his platform will not win over the majority needed to win. pure and simple, people will not take the positions of ayn rand. i'm sorry, but selfishness has no place in out society. he was not even allowed to debate last time, and when he did the republicans and especially fox news scoffed at him. do not forget that if you are republican or "conservative" and fox news does not back you, you are sunk.
He has gotten a lot more facetime on TV as of late because the man predicted the financial crisis. They laughed in his and Peter Schiff's face a few years ago, and now are turning to them for their advice and opinions.
are you telling me that latinos, african americans and other minorities are going to vote for him? are you telling me that someone who depends on medicare, like the elderly are going to vote for him? doubtful, and those are 2 of the main demographics anyone has to win. regardless of who gets the gop nob, they will lose the latinos for the gop stance on immigration. they will lose the elderly with talk of cutting or fucking with medicare. this society is not as selfish as it would have to be to elect ron paul. sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. look at the backlash against rand paul already. the tea party is furious because he found out that it is not so easy to implement his campaign promises. far right economic policy will not work. too many people will be left to die.
Society may be too selfish to vote for Ron Paul! Wars, government programs that help the poor in-name-only, all while inflation destroys what little money they have to pay for it all. The poor are TAXED through inflation to pay for their own benefits. It's all smoke and mirrors. Read the article that I posted above. Some would argue that the war on drugs is biased against minorities, it has encarcerated more minorities than any other policy. Shit, cannabis prohibition was racially motivated-- research how cannabis became known as Marijuana. Anyway, back on topic-- Ron Paul wants to end all of this bullshit. Liberty is a popular message-- I don't see why anyone would want to vote against it, although it happens. I think the hearts and minds of the youth are trending strongly towards a freer society, and it's with the youth that any good revolution begins. And if we're worried about people being left to die, did I mention that Ron Paul wants to end the wars and bring the troops home? Again man, if he's not your thing, he's not your thing. All I'm saying is, calling him unelectable is kryptonite, even if it's how you really feel. I do believe he has a legitamite shot at being elected this go-around.
As for Rand-- he's a Junior single-vote in the Senate. He's made no promises but to vote consistently as he campaigned and he has done that. He put out his version of the budget long before Ryan OR Obama, which did make significant cuts. In the words of Peter Schiff, and I paraphrase, our budget-cut goals if framed in the perspective of a football field, would require us to score a touchdown from our own 1 yard line on 4th and long. When money cut from the deficit was converted to yards, both Ryan and Obama's budgets were akin to advancing us to our own 2 and 2.5 yard lines. Rand's would have put us at our own 30, and he called it "modest."
Maybe your point is that the general worldview of libertarian thought is equal to selfishness, although I would argue that is not true if fully understood. I wish it were that people could judge the Ron Paul / Obama debate from the stand point of What both of these men have done, and how they have voted instead of what they say they will do combined with party affiliation. To anyone who values peace and liberty, it's a no-brainer, and I can't see why the people won't be demanding this for themselves in the near future.
in march 2011 there were approximately 8.4 million in the us with assets of a million or more.... did it increase 20% in a month and a half? if so our economy is booming...
Again, you can call it selfish, but I call it giving people liberty and freedom.
I personally believe that our gov't should provide for some sort of safety net to those that truly need it. But from my own personal experience and knowledge, it is inefficient, abused, and way too bloated.
At my company(40+ employees), we have gone through numerous lab technicians because they have basically stopped showing up because they would rather get unemployment than to work. The pay isn't that great, starting at 26-28k, but we pay for health/dental/vision insurance, two yearly bonuses, and 3% matching retirement. Yet, they would rather get unemployment benefits than work.
My mother's company is the same way. Except its a much larger compnay(1000+) and the pay is much less(20-24k), but it is located in Iowa where cost of living is extremely low. Unemployment is about 6.7%, but because people think they are above taking phone calls and can make about the same or more than that not working, they work for 3 months and then stop showing up.
let me clarify...Argentina and Chile were the Chicago School's test study's on Free Market Crapitalism (read David Harvey's Brief History of Neoliberalism for a fuller explanation). The Chicago School (Milton Friedman etc.) were Randian economists, and have since suggested that they were wrong (see: Giroux and Giroux 2008 something like beyond bailouts on the truthout website). Put differently, a system that is essentially the science of exploitation (of resources, labor, etc.) is bound to fail...it may work for a few years, but it is seemingly unsustainable (what happens when we reach the upper-limits of exploited people? do we go back to those we exploited first?). I don't agree with the bailouts or TARP, I don't agree with the war, but I do agree with more flexible social welfare policies that have the ability to change with the times (i.e. people are living longer so we need to change social security, many "blue collar" jobs have been outsourced for cheaper labor so the middle class is disappearing so we need to tax/tariff the people who are benefiting most from outsourced labor, etc.). In other words I believe in Obama the man not Obama the politician. Further libertarianism is basically the end result of the uber-rich shifting the blame from themselves (who have seen an increase in real income since 1970) to the poor (who have not seen the same thing), and the middle class who is currently unfairly taxed believes them. If you look at who makes up most of the Libertarian party it is largely comprised of disenfranchised white small-business owners who actually are paying more than their fair share, however they blame the wrong group of people for it.
If you look at who makes up most of the Libertarian party it is largely comprised of disenfranchised white small-business owners who actually are paying more than their fair share, however they blame the wrong group of people for it.
If you look at who makes up most of the Libertarian party it is largely comprised of disenfranchised white small-business owners who actually are paying more than their fair share, however they blame the wrong group of people for it.
The Federal Reserve is not to blame?
Have you done a study on libertarians to back this up?
Ron Paul is a believer in Austrian economics, which is different than Chicago.
in march 2011 there were approximately 8.4 million in the us with assets of a million or more.... did it increase 20% in a month and a half? if so our economy is booming...
Again, you can call it selfish, but I call it giving people liberty and freedom.
I personally believe that our gov't should provide for some sort of safety net to those that truly need it. But from my own personal experience and knowledge, it is inefficient, abused, and way too bloated.
At my company(40+ employees), we have gone through numerous lab technicians because they have basically stopped showing up because they would rather get unemployment than to work. The pay isn't that great, starting at 26-28k, but we pay for health/dental/vision insurance, two yearly bonuses, and 3% matching retirement. Yet, they would rather get unemployment benefits than work.
My mother's company is the same way. Except its a much larger compnay(1000+) and the pay is much less(20-24k), but it is located in Iowa where cost of living is extremely low. Unemployment is about 6.7%, but because people think they are above taking phone calls and can make about the same or more than that not working, they work for 3 months and then stop showing up.
3 months of work then not showing up qualifies someone for unemployment?
If you look at who makes up most of the Libertarian party it is largely comprised of disenfranchised white small-business owners who actually are paying more than their fair share, however they blame the wrong group of people for it.
The Federal Reserve is not to blame?
Have you done a study on libertarians to back this up?
Ron Paul is a believer in Austrian economics, which is different than Chicago.
You don't hear Paul talk about Friedman very much, that's for sure.
i love companies that hire through temp agencies work you like a dog with the hope that after six months you might get hired in. but when it comes to that time the foreman is waiting by the time clock and says to that person "sorry we don't need you anymore" just to get in a new bunch of temps the next day.
i love companies that hire through temp agencies work you like a dog with the hope that after six months you might get hired in. but when it comes to that time the foreman is waiting by the time clock and says to that person "sorry we don't need you anymore" just to get in a new bunch of temps the next day.
May i suggest you hone your skills or chose a different career path?
If you look at who makes up most of the Libertarian party it is largely comprised of disenfranchised white small-business owners who actually are paying more than their fair share, however they blame the wrong group of people for it.
The Federal Reserve is not to blame?
while it is a part of it, i'd say the world's adherence to neoliberal economics, the connection between the IMF and World Bank (yes economics is bigger than the fed), reductions in trade barriers, and the advent of outsourced "blue collar" labor is more to blame than the federal reserve.
1. He thinks the Dept. of Education is "indoctrinating" our children and forcing them to take psychotropic drugs. This is called is called fear-mongering and minimal use of his brain.
2. He wants the federal government to be like it was in the 1800. No thanks.
More to come....
Where in the Constitution does the Dept of Education derive its power from? Can you please source your drug remark?
I take exception to the "self-serving cranky white guy" remark. I believe I am entitled to my own liberty and freedom and I do not want that usurped by our gov't.
It is might right to choose to help someone or not. It is not the government's right to take from one and give to another as they see fit. Personally, as a Christian, it is my duty to help my fellow person. But that is might right to do so, not someone else's right to force me to do so.
He will get a lot of criticism because he does have "radical" ideas, but it follows the Constitution. I don't entirely agree with how far he wants to reduce our gov't, but its definitely a step in the right direction.
What baffles me is all these anti-war liberals who bashed Bush, and rightfully so, for getting us into two wars. But Obama expands our war in Afghanistan, has ordered more drone attacks in Pakistan, and got us involved in Libya, and there is hardly a peep.
Here's a revisionist quote about health care from Ron Paul:
"In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm."
Private insurance came on the scene and drove people out because they were too high risk. The free market pretty much did it thing there.
You can call me a big government elitist if you want, but giving states and local communities freedom to determine education without any oversight doesn't sound good. How soon would Kansas be teaching creationism and not teaching evolution? He thinks all parents should call the shots with education. No thanks. There's a lot of dumb parents out there and their kids deserve better. Ron's ideas would create huge disparities in the country. We have several states that need to be dragged up to modern times at each go around. Do you think each state would have passed civil rights legislation?
I think only one person has given input on why Ron is appealing to white men.
I think a lot of Americans have grown so used to presidents simply doing things on the fly, and pretty much ruling by decree, like kings. They assume that if elected, Doctor Paul is going to come in with a giant chainsaw and just cut government into teeny tiny pieces, leaving almost nothing left, as if he has the power to do that. Fortunately, the guy isn't a hypocrite and would pursue actually legal methods for trying to bring the country where he would like it to be. Here's an article he wrote last year of how he would phase-out big government from warfare to welfare. Cliffnotes version -- he would start with the warfare, seeing as Commander in Chief, he has the greatest authority to actually do this, and do it promptly. He realizes that welfare and entitlement programs can't be yanked over night simply because people have grown dependent on them. Anyway, read the article before judging the guy on every sound byte there is out there about him bringing us to Libertarian Utopia overnight:
This is condescending:
"The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled into depending on a government safety net.."
They were misled? Ron, please show them the way of the free market so they understand.
This one shows a high level of ignorance:
"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."
Churches wouldn't be able to handle the increased amount of users, or be able to afford it. I guess this is based on the myth that people will donate more if they had lower taxes. Many private agencies are able to function because a majority of their funding comes from the government. This provides stability for the agency. If every provider was relying on private donations, it would be a disaster. Agencies would lack consistency and stability as they followed the shrinking and growing donations. The amount of staff solely dedicated to fundraising would be huge. Some work agencies do isn't so appealing to the public, but necessary. Try and hold a fundraiser for an agency that provides services to criminals and addicts. It doesn't seem like Ron has much contact with people who are poor.
Now let's play pick-and-choose with the Constitution:
"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."
The president has too much power!, oh wait, lets have the president assert more power with a loophole! Ideals do tend to loosen if it can meet an agenda.
in march 2011 there were approximately 8.4 million in the us with assets of a million or more.... did it increase 20% in a month and a half? if so our economy is booming...
Again, you can call it selfish, but I call it giving people liberty and freedom.
I personally believe that our gov't should provide for some sort of safety net to those that truly need it. But from my own personal experience and knowledge, it is inefficient, abused, and way too bloated.
