Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Health Care for All
Article about the American flirtation with a socialized medicine program. The article offers some serious concerns for the blueprint of a potential behemoth.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Reply to Hillary Article
Oh please, Congressman Paul gets about 1% of media coverage (look it up folks) and he gets at least half of that saying he is a nutjob (because HE adheres to that ole Constitution (the one that gives Hillary and Obama a job) and I am supposed to cry a tear over How Hillary feels about the trillion articles that don't show her in the most favourabvle light. Politics is not a vanity fair, it is the role of protecting our rights and our economy. And the media is an entity of spite and neglect which may or may not reflect the same trivial attitudes in society. We have a lot of growing up to do and it has little to do with whether we are 'ready for a woman or a black man' in office. It is more like, 'are we ready for someone who trusts us to make choices for ourselves, or demands that the government be in charge of our choices. Please people, wake up and smell the state of the nation.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Vote For. . .
In my precinct here in Seattle there were two for Paul and one for Huckabee. So Ron Paul won MY precint. WOO HOO!!!
Published Again
Eat The State is a Washington (and online for the world) treasure for progressives.
They have very similar positions to Ron Paul and Libertarians in many ways but they also staunchly oppose Ron Paul and his ilk. Click on the 'Published Again' title above to read my article and their reply.
They say he favours corporations- Um, he is the only candidate talking about limiting the power that corporations have been given in the past few decades.
They say he is a hardcore private property advocate, this is true, but that is what he bases his environmental stance on. Protecting the lungs and and of the people downstream. Noone should be allowed to pollute their neighbours property. The repubs and dems grandfather in the right to do so, not to mention the military industrial complex which has troops and bases all over the world. Did Clinton bring the troops home from Japan, Korea or other places in Asia or Europe? Nope.
'Eat the State' also accuses Ron Paul of 'surrounding himself' with brownshirts (nazi's fyi), militia members, racists, neo-fascists, etc. Why would Ron speak critically of fascists in interviews and even declare America as having a soft form of Fascism? This strikes me more as mudslinging than actual factual reality.
MLK jr had clingons of all stripes too. Communists and other radicals surrounded him and attempted to latch on to his popularity. But you don't hear that thrown at him every time we celebrate his day, nor should you. Ron Paul has spoken clearly about his perspective on racism and more importantly the political and social fallacy that IS racism. He has voted in all ways to improve civil liberties for all. The opposite of what a racist vote would be, but he gets no credit for that. In fact, his voting record jives ONLY with the Constitution, no matter what his personal views of others are (but what does a voting record matter mean anyway?).
Lastly, 'Eat the State' declares that Ron Paul does not care at all for the poor, the less fortunate. I say they are dead wrong on that account. He is seeking to maintain the economic power of the individual.
He is in full support of decreasing the gigantic size of the federal government and restoring financial power to the individual. People would be in less need of welfare if the government did not take so much from us in the first place.
You could pay for all the progressive programs, healthcare, welfare and the like and STILL not have an IRS and high taxes. See the problem is the way the government does things is via the most expensive possible method. Ron Paul even spoke about shoring up medicare and social security by bringing home the troops.
Ron Paul and his many level headed supporters have said, despite what you think of him, they will not go quietly in the night. They have fought for and promoted the desire to have a simple Constitutional form of government. We are not perfect. But why wet blanket the fire of Liberty?
Scott~
BTW-
Almost every morning since moving to Seattle in 1999 I have woken up to KEXP. On the weekends I wake up to the political news programme put on in part by Mike McCormick. HE often has guests on that cover issues that really matter to me on a local and national level. It is always thoughtful and interesting, and though it is the progressive ying to my libertarian yang, I almost always learn something about an issue and I learn, each weekend, how progressive and libertarian ideas sync up (oppose NAFTA, civil rights abuses, etc) it is also brought out how we differ (Property rights, free market economy).
One of Mike's regular guests (when available) is Geov Parrish who is with the printed and online paper 'Eat The State' : A forum for anti-authoritarian political opinion, research, and humor.
I find this paper at coffee shops and other places where people usually gather to gather and chat, and it is often read.
Though the concept of, "Eat the State" sounds Libertarian. Eat the state as an idea, makes me think that you want to state to be smaller. Then they talk about being the a forum for anti-authoritarian political opinion. That is what I thought the Libertarians want? To NOT have an authoritarian form of government.
Does it make sense to say, "We are staunchly anti-authoritarian. . . EXCEPT for the areas we want the government to be authoritative!"?
They have very similar positions to Ron Paul and Libertarians in many ways but they also staunchly oppose Ron Paul and his ilk. Click on the 'Published Again' title above to read my article and their reply.
They say he favours corporations- Um, he is the only candidate talking about limiting the power that corporations have been given in the past few decades.
They say he is a hardcore private property advocate, this is true, but that is what he bases his environmental stance on. Protecting the lungs and and of the people downstream. Noone should be allowed to pollute their neighbours property. The repubs and dems grandfather in the right to do so, not to mention the military industrial complex which has troops and bases all over the world. Did Clinton bring the troops home from Japan, Korea or other places in Asia or Europe? Nope.
'Eat the State' also accuses Ron Paul of 'surrounding himself' with brownshirts (nazi's fyi), militia members, racists, neo-fascists, etc. Why would Ron speak critically of fascists in interviews and even declare America as having a soft form of Fascism? This strikes me more as mudslinging than actual factual reality.
MLK jr had clingons of all stripes too. Communists and other radicals surrounded him and attempted to latch on to his popularity. But you don't hear that thrown at him every time we celebrate his day, nor should you. Ron Paul has spoken clearly about his perspective on racism and more importantly the political and social fallacy that IS racism. He has voted in all ways to improve civil liberties for all. The opposite of what a racist vote would be, but he gets no credit for that. In fact, his voting record jives ONLY with the Constitution, no matter what his personal views of others are (but what does a voting record matter mean anyway?).
Lastly, 'Eat the State' declares that Ron Paul does not care at all for the poor, the less fortunate. I say they are dead wrong on that account. He is seeking to maintain the economic power of the individual.
He is in full support of decreasing the gigantic size of the federal government and restoring financial power to the individual. People would be in less need of welfare if the government did not take so much from us in the first place.
You could pay for all the progressive programs, healthcare, welfare and the like and STILL not have an IRS and high taxes. See the problem is the way the government does things is via the most expensive possible method. Ron Paul even spoke about shoring up medicare and social security by bringing home the troops.
Ron Paul and his many level headed supporters have said, despite what you think of him, they will not go quietly in the night. They have fought for and promoted the desire to have a simple Constitutional form of government. We are not perfect. But why wet blanket the fire of Liberty?
Scott~
BTW-
Almost every morning since moving to Seattle in 1999 I have woken up to KEXP. On the weekends I wake up to the political news programme put on in part by Mike McCormick. HE often has guests on that cover issues that really matter to me on a local and national level. It is always thoughtful and interesting, and though it is the progressive ying to my libertarian yang, I almost always learn something about an issue and I learn, each weekend, how progressive and libertarian ideas sync up (oppose NAFTA, civil rights abuses, etc) it is also brought out how we differ (Property rights, free market economy).
One of Mike's regular guests (when available) is Geov Parrish who is with the printed and online paper 'Eat The State' : A forum for anti-authoritarian political opinion, research, and humor.
I find this paper at coffee shops and other places where people usually gather to gather and chat, and it is often read.
Though the concept of, "Eat the State" sounds Libertarian. Eat the state as an idea, makes me think that you want to state to be smaller. Then they talk about being the a forum for anti-authoritarian political opinion. That is what I thought the Libertarians want? To NOT have an authoritarian form of government.
Does it make sense to say, "We are staunchly anti-authoritarian. . . EXCEPT for the areas we want the government to be authoritative!"?
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Once again, Ron Attempts to Prioritize the Discussion
An article that captures much of the joys and frustrations many share with the current (R) race for nomination. Ron Paul Gets Cheers and Jeers The more I read, the more I see that there is a media blackout of Ron Paul. And I can cite many articles that show the total lack of coverage despite phenomenal support online and with cold hard cash. If a candidate ever had grassroots support, regardless of what you think of him, HE has it.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
I call B.S. (Something smells funny about this)
Wesley Snipes was acquitted of evading the IRS because he was misled by some tax deniers?
Wait a sec. . . you're telling me that the IRS lost the claim against Snipes but it was because he was misled by the 'tax deniers' who are now facing charges? Is this a crack in the shell of the most heinous method of taxation since the King's of England took what they would from the . . . what is that group called??? OH the poor.
I know we HAVE to have taxes to have a government, but that does not mean we have to have the IRS. We CAN and in fact MUST come up with a better way to pay for the services our government provides*.
The NY Times article ends with this, "The Snipes case is the fourth significant loss by Justice Department prosecutors who brought felony charges against people who were leading figures in the tax denier movement.
Mr. O’Neil, the prosecutor, was asked whether Congress needs to revise the tax laws to deal with people who follow scam artists."
Really folks, can we come up with a tax code (consider it a project for college students to tackle) that does NOT favour one over another and provides enough money for the proper role of government? AND does not provide any funds for the waste, abuse, and corruption? Can we do that?
*BTW- What are the odds that I spent over an hour over the last week disputing a claim by the IRS. We found out that the IRS owed us about $5,000 so we sent in an adjusted claim and next thing we know they send us a letter stating we owe them $5,000. They accepted that they received our amended returns but can take 6-12 weeks to process the claims and that until they agree to what our amended returns say they can come into our bank account and take funds and otherwise get the money we owe them.
I wonder why people watch- "America: Freedom to Fascism" and get upset at the IRS.
Wait a sec. . . you're telling me that the IRS lost the claim against Snipes but it was because he was misled by the 'tax deniers' who are now facing charges? Is this a crack in the shell of the most heinous method of taxation since the King's of England took what they would from the . . . what is that group called??? OH the poor.
I know we HAVE to have taxes to have a government, but that does not mean we have to have the IRS. We CAN and in fact MUST come up with a better way to pay for the services our government provides*.
The NY Times article ends with this, "The Snipes case is the fourth significant loss by Justice Department prosecutors who brought felony charges against people who were leading figures in the tax denier movement.
Mr. O’Neil, the prosecutor, was asked whether Congress needs to revise the tax laws to deal with people who follow scam artists."
Really folks, can we come up with a tax code (consider it a project for college students to tackle) that does NOT favour one over another and provides enough money for the proper role of government? AND does not provide any funds for the waste, abuse, and corruption? Can we do that?
*BTW- What are the odds that I spent over an hour over the last week disputing a claim by the IRS. We found out that the IRS owed us about $5,000 so we sent in an adjusted claim and next thing we know they send us a letter stating we owe them $5,000. They accepted that they received our amended returns but can take 6-12 weeks to process the claims and that until they agree to what our amended returns say they can come into our bank account and take funds and otherwise get the money we owe them.
I wonder why people watch- "America: Freedom to Fascism" and get upset at the IRS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)