The US leaving the UN would basicly tear away any authority it ever had.
i don't see that as being good...

exactly.

edit: dammit, TE, I was talking to mystic. now you've made me look like an idiot.

Motherflexor, I agree with Mystic.

I'm still going to ignore you.

O CANADA! **** YEAH!

The problem is the UN has no authority ANYWAY, and we don't go through the UN when we do things.

Afghanistan, Iraq, and maybe Iran? The will all be US-led, not UN.

I was talking to my boss the other day, and I think the US should get the hell out of Afghanistan/Iraq/stay out of Iran. Which isn't to say we should just evac immediately, but our forces should be replaced with a UN controlled force.

That's what the UN is supposed to be there for.

I like seeing this shift back into isolation. It's shiftastic.

I love the spread. While we argue a lot, Massassi tends to be well educated. The two best candidates in both tents are our top candidates, despite the fact that Mr. 9/11 and Mrs. Save The Children are the public front runners.

I think you mean "Mrs. Freedom Hater"

Either Obama or Ron Paul. I like that Ron Paul is a little more libertarian, but the pure laissez-faire style of economics that libertarians embrace is really, really naive. Not that our economy would change to that necessarily, but still.

Ron Paul probably won't get much done if he becomes president of the US, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing in my book. Shutting down the FBI because of 9/11 seems pretty short sighted (like the Soviets who would kill an officer after one little mistake, precluding any chance for him to learn from said mistake, as well as eliminating any past experience or qualifications the officer had). The one thing Ron Paul would do is make Americans aware of that old piece of paper called The Constitution. He would remind Washington of how the US was designed to be run - only doing what is specifically allowed by the constitution and leaving everything else up to the states.

True, but when you vote for a politician, you're also voting for their politics

And that's why I would be very happy to see him in office despite his extremist, and as Emon said, naive views. He would set a very positive light for the politics for the following 4 years, which is arguably the most important role of the president. The ability to push the Constitution will seriously enable our people to make change.

Where I think Obama can provide better change itself towards better government services. They both work in different directions, but I think either direction is a good one.

Because expecting businesses to play fair and thinking the free market can stop a monopoly is :downs:

... um, yes.

So what's to stop a monopoly forming, if not the government? The power of the free market? Hahahaha, right.

I maintain my firm support for Alf

Because most monopolies don't play fair. It's hardly unheard of for corporations to use immoral and illegal practices to squish any uprising competition, and get away with it. The free market loses here because it appears to put faith in people (hahaha).

Monopolies are okay if they are completely legitimate. I should have clarified that. Google I consider a legitimate monopoly, but not say, De Beers.

McCain.

Why do you all humor Mystic when you know he's gone crazy?

djwguitarman is anti-semitic

A monopoly tends to over cut a product because people will buy it because there's no competing product. What the ]-[ellequin are you talking about?

Wait, I'm trying to reason with MYSTIC. Cancel this post.

omigosh! Someone with a different opinion! Question his integrity and if we don't like his response, shun him!

Wow... black men as president for the win. I kinda feel sorry for those who got no votes though.

Oh, and I hope Hillary explodes.

The difference being that McCain has had numbers in the hundreds of times greater than paul.

Kak H Kedri, I need to stop rationalizing with you.

... that's not correct, though... That's directly unsupported by economics. It's a, you know, lie.

That would depend on what the definition of "is" is.

Monopolies are free to price products far above their market value because there essentially ISN'T a market if you're the only provider. This is less prevalent in more obscure or less necessary products, but when it comes to operating systems, television, car manufacturers, oil producers, and providers of socially essential products, their ability to price fix is absolutely uninhibited due to the lack of market policing.

But please, quote an incorrect "fact" about economy again. That'll convince me that monopolies mean cheaper products. That's only true if the government controls the monopoly themselves, and that's only acceptable in few cases.

Are you daft? Monopolies DO NOT erode to competition. That's why they're a MONOPOLY. They buy out companies that grow large enough to contest them. They make it impossible for a small company to compete with them. The only way to take out a monopoly is with an equally strong company magically popping up, or transitioning from a different market. Then you've got an oligopoly, which is even worse. Several companies who all price fix and agree upon a price fix in order to squelch competition, make as much money as possible, and adhere to different niches as to avoid competing with eachother. It's only solvable by government.

Ralph Motherflirbing Nader is your source? We're done debating.

This bullspe has been disprove in so many markets it's unfathomable. Absolutely Free market doesn't work.

I completely agree with that point, but the fact that there are no proper checks on government's maintenance of economy doesn't mean government regulation in itself is bad. We need reform, not lack of regulation.

I voted for Hilary, Just cause she got a middle name.

*cough*

http://www.lp.org/

*cough*

I think that phasing out the IRS, although sounding extreme, looks like it could work on paper... of course that's on paper.

Ron Paul for being the strongest proponent of states' rights, fiscal conservatism (did the GOP forget this core value?), and strict interpretation of the Constitution as well as his integrity as demonstrated by voting record. He often quotes history, displaying a broad knowledge. Also, he derives many of his principles from the Constitution and adeptly applies it to deal with concerns of the day: property rights to support the environment as opposed to overbearing regulation, individualism to fight racism as opposed to collectivism in the mindsets of both bigots and many civil rights leaders, etc. Most other candidates are products of party machinery, especially the front runners on both sides. As the American people sense, this candidate knows the federal government is an overgrown incompetent bureacracy that needs to be curbed to focus and resolve truly national issues like immigration instead of giving monolithic answers to complex problems, best solved at local levels.

Oh, and for those who have these crazy fears about how he is going to tear down government, REMEMBER THAT STATES GOVERN TOO. Ron Paul wants a reasonable transition from federal to state authorities or to remove federal involvement completely in some issues, such as subsidies to energy companies and agriculture.

Here's why Ron Paul sucks: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

"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."

Here's some more of his crazy policies: http://www.brokenlibrarian.org/ronpaul/policies.html

Oh but he's the candidate of choice for white supremacists so there's that to consider.

Also read his "we the people" act if you don't already think he's nuts.

i'm not afraid of religion. i am afraid of other people pushing their crap on my hypothetical children.

... yes. That's the spooking point.

Please point out the crazy in the sources you bring up instead of blanketing his entire campaign platform as nonsense. For instance, is the following quote from that source truly crazy?



Run for the hills!

i never said i discredit ron paul. in fact, if it werent for his stances on abortion and gay marriage, i'd vote for him. i'm all for smaller government.

His stance on abortion bothered me, too, until I realized abortion is a non-issue. There is almost no change in the rate of abortion between countries that ban it and those that don't. Non-issue.