Ron Paul (US Politician)

[Fiach]

I was wondering what our US members think of Ron Paul, I came across his name on another forum and subsequently watched a few of his interviews on Youtube to get more information on him. he seems like a really sensible bloke, he appears to have a sensible logic in his approach to problems.

This particular interview covers both foreign and domestic opinions.

Ron Paul Destroys Michael Moore On Larry King.mp4

[mandru]

OK, this isn't in Seniors so here's my mostly unemotional response.   

I agree with some of what he says, disagree with other positions he takes but you can start with a good thing and push it to the point that it is harmful.  I'm not going to go into his Libertarianism and the philosophies behind that other than to say there are good laws and bad laws.  I'm not willing to trade my liberty for unnecessary protection in the form of a safe padded cell where everything I need is delivered in healthy pre-portioned allotments but I'm equally against putting up with a mob of anarchists arguing over who's in charge the meeting and gets to use the microphone.   :-\\

He has some disturbing positions that were not covered in this in interview among which the one that I'm mostly concerned with that he dangerously approaches being an isolationist loon of the type that kept us from joining WWII until it was almost too late.  I'm a strong believer in knowing who your allies are and being supportive of them and standing with them in their need as well as their strength.  Equally important is being able to discern who would put a knife in your kidneys if they had the chance and moving them as far away from you as possible instead of courting them with cash and aid programs to try to turn them into (at best) fair weather friends.

Larry King the interviewer in this clip (who I personally think is a far bigger loon than Ron Paul  ;) ) very artfully steered the topic of discussion away from the lunatic fringe positions of this candidate to falsely bolster his creditability because of the chaos Mr. Paul can potentially introduce into the Republican selection process should he be put forward to run for that party because of the huge number of independent and uncommitted centrist moderate votes.  All said and done, it all really comes down to these swing votes.

Mr. Paul's positions would be mostly toxic to that voting block and virtually hand the win to the Democrats without a struggle in the upcoming elections because individuals in that group would be forced into a "Better the devil we know..." type of decision.

[Fiach]

Larry King the interviewer in this clip (who I personally think is a far bigger loon than Ron Paul  ;) ) very artfully steered the topic of discussion away from the lunatic fringe positions of this candidate to falsely bolster his creditability because of the chaos Mr. Paul can potentially introduce into the Republican selection process should he be put forward to run for that party because of the huge number of independent and uncommitted centrist moderate votes.  All said and done, it all really comes down to these swing votes.

Mr. Paul's positions would be mostly toxic to that voting block and virtually hand the win to the Democrats without a struggle in the upcoming elections because individuals in that group would be forced into a "Better the devil we know..." type of decision.

That kinda says enough mate cheers :)

[Art Blade]

Although not being a US member I will still say something  :-D Have you realised that he said something like, "it is not capitalism, it is corporatism!" As if those corporation types he ticks off his fingers weren't based on making profits, i.e. examples of capitalism  :D

[mmosu]

I think a lot of politicians should read a history book and remember that capitalism and the capitalistic spirit were what built this country.  The promise that a man can raise his station by his own sweat and effort pretty much has universal human appeal - it gives us cause to hope for a better future.  The downside to such a system is that not everybody can be a winner, and the essence of competition is that some will do better than others.  It seems to me that many politicians have forgotten this and instead focus too much of their time trying even out the boat by handing everything to those who contribute the least.  I'm by no means against wellfare programs, but over time we've ended up with a system that encourages it's beneficiaries to never reach for anything better for themselves or their children, and to never have enough pride or opportunity to want a better life than what the government can provide for them, and that both worries and saddens me.  In general, I would say that I'm with mandru in wanting a smaller government that is less involved in running peoples lives for them, and more interested in producing educated, productive, and civicly responsible citizens.  Somehow I don't think Mr. Paul is the man for that job!     

[mandru]

*Nods to mmosu*   ;) :-X

Corporatism?  I think what he's referring to Art is corporations lobbying for the law makers to create laws that specifically benefit their company and make it impossible for someone with a new better idea to edge into the industry and make their own mark with a successful new start up company.  At least slow them down enough industrial spies can steal their ideas and re-brand them to sell as their own.   ::)

The mega-corporation G.E. pays zero in taxes one year and quickly thereafter they are making compact fluorescent lamps out of China with the labor costs and production standards (remember that these CFL suckers are full of the same mercury we've been trying to get out of our homes for the last 30 years) that are available there in anticipation of reaping a harvest on laws they've backed that will restrict the sales of incandescent light bulbs.

The makers of Tylenol w@&k to have laws put into place so that their product is combined with as many prescription pain killers as possible to act as a deterrent against possible misuse of these potent drugs to keep people who care nothing about their health from abusing them... What???

