Jean McIver, a former Ron Paul congressional assistant campaign manager, will be joining us as our Texas field coordinator. Together they will help direct our crucial Texas program.
The US converting to a gold standard would require them to re-issue all currency in circulation as a fixed amount of gold. Since the US government doesn't have a lot of gold, it would mean a lot less currency. Thus, they would need to purchase gold — as a result, the price of gold would skyrocket. The US government would have to sell assets in order to purchase the now absurdly expensive gold, or run a deficit. Taxes would be forced to rise to finance this.
However, this would be pointless, since approximately 1 trillion dollars of goods flows out of the US economy every year. Thus, the economy would literally bled gold bullion. The only way to balance out is a recession, so deep and crippling, that it would eliminate the US trade deficit.
Okay, the regulatory mechanism for the gold standard works like this. Suppose we have two countries, A and B.
Now, for whatever reason, country A is on the gold standard. It doesn't matter what country B is on. Now, A and B buy and sell goods to one another. In order to buy and sell goods, the people in these countries need to purchase currency from one another to buy them.
When an economy buys things from another economy, they need to purchase money from the other economy to buy goods. So, for instance, country A needs to buy country B's currency (call it B$) to buy goods from country B. And vice versa.
Now, as they buy and sell, there usually will be an imbalance been how much people buy and sell in a given country. For instance, country A may be buying more from country B than it is selling. This leads to an imbalance in the currencies, because people in country A will be buying up B$ and selling A$. When it all comes out in the wash, there is a surplus of A$ on the market -- that is, the demand for A$ is lower than the amount supplied.
Now, people will work to correct this surplus, because it's pointless for them to have A$ sitting around no one wants to own. In a quasi-fiat system of freely traded currencies, the exchange rate does this. Bankers and financial dealers adjust the relative values of the currencies to make the "price" of A$ optimal. Currencies wax and wane in value based on their economies and variety of other complex mumbo jumbo which doesn't really matter here.
However, in the gold standard this doesn't happen, because A$ are linked to a fixed amount of gold -- that is, a commodity. Instead, people who hold A$ start redeeming them for gold, in order to sell them as a useful commodity. As a result, Country A's stockpile of gold, which they use to back their currency on, dwindles. In turn, the supply of money for country A falls.
Not enough money is circulation causes the economy to constrict, since doing basic business becomes increasingly difficult. It also can cause deflation, and a host of other problems. In short, the only way for A's domestic economy to come into equillibrium is for it to crash. Businesses shut down, and domestic demand for goods slows as the economy stalls.
While this is a bad thing, it does do one very good thing. If you have no money, because the economy is in recession, you can't very well afford to buy items from country B. Thus, the supply of A$ on the market falls, and people stop redeeming the excess for gold. The process brings the two markets into equilibrium again, and all is well in the world of international commerce.
Of course, the side effects are not exactly pleasant for people in country A.
wait i don't get it you voted for ralph nader but consider yourself a republican and a conservative can you explain this!!!?!Hello protest candidate. Also I am a social liberal, so much of what Nader says is fine to me. The main reason is his message on breaking the two party system, which is not likely but would be nice. Considering I thought Kerry was terrible and Bush was just as terrible, I voted for a candidate whose ideas were at least decent. Oh and in 2004 I was not as right wing economically as I am now.
believes in New World Order conspiracy theories (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm), believes that the International Baccalaureate program is U.N. mind control[/url (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:)
In all seriousness though, could someone just clarify for me what a rapid and responsible withdrawal from Iraq entails. I'm asking because (from an outsider's persepective) it seems that quite a few people talk about how America should have never gone into Iraq and should pull out, but I'm trying to wrap my head around how this could be done (as quickly as some have promised) without some major consequence - the last thing anyone wants is something tragic happening during the course of/due to the pull-out.
Richardson endorses Obama.
both obama and clinton want to leave a small peacekeeping presence in Iraq. mainly to protect american interests (oil heheheh). the vast majority of violence in Iraq is reactionary to the American occupation, so naturally if there is no occupation there won't be as much violence.McCain has also said he is intending to withdraw the bulk of the troops there. He said in an interview that he wanted occupational forces similar to Korea and Japan on a long term basis but that, at least for the sake of cutting government spending, deployment in Iraq must be vastly reduced.
McCain has also said he is intending to withdraw the bulk of the troops there. He said in an interview that he wanted occupational forces similar to Korea and Japan on a long term basis but that, at least for the sake of cutting government spending, deployment in Iraq must be vastly reduced.