At my company(40+ employees), we have gone through numerous lab technicians because they have basically stopped showing up because they would rather get unemployment than to work. The pay isn't that great, starting at 26-28k, but we pay for health/dental/vision insurance, two yearly bonuses, and 3% matching retirement. Yet, they would rather get unemployment benefits than work.
My mother's company is the same way. Except its a much larger compnay(1000+) and the pay is much less(20-24k), but it is located in Iowa where cost of living is extremely low. Unemployment is about 6.7%, but because people think they are above taking phone calls and can make about the same or more than that not working, they work for 3 months and then stop showing up.
3 months of work then not showing up qualifies someone for unemployment?
Here in Colorado yes. We could fight the cases in court, but our President has a heart and would rather give unemployment than pay the lawyer costs.
1. He thinks the Dept. of Education is "indoctrinating" our children and forcing them to take psychotropic drugs. This is called is called fear-mongering and minimal use of his brain.
2. He wants the federal government to be like it was in the 1800. No thanks.
More to come....
Where in the Constitution does the Dept of Education derive its power from? Can you please source your drug remark?
I take exception to the "self-serving cranky white guy" remark. I believe I am entitled to my own liberty and freedom and I do not want that usurped by our gov't.
It is might right to choose to help someone or not. It is not the government's right to take from one and give to another as they see fit. Personally, as a Christian, it is my duty to help my fellow person. But that is might right to do so, not someone else's right to force me to do so.
He will get a lot of criticism because he does have "radical" ideas, but it follows the Constitution. I don't entirely agree with how far he wants to reduce our gov't, but its definitely a step in the right direction.
What baffles me is all these anti-war liberals who bashed Bush, and rightfully so, for getting us into two wars. But Obama expands our war in Afghanistan, has ordered more drone attacks in Pakistan, and got us involved in Libya, and there is hardly a peep.
Here's a revisionist quote about health care from Ron Paul:
"In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm."
Private insurance came on the scene and drove people out because they were too high risk. The free market pretty much did it thing there.
You can call me a big government elitist if you want, but giving states and local communities freedom to determine education without any oversight doesn't sound good. How soon would Kansas be teaching creationism and not teaching evolution? He thinks all parents should call the shots with education. No thanks. There's a lot of dumb parents out there and their kids deserve better. Ron's ideas would create huge disparities in the country. We have several states that need to be dragged up to modern times at each go around. Do you think each state would have passed civil rights legislation?
I think only one person has given input on why Ron is appealing to white men.
Yes, Dr. Paul worked at a Catholic hospital and they did not turn anyone away. What is revisionist about that?
So we shouldn't give states and local communities freedom to educate? Are you saying that the federal government can do it better? Parents shouldn't call the shots with how their kids are being educated? Wow.
Ron is appealing to people who love liberty and freedom and don't want someone else dictating to them what they should teach, believe, etc. Pretty simple to me.
If you look at who makes up most of the Libertarian party it is largely comprised of disenfranchised white small-business owners who actually are paying more than their fair share, however they blame the wrong group of people for it.
The Federal Reserve is not to blame?
while it is a part of it, i'd say the world's adherence to neoliberal economics, the connection between the IMF and World Bank (yes economics is bigger than the fed), reductions in trade barriers, and the advent of outsourced "blue collar" labor is more to blame than the federal reserve.
Ok, we're very much on the same page then. You're referring to even larger central bank authorities here that are the cause of all the chaos. You can't discount the Fed's humongous role in both the IMF and the world bank since mostly do everything with our dollar (although I understand they started moving towards SDRs?) and the Fed is the biggest shareholder in the world bank, but either way. If you're against neoliberal economics, you're against central planning, I take it? You also are against a super-hands off approach to economics as most people are. You've only made the claim that free markets don't work, but you don't seem to be a huge fan of top-down intervention either. I think we agree more than we disagree.
I think a lot of Americans have grown so used to presidents simply doing things on the fly, and pretty much ruling by decree, like kings. They assume that if elected, Doctor Paul is going to come in with a giant chainsaw and just cut government into teeny tiny pieces, leaving almost nothing left, as if he has the power to do that. Fortunately, the guy isn't a hypocrite and would pursue actually legal methods for trying to bring the country where he would like it to be. Here's an article he wrote last year of how he would phase-out big government from warfare to welfare. Cliffnotes version -- he would start with the warfare, seeing as Commander in Chief, he has the greatest authority to actually do this, and do it promptly. He realizes that welfare and entitlement programs can't be yanked over night simply because people have grown dependent on them. Anyway, read the article before judging the guy on every sound byte there is out there about him bringing us to Libertarian Utopia overnight:
This is condescending:
"The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled into depending on a government safety net.."
They were misled? Ron, please show them the way of the free market so they understand.
This one shows a high level of ignorance:
"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."
Churches wouldn't be able to handle the increased amount of users, or be able to afford it. I guess this is based on the myth that people will donate more if they had lower taxes. Many private agencies are able to function because a majority of their funding comes from the government. This provides stability for the agency. If every provider was relying on private donations, it would be a disaster. Agencies would lack consistency and stability as they followed the shrinking and growing donations. The amount of staff solely dedicated to fundraising would be huge. Some work agencies do isn't so appealing to the public, but necessary. Try and hold a fundraiser for an agency that provides services to criminals and addicts. It doesn't seem like Ron has much contact with people who are poor.
Now let's play pick-and-choose with the Constitution:
"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."
The president has too much power!, oh wait, lets have the president assert more power with a loophole! Ideals do tend to loosen if it can meet an agenda.
Are you for real, man? You're going to call Ron Paul condescending when in your other post you completely rip on entire states / midwest and south regions of the country, their governments, and their parents as unable to decide what is best for their own people?
If government were to stop funding private organizations and charities overnight, yes, they would not be able to handle the volume of demand for their services the day after. They to, have had to become reliant on government, and have had to absorb the rules and terms that government has given them in accepting money, granting government greater control over these organizations. The same goes for the states. A great man once said, "For every tool they lend us, a loss of independence." I don't like government being involved in charity work because I believe that their is less of a democratic process in which charities succeed and which fail, just like when they pick and choose who succeeds and fails in business. Also, with regards to separation of church and state, should the government be subsidizing anything a church does, any of their charities? What if taxpayer money didn't get used for what it was supposed to-- that could never happen, could it?
And as for your last point here, I really don't know what to say. It's amazing the stuff you take issue with, and how nitpicky you get when it comes to this guy. Name one politician that even attempts to follow the Constitution as strictly as this guy. Name ONE politician that doesn't "pick and choose" as you so claim.
Cheers to you for reading the article, though. You've mentioned that you do agree with Dr. Paul on some things-- I'm curious as to what those things are?
his platform will not win over the majority needed to win. pure and simple, people will not take the positions of ayn rand. i'm sorry, but selfishness has no place in out society. he was not even allowed to debate last time, and when he did the republicans and especially fox news scoffed at him. do not forget that if you are republican or "conservative" and fox news does not back you, you are sunk.
He has gotten a lot more facetime on TV as of late because the man predicted the financial crisis. They laughed in his and Peter Schiff's face a few years ago, and now are turning to them for their advice and opinions.
are you telling me that latinos, african americans and other minorities are going to vote for him? are you telling me that someone who depends on medicare, like the elderly are going to vote for him? doubtful, and those are 2 of the main demographics anyone has to win. regardless of who gets the gop nob, they will lose the latinos for the gop stance on immigration. they will lose the elderly with talk of cutting or fucking with medicare. this society is not as selfish as it would have to be to elect ron paul. sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. look at the backlash against rand paul already. the tea party is furious because he found out that it is not so easy to implement his campaign promises. far right economic policy will not work. too many people will be left to die.
for someone who talks about using fear as a tool...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think a lot of Americans have grown so used to presidents simply doing things on the fly, and pretty much ruling by decree, like kings. They assume that if elected, Doctor Paul is going to come in with a giant chainsaw and just cut government into teeny tiny pieces, leaving almost nothing left, as if he has the power to do that. Fortunately, the guy isn't a hypocrite and would pursue actually legal methods for trying to bring the country where he would like it to be. Here's an article he wrote last year of how he would phase-out big government from warfare to welfare. Cliffnotes version -- he would start with the warfare, seeing as Commander in Chief, he has the greatest authority to actually do this, and do it promptly. He realizes that welfare and entitlement programs can't be yanked over night simply because people have grown dependent on them. Anyway, read the article before judging the guy on every sound byte there is out there about him bringing us to Libertarian Utopia overnight:
Now let's play pick-and-choose with the Constitution:
"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."
The president has too much power!, oh wait, lets have the president assert more power with a loophole! Ideals do tend to loosen if it can meet an agenda.
So by the President using constitutionally derived powers he is some how subverting the constitution?
interesting take
How soon would Kansas be teaching creationism and not teaching evolution? He thinks all parents should call the shots with education. No thanks. There's a lot of dumb parents out there and their kids deserve better.
Why don't you tell me how quickly Kansas would stop teaching evolution? what an ignorant, condescending, ridiculous comment you just made. Not just parents, but there are a lot of dumb people out there too...maybe the state should just tell everyone how to live considering they know best...what food I can eat, what liquid I can drink, what amounts I can have, what pencils I can use, and since it is confusing to buy things I need maybe the government can buy them for me, and don't forget hygiene...do you think the government can regulate my bath time?...obviously your comment struck a nerve with me...
It is amazing what people can accomplish if you leave them alone to do it, but it seems you would rather think that people are helpless unless the government steps in...you do realize the government is made up of people right?
You know the beauty of the United States is that if you don't like how one town or one state runs things you are free to get up and move at any time and if you don't want to move you are free to try and change those things in the town and state you live. If we just have one overreaching government they should just call us the United STATE of America and quit with the charade of states and their "rights"
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to end the wars, and transparency of the Federal Reserve who feels that they can dole out billions of dollars to whoever they want without accountability. He has stated numerous times that although he would like to cut welfare and entitlements, those would come long after accomplishing these two goals. To cut federal departments requires congressional approval, as he has stated in his article. For all those that are afraid of voting for Ron Paul for fear a free society, please, take me to the planet where the President of the United States gets to implement all of his policies 100% as he or she sees fit. Better yet, just tell me what galaxy it's in and I'll fly myself, RP, and anyone else who just wants to keep it peaceful and trade with each other-- You don't even have to be a cranky white guy, but we know those are the only people who are going to show up
What you might see with a Ron Paul presidency, as you would see with anyone's presidency is a watered-down version of their ideals. Which means, freer markets, less foreign intervention, more respect for civil liberties and personal freedom. Sadly, libertarian utopia is just ain't an option
Here's a revisionist quote about health care from Ron Paul:
"In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm."
Private insurance came on the scene and drove people out because they were too high risk. The free market pretty much did it thing there.
You can call me a big government elitist if you want, but giving states and local communities freedom to determine education without any oversight doesn't sound good. How soon would Kansas be teaching creationism and not teaching evolution? He thinks all parents should call the shots with education. No thanks. There's a lot of dumb parents out there and their kids deserve better. Ron's ideas would create huge disparities in the country. We have several states that need to be dragged up to modern times at each go around. Do you think each state would have passed civil rights legislation?
I think only one person has given input on why Ron is appealing to white men.
Yes, Dr. Paul worked at a Catholic hospital and they did not turn anyone away. What is revisionist about that?
So we shouldn't give states and local communities freedom to educate? Are you saying that the federal government can do it better? Parents shouldn't call the shots with how their kids are being educated? Wow.
Ron is appealing to people who love liberty and freedom and don't want someone else dictating to them what they should teach, believe, etc. Pretty simple to me.[/quote]
******What's revisionist is that he implying that everything was fine until Medicare and Medicaid came on the scene. No. What changed was improved medications and treatments, when before there wasn't much of anything that was effective. This was an opportunity for someone to make money because now people could be charged more, and that's where private insurance came in. Ron Paul was a doctor in the 70's, not in the 40's and 50's, which is the time frame he's referring to in the quote. To think that hospitals could cover people who used to be on medicaid is ridiculous. They would be buried and couldn't afford it. Maybe he isn't proposing that, but I don't see what his alternative is.
You're saying "wow" to parents calling the shots with education? I would say I'm okay with educated parents having input on education. But we've seen the numbers on how many Americans can't find Iraq on a map, think people can cast spells, and think the sun revolves around the Earth. Do I want those parents involved in the curriculum? No thanks.
Ron is appealing to people who have had fewer barriers to success in America, but yet find themselves frustrated and looking for something external to blame.******
This is condescending:
"The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled into depending on a government safety net.."
They were misled? Ron, please show them the way of the free market so they understand.
This one shows a high level of ignorance:
"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."
Churches wouldn't be able to handle the increased amount of users, or be able to afford it. I guess this is based on the myth that people will donate more if they had lower taxes. Many private agencies are able to function because a majority of their funding comes from the government. This provides stability for the agency. If every provider was relying on private donations, it would be a disaster. Agencies would lack consistency and stability as they followed the shrinking and growing donations. The amount of staff solely dedicated to fundraising would be huge. Some work agencies do isn't so appealing to the public, but necessary. Try and hold a fundraiser for an agency that provides services to criminals and addicts. It doesn't seem like Ron has much contact with people who are poor.
Now let's play pick-and-choose with the Constitution:
"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."
The president has too much power!, oh wait, lets have the president assert more power with a loophole! Ideals do tend to loosen if it can meet an agenda.
Are you for real, man? You're going to call Ron Paul condescending when in your other post you completely rip on entire states / midwest and south regions of the country, their governments, and their parents as unable to decide what is best for their own people?
If government were to stop funding private organizations and charities overnight, yes, they would not be able to handle the volume of demand for their services the day after. They to, have had to become reliant on government, and have had to absorb the rules and terms that government has given them in accepting money, granting government greater control over these organizations. The same goes for the states. A great man once said, "For every tool they lend us, a loss of independence." I don't like government being involved in charity work because I believe that their is less of a democratic process in which charities succeed and which fail, just like when they pick and choose who succeeds and fails in business. Also, with regards to separation of church and state, should the government be subsidizing anything a church does, any of their charities? What if taxpayer money didn't get used for what it was supposed to-- that could never happen, could it?
And as for your last point here, I really don't know what to say. It's amazing the stuff you take issue with, and how nitpicky you get when it comes to this guy. Name one politician that even attempts to follow the Constitution as strictly as this guy. Name ONE politician that doesn't "pick and choose" as you so claim.
Cheers to you for reading the article, though. You've mentioned that you do agree with Dr. Paul on some things-- I'm curious as to what those things are?[/quote]
**************************They all pick and choose, but how many claim to be strict constitutionalists? Why Ron has such a bone to pick with the Dept. of Education, I don't know, but he panders to local conservative communities about the big bad government getting out of their curriculum.
Yes, non-profits that accept gov. funding accept the strings attached to that funding. Personally, I've dealt with Medicaid and private insurance, and I would hands down take Medicaid funding and the rules applied vs. the private insurance and their rules and limits. Maybe I'm off topic though. There's going to be rules applied to funding, no matter where it comes from. Don't assume that privately funded programs have fewer strings.
I get nit picky with policy because that's what it comes down to. I don't want to hear about big government, efficiency, job growth, balanced budgets blah blah blah. Tell me what your policy is and let me pick at it. That's what matters, not feel good platitudes. Speaking of, it was funny to hear the crowd cheer during the republican debates on fox news when Ron talked about legalizing heroin.
And to finish, yes I'm for real. Maybe I'm judgmental about other states. I'll at least admit that I think there's some backward ass states out there. I know I'm not alone. Of course not everyone within that state fits the mold, but have you been to Idaho (one of the 'odd' states). There's others, You know what I'm talking about.
What I agree with Ron on. I'd love to see the wars end and the military be rolled back significantly. Pot should be legalized, but I'm not sure about harder drugs, not due to individual freedom, but because I don't think American culture provides for the tolerance and compassion that would be needed when dealing with junkies being visible.
I think local governments can make good and bad choices, as can state governments, as can federal. I prefer them to balance the other out. The more localized you get, I think the more cronyism you see, and I prefer that cronyism be kept in check.************************
I think a lot of Americans have grown so used to presidents simply doing things on the fly, and pretty much ruling by decree, like kings. They assume that if elected, Doctor Paul is going to come in with a giant chainsaw and just cut government into teeny tiny pieces, leaving almost nothing left, as if he has the power to do that. Fortunately, the guy isn't a hypocrite and would pursue actually legal methods for trying to bring the country where he would like it to be. Here's an article he wrote last year of how he would phase-out big government from warfare to welfare. Cliffnotes version -- he would start with the warfare, seeing as Commander in Chief, he has the greatest authority to actually do this, and do it promptly. He realizes that welfare and entitlement programs can't be yanked over night simply because people have grown dependent on them. Anyway, read the article before judging the guy on every sound byte there is out there about him bringing us to Libertarian Utopia overnight:
Now let's play pick-and-choose with the Constitution:
"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."
The president has too much power!, oh wait, lets have the president assert more power with a loophole! Ideals do tend to loosen if it can meet an agenda.
So by the President using constitutionally derived powers he is some how subverting the constitution?
interesting take
How soon would Kansas be teaching creationism and not teaching evolution? He thinks all parents should call the shots with education. No thanks. There's a lot of dumb parents out there and their kids deserve better.
Why don't you tell me how quickly Kansas would stop teaching evolution? what an ignorant, condescending, ridiculous comment you just made. Not just parents, but there are a lot of dumb people out there too...maybe the state should just tell everyone how to live considering they know best...what food I can eat, what liquid I can drink, what amounts I can have, what pencils I can use, and since it is confusing to buy things I need maybe the government can buy them for me, and don't forget hygiene...do you think the government can regulate my bath time?...obviously your comment struck a nerve with me...
It is amazing what people can accomplish if you leave them alone to do it, but it seems you would rather think that people are helpless unless the government steps in...you do realize the government is made up of people right?
You know the beauty of the United States is that if you don't like how one town or one state runs things you are free to get up and move at any time and if you don't want to move you are free to try and change those things in the town and state you live. If we just have one overreaching government they should just call us the United STATE of America and quit with the charade of states and their "rights"
It's an ignorant statement to think that Kansas would stop teaching evolution and teach creationism instead? I think it's an informed statement, actually. In 2005 the Kansas board of education voted to teach "intelligent design" in the classroom. %40 of the American population believes in creationism. What do you think that number is in Kansas? Over %50 easily. Someone should tell Ron that states have a say in education. He should know, since in Texas everyone hangs on to which books will be chosen to purchase, since that's what publishers go with for much of the rest of the country. Your other statements about government regulation reveal the appeal of Ron Paul. It's fear based manipulation where the enemy is the big bad government. I'm aware that the government is made up of people, but the difference is, I'm also aware that people are left alone to accomplish what they want to.
if Paul wins in 2012, I will be fine with it. However, I must say that there is a big difference between what a CANDIDATE SAYS and what a PRESIDENT DOES. I simply do not feel that everything he wants to do will be done. I would like to see him go after the Fed; I wonder if he will be able to implement his non-intervensionist policies; I would like to see him restructure the Dept. of Ed., or simply give its power to the states and local communities, but again, can he do it? I think we have to look past what he, or any other candidate for that matter, is saying, and ask ourselves 2 questions: 1. Can it be done? 2. What real effects will it have?
Every election we vote based upon what a candidate says/tells us, and then we are disappointed if that candidate, once elected, does not follow through on every promise. Then the avalanche of criticism begins. And now, here we are, once again listening to what someone is saying--and yes, some of Paul's ideas are radical--only to be, in my opinion, let down in the future.
his platform will not win over the majority needed to win. pure and simple, people will not take the positions of ayn rand. i'm sorry, but selfishness has no place in out society. he was not even allowed to debate last time, and when he did the republicans and especially fox news scoffed at him. do not forget that if you are republican or "conservative" and fox news does not back you, you are sunk.
He has gotten a lot more facetime on TV as of late because the man predicted the financial crisis. They laughed in his and Peter Schiff's face a few years ago, and now are turning to them for their advice and opinions.
are you telling me that latinos, african americans and other minorities are going to vote for him? are you telling me that someone who depends on medicare, like the elderly are going to vote for him? doubtful, and those are 2 of the main demographics anyone has to win. regardless of who gets the gop nob, they will lose the latinos for the gop stance on immigration. they will lose the elderly with talk of cutting or fucking with medicare. this society is not as selfish as it would have to be to elect ron paul. sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. look at the backlash against rand paul already. the tea party is furious because he found out that it is not so easy to implement his campaign promises. far right economic policy will not work. too many people will be left to die.
They sure voted for Sharon Angle in Nevada. The retirement communities around here were littered with Angle signs. People don't always vote in their best interests. I know you are well aware of that.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
I don't agree with Paul's stance on everything, but if that was my criteria for voting for someone I doubt I would have ever cast a vote. If he will actually stand up to the Federal Reserve and the industrial/war complex I will proudly vote for him. The status quo of the corpratocracy and their puppet politicians must end. It really is the fundamental issue facing or government and nation.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Not being from the u.sa., here are my two cents on this ron paul character. Actually, nothing to say, after I read this, titled The Trouble With the '64 Civil Rights Act:
"I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."
Yeah, of course the racists were mad and increased their hatred towards non-whites. The government did something to stop, among other stupid "ways of life", racial segregation. The civil rights act is an example to the entire world. It is probably the last proof of what the U.S.A. stands for. After vietnam, I must say, the US government has shown no reason to back them up for. Please, don´t misunderstand me. The US gov. is one thing, the US people, another.
Edit: I must add this from the link also, unbelievable what this guy said.
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife."
My first advice to anyone thinking of giving donations to a political campaign is: DO NOT DO IT!
Our system is broken and elected officials will not fix it. Once elected they will either fall by the way side in failing to adjust or be broken down and join the nature of our corporate, private republic.
If you want results, convince everyone you know and you that voting anything but Dem or Rep can and will fix the problem. Campaign finance and lobbying are the two biggest problems we have in government, not the leaders themselves.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Comments
As for Rand-- he's a Junior single-vote in the Senate. He's made no promises but to vote consistently as he campaigned and he has done that. He put out his version of the budget long before Ryan OR Obama, which did make significant cuts. In the words of Peter Schiff, and I paraphrase, our budget-cut goals if framed in the perspective of a football field, would require us to score a touchdown from our own 1 yard line on 4th and long. When money cut from the deficit was converted to yards, both Ryan and Obama's budgets were akin to advancing us to our own 2 and 2.5 yard lines. Rand's would have put us at our own 30, and he called it "modest."
Maybe your point is that the general worldview of libertarian thought is equal to selfishness, although I would argue that is not true if fully understood. I wish it were that people could judge the Ron Paul / Obama debate from the stand point of What both of these men have done, and how they have voted instead of what they say they will do combined with party affiliation. To anyone who values peace and liberty, it's a no-brainer, and I can't see why the people won't be demanding this for themselves in the near future.
Probably just different methods of counting them.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Number-of ... 8.html?x=0
Again, you can call it selfish, but I call it giving people liberty and freedom.
I personally believe that our gov't should provide for some sort of safety net to those that truly need it. But from my own personal experience and knowledge, it is inefficient, abused, and way too bloated.
At my company(40+ employees), we have gone through numerous lab technicians because they have basically stopped showing up because they would rather get unemployment than to work. The pay isn't that great, starting at 26-28k, but we pay for health/dental/vision insurance, two yearly bonuses, and 3% matching retirement. Yet, they would rather get unemployment benefits than work.
My mother's company is the same way. Except its a much larger compnay(1000+) and the pay is much less(20-24k), but it is located in Iowa where cost of living is extremely low. Unemployment is about 6.7%, but because people think they are above taking phone calls and can make about the same or more than that not working, they work for 3 months and then stop showing up.
The Federal Reserve is not to blame?
Have you done a study on libertarians to back this up?
Ron Paul is a believer in Austrian economics, which is different than Chicago.
3 months of work then not showing up qualifies someone for unemployment?
You don't hear Paul talk about Friedman very much, that's for sure.
Keynes vs. Hayek!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo ... re=related
2nd Round!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
May i suggest you hone your skills or chose a different career path?
Here's a link to the education quote:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/education/
Here's a revisionist quote about health care from Ron Paul:
"In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm."
Private insurance came on the scene and drove people out because they were too high risk. The free market pretty much did it thing there.
You can call me a big government elitist if you want, but giving states and local communities freedom to determine education without any oversight doesn't sound good. How soon would Kansas be teaching creationism and not teaching evolution? He thinks all parents should call the shots with education. No thanks. There's a lot of dumb parents out there and their kids deserve better. Ron's ideas would create huge disparities in the country. We have several states that need to be dragged up to modern times at each go around. Do you think each state would have passed civil rights legislation?
I think only one person has given input on why Ron is appealing to white men.
I read the article, here goes:
This is condescending:
"The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled into depending on a government safety net.."
They were misled? Ron, please show them the way of the free market so they understand.
This one shows a high level of ignorance:
"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."
Churches wouldn't be able to handle the increased amount of users, or be able to afford it. I guess this is based on the myth that people will donate more if they had lower taxes. Many private agencies are able to function because a majority of their funding comes from the government. This provides stability for the agency. If every provider was relying on private donations, it would be a disaster. Agencies would lack consistency and stability as they followed the shrinking and growing donations. The amount of staff solely dedicated to fundraising would be huge. Some work agencies do isn't so appealing to the public, but necessary. Try and hold a fundraiser for an agency that provides services to criminals and addicts. It doesn't seem like Ron has much contact with people who are poor.
Now let's play pick-and-choose with the Constitution:
"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."
The president has too much power!, oh wait, lets have the president assert more power with a loophole! Ideals do tend to loosen if it can meet an agenda.
Here in Colorado yes. We could fight the cases in court, but our President has a heart and would rather give unemployment than pay the lawyer costs.
Yes, Dr. Paul worked at a Catholic hospital and they did not turn anyone away. What is revisionist about that?
So we shouldn't give states and local communities freedom to educate? Are you saying that the federal government can do it better? Parents shouldn't call the shots with how their kids are being educated? Wow.
Ron is appealing to people who love liberty and freedom and don't want someone else dictating to them what they should teach, believe, etc. Pretty simple to me.
Ok, we're very much on the same page then. You're referring to even larger central bank authorities here that are the cause of all the chaos. You can't discount the Fed's humongous role in both the IMF and the world bank since mostly do everything with our dollar (although I understand they started moving towards SDRs?) and the Fed is the biggest shareholder in the world bank, but either way. If you're against neoliberal economics, you're against central planning, I take it? You also are against a super-hands off approach to economics as most people are. You've only made the claim that free markets don't work, but you don't seem to be a huge fan of top-down intervention either. I think we agree more than we disagree.
better yet, go by a lottery ticket...I think your chances are better...
Are you for real, man? You're going to call Ron Paul condescending when in your other post you completely rip on entire states / midwest and south regions of the country, their governments, and their parents as unable to decide what is best for their own people?
If government were to stop funding private organizations and charities overnight, yes, they would not be able to handle the volume of demand for their services the day after. They to, have had to become reliant on government, and have had to absorb the rules and terms that government has given them in accepting money, granting government greater control over these organizations. The same goes for the states. A great man once said, "For every tool they lend us, a loss of independence." I don't like government being involved in charity work because I believe that their is less of a democratic process in which charities succeed and which fail, just like when they pick and choose who succeeds and fails in business. Also, with regards to separation of church and state, should the government be subsidizing anything a church does, any of their charities? What if taxpayer money didn't get used for what it was supposed to-- that could never happen, could it?
And as for your last point here, I really don't know what to say. It's amazing the stuff you take issue with, and how nitpicky you get when it comes to this guy. Name one politician that even attempts to follow the Constitution as strictly as this guy. Name ONE politician that doesn't "pick and choose" as you so claim.
Cheers to you for reading the article, though. You've mentioned that you do agree with Dr. Paul on some things-- I'm curious as to what those things are?
for someone who talks about using fear as a tool...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
interesting take
Why don't you tell me how quickly Kansas would stop teaching evolution? what an ignorant, condescending, ridiculous comment you just made. Not just parents, but there are a lot of dumb people out there too...maybe the state should just tell everyone how to live considering they know best...what food I can eat, what liquid I can drink, what amounts I can have, what pencils I can use, and since it is confusing to buy things I need maybe the government can buy them for me, and don't forget hygiene...do you think the government can regulate my bath time?...obviously your comment struck a nerve with me...
It is amazing what people can accomplish if you leave them alone to do it, but it seems you would rather think that people are helpless unless the government steps in...you do realize the government is made up of people right?
You know the beauty of the United States is that if you don't like how one town or one state runs things you are free to get up and move at any time and if you don't want to move you are free to try and change those things in the town and state you live. If we just have one overreaching government they should just call us the United STATE of America and quit with the charade of states and their "rights"
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
What you might see with a Ron Paul presidency, as you would see with anyone's presidency is a watered-down version of their ideals. Which means, freer markets, less foreign intervention, more respect for civil liberties and personal freedom. Sadly, libertarian utopia is just ain't an option
So we shouldn't give states and local communities freedom to educate? Are you saying that the federal government can do it better? Parents shouldn't call the shots with how their kids are being educated? Wow.
Ron is appealing to people who love liberty and freedom and don't want someone else dictating to them what they should teach, believe, etc. Pretty simple to me.[/quote]
******What's revisionist is that he implying that everything was fine until Medicare and Medicaid came on the scene. No. What changed was improved medications and treatments, when before there wasn't much of anything that was effective. This was an opportunity for someone to make money because now people could be charged more, and that's where private insurance came in. Ron Paul was a doctor in the 70's, not in the 40's and 50's, which is the time frame he's referring to in the quote. To think that hospitals could cover people who used to be on medicaid is ridiculous. They would be buried and couldn't afford it. Maybe he isn't proposing that, but I don't see what his alternative is.
You're saying "wow" to parents calling the shots with education? I would say I'm okay with educated parents having input on education. But we've seen the numbers on how many Americans can't find Iraq on a map, think people can cast spells, and think the sun revolves around the Earth. Do I want those parents involved in the curriculum? No thanks.
Ron is appealing to people who have had fewer barriers to success in America, but yet find themselves frustrated and looking for something external to blame.******
If government were to stop funding private organizations and charities overnight, yes, they would not be able to handle the volume of demand for their services the day after. They to, have had to become reliant on government, and have had to absorb the rules and terms that government has given them in accepting money, granting government greater control over these organizations. The same goes for the states. A great man once said, "For every tool they lend us, a loss of independence." I don't like government being involved in charity work because I believe that their is less of a democratic process in which charities succeed and which fail, just like when they pick and choose who succeeds and fails in business. Also, with regards to separation of church and state, should the government be subsidizing anything a church does, any of their charities? What if taxpayer money didn't get used for what it was supposed to-- that could never happen, could it?
And as for your last point here, I really don't know what to say. It's amazing the stuff you take issue with, and how nitpicky you get when it comes to this guy. Name one politician that even attempts to follow the Constitution as strictly as this guy. Name ONE politician that doesn't "pick and choose" as you so claim.
Cheers to you for reading the article, though. You've mentioned that you do agree with Dr. Paul on some things-- I'm curious as to what those things are?[/quote]
**************************They all pick and choose, but how many claim to be strict constitutionalists? Why Ron has such a bone to pick with the Dept. of Education, I don't know, but he panders to local conservative communities about the big bad government getting out of their curriculum.
Yes, non-profits that accept gov. funding accept the strings attached to that funding. Personally, I've dealt with Medicaid and private insurance, and I would hands down take Medicaid funding and the rules applied vs. the private insurance and their rules and limits. Maybe I'm off topic though. There's going to be rules applied to funding, no matter where it comes from. Don't assume that privately funded programs have fewer strings.
I get nit picky with policy because that's what it comes down to. I don't want to hear about big government, efficiency, job growth, balanced budgets blah blah blah. Tell me what your policy is and let me pick at it. That's what matters, not feel good platitudes. Speaking of, it was funny to hear the crowd cheer during the republican debates on fox news when Ron talked about legalizing heroin.
And to finish, yes I'm for real. Maybe I'm judgmental about other states. I'll at least admit that I think there's some backward ass states out there. I know I'm not alone. Of course not everyone within that state fits the mold, but have you been to Idaho (one of the 'odd' states). There's others, You know what I'm talking about.
What I agree with Ron on. I'd love to see the wars end and the military be rolled back significantly. Pot should be legalized, but I'm not sure about harder drugs, not due to individual freedom, but because I don't think American culture provides for the tolerance and compassion that would be needed when dealing with junkies being visible.
I think local governments can make good and bad choices, as can state governments, as can federal. I prefer them to balance the other out. The more localized you get, I think the more cronyism you see, and I prefer that cronyism be kept in check.************************
It's an ignorant statement to think that Kansas would stop teaching evolution and teach creationism instead? I think it's an informed statement, actually. In 2005 the Kansas board of education voted to teach "intelligent design" in the classroom. %40 of the American population believes in creationism. What do you think that number is in Kansas? Over %50 easily. Someone should tell Ron that states have a say in education. He should know, since in Texas everyone hangs on to which books will be chosen to purchase, since that's what publishers go with for much of the rest of the country. Your other statements about government regulation reveal the appeal of Ron Paul. It's fear based manipulation where the enemy is the big bad government. I'm aware that the government is made up of people, but the difference is, I'm also aware that people are left alone to accomplish what they want to.
Every election we vote based upon what a candidate says/tells us, and then we are disappointed if that candidate, once elected, does not follow through on every promise. Then the avalanche of criticism begins. And now, here we are, once again listening to what someone is saying--and yes, some of Paul's ideas are radical--only to be, in my opinion, let down in the future.
They sure voted for Sharon Angle in Nevada. The retirement communities around here were littered with Angle signs. People don't always vote in their best interests. I know you are well aware of that.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
"With our thoughts we make the world"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
"I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."
Yeah, of course the racists were mad and increased their hatred towards non-whites. The government did something to stop, among other stupid "ways of life", racial segregation. The civil rights act is an example to the entire world. It is probably the last proof of what the U.S.A. stands for. After vietnam, I must say, the US government has shown no reason to back them up for. Please, don´t misunderstand me. The US gov. is one thing, the US people, another.
Edit: I must add this from the link also, unbelievable what this guy said.
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife."
Our system is broken and elected officials will not fix it. Once elected they will either fall by the way side in failing to adjust or be broken down and join the nature of our corporate, private republic.
If you want results, convince everyone you know and you that voting anything but Dem or Rep can and will fix the problem. Campaign finance and lobbying are the two biggest problems we have in government, not the leaders themselves.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis