Redstate

But yes.

Do these Nimrods really feel that if the Country has fallen under dictatorial control that an election will free it ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Oh, they support Ron Paul for president, too. Never mind.

Even the Wolverines had to flee to Free America at the end, though.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

At first glance, the question of America becoming less free seems absurd. It would seem, by most objective standards, that America is a great place to live today. After all, economists point out that geographic mobility is a good indicator of which economies are working well. Have you noticed how many people from around the world want to move here?

However, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that America is indeed moving futher and further away from the ideas of Adam Smith and John Locke. With each passing day the people of America see more "security" and less liberty.

Thank you WildBill for standing your ground and stating your opinion. I appreciate it, even though many others will condemn you for it. Please know that you are not alone in your views.

========
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." Ayn Rand

Look, I've been a registered Republican since the age of 18 and a Republican volunteer before that. I voted for Bush...I even campaigned for him. I voted Republican in every local, state and federal election...until 2006...I voted Republican but barely...I've lost patience with this party.

I voted for Bush because he promised to shrink the size of gov't (which necessarily means increasing freedom). The fact that Republicans are no longer interested in talking about shrinking gov't and increasing freedom now that their "leader" has stopped doing it is indicative of the problem with the Republican party and why I am so demoralized as a conservative. It seems most in this party have no principles. They don't care about increasing socialism (such as Medicare RX) as long as Bush does it...and how dare anyone point it out.

The question is now whether we're now a dictatorship. We're not. The question is what direction we're moving in and what will be our destination if we continue on the current path. I think the answer to that is clear.

We're closer to socialism after Bush's 33% increase in federal spending and signing of the LARGEST INCREASE IN ENTITLEMENTS since LBJ. We're closer to fascism after Bush CONTINUED Clinton's program of warrantless serveillance (something that conservatives CLAIMED to be upset about when Clinton did it). We're closer to dictatorship with the death of Posse Comatatus, the militarization of local police, and the end of Habeas Corpus.

None of these things are disputable. The only argument Republicans make (I refuse to call them conservatives since these are the policies of leftists, not conservatives) is that these freedoms are outdated and no longer needed. I refuse to trade liberty for security. Liberty is a valuable jewel that must be guarded above all.

While you so called Republicans cry "give up your liberty or we're all going to die," *I* say, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

Seriously ?

You'll get no argument from me over size of government issues. Well just that RP won't help the problem. (He has as much chance as crusader rabbit). Matter of fact if you actually read the site, you would see most of the people here weren't too happy with part D. (Esp since we would have a balanced budget already)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

- Off the top of my head, American's right of freedom of contract have been infringed upon for a very long time now (numerous licenses, minimum wage laws, ect...) Here in San Antonio, Tx, one can not hold a garage sale without first paying for a license to have one - on their own property no less! Just as 1 example of many that could be given.
- Freedom of movement. Another right that has been taken from the average American is the right to trade and deal in "money" as opposed to "bills of credit" (paper money) [see Article 1 section 10 of the U.S. Constitution].

those are 2 off the top of my head.

are you telling us you need a FEDERAL license to hold a garage sale? WHO KNEW! I think you are confused as to local/state/federal laws/ordinances. BUT, hey, who knew?

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

You need to talk to your city council/similar structure about your garage sale.

Freedom of movement ? do you have an example ?
Or are you upset that you can't drive without a license ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It seems most in this party have no principles. They don't care about increasing socialism (such as Medicare RX) as long as Bush does it...and how dare anyone point it out.

He promised Medicare Part D when he ran in 2000. This wasn't a surprise. I was hoping he would never follow through on his promise, but he did. He didn't have much choice but to promise it, since Gore was promising the same thing only bigger and badder. This was a big issue in the 2000 campaign. I remember it being all the talk of the CNN Moron Voter forums and the like. They even had 30 year olds talking about how their number one issue was Medicare prescription drugs. The media told them it was their number one issue.

As far as the fascism stuff goes, you simply need to stop with the Ron Paul sites. That stuff isn't from your own experience. You simply read it on "Crazies4RonPaul.org." I'm surprised you didn't have anything about the Patriot Act in there. I've heard they can find out what kind of cereal you buy from the grocery store!!!!111!!11
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Just know that I was disgusted with this party before I knew who Ron Paul was...and I was disgusted for the same reasons I am now. I'm disgusted for the same policies that YOU and other conservatives would rightly be complainig about if Al Gore or John Kerry were implementing them.