# Timetable for withdrawal is a white flag of surrender. (Jan 2008)
# Staying for 100 years OK, if US casualties are low. (Jan 2008)
# Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)
# Democrats proposing failure in Iraq by withdrawing. (Sep 2007)
# Reducing military presence has never in history won a war. (Sep 2007)
# Bring troops home the right way: home with honor. (Sep 2007)
# Surge is working; let it continue until it succeeds. (Sep 2007)
# Tragic mistake of Iraq: no plan to deal with success. (Aug 2007)
# Support the surge even if benchmarks are not met. (Aug 2007)
i have never heard anything about mccain wanting to reduce troop levels!I'll try to find the stuff I found a couple weeks ago. It was essentially that he supported an initial increase in troops to keep things under control while the training of new iraqi government security forces finished up and then progressively handing off more and more control to them while moving American troops out until there are reasonable levels for a long term occupation what won't be extremely costly to the US in either lives or dollars. Similar to, like I said, Korea and Japan. I seem to recall him saying that he would not set a timetable for this, so I suppose for the case of this election term, we would likely not see much difference in the short term as you would with Obama, who intends to have the presence reduced quickly within his term. I think McCain's words were something like "pave the way for future reduction" or something like that; I remember "pave the way" though.
If the general election were being held today between John McCain(R) and Barack Obama (D), for whom would you vote?
Obama: 48%
McCain: 41%
If the general election were being held today between John McCain(R) and Hillary Clinton (D), for whom would you vote?
Clinton: 46%
McCain: 46%
This TIME poll was conducted Feb. 1-4 among 958 randomly selected registered voters, including people who were leaning toward a particular candidate. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points
obama has no chance of winning pennsylvania.
Man I wish I'd bothered registering for primary voting in PA.
wow Grunthor you sound so confident, but I doubt it.
anybody minds doing a list of primaries to come and who have the higher chances to win?
You still have one day left to register. Just look up where your nearest signup place is and go in and fill out the form.
I thought that March 22nd was my last day to register!
gallup isnt the greatest source with politics if I remember right.What? I've seen Gallup Poll links and graphs posted all over the first Presidential Primary Topic and heard several of my college poly-sci professors both use Gallup Poll statistics in class and say that it is a very good indicator of opinions. Not to mention that the Gallup Poll has existed for, what, 80 years and is quoted by numerous media organizations. Who told you that it wasn't?
What? I've seen Gallup Poll links and graphs posted all over the first Presidential Primary Topic and heard several of my college poly-sci professors both use Gallup Poll statistics in class and say that it is a very good indicator of opinions. Not to mention that the Gallup Poll has existed for, what, 80 years and is quoted by numerous media organizations. Who told you that it wasn't?
hahaah, so I just read that in that 3 AM ad you can clearly read the word NIG on the kid's pajamas and saw a screen.
that's amazing.
Obama got his first relevant political endorsement from Pennsylvania (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/28/campaign.wrap/index.html)
Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"
Mr. McCain: "Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it."
(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)
Mr. McCain: "I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it."
Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy."
Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You’ve stumped me."
Q: "I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?"
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it."
Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?"
Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before."
that is from one of the potential leaders of the free worldIsn't this really old, like from last election? Not that it's any less bad, but, I remember him saying that a long time ago and it would surprise me if he did the exact same thing right now.
Isn't this really old, like from last election? Not that it's any less bad, but, I remember him saying that a long time ago and it would surprise me if he did the exact same thing right now.
Obama is only down by 5% now in most PA polls. If he can win the majority of the vote in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, then he'll most likely win the state. Only 19 days to go until I can cast a vote against her.
Obama is only down by 5% now in most PA polls. If he can win the majority of the vote in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, then he'll most likely win the state. Only 19 days to go until I can cast a vote against her.
aren't you a republican? why would you want obama to win and not mccain, the best republican your side has?
there is a reason conservatives are promoting hillary, and it's not because she's got the better chance at winning.
you realize mccain is already the nominee? he has more than enough delegates and every competitor of his (besides like ALAN KEYES) has dropped out
aren't you a republican? why would you want obama to win and not mccain, the best republican your side has?
there is a reason conservatives are promoting hillary, and it's not because she's got the better chance at winning.
I was a republican but switched to democrat because I'm sick of how the assholes that run the republican party act.Hooray!
