It will be a great day in history when we finally shake off the shackles of the Democratic and Republican parties.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, April 14th, 2011 10:11am PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

The US is being run by the True Dictatorship! They just keep everyone so confused, so uneducated and so broke that no one can band together and do anything about it.

Your leaders are laughing at you while they eat their caviar, drink cognac and champagne and smoke Gurkha cigars while you wonder where your next phone bill payment is going to come from...

Those that can pay the bills are so ridden in dept they fantasize they have money. Most North Americans sit back passively and never acknowledge that they would loose everything if they miss 2-3 paychecks (some less than that).
(and yes, i include much of Canada in this group as well.)

The point is, if you think our "leaders" are there to serve us - you're living the biggest fantasy of all!
Oh ya, and most of them are lawyers - screwing us over one law at a time!

>> ^Sagemind:

The US is being run by the True Dictatorship! They just keep everyone so confused, so uneducated and so broke that no one can band together and do anything about it.
Your leaders are laughing at you while they eat their caviar, drink cognac and champagne and smoke Gurkha cigars while you wonder where your next phone bill payment is going to come from...
Those that can pay the bills are so ridden in dept they fantasize they have money. Most North Americans sit back passively and never acknowledge that they would loose everything if they miss 2-3 paychecks (some less than that).
(and yes, i include much of Canada in this group as well.)
The point is, if you think our "leaders" are there to serve us - you're living the biggest fantasy of all!
Oh ya, and most of them are lawyers - screwing us over one law at a time!


:'(

The US political system is so broken... Trying to spread it to African and middle eastern countries is like trying to spread a plague of unrepresentative, unethical inefficiency.

The old guard must end. Vote the lifers out.

You know, it reaches a point in time where we have to do what's not popular and vote our conscience. You may not agree with everything Ron Paul stands for, but in the big scheme of things he's the best shot we have to make large changes in foreign policy we so desperately need before we radicalize more people in the Middle East and Africa and have another 911.

I'm not a big fan of Kucinich's domestic policies, but I'd vote for him in a second for POTUS because his foreign policies. To me voting domestic issues is second to voting against the US Imperialism. So either vote independent or vote Paul or Kucinich. There really isn't anyone else.

[edit] Jesus, I had a crap load of typos in this. That's what I get for trying to carry a conversation while typing.

@blankfist how about signing on to some sort of Instant Runoff Voting campaign, instead of begging people to vote for people who didn't even make it on the ballot in 2008, and who likely won't even run in 2012?

Also, I can tell you from personal experience that you can't really count on massive political transformation to happen from the White House down. It's gotta be from the bottom up.

If Paul were leading a movement to try to make the grassroots of the right anti-war, maybe I'd have a bit more affinity for him. But he isn't doing that at all. Instead, he mostly just comes on TV, bashes Democrats for wars (and anything else going wrong), mumbles something about Republicans being guilty "too", and suggests that the only solution is for him personally to have more authority and power. That has totally soured me on Paul, and really makes me think is just another sociopath in search of political power for his own gratification.

Rather than pin your hopes on individual politicians, I suggest you go for shifting public opinion. If enough people strongly believe that America should give up its role as a military superpower, then there will be endless politicians from both parties who will be all too happy to hop in front of that parade.

Incidentally, most of us liberals and Democratic voters already feel that way. You might want to look at the other political coalition, since they seem to feel pretty strongly about maintaining America's military preeminence forever.

Eisenhower called it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

This could easily be fixed with a rule that requires congressmen to recuse themselves from voting on spending for their own district, in the same way that judges must recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest.

Like the campaign for liberty that tours the nation? But your right, things start from the bottom down. It is always nice, though, to have hands from above as well. You can already see things slowing changing in the republican party, but it is still marginal in terms of majority. Like Dr. Paul says though, he won't consider it a success unless BOTH parties are chop full of his base ideals.


>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist how about signing on to some sort of Instant Runoff Voting campaign, instead of begging people to vote for people who didn't even make it on the ballot in 2008, and who likely won't even run in 2012?
Also, I can tell you from personal experience that you can't really count on massive political transformation to happen from the White House down. It's gotta be from the bottom up.
If Paul were leading a movement to try to make the grassroots of the right anti-war, maybe I'd have a bit more affinity for him. But he isn't doing that at all. Instead, he mostly just comes on TV, bashes Democrats for wars (and anything else going wrong), mumbles something about Republicans being guilty "too", and suggests that the only solution is for him personally to have more authority and power. That has totally soured me on Paul, and really makes me think is just another sociopath in search of political power for his own gratification.
Rather than pin your hopes on individual politicians, I suggest you go for shifting public opinion. If enough people strongly believe that America should give up its role as a military superpower, then there will be endless politicians from both parties who will be all too happy to hop in front of that parade.
Incidentally, most of us liberals and Democratic voters already feel that way. You might want to look at the other political coalition, since they seem to feel pretty strongly about maintaining America's military preeminence forever.



What kind of spending of federal funds wouldn't end up in your district though? Perhaps I don't understand the setup, though?
>> ^jwray:

This could easily be fixed with a rule that requires congressmen to recuse themselves from voting on spending for their own district, in the same way that judges must recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

What kind of spending of federal funds wouldn't end up in your district though? Perhaps I don't understand the setup, though?
>> ^jwray:
This could easily be fixed with a rule that requires congressmen to recuse themselves from voting on spending for their own district, in the same way that judges must recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest.



It wouldn't apply to spending that helps _everybody's_ district as a coherent federal program. It would apply to pork barrel spending on a specific project in a specific constituency. A common case is that if they're a few votes short of passing a bill, they tack on pork barrel spending amendments for a few senators' states to get them to switch sides. Those senators would be required to recuse themselves from the final vote under my system. Then there would be less incentive for the majority to pass these pork barrel amendments.

That sounds good on the surface, but then you have to figure in that representatives represent actual voters. That means people who the highest amount of vested interest in something have no representations over it. Take the people in New Orleans, they had some interest in levies. With that type of ban, they would be unable to have a representation on issues like that.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
What kind of spending of federal funds wouldn't end up in your district though? Perhaps I don't understand the setup, though?
>> ^jwray:
This could easily be fixed with a rule that requires congressmen to recuse themselves from voting on spending for their own district, in the same way that judges must recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest.


It wouldn't apply to spending that helps _everybody's_ district as a coherent federal program. It would apply to pork barrel spending on a specific project in a specific constituency. A common case is that if they're a few votes short of passing a bill, they tack on pork barrel spending amendments for a few senators' states to get them to switch sides. Those senators would be required to recuse themselves from the final vote under my system. Then there would be no incentive for the majority to pass these pork barrel amendments.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Like the campaign for liberty that tours the nation? But your right, things start from the bottom down. It is always nice, though, to have hands from above as well. You can already see things slowing changing in the republican party, but it is still marginal in terms of majority. Like Dr. Paul says though, he won't consider it a success unless BOTH parties are chop full of his base ideals.

Yes, but most of those base ideals are about things that have nothing to do with pacifism, and he's not pushing to transform the rest of the Republican party into pacifists. Instead he's pushing them to become extremists who want to abolish every ounce of regulation and social safety net that exists.

I've also noticed that he makes his anti-war case primarily on budgetary/legal authority grounds, and not "killing people is wrong" grounds. That concerns me quite a bit, because if your main issue with war is that it costs too much money, or didn't get the right rubber stamp first, then you're really missing the point.

In any case, I personally see no reason why we should believe Ron Paul's campaign promises any more than any other politician. I find it a bit strange on the topic of war in particular, because according to him, the Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war, and certainly Congress has authority over spending money, so why does he need to be President to do anything about wars?

I don't recall anything about pacifism in his speeches, only non-interventionism and anti-colorization. And he has frequently said that to just abolish the safety net is also a bad idea, so hardly an extremist. That is more of a straw-man representation of his views on transitioning to a more free market based society and less regulated.

I think it is important to note the difference in being anti-war being legal and not moral. Morally, we can't all agree anyway. Was our intervention in WW2 moral? Is killing ever good? A president can't answer those questions, and shouldn't, and nor should congress. What they should preside over is if a majority of people want war, we war, regardless of its moral good or badness. Morality is the charge of the citizens, not the congress. It is also their job, the citizens, to not let their congress take that charge from them. Good and bad shouldn't be a matter of law, that is the most dangerous of all ideas.


Being skeptical is always good, but look as his company. He takes strides with people like Kucinich, whom I also respect for his integrity to what he believes. There is no doubt, though, that the president, even when his powers were considerably less, is still the "leader" of the country. Being that congress has defaulted most of their power to the executive, a good place to go to pass that power away is the executive. One could ask why any of the founding fathers, with their ideals on the congress, ran for president and I think you will find your answer there...duty. Dr. Paul has frequently said he really don't have an interest in the office, but like old hickory after the death of his wife, feels it is is obligation to the people.

Just my 2 cents, perhaps he is a greedy Napoleon under the facade, I don't know...nor do I really care. He cares about what I care about, that is about all I require for a vote.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Like the campaign for liberty that tours the nation? But your right, things start from the bottom down. It is always nice, though, to have hands from above as well. You can already see things slowing changing in the republican party, but it is still marginal in terms of majority. Like Dr. Paul says though, he won't consider it a success unless BOTH parties are chop full of his base ideals.
Yes, but most of those base ideals are about things that have nothing to do with pacifism, and he's not pushing to transform the rest of the Republican party into pacifists. Instead he's pushing them to become extremists who want to abolish every ounce of regulation and social safety net that exists.
I've also noticed that he makes his anti-war case primarily on budgetary/legal authority grounds, and not "killing people is wrong" grounds. That concerns me quite a bit, because if your main issue with war is that it costs too much money, or didn't get the right rubber stamp first, then you're really missing the point.
In any case, I personally see no reason why we should believe Ron Paul's campaign promises any more than any other politician. I find it a bit strange on the topic of war in particular, because according to him, the Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war, and certainly Congress has authority over spending money, so why does he need to be President to do anything about wars?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I don't recall anything about pacifism in his speeches, only non-interventionism and anti-colorization.

Right, that's basically my point. He doesn't seem to think war is bad because it kills people, he thinks it's bad because it conflicts with his ideology about the proper role of government.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
And he has frequently said that to just abolish the safety net is also a bad idea, so hardly an extremist. That is more of a straw-man representation of his views on transitioning to a more free market based society and less regulated.

All I hear in there is "he doesn't want to abruptly end them, he just wants to slowly phase them out", which if you were objective about it means that he's more worried about a popular backlash stopping the destruction of the social safety net, and not actually in favor of preserving them.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think it is important to note the difference in being anti-war being legal and not moral. Morally, we can't all agree anyway. Was our intervention in WW2 moral? Is killing ever good? A president can't answer those questions, and shouldn't, and nor should congress. What they should preside over is if a majority of people want war, we war, regardless of its moral good or badness. Morality is the charge of the citizens, not the congress. It is also their job, the citizens, to not let their congress take that charge from them. Good and bad shouldn't be a matter of law, that is the most dangerous of all ideas.

This is potentially the beginning of a really long conversation, but to be short about it, what is law for if not an attempt to create justice in a society? What is justice if not applied morality? Yes, no single person or institution should get the exclusive right to decide what is and isn't moral, but single people and institutions get to make important decisions that impact lots of people, and I think it's safe to say that we want them to make those decisions in a way that's compatible with the morals of the people who entrusted them with the power to make those decisions.

In other words, if Paul wants the codes to the nuclear weapons, Paul's personal code of ethics matters a great fucking deal if he wants me to achieve that power.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Being skeptical is always good, but look as his company.

I do, and that's the thing that bothers me. Take John Tate, who runs C4L. Not a day goes by that I don't get e-mail from him that a) refers to the left as statists, socialists, or tyrants, b) lies about legislation that Democrats are or have proposed, and c) promotes a wide array of pro-corporate Republican policies.

Take Peter Schiff, who's lost his clients' a truckload of money betting on hyperinflation, and who goes on TV constantly to try to sell people on the idea that hyperinflation is around the corner, will destroy America as we know it forever, and that you can protect yourself by buying gold from his website.

Those are just the ones I recall clearly, but I remember there being quite a list of shady characters he'd brought into his campaign in 2008.

Yes, he sometimes "stands with" Kucinich or Nader on an issue, but it's never some positive proposal they want to try to work on passing together. Instead, it's always a case of Kucinich or Nader objecting to something the Democratic party is doing, and Ron Paul "stands with them" in an attempt to try to win some converts amongst liberals frustrated with Democrats.

IMO, he's very, very untrustworthy. I've had plenty of experience with sociopaths, and I quite seriously get that vibe from Ron Paul.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

That sounds good on the surface, but then you have to figure in that representatives represent actual voters. That means people who the highest amount of vested interest in something have no representations over it. Take the people in New Orleans, they had some interest in levies. With that type of ban, they would be unable to have a representation on issues like that.
>> ^jwray:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
What kind of spending of federal funds wouldn't end up in your district though? Perhaps I don't understand the setup, though?
>> ^jwray:
This could easily be fixed with a rule that requires congressmen to recuse themselves from voting on spending for their own district, in the same way that judges must recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest.


It wouldn't apply to spending that helps _everybody's_ district as a coherent federal program. It would apply to pork barrel spending on a specific project in a specific constituency. A common case is that if they're a few votes short of passing a bill, they tack on pork barrel spending amendments for a few senators' states to get them to switch sides. Those senators would be required to recuse themselves from the final vote under my system. Then there would be no incentive for the majority to pass these pork barrel amendments.



Federal funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is not pork barrel for a particular locale, so they would be free to vote on that. ACOE is responsible for building levies. Also, they should get it done at the state or local level.

>> ^RedSky:

 


+1 For you, sir. Well said.

What about regional issues? Would Texas, and other boarder states be unable to vote on legislation about immigration, and thusly be left to non-involved parties to decide its fate? I totally agree with the mindset of pork barrel being bad. I just think attacking the problem with denying representation is the wrong course. They had something like this back in Greece. When deciding issues of war, people who lived near the walls would not get a vote. The reasoning is they had a vested interest in not going to war, but who doesn't have a vested interest in any piece of legislation?

I have had this same thought experiment, though, from a different context. I definitely see value is the idea that voting isn't a natural right, and thusly, can be subverted in certain situations. But, to subvert it because it is an issue that directly effects you goes against the idea of having a government that is a representation of your ideals, seemingly.

>> ^jwray:
Federal funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is not pork barrel for a particular locale, so they would be free to vote on that. ACOE is responsible for building levies. Also, they should get it done at the state or local level.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

What about regional issues? Would Texas, and other boarder states be unable to vote on legislation about immigration, and thusly be left to non-involved parties to decide its fate? I totally agree with the mindset of pork barrel being bad. I just think attacking the problem with denying representation is the wrong course. They had something like this back in Greece. When deciding issues of war, people who lived near the walls would not get a vote. The reasoning is they had a vested interest in not going to war, but who doesn't have a vested interest in any piece of legislation?
I have had this same thought experiment, though, from a different context. I definitely see value is the idea that voting isn't a natural right, and thusly, can be subverted in certain situations. But, to subvert it because it is an issue that directly effects you goes against the idea of having a government that is a representation of your ideals, seemingly.
>> ^jwray:
Federal funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is not pork barrel for a particular locale, so they would be free to vote on that. ACOE is responsible for building levies. Also, they should get it done at the state or local level.


Immigration law isn't pork barrel spending. A giant 500 billion dollar wall on the Mexican border built by companies who made campaign contributions to the senators from Texas definitely would be pork barrel spending.

The federal government exists to serve the interests of the whole nation, not the interests of particular states. If a spending bill that's targeted in a particular location actually serves the whole national interest, then senators from other areas will vote for it. If it doesn't, then it should be a state/local government issue or a cooperative venture between the few state/local governments that have an interest in it.

Problem is, how do the senate itself determine if something is or isn't something you get to vote on? Seems crappy and arbitrary in cases like the fence and immigration, as the fence could and can be considered spending for immigration related issues, which are a federal context. Imagine a bunch of kids in a playground saying who gets to vote and who doesn't in any given situation, chaos! Like I said, I smell what your stepping in, I like it. But I think it would break more things than it would fix. The fix is to stop people voting for crap that enriches only their state, the hidden costs are not getting to vote on things at all when you should be able to...to much of a risk imo. Perhaps it could work, though, I just think there are better ways than voter suppression for pork.


>> ^jwray:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
What about regional issues? Would Texas, and other boarder states be unable to vote on legislation about immigration, and thusly be left to non-involved parties to decide its fate? I totally agree with the mindset of pork barrel being bad. I just think attacking the problem with denying representation is the wrong course. They had something like this back in Greece. When deciding issues of war, people who lived near the walls would not get a vote. The reasoning is they had a vested interest in not going to war, but who doesn't have a vested interest in any piece of legislation?
I have had this same thought experiment, though, from a different context. I definitely see value is the idea that voting isn't a natural right, and thusly, can be subverted in certain situations. But, to subvert it because it is an issue that directly effects you goes against the idea of having a government that is a representation of your ideals, seemingly.
>> ^jwray:
Federal funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is not pork barrel for a particular locale, so they would be free to vote on that. ACOE is responsible for building levies. Also, they should get it done at the state or local level.

Immigration law isn't pork barrel spending. A giant 500 billion dollar wall on the Mexican border built by companies who made campaign contributions to the senators from Texas definitely would be pork barrel spending.
The federal government exists to serve the interests of the whole nation, not the interests of particular states. If a spending bill that's targeted in a particular location actually serves the whole national interest, then senators from other areas will vote for it. If it doesn't, then it should be a state/local government issue or a cooperative venture between the few state/local governments that have an interest in it.

A simple rule: If it's a spending bill or amendment to a spending bill, and it includes spending for your state but not for at least 10 other states, you can't vote on it.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Problem is, how do the senate itself determine if something is or isn't something you get to vote on? Seems crappy and arbitrary in cases like the fence and immigration, as the fence could and can be considered spending for immigration related issues, which are a federal context. Imagine a bunch of kids in a playground saying who gets to vote and who doesn't in any given situation, chaos! Like I said, I smell what your stepping in, I like it. But I think it would break more things than it would fix. The fix is to stop people voting for crap that enriches only their state, the hidden costs are not getting to vote on things at all when you should be able to...to much of a risk imo. Perhaps it could work, though, I just think there are better ways than voter suppression for pork.

>> ^jwray:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
What about regional issues? Would Texas, and other boarder states be unable to vote on legislation about immigration, and thusly be left to non-involved parties to decide its fate? I totally agree with the mindset of pork barrel being bad. I just think attacking the problem with denying representation is the wrong course. They had something like this back in Greece. When deciding issues of war, people who lived near the walls would not get a vote. The reasoning is they had a vested interest in not going to war, but who doesn't have a vested interest in any piece of legislation?
I have had this same thought experiment, though, from a different context. I definitely see value is the idea that voting isn't a natural right, and thusly, can be subverted in certain situations. But, to subvert it because it is an issue that directly effects you goes against the idea of having a government that is a representation of your ideals, seemingly.
>> ^jwray:
Federal funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is not pork barrel for a particular locale, so they would be free to vote on that. ACOE is responsible for building levies. Also, they should get it done at the state or local level.

Immigration law isn't pork barrel spending. A giant 500 billion dollar wall on the Mexican border built by companies who made campaign contributions to the senators from Texas definitely would be pork barrel spending.
The federal government exists to serve the interests of the whole nation, not the interests of particular states. If a spending bill that's targeted in a particular location actually serves the whole national interest, then senators from other areas will vote for it. If it doesn't, then it should be a state/local government issue or a cooperative venture between the few state/local governments that have an interest in it.

Or at the very least require that amendments involving spending for a particular state must be co-sponsored by someone from another state, so that someone has to go on the record supporting it outside the state that it's for (rather than voice voting).