Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck are on the same-one Team
Liberals and Conservatives will both say "evil corporations - evil CEOs" -- when it suits them.
We can "see" the evil when it comes to corporate-fascism (economic-fascism) or "corporatism" as Ron Paul calls it.
If we can agree we can eliminate it -- so how do they get us off target?
By getting you to side one-camp or the other.
DPers and RPers (in general) were free from this campedness factor during '07 and '08.
We castigated the Conservatives and the Liberal Progressives -- Which is why Ron Paul got so much air time - notice how his air-time is dwindling? Notice how the Fed Argument is dying in the media?
How did this happen?
"The Glenn Beck's" and "Jon Stewart's" are to blame.
Glenn (and co) Hijacked the Tea Party's and now have RPers going to Health-Care Rallies -- So we are now in the Conservative Camp.
This camp is still pro-war
Jon Stewart now has the ability to target Conservatives because of the rediculous protests -- Since "we" (RPers) are at the protests too or we "support" them in our forums -- "WE" are now the idiots and are not to be listened to.
Thus -- Ron Paul is steadily getting less air time -- no "cross-over" air time at all. Only MurFox NewsCorp (Corporatists Extraordinairs).
Octobox
WTH kind of thread is this?
Dr. Paul is ALL OVER the television. Wth are you talking about? He's nearly the in-house politician for CNN for f's sake.
TheDizzle: I said it has decreased in Jul-Aug from Apr-May
The "cross-over" is a lot less than it was -- during the election he did a lot of cross-over (liberal media): Maher, Stewart, Colbert, the View -- on and on.
Plus -- this is not my central point; I guess folks couldn't argue with the rest so they were like, "haaa ha Mufugga I got you now, you slipped" -- It's like when you were a kid and you saw that string hanging off your sweater. You knew not to pull it, you knew what would happen - knew how your mom would act; but, you pull it expecting a different result (that it would just snap off without un-raveling).
The latter is what I'm talking about: That the ballot-box-shuffle will lead to liberty rather than the 100% consistent "un-raveling" (profit occilator) and perpetual party war.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I tend to agree.
I tend to agree.
Dead Wrong
Dr. Paul is on TV more than any other congressman or senator. His opinion is requested on a range of issues from political to economic to medical. I agree that Stewart and Beck are merely 'useful idiots' in the game but Dr. Paul is the most respected member of congress by far.
Jsantang: I just answered this below
He's no longer on "cross-over" media -- Lib Shows.
Daily Show, Maher, Colbert, etc etc.
Also, he's only on Fox and a few others -- and in the last month of so it's been less.
I mean this is math -- # of shows in Apr-May vs # of shows in Jul-Aug
The "End the Fed" message gets little play on Beck
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/06/05/ron-paul-on-the-daily-show
Look.......This is not the issue.
"respected member of congress" -- Yet they all vote opposite him.
I'd rather they hate him and agree with him then this "phony" (respect).
Let's not put me "outside" the RP community. I've been on the horse for Ron Paul since '88.
I'm just saying it's beyond absurd to think "ballot-box-voting" (which is an abdication of consumer-sovereignty) creates perpetual war. Ron Paul says that political swings (laws - regulations - abdication to the Fed - abdication to the President, etc) creates the business cycle.
In a Corporatist Society the profit drivers are created politically -- occilation in credit, employment, and purchasing power creates wealth.
---Poor and middle class must scamper
---Wealthy are calm and cool ("guaranteed" profits)
In a Free-Society the "ocilators" are very brief (entrepreneurial start-ups and intraprenreurial innovation).
---Wealthy must scamper
---Poor and Middle Class are calm and innovative
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Let me say something straight off
We might disagree on "how we get there" -- I will always push "counter-economics" because I know it's the only way. It's mathematically sound, plus we've tried everything else for over 100 years now.
That being said -- we can disagree; but have every assurance that I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with any one of you -- when / if that day comes. I'm wicked with my 12 gauge
I have lots of CQC weaponry -- would like to mount a Howitzer on a turret on the roof.
I'd take my ballot-box-stuffin' RP and DP friends over these party appeasers any day of the week.
That being said -- Most of you are wrong (off) about the ability to abdicate authority (every time you vote) then think once in possession of that power they can or will give it back -- that's fallacious reasoning.
Abdication of Self Rule to gain Self Rule? Oxy-Moronic
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Health care is a republican party issue. We must end the Fed.
Health is only another head of the hydra. It will end when our currency status ends.
We must go after the heart that gives issues like Health care life.
The health care issue is over-shadowing everything... for now
Thomas Jefferson once said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
Well, I guess he called that one.
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
No offense...
but compare the news time Dr. Paul gets now to how he was treated during the election cycle. I believe Paul is the most popular congressperson in the world, let alone America.
Lefties are going to change their view and as long as their boss has power, dont expect complaints. (See the 'Dead Silence' post from yesterday)
We have the truth on our side. Dont lose sight of the goal. Both Stewart and Beck will end up supporting our ideas if we are smart enough to sway them..
'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul
P.Nick: "change" as a consequence is not "wisdom" or lasting
RP is getting "less time" in the last month or so -AND- he's getting less and less "cross-over" (Lib Stations) exposure.
In '07 and '08 Maher, the View, Daily Show (Jon Stewart), Colbert Report, etc etc.
There's been none of these shows in the latter of '08 and all of '09.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I was a fan of John Stewart
because he was bashing bush pretty good and provided way more info than the other "news" channels. But ive lost alotta respect for him cause he has become for obama what fox was to bush... a lackey.
A good way to end this would be if Ron Paul would do the daily show. Stewart is a BIG supporter of obamacare... RP could easily set him straight... and not for nothing but i think stewart would be a better interviewer than hannity, oreily, mathews or olberman... hell even larry king
http://www.jbs.org/
Semper Fortis
http://www.jbs.org/
Semper Fortis
Same here, used to watch
Same here, used to watch that show religiously... He has ripped on Obama a few times pointing out that he says the same bullshit as Bush, but that is about it...
No further investigation into his deceptions, no real probing into the finer points of healthcare, like for example what the 1,000 plus pages actually fucking say!
I mean it is insane, MSNBC and all these networks are taking polls of what people think MAY or MAY NOT happen?? Jesus fucking christ, who cares what you think, read the piece of paper. You don't have to have someone else telling you what to think, figure it out for yourself. People are so helpless I have almost completely lost hope!
Without a revolution of the hearts and the minds of the masses, we are all doomed to fall and be exploited by our totalitarian masters...
All hail the altar of the Astors, all hail the altar of the Rockerfellers, all hail the altar of the Kennedys, all hail of the altar of the motherfucking Rothschilds.
I'm gonna break my rusty cage and run.
Same here
11pm every night like a ritual..........now, meh.
Colchester, New London County, Connecticut
i'm in the same boat, I
i'm in the same boat, I don't watch any more due to some of his shows, too bad really, but he's pushing an agenda i don't agree with at all.
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato
I fully agree.
I am now watching only occasionally. Not only is he not questioning the rulers but nearly all of his guests seem to be CFR now.
Dr. Paul is so good at debating economics and foreign policy but I am still waiting for him to come up with a convincing argument about health care reform. The 'Healthcare System' in this country SUCKS. It costs us more than twice of any other country, it is rated 37th in the world, we have no choices, out-of-pocket expenses cost more than the actual 'insurance' if you do have issues, it rewards the fat and unhealthy by catering to their diseases while ignoring those who have any other conditions not caused by themselves, and they purposely have few cures, only bandaids.
Good observation. What's
Good observation. What's the way out?
personally...
'Principle is what counts.' Ron Paul
Pauls legislation, Rand or Schiff winning will change the political landscape for years to come.
'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul
Mr. Nystrom: You have built the basis for "the way out"
Let me give you an example of what I mean.
For better or worse (don't hate me for it - because I own the definition), but I created the term "Birthers" right here on Daily Paul -- around a year ago or so. Technically I created it first in my meetup (my meetup is on DP as well, but I don't think they know it, hahaha).
My point is -- Mike Savage (a week or so ago) used the term "Birthers" -- I heard Hanity use it, I heard Jon Stewart use it, and I heard Beck use it. DAILY PAUL HAS PULLLL.
However -- we are not maximizing this site; we are at war on this site, but not as bad as we used to. You and the Mod Squad have got it 80% less fighting; however, we are not focused "on the 'real' solution" yet.
Now to answer your question, "what's the way out?"
Counter-Economics -- We need to Master the basics of this philosophy (not talking about "agorism" either) and then expand its execution.
To Vote is to War -- Perpetually (Trotskyian 101)
Small-Gov't Conservatives have won ONLY one battle in 100 years. Do you know what it was?
Prop 13 "the peoples bill"
In my model of Counter-Economics is a deep education on how we'd behave if "we were free" -- That by living that way now is how we obtain it.
Never by abdicating our authority to a politician or bill and then expect them to return it. After 100 years how many more 'till we learn this.
Ron Paul is "educating" us -- He does not expect to win by way of Ballot-Box-Bingo. To vote is to Abdicate -- to war perpetually.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Ron Paul has a new book out, but he's also serving in Congress.
And inspiring others...
It's not enough to just educate, those that are educated must then serve.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
"serve" in what capacity?
Serve the cause of "liberty" or of perpetual abdication.
Ron Paul has been in the best position to educate for 35 years.
As microfishe is no longer the best way to re-search -- Congress / Senate must be seen as the "worst" place to educate liberty from -- going forward. When does the "going forward" begin -- probably after RP passes, but it will take people a long time to come to the conclusions that I and many (well seemingly few on DP) have come too.
That "realization" is thus: That Trotsky, Marx, and Neocon Left & Necon Right all teach "perpetual war -- perpetual revolution."
We join there ranks if we form a "perpetual re-election ballot box" solution.
It's just fact.
The Founding Father's created a Voting Class (there was no liberty for women, most white men, and minorities).
We need to stop "harkening" back to a golden day of liberty that existed for less than 20% of society.
Today we still have an upper 20% "ruling" class -- Only now their theft is indirect.
The old way was to have a limited voting class and direct theft -- this led to massive revolutions (American and Civil) -- right?
So, then they thought (give everyone the vote and keep them in perpetual war -- Marxism, near the time of Lincoln, right?)
To vote is to war perpetually: Democracy - Communism - Socialism (they all "vote" or think they are).
If to serve means to liberate then we must drive people towards Consumer Sovereignty (as Mises taught), toward working-under-the-table, hiring-under-the-table, buying local, buying organic, building money making networks -- thus destroying lobbying and IRS in one sweep.
Ballot-Box-Bingo -- To Self-Abdicate to gain Self-Rule? Definition of Insanity.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
The problem is not representatives, the problem is corruption.
In order to be free, we must have law. In order to have law, we must have lawmakers and courts.
The problem is not these institutions themselves. The problem is the corruption.
Where does the corruption come from?
A fraudulent monetary system.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
I disagree...the only way to be free is to have no lawmakers.
Courts maybe, but only if they are self funded. What laws do you need, property rights, murder, rape, and fraud? Seriously if you are causing no harm you are alright with me. You are most likely never going to see this government reduced to min-archist view that you have in your life time, so why not just go for broke and argue against the entire state apparatus all together? Paul is anarchist at heart, he just knows he can use the constitution as a political tool to sell people his ideas with out explaining a lot of anarcho-capitalistic philosophy (Austrian economics). Hard enough just getting people to read the constitution. How the heck any one thought or still does think a piece of paper would restrain judges and lawmakers is beyond me (bunch of blood sucking lawyers).
Octobox is right on the strategy of how the counter economic system needs to work, but I don't see the demand for such a system until its too late and we are under Marshall law. To few of people understand whats coming down the pipe. Maybe it would be worth getting started now but I can't see it being able to sustain its self. I just don't think enough people understand...too many still love government big or small.
Not true. Anarchy does not work. Ron Paul does not believe that.
The true purpose of law is to protect the individual rights of the people, but aside from that, lawmakers, or representatives do have a purpose and place. The Constitution gives our lawmakers certain responsibilities which need to be handled in an organized manner. For example, the authority to declare war is a responsibility that should be assigned to a few dedicated to being specifically informed, otherwise a timely and educated decision, or even one at all, may never be reached by the masses.
Once again, the problem with our system is corruption, not necessarily the system itself. Some of the greatest powers in the world have been working hard to break down our system and take it away from us. At the core of the destruction is banking fraud.
Since the heart of society is trade, if the monetary system is fraudulent, then all parts of the society will begin breaking down under the fraud as the corruption trickles down throughout all parts of a society.
This video does a good job of explaining why anarchy does not work and why the law is necessary for individual freedom:
http://www.youtube.com/v/MW6AKVyi6As
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ha right back at you...NOT TRUE
Paul does so believe in Anarchy...Republics will always progress in to an oligarchy. Anarchy does work.
Its simple as this. If I want governments services (ie protection of property rights) why can't they send me a contract and I will agree to pay for those services? Why does it have to be forced on me? Why can't I directly choose who will protect my rights? Here's one from Higgs.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs128.html
Here's a podcast with Walter Block
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2009-07-2...
Plenty of good material and places to read up on how the state will always fail.
Yes the vid you put up does present the false anarchist that get a worse system put in, but how can that be earth shattering to anyone? Don't we have a bunch of republicans that have expanded the roll of government in office today?
Paul does not "so believe in Anarchy."
Anarchy is not a form of government, it's every man for himself. Anarchy has existed since the beginning of history and has never worked for protecting the rights of people.
Of course, I don't know everything about Ron Paul, but I would be very surprised if you could actually back up your claim that he believes in anarchy. I've never heard that before and it wouldn't make sense.
I'm not finished listening to or reading your links, but I wonder if you are misinterpreting them, as it appears you are misinterpreting Ron Paul.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
I wonder if you are
misinterpreting the premise of anarchy. It isn't the chaos depicted in your typical pro-state propaganda, the chaos would be minimized by spontaneous order. You are correct I could never get Paul to admit he was an anarchist directly. Boy he is called crazy enough as it is isn't he? But I doubt off the record with say just you and I in the room he would reject any of the idea's presented by the anarchist Dr. Block.
The thing you have to remember your rights are yours, given to you by just being alive (or your creator if you prefer that, which I do). And if you own yourself you should be free to choose directly who/how those rights are protected.
You are so correct that anarchy isn't a form of government. Its the complete absence of government. But your rights are not some gift given to you by a government, they are there with or with out a government. So why can't I have a local volunteer fire department funded by donations or a privately funded road or a private security force/insurance company.
No one is suggesting the most basic functions of government aren't necessary for a civil society, but merely that it would be cheaper and more free if a market of these services were available and could be purchased and guaranteed through contracts.
This thread has now gotten complete off topic from OctoBox's post and there are others out there that cover this subject. My evidence to Paul's sympathies to anarchism has been put forth on those threads and it isn't a debate that would ever truely be settled. But just remember he is a polotician and he must get his constituents to reelect him every term...pretty hard sell if you were saying you believe in no government, but you are seeking public office. The hard core left-anarchists would say there is no chance a true believer would seek a position of authority, but trust me their planning meetings take forever to accomplish even the simplest task of setting the agenda b/c no one can have a leadership role.
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-9854783963896813%3A...
Somewhere out there (on this website) is a link to a video of Paul giving a speech in central Europe where he explains how he uses the constitution as a short cut to explaining Anarcho-capitalism (Austrian economics) to his constituents. For the life of me I can't find it b/c there are so many forum topics on this subject. This is completely philosophical there is little chance we'd be able to take control back from the elite anytime soon with out waking up about 20% of the population world wide.
Good debate though glad we did it with out any name calling. The government that governs least governs best...so why have a government at all? Power corrupts so don't give people a monopoly on power. That is the way I see it.
I listened to the interview and found it interesting.
But what Block, and often Rockwell, seem to be after seems more Utopian than practical. It really annoys me when Rockwell just recommends doing nothing, that advice is very misplaced, but I think I understand where he's coming from.
None of these concepts were foreign to the founding fathers when they had the magnificent fortune to start with a clean slate either. They debated these same things and came to the conclusion that some law and government was needed.
I saw that foreign Ron Paul speech too, but merely agreeing with Austrian economics doesn't mean you necessarily agree with total anarchy. Anarchy is nothing.
While I don't think anarchy would ever be practical, nor has it ever been, we do need the extremists to pull people in that direction.
I'm sure Ron Paul believes in having a Constitution.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Excellent
The true debate, roiling deep below the shallow surface chop of contemporary left vs right politics. Thank you gentleman, truly a feast. I have much to chew over.
This back and forth in the titles is sooo Calvin and Hobbes
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
lol
It gives you bumps.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech