So Ron Paul is a nutcase, because he wants to end Marijuana prohibition? (CNN, death)
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.
Bottom line.....a fetus is not a citizen. I am. If I decide to terminate a pregnancy, that is not the business of government, state or federal......that is MY PERSONAL business......my choice.
If Ron Paul were ever elected......my right to choose would be in jeopardy.
So guess what? I don't care about anything else he has to say. The right to control my own body trumps all else and he will never get my vote.
Only because it is convenient for you.
If it was not convenient for you, then you would never support it.
You could care less about what anyone else thinks.
So, you are actually supporting the idea of personal liberty.
But you expect the government to protect you.
You would never support anything that was inconvenient or that would impose hardship on you.
And you want to be protected from not taking responsibility, I totally understand your point.
By the way, all Ron Paul is saying is that it is not a Federal issue.
Defer the compromise to the States.
Just because you are paranoid about certain States is your own personal issue.
I am pro-abortion, but I am not as paranoid as you are.
Unlike you, I would actually get out and fight for what I believe in, instead of suporting tax increases so that the Government can do everything for me while I am irresponsible for my actions
There is no debt with Federal Reserve notes, they buy treasuries already in circulation, which I have pointed out. If the US Government printed its own money it would have to buy treasuries too, in order to get the currency into circulation.
You must have missed Greenspan's comments on the matter.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default"
Oh yeah, I forgot about this.
"The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt."
PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates (http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html - broken link)
I am not talking about the debt the Fed owns, we should cancel that $1.6 T as Ron Paul has called for but I am talking about our national debt. The only way currency is created is if we issue debt, with US Notes issued directly from the treasury, that is not the case. Again, I will post from your favorite source, wiki.
"The difference between a United States Note and a Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note represented a "bill of credit" and was inserted by the Treasury directly into circulation free of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt purchased by the Federal Reserve, and thus generate seigniorage, or interest, for the Federal Reserve System, which serves as a lending intermediary between the Treasury and the public." United States Note - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coins are debt free.
Greenspan is right, "we" the US Treasury CAN issue all the currency we want to and pay the debt but again, that would have to come from the Treasury, not the Federal Reserve. This is what we need to do, as bonds come due, pay them off with debt free US Notes and at the same time reduce down to zero fractional reserve banking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather
Price Anderson is yet another example of Corporate Welfare (not technically a regulation).
As for the rest of what you said, I see you're coming from the viewpoint that they'll just pass the liability onto the consumer or "the little guy." Well would you prefer we at least put up a fight against their greed (With the regulations we have now despite their imperfections) or just roll over and let them have their way with us (early 20th century society)?
There's also that little grey area you guys seem to forget that they can only pass so much of the liability onto the "little guy" until it chops into the demand for their products/services.
Sure corporate welfare is part of the act but it still involves regulation. Regulations are compromises between government and industry regarding how much risk or poison "we the people" have to accept.
I am not saying they can pass liability, they already do, that is how most corporate charters are written. Regulations aren't putting up a fight, they are giving in to the crony elite. We need reform from the charter level and from the legal level. We need to stop limiting their risk and covering their loses.
They don't pass liability onto the little guy, they pass it on to the collective. We have privatized gains and socialized loses today, this is what needs to end.
Only because it is convenient for you.
If it was not convenient for you, then you would never support it.
You could care less about what anyone else thinks.
So, you are actually supporting the idea of personal liberty.
But you expect the government to protect you.
You would never support anything that was inconvenient or that would impose hardship on you.
And you want to be protected from not taking responsibility, I totally understand your point.
By the way, all Ron Paul is saying is that it is not a Federal issue.
Defer the compromise to the States.
Just because you are paranoid about certain States is your own personal issue.
I am pro-abortion, but I am not as paranoid as you are.
Unlike you, I would actually get out and fight for what I believe in, instead of suporting tax increases so that the Government can do everything for me while I am irresponsible for my actions
Since when is convenience a sin? Why should I have a baby just to please someones else?
And guess what? Having an abortion IS taking responsibility.
Do you think forcing women to have children they do not want or cannot care for is GOOD for this country? Don't we have enough over crowded, underfunded schools? Don't we have enough unemployed? Don't we have enough people on welfare? Don't we have enough children that we have to feed at school? Don't we have enough child abuse? Don't we have enough children in the foster care systm? We need more? We need to force women to have children against their will?
Why should I have to endure the pain and cost of a pregnancy just to make some faceless stranger happy? How selfish is that?
I am happy with Roe v Wade.....why would I want to elect someone who wants to scrap it? Do I not have the right to vote for a candidate that supports something that is important to me?
Pro-lifers vote for pro-life candidates......yet you want me to feel guilty if I choose to vote for pro-choice candidates? NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
But if it is so logical, and Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate out there proposing to end Marijuana prohibition, why are not more people interested in voting for him?
I guess the American people think that anyone who supports Marijuana legalization is a nutcase?
And that they think it is better to let the Pharmaceutical companies decide everything?
Most people think he's a nutcase because he is a 9/11 truther and so are a lot of his supporters.
Ron Paul is a shill for anti-tax billionaires. Everything else he talks about is window-dressing.
ahahahahahahah
Yeah, news flash: most billionaires would come out much, much worse under a Ron Paul administration. These guys aren't stupid. They know how much corporate welfare, bailouts, and stimulus packages mean to them.
Yeah, news flash: most billionaires would come out much, much worse under a Ron Paul administration. These guys aren't stupid. They know how much corporate welfare, bailouts, and stimulus packages mean to them.
For benefit of all, could you explain (as a short summary) the logical argument/ mechanism which would prove to the doubters here that billionaires would come out much worse?
I am not talking about the debt the Fed owns, we should cancel that $1.6 T as Ron Paul has called for but I am talking about our national debt. The only way currency is created is if we issue debt, with US Notes issued directly from the treasury, that is not the case. Again, I will post from your favorite source, wiki.
"The difference between a United States Note and a Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note represented a "bill of credit" and was inserted by the Treasury directly into circulation free of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt purchased by the Federal Reserve, and thus generate seigniorage, or interest, for the Federal Reserve System, which serves as a lending intermediary between the Treasury and the public." United States Note - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coins are debt free.
Yikes, which part of debt free don't Paulistas get? Sheesh! The Federal Reserve notes DO NOT CREATE DEBT!!!!!!!!
"Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain."
"Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt."
Give it up already!
Last edited by shorebaby; 08-17-2011 at 04:40 PM..
yeah how crazy is it that he belives a child has the same right to life/freedom/liberty inside the womb as outside of it.
Ultimately Dr.Paul is for letting individual states decide, so you abortion proponents can always set up a baby killing sanctuary somewhere.
There's that pesky word again: believes He is free to live according to his beliefs; others should be free to live according to theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wynwood
Actually, you are incorrect.
His view has at its origin respecting life and preserving life, and he'll let the States decide - it's not a Federal Govt issue. Stop expecting the government to take care of you, and make your own changes in your own life and take responsibility for your own body. He is not saying you cannot have an abortion. He is saying that complicated issues need to be solved locally. And remember... the more things get solved locally, the more input you as a citizen will have Yes, I know it's easier to let others decide for you, but Dr. Paul is about individual freedom. I would bet that you would have more of a say if it were handled locally.
I don't have anything against Ron Paul's beliefs in legalizing pot -- and it's really a no brainer, now. I still think he's not presidential material.
It's possible you think he appears rational because you are comparing him to the other GOP contenders. A true cluster....
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.
