Why is Newt so angry?

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
MrEnergyCzar's picture
MrEnergyCzar
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2010
Posts: 54
Why is Newt so angry?

 I'm just a political layperson watching these debates for entertainment purposes (I know most of what they promise will never happen) but why does Newt get so hot and angry when he knows everyone is watching?  He seems very smart and able to evade the questions asked with the result people cheering....doesn't someone tell him to remain calm?  or is that the temperment people want in a President when a President is under pressure?  

MrEnergyCzar

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Newt

Everyone has an opinion including me.  Many years ago Newt taught a college class that was taped and sold as a set.  A friend of mine bought them and I watched three of them.  Very impressive.  What made him intense in those tapes was the unbelievable distance we have fallen from what America is supposed to be about.  Where political correctness taken to the absurd, out of control spending,  out of control regulation, and  a host of other problems has turned the country into a disaster.  And, it is far far worse now than it was back then.  I believe that I will vote for him in the NJ primary and if he makes to the general election I will vote for him again.  While he may not be perfect, he does seem to want to make an honest stab at trying to correct at least some of the huge mistakes we have made since WW2.  We have become a welfare/warfare state full of statists and it will be the end of us unless we take action now.  It may already be too late and we are doomed to tryanny no matter what we do.  I do know that Obama will be voted out no matter what lies and twisted truths are told in the main stream media as the election gets closer.  The 2010 midterm election was the start.  There have been a number of off cycle elections for giovernors and such and the sum total of the 2010 election and the off cycle elections makes clear that there has been a wake up call across the land.  Honest hard folks, the silent majority, have started paying attention and they do not like what they see.  No amount of money or advertising will change people's minds if their decisions are based on principle.  There actually is a difference between right and wrong.

AquaFX's picture
AquaFX
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 26 2011
Posts: 12
Newt is not even on the

Newt is not even on the ballot in all 50 states. He is not able to collect over some 500 delegates. If he was actually serious about running don't you think he would have crossed his T's and dotted his I's. He is just out there promoting himself. There are only 2 candidates that are on all 50 ballots. Romney and Ron Paul. Romney is in it for power and popularity. Paul is trying to start a movement. rEVOLution2012 to save America

MrEnergyCzar's picture
MrEnergyCzar
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2010
Posts: 54
not on ballot in 5 states...
AquaFX wrote:

Newt is not even on the ballot in all 50 states. He is not able to collect over some 500 delegates. If he was actually serious about running don't you think he would have crossed his T's and dotted his I's. He is just out there promoting himself. There are only 2 candidates that are on all 50 ballots. Romney and Ron Paul. Romney is in it for power and popularity. Paul is trying to start a movement. rEVOLution2012 to save America

Wow, you're right.  I wonder what will happen when some of those big states come up....  They say he's not on Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee and Illinois, that's 564 delegates he can't get, same with Santorum.  Paul is on all of them.  In 4 years I'll bet Newt takes care of this.   

 

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1892
"We Had A Food Drive At First Baptist Church..."

This is from an article on CNN.com:

Newly Recovered Court Files Cast Doubt On Gingrich Version Of First Divorce (December 27, 2011)

"Leonard H. 'Kip' Carter, a former close Gingrich friend, backed the contention that it was Newt Gingrich who wanted the divorce.

"'He (Gingrich) said, "You know and I know that she's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a president,"' Carter, who now lives in South Carolina, told CNN recently, relating the conversation he had with Gingrich the day Gingrich revealed he was filing for divorce. Carter served as treasurer of Gingrich's first congressional campaigns.

"Carter, who was a fellow history professor when Gingrich taught at West Georgia College in Carrollton, said he broke off his friendship with Newt Gingrich because of the congressman's treatment of his wife during the divorce."

-----

"When [first wife] Jackie Gingrich and her daughters moved from their other home in Fairfax, Virginia, back to their house in Carrollton, Georgia, there were 'no lights, no heat, no water, no food in the home,' former Gingrich friend and academic colleague Carter said.

"Carter, who helped collect donations for the family, said Gingrich "wouldn't give them a dime" in the first months of the separation.

"'We had a food drive at First Baptist Church,' Carter said. 'The deacons went down and stocked her pantry.'

"Johnson, the former state legislator who was in Gingrich's Sunday school class, said when the church's minister asked him to donate money, he gave $100 to the fund.

"A judge ordered Gingrich to appear in court a week after his wife filed her complaint. The result was a ruling that he bring the utility bills up to date and begin paying his wife $700 a month in temporary support until the case was settled."
Sourcehttp://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html

Oh, and I thought this was funny:

Poet

Phil Williams's picture
Phil Williams
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2009
Posts: 345
Gingrich on Jon Stewart

This video made me LMAO. It also made me want to punch Gingrich in his fat f-ing face.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/deconstructing-gingrich

 

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Well, Duh!!

 

 

Why is Newt so angry?  Why is Newt so angry?????     HE'S GOT TWO EX-WIVES!!!    AND THEY'RE PISSED!!!     AT HIM!!

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
in a pig's eye
dshields wrote:

 I do know that Obama will be voted out no matter what lies and twisted truths are told in the main stream media as the election gets closer. 

Highly improbable.  If we had a decent choice, he would be but we don't and he won't.  And even if by some miracle, Ron Paul were to get in (which he won't), TPTB would allow the economy to sink OR stonewall everything he does OR physically ensure he would be incapable of continuing as POTUS.

We're screwed.

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1892
Ron Paul versus Barack Obama

My wife, who is liberal/progressive, told me she's likely to vote for Ron Paul if he wins the GOP nomination - particularly because of his anti-war and liberty stances. But if it's a contest between another GOP nominee like Romney or Gingrich or Santorum versus Barack Obama, she will vote for Barack Obama.

Therefore, I suspect if Ron Paul won the nomination, many Republicans would vote for Paul, anyway because they wouldn't vote for Obama... And Ron Paul would draw many progressives and independents.

That said, I suspect a lot of Wall Street, corporate, and establishment Republicans would vote for Obama rather than Ron Paul, if the contest came down to the two.

Poet

JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
Thanks Zeroenergy21, that was hilarious!!!

Though Jon Stewart is a self-described socialist one can not deny his comedic genius! He has great writers on that show and incredible timing. I can't get over how well he delivered some of those jokes and punchlines. Brilliant!!!

