school problems. How has that worked out? Our educational system is a mess.

What about FEMA? How stellar is their record for efficiency and satisfaction?

[-] 1 points by rudysfire (5) 8 years ago

that's not true. He wants to leave it at state rule (10th amendment). Last time I checked, the quality of water is different in every community and is often disgusting so it doesn't look like the current system is all that great. And on food- why is the FDA pulling raids on raw milk producers, putting restraints on vitamins and organic foods, and endorsing the nasty chemicals that ruin all of it?

The intension is, the reason why we should get most things out of the federal level is, although some things can be federal successes, there are many more federal failures and federal mistakes. I think that ought to be the argument that can bring both liberals and conservatives together; that way, if you don't like the way things are run in one state, you can simply move to another. Since we're all super divided 50/50 and can't agree on everything... honestly, I think this is the best way to go... it's sort of a set-up, agree-to-disagree system :)

[-] 1 points by Gmartine (106) 8 years ago

Ok, so you want some federal thugs going to your local occupy testing the hot coffee before it is dispensed? Nah, they would just shut down any coffee or water dispensing so all the occuppiers can just suffer. Just like the GOV banning tents so they can freeze. STATES ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF HANDLING THEIR WATER ISSUES.... WE DON'T NEED A CORRUPT FDA THAT SPENDS IT'S TIME CLOSING DOWN LEMONADE STANDS WHILE GETTING BACKROOM DEALS WITH LARGE OIL COMPANIES....... Get a clue....

[-] 1 points by jiradog (92) 8 years ago

I work for a state health department (VA). Actually we regulate your drinking water. The EPA has almost nothing to do with it. You really have nothing to worry about. If the EPA disappeared your water would be just fine. Go ahead and vote Ron Lawl.

[-] 0 points by FattyFatty2x4 (13) from Anchorage, AK 8 years ago

He wants the states to take back the responsibility of regulation. Just because he is against the federal government having powers that are unconstitutional does not mean he is against all regulation. That is a prime example of being headline educated.

I am not going to try and convert you but you have to listen to or read his words in context and understand the underlying philosophy. It is not like his ideas are new and he just came up with them for the 2012 campaign.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

Think a moment, without standard regulation, what is legal in one state is illegal in another. This applies to everything from transportation to goods and services.

Interstate commerce would be even more difficult than it now is, I'm not even talking about 'big business' but rather the small businesses that conduct business across state lines.

We already have variances that make such difficult, by giving states the responsibility of regulating such things moves the responsibility of financing the regulations moving the burden to local citizenry which would unconscionably burden the states with the lesser populations.

Lots of things 'look good on paper', but the application leaves much to be desired.

[-] 0 points by Renaye (522) 8 years ago

Dr. Paul knows that deregulating them will take them out of the hands of the monsters that are putting poison in them now. He's all for super healthy people, advocates for vitamins and minerals which are being very quickly banned so big corporations can make a gazillion dollars off them instead. Dr. Paul knows what he's doing. Look up Monsanto Monstrosity.

[-] -2 points by economicsguy (16) 8 years ago

It's not that you want your child's drinking water to be regulated, you want it to be safe, right? There is a difference.

I can dig up a news article where they were dumping jet fuel in the ocean years ago in California.

The problem with regulations is the government is not very efficient. For example, the BP oil spill could have been prevented and lives saved if they didn't FLAT IGNORE basic safety checks and monitoring. But the bloated federal agency overseeing was basically going to parties with them.

Dr. Paul believes in strong property and contract rights, so you can't pollute your neighbor's property. People can provide better enforcement than the government.

Besides, if there are some that DO like regulations for some things it can be done at the State level, which Dr. Paul has always said. Problems are better solved (and regulated if need be) closer to the problem.

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 8 years ago

How does creating 50 regulatory bodies for each state save money it will just shift us to paying more state taxes and a lot more as the duplicity of regulatory bodies that are needed to decide what is clean water will not be efficient. I am a fiscal conservative and I think we can save more money by cutting out most of the unnecessary multi trilion dollar military than we can getting rid of pollution standards

[-] -3 points by economicsguy (16) 8 years ago

Ah, I'm glad you asked about taxes :)

Do you know we didn't even have an income tax until 1913? So where does the money collected from it go? Answer: to pay interest to the Fed. That's the reason we have an income tax.

Dr. Paul believes if you earn one dollar you should get to keep 100% of that dollar. The federal government, operating at its small Constitutional size, would be easily funded by other income sources.

As for cutting down the multi-trillion dollar military I'm with you completely! And so does Dr. Paul! He would immediately bring our troops home, not just from Iraq/Afghanistan, but all of our 900 bases in 130 countries around the world. He is a TRUE peace candidate. He believes in a strong national defense, but not maintaining and expanding our EMPIRE with militarism (spreading our "goodness" with guns), making more enemies/terrorists than we can ever fight and bankrupting us in the process.

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 8 years ago

So we found some common ground on the military, but just saying "funded by other income" does not explain to me how the roads will get paved and the bridges will be fixed when they decay. so are you just talking about a national sales tax to cover everything, either way it is a tax. you can't just have "other income" to pay for massive interstate projects like airplane travel or trains or highways. I am still waiting to learn how we will fund the things that we can not eliminate from this super streamlined country you would like to see

[-] 1 points by OccupyGOP (39) 8 years ago

Do you not realize that income taxes do not pay for Federal Roads? That is what federal gas tax is for.

[-] -3 points by economicsguy (16) 8 years ago

No, not a national sales tax! That's just another revenue stream for the government! Dr. Paul's point is the govt. doesn't need more revenue, and it would only go toward more bureaucracy.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

See this link for sources of govt. revenues. Four of every five dollars comes from income and payroll taxes, but that is not needed to fund a Constitutionally sized government!

[+] -5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

Ah... Somone who understands and doesn't think that if RP gets elected we will all be using heroin.

[-] -3 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

lolll yeh...that was a prime moment of truth......

[-] -3 points by RonPaulFan (0) 8 years ago

You realize there is already poison in your water. ABC reported several years ago about alarming amounts of pharmaceuticals found in water supplies all across the nation. The regulation that you speak of has done NOTHING to prevent chemicals from being in your water. Now, just contrast that with a system that would allow private companies to compete for the job of cleaning water and then other 3rd party companies that would test.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=4420942&page=1

And lest ye forget, city municipalities ADD Fluoride to the water supply. Fluoride is a known toxic (just look at the poison control warning on the back of your toothpaste) which is added to your water purposely and is known to have lasting side effects when consumed in regular, small doses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

Now, where is that regulation that you speak of exactly?

[-] -3 points by twoplanker (-2) 8 years ago

Just because the government wouldn't be regulating our food and water doesn't mean that your child's water would be contaminated or dirty. In fact, I'm sure it would be a lot more pure and not full of fluoride and whatever else they put in it

[-] 4 points by WarmItUp (301) 8 years ago

Oh yeah like the unregulated drinking water in many parts of India, no thank you my children do not need to call ou tof school sick with dysentery and tape worms. As for flouride I am against it. And that is with regulations...imagine what would be allowed in your water with no regulations. This is becoming a silly discussion, of course we need some basic regulations I also don't want lead paint to be allowed again and whatever new chemical that does not need to be safety tested under this fictitious country with no regulations, why not just say anarchy and be done with all government if that is your main goal

[-] 1 points by thersalwysnxtyr (5) from Traverse City, MI 8 years ago

competition improves products, and that includes water delivery. i grew up having a private well with fantastic water quality, right next to a mining operation. now, i live in a town with public water which clogs up my drains every few years (calcium deposits), tastes like crap and costs me a fortune. city/town governments have a monopoly on water delivery. id rather have people working hard to convince me that their product is superior than being forced to fork over my money to a monopolistic bureaucracy whose incentive isnt improvement, its meeting minimum standards.

[+] -4 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 8 years ago

Look at it this way, if the Federal Government isn't regulating it does that mean no one is? States and Municipalities can regulate. That is what the Constitution allows. If you want to change that you need to amend the Constitution. If you don't respect the Constitution then how can you expect anyone to respect any laws that are made?

How ever, if you look at things like S.B. 510 to regulate food, it didn't solve the problem that is caused by having the majority of meat all processed in the same three or four factories, and having meat mixed (thus, if one cow is sick, a ton of meat is contaminated) but instead attempted to put in over regulation on home gardens and small farms. Regulations cost money.

Here are the EPA's water regulations: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm

Now you have that information, if the EPA went away what would you do with it? How about we spread this and other information (as the EPA regulations aren't exactly perfect...fluoride anyone?) and make sure our City is the one regulating their water properly. I personally am working to set up rainwater collection, grey water systems, swales for water retention and a well whenever I get property.

[-] 3 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

Ron Lawl IS a clear and present enemy of the 99 percent, due to his ideas about taxes and his denial of global warming. there is no chance he can be president because the elites hate him and 50 percent of the 99 percent know hes a wingnut.

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 8 years ago

I like how he is a threat to the 99 percent AND the elites hate him so he will never get elected. If the elites (1%) hate him, then...wait, what?

Why would the 1% hate him if he was going to make it paradise for the 1%?

