Kadath - here's a caveat. There will eventually come an election in which what you say is no longer true. I think that it is entirely possible for a candidates internet strategy, presence, and support to translate to real-world gains. The first time that happens, there will be a lot of surprise and confusion and armchair quarterbacking. My gut tells me that we aren't quite there yet. Ron Paul's candidacy (and Mike Gravel to a lesser degree) are an important part of that paradigm shift, but I don't think we're close enough for them to push us over the line.

And let's be honest here. Ron Paul came in fifth when two of the anticipated three strongest candidates didn't even show up. If McCain and Giuliani had made even a slight effort, Paul would have been in 7th. It's not time for a victory dance yet.

20 years from now YouTube will have importance in elections. Possibly.

It's funny how he's gone from like 250:1 to 15:1 in Vegas. He has the most internet support out of any GOP candidate. He's gets first or close to the top in every single debate poll despite a horrible household name recognition compared to other candidates. He's achieved far more than most candidates who have out raised him in donation by far. His message spreads like a virus and his positions (even if you disagree with them, they are unwavering) are backed up with 20+ years of congressional voting consistency.

Plus his internet support has gotten him all over the TV recently.

I'd say he has a better chance than most of the corporate whore candidates. Don't forget it's still very early in the presidential campaign and his support continues to go UP unlike many of the candidates.

The RP presidential dream is till very much alive.

Okay, samcol. I will give you better than Vegas odds. 50-1. Bet as much as you like. Everyone is witness. I'll take all your action. I'll take anyone's action.

ubertuber: I agree, it will matter one day. Not today, though, and those who think otherwise are fooling themselves (and possibly giving me money. Who wants to back Ron Paul? Taking all bets!)

Honestly, do you not like his message or do you not like the hope he has given to so many people to have a real candidate that will restore the constitution?

There are a ton of people who are really fed up with the status quo of what both parties are offering. The biggest road block for Ron Paul is getting his message out. If he can do this effectively he can win.

PS: Alright, I'll take you up on 50-1. PM your paypal address.

Oh, and he's currently tied with Romney at 8 to 1, even after Romney won the Iowa straw poll.

Ron Paul doesnt have a chance in hell. To think otherwise is sheer folly.

He's at 1-2% in the national polls (yeah yeah, I know that polls arent a true measure of his support because his supporters dont have landlines....but 98% of the tens of millions with landlines who will vote Repub dont support him).

And lines like this of his from the Iowa straw poll:

"The terrorist attack on Sept 11 could have been prevented if we had had a lot more respect for the Second Amendment."

are just plain nutty.

ROFL. I actually looked up the Second Amendment because that made so little sense.

I think he is for concealed carry on airplanes. The founding fathers said its a second amendment right to fly with a deadly weapon!

Hmm... Ron Paul wants to give terrorists guns.

The story goes they took over the planes with box cutters. This means that the people on the planes weren't going to do anything. They sat in their seats. Guns wouldn't have done shit, and that's a fact.

Stealing elections just never ends. Questionable Diebold voting machines and election auditors working for Romney's campain.

This shouldn't make only Ron Paul supporters upset, but everyone who cares about fairness in elections. Yes, I know it's only a straw poll, but it's a microcosm of the kind of shit that happens nationwide on election days.

So, 4500 votes were 'rerun', by Romney's own campaign member, which is almost exactly how many votes romney got.

I share your concern with the integrity of the election process, but no one stole from Ron Paul what he never had.

BTW, Paul voted against the bi-partisan Help America Vote Act of 2002 that requires States and localities to meet uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration standards and provides tougher enforcement mechanisms for the Federal Election Commission. It passed in the House by a vote of 357-48.

Last year, he also voted against the reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, one of the landmark bills of our lifetime that guarantees that citizens are not disenfranchised. It passed 390-33.

Way to go, Ron....your NO votes are really helping to ensure free and fair elections.....not. :thumbsup:

It's funny how you admit election irregularities then say it couldn't of effected a candidate in the poll....:rolleyes:

You don't get how bills work do you? Just like in the other thread where you listed all the proposed bills by the democrats as evidence of them 'not doing nothing', the names of the bills almost never do what the title implies.

So now instead of having occational localized voter fraud and problems, now we have nationalized voter fraud through diebold e-voting machines. Candidates no longer have to buy off hundreds of districts, they just have to buy off the centralized Diebold vote counting database. Don't forget last election the head of diebold said he is 'commited to delivering the election to Republicans.

I'm wondering how many congressman Diebold had to buy to get this massive E voting machine contract that is the Help America Vote Act. All this did was waste more money, resources, and wasted what little integrity was left in the voting system.

Sometimes it's nice to have a candidate that can't be bought. Tell me why Ron Paul should of voted for this again?

The Iowa straw poll was hardly a serious election.

I helped write a few bills. I think I know pretty well how the process works.

You might try actually reading the bill for once, as well as the many analysis of numerous non-partisan public interest groups before you make bogus claims about HAVA and what its certification standards may mean to Diebold.

I dont suggest any pierce of legislation is perfect....but these two are pretty damn good despite Ron "DR NO" Paul's interpretation.

Your right Diebold is the pinnacle of integrity and honesty in voting. If you actually believe that I've got some land on the moon I'm selling.

Diebold is a fucking joke.

Where did I suggest Diebold is the pinnacle of integrity and honesty? I simply asked you to read HAVA to see how it might help (by requiring paper trails, voting machine testing and certification, provisional voting, etc)

So are RP's votes on bills to help ensure free and fair elections.

Sorry I misread your post.

Here's a link that came up on Digg today:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...0_election.php

It's an interesting piece about whether the web really matters in elections yet. The text is too long to post here, but it's worth a read.

The crux of it is that the net would suggest that we're headed for Obama v. Paul. Pauls say it's Clinton v. Giuliani. I think the latter is more likely.

The web has become an increasingly important (and inexpensive) way for a candidate to get his/her message out, but it has a long way to go before it becomes a reliable means of measuring voter sentiment.

The article does debunk the claim of the RP camp that traditional polls drastically undercount his real level of national support.

And more terrifying.

So you're saying that he should have voted "Yes" simply because the bill was going to pass anyway? I don't understand this train of thought one bit.

I'm okay with Clinton but Guiliani? What idiot would vote for him (Or is he still riding the whole "9/11" thing)?

If you read my posts, nowhere did I suggest he should vote for a bill because it would pass anyway.

I said his supporters shouldnt complain about election problems when he voted against a bill like HAVA that addressed those problems (by requiring paper trails, voting machine testing and certification, provisional voting.

I think anyone seriously considering RP should be asking him to explain some of his NO votes beyond what is often his false premise of constitutionality (ie what is unconstitutional about HAVA and Voting Rights Act?)

