At digg, user Napoleone writes,
Obama is promising you the world on an empty bank account. Ron Paul wants to restore the value of the money in your pocket.
*Obama promised you a vote against reauthorizing the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, instead he went ahead and voted for it after making some menial changes to it, which did nothing to protect our rights, but did much for him in the way of political cover.
^Ron Paul voted 'NO' against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act the first time, the second time, and the third time. And he warned us all, in the moment of our greatest fear, that we were fearing the wrong thing.
*Obama voted for the Real ID. He doesn't like that it's poorly funded, but he supports it.
^Ron Paul voted 'NO' on the Real ID, and he gave an impassioned speech on the House floor, denouncing it.
^Ron Paul missed the vote on the Homegrown Terrorism Bill, because of the campaign, but went to the House floor the next week and warned of the danger of forming such a commission.
*Obama hasn't articulated a position on that bill (that I know of), and the senate hasn't voted on it yet.
^Ron Paul voted 'NO' on the FISA bill, which makes warrantless domestic spying "legal", and gives the tel-cos retro-active immunity for spying on us.
*Obama missed the vote on that bill, because of the campaign, but he claims to oppose it.
Why do I say claim? Well, consider this for a moment. If Obama, or even Clinton, truly objected to the FISA bill, do you not think they would have the necessary clout within their own party to remove this bill from consideration? After all, they are prospective presidents. They could have this bill tabled if they wanted.
They're not seeking that, though. Because they're not interested in that. All they need is the political cover to say they opposed it, but their lack of leadership on this issue proves they're very much in favor of it.
The only endorsement any candidate needs is yours. Wake up and smell the inflation and the debt and the erosion of your rights.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Today in Florida
There's a winner take all race in Florida today. There are five GOP contenders - Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Paul, and Guiliani.
Guiliani mistakenly believes that he'll win Florida. But Guiliani is brain dead, unable to spout anything besides "9-11". He probably believes he'll win Florida because of "9-11". But Guiliani doesn't have a chance. When he's only got one delegate so far - and is far behind the other contenders and out of money - Guiliani will drop out of the race by tomorrow evening. He has done the most campaigning out of any of the Republicans in Florida. But his strategy has failed him. One threat to America down.
Either McCain or Romney will win. McCain is pulling at 22% and Romney at 19%. The others are very close to them. Huckabee has a good chance too - but I would hope he doesn't win.
Guiliani, although close to the others, is too much of a broken record for anyone in America to take him seriously. He'll probably just end up in a government cabinet making other important decisions. Florida will end his presidential campaign. He's put a lot into it but he won't get it much back.
Since Florida is a winner take all state and since Ron Paul knows that the election is only partially about momentum, but mostly about delegates, has been campaigning elsewhere. He'll more then make up for not even being in Florida.
After Florida, we have to worry about super Tuesday. This is where things get interesting. The four contenders - Huckabee, McCain, Paul, and Romney - will each put up a significant battle. Romney is likely to win the most delegates. Paul will get many delegates, more or less, under the radar. And whoever didn't win in Florida - whether that's Huckabee or McCain - will continue in the race but be cut severely and not put up much of a fight afterwards.
One thing is certain - the field is thinning and it will be a fight to the very end over who gets the Republican nomination.
On the Democrat side, I predict Obama to win the nomination. But Hillary is pretty tricky and you can't exactly predict what she might have up her sleeve. Edwards won't win.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't like:
McCain for his cavalier stance on war. If he becomes President, expect more inflation, more national debt, and a total collapse of our economy. This, ironically, will be used to fuel the war. For one, you'll have younger people join the military because they will be only one of few outlets that can provide for them and their families. Second, people will want to boost the economy, and since war is what revitalized us in 1940, they believe it will revitalize us again. This is false and presumptuous. War is the cause of our economy woes - not the solution. It sends money overseas that doesn't return. It creates government sanctioned business, monopolies, and protections of war businesses. It decreases spending on other national resources that actually would spur the economy. And since you have to pay for the war somehow, it inflates our dollar, decreases the economy. War is not the answer.
Huckabee because he's a hypocrite. He's exactly the opposite of what a pastor should be. Sure, he's got a nice smile and speaks quite beautifully. But when you look at his past and check out all of the tax hikes, you find that the devil wears a smile too. He's called "Tax-Hike Mike" for a reason. He's destroyed city computers and documents to hide his own shame. He uses religion to pounce on his enemies instead of embrace them. When I think of Huckabee, I think Bush the Third.
Guiliani because of 911. He failed to provide for many of his cities basic needs before 911 that would have possibly saved more lives. He even let a security building be placed right next to the trade center towers.