Something doesn't make sense here...maybe...wait, maybe...the 99% is the 1%?

What if, just hear me out, that the 99% protests have been co-oped by the 1% to make sure that they do nothing but protest. What if they co-oped the movement to make sure they don't support any political opponents of the 1%? Wow, that sounds too crazy...but, if the 1% hate Dr. Paul, and if there are people within the 99% that are trying to undermine his campaign...them maybe there are 1% plants within the 99%. Only makes sense they'd send in plants right? Didn't Micheal Moore report on them having undercover cops infiltrate the Green Party?

[-] 0 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

I never said he was going to make it paradise for the one percent. Its clear that his actual platform as actually exists on his actual site says that hes for the kinds of taxes and tax breaks and deregulation which caused the financial meltdown in the first place; in a word; republicanomics; or, aka, insanonomics.

lawn roll isn't out to do the party line, that part you have to respect about him. but lawn roll isn't any kind of boon to the 99 percent, and many of his policy ideas would directly harm the 99 percent. Rather than go bit for tat, BOTHER TO READ HIS WHOLE PLATFORM .

You are making this into a false dillemma. its not either on or the other. its more complicated than that. your straw man argument false dillemma is a logical and argument JOKE.

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 8 years ago

Which of his policies would directly harm the 99%?

There is a great quote, "People give up what they could have be demanding perfection, something they cannot have, and looking for it where they will never find it."

To me, he is the best candidate, at least, the best candidate that has a chance of winning. The War is important to me (ending it that is), and a lot of the positions people freak out about aren't realistically within the range of the President. He has to deal with Congress to get laws passed or changed. And his positions would only effect the federal government, leaving the States and Municipalities to take care of.

Exactly which positions are you concerned about (I have read his entire platform).

And I think the potential of plants attempting to infiltrate and undermine the movement isn't a joke, it is very legit (I was trying to make a joke out of it though). Check out "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." The CIA does this type of stuff all the time.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

global warming denial. taxation schemes. deregulation. ending the EPA. Ending the department of education. ETC.

To YOU. He is the best candidate. To any SANE person, hes not an option and should never have even been in government in the first place.

I am sure there are infiltrators, and i am sure that one game they play is ron trolling.

i saw confessions of an economic hit man, i know all about it.

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 8 years ago

Global Warming: The most recent statement I've heard him say was that he believed it was influenced by man, but that he feels it has been over hyped and exploited in order to establish control and more power (i.e. Global Carbon Tax collected by the World Bank). The President is not the Chief of Science though.

Taxation Schemes: Please elaborate.

Deregulation: Federal Deregulation. He encourages State's to determine their own regulations. He will also have to work on Congress on any changes he is to make.

Ending EPA: Similar to above.

Department of Education: No Child Left Behind is what happens when the "other" side gets in power. Giving the Federal Government authority gives power to both "your side" and "the other side" when they get in power. College tuition is increased to take advantage of grants/loans. I never had to take a loan or grant and went through a State University.

Etcetera: Feel free to continue.

And yes, my quote was, "To me, he is the best candidate..."

Your quote, "To any SANE person" is technically name calling (implying I am insane) and against both the Rules on this site, and the rules of conversational etiquette and valid debate. Please, stick to the issues. Thank you with Love.

[-] 0 points by thersalwysnxtyr (5) from Traverse City, MI 8 years ago

"for the kinds of taxes and tax breaks and deregulation which caused the financial meltdown in the first place; in a word; republicanomics;"

he is an Austrian economist. just about every other republican, just like every democrat, is Keynesian. the cause was not tax breaks and deregulation. the CAUSE was below market interest rates fueling the housing market. giving the government more money would not have prevented the recession. having a stable currency would have.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

lol. thats silly. Keynesian economics is a fascinating historical blunder, and saying that every democrat is a keynesian economic theorist is ludicrous, the vast majority of them probably don't even know who he was, and have in any case tax ideas which are not keynesian. The CAUSES were multiple. Bush tax cuts. two wars. Deregulation. You are only pointing at the cause amongst causes which the oligarchs want to shift the blame over to. Thats not THE cause, its just the only cause they will ADMIT to.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by mag4paul (2) 8 years ago

Apparently you didn’t get the memo, the sea level is decreasing (Gore is measuring it from his beach front home) and there are many reports of early snow, and this would all be ok but they forgot to hide the decline…. oooops

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago
[-] -3 points by freemeplz (14) 8 years ago

ohhhh noooeeesss Gore is measuring the sea from his beach home that he earned by tricking global warmers into paying for his information he stole from other people.

stay asleep.

[-] -3 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

Its not his ideas

its free market Austrian economics, the economic political theory that predict the Great depression and the the current depression, it won the Nobel prize under F.A. Hayek for his boom and bust theory.

Ron P.A.U.L predicted the collapse as early as 2003, as well Peter Schiff was right youtube video shows this as well and they subscribe to this practice.

He does not deny Climate change, hell we have seasons, that should suggest the world constantly changes us and vice versa.

the debate is does Carbon determine Temperature or does Temp dictate carbon?

Thats thinking and not following the guys that brought you the financial collapse, and their answer is TAXES to the "demise of a planet"

how is he a wingnut?

[-] 5 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 8 years ago

You know, we hear Austrian economics and we feel the steely sword of the free market sliding up our assholes, right? You're in the wrong place. Hayek. PInochet, Thatcher, Yeltsin, Reagan - you really think that's what we're about? Well-regulated capitalism, not free market fundamentalism. Extremist bullshit.

[-] -2 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

extremist bull shit?

do tell..............

the free market so we can be on the same page is the environment of free individuals making personal decision about goods and services.

So in this "free market" you would be punished only by breaking the voluntary contract and or violating someones private property(property being the sense of you own your body,hence your property and so on so forth to material items gained through rightful means.

Profits high at any cost till consumers say its not worth the price of your goods and services and go to the competition or if there is none boycott and spread info about the business in question...ie occupy means but in a free market no police mafia hired by JP morgan to stop you,

that business changes or gets such a bad reputation he goes out of business.

The power is given to the individual by means of purchasing power choices.

you vote with your sound non manipulated money or barter, and prices are a mechanism of supply and demand, and show how much resources are available and should be a check and balance to limit consumption.

and your right in a true free society the public has to be well educated/informed, well armed and have respect for fellow individuals, lets try to make it happen

[-] 2 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 8 years ago

You are free to take the natural plutocratic consequence of your self-serving ideology and choke on it.

[-] -3 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

thats how occupy roles no dialogue...and choking your rage.

Why dont you just express yourself and prove your theories in the "Free Market" of ideas,

and what YOU want IS this oligarchy but you are blind to see there will always be corruption and as long you give power structure the corruption comes a running and how big the structure will give you the degree of consequences

"The bigger they are, the Harder they fall"

[-] -3 points by thersalwysnxtyr (5) from Traverse City, MI 8 years ago

"Well-regulated capitalism" is an oxymoron and is what exists now.

[-] 2 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 8 years ago

Oh please. Well-rgeulated is what we had before free-market-fundamentalist-panderer-pawns of Koch Industries and Wall St. began a systematic process of undermining government to benefit their masters, all while selling it as liberty to you libertarian fools.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_is_an_enemy_of_the_People_and_Truth

humans most certainly are causing global warming. Co2 is only one issue the other is pollution particulate matter. Burning crap is causing the earth to warm and at a rate orders of magnitude faster than any natural cycle.

I predicted the collapse in 1992, and the heat dome weather pattern we just had for the first time in recorded history in 89.

READ the WHOLE political platform SET, don't focus ignorantly and insanely only on the GOOD stuff, over which i really don't see the point of arguing.

[-] 0 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

and that link of Ron P.A.U.L is a joke, its just opinion. as it states he cant be bought, he is true to principles...okay lets debate the facts

I can show you hours of speeches from 1980 till now showing and disproving the "facts" in your link, and to say 50% is pure genius, and the other is crack pot is a joke as well. Nice arbitrary number, wonder if the scientific method was used on that juvenile hit piece?

He wants to End the Drug war, wants to end Empire, he wants to end the FED......right there everyone should be swarming to him like a fly to shit, but lets keep going....end the Patriot act, protect civil liberties, end income taxes and property tax the tax on YOU as A human but of course you probably like carbon tax the tax on the right to LIVE on their resources, the 1% is laughing

there is more...but I will wait

[-] -1 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

You cant be absolute, you have a theory that is based on evidence that can be suspect because carbon is not evil, and just like the war on terror, you cant taste it...You cant see....only the overlords of scientific elite that were caught fudging stats to fit the bill and the hand that feeds, Al Gore making loot of the company that would be rewarded from this govt monopoly like a Solyndra we know about.

The debate on climate change, is does temp determine carbon or does carbon determine temp. How is the solar system heated? The Sun.

