Posted on 12/24/2007 10:39:05 AM PST by Reform Canada
I saw the interviews with Ron Paul on Glen Beck and Meet the Press and found myself agreeing with much of what he said. He referred to a movie called Freedom to Fascism so I decided to watch. I am a very skeptical person yet I am now convinced. For the sake of your future and the future of your family watch this movie and decide for yourself.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
If this post is removed I will be more convinced than ever
****Ron Paul isn’t perfect and peoples biggest problem is his position on the WOT.
Actually, people’s biggest problem is that he’s a raging loon. He’s a few sandwiches shy of a picnic. A few fries short of a Happy Meal. His elevator doesn’t hit all the floors. he don’t have all his dogs barkin’.
Folks who subscribe to every half-baked conspiracy theories, from neo-Nazis to 9/11 truthers, see him as their savior. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a campaign ad promising to name the shooters on the grassy knoll.
What I’m trying to say, in my own subtle way, is, dude’s nuttier than a bowl of cashews. ****
Personal attacks. Good response. As for the 9/11 conspiracies he has made it very clear that he does not believe the US gov’t had any involvement. Just because a racist may have voted for Ronald Reagan or George Bush it doesn’t make Reagan or Bush racists.
****However if there isn’t continued improvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and some serious stability by 2010 than a serious reassessment of the methods being used in this war will needed.
A serious reassessment of the methods used in this war is an ongoing event. Even Cheney and Rumsfeld have admitted to errors in the initial effort. It was reassessed last year, reassessed this year, and will be reassessed next year. ****
And we still lack stability. If there is no stability by 2010 perhaps we should pull out. Canadian troops have done a spectacular job in Afghanistan however if we are unable to achieve stability leaving should be considered.
**** A generation of American isolationism just might be the best thing for America to refortify it’s power
Yeah, because that’s worked so well in the past. I mean, we wouldn’t want to intervene in Europe in 1933, because it was, oh God, so much more fun in 1942. And isolationism and tariff walls did so much good in preventing the Depression in 1930. But hey, Ron Paul is smarter than history. I’m sure it will work out this time. ****
US isolation allowed America to build a Super Military that when it acted it easily tipped the balance in favor of the allies. If the US would have been all over the world like Britain was it may very well not have had what it took to bring Victory to the allies.
**** and for the rest of the world to learn to look out for itself. If America only acted militarily to defend it’s NATO allies and didn’t get involved in defending non allies and stayed out of UN sanctioned conflicts after a generation you may see a safer world.
So September 11, 2001, was just an “oopsie?” I didn’t see any UN sanction in Afghanistan, and our NATO allies took their hits in London and Madrid.****
The United States acted properly after 9/11 however at some point if they are unable to achieve their objective to bring stability to the Middle East and increased security for the American People other options need to be considered.
If you don't go for that, how about we throw in socialist Jenny Granholm to sweeten the pot? It'd be tough, but Michigan could probably survive without her.
****My post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1943895/posts?page=64#64
And I have some fish calling me. Night. Merry Christmas.****
You can base your vote on anything you want, for me many other issues take priority. Just remember that John McCain is on the list and he currently has a better than average chance of winning the nomination so I hope you are ready to vote for an Independent or abstain for the presidential vote, both will improve the chances of an Obama/Clinton Whitehouse.
That's not what they said in the South Park movie.
Something about a Supreme Court case that was never overturned, I think. I always thought the courts were the judicial and that the legislative branch made the laws. I just posted what I thought was the constitutional basis for the 16th which is what seemed to be in question.
NO. It should be Mike Gravel.
Here is his Christmas Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcs4z2vD3D8
The video is made by Aaron Rousso, who also is an avid 9/11 truther who believes the 9/11 attacks were created by our government. That's how much credibility your video has, and that's also how much credibility you have: none.
****The federal income tax was authorized by the 16th Amendment. The details are spelled out in the federal tax code. Why are people saying the federal income tax is illegal?****
According to the movie and if you know different please post it. The 16th Amendment was not ratified by the states. Correct me if I am wrong, A constitutional amendment must be approved by 75% of the state legislators and the 16th Amendment never achieved this according to the movie.
It's not a personal attack. It's based on his stated positions and policies.
As for the 9/11 conspiracies he has made it very clear that he does not believe the US gov’t had any involvement.
... and yet he keeps showing up on their radio shows and courting their votes.
Just because a racist may have voted for Ronald Reagan or George Bush it doesn’t make Reagan or Bush racists.
Reagan and Bush denounced racists, rejected their support, and told them where to get off. The same way Hubert Humphrey, in 1960 in West Virginia, responded to a fan who shouted "I ain't ever votin' for no Catholic" -- Humphrey, without missing a beat, responded, "then I don't want your vote."
Paul has not done that. He has, in fact, opted not to refuse donations from avowed Nazis, despite public pressure to do so.
And we still lack stability. If there is no stability by 2010 perhaps we should pull out. Canadian troops have done a spectacular job in Afghanistan however if we are unable to achieve stability leaving should be considered.
Why 2010? On what rational basis is that the deadline? Or is it timed to fall halfway between one presidential election and the next?
US isolation allowed America to build a Super Military that when it acted it easily tipped the balance in favor of the allies. If the US would have been all over the world like Britain was it may very well not have had what it took to bring Victory to the allies.
That's the most pie-eyed reading of history I've seen recently. US isolation left the US military small in number, with outdated equipment. We were reeling after Pearl Harbor, and it was only after that attack broke us out of our isolation that we got our industrial base on a war footing and turned the tide of the war. Isolationism early in the war was a near-disaster. We rallied when we ditched it.
The US was never comparable to Britain. Britain is a tiny, isolated island nation whose economy was dependent on international (or within the empire) trade for centuries. The US had, in the short term, more labor and natural resources than it could possibly use.
Not to discount the great work by General Patton and General Eisenhower, but WWII was won by General Motors. Every tank and plane the enemy lost, they struggled to replace. Every plane and tank we lost, we could replace with three more.
The United States acted properly after 9/11 however at some point if they are unable to achieve their objective to bring stability to the Middle East and increased security for the American People other options need to be considered.
Let's hear 'em.
I would think all Americans would like the Constitution and freedom of speech. When does Ron Paul think this right was ever denied him or anyone else? Is this going to be one of these things where the potheads can’t pick there Mary Jane up at the Quiky Mart and therefore are being denied their rights?
The court doesn't have to overturn the decision. Congress and 3/4 of the states overturned it in the form of the 16th amendment. The supreme court never overturned the Dred Scott decision, either -- it was mooted by the 13th and 14th amendments.
This is a man who is pretty much running on the same platform and saying the same words as David Duke and Pat Buchanan.
This is a man who has accomplished squat in his decades as a congressman other than holding up Conservative progress.
This is a man so Conservative (sarc) that he has gained only a 76% rating from the American Conservative Union and is called a ‘Moderate Libertarian’ by OnTheIssues.org.
This is a man who, until he started running for President, was for the most open border policy one could imagine and opposed any border enforcement.
This is a man who thinks the Civil War should never have been fought and the North should have just bought all the slaves from the South- of course, that would mean it would be legal for one human to own another in Paul’s eyes.
This is a man who, on one hand preaches against government over spending but on the other hand, plays a cute little political game of back-dooring hundreds of millions of dollars each year to pet projects in his district.
This is a man who votes to defund our troops in the middle of a war.
This is a man who thinks we shouldn’t criticize our enemies for concern they would be mad at us, but it is OK to make enemies out of the bogeyman ‘neocon’.
This is a man who claims we are responsible for Islamic Terrorism- even though this is a war going back further than the US has existed.
This is a man who claimed Ronald Reagan was a dismal failure and Lincoln was one of the worst presidents.
This is your hero?
****However if there isn’t continued improvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and some serious stability by 2010 than a serious reassessment of the methods being used in this war will needed.
As evidenced by your gratuitous assertion without factual analysis?
Why 2010? What makes that year so important?
What constitutes “serious stability”? A valid case could be made that both countries are more “stable” now than ever before in their histories.
Forgive me if I ignore your assumed premise and just proceed with the realization that you don’t know much about anything.****
2010 is just a date I selected it over eight years since troops first went into Afghanistan approximately twice the US participation in WW2.
What is stability you ask well I would say stability is situation on a regular month to month basis no more than a couple of allied soldiers are lost.
You say it might be more stable now than ever. Maybe it is than at what point do we quit putting Canadian, British, Australian, Polish, Ukrainian, American and all other troops at risk.
And finally because you are too lazy intellectually to debate the facts you launch a personal attack on me.
I would call that post, game-set-match.
You're wrong. It must be approved by 3/4 of the states -- not of the state legislators. A simple majority in the state legislature will do. Or for that matter, the states could hold a constitutional convention to take up the question, but as far as I know that has never happened.
and the 16th Amendment never achieved this according to the movie.
42 of the 48 states ratified the 16th amendment by the end of 1913. It took effect in February, after it was ratified by 36 states. The movie repeats an old, long-ago discredited claim that some jot or tittle was out of place and the 16th amendment is therefore void. No court, no government body, and no serious scholar has bought that bill of goods.
There are, however, a lot of folks who lost their houses or did time in federal prison because they bought into that theory and decided not to pay their taxes.
Aways go with you first impression. (you were right the first time)
It did achieve the necessary states, even if you discount Kentucky and Oklahoma, which allegedly ratified it with text that differed from the official amendment. The arguments are that the actions of the legislatures in some other states in approving it violated their state constitutions...be that as it may, that’s not something that is relevant to the Federal requirement - it just says the state legislature must approve it. If true, there’s a valid argument that the state legislatures may have acted improperly regarding their own procedures, but that’s not a very strong case to say that the amendment was never ratified...and a bit of a distraction from the key argument that our current tax structure is bad and needs reform.
That's a point.
But I think most of those who will see he's a wacko already think like us anyway and won't change their views.
OTOH, I'm hoping those who are political wackos (kids, Canadians etc.) will think he's wise and will have an improved outlook :-)
****The movie asks what law requires Americans to file a tax return.
26 USC §§ 1, 6012, and 7203 define the income tax, who must file a return, and the crime of willfully failing to file a return, respectively.
Conveniently, the video fails to address any of those statutes.
Judge Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit dealt with the issue of whether the statutory requirement to “make” returns was unconstitutionally vague in U.S. v. Dunkel, 900 F.2d 105 (7th Cir. 1990).
Is “We the People” still running its contest? That video is a load of bunk, and maybe you ought to do your homework before you blindly follow Ron Paul off a cliff.****
I suggest you submit your information and try and win the contest. I am not a tax expert but If this law is as iron clad as you claim than why are 67 million Americans getting away with not filing income tax.
Troofer! L0L!
I must say, the film has some interesting points, but OMG, what a cynical outlook on life!
Elect Ron Paul! He is onto the conspiracy!
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.