--- Eater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/28/07, 0x0000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would also note that Paul doesn't seem to address the fact > > that none of the things he's saying he will do can actually > > be done. > > Point taken, and a good point. However, somebody like Ron Paul with > veto power over congress is a pretty appealing idea in itself :) True dat... > > > Things like eliminating the IRS will have to go through > > congress, and will never be approved, there. > > > > I think we'd be more likely to gut the IRS by switching to a > consumption tax, as opposed to removing it entirely. Either way it's > an uphill battle given our current system. Progress is always > difficult, though. Yes, I was favoring a federal sales tax back when Nader and some others were talking about it - also, it occurs to me that, given that the income tax provides only ~30% of federal revenue as Paul says, it's probable the the IRS and (associated bureaucracies which allow it to operate) may well consume something approaching 30% of the total revenue collected. Also, while the Constitution specifies that no tax may be levied against a citizen's income, I think we should start taxing the income of corporations which do business in - or are based in - the US. It is an unfortunate reality that the corporations that handle most of the flow of US dollars - I.E. Those that make and spend the most - do not pay US taxes, for one reason or another. Oil companies are a good example of this... At the risk of being called a communist, I would suggest that corporate income be taxed, while individual citizen incomes be untaxed. > > I don't buy that - of all the possible candidates - Paul the one > > - the only one, even - who is is ready, willing, and able to serve > > the interests of The People. No one represents The People - if > > some one tried, that person would never make it onto the corporate > > media, which Paul has done. > > > > Yeah, I sort of doubt he'll win the primaries. But it'd be fun to > watch if he did! Well, if he can get on the ballots, that's far beyond what most of the persons who have espoused the sorts of ideas he's tossing out have gotten thus far... > > So. So what? Do you, Eater, really believe that a vote - any vote > > - in a US national election counts for anything at all? Do you > > know something that leads you to beleive that the vote totals at > > both the state and national levels are not simply being bought and > > sold in the back parking lot at Diebold Corp or ESS? If you do, > > please give over - let me know. > > > > I think it's somewhere between "totally rigged" and "completely > fair". I'd like to think it trends toward the latter. Heh. I'd /like/ to think there is some possibility that the votes are actually counted /before/ the preset ratios specified by whomever is paying Diebold for the election results are loaded into the machines, but I think to believe that at this point is simply unrealistic. This is not new, though, and I doubt any one will be convinced at this late date - especially after the hatchet job that has been done on those who have tried to report this stuff. Gregory Palast, for instance - obligatory links: http://blackboxvoting.org http://www.democracynow.org > > Public analysis and disclosure, as always, is our friend: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZws98jw67g Yes, I am familiar with the Princeton work - I will point out, however: 1. Princeton's is neither the first, last, nor most comprehensive study on this subject 2. Despite the [relatively] wide exposure of the info from Princeton, nothing has been done - or perhaps more accurately, the only state that has taken measures to assure uncorrupted election results is California, and (imo) they don't count, anyway Georgia, Ohio, and Florida - the 3 states where I have the most first-hand experience with the voting machines and their problems - are very actively fighting to retain the bogus machines - the ones that: 1. have the back doors 2. have the closed source code [revised after the "accidental" release of the initial firmware revisions to blackboxvoting.org's Bev Harris] 3. Do not produce any sort of an audit trail These machines are stupidly dysfunctional for use in any non-trivial voting process, and their continued use is nothing short of criminal - and that under /existing/ law... > > > The screening and selection of the so-called "candidates" prior to > > the full media push is also a big part of how the results of the > > election are controlled. Remember Saddam Hussein was > > democratically elected by a 90-something percent landslide. > > So was Hitler. > > > > Tsk tsk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law Nevertheless, my point stands. I submit that the reason the so-called election results in 2000 and 2004 were designed to be so "close" that the elections had to be decided by the courts is precisely /because/ the right wing "think tanks" that came up with the numbers that were to be used wanted to avoid such comparisons to other totalitarian regimes. They had to know when they were setting this up that if they gave Dubya a 90% margin /everyone/ would know it was faked immediately - as is, they have been careful to make sure that A. there is no record of what the vote count actually was (see the blackboxvoting.org video concerning the destruction of the ballots and the paper tapes from the machines in Florida) B. That the actual count would not be used (a side effect of A, above) And of course, it is trivial to simply invoke the standard obfuscation techniques (e.g. Godwin's Law) in order to avoid or minimize comparisons of the Regime with its spiritual progenitors and compatriots. I not that fall back to the tried and true "remain positive" propaganda as an excuse for not looking at reality, as well. Understandable, but ultimately just not satisfying, imo. Denial ia not just a river