What good does voting do one anyway. If your guy doesn't win then you are oppressed by the winner. I didn't want communist traitor Bush or communist traitor Kerry in the white house. We need a without my consent campaign. This platform would be easier because we would tell people not to vote. Democracy can't work if the oppressed masses refuse to elect their tyrant. If you want change it's never going to Happen. Gore would have attacked Iraq as well. After all there is only one real party and it's outer form is dual republican/democrat. America died a long time ago so just enjoy the anarchy.
What good does voting do one anyway. If your guy doesn't win then you are oppressed by the winner. I didn't want communist traitor Bush or communist traitor Kerry in the white house. We need a without my consent campaign. This platform would be easier because we would tell people not to vote. Democracy can't work if the oppressed masses refuse to elect their tyrant. If you want change it's never going to Happen. Gore would have attacked Iraq as well. After all there is only one real party and it's outer form is dual republican/democrat. America died a long time ago so just enjoy the anarchy.
Michigan Democrats officially have declared they won't hold a do-over presidential primary.
I was a republican but switched to democrat because I'm sick of how the assholes that run the republican party act. I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative and I'm not sure that either of those fit that party's ideology. Especially the fiscal side since Emperor Bush hasn't met a spending bill he didn't like.Yeah I have the same problem with the Republican party. I can barely even call it an "economically conservative" party any more. The only thing keeping me in it is tha fact that I KNOW the democrats are nowhere near economically conservative. McCain, for all of his faults, still looks to be most in line with some of my economic views on taxation, corruption, and government size, and I am hoping he lives up to his reputation for reaching across the aisle. If he continues to downplay that for his current tactics of catering to the religious right in the general election, I may not vote for him, however.
:words::rolleyes:
“What really happens is that the economy grows more vigorously when you lower tax rates,” said Kevin Hassett, an adviser to the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, and the director for economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “It is beyond the reach of economic science to explain precisely why that happens, but it does.”
I still don't get how any of you can describe yourself as conservative economics and social liberals. do you realize that the social programs that social liberals fight for require taxation?Religious conservatism is precisely why Grunthor and I describe ourselves as social liberals. Social liberals are in favor of civil rights and the separation of church and state. FISCAL liberals are in favor of social programs and taxation. A social conservative would be pro-life, anti-gay marriage etc., so describing myself simply as "a conservative" would be incorrect since I hold none of those opinions. I support the free market and competition, I believe that instead of the government taking x amount of dollars out of my paycheck to spend on things they think I need like uh Social Security, that they should just let me keep that money any invest it myself to save for my own retirement. Heaven forbid people have to think for themselves and plan out their own budgets. If people make bad decisions, tough, that is life. The government is responsible for making sure that the system itself is fair and that people are accountable for their actions but not forced into one thing or another. But it is pointless to even start discussing this with you, steel, since you are just going to go on and on about how conservatives of any brand are terrible people. So fine, you can have your opinion, I'll keep mine.
I believe that instead of the government taking x amount of dollars out of my paycheck to spend on things they think I need like uh Social Security, that they should just let me keep that money any invest it myself to save for my own retirement.
Social security primarily refers to social welfare service concerned with social protection, or protection against socially recognized conditions, including old ageHow is social security not for retirement?
How is social security not for retirement?
Although Social Security is sometimes compared to private pensions, this is an improper comparison since Social Security is social insurance and not a retirement plan.
Religious conservatism is precisely why Grunthor and I describe ourselves as social liberals. Social liberals are in favor of civil rights and the separation of church and state. FISCAL liberals are in favor of social programs and taxation. A social conservative would be pro-life, anti-gay marriage etc., so describing myself simply as "a conservative" would be incorrect since I hold none of those opinions. I support the free market and competition, I believe that instead of the government taking x amount of dollars out of my paycheck to spend on things they think I need like uh Social Security, that they should just let me keep that money any invest it myself to save for my own retirement. Heaven forbid people have to think for themselves and plan out their own budgets. If people make bad decisions, tough, that is life. The government is responsible for making sure that the system itself is fair and that people are accountable for their actions but not forced into one thing or another. But it is pointless to even start discussing this with you, steel, since you are just going to go on and on about how conservatives of any brand are terrible people. So fine, you can have your opinion, I'll keep mine.
