World News: Sep 20, 2012

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Re: Ron Paul May Join W. B. Jones and John Hospers in the History Books, at Romney’s Expense

comment
I hope that he endorses Romney. That is the only hope we ave og
getting Obama out.
----
grumble grumble grumble
RP would have been a good president.
We'll see if Romney can get out of office with his head still
attached.
My bet is that his magic underwear won't be covering his ass.

On Sep 20, 7:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Ron Paul May Join W. B. Jones and John Hospers in the History Books, at Romney s ExpenseWritten by Gary North on September 19, 2012
> I ll bet you don t remember Walter B. Jones. I do. I m a history buff, with a Ph.D. to prove it.
> Back in 1956, a member of the Electoral College from Alabama was determined not to cast his vote for Adlai Stevenson. So he voted for Walter B. Jones, an Alabama judge. Therefore, Jones name is forever in the record books.
> In 1972, a friend of mine was elected to the Electoral College. He voted for John Hospers, a libertarian and a professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California. His name wasRoger Lea MacBride. He was a lawyer. He even wrote a book on the Electoral College. He was also the heir of Rose Wilder Lane, the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Roger owned the rights toLittle House on the Prairie. He even wrote some of the follow-up books in the series.
> It s legal.It happens every so often.
> Two members of the Electoral College say they may vote for Ron Paul instead of Romney.
> If the vote is close, then this will change American history.
> But, so far, it s not looking close.Continue Reading on www.allgov.comhttp://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/09/19/ron-paul-may-join-w-b-jones-and-john-hospers-in-the-history-books-at-romneys-expense/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Obama Campaign Now Selling Its Version of American Flag with ‘O’ Logo…Removes Stars and Replaces Them with Campaign Logo

Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

Obama Campaign Now Selling Its Version of American Flag with 'O' Logo…Removes Stars and Replaces Them with Campaign Logo

by Scotty Starnes

This is what dictators do. Only a narcissist would have the balls to desecrate the US flag and put a tasteless campaign logo in the place of the 50 stars that represents the 50 states of America. Maybe Obama was upset there aren't 57 states?

From BarackObama.com:

HT to FreeRepublic

Scotty Starnes | September 20, 2012 at 6:30 AM | Tags: 50 stars, 50 states, american flag, campaign logo, President Obama | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-8d5

Comment

See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/obama-campaign-now-selling-its-version-of-american-flag-with-o-logo-removes-stars-and-replaces-them-with-campaign-logo/

Thanks for flying with

WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Just when you though Obama couldn't become more of a laughingstock...

Just when you though Obama couldn't become more of a laughingstock...

...he posts this on twitter:

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/statuses/248501257055121409

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Don't mistake lack of talent for genius"
-- P. Steele

Re: JP Request for Prayers

Yes pray for Pakistan. And definitely please stop buying fast food and
drinks of the multi national companies. Ald also please stop buying
the goods which are advertised on the TV channels which are pro India
and Pro America.

On 9/20/12, HUMAN RESOURCE <hr@patel-hospital.org.pk> wrote:
> Stop purchasing product of UK & USA like:
> PEPSI
> COCK
> LAY
> KFC
> MC DONALD
> PIZZA HUT
> HARDEES
> CALTEX
> SHELL
>
>
> From: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com [mailto:joinpakistan@googlegroups.com]
> On Behalf Of noman qazi
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:14 PM
> To: pak-ngos@googlegroups.com; joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
> Subject: **JP** Request for Prayers
>
> Dear respected members of Pakistan NGOs google groups and Join Pakistan,
>
> Please pray in the coming Jummah Prayers that the criminals against Islam
> be punished by Allah Almighty.
>
> Regards
> Noman Qazi
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
> You all are invited to come and share your information with other group
> members.
> To post to this group, send email to
> joinpakistan@googlegroups.com<mailto:joinpakistan@googlegroups.com>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
> You can also visit our blog site :
> www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com<http://www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com> &
> on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
> You all are invited to come and share your information with other group
> members.
> To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
> You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
> on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

With best regards
Mohammed Aslam
Phone:- 0302 823 2300

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Romney, Taxes, and Dependence on Government

"No one has a right to other people's money. That's a simple moral precept summed up in the words "Thou shalt not steal." It's no less stealing if the government does it for you. Invoking democracy is no help here, because if an individual has no right to steal, it is logically impossible for any group of individuals to have such a right. No matter how many zeros you add together, the sum will be zero."

Romney, Taxes, and Dependence on Government
by Sheldon Richman, September 20, 2012

Mitt Romney isn't just out of touch; he's also out of sync with the movement to shrink government. In an interview clarifying his now-infamous speech to donors, captured on clandestine video, Romney said, "I think people would like to be paying taxes."

Come again? He also said, "The good news is if you are doing well enough financially that you can pay a tax."

That's good news?

Romney apparently had low-income people in mind. But if he'd rather see them working than collecting government benefits, the last thing he should want is to reduce the returns to labor which is what income taxation does. Workers should be free to keep the full fruits of their labor.

I have an idea for the GOP presidential candidate: Test your belief that people like to pay taxes by proposing to end all penalties for nonpayment. Abolish the IRS. Make taxes voluntary. Then we'll see who would like to pay and who wouldn't. He says he's for less government. Okay, Mr. Romney, prove it.

How many people does he suppose would choose to pay for the occupation of Afghanistan, or the drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, or the war on certain drug makers, sellers, and consumers? How many would be willing to pay for all the corporate welfare that riddles our so-called free-enterprise system?

Speaking of corporate welfare, in his speech Romney had much to say about dependence. "There are 47 percent who are … dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it." He figures those folks won't be voting for him and his allegedly small-government message.

Yet the New York Times reports, "The states with the highest percentage of federal filers who do not owe income taxes tend to vote Republican in presidential elections," attributing the information to the Tax Foundation. "Research by Dean Lacy, a professor of government at Dartmouth College, has found that states that receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes have become increasingly Republican in presidential elections."

So Romney has the 47 percent wrong. But more important, he overlooks the fact that many low-income people work hard at two or three jobs and are the victims of anticompetitive corporatist policies that build barriers to advancement.

But that inconvenient fact aside, low-income people aren't the only ones dependent on government. Another group is even more dependent: the people of the corporate world who expect government to provide bailouts, guarantees, and contracts. In the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008, it's slightly cruel to stigmatize working-class and poor people who get government benefits, while letting big business and big banks off the hook. Romney supported the financial bailout and, aside from talking vaguely about tax loopholes, does not question the pervasive system of government privilege for big business.

The military-industrial complex is a case in point. As author Nick Turse documents, many thousands of American businesses are under contract to the military establishment, making everything from clothing to weapons. Many more invest resources looking for contracts. Private consumers are the losers. If you were to suggest to the corporate executives that they wean their companies from the government, they'd laugh. It's much easier to make your money off the taxpayers rather than take your chances with fickle consumers free to take their business elsewhere.

No one has a right to other people's money. That's a simple moral precept summed up in the words "Thou shalt not steal." It's no less stealing if the government does it for you. Invoking democracy is no help here, because if an individual has no right to steal, it is logically impossible for any group of individuals to have such a right. No matter how many zeros you add together, the sum will be zero.

Let's end all dependence on government. Doing it in one fell swoop would be ideal, but short of that, here's a workable strategy: Cut taxes from the bottom up and welfare from the top down. This will move us toward a free society and win popular support along the way.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1209o.asp

Re: Romney and the 47 Percent

He spoke the truth, a novel concept for a politician. Romney did , in fact, address large corporations, the feds printing money, the critical state of the feds buying 3/4 of our debt, and the impact it will have on the interests rate. The full discussion was played on Glen Beck.

From: "MJ" <michaelj@america.net>
To: Politicalforum@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:41:57 AM
Subject: Romney and the 47 Percent

Thursday, September 20, 2012
Romney and the 47 Percent
by Sheldon Richman

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. . . . These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. . . . And so my job is not to worry about those peopleI'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

This quote is from the infamous surreptitious video made of Mitt Romney's speech at a fundraiser last spring. What are we to make of it?

The first thing to note is that Romney is typical of the right wing of the ruling elite, which often portrays lower income beneficiaries of the welfare state as a threat to the established order. In this view, they are dependent on government; they wish to remain that way; and they see themselves as victims.

Of course many people who qualify for welfare-state benefits take advantage of them, but it doesn't follow that they want to remain in that postion. Katherine Newman, author of Chutes and Ladders: Navigating the Low-Wage Labor Market, maintains that low-income people are far more industrious and ambitious, as well as determined to achieve independence, than the public generally believes. (Listen to her EconTalk conversation with Russ Roberts.)

Far less interested in independence from government are the large corporations, banks and otherwise, that exist by virtue of government contracts, guarantees, bailouts, and intellectual "property." The government's security establishment provides untold opportunities for companies to live off the taxpayers, which is much more secure than attempting to achieve market share among consenting consumers. (See Nick Turse's The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives.)

Strangely, Romney's speech had nothing to say about that sort of corrupting dependence.

As for feeling like victims, the working poor didn't seem to display this attitude to Newman during her extensive field research. Yet why wouldn't they be justified in regarding themselves as such? The corporate state, with its myriad barriers to competitive economic activity, including self-employment, blocks many routes to prosperity.

Romney is trying to distract attention with a 14-year-old audio of then-State Senator Barack Obama endorsing a mild form of income "redistribution." Government distribution of wealth, of course, is objectionable, just as government itself is. But Romney to date has had nothing to say about the systematic upward transfer of wealth that the corporate state effects in a variety of way. To offer just two examples: Intellectual "property" law prohibits free competition, creates artificial scarcities and thus extra-market profits, and privatizes value that would have naturally been "socialized" in a freed market. Second, barriers to competition (again, including self-employment) reduce the bidding for labor and hence workers' bargaining power, resulting in lower wages than would otherwise be seen in a freed market. (See these articles by Charles W. Johnson and Gary Chartier.)

It is certainly true that no one is entitled to other people's stuff. That is just as true of the powerful and well-connected business interests that through government intervention amass great wealth at the expense of the rest of us.

When Romney begins talking about that sort of "redistribution of wealth" I will start to take him seriously.

http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2012/09/romney-and-47-percent.html?spref=fb