“heterochromatic” is pretending to be very ignorant:
“in a state where people all democratically share almost no freedom and almost no food, such as the People’s Republic of North Korea, I care very little for their democracy.”

Democracy refers to the people as a whole ruling the country, not whether or not they share their deprivations or share them equally.  Furthermore, North Koreans have no such equality.  They have their 1%, as we do in the USA and Canada.  So, though you wrote “their democracy”, they have none.

Don’t you think that if the USA were democratic, there would be a much better chance for improvement in the conditions about which you care?

depends…....in a state where people all
democratically share almost no freedom and almost no
food, such as the People’s Republic of North Korea, I
care very little for their democracy.

other places, I care more.

How MUCH less, heterochromatic?

Korky—- I care less about democracy than I do about
individual liberty and enforceable remedies against
governmental overreach.

Democracy refers to how laws are made and executed, not whether the laws and execution are fair to the accused.  As far as actual democracy, I could tell you a dozen ways that Canada is more democratic than the USA and a much smaller list of ways that the reverse is true.

Korky——I don’t know where you get your ideas from,
but in the UK people have fewer rights during both pre-
trial and post-trial incarceration than they do in this
country.

Horrors such as Guantanamo are done less by the Canadian and UK governments in large part because of “question period”.  That’s like if the entire USA federal cabinet, including the president, had to appear in Congress on live television at least once a week and answer surprise questions by all members of Congress.  Those countries aren’t democratic, either, but they are closer than the USA to being so, and that’s one reason.  Ending the 2-party system is part of democratizing the nation, but so are features like that.

For what it’s worth.

“On January 11, 2002, the United States announced that it was refusing to abide by the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. The Third Geneva Convention, which provides specific guidelines for treatment of prisoner combatants, is a part of the “law of nations” and is a mainstay of international humanitarian law. The United States explained that the prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Pakistan were not actually prisoners of war, but were in fact “unlawful combatants.”

Weird thing is that at Gitmo the detainees there supposedly the worst of the worst to quote Rumsfeld were found by a Senate Report to be less than 1% battlefield combatants and less than 7% of having any tie to either Taliban or Al-Qieda.

Yes Korky

I was being facetious about breaking a Treaty without concern for consequences.

This because if you are the Bully Nation what Nation can challenge you about abrogating a Treaty?  And if the Bully Nation is strong enough Militarily, why would it care about the content - promises, guarantees- of any Treaty?  Didn’t George Bush himself state the the Constitution was nothing but a G..D… piece of paper?  And his fellow Republican Party cheered him for it - including all those Religious Right hypocrites.

And I was speaking metaphorically when I said the Constitution was a Treaty with the people.

But I equated it to treaty since the great Treaty breaker of all time is the United States Government.

“White Man speak with forked tongue”.

CCarson——Finally if the foregoing is correct, does
that mean that any country, let’s say Iran, decides
they no longer want to be bound by the Nuclear
Proliferation Treaty because it is not binding on any
Nation that has previously signed it?  Or for any
Treaty should this be true? And if so what is the
binding force of any treaty?

———

when they withdraw, they withdraw. such as part and
parcel of “sovereignty”.

and again you’re confusing things. it should have been
and COULD have been stopped by Congress and SCOTUS
because of constitutional and other US legal
prohibitions, not because of violations of what is
called international law.

the Geneva Accords are binding upon the US because
we’ve endorsed them and, had we not, they would be
without legal force.

Thanks, “heterochromatic”, for clarifying what you meant to write.  Nevertheless, I believe that international law IS important to your “discussion of constitutionally-mandated separation of powers”.  For example, Bush’s and Obama’s blatant and brutal violation of the Geneva Convention by his torture camp in Guantanamo should be stopped by Congress and the Supreme Court, but they are all male-bonding allies in their perverted crimes.

Korky____"I am still revolted, nevertheless, that
heterochomatic says, “it’s quite obvious that
international law is . . . not of any great
import.”“___

to a discussion of constitutionally-mandated
separation of powers, K.

be as revolted as you need to be, but base your
revulsion on a proper understanding of what’s being
said, for crying out loud.

Below I wrote, “That is why they wish for a god to end the wars.”  By that word “they”, I meant the vast majority of the world’s people in every country, who all fervently want peace.

Cliff Carson asks if “the United States may enter into an International Treaty as a signatory to that Treaty, and then the next Congress or even the same one, may remove the United States from the agreement without consideration of the Treaty or suffering any consequences from that action.” 

As far as I know, yes, a law may cancel a treaty, but, no, there is no magic shield to protect anyone from the consequences.  And as in any contract, the treaty itself could specify consequences for withdrawal or abrogation.

The Constitution is not a treaty because it is a higher law than a treaty.  Treaties and laws are invalid if they violate the Constitution.  The Supreme Court, the President and the Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution, but all 3 of those often violate it.  Ron Paul is one of the few who tries to honour his oath.

Anyone or any country can break their agreements, but then they have to face the consequences.  Often bullies (and bully countries) simply get away with it, evading the consequences because there is no higher or greater power to do the enforcing.  (That is why they wish for a god to end the wars.)

Yes, Cliff, our world is like your proverbial jungle, and always has been.  Might makes right and the USA is going to be sorry for being the bully when other countries rise and become bigger badder bullies.  Instead, everyone should be democratizing, strengthening, and reforming the United Nations.  And I don’t mean piddly reforms like an expanded Security Council.  Instead, I mean electing the delegates from the home countries.  Even if Ron Paul is not interested in that, if he at least abolishes the 2-party system, we can improve the UN later.

Korky and Heterocromatic

If I understand you correctly you are saying that the United States may enter into an International Treaty as a signatory to that Treaty, and then the next Congress or even the same one, may remove the United States from the agreement without consideration of the Treaty or suffering any consequences from that action.

The question then is, do all the other states of our World have this same right?  And if this be so, can there be any action taken against a sovereign state that decides it will no longer be a signatory of the Treaty?

Finally if the foregoing is correct, does that mean that any country, let’s say Iran, decides they no longer want to be bound by the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty because it is not binding on any Nation that has previously signed it?  Or for any Treaty should this be true? And if so what is the binding force of any treaty?

Doesn’t this interpretation in effect return our World Society to the “Rule of The Jungle” where strength makes right?  Is this where we are headed?

From this Article:

“Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. ... The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly ... The Bill of Rights has no exemption for ‘really bad people’ or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. This is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system.”

And we are headed down that road?  If so, we need to band together and take control of our runaway Criminal Government.

Treaty: A ‘treaty’ is a formally concluded and ratified agreement between States. The term is used generically to refer to instruments binding at international law, concluded between international entities (States or organizations). Under the Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties, a treaty must be (1) a binding instrument, which means that the contracting parties intended to create legal rights and duties; (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power; (3) governed by international law and (4) in writing.

Our Government once signed a Treaty with the people of the United States.  It was called “The Constitution”.  Within that Constitution is a Bill of Rights - another Treaty within the original.  And now that a strong criminal element is in control they have set about to undo those treaties between our Founding Fathers and the people.

Those that will unilaterally break treaties will impose upon you “The Law of the Jungle”.

Those who wield the power will make the laws.

We the people of the United States should be the people who wield the power.

All we need to do is to band together in a common purpose:  Demanding, without compromise, Ethical and Moral Governance in conjunction with our Constitution - and enforcing that demand when the need arises.

I think the time is at hand.

