[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Bible is what???

Thanks for the link. Mike Huckabee stated it much better than my recollection of his answer. That was a great answer.

[sstarch1]

Ron Paul

January 30, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.

The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.

Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.

The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.

Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work and production. Our current tax system also forces Americans to waste valuable time and money on complacence with an ever-more complex tax code. The increased interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals, as well as the increasing number of small businesses that questioning the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) “withholding” system provides further proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod over their civil liberties, despite recent “pro-taxpayer” reforms.

Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.

-----------------------------------------
Dr. Ron Paul

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Have you seen Huck's record on taxes....? I dont think i need to say anythign else about that.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Thanks for the link. Mike Huckabee stated it much better than my recollection of his answer. That was a great answer.

you're welcome, but he missed the point -- the Bible is a story book written by people about something. As the other poster has pointed out -- not much different than Harry Potter story about something else. It is not a proof of anything at this point, and definitely not God's (or whatever you want to call him/her/it) word translated into the writing... It definitely does not reveal the existence (or non-existence) of God...

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by sstarch1

Ron Paul

January 30, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.

The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.

Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.

The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.

Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work and production. Our current tax system also forces Americans to waste valuable time and money on complacence with an ever-more complex tax code. The increased interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals, as well as the increasing number of small businesses that questioning the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) “withholding” system provides further proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod over their civil liberties, despite recent “pro-taxpayer” reforms.

Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.

-----------------------------------------
Dr. Ron Paul

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Have you seen Huck's record on taxes....? I dont think i need to say anythign else about that.

That's all cool but same as some may have liked the independent candidate better than GW or Kerry last time... No point to promote him as he has no chance. It is obvious that no matter who comes to the WH will have to ballance and control the budget and unfortunately, if you had basic algebra (or simply additions and subtractions) that will not be doable withour raising taxes. Politicians can BS whatever they want during the campaign, but we're in deep sh*t financially and the worst is not even felt yet.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by sstarch1

Have you seen Huck's record on taxes....? I dont think i need to say anythign else about that.

Mike Huckabee also strongly advocates repealing the 16th amendment. The fair tax could not be an effective replacement and would be a mistake if the 16th amendment were to remain in place.

It looks like Ron Paul has half of the equation. I am not aware of his having a firm commitment to either the fair tax or the flat tax. I have enough understanding of the fair tax to know that I like it.

I don't really know much about the flat tax. Is it not also a direct tax like the current income tax system?

From what I know of Ron Paul, he appears to be a Libertarian rather than a Republican. I like it when a Republican leans toward Libertarianism, but I would not want to live in a truely libertarian modern America. That was a good plan for frontier America, but not where we have an interconnected commerce and urbanization.

At the same time, I think it would be very beneficial to have a sizable minority of Libertarians in congress. A Libertarian as president would be alright as long as it was not so powerful a force as to transform the U.S. into a Libertarian dominated country. I would much rather live in a Libertarian country than Socialist or Communist.

If Mike Huckabee were President, and able to move the country toward trading the 16th amendment for the fair tax, this would bring us closer to a nation that could operate under Libertarian ideals (if the Libertarians could gain power).

There is a Republican debate today. Will you be tuning in?

Unless Ron Paul can snatch a lot of support away from the front runners, I don't see his candidacy going anywhere. If Huckabee won would you be able to support him in the general election? If Giuliani or Romney (would not support the repeal of the 16th amendment) won the party nomination would you support them in the general election?

As for me, I support Huckabee. I don't know if I could support either of the other two. I would probably have to search for a third party.

[f80]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I watched the debate carefully (the youtube debate). Huckabee didn't say that he believed every word in the bible.

Huckabee said something like "When the Bible reads, 'If your eye offends you, pluck it out' it is obviously allegorical. You would not take it literally." He also said something to the effect that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that he does not claim to understand all of it, and he doesn't expect to understand it all.

This is also my point of view as a Christian. I think it is the view of most Christians.

dr325 thanks for clearing up the Huckabee thing.

scottwww, if some things in the bible are allegorical and some should be taken literally, WHO decides which is which? You? Your priest?

It seems to me that science is revealing that more and more bible fantasy stories are nonsense and it would be downright embarrassing and morally wrong to live by every word in the bible.

So, Christians pick and choose what is right and what is wrong in the bible. In the end it is up to each individual to determine their moral values. Well, you don't need religion for that. I'm not religious and I know what's right and what’s not.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by e90im

In the end it is up to each individual to determine their moral values. Well, you don't need religion for that. I'm not religious and I know what's right and what’s not.

Great! That alone does not mean that our politics are incompatible or on different sides. As for me, of the 17 candidates Mike Huckabee most closely resembles my point of view. There are others who could represent me, but not as precisely.

Do you support any of these candidates?

[Becksgold]

I have just heard Glen Frey singing "Hotel California" on you tube... He should be president...

[Neurorad]

Hey Scott, where've you been?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Hey Scott, where've you been?

I had just gotten burned out on forums. But I am interested in the race to the presidency and needed to talk about it.

[f80]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Great! That alone does not mean that our politics are incompatible or on different sides. As for me, of the 17 candidates Mike Huckabee most closely resembles my point of view. There are others who could represent me, but not as precisely.

Do you support any of these candidates?

Not yet. Why bother now? In our great country we have only 2 choices at the end. I'll wait and then choose one that is less likely to further drag us into the hole.

[scottwww]

Apparently Alan Keyes jumped into the race. It's too little too late. I supported him eight years ago, but it went nowhere. This time I am supporting one who actually has a chance.

[sstarch1]

Originally Posted by dr325i

That's all cool but same as some may have liked the independent candidate better than GW or Kerry last time... No point to promote him as he has no chance. It is obvious that no matter who comes to the WH will have to ballance and control the budget and unfortunately, if you had basic algebra (or simply additions and subtractions) that will not be doable withour raising taxes. Politicians can BS whatever they want during the campaign, but we're in deep sh*t financially and the worst is not even felt yet.

You dont have to raise taxes what so ever. You have to cut USELESS Governemnt entities like the 170 foreign bases, the golabl military empire, the Iraq War, the IRS, the Department of Energy, Agriculture, Education, commerce, on and on and on......


Do some research and find out how much of YOUR money goes to WASTE.

[sstarch1]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Mike Huckabee also strongly advocates repealing the 16th amendment. The fair tax could not be an effective replacement and would be a mistake if the 16th amendment were to remain in place.

It looks like Ron Paul has half of the equation. I am not aware of his having a firm commitment to either the fair tax or the flat tax. I have enough understanding of the fair tax to know that I like it.

I don't really know much about the flat tax. Is it not also a direct tax like the current income tax system?

From what I know of Ron Paul, he appears to be a Libertarian rather than a Republican. I like it when a Republican leans toward Libertarianism, but I would not want to live in a truely libertarian modern America. That was a good plan for frontier America, but not where we have an interconnected commerce and urbanization.

At the same time, I think it would be very beneficial to have a sizable minority of Libertarians in congress. A Libertarian as president would be alright as long as it was not so powerful a force as to transform the U.S. into a Libertarian dominated country. I would much rather live in a Libertarian country than Socialist or Communist.

If Mike Huckabee were President, and able to move the country toward trading the 16th amendment for the fair tax, this would bring us closer to a nation that could operate under Libertarian ideals (if the Libertarians could gain power).

There is a Republican debate today. Will you be tuning in?

Unless Ron Paul can snatch a lot of support away from the front runners, I don't see his candidacy going anywhere. If Huckabee won would you be able to support him in the general election? If Giuliani or Romney (would not support the repeal of the 16th amendment) won the party nomination would you support them in the general election?

As for me, I support Huckabee. I don't know if I could support either of the other two. I would probably have to search for a third party.

I honestly to the bottom of my heart and soul cannon support anyone other than Ron Paul. Why? Because everyone else has no principles and is what they call....:drumroll: a politician.

Ron Paul's record in congress is impecable with everything he speaks about, you know where he stands on every single issue. Period. Lobbyist dont even approach him because they know it will be to NO EFFECT. Can anyone say that about any other candidate?

As for no chance? I wouldnt be so sure my friend. Already in the 4th quarter he has out rasied EVERY republican candidate, and this coming decemebr 16th, there will be a HUGE fundraiser that Ron Paul has nothing to do with. Thats right, just like the 4.3 million dollars people raised for Ron Paul on November 5th, this December 16th will be even bigger, and once again Ron Paul has NOTHING to do with it....

Now thats what i call grassroots support. And those "polls" that probably lead you to believe that Dr. Ron Paul has no chance are from Republic voters in the last election, not democrats (i was one) not indipendants, and obviously no from anyone who has never voted before.

People are moving their entire families to New Hampshire and Iowa to go Door to Door....its incredibly amazing how so many people from all walks of life has come out to support the message of freedom and liberty....

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by sstarch1

I honestly to the bottom of my heart and soul cannon support anyone other than Ron Paul. Why? Because everyone else has no principles and is what they call....:drumroll: a politician. ....

Ron Paul is not my ideal president, but if he won the Republican nomination I would vote for him. He is better than any of the candidates on the Democrat side.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by sstarch1

You dont have to raise taxes what so ever. You have to cut USELESS Governemnt entities like the 170 foreign bases, the golabl military empire, the Iraq War, the IRS, the Department of Energy, Agriculture, Education, commerce, on and on and on......


Do some research and find out how much of YOUR money goes to WASTE.

Ideally, yes, but the money was wasted for 100 years and no one was able to "cut the waste"...therefore...add and subtract...

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Ideally, yes, but the money was wasted for 100 years and no one was able to "cut the waste"...therefore...add and subtract...

I'm not sure what you were trying to say there. What it comes down to is this: the federal government has grown way too much over the last 100 years. The next 100 years must see a reversal of that.

What the states do with their power of self-determination will serve as example to each other state. Some will rise and some will fade.

Unlike the Libertarian, I believe the federal government has responsibility for some things that are not explicitly outlined in the constitution. One easy example to describe would be the interstate highway system. If you, or a trucker, needed to drive from California to Illinois, in a Libertarian nation you could run into a state that didn't want to maintain a public highway. If there were a highway worth driving on, it would be a toll road. Drivers would avoid that state if it were better to go around it. I would rather not have to go around it.

Similarly, there are other services that should be maintained by the federal government. These would include international airports, seaports, border security, military, U.S. embassies, prisons, justice department, national parks, patent offices, secret service, radio frequencies, space program, disaster response, drug regulation, immigration control, treasury, and certainly many more that did not immediately come to mind.

The other items that are not of vital national interest, or to promote the general welfare, or to protect the rights of citizens should in most cases be left entirely to the states to maintain or abolish. I would hope to live in a state that would take the responsibility, be responsive to their electorate, and adopt the best examples of other states' experience to effectively and efficiently govern.

Because of the greater leeway in what happens in a state, some would be essentially Libertarian, some perhaps Socialist, some Republican, some Democrat. Let's see what prospers and where people would choose to live.

[scottwww]

I watched today's Republican debate on TiVo. It was rather boring.

I hope the Democrats have a more interesting debate tomorrow. That might be more difficult to do without Kucinich. He is such a nut case, he adds a good deal of levity to the seriousness. Also, Gravel won't be there. I don't even know who he is.

It would be great to see Mrs. Clinton and Obama tear each other apart. That's what gets the attention and the headlines, and somehow advances the race.

In todays debate, nothing really happened. So what...Romney looked presidential. Huckabee faded a little. In any case, it was forgettable and may not affect the outcome of the caucus. Giuliani seemed rather absent from the debate and didn't make any impression. He wouldn't do well in Iowa in any case. Probably the most interesting thing was that Alan Keyes appeared in the debate. He made Ron Paul look well reasoned and coherent by comparison.

The format of the debate was really at fault. There wasn't any time to have a meaningful discussion. Too many people and 30 to 60 seconds each. It was a waste.

[scottwww]

While speaking of Kucinich, have a look at this. I never heard about this huge embarrassment for the Democrats in the US House of Representatives. It is no surprise that the liberal press never picked it up. This really is significant if the story is true. It completely blows away what the Democrats have been saying for years and shows how they are completely devoid of sincerity in their arguments.

11/7/2007
DENNIS KUCINICH - A MERRY PRANKSTER
CATEGORY: Politics, Decision '08

Dennis Kucinich is just old enough to have been one of Ken Kesey’s “Merry Pranksters” – those wild and crazy post-beat generation prophets of the psychedelic age whose cross country trip on a bus named “Further” has captured the imaginations of rebels and reprobates for 40 years.

Immortalized in one of the most manic, most hilarious books of the 1960’s, The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test by Tom Wolfe, the Pranksters made it their business to try and alter the consciousness of America by getting everyone to drop acid and turn on to the psychedelic experience. The Pranksters themselves were quite the crew. “Pranking” unsuspecting citizens from coast to coast with elaborate hoaxes, the Prankster’s in your face method of revolutionary activity made them all seem larger than life.

Kucinich may not be quite ready to contaminate the Congressional water supply by dumping LSD into the cisterns. But he’s got a great head start on trying to alter reality:

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich expressed satisfaction Tuesday with a series of procedural twists on the House floor that resulted in the Ohio congressman’s impeachment articles against Vice President Dick Cheney being sent for committee review.

A series of strategic maneuvers on both sides of the partisan aisle ended with a 218-194 vote along party lines to deliver the impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, the panel of jurisdiction for such matters.
“This vote sends a message that the administration’s conduct in office is no longer unchallenged,” Kucinich said after the vote.

The vote also sends the message that Dennis Kucinich is a certified loon. And his Democratic colleagues, scrambling like hell to avoid being lumped together with the Shirley McClaine of the House, tried desperately to avoid the impeachment issue alltogether by trying to kill the resolution outright. Alas, the Republicans decided not to be Pranked by their opponents and pulled a fast one:

Republicans, changing course midway through a vote, tried to force Democrats into a debate on the resolution sponsored by longshot presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

The anti-war Ohio Democrat, in his resolution, accused Cheney of purposely leading the country into war against Iraq and manipulating intelligence about Iraq’s ties with al-Qaida.

The GOP tactics reversed what had been expected to be an overwhelming vote to table, or kill, the resolution.

Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes to kill the resolution to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

At one point there were 290 votes to table. After the turnaround, the final vote was 251-162 against tabling, with 165 Republicans voting against it.

“We’re going to help them out, to explain themselves,” said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. “We’re going to give them their day in court.”

The exquisite irony of watching Democrats fall all over themselves trying to kill impeachment after spending most of the last 7 years accusing Bush/Cheney of the most dire impeachable offenses was almost too delicious to watch. It showed the Democrats to be shallow political hacks, eager and capable of using rhetoric to undermine the presidency during a time of war but without the balls to match their actions to their words.

A truly pitiful performance.

Once again, I issue a challenge to those Democrats. If Bush/Cheney are truly guilty of all that you have charged them with over the last 7 years, stop talking and start acting. You own Congress now. There’s no real excuse you can use to delay any further. You have it in your power – not to mention an eager beaver Judiciary Committee Chairman in John Conyers – to begin serious, substantive hearings on everything you have accused this administration of doing for the last 7 years which would, if your rhetoric can be believed, lead to Articles of Impeachment being sent to the House floor.

If you are not willing to do so, STFU. Your apocalyptic rhetoric about the perceived sins of this Administration doesn’t match reality. It never has and never will. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the speechifying and wailing and gnashing of teeth has been nothing more than pandering to your rabid dog base of internet extremists. And the way they are turning on you today should tell you all you need to know about the viability of that strategy.

Kucinich is serious about impeachment because he is deranged. The rest of you may be more grounded in the reality found on this planet but nevertheless should be taken to task for your shameless, shallow political gamesmanship that has done almost as much damage to the United States as the Administration’s incompetence.

The fact that you won’t recognize that by either putting your votes where your mouths have been or toning down the rhetoric to a more civilized level of discourse reveals yourselves to be a collective of scumbags, unworthy of holding high office with responsibility for the safety and security of the American people.

By all rights, 2008 should be a hugely Democratic year. I daresay your actions yesterday along with other indications of your unfitness to be in the majority may yet save the GOP from disaster.

And if that happens, you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves.

By: Rick Moran at 8:11 am

[scottwww]

One last thing from me tonight. In the Democrat debate tomorrow, I would think it would be worse for Obama without Kucinich there. His presense made Obama look reasonable in prior debates. Now Obama will be the extreme leftist on the stage.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

One last thing from me tonight. In the Democrat debate tomorrow, I would think it would be worse for Obama without Kucinich there. His presense made Obama look reasonable in prior debates. Now Obama will be the extreme leftist on the stage.

I think you're watching too much TV and believe too much of it...
Debates are pure propaganda, have nothing to do what will happen when they get elected...and the propaganda is getting dirier every day...

[sstarch1]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I'm not sure what you were trying to say there. What it comes down to is this: the federal government has grown way too much over the last 100 years. The next 100 years must see a reversal of that.

What the states do with their power of self-determination will serve as example to each other state. Some will rise and some will fade.

Unlike the Libertarian, I believe the federal government has responsibility for some things that are not explicitly outlined in the constitution. One easy example to describe would be the interstate highway system. If you, or a trucker, needed to drive from California to Illinois, in a Libertarian nation you could run into a state that didn't want to maintain a public highway. If there were a highway worth driving on, it would be a toll road. Drivers would avoid that state if it were better to go around it. I would rather not have to go around it.

Similarly, there are other services that should be maintained by the federal government. These would include international airports, seaports, border security, military, U.S. embassies, prisons, justice department, national parks, patent offices, secret service, radio frequencies, space program, disaster response, drug regulation, immigration control, treasury, and certainly many more that did not immediately come to mind.

The other items that are not of vital national interest, or to promote the general welfare, or to protect the rights of citizens should in most cases be left entirely to the states to maintain or abolish. I would hope to live in a state that would take the responsibility, be responsive to their electorate, and adopt the best examples of other states' experience to effectively and efficiently govern.

Because of the greater leeway in what happens in a state, some would be essentially Libertarian, some perhaps Socialist, some Republican, some Democrat. Let's see what prospers and where people would choose to live.

I think we agree on many issues... i could pick and choose the departments/agencies that you mentioned above to agree or disagree with, but i am mostly in agreeance with you.

While i do not know what you base your determination of what the fed needs to be involved in, while i dont mind Ron Paul's position that its "whetever is in the consitution", for me, i ask, "how effective and how efficient is it?"

I think if you ask that question of the department of x,y,z..etc, you realize that large federal programs are much less efficient and or effective that i would expect them to be, e.g. FEMA, Homeland Security, Education, etc.

I think many of those agencies should have a mostly if not ALL state based governance with potentially a federal "oversight".