|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Admin |
Posted - 10/20/2010 : 5:50:10 PM
Be courteous, present your point, do not attack those you disagree with.
Please stop yourself before using the pronoun "you" in an unfriendly manner. This is a flame-free forum. We have a no-tolerance policy on destroying camaraderie.
That said, what's your political position on current events? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Warmskin |
Posted - 09/04/2011 : 03:26:34 AM
This video is from a speech given during special orders. Speeches can go on for a much longer time than during normal speeches during regular sessions in Congress.
This speech was given on September 6, 2011. While it may not seem like today's news, classical ideas are never outdated. Also, this speech was a warning about the approaching financial disasters that would face us in later on. A prophet is never honored in his own time. This speech would not be possible if any other politician had tried to give it. They could not be this competent, especially most of today's politicians running for nomination to be a presidential candidate.
Why is it that we elect only ignorant nominees of both major parties? This politician, on the video, is a genius contrasted to all the others, yet he is rejected by the establishment. Thus, we will be governed by ignorant, greedy, ego-maniacal, easily-led politicians. Witness some of the recent past presidents. Can you imagine Obama or Bush giving this speech? 
Part One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDKWm92EvhU
Part Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfaM2tEayik&NR=1
Part Three (click on the second half of the double-link)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONpt9a6HrI&NR=1" target="_blank"> br / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONpt9a6HrI&NR=1
"I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind."
Thomas Jefferson
|
| Warmskin |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 01:30:19 AM
Fascinating link. Guess who gets more military donations than all other candidates combined. Just one guess. After you guess, watch this video that has a lot of charts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al3Nl46VKEk&feature=related
I wonder what the military knows about war. Hmmm.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct."
Thomas Jefferson |
| Warmskin |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 9:21:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by HomeNudist
Hmmmm, Obama versus Obama. What, the Teleprompter on the left side has different text than the Teleprompter on the right side???
Actually what I had in mind was Obama, the candidate, versus Obama, the president, They are often contrasting, as if they were two people. So, I stumbled into the truth when I said, effectively, Obama v. Obama. He said we'd be out of the Mideast wars in short order when he was a candidate. As president, he's more committed to war, and has gone back on his word about bringing the troops home. So, he is opposed to himself.
I also saw a political cartoon showing a line of Romneys, each pair of Romneys were debating each other, because of the opposite stances taken by him over a relatively short period of time.
It's a bi-partisan problem.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct."
Thomas Jefferson |
| Warmskin |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 9:14:42 PM
Whether the necons are on their way out will be easy to determine. For that to be the case, the GOP will return to their old traditional selves and reject wars as they did in the 20th century. All those in the Mideast are by the highly modified GOP. If the GOP wins the presidency, and that president maintains all the wasteful wars over there, then the neocon spirit still will rule the GOP.
If the GOP president, in 2013, calls all the troops home from the Mideast, and swears never to get into any more of the neocon wars, those neocons will have at last been defeated. It's not the names of people who determine if an administration is neocon, it's the guiding philosophy that is either neocon or anti-neocon.
There are still many, many Republicans who think the wars over there are useful to fight, although they cannot go into detail as to why we should be more worried about the Afghan borders than our own borders at home.
The media still is neoconned, and that is so, because for one thing, neoconservatism is not conservatism. Two different words with clashing meanings. That the media, GOP bosses, and the Democrats don't like Ron Paul is a singular message, unprecendted in modern times.
Ron Paul is the shortest way out of neoconism if that is the desire of the GOP, which if not for Obamacare, the remaining neoconism would doom the GOP. Why did the GOP not figure this out back in 2006, when they lost very badly in the 2006 and 2008 elections?
So, let us watch for the cessation of all wars in the Mideast on our part. The trillions spent there would have been better off in the taxpayers' pockets.
The question of the day concerning the potential dismissal of the neocon treachery against America can be partially forecast presently. Would a President Bachmann, Romney, Palin, Cain, Perry, Huntsman, Santorum, all call our troops home, and swear off any more wars over there? Think of each one individualy, and try to imagine him or her doing just that.
See if you can predict which one will bring our troops home as absolutely rapidly as a concerted effort of logistics would allow, after their innauguration, despite all the possible outcomes, internationally, after we pull out.
The one I know would certainly do that is Ron Paul, the ultimate anti-neocon candidate. The other candidates make me wonder.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct."
