Ruh-Roe…..THE CALL WAS COMING FROM INSIDE THE (white)HOUSE!!

Former Republican Congressman Denver Riggleman who worked for the Jan. 6 Committee gave an interview where he said The White House switchboard connected with the phone of an insurrectionist WHILE IT WAS INSIDE THE CAPITOL BUILDING on January 6.
The Jan 6 committee has the switchboard records.
This could now put Trump in direct legal jeopardy over Jan 6, and someone directly involved in an insurrection cannot be president, not even from prison.

Ruh roe again, seems DeSantis is definitely guilty of federal kidnapping by inveiglement, transporting someone across state lines based on false promises or facts. Here’s something to simply explain what kidnapping by inveiglement means, note a minor cannot consent and there were minors involved…
https://www.mass.gov/doc/6575-kidnapping-by-trickery-or-deceit-inveigle-gl-c-265-ss-26-clause-3/download

the present president has, as of April 14 '20, said over 18,000 lies or 15/day. every day. and only those said in public, journaled by the press, and fact-checked for veracity.

@ that rate, he would have told ~22,000 for 4 full years.

of course, the rate will soar even higher as the next election nears. he's sorta the santa of insincerity. delivering nothing to the stockings but a false promise. to believe in either takes a great deal of naivety.

States like Wisconsin and Kansas have implemented conservative policies - how's that worked out for them? Here's a hint. Go ahead and point me to a counter-example, where cuts to social programs and austerity have provided a benefit to the people of a state. I'm damned sick of the false promises of so-called "conservative values" - they don't fucking work, all evidence supports the notion that they don't fucking work, and they're destroying the progress this country made during the early and mid-20th century to create a strong middle class.

It's in these people's own best interests to support progressive policies, but the politics of division and hatred, and the highly effective lies from the likes of Fox News have blinded them.

No sir....on all counts.

A cop's job is to 'serve and protect', to uphold the law, and promote public safety, not to pull over hot chicks in hopes he can trick them out of a blow job with the false promise of no ticket, not to perform public sex acts while shirking the job.

Corruptibility is not reduced when you allow those in power to accept any 'gift', it's amplified, because it now allows them to illegally sell their services and always claim they only took a gift.

Society only gains there if the cop PAY'S us that 'value' for receiving the valuable blow job AND gives back the money we paid him for that time period AND finds someone else qualified to do the job we were paying him to do....(or do we not need cops on the job, and it's just as good to have them off getting BJ's instead?) Since you want to give it to him for nothing, we totally lose, only the cop profits, not society. Does that really need to be said? We paid him for his time, she also 'paid' him, he didn't do what EITHER of us 'paid' him to do. Everyone but him lost...until he was caught, now we've all lost (we also lose all the money spent to train him, btw)

So, this is a major misconception by the public about where the money actually goes when drugs are developed. Read the link you have there, but with a more realistic eye about where the money is going. Drugs are SUPER expensive, but only because they're super expensive to discover. 'Drug discovery' is a tremendously difficult thing, to the point where it is the wetdream of a professional drug discoverer in the pharma world to discover 1 drug in their 30+ year career. During that time, the team of pharma researchers all have to be paid for their PhD level of expertise, and the human cost in developed countries is quite expensive! If there are 1000 people in one pharma company, and each person makes ~70+ thousand, and benefits cost another 100+ thousand per person each year, then the human cost alone in that rough exercise accounts for 170 million yearly for just 1000 people, and can touch the billion dollar figure per year for very large companies. That is where the money is going in that 1.3 billion dollar figure.

The major problem lies in developing a substance that actually does something, and you know exactly what that something is, including all side effects. To get a statistically valid clinical trial is actually a rather hard thing to do; a poorly designed clinical trial can prove whatever you want it to. Considering your St. John's wort example, the most costly 'drug discovery' component is already finished, it would just need to go through clinical trials as a drug for antidepression. The body of evidence in place may already serve for early phase clinical trials, and it may just need to go through a couple of more trials to prove its efficacy (and determine side effects). It would cost some money, but it would NOT be so prohibitively expensive as starting from complete scratch.

Considering this, the idea that it's 'unfair' to make the supplements world actually prove their product does what it is promised to do (or at the very least, not be harmful) is a bit odd. Quackery is illegal for moral reasons, and hard to argue that what the supplements world is doing is not quackery; particularly with the Dr. Oz zeal, false promises are being sold millions of bottles at a time. It is in the public's interest to get this stuff tested and approved!

Mohammed VI on the phone with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Mohammed: Inorite? It's fucking bullshit! Gah...

Mahmoud: Don't worry Mo, we'll make them some bullshit false promises and they will go home.

Mohammed: Well they fucking better. You know what? This is all fucking Hosni's fault. That fucking pussy couldn't keep his fucking peasants under control. Bastard.

Mahmoud: Ya... Hosni's always been a pretty big pussy. Hey listen, Mo, I gotta go, but call me if you need me. Otherwise, I'll see you at Abdullah's next week. He's going to be fighting a bear against a lion! Yippeeee!

Mohammed: Hahaha! Ok, take care Mahmoud.

Human trafficking sounds accurate from what I've heard. My brother has a friend who is essentially a minion/slave of Scientology. He moves where they tell him to, works unpaid, and rakes in money for the organization as an auditor.

If someone did this for an ordinary religion they might call it volunteering or missionary work. But it does seem like the executives of Scientology are masters of deliberate brain washing and false promises. . . Then again, the same could easily be said of Catholics or Mormons or really most religions.

The tea-party started out as a decent movement. Then all of the private interests saw a way to pay less in taxes. I live in Wisconsin, and I'm terrified that my favorite senator Feingold (who earned my lifetime vote when he alone had the sense to vote against the patriot act) is trailing in the polls to a tea-party business owner who is backed by the Catholic church. The ironic thing to me is that this guy might win on the premise of cutting taxes, and appealing to the religious voters. I relate more to democrats, but don't vote the line. I was disillusioned with Obama after he made it clear he lied about raising the tax on incomes over 250k (most of the reason he had my support, and yes I'm slightly socialist). However I will be truly crushed if a politician who is actually credible loses to a guy because people vote on their religious beliefs, and false promises of tax breaks for the middle class. When really I think it will be aimed more at the upper class. Oh and this video is mostly bullshit. Either party would have probably done just as bad a job in most of these situations. Vote for people not parties.

America should go back to the old system of taxing income of over 2-3 million at 50-80%. That is the only realistic way of recovering the insane amount of money we've spent. If we cut services to do it instead there would be even more problems.

Your video, Frum To GOP: Forget 'False Promises Of Repeal', has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Good. Fuck 'em. Religion is so fucking stupid, I'd be amazed that it's persisted this long, if I didn't realize that most of humanity is easily swayed by empty gestures and false promises.

Fuck religion.

>> ^MINK:
^whereas the pharmaceutical industry is a group of competent and honest people with incentives to make people healthy? how about that health insurance industry? they have your health as their number one priority?


They don't have to be competent and honest, they simply have to be put in an environment in which their desires to collude with government-specific powers are disabled. Neo-con socialists and democratic socialists alike (this includes you) vote for people who want to subsidize, charge income taxes, and inflate, but tell me: how does a company bribe a politician for a special subsidy when subsidies are illegal? How does a company bribe a politician for a special tax credit if income taxes don't exist? A libertarian like Ron Paul knows the powers were idealist in nature and can't but be abused, so he's going to remove them entirely. That's exactly how you solve the problem. It isn't by talking tough with one hand and taking a lobbyist's payout on the other like every other candidate. And it isn't Nader's solution to get ANOTHER government agency to oversee this bullshit which will invariably degenerate into another bloodsucking corrupt agency after his well-meaning sponsors die off and are replaced by the order of the day.

And regarding health quality, the average lifespan of a white American male has gone from 50 in 1900 to almost 80 today. That's pretty good considering we eat like crap. You want to cite socialist nations which are dependent on imports developed by capitalist sources? How about the horror stories where people are waiting months for a scan to reveal a tumor before it's too late? Or how about the true cases of people who had tumors, but the government hospitals refused to operate on them because they didn't believe their chances of surviving were good enough to justify the cost of operating? At which point they paid for private care and lived.

The two things you're missing are these: companies are out to make a sustainable profit. Government is supposed to make sure they're not infringing on rights, and to provide courts for recourse in the event that they do. In that environment, the only way to make a profit and keep it is to give customers what they want. Do you want bullshit drugs that make you sick? No. So how could a company profit from ruining your life? With the internet and informational publications as easy to obtain as ever, they can't.

If you research some more, you'll find that the HMO act and Medicare are some of the most fiscally irresponsible and collusive enablements out there. Those, the central bank, and inflation enabled by not restricting the government to non-inflatable money are THE reasons private health care costs (and gas, and groceries, and well... everything) are becoming increasingly unaffordable. These are all socialist policies doomed to failure and that's exactly what you're getting. And your solution is more government? You're NUTS. You're barking up the completely wrong tree.

>> ^MINK:
^jesus i have no idea why people want to privatise EVERYTHING. We live together in a community. A little bit of "commun"ism is natural. Otherwise you are talking about walking around with a concealed loaded weapon all day, paying corporations to fix your gunshot wounds. Instant utopia, eh?


Communism/socialism is defined as what percentage of your labor is owned "communally" via its populist government rather than its earner. If you own someone else's labor, why work harder than the next guy? Where's the disincentive to being the lazy, unproductive one in the group when you're gauranteed the same share? Where's the incentive to work and think harder than anyone and innovate new things to get a bigger share? What happens when the government dictates unproductive positions in society, like who the artists and athletes are? These are the crushing oversight that causes every socialist big government economy to degenerate into equal misery and financial collapse.

>> ^MINK:
^I mean private TV companies are so competent and efficient, right? Let's do for our health what we did for our TV networks!! wohooo!


Besides the fact that airwaves are heavily regulated by government already, you want the content itself to be owned entirely by the government because private owners have a political bias one way or the other? Guess what happens when the government owns it. All channels = one side. I must be dreaming you said that and got rated up by the idealist socialist smeg-for-brains on this site. You don't understand the inherent costs of the best system (capitalism), you're just blinded by the false promise of a benevolent dictator who will come in and sweep away the scapegoats, and in the process you and people like you will lead us to bankruptcy and fascism.

I only believe humans have a single right. One. Here it is:

"A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom
of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the
others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life
is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life
means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—
which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a
rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the
enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.)"
-Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

In other words, your only right as a human being is the freedom to think and act, free of coercion--physical or otherwise.

Now, let me answer each of your points by asserting this right, and only this right:

1. Would you say you have a right to not starve to death on the street according to the whims of a few local employers?
NO! Life is a self generating action, you do not have the right to survive, you only have the right to pursue the means to survive. How can you have the right to not starve to death without infringing on someone elses rights? Who will the food be taken from? When you ensure that one man is kept alive, you ensure that another is his slave.

2. Would you say you have a right to know what is in food that you buy?
NO! It is your choice to purchase an item or not, and part of this choice is a rational assessment on the quality of the goods and trustworthiness of the seller. However, fraud is a violation of this basic right--in that it involves an indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises. Extortion is another variant of an indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values, not in exchange for values, but by the threat of force, violence or injury. This is the role of the legal system: to settle contractual disputes.

3. Would you say you have a right to know how much electricity will be used by an appliance that you buy?
NO! Same thing, it is your choice to purchase the appliance or not. If however, the power rating stated is different than the power rating in actuality--again you have legal recourse to be compensated for fraud. There is nothing about selling an item which requires the seller to give full disclosure.

4. Would you say you have a right to be told the truth about the efficacy and side effects of any medication that you buy?
YES-If the product does not perform as claimed, then yes, this is a case of fraud.
NO! If you do not receive full disclosure, but the seller makes no false claims.

