Paul's Legislative Record - Claimed and Fact
SueDoeCyAnts
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces
of substantive legislation each year,
probably more than any single member
of Congress.
<http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/>
From GovTrack dot us:
Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997,
of which 341 haven't made it out of committee
and 0 were successfully enacted
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311>
Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid, Tastes Great...
Bert Hyman
SueDoeCyAnts <pseu...@labb.port5.com> wrote:
>
> Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces
> of substantive legislation each year,
> probably more than any single member
> of Congress.
>
> <http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/>
>
> From GovTrack dot us:
>
> Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997,
> of which 341 haven't made it out of committee
> and 0 were successfully enacted
>
> <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311>
Are you suggesting that the second paragraph somehow contradicts the
first?
His only claim was that he introduced "substantive" legislation, not
that the rest of his House colleagues would ever vote to pass it, or
even allow it to be voted on.
I'd go so far as to say that the fact his bills weren't allowed out of
committee suggests that his claim that the bills were substantive is
likely quite true.
There's no place for that kind of lawmaking in the US Congress these
days.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Sanders Kaufman
news:Xns9A01861C996CFOr...@198.186.190.165...
Aha! Now I've got it.
I was trying to come up with a label for all the right-wingers, religious
freaks, and Libertarian Republicans.
Now I know what to call them - they're the Impotents.
Curly Surmudgeon
Drink some, your attack by misrepresentation failed.
The two cites are not mutually exclusive. Duh...
--Regards, Curly
=============================================================================
http://tinyurl.com/nrqzw
=============================================================================
Curly Surmudgeon
> In news:Xns9A01861C996CFOr...@198.186.190.165 SueDoeCyAnts
> <pseu...@labb.port5.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive
>> legislation each year, probably more than any single member
>> of Congress.
>>
>> <http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/>
>>
>> From GovTrack dot us:
>>
>> Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341
>> haven't made it out of committee and 0 were successfully enacted
>>
>> <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311>
>
> Are you suggesting that the second paragraph somehow contradicts the
> first?
>
> His only claim was that he introduced "substantive" legislation, not that
> the rest of his House colleagues would ever vote to pass it, or even allow
> it to be voted on.
>
> I'd go so far as to say that the fact his bills weren't allowed out of
> committee suggests that his claim that the bills were substantive is
> likely quite true.
That was my take on first reading. That rational legislation has been
repeatedly denied even a hearing, let alone a vote, is an indication more
of the failure of our political system than a problem with Ron Paul.
But expect more of the scurrelous attacks as the momentum grows.
> There's no place for that kind of lawmaking in the US Congress these
> days.
That's why we need the guillotine.
Bob LeChevalier
>I'd go so far as to say that the fact his bills weren't allowed out of
>committee suggests that his claim that the bills were substantive is
>likely quite true.
Are you claiming that all bills, or even most bills, that fail to make
it out of committee are "substantive"?
Here are some inherently-substantive-because-still-in-committee bills
from January (none by Paul)
H.R. 216: Baseball Diplomacy Act Introduced
Jan 4, 2007
S. 43: Social Security Totalization Agreement Reform Act of 2007
Introduced
Jan 4, 2007
S. 95: Kids Come First Act of 2007 Introduced
Jan 4, 2007
H.R. 78: American Child Support Enforcement Immigration Act of 2006
Introduced
Jan 4, 2007
H.R. 773: Diploma Integrity Protection Act of 2007 Introduced
Jan 31, 2007
H.R. 709: Total Overhaul of Totalization Agreements Law of 2007
Introduced
Jan 29, 2007
H.R. 662: Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin
Americans of Japanese Descent Act Introduced
Jan 24, 2007
H.R. 522: Haitian Protection Act of 2007 Introduced
Jan 17, 2007
H.R. 468: Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act of 2007
Introduced
Jan 12, 2007
Here is one sponsored by Paul.
H.R. 2756: Honest Money Act Sponsor: Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]
<Honest Money Act -Repeals the law stating: (1) U.S. coins and currency
< are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues; and
< (2) foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
lojbab
Bert Hyman
news:a36pl39r5hj7jks54...@4ax.com:
> Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>I'd go so far as to say that the fact his bills weren't allowed out
>>of committee suggests that his claim that the bills were
>>substantive is likely quite true.
>
> Are you claiming that all bills, or even most bills, that fail to
> make it out of committee are "substantive"?
Of course not.
Substantive bills are stalled, but not all stalled bills are
substantive.
That's because most members of Congress are idiots.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:23:56 +0000, Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>> In news:Xns9A01861C996CFOr...@198.186.190.165 SueDoeCyAnts
>> <pseu...@labb.port5.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive
>>> legislation each year, probably more than any single member
>>> of Congress.
>>>
>>> <http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/>
>>>
>>> From GovTrack dot us:
>>>
>>> Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341
>>> haven't made it out of committee and 0 were successfully enacted
>>>
>>> <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311>
>>
>> Are you suggesting that the second paragraph somehow contradicts the
>> first?
>>
>> His only claim was that he introduced "substantive" legislation, not that
>> the rest of his House colleagues would ever vote to pass it, or even allow
>> it to be voted on.
>>
>> I'd go so far as to say that the fact his bills weren't allowed out of
>> committee suggests that his claim that the bills were substantive is
>> likely quite true.
>
>That was my take on first reading. That rational legislation has been
>repeatedly denied even a hearing, let alone a vote,
One cannot tell whether they had a hearing, and it is precisely
because the rest of the Congress considers his nonsense irrational
that it does not bother to vote on the record. It is political
posturing. The legislative process is not one of introducing bills
that are so far from acceptable as to not warrant the attention of
other Congresscritters.
>is an indication more
>of the failure of our political system than a problem with Ron Paul.
It very much shows the failure of Ron Paul to be anything but a
lightweight.
If he cannot get a bill through Congress while he is a member, how
could he possible get anything done in the White House?
>> There's no place for that kind of lawmaking in the US Congress these
>> days.
>
>That's why we need the guillotine.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
lojbab
Bert Hyman
> If he cannot get a bill through Congress while he is a member, how
> could he possible get anything done in the White House?
Not getting anything done is not a bad thing.
>
>>> There's no place for that kind of lawmaking in the US Congress
>>> these days.
>>
>>That's why we need the guillotine.
>
> Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
No, violence is often the first thing incompetents try.
SueDoeCyAnts
Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> posted
in news:Xns9A019CAE1F0...@216.250.184.7:
That dependes on your definition of substantive.
-------------------------------------------------
substantive
1. Substantial; considerable.
2. Independent in existence or function; not subordinate.
3. Not imaginary; actual; real.
4. Of or relating to the essence or substance;
essential: substantive information.
5. Having a solid basis; firm.
The American Heritage® Dictionary
of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
<http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/S0853000.html>
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Let's see:
Definition 1: nope
Definition 2: dead in committee is non-existent
Definition 3: not a chance pardner
Definition 4: weakly arguable
Definition 5: arguable on a case by case basis:
I won't be holding my breath for any Paulbots to offer up the 346
cases. They are all still dreaming about getting ripped-off by a
von Nothaus Liberty Dollar scheme, and salivating at the chance to
pony up $20 for $8.50 in .999 fine silver, or better still, hpoing
to get in at the basement level after von Nothaus bumped the
denomination up to $50 when the silver spot market hit $16.
Ooh, those evil Feds, just out to get Ron Paul...
Oh wait, I forgot, Ron Paul had nothing to do with Bernard von
Nothaus' pyramid marketing strategy for the patriot movement.
He's just a presidential candidate who allowed his visage to be
used in a brutal con game. Paul is as gullible as his supporters.
Who is running his campaign, Karl Rove?
Read the fucking indictment, if you're capable of it:
<http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/meckdeck/pdfs/USAVLibdoll.pdf>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Again, Here are two facts:
ONE - Paul is a long time Republican Politician from Texas.
TWO - Politicians Lied, Politicians Lie, Politicians Will Lie.
Can a rational corollary be derived from these two facts?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two Presidents from Texas in my life has been two too many.
The Nation cannot handle another.
Bob LeChevalier
>In message news:c2iql31rhr8psivoe...@4ax.com, Bob LeChevalier
>sprach forth the following:
>
>>>That was my take on first reading. That rational legislation has been
>>>repeatedly denied even a hearing, let alone a vote,
>>
>> One cannot tell whether they had a hearing, and it is precisely
>> because the rest of the Congress considers his nonsense irrational
>> that it does not bother to vote on the record.
>
>Please cite an example of Dr. Paul's "irrational nonsense". Resolution
>Number, title and/or description, and your reasoning will suffice.
I gave one.
>>>is an indication more
>>>of the failure of our political system than a problem with Ron Paul.
>>
>> It very much shows the failure of Ron Paul to be anything but a
>> lightweight.
>>
>> If he cannot get a bill through Congress while he is a member, how
>> could he possible get anything done in the White House?
>
>He doesn't WANT to "get anything done";
Precisely why he has no capability to serve as president.
>he wants to UNDO the fucked up shit that's gotten us where we are: $9 trillion in debt, a currency and economy
>in shambles, invasion by 20 million illegals, and despised around the
>world.
If he cannot introduce bills that Congress will pass while a member,
then how could he solve any of these problems?
lojbab
Peder B. Pels
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:11:01 +0000, SueDoeCyAnts wrote:
>
> > From the Ron Paul official website:
> >
> > Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive
> > legislation each year, probably more than any single member
> > of Congress.
> >
> > <http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/>
> >
> > From GovTrack dot us:
> >
> > Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341
> > haven't made it out of committee and 0 were successfully enacted
> >
> > <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311>
> >
> >
> > Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid, Tastes Great...
>
> Drink some, your attack by misrepresentation failed.
>
> The two cites are not mutually exclusive. Duh...
>
> --Regards, Curly
Actually, I think the OP is really a Ron Paul supporter who is trying to
make his opponents look bad, because that was positively boneheaded...
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
Peder B. Pels
> >>>is an indication more
> >>>of the failure of our political system than a problem with Ron Paul.
> >>
> >> It very much shows the failure of Ron Paul to be anything but a
> >> lightweight.
> >>
> >> If he cannot get a bill through Congress while he is a member, how
> >> could he possible get anything done in the White House?
> >
> >He doesn't WANT to "get anything done";
>
> Precisely why he has no capability to serve as president.
Duh. By that definition only tyrants and those who would introduce
creeping tyranny are capable presidents.
Peder B. Pels
> loj...@lojban.org (Bob LeChevalier) wrote in
> news:c2iql31rhr8psivoe...@4ax.com:
>
> > If he cannot get a bill through Congress while he is a member, how
> > could he possible get anything done in the White House?
>
> Not getting anything done is not a bad thing.
Indeed - if the only thing getting done is perpetuation of tyranny, I'd
rather see nothing done.
Sanders Kaufman
> ONE - Paul is a long time Republican Politician from Texas.
> TWO - Politicians Lied, Politicians Lie, Politicians Will Lie.
>
> Can a rational corollary be derived from these two facts?
No - but a faith-based one sure can!
Sanders Kaufman
news:Xns9A028B53B3...@66.250.146.128...
> Please cite an example of Dr. Paul's "irrational nonsense". Resolution
> Number, title and/or description, and your reasoning will suffice.
>
> Start here:
>
> HR________
Could you narrow the request down some?
He proposed over 300 pieces of legislation - none of which even made it to a
vote.
N-O-N-E.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for impotence.
Peder B. Pels
> >> There's no place for that kind of lawmaking in the US Congress these
> >> days.
> >
> >That's why we need the guillotine.
>
> Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
No; Violence is usually the last refuge of people who have been driven
desperate and agaist a wall by others who have no respect for their
life, freedom and dignity.
If you and others insist on mocking those whose precious freedoms are
usurped every day under various guises, you will soon find yourself with
thw back against the wall, because a lot of us are not gonna stand for
it much longer.
And you know what? You wont be missed.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>> >>>is an indication more
>> >>>of the failure of our political system than a problem with Ron Paul.
>> >>
>> >> It very much shows the failure of Ron Paul to be anything but a
>> >> lightweight.
>> >>
>> >> If he cannot get a bill through Congress while he is a member, how
>> >> could he possible get anything done in the White House?
>> >
>> >He doesn't WANT to "get anything done";
>>
>> Precisely why he has no capability to serve as president.
>
>Duh. By that definition only tyrants and those who would introduce
>creeping tyranny are capable presidents.
Only loonytarians and other insane people see tyranny everywhere they
move. Most of us like the governmental system that "we the people"
set up, which has checks and balances against tyranny, but can also
set limits on self-centered SOBs.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>LeChevalier sprach forth the following:
>>>> One cannot tell whether they had a hearing, and it is precisely
>>>> because the rest of the Congress considers his nonsense irrational
>>>> that it does not bother to vote on the record.
