Let's kill Wal-Mart

[Truth Warrior]

Ah, the statist myopia.

 

[angelatc]

Either way it's theory. The burden of proof is not on this author or me.

I take that to mean you actually can't name a single country where the "boycott the evil empire!" has worked, then.

I guess not requiring evidence of success is pretty much a prerequisite in dealing with theory vs reality.

 

[KenInMontiMN]

Sounds like equal (free) trade.

Sounds instead like an open statement to me, that if Mexico were to find itself bleeding out to us economically, tariffs to regulate that to some degree would be very much in their national interest.

And vice-versa. Managed trade agreements tend to allow for exploitation of third-world labor under conditions that do border on slave labor in many instances, for the purpose of supporting corporate bottom lines in the short term. Those corporate structures are already much too powerful and threaten national sovereignty worldwide, our own certainly included. Buck the Internationalist Corporate directives, as a government entity, and you will find yourself constantly labeled in their press as a rogue nation, part of a defined 'axis of evil.' The talk of massive improvements for the Chinese laborer, when distilled right down to the truth- the median Chinese laborer has seen about a doubling of his/her income from about $1 per day to $2 per day in rough figures, this century. Of course the American currency has fared poorly against their currency this decade, so adjust that downward it terms of actual buying power. Now it should be obvious why the Chinese can't invest more heavily into creating an actual consumer class out of those workers, which will never happen at $2/day incomes- the overwhelming majority of those dollars flowing into China in unprecedented fashion must invariably be invested into expanding US debt or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The best hope for the Chinese worker is that a more balanced trade ledger leads to the ability of chinese mfg. to actually reward that labor in a way that turns them into consumers of the world's goods. Wildly imbalanced trade can never possibly do that.

I'm always curious, though- those wearing blinders in regard to our severely expanding debt problems and the crumbling state are almost always advocates of free trade as managed today. What exactly brings you to a movement centered on 'America first,' getting our house in order, and adopting a more non-interventionist stance towards the rest of the world, when you could go here instead and be involved with an org about exactly that for which you advocate?:
www.cfr.org

I think a lot of people have a hard time with the diminished self-determination that Internationalism implies, and I applaud you for that. But you do have to understand that the way they are succeeding anyway is by luring so many into voting for them on a number of various pretexts. Their pseudo-free-trade is one of them, their press advocates for it constantly, all CFR 'sock puppets' if I may borrow the phrase, that we elect to office from either major party drums the line repeatedly, as though such a thing is or even should be possible in a world of soveriegn societies. Same is true for those hooked by other means involving Federally-mandated social direction such as legalized abortion declared a constitutional right without proper amendment making it so; the movement for Federal directive on definition of marraige should that occur without the necessary constitutional modifications. If no other lesson has been learned over the past several decades, learn this- Americans must stand together firmly against these various schemes that dissolve our self-determination, and we must stop letting them divide us. They advance the cause of internationalism and globalism. Its so important that we never lose completely the reins of self-determination on the most local levels possible, and that means never supporting Federal growth into constitutionally unsound direction, even when we agree with the particular change as to the specific issue, especially then since that's the lure to place and keep internationalists in power.

Always ask, on Federal matters- does this proposed change strengthen or weaken local self-determination? Does it strengthen or weaken Federal growth beyond traditional constitutional limits? Does it essentially unleash internationalists to put the various pieces of their agenda into place without getting the i's dotted and the t's crossed on getting the constitution modified first, as it was intended to be applied. It's that sort of national laziness that has led to the constitution becoming more and more meaningless across the past 90+ years or so. As voters we have allowed it instead of requiring invariably that the constitution as originally intended and interpreted be the law of the land until modified properly. The result is that we haven't amended the constitution in how long now? Various special agendas hardly even try to do that any more as designing the end-around play has come into vogue and never draws the yellow penalty flag anymore.

That is the key to being like-minded with Dr.Paul, and returning the country to its proper course where the people run the show and govt is bottom-up rather than top-down. Decide for yourself what sort of report card you'd give Dr. Paul regarding staying true to those sort of principles across the decades, then turn around and take a good look at your own self-grade you'd have to turn in on yourself each and every time you'd support a candidate or an issue that degrades our self-determination on the most local levels possible and turns more power and control over to the Federal gov't, an entity more or less in collusion with the Internationalist agenda these days.

NAFTA, CAFTA, & all other internationalist-managed trade agreements must go in the interest of self-determination, not to mention the nation's sovereignty and that of every other society on the planet.

 

[familydog]

I take that to mean you actually can't name a single country where the "boycott the evil empire!" has worked, then.

I guess not requiring evidence of success is pretty much a prerequisite in dealing with theory vs reality.

You don't get it. You yourself are basing your arguments on theory. That is why I keep using the term "normal libertarian theory." The author uses "capitalist theory."

In any case, you're still arguing an anti-liberty position. Let's pretend that boycotting government slave labor does hurt the slaves and not the government. It is a fact that the government is forcing people to be slaves. That is documented. The governments themselves admit that. Since you read the article I'm assuming you know that. So, I should keep buying the goods made by these slaves because it helps them have a better (slave) life.

So in essence, I must support government intervention in the economy because the government knows what is best for these people. Err...as long as it's not in this country.

 

[Truth Warrior]

You don't get it. You yourself are basing your arguments on theory. That is why I keep using the term "normal libertarian theory." The author uses "capitalist theory."

In any case, you're still arguing an anti-liberty position. Let's pretend that boycotting government slave labor does hurt the slaves and not the government. It is a fact that the government is forcing people to be slaves. That is documented. The governments themselves admit that. Since you read the article I'm assuming you know that. So, I should keep buying the goods made by these slaves because it helps them have a better (slave) life.

So in essence, I must support government intervention in the economy because the government knows what is best for these people. Err...as long as it's not in this country.

Crap there, crap here. Same old crap.

 

[familydog]

Crap there, crap here. Same old crap.

Excellent argument. You've won me over.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Excellent argument. You've won me over.

Yeah it worked on our familydog too.

 

[TruthisTreason]

Sounds instead like an open statement to me, that if Mexico were to find itself bleeding out to us economically, tariffs to regulate that to some degree would be very much in their national interest.

And vice-versa. Managed trade agreements tend to allow for exploitation of third-world labor under conditions that do border on slave labor in many instances, for the purpose of supporting corporate bottom lines in the short term. Those corporate structures are already much too powerful and threaten national sovereignty worldwide, our own certainly included. Buck the Internationalist Corporate directives, as a government entity, and you will find yourself constantly labeled in their press as a rogue nation, part of a defined 'axis of evil.' The talk of massive improvements for the Chinese laborer, when distilled right down to the truth- the median Chinese laborer has seen about a doubling of his/her income from about $1 per day to $2 per day in rough figures, this century. Of course the American currency has fared poorly against their currency this decade, so adjust that downward it terms of actual buying power. Now it should be obvious why the Chinese can't invest more heavily into creating an actual consumer class out of those workers, which will never happen at $2/day incomes- the overwhelming majority of those dollars flowing into China in unprecedented fashion must invariably be invested into expanding US debt or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The best hope for the Chinese worker is that a more balanced trade ledger leads to the ability of chinese mfg. to actually reward that labor in a way that turns them into consumers of the world's goods. Wildly imbalanced trade can never possibly do that.

I'm always curious, though- those wearing blinders in regard to our severely expanding debt problems and the crumbling state are almost always advocates of free trade as managed today. What exactly brings you to a movement centered on 'America first,' getting our house in order, and adopting a more non-interventionist stance towards the rest of the world, when you could go here instead and be involved with an org about exactly that for which you advocate?:
www.cfr.org

I think a lot of people have a hard time with the diminished self-determination that Internationalism implies, and I applaud you for that. But you do have to understand that the way they are succeeding anyway is by luring so many into voting for them on a number of various pretexts. Their pseudo-free-trade is one of them, their press advocates for it constantly, all CFR 'sock puppets' if I may borrow the phrase, that we elect to office from either major party drums the line repeatedly, as though such a thing is or even should be possible in a world of soveriegn societies. Same is true for those hooked by other means involving Federally-mandated social direction such as legalized abortion declared a constitutional right without proper amendment making it so; the movement for Federal directive on definition of marraige should that occur without the necessary constitutional modifications. If no other lesson has been learned over the past several decades, learn this- Americans must stand together firmly against these various schemes that dissolve our self-determination, and we must stop letting them divide us. They advance the cause of internationalism and globalism. Its so important that we never lose completely the reins of self-determination on the most local levels possible, and that means never supporting Federal growth into constitutionally unsound direction, even when we agree with the particular change as to the specific issue, especially then since that's the lure to place and keep internationalists in power.

