|
Anxiety
|
 |
« on: December 16, 2007, 10:55:15 PM » |
|
Another money bomb today and his blimp finally launched, pretty wild stuff.
Anyone keep up with politics?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Brandy
|
|
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2007, 04:09:42 PM » |
|
I try, but I find it exhausting...and a little reminiscent of popularity contests in high school (didn't like them then.
I know, I know: for shame! It's important. So, I keep trying. It's kind of like trying to learn Chinese for me, in a lot of ways.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2007, 11:25:37 PM » |
|
I think you'll find this guy different.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Brandy
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2007, 08:33:35 AM » |
|
I think you'll find this guy different.
Okay. I'll do a little research.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Overseer
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2007, 12:09:03 PM » |
|
I think you'll find this guy different.
Wait wait... you say the Resurrection is impossible, but you claim a POLITICIAN is DIFFERENT?? Now who's citing the impossible?  (Teasing here, I hope you know  ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope."
--Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2007, 11:20:21 PM » |
|
I never said impossible. I said it was improbable on great orders of magnitude.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Overseer
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2007, 08:31:07 AM » |
|
I never said impossible. I said it was improbable on great orders of magnitude. Point well taken  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope."
--Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2007, 09:16:03 PM » |
|
Good basic and even classical conservative Republican. Unfortunately, he is coming into an era that has grown so over extravagant and with entitlements that are so intertwined with the masses. That classic conservativism would have a hard time overcoming. It is possible to do so, but Ron Paul's time frame would appears to create more harm that the good it would eventually have come about. He would have to accept that only about 5% of his platform would survive his election. I like his fiscal conservatism, but that is all that I can find that would be practical out of his campaign. I see him becoming a divider of both parties and not someone who could bring them together. Definitely will shake up the Republican party. If he wins the nomination, watch everyone start changing their tunes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2007, 05:25:02 PM » |
|
I think he's pretty dead on about that actually. Even if you were to accept the fact that the civil war was fought primarily over slavery, how many other nations needed a war to end slavery?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2007, 11:22:56 PM » |
|
As the writer noted, the war was not about slavery. The president did not care either way, it was about the South wanting to secede from the union which would have possibly destroyed the economy of the nation let alone fragment it's citizens and territories. Lincoln's duty was to protect the union and the subject the union to the consequences of those actions. This also was about the southern states not accepting the election results that Lincoln was president. Slavery, although true a part of the problem was down on the list at the time the war started and once started, it was all or nothing for both sides. Diplomacy had no influence on either side.
To buy out the slaves which Ron Paul suggested - of 3,949,557 which at the time of the 1860 census was almost 13% of the total population would put a tremendous burden on the rest of the states economically. Of the total number of slaves - only 88,986 were in the northern states. Then there was the burden of finding them either lodging and/or employment at a time when there was not a surplus of either. England as he noted had bought the freedom for their slaves - which was only 14,000 at the same time. A minute percentage of the entire population of england.
Today we have the problems of illegal immigrants in the country. Look at what our choices have come to. We are trying to control it by cracking down on the employers; thereby making the jobs no longer available. Hopefully, I guess, no one has a viable answer yet, the illegals will migrate out of our country. Sounds like a wonderful painless answer. Or offering amnesty to those already here and then trying to find a solution to control the influx. Haven't heard any idea that will address both satisfactorily yet.
Yet reality is they have no place to go, the jobs will be here, as most legal americans do not want to work in those industries due to the nature of the work. The underground economy will become even worse, the chances of getting caught diminishes with the reduction of the government as Ron Paul wants. So, if we reduce the services and administrations that have the duty to control such things, what will happen? Possibly the problem will become even worse and we could be in a similar scenario with the north and the south squabbling over this matter instead.
As David Knowles wrote "Of course, such a program sounds more than a little strange coming from a man who is so mistrustful of government that he wants to abolish the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Reserve, and the IRS."
So where would all this money to buy the slave have come from? How is going to address the illegal immigrant problem to the satisfaction of the american people if he stands for abolishment of government.?
These are my concerns with him.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2007, 02:10:13 PM » |
|
He votes no a lot. I respect that.
There will, of course, be some issues I disagree with him on. I think the greatest appeal I have for him is in terms of civil liberties.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2007, 07:54:54 PM » |
|
He is indeed a man of his word. I however, am too liberal to see the advantage of giving up social programs for the poor, helpless, and even the arts just to reduce my taxes.
I am a champion of a woman's right to choose on pregnancies, and equality for gays which does include their right to marriage.
He is against all of the above. I am a fiscal conserative, I understand where he is coming from, but do not see that trying to roll the country's societal moral back 200 years is in the best interest of the majority.
I favor Obama at this time. But I do respect Ron Paul's tenacity.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2007, 09:46:32 PM » |
|
Paul also wants to cut the unnecessary departments and is probably the only candidate that cares about the federal reserve and the deficit.
I wish we could mix candidates. I honestly think if McCain were president we'd end up with success in Iraq, any other candidate I do not trust to stay there.
Obama would be my pick for the Democrats as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
