Feds Take down Megaupload

[Zagg]

Number one, because he's a marginal candidate. He's not going to win, so there's no point trying to buy him. Number two, there's no doubt that most American (and international) capitalists want the US to continue to make the world safe for transnational finance capital. To the extent that Paul actually opposes that, he opposes the perceived interest of international capital. But there's also no doubt that American and international capitalists support the end of state regulation of economic activity (although not necessarily government contracts) and that is one of the principal, if not the principal, planks in the platform of right-wing libertarianism.

P.S. I'm sorry I sound like such a fanatic, but it drives me fucking CRAZY that RP has been painted as such a friend to big business and Wall Street when it's so blatantly obvious to anyone willing to do five minutes worth of research that nothing could be further from the truth. The front runners from BOTH parties have been bought and paid for by THE SAME PEOPLE. The very same people who caused the financial meltdown. The very same people that our government has refused to prosecute. When are people going to wake up? Do you honestly expect anything to change, regardless of whether Obama or Romney is in the White House? Do you honestly believe that either one of these guys is going to be objective when it comes to dealing with these corporations?

 

[Kayla Kleevage]

I think my vote will go for the one who worships big black cocks!

 

[Zagg]

They probably all do, but none of them will admit it.

I think my vote will go for the one who worships big black cocks!

 

[SunnyDaze]

Or we could just start our own nation. Let's all pitch in and buy a tropical island. We'll populate it with BBC, lovely white ladies, and submissive white bois.

Who will be president? The Black Man with the largest cock. ;D

 

[Zagg]

IRaddict: I have a question for you, if you're interested in continuing this interchange. Suppose lightning strikes and Paul gets the Repub nomination and gets elected. He'd almost certainly have a Repub House and very likely a Repub Senate (and almost certainly an effective majority in the Senate). Where would he differ from the Congressional Repubs? On military adventures, perhaps. On military appropriations, perhaps. Anywhere else. Are there any significant differences between Paul and the majority of Repubs on economic policy?

P.S. I'm sorry I sound like such a fanatic, but it drives me fucking CRAZY that RP has been painted as such a friend to big business and Wall Street when it's so blatantly obvious to anyone willing to do five minutes worth of research that nothing could be further from the truth. The front runners from BOTH parties have been bought and paid for by THE SAME PEOPLE. The very same people who caused the financial meltdown. The very same people that our government has refused to prosecute. When are people going to wake up? Do you honestly expect anything to change, regardless of whether Obama or Romney is in the White House? Do you honestly believe that either one of these guys is going to be objective when it comes to dealing with these corporations?

 

[femmeworshipper]

IRaddict: I have a question for you, if you're interested in continuing this interchange. Suppose lightning strikes and Paul gets the Repub nomination and gets elected. He'd almost certainly have a Repub House and very likely a Repub Senate (and almost certainly an effective majority in the Senate). Where would he differ from the Congressional Repubs? On military adventures, perhaps. On military appropriations, perhaps. Anywhere else. Are there any significant differences between Paul and the majority of Repubs on economic policy?

P.S. I'm sorry I sound like such a fanatic, but it drives me fucking CRAZY that RP has been painted as such a friend to big business and Wall Street when it's so blatantly obvious to anyone willing to do five minutes worth of research that nothing could be further from the truth. The front runners from BOTH parties have been bought and paid for by THE SAME PEOPLE. The very same people who caused the financial meltdown. The very same people that our government has refused to prosecute. When are people going to wake up? Do you honestly expect anything to change, regardless of whether Obama or Romney is in the White House? Do you honestly believe that either one of these guys is going to be objective when it comes to dealing with these corporations?

You honestly think, with the way the Republicans have completely blocked almost anything from getting done that they will get more elected and the same ones re-elected? I imagine the house majority will hold, maybe lose some ground, but I just don't see the Senate changing much, a seat or two at most, but I suppose I could be wrong. Thing is, all those bastards are for sale, to think that anybody, who is already an insider would seriously be able to change much is silly. I'm pretty disappointed by Obama, but I m sure we'd be in a much worse place under a McCain Palin presidency. Unfortunately I think it will be again, same deal, vote for the guy who sucks less, no real choice that anyone much is going to be happy with.

