Presidential material?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Huntinbull, Jun 14, 2011.

  1. Huntinbull

    Huntinbull Monkey+

    I have been paying more attention to politics over the last ten years or so than before in my life. Being 39 now, I can remember certain parts of Reagan's public addresses, but little thought went into what was being said then. I just ate the grass and followed the sheep ahead of me no matter where they were being led or by who. In the last ten years or so i have had my eyes opened, usually from a distinct pain in my wallet.

    I detest politics as a whole but realize that the world we live in will not be free of it (the current bloated system) without some participation by citizens and patriots. I seem to be gravitating towards conservative views and find I agree most with libertarian thinking. I like what I hear about the tea party as well as Ron Paul. I am no fanatic or extremist but do believe our country needs a drastic change to become the strong nation it once was, or to even have a chance to get close to that stability.

    Any thoughts, arguments, rants, or beliefs you want to share? Feel free to PM or email (it is on my profile) if you do not wish to discuss openly on the forum.
  2. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Retired Curmudgeonly IT Monkey Founding Member

    I'm 54 this year, and first began to take an interest in politics during the Reagan years - my time in the USN. Earlier, I hated Carter, but just didn't pursue the political debates, but voted Republican because the family always had.
    Reagan really was good to the military, so most of us liked Uncle Ronnie!
    Later as Slick Willie took the helm, I was appalled. When he got re-elected, I was utterly disgusted. I was still a loyal GOPbot.

    That changed in the debacle off the 2008 Immaculate Deception. I saw the GOP totally throw the election - they didn't even try...... I tore up my GOP card. I am now a Conservative Independant. As Ronnie said about the Dems, the Repubs left me....... :rolleyes:
    Knowing the GOP will run a tired old DC warhorse again, I expect to vote Independant for the first time in 2012.
    Hispeedal2 and BTPost like this.
  3. beast

    beast backwoodsman

    the point most seem to be missing is that we may have 2 parties with dif names
    but they both want the same thing
    us as slaves
    the party politics needs to go, get real working people in office that are there to do good for the working class
    not pad their own pockets
    then go back home to their old jobs when they have served
    being in office is sposed to be a servant type job, not the king for life program
    Seacowboys and VisuTrac like this.
  4. Witch Doctor 01

    Witch Doctor 01 Mojo Maker

    maybe we need to start a third party and call it "The American Party"

    Basically the party platform would be
    • the US constitution as it is.
    • all laws written at a 8th grade level
    • all conghress critters can not have any benefits that then people don't
    • balanced budget
    • limited terms for all congress critters
    • Lobbying will be illegal
    • we will not pass stupid laws to protect people from themselves you want to ride without a helmet go ahead but don't expect the insurance companies or goverment to pay for your medical bills when you wreck
    • responsibility is a two way street.
    fell free to add some more...
    Cephus, Seawolf1090, VisuTrac and 3 others like this.
  5. Huntinbull

    Huntinbull Monkey+

    WitchDoctor, that is right in my wheelhouse. I also agree that lobbying should be illegal. Can I lobby a judge to hear my side of any case? Not like Washington lobbyists. If I sent the judge, his family, and several prosecuters on a "fact finding" junket to the bahamas, do you think they could be impartial?

    Anymore I vote my beliefs. i will not vote for the lesser of two evils because it is still evil.
    Hispeedal2 likes this.
  6. beast

    beast backwoodsman

    we cant keep the constitution unchanged
    if we do we will just see a replay of today somewhere in the future
    as good as our founders were they left a couple doors open that need closed
    like lifetime positions instead of term limits
    hidden agenda riders on bills
    the ability for elected officials to set their own wages and benefits
    and campaign financing and lobyists
    these things need corrected
  7. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    The power of Congress to borrow 'money'. Yeah, that's a biggun.

    Then we have the "Amendments" that were never properly ratified (14th, 16th).

    Granting Congress, and thus, the Federal Government their own Federal Territory was yet another huge "oopsie".

    The biggest change I would support: Listen to the true history of the Greenback and create the privilege for Congress to print debt-free currency for this nation. Many will object to this at first glance, because they are ignorant and do not know that the American monetary system has always been in the hands of private interests, the only exception being the period under Jackson and for most of the time with Lincoln, due to the eradication of private banking and the issuance of debt-free greenbacks. Most will exclaim, "gold standard!, gold standard!" --but they have no knowledge of the simplicity behind controlling the gold in circulation and held in reserves, this is the very method used by the private banking interests (and preferred) to gain control of existing currencies, because it makes them quite wealthy as a result. Fractional reserve banking is a stepping stone toward instituting a FIAT currency, and in the hands of private interests who are not held accountable, becomes highly volatile for any nation. Naturally, my own call for instituting a FIAT currency (yet, debt-free) under the control of Congress, requires persistent vigilance on the part of the People --a required action which has been utterly ignored in the past. Will the People ever wake up? Who knows.
  8. Byte

    Byte Monkey+++

    I just turned 40 last week. I too never cared much for politics, but my past decade of research has opened my eyes to the fact that we are nothing more than slaves to the people that think they are in charge. Their authority is vapor. The Matrix has you. Can you see our system for what it is? I don't get on with statists of any stripe. The constitution, justice system and two party system are really just camouflage for the tyranny that we are subjected to.

    I could go on and on and on and on...but I won't. Brokor is perhaps the only other poster here that truly sees the extent of our bondage. His detractors are many though so I just lurk and learn. Suffice it to say that my feelings are best shared over a beer on the back patio and nowhere else! [beer]

    If you haven't already, you should check out Stefan Molyneux. His philosophy of freedom closely mirrors my own. I cannot agree with all of his positions and even though he's a Canadian I highly recommend people at least give his positions a listen. His youtube channel is stefbot.

    Brokor likes this.
  9. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Yeah, I also like much of what Stefan has to say. He and I have shared private messages before when he wasn't too busy, and he really is a gentleman as well as a scholar. That said, he and I do not see "eye-to-eye" on certain points of liberty; with some Anarchist philosophy, the perception of liberty is often taken to its maximum. I prefer to adhere to the limited form of governance, but its weakness resides in the minds of the People itself --and even though I see it as a necessary function, many Anarchists will brush minarchy aside for near total absence of government every time. The basic tenets behind both philosophies are very similar, in that they both require effort and vigilance to manifest true liberty, and this is an area where Anarchy seems to fail every time, at least according to my own observations.

    I have compared minarchy to anarchy while concentrating solely on the weakest component of each, and as a conclusion I have surmised that anarchy fairs worse than limited governance because it lacks the primary foundation for scalability and continuity to exist. Regardless, each philosophy has their strong suits, and neither should be entirely shunned. Stefan is perhaps stubborn at times, but he does remain open minded on some important issues. My greatest argument which he never directly answered (perhaps in his books roughly) is the apparent lack of sustainability for anarchy. Whenever I introduce the ideas inspired by the framers of our Constitution to other anarchists, the same old arguments are presented and twisted to immediately be compared to the existing corrupt government --but, the very same tactics and infiltration can exist just as easily within any proposed anarchist society as it had been introduced to a fledgling limited republic. The two philosophies tie in with this weakness due to the same "crack" in their foundations --the use of a monetary system. As far as precious metals are concerned, and despite the existence of a free market society in place within either of these societies, the People are ultimately responsible for keeping it out of the hands of private interests; with anarchy, the potential for the bastardization of its functionality is greater than that of its similar twin. It is only with rules and law that the blessings of liberty can be protected and remembered across the ages. Those opposed to this concept ridicule the idea, claiming these safeguards are nothing more than paper, and I respond by saying that as long as people view it as such, this is all it will ever be.

    The Constitution was created to be a living document, remembered and adhered to by civilian and elected body alike; the moment it becomes nothing more than "paper" is the time at which it loses its purpose. Filled with flaws, quite possibly on purpose, the founding documents which bind the government and chain it within its limited boundaries is only as good as the People keep it. Without the effort to maintain it, no society will ever last.

    I think Badnarik "schools" Molyneux every time when it comes to this subject.
  10. beast

    beast backwoodsman

    "government is for those too irresponsible and/or immature to govern themselves"
    the real problem with or without some form of government is that some people will
    always decide that they know whats best for all the other people
    which usually means they are lazier and greedier and think they deserve more than everyone else does
  11. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    And yet, a limited republic (like we once had) is self governance.

    On the topic of voting, I still find it deeply troubling that approximately 50% of the people still place their vote according to what they hear and see on the televised debates. The vote at this juncture should be to restore liberty, and there is only one candidate who truly represents this cause --Ron Paul.
  12. beast

    beast backwoodsman

    yes, i hate tv, idiot boxes they were called when i was young
    sometimes i think the real oldtimers knew what they were talking
  13. beast

    beast backwoodsman

    as to a 3rd party, why not the Sovereign American Party
    working towards true individual freedoms and smaller government
    with less power and control
    make government what its sposed to be
    servants of the people
  14. beast

    beast backwoodsman

    my mother has this plack on her kitchen wall, its been there for years
    when she hung it there it was as a joke about laziness
    but the more i think about it, it embodies the sheeple attitude
    and the problems we face today
    read what it says and cogitate on it a while. i dare

    "The world is full of willing people, some willing to do whats needed, the rest willing to let them."
  15. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    There is a lot of roads to this thread that we could go down....

    First, I say eyeball with great caution anyone that says the whole system should be replaced tomorrow. I say this because, without knowing what their agenda is, what they are advocating can be just as dangerous or more dangerous than the current system. Is our system perfect? No. Is any man-made system going to be? No. Then the question becomes "why should I choose your system?" Be especially weary of those that advocate violence. Most who do, have never really seen the results. A few of us have. Anyone who says the ends justify the means.... well you get the point. There is no "us" and "them". There is you and I. We are both Americans.

    What I think is important to understand about our system of government is that it was not written in a day (thus I am weary of anyone who says they can fix it in a day). It took a bit over a decade to write and ratify version 1. Even at that point, it wasn't finished. The Founders continued to debate and change the Constitution right up though the early 1800s. I'm not talking small details, but rather large issues like how the balance of power is supposed to work. The original idea is, at times, placed on a pedestal to the point of being God-like. In reality, it was man-made. Federalism, or strong central government, came from necessity. Some like to think that the Constitution was written, the Founders died and we started f*ing things up, but its simply not true. Constructionists forget that the Founders participated in the politics that shaped the central government. George Washington, while independent, leaned toward Federalism more than Democratic-Republicans. The Indian Wars and War of 1812 reshaped the Democratic-Republican mentality of gentle, farming country with little to no central government. As it turns out, being a gentle farmer sucks when Indians are lobbing burning arrows at your house. Thus, the standing Army became more important (which was distrusted after the Continental Army was disbanded).

    The Civil War only solidified Federalism. People have some wild feelings on the "war of Northern aggression" as folks here call it. Regardless of those feelings, the Union fought and won to keep the Union intact. The result was the beginning of the industrial age and strengthening of the Federal government. Regulation became the next big thing. Is regulation a good thing? Well, if you were working 12-14 hour days, 6 days a week in the dangerous factories at the turn of the century, you would probably say that regulation isn't bad. Workers rights aren't a bad thing. Workers Unions may be the extreme opposite of those early factory conditions. Has the pendulum swung too far? Maybe. It could be adjusting itself with the damning of the Auto Unions for sending our factories overseas (that is just one example).

    I feel that the document is sound. It does need interpreting now and then because the Founders probably didn't envision everything that happens today. For example, a right to privacy. I don't think that anyone here will argue that we shouldn't have a fundamental right to privacy. You won't find it in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court had to interpret the right from different parts of the Constitution (1st and 14th Amendments). Rightly so, if you ask me. A strict Constructionist argument would actually not allow for such a conclusion by the Supreme Court. Strict Constructionists would say that the SC can only appeal based on the actual wording of the Constitution. That is why we have such a delicate balance. Does it seem we get it wrong sometimes... sure. Again, only human.

