Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6586|do not disturb

The GOP has made a "Pledge to America" to undo excessive government growth, regulation, taxes, corruption, waste, and spending. It is a promise to pursue, establish, and protect conservative principles in government that the GOP stands for, but this time it is "for real".

PTA wrote:

America is more than a country.
America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers
are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with
the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any
man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their
families, and the common good.
America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to
determine their own destiny.
Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the
people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.
These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the
Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of
Americans.
In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the
governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.
An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined
to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down longstanding
laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.
An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues
mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.
A Pledge to America (PDF)

I read it, and I feel mixed about it. There are certainly many things I agree with advocated here, but there is a lot missing in my opinion and some of the pledges I disagree with. My main concern is how much weight the GOP's word will hold. Can the old Republican guard be trusted to finally act on their party platform?

I am not a registered Republican, nor do I align with the Republican party. I am simply questioning the promise the Republicans are giving, much like the Democrats have been giving on "change".  The Republicans were booted out for their failed policies, expansion of government and an explosion in debt. The democrats are likely to get the boot for much of the same reasons. Is this the same viscous cycle, or is this a sincere attempt of the Republican party to produce positive reform?

Things I would like to have seen are as follows:

*End the Fed. The inflation it has created has done significant harm to our economy and global economy to an extent. Floating currencies in theory can work, but it has been proven that governments are not disciplined nor reliable enough to be trusted with the ability to expand the monetary base as needed on a whim.

*Return to a gold standard or a bimetallism standard, which would include silver. Their scarcity and intrinsic value makes them excellent forms of currency, and are widely accepted as money or highly valued.

*Return all armed forces back to the United States. We have two oceans to protect us from invasion, and there currently is no military power capable of mounting a large enough amphibious offensive against us, unless I am mistaken.

*Term limits need to be enacted. There are too many career politicians in Congress. Yes, even Ron Paul can't serve forever. Experience in government has not refined our elected officials in a positive way by any means, only to give them more opportunity to milk the system.

*As far as I know, the government has a national list for rating agencies. They have decided who can rate and who can't, from my understanding. The government has been endorsing the wrong and failed agencies and I think the list should be abolished and that ratings should be shopped around freely. JG you probably understand this better than me, what say you?

And here are some pieces from the pledge I would like to comment on.

PTA wrote:

Above all else, the primary obligation of
the federal government remains providing
for the common defense against all threats
foreign and domestic. We offer a plan to
keep our nation secure at home and
abroad that will provide the resources,
authority, and support our deployed
military requires, fully fund missile defense,
and enforce sanctions against Iran.

page 7
Limit government, limit regulation, limit spending, except when it concerns national defense. You will see "non-security" spending and jobs being criticized a lot in the pledge. I also do not feel we should impose sanctions against Iran. After the sanctions imposed against Iraq, we should be reluctant to even consider them.

PTA wrote:

“Government’s view of the economy
could be summed up in a few short
phrases: if it moves, tax it. If it
keeps moving, regulate it. And if it
stops moving, subsidize it.”
- President Ronald Reagan

page 20
Interesting quoting Reagan. Indeed, the quote seems to have much truth to it, however, Reagan describes himself in 3rd person again. I'm not sure if he was much of a taxer, but he did regulate and subsidize. The S&L crisis, for example, and the underlying problems because of it were kicked down the road to our current crisis, if you want to call it that. The conservative hero that wasn't.

PTA wrote:

End Government Control of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac
Since taking over Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that
triggered the financial meltdown by giving
too many high risk loans to people who
couldn’t afford them, taxpayers were billed
more than $145 billion to save the two
companies. We will reform Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac by ending their government
takeover, shrinking their portfolios, and
establishing minimum capital standards.
This will save taxpayers as much as $30
billion.

page 22
The rating agencies did more ham in my opinion. Credit default swaps were attractive because of their triple or double A ratings, and subprime mortgage bonds that did not qualify for those high ratings (about 20%) were repackaged into CDOs that did. Aside the point, abolish them all. This includes Ginnie Mae and anyone else in the area.

PTA wrote:

Keep Terrorists Out of America
We will prevent the government from
importing terrorists onto American soil. We
will hold President Obama and his
administration responsible for any
Guantanamo Bay detainees they release
who return to fight against our troops or
who have become involved in any terrorist
plots or activities.


Demand an Overarching Detention
Policy
Foreign terrorists do not have the same
rights as American citizens, nor do they
have more rights than U.S. military
personnel. We will work to ensure foreign
terrorists, such as the 9/11 conspirators, are
tried in military, not civilian, court. We will
oppose all efforts to force our military,
intelligence, and law enforcement personnel operating overseas to extend
“Miranda Rights” to foreign terrorists.

page 38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Xg6W4MlaA

Do any of you agree with Judge Napolitano?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu8YotE2 … eature=sub

Interesting commentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VH2KYdZ … embedded#!

Ron Paul's thought.




So... just felt like spurring some thoughtful discussion, I don't know. My silly attempt ;(

Okay night all.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

Heard it from them before. Tphphph.

America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves
Unless they're gay and want in the military. I wonder if they'll want to put a leash on violent video game bans.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined
to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down longstanding
laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.
They mean Bush amirite?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
rdx-fx
...
+955|6562
I hear the talk, and it's generally the talk the people want to hear.

Now, as anyone following US Presidents over the last 20+ years will find obvious, there's a giant leap between a politician moving his lips and any real action resulting.
Benzin
Member
+576|5969

rdx-fx wrote:

I hear the talk, and it's generally the talk the people want to hear.

Now, as anyone following US Presidents over the last 20+ years will find obvious, there's a giant leap between a politician moving his lips and any real action resulting.
It's also the same talk that the GOP has been preaching since Bush Sr.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England
It's a campaign placard. You think they will bind themselves to a single word of it? Fuck no.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina
They should've made it much shorter...   It could've been summed up by the following...

"We promise to keep government spending on a leash until you elect a president from our party, and then we'll spend far more than we saved while under a Democrat president."
Ticia
Member
+73|5306
First America is more like a continent, two in fact but whatever.

Second the GOP where in power just the other day and you couldn't ask for a more "arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites".

Forgive and forget already, huh?
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5208|Cleveland, Ohio
and then everyone voted for the dems cause they said what you said and look what happened
Ticia
Member
+73|5306

11 Bravo wrote:

and then everyone voted for the dems cause they said what you said and look what happened
Je sais.

Still lesser of two evils.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

Anything about ending the war on my ability to use drugs in by spare time? Anything in there aboutt supporting prostitution legalization in more states?

TBH it sounds like more of the same.

@OP gold and silver have no intrinsic value. They are only so highly valued because people say they are otherwise they are worthless.
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6439
Macbeth's point was that gold and silver only had value, and thus were used as currency, because they were shiny and rich people liked to dress up in them. Also way back when the first coinage started appearing, gold and silver were used because they weren't useful for anything other than looking pretty.

Since then gold and silver have now been put to practical uses, however their value still greatly exceeds their worth as most of the value comes from the fact that even today rich people like to dress up in them.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Macbeth's point was that gold and silver only had value, and thus were used as currency, because they were shiny and rich people liked to dress up in them. Also way back when the first coinage started appearing, gold and silver were used because they weren't useful for anything other than looking pretty.

Since then gold and silver have now been put to practical uses, however their value still greatly exceeds their worth as most of the value comes from the fact that even today rich people like to dress up in them.
Most of their value comes from their rarity.


And they are shiny.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6586|do not disturb

So since people find gold shiny and attractive, that means gold is not a good form of currency? :\
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

Phrozenbot wrote:

So since people find gold shiny and attractive, that means gold is not a good form of currency? :\
Well, diamonds could work under those criteria as well. 
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

What DSL said Phroz. You said " intrinsic value", the market doesn't decide ' intrinsic value'.

I'm not debating the merits of using it as currency, I'm just nitpicking about word choice.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

With the wonderful onus of having lied to the recruiter (though they encourage it, in fact). Still, it's hidden only until some homophobe with nothing better to do brings them in for questioning on suspicions.
When does the recruiter ask?
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6586|do not disturb

Macbeth wrote:

What DSL said Phroz. You said " intrinsic value", the market doesn't decide ' intrinsic value'.

I'm not debating the merits of using it as currency, I'm just nitpicking about word choice.
The word choice is completely correct. If you went to a coin shop to buy a 1 ounce Canadian maple leaf, you would be paying $1,300 for the gold itself, the "intrinsic" value, plus a premium that it is a bullion coin and for the dealer to make a profit from the sale.

Like JG said, most of the value is due to rarity. If gold were as common as lead, it wouldn't be worth nearly as much.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Heard it from them before. Tphphph.


Unless they're gay and want in the military. I wonder if they'll want to put a leash on violent video game bans.
They can still serve, just with a hidden sexuality.
With the wonderful onus of having lied to the recruiter (though they encourage it, in fact). Still, it's hidden only until some homophobe with nothing better to do brings them in for questioning on suspicions.
Sexuality should be a private matter in my opinion.

Last edited by Phrozenbot (2010-09-28 14:27:53)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

Phrozenbot wrote:

Sexuality should be a private matter in my opinion.
I would agree, but the problem is that having a policy that specifically makes sexuality an issue (DADT) is accomplishing the exact opposite effect of making sexuality private.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

SenorToenails wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

With the wonderful onus of having lied to the recruiter (though they encourage it, in fact). Still, it's hidden only until some homophobe with nothing better to do brings them in for questioning on suspicions.
When does the recruiter ask?
They don't. They just subtly suggest that you bend any truth that may prohibit you from signing up, which also includes prior medical concerns. I'm not sure if this is a universal practice, or just a common one.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5230|foggy bottom
my recruiter told me "the best answer is always no"
Tu Stultus Es
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

They don't. They just subtly suggest that you bend any truth that may prohibit you from signing up, which also includes prior medical concerns. I'm not sure if this is a universal practice, or just a common one.
I have heard that, but it hasn't been the case with me.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5230|foggy bottom
new military
Tu Stultus Es
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5556

Phrozenbot wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

What DSL said Phroz. You said " intrinsic value", the market doesn't decide ' intrinsic value'.

I'm not debating the merits of using it as currency, I'm just nitpicking about word choice.
The word choice is completely correct. If you went to a coin shop to buy a 1 ounce Canadian maple leaf, you would be paying $1,300 for the gold itself, the "intrinsic" value, plus a premium that it is a bullion coin and for the dealer to make a profit from the sale.

Like JG said, most of the value is due to rarity. If gold were as common as lead, it wouldn't be worth nearly as much.
I'm thinking of 'intrinsic value' in a philosophical sense not financial. So we're not even arguing the same thing. My point is: if people didn't value it because it's shiny, it would otherwise be fairly worthless.

Again, we're arguing two different things. In terms of finance rarity does determine worth to a point. Rarity doesn't determine philosophical value.

So yeah we're on two different pages.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX

Macbeth wrote:

@OP gold and silver have no intrinsic value. They are only so highly valued because people say they are otherwise they are worthless.
Nonsense, they are used in electronic products.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard