I agree with your points, but we would just have to see how it would be in practice. Rivers run through multiple states, but they're cared for by different state conservation agencies, so I'm sure they could be governed by pollution controls from different states.
I always find it funny when the city is beginning a road project and mentions that it will cost $35 million, with a $20 million "grant" from the state or the federal government, as if the money just appears out of nowhere from the government for that project:)
I am in favor of states deciding laws without federal intervention for one reason: abortion. I'm sick of hearing about it, the two sides will never agree, I can't believe it's being made into a large topic of discussion at the Republican debates, and I'm sick of it as a topic in general. Some states, like Mississippi, where abortion is basically almost illegal anyway (poorest state, only one abortion clinic in the entire state), would immediately get rid of it and it wouldn't make much difference because it's little-used there anyway. Some states would immediately make it legal. While you'd still hear about it at a state level, you wouldn't have to hear about it constantly everywhere you turn on a national level and I would be quite happy with that:)
Remember, also, that federal laws did not force change in the South, except in appearance-- the Supreme Court made its ruling on Brown vs. Board of Education, which was defied in Little Rock and Alabama, and for that reason Eisenhower sent federal authorities in. It wasn't until 10 years later or so that the Voting Rights Act went into effect. The Voting Rights Act copies the language of the already-in-effect 15th Amendment and basically reiterates anti-discrimination laws that were already in effect. It really wasn't necessary if existing laws had been enforced. The law didn't even include a provision against poll taxes, which were a big part of preventing blacks from voting. The Supreme Court had to declare those unconstitutional separately.
Keep in mind, too, that pollution controls at a federal level are VERY weak. The world's largest pig slaughterhouse, Smithfield Farms, each year has something like thousands of EPA violations, they've singlehandedly polluted the entire water supply in eastern North Carolina with pig waste, and yet each year they only get maybe a $25,000 fine from the EPA. They've written it into their business plan as a cost of doing business-- because creating even one waste lagoon that would not leak into groundwater would cost more than the yearly fine. It's pretty sad and I have no faith in the feds as far as controlling pollution goes. That's only one example, although an egregious one. At the least, they should charge them the yearly cost of filtering water in the eastern half of North Carolina-- upwards of millions in taxpayer dollars, I'm sure. However, the slaughterhouse lobby is pretty large, I guess. Sad.:(
That's why I only have faith in Ron Paul to do what's right for this country. He's seriously the only one not beholden to the big corporations.
What kind of infrastructure are you referring to? The OP was saying that government built companies that are laying fiber. The only company laying consumer fiber ATM is Verizon. Was it built by the government? I know there are other companies putting in fiber at universities and government buildings that are not Verizon, but I don't know of any offhand. What kinds of companies are you talking about? Electric companies? Phone companies? Schools? Or government infrastructure like roads?
Obviously it wouldn't be feasible or right to tear down a company just because it was built by government money. Without gov. subsidies, it would have to survive on its own under Libertarianism.
The way I see it, monopolies would be fewer under Libertarianism; for instance, I have one choice of electricity company now. It's either pay them, or I don't get electricity. Yet, there are three or four electricity companies in my area; they just each take certain sections of the area as their own little monopoly. There's no reason, in my mind, why they shouldn't be able to compete for my services just like any other company might have to. Prices would most likely go down, service would be better. I don't see why the same couldn't be true for water or other services. If a private company buys the water-filtering infrastructure, they'd have to pay the market price for it. The problem with privatization (and why it sometimes gets a bad name) is when a company is favored over another for political or personal favor. For instance, France privatized part of its Airbus holdings a few years ago, selling it for about $1 billion (way below the market price) to a famous French family. At that time, Airbus was doing well and was worth a lot, but in the next few years, Airbus had so many problems with its A380 and possibly shutting down plants, Britain sold its stake in it, etc. It was worth much less than it was before, but in the meantime, France had decided it wanted it back. The family sold it back to France for something like $5 billion. France had just lost billions on a privatizing deal, because it was done without taking the market price into consideration both times.
