Anonymouse Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 here is another concept to think on - American constitution strongly believes in balance of power - therefore can you tell me please how many times have you see 4 terms of republican presidents? I don't know the history too much, but from what I understand each president sits for 2 terms and afterwards the oposition takes control for another 2 years... so if this year democrats win, I would not be surprised!!! balance of powers!!! These are some of the errors that have been created due to mass politics and the continued growth of the executive branch via the two-party system. Strangely enough, the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate federal elections. And ironically enough, the candidate which most don't support, Ron Paul, introduced legislation in 2004 that would end the two-party monopoly, but of course, which was never supported by most of the legislators. Here is an interesting article for inquiring minds. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Grand Delusion of a Two Party System By Joel Hirschhorn November 10, 2007 With an endless, futile and costly Iraq war, a stinking economy and most Americans seeing the country on the wrong track, the greatest national group delusion is that electing Democrats in 2008 is what the country needs. Keith Olbermann was praised when he called the Bush presidency a criminal conspiracy. That missed the larger truth. The whole two-party political system is a criminal conspiracy hiding behind illusion induced delusion. Virtually everything that Bush correctly gets condemnation for could have been prevented or negated by Democrats, if they had had courage, conviction and commitment to maintaining the rule of law and obedience to the Constitution. Bush grabbed power from the feeble and corrupt hands of Democrats. Democrats have failed the vast majority of Americans. So why would sensible people think that giving Democrats more power is a good idea? They certainly have done little to merit respect for their recent congressional actions, or inaction when it comes to impeachment of Bush and Cheney. One of the core reasons the two-party stranglehold on our political system persists is that whenever one party uses its power to an extreme degree it sets the conditions for the other party – its partner in the conspiracy – to take over. Then the other takes its turn in wielding excessive power. Most Americans – at least those that vote – seem incapable of understanding that the Democrats and Republicans are two teams in the same league, serving the same cabal running the corporatist plutocracy. By keeping people focused on rooting for one team or the other, the behind-the-scenes rulers ensure their invisibility and power. The genius of the plutocrats is to create the illusion of important differences between the two parties, and the illusion of political choice in elections. In truth, the partner parties compete superficially and dishonestly to entertain the electorate, to maintain the aura of a democracy. Illusion creates the delusion of Americans that voting in elections will deliver political reforms, despite a long history of politicians lying in campaigns about reforms, new directions and bold new policies. The rulers need power shifting between the teams to maintain popular trust in the political system. Voting manifests that trust – as if changing people will fix the system. It doesn’t. So voters become co-conspirators in the grand political criminal conspiracy. Those who vote for Democrats or Republicans perpetuate the corrupt, dishonest and elitist plutocracy that preferentially serves the interests of the Upper Class and a multitude of special interests – some aligned with the Republicans and some with the Democrats. Voting only encourages worthless politicians and those that fund and corrupt them. Public discontent leads to settling for less through lesser evil voting rather than bold thinking about how to reform the system to get genuine political competition and better candidates and government. I understand why sane people would not want to vote for Republicans, based on the Bush presidency. But I cannot understand why politically engaged people think that putting Democrats in power will restore American democracy and put the welfare of non-wealthy Americans above the interests of the wealthy and the business sector. Bill Clinton’s administration strongly advanced globalization and the loss of good jobs to foreign countries. Economic inequality kept rising. Trade agreements sold us out. And in this primary season talk about reforming our health care system among Democrats never gets serious about providing universal health care independent of the insurance industry. And why should citizens be supportive of a party that favors illegal immigration – law breaking – that primarily serves business interests by keeping labor costs low? Nor have Democrats stood up to challenge the official 9/11 story that no longer has any credibility to anyone that takes the time to seriously examine all its inconsistencies with what really happened and the laws of physics. Whoever wins the Democratic presidential nomination will not be free of corruption and lies. He or she will owe paybacks to all the fat-cat campaign donors. Voters will be choosing the lesser-evil Democratic presidential candidate. Is that really the only choice? Is there no other action that can advance the national good? There seem to be just two other choices. Vote for some third party presidential candidate, but the downside of that is twofold. No such candidate can win in the current rigged system. Worse, voting gives a stamp of credibility to the political system, as if it was fair, when it is not. Voting says that you still believe that the political system merits your support and involvement. The second option is to boycott voting to show total rejection of the current political system and the plutocratic cabal using the two-party duopoly to carry out its wishes. When a democracy no longer is legitimate, no longer is honest, and no longer serves the interests of ordinary citizens, then what other than violent revolution can change it? When the electoral system no longer can provide honest, corruption free candidates with any chance of winning, what can citizens do? Either stay home or just vote in local and state races and for ballot measures. I say remove the credibility and legitimacy of the federal government by reducing voter turnout to extremely low levels. Show the world that the vast majority of Americans have seen the light and no longer are deluding themselves about their two-party democracy. A boycott on voting for candidates for federal office is a form of civil disobedience that has enormous power to force true political reforms from the political system. This is the only way to make it crystal clear that the presidency and Congress no longer represent any significant fraction of the people. This is the only way to show that America’s representative democracy is no longer representative and, therefore, is no longer a credible democracy. Just imagine a federal government trying to function in the usual ways when only 20 percent of the eligible voters actually voted. It takes more courage to boycott voting than to vote for lesser evil Democrats and in the end this is the only way for people to feel proudly patriotic. This is the only way to not contribute to the ongoing bipartisan criminal conspiracy running the federal government. We have broken government because the spirit of Americans that gave us our revolution and nation’s birth has been broken, in large measure by distractive and self-indulgent consumerism. It is better to recognize that those who vote suffer from delusion than to criticize those who do not vote as apathetic. Non-delusional nonvoters recognize the futility of voting. Democrats will not restore our democracy. That is the painful truth that most people will not readily accept. Such is the power of group delusion. Voting produces never-ending cycles of voter dissatisfaction with those elected, both Democrats and Republicans. It is time to break this cycle of voter despair. Voters that bitch and moan about Congress and the White House have nobody to blame but themselves, no matter which party they voted for. http://constitutionalmatters.com/oped/the-grand-delusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Em Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 RE: Ron Paul... people must be dreaming. He is a Liberatarian in regards to his views. No way, no how that he will take office. Without taking into consideration the AG issue (which has no bearing since they are all going to kiss Turkey's as$ in the end), I wholeheartedly wish that the great Dame takes office. Long overdue anyway. If a hick can hold office for two terms, then...... (edited..never mind). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 RE: Ron Paul... people must be dreaming. He is a Liberatarian in regards to his views. No way, no how that he will take office. He would more aptly be described as a Constitutionalist, since many of his views are not libertarian at all, at least not in the modern sense of the term. In fact, Ron Paul is practically the modern version of Thomas Jefferson in his views. Without taking into consideration the AG issue (which has no bearing since they are all going to kiss Turkey's as$ in the end), I wholeheartedly wish that the great Dame takes office. Long overdue anyway. If a hick can hold office for two terms, then...... (edited..never mind). Why? She is arguably the worst candidate out of all of them. Economically, she is ignorant. Politically, she has no experience and she is no Margaret Thatcher. And besides, she looks like she has elephantiasis on her face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 And besides, she looks like she has elephantiasis on her face. Typical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted February 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Here are the results for the super Tuesday - I will combine everything together at the end!!! RESULTS: February 5 - SUPER TUESDAY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES / CAUCUSES February 05, 2008 Alabama Obama 56% Clinton 42% Alaska Obama 75% Clinton 25% Arizona Clinton 51% Obama 42% Arkansas Clinton 70% Obama 27% California Clinton 52% Obama 42% Colorado Obama 67% Clinton 32% Connecticut Obama 51% Clinton 47% Delaware Obama 53% Clinton 43% Georgia Obama 67% Clinton 31% Idaho Obama 79% Clinton 17% Illinois Obama 65% Clinton 33% Kansas Obama 74% Clinton 26% Massachusetts Clinton 56% Obama 41% Minnesota Obama 67% Clinton 32% Missouri Obama 49% Clinton 48% New Jersey Clinton 54% Obama 44% New Mexico Clinton 49% Obama 48% New York Clinton 57% Obama 40% North Dakota Obama 61% Clinton 37% Oklahoma Clinton 55% Obama 31% Tennessee Clinton 54% Obama 41% Utah Obama 57% Clinton 39% REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES / CAUCUSES February 05, 2008 Alabama Huckabee 41% McCain 37% Alaska Romney 44% Huckabee 22% Arizona McCain 48% Romney 34% Arkansas Huckabee 60% McCain 20% California McCain 42% Romney 34% Colorado Romney 60% McCain 19% Connecticut McCain 52% Romney 49,851 33% Delaware McCain 45% Romney 33% Georgia Huckabee 34% McCain 32% Illinois McCain 47% Romney 29% Massachusetts Romney 51% McCain 41% Minnesota Romney 41% McCain 22% Missouri McCain 33% Huckabee 32% Montana Romney 38% Paul 25% New Jersey McCain 55% Romney 28% New York McCain 51% Romney 28% North Dakota Romney 36% McCain 23% Oklahoma McCain 37% Huckabee 33% Tennessee Huckabee 34% McCain 32% Utah Romney 90% McCain 5% West Virginia Huckabee 52% Romney 47% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Typical. You're not saying you'd vote for her simply because she's a woman, and not because of her merits (or lack of in this case) are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted February 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Romney drops out of U.S. presidential race Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has dropped out of the race for the White House. This means John McCain is now almost certain to be the Republican nominee. There are still two other Republican contenders, but both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are a long way behind McCain in the polls. Romney spent millions of his own money on the campaign but fell well behind front runner John McCain after Super Tuesday's primaries. The Harvard University graduate has had a varied career, beginning life as a businessman before becoming governor of Massachusetts. Much of the attention he attracted during his campaign, however, focused on his Mormon religion - a faith regarded with suspicion by many Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zara Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) Why don't you like Ron Paul? And what is so appealing about Edwards? Here is a guy that will continue the same Democrat economic ignorance - blaming the wealthy and corporations for our problems. A typical socialist in Democratic stripes. The economic ignorance of Democrats is even more appalling than the economic ignorance of the Republicans (except for Ron Paul). Besides, there you have a typical Democrat who like Obama, and Clinton (and the leading Republican candidates), sucked up to the Israelis and further propagated the mantra of how Iran "threatens" Israel. Boohoo. The only reason I would want Edwards for the Democrats is because he’s the only person the rest of the world will probably take seriously. By the rest of the world I don’t just mean the western world. It includes Asia, the Middle East, South America, and so on. Clinton, in my opinion won’t be taken as seriously because she is a woman living in a very male-dominated world and no matter what she says about it I don’t think that she will be taken seriously. If Obama wins the presidency people won’t take the United States seriously because he is Muslim. How could a nation that is basically pummeling the Muslim world for the 9/11 attacks elect a Muslim president? That's a joke. I think that’s what will run though the minds of many people. Either the leader or the nation won’t be taken seriously. That’s why, if the Democrats win the election, I would want Edwards. I am a registered Republican and I would rather not have any Democrats elected right now because the things that they are proposing doesn’t really make sense to me. As for Ron Paul, I’ll dispute some of his idea’s that don’t make sense to me that are directly listed on the site posted. 1) Never Voted for a Tax Increase: Just because he didn’t want taxes doesn’t mean that the U.S. doesn’t need more taxes. Politicians, out of common sense, will never say that they want higher taxes. That’s political suicide and not too many people would vote for that candidate. However, I think the U.S. needs to raise some taxes to help repay its ever-growing national debt. 2) Want to Bring Troops Back ASAP: I think that bringing the troops back ASAP is a bad idea, both for selfish reasons and common sense. Bringing the troops back may backfire by distorting the image of the US in the eyes of other very dangerous nations around the world and not in a good way. If the worlds greatest military power pulls out just because it’s running through some problems then what’s that going to make others think? Nothing good, that’s for sure. I say we stay a bit longer. 3) 100% Limited Government: I believe in a mixed government and economy so, for me a 50/50 system makes more sense. What is Ron Paul anyway, an anarchist? A lassaiz faire system isn’t always that wonderful and peachy and, as history would illustrate, it doesn’t always work. 4) Strongly Against Illegal Immigration and No Special Treatment of Illegal Immigrants: Imagine the second largest city in the U.S. (Los Angeles) empty because half of the population is gone. Who’s going to provide cheap and decent labor? Obviously not too many American citizens will provide it. Illegal immigrants are the backbone of America and work very hard for almost nothing. I’d rather keep them here but close the borders to the others who want to come to America. That seems more logical to me. 5) 100% Right to Bare Arms: On this issue, it’s a little hard to really say much because of the 2nd Amendment. Also, people who live in more rural areas are very far away from police officers and other people, in general, if they need help. For some people, guns are a good thing and they really do need them but, for others in more populace areas it’s not that great because one person can hurt a whole group of people in a matter of seconds and, by the time a policeman or ambulance gets there it’s too late. That’s an iffy one and I’m not really sure what choice to make for it. The U.S. is so big that, when considering this question, it’s hard to make a good decision. 6) For Honest Asset-Backed Currency: I like the concept of fiat money. If there is a discovery of gold (which is unlikely to occur) then the price of the dollar would fall. If other nations with fiat money grow rapidly and the US is on the gold standard then the other country’s currency may surpass the greenback because the price of that currency relative to gold has appreciated. Also, I think that this misperception of the devaluation of the dollar is what’s really on peoples minds. Yes, the dollar has depreciated with regards to the euro but it has appreciated with regards to most other currencies around the world and the US is in an economic slump (as it should be – the economy needs to breath). I think that they US dollar will rise as it eases out of the slump. 