The Primaries: My thoughts and rant

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2008 9:53 PM GMT
    My primary vote is going to Ron Paul because this is my ideology vote and Ron Paul is the only candidate who truly stands up to my standards. I'm in CT and in the general election I can be sure that it will thankfully go to the Democrats! Unless Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, which is very very unlikely, I will be voting for a Democrat.

    As for Hillary, I have no faith that she will support my Libertarian ideals. Among them, ending the Federal Reserve, Central Bank and Federal Income Tax. She is deeply entangled in the system and typifies what I dislike about modern economics. That said, she is much better at tweaking this system than Barack Obama could ever be. Her economic plans are concrete and although they perpetuate a system I hate, they none the less ease the pain of it. Barack Obama will also perpetuate this system but will not come close to Hillary in his abilities to tweak it.


    I have major issues with Obama's campaign. His constant use of the words "Hope, Believe, Faith" are so Christian in their nature that they completely alienate me. I don't base my decisions on hope and faith, I base them on reality. I feel his speeches are blatant ripoffs of Kennedy and Dr. King. Speaches and language which were used for much greater means than an election primary. Save the grandiose words for when you mobilize an entire nation to stand up for human rights and equality, all the while being thrown in jail and having water canons shot at you. It's the primaries, save the pastoral pastor's vocabulary and give me a real plan! He has no specifics in his plans; and after spending hours mulling over debate transcripts on factcheck.org and numerous other sites, have found many exaggerations and blatant lies coming from him.

    I've watched numerous videos online of him in action on the senate floor. In one case during the Iraq Hearings, he questioned Gen. Petraeus and waisted all his time speaking in rhetoric. After his time was up, he constructed an idiotic question that nobody could understand or had the time to answer.

    I think so many people are drawn to him because he's like a blank canvas. He has no real record and thus not many mistakes. It also disgusts me that he accuses Hillary for her Iraq vote, a vote that came before he was even elected into office. I never trust what a politician says they would or would not do, I only look at what they have actually done. He may state that he was against the war in principal, but any informed citizen of this country knows that senate votes are not always based on principles, they're most likely made pragmatically and strategically. If you look at his war votes since being elected, they are almost identical to Hillary Clinton's.

    All this said, I do hope Hillary gets the democratic nomination. At least she isn't walking on water and farting sermons out of her mouth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2008 11:50 PM GMT
    DevilDog,

    You seem like a nice enough guy, so I'd like to tell you a couple of things you may not know.

    Opposition to the Federal Reserve has been for years simply a coded way of expressing anti-Semitism. If you read the earliest pamphlets (going back to the 1960s) on the subject, you'll find that they were mainly distributed by right-wing groups that hated Jews, Catholics, blacks, Asians, etc., and back then they were explicit about it. One pamphlet I read spoke of the original founders of the Fed meeting on Jekyll Island in 1913 as a "cabal of Jews".

    Nowadays, knowing such talk is unacceptable, they revert to code. But too much of Libertarianism gre out of early nativist, bigoted, hate groups, and the connections between the two are still alive today. Read about Ron Paul's participation in a group which TODAY still advocates secession (!) and talks about how the darkies were happier being slaves.

    There is an agenda to the Libertarian party. When they talk about liberty, by and large they mean the right to be permitted to discriminate against and abuse other persons, all under the fake guise of "state's rights".

    These are dirty, dirty people. I doubt you want to throw in your lot with them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 12:11 AM GMT
    "ending the Federal Reserve, Central Bank and Federal Income Tax. "

    I'm in line with almost everything you've said, but, not that. I believe that the Federal Income Tax is way way way way overboard, but, there needs to be something to pay for the costs of standardization and quality of life across all 50 states. I don't like my taxes paying for someone 3000 miles away, but, I'd rather have that than flying there one day, thinking I'm in the U.S. and realizing it's no better than a banana republic jungle town in the Amazon with dirt roads and no plumbing. There need to be common, quality services and protections available to everyone in the U.S. if indeed it is "U.", otherwise it's 50 different countries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 12:12 AM GMT
    Can someone say they don't support something without being labeled with a stereotype or generalization? Jpr, your guilty of the same evil we attribute to others when they generalize against gays.

    I say I'm against supporting Israel. Does that automatically mean I hate jews and think the Holocaust is bunk?

    I'm also all for the removal of the income tax. We could have done it years ago had it not been for Iraq. Our military spending is greater than the rest of the world combined. People complain 15 billion to build a national hydrogen fuel network is expensive. Yet we don't mind wasting money left and right on military toys such as oh so useful Seawolves and Osprey's.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 12:14 AM GMT
    Not all anti-semites think the Holocaust is bunk. Many were just (sickly) disappointed it wasn't complete.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 12:30 AM GMT
    jprichva,

    Well first off, Ron Paul is not a member of the Libertarian Party, he is a Republican. Nor am I a registered Libertarian. So, I'm not throwing my lot in with that party. Ron Paul certainly isn't antisemitic. Furthermore, the founding ideas of Libertarianism are not in any way shape or form connected with antisemitism.

    It is the nature of Libertarianism to allow each citizen to believe whatever they want to believe. There are far left Libertarians and there are far right Libertarians, there are Libertarians who believe that Aliens conspire with the government and there are Libertarians that believe in a government of, by and for the people. Thus, any wrong doing in the government is the sole responsibility of each citizen. That said, you're gonna get a mixed bag of people who share Libertarian ideals.

    A Libertarian party is just that, a party. Parties have fickle associations. Don't forget about the racist Southern Democrats, who only within the last 30 years have had their racist views ousted out of the democratic party.

    Look at the switch the Republican party has taken. There was a time when if you were black, you were a registered Republican.

    Being against the Federal Reserve does not make you an antisemite. Kennedy wanted to dissolve the central bank for cripes sake!

    It may be a code word in some cases but not in most cases. But, just as many valid issues and ideas are hijacked by people with negative agendas, evidently so has Libertarianism.

    Must you be reminded about Christian missionaries spreading antisemitism around the globe?

    Barack Obama is a devout Christian, oh and is a member of a church which, through it's magazine publication *AWARDED* Louis Farrakhan! Farrakhan, who has been notorious for his racist and antisemitic views. Do I assume Barack Obama is an Antisemite? NOPE, that would be very short sighted of me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 12:30 AM GMT
    My thinking is, since the congress is already democrat, if the president is republic, it won't help solve the situation we are in and he wont' get much done.

    I don't like Obama because of his voting record as a senate was pathetic. He's all talk of change, but he's acting speak louder in his votes.

    The good thing is, if Hilary won, she might just pick Obama as vice president, this would please all!


  • ShawnTX

    Posts: 2484

    Feb 06, 2008 4:20 AM GMT
    Ok, so I have a question. I just switched the tv on to CNN so I can try and figure out what these primaries are. Are these to determine who will become the Democrat and Republican nominees for your next presidential election?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 4:32 AM GMT
    Ok I'm confused. Not that I agree with the dissolution of the Fed, Central Bank, or Income Tax, but I can at least understand why some people would want to not pay income tax. What are the arguments for dissolution of the Fed/Central Bank?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 4:34 AM GMT
    The primaries and caucuses determine the delegates to the national conventions, and at their respective conventions, the Democrats and Republicans will nominate who we vote for in November.
  • ShawnTX

    Posts: 2484

    Feb 06, 2008 4:44 AM GMT
    Ok, so since for the Democrats it's only Clinton and Obama, does that mean that whomever wins tonight is automatically considered the Democratic nominee?

    Edited to change republicans to democrats
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 4:55 AM GMT
    Shawn--

    First, Obama and Clinton are the Democrats, not the Republicans.

    Second, all that happens tonight is that each candidate secures a number of delegates to their respective nominating conventions this summer. Should any candidate secure more than 50% in total of the delegates, then yes, that race is over. So far, on neither side is this close to being true, since almost 1/2 the states have not yet determined their delegates even after tonight.
  • ShawnTX

    Posts: 2484

    Feb 06, 2008 4:58 AM GMT
    Yeah, I just caught my error and fixed it.

    Okay, so I think I understand...um...yeah. I looked things up on wikipedia. You guys have a complicated voting process.

    By the way, I'm watching Obama speak right now and there's a total hottie standing behind him. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 4:59 AM GMT
    Nope, tonight will not decide the democratic race. If Romney wins California then it wont decide the republican race either. For the first time in a long time the race will not be decided with the majority of the population weighing in.

    For Clinton to win, she needs to win large margins in states with a large racial mix. So far, she is not doing that. So the race will go on to later states.

    God, it is such a big headache.
  • ShawnTX

    Posts: 2484

    Feb 06, 2008 5:03 AM GMT
    When does this stage of the voting end?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 5:06 AM GMT
    Devil Dog,

    I went to some length NOT to call you an anti-Semite, and I don't think you are one. Nonetheless, I have to correct you on one point: Ron Paul is not only a Libertarian, he actually ran for President in 1992 on the Libertarian Party ticket.

    My point was not that anyone who calls himself a Libertarian is a racist, though Ron Paul's racist history is by now pretty well-documented. What I'm trying to show you is that political parties in the U.S. don't just happen, they evolve out of past political movements. In that sense, you can trace the origins of the Libs back to a 19th century party called the Know-Nothings, an anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic party that merged later into the Republican party (sound familiar?)

    These things do not happen in a vacuum. The Aryan Nations, a militia group active in the 1990s, was a literal outgrowth of the Silver Shirts, a fascist party of the 1930s. And by outgrowth, I mean that the leader of the Silver Shirts, Gerald L.K. Smith, went underground after the demise of the Silver Shirts in 1941, and became a sort of political guru to a man named Tom Metzger, who later on founded........the Aryan Nations. So, nothing happens in isolation.

    Getting back to the Libertarians, the founding ideals of that movement were based, both literally and spiritually (if you will) on the teachings and writings of those who came before, and they were, as a group, both nativist, and fiercely anti-Semitic, as well as anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant, and racist. Ron Paul was raised in that tradition, and no matter how he twists himself in knots now trying to deny that association, the fact is that this is his history, it is the history of the Libertarian Party, and anyone who calls himself a Libertarian ought to be acquainted with the sort of ideology that underlies their seemingly innocent ideas.

    If you know anything of economics, you will see that the Federal Reserve is neither good nor bad, but simply a question of how it's administered, like everything else in government. Railing against it, however, is code.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 5:07 AM GMT
    Devildog please tell me why the Fed should be abolished. Too inflationary? Unconstitutional? What would replace it with?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 5:08 AM GMT
    ShawnTO saidWhen does this stage of the voting end?


    When every state has held either a caucus or a primary. Functionally, though, it's really over when someone claims 50% or more delegates. Officially, it doesn't end until the conventions this summer.
  • ShawnTX

    Posts: 2484

    Feb 06, 2008 5:21 AM GMT
    Wow, such a long process. What a pain.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 5:33 AM GMT
    That's because we don't have a parliamentary system, which in some cases would work better than ours. Under the U.S. system, for example, third parties have virtually no chance. Also, in the Electoral College and the Senate, small rural states are hugely over-represented, while big urban states are slighted badly. It's one of the reasons our politics are so conservative--people from rural, backward areas have way too much influence on the process vis a vis their actual population numbers. It's one of the reasons the religious loonies have so much influence. They predominate in rural, undereducated areas.
  • ShawnTX

    Posts: 2484

    Feb 06, 2008 5:49 AM GMT
    That's the same here. Living in a city with a population of 5.5 million people, my vote carries less weight than a person that lives in a small town.

    During our last elections, we voted on amending the voting process, to even that out. Unfortunately it didn't pass.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 12:43 PM GMT
    jprichva,

    My previous response to you should suffice well. You can argue the integrity of Libertarianism if you wish. But as I've addressed before, all current parties have ties both current and past to racist organizations. No party in our government is pure and free of racism or corruption. Additionally, racism is not the end all and be all of BADS. It is but one plague in our society. Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, etc, all have questionable ties and allies. Cynically, it's up to us as citizens to choose which we can stomach.



    COmale,

    The Federal Reserve was created with the guise of stabilizing the American economy. Thus, preventing the market crisis and panic that plagued the USA in the late 1800s.

    Recession in the 1920s
    During this time, the federal Reserve did not help stabilize the economy. It in fact, made the situation much worse by contracting the money supply. Transforming a basic recession into what is known as The Great Depression.

    The Federal Reserve has time and time again failed to deliver on it's promise of stabilizing our currency and has only served to create a gigantic inflation bubble that is created not through basic cause and effect, but by decisions made by private banking interests.

    The US Dollar is Legal Tender. This basically means that it's a voucher devoid of any real value. The Federal Reserve can print more vouchers at will, creating inflation and thus devaluing the currency.

    Decisions such as this are not made by the Congress, who serve as elected representatives of the American people, but by a board of private bankers and members of government who meet both publicly and privately. There is limited transparency here. Much of the major decisions are made in private, outside of the eye of the public and free from public inquiry.

    In fact, the Federal Reserve Act was designed in private and then presented to congress. This is, depending on how you interpret the constitution completely unconstitutional.

    I could go on and on and on about this. So I recommend you go to Wikipedia and get the nonpartisan breakdown of it's history and opposition.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 2:47 PM GMT
    Devildog78 I respect your political views on libertarianism, I have a bit of that myself. I just do not know how it is possible to abolish income tax and the Federal Reserve. Where would the revenue come from, a value added tax (also known as a consumption tax), or whould you raise corporate taxes? Would you slash spending to make up for the shortfall in revenue? Where would you slash? What impact would that have on employment? What impact would that have on human development which is directly linked to living freely. If a person does not receive a proper education (usually publicly funded by taxes) then there "liberty" will be severely limited.

    As for the Federal Reserve, all governments need strong independent central banks to manage inflation, without them we are much more likely to have booms and busts like the 19th century. The problem with the Federal Reserve is that it seems to think it should also shore up the stock market and economy by slashing interest rates. This has led to two bubbles the dot-com of the late 90's and the current housing bubble. The Federal Reserve was partially to blame for the Great Depression, as was the Hoover administration for refusing to run a deficit. But an even greater problem was the protectionism that ensued in the 1930's between countries. Nobody wanted to trade freely with each other trying to protect their workers and markets. The result was a downward spiral everywhere.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 3:05 PM GMT
    ^ No need to cut spending on services. We could cut large amounts from the near $600 billion defense budget. We could also stop incentives and tax breaks to oil, ethanol, and the medical industry. Add more specific taxes to the oil industry. Increase standards on fuel economy and pollution and then enforce them with violation fines. Cease aid packages to Israel and other "allies."


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2008 3:10 PM GMT
    Trance23 said^ No need to cut spending on services. We could cut large amounts from the near $600 billion defense budget. We could also stop incentives and tax breaks to oil, ethanol, and the medical industry. Add more specific taxes to the oil industry. Increase standards on fuel economy and pollution and then enforce them with violation fines. Cease aid packages to Israel and other "allies."


    Well, Trance, I'm with you about 90% of the way there. As far as ceasing aid packages to our allies, frankly, that's about the only means we have left of buying love in the world, so that ain't gonna happen. The rest I agree with.