ParanoiA

Didn't know that. Since it will make zero difference in his political positions, it doesn't bother me. Haha, yeah I guess I can understand that those who do not realize the the overwhelming, overreaching power of the central government destroying our federation would see him this way. My question to you is, do you believe in the idea of a federation? If so, then why do you have issues with state power? Why is it bad to leave something to the states? By definition, you have to have SOME power in the states to even technically be a federation. Also, simple answers are not indicative of simple analysis. Many of his ideas are rooted in principle and require more than 30 second response windows to explain. Watch the google interview on Ron Paul, it's on Youtube. You'll see what I mean. It's a more relaxed atmosphere and gives him a chance to explain his views of liberty and the structure of government and what role it should play. Money is a big, big issue of his. And when you see the fall of the previous great empires and then look at what we're doing today, it's quite compelling. And with an ignorant public that doesn't understand the value of currency, how it gets it's value and so forth, we seem to be doomed to repeat it. We're all too busy with reality TV to notice the jeopardy our empire is in.

Paranoid Android...by Radiohead, live in 1997 - performed almost note for note to the studio version...for Radiohead fans, this is a big favorite - the penacle of the Ok Computer album and really smacks of Floydian influence. Thanks for the Floyd links iNow, I enjoyed them with my coffee and, um, peace pipe...

Well sure, but I'm talking about fighting another country.

You should see his interview with Stossel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js2Z4b2PMTo It's chopped up into 6 short parts. At one point, Stossel holds up pictures of federal buildings that would be shut down by Paul's proposals. Paul notes that we would make money selling them off to the private sector.

Having a bit of a time trying to find both a constitutional and pragmatic answer on this one. Constitutionally, I'm thinking since congress declares war, then that's where the authority comes from, regardless of the opinion of the sitting president. Pragmatically however, as commander-in-chief, he's the commander of the Army, Navy and Air Force. And therefore, without his approval, obviously he could theoretically refuse to mobilize a single piece of equipment or personnel right? Provisions include taking control of state's Guard when "called into federal service" - but I don't know if that means congress commands them or the president. So, is it possible to wage war without the president's consent?

I'm left handed as well. I had no idea I was serving the devil, but now that I think about it, with my vices and all...

Well that's another unfortunate disagreement I have with Dr Paul then, albeit a minor one. He appreciates the ultimate intent in the establishment clause and that's good. I just prefer the default position of government to be more secularist.

No one is saying it is a law. We're saying we're disturbed by it. They are passing this "statement" while operating in the capacity of legislators - not while being a private citizen minding his personal belief. As a legislative body, they have passed a non-binding statement of their intents. I've read their intents and I don't like them because they are contrary to the constitution. What's the point of making a statement if you have no intention of following up and through with some kind of complimentary action? I don't think they've done anything wrong here, as it's not a law. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be alarmed by it's implications.

Ouch! I wonder what Dr Paul would say about this resolution.

In the same way that "merry christmas" is exclusionary toward atheists...yeah. It's presumption serves no function and is a cool tradition and tribute to our nation's history. I don't believe in God either but I like having that logo on there. Not to mention are you not presuming a negative from a positive? This feels like when my wife assumes that because I say her sister is hot that my wife is not. Don't ya'll have a "fallacy" on this one?

I see your point, but I still don't like it. And, arguably, it demonstrates that they would gladly legislate christianity. It would be a bill if it weren't for the constitution - and it would go further. Yep. Although I would go for a resolution that tooth fairies are actually theives, guilty of breaking in and entering as well as stealing body parts. Makes about as much sense.

Sounds like endorsement of a particular religion. I do not like this at all. This is entirely out of line. A little premature on my part here, but this should not be tolerated in my opinion. This appears to be a DIRECT contradiction to the constitution. Can't wait to bring this one up at work...

It's been a while, but yes I have seen that and as a musician it was really cool seeing Gilmour play his riffs and go over his techniques on that album. You're definitely something... Meddle is great. Funny, because I've never really known the name of the songs as I burned it on a CD and so I just know that Tracks 1, 2 and 6 are my favorites. As for the tortured dog....maybe a prelude to the future work of Animals? Also, have any of you Floydians heard any live versions of Echos? For some reason, I really like the live version better - or at least the one I have - maybe because the guitar is more ballsy. I love the whole half-stap run riff he does in that song and it's a lot more pronounced.

Pink Floyd is definitely on my short list and oddly enough, Animals is probably my favorite album of theirs. Obviously David Gilmour's guitar work is inspiring but I've always admired his vocal style too. And I thought the 'big bang' for Radiohead obsessives was the No Computer album. Their contribution to the genre is really only notable after No Computer; Kid A and Amnesiac are strange albums on initial listens, with oddly timed, yet beautiful chord progressions, but hook you after a couple times...forever...and ever...

Hard to argue with that...

Good point. I guess I take war more seriously than most. Just seems to me if you're willing to kill and maime humans to meet some end - then apparently the severity of the situation requires it or else you shouldn't be doing it - either way, it is contradictory to "rule out" things. It's also why you shouldn't wage war so easily. The "mess" of war; the abandonment of basic human liberty and causing human suffering, creating torturous environments - this is WHY you don't wage war carelessly; (or grant war powers to "kind of" wage war...long, drawn out, vietnam-ish, Iraq-ish like warfare). Think about it this way...what scenario makes it so dire and dramtic to kill people, but not torture them? That isn't consistent to me. If situation X is so damn important I'm willing to murder and maime to force compliance, then why isn't it important enough to torture for? And if it's not, why must it be "ruled out" to not do it? My moral obligation is to my countrymen over all others. We should never war over little things. If you're not willing to kill babies, then you shouldn't be doing it at all. No war is civil. It's all disgusting. There should never be "clean" war, or "honorable" war to me. The more you clean it up, the easier it is to wage and the more frequent it gets waged.

So, how is killing the enemy rationalized in your morality code and torturing the enemy is not? You don't think a field of slaughtered enemy soldiers, slow deaths, cauterized amputations, and etc are torture? The implied thick line between murder and torture is fallacious. Tell me how murdering people who haven't had due process is so obviously morally superior to torturing people who haven't had due process? If you're willing to murder humans to your ends - what you're implicitly stating when you wage war - why would you draw some weird, arbitrary line at torture? You're already violating human decency and basic human rights by showering them with bombs and bullets, causing death, misery, pain - torture. To rule out torture is as silly as ruling out killing. We should only war when we HAVE to - and then it should be all out, get it over with, no apologies. If we always did that, I don't think we'd fight nearly as many wars and they wouldn't last nearly as long, or kill as many people - nor spurn further conflicts with drawn out, continual conflict. My two cents anyway.

And I never implied I was debating with him in order for that to be a strawman. Re-read carefully... It's because I find it hard to accept the notion that my government has to participate in order to call it globalization that leads me to the question: How about defining globalization, versus political globalization? I wasn't taking issue with Phil, but rather I was sharing that my apprehension in "globalization" definition led me to that question. Probably could have stated it better, but...

They've been open about the plans for a long, long time...called PNAC. It's disgusting.

It's an attack piece, pure and simple. Anyone watching the debates or anyone who actually reads Ron Paul's direct comments knows this 'conspiracy' angle is BS. They're threatened by his conviction of the principles of the constitution and his conclusions that our present problems all lead back to ignoring those principles. It's the same ole, same ole - discredit the messenger to discredit the message. They can't catch him cheating on his wife with whores or doing meth on the job so all that's left is misrepresentation - and the big players in news media are experts at it - no, actually artists at this point. Ron Paul has made it clear that this about a battle of ideas - globalization through government versus globalization through free society. The NAU is not a conspiracy, any more than the PNAC. They are well known ideas, with their supporters of various stripes, and of course they're going to advocate their beliefs in business and government. No freak show, no Alex Jones fodder - just common sense. What I find interesting is how the same people who are strong advocates of globalization through government are the same people who are against diversity in state governments here in the US. Globalizing requires uniting differing governments - from communism to capitalism and everything in between. Yet, we don't believe that's good for our own country? We can't have diversity in state governments but diversity in national governments is just fine? I really wish folks would get a handle on tolerance and stop forcing everyone to merge with legislation. That's Paul's message, and mine. Free trade and travel IS on par with globalization and allows societies to evolve together.

Have you heard In Rainbows yet? It reminds me a lot of the Kid A / Amnesiac records. Really good stuff.

Scorpions wrote some cool songs I thought, considering the pitiful 80's mainstream rock culture...of which I was a part Radiohead - Pink Floyd - Dio - Iron Mainden - Old Metallica - Beatles - Zeppelin - Mars Volta - Muse...other stuff like that..I tend to go through genre phases and right now Radiohead's new 'In Rainbows' is stuck in my head.

I'm shocked. All that crap on TV that I can't stand to watch is being written by people making 6 figures? Let them stay on strike. Would be cool to see a competing union scoop up the unemployed writers and take their place. I'll bet they could take half the pay and still be tickled pink.

You're probably right about the fair tax. I've always enjoyed the idea of a sales tax over an income tax - although, to think it wouldn't be abused and made complex and misunderstood over time would be folly. Nowadays, I'm not so sure about the sales tax alternative. I know, however, that I do not like the income tax solution in place today. Libertarians are a strange bunch, in that they come in so many flavors and extremes. Really, every ideology is like that, but it's far more noticeable with libertarians. Some want a private police force, private armies and so forth - and that's just way too far in my opinion. Extreme positions like that are not considering really ANY role for government. So then, what's the point? They're going to advocate swapping out total government control to total private business control? In my opinion, they're totally missing the point.

Oh my. This is funny, yet not. Totally my screw up - I meant Social engineering, not civil engineering. I'm so sorry. I have no issues with civil engineering at all - hell, that IS what the government should be doing. So yeah, you're quite right about it - haha! Again, so sorry to waste your time like that.