Watch and dispute, if you can dispute it.

VINNY GOOMBA

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

If government IS the answer, why isn't it more localized? Why don't communities have their own social security programs rather than a national one which creates a bigger pot that is likely to be exploited for spending elsewhere? Why not have my neighbors help me out locally so the funds can be watched more closely. Maybe public pensions are an Ok idea, but should be implemented at the state and local level, should be compartamentalized into individual accounts, and ideally voluntary? If not voluntary, at least keep it in a place where it is less likely to be exploited and can be closely monitored.

Ok, there's something that I think sounds reasonable for both of us.

What do you think the chances of that happening are, though?

The chances might be as good as implementing something such as "Romney Care," when it comes to public health care. Maybe the point isn't discussed enough, but most conservatives would likely compromise with government programs being handled at state levels if more of them could be abolished at the federal level. I know I personally am for as few of those as possible, but I'd rather see what ideas different states come up with rather than some giant conglomerate of a federal government which is most likely to be usurped by the greediest of the greedy.

VINNY GOOMBA

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

If government IS the answer, why isn't it more localized? Why don't communities have their own social security programs rather than a national one which creates a bigger pot that is likely to be exploited for spending elsewhere? Why not have my neighbors help me out locally so the funds can be watched more closely. Maybe public pensions are an Ok idea, but should be implemented at the state and local level, should be compartamentalized into individual accounts, and ideally voluntary? If not voluntary, at least keep it in a place where it is less likely to be exploited and can be closely monitored.

Ok, there's something that I think sounds reasonable for both of us.

What do you think the chances of that happening are, though?

I think the sheer size and power of the federal government is why people tend to turn to them for solutions. However, bigger is not always better. I think the federal government tends to operate like a bull in a china shop.

inlet13

He's so good. I'm so happy he's a politician.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

He's so good. I'm so happy he's a politician.

See. Mancrush.

markin ball

FOX got their name from their anchor ladies, methinks.

Electric_Delta

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

This silly rumor that Social Security is bankrupt or will be is another made-up fear-tactic given to you by the "research" paid for by the Koch brothers.

Be it the Cato Institutue or The Heritage Foundation, it's the same people paying for the research to tell them what they want to hear.

Because they want to privatize Social Security (which is totally solvent and has an surplus of over 3 Trillion dollars) and make money by gambling with your retirement fund.

Ron Paul is just another shill parroting out this lie in an effort to make the Billionaires Boys club richer.

So yes... since his whole argument is based on information bought and paid for by special interests (that are NOT in my own interest at all), I dispute every word that comes out of his mouth.

How again is Social Security sustainable? And Medicare? And the United States economy?

Go Beavers

Parachute wrote:

arq wrote:

Mr. Ron Paul lost all my respect the day he said this:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

that's about the only thing he's ever been right on IMO. But we all have different views.

Cheers.

There is no reference to God in the Constitution.

How would you say it? Owned?

VINNY GOOMBA

Go Beavers wrote:

How would you say it? Owned?

Beavers, who would you like to see be the president of this country? It can be anyone, past or present who meets the age and birth requirements for the job, "electability" is no factor to be considered. I'm just curious, as I think a lot of people would like to see someone like Ron Paul in office but doubt his electability, and I think that may be the biggest drawback to his popularity. You clearly dislike him. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But who is your guy / gal to hold this office if you could put anyone in that position?

Electric_Delta

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

How would you say it? Owned?

Beavers, who would you like to see be the president of this country? It can be anyone, past or present who meets the age and birth requirements for the job, "electability" is no factor to be considered. I'm just curious, as I think a lot of people would like to see someone like Ron Paul in office but doubt his electability, and I think that may be the biggest drawback to his popularity. You clearly dislike him. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But who is your guy / gal to hold this office if you could put anyone in that position?

You can't ask that kind of question and not expect everyone to want to answer...

Anyone at all past or present? Can we cast our vote for a past president?

Go Beavers

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

How would you say it? Owned?

Beavers, who would you like to see be the president of this country? It can be anyone, past or present who meets the age and birth requirements for the job, "electability" is no factor to be considered. I'm just curious, as I think a lot of people would like to see someone like Ron Paul in office but doubt his electability, and I think that may be the biggest drawback to his popularity. You clearly dislike him. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But who is your guy / gal to hold this office if you could put anyone in that position?

That's a good question, but I hope it doesn't set up a "my guy is better than your guy and you're a fool for supporting so-and-so". I don't have a strong sense of loyalty and attachment to any politician, but I think conservatives and Ron Paul supporters assume that people who disagree with them have that loyalty for Obama, etc. I would say that the politician I find myself agreeing with the most is Kucinich. I also like hearing Bernie Sanders talk. I think the ideal person that I want for president is someone I don't know about. There are thousands that would qualify, but don't go near the political arena because of all the phoniness that goes with it. This person has a wide knowledge base, a deep understanding of history, a respect for the development of new technology, core values of compassion, cooperation, empathy, and respect. Work history would include experience digesting data, maintaining integrity when faced with those values being challenged on a regular basis, collaborating with others, and understanding of individual psychology balanced with the sociology of the group.

Other beliefs my ideal candidate would have would be an unflappable belief that at our core, all humans are good people (and when I say all, I mean ALL). In objective terms, I'm looking for someone who matches my anti-military beliefs, makes decisions based on the long-term and not short sighted, knee-jeer reactions, Funding for education and research are high on my list. They would speak of balance in their proposals, and also live it in their life. He/she would have to rise above the B.S. in order to help balance the budget. There's more, but this is what came off the top of my head.

VINNY GOOMBA

Go Beavers wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

How would you say it? Owned?

Beavers, who would you like to see be the president of this country? It can be anyone, past or present who meets the age and birth requirements for the job, "electability" is no factor to be considered. I'm just curious, as I think a lot of people would like to see someone like Ron Paul in office but doubt his electability, and I think that may be the biggest drawback to his popularity. You clearly dislike him. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But who is your guy / gal to hold this office if you could put anyone in that position?

That's a good question, but I hope it doesn't set up a "my guy is better than your guy and you're a fool for supporting so-and-so". I don't have a strong sense of loyalty and attachment to any politician, but I think conservatives and Ron Paul supporters assume that people who disagree with them have that loyalty for Obama, etc. I would say that the politician I find myself agreeing with the most is Kucinich. I also like hearing Bernie Sanders talk. I think the ideal person that I want for president is someone I don't know about. There are thousands that would qualify, but don't go near the political arena because of all the phoniness that goes with it. This person has a wide knowledge base, a deep understanding of history, a respect for the development of new technology, core values of compassion, cooperation, empathy, and respect. Work history would include experience digesting data, maintaining integrity when faced with those values being challenged on a regular basis, collaborating with others, and understanding of individual psychology balanced with the sociology of the group.

Other beliefs my ideal candidate would have would be an unflappable belief that at our core, all humans are good people (and when I say all, I mean ALL). In objective terms, I'm looking for someone who matches my anti-military beliefs, makes decisions based on the long-term and not short sighted, knee-jeer reactions, Funding for education and research are high on my list. They would speak of balance in their proposals, and also live it in their life. He/she would have to rise above the B.S. in order to help balance the budget. There's more, but this is what came off the top of my head.

I just had to know, because I see you take a very adversarial approach with Paul, but I find myself agreeing with what you say often in other threads, so I wonder where is the disconnect? I could vote for Kucinich or somebody like him-- he's principled and seems honest, echoes a similar foreign policy as Ron. Sanders actually introduced Paul's Fed Full Audit Bill in the Senate before compromising on a watered down version of it, so I have some respect for him because it takes BALLS to call out The Fed. Matt Taibi of Rolling Stone likes a lot of what Paul's about including his stances on foreign policy, The Fed and Wall Street Bailouts, but can't vote for him. His biggest reason for it, is sadly, Ron's supporters. Actually, what he said in a recent blog in RS was that he cannot support Ron because of his experience with RAND Paul's supporters. I think this is unfortunate. Yes, some of us are pretty hardcore, and some are over the top know-it-alls. Some have a healthy mistrust of government, and others a not-so-healthy mistrust of government. Anyone who pays close attention to what Paul says should understand that no one knows it all, especially those at the Fed who believe that an economy can be run from the top-down. As expected, I see your choice of candidate is someone I could potentially support, I did NOT figure you for a 100% Obama guy, but I also think that you probably don't think he's all that bad of a president either. Compared to all others in my lifetime, he might be the most likeable as a person for me, although I disagree with most of what he believes. If being anti-militaristic is high on anyone's list, I do not see how Paul can be completely ruled out especially considering that such a small fraction of candidates have ever endorsed these views and have actually meant it. What are your thoughts on Ralph Nader?

Go Beavers

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I just had to know, because I see you take a very adversarial approach with Paul, but I find myself agreeing with what you say often in other threads, so I wonder where is the disconnect? I could vote for Kucinich or somebody like him-- he's principled and seems honest, echoes a similar foreign policy as Ron. Sanders actually introduced Paul's Fed Full Audit Bill in the Senate before compromising on a watered down version of it, so I have some respect for him because it takes BALLS to call out The Fed. Matt Taibi of Rolling Stone likes a lot of what Paul's about including his stances on foreign policy, The Fed and Wall Street Bailouts, but can't vote for him. His biggest reason for it, is sadly, Ron's supporters. Actually, what he said in a recent blog in RS was that he cannot support Ron because of his experience with RAND Paul's supporters. I think this is unfortunate. Yes, some of us are pretty hardcore, and some are over the top know-it-alls. Some have a healthy mistrust of government, and others a not-so-healthy mistrust of government. Anyone who pays close attention to what Paul says should understand that no one knows it all, especially those at the Fed who believe that an economy can be run from the top-down. As expected, I see your choice of candidate is someone I could potentially support, I did NOT figure you for a 100% Obama guy, but I also think that you probably don't think he's all that bad of a president either. Compared to all others in my lifetime, he might be the most likeable as a person for me, although I disagree with most of what he believes. If being anti-militaristic is high on anyone's list, I do not see how Paul can be completely ruled out especially considering that such a small fraction of candidates have ever endorsed these views and have actually meant it. What are your thoughts on Ralph Nader?

With Ron Paul I see a lot of reliance on the theoretical, and like I said before, there isn't much reality test to it. Putting more power in the state and local governments makes sense on the one hand, but the more I think about it, that would work for some, and be destructive in other areas. I think where there is cronyism, it would only get worse, and the disparity between states would be even greater. I also don't get his whole issue with the Dept. of Education.

With Nader I thought his focus was too narrow. I enjoyed the idea of getting the corporations out of government, but he didn't seem dynamic enough to respond effectively to everything that is on the presidents plate. I actually almost voted for him, but being on the West coast, the election results were coming in before the polls closed and it was too close for me to vote for him. I chose the pragmatic over the values statement.