Ron Paul money bomb v2.0

[Lueyen]

I'm pissed to have my tax money going to support the war in Iraq. Should I get to boycott paying taxes on the chance that that money might be used for the war or for illegal domestic wiretapping? Sorry, but since when has our potential personal outrage at the uses to which our tax dollars are put mattered so much as a piss upwind?

-Arlos

The difference between you taking exception to tax dollars going to fund military operations and someone taking issue with tax dollars going to fund domestic social programs is that in your case government is using tax dollars as it is allowed to do explicitly by the constitution, in the latter case it is not unless you take a broad meaning from the words "general welfare", and doing so is something our founding fathers argued against.

[Tikker]

right wingers rule


killing people = good
helping people = bad



nice work there adolf

[Harrison]

Hitler was far more "leftist" than anything. The fact that you equate genocide with right wing is very telling in and of itself.

[Arlos]

Uh, Fascism is at the opposite end of the spectrum from communism. Look it up. Hitler was a Fascist, as far right wing as they get.

The fact that you don't know such simple aspects of history is very telling in and of itself. Maybe if you'd actually finished high school, you'd have learned basic facts like that.

As for Leuyen, we weren't discussing social programs. We were discussing public campaign funding. How a campaign is funded isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution one way or another. This could likely be considered a portion of the Section 8 powers, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.", where the power in question is being elected, and the Officer in question is the President.

If it's not covered, then perhaps we need a constitutional amendment, to change the process. I would be for such a constitutional change, if it is necessary, in order to help alleviate our current situation of Government Of the Biggest Donator and most vitally FOR the biggest Donators.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

Whoa whoa whoa, so because Fascism is the opposite end of Communism it is suddenly equated to the ideals of the present-day right? And this of course obviously includes genocide.

You guys are fucking retarded.

The Bolsheviks were certainly "of the left", and the advocates of Stalinist, Soviet-style communism considered themselves to be "leftist". Most Western leftists would now dispute at least the Stalinist claim to Leftism, due to the general suspension of even non-economic liberties and the gross inequities created by Stalinists and Maoists in practice.

In different countries at different times, Left and Right have been differently understood, and the farther one gets in time and space from late 19th-century Europe, the less likely there is to be clear consensus on the use or even the applicability of the terms. For example, in speaking of 1930s Europe, there is little consensus on what is meant by Right beyond an opposition to Bolshevism. Although Adolf Hitler in Germany and Winston Churchill in the United Kingdom were both characterized in their own countries as right-wing, there was obviously a tremendous difference between the two leaders' policies, and even their anti-communism was expressed in radically different ways.

Similarly, during the Cold War in the United States, there was no significant socialist presence in electoral politics, and very little overt social democratic presence. Instead liberalism in the United States, blending elements of classical liberalism with elements of social democracy, came to constitute the electoral left. The Right, in its original European sense, was associated with the defense of a traditional political order that had once existed in the United States. Virtually every elected official during this period in the United States took a stance of anti-Communism; it was not until the mid-1960s that the New Left arose and, in some cases, proclaimed its "anti-anti-Communism", without, for the most part, actively embracing Communism.

[Tossica]

Duh.

Will you please SHUT THE FUCK UP. Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick... after 7 fucking years and 16,000+ posts, you've yet to post a single intelligent, thought provoking statement or opinion on ANY topic. Give it up already.

Merry Fucking Christmas.

[Harrison]

Edited by me 30 seconds later.

In closing: it's a little difficult to illicit an intelligent response from someone who is just a leftover drug-addled punkfag who can't stop raging against the machine 20 years later.

[Kramer]

Hitler's extreme nationalism typically places him in the far right category, as opposed to someone who would be an anarchist, or on the far left.

oh, and merry fucking christmas

[Lueyen]

As for Leuyen, we weren't discussing social programs. We were discussing public campaign funding. How a campaign is funded isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution one way or another. This could likely be considered a portion of the Section 8 powers, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.", where the power in question is being elected, and the Officer in question is the President.

If it's not covered, then perhaps we need a constitutional amendment, to change the process. I would be for such a constitutional change, if it is necessary, in order to help alleviate our current situation of Government Of the Biggest Donator and most vitally FOR the biggest Donators.

-Arlos

Sorry Arlos I confused your response with Araby's post. In regards to Federally funded elections, regardless of constitutional precedence, I don't see it doing much good. Without directly contributing to a campaign, groups could still spend money promoting a candidate. Frankly the only way money influences politics is to the extent that the people allow it to, unfortunately in today's world, so much goes on in a single day both in peoples personal lives and on the national/world stage, keeping up on the latter can be quite interesting, and sadly often times people give up to some extent.

Of course how to divvy federal funds, and who is eligible are questions that would need to be answered, and frankly there are a lot of pitfalls in the details. Perhaps my biggest concern with something of that nature is that it not further cement our current trend of two party viability. Of course the intent would probably be to open the door for others, but when the legislation is written by people from the two major parties.. well I suspect that protecting the party establishments interest would carry heavy weight.

right wingers rule


killing people = good
helping people = bad



nice work there adolf

It might be hard for someone with a general socialist bent to wrap their thoughts around Tikker, but what I was saying is that it was not the job of our federal government to provide social programs. It's not a question of good or bad, or if we should or should not have social programs, but where they come from.