Just to keep you folks informed of the latest youtube video for Ron Paul

[galtgulch]

Here is a link to the latest Ron Paul video in his ongoing struggle to become the Republican nominee for president:

Ron Paul supporters continue the battle. Ron Paul has set up www.campaignforliberty.com to raise money to support other candidates this election cycle and in the future. His supporters know that this movement to restore our country to its Constitutional limits, establish sound currency, a 100% reserve requirement banking system, a non-interventionist foreign policy, deregulation of the business world, bring home troops stationed in over 700 bases in 120 countries and reduce the Federal Budget by the almost one trillion dollars it costs to maintain this empire so that the IRS can be abolished and the Federal Income Tax can be eliminated!

There is a march scheduled for this coming Saturday in Washington, D.C.

The DVDs4delegates.com project is still raising money and moving ahead with production of its first DVD intended to be distributed to Republican delegates across the country. It is hoped that many will decide to cast their ballots for Ron Paul rather than John McCain.

A modest donation to this project will be appreciated and think of how you will feel if this endeavor is successful. Click on Donate!

galt

[Selene]

There are so many excellent, almost brilliant sections of this video that it is said that it begins with totally falsely quoting the "100 year statement" by Senator McCain.

It just makes absolutely no sense to make a blatantly misleading statement about that McCain quote - it killed this for me.

Adam

[Barbara Branden]

I truly have no idea what we are expected to think is good about this video. There is no intellectual-political content whatever -- except for the dishonest smear of McCain, and the fact that Paul is against the Iraq war, for which he gives no reasons. If I didn't know what Ron Paul stood for, I certainly wouldn't learn it from this video.

Barbara

[Selene]

Barbara:

The brilliant parts were technical in the flow of a political video and it directed to solidify the Ron Paul base for whatever the real program is to organize politically in every Congressional District.

The sad part is the fact that their is zero probability of Ron Paul getting the nomination and it is delusional that anyone in the campaign actually believes that.

Adam

[Barbara Branden]

Selene: "The brilliant parts were technical in the flow of a political video and it directed to solidify the Ron Paul base for whatever the real program is to organize politically in every Congressional District.

"The sad part is the fact that their is zero probability of Ron Paul getting the nomination and it is delusional that anyone in the campaign actually believes that."

I agree that technically the video is interesting. I also agree that there's no chance Ron Paul will get the nomination. But I disagree that that's a sad fact.

To repeat what I said on another thread: When Eisenhower was running for a second term, bumper stickers appeared saying, "Vote for Eisenhower! Let's keep the White House empty for another four years." Although I'll probably, grudgingly, decide to vote for McCain, that names my feeling about November's election.

Barbara

[galtgulch]

Selene: "The brilliant parts were technical in the flow of a political video and it directed to solidify the Ron Paul base for whatever the real program is to organize politically in every Congressional District.

"The sad part is the fact that their is zero probability of Ron Paul getting the nomination and it is delusional that anyone in the campaign actually believes that."

http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com/

Tens of thousands will be there and will be in Minneapolis in September to support Ron Paul. Whatever his shortcomings Ron Paul has a proven record of advocacy of the Constitution. In ten terms in the Congress he has never voted for any substantial Federal program which is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution. In fact Ron Paul has cast his one vote against at least 300 bills where he was the sole "No" vote cast.

Well we know there is only a very slight chance the Republican delegates will see the wisdom of choosing Ron Paul rather than John McCain but it is worth the effort. Do I have to repeat that Thomas Jefferson had to remove clauses which would have abolished slavery in order to get unanimous votes for his Declaration of Independence.

Your vote for McCain is a vote for a man who has no dedication for the rights of the individual as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Why would you vote for such a traitor to the principles of our Republic? I see to keep Obama out. The lessor of two evils is still evil. I do feel better fighting for an imperfect candidate who at least is faithful to the principles of the Constitution and for American sovereignty.

There is no doubt that our freedom is in jeopardy. Ron Paul has ignited a movement which will continue beyond this election. See www.campaignforliberty.com

As you may know I found the names and addresses of the delegates in my state and forwarded them to the www.DVDs4Delegates.com project. You bet I hope that the DVDs are sufficiently persuasive to give Ron Paul the nomination. I have no doubt that if that happens he will be our next president.

