LDS Freedom Forum

liberty_belle wrote:Ron Paul: Not it in it for power

Sorry, I cant seem to get the whole embed code for some reason when I click on the clip

Face the Nation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTXwoWdi ... r_embedded

Money????

Jason wrote:

liberty_belle wrote:Ron Paul: Not it in it for power

Sorry, I cant seem to get the whole embed code for some reason when I click on the clip

Face the Nation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTXwoWdi ... r_embedded

Money????

Idiot????


(Ron Paul has been returning his lucrative Congressional pension, as well as his unused office expense account, to the US treasury for over 30 years. He has never taken a government-paid junket, or voted to raise congressional pay.

Of course he is in it for money!)

Jason wrote:

liberty_belle wrote:Ron Paul: Not it in it for power

Sorry, I cant seem to get the whole embed code for some reason when I click on the clip

Face the Nation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTXwoWdi ... r_embedded

Money????

Jason, try as you might, you cannot make Ron Paul a bad guy. I think Loveistruth pretty much summed it all up. I get the feeling you would have been one of those that tried to make Joseph Smith out to be an insider because he descend from one of the 13 bloodlines and was a Freemason.....

....moving along, there is nothing to see here

Jason wrote:pie in the sky

What you call "pie in the sky" is the truth as it exists in God, and until you accept it you will forever remain a slave and be forced to pay the price of your own enslavement.

LoveIsTruth wrote:

Jason wrote:

liberty_belle wrote:Ron Paul: Not it in it for power

Money????

Idiot????


(Ron Paul has been returning his lucrative Congressional pension, as well as his unused office expense account, to the US treasury for over 30 years. He has never taken a government-paid junket, or voted to raise congressional pay.

Of course he is in it for money!)

Lucrative Congressional pension???? Useful idiot....wages are chump change when you can trade on the stock market with insider information (as in knowing what and where government funds will be spent - as well as being in on the decisions).....legally!!!

The pension amount is determined by a formula that takes into account the years served and the average pay for the top three years in terms of payment. In 2002, the average pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000. For example, a member of Congress who worked for 22 years and had a top three-year average salary of $153,900 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,645 per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...that said to Ron Paul's credit he's been vocal about putting an end to the legal insider trading (of course that's after it breaks mainstream media and has been going on for decades with very little to anything said about it)...

*****Why Mainstream Media Wants The Congressional Insider Trading Story To Die*****
http://www.marketskeptics.com/2011/11/w ... die-2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here at Total Return, we’ve looked at hundreds of the annual financial-disclosure forms in which the members of Congress reveal their assets and trades – and we’ve never seen a more unorthodox portfolio than Ron Paul’s. (In fact, The Wall Street Journal revealed problematic trading in Congress more than a year and a half before the “60 Minutes” episode that recently raised a ruckus over the same topic, but that’s another matter.)

According to data available through his 2010 “Form A” financial disclosure statement, filed last May, Rep. Paul’s portfolio is valued between $2.44 million and $5.46 million. (Congressional disclosures are given in ranges, not precise amounts.)

Most members of Congress, like many Americans, hold some real estate, a few bonds or bond mutual funds, some individual stocks and a bundle of stock funds. Give or take a few percentage points, a typical Congressional portfolio might have 10% in cash, 10% in bonds or bond funds, 20% in real estate, and 60% in stocks or stock funds.

But Ron Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different. It’s shockingly different.

Yes, about 21% of Rep. Paul’s holdings are in real estate and roughly 14% in cash. But he owns no bonds or bond funds and has only 0.1% in stock funds. Furthermore, the stock funds that Rep. Paul does own are all “short,” or make bets against, U.S. stocks. One is a “double inverse” fund that, on a daily basis, goes up twice as much as its stock benchmark goes down.

The remainder of Rep. Paul’s portfolio – fully 64% of his assets – is entirely in gold and silver mining stocks. He owns no Apple, no ExxonMobil, no Procter & Gamble, no General Electric, no Johnson & Johnson, not even a diversified mutual fund that holds a broad basket of stocks. Rep. Paul doesn’t own stock in any major companies at all except big precious-metals stocks like Barrick Gold, Goldcorp and Newmont Mining.

Rep. Paul also owns 23 other miners – many of them smaller, Canadian-based “juniors” whose stocks are highly risky. Ten of these stocks have total market valuations of less than $500 million, a common definition of a “microcap” stock. Mr. Paul has between $100,010 and $326,000 (roughly 5% of his assets) invested in these tiny, extremely volatile stocks.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... en&strip=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Over the last few weeks, we’ve visited Congressman Ron Paul’s investment portfolio more than once.