It does not hurt that I can't stand that cheating, corrupt, fat Washington insider Gingrich either.

JG

RON PAUL 2012

JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
Totally agree with that take Poet...

Though I still take Romney over Obama despite the fact I don't like Romney.

If Ron Paul runs 3rd Party I'm voting for him eitherway.

I see very little difference between Romney and Obama and I think Romney wants the presidency so bad he will sell his soul to the devil. He changes views and stances on subjects daily based on political winds. However, it's hard to imagine something worse than Obama. Gingrich comes close though.

JG

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Though I still take Romney

Though I still take Romney over Obama despite the fact I don't like Romney

When you vote for the lesser of two evils you still end up with evil.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
ao wrote: dshields
ao wrote:
dshields wrote:

 I do know that Obama will be voted out no matter what lies and twisted truths are told in the main stream media as the election gets closer. 

Highly improbable.  If we had a decent choice, he would be but we don't and he won't.  And even if by some miracle, Ron Paul were to get in (which he won't), TPTB would allow the economy to sink OR stonewall everything he does OR physically ensure he would be incapable of continuing as POTUS.

We're screwed.

I am good with Ron Paul.  He is the only one with sound economic ideas as far as I can tell.  I do not like his foreign policy.  The world is full of bad people.  I know it is hard to believe but it is true.  I am not all happy with Newt either.  Mitt is a wall street insider.  Do we really need another one of those ?  It is going to be Newt or Mitt for the general election.  The class of dependency is not quite big enough yet to re-elect Obama against the will of the rest of America.  The media will push Obama like crazy while trying to beat down anyone who runs against him.  This worked well last time plus a lot of people voted for him due an inability to apply sufficient critical thinking skills.  This is a result of the failure of the education system so I don't really hold it against them.  Amazingly enough, very few people in America actually know what it says in the constitution.  About half of what the fed gov does is unconstitutional.  If we get rid of that half we will be much better off in the long run.  However, in the short run it willl be very painful indeed.  If we do not do this we are done.  The out of control spending will continue and will lead one way or another to a very serious financial situation.  The current crop of politicians (repub and dem) have proved they are unable to control spending.  Obama is one of the worst ones in this regard.  So Obama has to go - along with a bunch more.  There has been a major wake up call in America as to what Obama is about over the last few years.  Just check out the 2010 midterm election.  I think the people will remove him from office in 2012.

 

AquaFX's picture
AquaFX
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 26 2011
Posts: 12
I don't understand why so

I don't understand why so many people are opposed to Paul's international policy?

So by saying that you do not like his policy of staying out of other country's business and bringing our troops home to protect OUR borders instead of the Afghan/Pakistan border you are for wars and medeling in other countries politics.

When was the last time someone declared war against the US? We are a very safe country. We have 2 huge oceans seperating us from the rest of the crazy's. Although the 9/11 attack was a black eye for America we have lost more than twice the number of soldiers than those who died in the towers along with 10 years of funding the military complex over in the Middle East  which is just expanding our debt more.

China and Russia are the only countries we need to be worried about an actual war. All of these little countries know they can't fight us in an actual war so they are using guerilla tactics. We are not even in a war. It has never been declared. We are being a bully. Just like on the playground the bully keeps pushing people around until someone finally stands up to them and then we wonder why.

The acts against the US are in response to us having our business where it doesn't belong. I don't see Canada being attacked like us.

rEVOLution 2012

 

 

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
AquaFX wrote:I don't
AquaFX wrote:

I don't understand why so many people are opposed to Paul's international policy?

So by saying that you do not like his policy of staying out of other country's business and bringing our troops home to protect OUR borders instead of the Afghan/Pakistan border you are for wars and medeling in other countries politics.

When was the last time someone declared war against the US? We are a very safe country. We have 2 huge oceans seperating us from the rest of the crazy's. Although the 9/11 attack was a black eye for America we have lost more than twice the number of soldiers than those who died in the towers along with 10 years of funding the military complex over in the Middle East  which is just expanding our debt more.

China and Russia are the only countries we need to be worried about an actual war. All of these little countries know they can't fight us in an actual war so they are using guerilla tactics. We are not even in a war. It has never been declared. We are being a bully. Just like on the playground the bully keeps pushing people around until someone finally stands up to them and then we wonder why.

The acts against the US are in response to us having our business where it doesn't belong. I don't see Canada being attacked like us.

rEVOLution 2012

Sorry, I did not state enough on this issue to make my position clear.

1) I completely agree with bringing the majority of our military home.

2) I think we should close a lot of bases.

3) I do not believe we need a military as large as ours is - maybe half the size it is now.

4) I do not believe we should meddle in other people's business.  We don't want them meddling in ours.  Fair is fair.

However,

5) I do believe that we need to invest substantially in high technology weapons - extremely powerful weapons - and we need to keep our mouths shut about it.  Extremely powerful secret weapons are wonderful weapons.

6) I do believe we need to develop our half sized military, kept at home, to be an extremely mobile and powerful force, a force that can be deployed anywhere on the face of the planet in 24 hours along with enough firepower to bring great destruction upon any entity that dare mess with us directly or our people anywhere in the world.

7) I believe the next president needs to get on TV and tell the world that we are bringing our people home and we are not going to meddle in other countries affairs.  I believe the next president needs to also tell the world that if we are directly messed with or our people anywhere in the world are messed with that we will be coming for a visit with all the firepower we can muster and when we are done we will go straight home.  Massive overwhelming force should be the rule - the Powell Doctrine.  No rebuilding program.  No nothing.  You mess with us or our people and we will descend upon you like the devil.  There will be no mercy.  No political correctness.  A typical attack might include taking down all electric plants, water plants, food, transportation systems (railroads, bridges, etc), the leadership, the military, and anything else we decide.  We will apply all the resources we have as a nation to your utter destruction as rapidly as we possibly can - total war.

Someone somewhere will see this as a sign of weakness and try something.  Then we will have to keep our word.  After that we will not have any more trouble for 20 years or maybe more - until the world has forgotten and someone else tries something and we are forced to keep our word again.

 

AquaFX's picture
AquaFX
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 26 2011
Posts: 12
Dshields, I guess I am

Dshields,

I guess I am confused know on your position about Pauls international policy.

You agree to all of his major proponents of peace. He is all for national defense so if someone attacks us that will be dealt with. He has said if someone attacked us he would constitutionally go to congress, get approval to DECLARE war get in and get out and be done with it and declare victory quickly instead of hanging around for 10 years like the Middle East.

As far as powerful weapons how much more powerful do you need? One step below a nuke?

 

So from my understanding is you do like Pauls policy.

thatchmo's picture
thatchmo
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 14 2008
Posts: 476
same ol'...

Dunno ds, I pretty much agree with you 1-4, but the rest sounds good and keeps my testosterone level up, but it it affordable, sustainable, and moral? 

#5- like our current and future drone program, that, while effective and conserves our troops, takes our "skin" out of the game.  Moral or "honorable'?

#6- Mess with "our people"?  Such as our newest full citizens- the soulless corporations messing in others' business and resources (in "our" name)?

#7- How about the idea of collective punishment (correct term?).  Punish an entire country for the actions of their sucking leaders?  Is that the America you want to be a part of in the future?  I never did understand the idea of not targeting leaders of a (in the "civilized", non-"terrorist") country that one is at war with- kill off a generation of young men and civilians instead.....www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6gZefW4yEA

Foreign policy is a bit complex.  I'm not sure your plan breaks any new ground.

Why IS Newt so angry?  Sorry for contributing to the hijack- on to a new thread?  Aloha, Steve

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Ron Paul's foreign policy

I am not even going to pretend to make this about "Why is Newt so angry?". 

Ron Paul might not agree 100% with the contents of this article but I think it does a good job describing some libertarians position on "War, Peace, and the State"

War, Peace, and the State

by Murray N. Rothbard

The libertarian movement has been chided by William F. Buckley, Jr., for failing to use its "strategic intelligence" in facing the major problems of our time. We have, indeed, been too often prone to "pursue our busy little seminars on whether or not to demunicipalize the garbage collectors" (as Buckley has contemptuously written), while ignoring and failing to apply libertarian theory to the most vital problem of our time: war and peace. There is a sense in which libertarians have been utopian rather than strategic in their thinking, with a tendency to divorce the ideal system which we envisage from the realities of the world in which we live. In short, too many of us have divorced theory from practice, and have then been content to hold the pure libertarian society as an abstract ideal for some remotely future time, while in the concrete world of today we follow unthinkingly the orthodox "conservative" line. To live liberty, to begin the hard but essential strategic struggle of changing the unsatisfactory world of today in the direction of our ideals, we must realize and demonstrate to the world that libertarian theory can be brought sharply to bear upon all of the world's crucial problems. By coming to grips with these problems, we can demonstrate that libertarianism is not just a beautiful ideal somewhere on Cloud Nine, but a tough-minded body of truths that enables us to take our stand and to cope with the whole host of issues of our day.

Let us then, by all means, use our strategic intelligence. Although, when he sees the result, Mr. Buckley might well wish that we had stayed in the realm of garbage collection. Let us construct a libertarian theory of war and peace.

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.1 In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.2

Let us set aside the more complex problem of the State for a while and consider simply relations between "private" individuals. Jones finds that he or his property is being invaded, aggressed against, by Smith. It is legitimate for Jones, as we have seen, to repel this invasion by defensive violence of his own. But now we come to a more knotty question: is it within the right of Jones to commit violence against innocent third parties as a corollary to his legitimate defense against Smith? To the libertarian, the answer must be clearly, no. Remember that the rule prohibiting violence against the persons or property of innocent men is absolute: it holds regardless of the subjective motives for the aggression. It is wrong and criminal to violate the property or person of another, even if one is a Robin Hood, or starving, or is doing it to save one's relatives, or is defending oneself against a third man's attack. We may understand and sympathize with the motives in many of these cases and extreme situations. We may later mitigate the guilt if the criminal comes to trial for punishment, but we cannot evade the judgment that this aggression is still a criminal act, and one which the victim has every right to repel, by violence if necessary. In short, A aggresses against B because C is threatening, or aggressing against, A. We may understand C's "higher" culpability in this whole procedure; but we must still label this aggression as a criminal act which B has the right to repel by violence.

To be more concrete, if Jones finds that his property is being stolen by Smith, he has the right to repel him and try to catch him; but he has no right to repel him by bombing a building and murdering innocent people or to catch him by spraying machine gun fire into an innocent crowd. If he does this, he is as much (or more of) a criminal aggressor as Smith is.

The application to problems of war and peace is already becoming evident. For while war in the narrower sense is a conflict between States, in the broader sense we may define it as the outbreak of open violence between people or groups of people. If Smith and a group of his henchmen aggress against Jones and Jones and his bodyguards pursue the Smith gang to their lair, we may cheer Jones on in his endeavor; and we, and others in society interested in repelling aggression, may contribute financially or personally to Jones's cause. But Jones has no right, any more than does Smith, to aggress against anyone else in the course of his "just war": to steal others' property in order to finance his pursuit, to conscript others into his posse by use of violence, or to kill others in the course of his struggle to capture the Smith forces. If Jones should do any of these things, he becomes a criminal as fully as Smith, and he too becomes subject to whatever sanctions are meted out against criminality. In fact, if Smith's crime was theft, and Jones should use conscription to catch him, or should kill others in the pursuit, Jones becomes more of a criminal than Smith, for such crimes against another person as enslavement and murder are surely far worse than theft. (For while theft injures the extension of another's personality, enslavement injures, and murder obliterates, that personality itself.)

Suppose that Jones, in the course of his "just war" against the ravages of Smith, should kill a few innocent people, and suppose that he should declaim, in defense of this murder, that he was simply acting on the slogan, "Give me liberty or give me death." The absurdity of this "defense" should be evident at once, for the issue is not whether Jones was willing to risk death personally in his defensive struggle against Smith; the issue is whether he was willing to kill other people in pursuit of his legitimate end. For Jones was in truth acting on the completely indefensible slogan: "Give me liberty or give them death" surely a far less noble battle cry. 3

The libertarian's basic attitude toward war must then be: it is legitimate to use violence against criminals in defense of one's rights of person and property; it is completely impermissible to violate the rights of other innocent people. War, then, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion.

It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one.4 But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.

This is why the old cliché no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the modern world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny, so mass murder – indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself – is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now imminent. And the forestalling of massive annihilation is far more important, in truth, than the demunicipalization of garbage disposal, as worthwhile as that may be. Or are libertarians going to wax properly indignant about price control or the income tax, and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder?

If nuclear warfare is totally illegitimate even for individuals defending themselves against criminal assault, how much more so is nuclear or even "conventional" warfare between States!

It is time now to bring the State into our discussion. The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area. In particular, it has acquired a monopoly of aggressive violence, for States generally recognize the right of individuals to use violence (though not against States, of course) in self-defense.5 The State then uses this monopoly to wield power over the inhabitants of the area and to enjoy the material fruits of that power. The State, then, is the only organization in society that regularly and openly obtains its monetary revenues by the use of aggressive violence; all other individuals and organizations (except if delegated that right by the State) can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by voluntary exchange of their respective products. This use of violence to obtain its revenue (called "taxation") is the keystone of State power. Upon this base the State erects a further structure of power over the individuals in its territory, regulating them, penalizing critics, subsidizing favorites, etc. The State also takes care to arrogate to itself the compulsory monopoly of various critical services needed by society, thus keeping the people in dependence upon the State for key services, keeping control of the vital command posts in society and also fostering among the public the myth that only the State can supply these goods and services. Thus the State is careful to monopolize police and judicial service, the ownership of roads and streets, the supply of money, and the postal service, and effectively to monopolize or control education, public utilities, transportation, and radio and television.

Now, since the State arrogates to itself the monopoly of violence over a territorial area, so long as its depredations and extortions go unresisted, there is said to be "peace" in the area, since the only violence is one-way, directed by the State downward against the people. Open conflict within the area only breaks out in the case of "revolutions" in which people resist the use of State power against them. Both the quiet case of the State unresisted and the case of open revolution may be termed "vertical violence": violence of the State against its public or vice versa.

In the modern world, each land area is ruled over by a State organization, but there are a number of States scattered over the earth, each with a monopoly of violence over its own territory. No super-State exists with a monopoly of violence over the entire world; and so a state of "anarchy" exists between the several States. (It has always been a source of wonder, incidentally, to this writer how the same conservatives who denounce as lunatic any proposal for eliminating a monopoly of violence over a given territory and thus leaving private individuals without an overlord, should be equally insistent upon leaving States without an overlord to settle disputes between them. The former is always denounced as "crackpot anarchism"; the latter is hailed as preserving independence and "national sovereignty" from "world government.") And so, except for revolutions, which occur only sporadically, the open violence and two-sided conflict in the world takes place between two or more States, that is, in what is called "international war" (or "horizontal violence").

Now there are crucial and vital differences between inter-State warfare on the one hand and revolutions against the State or conflicts between private individuals on the other. One vital difference is the shift in geography. In a revolution, the conflict takes place within the same geographical area: both the minions of the State and the revolutionaries inhabit the same territory. Inter-State warfare, on the other hand, takes place between two groups, each having a monopoly over its own geographical area; that is, it takes place between inhabitants of different territories. From this difference flow several important consequences: (1) in inter-State war the scope for the use of modern weapons of destruction is far greater. For if the "escalation" of weaponry in an intra-territorial conflict becomes too great, each side will blow itself up with the weapons directed against the other. Neither a revolutionary group nor a State combating revolution, for example, can use nuclear weapons against the other. But, on the other hand, when the warring parties inhabit different territorial areas, the scope for modern weaponry becomes enormous, and the entire arsenal of mass devastation can come into play. A second consequence (2) is that while it is possible for revolutionaries to pinpoint their targets and confine them to their State enemies, and thus avoid aggressing against innocent people, pinpointing is far less possible in an inter-State war.6 This is true even with older weapons; and, of course, with modern weapons there can be no pinpointing whatever. Furthermore, (3) since each State can mobilize all the people and resources in its territory, the other State comes to regard all the citizens of the opposing country as at least temporarily its enemies and to treat them accordingly by extending the war to them. Thus, all of the consequences of inter-territorial war make it almost inevitable that inter-State war will involve aggression by each side against the innocent civilians – the private individuals – of the other. This inevitability becomes absolute with modern weapons of mass destruction.

If one distinct attribute of inter-State war is inter-territoriality, another unique attribute stems from the fact that each State lives by taxation over its subjects. Any war against another State, therefore, involves the increase and extension of taxation-aggression over its own people.7 Conflicts between private individuals can be, and usually are, voluntarily waged and financed by the parties concerned. Revolutions can be, and often are, financed and fought by voluntary contributions of the public. But State wars can only be waged through aggression against the taxpayer.

All State wars, therefore, involve increased aggression against the State's own taxpayers, and almost all State wars (all, in modern warfare) involve the maximum aggression (murder) against the innocent civilians ruled by the enemy State. On the other hand, revolutions are generally financed voluntarily and may pinpoint their violence to the State rulers, and private conflicts may confine their violence to the actual criminals. The libertarian must, therefore, conclude that, while some revolutions and some private conflicts may be legitimate, State wars are always to be condemned.

Many libertarians object as follows: "While we too deplore the use of taxation for warfare, and the State's monopoly of defense service, we have to recognize that these conditions exist, and while they do, we must support the State in just wars of defense." The reply to this would go as follows: "Yes, as you say, unfortunately States exist, each having a monopoly of violence over its territorial area." What then should be the attitude of the libertarian toward conflicts between these States? The libertarian should say, in effect, to the State: "All right, you exist, but as long as you exist at least confine your activities to the area which you monopolize." In short, the libertarian is interested in reducing as much as possible the area of State aggression against all private individuals. The only way to do this, in international affairs, is for the people of each country to pressure their own State to confine its activities to the area which it monopolizes and not to aggress against other State-monopolists. In short, the objective of the libertarian is to confine any existing State to as small a degree of invasion of person and property as possible. And this means the total avoidance of war. The people under each State should pressure "their" respective States not to attack one another, and, if a conflict should break out, to negotiate a peace or declare a cease-fire as quickly as physically possible.

Suppose further that we have that rarity – an unusually clear-cut case in which the State is actually trying to defend the property of one of its citizens. A citizen of country A travels or invests in country B, and then State B aggresses against his person or confiscates his property. Surely, our libertarian critic would argue, here is a clear-cut case where State A should threaten or commit war against State B in order to defend the property of "its" citizen. Since, the argument runs, the State has taken upon itself the monopoly of defense of its citizens, it then has the obligation to go to war on behalf of any citizen, and libertarians have an obligation to support this war as a just one.

But the point again is that each State has a monopoly of violence and, therefore, of defense only over its territorial area. It has no such monopoly; in fact, it has no power at all, over any other geographical area. Therefore, if an inhabitant of country A should move to or invest in country B, the libertarian must argue that he thereby takes his chances with the State-monopolist of country B, and it would be immoral and criminal for State A to tax people in country A and kill numerous innocents in country B in order to defend the property of the traveler or investor.8

It should also be pointed out that there is no defense against nuclear weapons (the only current "defense" is the threat of mutual annihilation) and, therefore, that the State cannot fulfill any sort of defense function so long as these weapons exist.

The libertarian objective, then, should be, regardless of the specific causes of any conflict, to pressure States not to launch wars against other States and, should a war break out, to pressure them to sue for peace and negotiate a cease-fire and peace treaty as quickly as physically possible. This objective, incidentally, is enshrined in the international law of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, that is, the ideal that no State could aggress against the territory of another – in short, the "peaceful coexistence" of States.9

Suppose, however, that despite libertarian opposition, war has begun and the warring States are not negotiating a peace. What, then, should be the libertarian position? Clearly, to reduce the scope of assault on innocent civilians as much as possible. Old-fashioned international law had two excellent devices for this: the "laws of war," and the "laws of neutrality" or "neutrals' rights." The laws of neutrality are designed to keep any war that breaks out confined to the warring States themselves, without aggression against the States or particularly the peoples of the other nations. Hence the importance of such ancient and now forgotten American principles as "freedom of the seas" or severe limitations upon the rights of warring States to blockade neutral trade with the enemy country. In short, the libertarian tries to induce neutral States to remain neutral in any inter-State conflict and to induce the warring States to observe fully the rights of neutral citizens. The "laws of war" were designed to limit as much as possible the invasion by warring States of the rights of the civilians of the respective warring countries. As the British jurist F.J.P. Veale put it:

The fundamental principle of this code was that hostilities between civilized peoples must be limited to the armed forces actually engaged.... It drew a distinction between combatants and noncombatants by laying down that the sole business of the combatants is to fight each other and, consequently, that noncombatants must be excluded from the scope of military operations.10

In the modified form of prohibiting the bombardment of all cities not in the front line, this rule held in Western European wars in recent centuries until Britain launched the strategic bombing of civilians in World War II. Now, of course, the entire concept is scarcely remembered, the very nature of nuclear war resting on the annihilation of civilians.

In condemning all wars, regardless of motive, the libertarian knows that there may well be varying degrees of guilt among States for any specific war. But the overriding consideration for the libertarian is the condemnation of any State participation in war. Hence his policy is that of exerting pressure on all States not to start a war, to stop one that has begun and to reduce the scope of any persisting war in injuring civilians of either side or no side.

A neglected corollary to the libertarian policy of peaceful coexistence of States is the rigorous abstention from any foreign aid; that is, a policy of nonintervention between States (= "isolationism" = "neutralism"). For any aid given by State A to State B (1) increases tax aggression against the people of country A and (2) aggravates the suppression by State B of its own people. If there are any revolutionary groups in country B, then foreign aid intensifies this suppression all the more. Even foreign aid to a revolutionary group in B – more defensible because directed to a voluntary group opposing a State rather than a State oppressing the people – must be condemned as (at the very least) aggravating tax aggression at home.

Let us see how libertarian theory applies to the problem of imperialism, which may be defined as the aggression by State A over the people of country B, and the subsequent maintenance of this foreign rule. Revolution by the B people against the imperial rule of A is certainly legitimate, provided again that revolutionary fire be directed only against the rulers. It has often been maintained – even by libertarians – that Western imperialism over undeveloped countries should be supported as more watchful of property rights than any successor native government would be. The first reply is that judging what might follow the status quo is purely speculative, whereas existing imperialist rule is all too real and culpable. Moreover, the libertarian here begins his focus at the wrong end – at the alleged benefit of imperialism to the native. He should, on the contrary, concentrate first on the Western taxpayer, who is mulcted and burdened to pay for the wars of conquest, and then for the maintenance of the imperial bureaucracy. On this ground alone, the libertarian must condemn imperialism.11

Does opposition to all war mean that the libertarian can never countenance change – that he is consigning the world to a permanent freezing of unjust regimes? Certainly not. Suppose, for example, that the hypothetical state of "Waldavia" has attacked "Ruritania" and annexed the western part of the country. The Western Ruritanians now long to be reunited with their Ruritanian brethren. How is this to be achieved? There is, of course, the route of peaceful negotiation between the two powers, but suppose that the Waldavian imperialists prove adamant. Or, libertarian Waldavians can put pressure on their government to abandon its conquest in the name of justice. But suppose that this, too, does not work. What then? We must still maintain the illegitimacy of Ruritania's mounting a war against Waldavia. The legitimate routes are (1) revolutionary uprisings by the oppressed Western Ruritanian people, and (2) aid by private Ruritanian groups (or, for that matter, by friends of the Ruritanian cause in other countries) to the Western rebels – either in the form of equipment or of volunteer personnel.12

We have seen throughout our discussion the crucial importance, in any present-day libertarian peace program, of the elimination of modern methods of mass annihilation. These weapons, against which there can be no defense, assure maximum aggression against civilians in any conflict with the clear prospect of the destruction of civilization and even of the human race itself. Highest priority on any libertarian agenda, therefore, must be pressure on all States to agree to general and complete disarmament down to police levels, with particular stress on nuclear disarmament. In short, if we are to use our strategic intelligence, we must conclude that the dismantling of the greatest menace that has ever confronted the life and liberty of the human race is indeed far more important than demunicipalizing the garbage service.

We cannot leave our topic without saying at least a word about the domestic tyranny that is the inevitable accompaniment of war. The great Randolph Bourne realized that "war is the health of the State."13 It is in war that the State really comes into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and the society. Society becomes a herd, seeking to kill its alleged enemies, rooting out and suppressing all dissent from the official war effort, happily betraying truth for the supposed public interest. Society becomes an armed camp, with the values and the morale – as Albert Jay Nock once phrased it – of an "army on the march."