Always ask, on Federal matters- does this proposed change strengthen or weaken local self-determination? Does it strengthen or weaken Federal growth beyond traditional constitutional limits? Does it essentially unleash internationalists to put the various pieces of their agenda into place without getting the i's dotted and the t's crossed on getting the constitution modified first, as it was intended to be applied. It's that sort of national laziness that has led to the constitution becoming more and more meaningless across the past 90+ years or so. As voters we have allowed it instead of requiring invariably that the constitution as originally intended and interpreted be the law of the land until modified properly. The result is that we haven't amended the constitution in how long now? Various special agendas hardly even try to do that any more as designing the end-around play has come into vogue and never draws the yellow penalty flag anymore.

That is the key to being like-minded with Dr.Paul, and returning the country to its proper course where the people run the show and govt is bottom-up rather than top-down. Decide for yourself what sort of report card you'd give Dr. Paul regarding staying true to those sort of principles across the decades, then turn around and take a good look at your own self-grade you'd have to turn in on yourself each and every time you'd support a candidate or an issue that degrades our self-determination on the most local levels possible and turns more power and control over to the Federal gov't, an entity more or less in collusion with the Internationalist agenda these days.

NAFTA, CAFTA, & all other internationalist-managed trade agreements must go in the interest of self-determination, not to mention the nation's sovereignty and that of every other society on the planet.

I'm not sure what you are arguing, now. If all of that was implied to me.

Ask Ron Paul is he supports free trade or managed trade? I support free trade.
And I support Wal-Mart!

 

[alaric]

what's wrong with wallmart?

by attacking wallmart, you're attacking a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. the fact that America can trade paper dollars for the import of real goods that can be sold for cheap in wallmart is a good thing for the time being. unfortunately, that system will come crashing down because it's not sustainable... so this is what you need to be attacking... not wallmart. they're just running a business, and they run the business very well. if you want America to start to produce things, they can't have the ability to print paper dollars instead of producing real goods.

very good point!

 

[TruthisTreason]

What????

Wal Mart is the epitome of free trade. I say buy EVERYTHING from Wal Mart! Well, almost.

They are pro free trade. Trading around the world will cause better friendships with other countries our government may "hate", such as China, and make it harder for them ever to start a war with them.

Wal Mart is anti trade Unions! How much more American can you get than that?

Wal Mart should be the official store of the Ron Paul movement. If anything to outrage the elites and pro-trade unionists that want you to hate Wal Mart.

Lew Rockwell talks about this very thing at about 7:15 into his latest podcast.

http://lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-24_026_from_the_dark_heart_of_dc.mp3

Thanks for the link. I'm glad to see Lew agrees.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

1.2 million people in America voted for Ron Paul, and if we all support each other economically, then we can start putting an actual dent into the exporter of Chinese fascism that is the Wal-Mart leviathan.

www.freemarketforliberty.com provides an easy way for us to do that, and once we create a thriving liberty oriented market place, then it will be easy to continuously funnel a portion of that circulating currency towards revived money bombs for liberty, because a tool will be added that will allow listing owners to show how much money they have donated to liberty candidates.

Then it will also be easy for us to keep growing our movement, because people will join just for the economic benefits, and then it will be easy for us to educate them as well.

So please support this initiative by listing your liberty supporting business today.

yes...let's kill an honest business that provides jobs and benefits to its employees and low cost goods to the rest of us. Moron.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Sounds instead like an open statement to me, that if Mexico were to find itself bleeding out to us economically, tariffs to regulate that to some degree would be very much in their national interest.

And vice-versa. Managed trade agreements tend to allow for exploitation of third-world labor under conditions that do border on slave labor in many instances, for the purpose of supporting corporate bottom lines in the short term. Those corporate structures are already much too powerful and threaten national sovereignty worldwide, our own certainly included. Buck the Internationalist Corporate directives, as a government entity, and you will find yourself constantly labeled in their press as a rogue nation, part of a defined 'axis of evil.' The talk of massive improvements for the Chinese laborer, when distilled right down to the truth- the median Chinese laborer has seen about a doubling of his/her income from about $1 per day to $2 per day in rough figures, this century. Of course the American currency has fared poorly against their currency this decade, so adjust that downward it terms of actual buying power. Now it should be obvious why the Chinese can't invest more heavily into creating an actual consumer class out of those workers, which will never happen at $2/day incomes- the overwhelming majority of those dollars flowing into China in unprecedented fashion must invariably be invested into expanding US debt or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The best hope for the Chinese worker is that a more balanced trade ledger leads to the ability of chinese mfg. to actually reward that labor in a way that turns them into consumers of the world's goods. Wildly imbalanced trade can never possibly do that.

I'm always curious, though- those wearing blinders in regard to our severely expanding debt problems and the crumbling state are almost always advocates of free trade as managed today. What exactly brings you to a movement centered on 'America first,' getting our house in order, and adopting a more non-interventionist stance towards the rest of the world, when you could go here instead and be involved with an org about exactly that for which you advocate?:
www.cfr.org

I think a lot of people have a hard time with the diminished self-determination that Internationalism implies, and I applaud you for that. But you do have to understand that the way they are succeeding anyway is by luring so many into voting for them on a number of various pretexts. Their pseudo-free-trade is one of them, their press advocates for it constantly, all CFR 'sock puppets' if I may borrow the phrase, that we elect to office from either major party drums the line repeatedly, as though such a thing is or even should be possible in a world of soveriegn societies. Same is true for those hooked by other means involving Federally-mandated social direction such as legalized abortion declared a constitutional right without proper amendment making it so; the movement for Federal directive on definition of marraige should that occur without the necessary constitutional modifications. If no other lesson has been learned over the past several decades, learn this- Americans must stand together firmly against these various schemes that dissolve our self-determination, and we must stop letting them divide us. They advance the cause of internationalism and globalism. Its so important that we never lose completely the reins of self-determination on the most local levels possible, and that means never supporting Federal growth into constitutionally unsound direction, even when we agree with the particular change as to the specific issue, especially then since that's the lure to place and keep internationalists in power.

Always ask, on Federal matters- does this proposed change strengthen or weaken local self-determination? Does it strengthen or weaken Federal growth beyond traditional constitutional limits? Does it essentially unleash internationalists to put the various pieces of their agenda into place without getting the i's dotted and the t's crossed on getting the constitution modified first, as it was intended to be applied. It's that sort of national laziness that has led to the constitution becoming more and more meaningless across the past 90+ years or so. As voters we have allowed it instead of requiring invariably that the constitution as originally intended and interpreted be the law of the land until modified properly. The result is that we haven't amended the constitution in how long now? Various special agendas hardly even try to do that any more as designing the end-around play has come into vogue and never draws the yellow penalty flag anymore.

That is the key to being like-minded with Dr.Paul, and returning the country to its proper course where the people run the show and govt is bottom-up rather than top-down. Decide for yourself what sort of report card you'd give Dr. Paul regarding staying true to those sort of principles across the decades, then turn around and take a good look at your own self-grade you'd have to turn in on yourself each and every time you'd support a candidate or an issue that degrades our self-determination on the most local levels possible and turns more power and control over to the Federal gov't, an entity more or less in collusion with the Internationalist agenda these days.

NAFTA, CAFTA, & all other internationalist-managed trade agreements must go in the interest of self-determination, not to mention the nation's sovereignty and that of every other society on the planet.

You're foolish. Ever read a financial statement? Go look at their profit margin. You're pulling information out of your ass.

Corporations are bad, bottom line, money money money. Well, their financial statements are available for you to examine. How about, instead of running your mouth, you go and read them and see what the bottom line really looks like.

 

[Petar]

yes...let's kill an honest business that provides jobs and benefits to its employees and low cost goods to the rest of us. Moron.

Well hello my rude little friend, nice to meet you!

Yes, we should compete with Walmart in the free-market, and take away as much of their money as possible, for ourselves.

We are the people who want to reverse fascism in America, and Walmart is the leviathan whose only interest is to maintain its obscene profit margins, which are based on this fascism, and also based on full fledge Chinese fascism more so.

If we can compete with Walmart in the free-market, and take away as much of their money as possible, then we can use this money to change the fascist politics that we need to change in America.

If we just let Walmart keep making all of the money that it is making, then they are just gonna keep lobbying for more fascism, just like they did with their little pal Billary Clinton, via NAFTA.

Besides, I thought that making money in the free-market was absolute justification for any immoral business practice, lol.

So let's make some money!

duh

 

[KenInMontiMN]

You're foolish. Ever read a financial statement? Go look at their profit margin. You're pulling information out of your ass.

Corporations are bad, bottom line, money money money. Well, their financial statements are available for you to examine. How about, instead of running your mouth, you go and read them and see what the bottom line really looks like.

I'm fully aware of Walmart's tight profit margins, and have acquaintances who are in local mgmt positions with them. Corporations growing to monolithic size in near-monopolistic fashion is not a positive. Walmart has stayed in the black in large part through rapid growth, but that period of growth has drawn to a close. Eventually the market becomes saturated.

Never claimed Walmart was the real problem, the real problem is political choices that set the stage for a Walmart phenomonon at the expense of American family small business. I didn't jump into this thread to bash Walmart- but rather to stress the fact that runaway corporatism and international corporate power structures are dangerous, they do tend to absorb political power left unchecked and unregulated as near-monopolies. Free trade has been the banner that's been sold under. In the long run nothing's ever free.

Whether or not our movement can succeed hinges directly on how successfully we can turn away from the many hooks ready to be set, all of the temptations placed before us designed to keep us splintered a hundred different ways unless we're very disciplined in examining each and every issue from a standpoint of its effect on overall self-reliance, solvency, self determination not just here but elsewhere. And opening our neighbors' eyes to the same, and not glossing over all the dismal effects associated with the ground already given up in this war. In the end US self-determination and US constitutional protection is what's at stake, and no battle over any pettier issue that could divide us is worth losing the war over. Focus must be kept firmly on how policies and choices impact our constitutional foundation, and on how they impact our national economic health, especially in the area of debt growth today. Public & private as well. We have to stop supporting plays, some even springing up within this group, designed to skirt the constitution and negatively impact the nation's overall longterm economic health, as one more policy that ignores it and advances our own downfall. Immense international economic power structures eventually replacing Federal gov't that grew too bloated to survive by doing to much of the work of those power structures is no step forward for individual self-determination. We need to decentralize and weaken those sorts of things to the maximum extent possible on an ongoing basis or we surely will be swallowed up in the wake of their directions and carried along like it or not.

That is what the constitution empowers us to do; that is what Dr. Paul has devoted his political life towards; but in today's climate it can only happen if we all stick together with that focus, demand it from politicians on every level, never get lost in the temptation to use such concentrated powers to impose our own agenda despite that lure dangling constantly. We have to disintegrate that sort of thing regularly and religiously if local self-determination is our creed. We have to entrust our neighbors as well, locally and internationally, to their own self-deterministic choices in the bargain.

The latest example of our desensitization to unconstitutional excess from central power structures that springs to mind for me is the close 5-4 vote on the constitutionality of the DC gun laws. I can't think of any possible excuse for not demanding immediate impeachment of 4 justices who opined, despite their vow to uphold and defend, in a manner 180 deg counter to the constitution. And I'm neither a gun owner or regular user. I hear some people say that there are too many guns and the DC law is a good thing. It can't possibly be a good thing when enacting it ran counter to the constitution- that means that amending the constitution is step 1 for those who truly believe local gov't should be able to deny gun ownership. Letting that directive stand for 30 years or whatever it was exactly, unchallenged, should have never happened in the USA. But it's our own fault. If we don't stick together in near-unanimous fashion each and every time someone wants to bend the constitution into a new shape without engaging in the process to amend, in order to ramrod their agenda, and constitutional challenge takes decades if ever to come into fruition- then no surprise that will be the method in use for anybody with such an agenda. Amending the constitution is a lot of work, as it should be. And no surprise that Americans, even Americans in position of high power and under oath to uphold and defend, will make 'just a piece of paper' statements. That in and of itself labels the utterer as unfit for public office and ripe for impeachment. That didn't happen immediately when a president said that, and for that we can only blame ourselves for the fact that too many of us have grown too accustomed to holding exactly the same attitude on our pet issues, and actually supported letting the constitution bend to put our agenda in place, and hoping the courts would never apply it as intended.

This movement is first and foremost about uniting Americans to demand constitutional integrity, setting aside issue differences to do so, using that integrity to force a small and fiscally sound Federal gov't with sharply limited reach. If we can stand together with that lens as our focus we can't fail. If we continue to succumb to the continuous temptation to harness that centralized power against our political opponents we can't win, because this is a group and a message that pulls many together from different directions.

But when I read through these and other forums all I get is a barrage of, paraphrased:
I hate liberals, socialists
I hate fundamentalist christians, warmongering neocons
I hate inyoface gays
I hate family values people
I hate zionist jews
I hate unions
I hate amoral capitalists
I hate country music
I hate headbangin' metal
I hate internationalists
I hate anti-progressives
I hate the feds
I hate social entitlement spending
I hate military indusrtrial complex spending
I hate interventionists
I hate isolationists
I hate Islamofascists
I hate neocon fascists
...and so on ad nauseum.

We will label and hate away, human nature. To whatever extent we can set that stuff aside in this movement and keep the focus towards small and limited federal gov't powers well within constitutional bounds we can succeed in resurrecting the country we once had and actually stand a chance of even having a strong and solvent country down the road a bit. In failing to make that stuff take the back seat in priority we set ourselves up for failure, even partake actively in that failure by wanting those federal powers amassed for our own wielding, whether we can afford them or not, and help the country towards its impending economic demise.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Well hello my rude little friend, nice to meet you!

Yes, we should compete with Walmart in the free-market, and take away as much of their money as possible, for ourselves.

We are the people who want to reverse fascism in America, and Walmart is the leviathan whose only interest is to maintain its obscene profit margins, which are based on this fascism, and also based on full fledge Chinese fascism more so.

If we can compete with Walmart in the free-market, and take away as much of their money as possible, then we can use this money to change the fascist politics that we need to change in America.

If we just let Walmart keep making all of the money that it is making, then they are just gonna keep lobbying for more fascism, just like they did with their little pal Billary Clinton, via NAFTA.

Besides, I thought that making money in the free-market was absolute justification for any immoral business practice, lol.

So let's make some money!

duh

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Probably one of the reasons we don't see you in the economics section of the board.

I don't think you know what a company like walmart is composed of. Aye, you're just one of those that thinks "hefty rich owner with a cigar in his mouth" when you hear the word "corporation."

 

[rockandrollsouls]

I'm fully aware of Walmart's tight profit margins, and have acquaintances who are in local mgmt positions with them. Corporations growing to monolithic size in near-monopolistic fashion is not a positive. Walmart has stayed in the black in large part through rapid growth, but that period of growth has drawn to a close. Eventually the market becomes saturated.

Never claimed Walmart was the real problem, the real problem is political choices that set the stage for a Walmart phenomonon at the expense of American family small business. I didn't jump into this thread to bash Walmart- but rather to stress the fact that runaway corporatism and international corporate power structures are dangerous, they do tend to absorb political power left unchecked and unregulated as near-monopolies. Free trade has been the banner that's been sold under. In the long run nothing's ever free.

Whether or not our movement can succeed hinges directly on how successfully we can turn away from the many hooks ready to be set, all of the temptations placed before us designed to keep us splintered a hundred different ways unless we're very disciplined in examining each and every issue from a standpoint of its effect on overall self-reliance, solvency, self determination not just here but elsewhere. And opening our neighbors' eyes to the same, and not glossing over all the dismal effects associated with the ground already given up in this war. In the end US self-determination and US constitutional protection is what's at stake, and no battle over any pettier issue that could divide us is worth losing the war over. Focus must be kept firmly on how policies and choices impact our constitutional foundation, and on how they impact our national economic health, especially in the area of debt growth today. Public & private as well. We have to stop supporting plays, some even springing up within this group, designed to skirt the constitution and negatively impact the nation's overall longterm economic health, as one more policy that ignores it and advances our own downfall. Immense international economic power structures eventually replacing Federal gov't that grew too bloated to survive by doing to much of the work of those power structures is no step forward for individual self-determination. We need to decentralize and weaken those sorts of things to the maximum extent possible on an ongoing basis or we surely will be swallowed up in the wake of their directions and carried along like it or not.

That is what the constitution empowers us to do; that is what Dr. Paul has devoted his political life towards; but in today's climate it can only happen if we all stick together with that focus, demand it from politicians on every level, never get lost in the temptation to use such concentrated powers to impose our own agenda despite that lure dangling constantly. We have to disintegrate that sort of thing regularly and religiously if local self-determination is our creed. We have to entrust our neighbors as well, locally and internationally, to their own self-deterministic choices in the bargain.

The latest example of our desensitization to unconstitutional excess from central power structures that springs to mind for me is the close 5-4 vote on the constitutionality of the DC gun laws. I can't think of any possible excuse for not demanding immediate impeachment of 4 justices who opined, despite their vow to uphold and defend, in a manner 180 deg counter to the constitution. And I'm neither a gun owner or regular user. I hear some people say that there are too many guns and the DC law is a good thing. It can't possibly be a good thing when enacting it ran counter to the constitution- that means that amending the constitution is step 1 for those who truly believe local gov't should be able to deny gun ownership. Letting that directive stand for 30 years or whatever it was exactly, unchallenged, should have never happened in the USA. But it's our own fault. If we don't stick together in near-unanimous fashion each and every time someone wants to bend the constitution into a new shape without engaging in the process to amend, in order to ramrod their agenda, and constitutional challenge takes decades if ever to come into fruition- then no surprise that will be the method in use for anybody with such an agenda. Amending the constitution is a lot of work, as it should be. And no surprise that Americans, even Americans in position of high power and under oath to uphold and defend, will make 'just a piece of paper' statements. That in and of itself labels the utterer as unfit for public office and ripe for impeachment. That didn't happen immediately when a president said that, and for that we can only blame ourselves for the fact that too many of us have grown too accustomed to holding exactly the same attitude on our pet issues, and actually supported letting the constitution bend to put our agenda in place, and hoping the courts would never apply it as intended.

This movement is first and foremost about uniting Americans to demand constitutional integrity, setting aside issue differences to do so, using that integrity to force a small and fiscally sound Federal gov't with sharply limited reach. If we can stand together with that lens as our focus we can't fail. If we continue to succumb to the continuous temptation to harness that centralized power against our political opponents we can't win, because this is a group and a message that pulls many together from different directions.

But when I read through these and other forums all I get is a barrage of, paraphrased:
I hate liberals, socialists
I hate fundamentalist christians, warmongering neocons
I hate inyoface gays
I hate family values people
I hate zionist jews
I hate unions
I hate amoral capitalists
I hate country music
I hate headbangin' metal
I hate internationalists
I hate anti-progressives
I hate the feds
I hate social entitlement spending
I hate military indusrtrial complex spending
I hate interventionists
I hate isolationists
I hate Islamofascists
I hate neocon fascists
...and so on ad nauseum.

We will label and hate away, human nature. To whatever extent we can set that stuff aside in this movement and keep the focus towards small and limited federal gov't powers well within constitutional bounds we can succeed in resurrecting the country we once had and actually stand a chance of even having a strong and solvent country down the road a bit. In failing to make that stuff take the back seat in priority we set ourselves up for failure, even partake actively in that failure by wanting those federal powers amassed for our own wielding, whether we can afford them or not, and help the country towards its impending economic demise.

Here's another one. I hate people that write nonsensical, winded posts. You are bashing wal-mart and free market economics. It's not "runaway" corporatism. There's no such thing. It's runaway government, buddy. Government subsidizes. Government interferes. Government grants immunity. Government makes the decisions. Government oversteps its boundaries. Until you and others get that straight you're thinking ass-backwards.

 

[Petar]

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Probably one of the reasons we don't see you in the economics section of the board.

I don't think you know what a company like walmart is composed of. Aye, you're just one of those that thinks "hefty rich owner with a cigar in his mouth" when you hear the word "corporation."

Ok, so I "don't have a clue what I'm talking about", and I'm supposed to believe that solely because you just said so...

Wow, must be nice to be the arbitrary decider of all things!

Heh, could you please tell me how I could ever hope to gain this power for myself "oh great one"?

Also, I don't think that all corporations are evil, but I do agree with Ron Paul that fascism aka corporatism is not nice.

And call me crazy, but I would rather give my money to a company that isn't gonna use it to build a prison out of society.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Ok, so I "don't have a clue what I'm talking about", and I'm supposed to believe that solely because you just said so...

Wow, must be nice to be the arbitrary decider of all things!

Heh, could you please tell me how I could ever hope to gain this power for myself "oh great one"?

Also, I don't think that all corporations are evil, but I do agree with Ron Paul that fascism aka corporatism is not nice.

And call me crazy, but I would rather give my money to a company that isn't gonna use it to build a prison out of society.

No one's telling you what to spend your money on. Here's how you can be as great as me...read walmart's financial statements, examine their ratios, and then tell me exactly how much money they are making that isn't retained earnings. Then you can provide some evidence that Walmart, itself, is lobbying the government. And, even if they are, show me where that is a problem. I can lobby the government if I want. You can too, but you might want to place the blame on your elected officials for doing things they aren't authorized to, not the business.

Again, you're thinking about it backwards. There is no such thing as corporatism. Business is business...it's your government that blurs all distinction between the economy and itself. Businesses don't have the power to do that. Your corrupt lawmakers do.

 

[BCR_9er]

I agree. My family does it's best not to shop at walmart. We probably only go about once every 1 or 2 monthes. I think this is pretty good. I have no idea how often other people go, but every time I go in there it is sooooo crowded. I just want to scream at these people. Especially when they complain about the economy...

 

[Petar]

No one's telling you what to spend your money on. Here's how you can be as great as me...read walmart's financial statements, examine their ratios, and then tell me exactly how much money they are making that isn't retained earnings. Then you can provide some evidence that Walmart, itself, is lobbying the government. And, even if they are, show me where that is a problem. I can lobby the government if I want. You can too, but you might want to place the blame on your elected officials for doing things they aren't authorized to, not the business.

Again, you're thinking about it backwards. There is no such thing as corporatism. Business is business...it's your government that blurs all distinction between the economy and itself. Businesses don't have the power to do that. Your corrupt lawmakers do.

Who says that there is only one way to attack a problem?

Walmart participates in the corporatist rape of America and also China, so why should we limit ourselves to attacking only the government side of the problem?

Why shouldn't we all decide to use free-market capitalism to compete with Walmart, and take Walmarts money as well?

We sure as hell can't print any money like the Fed, or collect protection money like the IRS.

And don't you think that this money would be useful for the movement?

We could use it to fund the political campaigning that we are gonna need to fund in order to make the political changes that we are gonna need to make.

No more Fed, no more IRS, no more NAFTA.

Not to mention, we would attract a hell of a lot more people to our movement.

And haven't you ever heard of using your money in a moral way?

Prostitution and gambling don't have to be illegal, but that does not mean that everyone should spend all of their money on these things to make society a better place.

Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors of Walmart, and Bill Clinton passed NAFTA.

Do I really need to go through Walmarts earnings with a fine tooth to comb to explain to you how that seems immoral?

It's the same kind of shit that you have with Dick Cheney and Halliburton, and quite frankly, not only does it make me hate these politicians, but it makes me hate these companies too.

And not to mention, when you call me a moron for no reason, and then pretend that you are smart, then that makes me fucking hate you too.

lol