U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: My Plan for a Freedom President
Source:
Young Americans for Liberty
URL Source: http://www.yaliberty.org/yar/plan-for-a-freedom-president
Published: Apr 8, 2011
Author: Ron Paul
Post Date: 2011-04-08 14:32:42 by Hondo68
Keywords: misled into depending on gover, taxpayers can opt out, reduction in federal bureaucra
Views: 64041
Comments: 83
How I would put the Constitution back in the Oval Office Since my 2008 campaign for the presidency I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government. Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help—churches and private charities. Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs. No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress. Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright—thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending! While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president’s requests. If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United States has over 300, 0000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany. Domestically, the president can use his authority to set policies and procedures for the federal bureaucracy to restore respect for the Constitution and individual liberty. For example, today manufacturers of dietary supplements are subject to prosecution by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they make even truthful statements about the health benefits of their products without going through the costly and time-consuming procedures required to gain government approval for their claims. A president can put an end to this simply by ordering the FDA and FTC not to pursue these types of cases unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer’s clams are not true. Similarly, the president could order the bureaucracy to stop prosecuting consumers who wish to sell raw milk across state lines. A crucial policy that a president could enact to bring speedy improvements to government is ordering the bureaucracy to respect the 10th Amendment and refrain from undermining state laws. We have already seen a little renewed federalism with the current administration’s policy of not prosecuting marijuana users when their use of the drug is consistent with state medical-marijuana laws. A constitutionalist administration would also defer to state laws refusing compliance with the REAL ID act and denying federal authority over interstate gun transactions. None of these actions repeals a federal law; they all simply recognize a state’s primary authority, as protected by the 10th amendment, to set policy in these areas. In fact, none of the measures I have discussed so far involves repealing any written law. They can be accomplished simply by a president exercising his legitimate authority to set priorities for the executive branch. And another important step he can take toward restoring the balance of powers the Founders intended is repealing unconstitutional executive orders issued by his predecessors. Executive orders are a useful management tool for the president, who must exercise control over the enormous federal bureaucracy. However, in recent years executive orders have been used by presidents to create new federal laws without the consent of Congress. As President Clinton’s adviser Paul Begala infamously said, “stoke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool.” No, it is not “pretty cool,” and a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting us back to the Constitution’s division of powers by ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should work with Congress to pass legislation making that change. Only Congress can directly abolish government departments, but the president could use his managerial powers to shrink the federal bureaucracy by refusing to fill vacancies created by retirements or resignations. This would dramatically reduce the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking our liberties. One test to determine if a vacant job needs to be filled is the “essential employees test.” Whenever D.C. has a severe snowstorm, the federal government orders all “non-essential” federal personal to stay home. If someone is classified as non-essential for snow-day purposes, the country can probably survive if that position is not filled when the jobholder quits or retires. A constitutionalist president should make every day in D.C. like a snow day! A president could also enhance the liberties and security of the American people by ordering federal agencies to stop snooping on citizens when there is no evidence that those who are being spied on have committed a crime. Instead, the president should order agencies to refocus on the legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, such as border security. He should also order the Transportation Security Administration to stop strip-searching grandmothers and putting toddlers on the non-fly list. The way to keep Americans safe is to focus on real threats and ensure that someone whose own father warns U.S. officials he’s a potential theorist is not allowed to board a Christmas Eve flight to Detroit with a one-way ticket. Perhaps the most efficient step a president could take to enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots. Congress created provisions to do just that in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, the processes for getting a federal firearms license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result very few pilots have gotten their licenses. A constitutionalist in the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to carry firearms on their planes. While the president can do a great deal on his own, to really restore the Constitution and cut back on the vast unconstitutional programs that have sunk roots in Washington over 60 years, he will have to work with Congress. The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process. A constitutionalist president’s budget should do the following: 1. Reduce overall federal spending 2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military 3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare 4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt 5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states 6. Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget risks a government shutdown. But a serious constitutionalist cannot be deterred by cries of “it’s irresponsible to shut down the government!” Instead, he should simply say, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America’s freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.” Unconstitutional government spending, after all, is doubly an evil: it not only means picking the taxpayer’s pocket, it also means subverting the system of limited and divided government that the Founders created. Just look at how federal spending has corrupted American education. Eliminating federal involvement in K-12 education should be among a constitutionalist president’s top domestic priorities. The Constitution makes no provision for federal meddling in education. It is hard to think of a function less suited to a centralized, bureaucratic approach than education. The very idea that a group of legislators and bureaucrats in D.C. can design a curriculum capable of meeting the needs of every American schoolchild is ludicrous. The deteriorating performance of our schools as federal control over the classroom has grown shows the folly of giving Washington more power over American education. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law claimed it would fix education by making public schools “accountable.” However, supporters of the law failed to realize that making schools more accountable to federal agencies, instead of to parents, was just perpetuating the problem. In the years since No Child Left Behind was passed, I don’t think I have talked to any parent or teacher who is happy with the law. Therefore, a constitutionalist president looking for ways to improve the lives of children should demand that Congress cut the federal education bureaucracy as a down payment on eventually returning 100 percent of the education dollar to parents. Traditionally, the battle to reduce the federal role in education has been the toughest one faced by limited-government advocates, as supporters of centralized education have managed to paint constitutionalists as “anti-education.” But who is really anti-education? Those who wish to continue to waste taxpayer money on failed national schemes, or those who want to restore control over education to the local level? When the debate is framed this way, I have no doubt the side of liberty will win. When you think about it, the argument that the federal government needs to control education is incredibly insulting to the American people, for it implies that the people are too stupid or uncaring to educate their children properly. Contrary to those who believe that only the federal government can ensure children’s education, I predict a renaissance in education when parents are put back in charge. The classroom is not the only place the federal government does not belong. We also need to reverse the nationalization of local police. Federal grants have encouraged the militarization of law enforcement, which has led to great damage to civil liberties. Like education, law enforcement is inherently a local function, and ending programs such as the Byrne Grants is essential not just to reducing federal spending but also to restoring Americans’ rights. Obviously, a president concerned with restoring constitutional government and fiscal responsibility would need to address the unstable entitlement situation, possibly the one area of government activity even more difficult to address than education. Yet it is simply unfair to continue to force young people to participate in a compulsory retirement program when they could do a much better job of preparing for their own retirements. What is more, the government cannot afford the long-term expenses of entitlements, even if we were to reduce all other unconstitutional foreign and domestic programs. As I mentioned in the introduction to this article, it would be wrong simply to cut these programs and throw those who are dependent on them “into the streets.” After all, the current recipients of these programs have come to rely on them, and many are in a situation where they cannot provide for themselves without government assistance. The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled into depending on a government safety net that has been yanked away from them should trouble all of us. However, the simple fact is that if the government does not stop spending money on welfare and warfare, America may soon face an economic crisis that could lead to people being thrown into the street. Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government’s obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs. Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement. Some people raise concerns that talk of transitions is an excuse for indefinitely putting off the end of the welfare state. I understand those concerns, which is why a transition plan must lay out a clear timetable for paying down the debt, eliminating unconstitutional bureaucracies, and setting a firm date for when young people can at last opt out of the entitlement programs. A final area that should be front and center in a constitutionalist’s agenda is monetary policy. The Founders obviously did not intend for the president to have much influence over the nation’s money—in fact, they never intended any part of the federal government to operate monetary policy as it defined now. However, today a president could play an important role in restoring stability to monetary policy and the value of the dollar. To start, by fighting for serious reductions in spending, a constitutionalist administration would remove one of the major justifications for the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies, the need to monetize government debt. There are additional steps a pro-freedom president should pursue in his first term to restore sound monetary policy. He should ask Congress to pass two pieces of legislation I have introduced in the 110th Congress. The first is the Audit the Fed bill, which would allow the American people to learn just how the Federal Reserve has been conducting monetary policy. The other is the Free Competition in Currency Act, which repeals legal tender laws and all taxes on gold and silver. This would introduce competition in currency and put a check on the Federal Reserve by ensuring that people have alternatives to government-produced fiat money. All of these measures will take a lot of work—a lot more than any one person, even the president of the United States, can accomplish by himself. In order to restore the country to the kind of government the Founders meant for us to have, a constitutionalist president would need the support of an active liberty movement. Freedom activists must be ready to pressure wavering legislators to stand up to the special interests and stay the course toward freedom. Thus, when the day comes when someone who shares our beliefs sits in the Oval Office, groups like Young American for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty will still have a vital role to play. No matter how many pro-freedom politicians we elect to office, the only way to guarantee constitutional government is through an educated and activist public devoted to the ideals of the liberty. For that reason, the work of Young Americans for Liberty in introducing young people to the freedom philosophy and getting them involved in the freedom movement is vital to the future of our country. I thank all the members and supporters of YAL for their dedication to changing the political debate in this country, so that in the not-too-distant future we actually will have a president and a Congress debating the best ways to shrink the welfare-warfare state and restore the republic.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
Is that why you, Ron Paul, didn't introduce legislation to close the southern border years ago?
It's already illegal to invade the US libtard, even if your amigo Juan McAmnsety has to pay $50 an hour to get his lettuce picked. As president, Ron Paul would enforce immigration law, deport your "guest workers", and protect the States against invasion by securing the borders. Does the thought of hiring Americans scare you, El Jefe?
I recall a re-run of MASH I saw where this uber right winger named Colonel Flagg... Yes, and it is illegal to commit murder, rape and robbery. So why hasn't Rep. Paul seen to it that our borders are properly policed and protected? Why hasn't he provided the funding for increased manpower and border security? Your persistent BS can't hide Paul's ineffectiveness.
Your persistent BS clearly displays your liberal agenda. Ron Paul has introduced MANY bills in Congress in an attempt to secure our borders, end birthright citizenship, stop illegals from receiving welfare, etc. but your liberal neo Republicans side with the democrats to block him and his bills, time after time. Yet here you are, trying to blame Paul for the acts of Congress, and you have a long history of this. You are as transparent as the neoconservative liberals you promote, big tenter.
Either Ron Paul is ignorant of history, or he expects his followers are. There has always been tax supported care (I use that word loosely) for the poor along side church and private charities (what ever that means). Sometimes the poor were auctioned off to the lowest bidder for a period of indentured servitude, sometimes housed in prisons, and sometimes sent to poorhouses. Indentured servitude is probably the most cost effective (disallowing law suites for abuse) however it might take the freedom loving American people some time to become accustomed to the idea selling people who have been laid off during an economic downturn. But then again, maybe not. Poorhouse history in the US: You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
Because it is the job of the Administration, Obozo and his "henchmen", not Rep Paul... Paul can submit as many bills as he wants but if they don't get voted on there's nothing he can do....
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
Sure you don't want to throw a 'fookin' in there for good measure, pretender?
When is he going to introduce his articles of impeachment. Sorry, Paul is all hat and no cattle.
Congress controls the purse strings.
So what has that got to do with ignoring/obeying laws......
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
Funding, without it you won't have the manpower for law enforcement. When is Paul going to introduce articles of impeachment?
So what is the Border Patrol for then????? To help them across the border and set them up with Soc Sec, Welfare and a free house???? (Quite possible with this administration).... It's all about votes for the PendejoCrats, nothing more, nothing less.....
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
We know what ot is for. It is lacking manpower and funding. What is your congressman doing about it? When is Paul going to introduce articles of impeachment?
So take the money from Planned Parenthood and give it to the Border Patrol.....
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
Tell your congressman and senators. Why do you keep avoiding this question? When is Paul going to introduce articles of impeachment?
I'm not, it's because I don't know what he plans on doing.....
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
Why do you suppose he made mention of it if he didn't intend on acting?
Maybe just to see what everybodys reaction would be, if it's positive he'll do it, if it's negative then probably not..... Other than Obozo being a complete nincompoop what does he really have to impeach him for?????
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
Your arguments are weaker and more laughable than the liberals. After every bill that Paul has introduced, he's not gone far enough for you? You hate the ONE guy that WILL introduce conservative bills because the rest of Congress doesn't have the balls to support and follow through on those bills, and because he hasn't introduced the ONE bill that you'd like to see? What makes you think your big tent Republicans wouldn't shut that bill down too? You're a joke. And Stone has done a disservice to his forum by allowing your constant stream of liberal spin bullshit here. You do remember Stone right? The guy you have no respect for?
Articles of impeachment have already been drawn up, I read the intire document, just don't know why they haven't gone forward with it. Rand Paul spoke before the House, in clear, precise language, and laid the blame directly on them for allowing Obama to go to war without their approval, it was like he was putting nails in obama's coffin with each statement. If anyone would like to see the Article of Impeachment, just let me know, I'll hunt it up again.
You're a joke. And Stone has done a disservice to his forum by allowing your constant stream of liberal spin bullshit here Bills introduced without passage have absolutely no effect. If passed and unfunded or underfunded they are useless. Introducing a bill, getting it passed and funded is effectiveness. Your "hero" has yet to accomplish that feat. Can I get you a tissue, crybaby?
Bills introduced without passage have absolutely no effect. If passed and unfunded or underfunded they are useless. And you hate the guy who introduces them, instead of the big tenters, like yourself, who shut them down. Sorry neo, that makes absolutely no sense and is nothing but pure liberal bullshit and spin. Introducing a bill, getting it passed and funded is effectiveness. So you must really admire McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Graham? If effectiveness is your litmus test, tell me, who do you admire in Congress? Your "hero" has yet to accomplish that feat. Ahhhh, the spinmeister, ever at work. I have no heroes in Congress, liar. I just love exposing you for the leftist, neoconservative that you are. Though you do quite a good job of that by yourself.
Your hero:
LOL! What a weak little pussy you are. No thanks, don't need one. But if you really want to do something for me, you can get off your 24/7, serial cross forum poster, cellulite laden ass and meet me somewhere, so I can stomp your face into a curb. :o)
Get back here and fight like a gay!
So you must really admire McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Graham? If effectiveness is your litmus test, tell me, who do you admire in Congress? Why are you avoiding questions, faggot?
Are you afraid?
No. When is he going to introduce his articles of impeachment?
Jack, you're psychotic and a CT freak.
Get back here and fight like a gay! Are you afraid, weeps?
No. When is he going to introduce his articles of impeachment? You're not afraid, yet you're not going to answer my question? And you're going to ask your own question? One can only conclude that you are afraid so you resort to your same old bullshit tactics. But, that's not a surprise. You simply aren't able to hold an honest conversation.
I answered your questions. I asked mine a long time ago. You have yet to answer. You just dance and spin. You are gullible and a sucker. You should be ashamed, but you don't have the conscience.
yap yap yap yap...yap yap yap
You suckers are pathetic and pitiful. How does it feel to be a gullible dupe?
I'm sure it feels better than the feeling you get with another man's cock up your ass. Now, will you go away, or am I going to have to bozo you?
Is that all you fantasize about, weeps? You are indeed a "sucker"! LOLAYDA!
yap yap yap yap...yap yap yap Followed by: lick lick lick lick lick LMAO!
yap yap yap yap...yap yap yap Followed by: lick lick lick lick lick LMAO! You were deceived, duped and suckered. You aren't man enough to admit it, faux Christian! How pathetic and pitiful.
Yukon: "You just dance and spin. You are gullible and a sucker. You should be ashamed, but you don't have the conscience. Check out the "dancing and spinning" from this dolt? LOL. Does Yukon - aka the sucker/poster-of-gay-porn - believe we ought to believe his dopey CT? Bwaaahaa!! We're not THAT "gullible." There is no one at any forum I've seen who projects more than The Alaskan CT'er.
Yukon = faux straight man. LOLAY girly-man.
You were deceived, duped and suckered, lubey. All of your posturing will not change that. You just prove with your posts that you are a very little man and a faux Christian. You have to live with yourself.
It wouldn't be fair of me to comment on the pederast cocksucker, since I have him on bozo, for the last time.
I understand the desire to screen the little maggot, since Stone seems reluctant to do so. Having said that, it is kind of compelling. Like a slow-motion train wreck or lifting up a rock and seeing disgusting things squirming around unerneath. Its both repulsive and hard to turn from at the same time.
Actually, I feel sorry for you, yu-klown. Growing up with Sally as a mother would probably turn anyone queer.
It also wouldn't be fair to pummelling him to a cyber-pulp worse than you already have. You are a fair and merciful man, WTP. I guess I should bozo Yukon aka Divine as well. 98.4% of his posts degrade a forum. Buh-Bye, Gay Canary.
You are a filthy pig. You post very much like buckeroo.
It is so much easier than admitting you were deceived, duped and suckered, faux Christian.
To the deceived, duped, suckered faux Christians. You are pitiful and pathetic.
You keep saying this same thing over and over and over, yukon. Lets assume you were hacked for arguments sake. How would the hacker know that Goldi-Lox wouldn't be around? In fact, that target thread of yours was up for nearly a week and commanded about 1500 posts. So why did Goldi-Lox ignore the thread when there were many posts to her regarding the porno issue? Also, if you were hacked, why didn't the hacker make more than a few posts on that thread and no others? You have lost your mind, yukon. Nothing you say makes sense.
Truth....I know it is foreign to you, deceiver To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle. -- George Orwell Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.-- Winston Churchill
Lets assume you were hacked for arguments sake. How would the hacker know that Goldi-Lox wouldn't be around? In fact, that target thread of yours was up for nearly a week and commanded about 1500 posts. So why did Goldi-Lox ignore the thread when there were many posts to her regarding the porno issue? Also, if you were hacked, why didn't the hacker make more than a few posts on that thread and no others? You have lost your mind, yukon. Nothing you say makes sense.
How about the truth for once in your life, immoral, liar, thief, fraud, deserter, impersonator and deceiver?
How would the hacker know that Goldi-Lox wouldn't be around? In fact, that target thread of yours was up for nearly a week and commanded about 1500 posts. So why did Goldi-Lox ignore the thread when there were many posts to her regarding the porno issue? Also, if you were hacked, why didn't the hacker make more than a few posts on that thread and no others? You have lost your mind, yukon. Nothing you say makes sense.
ROTFLOLAY! You claimed I'd never post here again, remember, thief? Well you have been exposed for the deceitful POS you really are. Bucky's slip: #624. To: yukon (#623) After watching you squirm on the Internet? Let me be a bit blunt: never, punk; you are a mere toy that is my most fun creation and you can't leave my clutches because you are here on LF in your own glory. LOLAY!!!!!!!!!!!! buckeroo posted on 2011-04-10 2:35:56 ET Now that bucky has admitted his theft, I don't see any reason to continue to nag him about it. He's finished everywhere important to him and eventually he'll be tossed from here as well. Mimicry is tough when drunk, multiple personalities not so tough.
That was your old Ibluafartsky schtick, I was referring to. And to be accurate, I indicated that if you did come back as Ibluafartsky, you would be know as a stale fart. Never-the-less, here you are. And you have lost all credibility not that you had any. In fact, you are exactly what you have accused other of being, time and again you accused many posters of being a CT freak, remember? Well, you set yourself up for the funniest CT across several forums. I suppose you should be commended but I doubt that you intended your little escapade revealing your manlust. You made a mistake; live with it. You might say, you let the cat out of the bag! ROTFL
...You made a mistake; live with it. OUCH! The most gutless, nutless "CT freak" of all is now yukon. Who'd have thunk?? LMAOYDGA!
Moreover, she'd checked in and posted, ignoring the gay elephant in the room. (Oooops - pun intended)
Nothing has the bite truth possesses.
Actually, I feel sorry for you, yu-klown. Growing up with Sally as a mother would probably turn anyone queer.
Well, that might be the only positive idea about yukon's little escapade. At least he wasn't on a kiddie-porn site. But, I have heard he did this before. That is to say, this wasn't the first time he has been caught. Do you know if he claimed some hacker got his account then? I wager that was funny, too.
Yep. The outed Yukie relying on selling a bizarre CT to the rest of us - on the flimsiest of evidence no less - is the irony of ironies. Isn't this the guy who ridicules then demands "approved sources" to support any and all "CTs"?? Eat it, Yukie.
You can answer that better than I can. How about the truth for once in your life, immoral, liar, thief, fraud, deserter, impersonator and deceiver?
He painted himself into a corner. We can all hope this will shut him up and down. It won't because he has no shame. But hope, like stupidity, springs eternal.
Actually, I feel sorry for you, yu-klown. Growing up with Sally as a mother would probably turn anyone queer.
Not about you, bucky, you immoral liar, thief, deceiver, fraud, deserter and drunken old perverted POS! Bucky's slip: #624. To: yukon (#623) After watching you squirm on the Internet? Let me be a bit blunt: never, punk; you are a mere toy that is my most fun creation and you can't leave my clutches because you are here on LF in your own glory. LOLAY!!!!!!!!!!!! buckeroo posted on 2011-04-10 2:35:56 ET You admitted your theft bucky!
I would like to point your accusation back to you, QUEER. How about the truth? Didn't you claim you had a wife whom you take care of day in/day out? How would she feel knowing you were using the Internet not as a political chit-chat method to exchange ideas and concepts but as a full screen cover towards your pathetic lust hidden in the background? WOW... treating your own wife like that with lies and coverups while she may be starving or in need of water to quench her dry and parched lips. So that means you have deserted her, correct? So basically, your ranting toward me and others is really a reflection of your own self. Like I said, live with your own mistake.
The first time he posted gay porn the claim was that it was "hot-linked." In 12 years of posting at forums I have NEVER seen anything like it. Was that CT possible? Sure, so many gave yukon the benefit of doubt... But a second time and "CT" claim of a "hacking?? More than a coincidence. That yukon often displays erratic behavior and references to fecal and gay subjects made this "incident" quite believable. When LP's hostess rushed in to censor/ban several posters who questioned the "gay" circumstances - while displaying an odd nonchalance when she finally appeared - a cover up of some sort seemed probable.
You would because you are unable to tell the truth, immoral PIG!
I did? I was describing how I regard you: you are a toy. And this CT that you concocted is the funniest attempt of a coverup I have ever seen. Just throw in the towel. You let everyone know your lust. And quit blaming me and all kinds of other people or events about your own shenanigans. The humour is wearing off.
From whom? Clyven? Debka? Shaun?
You are an immoral lying, thieving, cheating, deceitful, shameless, drunken old perverted POS! You admitted your theft bucky! ROTFLOLAYDA!
Two points determine a line. Poor ol' yukon got caught with his hands in the cookie jar.
He did. AND funny how "CTs" are now possible only when convenient. We can all hope this will shut him up and down. It won't because he has no shame. No shame, no brains, no honor, no credibility. The parrot can squawk all he wants, but his "conspiracy theory" isn't working. But hope, like stupidity, springs eternal. The first positive step is his admitting he's a member of the GOP Log Cabin brigade. :-D
AND he's still cranking out cookies (or something else, lol)
You were caught! You think you are so clever! You are an old perverted fool. You are an immoral lying, thieving, cheating, deceitful, shameless, drunken old perverted POS! You admitted your theft bucky! ROTFLOLAYDA!
Quit attempting to pin the blame on me or some other poster or group. YOU created the thread; YOU placed the link; YOU admitted to being homosexual or two different forums; YOU are known from other posts to broadcast your QUEERdom. Now, the CT of all time: someone hacked my password. You are incredible lying to everyone to include yourself. If you like menlust that OK; just don't tell me or others about it.
You forgot, duped, scammed, deceived, fools and SUCKERS. How about FAUX CHRISTIANS?
I'm not attempting, you drunken deserter and perverted POS! You and your "alter egos" are everything I've stated and upon further investigation I'm sure there is even worse.
From whom? Clyven? Debka? Shaun? Many of us on elpee saw the homo porn that you posted, and your claim that it was a dog peeing. It was fagot porn. Goldi cut off your privileges to post images, so the next gay outing you could only provide a link to Ilovethec0ck.com/ "Too many browser windows open"?
I recall a re-run of MASH I saw where this uber right winger named Colonel Flagg... I didn't post porn. You know that, but you continue to post otherwise. You are a hateful, spiteful cowardly little man, hondope. You were suckered, deceived, scammed, fooled and duped. You aren't very smart are you?
Aren't you "special" yukon. Why in the world would I (or anyone) waste time with your passwords? Like I said before, you are a mere toy to me. A funny clown that is regretting his own self-made humiliation. Now, if I wanted to FUCK with you, I would set up several client machines operating ICMP behind several proxies. Just knowing you couldn't post on your LP would be fine for me. Then again, LP isn't worth my time. But your own disgrace is the funniest stuff EVER!
LP isn't worth my time. You have the answer, why are you asking me the question? You and your alter egos are psychotic, immoral, deserting thieveing, lying, cheating, deceiving, old drunken perverted piles of manure. It was, liar. You'll be back, psycho.
Not only are you a QUEER but you are an INSANE QUEER. Get some REAL data before pointing your fingers at others, CT FREAK.
You and your alter egos are psychotic, immoral, deserting thieveing, lying, cheating, deceiving, old drunken perverted piles of manure. You admitted it, bucky. You are a THIEF! You are lowlife SCUM!
I just have just a few questions for you: Are you on your sadomasochistic websites right now? Where is your wife?
Right here with me, psycho. You and your alter egos are psychotic, immoral, deserting thieveing, lying, cheating, deceiving, old drunken perverted piles of manure. You admitted it, bucky. You are a THIEF! You are lowlife SCUM!
such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied
#2. To: Vermin Exterminator (#1)
Is that why you, Ron Paul, didn't introduce legislation to close the southern border years ago?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Godwinson posted on 2011-02-23 11:47:32 ET
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18011&Disp=46#C46
#3. To: hondo68 (#2)
It's already illegal to invade the US
#4. To: yukon (#3)
Your persistent BS can't hide Paul's ineffectiveness.
#5. To: hondo68 (#0)
Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help—churches and private charities.
#6. To: yukon (#3)
So why hasn't Rep. Paul seen to it that our borders are properly policed and protected?
#7. To: yukon (#3)
Yes, and it is illegal to commit murder, rape and robbery. So why hasn't Rep. Paul seen to it that our borders are properly policed and protected? Why hasn't he provided the funding for increased manpower and border security? Your persistent BS can't hide Paul's ineffectiveness.
#8. To: We The People (#4)
Ron Paul has introduced MANY bills in Congress in
#9. To: CZ82 (#6)
Because it is the job of the Administration, Obozo and his "henchmen", not Rep Paul...
#10. To: yukon (#9)
Congress controls the purse strings.
#11. To: CZ82 (#10)
So what has that got to do with ignoring/obeying laws......
#12. To: yukon (#11)
Funding, without it you won't have the manpower for law enforcement.
#13. To: CZ82 (#12)
So what is the Border Patrol for then?????
#14. To: yukon (#13)
We know what ot is for. It is lacking manpower and funding
#15. To: CZ82 (#14)
So take the money from Planned Parenthood and give it to the Border Patrol.....
#16. To: yukon (#15)
Why do you keep avoiding this question? When is Paul going to introduce articles of impeachment?
#17. To: CZ82 (#16)
I'm not, it's because I don't know what he plans on doing.....
#18. To: yukon (#17)
Why do you suppose he made mention of it if he didn't intend on acting?
#19. To: yukon, A K A Stone (#8)
When is he going to introduce his articles of impeachment. Sorry, Paul is all hat and no cattle.
#20. To: We The People, yukon (#19)
(Edited)
#21. To: We The People, A K A Stone (#19)
After every bill that Paul has introduced, he's not gone far enough for you?
#22. To: yukon (#21)
#23. To: yukon (#11)
(Edited)
#24. To: yukon (#21)
Can I get you a tissue, crybaby?
#25. To: yukon (#24)
#26. To: yukon (#21)
Introducing a bill, getting it passed and funded is effectiveness.
#27. To: yukon (#26)
So you must really admire McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Graham? If effectiveness is your litmus test, tell me, who do you admire in Congress?
#28. To: We The People (#22)
you hate the guy
#29. To: Jack (#23)
Your hero:
#30. To: We The People (#27)
Are you afraid?
#31. To: yukon (#28)
Are you afraid?
#32. To: We The People (#31)
you're going to ask your own question?
#33. To: yukon (#32)
yap yap...
#34. To: We The People (#33)
#35. To: yukon (#34)
#36. To: We The People (#35)
another man's cock
#37. To: We The People, Yu-Klown, aka Goldi's puppy (#33)
yap yap...
#38. To: Liberator, We The People (#37)
yap yap...
#39. To: We The People (#32)
#40. To: yukon (#38)
faux Christian!
#41. To: Liberator (#39)
There is no one at any forum I've seen who projects more
#42. To: Liberator (#39)
#43. To: We The People (#42)
#44. To: We The People, yukon aka Divine (#42)
It wouldn't be fair of me to comment on the pederast cocksucker, since I have him on bozo, for the last time.
#45. To: We The People, Liberator, buckeroo (#42)
cocksucker
#46. To: Liberator (#44)
I guess I should bozo Yukon
#47. To: Rudgear (#43)
it is kind of compelling.
#48. To: yukon (#46)
(Edited)
It is so much easier than admitting you were deceived, duped and suckered
#49. To: buckeroo (#48)
You keep saying this same thing over and over and over,
#50. To: yukon (#49)
#51. To: buckeroo (#50)
Lets assume
#52. To: yukon (#51)
#53. To: buckeroo (#52)
How would the hacker know that Goldi-Lox wouldn't be around?
#54. To: yukon (#53)
You claimed I'd never post here again, remember, thief?
#55. To: buckeroo, rudgear, Hondo68, We The People (#54)
And you [yukon] have lost all credibility not that you had any. In fact, you are exactly what you have accused other of being, time and again you accused many posters of being a CT freak, remember?
#56. To: buckeroo (#50)
Why did Goldi-Lox ignore the thread when there were many posts to her regarding the porno issue?
#57. To: Liberator (#55)
The most gutless, nutless "CT freak" of all is now yukon. Who'd have thunk??
#58. To: Liberator (#56)
ignoring the gay elephant in the room.
#59. To: Rudgear, Bill D Berger (#57)
#60. To: buckeroo (#52)
why didn't the hacker make more than a few posts on that thread and no others?
#61. To: Liberator (#59)
Isn't this the guy who ridicules then demands "approved sources" to support any and all "CTs"??
#62. To: Liberator, buckeroo, rudgear, Hondo68, We The People (#55)
You made a mistake
#63. To: yukon (#60)
How about the truth for once in your life, immoral, liar, thief, fraud, deserter, impersonator and deceiver?
#64. To: buckeroo (#58)
I have heard he did this before. That is to say, this wasn't the first time he has been caught. Do you know if he claimed some hacker got his account then? I wager that was funny, too.
#65. To: buckeroo (#63)
I would like to point your accusation back to you
#66. To: yukon (#62)
You admitted your theft bucky!
#67. To: buckeroo, Liberator, All (#58)
I have heard he did this before.
#68. To: buckeroo (#66)
you are a toy
#69. To: Liberator, yukon (#64)
But a second time and "CT" claim of a "hacking??
#70. To: Rudgear, Bill D Berger (#61)
He painted himself into a corner.
#71. To: buckeroo (#69)
Poor ol' yukon got caught with his hands in the cookie jar.
#72. To: buckeroo, Liberator, (#69)
hands in the cookie jar.
#73. To: yukon (#68)
You admitted your theft bucky!
#74. To: Liberator, Rudgear, Bill D Berger (#70)
No shame, no brains, no honor, no credibility.
#75. To: buckeroo (#73)
Quit attempting to pin the blame
#76. To: yukon, buckeroo, Liberator, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#67)
I have heard he did this before.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Godwinson posted on 2011-02-23 11:47:32 ET
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18011&Disp=46#C46
#77. To: hondo68 (#76)
Many of us on elpee saw the homo porn that you posted,
#78. To: yukon (#75)
(Edited)
#79. To: buckeroo (#78)
Why in the world would I (or anyone) waste time with your passwords?
#80. To: yukon (#79)
#81. To: buckeroo (#80)
#82. To: yukon (#81)
#83. To: buckeroo (#82)
Where is your wife?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]