New oppressive laws every american should know about

25

You I believe come from New York well this is something on the New York Constitution of 1777 –

“It retained provisions from the colonial charter such as the substantial property qualification for voting and the ability of the governor to prorogue the legislature. This imbalance of power between the branches of state government kept the elite firmly in control, and disenfranchised the majority of the male New York population” (wiki)

Tells you something of the true spirit of 1776

 

Well New York is pretty corrupt to this day. Look at all the police brutality they allowed in OWS. Luckily, they're greatly out numbered.

 

I don't think you understand Ron Pauls message however. He's about freedom, our constitution is the best document we have considering it allows the freedom to peacefully assemble and protest our government. Do you see what's going on here in the states my friend? As I've said, we're being controlled by a dictatorship. There's 2 things Americans should be concerned about; over-extending ourselves in stupid wars (which is happening) and, our personal liberty. (cause Obama has effectively stripped that away from us.) But also, Ron Paul is about ending the drug war. And his ideas don't help the rich because he wants to end the federal reserve bank which serves the 5 top banks of the world, and spend our money overseas. He doesn't even receive any money from bankers or lobbyist because he serves the interest of the people. (unlike Obama and Romney)

 

Look man just look into him. I'm really tired of trying to tell people what's so great about him. Watch a few of his videos and you'll see, he stands for Liberty!!!
http://www.ronpaul.com/

 

25

He’s a right wing libertarian which basically means he wants neo-liberalism on steroids.

The freedom he is mostly promoting is the freedom of a few to control society; the liberty his ideas would bring about is the liberty of a few to exploit the many.

Right wing libertarians like him may want stop expensive wars but only because they want to save the money so they can give it to wealth in tax cuts.

Same with ‘ending the war on drugs’ it’s not about helping society it’s about saving the money so it can be given to wealth in tax cuts.

The same goes for healthcare and welfare they will be cut or removed so that the money saved can be given to wealth in tax cuts.

In the last thirty odd years neo-liberal ideas have caused the real term incomes of the middle and lower classes to have stagnated or fallen while the wealth of a few has grown incredibly, Ron’s neo-liberalism on steroids would make that situation much worse for anyone but wealth.

Read the thread Would YOU vote for RON PAUL then answer the many criticisms of right wing libertarian ideas presented in it.

 

Are you kidding me? You're joking right? I don't think anyone even knows what the word "liberal" means anymore it's tossed around so frequently. Also, maybe you have Mitt Romney confused with Ron Paul, because NOTHING ron paul is suggesting as been tried in 100 years. He wants to stop PRINTING MONEY. In no way does that make the rich any richer. These wars and foreign interventions make them richer, privatizing prisons and spending MORE of our tax money on drugs make them richer. Business involved in our lawmaking, makes them richer.

As I said;Ron Paul doesn't get any money from businesses. Obama has already received over 5 million from lobbyist, Romney has also received over 5 million from lobbyist. So you should really rethink your position on all that. We don't need MORE government to fix these problems, Bush and Obama EXPANDING the scope of government got us here. At this point, we need the federal government to butt out of our lives and things will get better.

 

The marijuana industry alone would create nearly 40,000 jobs every year, and save us 313 billion $ per year, not to mention how much money we'd be taking in from taxing it. Shutting down the federal reserve would also be another great idea to help the PEOPLE! Why would businesses want that? The federal reserve just GIVES THEM money if they need it!

 

NoxiousGas,

Let's take a look at what you've said. You said that "all this crap is much more complex and convoluted than you seem to be perceiving it." Then you said that "the president probably has a hell of a lot less say than any of us know." Then you said "I really think you are giving the office of the president credit for having more real power than it actually does."

You also said that "Bush and his cronies are one of the biggest reasons we are in the mess we are in and that Obama inherited a fucking mountain of grief that he had NOTHING to do with it's creation." And this: "Your naive to think that the shit from Bush isn't what this country is still dealing with much more so than anything Obama has done."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you, with your above average IQ, appear to have unwittingly contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you excuse Obama's actions and inactions by virtue of the reasons contained in the paragraph above this one. On the other hand, you give Bush and his crew credit for being one of the biggist reasons for us being in the mess we are in. You see the problem there, don't you? I mean, besides damaging your credibility.

 

25

LOL - I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s noticed you don’t actually denying my claims about the tax cuts or that Ron’s Austrian school economic ideas are neo-liberalist in nature.

 

^ See I noticed the same thing, but I was trying to be respectful. I'm really just so sick of Obama supporters blaming everything on Bush. I mean the guys been in office 4 years and all he has done is dismantled the constitution. No healthcare, no taxes on the rich, I mean it's just politics as usual.

 

He doesn't want new taxes on ANYONE. He even wants to eliminate the income tax. (which I see as a great thing because by the time we get the money back, it's worth less.) and I really don't see what you're trying to get at with the liberal bit, but the definition of liberal is as follows;
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

Still Ron Paul is a Libertarian which is defined;
lib·er·tar·i·an

   [lib-er-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA
noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.

2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will ( distinguished from necessitarian).

 

25

LOL and again you admit I’m right.

*

And here is wiki on - Neoliberalism is a contemporary political movement advocating economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets. Neoliberalism supports the privatization of nationalized industries, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society. It is commonly informed by neoclassical or Austrian economics. The term neoliberal today is often used as a general condemnation of economic liberalization policies and advocates

Right wing libertarians normally advocate the cutting of taxes, economic liberalization, free trade and open markets. They usually support privatization, deregulation, and an enhanced role for the private sector in modern society. They are commonly informed by neoclassical or Austrian economics.