[Art Blade]

Re: Corporations. That may be so and doesn't contradict what I said at all :)

I hate politics.

The problem with politics is that it is meant to serve the people but instead only seams to serve the politicians. That's why people complain about politics and the respective politicians.

Now comes the problem: You can't do anything about it -- by voting you can only choose between different shades of s#!t but it will still be s#!t. So if you want to change anything, you have to do it yourself -- and become a politician yourself.

And now comes the dilemma: There are only two types of people. One is called a human being, the other one is called a politician. So when you, as a human being, decide to do something against the system you have to become part of the system and thereby cease being a human being. Once you're in the system you'll have lost your point of view you used to have when you were a human being and that's why you'll be called a politician.

And that's the system-immanent problem with democracy: Voting. Because most people aren't exactly geniuses with mind-boggling intelligence and a sound and solid education (else we simply wouldn't have the problems we have), it is on the contrary, we have to live with the fact that the stupid majority wins and by that makes decisions that are not exactly always in our best interest. Because the idiots simply come in bigger numbers they will simply outnumber any intelligence and tip a vote in their favour. And that often enough even works simply by doing nothing ("We NEED to do something, who is in with me?" -- chirp, chirp, chirp -- "Oh I see, no one. Sorry. Epic failure.")

So actually it looks as if it wasn't exactly bad to go back to monarchies and have royalty re-installed. They decide what is best for them and you don't even have to worry because you can't (and wouldn't) vote anyway.

LONG LIVE THE QUEEN! :-D

[mmosu]

we have to live with the fact that the stupid majority wins and by that makes decisions that are not exactly always in our best interest. Because the idiots simply come in bigger numbers they will simply outnumber any intelligence and tip a vote in their favour.

That's exactly what happened here in the last presidential election.  A charismatic figure stood in front of the camera and promised them everything.  Dissatisfied with the way things were going, the fools looked around and said "Hey, he's different, let's give him a try".  The subtext there was let's ignore the fact that he's still a career politician...and the fact that he sounds like he has good ideas but doesn't have the credentials to make us really believe he can pull any of them off...and the fact that he's really more of an academian - an idea man - who like so many others in the democratic party really wants to run his constituents lives for them because he doesn't think they're smart enough to do it for themselves (they demonstrated that fact by being sucked in by his smooth talk in the first place).  Now here we are, 4 years later, and if most of the people that voted for the man were being completely honest, they would admit that they've been had!  :D 

[Art Blade]

Thanks for the reply, mmosu. Both because I enjoyed reading it and because it doesn't leave me with a post that looks awkward without any response.  :-()

[mmosu]

Glad I could help avoid an awkward moment  :-D

[Art Blade]

 ;D :-X

[fragger]

Thanks for the reply, mmosu. Both because I enjoyed reading it and because it doesn't leave me with a post that looks awkward without any response.  :-()

:-D

I was going to reply to that post but didn't get around to it, and then I forgot to... :-[

So I'll do it now :-()

Democracy does have its drawbacks, to be sure. However, the downside to a monarchy is that it's fine so long as the reigning monarch is in fact intelligent, capable, compassionate, and has his or her subjects' best interests at heart. But what if they don't? Or what if they do, but then they pass away (or more likely, as history has shown, they get bumped off in some kind of palace intrigue) and some deadbeat power-mad offspring ascends to the throne, who the people are then stuck with? At least in a democracy, people can sooner or later vote an incompetent twit or a power-mongering egotist out of office. If you end up with some autocratic self-serving tyrant sitting on a throne, how do you get them off it without the process involving some kind of revolution or other form of blood-letting and civil strife? Or do you just shrug and be content to let some venal enthroned despot make your life a misery?

America fought a War of Independence for just this reason - to be free of the far-reaching tentacles of a grandiose king who was abusing his power by making unreasonable and greedy demands upon a nation of free people who no longer had any need to be governed by an overseas king and who, realising that they were fast becoming a legitimate and self-sufficient country in their own right, no longer wished to be lorded over and have crippling taxes levied upon them by some egotistical crown-wearing fat cat sitting in an ornate chair on the other side of the world. And all things considered, I believe that America is better off today for standing up to an English king over two hundred years ago (even though they wouldn't have won that war without the help of the French, but that's beside the point, sort of).

The ideal of democracy is representative government of the people by the people for the people. True, it's open to abuse and as we've seen in the last decade, it doesn't prevent a complete dunderhead from getting his bum planted in the hotseat. But this is a possibility in a monarchic system too, with the added cons of there being almost no checks or balances in place to prevent abuse of power on the part of said dunderhead and no non-violent way to remove him or her from the throne should the people wish it. If we could be absolutely assured that every potential monarch was going to do all the right things by the populace, if it was certain that every up-and-coming king or queen was going to be a pillar of altruism, personal integrity and benevolent rule, it might indeed be an ideal system. But a study of the history of many royal families, including Britain's, will reveal just how far from ideal a system it can be. The story of royalty is largely a bloody and sordid tale of a succession of incestuous, scheming, unprincipled cut-throats who didn't give a tinker's cuss about their subjects except as a basis for their rule or as pawns in their power games. Some monarchs in the past may have had the honorific "Great" bestowed upon them, but more often than not the only thing that was really great was the amount of blood that was shed in the course of the bestowing.

Democracy may be far from perfect, but in principle at least I think it's a far more enlightened political system and is more appropriate for the modern world than a succession of individuals whose sole qualification for the job of ruling is the happenstance of their birth.

[Art Blade]

Thank you, too, fragger  ;D

So maybe we're all lucky because America isn't a monarchy and Ron Paul lacks an inherited crown  ^-^

The problem with today's democracies is that the administrative apparatus has grown FAR to big and the idea(l) Rule Of The People isn't exactly working like that any more. Wiki's article about democracy starts like this: "Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. In practice, nations and smaller political units ascribing to this ideal generally have been organized such that by far, most of these decisions are made by a select few." Those select few got there by being nominated and voted into office by a different select few and those.. and those.. and those.. all the same. They are kind of far from the people and their interests.

I said it before and I say it again: I hate politics. Because I can't change what's going on (let's be realistic, I personally can't change a thing on my own and I am aware that I could vote and all that to at least try, but that's not what I mean when I say I can't change a thing on my own) and the only way I could imagine doing it would be to get involved as a politician which means I'd "have lost it" by the way I got there. So.. screw this.

[fragger]

Yeah, I hate politics too. Get involved in it? I'd rather coat my old fella with honey and stick it in a jar full of fire ants. Imagine the people you'd have to associate with :-\\ The living dead would have greater personal integrity.

I'd love to not vote if I didn't like any of the candidates, but I don't have that luxury because voting is compulsory in Australia, which I don't agree with at all. One can always drop an empty ballot slip in the box or deliberately mess it up, and these "non-votes" are thrown out and not counted - or so they tell us. I for one don't trust the sods. One has to ask that if that's the case, why bother making voting compulsory in the first place? It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they actually are counted in favour of the current party in power, even though we're told they're not. In any event I resent having to spend my precious time making my way to the nearest polling station just so I can waste a perfectly good piece of paper. I'll cast a legitimate vote if I think a candidate has the right stuff, but when it's Hobson's choice, which is far more often the case, why should I have to?

I think the main reason that voting is compulsory is because the pollies know that if it wasn't, few would even bother. Aussies have an innate distrust of pollies. It became ingrained back in the colonial days, and few of them since have done much to alleviate that mistrust (like John Howard, three Prime Ministers ago, who did more backflips than Nadia Comaneci ever did and who couldn't lie straight in bed). Forcing us to vote for them whilst threatening to fine us if we don't doesn't exactly help endear them to us.

[mandru]

I like to think that change has to come from the bottom up and not the other way around.  Unfortunately I'm not a good salesman and have little ability to influence others in a positive direction.  I'm usually only good at making people angry and again this isn't behind the firewall of the seniors section so I'll limit my deepest thoughts on our situation here in the US.

Possibly offensive POV.  I would suggest skipping it if you don't like radical thought that scorns the status quo.

Spoiler

I would say you could Google the current US president's name adding "Sr" and "Wiki" so that it pulls up the article on his father.  I've noticed that Wiki tends towards a more liberal point of view so I was a bit surprised that this was deemed as acceptable and allowed to stand unchallenged.

Kenyan, from a country with a history of slavery* that spans beyond recorded history and some would say still not done if you look at the labor practices involving young girls in the sex trade surrounding its tourist resorts and the details of recruitment and treatment of young boys in their stone quarries (they have little mineral or gem wealth to speak of).   A senior economist in the Kenyan Ministry of Finance and publisher of a paper titled "Problems Facing Our Socialism".  How far does the Acorn fall from the tree?

One thing that's evident to me is that his first generation black American son has a share of the whole Black American experience that isn't any deeper than the coating of silver paint on the back of the glass for a cheap Victorian mirror.  For me personally it leaves the question wide open "Who fast tracked this teleprompter reading marionette?".  I will give credit due for the baggage that comes from being married to a shrill power hungry activist who has demonstrated her desire to have control over the dietary and other intimate details of of our society's lives.

I'm a strong believer in proper consumer product labeling.  That allows individuals to make good purchasing selections but when the label says "Janitor In A Drum Industrial Strength Feminine Hygiene Spray" it completely eludes my ability to understand how anyone would ever expect to find Apple Pie when they crack the seal.   ???



