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.
Obama and his minions know, if Paul gets the second vote as predicted, it is over for the Progressive movement in the USA.
* Why do libertarians never talk publicly about their plan for total privatization and deregulation of banks?
* Who runs the proposed "court system" which average-income people must rely upon for redress against corporate mistreatment or other grievances?
* Who decides if a corporation or other entity should be investigated for malfeasance? In a "privatized" world - nobody?.
I believe these are legitimate questions for which the voting public should have answers.
Your opinion of progressives, who have more in common with Paul (at least his public pronouncements) than the repubs, sounds very republican.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
------Romney is not only nowhere near locking up the nomination, a brokered convention is now almost a guarantee, leaving the Ron Paul Revolution squarely in the driver's seat."
Love watching this play out. Glad Paul and his supporters are fighting the Establishment! Kudos to them!!!
Case in point - MY point being that the "establishment" is not just a current administration, but the corporate or special-interest money control of this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh
"The Donald" is a COMPLETE BOOB. He is completely clueless about foreign policy and economics. He is extremely selfish, hardly diplomatic and would be a horrible leader for this country. Let him stick to his Real Estate deals and realityTV shows. That is about all he can handle.
Amazing the support he gets.
* Some of his businesses reportedly fail - including casinos. This doesn't get reported by the "mainstream" media, but they give him a TV show where he sits in judgement of others who are probably superior to him. People base their real-life opinions on this??
* Why do libertarians never talk publicly about their plan for total privatization and deregulation of banks?
* Who runs the proposed "court system" which average-income people must rely upon for redress against corporate mistreatment or other grievances?
* Who decides if a corporation or other entity should be investigated for malfeasance? In a "privatized" world - nobody?.
I believe these are legitimate questions for which the voting public should have answers.
Your opinion of progressives, who have more in common with Paul (at least his public pronouncements) than the repubs, sounds very republican.
Case in point - MY point being that the "establishment" is not just a current administration, but the corporate or special-interest money control of this country.
Amazing the support he gets.
* Some of his businesses reportedly fail - including casinos. This doesn't get reported by the "mainstream" media, but they give him a TV show where he sits in judgement of others who are probably superior to him. People base their real-life opinions on this??
Those are good questions though I am not sure how they relate to Libertarians, since I am not one. Not sure how it relates to Paul either.
However, the govt owns controlling shares of almost, if not all publicly traded companies. You can dig them up for a very long time. So the "private" and so-called "public" are completely integrated. I see the only way to correct this is to rethink conflict of interest in how they invest and many other things. Need to scale back and limit govt making it accountable and transparent. Need to address our economic and fiscal policies, as well.
Ping-ponging between "private" and "public". "No reg" and "more reg" isn't going to fix things because that isn't the problem.
The govt is a corporation, it behaves like one and owns controlling shares in them.
Those are good questions though I am not sure how they relate to Libertarians, since I am not one. Not sure how it relates to Paul either.
However, the govt owns controlling shares of almost, if not all publicly traded companies. You can dig them up for a very long time. So the "private" and so-called "public" are completely integrated. I see the only way to correct this is to rethink conflict of interest in how they invest and many other things. Need to scale back and limit govt making it accountable and transparent. Need to address our economic and fiscal policies, as well.
Ping-ponging between "private" and "public". "No reg" and "more reg" isn't going to fix things because that isn't the problem.
The govt is a corporation, it behaves like one and owns controlling shares in them.
* You raise another question about Libertarians. Last I checked their website (months ago) they had no clearly defined platform. Much like the "tea party" they vaguely expressed their "beliefs" but zero plans-of-attack.
I got the impression that they want zero govt except for the military and possibly a court system - but it's all very vague. That's why I would like their spokespeople (Ventura et al) to give more specifics than they do.
* "Regulation" is a concrete thing, as is "public" imo. I don't grok. Corporate regulation (anti-trust) is designed to prevent monopolies and preserve competition in the marketplace. If, according to Libertarians or Repubs, that is "govt meddling" I would like them to explain why it's bad - but they never do, and the corporate media never asks (for obvious reasons?).
* You raise another question about Libertarians. Last I checked their website (months ago) they had no clearly defined platform. Much like the "tea party" they vaguely expressed their "beliefs" but zero plans-of-attack.
I got the impression that they want zero govt except for the military and possibly a court system - but it's all very vague. That's why I would like their spokespeople (Ventura et al) to give more specifics than they do. * "Regulation" is a concrete thing, as is "public" imo. I don't grok. Corporate regulation (anti-trust) is designed to prevent monopolies and preserve competition in the marketplace. If, according to Libertarians or Repubs, that is "govt meddling" I would like them to explain why it's bad - but they never do, and the corporate media never asks (for obvious reasons?).
I am sure someone somewhere can address these questions. This kind of analysis could probably apply to all politics.
Regulation is concrete, but I was implying the correct regs matter, not more or less.
Clinton really helped to start the unhinging of things because it made the govt and elites a great deal of money. Understand you can track these issues back to both D's and R's. It is important to understand the integration so you can see why the govt has been "deregulating" and sending jobs overseas, for example.
In regard to "public". I suggest if you are unaware, you research CAFRs and see what the govt does with your money. These have a good deal of info. Because if you haven't heard of it previously it can take a bit of processing to realize the scope of the issue.
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.