Religious conservatism is precisely why Grunthor and I describe ourselves as social liberals. Social liberals are in favor of civil rights and the separation of church and state. FISCAL liberals are in favor of social programs and taxation. A social conservative would be pro-life, anti-gay marriage etc., so describing myself simply as "a conservative" would be incorrect since I hold none of those opinions. I support the free market and competition, I believe that instead of the government taking x amount of dollars out of my paycheck to spend on things they think I need like uh Social Security, that they should just let me keep that money any invest it myself to save for my own retirement. Heaven forbid people have to think for themselves and plan out their own budgets. If people make bad decisions, tough, that is life. The government is responsible for making sure that the system itself is fair and that people are accountable for their actions but not forced into one thing or another. But it is pointless to even start discussing this with you, steel, since you are just going to go on and on about how conservatives of any brand are terrible people. So fine, you can have your opinion, I'll keep mine.well what you are saying is pretty horrendous/selfish/unforgiving/completely devoid of compassion or concern for other human beings, so your argument that social liberals/fiscal conservatives aren't ethically reprehensible is kind of falling on its face!
well what you are saying is pretty horrendous/selfish/unforgiving/completely devoid of compassion or concern for other human beings, so your argument that social liberals/fiscal conservatives aren't ethically reprehensible is kind of falling on its face!
DIDNT INVEST? FUUUUCKK YOUUU yeah that's the exact opposite of terrible jeff, i agree!
If government is necessary, bad government, at least for conservatives, is inevitable, and conservatives have been exceptionally good at showing just how bad it can be. Hence the truth revealed by the Bush years: Bad government--indeed, bloated, inefficient, corrupt, and unfair government--is the only kind of conservative government there is. Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.
But it is pointless to even start discussing this with you, steel, since you are just going to go on and on about how conservatives of any brand are terrible people.
Is not a man entitled to the sweat on his brow?NO!
you're not just paying to take care of yourself, you're helping to take care of those who don't have the option to take care of themselves. i know that having responsiblity for others goes against what all of you neo libertarian "i can take care of myself with a little bit of linux and a little bit of pocky" believe in, but yeah that essentially makes you horrible people if you think that those who are better off shouldn't at least be a little responsible for the people who have nothing
I really don't care about this, but one line here bothered me.
No, people who are are better off are in no way RESPONSIBLE for those who have nothing, it is in no way an obligation in any way shape or form. You do it because you WANT to, I do it because I WANT to.
"Give the kinsman his due, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and squander not (your wealth) in wantonness. Lo! the squanderers were ever brothers of the devils, and the devil was ever an ingrate to his Lord" (Quran 17:26-27).
First to hold conformity with the rest of His world, being delighted to show forth the glory of his wisdom in the variety and difference of the creatures, and the glory of His power in ordering all these differences for the preservation and good of the whole, and the glory of His greatness, that as it is the glory of princes to have many officers, so this great king will have many stewards, counting himself more honored in dispensing his gifts to man by man, than if he did it by his own immediate hands.
Charity means donation or giving away one's own properties to others. There are three kinds of charity: giving material offerings (Amisa dana), giving santuary and protection to animals (Abhaya dana) and giving doctrinal lectures (Dhamma dana). In dispensing the charity, volition (cetana)and the belief in kamma and its results (Saddha) play important roles.
you state this as if it's fact, ignoring religious, social, and moral obligation; the fact that there's no legality attached doesn't make it any less a responsibility if you have a soul (something that was pretty implicit in what he said).
edit: actually it's explicit considering he just mentioned SOULLESS LIBERTARIANS so yeah.
here are a few non legal responsibilities I found lying around!
First let me say sorry for presenting as if its fact, its not, its just my logical opinion.
Religion and moral obligation... these are opinionated to a degree where they have no physical consequence when you "break them" First of all Morals are personal and vary from social group to social group...topic to topic..person to person, its fluctuates too much to even consider in this equation. to say its is a "moral obligation to help the needy" is to imply you have the same set of moral values as me. (which we don't)
and for "if you have a soul" who are you to tell me what I should be responsible for if a I have a soul?
I'm sorry, but the concept of attaching religion, and morals to this is silly, I could understand if we both followed the same set of morals and religion, but we don't.
As for Social; yeah you can but duh, that has consequences. If everyone in your town gave to the poor, and you didn't, you're seen as a douche bag and people will treat you differently. It is still not an obligation what so ever, you just have a one sided choice to make.
I didn't mean to imply it was you (although now I see I did at times), but Jeff, who said that people who "made mistakes" deserved to suffer. you also seem to think the "pride" you feel is different from a social obligation or responsibility. it isn't! most people who do support charity and caring about the poor do it because of a real reason. this is what Truth's point was; most people FEEL a responsibility/obligation. I think you took issue with the fact that he said it was a responsibility, but I think it's clear he meant it's a FEELING of responsibility, and one that most everyone decent shares.
basically this requires you to know Truth and how carried away he gets trying to sound like Keith Olbermann, but yeah I'm sure he didn't mean some kind of legal responsibility or some overarching moralistic argument that applies to all of human nature but the fact that everyone decent in a society sticks to a moral code that doesn't actively hate the less fortunate and thus feels a sense of obligation to care about them.
