bigdaddy2003;1250142 wrote:Wait, footwedge is a libertarian?

Eh, based on what he's saying here, I doubt it. Anyone who believes in a forced global labor law mandate and calls themselves a Libertarian is akin to someone who believes in a god, but calls himself an atheist.

Footwedge;1250159 wrote:Good luck in finding somewhere else to work.

I made myself a job. Does that count?

Footwedge;1250159 wrote:Millions of college educated and grad school educated people can't find work.

And labor laws which increase the overhead expenses of businesses help this how?

Footwedge;1250159 wrote:That's the point. You have 14.5 percent overall unemployment here....and rising. This article points to the main reason why.

No it doesn't. It points to some anecdote with inflammatory language thrown in for good measure.

Footwedge;1250159 wrote:If you are OK with the outsourcing of American wealth, to countries that enforce 19th Century thinking on their labor, safety and health, then fine. You reap what you sew.

*sow

Also, I'm not okay with the outsourcing of American wealth ... so guess what I want? I want laws that make US companies more competitive globally by REDUCING overhead costs ... it's earth-shattering, I know.

And while you or I might not like the policy other countries have toward their labor, neither you nor I have one single solitary bit of objective authority to say they "should" do it differently. Our views are tainted ... biased. Like it or not, it's true. We have a view of what people "deserve" ... what they're "entitled" to have ... and it is fully and completely based on the fact that we grew up in a country that has told us we deserve those things. There's no objective basis for asserting our sensibilities about labor laws onto other countries. It's the beauty of autonomy. We can't force them to change to fit our standards, but neither can they force us to fit their standards.

Footwedge;1250167 wrote:Where I break ranks with the libertarians is their 2 faced approach regarding free markets at all costs, yet on the other side of their mouths they bash the international bankers for their incredible thievery.

Oh sweet Moses! What Libertarians are you listening to?

The international bankers aren't the problem. Our FEDERAL involvement with them is, particularly when it so often is at the expense of our own economy. THAT is the problem. Not the international bankers themselves. Libertarians don't give a flying fornication what international bankers do with their time, money, and resources. They give one about how WE interact with those bankers.

Footwedge;1250177 wrote:It's not hogwash. If you want the national debt to shrink, if you want less entitlements, if you want to stop the endless printing of money to stop, you want to see the US government to remain solvent, then you better start looking at the general welfare (as worded in the Constitution) of Americans...and ways to put them back to work...in the private sector.

And the easiest way to "put Americans to work?" Not by forcing higher overhead spending on private enterprises. By doing that, you end up with small business owners like me, who would employ people on hourly rates if regulations would let him afford it. Instead, he outsources to other countries ... because the ability to hire cheaper labor is what enables him to hire at all.

Footwedge;1250167 wrote: The reason we are involved in 4 wars now, the reason why the government continues to grow, is so that masses can be fed and clothed in this country.

Eh, no. The reason we are involved in four wars is to line the pockets of those who profit off the wars. The reason our government continues to grow under either party in any branch of Federal government is that it is addicted to power, has the ability to grant itself more power (with our permission), and we have given it that ability over and over again. It's like supplying a crack addict without charging them. Guess what's going to happen. They're going to consume more and more and more as their addiction continues to grow with no obstacle in their way.

Footwedge;1250167 wrote:The growth of the private sector is now in places that circumvent labor laws, health laws, clean water laws, and dignity laws for people that work. In countries where their governments siphon off about 30% of their earnings to "lend" back to America.

Only because it was forced there. It costs money to ship things overseas. It's not an easy transition. In fact, it's a nightmare, so it's not done at the drop of a hat.

believer;1250193 wrote:Apparently you prefer being kicked in the balls.

Anymore, I feel like living under our government, either party in control/power (those words are apt anymore), is like getting kicked in the balls.

sleeper;1250194 wrote:I suppose Footwedge's plan to solve this travesty is to tell other countries that they need to institute labor laws so they can be less competitive in a global marketplace. I'm sure other countries will just do that without any military intervention.

:rolleyes:

I can just hear John Stockton. "Hey, Hakim! You're in the middle of Ramadan? You're fasting? It makes you feel weak sometimes? Well, I'll tell you what. I'm not a Muslim, but I'll fast too, just so we can make sure I don't have any advantage. How does that sound?"

Con_Alma;1250212 wrote:I absolutely can bitch about the national debt even when and if jobs are sent over-seas. They government should only provide for the general welfare of people to the extent of it's own income. Period. It's hogwash that it can't be that way. It can, and I will vote for those who are willing to do so.

This.

Footwedge;1250283 wrote:Nobody like that is running for office. Ron Paul dropped out a long time ago.

Johnson is running for office.

It would take up way too much space to quote both of those posts, but bravo sir. Reps when I get to a computer.

O-Trap;1251634 wrote: I made myself a job. Does that count?

That is the key answer to the problem. I can't fathom how we complain about other countries that want to make products cheap for us. What if Martians flew down and gave everyone a car tree that grows brand new cars from it? Should we tell them to shove it up their ass and try to gun them down? Or accept the new found wealth?

The car companies would be out of business, so I guess the solution is for the government to seize all of the car trees so that we have to buy from Ford and GM, right? How ridiculous is that? Just do something else while everyone enjoys their free cars.

Now it isn't always that easy. Capital isn't as plentiful as it used to be because who really wants to hold assets in U.S. dollars if they don't grow faster than they are devalued. The capital that is left is sucked up to finance the monster federal government. Of course these issues have nothing to do with free trade.

This is fun:

RNC Confirms Ron Paul Will Be Up For Presidential Nomination In Tampa

O-Trap;1251929 wrote:This is fun:

RNC Confirms Ron Paul Will Be Up For Presidential Nomination In Tampa

fart in a windstorm

believer;1251933 wrote:fart in a windstorm

Romney's camp certainly hasn't been treating it that way.

O-Trap;1251978 wrote:Romney's camp certainly hasn't been treating it that way.

That is old. Since then the RNC has stolen the duly elected Paul delegates from several states and told him they would not be seated. The Paul campaign tried challenging their decision, but that is like challenging Stalin in Soviet Russia. They "compromised" by allowing some of the Paul delegates to be seated, but not enough to give Paul the plurality from 5 states that he would need to be nominated from the floor. So no, he will not be nominated from the floor and will not be speaking at the convention. And the RNC will wonder why Romney lost in November after disenfranchising millions of Paul voters.

Looks like I'm moving to Florida. Would love to vote for Ron Paul.

Cleveland Buck;1251999 wrote:That is old. Since then the RNC has stolen the duly elected Paul delegates from several states and told him they would not be seated. The Paul campaign tried challenging their decision, but that is like challenging Stalin in Soviet Russia. They "compromised" by allowing some of the Paul delegates to be seated, but not enough to give Paul the plurality from 5 states that he would need to be nominated from the floor. So no, he will not be nominated from the floor and will not be speaking at the convention. And the RNC will wonder why Romney lost in November after disenfranchising millions of Paul voters.

In all fairness, this is hardly the only opportunity the Romney camp has taken to disenfranchise the Constitutionalist Republicans and/or Libertarians, but it's certainly one of the stronger reasons.

The Romney camp has done virtually everything it can to alienate those two groups, and yet they'll freely place blame on those same groups for not voting for him.

Sorry, but if I punch a guy in the face for seven days in a row, should I blame him for not supporting me on day 8?

If I were Romney I wouldn't want the Paulists to vote for me. Romney doesn't represent their views. It's why t hey are Paulists. They need to go elsewhere and vote for those that represent them.

Con_Alma;1252115 wrote:If I were Romney I wouldn't want the Paulists to vote for me. Romney doesn't represent their views. It's why t hey are Paulists. They need to go elsewhere and vote for those that represent them.

This is rather altruistic of you, and I can appreciate it, but I'm betting Romney thinks he'll have a better chance at winning by appealing to them on similar ground.

His actions seem to have confirmed that. It's a party thing.

Cleveland Buck;1251999 wrote:That is old. Since then the RNC has stolen the duly elected Paul delegates from several states and told him they would not be seated. The Paul campaign tried challenging their decision, but that is like challenging Stalin in Soviet Russia. They "compromised" by allowing some of the Paul delegates to be seated, but not enough to give Paul the plurality from 5 states that he would need to be nominated from the floor. So no, he will not be nominated from the floor and will not be speaking at the convention. And the RNC will wonder why Romney lost in November after disenfranchising millions of Paul voters.

Not a fan of the RNC on many levels, but I'm curious what Romney could possibly do or say to convince millions of Paul voters to vote for him in November anyway.

Also, I gather from several posts on this and other threads that the Republican Party and every idea contained therein is the epitome of hypocritical, spendaholic, tyrannical, big government. Yet Ron Paul sought their nomination for President. I'm curious what he saw in the Republican Party that made him choose to seek that nomination (after leaving the Party and trashing Reagan in the late '80's), or did he have other motives and was he trying to burn the house down from within?

jhay78;1252146 wrote:...
Also, I gather from several posts on this and other threads that the Republican Party and every idea contained therein is the epitome of hypocritical, spendaholic, tyrannical, big government. Yet Ron Paul sought their nomination for President. I'm curious what he saw in the Republican Party that made him choose to seek that nomination (after leaving the Party and trashing Reagan in the late '80's), or did he have other motives and was he trying to burn the house down from within?

Very good post.

I agree. What's he doing there?

jhay78;1252146 wrote:Not a fan of the RNC on many levels, but I'm curious what Romney could possibly do or say to convince millions of Paul voters to vote for him in November anyway.

He would never get all of them, but he could certainly have gotten some of them had he tried to include them in the process and let Ron have a speech.

jhay78;1252146 wrote:Also, I gather from several posts on this and other threads that the Republican Party and every idea contained therein is the epitome of hypocritical, spendaholic, tyrannical, big government. Yet Ron Paul sought their nomination for President. I'm curious what he saw in the Republican Party that made him choose to seek that nomination (after leaving the Party and trashing Reagan in the late '80's), or did he have other motives and was he trying to burn the house down from within?

This is one is easy. The rules set by the two major parties make it impossible for a third party to gain enough traction. They spend the vast majority of their money just getting on ballots, which conveniently leaves them no money to campaign. The Republican party used to hold the same positions Ron does anyway, they just went away from that as they became more liberal and more Wilsonian.

Pretty simple answer jhay. He knew that his message would have a better chance of reaching people. The message has always been the main reason for him to be in politics. Unfortunately when you are outside the two party system you don't have as much opportunity. Not too mention he ran because he wanted to have the Republican party actually represent conservative values and not just lip service.

I will not return to the Republican party until the establishment republicans are gone.

pmoney25;1252208 wrote:... Not too mention he ran because he wanted to have the Republican party actually represent conservative values and not just lip service.

....

Does this include socially conservative? I didn't think he would fight for such things. I thought he had a more libertarian view when it came to social issues.

Con_Alma;1252218 wrote:Does this include socially conservative? I didn't think he would fight for such things. I thought he had a more libertarian view when it came to social issues.

His personal beliefs are very "socially conservative", but none of that supersedes the Constitution, which is why his position is to get the federal government out of those issues. His position is that abortion is murder and should be handled by each state as they see fit as they do with murder. His position is that no one, man or woman, gay or straight, should need federal authorization to get married. Even though he personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman, the federal government does not have the authority to define it that way. He is more libertarian on drug laws and other victimless crimes, for good reason. But still, there is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to deal with those anyway. If you want to know his position on an issue, ask yourself if it is authorized in the Constitution. Very simple. The way it should be.

While most of the points above are valid, the bottom-line in my humble opinion is that Paul ran as an "R" and whether we agree or disagree with why he lost....he still lost.

I think the biggest reason the Romney-ites are hassling the Paulists is not because they're afraid that Paul will win a nomination from the floor (lmao at that anyway), but because Paul lost and refused to bow out and openly back Romney.

He should have manned-up at that point, approached Romney for a possible position of significant influence in the Administration, and begun campaigning for Romney so we all can get the common-goal of getting Barack Hussein Obama out of the White House like all the other "R" candidates.

believer;1252429 wrote:... like all the other "R" candidates.

Problem is, the the conventional "other 'R' candidates" are part of the problem to the majority of Constitutional 'Pubs and Libertarians, and if he was to back Romney, it would have almost no effect, since a good portion of C. 'Pubs and Libertarians follow him based on his message and not his person or political affiliation. For him to back Romney would be to undercut the very reason most people follow him. As such, backing Romney doesn't really do anything FOR Romney.

His mission has been an attempt to adjust the party to a more holistically conservative platform, and that being the goal, him "falling in line" and proverbially doing what he is "supposed to do" wasn't going to help anything. Honestly, the last thing we need is for politicians just doing what politicians are traditionally "supposed" to do.

Finally, I don't think there is such thing as a "Romney-ite." Those who vote for him tolerate him, but I've never met someone who actively follows him.

O-Trap;1252432 wrote:Also, I don't think there is such thing as a "Romney-ite." Those who vote for him tolerate him, but I've never met someone who actively follows him.

Fair enough....I'll concede the Repub establishment then.

believer;1252433 wrote:Fair enough....I'll concede the Repub establishment then.

And it makes sense. Right or wrong, the DNC and RNC have basically become a time to unify the party and jump-start a campaign. It's a pretty key moment in a campaign, so it's understandable you want to control the message and topics. Ron Paul had the primaries and debates to get his message out. Now I'm not saying that he would be a distraction or his comments not relevant, but he had his time and this is not it.

gut;1252436 wrote:And it makes sense. Right or wrong, the DNC and RNC have basically become a time to unify the party and jump-start a campaign. It's a pretty key moment in a campaign, so it's understandable you want to control the message and topics. Ron Paul had the primaries and debates to get his message out. Now I'm not saying that he would be a distraction or his comments not relevant, but he had his time and this is not it.

agreed

O-Trap;1252432 wrote: For him to back Romney would be to undercut the very reason most people follow him. As such, backing Romney doesn't really do anything FOR Romney.

His mission has been an attempt to adjust the party to a more holistically conservative platform, and that being the goal, him "falling in line" and proverbially doing what he is "supposed to do" wasn't going to help anything. Honestly, the last thing we need is for politicians just doing what politicians are traditionally "supposed" to do.

Ron Paul could support or endorse a candidate with whom he disagrees as a strategic move to influence the party in a certain direction. And he could do so without compromising his principles. This was Rand Paul's point about the mess of politics.

gut;1252436 wrote:And it makes sense. Right or wrong, the DNC and RNC have basically become a time to unify the party and jump-start a campaign. It's a pretty key moment in a campaign, so it's understandable you want to control the message and topics. Ron Paul had the primaries and debates to get his message out. Now I'm not saying that he would be a distraction or his comments not relevant, but he had his time and this is not it.

I wouldn't mind a Ron Paul speech at the convention- there are some things the party absolutely needs to hear. But I wouldn't be inclined to allow one without his endorsing the candidate. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of the convention (assuming one individual had the nomination locked up).

I wonder if he was offered a speaking slot in return for an endorsment, and he turned it down.

jhay78;1252647 wrote: I wouldn't mind a Ron Paul speech at the convention- there are some things the party absolutely needs to hear. But I wouldn't be inclined to allow one without his endorsing the candidate. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of the convention (assuming one individual had the nomination locked up).

I wonder if he was offered a speaking slot in return for an endorsment, and he turned it down.

I'd like to hear him speak, too. Also, I thought he already endorsed Romney. I know his son did, but maybe I'm mistaken and Ron hasn't. But to the other point, he's been in Congress how long now? And he had the primaries and debates. He's been heard, even if no one is listening to him.