Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

100 | 101 | 102

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

MAY 24, 2007 12:11 PM

Disclaimer: I am not a Libertarian or a Republican. I'm not pushing Ron Paul here as a canidate. But this is the most honest, intelligent piece that I've heard from any Presidential candidate thus far (including the Democrats). Please don't dismiss this article because he's a Republican presidential candidate, because he's actually one of the last real conservatives left, and an enemy of the neo-con's (as it's said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

May 24, 2007
On Patriotism
by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

For some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government's abuse of the people's rights.

I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.

What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.

Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.

Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?

Randolph Bourne said that, "War is the health of the state.'' With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a "war psychology'' to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.

Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.

This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism; that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.

Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.

The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.

Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.

Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code's unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state's pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.

Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it's with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.

If there is a war going on, supporting the state's effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties, which they are told is necessary.

The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.

We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.

Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is, our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world's policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.

We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.

Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.

The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.

The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.

Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.

We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.

These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.

We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.

The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.

The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long-planned invasion of Iraq.

The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.

The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time to study it. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.

The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to library and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens' use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.

The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.

Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.

A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government's list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one's name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver's license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver's license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.

Some of the least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.'' This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called "other conditions.'' The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors' approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.

The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King's abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliché "Support the Troops'' is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.

Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm's way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of "patriot''?

Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.

But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

Flux

Flux

SUICIDEGIRL

Georgia, USA

MAY 24, 2007 12:37 PM

Did y'all see that he told Giuliani to do some reading?

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

MAY 24, 2007 12:43 PM

Giuliani may or may not be an idiot, but he was sure playing to his audience during the last GOP debate.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

MAY 24, 2007 12:49 PM

He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.

Henrich Himmler said:
My honor is my loyalty.


Also, In the "Oath to the Constitution" (I'm not sure what it's called officially, but the one that soldiers take), It says to protect the Constitution from enemies domestic and abroad, and by domestic I don't think they just mean Timothy McVeigh. I hope anyway, that it includes politicians that violate the Constitution--eh hem...

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

MAY 24, 2007 01:02 PM

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.

Well, I have to say. I really like what he says about patriotism, but he really loses me on some of the other issues. He doesn't want any taxes? That's the impression I get. I think that's puts way to much faith in free market principles, something that I will never do. The free market is not infallible as some might believe. This has been proven over and over again. But anyway, that's a whole other topic... Although I do like the idea of being able to withhold X% of taxes that is proportional to the amount of the budget spent on wars you don't agree with. Let those who believe in it pay for it...

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 24, 2007 04:25 PM

You know, all bold is almost as annoying to read as ALL CAPS. Just saying.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 24, 2007 04:26 PM

Which said, that was pretty impressive.

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

MAY 24, 2007 04:45 PM

SockPuppet said:
You know, all bold is almost as annoying to read as ALL CAPS. Just saying.



That's true of most text variations. We're so used to seeing text at a normal boldness, non-slanted, non-capitalized, etc. that any changes to it are immediately apparent. Which is how the text changes are supposed to work.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

MAY 24, 2007 04:49 PM

emotedcreations said:
Well, I have to say. I really like what he says about patriotism, but he really loses me on some of the other issues. He doesn't want any taxes? That's the impression I get. I think that's puts way to much faith in free market principles, something that I will never do. The free market is not infallible as some might believe. This has been proven over and over again. But anyway, that's a whole other topic... Although I do like the idea of being able to withhold X% of taxes that is proportional to the amount of the budget spent on wars you don't agree with. Let those who believe in it pay for it...



I agree. That's why I put that disclaimer up there. I'm definitely not a libertarian or a republican, and I don't hold the same ideas on a free market as they do (in fact, some would argue a free market with heavy military industrial complex and a thirst for control of the world's energy is what drove us to war). But he makes some excellent points as far as what our disastrous foreign policy has brought us (9/11 and decreased civil liberties in the name of un-attable security from everything) and it's just amazing to hear a Republican candidate talk about civil liberties and our right and duty to dissent against the government that has lost the best interest of it's own people. You just don't hear this type of straight talk from the major Presidential candidates, including the Democrats. They're all too busy trying not to step on toes and not failing to appear to be "supporting the troops".

