Actually, if the Democratic majority stayed in place, a lot of laws contrary to Libertarian philosophy would be passed, and a few of them would override Ron Paul's Presidential veto.While I suspect Ron Paul has a certain level of common sense, I don't believe he could do a good job with the presidential powers he would have if elected. Many things that are a problem, like corrupted political removals and appointments in the DOJ, wouldn't even register on his radar. I'm not sure if his withdrawal from Afghanistan would be such a good thing if it resulted in Pakistan's overthrow in four years and the eventual spread of nukes to 3rd world nations and terrorist groups.It would be COMICAL to see the US in a literal Great Depression as Paul tried to dismantle the Fed and Treasury's role in regulating the economy, even if it did do some good in the LONG run. Paul would make Carter look like a Presidential genius.
Why do you have to paint all Ron Paul supporters with the same brush? Are you too stupid to judge people as individuals? Since you think you're so smart, I'll ask you a few questions.1. Why does the US have military bases in over 130 countries?2. Why did Obama support the banker bailout in 2008? Is this because Goldman Sachs has influence over his administration?3. Is the value of the US dollar the same now as it was in 1913?I dare you to go on dailypaul.com and try to have an intellectual discussion. You won't get people to take you seriously by name calling.
@jpate86 very well. one that disagrees with you and with the idea that USSR collapsed because they tried to match the US military pending is Gorbachev himself. You can easily find recent and older interviews with him talking at length about it. Former CIA officers that worked on the USSR division seem to disagree with you as well. "It is not out of the question that actual expenditures were 10 times this single line item." It sounds like the same line the CIA used to convince Reagan to spend on useless weapons systems: "because we can't see Russians' weapons it means they exist, are very powerful and they concealed them really well so we have to spend 10 times more to get the advantage". @netantdid you forget "/s"?
Maybe we're actually knowledgable about the history of economics, rather than buying the socialist fearmongering about free markets.Regulations are bad for the economy, and particularly for small companies. For example, Sarbanes Oxley has been devastating to small business creation."Washington Is Killing Silicon Valley"<a class="user" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990472028925207.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990472028925207 ...</a>The new laws and regulations have neither prevented frauds nor instituted fairness. But they have managed to kill the creation of new public companies in the U.S., cripple the venture capital business, and damage entrepreneurship. According to the National Venture Capital Association, in all of 2008 there have been just six companies that have gone public. Compare that with 269 IPOs in 1999, 272 in 1996, and 365 in 1986.Faced with crushing reporting costs if they go public, new companies are instead selling themselves to big, existing corporations. For the last four years it has seemed that every new business plan in Silicon Valley has ended with the statement "And then we sell to Google." The venture capital industry is now underwater, paying out less than it is taking in. Small potential shareholders are denied access to future gains. Power is being ever more centralized in big, established companies.For all of this, we can first thank Sarbanes-Oxley. Cooked up in the wake of accounting scandals earlier this decade, it has essentially killed the creation of new public companies in America, hamstrung the NYSE and Nasdaq (while making the London Stock Exchange rich), and cost U.S. industry more than $200 billion by some estimates.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act#Sarbanes.E2.80.93Oxley_404_and_smaller_public_companies" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxle ...</a>Sarbanes–Oxley 404 and smaller public companiesThe cost of complying with SOX 404 impacts smaller companies disproportionately, as there is a significant fixed cost involved in completing the assessment. For example, during 2004 U.S. companies with revenues exceeding $5 billion spent 0.06% of revenue on SOX compliance, while companies with less than $100 million in revenue spent 2.55%.[32]
I'd like to see the Judge run, too. I don't know if Mr. Woods is famous enough, but I like him. I wonder if Napolitano would do it and run because of fans like us? The smartest ones never seem to want the job.But I still have this fantasy, left over from last time, of ruining Professor Walter Williams' life. Fortunately for him, he's in the "too smart" category, but I was obviously right about America being ready for a black dude to be President even if I didn't know Barak Obama's name at the time. Imagine Williams Napolitano (or Napolitano Williams, I don't care!) if you want my kick ass combination dream ticket. No way the neocons would EVER let that happen, though.
