moreluck
golden ticket member
I'm not for him.......I named the only positive I see in him.Just don't get sick...without insurance. Ron would let you die, and feel good about it afterwards because he had stuck to his "core principles".
I'm not for him.......I named the only positive I see in him.Just don't get sick...without insurance. Ron would let you die, and feel good about it afterwards because he had stuck to his "core principles".
Just don't get sick...without insurance. Ron would let you die, and feel good about it afterwards because he had stuck to his "core principles".
What does legalizing drugs mean then?
"Congressman Paul believes states have the right to legalize the sale of drugs -- all types of drugs, even heroine. The 76-year-old candidate justifies his position by stating that the prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the 1920s. But what he fails to mention is that once prohibition was repealed, per capita consumption increased threefold, increasing the incidences of health issues, welfare, and traffic-related deaths related to alcoholism."
Who's to say how far it would go. If you think it'll be a little recreational pot smoking......."Now who's being naive, Kay?"So your position is that if the federal government stepped out of the way all states would legalize all drugs? I must say I think that is an odd position as there are still counties in my state where alcohol is illegal.
Why do you feel that without government you are helpless?
Why do you feel that no government is the answer? That's clueless. Libertarians tend to be free of compassion and full of "principle", which is great as long as you've got yours. I don't see many poor Libertarians. Government is a necessary evil when you have multiple needs and wants from multiple constituencies in a large society. Unfortunately for you (and Ron Paul), most people see Libertariansim for what is really is... a crackpot scheme that only works within utopian bounds, and benefits a tiny fraction of society.
Maybe you and Hoaxter can get together and make the "free market" really free so we can all take "personal responsibility" to a new level. Crazy, and completely unrealistic. Yet you still believe.
"Without government, the scum rises to the top."- MrFedEx
Are you afraid to answer the question or just incapable? My money is on incapable.
"Without government, the scum rises to the top."- MrFedEx
What if the government IS the scum?
I am not helpless without government. Unlike you, I realize that government has a legitimate and necessary function in our society. Yes, sometimes it goes overboard, but eliminating large chunks of it is nonsense (your answer). I am simply saying that you are ignoring reality when you say we don't need government. The absence of government is called anarchy, and that's what a Libertarian USA would look like.
Now that I've answered your question, answer one for me. What happens when you let the "free market" loose to make everything "right"? Since it isn't really a free market, how is an imperfect correction mechanism going to accomplish anything meaningful? There are so many special deals and loopholes for big corporations that the market is anything but free. It's rigged from the start. Isn't that a basic reality that you and Ron Paul fail to understand?
I don't think you answered my question but we can put that aside for now. Maybe you can possibly answer this(I doubt it). Where did I say that we don't need government?
You ask what happens when you have a free market. I would be happy to address that question but then you try to attack a free market by saying we have no free market I have a little difficulty following your logic or lack of logic. I'm also thinking your use of a straw man argument(libertarian USA) is very weak and needs a little work.
Unlike you, I understand that government could have a legitimate function in society. That function could be to provide for the common defense of the states and protect certain individual freedoms somewhat like a Constitutional government that would allow citizens to govern themselves. I can see no possible way to have a free society where a large central government provides goods and services to it's citizens or requires private companies to play that role.
If government is rigging markets for large companies, as you say, and Paul wants to eliminate government, as you said, how the heck could a government, that didn't exist, rig a market for a company,that couldn't exist, because you claim that everything exists because of government?
Since the market is corrupted, letting the market decide is a bad idea, as in if we the government had let GM fail. .
There's a reason Paul never gets more than 7 or 8% of the vote.
But GM did fail. They ended up going through bankruptcy. The world did not end as you would have us to believe.
Overall I would say that you believe what you are told and cannot explain why or at least that is the way it seems.
If i showed you that was a lie can we assume everything else you post is also a lie? This is going on the assumption that in your little world 21.4 is greater than 7 or 8.
On a side note I have to admit that when you say the markets are corrupted by government and the solution to a corrupt market is more government but you cannot explain why is very amusing.
A lot of people wanted GM to fail, as in going out of business. They thought the bailout was a crime. Too bad it was a complete success. Ron Paul may get 21.4% in a primary, but overall, as in a general election, he gets around 7 to 8%.
Where did I say that the solution to a corrupt market is more government? The solution IMO, is better government, as in campaign reform and the elimination of lobbying. That doesn't necessarily mean more government. It might actually mean less.
I actually do my own thinking, while you seem to parrot Libertarian talking points and factoids. I can't believe they trust you flying an airplane, because that requires good judgement. Oh, and I've been flying for over 20 years, so my judgement must be fairly good.
as in campaign reform and the elimination of lobbying. That doesn't necessarily mean more government
You say a lot of people wanted GM to fail......but it's not like those people hate GM. I have two Chevys. I like GM. But, I think there are natural consequences in business........those consequences need to happen and no one should be swooping in like Superman to rescue anything.
GM woudl've come back stronger than ever and no taxpayer money was needed.
No different than rescuing your teen over & over again.....finally, they need to experience the consequences or they never learn.
Oh, and I've been flying for over 20 years, so my judgement must be fairly good.
So they let you drink on this job too??? Geez!I agree, they should have never used the Tarp program either, and let all the banks fail, and people losing all thier savings, including homes.
Would have been the best thing for America.
For people start from scratch with no assests and no debts.
And the country, too.
Let it default !
However Romney would have been saved with his money being overseas
The only people who live mortgage free is the squatters like OWS!!Just making a point. You disagree with bailing out GM, but bailing out banks was ok !
If banks went under, people could live mortgage free (those that had a mortgage, anyways).
But, on the other hand, those with savings would have nothing.