According to his 2010 financial-disclosure form, the most recent one available, the Republican presidential candidate has most of his investments in the stock of gold-mining companies—in addition to other holdings in real estate, cash and “short” funds that rise in value as stock prices fall.

But the most peculiar thing might be what we didn’t find listed: holdings of gold bullion or coins. That would seem to contrast with Rep. Paul’s public statements on his investment strategy.

Rep. Paul’s advocacy of holding gold is well-documented, and it wouldn’t surprise anyone if he held a significant investment in the physical stuff.

If he does have gold, he’s not listing it on his financial-disclosure forms, which members of congress must file annually. It could be a simple oversight, or Rep. Paul might have indeed unloaded his entire bullion holding just in time to miss a huge runup in gold. Or, he might just think that he doesn’t have to disclose it. A spokeswoman for Rep. Paul didn’t respond to several requests seeking comment.

Could he have sold them all? Sure. But even though Rep. Paul stopped reporting coin holdings in 2002, he continued to say he owned them in interviews. In an interview with Fox Business Network in 2010, for example, he had this exchange at about the 1:35 mark:

Host: Congressman, do you buy the coins or do you invest in gold-mining shares or do you put your money into a gold mutual fund? How do you do it?

Paul: I over the years have bought coins because I like to, you know, have possession, but no, I’ll buy some gold shares too. Now that’s closer to an investment, because you’re dealing with management and, you know, dealing with…maybe they hit a strike. So that’s an investment and you have to evaluate it. But coins and buying gold … I see it as not so much buying gold and betting on the price of gold going up but betting on our government ruining the value of our money.

That interview would seem to suggest that he still owned and bought coins in 2010.

Experts we spoke to said that it was their understanding that members of congress have to disclose gold and coin holdings.

Incidentally, if Rep. Paul had had gold holdings worth $100,000 at the end of 2002, when gold traded at around $350 per ounce, it’d be worth around $476,000 now. An investment toward the upper end of the reporting range ($250,000) would be worth almost $1.2 million.

http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/0 ... auls-gold/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Records Show Ron Paul Trips Paid Twice
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_90/Re ... 118-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

liberty_belle wrote:

Jason wrote:

liberty_belle wrote:Ron Paul: Not it in it for power

Sorry, I cant seem to get the whole embed code for some reason when I click on the clip

Face the Nation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTXwoWdi ... r_embedded

Money????

Jason, try as you might, you cannot make Ron Paul a bad guy. I think Loveistruth pretty much summed it all up. I get the feeling you would have been one of those that tried to make Joseph Smith out to be an insider because he descend from one of the 13 bloodlines and was a Freemason.....

....moving along, there is nothing to see here

LOL....what a crock of crap! Because I've gotten serious about vetting Ron Paul....of which 95% of the information I've provided has yet to be contested....now suddenly I'm against Joseph Smith???

Might check that view in the mirror.....

In the mean time I ask just one question - Who's he lying to??? You....or the Peter Thiel's, Grover Norquist's, and Lewis Lehrman's of the world???

Jason wrote:
LOL....what a crock of crap! Because I've gotten serious about vetting Ron Paul....of which 95% of the information I've provided has yet to be contested....now suddenly I'm against Joseph Smith???

Might check that view in the mirror.....

In the mean time I ask just one question - Who's he lying to??? You....or the Peter Thiel's, Grover Norquist's, and Lewis Lehrman's of the world???

I respect your opinions as a poster, Jason. I've enjoyed your Blipits and other contributions to the forum, and the research you do to support them. I trust your sincerity and have no reason to doubt the information you provide (beyond that most information these days is slanted one way or another).

That said, I'm a bit surprised by the vehemence with which you're going after Ron Paul. It seems kind of out of the blue, since before a couple weeks ago you didn't really have much to say one way or another. I've found that such hostility usually comes from an emotional response, not a reasoned position. Is there some way Ron Paul offended you that caused this crusade, or something specific you found out that turned you off so violently?

Fairminded wrote:

Jason wrote:
LOL....what a crock of crap! Because I've gotten serious about vetting Ron Paul....of which 95% of the information I've provided has yet to be contested....now suddenly I'm against Joseph Smith???

Might check that view in the mirror.....

In the mean time I ask just one question - Who's he lying to??? You....or the Peter Thiel's, Grover Norquist's, and Lewis Lehrman's of the world???

I respect your opinions as a poster, Jason. I've enjoyed your Blipits and other contributions to the forum, and the research you do to support them. I trust your sincerity and have no reason to doubt the information you provide (beyond that most information these days is slanted one way or another).

