I'm guilty of recycling and reforming old ideas like the Party of Lincoln always has and like the Dems have since the opportunistic New Departure proposal.
Now that's out of the way... who thinks that Romney will pick Rand Paul as his running mate? Rand Paul is like Paul Ryan except Rand Paul is an introvert and less energetic. They both support job creation with govt revenue neutrality (whatever that means).
Romney is like a combo of W Bush and HW Bush (i.e., Romney is introverted like HW Bush; but can be rude/impervious like W was sometimes). Romney gets told what to do and then de-compiles or reforms it like too many presidents have done. Romney also has RNC rules in his favor even more so than he did in 2012. Reince Priebus can't change them all by himself but he has enough control and Romney has enough wealth.
Rand Paul is like a less angry Goldwater, a younger Al Gore, an opportunist, a physician, and the New Right all reformed into himself; and he couldn't get elected president because he speaks his mind a lot yet he isn't easily fooled like most who speak their mind. In other words, he's like Ayn Rand. Very accurate deductive logic on the spot; but like Ayn Rand and myself he does not have much original thought--he may have said "the Koch Brothers should be arrested!" for polluting rather than saying something like prisons are old order and for the health of the State rather than ; he also could've proposed anti-legislation that would minimized federal control of waterways with the goal to get zero central control while also cancelling public and decentralizing private debt to take care of it. He also recycles the ages-old supply side shit and uses pro-revenue job creation rhetoric.
He could've worked with Obama to cut payroll taxes further (as obama kind of proposed) while not building more infrastructure.
Anyway, I don't dislike Romney/Rand (I may even vote for them given that I doubt they will get the electoral vote and given that they're not quite as impervious, logically compulsive, and emotionally phony as me or Hillary Clinton).
It won't happen butCongress remained how it is (i.e., same balance of power in both chambers) while Obama and a future President Gingrich could slash the bureaucracy that Bush left behind and that the GOP still supports (especially current GOP governors and Congress like they are afraid of Obama or like trying to control evan rachel wood from farting or trying to stop her from farting or going to the bathroom); without hiring me; but reversing absolute taxation (even if federal spending goes down from $4Tn this year, there won't be a global and absolute benefit of spending nothing), and reduce federal funding for cops (at least the ones in VA), sell the police dept weapons and u.s. weapons to people here and to other militaries to reduce taxation, hopefully enough will keep an eye on people like Rick Perry (so he doesn't get uniformity installed once out of office and so we texans can be freed), hopefully mcdonnell and his wife will go free and happy, no one should be signed up for medicaid against their wishes. and we need the PTCOffice people to refuse to enact intellectual property; what they did with the redskins TM was good.
of course, many current cops and police chiefs can be retired safely with a pension and replaced exclusively with people who have Weschler processing speed index and Weschler picture completion subtest scores equal to or greater than 98th percentile (compared to a representative sample). Cops like those would be more efficient and discipline couldn't be an issue as more innocents and non-aggressors could go free. Old Order judges should not be given the chance to restore what we have now; perhaps legal advice could be used from Justice Andrew Napolitano.
After all, the Constitution itself is mostly lawless (the rule of law isn't even absolute and the GOP has become tyrannical yet controls the States) as it was ratified by Elitists being secretive and using fraud with threats of violence eventually added (RI was forced into because of the U.S. Constitution's geographical centralism of the water-ways), then preserved by John Marshall through fraud and advocation of force (the 13th Amendment indicated the Party of Lincoln couldn't allow the slaves their self-determination and couldn't trust the States and the people the right to help out). Permanent Centralization of Tyranny (that would've made Lincoln blush or maybe even cry) was empowered through extreme force and aggression like would've come from someone like Adolf Hitler (i.e., 14th and 15th amendments under the power-seeking, ultra-domineering Tyrannical War President U.S.G.'s Unconditional Surrender policy) and Stalin/FDR/Mussolini (16th Amendment); there is no way to repeal the 14th completely, and no popular liberty alternatives on the 16th. I mean, consumption taxes are income taxes; and more uniform taxation won't reduce tyranny.
And please remember, all income taxed closer to the same marginal rate can't increase private savings by itself as those with AGI not in the top marginal bracket are not more or less "productive" given: that value is subjective and any red tape like for licensed professionals and CEOs keeps honest liberty down. Maybe if the first supply-side Presidency and Congress (that is, Reagan's admin and Jack Kemp's well intended "Democratic capitalism!") had let absolute revenue go down from what Carter's Admin took in ... then perhaps future tax cuts could've been large absolute reductions in revenue ... that way, less spending (which was for unpopular programs) could've occurred (vs what actually did under Bush). All that would've been so popular that the GOP and Obama would've liked them enough to keep them.
Unfortunately, Bush's bureaucracy and Clinton's were both super-expensive even though the latter was "efficiency regs" (The New Democrats and Al Gore were Business-minded as moderation is when the govt and firms are like nannies). Regs give a signal that they will always work and that signal is dangerous. Martin Van Buren was less regulatory and Ron Paul would've been the second, and William Henry Harrison was the perfect president (especially with John Tyler as his running mate). Back then the military was protective of the U.S. citizenry's interests (everything was actually democratic back then due to more of the Sibero-Celtic, White Irish, Protestant, Jewish mtDNA super haplogroup U) close to its own turf back then. It can't be restored here though. It will have to be in Israel when the Constitution is discarded (separation of powers in particular).
Clinton was an observant interventionist abroad who was more aware (he always knew who to trust as well as who not to trust while being able to act on it for the present, but definitely not for much good futurity).
Somewhat differently, bush was a typical Hamiltonian Party of Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR internationalist war American.
Also somewhat differently, boots on the ground in iraq wasn't as scary as what NATO did to the serbs, Dick Cheney made sure his company gave Clinton a deal on it, and imagining what saddam hussein did may have been scarier than when clinton's admin starved all those iraqis to death (i.e., bush's warfare was old-fashioned and was less scary to the more direct victims than the Clinton Admin's originally sadistic warfare). But unlike Bill Clinton, I have been impervious (or at least not as kind and gentle as Clinton) and I have been not at all aware of tricks. Then Osama Bin Laden was a fighter for freedom and his people yets clinton's myopic admin and support for aggression [i.e., president clinton and his admin had not much respect for all sovereignties; they were good for their time, but they illustrated why no sovereignty can be centrally planned for futurity to have a healthy balance of liberty and care for others] gave Bush the wrong signals which allowed for the Saudis to trick Bush into letting the murder. Then Bush enabled Obama to go after Bin Laden because Bush couldn't make it clear that he made a mistake and that Bin Laden was actually our friend.
But please always remember, rulers and ruling classes are neither good nor necessary to have and are never well-overthrown by centralization. IOW, The NAP can't be enforced; but private property rights or public privileges are ultimately enforced by centralization; The market is naturally free which is voluntary and non-coercive human action so liberty is protected without anything being reduced to protect that liberty.
Now that's out of the way... who thinks that Romney will pick Rand Paul as his running mate? Rand Paul is like Paul Ryan except Rand Paul is an introvert and less energetic. They both support job creation with govt revenue neutrality (whatever that means).
Romney is like a combo of W Bush and HW Bush (i.e., Romney is introverted like HW Bush; but can be rude/impervious like W was sometimes). Romney gets told what to do and then de-compiles or reforms it like too many presidents have done. Romney also has RNC rules in his favor even more so than he did in 2012. Reince Priebus can't change them all by himself but he has enough control and Romney has enough wealth.
Rand Paul is like a less angry Goldwater, a younger Al Gore, an opportunist, a physician, and the New Right all reformed into himself; and he couldn't get elected president because he speaks his mind a lot yet he isn't easily fooled like most who speak their mind. In other words, he's like Ayn Rand. Very accurate deductive logic on the spot; but like Ayn Rand and myself he does not have much original thought--he may have said "the Koch Brothers should be arrested!" for polluting rather than saying something like prisons are old order and for the health of the State rather than ; he also could've proposed anti-legislation that would minimized federal control of waterways with the goal to get zero central control while also cancelling public and decentralizing private debt to take care of it. He also recycles the ages-old supply side shit and uses pro-revenue job creation rhetoric.
He could've worked with Obama to cut payroll taxes further (as obama kind of proposed) while not building more infrastructure.
Anyway, I don't dislike Romney/Rand (I may even vote for them given that I doubt they will get the electoral vote and given that they're not quite as impervious, logically compulsive, and emotionally phony as me or Hillary Clinton).
It won't happen butCongress remained how it is (i.e., same balance of power in both chambers) while Obama and a future President Gingrich could slash the bureaucracy that Bush left behind and that the GOP still supports (especially current GOP governors and Congress like they are afraid of Obama or like trying to control evan rachel wood from farting or trying to stop her from farting or going to the bathroom); without hiring me; but reversing absolute taxation (even if federal spending goes down from $4Tn this year, there won't be a global and absolute benefit of spending nothing), and reduce federal funding for cops (at least the ones in VA), sell the police dept weapons and u.s. weapons to people here and to other militaries to reduce taxation, hopefully enough will keep an eye on people like Rick Perry (so he doesn't get uniformity installed once out of office and so we texans can be freed), hopefully mcdonnell and his wife will go free and happy, no one should be signed up for medicaid against their wishes. and we need the PTCOffice people to refuse to enact intellectual property; what they did with the redskins TM was good.
of course, many current cops and police chiefs can be retired safely with a pension and replaced exclusively with people who have Weschler processing speed index and Weschler picture completion subtest scores equal to or greater than 98th percentile (compared to a representative sample). Cops like those would be more efficient and discipline couldn't be an issue as more innocents and non-aggressors could go free. Old Order judges should not be given the chance to restore what we have now; perhaps legal advice could be used from Justice Andrew Napolitano.
After all, the Constitution itself is mostly lawless (the rule of law isn't even absolute and the GOP has become tyrannical yet controls the States) as it was ratified by Elitists being secretive and using fraud with threats of violence eventually added (RI was forced into because of the U.S. Constitution's geographical centralism of the water-ways), then preserved by John Marshall through fraud and advocation of force (the 13th Amendment indicated the Party of Lincoln couldn't allow the slaves their self-determination and couldn't trust the States and the people the right to help out). Permanent Centralization of Tyranny (that would've made Lincoln blush or maybe even cry) was empowered through extreme force and aggression like would've come from someone like Adolf Hitler (i.e., 14th and 15th amendments under the power-seeking, ultra-domineering Tyrannical War President U.S.G.'s Unconditional Surrender policy) and Stalin/FDR/Mussolini (16th Amendment); there is no way to repeal the 14th completely, and no popular liberty alternatives on the 16th. I mean, consumption taxes are income taxes; and more uniform taxation won't reduce tyranny.
And please remember, all income taxed closer to the same marginal rate can't increase private savings by itself as those with AGI not in the top marginal bracket are not more or less "productive" given: that value is subjective and any red tape like for licensed professionals and CEOs keeps honest liberty down. Maybe if the first supply-side Presidency and Congress (that is, Reagan's admin and Jack Kemp's well intended "Democratic capitalism!") had let absolute revenue go down from what Carter's Admin took in ... then perhaps future tax cuts could've been large absolute reductions in revenue ... that way, less spending (which was for unpopular programs) could've occurred (vs what actually did under Bush). All that would've been so popular that the GOP and Obama would've liked them enough to keep them.
Unfortunately, Bush's bureaucracy and Clinton's were both super-expensive even though the latter was "efficiency regs" (The New Democrats and Al Gore were Business-minded as moderation is when the govt and firms are like nannies). Regs give a signal that they will always work and that signal is dangerous. Martin Van Buren was less regulatory and Ron Paul would've been the second, and William Henry Harrison was the perfect president (especially with John Tyler as his running mate). Back then the military was protective of the U.S. citizenry's interests (everything was actually democratic back then due to more of the Sibero-Celtic, White Irish, Protestant, Jewish mtDNA super haplogroup U) close to its own turf back then. It can't be restored here though. It will have to be in Israel when the Constitution is discarded (separation of powers in particular).
Clinton was an observant interventionist abroad who was more aware (he always knew who to trust as well as who not to trust while being able to act on it for the present, but definitely not for much good futurity).
Somewhat differently, bush was a typical Hamiltonian Party of Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR internationalist war American.
Also somewhat differently, boots on the ground in iraq wasn't as scary as what NATO did to the serbs, Dick Cheney made sure his company gave Clinton a deal on it, and imagining what saddam hussein did may have been scarier than when clinton's admin starved all those iraqis to death (i.e., bush's warfare was old-fashioned and was less scary to the more direct victims than the Clinton Admin's originally sadistic warfare). But unlike Bill Clinton, I have been impervious (or at least not as kind and gentle as Clinton) and I have been not at all aware of tricks. Then Osama Bin Laden was a fighter for freedom and his people yets clinton's myopic admin and support for aggression [i.e., president clinton and his admin had not much respect for all sovereignties; they were good for their time, but they illustrated why no sovereignty can be centrally planned for futurity to have a healthy balance of liberty and care for others] gave Bush the wrong signals which allowed for the Saudis to trick Bush into letting the murder. Then Bush enabled Obama to go after Bin Laden because Bush couldn't make it clear that he made a mistake and that Bin Laden was actually our friend.
But please always remember, rulers and ruling classes are neither good nor necessary to have and are never well-overthrown by centralization. IOW, The NAP can't be enforced; but private property rights or public privileges are ultimately enforced by centralization; The market is naturally free which is voluntary and non-coercive human action so liberty is protected without anything being reduced to protect that liberty.
Facebook
Twitter