You predicted the collapse in 1992 Ron P.A.U.L and the Austrian economics predicted it in specific terms since 1970's and before

the pollution we all detest can be solved with Private property rights among individuals and use govt force to regulate the private property.

hence you pollute your land great,.... till it affects me,then I sue and get it taken care of efficiently,

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

most certainly can be absolute. the science on global warming was cut and dried 40 years ago. Al gore is an idiot and has nothing to do with global warming. There is no debate on climate change, there are only the facts, and liars and dupes who deny those facts. The suns energy is in essence a fixed constant, so its NOT whats changing here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

http://knowledge.allianz.com/search.cfm?126/climate-change-global-warming-what-is-greenhouse-effect&mcg=1166123302_6139625452&kwg=Broad_1166123302_greenhouse+effect

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by james2039 (9) 8 years ago

By the way, changing "Ron Pa-ul" to Ron Lawl in comments is fairly petty and absurd. There's a huge contingent of Ron Lawl supporters who are out protesting at Occupy in a number of cities because we're on the same page as you guys. Don't let this become a Republicans vs Democrats thing like they did to the Tea Party. Seriously take a look at what Dr. Paul is saying. Look at the business cycle and austrian economics. Look at the friggin Federal Reserve! They're the guys printing out the money to give to their friends in the big banks and overseas. Without them they can't engage in this garbage. Our real mutual enemy is corporatism. Until we can end corporatism we're never going to stop getting screwed.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

Just put a dot in betwee like this

Ron.Paul 2012

Ron.Paul 2012

[-] 2 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 8 years ago

All the usual tactics against censor-filters work:

  • Non-breaking space (" ")

  • The infamous Cyrillic "а" used by HTML spoofers to get you to go to fake bank pages

  • Likewise Cyrillic "о" and "Р", and combinations of the above ("Rоn Раul")

  • Creative various substitutes from other fonts ("Řöñ ƤȁůƖ", etc.)

I don't want to be too harsh on OWS, but still, it seems like every political group has to learn for itself that censorship doesn't work, and the sooner the better.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

We are flattered by the attempts of Paul minions to co-opt the movement, but there's so much he supports that is just plain lame.

Perhaps you would be better served at the teabaggers site.

[-] 0 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 8 years ago

Hey, I've given the Libertarians a fair dose of criticism in these discussions ( https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=mserfas+libertarians&btnG=Search ); I just happen to be one of those extreme advocates of free speech. ;)

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

You have to admit. the level, strength and constantness of the posts, makes you wonder.

It's been hard and steady for two months now.

I'll bet I could work out a conspiracy theory.

[-] 0 points by thersalwysnxtyr (5) from Traverse City, MI 8 years ago

it would be wrong. its just a motivated group that has found truth and that is concerned about the conclusions drawn from a similar minded group.

i dont mean to sound blunt, but there seems to be a complete misunderstanding of what a free market is, and how human behavior is self regulating, and that artificial government regulation is FOR big business, not against it.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

So you just want to sell the Great Lakes to the highest bidder?

Corporations are artificial too, and I have even less control over their behaviors.

The "free market" want's to place a price tag on everything they can. To suck as much value from everything it can.

I'm steadfast against such things.

[-] -1 points by thersalwysnxtyr (5) from Traverse City, MI 8 years ago

"So you just want to sell the Great Lakes to the highest bidder?"

not sure how you got from point A to point B

"Corporations are artificial too, and I have even less control over their behaviors."

ill take it one step further, that specific organizational structure would be less popular (if not extinct) if companies were allowed to form naturally under a system with clearly defined property rights (thats just my theory).

"The "free market" want's to place a price tag on everything they can. To suck as much value from everything it can."

false. the free market requires that a person add something of value, in the form of production, into the economy BEFORE something is consumed from it. value is not sucked out of, but rather added to at the same time that competition drives down prices, drives down waste and resource usage, and generally improves the human experience. (not to say bad things cant or wouldnt happen, but rather, bad things arent rewarded)

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Any system that uses such hazy language, and can't answer questions clearly is bound to fail.

If it's so good for the little guy, how come it's almost wholly backed and funded by the super rich?

[-] 1 points by OccupyGOP (39) 8 years ago

The super rich are the ones lobbying for corporate welfare, government subsidies, bailouts, no bid contracts, and regulations that put their competition out of business and/or prevent competition from entering the market.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

"The super rich are the ones lobbying"

Would that be the same super rich that fund almost all libertarian activity, including the party itself?

Yes. I believe they are.

Bit of serious dichotomy there, don't you think?

[-] 1 points by OccupyGOP (39) 8 years ago

If Ron.Paul is so good for the super rich how come he is wholly backed and funded by his grassroots supporters? Why do the lobbyists never even bother to come to his office in DC? Why does the media, who are owned by the super rich, nearly black him out when covering the race for the Republican nomination despite the fact that he is polling better, gets more grassroots funding, and has a much better chance against Obama than others who they do cover like Santorum, Huntsman, Bachmann, etc. If Ron.Paul's policies really benefited the super rich they would be behind him lock stock and barrel the fact is that they are not.

The super rich are not in favor of real free markets that would allow competition to threaten their hegemony, they want government regulations because they control the regulators in such a way as to put the little guy out of business so that they can have their government approved oligopolies. As far as libertarian party and activity, if the super rich were really making sure they are well funded why is it that the media, which is owned by the super rich, does not cover libertarians? Why is the libertarian party so weak and ineffective if it is really supported by the super rich? It is obvious that the super rich are supporting the two party dictatorship, I will grant that they may be giving money to the libertarian party as a form of controlled opposition, but your analysis is shallow at best if you think they are actually in favor of truly free markets which would allow small businesses to compete with their mega corporations on an even playing field.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

It sure is a dichotomy.

He's a confusing fellow. He does like to write in his earmarks though.

I've also heard he's not really a libertarian.

So what is he? A reconstructionist? I don't like those.

[-] -1 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

What do you dislike and Im sure I can find a clip to ease your mind and I can explain any questi0ons you have on Austrian free market politics, also known as Libertarianism.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

The worst is the blind belief in "free markets"

They treat it like a religion.

That's illogical.

I lean towards MMT, for monetary sovereignty. It gets rid of the fed too and a lot more.

[-] -1 points by thersalwysnxtyr (5) from Traverse City, MI 8 years ago

i am mystified that people (certainly not just you) can clearly see that the bond between government and big business is negative to the consumer, but yet to break that bond, and remove the ability of business to use the force of government to make their way at the expense of competition and consumers is treated as "illogical", "blind", and religious fanaticism.

if big business wanted a free marketplace, they would support small government candidates, but that certainly isnt the case. they fully understand that they have it easy right now, and to throw that security away and enter an environment where the only way they can make money is to serve consumers better than everyone else, is not beneficial.

and BTW, Keynesianism was created to centralize power to the 1%, and MMT logic makes it even easier. please keep an open mind and read some Bastiat.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

What's this "small" government stuff about?

How small is small enough?

[-] -1 points by thersalwysnxtyr (5) from Traverse City, MI 8 years ago

i was vague for a reason; the size to be determined by the businesses itself. but the truth is that it is not in their best interest to exist in a free market when a regulated marketplace can give them security by reducing, or in some cases removing all together, competition.

as for me, id just like to get back to a place where we acknowledge that government doesnt add value to the marketplace, and by extension, to our lives. government reduces market options, while extracting money from it. when it redistributes it, it is not for something that is demanded MORE by the market, but rather, LESS. good can come from government action, but the signals are different and failure gets rewarded. its just how government works. if we get back to that point, we can have an honest debate about what role government should have in our lives.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Corporations should decide the size of government?

That's just wrong.

[-] -1 points by thersalwysnxtyr (5) from Traverse City, MI 8 years ago

you completely misunderstood my initial point. IF it WERE in their best interest, they WOULD support "small" government candidates today, but they do not.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Just going by what you said.

"the size to be determined by the businesses itself."

[-] -3 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

its not a religion its a fundamental.

its like you saying believing in gravity is religious.

the free market so we can be on the same page is the environment of free individuals making personal decision about goods and services.

So in this "free market" you would be punished only by breaking the voluntary contract and or violating someones private property(property being the sense of you own your body,hence your property and so on so forth to material items gained through rightful means.

Profits high at any cost till consumers say its not worth the price of your goods and services and go to the competition or if there is none boycott and spread info about the business in question...ie occupy means but in a free market no police mafia hired by JP morgan to stop you,

that business changes or gets such a bad reputation he goes out of business.

The power is given to the individual by means of purchasing power choices.

you vote with your sound non manipulated money or barter, and prices are a mechanism of supply and demand, and show how much resources are available and should be a check and balance to limit consumption.

and your right in a true free society the public has to be well educated/informed, well armed and have respect for fellow individuals, lets try to make it happen

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

I like the last one how did you do that? It's like Senior Paul ;-)

[-] 0 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 8 years ago

Well, I just used the built in Windows program "Character Map". Go to Start -> All Programs -> Accessories -> System Tools -> Character Map (or just type it in in the search). The font I've been using for picking out funny characters is DejaVu Sans.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

Or I guess I can coppy from your post.

Vote for senoir Řöñ ƤȁůƖ 2012

[-] 3 points by freedomman121 (6) 8 years ago

You shouted down Dr. Paul and you claim it a "victory?" Wow, you people are confused. You just showed your backsides to the one man who's been fighting for you his entire career. Fighting for you before many of you were even born. Shame.