    As for the 2 party system... I believe America should have a third party right now. Now is the time for a new emerging party. It is happening. Are any of our parties that much different? No. Ever wonder why we don't get into a Civil War every presidential election? It's because our parties are relatively close on the political spectrum. What some are calling our weakness has actually kept us from self destruction like so many other small developing nations. That third party that most of us are advocating isn't outside our political spectrum, its smack dab in the middle. From the most Conservative "white hair" to the most commie Rosie O'Donnell, Americans are not that much different. If you have no idea what I am saying, look into the f*ed up politics of nations with everything from Neo-Nazis to Red Faction members. When opposing ideologies are so different, violence becomes the norm. There are great examples in the former East Bloc countries. As much as the polar figures on either side try to divide us, we are all Americans and that is our strong suit.

    Back to my belief that we should have another party... I base that solely on the fact that either party has been enacting too much dramatic change in recent times. I think this evident in the Republican take over in 2010. It was a clear message about polar "change".

    In the end, vote your heart. Vote in the GOP primary and vote for Ron Paul if that is what you like. Unfortunately, there are too many people voting blind partisan. We can change that.
  16. IceNiner

    IceNiner Monkey+

    I also agree with the notion that we need to carve off massive amounts of the Federal Government. However, while I personally don't hold with the two parties and try to vote independent as often as I can (when the candidate is decent), almost the entire babyboomer generation is NOT going to change their minds anytime soon about the two party system and a lot of the teens and schoolkids are now being taught a lot of Leftist BS in their textbooks about how Government is there to provide them with whatever they 'need', cradle to grave. I even heard a bit of an Obama speech on talk radio (John Gibson show) where Chairman Obama was addressing Social Security and how he will keep it running no matter what and the Tea Partiers were applauding his statement! If the Tea Party is supposed to be about real conservatism, I don't see how they can approve of the world's biggest ponzi scheme to keep going simply because it benefits them at the cost of others. With that yoke that the older generation is willing to keep on the younger, I don't see how things will peacefully change since older folks make up the largest voting block.
  17. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Who is advocating this? You need to be more clear before I jump on your back and beat you over the head like I usually do.
    Who is advocating this?
    Jesuits say this. Do you know some Jesuits, by chance? Some may be surprised how many are in politics these days. Chances are, if they are a Jesuit, they work hand in fist with the Zionists and the Vatican. But this is "crazy talk", who do I think I am talking to? [booze]
    beast likes this.
  18. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Retired Curmudgeonly IT Monkey Founding Member

    We DO have our share of violence lately - those ACORN operatives that trashed GOP regional offices during the runup to 2008, the Black Panther operatives who blocked people in some places from voting Right rather than Left. The Left has been 'protesting', sometimes with quite violent results. Even back during the '68 Primaries there was some violence.
    But, we don't, as you said, go to Civil War over it. Unlike many European nations, violent protesting has not become a National Pastime here - yet........
    Hispeedal2 likes this.
  19. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    And I agree. There has been intimidation by some of the more extreme citizens. I don't see America falling into Civil War anytime soon. Thank God for that. Even with the extreme views in the above cases, a Black Panther trying to "discourage" would not likely lead to a shooting. Much less, a shooting war. The reason is that an American Black Panther isn't as different, politically, as an American card-carrying GOP member that may have been dissuaded. They may be polar opposites on our rather narrow political field, but under most people's understanding, they would both be called Americans. I disagree with them. Most here probably disagree with them. We aren't all running out to burn their houses down in act of violence. While some might like to;), a legal method to achieve a similar ends is what most will advocate.

    Stick this same situation in a democracy with more extreme views and a wider playing field. The results would be more deadly.

    ETA: Nevermind, it's not worth it
    Seawolf1090 likes this.
  20. Kingfish

    Kingfish Self Reliant

    I agree that Liberty is and should be the goal. I also feel that limited government is the best form. Our constitution in its first and raw form was the best guidelines ever established. It has however been trampled under foot by many who think it an old outdated document. When people are given self governance they tend to vote themselves things like free lunch. Hence all the earmarks and PROGRAMS THAT TAKE FROM THE RICH AND GIVE TO THE POOR. Then the lazy pretend to be poor so they can get in on this free lunch.

    As Brokor stated we need to keep our eyes open and not let this free lunch become the norm. Ron Paul is the only candidate who talks about our liberty. The rest just add more infringements to that liberty. KF
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary