Speaking of Goldbugs...

sudden valley gunner · May 22, 2011

Daylen said:
Without having congress on board all he can do is say no to new things. That is only a temporary reprieve. At worst if he doesn't even sign a budget because it has unconstitutional things in it he could damage the public's view of libertarians. I think he's doing fine as it is being a congressman and using the run for president to get attention.

Oh no he can do a lot more than that. Presidents have taken upon themselves more and more power in the form of Czars, commissions and executive powers, (most of these unconstitutional) as president he can put an end to most that.

Daylen · May 22, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
Oh no he can do a lot more than that. Presidents have taken upon themselves more and more power in the form of Czars, commissions and executive powers, (most of these unconstitutional) as president he can put an end to most that.

Yes, he can give up power. Without a true sea change though it would be meaningless. Ron Paul is not a sea changer. I say this with confidence because I am a libertarian and agree with the substance of much of what he says, yet I hate his guts at times because of some of what he says.

sudden valley gunner · May 22, 2011

Daylen said:
Yes, he can give up power. Without a true sea change though it would be meaningless. Ron Paul is not a sea changer. I say this with confidence because I am a libertarian and agree with the substance of much of what he says, yet I hate his guts at times because of some of what he says.

I never consider my self a member of any party always despised party politics, I find libertarians most appealing. And I know what you say I disagree with some things he says but compared to all the other folks running I'd rather see him setting a closer example to what a president should do, than the continuing the ever more despotic grab for power that has occurred, especially with our last president and our current one.

Citizen · May 22, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
SNIP...the continuing the ever more despotic grab for power that has occurred, especially with our last president and our current one.

Oh, for the days when a president wasted his power-grabbing opportunities getting oral sex in the Oval Office.

Daylen · May 22, 2011

Citizen said:
Oh, for the days when a president wasted his power-grabbing opportunities getting oral sex in the Oval Office.

and helping china get our nuclear bomb technology...

PrayingForWar · May 23, 2011

Gold, silver coins to be legal currency in Utah

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-05-22-15-23-20

SNIP:

Opponents of the law warn such a policy shift nationwide could increase the prospect of inflation and could destabilize international markets by removing the government's flexibility to quickly adjust currency prices.

"We'd be going backward in financial development," said Carlos Sanchez, director of Commodities Management for The CPM Group in New York. "What backs currency is confidence in a government's ability to pay debt, its government system and its economy."

These sound like reasonable arguements against going back to a gold standard, and what I got from the article was that the law is pretty much pointless if people don't make any real changes on their own.

PrayingForWar · May 23, 2011

Citizen said:
Oh, for the days when a president wasted his power-grabbing opportunities getting oral sex in the Oval Office.

As much as I hate to say it, I'd swap obozo for slick willie in a second. Bill may have been a bed wetting liberal and a pervert, but I never got the impression he held the country in contempt. Just those of us who had weapons.

PrayingForWar · May 23, 2011

Daylen said:
He is not a serious presidential contender. The issues he talks about he could not even start to effect as president. Yes he can set agendas and such, but he would be a complete lame duck. With him as president the best one could say is some things wouldnt get worse while he is in. After one term though I predict the constant attacks from the republican establishment and the left would cause his defeat and election of a terrible leftie. Why he makes such statements is exactly to get people thinking and talking about them I surmise. If people talk about it and he pushes from his position in congress there is more of a chance of something being done.

I've seen RP in a few interviews and soundbytes that were really impressive. I've also heard him say things I think are totally ridiculous. I'm sticking with Herman Cain for the time being. I don't think I've heard him say anything I would find objectionable. I did see him this weekend seem to fumble the Israel issue, but he didn't say anything stupid.

Though whoever gets the nod, unless they're a RINO like Romney or Christie, they'll get my vote.

Daylen · May 23, 2011

deleted

Daylen · May 23, 2011

PrayingForWar said:
I've seen RP in a few interviews and soundbytes that were really impressive. I've also heard him say things I think are totally ridiculous. I'm sticking with Herman Cain for the time being. I don't think I've heard him say anything I would find objectionable. I did see him this weekend seem to fumble the Israel issue, but he didn't say anything stupid.

Though whoever gets the nod, unless they're a RINO like Romney or Christie, they'll get my vote.

