Ron Paul

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders? political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government?s hostility to religion.

He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. Ron is a poor excuse for a Constitutionalist.

Explain more thoroughly, please. Because it seems to me that what Paul was talking about is, well, to quote him "the federal government?s hostility to religion."

And please, what specifically do you think Paul would support that would resemble anything theocratic?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Because his money and foreign policy is totally nuts and would both end up being a disaster.

Same can be said about Bush and McCain

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Remember, it was the people who demanded that it be taken away first. The government gradually followed through afterward.

I don't remember the people asking for the patriot act. I do remember politicians trying to sell the idea to the people through fear.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Remember, it was the people who demanded that it be taken away first. The government gradually followed through afterward.

I don't remember the people asking for the patriot act. I do remember politicians trying to sell the idea to the people through fear.

True. However, it takes a buyer for the seller's product to be worth anything. In this case, it takes a whole lot of buyers. Basically, what we are talking about here is the classic chicken and the egg argument. That doesn't change the fact that the people need to be more responsible in order to properly handle that level of freedom without it collapsing on itself. It's unfortunate.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre
Ahh, I said his religious beliefs don't matter.

Sure they dont. You're just lying to yourself if you think that.

Then explain why they would, considering his political philosophy.

As an agnostic religious beliefs matter to me and faith based issues need to stay in church and out of government policy. Ron Paul saying 'let the states decide' is just passing the buck and would further divide the country. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned you know damned well states in the bible belt would ban abortion in all forms. Next up stem cells and same sex marriage.

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Remember, it was the people who demanded that it be taken away first. The government gradually followed through afterward.

I don't remember the people asking for the patriot act. I do remember politicians trying to sell the idea to the people through fear.

True. However, it takes a buyer for the seller's product to be worth anything. In this case, it takes a whole lot of buyers. Basically, what we are talking about here is the classic chicken and the egg argument. That doesn't change the fact that the people need to be more responsible in order to properly handle that level of freedom without it collapsing on itself. It's unfortunate.

With the example of the patriot act. The people were not to blame. It was the governments job to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Yet what followed was the people getting punished(patriot act) and the government getting rewarded(patriot act giving them more power). Also you got the whole buying and selling thing wrong. Politicians don't even need to sell the idea to the American people. They just need to hope not enough people are against it.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre
Ahh, I said his religious beliefs don't matter.

Sure they dont. You're just lying to yourself if you think that.

Then explain why they would, considering his political philosophy.

As an agnostic religious beliefs matter to me and faith based issues need to stay in church and out of government policy. Ron Paul saying 'let the states decide' is just passing the buck and would further divide the country. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned you know damned well states in the bible belt would ban abortion in all forms. Next up stem cells and same sex marriage.

:thumbsup:

Giving the states too much power almost completely defeats the purpose of having the states to begin with. Likewise, taking too much away is a bad thing too. Guess which extreme Ron Paul leans towards? Just like most extremes, both sides are equally worthless and counter productive.

 

[bamacre]

Let's put some things into perspective. If you want to call Paul a nutjob, or a kook, or say that his stances are "insane," then I wonder what one would think of Bush, McCain, and Obama.

I shouldn't have to tell you how kooky and insane the Bush administration has been. Sending 175,000 troops into a country that never attacked us. That's not sane. The Medicare Prescription Drug bill he signed added $8 trillion to an already $15 trillion in Medicare entitlements during the next 30 years. That isn't sane. Spying on the American people and trampling on the Bill of Rights. IMO, again, that isn't sane. Cheney's desire to expand executive powers to the point where Congress is barely necessary. That is, again IMO, not sane. Demonizing Iran, threatening nuclear warfare, with a country that never attacked us, a country that hasn't invaded another in over 200 years, is IMO, not sane.

And here we have McCain. A man that wants to continue Bush's insane policy on Iran. He doesn't want to raise taxes, or cut significant spending, at a time when our current national debt is approaching $10 trillion. That, is insane. He doesn't want to even acknowledge the fact that SS and Medicare are project to bankrupt the entire federal government. That is insane. He isn't unhappy with leaving American troops in Iraq for 100 years, and would like to keep permanent bases in Iraq, against the will of the Iraqi people, to keep Iraq "stable" and "sovereign." That is insane. This is a man who supports bringing Georgia into NATO, poking Russia with a stick, creating another cold war, and threatening a world war. This is absolutely batshit crazy.

