Quantcast
Ron Paul warns of a Fascist Takeover in America

Forums - General Discussion - Ron Paul warns of a Fascist Takeover in America

badgenome said:
Rath said:


They are fundamentally different. The key difference is that NYT is doing it as a member of the press.

Fox-News is fairly right-leaning. Watching Fox News they often advocate positions of the Republican party. That is ok. If Fox Corporation started funding advertisments for one of the candidates that would not be ok. Can you see the difference?

It's not at all different. Wal-Mart benefits from freedom of the press just as much as the New York Times does, although they have tended not to avail themselves of it simply because it's outside the scope of their business. But just as one doesn't have to literally own a printing press in order to claim freedom of the press, one needn't be a card carrying member of "The Press" to say whatever the fuck one wants about this or that douchenozzle politician. Wal-Mart doesn't suddenly gain that right if and only if they start publishing the Wal-Mart Times. They have it right now.


And I don't think they should. I think it is an invitation for corruption and the loss of liberty to allow corporations to fund politics. I also think there needs to be strict (and not large) limits on spending by candidates and supporters of candidates.



Around the Network
Rath said:

And I don't think they should. I think it is an invitation for corruption and the loss of liberty to allow corporations to fund politics. I also think there needs to be strict (and not large) limits on spending by candidates and supporters of candidates.

I think it's a more immediate invitation for corruption and complete loss of liberty to let the government start dictating who can say what.



kanageddaamen said:
The world is way too economically interdependent to believe that if the US's military presence was removed, it would be massive war mongering and civil rights violations.

Regardless of what people actually believe, the US is still the largest economy in the world, by a wide margin. Our troops and bases in other countries are note the things keeping peace, it is the other countries wanting us to continue to buy their stuff. And regardless, you can fly across the Atlantic in a few hours, we could deploy troops to assist an invading ally in no time. He is definitely right about the lack of need for military bases.

People in other countries that say we shouldn't leave just want us there so they don't have to pay for it.

I think he is a little off base about the Fascism thing, in my opinion. Personal liberties wax and wane as society progresses and their values change. I would like to see a rewriting of the commerce clause in the constitution as it is completely RAPED to allow everything from the Fed, to the FCC, to the DEA, which were never the intention of the founders.

A bit more states being the laboratories of democracy would be great as well.

The fed is in part allowed by the 16th amendment, i thought. I know the Federal Reserve came in around the time of the Income Tax, so i always assumed they shared the same constitutional basis, though i could be wrong.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

badgenome said:
Rath said:

And I don't think they should. I think it is an invitation for corruption and the loss of liberty to allow corporations to fund politics. I also think there needs to be strict (and not large) limits on spending by candidates and supporters of candidates.

I think it's a more immediate invitation for corruption and complete loss of liberty to let the government start dictating who can say what.

However several governments with far less corruption and far higher rankings in most of the freedom indices have electoral laws that dictate what is allowed in a political campaign.



Rath said:

However several governments with far less corruption and far higher rankings in most of the freedom indices have electoral laws that dictate what is allowed in a political campaign.

Yeah, and with the exception of Canada, they're all boutique countries with mostly homogeneous populations numbering less than 10 million. Such nations have a natural tendency towards low corruption. I'm pretty skeptical that any lessons learned from New Zealand or Finland can be applied to the U.S. I mean, I imagine pretty much all politics in your country are local, whereas in a country the size of the U.S. one has to watch for meddling busybodies and corrupt assholes as the federal, state, and local levels. It is for all intents and purposes impossible. I've already pointed out how arbitrary this shit ends up being in practice here - Dog Eat Dog Films and Lions Gate's vastly more successful (and thus, more dangerous, eek!) Fahrenheit 9/11 doesn't trip the FEC's alarm but Citizens United's two bit production somehow does? - so I'll be fucked if I want to give the ravening beast that is the federal government the power to tell anyone to shut up.



Around the Network

lol these elections are a joke



badgenome said:
Rath said:

However several governments with far less corruption and far higher rankings in most of the freedom indices have electoral laws that dictate what is allowed in a political campaign.

Yeah, and with the exception of Canada, they're all boutique countries with mostly homogeneous populations numbering less than 10 million. Such nations have a natural tendency towards low corruption. I'm pretty skeptical that any lessons learned from New Zealand or Finland can be applied to the U.S. I mean, I imagine pretty much all politics in your country are local, whereas in a country the size of the U.S. one has to watch for meddling busybodies and corrupt assholes as the federal, state, and local levels. It is for all intents and purposes impossible. I've already pointed out how arbitrary this shit ends up being in practice here - Dog Eat Dog Films and Lions Gate's vastly more successful (and thus, more dangerous, eek!) Fahrenheit 9/11 doesn't trip the FEC's alarm but Citizens United's two bit production somehow does? - so I'll be fucked if I want to give the ravening beast that is the federal government the power to tell anyone to shut up.

What about Australia and the United Kingdom? They're reasonably large and generally rank better than the USA in those indices. I know Australia has fairly strict electoral laws and I think the UK does too.

New proposal, the USA becomes 50 countries =P



Rath said:
badgenome said:
Rath said:

However several governments with far less corruption and far higher rankings in most of the freedom indices have electoral laws that dictate what is allowed in a political campaign.

Yeah, and with the exception of Canada, they're all boutique countries with mostly homogeneous populations numbering less than 10 million. Such nations have a natural tendency towards low corruption. I'm pretty skeptical that any lessons learned from New Zealand or Finland can be applied to the U.S. I mean, I imagine pretty much all politics in your country are local, whereas in a country the size of the U.S. one has to watch for meddling busybodies and corrupt assholes as the federal, state, and local levels. It is for all intents and purposes impossible. I've already pointed out how arbitrary this shit ends up being in practice here - Dog Eat Dog Films and Lions Gate's vastly more successful (and thus, more dangerous, eek!) Fahrenheit 9/11 doesn't trip the FEC's alarm but Citizens United's two bit production somehow does? - so I'll be fucked if I want to give the ravening beast that is the federal government the power to tell anyone to shut up.

What about Australia and the United Kingdom? They're reasonably large and generally rank better than the USA in those indices. I know Australia has fairly strict electoral laws and I think the UK does too.

New proposal, the USA becomes 50 countries =

The UK was slouching towards the US last I checked, and the only people who differentiate between New Zealand and Australia are people from New Zealand or Australia.

New proposal, the USA becomes 50 countries =P

Sounds good to me. I believe that is more or less how it was supposed to be.



badgenome said:
Rath said:

What about Australia and the United Kingdom? They're reasonably large and generally rank better than the USA in those indices. I know Australia has fairly strict electoral laws and I think the UK does too.

New proposal, the USA becomes 50 countries =

The UK was slouching towards the US last I checked, and the only people who differentiate between New Zealand and Australia are people from New Zealand or Australia.

New proposal, the USA becomes 50 countries =P

Sounds good to me. I believe that is more or less how it was supposed to be.

It isn't, though. We tried that, and decided we didn't like it in the 1780s.

And the FEC would have been controlled by Republicans in regards to that 2004 bit, so clearly there was something different at play in Citizens United.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Ron Paul is nothing more than a conspiracy theorist politician who makes up such ridiculous claims. Shock journalists are well known for making up conspiracy theories for laughs.
I can not see the evidence/proof that the US government is a totalitarian regime: Fascist or Communist that oppresses its people.