I found the ending to his recent speech highly offensive. I thought he might be ok from the debate, but after ending in a "free at last" I'll not vote for him. Free again would have been fine, but the notion that him being elected would be the first time the nation is free is preposterous. Before 86' US citizens could apply for and build or purchase a machine gun with ATF approval, now we can't. Before 68' US citizens could purchase any non NFA firearm from a hardware store or mail order, now we can't. Before 34' US citizens could purchase by mail order with no special tax, permission or registration any weapon including machine guns, now we can't. I don't care to have another person as president that tries to position themselves as a savior.

marshaul · May 23, 2011

I think I'm gonna vote for Gary Johnson in the primary. Unless RP seems the better bet.

Frankly, either one would be better than the rest, including Herman Cain.

Virginia is an open primary state, so the primary vote is a no-brainer.

As to the actual election, I will NOT vote for a power party unless the candidate is something better than a "lesser of two evils". So far, Johnson and Paul are the only candidates who could secure (my first ever) Republican vote.

The comments about Clinton really reminded me exactly how dangerous this "lesser of two evils" mentality really is. It plays right into "their" hands. And how far we have fallen in such a short time!

PrayingForWar · May 23, 2011

marshaul said:
I think I'm gonna vote for Gary Johnson in the primary. Unless RP seems the better bet.

Frankly, either one would be better than the rest, including Herman Cain.

Virginia is an open primary state, so the primary vote is a no-brainer.

As to the actual election, I will NOT vote for a power party unless the candidate is something better than a "lesser of two evils". So far, Johnson and Paul are the only candidates who could secure (my first ever) Republican vote.

The comments about Clinton really reminded me exactly how dangerous this "lesser of two evils" mentality really is. It plays right into "their" hands. And how far we have fallen in such a short time!

I'm not sure how a "lesser of two evils" discussion is relevant here, since the Clinton comments were obviously in jest.

What I cannot grasp at all, coming from such an eloquent poster with an elaborate vocabulary, is how Gary Johnson could even be considered as a choice after witnessing his his embarrasing performance in the debate. The man looked clueless, and after I thought he might have something worth hearing he punted the football on the first down. RP and Cain (especially Cain) stole the show. Pawlenty and Santorum were the 2 token white guys who've been doing this $hit for 10 years or more and still look good too women.

I don't know what we'll end up with in the primary, but if it's Cain vs. Romney or the like we could do a LOT WORSE.

marshaul · May 24, 2011

After the farce they made of the debates last time around, I didn't waste my time.

I can debate for myself. I can decide things for myself. What I want is someone representative of my conclusions, even approximately.

Very few candidates can come close to that.

Romney makes me sick.

PrayingForWar · May 24, 2011

marshaul said:
After the farce they made of the debates last time around, I didn't waste my time.

I can debate for myself. I can decide things for myself. What I want is someone representative of my conclusions, even approximately.

Very few candidates can come close to that.

Romney makes me sick.

Debates are pretty hokey, I'll give you that. Though sometimes they give insight to a candidates competence. FOX shot themselves in the foot by not allowing RP to join the debate in 2008. He certainly would have added a better element. It was nice to see him and Cain in the recent one. If the republican party has any hope of being what it is supposed to be, they'll be the last two nominees in the primary since everyone else (except Johnson, but I think he's not a valid contender) in there so far doesn't impress me. I'd love to see what would happen if Palin and Bachman ended up on the ticket together. The left would lose (whatever part of their anatomy constitues) their "minds".

Citizen · May 25, 2011

PrayingForWar said:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-05-22-15-23-20

Opponents of the law warn such a policy shift nationwide could increase the prospect of inflation and could destabilize international markets by removing the government's flexibility to quickly adjust currency prices.

"We'd be going backward in financial development," said Carlos Sanchez, director of Commodities Management for The CPM Group in New York. "What backs currency is confidence in a government's ability to pay debt, its government system and its economy."

Click to expand...

SNIP:

These sound like reasonable arguements against going back to a gold standard, and what I got from the article was that the law is pretty much pointless if people don't make any real changes on their own.

Oh, yes. Sounds very reasonable, as intended.

He's saying is that confidence in the existing system is what backs the currency. Which essentially is wide open to government and banking manipulation, thus our current disastrous situation. He's advocating for continuing the manipulability of the fiat currency, which is essentially how we got here in the first place.

I gotta wonder what's in it for him to continue the status quo.

Speaking of Goldbugs...

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Daylen

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

Daylen

Regular Member

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

Daylen

Regular Member

Daylen

Regular Member

marshaul

Campaign Veteran

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

marshaul

Campaign Veteran

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member