Except to the people getting abortions, at least

I mean it's not like marijuana or something with people sitting around casually having abortions in their living rooms

Whatever. I don't care. For once in my life, I just don't care about a political issue.

they do because if congress passes a law regarding those issues, ones i'm for or against, he is likely to do the opposite of what i want him to do either way. now, from what i gather of his ideals, he'll likely veto most anything that comes across his desk, but still.

I don't agree with banning religious study in schools. I agree with banning religion in a science classroom, in official government writings/songs/whathaveyou, and on the walls and in the loudspeaker. Prayer time in a public government school is unconstitutional. Teaching religion as a scientific concept in a public government school is unconstitutional. I could go on, but yes, the government does have to be secular in order to be truly separated from religion.

1) to Thrawn - true, but you can have an illegal abortion, which is generally pretty unhygienic and can mess someone up pretty severely. Illegal abortions are absurdly common when abortion is outlawed. I don't know if the stats are the same as in countries where it's legal but that might be what me meant.

Mystico - Jedi kirby is right about monopolies. I kind of stopped reading after a while so you guys might have moved on or something, but they completely undermine the free market system and drive prices up and occasionally quailty down. An ideal situation for a consumer would be a competitive one so that companies must compete in their prices/quality/benefits. Monopolies don't really have any competition, and they either buy out or crush any smaller business that tries to compete (sorry if you guys have moved on)

Stephen Colbert announced his candidacy on the Colbert Report today. I'm voting for him.

But honestly, it's between Ron Paul and Barack Obama for me. I'm a little worried about Obama because he seems to be easily influenced by other candidates. Initially, he came out strongly for pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, but he has slowly given ground to keeping them in for longer than an immediate withdraw.

I like Ron Paul's strict adherence to Constitutional principles. I think it's admirable and I'd love to see the federal government shrink in size. Give more power back to the states and local governments. That said, I worry about the elimination of federal subsidies for education, elimination of the EPA etc.

However, we need to look at the situation realistically. In his first four years of presidency, Ron Paul would not be able to get rid of every bloated government program. We also need to remember that Congress is going to control most of the decisions regarding shrinking the federal government. If the American people don't like what he is doing, we can always vote for somebody else in four year's time. There is no way Ron Paul can mess things up so badly in four years that we can't recover from it. If nothing else, George Bush has proven that. Hell, he's proven that even for an eight year tenure we can still recover from his idiotic policies.

While I don't necessarily agree with Ron Paul's stance on governmental control over environmental concerns, I think we should at least try his approach. We've never had a true free market economy dictating environmental issues. With government subsidies to corn-based ethanol, competition just hasn't been allowed to develop. By eliminating corn-based ethanol subsidies, companies will be encouraged to experiment with more efficient methods of extracting ethanol, such as sugar beets, switchgrass, or (god forbid) hemp.

My point is not that Ron Paul has all the answers, but he has some pretty good ideas which have never been tried and should be given a chance.

Agreed. PC and "FOR THE CHILDREN" would run rampant. I still remember "HillaryCare" back in 1993. Even at the age of...12, that got my blood boiling.

I don't know who to vote for honestly. Not 9/11-Guiliani. Duncan Hunter is a local Congressman here in San Diego. He sounds good. Bill Richardson gains some points because he's not blind to the border situation.

Actually, that's going to be a hot button issue for "border states." Which one of these candidates is actually going to do something about the flow of illegals across the border.

Ric: I'm about as capitalist as they come but lately "free-market" scares me. It's not about companies or large corporations competing with each over to provide good products to the consumers. Lately it's all about mergers and establishing very few very large corporations. Replace "IMPERATOR AVGVSTVS CAESAR," with "Augustus Caesar C.E.O. & Founder of Roman Imperium Inc." and you have today's business model. Conquer, not compete.

Agreed, but I think one of the major reasons for this behavior is that corporations are not only allowed to get away with it, but are provided with laws and policies that encourage such behavior. Allowing a completely unregulated marketplace could shake things up. Sure, there would be a lot of small companies that would be more than willing to be bought up, but there is the potential for independent small businesses that refuse to sell out growing.

I guess the best example I can come up with is Facebook. Started barely three years ago, and already one of the major players on the Internet. Offer something unique in a clean and efficient manner, refuse to sell out, and you can make it big.

And think of the benefits slave labor might provide

(more slave labor than we have now i mean lol)

Wow, for a Constitutionalist, he sure didn't read the constitution on this one! Now here's where you quote that they make no law regarding, etc. If you want to debate the logistics of the framers opinions, we can do that and start citing their personal opinions and their explanations behind the addition of this law and then you'll be wrong, or we can just bypass this entire argument because I know that you don't care about logic and discovering the truth, but assuming the truth based on unscrutinized logic. Yay for not holding your opinions up to the light!

And your citing a single source that absolutely goes against 90% of economist's research and developed ideas is more proof of your belligerent refusal of peer review/

I know this has been covered already, but I think you should know that Vicente Fox pretty much confirmed this.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/08/lkl.01.html



Not that I'm against the idea, I'm just saying that plans for a unified "Amero" currency have been revealed.

he's right, though. there is nothing that actually says separation of curch and state, jus tthat there should be no state church.

[quote=The First Amendment]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]

thats the full text of it.

Obama.

Bros before hos

"Amero"? Come on, the least we could do is have a cool sounding name for our dollar that doesn't sound like a ripoff of the "Euro". Plus then what will the South American Union have? The "Southamero"?

colbert

New favorite.

Aww, looneyface got angry

Just wait until he catches on to me and realized I'm not american either.

Mystic0 actually catching on anything that makes even some sense would be quite a feat, though.

Anyone who has ever taken a business or economics class can tell you that monopolies are bad for consumers and bad for basically everyone that isn't involved in the monopoly. Hell, most people who haven't taken business or econ courses can tell you that.

heres what i think:

monopoly: definately bad... i cant believe i actually heard people saying that a monopoly was no big deal... that it would "work itself out". that is so untrue...

ralph nader: hes right... corparations are evil and little by little theree taking more control... which they already have far too much of to begin with. but ive never heard this guy tell us what he plans to do about it... he just keeps talking about the problems. we need a solution, not more people pointing out the obvious.

ron paul: now this guy has some views on how to FIX the problem... question is will they work, and can he make it happen? i am honestly pretty worried about his religious views... i read alot of the linked stuff and the things that linked out from those and i have to say i think this guy (if he gets into office) will put alot more effort into empowering the church than he will for empowering the economy. less government.. more local control... more guns... church in the schools again.. no abortions or even contraceptives (hinted at, not confirmed).. and that whole thing about government killing cristmas... that sounded like something a church would pass out on your doorstep in december. when i stand back and look at this guy it seems to me he just wants to put the church into power again, and not much else. quote from his own writings (the cristmas document linked earlier by kyle90):



eclipse the state in importance? i dont like that at all...

UN: i dont see them do much good... but the only thing thats really wrong with a worldwide governence keeping countries in check with each other is the fact that nobody can comitt...
pull out? who cares... they have no power anyways.

guliani: im sick of hearing about those damned towers. it sucked, its over, move on.

hillary: ...no

Steven Colbert: hes got my vote. everyone else just seems to be a different shade of evil. at least this guy makes me laugh...
and honestly... i think he makes more valid points than most polititians do. and besides, if my vote is gonna say anything about me... id like it to say that i think there all a big joke.

government: less is more. states need to be in power.

mystic0: balls to the wall crazy, but at least he stands by his beliefs.

Paul isn't talking about outlawing abortion or contraceptives, he's just in favor of leaving it up to the states.

The church would probably be a much better provider of "welfare" than the federal government. Thats could be what he means by "more important."

I think you're just going to go on my ignore list now. You're so disturbing and blinded that it'll just be easier for me to read threads.

I'd just like to quote myself (yes, like a jackass) at this point.

Can someone summarize how Mystic0 has gone crazy? I'm only seeing a person who has thought things out well.

...

He's an Internet Libertarian.

I'm surprised he hasn't quoted Ayn Rand yet.

I don't he's Libertarian. Anarchy is more like it. Libertarians aren't that extreme.

The fact that it cannot work. Libertarianism lies within the bounds of reality. :downs:

And by thought things out, you of course mean he takes every single You Tube video he sees as fact with out bothering to think through them at all?



What's not Communist about Oligarchy?

The fact that the two are totally different and have nothing in common? You have heard of Wikipedia right?

That's the problem, Obi. He's heard of Wikipedia, and now he's informed.

You have no idea what liberty or any of these things mean. Stop wasting your time on stupid website run by paranoid idiots and pick up some history books. Better yet, start with John Locke and then read stuff by Machiavelli, Hobbes and other political thinkers. You spend so much time on this stuff but all you come out with a bunch of stupid buzz words. Read actual books, by the fathers of modern government systems/philosophies. Web sites run by neckbeard bloggers just aren't the same.

And it's anarchy, not "anarchism". I guess you can use it, but it just sounds wrong. I'd go for a different sentence construction /rabbit trail

(Please, Im not bandwagoning. I just wanted to share)
Anarchy is impossible because of the simple fact that it takes a leader/government to start an uprising.

Even if you did get to Anarchy, You would eventually need someone to give you direction.

Anarchy is bad, Immature, and just plain stupid. Why do you think we developed government in the first place?

no, it's all just anarchy

Hey, why do you write like this? No one wants to read e. e. cummings poetry about liberty vectors and other ridiculous phrases that have no explanation of reasoning behind them. Just a heads up, not that your nihilist styling would suggest you care.

How does one get to anarchy without getting "Rid" of the current government? If anything it won't want to lose it's power.

Well, that's kind of what I was getting at--to people who smoke weed it doesn't really matter whether it's legal or not, but with abortion legality can mean the difference between life and death for the mother

I guess I wasn't really clear what I meant

also, lol @ mystic0's nazi-green party

Mystic, what have you read or studied that's taught you such....interesting ideas?

Question about
can you explain how a representative democracy cedes power? and who praytell is it ceding it to? I hope you're not saying the American people, cause most polls will show you that while the government doesn't completly ignore us, it does have a tendancy to conveiently not hear our opinion on certain matters... The Bush/Gore election anyone?

I never understood, correct me if i'm wrong... you think that anarchy is the best form of government (or lack thereof?)

and what source lists "Liberty" along with "Free Will"...

again, correct me if i'm wrong (as I well may be and don't jump me for it or burn me at the stake...I'm Catholic, blame that), but isn't free will a Catholic idea? i thought that Free will was the power that God gave humanity to make their own decisions for their immortal soul... I think you mean "free choice". And with liberty there is an element of free choices, according to you, we keep electing those that are trying to destroy liberty...

and how are they doing that? obviously a good majority of the american population thinks our elected officals are doing something right... in fact they've thought that elections were a good idea since, oh, say 1776?

Where did all this new users come from?
Mirthy, If i may. How did you find this place?