The root myth that enables the State to wax fat off war is the canard that war is a defense by the State of its subjects. The facts, of course, are precisely the reverse. For if war is the health of the State, it is also its greatest danger. A State can only "die" by defeat in war or by revolution. In war, therefore, the State frantically mobilizes the people to fight for it against another State, under the pretext that it is fighting for them. But all this should occasion no surprise; we see it in other walks of life. For which categories of crime does the State pursue and punish most intensely – those against private citizens or those against itself? The gravest crimes in the State's lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of person and property, but dangers to its own contentment: for example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, conspiracy to overthrow the government. Murder is pursued haphazardly unless the victim be a policeman, or Gott soll hüten, an assassinated Chief of State; failure to pay a private debt is, if anything, almost encouraged, but income tax evasion is punished with utmost severity; counterfeiting the State's money is pursued far more relentlessly than forging private checks, etc. All this evidence demonstrates that the State is far more interested in preserving its own power than in defending the rights of private citizens.

A final word about conscription: of all the ways in which war aggrandizes the State, this is perhaps the most flagrant and most despotic. But the most striking fact about conscription is the absurdity of the arguments put forward on its behalf. A man must be conscripted to defend his (or someone else's?) liberty against an evil State beyond the borders. Defend his liberty? How? By being coerced into an army whose very raison d'être is the expunging of liberty, the trampling on all the liberties of the person, the calculated and brutal dehumanization of the soldier and his transformation into an efficient engine of murder at the whim of his "commanding officer"?14 Can any conceivable foreign State do anything worse to him than what "his" army is now doing for his alleged benefit? Who is there, O Lord, to defend him against his "defenders"?

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
paul
AquaFX wrote:

Dshields,

I guess I am confused know on your position about Pauls international policy.

You agree to all of his major proponents of peace. He is all for national defense so if someone attacks us that will be dealt with. He has said if someone attacked us he would constitutionally go to congress, get approval to DECLARE war get in and get out and be done with it and declare victory quickly instead of hanging around for 10 years like the Middle East.

As far as powerful weapons how much more powerful do you need? One step below a nuke?

 

So from my understanding is you do like Pauls policy.

I am not against dr. paul.  if he gets the repub nomination i will certainly vote for him.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
thatchmo wrote:Dunno ds, I
thatchmo wrote:

Dunno ds, I pretty much agree with you 1-4, but the rest sounds good and keeps my testosterone level up, but it it affordable, sustainable, and moral? 

#5- like our current and future drone program, that, while effective and conserves our troops, takes our "skin" out of the game.  Moral or "honorable'?

#6- Mess with "our people"?  Such as our newest full citizens- the soulless corporations messing in others' business and resources (in "our" name)?

#7- How about the idea of collective punishment (correct term?).  Punish an entire country for the actions of their sucking leaders?  Is that the America you want to be a part of in the future?  I never did understand the idea of not targeting leaders of a (in the "civilized", non-"terrorist") country that one is at war with- kill off a generation of young men and civilians instead.....www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6gZefW4yEA

Foreign policy is a bit complex.  I'm not sure your plan breaks any new ground.

Why IS Newt so angry?  Sorry for contributing to the hijack- on to a new thread?  Aloha, Steve

Well, let;s see now...

We should have drones.  We should only use them if we are at war.  If the president goes to congress and asks for and receives a declaration of war then we will need and should use the drones.

Corporations are not and should not be people.  The US Fed Gov should not go around killing people over corporate issues.  That sounds crazy to me.  If a corporation is dumb enough to build some facility in some 3rd world country and the crackpot in charge there decides to nationalize it then the corporation takes the loss.  That is called risk management.  Corporations need to take a good look at where they are investing their resources and invest them wisely.  The US military is not supposed to be doing corporate dirty work.  On the other hand, if some crackpot takes a few hundred American citizens hostage and trys to extort us then it would be open season on the leadership that sponsors that kind of thing.  Possibly a good use of special forces and drones.  As long as Americans are not misbehaving they should be safe where ever they go.  On the other hand, if you misbehave in someone else's country you better be ready to accept the consequences.

On the collective punishment aspect, if a country attacks us then they will get the beating they deserve.  No regrets there.  They will never do it again.  If a country feels their leadership is taking them to a military confrontation with America I would suggest they replace their leadership or leave.

I think Newt is angry because America has become extra-constitutional.  He taught a 10 lecture series at a college a while back.  You check it out and you will know why Newt is angry.  Below is a link to the first one.

http://terrenceberres.com/ginren01.html

 

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
goes211 - war, peace, and the state

I like it.  I wish the world was like that.  The problem is there are really bad people out there in the world.  The world tried being nice to Hitler and it did not work.  There are many other examples down through history.  Evil people do evil things.  There are a boat load of people tonight that would love to kill you, your family, and everyone you know and think they were doing god's good work while they were doing it.  That is what you are faced with.  I do like a lot of the libertarian views on many things.  Due to the liberty aspect I clearly have a libertarian bend.

Obama does not have a libertarian aspect.  He is a statist.  Newt is not a statist.  He is a liar and and cheater but not a statist.  I do not think Mitt should be president.  He is a Wall Street insider.  Have we not had enough of those ?  However, I will vote for Mitt over Obama.

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Why is Newt angry? His

Why is Newt angry? His 'anger' comes in two parts.  He's full of phony indignation, and that's a difficult act to pull off. If you have ever known a  man or woman like this, you realize the urge to be themselves is ever present and they expend an enormous amount of energy catering to their false front. It's enough to make anyone touchy. They can blow off a little steam being blowhards, but the REAL ugliness cannot be fully understood, comprehended by the essentially decent.  Unless you are well versed in abnormal psychology it is useless to try to understand exactly what is going on in the over-sized head of Gingrich. It is only important for us to know that his past actions speak to future deeds.

DShields, Gingrich has a long list of complaints that resonate with many people. Given a chance, he will capitalize on those affinities, expand them, distort their essence and then apply solutions that are self serving, that will accrue the most power money and influence to himself and his cronies. People like this, start out appealing to our sense that our liberties are being dissolved and then end up taking away more. It's a bait and switch. He is completetly insincere.

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1892
Gingrich Security Stomp Bare Toes Of Ron Paul Supporter

If you have a Facebook account, you should consider passing this along...

‘Everyone step on his toes!’ Gingrich security harasses Ron Paul supporter: Scenes from the Florida primary
When Gingrich's bus pulled up, Dillard stood silently holding his sign and watched the news-media horde swamp the candidate. Gingrich stepped down from the bus and made a beeline for Dillard. He stopped in front of Dillard and his sign and parked himself for a round of handshaking and pictures with voters. The placement couldn't have been worse. There was Gingrich, standing with his wife Callista at their first event of the day, and a giant Ron Paul sign floated inches from their crowns.

Noticing the awkward optics, Gingrich aides and security personnel swarmed Dillard, trying to intimidate him into moving. One of Gingrich's security agents stepped in front of him. When Dillard didn't budge, the agent lifted his heeled shoe over Dillard's bare foot and dug the back of it into his skin, twisting it side-to-side like he was stomping out a cigarette. Shocked, Dillard kept his ground and took a picture of the agent with his phone, which was quickly knocked out of his hand. Dillard slipped off his flip-flop to pick up the phone with his foot, and a Gingrich supporter kicked the sandal away.

"Don't kick me!" Dillard said to the man who knocked away his sandal. More members of Gingrich's security retinue approached, shoving their shoulders and chests in front of him.

"Just block him!" a Gingrich campaign aide said. "Everyone step on his toes!"

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/everyone-step-toes-gingrich-security-...

Poet

JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
No surprise there Poet...

The more I learn about Newt the more amazing it is to find out just what a turd he actually is. No surprise his security and campaign staff are a bunch of goons. The words serial liar and hypocrite do not do him justice. Gingrich is like a mini Cheney. Pure greed and evil.

I don't like Romney much at all as a candidate and as long as Ron Paul is running I'm voting for him but compared to Gingrich, Romney is much less offensive.

No one takes the prize for ugliest horse in the race like Obama though. Stunning how many people fall for his BS still.

JG 

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
yea but...
agitating prop wrote:

Why is Newt angry? His 'anger' comes in two parts.  He's full of phony indignation, and that's a difficult act to pull off. If you have ever known a  man or woman like this, you realize the urge to be themselves is ever present and they expend an enormous amount of energy catering to their false front. It's enough to make anyone touchy. They can blow off a little steam being blowhards, but the REAL ugliness cannot be fully understood, comprehended by the essentially decent.  Unless you are well versed in abnormal psychology it is useless to try to understand exactly what is going on in the over-sized head of Gingrich. It is only important for us to know that his past actions speak to future deeds.

DShields, Gingrich has a long list of complaints that resonate with many people. Given a chance, he will capitalize on those affinities, expand them, distort their essence and then apply solutions that are self serving, that will accrue the most power money and influence to himself and his cronies. People like this, start out appealing to our sense that our liberties are being dissolved and then end up taking away more. It's a bait and switch. He is completetly insincere.

Yea but...

...that means Mitt.  I just saw tonight on TV that he has won the FL primary by a decent margin.  Mitt is the super rich - the top 0.1 percent.  Last year he made 29 million dollars.  He is funded by Wall Street to the bone.  I have another recent thread on here about that -

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/mitts-largest-political-contributors...

Mitt is not your friend.  Mitt is not going to save you.  Mitt is going to save Wall Street.  It seems like every president we elect ends up being worse than the last.  You think there is crony capitalism now ?  Just put Mitt in the White House and watch what happens.  He is a liberal big spending big government wall street republican.  If the GOP runs him a lot of repubs are going to be so unhappy.  Many of them may well just not vote and then Obama gets re-elected.  Then we really ramp up deficit spending and socialism becomes the law of the land and then we collapse.  Along that path the government will take our property, our rights, and our liberty and we will be toast.  Everything all those people all those years fought for will go down the drain and we will be broke downtrodden debt slaves.

Since the end of the civil war millions of people have tried to work hard and do the right thing in America.  The WW1 generation.  The depression and WW2 generation.  Whole generations of people who did their best.  Now just take a look at what we have become.  A welfare/warfare state with a massive class of dependency.  We have fallen so far.  And next we get Mitt or Obama.  That's just great.  That will be the end of the road.  People better start preparing for serious problems over the next few years.  As the financial situation gets worse, the government is going to start clamping down on the people in an effort to control them.  This has happened over and over all down through history.  This will backfire as it always does.  The class of dependency will rebel for one set of reasons.  The hard working honest people will rebel for another set of reasons.  I live in a rural area near some big cities.  People here openly talk about defending their property and families from those who would attack them.  The area gun store is selling so many guns they can't keep inventory on the shelves - the owner actually complained to a store full of people about it recently.  All the people in the store just stood there in silence.  They know.  I believe that civil unrest is coming.

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
JuanGalt wrote: The more I
JuanGalt wrote:

The more I learn about Newt the more amazing it is to find out just what a turd he actually is. No surprise his security and campaign staff are a bunch of goons. The words serial liar and hypocrite do not do him justice. Gingrich is like a mini Cheney. Pure greed and evil.

I don't like Romney much at all as a candidate and as long as Ron Paul is running I'm voting for him but compared to Gingrich, Romney is much less offensive.

No one takes the prize for ugliest horse in the race like Obama though. Stunning how many people fall for his BS still.

JG 

 

Come on Juan....What about just giving Obama time? Like 20 years to life, right?

Obama is so depraved, such a beautifully polished turd, he stands alone in a diorama of political coprolites, stretching back through the eons. Never have we had such a diabolically dishonest, evil sob as president....but some people still defend him. Quite honestly, if you haven't experienced being totally flummoxed by someone who has a very studied, kind and humble exterior, you can't fathom it. He's a monster. At least Newt is a nakedly aggressive creep, not so much a wolf in sheep's clothing.

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
dshields wrote: agitating
dshields wrote:
agitating prop wrote:

Why is Newt angry? His 'anger' comes in two parts.  He's full of phony indignation, and that's a difficult act to pull off. If you have ever known a  man or woman like this, you realize the urge to be themselves is ever present and they expend an enormous amount of energy catering to their false front. It's enough to make anyone touchy. They can blow off a little steam being blowhards, but the REAL ugliness cannot be fully understood, comprehended by the essentially decent.  Unless you are well versed in abnormal psychology it is useless to try to understand exactly what is going on in the over-sized head of Gingrich. It is only important for us to know that his past actions speak to future deeds.

DShields, Gingrich has a long list of complaints that resonate with many people. Given a chance, he will capitalize on those affinities, expand them, distort their essence and then apply solutions that are self serving, that will accrue the most power money and influence to himself and his cronies. People like this, start out appealing to our sense that our liberties are being dissolved and then end up taking away more. It's a bait and switch. He is completetly insincere.

Yea but...