Wm

Edited July 11, 2008 by galtgulch

[Greybird]

galtgulch to Barbara Branden:

> Your vote for McCain is a vote for a man who has no dedication for the rights of the individual

> as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Why would you vote for such a traitor to the principles of

> our Republic?

Your attempt is pointless. She's channeling the neoconservatives. Not even personally — just the soundbites in their op-ed columns. (All of which, I expect, she'll soon be posting here.)

Obama is, of course, just as much such a traitor as his fellow neocon, McCain. Just more photogenic, more rhetorically able, a better interviewee. He won't end the Empire. The troops won't come home from Iraq under his watch. Have they from Germany, six decades after a war we "won"?

As for the DVDs4Delegates effort, they're not going to change the Repugnants' power structure's having plumped for McCain — only he, through his tactical gaffes or strategic mistakes or poor health, can affect his chances now.

Yet they can, potentially, sharpen your own rhetoric and organizing skills, and drop some pieces of skepticism into the delegates' brain-pans for the years to come. And the discs can be passed around. Those effects are always worthwhile. ... I should post Frank Chodorov's peroration about the value of "long-term projects," which those that end up really changing minds always are.

[Barbara Branden]

William, I would dearly love to vote for someone who is loyal to the principles of our Republic-- but I see Paul as a man so ignorant of the dangers of Islamofascism that if he had his way we could end up with no Republic to be loyal to. Our freedom is in jeopardy from two sources: from those within our borders who sanction and support an ever-growing big government, and from those abroad who wish to destroy us physically. It will not do us any good if a Ron Paul. in accordance with the Constitution, battles big government but simultaneously blames America for 09/11 and allows terrorism to flourish. If atom bombs hit New York or Los Angeles, lower taxes will not save us.

I do understand your attitude toward Ron Paul, and I have no doubt that it is sincere and the result of serious thinking about the problems that face us. What I do not understand is the attitude of people such as Steve, who seem unable to conceive that those who disagree with them are similarly honest and thoughtful. Surely this is the attitude for which Steve, and so many others here, including myself, have criticized what I term the fundamentalist Objectivists.

Barbara

[Selene]

Barbara:

You are right on point about the "true believers" of any movement. I saw this cancer growing at NBI and I had to walk away. I admired both you and Nathan, even when the "granted" interviews for my master's thesis were quite defensive.

Essentially, the Constitutional Oath of Office is:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

I would ask every citizen of this incredible experiment to re-affirm every day.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

William, I would dearly love to vote for someone who is loyal to the principles of our Republic-- but I see Paul as a man so ignorant of the dangers of Islamofascism that if he had his way we could end up with no Republic to be loyal to. Our freedom is in jeopardy from two sources: from those within our borders who sanction and support an ever-growing big government, and from those abroad who wish to destroy us physically. It will not do us any good if a Ron Paul. in accordance with the Constitution, battles big government but simultaneously blames America for 09/11 and allows terrorism to flourish. If atom bombs hit New York or Los Angeles, lower taxes will not save us.

I do understand your attitude toward Ron Paul, and I have no doubt that it is sincere and the result of serious thinking about the problems that face us. What I do not understand is the attitude of people such as Steve, who seem unable to conceive that those who disagree with them are similarly honest and thoughtful. Surely this is the attitude for which Steve, and so many others here, including myself, have criticized what I term the fundamentalist Objectivists.

Barbara

In a peaceful world, Ron Paul would make an excellent president. The citizens of our nation have two classes of enemies:

1. Foreign. This includes foreign nations and powers. It also includes not national but organized fanatical religious groups. For example the Wahabites.

2. Domestic. Our primary domestic enemy is the Government itself. Folks in government just love to expand their power and reach. We need a strict constructionist such as Paul to fight this unhappy tendency in those who would govern us.

At this moment, the threat from enemies foreign, exceeds that from enemies domestic. Which is why we need a warrior-president and a kick-ass congress. Given a choice between being loved and being feared, Machiavelli points out that being feared (which includes being respect) is the better if the choice is exclusive. It is nice to be loved, but that does not happen too often. Besides, love leads to familiarity which leads to contempt.

Paul is not the man we need at this time in our history. I wish we could afford the likes of Paul, but we can't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

A lot of American adventurism abroad is the result of statism at home, most evident in energy policies which leave the United States so dependent on foreign oil, the selling of which funds enemies both in the Middle East and Eastern Europe (Russia). To secure these oil supplies the US sends armies abroad further impoverishing its citizens. Absent these facts Israel would hardly need aid and support from abroad. If the map is studied carefully, one can see that the only enemies that come close to surrounding Israel are the Palistinians. Israel is threatened mostly by demographics. Arabs who are residents of Israel proper are increasing their numbers faster than the Jews; the same for the Palistinians.

For a Ron Paul to be a credible presidential candidate congruent with a libertarian political philosophy, he has to have transitional policies that aren't cut and run. He doesn't. Ergo, he is not qualified for the office he seeks (sought?).

--Brant

[galtgulch]

William, I would dearly love to vote for someone who is loyal to the principles of our Republic-- but I see Paul as a man so ignorant of the dangers of Islamofascism that if he had his way we could end up with no Republic to be loyal to. Our freedom is in jeopardy from two sources: from those within our borders who sanction and support an ever-growing big government, and from those abroad who wish to destroy us physically. It will not do us any good if a Ron Paul. in accordance with the Constitution, battles big government but simultaneously blames America for 09/11 and allows terrorism to flourish. If atom bombs hit New York or Los Angeles, lower taxes will not save us.

I do understand your attitude toward Ron Paul, and I have no doubt that it is sincere and the result of serious thinking about the problems that face us. What I do not understand is the attitude of people such as Steve, who seem unable to conceive that those who disagree with them are similarly honest and thoughtful. Surely this is the attitude for which Steve, and so many others here, including myself, have criticized what I term the fundamentalist Objectivists.

Barbara

Barbara, Perhaps it is naive to think that merely redeploying our troops homeward from the 826 military bases in 130 countries around the world would not result in an upsurge in the attempt by the radical fundamentalist Islamists, if that is the proper way to refer to the Osama bin Laden gang, to create a worldwide Caliphate.

On the other hand our "empire" is on the verge of bankruptcy with a skyrocketing Federal Budget and inflated currency on the verge of hyperinflation.

The other candidates will do nothing to resolve either of those problems. If they make things even worse it will make our country far more vulnerable to any kind of invasion you might envision.

I do share your profound concern because of the presence of enemies in the world who have the will and intent to destroy us. I distrust our government now. At the time of 9/11 the information about a plan to highjack planes and fly them into buildings was known for several years. The FBI and the CIA were not communicating or sharing such info. If anything the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security is less efficient and the erosion of our privacy rights goes on and on.

I still think we would be better off with a Ron Paul presidency which would result in a major overhaul of the whole Federal government. In particular the entire dialog would be more pro freedom and our entire population would be encouraged to become better educated about things which are purposely kept obscure now.

I appreciate your concerns about Ron Paul which I think are not justified. He is not ignorant of the threat posed by Islamofascists. But installing a fascist or a socialist here to protect us better from the same threat is madness!

William

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I try to stay away from political discussions about candidates, but there is one tendency I see that I disagree with. That is to exaggerate one aspect of a person's thinking and blow that up to a disproportionate size.

I do not think that any of the Presidential candidates I have seen so far are the equivalent of a Hitler (on one hand) or an ostrich-with-head-in-the-sand (on the other). Every one of them is an honorable patriotic American—to the extent this is possible for a politician—who believes predominantly in freedom. So I do not and cannot share concerns about this person or that person leading the county into ruin because of his fundamental beliefs.

The only real danger I see is what I call the "oops factor." A USA President cannot allow himself too many mistakes. He has an enormous amount of resources that he impacts, so if he sneezes, there is an earthquake on the other side of the country.

"Oops," he said.

Boom.

That's the real danger we have to evaluate with any candidate. How aware is he or her of this destructive influence? If a person is extremely aware of it, he will act with due caution irrespective of his beliefs. I believe that is true of all the candidates I have seen so far. If he is not aware of it, or worse, doesn't care, he will cause an enormous amount mayhem. (That's the main issue I have with President Bush.)

As to power ambitions, both personal and collective like American expansionism, I will take the brilliant principle of checks and balances as a harness over this any day over the moral character of any politician. I just don't believe in politicians with high moral standards after a certain point in their dealings.

Those ambitions and their results slowly ooze in one direction or the other. They never jump. That's the beauty of checks and balances. If gives time for people in general to see and act.

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

As to power ambitions, both personal and collective like American expansionism, I will take the brilliant principle of checks and balances as a harness over this any day over the moral character of any politician. I just don't believe in politicians with high moral standards after a certain point in their dealings.

Those ambitions and their results slowly ooze in one direction or the other. They never jump. That's the beauty of checks and balances. If gives time for people in general to see and act.

Michael

That's the problem I see with a good number of politicians. They lose sight of being the "representative" of their electors. Your comment triggered memories of reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense.

~ Shane

[galtgulch]

I try to stay away from political discussions about candidates, but there is one tendency I see that I disagree with. That is to exaggerate one aspect of a person's thinking and blow that up to a disproportionate size.

I do not think that any of the Presidential candidates I have seen so far are the equivalent of a Hitler (on one hand) or an ostrich-with-head-in-the-sand (on the other). Every one of them is an honorable patriotic American—to the extent this is possible for a politician—who believes predominantly in freedom. So I do not and cannot share concerns about this person or that person leading the county into ruin because of his fundamental beliefs.

The only real danger I see is what I call the "oops factor." A USA President cannot allow himself too many mistakes. He has an enormous amount of resources that he impacts, so if he sneezes, there is an earthquake on the other side of the country.

"Oops," he said.

Boom.

That's the real danger we have to evaluate with any candidate. How aware is he or her of this destructive influence? If a person is extremely aware of it, he will act with due caution irrespective of his beliefs. I believe that is true of all the candidates I have seen so far. If he is not aware of it, or worse, doesn't care, he will cause an enormous amount mayhem. (That's the main issue I have with President Bush.)

As to power ambitions, both personal and collective like American expansionism, I will take the brilliant principle of checks and balances as a harness over this any day over the moral character of any politician. I just don't believe in politicians with high moral standards after a certain point in their dealings.

Those ambitions and their results slowly ooze in one direction or the other. They never jump. That's the beauty of checks and balances. If gives time for people in general to see and act.

Michael

Michael, You talk and talk and pretty much sound like a politician yourself. I do agree with the Founder's attempt to so divide power and limit the powers granted to the government while endeavoring to protect the rights of the individual that we would remain free. But just like evolution which depended on eons for certain things to happen naturally such as life arising from inorganic matter when the conditions were finally ripe for the first selfreplicating molecule to form and thus for life to begin to unfold, it has taken a couple of hundred years for enough barriers to be breached so that our freedoms are leaking away like a river which has broken though the levees.

I fear it is a humpty dumpty situation and that it will be virtually impossible to get the genie back in the bottle. Warrantless searches! What next? If you object too strongly you may arouse sufficient suspicion and attention that you might come under surveillance of our version of the stassi and before you know it you find yourself extricated, sent to a jail in a foreign country, with no right to a lawyer or to be in front of a judge for your captors to show cause ala habeus corpus and you may rot away for decades. Paranoia!

But at least our better minds will see to it that the islamofascists do not achieve their goal of world domination by electing the likes of John McCain who saves time by not rereading the Constitution or Bill of Rights at all. Big mistake but you are probably right, we may have to learn the hard way just how bad he will be for the future by seeing him elected.

I wonder how the Ron Paul March in Washington, D.C is going today and if the media will show it at all.

Wm

[Selene]

"I fear it is a Humpty Dumpty[sic] situation and that it will be virtually impossible to get the genie back in the bottle. Warrant less searches! What next? If you object too strongly you may arouse sufficient suspicion and attention that you might come under surveillance of our version of the Stassi [sic] and before you know it you find yourself extricated, sent to a jail in a foreign country, with no right to a lawyer or to be in front of a judge for your captors to show cause ala habeas [sic] corpus and you may rot away for decades. Paranoia!"

Ahh, so you have been to a family court in the United States!

Adam

[Greybird]

Since I'm mentioned, I'll do some dissection and some thinking out loud — as much as I can endure, and as much as I am allowed to do (see below).

William, I would dearly love to vote for someone who is loyal to the principles of our Republic — but I see [Ron] Paul as a man so ignorant of the dangers of Islamofascism that if he had his way we could end up with no Republic to be loyal to.

He is not in the slightest bit "ignorant," as you put it. He, among many others, knows where these specious constructs come from, who and what pushed them into plausible life, and how to remove the spurs to them.

"Islamofascism" is as much an anti-concept as, if not more than, "extremism," against which Rand herself memorably inveighed 44 years ago in a talk and essay subtitled "The Art of Smearing." It agglomerates an emotional reaction with a supposed factual basis, in such a manner as to have the emotion overwhelm any rational examination of the factual basis.

In this case, the neoconservatives created "Islamofascism" to smuggle in a supposed motive, that of controlling governments, under a generalized (and encouraged) American revulsion to Islam. That emotive-religious cover, rarely admitted to, itself has several components: Fear of "the other," itself a dark side to religious motivations in general since this continent was settled. A long-standing revulsion in "Christendom" to Islam, extending back to before the Crusades. And partiality, along with unearned guilt, in regard to ameliorating what the Jews have suffered, especially those in 20th-Century Europe.

The covering emotive gloss is itself suspect, but the premise it hides is one that makes no historical or practical sense: That movements (if they can be called that) such as al-Qaeda want "fascism." They want nothing of the kind. The leaders have two broad political goals: Sharia law (far from universally held), and a removal of Western military forces and manipulations from their lands (emphatically universally held).

Whether those who want religious law are able to actually implement it is another story entirely. It's been historically difficult, even in Iran, and Saudi Arabia wouldn't have managed it without U.S. armaments. It's also, properly, the lookout of those who oppose it: either the Jews of Israel (who want their own theocracy, in varying degrees), or the often-forgotten Christian communities throughout the Mideast that are trying to keep their own independence of action, or the secular or non-fundamentalist Islamic believers.

In any event, and this doesn't admit to being condensed to message-board length: If anything qualifies as an approach to "Islamofascism," it's what neocons such as Bolton, Kristol (father and son), and Krauthammer rarely, if ever, include in the concept. Those are the outright, admitted military-riven fascist dictatorships in such countries as Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Yet those are given a pass, out of consuming hypocrisy, because they are "allies."

Instead, the tag is put on non-State actors that are both slippery in location and reactive in purpose. No one has demonstrated, the neocons' rhetoric included, that anyone is out to "destroy us." Al-Qaeda, itself a reactive product of our arming the Afghan resistance two decades ago, has no army or navy. It only has the armaments we've given them, in direct and indirect ways. It has neither the capability nor, frankly, the inclination to "destroy us" — whatever, as Barbara avers, may be their "wishes."

Its principals and those who sympathize with them want the American Empire out of their corner of the world. That grants them no virtue. It is, however, what they are entitled to insist upon. We have no proper business being there with our military or our covert operatives. We never did — practically, morally, or, as Paul stresses, constitutionally.

The "threat" is ginned up, as it always has been, from the powerful on this continent wanting to secure by force what they could not have guaranteed access to in the marketplace. When we withdraw it, our business with them will be concluded, apart from doing something that is ignored in practice, whatever the bureaucracy and alleged efforts: actually defending the homeland.

(Stop any prattling about alleged suitcase nukes in Times Square or at Hollywood and Vine. The Soviets didn't manage those with a hundred times the resources and a thousand times the domestic sympathizers. Bin Laden knows that stomping on the paws of the U.S. government would only make it act more like a bear. He knows that playing with uranium hexafluoride will most likely send his true believers to Paradise prematurely. He's not stupid.)

Ron Paul and a handful of other courageous people in public life have pulled back the curtain on this fantasy that Krauthammer, whom Barbara quotes here in full columns, and others have spun. That is what appears to be unforgivable. It means reality is messier, and moral assessments more complex, than many want to admit. Certainly not Barbara or her cousin Leonard, who — here — have no practical difference in their outlooks whatsoever.

The only danger to the tatters of this Republic is what we perpetrate on ourselves, with such atrocities as warrantless searches, shielding from prosecution, ID databases, and, yes, what I've been jousting with Barbara about for years now, back to Atlantis I, as to her support of it — torture.

[...] It will not do us any good if a Ron Paul, in accordance with the Constitution, battles big government but simultaneously blames America for 9/11 and allows terrorism to flourish.

You seem to admit that, as you see it, following the Constitution will "allow terrorism to flourish" — thus agreeing with Bush's well-attested sentiment, that said document is nothing more than "a goddamned piece of paper." So why not plump for the neocons' desired military dictatorship at home outright, and be done with your slow departure from Rand's viewpoint on "The Roots of War"?

In any event, Paul assesses no such blame. He knows that Americans didn't do those attacks. (Citizens of the Saudi satrapy that our taxes finance, as to armaments, did so, which almost no one admits, either.)

He also knows, though, and connects the historical dots to emphasize, that the U.S. government has done everything possible to encourage the grievances of others, from outright war, to the withering of children under sanctions, to the propping up of murderous elites — Islamic, Jewish, and secular. Those are, to borrow from that reprobate socialist Gore, "inconvenient truths." Yet this go-round, they are indeed true.

I do understand your attitude toward Ron Paul, and I have no doubt that it is sincere and the result of serious thinking about the problems that face us. What I do not understand is the attitude of people such as Steve, who seem unable to conceive that those who disagree with them are similarly honest and thoughtful.

I conceive of it, all right. I welcome it. The problem is that you, Barbara, are not practicing it. Not with your uncritically reporting lies about him, as you did with the febrile fantasies of David Horowitz and The New Republic.

I would say more, but I cannot. I am, finally, constrained, by the special exemption in the rules of this forum, from replying to you in full as you deserve and as I would prefer.

Surely this is the attitude for which Steve, and so many others here, including myself, have criticized what I term the fundamentalist Objectivists.

It's very easy to have that attitude. I'd say that many who so readily — and properly — decry it are quite ready to take it up when particular matters in another realm, such as politics, and the condensations or anti-concepts therein, happen to suit them.

But yet again, I cannot be more pointed about this with you. I am not allowed to do so. So this particular match goes to you. You don't deserve it, but you get it.

[Selene]

"He is not in the slightest bit "ignorant," as you put it. He, among many others, knows where these specious constructs come from, who and what pushed them into plausible life, and how to remove the spurs to them."

I am sorry sir, I could not even get past this sentence in your post. When these "specious constructs" killed hundreds of my father's firefighters, including the Department's Chaplain, who was a good, honest man, and we have broken bread with;

When these "specious constructs" killed the wives of two men that I played football against and knew well;

When these "specious constructs" killed the entire existing staff of my client's Top of the World restaurant in the towers; and

When these "specious constructs" have explicitly stated that they intend to convert or kill you, I will not sanction that, I will not be a victim, and I will do my best, within my own moral code to "preserve and protect" this republic.

You folks really need some rapid reality checks because your "emotional" [see Pathos Aristotle's Rhetoric] arguments, are, basically, weak.

Adam

[Greybird]

"[Ron Paul] is not in the slightest bit 'ignorant,' as you put it. He, among many others, knows where these specious constructs come from, who and what pushed them into plausible life, and how to remove the spurs to them."

I am sorry sir, I could not even get past this sentence in your post.

That's your misfortune. You can correct it.

When these "specious constructs" killed hundreds of my father's firefighters [...]

BZZZZT! Game, set, and match! My point, this time. Because you let emotions bypass your reason.

I was talking about anti-concepts, which do not exist, except as faulty and dishonest rhetoric. Which, also, you didn't want to bother to read about. But, as I just said ... scroll up the page.

Aircraft flown into skyscrapers are real. As are the bombs and tanks used in the endless, grinding wars perpetrated since then. What has been created to justify those responses, in propaganda that has been incessant since those innocents died in 2001, is not real, not in the practical or moral sense.

I feel for the losses that hit home for you. What I won't put up with is the endless agitation for modern Crusades that dishonor those dead, by wiping out the lives, liberties, and livelihoods of those of us who survived those attacks and had to bury the victims.

[...] I will do my best, within my own moral code to "preserve and protect" this republic.

As you see fit. But not, insofar as I can avoid it, with your using the IRS — and, soon, Selective Slavery — to pick my pocket or pummel my posterity to do so. If that, in fact, is what you have in mind, as do the neoconservatives — and their acolytes here.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Greybird

[Selene]

Son, you have no clue.

Ok, I accept your pigeon holing in the boxes you are comfortable with.

I will not argue with you in this path.

You still raise important issues, but you "shut down" responses with assumptions that you have absolutely not established. Good luck in the real business world with that premise.

I am sharing this as a fellow thinker, I bear you no animus.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, You talk and talk and pretty much sound like a politician yourself.

Galt,

If this means that I do not think Ron Paul is the savior of mankind and McCain (or whoever) the devil incarnate, then I guess you will have to call me a politician. But I don't think any Presidential candidate I have seen so far is the savior of mankind or the devil incarnate. I also think we live in a wonderful country full of plenty for all and that no one man has the capacity to destroy that or "save" it, barring nuclear war.

I fear it is a humpty dumpty situation and that it will be virtually impossible to get the genie back in the bottle.

Here's the truth the Founding Fathers recognized that so few ever do. The genie was never in the bottle to begin with. Human nature is what it is and always has been. They brilliantly devised a system that pits the power-seeking ambitions of people against each other rather than give one man the power to decide if he wants to wield it or not.

Owing to the checks-and-balances system that is in place, I have no doubt that if Ron Paul were ever elected President, he would be a lame duck. What has his practical impact been on Congress in general? I don't see any, one way or the other. He voted on issues. That's about it.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Steve: "I would say more, but I cannot. I am, finally, constrained, by the special exemption in the rules of this forum, from replying to you in full as you deserve and as I would prefer....So this particular match goes to you. You don't deserve it, but you get it."

Do you really think that calling me names -- which is all that the owners of Objectivist Living prohibit -- would advance your position? Do you really think that likening me to "my cousin Leonard," although you well know that I have publicly attacked his position on the Iraq war, on Iran, on war in general, numerous times -- advances your position? Do you think that stating that I am a supporter of torture, or that I "give a pass" to fascist dictatorships, or that I consider the Constitution to be only "a goddamed piece of paper," or that I prefer fantasy to recognizing that moral assessments can be complex -- advances your position? Apparently you do think it. I have tried to ignore your habit of demonizing whoever disagrees with you, and have attempted to respond to the intellectual content of your posts. But I am weary of doing so, when I continue to get only more of your habitual responses. I have no desire to join you in name-calling; I prefer, instead, to cease any attempt at discussion with you.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "I also think we live in a wonderful country full of plenty for all and that no one man has the capacity to destroy that or "save" it, barring nuclear war."

It is precisely the possibility of nuclear war that concerns me, and is the reason why I could not vote for Ron Paul. Or, for that matter, for Obama, who vastly underrates the threat of a nuclear Iran.

I agree with you about the brilliance of our system of checks and balances. Nor am I worried that a single man can destroy this country. But if, for instance, Obama were to be elected, with a Democratic congress, he would not be a single man undermining the Constitution; he would be only one in a long line of presidents who have, piece by piece and decade after decade, gnawed at the Constitution to the point where, today, our motto is not individualism but entitlements.

And one man can do immeasurable damage in the wider world. It was a single American president who gave half of Europe to Josef Stalin.

Barbara

[Selene]

Barbara:

Exactly on point. My major "issue" with Paulians.

As it was to close minded "Randians", when I walked away in the mid sixties.

Out of curiosity, since you were in the "inner circle", did you see this brand of true believers festering?

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I don't fear Obama, even with a Democratic Congress. (This doesn't mean I support him.)

If elected, even under those circumstances, I personally think he would do a pragmatism dance that would make Richard Nixon blush in his grave. Not to mention some juicy corruption scandals.

I will go up to a point with you on his foreign policy, especially in preventing war and if war became eminent. My point of agreement is that I do not see him in a favorable light. But the fact is that I don't have a clue what he would do. Not a damn clue. I see him all over the map, I don't care what he says.

My best guess is that he would find some General or other he trusted and lean heavily on that General's advice until things went screwy or extremely unpopular. Then he would fire that General, say to the public he (Obama) was solely responsible for any mishaps while, at the same time, running a covert publicity campaign to blame it all on that General. Then he would get another General for another round. That's all I can see at this juncture.

Michael