"Freedom" thread or something

If he denounced Romeny's platform while accepting the VP that would be one thing, but running with him in silence shows a man playing politics to get into a position of power. No thank you.

Brian: If Ron Paul turns, then I think that signifies the path of peaceful resistance has been exhausted.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: If he denounced Romeny's platform while accepting the VP that would be one thing, but running with him in silence shows a man playing politics to get into a position of power. No thank you.

 

By the way, Jim, Lethean is added to the database if you want to post your review there.  

http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7209

Yeah it tastes kind of bad but some realism is needed to actually get anything done in politics (I know that sounds like the cliche sell out line)but if Paul was the VP to Romney it wouldn't be too bad as long as he does what you guys said, uses it as a vehicle to get his views out even more. Especially with Rand there to take over the mantle.


Unrelated note: Always thinking...I'm guessing there is no way you guys could ever be on board with a progressive income tax system? Even if it was a greatly reduced one, along with a slash (or even removal) of several other taxes?

Also how do you feel about the negative income tax proposed by Friedman?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
It's at least an intriguing idea to me,  seems pretty politically moderate and looks to accomplish as best as possible a way to have money for poor people without the mess, provides some incentive and could be used to remove the minimum wage.

I'm not sure what part of "I've talked against politicians and war mongerers all my life - I will run as VP of a politician war mongerer" is not contradictory enough not to warrant total disappointment. I'm not sure this would be death by purity Jim. 

The T wrote: By the way, if Ron Paul does it, it basically will kill a lot of people's interest in change forever. Not because Ron Paul is the only option there might ever be, but because he was so consistent and true and suddenly even he had to become or ally himself with everything that he supposedly fought against.

That really is a shame though because like it or not, people need to accept some compromise. If you wanna stick 100% to your beliefs and any slight sign of "faltering" is opposed then the best any one can hope for is sitting around on line talking about how the government sucks and not getting anything done

Baby steps. From just 4 years ago I can't believe the explosion in interest I've noticed. We all need to keep up the good fight!
I'd say Paul taking the VP (while I hope he does not) isn't so bad. He may alienate the die hards but it may bring more on board. Also hate to be suck a cynical f**k, but if people were going along with it and not 100% sure what its all about even well....
Better than supporting no one/one of the mainstreamers

Needless to say, I hope he doesn't do it and I also hope the movement continues to grow by education. People actually becoming informed and not just following like sheep.  I can be living proof, it was as simple as reading. Once you open your mind to the idea of change and just read what is said, it really becomes impossible to argue against!


Edited by JJLehto - March 18 2012 at 20:36

Well no I deff don't want any more one step back two forward, it needs to be only forward from now on.
Like I said it'd be good for the message, we know Paul wouldn't sit quiet or let himself get pushed around.
It'd really be a shame on Romney for offering, he'd have to be totally moronic to do so. Without doubt if it's offered I hope he says no.

Just wondering, can there be "some sort of fed" ? Seems quite black and white.

Unless there was something like, reducing it to a literal reserve of money and it would not have the power to set interest rates and control the money supply. The latter part would have to be essential I'd imagine.


Edited by JJLehto - March 18 2012 at 21:14

Fair enough, and just hypothetical. No one really wants Paul to run as a VP...just trying to justify such a heinous act in our minds.

I would love if everybody here could comment on this article. Granted, is from Time magazine and by someone known to be on the left side of issues but it can be reasonably discussed. He basically kind of defends Obamacare as a step forward. We don't like it, but he raises the point of how other societies have some sort universal healthcare (not necessarily government-run) and they are way above the US in health rankings by typical standards of measurement. Opinions?

Well it's known that I was (and in my heart still am) a big defender of universal healthcare, and was let down by the bill. I'll call it Romneycare just for sh*ts (and because its and expanded version of what he implemented in Mass).

I guess Romneycare is a step forward to universal healthcare... I just see it as a way to bring more people into our broken system and will not help the $$$ situation of it all. Maybe it's a real small stepping stone.

Honestly, I always supported it is just because of  what that article says. Every other country is f**king cheaper! Like it's not political BS or propaganda.
We spend way more on healthcare than any other country, though we use it less than the average, and of course don't have universal coverage. It just makes no sense.

People here gripe about "oh god imagine what the waits will be like!" but to see our family doctor usually needs a 3 day wait. If you are lucky...the next day, and if an issue needed to be dealt with then we had to go out of network (thus more money) OR to the hospital. Note at the out of network doctor we have had barely any wait!

What we have is f**ked but I'm not quite sure the best answer. Either a government/free market hybrid thing or total free market ( a la Paul) just not what we got now!