[-] -2 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

R. Paul belongs to the Republican Party, so OWS won't even listen to him. Their true colors bleed through more and more each day.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by james2039 (9) 8 years ago

Hate to say it guys, but this isn't the right target. I'm really happy with how Ron Lawl handled it though. Paul is the only guy up there who understands WHY the banks get bailed out and who is trying to stop it.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by Jaayy (9) 8 years ago

Paul rocked it.

Contrast Paul's response to Karl Rove's or Newt Gingrich's! Paul was actually responsive, polite, and empathetic.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

too many paul supporters do not understand how money and debt work - i suggest to all of you that you read graeber's "debt the first 5000 years" - then read about the populist movement of the 1890's - the gold standard and hard money are supported by the wealthy as a way to keep their wealth - time to educate yourselves!

[-] 2 points by RonPaulisWINNING (36) 8 years ago

I had higher hopes for OWS. They are proving themselves to be quite uneducated. Dr. Paul should be their champion, instead they are attacking him. SO misguided. If they don't vote for him they are as bad as the corruption that is opposing Congressman Paul right now.

[+] -5 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

The good doctor has an (R) after his name, thus he is the enemy of OWS. Sad, but true.

[-] 1 points by mio (5) 8 years ago

We must educate those who think that by how he is treated for speaking the truth. The (R) by his name is what the Republican party are suppose to be. Limited government, no frivolous wars, etc everything Ron Lawl speaks about follows those positions it is why he chose that party since it's the closest who the majority will get to hear and the third party do not get heard because of the power grab of both parties. It is the other (R) who do not and pervert the original party platform on it's head they are the targets like every GOP candidate excluding Dr. Paul there's a huge difference don't fall for the left and right paradigm the 1% want us to be manipulated and blindly continue a division among us while they continue the lie and get fat.

[-] 1 points by sampson (34) 8 years ago

Why is this happening... OK I get it nevermind. Occupy isn't endorsing any politician. Even though Ron P might be the lesser of evils.

[-] 1 points by OccupyGUY23 (0) from Keene, NH 8 years ago

Yah I tried to change the spelling. I know its Ron Lawl!! Sorry ive edited it three times now. Any how to those who feel this was a misplaced action I want you to know that we went through a General Assembly with a handful of Ron Lawl supporters and sought out a way we could do this with out upsetting anyone who was in favor of Ron Lawls politics. Also you should know that NH is the Libertarian capitol of the US with a large contigency of 'FREESTATERS" from all around the US. Some of whom are now also OWS participants. We made sure to wait until Ron Lawl was done with his FULL SPEECH and until the FINAL audience question was asked. We sat through all of his RAMBLING and you may be SHOCKED to hear that not once did he mention the obscenity of placing many of our fellow PEACEFUL PROTESTERs into jail after being violently attacked and peppersprayed. Another SHOCKER-he said nothing about the PIRATES running WALL STREEET who are still free to wreak havoc on our economy. Im sorry if any of you are in great support of Ron Lawl but consider how long this man has been a wheel in the government and take a long look at his stance and track record. If your not finding any reasons to stand up to this man than you are following blindly and should look into the FREESTATE movement instead of the OCCUPY movement. To OCCUPY EVERYWHERE means everyone everywhere. If there are ears of the public wide open in a school hall being filled by the sappy rhetoric of some lying scamming politician then it is OUR duty to break the flow of BS and bring LIGHT to our PLIGHT!!! We will not pick favorites and we will not fear the consequence! What if this man does end up being our PRESIDENT?? Should his rise to power be one that is unquestioned and unchallenged? Maybe hes been giving a free ride by some but many of us are not FOOLED and to us his character remains quite DUBIOUS!!!

[-] 1 points by infectionxxx (3) 8 years ago

R0N PAUL is not a pawn, and he is certainly one of our ONLY friends in Washington. R0N Paul has more balls than any of the "anonymous," because he's taken ridicule, abuse, and flak for fighting for our most basic freedoms over the last 30 years(He NEVER changes his positions).

He worked his way through Med. School, and made his own living as a doctor. He CANNOT be bought. Lobbyists don't even bother.

Dr. R0N PAUL is the only man who refuses the FAT congressional pension(considers it immoral), and is only accepting 40k a year when he becomes president to lead by example unlike Obama(500k/yr).

Research the man, he's the only one who stands up to our careful scrutiny. Dr. R0N PAUL 2012! THINK FOR YOURSELF 99%er's!

---P.S. Your script that turns R0N PAUL into RON LAWL doesn't work if you change an "O" to a ZERO. Happy Holidays.

[-] 1 points by tarranttt (20) 8 years ago

Impeach Obama!!!

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

Please stop censoring me. This is the fourth time posting this comment.

Dear Occupiers, I am an occupier. I am also a libertarian. I am also anti-capitalist. Competing currencies allow for a bartering system you goof balls. Open your eyes and see for yourself. This gold standard silliness is establishment propaganda. Ron Lawl advocates gold standard but most of all he is the anti-fed. He is absolutely against any monopolized and centralized "money" system (which was the only problem with gold back in its day). Money should only be money if you agree it has value. I think most of us know the evils of the fed. Commerce is like a billowing smoke, you can't control it with your hands but you can put your hands in it while claiming you control it.

PS: Just because he talks about the constitution, doesn't mean he'll take your obama-cell-phone-and-money away. PSS: If we as occupiers really wanted socialized medicine we would energize our state govt to amend the constitution. Anything else is propaganda. Please try not to become AstroTurf in these crucial times.

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

Please stop deleting my comments.

Dear Occupiers, I am an occupier. I am also a libertarian. I am also anti-capitalist. Competing currencies allow for a bartering system you goof balls. Open your eyes and see for yourself. This gold standard silliness is establishment propaganda. Ron Lawl advocates gold standard but most of all he is the anti-fed. He is absolutely against any centralized "money" system (which was the only problem with gold back in its day). Money should only be money if you agree it has value. I think most of us know the evils of the fed. Commerce is like a billowing smoke, you can't control it with your hands but you can put your hands in it while claiming you control it.

PS: Just because he talks about the constitution, doesn't mean he'll take your obama-cell-phone-and-money away. PSS: If we as occupiers really wanted socialized medicine we would energize our state govt to amend the constitution. Anything else is propaganda. Please try not to become AstroTurf in these crucial times.

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

why are my comments being deleted?

Dear Occupiers, I am an occupier. I am also a libertarian. I am also anti-capitalist. Competing currencies allow for a bartering system you goof balls. Open your eyes and see for yourself. This gold standard silliness is establishment propaganda. Ron Lawl advocates gold standard but most of all he is the anti-fed. He is absolutely against any centralized "money" system (which was the only problem with gold back in its day). Money should only be money if you agree it has value. I think most of us know the evils of the fed. Commerce is like a billowing smoke, you can't control it with your hands but you can put your hands in it while claiming you control it.

PS: Just because he talks about the constitution, doesn't mean he'll take your obama-cell-phone-and-money away. PSS: If we as occupiers really wanted socialized medicine we would energize our state govt to amend the constitution. Anything else is propaganda. Please try not to become AstroTurf in these crucial times.

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

Wow. Ron P a u l gets filtered to Ron Lawl. How is that for political bias? Better watch it or occupiers might have to boycott your site due to an attempted co-opt.

[-] 1 points by michaeljoseph (24) 8 years ago

Dear Occupiers, I am an occupier. I am also a libertarian. I am also anti-capitalist. Competing currencies allow for a bartering system you goof balls. Open your eyes and see for yourself. This gold standard silliness is establishment propaganda. Ron Lawl advocates gold standard but most of all he is the anti-fed. He is absolutely against any centralized "money" system (which was the only problem with gold back in its day). Money should only be money if you agree it has value. I think most of us know the evils of the fed. Commerce is like a billowing smoke, you can't control it with your hands but you can put your hands in it while claiming you control it.

PS: Just because he talks about the constitution, doesn't mean he'll take your obama-cell-phone-and-money away. PSS: If we as occupiers really wanted socialized medicine we would energize our state govt to amend the constitution. Anything else is propaganda. Please try not to become AstroTurf in these crucial times.

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 8 years ago

Tim Geithner declares war on Iran... almost.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/US-Announces-Iran-Sanctions/10737425703/

[-] 1 points by AmericanMachinist (24) 8 years ago

Some people would rather argue than do something positive . That makes you part of the problem not the solution!

[-] 1 points by reckoning (53) 8 years ago

LOOL!! OWS considers Ron Lawl and Enemy??

do ur research and look up Ron's VIDEOS from the 80's WARNING of this, but many called him a nut..

Well whos laughing now?

[-] 1 points by Truth305 (1) 8 years ago

It's RON P.A.U.L not Ron Lawl...Why do this? Censorship or something? How hypocritical.

[-] 1 points by SapphireSun (9) from New Haven, CT 8 years ago

Ron Lawl is that guy who's right on some things but for all the wrong reasons. Let's see some of the things Ron Lawl is horribly wrong on:

-Would get rid of near all regulation on business minus enforcing contracts -Would also do the same for environmental protection -Has no problem what so ever about sodomy laws, anti gay adoption laws, other anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-women, ect laws as long as they're done at the state level. -Supports a gold standard. A gold standard would cause massive, epic deflation which among other things would completely screw over anyone who doesn't have zero debt and tons of liquid assets.(i.e. the rich) -Would do away with income tax and capital gains tax, replace it with a national sales tax, which is so far beyond regressive there's not even a word created for it yet. -On a personal level doesn't believe in evolution, this may not be a political issue per se, but it says a lot about a person.

If your main issues are ending the ridiculous drug war and protecting our civil liberties, vote Green.

[-] 1 points by gnarlycody (12) 8 years ago

wat victory? getting maced?

[-] 1 points by ChandlerSmith (1) 8 years ago

Ron Lawl Correctly Predicts Occupy Wall Street Movement in March 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BveNioW3cVI

[-] 1 points by JasonM4237 (2) 8 years ago

OK, I just found this. If we're going to talk about this event, we need to all take 12 minutes and listen to the entire speech. Then make our comments about the issues he was actually talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvKdmydQZrU

[-] 1 points by JasonM4237 (2) 8 years ago

All this talk about regulations. Who cares? We're getting off topic, to understand this situation, we need to focus on 3 areas:

1 - Foreign Policy - Raun Lol is the only peace candidate running. He has spoken out against all of these wars for the past 30 years. He's the only one who will tell the truth and speak out against our Gov't assassinating American citizens and using drones to kill little kids.

2 - Prohibition - Dr. ?"La/wl? has been opposed to marijuana prohibition his entire career. He has specifically said that marijuana grows in a natural way and people should have free choice to use it if they please. Just look up H.R. 2306.

3 - End the Fed - He literally wrote the book on this one. He has been a lone voice opposing the criminal bankers and has made great strides for the 99% by exposing their fraud, but we still need a full audit so we can expose exactly who their buddies are and end the fed once and for all. For the 99%

[-] 1 points by JasonM4237 (2) 8 years ago

All this talk about regulations is off topic. Who cares? Ron Lawl has teamed up with 9 democrats to oppose SOPA, He has spoken out against regulating the internet ever since it became an issue. To understand this, we need to focus on 3 topics:

1 - Foreign Policy - Ron Lawl has been the most vocal advocate against these wars for over 30 years. He will bring our troops home immediately. He's been the only one to speak out against our Gov't using drones to murder little kids.

2 - Prohibition - Ron Lawl has been opposed to marijuana prohibition his entire career. He is the only one that will tell the truth about how the failed prohibition policies negatively impact minorities and lower income people. He believes in freedom and liberty and has said that marijuana grows in a natural way and in a free society people should have freedom of choice to use it if they please.

3 - End the Fed - Ron Lawl literally wrote the book on this, it's called "End the Fed" by Ron Lawl. He has been the lone voice speaking out against he corruption and has been able to get a partial audit that revealed a lot of fraud from the Fed. He is pushing for a full audit so we can find out exactly who their buddies are. He has voted against Every bailout and these views are exactly inline with the 99%.

OWS could literally change American politics FOREVER if they would just support him. Many of them do but he needs more. Specifically Occupy Iowa could change the course of American politics and re-write history if they would occupy the Iowa caucuses and while cast a vote for Ron Lawl, the one person who all of our enemies in the 1% and corporate media are trying so desperately and so pathetically to stifle. Don't let the 1% win this one. We can do this you guys. But we have to ban together and use the proper channels. Occupy the Republican primaries and cast your vote. By doing so you are fighting back against the 1% (other candidates). Just look at who contributes to their campaigns. Lawl is the only one that does not take contributions from lobbyists. His supporters are 99%ers just like us. We must stand together to make a difference. DO NOT LET THEM DIVIDE US!

[-] 1 points by OccupyGUY23 (0) from Keene, NH 8 years ago

Yah I tried to change the spelling. I know its Ron Lawl!! Sorry ive edited it three times now. Any how to those who feel this was a misplaced action I want you to know that we went through a General Assembly with a handful of Ron Lawl supporters and sought out a way we could do this with out upsetting anyone who was in favor of Ron Lawls politics. Also you should know that NH is the Libertarian capitol of the US with a large contigency of 'FREESTATERS" from all around the US. Some of whom are now also OWS participants. We made sure to wait until Ron Lawl was done with his FULL SPEECH and until the FINAL audience question was asked. We sat through all of his RAMBLING and you may be SHOCKED to hear that not once did he mention the obscenity of placing many of our fellow PEACEFUL PROTESTERs into jail after being violently attacked and peppersprayed. Another SHOCKER-he said nothing about the PIRATES running WALL STREEET who are still free to wreak havoc on our economy. Im sorry if any of you are in great support of Ron Lawl but consider how long this man has been a wheel in the government and take a long look at his stance and track record. If your not finding any reasons to stand up to this man than you are following blindly and should look into the FREESTATE movement instead of the OCCUPY movement. To OCCUPY EVERYWHERE means everyone everywhere. If there are ears of the public wide open in a school hall being filled by the sappy rhetoric of some lying scamming politician then it is OUR duty to break the flow of BS and bring LIGHT to our PLIGHT!!! We will not pick favorites and we will not fear the consequence! What if this man does end up being our PRESIDENT?? Should his rise to power be one that is unquestioned and unchallenged? Maybe hes been giving a free ride by some but many of us are not FOOLED and to us his character remains quite DUBIOUS!!!

[-] 1 points by alanhowitzer (17) 8 years ago

Ron Lawl is not the enemy!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

He ain't a friend either.

[-] 1 points by whateverwhatever (25) 8 years ago

Thanks for the video link RonPaulisWINNING...

The man in red who appeared to be leading the call-and-response was also applauding Ron Lawl...

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

Yes the "non leader" in the red coat was clapping inthe end.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 8 years ago

He is our only hope

RonPaul12

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by mdez13 (10) 8 years ago

what moron would mic check somebody trying to uphold our constitution and audit the private fed? let him speak.

[-] 0 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

Ron does seem to have a good sense of reality when it comes to the corruption in our government and where this country is heading if we don't act now. On the other hand it also has some pretty radical ideas that he wants to put in place that most do not accept.

He is actually a Liberal disguising as a Republican.

[-] 0 points by Truth305 (1) 8 years ago

Who's Ron Lawl? OOOh you mean Ron P.A.U.L! The one who's been fighting corporatism for more than 30 years! Who want's a constitutional Federal Gov't and wants to return power back to you! To your states! Who veto's unconstitutional one-size-fits-all laws, policies, and regulations which the corporations lobby for and use to kill their competition and get bailed out! That Ron Lawl. Great "mic check" fail. That's like mic-checking Ghandi for the British empire. smh

[-] 0 points by willtheman (0) 8 years ago

Free markets do not cause monopoly. But even apparent monopolies such as standard oil did not last long: http://mises.org/daily/2317 http://mises.org/daily/5645

Government causes monopoly be favoring its wall street friends imposing regulations and exempting its friends from it.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 8 years ago

Standard Oil had to be busted by the government.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 8 years ago

Here is the video: http://youtu.be/6cJCqw8XVw0

[-] 0 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 8 years ago

Ron Paul is right about quite a few things... wrong about quite a few others. The same is true of many Occupy protesters of different political stripes. One of those mistakes is opposing Ron Paul in general, rather than demanding discussion of the specific errors and omissions in "Libertarian" doctrine (such as the glaring problems with the copyright and patent systems). There is common ground (like ending the War on Drugs) that should be pursued -- the ability of people of different political persuasions to work together to advance such goals makes the two groups more powerful working together than the mere addition of their numbers would suggest.

[-] 0 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

Like your style there is so much common ground it should be no debate

Coalitions is what Libertarian/ Ron P.A.U.L stands for

End the Drug War

End the empire and war

End the fed

end the patriot act /police state the police is there to protect us we are their bosses

end corporatism

[-] 0 points by DaleinOklahoma (2) 8 years ago

That's awesome! Way to shout down the ONE POLITICIAN who has been fighting against big banks, the unfederal reserve, and bailouts for over 30 years. OWS just proved that it has not a clue about what is going on in this country of ours. We can't just make everyone our enemy because they are in our government..there are one or two that are on our side. You should get to know who they are and support them rather than stab the very people who were fighting for change before we were even born. Shame on you for protesting just to protest..if you want to protest, get to know what the heck is going on and who is on your side. Ridiculous

[-] 0 points by FattyFatty2x4 (13) from Anchorage, AK 8 years ago

Occupy better organize and get their ranks in check. I know this might be a few of the ill-informed alongside them but their actions reflect on the movement as a whole. Like it or not this is who is representing the occupy movement.

Lack of organization and the cop out attitude that their is no leader is a reflection on their lack of accountability. I agree with quite a bit the occupy movement says but I feel they are alienating those who stood by them with these fringe actions.

[-] 1 points by OccupyGUY23 (0) from Keene, NH 8 years ago

FAAfraid he is just a cog in the big govt wheel leading us off the cliff.Destroy all social nets!! Privitze education! End the Fed! End the EPA! Sounds great! Youve been Pauled!!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by mio (5) 8 years ago

You all got Pauled by his humbleness, hope the brief education started the process to being informed instead of uninformed.

