Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul Campaign Answers Slashdot Reader Questions
On January 15th we asked you for tech-oriented questions we could send to the various presidential candidates, and you responded like mad. The candidates were the exact opposite: not a single one answered emails we sent to their "media inquiry" links or email addresses. Slashdot has more readers than all but a handful of major daily papers, so that's kind of strange. Maybe they figure our votes aren't worth much or that hardly any of us vote. In any case, the Ron Paul campaign finally responded, due to some string-pulling by a Slashdot reader who knows some of Ron Paul's Texas campaign people. Perhaps other Slashdot readers -- like you (hint hint) -- can pull a few strings with some of the other campaigns and get them to communicate with us. Use this email address, please. But first, you'll probably want to read the Ron Paul campaign's answers to your questions (below).
1) Global high tech
In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?
Ron Paul campaign:
America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight.
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"
So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail.
3) Marijuana
I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.
My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
4) What do you think about technology?
Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?
Ron Paul campaign:
I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights; however, some of the steps taken to protect these rights impose unreasonable burdens on the consumers and even raise civil liberties concerns. As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media.
5) What do you think about patents?
People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.
It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.
As President, would you fix our broken patent system?
Ron Paul campaign:
Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation. While I do not have a plan for patent reform yet, I would want to work with Congress to make sure that the US patent system encourages and rewards innovation. Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.
1) Global high tech
In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?
Ron Paul campaign:
America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight.
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"
So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail.
3) Marijuana
I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.
My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
4) What do you think about technology?
Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?
Ron Paul campaign:
I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights; however, some of the steps taken to protect these rights impose unreasonable burdens on the consumers and even raise civil liberties concerns. As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media.
5) What do you think about patents?
People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.
It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.
As President, would you fix our broken patent system?
Ron Paul campaign:
Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation. While I do not have a plan for patent reform yet, I would want to work with Congress to make sure that the US patent system encourages and rewards innovation. Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.
an email link? on the front page of /. ?
I'm sure there will be no abuse or spam with that one.
To me the answer to question 2 very much conflicts with the answer to question 1.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
So, like, I'm confused. Who is actually answering these questions here? The title and story intro say the questions are answered by the "Ron Paul campaign." So does that mean this is, in fact, Ron Paul himself answering, or his people, or a combination, or...?
His answer to question #3 contradicts his resolution in answer to question #2.
Which is a less than huge surprise, considering how leading most of those questions were!
Seems like the libertarian version of a typical politician - light on details, light on commitment, and exactly what the audience was looking for.
He doesn't stand the slightest chance of making it to the election. Anyone supporting his is totally wasting their effort and cash.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
If he actually answered the questions himself, or someone who has their ideals aligned with Ron Paul on his staff that is technically savvy.
The answers, although answered, were rather short, and someone ambiguous in my opinion. But atleast he (or someone in his office) responded.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
"Barriers to private space flight" unfortunately includes gravity. Sorry, but there is no good answer to dealing with competitive space programs without using the word "program."
I'm overwhelmed by RP's insight and commitment to these issues, and can't wait to put him into a leadership position.
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
Not trolling at all here, but I was rather underwhelmed by the responses.
Basically, the responses given by the Ron Paul campaign carried the tone I expected (more focus on personal liberties and free market) but were truly lacking in depth. For once, it would be nice to get a more detailed response from a politician, and not just the typical buzzword jockeying.
Of all the candidates, this was the one I least expected generalizations and "typical response" muck. Oh well... at least they responded... I guess...
Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
They're Republicans who want to smoke pot and get laid.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
...I still support Ron Paul and am very vocal in proposing him as a choice to my many family, friends and customers who do vote.
Nonetheless, these answers were a bit short and vague, but I do agree with how he answered them. Ron Paul's greatest asset is that he does listen. I have an interesting story dating back many years to a gold conference I attended in San Mateo. Ron Paul was a keynote speaker there, and after his speech, everyone left the convention room to gather for drinks and snacks. Outside the room, I started speaking with some younger folk who gathered outside the convention room (the average age of people in the room was probably 70, and I was the only person under 40 who wasn't a nurse of an old person in a wheelchair). Even almost a decade ago, Paul had young fans who would gather to talk to him outside of the official convention. As I spoke to these teenagers and young adults, many from the convention gathered to hear me out. After about 45 minutes of fielding questions, the crowd finally dispersed, and then I noticed that Dr. Paul was in the crowd listening. A congressman who took time out from his then-hectic schedule to actually hear me speak about gold and freedom. We spoke for a few minutes, and since then I've regularly talked to him at other conventions he's attended. It's ridiculous to me to think that a popular congressman would take even a few minutes out of his life to listen to anyone but lobbyists, but Paul has done it again and again with people around him. Even during the current campaign I've seen Paul spend hours after a speech to shake hands, answer questions bluntly, and sign pocket Constitutions.
Paul's most magic words I've heard him speak is to say that as President he doesn't have the power that people would want HIM to have. He admits that the President's powers are very limited, and his sole purpose to be President is to use the bully pulpit to raise awareness on Constitutional issues. He would be wonderful with the veto pen, and he would call our big business and lobbying groups for their actions, as he has done (on C-SPAN) over his many years in Congress.
On the war issue that many neoconservatives hate him for, Paul has said repeatedly that he is against undeclared wars. He's also said that Presidents are to follow Congress on declaring war or refusing it. This means that Paul _would_ go to war if Congress declared it, even in Iraq. He's putting politicians in their responsible positions by demanding that they follow the Constitution.
Paul wants the Federal Department of Education gone, because they make a mess of education. He also admits he can't do it alone. He wants the IRS gone, because of its unconstitutionalist, but he can't do it alone. A vote for Paul is NOT a vote for getting rid of anything, or stopping a war, or ending rampant government growth -- it's a vote to put a freedom lover in the most powerful bully pulpit, to remind the politicians and the masses that freedom and responsibility are the individual's right to protect and follow through on.
Even though I don't vote, I support voters who make clear choices based on the Constitution that we believe in to protect the freedoms that I believe are God-granted, or inherent at birth for all people in all countries. Paul's message is powerful in that he's not looking to lead people, but to follow them, and protect their freedoms so they can make responsible, or irresponsible choices, and learn lessons from those choices. He's not looking to stop abortion, but to stop Federal involvement in an issue that is debatable as a "murder" cause. The definition of murder is a State issue, and Paul wants to force the issue there. I appreciate his candor and honesty even though I disagree with many positions of his.
I'm glad he answered these questions simply, because it allows you to see that Paul believes the President is near powerless, except for the veto pen and the bully pulpit.
I've been a fan of Ron Paul for a very long time. I voted for him 12 years ago in my high schools "mock election". He continues to support limited government in all aspects of our life, pretty much a polar opposite of Hillary and Obama.
The main question I have for Ron regards education. We have slipped horribly by giving control of the school system to the government. Sure, our government isn't that bad. I can think of much worse governments out there. But, does it really matter? Why does the government decide what to teach our kids? Why do they decide whether to teach evolution or creation? Why do they decide where the children go for field trips? Why can't those decisions be given back to parents? Ron, what plan do you have to eliminate the government's role in education?
Free unix account: freeshell.org
the fact is that politicians don't respond to you unless it's in their interest (i.e. votes or notoriety) not the public's interest. That kind of constituent scorning only increases after they're elected. I'm very familiar with politicians in that I was a reporter for mainstream media for seven years before my current job with IT, and I learned the hard way that politicians rarely give anyone the time of day. They're mainly interested in garnering committee appointments for power's sake.
Just blowing off steam. Sheesh.
And I'm overwhelmed by my inability to preview my own post, to see that Slashdot stripped out my 'sarcasm' tags!
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
None of the answers say anything. And the questions are stupid; are these issues really the most important things to slashdot readers? I'd just love to have one debate/interview here that didn't involve, whatever your position, a pot question. Anyhow, Paul's answers are no different than any other politicians. This was, is and will be a waste of time. Now brace yourselves for a flurry of bumper sticker vandals hijacking the thread.
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
Except this time, make it clear how many subscribers are actively reading slashdot. Instead of some crackpot geek site they'll see it as a forum for a significant amount of voters. Or maybe they just don't think geeks vote :)
To heck with this Ron Paul guy. I want Ru Paul for President!
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
It is highly unlikely then Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination. This is unfortunate because he is an extremely smart man who is consistent in his policies. His voting history carries this out. Not only that, be he is the only candidate that seems to have a solid understanding of sound economic fiscal policy.
Even more unfortunate, we will soon be left with elections that are exactly as they have been in the past: A choice between the lesser of two evils.
Tell me, of the 4 front-runners (Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain), who deserves your vote? The answer is: None of the above.
[ exhale a sigh of desperation ]
Five questions, and you waste one on, "Have you stopped beating your wife", I mean, "Why do you lie to us", I mean, "why can't I get a straight answer"?
What do you expect the candidate to say? All the questions were pretty sucky, IMO.
It being Ron Paul, I wish one of the questions was, "How can you, as a doctor, be a evolution denier? And will you, once President, have a scientist explain what a theory is?
We wouldn't allow a person who believes in a flat earth to become President. We wouldn't allow a holocaust denier to become President. Why would we allow an evolution denier to become President?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Not to say that I had high hopes anyways, and maybe I haven't been here long enough (c. 2005), but this the most dissapointing interview I've seen. There is so little content to each answer. This has just reinforced to me that the whole of Ron Paul's plan has evolved to little more than shouting "THE CONSTITUTION" and "LESS GOVERNMENT" every chance he gets. He was actually the only one that I figured would respond, as his base is most active on the web. I had hope for him. But now, I really feel a no response would have been better.
Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.
So what? How does that translate into policy?! He espouses "straight answers" and then gives a completely ambgiuous one in the same interview.
I got a catholic block.
More non-answers from a guy who claims to be running on a "not more of the same" platform.
/Quote
For instance:
Quote:
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions.
3) Marijuana : My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
Does anyone else think that Answer #2 conflicts with Answer #3? Did he just not answer the guy's direct question? (i.e. "what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?")
Another non-answer: "As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media. "
I must say, after all the hoopla about this guy being a "real candidate", I'm not impressed. He sounds like more of the same to me.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
I'd like to know what you mean by eliminating the government's role in education. Are you only talking about abolishing the Federal Department of Education? Or do you also want to see compulsory attendance laws and child labor laws repealed, and public schooling abolished?
I write sci-fi for metalheads
How about the "Ron Paul stands just about as much chance of being elected as you do" posts? It doesn't really matter if the person reading is 15, an atheist, Chinese, or a member of Al Qaeda; the statement is still accurate.
The best thing about Ron Paul this year is how he can be the ultimate form of humiliation. Pundits and pollsters were all over Rudy "9/11" Giuliani before the primaries started. Some of them were practically writing his victory speeches before the first vote had been cast. Then people started voting and he got less votes than even Ron Paul.
As far as the "nut" complaint, just Google "Gold Standard". He's also protectionist as hell. He also stands behind a lot of things that Slashdotters find acceptable that are political suicide in America today (legalize drugs, gay marrage is ok, privatize Social Security). It's one thing to be against "wasteful government spending", but when it ends up involving people dying on the street (social programs), it's a lot harder to stomach. From a purely economic point of view it is probably better to let the mentally ill and unemployable just die on the street instead of subsidizing them for the rest of their life, but that's not what most people consider acceptable for the first world.
I read the internet for the articles.
You really shouldn't put the guy down just because he has some weird sexual proclivities. Guys with a fetish for pre-op transsexuals are people too, you know.
Maybe they figure our votes aren't worth much or that hardly any of us vote.
I know this story is slanted such that we are supposed to feel that only Ron Paul cares enough about us to actually respond, but the truth of the matter is that despite slashdot's large readership, a significant fraction of the readership is not eligible to vote in U.S. elections, whereas large U.S. newspapers can boast a much larger percentage of eligible U.S. voters. Also, politicians still pay more attention to print publications than to internet publications. Print media still holds more respect. One of my coworkers once told me he had e-mailed his resume to 100 companies and not gotten a single response. I told him that I would bet money that he had sent his resume by regular mail to the company that he would have gotten multiple responses. Of course, that would have cost him over $40 in stamps, plus more effort to address everything. This is the same reason you are more likely to get a response from a politician if you send them a letter than an e-mail. You have to put more effort into a letter, so they are going to pay more attention to it.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You serve politicians up questions like that, where their answers will either alienate the Slashdot population or the general electorate, and you expect answers? Come on. Those were cherry picked by Ron Paul fanboys. The pot smoking question especially.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
President Bush wanted to chime in as well, and ./ also has Bush's response: http://www.soundboard.com/sb/Monkey_Sounds_audio.aspx .
I hope everything is clearer now. It's funny how Ron Paul haters love to point out he will never win. Well, his views won't die, and Nader had no chance either, but how many votes did he win in FL, 100k? And how many votes were in dispute with Bush, less than 1000?
I get the feeling big media, fox news, and hardcore dems or repubs love to live in denial that he isn't a threat.
3 seemed like a pretty straight forward answer. He oppose Federal Marijuana laws and federal interference with state laws regards Medical Marijuana.
Hell, it's the only thing he has said that I like, and I don't smoke pot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... and I can tell you that the only reason these answers are so short is because the campaign was incredibly crunched for time due to all the Super Tuesday business.
/any/ US presidential candidates who stand for actual liberty and peace issues, much less that they will take notice of our corner of the Net.
I have been involved in politics before, and I can honestly say our friends in the campaign really went above and beyond the call of duty to get us these answers only a few hours after I made the initial telephone calls.
We should be thankful there are
-Will the Chill
*sig not available at this time due to long Super Tuesday voting lines*
Creator of RPerl, Scouter, Juggler, Mormon, Perl Monger, Serial Entrepreneur, Aspiring Astrophysicist, Community Organiz
I almost want to say "Why bother?" because the responses were so short. I'm no Libertarian or Ron Paul supporter, but at least when Michael Badnarik answered Slashdot's questions, he wrote more than a short paragraph on each.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Ron Paul is still the biggest spammer on the Internet today, and should be imprisoned for same.
I seem his name much more frequently than viägra, online degrees, and fake rolex. I am tired of it. I doubt I am alone.
We are all very curious. How precisely is Ron Paul against women's rights?
I don't read or respond to AC posts
So he, or his campaign, agrees that the American people should expect clear and direct answers, and then prevaricates and fails to answer the question.
I'm not an American voter so while his advocacy of clear and direct answers doesn't apply to me I'm not quite sure of how dedicated he is to that philiosophy from the answer given.
1) Global high tech
...It is very cold in space.
In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?
Khan Paul campaign:
Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold?
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"
So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Khan Paul campaign: Oh, I've given you no word to keep, Admiral. In my judgement, you simply have no alternative.
3) Marijuana
I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.
My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Khan Paul campaign:
I've done far worse than kill you. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on... hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her. Marooned for all eternity, in the center of a dead planet. Buried alive... buried alive.
4) What do you think about technology?
Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?
Khan Paul campaign:
You see, their young enter through the ears and wrap themselves around the cerebral cortex. This has the effect of rendering the victim extremely susceptible to suggestion. Later as they grow follows madness.. and death.
5) What do you think about patents?
People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.
It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.
As President, would you fix our broken patent system?
Khan Paul campaign:
No. No, you can't get away. From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
Khan Paul 2008
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I'm not sure what in particular concerns you regarding women's rights here - probably abortion. If you won't vote for anybody solely based on that one issue, well then not much can bee done. As far as church/state goes - I can't imagine that a libertarian would be big on integrating religion with the national government (establishment clause and all that).
However, the thing I really object to in your post is the suggest that these are all Ron Paul is about. I'm sorry - regardless of your your position on libertarianism or a few particular issues, you have to admit that Ron Paul's platform is fundamentally different from just about everybody else in the running. He would push for major change in comparison to what has been done in the past.
You can certainly debate whether this change would be good or bad, but you can't dismiss him as a typical politician who disagrees with you in two areas...
He's also protectionist as hell.
That's a rather blatant lie. Paul has consistently supported free trade (even with Cuba). This is why he's opposed to organizations like the GTO and treaties like NAFTA, which extensively regulate international trade.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Why can't anyone do something? You've either got to believe marijuana should be legalized or want him in jail. You can't work with congress to "balance" rights between corporations and consumers either. Who is more of a citizen, joe or bob's Inc. ? Stop writing laws left and right that try to fix things. half the time a corporate hand is influencing the law a lot more than a real citizen. Then we've got backwards laws protecting things that dont need protection and the people who do have voting cards are the ones worse off. Just nit-picking real quick here, but come on....it IS the SAME stuff we hear from the other candidates. Seek balance? When you seek there is a chance you don't find. Every presidential candidate talks like this but when they get into the office they just play political grabass all day rather than get stuff done. When you are the president who is supposedly elected by the people, then if the people want something, you make it happen. You are the president, sure you gotta play along with the corporate congressmen but if you actually had resolve, vision blah blah etc then you'd realize that you are at the top and it's the best time to make the people's wishes come true if that is what you are about. If all candidates "seek balance" then why even talk about it? I want to know who IS going to do something and when they plan to do many things I want, I'll vote for them. This two party system is a joke. When we get presidents like the current one, it is clear they had a completely different mindset going into presidency. The people wanted a war? Eat my ass you fake clowns. BTW "national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program"... if you place a space program under the national security interests umbrella then average citizens can't hope for much. Space is not a security interest, rather it is the great beyond. It is the future and a place of dreams. Why is everyone thinking of it as a security interest? So we can write a million laws from the hand of people who never have known average, and the real average joe sits on this rock forever.
Thank goodness there is no chance for Ron Paul to win. I mean, if he did win we might stop killing innocent people or borrowing ourself into a debt so deep we'll have to reneg on it and slip into 3d world status. Thank goodness we have the two major parties, MSM, and voters like you to ensure we ever get a candidate with a sense of reality, humanity, or responsibility.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Not just leading, but real "softball" questions. I'm surprised they didn't ask if he likes puppies. I'm pleased to learn he believes in providing direct answers to direct questions and I'd like some answers to questions such as:
Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?
How will you reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?
Is healthcare a right?
Please give you opinion regarding Kelo v. City of New London (Supreme court deciison which gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenues).
etc.
Frankly, I'd like answers to those questions from ALL politicians. It would be a step forward, instead of the current internecine squabbling : the "he said/she said/you made the girl cry" pandering Soap Opera.
Well, unfortunately for me there isn't a different choice for state's rights and limited government. These are the issues that I vote on, and quite frankly, the rest of the candidates are pathetic on them.
I guess voting on the issues that I care about makes me a crackpot by association.
Hopefully at some point the internet will allow enough people to band together to actually avoid electing a typical worthless puppet at some point in my life.
Well that was brief. Regardless, I take the stance that if a presidential candidate says they don't have a policy at the current moment on a certain issue, then we should not expect not to when they become president no matter how much they pander to our questions here and now. I mean, they always state that they haven't looked into something *but* "when I become president..." da dah da da and create a cursory answer. Don't buy into it. Don't put your eggs in a basket which might exist.
I am a very strong Ron Paul supporter, and I don't fault RP's campaign for the weak answers to these weak questions, but come on, Slashdot is a treasure trove of aggressive argument, and it lobs these softball pitches? Embarrassing.
My Freakin Blog
That's news to me. Got a citation for us?
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
Paul wants the Federal Department of Education gone, because they make a mess of education.
Our education system is a mess, but I'm not sure it's the DE's fault. Partly it's the fault of parents who don't take an interest or actively participate in their own child's education. Partly it's a funding system that penalizes poor neighborhoods. Partly it's the politicization of education, and not just by the DE.
What is Congressman Paul's suggestion for fixing our education system?
As for his campaign's answers: they were generally vague and not very informative. The answer to question 4 was essentially a restatement of the (very leading) question. I actually know *less* about his positions than I did going in, because I assumed he *had* positions.
I do like his support of the Constitution. I don't like his ideas of privatizing national infrastructure. I do like his ideas on the limited effectiveness of the President. I don't like his ideas on patents. ("Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation." This is a baseless assertion with no supporting evidence, an axiom of ignorance.) I don't know what I think of his ideas on space exploration, since his campaign didn't answer that question well, though I *really* like the idea of reducing military spending to a level consistent with national defense, and not world offense.
So, while his goal of supporting the constitution is admirable, there are practical questions that are left unanswered.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
He's actually made pretty clear some of his positions on technology, I'll give him that.
In general, Obama is:
a) in favor of investing in education
b) against the NASA manned program to the moon and mars. I believe he was going to use that money to fund some third world development fund.
c) is absolutely in favor of copyright protection in general, and is committed to the DMCA in particular.
d) is in favor of environmental technology in general, ethanol in particular (thanks Iowa!)
e) deploy next generation broadband
f) in favor of net neutrality
This is my sig.
1: Who cares about all those other countries.
2: I'm the only one who tells the truth.
3: Bongs for everyone.
4: I'm a typical politician.
5: I'm a typical politician.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
And just for the sake of some actual debate in this thread, rather than just RP Bashing/RP Loving, I'm going to go OT and troll in the same post. *grin* I wonder why that's not acceptable for America? Logically, if we're completely free-market capitalist, doesn't it make sense that people who can't pull their weight should either be supported by their families or allowed to die?
I used to vote Libertarian, and I don't smoke pot. I do enjoy getting laid, though. And I miss being able to fly without being frisked coming and going with no explanation other than "it's your turn".
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Asking Ron Paul questions about what he'd do if he was President is like asking me. I have as much chance of becoming President as RP does.
Advice: on VPS providers
Is not an in-depth detailed plan of "How I would do it!". But did anyone really expect a 14 page answer or more than a couple of sentences?
Essentially, his statement was: free of capital by cessation of policing the world and subsidizing German, Japan, Korea, and hundreds of other nations. And reduce or eliminate the barriers (ie: government restrictions, FAA, etc) on private space flight.
Seems like a pretty good answer to me...clear, honest, concise. Maybe it's the concise part you have issue with. Yes, any response to these questions will be vague and mainly a 2 sentence sound bite. But this is NOT a forum on said issue. Just a question and answer. Expect it to be a very similar response to a 30 second debate answer.
He is saying two things:
1) I have no plan
2) I plan to have no plan
He's a quasi libertarian, the whole goal of him reaching the white house is to reduce the federal government's role in pretty much everything.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Two out of five questions have nothing to do with technology. And, one of the three is only marginally about technology.
Fail.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
that if a fringe party or candidate wins, all of the wrongs you listed gets reversed. as if war suddenly won't happen anymore. as if everybody will be fiscally responsible all of a sudden. rainbows and unicorns will become plentiful too. you believe the hype
no, all that will happen is that the legacy of the fringe candidate or the fringe party cannibalizes the base of the democrats or the republicans, and simply replaces them. in all ways. until after a few years, you can't tell the difference between the previously fringe and the well-established at all
but don't take my word on it, read about the whig party. it happened before, and it almost happened with ross perot in the 1990s, and it might happen again if the republicans or the democrats leave their base feeling very disenchanted
and btw, this shift to entrenched behavior by the fringe HAS to happen. you have to pander to the great moderate middle in order to retain power. and this is a GOOD thing: democracy ensures that the moderate middle is satisfied, resulting in a stable government and society. of course, this is not so good for the malcontents on the fringe of the left and right. but again, it's a GOOD thing the fringe left and the fringe right are never electable in a democracy. the fringe is fringe for a reason: their agenda does not match the agenda of the people. therefore, their agenda should not be in the halls of power. simple (and for those who think gw bush is a radical rightist or bill clinton is a radical leftist: this speaks more information about your own fringe status in the opposite direction than any truth of the right ideoogical orientation of these presidents: a little to the right, and a little to the left)
all that really happens in elections with relatively popular fringe candidates like ron paul is that if the fringe party is from the right, it fractures the right's support base and the lefty candidate wins (ross perot got bill clinton elected). if the fringe party candidate is from the left, it fratures the left's support base and the righty candidate wins (ralph nader got george bush elected)
so, being a democrat myself, i fully support the ron paul candidate. most of his fringe supporters would otherwise vote republican. therefore, ron paul ensures a democratic victory
so go ron paul!
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
which is how a lot of us in Europe think America is run today!
If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck - them Dont *%$& vote for it!
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
Oh, 3 questions, and er,.... no answers to any of them. Especially to "what are you going to do..."
If you don't vote, then your opinion doesn't count for much, does it?
Why don't you quit blabbermouthing for "insightful" posts on slashdot, and instead do something that makes a difference like try to get the man some delegates! I mean, damn, what the hell.
I'm pretty disappointed in his answer to this, as he's supposed to be the candidate who cares about the Constitution. If the Supreme Court says an apple is really an orange, that's not going to get me to start calling apples "oranges".
IP is not property. I hold hundreds of copyrights, two of them registered with the US Copyright office (Library of Congress) with ISBNs. But I do not own the works I hold copyright to; nobody owns them. Constitutionally, I hold a limited time monopoly on the reproduction of those works. Not the works themselves. The copyright is supposed to get me to make more works, which will pass into the public domain.
It can be argued that my copyrights are my property, but it cannot be argued that I own the works themselves.
I would rather the candidates be asked how long a copyright should remain in effect. Personally I think it should be 20 years. I also think the law that makes singers' and musicians' recordings "works for hire" should be repealed, and I'd like to know what the candidates' views on this are.
-mcgrew
Today's journal is, oddly, on-topic. You may find it offensive.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Essentially, his answer to question #3 is "the federal government should leave it to the states". Fair enough for a candidate for a federal office.
But as Serenissima already posted, the answer to question #4 does fail to keep the promise from question #2.
C - the footgun of programming languages
long live corporate media: deciding votes of the uninformed and easily swayed since 1948
... nonsense. Dangerous, too. Would he prefer that Hugo Chavez, or China are the more important players in such scenarios? The world won't go away just because he wants it to.
So, armies of people spamming message boards with context-less, frequently illiterate support for Ron Paul is... what? It comes across like a lot of people trying to shout someone into office, since actually looking closely at his positions guarantees that he'll never make it.
As in answers provided by his "campaign," above (gee, we wouldn't want anyone in his camp to be brave enough to say those are actually his words):
America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests
This spectacularly naive, head-in-the-sand take on things is exactly why he'll never get anywhere. It is precisely in our own national security interests to generally support the defenses of our allies. Militarily weak allies get bullied by militarily stronger opponents. It's as simple as that. Either we support them financially, or we have to do the actual work with our own people, equipment, and supplies. Disengaging from those issues, as Ron Paul would us do, would just repeat the setup for conflict that we saw before WWII. This whole "no military involvement until it's pretty much too late" nonsense is
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm sorry, but could you explain how Ron Paul's opposition to NAFTA (including his rants about the "NAFTA Superhighway" and conspiracy theories of a North American Union) reflect support of free trade?
i.e. Give us more details about how NAFTA is actually anti-free trade, especially in comparison to what existed before.
For bonus points, please defend his hand-wringing about a North American Union as somehow substantiated and how it does not play primarily to an audience that fears free trade with Mexico and Canada.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Note that his positions are generally for State laws over Federal. Here, he simply opposes federal laws against marijuana. He says nothing about State laws, so you'd still probably be in jail. So, smoke 'em while you've got 'em.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
My wife has a cat. Cat is the wrong word for it though. Foul retching hell beast, spawn of Satan, demon of the abyss, etc... are more appropriate descriptors. The thing is ancient (it's unnaturally long lifespan obviously due to some pact with the devil), demanding, cunning, and smarter then it has any right to be.
Anyways, Saturday night I went up to the bedroom to tuck in for the night and I saw that the foul hell beast had harfed all over my favorite jeans. When I informed my wife about what the demon spawn had done, her reply was "at least she didn't puke on the bed" with a smile.
Point being, cat harf is cat harf and political BS is political BS, regardless of where it lands and how long it took to come up with. The only thing of value is the response.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Yes, because the non "trolls" have done so well these past few years!
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
...the questions are stupid; are these issues really the most important things to slashdot readers? I'd just love to have one debate/interview here that didn't involve, whatever your position, a pot question. In this context it is not just a weed. It is a symbol for all of the ways that governments interfere with our lives for insufficient reasons. The pot question is really asking: "Are you going to leave me alone as long as I'm not hurting someone else?" And most politicians come back with a convoluted answer about protecting the world from the evils of pot, which translates as: "No, I'm not going to leave you along. I think that I know how to run your life better than you do."Ron Paul told us that the feds will leave us alone when he is president.
we asked you for tech-oriented questions we could
3) Marijuana
I'm a college graduate with a decent job, (...) I smoke pot (...) etc, etc, etc
And that's a tech-oriented question because...?
You're nit picking. The current US President would declare war on "the gravity" in order to accelerate the space program.
I am a coordinator of the Ron Paul Grassroots efforts in DFW, Texas. And my /. UID length is real, I didn't buy this account.
/. is not really a huge voting bloc, and they have dozens of interviews like this they are trying to respond to right now.
We're all pretty busy, which is one reason these answers are so short. I did see them before they were published, but not in time to get them to beef them up some, or I would have. Yes, they didn't get who they were talking to necessarily. At the same time,
Anyway, like I said, busy, but I can watch this thread some today and try to help clarify things for people. I won't claim my answers are the campaign's but I have represented them at events in the past and speak to people in the campaign and the Paul family daily so I have at least some claim to being able to get it right.
As far as the "nut" complaint, just Google "Gold Standard".
What exactly is nuts about the gold standard? The fact that the founders supported it, or the fact that we had it up until 1971? Is the gold standard any more 'nuts' than the Petrodollar? If anything the petrodollar is nuts!
He's also protectionist as hell.
Are you kidding? You might as well call him pro war too. I'm not sure if you're unaware of his position, or purposefully misstating it. Paul wants to open up trade with EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, including countries we currently do NOT trade with such as Cuba and Iran. His view is that we shouldn't punish the citizens of Cuba and Iran because we dislike their governments, and that OUR government shouldn't tell us who we can trade with.
Yes, Ron Paul opposes things like NAFTA and CAFTA, but really those are controlled trade, not free trade.
He also stands behind a lot of things that Slashdotters find acceptable that are political suicide in America today (legalize drugs, gay marrage is ok,
His view on both is that the federal government SHOULDN'T be involved, so no he wouldn't be legalizing drugs, or gay marriage. He simply wouldn't be making them illegal on the federal level either, so your state would be left to decide.
How is letting the states decide political suicide?
Should we go on pretending that Alabama has the same culture as Vermont, and have the citizens of both States fighting politically to pass laws to force each other to live by their moral code? Or should we just let the states decide?
privatize Social Security).
Ron Paul would keep all current social security benefits the same as they are now, and wants to make it so the government doesn't tax social security checks like they currently do. You're spreading FUD. Ron Paul does want to let young people 'opt out' of social security if they want.
It's one thing to be against "wasteful government spending", but when it ends up involving people dying on the street (social programs), it's a lot harder to stomach. From a purely economic point of view it is probably better to let the mentally ill and unemployable just die on the street instead of subsidizing them for the rest of their life, but that's not what most people consider acceptable for the first world.
Look at the FUD monster! Jesus, Paul has said multiple times that he would NOT end benefits for people who are currently on them, and the main way he plans to slash our national budget is to end our current foreign policy. Nobody would be starving on the streets, in fact Seniors would have MORE MONEY than they do now since Paul would get rid of the ridiculous tax on social security checks.
Ron Paul is a licensed gynecologist. I'd love to see him greeting a foreign dignitary from one of those backwards countries where women remain veiled at all times and have no rights at all (you know the places). Then, as he shakes their hand and leans in for the photos, he smiles and whispers "By the way, I'm a gynecologist by trade. Guess where my hands have been!" It would make for some really fun photos.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Sir, your smell of fear betrays you. You are no more than a cornered mouse striking out.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
:(
Hash: SHA1
Dr. Paul,
Thank you for participating here at Slashdot. This site I have affectionately called the "center of my world" for many years. I should note to you that I would die to protect you Sir in order to bring back a sound monetary system to our nation.
"Intellectual Property" is a term used these days to encapsulate ideas of copyright, patent protection, a hint of trademark. But this term is a misnomer. As we all recognize some legitimacy to each of the three, we cannot condone the banner "Intellectual Property".
Software is a special case concerning Patents. Europe doesn't even have patents on software. Software is a mathematical function which exists in nature. As such it must not be given special protection.
The area of software should receive great and special attention with an emphasis on preserving the freedoms to create and share. Much has changed in the last two decades. No longer does the US Government need to encourage nor protect innovation in the realm of software. Authors are freely collaborating with any and all who would care to participate for the benefit of self and others. Users can no longer trust software which they cannot trust how it was written.
Patents in software and in communications are hampering growth in software. Only very large corporations can sustain these insane litigation awards for patent infringement. Small, innovative companies are freightened to try bringing things to market for fear of being sued.
You understand the "Inflation Tax" better than 99.9% of the population. Let me introduce you to another tax called the "Patent Tax". Some have estimated that $20 of each copy of Microsoft Windows goes towards paying legal fees and licensing of patents. Why should schools have to pay for copyright when copies for educational purposes are supposed to be free?
Free Software authors have developed systems to be freely used by the public and now an enemy rears it's ugly head saying "That software infringes on hundreds of our patents". I'm sorry we are writing code from scratch and we imitate best practices within the industry to serve the public good. If Microsoft had their way they'd be enslaving every Linux user claiming that they've used software that doesn't pay for licensing fees.
I could go on and on about this. When elected, please pay a great deal of attention to the Electronic Freedom Foundation ( eff.org ).
Encryption.
Please before you are elected President of these United States of America, generate a PGP (GnuPG is better) key. This way we can determine whether writings from you are truely from you as others can determine that this message is also mathematically authentic.
Economy:
Thanks for suggesting the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island". I read 120 pages of it so far.
I lost the silver Ron Paul coin that you signed
Yours Truely,
Joseph William Baker
Burlington, Wisconsin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://firegpg.tuxfamily.org/
iD8DBQFHqJ1U7J1dPd3sAmARAqE8AJ4jfiTOAjlz9+9nMPmwE/ivDVRwnACcD20C
uaL5W/ow3sTHJbPP2J2dbpQ=
=hv8P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
If you support the only presidential candidate who truly stands for peace and freedom, join with us to solidify the "Techies for Ron Paul" movement. We helped get these answers posted to Slashdot, and we're absolutely dedicated to getting Ron Paul elected.
Our primary goals: $10M raised and 10K votes pledged
Please e-mail me via "willthechill AT hushmail DOT com" if you can help in one of the following areas:
1) Website design and maintenance
2) Linux web server administration
3) Web hosting needs (machines & connectivity)
4) Ron Paul advertising on Slashdot
Thanks everyone, and keep backing Dr. Paul for the big win!
-Will the Chill
Creator of RPerl, Scouter, Juggler, Mormon, Perl Monger, Serial Entrepreneur, Aspiring Astrophysicist, Community Organiz
"never before in american politics has such a force like the internet allowed such disparate trollish lunatic fringe voices to band together and coordinate their efforts"
What about the Democrat & Republican parties?
It was not "his own newsletter". Some ppl were simply publishing that under his name.
CNN interview
My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
you honestly think that is what motivates me?
(scratches head)
i am at an utter loss to understand how you arrived at that conclusion. what is it that i am supposed to be scared of in your mind?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Um... Romney? There's a 90% chance that McCain will seal the nomination TODAY.
Do believe that NAFTA is a free trade agreement?
Free trade is just that: trade between private parties in different countries without government interference. Ideally with no tariffs at all, not a patchwork of tariffs to reward some players and punish others according to who can best lobby the congress and the bureaucrats.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I didn't know whether I should post this to you or to the responder Valdrax, who also made important points, but it should apply to both.
Here's my attempt to untangle the issue:
1) Ron Paul supports 100% free trade.
2) NAFTA and WTO are not 100% free trade.
3) NAFTA and WTO are attempts to work, imperfectly, toward free trade.
4) Ron Paul, to my consternation, does not see the changes introduced toward free trade by NAFTA and WTO, as good enough to outweigh their pro-governmental aspects (which apparently include ceding sovereignty to international organizations and some other more esoteric reasons).
5) In my opinion, opposing NAFTA and WTO, given all they've done to bring about free trade, is very questionable if you support free trade, amounting to "anything that doesn't give me everything I want is bad".
6) Ron Paul's nuanced position allows him to say, basically, "Hey, protectionists, vote for me! NAFTA sucks [because its not free-trade-ish *enough*]!"
7) Disclaimer: I support and organize for Ron Paul despite all of the above.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Nonsense. It is: Me>everyone else.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
wait, casino indian or slurpee indian?
Really it should be Whites>Asians=Slurpee Indians>Chief Running Bear>Hispanics>Blacks
What's the point in publishing the answers, when the answers are so vague that people actually have to interpret what he means by them. If people can't even agree about the answer being a yes or a no, then it's not really an answer.
Basically, his answer to the fair use question was "yes, no and maybe" all at once. He answered whatever you wanted him to answer, depending on how you interpret his answer.
Blog -
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail. What the fsck has giving a straight answer have to do with commitment to free market and limited government? Do they (Ron Paul campaign) have such a short attention span, or do they expect that their voters have? I felt like someone spat on me, when I read those answers.
I have seen this sort of BS in all of the answers. Either Ron Paul doesn't care enough to think about these answers himself and lets his minions do the job (but they did it SO poortly!), or his logic device is fried and severely compromised.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The sole purpose of smoking pot, for the vast majority of those who do, is to get stoned. Even those who claim it's for "medical use."
Go read his wikipedia page. He's not trying to return the Gold Standard. And people were not dying in the streets before social security. Not to mention the fact that he has repeatedly stated that all social programs would be continued for as long as needed for those who had been taught that they need to rely on the gov't for their retirement planning. Before the gov't took over and screwed everything up (social security/medicare/medicaid WILL be bankrupt in a few decades: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs) the private sector and charities took care of the needy and did a much better job of it.
WATYF
Ok, I'll bite.
First, the NAFTA superhighway does not need scare quotes. I know everyone wants to pretend it doesn't exist because it's not happening in their backyard but I guarantee you that it is quite real. Those of us in Texas are on the front lines trying to prevent thousands of acres of private land from being seized by the government for this project. The people standing to lose homes that have been in their families for generations would have a lot to say to you about your attitude towards this issue. The NAU is not a conspiracy theory anymore than the European Union is. If you think there aren't people who think this is a good idea you're not paying attention.
As for NAFTA, it was not free trade. It's what they called it. Much like the PATRIOT act, and other similar legislation the actual work it did had nothing whatsoever to do with its title. NAFTA was a Mercantilist measure. Further, nobody - including Ron - said that what Ron wanted was what we had in relation to those countries pre-NAFTA. What Ron is after is something greater. Actual, true, free trade with everyone. Free trade defined as openly allowing the trade of goods and services without preference.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
I don't think these answers were written by RP; compare to his overview of Mises and Austrian Economics below or to his recent speech on economics in Seattle. He is very thorough, these "answers" are anything but. Perhaps he was consulted briefly by a staffer but wasn't told or didn't realize the size of the Slashdot audience (which is actually a bit surprising, but then again as much as he loves the Internet he isn't a geek). I think he would have personally answered the questions if he knew his answers were going to be read by several million readers world-wide (or whatever the Slashdot audience is).
Also worth mentioning is that Ron Paul is not pro-legislation. Much of the questions asked assume the introduction of some type of program or legislation (it seems), but that is not what RP is about. He is about getting rid of shit that doesn't belong. He has said on numerous occasions that he "would never use executive orders to legislate, but would use executive orders to cancel-out bad [pre-existing] executive orders".
Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View [PDF]:
http://www.mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf
Ron Paul on economics (Seattle, Jan 31 2008, six parts ~ 50 minutes -- several versions on YouTube this one seems the best):
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
Official YouTube site (plenty of stuff here):
http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom
Official Website:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Oddly enough- we do.
And 1.3 billion dollars would fund a nice little chunk of space program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_China
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
cause he'll be lucky to beat that nut Huckabee...even still, 3rd place is his best option.
Just because you don't understand it, and clearly have made no effort to understand it, doesn't mean it is crazy.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
You are a free person who is a citizen of a Republic. Here in America, we elect people to make plans for us, because we are free, and we choose to do that. Sorry if you don't like that, but the majority of citizens do, so it is unfair of you to force your 'no government is good government' view on the rest of us.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Oh geez, someone has been drinking the Gold Standard Kool-Aid. Do you know why we got away from the gold standard? Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression. It is also far less flexible than the monetary systems we use today such that an attempt to go back to it would cause a major deflation in the currency while skyrocketing the value of gold. Oh, and guess who has a lot of holding in gold? You guessed it, Ron Paul. The Wikipedia article alone has some rather compelling reasons why return to the Gold Standard is a bad idea.
He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes protectionist.
States rights is a familiar dodge for people who rooted for the South in the Civil war but don't want to give the appearance of being pro-slavery. In here it appears to be a way to dodge for uncomfortable social issues that, while probably correct in the long term, are politically unpopular today.
Like most Libertarians, Ron Paul would much prefer getting rid of the socialized support systems we currently have, believing that people would be better off just saving on their own instead of having the government do it. In general, that is probably true, however if people were good at that we wouldn't have needed those systems in the first palace. Once he starts cutting the funds for those systems it is inevitable that more people will fall through the gaps. There is the promise that everybody currently on it will continue getting their support, but if the money is not there then there is no way to keep that promise.
For an extensive rundown of where Ron Paul stands on the issues, visit On The Issues. This is actually a good place to visit for all of the candidates.
I read the internet for the articles.
What do you propose to do with those people then? Jail them? Ship them away to some distant island? Disposing of them in any other gentle way? Why not just kill them? You might want to feed on them...
Here you go.
He's also written extensively on economics, monetary and foreign policy, and there's a large archive of his speeches in congress here.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
you need to take the first step, to bring yourself into reality. a good first step would be, repeat after me: "a fringe candidate will not make war magically disappear"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It hardly seems slanted towards Congressman Paul's campaign. The candidates were the exact opposite: not a single one answered emails we sent to their "media inquiry" links or email addresses.... In any case, the Ron Paul campaign finally responded, due to some string-pulling... Roblimo goes on to beg readers to nudge their favorite politicians so they can respond to Slashdot's 'softball' questions and be appropriately put-down. Look at the voting records for all these candidates, and Dr. Paul's is the only consistent one.
http://www.signaturemachine.com/
http://www.signaturemachine.com/products/demo_page.htm?source=google_ad&gclid=CKujifnPrZECFQlxOAodakCHdg
Actual signing speed will be faster than displayed on this video.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Bah. He gave a perfectly clear, direct answer to the question. It's not the answer YOU wanted to hear, and he did choose to answer a slightly more general question than was asked, relying on your ability to apply simple logic to find the answer to the question asked.
For those who can't make the necessary logical steps themselves, I'll walk you through them:
RP said he opposed federal laws banning marijuana, and federal interference in state marijuana laws. That means that he'd make sure the federal government didn't have any laws that you could be arrested for. So he'd protect you from arrest by the feds. It also means that he would not interfere with state laws. So he wouldn't protect you from arrest by your state.
All of this assumes that he could actually change federal law, which the president can't, and RP isn't going to be president anyway, but that's understood by everyone.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Thank You! I kept wondering why I kept thinking that the name Ron Paul sounded like the name of a transvestite. I could not figure out where I was making that connection. Ru Paul explains it.
They are, according to his website. Frankly, I think we should go further, but getting the gorram Feds out of the way is an acceptable start.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
As for NAFTA, it was not free trade
I remember Ross Perot's proposal of simple reciprocity: any trading partner would get the very same terms for their exports to the USA that American exports got to their country. That went over like a lead balloon in DC.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You don't get it, and I'm too nice a guy to wish understanding on you. I hope you don't have to get it.
If you had a kid with Down Syndrome or autism you'd understand. If you suddenly woke up and found reality slipping away from you, as many people who develop schizophrenia do in early adulthood, you'd get it. The money spent helping these people is not "waste" and the supports are not "failing" but are among the resounding successes of our civilization.
Not that I think there is not room for improvement, but I can't figure out what standard people who say the social safety net is failing are using.
We can't Darwin our way to a better future. Natural selection cannot lead to progress. Once survivability of a species is not in question, natural selection really doesn't have anything to offer.
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
NAFTA has not brought about free trade. NAFTA has brought about the export of our industries and jobs because of our regulatory environment. It makes no sense to manufacture here anymore because other countries aren't subject to the same worker protection laws and business regulations. That is why the NAFTA/CAFTA approach is wrong. It results in an export of capital and labor from the U.S. because the agreements do not force the players to play by the same rules on an even field.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
http://www.aspiesforronpaul.com/
is the cannibalization of one the parties, a la the decline of the whigs
two party politics is all about math. we have two parties because our voting system maximizes to this existence. other countries have multiple parties. but you don't want to know about the lack of principles going on there (socialists getting into bed with archconservatives in order to form coalitions, etc.)
in other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same. and your complaint: the callowness of politics, is a tale as old as time, and will be with us forever
and no, dorothy, there really is a moderate middle. the so called red state blue state bullshit is a divisive myth, not a divisive reality. the vast majority of americans agree with each other on the vast majority of important topics, republican or democrat
you need to get used to the way politics works. you're not giving up on your ideals, you are beginning to understand reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
He is running for a federal position. He believes the federal has no business in this as a matter of constitutional principle. Any personal opinion he may have on pot is therefore irrelevant.
If he were to get his way people should be asking their state elected officials this question, not him.
The Captain James T. Kucinich campaign had a one word rebuttal to this:
Khaaann!!!
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Ron Paul does not support returning to the gold standard. He supports your freedom to use gold as an alternative currency without being taxed or going to jail.
My Freakin Blog
Legalization of drugs is in a similar situation. If pot is legal in California and Utah, what happens when you drive through Nevada and are caught with a Nevada state felony possession?
Gun laws are currently in this dilemma, and it's extremely hard to even realize when you're doing something illegal when you go from one state to another. For example, concealed carry reciprocity between states is very fragmented (http://www.ccrkba.org/reciprocity.html)
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Even though I think you're a complete and utter idiot, whose comments I mod down whenever I have mod points on this stupid site, I have to put you on my "friends list" for that comment, cts.
Let me see if I have this straight: Paul's website is a sales pitch, but the wishy-washy answers Roblimo got from the Paul campaign and posted as the article isn't? As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between the two. Both are claims as to where Ron Paul stands on particular political issues. That is all they are: sales pitches.
You can call me cynical, but as far as I'm concerned, all news is propaganda. Hard facts are diamonds trapped in a matrix created by the manner in which a journalist chooses to present the facts. Read a news article, and you are not just getting the facts, but the journalist's (or his editor's) perception of the facts.
This post is also propaganda, like every other post here.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Is it still called voting if you use a screwdriver and a usb thumbdrive to do it?
Looks like whoever replied was in a bit of a rush...but nevermind. It would have been nice to link each answer to the Constitution, like Paul normally does. What does it say about IP in there?
Right now there are millions of Christian fundamentalists who will tell you that you are stupid to think any of these things matter because the morality of the country is going down the tubes and we're straying from God's word, and that's what will destroy us.
anthropomorphic talking christmas turd
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Oh geez, someone has been drinking the Gold Standard Kool-Aid.
Man, I love it when people make original insults like 'drinking the kool-aid!' rather than debating the subject at hand. I usually know there is a lot of bunk coming afterwards.
Do you know why we got away from the gold standard? Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression.
Umm, no. The gold standard might have made it harder to handle the great depression (because the government couldn't inflate their way out of it), but it certainly didn't cause the great depression. Wikipedia lists several causes, but really the federal reserve, created in 1913, inflated the money supply, leading to looser lending standards. From Wikipedia:
Americans consumers and businesses relied on cheap credit, the former to purchase consumer goods such as automobiles and furniture and the later for capital investment to increase production. This fueled strong short-term growth but created consumer and commercial debt. People and businesses who were deeply in debt when price deflation occurred or demand for their product decreased often risked default. Many drastically cut current spending to keep up time payments, thus lowering demand for new products. Businesses began to fail as construction work and factory orders plunged. Massive layoffs occurred, resulting in unemployment rates of over 25%. Banks which had financed a lot of this debt began to fail as debtors defaulted on debt and bank depositors became worried about their deposits and began massive withdrawals.
The Austrian school of economics, which Paul subscribes to, predicted this would happen prior to the crash.. Ron Paul was saying there would be a recession or worse back during the first debates when everyone was talking about the strength of the Bush economy. Once again, the Austrian school is ahead of the curve. It's not that hard to predict really. In the 1920's you had a housing boom with easy to obtain credit which lead people and businesses to spend beyond their means. We've had the same thing in the 1990's through today, with the small recession around 9/11 which Greenspan inflated his way out of, which just ended up causing a larger bubble.
It is also far less flexible than the monetary systems we use today such that an attempt to go back to it would cause a major deflation in the currency while skyrocketing the value of gold
Ron Paul doesn't want to go back to the gold standard, but he does want to create a new currency backed by gold, so you could hold your 'dollars' in whichever currency you prefer. So once again, you are misstating his position.
. Oh, and guess who has a lot of holding in gold? You guessed it, Ron Paul. The Wikipedia article alone has some rather compelling reasons why return to the Gold Standard is a bad idea.
Yeah, and if he were elected, and he created a gold backed currency the price of gold would likely DROP. The only reason gold is priced so high since 9/11 is because of our irrational fiscal and foreign policies. Gold is a hedge vs inflation, so implementing a rational fiscal policy would actually hurt gold's value.
He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes protectionist.
Once again, you are mindlessly smearing the man, based on something you probably read from one website. If someone votes against NAFTA and CAFTA but says 'we should trade with no restrictions with every nation on earth' they are not a protectionist.
States rights is a familiar dodge for people who rooted for the South in the Civil war but don't want to give the appearance of being pro-slavery. In here it appears to be a way to dodge for uncomfortable social issues
Sure, he should at least be (very lightly) commended for admitting he hasn't thought about it, rather than giving a bullshit answer.
But why hasn't he thought about it? All of RP's policy decisions come down to this decision: is the power mentioned in the Constitution? If so, then it merits resolution, else the 10th Amendment prohibits it. Well, IP is there, right in Article 1 Section 8. There are so few issues actually at stake, once you look at it in this manner, so I'm kind of disappointed that he doesn't have a position on this one.
More to the point, I find it hard to believe. Maybe we really did get a bullshit answer. That doesn't really line up with what we know about the guy, but nevertheless I'm getting a whiff of it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"Little is much when little you need."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not that I think there is not room for improvement, but I can't figure out what standard people who say the social safety net is failing are using.
We've had decades of welfare, and as a result, we have inner cities blighted by ghettos. These safety nets are anything but; instead of helping people improve their lives, they only encourage them to develop bad habits.
Yes, by all means put your eggs in the basket with a hole in the bottom instead.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
Given the way candidates are nominated, I don't think third parties really have much of a chance.
What I'd like to see (though, I'm sure there's a flaw in it somewhere) is for all the states to have partyless primaries, like Louisiana, where everyone running for prez is on the same ballot, and the two top vote getters go to the general election in November, even if they're from the same party.
Of course, it has been noted that even this system locks out third parties, because the two top vote getters will always be the favorites of the two main factions. Say candidate A is the favorite of faction A, and candidate B is the favorite of faction B, and nobody in faction A would ever consider candidate B as a second choice, and nobody in Faction B would ever consider candidate A as a second choice. But if there is a moderate candidate C that everyone could live with, even if not their favorite, C doesn't have a chance in the Louisiansa system.
I would modify that system such that everyone votes for TWO candidates in the partyless primary. So that everyone gets to vote for their favorite, and second favorite. That way Candidate C ends up in the general election.
He wants to create competing currencies using "the gold standard", which is a pretty decent idea. Trying to outright replace a fiat currency would be devastating on a global scale and he is well aware of that fact.
He is not protectionist either. If you would read his website instead of parroting what the media tells you, you'll see it is quite the opposite.
As far as social programs, he is fully aware of how many people have become dependent on the system. Again, read his website. The favors phasing out the social programs over time in favor of state or private programs. It is not and should not be the role of the federal government to determine how people are taken care of, as you end up with a huge sub-optimal mess. One needs to look no further than the ballooning social security and Medicare/Medicaid programs to see that our country will be bankrupt in the near future trying to keep them afloat.
But don't take my word for it. Go to the government accountability office's website and look up David Walker (the comptroller). Take a look at the financial forecasts based on our current rate of spending. The social programs by themselves have the potential to bankrupt our country in a couple of decades.
Right now, the social programs in the US budget make up the bulk of spending. This is closely followed by defense spending. If you combine defense and social programs, you ALREADY EXCEED THE REVENUE by a good margin. So what do you cut?
By keeping troop levels the same and just pulling them home, you can save about a half trillion dollars or more. That's a pretty good start. McCain is hot and heavy about pork, but that makes up about 1 or 2 percent of the spending. Good to cut, and one of the few things Paul agrees with him on. After that, you have to start hunting around for cuts. The social programs like Social security would need about 30 years to 40 years to phase out.
Ron Paul isn't going to throw people out on the street. Some of his ideas will take decades to develop. But at least he is trying unlike other candidates who just want to give you more of the same.
~X~
~X~
Thank you, Emrys! That was very informative.
1) The affairs of others are not our concern.
2) Could you please rephrase that as a question?
3) By stressing the word "federal" I can hopefully avoid alienate voters by coming out as pro-drugs (which is an issue not important to me), and instead stress my stand on "small government" (which is important to me).
4 and 5) The issues are not important to me. Obviously a balance between rewarding creation and the interest of the public is needed. I'll figure out what that balance is after I get elected president.
Okay, so RP is running on the purist federalist philosophy. Dandy.
Given that most of the administration in Washington is largely in the business of collecting and redistributing funding to the states with standards compliance requirements attached, does he honestly think that removing the federal component will make a stick of difference to the average American on the ground? The programs will still exist and the revenue will need to come from somewhere. I get the home-rule states' rights bit, but I rarely hear the fanbois cooing over anything but the prospect of cutting their tax bill, which isn't likely even if we burnt Washington to the ground.
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
In any case, it was less flexible than fiat money today is, and that's why you see in history a much less chaotic economy than what we've witnessed in 20th century. Flexibility is a problem, not a solution. It allows government to cause economy to move faster than it naturally could for a while, what is good for those living the expansion, but once the accelerated speed cannot be sustained anymore it comes the required slowdown, until equilibrium is reached again, what's horrible to those who experience it (and who are, usually, the same people who experienced the increase). A gold standard, allowing for less manipulation, blocks the accelerated development, but it also blocks the speed decrease. The end result is the same development, but under a linear and, thus, less exciting but also less painful, growth rate.
Not that the gold standard will come back. It won't. Politicians love the power fiat money gives them. If people have to endure an unending sequence of bubble/bursts cycles in consequence, why would they care? They stay in office for 4 or 8 years, which is usually less than what a full cycle takes. Thinking on the long term is not necessary. So they don't.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
That having people stationed all over the world and going on wars of adventure on shaky evidence might just not be the best use of taxpayer money. So yes, shave the defence fund.
Ron Paul votes against free trade laws because no law is necessary for free trade -- for free trade you need to *get rid* of protectionist laws. "Free trade" laws like NAFTA or CAFTA go on and on for pages when only one sentence is needed: "Congress shall pass no law respecting trade between nations."
Anything else stupid you have to say? Please, by all means, continue tarnishing your reputation.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Yes, those people call themselves "Republicans" and "Democrats" and they are the majority.
That is why libertarians exist; and also why they lose.
The vast majority thinks the government exists to be their mommy, and their political parties have turned this cowardly and un-american outlook into the primary legislative theme of almost every representative. This in turn has led directly to the essential irrelevance of the constitution with regard to law, uncontrolled government expansion, loss of liberties, privacy and property, and a general feeling of helplessness when government abuse is directed, as it eventually is, at one's self.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It makes no difference to me, since I myself didn't ask the questions. Chances are that you didn't get to ask either. Slashdot's editors did; they picked the questions and passed 'em along to the appropriate flunky at Ron Paul's campaign HQ.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
If we're talking about the theory, libertarianism stresses personal charity in place of charity at the point of a gun (welfare), as that would be a violation of your rights. Altruism is in the equation.
Knowing that he'll only be able to keep 1 of his 100 billion, he'll likely not even try for the 100 billion and the economic advantage it would have brought to the country. Thus we all lose by over-taxing him to a point you think is reasonable. BTW, you're only 1% away from being pure communist.
Wow. I think you'd better go look up the Great Depression.
This only confirms my suspicion that Ron Paul and his lunatic supporters are possibly the most demented, dangerous people in America.
I suspect in Ron Paul's America, the Depression would have probably lasted decades, Europe and Asia would have been controlled by two or three fascist empires, and the US would be dangling by a string, at the whim of the heirs of Hitler and Tojo.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Your idea of the gold standard being a "major" cause of the depression is silly, the economy was horrible on 1000 different levels from stock market activities to trade issues to poor wages being earned by large segments of the population. To say that Ron Paul is suggesting the gold standard cause he holds gold... talk about drinking kool-aid. Im sure many people who despise the gold standard hold plenty of gold in their portfolios. The fact is at the end of the day the money system has major problems and Ron Paul is the only candidate addressing them at all, even if you dont like his solution to the problem. The sad truth is that 99.9999% of people dont care that we carry an insurmountable deficit and live our lives on credit that can be called in at any time - talk about a depression, we are setting ourselves up for one as we speak. Thank god theres one person running for office that isnt afraid to talk about it.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Yes, I do. We went off the gold standard because the gold standard makes it harder to rob the populace.
Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression.
Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing.
The major causes of the great depression had nothing whatsoever to do with the use of Gold. This is a complex issue and more than I care to go into in depth in this forum. There's plenty of information on this out there if you want to do the research. Suffice to say what would've been a minor market problem was turned into a huge fiasco because we had two presidents (hoover and FDR) who thought the best way to solve problems in our economy was by sticking their noses into it.
Instead, they caused massive problems. Want to know how we got out of the great depression? FDR stopped the majority of his programs that were supposed to fix it. That's how we got out of it.
You can't ask what caused the great depression as if the whole thing, its depth, its width, and its initial triggers were all due to some magical cause. Your allegation isn't even close to accurate, and clearly demonstrates you are way out of your depth in even commenting on this issue. Perhaps before you pollute the forum with more of your "wisdom" you should make an effort to go beyond wikipedia and your fourth grade history education.
It is also far less flexible than the monetary systems we use today such that an attempt to go back to it would cause a major deflation in the currency while skyrocketing the value of gold.
Yes, there would be deflation - gee I wonder why. Oh yeah, because the government has inflated our current fiat currency till it's almost worthless. So yes, there is going to need to be some adjustment. If you don't like it, fine, keep using your paper money. Nobody (even Ron) is saying you can't. All we're saying is let those of us who would rather have a hard currency that government isn't constantly undermining for managing our trades.
Oh, and guess who has a lot of holding in gold? You guessed it, Ron Paul.
Yes, I'm sure that's why too. It's all an elaborate scheme to pump and dump his gold stock right? It couldn't possibly be that he believes what he says and as such invests in something he believes has value.
The Wikipedia article alone has some rather compelling reasons why return to the Gold Standard is a bad idea.
Heaven knows, if you want accurate information on something wikipedia is the place to go.
He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes protectionist.
See, I don't think you even understand what protectionism is, and I think you suffer from a belief that any vote against neo-mercantilism is somehow protectionist in and of itself. It's not like there are a plethroa of bills going through the congress to remove trade restrictions.
States rights is a familiar dodge for people who rooted for the South in the Civil war but don't want to give the appearance of being pro-slavery. In here it appears to be a way to dodge for uncomfortable social issues that, while probably correct in the long term, are politically unpopular today.
You once again display your ignorance. I'm sure some people are so simple-minded and historically that painting them with the "pro-slavery" brush for being in support of states rights will fly, but not with anyone who has ever bothered to get a decent education on the issue.
States rights were also being employed to defend slaves from the reprehensible fugitive slave acts, as well as federal government encroachments on state liberty in regards to trade, conscription and other issues in the pre-civil-war era. Being in favor of recognizing the state sovereignty outlined in the 10th amendment and their right to tell the federal government to pound sand is not inherently racist any more than being in favor of centralized governme
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
Slightly OT, but what is with the fascination with gold? I mean, it has value in manufacturing of electronics, and makes an average metal for jewelry, but aside from that I find it to be entirely over-valued. I always want to smack the hell out of economists that take about using things with "intrinsic" value for currency, and then list gold and jewels as examples. Being pretty does not add "intrinsic" value. If you want something with intrinsic value, how about a loaf of bread, or a gallon of gas. At least with the gas it has a fairly well defined energy output that can be used to perform work.
The thing they all overlook is that gold just like the dollar only has value because we all agree that is has value. Since the only value of currency is what we agree to give to it, it doesn't actually matter what you use for currency.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
You have no idea what you're talking about, which just confirms MY suspicion that people who bash Ron Paul supporters usually do so based on complete ignorance of the topic at hand.
The Great Depression had NOTHING to do with lack of retirement planning or medical health care coverage (i.e. gov't social programs). No amount of Social Security or Medicaire would have stopped the Great Depression. In fact, no government handout of any kind could have stopped it, otherwise the gov't would have handed out the money the minute the depression started and it would have been over.
If you understood the market, monetary policy, and the Federal Reserve you wouldn't even have equated the Great Depression to gov't entitlement programs.
WATYF
You'd better look at how a lot of people lived during the Great Depression. You'd also better look up how Roosevelt managed to keep the whole thing afloat. You should also look at how the Federal Government, even before Pearl Harbor, pumped billions into the economy via programs like Lend Lease.
Libertarians live in a black-and-white fantasy land, where government is bad, private concerns are good, and that's why a Libertarian government would fall in a matter of years, probably violently.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hey, if you'd done that, maybe Fred Thompson would still be in the race. Now he'll probably sign up for another lame TV show. If it turns out that he's the big cheese behind the Dharma Initiative, I'm holding you guys responsible!
Ron Paul only opposes using eminent domain outside the scope of that power granted to government. He doesn't have a problem with constitutional eminent domain, such as you own the land where the city wants to put the new courthouse.
I'm sorry that you believe the Fed was not responsible for the Great Depression. You can e-mail me if you really want to find out what was the cause.
You can bitch and moan about the Gold standard all you want, but you cannot deny the awesome power it has: Gold can only be created by fusing atoms together like during a super nova explosion, a technology we humans lack.
You complain about the Gold stander, but lets compare it to todays monetary policies. When the federal government finds that it cannot afford its out-of-control spending, and is unwilling to directly tax the public, it resorts simply to creating the money out of thin air. Inflating the money supply is the easiest form of financing the government. The Federal Reserve, an unelected and unaccountable private organization, pumps more dollars into the economy whenever it chooses. And the public is forced to accept these bills.
Basic economics tells us that the more there is of a good, the less valuable it becomes. This is also true of money. The dollar is worth four cents of what it was when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.
Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued. You pay an inflation tax without even realizing it because you are forced by a falling dollar to pay more for goods and services.
What you say is interesting, but i have a few issues with your source and post.
First up, the post says "where people hardly knew how to read, propaganda had no effect". I doubt that. To say it had no effect is a very absolute statement, one that isn't given any citation.
I would expect that being unable to read, they could only hear propaganda, and its a lot harder to distribute a message by human voice then it is by text. So i believe that they simply had a reduced effect where they were unable to read.
If you consider the example, that was before tv was invented, all they would of had would of been the radio and newspapers. Newspapers and community signs being the primary source of information. In that case, it is to be expected that reading is very important for propaganda since the media is far more readily available in that format.
If you work of that assumption, then its not a case of being smart enough to read or not, its simply how badly saturated in propaganda you are that affects how biased you become.
If reading propaganda in newspapers is enough to bias you, then surly one can agree the next logical step is that viewing propaganda on television is also enough to bias you.
You mentioned in the start that "the conscience and awareness of the "uneducated" masses is actually more resistant to propaganda than the intellectuals", but thats probably simply because they are deaf/blind to it, not because they have a resistance to it.
Now that is out of the way, I'll point out that just as text can bias people so can the corporate media through tv.
People that inform themselves on matters can become biased, but the alternative of making uninformed decisions is consideribly worse off then avoiding decisions that might be biased.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
because people arguing for giving the least to public institutions are bountifully generous givers to charity
you've swalloed the hype man. a politicla theory that is little more than selfishness is not a mainstay of charitable giving. doesn't even remotely pass the laugh test
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Who the hell thinks it's free? The states know full well the money came from their taxpayers. Most of that money goes to programs enacted and administered at the state level. Absent the federal tax intermediary or program administration, the states will just tax their citizens directly.
The majority of Americans live in states where removing the federal administration and financing of those programs will do absolutely nothing to remove the programs or the funding, it will just shift the path of the receipts and will in many cases result in a net INCREASE in cost for those states that currently receive more from Washington than they remit.
But I'm looking at a banner for Obama '08 on the front page.
so let me get this straight, that you actually believe this:
a "political theory" (read: shallow selfishness masquerading as something deeper) based on giving as little as possible to public institutions, is going to release the floodgates on massive charitable giving
doesn't even begin to pass the laugh test
you want to tell me, you want me to believe, that a group of people arguing for giving the least to public institutions are... drum roll please... going to become bountifully generous givers to charity in the utopia of libertarianism
pffffffffffftttttttttttt
my only question is: can i smoke what you are smoking to believe that flaming giant pos?
here, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt: assuming there are some idiotic naive twits who actually believe that a "philosophy" founded on giving as little as possible to the concept of the public good is going to mean more charitable giving
let's just go with the idea that there are actually people that naive in the world. there probably are in fact
now, if you are such a naive twit: in the boundless limits of your imagination, you can't imagine that this "philosophy" will appeal, in the overwhelming majority, to people who are, frankly, nothing but selfish aholes, who will in fact not give one penny even if they are filthy rich?
impossible, right?
my god the naivete
unfortunate ugly truth of this world: for many people, even if they appreciate the concept of a need to invest in the public good, you still have to force them to do that. that if you make it voluntary, only a fraction of people will give
ugly
but iron clad truth
sorry to burst your bubble, my naive friend
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If anyone points out he didn't write those comments, you can claim that as a practicing doctor, his involvement in a political newsletter is representative of his involvement in the country as president.
You can't take the sky from me...
Yes, but intelligent people aren't fooled by politics as usual. The candidates want people they can easily manipulate into voting for them with rhetoric or prizes (tax breaks, pork). Not people who they have to impress with actual qualifications and viewpoints on issues they are expected to uphold once in office.
How is question 3 a "tech-oriented question"?
Most of these questions were extremely slanted to the answer desired instead of being open-ended.
And why not a question like: Windows, Apple or Linux and why?
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
But his answer fits perfectly with his philosophy. As a proponent of the federal republic, anything he would say about internal state laws like this would be purely personal opinion and as utterly meaningless as the "Diamonds or Pearls" question asked of Clinton at one Democratic debate. And Ron Paul isn't prone to meaningless pander.
Um, what about the studies that try to pin down the causes of the Great Depression? Inflexible money supply after a period of wild speculation caused a deflation of the currency that sent the economy packing. I guess I was not verbose enough in my original post. The gold standard itself may be theoretically workable in a perfect system, but in real world practice (the 1930s for example) it has a lot of shortcomings that cause problems. It's like communism in a way, it works great on paper, but it makes assumptions that aren't true in the real world where real people are trying to game the system and where you have to interact with other (not gold-based) economies.
I read the internet for the articles.
No, he does not support legalizing marijuana or gay marriage. I can't believe how many slashdotters fall for his smoke and mirrors. All he says is that he is against federal laws about marijuana and gay marriage. He believes it is up to the states to make these things criminal (or not). But given the way most states act, the "or not" is a very slim proposition. Most states would probably enact even harsher anti-marijuana and anti-gay laws.
But his little ruse works a treat in getting people to think he "supports" these issues.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Yes... the fed gov't pumped billions into an economy... that didn't get better (at least not permanently.. many of the "gains" made by gov't programs were lost by 1937) and they had to plunge the country into massive amounts of dept just to do so (a practice that remains to this day). WWII ended the depression. There isn't even any debate about that.
Not to mention that the economic state before the depression was not a "libertarian fantasy land". The Fed was instituted in 1913, much to the protest of libertarians. A central bank controlling the money supply and manipulating the economy (which is a NON-libertarian policy) was the #1 cause of the depression.
WATYF
Sorry. America can't get out of Saudi. The Saudis are propping up the US dollar by accepting paper as payment for oil, and thereby the whole US economy and military machine.
What I find ironic is that all this goes back to Nixon.
Deleted
It's a really interesting point - and oddly obvious, yet no one notices. Let's pretend the war will only cost $1 trillion dollars. OK. Now, How much oil is in Iraq? Well according to the .gov they have 112 billion barrels of oil. I'm going to be generous and round it off to 120 billion, just because I'm nice, and I suck at doing math on the fly. So, divide 1 trillion by 120 billion and you get $8.3 per barrel. BUT: it doesn't work that way. for one thing, you never pull 100% of the oil out. Normally, it's around 50% or so when you start retreating and give up around 75%. So, let's be generous and pretend they will pull 80%, or 100 billion barrels out. That's $10 a barrel. However, there are MANY people looking to buy this stuff, and there is domestic consumption to consider. If the USA pulls 25% of this over to the states, then we're talking $40 a barrel surcharge on EVERY BARREL OF OIL.
So, when the base cost is $100 a barrel, America will be paying $140 a barrel.
Brilliant. And that's being bend over backwards generous. Frankly, I think the reserves are over estimated by at least 30% and that the quality is crap and they won't get more than 65 - 70% of it out in total and the USA likely to get perhaps 25% of that, which would make the surcharge more like $60 - 80 a barrel.
The answer is: it is always cheaper to buy something than steal it.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
You can't take the sky from me...
The Austrian school of economics, which Paul subscribes to, predicted this would happen prior to the crash.
A couple Austrian economists were quoted as saying there would be a "crash", but one thing they could not predict was the keynesian economic policy would prevent recessions from spiraling into depressions ever again, which used to happen regularly and has not happened even once since. Which is why economists abandoned the Austrian school many, many decades ago.
Ron Paul was saying there would be a recession or worse back during the first debates when everyone was talking about the strength of the Bush economy.
Again, this is easy to do. There will be a recession. Sooner or later. Apple will make better, smaller iPods. You will meet someone new this week.
And, I'll also bet that Ron Paul has predicted recessions lots of times, and only the few times that he turned out to be right count. If he can reliably predict recessions more than one quarter in advance and is willing to write his method out, he should send it to Stockholm so he can get a Nobel.
Once again, the Austrian school is ahead of the curve.
As I said, the Austrian school was abandoned by economists generations ago. The Austrian school in its heyday used to seriously debate Marxist economics, which shows you the state of the field at that time. It died out because Keynes could explain the relationship between the money supply and economic growth much better than they could. Today almost no economists still believe in the Austrian school outside of a couple suspiciously well-funded "think tanks".
It's not that hard to predict really.
Now this is getting good. It's not hard to predict recessions and depressions?
So, why haven't you written this up and collected your Nobel prize?
Or, better yet, since you know when to buy and sell stocks, are you fabulously wealthy?
I however cannot say the same about corporate media. The information you can gather from it is quite limited, often biased, and very hard to verify.
Moving on, i also find it amusing how you can dictate world policy in just 1 sentence. But i'll point a few things out from what you said Disengaging from those issues, as Ron Paul would us do, would just repeat the setup for conflict that we saw before WWII. 1. Please explain how America's policy of attacking 3rd world nations have anything to do with stopping Germany in WW2. Germany was a 1st world nation that managed to occupy most of Europe in a matter of months. Germany and the Axis alliance isn't Iraq. Saying that your military policy would of stopped it is little more then wishful speculation.
2. If Ron Paul was president, perhaps you would of avoided Vietnam. There are pros and cons both ways.
3. America is bankrupting itself. It can't afford to keep up its military operations. Your already put yourselves into so much debt over this war that it'll be at least 2 generations before you can pay it off. Thats could be my daughter and my grandson, paying off a war that they weren't even alive in. 70 years of repayments, just so that we could snuff out a nation's government that was harmless.
In the meantime the government is printing off paper devaluing the USD. The USD itself has no value, so if there is a run on the bank over the USD, the economy will collapse. America is slowly heading the way of the USSR. Thats what Russia USED to be called before it collapsed. I wonder what USA will be called if it continues...
Believe what you will, one fact remains true, America needs to change its policies before the debt collectors are called in.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
Look at countries without any form of welfare. They tend not to have nice cities with a few bad "ghettos" - most of the country is a form of ghetto, often rules by militias. Ghettos aren't a result of welfare. They are pretty much the default condition. It's through community efforts and helping one another that we get nice cities and towns.
... and then they built the supercollider.
If it's customs, then the appropriate question would have been would you push to allow imports? But that question was not asked.
If it's interstate commerce, then there is the possibility of a role. But the fed's original role for such commerce was mainly to make sure the states operated on a level playing field, not to prohibit. Even then, it's a question that was not asked, as it also doesn't have anything to do with a regular user going to jail.
And he did nothing to stop it, until he we caught out... what does that say about him? Never mind that the people who wrote it under his name were employed by him to do so.
... and then they built the supercollider.
You're making the common mistake of confusing the "economic point of view" with "valuing everything in terms of money". Yes, economists do use money to measure most things, but only because it's the best proxy we can find for what we actually want to measure: utility (think of it as happiness).
So, yes, the money spent on the mentally ill and unemployable (MI&U)might outweigh the money they generate, but – as you said yourself – "that's not what most people consider acceptable for the first world". That is, if we stopped funding the MI&U, people (the nation) would be unhappier. If this decrease in happiness is greater than the greatest amount of happiness we could generate with the money we stopped spending on the MI&U (the first-best alternative - tax cuts, schools, lollipops for all), then it would make economic sense to keep funding the MI&U
Economists – we're here to make you happy
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
How many /.ers are US voters, though?
(Actually, that would make for an interesting poll. "I voted for Bush" can be the CowboyNeal option.)
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
I normally wouldn't answer a rant like yours, but I feel I must as it's been rated "insightful" for some frightful reason. Guess I'll be losing my Karma.
You are wrong. Most people do not want to have the gov't be their mommy. Most people either feel helpless to fix the system, are just greedy, or don't think at all. They know the government is broken, but don't feel that they can do anything about it. One man I know feels that the tax cuts are wrong, and that W. has betrayed his conservative ideals, but this man still wants his tax cut money. Why? Because he says that the system is so far gone, he may as well "get his". I think that if you ask around, most people will say they just "want theirs". Greed is good, right Mr. Libertarian? Problem is, if we don't work together sometimes things just don't work.
Gagh, you made me defend centrists. Now I must shower.
Moderation +3
40% Informative
Someone's moderating drunk, that's the only explanation I can think of.
You can't take the sky from me...
Am I the only one who finds diversity (i.e. confusion) among the laws of a single country a bad idea?
Likely, no, but there is something to be said about value of diversity as well, if one considers that competition of ideas is a good thing (and central planning does not work).
Imagine a country where, say, California can implement a full-fledged worker's paradise, and, say, Texas a hard big-business friendly set of policies with you (and me) free to chose (move and take our, preferrably gold-backed, $$ with us) to either one of 48 other places in-between. Eventually laws and people might settle into a configuration which maximizes everyone's happiness (or, at least, minimizes pain).
How's that for an idea?
Paul B.
But this is our country. If you don't like the rules, you are free to enact changes, as long as the majority agree with you. If you don't like the rules and don't want to work through the proper channels to change them, your only other option is to leave. Let's say you go to someone's house, and they demand you give them money. You don't want to give them money to stay there, and insist that they do not have the right to demand money from you, as you didn't agree to it. You are asserting that you have the right to trespass on another person's property. The US is the property of the US citizens, and we have collectively agreed that there will be certain rules that everyone who lives here follows. You do not have the right to claim the moral high ground and to say that we have no right to make you follow our rules on our property. You are free to leave our property if you don't like our rules, but you can't just demand that we change them because you don't like them.
No one is arguing that you have the right to do whatever you want on your own property if that property is unencumbered by other agreements. All property in the US is encumbered by other agreements. If you don't like the agreements that encumber property here, you are free to buy property elsewhere. You don't have the right to unilaterally decide that property in the US will not be encumbered by those agreements. Sure, you can attempt to get others to agree with your selfish and self centered ideas, but fortunately, only a small minority of crazy libertarians agree with you, and as we've seen, libertarians don't and can't control any nation or state in the world because too few people agree with their insane and selfish ideals.
Good luck with your childish "You're not the boss of me!" political "philosophy." Just leave the rest of us out of it. If you want to live like that, go find somewhere else to do it. Don't try to steal our country, make one of your own.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Why was Spain attacked by middle eastern terrorists? Or the UK, for that matter?. Because Spain and the UK were involved in your interventionist foreign policy.
Also, Spain has been at war with islam for nearly a millennium. Go crack open a history book and a newspaper or two, sheesh!
You can't take the sky from me...
I'll say it again, If you don't like it, get the hell off of our property. Go try out your insane ideas of governance with other people who agree with you. You don't have the right to force US Citizens to go along with you. This is our country, we make the rules collectively, and if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to stay. Go somewhere else to try your libertarian ideals. Maybe if the rest of us see how well they work, we'll agree to go along with you. So far, you libertarian types have not stepped up to the plate. You can't seem to make a go of it on your own, so you want to steal our country and our infrastructure for your little experiment.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
You can't take the sky from me...
I think the candidates want as many votes as they can get. Maybe they feel can get better returns by spending their time on David Letterman, or on some other media outlet. However, I don't think that they look at slashdot and go "oh that's where the smart people are. It's not worth trying to sway them with my viewpoints" I think that whoever at those offices read the email and said "What's a /.? Damn hippies can't even use letters in their names!"
To some extent, I agree with you that a free market requires some regulation. Otherwise it is feudalism. However:
Your MS example is fatally flawed in two ways:
1) The regulation has not worked on the federal level either. We are at what? 15 years now and how much taxpayer money with *no change whatsoever*? One thing to realize with some of the state vs. federal or government vs. non argument is that where the less regulated option does not work in theory, the more regulated option fails repeatedly in practice. The *customers* are still giving them money. * I was in a discussion with folks recently who do certified organic farming. The guy from the USDA comes in, looks at their farm, checks their papers, and drives off. They could spray plutonium on their fields the moment his pickup leaves that driveway, and they would still be "certified organic." * SEC regulations did not stop Enron. Although some investors who bothered to do their own market analysis and arithmetic and smelled something rank avoided the mess, the others felt safe *because of* the SEC and got hooked. There are trade-offs to both sides, each case is different, and regulation can often bite in very perverse ways.
2) As the previous poster pointed out, the office suite monopoly is enforced by government IP laws. In your state vs. MS example, and in the face of less restrictive IP law (protecting interoperability rights, for example), someone could just reverse engineer the thing legally, MS would not be able to bludgeon startups into non-existence, and a lot of other things. Making these laws sane would not eliminate the problems, but they might eliminate 90% of them, and then you could come up with a rational and targeted solution for 8%, and just suffer with the 2% that will never be solved no matter what.
A counter-example where I would agree with you solidly is utility regulation. Everybody is all about "deregulating" utilities without thinking about why they were regulated in the first place: natural monopoly and the last mile problem. Basically, you can't have two competing power companies both running competing telephone poles into the same city and the same houses, and somebody has to maintain the lines if they are shared (a big expense and one the utility has some unique knowledge for handling). Additionally, you have the problem that utilities would waste resources competing over lucrative urban customers (more than one customer per pole) and ditch the rural customer (several dozen poles per customer). So, we granted regional utilities a monopoly on urban areas in exchange for a requirement that they service the last mile without prejudice. Now we have "municipal electric" coops taking over the urban areas and expect utilities to compete over rural customers? Are people on crack?
You can't take the sky from me...
because there are a lot of ron paul supporters doesn't mean the internet is bad.
Who said the internet is bad? I'm saying that many Ron Paul supporters are doing the equivalent of vandalizing public spaces in the name of their candidate. Says a lot about their mind set, and how shallow they are.
Please explain how America's policy of attacking 3rd world nations have anything to do with stopping Germany in WW2
Which third world nations would those be, exactly? Do you mean, working with many allies and with the blessings of the UN to route the Taliban out of Afghanistan? Afghanistan wasn't "attacked," but the cruel, medieval theocrats who were using it as a base of operations after they took it over by force were, themselves, removed by force. If the US simply wanted to "attack a third world nation," then that would be easy, cheap, and completely devestating. That you don't understand that shows, again, that your thinking on such matters is childish. The wahabbists, with millions of dollars to work with, who set up shop in Afghanistan to plan, train for, and execute mass killings in other countries were not just some local, third-world villagers.
As for WWII... again, you're missing the point. If western Europe and its allies (the US) had acted before Germany had become the threat that it did (following WWI), there would have been millions of lives spared. Likewise with Japan. But back to your comment: what policy of attacking third world countries are you referring to?
If Ron Paul was president, perhaps you would of avoided Vietnam
And even more of Asia would look like North Korea, right now. Is that your preference? Since you're just plain wildly speculating, why not ask how Vietnam would have turned out if the presidents dealing with that conflict (which was really a conflict with the communist puppet masters behind the scenes, obviously) had decided that it was OK to actually fight and win the conflict? What if Reagan had been president then? Or Truman? It would have ended quickly, more violently, and in the long run, with many fewer lives lost.
It can't afford to keep up its military operations
Even while other countries fail to contribute what they've agreed to contribute in peace keeping missions. Who is it you're complaining about, exactly? The people actually doing the work, or the people who promise to help with logistics, money, and their own people, but then fail to do so?
paying off a war that they weren't even alive in
Just like WWII? The Germans are still paying for that. So are the Japanese. And so are all of the Allies that had to push them back from their aggression. Just like Saddam had to be pushed back from invading his neighbors. But unlike his WWII counterparts, he never honored the terms of his surrender, and they had to be enforced the hard way.
just so that we could snuff out a nation's government that was harmless
You have a very strange definition of "harmless." Do you suppose that the ditches filled with the people that regime wiped out would consider that to be harmless? The millions killed in the regional wars started by the Baathists? When the UN established no-fly zones over the northern and southern parts of that country to prevent him from continuing to slaughter more people basedon their tribal affiliation, would you consider that regime harmless for continually trying to shoot down the aircraft flying to enforce those UN sanctions? Or, do you only consider "harmless to Sunnis, especially from his own village" to be how you define "harmless?"
The USD itself has no value
No value? That's funny, you can exchange it anywhere in the world, and it's still the single currency that you're most likely to be able to USE anywhere in the world if you must.
America needs to change its policies before the debt collectors are called in
And, who would that be, exactly?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wish I had minions...
You can't take the sky from me...
If you live in New York, you can't mail order power from Arizona. There is no way to tell specific electrons where to go; they follow potentials. When demand shifts and the grid suddenly has to cross-ship power to balance itself out, transmission lines not meant to take that load can and do fry.
You cannot just let everyone put power into the grid willy nilly, not unless you want it to be real dark half the time and the fire department to be real busy the other half. Power does not just have to be there, it has to be *clean*: right voltage and amperage, right polarization, and *in sync* with the rest of the grid. Spikes or brown outs, bad polarization or out of sync power can cause fried equipment, can cause fires, it can cause serious damage to the turbines of other generators. This is what happened in New York a bit ago where they lost power Upstate for a couple of *months* in some places. It started with one plant putting out badly polarized power. Another plant had to shut down to avoid damage to its turbines. This meant that power had to suddenly cross the grid in a way it wasn't supposed to and things fried. Because of "deregulation," nobody had a clue whose problem it was, how to find out what went wrong, or how to fix it.
You can have people putting small amounts of power into the grid and this is especially helpful during peak load or if those small power sources can come online quickly when needed. (Coal plants put out a lot of power efficiently but take hours to warm up and come on line. Natural gas plants are wasteful but can be running from a cold start in 15 minutes). Somewhere, though, you have to have *baseline power*-- a source that is large enough to meet a chunk of the demand, is steady and stable, and has turbines with enough mass to absorb significant surges or spikes. The momentum of the turbines (and force of the magnetic field) actually helps to clean up the power. Hydro, nuclear, and coal are the best sources for baseline power in this respect, especially nuclear. Beyond that, there needs to be clear lines of responsibility for who is in charge of synchronizing power (making sure sine waves and polarity match up) and who decides when sources need to come on and off-line (and prepare other plants for the resulting effect on the grid).
"De-regulation" in the face of these issues is nuts, not because of economics, but because of physics. The fact of natural monopolies (who owns the poles?) and the last mile problem (why compete for a rural customer?) makes it a potential economic problem as well.
"Who cares who Spain morally supported? Is holding an opinion justification for mass-murder now? The fact of the matter is that we have a heck of a lot more reasons to justify taking out their people than they do to take ours out. If they were to lay down their arms today and promise to stop attacking us then there is a really good chance this war would end. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for us laying down our arms."
Morally supported? Opinion? They had *troops* on the Arabian peninsula. Does freedom of speech include shooting people now?
That is also, incidentally, why Al Qaeda has not launched any attacks in the States recently. They said in one of their strategy documents in 2004 that attacking us at home was not their best strategy, Instead, they were going to attack countries that were part of our coalition (with troops in the region) to get them to pull out so that we had to bear the cost ourselves. They thought that once we realized how much running an empire was costing, *we'd stop doing it*. They were right on Spain: they attacked and Spain withdrew. Most of our other allies have scaled back support and the wars are costing us a fortune. They were wrong on the effect: we aren't smart enough to balance our checkbook.
Murdering civilians for no good reason is wrong. We should probably think about that too. We should probably have thought about that before we turned Afghanistan into a bloodbath (in the '80s) and armed bin Ladin. You might remember we turned the whole region into a battleground in WWII as well. Unfortunately, they don't separate us very well from the Russians and the Germans either, so the distrust of us "Westerners" goes rather deep, just in the modern age.
The problem with blaming the victim at this point is figuring out who it is.
Were these questions answered today or in the past few days? If so, I understand the answers not be up to par. Super Tuesday is a pretty big deal. Also, to all the Ron Paul haters: Where are your candidate's answers?
What about the previous couple hundred years with several different countries under the gold standard? Sure there were booms and busts, but nothing even remotely close to the Great Depression and the boom of the Roaring Twenties that preceded it. Both of those events were, in part, caused by the Federal Reserve. The depth and breadth of the event was complicated by the Gold standard (Which was originally intended to prevent the monetary gymnastics required by a fiat currency. In that case semi-fiat, as it wasn't convertible except to other central banks.), but one of the primary causes was too much credit. And the root of all credit is the Federal Reserve.
Part of the blog you cite (based on a 30 year old paper) is "A gold standard only works when everybody believes in the overall fiscal and monetary responsibility of the major world governments and the relative price of gold is fairly stable." IOW, is it believed that governments are printing currency units in excess of gold to back it, which would cause the currency unit to sink relative to gold? No duh, and the primary criticism for the current dollar price of gold by groups such as GATA.
I personally believe in letting the market decide what store of value to use in transactions, and that means several competing models. I'm not "for" a gold/silver/fiat standard, I just despise one size fits all approaches. That mode of thinking discounts all possibility there may be a better way to go.
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
You can't take the sky from me...
The vast majority thinks the government exists to be their mommy, and their political parties have turned this cowardly and un-american outlook into the primary legislative theme of almost every representative.
The majority thinks that a representative government exists to serve their interests and values. That is a decision any organized community is entitled to make. Whether the money goes to erect a traffic light on main street, pay for the health inspector at the local meat packing plant, or or help provide a minimum income for the disabled is simply a matter of choice.
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
There are criteria to what makes a good money: 1) durability - will it last? 2) store of value - is it desired? 3) homogeneous and divisible - can it be divided (think change)? 4) luxury - Seashells might not be a good choice Like it or not, gold fits all of these criteria and a loaf of bread does not. (Although there are scenarios where a loaf of bread has more intrinsic worth than a truckload of gold bars. Google Time Value of Money Theory for more infos on that topic.) The USD has most of these qualities, but 2 is determined by law and 2 by the printing press speed. 1 is even under attack these days on the Forex. My primary beef with a gold standard is that it leads to unrest, as it tends to be deflationary. There were issues with workers taking a pay cut, even though the purchasing power of that smaller sum was as great as the higher wage was originally. On the flip side, 3% raise in a 5% inflationary environment is easier for the worker bees to swallow since it is much more subtle loss.
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
The federal government exists to serve the specific goals enumerated in the constitution. The president swears to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution; congressmen and all executive and judicial officials swear to "support and defend" the constitution. This is the constituting authority for the federal government. If the government is to expand its authority beyond those things specifically laid out in the constitution, then it must amend the constitution. All power taken outside that which is specified in the constitution is taken illegitimately, and certainly all power taken that is specifically forbidden — for instance, the power to make ex post facto laws — is illegitimate. When power is taken without authority, that power is of no different character than that which is exercised by a dictator or a monarch. The constitution allows for change, because it was well understood that the document could persist as the basis of government into times when situations demanded revision; this process is called amendment, and generally speaking, it is being roundly ignored in favor of outright power grabs.
The majority could not quote you the constitution chapter and verse if you stopped them on the street. They couldn't even enumerate the amendments. Why don't you try asking ten random people? They have no idea why the federal government actually exists. Then ask them if they think the feds should be protecting them from child molesters, raiding people's houses in California for using Marijuana, and controlling who has guns. Guess what answers you're going to get. They'll be "mommy" answers.
The decision on how the federal government is to serve their interests and values has already been made. If they want to change it, they need to instantiate the amendment process. In the meantime, those powers descend to the states and the people. It specifically says so — can you guess where?
Yes indeed. The choice of the state government, and the people, not the federal government.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You are full of shit. Period.
Nothing in his congressional record, personal life, nor his medical practice leads one iota of credence to the newsletters. In fact, it's just the opposite.
Would the president of the NAACP back someone like you just described? Of course not. Would someone that you just described deliver babies for free to African American and Hispanic families that were too poor to afford it? No.
He was running a full time medical practice and left the newsletters in care of people he thought he could trust. That was a mistake, as there were those who had a different agenda. At least he admitted he had been careless, unlike MOST of our elected officials (Iraq War).
His actions speak a lot louder than the words written by some assholes who had a vendetta. Here's a challenge for you. I want you to find one, just one instance where an action in his personal, medical, or political life shows paranoid racism. You won't find one.
He's not a libertarian. He's a constitutionalist. There is a difference.
~X~
~X~
So, really, you're afraid of a rational problem arising from discontinuing an irrational policy? Get off it!
You can't take the sky from me...
Oh, but they do. Ask people if they think the feds should be raiding people's homes in California for using Marijuana. Ask them if they think the feds should be controlling who has access to guns. Ask them if they think the feds should be making laws about sexuality. Ask them if they think the feds should be concerning themselves with burning flags. Ask them if the feds should be making national databases of criminals. Ask them if the FBI and the DEA are legitimately constituted agencies. Go ahead, ask. If you just ask these questions and don't set them up as clear violations of constitutional authority, people will generally just nod. I've asked, I continue to ask; it is my way of agitating. Then I explain that there is no authority given to the feds for these things and that the state and local governments can be given that authority if the people so choose, that's the constitutional design, and this makes sense to them (of course — it was designed to make sense by people who were quite bright and very intent on trying to get it right.) When I do my asking, the answers are generally the same, most people, and by that I mean almost everyone I ask, think this is all ok, and furthermore, they are unable to tell me what the constitution says. Without that knowledge, it isn't hugely surprising that they don't understand the basis for the feds being out of hand, but nonetheless, that is the case.
No. Greed is ultimately destructive. The urge to grow, develop and expand knowledge, technology, medical care and creature comforts, however, is highly positive. Greed is what drives the federal government today. They are the penultimate example of people involved in a power grab.
Problem is, the federal government isn't doing the job it was constituted to do, and it has used force to steal the power to work together within the states, from the states, thereby making the people unable to work together in favor of their own interests. You act like I'm an advocate of chaos or lack of control; I most assuredly am not. However, if the government does not obey the law, then what controls it? Nothing — and that is both the problem in an anticipatory sense, and in the contemporaneous sense. Today, we have a government making war on a people who did not attack us. It is making ex post facto laws. It has turned the commerce clause on its very head. It has usurped powers that belong to the states and the people. It has grievously violated every one of the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) with the single exception of amendment three. The president is acting as if he is literally above the law, when the constitution specifically says otherwise. It has suspended habeas corpus outside of a time of war. It has made treaties and then not honored them. It has taken money and property from its citizens without trial. In short, the federal government is completely out of control. Any impression that anyone has that it isn't out of control is the result of propaganda. And as for your remark, sir, the implication that we have to let the fed abuse us in order to work together is both disingenuous and without any basis in reality.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If western Europe and its allies (the US) had acted before Germany had become the threat that it did (following WWI), there would have been millions of lives spared. Likewise with Japan. But back to your comment: what policy of attacking third world countries are you referring to?
I'm not talking about Afghanistan when i talk about 3rd world nations. I'm referring to Iraq. And what looks like a growing cause for Iran too.
Heres a little historic background, just so you know one of the first causes of WW2.
In the beginning of 1923 the French invaded Germany, occupied the Ruhr
district and seized several German towns in the Rhineland. This was a
flagrant breach of international law and was protested against by every
section of British political opinion at that time. The Germans could not
effectively defend themselves, as they had been already disarmed under
the provisions of the Versailles Treaty. To make the situation more
fraught with disaster for Germany, and therefore more appalling in its
prospect, the French carried on an intensive propaganda for the
separation of the Rhineland from the German Republic and the
establishment of an independent Rhenania. Money was poured out lavishly
to bribe agitators to carry on this work, and some of the most insidious
elements of the German population became active in the pay of the
invader. At the same time a vigorous movement was being carried on in
Bavaria for the secession of that country and the establishment of an
independent Catholic monarchy there, under vassalage to France, as
Napoleon had done when he made Maximilian the first King of Bavaria in
1805.
There was a reason why Germany armed itself. Before you start pointing the finger at them, calling them evil, and proclaiming that if we snuffed them out again, that justice would of been served, you should take a look towards the French for their actions. The Germans arming themselves in reaction to their flagrant violations of international law seems quite justified.
And even more of Asia would look like North Korea, right now. Is that your preference? Since you're just plain wildly speculating
I am wildly speculating, i thought I'd try and match you with your opinions on how the world would of turned out if it was policed...
Even while other countries fail to contribute what they've agreed to contribute in peace keeping missions. Who is it you're complaining about, exactly?
I'm complaining about the budget. I don't care what other nations have agreed to, this is about America. Wars have a financial cost involved with them, Afghanistan and Iraq are bankrupting the country.
But unlike his WWII counterparts, he never honored the terms of his surrender, and they had to be enforced the hard way.
Unlike the French, which invaded Germany
Lets not forget the Treaty of Versailles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#Treaty_violations )
Or then theres also the Washington Naval Treaty, which i believe the French, British, Americans, as well as Germany and Japan might of broken pre WW2. (hard to dig up solid facts on that one)
But lets not get history in the way of modern events
You have a very strange definition of "harmless." Do you suppose that the ditches filled with the people that regime wiped out would consider that to be harmless? The millions killed in the regional wars started by the Baathists? When the UN established no-fly zones over the northern and southern parts of that country to prevent him from continuing to slaughter more people basedon their tribal affiliation, would you consider that regime harmless for continually trying to shoot down the aircraft flying to enforce those UN sanctions? Or, do you only consider "harmless to Sunnis, especially from his own village" to be how you define "harmless?"
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
We fund China by borrowing trillions of dollars from them to fund our wars. That money is borrowed with interest, we are paying them billions just so we can fight an unconstitutional and unjustified war.
your opinions on how the world would of turned out if it was policed
You're confusing "policed" with "not destabilized by murderous tyrants with scuds, one of the largest standing in the armies in the world, a habit of ethnic cleansing and invading neighboring countries, shooting at UN-sanctions-enforcing aircraft, not coming clean on what they did with tons of VX nerve gas, regularly making comments about wiping other countries off the map... and, sitting on, next to, and in a position to disrupt the commerce in something that is still fundamental to the functioning and prosperity of the entire world."
Was the world "policed" when Japan's territory and resource grab, combined with mammoth doses of raced-based cruelty and murder (a la Saddam, actually), was shut down through a huge war effort? Is it "policed" now that that episode is decades in the past, after a long-term occupation with governorship, infrastructure rebuilding, and overhaul of their form of government, winding up with democracy? If you think that's policing, but the result is a country like modern Japan, or today's Germany, then sure, let's use that word. Since the results speak for themselves, no matter how you mis-use the word.
I meant harmless to America
How is a guy like Saddam, who repeatedly made attempts to expand - through violence, extortion, mass murder, terrorist-funding, etc - his influence and control throughout a part of the world that's important to the entire world's economy harmless to anyone? The US is part of "everyone," you know? As are all of the countries that worked to push him back into his borders, and at whom he has his troops continue to shoot for years as they attempted to enforce the sanctions to which he agreed - but never met (except by appearance in some cases, as a way to scrape cash out of the UN's oil-for-food program).
they invaded because of weapons of mass destruction, so they said
Just like the intel depts of every other country that has a facility to determine that. Not like it was mysterious, of course, since he was making and testing long range missiles, and was known to have very large stockpiles of chemical weapons (what part of that is so hard to follow, exactly, anyway?).
They were not authorized to invade to protect the Sunnis.
What are you talking about? Saddam was the one protecting the Sunnis, and using his military on his non-Sunni countrymen to preserve his tribe's power.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
While Ron Paul is pro-life he would let each state decide for themselves to allow abortion or make it illegal. To him it's all a matter of states' rights.
His stance on abortion is one I disagree with but for now I generally support Ron Paul. I am both pro-life and pro-choice.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Playing cop and peacemaker and bully across different parts of the world is expensive and contrary to our national interests. If you reverse course on those policies, you allow of lower taxes by cutting the actual need for the money. That in turn allows the country to focus on 'true national interests' which includes private research of all sorts.
Hey, didn't you know logic and reason aren't allowed?
FalconShould there be a Law?
to the best of my understanding there it is a stretch to say that there is a direct correlation between paying less taxes and creating more national debt.
When your income goes down either you cut spending or you go into debt. Not only has the US federal government cut income, taxes, but it has also ballooned spending. When Bush was sworn into office in 2001 there was a budget surplus of, if I recall right, $300B. Now under Bush the USA has the highest budget deficit it has ever had.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Paying more taxes does not make the economy healthier.
Agreed. However when taxes are cut spending needs to be cut as well. We can start by getting rid of waste. Paying more than a half billion dollars ( $740B so far for the world's largest embassy) for a new embassy in Baghdad? That's absolutely ridiculous. With that kind of money you could hand every Iraqi $10,000 and still leave pocket change. How many Iraqis would then hate the US?
FalconShould there be a Law?
The problem with the 'let the states do it' concept is that the states end up in a 'race to the bottom'. Politicians go grubbing for tax revenue and what happens? Corporation X, Y, and Z come along and say
Race to the bottom? Where are this corporations going to get workers? Many people can move to someplace else. For those who can't afford it when Corporation Y moves into an area Corporation X will have competition for employees and therefore will pay more. Both Honda and Toyota have opened new factories in the US and are beating Detroit's big three. The jobs created pay better than the jobs the area already had.
'well, if you just gut your environmental laws, and forgive 90% of our taxes, and gift us with 40 million bucks to boot, maybe we'll build a factory in your state.
So then the voters need to hold their government responsible. Oh, and I'll add that because pollution crosses manmade lines on paper, or a monitor, the environment is one area the feds should be able to set minimum standards. Actually here I'd prefer something international.
Uncle SAM is big enough and the US (even now) is too big a market collectively to be entirely powerless against that. Even so you see what kind of govt we have now? Put it all on the states, it will be 10x worse.
No, it would cost powerful corporations more to bribe local officials, who are directly responsible to local voters, than it costs to bribe federal officials. As Walmart is finding out local opposition is getting stronger. At the federal level there's not much that can be done but at the local level people have more power.
While we ALL like the theory of 'small government', the reality is we live in the 21st century, not the 18th century, and pretending we can go back to an 18th century model of government is just that, pretending.
No it not, it's trying to do something. Those like you, from what you say (pretending), would have people roll over. As the old saying goes, all that's required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Paul likes to say his voting record is consistent with his beliefs, but it isn't entirely so.
Please show examples of this to support your contention Ron Paul's voting record does not match his beliefs.
FalconShould there be a Law?
We need these large, permanent bases if we are to keep our ability to strike anywhere quickly with a consistent flow of supplies.
There is no need for the US to strike anywhere quickly, there's no reason for US military forces to be spread all over the world. Fact is is there's no credible threat to US security other than by politicians and terrorists. And the military won't help with either of these.
FalconShould there be a Law?
We fund China by borrowing trillions of dollars from them to fund our wars. That money is borrowed with interest, we are paying them billions just so we can fight an unconstitutional and unjustified war.
And Ron Paul would end that war.
FalconShould there be a Law?
He wants to go back on the gold standard. Because, yunno, we never had any economic problems in the 19th century.
No, but we had the Great Depression while we were on the Gold Standard. And the US did have depressions in the 1800s. There was one in 1807, another in 1837, and two more in 1873 and 1893.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I doubt he'd be for increasing NASA's budget, a federal agency. That would contradict what he's been saying all along in terms of reducing the size of our federal government.
Ron Paul's opposed to funding of NASA. While I support space exploration I don't think government can do any better than private enterprises can.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Well here in the US, we didn't have ghettos before the urbanization of the 20th century, and ghettos got really bad after welfare came along and gave people a reason to not bother working, or to not work legitimately so they could collect a welfare check while still getting money under the table (usually from the drug trade).
Maybe other countries have figured out how to have welfare without creating a permanent underclass which doesn't work (except for dealing drugs), but in around 40 years we certainly haven't.
As for "helping one another", the people on welfare don't want to be helped up, they want to be helped out; they want a free ride. Good luck getting them to pitch in any effort of their own.
What private ventures are these that are putting sciecne satellites in orbit and sending probes to other planets?
And what are these enterprises supposed to do, compeat with the government when the government makes all the rules?
And his racism
Yea, like releasing all nonviolent drug offenders, most of whom are not "white", is racist. "Ron Paul associates the Drug War with racism, and wants to put an end to both."
FalconShould there be a Law?
That's absolute horseshit, and revisionist history. Of course there were ghettos before the 20th Century. Never heard of mining camps? Of sharecropping? They just don't look the same as modern ones, because of the lower population densities. There have always been areas where the poor and downtrodden conglomerate.
Maybe other countries have figured out how to have welfare without creating a permanent underclass which doesn't work (except for dealing drugs), but in around 40 years we certainly haven't.Well, it's pretty much directly proportional to the quality of welfare and social services. If we made welfare any worse in the USA (or elimated it), then things would start to look more like Nigeria pretty darn quickly. Our welfare system is substandard, and it needs to be boosted. Then you'll see an improvement. Almost anywhere you look in the world, the nature of the "ghettos" is almost precisely proportional to how good the welfare system is.
As for "helping one another", the people on welfare don't want to be helped up, they want to be helped out; they want a free ride. Good luck getting them to pitch in any effort of their own.More unsubstantiated bullshit. Thanks for proving that your worldview is based on nothing but bigotry and a sense of superiority.
... and then they built the supercollider.
C) Torture? What, this water-boarding stuff? Duress, I agree. But torture? Show me the wounds and the scars left by water-boarding, and I might grant you torture.
Torture doesn't need to leave physical scars, torture is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" is inflicted intentionally. Or is it that you think if a scar isn't visible it isn't torture?
FalconShould there be a Law?
How can someone running for the Republican party possibly be a Libertarian?
Ron Paul first ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian. The Libertarian Party got it's start in the 1970s when some Republicans became disillusioned with Nixon.
FaclonShould there be a Law?
I've always been a Libertarian.
I started out as a Democrat. In 1980 I voted for Carter, then in 1984 for the Democrat candidate though I don't recall the person's name. Things changed in 1988, that year I was deputized to register people to vote. As part of it we were given a list of political parties recognized by the state, and later the names of the candidates on the ballot. I saw Ron Paul running as the Libertarian candidate and not knowing anything about him or the party I did some research. Thereafter I've considered myself a small "l" libertarian.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Because a personal preference of an operating system has absolutely no bearing on politics whatsoever?
Ok, so it might have a tiny bit if he for some reason totally is supportive of monopolies and unethical business practices, but seriously, if someone is going to vote for a president simply because he uses Linux... :)
I don't know about the Laffer Curve, not much at least, but I've read how there's some controversies about it.
Only way to find out is to adjust the tax rates, then leave them alone for a while and check REVENUE, not DEFICIT. Deficit can go up or down in ways unrelated to tax revenues
The problem I think is is you can't really know if adjusting tax rates will affect revenue. For instance what if tax rates are adjusted either up or down while at the same tyme there's a slowdown in the economy. Or say an adjustment is made when a new technology comes along that improves output.
Having said this, I don't want you to think I support high, or low, income taxes. I don't, I don't support personal income tax at the federal level. The only income tax I believe in is a tax on the profits a corporation makes, ie the dividends a corporation pays out. If someone wants the limited liability of a corporation then they can pay for it. At the state level, if the people there are ok with a state income tax then they can have one. But I'd rather not.
FalconShould there be a Law?
And for those that might want to know my personal opinions on the subject, I think Bill Clinton said it best. Abortions should be legal, safe, and above all else rare.
That says it best alright. I am both pro-choice and pro-life.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Two consenting adults should be allowed to trade with each other at whatever terms they voluntarily agree upon.
There are limits to that. Because as you have just phrased it, debtor armies and slave labor would be entirely acceptable.
I don't know that the person being enslaved would think it's voluntary.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I was in a discussion with folks recently who do certified organic farming. The guy from the USDA comes in, looks at their farm, checks their papers, and drives off.
I've heard of some organic farmer who since the federal government took over the organic label have decided to give up on organic certification. This is because the costs of the certification has gone up a lot for them while their income hasn't increased. So what some do is continue operating as they did when certified organic but they won't pay for certification. I heard this is popular in California.
FalconShould there be a Law?
How is it that the Federal government is bad when the state government is good? That is illogical.
Under federal control you have one lab, whereas with the states in control you have 50 labs. Each state can try something. And if it works then other states can try it. Or if it doesn't work the state can try something that works for another state.
FalconShould there be a Law?
By the way: in my opinion, a true libertarian must be against the limitation of liability that shareholders enjoy. The libertarian ideal of "free-market capitalism" only works when our freedom is counterbalanced by we having absolute responsibility for our actions. And you only get that, at the speculative market, once purchasing shares of a company links you, your well-being, your future, your destiny, to those of that company. At the prospect of you going on jail if the company commits a crime, even if you only own a single share. Do this, and you'll notice corporations becoming very good neighbors from day to night.
What you could do is revoke the Corporate Charter of corporations.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You present a strong argument for a core tenet of Republican beliefs, namely, a smaller Federal government. That is actually one belief I share with Republicans
Small government hasn't been a tenet of the Republican Party in a long tyme. The current admin, Bush Jr's, is creating an intelligence state. And Reagan built up the police state Nixon started. Of course Democrats aren't for small government either. They want big social services programs. The only political party in the US that has Small Government as it's platform is the Libertarian Party.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It is actually more complex than this because you need to take into account time. The cost of the war is upfront but the oil is only produced over a period of time so it's value of this needs to be discounted. Iraq is currently only producing 2 million barrels per day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Iraq/. I can't be bothered doing the full calculations, but at the 30 year bond rate of 4.5% after 30 years this $1 trillion turns out to be $3.74 trillion yet we only get 60 billion barrels of oil out of Iraq. This is $62 per barrel. Using your assumption that only 25% of this flows to the USA this is a subsidy of more than $240 per barrel!
Automated DNA sequencing software
Gold is the best commodity I've seen that keeps it's value.
Although recently I've become aware of the central banks of the world conspiring to manipulate the price of gold in the markets to mask inflation of currencys. See http://www.goldrush21.com for more details. These whistleblowers spent $265,000 on a full page color ad in the January 31st, 2008 Wall Street Journal.
I've heard that gold should be at about $5,000 per ounce right now considering how much the dollar has devalued.
END the Federal Reserve Systems!!!!
(I usually sign my posts with GnuPG signatures, but slashdot's "Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted" message indicated "Reason: That's an awful long string of letters there.".)
Gagh, you made me defend centrists. Now I must shower.
Yeah, it really sucks. But heay, it's only once every four years.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Simple solutions for simple Minds. Now what was the problem again?
I had heard his suicide interpreted as being influenced by God as punishment. I apologize if that was an incorrect interpretation.
Except they were supposed to be "tech-oriented questions" (their idea, not mine!) What does legalizing pot have to do with that? (Or question 2 for that matter.) There are a lot of more relavent questions that could have been asked. Such as his position on stem cell research, global warming, Kayoto treaty, H1B workers, etc. They wonder why no one is answering the qustions? Personally, had I been a candidate and gotten this set of questions, I wouldn't have bother to answer them either!
My question was more of a spoof of the famous "boxers of briefs" question some idiot asked Clinton when he ran for office. But it would have been interesting if any candidate actually knows what Linux IS. Or hell, that he knows what a computer is. You certainly are not going to get a lot of support for the tech community if you elect some guy who, for example, doesn't know how to answer an email.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
Do you think there's a bunch of people who make less than $90,000 and then an empty void until you get people making a $50 million a year? You're just another nothing who has bought into the whole class warfare claptrap.
http://www.mhall119.com
I thought they were just slashdot-asked questions, hehe.
Thanks for bringing the level of discourse up to a higher level. However, when using the word "Period" as a sentence in an of itself, its is primarily done as the termination of an argument. I understand that you had just delivered your most intelligent point but it wasn't the best choice.
Other than publishing the newsletters, and writing the newsletters? How about his association with the von Mises Institution and Lew Rockwell (his former staffer)?He hasn't.If he wanted to keep his medical license, yes.
Oh well if thats what he said, then nevermind. I could never imagine someone lying to cover up a racist past.
But I'll bite. Ron Paul has extensive ties to the League of the South, a neo-Confederate group that advocates secession, a "return" to Christian law and racial violence.
Someone should tell Ron Paul that.Or his association with the John Birch Society, a far right wing society with both racist and conspiracy theory views.
And the only problem there is that really a "state" should be limited to about 25 million people. Larger populations produce unaccountable governments that are essentially "federal" governments.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Not really, they just want the majority of votes in a state. If we had a direct democracy then they would be interested in getting as many votes as they could.
So they go for the low hanging fruit and move on to the next state.
That's the catch here, the candidates generally don't have solid viewpoints on anything. Having solid viewpoints means taking sides in arguments, which means you lose the support of everyone whose side you're not deemed "on". That's why they give vague answers to everything, so they can respin their previous statements to suit whatever the sentiment-of-the-week is in the country on an issue.
People have already complained about Ron Paul's response here, because he didn't really answer most of the questions. Of course he didn't! Otherwise he wont be able to say the exact opposite later on if he needs to. That's why the other candidates didn't answer, either. The questions they were sent are written in a way that makes it hard to answer without setting a precedent for their views on issues, and they can tell deflecting by answering an unrelated question wont pass unnoticed here.
It's just not worth the hassle/possible alienation of other voters to them.
Iraq was not a threat to America. It did not have the offensive capability when it was invaded.
Saddam could be Satan himself, roasting iraq childen on a spit, and that fact would not change.
Iraq was not America's war.
By invading Iraq, you were either "policing the world", or warmongering. I'll let you choose.
Was the world "policed" when Japan's territory and resource grab
That was a war you were directly involved in. Don't mistake wars that are unavoidable, and wars that are though policing.
If you think that's policing, but the result is a country like modern Japan, or today's Germany, then sure, let's use that word. Since the results speak for themselves, no matter how you mis-use the word.
Germany was both a 1st world nation and a democracy before WW2, although the American's helped rebuild it, they did not forge it.
Japan was a success in transforming the country to a democracy. Although i am uncertain on how the reform came about, I'm certain that a large degree came from the populace wanting change away from their emperor due to the tragic outcome of the war, started by their emperor.
Its debatable if an democracy can be forcefully installed if the populace isn't willing. Also for the success they had in Japan, we can also take a look at Afghanistan to see thei potential failures.
There is also the fact that the attempt in Iraq has only fragmented the country into 3 "factions", and is an unstable government. The outcome of the efforts in iraq are yet to be determined, and if another civil war is to occur.
So to call that the results justify the means, when you've had 1 success, 1 failure, and 1 undesided is pretty gun-ho, and perhaps irresponsible.
How is a guy like Saddam, who repeatedly made attempts to expand - through violence, extortion, mass murder, terrorist-funding, etc - his influence and control throughout a part of the world that's important to the entire world's economy harmless to anyone?
I said harmless to AMERICA. Oh wait, its harmful to America's economy, i see what you mean, well thats different. Obviously if a foreign country wants to control their oil, thats a moral reason to invade them.
Just like the intel depts of every other country that has a facility to determine that. Not like it was mysterious, of course, since he was making and testing long range missiles, and was known to have very large stockpiles of chemical weapons (what part of that is so hard to follow, exactly, anyway?).
What a load of crap.
America and Bush went ON AND ON AND ON AND ON about how they had definitive proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But ALL of it was too secret to reveal to anyone. For weeks they went on about it, spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the peoples minds about Iraq.
What on earth do other nations intel have to do with anything. Your goverment said that they had definitive proof, so why should what other nations think matter, and how could other nations disprove that which they couldn't, and you wouldn't talk about.
And where were these WoMD anyway? You did have definitive proof didn't you?
I sure hope America didn't didn't just spread FUD to the populace so you could invade a nation with minimal internal resistance... On an election year no less.
They were not authorized to invade to protect the Sunnis.
Sunnis, whatever, America was not authorized by congress to protect the civilians by military means, restating their plight over and over doesn't change the legality of invading Iraq, it only gives a contradiction in their actions over why America isn't doing anything about other nations plights
Anyway, i don't particularity care to continue this debate. You believe that policing the world is both smart, morally correct, and even affordable.
The fact remains that history is yet to prove you right on any of those matters. Iraq
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
As long as the federal government continues to treat single people, unmarried couples (gay marriage?), and married couples differently, mostly though not exclusively related to taxes, then it will be a federal issue and not one that can be completely decided by the states.
Except for the part about weed, this interview is completely useless.
America and Bush went ON AND ON AND ON AND ON about how they had definitive proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
I'm not talking about US assertions. I'm talking about the actual nerve gas that Saddam used, many times, on Iran and on his own people. UN inspectors in the country following Saddam's attack on and invasion of Kuwait found many such stockpiles (don't you pay attention at all?). Much of it was destroyed. The inspectors found records and much evidence that there was a LOT of VX and other very, very nasty stuff unaccounted for. YEARS went by while Saddam refused to account for it. Considerable truck traffic to Syria jumped up in frequency as more pressure was put on that very topic. UN inspectors were run out of facilities at gunpoint when they showed up - in accordance with the surrender that Saddam signed - to follow up on leads along these lines. I'm sure it's convenient to ignore that history, which was playing out while Saddam was actively shooting anti-aircraft weapons at aircraft patroling the no-fly zones to which he agreed, also as part of his kicked-out-of-Kuwait surrender. You know, shooting? With missles and heavy guns? For YEARS?
You did have definitive proof didn't you?
Actually, that was the UN inspectors.
Oh wait, its harmful to America's economy
Yes, having your people killed in spectacular terrorist attacks that destroy thousands of lives DOES tend to impact your economy, and how you conduct your international affairs. So, the people who were harboring those that conducted that attack, and the organization that they were friendly to, were deprived of their playground in Afghanistan. Much of that organization wandered into Pakistan. Some of it was already in touch with Iraq, and starting to fish around in that country for indirect support. Saddam, of course, openly praised bombers, and made a large display of sending $50,000 to the families of successful suicide bombers. Saddam was a regular trafficker in weapons, including long range missles (remember the ones he lobbed at Israel as he was getting routed from Kuwait?) and had considerable ties with Baathists in Syria - also a major hub for weapons from Iran, and supplier to well-oiled terrorist organizations throughout the middle east. Saddam's regime was well and truly tangled up in all of that, and with Al Queda having miscalculated the longevity of its comfort zone in Afghanistan - but still flush with cash (which Saddam always needed, despite how much he was stealing from the UN during the sanctions) - Iraq was quickly shaping up as a time bomb. Combine that with Saddam throwing out the weapons inspectors, and with intelligence from many sources indicating his interest in more WMD production and a place in the local market to sell them - all while still firing weapons at the UN-provided troops patrolling his borders... and you have a lot more than "harmless to the US." And a lot more than harmless to neighboring countries friendlier to western civilization, like Jordan, or Turkey.
You believe that policing the world is both smart, morally correct, and even affordable
No, I believe that you have to prevent people like Saddam from repeating his long history of lethal lashing out, especially in the context of his proximity to just-displaced Al Queda, and his increasing hunger for cash and military trade with places like North Korea, now a country with nukes. If Saddam ever had actually honored the terms of his surrender after attacking yet another neighboring country, he would have actually been on track back to a productivity-based place in the world, rather than the Stalinist mode that he preferred. And I don't believe it's affordable - it's just more affordable than the alternatives.
Sunnis, whatever
Way to show your awareness of the situation!
Its debatable if an democracy can be forcefully installed if the populace isn't willing
Well, good thing, then, that millions of Iraqis n
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=227844
The president and 20 year long friend of Ron Paul defended him. Ron Paul has also written a treatise about how to eliminate racism, which seems rather odd for someone who would be a racist.
Lew Rockwell and the Mises institute ARE NOT FRIENDS of Paul. You will find that they have been attacking Paul almost non-stop. Lew Rockwell was fired I believe. It was Lew and pals who orchestrated The New Republic release. Not exactly something you do to someone you support.
As far as your "extensive ties" go, I can find no such evidence other than some PO blogs and people thinking that Ron Paul supports them. There was one story in the USA Daily, but it was retracted on the basis that they could not find any credible sources to back it up. Other than that there doesn't appear to be any credible information.
The John Birch Society support Paul for his constitutional views. Other than one speech he gave (on constitutional principles no less), I don't find any other ties to the group. The same with the league of the south. They support him because of his views on the Constitution and states right.
I do not see any PAC money coming from these groups. Nor do I see Ron Paul actively endorsing or supporting these groups either. I don't see it in his congressional record, and certainly not in his public record. You would think that if what your saying is true, the mainstream media would have picked it up and utterly destroyed him with it.
But I suppose you want to make a leap from some of the crazies supporting Ron Paul to Ron Paul being a crazy himself. o_0
The only thing I've managed to find with any racism at all has been the newsletters. Everything else has been word-of-mouth or unsubstantiated, uncorraborative stories. How about something from real source or news outlet.
But since your so keen on on political wrong-doings and such, try this site http://www.judicialwatch.org/. Obama has quite a record. Another one for more recent statements is factcheck.org.
~X~
~X~
NAFTA and WTO are attempts to work, imperfectly, toward free trade.
Not even close. That's just the rhetoric that was used to sell them to the voters.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Some links:
Lew Rockwell Blog
LewRockwell.com Ron Paul News
Past articles by Congressman Ron Paul on LewRockwell.com
Hmm... these don't seem like things that are critical of Paul, do they? in fact, they seem like the work of an ardent supporter.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
The initial sibling comment has shown your claims regarding Lew Rockwell are obviously false.
Ron Paul is the "Distinguished Counselor" of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. They publish his latest book - forward by Lew Rockwell.
Ron Paul also openly associates himself with their of the John Birch Society and thinks its ridiculous that someone would think its bad that he would.
Clearly you aren't interested in the truth, just in backing your guy. I linked several times to news sources. You then criticize my sources and link Judicial Watch of all places as a source when the first adjective it uses to describe itself is by political ideology ("conservative"). Even your second mentioned site identifies judicialwatch as "a conservative legal group that dogged the Clintons through the 1990s with a stream of document demands and related lawsuits" not a reliable source of facts.
It's a big fucking problem, and hopefully GWB will go down in history as a war monger and a destroyer of economies. Not like when people these days try to claim Regan was some kind of hero.
Yea, I don't understand how people can say Reagan was a small government conservative. Reagan expanded government more than many apparently believe. Some tyme back "Reason" magazine had a feature going through many of the things Reagan did to expand the federal government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Whats keeping any reform minded party from succeeding is any anti-war message. Let's get something straight. AMERICANS LOVE WAR. Sure the iraqi war isn't popular, but not because of a philosophical opposition to war in general...its just that we are losing and Americans hate to lose wars, so we get stubborn and dig our heels in until it becomes so huge a disaster we finally have to give up, but not before blaming hippies, liberals, dancing peace activists, PETA, and treehuggers for it all. Ron Paul will never win because of his anti-war stance, same reason why Dennis Kucinich will never win.
Call it a "rant" if you must, but had I the mod points, I would have liked to mod that comment from +4 to +5.
It hits the nail on the proverbial head.
The fact that some people would want the tax "rebate" money Bush is proposing, yet fully understand what bad fiscal policy the whole thing is does NOT in any way, shape or form make them a hypocrite. I consider myself in this camp, and it's NOT a simple matter of throwing my hands up in the air, saying "It's beyond fixing, so want mine out of the mess!"
It's an understanding that the American people are WAY over-taxed at the Federal level. As a Libertarian myself, I'd love to see the entire IRS dismantled/abolished. If that's too "pie in the sky" to ever really happen, ok. Then I'd settle for removal of many of the govt. offices that are unnecessary and inefficient. I'd agree with such ideas as dumping NASA and privatizing space exploration, and probably even scaling back the FDA. Homeland Security would be gone in a flash, for sure. Given that mentality, it's perfectly logical I'd take any money back I can get from the feds! I'd rather have what I earned for myself than letting them mis-use it!
This paper has been published today by the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9181
Among other things, it agrees with me that the gold standard was not responsible for the Great Depression.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
[citation needed]
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Yup: you observe yourself writing a post, therefore, you know you wrote the post. I observed your post, therefore, I know you wrote a response. I'm not sure how we could reason to those conclusions from first principles but empiricism makes it easy. Please try to understand concepts before you attack them, you only embarrass yourself.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Ron Paul is also known as "Dr. No" because he's an obstetrician who always votes against new legislation. For his presidential campaign he decided to reinvent himself as Goldfinger.
Seriously, though, you're right.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
According to the present value of gold, the entire world doesn't have a large enough gold reserve to cover the US GDP, much less the world GDP. You're saying that it would successfully do so even if its value dropped? I'd hate to see what Ron Paul would do to the GDP in order to make that balance out. I'm also not convinced that making gold legal tender again would decrease its value in the first place.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Ah, the Cato Institute, truly the most neutral of all institutions for the study of economics.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I can't say I have seen more eloquent explanations of what has been going wrong with the Federal Government. This, sir, is almost on par with the Declaration of Independence. Very well done, indeed.
-metric
"At which point, both democracy and economics are going to make everyone from my generation and those that follow my generation into slaves to the needs of the elderly,"
:).
:).
How about just stop fighting stuff like obesity and smoking so much? Then there won't be so many elderly
Definitely educate everyone of the dangers etc, but don't ban smoking, and don't ban fattening foods.
Have education campaigns and _tax_ the stuff more. You want to ban smoking in bars? Don't. Just tax bars that allow smoking more.
Then if people still want to do that sort of stuff and die earlier, let them! Maybe give the exceptional "contributors" a medal or cert for their sacrifice for the country
People say lung cancer treatment is expensive. But so is the other sort of cancer treatment.
People die eventually - most antismoking studies ignore that, and/or do bullshit stuff like factor in lost _future_ earnings as a cost. I've looked at so many, they all "spin" it.
If more people stop dying from heart disease (obesity) and lung cancer (smoking), more of them will start dying of other cancers or stroke (see Japan for examples). And those are expensive too - plus you have to support them for many more years.
If people actually smarten up and take actions to live longer without having to be _forced_ to, that's a good thing, and I'm sure they'll also be smart enough to figure something out.
I must say that in Japan there's a high smoker ratio, but they still don't seem to drop dead as early as one would expect.