 

[iraddict]

Okay, first of all let me just say that I really appreciate the fact that you guys are willing to debate the issue with me. I might sound like I'm getting bent out of shape in some of my replies, but the truth is that I really respect ANYONE who pays attention to what's going on in politics at the national level, whether you agree with me or not. I'm at the lower end of the economic spectrum (blue collar) but literally 90 percent of the people I work with have absolutely no interest in politics at all. They don't even have any idea who is running. They bitch and whine about how crooked at the politicians are, but are too lazy to even take a few minutes to research ANY of the candidates or even take a couple hours a year to go down and vote. So like I said, ANYBODY who actually cares enough to even take the time to debate the issues on a message board has my respect.
Having said that, I'll get back to it. First, it's more of a chicken or the egg type of deal. You think Ron Paul is a marginal candidate, and therefore doesn't get any major campaign contributions. I think Ron Paul is a marginal candidate BECAUSE he doesn't get any major campaign contributions. The way our system is set up the vast majority of the time, the guy with the most money, wins. As I said before, most of the electorate is completely uninformed when it comes to national politics. The only information most voters are going to receive is from campaign ads that come on during their favorite television show. And if you don't have the money to put out campaign ads, you're pretty much screwed. There's basically no other way for you to get your message out in front of the people. Take a look again at those campaign contributions. Ron Paul consistently comes in either second or third in most major polls of Republican voters. He's doing that well with virtually no money. Do you really think he'd still be a marginal candidate if he had even a fraction of the money Romney or Obama had to spend?
Second, there are HUGE differences between Paul and other Republican's regarding economic policy. First of all, the centerpiece of his campaign is to do away with the Federal Reserve. I know that sounds radical, but hear him out. The point he makes is that when we were on the gold standard, our money actually had value. Once we got off of that, it allowed the Fed to literally print money. The more money they print, the less value each dollar has. Supply and demand. Just like any commodity, the more you have of something, the less valuable it is. So every time the Fed prints up a bunch more money, the value of the dollars you and I hold goes down. Hence, inflation. The point Ron Paul makes is that this system is unsustainable. We can't just keep printing money indefinitely. Eventually, we're heading for a crash. Just like the housing bubble. And when hyperinflation occurs (and with the current system, it's inevitable at some point) it's the poor and middle classes who, as usual, are going to get screwed. (By the way, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who, ten years ago, actually predicted the financial collapse... If you like, I can post a link to the YouTube video of the speech he gave in 2002 in which he laid out, almost to a tee, exactly what eventually occurred.)
In my opinion, the reason for his unpopularity in some circles is his willingness to speak unpopular truths. He's the only guy willing to point out that Social Security and Medicare are UNSUSTAINABLE. He doesn't deny that these are good programs that help lots of people. The point he's trying to make is that they simply can't go on forever without bankrupting us as a nation. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, if present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare ALONE. Forty percent of our entire private sector output will need to go to JUST these two programs. All he's saying is that we need to figure out a humane alternative BEFORE we get to that point. The "mainstream" candidates know this as well as he does. But they don't want to talk about it because they know the idea of doing away with those programs is going to be unpopular. So instead they ignore the elephant in the room, and put off dealing with it for the next guy. But eventually, we're going to get to the point where there is no next guy, and the system is going to collapse. And the sooner we deal with it and come up with a solution to the problem, the less pain and misery we're all going to have to deal with when the collapse inevitably occurs...