That said, I'm a bit surprised by the vehemence with which you're going after Ron Paul. It seems kind of out of the blue, since before a couple weeks ago you didn't really have much to say one way or another. I've found that such hostility usually comes from an emotional response, not a reasoned position. Is there some way Ron Paul offended you that caused this crusade, or something specific you found out that turned you off so violently?

Perhaps I'm out of line....but yes I'm extremely disappointed in Ron Paul based on the information I have discovered. I had him on a pedestal and put hard earned money behind him last go around....as well as touting him to just about everyone I knew for many years....from 2006/2007 up until a couple weeks ago (still thought he was the best option there despite some minor flaws).

Prior to a couple weeks ago I had a few minor issues that irritated me like the way the excess campaign funds from the last go-around were spent....and how all that was handled (talk within his group of creating a for-profit publishing company with some of the funds a month or two prior to him backing out of the race). Anyways for the most part it was minor irritations. Then Semp provided some thoughts and made some statements so I decided to do a deep dive and either prove him wrong or right. Turns out he was right and called it 100% to the best of my knowledge thus far.

As far as specifics to my change of heart/discussion/research....I think it basically comes down to a summary perspective (based on all of the research)...and associated realization....that not only was his libertarian theories and associated agenda not what I had previously thought (a big banker funded fraud)....but if actually implemented would be the final take over shot by the globalists. He would destroy this country right down to the foundation. So yeah now I have serious questions about how much he's bought off and how insidious it gets. At least with Obama (despite a few clouds over his history) in a couple google runs you pretty much knew his CIA background story with mentors like Frank Davis - "Sex Rebel: Black". Ron Paul is at a whole different level. Either he is very naive and well intentioned...or insidious to a whole new dimension. To each their own on judgement....my conspiratorial hat may be on a little too tight...

A bit discouraging if he really does have bad intentions. A lot of people call him the "last hope for America". If he's gone I guess that's that for the country.

Of course, I believe the MDGs have such total control at this point that any attempts to change things within the system would ultimately be manipulated to their advantage.

Jason wrote:

LoveIsTruth wrote:Prove it. Where did I do that? In fact I said that using another's work without proper compensation was immoral. So I said exactly the opposite of what you are accusing me of!

....yeah you said this -

2) I never said that creator of information should have no compensation. I said that there are proper and improper ways to achieve that compensation. Again, the proper way, consistent with fundamental principles of liberty and with scripture is: 1) Use the information yourself; 2) Secure contract of first use; 3) ask for donations. The improper way is to use force upon your neighbor.

...and I said this -

How exactly can you accomplish #3 when you fail at #2?



If no one respects IP then you go back to the dark ages because you can't adequately secure contract of first use because you can't get adequately compensated for it......which means you don't eat and your family doesn't eat.....which means you work on something else that will put food on the table.....which means the IP never gets invented.....which means nobody benefits from it!

Put a price on the 1st music cd sale if that buyer then makes a copy and distributes to the world for free.....and then try to get someone to purchase that cd for that price!

....again I reiterate to your regurgitation.....pie in the sky until it comes to application (especially in a wicked society). But you'll continue to insist that these hypothesis' of yours are fundamental principles (although never actually applied successfully) and that they automatically equate to FREEDOM and LIBERTY no matter what the real implications are.....which boils down to the similitude of.....a couple of guys asking "how is this teaching being received?"...."very well....EXCEPT...this man does not believe what is being taught"....oh yeah...received very well indeed.

Sort of like recommending privatizing the military, education, TSA, FAA, etc etc etc (the election system for government ???)....all while spouting off that we need to get rid of the "privatized" (Federal Reserve and fractional private banking) money creation system....

....and you respond to such criticism with more pie-

But it will cultivate morals much better than a government monopoly....In a free market people will put an end to it quick. (New York minute.)

...but fail to address actual history...

Agree to disagree with your New York minute....please look up the history of Private military companies (PMCs)/ Private Security Companies (PSCs) like DynCorp - now owned by Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), Blackwater/Xe/Academi, Halliburton, L3 via subsidiary MPRI, BAE Systems - part owned by Carlyle Group which was/is Bush & Bin Laden investment firm, Vinnell - now owned by Northrop but before that by TRW Systems and before that by the Carlyle Group, Executive Outcomes part of the South African-based holding company Strategic Resource Corporation, Sandline International and Rubicon International Services now part of Aegis Defence Services....

...to each their own...we definitely have different definitions of "theft" as well as "liberty" and "freedom". Cue rampant venomous response of "liar" "statist" "grow up" "blind" "weakness" "damned" "tyrant" etc etc etc...

Agree to disagree!!!

Time will tell the story on how this -
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 40#p265538" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...plays out! For better or worse....

Jason, you always say what I wish I could! :ymapplause:

Oops! Don't know how I do this.

Juliette wrote:

Fairminded wrote:

Jason wrote:
LOL....what a crock of crap! Because I've gotten serious about vetting Ron Paul....of which 95% of the information I've provided has yet to be contested....now suddenly I'm against Joseph Smith???

Might check that view in the mirror.....

In the mean time I ask just one question - Who's he lying to??? You....or the Peter Thiel's, Grover Norquist's, and Lewis Lehrman's of the world???

I respect your opinions as a poster, Jason. I've enjoyed your Blipits and other contributions to the forum, and the research you do to support them. I trust your sincerity and have no reason to doubt the information you provide (beyond that most information these days is slanted one way or another).

Fairminded, Just adding my 2 cents worth. I think Jason conducts himself very well. He states the facts and doesn't play into the name calling. I don't think it would be pretty if I was called a "Liar" etc. There is no need for that.

That said, I'm a bit surprised by the vehemence with which you're going after Ron Paul. It seems kind of out of the blue, since before a couple weeks ago you didn't really have much to say one way or another. I've found that such hostility usually comes from an emotional response, not a reasoned position. Is there some way Ron Paul offended you that caused this crusade, or something specific you found out that turned you off so violently?

Fairminded, just adding my 2 cents worth. I think Jason has conducted himself very well. It wouldn't be pretty if I were called the names he has been called. "Liar" etc. Jason states the facts. love is the one being irrational. I think its because Jason always proves him wrong. Them temper overrides facts. Just once, I would like to see a Ron Paul follower tell another one, to calm down. Instead of asking Jason to calm down. I just telling it the way I see it.

Juliette wrote:

Fairminded wrote:

Jason wrote:
LOL....what a crock of crap! Because I've gotten serious about vetting Ron Paul....of which 95% of the information I've provided has yet to be contested....now suddenly I'm against Joseph Smith???

Might check that view in the mirror.....

In the mean time I ask just one question - Who's he lying to??? You....or the Peter Thiel's, Grover Norquist's, and Lewis Lehrman's of the world???

I respect your opinions as a poster, Jason. I've enjoyed your Blipits and other contributions to the forum, and the research you do to support them. I trust your sincerity and have no reason to doubt the information you provide (beyond that most information these days is slanted one way or another).

Fairminded, Just adding my 2 cents worth. I think Jason conducts himself very well. He states the facts and doesn't play into the name calling. I don't think it would be pretty if I was called a "Liar" etc. There is no need for that.

That said, I'm a bit surprised by the vehemence with which you're going after Ron Paul. It seems kind of out of the blue, since before a couple weeks ago you didn't really have much to say one way or another. I've found that such hostility usually comes from an emotional response, not a reasoned position. Is there some way Ron Paul offended you that caused this crusade, or something specific you found out that turned you off so violently?

I am picturing a crock of crap! Ewwwwww! Good description Jason!

Jason wrote:

Fairminded wrote:

Jason wrote:
LOL....what a crock of crap! Because I've gotten serious about vetting Ron Paul....of which 95% of the information I've provided has yet to be contested....now suddenly I'm against Joseph Smith???

Might check that view in the mirror.....

In the mean time I ask just one question - Who's he lying to??? You....or the Peter Thiel's, Grover Norquist's, and Lewis Lehrman's of the world???

I respect your opinions as a poster, Jason. I've enjoyed your Blipits and other contributions to the forum, and the research you do to support them. I trust your sincerity and have no reason to doubt the information you provide (beyond that most information these days is slanted one way or another).

That said, I'm a bit surprised by the vehemence with which you're going after Ron Paul. It seems kind of out of the blue, since before a couple weeks ago you didn't really have much to say one way or another. I've found that such hostility usually comes from an emotional response, not a reasoned position. Is there some way Ron Paul offended you that caused this crusade, or something specific you found out that turned you off so violently?

Perhaps I'm out of line....but yes I'm extremely disappointed in Ron Paul based on the information I have discovered. I had him on a pedestal and put hard earned money behind him last go around....as well as touting him to just about everyone I knew for many years....from 2006/2007 up until a couple weeks ago (still thought he was the best option there despite some minor flaws).

Prior to a couple weeks ago I had a few minor issues that irritated me like the way the excess campaign funds from the last go-around were spent....and how all that was handled (talk within his group of creating a for-profit publishing company with some of the funds a month or two prior to him backing out of the race). Anyways for the most part it was minor irritations. Then Semp provided some thoughts and made some statements so I decided to do a deep dive and either prove him wrong or right. Turns out he was right and called it 100% to the best of my knowledge thus far.

As far as specifics to my change of heart/discussion/research....I think it basically comes down to a summary perspective (based on all of the research)...and associated realization....that not only was his libertarian theories and associated agenda not what I had previously thought (a big banker funded fraud)....but if actually implemented would be the final take over shot by the globalists. He would destroy this country right down to the foundation. So yeah now I have serious questions about how much he's bought off and how insidious it gets. At least with Obama (despite a few clouds over his history) in a couple google runs you pretty much knew his CIA background story with mentors like Frank Davis - "Sex Rebel: Black". Ron Paul is at a whole different level. Either he is very naive and well intentioned...or insidious to a whole new dimension. To each their own on judgement....my conspiratorial hat may be on a little too tight...

Thanks Jason! And No, you are not out of line. Truth cuts it's own way and is never popular. And it's a big-time low blow to equate your own research and findings to that you would have been one of those that tried to make Joseph Smith out to be an insider because he descend from one of the 13 bloodlines and was a Freemason. This is not cool in any way. What's ironic is some have said you have gone to far in defending Joseph Smith's good name. (Polygamy) If anything, I think Fairminded should point that finger else where.

Fairminded wrote:A bit discouraging if he really does have bad intentions. A lot of people call him the "last hope for America". If he's gone I guess that's that for the country.

A lot of people call him the "last hope for America"? Well, there are no political saviors. If he's gone I guess that's that for the country? Not so wise to put your trust in the arm of flesh. Repentance and forgiveness is the last hope for America. And the only one who will be doing any saving is our Savior who saves the righteous from the judgments of the wicked. Our awful situation will lead to the point where we literally need to be saved!!

Fairminded wrote: Of course, I believe the MDGs have such total control at this point that any attempts to change things within the system would ultimately be manipulated to their advantage.

Anyone who is a real threat and who actually attempts at exposing Satan's empire for what it really is, is put in a mental hospital, blackmailed, threatened, or killed. It is my belief that if Ron Paul was any threat whatsoever the is no way in hell he would be allowed to remain in House for the past 35 years. I have said it sense the day I showed up here that Ron Paul's audit is a lifetime pursuit of nothingness. A road that has lead to nowhere. Ron Paul's audit the fed has in no way been any threat to the establishment. And speaking of audit, why is there any need for an audit? The fed is un-constitutional! Why is he not demanding we uphold the constitution? Because an audit will lead to this? Screw an audit, let's follow the laws of the land. But that would require standing up to Satan's financial empire. Same thing with 9/11. It's almost funny to see loveistruth badmouthing, calling Bluemoon every name in the book for not believing 9/11 but when the one person who actually could do something doesn't is continually praised and compared with Jefferson. Same thing with Obama care.... Ron Paul has been very outspoken how bad Obama care is and how it will bankrupt us. But if he is so against it, and if it is so un-constitutional why is he not standing up like he has sworn an oath to do and demand the house republicans who have the power and end it today? The House republicans don't need one democrat vote to end Obama Care and Ron Paul is silent on the only way to end it. Silence is all I am hearing..... Ron Paul says Obama is constitutionally eligible, and is a constitutional expert. both lies. Obama is a communist radical who has deceived the American people all the way to White house. Every single thing Obama has signed since his inauguration is invalid. He does not have the authority. He is NOT eligible for president. And the highest court of the land, the media, ALL our representatives are all deeply involved in this scam. Maybe one of the great lies ever perpetrated on the American people. And Ron Paul has nothing to say. We want to change things we need to start demanding we uphold the rule of Law. Which Ron Paul is not doing. Unless we overturn everyone of Obama signatures America is gone. And the only way to do that is upholding the constitution and demand Obama is escorted out of the white house today and all these lies brought to light than.... But as Ron Paul has already said, "I don't want to be laughed out of congress." Anyone who stands up for the truth knows the truth is always mocked. And if being laughed at is more concern than upholding their oath to God to defend, protect, preserve the constitution against all enemies than what's the point in voting for him or putting all your trust in him. And that’s not even touching on his Austrian economics or his libertarian beliefs or his “perfect constitutional voting record" so many have been led to believe he has.

When one truly understands our awful situation than they will realize there are no political saviors. And we have been sold out by all our representatives.

“There is not one political candidate on the horizon who dares to tell the whole truth! Not one! Because the truth is WORK or perish! And that is not a very inviting campaign promise.” Ezra Taft Benson

IMO Ron Paul is not the exception. We need the whole truth! No one can ever be expected to make the correct choices if they don't have the correct history and facts.

All I can say (being on an iPhone) is that all the talk of freedom and liberty is wonderful and brings warm fuzzies, but we must also remember The founding father's saying about The Constitution being no worth for a people who are universally corrupt.

Track 2 baby. Learn how try each other justly & fairly in our dealings with our fellow man, while also learn how to rebuild a honest and free society after the Cleansing.

Juliette wrote:Jason states the facts. love is the one being irrational. I think its because Jason always proves him wrong.

Prove it. I will also assert that you have three noses (if no proof is required). Prove it Juliette. You got nothing except your word only. But truth speaks for itself!

LoveIsTruth wrote:Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Adams, Joseph Smith, and Ezra T. Benson, all agreed with Ron Paul on sound, 100% commodity based money.

But I don't really care for names. I care for Eternal and Fundamental Principles of Liberty, and these principles also agree with Ron Paul on the issue, which means God agrees with Ron Paul on the issue of sound money, and that matters to me (maybe not to you).

Truth speaks for itself!

SempiternalHarbinger wrote:Anyone who is a real threat and who actually attempts at exposing Satan's empire for what it really is, is put in a mental hospital, blackmailed, threatened, or killed.

So your beef with Ron Paul is that he hasn't been killed? Not very smart. Where will he do more for the cause of liberty in the grave? Not very smart at all! Apply that criteria to yourself, i.e. you work for the criminals because you are not dead yet! That is STUPID! And that's where your argument degenerated to!

SempiternalHarbinger wrote:And speaking of audit, why is there any need for an audit? The fed is un-constitutional! Why is he not demanding we uphold the constitution?

That is demonstratively and BLATANTLY FALSE! He has called for ending the Fed and done more for it than you. He even has a book "End the Fed" for crying out-loud! He has always said that auditing the Fed is for the purpose of exposing its crimes to the wider public as the first step to ending it! He has called and proposed legislation to legalized Freedom and to allow Free Competition in Currencies which would abolish the Fed in the most smooth and effective way. Ron Paul has done a hundred fold more for the cause of Liberty than you, and you are only barking at him, the man who teaches correct principles of Liberty supported by modern prophets (including Ezra T. Benson) and by God! Not very smart of you at all!

SempiternalHarbinger wrote:Because an audit will lead to this? Screw an audit, let's follow the laws of the land.

And Ron Paul is against it? Do you want him to pick up a gun and have a shoot out with the police? That is stupid! He has proposed legislation MULTIPLE times to abolish the Fed. That didn't pass. So he also proposed legislation to audit the Fed, IN ADDITION. Do you have a problem with that? Does not auditing it hastens its abolition which he proposed MULTIPLE TIMES? Are you angry with the man who does all in his power in the most effective way he knows how to advance the cause of Liberty? Will he be more useful in this regard dead or in jail? Do you want Liberty or just dead bodies? Which is more effective? Does he not do more for the cause of Liberty OUTSIDE OF jail? Why are YOU not in jail, you hypocrite!

SempiternalHarbinger wrote:Same thing with 9/11. It's almost funny to see loveistruth badmouthing, calling Bluemoon every name in the book for not believing 9/11 but when the one person who actually could do something doesn't is continually praised and compared with Jefferson. Same thing with Obama care.... Ron Paul has been very outspoken how bad Obama care is and how it will bankrupt us. But if he is so against it, and if it is so un-constitutional why is he not standing up like he has sworn an oath to do and demand the house republicans who have the power and end it today? The House republicans don't need one democrat vote to end Obama Care and Ron Paul is silent on the only way to end it. Silence is all I am hearing..... Ron Paul says Obama is constitutionally eligible, and is a constitutional expert. both lies.

I never said Ron Paul was perfect. But as pertaining to the Correct and Eternal Principles of Liberty he is almost perfect! He does the best he knows how to promote them. This is why I vote for Ron Paul.

SempiternalHarbinger wrote:Unless we overturn everyone of Obama signatures America is gone.

True, but you can overturn everyone of Obama's signatures, and America will still be gone, if it does not embrace The Correct Principles of Liberty. Ron Paul is doing MUCH more in that direction than any other politician running! And he does it out of jail much better than if his was in one!

SempiternalHarbinger wrote:IMO Ron Paul is not the exception. We need the whole truth! No one can ever be expected to make the correct choices if they don't have the correct history and facts.

You are wrong about Ron Paul. And you do NOT have the correct understanding of history and facts, because you throw out correct principles of liberty, because you do not understand them. Don't you understand that you can convince everyone in the country that 9-11 was an inside job and that Obama is an illegal alien, and still have a socialist state, unless the people UNDERSTAND and EMBRACE The Correct Principles of Liberty? Your emotions and passions get the better of you. You say you want Liberty but you do not understand WHAT IT IS! Therefore you cannot be effective in fighting for it, for how can you achieve something you cannot define? What is Liberty? Answer this precisely if you can. And then we will examine if Ron Paul is most effective of any one out there bring it to reality.

Answer this if you can: What is Liberty? (I don't think you can, because you do not know!) So find out first. Then we will talk strategy and who is effective at achieving it and who is not!

love is truth...

I found this article, interesting. I might add that nothing you say penetrates my mind. You say " Stupid" "Liar" etc. That makes me NOT want to listen to you. Why so much anger? Can't you express your views without calling names? I don't understand why you get away with this. Some of the Ron Paul people had really made me stop and think. I actually have been enlightened to what a great man he is. But you, you make me want to fight. This is the wrong approach!!

What Is Liberty? Does It Matter?

March 16th, 2011 · Julian Sanchez


The recently-launched Bleeding Heart Libertarians is rapidly becoming one of my favorite blogs. Jacob Levy, in particular, has been articulating with uncanny clarity a whole cluster of thoughts that had been bouncing around the back of my own head for a few months now. But since agreement gets boring quickly, let me pick on one strain of argument that strikes me as less than fruitful. In one of the early posts on the blog, philosopher Jason Brennan writes:


If you’re going to philosophize about liberty, here are three questions to ask:

1. What is liberty?
2. What value does it have, if any?
3. What, if anything, should government or other institutions do about it?

The most intellectually honest way to deal with these questions is to answer them in this order.

Alas, most people who are interested in politics are more concerned with defending their turf and maintaining their sense of themselves than seeking the truth. So, it seems that most people reverse the order of these questions. They start with a predetermined conception of what government ought to do, and then come up with a theory of liberty and its value to fit and reinforce this conception.


This is the prelude to an ongoing series of posts that ask the question “What is liberty?“—and argue against the position that it should be conceived in primarily negative terms, as freedom from interference or constraint. Yet I doubt this is a particularly useful argument to have.


Let’s start with the claim above. It’s surely true that people often do a kind of hackish imitation of “philosophy” that’s little more than casting about for whatever “first principles” seem to rationalize their preexisting policy preferences, then pretend the policy preferences were arrived at by pure deduction from these abstract values. But it seems to me that the reason to criticize this tendency is precisely that it’s intellectually dishonest, not because the correct procedure is to really proceed by this kind of pure deduction from the abstract to the concrete. If that’s what Brennan means to suggest, it seems especially odd given that this is a group of writers who share an interest in fusing libertarian ideas with the theoretical insights of John Rawls. Because one place I’ve always thought Rawls was closer to the mark than many 20th century libertarian theorists was in his endorsement of the method of reflective equilibrium in ethical reasoning—a process of mutually revising higher-order principles and particular moral judgments in light of each other, without giving primacy to either, in order to arrive at a coherent view. On that approach, it seems perfectly admissible to let one’s ground-level moral judgments about government policies or social institutions inform one’s assessment of the weight or priority due the values implicated by those policies and institutions. A considered conviction that some policy or institution is morally repugnant seems like a perfectly good reason to reject—or certainly regard with extraordinary skepticism—any higher order framework that appears to permit it. And while Brennan’s probably right that it would just muddy the water to insist on using “liberty” in a way that applied it only to morally good things, the attempt to totally divorce the term from normative valence is itself in tension with the colloquial usage Brennan wants to invoke against those who prefer a restrictive (negative) definition of “liberty.” In ordinary language, calling a limitation on action a “denial of liberty” often does imply that the action in question is something the limited party would normally be morally entitled to do—or at least a member of a class of actions that are mostly morally permitted.


My own preference is to mostly use “liberty” in the negative sense for the purposes of political philosophy, and use more concrete terms (“wealth” or “opportunity” or “an adequate range of life options”) for the stuff normally grouped under the rubric of “positive liberties.” After all, domain-specific conversations often give terms more restrictive meanings than they have in all discursive contexts. (“I’m afraid I’ve taken quite a liberty…” is not normally a statement with political implications.) Again, this seems to me to be something Rawls got right: He was scarcely hostile to positive rights to a variety of “primary goods” but he still found it useful to distinguish between “basic liberties” (in the negative sense) and “the fair value of liberties.”


But hey, whatever! This is a matter of decision, not discovery. We can adopt whatever definition we like as long as all the participants in the conversation understand how the terms are being used. If someone thinks it’s illuminating to group certain goods as “positive liberties,” we can stipulate that for the sake of a particular conversation. Squabbling over terms mostly seems like a waste of time—better to just cut to the chase and get to the question of what sort of value the members of the class have, and what implications it has for policy.

