US presidency competition 2008
category: general [glöplog]
Diebold will select Hillary to ensure continuation of current politics.
that would be two interlocked families since 1990 ... hope the US folks wont fall for this scam.
BTW two well known presidents who wanted or did tangle with central banks/intl. bankers have been assassinated because of their actions
- Lincoln (issued the "Greenbacks" as interest free US notes during the Civil War)
- Kennedy (who signed an exec. order to strip the power to loan money to the US government from the FED - hence abolishing a debt based Dollar)
So does Ron Paul (abolish the FED and the IRS)... I hope he'll leave a considerable footprint although I doubt that he will become republican main candidate.
BTW two well known presidents who wanted or did tangle with central banks/intl. bankers have been assassinated because of their actions
- Lincoln (issued the "Greenbacks" as interest free US notes during the Civil War)
- Kennedy (who signed an exec. order to strip the power to loan money to the US government from the FED - hence abolishing a debt based Dollar)
So does Ron Paul (abolish the FED and the IRS)... I hope he'll leave a considerable footprint although I doubt that he will become republican main candidate.
He won't because he's not a republican. ;)
yeeeas ... original a libertarian ... got it .. but the elephants got the bigger media muscle ;) on the other hand that guy is quite a republican in its true sense (he's questioning the system - so he gets buried in the main media). In the end this categorizing is nitpicking 'cause there's just one corporate party there financing the "wrestling match" between "democrats" and "republicans"
Yes, he's libertarian with nationalist tendencies. I guess that's what the republicans were ages ago. Shame about his ideas about immigration. Means if he did turn the US into a free country, he'd also make it harder to get in. So either way not much to gain for Europeans. ;)
well, nobody's perfect. I think it's about "invading" the southern border, simply flooding the country bypassing immigration process. You know, becoming US citizen.
Yes, not much to gain, so let's concentrate on what our so called EU representatives want deliver us through the back door - that EU-constitution nobody wanted (at least the Dutch and French have been asked. Both said "nee"/"non").
Yes, not much to gain, so let's concentrate on what our so called EU representatives want deliver us through the back door - that EU-constitution nobody wanted (at least the Dutch and French have been asked. Both said "nee"/"non").
Does anyone of them want to ban guns? I would vote for that one (thank god I can't), even if he/she whould probably be asassinated :P
If weapons should be banned for private citizens, they should be banned for the state as well to keep the balance.
Does that include tasers? =P
xernobyl: Especially them. How many has been killed by this "non lethal" weapon yet?
My biggest problem with Ron Paul is that the immigration process is totalitarian in nature, much moreso than many of the institutions he wants to abolish. You could easily argue that freedom of movement, even across borders, is just as much a basic human right as the right to own weapons. And if you limit that for "practical reasons", why not introduce gun control for "practical reasons", or surveillance cameras in private homes for "practical reasons".
Of course, given the current selection, I'd vote Ron Paul too.
Of course, given the current selection, I'd vote Ron Paul too.
Quote:
Of course, given the current selection, I'd vote Ron Paul too.
Only when we're talking repulican candidates, I presume?
Anyway, the man is a mix-up, seriously. He opposes NATO and UN, but supports the war in Afghanistan?
However, he's straight in line when it comes to killing: he opposes gun control and a ban on abortion.
I can understand the part about being a non-interventionist - the world hates America for being the global police officer, but I deeply believe that the countries that have to ability to intervene, have an OBLIGATION to do so, in agreement with NATO or UN.
Quote:
yes lol \o/
chapeau :)
If he was nominated for the republicans, then I'd probably vote republican, yes. The democrats are all closet fascists, like the rest of the republicans, (except for those that are fairly open about it).
Opposing gun control has to do with ensuring the balance of power is with the people, not the state, which has no value in and of itself, it's there for the benefit of the people. Gun control rests on the idea that people can't manage the responsibility that comes with power, so they have to be stripped of power. All libertarians are strongly opposed to that idea arguing that it's tyranny and it invites more tyranny. They'd point out that democracies are never formed without at least the threat of violence, and it's pure fantasy to believe they can last without it. There's lots more to it, of course, such as how concentrated power must be avoided because it repels responsible candidates and attracts sociopaths, etc. But you get what I mean.
The abortion issue has nothing to do with being pro-life or pro-choice. Killing a baby is always wrong. The issue is with the definition of life, and when a fetus begins to fit that definition. Ron Paul has stated that he's personally against abortion, but that it's simply not up to the national government to make those decisions.
Opposing gun control has to do with ensuring the balance of power is with the people, not the state, which has no value in and of itself, it's there for the benefit of the people. Gun control rests on the idea that people can't manage the responsibility that comes with power, so they have to be stripped of power. All libertarians are strongly opposed to that idea arguing that it's tyranny and it invites more tyranny. They'd point out that democracies are never formed without at least the threat of violence, and it's pure fantasy to believe they can last without it. There's lots more to it, of course, such as how concentrated power must be avoided because it repels responsible candidates and attracts sociopaths, etc. But you get what I mean.
The abortion issue has nothing to do with being pro-life or pro-choice. Killing a baby is always wrong. The issue is with the definition of life, and when a fetus begins to fit that definition. Ron Paul has stated that he's personally against abortion, but that it's simply not up to the national government to make those decisions.
Right on Battle Droid. The main underlying conflict in society is not left vs right or some bullshit like that, but has always been the elite vs the people, i.e. should power be concentrated among a few, or spread out to the whole people.
And if you want the people to have power then it's important that they have the means, e.g. guns as a last resort to defend themselves against a state gone bad. The Americans have this right in their constitution, and that's probably one of the reasons why they've had a lot more success in avoiding tyranny from the state in the last couple of hundred years than the Europeans.
And if you want the people to have power then it's important that they have the means, e.g. guns as a last resort to defend themselves against a state gone bad. The Americans have this right in their constitution, and that's probably one of the reasons why they've had a lot more success in avoiding tyranny from the state in the last couple of hundred years than the Europeans.
Quote:
Opposing gun control has to do with ensuring the balance of power is with the people, not the state, which has no value in and of itself, it's there for the benefit of the people. Gun control rests on the idea that people can't manage the responsibility that comes with power, so they have to be stripped of power.
Don't you think that the example set by USA strongly suggests that the right to bear arms is a BAD thing, simply because SOME people can't handle it?
Please do note that I don't say "THE people", but "SOME people". I am a strong believer in gun control - I fear where my country would be today, hadn't it been so fairly hard to get hold of a gun. Besides from that, limiting the entire people is probably a libertarian nightmare, but managing the right to eg. bear arms on a personal basis is administrative HELL and impossible to uphold - which also is a reason why I am pro gun control (apart from the pacifist point of view behind it).
Quote:
And if you want the people to have power then it's important that they have the means, e.g. guns as a last resort to defend themselves against a state gone bad. The Americans have this right in their constitution, and that's probably one of the reasons why they've had a lot more success in avoiding tyranny from the state in the last couple of hundred years than the Europeans.
An example that contradicts that argument is Russia.
They have tonnes of guns in Russia and no real gun control - and, while Putin is not CALLING it tyranny, it's damn close.
Basically, KNOWLEDGE is the power to bring to the people in order to set them free for real. So, as a state, you must ensure that the power to spread that knowledge can't be corrupted - I don't really believe that weapons have any say in this. But, that's just a faith that I have - just like the libertarians don't believe that democracy can survive without the presence of threats to democracy.
knowledge, and millions of US-financed flyers.
also,
also,
Knowledge is power, but only in a democracy. It's one thing to be able to point out that your leader is killing journalists, but if he stops caring about the popular opinion (see: 90% of Middle East), the knowledge in itself doesn't really help you in any way. What could you do with it, incite a riot and get killed?
Russia used to be extremely big-government with the authorities meddling in every aspect of the lives of its citizens. The problem isn't that they turned away from communism, the problem is that they embraced it in the first place. And now, the relatively few non-government people who have power aren't really opposed to the government because they benefit a lot from the pay-as-you-go police force. But despite all that, it's not for anyone but the Russians to say when the situation calls for violence. The fact that it hasn't happened on a large scale clearly shows that most still hope for peaceful solutions. Russia is still a democracy after all.
And a threat to the state isn't the same as a threat to democracy. The state is a threat to democracy in itself. Also a prerequisite, of course, but state != democracy. If people do turn against democracy with violence, e.g. Islamic terrorists, that's what the police is for - libertarianism isn't anarchism. But if governments stop respecting citizens, that's not really democracy either.
Russia used to be extremely big-government with the authorities meddling in every aspect of the lives of its citizens. The problem isn't that they turned away from communism, the problem is that they embraced it in the first place. And now, the relatively few non-government people who have power aren't really opposed to the government because they benefit a lot from the pay-as-you-go police force. But despite all that, it's not for anyone but the Russians to say when the situation calls for violence. The fact that it hasn't happened on a large scale clearly shows that most still hope for peaceful solutions. Russia is still a democracy after all.
And a threat to the state isn't the same as a threat to democracy. The state is a threat to democracy in itself. Also a prerequisite, of course, but state != democracy. If people do turn against democracy with violence, e.g. Islamic terrorists, that's what the police is for - libertarianism isn't anarchism. But if governments stop respecting citizens, that's not really democracy either.
OTNOP!
Wouldn't that be OTPOR?
where you live, yes.
The cause of, and solution to, all of Россия's problems