 

[Zagg]

I'd think that he doesn't get the money because his ideas are still pretty well out of the mainstream. Maybe they'll be mainstream in 20 years, but they aren't now. He can't even get more than 20% of the vote in the Repub primaries. The Federal Reserve is a good example. Abolition of the FR is fashionable on the Repub right, but the bankers and financiers are never going to buy it. It's radical, and most Repubs, and most Americans, are not radical. The chances that a Repub Congress would ever pass such legislation are slim and none. And as the FR was established by congressional legislation, it would take congressional legislation to abolish it. Even if Paul could get elected, except for things that can be done by executive order, he couldn't do anything that a Repub Congress wouldn't go along with.

Okay, first of all let me just say that I really appreciate the fact that you guys are willing to debate the issue with me. I might sound like I'm getting bent out of shape in some of my replies, but the truth is that I really respect ANYONE who pays attention to what's going on in politics at the national level, whether you agree with me or not. I'm at the lower end of the economic spectrum (blue collar) but literally 90 percent of the people I work with have absolutely no interest in politics at all. They don't even have any idea who is running. They bitch and whine about how crooked at the politicians are, but are too lazy to even take a few minutes to research ANY of the candidates or even take a couple hours a year to go down and vote. So like I said, ANYBODY who actually cares enough to even take the time to debate the issues on a message board has my respect.
Having said that, I'll get back to it. First, it's more of a chicken or the egg type of deal. You think Ron Paul is a marginal candidate, and therefore doesn't get any major campaign contributions. I think Ron Paul is a marginal candidate BECAUSE he doesn't get any major campaign contributions. The way our system is set up the vast majority of the time, the guy with the most money, wins. As I said before, most of the electorate is completely uninformed when it comes to national politics. The only information most voters are going to receive is from campaign ads that come on during their favorite television show. And if you don't have the money to put out campaign ads, you're pretty much screwed. There's basically no other way for you to get your message out in front of the people. Take a look again at those campaign contributions. Ron Paul consistently comes in either second or third in most major polls of Republican voters. He's doing that well with virtually no money. Do you really think he'd still be a marginal candidate if he had even a fraction of the money Romney or Obama had to spend?
Second, there are HUGE differences between Paul and other Republican's regarding economic policy. First of all, the centerpiece of his campaign is to do away with the Federal Reserve. I know that sounds radical, but hear him out. The point he makes is that when we were on the gold standard, our money actually had value. Once we got off of that, it allowed the Fed to literally print money. The more money they print, the less value each dollar has. Supply and demand. Just like any commodity, the more you have of something, the less valuable it is. So every time the Fed prints up a bunch more money, the value of the dollars you and I hold goes down. Hence, inflation. The point Ron Paul makes is that this system is unsustainable. We can't just keep printing money indefinitely. Eventually, we're heading for a crash. Just like the housing bubble. And when hyperinflation occurs (and with the current system, it's inevitable at some point) it's the poor and middle classes who, as usual, are going to get screwed. (By the way, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who, ten years ago, actually predicted the financial collapse... If you like, I can post a link to the YouTube video of the speech he gave in 2002 in which he laid out, almost to a tee, exactly what eventually occurred.)
In my opinion, the reason for his unpopularity in some circles is his willingness to speak unpopular truths. He's the only guy willing to point out that Social Security and Medicare are UNSUSTAINABLE. He doesn't deny that these are good programs that help lots of people. The point he's trying to make is that they simply can't go on forever without bankrupting us as a nation. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, if present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare ALONE. Forty percent of our entire private sector output will need to go to JUST these two programs. All he's saying is that we need to figure out a humane alternative BEFORE we get to that point. The "mainstream" candidates know this as well as he does. But they don't want to talk about it because they know the idea of doing away with those programs is going to be unpopular. So instead they ignore the elephant in the room, and put off dealing with it for the next guy. But eventually, we're going to get to the point where there is no next guy, and the system is going to collapse. And the sooner we deal with it and come up with a solution to the problem, the less pain and misery we're all going to have to deal with when the collapse inevitably occurs...

 

[iraddict]

Now that, I agree with. Although the front runner, Romney, can barely get more than 20 percent in the Republican primaries, either. He's (Ron Paul) doing a lot better than the mainstream media is giving him credit for.
But yeah, most of the things he want to do aren't going to get done without Congressional approval. Which is why I wouldn't mind seeing him in there. The more radical stuff isn't going to get done. But he WILL be able to keep us from getting involved in any more unnessecary wars. He WILL be able to prosecute financial crimes perpetrated by Wall Street. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, electing him would send a strong message to both the Republican (I know he's running as a Republican, but that's only because the only way to get his name out there is to run in the primaries on either the Republican or Democratic ticket) and Democratic parties that the American people are sick and tired of the way things have been going for the past fifteen years or so. I like Ron Paul, but mostly I just wish people would vote for someone, ANYONE who isn't part of the system. I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative, there's probably an independent party out there with beliefs that are close to yours. If everyone would just boycott the Republicans and Democrats for just one presidential election, I have a feeling those guys would pull their heads out of their asses and realize that people are sick and tired of being screwed over in favor of huge corporations and massive special interest groups, and maybe they'd start paying a little more attention to the average American. As it is, all I ever hear when I talk politics with people is how much they hate politicians, and how much they think "they're all crooked". And yet, we continue to vote for the same guys. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and keep expecting a different result. Well, each election cycle we keep voting for the same guys and expecting things to change, and nothing ever does. I voted for Obama because I wanted the change he promised. Where is it? Honestly, if you actually look at his record (as opposed to his rhetoric) this guy could be Bush. Okay, maybe he pushed green energy a bit more, but on just about everything else he's done exactly what Bush would have done. He re-authorized the Patriot Act. He's kept almost the exact same time table for withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan that Bush laid out, he's refused to prosecute EVEN ONE of the Wall Street firms responsible for the financial collapse (he even defended the massive bonuses those firms gave out to their CEO's in the aftermath of the crash), he's refused to do anything about American companies outsourcing all our jobs overseas, etc. etc.
I just want SOMEONE who hasn't been corrupted by big money. And right now, Ron Paul is the only guy in the contest who isn't willing to go along with the status quo. He's the ONLY GUY in the contest who doesn't think the government should have the right to come into my house without a warrant. He's the ONLY GUY in the contest who has a problem with the government assasinating and torturing American citizens. He's the ONLY GUY in the contest who doesn't think the government should be able to lock American citizens up indefinetely without evidence or a trial if they are "suspected" of being a terrorist (and just wait, if you think those laws are only going to be used against Al Queda, you're nuts. If things really get bad and protests like Occupy Wall Street get any bigger, I guarantee the govt. is going to start making the people who head those protests disappear because "We had reason to believe he was plotting to overthrow the government") We point our fingers at places like China and Iran, where citizens have no rights, but Bush, and now Obama have been steadily shredding our Constitutional rights for the past decade. We're to the point now where legally we have almost the exact same rights as they do (read: none). The government hasn't started exploiting those laws yet, but right now they're setting the framework. The precedent is there. Whose to say the next guy won't? Or the guy after that? We need to send a message while we still have the right to speak out. Because if things continue the way the have been for the past two administrations, it's not going to be long before that right disappears as well....

 

[LoveInterracialSluts]

I am a Libertarian. And I dislike Ron Paul. Obviously, a Libertarian-Republican like Paul and a Libertarian (albeit Left leaning and an Rothbard-Anarchic leaning on some facets as well) share many common views, however I do not personally think Ron Paul is a man of integrity, or someone who has ANY clue about foreign policy/world history (eg, calling Gaza a concentration camp... this is so offensive on so many levels, to Jews and to reality, and ignorant on many more... when you compare two things they must have enough in common, and not enough differences to render the commonalities inert. In this case, comparing the Gazans with the Jews of Europe is so... astonishingly rancid, I cannot imagine someone less clued in on Israeli events than Paul is. -- This alone disqualifies him from him being branded with the term, "competent."

It is my opinion, because Paul is such a lackluster candidate, the conspiracy here is preventing a REAL Libertarian from taking the reigns.

