Yes! That is pretty much what I was talking about. As you move towards libertarianism you hit groups like the Romanticists and Girondins. Definitely see Kos and LGF as two sides to the same insane coin.
That pretty much sums it up... At least here on DP, all the kooks, conspiracy theorists, nuts, moonbats, all that stuff from above, etc... Are on the RP kick.. With a few exceptions.. (GRIM)... I've raised this question before.. I find it quite odd that most of the people here that are on the RP kick, are those that hate Republicans... On other "truth" label missing from above: FOREIGNERS.. There seem to be more people who do not even live here for RP than those that do live here... Again, odd...
I think you're way too attached to labels. What is Bernard? SolutionX? Omgitsfletch? Zibblu? Myself? Not Republicans. Neo-conservatives. No one here is aggressively hating on the social conservatives, or the paleo-conservatives. Each party is made up of a lot of minor coalitions. Bush only got elected in 2000 because he portrayed himself as a fiscal/social conservative. It's the message. Sound money, small government, free trade, civil liberty and honesty. It's not just a campaign, it's a movement now. People don't like the deal they have been getting, and they don't like the job that politicians have been doing. Everywhere. Government is supposed to be for the people, not OVER the people.
Yea, thank you Guerilla. In fact, I'm one of the most vocal denouncers of truthers within my RP groups. I see them as using RP as a stepping stone for their own agenda, and particularly with Ron's recent proclamation that the claims of truthers are ridiculous (Beck interview), I can't see why they keep attaching his name to their issue. In any case, they are not the base, they are a vocal minority. They need to find a new person to leech onto.
Kinda goes without saying, don't ya think...? Gee, odd.. He got re-elected in 2004.. Go figure.. Hmm.. Most overwhelming majority vote in American history as well.. The hippies had a movement too.. It was based on some cool ideals as well.. Unfortunately the movement consisted of passing a joint around. What deal is that? If people do not like the people in office, vote them out.. How long does a guy like Kennedy need to be in office? McCain? The list goes on and on.. These are the people that have been in office for a generation fucking things up.. Not GWB... The problems in the US start in the House and Senate. There are our representatives. These are the people that are "for the people", that are supposed to be working for us. GWB is not my representative... The members of The US Congress and Senate are. The biggest reason I will not vote for RP or McCain, Hillary, Obama, etc., is because they are all sitting members of Congress.. I do not want someone who has been there doing nothing running the country. I've already seen what they will do, and I don't like it very much. When I look at other candidates that were either Governors, Mayors, etc., I look at how they ran their State or local government. If I see something that worked, I tend to lean their way. Paul has been in Congress almost as long as I have been alive.. I've experienced the ups and downs of his generation of service, as well as McCain, and it has sucked at various times. Why the hell would I vote for someone that is part of the problem? Part of that status quo? A Washington insider? A career politician? Nope, sorry.. My qualification for a Presidential candidate includes the stipulation that they not be a member of Congress... I'm not interested in more of the same old shit..
There has been a lot of people handing out RP literature with their own issues on it. It's starting to become an issue, and the mass of the grassroots is trying to stop it. @ Mia - Check this out to get an idea of who is supporting this man. http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2007/12/who_are_ron_pauls_supporters.html Btw, this is hilarious.
So you look solely on where they served, and not on what they did? Paul has maintained the same views since he got there. Recall the debate where someone (McCain?) said "We went to Washington to change things, but Washington changed us" and Paul vehemently explained "Washington didn't change me!". He's voted consistently for 30 years, and has never taken a dime from lobbyists or special interests! I'm sorry, but I feel bad if you're only judgment for a former member of Congress is that they've been there a while, not what they've supported and what they've voted for; it's a warped worldview. Paul is the same old shit, and I'll happily cast my vote for him, because he's the same old shit that has been trying to get his ideas out there for 30 years, and is finally succeeding at his mission. He's the same old shit that has never pandered and has always been extremely clear for what he stands for and why he stands for it, not a bullshitter for votes. Also, let's look at the quality of people who aren't in Congress. Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee. The first two pandered to liberals for votes in their left-leaning states, and are also the least conservative on stage. The third went liberal with spending all on his own, loves illegal immigrants even more, and can't wait to tell you what to do (smoking ban everywhere, anyone?). Sure, that is the very definition of quality.
Thanks for the link.. Nice post! I wonder if anyone has a comment on this? I own an internet business as well, and from my reading of Huckabee's tax policies, I do not recall seeing where a federal fair tax would impede or adversely affect the moratorium on taxing the internet. Thoughts? Probably a whole other thread anyway...
