Downright Shocking.

POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Monday, October 17, 2016 12:40
VIEWED: 11201
PAGE 1 of 1

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, March 19, 2007 5:34 AM

I found this earlier today, it's a speech from Ron Paul back in 2002.

I'll drop it in as it's own post in a moment, but first I want you to think real hard on all the things that you, personally, think are fucked up in our government.. right ?

Then read the speech, and give me one reason, if you can, even one... not to vote for this guy.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, March 19, 2007 5:35 AM

"The other day, I made a huge "gaffe" on national TV: I told the truth about the crimes of the U.S. government. As you can imagine, the ceiling fell in, and a couple of walls too. Congressmen are supposed to support the government, I was told. Oh, it's okay to criticize around the edges, but there are certain subjects a member of the House of Representatives is not supposed to bring up. But I touched the real "third-rail" of American politics, and the sparks sure flew.

I was interviewed on C-SPAN's morning "Washington Journal," and I used the opportunity, as I do all such media appearances, to point out how many of our liberties have been stolen by the federal government. We must take them back. The Constitution, after all, has a very limited role for Washington, D.C. If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited. That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us.

Under liberty, we built the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most decent country on earth. It's no coincidence that the monstrous growth of the federal government has been accompanied by a sickening decline in living standards and moral standards. The feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill--working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but otherwise entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and out-of-control leviathan that we call the federal government wants to run every single aspect of our lives. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not America. It's not what the Founders gave us. It's not the country you believe in. It's not the country I believe in.

So, on that TV interview, I emphasized not only the attacks on our property, but also the decline of our civil liberties, at the hands of the federal police. There are not supposed to be any federal police, according to the Constitution. Then I really went over the line. I talked about the Waco massacre. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno claim those 81 church members, including 19 children, burned down their own church and killed themselves, and good riddance. So they put few survivors on trial, and threw them in prison for 40 years. We're not supposed to remember that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms--talk about an unconstitutional agency--rather than arrest David Koresh on his regular morning jog, called in the TV stations for big publicity bonanza, and sent a swat team in black masks and black uniforms to break down his front door, guns blazing. They also sent in a helicopter gunship, to shoot at the roof of a church full of innocents. The Branch Davidians resisted, and after a heartless siege of almost two months, and after cutting off food, water, and electricity, and playing horrible rock and roll through huge speakers 24 hours a day, the feds sent in the tanks to crush the walls of the church, and inject poisonous CS gas. Now, CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on Chemical Warfare. The U.S. could not use it in a war. But it could and did use it against American civilians. After the tanks did their work on the church, the place burst into flame, and all 81 people--men, women, children, and babies - were incinerated in a screaming horror. Did some feds set the fire? Did the flammable CS gas ignite, since without electricity, the parishioners were using lanterns? Did a tank knock over a lantern, striking one of the bales of hay being used against the thin walls as a "defense" against bullets? Or did the Davidians, as Clinton and Reno claim, kill themselves?

A new documentary- -Waco: The Rules of Engagement- may show, through FLI

THEKNIGHT

Monday, March 19, 2007 12:21 PM

I can give you plenty of reasons not to vote for this guy. He thinks that governments shouldn't take money from its people, keeping most for itself, giving out only a little bit here and there just to keep the misinformed masses happy. He thinks that the government shouldn't dictate every minute detail of how I live my life, from where I will send my kids to school (when I one day have kids), to whether or not I should be able to smoke a cigarette while eating a hamburger with extra cheese. He thinks that government should go and send my peers off to fight in some foreign land for an ambiguous reason (not that I am a fan of dictators) and should give contracts to their buddies. He thinks that government should not be able to go in and screw around with someone else's internal problem without being asked in, while at the same time talking about people coming into our country and messing with us like it is the worst thing in the world.

So in summary, I can give you various and sundry reasons not to vote for this guy, but none of them are really any good.

Paul for President '08

HERO

Monday, March 19, 2007 1:06 PM

He also wants to get rid of Federal Law Enforcement agencies. That way we can trust our counter-terrorism to the Vermont State Patrol...

H

PIRATENEWS

Monday, March 19, 2007 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
He also wants to get rid of Federal Law Enforcement agencies. That way we can trust our counter-terrorism to the Vermont State Patrol...

H

Fed agencies perp all the terrorism and major assassinations in USASPP today. As they have for over 150 years. So getting rid of Uncle Scam gets rid of terrorism. Read Operations Northwoods and Gladio.

Fed terrorists refuse to arrest and deport 40-million homicidal illegal alien enemy combatants who demand overthrow of USA, with 200-million more on the way ASAP, thanks to Bush Jr's Security & Prosperity Partnership contract to merge USA with Mexico and Canada in 2005. Illegal aliens murdered over 45,000 US citizens so far, since 9/11/2001, including Nathan Fillion's boss in WAITRESS.
www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103
www.spp.gov

Or we could do what White House counsel and FBI agent G Gordon Liddy said on his radio show.

Quote:

"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots. Kill the sons of bitches. If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head."
-G Gordon Liddy, Nixon White House attorney at law, FBI agent, convicted Watergate felon, on his national neocon radio show in 1994
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy

Mafia trial lawyer Sir Rudy Giuliani Knight of the British Empire for dictator in 2008

Quote:

Yes, it's former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani in drag having his "breasts" shamelessly violated by "Apprentice" tycoon Donald Trump. Clip from new documentary GIULIANI TIME, by Kevin Keating, opens May 12 at Landmark Theatres' Sunshine Cinema in NYC. More at www.GiulianiTime.com.

"Mayor Giuliani — a former federal prosecutor who won notice for 'pursuing' the Mafia — had relatives linked to organized crime, including a mobbed-up cousin who was gunned down by FBI agents in 1977, a new book says. Lewis D'Avanzo, a son of the mayor's uncle and a guest at Giuliani's first wedding in 1968, was a 'ruthless and widely feared mob associate' who headed a massive stolen car ring, according to FBI documents and interviews detailed in Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, by Village Voice senior editor Wayne Barrett. Due in stores next week, the book sketches a largely unflattering portrait of the clan, depicting his father, Harold, as a hothead and the "muscle" behind a brother-in-law's loansharking operation, run out of a Brooklyn bar. Along with cracking heads, it says the mayor's father served time in state prison for a stickup, rarely held an on-the-books job and once was a gunman in a mob shootout in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. According to the book, Giuliani's cousin Lewis D'Avanzo was known as "Steve the Blond" and listed as armed and dangerous in FBI bulletins. His criminal record included a 10-year federal sentence for the armed hijacking of a truck loaded with $240,000 worth of mercury. The book alleges that he was suspected of taking part in several murders. D'Avanzo was gunned down by the FBI in October 1977, when he tried to run down an agent after being stopped on a warrant that accused him and two associates of transporting 100 stolen luxury cars. Quoting an unnamed friend of D'Avanzo, the book describes a 1962 shootout pitting a local mobster against the mayor's father and Leo D'Avanzo, Lewis D'Avanzo's father. The book says Leo was later sanctioned by mob bosses for shooting at a Mafia member. Leo D'Avanzo, who was known in family circles as a black sheep, ran loansharking and gambling operations out of a Brooklyn bar where Giuliani's father worked as

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

THEKNIGHT

Monday, March 19, 2007 2:13 PM

As far as I understand it, counter terrorism is in fact an interstate issue, which does fall in the realm of the federal government, even in a strict reading of the constitution. It is not so much a complete abolition of federal law enforcement, but more a reigning in on federal encroachment on the job of the locals. So as far as I understand it there would still be some things under federal jurisdiction, terrorism being one, cross state line issues being another, so counter terrorism would still fall under a federal jurisdiction. Unless its not. That didn't make too much sense that last bit, at least not in writing but it makes sense in my head. Hate it when that happens. I hope you can sympathize. Also Dr. Paul has an idea regarding fighting terrorism using privateers that is kinda ingenious in my book, but I am a strong believer in the power of the private sector. I don't claim to be an expert on anything, so outside input is appreciated. Talking things out is how we learn is how I look at it. So there you go.

Your man in Hong Kong.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, March 19, 2007 2:50 PM

Quote:
He also wants to get rid of Federal Law Enforcement agencies.

Oh, you mean the ones that in the history of their entire existance have not prevented a single act of terrorism, yet have perpetuated numerous ones (See Also: COINTELPRO) against the very citizens they're supposed to protect ?

That just got caught illegally spying on US, and tried to cover it up ?

Boo-Ferkin-Hoo, lemme go find the smallest violin to play them a dirge.

I don't want protection, that road leads to a rubber room and a box of crayons in some state run facility so we can't harm ourselves.

I want freedom dammit, and any terrorista who does unto me or mine better damnwell hope he does for me in the first bite, cause if he don't his ass is MINE!

I think your real problem, Zero, is that like the rest of the parasitic leeches suckling the FedGov masquerading as "Public Servants", you'd be forced to go out and get a real job once the trough is empty.

{ } <-See this ? that's all the sympathy I have for you.

I've no intention of being nice: be advised.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

ANTHONYT

Monday, March 19, 2007 3:08 PM

This speech is intriguing. I hear a lot about abolishing the majority of the Federal government and its services. I am interested in the idea of taking away the Federal income tax.

But I do find myself interested in how everything will operate and function in the absence of the Federal Machine.

I am not only interested in hearing what this man will NOT do, what he will TAKE AWAY, but I would also like to hear, precisely, what he will REPLACE all this with.

How does the government work, exactly, in his ideal scenario? He's said quite eloquently what it won't do and won't have. I want to hear what it will do and will have.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

THEKNIGHT

Monday, March 19, 2007 3:38 PM

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that which governs least governs best. And that is what he would do. For the most part leave us to live are lives as we see fit. In absence of government run social service, private social service would arise. If you say that this is unrealistic, I humbly point you in the direction of Hong Kong, to the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals organization. They run schools, housing, public health care, social services for young children and the elderly and many other community services. They fund their operation by collecting rent from their many property holdings throughout the area. They spend over half a billion American dollars a year caring for the poor here in HK, and yet are able to cover that due to their private revenues. So this is how things would be replaced, those which go away would be taken care of by the private interests headed by philanthropic folk. As to how he would govern, he would protect our rights to life, liberty and property. That is all the government is there to do. It is almost midnight here so I will adjourn for the evening and hope to be able to catch up upon the morrow. I would say to play nice in my absence, but I know that is like trying to hold back the river with a plastic shovel.

I really need a better signature.

ANTHONYT

Monday, March 19, 2007 3:51 PM

duplication

ANTHONYT

Monday, March 19, 2007 3:52 PM

Hello,

Well, that's interesting. I'm sure that private entities would come up with schemes to provide a variety of social services.

But let me start with basic things that are concrete and that I can put my hands on and wrap my mind around.

With no tax, how is an aircraft carrier built, outfitted, crewed, and operated?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Monday, March 19, 2007 4:24 PM

Poor sod. He's living in some kind of fantasy-land. While I agree that the Federal government should be scaled back, there ARE things that ONLY a fedral government can do. For example, one state is sucking up all the water out of a river or belching pollution. Who do the downstream/wind states appeal to? One state pays poverty wages with no unemployment benefits, creating undereducated economic refugees in neighboring states. And who defends the borders? Who maintains sovereign rights over coastal waters? Who represents the USA interests vis a vis China, or with nations who strip-mine the open seas? Who can (hopefully) represent the population against multinationals?

It's a complex world, which gets more complex as it gets more and more crowded. States - and nations - no longer live in isolation from each other, separated by impasssble seas or miles of wilderness. Ron Paul doesn't seem to be proposing a viable alternate because wishing you were living 200 years ago just doesn't work.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 19, 2007 5:34 PM

Frem- waiting for you not to be nice. Hope you come out swinging.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 19, 2007 5:35 PM

dang it! dbl!

HERO

Monday, March 19, 2007 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh, you mean the ones that in the history of their entire existance have not prevented a single act of terrorism

Your forgetting the plot to set off a nuclear bomb in New York last year.

What plot, says you?

Exactly.

H

STORYMARK

Monday, March 19, 2007 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh, you mean the ones that in the history of their entire existance have not prevented a single act of terrorism

Your forgetting the plot to set off a nuclear bomb in New York last year.

What plot, says you?

Exactly.

H

And the plot to destroy LA with a fleet of alien squid from Neptune.

What plot, says you?

Exactly.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

FLETCH2

Monday, March 19, 2007 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

With no tax, how is an aircraft carrier built, outfitted, crewed, and operated?

--Anthony

Well of course they'll "steal" your tax money to pay for the defence of THEIR property, what were you thinking. There will be army's and border guards and cops with some taxes to pay for them, because they believe in those things and as such want you to pay for them too. Of course the things they don't believe the government should do -- ie the things they dont want to pay for will be axed.

I love Ron Paul, they should set up a foundation to clone the man, but the institutions set up to run a country of eigthteenth century gentlemen farmers and plantation owners won't cut it in the modern world. The Federal Government is too big and too free with other people's money, that's a long way from saying that no Federal government is a better option.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, March 19, 2007 9:27 PM

Quote:
While I agree that the Federal government should be scaled back, there ARE things that ONLY a fedral government can do.

Of course there are, that's why it's there - it's just out of control and someone needs to take the wheel, and soon.

Several of the things you mention fall under interstate commerce, which is one of the enumerated powers of the FedGov for the exact reason you state.

No one is saying abolishment, we're talking about hacking off a tremendous level of usurpation of authority and resources that needs to be addressed immediately if not sooner.

Border defense is in fact what the national guard was intended for, to some degree that's a state issue, but economically it's also an issue that affects interstate commerce as well - and our immigration policies are well overdue for a significant overhaul.

Coastal water issues are handled by respectively, the Coast Guard and the Navy, and Naval operations are also specifically enumerated to the Feds via Congress.

Article I, Sections 8,9,10 of the Constitution specifically provide for most of the issues you mentioned.

As well, international relations are also specifically Enumerated to the Executive, as per Article II, Section 2, requiring Congressional Approval of such in the number of two thirds of the present members.

I think you've misunderstood his position a bit, Siggy... they have both the means and authority to do the part of the job that is theirs, no one is saying we should remove that - what's being said is that they need to be LIMITED to that, and not given a blank check to chase every wild hair that suits their fancy with our money and resources.

And as for the aircraft carrier, why exactly do we need such a thing to defend our turf ? it's an offensive strike weapon, primarily.
If we put it back in our pants and redesigned our armed forces to defend our country instead of being an imperial war machine, we could cut a hell of a lot of that budget, and put much of it where it BELONGS, that being the after-action support of the young men and women who've served.

Our countries habit of crapping on the vets while denying them the needful medical care and resources we promised them is downright shameful.

If one feels we need an Aircraft carrier for national defense, then one tells our elected representatives that we want one, they vote on it, then vote on what funds they will appropriate for one, and then contract it via their responsibility as enumerated in Article I, Section 8.

We have a system in place for this, apparently not well understood, so lemme add a link here to clarify matters.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Ron's not proposing Anarchy here, he's calling for the FedGov to properly perform it's intended function.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

THEKNIGHT

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:56 AM

Thank you Frem. I guess I wasn't getting my point across as well as I thought, I was handling the domestic care issue part, but assumed that people would realize that the federal government would handle the powers that were enumerated within the constitution. I should have been more clear. You helped out with that. State Department would still exist to deal with international relations, Defence Department would still exist, just much more scaled back version that is more suited to modern warfare, ie wars amongst the people. There would still bea government, it would still do its job, just do the job that that piece of paper says it should, not what it thinks it can get away with.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:00 AM

Quote:
"And as for the aircraft carrier, why exactly do we need such a thing to defend our turf ? it's an offensive strike weapon, primarily.
If we put it back in our pants and redesigned our armed forces to defend our country instead of being an imperial war machine, we could cut a hell of a lot of that budget, and put much of it where it BELONGS, that being the after-action support of the young men and women who've served.

Our countries habit of crapping on the vets while denying them the needful medical care and resources we promised them is downright shameful.

If one feels we need an Aircraft carrier for national defense, then one tells our elected representatives that we want one, they vote on it, then vote on what funds they will appropriate for one, and then contract it via their responsibility as enumerated in Article I, Section 8.

We have a system in place for this, apparently not well understood, so lemme add a link here to clarify matters.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Ron's not proposing Anarchy here, he's calling for the FedGov to properly perform it's intended function.