Mark Penn Steps Down (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080406/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_penn)
Hell fucking yeah. It's more bad news for Hillary. :fogetbackflip: :woop:
the issue I think was guilt vs responsibility and he thought you conflated the second into meaning the first.
TV presenter Mark Speight 'missing':(
I don't know why they're calling it yet. It's pretty close, IMO.
CNN projections:
Clinton: 53%
Obama: 47%
14% reporting.
I guess she's going to win, but the delegate gain for her is going to be very small. I can see things getting even tighter as the night goes on.
Apparently Ron Paul hasn't heard the news that he's been eliminated from the nomination process. I got a letter in the mail from his campaign today, and then heard an ad for him on the radio about 15 minutes ago. Just further proof that he's fucking insane.
Anyways less than 12 hours and I'm off to the polls. I've even convinced both my parents to vote for Obama (they haven't voted since Carter), so tomorrow should be a pretty interesting day.
she's still going to win by that margin.
kind of sad obama still couldn't win with like six weeks and lots of spendng!
There's no reason to do this? Take for example what is happening to our food prices now - they are skyrocketing. The government has imposed ethanol mandates and subsidies. As a result, many of our farms are no longer being used to produce food, but corn to be converted to ethanol, and therefore food prices are on the increase as it becomes less available on the market. The poor will feel the pinch of this the worst, of course, and charities and organizations who buy foodstuffs on limited resources to feed the world's hungry are also suffering - so much for Big Government helping those less fortunate. Not to mention all of the waste, fraud, and corruption from all of the pork-barrel spending and earmarks. Your argument is based on a false premise and false stereotype.
Wolfe's article is absurd. Big Government is not conservative. President Bush has spent like a drunken sailor, and expanded government mandates and programs across the board. He even created a new entitlement - certainly not a conservative action in the least. And it's creating problems? Rather than acknowledge that government is the problem, you simply state that it isn't really Big Government because the expansion happened under the watch of someone with "R" beside his name - which does not make any sense - sort of like saying Clinton took a liberal action when he signed Welfare Reform into law because he had a "D" beside his name.
Lower taxes and lower revenues are not necessarily correlating issues, so that is another false argument and a false premise - indeed the opposite has been demonstrated to be true if an uptick in economic activity proceeds it (as this creates more taxpayers). The FICA tax has never been slashed (SS). Libraries are primarily a function of local governments.
the advocation of the government taking over sectors of the economy certainly has no evidence or history of being beneficial.
The underlying issue, regardless of the debate over which one provides a higher rate of return, is having ownership over your own money that you earned. A private account is your own money - not someone else's - that you can pass on to loved ones if the money is not spent. You repeatedly seem to have an anethema toward the idea of taking personal responsibility for one's self and actually owning what one has earned vs. government as a big nanny being involved in everything one does. Regarding "no evidence" that alternatives to Social Security are better, I would suggest you look up "Galveston County" and "Social Security." Here's a good place to get started - http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galveston_x.htm Regardless of your opinion of this program, your claim that opting out of Social Security is entirely "untested" and merely "theory" is clearly proven false by this.
Try hardwork, pal!
Well, you're going to get farther trying to do that than sitting around not even trying, waiting for someone else to do it for you.
So, apparently Rush Limbaugh has been telling Republicans to temporarily switch parties and vote for Hillary in order to drag out the primaries in an attempt to divide the Democrats even further. I really think that he's finally losing it, but still, Hillary has been gaining ground from these voters who won't side with her during the general.
He's been calling it Operation Chaos and it's all over his site (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/).
So, apparently Rush Limbaugh has been telling Republicans to temporarily switch parties and vote for Hillary in order to drag out the primaries in an attempt to divide the Democrats even further. I really think that he's finally losing it, but still, Hillary has been gaining ground from these voters who won't side with her during the general.
He's been calling it Operation Chaos and it's all over his site (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/).
for someone who interprets the constitution literally he sure has absolutely no respect for voting rights, electoral standards, or basic decency
About 600 well-organized Paul supporters overwhelmed McCain's forces and engineered a rule change that permitted national convention delegates to be nominated from the floor, wresting the task from party leaders.
This is not to say I am for REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH (although... in a perfect world...) but I am definately for raising the tax burden on the rich and super rich to a point that is higher than what it is now. So you can afford healthcare? Great! You can also afford to pitch in for healthcare for the 40+ million americans who if their fucking foot falls off, they can have it put back on without going into debt for the rest of your life. Consider yourself blessed that you have the things you do, honestly many people are less fortunate, and if you are wealthy you are even more blessed, you are lucky and it is the government's responsibility in a just society to make you contribute to the welfare of others.
sorry but don't use that stupid MY MORALS ARE DIFFERENT ARGUMENT ok
maybe... i think rape is ok... it's my morals asshole...
some morals are inherantly a part of civilized society. in EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH the rich are forced by the government to contribute to programs such as uhc.
OBAMA’S HANDLING OF WRIGHT SITUATION (Among registered voters who have heard about Wright)
All Voters Dem Primary Voters
Approve 60% 68%
Disapprove 23 22
Half of voters think Obama’s comments on Wright were appropriate, but one in four voters (and slightly more Republicans) would have liked him to have gone further in his rejection.
OBAMA’S COMMENTS ON WRIGHT WERE...
(Among registered voters who have heard about Wright)
All Voters Dem Primary Voters
About right 52% 53%
Not critical enough 26 24
Too critical 6 9
Almost half – 47% - of voters see political motivation as the main reason behind Obama’s decision to renounce his minister.
Fewer, 34% think the split came mainly because Obama disagreed with things Wright said.
IF THE CANDIDATES WERE..., WHO WOULD YOU VOTE FOR? (Among registered voters)
Now 4/30 4/3/08
Obama 51% 45% 47%
McCain 40 45 42
Undecided/DK 5 6 7
IF THE CANDIDATES WERE..., WHO WOULD YOU VOTE FOR? (Among registered voters)
Now 4/30 4/3/2008
Clinton 53% 48% 48%
McCain 41 43 43
Undecided/DK 3 5 5
Good lord, sorry, I just have to dump this in here. I wrote a post about Hillary's Bill O'Reilly interview, and got a novel of a response about all this stuff that I hadn't really even focused on from a big Ron paul libertarian friend. He starts off on a huuuge strawman.Hidden content (Click to reveal)If a profit based system is not right for health care, why is it right other basic necessities (food, water, housing)? Should these sectors of the economy also become socialized?
You seem to misunderstand the uses of a profit based system. Yes, corporations are in it for the money, but there is not a conflict of interest. Look at it this way: your dollars are votes. Whichever candidate (corporation) provides the best services, in turn gets the most votes (dollars). In a capitalistic society, corporations only survive if people choose to buy a product that they are offering. Corporations must constantly change in order to meet the demand or they fail.
I would also like to note that with all of the government funding for medicinal research in the US, only about 3-5% of new medicine was government funded. Corporations want to make money, so they MUST innovate to please the consumer. Whichever company finds the next cure will be reimbursed for their expenditures from future sales. Upwards of 90% of all drugs never pass the 18-20 years of the FDA's testing. With the millions of dollars needed to research and develop new drugs, no wonder prices are so high. With great risk, comes great reward. Without the long, drawn-out drug approval process, companies would be more likely to create more drugs.
Profits send market signals - telling companies what to make and of how much. For a more detailed explanation of profits please look at this chapter from "Economics in One Lesson"
http://jim.com/econ/chap22p1.html
The health situation in the US is a mess, but not because of the market. The health care market is one of the most regulated industries. It has gotten worse and more expensive as regulation has increased. Take a look at this article, but please if you argue with it, argue the points, not the source.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/57/medical-costs-can-be-cut-with-freedom/
"Such reasoning neglects the reality of a monopolized health care industry, and even the reality of health care itself, where true "free" market competition is not practical."
The only TRUE monopolies that have ever existed have been government granted. A single payer system is exactly that - a forced government monopoly. Currently our health care system is an oligarchy, not because of the free market, but because of state-mandated HMO's.
"such companies continue on wielding their political power."
If you mean this in a metaphorical way, let me differentiate between corporations' power and government power. Corporations have no more power than what they can get from the market; people make these votes every day. A company can be voted in or out overnight. People have to choose to support them; governments use force. If you mean political power by what it actually means, let me clear things up. If a corporation has political power, that is not free market capitalism, that is corporatism.
"The point is that privatization of services that directly affect common good among people works contrary to the incentive of any surviving business."
You are again missing the function of profits. This is not a conflict of interest. I'm sorry that I won't do justice to you in explaining the function of profits, so I hope you will take a look at this selection from Ludwig Von Mises:
http://mises.org/story/2321#b1
He talks about the function of profits, what would happen if profits were eliminated, and he also argues against some of the other objections to a profit based system.
Indiana and North Carolina vote today. I hope Obama can win both and shut this thing down finally.
man I went to vote in NC primaries and I ended up voting for people who sent me things in the mail, people who I thought had FUNNY NAMES, and people I knew.I went in today and I skipped like half the sections(probably more). It told me that I skipped a bunch of shit but I just continued anyway.
this difference.. please tell me it is small enough clinton gives up .. im fed up
And Olbermann notes that the latest Clinton fundraising email doesn't have a money ask.
kind of surprised this topic didn't see more activity seeing as how it pinned obama down as the nominee.I'm glad he finally got media recognition for the fact that it's now virtually impossible for him to lose. We've all known for some time now that Clinton's chances have been almost impossibly small, but this last victory made it obvious for everybody.
Was Race of Candidate Important to You?
Yes - CLINTON 53% / OBAMA 47%
Was Race of Candidate Important to You
Whites Who Say Yes (10%) - CLINTON 78% / OBAMA 22%
The goal of Paulville.org it to establish gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/a-gated-community-for-ron-paul-supporters/index.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
:-)
if i make a political blog and call it THE DOUGLAS REPORT who will read it and post on it type y/nif this is serious yes
if i make a political blog and call it THE DOUGLAS REPORT who will read it and post on it type y/n
Delegates: Pledged Super Total Needed
Obama 1,590.5 269 1,859.5 165
Clinton 1,426.5 269.5 1,696 328.5
Remaining 217 256.5 473.5Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories.
This is a pretty good TIME article on Sen. Clinton's five big mistakes. (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html)
Man, that's ridiculous.
ps mark penn refutes this entirely so it's up to you who to believe!Well I'm pretty sure he knew that the state delegates were going to be awarded proportionally. Regardless, they picked a bad course. I think it's got more to do with them thinking Obama would never be a serious candidate. If he hadn't been there, I don't think John Edwards would've made it even if he had done the same type of campaigning that Obama did.
Vote for President in November
Obama (53%)
McCain (27%)
Would Not Vote (17%)
Was Race of Candidate Important to You
Yes (21%)
No (77%)
Was Race of Candidate Important to You
Whites Who Say Yes - (20%)
Whites Who Say No - (72%)
Blacks Who Say Yes - (1%)
Blacks Who Say No - (3%)
All Others - (1%)
John Edwards is endorsing Barack Obama at 6:30 EST today :)fuck that is awesome!
hey everyone sweetie-gate (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/14/obama-apologizes-for-sweetie-comment/) has arrived. pack up, it's time to go home.Oh no!
:(
That's really terrible. Kennedy has been a great guy for US politics.
...actually, I can really imagine Ted Kennedy doing a John Wayne and kicking cancer's ass. He's got that kind of spirit.
What I want to know is whether or not the eventual Dem' replacement for Kennedy's seat can keep Massachusetts as blue of a state as Kennedy did.
holy shit politics are retarded and so are all of you who posted in this topic
you can just ask to be banned, man.or i can tell everyone how i am feeling inside
or i can tell everyone how i am feeling insideCrawling in my skin
P.S. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24796393/- Clinton refers to RFK assassination to explain staying in the race
Obviously this is mostly just media going crazy and blowing shit out of proportion, but it IS quite a weird choice of an example
Proponents of full seating continuously interrupted the committee members as they explained their support of the compromise, then supporters of the deal shouted back.
"Shut up!" one woman shouted at another.
"You shut up!" the second woman shouted back.
"[Obama] is a cult. His campaign is an anti-woman cult."
"I will actively campaign against him."
"You know who is backing him is George Soros. It'll be George Soros, not Obama, who is running the country."
"South Dakota is totally rigged for Obama because of Tom Daschle. Obama's going to win South Dakota because he's buying it and rigging it."
"[Obama] is a socialist! You know what the Nazi Party was before it was the Nazi Party? It was the Socialist Party."
"Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?
"At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen,"
"Fox News, fair And balanced! Fox News, fair and balanced!"
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton will win Puerto Rico's Democratic primary by a wide margin, CNN projects, giving her the larger share of the territory's 55 delegates.
With about 70 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton was leading Sen. Barack Obama by more than a 2-1 margin.
nah, it is because latinos pretend they are whites, and to show that delusion they vote for white.
man what the fuck i don't even know where sarcasm stops and horrible opinions start with you.I dunno, I like to think they are none
Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her New York speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/election.democrats/index.html(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2393/coolestestestxt0.jpg)
OBAMA CLINCHES NOMINATION
hell yeah bitches
I'm about to take the stage in St. Paul and announce that we have won the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.
It's been a long journey, and we should all pause to thank Hillary Clinton, who made history in this campaign. Our party and our country are better off because of her.
I want to make sure you understand what's ahead of us. Earlier tonight, John McCain outlined a vision of America that's very different from ours -- a vision that continues the disastrous policies of George W. Bush.
But this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past and bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.
It's going to take hard work, but thanks to you and millions of other donors and volunteers, no one has ever been more prepared for such a challenge.
Thank you for everything you've done to get us here. Let's keep making history.
Barack
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=4416390&page=1more like a history book... this was in the news back when the ad still was new even in Norway
the girl who was in the 3 A.M. ad is voting for Obama. does anyone have a dictionary?
more like a history book... this was in the news back when the ad still was new even in Norway
Personally, I think the venerable Reverend Sharpton would make a much better candidate for VP. DOUBLE BLACK ATTACK.
I wasn't serious, Grunthor.
As far as securing votes goes I think Hillary would probably be Obama's best choice. I'm just kinda nervous about the fact that she's bought and paid for by HMO's.
he's picking someone from virginia! i called it first. heh heh.
that means webb, warner, or kaine.
Paul addresses ObamaYou know, this is going to sound really dumb, but I can't stand to listen to that guy anymore. From my point of view, he's even worse than Mike Huckabee. And yet so many people claim that they support him because "he'll never raise taxes" and "he's a straight-talker". It baffles and disgusts me time and again. Can you tell me what he's saying to Obama? Because I'd rather just not watch it at all.
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/img401.imageshack.us/img401/6971/michelleslurzt1.jpeg)Jesus christ, I gasped when I saw that, I couldn't believe it! I guess it's some HYSTERICAL JOKE made in reference to Michelle calling Barack her "baby's daddy," but this is completely inappropriate. I guess it's not surprising though when you have anchors on there who compare the two to terrorists.
noooooooooooooooooooooo
the revolution is over
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/12/paul-suspends-presidential-campaign-forms-new-organization/
We will educate our fellow Americans in freedom, sound money, non-interventionism, and free markets.Finally..... I can be educated about freedom. FREEDOM.
I already donated my $2,300 and i'd gladly donate 50x that much if it was legal. You can't put a price on liberty, and Paul is the ONLY candidate that provides it.Member AbsolutePatriot from Digg.com, commenting on the good news!
It's sad to see that there are so many who still are scared ***** of freedom...
All I've got to say about that is that it's about damn time. I really have no clue as to why he stayed in the race for so long.Maybe he wanted to wait until the Democratic Nominee had been decided and let that fade for a week or so before announcing his withdrawal from the Republican race and the launch of his Independent race? idk, so to avoid having the two events clash because if he withdrew the same day or so that Barack became the official nominee I'm sure Paul wouldn't get a lot of news coverage. This is just one of the possible angles I'm seeing atm, and what seems to be the most likely one (I don't know that much American politics)
Meh, most of Ron Paul's supporters either didn't know who he was and couldn't tell the candidates apart or were crazy.
FUCKTim Russert Died (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obit_russert)
I don't know how big a deal this is for most of you, but I really enjoyed watching him on Meet the Press and the various other political shows he did.
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.
Haha, shit is really hitting the fan in the blogosphere over Obama's support of the FISA compromise! Here's his official statement:def. not as big of an issue as these people are making it out to be, but it's the ~blogosphere~ what can you expect they're all dramatic idiots
For some of the reactions so far, take a look at what's on the front page of the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/obama-silent-as-democrats_b_108207.html) and reddit (http://www.reddit.com/info/6oa6z/comments/) (usual hotbeds of Obama support) or even messages on his campaign's own site (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/davidjacobitz/gG5hzy).
Mike says :: June 20th, 2008 @ 5:53 pm EST
I think I know what depression feels like after today. I lost all respect for Obama, and will now do what's right and choose to write in Ron Paul.
How can someone go on & on & on & on about change, then just bend the 4th amendment over and fuck it in the ass.
Signed.
Thoroughly depressed American.
def. not as big of an issue as these people are making it out to be, but it's the ~blogosphere~ what can you expect they're all dramatic idiots
uh it definately is a huge issue and sort of makes me sick about this.
i'll still vote for him but i'll never believe again that he is some sort of change candidate who won't be like the rest of washington
"also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."