Thomas Jefferson |
| balataf |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 4:55:49 PM
Well, Warmskin has pretty well achieved his dream with the big ongoing collapse of the Neocon faction, and the old Establishment. The groups who strong;ly backed Dubya hasve mostly lost out.
In the past few days I've seen several strong articles detailing the Tea Party takeover of Repuiblican foreign policy, including a mass trip of 47 Freshmen Congressmen to visit Israel under the sponsorship of anti-Neocon Christian Right groups. The Neocons have lost, and the Tea Party has defeated them. Perry never had Neocon suport, and the entire process is largely a tectonic shift away from the old Party leadership, as the new system gets established.
The demise of groups that supported Dubya, such as the Establishment and Neocon factions has been replaced by the Tea Party / Christian Right as the factions struggle and bargain to make a coherent coalition for 2012. This will require the willingness of the voters in next year's primaries, from local officers up to president, but that process is well advanced.
For one telling, but minor point, I was surprized yesterday when one of my Wife's good friends visited me on my birthday, and mentioned that she, a DEMOCRAT, had decided to back Perry, and planned to re-register. Three years ago, she was for Hillary, then Obama. This was unexpected, given her past support for Obamacare, etc. But she liked his legal reform for the "little guy" in Texas.
|
| HomeNudist |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 1:56:22 PM
Hmmmm, Obama versus Obama. What, the Teleprompter on the left side has different text than the Teleprompter on the right side???
What I find most distressing about politics today is the unequal treatment by the press. Example: Within weeks of Perry jumping in the race, his collage records are "leaked" and the whole world can see his less than stellar grades. However, after 3 years, we still have not seem Obama's records. . . and not a wimper from the press. |
| Warmskin |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 03:56:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by HomeNudist
quote:
Originally posted by Warmskin
Doesn't it bug you that Obama and Romney, Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum have idential war postures as Obama?
I have mixed feelings about the others, but I kinda expect Obama to have the same war posture as Obama. . .  *
* Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation. No offense intended. [slinks away]
None taken. Actually, even though I made a mistake in forming that sentence, I was still correct. To some degree, Obama is running against his campaign promises. Now you can see what even when I'm not correct, I am still right. I'm amazing!!! Obama versus Obama. I just keep stumbling into the truth, sometimes gracefully, and at other times, I swerve into it uncontrollably.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct."
Thomas Jefferson |
| Warmskin |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 03:40:41 AM
All but two of the GOP candidates want close allies, and partisanship towards a goodly number of countries. Jefferson and Washington disdained having allies or showing any kind of favoritism in the world. They were right, of course, based on our major problems of the past few decades. Nothing Jeffersonian about that.
If Jefferson could have watched the GOP debates, he would have been horrified at what was being addressed. Only Ron Paul would have been liked by Jefferson. You cannot want allies and be Jeffersonian at the same time.
Comparing the GOP to Obama, and using that comparison is like saying that the temperatures at the South Pole show that Iceland is a warm country. What is one's standard? Marxism, libertarianism, moderate politics, neoconservatism?
Bachmann worked for Jimmy Carter, and I believe either Perry or Romney worked with a Democrat. That is hardly a crime, but where is their consistency? Ron Paul has always had the same ideals, all his life. For some GOP candidates, the prime importance of freedom and liberty are new experiences.
Sure, Jefferson and Reagan had to take emergency measures in taming some people who wished us ill, but they were not wars, but more tactics used for a limited period of time (Tripoli and Grenada, respectively). However, the Iraq and Afghan wars have been very, very long, and never were declared wars. The Pacific Theater in WWII was prosectuded in far less time than our current expensive wars, with the difference being, among other things, that it was a lawfully declared war.
Madison vehemently objected to presidents making wars, just as kings could declare wars. Madison wanted the representatives of the people to declare wars, because that took deliberation and approval of the people, indirectly. It undoes our republic for a president to coopt Congress in declaring wars. It's obsolete thinking and is centuries old, and was carried out by unfree countries' leaders.
As both major parties slip and slide, making us revert to an anti-republican government (not the GOP, but small r republican), we lose our freedoms. We need to restore Congress as the "decider" as to when a war should take place. Going to war is not a light decision, and is too serious of a proposition to leave to a president. A diverse body, as the Congress is, is the best body of people to decide that.