Those lot who were there after listening to him then looking stupid like a choir preaching to the preacher, they must be very embarrassed for their action. How lost one must be to not even know Ron P aul (especially hearing him speak) and his position, actions have been consistent for the past 40 yrs all for the people! And in OWS there are some Dr. Paul supporters what are you thinking?

Doing it to Michelle Bachmann is fine with me since she's a hypocrite liar but Ron P aul is not, he talks the talk and walks the walk and gives us the cold hard truth. It's long past due to educated the stupidity from an uninformed collective mind. Who ever is in charge of this website has something against Ron P aul and the truth otherwise they would not censor his very name. Just look at this 20min+ He's for the people! The 99% open your eyes! http://youtu.be/Ogfqxe5iI-A

[-] 2 points by OccupyGUY23 (0) from Keene, NH 8 years ago

Youve been Pauled!!

[-] -1 points by enjoiskaterguy (16) 8 years ago

I am so glad he responded and was sympathetic. He is a cool guy! R o n Paul is the original OWS...he has been attacking the privately run Central Bank that has created all this artificially low interest rates, malinvestment, inflation, and has facilitated the bailouts for decades. If we are truly the 99% we must not discredit him and his followers for they too are apart of this movement. It doesn't mean supporting him as a candidate, but it means bringing him into the fold and allowing him that respect he deserves. This is not a Liberal or Conservative issue...Wallstreet and the FED is an American issue. One in which we can all rally behind.

[-] -1 points by justlogic (-1) 8 years ago

The occupy movement is a joke if they don't understand that socialism is bad and that everything Paul advocates is against socialism.

Transcend, seek knowledge and you will arrive at Paul.

[-] -1 points by justlogic (-1) 8 years ago

"but everytime he says he wants to get rid of regulating water and air and eliminate the epa and the Fda I just cringe"

The water would be cleaner. Ron Lawl would do away with the EPA. The EPA essentially gives 'license' by fining companies for pollution. So any company can pollute if they simply pay a small fee, or fine.

Ron Lawl would do away with this and invoke private property rights. If you violate private property rights the penalty is more severe, if you do it repeatedly you will be jailed.

Ron Lawl's logic is sound. Please read more.

[-] -1 points by RichPaulFreeman (0) 8 years ago

I am a Ron Lawl supporter, and was present for the Mic Check. I was pleased that there was respect on both sides, and thought Ron's answer was perfect: Yes, you're right, they're ripping you off. As a Ron Lawl supporter, I was not offended by OWS. As an OWS supporter, I appreciated Ron Lawl's response. :)

[-] -1 points by mag4paul (2) 8 years ago

Folks, you are winning, but in your success don’t lose sight of what is in front of you.

Ron Lawl has been actively and consistently opposed to the corruption in our government for over 30 years. He was and still is against the bail outs of the bankers, and against war.

google him, research him, find out about him before you try to condemn him.

God speed to you all

[-] -1 points by Disturbed (2) 8 years ago

This is a "victory" for OWS? Realistically, what you guys really need is a map to figure out you're protesting in the wrong place! The heart of our REAL problems lies in Washington, DC.

Do you protest against welfare recipients from receiving their checks? No. And you shouldn't. Wall St. took money that was being given to them (just like welfare) from...You guessed it...the guys in Washington DC. And who firmly stood against the bail outs? The guy you just played your little stunt on!

Wake up, figure out who the real problem is, and continue your fight to correct what's wrong. We support you, but you've got to know who is on your side and who is not. And if you can't figure out who is on your side and where you should protest, I'm quite certain you don't know who is opposed to you as well.

[-] 4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

You cannot end the corruption in DC with deregulation.

[-] -1 points by Disturbed (2) 8 years ago

Oh yes you can!

Those of you connected with OWS believe exactly in the same things we Ron Lawl supporters believe: our movement (each one) will create a baseline disruption in the current political system in America. In fact, they both already have. We can not revert to the status quo after what we have been working so hard to achieve.

By deregulating, we create a system more free for competition. Competition does two things: lowers prices and improves goods and services. The faulty goods will go the way of the dinosaur. Bad service and corrupt operations will be exposed for what they are and lose economic support to die on the vine.

Its easy to see this working because it has been working for years right here on the Interweb. Case in point: Ebay.

People buy and sell on Ebay not because they are bolstered by governmental control and regulation, but because it is a free marketplace. Ads are placed for goods and services, people bid on these, agreements are made and deals get cut. A buyer or seller steps out of line and they get poor ratings (like bad press). People don't deal with buyers and sellers with bad ratings--that bad seed looses the ability to trade. Good buyers and sellers have good marks and are allowed to continue in the market. It is the threat of losing their place in the market that keeps things peaceful there.

Don't think it doesn't work or can't work. If you don't believe, why are you protesting?

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

tell that shit to the people of the Nigerian Delta dip shit.

[-] -3 points by Disturbed (2) 8 years ago

What exactly does this mean?

PS. I don't give a damn about "People of the Nigerian Delta" If you're so bothered about them, why are you protesting in NYC? Again, go get yourself a good map.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

That is really selfish. I wouldn't bother to respond to such a self-centered point of view as this - it's generally counter productive.

And for your information - I'm in Burlington Vermont, not NYC.

The people of the Nigerian Delta have been suffering and they have been dying because of oil pollution generated by companies like Royal Dutch Shell who drill holes in the marsh to extract oil. They build pipelines, these leak. They flare natural gas as a part of production, poisoning both the air and the water. Those who oppose this exploitation of resources have been killed.

Ken Saro-Wiwa was killed. Hung by the neck in 1995 by the Government of Nigeria.

and this, all in the name of American Consumer Demand.

Well. To be completely honest, America only gets a small fraction of its oil from Nigeria. I believe most of it goes to Europe. But it is one market, and there is more than enough blood and more than enough suffering that all may have their fair share . . . .

What has happened to the Ogoni People in NIgeria is the result of deregulation.

With a weak government, the people will not be able to protect their land, their water, or the air, from rampant pollution associated with production.

All that will be left is violence as a means of redress.

Look at the tar sands of Canada, and the Native Peoples, and see their suffering, and know without doubt:

we will be next

but only if we do nothing.

[-] 1 points by Disturbed (2) 8 years ago

You think We will be next? Only if Obama is still calling the shots and keeping us under tabs with his Predator Drones. He has no problem with executing Americans. Especially young ones just because they share DNA with guys who said some bad things about America.

There's the guy you should fear. He's probably getting a drone warmed up for Wall Street or Boston or Oakland...doesn't matter. He's had the taste of blood and once they get it they only want more. Are you next?

I can see you've been partially educated. But like they say, a little education is a dangerous thing. That, and a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Keep reading from the book of Marx. You two seem to have a bit in kind together. Ask him how well that regulation thing worked for the FORMER Soviet Union. As in bankrupt. Which is what the US will be soon if we don't get rid of the regulations and government control of our property and our lives. But freedom doesn't mean a thing to you. Right?

Toodle-oo! See you down on the work farm, serving your next master.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

Maybe I will be next. So what.

We deregulated the media, we've seen what happens.

We deregulated banking, and we've seen what happens.

Hey Ho

Hey Ho

The Repelican Party has Got To Go!

z

[-] 1 points by Disturbed (2) 8 years ago

Right there, you're saying something we both agree! Take the Republican Party and the Democrat parties and dump them both! After all, they are two sides to the same coin and both parties are what have screwed us over. It takes more than one party to get us $15 Trillion in debt. And it has.

We (the American people) have been consistent about voting for either Dem or Rep. Notice how it's both parties that want to keep this two-party monster alive and breathing? While one party has you distracted with its antics, the other is busy picking your pocket.

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”--John Adams, 1789

We allowed ourselves to be set up by these two forces who like to play "Good cop/Bad cop" with us so we'll hand over our money and our liberties freely to them so we can lie down before them while they carve us open.

And you want them to have more control and more power. Stop being so naive. You'll be led to slaughter like so many lambs before.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

.

What greater gift can one man give

in a golden age of confusion

but that which is true . . .

.

This is true -

corruption exposed

will often expose more corruption.

.

© ZenDog

November 22, 2011

. .

[-] -2 points by jiradog (92) 8 years ago

The government favors it's buddies through regulation. We have plenty of regulation now and Wall Street is full of crooks. The crooks use Washington to get what they want and cover their crimes. More government is just that much more corruption.

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

I do understand it seems that way. Check my comment above. Know that I hear what you just said, and that there is a clear example of it -

the bp oil spill demonstrated the regulatory agency responsible for oversight had been corrupted -

with cash, and wild orgiastic parties.

I hear you. I still insist deregulation is not the answer, and simply plays into the hands of those who have benefited from corrupting the system.

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

Understand that it isn't "deregulating" it is simply changing the hands of who is doing the regulating from some easily corruptible power structure to the hands of the people via individual choice and use of courts.

I think the premise you are starting with is "only government can regulate" and that is a false premise.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

If you say there needs to be a distinct and verifiable independence to regulatory authority, then I agree.

Even our court system has asserted corporations have tongues - and they are independent of the executive and legislative branches.

This is a problem.

My concern is how to we get to a point where we can find sound solutions to this issue?