(* My thoughts on slavery in the United States.  First, I'll say that it was a horrible wrongness that never should have been brought into practice here.  Intolerable crimes were committed against the slaves but then again I am frustrated that only one side of the story is being told.  A half truth is used to whip one entire race into responding as if we are all guilty, as if we all are responsible for that period of our history and to keep the descendants of the people who were wronged angry and thus control them through a consuming bitterness that won't allow a true healing to take place.

To this day there is a political body here that fervently believes they own the vote that can be cast by a black citizen to shape our society.

The unspoken half of the story that is never whispered is that slavery existed in the Americas before we became the US.  We didn't create the concept or invent it and the millenia old market places that brokered in human flesh were not built by or being operated by Europeans but by the Kings, rulers and appointed officials of those who lived there.  The sophistication and level of society in hot spots of civilization throughout Africa is so hugely down played that to this day here in the US we have been painted this picture of Darkest Africa like a wall beyond which only only existed scattered family groups scraping out an existence in the bush.

That's a sad lie.  It denies the people who lived in those places at that time of their cultural development and their actual technological achievements.  It also denies our modern citizenry a clear lens to view our culture as it really is and find the proper stepping stones that would allow us to safely move forward together as healthy united society.

[Art Blade]

The major problem is greed and worse if combined with the lust for power.

Some people want power so desperately they actually kill to get and/or to keep it. Either to rule or to control those who rule. No matter if economically or politically or both.

If we put nice intelligent people in one room and tell them to think about what we need as a species stuck on one planet to ensure everyone's survival AND welfare.. those solutions would be easy. Only it would ruin all hope of those in charge and with power (any power) of the current system because they'd have to let go.

We do have everything to lead a happy life and a good one, too, and all of us.

80% of the world's wealth are shared among 20% of the people who live on this planet.

And now.. I want to get rid of these killing thoughts and play a nice, innocent and peaceful game with someone from somewhere on this planet and shoot his virtual brains out  :-D

[fragger]

This old topic seems as good a place as any to drop this into. I came across this on YouTube while looking for something else entirely and was so impressed with its capsule history and straightforward explanations that I not only watched it twice to get it all down, I DL'ed a copy in case it gets removed from YouTube, which it already has been at least twice. It's just under 24 minutes long, but it's fascinating in an unnerving sort of way.

Watch it and you'll see why it keeps getting rubbed out - if it's actually still there by the time you read this. It's all about what the U.S. government definitely does not want the general public thinking about, nor to know the real history of: its monetary shenanigans during the last couple of centuries, and its related political ones in the 20th-21st centuries.

Don't watch it if you don't want to know about what the U.S. government has been up to these last fifty years or so 'cause it's a tad unsettling 8-X But I like to know what's going on so I'm not blindsided too much, should the feces hit the rotor.

There is some very interesting info about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and its definition of "Lawful Money" which I was never aware of. I also wasn't aware of the Coinage Act of 1792, by the terms of which the current paper Federal Reserve monetary notes in the U.S. are essentially illegal, and the production of them punishable, theoretically, by death.

Oh, and by the way, the American bills in your wallet are utterly worthless scraps of paper. They have been backed by precisely nothing for about the last fifty years, and the powers-that-be are fully aware of it. That's the way they want it, so they can just crank them out to suit themselves and flood the world with the crap for their own Machiavellian schemes. Its value today exists purely and solely in the mind of the bearer - because the bearer thinks it should be worth something. It ain't. The current American dollar system is a chaotic, and ultimately unsustainable, thin-air construct of illusion, deceit and fabrication.

I don't wish to sound like a doomsayer, but I really believe (and not because of this video, which doesn't really touch on this) that the whole venal powermonger-serving system is going to implode very soon. Within maybe a month or two, maybe a year or two, the almighty U.S. Dollar is going to completely collapse under the strain the oilmen politicians and their defense-contractor buddies have put it under, and when it goes, the whole world will feel the force of the implosion.

I've never trusted the buggers in the White House, or those close around them. Small wonder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofx1wx_WnZY

[mandru]

I don't want to do this.  I'm tired and not feeling so hot today but I'm absolutely fed up to the teeth.

I apologize in advance for the length and roughness of this post.  I will probably will step over the lines of polite conversational tones a few times.  I don't seek to offend but I'm faced with old skeletons that have needed to be laid under their proper headstones for a long time only no one has had the guts to attempt this trot out on to ice that's this thin.  :(



Yes, centrifugal forces will shortly tear this whole damn thing apart.  My personal research into the roots of all the problems the U.S. is currently going through started with a realization (an aching sore spot) while playing Assassin's Creed II.  But reaching that far back would double or triple the length of this post.  ???

Where did We go wrong?  Well let's see the value of the U.S. dollar is a mere symptom of a war against the U.S..  I'll skip the more obscure points that set everything in motion but when a British Judge determined that one person could own another here in the original 13 Colonies the wedge was set.  It is without surprise the first black slave in the American Colonies was owned by a black man because by being black the man who petitioned to own another (in his words  lesser man) was not allowed by law to become a British subject.  This opened loophole that the attending judge used to let this mistake slip through creating a precedent.

(There is quite a bit of highly contested backstory behind the birth of slavery in what would become the U.S. most of the obscuring shoveled on BS is politically motivated liars attempting to bury the truth the same way that they refuse to teach truth in history in our schools so that students can learn to make their own moral decisions (What to think instead of How to think).  Now days the founding fathers and those who fought against the Brits in the American Revolutionary war are being described as terrorists when mentioned at all in teaching our K to 12 school children.)

In the American Civil War the Confederate States vowed to destroy the Republic so that they could maintain their independence and keep their slaves.

*Search Republican Party wiki  (which states "Founded by anti-slavery activists and members of the Whig Party in 1854") Lincoln was the first Republican President.
*Search Confederate States and make a list. 
*Search American Civil war and note the years that it started and ended.
*Search "List of (insert Confederate State here) Governors" and then check the years defined by the duration of the American Civil War and make note of each Governor's political alignment Republican or Democrat.


At the beginning of the Civil war each and every Confederate State will show that they had a Democrat leader who vowed to send their militias into war to defend slavery.  One State on the borderline with the free Northern States had it's resources overwhelmed early on and was assigned an interim Republican Governor for the years through the war's duration.

At the war's conclusion there were mandated Acts of Law enforced to give the former slaves homesteads and firearms to protect themselves.  Unfortunately the Union Army failed to maintain a presence in the South to ensure that the Confederate States conformed to those laws.

One by one Counties and Parishes (small politically defined territories within each of the Confederate States) individually passed laws violating those Acts of Law that were set up to protect the rights of the former slaves that claimed it was illegal for blacks to own firearms.  With Lincoln being dead at the hands of a Confederate assassin) the Union Army failed to assert their presence in the South so blacks could keep their guns.

An appointed officer of the local courts with deputies would show up on the newly formed homesteads and confiscate the family's fire arms and shortly there after the homesteads that could no longer protect themselves were terrorized, killed and burned out by the Democratic South's newly created secret police force better known as the Ku Klux Klan.

Because they've never been allowed to learn and know their own family histories their descendants are kept on the Democratic plantation who in turn harvest those votes (instead of cotton or produce) maintaining their political power through promises of free stuff and in some far flung future open access to "The Big Rock Candy Mountain" which is a song that describes (at least metaphorically in my opinion ) the allure of communist ideals but none of the loss of freedom.


To this day it is a tactic of the Democratic party (who now have a widely accepted and openly embraced presidential candidate who is a self-declared hardcore Socialist) to be historically known for doing something outrageous and later blaming it all on the Republicans.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard a Democratic politician claim that "Republicans are falling back on their old KKK tactics!"  And I'm not going to go into the ironic details behind the filthy name calling and mud slinging.

Black leaders among the Democrat party scream at the top of their lungs to their less than historically educated constituents that the Republicans are trying to reinstate their Jim Crow laws forcing blacks back into Seperate But Equal Segregation but the truth is the Jim Crow laws were created in the Confederate States shortly after the Reconstruction Period and the Union Army's taking their leave of the South and right about the time black's guns were being rounded up (see above).

From an abolitionist novel, Uncle Tom was beat to death because he refused to tell the deputized slave catchers where the slave girls had run away to.  You would think that would make him a hero among the blacks but the Democrats have twisted and obscured Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel so deeply that for one black to call another black (who shows a leaning towards conservative principals) an Uncle Tom is now the worst possible stinging insult that can be slung.

Adherents to Progressive Principals (a whole 'nother toxic can of worms aligned with tearing down all establishments and borders) have woven themselves so deeply into both the Republican and Democrat Parties through Fifth Column intrusion that there is little difference between Republican and Democrat anymore.  "Fundamentally changing America" (a progressive Obama campaign promise) will only be satisfied through the collapse of the U.S. which will on one hand give those of the "The South Will Rise Again" faction of the Democratic party their long fought goal of destroying the Union but on the other hand they are shooting themselves in the foot as they will in turn lose the power foundation they've fought their long secret insider war to return to.