Ron Paul, by his advocacy of having no allies, and not playing favorites with any country, and respecting Constitutionally based wars, all separate him from the more Hamiltonian big government type of GOP politicians. Cain, Romney, Bachmann, and most of the others are international Hamiltonians, with their hyper-lust for policing the world to our liking.
Ambitious governments are never Jeffersonian. Who is unambitious with our government among either party? Yes, Ron Paul. He wants to shrink government by curtailing its activities, including multi-trillion dollar wars, and useless departments.
Still don't know about Perry; he needs more time and exposure, and is the public ready for another Texas governor not long after the Bush Jr. years? Perry might be a great guy, but I'm not sure the non-Texans know about what he stands for. He has a good record in keeping Texas a great state to do business in. That is big plus. It's where he comes down on foreign policy that is going to count, also. If he is happy with the way things are in the Mideast, he will lodge in Hamiltonian territory.
Hamilton -big, busy gov't, with empire, allies, and foreign machinations.
Jefferson, quiet, small gov't, with neutrality and no allies.
Who likes the latter? Who is speaking out in terms of the latter? That is all you need to know to categorize any politician from either party.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct."
Thomas Jefferson |
| balataf |
Posted - 08/28/2011 : 12:28:03 PM
All of the Republican cndidates are on the more Jeffersonian side of the political spectrum, with Romney being the least among them. Check out their positions on the issues in the debtes. O am tlking about items like reversing the recent Federalization of Education policy. Even Romney would be a good bit moremore Jeffersonian President than Obama. Looking at the wide variety of items shows a broad sdpectrum of opinions.
This is not a two-point binsry spectrum where one is totally Hamiltonian or totally Jeffersonian with nothing in between. The voters choose the direction of changes with each election. WQe get quesations like whether Amtrtak should be subsidized, whether Sttes can regulate the internet, Whether to have undeclsared wars like Jefferson and Obama voth did with Tripoli, Whether the Federal governent should requiure certin gas milage in new cars. There is room for reasonable people to disagree acoss the spectrum of political positions.
Should Abortion and "Gay Marriage" be decided on a Federal or state-by-state basis? No one can say exactly what Jefferson or Hamilton or any of the Funding Fathers would ssy, but my guess is that all would trust the voters of the States.
What is the best path to supporting freedom in the Arab Spring? What about Statehood for Puerto Rico?
Each and EVERY QUESTION has a variety of answers possible tht impact the total direction of the nation. As always, the voters will decide, and the situation will never ne perfect as long as people have a variety of answers on a large spectrum of questions.
|
| Warmskin |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 7:50:36 PM
Here is a fun proclamation from the only emporer the USA ever had. Emporer Norton. He was one of those people who you did not know if he were a genius or had mental health problems. Maybe he was on the elusive border between the two states of mind.
He did foresee the building of bridges in the San Francisco Bay. Almost 70 years later, the bridges were built. The requisite engineering did not exist during Emporer Norton's life.
http://www.zpub.com/sf/history/nort.html
In San Francisco he said this:
In 1869 he abolished both the Democratic and Republican parties, declaring "Being desirous of allaying the dissension's of party strife now existing within our realm, [I] do hereby dissolve and abolish the Democratic and Republican parties, and also do hereby decree the disfranchisement and imprisonment, for not more than ten, nor less than five years, to all persons leading to any violation of this our imperial decree." --San Francisco Herald, August 4, 1869
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct."
Thomas Jefferson |
| Warmskin |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 6:48:59 PM
See my post again. I said that prophets are never accepted in their own time. Americans are hooked on what is. They don't want to address the nation's problems head on. Paul does, and he is the only one who does. The rest of the candidates of either major party will just give us more of the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
Perry is a wild card. As soon as the dust settles from his entry, we'll know more about him. He leans a bit Ron Paul's way with his sensible dislike of the Federal Reserve. That bucks what both parties believe. They want to the Fed to keep creating money to pay for wars and welfare. Without the Fed, we'd have to stop the wars, and revamp welfare, or privatize it in the manner of, say, the Salvation Army.
Hamilton got us into central banking which is one of the most vile thing he did against the American people. Thank goodness for Andrew Jackson for getting rid of central banking and all of its intrigues and machinations. These banks are a parasite on the backs of the people.
The Constitution is simple and clear. It takes a malevolent individual to abuse it and to attempt to deprive the people of their rights. Nancy Pelosi keeps saying it's a living document. She's wrong, although it can be amended by lawful means. Few people in Congress or the White House have any respect for that classic document. The Supreme Court, or at least a minority, if not a majority abuse our Constitution by legislating from the bench. Only by obfuscation can its intent be violated. Powerseekers violate that frequently, because the Constitution does not grant them the power they want. The idea was to creat a government, and then limit it. Bush Jr. and Obama loved/love to violate that document. I have no respect for either one of them.
Only Ron Paul is Jeffersonian. I can't see in any way the rest of them are in the least Jeffersonian. Neocon clones are not of the Jeffersonian mindset, and have never even pretended to be.
The media can decide who gets elected. The public does not think things through thoroughly. Lots of folks simply don't have the time to get into deep analysis, and thus vote for the "safe" candidate that the media likes to present in a positive light.
I have to laugh at the "experts" who say that Ron Paul is a fringe candidate. He is straight out of our classical American heritage. To say he is fringe is to say the true American spirit is fringe. Just because the GOP is the defender of the New Deal, and the Great Society, and that the GOP rank and file now feel fine about those eras, they have notably shifted. Along comes Ron Paul, advocating the pure Constitution, and the freedoms that Jefferson wanted for us, and he is called a weirdo for that. If being purely America is weird, that signifies the end of America.
The mainstream GOP is not the answer for our nation's ills, and neither is the Democratic party. They both have contributed heavily for our financial downfall. They don't have the raw guts to reverse course and set this nation on a healthy course in matters of economics.
One has to admire the amazing ability Ron Paul had back in the 1990s. Everything he said came true. Where were Obama, Bachmann, Santorum, Romney, Cain, or earlier, Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. during the 1990s? They could foresee nothing, and directed America in a way that endangered us. Ron Paul was the only one who had the vision to predict our financial bubbles, 911, and other important events.
The people will often vote for whoever makes them feel good or comfortable. The media is about the only channel of information that the people hear or see. The media, thus has enormous power in the selection of candidates. Ron Paul may not make a lot of people comfortable in their present condition. He is the alarm clock going off, waking people up to what is going on around them. Folks don't like to hear an alarm go off; it's disturbing.
When America is no longer able to fund its overwhelming appetite for spending, and can no longer pay its debts, or borrow money, they'll know that Paul was correct. Too bad we have to wait until that happens before we see things differently. When people feel the heat, they'll see the light.
If you watched that video, you'll see what I mean. It seems uncanny as to what Ron Paul predicted, but it wasn't uncanny in actuality. It was just being intelligent and honest.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct."
Thomas Jefferson |
| balataf |
Posted - 08/27/2011 : 03:31:31 AM
If Paul is so great, how come he isn;t convincing so many people to go for
him? The same could be said about others in the pack.
The fight over the Individual Mandate in Obamacare is a great ilustration
of the clashes over provisions within the Constitution. The Founding
Fathers were a wide-ranging group, with quite varied opinions to match,
and the debates have never ceased.
As the prime author of the Federlist Papers, with Madison and Jay,
Hamilton was able to mold much of the new government. As Washington's
Treasury Secretary, he was an effective prime minister. His main opponent,
Jefferson, withdrew from the Cabinet, going into opposition.
As issues have multiplied and gotten more complicated, there are much
wider ranges of opinion jostling for power.
The Constitution evolves with back-and-forth election waves of party
control, such as 2008 and 2010. It flows among sometimes radically
opposite perceptions of what the unchanging words of the document can be
read to mean, with contradictions that believe they are all following
the letter and spirit of the Founders. Partly it depends on which of
the Founders you choose. Among lawyers, it is often John Marshall, for
good reasons.
Over time, we get a sort of "lowest common denominator" Constitution, in
which the points of agreement rule among those who vehemently disagree on
other points. So, candidates make their popular appeals on it.
All the organs of government share this process, but it is centered on the
Supreme Court, quite unavoidably so.
But the entire process is ultimately in the hands of the mass of voters,
who elect the Court's appointing presidents and confirming senatos. Every
Federal election contains a debate on the direction of future Supreme Court
actions.
We are currently in a time of rising Jeffersonian fervor, as shown by ALL
of the Republican candidates. They are Reactionaries (in the technical
political science sense of the word.) They, and myself, are rejecting the
incredible power overreach of the current Administrion.
But that does not mean that these Tea Party Republicans, such as Bachmann,
Paul or Perry agree closely in their avowed Constitutionalism.
Then again, such choices ARE WHY WE HAVE ELECTIONS. The voters collectively
own the parties, and the entire process, and always have, at all levels,
back to the feuding Founding Fathers.
|
| Warmskin |
Posted - 08/26/2011 : 11:40:37 PM
A prophet is never honored in his own time. The media, the GOP, and the Democrats, as a united front, will make sure that saying is made true.
I suppose that a man who can see into the future, by being sensible and correct, is going to be attacked by the less gifted people. History is littered with examples of this.
Think Galileo and Ron Paul. They were both harshly rejected, yet both were proven to be correct about what they said. See the video linked below for proof of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXYd5eHfRIE&feature=related
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct."
Thomas Jefferson |
| balataf |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 1:35:30 PM
VP Biden's new endorsement of China's "one-child" policy is a moral and political disaster. With all the stories of women kidnapped by police from the street or homes, then dragged fighting and screaming to be tied down for the ugly abortion of a child who was wanted by the parents.
The flip side is that with one kid allowed, millions of Chinese families chose to abort girls and favor boys, of which China now has a 40 to 50 million surplus. The instincts of these men are making a huge wave of sex slavery and prostitution.
Today's "Daily Beast", a left-wing viewpoint outlet, ripped the VP and called on all feminists to join the complaint loudly. The combination of forced abortion and female infanticide and abortion are massive human rights violations.
|
| Warmskin |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 05:48:25 AM
I got this from linkedin. It seems to based on the Rasmussen polling company. Interesting stuff:
Obama 39%, Paul 38%
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 The president and the maverick are running almost dead even in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.
Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided. Just a month ago, Obama posted a 41% to 37% lead over Paul, who ran second to Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in the recent high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.
Paul, whose long run afoul of the GOP establishment with his libertarian policy prescriptions, picks up 61% of the Republican vote, while 78% of Democrats fall in behind the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties prefer the longtime congressman by 10 points – 43% to 33%.
But Paul still has a long haul among voters in his own party. He ran fourth last week in Rasmussen Reports’ most recent survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters with nine percent (9%) support. Texas Governor Rick Perry, the new face in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has jumped to a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney and Bachmann with the other announced candidates trailing even further behind.
In that same survey, 43% of likely primary voters expressed a favorable opinion of Paul, while slightly more (45%) registered an unfavorable view of him. This included 15% with a Very Favorable regard for Paul, who ran unsuccessfully for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008, and 14% with a Very Unfavorable one.
Still, Paul, popular with many in the Tea Party movement, runs better against the incumbent than another Tea Party favorite, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.Obama leads Palin 50% to 33% among all likely voters, making her the only potential GOP candidate to date against whom the president’s support has risen out of the 40s.
The match-up surveys of 1,000 Likely Voters were conducted August 15-16, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error for the surveys is +/- 3% with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Obama continues to trail a generic Republican candidate in a hypothetical 2012 matchup.
Seventy-six percent (76%) of Tea Party members support Paul. Fifty-one percent (51%) of those who are not members of the grass roots smaller government movement opt for the president.
Paul leads Obama by 11 points among male voters but loses female voters to the incumbent by a similar margin. Voters under 30 prefer the president, while Paul edges the incumbent in all other age groups.
The president leads among voters who earn $60,000 or less a year, while the GOP candidate is ahead among those who make more.
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the Political Class favor Obama. A plurality (46%) of Mainstream voters support Paul.
Paul has long been a critic of the Federal Reserve Board, and Americans overwhelmingly agree with his call for auditing the Fed.
He also breaks sharply with other GOP candidates by calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of all voters nationwide now want the troops to come home from Afghanistan either immediately or within a year.
Back to me again, you can be very sure that the mainstream media would like to take Paul out of the race. When the GOP and the mainstream media want Paul out of the race, what is going on? The GOP and the media suddenly in love with each other? Now there is a compromised GOP. It begs the question, "What is the GOP these days?"
It would be interesting to contemplate television and radio not being able to host events or talk about politics. That would no doubt alter who gets elected. Americans would be forced to read what the candidates said, and to think about their words, instead of being spoon fed the "news" to the masses by the broadcast media.
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his (and her) conduct."
Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
 |
|
|
