Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   The Ron Paul 08 thread! Step on in and learn about him :) (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/120715-ron-paul-08-thread-step-learn-about-him.html)

Willravel 10-20-2007 07:56 PM
Seems reasonable to me.

MSD 10-20-2007 08:32 PM
I maintain my stance that unless the Libertarians nominate Daniel Imperato, I will leave the "president" field on my ballot blank next year. Democrats and republicans are played out, we all know about them. Ron Paul seems to be an ideal candidate on the surface, but when it comes to the issues, I can't support him, either.

He opposes amnesty and birthright citizenship, and supports deportation. He supports forced deportation of immigrants and considers the estimate of 120,000 resulting deaths acceptable. Combined with the old stuff in the Ron Paul Survival Report (I don't buy the argument that he had nothing to do with content that went out with his signature printed on it) he comes across as xenophobic and racist.

He sponsored a bill to put the burden of proof on the FDA to disprove claims that supplements and foods can cure, treat, or prevent disease before requiring those claims to be removed unless a disclaimer can make the label non-misleading. Essentially, this would reverse the process of drug approval and send us back to the days of quack medicine when the government had to race against companies to get harmful products off the shelves and crap like radium water and colloidal metals were sold by quacks as cure-alls.

He sponsored a bill to abolish the federal regulation that requires banks and creditors to provide regular statements top customers.

He sponsored a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve Act, and one to abolish the law that established US currency as legal tender and abolished foreign gold and silver coins as legal tender.

He sponsored a bill to exempt all non-government-related health plan providers from antitrust laws while negotiating contracts with health care providers.


Overall, things like making abortion a state decision and abolishing federal funding of public schools seem to me like a great way to get the government out of our lives and let religious morality take over.

I'm also not thrilled with the fact that he's been to a few scientology meetings, but I think that's more about his rich supporters in the CoS wanting the IRS abolished so they don't have to deal with the whole tax exempt battle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
No worse than any other hardline ideology plays out: fascisim, communism, they all end up in the same place, but in the case of libertarianism, it will be the private sector running things instead of a totalitarian government. Neither the government nor individuals in positions of non-governmental power can be trusted to take care of the interests of others.

Willravel 10-20-2007 08:35 PM
You hit the nail on the head, and explained one of the main reasons I cannot get behind Libertarianism. Really, it's just like RP. Some of it sounds good, but when you look into it, you quickly realize that they substitute big corporations for big government, and you don't vote for corporations. Balance is the key so far as I can tell, and the US is currently out of whack.

Charlatan 10-20-2007 11:37 PM
To me, Libertarianism, like Communism, is an ideal that should never be attained.

Ideal systems are like a Utopia. They are impossible in the "real" world.

Both are susceptible to the worst in human nature. Government regulation is needed to keep this in check. It's just a matter of finding the right balance.

Ustwo 10-21-2007 06:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
Oh no I don't, thats just the ultimate end of socialism.

When I say socialist, I mean foolish form of government which encourages sloth by punishing effort and puts the rights of the state above the rights of the individual in all things except recreational drug use.

It is an intermediate stage of democracy before the money created by a formerly free economy runs out.

Willravel 10-21-2007 08:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Oh no I don't, thats just the ultimate end of socialism.
You called the US socialist, just like what DK does. That simply isn't the case. The US is capitalist, and has very little socialism. If you want to see nations with more socialism, you need to cross the Atlantic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
When I say socialist, I mean foolish form of government which encourages sloth by punishing effort and puts the rights of the state above the rights of the individual in all things except recreational drug use.
That's true, because the word "foolish" was right there in the dictionary next to socialism. :rolleyes: There is no such thing as 100% socialism, but most opf the current government I see that employ socialist programs are enjoying success... or have you not noticed the US dollar drop off as the Euro grows? Maybe capitalism isn't all it's cracked up to be.

And you still seem to be confusing a very specific type of socialism with general socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
It is an intermediate stage of democracy before the money created by a formerly free economy runs out.
Lol.... so how do you explain the Euro?

dc_dux 10-21-2007 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
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.

Quote:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

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?
Perhaps those who you suggest are "missing a few screws" have a different interpretation of the powers of Congress under "general welfare clause" than you and Ron Paul:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
The Supreme Court has never interpreted the powers of Congress to be limited to those enumerated below this opening clause in sec 8....On the other hand, the Court has affirmed the broader interpretation of the "general welfare" clause (in at lease one case re: social security).

So, on the basis of constitutional law, Ron Paul's position on the constitutionality of the "limited" (only those enumerated) powers of the federal government is "missing a few screws."

rlbond86 10-21-2007 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
OH SNAP! RON PAUL JUST GOT I.8'd!

dc_dux 10-21-2007 03:25 PM
Protecting the nation's land, air and water would reasonably be considered to be in the "general welfare" of the US.

Ron Paul on the environment and the EPA:
Q: What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?

A: On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. (my comment: so much for the accomplishments of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act....). If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. (wtf? is the EPA a commie institution?) Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment....

....

Q: What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?

A: You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper....

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/
This is not someone I want in a position of responsibility for environmental policy.

samcol 10-21-2007 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Perhaps those who you suggest are "missing a few screws" have a different interpretation of the powers of Congress under "general welfare clause" than you and Ron Paul:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
The Supreme Court has never interpreted the powers of Congress to be limited to those enumerated below this opening clause in sec 8....On the other hand, the Court has affirmed the broader interpretation of the "general welfare" clause (in at lease one case re: social security).

So, on the basis of constitutional law, Ron Paul's position on the constitutionality of the "limited" (only those enumerated) powers of the federal government is "missing a few screws."
Well the authors of said document would disagree with you. That phrase is a preamble and the following are specific powers that the congress has to achieve the stated goal of providing 'general welfare' to the United States. Everything after that clause would be totally redundant if it means what you say it does.

Why would the people, who designed a government based on limited powers and checks and balances, give congress the ability to raise money for whatever they thought fit in that clause (basically a blank check)? Plus their own writings refute your interpretation of their intent.

Quote:
James Madison on the General Welfare Clause
Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. - James Madison

James Madison, Report on Resolutions[/URL], in 6 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.

Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare Clause
[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817), in 10 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON at 90, 91 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1899) quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.

Willravel 10-21-2007 04:22 PM
The way the Constitution works:
It was written with certain things in mind, but it was designed to be applicable to the time in which it exists.

I love James Madison, he was a rad dude, and I'd buy him a drink if we were ever to meet, but he doesn't live in the 21st century. The fact of the matter is that, because of the work done by and intent of our founding fathers, the Constitution must be modern so that it can deal with the issues of the time. As such, James Madison's interpretation of the General Welfare was great for the time, but doesn't necessarily mean anything but history now.

filtherton 10-21-2007 06:19 PM
I agree with will.

The founding fathers didn't think it necessary for black folk or women to be eligible to vote. When, exactly, do we get to stop referring to their opinions as if they're relevant in the context of now? I would imagine, and perhaps this is an ironic thing to say given the preceding sentence, that the founding fathers would like it if we could figure shit the fuck out without constantly having to defer to them, since, you know, they're dead.

From what i seem to remember, and i'm not a historian so this might not be true, a lot of the founders were lawyers- people familiar with the drafting of legal documents. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that when it comes to legal documents, the intent of the signers in reference to a signed document is irrelevant where it diverges from the contents of the signed document. There is no, "Wait, shit, i meant this to mean something other than what it says."

dc_dux 10-21-2007 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
Well the authors of said document would disagree with you. That phrase is a preamble and the following are specific powers that the congress has to achieve the stated goal of providing 'general welfare' to the United States. Everything after that clause would be totally redundant if it means what you say it does.

Why would the people, who designed a government based on limited powers and checks and balances, give congress the ability to raise money for whatever they thought fit in that clause (basically a blank check)? Plus their own writings refute your interpretation of their intent.
It is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of the Supreme Court (United States v. Butler and Helvering v. Davis)

Neither you nor I were there to know what all the authors of said document intended. but it its well documented that various contributing authors had different thoughts in mind when considering the meaning of the general welfare clause. In addition to Madison's perspective, Alexander Hamilton had very different thoughts:
The only restriction, Hamilton continues, is that money thus raised, cannot be applied for any merely local purpose. (that might apply to earmarks in today's political environment, but not agencies like the EPA, FCC, FDA,SEC....)

"The constitutional {test} of a right application must always be, whether it be for a purpose of {general} or {local} nature. If the former, there can be no want of constitutional power.... Whatever relates to the general order of the finances, to the general interests of trade etc., being general objects are constitutional ones for {the application} of {money}.''

This is further elaborated in the ``Report on Manufactures,'' in which Hamilton declares that the general interests of Learning, of Agriculture, of Manufactures, and of Commerce, are all within the purview of the General Welfare.

"The terms `general Welfare' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limit than the `General Welfare' and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification or of definition.''

In his Final Address to the Congress in 1796, George Washington endorsed Hamilton's view....(in effect, urging agricultural subsidies):

Washington argued that, ``with reference to individual, or National Welfare, Agriculture is of primary importance,'' and he proposed the creation of institutions for promoting agriculture through ``premiums, and small pecuniary aids, to encourage and assist a spirit of discovery and improvement.'' (not in the list of enumerated powers)
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/welfare.htm
It doesnt matter what you or I think it means. We have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and the Court has NEVER interpreted the powers of Congress to be narrowly restricted to the enumerated powers that followed the general welfare clause.

samcol 10-22-2007 05:21 PM
Sean Vannity accuses Ron Paul of rigging their post debate text message poll again. Even Though each phone can only vote once. He also responds to his apparent low polling nationally. It's because many of the polls simply leave his name off the list.

Here's his post debate interview:

dc_dux 10-22-2007 07:27 PM
Text polls are as worthless as online polls.

In order for a poll to have any scientific validity, the sample (those who respond) must represent, as closely as possible, the larger population (all likely Republican primary voters).

These text polls and online polls are simply popularity contests of those small number of Repub voters currently tuned in or turned on in a manner that in no way represents all likely Repub voters. Yes, Ron Paul supporters are more engaged and voluntarily submit (not by random sample of the total universe) text and online polls...thats all these polls indicate.

In terms of more statistically valid polls (even with the shortcoming re: RP supporters with no landline phones -- which at best means a potential 2-3% swing, according to polling experts), he is included in the CNN, USA Today/Gallup, Reuters/Zogby, American Research Group, Fox News, NBC/Wall Street Journal, ABC/Washington Post polls....so for him to say he is not included by name in many national polls is not being honest with his supporters.

I guess you dont want to discuss Ron Paul's interview on his environmental policy (we dont need the EPA) that I posted...or have any further discussion on the general welfare clause that RP apparently also misrepresents to his supporters.

But keep hope alive! Ron Paul may even do reasonable well in the first real test in the NH primary (the "live free or die" state)...but then again, in 1996, another Republican extremist, Pat Buchanan, beat the eventual nominee, Bob Dole in NH.

MSD 10-23-2007 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
Sean Vannity accuses Ron Paul of rigging their post debate text message poll again. Even Though each phone can only vote once. He also responds to his apparent low polling nationally. It's because many of the polls simply leave his name off the list.

Here's his post debate interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsXLf_w_0fs
Ron Paul supporters are yet another group who feel it's necessary to storm every poll and survey to make it look like he has huge amounts of support. Groups like that engaging in asymmetrical promotion of poll candidates are what renders these polls invalid. I'm not sure exactly what they think they'll accomplish by inflating their candidate's numbers in irrelevant polls, but they do it.

On another note, libertarian and Libertarian Party candidates have a tendency to attract the widest possible range of single-issue voters. Put the anti-drug-war, anti-war, anti-tax, pro-gun, anti-immigration, and all the other pro- or anti-whatever voters in a room together and see if they get along. Then ask them who they actually voted for and most will have voted for someone "who has a chance and is beter than the other guy."

Ustwo 10-23-2007 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
On another note, libertarian and Libertarian Party candidates have a tendency to attract the widest possible range of single-issue voters. Put the anti-drug-war, anti-war, anti-tax, pro-gun, anti-immigration, and all the other pro- or anti-whatever voters in a room together and see if they get along. Then ask them who they actually voted for and most will have voted for someone "who has a chance and is beter than the other guy."
Actually Libertarian isn't anti-immigration. It just doesn't support welfare for immigrants. Last time I looked, which was a few years ago, the party platform was open borders.

Edit: And Ill add that most single issue 'Libertarians' really don't even know what it means. I've heard hard core socialists say they are libertarians due to the drug stance which is pretty amusing.

samcol 10-24-2007 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I guess you dont want to discuss Ron Paul's interview on his environmental policy (we dont need the EPA) that I posted...or have any further discussion on the general welfare clause that RP apparently also misrepresents to his supporters.

But keep hope alive! Ron Paul may even do reasonable well in the first real test in the NH primary (the "live free or die" state)...but then again, in 1996, another Republican extremist, Pat Buchanan, beat the eventual nominee, Bob Dole in NH.
I like how you leave out the fact that FDR had to stack the courts in order to get his New Deal legislation to be upheld in the courts. The 'general welfare' clause was nothing more than a preamble to section 8 for 150 or so years until he did this.

So, saying Ron Paul misrepresents it is a huge stretch when it was the law of the land for so long and it's change was done in a very machiavellian way.

dc_dux 10-24-2007 05:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
I like how you leave out the fact that FDR had to stack the courts in order to get his New Deal legislation to be upheld in the courts. The 'general welfare' clause was nothing more than a preamble to section 8 for 150 or so years until he did this.

So, saying Ron Paul misrepresents it is a huge stretch when it was the law of the land for so long and it's change was done in a very machiavellian way.
Please check your facts.

First, Roosevelt's plan to "stack the court" (by adding a new Justice for every sitting Justice over 70 yrs of age) was never enacted....so he never "stacked the court" any more so than any other president - by waiting until sitting Justices retired or died (other than the fact that he was the longest sitting president and ultimately appointed more Justices).

But putting that aside, in regard to the general welfare clause, the Butler case was in 1936 under a relatively conservative Court, BEFORE Roosevelt appointed any Justices to the Court. The majority said:
The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
Although the law in question was overturned, on other grounds, the interpretation of the general welfare clause was expanded in the following year in the Helvering - Davis case, with one FDR appointee....hardly a stacked court.
The Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare.

http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare-clause
No court before or after 1936-37 has ever ruled that the general welfare clause was simply a preamble...and in over 200+ years, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare.

Ron Paul's interpretation of Sec 8 and the general welfare clause is just that- his personal interpretation. It was never the "law of the land" and for him to suggest otherwise is dishonest.

Evil Milkman 10-25-2007 07:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
The free market isn't preventing wars over oil. I doubt it will make a turn in time to avoid a serious catastrophe with oil running out.
We don't have a free market. We have corporatism, essentially. A small government and a freer market would prevent wars over oil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
Ron Paul supporters are yet another group who feel it's necessary to storm every poll and survey to make it look like he has huge amounts of support. Groups like that engaging in asymmetrical promotion of poll candidates are what renders these polls invalid. I'm not sure exactly what they think they'll accomplish by inflating their candidate's numbers in irrelevant polls, but they do it.
I drove through three states to support Ron Paul and meet him. I didn't do it to show off or to make it seem as if he had more support than he does.

I can only speak for myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
The way the Constitution works:
It was written with certain things in mind, but it was designed to be applicable to the time in which it exists.

I love James Madison, he was a rad dude, and I'd buy him a drink if we were ever to meet, but he doesn't live in the 21st century. The fact of the matter is that, because of the work done by and intent of our founding fathers, the Constitution must be modern so that it can deal with the issues of the time. As such, James Madison's interpretation of the General Welfare was great for the time, but doesn't necessarily mean anything but history now.
The Constitution was indeed written with the intent that it should be changeable.

But there's a process to do it legally. We can't afford to just ignore it and call it outdated.

Willravel 10-25-2007 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Milkman
We don't have a free market. We have corporatism, essentially. A small government and a freer market would prevent wars over oil.
Freer markets don't prevent corporations. They actually make for a great environment for corporations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Milkman
The Constitution was indeed written with the intent that it should be changeable.

But there's a process to do it legally. We can't afford to just ignore it and call it outdated.
No one is doing that.

dc_dux 10-25-2007 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Milkman
The Constitution was indeed written with the intent that it should be changeable.

But there's a process to do it legally. We can't afford to just ignore it and call it outdated.
Agreed that the Constitution was written with the intent that it should be changeable. As a result, there have been 27 amendments (10 by the first Congress) from the late 18th century to the 21st century....a remarkable few in number IMO.

Why so few in such a time span of drastic changes in the evolution of the country?

I would suggest because the framers also envisioned and intended that an independent judiciary would be the final interpreter of the Constitution as the fledgling nation grew and evolved.(The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court........The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made....)

And in those 200+ years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in a manner that recognizes and attempts to balance the evolution of the country with the various "original intents" of the different framers..thus negating a need for amendments every time the intent of the Constitution is raised by an interested or affected person or state.

The problem I have with Ron Paul and many of his ardent supporters is their unwillingness to accept interpretations of the Supreme Court if it differs with their own interpretation of "original intent" of the framers...when, in fact there were often mixed intents among and between those wise and thoughtful 18th century framers of what can be described as a purposefully broadly worded document in many sections/clauses (eg the general welfare clause and the different intents as expressed by Madison and Hamilton, the establishment clause of the first amendment, etc).

samcol 10-25-2007 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Freer markets don't prevent corporations. They actually make for a great environment for corporations.
Less government means less powerful corporations. Corporations are a legal entity and only exist through government recognition and protections. How can their be a 'corporate veil' is government doesn't protect the veil?

Government is what keeps these evil corporations afloat.

Willravel 10-25-2007 09:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
Less government means less powerful corporations. Corporations are a legal entity and only exist through government recognition and protections. How can their be a 'corporate veil' is government doesn't protect the veil?

Government is what keeps these evil corporations afloat.
The corporations thrive when not interfered with.

Evil Milkman 10-26-2007 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
The corporations thrive when not interfered with.
Corporations should thrive, but they should not thrive because of government largesse. The less the government borrows/taxes and spends, the less the corporations have an influence on the government, and thus less corporate welfarism is so prevelant.

Willravel 10-26-2007 03:15 PM
The concern is unethical practices.

filtherton 10-26-2007 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Milkman
Corporations should thrive, but they should not thrive because of government largesse. The less the government borrows/taxes and spends, the less the corporations have an influence on the government, and thus less corporate welfarism is so prevelant.
I thought that corporations gain influence through lobbyists and campaign donations. How do they get powerful through taxes and spending?

sprocket 10-26-2007 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
I thought that corporations gain influence through lobbyists and campaign donations. How do they get powerful through taxes and spending?
You decrease the role of the federal government, and you decrease the likelihood that the people in office have the power to provide a benefit to the corporations that would have "donated" to them. If a politicians hands are sufficiently tied, he doesn't have the power to give corporate welfare.

host 10-27-2007 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprocket
You decrease the role of the federal government, and you decrease the likelihood that the people in office have the power to provide a benefit to the corporations that would have "donated" to them. If a politicians hands are sufficiently tied, he doesn't have the power to give corporate welfare.
sprocket....the above opinion you posted....is an excellent example of why....even though Ron Paul uniquely....among any US politicians says....on national TV...exactly the same thing I have posted on these threads....relentlessly and tirelessly:

Quote:
...."So, Congressman Paul, and I'd like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you're basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al-Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)

You have thirty seconds to tell us why you're not a terrorist-loving, pro-jihadist tool of radical militant violent crazed bloodthirsty Islam and Osama bin Laden's best friend – go!

PAUL: "No! (Cheers, applause.) I'm saying – (laughter) – I'm saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war – (cheers, applause) – we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when <h3>it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion.</h3 We've committed the invasion of this war, and<h3> it's illegal under international law.</h3> That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)".....
<h3>.....I could not support a Ron Paul candidacy for US president....not in a million years....because I think that Paul and his supporters haven't a clue as to what is at stake today in America.....and they want to "deregulate" the remnants of control of the elite by the much larger majority of middle class to poor....by deregulating the restraints put on the practices of the elite.

The restraints that the elite have not already paid for lobbyists and "studies" and PR campaigns....and political contributions to repeal or to roll bacK,,,,

....And....they don't seem to recognize that it is the elite who paid the money to convince Paul's supporters to think what they think....and to believe what the wealthy elite spend the most to convince them of.....that politics is not about the forced...under the guise of the political process and the rule of law.....re-distribution of wealth and power....when the reality is....that the forced consolidation of wealth and power has been nearly ceded exclusively to the elite....and if you still think for yourself....it should be fucking obvious to you....but they have paid huge sums to convince you that they aren't using politics to force wealth and power from you to them...and THAT YOU SHOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT EITHER: </h3>


Quote:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Mc...ism_TPOTM.html
Right-Wing Criticism
excerpted from the book
The Problem of the Media
U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century
by Robert W. McChesney
Monthly Review Press, 2004, paper

.....p103
The U.S. news media ... pays little direct attention to the political Left. The Left-not only genuine radicals but also mild social democrats by international standards-lies outside the spectrum of legitimate debate. What attention the Left actually gets tends to be unsympathetic, if not explicitly negative. Foreign journalists marvel at how U.S. left-wing social critics like Noam Chomsky, who are prominent and respected public figures abroad, are virtually invisible in the U.S. news media.
p105
[Bernard] Goldberg notes: "Edward R. Murrow's 'Harvest of Shame,' the great CBS News documentary about poor migrant families traveling America, trying to survive by picking fruits and vegetables, would never be done today. Too many poor people. Not our audience. <h3>We want the people who buy cars and computers. Poor migrants won't bring our kind of Americans-the ones with money to spend-into the tent.</h3>
p106
Russell Baker, legendary columnist for the New York Times, put the matter well in December 2003: "Today's topdrawer Washington news people are part of a highly educated, upper middle class elite; they belong to the culture for which the American system works extremely well. Which is to say, they are, in the pure sense of the word, extremely conservative.

p111
Right-Wing Political Campaign Against the Media
<h3>So why does the conservative critique of the "liberal" news media remain such a significant force in U.S. political and media culture?</h3> It certainly isn't the quality of the arguments. It is kept alive by hardcore political organizing. Launched in earnest in the 1970s by financial backers with deep pockets, conservative critics blamed the liberal media for losing the Vietnam War and for fomenting dissent in the United States. <h3>Pro-business foundations were aghast at what they perceived as the anti-business sentiment prevalent among Americans, especially middle-class youth who had typically supplied a core constituency. Mainstream journalism-which, in reporting the activities of official sources, was giving people like Ralph Nader sympathetic exposure-was seen as turning Americans away from business. At that point the political Right, supported by its wealthy donors, began to devote enormous resources to criticizing and intimidating the news media</h3> .40 This was a cornerstone of the broader campaign to make the political culture more pro-business and more conservative. Around half of all the expenditures of the twelve largest conservative foundations have been devoted to moving the news rightward. During the 1990s, right-wing think tanks, almost all of which were not established until the 1970s, were funded to the tune of $1 billion. By 2003, the Heritage Foundation had an annual budget of $30 million, 180 employees, and its own television studios in its eight-story Washington, D.C., headquarters.
p112
<h3>The campaign to alter the media has entailed funding the training of conservative and business journalists at universities and bankrolling right-wing student newspapers to breed a generation of pro-business Republican journalists.</h3> It has meant starting right-wing print media such as the Washington Times and the Weekly Standard and supporting existing right-wing publications such as the National Review, not only to promote conservative politics but also so that young journalists have a farm system to develop their clips. It also includes conservative think tanks flooding journalism with pro-business official sources and incessantly jawboning coverage critical of conservative interests as reflective of "liberal" bias. <h3>A comprehensive Nexis search for the twenty-five largest think tanks in U.S. news media for 2002 showed that explicitly conservative think tanks accounted for nearly half of the 25,000 think-tank citations in the news, whereas progressive think tanks accounted for only 12 percent.</h3> Centrist groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution accounted for the rest. The pro-business Right understood that changing media was a crucial part of bringing right-wing ideas into prominence and their politicians into power. "You get huge leverage for your dollars," a conservative philanthropist noted when he discussed the turn to ideological work. A well-organized, well-financed, and active hardcore conservative crew is pushing the news media to the right. As a Washington Post White House correspondent put it, "The liberal equivalent of this conservative coterie does not exist." As Senate minority leader Tom Daschle commented in 2003, "We don't come close to matching their firepower in the media."'
<h3>To the general public the conservative critique is not packaged as an effort by the wealthiest and most powerful elements of our society to extend their power, weaken labor and government regulation in the public interest, and dramatically lower their taxes while gutting the public sector, aside from the military. To the contrary, this conservative critique, much like the broader conservative political movement, is marketed as a populist movement.</h3> It is the heroic story of the conservative masses (Pat Buchanan's "peasants with pitchforks") battling the establishment liberal media elite. In this righteous war, as spun by right-wing pundits such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, and Sean Hannity, conservatives are the blue-collar workers (white, of course, though that is only implied) and self-made business leaders while the liberals are Ivy League snobs, intellectuals, hoity-toity limousine riders, and journalists who hold power. As one conservative activist put it, the contest over media is a "David and Goliath struggle."
p114
<h3>... a 2003 Gallup Poll found that 45 percent of Americans thought the news media were too liberal," while only 15 percent found them "too conservative."</h3>
p114
... the right wing of the Republican Party, typified by Reagan and now George W. Bush, has gained considerable political power while the Democratic Party leadership has become steadily more pro-corporate in its outlook. This means that editors and journalists who simply follow the professional code have much greater exposure through official sources to neoliberal and conservative political positions. <h3>The body of relatively progressive official sources used more frequently in the 1960s and 1970s is viewed today as irrelevant. The hallowed political center of officialdom has moved sharply to the right.</h3>
p115
... conservatives move easily in the corridors of corporate media. This conservative campaign has meshed comfortably with the commercial and political aspirations of media corporations. This is precisely what one would expect. Many prominent media moguls are hardcore, rock-ribbed conservatives such as Rupert Murdoch, John Malone, former GE CEO Jack Welch, and Clear Channel CEO Lowry Mays. Although some media executives and owners donate money to Democrats, none of the major news media owners is anything close to a left-winger. Journalists who praise corporations and commercialism will obviously be held in higher regard (and given more slack) by owners and advertisers than journalists who are routinely critical of them. <h3>Media owners don't want their own economic interests or policies criticized. Murdoch's Fox News Channel, which operates as an adjunct of the Republican Party, is an obvious example of blatant corporate shilling, but the point holds at other outlets, too. Punditry and commentary provided by corporate-owned news media almost unfailingly ranges from center to right. According to Editor & Publisher, the four most widely syndicated political columnists in the United States speak from the Right. TV news runs from pro-business centrist to rabidly pro-business right, and most newspaper journalism is only a bit broader. Perhaps most important, the explicitly right-wing media are now strong enough and incessant enough to push stories until they are covered by more centrist mainstream media.
The upshot is that by the early years of the twenty-first century the conservatives had won the media battle.</h3> The Washington Post's E. J. Dionne termed this a "genuine triumph for conservatives The drumbeat of conservative press criticism has been so steady, the establishment press has internalized it." <h3>By 2001, CNN's chief Walter Isaacson was polling conservatives to see how he could make the network more palatable to them.
</h3>
p116
A staple entrée in this diet is political talk radio-[Partisan radio went national in the late 1980s following the rise of satellite technology, toll free 800 numbers, and the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, which called on broadcast news to provide balanced viewpoints on social and political issues. Talk radio has not only stormed into prominence on the AM dial but it also "tends to run the gamut from conservative to very conservative," as one reporter characterized it. <h3>"There are 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts," the conservative activist Paul M. Weyrich boasts. "The ability to reach people with our point of view is like nothing we have ever seen before. "59 The right-wing dominance of broadcasting is demonstrated by the shift of groups such as Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media and Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum.</h3> Back in the 1970S and 1980s they crusaded for the Fairness Doctrine-which required broadcasters to present contrasting perspectives on politics as a way to battle liberal bias on the airwaves; since the ascendance of Rush Limbaugh et al. these groups now oppose the Fairness Doctrine.
By 2003, a Gallup Poll showed that 22 percent of Americans considered talk radio their primary source for news, double the figure of 1998. Every city has its own local Limbaughs trying to outdo the master on the pro-Republican political Richter scale. The Republican National Committee has a Radio Services Department whose sole function is to provide daily talking points to feed "the voracious appetite of conservative talk show hosts. 1112 <h3>Even in the liberal college town of Eugene, Oregon, for example, a 2002 study determined that 4,000 hours per year of conservative Republican talk shows and zero hours of liberal Democratic talk shows were broadcast on the local radio dial.</h3> Were foreigners never to visit the United States but only listen to a steady diet of its radio fare, they might imagine that Americans were overwhelmingly on the right wing of the political spectrum, that George W. Bush won the 2000 election by a near unanimous vote, and that the average IQ of those opposing President Bush was around 40.
p118
Partisan Coverage in Peace and War
The average American cannot help but be exposed to the noticeable double standard in the treatment of politicians and issues in the media, depending upon party and ideology. The fate of Bill Clinton and George W Bush reveals the scope of the conservative victory. A Nexis search ... reveals that 13,641 stories focused on Clinton avoiding the military draft but a mere 49 stories featured Bush having his powerful father use influence to get him into the Texas Air National Guard instead of the draft .Clinton's comment about smoking marijuana but not inhaling made headlines and monologues for weeks. His small-time Whitewater affair justified a massive seven-year, $70 million, open-ended special investigation of his business and personal life that never established any criminal business activity but eventually did produce the Lewinsky allegations. Rick Kaplan, former head of CNN, acknowledged that he instructed his employees to provide the Lewinsky story with massive attention despite his belief that it was overblown; he knew he would face withering criticism from the Right for a liberal bias if he did not pummel it. "I think if you$ look at the way Clinton s been treated, former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed said, "you'd be hard-pressed to say that the personal liberal ideological views of most reporters ... have somehow led to a free ride for Bill Clinton."
Bush, in contrast, had a remarkably dubious business career in which he made a fortune flouting security laws, tapping public funds, and using his father's connections to protect his backside, but the news media barely sniffed at the story. His questionable connections to Enron during his presidency-even at the height of the corporate scandal in 2001 and 2002-produced no special prosecutor and no media drumbeat for one to be appointed .61' His conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol barely attracted notice.

p124
As Paul Krugman noted in 2002;
In 1970 the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers had 0.7 percent of total income-that is, they earned "only" 70 times as much as the average .... But in 1998, the top 0.01 percent received more than 3 percent of all income. That meant the richest 13,000 families in America had almost as much income as the 20 million poorest households: those 13,000 families had incomes 300 times that of average families.
p125
In 2001, the International Labor Organization confirmed ... distressing long-term trend: workers in the United States were working more hours than they had for generations, and more than workers in any other industrialized nation, save the Czech Republic and South Korea. German workers, to give some sense of comparison, work on average 500 hours less per year-some three months' worth of 40-hour weeks!-than their American counterparts. All of this IS hardly conducive to civic participation.

p131
<h2>In the election cycle ending in 2002, a mere one-tenth of one percent of Americans provided 83 percent of all itemized campaign contributions, and the vast majority of these individuals came from the very wealthiest sliver of Americans.
p131
In this "wealth" primary ...96 percent of Americans ... never give a campaign contribution ...</h2>
p132
In the 1950s, corporations paid 25 percent of federal tax dollars; by 2001 the figure was down to 7 percent. Similarly, the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans <h3>has fallen from 91 percent in the Eisenhower years to 38 percent by 2002.</h3>
p133
"There's no longer any countervailing power in Washington," former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote in 2001. "Business is in complete control of the machinery of government." Bill Moyers concurs: "In no small part, because they coveted the same corporate money, Democrats practically walked away from the politics of struggle, leaving millions of working people with no one to fight for them. "

p166
Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy over forty years ago ...
It is sometimes argued that advertising really does little harm because - no one believes it anymore anyway. We consider this view to be erroneous. <h3>The greatest damage done by advertising is precisely that it incessantly demonstrates the prostitution of men and women who lend their intellects, their voices, their artistic skills to purposes in which they themselves do not believe...</h3>
<h3>So, sprocket....you posted your opinion...and it does not contain any sign of recognition that the regulatory process was a reaction, to events like those described in the following quote boxes....because our great-grandfathers wanted to help us to avoid having to go through the consequences that they had to bear...in the aftermath of abuses that took place in the absence of oversight and regulation:</h3>

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/bu...y/19shelf.html
Before There Was Enron, There Was Insull

Article Tools Sponsored By
By ROGER LOWENSTEIN
Published: March 19, 2006

.....By the Roaring Twenties, Insull was one of the country's foremost power brokers. He controlled utilities in 5,000 towns in 32 states, as well as a network of electrified railroads coursing out from Chicago......

....Samuel Insull, at any rate, was not the exception. What is surprising about his tale is how little, today, he is remembered.....

.....Insull recognized that electric power, like the automobile, had to be affordable and widely distributed. To keep prices fair, he advocated state regulation of monopolies, and seemed to epitomize the enlightened industrialist championed by Herbert Hoover. With a Babbitt-like belief in progress, Insull dispatched an army of employees to flog electric appliances and, just as relentlessly, his various companies' soaring shares.

Power for everyone was fine; power owned by everyone was another matter. The Jazz Age exposed gaping economic inequalities, and Midwestern Progressives increasingly called for public power, especially for rural communities where electrification lagged. Insull bitterly counterattacked, often by financing legislative allies. Exposure led to scandal and to accusations that he was fleecing his customers. Ineluctably, Insull caught the eye of an ambitious Eastern reformer, Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was seeking to fence in the "Power Trust" and Insull in particular.

Hubris is not the worst crime — merely the one that guarantees the surest retribution. And Insull's capital structure was more reckless than his politics. Addicted to debt, he pioneered a corporate form — the holding company — in which one company was literally stacked atop another. This allowed him to control an empire worth $500 million with only a tiny $27 million sliver of equity. Come the crash, some 65 of his enterprises were perched like the unlucky subjects of Yertle the Turtle: down they went. Insull fled to Greece, leaving 600,000 shareholders ruined. He returned to face federal prosecution and was likened to Al Capone.

The timing of Mr. Wasik's book would seem to be perfect. The Enron trial is headline news (take heart, Ken Lay; Insull beat the rap), and the Roosevelt-era law designed to avoid a recurrence of Insulls, the Public Utility Holding Company Act, was repealed only in 2005.

Drawing a contrast between Insull and today's corporate miscreants, Mr. Wasik observes that Insull's shoddy financial disclosures did not violate the porous securities laws of his day. Nonetheless, Mr. Wasik cannot quite bring himself to deliver an exoneration. Though he labels Insull a "scoundrel," elsewhere and often he sticks up for him as a well-intentioned businessman who was as surprised by the stock market crash as everyone else.

Quote:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insigh...ntentId=869862
Abstract: The bankruptcy of Enron Corp. has evolved into a scandal of enormous proportions involving allegations of fraud, corruption and unethical practices on the part of Enron’s corporate executives, members of its board of directors, external auditors, and high government officials in the USA. No doubt there will be many articles written about various aspects of the Enron scandal. The focus of this paper is on the relationships between Enron’s business model and the deregulatory phase of the American economy during the 1980s and 1990s. It is the argument of this paper that deregulation in the US electricity and natural gas industries fostered the creation of the Enron business model, and that this model was unsustainable, resulting in the demise of Enron Corp. Furthermore, while Enron can be viewed as an example of capitalistic excess, the paper reveals how the Enron business model developed as an American form of a public private partnership, similar to the types of public private partnerships that have been created in recent years in the UK. Investigating Enron as a public private partnership may help us to better understand the role of public private partnerships in contemporary capitalism and shed some light on the advisability of deregulatory schemes and the unintended consequences that can result from such schemes.
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/bu...rint&position=

January 11, 2005
Secrecy Stripped From Oregon Utility Sale
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

The Texas Pacific Group, after fighting to keep secret 700 pages of documents about its proposed purchase of Portland General Electric, reversed course yesterday and said it would make the documents public. The decision came after an alternative newspaper, Willamette Week, obtained most of the documents for an article published last week.

Nearly every major economic interest in Oregon opposes the purchase, but until now these groups could say little about their reasons for joining consumer groups in opposing the deal because the Oregon Public Utility Commission issued a broad secrecy order at Texas Pacific's request.

Lawyers for the opponents and for consumer groups said that the documents showed that Texas Pacific used the secrecy order to mislead the public, an accusation that Texas Pacific characterized as false and unfair.

Texas Pacific, founded by David Bonderman, is a $13 billion investment fund based in Fort Worth that buys distressed companies. It plans to pay $2.35 billion, in a debt-laden deal, to acquire
the Portland utility.   click to show 
<h2>Ironic....dontcha think...that you and Ron Paul "worship" at the altar of the intent of the "founding fathers"...ten generations past</h2>....even in your rush to roll back or eliminate entirely the intent of your near contemporary elders...just three generations after they took what they learned when, "mistakes were made"....mistakes which wiped out fortunes built over many years....in just a few months or in a year...or two....or mistakes which fouled the air, the water, contaminated the environment with tetra-ethyl lead....in motor fuels for 60 years.....and other abuses wide in scope...too numerous to describe here?

Evil Milkman 10-27-2007 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
sprocket....the above opinion you posted....is an excellent example of why....even though Ron Paul uniquely....among any US politicians says....on national TV...exactly the same thing I have posted on these threads....relentlessly and tirelessly:


<h3>.....I could not support a Ron Paul candidacy for US president....not in a million years....because I think that Paul and his supporters haven't a clue as to what is at stake today in America.....and they want to "deregulate" the remnants of control of the elite by the much larger majority of middle class to poor....by deregulating the restraints put on the practices of the elite.

The restraints that the elite have not already paid for lobbyists and "studies" and PR campaigns....and political contributions to repeal or to roll bacK,,,,

....And....they don't seem to recognize that it is the elite who paid the money to convince Paul's supporters to think what they think....and to believe what the wealthy elite spend the most to convince them of.....that politics is not about the forced...under the guise of the political process and the rule of law.....re-distribution of wealth and power....when the reality is....that the forced consolidation of wealth and power has been nearly ceded exclusively to the elite....and if you still think for yourself....it should be fucking obvious to you....but they have paid huge sums to convince you that they aren't using politics to force wealth and power from you to them...and THAT YOU SHOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT EITHER: </h3>




<h3>So, sprocket....you posted your opinion...and it does not contain any sign of recognition that the regulatory process was a reaction, to events like those described in the following quote boxes....because our great-grandfathers wanted to help us to avoid having to go through the consequences that they had to bear...in the aftermath of abuses that took place in the absence of oversight and regulation:</h3>








<h2>Ironic....dontcha think...that you and Ron Paul "worship" at the altar of the intent of the "founding fathers"...ten generations past</h2>....even in your rush to roll back or eliminate entirely the intent of your near contemporary elders...just three generations after they took what they learned when, "mistakes were made"....mistakes which wiped out fortunes built over many years....in just a few months or in a year...or two....or mistakes which fouled the air, the water, contaminated the environment with tetra-ethyl lead....in motor fuels for 60 years.....and other abuses wide in scope...too numerous to describe here?
Why... I can't... even... begin to read... your post... because of these ellipsis... everywhere... :)

dc_dux 10-28-2007 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Milkman
Why... I can't... even... begin to read... your post... because of these ellipsis... everywhere... :)
Perhaps, if Host's post is too difficult for you, you can focus on something simple ...Ron Paul's position on environmental regulation that I posted earlier:
Ron Paul on the environment and the EPA:

Q: What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?

A: On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment

....

Q: What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?

A: You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper....
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/
Were you around in the early 70s before the federal environmental laws?

With all its faults, can you deny the accomplishments of the EPA and Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, etc.?

Do you really believe that "private property owners" would have done the same without federal regulation? The pre-1970s state of the environment would suggest that private property owners failed miserably.....dumping raw sewage in lakes, rivers and streams, spewing toxic chemicals out of their smokestacks, burning rubbish in open dumps.....

Or, like samcol, you can just ignore it :)

Here is why Ron Paul is at low single digits (1-4%) in all national polls.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aYCr_718ccI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aYCr_718ccI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

sprocket 10-28-2007 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Perhaps, if Host's post is too difficult for you, you can focus on something simple ...Ron Paul's position on environmental regulation that I posted earlier:
Ron Paul on the environment and the EPA:

Q: What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?

A: On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment

....

Q: What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?

A: You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper....
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/
Were you around in the early 70s before the federal environmental laws?

With all its faults, can you deny the accomplishments of the EPA and Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, etc.?

Do you really believe that "private property owners" would have done the same without federal regulation? The pre-1970s state of the environment would suggest that private property owners failed miserably.....dumping raw sewage in lakes, rivers and streams, spewing toxic chemicals out of their smokestacks, burning rubbish in open dumps.....

Or, like samcol, you can just ignore it :)

Here is why Ron Paul is at low single digits (1-4%) in all national polls.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aYCr_718ccI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aYCr_718ccI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
The dude in that video is far crazier than Ron Paul, and he cant even characterize his positions correctly.

Honestly... do you guys really beleive that if Ron Paul were elected, we'd immediately backtrack to industrial revolution era, and start putting 7 year olds in all our factories to haul the toxic wastes down to the closest river?

Do you really think people are going to die en mass if we *phase* medicare out and slowly transition to another system?

Do you really believe his stance is to blow up all these regulatory agencies immediately, letting the chips fall where they may while he sits back and watches chaos ensue? Thats what it sounds like.

Because something isn't regulated by the federal government, doesn't mean the states cant regulate it. Thats the whole idea... let states pick up where the feds leave off, and take over many regulatory roles that the federal government handles now.

Host:

If Ron Paul were going to be that good for big business and the "elite", why isn't he a frontrunner? Even though Ron Paul doesn't take donations from corporations, with the powerful elite and mega-corps backing him in other ways, he would be the most popular candidate right now, bar none. He would be getting more facetime on the TV networks, than any other candidate. He's pro free market, not a corporatist.

samcol 10-28-2007 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprocket
If Ron Paul were going to be that good for big business and the "elite", why isn't he a frontrunner? Even though Ron Paul doesn't take donations from corporations, with the powerful elite and mega-corps backing him in other ways, he would be the most popular candidate right now, bar none. He would be getting more facetime on the TV networks, than any other candidate. He's pro free market, not a corporatist.
NO KIDDING.

Why isn't every corporation supporting him if the free market is so great for them?

Oh, ya dc, your wonderful FEMA gives fake news conferences and shovels money out to the wrong people faster than it can take it in. I'm sure you'd love to send you kids to college with some other families' hard working money who might not of been able to send theirs. The more federal funding for schools the worse our kids score on tests. The greatest generation got their education in one room school houses, not giant federal brainwashing camps.

If your EPA is doing such a great job why are 10 states suing them for their lackluster air control policy?

Social security is one of the biggest ponzi schemes ever. Gun control, abortion, not even worth debating anymore of this video...

Ron Paul supporters are anarchists. :rolleyes: I've heard it all now.

Willravel 10-28-2007 09:45 AM
DC is the head of FEMA? Huh.

samcol 10-28-2007 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
DC is the head of FEMA? Huh.
...

No, but he's a spokesman for everything big government how much better government performs the bigger it is.

rlbond86 10-28-2007 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
NO KIDDING.

Why isn't every corporation supporting him if the free market is so great for them?

Oh, ya dc, your wonderful FEMA gives fake news conferences and shovels money out to the wrong people faster than it can take it in. I'm sure you'd love to send you kids to college with some other families' hard working money who might not of been able to send theirs. The more federal funding for schools the worse our kids score on tests. The greatest generation got their education in one room school houses, not giant federal brainwashing camps.

If your EPA is doing such a great job why are 10 states suing them for their lackluster air control policy?

Social security is one of the biggest ponzi schemes ever. Gun control, abortion, not even worth debating anymore of this video...

Ron Paul supporters are anarchists. :rolleyes: I've heard it all now.
Yes, these things have problems. Perhaps if the EXECUTIVE BRANCH were more regulated these wouldn't happen. Now imagine deregulating businesses.

sprocket 10-28-2007 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlbond86
Yes, these things have problems. Perhaps if the EXECUTIVE BRANCH were more regulated these wouldn't happen. Now imagine deregulating businesses.
I think you and Paul would be in agreement on this one...

He's often said he wants to work to limit much of the power that the executive branch currently holds.

ASU2003 10-28-2007 11:02 AM
I am concerned about corporations running wild without regulation, and their desire to make as much profit as possible isn't always in the best interest for the country. There has to be some checks and balances on corporations as well.

His foreign policy is one of the best. We are spending too much money, and we need to find other ways to deal with the problems then with military force all the time. But not dealing with them at all doesn't always work either, but congress should decide if we need to go into Darfur, Burma, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan... not the president.

His fiscal policy and how inflation and the federal reserve system screw most Americans over makes a lot of sense, but he is the only one talking about it.

As for the EPA. It could be more efficient, but you could also just pass laws stating that these substances are banned, you can't sell your products if your pollution levels are over this amount, and you have to dispose of all waste appropriately. I don't like the idea of private property everywhere, since most people who buy land want to get a return on their investment and can't just leave it alone.

And it isn't that he would be able to wipe out entire agencies really quickly, but they do need to be downsized and each state should be able to tax and raise money for their own programs. Healthcare could be a state issue, some states might have universal healthcare, others might have HSAs, others might just have the same system that we have now.

FEMA could be done by the national guard of each state, if they weren't deployed all the time. Each state could define what threats could happen (floods, wildfire, riots, snow/ice, earthquakes,...) and they would be prepared to help people in need. Neighboring states could also step up and help if it is really bad.

Even though I don't like taxes, I think balancing our budget and paying down the national debt is more important than giving tax refunds out when the government collects too much money. So, while Paul wants to get rid of the IRS, I don't think it will happen.

The thing is, all of the other candidates seem to want to become president to be powerful and the leader of the free world. Where Paul want to drastically reduce spending, give the power back to the states and the local people, and work with everyone around the world.

host 10-28-2007 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprocket
.....Because something isn't regulated by the federal government, doesn't mean the states cant regulate it. Thats the whole idea... let states pick up where the feds leave off, and take over many regulatory roles that the federal government handles now.

Host:

If Ron Paul were going to be that good for big business and the "elite", why isn't he a frontrunner? Even though Ron Paul doesn't take donations from corporations, with the powerful elite and mega-corps backing him in other ways, he would be the most popular candidate right now, bar none. He would be getting more facetime on the TV networks, than any other candidate. He's pro free market, not a corporatist.
The "states" were in charge of voter registration and racial integration, and they did a heck of a job......

The "big money" in the US already controls the presidents it puts into office. Ron Paul is a wildcard....Bush is easily controlled, and there has been little regulatory enforcement and few consequences, because of it. So why would the wealthiest want to change anything. Do you think that the financial community, addicted to fractional reserve banking, in an era just after substantial rollback of regulations put in place in the 1930's to prevent abuses and conflicts of interests between banks, brokerages, and insurance businessed owned by the same entities, would support Ron Paul, and his proposals, now?

Here is what happens after a 25 year campaign designed to persuade you that government is "the enemy". It's also an example of what would happen if EPA enforcement was eliminated or transferred to local control. Atmosphere and water move from one state to another. It makes no sense to try to regulate the environment via each state. Big business installed Bush, Bush installed Jimmy Palmer, and he's still at EPA region 4:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Senators Assail EPA on Ala. PCB Cleanup

By Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 20, 2002; Page A05

A bipartisan Senate tagteam piled on the Environmental Protection Agency yesterday for its handling of PCB-saturated Anniston, Ala., blasting Bush administration officials for conflicts of interest and accusing the agency of ignoring the city's problems for years.

At a hearing of the appropriations subcommittee overseeing the EPA, Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) took turns bashing the agency, with Shelby even threatening to slash the agency's funding if its performance in Anniston does not improve. The people of west Anniston, where a Monsanto Co. factory dumped tons of PCBs from the 1930s to the 1970s, have the highest levels of the banned industrial coolants in their blood ever registered in a residential community.

The senators complained that the EPA was aware of the contamination as early as 1985, but did not sign a cleanup agreement for the site until this March. They also noted that the agreement was signed just days after an angry Alabama judge had threatened to impose a stringent cleanup. And they emphasized that Linda Fisher, an EPA deputy administrator and former Monsanto lobbyist, and Jimmy Palmer, an EPA southeast regional administrator who in an earlier job represented other industrial clients in Anniston, have both recused themselves from the high-profile case.

"This is just loaded with conflicts of interest," Mikulski said. "I'm very troubled. Who's going to be able to do anything about this if everyone's recused?"

Shelby and Mikulski also took shots at the Justice Department, which approved the March deal, and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, whose predecessor knew about the PCB problems as early as 1969. But they focused on the EPA, repeatedly telling Palmer's deputy, A. Stanley Meiburg, that the agency's credibility was at stake in Anniston.

"You've botched this," Shelby said. "The EPA does not have the trust or confidence of this committee, and we're your funding committee."

Meiburg testified that neither Fisher nor Palmer has had anything to do with the case. He also defended the March agreement as a standard Superfund-style settlement, requiring the polluter to conduct a comprehensive study under tough EPA oversight., Solutia Inc., which was created when Monsanto spun off its chemical businesses in 1997, also agreed to pay $3 million to a special education fund in Anniston.

Meiburg did say the EPA would have been more aggressive in the past if it had realized the contamination had spread far beyond the factory and nearby creeks. Instead, it abandoned a draft proposal for a formal Superfund designation and left most of the mess to the state.

"It's fair to say that if we knew years ago what we know now, our course of action would have been different," he said.

The risks of PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are still disputed, but there is evidence linking them to developmental disabilities, immune system problems and liver diseases; the EPA also considers them a "probable" carcinogen. In February, an Alabama jury found Solutia liable for releasing PCBs into Anniston and covering up its actions for decades; the judge in that case, who has blasted Solutia officials, is considering possible cleanup remedies.

But after signing its settlement last month, Solutia immediately argued that the agreement should preempt any court-ordered cleanup. John C. Hunter, chief executive officer of Solutia, also told analysts his company had a "mutual understanding" that it would not have to increase its spending on Anniston cleanups, which currently cost about $8 million a year. The EPA recently ordered General Electric to spend $460 million to dredge PCBs from the Hudson River, but EPA officials told The Post last year that they did not believe similarly "drastic actions" were needed in Anniston.

David Baker, a community activist in Anniston, yesterday denounced the settlement as a cave-in to corporate interests. "I'm here to report that the federal government has failed the people of Anniston and left the fox to guard the henhouse," he testified.

William A. Weinischke, the Justice Department attorney handling the case, said the settlement is as tough as anything he could have won in court, with the special education funding as a bonus. He also noted that a court-ordered cleanup could be tied up in appeals for years, and that the Superfund-style settlement will not necessarily preclude such a cleanup anyway.

Weinischke emphasized that there are no guarantees for Solutia, because no one will know if it will have to spend "millions or billions" until the studies are complete. The state of Alabama, which has joined 3,500 Anniston residents in the state lawsuit, is opposed to the settlement as well. Stephen Cobb, chief of the Alabama environmental department's hazardous waste branch, testified yesterday that it could "send an inappropriate message to the regulated community -- that [Superfund] is a safe haven from state regulations and civil proceedings, and the answer to one's legal problems."
Quote:
Published on Monday, June 6, 2005 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Is EPA Exec Still a Pal to Polluters?
by Jay Bookman

It sounds like something out of a John Grisham best-seller. But the Big Hill Acres story isn't fiction, and neither is its cast of characters, including a now prominent federal environmental official.

Go back to the mid-'90s. Robert Lucas Jr., a developer in Grisham's native state of Mississippi, subdivides 2,600 acres near the Gulf Coast and starts selling off lots to lower-income residents for mobile homes.

However, the Big Hill Acres subdivision also happens to contain roughly 1,200 acres of federally protected wetlands, as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers tells Lucas in 1996. Undeterred, Lucas begins to illegally drain or fill those wetlands without a permit. He also hires an unscrupulous engineer, M.E. Thompson Jr., who is willing to lie and certify that septic tanks on the property have been installed properly, even though he knows that many of the septic units are sitting in wetlands and are almost guaranteed to fail.

Hundreds of lots are sold, families move their mobile homes onto the property and connect them to septic tanks, and the nightmares begin.

With every major rainfall, homes are flooded; hundreds of gallons of raw sewage flow up out of toilets and run unchecked through the subdivision and into nearby streams. Families who had invested meager life savings in their lot abandon the property.

By 1997, when the Health Department raises a ruckus about sanitation problems caused by faulty septic systems, local county commissioners respond — by attacking the Health Department. According to later court testimony, one commissioner told a Health Department staffer that the department "would either play ball with M.E. Thompson or [the commissioner] would cut the Health Department budget." They didn't play ball; the budget was cut drastically.

By 2000, state and federal regulators get involved. Lucas then hires lawyer Jimmy Palmer, who had just retired as head of Mississippi's Department of Environmental Quality, to make the problem go away.

And when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers finally demand that Lucas stop selling lots in the development, he agrees. Then he goes right on selling wetlands property to unsuspecting buyers.

Finally, the EPA takes the rare step of referring the case for criminal prosecution, something it does only in the most egregious of cases. Lucas, his daughter Robbie Lucas Wrigley, and Thompson are indicted on 22 counts of violating the Clean Water Act, 18 counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy.

Palmer, the former head of Mississippi's environmental protection agency, is subpoenaed to testify in the case this spring. In front of the jury, he recalls believing that the federal EPA had been heavy-handed in its dealings with Lucas, that the federal agency had acted unethically and that it had been inflammatory in how it had communicated with Big Hill Acres residents. He testified about a letter he had written to EPA officials accusing them of a crusade to destroy Big Hill Acres.

Two things make that testimony interesting:

First, the jury didn't buy it. In less than a day of deliberations, it convicted Lucas and his fellow defendants on all 41 counts. They now face up to 30 years in federal prison, and given how cavalierly they flouted the law, they deserve it.

And Palmer, the man who had described the EPA's enforcement actions against Lucas as heavy-handed, unethical and inflammatory?

Today, he serves as head of EPA's Region 4, based here in Atlanta, overseeing enforcement of environmental laws for eight southeastern states. He was appointed in October 2001 by President Bush.

In that job — one of 10 regional administrators around the country — Palmer now helps to decide which cases to pursue and prosecute, and on occasion even takes the lead in settlement negotiations with polluters and other violators of environmental law. Not surprisingly, Region 4 staff members are reportedly held under tight rein, discouraged from aggressively pursuing violators.

Unfortunately, Palmer did not respond to an interview request, turning down a chance to explain how he might see things differently now that he's running the agency he once criticized so harshly.

But it all leads you to wonder whether he sees his job as protecting the environment, or protecting polluters.
Quote:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/divisions/index.html

US EPA, Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-562-9900
1-800-241-1754

<h2>Regional Administrator: J. I. Palmer, Jr.</h2>
Deputy Regional Administrator: Russell L. Wright, Jr., Acting
Chief of Staff: Don R. Christy

Quote:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=527
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DECEMBER 8, 2005

DEVELOPERS REPRESENTED BY TOP EPA OFFICIAL SENTENCED TO PRISON — EPA Official Testified Against His Own Agency at Criminal Trial

Washington, DC — Jimmy Palmer, the top U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official for the Southeastern U.S., served as the lawyer for Mississippi developers while they were committing pollution violations that caused them to be sentenced to lengthy federal prison terms this week. At their criminal trial this spring, Palmer testified against his own agency, according to trial testimony released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Palmer testified that he considered EPA to have been “unethical,” heavy handed” and on a “crusade to destroy” his former client, who was then found guilty on precisely the grounds cited by EPA — and disputed by Palmer.

Palmer was selected by President Bush to oversee EPA operations in the eight-state Southeastern Region in October 2001 and was sworn in following Senate confirmation the following January. At the time of his selection, Palmer was the lawyer for a Mississippi developer named Robert Lucas who sought Palmer’s help in subdividing land and installing septic tanks in a 2600-acre development called Big Hills Acres.

In March 2005, after a jury trial, Lucas was convicted for misrepresenting the habitability of the lots and installing septic systems in saturated wetland soils at Big Hill Acres, despite warnings from the state Department of Health that doing so created a public health threat. Lucas also ignored numerous warnings, as well as cease and desist orders, from both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA because the deteriorating systems threatened to contaminate the local drinking water aquifer

This week Lucas was sentenced to 9 years in federal prison and his daughter Robbie was sentenced to prison for 7 years and three months. The U.S. Department of Justice hailed the sentences with one official calling them a “landmark criminal case [that] sends a strong message that corporations and individuals who commit flagrant violations of our environmental laws will be prosecuted vigorously and will face the possibility of long prison sentences.”

At the trial, Lucas called Palmer as a defense witness. Palmer, testifying on his own time under subpoena, confirmed his role in advising Lucas in how to sell lots for development despite official cease and desist orders. Palmer also admitted that he regarded EPA staff as “unethical” and overzealous in enforcing the Clean Water Act and aggressively resisted earlier enforcement efforts.

<h3>“Jimmy Palmer’s conduct in the Big Hills Acres case raises serious questions about his fitness to continue serving as a federal official who is supposed to be enforcing the very environmental laws that his clients, following his advice, were flouting,” asked PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that EPA has yet to veto a single development project for wetlands violations, or any other reason, during Palmer’s tenure.</h3> “In his official capacity, Palmer acts as if he is still representing unscrupulous developers.”
Quote:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/March/05_enrd_084.htm
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2005
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
ENRD


TWO CORPORATIONS AND THREE SOUTH MISSISSIPPIANS CONVICTED OF FILLING WETLANDS AND DEFRAUDING HOMEOWNERS ABOUT SUITABILITY OF LOTS FOR DEVELOPMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi announced today that on Friday, February 25, 2005, a petit jury in Jackson, Mississippi, returned guilty verdicts on all counts in an indictment brought against Robert Lucas, Jr., of Lucedale, Mississippi; his daughter, Robbie Lucas Wrigley of Ocean Springs, Mississippi; and M. E. Thompson, Jr., of D’Iberville, Mississippi, and two affiliated corporations; Big Hill Acres, Inc., and Consolidated Investments, Inc. The three individuals and two corporations were charged with Clean Water Act violations in connection with their development of wetlands in a 2600 acre subdivision on property in Vancleave, Mississippi, known as Big Hill Acres.

In addition, the individuals and corporations were convicted of conspiracy and mail fraud for having sold hundreds of home sites in wetlands despite numerous warnings from public health officials that they were illegally installing septic systems in saturated soil. Warnings stated that these systems were likely to fail and contaminate the property and the drinking water aquifer below it.

“These defendants endangered the environment and public health by disregarding the law and by ignoring repeated warnings from federal, state, and local officials,” said Tom Sansonetti, the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “In his Earth Day message, President Bush made it a priority of this Administration to preserve and protect wetlands. This case demonstrates the Department’s commitment to that goal.”

"The defendants illegally filled hundreds of acres of wetlands and defrauded low-income residents of Big Hill Acres who ended up with leaking sewage that put the health of their families at risk," said Thomas V. Skinner, EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "The convictions should send a clear message that those who knowingly jeopardize public health will be held accountable for their crimes."

The indictment charged that as early as 1996, inspectors from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers informed Mr. Lucas that substantial portions of the Big Hill Acres property contained wetlands and could not be developed as home sites. The indictment recites a long record of warnings that the Mississippi Department of Health and other regulatory agencies issued to the defendants notifying them of the public health threat they were creating by continuing to install septic systems in saturated soil. Neither those warnings nor cease and desist orders from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency restrained Lucas, Wrigley, and engineer M. E. Thompson from improperly installing systems that did not conform to state health department regulations in lots that they continued to develop and sell.

The Big Hill Acres residents have suffered from seasonal flooding and the discharge of sewage from failing septic systems on the ground around their homes. The development has been the subject of numerous civil lawsuits by tenants against the developers.

This case was investigated by the FBI and the EPA with the assistance of the Department of Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Service and the Mississippi Department of Health. It is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Jeremy Korzenik and Deborah Harris of the Department of Justice’s Environmental Crimes Section and by Assistant United States Attorney Jay Golden of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Quote:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/Dec...rd_644%20.html
DEFENDANTS RECEIVE MAJOR JAIL SENTENCES, PAY RESTITUTION FOR MAJOR WETLANDS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
Total Incarceration More Than 23 Years; Total Fines More Than $5.3 Million

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In one of the most significant wetlands criminal enforcement prosecutions in United States history, Robert J. Lucas, Jr.; his daughter, Robbie Lucas; and M. E. Thompson, Jr.; and two affiliated corporations-Big Hill Acres, Inc., and Consolidated Investments, Inc.-were sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today.

Robert Lucas was sentenced to nine years in prison followed by three years of supervised release, and will pay a $15,000 fine. Robbie Wrigley was sentenced to 87 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release, and is also required to pay a $15,000 fine. M.E. Thompson was also sentenced to 87 months in prison followed by three years supervised release, and will pay a $15,000.

Big Hill Acres, Inc. was fined $4.8 million and sentenced to five years probation. Consolidated Investments, Inc. was sentenced to 5 years probation and is required to pay a $500,000 fine.

“The defendants in this case defrauded their customers and destroyed wetlands that are critical to the Gulf Coast ecosystem,” said Sue Ellen Wooldridge, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “This landmark criminal case sends a strong message that corporations and individuals who commit flagrant violations of our environmental laws will be prosecuted vigorously and will face the possibility of lengthy
prison sentences.”   click to show 

dc_dux 10-28-2007 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
...

No, but he's a spokesman for everything big government how much better government performs the bigger it is.
Thanks for making me a spokesperson, but at least get it right....I have never said anywhere that "the bigger government, the better". You misrepresented the "general welfare" clause and FDR's "stacking the court" and now you are misrepresenting me. :shakehead:

I have said that it is in the best interest of the citizens and the states that some functions like regulating the environment, the workplace, food and drugs, securities and banking, the civil rights of citizens, etc....are best performed by the federal government. That doesnt it mean it cant be more efficient.

Clinton/Gore had the right idea with their National Partnership for Reinventing Government . They eliminated 250+ outdated government programs, slashed more than 160,000 pages of regulations, cut more than 640,000 pages of internal rules, and (with a Repub Congress) balanced the federal budget for the first time in 30 years. They just didnt have the balls to follow through and do more because of a lack of support from the Repub Congress and external (ie lobbyists) pressures. All the more reason for serious campaign finance reform, which Ron Paul opposes.

Ron Paul's arguments that these federal government functions are unconstitutional are false. His "states rights" argument that these are state mandated responsibilities in the Constitution is also false and would result in the ultimate in inefficiencies and inequities. And his argument that industry/private property owners make better self-regulators is simply absurd...with no basis in fact anytime in US history.

He is an extremist who wants to return to a 19th century federal government in a 21st century world.

Again, all of which explains why he has no mass appeal and is stuck at low single digits in the polls.

rlbond86 10-28-2007 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Thanks for making me a spokesperson, but at least get it right....I have never said anywhere that "the bigger government, the better". You misrepresented the "general welfare" clause and FDR's "stacking the court" and now you are misrepresenting me. :shakehead:

I have said that it is in the best interest of the citizens and the states that some functions like regulating the environment, the workplace, food and drugs, securities and banking, the civil rights of citizens, etc....are best performed by the federal government. That doesnt it mean it cant be more efficient.

Clinton/Gore had the right idea with their National Partnership for Reinventing Government . They eliminated 250+ outdated government programs, slashed more than 160,000 pages of regulations, cut more than 640,000 pages of internal rules, and (with a Repub Congress) balanced the federal budget for the first time in 30 years. They just didnt have the balls to follow through and do more because of a lack of support from the Repub Congress and external (ie lobbyists) pressures. All the more reason for serious campaign finance reform, which Ron Paul opposes.

Ron Paul's arguments that these federal government functions are unconstitutional are false. His "states rights" argument that these are state mandated responsibilities in the Constitution is also false and would result in the ultimate in inefficiencies and inequities. And his argument that industry/private property owners make better self-regulators is simply absurd...with no basis in fact anytime in US history.

He is an extremist who wants to return to a 19th century federal government in a 21st century world.

Again, all of which explains why he has no mass appeal and is stuck at low single digits in the polls.
Agreed. There are very few things with multiple parts that can work without central management.

You don't run a company without a board of directors who oversee operations.

You don't use computer programs without an operating system.

You don't run a country without a federal government.

ASU2003 10-28-2007 05:13 PM
There is a difference between having a strong federal government and a weak one.

The federal dept of transportation is pretty small, but they give the money and standards to each state (for interstate highways). Each state as road crews and has the right equipment. What would happen if they made it all a federal government operation?

Quote:
Clinton/Gore had the right idea with their National Partnership for Reinventing Government . They eliminated 250+ outdated government programs, slashed more than 160,000 pages of regulations, cut more than 640,000 pages of internal rules, and (with a Repub Congress) balanced the federal budget for the first time in 30 years.
I will only vote fo a candidate that has a sound policy for balancing the budget. I don't care which party they belong to.

samcol 10-28-2007 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
There is a difference between having a strong federal government and a weak one.

The federal dept of transportation is pretty small, but they give the money and standards to each state (for interstate highways). Each state as road crews and has the right equipment. What would happen if they made it all a federal government operation?



I will only vote fo a candidate that has a sound policy for balancing the budget. I don't care which party they belong to.
The federal government has the authority to build roads. Ron Paul has a sound policy for balancing the budget that is for sure.

dc_dux 10-28-2007 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
There is a difference between having a strong federal government and a weak one.

The federal dept of transportation is pretty small, but they give the money and standards to each state (for interstate highways). Each state as road crews and has the right equipment. What would happen if they made it all a federal government operation?
The DOT does a hell of alot more than fund the interstate highway system....all with constitutional authority.

It is responsible for managing the air traffic control system and the US commercial air space; promulgating air and rail safety standards; regulating the transportation of hazardous materials over air, rail and highways and through pipelines,...

Do you want these functions left to the states or the private tranportation industry?

ASU2003 10-28-2007 08:49 PM
I never said anything bad about the DOT or anything about what else they do, just that they let the states determine how to spend the highway dollars, instead of trying to manage it all themselves. And the federal government can control the states by not giving them the money if it doesn't get used properly.

Willravel 10-29-2007 07:15 PM
I was surprised to find this article on reddit today. Kucinich beat Hillary and Barak in a straw poll coming in second behind Edwards.

Frankly, I was starting to lose hope and give in to the idea that the underdog of this election was RP. I guess that's not necessarily the case. Kucinich and Paul are good friends, by my understanding. Ron Paul might make a good Vip.

ASU2003 10-29-2007 07:28 PM
Is it becauise of the war issue that he did so well?

Willravel 10-29-2007 08:18 PM
Probably. Kucinich has a very good anti-Iraq war record.

samcol 10-29-2007 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I was surprised to find this article on reddit today. Kucinich beat Hillary and Barak in a straw poll coming in second behind Edwards.

Frankly, I was starting to lose hope and give in to the idea that the underdog of this election was RP. I guess that's not necessarily the case. Kucinich and Paul are good friends, by my understanding. Ron Paul might make a good Vip.
Winning straw polls means nothing...:rolleyes:

Even though Ron Paul has dominated every other Repub candidate overall in straw polls.

Sorry, for the sarcasm, but that's all this thread has been about in regards to RP's achievements.

In all honesty, I'd easily vote for Kucinich over any Repub or Dem candidate besides Paul. Nice to see him beat Hillary for sure.
:thumbsup:

dc_dux 10-30-2007 05:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
Winning straw polls means nothing...:rolleyes:

Even though Ron Paul has dominated every other Repub candidate overall in straw polls.

Sorry, for the sarcasm, but that's all this thread has been about in regards to RP's achievements.

In all honesty, I'd easily vote for Kucinich over any Repub or Dem candidate besides Paul. Nice to see him beat Hillary for sure.
:thumbsup:
Come on guys, be serious.....straw polls mean very little and measure even less, particularly county party events like this one and most of Ron Pau's straw poll "wins" :)

They have no statistical validity and only measure an organization's ability to get its more activist supporters to attend a a meaningless event (often a state/county party fundraiser where participants pay to play). This one cost $25

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
Is it because of the war issue that he did so well?
I dont doubt that his war position helped....but he was the only candidate to attend in person. Don't you think that might have influenced the turn-out and results?

Of course, the bottom tier candidates try harder at these minor events...they have everything to gain by participating. Did the Hillary and Barak teams even bother to encourage their supporters to attend? Who knows?

Bottom line - there's not a political consultant around who would put much stock in a straw poll other than to build their contributors lists and potentially give their candidate a short term psychological boost.

But if it keeps you involved and engaged in the process, cool :thumbsup:

rlbond86 10-30-2007 04:51 PM
Here is a reason I do not believe Mr. Paul's ideology. It is from Project Censored:

Quote:
A report issued in June 2005 by the non-profit organization Action Aid reveals that much of the US tax money earmarked to rebuild Afghanistan actually ends up going no further than the pockets of wealthy US corporations. “Phantom aid” that never shows up in the recipient country is a scam in which paychecks for overpriced, and often incompetent, American “experts” under contract to USAID go directly from the Agency to American bank accounts. Additionally, 70 percent of the aid that does make it to a recipient country is carefully “tied” to the donor nation, requiring that the recipient use the donated money to buy products and services from the donor country, often at drastically inflated prices. The US far outstrips other nations in these schemes, as Action Aid calculates that 86 cents of every dollar of American aid is phantom.
Authors Ann Jones and Fariba Nawa suggest that in order to understand the failure and fraud in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, it is important to look at the peculiar system of American aid for international development. International and national agencies—including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and USAID, that traditionally distribute aid money to developing countries—have designed a system that is efficient in funneling money back to the wealthy donor countries, while undermining sustainable development in poor states.
A former head of USAID cited foreign aid as “a key foreign policy instrument” designed to help countries “become better markets for US exports.” To guarantee that mission, the State Department recently took over the aid agency. USAID and the Army Corps of Engineers now cut in US business and government interests from the start, making sure that money is allocated according to US economic, political, strategic, and military priorities, rather than according to what the recipient nation might consider important.
Though Afghans have petitioned to allocate aid money as they find appropriate, donor countries object, claiming that the Afghan government is too corrupt to be trusted. Increasingly frustrated and angry Afghan communities meanwhile claim that the no-bid, open-ended contracts being awarded to contractors such as Kellogg, Brown, and Root/Halliburton, DynCorp, Blackwater, and the Louis Berger Group are equivalent to licensed bribery, corruption, theft, and money laundering.
The Karzai government, confined to a self-serving American agenda, has delivered little to the average Afghan, most of whom still live in abject poverty. Western notions of progress evident in US-contracted hotels, restaurants, and shopping malls full of new electronic gadgets and appliances are beyond the imaginations or practicalities of 3.5 million war torn Afghan citizens who are without food, shelter, sewage systems, clean water or electricity.
Infrastructure hastily built with shoddy materials and no knowledge or respect for geologic or climatic conditions is culminating in one expensive failure after another. USAID’s website, for example, boasts of its only infrastructure accomplishment in Afghanistan—the Kabul-Kandahar Highway—a narrow and already crumbling highway costing Afghanis $1 million a mile. The highway was featured in the Kabul Weekly newspaper in March 2005 under the headline, “Millions Wasted on Second-Rate Roads.” The article notes that while other bids from more competent construction firms came in at one-third the cost, the contract went to the Louis Berger Group, a firm with tight connections to the Bush administration—as well as a notorious track record of other failed and abandoned construction projects in Afghanistan.
Former Minister of Planning, Ramazan Bashardost, complained that when it came to building roads, the Taliban had done a better job. “And,” he also asked, “Where did the money go?” Now, in a move certain to lower President Karzai’s approval ratings and further diminish US popularity in the area, the Bush administration has pressured Karzai to turn this “gift from the people of the United States” into a toll road, charging each driver $20 for a road-use permit valid for one month. In this way, according to American “experts” providing highly paid technical assistance, Afghanistan can collect $30 million annually from its impoverished citizens and thereby decrease the foreign aid “burden” on the United States.
Jones asks, “Is it any wonder that foreign aid seems to ordinary Afghans to be something only foreigners enjoy?”
UPDATE BY Fariba Nawa
Afghanistan, Inc. is a thirty-page report that digs deep into the corruption involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The report focuses on US government-funded companies contracted to rebuild Afghanistan. The importance of this report is that it’s the first serious look at corruption of aid money spending from a grassroots level. It includes an emphasis on various projects in villages and the cities and it covers all sides of the issue. It shows how big money is spent on bad work.
The report was first published in English through CorpWatch, a watchdog of corporations, on May 2, 2006. It was translated into the Persian languages of Dari and Pashto in September 2006. The companies investigated in the report continue to receive millions of dollars in contracts from the US government despite their incompetence and wasteful spending. Louis Berger, Bearing Point, Chemonics, and DynCorp are still taking American taxpayers’ money and showing minimum results in Afghanistan.
Some of the mainstream press gave the report coverage, including NPR’s Morning Edition, KRON Channel 4 news in San Francisco when it was first published, and later on, BBC radio and many other European outlets continue to call and ask the author about the report. However, that’s a limited response to the fact that this was a groundbreaking report with important information for policy change. The report has been a source for many others researching the subject. If you’d like more information on corruption on reconstruction in Afghanistan, please refer to CorpWatch’s website www.corpwatch.org. Integrity Watch Afghanistan is another organization that monitors corruption in the country and produces various reports.
UPDATE BY ANN JONES
Nine months later the conundrum I described—no peace, no security, no development—still pertains, and Afghan hopes sour.
The US still looks for a military solution. In the first five months of 2007, seventy-five coalition troops were killed (compared to fifty-three in the same period last year), including thirty-eight Americans. Civilian casualties were variously reported—some sources said “almost 1,800”—including 135 killed by US or NATO forces.
The US position on military “progress” against the Taliban, expressed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 4, 2007, as he prepared to visit Afghanistan, remained “guarded optimism.” Gates told reporters a goal of his trip was to insure close coordination of combat operations and development and reconstruction efforts. That’s a switch, suggesting some clue that reconstruction may be a better way to “kill” the Taliban, but leaving unanswered the question of how to coordinate war and peaceful activity.
The real importance of “Why It’s Not Working in Afghanistan” lies behind the front page military coverage—in what it reveals of the systemic scams and should-be scandals of American aid. The story makes news now and then when billions “disappear” from reconstruction projects in Iraq, but to my knowledge it has yet to be investigated by media or congress. What’s discussed is the occasional budgetary black hole that suggests some random malfeasance, in much the same way that torture at Abu Ghraib was discussed as the work of a few “bad apples.”
Maybe reporters don’t want to take up the story because it’s complicated. It’s about numbers. Like Enron. Dreary, ho-hum, life-shattering stuff. I don’t know. But one curious thing: when my book Kabul in Winter appeared in 2006, a very long section on this topic was the one part no reviewer touched.
Now bigger voices than mine speak out. Abdullah Abdullah, the distinguished former Foreign Minister of Afghanistan, recently complained that of every $100,000 promised to Afghan development, less than a third reaches the country. Matt Waldman, head of Afghanistan policy for Oxfam, one of the most respected humanitarian NGOs in the world, wrote in The Guardian (May 26, 2007) that “America is bankrolling Afghanistan” but “as in Iraq, a vast proportion of aid is wasted.” And more to the point, “Close to half of US development assistance goes to the five biggest US contractors in the country.” Waldman argues that too much aid money is lost to high salaries and living costs of international experts, purchase of non-Afghan resources, and corporate profits. He figures the cost of the average expat (read “American”) expert at half a million dollars a year.
So why is it left to representatives of foreign governments, foreign humanitarian organizations, and foreign press to expose this fraud?
More proof that you can't trust corporations without regulations.

samcol 10-30-2007 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlbond86
Here is a reason I do not believe Mr. Paul's ideology. It is from Project Censored:

More proof that you can't trust corporations without regulations.
What does your post even have to do with free market. You're talking about government handing out contracts to corporations. That is not a free market.

Plus, Ron Paul has said numerous times that he is strickly against nation building which is what your quote was about.

You want the same government that hands out contracts to corporations in such a poor way, to regulate these corporations. :rolleyes:

dc_dux 10-30-2007 08:04 PM
Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would lose to Stephen Colbert in a heads up presidential election, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

Colbert beats Ron Paul 36% - 32% and beat Kucinich 37% - 32%
Quote:
According to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey of Colbert's prospects, the comedian culls greater support from likely voters than either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich when he is pitted against those candidates.

Given a choice between Colbert running as a Democrat and Republican Congressman Ron Paul, 36% of voters prefer Colbert while Paul attracts 32%. Twenty-one percent (21%) say they’d vote for some other candidate while 10% are not sure.

If the choice is between Colbert as a Republican and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, it’s Colbert 37%, Kucinich 32%. Nineteen percent (19%) would vote for some other candidate and 11% are not sure.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...sidential_poll
BTW, Rasmussen is more scientific in its polling that straw polls..or text message polls....or internet polls :)

Willravel 10-30-2007 08:58 PM
I'm fully aware of the futility of supporting Kucinich. He stands no chance whatsoever. That's why I posted the article above. Straw polls ain't no thing but a chicken wing.

dc_dux 10-31-2007 04:14 AM
Will....I would definetly vote for Kucinich over Colbert :) ..but I could never say the same about Ron Paul.

While Kucinich and Paul may share similar views on the unconstitutionality of Bush's war and a few other issues like privacy violations in the guise of national security, they differ substantially on the Constitutional role of the federal government.

Kucinich does not have the arrogance to attempt to force his interpretation of the framers' intent above the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

samcol 10-31-2007 02:34 PM
Ron Paul on Leno last night.


ASU2003 10-31-2007 04:34 PM
I saw that last night. Jay's opening remark about how Dr. Paul was the only guy in Washington DC to tell more women to take off their clothes than Bill Clinton was great.

That Rasmussen Report makes no sense though. How could Colbert get the highest percentage? Do this mean that he is the front runner now? Or did they just ask people that were at the Colbert rally who they were voting for? You only have 31% voting for one of the other candidates...

As for the foreign aid example up there, that is why he wants to stop wasting the taxpayers money. Maybe the lobbiests said that it would spur the local economy in the US by doing it that way, but it is a mess, and they were able to survive prior to 1913 when America didn't get involved in anything.

samcol 11-05-2007 09:31 AM
Remember, Remember the fifth of November...

The website This November 5th had a sign up to attempt 100,000 donors to the Paul campaign at $100 dollars a donation. Only 18,000 signed up, however his contribution has gone up an amazing $2 million in just 12 hours.

This might be the most money raised ever in a 24 hour period (with 12 hours still to go), anyone know?

So, if you like the message support him by donating if you can.

host 11-05-2007 10:43 AM
I am concerned that Ron Paul's proposals are as unlikely as those of any republican candidates to improve what I perceive to be our most important negative economic trend. Implementing Ron Paul's ideas would be quite the opposite of improving wealth distribution.

Just so you know:

Quote:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006APS..MARA33007M
Abstract
It has been well established by computer simulations that a free, unregulated market economy (in the simplest model of a yard sale economy) is unstable and collapses to a singular wealth distribution. It is now a common procedure in computer simulations to stabilize a model by favoring the poorer partner in each transaction, or by redistributing the wealth in the society in favor of the poorer part of the population. Such measures stabilize the economy and create a stationary state with a Gini index G<1. This suggests that there is some optimal range of the Gini index which is indicative of a healthy and dynamic economy. To verify this assumption, I plotted the PPP (parity purchasing power) for all countries in the world against their Gini indices, and found that they all (with only 2 outliers) fall into one of two groups: ``wealthy'' countries with PPP>10,000/year, and the rest. The former are characterized by G=0.29±0.07, and the latter by a uniform distribution of all possible Gs. <h3>This means that an enforced wealth redistribution is not a moral act of social consciousness, but a necessary precondition for a sustainable economy. </h3>The existence of an optimal G is illustrated through a simple model of a yard sale economy with taxation.
Quote:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=5&gl=us
Page 3

....In this study, we analyze the effects of corruption on income inequality and
growth by using data from U.S. states. Our analysis advances the existing literature in
three ways. First, we avoid comparing different countries by examining differences in
income inequality, growth, and corruption across U.S. states. Data on corruption as
well as on income inequality and growth for U.S. states are more comparable than
those for different countries, and U.S. states are more similar in other dimensions that
are difficult to measure. .....

Page 5

... Between 1982 and 1997, five most corrupt states appear to be Illinois, Alaska, Tennessee,
Mississippi, and South Dakota whereas the five least corrupt states appear to be
Vermont, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and New Hampshire. Regarding income
inequality, Wisconsin, Vermont, Utah, Iowa, and Maine have the lowest Gini
Coefficients (lowest income inequality) whereas California, New Mexico,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas have the highest Gini Coefficients (highest income
inequality). The summary statistics for four 4-year periods between 1982 and 1997
and for fifty states of all variables are given in Table 1. ....

filtherton 11-05-2007 11:01 AM
What you're forgetting, host, is that ron paul is the only person- besides the subset of the founding fathers whose writings can be interpreted posthumously as being in agreement with ron paul- who is in a position to correctly interpret the constitution. That some of his opinions run completely counter to any number of constitutional law experts only means that the constitutional law experts are wrong. Ron paul is not wrong. Economic stability is unimportant, because ron paul doesn't think that the constitution allows it. Equitable income distribution isn't worthwhile because ron paul doesn't think the constitution allows it.

dksuddeth 11-05-2007 11:02 AM
wealth redistribution is nothing more than legally organized theft by government. If it was YOUR wealth that was going to be systematically redistributed, i'm guessing you'd have a bit different outlook on the issue.

Willravel 11-05-2007 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
What you're forgetting, host, is that ron paul is the only person- besides the subset of the founding fathers whose writings can be interpreted posthumously as being in agreement with ron paul- who is in a position to correctly interpret the constitution. That some of his opinions run completely counter to any number of constitutional law experts only means that the constitutional law experts are wrong. Ron paul is not wrong. Economic stability is unimportant, because ron paul doesn't think that the constitution allows it. Equitable income distribution isn't worthwhile because ron paul doesn't think the constitution allows it.
Thoroughly enjoyable post.

telekinetic 11-05-2007 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Equitable income distribution isn't worthwhile because ron paul doesn't think the constitution allows it.
The only income distribution I'm concerned with is as much of my income as is not neccessary for the services I use, being distributed to me.

filtherton 11-05-2007 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
wealth redistribution is nothing more than legally organized theft by government. If it was YOUR wealth that was going to be systematically redistributed, i'm guessing you'd have a bit different outlook on the issue.
Have you been looking at my bank statements again? Because otherwise, you know even less about what the government is doing with my wealth than you do about constitutional law.

My wealth is being redistributed, and it isn't just the government that's doing it. My school is pretty good at redistributing my money, as is my landlord, as is the car insurance company, and my grocery store, etc. The economy is a system of wealth redistribution. Sometimes there are situations in which the government might need to step in to keep things running smoothly- see host's post above mine.

Free-er markets tend towards radically uneven distributions of wealth. Radically uneven distributions of wealth tend towards a large group of poor and generally unhappy people who tend towards then being slaves to the people who own everything, either that or they tend to towards some sort of revolution- probably not of the libertarian sort.


edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedmosaic
The only income distribution I'm concerned with is as much of my income as is not neccessary for the services I use, being distributed to me.
The problem is that you live in a very interconnected economy. You benefit from the goverment spending your money in a lot of ways which aren't entirely obvious. One reason for economic growth is improvements in technology, and many improvements in technology come at the taxpayer's expense.

It doesn't really seem reasonable to me to be able to expect that you should only have to pay for the services you use, because you depend on people who use services that you don't use.

samcol 11-05-2007 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
I am concerned that Ron Paul's proposals are as unlikely as those of any republican candidates to improve what I perceive to be our most important negative economic trend. Implementing Ron Paul's ideas would be quite the opposite of improving wealth distribution.

Just so you know:
I don't know how the federal reserve is not THE prime issue when it comes to wealth distribution. It is the heart of the matter. An institution that lends people money that it doesn't have (fractional reserve banking) then seizes 'real' assests (land, houses, cars etc.) when you can't pay up is the real problem. I don't need a computer simulation to tell me this system will end with big bankers and big corporations owning EVERYTHING. The longer this institution continues to operate the greater the wealth gaps will become.

Host, why do you focus on petty issues like welfare, social security and progressive taxing based on wealth? The Federal Reserve is the KEY economic wealth distribution problem.

Ron Pauls sollution is to abolish the Federal Reserve. This will fix the problem faster and more effectively than crying about taxes or social programs. Not voting for a candidate who supports ending the Federal Reserve is just contributing to the wealth gap.

host 11-05-2007 12:43 PM
samcol, the largest asset of the households in the US, far and away, is the equity hled in the homes that they live in. The equity held is the difference between what the homeowner or mortgagee, would net after a sale, and after proceeds of the sale first pay off all liens on the property and sales and closing expenses.

My understanding of what you and candidate Paul are advocating, is a "reform" which would eliminate fractional reserve banking. Mortgage loans approved to prospective home buyers would come from cash reserves of lenders, in the case of lending banks. from a portion of deposits not reserved to protect a bank from a sudden "run" on it's deposits, a series of numerous, unforseen withdrawals by depositors.

Since real estate values correlate directly to liquidity, the ease and availability of mortgage loans, how would ending of fractional reserve banking, even if it was a gradual...say five year process, preserve liquidity, especially since Americans support a negaitve savings rate? Wouldn't it be more likely that ending fractional reserve banking, in addition to pressures from mortgage loan resets and falling housing prices already in progress, would accelerate foreclosures and transfer an impressively large portion of housing assets from current householder/mortgagees....to wealthy investors?

Paul's intent is to reverse the quantity money supply. If that is done or even aniticpated, all assets will be worth less. Less government regulation will leave everyone to build on what they already have, or don't have. It offers an enormous headstart for the wealthiest and most connected, to take what is left in the hands of the less wealthy, 90 percent.

Call the "Paul movement", what is. It's a group of people in good health with good future income prospects who do not want to pay taxes.

Be careful crossing the street, avoid touching your face with your fingers, wash your hands often, avoid crowds and people who sneeze without covering their mouths. If you succeed in electing Ron Paul, you're going to have to stay healthy to earn and keep all that money!

dksuddeth 11-05-2007 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Have you been looking at my bank statements again? Because otherwise, you know even less about what the government is doing with my wealth than you do about constitutional law.
I was going to come back with a really smart ass remark, until I read the following by you....

Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
My wealth is being redistributed, and it isn't just the government that's doing it. My school is pretty good at redistributing my money, as is my landlord, as is the car insurance company, and my grocery store, etc. The economy is a system of wealth redistribution. Sometimes there are situations in which the government might need to step in to keep things running smoothly- see host's post above mine.
This tells me that you were attempting to be sarcastic and failed or you don't know the difference between wealth redistribution and the actual creation of wealth. I'm tending towards the latter unless you can tell me differently.

samcol 11-05-2007 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
samcol, the largest asset of the households in the US, far and away, is the equity hled in the homes that they live in. The equity held is the difference between what the homeowner or mortgagee, would net after a sale, and after proceeds of the sale first pay off all liens on the property and sales and closing expenses.

My understanding of what you and candidate Paul are advocating, is a "reform" which would eliminate fractional reserve banking. Mortgage loans approved to prospective home buyers would come from cash reserves of lenders, in the case of lending banks. from a portion of deposits not reserved to protect a bank from a sudden "run" on it's deposits, a series of numerous, unforseen withdrawals by depositors.

Since real estate values correlate directly to liquidity, the ease and availability of mortgage loans, how would ending of fractional reserve banking, even if it was a gradual...say five year process, preserve liquidity, especially since Americans support a negaitve savings rate? Wouldn't it be more likely that ending fractional reserve banking, in addition to pressures from mortgage loan resets and falling housing prices already in progress, would accelerate foreclosures and transfer an impressively large portion of housing assets from current householder/mortgagees....to wealthy investors?

Paul's intent is to reverse the quantity money supply. If that is done or even aniticpated, all assets will be worth less. Less government regulation will leave everyone to build on what they already have, or don't have. It offers an enormous headstart for the wealthiest and most connected, to take what is left in the hands of the less wealthy, 90 percent.

Call the "Paul movement", what is. It's a group of people in good health with good future income prospects who do not want to pay taxes.

Be careful crossing the street, avoid touching your face with your fingers, wash your hands often, avoid crowds and people who sneeze without covering their mouths. If you succeed in electing Ron Paul, you're going to have to stay healthy to earn and keep all that money!
What is the better choice, a gradual removal of the fractional reserve or a never ending life of despotism with the federal reserve that no amount of social welfare programs can ever cure?

There is no doubt removing the Fed will definetly cause rocky economic times, but how is that worse than a complete crash that seems inevitable? Ron Paul's plan is to remove the Fed gradually as well mandatory participation in social programs. Abrubtly ending both instantly would be nothing more than a government manufactured crash rather than the assured crash that is coming.

I don't see how me being able to spend or save more of my money as a bad thing. I can't help it if someone doesn't practice sound personal financing, but if we let the government handle it we are all stuck. I have little faith in them getting us benefits or saving us in a crisis. Social Security has been robbed and FEMA's track record is horrible (New Orleans anyone?). The people running the show have proved time and time again that they cannot handle our money properly.

filtherton 11-05-2007 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
This tells me that you were attempting to be sarcastic and failed or you don't know the difference between wealth redistribution and the actual creation of wealth. I'm tending towards the latter unless you can tell me differently.
Oh, i'm aware of what the term "wealth redistribution" means when it's used as some sort of capitalist bogeyman. The word socialism is used in the same way. They are both vapid code words for, "stuff we don't like". The fact remains that if market systems didn't have some deficiency when it came to the equitable distribution of wealth then governments wouldn't have to step in.

samcol 11-05-2007 05:06 PM
closing in on 4 million with four hours to go....

This is incredible. I thought he'd get a million or so but he's got to be crushing every record by now.

Is this really just an internet thing? 3.5 or whatever million? Is he still a 2nd tier candidate?

dc_dux 11-05-2007 07:47 PM
Its an impressive one day total, but will it move him off his last place flatline:

http://www.pollster.com/AUSTopReps600.png
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Rep-Pres-Primary.php

I think its more likely he will flameout like the last internet candidate, Howard Dean, who set all kinds of internet fundraising records in 04. And Dean also had a very respectable showing in the national polls going into the primaries in 04

Paul's national and state (Iowa, NH, SC) polls numbers are abysmal, indicative of the fact that his internet support still has not extended to the vast majority of likely republican primary voters in any measurable number.

And his contributors are overwhelming male (like over 80%)...which also doesnt translate well to general primary voters.

Much will also depend on how deep the voters dig beyond his surface appeal now that he is gaining some recognition.

Will his basic ad message of "end the war/bring the troops home, shut down the IRS" be enough for the non-internet mom and pops?

Or will primary voters want to know more...economic (jobs) poilcy, health care policy, energy and environmental policy..social policy. Do you really think most voters know or care about the Federal Reserve? Do you think there is widespread support to shut down EPA, DOE, Dept of Ed. (Reagan failed because there was not enough public support)? to end social security (Bush failed because there was not enough public support)and medicare?

If the other Republican candidates really perceive him as a threat (and they dont at this point), they will be licking their chops at raising the specter of Dr NO.....like his votes against NIH funding for medical research...against funding for Consumer Product Safety Commission to protect our kids from dangerous toys....against federal funding for alternative energy R&D, against federally-backed college loans....

His voting record against so many popular and/or (perceived) essential programs, once more widely known, will be his final death knoll.

BTW, Barack Obama is the big internet winner this year, with about 1/3 of his $80+ million from well over 100,000 small internet donors.

rlbond86 11-05-2007 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
What is the better choice, a gradual removal of the fractional reserve or a never ending life of despotism with the federal reserve that no amount of social welfare programs can ever cure?

There is no doubt removing the Fed will definetly cause rocky economic times, but how is that worse than a complete crash that seems inevitable? Ron Paul's plan is to remove the Fed gradually as well mandatory participation in social programs. Abrubtly ending both instantly would be nothing more than a government manufactured crash rather than the assured crash that is coming.

I don't see how me being able to spend or save more of my money as a bad thing. I can't help it if someone doesn't practice sound personal financing, but if we let the government handle it we are all stuck. I have little faith in them getting us benefits or saving us in a crisis. Social Security has been robbed and FEMA's track record is horrible (New Orleans anyone?). The people running the show have proved time and time again that they cannot handle our money properly.
This is ridiculous. Are you listening to yourself? Do you even read what you type? This is no worse than the Bush idealists, who rationalize everything. The federal reserve causes despotism? Without it, it would be nearly impossible to buy a house.
With all the elderly, around 80% of whom vote, your candidate won't win when he talks about getting rid of social security.

Also, you're equating an EXECUTIVE issue with a monetary one. FEMA is doing terrible because the President hired someone incompetent to run it. The EPA is too influenced by industry. This is a problem with our leadership. You think letting the states handle these issues would fix the problem? If anything, it would be worse.

Then there's the multitude of things we need to fund with the Federal Government which have been listed in this thread many times.

The only people behind Ron Paul are idiot techies on the internet who don't really know how to run a government, and people who are unequivocally against the war to the point where it is their central issue. And just because they're spendthrifts when Ron Paul asks for money doesn't mean he's a remotely good candidate.

I have respect for him because he sticks to his guns, but I won't be supporting him. Though as far as the Republican candidates go, he's the best on their roster.

samcol 11-05-2007 09:32 PM
From the best I can tell he raised $4,332,202.19 in 24 hours. There are mail in donations that might not of been processed. Plus, there's a rumor that credit card companies can only process so many requests an hour, so this total might be higher.

Still impressive none the less.

telekinetic 11-06-2007 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlbond86
This is ridiculous. Are you listening to yourself? Do you even read what you type? This is no worse than the Bush idealists, who rationalize everything. The federal reserve causes despotism? Without it, it would be nearly impossible to buy a house.
With all the elderly, around 80% of whom vote, your candidate won't win when he talks about getting rid of social security.

Also, you're equating an EXECUTIVE issue with a monetary one. FEMA is doing terrible because the President hired someone incompetent to run it. The EPA is too influenced by industry. This is a problem with our leadership. You think letting the states handle these issues would fix the problem? If anything, it would be worse.

Then there's the multitude of things we need to fund with the Federal Government which have been listed in this thread many times.

The only people behind Ron Paul are idiot techies on the internet who don't really know how to run a government, and people who are unequivocally against the war to the point where it is their central issue. And just because they're spendthrifts when Ron Paul asks for money doesn't mean he's a remotely good candidate.

I have respect for him because he sticks to his guns, but I won't be supporting him. Though as far as the Republican candidates go, he's the best on their roster.
He is not advocating that we eliminate social security for the people currently dependant on it, just that we find alternate means of funding it other than by taxing the people currently entering or newly in the workforce who can be fairly confident at this point that they will recieve no benefits from it.

Also, it's not as if the Government will be recieving zero funds at all, he's not abolishing ALL taxes. We get enough revenue through other sources (such as import/export traffic) to raise a significant amount of funds.

dksuddeth 11-06-2007 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlbond86
This is ridiculous. Are you listening to yourself? Do you even read what you type? This is no worse than the Bush idealists, who rationalize everything. The federal reserve causes despotism? Without it, it would be nearly impossible to buy a house.
With all the elderly, around 80% of whom vote, your candidate won't win when he talks about getting rid of social security.

Also, you're equating an EXECUTIVE issue with a monetary one. FEMA is doing terrible because the President hired someone incompetent to run it. The EPA is too influenced by industry. This is a problem with our leadership. You think letting the states handle these issues would fix the problem? If anything, it would be worse.

Then there's the multitude of things we need to fund with the Federal Government which have been listed in this thread many times.

The only people behind Ron Paul are idiot techies on the internet who don't really know how to run a government, and people who are unequivocally against the war to the point where it is their central issue. And just because they're spendthrifts when Ron Paul asks for money doesn't mean he's a remotely good candidate.

I have respect for him because he sticks to his guns, but I won't be supporting him. Though as far as the Republican candidates go, he's the best on their roster.
The scary thing about this viewpoint is that you're trying to say that the only people who know how to run a government are those people who feel that you can only run a government with hugely funded liberal and socialist programs funded by the top income makers in taxpayer funds and that any other avenue of government is doomed to failure because it's idiotic.

the easy translation for this is 'i'm right, you're wrong, get the fuck over it and shut your mouth.' Frankly, i'm damn sick and tired of hearing this kind of shit from both the right and the left slanted people in this country that it makes me hope the civil war starts sooner rather than later. YOU are one of the main reasons that this country not only stays divided in it's purposes and causes, but will continue to become ever more divisive in nature.

dc_dux 11-06-2007 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
...the easy translation for this is 'i'm right, you're wrong, get the fuck over it and shut your mouth.' Frankly, i'm damn sick and tired of hearing this kind of shit from both the right and the left slanted people in this country that it makes me hope the civil war starts sooner rather than later. YOU are one of the main reasons that this country not only stays divided in it's purposes and causes, but will continue to become ever more divisive in nature.
Sorta like you and samcol and Ron Paul who believe that your interpretation of the Constitution is right and the Supreme Court's is wrong.

Get the fuck over it!

Willravel 11-06-2007 11:00 AM
The country is divided because most people lack the simple skill of thinking for themselves. It has nothing to do with a poor understanding of government and history.

dksuddeth 11-06-2007 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Sorta like you and samcol and Ron Paul who believe that your interpretation of the Constitution is right and the Supreme Court's is wrong.

Get the fuck over it!
right, because it's so damn hard to interpret 'shall not be infringed', or 'congress shall make no law' and decide that it means 'reasonable restrictions'. what a bunch of political bullshit.

host 11-06-2007 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
The scary thing about this viewpoint is that you're trying to say that the only people who know how to run a government are those people who feel that you can only run a government with hugely funded liberal and socialist programs funded by the top income makers in taxpayer funds and that any other avenue of government is doomed to failure because it's idiotic.

the easy translation for this is 'i'm right, you're wrong, get the fuck over it and shut your mouth.' Frankly, i'm damn sick and tired of hearing this kind of shit from both the right and the left slanted people in this country that it makes me hope the civil war starts sooner rather than later. YOU are one of the main reasons that this country not only stays divided in it's purposes and causes, but will continue to become ever more divisive in nature.
Surely we have the talent in the US to accomplish this, too:
Quote:
http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue41/Ginsburg41.htm

.....Poverty in Sweden is low by international standards, especially among children. A recent UNICEF report (2005)14 found that poverty among children -- using the common European measure that defines poverty as those living in households with less than half of the national median income -- had risen from 3 to 4.2 percent in the 1990s. But Sweden still ranked fourth lowest among 26 OECD nations with a rate just under one-fifth of the comparable U.S. rate of 21.9 percent......
Sweden's majority is committed to the results described above. The government gets it done. What the government in Sweden accomplishes could be accomplished here, with your support. No other method besides the efforts of strong federal government have achieved the low poverty rate in Sweden.

Sweden's numbers make the US appear to be a failed economic state. Our government could be directed to make wealth distribution more rational here, to. We have the examples of Sweden, Denmark, and France to study, and we could implement the best of all three, and also, learn from their mistakes.

It is not that government does not work, it is that you are not interested in trying to make it work, but you offer not other remedy to mitigate growing wealth inequality. You leave it to reach a critical point. You have the models of Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico to study, to see what will come from your politics.

Willravel 11-06-2007 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
right, because it's so damn hard to interpret 'shall not be infringed', or 'congress shall make no law' and decide that it means 'reasonable restrictions'. what a bunch of political bullshit.
It's frustrating, because you're not understanding simple constitutional law and governmental procedure.

The problem isn't the "shall not be infringed". That's pretty simple. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." speaks very clearly, however, about how "the people" who have "the right" "not to be infringed" must be a part of "a well regulated militia". This is very, very, very simple language. You're not in a well regulated militia, therefore you're not protected. But aside from obvious linguistics, the supreme court has spoken on their interpretation of the Second Amendment, and you disagreeing with them doesn't supersede their constitutionally provided authority to interpret. See, that's the bullshit. You read the constitution, and then ignore all of the constitutionally supported rulings over the next few hundred years. It's not 1776. It's 2007. The 231 years, 3 months, and 7 days between then and now still apply. You can ignore them if you want, but the reality is that legally, they happened.

Neither you nor Dr. Ron Paul are supreme court justices. It's not up to you to interpret laws, those interpretations which can be enforced by the executive. You vote. That is your right.

dksuddeth 11-06-2007 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
It's frustrating, because you're not understanding simple constitutional law and governmental procedure.
That's not the problem. I understand the constitution and constitutional law a damn sight better than most people here. The problem is that YOU and a whole host of others around this country think that there are only 9 people who wear black robes and sit on a bench that are qualified to interpret the constitution. This is why we end up with ass backwards and flagrantly illegal decisions like dred scott, cruikshank, and kelo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
(2nd amendment crap from willravel....)
You read the constitution, and then ignore all of the constitutionally supported rulings over the next few hundred years. It's not 1776. It's 2007. The 231 years, 3 months, and 7 days between then and now still apply. You can ignore them if you want, but the reality is that legally, they happened.
Again, you are taking ONE single case that has been repeatedly misinterpreted and perverted by at least 8 circuit courts and trying to declare that those particular idiots know something about the constitution. The time period is irrelevant and whats really amazing is that you think the further AWAY from the period that the constitution was written, the more clearly these idiots in black robes have the ability to know what the founders intended. The part that I bolded? check marbury v. madison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Neither you nor Dr. Ron Paul are supreme court justices. It's not up to you to interpret laws, those interpretations which can be enforced by the executive. You vote. That is your right.
again, your belief that ONLY the judiciary has the so called intelligence and wisdom to interpret a legal document correctly is so clearly foolhardy and wrong and also contributes to the ridiculous fights the parties have in the senate when confirming justices. It's assinine watching our so called representatives try to put a judge on the bench that will twist the constitution their direction. I don't NEED to be a supreme court justice to understand the constitution, only to pervert it legally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Surely we have the talent in the US to accomplish this, too:
but not the will, therein lies the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Sweden's majority is committed to the results described above. The government gets it done. What the government in Sweden accomplishes could be accomplished here, with your support.
And you don't have it. Having seen the results of the current government support of lazy asses like the current generation of kids graduating high school nowadays, makes me doubly sure I won't be supporting them by working my ass off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by host
No other method besides the efforts of strong federal government have achieved the low poverty rate in Sweden.
A strong federal government, the exact opposite of what this country was founded to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by host
It is not that government does not work, it is that you are not interested in trying to make it work, but you offer not other remedy to mitigate growing wealth inequality.
The US government was not given authority to make wealth accumulation equal and fair, it was given authority to protect the individual rights and liberties of it's citizens.

MuadDib 11-06-2007 12:33 PM
Ron Paul believes in Bigfoot and thinks the Civil War should not have been fought. He also likes new Coke and thinks Godfather III was pretty good. So his judgment’s in question.

Willravel 11-06-2007 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
That's not the problem. I understand the constitution and constitutional law a damn sight better than most people here. The problem is that YOU and a whole host of others around this country think that there are only 9 people who wear black robes and sit on a bench that are qualified to interpret the constitution. This is why we end up with ass backwards and flagrantly illegal decisions like dred scott, cruikshank, and kelo.
It's their job to interpret laws, and their interpretation is the way to interpret the law. That's the whole story. If you disagree, then that's your prerogative, but what they say is the interpretation of the law. You, dk, are not a justice, therefore your interpretation is not law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Again, you are taking ONE single case that has been repeatedly misinterpreted and perverted by at least 8 circuit courts and trying to declare that those particular idiots know something about the constitution. The time period is irrelevant and whats really amazing is that you think the further AWAY from the period that the constitution was written, the more clearly these idiots in black robes have the ability to know what the founders intended. The part that I bolded? check marbury v. madison.
You can call them idiots, but at the end of the day it's their interpretation that matters, not yours. Don't like it? Become a justice.

dksuddeth 11-06-2007 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
It's their job to interpret laws, and their interpretation is the way to interpret the law. That's the whole story. If you disagree, then that's your prerogative, but what they say is the interpretation of the law. You, dk, are not a justice, therefore your interpretation is not law.
Their job is NOT to interpret laws, but to determine if those laws are in direct contradiction with the constitution. This is also the problem here. Some groups in this country are happy to let the USSC interpret a law even though it's in direct contradiction with the intent of the law as it was written and these groups are all fat, dumb, and ignorant with that part of their governed life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
You can call them idiots, but at the end of the day it's their interpretation that matters, not yours. Don't like it? Become a justice.
working on it.

Willravel 11-06-2007 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Their job is NOT to interpret laws, but to determine if those laws are in direct contradiction with the constitution.
Talk about contradiction... If they say it contradicts the constitution, it does. That's the interpretation. Jesus.

dksuddeth 11-06-2007 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Talk about contradiction... If they say it contradicts the constitution, it does. That's the interpretation. Jesus.
there is only a contradiction when someone thinks that 'interpret' is defined as 'what did the lawmakers or founder REALLY mean when they wrote that.' Otherwise, it's reading the plain wording of the law and applying it to that end.

Again, why is it so damn hard to read what was written, the plain word, and NOT have to 'interpret' what the hell the words 'really' mean?

Willravel 11-06-2007 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
there is only a contradiction when someone thinks that 'interpret' is defined as 'what did the lawmakers or founder REALLY mean when they wrote that.' Otherwise, it's reading the plain wording of the law and applying it to that end.

Again, why is it so damn hard to read what was written, the plain word, and NOT have to 'interpret' what the hell the words 'really' mean?
I know you're interpreting the second amendment wrong, and I suspect you think the same as me. I've got the wording on my side, and you've got the NRA. Who's right? Well me obviously, but if you were on the supreme court you'd be in the position to interpret it in the way you think it was written, and I'd have to make my windows bulletproof in case a neighbor accidentally shoots at my house when trying to kill a burglar.

MuadDib 11-06-2007 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
there is only a contradiction when someone thinks that 'interpret' is defined as 'what did the lawmakers or founder REALLY mean when they wrote that.' Otherwise, it's reading the plain wording of the law and applying it to that end.

Again, why is it so damn hard to read what was written, the plain word, and NOT have to 'interpret' what the hell the words 'really' mean?
Because the 'plain word' isn't always so plain? The Constitution didn't come with a reference guide to explain away questions for all time. How does e-commerce square with the concept of interstate commerce? Does the absence of words in the Constitution mean something? When the Second Amendment declares a right to bare arms, does the lack of an 'any' or 'all' mean that the right can be abridged just not eliminated or is it more fundamental? In the real world these are questions that need to be addressed. Article III creates the one supreme court for a reason. If all the founder's had intended was for the 'plain' wording of the Constitution to be self-evident then we wouldn't need a supreme court most of us can read the wording of the Constitution just as well as any justice.

Furthermore, your 'plain word' approach to Constitutional law completely overlooks the concepts of judicial review and stare decisis. You're the one who brought up Marbury v. Madison which set forth that, "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.". Even if you want to argue the Marbury was wrongly decided (and you may have a point), that is irrelevant in the face of over 200 years case law built off of this premise. Moreover, the decision has never been countered by Congress in the last two centuries either. Though the Constitution is silent in this regard, it is silent in many regards so either a) we look to intent and by looking to the Federalist Papers we can see the desire for judicial review or b) we 'plain word' it and there is no Constitutional right, but instead the right was taken by the Court and Congress has tacitly made it law by allowing it. Either way it is and has been since Marbury and thus the Court's job is literally to interpret the Constitution.

Finally, on a purely pragmatic note, as others have pointed out we don't live in 1772. In fact, we are not even the same government we were then. We live in an executive centric system, have a national economy based upon IT and services, and we serve as the hegemon in a geopolitical 'sea of anarchy'. None of these realities were desired or even intended by the founders. However, our ancestors chose to take this country in a different direction and we cannot 'unring the bell'. This system of judicial power is completely ingrained into our government. You can't realistically extricate it without upheaving our entire government.

dksuddeth 11-06-2007 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I know you're interpreting the second amendment wrong, and I suspect you think the same as me. I've got the wording on my side, and you've got the NRA. Who's right? Well me obviously, but if you were on the supreme court you'd be in the position to interpret it in the way you think it was written, and I'd have to make my windows bulletproof in case a neighbor accidentally shoots at my house when trying to kill a burglar.
again, not turning this into a 2nd amendment debate, but one need only look at the federalist and anti-federalist papers, as well as most other essays and documentation AT THAT TIME PERIOD, to completely understand that the 2nd amendment in no way implies, states, or mandates that ONLY a standing government military is afforded a right to bear arms. People who cannot understand that concept are being completely and willfully ignorant of history and the plain meaning of words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Because the 'plain word' isn't always so plain? The Constitution didn't come with a reference guide to explain away questions for all time.
WTF??? no reference guide? Do you feel that the founders intentionally used vague language and deliberately misleading terms in assigning certain enumerated powers to a central (read that as federal) government so that 200+ years later the courts could come up with any meaning whatsoever to satisfy the political moments of the year? :orly:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
How does e-commerce square with the concept of interstate commerce?
learn the history of WHY they were given the power over interstate commerce, in order to prevent ONE state from being taxed a significantly higher amount than any other state due to some animosity or otherwise negative influence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Does the absence of words in the Constitution mean something?
Absolutely, it means that the federal government has ZERO authority to have any power over whatever is unsaid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
When the Second Amendment declares a right to bare arms, does the lack of an 'any' or 'all' mean that the right can be abridged just not eliminated or is it more fundamental?
shall not be infringed means 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'!!! how much more simple should they have said it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
In the real world these are questions that need to be addressed. Article III creates the one supreme court for a reason. If all the founder's had intended was for the 'plain' wording of the Constitution to be self-evident then we wouldn't need a supreme court most of us can read the wording of the Constitution just as well as any justice.
Again, because not every law that is created by an ever burgeoninig congress is constitutional, especially if congress has no authority over said subject of law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Furthermore, your 'plain word' approach to Constitutional law completely overlooks the concepts of judicial review and stare decisis.
Judicial review, to determine whether the congress had the authority to assume power over said subject of law and 'stare decisis' to keep future politically minded justices from altering the plain text, like 'shall not be infringed' really means 'reasonable restrictions'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
You're the one who brought up Marbury v. Madison which set forth that, "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.".
right, this would be to attempt to ensure that powers like the commerce clause aren't used to regulate things that would be grown, harvested, and used by an individual, on their own property, of which said crop would NEVER cross state lines or be sold to others in a market environment, yet have political ideology pervert the plain meaning of regulating 'interstate commerce' to be 'interpreted' to mean any activity that could affect interstate OR intrastate commerce if 'intrastate commerce' were to have an effect on said interstate commerce, no matter how slight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Even if you want to argue the Marbury was wrongly decided (and you may have a point), that is irrelevant in the face of over 200 years case law built off of this premise. Moreover, the decision has never been countered by Congress in the last two centuries either.
why would congress wish to counter this decision when they have politically appointed justices who will more often than not side with 'compelling government interest' in nearly all cases?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Though the Constitution is silent in this regard, it is silent in many regards so either a) we look to intent and by looking to the Federalist Papers we can see the desire for judicial review or b) we 'plain word' it and there is no Constitutional right, but instead the right was taken by the Court and Congress has tacitly made it law by allowing it. Either way it is and has been since Marbury and thus the Court's job is literally to interpret the Constitution.
and when said interpretation flies in the face of the 'plain word' or an interpretation is broadly expanded to include powers that are in no way written within the articles of the constitution, what then? oh sorry guys, 9 fuckheads in black robes just took away all private property rights, too bad so fucking sad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Finally, on a purely pragmatic note, as others have pointed out we don't live in 1772.
and? this means what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
In fact, we are not even the same government we were then. We live in an executive centric system,
say 'thank you FDR'!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
have a national economy based upon IT and services, and we serve as the hegemon in a geopolitical 'sea of anarchy'. None of these realities were desired or even intended by the founders.
again, big thanks to FDR

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
However, our ancestors chose to take this country in a different direction and we cannot 'unring the bell'.
2nd amendment good sir.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuadDib
This system of judicial power is completely ingrained into our government. You can't realistically extricate it without upheaving our entire government.
wasn't advocating removing the supreme court. only advocating putting people in who aren't willing to pervert the constitution according to their 'causes'.

Willravel 11-06-2007 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
again, not turning this into a 2nd amendment debate, but one need only look at the federalist and anti-federalist papers, as well as most other essays and documentation AT THAT TIME PERIOD, to completely understand that the 2nd amendment in no way implies, states, or mandates that ONLY a standing government military is afforded a right to bear arms. People who cannot understand that concept are being completely and willfully ignorant of history and the plain meaning of words.
Documentation AT THAT TIME PERIOD is now just history because, as I've stated ad nauseum, we don't live in the late 1700s. Rules that are necessary today mean that the Constitution needs to be interpreted based on the language, and then based on reasonable context. Parts of the Constitution are antiquated. That's reality. In order for the Constitution to be functional, it has to be interpreted and read to incorporate today's social and political reality. Or do you want us to live under literal 1776 law? Maybe you think that things like Net Neutrality shouldn't happen because Tom Jefferson didn't include it.

Give this article a gander:

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_d...?record_id=363

ubertuber 11-06-2007 06:44 PM
So... Ron Paul??

I heard he raised some money. That's got to be worth talking about.

dksuddeth 11-07-2007 01:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Documentation AT THAT TIME PERIOD is now just history because, as I've stated ad nauseum, we don't live in the late 1700s. Rules that are necessary today mean that the Constitution needs to be interpreted based on the language, and then based on reasonable context. Parts of the Constitution are antiquated. That's reality. In order for the Constitution to be functional, it has to be interpreted and read to incorporate today's social and political reality. Or do you want us to live under literal 1776 law? Maybe you think that things like Net Neutrality shouldn't happen because Tom Jefferson didn't include it.
there is NOTHING in the constitution that can't equate today without making it a 'living' constitution. They put in a process to amend it and it wasn't to have 9 touchy feely black robed morons negate or reinterpret crap because it's now 2007. A 'living' constitution provides the perfect stepping stones to tyranny, something that YOU yourself were afraid of under GW, if you'll remember.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
this article is the perfect example of that slippery slope. you know it, I know it. you should freely admit it. To promote this 'living' constitution crap is to ensure that the only constitution that exists is one that 9 black robed individuals have created and who knows what freedoms you'll be lucky to be given then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
So... Ron Paul??

I heard he raised some money. That's got to be worth talking about.
agreed. i'm done with the constitutional berate.

MuadDib 11-07-2007 02:58 PM
:thumbsup:

telekinetic 11-07-2007 04:09 PM
How much money, exactly, did he raise?

bloodykisses 11-07-2007 04:14 PM
I must say this about Ron Paul fans...they are COMMITTED. If you like Ron Paul, you don't just like him, you worship at the altar of Paul.

samcol 11-07-2007 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedmosaic
How much money, exactly, did he raise?
I used the screenshot that the fifth of november site took when it began and used my own number the second it ended and came up with $4,332,202.19. However, Paul's website is vaguely saying $4.2 million.

dc_dux 11-14-2007 11:00 AM
There is a surprising development in Iowa, where the presidential caucuses are just over 6 weeks away.

From two new polls yesterday.
Mike Huckabee with virtually no money has surged into second place with 19-21% of likely caucus goers (surprise!)

No surprise here:
Ron Paul mired in 5th or 6th with 4-5% of likely caucus goers (well maybe a small surprise that he is tied with McCain in one poll)

Stratetic Vision Poll

CBS/NY Times Poll

MSD 11-16-2007 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodykisses
I must say this about Ron Paul fans...they are COMMITTED. If you like Ron Paul, you don't just like him, you worship at the altar of Paul.
Every time I see Ron Paul supporters, I can't help thinking of Lyndon LaRouche, but slightly more fanatical and without the object of worship formally heading a cult.

skier 11-19-2007 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
Every time I see Ron Paul supporters, I can't help thinking of Lyndon LaRouche, but slightly more fanatical and without the object of worship formally heading a cult.
There is nothing more dangerous than a man with a cause.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:25 AM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360