[Napolean]

Anyone else watch this?

Ron Paul did great, got the most applause. You wouldn't know it from the news though.

It's a shame, and actually quite infuriating that Gary Johnson was excluded for the piss poor excuse of "low poll numbers". Meanwhile they had invited Mike Huckabee who isn't even going to run for president, and Michelle Bachman who didn't even announce she was running until after the debate.

[Megalomania]

I'm not really a big fan of any of the candidates, but whichever is chosen will likely be getting my vote regardless. All the media outlets basically said Ron Paul did terrible. I didn't think he was too bad but there's no way he is going to get the nomination. I want to see Rick Perry get in the race though. He seems like someone I could like.

I would have liked to see more debating amongst the candidates and not just taking shots at Obama.

[Warrior]

Unfortunately I was not able to watch it. I've tried to read through a transcript and catch as many clips of it as I can. Hopefully I can watch the whole thing in a few days.

Bachman's announcement was poorly timed and odd, but otherwise, it seems like she did well. I was not impressed by Pawlenty backing down on the health care question. I'm really tired of republican candidates backing down.

[Napolean]

Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not really a big fan of any of the candidates, but whichever is chosen will likely be getting my vote regardless. All the media outlets basically said Ron Paul did terrible. I didn't think he was too bad but there's no way he is going to get the nomination. I want to see Rick Perry get in the race though. He seems like someone I could like. I would have liked to see more debating amongst the candidates and not just taking shots at Obama.

Not a surprise that the MSM painted a bad picture for Ron Paul. Some have noticed though that he was the real winner of the debate (if one can win a debate that is). Theres a few articled talking about how he got 11 rounds of applause, while Romney and Bachman only got 6.

---------- Post added 06-14-2011 at 10:41 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Bachman's announcement was poorly timed and odd, but otherwise, it seems like she did well.

Yeah, the timing didn't really incite a whole lot of "no way really??"'s.

[IslandHead]

I think small government is bad. Yes there shouldn't be a command economy, yes government shouldn't be in anyones personal life, but NO the government should not deregulate things like banking and the stock market, these need to be brought under tighter control. Deregulation allowed the investment banking industry to cause the financial crash. If you know the history of the FDA, in the time of no regulation children's medicine was dissolved in a known poison, the company explicitly stated it did not care about the resulting deaths and was not responsible. This event ushered in the modern day FDA. Deregulation maybe good for some market growth, but it is dangerous for consumers, citizens, and society. So I dislike most of them for their idolization of free market capitalism. In short it is naive to equate short term market growth as beneficial, and disregard possible instability and dangers in other areas. I think the government should be spending more on its people, but a balanced budget currently is the most important objective.

I also think their anti-federalism ideas on laws, taxes, and health care are stupid and outdated. The country is a lot smaller than it used to be and federalism seems to make more sense in the modern age, where one can fly from LA to Newyork in day, buy anything in the country and have it at your house in 24 hours, and work and live in different states.

None of them have a clue about the economy; One of them mentioned 5% growth in GDP, and then said even 10-15% could be obtainable. I don't know much about GDP, but that doesn't make sense for the USA to have such rapid growth in a economic recession. Further more the USA economy is huge, so even an increase of 4-5% is huge! Growth at such an accelerated rate is usually only observed in the immature economies of the developing world.

No talk on education, only talked about cutting spending; I infer they aren't going to maintain or up the education budget. Talk of ending the wars, but no talk about cutting military spending. The war budget has to be cut. The country will die if the war machine isn't turned off.

Ron Paul is a fool, he mentioned just pulling troops out of the middle east in this fragile time with no exist strategy? He wants them to just walk away? IF you know about Charlie Wilson's war, the US just walked away before without rebuilding hospitals and schools and the people they trained and screwed over became Al Qaeda. Why would we want to repeat that?

I disliked how invasive their Christians believes are and how bigoted they were to the LGBT and Muslim communities. If you don't want Shari Law in the USA, then don't but Christian definitions of marriage into law. Further more, their views on abortions are naive; the CDC did a study indicating that abortion rates are constant whether or not the practice was legal or illegal. Ultimately abortion laws control whether it is a coat-hanger or a physician that does the deed, not whether the abortion will take place. Politics and Religion should never mix, because in the end both groups get burned.

A few mentioned tax cuts too.... I think 2-3 thought Bush era tax cuts were good.

GOP didn't raise the debt cap, now Bernanke and the Federal Reserve are pissed. The GOP almost shut down the government right before they assassinated Osama, so the party is currently being the personification of the ideal political dickhead.

I wish the GOP would put forward Condoleezza Rice, I would vote for her (if I was America), but these teabagger are ridiculous. They couldn't even answer the questions 90% of the time and just ranted about random crap.

Further more it was not a debate, but the GOP front runners complaining about Obama. No competition between them was displayed.

[Napolean]

	Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think small government is bad. Yes there shouldn't be a command economy, yes government shouldn't be in anyones personal life, but NO the government should not deregulate things like banking and the stock market, these need to be brought under tighter control. Deregulation allowed the investment banking industry to cause the financial crash.

The biggest contributor to the housing bubble was Fannie Mae, and they are still in business on the tax payers dime.

The federal reserve is a private bank, its not part of the government.

Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you know the history of the FDA, in the time of no regulation children's medicine was dissolved in a known poison, the company explicitly stated it did not care about the resulting deaths and was not responsible. This event ushered in the modern day FDA. Deregulation maybe good for some market growth, but it is dangerous for consumers, citizens, and society. So I dislike most of them for their idolization of free market capitalism. In short it is naive to equate short term market growth as beneficial, and disregard possible instability and dangers in other areas.

Those are very rare instances and any company that is that negligent will not be in business for long. We don't need government to protect us, and to be realistic, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the government should be spending more on its people, but a balanced budget currently is the most important objective. I also think their anti-federalism ideas on laws, taxes, and health care are stupid and outdated. The country is a lot smaller than it used to be and federalism seems to make more sense in the modern age, where one can fly from LA to Newyork in day, buy anything in the country and have it at your house in 24 hours, and work and live in different states.

Size and transportation speed don't have anything to do with any of that.

Health care is expensive because government got involved with it in the first place. Before government got its hands in health care, people could call a doctor and the doctor would actually visit their house to treat them. Medications didn't put a dent in the budget. Health care was affordable, even major operations.

Health care got expensive because government buries the medical profession in red tape to "protect" people from "bad doctors". Meanwhile, we have people dying in waiting rooms because nobody will pay attention to them, all while increasing health care costs every year. Great job government, you're really making an improvement.

Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

None of them have a clue about the economy; One of them mentioned 5% growth in GDP, and then said even 10-15% could be obtainable. I don't know much about GDP, but that doesn't make sense for the USA to have such rapid growth in a economic recession. Further more the USA economy is huge, so even an increase of 4-5% is huge! Growth at such an accelerated rate is usually only observed in the immature economies of the developing world.

A lot of those figures could very well be overly-optimistic. A good start would be for us to start actually producing things here again. But when the tax rates are so high, along with unions taking over and inflating the cost of running a business here even more, its impossible for a company to survive. At least start by cutting the taxes and actually compete with other countries, so that we start seeing more production here. Stop making laws that favor unions over the actually company, so that the company can run itself the way it needs to so it can be profitable.

	Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No talk on education, only talked about cutting spending; I infer they aren't going to maintain or up the education budget.

Because the department of education is a joke, and will always be a joke. The department of education has made the united states the laughing stock of the world when it comes to the most educated. It's no wonder why some of our most successful businesses in this country have been started by drop outs.

	Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Talk of ending the wars, but no talk about cutting military spending. The war budget has to be cut. The country will die if the war machine isn't turned off.

Ending the wars would be cutting the spending.

	Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ron Paul is a fool, he mentioned just pulling troops out of the middle east in this fragile time with no exist strategy? He wants them to just walk away? IF you know about Charlie Wilson's war, the US just walked away before without rebuilding hospitals and schools and the people they trained and screwed over became Al Qaeda. Why would we want to repeat that?

Because it does not matter. We could build circuses and amusement parks too, and it would not matter. We should leave the same way we came, immediately. There isn't a thing that will make those countries like us.

And Charlie Wilson's war was helping Afghanistan fight the russians. You're saying we were supposed to chase the russians out of afghanistan AND repair all the damage the russians did too? And thats why they hate us? We didn't screw anyone over except the russians. We weren't fighting Al Qaeda in that war, we were training them.

Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I disliked how invasive their Christians believes are and how bigoted they were to the LGBT and Muslim communities. If you don't want Shari Law in the USA, then don't but Christian definitions of marriage into law. Further more, their views on abortions are naive; the CDC did a study indicating that abortion rates are constant whether or not the practice was legal or illegal. Ultimately abortion laws control whether it is a coat-hanger or a physician that does the deed, not whether the abortion will take place. Politics and Religion should never mix, because in the end both groups get burned.

I'm sick to death of hearing all this theocratic talk too. We're a country with freedom of religion, which means you don't push your beliefs on others through any kind of law or regulation.

I don't know how anyone missed Bachman saying "I think its a state issue" then immediately after, saying she would want it amended to the constitution.. which makes it like our marijuana policy. States can give the right, but the federal government can still prosecute anyone in those states if they want to.

At least we can agree on something.

	Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A few mentioned tax cuts too.... I think 2-3 thought Bush era tax cuts were good. GOP didn't raise the debt cap, now Bernanke and the Federal Reserve are pissed. The GOP almost shut down the government right before they assassinated Osama, so the party is currently being the personification of the ideal political dickhead.

Because there is no reason for government to be in debt. And there is definitely no reason for government to be in debt because of entitlements.

	Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I wish the GOP would put forward Condoleezza Rice, I would vote for her (if I was America), but these teabagger are ridiculous. They couldn't even answer the questions 90% of the time and just ranted about random crap. Further more it was not a debate, but the GOP front runners complaining about Obama. No competition between them was displayed.

Teabaggers? Really?

Yeah, a lot of complaining about Obama and it was getting old quick. So was all the ass kissing to the navy guy, thanking him for his sons fighting while telling him, "yeah we appreciate it, but no, were not bringing them home anytime soon"

There were still a lot of interesting and good things said during the debate. It wasn't all just Obama bashing, and I do think there was plenty of competition between them.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by Napolean To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Those are very rare instances and any company that is that negligent will not be in business for long. We don't need government to protect us, and to be realistic, it doesn't.

*It's hard to gain recompense when you're dead.

Originally Posted by Napolean To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Health care is expensive because government got involved with it in the first place. Before government got its hands in health care, people could call a doctor and the doctor would actually visit their house to treat them. Medications didn't put a dent in the budget. Health care was affordable, even major operations. Health care got expensive because government buries the medical profession in red tape to "protect" people from "bad doctors". Meanwhile, we have people dying in waiting rooms because nobody will pay attention to them, all while increasing health care costs every year. Great job government, you're really making an improvement.

Weird. I don't recall anyone dying in waiting rooms here in Canada... Maybe what the problem is down in the USA is that the system is schizophrenic. Pick one Payee, and run with it. If you think Privatized-everything is the shit! then by all means... enjoy. Screw everyone else.

	Originally Posted by Napolean To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A lot of those figures could very well be overly-optimistic.

* 5%/yr GDP growth is bullshit. It's never happened consistently enough to bear out the GOP's claims and proposals. 3-4% is more likely. The GOP's budget plan is already under water by virtue of this difficult truth.

	Originally Posted by Napolean To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because the department of education is a joke, and will always be a joke. The department of education has made the united states the laughing stock of the world when it comes to the most educated. It's no wonder why some of our most successful businesses in this country have been started by drop outs.

*That wasn't the case for a few decades. I wonder what happened in recent memory that could have changed all of that...

Originally Posted by Napolean To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

We could build circuses and amusement parks too, and it would not matter. We should leave the same way we came, immediately. There isn't a thing that will make those countries like us. And Charlie Wilson's war was helping Afghanistan fight the russians. You're saying we were supposed to chase the russians out of afghanistan AND repair all the damage the russians did too? And thats why they hate us? We didn't screw anyone over except the russians. We weren't fighting Al Qaeda in that war, we were training them.

There's a little wrong with this analysis.... chicken and egg type stuff. Drawing the Russians in/exacerbating a war on someone else's plot of land isn't exactly 'helping'.
And I know one thing that would make everyone in the world like the USA: The right to self-determination, without American interference. Even in peaceful situations; this right is hard to come by.

	Originally Posted by Napolean To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm sick to death of hearing all this theocratic talk too. We're a country with freedom of religion, which means you don't push your beliefs on others through any kind of law or regulation.

*Which is why Libertarians shouldn't be supporting the GOP. But they do. Which is very strange to me. It seems money is most important to a Libertarian.

	Originally Posted by Napolean To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because there is no reason for government to be in debt. And there is definitely no reason for government to be in debt because of entitlements.

* There are plenty of reasons Government should be in debt. It's how all Governments run. They're not there to make a profit. Nor should they be.

[Autumnleaf]

Ron Paul is honest and that is his downfall. Everyone else is wholly corrupt, as far as I know, so it doesn't really matter who gets elected to sell us out the next Presidential term.

[therrirl]

Love Ron Paul, hoping to have him in for President for a few years to turn this government around to be what it was during the days of Thomas Jefferson . . . Colonial era baby, that is true america.

[Autumnleaf]

	Originally Posted by therrirl To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Love Ron Paul, hoping to have him in for President for a few years to turn this government around to be what it was during the days of Thomas Jefferson . . . Colonial era baby, that is true america.

So many people depend on the government for a pay check or a welfare check that whomever eventually changes the system to be fiscally responsible will face a hellish amount of wrath from many directions.

[IslandHead]

	The biggest contributor to the housing bubble was Fannie Mae, and they are still in business on the tax payers dime.

Then in 2003-2004 , the subprime mortgage crisis began.[33] The market shifted away from regulated GSEs and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks. The shift occurred as financial institutions sought to maintain earnings levels that had been elevated during 2001-2003 by an unprecedented refinancing boom due to historically low interest rates. Earnings depended on volume, so maintaining elevated earnings levels necessitated expanding the borrower pool using lower underwriting standards and new products that the GSEs would not (initially) securitize. Thus, the shift away from GSE securitization to private-label securitization (PLS) also corresponded with a shift in mortgage product type, from traditional, amortizing, fixed-rate mortgages (FRMs) to nontraditional, structurally riskier, nonamortizing, adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), and in the start of a sharp deterioration in mortgage underwriting standards.[33]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

All the sources I have ever read on the matter say that the GSEs (government-sponsored enterprise) were a part of the problem, but the root cause was in the private sector due to poor regulation. It is the nature of the men in the financial industry to be risky and greedy, they don't care how many people they screw over as long as they get a pay check.

Many of the proposed regulations don't sound that bad as well

These include: Ben Bernanke: Establish resolution procedures for closing troubled financial institutions in the shadow banking system, such as investment banks and hedge funds.[247] Joseph Stiglitz: Restrict the leverage that financial institutions can assume. Require executive compensation to be more related to long-term performance.[13] Re-instate the separation of commercial (depository) and investment banking established by the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933 and repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.[123] Simon Johnson: Break-up institutions that are "too big to fail" to limit systemic risk.[248] Paul Krugman: Regulate institutions that "act like banks " similarly to banks.[170] Alan Greenspan: Banks should have a stronger capital cushion, with graduated regulatory capital requirements (i.e., capital ratios that increase with bank size), to "discourage them from becoming too big and to offset their competitive advantage."[249] Warren Buffett: Require minimum down payments for home mortgages of at least 10% and income verification.[250] Eric Dinallo: Ensure any financial institution has the necessary capital to support its financial commitments. Regulate credit derivatives and ensure they are traded on well-capitalized exchanges to limit counterparty risk.[215] Raghuram Rajan: Require financial institutions to maintain sufficient "contingent capital" (i.e., pay insurance premiums to the government during boom periods, in exchange for payments during a downturn.)[251] A. Michael Spence and Gordon Brown: Establish an early-warning system to help detect systemic risk.[252] Niall Ferguson and Jeffrey Sachs: Impose haircuts on bondholders and counterparties prior to using taxpayer money in bailouts.[253][254] Nouriel Roubini: Nationalize insolvent banks.[255] Reduce debt levels across the financial system through debt for equity swaps. Reduce mortgage balances to assist homeowners, giving the lender a share in any future home appreciation.[256] Don Tapscott, 2010. Macrowikinomics, Publisher Atlantic Books: to promote greater transparency in the financial industry, encourage financial institutions to apply "crowd sourced" valuation methods to illiquid debt securities, externally driven quantitative and econometric modelling as opposed to in-house, and potentially biased valuation processes. Paul McCulley advocated "counter-cyclical regulatory policy to help modulate human nature." He cited the work of economist Hyman Minsky, who believed that human behavior is pro-cyclical, meaning it amplifies the extent of booms and busts. In other words, humans are momentum investors rather than value investors. Counter-cyclical policies would include increasing capital requirements during boom periods and reducing them during busts.[257]

	The federal reserve is a private bank, its not part of the government.

No, it is a governmental entity, which operates completely independently of the senate, congress, or the president.

	Those are very rare instances and any company that is that negligent will not be in business for long. We don't need government to protect us, and to be realistic, it doesn't.

No, like the financial crisis, these instances aren't due to negligences, they are ultimately due to greed.

Health care is expensive because government got involved with it in the first place. Before government got its hands in health care, people could call a doctor and the doctor would actually visit their house to treat them. Medications didn't put a dent in the budget. Health care was affordable, even major operations. Health care got expensive because government buries the medical profession in red tape to "protect" people from "bad doctors". Meanwhile, we have people dying in waiting rooms because nobody will pay attention to them, all while increasing health care costs every year. Great job government, you're really making an improvement.

The current healthcare system is like a million times more advanced than back in the day. Did you know we can print kidneys now? We can scan your entire body and see every layer in color now. These advancements are expensive. Drug development costs millions; this makes drugs expensive. Healthcare is just expensive. Furthermore the healthcare industry is about human lives, the budget is important, but the industry must be held to a higher ethical standard than other industries.

	Because the department of education is a joke, and will always be a joke. The department of education has made the united states the laughing stock of the world when it comes to the most educated. It's no wonder why some of our most successful businesses in this country have been started by drop outs.

You pay for what you get. Smart, naturally gifted teachers aren't gonna give up being an engineer, lawyer, or doctor to get paid poorly......

	Ending the wars would be cutting the spending.

It will help, but
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Because there is no reason for government to be in debt. And there is definitely no reason for government to be in debt because of entitlements.

The GOP don't tell you this, but the budget can be fixed by cutting 12% or by gaining 12% in taxes. So if they cut defence spending and some other stuff (such as well fare, i don't like it) (8%), and raised taxes a few percent (4%) the budget would be balanced. edit- this point is void, CNN lied! My napkin math says that the percentages are much bigger to balance the budget. the 12 percent must be in regards to something else, like long term debt management or something.

	Originally Posted by therrirl To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Love Ron Paul, hoping to have him in for President for a few years to turn this government around to be what it was during the days of Thomas Jefferson . . . Colonial era baby, that is true america.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Lots of things have changed since then, so the government has to adapt, it cann't be stuck in the 18th century

[Fishism]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So many people depend on the government for a pay check or a welfare check that whomever eventually changes the system to be fiscally responsible will face a hellish amount of wrath from many directions.

Absolutely. Proposing what really needs to be done will not get anyone elected. A social correction is needed more than a correction of policy.

[Oniyoda]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Unfortunately I was not able to watch it. I've tried to read through a transcript and catch as many clips of it as I can. Hopefully I can watch the whole thing in a few days. Bachman's announcement was poorly timed and odd, but otherwise, it seems like she did well. I was not impressed by Pawlenty backing down on the health care question. I'm really tired of republican candidates backing down.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Video of the debate)
OT: Personally I didn't like any of the candidates except Ron Paul who seems to be a much better candidate than any of the others..

[IslandHead]

If you want a good visual on what is cuttable in the budget, look at this pretty thing the NY times made

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You can click to remove the mandatory spending, and you can see that the military spending is probably the best thing to cut.

[HAL 9000]

It really is hard to say who did well and who didn't. As it is early in the primary, I think the major point they were trying to get across is that any one of them would be a better president than our current one. Bachmann was probably the strongest, and I think Romney did well too. Ron Paul performed as one would expect Ron Paul to perform.

Sooner or later the phalanx will break and they will have at each other. That is when things will get much more interesting.

[therrirl]

Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. All the sources I have ever read on the matter say that the GSEs (government-sponsored enterprise) were a part of the problem, but the root cause was in the private sector due to poor regulation. It is the nature of the men in the financial industry to be risky and greedy, they don't care how many people they screw over as long as they get a pay check. Many of the proposed regulations don't sound that bad as well No, it is a governmental entity, which operates completely independently of the senate, congress, or the president. No, like the financial crisis, these instances are do to negligences, they are ultimately due to greed. The current healthcare system is like a million times more advanced than back in the day. Did you know we can print kidneys now? We can scan your entire body and see every layer in color now. These advancements are expensive. Drug development costs millions; this makes drugs expensive. Healthcare is just expensive. Furthermore the healthcare industry is about human lives, the budget is important, but the industry must be held to a higher ethical standard than other industries. You pay for what you get for. Smart, naturally gifted teachers aren't gonna give up being an engineer, lawyer, or doctor to get paid poorly...... It will help, but To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The GOP don't tell you this, but the budget can be fixed by cutting 12% or by gaining 12% in taxes. So if they cut defence spending and some other stuff (such as well fare, i don't like it) (8%), and raised taxes a few percent (4%) the budget would be balanced. edit- this point is void, CNN lied! My napkin math says that the percentages are much bigger to balance the budget. the 12 percent must be in regards to something else, like long term debt management or something. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Lots of things have changed since then, so the government has to adapt, it cann't be stuck in the 18th century

People don't listen to you because you criticize them instead of actually discussing anything. Stupidest thing, no I'm afraid not. Before 1900 we were the strongest tiny nation in the world. We started losing ground in international finances after that time, it has continued and now we are near the end. We had capibility to be individuals in an american nation back then, now . . . now it's where's the government subsidy check to keep me eating cause I can't find a job. Get the government out of our lives. The government serves the people and very few reasons for it's existance.

---------- Post added 06-15-2011 at 12:00 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So many people depend on the government for a pay check or a welfare check that whomever eventually changes the system to be fiscally responsible will face a hellish amount of wrath from many directions.

Yes, much wrath, but in the end you have taken such a part of yourself for so long to be on the system, you need to just go cold turkey to get back to a reasonable state. When you get into debt, no one says "OK, you're alright now, I forgive you." You cut back on your spending and you work extra hours and you make it happen for you. You don't lay down and die and hope someone picks you up. Let the US take it's lumps for it's past breast suckling. Cut off the flow and watch the ants scramble and when the fight is over everything will start to rise up again.

[Analyze]

Thanks for filling me in everyone, I was watching game six of the Stanley Cup.

I normally watch the Republican debates to keep an eye on my perceived enemies. I wouldn't mind Julian (A moderate) or Ron Paul (Even if I don't agree with his social stances), but either way I'm probably going to vote for Obama unless one of these candidates really shows me something or the president fucks up.

[Napolean]

Wow did anyone see this?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


This was CNN's internet poll for who did best at the debate. Ron Paul killed it.

They scrapped their own poll, and listed Ron Paul last with 0% of the vote on television. Meanwhile, at the time of that broadcast, Ron Paul was at 75% in their own internet poll.

[Bobsama]

I think that either Ron Paul or Herman Cain will get my vote. I liked some of Ron Paul's answers though I feel that it'd be much better to match up candidates in pairs and have them debate each other, instead of a big event with half a dozen candidates all competing. I'd also think an hour is enough.

Looking at Gallup.com's Ballot Support section...

1: Mitt Romney (24% support, 84% recognize, PEI 19, 15% unfavorable)
2: Sarah Palin (16% support, 95% recognize, PEI 15, 28% unfavorable)
3: Herman Cain (9% support, 41% recognize, PEI 28, 13% unfavorable)
4: Ron Paul (7% support, 77% recognize, PEI 8, 27% unfavorable)
5: Rick Santorum (6% support, 48% recognize, PEI 9, 17% unfavorable)
6: Tim Pawlenty (6% support, 54% recognize, PEI 11, 13% unfavorable)
7: Newt Gingrich (5% support, 84% recognize, PEI 4, 36% unfavorable)
8: Michele Bachmann (5% support, 62% recognize, PEI 18, 16% unfavorable)

Looking at that, I'd say the only 3 real candidates (currently) are Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Michele Bachmann. Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul are too polarizing. Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty are relatively unknown and, at this point, not going anywhere. I still want to include Ron Paul for his appeal to voters as a very determined individual but I honestly don't think that he's a good match for the presidency. He's currently a top commentator on liberty and I think any serious candidates should keep his message in mind. Ron Paul could do well and I think there's a point to saying he has good Independent support.

If anyone has room to grow, it's Herman Cain. He's the least recognized candidate with the most favorable opinions attached. If I had to put together a dream ticket, it'd be Cain/Bachmann. More likely, it'll be Romney/Cain or Romney/Bachmann.

[IslandHead]

Originally Posted by therrirl To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

People don't listen to you because you criticize them instead of actually discussing anything. Stupidest thing, no I'm afraid not. Before 1900 we were the strongest tiny nation in the world. We started losing ground in international finances after that time, it has continued and now we are near the end. We had capibility to be individuals in an american nation back then, now . . . now it's where's the government subsidy check to keep me eating cause I can't find a job. Get the government out of our lives. The government serves the people and very few reasons for it's existance.

Firstly Britain was the strongest tiny nation in the world before 1900. The first nation industrialized, with that advantage, the sun never set on their vast Empire. Before 1900 Americans were killing each because half the country thought America sucked and wanted to leave; keeping their slave labour. While this war raged to keep the country together, and to free the slaves, Britain already outlawed the slave trade and freed all their slaves through political channels. Pre-1900 America was awesome
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Also the economic practices of pre-1900 America are not conducive for today. The state was very isolated economically and politically until WWII and its money was backed by metal, and gold/silver was legal tender. Today that wouldn't work with transnational corporations and global market system, with many based in the states to retreat with in their borders diplomatically, politically, and financially like they did in the pre-1900 era. Further more the corporate climate has changes in the pass 300 years. Corporations are very powerful politically and economically, more so now then any time in history.

Also after 1940's was when America began to get strong economically and internationally, it was only after WWII when Europe was destroyed by two world wars when America became a super power with Russia. It was at this time, in the post WWII era, when the US dollar was chosen to become the world's reserve currency.

To summarize: That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Lots of things have changed since then, so the government has to adapt, it cannot be stuck in the 18th century....

[therrirl]

Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Firstly Britain was the strongest tiny nation in the world before 1900. The first nation industrialized, with that advantage, the sun never set on their vast Empire. Before 1900 Americans were killing each because half the country thought America sucked and wanted to leave; keeping their slave labour. While this war raged to keep the country together, and to free the slaves, Britain already outlawed the slave trade and freed all their slaves through political channels. Pre-1900 America was awesome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . Also the economic practices of pre-1900 America are not conducive for today. The state was very isolated economically and politically until WWII and its money was backed by metal, and gold/silver was legal tender. Today that wouldn't work with transnational corporations and global market system, with many based in the states to retreat with in their borders diplomatically, politically, and financially like they did in the pre-1900 era. Further more the corporate climate has changes in the pass 300 years. Corporations are very powerful politically and economically, more so now then any time in history. Also after 1940's was when America began to get strong economically and internationally, it was only after WWII when Europe was destroyed by two world wars when America became a super power with Russia. It was at this time, in the post WWII era, when the US dollar was chosen to become the world's reserve currency. To summarize: That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Lots of things have changed since then, so the government has to adapt, it cannot be stuck in the 18th century....

Funny if britain was so tough at that time, why did we win 2 major wars against them? Sound strange. Revelutionary war and war of 1812. Astounding how real facts dull the historical losses.

The strongest type of governement is the one we had. By the people and for the people. Anything like now has failed in history time and again.

[IslandHead]

	Funny if britain was so tough at that time, why did we win 2 major wars against them? Sound strange. Revelutionary war and war of 1812. Astounding how real facts dull the historical losses.

Many Factors to consider.
1. Distance
2. Occupying Force would have had to been huge for the geographic region
3. Pay out wasn't worth the cost
4. The French were being crazy (Revolution and Napoleonic Wars)
5.American had greater losses:

British losses in the war were about 1,600 killed in action and 3,679 wounded; 3,321 British died from disease. American losses were 2,260 killed in action and 4,505 wounded. While the number of Americans who died from disease is not known, it is estimated that about 15,000 died from all causes directly related to the war.[117] These figures do not include deaths among Canadian militia forces or losses among native tribes.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Also the article supports my thoughts and what I have learned at school

The massive ongoing conflict against the French Empire under Napoleon ensured that the War of 1812 was never seen as more than a sideshow to the main event by the British public.[148] Britain's blockade of French trade had been entirely successful and the Royal Navy was the world's dominant nautical power (and would remain so for another century).[149] While the land campaigns had contributed little, the Royal Navy had destroyed American commerce, bottled up the U.S. Navy in port and heavily suppressed privateering. The peace was generally welcomed by the British though both newspaper articles and official letters expressed dismay at the assumed unchecked growth of the United States of America. However, the governments of the two nations quickly resumed trade after the end of the war and over time, a growing friendship and repeated military alliances have remained to the present day.

We are getting off topic... Pre-1900 Britain > America, it is fact stop arguing...

	The strongest type of governement is the one we had. By the people and for the people. Anything like now has failed in history time and again.

Furthermore the American government of that era was not for the people. Black people and women weren't citizens. Even during WWII Americans put loyal citizens into camps, because they were Japanese. And racism towards African Americans is still a problem in some communities. It is a fallacy that the America of the past was "for the people" more so than the America of today; it had its own problems, just like the America of today does. Looking through history with rose coloured glasses doesn't teach you anything and should be avoided.

[therrirl]

Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Many Factors to consider. 1. Distance 2. Occupying Force would have had to been huge for the geographic region 3. Pay out wasn't worth the cost 4. The French were being crazy (Revolution and Napoleonic Wars) 5.American had greater losses: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Also the article supports my thoughts and what I have learned at school We are getting off topic... Pre-1900 Britain > America, it is fact stop arguing... Furthermore the American government of that era was not for the people. Black people and women weren't citizens. Even during WWII Americans put loyal citizens into camps, because they were Japanese. And racism towards African Americans is still a problem in some communities. It is a fallacy that the America of the past was "for the people" more so than the America of today; it had its own problems, just like the America of today does. Looking through history with rose coloured glasses doesn't teach you anything and should be avoided.

I'm not disputing anything you posted. I still stand on America won both wars. It doesn't matter the circustances to winning. And since Brittan won zero wars against America during the same time frame, I think the facts still stand who was the toughest. Now we didn't do the nation building that England tried (and failed) and now we are trying and failing. But we are a very strong nation (back then).

Emancipation came during the 1860's and it strengthened us more. Civil rights and liberties are not even in dispute. They had no bearing on us. What we are are talking about is abuse of the constitution and inbed politicians with corporations and the rule of unwanted overpowered governement officials to tell us how to take a shit and then tax us on it. We are also talking about the understanding of Keyens economics and austrian economics. How Keyens is failing continuiously. We are also talking of a FED system that is not even American and unconstintutional. How a foriegn bankers community can decide for our country what's best for it and print money (a right only congress can do). We are talking about about the justices of the supreme court so aligned with thier parties taht there isn't any more justice. We are talking about executive orders that were never there before a certain time and cannot be removed except by another law through congress (hard enough) and then a 2/3 majority to over ride the presidential veto of the loss of his own power. This is the corrupt fesis we are digging through day and night.

[CharlieBrown]

	Furthermore the American government of that era was for white males.

Fixed that for me.

Sucked if you were Irish too.

	What we are are talking about is abuse of the constitution and inbed politicians with corporations and the rule of unwanted overpowered governement officials to tell us how to take a shit and then tax us on it.

No, the discussion veered off of that topic for IslandHead's explanation.

	What we are are talking about is abuse of the constitution and inbed politicians with corporations and the rule of unwanted overpowered governement officials to tell us how to take a shit and then tax us on it.

There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent said Corporations from buying politicians. In fact, Ron Paul supports that practice. If the U.S was committed to solving its budget problems, it would reduce defense spending. They're cutting school budgets and firing teachers across my state. We're cutting education and increasing funding for defense, so we can build schools in other countries. There's something wrong with that picture. First step is cutting defense, we can talk about everything else later.

	Before government got its hands in health care, people could call a doctor and the doctor would actually visit their house to treat them.

Do you know how little education many of those doctors actually had?

	Medicine had its problems too. In 1910, the Flexner report noted that 90% of practicing physicians were not college educated...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


That doesn't sound like a medical paradise to me. Medicine was inexpensive then because bloodletting was still popular. Now we have giant magnets that can peer inside our bodies to determine what causes various illnesses. Medicine is expensive because it requires a lot of resources. Now, as much as I'd like medicine to be free for everyone, that just isn't going to happen.

[mrhat]

Originally Posted by IslandHead To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think small government is bad. Yes there shouldn't be a command economy, yes government shouldn't be in anyones personal life, but NO the government should not deregulate things like banking and the stock market, these need to be brought under tighter control. Deregulation allowed the investment banking industry to cause the financial crash. If you know the history of the FDA, in the time of no regulation children's medicine was dissolved in a known poison, the company explicitly stated it did not care about the resulting deaths and was not responsible. This event ushered in the modern day FDA. Deregulation maybe good for some market growth, but it is dangerous for consumers, citizens, and society. So I dislike most of them for their idolization of free market capitalism. In short it is naive to equate short term market growth as beneficial, and disregard possible instability and dangers in other areas. I think the government should be spending more on its people, but a balanced budget currently is the most important objective.

I'm not sure on this one. A proper FDA and other regulation systems would remove the first generation problems, but I'm not sure whether they really do a good job or not. Also, I think the Fed had a lot more to do with the crash than investment bankers.