And that's what's so disappointing. Republicans WOULD be against these policies if they were implemented by Dems. It's actually been refreshing to have Dems control Congress because Bush has actually started to talk like a conservative again and veto a few bills! It's been great! But why did we need to lose Congress before we remembered we were against socialized medicine? And do we need to lose the Presidency before we remember that we're against spying and expanded executive power?

It seems to me that the fake conservatives who now claim ownership of the Republican party don't dislike big gov't...they just dislike it when THEY are not at its helm.

"Give me liberty, or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

The point was that you knew (or should have known) what you were getting into in 2000 when you enthusiastically supported a guy who promised to do what you are now complaining about. I don't fault you for that, because he was way better than the alternative. I voted for him too. But don't pretend to be all surprised when the compassionate conservative that ran for office turned out to be exactly that after he took office.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It's a valid point, zuiko...which is why I've promised to never do it again. I will never again vote for a big-gov't "conservative." That's why I'm having this conversation. I don't want to have to vote 3rd party in 2008.

And I must say, I got WAYYYYY more leftism than I bargained for with Bush. I mean, usually you either lose your economic liberties or your civil liberties...but rarely do you lose BOTH at the same time.

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

You know, whenever I see someone saying that habeas corpus has "ended," I know for *sure* I'm dealing either with a moron, someone who is easily duped, or a moonbat, and probably a combination of all three. And when someone says it's "indisputable," that probably means taht they're beyond all hope of saving.

But I'm going to tell you what - I'm feeling generous today on account of the Red Sox. So, if you can give me the correct answer to the question: "How many habeas petitions did the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit hear in the last six months?" I'll keep your account on. I'll tell you what - if you get within 10 of the correct answer, I'll still keep your account on.

Next post, please.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Look, the fact that the courts are still taking Habeas Petitions doesn't mean that the writ is still useful for its real purpose: to protect citizens against an out-of-control gov't. The fact is that if the president chose, he could CHOOSE to not allow habeas petitions for "unlawful combatants." Unlawful combatants may be US citizens (See the Supreme Court case Ex Parte Quirin from WWII). So the fact that habeas was eliminated - not suspended as the Constitution allows - for "unlawful combatants" sets a dangerous precedent.

And if you don't like talking about Habeas Corpus, we can always talk about the warrantless searches and seizures of people's laptops and the illegal searches of people's homes. The illegal surveillance and other things that I grew up hearing Rush Limbaugh decry...when Clinton did it.

I don't particularly feel the need to defend myself about being a "moonbat" since I've been a solid conservative my whole life and I know that my beliefs haven't changed; only this party. Bill Clinton's policies have been implemented by this president.

I'm just amazed at how short of a memory my fellow Republicans have. We used to be against these things. The fact that my fellow Republicans call me a moonbat for saying exactly what Limbaugh and Hannity were saying 10 years ago is why I'm ready to give up on this party and start voting third party...I don't feel that Republican/Democrat makes a difference...as soon as they get power, they forget what they promised to do.

As far as how many habeas petitions have been heard by the courts in the last 6 months, I'm not really sure. I'd guess around 8,000 or so (as a law student, I'm aware that almost every criminal in jail files a habeas petition at some point during their appeals). Don't think that I'm not aware of how the process works...this is going to be my field...my career.

Thanks for not locking my account. I've been careful not to "pimp" Ron Paul...just state my beliefs on certain issues.

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

This means that you have unlimited free access to Lexis, so you have no excuse for not answering my question. I'll even help you. Go to search, then Federal Legal - US, then Court of Appeals - by Circuit, then 3rd Circuit. Then under search type in "petition /10 habeas" and it will give you a manageable enough number that if you have your hits on, you'll be able to weed out those that are not actually habeas petitions. Then, for your own edification, you can check and see how many of those habeas petitions were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because of any of the recent acts of Congress. Now - having done that, please return with a citation for even one single case, or the answer "zero."

I'm really tired of these half-cocked claims. People who claim that Habeas has been "ended" are just flat out ignorant of the truth, and you ought to know better if claim to be a conservative. You also ought to know better than to claim that it isn't effective - that would indicate that people's habeas petitions either aren't being heard, or are being dismissed. The simple fact is that the detention acts affect habeas petitions pertaining to enemy combatants being held outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States - to wit, Gitmo prisoners. Everyone else's habeas petitions will be heard in *exactly the same manner* as they always have. As for the rest, they never had Constitutional access to habeas in the first place, only a statutory grant.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

