Steve, who will you support for president?

[Jonathan Browne]

I urge you to get behind a candidate in this extremely important election. I believe Ron Paul is americas hope for the future. There has not been a single republican leader that I have supported in the past, but he Ron Paul is a true conservative. Please look at his compelling and consistent stance on the issues.

This is the most honest and revolutionary presidential candidate in many years. I believe those who have influence on others must take this chance to truly effect our democracy and look carefully at what this man is advocating and the direction our country is moving. A return to small government, much more money in our pockets, and a president who truly believes in the ideals set forth by the framers of the constitution.

How do you feel about this candidate Steve??

[Love]

Hi Jonathon Browne.

I thought I read before that Steve was apolitical?
Or is that not so...?

[NotesMaeve]

Oh, Steve's writing me in.

[Sam988]

Did steve turn into some kind of god or something? Will you vote in whatever candidate steve votes? Why are you so interested in knowing who is steve going to vote for? You got an independent opinion, don't you?

I hope i misunderstood your thread, though.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Sam988

Did steve turn into some kind of god or something?

Quit sucking up to Steve will ya...
.

[Brutha]

I hope i misunderstood your thread, though.

The thread starter will support Ron Paul regardless of Steve supporting him. But he wants that Steve writes in his blog: "Go vote for Ron Paul"

I think apolitical is the wrong label. Steve is rather so far away in his position from both party's that he wouldn't vote for either.

I doubt that Steve would support someone who wants stronger borders and seperation in the world. I would rather think that Steve supports one-world ideals.

Then the big belief in free markets and properity is probably also not shared by Steve.

On Steve core issue of fear based politcis Ron Rohn is similar to other politicans.

Then a bit from my own point of view:
You shouldn't try to make politics in the 21st century with ideas from 1789. The goal should be instead by a borderless world where it doesn't matter whether you are born in the United States, in Mexico or in Africa.

Corporations do harmful things like populating the enviroment when they can do whatever they want with their capital. You need a state that can reduce the amount of harm that the free market can do.

Good public healtcare and good public education should be there for everyone regadless whether he is poor or wealty.

[Dan.Linehan]

Ron Paul is possibly the coolest and smartest person to ever run.

I'm a pretty big fan.

[ticktockclok]

Are you a socialist, Brutha?

My opinion? They're all a bunch of crooks. Lie to you, sweet talk you, then backstab you once they get in.

[Jill]

I don't pay attention to politics, but my 20 year old daughter is very much into it and heartily supports Ron Paul as well. She is a poster (Coriew) at The Ron Paul Beacon and has written some amazing posts!

[Jonathan Browne]

Oh yes, great idea. A world with no borders, no say, and government with absolute control over the people. I think all people with influence over a great number of peoples opinions(for instance steve pavlina) should be interested in keeping this country from advancing the agenda of a new world order.

I'm recommending that he look at the issues Ron Paul is advocating, and I think everyone else should too.

Don't you think it's in the best interests of those in control to convince people that enlightenment involves being 'apolitical' and living in a fantasy world where the actions of people of power doesn't matter?

The most enlightened people stood for causes and believed that one person can make a difference. Gandhi anyone?

We live in such a thoroughly brainwashed society that many people think being apolitical is a virtue and those that are political believe the only sensible stance is to go with the flow (vote along party lines), because voting based on truth will have no chance of winning.

[Jonathan Browne]

Brutha, I used to have the same position on a socialist government, and to a certain extent I think there is some merit there, but things need to be put back into balance. We need a radical return toward the principles which American was founded upon.

Maybe, as in the words of bush,to most people the constitution is, "just a goddamn piece of paper", but that was not it's intention.

The free market should not be interfered with. It is free as long as it does not encroach on the freedom of others. In a government following the principles of the constitution corporations damaging the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of individuals could be prosecuted in a court of law. The reason companies have managed to create powerful monopolies and be so damaging to the environment is almost always because of regulatory advantages and "intellectual property rights". This issue is hard to understand. Sensible intellectual property involves open source but protected source. If you build a car I shouldn't be able to go get your complete plans for everything from manufacturing to design and then put it all through a copier and implement a copy of it. However, I should be able to buy the car, take it apart and build a car using my own methods that works in the same fashion and even accepts your parts and vice versa, if I choose. If I want, I should be able to take apart the source code for windows/microsoft products and build commercial products that run the same software and documents on the same platform.

[Zukin]

Ron Paul might be a good president, but I may vote for Ron Popeil.

"Set it and forget it!"

"But wait, there's more!"

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Ron Paul is possibly the coolest and smartest person to ever run.

I'm a pretty big fan.

Well said. No one comes close to Ron.

I'm part of a Ron Paul Meetup.com group in my area. I totally support Ron.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by ticktockclok

Are you a socialist, Brutha?

My opinion? They're all a bunch of crooks. Lie to you, sweet talk you, then backstab you once they get in.

I'm European. I once read an rather rightwing American commenting on German saying that four of our five parties that are at our parlament are socialist and the other one is liberal. It's all a matter of perspective.

There are a few dangers to humankind in the 21st century.
One of them is the cyberpunk world where there are company states whose power is greater than the power of single democratic countries.

The reason companies have managed to create powerful monopolies and be so damaging to the environment is almost always because of regulatory advantages and "intellectual property rights". This issue is hard to understand. Sensible intellectual property involves open source but protected source.

Your guy wants to strengthen property rights. Or does he somewhere say that intellectual property rights aren't property rights?
The ability of company to merge together by buying each other can also create powerful monopolies that do harmful things.

It is free as long as it does not encroach on the freedom of others. In a government following the principles of the constitution corporations damaging the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of individuals could be prosecuted in a court of law.

That is a nice romantic idea.
But you need laws to limit pollution to prosecute companys that pollute the enviroment in a way that damages life and the happiness of people. The goverment needs a certain strengh to do so.

In addition people die from the lack of good public health options.

Oh yes, great idea. A world with no borders, no say, and government with absolute control over the people. I think all people with influence over a great number of peoples opinions(for instance steve pavlina) should be interested in keeping this country from advancing the agenda of a new world order.

I never said absolute control.
We don't need a modern in our postmodern world, we need post-postmodern people.

We need a radical return toward the principles which American was founded upon.

Has a radical return to old ideas ever rescued a state in history? When you don't like the way a country develops you need new better ideas, instead of old ones.

The most enlightened people stood for causes and believed that one person can make a difference. Gandhi anyone?

Steve has is cause. Ghandi was no elected official and didn't run for the Indian parlament. He did is work outside of it.
Ghandi is the classic example for doing something without going the classical political way.

Don't you think it's in the best interests of those in control to convince people that enlightenment involves being 'apolitical' and living in a fantasy world where the actions of people of power doesn't matter?

You don't seem to understand Steves concept of subjective reality. It certainly doens't include that his actions doesn't matter.

[Tasaio]

You people need serious help. Ron Paul is a terrible candidate.

YouTube - Ron Paul Courageously Speaks the Truth

(sheesh, Giulani makes me sick -- he's WORSE than Bush)

Watch this video. The first time I did, I thought "what an excellent candidate, Ron Paul is. So articulate and sensible. I wouldn't mind him getting elected."

Then I did some research.

Look, Ron Paul is all talk. He may help big corporations, but not the lower social classes.

Ron Paul is simply a charming "face to the people" to get them to vote Republican...just as Bush was.

You're being fooled yet again.

You're basing your opinions on a YOUTUBE VIDEO. Do some actual research.

Don't you realize that he worked with Ronald Reagan? Or did you actually like that scumbag?

Major problems with his stance:
- pro-life
- anti gun control (ie. pro guns...)
- anti universal health care

Haven't the past eight years shown you that Republican = bad for America?

I expect your response will be "it's Bush, not the Republicans".

Sorry, but it doesn't all come down to Bush. Most Republicans today are idiots. The party today is not the same as the one Lincoln led.

(For one thing, Lincoln was atheist...unlike Ron Paul...)

Look, Ron Paul is in the minority of his party. Elect him, and you're returning the House to Republican control. His party does not agree with him with regards to Iraq and the Middle East.

The last thing we need is another four years of "President vs. House" on every issue...

You people seem to dismiss the democrats...yet they say *precisely* the same thing as Paul, about ending the war.

On that note, stop criticizing Clinton & Obama. Both have at least raised the right issues: ending Iraq AND universal health care.

Stop focusing on one person, the president, and look to the actual party you're electing. It's time the Dems were brought back in.

Any one of the Dems' candidates would be better than a Republican (ie. Ron Paul).

