Don't be hating the homeschooling now.

I thought Paul looked good last night.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e1_1196307084

McCain is a sad person.

For those interested, semi-confirmed Chomsky opinion on Paul:

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens ... 60941.html

There's a documentary DVD floating around:

http://www.ronpauldvdproject.com/download.php

SergioGeorgini wrote:For those interested, semi-confirmed Chomsky opinion on Paul:

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens ... 60941.html

Thanks for this. Been wanting to hear Chomsky's view for a while now. Without reading the rest of this massive thread, I've obviously got concerns about Ron Paul. His positions seem really strong on some issues (NAFTA, Real ID, the Fed, Iraq... etc.) and he comes off well, but there are two glaring deal breakers I just can't get by: his stance on the environment, and social security.

As I understand it from his website, he isn't FOR hurting the environment, but is generally against regulations and "pay-to-pollute" deals. He options for the protection of private property as a means of controlling environmental damage. So you can sue those who dump chlorine gas in your backyard. His idealism about our judicial system just isn't enough for me. Polluters NEED stiff regulation and I can't support a candidate who doesn't see this.

Also, as Chomsky mentioned, people who are disabled and/or mentally challenged will have no recourse with social security because they did not pay into it. It's not enough to say, "well, we won't leave these people out in the cold." This should be a major issue for any candidate who speaks of "values."

For a rothbardian argument on the enviroment:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123718.html

Yeah, the handicapped issue is a tricky one, but I believe he has said by cutting spending he could put more into funding for those who rely on government support with a ton left over. We'll see. I think his immigration stance is too protectionist for me, and while he makes a compelling case as an ob gyn doctor and being pro life, the arguments of murder do not carry over to abortion. Everything else i'm well in agreement with and don't see someone like that coming around for quite awhile.

Cunningham wrote:Also, as Chomsky mentioned, people who are disabled and/or mentally challenged will have no recourse with social security because they did not pay into it. It's not enough to say, "well, we won't leave these people out in the cold." This should be a major issue for any candidate who speaks of "values."

It's a keystone. Whether or not you can answer that question within your political position expresses whether you think that human rights are automatic for all people or whether or think there is an obligation for an individual to pass first.

Any system where the infirm can only benefit from their position within society, rather than innate human rights for the disabled, smacks of social darwinism above all else.

SergioGeorgini wrote:For a rothbardian argument on the enviroment:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123718.html

Yeah, the handicapped issue is a tricky one, but I believe he has said by cutting spending he could put more into funding for those who rely on government support with a ton left over. We'll see. I think his immigration stance is too protectionist for me, and while he makes a compelling case as an ob gyn doctor and being pro life, the arguments of murder do not carry over to abortion. Everything else i'm well in agreement with and don't see someone like that coming around for quite awhile.

That article was just what I was looking for. The Salon article within is worth reading too. I'm glad that he realizes what a load of bullshit ethanol, as derived from corn, is. At least he comes clean that the environment isn't his issue. Saves me a lot of time trying to figure out if he's my candidate. I just can't support a candidate so weak on the environment, just can't do it.

Well, here we go, this is it:

Paul's funds for the 4th quarter currently stand at $10,352,000 (he also has one month to go, remember?).

Guilaini's funds for the end of the 3rd quarter were $10,258,019, which put him in first place for the GOP.

Paul is expected to raise over $12 million. Hes already in first place (he should be, anyway), and hes only going to do better.

At this point, its going to be literally impossible for the mainstream media to turn a blind eye to him.

This feels really weird, like this never should have happened. It doesn't really make any sense. My only guess is people are so fed up with what theyre getting from government today that theyre willing to support someone as radical as Paul to change everything.

Also, to comment on Paul and the environment, I'm sure he has a stance on it and I know hes mentioned it before, but when youre trying to win the GOP nomination, I'm sure its not very high up on the list. Notice how hes always bringing up abortion/2nd amendment/immigration/no taxes stuff? Its GOP 101.

Does anyone know where I can get The Case For Gold? It's used on Amazon for around $35...is it out of print?