I'm sure I could get the exact # if I wished. It makes no difference to me, because I know that everything you just said is true. My problem is that it is now optional. A US Citizen can be called an unlawful combatant (thanks to that fascist prick FDR). And now, an "unlawful combatant" may be held without Habeas Corpus. Did we all of a sudden become Nazi Germany with bunch of goose stepping, jack-booted brown shirts outside our doors when Bush signed the Military Commissions Act?? NO! Of course not, we're still a semi-free country. But, as I said in my first post, we're moving in that direction. I find it frightening and completely unnecessary. Freedom doesn't disappear in a puff of smoke...it takes time to lose it little by little and it's very difficult to get back once it's gone.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Again, I appreciate the privilege of posting here and I've consiously chosen not to pimp Ron Paul. I've been reading RedState ever since it was RedState.*ORG* and enjoy it very much. It was my main source of info for the 2004 election (in which I manned phone banks for Bush). I stopped following politics completely around 2005 and just started following it again in the last 4 months...since I actually have a reason to care again. RedState was one of the first places I came to.

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

You still have to be detained "outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

You still have to be detained "outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

See Ex Parte Quirin. You can be captured and tried by military tribunal. On top of that, before Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a citizen couldn't even challenge the FACTUAL basis of his detainment meaning that the gov't could just *say* that you'd been captured "outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Thankfully, the Supreme Court stayed Bush's hand and we kept a tiny bit of sanity.

Look, I agree with you for the most part. Some people take it too far and cry "wolf" way, way too much (Alex Jones comes to mind). However, we are moving in a bad direction. I want to not only stop the bleeding but take us back to the Founders' intentions. And some times, I agree with the wolf-cryers (such as after the passing of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act) and feel completely hopeless.

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

And one last thing... I know many conservatives trust this president (I myself do not...Harriet Miers was the straw that broke the camel's back). However, if we're going to choose to close our eyes to this president's abuses of power, let's not forget Clinton's abuses of power. And let's not forget that these increases in executive power will go straight into Hillary's toolbox if she's elected (not at all an unlikely scenario)

Somehow, I don't think you guys will be cool as a cucumber when Hillary starts using these powers. SOMEHOW, I'm very, very sure that on the front page of RedState, there will be complaints about her abuses, as there should be.

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

Better make sure she isn't elected.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Someday, a Democrat WILL be elected president...and all of a sudden, Republicans will remember that - oh yeah - they like SMALL government.

I both dread and look forward to that day.

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

Why is it that New Hampshire has flipped Democratic as the Free State project has gone on?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

New Hampshire flipped Dem in 2006 for the first time in 30 years...they're just as sick as the rest of the country with the big-gov't policies of the last Congress. It's hard to tell how long the Dems will stay in power...however, Dems in NH aren't as bad as Dems elsewhere...their "big increase in gov't" was to TRY (and fail) to pass a seat belt law...NH is still the only state in the country without one. Of course, they succeeded in increasing educational spending and a few other small victories we're not thrilled about, but they also opted New Hampshire out of the Real ID, so all in all, it hasn't been too bad. Hopefully, Repubs take the legislature and governorship back in 2008...it'll depend on alot on if NH voters trust Republicans again by that time.

The Free State Project participants are working closely with freedom-loving politicians from both parties (we actually have one member elected to the legislature as a Dem in 2006). Of course, some FSP members are more radical and don't believe in voting at all. It all depends.

There are about 500 of us in New Hampshire right now, with about 800 more to come by the end of 2008. We're still in the early stages, but we've had quite a few successes and continue to work at making America's freest state a truly free state once more. It'll take time...nothing like this has ever been tried before.

Thanks for asking.

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

Pray tell, what population event happened starting in the mid-1990s that altered the political landscape of New Hampshire? Think "Free State Project," but reverse polarity, and not organized.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

We've had some immigration from Massachussetts (we call them "Mass Holes") who can't stand their nanny gov't anymore. Some of them realize that their problems in Mass came from their nanny state, but others don't have a clue and are trying to push it on the natives...fortunately, the natives are pushing back. No state is perfect, but, as I said, New Hampshire is still America's freest state and the structure of its government makes it amicable to liberty activism.

About 1,000 people broke off from the Free State Project and started a different project aimed at Wyoming. We're racing to see who can bring liberty to their state faster :-)

What's really funny is the idea has spawned a few other projects too. There's "Christian Exodus" which is a Religious Conservative version moving to South Carolina, Free State Wyoming, which I mentioned above, Free Town Project (aimed at a town rather than a state), North to the Future (Alaska), And the Free West Alliance.

The Free State Project is by far the most successful so far, although the Free State Wyoming movement continues to chug along. I don't know about Christian Exodus...but I do know that the Free Town Project, North to the Future and the Free West Alliance are pretty much dead.

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

A Socialist -- for sure! A Communist -- possibly1 A Fascist ____? Not even slightly!

