|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unposter,
Your long post above was quite thoughtful. Just a few comments though:
Quote: |
Stay the course means the businesses favored by government will continue to have huge advantages and even if we eventually reached a free market system, such industries in theory could use their cumulitive advantages in the previous system to dominate (and even prevent a true free market system from occuring). |
I understand where you're coming from here, but I must disagree. I strongly believe that without government there to prop them up many of these larger companies would simply collapse. Any that did not collapse would only survive by out-competing their rivals in the market, which would be beneficial to everyone else.
In short, I can think of countless examples of monopolies being created, bolstered, and maintained by government, but none that have survived in the free market (actually there is just one, which is an aberration: De Beers). Some people like to bring up examples like Standard Oil, but this was not a true monopoly.
Quote: |
The third is about making government work better, educate people for a 21st century economy and making investments that improve everyone's quality of life. The key is to do it with an eye on increasing freedom and decreasing debt over time (scale back but prioritize this scaling back so that the shocks, especially to the less strong, are minimized) |
I would agree that if the government must be involved, then the money it does spend should at least be on things providing an ostensible benefit to the public, rather that on trillion dollar wars and bailing out Wall Street.
I also agree that pulling the rug out from under the economy is not a pleasant thought. I would rather the leviathan state be scaled back gradually, but I am not sure it is possible. Because our entire monetary system is pretty much a ponzi scheme of epic proportions, the debt cannot be scaled at all (and it never has been). To do so would risk a loss in con-fidence that would send the house of cards tumbling down. That is why debt will continue to increase. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/06/ron-paul-supporters-are-fuming-mad-rand-paul/53336/
Quote: |
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's�endorsement�of Mitt Romney�last night is igniting a fury of rage from his father's hardcore fan base.�In a sort of libertarian version of Bob Dylan going electric (ask your parents), the Kentucky senator's enthusiastic endorsement of Romney has Ron Paul forums fuming with cries of "Judas" and "Benedict Arnold."�
"Rand is dead to me," wrote,�Ruffusthedog�at the Daily Paul, a heavily-visited pro-Paul website. "He should have never done this."�"Rand Paul is a sell out," user�Alxnz�exclaimed. "He just lost my vote in 2016." "All he had to do was not open his mouth," wrote user Conalmc. Others even took their anger out on Ron Paul himself. "What will it be Old Man Ron? Will you be forever remembered as the leader in the greatest liberty movement since 1776, or will you go down as Benedict Arnold incarnate," threatened�lionsuar7788. "We will never vote for Romney or your flimsy son."� |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rand Paul's endorsement means nothing. But if he is jockeying for the VeeP position, and he takes it, then he really will be a sell-out. Rand Paul's virtues all come from his willingness to buck GOP orthodoxy, work across the aisle, and challenge Executive power. None of these qualities have any application to being Vice President, which is really all about promoting the President and his/her policies.
But there's little traitorous about endorsing the GOP's nominee after he's won the majority of delegates. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote: |
Rand Paul's endorsement means nothing. But if he is jockeying for the VeeP position, and he takes it, then he really will be a sell-out. Rand Paul's virtues all come from his willingness to buck GOP orthodoxy, work across the aisle, and challenge Executive power. None of these qualities have any application to being Vice President, which is really all about promoting the President and his/her policies.
But there's little traitorous about endorsing the GOP's nominee after he's won the majority of delegates. |
I agree, but it still does leave a rather bad taste in the mouth of his father's supporters. Not that Rand is totally the same as his father, but it's not much of a secret that Ron also went easy on Romney (which I now admit was the case).
Basically if they endorse Romney, they are selling out their base who donated lots of their own money and gave Ron Paul the most zealous support of any candidate in living memory. As a politician, he may just want to use the political capital he's saved to try and make a difference, but if he sides with Romney I think it will totally blow up up in his face. Compromising with Romney would not only be futile, but would take all the wind out of Ron Paul's movement and alienate his supporters (who are more sophisticated than your average mainline voter and will not be fooled so easily by rhetoric). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/08/24/democrats-slam-gop-for-ron-paul-tribute-citing-israel-criticism/
Quote: |
A high-profile group within the Democratic Party is condemning the Republicans for planning to air a video tribute to Rep. Ron Paul (R � TX) at their national convention, saying it is unacceptable to pay tribute to Paul given his foreign policy positions and �dangerous� for Gov. Romney to maintain any link with Paul.
Rep. Paul has regularly opposed US foreign policy and wars in general, but it is his criticism of US-Israeli ties as well as his 2009 criticism of the then-ongoing Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip in an appearance on PressTV that has earned him particular scorn.
�Paying tribute to this man who disparaged the US-Israel relationship on Iranian television � is a national disgrace,� insisted the National Jewish Democratic Council in their statement. |
Who/whom. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sad that Paul never ran for President as an independant. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is. He'd ensure an Obama victory and lessen the likelihood of more wars. I do wonder what he's doing with all that money he pulled in. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
catman wrote: |
Sad that Paul never ran for President as an independant. |
Didn't he run once or twice on the Libertarian ticket? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to one Paul supporter he decided not to run as an independant because he wants to try and form a real movement within the Republican Party. Like Pat Robertson did with the religious right back in the 80's.
By the way, Paul has been snubbed at this years GOP convention. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map
|
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Titus wrote: |
It is. He'd ensure an Obama victory and lessen the likelihood of more wars. |
Yeah, because Obama is a fervent peace-monger.
We're basically screwed either way. Ron Paul was our Ben Kenobi, but the GOP/PTB Death Star (of course) managed to vaporize any hope of sanity during the next four years.
I'm bullish on wooden barrels because we'll all probably be walking around in them shortly. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
crescent
Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Location: yes.
|
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caniff wrote: |
We're basically screwed either way. Ron Paul was our Ben Kenobi, but the GOP/PTB Death Star (of course) managed to vaporize any hope of sanity during the next four years. |
Sounds like the opening to Stephen Colbert, August 28. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Missed that one, but of course great minds think alike. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
catman wrote: |
According to one Paul supporter he decided not to run as an independant because he wants to try and form a real movement within the Republican Party. Like Pat Robertson did with the religious right back in the 80's.
By the way, Paul has been snubbed at this years GOP convention. |
Truth to tell, I've been somewhat underwhelmed by the RP performance at the RNC this time around. Random tantrums and pouts from up in the nose-bleed section are all well and good, but where is the backbone? The principles? The conviction? The, dare I say, 'revolution'? Rand walking around saying, 'Stay in the party. Stay in the party' is all well and good, but selling out small government 'principles' for massively invasive policy in an effort to get power...
Not...inspirational...as far as I can see. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
catman wrote: |
According to one Paul supporter he decided not to run as an independant because he wants to try and form a real movement within the Republican Party. Like Pat Robertson did with the religious right back in the 80's.
By the way, Paul has been snubbed at this years GOP convention. |
Truth to tell, I've been somewhat underwhelmed by the RP performance at the RNC this time around. Random tantrums and pouts from up in the nose-bleed section are all well and good, but . . . |
http://washingtonexaminer.com/can-teleprompters-count-votes/article/2506556#.UEAWRdZmTzx
Timothy Carney wrote: |
I was on the floor at the time, and I saw these party leaders chairing the convention simply ignore points of order and objections. They also ruled that the Ayes had won a voice vote when the Noes pretty clearly shouted louder. It�s hard to get more undemocratic than simply making up the results of a floor vote. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
catman wrote: |
According to one Paul supporter he decided not to run as an independant because he wants to try and form a real movement within the Republican Party. Like Pat Robertson did with the religious right back in the 80's.
By the way, Paul has been snubbed at this years GOP convention. |
Truth to tell, I've been somewhat underwhelmed by the RP performance at the RNC this time around. Random tantrums and pouts from up in the nose-bleed section are all well and good, but . . . |
http://washingtonexaminer.com/can-teleprompters-count-votes/article/2506556#.UEAWRdZmTzx
Timothy Carney wrote: |
I was on the floor at the time, and I saw these party leaders chairing the convention simply ignore points of order and objections. They also ruled that the Ayes had won a voice vote when the Noes pretty clearly shouted louder. It�s hard to get more undemocratic than simply making up the results of a floor vote. |
|
The Washington Examiner is a bit of a joke, but I like Carney. He isn't shy in bashing the GOP at all and frequently writes about GOP politician hypocrisy. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|