Quote :

"Because the Constitution was written by people bitterly, viscerally, distrustful of government."

No, they weren't. They were bitter and viscerally distrustful of monarchical authoritarianism. The greatest propaganda victory of libertarianism is somehow managing to equate that with liberal democracy, the system they actually innovated themselves based on Roman models.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 9:14 AM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 9:14:03 AM

Quote :

"No, they weren't. They were bitter and viscerally distrustful of monarchical authoritarianism."

I think this shows that you don't get the message. The message was that governments are only good governments if you actively keep them that way. See: checks and balances. This is about the line you've painted between authoritarianism and good democracies. There is no line beyond what we the people can enforce on our own government. Why don't I quote to you from the Declaration of Independence itself?

Quote :

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

These are some of the most powerful words in history, and our forefathers were shrewd and explicit enough to completely pwn your comment and all others like it that may be uttered until the end of time. Although their opposition was to a monarch, they were wise enough to speak to future generations that would fight against something else very different in nature. Those people they wrote this for are us.

3/26/2012 2:03:30 PM

Quote :

"Consent of the governed"

If only there were some sort of system whereby that consent could be gauged...perhaps by a show of hands or a poll or a vote....

3/26/2012 2:47:42 PM

oh darn it, I must have copied wrong.

Quote :

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends"

Quote :

"That whenever any Form of Government (except for Democracy) becomes destructive of these ends"

3/26/2012 2:49:32 PM

Quote :

"Along with all libertarians, he doesn't have a coherent picture for how the legal system (or states) will pick up the slack of what much of the federal government does now. I won't lie awake at night if the FDA is banned. We'll figure out how to get safe food. But I don't believe that conflicts would be handled effectively when they come up. I'm not a fan of giving more power to the legal system."

Quote :

"Some of this all comes from a misunderstanding, like saying that he opposes the federal role in interstates, but the unsaid presumption is that another organization will take up that role. We won't just stop using them. But my problem is that: a) there's too much unsaid about Ron Paul's vision b) There's not the proper recognition that we're talking about something completely new"

What you're saying here isn't exactly wrong. Ron Paul isn't saying what the new system would look like. The entire basis of a free market approach is that we can't know what it would look like. The system is too complex to model, therefore, economic outcomes cannot be predicted accurately.

Ron Paul's approach to running the Executive branch would be something we haven't seen in a long time, possibly ever. All mainstream U.S. politicians are essentially of the same mindset. They do want to control the economy, they do want to control world events, and they do want to legislate morality. Every "viable" candidate has clearly stated that their goal is for the federal government to have a major hand in all human interaction, whether it's the purview of government or not. Yes, there are significant policy differences, but the candidates agree on a basic premise.

I would bet that 95-99% of congressmen truly believe they know what is best for people. They might have good intentions (or not...), but they want to tell people how to live. At the heart of the matter, governance in the U.S. is not about protecting consumers and workers from exploitation, which is what we debate about constantly here. It is some combination of social engineering and protecting corporate interests.

Quote :

"I'm not going to take a knee-jerk response to the proposal to eliminate the civil rights act, I understand what the libertarian position is. However, civil rights itself is absolutely central to our heritage and America's contribution to the world and human history. How do we accomplish decentralization while not just preserving these accomplishments, but furthering social progress at the same time."

I don't know if we can. There are aspects of U.S. culture, at least in some areas of the country, that are rotten. Alabama, in a "decentralization" scenario, might actually ban abortion and homosexuality. I think that the majority of people there might support that. The problem, then, is not the law, it's the culture. Law must follow morality, not the other way around.

The scary part is that the bigoted, redneck religionists are breeding at a much higher rate than sophisticated, urban secularists. If we allow this trend of federal power centralization to continue, there might be more of them than there are of us. At that point, Democracy sets in, and we all have our civil liberties removed. Republics limit the damage and scope of government intervention. Democracy can go either way - if the people are educated, it can be good. If the people are shitheads (let's be realistic - we're in the U.S.), it'll be bad.

3/26/2012 3:47:16 PM

Quote :

"oh darn it, I must have copied wrong."

Democracy is government with the consent of the governed you twat. If you revolt against a Democracy and institute a new government what the fuck is it going to be that's more consensual? There's nothing about "small" government in the constitution, the constitution is written precisely so the people can make the govenrment as large or as small as they want to at that point in time. It's precisely written to be a blueprint for Democratic government that can shift and change with time, or be entirely rewritten, not hammer out a single form and function of government to last the ages.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 3:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 3:54:12 PM

^ it's not about the general political philosophy. It's about the fact that our current democracy is rotten to the core. The Roman Empire had problems with Democracy. Many political philosophers believe that it's not even possible for such a system to sustain itself permanently intact. That doesn't mean that the voting system is eliminated. There is much more to the current structure and embedded interests in our current government.

3/26/2012 4:00:09 PM

We're still voting them in, what do you think's gonna happen when we kick them out? Just hold another vote and this time the good guys will win?

So how do you remove the structures and embedded interests? Does a dictator temporarily take charge and cast them out?

3/26/2012 4:19:03 PM

Quote :

"The scary part is that the bigoted, redneck religionists are breeding at a much higher rate than sophisticated, urban secularists. If we allow this trend of federal power centralization to continue, there might be more of them than there are of us. "

No no no, here is the point where we are going to start categorically disagreeing.

If you want to talk about an uneducated mass breeding at a higher rate than everyone else, look to the developing world. But there is an encouraging trend in the developing world, because they still had urbanization left to do. Many people believe that that trend is the savior for humanity. Population will top out and start contracting before the century is up, which will finally allow education and technology to outpace population growth and unite the world.

Now...

There's a difference between that and what you're talking about. You're talking about parts of the US actually regressing in terms of human development and social progress. You are correct. This has happened and it is scary. Similar to the arguments that right-wing Muslim nations produce more children, these sects also out breed the rest of us.

In that light, decentralization could literally usher in the end of days. Let me get into the specifics, ultimately, it's about mobility. The thing is, we've run this experiment of an overpopulated and undereducated society separated from an educated society, that's the developing world versus the Western (and some East Asian) world today. Now, again, we believe India will turn, same for Africa, and China is already in their technological Renaissance. NOT SO for Alabama. But what keeps order in the current world? We don't allow unchecked immigration. That's the key.

Ultimately you can't separate these issues from human mobility. If paint a picture that religious zealots are doing the Quiverfull route, waging a war on rationalism, and will ultimately be ungovernable, you create no choice but to build barriers. It might not be physical, but it can be simply about wealth. We have no guarantee that wealth distribution is a mathematically stable system in the first place. The US has already made disturbing progress to creating a 3rd world within a developed nation.

If we "give up" on any amount of the human population, we have fucked ourselves. Isolationism is the biggest threat to the human race, it always has been, and it's always powered the greatest global conflicts. To some degree (however much I don't know) we have to consider the entire Earth a "natural democracy" because there are some things that people are entitled to based on existing. No seriously, in the next 100 years we're going to have to figure out how to engineer the Earth's climate as a species or face eventual destruction.

On top of those arguments, decentralization is becoming more irrelevant with every tick of the clock. Why in the holy hell would we decentralize based on locality of all things right after the internet boom? Individuals matter in the 21st century far less than they ever have before. This is a struggle of much more powerful things like technology and geology.

I agree we should empower people to restructure society. We need a hyperactive version of freedom of association that allows people to keep our high standard of life while dodging the absurd legal burden of our current nation. In doing so are we just okay with leaving behind some wasteland? No, that doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe I've rambled too much at this point....

3/26/2012 4:21:39 PM

Quote :

"There's a difference between that and what you're talking about. You're talking about parts of the US actually regressing in terms of human development and social progress. You are correct. This has happened and it is scary. Similar to the arguments that right-wing Muslim nations produce more children, these sects also out breed the rest of us."

I don't think so. These sects (rednecks, fundamentalists, bigots) never progressed to begin with. The rest of the country wanted to believe that "we" had "progressed as a society". That's the optimistic view. Morality was thought to be a lagging indicator of "good" law. If the government did the right thing, the people would follow.

It's actually the complete opposite. The law is a lagging indicator of morality. The government is always slow to catch on to moral sensibilities of the people. If the government does influence morality, it's in a negative way, and it's done over generations through public indoctrination. If the government can convince the majority of the population that moral behavior is legal behavior, and immoral behavior is illegal behavior, then it's nearly guaranteed that the people will happily commit atrocities on behalf of their government. This is demonstrated every time a police officer arrests someone for using or selling marijuana. We live in a country that will be mocked for its brutal policies, assuming that we aren't wiped out before we progress to that point.

Quote :

"In that light, decentralization could literally usher in the end of days. Let me get into the specifics, ultimately, it's about mobility. The thing is, we've run this experiment of an overpopulated and undereducated society separated from an educated society, that's the developing world versus the Western (and some East Asian) world today. Now, again, we believe India will turn, same for Africa, and China is already in their technological Renaissance. NOT SO for Alabama. But what keeps order in the current world? We don't allow unchecked immigration. That's the key."

Not seeing how that equates to the end of days. The power vacuum known as the United States has literally meant the end of days for millions of people. How does letting Alabama rednecks be rednecks lead to the apocalypse? If the issue is mobility, there's plenty of opportunity to get out of Alabama. A true crackdown on rights would lead to an exodus.

Quote :

"On top of those arguments, decentralization is becoming more irrelevant with every tick of the clock. Why in the holy hell would we decentralize based on locality of all things right after the internet boom? Individuals matter in the 21st century far less than they ever have before. This is a struggle of much more powerful things like technology and geology."

It's more relevant than ever, because most of our root problems are the result of centralization. Physical justice (or injustice) won't change because of the Internet. The Internet won't save you if the government decides to arrest you.

Decentralization does not mean deglobalization, isolationism, or a rejection of free trade. It just brings the government closer to the people. The value of a constitutional republic is that, for a given territory, we have rules that prevent any governments from getting out of control. The bill of rights places restrictions on the state and local governments. That seems like our best bet for the time being.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 5:49 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2012 5:43:13 PM

Quote :

"Decentralization does not mean deglobalization, isolationism, or a rejection of free trade. It just brings the government closer to the people."

I'm like "agree, agree, nooo".

Local governments are dumb and corrupt. Sure, you can say this applies for all levels of government. I think local governments are worse.

Here's a mrfrog approach to the "right" kind of local government:

Common law was an evolution forward. I think we need another type of evolution forward. Treat laws like DNA, where the goal is for smart people in progressive communities to create and experiment with exchangeable "packets" of law and public procedure that are then replicated based on their merits and voted for in a public process. Going much further than judicial law, you could apply this to legislative law, and very specific government functions. Today we have much more portable information, there could be something about police training, how to manage a DMV, install high speed fiber in the town.

The point and the difference between this and what I would call a "dumb" transfer of power to local governments would be:
- de-emphasizing the role of local politicians
- allowing national and global participation in this

Locality only means certain things. Infrastructure of most types remains local and non-transplantable.

If you really want to get into it, our problem is citizen non-participation. Look at the Wake county school board disaster. 4% of the population decided something. Even when I cast a ballot I don't feel involved in what's going on and don't vote on a large number of offices. If you want me to go back on my "local government is bad" position, then sure, I'll give you that if you'll give me this point: people participate less in local government. Your argument for keeping government close to home doesn't work with the current state of our nation because people are less invested personally (emotionally and intellectually) in local government (than other levels), and this is the fault of the idiot box. People buy cable and don't even get local news in many cases (there was a legal fight over this and DirectTV, not sure what the current situation is).

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 11:50 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2012 11:47:46 PM

4/15/2012 4:25:20 PM

get schooled by a 12 year old http://vimeo.com/41954094

5/12/2012 11:53:29 AM

The Fed's $16 Trillion Bailouts Under-reported


The media’s inscrutable brush-off of the Government Accounting Office’s recently released audit of the Federal Reserve has raised many questions about the Fed’s goings-on since the financial crisis began in 2008.

The audit of the Fed’s emergency lending programs was scarcely reported by mainstream media – albeit the results are undoubtedly newsworthy. It is the first audit of the Fed in United States history since its beginnings in 1913. The findings verify that over $16 trillion was allocated to corporations and banks internationally, purportedly for “financial assistance” during and after the 2008 fiscal crisis.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) amended the Wall Street Reform law to audit the Fed, pushing the GAO to step in and take a look around. Upon hearing the announcement that the first-ever audit would take place in July, the media was bowled over and nearly every broadcast network and newspaper covered the story. However, the audit’s findings were almost completely overlooked, even with a number as high as $16 trillion staring all of us in the face.

Sanders press release, dated July 21st, stated:

“No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president.”

The report serves as a clear testimony of the Fed’s emergency action plan to bailout foreign corporations and banks in a time of crisis, but the GAO report does not berate the Fed; rather, it provides a lucid explanation of where the money was allocated and why.

According to The Washington Post, “The GAO report did not condemn the Fed’s actions, it simply illuminated them. The GAO also recommended that the Fed make clearer and more rigorous its policies for hiring independent contractors to manage investment programs.”

A wider investigation of the Fed is due on October 18th, which will provide more thorough details. The GAO report said that the Fed issued “conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.” The audit will inspect the “conflicts of interest” and the inner-workings of the Fed’s emergency-lending programs.

For Sanders, one thing is clear: “The Federal Reserve must be reformed to serve the needs of working families, not just CEOs on Wall Street.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/

5/26/2012 11:43:30 PM

6/14/2012 5:07:45 PM

The effect of monetary inflation on prices isn't nearly that large; oversimplified charts like that lead to gross misconceptions, which lead to misguided revolutionary fervor.

6/15/2012 7:11:27 AM

Quote :

"The effect of monetary inflation on prices isn't nearly that large"

....Says the guy who has no goddamn clue about monetary inflation.

6/16/2012 2:09:33 AM

There's no point in even responding to this level of stupidity.

6/16/2012 2:26:53 AM

I love how you call the right answer the stupid answer.

6/16/2012 11:40:45 AM

[quote]Full Oversight and Government Reform Business Meeting from today with the vote on H.R. 459: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011 which requires a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States before the end of 2012, and for other purposes.

The bill passed the committee and is headed to the full House for a vote, possibly in July.

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/26/2011)
Cosponsors: (253)
Latest Major Action: 2/8/2011 Referred to House subcommittee.
Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency, and Financial Management .

Congressional Switchboard Number: (202) 224-3121

Co-Sponsors (253)

Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] - 1/26/2011
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] - 1/26/2011
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 1/26/2011
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] - 1/26/2011
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] - 1/26/2011
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 1/26/2011
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] - 1/26/2011
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] - 1/26/2011
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] - 1/26/2011
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 1/26/2011
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] - 1/26/2011
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 1/26/2011
Rep Reed, Tom [NY-29] - 1/26/2011
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 1/26/2011
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] - 1/26/2011
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 1/26/2011
Rep Woodall, Rob [GA-7] - 1/26/2011
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 1/26/2011
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 1/26/2011
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] - 1/26/2011
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] - 1/26/2011
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 1/26/2011
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] - 1/26/2011
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 1/26/2011
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 1/26/2011
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] - 1/26/2011
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 1/26/2011
Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25] - 1/26/2011
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] - 1/26/2011
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 1/26/2011
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 1/26/2011
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 1/26/2011
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] - 1/26/2011
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 1/26/2011
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] - 1/26/2011
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 1/26/2011
Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] - 1/26/2011
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 1/26/2011
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] - 1/26/2011
Rep Graves, Tom [GA-9] - 1/26/2011
Rep McKinley, David B. [WV-1] - 1/26/2011
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 1/26/2011
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 1/26/2011
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 1/26/2011
Rep Young, C.W. Bill [FL-10] - 1/26/2011
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 1/26/2011
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 1/26/2011
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 1/26/2011
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 1/26/2011
Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] - 1/26/2011
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 1/26/2011

6/27/2012 3:51:11 PM

Rep Young, Don [AK] - 1/26/2011
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] - 1/26/2011
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] - 1/26/2011
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 1/26/2011
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 2/8/2011
Rep Canseco, Francisco "Quico" [TX-23] - 2/8/2011
Rep Rigell, E. Scott [VA-2] - 2/8/2011
Rep Nugent, Richard [FL-5] - 2/8/2011
Rep Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5] - 2/8/2011
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 2/8/2011
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 2/8/2011
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 2/8/2011
Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] - 2/8/2011
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] - 2/8/2011
Rep Amash, Justin [MI-3] - 2/8/2011
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] - 2/8/2011
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 2/8/2011
Rep Schweikert, David [AZ-5] - 2/8/2011
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] - 2/8/2011
Rep Fincher, Stephen Lee [TN-8] - 2/8/2011
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] - 2/11/2011
Rep Adams, Sandy [FL-24] - 2/11/2011
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] - 2/11/2011
Rep Barletta, Lou [PA-11] - 2/15/2011
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] - 2/15/2011
Rep Mack, Connie [FL-14] - 2/15/2011
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] - 2/15/2011
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] - 2/16/2011
Rep Walsh, Joe [IL-8] - 2/17/2011
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 2/18/2011
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 2/28/2011
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 2/28/2011
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 2/28/2011
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 3/1/2011
Rep Gibson, Christopher P. [NY-20] - 3/1/2011
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] - 3/2/2011
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] - 3/4/2011
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 3/4/2011
Rep Ribble, Reid J. [WI-8] - 3/10/2011
Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] - 3/10/2011
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 3/10/2011
Rep Schrader, Kurt [OR-5] - 3/10/2011
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] - 3/11/2011
Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] - 3/15/2011
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 3/15/2011
Rep Griffith, H. Morgan [VA-9] - 3/15/2011
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 3/17/2011
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 3/17/2011
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 3/17/2011
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] - 3/17/2011
Rep Young, Todd C. [IN-9] - 3/29/2011
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 3/29/2011
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 3/29/2011
Rep Heck, Joseph J. [NV-3] - 3/29/2011
Rep Herrera Beutler, Jaime [WA-3] - 3/29/2011
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 3/29/2011
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 3/29/2011
Rep Gowdy, Trey [SC-4] - 3/29/2011
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] - 3/29/2011
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] - 3/29/2011
Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] - 3/30/2011
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 3/30/2011
Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] - 3/30/2011
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 3/31/2011
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] - 4/1/2011
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] - 4/1/2011
Rep Tipton, Scott [CO-3] - 4/5/2011
Rep Schilling, Robert T. [IL-17] - 4/5/2011
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 4/5/2011
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] - 4/5/2011
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] - 4/6/2011
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 4/6/2011
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] - 4/11/2011
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 4/12/2011
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 4/12/2011
Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] - 4/14/2011
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 4/15/2011
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] - 4/15/2011
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 4/15/2011
Rep Guinta, Frank C. [NH-1] - 4/15/2011
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 5/2/2011
Rep Gardner, Cory [CO-4] - 5/2/2011
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 5/3/2011
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] - 5/3/2011
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 5/3/2011
Rep Runyan, Jon [NJ-3] - 5/3/2011
Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] - 5/3/2011
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] - 5/4/2011
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 5/4/2011
Rep Labrador, Raul R. [ID-1] - 5/5/2011
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 5/10/2011
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 5/10/2011
Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] - 5/10/2011
Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] - 5/11/2011
Rep Kelly, Mike [PA-3] - 5/12/2011
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 5/23/2011
Rep McCarthy, Kevin [CA-22] - 5/23/2011
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] - 5/23/2011
Rep Hurt, Robert [VA-5] - 5/23/2011
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 5/23/2011
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] - 5/23/2011
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] - 5/25/2011
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] - 6/2/2011
Rep Kissell, Larry [NC-8] - 6/2/2011
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 6/13/2011
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 6/13/2011
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 6/22/2011
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] - 6/22/2011
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 7/6/2011
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 7/6/2011
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 7/6/2011
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 7/21/2011
Rep Meehan, Patrick [PA-7] - 7/21/2011
Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] - 7/25/2011
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] - 7/29/2011
Rep Gosar, Paul A. [AZ-1] - 8/1/2011
Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3] - 8/5/2011
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 8/5/2011
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 9/7/2011
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 9/7/2011
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] - 9/7/2011
Rep Duffy, Sean P. [WI-7] - 9/7/2011
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 9/7/2011
Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] - 9/7/2011
Rep Womack, Steve [AR-3] - 9/7/2011
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] - 9/12/2011
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] - 9/12/2011
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] - 9/12/2011
Rep Scott, Tim [SC-1] - 9/13/2011
Rep Hartzler, Vicky [MO-4] - 9/19/2011
Rep Fitzpatrick, Michael G. [PA-8] - 9/19/2011
Rep Noem, Kristi L. [SD] - 10/13/2011
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] - 10/13/2011
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] - 10/13/2011
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 10/24/2011
Rep West, Allen B. [FL-22] - 10/24/2011
Rep Grimm, Michael G. [NY-13] - 10/24/2011
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] - 10/31/2011
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 11/2/2011
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] - 11/2/2011
Rep Cravaack, Chip [MN-8] - 11/29/2011
Rep Landry, Jeffrey M. [LA-3] - 11/29/2011
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] - 11/30/2011
Rep Paulsen, Erik [MN-3] - 12/6/2011
Rep Amodei, Mark E. [NV-2] - 12/12/2011
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] - 1/18/2012
Rep Berg, Rick [ND] - 1/18/2012
Rep Lewis, Jerry [CA-41] - 1/18/2012
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 2/3/2012
Rep Quayle, Benjamin [AZ-3] - 2/3/2012
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] - 2/7/2012
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] - 2/7/2012
Rep Black, Diane [TN-6] - 2/7/2012
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 2/14/2012
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] - 2/14/2012
Rep Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [AR-1] - 2/15/2012
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 2/15/2012
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] - 2/15/2012
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 2/15/2012
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 2/27/2012
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 2/27/2012
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] - 3/8/2012
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] - 3/8/2012
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] - 3/19/2012
Rep Gibbs, Bob [OH-18] - 3/19/2012
Rep Stivers, Steve [OH-15] - 3/26/2012
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/16/2012
Rep Bass, Charles F. [NH-2] - 3/28/2012
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/16/2012
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 4/19/2012
Rep Kinzinger, Adam [IL-11] - 4/19/2012
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 4/19/2012
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 4/19/2012
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 4/26/2012
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] - 5/10/2012
Rep Webster, Daniel [FL-8] - 5/10/2012
Rep Johnson, Bill [OH-6] - 5/18/2012
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 5/30/2012
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] - 5/30/2012
Rep Tonko, Paul [NY-21] - 5/30/2012
Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [TN-3] - 6/5/2012
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] - 6/5/2012
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] - 6/5/2012
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 6/5/2012
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 6/5/2012
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] - 6/6/2012
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] - 6/6/2012
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 6/6/2012
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-21] - 6/7/2012
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] - 6/7/2012
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 6/7/2012
Rep DesJarlais, Scott [TN-4] - 6/12/2012
Rep Long, Billy [MO-7] - 6/12/2012
Rep Ellmers, Renee L. [NC-2] - 6/18/2012
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 6/18/2012
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] - 6/20/2012
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] - 6/20/2012
Rep Denham, Jeff [CA-19] - 6/21/2012
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 6/21/2012
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] - 6/21/2012
Rep Hanna, Richard L. [NY-24] - 6/21/2012
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 6/21/2012
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 6/21/2012[/quote]

6/27/2012 3:51:39 PM

7/10/2012 1:21:47 PM

^lolwut

7/10/2012 3:13:51 PM

Welcome. Need help with anything?

7/10/2012 3:16:09 PM

Is this accurate? The number of representatives to the people stopped growing the same year the FEDERAL RESERVE was created?

7/15/2012 4:47:56 PM

Let's assume that's true.

What fucking difference does it make?

7/15/2012 5:25:12 PM

it's almost as if central banks have their hands tied on certain fiscal issues of importance

7/15/2012 5:42:38 PM

Audit the fed vote about to happen

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

[Edited on July 24, 2012 at 4:04 PM. Reason : lol postponed ]

7/24/2012 4:02:29 PM

Quote :

"Is this accurate? The number of representatives to the people stopped growing the same year the FEDERAL RESERVE was created?"

You know that's when the last of the first 48 states (Arizona) joined, right?

There's been only 3 added since then, 2 in Hawaii and 1 in Alaska. I think there's actually a slight uptick around 1959-1960 if you look close.

Now the question is: if we're seriously on the verge of getting murdered by the government, why aren't you doing more than making pizza and posting on the wolf web?

7/24/2012 4:20:59 PM

Quote :

"Now the question is: if we're seriously on the verge of getting murdered by the government, why aren't you doing more than making pizza and posting on the wolf web?"

I think you're setting yourself up for failure by asking why aren't I doing more.

Why doesn't Ron Paul do more?
Why doesn't Congress do more?
Why doesn't our armed forces do more?

If you can answer those questions with a serious answer, perhaps you'll begin to understand why I am not "doing more" than I already am in my position.

7/25/2012 1:49:34 AM

the amount of time you spent here arguing how FED is bad, you could have educated yourself on something useful that would make you money...say options trading or learning how to purchase foreclosed home. that way you wouldnt worry about FED and you could buy your popcorn and soda. know im sayin

7/25/2012 4:54:34 AM

It's almost as though he's given up on his own life already so he's extremely susceptible to extremists who tell him a shadowy cabal of bankers are the source of his failures...

7/25/2012 9:14:08 AM

Quote :

"Why doesn't our armed forces do more?"

You're waiting on a coup in favor of Ron Paul?

7/25/2012 9:37:17 AM

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."

7/25/2012 10:00:03 AM

^I'm sure you could have found that in meme form.

7/25/2012 10:02:21 AM

The next stage of human evolution doesn't start until we abolish floating currency.

7/25/2012 10:14:10 AM

"It is hard to look right at you baby, here is my number so call me maybe."

7/25/2012 10:49:03 AM

Pair inherits $65M sculpture, but can't sell it to pay $29M tax bill

Heirs of a wealthy New York art dealer were left a $65 million sculpture that might just be more trouble than its worth.

Illeana Sonnabend, who died in 2007, left an art collection worth an estimated $1 billion. But one item in particular, Robert Rauschenberg's “Canyon,” is an heir's nightmare, a lawyer's dream and an IRS conundrum. The bequest comes with a $29 million tax bill, but since the piece includes a stuffed eagle, it can't be sold, according to The New York Times.

Lawyers for Sonnabend's children and beneficiaries, Nina Sundell and Antonio Homem, are hoping federal tax collectors change their valuation of the item, since they're stuck with the piece - and the taxes on it. But for now, the IRS isn't budging, and the case may be decided by a jury.

“We are hopeful for it to be resolved before a trial,” tax attorney Ralph Lerner told FoxNews.com.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/24/irs-art-collection-heirs-hope-to-settle-bizarre-tax-dispute-over-canyon-collage/?cmpid=cmty_fb_Pair_inherits_%2465M_sculpture%2C_but_can%27t_sell_it_to_pay_%2429M_tax_bill#ixzz21eYQZCPl

7/25/2012 12:37:33 PM

Just watched the live C-SPAN stream of Congress voting on Ron Paul's bill to Audit the Fed. It just passed the House! Today is a great victory for government transparency, accountability and the cause of liberty! I'm starting to think, what could happen in the Senate?


YEA - 326
NAY - 98


http://youtu.be/mFB77KIfIzs

7/25/2012 4:04:40 PM

8/3/2012 3:47:07 PM

^ Bahahaha geniusboy discovers what a dollar is

[Edited on August 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM. Reason : XD]

8/7/2012 3:24:36 PM

I didn't want to start a new thread so I'll post this here:



2012 Economic Collapse is coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_wBGlR1tVU

8/12/2012 5:45:43 PM

GeniusXBoy, when the economic collapse of 2012 fails to materialize, will you change or amend any of your beliefs whatsoever? Will you second guess any of the sources that told you it would happen? Or will you just start furiously copy-pasting the "Economic Collapse in 2013!" articles that will immediately spring forth?

I ask because Peter Schiff has been predicting "Economic collapse by the end of this year!" for a good 4 years now. Every time a QE was scheduled to occur, he predicted Weimer-style hyperinflation. Somehow he keeps selling books, I guess predictions and reality failing to meet isn't really an issue for ideologues.

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2012 2:50:48 PM

The focus isn't even on the year 2012. The focus is on the economic collapse that's imminent any day now.

The FED is just postponing that fateful day by applying duct tape to the malfunctioning portions of their failing fiscal policies.


You can be hung up that the title says 2012 all you want, but it's really there because the potential is there.

8/13/2012 4:24:19 PM

India's Tata Steel quarterly profit slumps 89 pct

India's Tata Steel, the world's seventh-largest steelmaker, said Monday quarterly net profit slumped a worse-than-expected 89 percent from a year earlier due to falling demand in its key European market.


http://news.yahoo.com/indias-tata-steel-quarterly-profit-slumps-89-pct-143422698.html

8/14/2012 12:36:23 AM

So it really doesn't phase you when Peter Schiff says, literally, "There will be hyperinflation and a collapse by the end of this year." for 3 or 4 years in a row?

Not a bit?

Do you have any standards whatsoever for the credibility of the people you listen to? Or are you so hung up on projecting your own death-wish on society itself that you'll bend an ear to anyone who tells you the end is near?

If this guy told you "Tomorrow gravity will go up instead of down!" would you keep posting his articles and book-selling youtube videos day after day, for years on end?

[Edited on August 14, 2012 at 9:36 AM. Reason : .]

8/14/2012 9:35:46 AM

9/3/2012 4:22:12 PM

Labor = cigarettes?

9/3/2012 6:28:41 PM

The idea is that by raising the price of a good through a "sin tax", people are less likely to buy the good or more likely to use less of the good. That is actually true to some degree, even though it's a bad policy. The tax certainly hasn't done much to eliminate the use of cigarettes, though, but that was never the goal. Politicians don't give a shit about the health of your lungs.

The same is true for taxing earned income. Taxes on income lower real wages for workers; it makes it more difficult for employers to purchase labor, effectively raising unemployment. It also has the deleterious effect of taking money out of the "real" economy, where people actually have to work and produce, and puts it into the hands of those working for the government, or in some instances, those that have personal connections with government workers.

Obviously, this argument doesn't matter if you're still living under a belief system where robbery and murder is morally acceptable under certain conditions.

[Edited on September 3, 2012 at 9:40 PM. Reason : ]

9/3/2012 9:38:45 PM

Somalia doesn't have an income tax.

I've heard it's very nice this time of year.

9/3/2012 10:37:00 PM