Personally, I would vote for Mike Gravel, but that's just me. The American cowboys probably wouldn't vote for someone from Alaska.

In sum,

- Ron Paul is a terrible choice for America

- Mike Gravel is the best choice

- Even if Gravel doesn't win the nomination, please vote Democrat. It's been nearly a decade since Clinton left office. The rest of the world wants him back.

- Voting for Hillary would be like voting Bill back in. Even if you don't like her personally, vote for her!

I'm disappointed that people on this forum ("for Smart People") would even consider voting Republican again.

Normally I take an open-minded stance...but it seems the Europeans are right. You Americans really are gullible, aren't you?

[The David]

Well, it certainly is nice to see someone adamant about something again. That hasn't really happened since the...well, I'm not entirely sure it's happened on this forum.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Tasaio

Haven't the past eight years shown you that Republican = bad for America?

I expect your response will be "it's Bush, not the Republicans".

Sorry, but it doesn't all come down to Bush. Most Republicans today are idiots. The party today is not the same as the one Lincoln led.

...

I'm disappointed that people on this forum ("for Smart People") would even consider voting Republican again.

You make a good point, but I want to add a word of caution. A while ago I told a friend that I'd probably never vote for a Republican president, after all the things the Bush administration has done. He replied with something like "forever is a long time in politics". You've correctly mentioned Lincoln here. I think many people don't realize that back then, the Republican party was supporting African Americans (not just freeing them, but trying to offer as much protection and equality as possible). The Democrats back then were the racists, and controlled pretty much all of the American South. Things have changed significantly since then, and in the future perhaps Republicans will again be the more sensible party.

Originally Posted by Tasaio

Normally I take an open-minded stance...but it seems the Europeans are right. You Americans really are gullible, aren't you?

At least 51% of us are not very bright. That's how many voted for Bush in the second election. That number doesn't signify an overwhelming majority though. This is something that many non-Americans seem to not understand. At least half of the people in this country didn't vote for Bush and don't support him. At this point it's probably a lot more than half. Democracy doesn't require overwhelming support, only 51% of the vote... I leave you with the wise words of Winston Churchill.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

[Dharma]

Paul is a real Republican, a conservative and a constitutionalist. All those other "republicans" are neocons. They are the machine.

I want the government out of my life as much as possible. Neocons and democrats won't make any changes there.

[ticktockclok]

Tasaio: Your three reasons why he's a terrible candidate are my three reasons why, if I was forced to choose one of them, I would choose him.

Brutha: Monopolies exist because government lets them. Example: AT&T (American Telephone and Telegraph Company, not AT&T corporation)

Would say more, but rather not waste my time.

[Jonathan Browne]

"Many liberals have recognized and praised Ron Paul’s courageous stance on foreign policy and civil liberties. This is a man who is not afraid to go into a Republican debate, with 9 neo-cons, in South Carolina, on Fox News, and stand up to thugs like Rudy Giuliani. In the second Republican debate to which I am referring to, Ron Paul correctly pointed out that our foreign policy is a major contributing factor to the underlying cause of 9/11. “They don’t hate us because we’re rich or we’re free, they hate us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” Ron Paul stood his ground, and said that with a non-interventionist foreign policy, we’d be less likely to incite hatred, and therefore more safe and more free.

Nobody could call Ron Paul a neo-con. His record stands on his own. He voted against the Iraq war, and the funding bills for it that have come since the war started. Ron Paul spoke out against a possible war in Iraq years before it started. In 1998, he voted against regime change in Iraq. Ron Paul has also recently voted against a similar condemnation of Iran. Unlike many of the Democratic front-runners, he believes a nuclear first strike should absolutely be taken off the table. He believes that it makes no sense to preemptively attack 3rd world nations with no military, and no threat posed to us. Ron Paul believes that if we are to go to war, it needs to be done constitutionally. Congress, which represents the people, should declare war, and the people should be behind it. We should go to war, fight it, win it, and come home. He is completely against the War Powers Act, which gives the President the authority to go to war when he sees fit. Ron Paul has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. Ron Paul would never send troops unconstitutionally to invade a 3rd world nation, to enforce U.N. resolutions or pretend that nation poses a national threat to us. Ron Paul wants to bring all US troops home from Iraq immediately, and stop policing the world. He knows that it was not the intent of the founders to police the world. If Ron Paul were in office, we would follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, and the defense budget would be able to be cut significantly.

Ron Paul is also an ardent supporter of civil liberties. He voted against the patriot act. He has sponsored a bill to overturn the patriot act. He is strongly against warrant-less searches, government spying, and strongly opposes torture. He completely supports habeas corpus. He also opposes the death penalty. Also, a little known fact is that if Ron Paul got his way, there would be no federal war on drugs. He has called the war on drugs “as stupid as the war in Iraq”. He is uncompromisingly against federal laws banning medical marijuana, and completely opposed to the federal government coming in, when a state has legalized medical marijuana, and using force to nullify this legalization (such as has happened in California, where medical marijuana is legal, but the federal government uses force to effectively keep it criminalized. This would NOT happen under a Paul administration.)

Fascism is when the corporations and the businesses control a country. Liberals are completely opposed to this, and opposed to too much corporate power. The Federal Reserve is the most powerful and most dangerous corporate power in this country. It is the greatest threat to the poor, working poor, and middle class. The federal reserve is a private bank, which has a monopoly over the money making process in this country. The Federal Reserve is secretive, and nobody really knows who owns it. Congress has absolutely no oversight. When a private, secretive entity controls the nation’s money supply, it controls the nation. The fed also allows the banks to charge very high rates of interest, and makes it very hard to declare bankruptcy and get a fresh start. The federal reserve prints phony paper money, which has no more backing than Monopoly money. The more money it prints, the more inflation it causes. As you increase the money supply, you devalue it. Prices to food, housing, gas, health care, and everything else that is a necessity rises exponentially. Who does this hurt? The poor and middle class. It transfers their wealth to wall street. Wall Street benefits from inflation. The federal reserve was created in 1913, the same year the IRS was created. Is this a coincidence? No. We borrow money from the federal reserve, and pay fees on the borrowed money using income tax money. In the end, it all ends up in the hands of the private bankers. Liberals should be outraged by this. The income tax, and the federal reserve’s “inflation tax” (in all senses it is a tax when the fed prints money to causes inflation) eats up a HUGE amount of money from the average middle class person. It benefits the rich. Even with a progressive income tax, rich people who own real estate, or are in bed with Wall Street, benefit because of the inflation. The inflation tax is more regressive than the income tax could ever be progressive -- and they both go together. The income tax funds the federal reserve fascists, as well as the unconstitutional, empire-building foreign policy we now have. The income tax is itself unconstitutional and illegal. The 16th amendment was never ratified. Nobody has ever found a law requiring the majority of Americans to pay an income tax. Some might say that this sounds evil, but it is a necessary evil, because we need the funds to keep our government going. Otherwise, our roads and freeways would collapse. But, for example, our infrastructure is funded through gas taxes, not the income tax. Most social services are funded by taxes other than the income tax. It is a bait and switch to believe that we need the income tax to fund our social services, when really it goes to fund the fascists that control our government, and our empire building. Ron Paul has never said he would slash or get rid of social services. He would let young people opt out of social security if they wanted to (no social service should be forced on anybody), for instance, but he would not deny services to people who have paid into the system. In fact, Ron Paul has sought to protect the money from the social security find, rather than spending it on the general fund as the federal government often does. Ron Paul would work to get rid of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and our empire building the moment he got into office. He would return the authority to make money back to the government (as mandated by the constitution), and away from the private bankers. Money should be gold and silver, not printed money out of thin air. (Please google "Freedom to Fascism". You will see a free movie, labled "Director's Authorized Version". Please watch this. It discusses these issues in depth.)

Liberals have long recognized the evil of so called “free trade” deals. Ron Paul would end GATT, NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA, and all of these deals which hurt the American workers and American businesses. He is also opposed to our involvement in the UN, which sets him apart from all Democratic candidates. If you think America is becoming a police state now, do you really want to know what it will be like when an even bigger, more powerful entity, the UN, assumes control over our lives? What we have left of the Bill of Rights will not be there to protect us, as the UN grows in power. Also, it must be said that part of the reason for going to war with Iraq was their violation of the UN resolutions. We went to war, illegally, to enforce UN resolutions. If we do not get out of the UN, this could happen again, and again, and again. Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Ron Paul would trade (but not under so-called “free trade” deals), be friends with other nations, and talk with other nations. However, Ron Paul would put the American worker, and the American business, and the American citizen first. He would protect the constitution and the Bill of Rights, and never compromise them, no matter what some foreign entity might want.

Ron Paul is a staunch opponent of a National ID card. Some politicians have pushed a National ID card as the way we’re going to stop illegal immigration. Ron Paul realizes that a National ID card is an absolute infringement on the liberties of American citizens. It also makes absolutely no sense as a method to counter illegal immigration, since only American citizens would be required to have a National ID card. It is true that Ron Paul wants to secure the borders, but he believes that immigrants have become the “scapegoat” of our current economic system. Because of reasons I have already discussed, America is headed into bankruptcy. If we lived within our means, and did not have the runaway inflation caused by the Federal Reserve, and stopped policing the world, we would probably need the workers, and they would be welcome. First correct our economic policies, and then the immigrants will not be the scapegoat.

Ron Paul has called himself “pro-life”, and sometimes uses such rhetoric. He has delivered over 4,000 babies, and he is personally pro-life. However, he believes the federal government should be out of the abortion question. It should be an issue for the states. Ron Paul does not desire to ban all abortion at a federal level, the way some conservatives would like to. Ron Paul would leave the abortion issue up to the states. If the states want abortion to be legal, Ron Paul would not interfere. Ron Paul voted against making it a crime for minors to cross state lines to get an abortion. He also believes the federal government should be out of the marriage issue. Ron Paul voted against the federal marriage amendment. If a state like Massachusetts wanted to legalize gay marriage, Ron Paul would not stop it. That is the state’s right. Ron Paul has said that, ideally, government should be out of the marriage issue altogether, and it should be a private matter.

"

[Jonathan Browne]

The above is the writing of someone from a ron paul message board.

He explains the issue better than I have time for at the moment.

[llong]

I definitely hope Ron Paul wins, but it's highly unlikely. He's too much of a maverick within his own party.

That he's the only anti Iraq War candidate in the GOP tells you something. He'll never get nominated.

[Brutha]

The above is the writing of someone from a ron paul message board.

He explains the issue better than I have time for at the moment.

Discussing a political issue doesn't really make any sense when you just trade copypasted quotations.

Fascism is when the corporations and the businesses control a country. Liberals are completely opposed to this, and opposed to too much corporate power.

What actions do you think would Ron Paul use to limit to much corporate power?

What we have left of the Bill of Rights will not be there to protect us, as the UN grows in power. Also, it must be said that part of the reason for going to war with Iraq was their violation of the UN resolutions. We went to war, illegally, to enforce UN resolutions.

There wasn't any UN resulation that allowed the USA to go to war. Blaming the UN for the war is irrational.

Brutha: Monopolies exist because government lets them. Example: AT&T (American Telephone and Telegraph Company, not AT&T corporation)

While there are goverment created monopolies that shouldn't have been created, private multinational monopolies are a lot worse, because they aren't controlled by anyone, neither from free market force or from goverment forces.

@the tax protester arguments:
If you really belief in them please use the forum search.

You should also not overrate the influence of a single person, the president in a state with division of powers.
He probably also has to take other republicans into his administration, or he gets problems with his own party.

[Jonathan Browne]

There's nothing wrong with using the ideas of others if you agree with them.

How could any corporation achieve an multinational monopoly without government support? As long as there is a profit incentive, there will almost always be effective competitors in a truly free market. Microsofts "monopoly" has been somewhat shortlived considering the widely available alternatives to Windows, including the free open sourced Linux operating system.

The most visible monopolies at the moment are in media and government. Because of Federal regulation of airwaves companies like viacom and clearchannel control the "mainstream" distribution of entertainment and news. Ron Paul plans to dismantle many of the federal agencies contributing to the regulatory and contracting windfalls thousands of companies unfairly take advantage of.

Contrary to what many think, the majority of Income Tax doesn't go to paying for social services, instead being used to pay off interest on that national debt which is owed to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation which loans "money" to the government.

Ron Paul plans to dismantle "the fed". He plans to bring our Army back from its hundreds of unnecessary stations worldwide. He will stop the drug war. He plans to pay social security obligations while allowing the youth to opt out of social security allowing them to use their money much more effectively in investments (which in turn will provide a tremendous boost to the economy).


Contrary to what you may think, the justification for the Iraq war was UN security council resolution 1441. I urge you to research that for yourself.

As for your belief that the president isn't powerful enough to make major changes, you need only look at President Bushs executive orders over the past 8 years to get an idea of how much he has changed things, to the detriment of the american public. A president with the conscious to follow his principles has great power for good. He will undoubtedly face great challenges but the things he advocates are certainly possible for a president to do.

[Brutha]

There's nothing wrong with using the ideas of others if you agree with them.

You don't seem to understand the idea between an idea and its expression.
Aside from that we (the people in this thread) all think that the Irak war and the patriotic act were bad ideas, so you don't have to copypaste it into this discussion.
The democratic candidacts are also against the war and the patriotic act.
In addition it doesn't address the points raised by Tasaio or myself.
If you want to campain here and discuss your candidat that is fine. But simply copypasting the same arguments around the internet isn't really having a good discussion. Links were invented to reference to something someone else has written.
The argument of "the power of the people" is having a real discussion that leads to better ideas instead of simply copying what someone else sais.

How could any corporation achieve an multinational monopoly without government support? As long as there is a profit incentive, there will almost always be effective competitors in a truly free market.

Buying competitors.
Or simply talking to the competitors and building a cartel.

The most visible monopolies at the moment are in media and government.

Visibilty isn't the key factor. You have also take into account the monopolies that would be there if we hadn't our market interventions.

Contrary to what many think, the majority of Income Tax doesn't go to paying for social services, instead being used to pay off interest on that national debt which is owed to the Federal Reserve.

Destroying the Federal Reserve won't free the USA from it debt burdon. As long as you respect private property you have to pay that interest.

You have to think in terms of cashflow. Accommulating huge amounts of debt was a bad move in the past, but it still has to be payed (at least Ron Paul doesn't speek of not paying it).
If people opt out of social security someone has to pay social security for the elderly.

Cutting the military might gives him a bit space to lower taxes but I he will cut a lot more like (according to the video) the department of education.

Contrary to what you may think, the justification for the Iraq war was UN security council resolution 1441. I urge you to research that for yourself.

Bush tried to justify his invasion in a lot of ways. But that doesn't mean that he is right in interpreting the resolution that way.

Because of Federal regulation of airwaves companies like viacom and clearchannel control the "mainstream" distribution of entertainment and news.

Do you think instead of regulating airwaves every company should be allowed to use every airwave? Do you know what happens when multiple people try to send the same thing in the same "airwave space"?
Do you find something in Ron Pauls program that would reduce the dominance of those media companys?

As for your belief that the president isn't powerful enough to make major changes, you need only look at President Bushs executive orders over the past 8 years to get an idea of how much he has changed things, to the detriment of the american public.

I think you underrate the influence of people like Cheney or the Fox media people.
Bush wasn't alone. There are a lot of neocons in that party that push in the same line.
And the will continue to do so under a different president. For that reason the republicans should get a minimal amount of power after the next elections.
Then Bush didn't exactly followed the ideal of the division of power. If Ron Paul follows his constitutional ideal I doubt that he would do the same.

[ticktockclok]

Originally Posted by Brutha

@the tax protester arguments:
If you really belief in them please use the forum search.

http://taxlaw.web1000.com/

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by ticktockclok

http://taxlaw.web1000.com/

Even when that is a pointless way of discussing:
Tax Protester FAQ

[Bene]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I doubt that Steve would support someone who wants stronger borders and seperation in the world. I would rather think that Steve supports one-world ideals.

that type of thing may not even happen in steve's life time. Why not some Creative Observation and choosing the best right now? I think Obama is the closest to Steve's standpoint in this particular race that is a viable candidate IMO.

[ticktockclok]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Even when that is a pointless way of discussing:
Tax Protester FAQ

Hmm.... ok. I still consider taxation to be a terrible thing, but I can see that within "the law", its essentially impossible to evade taxes.

Thanks.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by ticktockclok

Hmm.... ok. I still consider taxation to be a terrible thing, but I can see that within "the law", its essentially impossible to evade taxes.

Taxes are a necessary evil for civilization to function. However, how much tax is necessary and what it's used for is a debatable issue. According to this website, about half of US income tax is being spent on military expenses. Is this really necessary? Who exactly is going to invade this country in the next 50 years? There hasn't been a superpower around that can match the US since the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Iraq war is a total waste of resources and lives. Our tax money is being used to "police the world" (and that phrase is actually a sugar coating for "change things around for the benefit of the US"). So in that sense, taxes can be a terrible thing since they can get misused by those in power.