Dubstepforum.com

But then again, I went to public school, so what do I know, right?

You said it best, serf. You need only look at things like M1 and M2 to prove the inflation as an empirical fact. But those terms likely mean nothing to you, but they confirm and serve as a valid means to monitor actual inflation quantitatively.

Your convoluted perception and myopic conclusions of History are baffling and read like an Academic book you so highly extol, but are none the less consistent with what you concluded with. If you even bothered to read any of the Federalist papers and House sessions (which I thought all Poli Sci classes in even the most decrepit of govt camps had to) you'd know it was imperative in the initial 13 colonies to expose the malignant nature of a (permanent) standing army to a Free Society. How you derived otherwise from either Constitutions proves the aforementioned in a better manner than I could ever conjure up in even my longest and most through of rebuttals, want *proof of both sides:

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Starmy.html

(*note the non-youtube link)

Suffice it to say that imperial pursuits and its subsequent deterioration of a Free Society are contrary to both of the Constitutions, and the latter is verified by its own provisions in the Bill of Rights; its clearly written. You could even go further after Washington resigned as President in his farewell speech to confirm what was dealt with and compromised when a nation does encounter warfare by these means and the dire implications of it. 'Government is not reason, it is not eloquent; it is FORCE! Like Fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful Master.'

Academic piece? History and Truth are on my side, as I provided more than sufficient evidence to support my arguments, and while I'm troubled to say I have been subjected to them as means of either force or compromise (as in University) I was capable of discerning lies and basing my arguments upon Historical fact--which in fact not mine but Truth itself. Something you have failed to establish or even suggest given your inane half-thoughts, which are at best invalid criticisms. All I have to say is either try harder, or question your own positions. I could do it for you, as I have done in this thread, but its obvious you won't bother doing any due diligence even when I provided and cited everything for you as you still construct your criticisms under the fallacy that I desire the current modus opendi of servitude under the State.

Shay's rebellion, as with all other subjects sold in your text books, is a farce and contrary to your aversion to the only LEGAL currency post 1792 and 2nd Constitution. I'll just leave this here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north247.html

And to address and (re)validate my earlier point of how easy withdrawing consent from the State--whether Ron Paul is there or not is irrelevant--is and accomplishing short term goals, I have even more (recent) Historical proof:



Its not an absolute solution by any means, as I understand large scale investment projects require far more complicated transactions and contractual obligations, but that can be accomplished using the same means it was done for 2000+ years.

PS: This didn't get attached for some reason:

you are titled a terrorist by the DHS and denied basic Human Rights for trying to exercise any of the initial 10 Rights supposedly protected by the US Government[/u]

I don't think i'm too far off to say you garnered your whole argument from youtube and have probably never finished an academic piece of literature.

As with most of the ignorance encountered on the internet and real life, the best prescription is that you actually read on the subjects you claim omnipotence on. No one takes the time to sit down and read a solid book anymore. But then again, I went to public school, so what do I know, right?[/quote]

Its bemusing but those comments are best directed toward yourself: Anwar al-Awlaki

Not specifically about this thread but I can tell there are many Ron Paul supporters misinforming people that challenge their beliefs.
A lot of what his supports are preaching actually have very little to do with Ron Paul's policies
I guess it's all subjective based on how you interpret him, either way I would much rather have a conversation then a strategical response battle on here

yea a lot of people seem to take his stance of abolishing federal law on issues and putting it into the state's hands that he's pro those issues.
do i think he would be ineffectual as president? no, i think he would have a constant uphill battle from both sides, but someone has to get rid of this bipartisan bs that is no longer republican vs democraft, but liberal vs conservative with no rooms for moderates or 3rd party options that is ruining this country. hell each administration that goes into power spends the majority of their terms reversing what the last one established and on and on without giving plans that would take time to see results that carry over in the shift of power a chance in hell.
this sums up my feelings in a nutshell so well on one of the main issues

I wish I had the time (and attention span) for the rest of the thread...

