Recently, Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas took to the floor of the House to talk about Wikileaks, transparency in government, and the case of Daniel Ellsberg, the 
Pentagon Papers, and the New York Times. He spoke about how the Iraq War was based on lies. He asked how the U. S. government should prosecute a citizen of Australia for publishing classified U. S. documents that he did not steal. Paul also said the following: “Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.”
Paul posed a number of questions at the end of his talk:
Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised ‘Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.’ I yield back the balance of my time.
Source: Huffington Post
– Elaine Magliaro
But please, try to tell us how up is down again.
So far I haven’t been proven wrong by either of you two greed merchants.
PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank with strong ties to the American Enterprise Institute. AEI and PNAC are as right wing as they come, sport. Your denials notwithstanding.
ekeyra:
“Oh friend servant and protector of humanity, good to see you salivating over the prospect of lining up people who do not agree with you against the wall for firing squads.”
Truer words were never spoken about Buddha is Laughing, he is all about the use of force and would not be afraid to use it if he had the power on those with whom he fundamentally disagrees.
He would do just that and snicker about it serving people right for being greedy. Of that there is no doubt in my mind. He quotes Jefferson but his heart beats to the rhythm of despotism.
As far as Neo-Cons go, he doesn’t get it that they used to be leftists and the things he despises about them are exactly what the leftists used to do. Just think about all the wars of the 20th century-caused/started by leftists. The idea that America should be the worlds policeman-you guessed it leftists. The idea that America should give massive amounts of foreign aid-yep leftists.
He isn’t right about anything, it is funny to watch him flounder. If he makes a pronouncement about something it is usually proven wrong within days or weeks. It is rather funny to watch.
Tony,
I think it’s one of those self-generating duplicative memes. I came to it purely by spontaneous logic when someone asked the question in party conversation.
@Buddha: I admit I heard it from somebody else many years ago; a fellow atheist. I do not know where it originated.
Oh yes she can.
She’s home schooled.
GIGO.
@ekeyra: Don’t bring up the free rider problem.
Ha! Wow, you are an idiot, you know what the problem is and then you insist it must not be mentioned.
This is like saying, “Why can’t I just rape at gunpoint the women that I find attractive? And don’t bring up how they or others feel about it or her ‘human rights’ or whatever.”
Beyond the free rider problem is the problem of consistency. How are we supposed to keep track of whether somebody has paid to be protected against robbery or murder? If a bank robber takes hostages, and we don’t know who the hostages are, should we spend the money and possible lives of officers to save them or no? Some of them? If a building catches on fire, how can we be sure whether somebody is visiting that has the right to be saved by firemen? And are we *really* going to ask our firemen, while they are saving one person, to watch an infant in a crib burn to death because its parents fell behind on their “save our lives in case of fire” insurance?
Having a separate set of laws apply to every citizen is simply an unworkable system, ever. Now I think you are just saying idiotic shit to mess with me, you cannot truly be that stupid.
Tony C.,
I’ve been using that exact answer for the chicken and egg conundrum for years.
@ekeyra: Civilization preceded government or else there would have been no reason to form one at all. For what is a government with no citizens?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Evolutionists like myself answer that question simply: The egg. Some animal with DNA quite close to a modern chicken laid an egg with a DNA mutation that was a modern chicken. It hatched from that egg. Anti-evolutionists answer that question oppositely; they think the chicken was created whole and then laid eggs.
Government is a set of rules enforced by some citizens as to how individuals interact. As I mentioned to begin with, Wolves have a king, Chimpanzees have a king, Elephant herds have a queen. Leadership and “laws” are a natural phenomenon in the animal world; not for every species but for many with larger brains, and particularly for social animals that live in groups.
Before modern man emerged 50,000 years ago he was still a social animal, wandering in tribes and groups for two million years or more. I have no doubt these proto-people also had leaders, laws, and punishments.
Wouldnt that very course of action neccessitate another group to have power over that group to keep them from overwhelming the rest of society? An infinite regression to higher authority?
No, of course not. If you surrender authority to a strong man that crowns himself king, then sure. But the higher authority can be the citizens and the cops that work for the citizens. It is possible to have an interacting set of powers, just like it is possible to have a mutually beneficial economic transaction.
I refuse to teach you civics 101, but the answer is that we, as a people, are capable of hiring a police force, demanding that only the police force exercise force against citizens, and we can still control the police force and not let it enslave us.
It would require an armed revolution if the entire governmental apparatus is compromised, but I do not believe that is the case in this country. Politicians still step aside when they lose their elections, no matter what their rhetoric about guns and violence.
If you think you travel a lonely road, you might want to think about why you find nobody with you. There are two choices I see; either you truly think you are the smartest person in the world, or you are simply wrong and do not realize it.
If you think you are the smartest person in the world, you might go one step further and wonder why it is you cannot formulate your position in a way that converts more people to your point of view? It seems like the smartest person in the world would be capable of parsing the rules of salesmanship and the manipulation of people’s emotions with language to achieve such a result. Yet, you haven’t, because by your own admission people only agree with you to a partial extent.
Your road is lonely for a very good reason; nobody else is as stupid as you are on this topic. Nobody else thinks nothing would be better than something; nobody else is egotistical enough to think they’d survive long in the Mad Max world or enjoy it much if they did; nobody else thinks your “logic” is actually logical.
Instead of whining about how hard your road is and how lonely you feel on it, you need to stop and look for whatever fundamental thinking error you made that put you on this stupid anarchic road in the first place.
I’ve given you plenty of logical fodder to make that attempt. Although with your poor thinking skills, I doubt you will succeed.
Evil and greedy is evil and greedy.
Of course you want American Empire dismantled.
So you can replace it with Xe Empire sponsored by Halliburton.
Your type is getting tired of having to use middlemen to hire your army.
Tony,
If you truly believe the government offers something of value to its customers, why not allow them the option to purchase it in a voluntary transaction? Why force people to pay for something, that in your opinion, most people want and would gladly pay for? Why should you have to force someone to pay for a service they value as life-sustaining? Shouldnt they be falling over themselves to fund these services? Dont bring up the free rider problem. Wouldnt that just make you a selfish greedy capitalist thinking only of yourself and not of the needs of your fellow man?
Chan,
I was joking about most of what I said, but im very familiar with people coming with me so far and then not being able to go as far as I would. What me and you are discussing is minarchism (minimal state) vs anarchism(no state). To contest the scope and specifics of govenment is not as disparate a divide as you may believe. To disagree on whether government should exist or not exist is a much greater fundamental question. In the first, both parties agree that government is good and proper, but perhaps have differing opinions of how much to tax and to what purposes to use those taxes. To disagree on whether government should exist or not calls into question, not which actions the government should take and the minutae thereof, but whether the government is justified in taking any action at all. To most people the very notion that you would ask such a question is absurd. Its the government, any actions it takes are justified by virtue that it is the government. I find this answer unsatisfactory at best and truly terrifying at worst. As for the constitution, if following it has lead us to our current state of affairs, of what good is it? As a constraint on the scope and power of the federal government it is, sadly, a dismal failure.
There is an analogy i use when people ask me if i vote: If you required brain surgery and the only surgical instrument available was a hammer, would you care very much who the doctor was? Government has one and only one solution to every problem, force. The folly is in assuming anyone could use it, even with the noblest of intentions, and attain any other outcome but disaster. Even having said all that I encourage you to find your own answers, your own path.
Tony,
“The government produces a great deal, it produces civilization.”
Civilization preceded government or else there would have been no reason to form one at all. For what is a government with no citizens? Even if this were true you are still left with the dilemma of protecting yourself from violence by granting only a specific group in society with a monopoly on the initiation of violence. Wouldnt that very course of action neccessitate another group to have power over that group to keep them from overwhelming the rest of society? An infinite regression to higher authority? Local, State, Federal, International, interplanetary, …god? Where is the logical stopping point when you can rest assured noone has anymore power than anyone else?
B,
Oh friend servant and protector of humanity, good to see you salivating over the prospect of lining up people who do not agree with you against the wall for firing squads. Spoken like a true adherent to peace and freedom. Also you have to know that as an anarchist and someone in fundamental opposition to all government actions, to be labeled an enabler of government misconduct is truly absurd and quite funny. Then again you labeled me a neo-con hours after I had advocated dismantling the global american military empire, ending the war on drugs, and returning our currency to the gold standard. All goals which neocons have been trying to attain for years right?
Eekeyra:
No, I am pretty much with you on most things. I just think we need a little bit of government. Most of the other stuff I think you are spot on.
We differ only in the amount of government necessary. The rest should be left alone.
I think I know why you are against government but don’t you think if government was actually following the Constitution it would work? Or do you just think government is folly no matter who is running it?
ekeyra:
No, I am pretty much with you on most things. I just think we need a little bit of government. Most of the other stuff I think you are spot on.
We differ only in the amount of government necessary. The rest should be left alone.
I think I know why you are against government but don’t you think if government was actually following the Constitution it would work? Or do you just think government is folly no matter who is running it?
He says the same thing many believe.
The minister claims his initial victory in Iowa was funded by Goldman Sachs.
He goes on to say who selected a Jr. Senator, who hadn’t got his foot wet in the senate, and made him believe, that he from that position, could be president of the United States all to be used for a purpose that is not our agenda.
No, now that the minister explained it I understand it now.
@ekeyra: It steals because it produces nothing
Maybe nothing you care about, but it produces plenty I care about, and plenty the vast majority of people care about.
Government produces protection for the weak from the strong; to put it in simple terms. The weak business from the strong business, the weak citizen from the strong thief, the weak woman from the strong rapist. However you want to put it.
The entire society we live in, and you disdain, would collapse overnight if it weren’t for the invisible supports of law, which allows for law enforcement and crime prevention and punishment.
Most of us are not stupid enough to believe we are invulnerable to bullets or knives or arrows or spears or explosives, and most of us would die in the struggle to survive and protect our loved ones and feed ourselves.
The government produces a great deal, it produces civilization. So you don’t care for civilization, I don’t give a shit, and whine and claim your martyrdom all you want, waste your life on your self pity. You might as well, you are pathetic.
Aren’t you going to demand to see Obama’s original birth certificate too, badtroll?
You fail to distinguish that the actual left in this country is not represented at all in Washington. Only corporate lobbyists. The actual left wing politicians in our government can be counted on one hand. The rest, regardless of label, sold their souls to big business to pay for their election campaigns. And you’re simply wrong about not having a villain to point at. We’ve got everyone who works for corporate interests over the interests of citizens – the greed is good brigade.
Rabid dogs such as yourself and your buddy the similarly factually and conceptually challenged Chan. The bad guys within our government are enabled by people such as yourselves. When the day of reckoning comes? There will be “Good Americans” and “Bad Americans”. You know – just like “Good Germans” and “Bad Germans”. You’ve already sealed what side of that divide you’ll find yourselves on.
And it ain’t gonna be the good, McGreed. For either of you. Enjoy.
I didn’t vote for that asshole. Most people didn’t the first time around. He was appointed President.
and the current one was selected before he was elected