I was under the impression that Ron Paul voted against HAVA because it was unnecessarily complicated and open to abuse, as well as having concerns about the reliability and security of the electronic diebold voting boxes. (which have been under a lot of criticism since they started making them in 1991). The act was originally intended to replace paper voting completely but was amended to require paper trails, machine testing, increased monitoring, more complex voter registration, etc. The act defeats its own purpose, simply creating a voting system more complicated and less secure than the existing system. all of which increased costs and government size; one of Paul's main objections in government.

We have a different understanding of the original intent of HAVA.

My understanding from reading the bill was that the intent was to deal with inequities in the voting systems around the country and to attempt to provider all voters with a greater level of assurance that their vote will count...by providing for provisional voting, centralized state voter databases to ensure more accuracy in voter registration records, voluntary standardization of voter machine testing and the means for voters to verify votes they cast on machines, among other provisions

It may be more costly for the states, but certainly not more open to abuse or less secure than before for the voters.....unless you want every state in every election to go back to paper ballots and number 2 pencils.

But thanks for explaining Paul's vote on the bill. I do find it odd that you suggest Paul voted against HAVA because of concerns about the reliability and security of the electronic voting machines (like diebold) when before HAVA there was no requirement to have these machines tested and certifiied or provide a backup paper trail.

If you're looking to me as the purveyor of Ron Paul's inner thoughts, I will suggest that you look elsewhere.

Before HAVA the use of electronic voting machines was remarkably less pronounced. While not directly mandating that Electronic Voting Machines were to be used, the versatility that a software medium provides along with the 850 million dollars given to replace obsolete machines effectively ends with the same result.

Electronic voting machine vulnerabilities are well documented, and original HAVA standards (and perhaps even amended HAVA standards) were too lenient.
And if a electronic voting machine was compromised, a backup paper trail created by the same machine would be just as suspect as the machine itself.

I believe with much more stringent requirements on the security and reliability of electronic voting machines they could be a fine alternative to paper voting but at that point it may not even be feasible to use. I'm not saying that we should return to a punchcard system, as it has shown itself flawed, but there are better alternatives such as optical scan voting systems. As it looks to me, HAVA strongly encouraged the introduction of a system that was not reliable or secure enough to be trusted in an election.

I do believe that Ron Paul voted against the act because he thought it was an unnecessary expansion of government. I also believe that he was aware of its other flaws but I can't back that up with any solid evidence.

I just joined the Ron paul Meetup group in my area and we distributed 4000 flyers at a large event to get the word out. We are also working on getting a time slot on the local college radio and public access tv station as we have people in the group who are savvy in the areas of radio and video production. any other suggestions on publicity are greatly appreciated. We would love to know about others success in promotion of Dr. Paul. Results are key!!!!

congrats dutchtech :)

Personally, I'd suggest anything that would bring the ron paul message to older, less internet-savvy folk. perhaps using your video production resources to use by putting together a DVD and canvassing door to door in rural areas?

edit: also, local cable ads are cheaper than you might think.

http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/other/adbusters.html

has some pretty good suggestions on how to produce on a budget

RP would never get my vote, but I will make a suggestion.

Check to see if RP is even on the ballot in your state. The last I heard, he was only on the ballot in a handful of states and the process is not as easy as you may think.

If he is not on the ballot, you need to start a petition drive and you must use pre-approved petition forms (you cant just write one yourself)....and get at least twice as many signatures (from registered voters only) than is required because many may not be accepted. And start ASAP, because state ballot deadlines are approaching.

I am not a RP supporter but I like to see more people get involved in the process, particularly those who are willing to fight for an underdog... so I wish you well.

Thanks for the suggestions
 

Skier and Dux thanks for the valuable input. I will bring it to the table at our next meeting. i hadn't thought of local cable or door to door DVD. great ideas and the ballot qualification is super important. Thanks again.

Woot, Ron Paul's $5 million haul is enough that he's getting some time on Google News, ABC, etc. I really think that he has a shot now.

Ron Paul is the only one out of all the candidates who is actually honest.

Every other candidate is just telling people what they want to hear, depending on the group they are talking to. Not an ounce of honesty in any of them.

I mean really.. I just turned 29... and I'd like to see a good president take office for the first time in my entire lifetime, but it doesn't look like its going to happen this round, unless Dr Paul works a miracle.

Kucinich is honest.

It takes more than honesty to be a good president.

Every time I see this thread title, my brain says "RuPaul??"



carry on.....:D

It's funny how many people try to put him down and it's not because they neccissarly disagree with his views more than other republicans, rather it's as if they just want to squelch a grassroots candidate for some reason. I don't get it.

Five million and straw poll results like this

That's front runner material.

I would suggest that it has nothing to do with RP being a grass roots candidate. Many disagree with his positions on numerous issues other than Iraq.

They disagree with his votes in Congress over the past 10+ years and his extremist view on the limited "constitutional" role of government (most notably in economic, energy environmental, health policies).

Five million $$$ is impressive, but his single digit, 1-3%, standing in polls, (even with their undercount of RP suporters w/o landlines) is far more reflective of his national standing than any collection of so-called straw polls.

A front runner......nah.

At best, he may be a spoiler in NH and Iowa before he fades away.

That's awfully rude of you to just assume that those who do not support Mr. Paul do so simply to squelch him.

I do not like Mr. Paul for the following reasons:

1. Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS and make the government really, really small. This strikes me as idiotic. So long, medicare and medicaid. Federally-funded research? Nope. Government subsidized stuff for poor people? Too bad. RP is of the "starve the beast" mentality and that is a very, very silly idea. We give government power so it can act on our behalf, and some people require that help. It's been shown that we need to pump $10 billion into science or China is going to overtake the US in science shortly. How the hell are we going to do that with no income tax? Can you name a single developed nation with no income tax?
There's a reason for that. What we need to do is close the loopholes in the tax code, so the rich get taxed the same amount as the middle class. Warren Buffet said that while his secretary pays 30% tax, he pays about 3%. That's what we need to fix.

2. Ron Paul opposes humanitarian aid in places like Darfour. Come on, there's genocide and we're not going to do anything about it? Genocide = bad.

3. He wants to abolish the Fed and move back to the Gold Standard. Most economists will tell you that this is a Very Bad Thing, because the gold standard was stagnating the economy before.

4. Paul is extremely anti-abortion. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, has tried to introduce legislation that would allow states to ban it, etc. For someone who doesn't want government to interfere with people's lives, he has suddenly decided that his definition of when life begins must be impressed upon the people.

5. Paul introduced legislation that would, in effect, allow religious displays on government property, a HUGE MISTAKE imo, as there is supposed to be separation between church and state. Ron Paul also claimed that this separation was not written in the constitution and does not support it, claiming a "war on religion" by the left. As a minority religion this honestly scares the crap out of me. It is a dangerous notion that leads to intolerance. There never has been a war on religion; it is a made-up notion by the right. Those poor Christians. How tough it must be to be the majority.

6. Ron Paul does not want to support funding for stem-cell research. Maybe this goes with #1 but it's a big deal to me; look at places like China which fund research heavily -- many US soldiers who get paralyzed or wounded in battle go to China to have stem cell operations. That's not what I feel is best for our country.


Basically, when you look at him, he just looks like another one of the crazies EXCEPT when it comes to the war and national security. I give Ron Paul a big "no thank you." There is no way I can support this man.


Secondly, I feel like your suggestion is backwards. You say people against him want to squelch a grassroots movement, but I think people who support him are for the most part, just jumping on the grassroots bandwagon. I remain unimpressed with this candidate.

Most economists only know what they learn in school. The reality is that the gold standard helped us to avoid artificial inflation, which only makes it seem as if it stagnates the economy. If we're the only country in the world to have a gold standard, we go up and gold goes up, together. So long as we're the only ones with gold standard, we won't stagnate that much.

Everything else you said, though, is absolutely right.

I think many of your dislikes of him come from a misunderstanding of the way the constitution works, specifically how the USA is supposed to be a federation of states. The federal government has specific powers that they are allowed to handle and nothing more. Medicare, medicaid, welfare, and subsidizing are not part of their powers. These shouldn't even be discussed at a federal level because the feds do not have the power to do so.

These are state issues according to the constitution and with RP being a strict constitutionalist he doesn't support these things federally. Now, this doesn't mean your own individual state can't enact these programs. This helps keep government balanced and small, as well it allows variety for certain parts of the country to have more right wing policies or left wing polices instead of everyone being forced to do the same thing federally.

Therefore there is no need for the behemoth IRS code since the money won't be needed for many unconstitutional federal programs.

Again, he opposes federal money to help Darfur. He's not saying genocide is good or that you can't help out through charities.

Abolishing the fed abruptly could be very bad, it must be phased out. The fed prints money out of nothing which deflates the value of the dollar and somehow we've been sold that this is healthy economics. It's called fractional reserve banking.

His definition comes from delievering thousands of babies. RP was very liable to the health of the unborn fetus. Someone who murders a pregnant women faces double murder charges. If the fetus is a person in the above instances, how is it not during an abortion?

I don't know what legislation you're talking about but I'm guessing it was the ten commandments in courts or something. Try reading the constitution and find this 'seperation of church and state' clause. It's not there. You're probably thinking of the 'freedom of religion' clause.

It's not a federal issue. The federal government doesn't have the authority.

All those reasons above might explain why RP has been mired at 1-4% in the polls.

Wow...he even dropped two points (from 4% to 2%) in three weeks in the latest Gallup poll. (link)

No, those reasons explain all the success he's had. No one would have any reason to support him if he didn't have these views. He's started at the bottom and has acheived quite a lot. He's not like the other candidates who are household names and started out as front runners. He has been dominating everyone in the straw polls.

And dropping 2% is within the +-5 margin of error I'm guessing.

Which means he could have -3%.

The only thing that the straw polls demonstrate is that, a year before the election, a couple hundred RP supporters in those states who are active in the internet community are more motivated to participate than the supporters of other candidates.

His debate performances could help him with more mainstream (non-internet) voters when he talks about the war and privacy rights, but then he goes off on these wacky tangets, like how 9-11 could have been prevented if we placed greater value in Second Amendment rights.

Ron Paul is not a top tier candidate. Even Huckabee, who had no name recognition to start, is showing greater potential in the long run.

What the Repubs should fear most is that RP bolts for an independent candicacy and the "Nader" effect kicks in like it did for Dems in 2000.

He's the only republican with a different view. As republican candidates go, do you support him over the other candidates? Most of the other ones just taking Bush's barking orders.

9/11 would of been a lot less severe if the people we trust to fly thousands of people a year safely had a gun. Maybe it would of been 4 crashed planes if the pilot had a gun, instead of 3/4 planes hitting their target. Who knows. Police carry guns, why not a pilot?

I'm not an idiot. I know what Ron Paul's political views are. What I am saying is that I disagree with these positions. I disagree with abolishing the IRS and the Fed, I disagree with the ludicrous idea that there should not be a separation between church and state, and most of all I disagree with the notions that the Federal government should get smaller so state governments get bigger. This is not the European Union. We are ONE country. Contrary to RP's beliefs, there ARE some things that are better managed at the federal level. We don't need a microgovernment. Our first concern is to reduce the executive branch's power that the citizenry allowed to grow.

The other GOP candidates are complete and total idiots of a magnitude only superseded by our current president, so to say RP is the best GOP candidate is like saying that quick and painless is the best way to die, as opposed to being slowly eaten by a shark or tortured.

As for firearms on planes: do you know what happens when a firearm is used on a plane? I mean being a pro gun person is one thing, but opening fire on a plane is a recipe for 200+ deaths in a horrific plane crash. I would also hope you not bring a gun to an oil refinery or into a space station.

So, the cabin loses pressure and passengers have to use masks. That's a lot better then 3/4 planes hitting their targets that killed thousands of people on 9/11. If we trust pilots to fly 200 people a day, I think we can trust them with guns to stop hijackers.

I'm assuming you have no problem with police officers being armed, and their responsibility is far less then pilots.

That's not what happens.
http://www.askcaptainlim.com/asgunshots.htm
They weren't commercial planes. You don't need to give the official story to me. We're 9/11 buddies, along with fatsom and pai mei and others.
I don't mind them being armed. It's unfortunately necessary.

Ya we agree on 9/11, but the link you sent still implies the outcome a hijacked airplane crashing into a building would be far greater than someone opening fire in an airplane.

I'm kinda confused about the link you sent me. It seems to support my position and Ron Pauls's positon of arming pilots.

Pilots, not passengers. Pilots and people who know not to shoot at a certain place because they'll hit the lines that run to the hydraulics would be more appropriate than joe schmo with a pistol. A crashing plane is a crashing plane.

an episode of mythbusters blew all these theories away. Massive decompression isn't going to happen from a bullet hole in a window nor will a little hydraulic leak cause an explosion or bring a plane down out of the sky.

Planes need to steer. Planes need hydraulics to steer. If the hydraulics go out, the plane cannot steer.

Planes need to communicate. Planes need radios to communicate. If the radio goes out, the plane cannot communicate.

Planes need to know where they are. Planes need avionics to know where they are. If the avionics are damaged, then they won't know where they are.

I don't need a bald guy with a mustache and an annoying ginger to tell me that.

Actually, Christopher Walken begs to differ:
http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=23467



Hey, here's a good idea to stop plane hijackers. LOCK THE DOOR TO THE COCKPIT. Oh wait, they already do that? Oh yeah. They do.

I didn't say you were an idiot. However, your personal beliefs do not change the FACT that RP's beliefs aren't even his personal beliefs, they are the law under the constitution. Powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the constitution, or pohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The States really were intended to be seperate countries bound only by a common monetary system, national defense, full faith and credit given to the other states, individual rights, and representation in the Union.

You're entitled to your view, but large centralized government is in stark contradiction to the Constitution.

separate countries? wtf!

Good thing Ron Paul didnt said that or he would probably lose most of the 1-3% support he has in the polls.

Or maybe he did and I missed it.

hydraulics makes steering EASIER, much like powersteering in a car. If the hydraulics go out, there are still the manual controls. more difficult, but still works.

The plane most certainly can communicate. Transponder codes, directional beacon signals, and tower light gun signals. This is how I, as an air traffic controller, would communicate with airplanes that had lost radio communications.

If a pilot doesn't know how to use directional beacons and VFR flight rules, he has no business flying an airplane.

how about an arrogant, longhaired, former us marine air traffic controller?

except for having a single denomination for currency, what do the feds manage better than anyone else?

excuse me, the 'citizenry' is not at fault here. This is the direct result of legislative refusing to back the executive down.

Nice sequencing on these two.

Isnt air traffic control a function of the FAA?

Yes, and they did a great job on 9/11, whereas a private FAA might of allowed the pilot to carry firearms to stop hijackers.

Blackwater is "private"...and it's working out great as a surrogate for "in-house", State Dept., secuirty, isn't it?

Enron was "private"...so was Worldcom....and Citicorp is "private", with an 80 plus year history of corruption:

Fast forward 70 years...to National City Bank's sucessor....Citicorp:
....Isn't it possible, that the solution that is needed is the mirror opposite of what you and Ron Paul advocate....??? Your goals would leave the entire "money party"....a corrupt selfish, bi-partisan monolith that zealously keeps the influence and the holdings of the wealthiest ten percent, in their hands...<h2>.....IN PLACE....but taxed less...and with the window dressing that now passes for government regulation and oversight of their agenda and activities....reduced even further......</h2>

I posted a reply to comments of Cynthetique, over on the Hillayr/Healthcare thread.... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=237 ... it shows via statistical comparisons from the CIA factbook, that the status quo of wealth distribution in the US today, results in US distribution...too many in poverty, too much consumption by the richest ten percent, vs. the poorest.....and a Gini co-efficient nearly twice that of Denmark's....<h3>....makes the US economic conditions seem much closer to those in Mexico, than those in Denmark...or in France.....</h3>

Does quality of life of the average American mean anything to Paul or his supporters? All you will do, if you enjoy any success...is consolidate even more power and wealth into the hands of those who already hold too much of both.....and you seem eager to do their bidding......

Host, what is the difference between a government run program, and a corporation who operates under authority of the government?

Not much. The actions of the FBI and CIA really aren't any different than that of Blackwater. The key element they have in common though is the government mandates their existence.

To say Blackwater is a 'private' company is a huge stretch. Besides, national defense is one element that is allowed (for sake of argument ill loosely call the iraq invasion 'defense') under the constitution, so for us to be using mercs is something I'm against.

I really don't know how ending government programs and reducing taxes somehow would consolidate power to the wealthy. Where is the wealth already and where is the trend going, more government or less government? Doesn't it seem the more taxes and government we allow the more powerful the corporations become?

You're talking about a doctor who gave free care to people who could not afford it. To imply he doesn't care about the quality of life of an average American is ludicrous.

yes it is, and having seen it close up from the inside helped me decide to get the hell out of it.

Ever heard of the supremacy clause? Laws enacted in congress are the laws of the land.

Tennessee Valley Authority. National Laboratories. Interstate Highway System. Flu Vaccine Distribution (which is often FREE to those who cannot pay). Embassies which protect Americans who travel. Federal Student Loans. National Science Foundation.

Your argument is ridiculous. But I shouldn't expect a logical conclusion from someone who denies the existence of climate change despite the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists.

Part of me worries what would happen in 20,30, 40 years if states had to do these programs themselves. I would be afraid that a few states would become very successful and poor states would fail. The rich people would move to California, Nevada, Arizona taking all their money and tax base with them. We are all Americans and we should be able to work together.

On the other hand, Ron Paul was on PBS yesterday giving on of his best interviews yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA7jHaowNME#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWdz1pnAFUA#

I don't think he will be able to ax everything and create chaos, but we need to be put back on a sustainable path. 9 Trillion in debt, when we probably would be at 1-2 trillion if B. Clinton's policies were still in place is just one issue.

ah yes, theTVA. A socialist political corporation to provide cheap electricity at the cost of free market enterprise that would create jobs and keep electrical power efficient. All at the cost of taxpayers nationwide, of which the residents who do not reside within the TVA region receive zero benefit. To also re-iterate the ungodly claim that the commerce clause and the war powers act constitute the power of the federal government to have regulatory powers over streams and rivers.

A whole government owned set of labs, built for the development of technology that would provide a benefit to an evergrowing federal government in total contrast to the designs of the constitution which is supposed to limit a central governments growth and power. Said labs MAY provide benefits to the populace, provided the government can make extra revenue off of its developments by selling to the citizenry, whos taxes paid for the projects in the first place.

Are you serious? Have you driven on these highways lately? when traffic STOPS DEAD on these interstates and there is no accident causing it, it's not run very well.

I have NEVER seen a distribution site offer FREE vaccines for influenza. NEVER.

which would explain why americans all over the world are kidnapped, raped, or killed all the time in these foreign countries. good job.

whose values fluctuate according to the party in power, cause major debts to new graduates who usually do not pay them back, and have a very limited group of people who actually qualify for them. woohoo, love paying for that one.

Great, another beauracratic filled group who take billions of our dollars and dole millions out to 'special groups' for hundreds of 'studies' that provide the most obvious results like 'teenage boys hornier than most other men of older ages'. :thumbsup:

But a hell of a lot more logical than yours is.

who denies the existance of climate change? the climate ALWAYS changes. It's called 'cyclical' for a friggin reason. That's because the earth moves, winds change, the sun does wierd things every now and then, and water levels rise and fall with the position of the moon but I see that doesn't change the wildly hysterical notions that the planet is going to die because a handful of chicken littles can't conceive of the notion of 'change'. Keep up the loony left sky is falling claims though, I get a kick out of them.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust the states to keep the interstates in order. Places like Alabama would probably just let the roads rot. And I damn well wouldn't trust a company to do the flu shots, they would charge too much. The TVA makes cheaper electricity than any power company; in fact the TVA was created because no company would give that region power. Without national labs, our country will be doomed to fall behind China in technology. Without the Federal Government running Embassies, there is no safe haven for Americans around the world. Your retorts are sophomoric and display a true lack of understanding.

Oh yes, the "loony left" claims that climate change is bad. And by loony left, you of course mean the large majority of climatologists, meteorologists, and geologists who all have Ph.D's in this stuff and study it THEIR WHOLE LIVES. Yes, you know better than all of them! This is the problem with America today. Here's the new rule: IF YOU ARE NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST, JUST SHUT UP ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW IT WORKS.
"Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."
Signed by:
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias, Brazil
Académie des Sciences, France
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Leopoldina, Germany
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Royal Society, United Kingdom
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/joi...2019-statement

You display the same fundamentalist attitude of the Bush Administration that you are correct no matter what, that things are black or white, and that you understand what is best, rather than people who study these things their whole lives. You show far too much faith in the "invisible hand," but the invisible hand leads to things like Enron, and your answer to everything is "let the states handle it." Here's a question to ponder: how do we pay off our national debt if we do not collect taxes? A large portion of the national debt is owed to China. If we stop collecting taxes, they are bound to come knocking demanding their money. What then?

My guess is that if Alabama let things rot, that would be Alabamas fault and people could just MOVE, right? the way it should be.

competition keeps prices DOWN.

and if we'd let it be, we'd have one more huge national forest instead of the bottoms that they are now.

yeah, im dumber than a box of rocks. :thumbsup:

They are a bunch of special interest groups with an agenda, NOT a bunch of experts who know any better than I do.

That's quite a leap in assumptions and conjectures. How did you manage that?

try reducing spending instead of raising taxes. Aren't we told, as individuals and families, that we shouldn't live beyond our own means and that if we overextend ourselves, we should stop spending so much? Why can't that work for the government as well? oh yeah, I forgot. You MUST have your liberal socialist freeloading programs to help everyone that isn't rich.

dk...do you think private industry would regulate their environmental practices better than the EPA?
I kinda like the results of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act.

or the securities industry regulate itself better than the SEC?
I'm not a big fan of insider trading.

or the food industry regulate itself better than the Dept of Ag?
I like the know my beef has been inspected for mad cow

I kinda like the US Patent Office and the knowledge that intellectual property is protected....And the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the knowledge that dangerous toys will be recalled.

None of these agencies are perfect, but do you really believe industry can be trusted to regulate itself?

Which special interests groups are represented on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

The IPCC assessments are based on peer-reviewed scientific and technical literature. The IPCC reports are written by teams of authors from all over the world who are recognized experts in their field. They represent relevant disciplines as well as differing scientific perspectives. This global coverage of expertise, the interdisciplinary nature of the IPCC team, and the transparency of the process, constitute the Panel's strongest assets.

"The IPCC's doors are open to every expert who is qualified and willing to make a contribution as author or reviewer" says Renate Christ. "This voluntary network of thousands of scientists and experts is what makes the IPCC truly unique."

The number of experts involved in the IPCC process has expanded considerably since the Panel was created in 1988. The procedures governing the writing and approval process have also become increasingly rigorous and transparent. This has been the key to enabling the IPCC to connect the very different cultures and requirements of the scientific and political worlds.

...the stats I've <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2324989&postcount=237">posted</a> in the Hillary Healthcare thread, comparing Denmark and France to the UK, USA, and Mexico, are an indictment of your politics, because they show what happens when the wealthiest make the rules.... 17 percent poverty in the UK, vs. 6 percent in France....40 percent in Mexico, close to 15 percent in the US. In Denmark...there are no protesting factions that the CIA Factbook could display....you offer a prescription for future civil unrest... GINI above 45 in the US and Mexico, vs. mid twenties in Denmark and in France.... your orthodoxy screws the common man, and opens the door for the richest to take it all....

A government by the people and sympathetic to the concerns of the overwhelming majority...(and eliminating progressive income tax and inheritance taxes, and campaigning for deregulation of the monopolistic and opportunistic and politically controlling activities of the welathiest is advocated or will result from Paul's policies)... is the opposite of what you, Ron Paul, and his supporters advocate. You will unwittingly create the impetus for....only if we're fortune enough to have it evolve peacefully....the rise of a reactionary figure very similar to HUGO CHAVEZ !

dksuddeth, I'm only going to contest a small portion of the opinions in your post. If you post supporting information for your opinions, I'll be happy to read it and respond.... I am struck by my perceived consequences if your politics. If your views were to prevail in the US, the rich would be richer, and large areas of the US, where it is unprofitable or unreasonable due to risk vs. return considerations...to distribute electric power to remote, difficult to access, or sparsely populated areas....millions would still be living without it.....

In Ron Paul's congressional district:

[/quote]

Except when companies get together and fix the prices. Once again, you display too much faith in the "invisible hand."

If anyone in particular is in the know here - what does RP think regarding bailouts of large companies by the government? Is he a "save the lobbyist", or a "let the chips fall where they may and let companies pay for their mistakes" kind of guy?

Thanks!

In truth, a lot of Ron Paul's ideas may not be workable in practice. But he doesn't have a chance in hell of enacting a fraction of his ideas (at least in their current form) even if he is, by some miracle, elected president.

The biggest thing that appeals to me, is that he may help shift the governments focus. Right now all the other candidates are arguing over the best way to expand governments power and entitlement programs. Paul would turn the debate in Washington in the direction I feel we most need... towards fixing and trimming the federal government.

Unfortunately, he doesn't stand a chance. He is getting added exposure which is refreshing, but in the end he will be 'out' by spring. If the democrats didn't have a woman, and a black man running for the office at the same time, he might be able to swing alot more 2 party votes.

<h3>Can you not see...that for the past 60 years....the wealthiest (...and Ron Paul can't or won't change this by reducing government....) have used the republicans they've sponsored and financed....to make government work just fine.....to benefit them and their wealth transfer goals? The wealth consolidation trends displayed below, confirm my statements!</h3>


THis is an appeal to you to consider the fact that Ron Paul will serve to accelerate the consolidation of the small portion of wealth in the US that the richest do not already own....into their hands, and you work against your best interests if you support his candidacy. "Big government" is not the problem....the problem is government controlled by the few, with a decidedly non-populist agenda. Why is government in some European countries able to operate in the best interests of the majority, but not in the US? <h3>Someday, when your grandchildren ask why the wealth in the US is so unequally divided, you can say that you helped make the disparity even more drastic...that your politics helped to accelerate the demise of what remained of a once thriving middle class. The beginning of the end of the growth of the US middle class began with this, in 1946....Ron Paul offers no solutions to any of what follows:</h3>






<h3>...and 35 years later.... the top 5 percent own 58.9 percent of everything, vs. the top 4 percent owing 37 percent of US wealth in 1969....</h3>


~Bush has stacked the National Labor Relations BOard with anti union/anti worker POS appointees such as...KIrsanow. Instead of protecting workers rights, the agenda is to eliminate them:



Bush bypassed senate confirmation with three NLRB appointments, as he stacks the deck against workers rights on a mediation board existing to protect them:
(The NLRB was manned by statuatory five members when Bush took office....)
The choice you are facing is a simple one.....you can either vote for candidates committed to taxing back from the rich...what they have paid lobbyist and bribes to take from the rest of us for the past sixty years....remove their stranglehold on the government and force government to work for the rest of us...as it has in France, Denmark, Sweden, and to some extent....in Canada.....or you can back Ron Paul or republicans committed to "smaller government"....a euphemism for looking the other way while the wealthiest complete their union/middle class busting agenda...it's that simple. Why do the wealthiest ten pecent.....even in Canada.....own only thirty percent of total national assets....but more than 70 percent in the US?

Is it because you've allowed the weakthy to divide you...to appeal to your ego and individualism.....because....someday.....you'll be wealthy and you won't want to be heavily taxed.... Someday....the wealthiest will own 90 percent of total US wealth, there will be no unionized employees....and your grandchildren will be serfs...because you bought the BS of conservatives and libertarian-constitutionalists. The weakthy chucjke softly to themselves as the listen to you yearn for a Neil Boortz described, libertarian "utopia". It's bullshit. Government and tazation are there for a populist wave to take control of and reverse this decline. The French and the Swedes don't permit their rich to own their government.....why do you want to give it away? FEMA functioned during the '90's...only the management was changed....Ron Paul offers nothing to the overwhelming majority in the US.....the 90 percent who own less than thirty percent of all US wealth......

Host, can you comment on Ron Paul's specific policies? To characterize him simply as Reaganesque is kind of blunt and well...inaccurate. In particular I'm curious to know your thoughts on his position viz the Fed, gold standard, etc.

Host, I like how you equate Ron Paul to the Republican party. When you know he's a libertarian and his entire party has practically disowned him. Tom Delay even gerrymanderded his district to try and let a Democrat win against him.

Ever notice how as our government has gotten bigger the wealth consolidation has gotten worse not better? Not the other way around....:shakehead:

And once again I'm not voting for your failed party like you said to do in 04,06, and now 08. They are just as bad as the other Republicans thank you very much.

Your articles have nothing to do with Ron Paul and are a failed attmept at smearing him.

Here's the thing though. Ron Paul believes in deregulation of pretty much everything. Maybe he has faith that big businesses will be good and not abuse this deregulation but I do not believe it for one second. He wants to basically eliminate the federal government. Guess what? Now we've got the EU only with 50 states. Some states will just stop repairing their roads with no federal funds. Some states' education systems will go to shambles (worse than they are now). Flu shots? Some states might not offer them because there are not federal subsidies. Most research done for the US is funded by the government -- biomedical, electronic, chemical -- universities would be unable to conduct research, and that is BAD -- really bad. Imagine if we hadn't invented the Nuke during WWII because research was unfunded -- if we hadn't split the atom, or hadn't researched DNA.

You can't eliminate the federal government, and this is exactly what RP wants to do. It's insane and will surely destroy everything this country is. That is why I do not support Ron Paul, and frankly if anyone looks over his positions and still supports him, I think they're missing a few screws. He's just a stupid internet fad.

I agree.

Paul is the only candidate even mentioning the devaluation of the dollar.

Hes the only one that is even acknowledging the out of control spending, and borrowing from the fed, which drives inflation. The inflation tax hits the poor hardest of all. His policies are much more sound that your modern republican who wants to slash taxes for political gain, while spending even more and borrowing a whole lot more, all the while refusing to raise minimum wage... meanwhile the dollar continues to deflate.

Kuchinch has discussed the dollar several times, and he's polling around the same as Paul. But hey, he doesn't have fanatical supporters or an internet presence. Of course, as far as we know the internet means jack.

$5 million cash on hand. Why can't other candidates get this kind of rabid support if their message is so great? Maybe it's the message itself Will.

Ron Paul didn't go looking to the internet for supporters, the internet found him. No other candidates are achieving this kind of spontaneous support.

Interestingly about 3 weeks ago Ron Paul signs showed up in at least my part of the state.

They are the only political signs out or about at this time and they are on about every street corner, including hand made ones over a couple of viaducts.

His supporters understand viral marketing better. His tiny baseline in the beginning was simply better at running a campaign. He's been able to take advantage of the first real eCampaign.It's got less to do with his message, which is actually quite mad, and more to do with advertising buzz stances, like those on the Fed and net neutrality. As DC and now host have pointed out, and I even chimed in a bit, his policies are too libertarian to make the country better. He's a fanatical libertarian.

As for support, Hillary will win the 2008 election against Googliani. It's not what most people want (I'd be a bit happier with Obama, and much happier with Kucinich, obviously), but it's the reality.

Kucinich couldn't even handle being a major. Do you WANT to bankrupt the US?

We're already bankrupt. We've been that way for a while. That doesn't stop the conservatives from spending billions, of course.

NEWS FLASH: RON PAUL IS NOT FOR ELIMINATING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The federal government has certain powers, all Ron Paul says is maybe they should only do what they have the power to do. I guess that's extreme radicalism nowadays. Maybe I'm with Al Qaida or should be given meds I dunno...:rolleyes:

The Federal Government has the authority to create postal roads. Since you apparently have never read it, or maybe think we should just abolish it, here's a section from the constitution that says what the Congress CAN do.

I think you're missing a few screws for your continued supporter of candidates who cannot follow these simple instructions. If they can't/won't follow these simple instructions, what makes you think they will follow any other rule of law or procedures?

It's been my experience, and it isn't in reference to anyone here in particular, that there are many ron paul supporters who have very little awareness about what the man is actually about. Generally it's a matter of, "Oh snap, he wants to abolish the income tax? Sign me up," or, "Wait. A republican who believes in fiscal responsibility? Ha! What a novelty- he has my vote."

They're usually a little dumbstruck when it comes up that he wants to abolish the fcc. They generally think its a good idea initially, because, you know, the fcc won't let you say "fuck" on network television. Then when you tell them that the fcc is also largely responsible for the fact that you can get only one station on your radio per frequency or the fact that your toaster doesn't intefere with your cell phone reception you kind of get a sideways look, and then the conversation ends. And that about sums up the lot of them for me.

Quoted for truth. This is an excellent summation.

Actually, his stance on Net Neutrality probably hurts more than helps when it comes to the internet/tech savvy crowd. His stance is, or course, opposed to federal regulation on the issue, which is the complete opposite stance from the majority of the internet crowd from which he has so much support. He's lost more than a few followers on this issue, I would bet. I'm of the opinion, that status quo has worked so far, and the amount of outrage over the suggestion of a tiered internet from ATT has pushed the idea out of the realm of possibility (for now).

I dont think thats the case at all...

The FCC is a perfect example of a bureaucracy that has fallen prey to regulatory capture... monopolistic telcos and the FCC are great buddies working together for their own benefit, to the detriment of the free market and the country as a whole. As a professional in the IT industry, I am onboard for FCC abolition.


Here's a nice article on the issue: http://www.news.com/2010-1028-5226979.html

So you doubt my ability to relay my experiences?

So are the USDA and the US Forest Service and the FDA. That doesn't mean that they should be abolished, it means that they need to be purged. I realize that the fcc isn't perfect, and i'd prefer to see it retooled, but even for all its flaws, it does do a useful thing or two.

In the 1930's...the reaction to extreme wealth concentration made sense...elect leadership that would use government as the wealthy elite had....to work for it's interests...but this time....to make government work in the interests of the people. Now we have a movement championed by the followers of Ron Paul....to make a minimalist government that ends progressive taxation and aggressive collection....allowing the wealthiest to keep what they've already taken when they controlled the government....the large portion of all existing assets....<h3>Way to go...Ron Paul supporters....way to go.....</h3>

ONE mo' TIME....THE WEALTHIEST ARE RAPING YOU OF YOUR FAIR SHARE OF THE PIE....ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1946....you have been manipulated into believing that "government doesn't work"...it works fine for Mr. Bush's wealthy patrons....their agenda of "change" is what gave them huge tax cuts and increased your US Treasury debt from $5.65 trillion in 2001 to $9 trillion, now.

<h3>Whether Ron Paul is a republican, a consitutionalist, or a libertarian is irrelevant.</h3> He is not committed to progressive taxation with high top tax rates on the highest incomes, and he is not a strong advocate for union organizing or enforcement of labor laws and OSHA, or for innovative new measures to use government to reverse the concentration of wealth in so few hands.

Ron Paul will receive few votes because he does not address the inequality of wealth distribution in the US. John Edwards does address and offer tepid solutions to the problem. The problem is at a critical stage, yet no one wants to talk about it. Will we wait until it's effects trigger the rise of a US "Hugo Chavez"....or will we advocate for a populist, pro-union, pro consumer pro middle class, political agenda?

We have the superior numbers..(why do you think the DOJ concentrated on suppressing the vote ?)..we can vote in a leadership that will act in our interests....your reaction to the following, is to vote for Ron Paul....a candidate who wants smaller government...wants to abolish tha IRS and the progressive income tax that featured a top tax rate, when Reagan took office in 1981....of 70 percent on only the highest incomes. That tax rate was "reformed", and it led to the following disparity. Ron Paul and you want even more of it....

...the last time that the wealthiest were on the verge of owning too great a portion of total US wealth....this happened:

<h3>I SHOWED YOU IN MY LAST POST, THAT BUSH STACKED THE NLRB WITH ANTI LABOR FLUNKIES, USING SENATE RECESS APPOINTMENTS. BUSH'S PATRONS KNOW GOVERNMENT IS EFFECTIVE...SO THEY SABOTAGED THE MAKEUP OF THE NLRB....</h3>

Government can function...it can provide good programs....the coming wave of mortgage foreclosures justifies the need for programs like this. Study how and why it is so successful.....duplicate it....Ron Paul and his supporters are not interested:
If he had not been assassinated in 1935, the man with this platform was planning to run for president in 1936. Your great grandfather's era, understandably fostered the rise of sentiments like this:
<h3>The political platform of 1935 outlined above, was a rational reaction to the consolidation of wealth by the few, to the hardship of the many. It is extreme by today's standards....but it was understandable, given the conditions at the time..</h3>

<h2>Your support of candidate Paul...isn't...</h2>

<h3>Your reaction to the information displayed in this post's first quote box</h3>....backing a candidate such as Ron Paul....a man committed to making government irrelevant in the face of the only "real" political struggle...the one between the controlling elite vs. the rest of us...<h3>is an irrational one.</h3> You only have to study the equitable wealth distribution achievments of strong populist politcal power in France, Denmark, and Sweden, to confirm what I'm telling you.

Your candidate Paul, will do nothing to slow the trend of wealth concentration, and the result will be revolutionary and not without huge, avoidable misery.

Host, I still don't really get the connections here... Any of the other candidates are going to improve the situation how exactly? If you subscribe to the philosophy of using income tax to equalize incomes, than I could see your point. I dont. From what I know of most of the other candidates, they will do nothing but increase income disparity, with continued spending and borrowing, driving up the inflation tax. (national health care? are you kidding me... nice idea.. no money).

Ron Paul doesn't want to abolish all regulation for the benefit of the super-rich. Its to give the states back their power to regulate. This will obviously create some competition between the states, but states will be free to experiment with new policy (drug policy would be a good example). As other states see what works and what doesn't, they refine and improve on what others have done. We all benefit.

In this scenario, each individual, including the poor, have a much bigger impact over the policies, regulations, and taxes in their locality.

Its not unleashing the reigns on big business so they have free for all on the unsuspecting public. Its giving the small fish a much smaller pond.

Do you really believe that? Honestly, in your heart, do you honestly believe this? Because, that is just rhetoric. It's not true. And you know it's not true. Some states would fuck up the education system, some would fuck up highway maintenance, California might let Hollywood stars get away with anything.

There is, in fact, NO REASON for states to compete. Why would they? Nobody is going to move to another state, where they have to find a new job, a new house, etc. What if you specialize in semiconductor fabrication? Well, you have to live in California. Aerospace engineering? Well, you'd better be in Illinois or Texas. People are, for the most part, stuck where their jobs are. States are not better-natured than the government. Now we just will have 51 really inefficient governments instead of 1 really inefficient government and 50 slightly less inefficient governments.

Saying "let the states do it" isn't a solution. It's a cop-out.

A true libertarian government would be the best thing to happen to this country, but that won't happen until after a revolution or two.

There comes a point where the money runs out and the takers out take the producers.

Fifteen years ago I thought 2050ish would be the time for this revolution, and I still think we are on track.

When has a revolution ever resulted in a stable, long term libertarian government?

...and Ustwo....the dark comedy....the farce...of a huge number of "have nots"....the vast bulk of us....engaging in violent revolution against the idea of a populist government....risking our lives to "achieve"...via revolution.... an indifferent, "every man for himself", libertarian ideal....is too ridiculous to contemplate....where do you obtain such delusional ideas?

...and sprocket, there is no peaceful, practical way to reverse wealth concentration.... <h3>(wealth buys political influence, negating the potenital of the populist voting superiority, if the people let themselves be fooled),</h3> ....other than by a progressive income tax. We achieved a strong middle class through two changes.....high progressive taxation....the momentum...choked off in 1946....
...of strong, government protected unionism....union organzing. 1946 brought the "states rights" "Right to Work" "reform"....of Taft-Hartly.

If I'm wrong, why has Bush, winger "think tanks", and maggots like the John Olin foundation, spent so much money and political effort to bring down the labor supporting, NLRB?

Your politics, and Ron Pauls.....sprocket, have "it"...exactly backwards. You want to divide federal power of oversight and regulation....and distribute it "among the states".....that is a "divide and conquer" strategy that has not gone away since the populist progress in reaction to the Great Depression of the 1930's.....there is only one way to attempt to restore the US middle class, and John Edwards....however feebly...is the only candidate to even address it.....

We've lived through "States Rights" politics....it's a much harder political atmosphere to reform, than the current one. "Reform", as in populist...people prioritized change...the opposite of what Ron Paul's presidency would bring.
"States Rights"....aside from permitting segregation to be the local law until 1969, in Georgia schools, brought us the Union busting, "Right to Work"....which pitted the northern, closed shop states, against sunbelt states. North Carolina's state mandated "Right to Work", provided anincentive for manufacturers to leave northern states, and set up shop in a southern state with much lower wages and a workforce that was not union represented, and would do what it was told. Those manufacturers moved on to still lower wage Mexico, and from there....to Asia:



<h3>North Carolina, a "Right to Work" state, described today:</h3>

The "National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation" is not an organzation that defends workers...it is funded for employers' enrichment, at the expense of workers, by the maggots listed here:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/rec...rants.php?1128

We need this "reform", today:

Republican Eisenhower was president when the top rate was <a href="http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php">91 percent</a> (on annual income above $400,000), when new college graduates often worked for less than $4000 per year....and the <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f04.html">Gini coefficient was 35.1</a>....it's 44 now.

The U.S. has experienced political shifts, beginning with the the "great depression" in the 1932 elections, that transferred the presidency to a democrat.......and democrats dominated in the executive and legislative branches, with the exception of the 8 year Eisenhower presidency, for the next 36 years. Compared to later republican presidents, Eisenhower could be described as a "centrist".

Today on a webpage at the Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation site, (Milton was the late younger brother of republican president Dwight Eisenhower,) the following is displayed:

We are in uncharted territory here, even historically. I don't' think any current democracies can call themselves 'long term' yet. I think its going to be one possible natural evolution after the failure of the socialist democracies, the US included in that. The other possibilities, not so favorable.

Ustwo, are you suggesting that the natural evolution (for lack of a better word) of our current democracies is a libertarian form of government?

I think its one possible outcome, and the best outcome for the individual citizen when what I see as an inevitable collapse happens.

I think you need a 'normal' democracy to lead to a libertarian democracy, more as a bad example, but its not a natural evolution.

While real evolution is not directed, human governments are, they are 'intelligently designed' so to speak. The variable though is the individuals involved. A strong leader, or strongman at the right/wrong place and time can make all the difference, much like a mutation.

So the wildcards are out there, and this is one possibility. Lets just say as an old man I'll be cheering for it, over the totalitarianism on the other side.

We may be getting a teensy bit off subject. Still, if revolution comes I'm game. Libertarianism is interesting on paper. I'd be curious to see how it played out in reality.

What are you talking about? The US is so far from being a "socialist democracry".....

"Republican Eisenhower was president when the top rate was <a href="http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php">91 percent</a> (on annual income above $400,000), when new college graduates often worked for less than $4000 per year....and the <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f04.html">Gini coefficient was 35.1</a>....it's 44 now."

.....the elite have spent their capital building a US "system" that raised the tax on 100 percent of most workers wages, in a Reagan era, 1983 SSI "reform":

<h3>View How Much The SSI Surplus Grew During Bush's Terms...and it's GONE....SPENT TO DISGUISE THE SIZE OF BUSH'S ACTUAL DEFICITS:</h3>
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a1.html

....Ustwo....what kind of "socialist" PARADISE....has a Gini co-effienct of 44, and runs a "Ponzi" scheme which taxes 100 percent of the mahjority of workers pay (under $105K annual eanrings...)...at a rate much higher than what the social insurance near term requirments are......all deposited into the general fund....with the surplus intended to "pay down" the national treasury debt....in exchange for low interest yielding treasury bills....(under 6 percent), in an era when the Harvard endowment enjoys a 22 percent annual return....

The current president took office with no borrowing of surplus SSI collections necessary.....he promptly granted his wealthy patrons a huge tax relief, and for six years,,,,,all of the SSI surplus collected has been borrowed....with bonds issued to the SSI trust fund as compensation for the surplus spent, and for the $100 million annual interest owed to the trust fund on the $1850 billion outstanding debt.....

No socialist democracy here, to fail, UStwo.....instead, we live in a system coming closer every day in similarity to the one in pre-Hugo Chavez Venezuela.....and the solution is always a populist revolution.....

You don't recognize the excess....it's an effing crisis now......but you want to protect a broken system where the day is coming....especially with the emerging destruction of housing valuations.....where the elite ten percent will own 90 percent of total US wealth.....Would that figure be enough to effing convince you that something is "amiss"......THE DENIAL AND REFLEXIVE BRAIN DEAD POV's posted here are effing astounding...... The US is becoming an economic twin to a South or Central American debt slave country...ala Mexico, Brazil, or Venezuela....and nobody even views it as an effing problem....because we're tooooooooooo "socialist".

When you're working for tips and the wealthiest own all of everything, mayber you'll wake the eff up and wonder why you didn't use your sheer numbers of voting power to tax the wealth and the stranglehold against labor organizing, away from these elite maggots.......DON'T the Trend and the Numbers....44 Gini vs. 35 in the 1970's....vs. 24 in Japan and in Denmark.....and the rising US poverty rate....even cause you to have a Clue?????

We're headed for an economic status quo that looks like Manhattan. Huge numbers of low wage servants.....serving a super wealthy establishment. They suck up a low cost living of cheap cab rides, restaurant meals, domestic help, and a plethora of other inexpensive services.....fed by a wave of immigrant labor that makes no demands and is paid whatever employers feel like paying. The labor has no bargaining power, and cannot afford to live in proximity to their low paying jobs...... UStwo's "socialist" democracy !!!!!!!!!!

UsTwo is like DK. When they say socialist, what they mean is authoritarian. They don't understand the difference.

Host, who are you voting for? I'm honestly curious.

...Edwards offers only a glimmer of hope....I'm starting to feel about democrats, as you do.....about the democrats....

earlier.....I read this...
...so I posted this feedbacK:
So sick of reading "Ground Hog Day"....BS....neutered effing democrats....or cluelessness like Senate Banking Chair, Dodd's.....

...I'm starting to wonder if there is no one to vote for...because the wealthy elite own everyone who announces their candidacy......am I being paranoid?