I guess I should say I feel cautiously optimistic about Ron Paul and this is simply something worth reading.


SockPuppet said:
You know, all bold is almost as annoying to read as ALL CAPS. Just saying.



>.<

Sorry, I thought that whole thing in a quote box might be annoying too.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAY 24, 2007 05:05 PM

I don't have time to comment on the whole thing right now, being at work and all, but...

KUNGFOO said:
...as it's said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend...


You do realize, of course, that that's a dangerous position to take, and that it's the position that brought us the Taliban (among others) in the first place, right? Many of us on the left have spent the last several years reminding people that that very phrase represents a wrongheaded, short-sighted, ultimately destructive philosophy.

skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

MAY 24, 2007 06:02 PM

bean said:
I don't have time to comment on the whole thing right now, being at work and all, but...

KUNGFOO said:
...as it's said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend...


You do realize, of course, that that's a dangerous position to take, and that it's the position that brought us the Taliban (among others) in the first place, right? Many of us on the left have spent the last several years reminding people that that very phrase represents a wrongheaded, short-sighted, ultimately destructive philosophy.



Almost as bad as, "If you're not with us, you're against us."
Or maybe it's worse.

Either way, they are directly contradictory. Yet both are often invoked by the same people. Frequently while making political policy.

IDGAS

IDGAS

Jackson Heights, NY
March 2004

MAY 24, 2007 07:09 PM

Flux said:
Did y'all see that he told Giuliani to do some reading?



Best lines in the FMNN article


The CNN article's tone might be seen as wry, even mocking. The headline is, "GOP Opponent Assigns Giuliani Homework." But, in fact, Ron Paul has committed a radical act in American politics by bringing up the idea of historical literacy - of reading widely as a way of helping to make informed decisions.

Volkov

Volkov

San Antonio, TX
OLD SKOOL

MAY 24, 2007 08:05 PM

I've been following Ron Paul for a while. the fact that he was a Libertarian candidate originally interested me. He expresses himself very well and has some very good ideas. I don't like his stance on some things, but, for the most part, I think he'd make a good president. It sucks that being another guy from Texas will hurt him. Not to mention he refusal to play along with the Republican agenda will likely keep him from even winning the primary.

smithers_jones

smithers_jones

I'm lost
November 2003

MAY 24, 2007 08:31 PM

I prefer Tolstoy:


The government assures the people that they are in danger from the invasion of another nation, or from foes in their midst, and that the only way to escape this danger is by the slavish obedience of the people to their government. This fact is seen most prominently during revolutions and dictatorships, but it exists always and everywhere that the power of the government exists. Every government explains its existence, and justifies its deeds of violence, by the argument that if it did not exist the condition of things would be very much worse. After assuring the people of its danger the government subordinates it to control, and when in this condition compels it to attack some other nation. And thus the assurance of the government is corroborated in the eyes of the people, as to the danger of attack from other nations.
"Divide et impera."

Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most indubitable signification is nothing else but a means of obtaining for the rulers their ambitions and covetous desires, and for the ruled the abdication of human dignity, reason, and conscience, and a slavish enthralment to those in power. And as such it is recommended wherever it is preached.

Patriotism is slavery.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

MAY 25, 2007 02:19 AM

bean said:
I don't have time to comment on the whole thing right now, being at work and all, but...

KUNGFOO said:
...as it's said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend...


You do realize, of course, that that's a dangerous position to take, and that it's the position that brought us the Taliban (among others) in the first place, right? Many of us on the left have spent the last several years reminding people that that very phrase represents a wrongheaded, short-sighted, ultimately destructive philosophy.



Okay, yeah. I didn't quite mean that. Wrong choice of phrase. Truth is that was one of last the last things I posted after three beers and being awake for about 24 hours. I'm not a hard-liner. I was just trying to post an interesting article from Ron Paul without advocating him as my choice for political candidate or anything like that. There's no Ron Paul 2008 stickers on my car. All I was saying was that what I've heard out of him recently beats what I've heard out of any Presidential candidate, including Obama. (Hell, recently, Obama has taken a hawkish stance against Iran by his talk of supporting sanctions, and I think it sounds like he's afraid of being labeled weak on Defense. He may just end up being a pretty boy than have any real substance.)

Telluride

Telluride

Roseville, CA
May 2007

MAY 25, 2007 07:08 PM

I like Ron Paul and I agree with him most of the time. He shares my views on more issues than any other politician that I know of.

He's earned my vote in the GOP Primary. I'd be shocked if he got the GOP nomination, but I'd definitely vote for him in the 2008 election if he did. I'd even do volunteer work for his campaign.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

MAY 25, 2007 07:29 PM

People who talk about patriotism creep me out.

Its like talking about love. It is a waste of time. If you love, love, don't talk about it.

And if you care about your people and your country, what is the point of writing long fucking essays explaining "your kind" of patriotism. When you die and the person giving your eulogy says you were a patriot, then you were. But by then you will be dead. Before then who gives a fuck?

Admiral_Pants

Admiral_Pants

Austin, TX
May 2004

MAY 26, 2007 04:23 PM

NickFaust said:
Its like talking about love. It is a waste of time. If you love, love, don't talk about it.



Yeah, all those poets and lyricists are fucking wankers.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 26, 2007 04:35 PM

Admiral_Pants said:

NickFaust said:
Its like talking about love. It is a waste of time. If you love, love, don't talk about it.



Yeah, all those poets and lyricists are fucking wankers.



Not the point, IIUC. Are they talking about their own loved one? Mostly not.

Admiral_Pants

Admiral_Pants

Austin, TX
May 2004

MAY 26, 2007 04:40 PM

SockPuppet said:

Admiral_Pants said:

NickFaust said:
Its like talking about love. It is a waste of time. If you love, love, don't talk about it.



Yeah, all those poets and lyricists are fucking wankers.



Not the point, IIUC. Are they talking about their own loved one? Mostly not.



I'm not sure what you're saying.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

MAY 26, 2007 04:41 PM

Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us,



Dear Ron Paul,

The 16th amendment to the constitution is constitutional. Since you don't understand this, you are not qualified to run for public office.

But don't worry, you're perfectly qualified to host your own show on Republic Broadcasting Network, where you can spend your days ranting to rapture-ready tax protester 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 26, 2007 05:46 PM

Admiral_Pants said:

SockPuppet said:

Admiral_Pants said:

NickFaust said:
Its like talking about love. It is a waste of time. If you love, love, don't talk about it.



Yeah, all those poets and lyricists are fucking wankers.



Not the point, IIUC. Are they talking about their own loved one? Mostly not.



I'm not sure what you're saying.



I was saying I think your analogy is false. Writing is different from feeling, and publishing writing (or writing for publication, for that matter) is different again.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

MAY 26, 2007 06:37 PM

Admiral_Pants said:

NickFaust said:
Its like talking about love. It is a waste of time. If you love, love, don't talk about it.



Yeah, all those poets and lyricists are fucking wankers.



They aren't wankers (well, many of them were, I mean Tennyson? Come the fuck on.) They are artists and entertainers. If Ron Paul is seeking to entertain us here or impress us with his rhetorical prowess - both of which he has done badly - then fine, I take back what I said.

I suspect another agenda however, but that's just me.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

MAY 26, 2007 06:48 PM

s5 said:
...But don't worry, you're perfectly qualified to host your own show on Republic Broadcasting Network, where you can spend your days ranting to rapture-ready tax protester 9/11 conspiracy theorists.



Yikes! I've never seen that.

You know, the more I read about Ron Paul, the less I like. I'm starting to regret posting that article by him. But hey, I was a little drunk and I've always been a easy romantic when I've had a few (must remember not to discuss politics when drinking).

I still like him more any other GOP candidate at the moment.

Oskar

Oskar

United Kingdom
February 2005

MAY 27, 2007 03:00 AM

Uhh instead of the income tax.. how bout we just use a Fair Tax

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next