jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (50 posts)

about face

  1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Yesterday, on President's Day, hundreds of VERIFIED US veterans marched on Washington in support of Ron Paul, and against Obama.

    Ron Paul is the only pro-peace candidate, the only veteran candidate, and the only candidate who acknowledges the Constitution that these men and women took an oath to uphold.

    Every other candidate - Obama included - is chiefly funded by big corporation who make billions (trillions?) off of the wars. Ron Paul's top 3 contribution groups come from - I kid you not - the US Army, Navy, Air Force.

    Ron Paul receives more money from servicemen than EVERY other candidate -- COMBINED. He receives almost TWICE as much as Obama.

    http://www.rollitup.org/politics/506795 … crazy.html

    They carried out two moments of silences. Each second of silence represented the total number of veterans who have committed suicide and for those troops that have died abroad since Obama took office (he promised to end the wars by his first year).

    They performed an 'About Face' away from the White House.

    Did you not hear about this? Of course not. The only videos online of the whole thing come from, ironically, Russia Today and independent media sources:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yewKCcF … e=youtu.be
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHAnGCsSkQU

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … ite-house/

    1. JamesPoppell profile image86
      JamesPoppellposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The news media has its own objective by being selective with the news they put on the air. You take CNN & MSNBC and you get far left news. On the flip side of that coin you have Fox News which is far right. For once, I would like to see a news media outlet who is centered, fair and balanced.

      1. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        CNN is far left?

        I agree MSNBC is left, and Fox is right, but CNN is about as close to the center as you're going to get.

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree.

        2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
          Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Somebody here is kidding.

    2. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think I might slightly agree with you for once Evan.  One thing I admire about Ron Paul is that he is not afraid to call out the military-industrial complex.

  2. Greek One profile image77
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    hundreds?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, did you watch the video?

      I assume that 100-300 counts as hundreds...

      1. Greek One profile image77
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        that would be impressive....




        if each represented an Electoral College vote

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, it was actually 400.

  3. Aya Katz profile image86
    Aya Katzposted 5 years ago

    Go Ron Paul!

  4. Jed Fisher profile image87
    Jed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    I think I saw a 20-second blurb about it on ABC news around 3:30am.

    1. Greek One profile image77
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      right after the Sham Wow commecial?

  5. Gypsy Willow profile image80
    Gypsy Willowposted 5 years ago

    Ron Paul seems to be the only GOP candidate with any sanity. But then I have no vote. Religion should have no place in politics.

    1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
      Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I do like Dr. Ron Paul But today so unstable world we cannot compromise US security. We need type of Reagan.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Paul supported Reagan's message, but then Reagan got in office and pulled a 180.

  6. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Well, not according to this:

    http://projects.propublica.org/pactrack … tions/tree

    who is Theil?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's absolutely hilarious that the Revolution PAC isn't on there.

      Your source is incomplete.

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "the top ten donors to each of the 12 largest super PACs, through Jan. 31"


        These were the TOP donors, not all of them. And you said Pauls top were the military...is it?

        Obama's top appears to be SEIU: Union.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The vast majority of his money comes from individuals.

          He just raised 2 million over the weekend from individual donors who each have a $2500 limit on donations.

          Unless Thiel has donated over $20 million, then it really isn't worth talking about.

  7. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Peter Thiel gives Endorse Liberty Super PAC another $1.7 million Billionaire Peter Thiel has poured $1.7 million more into a super PAC supporting presidential candidate Ron Paul, bringing his total contributions to $2.6 million. Reports filed with the Federal Election Commission today show that Thiel, a Silicon Valley investor, made the additional contributions to the Endorse Liberty PAC in the first half of January. Thiel, a libertarian, is the single largest donor to the PAC. http://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriebenne … billion... read more

    "The Treasurer of Endorse Liberty, Abraham D. Niederhauser, is a corporate executive who is a known Ron Paul supporter."

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The top 3 contributors to Ron Paul's campaign are the three branches of military.

      The top for Obama?

      Corporation, Corporation, corporation.

  8. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "‘libertarianism’ as it is defined today is the natural philosophy of the plutocrat, the oligarch, and the fat-cat. Why this should be is hardly a mystery — in a truly libertarian society (sic) the guy with the most upper-body strength (ladies need not apply), the heaviest rock, the stoutest club, the biggest gun, or the most money gets to take all the liberties, while everyone else gets to pound sand, because the prols (that’s you, my friend, and me) have been deluded into abandoning the only thing which would otherwise stand between them and abject Dickensian enslavement under the iron fist of the Bosses: the rule of law."

    1. Aya Katz profile image86
      Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Libertarianism _is_ the rule of law. It allows people to be treated equally regardless of wealth. It protects minorities from majority rule.

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't see how states rights protects minorities.....
        Like say gay people who want to marry.

        And in that case, Ron Paul needs to change his designation, because he will throw me to the wolves.

        1. Aya Katz profile image86
          Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It means, among other things, that if another state is more open to your lifestyle, you can choose to live there. Some states are much more liberal in terms of social lifestyle choices than others.

          When these types of decisions are made on the Federal level, then if the majority is against you, you have no recourse but to leave the country.

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I would trust the country as a whole over individual states.....

            There has to be such a thing as Universal Rights.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There is: The right to property.

              That's it. All other TRUE rights branch from this.

              1. lovemychris profile image81
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, and the most precious property is my body. Do Not Tread On Me.

              2. couturepopcafe profile image60
                couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Evan - you're saying I have a right to own property?

                So two questions: Do I have to buy it or is the gov't supposed to give it to me?

                What about some law that says the gov't can come and take your property anytime if they need it?

                1. profile image60
                  geordmcposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It's called "Eminent Domian". The govt can pay market value for your property, however, govt WILL have the land evalutated at half price to screw you better!

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Eminent Domain is tyranny.

                2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Property is gained initially from homesteading: If you come across land that no one else claims, and you use it for farming, then you own it.

                  Ownership pre-dates government, thus government does not have a right to dish it out. It can only manage and enforce contracts.

                  Government has NO right to steal your property.

            2. innersmiff profile image72
              innersmiffposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What if the federal government decides that abortion is illegal? Do you think that is more or less tyrannical than some states legalising, some states criminalizing?

              1. lovemychris profile image81
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That would be tyrannical in the extreme.

                I don't think a majority of the people will let that happen.

                It can only happen in America if a small minority lies their way into office and then shows their true colors. And that's much easier in a state.

                1. innersmiff profile image72
                  innersmiffposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  And then it only affects that state.

                  1. lovemychris profile image81
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That is still too much tyranny!
                    You're not supposed to get elected to throw your religion on everybody else.

                    Politics is to run a country, not run everyone's personal lives.

                    And as we as individuals live here, and pay for that priveledge, our private lives are just that....ours.

                    Render onto Ceasar that which is due...leave the morality to each his own.

                    Gvt is not a moral arbiter.

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Duh, Innersmiff!

                    Don't you understand liberals? It's only tyranny if the government does it and they do NOT agree with it.

                    DUH!!!

      2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Aya I agree. But still I do not like full libertarianism. They are very hostile. Only my experience.

        1. Aya Katz profile image86
          Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Vladimir, do you mean that you acknowledge Libertarianism is fair, but you think Libertarians often come off as disagreeable or even hostile?

          1. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
            Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Aya, yea

    2. steveamy profile image60
      steveamyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Libertarianism. as espoused by most of its adherents is the modern day replacement of the Social  Darwinism of the late 19th Century

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, not at all, actually.

        It's anti-social darwinism.

        Darwinism says "the strongest survive and flourish, and they dominate the weak". In a libertarian society, no one can dominate anyone.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        +++

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Three thumbs up from Ralph "Might Makes Right" Deeds.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's really not.

      1. steveamy profile image60
        steveamyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe not in the idealized version in people's minds but those sort of policies would be used by some  elements of society to dominate and exploit other elements of society ....

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's funny, because you just described PERFECTLY the situation we have now.

          1. steveamy profile image60
            steveamyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ....and libertarianism would would exacerbate the problem

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Don't see how that's possible!

              In fact, I seem to remember you applauding the 99% movement that literally took to the streets in protest.

 
working