Right, because bureaucrats with oversight for laws governing a smaller, more localized group of people is a terrible idea. So is the public having more direct access to those calling the shots in the public sector./s
What I am looking for is a clone of Thomas Jefferson to reappear:Anti-theist libertarian, more than 200 years ahead of his time.He was the one president above all others I would truly like to have lunch with.
netantDec 6, 2009
Actually, if the Democratic majority stayed in place, a lot of laws contrary to Libertarian philosophy would be passed, and a few of them would override Ron Paul's Presidential veto.While I suspect Ron Paul has a certain level of common sense, I don't believe he could do a good job with the presidential powers he would have if elected. Many things that are a problem, like corrupted political removals and appointments in the DOJ, wouldn't even register on his radar. I'm not sure if his withdrawal from Afghanistan would be such a good thing if it resulted in Pakistan's overthrow in four years and the eventual spread of nukes to 3rd world nations and terrorist groups.It would be COMICAL to see the US in a literal Great Depression as Paul tried to dismantle the Fed and Treasury's role in regulating the economy, even if it did do some good in the LONG run. Paul would make Carter look like a Presidential genius.
rmann0581Dec 6, 2009
Why do you have to paint all Ron Paul supporters with the same brush? Are you too stupid to judge people as individuals? Since you think you're so smart, I'll ask you a few questions.1. Why does the US have military bases in over 130 countries?2. Why did Obama support the banker bailout in 2008? Is this because Goldman Sachs has influence over his administration?3. Is the value of the US dollar the same now as it was in 1913?I dare you to go on dailypaul.com and try to have an intellectual discussion. You won't get people to take you seriously by name calling.
Closed AccountDec 7, 2009
@jpate86 very well. one that disagrees with you and with the idea that USSR collapsed because they tried to match the US military pending is Gorbachev himself. You can easily find recent and older interviews with him talking at length about it. Former CIA officers that worked on the USSR division seem to disagree with you as well. "It is not out of the question that actual expenditures were 10 times this single line item." It sounds like the same line the CIA used to convince Reagan to spend on useless weapons systems: "because we can't see Russians' weapons it means they exist, are very powerful and they concealed them really well so we have to spend 10 times more to get the advantage". @netantdid you forget "/s"?
thecoolestguyDec 7, 2009
Maybe we're actually knowledgable about the history of economics, rather than buying the socialist fearmongering about free markets.Regulations are bad for the economy, and particularly for small companies. For example, Sarbanes Oxley has been devastating to small business creation."Washington Is Killing Silicon Valley"<a class="user" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990472028925207.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990472028925207 ...</a>The new laws and regulations have neither prevented frauds nor instituted fairness. But they have managed to kill the creation of new public companies in the U.S., cripple the venture capital business, and damage entrepreneurship. According to the National Venture Capital Association, in all of 2008 there have been just six companies that have gone public. Compare that with 269 IPOs in 1999, 272 in 1996, and 365 in 1986.Faced with crushing reporting costs if they go public, new companies are instead selling themselves to big, existing corporations. For the last four years it has seemed that every new business plan in Silicon Valley has ended with the statement "And then we sell to Google." The venture capital industry is now underwater, paying out less than it is taking in. Small potential shareholders are denied access to future gains. Power is being ever more centralized in big, established companies.For all of this, we can first thank Sarbanes-Oxley. Cooked up in the wake of accounting scandals earlier this decade, it has essentially killed the creation of new public companies in America, hamstrung the NYSE and Nasdaq (while making the London Stock Exchange rich), and cost U.S. industry more than $200 billion by some estimates.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act#Sarbanes.E2.80.93Oxley_404_and_smaller_public_companies" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxle ...</a>Sarbanes–Oxley 404 and smaller public companiesThe cost of complying with SOX 404 impacts smaller companies disproportionately, as there is a significant fixed cost involved in completing the assessment. For example, during 2004 U.S. companies with revenues exceeding $5 billion spent 0.06% of revenue on SOX compliance, while companies with less than $100 million in revenue spent 2.55%.[32]
govtdoesnotworkDec 7, 2009
I'd like to see the Judge run, too. I don't know if Mr. Woods is famous enough, but I like him. I wonder if Napolitano would do it and run because of fans like us? The smartest ones never seem to want the job.But I still have this fantasy, left over from last time, of ruining Professor Walter Williams' life. Fortunately for him, he's in the "too smart" category, but I was obviously right about America being ready for a black dude to be President even if I didn't know Barak Obama's name at the time. Imagine Williams Napolitano (or Napolitano Williams, I don't care!) if you want my kick ass combination dream ticket. No way the neocons would EVER let that happen, though.
Closed AccountDec 7, 2009
That made it funnerier.
Closed AccountDec 8, 2009
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and take their interpretation over yours, Ayn Rand, and nut job Paul. Good luck with that though.
shauncorleoneDec 23, 2009
Right, because bureaucrats with oversight for laws governing a smaller, more localized group of people is a terrible idea. So is the public having more direct access to those calling the shots in the public sector./s
earthforce1Dec 24, 2009
What I am looking for is a clone of Thomas Jefferson to reappear:Anti-theist libertarian, more than 200 years ahead of his time.He was the one president above all others I would truly like to have lunch with.
Closed AccountDec 24, 2009
@Keagro------so undermining the Constitution by way of socialized anything is ok with you? You leftist deniers have a mental illness.