Ron Paul’s Solution to the Debt Ceiling Impasse

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm too lazy/uninterested to get into politics. At any rate, I don't enjoy them either, so that's why I ask the following question:

Why does it seem Ron Paul's chances of becoming POTUS are next to nothing? It's clear that you guys like him and support his views/policies, but I hear people trashing him all the time, why's that?

Thanks to anyone that takes the time to answer my question.

Because he doesn't espouse an entitlement state, nor does he support intrusive policies of government.

I'm not sure if I will vote for him myself, but he's meriting my attention, and has for a while now.

 

[River]

Wow intelligent people in here. I have kept my political views quiet, but i see there are a few people who actually believe in liberty, round these parts.

Yeah, there's a few of us. Freedom-lovers that is. I make no claims to intelligence, and know there are some people much smarter than I with whom I disagree vehemently.

A good idea is a good idea, and when folks of differing opinions on almost everything agree on something, I wake up and take notice. Doesn't mean I'm whipping out my checkbook to make campaign contributions to Congressman Paul.

 

[River]

Dr. Ron Paul has no chance to win the GOP nomination because they are owned by the same people who control the Democratic party.

a) Agree.
b) Horse hockey.

 

[geochem1st]

Because we have been embedded to believe that your vote doesn't count unless you vote for the big guy. But if everyone voted their true picks you would see some upsets!

I don't support him, and I believe he's too far out there, no matter how intelligent he may be, his general view of economics suck donkey farts...
and he is a closet anarchist.

However, this is a very clever approach to breach a serious impasse we currently face. I generally don't discount the message because of who the messenger is.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

a)

 

[brandoniusrex]

I'll read the OP later, but assuming it's Ron Paul's views on the Fed (or anything), it probably feels custom tailored to my views!

Edit: Great thoughts, but I don't have much to add!

 

[River]

It's clear that you guys like him and support his views/policies, <snip>

Read, grasshopper, read. Some of the folks in this thread "like" him, others do not. Some support his views/policies, others do not.

This is a single issue. That a proposal to address it is drawing bi-partisan support is cause to pay close attention. Don't read too much into it.

 

[allbusinessjoe]

This thread would not be complete without this guy talking about the Fed.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxdxqlETwDg]YouTube - &#x202a;Dennis Kucinich "Why Are We In Debt!"&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

 

[Rock Johnson]

The "Federal Reserve Bank" is no more a part of the Federal Government than Federal Express.

 

[EnjoGuitar]

Read, grasshopper, read. Some of the folks in this thread "like" him, others do not. Some support his views/policies, others do not.

This is a single issue. That a proposal to address it is drawing bi-partisan support is cause to pay close attention. Don't read too much into it.

Oh believe me, I don't read too much into it. I don't really care, though it did make me curious on some level. Hence why I didn't really take the time to read much of the thread. I guess it makes me come off a certain way, but oh well.

 

[jason_mazzy]

I don't support him, and I believe he's too far out there, no matter how intelligent he may be, his general view of economics suck donkey farts...
and he is a closet anarchist.

However, this is a very clever approach to breach a serious impasse we currently face. I generally don't discount the message because of who the messenger is.

I couldn't disagree more on your anarchist statement, but i respect your opinion. i would be happy to debate you politely on issues you feel are worthy of it.

 

[geochem1st]

The Fed is subject to the Congress:

"The System is, however, subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress. The Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government; therefore, the description of the System as “independent within the government” is more accurate."

"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a federal government agency. The Board is composed of seven members, who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_1.pdf

The "Federal Reserve Bank" is no more a part of the Federal Government than Federal Express.

See quote above yours.

 

[geochem1st]

I couldn't disagree more on your anarchist statement, but i respect your opinion. i would be happy to debate you politely on issues you feel are worthy of it.

A good deal of my time is spent between the Backstage, Cellar, Other Gibsons, and Vintage SG.

Start a thread and lets see where it goes....

 

[River]

The "Federal Reserve Bank" is no more a part of the Federal Government than Federal Express.

Got a fact or two to back that up? Sounds like BS to me.

I couldn't disagree more on your anarchist statement, but i respect your opinion. i would be happy to debate you politely on issues you feel are worthy of it.

Where and how do you draw the line between anarchism and libertarianism? Wherever you draw it, it's a mighty thin one.

 

[PraXis]

Libertarians don't want anarchy. We want a LIMITED federal government that simply protects our borders (national DEFENSE, not offense) and respects our property rights. You (as an individual) can do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt any one else, but you must accept the consequences if you screw up. We respect states to make their own decisions about issues such as health care and education. You (generally speaking) have absolutely NO right to my property, and vice versa.

 

[jason_mazzy]

Libertarians don't want anarchy. We want a LIMITED federal government that simply protects our borders (national DEFENSE, not offense) and respects our property rights. You (as an individual) can do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt any one else, but you must accept the consequences if you screw up. We respect states to make their own decisions about issues such as health care and education. You (generally speaking) have absolutely NO right to my property, and vice versa.

perfect. quite a difference from an anarchist.

 

[geochem1st]

Libertarians don't want anarchy. We want a LIMITED federal government that simply protects our borders (national DEFENSE, not offense) and respects our property rights. You (as an individual) can do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt any one else, but you must accept the consequences if you screw up. We respect states to make their own decisions about issues such as health care and education. You (generally speaking) have absolutely NO right to my property, and vice versa.

correct me if I'm wrong, but that means as I have heard some Libertarians spout, the legalization of all narcotics.....

Which extracts a specific toll on society, specifically with violent crime.

 

[PraXis]

correct me if I'm wrong, but that means as I have heard some Libertarians spout, the legalization of all narcotics.....

Which extracts a specific toll on society, specifically with violent crime.

That's one of those 50/50 issues with libertarians..some say we need to regulate ABC but legalize XYZ, other say A-Z should be legal... but personally? I think all drugs should be legalized. The "powers that be" make too much money off the trade as it is. If you want to **** up your life with [insert substance here] then GO AHEAD! If it's legal, you'll have no cartels controlling everything.. you can grow the shit in your garden.

(Alternative) If we have to treat addicts, it's cheaper than incarceration... there are so many non-violent drug offenders wasting time in prison it's insane.

If alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine are legal (three drugs I ****ing love and use excessively), then EVERYTHING else should be legal (as far as I'm concerned... moderation is key).

For the sake of compromise, if it takes a Constitutional amendment to only legalize canibus (and hemp for industrial purposes), we'd save billions on the ****ing bullshit "War on Drugs.".. or hell just look at hemp.. impossible to get high off, but extremely beneficial industrial purposes.. illegal to grow in the US, but legal to import from Canada.. that'd be ton of jobs right there!

 

[180gROC]

correct me if I'm wrong, but that means as I have heard some Libertarians spout, the legalization of all narcotics.....

Which extracts a specific toll on society, specifically with violent crime.

A lot of the violent crimes attributed to drug use are caused by the black market they are forced into.

 

[geochem1st]

A lot of the violent crimes attributed to drug use are caused by the black market they are forced into.

Heroin will still cost money. Junkies tend to not have money, when in need they will resort to crime to feed the addiction, since as a libertarian, there will be no social welfare programs as a safety net.