America's Last Chance...?

[Broomstick]

Wouldn't that suggest a need for reform instead of cutting it completely?

Thanas, that is exactly the sensible sort of suggestion that is an anathema to American conservitards. To them, "reform" is almost as bad a word as "compromise". Remember, a sizable number of them are looking forward to Armageddon.

[Lonestar]

What's the benefit to subordinating the Department of Veteran's Affairs under some other department? Do you actually save much of anything? You still need to run the same administration, just with a lower-ranking boss man.

VA stuff used to be done under the auspices of the DoD. A big reason why it was split was because Reagan wanted to make it look like he wasn't increasing the DoD by that much. So, it's a bit misleading on the size of our military when $150b of military costs aren't even counted towards the DoD.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm. Well, it's not entirely unreasonable to fold them back in. Although if you're thinking politically, putting the VA back in the War Department (wouldn't Shep also rename DoD?) would up their budget by 130 billion dollars again, so it'd look like a huge increase in the military budget... which, come to think of it, would probably not actually hurt anyone's political chances these days. Sigh.

One point, though. A budget of 130 billion dollars isn't pocket change. It's about 3.4% of the federal budget, and right now that budget is allocated among about twenty cabinet-level positions. If they're handling that kind of money, it's not totally unreasonable for them to be cabinet-level.

Wouldn't that suggest a need for reform instead of cutting it completely?

Thanas, that is exactly the sensible sort of suggestion that is an anathema to American conservitards. To them, "reform" is almost as bad a word as "compromise". Remember, a sizable number of them are looking forward to Armageddon.

Shep's not a conservatard of anything like the standard types, and he doesn't actually have a problem with compromise.

No, Shep has a different problem. You see, he just likes blowing shit up. This time, the Department of Education. In other policy debates, I've heard him propose blowing up half the military-industrial complex, too. He's an equal-opportunity demolition buff.

[General Brock]

Brock, your argument seems to boil down to:

"The system is bad. Ron Paul will smash bits of the system, causing chaos. Therefore, vote Ron Paul."

This invites a few important questions:

Is chaos better, as in less bad, than the current system? What if we have 15% unemployment under the current system and 30% under the chaos created by Ron Paul? Or if minor rights are endangered under the current system and major ones are endangered under Ron Paul? You have not sought to answer this- your argument for Ron Paul has nothing to do with Ron Paul himself.

Will Ron Paul actually break the parts of the current American system that are wrong? Or will he just go into office, start trying to break shit, and have uneven success. What if the many normal politicians in America just block him when he endangers the rich, and let him go ahead when he endangers the poor? Or block him when he threatens the 'right' of Wall Street to own everything, and let him go ahead when he threatens the right of black people to buy houses and attend schools in the same neighborhoods as anyone else?

And, to cap it all off, how do we know Ron Paul is as honest and sincere a man as you make him out to be? What, is he the only exception to the rule that anyone smart enough to go into politics is cynical enough to become a lying bastard? And if he's the exception, why?
________________

So all your noise about torches and liberties and sociopaths is just... silly. It doesn't have anything to do with the questions that need to be asked.

Your whole argument boils down to "We need to do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it."

First, I expect Paul to defuse chaos as President while if the present leadership continues, chaos is more likely. The reason for this is, the wars are the most destabilizing influence and if ended should reduce a lot of pressures favouring chaos, and people secure in their rights normally do not act out of fear and create chaos.

Second, if Paul adheres to the Constitution like he says he will, and that guides his actions, he's grounding his actions upon a source of ordered lawmaking first, not only addressing the needs of the moment from the perspective of the moment, which is a for more chaotic way of doing things.

Third, I don't expect Paul to discriminate against blacks or allow anyone else to. The poor are already in danger. Rich will remain rich. Under Paul, America will continue, minus the dark clouds of lost civil liberties and unnecessary wars.

Fourth, there is no reason to expect Ron Paul not to be as honest and sincere as he claims to be, but if he is a lying bastard, he'd just do what was going to be done anyway as planned out by senior civil bureaucrats under Obama, as Obama followed where Shrub left off, creating chaos to pretend to fix with authoritarianism.

Fifth, its silly to ignore ideals, symbols, and basic psychology in politics. If you're going to do something, do it for a good reason. Paul claims to want to end the wars and restore civil liberties under the Constitution. Its a perfectly rational approach to chaos and corruption to end some of the sources and means of corruption and chaos. It outweighs any other considerations, and provides the basis for meaningful dissent in disagreements.

Nothing really refuted that. Its all, Paul can't do it or Paul will do something else. There are two main things he's trying to do, and for the most part the anti-Pauls focus on anything and everything but those two basics.

Reform has to start somewhere, and demolition of the unworkable or unsustainable will be a part of that. Ron Paul seems like the best start, in that he's addressing two important basics no-one else will, ending the wars and restoring civil liberties under constitutional rule, both vital to an environment of healthy debate.

I could repeat them as often as they are clouded over. Paul may not have all the solutions, but could restore somewhat a better environment for finding them.

However, I won't anymore.

[Duckie]

If one really thinks america is descending towards a police state in just 56 more months, wouldn't it be prudent to leave rather than fight a rearguard action to try to make it go down in as slow a motion as possible? If anyone truly beliseve the US is going to turn more fascist than it currently is because of the 2012 election, they should be securing their visa and passport and whatnot as quickly as possible.

Come to think, another fact- if I were sure that if Ron Paul loses, a police state occurs, and that Ron Paul will almost undoubtedly lose becauseof nefarious deeds done in the ballot box under orders from raytheon- the last thing I would do is vote paul. If the US really were going to become a police state- because that's what the article says, so let's roll with it, what you need to do is not vote for the opposition. They'd just use that to identify you and round you up. If it really is 1930 in Germany in America, the logical thing to do is to flee, not vote for the KPD.

That's why I think this article and the OP are being dishonest. For all that talk, I don't see anyone online discussing hiding their prevous public advocacy for emmanuel paulstein from the coming future fascists or truly preparing to flee to a neutral non-extraditing country from this future dark future.

[General Brock]

If one really thinks america is descending towards a police state in just 56 more months, wouldn't it be prudent to leave rather than fight a rearguard action to try to make it go down in as slow a motion as possible? If anyone truly beliseve the US is going to turn more fascist than it currently is because of the 2012 election, they should be securing their visa and passport and whatnot as quickly as possible.

Come to think, another fact- if I were sure that if Ron Paul loses, a police state occurs, and that Ron Paul will almost undoubtedly lose becauseof nefarious deeds done in the ballot box under orders from raytheon- the last thing I would do is vote paul. If the US really were going to become a police state- because that's what the article says, so let's roll with it, what you need to do is not vote for the opposition. They'd just use that to identify you and round you up. If it really is 1930 in Germany in America, the logical thing to do is to flee, not vote for the KPD.

That's why I think this article and the OP are being dishonest. For all that talk, I don't see anyone online discussing hiding their prevous public advocacy for emmanuel paulstein from the coming future fascists or truly preparing to flee to a neutral non-extraditing country from this future dark future.

No, people who love their country wouldn't just abandon it. There is also the practical consideration of, where exactly do you go? I mean, if you had to leave, right now, for whatever reason, and had to live somewhere else... ummm, where to? What about friends and family and employment? Would you even try, or make up reasons to stay and assume the worst won't happen to you? Most people don't transplant very well even for normal reasons like school or work.

One of the more prominent libertarians, Jesse Ventura, lives in Mexico now, but from what I can tell, most who could leave seldom stay away for very long even if they are personally wealthy. I recall an article written by one guy saying America is better than most other countries he'd lived in, in South Asia and Latin America; corruption and state control is much worse and being viewed as the rich foreigner was disconcerting.

As for hiding or renouncing... the NWO is everywhere anyway. Why bother? Online, the talk is more about the best way to survive the collapse where they are living, or trying to prevent it through activism, or just carping about it.

Its more like kind of like a niche hobby, and even activist journalism is a minor industry unto itself that thrives in America. Their plans appear predicated on staying and waiting out disorder if it happens, and other wise living lives as everyone else.

There are lots of contradictions there that seem peculiar on the surface. However, considering that even in countries that are more openly violent police states, with no strong history of a free press let alone cultures of dissent like libertarianism, there are people who stay and try to make the best of it. Even North Korea has an active underground economy based on people raising and trading food grown from their homes, even little apartments, for thinks like CD players and other banned items rather than smuggle themselves out. So I'm not sure why there wouldn't be Americans inclined to stay no matter what they believed of the political future.

[Broomstick]

First, I expect Paul to defuse chaos as President while if the present leadership continues, chaos is more likely. The reason for this is, the wars are the most destabilizing influence and if ended should reduce a lot of pressures favouring chaos, and people secure in their rights normally do not act out of fear and create chaos.

Actually, people becoming homeless and destitute is arguably a more destabilizing influence - the less people have to lose, the more likely they are to revolt. Hungry people are even more likely to do so, but in the modern US that's been averted by foodstamps and soup kitchens.

Wars are certainly destabilizing, but that applies more to those where the war is actually occurring, not so much when the force is projected elsewhere.

Second, if Paul adheres to the Constitution like he says he will, and that guides his actions, he's grounding his actions upon a source of ordered lawmaking first, not only addressing the needs of the moment from the perspective of the moment, which is a for more chaotic way of doing things.

On what do you base this confidence that Paul will do as he says?

Third, I don't expect Paul to discriminate against blacks or allow anyone else to.

Since he's confirmed states' rightist, this is horseshit. Oh, he may not discriminate against blacks, but under his view of the constitution it is entirely possible for the states to discriminate against their own citizens. So if he "adheres to the Constitution like he says he will" he certainly will allow it, and if he doesn't allow it, then he won't "adheres to the Constitution like he says he will".

On top of that, if he does govern as he says he will, the power of the Federal government will be greatly diminished. How will that prevent discrimination? On top of which, even where it's illegal discrimination still occurs. Where did you get this odd notion that one man can magically undo biotry at all levels?

Fourth, there is no reason to expect Ron Paul not to be as honest and sincere as he claims to be

Being a politician is actually pretty strong evidence against that.

[Broken]

If one really thinks america is descending towards a police state in just 56 more months, wouldn't it be prudent to leave rather than fight a rearguard action to try to make it go down in as slow a motion as possible? If anyone truly beliseve the US is going to turn more fascist than it currently is because of the 2012 election, they should be securing their visa and passport and whatnot as quickly as possible.

Come to think, another fact- if I were sure that if Ron Paul loses, a police state occurs, and that Ron Paul will almost undoubtedly lose becauseof nefarious deeds done in the ballot box under orders from raytheon- the last thing I would do is vote paul. If the US really were going to become a police state- because that's what the article says, so let's roll with it, what you need to do is not vote for the opposition. They'd just use that to identify you and round you up. If it really is 1930 in Germany in America, the logical thing to do is to flee, not vote for the KPD.

That's why I think this article and the OP are being dishonest. For all that talk, I don't see anyone online discussing hiding their prevous public advocacy for emmanuel paulstein from the coming future fascists or truly preparing to flee to a neutral non-extraditing country from this future dark future.

You forget, to people who seriously believe in the madness of the article in the OP, America is already the last, feeble citadel of freedom in the all-consuming sea of socialism and evil that engulfs the rest of the globe. There is no-where to flee to, no safe haven; its all been subdued and stripped of their freedom, if they had any to begin with, since they were not blessed enough to be born Americans. And once the flame of freedom gutters out in America, humanity will be doomed to an eternity of darkness (since the nanny state tucks you into bed at night and turns out the lights ).

[Duckie]

No, people who love their country wouldn't just abandon it.

If your country is turning into a police state, you should leave. If your husband is turning into an abuser, you shoudl leave- you don't try to reason with them and reform them when you can already see them practicing their lines for "She fell down the stairs."

There is also the practical consideration of, where exactly do you go? I mean, if you had to leave, right now, for whatever reason, and had to live somewhere else... ummm, where to? What about friends and family and employment? Would you even try, or make up reasons to stay and assume the worst won't happen to you? Most people don't transplant very well even for normal reasons like school or work.

Why am I fleeing? If I'm a US citizen fleeing criminal charges, I go to France. France wouldn't even extradite Romano Polanski, so political dissidents fleeing a police state are probably fine. Otherwise, pretty much anything goes- Canada, Japan, any EU state such as Germany or Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, even South Korea- You know, the rest of the developed west? Those guys? Also, do I have a native guide? If I have access, to, say, a spanish duel citizen friend who speaks fluent spanish, I obviously go with her.

Sure, it might be annoying now to immigrate what will all the work visa requirements and whatnot, but if you start preparing now, when the US passes the Enabling Act and becomes a police state, I'm pretty sure Canada and the others will accept refugees. Better a refugee than dead.

As for hiding or renouncing... the NWO is everywhere anyway.

Everywhere? Even, like, Ghana? Also, how come everywhere else isn't turning into a police state then? Why not just go live with the Canadians. NWO or not, they're generally doing fine. Even if the black helicopter pilots will be turning Canada into a police state later or something, it at least buys you some time. And after they openly take over the US, it'd be pretty easy to oppose them in Canada and the EU and wahtnot.

Why bother? Online, the talk is more about the best way to survive the collapse where they are living, or trying to prevent it through activism, or just carping about it.

Call me when actual bad shit happens. When bad stuff goes down, people flee. They always flee because that's what you do in an emergency- if your house is on fire, you leave the house. This is why I can tell America isn't doing anything as grand and dramatic as becoming a police state as much as just being ineffectual and corrupt, because nobody bitching about it flees like jews or hmong or irish.

Its more like kind of like a niche hobby, and even activist journalism is a minor industry unto itself that thrives in America. Their plans appear predicated on staying and waiting out disorder if it happens, and other wise living lives as everyone else.

There are lots of contradictions there that seem peculiar on the surface. However, considering that even in countries that are more openly violent police states, with no strong history of a free press let alone cultures of dissent like libertarianism, there are people who stay and try to make the best of it. Even North Korea has an active underground economy based on people raising and trading food grown from their homes, even little apartments, for thinks like CD players and other banned items rather than smuggle themselves out. So I'm not sure why there wouldn't be Americans inclined to stay no matter what they believed of the political future.

North Koreans would leave if they could (and if they were aware their state's crappy conditions were so bad and that it's their government's fault, which most of them aren't fully cognizant of really). Many of them do. For every Aung San Syi there's going to be several people who leave, but I don't know of a single American refugee fleeing the American slide into police statehood. Which is why I am suspicious of it.

[General Brock]

Actually, people becoming homeless and destitute is arguably a more destabilizing influence - the less people have to lose, the more likely they are to revolt. Hungry people are even more likely to do so, but in the modern US that's been averted by foodstamps and soup kitchens.

Wars are certainly destabilizing, but that applies more to those where the war is actually occurring, not so much when the force is projected elsewhere.

The present leadership direction has produced conditions of homelessness and joblessness. Its committed to war, not civilian development. War has distracted attention from real civilian needs such as education and industry accountability. One of the first things on the chopping block when the Federal government reduces its transfer payments, are education and regulatory capability.

In very broad terms, its likely the trillion dollars loosely spent on hot war rather than the civilian economy, made a few scions of the war party wealthy as opposed to the broader economy of those who can earn a living by peaceful industry. The people with the money determine the course of society, their values and ambitions define it.

Historically, the destabilizing effects of war on a distant home front have been documented as far back as Ancient Greece, when the success of Greek armies abroad created inflation at home. Seems all the wealth brought back caused problems for local economies. Today, its a little different since not all that much wealth is extracted from a dirt-poor country such as Afghanistan, so much as redirected from the public purse to the financier-military-intelligence complex.

On what do you base this confidence that Paul will do as he says?

A few things.

Libertarians are among the most cynical, paranoid, and informed critics of government around, and if they figure Ron Paul is legit, there might be something there. My own reading of Ron Paul's political record says its highly probable he'll end the wars and restore civil rights, because it would be within his capabilities and political will, and that kind of conservatism has defined a long political career. He's an older person; he won't, like Obama, be as concerned with post-presidential appointments to boards of directors and think tanks to pad a retirement from the White House. Ron Paul will want a legacy to be remembered by, and the one he's got already as minor populist hero is a controversial one, but not a bad one, and one he'd defend.

The only things that could stop him if elected are death or gross incompetence not necessarily his own. I don't believe he's incompetent. If even Shrub could function as President, this guy can, and since not everybody in the bureaucracy is a crook, maybe those people will get the chance to do their jobs honestly. Even military and intelligence people are ill at ease with the wars; its mostly a political thing tied to well-monied think tanks and lobby groups, dependent on an IV drip of war machine pork.

On top of that, if he does govern as he says he will, the power of the Federal government will be greatly diminished. How will that prevent discrimination? On top of which, even where it's illegal discrimination still occurs. Where did you get this odd notion that one man can magically undo biotry at all levels?

I would say, how would suspending important parts of the Constitution and removing civil rights going to prevent discrimination? How far would racial and women's equality, gender and gender preference rights get without the right to organize dissent and civil disobedience if something like the Patriot Act were in place in the 1960s? How well would those movements sell to the broader public if they were associated with government oppression rather than freedom from bigoted bullies?

It was enlightened self-interest as much as enlightened compassion that gave minorities their rights. No fair-minded person appreciates being made to be unkind by peer pressure or otherwise.

If any rights amendment can be made obsolete, the laws and legal decisions stemming from them are by extension potentially obsolete, including race rights, rights to abortion, what have you. These have been under constant attack, and the bastion of their defense, recourse to civil rights activism, is being taken away. It won't be restricted to 'Islamic terrorism' forever. The neocons appear to think in stages of time including generations, not just 4-year Presidential terms.

America draws from two main sources, unofficially, the holy bible, and officially the Constitution and all the stories and myths of founding the nation. Breaking America has been to set the first pillar against the other where before they lived in uneasy separation and balance. Many founding neocons were ex-commie Trotskyites. They're not religious, but they know which font of values can be easily perverted to endless revolution/war. If the ideal ruler/god is a faceless oriental despot under whose name any action however wrong is right, not an ideal of Washington, that's the vision that will colour real actions.

People enforce laws by living it en masse, willingly, even proactively. Government formalizes things and provides order for that public will. Even in North Korea, government power can only make people go through the motions.

Being a politician is actually pretty strong evidence against that [being honest and sincere].

Well its either the politicians or the generals; who do you want to be ruled by? Most countries experiencing the kind of unrest America is experiencing now (sometime formented by the military industrial complex) usually experience a collapse of civilian government.

Skepticism is reasonable, especially after Obama, but Ron Paul lacks the same smooth packaging. He might be the real thing or not, but notice he's being vetted as much by genuine public discussion, not the mainstream media and his own slick media machine. Establishment fear is palpable. They don't like Ron Paul or the big things he stands for any more than the politically correct facade they maintain to shield their actions.

[Broomstick]

On what do you base this confidence that Paul will do as he says?

A few things.

Libertarians are among the most cynical, paranoid, and informed critics of government around, and if they figure Ron Paul is legit, there might be something there.

That does not constitute proof. It just means that particular group likes him. I suspect it's largely because of his stance on states' rights and his intentions to minimize/eliminate vast swathes of government and regulations (like the EPA) rather than because there's any basis for him being particularly effective.

My own reading of Ron Paul's political record says its highly probable he'll end the wars and restore civil rights, because it would be within his capabilities and political will, and that kind of conservatism has defined a long political career.

Your opinions ("my own reading") does not constitute proof of anything. WHY do you think that? Be specific. What makes you think that Ron Paul can single-handedly defy an opposed establishment, and likely and opposing Congress? Obama's term is proof that the PotUS can't do shit unless he can convince Congress to go along, and if Congress is as corrupt and bought and sold as you claim why would they go along with Ron Paul's reforms?

He's an older person

Irrelevant. Young president like John F. Kennedy have been reformers. Old geezers have been completely ineffective Chief Executives.

The only things that could stop him if elected are death or gross incompetence not necessarily his own.

Oh. You mean either 1) drop dead (something an older guy is more likely to do), 2) be assassinated (not unheard of in the US), or 3 Congress ("gross incompetence not necessarily his own").

I don't believe he's incompetent.

That's your opinion. Please use some facts to back that up.

If even Shrub could function as President, this guy can, and since not everybody in the bureaucracy is a crook, maybe those people will get the chance to do their jobs honestly.

That was also true during the Shrub years, perhaps even more so prior to him putting his cronies into power. If the bureaucracy couldn't step up during those two terms why the hell do you think it would happen during a Ron Paul administration?

On top of that, if he does govern as he says he will, the power of the Federal government will be greatly diminished. How will that prevent discrimination? On top of which, even where it's illegal discrimination still occurs. Where did you get this odd notion that one man can magically undo biotry at all levels?

I would say, how would suspending important parts of the Constitution and removing civil rights going to prevent discrimination?[/quote]
That occurred during the Civil War and the end result was the end of slavery as a legal institution. That doesn't things like suspending habeus corpus was right, but the US has survived episodes of rights rollback. Over the entire arc of US history, despite occasional retreats, civil rights have increased.

How far would racial and women's equality, gender and gender preference rights get without the right to organize dissent and civil disobedience if something like the Patriot Act were in place in the 1960s?

You do realize that those things did NOT come about because of people sitting around peacefully in parks singing Kum-Ba-Ya unmolested, right? You do realize that people died during the 60's over those things? Women's rights, minority rights, etc. were bought with blood as well as words, and by defying and breaking the law.

If any rights amendment can be made obsolete, the laws and legal decisions stemming from them are by extension potentially obsolete, including race rights, rights to abortion, what have you.

Got news for you buddy - it is ALREADY the case, and always has been, that ANY "rights amendment" can be "made obsolete" by 3/4 of the states agreeing to do just that. That's how the "right" to drink was eliminated (and later restored). That is how the "right" of a state to discriminate was eliminated (and THAT is an amendment Ron Paul wants rolled back!)

These have been under constant attack, and the bastion of their defense, recourse to civil rights activism, is being taken away.

That has always been the case. There is always someone wanting to make life more restrictive, to gain an unfair advantage, to impose their rules on others. How is this time different than other times?

Being a politician is actually pretty strong evidence against that [being honest and sincere].

Well its either the politicians or the generals; who do you want to be ruled by?

Neither, really, but I recognize that we need some form of government so it's matter of picking the lesser of to evils. The world and history have examples of both forms being either awful or tolerable.

Most countries experiencing the kind of unrest America is experiencing now (sometime formented by the military industrial complex) usually experience a collapse of civilian government.

Compared to things like the Arab Spring, I'm not sure you can say there is a lot of "civil unrest" in the US at the moment. Yes, there are protests, but it's not the Arab Spring, it's not even the 1960's. Perhaps you are too young to remember when US college students were shot by our own National Guardsmen. What is going on now is not at that level, and even back then no one really thought the government would collapse. You have a funny notion of what, exactly, is the sort of unrest that leads to a toppled government.

Skepticism is reasonable, especially after Obama

Oh, please - just as Obama was not the Messiah some people hoped for, neither is he the devil.

but Ron Paul lacks the same smooth packaging.

Which means he's less likely to be an effective politician.

He might be the real thing or not, but notice he's being vetted as much by genuine public discussion, not the mainstream media and his own slick media machine.

Bullshit - you as much as admitted in that sentence you don't know that he's the real deal, or that he'd be effective, you're just HOPING he will be.

Establishment fear is palpable. They don't like Ron Paul or the big things he stands for any more than the politically correct facade they maintain to shield their actions.

You could have said the same thing about Lyndon LaRouche back in his heyday, that doesn't mean he would have been good for the country.

[General Brock]

If your country is turning into a police state, you should leave. If your husband is turning into an abuser, you shoudl leave- you don't try to reason with them and reform them when you can already see them practicing their lines for "She fell down the stairs."

You don't marry the country you're born into; its more like family, you don't get to choose who they are or entirely determine how they turn out. A libertarian would be initiating legal divorce procedures in a domestic abuse situation, not fleeing the country.

Why am I fleeing? If I'm a US citizen fleeing criminal charges, I go to France. France wouldn't even extradite Romano Polanski, so political dissidents fleeing a police state are probably fine. Otherwise, pretty much anything goes- Canada, Japan, any EU state such as Germany or Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, even South Korea- You know, the rest of the developed west? Those guys? Also, do I have a native guide? If I have access, to, say, a spanish duel citizen friend who speaks fluent spanish, I obviously go with her.

Uh huh, the backbone of the West's military power, and a good chunk of its economic and intellectual power becomes harnessed to a rogue leadership clique for good and somehow the developed west will remain unaffected? Neoconservatism is international in the scope of its influence and ambitions.

Sure, it might be annoying now to immigrate what will all the work visa requirements and whatnot, but if you start preparing now, when the US passes the Enabling Act and becomes a police state, I'm pretty sure Canada and the others will accept refugees. Better a refugee than dead.

To be honest, the libertarian types accept that America already is a police state, and are not leaving, and are resisting any provocation to violence. They've laid siege, in a way. They know America is as of yet, to big to fail.

Everywhere? Even, like, Ghana? Also, how come everywhere else isn't turning into a police state then? Why not just go live with the Canadians. NWO or not, they're generally doing fine. Even if the black helicopter pilots will be turning Canada into a police state later or something, it at least buys you some time. And after they openly take over the US, it'd be pretty easy to oppose them in Canada and the EU and wahtnot.

When did I say everyone is turning into a police state? Most countries are completely compliant with the NWO without even knowing or caring and overt enforcement is hardly necessary. Canada is mostly owned by American companies anyway; the great Canadian lumber, steel, aluminum companies and heavy industry have been gone for a while. Its a branch plant economy. I think there was a big scare when a big Canadian potash company was about to be bought out by an Australian multinational, but its headquartered in Chicago so there was a very low probability it would be allowed to move to Sydney.

Call me when actual bad shit happens. When bad stuff goes down, people flee. They always flee because that's what you do in an emergency- if your house is on fire, you leave the house. This is why I can tell America isn't doing anything as grand and dramatic as becoming a police state as much as just being ineffectual and corrupt, because nobody bitching about it flees like jews or hmong or irish.

Police statehood isn't grand and dramatic, its mundane and depressing. Americans willingly put up with TSA abuses, for example, and did nothing the stop the NDAA. Yet they are taking a stand against SOPA, choosing the fights that can and need to be won as much as by instinct to freedom as anything else.

North Koreans would leave if they could (and if they were aware their state's crappy conditions were so bad and that it's their government's fault, which most of them aren't fully cognizant of really). Many of them do. For every Aung San Syi there's going to be several people who leave, but I don't know of a single American refugee fleeing the American slide into police statehood. Which is why I am suspicious of it.

North Korea is an overtly unapologetic police state confined to a small geographic area and while there will always be a population willing to migrate, many more would first choose to change their government for the better if they could, on their own, and not flee the lands of their ancestors.

America is a big country, still wealthy - the financial distress is more a problem of exceeding rate of income than inability to generate wealth - and most ordinary Americans believe the present troubles are temporary. The more radical and informed are determined this will be so.

Social change happens slowly, and sometimes even a radical change is recognizable only in hindsight. The Occupy movements are protests, an important second stage of resistance after the first wave of spontaneous Antiwar protests was defused, but not defeated. Getting leaders freely elected is still possible, and so getting people like Ron Paul into office remains important. Obama had his chance, maybe he'll get another. However, a vote for Ron Paul is one of the strongest statements against the status quo that can be made.