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

Yes, he was a socialist too. He also meets 12 of the 14 points of fascism

http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html

Back when I used to defend Bush, I used to use this point to shut up leftists who were complaining that Bush was a fascist. I'd be like, "hey, if Bush is a fascist, FDR was an even bigger fascist!!" That shut them up pretty quickly.

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

Wow... simply wow. You quote an obscure website that claims to have the "14 checkpoints to see if the person you're judging is a fascist." Unfortunately, EVERY politician is concerned about all of those things...most everyone is. I guess we're all fascists.

Uggh.

First, the "14 Points of Fascism" is not an obscure idea. I just linked to the first website I found that listed it.

Second, if you have a better definition of fascism, feel free to post.

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

Ya... the "first" site you happened across... why didn't you just say you found it from wikipedia; it would have had the same weight as just the 1st site you stumbled across.

And again; explain to me how these 14 points are somehow any different than any leader should be worried about...

Yep, I sure would be happy to have your secret candidate you aren't shilling for be the President who isn't worried about law and order, national security, et al.

Fascism is a reformed (not better) socialism that relies on coopted, rather than seized, capital to advance society, and that relies on blood and soil nationalism rather that the traditional socialist idea of a transnational humanity as its motivation inside and outside the Party ethos.

Good news! That's now your working definition of fascism. Please be sure that any further uses of the word comport with that meaning.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

He seems to me to have done things we consider telling in other fascists: He drug us into a war that most Americans did not want to be in (most Americans were wrong, but there you go). He jailed dissidents left and right. He stayed in power far beyond what had previously been deemed acceptable; he was President for life in fact if not in title. He favored a tight coupling between the State and American business, ensuring businesses acted in a way that he considered served his ends best, rather than serving their own interests. Then there's the court packing attempt, bullying the Supreme Court into giving him his way despite the Constitution.

The man was a disaster for this country, and we're still paying for it. Was he an outright fascist or socialist? Probably not. But how close was he to the line, I'm not sure.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

redstate.org does still direct here.

That's it. We don't entertain Bush-is-fascist crap here, and we don't entertain FDR-is-fascist crap here. No US president has been a Fascist or a Nazi, and such hyperbolic and insulting use of language does nothing to promote or further debate -- all it does is reduce the conversation to meaningless insult.

Don't do it again.

That's fair. Apologies.

Ummm...before I read this, I posted one follow up about it. Sorry 'bout that. Feel free to remove (I'll see if there's a "delete" option).

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

I believe it is the position of YOUR candidate to bring back all US troops from all over the world and station them at our borders to defend us against illegal infiltration by terrorists.

THAT would be a violation of posse comitatus, since US troops would be acting, within our own borders as police, with the power to arrest.

Doesn't THAT frighten you? Are you SURE you want to erode our Constitution further by using US troops in this country?

=========
About the Author

Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed. Vegas supports forced neutering of all cats.

As this guy did

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, EXCEPT in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Dear Mr. Jefferson,

If you and your fellow troublemakers really believe that these colonies have been subjected to a "long train of abuses and usurpations" and that they are poised on the edge of "absolute Despotism" you must be a bunch of blithering idiots for not hopping the first ship bound for France instead of sticking around waiting to be slapped with charges of treason.

Future generations will understand that, to paraphrase Mr. Paine (one of your own I hasten to add): freedom isn't free. To quarrel with such price as King and Parliament, in thier esteemed estimation, require to secure the blessings of freedom is not the mark of a true Englishman. Where you see a "history of repeated injuries" a loyal subject and patriot sees only the modest sacrifice necessary to ensure our continued liberty. God save the King, Sir! And to Hell with you and your rebellious rabble!

that you're really impressing conservatives by quoting Thomas Jefferson - or in this case, something directed *at* Thomas Jefferson - I just have no idea why.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Wow, just wow. That's an excellent explication of how many people dismiss anyone who wishes to make America what it used to be. The "love it or leave it" nonsense forgets the other option: CHANGE IT!

I'm glad the Founders' chose the 3rd option

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

Almost defies comment. But I'll try...

Then again, I won't. I'll just let everyone mull it over a little bit. But hey, since you've gone that far, why don't you throw in a "we're being treated just like Jesus Christ" for good measure.

Mr. Savage,

You've got it exactly backwards. The point of the comparison becomes sharper in proportion to the difference, not the similarity, between the present situation and that of the founders. The founders faced real and immediate risks for their opposition to government interventions that the modern mind would likely consider trifling (A threepenny tax on tea! Oh, the horror!).

Whatever we may think about the risks taken (or not) by individuals involved in today's freedom movement, I think we can agree that the founders risked actual social and financial ruin, and actual hanging. By Mr. Stevens' argument, that makes the founders actual "blithering idiots". Excuse me if I disagree.

Mr. Stevens' argument, which you apparently endorse, hangs on the proposition that one is an "idiot" unless he cuts and runs as soon as the going gets tough. Seen in the light of this proposition, the ready willingness of many modern "conservatives" to abandon the Constitution and rule of law, sacrifice principle, and surrender essential liberty for the (false!) promise of temporary safety makes perfect (if depressing) sense. Now there's something to mull over.

...is that the one-handed typist contingent fulminating about the CFR, AIPAC, and NWO have a level of rhetoric unmatched by their actual activities. They also have ludicrously inflated opinions of both their self-worth and the need for their man-god, but that's a different conversation.

Now that we have cleared that up, why don't you stop arguing with the Neil Stevens inside your head, and start arguing with the real one? This is only posed in the form of a question, by the way.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Am I incorrect in stating that you didn't answer a single argument he made?

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

...that you were neither to whom he was speaking, nor that you missed his point?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Yes, your awkwardly worded sentence is correct on both counts. I wasn't who you were speaking to and I didn't miss his point...although, I don't think that's what you were trying to say :). Keep trying.

That still leaves the your ad hominum attacks were no substitute for an answer to his post.

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

Speaking of incorrectly formed sentences, my last should have read: "That still leaves the fact that your ad hominum attacks were no substitute for an answer to his post."

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

Ask yourself, what can I do short of shopping for my next DVD player without the consent of the Government? I can't own a home, I can't remodel my home, I can't drive, I can't own a business, I can't travel, I can't have a small farm/Ranch. I can't grow my own food (the seeds have to be approved), I can't decide what my kids will learn in school, I can't open a bank account, and the list goes on.

Here in California about 42 cents of every gallon of gasoline purchased goes to the "state" About half to the feds and half to CA. We have about 40 million people here in CA. So lets just say that about 1/3 of them drive and own cars and the average driver uses 8 gallons of gas per day (with the commutting that goes on in the LA and Bay Area its probally alot more than that.

That means the Government collects about $4,475,520 per day, that is $134,265,600 a month in taxes. Where does that money go? Check out www.cafr1.com for some education on government finances.

Check out PSDD 51, The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, the Military Commissions Act.

Think about this, every time you sign your 1040, you giving up your 5th Amendment. Research why the founders put the Bill of Rights together (especially the 2nd admendment). I was the first time in the History of the World where the Goverenment was suppossed fear the people. The People had control (if they could keep it).

If I am going to be sent to a Camp for stating facts, and telling you the truth, then what makes this Country and You any different than Mussolini in Italy, or Stalin in Russia, or Hitler in Germany.

How did the Nazi's become the Nazi's. Did good decent German citizens just wake up one morning and say, "Yes!, killing the infirm, jews, handicaped, mentally retarded, Blacks, etc.. is a GREAT IDEA!!"

No, they were propagandized into it over a a few generations.
Do you think that by creating fear and getting you to agreee to nuke some contry where most Americans can't even locate on a map is a good idea? I have heard news reports about how Iran is Al-Queda. Find out about the difference between a sunni and a shiite.

Do your own research, look up the history of the USS Liberty, The Gulf of Tonkin, The Lusitania, the Tuskegee Experiment .
The Japenese Purple code, Operation Paperclip, Operation Mockingbird, Operaton Northwoods, MK-ULTRA, etc....

After you spend time and ask yourself, "what can I do without the consent of my own government?" You will come up with almost nothing.

p.s. I am sorry for any mispellings, but I have admit to you I am a product of public education.

the black helicopter is coming for you. do not move! We are watching you!

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

bmga1776

Do not despair, do not worry, there is help.

If you see your doctor right away, there are all sorts of miracle medicines that can help you with your condition. The world of Pharmacological wonders can help you and the voices you are hearing in your head.

Run, don't walk to your nearest Doc's office bright and early Monday morning.

We'll be glad you did.

Oh...get the Google tool bar, it has built in spelling checker.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

are precisely what is responsible for bmga1776's little diatribe. He may want to check with Lindsay Lohan for a recommendation for a detox center...

to his question?? I think bmga1776 has a valid point.

Name one transaction or interaction (besides sex) that isn't either taxed or regulated by the government at some level. (OK, sex is taxed and regulated in Nevada)

The Boston Tea Party happened because of a Stamp Tax. Check the paperwork for those of you who have purchased a home. There's a Stamp Tax.