Attack the political system where it is weakest.

Where is it weakest?

the Repelicans stand as a block, united behind false ideology. Issues like: There is no Global Warming.

A natural process is underway as a result of these lies. A cycle. Hasten that cycle.

Confront the lies.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

I don't think that is the most effective way to stop the cycle.

They cycle occurs because of a trade of two items: power (the ability to use force on people be it taking money from taxpayers and giving it to corporations, preventing access to the rule of law via clauses written into regulatory authority bills) and money.

Disrupt that cycle and their ability to defend against future attacks will be severely hampered.

I favor disrupting the power part of the cycle because I think it is most vulnerable because its the only point at which we have public input (voting). Make the decision to trade power for money to toxic to the life of any politician and the system collapses as politicians always choose pain (less corporate funding) over death (loss of election).

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 8 years ago

Free Market Capitalis doesn't give the power to the people, but to the bosses.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

That is a common perception but I don't find it to be accurate at all. A free market is always about the natural balance of opposition forces - like the yin and yang. It is the process of finding and living in this balance where we find market efficiency - such as price.

The market (as its name sake alludes) is fundamentally about freedom of choice. Now this doesn't mean that all the available choices are the desired options (life is never this easy) but it does mean that each actor should be as free as possible to decide which choice they believe will best secure their future happiness.

This wide range of choice allows each actor to best pursue and obtain utility which increases wealth for all.

I think we can explore our difference more by exploring how we both view the actions of a common anti-market action such as the minimum wage. I won't assume your view of it so please let me know how what your view of minimum wage laws is.

[-] 1 points by OccupyGUY23 (0) from Keene, NH 8 years ago

Protest where you are!! What othertime of the year do you have the chance? They are coming to us!

[-] -1 points by RonPaulisWINNING (36) 8 years ago

Not sure why they did that at an open Question Answer session for a politician they agree with (judging by the cheering) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtlIBsq9EHA

[-] -2 points by CircleV (-2) from Denver, CO 8 years ago

Government is very rarely a solution to societal problems. Even if regulation solves a problem, it creates others in its place. Additionally, the lobbying system ensures that corporations can use the legislative process to wage war on smaller competitors (read about raids on small farming cooperatives for violations of FDA minutiae) and always make sure that the proposed regulations never affect their bottom line. A lot of people in OWS erroneously believe the groups like the FDA ensure safe food and drugs and that the EPA helps guarantee clean air and water. The reality is that in most industries 90% of regulation is state anyway. The 10% that is federal is the most expensive 10% to implement and the most costly to small businesses and consumers. They are also very general and largely ineffective. The tort system is far more effective in ensuring safety than regulations written by the industry. I have worked for a trade group for the last 2 years that interfaces regularly with legislators and lobbyists on a daily basis so believe me, federal regulations are a giant scam. Trust me, if the FDA were eliminated there would be no effect on drug quality except that prices would plummet. Manufactures could not make poison (and did not do so even before the FDA was formed) because of state laws, the threat of extremely expensive lawsuits and terrible publicity. In the age of Upton Sinclair's "the Jungle" states were just beginning to regulate and the tort system was undeveloped. Abuses did not end because of federal regulation. They ended because states passed regulatory laws. The feds are highly centralized and their budget is limited. But because they are inefficient, their bureaucracies are hugely expensive. The expansion of the federal government has only succeeded in creating an elite class of government officials and corporate boards. REGULATIONS DO NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS; they only create them.

[-] -2 points by ronpaul2012 (41) 8 years ago

The Ron Lawl community feels your pain. We believe in ending fraud, ending a central banking system that supports the already rich, ending a government that provides welfare for the rich and corporations, to give the power back to the people, the states, the communities, to end authoritarianism, and to let the people choose to do what they want to do.

We support you and hope you will join the Revolution Ron Lawl has been lucky enough to be a part of.

[-] -2 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 8 years ago

People since we are in such a mess we have to take care of the big things on at a time or the wont get done. goverment is not good at actually following thru. but if we pu RonPaul in charge we can end the fed or nationalize it. once that is done it will take a while but our economy will get back together and be strong. after that we can fix regulations. but our number one threat in the FED. that is why we need Dr. Paul

[-] -2 points by justlogic (-1) 8 years ago

To understand Ron Lawl, rather than just blindly follow your socialist movement listen to this file. If not just to rebut it...

http://soundcloud.com/justlogic/murray-rothbard-economic

[-] -2 points by 2012RP2012 (-1) 8 years ago

LOL...we are going to take 99% of the 99%...don't worry we have enough t-shirts for everybody )))

[-] -2 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

Ron P.A.U.L 2012

Austrian Economics

End the Fed

[-] -2 points by OccupyGUY23 (0) from Keene, NH 8 years ago

I believe it was his first dose

[-] 2 points by RonPaulisWINNING (36) 8 years ago

people are always rude to Dr. Paul

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by ronpaul2012 (41) 8 years ago

I also find it very mean spirited, as a community, to automatically sensor ron9aul's name to make it Ron Lawl. Very disappointed to see that, in a community that prides themselves as being a 99% as if you aren't allowed to use certain words. To do this is an act of the very same thing you are against - like you are a power of the few who control this.

[-] -3 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

I wonder if we will ever see OWS do this to Obama. For some reason, I kind of doubt it. This movement has gone from a populist movement into lefty mode. RP was "mic checked" because he has an (R) after his name and for no other reason.

[-] 1 points by OccupyGUY23 (0) from Keene, NH 8 years ago

Still wonder if we will do it to OBAMA?? We will not pick favorites to spare! Thats a comment out of place. Ofcourse Obama cant be spared. I drove 8 hours to DC to see the man innaugurated. I had tremendous "hope" in him. I put a lot of stake in to his campaign. Not as a direct suppoerter but I painted my whole car in Obama propaganda to show my enthusiasm. But I now have to call the chips where they fall. Hes a liar too!!!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 8 years ago

Obama is not left wing.

[-] -1 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

He's certainly not right wing either. Hardly any of today's politicians fall under the true left/right paradigm. Mostly they are part of the corporate wing. I thought that was what OWS was rallying against, but this forum proves otherwise.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 8 years ago

Yes, he is in fact right wing. This system IS capitalism. Crony capitalism is inevitably what capitalism leads to. We are rallying against the inevitable result of capitalism. Your austrian bullshit was tried by Reagan AND GAVE US OUR CURRENT BULLSHIT. Your austrian bullshit was tried by fascist Chile and turned into rampant cronyism in a decade; the Chicago kids had to introduce regulation to get Chile out of the shithole Pinochet and Friedman had driven it in.

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

How is he right wing?

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 8 years ago

He's a capitalist. He defends the private ownership of the means of production. His foreign policy is imperialist. His administration is "moderate" in a spectrum where moderation is between liberalism and conservatism, both of which are right wing, capitalist ideologies, although yes there are center left liberals, these are called progressives in the US.

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

Oh, you don't mean left wing, you mean far left, borderline socialist. Sorry, I didn't realize you were that far to the left. Of course, from your perspective, anything short of nationalization of all industries is right wing, just as the far right evangelicals see any law not first cleared through their god and that doesn't control morality is left wing.

[-] -3 points by WatchPolitician (25) 8 years ago

Why the fuck does this site censor Ron P-A-U-L theres something wrong with that and fishy.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

You're correct.

There is something fishy about Paul.

Something very smelly.

Is it him, or is it his zombie minions?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

Ron P.A.U.L 2012

Austrian economics

End the Fed

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Austrian economics, outmoded outdated and proven ineffective.

End Paul and try something modern.

http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system

[-] -3 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

its free market Austrian economics, the economic political theory that predict the Great depression and the the current depression, it won the Nobel prize under F.A. Hayek for his boom and bust theory.

Ron P.A.U.L predicted the collapse as early as 2003, as well Peter Schiff was right youtube video shows this as well and they subscribe to this practice.

[-] -3 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

How so?

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

The effects of GATT are pretty obvious.

You should follow the link.

[-] -3 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

I did its not on point.

How does Austrian economics not work?

where is the evidence?

and how is it outdated?

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Speed reader huh?

Gatt is a failure. Look around and see it's effects.

[-] -3 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

why cant YOU answer my questions directly, and I dis agree with the link, saying free markets are"irrational", and "Demand" govt regulation due to irrational behavior of free thinking individuals.

thats enough for me to reject this premise

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

The neoliberal aspect of yours is enough for me to reject it too.

Your false belief in free markets is even more irrational.

There are no free markets. There never were.

[-] -3 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

That argument doesnt make sense.

"There is no free market and there never were."....? so if it hasnt been done dont do it? Is that the scientific method you use?

and it was close as it ever was 1779-1860-then really demised in 1913 where in central banking ,sophisticated in there means, poisoned our monetary and through proxy our politics

that stifles human progress, and why would be irrational to accept, don't use aggressive force unless fraud, theft, rape, murder...etc

Austrian economic free market politics is routed in

FREEDOM = individual Liberties, Protected by Private Property Rights, upheld by voluntary contract, enforced by a small local govt and the more complex the situation the more local it should get.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

A "market" by virtue of it's existence as a construct, can never be free.

A "market" is created by man.

It will always be controlled by some individual or organization.

Without men to control it, there is no market.

It's not an autonomous system. There is no auto pilot.

There is no "invisible hand". No "magic", hidden deep within.

Those who control it do so with the aim of keeping their profits high, at any cost.

How is that moral?

[-] 0 points by thersalwysnxtyr (5) from Traverse City, MI 8 years ago

not even close. "the market" isnt created by man, it is an extension of his natural behavior, and our behavior as a whole. it IS NOT centralized, it is decentralized, and resources are distributed based on the willingness of the individual to provide something else of value into the marketplace (meaning that it requires an addition of value before consumption can occur)

"Those who control it do so with the aim of keeping their profits high, at any cost."

and, in a free market subject to competition, the only way they can keep profits high is to serve consumers better and cheaper than the next guy. nobody can use force to extract money from you without consent.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

So then, all wealth in a market is based on labor?

Why are you guys so vehemently anti-union?

Corporations confiscate money from consumers every day.

They use coercion to do so, and demand the customer pay for that coercion.

"Free market" competition, didn't work out so well in Chile, although, I'm sure you have yet another convoluted explanation, for how that wasn't "true" libertarianism. You always do.

There will never be a pure political system and libertarianism demands it, to be effective. There is no wiggle room, there are no safeguards. No room for error.

It's so 19th century, I can't believe anyone other that the Kochs could even consider it.

Plus it hides under a veil, using coercion and co-opting, in an attempt to "sell" it's precepts.

Why is that?

[-] 0 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

we are FOR Unions...voluntary, non mafia influenced big monopoly corporations destroying the economy through coercion of force of govt.

If you bring up any examples of economics from 1860 on, its not capitalism or Libertarianism, its collectivism corrupted so thats why we have to correct and waste time defending actual free markets rather than you asking specific questions that I can answer and if I cant I can refer you to it.

Then you bring up chile, a free market does not mean thug rule of the biggest and the baddest......Chile was not a free market nor did they have a constitutional republic.

there will never be a pure political system correct so thats why you have minimal local govt to keep things in relative check. Collectivism demands your phrase. How can man be so inherently evil to you, but you want to give them the power of NUKES to be used for National Security?

and to bring up Koch shows any Libertarian, your talking points. They are not Libertarian, you need to look up

Austrian economics free market politics

Ludwig Von mises, F.A. Hayek Nobel prize winner, Murray Rothbard,

Tom Woods Harvard/Columbia graduate New York times Best Seller Meltdown

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=541bajR4k8g

Peter Schiff was Right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Uk3hKnQQ8

Ron Lawl 1988 debates William Buckley Neo Con extraordinaire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VIvqyrxbL8

[-] 0 points by thersalwysnxtyr (5) from Traverse City, MI 8 years ago

"So then, all wealth in a market is based on labor?"

not labor, but production. production is something that is accounted for after the fact. labor isnt necessarily tied to economic value.

"Why are you guys so vehemently anti-union?"

well, this is false. im in a union. the 4th amendment guarantees the right to unionize. the problem is the rules that give them extra authority at the bargaining table. unions can be very useful to the workers AND the company, in their natural environment.

"Corporations confiscate money from consumers every day.

They use coercion to do so, and demand the customer pay for that coercion."

and they use force of government to do so. without that tool, they are incapable.

"It's so 19th century, I can't believe anyone other that the Kochs could even consider it."

a time of technological advancement, prosperity, gentle deflation, and improvement in lives. the fact that we are technologically better off now, doesnt mean that an unstable currency and economic intervention work, it just means that the processes arent all dead or intervened upon (see electronics).

"Plus it hides under a veil, using coercion and co-opting, in an attempt to "sell" it's precepts.

Why is that?"

i have no idea what you mean by that. im not hiding. im not using coercion. and im certainly not co opting. im not selling you on its precepts. im doing the unpopular thing, not the popular thing.

[-] -2 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

the free market so we can be on the same page is the environment of free individuals making personal decision about goods and services.

So in this "free market" you would be punished only by breaking the voluntary contract and or violating someones private property(property being the sense of you own your body,hence your property and so on so forth to material items gained through rightful means.

Profits high at any cost till consumers say its not worth the price of your goods and services and go to the competition or if there is none boycott and spread info about the business in question...ie occupy means but in a free market no police mafia hired by JP morgan to stop you,

that business changes or gets such a bad reputation he goes out of business.

The power is given to the individual by means of purchasing power choices.

you vote with your sound non manipulated money or barter, and prices are a mechanism of supply and demand, and show how much resources are available and should be a check and balance to limit consumption.

and your right in a true free society the public has to be well educated/informed, well armed and have respect for fellow individuals, lets try to make it happen

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Not moral at all.

Who's gonna stop JP Mogan from doing whatever they can afford? They're well armed you know.

You never did respond to coercion.

How about product liability resulting in my death? I took some snake oil that was going to make me young again and it killed me. A slip up in the formula. No witness, no heirs.

I'm just dead, huh?

I suppose he would dissolve his corporation and reform it a few states over.

It's not the 19th century.

This is highly immoral.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

That doesn't sound moral to me.

Are you asking for a World police force to arrest abuse? Who would prosecute?

The corporations own most of the judges that matter these days. So I hope you're not expecting me to sue everybody.

You don't "vote" with money dude. You buy stuff. Much of what you buy, you are coerced into buying. How will you handle that?

This isn't the 19th century you know.

It's gonna take a while to get to that whole well educated/informed thing. What to do in the mean time?

Plus I read someplace that you can't cure stupid.

What's with that last thing, about well armed?

[-] -3 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

A world police? what are you talking about?

and the system is rotted to the core...and....? do nothing.....?

and yes you do "Vote" with your money when you purchase that good or service you reward it and it benefits and continued business applies, if it sucks you dont give them resources to continue and you organize and spread the message and boycott, the coercive is the propaganda of advertising junk, forced and "regulated" through govt monopolies/subsidies

and we would have watch dogs, review critics, investigative journalist and such life isnt perfect you make the best of it.

?

in the mean time Work Hard and get some shit done.....? No wonder this movement is in idle, you guys are just punching bags for militarized assault force. Instead of doing the real hard work, working with others,coordinating, and responding with appropriate measures on a voluntary, individual basis making voluntary unions to achieve a common goal.

stupid?

and well armed and knowing how to be responsible, and use it

its the most effective self defense and how you protect your property and loved ones.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

OIC.

I was right. not very moral.

BTW: I'm retired and worked hard for 40+ years.

Your explanations aren't very clear, so I'll try a different question.

How will your "free market" handle abuses?

[-] -2 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

Abuses is some what arbitrary, could you define it more specifically?

in a :free society it has to be understood private property/voluntary contracts is essential.

you own your body right? thats your property and if someone damages or takes your property by involuntary force, you have every right to defend your self and in a civil society a constitutional republic you can go to the local govt and state your case with contracts and evidence, and hopefully the govt and the individual involved well documented the situation, to make justice right. through trial,objective peers and force can then be laid upon the the guilty.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

The fucking Gilded Age:

"Here was a society in which people were free to keep everything they earned, because there was no income tax. They were also free to decide what to do with their own money—spend it, save it, invest it, donate it, or whatever. People were generally free to engage in occupations and professions without a license or permit. There were few federal economic regulations and regulatory agencies. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, bailouts, or so-called stimulus plans. No IRS. No Departments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor. No EPA and OSHA. No Federal Reserve. No drug laws. Few systems of public schooling. No immigration controls. No federal minimum-wage laws or price controls. A monetary system based on gold and silver coins rather than paper money. No slavery. No CIA. No FBI. No torture or cruel or unusual punishments. No renditions. No overseas military empire. No military-industrial complex."

Libertarian, laissez-faire paradise.

No monopolies right? But, why did Teddy Roosevelt need to bust the trusts? How could monopolies have possibly formed?

Obviously, this society must have been the most just and equal in our history, considering the promises libertarians make us about how wonderful things will be once government gets out of the way...

'Government for the people, a despairing Rutherford B. Hayes noted in his diary, was supplanted in the Gilded Age by "government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation." It was an era when government held the keys to corporate and private fortunes—land and subsidies for railroads, tariff protection for manufacturers, mountains for mining companies, timber lands for lumber kings, court orders to prevent strikes, and state militia and federal lawmen and U.S. Army regulars to break strikes and shoot strikers. "Government by campaign contributions," in Henry Demarest Lloyd’s words, gave America the most violent strikes in the industrializing world.'

From: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/06/the-dark-side-of-the-gilded-age/6012/

[-] -2 points by EUROPAusa (-24) 8 years ago

Why do people take a time period in the past and smear it on the future? you take the free market environment in which is suggest and apply it with like minded individuals and you make regions or states upon a common rule of law

the new generations are ready to throw the shackles of these relic ideas of collectivism by force and we are savages to be restrained from our full potential to be peaceful and prosperous.

Teddy was an insider...yes even back then you had corporatism as prevalent as the means to do so, he busted up a monopoly in phrase and names only they changed their names for each branch but it was the same old game they just learned you fool humans in believing they have free will and choice and you can manipulate the masses.

Example Blackwater