[Sidewinder]

Neoconservatism is international in the scope of its influence and ambitions.

Last I checked, Neoconservatism tends to adopt the attitude, "As long as the [resource of your choice] keeps flowing, we don't give a damn what the [resource provider] does." OIF was unique because W was determined to oust Saddam, and had to fabricate a LOT of evidence to get the Neoconservatives to support his plans- otherwise, they'd be content to wait for the Iraqis to starve to death.

[Sidewinder]

Most countries are completely compliant with the NWO without even knowing or caring and overt enforcement is hardly necessary.

Which NWO? The one the Russians are establishing- IN OPPOSITION to the American one, as demonstrated when they waged war against Georgia, AN AMERICAN ALLY that sent troops to Iraq? The one the Chinese are establishing- a (currently) nonviolent RIVAL to the American one, as demonstrated by its claim over the Spratly Islands, which is disputed by the Phillipines and other American allies? The Islamist one, which keeps trying to KILL AMERICANS and DESTROY THE US as a nation?

A quick glance at the news will reveal there is NO New World Order- or rather, lots of people trying to set up a New World Order, and failing because they keep getting in each other's way.

[Sidewinder]

Getting leaders freely elected is still possible, and so getting people like Ron Paul into office remains important. Obama had his chance, maybe he'll get another. However, a vote for Ron Paul is one of the strongest statements against the status quo that can be made.

And if I disagree with Ron Paul's political views? Should I still vote for someone I'm convinced will drive the nation into the ground? Why can't I make a statement by backing Ralph Nader, whose political views I actually agree with?

[Duckie]

You don't marry the country you're born into; its more like family, you don't get to choose who they are or entirely determine how they turn out. A libertarian would be initiating legal divorce procedures in a domestic abuse situation, not fleeing the country.

I'm not sure if I follow you. Of course you don't flee the country for domestic abuse, you divorce for that (you flee the relationship country equivalent.). This is a metaphor.

I don't know about you, but were a family to turn into the familial equivalent of a police state, I recommend to get the hell out of dodge and vanish, perhaps even change your name, and never be seen again. It worked quite well actually and I recommend it to others highly. You don't negotiate with them and try to convince them to reform, even if maybe there's a chance.

If I'm in danger because of my national family-equivalent, I'd ditch it in record time, just like a real family. Hell, I'd ditch a nation or a family just because I don't like them if possible and reasonable, let alone danger.

I thought Libertarians were born free, out of servitude? Why do you owe family loyalty and loyalty to the nation that you were born in anyhow? Why not terminate the voluntary contract?

Uh huh, the backbone of the West's military power, and a good chunk of its economic and intellectual power becomes harnessed to a rogue leadership clique for good and somehow the developed west will remain unaffected? Neoconservatism is international in the scope of its influence and ambitions.

Actually, I wouldn't be too surprised if it didn't. And even if it does, it buys one more time. If you drive fast enough you can outrun a tornado, and since it's unlikely to destroy the entire tri-state area you'll have somewhere to sleep when it dies down. This is a bad metaphor though because it's risky to run from a tornado, rather than prudent.

To be honest, the libertarian types accept that America already is a police state, and are not leaving, and are resisting any provocation to violence. They've laid siege, in a way. They know America is as of yet, to big to fail.

If it's too big to fail, what's the worry? America isn't a police state. If you want a police state, I invite you to take a trip to Thailand and to tell the police that the King is a syphilitic sodomite. And Thailand isn't even that bad a place as far as places go except from the first world perspective. Give Thailand a median household income of 50,000$ a year and it'd be a perfectly fine place, ability to make funny comedy sketch shows about the King notwithstanding.

Trust me, America isn't a police state. America is a state that thinks it's the police. Big difference. If it's a police state, it's a relatively comfortable one all things considered. Fight to improve it, but don't make this out to be a fight for civilisation. The government doesn't even monitor your anti-government behaviour and abduct you to interrogate and torture you unless your beard is longer than 6 inches. East Germany didn't have such qualms, and they had to build their fence to keep people in.

When did I say everyone is turning into a police state? Most countries are completely compliant with the NWO without even knowing or caring and overt enforcement is hardly necessary. Canada is mostly owned by American companies anyway; the great Canadian lumber, steel, aluminum companies and heavy industry have been gone for a while. Its a branch plant economy. I think there was a big scare when a big Canadian potash company was about to be bought out by an Australian multinational, but its headquartered in Chicago so there was a very low probability it would be allowed to move to Sydney.

Seems great then. Go live in Canada. Avoids the police state, already complies enough to not get the boot. Comfortable, well adjusted, culturally similar, similarly wealthy, and it's right next door. No problems there.

This NWO thing is interesting. You say that faffing about on the internet is the best hope for American liberty, so I'd be curious to hear it explained. What is it? Who founded it and when? What does it do, precisely? Why fear it? Why does it want to do what it does? These are all great questions I'd need answered before I can determine how to best fight the NWO.

[General Brock]

That does not constitute proof. It just means that particular group likes him. I suspect it's largely because of his stance on states' rights and his intentions to minimize/eliminate vast swathes of government and regulations (like the EPA) rather than because there's any basis for him being particularly effective.

Yes, that's usually how electoral politics works; a candidate has a platform, with some planks that are quite disagreeable to some groups and attractive to others. Unless one is an EPA civil servant, stopping the wars and restoring civil rights may be more important than issues like preserving the EPA as it is now, a little too cozy with industry and uncertain an ally of environmentalism.

Your opinions ("my own reading") does not constitute proof of anything. WHY do you think that? Be specific. What makes you think that Ron Paul can single-handedly defy an opposed establishment, and likely and opposing Congress? Obama's term is proof that the PotUS can't do shit unless he can convince Congress to go along, and if Congress is as corrupt and bought and sold as you claim why would they go along with Ron Paul's reforms?

You are correct in that my opinion means nothing. Only what really happens matters. Ron Paul says he will, has a substantial public base of support to enable him, and he has a consistent record of voting to oppose the recent rights erosions, and he has opposed resolutions in support of the wars fairly consistently. The record of being on the losing side of dissent and reform may also continue - but its an improvement if the Senate and Congress do a wrong thing in defiance of their own President than a compliant President in collusion with them in defiance of his supporters.

If Obama can order 'kinetic action' without Congressional approval Ron Paul can order a 'strategic repositioning' of American troops away from wars zones of choice and end hostilities by refusing to engage in them, also without Congressional approval. POTUS is Commander in Chief; Congress may well pass a declaration of war against terrorism. Its still the President's call on how to fight it.

Irrelevant. Young president like John F. Kennedy have been reformers. Old geezers have been completely ineffective Chief Executives.

I gave my reasons for age relevance. As far as Kennedy goes, there are many conspiracy theories around his assassination and one of them was that, like Ron Paul, he was deeply suspicious of, and intended to remove, the private monopolies of the Federal Reserve Banks.

Oh. You mean either 1) drop dead (something an older guy is more likely to do), 2) be assassinated (not unheard of in the US), or 3 Congress ("gross incompetence not necessarily his own").

Pretty much, although to people he appoints to his cabinet and to government posts may also let him down.

That's your opinion. Please use some facts to back that up.

Like the newsletters are facts? The only facts that matter are that Ron Paul said he will end the wars and restore suspended civil rights very recently and has a record of being a voice of dissent against the majority when they wanted those things done.

That occurred during the Civil War and the end result was the end of slavery as a legal institution. That doesn't things like suspending habeus corpus was right, but the US has survived episodes of rights rollback. Over the entire arc of US history, despite occasional retreats, civil rights have increased.

You do realize that those things did NOT come about because of people sitting around peacefully in parks singing Kum-Ba-Ya unmolested, right? You do realize that people died during the 60's over those things? Women's rights, minority rights, etc. were bought with blood as well as words, and by defying and breaking the law.

Got news for you buddy - it is ALREADY the case, and always has been, that ANY "rights amendment" can be "made obsolete" by 3/4 of the states agreeing to do just that. That's how the "right" to drink was eliminated (and later restored). That is how the "right" of a state to discriminate was eliminated (and THAT is an amendment Ron Paul wants rolled back!)

OK, fine. Who is the alternative to Ron Paul who has clearly stated he or she will end the wars and restore civil rights and not already proven that he or she was lying?

Where is the proof that this era of rights rollbacks is going to be temporary, if not only hardly anyone demands their restoration, the one demanding their restoration is somehow painted an enemy of civil rights?

So Paul wants state rights? Not every state will want the right to discriminate. It makes no sense to say, to protect American civil rights the rights of Islamic peoples in their own countries to be left to live in peace can be routinely violated past the point of death by a hijacked military. Yes, past the point of death because some of the residues of the weapons used are genotoxic and routinely endanger the health of the future generations in-vitro. Where the hell are your priorities?

Compared to things like the Arab Spring, I'm not sure you can say there is a lot of "civil unrest" in the US at the moment. Yes, there are protests, but it's not the Arab Spring, it's not even the 1960's. Perhaps you are too young to remember when US college students were shot by our own National Guardsmen. What is going on now is not at that level, and even back then no one really thought the government would collapse. You have a funny notion of what, exactly, is the sort of unrest that leads to a toppled government.

America has a far smaller percentage of young restless people around today whereas the Arab population is a larger, younger one in far worse conditions.

Funny notion? Not really. Civil unrest doesn't have to be widespread at all to be a pretext. The neocons aren't yielding one little bit and expanding in power. Dissent is being ignored but it can't be forever; the longer it persists, the less spontaneous it will be as it organizes, and the more easily its leadership can be bought into. The neocons don't mind overthrowing governments abroad, under such cynical reasoning that it makes no sense to assume the American electoral system is sacrosanct to them.

Oh, please - just as Obama was not the Messiah some people hoped for, neither is he the devil.

There was no way Obama could be a messiah, but ending the wars was kind of a big core promise to renege on. Instead, he dragged his feet out of Iraq, and turned up the heat in Afghanistan and expanded it into Pakistan. Then he thrashed Libya and sent troops to hunt some obscure warlord in Uganda. Ditto civil rights. Would it really have been that hard to restore civil rights? Did those really have to be removed at all to continue prosecuting the wars and ensure security at home anyway? A proven senseless liar of Obama's credentials yet somehow Ron Paul is to be demonized?

Which means he's less likely to be an effective politician.

Well OK, so he's less a threat to the EPA then.

Bullshit - you as much as admitted in that sentence you don't know that he's the real deal, or that he'd be effective, you're just HOPING he will be.

At this point, you're asking me to reliably read the future. Very informed people hoped Obama would be the real deal, and they were much more intelligent and informed than myself to 'know' he was the real deal. They were wrong. Similarly, informed and intelligent people say Ron Paul is acceptable to the point of being a last chance, and the only arguments refuting that are spurious.

If Paul somehow did everything he wanted to do, what's stopping you from fighting to keep/restore the EPA et all after the wars are put out and civil rights restored? If Paul ended the EPA and allowed states to discriminate without fulfilling his core promises, yes that would be a problem. However, the way government spending is going, that will happen anyway as the government once again goes broke against a debt ceiling that at some future date just can't be raised anymore and Obama or any non-Paul successor act to save money and operate a necessarily smaller government

You could have said the same thing about Lyndon LaRouche back in his heyday, that doesn't mean he would have been good for the country.

LBJ how many kids did you kill today?

I'm saying Ron Paul looks viable right now as a start for change. He's the only one making ending the wars and restoring civil rights an election priority. The very action of making them a stark end or continue election issue is brave given the nature of the opposition.

I can't know he will for sure any more than Obama supporters could have been be sure, and accept I could be as wrong as much more intelligent and informed people were about Obama. Whom I actually expected to be a fail anyway for my own reasons that would have been dismissed as unfounded opinion.

This absolute proof you're looking for eludes me. For all I know, Obama himself will get a clue and end the wars and restore civil rights all on his own because its the right thing to do and the economy improves as a result. I highly doubt that but can't 'prove' it either way to the anti-Paul standard.

If people want to nitpick on Paul's capabilities and political correctness, fine, but I believe its foolish liberal elitism when people are dying and losing jobs and homes. Why not lock on the immediate threat and prioritize stopping that first and foremost? Oh, right. Ron Paul might get around to torpedoing the EPA which might not be affordable anyway and so shut down by default because of that anyway with or without Paul.

[General Brock]

I'm not sure if I follow you. Of course you don't flee the country for domestic abuse, you divorce for that (you flee the relationship country equivalent.). This is a metaphor.

I get the attempt at metaphor, but fleeing one's country is just not the same thing as a divorce. Of course, having done neither action, I suppose I'm not the best judge of that at an emotional level.

I don't know about you, but were a family to turn into the familial equivalent of a police state, I recommend to get the hell out of dodge and vanish, perhaps even change your name, and never be seen again. It worked quite well actually and I recommend it to others highly. You don't negotiate with them and try to convince them to reform, even if maybe there's a chance.

I won't disagree with that and the choice is up to the bearer of that burden.

If I'm in danger because of my national family-equivalent, I'd ditch it in record time, just like a real family. Hell, I'd ditch a nation or a family just because I don't like them if possible and reasonable, let alone danger.

I thought Libertarians were born free, out of servitude? Why do you owe family loyalty and loyalty to the nation that you were born in anyhow? Why not terminate the voluntary contract?

Loyalty is not servitude. The first is voluntary, the second is compulsory.

Actually, I wouldn't be too surprised if it didn't. And even if it does, it buys one more time. If you drive fast enough you can outrun a tornado, and since it's unlikely to destroy the entire tri-state area you'll have somewhere to sleep when it dies down. This is a bad metaphor though because it's risky to run from a tornado, rather than prudent.

If a tornado is coming the safe response is to take cover in the most secure location within range.

If it's too big to fail, what's the worry? America isn't a police state. If you want a police state, I invite you to take a trip to Thailand and to tell the police that the King is a syphilitic sodomite. And Thailand isn't even that bad a place as far as places go except from the first world perspective. Give Thailand a median household income of 50,000$ a year and it'd be a perfectly fine place, ability to make funny comedy sketch shows about the King notwithstanding.

Trust me, America isn't a police state. America is a state that thinks it's the police. Big difference. If it's a police state, it's a relatively comfortable one all things considered. Fight to improve it, but don't make this out to be a fight for civilisation. The government doesn't even monitor your anti-government behaviour and abduct you to interrogate and torture you unless your beard is longer than 6 inches. East Germany didn't have such qualms, and they had to build their fence to keep people in.

I never took libertarians seriously until their wild projections appeared to be coming true. Anyone coming from someplace far worse than America would certainly find it a paradise and think its a little spoiled to cry 'police state'. Anyone having been brought up knowing what real freedom is, does not want the changes that have happened to remain in place for much longer and told to be grateful its not worse. That kind of complacency guarantees it will become worse.

Its like civil discourse; some ways of talking are not as comfortable to some as others. Its not civil or funny to call someone terrible and hurtful names even if he is a king in most situations, and certainly not for casual laughs. It usually takes a high level of friendship for such liberties, and only under a very narrow range of circumstances of give and take and laughing it off. It doesn't justify an official state beating and imprisonment, but while a western politician might take insults with the territory, an ordinary Joe would be sorely tempted to beat some manners into his or her antagonist or lower the level of discourse to where exchanging insults is normal. At the very least, you've not done good to someone and they have reason to dislike you where before indifference might be all.

Seems great then. Go live in Canada. Avoids the police state, already complies enough to not get the boot. Comfortable, well adjusted, culturally similar, similarly wealthy, and it's right next door. No problems there.

And be robbed of their homeland by some ignorant politicians? Where's the pride in that?

This NWO thing is interesting. You say that faffing about on the internet is the best hope for American liberty, so I'd be curious to hear it explained. What is it? Who founded it and when? What does it do, precisely? Why fear it? Why does it want to do what it does? These are all great questions I'd need answered before I can determine how to best fight the NWO.

I'm not the person to ask, but since you asked, I'll answer as best I can. However, my knowledge is neither comprehensive enough, deep enough, or seasoned and mature enough to answer your questions to the level you need. There are many people on this board whom you might definitely be better to be asking such questions of, who have special interest in those areas cultivated more thoroughly. There is also great benefit in using internet resources other than an online forum to learn those answers or verify the ones you get.

The internet was invented by no single person, but by the military and academia for their own electronic communications. From there, individual people began acquiring personal computers for their own use and modems to communicate with each other as an alternative to phones and snail mail. As the personal computer became affordable for larger numbers of ordinary people who weren't computer scientists and students, inevitably the free market capitalized upon its potential as avenue for communications and it became what we have today, a storehouse and distributor of information, goods and services both free and for a fee.

The ability to communicate ideas and large volumes of information quickly, broadly, affordably, and with some measure of privacy and security make the internet what newspapers and books and magazines and private and open letters were just twenty years ago amplified a hundred times or more. People can also more quickly organize and act on that information against disadvantageous conditions dependent on their ignorance and inability to communicate freely. Which is why those in power would like to censor the internet. Part of it is somewhat legitimate concerns over compensation for use of intellectual property being shared, sold, or used to sell, the rest is just to stick it to the netizen for being uppity.

The New World Order is a modern incarnation of the very old notion of conquering the world by force and deception, bringing all nations under one single authoritarian governing authority whether they like it or not, in servitude to a minority of privileged persons.

However, theoretically, it would also be the natural progression of nations and peoples to come to a point where alliances and pan-national relationships are willingly negotiated into into a single unifying government that is democratic and somewhat more egalitarian than the first model. This would be for the same reason lesser peaceful unifications happen; it is universally recognized by the participants to be some combination of necessary, beneficial, desirable, and doable.

If you want to fight the 'dark side' NWO, don't 'fight' as in go out and make trouble, but stay informed and educated about the concepts, things, and causes that interest you and find important and let that guide your actions in any number of daily living things. Cultivate a sound sense of reason and aesthetic and back any presumption of rights with assumption of responsibility.

Be firm about living and learning to live as a decent human being by a standard of tolerance and give and take you can back with honest action, and accept it as an inalienable right for all people to be free to do the same to the best of their knowledge and ability.

The NWO is a dehumanizing force, so the best way to buck it is to hold the line on humanitarian attitude and endeavor and see it forward.

[Broken]

The New World Order is a modern incarnation of the very old notion of conquering the world by force and deception, bringing all nations under one single authoritarian governing authority whether they like it or not, in servitude to a minority of privileged persons.

However, theoretically, it would also be the natural progression of nations and peoples to come to a point where alliances and pan-national relationships are willingly negotiated into into a single unifying government that is democratic and somewhat more egalitarian than the first model. This would be for the same reason lesser peaceful unifications happen; it is universally recognized by the participants to be some combination of necessary, beneficial, desirable, and doable.

If you want to fight the 'dark side' NWO, don't 'fight' as in go out and make trouble, but stay informed and educated about the concepts, things, and causes that interest you and find important and let that guide your actions in any number of daily living things. Cultivate a sound sense of reason and aesthetic and back any presumption of rights with assumption of responsibility.

Be firm about living and learning to live as a decent human being by a standard of tolerance and give and take you can back with honest action, and accept it as an inalienable right for all people to be free to do the same to the best of their knowledge and ability.

The NWO is a dehumanizing force, so the best way to buck it is to hold the line on humanitarian attitude and endeavor and see it forward.

I have to agree with Duckie here. I still don't get what this NWO is.

When was it founded and by whom? Does it stretch back into the mists of time to the glory that was Rome? Perhaps to the Avignon Papacy or some Renaissance philosopher? Was Napoleon Bonaparte an agent of the NWO or a monkey wrench in the established order of Europe? How about Rockefeller and Krupp?

Who currently heads it and how is it organized? Is Bill Clinton a member? How about Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev? Is Dick Cheney one of their leaders or is that too obvious?

Is it a secret society or more of a council? Does it have an chief executive and is he elected or appointed? How dense is the hierarchy and how much information and influence flows among those levels?

How does it recruit new members and how does it keep them from ever reveling what they know if they have a change of heart? Do you have join Skull and Bones or can you just work your way up through the military-industrial complex? What about the masons, are they part of it or a rival? Are blackmail and murder their chief weapons or tools of last resort?

Is this a secret society primarily confined to the West or has it infiltrated China and India for instance? Did Nixon go to China purely in order to pave the way for the NWO to take over China's leadership?

These are basic questions that should be asked and answered in regards to this NWO. To counter a movement, it is best to know the movement, how it works and is organized, how it came about and its goals. So far all we have been informed of is that the NWO is some nebulous enemy to be feared and opposed.

[Knife]

lol, the NWO is the boogieman for people to point to so they can portray themselves as roughed individuals fighting against the man. It serves so people can make comparisons to Colonial America fighting against the world powers of Britain.

[Shinn Langley Soryu]

lol, the NWO is the boogieman for people to point to so they can portray themselves as roughed individuals fighting against the man. It serves so people can make comparisons to Colonial America fighting against the world powers of Britain.

What makes this situation odd is that the one spewing the NWO garbage is supposedly from Canada, if his stated location is to be trusted. I was always under the impression that NWO conspiracy theories were primarily the domain of American nutjobs.

[Sidewinder]

lol, the NWO is the boogieman for people to point to so they can portray themselves as roughed individuals fighting against the man. It serves so people can make comparisons to Colonial America fighting against the world powers of Britain.

What makes this situation odd is that the one spewing the NWO garbage is supposedly from Canada, if his stated location is to be trusted. I was always under the impression that NWO conspiracy theories were primarily the domain of American nutjobs.

I assumed this guy is an American who, for some reason, moved to Canada. This may be only temporary- he may work at an Alaskan oil field, and is travelling from his place of work to Washington or wherever he lives- but it calls his integrity to question, if he's so "patriotic."

[Rahvin]

Second, if Paul adheres to the Constitution like he says he will, and that guides his actions, he's grounding his actions upon a source of ordered lawmaking first, not only addressing the needs of the moment from the perspective of the moment, which is a for more chaotic way of doing things.

I don't doubt that Paul would adhere strongly to his interpretation of the Constitution. Paul has been nothing if not consistent in his statements.

Unfortunately Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is insane. He thinks that a sizable portion of the federal government is unconstitutional, and thinks Constitutional guarantees for equal treatment under the law do not apply to the States, who could individually decide on abortion, gay marriage, segregation, and slavery under his interpretation.

I like that he opposes torture, I'm down with stopping drone attacks and other violations of other nations' sovereignty, but I can't vote to put that interpretation of teh Constitution into the White House, where he might actually get to appoint a Justice or two to a lifetime at the Supreme Court!

[UnderAGreySky]

Of all the Bullshit you've spouted, Brock, I'd like to see evidence of the bolded bit below:

There was no way Obama could be a messiah, but ending the wars was kind of a big core promise to renege on. Instead, he dragged his feet out of Iraq, and turned up the heat in Afghanistan and expanded it into Pakistan. Then he thrashed Libya and sent troops to hunt some obscure warlord in Uganda. Ditto civil rights. Would it really have been that hard to restore civil rights? Did those really have to be removed at all to continue prosecuting the wars and ensure security at home anyway? A proven senseless liar of Obama's credentials yet somehow Ron Paul is to be demonized?

Because as far as I can tell, Obama campaigned on ending Iraq (which he did and stuck to the agreed timetable) and focusing on Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will"

And guess what? He delivered.

The New World Order is a modern incarnation of the very old notion of conquering the world by force and deception, bringing all nations under one single authoritarian governing authority whether they like it or not, in servitude to a minority of privileged persons.

I suppose asking you to provide evidence for your paranoid delusions is too much.

Be firm about living and learning to live as a decent human being by a standard of tolerance and give and take you can back with honest action, and accept it as an inalienable right for all people to be free to do the same to the best of their knowledge and ability.

Get off your high horse, you arse. People who recognise that sometimes the individual is not as important as a society are not less decent than idiots like you.

[Patrick Degan]

Leaving aside everything else for a few moments, let's just look at the main points of Paul Craig Roberts' "logic":

America has one last chance, and it is a very slim one. Americans can elect Ron Paul President, or they can descend into tyranny.

Why is Ron Paul America’s last chance?

Because he is the only candidate who is not owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military-security complex, Wall Street, and the Israel Lobby.

. . .

only Ron Paul respects the US Constitution and its protection of civil liberty. Only Ron Paul understands that if the Constitution cannot be resurrected from its public murder by Congress and the executive branch, then Americans are lost to tyranny.

But then...

a President Ron Paul would be isolated in the White House and would never be able to muster the support of Congress and the powerful interest groups to achieve such radical changes. Moreover, Ron Paul has made it clear that a welfare-free state cannot be achieved by decree but only by creating an economy in which opportunity exists for people to stand on their own feet. Ron Paul has said that he does not support ending welfare before an economy is created that makes a welfare state unnecessary.

. . .

If despite everything, Ron Paul were to end up in the White House, he would not be able to form a government that would support his policies. Appointments to cabinet secretaries and assistant secretaries that would support his policies could not be confirmed by the US Senate. President Paul would have to appoint whomever the Senate would confirm in order to form a government. The Senate’s appointees would undermine his policies.

And yet, despite how powerless President Paul would be...

What a President Ron Paul could do, assuming Congress, controlled by powerful private interest groups, did not impeach him on trumped up charges, would be to use whatever forums that might be permitted him to explain to the public, judges, and law schools that the danger from terrorists is miniscule compared to the danger from a government unaccountable to law and the Constitution.

Therefore...

The reason we should vote for Ron Paul is to signal to the powers that be that we understand what they are doing to us. If Paul were to receive a large vote, it could have two good effects. One could be to introduce some caution into the establishment that would slow the march into more war and tyranny. The other is it would signal to Washington’s European and Japanese puppets that not all Americans are stupid sheep. Such an indication could make Washington’s puppet states more cautious and less cooperative with Washington’s drive for world hegemony.

OK, to break this down: Ron Paul represents the last, best hope for the guttering flame of American Liberty™ and what we can presume is "true constitutionalism". Yet Ron Paul, even if he were to be elected president despite the massive conspiratorial forces which would be arrayed against him actually achieving the White House, would find himself isolated and powerless in the White House, unable to actually do anything. But that's OK somehow because, as president, Ron Paul can explain to the American people that the New World Order™ is a Bad Thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and with the credibility loaned him by saying it sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office —which will make The Conspiracy™ and their puppets in Europe and Japan sit up and take notice and then America will be able to start back on the road to liberty, constitutionalism, and rainbows and puppies for all. Never mind that if The Conspriacy™ has the power to exclude Ron Paul from the GOP debates (which, strangely, hasn't happened), they could also as easily make sure that his messages to the people from the Oval Office never actually get out into the public, since the Media™ are also part of The Conspiracy™. Never mind also that, if our "puppets" in Europe and Japan are part of the New World Order™ either from intimidation —or because they see advantage in being part of it— they'd no more care what President Ron Paul or his voters had to say than if Ron Paul just got his own TV show on FOX. But somehow, someway, the election of Ron Paul is our only chance, and a slim one, to avoid the complete descent into tyranny by 2016.

Yeah...

The mindlessness repels.

The irony burns.