Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
An Open Letter to Ron Paul, MD

By nostalgiphile in Op-Ed
Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 12:19:09 AM EST
Tags: republicans, libertarians, Christians, skinheads, open letter, YFI (all tags)

Dear Ron Paul, MD, 11/20/2007

It is a real honor to be able to write to you today, Dr. Paul. First, I want to assure you that it is with all due respect that I ask you the following question(s). So here goes: given that you believe in a Christian interpretation of the Constitution, have the support of the Christian right for your pro-life stance, are being called "the Zionist choice for president" by Israelis, and even have the Stormfront skinheads on your side, I have to ask: why do you hate America so much?


To be honest, in the 1990s I was a Libertarian too. Unlike you though, I woke the fuck up. That is, I began to realize that the neoliberal economics you believe in so strongly teaches us that it's perfectly alright if politicians are bought on the "free market." But that's not how you and your followers see things. You say there are only "big government Democrats and big government Republicans" in Congress right now, but all I see are "big business Democrats and big business Republicans" in Congress right now--i.e., the people who are exorbitantly powerful because of too little government regulation.

Moreover, I suspect that you and your gold bug ideas are a load of horsecock designed to destroy our government, sir. When federal officials raided the organization (NORFED) and confiscated fake money with your head on it, one FBI agent explained that: "The goal of NORFED is to undermine the United States government's financial systems by the issuance of a non-governmental competing currency for the purpose of repealing the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Code," he states. Goddammit Ron, why are you so against us?

In addition, I would also like to ask how, as a doctor, you can really hate sick people? Is it because they are often poor? In an interview with Mary Ann Akers (a.k.a., Sleuth), whom I think we can at least agree is a cutie, you said the following:

Sleuth: As a Libertarian, would you do away with Medicare?

Paul: If the circumstances in the world were rather stable and we weren't fighting a war and we didn't have economic problems I would [push] for Congress to do something...I think it's a flaw in the perfect society I would like to see where individuals take care of themselves.

Medicare, 'medical care', is a "flaw"? People should STFU and "take care of themselves"? WTF? You mean like that dude at the beginning of Sicko (2007) who sews up his own wounds because he can't afford medical care? I have to tell you, this sounds remarkably like Ronald Reagan's America, Dr. Paul. I say this because, when Mary Ann asked you who you'd like in your future government, you answered "someone like Walter Williams". Are you aware that this guy Williams is a complete asshat who thinks that 44% of Americans don't have to pay taxes (the free-loading "leftists"), as well as a rabid far-right capitalist ideologue? Well, probably you are aware of this since you're both crypto-Libertarians who hate the American government. So, why should I want these people in the government if they hate it?

Finally, dear sir, please just explain to me why you want to allow fundamentalist Christians to interpret the Constitution; want to undermine our currency; want to close America's doors to other countries; allow the capitalists to exploit our government for even further gain; tax the poor instead of the rich; eliminate what little public health care and education remains, and generally trash the already weakened foundations of our beloved government?

I look forward to your earliest possible response.

Sincerely,

N0574

PS: Please to be not spamming me, bro.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Who else needs to be open-lettered?
o Hillary Clinton 50%
o Transhumanists 53%
o Stormfront.org 26%
o Your mama 50%
o WIPO 11%

Votes: 26
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Dr. Paul
o Christian interpretation of the Constitution
o your pro-life stance
o "the Zionist choice for president"
o Stormfront skinheads
o neoliberal economics
o you and your followers
o You say
o all I see
o money with your head on it
o a cutie
o Walter Williams"
o complete asshat
o capitalist ideologue
o spamming
o Also by nostalgiphile


Display: Sort:
An Open Letter to Ron Paul, MD | 77 comments (71 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
IGTT 12/10 (2.14 / 7) (#1)
by rhiannon on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:54:54 PM EST

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Perfect score, bravo.

-----------------------------------------
I continued to rebuff the advances... so many advances... of so many attractive women. -MC

lol girl math // (none / 0) (#70)
by insomnyuk on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 11:29:42 PM EST



---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
I look forward to his response (2.00 / 3) (#2)
by BottleRocket on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:55:45 PM EST

+1 FP

$ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
. ₩ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
$ . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Yes I do download [child pornography], but I don't keep it any longer than I need to, so it can yield insight as to how to find more. --MDC
$ . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
. . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
. ₩ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
$B R Σ III$

-1, open letter (2.66 / 6) (#3)
by chlorus on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:56:59 AM EST

the sheer preponderance of such things here has exhausted my desire to ridicule them.

Peahippo: Coked-up internet tough guy or creepy pedophile?

proponderance is a great word (1.80 / 5) (#20)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:01:18 AM EST

however, a casual check of this tag/meme indicates that there are only 5 pieces of K5 content labeled "open letter". Hardly a "preponderance" when compared to, say, HORSECOCK or MUH DICK.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
0 for believing people actually use tags (2.33 / 3) (#22)
by chlorus on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:42:58 AM EST


Peahippo: Coked-up internet tough guy or creepy pedophile?
[ Parent ]

[1] for being an asshole .nt (2.00 / 3) (#23)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:52:26 AM EST



"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
i use the tags for a quick link to old posts (none / 1) (#72)
by postDigital on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 09:11:37 PM EST

I've even created one for frequent usage of relevance in our modern world of GOP Bauery-Boyz and their interrogatory methods of forceful sodomy with a blunt instrument, which creates a conflict in the mind of any REAL contemporary conservative: Is It Better To Give Or To Receive?

[ Parent ]
great and small (3.00 / 4) (#30)
by postDigital on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:12:46 PM EST

Ta Kuo

The lake rises above the trees:
The image of Preponderance of the Great.
Thus the superior man, when he stands alone,
Is unconcerned,
And if he has to renounce the world,
He is undaunted.

Hsiao Kuo

Thunder on the mountain:
The image of Preponderance of the Small.
Thus in his conduct the superior man gives preponderance to reverence.
In bereavement he gives preponderance to grief.
In his expenditures he gives preponderance to thrift.



[ Parent ]
+1 FP. (2.00 / 3) (#4)
by Josh Smith II on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:11:57 AM EST

Well written, interesting, and has quality links. If you want to be an absolute twat though, you should also create a link that writes all of this shit up in mailto: so kuroshits worldwide can mail this letter to him.

See this page for more info: http://www.ianr.unl.edu/internet/mailto.html

-- Josh Smith recommends you take a hulver hike.

Example? (none / 1) (#9)
by Josh Smith II on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 02:29:15 AM EST

Example

-- Josh Smith recommends you take a hulver hike.
[ Parent ]
another problem with rp (2.00 / 3) (#5)
by lonelyhobo on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:14:26 AM EST

It's pretty obvious he would break/ignore existing law in order to erect these ideas he has.  Makes him no better than the current administration to me.

Alternative money is illegal? Since when? (2.50 / 6) (#6)
by MichaelCrawford on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:23:07 AM EST

Why right here on Kuro5hin we had a story about private-issue currencies. Let me find it... here we go:

I don't see what's illegal about what they did; I think the Feds would only have a case if they had tried to make their coins look like the ones issued by the US Mint.


--
Looking for some free songs?


I believe the government's case (3.00 / 3) (#10)
by postDigital on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 02:56:05 AM EST

revolves more around their sale of unregulated securities which they claimed were backed-up with a personal stash of precious metals, and published content advocating the subversion of US Currency, as well as providing instructions to aid in this goal.

Stamping a nice impression on a piece of highly refined silver and selling it as such is one thing, but selling a chunk of stamped copper, and setting its price upon your claims of what exists in an underground Idaho panhandle bomb shelter, unverified, unbonded and unlicensed by the government is something entirely different. I believe that lonelyhobo is much more knowledgeable regarding the nature and sale of lawful securities, so maybe he could offer some insight, but along with any violation comes wire-fraud for interstate phone/internet sales, and mail fraud for offers and sales through the mail.

The article I read about NORFED (love the acronym, they must of worked real hard on it) said that the FBI had been investigating it for a decade, and The Treasury Department had released a warning about purchasing any of their products last year. This nullifies any claims that they were targeted out of a Get-Paul political conspiracy. Paul's campaign claims that Paul had nothing to do with their using his visage on the coins, which should raise a big red flag for anyone contemplating voting for him. Either Paul is a liar, or he is an incompetent dimwit who allowed others to profit off of his image on a product of dubious legality at the same time he was campaigning to be US President. A road-apple by any other name is still just horseshit.



[ Parent ]
my mistake, it was a 2-year investigation not 10 (3.00 / 2) (#12)
by postDigital on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:05:21 AM EST



[ Parent ]
What's great about that (3.00 / 2) (#19)
by rusty on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:58:59 AM EST

In the Washpost article linked in the story, it points out that the coins, which sold for $20 when backed by gold, are selling on eBay for $170 now that the metals backing them have been seized.

Lulz.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

they are considered collectibles (3.00 / 2) (#31)
by postDigital on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:25:36 PM EST

Look where it mentions paper with a printed value backed by precious metal in an Idaho vault. That's securities trading in my book, but I'm not trained or well-studied. Ask lonelyhobo about it..

They were also selling common metal coins at rare metal values, claiming it was backed-up with what they possessed in reserve. Again. securities trading. I am not saying I agree with the laws. I am not familiar with them, but doing this without a license, and without both bonding and heavy government scrutiny is probably illegal.

Don't just wish you'd would have bought into it, read between the lines of this Wired blog post, and estimate how many people who sent in their money are shit out of luck, at least in the short term.

Then there are the money laundering charges. That's a whole other can of worms, which these days can get you afoul of the PATRIOT Bill in a hurry.



[ Parent ]
Why would anyone buy them then? (none / 1) (#60)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:14:24 AM EST

I was under the impression that they were selling silver and gold coins, literally. Even if they were marked up beyond reason.

This is an even bigger joke than I thought it was.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

update on NORFED's alleged criminal activity (3.00 / 2) (#67)
by postDigital on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 04:46:51 AM EST

I downloaded a PDF copy of the Search warrant and underlying sworn affidavit by an F.B.I. agent used for the NOFED raids. This caused one of my teeth gnashing and ill-wishing at Adobe for their bastard-spawned Portable Document Format moments. 38 pages of scanned images. I have a decent OCR program that HP ships with their printers, but it will not directly scan PDFs, so I must either print the whole doc and then scan, or convert each page into a 300 DPI tiff or jpeg, then scan. Then there need be a proofread, because no OCR that I'm aware of is perfect. Text conversion of PDF image documents is a bitch.

It turns out that the alleged crimes NORFED committed wasn't just the script money issues, as I thought. The criminality of the all allegations hinges upon the an alleged charge that NORFED was encouraging and using their product as alternative legal tender in the US, and that the intent of the doing this was to subvert the Federal Reserve and the IRS. The case looks strong from the affidavit, but it should since it is the prosecutor's versions of events, and probably has bits of embellishment. Here's a pro NORFED article that details it decently, but it's tight focused, and doesn't state all claimed causes in the affidavit.

The main US Code currency violation alleged is

U.S Code: Title 18 ; Part I - Crimes; Chapter 25--Counterfeiting and Forgery - 489. Making or possessing likeness of coins

Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

NORFED had actually set up a multi-level marketing plan that included using retail businesses as exchangers who would convert the Liberty dollars into US legal tender upon demand. A merchant would also be a retail point of sales, and that's where the profit comes in. Liberty Dollars came in minted coin, paper script and eDollars. The retail price of all three were marked-up through a multi-point supply chain. The day the warrant was sworn, the spot rate for silver on the NY market was $15.34 troy/oz .99 fine, and the silver $20 coin was minted .99 pure, weighing 1 troy ounce. NORFED claimed they had an ounce of silver for every $20 in script or eMoney in circulation.

The $4.66 in profits may seem reasonable, but at the time of the affidavit, the spot price for silver had almost hit their trip price for revaluation of what 1 ounce of silver was worth ($16), so this figure is at very low-end of what they had been making. Before Nov. 2005, the currency had been based on a $10 face value. They "recalled" all of their circulated currency then, and reissued it at a $20 face value, without upping their warehoused reserve of silver, effectively doubling the claimed value of their reserve overnight. The multi-level marketing scheme was set-up with a regional head, who contracted out with individual sales in his district, and their job was to enlist individual businesses as merchants. NORFED kept their cost+ end, as they discounted the price to the regional. The regional took a piece as he transfered them to his sales force, and they split was was between that price and face value with the merchants. NOFED is rumoured to have had 2500 different merchants across America when the busts came down. The list was taken in the seized property. Each merchant could be facing individual charges of their own stemming from a violation of 489.

I am actually surprised the script-end of this does not violate Securities laws and regulations, but it was not alleged in the affidavit.

I may write up a detailed description of the affidavit and post into the voting queue at K-5. I've already pulled quite a bit more data. We'll see.



[ Parent ]
not 'backed up by', 'made of' (none / 0) (#62)
by mikelist on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 05:45:18 AM EST

a coin worth a dollar in weighed copper (or any other metal or alloy) doesn't need to be backed up by anything, as it will be worth as much if rolled up, melted or ground to dust. a couple non-functional parts are that the exact price of commodity metal changes from day to day, or even more frequently and the portability issue of carrying around several dollars in copper or zinc. being backed up by rather than made of a commodity buffers those fluctuations, as long as the reserve is greater than the amount of currency issued.

unfortunately, as you are no doubt aware,...


[ Parent ]

see update above (none / 1) (#71)
by postDigital on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:58:50 PM EST

They were not minting coins at their metal value. They were discounted at least by 20%, and they also issued paper, as well as "eDollars", which they claimed was backed by warehoused precious metals.

For those who bought in as the dollar went into decline, they've done ok, but they would have done one hell of a lot better just buying silver and gold futures, or just silver and gold on their own.



[ Parent ]
the Constitution says otherwise (2.00 / 3) (#17)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:55:43 AM EST

to my knowledge, the Constitution grants Congress the "sole authority to mint currencies". You can't just start stamping out coins like you do your CDs and expect to get away with it, MC.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
It says that Congress can do it (none / 1) (#34)
by curien on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 02:27:29 PM EST

It doesn't say no one else can.

In fact, it goes on to say that Congress may "provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States," implying that alternative coins are allowed so long as they do not counterfeit the current official coin.

--
Murder your babies. -- R Mutt
[ Parent ]

tell that to the FBI (none / 0) (#41)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:36:46 PM EST

in this case they sound mightily pissed for some reason.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
read again (none / 0) (#49)
by binford2k on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:02:42 PM EST

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sole

[ Parent ]
I can't read a word that isn't there. nt (none / 1) (#64)
by curien on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 01:13:40 PM EST



--
Murder your babies. -- R Mutt
[ Parent ]
What's awesome about your comment (none / 0) (#55)
by llimllib on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 01:33:57 AM EST

is how wrong it is, and that nobody went and fact checked you:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
The United States Constitution is widely available on the tubes.

Peace.
[ Parent ]
but this is a gloss (none / 0) (#65)
by postDigital on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 05:12:07 PM EST

Congressional Poweres are delineated in The U.S. constitution Article 2; Section 8. Regarding this instance, An excerpt from Clause 1, plus clauses 5,6 and 10 of US.Con. Art.3;Sect8 need be considered:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What does it all mean, and how far do these powers reach? That is the relevant question on many people's minds. NORFED was charged under US Code, and the enabling legislation was rationalised from inferences regarding what is "necessary and proper"



[ Parent ]
Right! (none / 0) (#73)
by llimllib on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:17:14 PM EST

Now we could have the right argument, based on facts and the constitution. My point was merely that they had a big dumb argument based on a trivially wrong misquote of the constitution. I don't know enough about this particular case or legal precedent to have an intelligent discussion of it.

Peace.
[ Parent ]
i've done a bit of research (none / 1) (#76)
by postDigital on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:46:38 AM EST

and if the FBI agent was testifying truthfully in the seizure warrant affidavit; even accounting for prosecutorial embellishment; NORFED was conning the rubes. When the silver spot market hit $16 over a 30 day average, they were planning to mint 1oz .999 fine silver coins as $50 face value. That's one hefty mark-up, eh? $7.50 was the point they went from $10 to $20, and all the while they were selling paper, claiming it was backed 100% under the same pricing scheme with 1 oz silver backing it up in their vault.

That is assuming the FBI Agent was truthful, and it would be a stretch to claim he was lying about significant points of fact to a Federal Judge. Big trouble in perjury land in a high profile case. He also claimed they had a snitch and two underdover agents wearing wires.



[ Parent ]
Not quite true. (none / 1) (#59)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:11:24 AM EST

If I stamp out some commemorative tokens, you and I can agree to barter them.

This isn't illegal.

The trouble is, these idiots that have been in the news have been doing this for years, encouraging people to make claims about the "coins" that aren't true. A few years back, some of them brow-beat a clerk into accepting them. When she got in trouble for it, secret service was called.

Now, you might say that this isn't their fault... what people do with their products after they've bought them is out of their hands, but the truth is they've been encouraging that kind of crap all along. Furthermore, if Paul didn't have better things to do, he should sue the fucks for using his image... publicity rights and all that.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

can someone please explain to me... (2.00 / 3) (#7)
by tolomea on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 02:14:26 AM EST

how the hell someone can be a fundamentalist christian and a libertarian?!?!

some snippets from wiki for those who arn't familiar with libertarians

"Libertarians strongly oppose infringement of civil liberties such as restrictions on free expression (e.g., speech, press, or religious practice), prohibitions on voluntary association, or encroachments on persons or property."

"Libertarians also oppose any laws restricting personal or consensual behavior, as well as laws against victimless crimes."

Now I know we're talking about america and things there somehow just don't work the same as they do everywhere else, but how can those view possibly be compatible with hardline christianity?!?!


here's a tip: libertarianism is a sham (3.00 / 6) (#11)
by lonelyhobo on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 02:58:30 AM EST

if you keep bleating about freedom and lower taxes you find enough people who feel oppressed economically or governmentally to follow you.

I would be more terrified to live my life normally if these people got their wish.  Constantly worrying that the people that I buy essentials from are lying to me or have had a quality control failure that will kill me would drive me insane.  I much prefer an inept government that can't even keep secret wiretapping a secret over a corporate oligarchy hell bent on using me for all I'm worth.

[ Parent ]

Depends (3.00 / 3) (#16)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:16:44 AM EST

Depends on what you mean by fundamentalist. If you use it to refer to the Falwell/Robertson crowd, then yeah. It's quite incompatible.

However, if you're talking about actual fundamental Christian doctrine, I refer you to this. Interestingly, this is also quite incompatible with the doctrine of the Falwell/Robertson crowd.

I know it's not from a source frequently quoted by prominent Christians, but it is part the real "fundamental" ideology of Christianity.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

they are not the Fundamentalists that you know (3.00 / 6) (#27)
by postDigital on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:50:32 PM EST

Everybody needs to start reading a bit, and thinking about exactly who are the core Christian supporters of Ron Paul, and exactly what is their religious ideology all about. Fundamentalists, even the ones who believe it's their divine duty to stir up the apocalypse in the middle east are pussies compared to these people. Remember, no matter how much shit fundamentalists kick-up, they are just doing it so they can get their rapture on, and then they are out of here.

Postmillennialists have a different view entirely regarding the end of the world. they believe that before the 2nd coming of Jesus there must be a very long period of Christian political rule on earth, and it is their divine right to be the rulers of this theocracy. They believe in a Christian Reich.

There were many jokes after 911 about Falwell and Robertson being the American Taliban, and there were many weak associations that could be made. Postmillennialists really are believers in a Taliban styled religious dominance of society. They believe in returning to the Old Testament system. Stoning as execution would be proper, as would be the removal of limbs, the puncturing of eyes, and beating humans to death with the jawbone of an ass.

Some of these loons actually believe that the Virginia Unitarians who were in large measure responsible for This Nation's founding, were a part of worldwide socialistic conspiracy.

They have aligned with libertarians, because libertarian theory gives them wide swath about their home schooling, and about No Government intrusion upon it to make sure that the kids are getting a real education. They believe that by turning out a few generations of home-schooled theocrats, they can take over America's political system. They plan to use religious freedom to do this, and then shut the door on it, enforcing only their personal version (Per.Version) of righteousness.

Here's a brand new article with a decent layout of what it's about:

Michael J. McVicar, "The Libertarian Theocrats: The Long, Strange History of R.J. Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism", The Public Eye, Fall 2007, Vol. 22, No. 3 :

It's not that these people are invisible, it's just that they prefer not to be loud broadcasters, and few know the right terms to search on the web anyway.

Some very good search terms include:

  • Postmillennialism
  • Christian Reconstruction
  • Kingdom Now Theology
  • Dominion Theology
  • Rushdoony
  • Gary North
  • theonomy
  • Chalcedon Foundation

If you are only looking for negative information, try the term dominionism. To my knowledge no group of Postmillennialists refer to themselves as practising Dominionism, but the term has been co-opted by individuals and organisations that use it in a negative connotation.



[ Parent ]
He simply redefines libertarianism (none / 0) (#47)
by MfA on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:55:37 PM EST

He's a rabid constitutionalist and anti abortionist, not a libertarian. As long as it's local government taking away your liberties he is all for it.

Also a bit of a hypocrite on the gay marriage thing. He has voted for DOMA which would make it impossible for gay marriages to be recognized for federal benefits, which can not be justified by libertarianism or constitutionalism.

The conservative party suits him better.

[ Parent ]

Libertarianism and Marriage (none / 0) (#77)
by kurtmweber on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 10:38:22 PM EST

The government has no place recognizing marriage AT ALL.  The DOMA takes care of one type.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
good analysis (2.77 / 9) (#8)
by postDigital on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 02:25:41 AM EST

Couple of things though.

Please refrain from referring to Paul as a 'libertarian'. It is not the truth. Paul is an anti-war Republican with some strong libertarian economic ideas, but he is off the chart to the right on many of his social proposals.

Many people claim Paul would decriminalise all drug use, but I've not seen or heard that from him this go around. He says he wants to eliminate the FDA, not the DEA. In a true libertarian society, the manufacturers and sellers of what is now illicit drugs would be subject to civil liabilities for unlabeled dangerous products, or mislabeled products. It is arguable whether the decriminalisation of drug laws and elimination of the DEA whould be a positive for individual Americans. It should be clear that it would result in cleaner, more standardised products purchasable for a much lower price, and would largely eliminate the criminal element from the production and supply chain. Drug usage doesn't fund terrorists, drug laws do.

Paul's purpose for eliminating the FDA is to stop them from from regulating the supplements market, and he says it is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution Article I; Section 8 defines the powers of congress. I am able to discern a general Congressional Power to create the FDA using the following excerpts from it:

  • Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the...general Welfare of the United States;
  • Clause 3: To regulate Commerce...among the several States
  • Clause 5: To...fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  • Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

This is not the same as agreeing with what the FDA has become or what it does. I am just showing that the claim of its unconstitutional nature is an untruthful exaggeration.

Paul's plan is to help out those poor businessmen who sold Phen-Phen and ephedra as diet supplements, and now spam the world with little blue pill knock-offs made with 'natural ingredients': the dried and ground up part of what a steer is missing after it has been created.

Eliminating the FDA in Paul's proposal would remove government oversight from the manufacture and sales of supplements, and that includes charges of false advertising. At the same time, he has many proposals to impair individuals' access to the court system to redress civil harm. There need be a redefinition of a Tort in our civil law, but beware anyone whose fix is a barricade blocking the peoples' access to the courts of law. This is a theft of personal liberty.

Paul claims he wants to eliminate the IRS, yet the vast majority of his tax proposals are for specially identified groups. Often these special classes are also staunch supporters of his. Any tax break that is only for some and not all can hardly be properly claimed to be a libertarian ideal, as it comes at the expense of everyone not a member of the special class, who must now pick-up a bigger percentage of the total.

Lastly for now; do not confuse the religious supporters of Paul with Fundamentalists. They are a beast of different stripes.

he's a former Libertarian prez candidate (none / 1) (#21)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:13:53 AM EST

and people still like to comment on his "friendly relations with the Libertarian Party." Hell, in the Sleuth interview they even used the term with a capital L. Sure, it may be technically inaccurate, you're right, but I stand by it on polemical grounds--i.e., the claim that he's a Lib. at heart.

As for the other stuff, good point.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]

but I find polemics distasteful and deceitful (none / 0) (#68)
by postDigital on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 05:18:52 AM EST

Not to be confused with polelympics, which although seems a bit ridiculous, is only distasteful to me if it is accompanied with a wardrobe malfunction, with the exception of when it happens while humming God Save the Queen.

[ Parent ]

ROCK (3.00 / 2) (#13)
by Wen Jian on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:19:27 AM EST

Ron Paul for 2008, bombin teh gheiz0rz
It was an experiment in lulz. - Rusty
The Magic of Paul (2.33 / 3) (#14)
by stupidpuppy on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:06:02 AM EST

Is that he makes both the far right and far left think that he's one of them.

Also, if a right-wing person proposes doing away with government charity it does not mean they are proposing to do away with charity altogether.  Government charity is really an oxymoron anyway, since giving away other people's money isn't charity.

I don't mind paying taxes (none / 1) (#24)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:03:30 PM EST

and I don't think most Americans mind either. Like me, they would just like to have things like health care, public transport., and a decent civic education for their kids to show for it, just like 99% of the rest of the world. Since we recognize that it's my duty to pay taxes, however, we feel we have the right to complain about what the money is being used for.

Libertarians, on the other hand, want to refuse to pay taxes, or only reluctantly agree to them at best. Therefore "libertarians" should not be put in charge of a government that is reliant on taxes and providing the public services that most Americans believe in.

How does that argument strike you?


"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]

No, I mind. (3.00 / 5) (#37)
by fyngyrz on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:50:55 PM EST

The vast majority of government spending is on matters I do not support (even if you ignore the fact that they're just paying interest with the money they get from me... we're completely broke and that is all the more reason we shouldn't be spending money on other countries when our own infrastructure is falling apart, and our citizens can't afford medical care.)

As far as I am concerned, the federal government should:

  • Provide for the health of the citizens
  • Develop and maintain the transport infrastructure (interstate highways, rail, air traffic control, not space traffic or sea traffic - ports belong to the people)
  • Develop and maintain the education infrastructure
  • Develop and maintain the utilities infrastructure (water, sewer, heating, power)
  • Develop and maintain the information infrastructure (information highways)
  • Guard our borders, shores against military incursions
  • Respond militarily to external threats only in response to the foregoing
  • Protect our citizens and goods in international waters
  • Provide a standard currency based on something with objective value
  • Domestic (in-country) disaster assistance
  • Provide standards for weights and measures
  • Ensure the laws of the states abide by the constitution
  • Fund itself via taxes on expenditures for non-essentials. IOW, not on food, household items, or people's homes or the land holding those homes.
  • Provide a national mechanism for altering the constitution that requires input via some form of meritocracy

You'll note the conspicuous absence of authority to wage war outside our borders; go into debt; take land (of course it can buy it, just like you or I); regulate commerce in any way other than ensuring the monetary system remains stable; support monopoly in any way including patents, copyrights or subsidy; engage in religious or moralistic activities of any kind; spy on other countries or within our own; provide foreign aid; make or alter law of any kind other than constitutional, and that through a very deliberate, high-inertia mechanism.

You'll also note this leaves large areas for the states and private entities to work in; foreign commerce, law (as long as it is constitutionally valid), local infrastucture (want streetlights? football stadiums? parks? monuments? charity? spaceflight? Work it out locally.)

All of this requires a new constitution, which would have some new issues, for example environmental responsibilities. I'll spare you that, as I'm pretty sure you're not in the least bit interested in what I think a proper constitution should look like.

So yes, I mind paying (federal) taxes very much, because what I see as legitimate federal government function isn't what I get. Mostly, I get incompetence, waste, and erosion of personal liberties.

I'm not all that upset about it at this point, though. The taxes the government pries out of me and then proceeds to waste aren't actually hurting me, I'm fortunate enough to be financially secure. Further, I fully expect American society to collapse of its own incompetence within a few decades. Our currency is devaluing, our cost of living rising, industry has been decimated by unions, we are completely broke and deep, deep in debt, the entire political system is a sham front for corporate and SIG interests, personal liberties are very nearly extinct, food banks are going empty, the constitution has been reduced to "just a piece of paper", and we're now pursuing actual military aggression, old-school soviet-style.


Blog, Photos.
[ Parent ]

but that's what I said also (none / 1) (#43)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:31:35 PM EST

"Like me, they would just like to have things like health care, public transport., and a decent civic education for their kids to show for it, just like 99% of the rest of the world."

Citizens feel (and actually are) disenfranchised and robbed by their government's taxation schemes, which are geared toward helping the rich and powerful become more rich and powerful. Unjust taxation is the problem, not taxes per se.

I'm not sure we need a new Constitution, perhaps just a few amendments against corporate involvement in government would do the trick, but we certainly need a major change in the laws.

Anyway, yeah, I agree with most everything you said.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]

Thing is, I'm a libertarian. Mostly. ;-) n/t (none / 1) (#46)
by fyngyrz on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 09:47:31 AM EST


Blog, Photos.
[ Parent ]

I do mind. (3.00 / 3) (#58)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:06:13 AM EST

If they could be trusted to spend it halfway responsibly, I might grudgingly accept... but they haven't, since long before my grandfather was born.

I pay for my own healthcare. I've never seen any public transport system worth talking about (and what's this, maybe 0.1% of federal, anyway? Amtrak is a joke.) and my children will never step foot inside of a public school.

just like 99% of the rest of the world

Sorry, but the rest of the world's not much of an example. It ranges from slightly tolerable to horrible. Probably less than 5% is anything you'd ever dare brag about.

Since we recognize that it's my duty to pay taxes,

I have no moral duty to pay them money to murder iraqis, or to build more prisons to house drug offenders. The thought is sick, the suggestion preposterous.

feel we have the right to complain about what the money is being used for.

I think the vast majority of our congressmen have shown us how much they listen to our complaints. Bush deserves to go on trial for war crimes, in Baghdad no less. I'd settle for impeachment.

Therefore "libertarians" should not be put in charge of a government that is reliant on taxes

You do understand!!! Gee, there for a second I thought you were a malodorous retard. The libertarians need to be put in charge of the government that isn't reliant on taxes. Simple, eh?

and providing the public services that most Americans believe in.

If I want those services, I'd much rather have it optional, so that I can pay the best one for it. I think I'll opt out of most, mind you, but if I can't opt out then what reason do they have to offer anything like decent service?

If you think people need help with the essential ones... that's different. I'm not a monster. Let's help them. We give them healthcare stamps or whatever you like, and they can spend them as cash anywhere, and the government's forbidden from interfering with the choice of where (otherwise corps just lobby for the government to talk them up).

Even then though, that should be done at the state level. After all, I imagine such things are more expensive in California than Iowa.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

MTV, MTD. (2.20 / 5) (#15)
by V on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:10:50 AM EST

I don't think Ron Paul has five bucks to spare to get an account and respond to your rant.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens

he has millions (3.00 / 5) (#18)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:56:37 AM EST

and probably some of it came from affluent Kurons.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
An excellent work (2.00 / 3) (#26)
by Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:35:16 PM EST

I almost feel inspired to update my latest story regarding the upcoming U.S. elections so that it can somehow include Ron Paul.

and I'm sure it will be really informative and yaa (none / 1) (#28)
by insomnyuk on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:00:01 PM EST

aaawwwwwnn inducing.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
Hold on a second (none / 1) (#32)
by Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 02:04:04 PM EST

You don't need to bite yet.

[ Parent ]
wow, I thought that got (none / 0) (#45)
by nostalgiphile on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:16:23 AM EST

voted up...yes, update and ptq. Quite entertaining and better than this pile of shit.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
holy jesus I can barely breathe, oh the stench of (2.75 / 8) (#29)
by insomnyuk on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:02:29 PM EST

such fresh, pungent bullshit. Bravo sir. You have really outdone yourself this time.

I mean, I agree, subtlety is overrated. Sometimes you just gotta go balls to the wall u kno? Right dog? I mean shit, those arguments are so rock solid in every conceivable way, from logical to legal to spiritual.

I find your formal prose style helpful too. Such a tone helps me really internalize the meaning of your text.

But honestly, if you are going to do satire, start off a bit slower. Save the Nazi/Hitler bit for later on, like the last third. But still, a strong first effort. Shit, you could probably make money slinging this shit in print, but nobody on the internet would buy it.

It doesn't pass the sniff test.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken

[3] insightful, learned comment /nt (3.00 / 2) (#40)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:34:34 PM EST



"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
aslo, who said this was satire? (1.60 / 5) (#42)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:40:57 PM EST

I'm as earnest about this as I am about anything, which as you should know, insomnyuk, isn't very earnest.

All Americans are liars.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]

When Ron Paul deregulates the industries for the (2.50 / 4) (#35)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:38:02 PM EST

Free Market, I'm totally going to get shot by a Microsoft Hit Squad. Well it won't be a Microsoft hit squad, it will be a hit squad paid for by Microsoft. But no-one is going to be around to tell them they're not allowed to sell murder services.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

we have entered an alternative universe (2.33 / 3) (#36)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:40:39 PM EST

where people actually think of ron paul as a genuine threat worthy of the slightest bit of attention

although i suppose, if you dressed up in a pink bunny suit and walked into a drunk tank, you would be a grave threat there to the marginal addicts with a tenuous grasp on reality

so i guess ron paul is a threat to those on the fringe

carry on then, fringe fucks


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

You forget that it might be worth it (2.00 / 3) (#38)
by Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:20:29 PM EST

just to piss off some of his far too many idiot supporters.

[ Parent ]
messing with the brain damaged (none / 1) (#61)
by circletimessquare on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:46:04 AM EST

hmmm

yes, you are right

that's fun ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

it is scrubs like you that ruin the game for every (3.00 / 3) (#69)
by insomnyuk on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 01:58:00 PM EST

one else.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
I like Ron Paul the same way I like Kucinich. (2.20 / 5) (#39)
by Psycho Dave on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:30:48 PM EST

You can like these candidates because neither of them have a shot at winning a general election, therefore you can admire their idealism while ignoring the obvious flaws in their logic. When it comes down to the wire though, I don't want either a Paul or a Kucinich in the White House.

Of course, actually winning is not really the point of either of their campaigns. What they are really trying to do is pull their respective parties towards their position.

I imagine that the reason Ron Paul refuses to run a third party campaign, even though he would be more popular than Nader and is amassing enough of a war chest to make it viable, is that his third party candidacy would probably throw the election to the Democrats, who he most certainly doesn't want to win. Sure, he would siphon off a few of the Democrats anti-war votes, but when you get to the nitty-gritty of his policies, in the end they appeal more to conservatives. Paul is, if nothing else, a barometer of the divisions amongst the right in this country.

It is too bad that libertarianism always gets things backwards. Sure, they want to end the drug war, enforce property rights, end the nanny state, restore privacy rights etc. etc., but most people know that they will start at cutting taxes for the rich while cutting social programs for the poor, and that their deregulations will benefit the mega-corporations at a time when most people think their power ought to be checked. The multinationals are quickly becoming more powerful than even nations, and the old paradigm of the free market be the solution to everything is ending because corporations are the new governments. I only know which side of the debate has the answer, and it is neither of them.

I think I disagree (none / 1) (#44)
by nostalgiphile on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:13:48 AM EST

Kucinich is a real democrat and Paul is a fake republican. Paul on the Rep. ticket is more like Nader running on the Dem ticket...The reason Paul doesn't do what Nader does, i.e., run as a Libertarian, is not because he doesn't want the Dems to win, but because he realizes that if people knew what the Libertarian party believed in they would never vote for him. And rightly so. They're pretty much pot-smoking Randian kooks if you ask me.

What would be really interesting is a three-way debate between Paul, Hilary, and Nader (he's probably going to run as a Green if Clinton gets the nom.)--but of course that will never happen.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]

You're partly right. (none / 0) (#57)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 01:55:08 AM EST

But mostly wrong.

The people would never vote for any third party. He could run on the Give-Everyone-Free-Money-And-Pot Party's ticket, and they'd not vote for him. The only viable way for any third party candidate to run, is to pretend to be one of the other two.

This isn't be dishonest. It's just reality. Would you prefer that he didn't do this, and we be locked into the big two forever? Even if you hate Paul, his campaign will be an example to the others... Nader, whoever. They'll know that they have to try to coopt the big parties themselves.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Heh. (3.00 / 3) (#56)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 01:51:43 AM EST

therefore you can admire their idealism while ignoring the obvious flaws in their logic

So you're saying that the reason things are the way they are, and even more so, the way things will be the way they'll be... is because they're logical?

but most people know that they will start at cutting taxes for the rich while cutting social programs for the poor

Last I heard, Paul was for gutting the personal income tax, period. I'm ok with a few rich guys getting off, if I get off too.

Somehow though, I'm always missing out on the social programs. And I'm not rich either. Maybe I'd be more for the nanny state, if I wasn't the goddamned stepchild all the time. (Not to mention Paul says he's not going to gut those. But why let that interfere with a good rant?)

and that their deregulations will benefit the mega-corporations at a time when most people think their power ought to be checked. The multinationals are quickly becoming more powerful than even nations

Yeh. The trouble is, most people think that the only and/or best way to check their power, is to erect another godzillian monster and hope that it does battle with the other. Too often they ignore each other or team up.

The multinationals are quickly becoming more powerful than even nations, and the old paradigm of the free market be the solution to everything is ending because corporations are the new governments. I only know which side of the debate has the answer, and it is neither of them.

The answer is easy. Understand that incorporating isn't a fundamental right... it's a convenience afforded you by the state to make business convenient. Make corporate charters renewable, not permanent. Make it easy to block their renewal. Understand that corporations are not people, and have no rights themselves... regulate their speech , privacy, ability to litigate, and property holding (make it illegal for them to own other corporations at all, in whole or part), and do not allow them to lobby.

Anyone that doesn't like this can run their business as something other than a corporation.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

NORFED (1.50 / 2) (#66)
by Morosoph on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 07:33:57 PM EST

Hmm. Surely, the goal of NORFED is to create confidence in an alternative, rather than undermine the federal currency in any direct sense. The idea being that money should have proper backing.

Effective peaceful activism is treated as terrorism. Clearly, the only activism that should be allowed is ineffective activism. That appears to be the real pretext.

Someone has something backwards, here, methinks.

Hooray for ignorance and the victim's sanction! (none / 1) (#74)
by system under test on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:53:58 PM EST

Yes, Medicare is a flaw.  The government has no right to take money from me and use it to treat people that didn't have the foresight to make arrangements, nor the social support network to care for them in the event they were unable.

Yes, people should STFU and take care of themselves.  Medicare is, frankly, socialist, and if you haven't noticed nostalgiphile, the USA isn't; at least, it wasn't intended to be, though some seem hell bent on making it thus.

Your health is not my problem.  I should not be forced to pay for it.  I may be appealed to to do so, but being compelled to do so is as odious as seat belt laws.

You can't seem to see, or worse you may embrace, that the direct result of tax supported health care is the enforced mitigation of health risks on a supposedly free society.

I am forced to pay for the health care of others, because it is somehow the "right" thing for me to do with the money I earn, and then I am forced to "be safe" not only to try and reduce this unfair tax burden but also to make some attempt to ensure that I continue to survive and pay into the system rather than collect from it.

Your flaw is in assuming that somehow the government has interests other than those of the corporations, when in fact, both operate on entirely the same self serving principals.

The difference is that, in business, being self serving is noble, while in government it is repugnant.  Corporations exist solely to make a profit, and it is the duty of consumers to decide through their purchasing power if any corporation goes too far in pursuit of that goal at the expense of other concerns.

Government on the other hand exists solely to serve the people it governs; to provide for their collective defense, and to protect their collective interests.

In the case of either system failing, the blame lies entirely on the citizens, as voters and consumers.  These systems exist and operate entirely at the sufferance of the citizenry.

In some cases of course government does need to play a role, such as environmentally, because being reactionary (boycotting a polluter, for instance) cannot undo the substantial damage that can be done; prevention is the only course of action.

For the record I am not a "right wing religious nut."  In fact, I am agnostic, and I favor a economically conservative but socially liberal platform.


Dude, good government is minimal government (none / 0) (#75)
by SirPoolie on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 08:03:36 AM EST

Government employees rarely equal the service output of actual real workers employed by commercial entities. This is because the commercial entity must be constrained by profitability. The more money you give to government entities, the more they will waste it. The more sponges the government hires to suck up salaries while they enjoy excellent benefits, amazing job security, and an attitude that says:

"Kiss my ass Mr. Citizen Customer, I work for the government, and I don't really actually have to do anything. Go ahead and report me to my supervisor that I have a bad attitude. He could care less. Him and I are so chummy because neither of us actually really must accomplish anything to ensure the continuity of our organization because we just take our funding right out of the taxpayer's pocket without even asking how they want it spent."

Sure, they can vote or try to pass a referendum -- but how are they gonna do that without gobs of funding, effort, and frustration while the rest of the elite rich continue to marginalize everyone by any means they can?

Therefore you must be a tightwad bastard when giving government entities money.

How many times have you ever gone into a government office and had them treat you with a less than positive attitude? You'll rarely see that at a company who needs to make a profit and treat the customers with respect in order to maintain operation.

citizen != consumer [nt] (none / 0) (#78)
by basj on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:26:23 AM EST


--
Complete the Three Year Plan in five years!
[ Parent ]
do *what* to your ass? (none / 0) (#80)
by Sacrifice on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 06:51:59 PM EST

Yes, I'm so pleased at the servicing I have received from the fine private monopolies with which I do business.

[ Parent ]
re: spamming (none / 0) (#79)
by Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:11:51 PM EST

This is probably a good place for a link to my analysis of Ron Paul's followers.

An Open Letter to Ron Paul, MD | 77 comments (71 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!