Well, it goes without saying that that would fall under federal jurisdiction, too:)
Many US territories do have their own governments (Puerto Rico is the particular one I'm thinking of) and perhaps he would be for a devolved government there or (my pick:)) Puerto Rican freedom. Puerto Rico has been called "Welfare Island" and takes much more monetarily from the US than it gives back.
I fail to see how voting for the partial birth abortion ban goes against the Constitution. As an obstetrician who delivered more than 4,000 babies, I think he's pretty qualified to say whether full-term babies begin life at delivery or are already viable people. Partial-birth abortion is completely different than early-term abortion, and I'm appalled that Democratic candidates do not support the ban on it. Babies are viable outside the womb at five months or earlier. That really can't be argued and it's so silly to try to imply that there is a magical time at delivery when babies become humans with rights.
I'm not sure about the politics of it, but the Marriage Protection Act seems like a way to stave off support for the much-worse Federal Marriage Amendment.
He has said that the reason he supported it is because people and legislatures should make laws, not judges.
From a Supreme Court case dealing with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493, 502 (1939): "we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events."
For instance, polygamy was not recognized in other states even when it was OK in Utah.
While I personally believe that gay people should have the right to get married, to cherrypick that out of all of Ron Paul's beliefs and try to criticize him for it-- when he has done so much else for the cause of personal freedom and liberty-- seems pretty disingenuous. No politician is perfect. Which politician are you saying is pro-choice in all cases, for total gay marriage, and also completely pro-liberty? Even many leading Democratic contenders, like John Edwards, are not for gay marriage. Please enlighten me with this perfect candidate you've found, and I'll be voting for him or her in the primaries (if they are against partial birth abortion, that is). Until then, I'll be supporting Ron Paul, who believes deeply in civil liberties (but like everyone else, is not perfect but as close as a politician can be from what I've seen).
He believes that the fetus/baby is an individual, too, with the same rights as any other individual. In the case of partial birth abortion, I don't know how anyone can disagree.
Ever heard of a thing called inflation? That is from not being on the gold standard
"No, it wasn't. We haven't been on the gold standard for decades and inflation has been very low. Besides, there is a much, much better, more plentiful standard: oil, which is traded in dollars."
We have never had inflation from fiat currency?? From 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created, $.04 (4 cents) has become today's $1. Secondly, we've been off the gold standard since 1913; that just ended totally in the '70s, and inflation had already started due to not being completely on the gold standard.
"a dollar in 1950 will buy only 12 cents worth of goods today, 88% less than before"
If you want to read some further ramblings from another "nitwit", here is Alan Greenspan's essay on why the US should remain on the gold standard. As chairman of the Fed, he said that he still believed in what he'd written even though his job did the opposite. Man, that Greenspan guy, he sure was a nitwit if there ever was one. He wasn't a highly respected academic or intellectual or the best Fed chairman ever, nope, he was just a nitwit. In fact, since for years he was considered the leading economic authority in America, America is just full of these "economic nitwits"!
He personally happens to believe that life begins at conception. Unlike many of his colleagues who hold the same view, he is against the death penalty and against unnecessary wars. He believes that a fetus/baby has rights to life, too. Whether you disagree or not, he's one of the few that maintains a consistent life ethic across the board. He is also one of the very few hypocrites in Washington. If you fail to see that, that's unfortunate; his consistency to his principles is truly amazing.
It also doesn't matter, because unlike many, he does not want to ban abortions; he thinks the states have that right and can decide on the issue.
What tax breaks? What public land? What private land? I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.
Verizon is the only company with fiber, and while, yes, they probably do get their share of tax breaks (and they certainly sold out their customers by allowing the gov. access to phone records), I haven't heard of any eminent domain cases involved with the expansion of Fios. My boyfriend's family got Fios and were more than happy for Verizon to bury the fiber on their land. Verizon did it for free.
He's not a homophobe at all.... if you read his work, he's for everyone's liberty and everyone's equality. He also believes abortion should be left to the states.
Well, since he basically owns a little bit of corporate America with Citgo, I don't really think that's the case. I don't think corporate America knows who he is.
Well, the problem with a democracy is that the minority has a hard time with it. The answer to that is... they can move to another state that is more amenable to them.... or, create a Constitutional amendment against it if it's really something that should be done (in the civil rights area). The problem with making laws at the federal level is that you have to enforce them and that's expensive.
I believe he thinks that things like treason and war crimes should be federal crimes... I'm not sure on anything else.
He votes against all unauthorized uses of taxpayer money. If the bill had been for any type of family planning aid, he would have voted against it because it's not the federal government's business to be giving family planning aid to other countries. He would make a small government, which would mean lower taxes, which would mean that people can send all the private money they want to Africa or whatever organizations will do whatever family planning they would like. It's just not the government's business to use the taxpayers' money in that way.
Whether government is the only way it happens now is not the point. The point is that if the federal gov. did less, and our taxes were lower, we could donate to whatever causes we wanted and research wouldn't have to be funded just by the gov. anymore (with its endless red tape).
Ron Paul is for everyone's equal liberty and government staying out of everyone's business. I doubt he would even see it as "gay rights" but just "inalienable rights" that EVERYONE has.
It's flamebait because that stuff's not true. He has said that those statements were ghostwritten by a staffer while he was traveling and do not represent his views. He's not racist or an anti-Semite and anyone familiar with his years of writing would know that. He's all about the liberty of the individual and has called racism a "collectivist mindset" that denigrates the individual for ill purpose. Ever heard of a thing called inflation? That is from not being on the gold standard, and it's making us all poorer every day. The recession in the '70s and our constant wars since then are because we're not on the gold standard and we just print money to pay for them (making us poorer all the time). Read about it before you call these the ideas of a "nitwit". He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment and leaves the right to decide on gay marriage and abortion, like almost everything else, to the states.
Yeah, all those people who lined up for $2,000 debit cards (who weren't in the hurricanes) really made companies happy when they spent them for Christmas gifts!
If you don't believe that this happened, I'll attest to it myself. An Illinois town on the Mississippi River volunteered to house Katrina survivors and went to great effort to arrange it. They showed up, got their debit cards, said they didn't want to stay, got back on the bus and took off to the next destination (presumably to more FEMA debit cards). They weren't in the hurricanes at all. I saw FEMA at its finest with my own eyes.
Basically, there are a couple different arguments to be made here. First, the reconstruction money could be handled at the state level. FEMA obviously is overstretched and clueless in the first place. Secondly, private organizations like the Red Cross could do it. With much lower federal taxes, more would be freed up to give to nonprofits to take over situations like this.
He believes strongly in the separation of church and state; I'm not sure where you got this idea. He believes that government should be smaller, and ALL private organizations, such as the Red Cross or churches or synagogues, could be larger to replace the social work that the government currently does.
While he personally is a Christian, he is the only candidate who believes in true personal liberty and the government minding its own business. In other words, while he personally might not agree with you, he's pretty much the only one who would support your right to be an atheist or whatever you believed or didn't believe.
He believes that gay marriages should be handled at the state level, not federal, and he voted against the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment). He is for liberty for all. Whether he personally is against them does not figure into his policies.
That's more like it-- a much more accurate evaluation. Red states are more clustered in the South, which is poorer and has fewer major cities. That's the reason for the lack of discrepancy if there is one, not any type of Democratic/Republican "blue states are all richer because of their current politics" sort of thing. The North was industrial while the South focused on slavery, so it was richer from way back.
I would much rather see my money go on a state level than federal.
Excellent points all around. Which Wikipedia article were you referring to? I was referring to the "Ron Paul" one, which has a large section (the one you link to) showing the comments.
Why should illegal immigrants be given preferential treatment over legal residents who also pay into Social Security and will get nothing back? My Chinese friend working for IBM on an H1-B has no hope of ever collecting Social Security but she's been paying it for a year.
As far as Native Americans go, that was obviously a sad situation and if it hadn't happened none of us would be here. But, at one time the French could move with no immigration impediments into England; it wouldn't be possible today without the European Union and isn't really relevant anymore. Not everyone is an illegal immigrant who moved after the original Native Americans, and they're not immigrants in the same way many Mexicans are today. They didn't get massive amounts of welfare and government programs. They didn't have free healthcare. I would be for totally open borders if there was no welfare in the US. Looking at something like this:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/11176
It's hard to say there's not a bias at work here.
Sorry but no, hell no, you're not correct on this. Under Libertarianism, there wouldn't BE any government-made companies. So, no problem with any of the above. (Monopolies wouldn't be allowed, either.)
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. (more...)
Are you kidding me? What responsibilities to society? Remember, this country was founded on the rejection of the stamp tax. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of taxes"? I don't think so. The problem is low taxes combined with high spending. Low taxes and low spending is good.
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation.
The ICC's decisions could theoretically overrule the Supreme Court. That's a threat to our national sovereignty. The UN has sometimes talked about a worldwide ban of guns and bans on other things as well. We provide most of the money for the UN, but it gives us little in return. China and Russia prevent anything of worth from occurring with the Security Council, and have you ever taken a look at the UN's "Council on Human Rights"? In 2003, it was headed by Libya-- yes, Libya headed the Council on Human Rights. This is a group of 47 nations-- most of which are themselves guilty of large human rights violations, because there's absolutely no minimum criteria (such as not being guilty of human rights abuses yourself) to be involved. It censures Israel and no other country. Not China, not Russia, not North Korea, not Iran, not any African dictatorship, not Turkey, not Pakistan, not the military junta in Myanmar-- nope, the only country that's ever had a resolution brought against it by this Council is Israel, and that's happened nine times with more on the way. When I found that out, I realized how worthless the UN is.
NAFTA is something that we fund that is basically a complete gift to Mexico. There are plans to build a 10-lane NAFTA highway between Canada and Mexico, seizing private property that happens to be in the way by eminent domain. Guiliani's law firm represents the company that wants to build it and other candidates also have business interests in the building of this highway, so you'll never hear them say anything about it. As he says on his website, the WTO and CAFTA would try to get Americans to get prescriptions for any kind of pill, including vitamins.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.ht m " Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade."
This is true, but he proposes no alternatives. It is VERY easy to talk about the war, but not easy to come up with suggestions. He needs to work on this. Knee-jerk opposition to the UN is a simple minded and ineffective foreign policy.
He does offer an alternative-- get out of these countries, stop occupying them, talk to the countries that we're having problems with and try diplomacy for once, while at the same time going after the terrorists who actually attacked us-- al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Again, like it or not, illegal immigrants do the work americans refuse to do. We cannot on one hand decry cheap labour and on the other hand demand huge pay increases for janitorial work. And how does he propose to secure our borders without TAXES? Yet another inconsistency.
He wouldn't get rid of all taxes-- he would spend less on policing the world and more on policing our borders. He would not be opposed to a guest worker program, I believe, if there was no social welfare in America (which is the true libertarian view). Perhaps that would someday be instituted (once they can not qualify for welfare).
Kennedy is a nutjob (I wouldn't say that about the others, maybe John Roberts), but he did come out for abortion in his brief against partial birth abortion. Go to the source-- the actual decision-- not just an article about it. Kennedy actually said that he was ruling for this to be outlawed because there is still another form of late-term abortion that is legal-- in that method, the baby is hacked to death before being brought out in pieces, not in full. In her opposing decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that she didn't think opposing this procedure made sense when the other form of late-term abortion still existed, and so she had to vote for it to stay because otherwise an argument could be made against all abortion or against all late-term abortions.
Basically, they used the same argument but went different ways with it-- Kennedy saying that he could shut off one avenue if the other was still open, Ginsburg saying that it doesn't make sense to shut off one avenue if all are not shut off.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your points, but we would just have to see how it would be in practice. Rivers run through multiple states, but they're cared for by different state conservation agencies, so I'm sure they could be governed by pollution controls from different states.
:)
:)
:(
I always find it funny when the city is beginning a road project and mentions that it will cost $35 million, with a $20 million "grant" from the state or the federal government, as if the money just appears out of nowhere from the government for that project
I am in favor of states deciding laws without federal intervention for one reason: abortion. I'm sick of hearing about it, the two sides will never agree, I can't believe it's being made into a large topic of discussion at the Republican debates, and I'm sick of it as a topic in general. Some states, like Mississippi, where abortion is basically almost illegal anyway (poorest state, only one abortion clinic in the entire state), would immediately get rid of it and it wouldn't make much difference because it's little-used there anyway. Some states would immediately make it legal. While you'd still hear about it at a state level, you wouldn't have to hear about it constantly everywhere you turn on a national level and I would be quite happy with that
Remember, also, that federal laws did not force change in the South, except in appearance-- the Supreme Court made its ruling on Brown vs. Board of Education, which was defied in Little Rock and Alabama, and for that reason Eisenhower sent federal authorities in. It wasn't until 10 years later or so that the Voting Rights Act went into effect. The Voting Rights Act copies the language of the already-in-effect 15th Amendment and basically reiterates anti-discrimination laws that were already in effect. It really wasn't necessary if existing laws had been enforced. The law didn't even include a provision against poll taxes, which were a big part of preventing blacks from voting. The Supreme Court had to declare those unconstitutional separately.
Keep in mind, too, that pollution controls at a federal level are VERY weak. The world's largest pig slaughterhouse, Smithfield Farms, each year has something like thousands of EPA violations, they've singlehandedly polluted the entire water supply in eastern North Carolina with pig waste, and yet each year they only get maybe a $25,000 fine from the EPA. They've written it into their business plan as a cost of doing business-- because creating even one waste lagoon that would not leak into groundwater would cost more than the yearly fine. It's pretty sad and I have no faith in the feds as far as controlling pollution goes. That's only one example, although an egregious one. At the least, they should charge them the yearly cost of filtering water in the eastern half of North Carolina-- upwards of millions in taxpayer dollars, I'm sure. However, the slaughterhouse lobby is pretty large, I guess. Sad.
That's why I only have faith in Ron Paul to do what's right for this country. He's seriously the only one not beholden to the big corporations.
What kind of infrastructure are you referring to? The OP was saying that government built companies that are laying fiber. The only company laying consumer fiber ATM is Verizon. Was it built by the government? I know there are other companies putting in fiber at universities and government buildings that are not Verizon, but I don't know of any offhand. What kinds of companies are you talking about? Electric companies? Phone companies? Schools? Or government infrastructure like roads?
Obviously it wouldn't be feasible or right to tear down a company just because it was built by government money. Without gov. subsidies, it would have to survive on its own under Libertarianism.
The way I see it, monopolies would be fewer under Libertarianism; for instance, I have one choice of electricity company now. It's either pay them, or I don't get electricity. Yet, there are three or four electricity companies in my area; they just each take certain sections of the area as their own little monopoly. There's no reason, in my mind, why they shouldn't be able to compete for my services just like any other company might have to. Prices would most likely go down, service would be better. I don't see why the same couldn't be true for water or other services. If a private company buys the water-filtering infrastructure, they'd have to pay the market price for it. The problem with privatization (and why it sometimes gets a bad name) is when a company is favored over another for political or personal favor. For instance, France privatized part of its Airbus holdings a few years ago, selling it for about $1 billion (way below the market price) to a famous French family. At that time, Airbus was doing well and was worth a lot, but in the next few years, Airbus had so many problems with its A380 and possibly shutting down plants, Britain sold its stake in it, etc. It was worth much less than it was before, but in the meantime, France had decided it wanted it back. The family sold it back to France for something like $5 billion. France had just lost billions on a privatizing deal, because it was done without taking the market price into consideration both times.
Well, it goes without saying that that would fall under federal jurisdiction, too :)
:)) Puerto Rican freedom. Puerto Rico has been called "Welfare Island" and takes much more monetarily from the US than it gives back.
