VOTE RON PAUL 2008!!!
Created on: August 30th, 2007
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pda-rT1sf2M Ron Paul Rules!
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| zark29 | $17.76 | jedimetroid | $14.26 |
| Wizzletoff | $13.29 | Puke | $9.41 |
| Gokumangt | $9.41 | biggoathorns | $9.41 |
| amped | $4.55 | vampirelord3 | $0.60 |
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $78.69 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.24) | 799 | 36 | 643 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44,009 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 44 | https://www.bing.com |
| 13 | http://www.reddit.com/r/Braveryjerk |
| 9 | http://www.reddit.com/r/circlejerk/comments/14qjhi/im_a_black_at |
| 8 | https://www.google.com/ |
| 8 | http://m.facebook.com |
Kucinich has some decent ideas. He and Gravel are perhaps the least imperialist of Democrats. Kucinich is probably one of the better democrats on civil liberties. My problem with him, however, is that he is sold on the notion of central planning.
A strong government, in and of itself, might not theoretically be terrible, but there is no guarantee that the next president would not be some vile crook who would look forward to exploiting the system. Kinda like what happened 7 years ago.
He believes individual states should have the right to define their positions on abortion. As a supporter of the second amendment, Paul's stance is that strict federal gun control laws would simply empower black market arms dealers and other criminals while leaving responsible arms owners vulnerable. Cars are dangerous without proper educational training programs and testing for licenses. Would it make more sense for us to ban cars or to increase awareness on responsible usage through better training?
It's the same with the drug war. Should we waste our money and police power arresting drug users ( which only fuels black market demand, higher prices, and attracts criminals).. OR should we improve education, harm-reduction programs, rehabilitation, and work at the source of the problem (the populace themselves) with the belief that people have the power to lead healthy, independent lives when raised properly?
"Cars are dangerous without proper educational training programs and testing for licenses. Would it make more sense for us to ban cars or to increase awareness on responsible usage through better training?" Holy sh*t. Roq just made an argument for gun control. BTW, gun control isn't the same as gun prohibition (as in the banning of gun all together). Also, does the right to bare arms mean I can bare any arm that I want to, such as nuclear "arms", Comanche attack choppers, and Abrams tanks?
What type of weapons should be legal to the common man? Good question. I'm thinking nuclear and biological devices are off limits (sorry guys) as are rocket launchers, German panzerfausts, tommy guns and other automatics. The possible exception being zombie invasions, when above weapons may be handed out by the national guard.
Elimating the IRS will _NOT_ mean that Americans stop paying taxes. The FairTax organization quotes a 24% additional tax on all retail goods and services. They got this number by taking all consumption (private and public), which totals about $11.2 trillion, subtracting the estimated prebate for all Americans, about $2.2 trillion, and figuring the tax rate needed to fund the current federal budget, about $2.3 trillion (source: http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TaxingSalesUnderFairTax.pdf).
From what I have read thus far (admittedly, I have not read the entire white paper, though I have read the meat and bones of the FairTax Book), this _does NOT_ account for the probable reduction in consumer spending that will occur, when people realize that they can save all their money and avoid taxes. Now, their arguement is that investment will create an economic firestorm, and this could very well be true. But what happens during those first few years?
Perhaps people's habits will be too slow to change, and they'll continue spending every dime they earn (the average savings rate for Americans is 1.8% of income, a stat I got from The Economist's 2007 Pocket World in Figures). But if not, the federal government could come up with some pretty serious shortfalls, which it will have to finance with even more bonds, driving interest rates up higher and crowding out even more borrowers.
If we're really going to get serious about being fiscally responsible, then we'll have to start increasing taxes or cutting spending even more to cover our national debt and restore a positive current account balance. But where will we cut spending? Eliminating funding for Iraq saves us $200 billion a year, sure. But that's less than 10% of the federal budget. That gain will be more than made up for in the next decade as baby boomers start demanding social security benefits.
The Fair Tax Book says that we have $73 trillion in social security liabilities as of right now. We could easily be talking about having to pay another $1 trillion a year in benefits a decade from now. _This is more than our entire current defense budget._ It would take a politican with titanium balls the size of boulders to seriously suggest that we ought to end social security cold turkey. My grandmother recieves about 75% of her income from social security. What will she, and many others, do?
It would take me too long to make the larger point, so I'll state it without proof: There is NO candidate in this election who is a panacea for our country's ills. There's no silver bullet, no magic cure for our tax system or our budget. Each system has its flaws (and boy, does the income tax system ever have its flaws). We will ALL have to think a little harder about the arugements the candidates are making and cut through the bullsh*t in order to find the right, best candidate
Throwing around numbers and multiple topics definitely makes you look smart. How about this, go find out why our forefathers fought the american revolution. Then look at the Federal Reserve Act, and try say Ron Paul isn't the only man for the job. How many other candidates will eliminate the Federal Reserve? Do you even understand how fractional reserve banking works? You can harp on about any topic you would like, but this is FIRST and FOREMOST the most important topic. Feel free to blow our last chance
Contrary to popular belief, in a country with a strong banking system, the central bank is not the only entity that causes inflation. When banks lend out demand deposits, they also "create" money. http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed45.html Or if you don't trust the Federal Reserve, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement Now, this is not the primary tool for guiding monetary policy, as playing around with the reserve requirement would get lots of bankers incredibly pissed.
But over the long term, it can be influenced to control monetary policy. Without this regulation, some banks would try to lend more than the 90% of their demand deposits, further inflating the money supply. The idea behind the arguement to end the Fed, that is that inflation is damaging to the economy, I fully support. I wish the Fed would grow some bigger balls and let the economy recede every one in awhile instead of injecting liquidity every time some idiot investor scrapes his knees.
AUSTIN, TX -- A Ron Paul supporter collapsed from exhaustion after spending 36 hours straight on the Internet, posting pro-Paul comments on various blogs, repeatedly viewing videos to pad the stats of the Ron Paul YouTube channel, and stuffing the virtual ballot boxes of numerous online presidential polls.
29 year old Jeremy Ditmunder of Austin, Texas is listed in stable condition, suffering from extreme exhaustion, dehydration, and carpal tunnel syndrome. He is expected to make a complete recovery, but his absence from the Paul campaign is going to be felt.
The only two other known Ron Paul supporters, Wendy Staples and Barbara Milligan, could not be reached for comment, as they themselves were busy posting on the web to maintain the illusion of broad support for Paul.
I hope you realize no one who votes actually cares about Ron Paul. He could have all the support the internet has to offer and still not win. This just in, most people who actually support presidential candidates via the internet don't vote. Now I'm not saying they can't vote I'm saying they don't vote. Anyway you people are better off with a democrat if you really support Ron Paul. Anyway isn't it smarter to vote for someone who has an actual chance to win?
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link