Nice post Juliette. Defining Liberty is crucial if it is to be achieved.

Liberty IS Private Property.

(Private Property here is taken in the broadest sense possible: including you, your body, your mind, your speech, the fruits of your labor, etc.)

Taking this broadest possible sense of Private Property, you can see that It and Liberty are one and the same.

Private Property IS Liberty.

Juliette wrote:I might add that nothing you say penetrates my mind.

That is not a complement to you. I share the sentiment of Joseph Smith therefore as it pertains to this subject:

"The endowment you are so anxious about, you cannot comprehend now, nor could Gabriel explain it to the understanding of your dark minds; but strive to be prepared in your hearts, ..."
-- Joseph Smith

I think all the professional politicians need to repent. I supported Ron Paul as a possible delegate - and I lost. So I have to vote for somebody. Again, I have to hold my nose when I vote - assuming we really even get to vote in November (not using an electronic voting machine). I expect the POTUS will declare Martial Law and suspend the vote and declare himself/herself dictator. 1930's Germany all over again.

The political soap opera continues and our freedoms continue to be eroded.

pritchet1 wrote:I think all the professional politicians need to repent. I supported Ron Paul as a possible delegate - and I lost. So I have to vote for somebody. Again, I have to hold my nose when I vote - assuming we really even get to vote in November (not using an electronic voting machine). I expect the POTUS will declare Martial Law and suspend the vote and declare himself/herself dictator. 1930's Germany all over again.

The political soap opera continues and our freedoms continue to be eroded.

Thanks. The principles of Liberty do not change, however. They are Eternal. So as long as we stick with them we are in a good company and can have a perfect assurance that we will prevail by the power of God!

LoveIsTruth wrote:

Juliette wrote:Jason states the facts. love is the one being irrational. I think its because Jason always proves him wrong.

Prove it. I will also assert that you have three noses (if no proof is required). Prove it Juliette. You got nothing except your word only. But truth speaks for itself!

LoveIsTruth wrote:Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Adams, Joseph Smith, and Ezra T. Benson, all agreed with Ron Paul on sound, 100% commodity based money.

But I don't really care for names. I care for Eternal and Fundamental Principles of Liberty, and these principles also agree with Ron Paul on the issue, which means God agrees with Ron Paul on the issue of sound money, and that matters to me (maybe not to you).

Truth speaks for itself!

You say " Prove it, " Prove it". Jason and Semp have proved it to you. You don't listen. You have your brain so saturated with your beliefs, and won't listen to anybody! I cannot express myself the way Semp and Jason do. But I understand what they are saying. You don't convince me one bit. Sorry Love. I don't want to fight. But I will tell you this. I picture you standing in my face, while tapping my chest with your index finger screaming, prove it, prove it. I also picture myself calling my big brother on my cell phone, having him show up, and causing you to cry like a baby. Things in person are different.

Juliette wrote:You say " Prove it, " Prove it". Jason and Semp have proved it to you.

Just as much as you have "proven" things, which is 0.

Juliette wrote:You don't listen.

I do listen, and I have completely demolished all of their arguments.

Juliette wrote:You have your brain so saturated with your beliefs, and won't listen to anybody!

If I agreed with you guys we would all be wrong! I cannot compromise with Eternal Truth.

Juliette wrote:I cannot express myself the way Semp and Jason do. But I understand what they are saying. You don't convince me one bit. Sorry Love.

It does not make any difference. Truth is not left without an effect even if some don't believe it. Truth will have the last laugh, not you. Society can never have lasting peace and prosperity without just such principles that you will not let into your mind. This is not new. People have fought the truth for thousands of years. You are one of them, and you will fail. Truth will not.

Juliette wrote:I don't want to fight. But I will tell you this. I picture you standing in my face, while tapping my chest with your index finger screaming, prove it, prove it. I also picture myself calling my big brother on my cell phone, having him show up, and causing you to cry like a baby. Things in person are different.

Then picture me showing you and your brother my excellent gun collection too. You do not want to go there, I assure you! It will not end well for you. (As long as we are picturing things.)



Peace.

Ron Paul: "I am not a Goldman Sachs candidate, and am not a candidate for the military industrial complex!"

Romney is: Goldman Sachs is one of his top three donors.

Ron Paul's top three donors are the air-force, the army and the navy troops! (The ones that risk their lives, not the ones who make trillions on war and bloodshed.)

Ron Paul is the Peace candidate, and Liberty and Prosperity candidate too!