October 19th Black This Out

[plue]

This guy actually sounds pretty decent. If I was American I'd vote for him, if only because he can shake up your stagnant system you have now. Otherwise you guys are on a downward spiral with just more of the same shit you have now.

Why would you re-elect Obama anyway, proved himself useless already. Then again, we re-elected Harper, no accounting for dumb people I guess.

[hey]

This guy actually sounds pretty decent. If I was American I'd vote for him, if only because he can shake up your stagnant system you have now. Otherwise you guys are on a downward spiral with just more of the same shit you have now.

Why would you re-elect Obama anyway, proved himself useless already. Then again, we re-elected Harper, no accounting for dumb people I guess.

Because republicans pretty much unanimously try to destroy the middle class in favor of the rich. And they don't even hide it.

Obama may not be a great president, but considering he has had to fight congress every step of the way, he really has not done a bad job.

[wipers]

Back to Ron Paul being a nice guy does not qualify you to be President.

[wipers]

Who is Ron Paul?

He is the guy that has no shot at being President.

[Kerberoz]

Kinda wondering if the people going nuts over him this time were either too young to vote in 2008, or just completely fucking forgot that the exact same thing happened with the same amount of hype and the same re-OMGLOVE-olution stickers everywhere and the same Zeitgeist/NWO/Illuminati "omgIjustreadthesparknotesversionofatlasshruggedbe causethefullthingisafuckingwallotext" bullshit and the same abject failure at the primaries.

[Militant]

Kinda wondering if the people going nuts over him this time were either too young to vote in 2008, or just completely fucking forgot that the exact same thing happened with the same amount of hype and the same re-OMGLOVE-olution stickers everywhere and the same Zeitgeist/NWO/Illuminati "omgIjustreadthesparknotesversionofatlasshruggedbe causethefullthingisafuckingwallotext" bullshit and the same abject failure at the primaries.

I think a lot of people see him as the last hope of there being a white house that is not bought out by big buis. and the banks. We're at a cross roads right now, and if we get another 4 years of bullshit policy that further buries the middle class, its not going to be pretty. I think the OWS movement, and trying to fix our paid off congress are the FIRST things that need to be addressed. Won't honestly be shocked if we see a "terror alert" soon so people shift focus to that so they can scare them so that OWS gets ignored. That said, I don't agree with a lot of the different things Ron Paul stands for, but there is a lot that I am quite agreeable with. Honestly not sure if I would be able to get over those other things and vote for him. Doesn't matter anyway for now as I'm a registered Dem.

[Cadsuane]

Paul is a confusing and subversive politician. His ideas are utterly iconoclastic which appeals to those who are smugly cynical about government which is pretty much fucking everyone nowadays. Hence, low information voters can find his hapless authenticity as a politician beguiling while political junkies are in it for the libertarian claptrap. But then, there's all of the weird and stupid bullshit about civil and reproductive rights plus religion and every other alarming opinion Paul has, combined with the fact that Paul and every other genuine hardcore libertarian doesn't really have the middle and lower classes best interests in mind so much as they disregard everyone's interests equally and figure it'll all come out alright in the wash. These facts would dissuade the typical voter if the utter hopelessness of Paul's campaign didn't do that already. For the freaks like Rothbardian there's the obtuse and reductive nonsense of Austrian economics and libertarianism and/or objectivism to alchemize golden wisdom from every shit strewn ejaculation. Thank christ there aren't too many of those morons around yet.

[Dantrag]

Obama may not be a great president, but considering he has had to fight congress every step of the way, he really has not done a bad job.

Except when they had full control of both houses they didn't do shit with it. And then when they lost all those seats in 2010 they passed a fuck load of shit.

[kuronosan]

I agree with Dantrag this time, actually. Obama didn't really start trying to shine as President until he lost his majority and then suddenly he is trying to push things through with an 'uncooperative' party. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if that was his intent the whole time in order to guarantee his re-election. I'm extremely skeptical, because I really think while he has made some really positive changes he should have just passed the shit when he had a majority.

[eunhye]

Even if Ron Paul managed to pull of a miracle he'd never get to do half the shit he'd want to do in office. Legalize drugs? lol, congress would shoot that down in an instant.

He'll end up just like Obama with grand plans that get watered down to barely recognizable forms.

And what we have for the past umpteen years has been favored? That's the problem really.

[test123]

RON PAUL “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RONPAUL2012.COM

SYNOPSIS:
America is the greatest nation in human history.
Our respect for individual liberty, free markets, and
limited constitutional government produced the
strongest, most prosperous country in the world. But,
we have drifted far from our founding principles, and
America is in crisis.
Ron Paul’s “Restore America” plan slams on the
brakes and puts America on a return to constitutional
government. It is bold but achievable. "rough the bully
pulpit of the presidency, the power of the Veto, and,
most importantly, the united voice of freedom-loving
Americans, we can implement fundamental reforms.
DELIVERS A TRUE BALANCED BUDGET

IN YEAR THREE OF DR. PAUL’S PRESIDENCY:
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who doesn’t just
talk about balancing the budget, but who has a full plan
to get it done.

SPENDING:
Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the #rst year
of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating #ve cabinet
departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and
Education), abolishing the Transportation Security
Administration and returning responsibility for security
to private property owners, abolishing corporate
subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and
returning most other spending to 2006 levels.

ENTITLEMENTS:
Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans,
while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants
Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States
the $exibility and ingenuity they need to solve their
own unique problems without harming those currently
relying on the programs.

CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE:
Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce,
slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs
excessive federal travel. To stand with the American
People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336,
approximately equal to the median personal income of
the American worker.

TAXES:
Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making
America competitive in the global market. Allows
American companies to repatriate capital without
additional taxation, spurring trillions in new
investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the
Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing
families to build a nest egg.

REGULATION:
Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-
Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for
thorough congressional review and authorization
before implementing any new regulations issued by
bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous
regulations previously issued by Executive Order.

MONETARY POLICY:
Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve
and implements competing currency legislation to
strengthen the dollar and stabilize in$ation.

CONCLUSION:
Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut
spending and truly balance the budget. "is is the only
plan that will deliver what America needs in these
di%cult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending
cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget.

[Drex]

Completely repealing the 'Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act' and the 'Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act'? Really? Thank goodness he's no corporate shill!

[Kuya]

Paul is a confusing and subversive politician. His ideas are utterly iconoclastic which appeals to those who are smugly cynical about government which is pretty much fucking everyone nowadays. Hence, low information voters can find his hapless authenticity as a politician beguiling while political junkies are in it for the libertarian claptrap. But then, there's all of the weird and stupid bullshit about civil and reproductive rights plus religion and every other alarming opinion Paul has, combined with the fact that Paul and every other genuine hardcore libertarian doesn't really have the middle and lower classes best interests in mind so much as they disregard everyone's interests equally and figure it'll all come out alright in the wash. These facts would dissuade the typical voter if the utter hopelessness of Paul's campaign didn't do that already. For the freaks like Rothbardian there's the obtuse and reductive nonsense of Austrian economics and libertarianism and/or objectivism to alchemize golden wisdom from every shit strewn ejaculation. Thank christ there aren't too many of those morons around yet.

Thank god someone said it.

[Cail]

Eliminating the Depts of Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior and Education?! and abolishing the TSA? sounds like a winner to me

[Rothbardian]

Completely repealing the 'Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act' and the 'Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act'? Really? Thank goodness he's no corporate shill!

Sure, just like the PATRIOT Act, is patriotic, right? Using the name of a bill to describe it is about as asinine as it gets. In any event, your narrative is completely off. Large business loves the regulatory environment, considering they are the main progenitor of these regulations. This is where the mainstream narrative is completely ass backwards and accounts for a lot of 'talking past each other'. Obamacare was written for and by folks like Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and other large Health Insurance agencies. What a windfall it is for folks to be mandated to purchase the crap you are selling. Yes, that is really curbing large business! Obamacare is about as Corporatist as it gets.

In any event, don't take it from a libertarian (though AJ Nock expanded on this far better and far earlier than many New Leftists...), but from a prominent New Leftist historian Gabriel Kolko.

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conser...8881709&sr=8-1

In this reinterpretation of the Progressive Era, Gabriel Kolko marshalls a host of historical sources from the National Archives, the Library of Congress and other great outposts of scholarship to advance a bold thesis: that the Progressive Era was a "triumph of conservatism," the business reforms of the time having been fought for and shaped by not only the reformers but also the very business interests that were to be regulated. Kolko is a socialist, and his case is actually more radical than I have indicated. But it is his dispelling of many widely believed myths that I find the most enticing.

Take the "merger movement" at the turn of last century. It was and is popularly believed that competition was at an all-time low, monopoly an all-time high and Theodore Roosevelt's trust-busting the necessary and proper response. But Kolko proves this conventional belief false. In case studies of the big powerhouse industries of the time, he shows that, in spite of (or because of) the merger movement, they were more competitive than they had ever been. Whether the industry was steel, oil, automobiles, agricultural machinery, telephones, copper or meat-packing--Kolko's conclusion is the same: mergers, if anything, decreased companies' efficiency relative to their competitors. In the new century's first decade, the total number of competing firms in each industry grew; market shares of the dominant players, meanwhile, shrunk. As Kolko states, "There was *more* competition, and profits, if anything, declined. Most contemporary economists and many smaller businessmen failed to appreciate this fact, and historians have probably failed to recognize it altogether" (emphasis Kolko's).

The stage thus set by the failure of the merger movement, Kolko moves on to the myth that Progressive Era reforms were uniformly or even predominantly opposed by their affected industries. The key is to realize that, economic strategies like corporate consolidation having failed, companies turned to political strategies to freeze the status quo or to gain new competitive advantages. As Kolko states, "the essential purpose and goal of any measure of importance in the Progressive Era was not merely endorsed by key representatives of businesses involved; rather such bills were first proposed by them." Food companies, for example, wanted the Food and Drug Act so that they could turn its regulations against their competitors (e.g., oleo versus butter). Big meat packers desired to save their industry from tainted meat, which hurt business, but were unable to ensure the quality of small packers' meat and unwilling to pay for independent meat inspection--so they themselves initiated the meat inspection movement, lobbied for and won passage of the Meat Inspection Act, thereby forcing inspection onto the industry and its costs onto the federal government. As for the Federal Reserve Act, it was the product of a banking reform movement "initiated and sustained" by big bankers who sought to protect themselves from small bank competition. The Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Reserve Act? Most businessmen supported them to better protect themselves from antitrust prosecution under the Sherman Act's vague provisions or (among smaller businesses) to gain such advantages as enforced "fair trade price-fixing." Thus, Kolko shows that whether for protection from competition or from the government, businesses themselves initiated or shaped these Progressive Era reforms and others that most Americans regard as being part of an anti-business (or at least not pro-business) reform movement.

This book will fascinate students of American business and reform history. Ironically, given Kolko's philosophical disposition, even ardent pro-capitalists should relish it. That audience will likely be reminded of Burton W. Folsom's distinction, in his eye-opening *Myth of the Robber Barons*, between "market entrepreneurs" and "political entrepreneurs." Dominick Armentano's *Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure*, a work of heavier scholarship, may also be recalled to mind. His thesis that antitrust laws, even when not passed unequivocally to benefit special business interests, have "solved" nonexistent problems (and caused a few real ones) and should be repealed is entirely confirmed by Kolko's *Triumph of Conservatism*, which Armentano even cites in support (in addition to another of Kolko's works, on railroad regulations).

Progressives have been taken for a ride. You aren't fighting big business, you are aiding and helping it!

[Kuya]

I don't know if you do these things on purpose or if you just have ideological blinders on. You're confusing two different things. A company helping craft regulations in order to create an onerous environment for a competitor (for example, regulations crafted to hamper foreign competition for a local company) is different from a company creating holes in legislation so it can escape regulations (the pharmaceuticals and health insurance companies prevented the inclusion of a public option and the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada).

[Drex]

Sure, just like the PATRIOT Act, is patriotic, right? Using the name of a bill to describe it is about as asinine as it gets. In any event, your narrative is completely off. Large business loves the regulatory environment, considering they are the main progenitor of these regulations. This is where the mainstream narrative is completely ass backwards and accounts for a lot of 'talking past each other'. Obamacare was written for and by folks like Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and other large Health Insurance agencies. What a windfall it is for folks to be mandated to purchase the crap you are selling. Yes, that is really curbing large business! Obamacare is about as Corporatist as it gets.

In any event, don't take it from a libertarian (though AJ Nock expanded on this far better and far earlier than many New Leftists...), but from a prominent New Leftist historian Gabriel Kolko.

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conser...8881709&sr=8-1

Progressives have been taken for a ride. You aren't fighting big business, you are aiding and helping it!

Yes, I'm sure corporations are thrilled that they can't hire their own consultants to audit them anymore, and were jumping for joy when their CEOs and CFOs became responsible for their company's accounting methods and records. Way to drag in some irrelevant crap about the Patriot Act into a discussion about important financial industry regulation that prevents every company in the US from pulling an Enron. I wonder what mental gymnastics and deflection you'll use to determine that lowering corporate tax-rate is anti-corporate, or that dramatically reducing the size of government and turning everything over to the private sector is anti-corporate.

[test123]

[quannum]

cliff notes plz

[Kuya]

Not eating an hour of a libertarian squacking.