-Frem

Hello,

I agree that an aircraft carrier is a 'projection of power' offensive weapon. In fact, that's pretty much what the whole Navy is. However, projecting power is sometimes needed for defensive purposes. (You may not agree. That's okay.)

But now, here's where I'm confused:

We decide we need a navy, including aircraft carriers, for national defense. Our leaders hear our plea. They vote on what funds they will appropriate for our Navy. Then... Well, don't they then tax us to get money for the Navy we wanted? And any other programs we cry out for?

I feel that I'm missing something rather obvious, but I can't figure out what it is.

How does a Federal government get the money it needs without taxing us for it?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

THEKNIGHT

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:07 AM

There are legitimate ways for the federal government to tax us. They can tax commerce, some goods, and a few other things. It is primarily the income tax that would be abolished. So an aircraft carrier, which is a legitimate need of a legitimate military, would be funded through taxes, just not an income tax.

Here is what the constitution says on taxes:

Quote:

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin
of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of
Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.
Quote:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:26 AM

Quote:
There are legitimate ways for the federal government to tax us. They can tax commerce, some goods, and a few other things. It is primarily the income tax that would be abolished. So an aircraft carrier, which is a legitimate need of a legitimate military, would be funded through taxes, just not an income tax.

So they are advocating a country-wide sales tax to replace an income tax? Okay. It seems very much a half dozen of one, six of the other situation. But perhaps we'd be a less disposable society.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 6:32 AM

Ron Paul is the only politician I'm aware worthy of a vote.

The sad fact is, people don't want the kind of freedom, and responsibility, he advocates. We are living in a nation of people trained from birth to be good little consumer drones. Go to school, get a job, watch TV and don't ask questions. Our insecurities are reinforced through daily doses of fear supplied by our government, our media, our schools, our religions, etc...

I'd love to hear how anyone thinks this might change, but I'm not seeing how.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:08 AM

If you cut out the pork, the waste, and downright BS (google: bridge to nowhere - for a good example) then the existing taxes would more than cover it, with a surplus, even if you removed direct taxation of incomes.

It's pretty simple math, really.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

THEKNIGHT

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:37 AM

It would not be a national sales tax, though I would much rather that than an income tax. It is duties, tariffs, and excise tax. And with massive pork cut out those tax levels could be very low and the government could still do its job. And we would get to keep a much larger chunk of our earned income. That is how I believe it would work anyhow.

What do I know, I am just a college student. You know, the future.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:53 PM

Here ya go, have a look directly.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/budget.html

Just one measly example - under Dept of State and other..

We're gonna spend $4,452,000,000.00 Financing FOREIGN militaries ?

There's no Constitutional Authority or Justification for that, none, nada, zip.

That's just ONE measly item, mind you.
I could go through this thing with a chainsaw and not do the american people one whit of harm or even likely reduce actual services.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KANEMAN

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:02 PM

"That's just ONE measly item, mind you.
I could go through this thing with a chainsaw and not do the American people one whit of harm or even likely reduce actual services."

It just may increase services!

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:42 PM

Quote:
"It is duties, tariffs, and excise tax."

I don't think I know enough about taxes, because that sounded like someone saying, "We'll be replacing tax with tax, tax, and tax."

How do these other sorts of taxes work?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

THEKNIGHT

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:11 PM

While yes they are just essentially just a different sort of tax, they are not paid directly by the individual. Mind you I do not profess to be an expert on taxes, but at least these are not like cutting my income in half on the front end, and then still having to pay for these taxes anyway.

Quote:
a duty is a kind of tax, often associated with customs, a payment due to the revenue of a state, levied by force of law. Properly, a duty differs from a tax in being levied on specific commodities, financial transactions, estates, etc., and not on individuals; thus it is right to talk of import duties, excise duties, death or succession duties, etc., but not of income tax as being levied on a person in proportion to his income.

A tariff is a tax on foreign goods upon importation. When a ship arrives in port a customs officer inspects the contents and charges a tax according to the tariff formula. Since the goods cannot be landed until the tax is paid it is the easiest tax to collect, and the cost of collection is small. Smugglers of course seek to evade the tariff.

In the United States, the term excise means: (A) any tax other than a property tax or capitation (i.e., an indirect tax, or excise, in the constitutional law sense), or (B) a tax that is simply called an excise in the language of the statute imposing that tax (an excise in the statutory law sense, sometimes called a miscellaneous excise). An excise under definition (A) is not necessarily the same as an excise under definition (B).

Not, Repeat, Not an expert by anyone's definitions.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:27 AM

There we go, took a little fiddling, but I figured this thread needed a bit of necromancy, as it was the original let's-bang-the-Ron-Paul-drum around here.

-F

KANEMAN

Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:59 PM

"am not only interested in hearing what this man will NOT do, what he will TAKE AWAY, but I would also like to hear, precisely, what he will REPLACE all this with."

He would have most things that are "taken away" run at state level as opposed to federal level. As far as the income tax.....What did we do before 1913?

KANEMAN

Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:06 PM

"We decide we need a navy, including aircraft carriers, for national defense. Our leaders hear our plea. They vote on what funds they will appropriate for our Navy. Then... Well, don't they then tax us to get money for the Navy we wanted? And any other programs we cry out for?"

Where you are going wrong is thinking that the income tax pays for this. The income tax goes entirely to the 'illegal' federal reserve bank to pay down debt and inflation. Every cent.........

MALBADINLATIN

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Ron Paul is the only politician I'm aware worthy of a vote. The sad fact is, people don't want the kind of freedom, and responsibility, he advocates. We are living in a nation of people trained from birth to be good little consumer drones. Go to school, get a job, watch TV and don't ask questions. Our insecurities are reinforced through daily doses of fear supplied by our government, our media, our schools, our religions, etc...I'd love to hear how anyone thinks this might change, but I'm not seeing how.

Hear Hear Sargent! I've been waving around my magic wand...and my arm is getting tired as the mindless masses remain in the wasteland, yes, that would be the Joseph Campbell wasteland. If you have the time...do like I have done. I went to Ron Paul's web site and downloaded his position papers. I have convinced 4 other people to vote RP, and convinced one democrat to re-register Republican so he could vote in the primaries. It was so much easier to convince my neighbors than I thought. It's a small part to play but it felt great. Try it if you are so inclined! F the media/political complex!!!

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

KANEMAN

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:06 AM

"F the media/political complex!!!"

Mal, you can do better than that.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
..It was so much easier to convince my neighbors than I thought. It's a small part to play but it felt great. Try it if you are so inclined! F the media/political complex!!!

It's been a while since I posted that. Things are beginning to look more promising than I'd anticipated, at least on the internet. If we can just somehow crack the mainstream stranglehold...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 29, 2007 4:55 AM

Ahhhh.... it's threads like these that give me some small hope that maybe all is not lost, and we actually can stave off that impending civil war nobody ever likes talking about another generation or two.

Quote:
By Frem: ...give me one reason, if you can, even one... not to vote for this guy.

Well Frem, I can't think of.....

Quote:
Hero Buts In: He also wants to get rid of Federal Law Enforcement agencies. That way we can trust our counter-terrorism to the Vermont State Patrol...

Oh no he didn'? Nice jab there Lawyerman (I've just decided that's your new super-"Hero" name. Very apropos, don'tcha think?

Quote:
Frem Quickly Counters: I think your real problem, Zero, is that like the rest of the parasitic leeches suckling the FedGov masquerading as "Public Servants", you'd be forced to go out and get a real job once the trough is empty.

OHHHHH SMACKDOWN!!! 3...2...1... IT'S OVER! Who's the bitch now? I see you have yet to even come back for another dose of humiliation.... wonder why that is? Couldn't be that he's hitting just a little too close to home there, could it Lawyerman?

Seriously, nice reply there Frem. Saying what I've told him on several occasions now, and as always, putting just the right amount of whatever it is you put on your writing to leave welts when that's what you're aiming to do.

That'd be a pretty funny sight to see Lawyerman and Greenspan pouting in the same unemployment line, wouldn't it? I know I'm laughing now seeing it in my mind's eye....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

MALBADINLATIN

Friday, June 29, 2007 11:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"F the media/political complex!!!"
Mal, you can do better than that.

How about this....Fuck them in the.........hmmmmmm.....You know what! You already took the best stuff Kane! Sandpaper, spikes, etc....OK, I'm workin on it!!!!

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, October 17, 2016 12:40 PM

wastebook

reform?
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=23349