Try reading – A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey which catalogue the harm neoliberal ideas have caused over the last 30 odd years or so.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

Okay first off, I think you're taking his views way out of context. You're the first person I've ever heard call him a neoliberal or a liberal at all for that matter. Plus you live in London, a police state in which you can't even protest around your own capital building. Why do you think you know what's right and wrong for America?? You people already traded your liberty for a false sense of "security," So please don't manipulate Americans with false information so the same thing happens here. Ron Paul is a million times better than Obama or Romney and many Americans realize that.

 

Seriously man just watch one speech before you mock him.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-03-29/ron-paul-the-people-should-spend-the-money-not-the-government/

 

25

Sorry out of what context am I taking them?

Well you don’t seem very informed I means did you really not know what neoliberalism was before now or that Ron was a follower of the Austrian School of economic thinking?

LOL – ‘capital building’ whoa I think you need to do some research

For the US or for Americans? I mean right wing libertarian/neoliberal ideas as pointed out (and which you don’t deny) would favour only a few Americans not the majority.

 

Just watch the video. God, I actually listen to what HE has to say not supporters of his. I can't speak for him. Do your own research like I did. But it doesn't matter anyway, you're not an American citizen and it's absolutely pointless for me to explain it to you. My country is in a state of National distress, and you're just confusing citizens more. We don't need to nittpick everything. As I said he's much better than Obama or Romney and you have to be some bank CEO or something to support those criminals over a good person like Ron Paul. Watch a speech, do your own research!

 

25

LOL – I’ve read him and watched him and yes he is a right wing libertarian with neoliberal views that would greatly increase the power and influence of wealth.

I not think it is ‘nitpicking’ to warn people of the harm his policies would cause for the majority of Americans.

 

okay then you're not nitt picking, you're lying. He's not right wing in the least (except his views on guns) Right wing is fox news and conservatives. They also shit talk "liberals" which makes me think that you don't even know what a liberal is. Liberal is left wing, not right wing. Also he is a Libertarian, not a "neoliberal," and nothing he purposes would benefit the rich, only the middle class. What do you purpose? You want our government to spend trillions of dollars we don't have on wars, foreign aid and, welfare? I know you're not an American but understand this; We're broke!!! The federal reserve sent trillions of dollars of our money to rich banks overseas, HUNDREDS of banks. That money is now officially out of our economy. Ron Paul wants to END the federal reserve because it's a corrupt facility. That doesn't help the rich, it helps the MIDDLE CLASS. Now, since you have this unalienable perception of how politics work in MY COUNTRY, name ONE THING he would do to help the wealthy!?

 

No, I didn't contradict myself at all.
You see StpLSD25 has it in his head that Ron Paul, if elected, will single handedly "fix the country" (his words from another thread).
If you take another look at the posts you quoted it is actually rather obvious that I'm trying to make it clear that the President DOES NOT have all that much power to bring about far reaching changes of the type needed to "fix this country".

It is much more complex and convoluted than the OP seems to be acknowledging, one man will not be able to implement the changes needed.

If you notice I did say "Bush and his cronies", sorry I should have worded it "the Bush administration". I doubt good ol' Georgy had much real power either, as no president has for at least 50 years.
Bush's administration did get us embroiled in a war that was not necessary, they did privatize a lot things pertaining to that war in order to make $$$$.
Bush's administration in large part did get this country into the financial mess we are in.
Let's also not forget that the Bush administration had the reigns for 8 years, yet somehow Obama is supposed to get everything back on track in 4 or less years. Now THAT'S naive.

Obama did inherit that mountain of problems he had nothing to do with creating, correct?
All that is not my personal opinion, it's fact.

Sometimes people like the OP sound like a little kid going on a 1,000 mile road trip and as soon as they pull out of the driveway he starts going "Are we there yet? Why aren't we there yet, we should be there already. Whats wrong Daddy, don't you know how to drive? You lied to us about your being able to drive!!!"

So no, I did not contradict myself when my statements are taken in context of the whole conversation and juxtaposed against StpLSD's almost fanatical support of Paul, and venomous hatred of Obama.

So the OP can rant and rave about "He" (Obama) did this and "He" is doing that and so on, yet I make one remark, in which I correctly didn't lay the blame solely at Bush's feet as the OP does with Obama, and you think it's a contradiction?

All I have done was play devil's advocate and point out some of the irrationality of StpLSD25's statements and the mistaken idea's about the whole mess and the power/ability of one man to "fix the country".

Maybe you need to brush up on you reading comprehension skills a little.

Finally let me make this clear.
Nowhere have I said I support Obama or hate Obama, support Paul or hate Paul, support Romney or hate Romney, well yeah I do hate Romney, but doesn't everyone

I haven't stated my political affiliation anywhere, nor will I.
But I guess to the naive and simple minded if you don't fanatically support one guy you must of course support the other guy.

 

First off, I never meant Ron Paul alone. Even Ron Paul said "We should only send people to washington who's gonna uphold the constitution." But he is, by far way better than obama. Now Nitrous don't call me "naive" or "simple minded" because again, you don't fucking know me! I said "I noticed that, Im sick of OBAMA SUPPORTERS saying etc etc." You're automatically assuming I was talking about you, so don't flatter yourself. Yeah in the OP I said Obama did this and that, but the man is in fact the president and an alleged "constitutional scholar," he should fucking know better!!! No matter what "reservations" he said he had, he should've opposed the damn thing!!!