...that means Mitt.  I just saw tonight on TV that he has won the FL primary by a decent margin.  Mitt is the super rich - the top 0.1 percent.  Last year he made 29 million dollars.  He is funded by Wall Street to the bone.  I have another recent thread on here about that -

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/mitts-largest-political-contributors...

Mitt is not your friend.  Mitt is not going to save you.  Mitt is going to save Wall Street.  It seems like every president we elect ends up being worse than the last.  You think there is crony capitalism now ?  Just put Mitt in the White House and watch what happens.  He is a liberal big spending big government wall street republican.  If the GOP runs him a lot of repubs are going to be so unhappy.  Many of them may well just not vote and then Obama gets re-elected.  Then we really ramp up deficit spending and socialism becomes the law of the land and then we collapse.  Along that path the government will take our property, our rights, and our liberty and we will be toast.  Everything all those people all those years fought for will go down the drain and we will be broke downtrodden debt slaves.

Since the end of the civil war millions of people have tried to work hard and do the right thing in America.  The WW1 generation.  The depression and WW2 generation.  Whole generations of people who did their best.  Now just take a look at what we have become.  A welfare/warfare state with a massive class of dependency.  We have fallen so far.  And next we get Mitt or Obama.  That's just great.  That will be the end of the road.  People better start preparing for serious problems over the next few years.  As the financial situation gets worse, the government is going to start clamping down on the people in an effort to control them.  This has happened over and over all down through history.  This will backfire as it always does.  The class of dependency will rebel for one set of reasons.  The hard working honest people will rebel for another set of reasons.  I live in a rural area near some big cities.  People here openly talk about defending their property and families from those who would attack them.  The area gun store is selling so many guns they can't keep inventory on the shelves - the owner actually complained to a store full of people about it recently.  All the people in the store just stood there in silence.  They know.  I believe that civil unrest is coming.

 

 

I totally get it, DShields. They are ALL the same, self centered, self serving types. And yes, as Chris describes, civil unrest is probably coming. Let's hope and pray that it begins and ends with sweeping change worked through simple acts of civil disobedience! Scary times ahead. We are all so fed up. I am surprised at the depth of my contempt and anger at what is going on in the U.S. and wonder how it will effect myself and fellow Canadians.  And it's not just the U.S., the problems run right through all of the developed nations. Our own prime minister is a neo-fascist  who may never be voted out of office. If he is, another proto-fascist will just step in and take his place. They systems are rigged.

JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
Excellent, excellent points Agitaing Prop!

You hit the nail right on the head. Obama is a the MASTER OF DECEIT. The bastard comes off as a likable, nice guy and whose                           well-intentioned but he's simply a puppet who has sold his soul to the devil. 100% of his carefully constructed rhetoric is designed to promote TPTB's dark agenda and he delivers it well enough to fool at least just enough if not most people. What suckers the American public are being played for! Sad indeed.

It's amazing how you can literally go right down his State of the Union Speech (STUS) and refute or debunk pretty much everything he said. And the hypocrisy and complicit nature of all those politicians in that building with their false applause and conspiracy. What an absolutely inauthentic show! Virtually all those SOBs need to be thrown out if not locked up. Most are absolutely guilty of several criminal acts and quite a few of treasonous conspiracies against the American people.

In the link below Nomi Prins does a pretty good job breaking down Obama's STUS and tearing much of it apart.

http://www.nomiprins.com/thoughts/

A wolf in sheep's clothing is an entirely accurate description for Obama. 

I guess given the inevitable that's why we are all on a prep site, LOL.

Best,

JG

RON PAUL 2102

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1892
Romney and Gingrich and Obama - More Of The Same

It's funny how youy guys demonize Obama and Romney and Gingrich, etc. but still would prefer Romney and Gingrich. Because they're REALLY All the same.

That said, here's an interesting article repudiating Romney (sorry, but it also praises Obama and I'm sure you're not interested in that) but it has some points that Romney seems to not want to admit, and that play well to Ron Paul's point that we shouldn't be intervening with a heavy hand in world affairs...

The World Has Changed, Mr. Romney
"This is a new world, very different from the America-centric one we got used to over the last generation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-post-american-world-demands-a...

Poet

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
If a corporation is dumb

If a corporation is dumb enough to build some facility in some 3rd world country and the crackpot in charge there decides to nationalize it then the corporation takes the loss.

Like General Motors?

If a country feels their leadership is taking them to a military confrontation with America I would suggest they replace their leadership or leave

Easy to say, almost impossible to do.

Somebody said that "if voting could really effect change it would be illegal to vote"

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
gregroberts wrote:If a
gregroberts wrote:

If a corporation is dumb enough to build some facility in some 3rd world country and the crackpot in charge there decides to nationalize it then the corporation takes the loss.

Like General Motors?

If a country feels their leadership is taking them to a military confrontation with America I would suggest they replace their leadership or leave

Easy to say, almost impossible to do.

Somebody said that "if voting could really effect change it would be illegal to vote"

Yea - I hear that.  Somehow we have to get companies out of the high risk gig and if I lose the gov will bail me out to real risk analysis.  I am not sure how to do that except force them to by the gov just letting them go under - no mattter what.  if that happens it will not be long until there is change.  crazy high risk investiments will be minimzed.  As long as companies think the gov is going to bail them out we are going to continue to have problems in the risk analysis area.

Wars are too expensive.  Due to the costs I think wars are going to be minimized in the future.  Long wars certainly will be unless they are 3rd world civil wars which have low capital investment.  That is why I am in favor of short high powered wars - a 2 or 4 week war - where once we are attacked, we strike back with an immensely powerful blow and simply knock out the enemy.  No politically correct anything.  War is not politically correct.  War is terrible.  War is killing and destruction on a huge scale.  The quicker the war can be fought the less life and property will be lost.  If the enemy has no transportation system, food, ammo, water, leadership, energy, etc. then the war is basically over.  The quicker you can accomplish this the quicker the war will be over.  A good rule to follow would be if you don't want your country to get  knocked out by America then don't attack America.  The world will not believe it until we prove it the first time.  After that, people will leave us alone for a long time.  The trick is to develop the military power to knock out all their systems at once.  Once we have that we are good.

It is starting to look like Newt is going to lose.  Mitt appears to be consolidating his ground.  The media likes Mitt as he is liberal.  Not looking good for Newt - angry or not.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments