Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No the Homeland security department was just another layer of big government which in turn became big brother watching over us.
To some degree yes. (FEMA anyone?) As it pertains to "watching over us" within the context of national defense, that is darn well what the our constitution mandates the federal government do and I believe given the parameters of where electronic and nuclear technology, as well as radical Islam lies in 21st century, I'm thankful for such a department despite the ease and convenience to frown upon big government expansion, which in most other cases I would concur with other's chagrin on these Ron Paul's threads. That is why I scoff at Paul's comments and it reinforces my distrust in regards to the perspectives and knowledge possessed by Libertarians on issues like national defense and some of their alignment with the ACLU to boot: and this message brought to you by one who often votes Libertarian in local elections. The issue of mismanagement is a separate argument. I don't disagree, but Paul's statements were as simple-minded and shortsighted as what comes out of the mouths of the likes of Obama, Hillary, Giuliani, etc... .
To some degree yes. (FEMA anyone?) As it pertains to "watching over us" within the context of national defense, that is darn well what the our constitution mandates the federal government do and I believe given the parameters of where electronic and nuclear technology, as well as radical Islam lies in 21st century, I'm thankful for such a department despite the ease and convenience to frown upon big government expansion, which in most other cases I would concur with other's chagrin on these Ron Paul's threads. That is why I scoff at Paul's comments and it reinforces my distrust in regards to the perspectives and knowledge possessed by Libertarians on issues like national defense and some of their alignment with the ACLU to boot: and this message brought to you by one who often votes Libertarian in local elections. The issue of mismanagement is a separate argument. I don't disagree, but Paul's statements were as simple-minded and shortsighted as what comes out of the mouths of the likes of Obama, Hillary, Giuliani, etc... .
All I say is anyone but Hiliary. There are people, whom we never see, who will do anything to make sure she wins in '08. Mark my words. The American public has to know about it and not be fooled. The presidency has become a monarchy ruled by a certain elite class that has no idea what the majority of the American people think or want. If they do, they choose to ignore it becuase they know they're covered politically. Our founding fathers would be turning in their graves.
Ron Paul is both the most educated and most honest candidate to run for the office in years, if not decades. He's actually a native of Pennsylvania, but likely works in Texas because he likes it (unlike a lot of opportunistic carpetbaggers). The only real negative is that he is unelectable, because every PAC in the world dislikes him, and too many Republicans are smitten with Giuliani (the opportunistic, violent, thuggish women's dress wearer from NYC) to give Paul the chance he needs to run as a Republican, instead of as a Libertarian (which is what will happen).
Due to this forum I have started to read up on Ron Paul. So far so good, but I share many Libertarian views anyway. I think he may be the answer to many of our country's problems. So, thanks for the heads up!
You know NOTHING about the gold standard if you believe that. The gold standard is the basic fabric of a democracy. You know why?
1. The government cannot borrow its way to fund something. This means that if they cannot convince the people to lend their gold to go to war then they do not go to war! It adds accountability to the people. Bad government actions go unfunded!
2. Almost no inflation!
3. No currency collapses. History has shown us that all fiat currencies will go to the true value, and that is zero for fiat currency.
4. Less war. During the history of the gold standard the only time we went off the standard was to fund war. Now that we are off the gold standard entirely we have been at war in one way shape or form nearly non stop! As a result, there is an economic incentive to go to war because it is very profitable for the private interest. Eisenhower warned warned us of this in his farewell address and called it the military industrial complex. Running a country on a fiat currency allows this type of industry to foster. I guarantee you this, if we continue to run our country on a fiat system we will continue to go to war and we will continue to send our children and our children's children off to war to die for nothing more than profit and nothing more!
5. Increased standard of living since the inflation taxation is removed. Inflation taxation is basically assets going up in value due to inflation and that artifical growth being taxed. In other words, with inflation of 4% and an asset that goes up 4% is taxed as a capital gain when in reality the only thing you asset is doing is adjusted to an increase in the money supply. However you are taxed on that gain so your purchasing power is actually being lowered even though you think you are increasing your purchasing power by 4%!!!
Allow me to clarify my statement.
The gold standard is NOT a bad idea. That's not what I meant. The concerns I have relate to going back to the gold standard, when we don't have enough gold to cover the fiat currency. The idea is good, but the process sounds scary.
If we go to a gold standard, and we don't have enough gold to cover the paper we currently have printed, how do we correct the imbalance? Do we get more gold (and if so, from where?), or do we destroy paper? What effect will it have, and how long will it last? How will it affect other markets around the world that are also based on a fiat currency?
He's not perfect, but he's the best of the bunch, for 2008. Unfortunately, he has virtually no chance. Politics is all about money and popularity, and he has neither.
But it's a chicken-and-egg thing. He blows everyone away in most online polls. There IS a large undercurrent of support for him out there, so he HAS the popularity. It's just that the mainstream press and the GOP want people to ignore him. That will change if enough people show their support for him. It can happen!!
Part 1:
I disagree in part w/ the concept that you should vote for only whomever is "electable". As long as that is the mindset of too many Americans, the attitudes will continue to exist that a vote for someone outside the mainstream is a wasted vote. Change is only fostered by going against the grain and some times to instigate that change, it needs to happen little by little. The whining by some regarding Ralph Nader taking away votes from Kerry and Gore was absolute hogwash. Ralph Nader has every bit much the right to put his name in the ring and people have every right to make the decision of who they feel is most qualified to be the next president: nothing more than sour grapes from puppets whose only conviction is who they don't want elected, rather than who they legitimately identify with. Nader and his supporters have just as much legitimacy in declaring Kerry and his supporters as guilty of taking away his votes. Ever think of it that way?
I disagree with your points Re: Ron Paul, but this one IMO is spot-on right. I get so tired of hearing about how voting third-party is a wasted vote! If people want change in their government, they have to start supporting alternatives to the mainstream, because clearly, the mainstream isn't working anymore! To me, a wasted vote is having to hold your nose and choose from among the lesser of two evils from the two big parties. Is it better to vote your conscience, or to vote for the "less bad" candidate?
It was sad how the left turned on Nader with such a vengeance. They were doing everything they could to shut him down in as many states as possible in '04. Was their faith in Kerry that shaky? And what happened to freedom of choice? A vote for Nader wasn't a vote for Bush, as everyone kept saying, so arrogantly and condescendingly. It was a vote for Nader. Period. If Kerry didn't win the election, it wasn't Nader's fault. It was Kerry's fault and his party's fault, for not being able to sway enough people to his side. (I'll leave the Diebold-Ohio fiasco to others to argue about.) Shut down an opponent whom many might have voted for and then tell those same people "Vote for me"? Not a great way to win friends and influence people.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil!
The GOP is bitterly divided, but the corporate conservative media (Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, Universal) won't go there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
