GRAYWOLF's Brain Farts

Yes, I know...that is a rhetorical question considering the liars they have given us to choose from.

I have tried to not post anything about this election cycle, but I heard a commercial on the radio today that I couldn't ignore...

Just how ignorant would one have to be to believe that raising prices will help consumers?

Anyone with the slightest clue knows that businesses don't pay taxes (or any other costs), their customers do. To say it another way...any increase in cost during production is added to the price of the product.

Obama wants to increase taxes on oil companies and tries to BS listeners into believing this gas price increase will somehow help drivers. What is he smoking (or what does he think his followers are smoking)?

Yes, I know...that is a rhetorical question considering the liars they have given us to choose from.

I have tried to not post anything about this election cycle, but I heard a commercial on the radio today that I couldn't ignore...

Just how ignorant would one have to be to believe that raising prices will help consumers?

Anyone with the slightest clue knows that businesses don't pay taxes (or any other costs), their customers do. To say it another way...any increase in cost during production is added to the price of the product.

Obama wants to increase taxes on oil companies and tries to BS listeners into believing this gas price increase will somehow help drivers. What is he smoking (or what does he think his followers are smoking)?

This is a pro Ron Paul piece, but the stats are not doctored. It shows internet search trends and media coverage trends.

"Illegal" fund raising, again...

Read the story here...

Is the media going to cover this?

Someone sent me this, and I felt the need to post it here...(I almost posted it in Entertainment, but I figured the mods would just move it anyway...)

Be sure to listen all the way to the end (after JM stops flapping his jaw.

Since the N|H republican party and FNC have conspired to try to silence Ron Paul by intentionally excluding him from last night's forum (eventhough he got 10% of the vote and beat Rudy in Iowa by 6 points), Ron Paul held his own Townhall meeting in NH where he can actually answer questions:

Part 1:

most people don't know anything more about Ron Paul than what they are told to believe by the media and other politicians (or their friends that got their info from there.)

I just found this 1 on 1 interview where he has the opportunity to state his position and explain it.

This post has been edited by an administrator

Here's the proof:

There is a Republican debate on PBS right now (9/27/7 8-9:30 PM)

 The cowards have shown their stripes and chose to not show up. There is no surprise who they are. They stated they were afraid the environment would be hostile.
 

With all the wins Ron Paul is racking up from the debates, you'd think the media would have to give him some press...Not hardly! So far he has won every debate (according to the debate polls), but yet, the media still goes out of its way to keep him out of the people's minds and on the rare occasion they do mention him, they do their best to make him look bad (even here on KDFW).

It is so bad that Sean Hannity actually lied during the post debate coverage trying to claim that Paul's minions were repeatedly texting to boost the numbers. The only way that would have been possible is if the people had a different phone for each vote. FNC had their system set to not allow more than one vote from a phone.
 

I have only pulled the parts that pertain to Ron Paul…it isn't a long read. (the full transcript is here:)

HUME: [Fred Thompson] will be a guest later tonight with Jay Leno. Polls have him in second or third place, depending on whether you're looking at national polls or some of the early state polls.

So the question is: Who has made the smart moves here, you guys who are here and who have been out on the trail all this time or Senator Thompson?

TEXAS REP. RON PAUL: But I'm proud to be sharing the stage with these guys because we're running for president and we're delighted to be here, and I certainly appreciate getting this opportunity.

HUME: Congressman Paul, you've been out beating the bushes, looking for votes and getting your ideas out all this time. And look where he stands and look where the rest of you guys stand. What do you think?

PAUL: Well, I welcome him to the race because, very specifically, he will help dilute the vote for my benefit...

(LAUGHTER)

... because he will be pro-war and I'm the anti-war candidate representing the Republican traditional position.

(APPLAUSE)

GOLER: Congressman Paul, another gun issue for you, if you will. You have said that the 9/11 attackers might have had second thoughts if they'd felt that some of the passengers aboard the airplanes might have been armed.

We have seen airplanes -- airflights diverted because people heard Arabic on planes, because they heard Muslims praying. What do you think it would do to the travel industry of this country if passengers felt others were carrying guns aboard, sir?

PAUL: Well, first off, you're quoting me incorrectly.

GOLER: I'm sorry.

PAUL: I said the responsibility for protecting passengers falls with the airline, not the government -- not the passengers. The airline's responsible for the aircraft and the passengers.

If we wouldn't have been dependent on the federal government to set all the rules, which meant no guns and no resistance, then the terrorists may well have had second thoughts, because the airlines would have had the responsibility.

PAUL: But we assumed the government was going to take care of us. After 9/11, instead of moving toward the direction of personal responsibility and private property and second amendment, we moved in the opposite direction. We turned it over to the federal government. And look at the mess we have now at airports.

I mean, the airlines -- private industry protects their property all the time. People who haul around money in armored trucks protect their money all the time. But here is one example when the federal government was involved and they messed it up, and if we put the responsibility on the right people, respected the second amendment, I sincerely believe there would have been a lot less chance of 9/11 ever happening.

(APPLAUSE)

HUME: Thank you, Congressman.

WALLACE: Congressman Paul...

(APPLAUSE)

Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out.

What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?

PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it will be a cakewalk or it will be a slam dunk, and that it will be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said.

PAUL: So why not ask the people...

(APPLAUSE)

... why not ask the people who advised not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.

Yes, I would leave. I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? It was the fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia -- was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11.

So why leave them in the region? They don't want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula.

And going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security. I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this.

It's the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in the 30 more and reducing by five -- totally irrelevant.

We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend our borders...

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- and I'd like you to take 30 seconds to answer this -- you're basically saying that we should take our marching orders from Al Qaida? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave?

(LAUGHTER)

PAUL: No.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: I'm saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war...

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law.

That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

(CROSSTALK)

[This was hailed as the best part of the debate by the FNC on air staff:]

HUCKABEE: Senator McCain made a great point -- and let me make this clear: If there's anybody on this stage that understands the word honor, I've got to say Senator McCain understands that word...

(APPLAUSE)

... because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don't even comprehend.

And on this issue, when he says we can't leave until we've left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we're there.

We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.

PAUL: Can I respond...

(APPLAUSE)

HUME (?): Go ahead. You wanted to respond. He just addressed you. You go ahead and respond.

PAUL: The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people. They're not responsible. We shouldn't punish them.

(APPLAUSE)

HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can't be divided. We have to be one nation, under god. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: No, when we make a mistake -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake.

(APPLAUSE)

HUCKABEE: And that's what we do on the floor of the Senate.

PAUL: No, we've dug a hole for ourselves and we've dug a hole for our party. We're losing elections and we're going down next year if we don't change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy and we have to wake up to this fact.

HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important (inaudible) the Republican Party.

(APPLAUSE)

[FNC cut the video at this point on the replays]

PAUL: We have lost over 5,000 Americans killed in -- we've lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more you want to lose? How long are you going to be there?

How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing, is saving face. It's time we came home.

(APPLAUSE)

HUME: Gentleman, thank you.

WALLACE: Congressman Paul, your answer is to cut both taxes and spending. You say that you would eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Homeland Security, Medicare.

WALLACE: I know that you used to want to end the FBI. I'm not sure whether you still support that idea, sir. Perhaps you can tell us. But if you get rid of the CIA, let alone the FBI, how would President Paul have any idea, any intelligence of what our enemies, foreign and domestic, are up to?

PAUL: Well, you might ask a better question. Before 9/11, we were spending $40 billion a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people being trained on airplanes, to fly them but not land them. And they totally ignored them.

So it's the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So, increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security and spending more money doesn't absolve us of the problem. Yes, we have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering. But we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: But you know, just going for increasing presidential powers, as has been discussed, is rather disturbing to me. This whole idea that we're supposed to sacrifice liberty for security, we're advised against that. Don't we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both? That's what's happening in this country today.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: We have -- we have a national ID card on our doorsteps, it is being implemented right now. We have FISA courts. We have warrantless searches. We've lost habeas corpus. We've had secret prisons around the world and we have torture going on.

That's un-American, and we need to use the power of the presidency to get it back in order, in order to take care of us and protect this country and our liberties.

(APPLAUSE)

HUME: Thank you, Congressman.

HUME: The U.N. Security Council has imposed some economic sanctions on Iran, but has refused to authorize the use of force against that country. In addition, the threats by Iran's leader against Israel have become more pronounced and more extreme. What do you do?

Congressman Paul?

PAUL: Well, one thing I would remember very clearly is the president doesn't have the authority to go to war.

HUME: So what...

PAUL: He goes to the Congress.

HUME: ... do you do? So what do you do?

PAUL: He goes to the Congress and finds out if there's any threat to our national security. And thinking back to the 1960s, when I was in the Air Force for five years, and there was a Cold War going on, and the Soviets had 40,000, and we stood them down, and we didn't have to have a nuclear confrontation, I would say that we should go very cautiously.

We should back off. We should be talking to Iran right now. We shouldn't be looking for the opportunity to attack them. They are at the present time, according to the IAEA, cooperating. And by the end of the year, they're supposed to be willing to reveal all that they are doing.

So instead of looking for this scenario where it is inevitable that we have to attack, I think that we ought to be talking about how to get along with some people that are deadly, like the Soviets and the Chinese and the many others. We don't have to resort to war every single time there is a confrontation.

They are not a threat to Israel. Israel has 200 or 300 nuclear missiles, and they can take care of themselves. So you shouldn't assume that we have to jump in and go to war, and we certainly shouldn't do it without the consent of the Congress.

HUME: Thank you, sir, thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

 

This debate resulted in a 33% victory for Paul. The next closest candidate was Huckabee at 17% with the "top teir" candidates all statistically tied in the mid-teens.

Liberal:

1.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible 2.favoring or permitting freedom of action

Antonyms:  absolute, arbitrary, arrogant, authoritative, autocratic, bossy, clamorous, despotic, dictative, doctrinaire, dogmatic, domineering, egotistic, firm, haughty, imperative, imperious, iron-handed, lordly, magisterial, masterful, oppressive, overbearing, peremptory, pompous, proud, stern, totalitarian, tyrannical, unlimited, unrestricted

Obviously, Democrats are in no way "liberal", neither are Republicans for that matter.

Unfortunately, the political idiots in this country have bastardized the term to where it is used to represent the exact opposite of its real meaning. Funny thing is that those antonyms fit the representatives of both letters of the one-party system in this country.

arbitrary :

1.subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion. 2.having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical.

 

doctrinaire

1.a person who tries to apply some doctrine or theory without sufficient regard for practical consideration

 

peremptory

1. offensively self-assured or given to exercising usually unwarranted power.
2. not allowing contradiction or refusal. 3. putting an end to all debate or action.

 totalitarian 

1.of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. 2.exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

unlimited

1. Having no restrictions or controls.
2. Having or seeming to have no boundaries.

 

unrestricted1. not subject to or subjected to restriction.
2. free of restrictions on conduct.

 

 

I believe, the answer to my question is, "Yes, a few. Most of whom call themselves 'conservative'" because they think believe in the traditional meaning, not the currently elected Republicans.

“Government cripples you, then hands you a crutch and says, 'See, if it wasn't for us, you couldn't walk.'”
-- Harry Browne

 

“The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organization of production is a function of national concern, the organizer of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production. State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management.” (pp. 135-136)
—Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers.

 

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."
-George Orwell

 

"We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

 

"If the President does it, it's not illegal."
-- Richard M. Nixon

 

From "The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce . . .

Representative: In national politics, a member of the Lower House in this world, and without discernible hope of promotion in the next.

Senate: A body of elderly gentlemen charged with high duties and misdemeanors.