Metalhead47
Regular Member
Careful about that. I brew my own, and the last batch I did exploded and ate a hole in the carpet.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Ron Paul calls binLaden raid "unnecessary"
- Thread starter Metalhead47
- Start date
Careful about that. I brew my own, and the last batch I did exploded and ate a hole in the carpet.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I don't deny the shift of language. It is an inherent part of its vitality.Marshaul: yes, words have meaning, and the meaning can change with time. Dictionaries are notoriously slow to catch up in this regard. You can wish the modern connotation of the word "liberal" is as you believe it is all you want, but at the end of the day, ask the average person on the street what a liberal is, and they'll point to Nancy Pelosi, not Ron Paul. And that is, after all, what dictates the ebb and flow of language: the average speakers of the language who don't really pay attention to dictionaries. Sooner or later, the dictionary will change to suit the word, not the other way around.
However, the problem in this case is that to co-option of the word has ramifications beyond my own personal aesthetic preference for the phonemic combinations which form the word (had I such a preference).
Ask any one of those same "liberals" what the word means, beyond any political platform, any specific hot-button issue, and you're going to get a response not unlike that from my (rather modern) Dictionary, with maybe a bit about compassion thrown in (which is fine; I consider my liberalism to be plenty compassionate).
And that's the problem. What I said earlier:
...is exactly what occurs. Illiberal statism to the benefit of elites with the greatest political influence is carried out in the name of individual liberty, compassion for poor and marginalized, anti-authoritarianism and non-aggression.
To me, the ramifications of this pervasive doublethink and doublespeak are obvious, and unpleasant. I see no reason to perpetuate it, or even accede to it.
Wow. OK, well, I'll try to be brief.
First of all, the usual stuff. I personally have little problem with government running businesses, provided it doesn't legislate itself a monopoly. Lotteries, for instance, seem something which the government is particularly well-placed to competitively run and profit from (the monopoly would have to be eliminated, and my suspicion would need to prove itself). I'm especially favorable towards this in areas where the productivity (preferably not profitability, though!) is... marginal. Gambling fits this niche nicely. I can come up with a few others.
Additionally, another good example might be found in infrastructure development. I've long wondered about how to achieve the long-argued benefit of government sponsorship of public infrastructure without the accompanying problems that upset us libertarians so much. It's occurred to me that government, as the collective representative of the will and desires of "the people", is in quite a position to declare, say by congressional resolution, "a road (or train or what have you) is needed here". Then, to further incentivize the production of this desired infrastructure, government could sell, using its immense national credit (right?), bonds -- which could ideally offer slightly below-market interest rates on appeal to peoples' patriotism -- which could be used to invest (in a non-monopoly-creating fashion, of course) in that infrastructure development, to everyone's profit. While investments are not a surefire way to profit, surely the government, with its pulse on the collective needs of the people (right?), would be well-situation to operate with a well-above-average success ratio.
Additionally, as the government subsidizes the stock market considerably through its imposition of limited liability and the resulting freedom from responsibility with which stock traders can buy into enterprises, I see taxing of capital gains from such transactions as wholly appropriate, until or unless such a time as the people decide to abolish limited liability ownership.
While I believe it is imperative to rest on voluntary action, I do believe that enough people desire to do enough good that government could, as the representative of our collective goodwill (right?), manage to provide a few services which people do not desire from a free market, such as courts, law enforcement, and at least some schools.
Keep in mind that I do not account for massive expenditure. Education would be available for all, but it would not be mandatory. The cost-benefit ratio could be improved dramatically by allowing a person to claim his education subsidy at such a time as he is in a place in his left so as to best appreciate and gain from it.
The military would rely heavily on self-funded militia (I'd gladly participate. What about y'all? Anybody who served willing to do it on a part-time basis for no pay, but the same patriotic reasons?) in times of peace. A small, volunteer military could give us time to mobilize an increasingly larger war military, complete with war bonds and ramped up industrial output and all that fun stuff.
Prison spending would be drastically less, as we couldn't justify (morally or financially) imprisoning folks for malum prohibitum offenses, and could be paid for largely by the work of the inmates (heck, maybe some of them could work on all that infrastructure :lol
. Or, better yet, we could move away from a system of punishment towards a system of well-enforced restitution (in most cases, anyway). We could be spending a lot less money on "justice".Essentially, a voluntary government could utilize the voluntary contributions (time and money) of those who would otherwise clamor for services paid for outright by stolen money. If it isn't worth contributing to (at least the money you would otherwise pay as taxes), it's hardly worth complaining about, is it? It's easy to want lots of things done when it isn't your time and money. This would help us prioritize, naturally. (By the way, I do volunteer significant amounts of my time to causes I find worthwhile. For the record.)
Last edited:
since9
Campaign Veteran
Uh... Buck a sheet?
Metalhead47
Regular Member
Marshaul: hmm, interesting. Can't say I agree with everything, but given me some stuff to think about. Was very curious to hear how someone of your ideology would fund a modern govt.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Keep in mind that many people's definition of "modern" necessarily implies a government which does a lot more than mine would. There aren't many things government does where my cost-benefit analysis is favorable. I can probably count them all on my fingers.
PrayingForWar- Bring a case, I'll bring the gallon of Jim Beam. We'll figure out the world's problems eventually.
One Point on an issue that you and Metalhead brought up- Personally I don't think it was a case of Obama getting slapped with reality once he stepped into office. I don't think he believed in the things he said on the campaign trail for a second. Remember, this was a US Senator who had enough access to how the war was being run. Not as much as a President, but enough just the same to know the deal.
He said what he said to get elected, not to make any changes. He knew damn well he was going to continue the war in much the same way as Bush, continue to feed the contractors (of which I am one), continue to grind away at the same foreign policy that has been around since the nation was formed, etc.
There have been some differences though so I can't discount those. Where Bush strengthened the grip on personal liberties through the patriot act, Obama strengthened the grip on private enterprise and the fate of the nation's health services. In all of this has Obama changed one thing concerning the Patriot Act he railed against all those years? No, of course not. And he's not going to, either.
Do we think the next President in 2016 will come along and undue anything concerning the Patriot Act, government's control of the banks or larger businesses, or our health services? I'll do the objective wait and see thing, but I'll bet you a Pabst Blue Ribbon right now that not a thing will change for the better.
Metalhead-I have no doubts as to how our military works. I lived it for 20 years, after all. I don't claim any special knowledge or deep understanding of all it's activities, but I do know it's basic capabilities and weaknesses along with it's strengths. Anyone here who has served more than a few years has the same basic understanding, so I'm not special in that regard.
With that, I find it nothing short of impossible to mount such an attack on Afghanistan with only a month's notice. That tells me that there were existing plans on the table for some time. That's not conspiracy, that's being smart on the part of the US. The truth is that we had been watching and planning for an invasion of Afghanistan for a number of years. We've been doing the same thing for Iraq before we went in, and are doing the same for Syria, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, and a number of other places, too.
These plans are dreamed up and set aside until things heat up in an area. Once we feel that an area has heated up to warrant possible military action, we step it up some and rename the plans for action and turn them into an operational contingency. It's steps up from there. Eventually, what was just a possible future operation becomes a working operational action and the operation is then employed. It's right about this time that the news gets a hold of it and twists it way out of proportion, mostly because they have no idea of what happened at first. After all, in the news world, it's always better to toss junk out there and correct it later than it is to sit around with their fingers in their noses- fearful that people might turn the channel.
Anyway, saying that there were plans to invade Afghanistan existing prior to the attacks on 9/111 is not fantasy nor is it conspiracy theory. It's hard fact. My only real question is just how advanced those plans were prior to 9/11.
Let me state one thing clearly though- I do not believe the US Government allowed 9/11 to happen so we could use that as an excuse to invade Afghanistan, or to create what we now call the War on Terror. I don not believe that 9/11 was an "inside" job, nor do I think the people on those hijacked planes are living safe somewhere on some tropical island.
What I do believe is that our government knew that we were in a more elevated war against Islamic terrorists then they revealed to the general population. I think our government had a pretty good idea that we could be hit in an attack similar to how it went down on 9/11 but didn't have specific enough intelligence to pinpoint exactly when and how it would happen. The US Government and various groups involved in terrorism knew full well that they were at war with each other, yet our government failed to properly inform us to the degree of the proper status. That's where I think we failed ourselves.
I don't think we deserved to get hit due to our foreign policies, but I do feel that our foreign policies are taken by some to be overbearing enough to cause some of them to take action. That's what has been happening for much longer than 9/11/2001. That attack was simply a major accomplishment for those that are fighting against us, but it wasn't the beginning of anything, it was a continuation of hostilities. Prior to 9/11, they had already hit several of our embassies, at least one US Naval ship that we know of, and several other actions.
A lot of this was happening when our current President was a sitting US Senator. To say he fully believed one thing and suddenly changed his mind about the whole thing once he got the real briefings, in my little opinion, is somewhat hard to swallow.
As concerning "Dreamer" style conspiracy, I haven't yet jumped fully onto the bandwagon of hidden black cloaks behind every rock. But on the other hand, Dreamer comes up with some very interesting links, stuff which has become public knowledge over the years. Are we to simply discount these stories simply because a member here you might not agree with posts them?
The best we can do is look at everything that's presented. It doesn't matter which side brings it up. We have to take as an objective look as possible at all evidence and formulate our opinions based on the facts that are presented.
Our inherent tendency is to discount those stories which do not align with our current beliefs. I try to challenge my own beliefs with opposing views as objectively as possible and am more than willing to follow the facts, even at the cost of changing my mind. For example, there was a time right before our jump into Panama that I had thought our unit was only practicing airfield take-downs simply because that was our training focus for the month. After we did jump and were doing whatever down there, I had thought maybe they had planned it out for a few months. Later on we find out that the operation was on the books for a number of years. Each time we peel back a layer of the onion, more and more is revealed.
Where exactly are we to trust in some things and discount others as fantasy or simple conspiracy theory?
The lies we are told on a minute to minute basis are, in my opinion, part of a specific plan to keep us stupid. It worked well for a few thousand years, and along came more advanced means of communication. Soon we could pick up a telephone and talk instead of sending a letter. Soon after that we had television, then satellites, etc. Suddenly, along comes this thing we call the internet and our access to information is now almost instantaneous. Is there any doubt as to why governments regulate and limit it? Our own government is (and has been) working on legislation to regulate and limit it's own citizen's access to the internet. Do a little search about that little bit of fun and see where it takes you. Before we know it, we'll be limited in our scope and access.
In public, the story is being painted as yet another "security" issue. The idea is that "terrorists" could gain control of our internet services and wreak havoc upon it. Surely our government will need a way to instantly disable the internet to prevent it's destruction, right? Sadly, guess who think you and I are "terrorists"? That's right, our own Director of Homeland Security. Her little slip up in the news the other year revealed only a small part of what our government thinks of gun owners and returning veterans. That part is what we see above the surface. Do we really think that's the extent of it? Do we really think all of these gun permits don't equate to some total list maintained by various government agencies?
That stuff isn't conspiracy, it's fact. Our own government considers returning veterans (of wars their asses sent us to in the first place) and gun owners as potential domestic terrorists. Nice, huh? They pin a medal on our chests with one hand and jam a finger in our asses with the other. Conspiracy? I'll invite you over to the porch that me and PrayingForWar will be solving the world's problems on for a drink or ten and we'll hash it out.
Here's another for us to chew on: If anyone here thinks that the BATFE isn't monitoring a website that deals with the advocacy of openly carrying firearms, they should get a better encryption device for their computers lol. Every word here is surely being monitored. Perhaps not live, but then again, who knows for sure?
So yeah, I'd like to think that our government is there to protect us, to provide a foundation from which every American can prosper and grow, and to solidify a group of people from all walks of life, but what do we see in practice? Is it freedom or a carefully monitored and guided system designed to maximize self-preservation of a governmental system?
One Point on an issue that you and Metalhead brought up- Personally I don't think it was a case of Obama getting slapped with reality once he stepped into office. I don't think he believed in the things he said on the campaign trail for a second. Remember, this was a US Senator who had enough access to how the war was being run. Not as much as a President, but enough just the same to know the deal.
He said what he said to get elected, not to make any changes. He knew damn well he was going to continue the war in much the same way as Bush, continue to feed the contractors (of which I am one), continue to grind away at the same foreign policy that has been around since the nation was formed, etc.
There have been some differences though so I can't discount those. Where Bush strengthened the grip on personal liberties through the patriot act, Obama strengthened the grip on private enterprise and the fate of the nation's health services. In all of this has Obama changed one thing concerning the Patriot Act he railed against all those years? No, of course not. And he's not going to, either.
Do we think the next President in 2016 will come along and undue anything concerning the Patriot Act, government's control of the banks or larger businesses, or our health services? I'll do the objective wait and see thing, but I'll bet you a Pabst Blue Ribbon right now that not a thing will change for the better.
Metalhead-I have no doubts as to how our military works. I lived it for 20 years, after all. I don't claim any special knowledge or deep understanding of all it's activities, but I do know it's basic capabilities and weaknesses along with it's strengths. Anyone here who has served more than a few years has the same basic understanding, so I'm not special in that regard.
With that, I find it nothing short of impossible to mount such an attack on Afghanistan with only a month's notice. That tells me that there were existing plans on the table for some time. That's not conspiracy, that's being smart on the part of the US. The truth is that we had been watching and planning for an invasion of Afghanistan for a number of years. We've been doing the same thing for Iraq before we went in, and are doing the same for Syria, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, and a number of other places, too.
These plans are dreamed up and set aside until things heat up in an area. Once we feel that an area has heated up to warrant possible military action, we step it up some and rename the plans for action and turn them into an operational contingency. It's steps up from there. Eventually, what was just a possible future operation becomes a working operational action and the operation is then employed. It's right about this time that the news gets a hold of it and twists it way out of proportion, mostly because they have no idea of what happened at first. After all, in the news world, it's always better to toss junk out there and correct it later than it is to sit around with their fingers in their noses- fearful that people might turn the channel.
Anyway, saying that there were plans to invade Afghanistan existing prior to the attacks on 9/111 is not fantasy nor is it conspiracy theory. It's hard fact. My only real question is just how advanced those plans were prior to 9/11.
Let me state one thing clearly though- I do not believe the US Government allowed 9/11 to happen so we could use that as an excuse to invade Afghanistan, or to create what we now call the War on Terror. I don not believe that 9/11 was an "inside" job, nor do I think the people on those hijacked planes are living safe somewhere on some tropical island.
What I do believe is that our government knew that we were in a more elevated war against Islamic terrorists then they revealed to the general population. I think our government had a pretty good idea that we could be hit in an attack similar to how it went down on 9/11 but didn't have specific enough intelligence to pinpoint exactly when and how it would happen. The US Government and various groups involved in terrorism knew full well that they were at war with each other, yet our government failed to properly inform us to the degree of the proper status. That's where I think we failed ourselves.
I don't think we deserved to get hit due to our foreign policies, but I do feel that our foreign policies are taken by some to be overbearing enough to cause some of them to take action. That's what has been happening for much longer than 9/11/2001. That attack was simply a major accomplishment for those that are fighting against us, but it wasn't the beginning of anything, it was a continuation of hostilities. Prior to 9/11, they had already hit several of our embassies, at least one US Naval ship that we know of, and several other actions.
A lot of this was happening when our current President was a sitting US Senator. To say he fully believed one thing and suddenly changed his mind about the whole thing once he got the real briefings, in my little opinion, is somewhat hard to swallow.
As concerning "Dreamer" style conspiracy, I haven't yet jumped fully onto the bandwagon of hidden black cloaks behind every rock. But on the other hand, Dreamer comes up with some very interesting links, stuff which has become public knowledge over the years. Are we to simply discount these stories simply because a member here you might not agree with posts them?
The best we can do is look at everything that's presented. It doesn't matter which side brings it up. We have to take as an objective look as possible at all evidence and formulate our opinions based on the facts that are presented.
Our inherent tendency is to discount those stories which do not align with our current beliefs. I try to challenge my own beliefs with opposing views as objectively as possible and am more than willing to follow the facts, even at the cost of changing my mind. For example, there was a time right before our jump into Panama that I had thought our unit was only practicing airfield take-downs simply because that was our training focus for the month. After we did jump and were doing whatever down there, I had thought maybe they had planned it out for a few months. Later on we find out that the operation was on the books for a number of years. Each time we peel back a layer of the onion, more and more is revealed.
Where exactly are we to trust in some things and discount others as fantasy or simple conspiracy theory?
The lies we are told on a minute to minute basis are, in my opinion, part of a specific plan to keep us stupid. It worked well for a few thousand years, and along came more advanced means of communication. Soon we could pick up a telephone and talk instead of sending a letter. Soon after that we had television, then satellites, etc. Suddenly, along comes this thing we call the internet and our access to information is now almost instantaneous. Is there any doubt as to why governments regulate and limit it? Our own government is (and has been) working on legislation to regulate and limit it's own citizen's access to the internet. Do a little search about that little bit of fun and see where it takes you. Before we know it, we'll be limited in our scope and access.
In public, the story is being painted as yet another "security" issue. The idea is that "terrorists" could gain control of our internet services and wreak havoc upon it. Surely our government will need a way to instantly disable the internet to prevent it's destruction, right? Sadly, guess who think you and I are "terrorists"? That's right, our own Director of Homeland Security. Her little slip up in the news the other year revealed only a small part of what our government thinks of gun owners and returning veterans. That part is what we see above the surface. Do we really think that's the extent of it? Do we really think all of these gun permits don't equate to some total list maintained by various government agencies?
That stuff isn't conspiracy, it's fact. Our own government considers returning veterans (of wars their asses sent us to in the first place) and gun owners as potential domestic terrorists. Nice, huh? They pin a medal on our chests with one hand and jam a finger in our asses with the other. Conspiracy? I'll invite you over to the porch that me and PrayingForWar will be solving the world's problems on for a drink or ten and we'll hash it out.
Here's another for us to chew on: If anyone here thinks that the BATFE isn't monitoring a website that deals with the advocacy of openly carrying firearms, they should get a better encryption device for their computers lol. Every word here is surely being monitored. Perhaps not live, but then again, who knows for sure?
So yeah, I'd like to think that our government is there to protect us, to provide a foundation from which every American can prosper and grow, and to solidify a group of people from all walks of life, but what do we see in practice? Is it freedom or a carefully monitored and guided system designed to maximize self-preservation of a governmental system?
Gunslinger
Regular Member
COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks, stalking, and harassing other members are all violations of the forum rules. If you disagree with another poster's positions, then address their positions and if they cross the line, then report it to me. Gunslinger has been given a 7 day timeout, after which I expect him to respect the rules. Anyone talking about him badly while he is not here to defend himself will face the same punishment. Let's keep it civil! JOHN
Gunslinger
Regular Member
COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks, stalking, and harassing other members are all violations of the forum rules. If you disagree with another poster's positions, then address their positions and if they cross the line, then report it to me. Gunslinger has been given a 7 day timeout, after which I expect him to respect the rules. Anyone talking about him badly while he is not here to defend himself will face the same punishment. Let's keep it civil! JOHN
Gunslinger
Regular Member
COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks, stalking, and harassing other members are all violations of the forum rules. If you disagree with another poster's positions, then address their positions and if they cross the line, then report it to me. Gunslinger has been given a 7 day timeout, after which I expect him to respect the rules. Anyone talking about him badly while he is not here to defend himself will face the same punishment. Let's keep it civil! JOHN
Gunslinger
Regular Member
COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks, stalking, and harassing other members are all violations of the forum rules. If you disagree with another poster's positions, then address their positions and if they cross the line, then report it to me. Gunslinger has been given a 7 day timeout, after which I expect him to respect the rules. Anyone talking about him badly while he is not here to defend himself will face the same punishment. Let's keep it civil! JOHN
buster81
Regular Member
COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks / inappropriate
Metalhead47
Regular Member
.... W. T. F?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gunslinger
Regular Member
COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks, stalking, and harassing other members are all violations of the forum rules. If you disagree with another poster's positions, then address their positions and if they cross the line, then report it to me. Gunslinger has been given a 7 day timeout, after which I expect him to respect the rules. Anyone talking about him badly while he is not here to defend himself will face the same punishment. Let's keep it civil! JOHN
Metalhead47
Regular Member
Man that is seriously NOT COOL. Disagree with her all you want but personal insults of such a vile nature have no place here. You've got way more than enough posts to know that.
LV XD9
Regular Member
He's clearly gone over the deep end. Who knows what pushed him over the edge, but he's crossed a line this morning with his creepy, stalker-like antics.
Quite frankly, I think he should be introduced to the business end of the Admin's boot as he's sent on his way. A site like this has no place for bile like that.
Last edited:
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Take a look at her signature and tell me again about personal insults.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Wow, 83 posts. And you're an expert on "a site like this." See above.
buster81
Regular Member
COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks, stalking, and harassing other members are all violations of the forum rules. If you disagree with another poster's positions, then address their positions and if they cross the line, then report it to me. Gunslinger has been given a 7 day timeout, after which I expect him to respect the rules. Anyone talking about him badly while he is not here to defend himself will face the same punishment. Let's keep it civil! JOHN
Jared
Regular Member
So you have have nothing to rebut my answers? With a screen name like PrayingforWar, it seems clear why? Some folks love violence and killing.
Don't worry about my gold or silver. I have more in assets than many others so I'm fine. I can also dump my foreign currency in a day and exchange it.
Sorry to bore you, turn up Rush limbaugh and hear the good lord preach how neo cons will save us if we just elect them.
buster81
Regular Member
You should direct your accusations of personal attack at others. I was asking about Sonny and Cher's son/daughter.