Comment

Comment by Less Prone on May 5, 2014 at 9:16pm

It must have dawned to Rand that getting ahead in politics requires putting the moral principles aside, at least for a while. Considering his father's huge public support and failure in the presidential campaign it becomes obvious that a politician has to become bedfellow with the powers behind the scenes in order to succeed. Either that or be corruptible, black-mailable, disgusting political animal involved in dark secrets that if exposed would ruin anyone's career.  In any case, it won't be easy to pick up those principles after prostituting himself to the "elite" without any respect to the voters. Politics, to large extend, is theater with less and less honest candidates.

There are issues that seem taboo in politics, one of them being the controlled demolition of the WTC towers. I just received this email, mixing facts, fiction and propaganda with outright lies, from rand.paul@rand-2016.com that exposes his stand and position as Israel's bitch in this issue.

"On May 2, 2011, Seal Team 6 infiltrated a terrorist compound in Pakistan and killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. All across the country, Americans cheered the news that one of the world's largest mass murderers had been brought to justice.

Unfortunately, there's a tragedy hiding within this story – and it's being ignored by my colleagues in Congress. You see, in the weeks leading up to Osama bin Laden's death, Pakistani Doctor Shakil Afridi risked his life to provide the U.S. with the information that directly helped Seal Team 6 find and kill bin Laden. Dr. Afridi should be rewarded - or at the very least congratulated - for his efforts.

But instead he's been imprisoned, brutally tortured, and sentenced to life in prison for treason by Pakistan's intelligence agency. It's a travesty that this hero is being tortured and his family threatened for the crime of helping America. And it's an outrage the United States continues to send over $2 billion in taxpayer money to Pakistan each year! And it gets worse - much worse.

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi recently attempted to seize absolute power and impose Sharia Law on the Egyptian people. As a result, massive protests and violence erupted throughout Egypt. And how did the Obama Administration respond?  By agreeing to send 20 F-16 fighter jets to Egypt as part of the $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars that are sent to Egypt each year for so-called "foreign aid."

Yes, I will repeat that! The Pentagon handed over $213 million dollars' worth of top-notch
F-16 fighter jets to a Muslim Brotherhood-led government hell bent on imposing Sharia Law in Egypt. The sad truth is that our policy of sending billions of taxpayer dollars overseas for so-called "foreign aid" to countries that hate us could end up becoming an international disaster.

Should the troubles in Egypt spiral into a regional conflict with Israel, we could find ourselves in the embarrassing position of supplying arms and billions of dollars to both sides of a shooting war. You and I MUST end this madness.

I'm will continue to lead the fight to stop taxpayer dollars from flowing to anti-American regimes overseas.

And I'm counting on you to stand with me.

In Liberty,

Senator Rand Paul

P.S. The United States is sending billions of dollars overseas in so-called "foreign aid" to countries that are hell bent on undermining U.S. foreign policy.

We must stop this insanity!

Please chip in $250, $100, $50, or whatever you can afford to help me continue the fight against foreign aid to nations like Pakistan and Egypt."

He may go on pushing for auditing the FED and other good issues, but it's becoming more and more obvious that he's started a downward moral spiral in politics that may well take him to presidency in the end.

Comment by Not mainstreamer on February 18, 2014 at 5:19pm

Probably the above implies the purpose of US government is to work for the American People (and The American People has no authority when it comes to Foreign People)

Comment by Citizen Quasar on February 18, 2014 at 4:54pm

While it is a fact that the signers of the Declaration of Independence did contractually agree to its contents by signing it with wet ink signatures, that is NOT what makes government's only moral function true because morality is demonstrably derived from mankind's nature as a conceptual life form and NOT from people's subjective opinions.

Comment by Not mainstreamer on February 18, 2014 at 4:05pm

(myself) government has a much larger function, like taking care of public properties, defence, diplomacy, money supply and more..

If they want to make all land communal (typical indian tradition) they are free to decide that?

The idea of "corporation" as legal entities seems to be related to wealthy Zionists worried about their wealth. They wanted to separate business risk from personal responsibity - or maybe the other way around.

Comment by Not mainstreamer on February 18, 2014 at 3:50pm

No, it means they did agree upon on something.

They agreed upon the American Constitution I suppose. They did not agree upon "Not only is protection of rights the only moral justification for governments to exist according to objective reality," (since that philosophy was not developed at that time). Generally speaking, a constitution may be whatever they agree upon?

Comment by Not mainstreamer on February 18, 2014 at 3:29pm

Not only is protection of rights the only moral justification for governments to exist according to objective reality,

--

That was agreed upon, contractually

Last statement I suppose means the founders (in general) can agree upon everything?

Comment by Citizen Quasar on February 18, 2014 at 3:21pm

The English language is structured such that by default when one says "men" they also mean women, unless the context specifically implies otherwise.

Comment by Citizen Quasar on February 18, 2014 at 3:08pm

"That may be so according to anarcho-capitalism. In this world government has a much larger function, like taking care of public properties, defence, diplomacy, money supply and more..."

That is so according to the philosophy of Objectivism. Not only is protection of rights the only moral justification for governments to exist according to objective reality, it is also mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." Of course, people like you who haven’t a clue what a right is to begin with, do not understand.

The fact that government has involved itself in all the things you list only shows how immoral government is. That people like you think government has such broad authority in defiance of what is demonstrably right only shows how immoral you yourself are.

 

Comment by Not mainstreamer on February 17, 2014 at 10:11am

Today maintaining basic infrastructure like the net cannot be "private" any more

Comment by Not mainstreamer on February 17, 2014 at 10:08am

Protection of rights is the ONLY moral justification for governments anyway.

That may be so according to anarcho-capitalism. In this world government has a much larger function, like taking care of public properties, defence, diplomacy, money supply and more..

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page