The upraising as started. The trumpet has sounded. Let us all join in.

Well...I must say I am mildly surprised. But he did raise a lot of money, and he's still getting significant votes in the Primary races.

Sounds like Team McCain has a little challenge on its hands: No comfortable Convention for Old Men.

Paul used a 'contrary' strategy to mop up the hand full of Republicans--who would kill the Native Americans all over again.
He was no Republican-by most definations. All he does is condemn the Republican party.
(Republicans are supposed to be obiedient.)
In 1992, Jerry Brown got to speak about his Dad, (the former CA Governor) at the NY convention. I heckled him and he cried. (Anyone who can locate a video close-up would see his tears). I suppose Paul is entitled to vent his speen, (yet once again) at the podium. Sadly, I won't be there to ruin his day.
You say Ron Paul:
I say "Monkey Virus".

... and I say the Banker's Puppets cannot match the light of truth. The revolution will continue regardless of who be the next president of this shameful debacle. ~I look very much forward to seeing the army of Israel dwindle away, especially after we stop paying for it :~)

What the hell is a Paulistinian? Mother Jones, you truly are a joke.

You say:
"... the Banker's Puppets cannot match the light of truth."
Good one~ ... and I say:
Better the Banker then the Butcher's.
There was very limited debate on the factual history of the Palestinian / Israeli conflict, during the life-spans of most of the eye-witnesses. In the past 10 years, to coincide with the onset of old-age of the previous children (of 1947-48), completely new theories have emerged, most noted of which is the institutional denial of the Holocaust.
In the recent past, there is denial that The Children of Israel ever had any separate cultural identity and Jerusalem was merely an ‘out-post’ on the way to (just about) anywhere else. The Irony is that the Palestinian-Arabs no longer have any separate cultural or religious identity from the greater Arab family of nations. Much of the world has this one backwards. Whether or not Solomon was a petty-anti mayor, the Jews of the 20th century (internationally) were guaranteed a place to settle, free from reminders of anti-Semitism and especially of violence. Instead, they have the longest active war still progress. (Israel is still technically at war with Lebanon under armistice).
Two sets of international treaties were the foundation of the Jewish Independent Homeland movement. In the first set (1918-1924) the land was granted to the Jews of the world, through diplomatic trading between the nation with title (Turkey) and the new recipient(s).
Of the dozens of other National independence actions in the 20th century, most of which were between ethnically or religiously divided populations, Israel may be the only one specifically called for by international charters. There is certainly no other called for by two.
Israel does not need the USA’s money. What they need (and coincidentally what we also need) is to wake up and return to proper reasoning. Israel will continue to receive USA money because it would be too embarrassing for the USA to be sending money to: Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, the PA, Afghanistan, Iraq and (probably a few more) without sending some to Israel.
Lastly, have you seen Mr. Obama on CNN speaking favorably of Israel? I seriously think--at this point, he is more Jewish then myself.

jerry brown..blah blah..tears...blah blah

Ron Paul is an honest man.
Pull your head out of your arse.. troll beeeotch!

Trollstein, Washington Post, “on Faith” 1/7/08, Mahatma’s grandson, President and co-founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence.
Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence
Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community that can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me that the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.
The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004 I had the opportunity to speak to some Members of Parliament and Peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build-up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it -- and expect to live in the pit secure and alive? What do you mean? they countered. Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?
Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.(Arun Gandhi is the fifth grandson of India’s legendary leader, Mohandas K. “Mahatma” Gandhi. He is president and co-founder of the M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, now at the University of Rochester in New York)

Boo to Julie OBrien?

Whats wrong with turning away underage voters and voters who lie or are not a part of the party? Can you imagine the uproar if a bunch of Republicans tried to infiltrate a Democratic primary to change the results?

MJ, ever hear of Operation Kaos that gave Senator Clinton the recent victory in Indiana? It was payback for the Democrats voting Republican in the Michigan primary that gave McCain the victory.

Mahatma:
I knock out a completely original (and factual) posting in 10-15 minutes. You rely on the guise of ‘hereditary wisdom’, to give you the "imagination" to clip-and-paste an old insult for the fifty-thousandth time in 6 months.

Mr Phylis:
If Ron Paul ever got power, his first order of business would be to create his own official version of (an objectionable) reality, facilitating him to inflame the hearts of the citizenry.
He is the closest thing to a FIT ‘Fuehrer in Training’ that today exists in the USA.

Trollstein, Ron Paul is not the Fuhrer, but your friends, the Jewish Fascists, in Israel are according to the UN. Steven Edwards of The Ottawa Citizen,Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008
UNITED NATIONS - Louise Arbour, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights,( a former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda) has thrown her support behind a major pan-Arab human rights charter that commits to the elimination of Zionism.
In a statement from her Geneva headquarters, the former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda , welcomes the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which will come into force in mid-March.
"Regional systems of promotion and protection can further help strengthen the enjoyment of human rights, and the ... charter is an important step forward in this direction," Ms. Arbour says. The charter's preamble speaks of "rejecting all forms of racism and Zionism," alleging they violate human rights and threaten international peace and security.
Article 2 of the 53-article document says "all forms of racism, Zionism and foreign occupation and domination" should be "condemned and efforts must be deployed for their elimination."

True progressives renounce Zionism as a Jewish Supremacy vision. You need to reject this 3000 year old idea of racism. Move into the future. Don't live in the past.

Wow Paul a fascist? A fascist would try to centralize power (see Patriot ACT). A fascist would start spying on its own citizens (see Department of Homeland Security). Paul not a real Republican? Was Goldwater not a real Repubilcan? If not Goldwater sure had Reagan fooled. I don't know if you have heard of Barry Goldwater or not but you should read about him. Then you would figure out what a "real" Republican is. That is the source of most of Reagan's ideals. Not that Reagan really lived up to them but he did speak to them. Republicans aren't supposed to be hawks or spenders. That is the Neo Conservative rhetoric you have been hearing(listen to Limbaugh much?).

HERE"S ONE FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS:

Mr Phylis:
If Ron Paul ever got power, his first order of business would be to create his own official version of (an objectionable) reality, facilitating him to inflame the hearts of the citizenry.
He is the closest thing to a FIT ‘Fuehrer in Training’ that today exists in the USA.

Posted by: Trollstein on 05/09/08 at 5:16 PM Res

Just what does this mean? Trollstein, explain it, please, because I'm wondering where the argument lies.

Scott, don't take the Troll seriously. The fact that the Green Party disassociated themselves from him, has driven him to distraction. He is an old bitter man. On the other hand, we Greens, we are neither left nor right, but out in front leading. We admire Ron Paul for his spunk.

Here's the reason Ron Paul would be a good president: he would actually exercise the Executive's role as a check against an over-zealous Congress.

Ron Paul (or Dr. No as he's known in Congress) would not rubber-stamp bills as GWB did the first four years of his presidency under a Republican-controlled Congress. I for one believe that if the President vetoed bills 99% of the time, it would force Congress to pass truly bipartisan bills that met fiscal responsibility as well as social responsibility.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who has said he would make sure the federal government stayed within its operating budget as well as it Constitutional restraints, and that's why he would be the best person for the job.

"Scott, don't take the Troll seriously. The fact that the Green Party disassociated themselves from him, has driven him to distraction. He is an old bitter man. On the other hand, we Greens, we are neither left nor right, but out in front leading. We admire Ron Paul for his spunk."
{end of quote}
Speaking for the entire Green movement, Ms Green can't use the same handle twice, although she/he uses the same insults consistantly. Because it irritates her/his ears to hear him/herself rendering true statements.

Scott H.:
Just what does this mean? Trollstein,(?)
Professor Paul is going to do away with the IRS?
The only other person who advocated that was Mitt Romney.
Such a mistake would be more disastrous then all eight years of George W Bush.
The working class (a growing factor) would have a nice little 25% price increase on EVERYTHING.
Hyper inflation. Economic meltdown.
Romney was just offering empty promises, which he already knew he could not keep but Mr. Paul actually wants to do that.
And a leftist greenite (by dozens of names) thinks this is a "progressive" candidate??
My instinct says he is a closeted anarchist.

Why are you even giving publicity to the useless Ru Paul and his ridiculous, wannabe rebel, Paultards? They have nothing remotely new and/or useful to contribute to anything. You're just encouraging them to keep on raving and babbling. Please stop.

A racist, anti-semite... I can't believe so many people are falling for this idiot - just because you put up posters above expressways that say "revolution" doesn't mean that you should get down on your knees.

What a clown. We need serious third party representation in this country, but its not from someone who is older than McCain.

Let's get rid of the IRS and then shoot ourselves when we can't get abortions or pay for child care as we're paying a ridiculous price on basic goods.

I'd rather have disgruntled gravel in office...

The hateful scorn for Ron Paul by the warmongers is unfounded. Reagan, who succeeded Goldwater (2 men THAT GOT THE REPUCLICAN PARTY where it is TODAY)...are more in line with Ron Paul than Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran McCain. Have a look see...

"REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

"A racist, anti-semite... I can't believe so many people are falling for this idiot - just because you put up posters above expressways that say "revolution" doesn't mean that you should get down on your knees."

I can't believe you accept slavery. No, no. Don't mean to intrude. I'll let you get back to licking the feet of your master.

Senator Clinton said: "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.
The Democratic Party can’t win with just “eggheads and African-Americans,” Paul Begala added helpfully.

What Hillary and Begala are saying is politically incorrect, but it is also patently true. Hillary was describing what may now fairly be called the Hillary Democrats — a.k.a. the ex-Reagan Democrats who did not vote for Obama and may defect to John McCain
White people need to support Senator Clinton.

Let's face it. Labels, and unilateral backing of any candidate precisely & only because of party affiliation, is a fool's errand.

I wouldn't nominate McCain for Resident Assistant at a college dorm much less for President of the United States.

Forget the scandals (Keating 5, support from Hagee who thinks God punishes the U.S. directly for its "biblical sins"). McCain HAS NO PRINCIPLES.

That's all we ask for. Limited government principles that the Republican Party once stood for.

Gingrich is correct when he says the Repubs are gonna get spanked if their not careful. His famous "Contract with America" went nowhere fast. What does the Republican Party have to offer aside from more entitlements (Medicare & Medicaid)?

I see no discernable reason to vote for McCain over Obama if those were my only 2 choices. Party affiliation, and this US vs. THEM attitude has crippled us. What happened to the voluntary benevolence, ingenuity, & freedom that made this country once thrive? It's been replaced by a War Party scared of its own shadow.

I consider myself a libertarian in many areas, conservative when it comes to abortion (no late terms, encourage adoption, etc.)...and I would probably be labeled liberal in other areas. Who cares? I hold principled opinions on all matters of life. Stop trying to stick people in these neat little boxes.

Neocons (warmongers & biblical literalists) are the one's who have hijacked the Republican party. Ron Paul is trying to return the party to its roots.
Limited government, individual responsibility, and peace.

People can marginalize Ron Paul and his accomplishments all they want. Just remember that his ideas, merely revised from those that made this country once great...have changed people's lives forever.

This country cannot move forward based on the conditions of fear & pandering much longer.

The people are awake, and they are sick and tired with what they are getting.

Hey plumber_05....

I don't know if you have heard of the "Real Lincoln" or not but you should read about him. Then you would figure out what a "real" Republican is. That is the source of most of the neocon's ideals. Try DiLorenzo's book and you will learn about mercantilistic proto-empire fascism. Dr. Paul is too good for the Republicans. They deserve to rot into infamy. We need a genuine third party (which will really be a second party to the Republicrats). Sadly the Libertarians are too fractured and the Constitution Party is too obscure. I will still vote by gladly choosing one of them though.

A Republican vote is a wasted vote. A Democrat vote is a wasted vote. If you want to change your government, you must change your vote. Break free from the MSM mind control puppet masters. A revolt is the first step in a revolution.

As a member of the GOP for over 20 years Paul has reminded the GOP of his heritiage and I'm so proud to support Paul's vision both with my vote in the primary, at the GOP Convention and the fight for liberty and freedom continues as other GOP members are caught asleep at the wheel.

Supporting the law of the land was our founders plans and if we don't return to our founders plans then our nation will become less influential with the world's stage. We are no longer #1 but trail the EU as #2. McCain, Clinton and Obama will all lead our nation down even more.

Only Ron Paul

Ron Paul visa-vis' Ronald Reagan?
Firstly, Reagan sucked. He balloned the National debt x4. Paul is running on a platform to balance the budget, but then again, so did Reagan, thus (maybe) there is one point of similarity.
Paul sucks way worse then Reagan. Reagan was a "front man". Paul is a 'rear-end' boy.
PS} Both Goldwater (as a presidential candidate) and Reagan (as CA Governor) strongly advocated using nukes to win the Vietnam war. During the time-frame, that is what set these guys apart from the rest of humanity and even apart from the balance of the Republican party.

Ponder the dissonance in hipster adoration of a proto-confederate at the dawn of the twenty-first century. I should get it; I was as alianated in my time as any of them, but I'm also old enough to remember "states rights" beating and firehosing black kids on the evening news.

Ron Paul is trying to save the country. One does wonder why he is bothering to do it.

Personally, Ron Paul is far closer to a 1950s Republican and the Neo-Con Republicans are much closer to the Radical Republicans of the Lincolnite sway. The Radical Republicans followed a particular brand of dictatorial politics, wanting to revive the Hamiltonian Nationalism with heavy Centralization, Mercantilism [basically corporatism], Central Banking and a Militarization leading to Empire. The Neo-Con Republican seem to be reviving the Radical Republican’s vile policies, embracing the ultra-nationalistic philosophy of Thaddeus Stephens and those who sought to undermine the Constitution through highly dubious wrangling and overt deception.

It can be said with certainty that today the Democratic Party is no longer the Party of Jefferson, but the Republican Party is definitely still the Party of Lincoln, full of desire for predominance, both abroad and at home.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."--James Madison

Of course, that is exactly what has happened in this country, we have allowed a certain political ideology, composed of members of both the left and the right, to infect it with particular brand of Statism that is little more than a hybrid of Fascism and Socialism. The ideals of Jean-Jacques Rousseau have so infiltrated the fabric of this country with the sense of the “general will”, the Volunté Générale, that the actual ideals of federalism, of separating powers so that the numeric majority’s power will be blunted has long drifted into history. Today, our politicians pander to the biggest voting block, giving just enough in the way of promises to garner their all-important vote. As such, the minority opinion, the minority vote is overshadowed.

The assumption is, as Rousseau stated: “ That everyone places in common his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will, whosoever refuses to obey the general will must in that instance be restrained by the body politic, which actually means that he is forced to be free.” Ah yes, what type of freedom have we allowed ourselves to fall victim of in this country, the freedom of Majoritarianism, freedom contingent upon our compliance to the general will, it has seduced us into thinking that it provides us with more liberty when in fact, it is a cage.

The problem arises with the philosophy of the general will because eventually, as in every “democracy” the majority voting block will gain the upper hand and anyone that does not comply with its version of general, with what is considered politically correct, at least in the eyes of the majority, will become a dissenter, an outcast or even an outlaw. Dissenters in such a society are seen as impediments to the “greater good”. The more popular the proposals of those who advocate their version of the “general will”, the “greater good”, the more desire to see such enactments to “serve” the whole society, the more authoritarianism is needed to achieve those goals. In such systems, as we now live under, the rot always rises to the top of the slop bucket and as Plato apply put it, democracies always tend to slide toward dictatorship.

The State loves divisions among the People, the more classifications, groupings, special determinations, race qualifications, and gender qualifications the better. For it allows the government to only grant “rights” based upon those particular factors involved in such classifications, determinations, race or gender qualifications.

