Johnny C wrote:At this point I almost want Ron Paul to get elected so his presidency can be disastrous enough that the entire world collectively says, "Let's not do that ever again."

Hahahaha

What? It was the funniest post EA has had in a political thread for some time.

I imagined Wile E Coyote getting a box labelled Ron Paul from ACME, and it ending in disastor as he swears off using the product again.

Johnny C wrote:At this point I almost want Ron Paul to get elected so his presidency can be disastrous enough that the entire world collectively says, "Let's not do that ever again."

This is a funny quote, and I support Paul.

Tell you what - you vote for him and Ill vote for him, and well see what happens? Ok? Ok.

Also, isnt a place like Hong Kong a good example for you of how free markets/a free society works? What makes you believe everything will just fall apart? (also, as Bob/Rick pointed out, theres no way he could pass everything he wants to do, it would be a gradual reduction in government, but a step in the right direction).

o_d_m, are you really serious about your view on the gold standard? I suggest you hit the history/economics books before trying to "diss" it.

Johnny C wrote:At this point I almost want Ron Paul to get elected so his presidency can be disastrous enough that the entire world collectively says, "Let's not do that ever again."

Dude, we have 7 years of that behind us. Enough...please.
Like Herbert, from Family Guy, I'm "ready for s-s-some good news-s-s-s-s."

-A

I'm serious as can be.

A common criticism of the gold standard is its lack of flexibility due to finite demand.

Plus bankers did just fine exploiting people on the gold standard.

What about being on the gold standard will make our problems go away?

The only thing that will dissappear is a whole lot of money because it can't be backed by gold.

And I'm a semester away from my M.A. in History, so I've read a history book or two.

alex maiolo wrote:Whatever.
Almost 11 posts a day, every day?
.05% of all daily posts, out of all of the people who post here? Shit, even our hero Kerble only post 7-8 a day on average.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel resorting to my fucking post number.

alex maiolo wrote:My point, and I stand by it, is that the impoverished aren't spending a large portion of their day doing things like posting to the PRF.
I don't care how many posts a person makes in a day - I really don't - but it does say something about the amount of free time a guy has, no?

Did I fucking say I'm "impoverished"?

If you go back and read my posts, you'll see they aren't usually in depth unless it's political, and I'm not wasting my free time on this forum. They're short, and usually intended as a joke, but for a guy that really doesn't care how much I post, you sure seem interested.

alex maiolo wrote:Yes, it's a judgement call that I may be incorrect about. However, in this day and age, when people are genuinely poor and underprivileged, my bullshit detector goes nuts when someone who meets this profile claims to be poor. It's not like I'm calling anyone a rich kid, spoiled or anything - I'd never be so bold. I'm just saying 95% of the world could only be so lucky to be so poor.

You don't even know me, or know anything about me, other than what I choose to tell you. Shove your sanctimonious attitude up your ass. Me and my family have struggled in the past, and are still, but no, I'd have to give you point by point information for you to understand even the middle class are struggling. No, I'm not destitute, but I don't pick and choose who is worthy to be helped, like you do. Like you give a shit about the middle class. You only give a shit as long as it makes you look good.

If you want to have a decent discussion, don't fucking resort to an attack, stay on topic.

Rick Reuben wrote:
I guarantee someone's going to post, "Well, what next, are you going to let an issue like slavery be decided on a state by state basis?" Save your breath. Slavery is done in America so come up with a better argument against state's rights over abortion.

Also, the 13th Amendment clearly bans slavery, and the constitution trumps all state laws.

While were on the constitution, lets bring out the 10th Amendment...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

Its extremely clear to me what they mean by this. The powers not granted in Article 1, section 8 of the constitution which tells congress what they can do, are left up to the states to decide.

Why would the founders set it up this way with a weak federal government and strong states rights?

Well, it goes along with what Bob was saying. The federal government creating one-size-fits-all laws legislating from a distance is only going to cause us inefficiency and tyranny. How could they possibly know what works best for all 50 states with one law, rather than having the representatives in each state work with the state's people and come to a consensus. It brings politics back to the local level, and not so far away from the people. They were worried that the federal government would be too powerful, stepping over individual and states rights with the drop of a hat.

Patriot Act? National ID card? The founders are doing spins in their grave as we speak.