“heterochromatic” is correct.  I had misremembered about treaties.  Sorry!  A treaty can over-rule a previous law, as any new law can.  However, contrary to what I wrote below, it is equally true that Congress also may modify or abrogate a treaty by passing a law and taking the consequences.  The only difference is that a treaty needs approval by the Senate and not the House, but regular laws require the approval of both houses.  So sometimes a provision is put into a treaty because it can’t pass the House and then that provision rules until both houses pass a law otherwise or the treaty is changed.

I am still revolted, nevertheless, that heterochomatic says, “it’s quite obvious that international law is . . . not of any great import.”

Korky…... when you’re discussing Constitutional
authority of the different branches of the federal
government…....

and you start a consideration of international law,
it’s quite obvious that international law is
subordinate to the Constitution in our system and is
not of any great import.

and I would love for you to explain how international
treaties supersede the expressed will of the
Congress, given that the Congress can modify or
cancel any or all of them.

Last I heard, in 1884 SCOTUS ruled that treaties do
not hold a privileged position above other acts of
Congress. ( 112 U.S. 580 )

Comrade “heterochromatic” says, “International law has no bearing on what is constitutionally permissible Korky and I don’t see what it has to do with anything.”

According to the Constitution, treaties approved by the USA over-rule other acts of Congress.  Some of those treaties are considered part of international law, such as the “Geneva Convention”, which our criminal presidents frequently violate.  But perhaps heterochromatic thinks that the Geneva Convention is “just a piece of paper”.  Who cares what the nations of the world think as long as the USA is the biggest, baddest bully on the block!

The War Powers Act of 1941 authorized increased executive power, to the point of censorship and opening mail.
The Second War Powers Act (1942) “repealed the confidentiality of census data, allowing the FBI to . . . round up Japanese-Americans.”
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act_of_1941

But if you mean The War Powers Resolution of 1973, it “was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.”
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

I’d guess that if the resolution is unconstitutional, it’s because it doesn’t restrict presidents as much as the Constitution does. 

Our power-hungry presidents start wars.  My first choice is for a Green Party president.  Ron Paul would probably be better than any of the presidents since WW2 on this point.

Korky, spend a couple of minutes and read a summary of the WPA. it’s NOT an
attempt to override the constitution but rather an attempt to curb executive
usurpation of congressional prerogative that tries to define what the executive IS
authorized to pursue w/o consultation.

International law has no bearing on what is constitutionally permissible Korky and
I don’t see what it has to do with anything.

But the big point is that Paul is a fool who was opposing, via his crazy-assed
“letters of marque and reprisal ” nonsense, ANY official US military response to
the 9/11 attacks.

dude is two centuries past his expiration date.

Yes, ‘heterochromatic’, I ‘understand the difference between smaller uses of military force and actual wars’.  I understand also that the War Powers Act does not over-rule the Constitution, which I enjoy reading often.  According to international law, anyone may exercise a certain degree of self-defence in international waters against pirates or anyone else.  Acts of war are more than such self-defence.  The dozens of illegal wars the USA has fought since World War 2 (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Chile, Cuba, Haiti, Grenada, El Salvador, etc.) are the main reason that the country has any enemies at all.  I think Ron Paul gets that.

Heterocromatic

I asked which Embassies because I was curious.  I had though you might be thinking of the Beirut bombing.

Anyway, the Embassy bombings were over and done with so President Clinton decided to do something illegal according to our constitution.

He attacked a Country that had nothing to do with the Bombing.  Shades of 9/11 and Iraq.

He bombed a pill factory in Sudan.

Read why I say he was wrong at the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings

Koeky, you either have no idea about what you’re discussing or don’t understand
the difference between smaller uses of military force and actual wars?

have you never heard of the War Powers Act?

Would you say that the use of military force against the Somalian pirates is
unconstitutional as Congress hadn’t given approval?

Kenya and Tanzania.

First of all the President doesn’t have a Constitutional authority to “start a war”.  He does have the authority to defend again an attack.

But even this authority is time limited and to continue past that time he must get the permission to continue the defense of the Country.

Only Congress has the Constitutional authority to Declare war.

As to the Embassies which ones Heterochromatic?

No, heterochromatic, those are not major attacks.  Perhaps, in those cases, a war with millions of casualties can be avoided by using other remedies.  But you want to trust whoever weasels their way into the White House to make that decision instead of the congress, eh?  Do you, like Dubya, think that the Constitution is “just a piece of paper”?

Korky, that wasn’t revelant to what was posed…... nor does it really mean much.

if somebody kills a couple of hundred of our citizens abroad, is that a major attack
?

is blowing up a couple of our embassies a major attack?

‘heterochromatic’ asks if I ‘dont see any difference between “failing to start wars”  and failing
to recognize that one has started ?’ 

The USA has suffered only one major attack since World War 2, in 2001, but the presidents have started countless unconstitutional wars for their own criminal-political-financial-egotistical purposes.

‘The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the [2001] September 11 attacks[31] and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of “air piracy” and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.[32] Congressman Paul on April 15, 2009, also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden. However, the bills Congressman Paul introduced were not enacted into law.’  Wikipedia 2012 Feb. 16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque#21st-century_American_reconsideration_of_Letters_of_Marque

Korky _____ you dont see any difference between “failing to start wars”  and failing
to recognize that one has started ?

strange

Below “heterochromatic” says it’s “isiolationism” if a president fails to start wars on his own initiative and instead waits until “forced to do so” by a congressional declaration of war, as required by the Constitution.

scott—it’s you who mischaracterize Paul’s stance on foreign policy and war. 
he would order the military to fight if forced to do so, but would not otherwise
engage.

that’s isiolationism.

Paul’s the lunatic who wanted to issue letters of marque and reprisal rather than
fight after 9/11.

that’s beyond isolationism and sanity.

Killing the messenger does nothing to negate the fact that this author, despite your own opinion of him, accurately cites Paul’s position.

Cohen is about as transparent a representative of the pro-war establishment as you could find.  So no he’s not a credible source for foreign policy characterizations or honest talk about foreign policy in general.

Most of the media (including the MSM) characterizes Paul’s positions as non-interventionist rather than isolationist.  He clearly is prepared to support foreign wars if Congress votes in favor of them.

Regardless of how you (mis)charactize Paul’s position on international affairs and foreign wars, Paul’s positions are far preferable to the status quo, as Scheer explained in the article above.

- bill, February 16 at 5:00 am

“Unlike your comments about Social Security revenues, Cliff, (are you now just going to ignore challenges to them rather than even TRY to produce any substantiating evidence?) your list of questions is a very good one.  Just to address some which admit to direct answers rather than are more of the thought-provoking variety:”

Bill I said I would provide links after you had looked for them yourself.  I really don’t think that has occurred, but follow what I am providing here.

I said that my figure was an estimate, and I said that the U S has admitted to owing $2.6 Trillion to the fund.  You will find that admission as you go thru these links.  I also said that my calculation was probably a low ball guess. And I accuse the U S Government of “stealing” from the fund Trillions of dollars since the Government doesn’t give a user friendly accounting of what has occurred.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-05-trust-fund_x.htm

An excerpt from the above:
“President Bush’s visit Tuesday to a federal agency in West Virginia that holds the Social Security trust fund put the spotlight on a $1.7 trillion promise to the nation’s retirees.

The papers in the cabinet are computer-generated replicas of $1.7 trillion in Treasury bonds — the amount the government has promised to repay Social Security for spending payroll taxes that finance the retirement system on other programs such as defense and education.

Bill did you see anything in that statement about the Trillions of dollars that has been paid into the Fund?  And a more in depth reading here will provide the statement that the Fund has been raided many times other than this one for payout or loans to events not associated with Social security. 

“http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

This link is about the Government’s side of the story even stating that the Government is in no way obligated to pay any of the accumulated Trust fund.  Another reason I use the word criminals.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/appendixf.shtml

In the above link there are several charts.  Two Charts F-3 and F-9 address the figures that we have been discussing.  The Chart F-3 shows Social Insurance Taxes collected by year since 1970 thru 2009.  The F-9 chart shows payouts by year to Social Security.  I subtracted the yearly payouts from the yearly collections and then added the differences to reach a sum of the differences.

Keep in mind that the Social Security Taxes have been collected since 1936 ( 34 years before this chart starts and the payouts began in 1940).  My sum of differences comes to about $5.3 Trillion dollars.  I added this sum to the $1.7 Trillion noted above, and allowed an estimated $0.5 Trillion accumulation from the first 34 years, knowing this is a figure way too low.

I said that this is an estimate of what I think our Government raked off from the taxpayers.  Especially since the Government is supposed to pay interest on the accumulated IOU’s.

For the first time in the 75 year history of Social Security, this past year is the first year that less taxes were collected than what was paid out.  So there is a history of 74 years of surplus payments to the Social Security fund.

Thank you for addressing the questions I posed about what does the American Citizen want from its Government.

scott___ drop your “seems” the ACTUAL goal of the policies is to pressure Iran’s oil
exports and access to the world banking structure to force them to give up the
nuclear weapons program .

we don’t need control of Iranian oil. we don’t buy any of it and the 2.5m bar/day
can be replaced with ease by other exporters.

scott 425,

That’s the freaking Washington Post you are quoting..of course they are going to offer distortions about Paul.  By even quoting a corporatist hack like Richard Cohen on these issues you show you’re still being manipulated by MSM propaganda.

Killing the messenger does nothing to negate the fact that this author, despite your own opinion of him, accurately cites Paul’s position.

INVASION is what was asserted and is what I’m denying.

You might want to take a gander at Juan Cole’s map

http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/iran-has-us-surrounded-all-right.html

Given that the real goal of our policies seems to be controlling the oil, market, and banks of Iran…i dunno how you get there w/o invasion.  Simply provoking a coup in Iran will not necessarily restore the oil rights lost since 1977.

Matt, while ardee may be a stubbornly incompetent debater I’ll suggest that the wording you used to describe Social Security’s funding stability (“but it doesn’t seem like it’s going to work anyway”) could be interpreted as he did.  And his attitude makes it clear that if he CAN interpret something in a way that makes him feel he can denigrate someone he has decided to consider an enemy, he most certainly will.

With people like that around there’s some value in making sure that you word your statements carefully:  it still may not do much good in interacting with them (as they’re often simply beyond reach), but at least it leaves you occupying the high ground rather than getting mired in irrelevant detail (which having nothing legitimate to offer themselves in the way of hard evidence they embrace with abandon).

It’s also hardly beyond the pale to characterize Paul as an isolationist.  Given that the greatest danger to the world these days appears to be US I’d opt for his kind of isolationism over our current behavior every time (following the principle in medical ethics to “First, do no harm”) - but that doesn’t mean that some principled intermediate course would not be better still (at least I’d suggest that Paul’s position goes somewhat overboard at the other extreme to what we have now).

What Paul’s reaction to the situation in 1939-41 would have been is best for him to say (if he chooses to) rather than for pundits to assume based on their own biases and disdain for Godwin’s Law.  What’s important to me is that this is NOT 1939-41 and the conditions NOW make isolationism a far preferable (though not IMO the BEST) alternative to the status quo.

scott___INVASION is what was asserted and is what I’m denying.

Thanks for the kind words. My history with regard to the Paul camp mirrors yours. In 08 I was swept up in the Obama enthusiasm too much to listen much to the Paul supporters who, I must confess, were out in force in Seattle, where I lived at the time. Just seemed too fringe, and in his better moments in that campaign Obama’s rhetoric matched up pretty closely with my own hope for America. Unfortunately, Sarah Palin (my benighted former governor) is right on about the “hopey changey” stuff, as much as it pains me to admit it. I wonder if a sort of generalized exasperation might be the only rational response to the hole this country (and this species) seems to be digging for itself.

Yeah, I certainly appreciated Paul’s heroism and outspokenness during the debates.  But it was hard to justify voting for him when Kucinich was in the race.  In the end I proved to be as much a rube as anyone, because I bought into the notion that the Dem nod was between Hillary and Obama and that Obama needed my support.  In hindsight, I was gamed, as was most of left-wing America.  We can see the GOP being gamed today as many would-be Paul supporters are brow-beat into voting Santorum to stop Romney (or the reverse).  Some real, but primarily phony differences.

The process is/was not so much different then the absurd media smear campaign against Dean in 2004 at the very moment he was ready to triumph and take the nomination.  It’s still spell-binding how quickly and easily the sheep were herded into voting against Dean and his barbaric yalp.

As I get older it’s easier to see how the process works and I can even feel some admiration for the ability and creativity of those in charge of rigging the game.

cliff—-is there anyone who thinks that we’re anywhere close to invading Iran or
that we would without Iran committing some act of war against us?

hopefully you’re being ironic….it’s all over the news and it’s highly likely there will be a military strike on Iran this year.

“Paul opposes just about all international treaties and organizations. He would have the United States pull out of the United Nations and NATO. He would do away with foreign aid, abolish the CIA and essentially turn his back on the rest of the world. This is pretty much what used to be called isolationism, and it allowed Hitler to presume, quite correctly as it turned out, that America would not interfere with his plans to conquer Europe, Britain included. It took Germany’s declaration of war on the United States, not the other way round, to get Uncle Sam involved.”

That’s the freaking Washington Post you are quoting..of course they are going to offer distortions about Paul.  By even quoting a corporatist hack like Richard Cohen on these issues you show you’re still being manipulated by MSM propaganda.

These idiots perpetually reference Weimar and Munich as the justification for endless empire and occupying and ruling the world.  But the truth is Munich didn’t happen because we didn’t have insane military budgets.  Munich happened because the nations of the world failed to follow through on the desire of the people to outlaw war.  Instead of outlawing war, we got a new round of militarization and profits for the military/industrial complex. 

It’s dumb on its face to assume that Paul (or his supporters) would argue Nazi Germany was not a threat to the USA and world peace in 1939-40.  Nazi Germany and Iraq/Iran are different circumstances and are only equated in the mind of delusional neo-cons like you get at the Washington Post.

Paul is a non-interventionist.  Personally, I would support interventions, if they were democratically legitimated.  But unfortunately merely the approval of the UN Security Council or NATO does not constitute democratic legitimation.  Neither of these organizations are “democratic”.  Without legitimacy or transparency….no I don’t support “aid” that merely serves to line the pockets of the rich.

It goes without saying that Paul’s position on war and peace is much closer to my position (and I believe, the majority of “progressives”) then any of the other major party candidates.  Namely, he favors peace and commerce, and would make the process by which war and peace and waged far more transparent then we have under the current NWO status quo.

Are you seriously ok with the fact that heroin production has multiplied times 32 since we occupied Afghan?  Who do you think is seeing the profits from those sales?  And why do you think we’re so active in Colombia?  The answer…nobody knows, we can only suspect.  The secrecy of the CIA and other government agencies is a threat to democracy..it’s time for full transparency.  Paul is the only candidate even talking about this stuff.

Paul is the only major candidate calling for cuts to the military/defense budget and to scale back on overseas bases.  Our defense budget went up 100% since 9/11….when in a sane world it would be 50% of what it was in 2000.  We need that peace dividend and we need it bad.

ardee-

I enjoy the conversation but could do without the insults. We might have different perspectives about what the “truth” is, and I might even be wrong, but I’m not accustomed to being called a liar.

Anyway, I’m on my way to work so I won’t address all of your points now, but I just want to clear up one misunderstanding: My position on Social Security is NOT that it is failing and so should be dismantled. My position, as I wrote earlier, is” “The program will just have to be funded because the government has the obligation to do so, and it doesn’t matter to me where the money comes from. If we can take it from the Pentagon instead of payroll taxes, I say all the better.” So I am saying keep it going even if the traditional method of funding falls short, which is impossible to predict with certainty, especially given Republican attempts to defund it. Ok I gotta go, but I think we actually might agree on this one, except on the issue of Paul’s plan to allow kids to opt out. I can live with that but it sounds like you can’t. But it’s hard for either of us to say how it would play out exactly. I’m not a fan of payroll taxes, in general, though, and would prefer to see a shift to taxes on wealth and consumption.

Unlike your comments about Social Security revenues, Cliff, (are you now just going to ignore challenges to them rather than even TRY to produce any substantiating evidence?) your list of questions is a very good one.  Just to address some which admit to direct answers rather than are more of the thought-provoking variety:

One ‘independent party’ (or at least force ‘working solo’ that COULD have a significant effect on the coming presidential election (though probably not for other national offices) is Ron Paul (should he choose to run independently), since he has sufficient and sufficiently loyal supporters to garner several percent or more of the national vote (probably notably more from the Republican candidate than from Obama).  Outside his VERY immediate circle it’s anybody’s guess whether he will choose to do this, and my own feelings about it would be mixed (I’d welcome his ability to keep some progressive anti-establishment positions front-and-center beyond the Republican convention, but since I’ve lost all hope for the national Democratic establishment and would thus like to see it destroyed in order to leave a vacuum where something better could flourish I’d also like to see Obama evicted even if the short-term consequences of that might be slightly more unpleasant than if he remained - my preference would be to see the White House and BOTH houses of Congress flip sides, which would get rid of the maximum number of incumbents in both parties plus preserve sufficiently divided government to keep it from going completely off the rails).

I certainly “agree that our Government is becoming more corrupt with each passing day” - and therefore see Paul’s many stands against existing establishment positions as an asset for him (regardless of the degree to which I agree with each individual position).

I certainly agree that electing Obama or any LIKELY Republican nominee will not do us any good at all (again, I’d make an exception for Paul - for pragmatic rather than ideological reasons).

While I’m comfortable telling people how I will vote, and why, I’m not inclined to suggest to them how or why THEY should vote (though I’m certainly interested in their reasoning if they care to provide it, and not hesitant to comment on its logical cohesion or lack thereof).

Absent direct, physical, and vital threats to our nation (not merely our ‘national interests’) I definitely do NOT want us to go to war with Iran or anyone else without STRONG international support including that of the U.N.

While I guess I can conceive of situations in which it might be acceptable for our government to assassinate people, I have the same reservations about that that I expressed about war above.

I suspect that the reason why “people refuse to band together and toss a tyrannical Government” is because by and large people are self-centered, easily frightened sheep who are easy to herd.  I attribute this at least in part to deterioration in the quality of our national media, our system of education, and our society over the past 4 decades (but recognize that people my age have been saying things like this for centuries or millennia, so take it with a grain of salt).

I don’t think there’s any consensus about what we want our government to be, nor that we’ll have one until we find ways to discuss it competently.

Just to comment on where we’re different, Matt:

I paid as much attention to Obama’s stated positions as I did to his lofty but calculatedly vague rhetoric, so was a Nader supporter 4 years ago (as I had been in 2004).  Palin’s observation in that regard is the single sensible and trenchant statement I’ve ever heard her make.  The fact that whatever loyalty to the Democratic party I had disappeared with Kerry’s mad rush to the right during 2004 made it a lot easier to resist Obama’s attraction 4 years ago and this year to find specific points of agreement with a (gasp!) Republican (I listed 8 such points where his positions are considerably to the left of Obama’s a while ago here - see http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/marginalizing_ron_paul_20111229/P300/#453164 - and omitted a 9th:  prosecuting those responsible for the vast financial fraud that led up to the current financial crisis, which Obama is now grudgingly beginning to consider likely only because it’s an election year for HIM, not apparently having cared much at all about the 2010 election).

I’m not particularly interested in ‘converting’ anyone in any regard save the ability to discuss things competently.  In other words, I’m not a Paul supporter but a fact (vs. opinion) supporter.  It bothers me to see so many progressives conforming so insistently to Rahm Emanuel’s assessment of their mental capabilities (not that I agree with him as to the BASIS for such an assessment) because competent progressives strike me as the most direct route toward the kind of reform I believe we need.

I happen to agree with you about Paul being the best choice for our next president out of those effectively running for that office, but that’s damning with extremely faint praise and in any event represents a purely pragmatic assessment (based on shaking up the game board sufficiently to open up possibilities for other change) rather than an ideological one.  Since I don’t believe that he’ll be nominated (though he certainly seems to have a better chance than Kucinich ever did), my main interest in him is in his ability to keep those anti-establishment views of his that I believe are important visible during the process as long and vigorously as possible.

Incidentally, I also agree that war with Iran is likely.  You can see the same media wind-up supporting the administration’s pitch (Erin Burnett of CNN seems particularly brazen in the little attention I’ve paid to this, reminding me strongly of a female NYT reporter who similarly carried administration water in early 2003), and our establishment NEEDS an external enemy to retain its internal stranglehold on our government.  The good old Soviet Union was a big enough baddie to fill this role without continual active war for decades, but until a menacing replacement of comparable size can be found actual pyrotechnics in smaller arenas seem to be on the menu (and besides, war is good for business).

Oh Matt, you are so typical of Ron Paul supporters in that commonality they all share about the truth being so very flexible.

As to the very real “Isolationism” of your favorite kook:

“Paul opposes just about all international treaties and organizations. He would have the United States pull out of the United Nations and NATO. He would do away with foreign aid, abolish the CIA and essentially turn his back on the rest of the world. This is pretty much what used to be called isolationism, and it allowed Hitler to presume, quite correctly as it turned out, that America would not interfere with his plans to conquer Europe, Britain included. It took Germany’s declaration of war on the United States, not the other way round, to get Uncle Sam involved.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/isolationism-redux-via-ron-paul/2011/12/30/gIQA9GI3WP_story.html

As to the attempt by Paul to end or privatize social security you adopt the silly tactic of claiming it to be unfixable, it is certainly easily repaired. So much has been written about raising the upper limit on contributions, or ending participation in it by those making millions in retirement that your professed ignorance is puzzling and not at all honest appearing.

h-
I agree that an invasion of Iran would be an obvious and terrible blunder. But war does not require an invasion. Also, given the pattern of periodic lunacy in American military policy from Korea on, it would not be a blunder without precedent.

As for Japan, you’ll have to do better than “dopey” to reverse the changes in the way that era is viewed. I do not hold that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance. But it is clear that he was quite understandably against the Japanese and Germans, and engaged in hostile economic activity that pushed Japan into a belligerent position toward the US, an outcome which was not inevitable. But please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t have a portrait hanging or anything, but I would rate FDR as among the best presidents we’ve had.

The level of US hostility toward Iran has already surpassed that which made war with Japan all but inevitable. And it is far less justified.

Matt——it’ sure didn’t work with japan or it would have happened six or eight
months later.

thanks for playing, Matt but the contention about WWII is dopier than the idea
that about Iran in the here and now.

