digg

Yeah - having two guys with integrity in Washington sounds unlikely.

I said we were "SURE to have a great next president" -- I did not say we'd have a great government. Getting someone competent in office is only the first step.

I cringe when I see you refer to Paul's "pro-business" domestic policy. You mustn't be referring to monetary policy, nor IRS, Social Security, limiting subsidies, or cutting military spending. I guess you must either be talking about environmental policy, where Paul wants to limit the role of the EPA, or possibly his stance on net neutrality. What you're not considering is the extremely poor performance of the EPA under the Bush administration, which raises a very serious question about the wisdom of centralizing its authority in a single place like this, instead of decentralizing their authority to state agencies, who will be able to withstand even the most corrupt federal administrations. Same with net neutrality; do you really want our congresscritters, in the pockets of large telecom, and completely clueless about technology, voting on internet regulation? At least if we give states a shot at the problem, one or two might even stumble upon a solution that actually works for our benefit. Minimizing federal power sometimes helps ensure that our domestic infrastructure won't be so vulnerable to a corrupt presidency or national congress. I've always voted for progressives in the past, but in this case, some libertarian redress at the federal level is just what our government needs.

Look, Paul's policies may look pro-corporate on paper but believe me: no corporations would want Paul as president. His deregulation would spur competition, something companies hate. Subsidies would end and they'd have to *GASP* make actual profits. Why do you think all the big companies are backing democrats with their strict regulations? A kind heart?...

They are the same party. Your theory only works if you actually put different opinions in there. Like Free Labor from Lincoln days.

I find the idea of a Paul/Kucinich ticket ridiculous, except that either of them ought to pick and even more fringe running mate to make assassination less likely.

"Why did we stop doing this, again?" If you are actually an IT professional, you should be able to find this on the Internet and if you are not, they will cover it in your US history course when you get into HS. The simple answer (because it seems you like the idea of a kucinich / paul ticket and thus are incapable of going deeper) is that it simply did not work in practice (e.g., see the Jefferson - Adams feud).

We stopped doing it because it made it hard for the executive branch to get anything done.

@mu0p

I thought the VP had no real power as far as laws go? Wouldn't there just be constant conflict in a Paul/Kucinich office?

Paul should run with Kucinich's wife...

In any society with corruption, government can't work. That's why I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist: nobody gains enough power to be corrupt enough to affect you. Don't like your government? Get a new policy.

That is something i can get with.

Because economic policies fall somewhere in between.

Anyone running on anti-war today has balls and is honest, because all the other candidates know if they ran with that, and then didn't go with what they promised, dissent will form nationally and a coup will begin. Even if they do change their mind during their campaign about the war, they will lose all credibility as a candidate, because they have lacked a serious background in that issue.

It sucks that when anyone mentions socialism/communism, everyone automatically thinks of the USSR =/.

Or thinks of China, Cuba, Laos, Turkmenistan, North Korea.

Gee. Why doesn't everyone want to jump on that train?

@airburst:
I don't think of authoritarian communist dictatorships, I think higher taxes funding inefficient government bureaucracy, which limits growth and encourages unemployment, like in Europe.

The only thing is today, YOU are the terrorist threat.

We at least had a govt. system to label in the cold war, but today ANYBODY could be the problem; me, you, cities, religions.

Some people, like me, associate unrestrained capitalism with robber-baron like feudalism, and life in the dark ages. Why can't citizens agree, as a group, to take care of each other and therefore prevent socially destabilizing disparities in wealth?

Capitalism creates a stratified society where a few accumulate a lot of power and resources, and the rest suffer at their hands. Once a powerful over-class is able to oppress an under-class, there's a good chance that society is headed towards a violent revolt. The revolutionaries slaughter the rich, put the most violent and ignorant of the poor in power, and the process repeats itself again a few generations later.

I'm not naive enough to think that either pure capitalism or pure socialism are panaceas. Rather, a managed economy with good safety nets on both ends, preventing people from becoming desperately destitute, and preventing people from becoming disparately wealthy and powerful, is probably the best we can hope for.

the sad thing is it shouldn't matter.

Iconoclast you inbred right-wing loon,***** off back to stormfront little extremist right-wing bastard.