It's no help that our current Democratic leadership is further taking every opportunity to promote hatred against police by picking and choosing where law matters less than pandering to their voters.  The odd thing behind that action is that almost all police on the front lines are members of Unions with international connections that share the progressive ideals of of the freaking president!  :D

"Obama sez: Race relations have never been better in the U.S.!  So apparently blood running in the streets seems to serve his party's political ambitions "Just Fine!"  ???

United we stand?  These days at every opportunity we are being divided up into smaller and smaller fractions of anything resembling a unified whole.  How many sexual self-identifying genders are there to choose from when setting up a Facebook account now?  Political Correctness is trying to enforce this 60 year old man into accepting that I am no longer male but rather I should identify as Cisgender because I most closely relate to (as described on Wikipedia) "individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity". 

Utter Pig s#!t!

You can call yourself a f'n squash blossom for all I care.  Excuse me if I refuse to play along Brucie.  But no one gets to redefine me or the entire population of the planet Earth!  And it's all because...

You see, the Republicans never came to terms regarding the problems inherent with absolutely aligning yourself with the principals of trying to establish a fair for all, courteous, polite society and adopting the position of treating all others with respect and trusting that they will reciprocate in kind with the same sentiment.  Almost as a whole Republican leaders have forgotten that at the first instance when someone or some group is developing a habit of trampling  on the "fair for all, courteous, polite society" and the trust being extended you slam them so hard and fast that they have no recourse but examine the error of their ways.

Democrats have learned that Republicans are terrified being called offensive names and it's all because the Republicans have forgotten how to punch back.  The solution is so damn simple that it's infuriating.

That's fine dems.  You go ahead.  Lie, insult and name call all you want.  We'll show your voters the Truth about you, what you've done to them and how you continue to enslave them mind and body.

[fragger]

Thanks for taking the time, mandru :) Man, how I'd love to be able to sit down and have a conversation with you sometime.

I enjoyed (if that's the right word) your post, though I had to read through it a couple of times to get your overall drift :-D (I'm going to be a bit more blunt about it below). And I couldn't agree more. I haven't yet checked out your search recommendations, but I will, although I'm already fairly familiar with what you've put forward. I've been a student of the Civil War for quite some time, not just the event itself but its causes and effects, to the point where I think I can safely say that I probably know more about it than most Americans themselves, especially the younger ones whose proper learning of history is being hijacked to better serve the oligarchy.

Before I go on, let me stress that the last thing I want to come across as is an America-basher, because I'm not. My beefs are with those who pull the strings, not with the general population. I believe the majority of Americans are decent people - maybe not the overwhelming majority, but the majority nonetheless. Since good people and their deeds generally don't make the news, one only hears about negatives, and even then from a news media that has all the integrity of a Mafia snitch.

I believe that many Americans suffer from two fatal delusions, one long established and one more recently. Delusion no. 1 is their belief that their leaders can do no wrong, and always have their best interests at heart. When the current president was "elected", many people got so caught up in the "first black man as President" craze that they never thought to really examine the credentials of this character - or they did, they were too afraid of being accused of racism to voice any concerns. Then, when the myriads of gullible celebrity-worshippers saw the likes of Oprah Winfrey and almost every other dickhead in Hollywood jumping up and down proclaiming their support for that guy and spewing out their mindless hyperbole about what a great and enlightened day for America it was, those who suffer from delusion no. 2 got totally sucked in by the insane belief that their celebrity demigods can do no wrong, that being a cut above mere humanity they are more enlightened, and if they're endorsing something or someone, then it can't be anything but good. Celebrities are always right.

I don't suffer from delusion no. 2 - I think almost all "celebrities" are complete and utter self-obsessed tools with the intelligence level of your average gnat. And even had I been born in the USA and not Oz I don't think I would have suffered from delusion no. 1 (that's not really a problem here - due to our past, most Aussies come with a built-in mistrust of politicians :-()). So I do question: Who is this guy? Where did he come from? I don't mean his country of origin, I mean his political background. What is his experience? What are his beliefs? What is his agenda?

I question: Can one actually term him "black?" Technically he's black, but that's where it ends. Otherwise he's about as black as I am. He was born in Kenya, but otherwise he's a anti-Semite Muslim from Indonesia with a forged birth certificate (and don't forget, his middle name is "Hussein" - make of that what you will). He's a political plant who has been covertly groomed for this role over a long period of time by faceless shadow-dwellers who not only are not publicly-elected officials, but not known at all to the general masses. He's a fraudster and a swindler. He's an arrogant two-faced power unto himself, a manipulative and destructive dictator-in-the-makng with a hidden agenda specifically tailored to disrupt the American way of life and bring turmoil to the country - and by extension, the rest of the world. His "fundamentally changing America" slogan is an ominous sign of things to come (it's no coincidence that the word "fundamentally" is included in that slogan, as opposed to some other word - think about it). One only has to witness his contemptuous attitude towards Israel and its leader, while he then goes and gives a Turkish leader who has openly declared a desire to "destroy Israel" a great big hug, to see where his real loyalties lay.

I'll stop short of saying what I really think he is because I don't want to bring any potentially theological slants into this. I'll dilute it by simply saying he is not a good man.

I question: Why have there been no major terrorist attacks in America during the last seven years? Could it be because they don't need to, since they have their chief asset there already in the very best possible position? How exactly are those people getting their weapons, their tanks, their ammo, their HumVees, and a growing arsenal of increasingly sophisticated weaponry? Why are there no American boots on the ground like there was in Iraq, considering that the events currently taking place in the Middle East provide a far greater justification for direct action than the fiction of Iraqi-held WMDs that was used as an excuse to allow the U.S. military to invade Iraq? (But of course that was all about restoring the petrodollar, not ending terrorism or ridding Iraq of its fictitious WMDs). Sure, there have been films of "American air strikes" shown in the news, but are those clips really coming from current-day Syria - or is it previously unreleased footage from some earlier conflict like the Gulf War?

I don't like that guy. I don't like him, I don't trust him, not one whit. I would even go so far as to say that I think he's the worst thing to ever befall America, if not the world. There's something about him that makes bells go off in my head every time I see and hear him.

And about this:

..."individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity".

I saw something on TV that made my blood boil. I couldn't decide which was the more ludicrous sight - a breast-implanted male nong in an evening gown mounting a stage to accept an Arthur Ashe Courage Award for "coming out", or the brain-dead dipshits in the audience giving him a standing ovation for it. Bear in mind that he was chosen for this award over people like Lauren Hill, a 19yo girl who continued to play basketball whilst enduring an inoperable brain tumor. What a complete and utter media wank

Why was he chosen over someone like Hill, you ask? This is why:

"The Los Angeles Times reported that a possible reason for the honoring of Jenner derived from a deal between ABC and Jenner. ABC televised the ESPYs and Jenner had granted an exclusive interview to ABC's Diane Sawyer in April regarding the gender transition Jenner was undergoing. The interview grabbed huge ratings."

That's what it's all about, my friends. Money over humanity.

[mandru]

On the cookie/biscuit issue.  I showed Mrs mandru that "authentic recipe" and we had a good giggle over a comment I'd made about it being worth an "ear bashing" to get to meet you fragger.  Though I did specify that I wanted PZ present to referee to make sure that it didn't turn into a full on thrashing.  ^-^



If everything were to blow up exposing the true depths how the Obama administration's policies have betrayed and negatively impacted the Blacks in America you can be sure the puppet handlers will make sure the total blame will fall on Obama's racist ba$t@rd white half.  ::)

There was a highly lauded speech that Obama read off a teleprompter with its key premise appearing to be aimed at the rich.  The catch phrase  "You didn't make that!" resounded over and over while listing moronic examples like "There had to be roads and highways to get your raw materials and finished products to and from your factories.

Fact:  Taxes collected pay for everything (at least that's true now that China has wised up and stopped loaning the morons in D.C. money who have been turning around and giving aid to the despots in the Middle East.  Talk about being trapped by an unfaithful spouse into a high interest payday loan scam   :D ).

The Govt (the ruling class) didn't dig into their own pockets to pay for roads and highways any more than the sweat of their brow generated the funds for any of the other examples.  Governments are not money making ventures.  They may print money but unmatched against the gross National Product only decreases the currency's underlying value.  You could say in the same way the price of diamonds would plunge if everyone on the face of the Earth woke tomorrow to find a five pound sack of perfectly cut 25 carat FD diamonds (flawless and as near perfectly colorless as possible) on their doorstep.

Outwardly it appeared Obama offered up this steaming pile of discourse to validate why the wealthy should joyously shoulder more responsibility giving money to our leaders so in turn they can "do even more good stuff" with it.  As it was pouring out of his mouth my immediate read of "do even more good stuff" was simplified to "be even more extravagant in how we can piss it all away."

It took a few weeks for my ire to drop enough to realize Obama wasn't even really talking to the real makers.  i.e Those people who most certainly know that "Yes, I bloody damn well did make this!."

Obama wasn't talking to the makers at all.  He was agitating and pumping up the outrage and expectations of the Takers.  >:((

True:  The situation surrounding the value our currency being nothing more than a rapidly expanding empty pinata is dire.  But the thing that will destroy us is the whole "Where's Mine!" mindset that is being cultivated.

When things get rough there will be no cooperation on getting us all through it together as a whole.  The smaller and smaller subgroups that we've been divided into (that I spoke of in my previous post) will one by one be blamed as an enemy and the cause of our calamity and eradicated.  Which brings me back full circle on why I believe a meticulous accounting of history is not being taught in our schools.  How long did the arena and free death spectacles extend Rome's decay and demise?

Scapegoats are too valuable a commodity to not always have some being cultivated.  History proves that "at the drop of a thumb" they can be used as a diversion to manipulate and turn the attention of an angry and frightened populace away from the real villains in a collapsing society.


Nothing like starting my day out in a cheerful note.  Eh?  :-\\

[PZ]

On the cookie/biscuit issue.  I showed Mrs mandru that "authentic recipe" and we had a good giggle over a comment I'd made about it being worth an "ear bashing" to get to meet you fragger.  Though I did specify that I wanted PZ present to referee to make sure that it didn't turn into a full on thrashing.  ^-^

... I've been a student of the Civil War for quite some time, not just the event itself but its causes and effects, to the point where I think I can safely say that I probably know more about it than most Americans themselves, especially the younger ones whose proper learning of history is...

...almost nonexistent, I'm afraid.

I worry that if I were to ask a kid today what they think about the "Civil War", they would reply "I didn't ever expect there to be a war in which people were civil."

[mandru]

I watched a man on the street interviewer who was going around asking random twenty-somethings the question "What is Socialism?"

The standard response almost 8 out of 10 times came back as...  "Uhh... It's like being social.  You know, like being on Facebook."  It's no wonder Bernie Sanders a Democrat Candidate for U.S. Presidency and openly self-declared Socialist is so popular with that age set.

They think "Stodgy old stuck in the mud conservatives hate him so much He must be like the king of Facebook."

[fragger]

 ::) :-D

[mmosu]

I have to say, I've been having a good time dropping in on some of these old posts and seeing what you all have been up to in my absence, but this one has been one of my favorite reads so far. I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, but mandru and fragger, you two are SPOT ON 👍
It's like you are both living in my head - which would be hilarious if the topic itself weren't so absolutely depressing. These ideas and musings are a regular source of stress for me, especially when I consider the immense burden that may fall to my children as a result of it all. At any rate, thanks for reminding me that there are still some people out there who "get it"

[mandru]

While I'm glad you saw something in my ramblings though I hate being the barer of worsening news.  It's never about the thing that's the top story in the news cycle because those topics are the distraction that keeps us from seeing what is actually happening and until enough of us come to that realization our society will "Progressively" be pushed further over the edge into chaos.

It's not about Harriet Tubman replacing Hamilton on the $20 bill.  What's not being said is that the $100 and $50 bills are going to be discontinued which will be bigger and bigger Govt's way of digitizing all large transactions on the premise that they can more easily monitor criminal activity but is really about their taking very real control and ownership of every possible purchase that U.S. citizens engage in.  Forget ever purchasing an car or truck in cash to beat down the price at the dealerships.

I've even seen stories where a bank customer on withdrawing the cash needed to purchase a new truck the bank tipped off the local police that a large cash draw had been made so that for no reason when the guy was stopped for a "routine check" en route to the auto dealership he was searched and the bag of cash was seized under the Federal Civil Forfeiture laws.  These laws are written so that you are assumed guilty in direct violation of constitutional civil law but because of the time it took fighting this action in court to prove his innocence the local police dept. simply claimed that they had spent it all he was never able to recover his loss.


Remember pres. Obama's "You didn't make that!" spiel?  Progressives absolutely have to convince the Takers (those promised free stuff for their votes to keep them in power) that the Makers are only wealthy because they have schemed and worked hard to be in the position to where they (the real job makers but yet politically declared "rich evil jerks") have stolen imaginary wealth the Takers never bothered to go out and make for themselves.

The plantations of the Old South have been updated to these modern times now.  It's no longer cotton as they've been converted into harvesting votes and every free thing like Obama Phones passed out to ensure the grasp of power in the last few election cycles add yet another layer of chains.  Bad news folks, neither BMW's or High Speed Internet are guaranteed in any way by the civil rights act or constitution.

Sanctioned professional civil right's activists guarantee that there's always either a mob on the verge of riot or blood running in the streets somewhere.  And here I thought it was against the law to incite riot.  But then we have a Constitutional scholar as president who (as opposed to his sacred oath to preserve and protect the constitution) is continuing his lifework of dismantling it.  By selectively directing the enforcement or by not enforcing Federal Law he picks the winners and losers to suit the progressive end goals.

So yes by today's progressive standards I'm too toxic and with the enactment of the new and improved "only agreed upon" (non-offensive) freedom of speech we have the real reason I don't Facebook or Twit.  It's no longer enough to disagree with someone it's now obligatory to seek them out and destroy them if they don't fall into lockstep.  ::)