Ron Paul's former aide, Eric Dondero, also highlights reasons to not trust Paul.

Newsletters? Should be the end of it all. It was Lew Rockwell, not Ron Paul! Well, Paul should have said that. However, he told two stories about these incidents which are in conflict... so was he lying then, or lying now? And by G-d, why does he have Nazi like bigots like Lew Rockwell working for him as if he was Ron Paul himself, in the sense that all 4 of the newsletters each insinuated Ron Paul was behind it all. OF COURSE, the Ron Paul newsletters from 20 or so years ago MAY have been just the type of international faceless conglomerate corporation where its hard to find who did what in any circumstance... but does that seem likely?

Bring on a REAL Libertarian...

The next election is this:
Goldman/Sachs 2012... Obama or Romney, it does not matter. Obama is a dangerously stupid man-child, an obvious sycophant to higher powers (lobbyists et al) and obviously/instinctively leaning on his incredibly weak wimp WHITE upbringing, lol. (The SCHMUCK is not an African-American, in the sense that African-Americans overcame slavery, and segregation, etc., while his black ancestors were chilling, and being from Kenya most likely selling Africans to Europeans and Islamic slavers (yes, Islamic slavery is A MILLION times worse than European slavery... and continues today, ask/Google SIMON DENG.)

 

[LoveInterracialSluts]

Link Removed

Newsletters? My dad has been into the Objectivist/Libertarian/Ron Paul schtick forever (and all that jazz which flutters between these pillars.) Newsletters, indeed. Ron Paul was a fringe lunatic who got backing from some other fringers, and they are trying to sanitize him... curse the ages of computers!

 

[iraddict]

Here we go again...
Okay, I'm really sorry but I don't think I can do this anymore. You win. Ron Paul sucks. Obama, Romney, Bush, et al are obviously much better. Forget the fact that all of these guys (Ron Paul included) are under intense media scrutiny, and the only thing they could come up with to paint him as a racist were some newsletters from twenty years ago that weren't even written by him. I'm sure some random dude on the internet knows the TRUE character of the man much better than all of the people who are meticulously going through everything he's ever done or said for the past twenty years, as well as interviewing just about everybody he's ever known for the last twenty years, going through every vote he's ever cast. No matter that NO ONE, other than the person who brought out the newsletters has come foreward with even a shred of evidence that he's a racist. No matter that he's the only guy in the race who has proposed anything that would even remotely change anything in the black community (i.e. stop locking up black fathers/ husbands / sons for victimless crimes) I'm sure that, even though you've offered absolutely no evidence, YOU bisexual eric, know the REAL story.
Although the only thing I really got out of your post is that he slipped up and exaggerated when he compared one horrible, oppresive situation to another. Which apparently alone makes him a man of no integrity, no knowledge of world history, etc... That's it. That's the only thing new you brought to the table with your post. He tried to make the point that people in Gaza are suffering under extreme poverty and oppression. HORRIBLE! What a disgusting human being...
But I digress. You guys do what you want. If you approve of the way things have been going for the last fifteen or twenty years, by all means, vote for Obama/Romney/Goldman Sachs (the one thing in your post I actually did agree with). But if you're not willing to cast your vote for someone (ANYONE) other than the status quo candidates, please stop bitching about how horrible things are, how the one percent has been looting everyone else, and how politicians are all corrupt. The American people have the power. All they have to do is take a couple of hours out of one day to go down and vote for someone else. If you're not willing to do that, then as far as I'm concerned, you've sacrificed your right to complain.
And that's all I'm gonna' say...

 

[Zagg]

Politics ain't beanbag, as the candidates find out. There are serious disagreements between us about how with think we want to live. That means that there have to be some compromises so that everyone gets enough to find it worthwhile to remain in the same polity. It's quite possible that for some of us no compromise will be adequate, in which case we need to consider separate polities. If this is going to be the last hurrah on this thread, I'd like to suggest that we begin to think, not about which candidate or party we want to "represent" us, but how we might go about governing ourselves.