This time around the timing would be in our favor, rather than not, but there’s
still no way in hell that the US wants to mount an invasion of Iran and neither
the Isrelis nor the Saudis could do a damn thing to get our military to undertake
such a thing.

you need to think again.

heterochromatic-

Some people think that a portion of the American political elite do want a war with Iran, and are currently goading Iran toward the “act of war” that you mentioned. It sure worked with Japan.

ardee-
I’m not sure what the question is, but I certainly understand your concerns. On Social Security, Paul promises to keep it fully funded. The method of funding you describe, in which each generation pays for the last, would obviously not work if young workers were allowed to opt out, but it doesn’t seem like it’s going to work anyway. The program will just have to be funded because the government has the obligation to do so, and it doesn’t matter to me where the money comes from. If we can take it from the Pentagon instead of payroll taxes, I say all the better.

Paul rejects the term “isolationism,” as I’m sure you know, and I think he makes a compelling case for that claim. As any schoolyard bully can tell you, unethical projection of power may involve us in others’ lives, but is isolating nonetheless. Perhaps there is a better plan to end war than Paul is offering up, but I don’t think we’ll see it in this race.

As to Paul’s connection with Stormfront, I must admit my ignorance. I really don’t know anything about that. I have no doubt that they are a terrible bunch of people. But honestly, I’m a lot more worried about Citigroup and GE and all their partners in the global war industry than I am about American neo-nazis (if that’s what Stormfront is), who strike me as more or less irrelevant. Obama seems to be quite cozy with that corporate bunch who are really much closer to a functional National Socialist party than a bunch of marginalized ignorant rednecks. If the American people are going to throw off the chains of empire and corporatism, we’re going to need a big tent. Paul’s ability to bring together free-thinkers of all stripes (even extremely deluded ones) strikes me as a plus in his column, and a reason that he is viable in a way that Jackson, Brown, Nader, and Kucinich never were.

I continue to think Paul is the best choice. Better than Obama and better than Jill Stein. Certainly he is the only anti-war candidate with a mass movement. He’s got a shot at, if not winning, than at least forcing the hand of the elites who are gaming the system. Perhaps cluing in the masses to just how sick our “democracy” is. But I suppose reasonable people can disagree.

As far as your implicit questioning of my “progressive” credentials: I don’t know, and don’t care so much. I like Charles Beard and Upton Sinclair, but if Obama is a progressive you can count me out.

Bill-
Thanks for the kind words. My history with regard to the Paul camp mirrors yours. In 08 I was swept up in the Obama enthusiasm too much to listen much to the Paul supporters who, I must confess, were out in force in Seattle, where I lived at the time. Just seemed too fringe, and in his better moments in that campaign Obama’s rhetoric matched up pretty closely with my own hope for America. Unfortunately, Sarah Palin (my benighted former governor) is right on about the “hopey changey” stuff, as much as it pains me to admit it. I wonder if a sort of generalized exasperation might be the only rational response to the hole this country (and this species) seems to be digging for itself.

I suspect that you are right that it is a losing battle trying to win converts to my way of thinking on this thread, but I suppose I am writing for a different, more therapeutic purpose. It has been a psychologically difficult process for me to embrace a Republican candidate, and I think I still have a little cognitive dissonance that reading and writing here is helping me to work out. I think I see all the posters here experiencing frustration, as well as, hopefully, a bit of self-doubt. When Scheer came out with supportive words for Paul (first on Left Right & Center and then here) I felt a personal surge of relief. Same with G. Greenwald and A. Cockburn, whose opinions I respect in about the same measure as Scheer’s. You also seem like an extremely well-informed person, bill, and I have been glad to read your posts on this thread.

cliff—-is there anyone who thinks that we’re anywhere close to invading Iran or
that we would without Iran committing some act of war against us?

Is there anyone out there that believes that any Independent Party working solo will make a difference in this coming election?

Do we all agree that our Government is becoming more corrupt with each passing day?

Do we all agree that electing a Democrat or a Republican will not bring ethics and morality back to our Government?

In a situation like we have, are we to vote our Principles, or should we vote as a tactical block to unseat the corruption?

If you vote for your Principles will you vote for Paul even though he has on many occasions voiced his disdain for any Government program?  Are you a good Samaritan or do you rationalize the victims worthiness as to whether he should be helped?  Did Jesus teach such?

Do you believe that America was founded as a Christian Nation?

Why did the Founding Fathers want the State to stay of of the Church and the Church to stay out of the Government?  Why did the Founding Fathers not want a standing Army?

Do you want the United States to go to War with Iran?  What has Iran done to warrant our invasion?

Is it OK for any Government to assassinate people?
 
Is there some reason that the people refuse to band together and toss a tyrannical Government this year?

Next year, next election, ever?

Just exactly what is it that we the people want our Government to be?

By scott425, February 15 at 12:18 pm

Well, you get marks for originality at any rate. Honest, folks, I only tout Ron Paul because I want a more interesting election, honest I do….Of course you do dear boy, of course you do.

I see several here claim a progressive mantle yet support the Paul candidacy. I can only believe that these folks are either not at all progressive or lack the ability to think in depth. Each of the policies advocated by Paul that appeal to these (IMO) shallow political thinkers are, in the end, harmful to the nation and to the world.

Well, speaking for myself, supporting Paul is ‘strategic’.  For me politics is not a religion.  Politics is the art of the possible.  When I vote, I’m interested in the practical impact of my vote to get the best outcome.

Paul is clearly better than the other GOP candidates.  That’s reason enough to support him.  And on many (of the most important) issues, he’s better than Obama.  Even more reason to support him.  A Obama-Paul race would be better for the nation than an Obama-Romney race.  Yet more reason.

None of these reasons have anything to do with supporting all of Paul’s positions.  In fact I disagree strongly with the substance and rationale of much of Paul’s platform, particularly on healthcare and the environment.  But as strong as these objections are, I’m also aware that a new war in the Middle East would be far worse for the environment (and the human species) then a Paul presidency would be.

None of the above I’m committed to voting Paul in the general election.  We’re using the primary process to express ourselves and hopefully bring about a better outcome than just sitting around bitching.

The various professional liberals and neo-con smear artists have done their best to “disqualify” Paul because some of his positions are outside the mainstream.  But they’ll never apply the same reasoning to Obama or the neo-con canddiates (this has been proven ad nauseum in the many links in these comments).  They’ll never argue that Obama’s support for the NDAA ought to “disqualify” him.  Instead they’ll tell you you should vote for Obama even though you disagree with most of his policies, because the GOP candidate is a big bad wolf. 

Well, what if the GOP candidate was Ron Paul instead of a neo-con?  Even imagining that possibility requires stepping out of the left/right box and thinking strategically.

As long as people don’t look at politics and voting as strategic action, but rather as a religious action (eg backed up by the sort of twisted reasoning that says I can only vote for someone if I agree with 95% of what they say….unless that someone is a Democrat), then they are unlikely to unite in solidarity.  They won’t be able to see beyond the left/right reality show that keeps them divided and conquered.

Paul is not perfect.  But he has important things to say that the American people need to hear.  And an Obama/Paul race would be more beneficial in every respect compared to a stultifying Obama/Santorum or Obama/Romney race.

Hi, Matt, in regards to this post:

Matt Emmons, February 14 at 2:17 pm

and if we can ignore the ravings of lower case bill and lower class as well, I would ask a question of you.

You claim a bias against Libertarian politics, or at least as Ayn Rand defined it. We certainly share such a bias. Yet you claim a sympathy for several Paul positions, positions that are firmly within the camp of Libertarian politics when unbiased analyses is done.

I see several here claim a progressive mantle yet support the Paul candidacy. I can only believe that these folks are either not at all progressive or lack the ability to think in depth. Each of the policies advocated by Paul that appeal to these (IMO) shallow political thinkers are, in the end, harmful to the nation and to the world.

Isolationism, not ending war, is a Paul preaching. One doesnt have to think really hard to see the appeal of no wars yet realize that there are better ways to accomplish such.

The ending of all entitlement programs, and all lifelines to the poor and in need is not an ideal progressive value yet we find those Paul supporters who claim to be such ignoring, time and again, the actual harm such libertarian aims will bring to our nation.

One simply should not dismiss, as a certain lower case mouth breather does, the way Social Security works, each generation paying in turn. The not so subtle way Paul claims that “opting out” is a solution to “fix” that most successful of programs is, in reality, an attempt to bankrupt and end it.

In the interest of brevity and the hope that these “progressive” Paul supporters will actually do the research into the harm libertarian selfish whites only policies are harmful I will end with only one caution;
The link to Stormfront, a racist and whites only neonazi group , by Paul and his top aides, is real, is documented repeatedly and should, all by itself, cancel any support for Paul by thinking Americans.

I’m afraid that you will find, Matt, that you’re trying to deal with people lacking the faculties to carry on anything resembling an actual discussion.  Good luck, though.

They remind me of the old adage, “In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king” - though with the twist that in this thread recently composed largely of the blind they seem so stubbornly proud of that blindness that any attempt to provide a less limited view of the world is doomed to failure.  By contrast, those of us with one eye can understand how much we may be missing and seek to learn as much as we can, which is why I began to develop some interest in Paul a couple of months ago after having found no Republican presidential candidate remotely interesting since John Anderson back in 1980.

Paul didn’t register on my political radar 4 years ago because I made as little effort to move beyond the conventional media characterization of him as others here are doing now - though in my own defense I did not encounter people who attempted to rectify that situation, unlike the case here.

I don’t care enough about these people to be angry with them (a term you used earlier):  I’m simply exasperated, largely because as a progressive I consider progressives to be the best hope for real positive change in this country and while so many of them persist in being as incompetent as this somewhat representative sample is that hope is really no hope at all (one of the reasons why looking at less direct approaches like Paul’s potential for helping to break the current stranglehold of the duopoly on our government while promoting at least SOME progressive measures becomes more attractive).

Expecting people like those here to ‘deal honestly’ (your wording) with Paul’s positions after their persistent refusal to do so for so long already seems far more than a mere stretch, but perhaps you’ve only skimmed a few recent interchanges and haven’t seen the full glory of their mental calcification (which puts Carlsbad Caverns to shame in both its vastness and its vacuity).

Glad you got to be a delegate in CO, and hope that you and people like you can make a real impact when the convention rolls around (unlike the poor Kucinich delegates 8 years ago).  Helping keep Paul’s more progressive positions as visible as possible is (especially since no other political activity in this country is managing to do so effectively) in itself a valuable effort, and anything beyond that will be even better.

“Either you live in a civilized society or you don’t.” -diamond

OK, well, do we or don’t we? Does the relative military aggression of the society enter into your calculus? Freedoms of speech, assembly, habeus corpus, etc.?

In high school a friend loaned me a short book by Ayn Rand called “Anthem.” I read it with an interest that quickly turned to disgust. It has been more than a few years, but I can still recall my impression that the philosophy in “Anthem” was an apology for cowardly selfishness, and I returned the book with a warning to my friend that he was falling for an illusory conception of freedom. In short, I hear what you’re saying (I think).

I deeply respect the social compassion you are displaying here, and I share your concern that Paul does not place enough emphasis on protecting those of us in the working class from the potentially destructive market forces that he puts his faith in.

On the other hand, as something of an anarcho-socialist(?) myself, I have faith in the good intentions of the majority of humans, and in their ability to organize spontaneously for the general benefit if the government can only keep order. I agree with you that such organization is necessary for a society to thrive. I do not trust the motivations of political power-brokers, however, and would prefer to see their influence diminished. In this way I find myself sympathetic to the aims of libertarians, even if the writings of Ayn Rand make me wretch. I believe that Paul sincerely attacks militarism, corruption, and the erosion of civil liberties in ways that Obama and the mainstream Democrats do not even approach, even in rhetoric.
Rather than dealing honestly with Paul’s positions (which will, of course, never be adopted by our failing “democracy” any way, in any circumstance short of revolution) you choose to write about his “shifty” facial features. Perhaps what you see is the look of a man who is a political survivor, sustained by grass-roots support in the face of decades of dismissal in the media and outright hostility from his own party. Your characterization of people who disagree with you with regard to the benefits of an all-powerful federal government as “selfish bastards” displays a lack of the imagination and empathy that you display with your commitment to social programs.

Cliff Carson, February 14 at 4:01 am Link to this comment

You are right Ardee,  ardee, February 14 at 3:09 am

It appears that Bill in pointing out his self proclaimed superiority over all others, fails to recognize his shortcomings.

I doubt it is rejection that sparks such overwhelmingly stupid responses from lower case bill. His dogmatic inability to see the nuances in any discussion, to see the opinions of others as having any credibility, to understand that his insult sparks only insult in return lead one ot only one conclusion; Lower case bill is a lower class act and is deserving of the “honor” I have given to only one other here, to totally ignore the clown.

He now resides int he dumper with the recently gender challenged IMax, who once was Rico, and now is a woman. Stay tuned for further developments…;-)

“First, you really need to choose:  do you think that Paul’s objections to Social Security stem from his being a ‘selfish bastard’, or from his ideology that people should not be forced into such a system against their will?  The little I know about Paul strongly suggests that it’s the latter and not the former - especially given that he so explicitly commits to sustaining Social Security for those who already depend (or anticipate depending) upon it and indeed seems willing to even for later generations that may wish to continue to use it.”

No. There is no choice in the sense you mean. Either you live in a civilized society or you don’t. Ron Paul’s version of society is that, to quote Margaret Thatcher, ‘There’s no such thing as society’. It’s every man, dog and water buffalo for themselves. This heartless, failed social system was invented by selfish bastards and is run by them, mostly to benefit them and their group of rich ,right wing selfish bastards. THAT is their ideology - ‘I’m all right, Jack, and keep your hands off my taxes. I have better uses for that money which don’t involve being a caring, sharing member of society and paying my taxes.’ Their ideology is self-interest and the survival of the fittest, best illustrated in the Victorian era where those who were starving on the street (even though many of them were working) were sent to the workhouse so they could be punished for being poor by being starved further and made to work more. Take a good look at Ron Paul’s face. Would you buy a used car from this man? He looks shifty and that’s because he has to be, to keep his real agenda under wraps. At least 70% of Americans don’t agree with him on health care on social security and on pensions and he knows it, so he has to tell them what he thinks they want to hear. I don’t believe he will ever get the nomination or that he would be elected if he did (Obama would think all his Christmases had come at once if Paul got the nomination because his extremist ideas are so easy to shred with logic)but I find it disturbing that so many people can be conned into believing his ideas have any credibility in the real world where people live and work and raise their families.

toward Kordy Day, the windy old editrix, I fart in your general direction.

and at your general directions.

Kordy, put your stopper up your own bunghole and let ovver pimples tawk ass
they will.

You are a great bunch, but some of you haven’t realized the joys of punctuation and diction.  You don’t distinguish a person you are quoting from a person you are addressing.  Ways to do so:
Jane Blow wrote, “__________.”
To Jane Blow I say that __________.

I realize teh drumbeat for war with Iran has been going on for 7 years, but at this point the MSM is no longer pretending the issue is being debated.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/10/the_ticking_clock

While there are many ways to protest this coming war, keeping Paul’s presidential hopes alive is the only electoral strategy available to us.  If anti-war protestors take the opportunity to vote Paul then maybe Obama and his administration can be compelled to call it off.  We sure as hell won’t get any guarentees from Obama if Santorum or Romney is the nominee.  On the contrary, Obama might be compelled to adop more hawkish rhetoric and (assuming the war hasn’t already started) the general election campaign will serve as a propaganda tool to sell the new war to the rubes.

I sure as hell hope I’m wrong (about the inevitabilty of the war and the admin’s support of it).  It looks like Iran will be the definitive foreign policy issue of the Obama presidency.

How did Napolitano ever make it on to Fox in the first place? In his way he is as radical and subversive as Chomsky. I don’t have a tube, but I enjoyed listening to his rants when I happened upon internet links to them.

I am amazed to still be checking up on this thread. Good work everyone. On a related personal note, I shaved and bought a shirt at Ross to prepare for the CO Republican caucus, and it worked. I am now an official Republican delegate. “Undeclared,” of course. Life is strange. In general, I like to be up front with people, but I am willing to engage in a bit of espionage for the causes of peace and liberty.

On the Social Security issue, I don’t understand the confusion. I’ve seen Paul make his position on that score explicit so many times, in writing and on video, that I think some of Bill’s anger is excusable. Equally, the claim that Paul’s opposition to war has no moral basis is so easily refuted by a quick search of Paul’s statements that one can only conclude that emotion and identity are getting in the way of fairness and honesty.

Not that there aren’t substantial problems with Paul’s positions. I think there are. But I don’t see any point in debating obvious untruths.

Hmm as it happens Fox recently cancelled Napolitano’s show….so once again it seems there is nothing decent on Fox.

Andrew Napolitano still is winning the fun on-line poll for Ron Paul’s running mate.  Why, I don’t know, but I guess he’s a television star.  I’ve never seen him on anything.  He’s never been elected to anything, which is a negative.  The site was having trouble displaying the results, but that’s fixed now.  You can vote still:  http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=PaulVP2012

As far as Napolitano goes, I can’t help liking what I’ve seen of the dude.  Though I understand he sports a bunch of conspiracy theories I wouldn’t approve of.  But his commentaries show a forthright opponent of the war and left/right reality tv…...which (shrugs shoulders) is tolerated by Foxnews for some reason.  So if Paul were to be nominated this guy would be a much better choice than Jesse Ventura.  However, not as a good a choice as Gary Johnson.

Ah, Cliff - still at it, and still with NOTHING substantive to offer.

You entered this discussion with some VERY specific allegations about missing Social Security funds.  You’ve been challenged to substantiate those with something a bit solider than your own verbiage multiple times now.  You even attempted to once, but managed to provide a citation that turned out not to support them at all.

And here you area again avoiding the issue.  Exactly what part of ‘put up or shut up’ did you find difficult to comprehend?

The reason why Paul constitutes a break with the past eludes you, diamond, certainly appears to be that you have an even less functional brain than Dubya does (to continue in the vein that you began).

First, you really need to choose:  do you think that Paul’s objections to Social Security stem from his being a ‘selfish bastard’, or from his ideology that people should not be forced into such a system against their will?  The little I know about Paul strongly suggests that it’s the latter and not the former - especially given that he so explicitly commits to sustaining Social Security for those who already depend (or anticipate depending) upon it and indeed seems willing to even for later generations that may wish to continue to use it.

I’m afraid that the competence of your post then manages to decline precipitously from that already-low level.  You babble about Paul as if you actually knew something about how he thinks rather than simply assume that because he doesn’t favor your own preferences he must be a Very Bad Person.  There’s plenty of evidence both in Paul’s statements and in his behavior that he does, in fact, care about people and curbs his ideological positions significantly to avoid hurting them (though would probably LIKE to arrive at a situation where the two did not conflict at all) and that he’s very much morally opposed to unnecessary war as well as finding it a massive waste of resources.

You then hit rock-bottom with your assertion that “Libertarians ... have always dominated the Republican Party” - a statement so incompetent that even a lot of self-styled progressives here of questionable competence themselves would probably correct it if they weren’t so preoccupied defending their own delusions.  Back when I was growing up in the ‘50s the Republican party was dominated not at all by Libertarians but by traditional Conservatives of varying degrees (Nixon, despite his massive personal flaws, was the last significant one to occupy the White House and was certainly considerably more progressive than its current occupant).  There was a brief surge of something at least closer to Libertarianism with the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964, but that came to naught.  Neo-conservatives (who don’t resemble Libertarians at all) fought traditional Conservatives for party domination and eventually won in 1980 with the nomination and election of Ronald Reagan, and have remained at the party’s helm since then (with the exception of a few remaining old-style Conservatives - Bob Dole comes to mind, and if you don’t limit yourself to presidential nominees then until even quite recently you could still find a few in Congress maintaining an increasingly low profile).

Why people like you somehow think they have anything useful to contribute to substantive discussion is what eludes me, diamond.  It seems to me that in the past such people had at least SOME sense of their own limitations and instead of parading them tried to rise above them by listening and learning.  Intelligence is important, but competence is even more so - especially since it, unlike raw intelligence, can be learned and developed.

Do give it a try, at least.  Both you and the portion of the world which you impinge upon could be the better for it.

You are right Ardee,  ardee, February 14 at 3:09 am

Some people just can’t handle rejection.

It appears that Bill in pointing out his self proclaimed superiority over all others, fails to recognize his shortcomings.

He is so busy pointing fingers he looks like a porcupine bristling with pointing figures as a defense mechanism.

His kind honestly don’t realize their character.

I used to know a Bill who started just about any argument or disagreement with ” I may be stupid but….”

One day I stopped him right there by saying, “Bill you’ve convinced me, there is no need to say anything else.  I agree with your self appraisal.”

He understood, but still wanted to argue.

At 1166 comments so far I don’t think Ron Paul has been effectively marginalized.

The in your face media censorship of him and the obvious vote manipulation should have all concerned whether it is Ron Paul or not.

On to our second persistent incompetent - ardee.

As I recently observed in response to you (mentioning Morris Berman), you just can’t seem to distinguish between fact and opinion.  Your response to the FACT that Ron Paul’s statements in the link that YOU provided do not, contrary to your assertions, call for the abolition of Social Security (but rather call for an opt-out option to allow it to wither away IF that’s what people want) is your OPINION that any such option would constitute “a death knell for that program” (which would be true only if EVERYONE chose to opt out).

Unlike the rest of the Republican crowd, Paul very specifically supports using the general fund to provide whatever FICA shortfall would result from those who so opted out - and even specifically states where the money should come from (winding down our military adventurism).  Unlike them, he’s no fan of trying to move existing SS Trust Fund reserves into accounts managed by their friends on Wall Street (while those others would like to move to eliminate SS rather than leave it up to the people whether to do so, they also would LOVE to move its assets and income during that process into privately-managed funds).

No wonder Wall Street (as made evident in the citation I provided earlier) finds Paul so objectionable compared with the other Republican contenders.

