No income tax and legal heroine.Turquoise wrote:
Besides Huntsman, Paul is the only one worth voting for.Macbeth wrote:
Kmar is voting Paul. Tragic.
Fuck yeah.
Fuck yeah.
No. Paul is a step backwards in every respect. We need sensible pragmatic leadership (Hunstman, Romney). Not crazy, idealistic, naive leadership (Paul).
Gold standard. No Federal reserve. Close all foreign military bases.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
No income tax and legal heroine.Turquoise wrote:
Besides Huntsman, Paul is the only one worth voting for.Macbeth wrote:
Kmar is voting Paul. Tragic.
Fuck yeah.
Ron Paul 2012.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35c9lz/
the internet makes a good point, why did prohibition require an amendment while banning pot didn't?
the internet makes a good point, why did prohibition require an amendment while banning pot didn't?
Because alcohol is deeply ingrained in American culture.
Legal, female heroes??Doctor Strangelove wrote:
No income tax and legal heroine.Turquoise wrote:
Besides Huntsman, Paul is the only one worth voting for.Macbeth wrote:
Kmar is voting Paul. Tragic.
Fuck yeah.
I'm more in favor of the latter than the former.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
No income tax and legal heroine.Turquoise wrote:
Besides Huntsman, Paul is the only one worth voting for.Macbeth wrote:
Kmar is voting Paul. Tragic.
Fuck yeah.
Abolishing the income tax is harder to achieve than legalizing drugs, because we first have to decrease government spending dramatically.
Decriminalizing heroin is feasible, despite people's fears.
doesn't explain why they couldn't just pass the "Anti-Alcohol Act"Macbeth wrote:
Because alcohol is deeply ingrained in American culture.
I support Paul more from the perspective of him vetoing everything rather than hoping he'd actually pass most of his ideas.Macbeth wrote:
No. Paul is a step backwards in every respect. We need sensible pragmatic leadership (Hunstman, Romney). Not crazy, idealistic, naive leadership (Paul).
It's more about keeping the government from growing further than it is dismantling it. As president, it's easier to block things than shrink them.
Taking it to the constitutional level makes it much harder to subvert. /shrugHurricane2k9 wrote:
doesn't explain why they couldn't just pass the "Anti-Alcohol Act"Macbeth wrote:
Because alcohol is deeply ingrained in American culture.
I don't get the scumbag America meme for this one.
Gold standard won't happen even if he is president. Getting rid of the Fed is a good thing. Becoming less interventionist is as well.Macbeth wrote:
Gold standard. No Federal reserve. Close all foreign military bases.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
No income tax and legal heroine.Turquoise wrote:
Besides Huntsman, Paul is the only one worth voting for.
Fuck yeah.
Ron Paul 2012.
idk, probably because it's easier to pass an act than an amendmentMacbeth wrote:
Taking it to the constitutional level makes it much harder to subvert. /shrugHurricane2k9 wrote:
doesn't explain why they couldn't just pass the "Anti-Alcohol Act"Macbeth wrote:
Because alcohol is deeply ingrained in American culture.
I don't get the scumbag America meme for this one.
Sort of, but it's also because we're massive hypocrites on drug policy. A lot of countries are.Macbeth wrote:
Because alcohol is deeply ingrained in American culture.
The fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal while pot isn't makes it blatantly obvious that the War on Drugs is a farce.
It's not really about preventing addiction -- it's about what's socially acceptable and what has big business behind it.
Also, it's about money and how easily something can be taxed.
Last edited by Turquoise (2012-01-24 07:57:56)
Our government is already damn near dead locked at the Federal level. It's dead locked to the point where it has trouble passing the simplest little things that would be an unquestionable benefit. Do you really think a President vetoing everything is an improvement?Turquoise wrote:
I support Paul more from the perspective of him vetoing everything rather than hoping he'd actually pass most of his ideas.Macbeth wrote:
No. Paul is a step backwards in every respect. We need sensible pragmatic leadership (Hunstman, Romney). Not crazy, idealistic, naive leadership (Paul).
It's more about keeping the government from growing further than it is dismantling it. As president, it's easier to block things than shrink them.
Everyone always harps on about shrinking or growing the government but then can't explain for the life of them what they want to shrink or stop growing. I would love to hear some of what you want to shrink, get rid of, or watch whither.
Well he harps on about the gold standard after every primary. I think that signifies a detachment form reality.Turquoise wrote:
Gold standard won't happen even if he is president. Getting rid of the Fed is a good thing. Becoming less interventionist is as well.Macbeth wrote:
Gold standard. No Federal reserve. Close all foreign military bases.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
No income tax and legal heroine.
Fuck yeah.
Ron Paul 2012.
I disagree about interventionism.
presidents can't veto amendments.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
idk, probably because it's easier to pass an act than an amendmentMacbeth wrote:
Taking it to the constitutional level makes it much harder to subvert. /shrugHurricane2k9 wrote:
doesn't explain why they couldn't just pass the "Anti-Alcohol Act"
I don't get the scumbag America meme for this one.
What does that have to do with Hurri amendment question?Turquoise wrote:
Sort of, but it's also because we're massive hypocrites on drug policy. A lot of countries are.Macbeth wrote:
Because alcohol is deeply ingrained in American culture.
The fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal while pot isn't makes it blatantly obvious that the War on Drugs is a farce.
It's not really about preventing addiction -- it's about what's socially acceptable and what has big business behind it.
Also, it's about money and how easily something can be taxed.
With all due respect dude, you went way off into left field there.
Completely privatize the post office, replace FEMA with privatized emergency services, cut the military budget in half, gut the DEA, hand over airport security to the private sector, implement Paul Ryan's reforms for Medicare and SS, bring back welfare lifetime limits, reduce the child tax credit to 2 kids, eliminate the Federal Reserve, end all agricultural subsidies, end all foreign aid, and increase domestic drilling and refining.Macbeth wrote:
Our government is already damn near dead locked at the Federal level. It's dead locked to the point where it has trouble passing the simplest little things that would be an unquestionable benefit. Do you really think a President vetoing everything is an improvement?Turquoise wrote:
I support Paul more from the perspective of him vetoing everything rather than hoping he'd actually pass most of his ideas.Macbeth wrote:
No. Paul is a step backwards in every respect. We need sensible pragmatic leadership (Hunstman, Romney). Not crazy, idealistic, naive leadership (Paul).
It's more about keeping the government from growing further than it is dismantling it. As president, it's easier to block things than shrink them.
Everyone always harps on about shrinking or growing the government but then can't explain for the life of them what they want to shrink or stop growing. I would love to hear some of what you want to shrink, get rid of, or watch whither.
It takes an amendment to go against a massive established industry.Macbeth wrote:
What does that have to do with Hurri amendment question?Turquoise wrote:
Sort of, but it's also because we're massive hypocrites on drug policy. A lot of countries are.Macbeth wrote:
Because alcohol is deeply ingrained in American culture.
The fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal while pot isn't makes it blatantly obvious that the War on Drugs is a farce.
It's not really about preventing addiction -- it's about what's socially acceptable and what has big business behind it.
Also, it's about money and how easily something can be taxed.
With all due respect dude, you went way off into left field there.
It doesn't to restrict a substance already disapproved of by the majority. Pot was made illegal by an argument partially based on racism. It was a substance that only certain subcultures used in the beginning.
Alcohol was something used by everyone, so to ban it, you have to go the extra mile.
Completely privatize the post office- Doing so wouldn't work. Government services are there to provide services that wouldn't exist without the government. Mail deliveries to far out places where private mail carriers wouldn't touch would stop. Businesses the world over still rely on snail mail to an extent. If you privatize the UPS you would completely disrupt what is considered an economic constant. It's not good for bussiness. How much is the U.S. postal service as a percent of our budget btw? (hint: not a lot). There are some reforms that could be made. But killing it isn't an rational choice.
replace FEMA with privatized emergency services- Can't be serious.
gut the DEA- Yes
hand over airport security to the private sector- Nope. Give people an incentive to cut corners and you will lose the end up with firms sacrificing security for profit. Won't work.
implement Paul Ryan's reforms for Medicare and SS- Both suck.
eliminate the Federal Reserve- Can't be serious
end all foreign aid- No. Foreign aid is a pretty good investment. If you seriously want to reduce the size of our military and not cause waves then you can't get rid of all foreign aid.
replace FEMA with privatized emergency services- Can't be serious.
gut the DEA- Yes
hand over airport security to the private sector- Nope. Give people an incentive to cut corners and you will lose the end up with firms sacrificing security for profit. Won't work.
implement Paul Ryan's reforms for Medicare and SS- Both suck.
eliminate the Federal Reserve- Can't be serious
end all foreign aid- No. Foreign aid is a pretty good investment. If you seriously want to reduce the size of our military and not cause waves then you can't get rid of all foreign aid.
You're arguing with someone that spends his evenings watching Maddow and O'Reilly and thinks he can discern some middle ground from these two 'extreme viewpoints'. Nevermind that they're two sides of the same coin and have much more in common with each other than they do not. He's a neocon that believes in American imperialism.Turquoise wrote:
Gold standard won't happen even if he is president. Getting rid of the Fed is a good thing. Becoming less interventionist is as well.Macbeth wrote:
Gold standard. No Federal reserve. Close all foreign military bases.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
No income tax and legal heroine.
Fuck yeah.
Ron Paul 2012.
Good luck arguing with him though.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
What's wrong with ending the fed? Hong Kong has their shit on lock without having a central bank and its one of the most traded currency in circulation.Macbeth wrote:
Completely privatize the post office- Doing so wouldn't work. Government services are there to provide services that wouldn't exist without the government. Mail deliveries to far out places where private mail carriers wouldn't touch would stop. Businesses the world over still rely on snail mail to an extent. If you privatize the UPS you would completely disrupt what is considered an economic constant. It's not good for bussiness. How much is the U.S. postal service as a percent of our budget btw? (hint: not a lot). There are some reforms that could be made. But killing it isn't an rational choice.
replace FEMA with privatized emergency services- Can't be serious.
gut the DEA- Yes
hand over airport security to the private sector- Nope. Give people an incentive to cut corners and you will lose the end up with firms sacrificing security for profit. Won't work.
implement Paul Ryan's reforms for Medicare and SS- Both suck.
eliminate the Federal Reserve- Can't be serious
end all foreign aid- No. Foreign aid is a pretty good investment. If you seriously want to reduce the size of our military and not cause waves then you can't get rid of all foreign aid.
If I insult John he will report me to Tucker and I will get OrangeHound breathing up my ass.
The FEMA commission suggested it. Basically, if you look at the difference in quality of response between FEMA and the Red Cross during Katrina, it shows how much better the private sector handles things.Macbeth wrote:
replace FEMA with privatized emergency services- Can't be serious.
People will pay extra for airlines with a better security record. If hijackings start happening on one airline as opposed to another, then people will flock to the safer airline.Macbeth wrote:
hand over airport security to the private sector- Nope. Give people an incentive to cut corners and you will lose the end up with firms sacrificing security for profit. Won't work.
Now, keeping the FAA around makes sense. I just think the TSA is a joke.
How? Raising the retirement age and slowly cutting back spending per person will be necessary in the long run.Macbeth wrote:
implement Paul Ryan's reforms for Medicare and SS- Both suck.
The Federal Reserve is a tool used by big banks to create bubbles and devalue currency.Macbeth wrote:
eliminate the Federal Reserve- Can't be serious
We get too involved in the world. We funded Pakistan for decades, and look at them now. They're still a shithole.Macbeth wrote:
end all foreign aid- No. Foreign aid is a pretty good investment. If you seriously want to reduce the size of our military and not cause waves then you can't get rid of all foreign aid.
We fund Israel, and now, they're a loose cannon.
We have funded multiple other countries in the Middle East and North Africa, only to see the dictators we've supported get overthrown (by us or by their own people).
The whole thing is a mess. We need to withdraw somewhat and exploit more of our own resources to become less dependent on questionable "allies."
You don't remove economic constants. Getting rid of the Fed and losing control over your currency like that isn't worth rocking the boat over.Cybargs wrote:
What's wrong with ending the fed? Hong Kong has their shit on lock without having a central bank and its one of the most traded currency in circulation.Macbeth wrote:
Completely privatize the post office- Doing so wouldn't work. Government services are there to provide services that wouldn't exist without the government. Mail deliveries to far out places where private mail carriers wouldn't touch would stop. Businesses the world over still rely on snail mail to an extent. If you privatize the UPS you would completely disrupt what is considered an economic constant. It's not good for bussiness. How much is the U.S. postal service as a percent of our budget btw? (hint: not a lot). There are some reforms that could be made. But killing it isn't an rational choice.
replace FEMA with privatized emergency services- Can't be serious.
gut the DEA- Yes
hand over airport security to the private sector- Nope. Give people an incentive to cut corners and you will lose the end up with firms sacrificing security for profit. Won't work.
implement Paul Ryan's reforms for Medicare and SS- Both suck.
eliminate the Federal Reserve- Can't be serious
end all foreign aid- No. Foreign aid is a pretty good investment. If you seriously want to reduce the size of our military and not cause waves then you can't get rid of all foreign aid.