You're evading the question and validating my point. War time president. Yeah, this movement is different. It's spontaneous and decentralized. I agree. But the executive branch under Clinton and Bush have seized a lot of "extra" powers, which are seriously eroding the system of checks and balances. That's why this movement has spawned over 20 people running under Paul's platform for Senate and House positions. Again, it's bigger than Ron Paul. I'm happy to debate the ideology with you anytime. Well, Paul has performed the opposite of all of those other candidates in the House, so that's kinda strange that you would rule him out with them based on performance. And to rule out any sitting Member, regardless of how well they might match your ideology, because they are a sitting member seems kinda strange to me. It doesn't sound like you are interested in voting on principle, or platform, but based upon status or profession. Again, weird. Paul is a Washington OUTSIDER. He's never voted or worked with the status quo. His platform is very different from everyone else running, it's an issues based campaign, not a cult of personality. I guess you could call him a career politician, but in the 50 years of his adult life, he found time to be a Dr., serviceman, worker and student for 30 of them. Far more than the sum total of his time in Congress.
Have you actually researched anything about Ron Paul? Ron Paul has a 30 year record of voting that is consistent with his current platform. He has earned a nickname from his peers in Congress of "Dr. No". He does not participate in junkets or any of the, IMO, corrupting perks of the job. Ron Paul is about as polar opposite from the characterization you painted above as anyone can be. He is about as close to Frank Capra's Mr. Smith as you are going to find in American politics.
Simple, on one approach alone. Retail sales. Many buy online out of state to avoid sales tax at the state level. While most states do require you to pay sales and use tax, most do not pay it. If the retail stores online had to impose this tax as well, it would make the prices almost identical 'in some eyes' it could easily reduce sales at least to the portion who buys online to try to avoid sales tax. Personally I do not see this as a reason to be against the 'cough' fair tax, I however do not like the 'fair' tax from what I have read. I also hate the naming of it, call it 'fair' to dupe people into thinking it's fair just because of the name.
GRIM, thanks for the explanation.. However, I guess what I am getting at is, if there is still moratorium in place, then how could this possibly affect the internet? I think the statement that guy made on that site is a bit mis-leading in that regard... In order for this to happen the moratorium would have to be lifted.. Anyway, many places on line already charge you sales tax even if you are out of state because they do business in so many states. Apple, Adobe, Cisco, etc.. To name a few.. Just bought Pagemaker ah, InDesign I think it is called now, this morning and got hit with sales tax... It'll happen eventually.. But that is not really taxing the net.. That is just taxing products sold on the net... To say it is a net tax, again, is misleading... It's not a new tax.. It's sales tax.. It's always existed... Many places that you order by phone or through the mail will charge you sales tax even if you are out of state... I think the "fair" nature comes in the fact that everyone is paying the same price in terms of tax when they buy goods and services.. The way it stands now with our current tax code, technically someone making 10,000 dollars a year should pay no sales tax, and someone making a million a year should be paying 95% sales tax... I think that is where the fair comes from.. Ultimately I would like to see someone that finds a way to tax everyone at the same rate with no deductions, no refunds... You make x, you pay 10%. You make z, you pay 10%, you make x, y, and z you pay 10%.. PERIOD!!!
LOL U guys are Crazy Ron is no different then all the other slime buckets that are or have ran for presidency. Theyre all Slime and run America down the drain once they get into office.
Jeremy, just to confirm, you are talking electoral college votes, correct? I ask, because either way, that isn't true. Just looking at the electoral votes alone, In 2004, Bush received 53% of the electoral votes, 286, to Kerry's 251. In 1996, Clinton garnered an incredible 70% of the electoral vote - 379 to Dole's 179; with the previous election, 1992, being about the same - Clinton taking 68% (370) to Bush, Sr.s 168. You want some real fun, go to Johnson v. Goldwater, 1964. Johnson won 90% of the electoral vote, 486 to Goldwater's 52. Tables turned, 1972, when Nixon got 96%, 520 to McGivern's 17. These are just a few of the instances - haven't gone all the way back. The popular vote tally doesn't hold either. (Great source): Presidential Elections, 1789-2004
What is crazy is that you would post such misguided nonsense without having researched anything about Ron Paul. He is different and has proved it for over 30 years. I invite you to spend a few minutes learning about Ron Paul's record.
Sorry, I should clarify as my statement is confusing.. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004 What is really significant about this is that more people than ever came out to vote, and even with more and more people voting, Bush still ends up winning.. It would stand to reason that the vast majority of the credit for such high voter turn out probably belongs to liberal outposts like Rock the Vote, and Moveon... Ironically, their drive to increase liberal voters seems to have just produced a split number of increased voters...Kerry is number 2 in this "majority" category btw... The more people voting the better at least in GWB's case...
Mia we've discussed this in the past. This 'record' you people try to bring up is meaningless. Simple fact, as the population grows the amount who are eligible to vote grows as well.