Bottom line: he has a point. Travel, telecommunications, business, home-ownership, education, gun-ownership and even free-speech are all regulated by the government. (If you don't believe the free-speech part - try to rally on a college campus without a permit and without staying in the "free-speech zones"). Some local governments are even regulating clothing (see baggy pants law)

Anybody who's run a business knows that just about every action is regulated by some level of government. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't conservatism supposed to support decisions that reduce government, lower taxes and create a free market?? I don't see this happening in the Bush administration.

P.S. Just curious, does everybody here support the new-found, federally supported (Sup. Court) right of local governments to claim "eminent domain" on your property if they can sell it to a large developer - with the argument that increased tax revenues is "for the good of the people?"
_____________________________________________

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein

Theres an editbox. a magnifying glass an the word "GO"

The above are used to access the sites search function. If you use it you can see whats been said.

P.S. while I don't agree with the local government being able to steal your property. It is a local not a federal issue.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Next question?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

As for the rest of your tripe, you can check the RedState archives anytime you like and answer your own questions, including the one about Kelo.

A much better idea for your second half-hour here. And much, much better than having all the time in the world after you get banned for not following the rules of the house. You haven't broken any yet, I think (and I'm not a moderator) but listen to the voice of experience saying to you that you're skating fast onto thin ice.

And Rightly So!

Just couldn't follow the rules, I guess. Too bad, but sometimes the learning curve is just too much for some folks.

And Rightly So!

There's no place for you here.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

The fact that you brought up the USS Liberty tells me everything I need to know about you. It's the Joooooooos!

Can you please point me to a single example of recent jurisprudence where a prosecutor entered a defendant's signed 1040 into evidence and thereby convinced a Federal Judge to waive a defendant's 5th Amendment rights.

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

HOW does your candidate expect to support free trade without abiding by free trade agreements?

Paul calls the so-called "free-trade" agreements "managed trade" with these government agencies picking winners and losers and adding new regulations snd fines. Per Paul, these agreements create bigger goverment and a loss of our sovereignty.

Paul's position is we can unilaterally lower our tariffs to encourage free trade.

The protectionists will argue this just exports our jobs, but this just lowers our prices which is good. My simplified economic view is the reason our jobs are being exported is not unilaterally lowered tariffs, but our out of control government spending.

Instead of the foreign companies [or governments] using the dollars we spend overseas to buy our products, they loan them back to our goverment to fund our empire to the tune of $3,000,000,000 a day.

I claim a balanced budget will reduce our trade-deficit and return jobs to this country. Paul is the only Republican addressing the cost of our empire.

Paul is not a protectionist and will work towards free trade.

Steve

NAFTA and other such agreements are contracts. That is a significant part of trade. These contract define who does what in a trade, who has controlling legal authority, what tarrifs are allowed on each side of the trade, and the consequenses of violating the contract.

ALL trade works on contracts (written or verbal). You can't do trade without it. International trade requires more work than intranational trade because you are dealing with the legal systems and customs of multiple countries. Agreements like NAFTA help to work out much of the details in advance. Yes it would be nice if both parties to the trade could make their own arrangements without the involvement of either government, but that isn't realistic.

As for lowering tarriffs, most of Ron's supporters have told us he wants to eliminate income taxes and instead fund the government by increasing tarriffs. How's he going to cut tarriffs to encourange trade at the same time he raises tarriffs to fund the government?

Finally, you mentioned that you believe a balanced budget will reduce our trade deficit, but didn't expand on HOW that would happen. As far as I can tell, federal government spending has very little to do with any trade flows (with the possible exception of purchases to fill the strategic petroleum reserve).

P.S. The US isn't an empire. If it were, OUR taxes wouldn't be much of a problem since we would be exacting tribute from our vasals.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I'm not going to jump into the whole "the US is or isn't an empire" debate (except to say that the US definitely isn't an empire in the traditional meaning of the word), but will correct you on one point. Near the end of the Roman Empire, taxes were actually so high that many people quit their jobs and moved into the countryside to do subsistance farming. The taxes were so oppressive, it wasn't worth working. So, it's not true that empires don't need taxes from their citizens.

--
"Liberty in your lifetime"

FreeStateProject.org

"As for lowering tariffs, most of Ron's supporters have told us he wants to eliminate income taxes and instead fund the government by increasing tariffs. How's he going to cut tariffs to encourage trade at the same time he raises tariffs to fund the government?"

Just to be clear, he wants to eliminate the income tax and reduce the spending of government - not necessarily raise tariffs. He has advocated reducing the budget by 1/3 - from $2.6 trillion to $1.75 trillion - which was the size of the budget in 2000.