in Egypt anymore, my friend... You might want to take a look at "Truth Suppression Rules" (http://www.hasslberger.com/about/about/awa/awa_6.htm) again - since I see you're egaging in at least two of the techniques prescribed for right-wingers who feel themselves "under pressure" from persons wielding facts and drawing conclusions - in your response to me, here. Those are known techniques that were actually published and distributed to the "agents provocateur" employed nationwide by the RNC back in the late 20th Century. The existence of those agents is fairly well documented, I believe, so if you want to pretend that remark "conspiracy theory" you are, of course, welcome, but don't expect me to fall for it. I still haven't gotten over having my home broken into, offices searched, and dead bodies dropped in my law by those fukkers back in '99. > > > So what is Ron Paul's /real/ agenda - I just can't adjust my > thinking > > the point where I can believe that a white guy wearing a tie might > not > > be lying to me. Any faith or trust I may once have had in that > system > > has be eradicated over the last couple decades of deconstruction > > applied to pretty much everything that was ever actually gotten > right > > in the conception and implementation of the idea we call The United > > States of America. And I'm finding more and more (in my old age) > that > > there was precious little that was got right to begin with. > > > > The fact that he's a white guy with a tie doesn't mean he's evil. Unfortunately, I can no longer, at my current advanced age and level of experience, agree with that statement. I may be willing to reconsider if you can produce one living example of a white guy in a suit who is in some way /not/ evil. I do not know of one. I will award bonus points if the guy produced is old than 55. > The fact that he's an old white guy with a tie *might* mean, all by > itself, that he'll never win the popularity contest necessary to be > president. Well, it is my personal belief that the "elections" are simple smoke and mirrors - the decision of who is going to be dubbed "President of the United States" in Jan '09 has already been made by the same people who have decided the last few elections - and I do not mean The People or the Electoral College. > > Malcolm Gladwell would probably say this is "The Warren Harding > Error" corollary. Yes, a lot of people have been saying that. How many assertions does it take to make a fact? Fox News wants to know... > > > http://tourniquet.on.silkware.com/Blink-The-Warren-Harding-Error.2343.entry > > > So far, this current regime has violated every single other > > article and clause of the Constitution of the United States > > of America. Why should we - at this late date - believe that > > they will abide the clause concerning term limits, or even that > > the heads of the executive branch must be the same as those for > > whom votes are cast? What's to stop them from simply issuing > > an executive order appointing the next ruler(s)? > > > > Crossing the tinfoil-hat line with that one. Stock answer. And pretty lame, I'd say. I'm disappointed in you for that, dude. 1. Are you trying to pretend that that constitution remains intact [as a matter of law]? Can you provide support for that position? 2. What /is/ to stop the current Regime from simply refusing to leave office? > > > "cannon fodder" in the Regime's War for Total Global Domination. > If > > you're cool with that, you're probably one of the 1%, and hence > simply > > do not matter at all, in the real world outside your gated > community. > > > > I live in one of the few uppity communities *without* a gate, > thankyouverymuch! Heh. There's a gate, man, you just don't see it. It's made of the same materials as that "glass ceiling" you may have heard of... > Anyway, doomsday predictions about evil government is hardly a new > meme, by any stretch of the imagination. I think it's important to > remain positive, and focus on constructive efforts. As citizens, our > best tool to affect change is education. The intarwebs make this > easier, so it's an interesting time to live in. Hah. I haven't stated my actual predictions - and you are correct in calling the practice a meme - however, the fact remains that calling it a meme - or a "conspiracy theory" or whatever - does not render the statements or predictions false - all it really means is that the timid don't have to think about it - they expect to be able leave all that "complicated stuff" to those who "know about it" i.e. their government. Dumb idea, imo, but it is very, very popular - especially amongst disaffected former neo-cons, I've noticed. I do agree that education is the key, but I don't think education is even possible at this point - the only people who can really assimilate the available information are the very young, and the only ones of those who will "get it" are those whose mental processes have not already been corrupted to the point of dysfunctinoality by the same system of disinformation I am discussing, that has you using phrases like "tin foil hat" and invoking Godwin's Law. I will make the point here as clearly as possible that you have not refuted a single point - only called into question my credibility and pooh-poohed the idea that these points are worth discussing. Which, I will will further point out, is the same technique my republican friends used to end the discussion when I told them in late '02 that there were no weapons of mass destruction Iraq, and that the pretext(s) given by the Regime for the invasion of Iraq was lies. I will suggest that we may want to revisit this set of emails somewhere along about 1 Feb 2009. At that point, if there is some other Regime in power in the US, I may yield the point. 0x0000 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CHAOS706.ORG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chaos706?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