 

[Zagg]

My major reservation about candidates who haven't been corrupted by money is that, as it now costs about $1 million for a House race, $10-30 million for a Senate race (the guy that Obama beat in the 2004 Senate Dem primary spent $29 million to lose), and hundreds of millions for a presidential race, the only way to not be corrupted by money is to be a billionaire (and, of course, they're not corrupted by money). I can't see any way out of this within the current political-economic system.

Now that, I agree with. Although the front runner, Romney, can barely get more than 20 percent in the Republican primaries, either. He's (Ron Paul) doing a lot better than the mainstream media is giving him credit for.
But yeah, most of the things he want to do aren't going to get done without Congressional approval. Which is why I wouldn't mind seeing him in there. The more radical stuff isn't going to get done. But he WILL be able to keep us from getting involved in any more unnessecary wars. He WILL be able to prosecute financial crimes perpetrated by Wall Street. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, electing him would send a strong message to both the Republican (I know he's running as a Republican, but that's only because the only way to get his name out there is to run in the primaries on either the Republican or Democratic ticket) and Democratic parties that the American people are sick and tired of the way things have been going for the past fifteen years or so. I like Ron Paul, but mostly I just wish people would vote for someone, ANYONE who isn't part of the system. I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative, there's probably an independent party out there with beliefs that are close to yours. If everyone would just boycott the Republicans and Democrats for just one presidential election, I have a feeling those guys would pull their heads out of their asses and realize that people are sick and tired of being screwed over in favor of huge corporations and massive special interest groups, and maybe they'd start paying a little more attention to the average American. As it is, all I ever hear when I talk politics with people is how much they hate politicians, and how much they think "they're all crooked". And yet, we continue to vote for the same guys. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and keep expecting a different result. Well, each election cycle we keep voting for the same guys and expecting things to change, and nothing ever does. I voted for Obama because I wanted the change he promised. Where is it? Honestly, if you actually look at his record (as opposed to his rhetoric) this guy could be Bush. Okay, maybe he pushed green energy a bit more, but on just about everything else he's done exactly what Bush would have done. He re-authorized the Patriot Act. He's kept almost the exact same time table for withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan that Bush laid out, he's refused to prosecute EVEN ONE of the Wall Street firms responsible for the financial collapse (he even defended the massive bonuses those firms gave out to their CEO's in the aftermath of the crash), he's refused to do anything about American companies outsourcing all our jobs overseas, etc. etc.
I just want SOMEONE who hasn't been corrupted by big money. And right now, Ron Paul is the only guy in the contest who isn't willing to go along with the status quo. He's the ONLY GUY in the contest who doesn't think the government should have the right to come into my house without a warrant. He's the ONLY GUY in the contest who has a problem with the government assasinating and torturing American citizens. He's the ONLY GUY in the contest who doesn't think the government should be able to lock American citizens up indefinetely without evidence or a trial if they are "suspected" of being a terrorist (and just wait, if you think those laws are only going to be used against Al Queda, you're nuts. If things really get bad and protests like Occupy Wall Street get any bigger, I guarantee the govt. is going to start making the people who head those protests disappear because "We had reason to believe he was plotting to overthrow the government") We point our fingers at places like China and Iran, where citizens have no rights, but Bush, and now Obama have been steadily shredding our Constitutional rights for the past decade. We're to the point now where legally we have almost the exact same rights as they do (read: none). The government hasn't started exploiting those laws yet, but right now they're setting the framework. The precedent is there. Whose to say the next guy won't? Or the guy after that? We need to send a message while we still have the right to speak out. Because if things continue the way the have been for the past two administrations, it's not going to be long before that right disappears as well....

 

[mrscondo]

I got slammed for talking about Joe Paterno so I won't even get in this fight. I do have a solution I think that all will agree with and be happy. CAN'T WE JUST ALL GO SOMEWHERE AND FUCK?????? IT SEEMS A LOT MORE PLEASURABLE!