the best thing I can say about Ron Paul is that he is like a broken clock and a broken clock is right twice a day. Legalize pot, Limit Americas involvement in international adventures in imperialism....okay? there two things I can agree with him on...that 2 seconds out of a 24 hour day...the rest of the time,,, well, the clock is broken and who wants to run their lives with a broken clock?
The gold standard and the Federal Reserve. I also think that he doesn't see the danger of unregulated large businesses, but that's a philosophical difference.
Greg, I don't see hoe you can worry about unregulated business and then think the FED should be unregulated: According to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report....
Citigroup - $2.513 trillion Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion Bank of America - $1.344 trillion Barclays PLC - $868 billion Bear Sterns - $853 billion Goldman Sachs - $814 billion Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion Deutsche Bank - $354 billion UBS - $287 billion Credit Suisse - $262 billion Lehman Brothers - $183 billion Bank of Scotland - $181 billion BNP Paribas - $175 billion Wells Fargo - $159 billion Dexia - $159 billion Wachovia - $142 billion Dresdner Bank - $135 billion Societe Generale - $124 billion "All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion
This report was made available to all the members of Congress, but most of them have been totally silent about it.
There isn't a single right wing candidate running who genuinely supports either freedom or the constitution.
What they all want to support is free dumb, a world in which they deny science, revise history to lie, and where they substitute their demented and twisted version of religion in place of Rule of Law.
It's the right, with their culture wars that is downright scary. Shame on them for their stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry.
Microdot said: "Yeah like supporting Citizens United is like abiding by the Constitution!"
Could you be a little more specific. I've never heard of him supporting an anti-constitution position. You must know something I don't.Please share it. orlin sellers
Well yeah, like it is abiding by the Constitution. Corporations are owned by people after all and people have a voice and the right to donate their money and time to the candidate of their choice.
mr anonymous, or what ever your name is, why do you you make every one do the work you should be doing if you are going to preach Paulista doctrine to us? why can't you be bothered to get the real facts about the man you believe that you think you believe in.(isn't that the real crux of the crisis in American Politics, rather than any real knowledge, too many people are so mentally soft that they grab onto a belief in a belief, rather than facts?) Just to make it clear, despite protests and denials from some quarters, read this lawsuit: [www.lawandfreedom.com] Pay attention the main plaintiff's name...the only plaintiff named in the title. Note item #14, which I quoted below, on this document. CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL, et al., Plaintiffs v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants
[snip] 14. I believe that the contribution limits imposed by BCRA[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]/FECA [Federal Election Campaign Act] on political committees such as CUPVF [CITIZENS UNITED POLITICAL VICTORY FUND], including contributions that may be donated to the CUPFV, as well the maximum contribution that CUPVF may make to the candidate(s) of its choice -- which limits are not imposed on the news media -- are discriminatory and deprive the CUPFV of its rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, including impeding CUPFV from freely and effectively engaging in its First Amendment activities. I believe that individuals who in the past donated the maximum $5,000 contribution to CUPFV would have donated more to CUPVF if they had not been restricted by the FECA as to how much they could have contributed. Source: [www.lawandfreedom.com]
This is just the beginning, but if you want me to do your thinking for you, we can discuss my hourly rate. I'm sure Mr. Paul would support my position.
Let's see, he was joined by the Dem Party, the Repub Party, the ACLU, the AFL-CIO and several other individuals. Some people still believe in freedom of speech. I guess you don't. My question is, what is unconstitutional about it? orlin sellers
Free speech is not a right that pertains to organizations, it is a right that pertains to people.
We believe in the freedom of speech of PEOPLE, not corporations. We believe that when you allow unlimited money from entities and a few rich people - as we have seen repeatedly from the illegal actions of the Koch Brothers in the recall elections in Wisconisn as one example - that it dilutes the value of the speech and vote of the individual, and that it corrupts and derails the legislative process.
Citizens United, like the Heller decision, improperly disregarded all of the settled law relating to the constitution that preceded it.
Wonderfully however, it now has the chance to undo that decision in the challenge created by the Montana case.
So people can have too much free speech dog gone? People should not be allowed to assemble, decide what they want to say and then combine their own money to make that happen? Wow that is alot of Constitutional rights you are willing to just throw out because you feel it "dilutes the value of the speech." I don't see how it dilutes the value of the vote of the individual though. Do corporations get extra votes in elections? What they don't get any votes in an election - only the people get to vote (usually only once per election)?
Yes, Jim. People can have too much speech. In particular, I'm thinking of the situation in the adjoining state of Wisconsin, where under the guise of 'free speech', as defined by throwing unlimited money at the recall elections, there was a huge amount of factually inaccurate and misleading media blitz 'speech', coupled with a lot of free speech illegal activity, like mass mailings and robocalling courtesy of the Koch brothers organizations to try to interfere with people voting - notably by lying about the actual day of elections, and about where proper polling places were located and about how to vote and when to vote absentee. THAT compromises the whole 'people get to vote' premise.
So far, it also appears that when the Koch Brothers donate a whole lot of money, they escape legal prosecution as well - at least so far - despite those things being illegal. In other words, they have funded corruption and gotten away with it, under the guise of free speech, when it is really anything but either free, or speech in the sense of the Constitution.
That is not free speech, that is election corruption under the guise of free speech. And if you don't recognize that then you are factually challenged, and possibly a good deal more than intellectually deficient.
I would refer you to a brief acquaintance with the issues of the Montana election laws, and the historical facts of widespread corruption in that state, that is reopening the whole Citizens United legal decision issues in front of the SCOTUS.
Your point fails Jim. But wear a hat, and no one will notice.
Ron Paul is a lying piece-of-shit economically illiteratre hypocrite. Considering this I'm fairly certain that he would figure out some way to excuse any wars that might be seen, by him, to be "necessary".
He's been a liar since at least his first trip to Congress; it's worked, why change, now?
the best thing I can say about Ron Paul is that he is like a broken clock and a broken clock is right twice a day. Legalize pot, Limit Americas involvement in international adventures in imperialism....okay? there two things I can agree with him on...that 2 seconds out of a 24 hour day...the rest of the time,,, well, the clock is broken and who wants to run their lives with a broken clock?
ReplyDeleteHe's correct on many things. The problem is that he's wacky on some others. But that's worse from many politicians how?
DeleteGreg, what do you think he is 'wacky' about?
Deleteorlin sellers
The gold standard and the Federal Reserve. I also think that he doesn't see the danger of unregulated large businesses, but that's a philosophical difference.
DeleteGreg, I don't see hoe you can worry about unregulated business and then think the FED should be unregulated:
DeleteAccording to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report....
Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion
This report was made available to all the members of Congress, but most of them have been totally silent about it.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch ... fail-banks
orlin sellers
You know, I'm so fed up with the wars, I'd be willing to take a chance on all his other bullshit.
DeleteHow about a deal--the country cuts back on wars, and you agree to support cuts in gun control?
DeleteYeah, who would want a president that would actually abide by the Constitution, you know, the Law of the Land. That's downright scary.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
There isn't a single right wing candidate running who genuinely supports either freedom or the constitution.
DeleteWhat they all want to support is free dumb, a world in which they deny science, revise history to lie, and where they substitute their demented and twisted version of religion in place of Rule of Law.
It's the right, with their culture wars that is downright scary. Shame on them for their stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry.
Yeah like supporting Citizens United is like abiding by the Constitution!
ReplyDeleteMicrodot said: "Yeah like supporting Citizens United is like abiding by the Constitution!"
DeleteCould you be a little more specific. I've never heard of him supporting an anti-constitution position. You must know something I don't.Please share it.
orlin sellers
Well yeah, like it is abiding by the Constitution. Corporations are owned by people after all and people have a voice and the right to donate their money and time to the candidate of their choice.
Deletemr anonymous, or what ever your name is, why do you you make every one do the work you should be doing if you are going to preach Paulista doctrine to us? why can't you be bothered to get the real facts about the man you believe that you think you believe in.(isn't that the real crux of the crisis in American Politics, rather than any real knowledge, too many people are so mentally soft that they grab onto a belief in a belief, rather than facts?)
ReplyDeleteJust to make it clear, despite protests and denials from some quarters, read this lawsuit: [www.lawandfreedom.com] Pay attention the main plaintiff's name...the only plaintiff named in the title. Note item #14, which I quoted below, on this document. CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al.,
Defendants
[snip]
14. I believe that the contribution limits imposed by BCRA[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]/FECA [Federal Election Campaign Act] on political committees such as CUPVF [CITIZENS UNITED POLITICAL VICTORY FUND], including contributions that may be donated to the CUPFV, as well the maximum contribution that CUPVF may make to the candidate(s) of its choice -- which limits are not imposed on the news media -- are discriminatory and deprive the CUPFV of its rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, including impeding CUPFV from freely and effectively engaging in its First Amendment activities. I believe that individuals who in the past donated the maximum $5,000 contribution to CUPFV would have donated more to CUPVF if they had not been restricted by the FECA as to how much they could have contributed.
Source: [www.lawandfreedom.com]
This is just the beginning, but if you want me to do your thinking for you, we can discuss my hourly rate. I'm sure Mr. Paul would support my position.
Let's see, he was joined by the Dem Party, the Repub Party, the ACLU, the AFL-CIO and several other individuals. Some people still believe in freedom of speech. I guess you don't.
DeleteMy question is, what is unconstitutional about it?
orlin sellers
Free speech is not a right that pertains to organizations, it is a right that pertains to people.
DeleteWe believe in the freedom of speech of PEOPLE, not corporations. We believe that when you allow unlimited money from entities and a few rich people - as we have seen repeatedly from the illegal actions of the Koch Brothers in the recall elections in Wisconisn as one example - that it dilutes the value of the speech and vote of the individual, and that it corrupts and derails the legislative process.
Citizens United, like the Heller decision, improperly disregarded all of the settled law relating to the constitution that preceded it.
Wonderfully however, it now has the chance to undo that decision in the challenge created by the Montana case.
So people can have too much free speech dog gone? People should not be allowed to assemble, decide what they want to say and then combine their own money to make that happen? Wow that is alot of Constitutional rights you are willing to just throw out because you feel it "dilutes the value of the speech." I don't see how it dilutes the value of the vote of the individual though. Do corporations get extra votes in elections? What they don't get any votes in an election - only the people get to vote (usually only once per election)?
DeleteYes, Jim. People can have too much speech. In particular, I'm thinking of the situation in the adjoining state of Wisconsin, where under the guise of 'free speech', as defined by throwing unlimited money at the recall elections, there was a huge amount of factually inaccurate and misleading media blitz 'speech', coupled with a lot of free speech illegal activity, like mass mailings and robocalling courtesy of the Koch brothers organizations to try to interfere with people voting - notably by lying about the actual day of elections, and about where proper polling places were located and about how to vote and when to vote absentee. THAT compromises the whole 'people get to vote' premise.
DeleteSo far, it also appears that when the Koch Brothers donate a whole lot of money, they escape legal prosecution as well - at least so far - despite those things being illegal. In other words, they have funded corruption and gotten away with it, under the guise of free speech, when it is really anything but either free, or speech in the sense of the Constitution.
That is not free speech, that is election corruption under the guise of free speech. And if you don't recognize that then you are factually challenged, and possibly a good deal more than intellectually deficient.
I would refer you to a brief acquaintance with the issues of the Montana election laws, and the historical facts of widespread corruption in that state, that is reopening the whole Citizens United legal decision issues in front of the SCOTUS.
Your point fails Jim. But wear a hat, and no one will notice.
Ron Paul is a lying piece-of-shit economically illiteratre hypocrite. Considering this I'm fairly certain that he would figure out some way to excuse any wars that might be seen, by him, to be "necessary".
ReplyDeleteHe's been a liar since at least his first trip to Congress; it's worked, why change, now?