I already agreed elsewhere here that there may be some POLITICAL value in retaining SS’s current funding structure in terms of protecting it from attempts to weaken it (even though shifting some of its funding to the general fund would in fact make it MORE progressive in terms of taxation than it is today), but when someone advocates a change that specifically includes a commitment to continued funding from the general fund that argument against that specific proposal is no longer legitimate (even if one might still worry about what might happen farther down the line, just as one worries about what might happen with presidential authority to assassinate anyone, anywhere, any time if they’re suspected of terrorist connections even if one assumes, though I personally do not, that Obama himself would NEVER use that power questionably).

In sum, ardee, you just don’t seem to be able to wrap what passes for your mind around the distinction between fact and opinion.  The fairly predictable result is that your opinions become (at least in that marginal mind of yours) self-fulfilling evidence.  The most charitable answer to the question I twice raised earlier is the onset of senility, so absent any clarification from you I’ll just go with that.

Cliff Carson, February 13 at 8:31 pm

With all due respect, CLiff, I think bill (lower case for lowered expectations I assume?) is not a troll, only an egomaniac.

Well, I guess I’ll address the characteristic incompetence here in the order encountered:

Cliff, to the incompetence that you’ve already exhibited we can now add that of making assumptions about things you know absolutely nothing about.  First, I simply don’t CARE enough about you to bother to insult you:  my concentration on substance rather than minor details caused me to forget your name, just as it caused me to use the term ‘moron’ (a category from which I seem to have mistakenly excepted you) somewhat loosely (I don’t care enough about such people to try to insult them, either:  rather, it was an attempt to shame them into trying to rise to a level of more substantive discussion after less confrontational attempts had failed).

Second, I’m no ‘friend’ of David Walker:  I encountered him when confronting some of his carefully-worded mischaracterizations about the viability of Social Security.  Unlike the morons here (who SHARE my views on that subject but don’t read with the competency required to realize that), he (though not sharing them at all) was willing to discuss the matter in detail and to admit that it was a lot more viable (with the kind of funding reform I’ve described here) than he had suggested.

Third (returning to more generic forms of your incompetence now), you presented your most recent linked citation as if it somehow refuted what I had said to you, when in fact it SUPPORTS it - both my very clear statements that this is what the report said, and my observation that it was the marked discrepancy between this and what you were claiming that caused me to question you.

Fourth, I see that you’ve completely ignored my challenge to produce the figures that supposedly support your earlier, VERY quantitative statements about money missing from Social Security - a challenge issued after no such support could be found in the pointer you provided earlier which strongly suggests that you’re just another Internet loudmouth babbling persistently about things you don’t understand at all.

This (unlike the other items above) is not subject to ANY ‘interpretation’ or assumptions:  when someone makes factual assertions that can easily be verified and then refuses to produce any such verification when challenged on them, they have no credibility whatsoever.

Put up, or shut up.

Aquifer

Bill did not make a mistake when he used Chris as my name.  It was his way of insulting me.  Tells you what kind of person he is.

As we all went thru this exercise you have seen him increasingly become ugly.  And that was no accident either.

He is unworthy of civil discourse.  I suspect he is a Troll.

You may not accept this Bill but I did hope that we might be able to have an intellectual conversation.

We don’t have to be ugly just because we disagree.

“Without any changes to the system, the trustees of the Social Security program project that the trust fund will be able to pay only 77% of full benefits starting in 2036, although the percentage would fall only slightly over the subsequent 49 years.”

Source: 

http://www.aicpa.org/publications/taxadviser/2011/december/pages/pfp_dec2011.aspx?action=print

Remember Bill, The Trustees are supposed to meet annually and make adjustments to assure the viability of the system.  If they do that, minor adjustments will assure 100% fully met promised benefits thru 2085.  So this body of Trustees have 73 years of tweaking to correct any problems.

Social Security is not broke,there are criminal elements in our Government who want to steal your golden years.  They will tell any lie to get their hands on your money.

bill,

“I’m beginning to suspect that you’re as incompetent a reader as so many others here are, Chris.”

Chris? who’s Chris? You don’t mean Cliff do you? Of course not, if you did that would make you, what, an incompetent reader?

“People seem to think the government has money,” said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. “The government doesn’t have any money.”

“The factors that contributed to our mortgage-based subprime crisis exist with regard to our federal government’s finances,” said Walker, now head of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a group established to raise alarms about the nation’s budget. “The difference is that the magnitude of the federal government’s financial situation is at least 25 times greater.”

I read Walker’s 2007, 182 page GAO report and that report prompted me to write an article (I think in 2007) about the demise of the Financial stability of the United States.  And also an excerpt from this about Social Security.

“Is Anybody Listening?

By Cliff Carson

Interesting day today on TV.  Watching C-Span with a guest who was a spokesman for the Social Security Administration, I noticed that he was preparing us all for the day when our SS benefits would be cut or ended.  A call in stated that he had heard that there were people drawing Social Security benefits who had never worked even one day in the United States and he asked the question if there were any such people.  The Spokesman looked straight into the camera and with a straight face said “no”.

Mr. Spokesman, I Cliff Carson,  personally know two people who have never worked one day in the United States, or for any United States Company, and I know absolutely for a fact that they draw Social Security benefits.  And it is legal.

So Mr. Spokesman, since I’m pretty sure you also know there are such people, and since I really don’t think these two I know , are the only two people in the United States who meet the description, Mr. Spokesman, my question is - Why did you lie about it?”

And you Bill, presenting yourself as a confidant of David Walker who has an interesting career that has brought him to be a member of the Trilateral Commission.  You know who they are I am sure.

By the way Bill, your confidant , and friend I suppose , at least that’s what you suggest , my question is how long has former Comptroller General David Walker been a member of the Trilateral Commission?

Do you share the same philosophy as the TC bunch - One World Government?  War is Profit?

“DUBLIN, Ireland—Trilateral Commission (TC) members, angry over their failure to establish a world government and the economic crisis they generated, called for war with Iran when they gathered behind closed doors here in Dublin, Ireland May 7-10.”

“War plans were revealed by Mikhail Slobodovsici, a chief adviser to the TC Russian leadership, when he strolled off the grounds of the Four Seasons resort, where the TC had hunkered down behind armed guards and locked doors. He thought he was talking to a TC colleague when speaking with Alan Keenan, who operates the web site WeAreChange.org.

“We are deciding the future of the world,” Slobodovsici said. “We need a world government,” he said, but, referring to Iran, said “we need to get rid of them.”

Clearly, it was a TC war call. Many of the TC’s billionaires and millionaires are heavily invested in manufacturing, and wars produce huge profits.”
By James P. Tucker, Jr.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tucker_trumps_trilats_222.html

Seems you have revealed yourself Mr. Bill, and it ain’t a pretty sight.  Can you spell Troll?

Your first reference (http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Social_Security.htm) linked to very specific statements that Paul has made and which you seemed (and still seem) incapable of parsing competently.  They consistently indicated that Paul wanted to give (young) people the OPTION to opt out of Social Security and intended to keep it functional for those who did NOT choose to so opt out.  I corrected you on this before, but you just don’t accept correction well.

My dilemma is that I do not understand whether bill is didactic, a liar or an actual mental midget.

I choose the liar because he carefully omits the references to opting out of social security as a death knell for that program, the single most successful government program ever.

Of course mental midget must be given consideration as who would think to get away with such blatant bullshite but such an individual?

bill you are as phoney as they come.

Your first reference (http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Social_Security.htm) linked to very specific statements that Paul has made and which you seemed (and still seem) incapable of parsing competently.  They consistently indicated that Paul wanted to give (young) people the OPTION to opt out of Social Security and intended to keep it functional for those who did NOT choose to so opt out.  I corrected you on this before, but you just don’t accept correction well.

My dilemma is that I do not understand whether bill is didactic, a liar or an actual mental midget.