Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Adam Kokesh @ Town Hall in NM

23 comments:

mkauai said...

GO GRASSROOTS!!!

http://www.kokeshforcongress.com

Christopher said...

Here comes the demagogue! Yay! Tyranny will come from the libertards!

Christopher said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbOp_9VfR6o

Christopher said...

Whoa, "we the people". What a fucking arrogant prick. The people VOTED Obama into office. He is not a tyrant. He is not a King. HE WAS VOTED INTO OFFICE YOU BONEHEADED LIBERTARD!

Christopher said...

His need to talk about "we" is clearly rooted in racism, murder, sexism, homophobia, and Christian tyranny. It is only his "we" that is important, not the real we. He is a selfish piece of shit that should be blocked at every turn.

Josh said...

"His need to talk about "we" is clearly rooted in racism, murder, sexism, homophobia, and Christian tyranny."

Obviously. (sarcasm intended).

Christopher said...

Obviously, because it is that "we" that used to rule using race, sex, murder, homophobia, and the tyranny of the Church to dominate politics. Libertardianism is simply the cleanest version of it as a modern movement.

mkauai said...

haha - Aloha Christopher, quite a vocabulary of ad-homs and fallacious hogwash you got going there. I might consider talking to you about your misunderstandings, but worry you might short out your keyboard with spittle. ;)

One thing I will note. You said, "Christopher said...

Whoa, "we the people". What a fucking arrogant prick. The people VOTED Obama into office. He is not a tyrant. He is not a King. HE WAS VOTED INTO OFFICE YOU BONEHEADED LIBERTARD!


about a speech he made in July of '08. 4 months before Mr Obama was elected to office... haha - Let me know how that crow tastes... kthxbye

Christopher said...

"haha - Aloha Christopher, quite a vocabulary of ad-homs and fallacious hogwash you got going there."

They do not magically become ad hominems and fallacies until you show how they are so. Until then, you have only counter with flatulence.

"I might consider talking to you about your misunderstandings, but worry you might short out your keyboard with spittle. ;)"

*fart*^

"One thing I will note. You said, "Christopher said..."

*fart*^

"Whoa, "we the people". What a fucking arrogant prick. The people VOTED Obama into office. He is not a tyrant. He is not a King. HE WAS VOTED INTO OFFICE YOU BONEHEADED LIBERTARD!"

"about a speech he made in July of '08. 4 months before Mr Obama was elected to office... haha - Let me know how that crow tastes... kthxbye"

Hi, still the same problem then.. Bush was at historical lows in approval, the economy was tanking, which caused a migration of votes to the democrats (yes, these changes don't happen over night! They happen in the months and years preceding the election), and the libertards were still a very small part of the population. What is he therefore talking about? We the people? We who? We the libetarians and conservatives who distrust each other and ally simply to thwart the democrats? We the people who voted Obama into office? (and, yes, libertards and conservacrites CONTINUE to talk about "we the people" in speeches. They talk as if Obama is a King or Obama is a tyrant, or Obama is someone to be overthrown, but what happens? Are you really going to start a civil war here? Because either you are a bunch of idiots, or you are really looking to start civil war, EVEN THOUGH Obama was elected by a Republican system)

Christopher said...

Go grassroots that elected Obama! GO GRASSROOTS!

Josh said...

"Libertardianism is simply the cleanest version of it as a modern movement."

Clean meaning, there is no sexism, racism, murder, homophobia, or Christian tyranny involved.

Josh said...

On the use of "we the people":

It is not specifically an "anti-obama" phrase. Those who use it within the movement that Paul has started is referring to "we the people" vs. the tyrannical government that is acting on its own agenda and not representing the interests of the people.

Now, you will respond with the "government is the people and are made up of representatives voted into office". Fine. But simply because a congressman is voted into office does not mean he has the constitutional power to vote to bailout AIG at the expense of every single citizen; but he will pretend to anyway.

"we the people" is used to help people understand that the government is supposed to be in the hands of the people and simply because there is a vote does not mean it is. Any power that is not enumerated to the congress in the constitution is the responsibility of the states and the people respectively.

"we the people" means that no matter who is elected, the power of the people has been hijacked and centralized by government when they had no legal right to do so.

Christopher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christopher said...

"Clean meaning, there is no sexism, racism, murder, homophobia, or Christian tyranny involved."

Yes, or very little. Unfortunately, it is still rooted in its previous manifestation in the older generations, which was racist, based on murder, homophobic, sexist, and buoyed by Christian tyranny. That's why the cross was burnt, not some other random symbol. And that is why Ron Paul associates with the Republicons.

"It is not specifically an "anti-obama" phrase. Those who use it within the movement that Paul has started is referring to "we the people" vs. the tyrannical government that is acting on its own agenda and not representing the interests of the people."

Does not exist. You might be able that a certain section of the elite is doing that, but I will respond that you are free to vote them out of office.

"Now, you will respond with the "government is the people and are made up of representatives voted into office". Fine. But simply because a congressman is voted into office does not mean he has the constitutional power to vote to bailout AIG at the expense of every single citizen; but he will pretend to anyway. "

Yes, that is actually what it means. The post office is constitution. Bailouts, assuming the money is stipulated to be paid back, is exactly like the post office: it is to PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE>

You and your ilk simply want to ignore this fact because the founders didn't agree with your anti-American, non-constitutional ideas about how society should be run.

""we the people" is used to help people understand that the government is supposed to be in the hands of the people and simply because there is a vote does not mean it is. Any power that is not enumerated to the congress in the constitution is the responsibility of the states and the people respectively. "

That is exactly how the constitution says the government should be run. In fact, the electoral part of the constitution shows that the founders really didn't want the people to be in direct control, but in control. YOU KNOW, CHECKS AND BALANCES>

Jimmy Carter is 100% correct. This "reclaim America" crap is rooted in racism, because it AINT rooted in a competent knowledge of the constitution.

Josh said...

"Yes, or very little. Unfortunately, it is still rooted in its previous manifestation in the older generations, which was racist, based on murder, homophobic, sexist, and buoyed by Christian tyranny. That's why the cross was burnt, not some other random symbol. And that is why Ron Paul associates with the Republicons."

Wow. So you must be for the starvation of people, dictators, mass murdering, and work camps...considering that's what the roots of your political philosophy has brought to the world.

Also remember, while there was slavery in the US, and when the KKK came to be, the Democrats ruled the south.

"Yes, that is actually what it means. The post office is constitution. Bailouts, assuming the money is stipulated to be paid back, is exactly like the post office: it is to PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE>

You and your ilk simply want to ignore this fact because the founders didn't agree with your anti-American, non-constitutional ideas about how society should be run."

Please quote me anything written by Franklin, Washington, Madison, or Jefferson that would give you the idea that simply because the post office is in the constitution, that bailing out private corporations is constitutional? You continue to ignore the FACT that the post office IS in the Constitution and that bailout ARE NOT in the Constitution.

You also ignore the FACT that when interpreting the General Welfare clause in your perspective, that the 9th and 10th amendments because useless. You also ignore the FACT that you cannot provide historical reference backing up that the founders had your perspective in mind when writing the general welfare clause. AND you ignore the fact these types of legislation DO NOT support the general welfare of the people, they promote the welfare of some at the cost of others.

"That is exactly how the constitution says the government should be run."

You agree that any power that is not enumerated to the congress in the constitution is the responsibility of the states and the people respectively?

"Jimmy Carter is 100% correct. This "reclaim America" crap is rooted in racism, because it AINT rooted in a competent knowledge of the constitution."

I had a bit of respect for Jimmy Carter until he accused a man of racism that has committed no racist act.

Christopher said...

"Wow. So you must be for the starvation of people, dictators, mass murdering, and work camps...considering that's what the roots of your political philosophy has brought to the world."

My political movement is not ROOTED (look up its definition) in Russia. It is rooted in arguments and thought, not peasant politics.

The roots of Western Marxism and socialism have brought some of the greatest wealth and civilization there has ever been.

"Also remember, while there was slavery in the US, and when the KKK came to be, the Democrats ruled the south. "

Surely you are not going to use Bluedogs to suggest that the racism, Christian tyranny, homophobia, and sexism are inherent to the left? They don't even want to vote in favor of Nationalized Health Care. WHICH MAKES THEM, BY ANY DEFINITION OF THE LEFT, NOT LEFT> and not democratic.

"Please quote me anything written by Franklin, Washington, Madison, or Jefferson that would give you the idea that simply because the post office is in the constitution, that bailing out private corporations is constitutional? You continue to ignore the FACT that the post office IS in the Constitution and that bailout ARE NOT in the Constitution."

And you ignore the fact that the Post Office promotes the general welfare. PROMOTES THE GENERAL WELFARE is in the first sentence of the constitution.

"that the 9th and 10th amendments because useless."

You are going to have to go into more detail here.

"You also ignore the FACT that you cannot provide historical reference backing up that the founders had your perspective in mind when writing the general welfare clause."

What are you talking about? The only reason the Post Office would have been added is to promote the general welfare. Moreover, what the founders said or didn't say before the constitution was ratified is irrelevant. In the end, both the post office and the "promote the general welfare" were added to the constitution.

"AND you ignore the fact these types of legislation DO NOT support the general welfare of the people, they promote the welfare of some at the cost of others."

That is for the nation and Congress to debate.

"You agree that any power that is not enumerated to the congress in the constitution is the responsibility of the states and the people respectively?"

Yup, just like I also think that promoting the general welfare is perfectly constitution. It is the responsibility of the states and the people respectively, BECAUSE it is up to the people to elect presidents, senators, house reps, governors, and state senators.. Therefore, the 9th and 10th amendments are redundant.

"I had a bit of respect for Jimmy Carter until he accused a man of racism that has committed no racist act."

Why do you think you have to commit a racist act to be a racist?


Rooted is different than the man being a racist.

Josh said...

"My political movement is not ROOTED (look up its definition) in Russia. It is rooted in arguments and thought, not peasant politics."

The arguments and thoughts that lead to communist russia and communist china.

"The roots of Western Marxism and socialism have brought some of the greatest wealth and civilization there has ever been."

Lol. Thankfully any western society that has social programs with roots in marxism also has a fairly free market to provide their society with wealth. The marxist thought that lead to communist russia and communist china did not lead to any amount of wealth at all.

"And you ignore the fact that the Post Office promotes the general welfare. PROMOTES THE GENERAL WELFARE is in the first sentence of the constitution."

The post office, at the time of the constitution, did promote the general welfare as it wasn't done to the expense of anyone else specifically. Government was paid for through tariffs.

Congress can only promote the general welfare within the confines of the powers enumerated to them in Article 1 Section 8.

"Moreover, what the founders said or didn't say before the constitution was ratified is irrelevant."

I disagree. They wrote the constitution in the language of the time. So sometimes to understand what certain text actually meant, you need to go back to what the founders said about it at the time of its creation.

For example, "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;". The use of the word "regulate" was different then than it is now. The purpose to keep trade "regular". Not to impose rules trade. For example, states now have enacted legislation prohibiting citizens from purchasing health insurance from out of state insurance companies. Under this clause, the congress has the power to repeal those laws as they prohibit trade where trade is meant to be kept regular.

"That is for the nation and Congress to debate."

No. This is reality. It promotes the welfare of some at the expense of others; just like all of these bank bailouts.

"It is the responsibility of the states and the people respectively, BECAUSE it is up to the people to elect presidents, senators, house reps, governors, and state senators.."

Wrong. The constitution wasn't written so that elected officials could enact any law they wanted. Any power not already enumerated to the congress in the constitution is a power the congress does not have. Therefore, the states have that power. Any power that the people of the state choose to not give to the state government then lies with the municipalities and so forth down to individual choice.

"Why do you think you have to commit a racist act to be a racist?"

Innocent until proven guilty. I think if we're going to charge a man with being racist, we should have proof.

Christopher said...

"The arguments and thoughts that lead to communist russia and communist china."

NOPE. If you knew anything about Russians politics in the late 19th century, you would know that

a) Marx was not known
b) Populist movements, rooted in peasant politics, were the dominant counter-regime movement
c) Lenin's brother was a populist, and his death by the hand of the czarists is the reason why Lenin entered politics in the first place. He didn't really like politics before that.
d) Most of the middle class was in favor of a bourgeosie revolution akin to those of the Western countries. Marx's and Lenin's fathers were people who worked incrementally for what they perceived the natural next step. They had no idea who Marx was; Marx was a nobody. (The Russian revolution is famous for the lack of bourgeosie or even Czarist opposition. The Bolsheviks basically just walked into the Kremlin and took power. They could have done so BECAUSE most of the middle class and elite were expecting a bourgeosie revolution to occur in the young people. They were fairly isolated from the very secretive Marxian ideas.)


Finally, and this has nothing to do with late 19th century politics: There was an obvious lack of a working class in Russia as a signficant portion of the population, so it was, in theory, impossible for Marxian arguments to be correct there. Instead, Lenin's choice to act, in opposition to the Menshiviks, was largely based on his populist politics and his hatred of the czarist regime.

Christopher said...

"Lol. Thankfully any western society that has social programs with roots in marxism also has a fairly free market to provide their society with wealth."

Actually, Marx considered that a transitional step. He called it socialism.

"The marxist thought that lead to communist russia and communist china did not lead to any amount of wealth at all."

Dude, I know for a fact that you haven't done your homework. You don't know squat about what Marx argument and therefore you are not competent comment. Maoist and Stalinist Russia were DEFINITELY NOT what Marx had in mind.

"The post office, at the time of the constitution, did promote the general welfare as it wasn't done to the expense of anyone else specifically. Government was paid for through tariffs."

That's idiotic hypocrisy. Tariffs are taxes and people are harmed by taxes. You can't argue that one type of tax is wrong, while another is okey-dokey. It makes you a hypocrite when you do.

"Congress can only promote the general welfare within the confines of the powers enumerated to them in Article 1 Section 8."

That's funny, that's not in the constitution.

Anyway, Congress can legislate anyting that the people thinks promotes the general welfare. It is a fact. Stop lying to yourself.

"I disagree. They wrote the constitution in the language of the time. So sometimes to understand what certain text actually meant, you need to go back to what the founders said about it at the time of its creation. "

Nope, because it is impossible to put the proper weigh on certain quotes that were OBVIOUSLY being developed at the time. YOU CAN ONLY LOOK AT THE END PRODUCT OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS> At least, if you are honest. If you are pompous market jingoist who lies to himself I am sure you will do backflips to justify your position, even while the consitution clearly STATES that promoting the general welfare is constitutional.


"For example, "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;". The use of the word "regulate" was different then than it is now. The purpose to keep trade "regular". Not to impose rules trade. For example, states now have enacted legislation prohibiting citizens from purchasing health insurance from out of state insurance companies. Under this clause, the congress has the power to repeal those laws as they prohibit trade where trade is meant to be kept regular."

Ah, I will grant that the language of the consitution has to be understood from that time, but that has nothing to do with what they said when they were arguing about it while creating it. You can only look at the end-product. You can not use isolated quotes because you do not know what was going on inside their heads.

As for regulate, both definition are correct. And no, it is not that the current rules are unconstitional. It is that YOU disagree that those rules regulate commerce. And that is fine, that is your right.

"No. This is reality. It promotes the welfare of some at the expense of others; just like all of these bank bailouts. "

The consitution does not read "promote the general welfare without harming anyone". Obvious the founders knew that regulating society meant you had to make somebody unhappy. That, or they would have banned all taxes and they would have banned Congress.. that, they knew, would have created a anarchical contradiction..

"Wrong. The constitution wasn't written so that elected officials could enact any law they wanted."

True.

"Any power not already enumerated to the congress in the constitution is a power the congress does not have."

Such as?

"Therefore, the states have that power. Any power that the people of the state choose to not give to the state government then lies with the municipalities and so forth down to individual choice."

Indeed. I agree wholeheartedly.

Josh said...

"Dude, I know for a fact that you haven't done your homework."

True. Working on it.

"Tariffs are taxes and people are harmed by taxes. You can't argue that one type of tax is wrong, while another is okey-dokey. It makes you a hypocrite when you do."

I disagree. The income tax claims government has control over your income and that they have a right to know how you earn your income, and how much you earn, which be default violates, in the US, an individual's 5th amendment rights, as if income is earned illegally, the individual is forced to testify against himself to government.

A flat tariff on all goods coming into the country does no harm to a select few; it obviously is a tax on the general public though, but in order to provide for the general welfare. Also, and I'm not a big fan of this, but the "fair tax", or a flat sales tax is would be the same. It does not force an individual to provide private information to the government and it would not harm a select few for the benefit of others.

There's nothing hypocritical about being against one type of tax while for another.

Otherwise I'd be an anarchist.

"I am sure you will do backflips to justify your position"

You mean like arguing that because the constitution provides the power to the congress to run the post office, the congress therefore has the power to create any social program without properly amending the constitution?

"Ah, I will grant that the language of the consitution has to be understood from that time, but that has nothing to do with what they said when they were arguing about it while creating it."

That's fair. Unfortunately you fail to do this with term "general welfare".

"founders knew that regulating society meant you had to make somebody unhappy. That, or they would have banned all taxes and they would have banned Congress.. that, they knew, would have created a anarchical contradiction.."

Well, this is why they included the following limitation on congress that was changed when the 16th amendment was illegally ratified, "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

"Such as?"

Delegation of the money supply, health care, social security, bailing out corporation, gun control, setting a minimum wage, etc.

Christopher said...

"I disagree."

I know you disagree, but unfortunately you don't have a logical argument to support it.

"The income tax claims government has control over your income and that they have a right to know how you earn your income, and how much you earn, which be default violates, in the US, an individual's 5th amendment rights, as if income is earned illegally, the individual is forced to testify against himself to government."

LOL. That is bullshit. The intent of that amendment is to guarantee honest justice and to curb the power of the courts in criminal cases. Tax cases are not criminal cases. They are civil cases.

"A flat tariff on all goods coming into the country does no harm to a select few; it obviously is a tax on the general public though, but in order to provide for the general welfare."

Sorry, it harms people exactly the same way. One way or another, a certain amount of tax is needed by the government. High income taxes or high tariffs, it does not matter. It takes money out of my wallet and puts into a government coffer.

"Also, and I'm not a big fan of this, but the "fair tax", or a flat sales tax is would be the same. It does not force an individual to provide private information to the government and it would not harm a select few for the benefit of others."

Same problem. All of these taxes would harm people. You seem to be forgetting exactly which point you have to defeat: that taxes harm people. That is what we are talking about. We are NOT talking about privacy. We are NOT talking about taxes hurting the smallest number possible. We are NOT talking about the 5th amendment.

"Otherwise I'd be an anarchist."

That's where your original point goes, because the 5th amendment is definitely upheld in criminal cases. The courts are definitely kept in check by it. The only way the 5th is violated is through the Patriot Act or Homeland Security powers.

Christopher said...

From Wiki:

"The fifth amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal conduct punished by fines, penalties or forfeiture.[3]
Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.[4][5]
The legal shift from widespread use of torture and forced confession dates to turmoil of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century in England[6]. Anyone refusing to take the oath ex officio mero (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was taken for guilty[6]. Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly employed to compel "cooperation." Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations. In the most famous case John Lilburne refused to take the oath in 1637. His case and his call for "freeborn rights" were rallying points for reforms against forced oaths, forced self-incrimination, and other kinds of coercion. Oliver Cromwell's revolution overturned the practice and incorporated protections, in response to a popular group of English citizens known as the Levellers. The Levellers presented The Humble Petition of Many Thousands to Parliament in 1647 with thirteen demands, of which the right against self-incrimination (in criminal cases only) was listed at number three. These protections were brought to the American shores by Puritans, and were later incorporated into the United States Constitution through the Bill of Rights."

This wiki should add "in criminal cases".

Josh said...

"The intent of that amendment is to guarantee honest justice and to curb the power of the courts in criminal cases. Tax cases are not criminal cases. They are civil cases."

The intent of the fifth amendment is actually to protect individuals from the government using force to obtain testimonies from individuals against themselves. The principle can be applied in any situation in which the government is forcing information from you, such you income tax statement.

"Sorry, it harms people exactly the same way. One way or another, a certain amount of tax is needed by the government. High income taxes or high tariffs, it does not matter. It takes money out of my wallet and puts into a government coffer."

To ignore obvious differences in specific methods of obtaining funding for the government is ignorant.

"We are NOT talking about privacy."

We are when we're talking about the income tax.

"We are NOT talking about taxes hurting the smallest number possible."

Its not about hurting the smallest number, its about treating all individuals as equal. A flat income tax would do this, however is violates 5th amendment rights a claims ownership of your earnings. That's why a flat tariff or flat sales tax would be better. It doesn't infringe on the individual's privacy.

If you argue that ALL tax hurts individuals, then you're assuming government provides absolutely no benefit to society. While there are plenty of anarcho-capitalists who believe this, I am not one of them. Government has a role providing justice, protecting individual rights, and protecting the nation from foreign invaders. To do this will require some taxation, and there is obviously methods of taxation that do not infringe on the individual and there is obviously methods of taxation that do.

Decent wiki article. If I choose to break the law and pay 0 income tax, the government will put me in jail. To know how much tax I should have paid, they would be forcing me to testify against myself by forcing me to testify my income, therefore testifying that I broke the law.