Printable View
the religious far Right of the TEA Party backed Santorum....in order for the TEA Party to get the power they once had they need to not use SP as their front person and get back to what helped them sweep the House in 2010...they also need to take a look at some of the whack jobs that they allowed to wrap themselves in their banner..i.e. Angle and O'Donnell....even that idiot with the big mouth in Missouri let a slam dunk victory against McCaskill get awayQuote:
Originally Posted by Franco
Me and Elvis are making plans to be at the fall Grand!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by JDogger
Our goal is to make it thru 2 days................
Thanks for one of the most honest posts I have seen on this forum. Having a dedicated liberal(her words not mine) for a sister who I dearly love, I have tried to understand why, given the failure of nearly all socialist countries in raising the overall standard of living for its people, one would advocate such a system.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDogger
As for libertian views, don't take Franco or Ron, as the standard for a libertarian. John Stossel and Milton Friedman are much better examples. For me, individual freedom is the most cherished right of all. For time immemorial, minorities have pulled up stakes to achieve it.
I have always said that "show me a problem that the people disire the gov. to solve, and I will show you a problem that the gov. created". I look forward to your future posts hoping that you provide justification for socialist views.
Ron is the reason for the resurgence of the Libertarian Party! Ron is the reason why today's Libertarian Party is dominated by the under 40 year olds, xRepubs and xDems, white, black, Hispanic, Asian and active Military! Had Ron broken his word and run as a Libertarian instead of Johnson, he would have received 12-15 million votes in the election! Ron is the reason why the Libertarian Party is organizing in all 50 states! Ron has defined the Libertarian Party and that is why they pay so much tribute to the man! You obviously have never read the paltform on issues at lp.org.Quote:
Originally Posted by caryalsobrook
I love Stossel, Friedman, Yuron Brooks, Judge Napalitano and have quoted them often on RTF. All but Friedman are RP deciples. Though RP has retired from Congress he is busy speaking for Libertarian candidates all across the country. So, to say you don't care for RP's Libertarian views makes zero sense be cause the man defines Libertarian!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...arian-problem/
Calm down Franco. I never said that RP or you did not hold many libertarian views. When I said not to hold you or RP as the standard, I meant that both of you hold views that are opposed to libertarian views, more so than Stossel and Friedman. Two examples concerning RP; Advocating the Gold standard, Fact is that Friedman never has argued such a policy. In fact he argued that the FED should grow the money supply at a rate reasonable with a growing economy and avoid using monetary policy in an attempt to affect recessions. His reasoning is that the FED invariably makes either the wrong decision or the right decision at the wrong time. A second example was RP criticizing herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan as being "regressive" because of the consumption tax portion. It would take an idiot for one to believe that an income tax has been a workable tax and is not a total failure. Progressive tax, Flat tax, any name or tweak to it and it still is a failure. How can anyone believe 70,000 pages of tax code with the IRS adding about 200 pages more just to accomodate Obamacare, is not a total failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco
Many times you have advocated more regulation of Wall Street when libertarians would argue less. As milton Friedman said many times, your freedoms go only as far as someone else's nose. Buyer beware. You don't like then stay away from Wall street. You don't like insider trading, then don't do business on Wall Street. Let the market take care of the problem. You cannot protect stupidity with regulation.
Both you and RP have many libetarian views which I respect. I would happily voe for either of you for president before I would even vote for the man that occupies the office as a dog catcher. I have more respect for the dogs. I will quote my favorite line. Gov. is not, has not ever been, nor will ever be in the business of charity. It is in the business of rules, regulation, taxes, dependence and control. Libertarians believe in the vey minimum of all these.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco
HaHaHa!!! Ron Paul is such a Staunch Libertarian that he spent how many years in congress in the libertarian party?
Well, RP is for zero Personal Federal Income Tax. That if we stuck with The Constituition we wouldn't need to pay for all these crazy programs and expenditures that Congress comes up with in their attemps to buy votes with the tax payers money.Quote:
Originally Posted by caryalsobrook
When a system is based on Crony Capitalism then we have to have regulations. However, RP and I are for Free Markets/Trade and real Capitalism and not what we have now where Lobbyist buy support/influence on The Hill in circumventing Free Markets and real Capitalism.
Liberty, Free Markets & Peace regards,
P S
If we still had the Gold Standard, we wouldn't be 16 TRILLION in debt and growing. Congress wouldn't have the power for their wild spending of fiat money.
Franco, rules and regulations CREATED Crony Capitalism. Making more rules and regulation only begets MORE CRONY CAPITALISM!!!!! That, I think you fail to see. On this issue, you fall into the same catagory as the liberal, created by the gov. with a solution by the gov. for the problem that they created. Bad logic and definitely not libertarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco
As for the Gold Standard, why do you think that it would limit deficit spending? Have you consideered that the gov. would just raise the price of gold and still print more money?? Furthermore, when we had the gold standard, US citizens were not allowed to own gold except for jewelry ect. Only the gov. was allowed to own gold. You call that a libertarian view.
Even Buzz sort agreed with a consupmtion tax as opposed to an income tax, probably because he recognizes that the income tax is a totally failed system.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? ;-) How about we try Capitalism since we have never had it.Quote:
Originally Posted by caryalsobrook
As I wrote earlier either on this thread or the one on the Fiscal Cliff, we need a Balanced Budget Amendment. That with the Gold Standard would be fiscal sanity because then our money would mean something. The big problem now is that the Fed Reserve is trying to determine the value of the dollar. Which it shouldn't.
I am all for individuals owning gold, never said otherwise. Price of gold is determined globally and not by Congress. Yes, a consumption tax would be better than what we currently have yet, no Personal Federal Taxes or at least rates below 5% would be more inline with the ideals this country was founded on.
Franco, with all due respect, what you fail to understand along with a myriad of others, except the "incremental secular progressives," is that the war is won over time in "increments.":cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco
The progressives understand that and eventually they will win.
There is no way or no one that can step in and make the sweeping changes so many cry for.
Not gonna happen.
We had a chance to take an incremental step back in the right direction.
People on the nipple, taking hand outs they truly don't need are now addicted.
You know, "c'mon Franco, it's just food stamps, it's OK, everybody is doing it!!"
Now your hooked.
To get off this addiction, the addicted have to hit rock bottom.
I thought we were there, but evidently this is gonna get worse before we can address it.
You know, Rock Bottom!
If that ever happens.
People seem all to quick to give away their dignity, independence and freedoms today.
And they rationalize it by someone elses bad behavior!!
Later dude.........