7) Eliminate the Need for Income Tax: What the hell is he talking about! Income taxes are the #1 source of revenue for the government right now. Without it, the government cannot operate the way it needs to. How will the government repay the national debt and how will it be able to fund its current programs with out an income tax and without raising other taxes to pay for them? 8) 100% Pro-Life: I am Pro-Choice. I don’t think killing a baby is right at all but, at the same time, restricting peoples choices will lead to unethical and dangerous practices that were previously used to get rid of unwanted children such as smothering, sitting/pressing on the stomach (by the man), or physical abuse (like kicking the belly) in order to get rid of the baby. This is both dangerous for the baby (obviously) and for the mother. She could very easily die from something like that. Taking away a choice to do something like abortion is like taking away the right to use certain drugs (it’s done under the table and there’s a bigger risk involved). Also, it depends on the situation. What if the mother was raped or the child will be born so sick that it will live a painful and short life? What if the mother has a serious disease that could kill her if she were to stay pregnant? I think it’s better to keep abortion prevalent. 9) 100% Balanced Budget: How can you balance the budget without income tax, getting rid of a huge portion of the population, don’t increase taxes, get rid of thousands of military jobs (and on top of that the US economy is in a contractionary gap and unemployment is rising)? That’s what puzzles me the most. I think that, if you look at the bigger picture, what he proposed doesn’t really make sense. Edited February 8, 2008 by Zara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted February 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) Zara jan, I assure you that the soonest Clinton could bring back the army is within the next year!!! None of the presidents can accomplish their goals as soon as we think they can - it will take years for them to even start working on the issues. The pending issues have to be resolved before they can take into consideration of other issues. The government - house of senate will have to approve of something before the president can... so whatever the presidents promiss write it on the ice and let it melt - they can't pass a law as fast as they say they can!!! The whole system is corrupt - nothing works as they plan or say... sometimes it takes untill the end of their presidential term to accomplish some of the things they promissed to say - see we did it!!! Conclusion US Government doesn't care who you(people) vote for. US Government doesn't care what the presidential candidates promiss. US Government doesn't care about anything - they have already decided who is the president, what the president must do, and which laws to pass or not!!! We the people of the United States of America are "nothing" Edited February 8, 2008 by Ashot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantom22 Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Zara, Obama's white grandmother and his sister both attend Christian churches, as does Obama in Chicago. His father left town when Barack was 2 years old and he only saw his father once again for less than two weeks when he was 10 years old. The only family he knew were mainline white Protestants. The private high school he attended is where all the wealthy blue-blood Protestants in Honolulu send their children. How can you claim that he is a Muslim? That is totally untrue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zara Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Zara, Obama's white grandmother and his sister both attend Christian churches, as does Obama in Chicago. His father left town when Barack was 2 years old and he only saw his father once again for less than two weeks when he was 10 years old. The only family he knew were mainline white Protestants. The private high school he attended is where all the wealthy blue-blood Protestants in Honolulu send their children. How can you claim that he is a Muslim? That is totally untrue. Seriously? I heard he was Muslim...and I'm not kidding here...that's really what I've had people stuffing down my throat. Where did you find that? Wow...if that's true then I've made a really really big mistake. Oh boy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zara Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) Zara, Obama's white grandmother and his sister both attend Christian churches, as does Obama in Chicago. His father left town when Barack was 2 years old and he only saw his father once again for less than two weeks when he was 10 years old. The only family he knew were mainline white Protestants. The private high school he attended is where all the wealthy blue-blood Protestants in Honolulu send their children. How can you claim that he is a Muslim? That is totally untrue. OK. So, that was a huge mistake. I think I need a more informed group of people to talk to jeezzz...they're total douches. Look at what I found and I'm guessing that they believed it. Wow, next time I'm going to check before I do something like that. http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_b...bama_muslim.htm Thanks for the heads up phantom. Edited February 8, 2008 by Zara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantom22 Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) How do I know this? I live in a city that is like a small town. We all know everyone else's business here. Now, please let us know who is spreading these lies about Obama. Karl Rove and Company? Just like they claimed that McCain's adopted East Indian daughter was the product of an extra-marital affair he had with a black woman. McCain has 5 biological children from his two marriages. (I know that McCain clearly does not support Genocide recogntion.) Seriously? I heard he was Muslim...and I'm not kidding here...that's really what I've had people stuffing down my throat. Where did you find that? Wow...if that's true then I've made a really really big mistake. Oh boy... Edited February 8, 2008 by phantom22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zara Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 How do I know this? I live in a city that is like a small town. We all know everyone else's business here. Now, please let us know who is spreading these lies about Obama. Karl Rove and Company? Just like they claimed that McCain's adopted East Indian daughter was the product of an extra-marital affair he had with a black woman. McCain has 5 biological children from his two marriages. (I know that McCain clearly does not support Genocide recogntion.) I hate rumors. I can't believe I fell for that one. I know that a lot of people do negetive campaigning and I've been trying to avoid it as much as I could only to end up with the exact opposite outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) The only reason I would want Edwards for the Democrats is because he’s the only person the rest of the world will probably take seriously. By the rest of the world I don’t just mean the western world. It includes Asia, the Middle East, South America, and so on. Clinton, in my opinion won’t be taken as seriously because she is a woman living in a very male-dominated world and no matter what she says about it I don’t think that she will be taken seriously. If Obama wins the presidency people won’t take the United States seriously because he is Muslim. How could a nation that is basically pummeling the Muslim world for the 9/11 attacks elect a Muslim president? That's a joke. I think that’s what will run though the minds of many people. Either the leader or the nation won’t be taken seriously. That’s why, if the Democrats win the election, I would want Edwards. I am a registered Republican and I would rather not have any Democrats elected right now because the things that they are proposing doesn’t really make sense to me. As for Ron Paul, I’ll dispute some of his idea’s that don’t make sense to me that are directly listed on the site posted. 1) Never Voted for a Tax Increase: Just because he didn’t want taxes doesn’t mean that the U.S. doesn’t need more taxes. Politicians, out of common sense, will never say that they want higher taxes. That’s political suicide and not too many people would vote for that candidate. However, I think the U.S. needs to raise some taxes to help repay its ever-growing national debt. If you know anything about Ron Paul (I recommend you research about the guy), he has never voted for a tax increase. He is not just "any politician" saying that. He openly criticizes the IRS and seeks its abolition, on grounds that it is unconstitutional, as is the Federal Reserve. If you want to cut the national debt, Paul would suggest that we stop being an empire and bring all our troops home from all bases around the world. By spending trillions on foreign policy we are bankrupting ourselves, and being financed by China and Japan. Furthermore, by cutting needless spending domestically such as the unconstitutional bureaucracy called the Department of Education, we can also save money. 2) Want to Bring Troops Back ASAP: I think that bringing the troops back ASAP is a bad idea, both for selfish reasons and common sense. Bringing the troops back may backfire by distorting the image of the US in the eyes of other very dangerous nations around the world and not in a good way. If the worlds greatest military power pulls out just because it’s running through some problems then what’s that going to make others think? Nothing good, that’s for sure. I say we stay a bit longer. Do you realize what you are saying? An already unconstitutional war (not declared by Congress) that is bankrupting this country (the dollar is crashing and we are entering a recession), a war based on lies and false premises and to enforce UN resolutions, and you still advocate 'staying there'? Are you going to fight and die there? What about the thousands of innocent people that have died? What about the debt that is being carried by people like myself and generations after us? Making ignorant assertions is not a right when such things are stake. Saddam was no threat to America and there was no link with Al Qaeda or 9-11. Now there is Al Qaeda in Iraq when there previously was none. The image of America has already been distorted since America chose to engage in the neo-conservative foreign policy of 'pre-emptive' wars. All America is doing now is nation-building and trying to save face from a blunder and quagmire that is draining this country economically. You clearly have not analyzed or studied this to be stating that we should stay there because of what others might think. The longer America stays the harder the empire is going to fall. 3) 100% Limited Government: I believe in a mixed government and economy so, for me a 50/50 system makes more sense. What is Ron Paul anyway, an anarchist? A lassaiz faire system isn’t always that wonderful and peachy and, as history would illustrate, it doesn’t always work. Who cares? This country operated just fine with a limited government for over hundred years, and prior to the establishment of the IRS and Federal Reserve. What you believe has no bearing. If it is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. But eh, like you, many don't even know the history or the precedents of the underpinnings and laws and so they just vote in the mass minded charade called 'democracy' and consistently increase the size of government, and erode what this country was premised on - federalism. 4) Strongly Against Illegal Immigration and No Special Treatment of Illegal Immigrants: Imagine the second largest city in the U.S. (Los Angeles) empty because half of the population is gone. Who’s going to provide cheap and decent labor? Obviously not too many American citizens will provide it. Illegal immigrants are the backbone of America and work very hard for almost nothing. I’d rather keep them here but close the borders to the others who want to come to America. That seems more logical to me. Illegal immigrants are one of the largest drains and strains on the economy. Despite all the hoopla you may here about cheap labor, part of the cause is because of labor laws themselves. By having a minimum wage, the government not only creates unemployment because you cannot work below the minimum wage and all those citizens who are willing to work may not do so, but it also creates the incentive for illegals to fill the void since citizens here cannot work for below minimum wage standards as that is illegal. Here is a thought experiment for you to ponder: Because of the Federal Reserve's cheap and easy credit policies in the 90s under Greenspan, the new credit drove up price of real estate to insane levels, and with it drove up the wages of construction workers to absurd levels (especially here in Southern California), and dramatically increased the number of people working in the building industries. It also increased illegal immigration, as Mexican laborers found it profitable to risk crossing the border to earn artificially high wages from those who couldn’t find enough workers to keep pace with the demand for their building services. This is just but one example of the Federal Reserve artificially disrupting the market, spurring an artificial boom (much like the dot.com boom) and creating an artificial demand and investment (a misallocation of resources and malinvestment). The illegal immigrants are given further incentives to come here via the welfare state and the increasing strain on our healthcare and emergency rooms. Furthermore, they come here and increase crime as most of the well-off Mexicans have no reason to come here and the ones that do come here are the lowest elements of Mexican society, the poor, uneducated, uncultured elements. 5) 100% Right to Bare Arms: On this issue, it’s a little hard to really say much because of the 2nd Amendment. Also, people who live in more rural areas are very far away from police officers and other people, in general, if they need help. For some people, guns are a good thing and they really do need them but, for others in more populace areas it’s not that great because one person can hurt a whole group of people in a matter of seconds and, by the time a policeman or ambulance gets there it’s too late. That’s an iffy one and I’m not really sure what choice to make for it. The U.S. is so big that, when considering this question, it’s hard to make a good decision. I have but one thing to point out. Those countries that banned the right of citizens to bear arms have been some of the most tyrannical and oppressive regimes the world has ever seen (think of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and woah would you look at that, the Young Turks). As the ole saying goes, an armed society is a polite society. Anyone who believes in the 'benevolent' government is their protector is deluded. And besides, follow precedent and what is outlined in the Constitution. 6) For Honest Asset-Backed Currency: I like the concept of fiat money. If there is a discovery of gold (which is unlikely to occur) then the price of the dollar would fall. If other nations with fiat money grow rapidly and the US is on the gold standard then the other country’s currency may surpass the greenback because the price of that currency relative to gold has appreciated. Also, I think that this misperception of the devaluation of the dollar is what’s really on peoples minds. Yes, the dollar has depreciated with regards to the euro but it has appreciated with regards to most other currencies around the world and the US is in an economic slump (as it should be – the economy needs to breath). I think that they US dollar will rise as it eases out of the slump. Your misunderstanding of economics is in line with the majority of Americans because before 1913 America got along just fine without fiat currency. A central bank and fiat currency are one of the planks of communism, not a free society. The power to create money out of thin air is what causes inflation and boom and bust cycles. It is what allows countries to fund their empires and nation building and wars. Every extra dollar printed dilutes the value of existing dollars in circulation. Those who worked hard, paid their taxes, and saved some money for a rainy day are hit the hardest. Their dollars depreciate in value while earning interest that is kept artificially low by the Federal Reserve easy-credit policy. The poor and those dependent on fixed incomes can't keep up with the rising cost of living due to the inflationary pressures. And besides, this is unconstitutional. But then again, the average person's knowledge in America regarding the Constitution, much less economics, is on par with the average babiy's knowledge of why the sun sets in the west. Until you understand how the unrestrained supply of money works to undermine a currency's value, you won't understand this issue. Ever since 1913 (the adoption of the Federal Reserve) the dollar has lost its value gradually. There is a reason for this. All empires (and America is no exception) when they cannot finance their empire building with an asset backed currency (because it keeps it in check) resort to fiat currency. 7) Eliminate the Need for Income Tax: What the hell is he talking about! Income taxes are the #1 source of revenue for the government right now. Without it, the government cannot operate the way it needs to. How will the government repay the national debt and how will it be able to fund its current programs with out an income tax and without raising other taxes to pay for them? Of course the government can operate. How do you think the government operated pre-1913? The only reason for an income tax is to maintain an empire. Besides, the 16th amendment was never fully ratified despite the courts 'ruling' otherwise. 8) 100% Pro-Life: I am Pro-Choice. I don’t think killing a baby is right at all but, at the same time, restricting peoples choices will lead to unethical and dangerous practices that were previously used to get rid of unwanted children such as smothering, sitting/pressing on the stomach (by the man), or physical abuse (like kicking the belly) in order to get rid of the baby. This is both dangerous for the baby (obviously) and for the mother. She could very easily die from something like that. Taking away a choice to do something like abortion is like taking away the right to use certain drugs (it’s done under the table and there’s a bigger risk involved). Also, it depends on the situation. What if the mother was raped or the child will be born so sick that it will live a painful and short life? What if the mother has a serious disease that could kill her if she were to stay pregnant? I think it’s better to keep abortion prevalent. What you think has no bearing. Paul's position is in line with federalism and the erroneous decision of Roe v. Wade. Paul is not so much against abortion, as he is for states defining their own laws pertaining to abortion. Currently abortion is legal under the decision of Roe v. Wade. That's what liberals want. Conservatives would have an amendment banning that or overturning it. It's either an all-or-nothing deal. But neither position is in keeping with the concept of federalism. As much as you don't like it, abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by that court. Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid. 9) 100% Balanced Budget: How can you balance the budget without income tax, By curtailing spending. And besides, how did America do it prior to the income tax? Get over it. That’s what puzzles me the most. I think that, if you look at the bigger picture, what he proposed doesn’t really make sense. That is because you, like most people, have no working knowledge of economics, American history, and economic history. Unfortunately, this is the rule these days. Edited February 8, 2008 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elle Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) Anonymouse, Please keep in mind that the US dollar is artifically low today. Not that US dollar simply lost it's value. It's done for the trade defecit that the country has been running for years now...including balancing the import/export of the country. I wouldn't be surprised to see the US dollar getting back to where it was before after the administration decreases the defecit and runs more balanced export/import led economy. Of course, it hurt us...the travellers..especially in Europe, but devaluation of the dollar is to the advantage of the US government in order to fix the trade deficit through exporting a lot (countries buying more US goods for the cheap price compared to their currencies) and foreign countries not being able to export too much to US because of their high (compared to the US dollar) priced goods. The EU and Japan have been criticizing the US government for artifically keeping the dollar so low because it's affecting their (EU +Japanese) businesses in terms of exporting to US. The Fed is the most unconstitutional institution that was created...amazing how much the government depends on the Fed...and has almost no saying in that the Fed does, including the supply of $$. Looking back it's clear that the Great Depression and all the artificial "bank-run rumors" were another BS in order to fool people into establishing the Fed by the few bankers themselves. You control the economy of a specific country, and you control the country! I read that one of the Rothschild brothers (the one from England) lied to the British Parliament about Napoleon's defeat. Before the news of Napoleon's defeat reached Britain, the Rothschild declared to the BP that the French have won the war! The stocks drastically fell, he bought them, after some hours later when the real news reached Britain about the British victory, the stocks obviously rose and that's how Baron Rothschild got richer and also gained the control of the economy of Britain! The fake Great Depression scenario was very similar to what happened in Britain around that time. I also don't belive in voting. Most major decision are well before planned and the presidents always get selected within the circles. I highly doubt that the American elite would ever leave the decisions of US presidency to the dumb Americans! can't see that with teh change of administration, there will be major changes whether it's to the economy or the war in Iraq. I'm also pretty sure that Iran war has already been planned despite who will take over the American throne in November. Edited February 8, 2008 by elle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantom22 Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 I have learned that since Obama's sister married Professor Konrad Ng in 2004, she has been looking philosophically more toward Buddhism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Em Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 You're not saying you'd vote for her simply because she's a woman, and not because of her merits (or lack of in this case) are you? I would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 I would. This is why democracy is such a bad thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted February 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Democracy is only what you see form outside, inside it worse then comunism and a little bit less harsh then dictatorship!!! Democracy is where they come behind you, cover your eyese and (PEEKABOO***) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zara Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 (edited) I’ve really been thinking about Ron Paul’s plans and I think they make sense but, in my opinion, they’re too idealistic. If we lived in an ideal world with the conditions needed and without human nature involved, they would have been wonderful ideas. The fact is that we don’t live in a perfect world that functions the way we would like it to. If you know anything about Ron Paul (I recommend you research about the guy), he has never voted for a tax increase. He is not just "any politician" saying that. He openly criticizes the IRS and seeks its abolition, on grounds that it is unconstitutional, as is the Federal Reserve. If you want to cut the national debt, Paul would suggest that we stop being an empire and bring all our troops home from all bases around the world. By spending trillions on foreign policy we are bankrupting ourselves, and being financed by China and Japan. Furthermore, by cutting needless spending domestically such as the unconstitutional bureaucracy called the Department of Education, we can also save money. First of all, he doesn't have the power to get rid of the Federal Reserve Act on his own as president(no one person has that much power). The fact is that no one has been able to get rid of the Fed or IRS. If you really knew the national budget and spending habits you’d know that only 20% is military expenditures (compared to 43% in 1966 and 28% in 1986), 32% is Medicare/Medicade, 20% is spent on Social Security alone, 9% on interest from the national debt, and 19% on all other government expenditures. The three huge socialistic programs (Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security) take up 52% of the government’s budget and increase in margin year after year. On top of that, the compiling interest from money borrowed from foreign lenders isn’t helping the U.S. budget either. I understand where Ron Paul is going with his plans…I just don’t like them. As for all troops pulling out from all localities…I think that’s much more dangerous than staying within the regions. The reality is that other nations and groups don’t care about you, your good Samaritan actions, or the well-being of the nation you live in. Politics is a greedy business – deal with it. The government still needs to spend a lot (if not than maybe more) money to track other nations, improve technologies, gain intelligence, ect. It’s better, in my opinion, for a nation to be well prepared and have the ability to predict the moves and motives of other nations. Russia demonstrated that fact very clearly in the world wars (if they weren’t prepared they would have lost in a heartbeat because their technology was terribly primitive compared to other nations). Do you realize what you are saying? An already unconstitutional war (not declared by Congress) that is bankrupting this country (the dollar is crashing and we are entering a recession), a war based on lies and false premises and to enforce UN resolutions, and you still advocate 'staying there'? Are you going to fight and die there? What about the thousands of innocent people that have died? What about the debt that is being carried by people like myself and generations after us? Making ignorant assertions is not a right when such things are stake. Saddam was no threat to America and there was no link with Al Qaeda or 9-11. Now there is Al Qaeda in Iraq when there previously was none. The image of America has already been distorted since America chose to engage in the neo-conservative foreign policy of 'pre-emptive' wars. All America is doing now is nation-building and trying to save face from a blunder and quagmire that is draining this country economically. You clearly have not analyzed or studied this to be stating that we should stay there because of what others might think. The longer America stays the harder the empire is going to fall. With Ron Paul’s wishful thinking we’re not going anywhere. Think about it. Just because the U.S. isn’t willing to be aggressive anymore doesn’t mean that other nations will follow suit. The U.S. has given the impression of a big and aggressive bully since TR and his “big stick” policies. I know the war is covered with lies and, for a while, the U.S. was helping Sadam ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"). I think we are there for the oil and the strategic location. The U.S. has been involved with the Middle East and its affairs long before the Iraq War and it’s going to stay there no matter what anyone says. Of course I feel bad when I hear that people die but, at the same time, I know that there is no draft. Those soldiers signed up for the army knowing fully well that they could die. Of course Bush did some unethical things such as increasing the period with which the troops had to stay but, again, the thought of a voluntary army without a draft still runs through my mind. When I get advertising propaganda from the U.S. military (even the navy) I think that that’s what all of the other people get as well. They knew that they could die when they signed up and, yet, they still did so. As for civilian deaths on the news, don’t you ever wonder if the news is over exaggerating just like during the time of yellow journalism? That’s what the media does. They blow up stories just to get more viewers, which, in return, gets them more money. Do you actually think that the media really cares about two people that were brutally murdered in the middle of nowhere? I don’t think so. Also, the death rates of this war, combined with the death rates in other localities (currently), are only a small fraction of the death rates during the Vietnam War and World War II. Also, if you really understood economics you’d understand that the economy HAS to experience periodic declines (slumps that sometimes lead to recessions) as a natural function. There would be something horribly wrong with the economy if GDP continuously rose without falling (that’s something to be concerned about – not a recession). And, again, the dollar isn’t crashing the euro is rising. Who cares? This country operated just fine with a limited government for over hundred years, and prior to the establishment of the IRS and Federal Reserve. What you believe has no bearing. If it is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. But eh, like you, many don't even know the history or the precedents of the underpinnings and laws and so they just vote in the mass minded charade called 'democracy' and consistently increase the size of government, and erode what this country was premised on - federalism. I think that, as nations age, they need to change. Yes the U.S. was supposed to be based upon the principles of a federal system but that’s only what some people believe. I think that, ever since the Constitution was drafted the U.S. government was given vast amounts of power (much more than it ever had before - though there are checks and balances to keep any one person from having a majority of that power). I think that the U.S. has always be at least slightly Unitarian rather than completely federal and, as time goes by, that’s becoming more obvious. On top of that, I think what is more dangerous than a changing country is one that tries to always stay the same. Ron Paul only wants to take steps backwards and he wants to stay put and I think that’s dangerous. Illegal immigrants are one of the largest drains and strains on the economy. Despite all the hoopla you may here about cheap labor, part of the cause is because of labor laws themselves. By having a minimum wage, the government not only creates unemployment because you cannot work below the minimum wage and all those citizens who are willing to work may not do so, but it also creates the incentive for illegals to fill the void since citizens here cannot work for below minimum wage standards as that is illegal. Here is a thought experiment for you to ponder: Because of the Federal Reserve's cheap and easy credit policies in the 90s under Greenspan, the new credit drove up price of real estate to insane levels, and with it drove up the wages of construction workers to absurd levels (especially here in Southern California), and dramatically increased the number of people working in the building industries. It also increased illegal immigration, as Mexican laborers found it profitable to risk crossing the border to earn artificially high wages from those who couldn’t find enough workers to keep pace with the demand for their building services. This is just but one example of the Federal Reserve artificially disrupting the market, spurring an artificial boom (much like the dot.com boom) and creating an artificial demand and investment (a misallocation of resources and malinvestment). The illegal immigrants are given further incentives to come here via the welfare state and the increasing strain on our healthcare and emergency rooms. Furthermore, they come here and increase crime as most of the well-off Mexicans have no reason to come here and the ones that do come here are the lowest elements of Mexican society, the poor, uneducated, uncultured elements. But, what would happen if they were all gone? I have but one thing to point out. Those countries that banned the right of citizens to bear arms have been some of the most tyrannical and oppressive regimes the world has ever seen (think of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and woah would you look at that, the Young Turks). As the ole saying goes, an armed society is a polite society. Anyone who believes in the 'benevolent' government is their protector is deluded. And besides, follow precedent and what is outlined in the Constitution. Very true. Your misunderstanding of economics is in line with the majority of Americans because before 1913 America got along just fine without fiat currency. A central bank and fiat currency are one of the planks of communism, not a free society. The power to create money out of thin air is what causes inflation and boom and bust cycles. It is what allows countries to fund their empires and nation building and wars. Every extra dollar printed dilutes the value of existing dollars in circulation. Those who worked hard, paid their taxes, and saved some money for a rainy day are hit the hardest. Their dollars depreciate in value while earning interest that is kept artificially low by the Federal Reserve easy-credit policy. The poor and those dependent on fixed incomes can't keep up with the rising cost of living due to the inflationary pressures. And besides, this is unconstitutional. But then again, the average person's knowledge in America regarding the Constitution, much less economics, is on par with the average babiy's knowledge of why the sun sets in the west. Until you understand how the unrestrained supply of money works to undermine a currency's value, you won't understand this issue. Ever since 1913 (the adoption of the Federal Reserve) the dollar has lost its value gradually. There is a reason for this. All empires (and America is no exception) when they cannot finance their empire building with an asset backed currency (because it keeps it in check) resort to fiat currency. Yes, fiat money causes inflation but it also causes deflation due to intervention by the Fed with the purchases and sales of government securities. Here’s a little banking history (incase you forgot): -----before 1863, the U.S. had state banks that were chartered by individual states with individual currencies all redeemable for gold -----the National Banking Act of 1863 established federally chartered banks and the only way that the state banks survived was by offering checking accounts -----During the 19th century, the economy experienced a number of panic ‘runs’ on banks by depositors that wanted to withdraw their money. Panics were usually set off by the failure of prominent financial institutions. Following the panics, depositors wanted to withdraw their money while borrowers wanted more loans and extensions of credit. Unfortunately for depositors, they couldn’t get their money back because banks only held a fraction (as they do now) of deposits as reserves. That, and the failure of the Knicker Bocker Trust Company in New York led to the formation of the Federal Reserve System through the passing of the Federal Reserve Act. The Fed was created mostly to prevent these panic "runs" so stating that everything was fine is not entirely true. Aside from that, the amount of gold within the world itself is less than the amount of money and wealth that is circulating within the U.S. itself. Also, if there is an economic crisis, central banks have fewer options for trying to stimulate change. Of course the government can operate. How do you think the government operated pre-1913? The only reason for an income tax is to maintain an empire. Besides, the 16th amendment was never fully ratified despite the courts 'ruling' otherwise. Fully ratified or not, the amendment is still there and the U.S. depends on it for most of its revenue (it accounts for almost 50% of all taxes collected). The process of nullification if difficult enough as it is and with U.S. dependency upon the amendments revenues it seems nearly impossible. What you think has no bearing. Paul's position is in line with federalism and the erroneous decision of Roe v. Wade. Paul is not so much against abortion, as he is for states defining their own laws pertaining to abortion. Currently abortion is legal under the decision of Roe v. Wade. That's what liberals want. Conservatives would have an amendment banning that or overturning it. It's either an all-or-nothing deal. But neither position is in keeping with the concept of federalism. As much as you don't like it, abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by that court. Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid. So you’re saying we should backtrack before 1973? Of course abortion isn’t a constitutional issue and the Supreme Court shouldn’t have meddled in state affairs. They had no right to do so but eh…they seem to do it all of the time. By curtailing spending. And besides, how did America do it prior to the income tax? Get over it. How much can you curtail spending at this stage of the game? Not that much without isolating the country within its own borders (minus international trade[btw, the U.S. is running a trade defecit so, unless the U.S. shoots for more production of cheaper products and lowers its imports it's not going to make very much]). I think Ron Paul’s proposal is too dangerous right now. In many ways, it sounds good but I don’t think the U.S. is ready for him. Maybe you need to take it a little easy…you’re a little tense. Edited February 11, 2008 by Zara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted February 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 February 9 - MULTI-STATE EVENTS DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES / CAUCUSES February 09, 2008 Louisiana Obama 57% Clinton 36% Nebraska Obama 68% Clinton 32% Washington Obama 68% Clinton 31% REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES / CAUCUSES February 09, 2008 Kansas Huckabee 60% McCain 24% Louisiana Huckabee 43% McCain 42% Washington McCain 26% Huckabee 24% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted February 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 February 10 - MAINE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES / CAUCUSES February 10, 2008 Maine Obama 59% Clinton 40% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted February 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 So far Clinton is in the lead!!! not much left!!! Obama is not that far back from Clinton... so all those who vote for Obama, you still have some chance!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 (edited) If I had to guess I'd say you either did a cut and paste job, or most of what you responded with was someone elses response since your level of knowledge on this topic seemed less than impressive before, but nonetheless, let's extrapolate what you say. I’ve really been thinking about Ron Paul’s plans and I think they make sense but, in my opinion, they’re too idealistic. If we lived in an ideal world with the conditions needed and without human nature involved, they would have been wonderful ideas. The fact is that we don’t live in a perfect world that functions the way we would like it to. This isn't about idealisms. Your assertion that Paul's views border on "idealistic" and "impractical" is both unfounded and untrue, as much of this country did indeed adhere to these policies at one time or another. First of all, he doesn't have the power to get rid of the Federal Reserve Act on his own as president(no one person has that much power). The fact is that no one has been able to get rid of the Fed or IRS. If you really knew the national budget and spending habits you’d know that only 20% is military expenditures (compared to 43% in 1966 and 28% in 1986), 32% is Medicare/Medicade, 20% is spent on Social Security alone, 9% on interest from the national debt, and 19% on all other government expenditures. The three huge socialistic programs (Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security) take up 52% of the government’s budget and increase in margin year after year. On top of that, the compiling interest from money borrowed from foreign lenders isn’t helping the U.S. budget either. I understand where Ron Paul is going with his plans…I just don’t like them. As for all troops pulling out from all localities…I think that’s much more dangerous than staying within the regions. The reality is that other nations and groups don’t care about you, your good Samaritan actions, or the well-being of the nation you live in. Politics is a greedy business – deal with it. The government still needs to spend a lot (if not than maybe more) money to track other nations, improve technologies, gain intelligence, ect. It’s better, in my opinion, for a nation to be well prepared and have the ability to predict the moves and motives of other nations. Russia demonstrated that fact very clearly in the world wars (if they weren’t prepared they would have lost in a heartbeat because their technology was terribly primitive compared to other nations). Since you don't know Paul's platform, let me enlighten you. You cite nice statistics, and all which favor my point of view. You then state that "I just don't like them." In other words you support the status quo. The status quo being that America is stretched thin, militarily and economically. And, if you know any inkling of history, all empires end with massive debts and collapse because they reach a point of exhaustion where they can no longer fund their extravagant ways of empire. Since Paul knows he cannot just erode the Federal Reserve assuming he is elected (which won't happen), he advocates auditing the meetings of the Fed, since they have always operated in a veil of secrecy. Second, why does the government need to "spend a lot"? That makes no sense for a government that has the largest national debt in history and a looming trade deficit and a dollar that is continuously losing its luster. What you are prescribing is national suicide. Third, why maintain troops in all these places? Not only does it cost is billions, but it fuels anti-Americanism. If you know anything about what the CIA calls Blowback, you would understand. But since you don't, your positions are without merit. "His [bin Laden] rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources -- Islam, history, and the region's political and economic malaise. He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War..." -- 9/11 Commission Report, pages 48-49 "There are a lot of things that are different now [after the invasion of Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed -- but it's huge -- is that by complete mutual agreement between the US and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so- called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things." -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair, May 2003 "One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believe -- at the urging of senior U.S. leaders -- that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do. The Islamic world is not so offended by our democratic system of politics, guarantees of personal rights and civil liberties, and separation of church and state that it is willing to wage war against overwhelming odds in order to stop Americans from voting, speaking freely, and praying, or not, as they wish." -- Michael Scheuer, Imperial Hubris, page 8 "The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001 did not 'attack America,' as political leaders and news media in the United States have tried to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders, whose innocence is, of course, no different from that of the civilians killed by American bombs in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere." -- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page XV "The term 'blowback,' which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of 'terrorists' or 'drug lords' or 'rogue states' or 'illegal arms merchants' often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations." -- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page 8 With Ron Paul’s wishful thinking we’re not going anywhere. Think about it. Just because the U.S. isn’t willing to be aggressive anymore doesn’t mean that other nations will follow suit. The U.S. has given the impression of a big and aggressive bully since TR and his “big stick” policies. I know the war is covered with lies and, for a while, the U.S. was helping Sadam ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"). I think we are there for the oil and the strategic location. The U.S. has been involved with the Middle East and its affairs long before the Iraq War and it’s going to stay there no matter what anyone says. Of course I feel bad when I hear that people die but, at the same time, I know that there is no draft. Those soldiers signed up for the army knowing fully well that they could die. Of course Bush did some unethical things such as increasing the period with which the troops had to stay but, again, the thought of a voluntary army without a draft still runs through my mind. When I get advertising propaganda from the U.S. military (even the navy) I think that that’s what all of the other people get as well. They knew that they could die when they signed up and, yet, they still did so. Nice job of ignoring how the Army continuously recycles troops shifts. Some of the troops are serving in their 5th tour. And why, might you ask, does Ron Paul, of all candidates have the highest campaign donations from active troops! Surely there must be a reason! As for civilian deaths on the news, don’t you ever wonder if the news is over exaggerating just like during the time of yellow journalism? That’s what the media does. They blow up stories just to get more viewers, which, in return, gets them more money. Do you actually think that the media really cares about two people that were brutally murdered in the middle of nowhere? I don’t think so. Also, the death rates of this war, combined with the death rates in other localities (currently), are only a small fraction of the death rates during the Vietnam War and World War II. Also, if you really understood economics you’d understand that the economy HAS to experience periodic declines (slumps that sometimes lead to recessions) as a natural function. There would be something horribly wrong with the economy if GDP continuously rose without falling (that’s something to be concerned about – not a recession). And, again, the dollar isn’t crashing the euro is rising. The dollar is crashing. If you understood anything about economics (which you do not) you would understand this. You are clearly ignorant. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the dollar’s purchasing power has depreciated by over 94% (go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ web site www.bls.gov and you can observe this by using this site’s inflation calculator). I think that, as nations age, they need to change. Yes the U.S. was supposed to be based upon the principles of a federal system but that’s only what some people believe. I think that, ever since the Constitution was drafted the U.S. government was given vast amounts of power (much more than it ever had before - though there are checks and balances to keep any one person from having a majority of that power). I think that the U.S. has always be at least slightly Unitarian rather than completely federal and, as time goes by, that’s becoming more obvious. On top of that, I think what is more dangerous than a changing country is one that tries to always stay the same. Ron Paul only wants to take steps backwards and he wants to stay put and I think that’s dangerous. The U.S. government was not given vast amounts of power. If you read the Constitution, those powers which are not delegated to the central government, are vested in the states. Prior to the Civil War, it was understood that the states had the right to secede at any time, and the Civil War was largely the birth of this idea of the modern nation, a "federal nation," if you will. Ron Paul is the only candidate that advocates change. All the other candidates support the status quo and the continuing bankruptcy of this nation. Yes, fiat money causes inflation but it also causes deflation due to intervention by the Fed with the purchases and sales of government securities. Here’s a little banking history (incase you forgot): -----before 1863, the U.S. had state banks that were chartered by individual states with individual currencies all redeemable for gold -----the National Banking Act of 1863 established federally chartered banks and the only way that the state banks survived was by offering checking accounts -----During the 19th century, the economy experienced a number of panic ‘runs’ on banks by depositors that wanted to withdraw their money. Panics were usually set off by the failure of prominent financial institutions. Following the panics, depositors wanted to withdraw their money while borrowers wanted more loans and extensions of credit. Unfortunately for depositors, they couldn’t get their money back because banks only held a fraction (as they do now) of deposits as reserves. That, and the failure of the Knicker Bocker Trust Company in New York led to the formation of the Federal Reserve System through the passing of the Federal Reserve Act. The Fed was created mostly to prevent these panic "runs" so stating that everything was fine is not entirely true. A couple of points. First, there have always been "panic runs" as that is the inevitable nature of free markets. Usually, these jolts in the market are minor and the market operates on a self-correcting cycle or mechanism. Second, most of these "panics" have been artificially created to justify the creation of a central bank. For example, in the 1820s and 1930s, there were efforts to establish a central bank, but this was circumvented by then Andrew Jackson because in 1832 Jackson did not renew the charter for the Bank of the United States. This was largely because the panic of 1819 was created because of the Bank of the United States, ancestor of the Federal Reserve. In 1907, there was a panic created by none other than J.P. Morgan, one of the chief architects of the Federal Reserve system, who had plotted this out in Jekyll Island along with other corporate-business interests. Because of this panic, they created a dialectic. Created a problem (thesis), got a reaction (antithesis), and offered a solution (synthesis). Fully ratified or not, the amendment is still there and the U.S. depends on it for most of its revenue (it accounts for almost 50% of all taxes collected). The process of nullification if difficult enough as it is and with U.S. dependency upon the amendments revenues it seems nearly impossible. So you support coercion? An amendment being there does not make it right if a study of it reveals that it was never fully ratified. Moreover, a study of this country's history, along with actually reading the Constitution and the Federalist papers would enlighten one as to why the framers did not want an income tax. The only reason for its existence is to fuel an empire that is going to fall anyway that was establish with the Federal Reserve. So you’re saying we should backtrack before 1973? Of course abortion isn’t a constitutional issue and the Supreme Court shouldn’t have meddled in state affairs. They had no right to do so but eh…they seem to do it all of the time. And this is why the Constitution has been eroded by men in robes. The framers intended the power to create laws in the legislature, not the judicial branch. Yet it seems there has been a perversion of this where the judges have historically substituted their own views and passions and politics instead of the law, and hence we have the bastard child known as "Constitutional law", which is nothing relating to the Constitution, just a bunch of case law with sociological and political underpinnings. How much can you curtail spending at this stage of the game? As much as possible if you want to prevent further destabilization of this country. Not that much without isolating the country within its own borders (minus international trade[btw, the U.S. is running a trade defecit so, unless the U.S. shoots for more production of cheaper products and lowers its imports it's not going to make very much]). I think Ron Paul’s proposal is too dangerous right now. In many ways, it sounds good but I don’t think the U.S. is ready for him. Maybe you need to take it a little easy…you’re a little tense. Ron Paul has never advocated isolationism. He has always advocated strong national defense and diplomacy, and to go to war only when necessary such as self-defense (the Just War theory of Christianity, and what the framers intended). And if you want to increase production, Paul would suggest repealing stupid regulations and taxing corporations because these are what create the atmosphere for outsourcing as it is far cheaper to transport your company to China or India than to remain here. And all things like minimum wage, child labor laws, taxation, all the regulations in the Federal Registry, all contribute to this phenomenon and people wonder why companies move. Instead of enlightening themselves on the economics, they instead increase the size of government, vote for socialists (Republicans and Democrats) that only increase the size of government, and believe that you can legislate all this bad stuff away by passin more laws ("there oughta be a law"). As far as being cool, I'm very cool, it's just this level of ignorance is always disheartening. Edited February 13, 2008 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.