The problem with every democracy is that the majority always rule to the exclusion of the minority. The reason the Founders purposed a Republic instead of a democracy was to blunt the force and power of the majority through layers of checks and balances to equal out the playing field. The more democratic a political system becomes the more the majority "lords over" the minority. It is strange that people are all for democracy until it actually rules against them and in a democracy, since the majority always rules, the minority will always suffer under the prejudices of the majority. There is a defined tyranny within a democracy and yet so many clamor for such a system because they feel that it will provide them with more voice while just the opposite is true. In every democracy the government system appeals to the material interests of the majority's large voting block, in turn the government will then merely placate the minority with a degree of rights and yet never "grant" them the same degree of rights as the majority.

The established elite ruling class, the governing "gentry" fears nothing more than a unified People. As long as sectionalism can be promoted and therefore pseudo-legalized, then this nation will remain divided and that is exactly what the "State" desires: a house divided. Until We take the stance that the only status that is legally meaningful and powerful is that of the Citizen, then We will remain a conquered People subject to the will of Majoritarianism and their preferred democratic tyranny. The majorities will always, whether by vote, referendum or even by a form of legal or judicial enforcement, secure their perceived rights over the rights of a defined minority. Majoritarian democracy desires the artificial designation of minorities, it keeps the "majority" holding the reigns of power while providing the minority with a degree of satisfaction based upon their struggle to gain or retain a certain allowance of rights, but such a system will never provide equality because it inherently promotes and maintains social, racial, religious, ethnic or sexual divisions among the People.

The "State" readily supports the idea that a particular class or group requires or is entitled to recognition based upon that class or group or category, because segmentation will continue to allow its decisions to be based upon the majority and keeps the perceived minority, of which ever particular group, in check or within a majority defined scope of "civil rights". In such a "democratic" system the minority will always yield to the will and power of the majority. The majority will always enact policies, which ensure that the minority is not strengthened and will never allow the total empowerment of the minority. The "State" will always seek to breed social divisions in order the restrict minority power or empowerment. The solution therefore, must be found through a very powerful and very different view: that of the Majority of Citizenship.

It is interesting to note that you rarely hear the word Republic, but democracy is tossed out by most politicians and for good reason: a democracy will always protect the majority first and keep any minority under the thumb of the ruling powers. Minorities are not only required, but also desired within democratic Majoritarian system of government because it will always demand that all minorities yield to the will and allowances of the majority. A Republic is anathema to democratic Majoritarianism because it equalizes the power and force of government among all People of the Land when the People press their Sovereignty, based solely upon their Natural Rights of Citizenship, over the "State".

Ron Paul is the only candidate proposing that we return to the common-sense of federalism, limiting the scope and reach of government, decentralizing it and bringing it back under the control of the People. The politicians have forgotten that they are our servants, our employees; we have forgotten those very important facts too!

TROLLSTEIN: “Professor Paul is going to do away with the IRS?

The only other person who advocated that was Mitt Romney.

Such a mistake would be more disastrous then all eight years of George W Bush.”

I wouldn’t dream of being presumptuous, so I’ll beg your elaboration. What, exactly, would be the consequences, from your perspective, of the abolition of the federal income tax? And how would that “mistake”, as you put it, bear fruit more disastrous than the consequences of George W. Bush’s policies?

If the comments that follow below betray any indication, I’m confident that any response you summon forth will bring with it a built-in entertainment value that will make, from my end, this whole embarrassing enterprise worth the while.

“The working class (a growing factor) would have a nice little 25% price increase on EVERYTHING.”

… from eliminating the federal income tax? And so precise a figure, to boot. Tell me, or rather, have your supercomputer share with us the calculations that brought you to this conclusion.

“Hyper inflation.”

Do you know what inflation even is, or what mechanisms cause it?

“Economic meltdown.”

No doubt, there would be a restructuring of the economic landscape, as state-supported and protected firms find themselves bereft of the state-supported privileges calculated to prevent competition, innovation, efficiency, freedoms of exchange and association, and satisfying consumer wants. Do explain your usage of the word “meltdown” to describe this shift.

“My instinct says he is a closeted anarchist.”

Oh, dear…

“A racist, anti-semite...”

… the only two non-familial portraits hanging in Ron Paul’s congressional office are of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.

Care to guess the religious affiliation of these two gentlemen?

“Let's get rid of the IRS and then shoot ourselves when we can't get abortions or pay for child care as we're paying a ridiculous price on basic goods.”

It’s quite a curious thing. I am forced to wonder what sort of hideous perversion of economics education produced this twice-ventured belief in this running comments section that, in some miraculous way, the imposition of an income tax places a cap on any rise in consumer price levels or, further, the maintenance of abortion-access.

Funny, weren’t it so sad.

Bobby, Trollstein is a former Green Party person. The Green Pary as you know are the radical leftists in Europe. Don't take Trollstein seriously. We are going all the way to the Convention with Ron Paul. Never give up.

lol

Trollstein, I feel sorry for you. You cannot see the bars of your own prison. Dr. Paul's platform is simple; liberty, peace, and sound money. He (and we) believe in a Constitution that severely restricts what the Federal government may do (i.e., its enumerated powers). It is then up to the states, counties, municipalities, neighborhoods, and individuals to determine their destinies. Do you really expect any of the current candidates to roll back the criminal power of the Unitary Executive? I would not have thought you such a fool.

For Trollstein, a racist is someone who disagrees with him on domestic policy and an anti-Semite is someone who disagrees with him on foreign policy. Arguments are easier for him that way.

Here's the status in New Mexico:

http://sfreporter.com/articles/publish/outtake-050708-ron-paul-uprising.php

According to Paul’s New Mexico field coordinator, Jeff Wright, Paul’s delegate count looks good. Wright tells SFR that 19 out of 25 of Santa Fe County’s delegates, seven out of nine of Lincoln County’s delegates and more than 50 of Bernalillo County’s 156 delegates, are Paul supporters.

Republicae:
You wrotes:
“Ron Paul is the only candidate proposing that we return to the common-sense of federalism, . . . “
That’s like returning to the “common sense” of ‘the earth being the center of the universe.’.
With all the signage and monikerization I see from the Paulines referencing EVOLUTION / Revolution, all I see is de-evolution in disguise.
Evolution, by core definition in the moving forward. “Federalism” was contrived in response to thousands of years of royal decree by caveat, assumed that women had no say, non land-owners has no standing and basically, ‘revenge of the nerds’. That is not to say that the “Federalist” concepts lack elegance and even intellect (in places) and values. But the whole train is a wreck. Paul is advocating going back to steam engines as a way to un-wreck the train.
You:
“ . . . . limiting the scope and reach of government, decentralizing it and bringing it back under the control of the People. The politicians have forgotten that they are our servants, our employees; we have forgotten those very important facts too!”
For the above complaint, Obama is the FAR better selection. Plus, he has a remote chance of winning. All the Paul-first-ask-questions-later people have a chance of accomplishing is an evening of collective window-smashing.
The Troll speakish the truce.

RichardC:
I have taken your's out of turn because your post qualifies as the least intelligent.
I have numerous times posted the three 'DNA markers' of anti-Jewism (in order of frequency):
1. Out of proportion.
Prof. Bernard Lewis states that people who only see injustice done by Jews against Arabs and do not see or care about other (often far worse) injustices, even done against Arabs or Muslims by other Arabs and/or Muslims are anti-Jews.
2. Themeatic falsehoods.
Trollstein says:
Those who consistantly bend or break the truth in order to reflect undeserved negative light on Hebrews are anti-Jews.
3. Double standard:
Prof. Phillis Chesler says that when Israel is held to a higher standard of conduct then its neighbors, or for that matter, even nations out of the reigon, such is therefore an anti-Jewish position.
Please note that Jews themselves are FAR from immune and such has been the case throughout recorded history.
There is a certain noteworthy percentage of Hebrews who will always advocate the opposite side, when they feel socially outnumbered. Jews remember invented lawyers in 1,200-BC. This may be God's wrath for doing so.
Most importantly, people who believe as you do will almost never debate this issue on its merrits. All I see are sound-bited accusations (just like yours) with no legs (like yours).

Bobby:
You asked:
"What, exactly, would be the consequences, from your perspective, of the abolition of the federal income tax?"
Let's recap:
There is a federal deficit approaching 1/2 Trillion dollars annually.
We can either throw a big party and tell the "T" bondholders to kiss our arses or pay the bills. There is no third choice, much to your own profound disappointment. Curbing of spending is already lost due to inflation which is mostly out of our control. (Energy prices and rising labor costs from China).
The solution is a simple one but it may not be enough:
No more billionaires. Every individual with more then $50-million in net worth would need to be taxed 100% of the excess.
(Anyone who tells you they have the absolute solution is jerkin’ yer chain.) The above solution is the one with the best chance of success, not a guarantee of success.
You: (quoting me)
"“The working class (a growing factor) would have a nice little 25% price increase on EVERYTHING.”
You:
"… from eliminating the federal income tax? And so precise a figure, to boot. Tell me, or rather, have your supercomputer share with us the calculations that brought you to this conclusion."
At least one of the two Republican candidates who advocated disbanding the IRS did their math and it called for a 23% value-added tax on everything. This is just to replace the IRS revenues, it will NOT balance the budget.
I think I heard Ron Paul say it on Meet the Press.
But thank you for the nice complement.
Poor people who now pay very little income tax would be saddled with at least a 23% price hike on everything.
Also,:
~ Bank interest charges should be capped at 15% maximum by Federal law.
~ Minimum wage for part-time workers higher then full-time.
~ Federal sales tax of 3% on interstate sales of goods (internet). Proceeds go directly to sustainable clean and renewable energy production.
~Collective bargaining by citizens who are guaranteed the same pricing and terms (by law) for their health insurance, as the largest “group plans” such as Wal-Mart pays. Same with dental.
~Employers must collect income-taxes for their undocumented aliens. Being busted for non-compliance would bring a HEAVY $$$ penalties. A second such offense has mandatory jail time.
~Establish a task force to prevent citizen’s rights to due process of law from being denied by ‘networked’ judges. Lastly, do completely away with “unpublished Appellate Decisions”. Such is the ‘crack-cocaine’ of our legal system.
The above are more sensible then the Paulisms I continue to hear. But there is no ultimate solution to protect us from ourselves.

Claire:
You wrote:
"Bobby, Trollstein is a former Green Party person. The Green Pary as you know are the radical leftists in Europe. Don't take Trollstein seriously."
Since so many people claim to have knoledge of my political background, perhaps someone can tell us which STATE all of this occured in?
Anyone?
Anyone??
Buhler??
Buhler?

libertyvini:
You wrote:
"Trollstein, I feel sorry for you. You cannot see the bars of your own prison. Dr. Paul's platform is simple; liberty, peace, and sound money. He (and we) believe in a Constitution that severely restricts what the Federal government may do (i.e., its enumerated powers). It is then up to the states, counties, municipalities, neighborhoods, and individuals to determine their destinies. Do you really expect any of the current candidates to roll back the criminal power of the Unitary Executive? I would not have thought you such a fool."
No. I do hope that the one we select will be a brave and selfless leader.
In the past 5,000 years, China was a worldwide leader in science, technology and socila evolution for a short period. During this few hundred years, their emperior was selected from a pool of children, based on intellect (not who one's parent's were).
By the turn of the 20th century, Chinese laborers were tied (at the bottom of the international earnings scale) with Arab Beduins.
Which direction are we headed?
Your poetry not withstanding.
You sound like one of those Princess Diana people. All romance and no wrenches.

Non-anarchists seem to always have grand plans to inject common sense into government. May I suggest starting small? You know, like persuading our rulers to stop paying farmers *not* to grow food?

"Non-anarchists"
Brilliant. Positively anti-deluvian.

According to Israeli law, Amendment 4A (a) to the Law of Return, passed in 1970, "The rights of a Jew under this law... are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion."
The law defines a Jew as "a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion." Israel is a religious state. The American Constitution sets up a wall between church and state and we should not send $10billion of taxpayer money to the religious state of Israel anymore than giving $10billion to the Southern Baptists.

Barry:
"In 2007, the United States increased its military aid to Israel by over 25% to an average of $3 billion per year for the following ten year period, while ending economic aid.'
Your statement was therefore a three+times exaggeration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-United_States_relations#United_States_military_and_economic_aid
But you hardly understand Israel's ethical foundations. It was establsihed as a regional and world-wide refuge for a historically endangered population. As such, the conditional 'right-of-return' is not only appropriate but the core reason for the establishment of this refuge.
You wrote:
" . . . taxpayer money to the religious state of Israel anymore than giving $10billion to the Southern Baptists."
There is no shortage of 'Southern Baptists'.
'Southern Baptists' have never been 'endangered'. Southern Baptists help invent the (historically somewhat innaccurate) life of Jesus, while Jews are innacurately blamed for his murder.
Lastly, Mecca has its own self preserving rules and so does the Vatican.
The USA has protected the rulers of (religiously segregated) Mecca over the 20th century, at cost of our blood and treasure.

Trollstein, it is obvious that you are a racist and a bigot. Don't feed the Troll.

Trollstein,

It is obvious that you don’t have a clue as to the astounding workings of federalism. Federalism, while not perfect, is far better than what we are now being subjected to in this country with the slight-of-hand politics that is sold to the public en masse and passes as “democracy”. Ron Paul is not advocating going back, but going forward with a system that will work equally as well today as it did when it was first conceived in the minds of the “founders”. Federalism was not just a “response” to despotic regimes, it was far more, it embraced the ideal of the individual and the responsibility that each person should assume for their self-ownership. The “founders”, well aware of the dangers of passions within the population, implemented a system of “concurrent majority” to blunt the forces of numerical majorities over the system. Federalism refines democracy into a workable, sustainable system that provides the ultimate protections for the individual while allowing for the society as a whole to advance in relative civility. Under such a system the will of the whole majority must be endorsed by the majorities of the constituent parts within the whole, what balance, what amazing genius.
This country has been subjected to such stratification since federalism was effectively neutralized. Indeed, we are simply following the path of many other societies in history; yet we seem to rarely heed the lessons of history, do we?
Although his writings can be tortuous in the extreme, Toynbee on the warnings of history stated: “Whatever the human faculty, or the sphere of its exercise, may be, the presumption that because of a faculty has proved equal to the accomplishment of a limited task within its proper field it may therefore be counted upon to produce some inordinate effort in a different set of circumstances, is never anything but an intellectual and a moral aberration and never leads to anything but certain disaster.”

It is true, that just because the government has assumed a certain power to accomplish certain goals does not mean that it is beneficial, either to the individual or society as a whole. The fact is that the ideology of the “general will” has, in effect, contrived an “intellectual and moral aberration” that has effectively beguiled our federal Republic into a plutocratic empire that will meet the same fate as all other such imperial systems. At the height of the British Empire, one obscure statesman said: “Great Britain has no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, but only permanent interests”, the same can now be said of the United States, at least in the minds of those who have assumed power. It is, after all, the need of all empires to create alliances, even if those alliances are not substantially beneficial to the country in any discernable manner.

The “do-gooders”, the “social reformers” have actually done little to actually help the people in general, but have given incalculable assistance to the growth of a “democracy of tyranny”, a “general will” that is no less dictatorial than any other dictatorship. While it is never the initial objective of these “social reformers” to centralize power, they nevertheless do so in their proclamations that “there oughta be a law”. The concentration of power is the least effective solution to the woes of our society. These “false liberals” are, in effect, playing the same game as the “false conservatives”; both end with the same results. They simply lay on one strata of power over another, concentrating that power in ways that eventually become an exercise in absurdity. This is compounded as they call such concentration of power as “democratic” when the fact is that it is far-removed from democratic. Today, in this government, the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing; there is such a dislocation in policy-making and the resulting policies implemented.

I have pretty much written off the Republican Party as a highly radical Statist vehicle for political and social dominance. The Democratic Party has, over the decades abandoned its Jeffersonian roots, in that, it no longer understands that it once did not believe or advocate that it could place such faith in the ability of the government, through some paternal legislative power or supervision, that such measures can never increase the happiness or social standing of the people, or provide this country with a system that actually benefits society that is sustainable in any discernable manner. Take for instance, the level of poverty in this country, poverty levels were steadily falling until the 60s and Johnson’s “Great Society” programs, since it has stagnated and reversed. The government is neither the social worker for this country nor is it capable of being the policeman of the world; it is simply not equipped with either the wisdom or the fiscal support system to provide such utility.

You call Dr. Paul’s positions as devolution, look around you…do you call what you see evolution? I see a government that has atrophied, a society that has been muted by the “general will”, aimless. You call it a train-wreck, yet you ignore the possibility that a return to a system that offers solutions can provide solutions. The problem with 99% of the politicians, including Obama, Clinton and McCain, in this country is that they can’t offer solutions because they are not asking the correct questions to get to those solutions. Those three candidates offer little more than panaceas, looking only at the symptoms and ignoring the diagnosis of the disease and therefore the remedy. So, if there were a solution, one that has been effectively neutralized in this country for the last 150 years, would it not behoove us to restore such solutions? Federalism, in its complex purity is a solution and we ignore it to our own peril. You and I are living in the “devolution”, it surrounds us and not a day goes by when we are not affected by the “devolution” of our government from a federalist system of checks and balances to a consolidated centralized monstrosity. You have proven, through your comments, that you offer no actual alternatives to what Dr. Paul is proposing, you offer nothing better, no opinions on which we can base any need for intelligent rebuttal or debate. I have to wonder why you bother? I mean if you offered something of note, some spark of insight that would make me doubt either the character and promise of constitutional federalism, something that could recommend your stance then I would gladly listen, but thus far you have offered nothing of value on this or other subjects.

Dr. Paul has received over a million votes. Obviously, they aren't underage. And we represent Taft Republicans because today's GOP has seriously gone astray.

"Just what does this mean? Trollstein,(?)
Professor Paul is going to do away with the IRS?
The only other person who advocated that was Mitt Romney.
Such a mistake would be more disastrous then all eight years of George W Bush.
The working class (a growing factor) would have a nice little 25% price increase on EVERYTHING.
Hyper inflation. Economic meltdown.
Romney was just offering empty promises, which he already knew he could not keep but Mr. Paul actually wants to do that.
And a leftist greenite (by dozens of names) thinks this is a "progressive" candidate??
My instinct says he is a closeted anarchist." -

As I understand it, without the IRS and income taxes, the tax money would be our's again and fuel the economy because we'd have more to spend. We already have hyperinflation now with the Fed lowering interest rates. Get rid of the Fed and have sound money rather than fiat money and we'd be much better off. You're worried that economic meltdown will come from Dr. Paul's direction? We're already headed towards economic meltdown with too much spending (democrats) and too much war (neo-con Republican warhawks) with no end in sight. Dr. Paul has incurred not one cent of debt during his campaign and I'd trust him far more than the other "frontrunners" to lead this country. And he was elected for 12 terms in his own Congressional district. That says a lot about what they think about him.

Troll Patrol:
I am WELL fed without your help.
It is obvious you are an idiot.

Republicae:
I may not be well versed in “Federalism”.
“Clueless” might be an overreach.
You asked:
“ . . . You call Dr. Paul’s positions as devolution, look around you…do you call what you see evolution?”
I answer:
Not at all, rather, a different flavor of de-evolution and stagnated evolution.
You flap:
“ . . . you offer nothing better, no opinions on which we can base any need for intelligent rebuttal or debate.”
Now was that very nice? I already give my recipe for better political health (above in an earlier posting). The reason you can’t formulate an opinion on them is because they are original and you have no 150 year old books to refer to, in order to clip–and-paste an “intelligent rebuttal”.
There was NOTHING ‘prophetic’ or ‘divine’ about these ‘fond founders’ you reflect on, except, perhaps, Patrick Henry (to a limited degree). Ben Franklyn abandoned his traditional anti-slavery position to sign the deciding vote, allowing a United States where human slavery was still permitted. These guys were generally just better informed then their forbearers in England, which is only natural, because at the time, EVOLUTION had warranted an UPDATED system of government. Its now the 21st century. Time for NEW solutions. Jefferson and Madison and the others are long DEAD and they aren’t coming back.
This reminds me of when the Czar of Russia was so beset with problems that he commissioned the advise of the one known as the “Mad Monk” (Rasputin). That story reminds me of the insanity which overtook the Jews of Mesopotamia, when they listened intently to the ranting of the exiled high-priest and quite mad Ezekiel (“Yak-i-ele” in Hebrew).
Ron Paul is the ‘Rasputin’ of the 21st century. He has seized on a moment of impending disaster to sell his 'snake-oil'.
Your quite eloquent verse has no moment to anyone who is not already a Paul disciple. Which of course, excludes myself.

Jane:
You wrote:
"As I understand it, without the IRS and income taxes, the tax money would be our's again and fuel the economy because we'd have more to spend. We already have hyperinflation now with the Fed lowering interest rates. Get rid of the Fed and have sound money rather than fiat money and we'd be much better off. You're worried that economic meltdown will come from Dr. Paul's direction? We're already headed towards economic meltdown with too much spending (democrats) and too much war (neo-con Republican warhawks) with no end in sight. Dr. Paul has incurred not one cent of debt during his campaign and I'd trust him far more than the other "frontrunners" to lead this country. And he was elected for 12 terms in his own Congressional district. That says a lot about what they think about him."
Modifying the Federal Reserve (or doing away with it) is a different issue then doing away with the IRS.
During the Great Depression, FDR ordered money printed by the US Government, in an effort to marginalize the Federal Reserve. There is no good reason to have a Federal Reserve except to permit the Bank execs to have one of their own in control of this 4th branch of the US Government. Different subject and a long discussion.
As for the IRS, everyone hates paying their taxes but everyone loves having public services, such as interstate highways, Homeland Security, Educational grants, NASA and all the other things which the money gets spent on. The “IRS” per-se is merely a “straw man” which is catching blame from people who are now faced with paying the bills generated mainly by Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. The IRS is NOT the issue. The core issue is if people wish to pay their bills of not. If they do, then the next question becomes how do we Americans divide the cost of these bills? A progressive income tax is my vote and far MORE progressive then the one we now have (which has completely failed us). Ron Paul wants to make the bad-guys be the IRS, not the billionaires who have selfishly ruined this nation’s economy. According to his plan, billionaires would have a GIANT tax cut and only pay a sales tax based on their spending habits. Working class people would have a GIANT TAX INCREASE, because the money previously paid by the hyper-affluent would have to be paid by the guy (or woman) working two jobs).
Your comments understandably reflect peoples general frustrations but your logic lacks merit. As for your spending fuel argument, completely backwards. When faced with an additional 23% sales tax people would do anything other then spend.
You stated that he has not borrowed money for his campaign and:
“And he was elected for 12 terms in his own Congressional district.”
Borrowing Campaign money has two problems: 1) it requires personal guarantees which he may be too smart to issue (no chance of winning). 2) They are bad luck and are generally used by opponents to criticize the borrower.
His 12 terms are unimpressive to me because as far as I can tell, he has accomplished nothing of lasting value.
Ronald Paul(R-TX)
PAUL'S MIDDLE-CLASS GRADES
2008 Final grade to be released 03.2009
2007
2005
2004
2003
http://www.themiddleclass.org/legislator/ronald-paul-281?gclid=CJSMgvO7n5MCFSDAQAod2ENmaA
He was the ONLY no vote in House Resolution 951 condemning rocket attacks on civilian Israeli neighborhoods. If he were one of ten such no votes, that might make him a misguided “maverick”. As the ONLY no vote, that makes him a monkey-virus.
PS> Wasn't Reagan a 'neocon'? Or was he an old-o-con? I keep getting mixed up....

Sorry the grade-points did not come through:
2008 ~ Final grade to be released 03.2009
2007 ~ D
2005 ~ F
2004 ~ F
2003 ~ F

PPS>
Never trust a gut who hides his front teeth when he smiles.

“Bobby:

You asked:

‘What, exactly, would be the consequences, from your perspective, of the abolition of the federal income tax?’

Let's recap…”

Yes. Let’s.

“There is a federal deficit approaching 1/2 Trillion dollars annually.”

Sure. Our centralized monolith spending money it doesn’t have. Go on…

“We can either throw a big party and tell the "T" bondholders to kiss our arses or pay the bills.”

What you’re positing is that myself and others should be held responsible for the reckless spending of others, in this case, the federal government. I’m pleased you permitted us this glimpse into your conception of ethics.

“Curbing of spending is already lost due to inflation which is mostly out of our control. (Energy prices and rising labor costs from China).”

Thank you, Trollstein, for answering my question regarding whether or not you even knew what inflation was. Here we find you confusing wholly separate phenomena. Fluctuations in price levels – in this case, aggregating upwards – and inflation are not one and the same thing. Inflation is a phenomenon of monetary policy and, contrary to your assertion, within the control of the body that assumes responsibility for the prosecution of monetary policy. Price levels are dependent upon many variables and are constantly in flux… in a free market. Where prices are fixed, distortions arise. It’s not too melodramatic, methinks, to say that the consequences of these distortions can be severe. In any case, fluctuations in price level or accelerating the printing of currency or issuance of credit or adjustment of interest rates do not necessarily make “curbing of spending” impossible, though, no doubt, they do complicate things.

“The solution is a simple one but it may not be enough…”

Since there is no “third choice” in your mode of analysis, I am not all that surprised your “solution” to the federal deficit is, as you call it, “simple”.

“No more billionaires.”

Well. You never know. The Federal Reserve may make billionaires of us all in due time.

Joking aside…

“Every individual with more then $50-million in net worth would need to be taxed 100% of the excess.”

To what end? To pay off the deficit?

Do you understand the role capital investment plays in wealth generation? The multiplication of productivity? Your mode of analysis is indicative of precisely that mode of policy that has brought us the federal deficit in the first place. That the state knows better what industry to promote and to perpetuate than the market, which is a shorthand way of saying you and I and everyone we know. Not to mention that what you suggest merely lends legitimacy to the process, thus ensuring the likelihood of the perpetuation of deficit spending, not its demise.

What you promote is destruction.

“(Anyone who tells you they have the absolute solution is jerkin’ yer chain.)”

Jerking my chain any more than the individual attempting to convince me that there are only two ways to view the problem that he himself has failed to even diagnose?

“The above solution is the one with the best chance of success, not a guarantee of success.”

Success at what? It does nothing to arrest spending, which was your thesis, nor did it address my question of you what consequences the abolition of the federal income tax would engender. I’m forced to wonder if you even remember what it was you were writing about.

“At least one of the two Republican candidates who advocated disbanding the IRS did their math and it called for a 23% value-added tax on everything. This is just to replace the IRS revenues, it will NOT balance the budget.

I think I heard Ron Paul say it on Meet the Press.”

Ron Paul has maintained, with no interruption obstructing my attention, that he would replace the “shortfalls” from the elimination of the federal income tax with… nothing.

“Poor people who now pay very little income tax would be saddled with at least a 23% price hike on everything.”

Once again, you have not established how eliminating the income tax would necessitate a rise in the price level.

“Bank interest charges should be capped at 15% maximum by Federal law.”

I’ll ask you: have you considered the consequences of the implementation of such a policy?

“Minimum wage for part-time workers higher then full-time.”

… and merely expect to see firms juggle the ratios of part-time workers to full-time workers.

“Federal sales tax of 3% on interstate sales of goods (internet). Proceeds go directly to sustainable clean and renewable energy production.”

I thought that the issue was the deficit. The beneficiary of the proceeds of your little scheme merely perpetuates the old scheme, changing only the recipient of the aid. And, in time, the same distortions and frictions will manifest themselves, if, and most likely, they aren’t apparent from the get-go.

“Collective bargaining by citizens who are guaranteed the same pricing and terms (by law) for their health insurance, as the largest “group plans” such as Wal-Mart pays. Same with dental.”

Yeah, well, absent government interference, we already have that. It’s called “the market”.

“Employers must collect income-taxes for their undocumented aliens. Being busted for non-compliance would bring a HEAVY $$$ penalties. A second such offense has mandatory jail time.”

Have you considered the consequences that implementation of such a policy might have on output?

“Establish a task force to prevent citizen’s rights to due process of law from being denied by ‘networked’ judges.”

I’d get the government out of dispute-resolution altogether, but that’s a whole ‘nother argument, isn’t it?

“The above are more sensible then the Paulisms I continue to hear.”

Is “sensible” really the word you wish to use?

In closing… um, I must be missing something, but your instructions were to reveal something of the consequences of abolishing the income tax.

Were you planning on getting around to that at some later date?

Bobby:
You wrote:
“Sure. Our centralized monolith spending money it doesn’t have. Go on…”
An over simplification on two fronts: 1) Much of this spending is interest on previous spending and 2) The budget deficit was engineered to benefit the larger Wall Street companies. This explanation is too voluminous to get into just now.
You wrote:
“ . . . .Fluctuations in price levels – in this case, aggregating upwards – and inflation are not one and the same thing. Inflation is a phenomenon of monetary policy and, contrary to your assertion, within the control of the body that assumes responsibility for the prosecution of monetary policy. Price levels are dependent upon many variables and are constantly in flux… in a free market. Where prices are fixed, distortions arise. It’s not too melodramatic, methinks, to say that the consequences of these distortions can be severe. In any case, fluctuations in price level or accelerating the printing of currency or issuance of credit or adjustment of interest rates do not necessarily make “curbing of spending” impossible, though, no doubt, they do complicate things.”
I ask:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?
Sorry. Me disagree. Inflation is inflation. If your basic costs rise from year to year, you have experienced inflation, pretty-much period. There are numerous and varied causes of this inflation but it is all the same mathematics. As of 01-01-2008, the Government of China has instituted new pro-labor laws (which we in the USA have been insisting they do for some time) and the result is higher “FOB” prices. These higher prices directly translate into higher wholesale and ultimately higher retail prices. Many of the items effected are on the “Consumer Price Index” but even if many are not, such could easily be components of higher costs on those items which are on the index. Example: If florescent lights are not on the Index but U.S. industry uses these to conduct its day-to-day business then the effect would be the same because large department stores use these bulbs and they are part of the turn-key costs. Energy is a prime component of daily spending and so, this summer (where I live) there will be a 12% rise in the price of electricity. Therefore, one’s money in the bank becomes that much less valuable because it buys exactly so much less. That’s the definition of “inflation”. I am not sure I understand your definition.
You asked:
“To what end? To pay off the deficit?”
Yes in part. Such a tax would balance the budget for about 3-4 years (at current spending levels). Or, looked at differently, it would pay off about $1.5 Trillion of debt, while balancing the budget for one year only. As importantly, as a society, we need to grow some better morals and ethics when it comes to super-opulent wealth. This is more of a study on human nature. Here’s the short story: I know a guy who spent the 1950s as a communist. The 1960’s as a radical leftist. The 70’s as a hard-left political candidate and the 80’s as a entrepreneur. By the onset of the 1990’s he was a millionaire and by the end of the 90’s he did a Wall Street IPO and collected about $-250-million. In 2002 he screwed an old friend from the old neighborhood out of a deserved and promised commission of $50,000.00. Normally, I would blame the money for his ethical downfall. Not in this case. In this case, I blame the Bush inspired culture of greed. Simply put, our leaders and their laws dictate what we believe to be socially and morally acceptable. Its ancient human nature which probably dates back to the time when our ancestors lived in trees. Our rules reflect our morals. If Obama were to win, I have no doubt this same guy would be back to his roots of leftist-brain functioning. We need to teach our children better. We should NOT be looking up to and admiring these dirt bags like Trump and Gates and Forbes and Cuban and Sorros and I don’t care how much they choose to give away to charities. They are still his royal highness.
You write:
“ . . . thus ensuring the likelihood of the perpetuation of deficit spending, not its demise.”
Now we are back to the real cause of the US Deficit, which I had hoped to avoid for right now because it justly deserves about 20” of blog and I don’t have that much jam. I know you (more so others) will probably pick at my short explanation but here it is anyway:
Deficits favor Wall Street over Main Street. Large public companies have no problem borrowing money at very favorable rates and no one need sign any personal guarantees or provide any hard collateral. Private concerns can only borrow under (slightly) favorable conditions if the banks are hungry to lend. Budget deficits end the hunger because the treasury bonds yield high enough that banks take their depositors capitol and make their profit on T-Bills. To service the Public companies loans, Banks borrow from the Fed, which BTW has two sets of separate criteria to evaluate and grade the health of a given loan, one (liberal one) for public companies and another, much stricter for private (Main Street) companies. Thus, a relatively healthy loan to a profitable restaurant may well be rated at lower heath then a very shaky note out to the Enron Corp., or even to the Government of Argentina. Since most decent jobs are created at the “Main St.” level, this regressive situation causes a ripple effect which eviscerates our entire economy. But not to worry, the Dow is still around 13,000 (when it was at 650 at the Reagan inauguration.)
You:
“Jerking my chain any more than the individual attempting to convince me that there are only two ways to view the problem that he himself has failed to even diagnose?”
Now yer gettin cranky.
You:
“Ron Paul has maintained, with no interruption obstructing my attention, that he would replace the “shortfalls” from the elimination of the federal income tax with… nothing.”
I think I may be able to get the video clip. What would you say to that? More importantly, replacing it with “nothing” is even more psychotic a notion. We’ll just grow the money (revenue) in our toilets using shampoo and Tabasco sauce.
All told, I find your collection of rhetorical questions un-amusing and non-productive. I have considered the consequences of my suggestions as much as anyone can who is NOT a time traveler. You have deliberately overlooked my logic to spark an ‘ivy-league’ style verbal karate tournament, in hopes that other readers might see some merit in your rhetoric without actually committing to any solutions yourself. You sound like those frat brothers in “Trading Places” who disparage and humiliate Winthorpe (Akeroid) after he was first ram-rodded out of house and home. Nowadays, a fast CPU could blog Bobby style, without human intervention.
I suspect your continued questions are merely an attempt to goat out something more substantial to harpoon. We have already reached this stage with the Ron Paul video clip. You sir are a dog-food machine. Anything which goes into the hoppers comes out looking identical. It may be fund for you but I lack the same level of enjoyment.

Trollstein wrote 5/3/08 "There are no longer any "Republican trolls".
Since I became the absolute leader for life of the Troll kingdom." He admits his origins and his position. Don't feed the Troll leader.

the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention. For the last three months Paul's forces, who donated $34.5 million to his White House effort and upwards of one million total votes, have, as The Ticket has noted, been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. The goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates. The revolution continues.

Troll Patrol:
Now the truth comes out.
You feel disenfranchised, as a former Troll, who has been excommunicated because of his affiliation with the Republican party.
Get over it.

The revolution continues:
Its perfectly fine with me if the Paulites want to embarrass McCain. It will only help Obama, who I support. But the real embarrassment is the fact that the Pauline movement considers itself "Republican".
Like "Jews for Jesus" or Chinese Pizza. You guys really need your own party.
PS} If Ron Paul and Ralph Nader had a baby, its name would be Ross Perot.

Trollstein wrote: Like "Jews for Jesus" , which means that real Jews hate Jesus and his followers, the Christians.

“You wrote:

‘Sure. Our centralized monolith spending money it doesn’t have. Go on…’

“An over simplification on two fronts: 1) Much of this spending is interest on previous spending and 2) The budget deficit was engineered to benefit the larger Wall Street companies. This explanation is too voluminous to get into just now.”

No disagreement brooked here, per the particulars.

However, let us not forget that you have no problem with the spending, per se. You are not interested in nor do you even find it possible to reduce spending. This is interesting. You correctly note that the spending is engineered to benefit the larger politically-connected firms and the tenor of the rest of your convoluted piece attacks a larger “culture of greed”. Yet your argument is for the perpetuation of that process. What is your general purpose?

“I ask:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?”

You are confusing increases in the price level – which can arise from any number of causes and inflation – which is an increase in the supply of money. Is that simple enough for you?

An increase in the supply of money devalues that money, leading in aggregate to higher prices. But the two – higher prices and inflation – are not the same.

“Sorry. Me disagree.”

I know.
And you’re wrong.

“Inflation is inflation. If your basic costs rise from year to year, you have experienced inflation…”

Not necessarily, but more than likely.

“… pretty-much period.”

Or a hunger blockade, an embargo, a natural catastrophe, or an active government erecting higher tariff walls… the list goes on. You’re confusing two distinct mechanisms.

You really cannot be blamed for it, though. The government-compliant education and media outlets probably deserve their fair share of the credit for your mistaken intuition.

“There are numerous and varied causes of this inflation…”

There is one. Monetary policy. What you are speaking of is increases in price level. Inflation tends to increase the price level but it is not the increase in the price level. Your contention is that the symptom is the disease.

“… but it is all the same mathematics. As of 01-01-2008, the Government of China has instituted new pro-labor laws (which we in the USA have been insisting they do for some time) and the result is higher “FOB” prices. These higher prices directly translate into higher wholesale and ultimately higher retail prices. Many of the items effected are on the “Consumer Price Index” but even if many are not, such could easily be components of higher costs on those items which are on the index. Example: If florescent lights are not on the Index but U.S. industry uses these to conduct its day-to-day business then the effect would be the same because large department stores use these bulbs and they are part of the turn-key costs. Energy is a prime component of daily spending and so, this summer (where I live) there will be a 12% rise in the price of electricity. Therefore, one’s money in the bank becomes that much less valuable because it buys exactly so much less.

That’s the definition of ‘inflation’. I am not sure I understand your definition.”

Yes. Evidently.

“Yes in part. Such a tax would balance the budget for about 3-4 years (at current spending levels).”

… current spending levels…

Your arithmetic is illuminating. Levy 100% taxes on the “surplus income” of the beneficiaries of the spending – as you yourself point out – in order to… maintain that level of spending, thus, in the absence of any mention of redistribution to other recipients more than likely returning it to the taxed party.

Nice to meet you, Mr. Morgan.

“Or, looked at differently, it would pay off about $1.5 Trillion of debt, while balancing the budget for one year only. As importantly, as a society, we need to grow some better morals and ethics when it comes to super-opulent wealth.”

Stealing is moral and ethical?

“This is more of a study on human nature. Here’s the short story: I know a guy who spent the 1950s as a communist. The 1960’s as a radical leftist. The 70’s as a hard-left political candidate and the 80’s as a entrepreneur. By the onset of the 1990’s he was a millionaire and by the end of the 90’s he did a Wall Street IPO and collected about $-250-million. In 2002 he screwed an old friend from the old neighborhood out of a deserved and promised commission of $50,000.00. Normally, I would blame the money for his ethical downfall. Not in this case. In this case, I blame the Bush inspired culture of greed. Simply put, our leaders and their laws dictate what we believe to be socially and morally acceptable. Its ancient human nature which probably dates back to the time when our ancestors lived in trees. Our rules reflect our morals.”

And your intention is to preserve theft as a moral force? I almost agree with you here, but I find you to be overwhelmingly part of the problem.

“If Obama were to win, I have no doubt this same guy would be back to his roots of leftist-brain functioning.”

The only appropriate response to this is to share with you the fact of its providing me with one of the biggest laughs I’m likely to have this still-nascent week.

“We need to teach our children better. We should NOT be looking up to and admiring these dirt bags like Trump and Gates and Forbes and Cuban and Soros and I don’t care how much they choose to give away to charities.”

Who we look up to is subjective and varies from individual to individual and, from my own anecdotal perspective, I know absolutely no one who looks up to any of these individuals you cite, with the exception of Soros, whom a few of my leftist friends genuinely admire.

“Now we are back to the real cause of the US Deficit, which I had hoped to avoid for right now because it justly deserves about 20” of blog and I don’t have that much jam. I know you (more so others) will probably pick at my short explanation but here it is anyway:

Deficits favor Wall Street over Main Street. Large public companies have no problem borrowing money at very favorable rates and no one need sign any personal guarantees or provide any hard collateral. Private concerns can only borrow under (slightly) favorable conditions if the banks are hungry to lend. Budget deficits end the hunger because the treasury bonds yield high enough that banks take their depositors capitol and make their profit on T-Bills. To service the Public companies loans, Banks borrow from the Fed, which BTW has two sets of separate criteria to evaluate and grade the health of a given loan, one (liberal one) for public companies and another, much stricter for private (Main Street) companies. Thus, a relatively healthy loan to a profitable restaurant may well be rated at lower heath then a very shaky note out to the Enron Corp., or even to the Government of Argentina. Since most decent jobs are created at the “Main St.” level, this regressive situation causes a ripple effect which eviscerates our entire economy.”

There’s hope for you yet.

“But not to worry, the Dow is still around 13,000 (when it was at 650 at the Reagan inauguration.)”

A reflection of an increase in the price level, in this case due to inflation.

“Now yer gettin cranky.”

No, just pointing out that you defied your own promise.

“I think I may be able to get the video clip. What would you say to that?”

I would say to that that I’ve seen it already, that you don’t have to look too hard, it’s on YouTube, Ron Paul didn’t say that, and have fun in your endeavors.

“More importantly, replacing it with “nothing” is even more psychotic a notion.”

Yes. If you wish to maintain the current level of spending.

Ron Paul does not. In that same piece you reference (poorly), Ron Paul notes that in the absence of the federal income tax the federal government would still derive enough revenue from all other existing channels to fund the pre-9/11 federal budget, itself grossly-bloated.

In your eagerness to preserve existing spending levels, you’ve forgotten that other component of Rep. Paul’s argument – cutting spending to match eliminating the income tax…

“We’ll just grow the money (revenue) in our toilets using shampoo and Tabasco sauce.”

… and the Federal Reserve.

“All told, I find your collection of rhetorical questions un-amusing and non-productive.”

I’m pleased. Mention of phrases like “un-amusing” and “non-productive” evokes the feeling that I get when scanning what you’ve shared with us in this thread. Like your anecdotes about Jerry Brown’s father, an Obama inauguration effecting a sea-change in fiscal morality, guts hiding front teeth, and so on and so forth.

“I have considered the consequences of my suggestions as much as anyone can who is NOT a time traveler.”

Perhaps. But evidence of such consideration is decidedly lacking in your commentary here.

“You have deliberately overlooked my logic to spark an ‘ivy-league’ style verbal karate tournament…”

Oh, my…

“… in hopes that other readers might see some merit in your rhetoric without actually committing to any solutions yourself.”

Is that what I’ve done?

“You sound like those frat brothers in “Trading Places” who disparage and humiliate Winthrop (Ackroyd) after he was first ram-rodded out of house and home.”

Ah! A fellow cineaste!

“Nowadays, a fast CPU could blog Bobby style, without human intervention.”

Could it? I don’t keep up with the technological trades, you know.

“I suspect your continued questions are merely an attempt to goat out something more substantial to harpoon. We have already reached this stage with the Ron Paul video clip.”

Sir, when you present malformed and contradictory mish-mash, expect someone, if they have the time on their hands, to attempt to compel you to refine your focus so that it approaches something resembling coherence and uniformity of argument.

“You sir are a dog-food machine.”

Let’s stroll down Memory Lane.

“(Republicans are supposed to be obiedient.)

In 1992, Jerry Brown got to speak about his Dad, (the former CA Governor) at the NY convention. I heckled him and he cried. (Anyone who can locate a video close-up would see his tears). I suppose Paul is entitled to vent his speen, (yet once again) at the podium. Sadly, I won't be there to ruin his day.

You say Ron Paul:
I say ‘Monkey Virus’.”

“If Ron Paul ever got power, his first order of business would be to create his own official version of (an objectionable) reality, facilitating him to inflame the hearts of the citizenry.
He is the closest thing to a FIT ‘Fuehrer in Training’ that today exists in the USA.”

“Paul sucks way worse then Reagan. Reagan was a "front man". Paul is a 'rear-end' boy.”

Ira:
(Who's name is probably more like Karl)
No. That is not what it means.
What it means is that much as the 21st-Century Christians would like to believe that their religious history pleasantly blends with the Jewish tradition, this is wishful-thinking and gross-denial. (Just like the Paulites).
Jesus preached:
"The Kingdom of God is at hand". And:
"Jesus said to them, ''Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God come with Power.''"
Mark~ 9:1
Of course, there has been no "Kingdom of God" in all these 2,000 years.
The concept of a "Kingdom of God" is a specifically Jewish notion, born of internment in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and this can not be reconciled with accepted Christian Scriptures, visa-vis real-life world history.
Jews can be for Jesus. They can not logically or practically be for the bacon-eating, idolized, polytheistic, uncircumcised, blond-haired-blue-eyed "Jesus", depicted in the modern Christian Church.

Bobby:
And your point is . . . .

Trollstein stated: "Jews can be for Jesus. They can not logically or practically be for the bacon-eating, idolized, polytheistic, uncircumcised, blond-haired-blue-eyed. " This is the most bigoted hate speech that I have ever read coming from the mouth of a Jewish bigot. Then you wonder why there is anti-Semitism. Without anti-Semitism, Judaism would die due to intermarriage. So keep the hate coming, make your mother happy.

Karl (I mean I. Fine):
If you perceive accurate history as "hate speech" then why blame me?
PS> I am not a member of the Jewish faith. I am the leader of the Troll Nation. We are 'Orwellian Mystics'.
(To you, Orwell must really have been a racist indeed).
Good. Lets keep it that way, OK Karl?

Also:
According to the accepted Gospel version, the first (earliest) known copies of the Christian Scriptures date no earlier then 40 or so years after Jesus' alleged death and alleged resurection.
For anyone who believes that one, I have some choice swamp land to sell in Baghdad.
The ancient Hebrews were OBSESSIVE scribes. They made hand written copies of hand written copies of hand written copies. Yest, this 'Holy King' gets to resurect Lazurus from the dead, heal the sick through faith, make one fish into thousands and himself is resurected and no one writes this down?
Anyone want some Enron stock?
the reason the story seemed plausible for thosands of years is because until quite recently, few 'Westerners' could read or write themselves. So few assumed that common Hebrews could even write.
Of course, this explanation made less sense after the invention of the Printing Press and far less sense today.

Troll, given that the vast majority of Jews do not attend synagogue and that 52% of them intermarry, can you tell us what it fells like to be a non Jewish Jew?

Karl:
I can tell you what it does not feel like.
It does not feel like the certain death I would have experienced, had I printed my thoughts and opinions (on religious history) throughout all but the past few decades of the 'common era'.

PS}
While your statistics may be accurate (???), such Jews still (mainly) associate themselves with the Jewish faith. I do not. Yet, typically, I know about 1,000 times more about the Jewish religion then they do. To most people (either Jews or Christians),