Not yet a supporter, but it was easy to find this info on his site.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein

I think it's cute how the moRons think we're dumb. You guys mark the "I'm not a supporter of Ron Paul, *but*..." ploy off the list of crap that won't work.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

of the doubt. So humor me and fill in the blanks...

Expenditures.
1. Current total Federal Budget $_____
2a-?. Programs RP will cut and $Reductio by Program.
3. RP Net Budget.

Revenues.
1. Current gross collections by IRS $_____
2. Reductions via elimination. of IRS $_____
3. Projected revenue from tariffs, etc $_____
4. Net RP Revenue $_____

What is the treatment of FICA revenues and expenditures? Please work that in.

Thanks.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

From the wikipedia page on the political positions of the one who shall be named:

Paul is a proponent of free trade, but has opposed some "free trade agreements" (FTAs).[24] He calls the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and similar proposals "international managed trade" agreements, saying they serve special interests and big business, not citizens.[25] He often proposes instead that the U.S. engage in unilateral free trade by the simple abolition of trade barriers at home (similar to Hong Kong's approach).

He frequently calls for lower tarrifs, but not selectively based on what country goods come from (this is the effect of FTA's). This makes sense as it de-politicizes the issue of trade and lets American businesses and individuals freely choose where to buy from.

This makes sense as it de-politicizes the issue of trade and lets American businesses and individuals freely choose where to buy from.

It doesn't depoliticize anything. Tariffs are very much political, whether they treat all importers the same or single out certain importers. There's no Congressional support for unilaterally dropping tariffs. They want reciprocity before they will support that. That's what those agreements provide.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

But only in a way that isn't going to ever get through Congress.

The mistake you are making is confusing Ron Paul with someone who lives in the real world. Someone who realizes that bilateral and multilateral trade agreements are the way free trade is realized in the real world. Luckily for him, his home address is not in the real world. He doesn't have to deal with it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

As Free Marketers you, I, and He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named all have a great deal of respect for economist Milton Friedman, even as far as having his picture on the wall of our respective congressional offices. Friedman has written a number of works on the subject, here is a link to an article of his covering the main arguments: http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3550727.html

Excerpts:
"A fourth argument, one that was made by Alexander Hamilton and continues to be repeated down to the present, is that free trade would be fine if all other countries practiced free trade but that, so long as they do not, the United States cannot afford to. This argument has no validity whatsoever, either in principle or in practice. Other countries that impose restrictions on international trade do hurt us. But they also hurt themselves. Aside from the three cases just considered, if we impose restrictions in turn, we simply add to the harm to ourselves and also harm them as well. Competition in masochism and sadism is hardly a prescription for sensible international economic policy! Far from leading to a reduction in restrictions by other countries, this kind of retaliatory action simply leads to further restrictions."

"Few measures that we could take would do more to promote the cause of freedom at home and abroad than complete free trade. Instead of making grants to foreign governments in the name of economic aid--thereby promoting socialism--while at the same time imposing restrictions on the products they produce--thereby hindering free enterprise--we could assume a consistent and principled stance. We could say to the rest of the world: We believe in freedom and intend to practice it. We cannot force you to be free. But we can offer full cooperation on equal terms to all. Our market is open to you without tariffs or other restrictions. Sell here what you can and wish to. Buy whatever you can and wish to. In that way cooperation among individuals can be worldwide and free."

Idealistic and impractical? Perhaps, although he makes a number of points about why it need not be so. You are absolutely right that there is little support for true free market ideas in Congress, but surely you don't think any position unlikely to get a congressional majority could only be supported by madmen, men that don't realize that in the "real world" the validity of an idea is defined by its popularity among politicians?

Personally, I don't rely on Congress to vet my ideas - I use my ideas to vet my Congress.

It wasn't about how I can't tell the difference between free speech and property rights. It was about several people reading something into my post that I did not put there.

Redstate is entitled to adopt any policy they please. I merely said I didn't like the policy and in my opinion the policy should be free speech.

I am still waiting for an explanation for the obliteration of my post, which was not based on any existing rule that I know of.

If you could, you wouldn't have tried to (badly) berate us on the topic in the first place. You cannot make us define the universe on your terms, so stop trying, 'kay?

Moe

PS: Note that this is presuming that you really did have your diary altered without somebody signing their work, which I'm happy enough to hypothetically entertain as having happened, despite the fact that I have no evidence one way or the other. And if I ever do find out the reason why, I'll be sure to pass it along to you.

Was there anything else?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

What stunning arrogance you display, claiming to know what I understand and what I don't, based on a few paragraphs. Where is the berating you refer to? And defining the universe? This is just more leaping to absurd conclusions. Is that the standard modus operandi at Redstate?

