Part 2 http://youtu.be/8sniIMY96Bs
Romney is a robot:www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/405156/january-04-2012/indecision-2012---iowa-caucus---mitt-romney-s-victory-speech---rick-santorum-s-coup
He's an anti-American robot:www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulPMQ-0fFZE
You're likely going to be told that politics don't belong on the board, and that's probably true...but thanks for the links, anyway. The trouble with films like this one and "Inside Job" is that both parties have a vested interest in keeping the public in the dark about what they reveal. If it could be arranged that every voter saw this film, Romney wouldn't have a chance in heII of getting elected. But it gets trickier when you throw "Inside Job" into the mix, because that film shows how both parties are owned by corporate interests and the same swindlers who presided over the economic wreckage from the mortgage bubble were brought aboard by the Obama Administration, too.
In the absence of a viable third party and the media control to get this information out to the public, nothing will change for the better. The fix is in so deep it's hard to imagine a realistic solution.
Third parties would be nice, but they probably wouldn't make much of a difference. One can look no further than Israel to see why they wouldn't. Israel has many parties, but they still elect butchers and tyrants to run their country; candidates like Arial Sharon or Benjamin Netanyahu are often re-elected, over and over again.
As well -- about media control -- regarding the people listening to news radio FOX News or Air America -- they should look into how Bain Capital [Mitt Romney's brainchild] owns Clear Channel Communications, that that is why Romney and his platform are so widely promoted by the media, that that is why Romney skates by (promoted as uncontested/untouchable/undisputed) while networks constantly bash the incorruptible Ron Paul.
All of these Republican candidates are nutjobs. I feel very bad for my non-insane Conservative friends who are looking at this and wondering who is left in that party that represents them. Still, not as bad as I feel for the country. Both sides of the isle are complete and utter failures IMO.
From an article on the Bain deal:
" Romney's wealth makes him one of the 3,140 wealthiest people in the country — that's the richest 0.001 percent of Americans. So, he's not just the candidate of the 1 percent, but the candidate of the 0.001 percent. "
Enough politics for me today. Apologies in advance for going against my no-politics rule on this board.
From a broader perspective, Ron Paul's anti-military posture makes him utterly unacceptable to the elitist network (chief among which is the "military-industrial complex" cited by Eisenhower), hence he has no chance of being elected. He has a lot more than Bain Capital ranged against him. They're just one member of the larger club.
BTW, that's about the only thing I like about Paul, besides his unconventional candor. His absolute allegiance to the Austrian School of economics is a deal-breaker for me, as well as his worship of Ayn Rand.
Ron Paul is very electable.
He wakes-up so many people from their snooze, and people actually appreciate him for that.
His economic positions are genius; he has been 100% right and consistently correct, whereas all of the other candidates have been drop dead wrong.
His support is not going away, but it is growing by leaps and bounds. Presently, his campaign is stronger and more successful than Perot's and Clinton's of 1992.
The fact he is gaining on Romney while the other candidates are falling to pieces -- despite how the media has consistently attempted to marginalize him with lies and blackouts -- it's proof of his electability.
The fact he is the only candidate viewed as an honest and true Conservative -- that he is backed by the US Troops, Independents, Moderate Liberals, people aged 17-39, people with 100,000 or less -- all of it gives him a sharp edge no other candidate has.
Heck, here is a new poll that came out, today: ht-tp://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/sc/ He jumped from 9% to 20%, in South Carolina, after placing a strong second in New Hampshire.
It's very possible that JFK was assassinated because he and McNamara planned to redistribute government military contracts as rewards to districts that voted for him, without consulting the Pentagon or their business partners in the industrial complex. Watch the Zapruder film if you want a graphic sense of Ron Paul's chances of becoming President of the United States. No effing way. It won't be allowed. He doesn't have the money to buy out the media empires that would spare no effort to crush him if he came close to contending.
His economic positions, btw, are not genius -- unless you're a billionaire, in which case they rule.
If you want to reduce the Austrian School's manifesto to a single statement, that statement would be: The Market is God.
The Austrian School's ruthlessly preposterous assertion is that market forces not only should govern the distribution of wealth, but that ALL social concerns -- moral, ethical, philosophical -- will magically settle into a state of perfection if only free-market (a mythic term, in itself) forces are allowed to function without regulation. This is the only thing about Paul that's acceptable to the elitist scumbuckets who rule this country now.
I know he sounds good. He's a very appealing character. I respect his courage and honesty. But when you scratch beneath the surface, his ideas are anything but a remedy for the status quo.
In addition to his belief in the Austrian School of economics, he worships Ayn Rand (his son's namesake).
The Founding Fathers were firm believers in the social contract as espoused by Hobbs, Locke and Rousseau. Rand would prefer something akin to social Darwinism. When I was younger I read several of her books, so I can see the simplistic emotional appeal of some of her arguments; but I've outgrown that hokum. It's a shame, though, that one of the only plain-speaking candidates with any guts is married to a primitive domestic policy and an elitist economic policy; his foreign policy reflects the intentions of the Founding Fathers and beats the heII out of the monstrosity we have now. No matter. He'll never get elected -- unless he jettisons his non-interventionist foreign policy stance, in which case, he'd have pretty much nothing to recommend him to the average American. Middle-class people who think his economics would be in their own interests are clueless -- they don't know what his ideas represent.
I've seen the Zapruder film and just about every other film there is.
What you're failing to grasp is: Ron Paul's supporters are the ones with the guns, and they are very protective of Ron Paul, so if anything were to happen to Ron Paul, $#!# would hit the fan for every elitist/globalist/RINO/Democrat suspected of hitting Ron Paul, and the people who follow Ron Paul are very perceptive about those who might dare act against Paul, so nobody could pull-off such a bold move without receiving instant blowback.
What's more, there is Rand Paul: if anything should happen to Ron Paul, his son would rise into his place. In other words, whoever dares an attempt against Ron Paul -- they would need to remove his entire family, along with all of his supporters (many of whom are capable [themselves] of rising into Ron Paul's place).
This is the difference between the leader of a simple candidacy and the leader of a movement: movements have staying power and are structured toward evolving against such attacks. Ron Paul is one leader of the movement that consists of many leaders; he's a leader of a REVOLUTION, so anybody that attempts a hit against the man will not get away unscathed.
As for economics, your views are extremely distorted, astoundingly so.
Halting the destruction of the dollar and strengthening it is about the best thing anybody could possibly do for America's economy, but other candidates are not saying they'll do this, because they don't want to do it, they don't know how to do it, or they don't even know that it should be done.
Where Ron Paul speaks about a Free Market, he speaks about FREEDOM IN THE MARKET PLACE. It's as simple as that. And, that doesn't mean he is against all government regulations, but it means he is against smothering the economy with excessive regulations, regulations that lobbyists write and crooks exploit, regulations held over simple Americans who just want to mind their own small business without all of the freaking bs.
He isn't against regulations, not at all, but he believes the market should be bound/regulated by the US Constitution, by State Laws, and by swift Judicial Rulings. Hence, "END THE FED!", he would chop down the Federal Reserve's jungle of Evil perversions: the Federal Reserves vile love for debt/slavery/war/globalism ... all of it would become exposed, more so than it has already been exposed, so *We the Regulators...* (a.k.a. We the People...) could rest knowing *We the People...* are not having our property/lives stolen away from us by crooks and tyrants.
Rand Paul's real name is Randal Paul, btw. And, Randal Paul was born before Ron Paul took on economics, so your whole premise -- regarding Rand Paul and Ayn Rand -- is flawed and defective.
Randal Paul's mother named him Randal when he was born, his friends called him Randy, then his wife changed his name to Rand Paul, not legally but casually, so -- simply put -- Rand Paul's name has absolutely __NOTHING__ to do with Ayn Rand, but that is one of the lies being perpetuated by the idiotic anti-Ron Paul folks who don't have a da/\/\ed clue about the things they speak about.
Thanks for disabusing me of that misconception about Rand's name. I've since gone for clarification from the man himself:
"Where Ron Paul speaks about a Free Market, he speaks about FREEDOM IN THE MARKET PLACE. It's as simple as that."
I wish it were. But Austrian School economic theory isn't as simple as that. One of its two main founders, Murray Rothbard, said: "If we allow ourselves to use the term 'society' to depict the pattern of all individual exchanges, then we may say that the free market 'maximizes' social utility, since everyone gains in utility." Translation: Every free-market transaction benefits all its participants. This is patently absurd. Are all exchanges between entities -- individuals or groups -- inherently equitable and mutually beneficial if only they're undertaken without government intervention?
It's neither surprising nor accidental that so-called Libertarians like Paul are also fans of Ayn Rand (which is confirmed by Rand Paul in the video I linked above). The philosophical complementarity between the anti-regulatory impulses of Austrian economics and Rand's social Darwinism is obvious. In Paul's case, this extends to denying the value of government intervention in natural disasters. Ron Paul wouldn't have us spend a nickel of federal money to send government relief to a region stricken by a catastrophic hurricane or earthquake. He said so in an interview that I watched last August. I'm sure billionaires are all aboard with that mentality. Screw the poor; if they can't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, let them die -- even if they're poor because a tidal wave just destroyed everything they owned. Doesn't everybody have five other homes they can move to?
I don't think the Founding Fathers saw the government as the enemy. They said We The People ARE the government; and if we monitor the doings of the people we elect and insist on accountability, that can be true. I don't think there's no place for the government to contribute to our lives. I believe in old-fashioned ideas like caring about one's fellow citizens, one's neighbors, and helping people in need. There are instances where the need is so great that only an organized, concerted effort can adequately address it, and government has a rightful role in such instances. I don't see absolute selfishness in the name of freedom as a virtue.
"I don't think the Founding Fathers saw the government as the enemy"
STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT! STOPPIT!
YOU'RE TEMPTING ME!
The government they formed, not the British government.
Don't they have a pot of decaf in the hotel?
"I wish it were. But Austrian School economic theory isn't as simple as that. One of its two main founders, Murray Rothbard, said: "If we allow ourselves to use the term 'society' to depict the pattern of all individual exchanges, then we may say that the free market 'maximizes' social utility, since everyone gains in utility." Translation: Every free-market transaction benefits all its participants. This is patently absurd. Are all exchanges between entities -- individuals or groups -- inherently equitable and mutually beneficial if only they're undertaken without government intervention?"
No, it is as simple as that.
You've failed to get Rothbard's point. You didn't read what he said before and after that quote, so you didn't get the context from which that quote resided, so you didn't understand the quote itself.
You failed to obtain the quote's internal context: You ignored the words "If" and "may" and "allow", thus you rendered Rothbard's hypothetical premise into an absolute, whereas his premise wasn't an absolute but a hypothetical -- due to the fact he was 'allowing' -- FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT -- the depiction of a perfectly free society -- that he may compare existing differences between a [non-interventionist] free society to an [interventionist] coerced society.
You failed to obtain the external context: Where Rothbard made that statement, he was describing differences between a society of free individuals and a society with coerced individuals, hence the word "allow", because he was pointing out how only a society consisting of free individuals may have the best chance to maximize their utilization of their preferred values, that a society consisting of coerced individuals could not possibly maximize the utilization of their preferred values.
In other words, Rothbard was saying, 'When a free individual or more than one free individual utilizes their maximum capacity to utilize their freedom/value -- they gain their preferred value -- toward the best of their ability -- toward their preferred maxed capacity.' He wasn't saying, 'When a group of non-free individuals utilizes their maximum capacity to express their freedom/value -- they gain maximum utility.", because a person/society that isn't free and is coerced could not possibly express their preferred maximum utility, but the coerced could only gain what they're allowed to gain.'
Had you read the text immediately following that quote, you would have seen Rothbard's warning, which said: "We must be careful, however, not to hypostatize "society" into a real entity that means something else than an array of all individuals." And, he said that, because his ultimate aim was to regard the characteristics of an interventionist society -- a society consisting of *free individuals* AND *coerced individuals*. In other words, Rothbard was telling you precisely how/why a *free society* consisting of *enslaved/coerced/disillusioned/mislead individuals* is contradictory, that such a society could not possibly maximize the utilization of its preferred values, so he was actually telling you how an interventionist society is -- to use your term -- "absurd."
Essentially, he was telling you how a non-interventionist society should not be seen as absurd but as a valuable goal that all advocates/promoters of freedom should strive toward.