Of course many of you are supporting Obama, not McCain, and I cannot resist telling you how insane Obama is. He also fully supports bring NATO to Russia's border, fully supports bringing Georgia and Ukraine in as members of NATO. I can only assume he understands the consequences of doing so. This again, is insane. He also supports the economic sanctions on Iran, again, a country that hasn't invaded another in more than 200 years. He has stated repeatedly that he supports placing even harsher economic sanctions on Iran, the same type of murderous and unsuccessful sanctions that were placed on Iraq. He has said he would do "everything in his power" to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, when a nuclear Iran is of no threat to the well-armed USA. That is insane. At a time when the USA is in debt for almost $10 trillion, and Medicare and SS are projected to bankrupt the country, Obama would like the federal government to spend even more money handing out "free" health care to the American people. That is insane. Of course he has a "solution" to the health care problem, but presumably has no idea at all why we have a health care problem in the first place. That is insane. Obama would also like to "stay the course" on America's drug war. Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. That is definitely insane.

It seems to me that Americans don't have a problem with insanity, as long as it doesn't vary from their own version of it.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
:thumbsup:

Giving the states too much power almost completely defeats the purpose of having the states to begin with. Likewise, taking too much away is a bad thing too. Guess which extreme Ron Paul leans towards? Just like most extremes, both sides are equally worthless and counter productive.

Yep, that's what I mean. LK said it well here...

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
How about we devolve to a bunch of loosly allied nation states constantly at war, with no central authority to actually move everybody forward? That's the ticket, let's be a completely disaggregated "country", lose our position of power because nobody will have streamlined laws, and nobody will invest here because it is too chaotic.

Fricking libertopians.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Remember, it was the people who demanded that it be taken away first. The government gradually followed through afterward.

I don't remember the people asking for the patriot act. I do remember politicians trying to sell the idea to the people through fear.

True. However, it takes a buyer for the seller's product to be worth anything. In this case, it takes a whole lot of buyers. Basically, what we are talking about here is the classic chicken and the egg argument. That doesn't change the fact that the people need to be more responsible in order to properly handle that level of freedom without it collapsing on itself. It's unfortunate.

With the example of the patriot act. The people were not to blame. It was the governments job to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Yet what followed was the people getting punished(patriot act) and the government getting rewarded(patriot act giving them more power). Also you got the whole buying and selling thing wrong. Politicians don't even need to sell the idea to the American people. They just need to hope not enough people are against it.

Well, apparently, not enough people were against it which means too many people bought into it or they just didn't care one way or the other regardless of how it would effect their lives or the lives of others. Is this somehow supposed to convince me that people are more responsible than I realize?

Like I already said, this is just a chicken and the egg argument. In the end, it really doesn't matter so much which came first. I realize I mentioned that, but that is far from being the core of my argument.

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Remember, it was the people who demanded that it be taken away first. The government gradually followed through afterward.

I don't remember the people asking for the patriot act. I do remember politicians trying to sell the idea to the people through fear.

True. However, it takes a buyer for the seller's product to be worth anything. In this case, it takes a whole lot of buyers. Basically, what we are talking about here is the classic chicken and the egg argument. That doesn't change the fact that the people need to be more responsible in order to properly handle that level of freedom without it collapsing on itself. It's unfortunate.

With the example of the patriot act. The people were not to blame. It was the governments job to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Yet what followed was the people getting punished(patriot act) and the government getting rewarded(patriot act giving them more power). Also you got the whole buying and selling thing wrong. Politicians don't even need to sell the idea to the American people. They just need to hope not enough people are against it.

Well, apparently, not enough people were against it which means too many people bought into it or they just didn't care one way or the other regardless of how it would effect their lives or the lives of others. Is this somehow supposed to convince me that people are more responsible than I realize?

Like I already said, this is just a chicken and the egg argument. In the end, it really doesn't matter so much which came first. I realize I mentioned that, but that is far from being the core of my argument.

How could they oppose it when they didn't know what it consisted of until after it was signed in. Its far easier to stop it from becoming law than it is to get rid of it after its already became law

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Xavier434
:thumbsup:

Giving the states too much power almost completely defeats the purpose of having the states to begin with. Likewise, taking too much away is a bad thing too. Guess which extreme Ron Paul leans towards? Just like most extremes, both sides are equally worthless and counter productive.

Yep, that's what I mean. LK said it well here...

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
How about we devolve to a bunch of loosly allied nation states constantly at war, with no central authority to actually move everybody forward? That's the ticket, let's be a completely disaggregated "country", lose our position of power because nobody will have streamlined laws, and nobody will invest here because it is too chaotic.

Fricking libertopians.

I do not understand why "giving the states too much power almost completely defeats the purpose of having the states to begin with." The Constitution specifically gives much power to the states and people, and restrains the power of the federal government.

What you fail to see is how the movement away from that idea has done much harm to the country. SS and Medicare ring a bell? It should. And then we have the federal government marching into states like California telling them they can't legalize medical marijuana.

If, like you said, a state made abortion illegal, what would stop someone from traveling to another state to get an abortion? Hell, some people travel to Mexico to get dental care. So, those states who keep abortion legal are going to profit from people in other states who made abortion illegal. States should be, to a point, competitive. We should understand that competition is good for consumers.

Plus, you are better represented in your own state than from within the federal government. It is easier to petition change in your city, town, and state compared to doing so federally.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Well, apparently, not enough people were against it which means too many people bought into it or they just didn't care one way or the other regardless of how it would effect their lives or the lives of others. Is this somehow supposed to convince me that people are more responsible than I realize?

Like I already said, this is just a chicken and the egg argument. In the end, it really doesn't matter so much which came first. I realize I mentioned that, but that is far from being the core of my argument.

How could they oppose it when they didn't know what it consisted of until after it was signed in. Its far easier to stop it from becoming law than it is to get rid of it after its already became law

That would be nice if it actually mattered enough to the people which is not to suggest that I believe that it shouldn't matter because I do. However, after digging up some estimated figures of how many people still support the Patriot Act or a very similar variation of it then the reality becomes pretty clear. In fact, it is almost scary. I really do not want these kinds of people to have too much power and freedom. They most certainly are not convincing me that they are responsible enough to handle it. Like I said earlier, the amount of both recent and long term historical evidence of tremendous and overwhelming amount of greed and irresponsibility is just too much. I have met my fair share of individuals who I truly believe could handle such things, but those are very few in number in comparison to the majority of people that I have come into contact with let alone all of the stories I hear about others.

Keep in mind that I don't disagree with you as far as how much more difficult it is to change a law such as the Patriot Act once it is in place nor have I ever supported the damn thing, but again, what you are arguing is all just about trying to assign blame. It is the chicken and the egg argument who was at fault first. Both are at fault and that's the bottom line. Coming to a conclusion about who came first is irrelevant because it doing so does nothing to increase the general public's sense of responsibility nor does it reduce their greedy and thoughtless nature for self gain. That's the real meat of the matter here. That's the problem which needs to be solved. Handed the people freedom and responsibility on a silver platter does not teach them how to use it or maintain it properly. In fact, doing so could potentially be counter productive in the long run. I think we would just be repeating history.

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: cpmer
How could they oppose it when they didn't know what it consisted of until after it was signed in. Its far easier to stop it from becoming law than it is to get rid of it after its already became law

That would be nice if it actually mattered enough to the people which is not to suggest that I believe that it shouldn't matter because I do. However, after digging up some estimated figures of how many people still support the Patriot Act or a very similar variation of it then the reality becomes pretty clear. In fact, it is almost scary. I really do not want these kinds of people to have too much power and freedom. They most certainly are not convincing me that they are responsible enough to handle it. Like I said earlier, the amount of both recent and long term historical evidence of tremendous and overwhelming amount of greed and irresponsibility is just too much. I have met my fair share of individuals who I truly believe could handle such things, but those are very few in number in comparison to the majority of people that I have come into contact with let alone all of the stories I hear about others.

Keep in mind that I don't disagree with you as far as how much more difficult it is to change a law such as the Patriot Act once it is in place nor have I ever supported the damn thing, but again, what you are arguing is all just about trying to assign blame. It is the chicken and the egg argument who was at fault first. Both are at fault and that's the bottom line. Coming to a conclusion about who came first is irrelevant because it doing so does nothing to increase the general public's sense of responsibility nor does it reduce their greedy and thoughtless nature for self gain. That's the real meat of the matter here. That's the problem which needs to be solved. Handed the people freedom and responsibility on a silver platter does not teach them how to use it or maintain it properly. In fact, doing so could potentially be counter productive in the long run. I think we would just be repeating history.

The greed and irresponsibility is the problem of a very small amount of people who control the businesses. The average american doesn't have the power to or money to be greedy enough to cause major problems.

What exactly are the freedoms your referring to? Basic freedoms are something your born with in America. You shouldn't have to earn them.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Xavier434
:thumbsup:

Giving the states too much power almost completely defeats the purpose of having the states to begin with. Likewise, taking too much away is a bad thing too. Guess which extreme Ron Paul leans towards? Just like most extremes, both sides are equally worthless and counter productive.

Yep, that's what I mean. LK said it well here...

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
How about we devolve to a bunch of loosly allied nation states constantly at war, with no central authority to actually move everybody forward? That's the ticket, let's be a completely disaggregated "country", lose our position of power because nobody will have streamlined laws, and nobody will invest here because it is too chaotic.

Fricking libertopians.

I do not understand why "giving the states too much power almost completely defeats the purpose of having the states to begin with." The Constitution specifically gives much power to the states and people, and restrains the power of the federal government.

What you fail to see is how the movement away from that idea has done much harm to the country. SS and Medicare ring a bell? It should. And then we have the federal government marching into states like California telling them they can't legalize medical marijuana.

If, like you said, a state made abortion illegal, what would stop someone from traveling to another state to get an abortion? Hell, some people travel to Mexico to get dental care. So, those states who keep abortion legal are going to profit from people in other states who made abortion illegal. States should be, to a point, competitive. We should understand that competition is good for consumers.

Plus, you are better represented in your own state than from within the federal government. It is easier to petition change in your city, town, and state compared to doing so federally.

To answer your question, it is because the states and the people within them have shown that they cannot maintain a truly united nation alone. They are not responsible enough to work together like that. They will have no incentive to work together at all because you are not giving them any by dividing them like that. Doing it that way puts way too many cooks in the kitchen. The states need a leader in order to maintain such a thing or they become far too divided and people just end up hating each other too much and I can guarantee you that they will not be as isolated from each other as you believe they will be. They will be pushing their influence on each other constantly. They will be bashing each other constantly from a political stand point. The laws would become so different that it would divide the country. Push all of this crap too far and you got yourself a fine recipe for civil war. How else do you think civil wars happen? More importantly, what is going to prevent it from happening? It won't be the Fed. You stripped them from power. It won't be the states. They will end up hating each and divided too much by their differences. Hell, we already hate each other now half the time with the Fed regulating. You think that by stripping the Fed of power and handing it over so carelessly to the states is just going to magically make people stop behaving and thinking like that?

I still do not understand why you believe this country wouldn't just go back to where we are now if we tore the power away from the Fed as much as you want to do it. Of course, that is assuming it survives long enough to do so. How you have so much faith in the responsibility people and what they will do with power given the mounds of historical evidence which suggests otherwise is just beyond me.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: cpmer
How could they oppose it when they didn't know what it consisted of until after it was signed in. Its far easier to stop it from becoming law than it is to get rid of it after its already became law

That would be nice if it actually mattered enough to the people which is not to suggest that I believe that it shouldn't matter because I do. However, after digging up some estimated figures of how many people still support the Patriot Act or a very similar variation of it then the reality becomes pretty clear. In fact, it is almost scary. I really do not want these kinds of people to have too much power and freedom. They most certainly are not convincing me that they are responsible enough to handle it. Like I said earlier, the amount of both recent and long term historical evidence of tremendous and overwhelming amount of greed and irresponsibility is just too much. I have met my fair share of individuals who I truly believe could handle such things, but those are very few in number in comparison to the majority of people that I have come into contact with let alone all of the stories I hear about others.

Keep in mind that I don't disagree with you as far as how much more difficult it is to change a law such as the Patriot Act once it is in place nor have I ever supported the damn thing, but again, what you are arguing is all just about trying to assign blame. It is the chicken and the egg argument who was at fault first. Both are at fault and that's the bottom line. Coming to a conclusion about who came first is irrelevant because it doing so does nothing to increase the general public's sense of responsibility nor does it reduce their greedy and thoughtless nature for self gain. That's the real meat of the matter here. That's the problem which needs to be solved. Handed the people freedom and responsibility on a silver platter does not teach them how to use it or maintain it properly. In fact, doing so could potentially be counter productive in the long run. I think we would just be repeating history.

The greed and irresponsibility is the problem of a very small amount of people who control the businesses. The average american doesn't have the power to or money to be greedy enough to cause major problems.

What exactly are the freedoms your referring to? Basic freedoms are something your born with in America. You shouldn't have to earn them.

It only seems like a problem amongst a small amount of people because the rest of the people do not have the power and freedom to exploit such things so easily. If they did then I guarantee you that they would. Plus, it doesn't require a ton of people to abuse and exploit the lives and freedoms of others.

You are right that people shouldn't have to earn their basic freedoms, but that does not relieve them of the responsibility of using those freedoms properly. Libertarians hate the idea of entitlement more than any other type of people I know. What about the entitlement of freedom? Should people always be entitled to their freedoms or should they be subject to restrictions if they are abused? Personally, I don't mind freedom being handed to people as if it were part of a social program, but if we don't have a way to regulate those who abuse those freedoms then they are going to be abused. The enforcers of such regulation cannot do their job properly unless they are granted a sufficient amount power. Of course, that begs another question to be asked which is "Who is going to babysit the babysitters?" That question is obviously an endless loop which is why we have a system of checks and balances in place. Hell, it is precisely why we vote for another president every 4 years instead of every 50 or whatever. We have a system which permits change while still maintaining order.

Now, that doesn't mean I think our government is perfect nor does it mean that I believe its size is fine just the way it is right now. I support a smaller Fed at the moment. I support more optimization and efficiency within specific divisions. I do not support reinventing the wheel though. I do not support trying something that failed a long time ago. I do not support downsizing the Fed to the size that most Libertarians want. I don't want to cut out tons of social services. All I want is to make what we have now more efficient.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre
Ahh, I said his religious beliefs don't matter.

Sure they dont. You're just lying to yourself if you think that.

Then explain why they would, considering his political philosophy.

As an agnostic religious beliefs matter to me and faith based issues need to stay in church and out of government policy. Ron Paul saying 'let the states decide' is just passing the buck and would further divide the country. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned you know damned well states in the bible belt would ban abortion in all forms. Next up stem cells and same sex marriage.

And it matters to you what Mississippi does because...

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre
Ahh, I said his religious beliefs don't matter.

Sure they dont. You're just lying to yourself if you think that.

Then explain why they would, considering his political philosophy.

As an agnostic religious beliefs matter to me and faith based issues need to stay in church and out of government policy. Ron Paul saying 'let the states decide' is just passing the buck and would further divide the country. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned you know damned well states in the bible belt would ban abortion in all forms. Next up stem cells and same sex marriage.

:thumbsup:

Giving the states too much power almost completely defeats the purpose of having the states to begin with. Likewise, taking too much away is a bad thing too. Guess which extreme Ron Paul leans towards? Just like most extremes, both sides are equally worthless and counter productive.

If you want to control what Mississippi does when it comes to abortion, don't be surprised when they try to make you teach intelligent design in school.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
To answer your question, it is because the states and the people within them have shown that they cannot maintain a truly united nation alone. They are not responsible enough to work together like that. They will have no incentive to work together at all because you are not giving them any by dividing them like that. Doing it that way puts way too many cooks in the kitchen. The states need a leader in order to maintain such a thing or they become far too divided and people just end up hating each other too much and I can guarantee you that they will not be as isolated from each other as you believe they will be. They will be pushing their influence on each other constantly. They will be bashing each other constantly from a political stand point. The laws would become so different that it would divide the country. Push all of this crap too far and you got yourself a fine recipe for civil war. How else do you think civil wars happen? More importantly, what is going to prevent it from happening? It won't be the Fed. You stripped them from power. It won't be the states. They will end up hating each and divided too much by their differences. Hell, we already hate each other now half the time with the Fed regulating. You think that by stripping the Fed of power and handing it over so carelessly to the states is just going to magically make people stop behaving and thinking like that?

I still do not understand why you believe this country wouldn't just go back to where we are now if we tore the power away from the Fed as much as you want to do it. Of course, that is assuming it survives long enough to do so. How you have so much faith in the responsibility people and what they will do with power given the mounds of historical evidence which suggests otherwise is just beyond me.

This is just a bunch of hogwash and drivel. And how exactly, and why exactly, would states declare war on each other? The civil war we did have, mind you, was basically fought over state rights. How would states "push their influence over others?" This whole argument is just ridiculous. Hell, what we have now is ridiculous with "red states and blue states."

 

[JS80]

His view on economics is so crazy that he can't be taken seriously.

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
It only seems like a problem amongst a small amount of people because the rest of the people do not have the power and freedom to exploit such things so easily. If they did then I guarantee you that they would. Plus, it doesn't require a ton of people to abuse and exploit the lives and freedoms of others.

You are right that people shouldn't have to earn their basic freedoms, but that does not relieve them of the responsibility of using those freedoms properly. Libertarians hate the idea of entitlement more than any other type of people I know. What about the entitlement of freedom? Should people always be entitled to their freedoms or should they be subject to restrictions if they are abused? Personally, I don't mind freedom being handed to people as if it were part of a social program, but if we don't have a way to regulate those who abuse those freedoms then they are going to be abused. The enforcers of such regulation cannot do their job properly unless they are granted a sufficient amount power. Of course, that begs another question to be asked which is "Who is going to babysit the babysitters?" That question is obviously an endless loop which is why we have a system of checks and balances in place. Hell, it is precisely why we vote for another president every 4 years instead of every 50 or whatever. We have a system which permits change while still maintaining order.

Now, that doesn't mean I think our government is perfect nor does it mean that I believe its size is fine just the way it is right now. I support a smaller Fed at the moment. I support more optimization and efficiency within specific divisions. I do not support reinventing the wheel though. I do not support trying something that failed a long time ago. I do not support downsizing the Fed to the size that most Libertarians want. I don't want to cut out tons of social services. All I want is to make what we have now more efficient.

Even if u handed over more to the state instead of the federal government. Their is no way that the average person could ever obtain the same amount of power, control, and money that the corporate owners have now.

Technically they should be abused by going to jail for abusing/committing a crime. I don't constitutional rights should be handed out by any social program. Our forefathers fought hard for us to have those rights.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: cpmer
Ever heard of the discount rate? The fed is private.

Please, the discount rate is nothing more than a target rate set for transactions with other banks, banks who belong to the Fed system. Money borrowed from the Fed during the discount process is the same money they paid into the Fed to begin with, or money the Fed raises itself in the market or from the Treasury.

How is the Fed private? It's owned by every member bank in the system, which numbers in the thousands. It is beholden to Congress and can be removed at any time.

Guys like him think there are fat cat bankers in the back room that put the interest earned by the fed in their own pockets. They don't realize that any interest income generated by the fed is transferred to the Treasury.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
To answer your question, it is because the states and the people within them have shown that they cannot maintain a truly united nation alone. They are not responsible enough to work together like that. They will have no incentive to work together at all because you are not giving them any by dividing them like that. Doing it that way puts way too many cooks in the kitchen. The states need a leader in order to maintain such a thing or they become far too divided and people just end up hating each other too much and I can guarantee you that they will not be as isolated from each other as you believe they will be. They will be pushing their influence on each other constantly. They will be bashing each other constantly from a political stand point. The laws would become so different that it would divide the country. Push all of this crap too far and you got yourself a fine recipe for civil war. How else do you think civil wars happen? More importantly, what is going to prevent it from happening? It won't be the Fed. You stripped them from power. It won't be the states. They will end up hating each and divided too much by their differences. Hell, we already hate each other now half the time with the Fed regulating. You think that by stripping the Fed of power and handing it over so carelessly to the states is just going to magically make people stop behaving and thinking like that?

I still do not understand why you believe this country wouldn't just go back to where we are now if we tore the power away from the Fed as much as you want to do it. Of course, that is assuming it survives long enough to do so. How you have so much faith in the responsibility people and what they will do with power given the mounds of historical evidence which suggests otherwise is just beyond me.

This is just a bunch of hogwash and drivel. And how exactly, and why exactly, would states declare war on each other? The civil war we did have, mind you, was basically fought over state rights. How would states "push their influence over others?" This whole argument is just ridiculous. Hell, what we have now is ridiculous with "red states and blue states."

A civil war would be the absolute extreme which I just tossed in there. There is a lot of crappy stuff which happens between all of that.

Anyways, there is no point arguing this further. You want to know the bottom line? Most of America does not want what you want. They do not want that degree of isolation and lack of unity between states and that's that. The states currently rely on each other quite a bit for many things peacefully and the last thing they want is lack of unity when it comes to such a thing. They like working together as a team under one united nation. I am sorry if you don't. If that's what you want, then that is fine but you will be spending the rest of your days fighting for it here with nothing to show for it.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: cpmer
Even if u handed over more to the state instead of the federal government. Their is no way that the average person could ever obtain the same amount of power, control, and money that the corporate owners have now.

Technically they should be abused by going to jail for abusing/committing a crime. I don't constitutional rights should be handed out by any social program. Our forefathers fought hard for us to have those rights.

At this point, there is nothing more for me to say. I have presented my argument and it has boiled down to the fact that you believe that people will not and/or cannot abuse the system to the point where regulation on a federal level is necessary and I do. Since neither one of us can predict the future, I think it is time that we agree to disagree.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
To answer your question, it is because the states and the people within them have shown that they cannot maintain a truly united nation alone. They are not responsible enough to work together like that. They will have no incentive to work together at all because you are not giving them any by dividing them like that. Doing it that way puts way too many cooks in the kitchen. The states need a leader in order to maintain such a thing or they become far too divided and people just end up hating each other too much and I can guarantee you that they will not be as isolated from each other as you believe they will be. They will be pushing their influence on each other constantly. They will be bashing each other constantly from a political stand point. The laws would become so different that it would divide the country. Push all of this crap too far and you got yourself a fine recipe for civil war. How else do you think civil wars happen? More importantly, what is going to prevent it from happening? It won't be the Fed. You stripped them from power. It won't be the states. They will end up hating each and divided too much by their differences. Hell, we already hate each other now half the time with the Fed regulating. You think that by stripping the Fed of power and handing it over so carelessly to the states is just going to magically make people stop behaving and thinking like that?

I still do not understand why you believe this country wouldn't just go back to where we are now if we tore the power away from the Fed as much as you want to do it. Of course, that is assuming it survives long enough to do so. How you have so much faith in the responsibility people and what they will do with power given the mounds of historical evidence which suggests otherwise is just beyond me.

This is just a bunch of hogwash and drivel. And how exactly, and why exactly, would states declare war on each other? The civil war we did have, mind you, was basically fought over state rights. How would states "push their influence over others?" This whole argument is just ridiculous. Hell, what we have now is ridiculous with "red states and blue states."

A civil war would be the absolute extreme which I just tossed in there. There is a lot of crappy stuff which happens between all of that.

Anyways, there is no point arguing this further. You want to know the bottom line? Most of America does not want what you want. They do not want that degree of isolation and lack of unity between states and that's that. The states currently rely on each other quite a bit for many things peacefully and the last thing they want is lack of unity when it comes to such a thing. They like working together as a team under one united nation. I am sorry if you don't. If that's what you want, then go after it some place but you will be spending the rest of your days fighting for it here with nothing to show for it.

I have no idea why you think returning more power back to the states would lead to isolationism and a lack of unity within the states. That they would for some reason start bickering and hating each other. That they would somehow stop being "friendly" to each other. I think its preposterous.