But to say that Ron Paul wouldn't make a difference is bullshit. As a president he can't and wouldn't do much, he ADMITTED that. He hardly made any campaign promises at all. But he would sign an executive order to get all the troops home immediately. Which is what he lawfully can do. By doing so he would be doing more than any president in decades. Something Obama wouldn't do. Oh except getting the troops home from Iraq by the end of the year? That's because of a treaty signed by George Bush.

that and he would have no shot at reelection without that action

Genevieve wrote:But he would sign an executive order to get all the troops home immediately.

what do you mean by "all"? all troops on foreign soil, i.e. he'd close all overseas bases? or all troops in afghanistan? or all troops actually engaged in land warfare? ...

and, once that's clear, where has he said he'll do that?

Atac wrote:Not specifically about this thread but I can tell there are many Ron Paul supporters misinforming people that challenge their beliefs.
A lot of what his supports are preaching actually have very little to do with Ron Paul's policies
I guess it's all subjective based on how you interpret him, either way I would much rather have a conversation then a strategical response battle on here

So... you want empty rhetoric, unsubstantiated and imbecilic leaps of logic? I'll show myself out now.

Intended Malice wrote:

Atac wrote:Not specifically about this thread but I can tell there are many Ron Paul supporters misinforming people that challenge their beliefs.
A lot of what his supports are preaching actually have very little to do with Ron Paul's policies
I guess it's all subjective based on how you interpret him, either way I would much rather have a conversation then a strategical response battle on here

So... you want empty rhetoric, unsubstantiated and imbecilic leaps of logic? I'll show myself out now.

No, I just think speaking is easier than typing...

But yeah Deadly you're spot on with the whole "Anti-Federal but not Pro-X" thing down.

Also I think there is absolute partisanship now (sadly) because it seems every President, no matter what party, goes into office and does the same thing as the last one!
Sure they sugarcoat whatever they can, but I think that this may solely be for reelection.

And to tyger, I believe Paul has said before in a speech or debate that he would cut militarism, not defense. Basically take America's nose out of business that does not directly threaten our national security. Obviously this threshold is taken advantage of today, but Ron Paul's standard of what we shouldn't be doing suits my personal beliefs more than other candidates. Essentially our occupancy all over the world would be dramatically decreased, because it isn't our responsibility and we can't afford that responsibility in the first place.

Also, as the commander in chief of the US military, the president can just order the military home without going through a long congressional process.

EDIT: Misread Tyger's questions.
But yeah man if you want just read up and what not, even if you disagree with him it's still very interesting. I wouldn't take the word of some of his kooky supporters as truth.



Here's a video to help demonstrate Paul vs his supporters. Ron Paul is aware that he can't just waltz in and end the Fed on day 1. He describes what he would realistically do, who he would appoint to run the Fed, and why.

Many people confuse Paul's ideals with his presidential plans/policies.

tyger wrote:

Genevieve wrote:But he would sign an executive order to get all the troops home immediately.

what do you mean by "all"? all troops on foreign soil, i.e. he'd close all overseas bases? or all troops in afghanistan? or all troops actually engaged in land warfare? ...

and, once that's clear, where has he said he'll do that?

Yes. Close all bases (including Guantanamo bay), get everyone home and he's said that in every debate and every chance he gets. Maybe he would start first with Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't know the exact logistics of it all. But he's against ANY military presence or intervention overseas unless congress has declared war. And he's said that in every debate he has ever been in.

Getting RP elected wouldn't change anything like with any other president. Except foreign policy because he's the commander in chief and has the legal authority to move all the troops at will without having to go to congress.

This is why this intense opposition to his supposedly 'extremist ideas' is totally irrational (other than the fact that none of his ideas are extremis). He would save all the entitlements that people have come to rely on by putting in the money saved from overseas spending (which he has ALSO said), get every troop home and other than that, things would go on as they usually do because congress has real legislative power.

But the "anti-war" folks prefer having a Democrat in charge who has been more militant overseas than George Bush (occupying more countries, killing American civilians) and can't fathom getting a Republican in charge who would actually stop the militarism becaue of a number of ideas he doesn't even have authority over. Ridiculous.

did not find facts fun.

You just keep proving my point that you need to actually read because your comprehension is horrible.

You didn't even address my point on armies and the constitution. A conversation between statesmen has no relevance when the constitution itself outlines in plain english the responsibility to fund a standing army.

Holy comprehension pancakes batman, I never said inflation didn't happen. I said it was telling that you implied gold had anything to do with it. But keep beating at the straw man you've raised, seems to be all you're capable of doing. That and going on about abstracts and putting yourself in the lead star of the hollywood conspiracy movie you've conjured in your head.

If you read your own article on the rebellion, you'd understand what you said makes zero sense. He never stated the event itself was a farce. In fact he outlines how forcing tax payment in the form of scarce commodities (silver in this case) to pay off speculators (which is essentially paying down debt) created an unfair burden for those without the assets, funds, and connections the rich had to obtain silver, which was beginning to be hoarded. The author states in the first paragraph that the rebellion was the key turning point that facilitated a new drafting of the constitution.

I'm happy that the greeks are finding short term solutions to their economic woes, but that says absolutely nothing about what we are arguing about. What happened to all your constitution thumping? You yourself allude that historically, contractual obligation played a key role in larger scale investments. Debt has been an important form of trade since the neolithic revolution.

I don't agree with how our government decides not to give a fair trial to it's most dangerous enemies, but you are taking a hyperbole and running with it. Awlaki used to do interviews here in the states, and he made no secret that he supported the 9/11 attacks. He supported future acts of violence towards the united states as well. You trying to paint a veil of innocence over him is misleading to say the least. He was an enemy of the state. While I think a fair trial would have been more suitable to his fate, as with bin ladens, the outcome would've been the same.

Go to eritrea and try to write an article criticizing their despotic regime, and then tell me how the USA doesn't respect freedom of speech from your prison cell. Or better yet, go tell the woman who was beaten and raped by 15 of Ghadafi's militiamen for 2 days for being in the wrong province, and imprisoned again for trying to talk to journalists. I'm sure she would sympathize with your outrage.

If you want lets take this to PM. I'm not bothering with this thread or subsection of the forum anymore.

Intended Malice wrote:If you want lets take this to PM. I'm not bothering with this thread or subsection of the forum anymore.

I hope this wasn't directed at me

No, it wasn't and I swear if it weren't for this horribly composed, but absolutely morbidly amusing track I wouldn't have addressed him at all.

Those words used in the sample are from Murray Rothbard (a self-proclaimed Enemy of the State, by the way); a man who talked the talk but failed to walk the walk... as it were. But they are True none the less.



Ok, I'm going to take this to an even more simplistic approach (for the last time) because you are incapable of discerning the obvious . You speak of a failure to comprehend, but I seriously doubt you posses the capability of questioning not only the folly of your misdirected arrogance, but your unfathomable stupidity.

1: You do realize that those 'conversations' you discredit were the Congressional (Senate) Sessions and points of discussion that would come to create the US Republic's Governance at the (post and pre) Constitutional convention, right? That is what happens in a Democratic Republic to create legislation. At no point in either the Articles of Confederation or Current US Constitution does it it give authority to create an army of any kind for obvious reasons: meaning the Federal Government did not posses the ability to do so, hence the the 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendment. Only a provision to maintain a Navy was given, thus one MUST CONCLUDE given the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights and Federalist Papers (those who wrote that 2nd deceleration), and all of the 13 Colonies respective Constitution that a well-regulated Sovereign militia was to be the only means of defense in time of war.

2: The point made in the article is describing the magnitude of impoverishment created throughout Society (in both high and low classes), a point that was negated in both your poorly conjured rebuttal and academic school propaganda; those affected most were not in fact poor revolting as you described and incorrectly attributing a flaw to the 1st Constitution, but rather those whom were burdened by PAPER ISSUED promises for compensation in the Revolution by the States. That is the crux of that article, once achieved you can devalue it by issuing more (to the benefit of the Bostonian plutocrats). hence why he refers to to as a revolt against taxation. Inflation is taxation, albeit a thinly veiled one; but one none the less. This is achieved by no longer operating on a commodity and finite based medium, to determine and maintain value, but rather when you use an abundant and easily conjured one like PAPER! (You'd know this if you made it past the 1st paragraph.)

The States who failed to make due on their commitments but continued to suppress the revolt were setting the State's criminal modus operendi and set the precedent for what would come later when the 1st and 2nd Central Bank was created by the Federalists--which is exactly the same model that the 3rd Central Bank. I seriously do not know how to directly correlate the two any better, I seriously don't... I will have stop myself here to prevent repeating myself.

3: Had you read the correspondence between Washington, and context it was written in and the author's comments you'd know why I called it a farce. I'm not going to delve into that. But you are reminding me once more why I didn't want to bother with you anymore.

4: I made it explicit that the 2nd Constitution was flawed, and ratified under dubious terms, you need only a basic understanding of the English language to understand that as I said several times and supported my argument at length.

5: I made no such allusion to the the benefits of debt or the issuance of debt based commodities in contractual obligations, what you made is an assumption; as you have done,erroneously, countless times within this thread. Contractual obligations, and the terms therein, are solely made at the discretion of the parties involved--whether they choose to do so in rocks or Paris Hiltons herpes scabs is not for me, or anyone other than said parties, to accept as a just form of compensation. Which is how it has been done for millenia. Thus, I would never make such an allusion nor would I engage in any debt based model, of my own volition,as the one we are currently violently burdened by at present.

6: Free speech is a Natural Right, the State has no ability to dictate in what manner one must conform or designate condonable speech. I won't bother with this either, but this goes back to the inception the Republic with the Alien and Sedition Act. (I'm with the Anti-Federalists on the matter, if you can't tell, and Jefferson won.) But its abhorrent to deny a citizen of said nation basic Human Rights and denial of trial (as protected by the Bill of Rights) because of the perceived threat by the State regarding one's rhetoric; speaking is not a crime and no evidence was established to incriminate him. And killing someone at the sole discretion of the State is the very definition of Totalitarian and Tyrannical; its no different than Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union--all of which the US spent trillions to fight (directly and indirectly) to supposedly protect the World from. And what the 1st Revolution was supposed to have been fought for.

Suitable?! That is the only LAWFUL option of the State has to prosecute someone! Being issued the imbecilic title of an 'Enemy of the State' is not a crime, let alone justify murder; this is not a fucking Victorian Monarchy where besmirching the Nobles ended with your head at the end of a pike. This was created as a Republic with the Rule of Law at the crux of its foundation and one that supposedly denied such Tyrannical oppression by any form of authority as it states in the Deceleration, and because it empirically fails to live up to the Standards and Laws of a Republic time and again, I think it should be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to you what it really is: a Totalitarian and Fascist Police State. One in which the serf's life is expendable and capable of committing blatant crimes against Humanity to pursue its agenda with absolute impunity.

7: It is believed that much of Gadaffi's men have fled throughout Africa once the Western coup faction illegally disposed of Gaddafi; and I believe it for the most part. But I have to ask, where are you being informed of said rape? Media outlets that are blatantly direct benefactors of MIC's illegal wars, interventions?

The truth is its fucking sad what happens over there, and throughout much the World; but I don't want to appeal to them nor do I care to change it, we have nothing in common; that is neither my home and not my concern. This is, which was illegally annexed by the US empire in 1846 days after our own successful and bloodless Revolution; I have an inherit Birth Right to this Land, neither the State nor anyone else can deny me that--their corrupt legislation is thus relegated into obscurity when it denies me that. Which is why I'm a proponent, and have made it quite clear, of secession from this illegal and coercive imperial union.

I'm seriously getting a 1984 Ministry of Truth vibe from you, and I say this not just in bemusement but in actual fear. You are the corrupted mind that accepts lies once repeated enough times, and I say this with absolute sincerity: you are fucking scary! And if it means having to admit defeat despite my thorough diatribes filled with truthful, factual references and arguments--in contrast to your unsubstantiated conjecture--just do away with you: so be it.

Before I delve into the actual issues:

What I find scary is that 90% of your arguments are pathos and ethos about truth, justice, liberty, freedom (all uselessly ambiguous terms), and the 10% of the substantive issues you address you change over the course of the argument. You may call me scary, but I'm simply a worried individual who wants to find real concrete solutions to better our society, and not just that of the united states, but of much worse off places like Libya (but such worldly issues aren't a concern for you, since it isn't your "home"). I wish to further that agenda the same way that blacks earned their freedom, women won their democracy, workers won their safety, etc. Paranoid delusions don't make any substantial changes to the system. It takes a more pragmatic approach for that.

What I personally find scary, is that I encounter your paranoid mode of thought more and more. It's irrational and when it's taken to the extreme, leads to things like this. The norway shooter shot dozens of little children because he thought they were "indoctrinated" and "brainwashed", the same way you think everyone other than yourself is.

Now i'll get onto your points:

1.

Intended Malice wrote:At no point in either the Articles of Confederation or Current US Constitution does it it give authority to create an army of any kind

US Constitution, article 1 section 8 wrote:To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

2.

Intended Malice wrote:those affected most were not in fact poor revolting as you described and incorrectly attributing a flaw to the 1st Constitution, but rather those whom were burdened by PAPER ISSUED promises for compensation in the Revolution by the States.

That's not entirely incorrect, but it's not a complete analysis. After these paper notes lost incredible value, soldiers sold them off to speculators at huge discounts. From your article:

Gary North wrote:Unlike all other states, Massachusetts' legislature passed a law to redeem the notes at face value. The legislature was dominated by Boston's mercantile interests. While it is not possible to trace the ownership of all of the debt after the war, what can be traced indicates that 80 percent of the speculators lived in or near Boston, and almost 40 percent was held by 35 men. Most had bought these notes at tremendous discounts. Then, to add insult to injury, interest on these notes was retroactively made payable in silver.To pay off these speculators, taxes were raised. The main ones were the poll tax and the property tax, beginning in 1785.

In other words, when those notes were in the hands of ordinary people, soldiers, etc., the government didn't want to honor them, and no legislation forced them to. Once those notes were in the hands of speculators, they were honored with interest in specie, and the ordinary people had to pay for it through higher taxes.

But you still don't address the main point: The revolt exposed a huge flaw in the articles, and that was to create money to repay debts, and regulate commerce. That was why the 2nd constitution was more than necessary, which is really an address to your 4th point.

3. Ok?

4. Go to any historian and say this:

Intended Malice wrote:the Articles of Confederation (First US Constitution) was quite possibly the best form of Governance ever conceived in recorded History

They will laugh in your face. The constitution may have flaws, but it was 100x better than the previous alternative.

5. You said

Intended Malice wrote: Its not an absolute solution by any means, as I understand large scale investment projects require far more complicated transactions and contractual obligations, but that can be accomplished using the same means it was done for 2000+ years.

For more than 5,000 years, debt based transactions propped up various projects large and small. Our current fiat system makes that same approach more stable.

6. I agree. But I make a clear distinction of scale between what we do and what stalin, mao, or hitler had done. I won't defend the illegal actions of our defense department, but comparing that to the massive waves of death under those regimes is wrong. I don't believe awlaki was the slightest bit innocent, but I agree he should've been given trial.

7. You should just shut up about this point. Since you like videos so much, here's the one for you

It IS fucking sad what happens in other countries, compared to the kind of protections and comfort we enjoy in the western world. People like you however don't give a shit and continue to whine about paranoid delusions that you grow inside your head to hollywood proportions. In all honesty, it's an insult to the millions of men and women who have fought and died for all the luxuries we have. But it's alright, because there are people who are sincerely dedicated to helping those in need in our society, who look for real practical solutions to our problems. Perhaps instead of churning out polemic walls of text on the internet pointing fingers, calling everyone sheeps and ridiculing public education of all things, you should get the fuck outside and actually build something for your community.

after watching alot of ron paul videos.. i honestly think he will do America some good... I do disagree with him on some aspects such as his over bearing faith in the free market BUT he is spot on with America's foreign Policy.

America IS an empire and he is 100% right when he says that America should learn the lessons of History.
Empires fall not due to neighbouring military might but due to economic and financial weakness. Soviet Union, Roman Empire...

By intervening in foreign affairs they are not only making enemies but they are effecting markets all over the globe. The reason why they entered Iraq was for oil (every one knows that) but not everyone knows that they have an oil reserve life of 163 years. Therefore some of the other OPEC sees this as threat to their security. America is waging wars for resources just like the Colonial powers before them. Therefore restricting the supply of oil cause prices to sky rocket.

America HAS to cut their deficit. They cannot maintain an empire, policies of international aggression and pre-emptive strikes when China is financing this crazy campaign. America borrows money from China to wage wars and undermine global security while their economy deteriorates with spiralling number of exports, rising unemployment and rising inflation due to quantitative easing.

I disagree with Ron Paul in such things as abolishing the department of education but Im not too familiar with social programs in the US.