>>>
>>>Please cite an example of Dr. Paul's "irrational nonsense". Resolution
>>>Number, title and/or description, and your reasoning will suffice.
>>
>> I gave one.
>
>Mustn't have made an impression 'cause I didn't notice. Try again.
<Here is one sponsored by Paul.
<
<H.R. 2756: Honest Money Act Sponsor: Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]
<<Honest Money Act -Repeals the law stating: (1) U.S. coins and currency
<< are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues; and
<< (2) foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
If you need an explanation what the effects would be of making US
coins and currency no longer legal tender, you surely are living in
cloud-cuckoo-land. (The law wouldn't make your taxes go away, but you
wouldn't be able to pay them, or your mortgage either, and no one
would be able to pay you either.)
>>>>>is an indication more
>>>>>of the failure of our political system than a problem with Ron Paul.
>>>>
>>>> It very much shows the failure of Ron Paul to be anything but a
>>>> lightweight.
>>>>
>>>> If he cannot get a bill through Congress while he is a member, how
>>>> could he possible get anything done in the White House?
>>>
>>>He doesn't WANT to "get anything done";
>>
>> Precisely why he has no capability to serve as president.
>
>So you prefer a Mussolini-type who can make the trains run on time. Nice.
No. I would rather have the sort of president we usually have, who is
capable of working with his 300 million peers (and not just the 3% of
them who share his peculiar ideology) within the governmental system
that we have refined for 200 years, "in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
>>>he wants to UNDO the fucked up shit that's gotten us where we are: $9
>>>trillion in debt, a currency and economy in shambles, invasion by 20
>>>million illegals, and despised around the world.
>>
>> If he cannot introduce bills that Congress will pass while a member,
>> then how could he solve any of these problems?
>
>By vetoing the fucked up shit that's gotten us where we are:
Vetoing laws he doesn't like won't get us anywhere; it doesn't change
anything and all the old laws stay on the books.
It also leads to the sort of nonsense we have in the current Congress,
where nothing is being done about:
"$9 trillion in debt, a currency and economy in shambles, invasion by
20 million illegals, and despised around the world"
because the President has no clue how to work with a Congress that
doesn't bow to his every wish.
(Do you think the debt will go away by doing nothing? Or the
"illegals" (who would probably do better than most people at living on
a barter economy)?
Or let us say he could get that one bill cited passed into law. Do
you think the world will like us any better if our economy collapses
because our currency is no longer legal tender? Do you think that
Americans wouldn't rise up in revolt when all their dollar-denominated
bank accounts were decreed to be of zero value?)
You'd get the revolution you want, and probably a theocratic
dictatorship - that being the sort that is usually managing to fill
power-vacuums these days. And Ron Paul would be dead and not mourned
within a few weeks.
Only loonytarians want to live in a loonytarian dystopia. Luckily you
are very few in number.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
Loonytarians think that an impotent president is a good thing, for
some reason.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> >> There's no place for that kind of lawmaking in the US Congress these
>> >> days.
>> >
>> >That's why we need the guillotine.
>>
>> Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
>
>No; Violence is usually the last refuge of people who have been driven
>desperate and agaist a wall by others who have no respect for their
>life, freedom and dignity.
>
>If you and others insist on mocking those whose precious freedoms are
>usurped every day under various guises, you will soon find yourself with
>thw back against the wall, because a lot of us are not gonna stand for
>it much longer.
>
>And you know what? You wont be missed.
Posting like that, you show that you have no dignity worthy of any
respect.
You state that you feel that someone else exercising their right to
free speech in a way you don't approve of does not deserve your
respect for THEIR life and freedom, but you demand that others respect
yours.
I suspect that I would be missed by a lot more than would miss you, if
you tried the revolution you threaten.
I remind you of the last time it was tried in this country, 1861-1865,
with a ***much*** larger percentage backing those who did not accept
government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They
lost, but of course not before abandoning nearly all of their
principles in an attempt to survive.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>In message news:c2iql31rhr8psivoe...@4ax.com, Bob LeChevalier
>sprach forth the following:
>
>> Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
>
>head. THEN we'll see how competent my violence is, motherfucker.
Probably competent enough for you to see the inside of a gas chamber
close up, if you didn't use the Smith and Wesson on yourself first.
lojbab
Peder B. Pels
> pe...@nospamplease.dk (Peder B. Pels) wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >
> >> >>>is an indication more
> >> >>>of the failure of our political system than a problem with Ron Paul.
> >> >>
> >> >> It very much shows the failure of Ron Paul to be anything but a
> >> >> lightweight.
> >> >>
> >> >> If he cannot get a bill through Congress while he is a member, how
> >> >> could he possible get anything done in the White House?
> >> >
> >> >He doesn't WANT to "get anything done";
> >>
> >> Precisely why he has no capability to serve as president.
> >
> >Duh. By that definition only tyrants and those who would introduce
> >creeping tyranny are capable presidents.
>
> Only loonytarians and other insane people see tyranny everywhere they
> move.
Perhaps because tyranny is everpresent today?
> Most of us like the governmental system that "we the people"
You do not represent "the people".
> set up, which has checks and balances against tyranny,
Which are failing spectacularly in these years. Have you been living in
a cave the last 5 years? Does Afghanistan and Iraq (or any other US
foreign military adventures the last 100 years) mean anything to you?
> but can also
> set limits on self-centered SOBs.
Yes yes, the old "libertarians = greedy egoists" line. We know it to the
points of nausea.
Peder B. Pels
> pe...@nospamplease.dk (Peder B. Pels) wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >> There's no place for that kind of lawmaking in the US Congress these
> >> >> days.
> >> >
> >> >That's why we need the guillotine.
> >>
> >> Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
> >
> >No; Violence is usually the last refuge of people who have been driven
> >desperate and agaist a wall by others who have no respect for their
> >life, freedom and dignity.
> >
> >If you and others insist on mocking those whose precious freedoms are
> >usurped every day under various guises, you will soon find yourself with
> >thw back against the wall, because a lot of us are not gonna stand for
> >it much longer.
> >
> >And you know what? You wont be missed.
>
> Posting like that, you show that you have no dignity worthy of any
> respect.
And that comes from you? Cry me a fucking river.
(besides, what does "dignity worthy of any respect" mean?)
>
> You state that you feel that someone else exercising their right to
> free speech
The is not about free speech you jackass. This is about your spewing
forth support of arbitrary subjugation of other people.
> in a way you don't approve of does not deserve your
> respect for THEIR life and freedom, but you demand that others respect
> yours.
You respect mine, I'll respect yours. Of course, since you advocate
ideas that contain no such respect, why are you so worked up about
getting what you are yourself dishing out? Hypocrite.
>
> I suspect that I would be missed by a lot more than would miss you, if
> you tried the revolution you threaten.
Like it or not, it is coming. You can only boss people around for so
long, no matter what nice-sounding maxims you do it under.
>
> I remind you of the last time it was tried in this country, 1861-1865,
> with a ***much*** larger percentage backing those who did not accept
> government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
You still do not represent "The people".
> They
> lost, but of course not before abandoning nearly all of their
> principles in an attempt to survive.
Yes, and of course it had nothing to do with the fact that the
imperialist Lincolnite state that bore down on them to subjugate them
and deny whatever semblance of independence they desired. Duh.
Peder B. Pels
If you really think that the president is a peer of all 300 million
americans, or indeed that all 300 million americans are peers of each
other, you are just another mindless collectivist who thinks that
because your draw some lines on a map, you establish some sort of
community de feat within these lines. Talk about licing in
"cloud-cuckoo-land"... lol
> (and not just the 3% of
> them who share his peculiar ideology) within the governmental system
> that we have refined for 200 years, "in Order to form a more perfect
> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
> common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
> of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
All of these things are now gone or perverted into forms that the
founders would not recognize.
>
> >>>he wants to UNDO the fucked up shit that's gotten us where we are: $9
> >>>trillion in debt, a currency and economy in shambles, invasion by 20
> >>>million illegals, and despised around the world.
> >>
> >> If he cannot introduce bills that Congress will pass while a member,
> >> then how could he solve any of these problems?
> >
> >By vetoing the fucked up shit that's gotten us where we are:
>
> Vetoing laws he doesn't like won't get us anywhere; it doesn't change
> anything and all the old laws stay on the books.
>
> It also leads to the sort of nonsense we have in the current Congress,
> where nothing is being done about:
>
> "$9 trillion in debt, a currency and economy in shambles, invasion by
> 20 million illegals, and despised around the world"
>
> because the President has no clue how to work with a Congress that
> doesn't bow to his every wish.
And of course you now imply that the fucked up situation we are today
are merely the work of ONE president, namely the Infamous Bush, and not
the work of the full political system over the last century.
Are you yet another of those tiresome Democratic
"we-good-Republicans-bad" fundamentalists? it would seem so.
>
> (Do you think the debt will go away by doing nothing? Or the
> "illegals" (who would probably do better than most people at living on
> a barter economy)?
>
>
> Or let us say he could get that one bill cited passed into law. Do
> you think the world will like us any better if our economy collapses
> because our currency is no longer legal tender? Do you think that
> Americans wouldn't rise up in revolt when all their dollar-denominated
> bank accounts were decreed to be of zero value?)
>
> You'd get the revolution you want, and probably a theocratic
> dictatorship - that being the sort that is usually managing to fill
> power-vacuums these days. And Ron Paul would be dead and not mourned
> within a few weeks.
>
> Only loonytarians want to live in a loonytarian dystopia. Luckily you
> are very few in number.
Yes, makes us easier to bully around, doesn't it? Good for you, bad for
us.
Jeez, your kind of people makes me puke.
Bob LeChevalier
>LeChevalier sprach forth the following:
>
>> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>>>In message news:jebrl3t1ahht3luqm...@4ax.com, Bob
>>>LeChevalier sprach forth the following:
>>
>>>>>> One cannot tell whether they had a hearing, and it is precisely
>>>>>> because the rest of the Congress considers his nonsense irrational
>>>>>> that it does not bother to vote on the record.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please cite an example of Dr. Paul's "irrational nonsense".
>>>>>Resolution Number, title and/or description, and your reasoning will
>>>>>suffice.
>>>>
>>>> I gave one.
>>>
>>>Mustn't have made an impression 'cause I didn't notice. Try again.
>>
>><Here is one sponsored by Paul.
>><
>><H.R. 2756: Honest Money Act Sponsor: Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]
>><<Honest Money Act -Repeals the law stating: (1) U.S. coins and currency
>><< are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues; and
>><< (2) foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
>>
>> If you need an explanation what the effects would be of making US
>> coins and currency no longer legal tender, you surely are living in
>> cloud-cuckoo-land. (The law wouldn't make your taxes go away, but you
>> wouldn't be able to pay them, or your mortgage either, and no one
>> would be able to pay you either.)
>
>Congress shall have the power to... coin money, and regulate the value
>thereof, and of foreign coin.
which it does.
>My copy of the Constitution says:
>No State shall make any Thing other than Gold or Silver Coin a Tender in
>the Payment of Debts.
No state does. Congress regulates what is legal tender.
>It is the Federal Reserve system - and fiat money - which are
>unconstitutional, not HR 2756.
The courts have not ruled any such thing, and it seems patently to be
nonsense. HR 2756 is not substantive because it is incapable of being
passed as proposed and would render the economy untenable.
>The fiat Fed system is why a dollar is now worth four cents,
A dollar is worth a dollar, no more and no less.
>is worth less every day versus the Euro and the Pound,
which are also fiat moneys. The dollar is worth less because the US
likes to spend money without paying taxes to cover that expenditure.
>and is the reason for the subprime crisis
The subprime crisis is due to too many people taking out loans with
ridiculous terms. There are suckers born every minute, and too many
of them were allowed to be suckered. Now we have to bail them out, or
watch the financial institutions that issued such loans collapse. It
used to be that we did precisely that, and the ensuing panics had
traumatic effects on the economy.
>and inflation (did you
>know that the government's "inflation" number EXCLUDES food, energy and
>housing?
Do I care?
There are numerous "inflation numbers". I know that they are all
statistics that are only as good as the statistical analysis that
underlies them.
>So, if you're a homeless person who doesn't eat or drive,
If you are a non-homeless person who has his mortgage paid off, and
takes the subway, it will be off in an entirely different way.
>the inflation figure is honest; otherwise it's a damnable lie.)
So don't believe it. It's primary purpose is to regulate certain
payments that are keyed to that inflation rate.
>P.S.: Ron Paul WOULD make my taxes go away, by abolishing the IRS (just
>like Miguel Huckster).
Another ridiculous proposal, and one that he would have no more chance
of achieving in the White House than he does in Congress.
In the meantime, the President has the job of executing the laws of
the United States that call for the IRS to exist, and I see no reason
to elect someone so opposed to the status quo that they might not
"faithfully execute the laws of the United States"
The US government has to pay its bills, and that will require a tax
increase, not a tax elimination. If "we the people" were to elect
representatives for the purpose of massively cutting government
services, we might manage to get by with the current tax rates. But
we the people LIKE government services, so we the people need to pay
for them.
>>>So you prefer a Mussolini-type who can make the trains run on time.
>>>Nice.
>>
>> No. I would rather have the sort of president we usually have, who is
>> capable of working with his 300 million peers (and not just the 3% of
>> them who share his peculiar ideology) within the governmental system
>> that we have refined for 200 years, "in Order to form a more perfect
>> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
>> common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
>> of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
>
>George W. Bush has done everything possible to:
>- DIS-unite the Union, even in the wake of 9/11
>- make a mockery of Justice (suspension of habeus corpus)
>- abandon Tranquility (Iraq war)
>- ignore the common defense (invasion by illegal aliens)
>- wreck the general Welfare (see the dollar, real inflation, etc.)
>- attack Liberty (PATRIOT Act)
>- screw our Posterity ($9,000,000,000,000.00 national debt)
I am anything but a supporter of the Shrub, who is NOT the sort of
president we usually have. In particular, he does not deal with the
whole country, but only with his ideological base. I have no reason
to believe Paul would do otherwise, and Paul's ideological base is
1/20 the size of Bush's.
The only reason not to impeach him is that the Republicans are too
much in lockstep to convict him, and his replacement would be Cheney
who would be worse. "We the people" elected the turkey and we're
stuck with him for another year.
>Note that Bill Clinton also mocked these seven phrases of the Preamble,
The main thing he did wrong was to get caught making out with someone
he wasn't married to. Otherwise, it appears that he moved things in
the right direction.
>> It also leads to the sort of nonsense we have in the current Congress,
>> where nothing is being done about:
>>
>> "$9 trillion in debt, a currency and economy in shambles, invasion by
>> 20 million illegals, and despised around the world"
>>
>> because the President has no clue how to work with a Congress that
>> doesn't bow to his every wish.
>
>Really? Reid and Pelosi have given him EVERY PENNY of Iraq funding, and
>even left in the unconstitutional attack-Iraq-without-consulting-Congress
>language.
It is perfectly constitutional, because Congress was consulted, or
that language would not exist. The courts have ruled the War Powers
Act to be constitutional, and the courts decide what is
constitutional.
Reid and Pelosi and their peers have indeed lacked political courage.
They don't want to be accused of hurting our servicemen overseas,
which might hurt their chances for major gains at the polls next year,
and they don't have the votes to repeal the War Powers authorization.
>> (Do you think the debt will go away by doing nothing?
>
>Sell off federal lands.
That doesn't solve anything, except in the short term, and the guy in
the white house cannot do it without Congress approving.
>> Or the
>> "illegals" (who would probably do better than most people at living on
>> a barter economy)?
>
>http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html
Doesn't solve the problem of catching them, or dealing with their kids
who are citizens and cannot be deported.
Furthermore, in some places, industry would collapse, because in fact
"we the people" need and want them here to do the jobs that we aren't
willing to do.
>> Or let us say he could get that one bill cited passed into law. Do
>> you think the world will like us any better if our economy collapses
>> because our currency is no longer legal tender? Do you think that
>> Americans wouldn't rise up in revolt when all their dollar-denominated
>> bank accounts were decreed to be of zero value?)
>
>Your insanely ill-informed scare tactics only demonstrate your pathetic
>ignorance.
Actually it is my utter indifference to loonytarian ideology that you
complain about.
>> Only loonytarians want to live in a loonytarian dystopia. Luckily you
>> are very few in number.
>
>And concluding that he has made no points, he resorts to pathetic
>namecalling. Pathetic, repetitive namecalling, as if the repetition will
>somehow convince him that he has a point.
>
>plonk, cuntfuck
Do I care whether you plonk me? Not in the least.
richar...@gmail.com
Please look over how the current White House has done things and tell
me about how checks and balances are working. Like, when is the last
time congress has actually declared war and not given a president a
blank check.
- Rich
Bob LeChevalier
>In message news:5rssl3hjvirne895m...@4ax.com, Bob
>LeChevalier sprach forth the following:
>
Bill Clinton either balanced the budget or closed the gap, depending
on who is doing the calculation.
Bill Clinton led an effort to reform the welfare system.
George Bush managed to unite the country in a time of national crisis,
for a few months after 9/11, and he got the Taliban out of power.
Unfortunately he then started to play politics and destroyed that
national unity.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>In message news:cctsl39qjs1hsldit...@4ax.com, Bob
>LeChevalier sprach forth the following:
>
>> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>>>In message news:c2iql31rhr8psivoe...@4ax.com, Bob
>>>LeChevalier sprach forth the following:
>>>
>>>> Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
>>>
>>>Here's the situation: Me, a Smith & Wesson, and you with an apple atop
>>>your head. THEN we'll see how competent my violence is, motherfucker.
>>
>> Probably competent enough for you to see the inside of a gas chamber
>> close up
>
>With the US "justice system"? Have you heard of Orenthal James Simpson?
I didn't know that you were a football star with a deep bank account
to pay lawyers. If so, maybe you'll get off. On the other hand I
haven't noticed OJ getting a lot of respect.
If you really don't like our justice system, you can go somewhere else
where you think it is better. We won't miss you.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> Only loonytarians and other insane people see tyranny everywhere they
>> move.
>
>Perhaps because tyranny is everpresent today?
Only for ideologues who want to redefine what "tyranny" means. For
most people, tyranny is at the lowest level in recorded history.
>> Most of us like the governmental system that "we the people"
>
>You do not represent "the people".
I am capable of making an observation about "the people" based on
their behavior. I happen also to be a student of history, and can
thus bring to bear comparisons with behavior of "the people" in the
past.
>> set up, which has checks and balances against tyranny,
>
>Which are failing spectacularly in these years.
Nope.
>Have you been living in
>a cave the last 5 years? Does Afghanistan and Iraq (or any other US
>foreign military adventures the last 100 years) mean anything to you?
They have been approved by a majority of the Congress and by the
President.
>> but can also
>> set limits on self-centered SOBs.
>
>Yes yes, the old "libertarians = greedy egoists" line. We know it to the
>points of nausea.
Some are just egoists. Some are just greedy.
Actually, libertarians make me nauseous.
Not necessarily more so than any other kind of ideologue or True
Believer (tm). But loonytarians post more on Usenet than most other
ideologues, relative to their share of the populace.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>On Dec 11, 5:59 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> pe...@nospamplease.dk (Peder B. Pels) wrote:
>> >Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>is an indication more
>> >> >>>of the failure of our political system than a problem with Ron Paul.
>>
>> >> >> It very much shows the failure of Ron Paul to be anything but a
>> >> >> lightweight.
>>
>> >> >> If he cannot get a bill through Congress while he is a member, how
>> >> >> could he possible get anything done in the White House?
>>
>> >> >He doesn't WANT to "get anything done";
>>
>> >> Precisely why he has no capability to serve as president.
>>
>> >Duh. By that definition only tyrants and those who would introduce
>> >creeping tyranny are capable presidents.
>>
>> Only loonytarians and other insane people see tyranny everywhere they
>> move. Most of us like the governmental system that "we the people"
>> set up, which has checks and balances against tyranny, but can also
>> set limits on self-centered SOBs.
>
>Please look over how the current White House has done things and tell
>me about how checks and balances are working. Like, when is the last
>time congress has actually declared war and not given a president a
>blank check.
How is "declaring war" something other than "giving the president a
blank check"? The only difference these days is that Congress seems
to have an aversion to using the formal words "declaration of war". I
think that is because a war powers resolution is probably LESS of a
blank check than a formal declaration of war. A war powers
authorization can be withdrawn, but a formal declaration of war has
significance in international law and perhaps is harder to withdraw.
Congress tends to give the president a blank check because "we the
people" insist on it - anything less might mean that more of our
soldiers die, and no one wants to label the life of an American
soldier as being of finite value.
We the people could change this. But unfortunately, the damned war
still has a core of support strong enough to prevent cloture. There
are Americans who simply do not want to admit that we've lost, and
others who are so afraid of bin Ladin and company that they see it as
a fight to the death worth any number of lives (so long as it isn't
their own, of course).
If people had to pay the cost of war, rather than keep on getting tax
cuts (which Paul supports), then there might be the political will to
get us out.
lojbab
Sanders Kaufman
news:5rssl3hjvirne895m...@4ax.com...
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>>A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for impotence.
>
> Loonytarians think that an impotent president is a good thing, for
> some reason.
It's because they have such *extensive* criminal backgrounds.
I was talking to one fellow a while back - a Christian who claims to be a
Libertarian - but supports the GOP'ers.
In his teen years he went through a meth period, during which he also cashed
a lot of bad checks.
He finally got busted, sleeping in a public park with the evidence strewn
about him.
He went to jail for a dry-out period, and then got a lengthy felony
probation.
Because of his bad behaviour, he's no longer allowed to vote in the State of
Texas.
That's a common thing among Libertarians.
They should call themselves Liberfelons.
Sanders Kaufman
> George Bush managed to unite the country in a time of national crisis,
> for a few months after 9/11, and he got the Taliban out of power.
> Unfortunately he then started to play politics and destroyed that
> national unity.
George didn't unite us - Osama did.
George divided us.
And the taliban is still running most of Afghanistan.
Peder B. Pels
> pe...@nospamplease.dk (Peder B. Pels) wrote:
> >> Only loonytarians and other insane people see tyranny everywhere they
> >> move.
> >
> >Perhaps because tyranny is everpresent today?
>
> Only for ideologues who want to redefine what "tyranny" means. For
> most people, tyranny is at the lowest level in recorded history.
Most people are ignorant as to the state of politics and state power
today.
>
> >> Most of us like the governmental system that "we the people"
> >
> >You do not represent "the people".
>
> I am capable of making an observation about "the people" based on
> their behavior.
I am capable of making observations about you based on your behavior,
and I still don't propose to represent you.
> I happen also to be a student of history, and can
> thus bring to bear comparisons with behavior of "the people" in the
> past.
Still doesnt make you a representative of the peopel or any other
invidiual.
>
> >> set up, which has checks and balances against tyranny,
> >
> >Which are failing spectacularly in these years.
>
> Nope.
You are either ignorant or deluded.
>
> >Have you been living in
> >a cave the last 5 years? Does Afghanistan and Iraq (or any other US
> >foreign military adventures the last 100 years) mean anything to you?
>
> They have been approved by a majority of the Congress and by the
> President.
Even if it was true, is it in spirit and in accordance with the
Constitution and the intent of the US founding fathers, as expressed in
the Declaration of Independence?
I'm asking, because it you're such a sucker for institutional mass
democracy, you clearly have to abide by your own rules, as set out by
these documents. But let's hear it.
Also, another poster mentioned the current prez' gutting of Habeas
Corpus. How about that?
>
> >> but can also
> >> set limits on self-centered SOBs.
> >
> >Yes yes, the old "libertarians = greedy egoists" line. We know it to the
> >points of nausea.
>
> Some are just egoists. Some are just greedy.
Of course, you have not explained why either thing should necessarily be
bad, but relax, buddy, I know why. First of all, because you operate on
the level of emotion, and not of higher cognition. You use the words
"egoist" and "greedy" as a catalyst for emotion rather than as a
truthful descriptor of the group of all libertarians.
(Besides, if you want to infuse some sense into your skull, you should
realize that many libertarians want *justice*, but in your world, they
are excluded from adhering to such ideals, right?)
Second, you seem to be a member of the group of puritans that not only
redefine "greed" as the wish to retain whatever property is rightfully
yours, you condemn people who do so with your silly little appeals to
emotion, from the altar of imposed self-sacrifice. Anyone who refuses to
submit to your demands of sacrificing their liberty and property to your
irrational whims are as such labelled "greedy" and "egoists".
You are not much removed from the ideology of Stalinists and other
tyrannical Marxists.
> Actually, libertarians make me nauseous.
Fine, go be nauseous by yourself. You are one person I would prefer not
to associate with.
>
> Not necessarily more so than any other kind of ideologue or True
> Believer (tm). But loonytarians post more on Usenet than most other
> ideologues, relative to their share of the populace.
This troubles you, because you don't want your appeals to tyranny to go
unchallanged, yes?
Bob LeChevalier
>>
>> No. I would rather have the sort of president we usually have, who is
>> capable of working with his 300 million peers
>
>If you really think that the president is a peer of all 300 million
>americans,
He is supposed to be.
>or indeed that all 300 million americans are peers of each other,
They are supposed to be.
>you are just another mindless collectivist who thinks that
>because your draw some lines on a map, you establish some sort of
>community de feat within these lines. Talk about licing in
>"cloud-cuckoo-land"... lol
You are welcome to leave the area of those lines. We won't miss you.
>> (and not just the 3% of
>> them who share his peculiar ideology) within the governmental system
>> that we have refined for 200 years, "in Order to form a more perfect
>> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
>> common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
>> of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
>
>All of these things are now gone or perverted into forms that the
>founders would not recognize.
I doubt it. But in any case, they are forms that "we the people" have
approved of, and even demanded. The most critical of them, we fought
a very bloody war about. And indeed that war was in part about
whether we had established a community within certain lines, and we
the people, "collectively" as you put it, won.
>> >By vetoing the fucked up shit that's gotten us where we are:
>>
>> Vetoing laws he doesn't like won't get us anywhere; it doesn't change
>> anything and all the old laws stay on the books.
>>
>> It also leads to the sort of nonsense we have in the current Congress,
>> where nothing is being done about:
>>
>> "$9 trillion in debt, a currency and economy in shambles, invasion by
>> 20 million illegals, and despised around the world"
>>
>> because the President has no clue how to work with a Congress that
>> doesn't bow to his every wish.
>
>And of course you now imply that the fucked up situation we are today
>are merely the work of ONE president, namely the Infamous Bush, and not
>the work of the full political system over the last century.
Some presidents have worked to solve problems. Others have worked to
promote their ideologies.
>
>Are you yet another of those tiresome Democratic
>"we-good-Republicans-bad" fundamentalists? it would seem so.
Not hardly. I am an independent and don't think much of any of the
parties. I am basically a centrist, and I want minimal change except
as needed to solve or prevent long term problems. I also believe a
balanced budget is far more important than a tax cut.
>> You'd get the revolution you want, and probably a theocratic
>> dictatorship - that being the sort that is usually managing to fill
>> power-vacuums these days. And Ron Paul would be dead and not mourned
>> within a few weeks.
>>
>> Only loonytarians want to live in a loonytarian dystopia. Luckily you
>> are very few in number.
>
>Yes, makes us easier to bully around, doesn't it?
What you call "bullying", most people call "living in society".
Whereas I call:
<Here's the situation: Me, a Smith & Wesson, and you with an apple atop your
<head. THEN we'll see how competent my violence is, motherfucker.
posted by one of your fellow-travellers an attempt at bullying
>Jeez, your kind of people makes me puke.
The feeling is mutual.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> >No; Violence is usually the last refuge of people who have been driven
>> >desperate and agaist a wall by others who have no respect for their
>> >life, freedom and dignity.
...
>(besides, what does "dignity worthy of any respect" mean?)
As quoted above, you indicated that violence was an appropriate
response when others have no respect for their dignity. That presumes
that there is some reason for expecting people to respect their
dignity. It also presumes that they have some dignity that is worthy
of respect - but of course anyone who stoops unnecessarily to violence
has forfeited the respect of others.
>> You state that you feel that someone else exercising their right to
>> free speech
>
>The is not about free speech you jackass. This is about your spewing
>forth support of arbitrary subjugation of other people.
If it is "free speech", it doesn't matter what someone supports with
that speech. Or what someone opposes.
Loonytoonians are hypocrites in that regard in any event. They
pretend that market forces are not subjugating forces at least as
arbitrary as any government can manage.
>> in a way you don't approve of does not deserve your
>> respect for THEIR life and freedom, but you demand that others respect
>> yours.
>
>You respect mine, I'll respect yours. Of course, since you advocate
>ideas that contain no such respect, why are you so worked up about
>getting what you are yourself dishing out? Hypocrite.
I'm not at all worked up about it.
>> I suspect that I would be missed by a lot more than would miss you, if
>> you tried the revolution you threaten.
>
>Like it or not, it is coming. You can only boss people around for so
>long, no matter what nice-sounding maxims you do it under.
I don't boss anyone around. If you don't wish to continue to
participate in the American social contract, I have no problem with
you leaving.
>> I remind you of the last time it was tried in this country, 1861-1865,
>> with a ***much*** larger percentage backing those who did not accept
>> government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
>
>You still do not represent "The people".
I never claimed to represent anyone except myself. I merely observe
history.
>> They
>> lost, but of course not before abandoning nearly all of their
>> principles in an attempt to survive.
>
>Yes, and of course it had nothing to do with the fact that the
>imperialist Lincolnite state that bore down on them to subjugate them
>and deny whatever semblance of independence they desired. Duh.
You seem to think that people are entitled to whatever they desire
(independence or otherwise). Life doesn't work that way.
lojbab
richar...@gmail.com
> richardhut...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Please look over how the current White House has done things and tell
> >me about how checks and balances are working. Like, when is the last
> >time congress has actually declared war and not given a president a
> >blank check.
>
> How is "declaring war" something other than "giving the president a
> blank check"? The only difference these days is that Congress seems
> to have an aversion to using the formal words "declaration of war". I
> think that is because a war powers resolution is probably LESS of a
> blank check than a formal declaration of war. A war powers
> authorization can be withdrawn, but a formal declaration of war has
> significance in international law and perhaps is harder to withdraw.
Even since Korea, things have gone down this path of congress not
formally declaring war, but giving the president the equivalent to a
blank check. Iraq was the worse, which had a blank check given before
Korea, to allow him to create fronts wherever. Iraq allowed congress
(see Kerry) play cute where they can play both sides of the fence.
Also, there is this whole fake war bit, where the president declares
war on such things as "poverty", "drugs" and and now "terror", which
each then are used as justification by the government to reduce civil
liberities, or be wreckless with spending.
> Congress tends to give the president a blank check because "we the
> people" insist on it - anything less might mean that more of our
> soldiers die, and no one wants to label the life of an American
> soldier as being of finite value.
The people allow it to happen at least.
> We the people could change this. But unfortunately, the damned war
> still has a core of support strong enough to prevent cloture. There
> are Americans who simply do not want to admit that we've lost, and
> others who are so afraid of bin Ladin and company that they see it as
> a fight to the death worth any number of lives (so long as it isn't
> their own, of course).
It is again a fake war, that started with the "war" on drugs. People
are allowing things to go on here like this, and they get this.
> If people had to pay the cost of war, rather than keep on getting tax
> cuts (which Paul supports), then there might be the political will to
> get us out.
