Comments on: ron paul revisited

By: B Burnell

B Burnell — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:43:37 +0000

“I don’t care much for privacy if it means an increase in safety. As long as we don’t have to install TVs in our living rooms that monitor our thoughts, I’m okay with wiretaps and my financial and medical history being examined.”
Wow. At least you draw the line at thought monitoring TV’s, but un-warranted wiretaps? I am assuming you are referring to the governments new programs regarding un-warranted wiretaps, because nobody is arguing about wiretaps warrants obtained through proper constitutional channels. Do you have any idea what this could lead to? Let’s start with politicians tapping their opponents. Hey, I could legitimately argue that somebody who does not take my position on national defense is a threat to this country and therefore required to be monitored. Why would I even need to make a defense; they are warrantless! Even if they were found to be improper, it would take a while, and their damage would have been achieved. This would be one of many reasons why warrantless wiretapping is and always has been a bad idea. You just handed anyone with an authoritarian position the right to listen to any conversation you have based on your safety. This is why I can never understand people like you. Despite all the corruption scandals, all the abuse of power throughout history, you want to take away our system of checks and balances for your safety, with complete confidence that it won’t be abused by the same people that seem to have a consistent track record of abusing power. What do you think politicians will do with your medical records? I know this maybe far fetched for you, but suppose a medical insurance company contributes heavily to a party/candidate, and now that candidate starts giving them your medical records. Then one day, you can’t get coverage. From anyone! They shared your history, and your family history, and the company decided that you were too much of a risk to insure. Your financial history is already being traded between everybody and their aunt. This way CC companies can figure out when you are in a hole, and jack up your interest rates. They know you can’t pay it off, and they have you by the nuts. They do it now. How is this keeping me safe? These are just the immediate ideas that come to mind, but if you give a few politicians and corporations a little time, I am sure they can come up with dozens of ways to misuse this info that will have nothing to do with our security. Kind of like giving one idiot the ability to make up lies and send a nation to war.
It’s amazing how willing people are to give up their personal liberties for ‘safety’. However, if you even mention border security they are quick to defend the rights of illegal aliens. How is it you can so easily sell yourself out? Just give it away. For safety? I’ll bet your one of those idiots who feels secure when you see police armed like soldiers in an airport. Next time ask yourself two questions: When was the last time a terrorist group tried a frontal ground assault on an airport? And if that doesn’t disturb you, this will: The last time the police surrounded a few unarmed ‘suspects’ (hey, they fit the profile) and unloaded (a few probably reloaded) their semi-automatic hand guns, how many times did they miss? Now they have automated rifles shooting high volocity rounds. GREAT!! It’s not about your safety. It’s about power. Reminds me of the war on drugs. Same brainwashed morons falling for the same idea, that building more prisons and unleashing more police with more expanded powers will ‘win the war’. Don’t mention to these people that 80% of the drugs come over the Mexican border though. That would be racist. How is the war on drugs going by the way? Have we won yet?

By: Tex MacRae

Tex MacRae — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:24:45 +0000

I think that you have committed a common error when evaluating Ron Paul’s positions, which is to fail to take into account that all his stances flow from one overarching principle, which is maximising individual freedom. Under this principle, one person may not coerce another person into participating in an activity which he/she opposes or prioritizes differently.

For instance, you think it of utmost importance that those among us who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances should have access to a pool of money dedicated to staving off the most dire effects of poverty. For this, you propose that I should contribute some portion of my income.

I, however, hold as my most important priority individual liberty. Thus, I object to having whatever amount of my income forcibly removed from me in order to fund your priority (although I would consider doing so voluntarily, provided I believed your fund was administered efficiently and fairly, otherwise I might select a better fund for my contributions).

You say, fine, I will assemble together a coalition of my countrymen large enough that the number of those who agree with me will overwhelm those who share your priority and we will then create bureaucracies and police forces which will enforce the will of my majority. We will then forcibly extract from you the amounts of your wealth which we decide are adequate to fund our project. If you do not submit, by our greater numbers we will crush you and send you to jails manned by our law enforcement agents and forcibly extract from your assets the amounts we have decreed you should contribute to our poverty amelioration fund.

So, you perhaps can see how your poverty elimination coalition may be viewed as frighteningly unfair and leading to a loss of the liberty which is my priority. Therefore, unless you can find a way to voluntarily fund your poverty safety net, we must be in opposition due to our clashing principles.

In the end, our opposition boils down to your promotion of restraint, coercion, and loss of liberty vs. my promotion of individual liberty and voluntary cooperation which I believe are my unalienable rights. You, on the other hand believe that your poverty fund is so important that my rights are of little concern and may be violated in pursuit of what you perceive as a higher good.

I am on the side of Ron Paul, who promotes liberty and voluntary cooperation as the highest priority. Until you understand our principles, you will not understand Ron Paul.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:12:48 +0000

I suggest making the funding for all Government programs based on “Liberty”. You have the liberty to sign-up for the tax or you don’t. This would be the only fair way to implement any social program or tax for that matter. We all know what would happen, very few would sign up. The only way to get these programs is to force those that don’t share the same values to submit, which is no different then what the “Neo-Con” Republicans are doing, not the Ron Paul Republicans.

If this is such an important issue for you on the socialist side then you should be first in line to sign up for the tax. I on the other hand would rather Red Cross, my Church or any other independent organization to use my money to help people in need. I support minimal regulation for safety of the people with maximum public over site and enforcement. If that is not given in any bill proposed by congress then I don’t support it.

I support a government that gives me a choice, that gives me the liberty to decide where my money goes and what i want to do with it. Anything less is not America.

By: gravel kucinich paul nader

gravel kucinich paul nader — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:54:01 +0000

barack obama mike huckabee vs machine

huckabee obama:
we understand your disgust.
subversion of democracy.

know this:
gravel kucinich paul nader
will fight any ticket
with clinton or mccain on it.

your eyes & ears are open…

Mike Gravel Dennis Kucinich Dr Ron Paul Ralph Nader
united by truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

Too many lies,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.

By: NH GOP

NH GOP — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:14:54 +0000

IN a truly free country gov’t would not be doing half the things you suggest they should. And when it comes to immigration, another country’s ‘poor’ is NONE of our business.

Give them all your money if you want, but you HAVE NO RIGHT TO STEAL IT FROM ME AND GIVE IT!!!!!!

DANG. You regressives are thick headed.