Presume what you wish, my post was altered. Stop suggesting that I'm a liar.

that you are begging to get banned so you can then run elsewhere and write up a story about the whole thing. Maybe The New Republic would be interested?

Although I should note that actually, I was suggesting that you are not a liar.

Look, my kid's six months old today, I got friends coming over in a couple of hours, and my wife's been giving me Significant Looks about how the living room needs vacuuming: can we wrap this up?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

moRons, but your baby will only be this age once! And I'd be a lot more concerned about my wife's happiness than this guy's sense of fair play.

I think the policy has been more of a distraction than the actual original posts. I've read this place for a long time and I can't remember it ever being this bad. Worse, the site is getting slaughtered in the media making the Republican party look like a bunch of fascists. I'm not saying we ARE a bunch of fascists. But it seems like the move has only served to legitimize RP over the last week. The worst was that piece on Tucker.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

And Ron Paul is a lib Trojan Horse.

The only time he gets media play is when he can make the party look bad. My one hope out of this is that some of the small government ideas get play.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

We trade the way we were intended to trade from the beginning.

You know we've always levied tariffs on certain things, right? They aren't a new invention of those stupid neocons.

I absolutely agree that certain sycophants have created a hostile environment at redstate.com, and I'm sorry that a few have turned attention away from honest and open discussion about these very important issues.

Actually, I'd say your personal attacks are more of a problem than "certain sycophants," whoever you are talking about there. You might want to lay off.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

What? Oh, he posted a link to a Ron Paul site in his .sig. Instant banning and existing article removed.

Let he who hath eyes see, and understand.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

We're all about customer service here. After careful review of the data, we determined that we don't need to cater to the too-dense-to-read-can't-focus-on-a-different-topic-for-one-month customer, because doing so would undermine our core customer base -- which is after all (1) larger and (2) more inclined to actually vote. (And, I should add, (3) is actually Republican/and/or/conservative/libertarian.)

So, while we regret losing the potential 1% uptick in participation, we understand it's a cost of keeping most of what's there right now.

Thanks for your input, though.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I understand what you're saying, but I was referring not just to the 1% you mention, but the others, possibly your core customer base, who don't like seeing the censorship. I imagine that's larger than 1% of your readers.

Who are the people who aren't conservative, libertarian, and/or Republican? Are these the RP supporters? I'm just trying to get a bearing on what the definition of libertarian/conservative is on the site. Aren't the RP supporters libertarian/conservative? Or are you seeing a lot of Democrats/left-liberals supporting him?

are quite thrilled to see the "censorship." Oh, and note the quotes - I consider it more of keeping the peace than censorship. I'd say that most who are in the "core customer base" would rather see the goofball riff-raff go elsewhere - maybe all of those interlopers who have been booted can go form RonState.com and make things more pleasant for the rest of us. They're about as welcome as telemarketers or porn spam.

The odd carping from basically first-time commenters notwithstanding, registered users with over three months under their belts have been close to unanimous in their praise of the policy. While I have no doubt there are some disaffected customers, the danger to the larger base was worth the effort to offset.

Who are the people who aren't conservative, libertarian, and/or Republican? Are these the RP supporters? I'm just trying to get a bearing on what the definition of libertarian/conservative is on the site. Aren't the RP supporters libertarian/conservative? Or are you seeing a lot of Democrats/left-liberals supporting him?

(1) Yup.

(2) Pretty much standard.

(3) Some are. Based on their graffiti here, most are disaffected liberals unhappy with their normal party home's unwillingness to end the war, lefty independents who are looking for Nader and missing him, weird NAU-obsessives who are convinced that the black helicopters are coming for them, and a range of other people who don't vote and never will, and have no identifiable partisan affiliation of which to speak. That leaves aside the anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, Stormfronters, and God alone knows what else washes up with remarkable frequency.

(4) Yes -- but the part that gets me, at least, is that they're rarely honest about it. Instead, we get Thomas Jefferson quotes -- you know, Thomas Jefferson the great conservative -- with political philosophy straight out of A Guide to Libertarianism By A Dummy. We get "neocon" as a slur that means "Republican I Don't Like," which, as a non-neocon myself, really sets my hackles up. We get AIPAC, we get PNAC, we get things you only find in left-fever-swamps and, in fairness, the odd paleocon-fever-swamp.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

They keep coming back. Its almost as if they have a discipline fetish.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

?

It's a shorthand to let people skimming the Recent Comments list know there is no body text in the comment. Sig lines are automatically appended and you need to have at least one character in the comment. I use a "."