How about not doing pork, like the highway bill, or the prescription
drug plan? How about a balanced budget? How about a real war,
instead of a fake one? And it is true, if people had to pay, but no
one wants to pay. A start would have congress declaring war. And
regards to Paul, he at least never voted for a budget that wasn't
balanced.
- Rich
Bob LeChevalier
>> >Perhaps because tyranny is everpresent today?
>>
>> Only for ideologues who want to redefine what "tyranny" means. For
>> most people, tyranny is at the lowest level in recorded history.
>
>Most people are ignorant as to the state of politics and state power
>today.
Even more people are ignorant about prior historical states.
Such as anyone who would compare the US today to Mussolini's Italy.
>> >> Most of us like the governmental system that "we the people"
>> >
>> >You do not represent "the people".
>>
>> I am capable of making an observation about "the people" based on
>> their behavior.
>
>I am capable of making observations about you based on your behavior,
>and I still don't propose to represent you.
I'm not running for office, so what makes you think I want to
represent anyone but myself?
>> I happen also to be a student of history, and can
>> thus bring to bear comparisons with behavior of "the people" in the
>> past.
>
>Still doesnt make you a representative of the peopel or any other
>invidiual.
You seem to think I have claimed otherwise. I haven't.
>> >> set up, which has checks and balances against tyranny,
>> >
>> >Which are failing spectacularly in these years.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>You are either ignorant or deluded.
The typical argument of the ideologue when faced with someone who
rejects his "ignorant or deluded" assumptions is to play
pot-calling-kettle-black.
>> >Have you been living in
>> >a cave the last 5 years? Does Afghanistan and Iraq (or any other US
>> >foreign military adventures the last 100 years) mean anything to you?
>>
>> They have been approved by a majority of the Congress and by the
>> President.
>
>Even if it was true,
It is.
>is it in spirit and in accordance with the Constitution
>and the intent of the US founding fathers, as expressed in
>the Declaration of Independence?
The Declaration was a nice statement of ideals, but it proved to be
untenable as a basis for governance. The government system built on
the DofI was the Articles of Confederation, and it failed. The
Federal government was not sufficiently powerful to do what the
Founders felt that it needed to be able to do, so they redesigned the
system as the Constitution.
They provision for amendments into that Constitution, and several of
those amendments have weakened the states and strengthened the Federal
government. (especially after it turned out that the states were far
more "tyrannical" than the Feds). The fact that over time most
commerce became interstate or international in scope gave the Federal
government a bit more power. But all these changes were intentional,
necessary, and accepted by the vast majority.
Remember that the Founders created a system wherein states allowed
people to buy and sell other people as slaves, states were allowed to
regulate speech, the press, and religions, etc., and natives were
allowed to be dispossessed of their land without due process at the
whim of the wealthy who wanted to own still more land.
>I'm asking, because it you're such a sucker for institutional mass
>democracy,
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.
>Also, another poster mentioned the current prez' gutting of Habeas
>Corpus. How about that?
It is subject to the courts, which had arguments on that very subject
last week. They will decide where the president was within the law or
not. Checks and balances still applies.
>> >Yes yes, the old "libertarians = greedy egoists" line. We know it to the
>> >points of nausea.
>>
>> Some are just egoists. Some are just greedy.
>
>Of course, you have not explained why either thing should necessarily be
>bad,
They aren't necessarily bad. But certain flavors of such turn my
stomach.
>First of all, because you operate on the level of emotion, and not of higher cognition.
In other words, I am a human being.
>You use the words
>"egoist" and "greedy" as a catalyst for emotion rather than as a
>truthful descriptor of the group of all libertarians.
I don't claim to describe "all libertarians". I clearly used the
words "some". I can only speak about the ones that post to Usenet.
>(Besides, if you want to infuse some sense into your skull, you should
>realize that many libertarians want *justice*,
I'm sure some do. I suspect that most who do have redefined THAT word
to suit their ideology, like most others.
>but in your world, they are excluded from adhering to such ideals, right?)
I was an idealist in college. Then I joined the real world. Ideology
doesn't work. As I've gotten older, I have become continually more
convinced that it is bad.
Ideals are fine to aim for. To "adhere to them" tends to make one
into a tar baby.
Government is about compromise between competing interests and
pragmatics. Ideals are OK for "the vision thing", but anyone who
doesn't expect to have to tradeoff on their ideals from the beginning
is asking to fail.
>Second, you seem to be a member of the group of puritans that not only
>redefine "greed" as the wish to retain whatever property is rightfully
>yours,
No property is "rightfully" anyone's, except under laws and government
that define property.
Those most noteworthy of Founders, Franklin and Jefferson, both
considered property rights to be civil rights bestowed by law, not
natural rights. And neither seemed to value them especially highly.
Their attitude towards inherited wealth was more radical than my own.
I haven't read enough to find out if this author is pushing his own
ideology (I wouldn't be surprised), but his historical references
appear to be sound.
Pardon the cached link, but the website in question seems to be being
redesigned:
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:0XO89gvVw9YJ:www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/FFchp6.html+inherited+wealth+founders&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us
>you condemn people who do so with your silly little appeals to
>emotion, from the altar of imposed self-sacrifice.
Self sacrifice is at least a more virtuous ideal than the
"screw-everyone-else" interpretation of liberty.
>Anyone who refuses to submit to your demands of sacrificing their liberty and property to your
>irrational whims are as such labelled "greedy" and "egoists".
If you don't like the irrational whims of your fellow human beings, go
find a deserted island to live by yourself under your own rules,
taking care NEVER to want anything that would make you dependent on
the product of anyone else. And hope that your island is high enough
above sea level to survive global warming.
>You are not much removed from the ideology of Stalinists and other
>tyrannical Marxists.
I am quite far removed. I believe in due process, and government of
laws, not men. And I reject their ideology just as much as I do
yours.
>> Actually, libertarians make me nauseous.
>
>Fine, go be nauseous by yourself.
I would, but you continue to post to the education newsgroup.
>You are one person I would prefer not to associate with.
You are not obliged to.
>> Not necessarily more so than any other kind of ideologue or True
>> Believer (tm). But loonytarians post more on Usenet than most other
>> ideologues, relative to their share of the populace.
>
>This troubles you, because you don't want your appeals to tyranny to go
>unchallanged, yes?
No. This troubles me, because I would rather see discussions of
education on the education newsgroup.
I don't promote any ideology; I attack them all with equal
opportunity. Marxist posters have tended to be few and far between.
Thank Ghod.
lojbab