The U.S. Goverment

[jorb]

I do not really consider the American election to be any of my business, but I have noticed that there is only one candidate who has suggested actual cuts in the Federal budget, and a reduction in the American military presence overseas. I shall further make the observation that those things are wholly necessary if the United States are to avoid the fiscal and moral bankruptcies that the quest for Empire has always implied historically.

It is also nice to see that Potjeh recognizes the many virtues of the Swedish-Lutheran ethic and mindset, with its inherent aversions to both nepotism and corruption. The immediate look of skepticism I would get were I to suggest a friend or a relative for a promotion or some other benefit is reason enough for me to love this country. I do, however, think that you are wrong to say that we do not understand corruption. In one sense you are of course right, the mere thought is probably somewhat alien to most Swedes. In another sense you are completely wrong. One of the reasons why Sweden isn't a corrupt place is precisely because we tend to guard against it, and precisely because we tend to recognize it when we see it. What shall be said, however, is that Swedes tend to be a bit blue-eyed and overly trusting at times, especially when it comes to things like public welfare.

It doesn't, however, come as a surprise to *me* that our welfare systems can be 'sploited to kingdom come. Of course they can. It is a necessary part of any public welfare system that it can and will be exploited. This is precisely why I want to get rid of them.

By analogy: If you hand out free bread in the character creation room, obviously people will spawn alts to get free bread. That is why handing out free bread is a bad idea.

Big business would benefit proportionately more.

You mean like how Haliburton benefits from nation-building contracts in broken nations across the seas? Or like how AIG, CitiBank and Bank of America benefits from the bail-outs that the American government has given and continues to give them? Or like how the military-industrial complex in general with its many merchants of death -- Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, &c&c in absurdum ad nauseam -- benefit from the racket that is American military spending? Or like how United Fruit benefited from American intervention in South America? Or like how British Petroleum benefited from Anglo-American intervention in Iran?

Or like how government regulation and red-tape generally benefits larger companies at the expense of smaller by raising the bar of market entry?

Big business everywhere is supported and fundamentally in bed with big government, and thus it has been for a very long time. That is precisely why the clock of the welfare-warfare state needs to be broken.

But, then again, I don't really care who becomes puppident. The American Republic died (no later than) when Lincoln's armies crossed the Potomac, and Ron Paul sadly cannot undo that.

[jorb]

But you can't be in Ron's posse if you don't have a high horse.

Ron Paul is the only one of the candidates who is even remotely capable of speaking with even an ounce of humility in his voice. Like any sane person I do not give much for his fan-club and the enthusiasm (in the worst, most religious sense of that word) of the same, but the man himself is a paragon of humility compared to the others.

[Vigilance]

rick perry 4 prez 2012!11!!!11111

[ArvinJA]

But you can't be in Ron's posse if you don't have a high horse.

Ron Paul is the only one of the candidates who is even remotely capable of speaking with even an ounce of humility in his voice. Like any sane person I do not give much for his fan-club and the enthusiasm (in the worst, most religious sense of that word) of the same, but the man himself is a paragon of humility compared to the others.

Don't want to derail the thread but do you really see humility as a virtue? I see it as wholly distracting and as an expression of intellectually egalitarian (perhaps even ethically relativistic or ethically apathetic) values that are detrimental to any intellectual debate.

[ArvinJA]

I simply pointed out the importance of the tenth amendment, with a president that respected the tenth amendment SOPA and NDAA would have been vetoed.

in as annoying a manner as you possibly could, hence "obnoxious"

and who wants to discuss this sort of thing with someone that is deliberately obnoxious?

I do sometimes, just look at your own post or Potjehs, I don't take it personally when people use smears, I simply respond in a less respectful tone than I would have, seeing as the person who resorts to smear-tactics is probably not as intellectually honest as I am.

The ultimate goal, of course, is a complete Balkanization of USA. And I guess return to good ol' days when negroes picked cotton and managers could grope their female employees.

By the way, this was what I responded to. I am being very generous even responding to such rubbish (as a person who writes those things is probably not interested in a debate on an intellectual level).

[WarpedWiseMan]

But you can't be in Ron's posse if you don't have a high horse.

Ron Paul is the only one of the candidates who is even remotely capable of speaking with even an ounce of humility in his voice. Like any sane person I do not give much for his fan-club and the enthusiasm (in the worst, most religious sense of that word) of the same, but the man himself is a paragon of humility compared to the others.

He's also bat-shit crazy. Have you ever read any of Paul's manifestos? Take your libertarian love out behind the tool shed where it belongs and put it out of its misery.

[jorb]

He's also bat-shit crazy.

Assertion really is the lamest form of argument.

Have you ever read any of Paul's manifestos?

Yes.

Don't want to derail the thread but do you really see humility as a virtue? I see it as wholly distracting and as an expression of intellectually egalitarian (perhaps even ethically relativistic or ethically apathetic) values that are detrimental to any intellectual debate.

Of course. Because...

Most of the world is a mystery. Consciousness is a little clearing in a vast forest; every individual has his own special relation to the area of mystery, his own little discoveries to impart. Discovery is by definition unpredictable, and it is absurd for the state to foreclose the process of learning. There are moods when we are too exhausted to imagine that there is still more to be learned; an ideology is a system of ideas that wants to end the explorations we are constantly making at the margin of consciousness, and to declare all the mysteries solved. This is like the congressman who introduced a bill a century ago to close the U.S. Patent Office, on the ground that every possible invention had already been invented.

http://www.wildwestcycle.com/f_pensees.htm

... this.

[ArvinJA]

Of course. Because...

Most of the world is a mystery. Consciousness is a little clearing in a vast forest; every individual has his own special relation to the area of mystery, his own little discoveries to impart. Discovery is by definition unpredictable, and it is absurd for the state to foreclose the process of learning. There are moods when we are too exhausted to imagine that there is still more to be learned; an ideology is a system of ideas that wants to end the explorations we are constantly making at the margin of consciousness, and to declare all the mysteries solved. This is like the congressman who introduced a bill a century ago to close the U.S. Patent Office, on the ground that every possible invention had already been invented.

http://www.wildwestcycle.com/f_pensees.htm

... this.

If I were to respond with "Really? The National Review?" would it then be wise to respond to me in a meek way? If I ever did something like that, wouldn't be better that you called me out on my intellectual dishonesty?
I am agreeing with you when it comes to the fact that the world is a mysterious place and that it's bad to assume that you know everything there is to know. However, when someone doesn't abide by the rules of inquiry that goes along with reality (e.g. someone who claims to know something because the Sun God told him about it) and you know that you have followed the proper rules of inquiry, shouldn't you blow your own horn as loud as possible to make it clear that your competence is better than the other person's ignorance?

[MagicManICT]

Damn, Jorb. I love you, man!! You come up with some of the greatest quotes I've never read before.

Arvin, Potjeh, neither of you are wrong. From what I'm gathering, you're arguing the same thing that has been argued since our "Founding Fathers" decided British rule was getting to be too much bullshit.

As far as Ron Paul being bat shit crazy? He is. I can clearly state this because I know what bat shit crazy is. (I am myself!) The funny thing is he makes all these stances, but then goes to Washington and plays political ball with all the other politicians. He's not any better than any of the other politicians.

As far as humility being a virtue... Arvin, could you please enlighten us as to why it isn't? I think it's a great thing for anyone, but even more so for those who wield power. I think it is very pertinent to the conversation at hand.

[WarpedWiseMan]

Ron Paul is crazy is no assertion. It is fact.

Documented proof:

1) I paid some attention to Paul's 2008 campaign, because at the time I was assigned by my newspaper to cover two of his biggest fans: Ed and Elaine Brown, a pair of New Hampshire tax cheats who engaged in a months-long standoff with the U.S. Marshals Service over the couple's refusal to pay federal income taxes. The Browns believed they lived on a sovereign enclave atop a hill in rural Plainfield, N.H., stockpiled scary weapons, and threatened violence against any federal agents who came on their property.

You would think a presidential aspirant would want to distance himself from such wackos. Not Paul, who declared in a videotaped interview that the Browns were "heroes"

Video of Paul calling the Brown's heroes

2) Then there are Paul's oft-cited, but never less than stupefying, pronouncements on secret government plans to create a "NAFTA Superhighway" that will lead to the eventual dissolution of American sovereignty. Paul envisions -- no, really -- an unholy union of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico in a single totalitarian state.

As he wrote in 2006:

"This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside...

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union -- complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."

3) His tax plan: One major beef with Ron Paul is the federal income tax. Instead of income taxes once a year, based on how much you earn, he supports raising the National Sales Tax for all of America. He claims to be against raising taxes, but just look at the numbers and how it affects the average citizen. The current sales tax in Chicago is 9%. You get a hamburger at McDonalds, buy a snickers bar at Walmart, you pay 9% in taxes. Ron Paul wants to raise that number to 23%. Who is the primary consumer that this will affect? The middle and poor class. They're the consumers and would have to pay 14% more for everything. The tax is flat for everyone, but should you pay the same tax rate as some guy who makes 6-7 digit figures every year? While everyone else gets in the ass in sales tax, Ron Paul and his buddies don't have to pay a cent in income taxes for their percentage of income they earned that year.

4) Fundamentalism, Racism, Homophobia: The man is a strong believer of prayer in school. Never mind that church and state bullshit. Funding same-sex adoption? Nope. Gay Marriage? Ron Paul won't stand for that. He supports the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, because as long as he doesn't know you are gay, he'll let you fight and die for a country that won't even let you adopt a kid. For some reason he's against birth citizenship, because he hates the fact that once someone is born here they become a citizen. I mean a baby doesn't even speak the language yet, and he certainly can't vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming election. That baby is worthless to him. He strongly believes that building a giant fence will keep Mexicans out of his yard. The modern era of the 21st century has no way of bypassing walls.

He supports overturning Roe v. Wade, his reasoning being that the Federal government is not authorized to decide such controversies. So in order words, Ron Paul hates the fact that the government allows people to get abortions. Instead, he's now going to use the government to disallow people from getting abortions. Irony is not in Ron Paul's dictionary.

Quotes:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

"You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't," he said. "I think that's old Europe."



Your move jorb.