Many US territories do have their own governments (Puerto Rico is the particular one I'm thinking of) and perhaps he would be for a devolved government there or (my pick
I fail to see how voting for the partial birth abortion ban goes against the Constitution. As an obstetrician who delivered more than 4,000 babies, I think he's pretty qualified to say whether full-term babies begin life at delivery or are already viable people. Partial-birth abortion is completely different than early-term abortion, and I'm appalled that Democratic candidates do not support the ban on it. Babies are viable outside the womb at five months or earlier. That really can't be argued and it's so silly to try to imply that there is a magical time at delivery when babies become humans with rights.
I'm not sure about the politics of it, but the Marriage Protection Act seems like a way to stave off support for the much-worse Federal Marriage Amendment.
He has said that the reason he supported it is because people and legislatures should make laws, not judges.
From a Supreme Court case dealing with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493, 502 (1939): "we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events."
For instance, polygamy was not recognized in other states even when it was OK in Utah.
While I personally believe that gay people should have the right to get married, to cherrypick that out of all of Ron Paul's beliefs and try to criticize him for it-- when he has done so much else for the cause of personal freedom and liberty-- seems pretty disingenuous. No politician is perfect. Which politician are you saying is pro-choice in all cases, for total gay marriage, and also completely pro-liberty? Even many leading Democratic contenders, like John Edwards, are not for gay marriage. Please enlighten me with this perfect candidate you've found, and I'll be voting for him or her in the primaries (if they are against partial birth abortion, that is). Until then, I'll be supporting Ron Paul, who believes deeply in civil liberties (but like everyone else, is not perfect but as close as a politician can be from what I've seen).
He believes that the fetus/baby is an individual, too, with the same rights as any other individual. In the case of partial birth abortion, I don't know how anyone can disagree.
2 405.html
t e/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage =2
m l
Ever heard of a thing called inflation? That is from not being on the gold standard
"No, it wasn't. We haven't been on the gold standard for decades and inflation has been very low. Besides, there is a much, much better, more plentiful standard: oil, which is traded in dollars."
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/waltzek12
We have never had inflation from fiat currency?? From 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created, $.04 (4 cents) has become today's $1. Secondly, we've been off the gold standard since 1913; that just ended totally in the '70s, and inflation had already started due to not being completely on the gold standard.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Ra
According to that link, we've had 95% inflation since 1982. (Keep in mind that inflation compounds, just like interest.)
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/inflation.htm
"a dollar in 1950 will buy only 12 cents worth of goods today, 88% less than before"
If you want to read some further ramblings from another "nitwit", here is Alan Greenspan's essay on why the US should remain on the gold standard. As chairman of the Fed, he said that he still believed in what he'd written even though his job did the opposite. Man, that Greenspan guy, he sure was a nitwit if there ever was one. He wasn't a highly respected academic or intellectual or the best Fed chairman ever, nope, he was just a nitwit. In fact, since for years he was considered the leading economic authority in America, America is just full of these "economic nitwits"!
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.ht
About that oil thing, oil is a diminishing resource and OPEC has made serious threats to sell it in euros.
He personally happens to believe that life begins at conception. Unlike many of his colleagues who hold the same view, he is against the death penalty and against unnecessary wars. He believes that a fetus/baby has rights to life, too. Whether you disagree or not, he's one of the few that maintains a consistent life ethic across the board. He is also one of the very few hypocrites in Washington. If you fail to see that, that's unfortunate; his consistency to his principles is truly amazing.
It also doesn't matter, because unlike many, he does not want to ban abortions; he thinks the states have that right and can decide on the issue.
What tax breaks? What public land? What private land? I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.
Verizon is the only company with fiber, and while, yes, they probably do get their share of tax breaks (and they certainly sold out their customers by allowing the gov. access to phone records), I haven't heard of any eminent domain cases involved with the expansion of Fios. My boyfriend's family got Fios and were more than happy for Verizon to bury the fiber on their land. Verizon did it for free.
He's not a homophobe at all.... if you read his work, he's for everyone's liberty and everyone's equality. He also believes abortion should be left to the states.
Well, since he basically owns a little bit of corporate America with Citgo, I don't really think that's the case. I don't think corporate America knows who he is.
Maybe the bankruptcy judges are just afraid they'll be out of a job?
Well, the problem with a democracy is that the minority has a hard time with it. The answer to that is... they can move to another state that is more amenable to them.... or, create a Constitutional amendment against it if it's really something that should be done (in the civil rights area). The problem with making laws at the federal level is that you have to enforce them and that's expensive.
I believe he thinks that things like treason and war crimes should be federal crimes... I'm not sure on anything else.
He votes against all unauthorized uses of taxpayer money. If the bill had been for any type of family planning aid, he would have voted against it because it's not the federal government's business to be giving family planning aid to other countries. He would make a small government, which would mean lower taxes, which would mean that people can send all the private money they want to Africa or whatever organizations will do whatever family planning they would like. It's just not the government's business to use the taxpayers' money in that way.
Whether government is the only way it happens now is not the point. The point is that if the federal gov. did less, and our taxes were lower, we could donate to whatever causes we wanted and research wouldn't have to be funded just by the gov. anymore (with its endless red tape).
Ron Paul is for everyone's equal liberty and government staying out of everyone's business. I doubt he would even see it as "gay rights" but just "inalienable rights" that EVERYONE has.
It's flamebait because that stuff's not true. He has said that those statements were ghostwritten by a staffer while he was traveling and do not represent his views. He's not racist or an anti-Semite and anyone familiar with his years of writing would know that. He's all about the liberty of the individual and has called racism a "collectivist mindset" that denigrates the individual for ill purpose. Ever heard of a thing called inflation? That is from not being on the gold standard, and it's making us all poorer every day. The recession in the '70s and our constant wars since then are because we're not on the gold standard and we just print money to pay for them (making us poorer all the time). Read about it before you call these the ideas of a "nitwit". He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment and leaves the right to decide on gay marriage and abortion, like almost everything else, to the states.
He doesn't believe the federal government should; whether the state would or not is up to the state.
Yeah, all those people who lined up for $2,000 debit cards (who weren't in the hurricanes) really made companies happy when they spent them for Christmas gifts!
If you don't believe that this happened, I'll attest to it myself. An Illinois town on the Mississippi River volunteered to house Katrina survivors and went to great effort to arrange it. They showed up, got their debit cards, said they didn't want to stay, got back on the bus and took off to the next destination (presumably to more FEMA debit cards). They weren't in the hurricanes at all. I saw FEMA at its finest with my own eyes.
Basically, there are a couple different arguments to be made here. First, the reconstruction money could be handled at the state level. FEMA obviously is overstretched and clueless in the first place. Secondly, private organizations like the Red Cross could do it. With much lower federal taxes, more would be freed up to give to nonprofits to take over situations like this.
He believes strongly in the separation of church and state; I'm not sure where you got this idea. He believes that government should be smaller, and ALL private organizations, such as the Red Cross or churches or synagogues, could be larger to replace the social work that the government currently does.
While he personally is a Christian, he is the only candidate who believes in true personal liberty and the government minding its own business. In other words, while he personally might not agree with you, he's pretty much the only one who would support your right to be an atheist or whatever you believed or didn't believe.
He believes that gay marriages should be handled at the state level, not federal, and he voted against the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment). He is for liberty for all. Whether he personally is against them does not figure into his policies.
Amen. I tried to make the same argument once and I had Slashdotters all over me! You put it very nicely.
That's more like it-- a much more accurate evaluation. Red states are more clustered in the South, which is poorer and has fewer major cities. That's the reason for the lack of discrepancy if there is one, not any type of Democratic/Republican "blue states are all richer because of their current politics" sort of thing. The North was industrial while the South focused on slavery, so it was richer from way back.
I would much rather see my money go on a state level than federal.
Excellent points all around. Which Wikipedia article were you referring to? I was referring to the "Ron Paul" one, which has a large section (the one you link to) showing the comments.
Why should illegal immigrants be given preferential treatment over legal residents who also pay into Social Security and will get nothing back? My Chinese friend working for IBM on an H1-B has no hope of ever collecting Social Security but she's been paying it for a year.
As far as Native Americans go, that was obviously a sad situation and if it hadn't happened none of us would be here. But, at one time the French could move with no immigration impediments into England; it wouldn't be possible today without the European Union and isn't really relevant anymore. Not everyone is an illegal immigrant who moved after the original Native Americans, and they're not immigrants in the same way many Mexicans are today. They didn't get massive amounts of welfare and government programs. They didn't have free healthcare. I would be for totally open borders if there was no welfare in the US. Looking at something like this:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/11176
It's hard to say there's not a bias at work here.
Sorry but no, hell no, you're not correct on this. Under Libertarianism, there wouldn't BE any government-made companies. So, no problem with any of the above. (Monopolies wouldn't be allowed, either.)
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. (more...)
Are you kidding me? What responsibilities to society? Remember, this country was founded on the rejection of the stamp tax. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of taxes"? I don't think so. The problem is low taxes combined with high spending. Low taxes and low spending is good.
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation.
The ICC's decisions could theoretically overrule the Supreme Court. That's a threat to our national sovereignty. The UN has sometimes talked about a worldwide ban of guns and bans on other things as well. We provide most of the money for the UN, but it gives us little in return. China and Russia prevent anything of worth from occurring with the Security Council, and have you ever taken a look at the UN's "Council on Human Rights"? In 2003, it was headed by Libya-- yes, Libya headed the Council on Human Rights. This is a group of 47 nations-- most of which are themselves guilty of large human rights violations, because there's absolutely no minimum criteria (such as not being guilty of human rights abuses yourself) to be involved. It censures Israel and no other country. Not China, not Russia, not North Korea, not Iran, not any African dictatorship, not Turkey, not Pakistan, not the military junta in Myanmar-- nope, the only country that's ever had a resolution brought against it by this Council is Israel, and that's happened nine times with more on the way. When I found that out, I realized how worthless the UN is.
NAFTA is something that we fund that is basically a complete gift to Mexico. There are plans to build a 10-lane NAFTA highway between Canada and Mexico, seizing private property that happens to be in the way by eminent domain. Guiliani's law firm represents the company that wants to build it and other candidates also have business interests in the building of this highway, so you'll never hear them say anything about it. As he says on his website, the WTO and CAFTA would try to get Americans to get prescriptions for any kind of pill, including vitamins.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.ht m
" Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade."
This is true, but he proposes no alternatives. It is VERY easy to talk about the war, but not easy to come up with suggestions. He needs to work on this. Knee-jerk opposition to the UN is a simple minded and ineffective foreign policy.
He does offer an alternative-- get out of these countries, stop occupying them, talk to the countries that we're having problems with and try diplomacy for once, while at the same time going after the terrorists who actually attacked us-- al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Again, like it or not, illegal immigrants do the work americans refuse to do. We cannot on one hand decry cheap labour and on the other hand demand huge pay increases for janitorial work. And how does he propose to secure our borders without TAXES? Yet another inconsistency.
He wouldn't get rid of all taxes-- he would spend less on policing the world and more on policing our borders. He would not be opposed to a guest worker program, I believe, if there was no social welfare in America (which is the true libertarian view). Perhaps that would someday be instituted (once they can not qualify for welfare).
Kennedy is a nutjob (I wouldn't say that about the others, maybe John Roberts), but he did come out for abortion in his brief against partial birth abortion. Go to the source-- the actual decision-- not just an article about it. Kennedy actually said that he was ruling for this to be outlawed because there is still another form of late-term abortion that is legal-- in that method, the baby is hacked to death before being brought out in pieces, not in full. In her opposing decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that she didn't think opposing this procedure made sense when the other form of late-term abortion still existed, and so she had to vote for it to stay because otherwise an argument could be made against all abortion or against all late-term abortions.
Basically, they used the same argument but went different ways with it-- Kennedy saying that he could shut off one avenue if the other was still open, Ginsburg saying that it doesn't make sense to shut off one avenue if all are not shut off.