Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Ok, perhaps a more appropriate answer to the question,,,

No, I will not bother vorting for Paul as Obama will win again. :cheers,,,?2 eh', we'll have to wait and see I guess.:

 

Change can feel scary at times, it's ok, it passes eventually.

Hell, I may just go vote for Obama purely out of shits and Giggles, one never knows unless one tries.

Besides, how long has it been since Washington has really had THIS MUCH Public opinion shoved in it's ear,,, give it a minute folks, with any alternative, at best it would get no better in any event.

Maybe the Democrats might finally learn a lesson in solidarity this time around? We'll see I suppose.

Really dont think my sympathetic nod to Jello would do much if any good anyhow,,, maybe in another 8 years perhaps?

Some facts are simply easier to swallow when honestly faced.

 

He may have crossed the line, said something Right wing.

 

Today, discrimination tends to be more related to ones political views, regardless of race.

 

Indeed..."Dildus" does not approve and therefore the subject is summarily dismissed...Democracy in it's true form, eh? LOL!

I demand a cage match...<grin>

 

OK. That's it. The three of you go stand in the corner. (I'll probably be along shortly)

 

Yellow

As I said earlier the problem is that a lot of his ideas have slipped into the mainstream – it’s like the neoliberals in the 1960-70’s and the neo-con’s back say in the 1970-80’s.

Sown seeds that eventually produce poison fruit.

 

Indie

The major discrimination against people for political views in the US has traditionally been directed against those with left wing views. The ‘red scares’ the ‘anti-American’ witch hunts, the loyalty laws, the propaganda etc.

 

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

 

So to your mind quoting "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen is proof of... what? Is this some lame attempt to make a direct comparison of your cherry picked quotes and contemporary American politics and government? This is precisely the kind of tactic that was used in Congress to scare people into the precise type of repressive behavior Balbus is talking about (in fact a representative quoted this very work in the House for that scare tactic.). Why not try and explain what exactly you mean by this?

 

Yes I hear you although I dont see Pauletts clinging to life as long, they are no where near as organized and after Paul kicks the bucket most will fade away, one can hope anyhow. The neo cons managed to tie their agenda to right wing religious groups and worked through the churches to manipulate voters to vote their agenda. But there are those seeds out there so who knows, after shrubs second term you can never under estimate the stupidity of American voters.

 

I used to come to Hipforums a lot since 2004-2005ish under a different username. This is exactly why hipforums has gone to shit. Overzealous power-trip moderators who will ban someone just for having a different viewpoint or saying something that the moderator doesn't agree with.Free speech forum my ass.

 

They are but some of the means being used to achieve control under a communist form of government. Pretty much all of them have been accomplished to a large degree already, and under the current administration the people have been ignored more than ever before. The Left is quite good at using class warfare as a means of destroying the middle classes, while bringing control of the people totally, under the government controlled by the wealthy. Socialism in its best form can do nothing more than create a 2 class society, those who rule and those who are ruled.

 

Yellow

I’m not sure stupidity is the right word maybe ill informed is closer to it and its no wonder with the levels of indoctrination going on – I mean many Americans are bombarded from every quarter by right wing political views, so there are people that think FOX News is fair and balanced, there are people that think the Tea Party is a ground roots movement and so on.

With the decline of the neo-con there is a lot of money being spent in pushing right wing libertarian ideas because they in turn seem like a way of promoting the interests of wealth. Its not Paul that I’m so worried about but the well backed right wing libertarians that might follow - the ones that are willing to make the deals and compromises to get to the top, the ones that will keep the pro-wealth libertarian policies while dumping those that would in any way adversely effect their interests (although there are not many of those).

 

Indie

As McFuddy correctly indicates your use of the ‘Naked Communist’ - a paranoid conspiracy theory produced at the height of the cold war - only highlights the point I was making.

I mean what are you trying to imply that I and anyone that opposes your extreme right wing ideas is part of Cleon Skousen’s global communist conspiracy to bring low America?

Sorry but yes the US is much diminished but the reasons for that are that it squandered its money and reputation in misguided anti-left wing policies abroad and at home and got conned into the ruinous ideas of neoliberal capitalism.

Try reading

The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=435209&f=36

And

Utopia, no just Keynes

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

 

Indie

By publishing Skousen’s views here in this context you are agreeing them and that shows you are lying when you claim to champion ‘freedom’ you are not a libertarian at all you are just an extreme right winger who’d like to crush any opposition to your views.

And yes you have already said you had no problem with the persecution of left wingers – you would outlaw a political party because of its beliefs, and I’m sure it wouldn’t stop there because you have also given your view that all left wingers are socialist and therefore communists or proto-communists, so you’d probably favour political purges.

In other words you favour ‘loyalty oaths’ now the original loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, people could be sacked for their beliefs. People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

While that purge went on in government it was also going on in the private sector.

But what is socialist what is communist – for many right wingers anything to the left of their position is by definition ‘socialism’ or ‘communist’. So basically anything that didn’t preach the neoliberal, free market Social Darwinist viewpoint would be purged.

At the same time I suspect (as with the loyalty oaths) the governing bodies would eventually be given the power to dismiss teachers even without having to conduct any hearing on the merest suspicion they harboured left wing views.

So the programmes have to go and it wouldn’t be about social provision but the Social Darwinist idea of the ability to pay.

I mean Indie Skousen was a nut -

Please don’t say you sign up to these fantasies because they would only lead to bad and repressive forms of government.

 

Indie

But oh dear it seems you have fallen for these wacky conspiracies.

The problem is that the middle classes in the US were expanding up until neoliberal capitalism started being followed then middle class income began to stagnate or fall.

These same neoliberal ideas (that you and other right wing libertarians support) have vastly increased the riches, power and influence of wealth. So that it has now is the dominant influence in US society and governance.

One of the criticisms of right wing libertarians that they seem unable to address is that they would give even more power and influence to wealth.

As I’ve said you seem to see anything to the left of you extreme right wing views as ‘socialism’ and in you head ‘socialism’ seems to be the same as a Stalinist type of dictatorship.

Can you not see how adhering to conspiracy theories like Skousen's can twist your mind? There is no worldwide conspiracy pulling the strings in the dark.

And to base your arguments against left wing ideas on such silliness just shows how weak or none existent are your rational or reasonable criticisms are.

 

Balbie:

I understand HOW our (U.S.) government is supposed to work, and moving further to the Left allowing the Federal government to acquire more power is not a solution. While you spend much time and effort attacking views which differ from your own, you have not shown me how you would remove power from those with great wealth from having influence in government, or just how the governed would gain any freedom or even retain what freedom they currently have if we returned to government in accordance with the Constitution as it was intended.

 

To be fair Balbus is sort of correct in one point, I don't know many right wingers or libertarians that can define (or know and understand the difference between) socialism and communism. They think it's just an interchangable term for a centrally planned economy with aggressive redistribution.

I'd support communism (real, stateless, classless, moneyless) if technology was sufficiently advanced that resources are effectively limitless. Alas, they are not.

 

Indie

NO you seem to interpret how the government should work in accordance with you right wing bias and prejudices. Which is fine but you don’t seem able to defend that view from criticism – you are trying to peddle your interpretation as the sole truth with which to batter opposition rather than something that needs to be defended.

I’ve presented criticisms of right wing libertarianism that you and no other right winger seems able to address let alone refute. I think any rational and sensible person would be opposed to ideas that don’t seem to stand up to scrutiny and cannot even be defended by those that claim to support them?

If you actually thought about your ideas rather than refusing to and labelling anyone that criticises them as a ‘socialist’ then maybe you would gain some insight into why so many are concerned about them.

I’ve done my best in posts, through links and by recommending some further reading.

The problem so far is that you don’t seem interested in discussing these things refusing to put up any counter argument beyond your opinion they’re wrong because you say they are wrong.

I’ve tried to discuss differing economic models you’ve refused even though you cannot defend your own and are unable to put a counter argument against others. And it’s the same with many other ideas I’ve tried to discuss with you, a distributionary tax system you’ve told me its wrong but have put up no rational counter argument, I’ve put up proposals for the curbing of lobbying and media power you just ignored them – I could go on and on, I’m very happy to discuss things in an open and honest way but that is not something you seem willing to do.

So rather than just saying no, no, no - why not start addressing those outstanding criticisms?