Posted on 09/30/2007 10:12:11 AM PDT by traviskicks
Edited on 09/30/2007 4:01:53 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Again: Provide a direct link to Ron Paul unequivocally stating this.
It is called "speakwrite," one of the fundamental principles of Ingsoc.
A heresy in a so called "Free Republic."
Keep it in context. He was talking specifically about income taxes, not eliminating all taxes.
The words "muslim" and "Islam" appear nowhere in the scanty and pathetically lacking document provided. At all.
Busted.
I don’t tap dance. I’m sorry that you and me have to be Gregory Hines to say something nice about the one public serpent in the US Congress who is in favor of leaving Americans the heck alone.
Petronski is very capable of defending his position without resorting to censorship. His Kool-Aid post is priceless.
We don’t need censorship. We can hash this out amongst ourselves like men (or women)...duel at 20 paces.
You got me all wrong. His position on Domestic policy is perfect. PERFECT.
His position on foreign policy is simply mentally retarded.
My honest assessment of that document you're referring, that I just read from the link above, makes more sense than all 6 plus years of the Bush administrations immigration policies and his endless open border free for all.
His error on the war doesn’t require absurdity on other’s parts.
Mocking him and his supporters also mocks his 2A, low tax positions and Lord knows we need all the help we can on those issues.
My honest and accurate assessment of the woefully inadequate mini-doc provided in posting #122 is that -- contrary to the bluntly stated assertion that it provided hard evidence that Ron Paul would "[ban] Muslims from coming here" -- it states no such thing; and that the original claim to the contrary was a pathetic, bald-faced lie.
That would make any claimant in this instance, by definition, liars.
You forgot his medical position as an OB-GYN who saw crying viable 5 month old fetuses scream as they were killed.
Nation building is not a Conservative principle. But rational Conservatives will make the exception in this case since after 9/11 we just want to not get blown up while we are sitting in our office building reading e-mails and talking to our clients.
Yes, yes, but do you agree with this?
And I find it odd that you would label that statement a "Woefully inadequate mini-doc".
Would you prefer a 10,000 page government statement, made by 86 different government committees, that takes years to produce?
Hmmm.
I'd say his statement was, to the point, and right on the money.
I was against the use of force resolution preferring an actual Declaration of War. When that didn’t go my way I backed the resolution and will do so as well as the long term plans in the mideast. Islamofascism should be extinguished.
Paul’s rhetoric and stand on principle scares most Conservatives.
When I see someone engaged in wholesale mocking of someone like Ron Paul, I see someone afraid of discussing issues, in essence a coward. Mods not excluded.
Please don't attempt to clumsily change the subject under discussion by frantically hopping up and down and pinwheeling your arms like that. For the record: by your "yes, yes," then, I take you -- as another vocal and (putatively) knowledgeable Ron Paul supporter -- are admitting, openly, that the assertion that Ron Paul would ensure that "Muslims would be banned from immigrating here" is, in plain point of fact, a great, whopping, steaming pile? A simple, straightforward YES or NO, please.
The personal income tax does not pay for the military.
Borrowing from the Federal Reserve and Corporate Taxes add to exactly 23% which is the military portion of the federal outlays.
Corporate taxes have historically always funded the military. But recent corporate tax breaks have compelled the federal government to ‘borrow’ what it needs in deficit spending from the Federal Reserve.
Police are paid for by local taxes as are fire department personnel, sanitary inspectors. Air Marshals are paid for by federal dollars but not necessarily personal income taxes.
Do 1040 taxes pay for schools?
Do 1040 taxes pay for roads?
Do 1040 taxes pay for Social Security?
Do 1040 taxes pay for Medicare?
The answer to all these questions is no.
What are 1040 taxes used for?
To pay interest on the national debt most of which is borrowed from the Federal Reserve and for waste.
Now note that the Federal Reserve is allowed by law to create money out of thin air and charge interest for it. Although the Constitution expressly allows for the federal government to make its own coin and currency, it has been in the habit of borrowing from nothingness and paying interest on nothingness. Why should the United States pay interest on money it allows to be created from nothing when it can print the money itself? Why not federalize the Federal Reserve so that each of its employees is a federal civil servant under the Department of the Treasury? And have the money creation be interest free for federal government purposes? This is the way government was run before 1913.
The Income tax is part of the Fed money vacuum to get dollars out of circulation. It injects money created from nothing into its banks that are charged to put you and me into debt if they can. And it takes money out of circulation via the Income tax to control the inflation that it creates.
When you and I go to a bank to borrow, we are no longer borrowing from the deposits of others, but from the federal Reserve notes/digits created from thin air that the bank acts as an intermediary for. We borrow nothingness and we pay interest on it.
As for waste, do the American people really need a Department of Education? A Department of Housing and Urban Development, etc?
The bottom line is that the Income tax was passed in 1913 in the same Congress that passed the Federal Reserve Act; this is not a coincidence. The income tax was passed to get the likes of JP Morgan and his hated ilk to pay taxes on income exempt from excise taxes, but such barons feigned residency in sparsely populated states where apportionment of taxes rendered their tax bill so small as to be forgettable. Figures such as Morgan owned the town, the stores in the town, the means of production, the town government, and of course the banks. Such barons were hated beyond description and to punish them the Income tax was passed under a new amendment (because previous attempts at an income tax had failed constitutionally).
But there was a Quid Pro Quo, the Income tax was bought in Congress by these barrons in exchange for a monopoly ‘concession’ to print money based on gold reserves. A 20% reserve meant 80% new money could be created from nothing.
As the Income tax was capped at a maximum 7% for a very small percentage of the population (<2%), most Americans never saw it or knew of its existence. The entire tax code filled 14 pages and would fill 9 pages using today’s fonts and formatting. So 7% in exchange for creating 80% new money from nothing to feed their banks was the deal of the century. And Americans did not know of the scam foisted upon them. They were ‘promised’ the 16th Amendment only applied to the very rich, the hated rich.
But even that maximum of 7% was too much for greedy banker barons. They bought tax favors and exemptions in Congress and shifted the income tax onto the middle class. It took them only 4 decades to accomplish this. Their gross tax rates were high giving the illusion to the general population they were paying their fair share, but the Congressional exemptions and favors they bought/bribed gave them tax free instruments to concentrate their wealth in.
The Income tax is a scam. It was passed under the pretext of class warfare.
Today Americans pay nearly 60% of compensation in income and payroll taxes and in embedded taxes. To see some American people scoff at those socialist hellholes in Europe with their high tax rates is high hypocrisy wrapped in designed ignorance. European socialist populations know their tax rates whereas total taxes in America are hidden as much as possible.
It is sad to see our fellow ‘doofus’ ‘moonbat’ ‘koolaid drinking’ (what ever name calling insert here _____) Americans ridicule Ron Paul for bringing light to the tax scam. Ron Paul has more knowledge of American History and the Constitution in the tip of his pinky than most have in billions of brain cells God gave them but are wasted.
Ron Paul is a great American, maybe not destined to be President but nevertheless America is better off for his willingness to speak out.
Would that be the right amount of socialism you and other conservatives can live with?
And I find it odder still, in turn, that you're flailing about so desperately (and ineffectually) in the patent attempt to distract from the original point under discussion: mainly, that the extravagant claims originally made for said "document" -- such a grandiose designation, surely, for something scantier than a McDonald's menu ! -- were utter and unalloyed horse****, from first syllable to last.
"Hmmm," indeed.
You haven’t been following Paul’s record very closely if you think “he went off the reservation” on foreign policy. Paul has always been anti-Wilsonian. In fact, less than ten years ago most pubblies in Congress (who opposed the Kosovo war even though our troops were in harm’s way) agreed with him. It is they, not him, who have “gone off the reservation”
Not if we withdraw from the world, as Paul advises.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and minus American influence, the dark forces that would rush in to fill the vacated space would be evil beyond belief. And it wouldn't just be Islamists.
The net result, over time, would be us in a fight for our very survival, and the survival of our friends, rather than us in a controlled fight to contain them.
Being laissez faire about rabies in the neighborhood, when you own livestock and have children, is not a good or a wise plan.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.