5. Would you say that when you are trying to buy an essential product, which is not a very new invention, you have the right to choose between two or more competitors instead of paying an extortionary price to a monopoly? (And certain utility markets tend towards monopolies without any regulation, such as water, telephone, and electricity)
NO! How can you remove a monopoly, other than action in the free market, without resorting to physical force, and thus the infringement of the business owners rights?

6. Would you say you have the right to pay a competitive market price for any good, which is not inflated by conspiracy of the suppliers of that good (OPEC, for example)
NO! Again...these are all the same principle. The market price is set by supply and demand. period. How can you fix prices without infringing on the rights of the business owner? You realize that supply and demand are the exact same thing--only seen from two sides of the transaction? How can you force a "competitive" price for the buyer, without forcing an "uncompetitive" price on the seller?

7. Would you say certain proactive regulations are necessary to prevent the creation of monopolies, such as prohibition
NO! For the last time, the only moral action is boycott in the free market. Any regulation will infringe on the rights of the business owner.

It doesn't matter if you think you are doing "good for the people" or "whats best for everyone", all you are really doing is acting as a dictator by using physical violence (jail) to enforce your polices. However "benevolently" you think you are acting--in everyone one of the above cases someones rights would be violated. Thus, whatever arguments you can make for such a policy, you cannot make a moral one.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Still waiting for an example where gun ownership by the citizens meant oppressive governments don't come into power or even held in check.


"In 1760, Britain began adopting mercantilist policies toward her American colonies. By 1768, these had produced such hardships and a reversal of the previous prosperity that British troops had to be sent to suppress riots and collect taxes.

Between 1768-1777, the British policy was to disarm the American colonists by whatever means possible, from entrapment, false promises of safekeeping, banning imports, seizure, and eventually shooting persons bearing arms.

By 1774, the British had embargoed shipments of arms to America, and the Americans responded by arming themselves and forming independent militia companies.

On the night of 18 April 1775, General Gage, Governor of Massachusetts, dispatched several hundred soldiers of the Boston garrison under the command of Major Pitcairn to seize the arms and munitions stored by the illegal colonial militias in Concord.

When Pitcairn encountered the Minutemen on the Lexington common blocking his way, he demanded that they throw down their arms and disperse. Although willing to disperse, the Minutemen were not willing to surrender their arms. The rest is history."

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0694e.asp

If Britain had succeeded in disarming the colonies, Britain would have won the American Revolution.
Also Rome easily committed genocide against Carthage after tricking them into giving up their weapons (ca. the Third Punic War)

good stuff.
lots of tasty morsels here for a libertarian to munch on.

>> ^blankfist:
> I wish neo-conservatism was more like conservatism.

fiscally, yeah. you, me, ron paul, and a massive majority of the sift, and the internet in general, clearly wish that. which means the younger fiscal conservatives. the ones whose opinions will actually matter in 10 years.

> I don't know when the Republican Party changed...

reagan.
for better, and worse, but undeniably pivotal. he changed things.

> ...but they've strayed so far from their original small government, non-interventionist platform.

no doubt. here's a quick outline of how i see some of the important bits.

basically, (fiscal conserv) republicans got sick of watching (fisc lib) democrats get so much mileage out of what they saw as often milking the middle class, with the false promise of helping the poor, with your tax money.
but often helping themselves first. the poor get some crumbs. that way, you'll always have more poor people around, to beg on behalf of.

but hey. the social safety net sells well.
getting up to debate it, and replying, "instead, i promise not to raise anyone's taxes, or coerce you with the comforting illusion of security, supposedly provided by a more powerful and centralized government."

no. we want smiling poor, soft pillows, and free beer.

that was a watershed where many republicans said fuck fiscal conservatism because otherwise we'll keep getting our asses kicked.
party fundraising is noticeably easier in the free beer tent.

ergo, neither party is fiscally conservative anymore.

so we'll take the same taxes, and instead of feeding the crumbs down to the bottom of the system, we'll feed them into the top of the system and let it just sorta...
trickle
down.
aka corporate welfare, and a very un-free market.

which reagan's own vp, ghw bush, referred to at the time as...
anyone? anyone?
voodoo economics.

oh, and reagan himself wasn't really a neo-con. but enough of his cabinet was, and many were still-embittered nixon aides. some with ties to large defense contractors, hence...

> They're like the nation-building spendthrifts of the Democratic Party but with a heavy heaping of religious arrogance thrown into the mix.

and that was the other seismic shift with reagan. prior to that, it was the democrats who were perceived to be god's party. because they wanted (or pretended) to help the poor.

> I think the two parties just need to fuck and get it over with.

party at my place in november.

> Then we can just call that party the DemoPublican Party and we'll all continue to lose.

one of many alternate scenarios i'm clinging to:
whichever party starts getting real about fiscal solvency, continues to enjoy the kind of response ron paul has been getting.
often across previously well-established party lines.

lines drawn by those 2 parties, neither of which existed in 1776.

lines neatly down the middle, of what i believe to be the government we clearly started with.
socially liberal.
fiscally conservative.

damn. that's so much more than i had intended to write, and i haven't even gotten to a 10th of what i wanted to say here. oh, hey. i've got one o them blogothingies, maybe i oughtta' use that again sometime soon...

@moonsammy

Social Security *is* mis-used and it *is* horrifically broken. It isn't, however, an unnecessary burden to this country - it does a lot of good and has allowed several people that I know personally to subsist without reverting to begging their community or family for money. Perhaps this makes me biased, but I don't care - I see a benefit to the social security program in this country, warts and all.

You're seeing someone in need of money to sustain themselves, but you're not questioning the government's role in how they became that way, which is key to understanding this issue. If these people you know personally to have benefited from SS were to have retained that income throughout their life instead of having it taxed away from them, they likely would have been far better off financially and not in the situation you now use to justify Social Security in the first place. With a little self-responsibility, they could have invested that money in a personal 401k and benefited the economy and themselves far greater than if it had been taxed away from them. The minute you begin to use the argument that some people are not responsible enough to do this for themselves and need the government to step in and force all of us to do something for the "greater good," that's the moment you've forsaken liberty and entrusted a greaseball politician with your future and your children's futures. I don't trust someone else with my money to keep their promises. I don't make much money and would love to opt out of social security and take charge of my own money and retirement. But you know what, moonsammy, the government won't let me. It assumes that we are all children in need of taken care of from cradle to grave, and that we cannot spend our own money as well as they can, that we cannot choose teachers for our children as wisely as they can, that we cannot protect our property as well as they can, and they're wrong. It's an appealing concept to people, to go through life with a guardian angel called the government, but our forefathers distrusted men and government immensely because of the tyranny they had just defeated. The constitution limits the power of government explicitly. Come election season, the false promise works to greater effect than the truth. Obama will be elected, but it won't stop the greater depression of 2010 and China's subsequent rise to superpower status. Start buying your gold.

Regarding your links: wow, you're surprised I didn't read a libertarian think tank's website about the current plight of a social programs? I try to get my information from non-partisan sources.

They do cite sources underneath, you know.

I'll admit to not being a professional economic or historic analyst, but I'm pretty sure that being poor during the depression sucked massively, and that a social safety net would have been *really* useful back then.

Except you don't realize what caused the depression. It was the same government interference you trust to solve the problem. I'll also say that no it wouldn't have helped. SS would have collapsed. It would have been an incredible tax burden to those who managed to retain work. And the 25% who had no work had no income from which pay the SS tax. So many retired people wouldn't have gotten their checks, and the government would have had to borrow or inflate the money supply, debasing the purchasing power of the dollar. And remember as well that SS is a forced dependency, so no one would have had the savings that they had actually accrued in absence of SS after the depression hit. It would have decimated everyone.

I guess the thing that bothers me the most when people go around posting things about Ron Paul being idealistic, as though trusting a bunch of corporate-bought slickos to follow their own rules or genuinely care as much about you and your family as you do to be any less idealistic. Government is a necessary evil to protect people's rights, but it has no business in many of the affairs it is assuming today. The constitution held up fairly well, but time and human stupidity just proved too much. When we went from "only Gold and Silver" to central bank IOUs with nary an uprising, that was the end. The USA was the last stand on Earth. God help us all.