Romney because of stock options. Bain Capital is one of the leading recipients of defense contracts from what I understand. This, like Bush, leads to conflicting interests.
Paul because he is too extreme. If he would just tone it down, he actually might have had a chance. Nevermind that he will have so much opposition if he actually got into office that he wouldn't be able to accomplish much. But that in and of itself would change the very nature of politics in America for the better.
Hillary because she isn't overtly prowar, but covertly prowar. If you don't have a strategy for removal, then she could merely declare once in office, that our strategy will take 10 years. Is it better to have someone who's prowar and gets us out in 10 years or someone who's antiwar and gets us out in ten years? She also promises things that make no economic sense. She is like a high school class president promising soda pop from the drinking fountains. Sure, it sounds nice, but is it realistic?
And I'm out of time so I can't write about Obama and Edwards...
Guiliani mistakenly believes that he'll win Florida. But Guiliani is brain dead, unable to spout anything besides "9-11". He probably believes he'll win Florida because of "9-11". But Guiliani doesn't have a chance. When he's only got one delegate so far - and is far behind the other contenders and out of money - Guiliani will drop out of the race by tomorrow evening. He has done the most campaigning out of any of the Republicans in Florida. But his strategy has failed him. One threat to America down.
Either McCain or Romney will win. McCain is pulling at 22% and Romney at 19%. The others are very close to them. Huckabee has a good chance too - but I would hope he doesn't win.
Guiliani, although close to the others, is too much of a broken record for anyone in America to take him seriously. He'll probably just end up in a government cabinet making other important decisions. Florida will end his presidential campaign. He's put a lot into it but he won't get it much back.
Since Florida is a winner take all state and since Ron Paul knows that the election is only partially about momentum, but mostly about delegates, has been campaigning elsewhere. He'll more then make up for not even being in Florida.
After Florida, we have to worry about super Tuesday. This is where things get interesting. The four contenders - Huckabee, McCain, Paul, and Romney - will each put up a significant battle. Romney is likely to win the most delegates. Paul will get many delegates, more or less, under the radar. And whoever didn't win in Florida - whether that's Huckabee or McCain - will continue in the race but be cut severely and not put up much of a fight afterwards.
One thing is certain - the field is thinning and it will be a fight to the very end over who gets the Republican nomination.
On the Democrat side, I predict Obama to win the nomination. But Hillary is pretty tricky and you can't exactly predict what she might have up her sleeve. Edwards won't win.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't like:
McCain for his cavalier stance on war. If he becomes President, expect more inflation, more national debt, and a total collapse of our economy. This, ironically, will be used to fuel the war. For one, you'll have younger people join the military because they will be only one of few outlets that can provide for them and their families. Second, people will want to boost the economy, and since war is what revitalized us in 1940, they believe it will revitalize us again. This is false and presumptuous. War is the cause of our economy woes - not the solution. It sends money overseas that doesn't return. It creates government sanctioned business, monopolies, and protections of war businesses. It decreases spending on other national resources that actually would spur the economy. And since you have to pay for the war somehow, it inflates our dollar, decreases the economy. War is not the answer.
Huckabee because he's a hypocrite. He's exactly the opposite of what a pastor should be. Sure, he's got a nice smile and speaks quite beautifully. But when you look at his past and check out all of the tax hikes, you find that the devil wears a smile too. He's called "Tax-Hike Mike" for a reason. He's destroyed city computers and documents to hide his own shame. He uses religion to pounce on his enemies instead of embrace them. When I think of Huckabee, I think Bush the Third.
Guiliani because of 911. He failed to provide for many of his cities basic needs before 911 that would have possibly saved more lives. He even let a security building be placed right next to the trade center towers.
Romney because of stock options. Bain Capital is one of the leading recipients of defense contracts from what I understand. This, like Bush, leads to conflicting interests.
Paul because he is too extreme. If he would just tone it down, he actually might have had a chance. Nevermind that he will have so much opposition if he actually got into office that he wouldn't be able to accomplish much. But that in and of itself would change the very nature of politics in America for the better.
Hillary because she isn't overtly prowar, but covertly prowar. If you don't have a strategy for removal, then she could merely declare once in office, that our strategy will take 10 years. Is it better to have someone who's prowar and gets us out in 10 years or someone who's antiwar and gets us out in ten years? She also promises things that make no economic sense. She is like a high school class president promising soda pop from the drinking fountains. Sure, it sounds nice, but is it realistic?
And I'm out of time so I can't write about Obama and Edwards...
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Government is unnatural
Something that I've considered writing about, but I found someone else's thoughts which are just as good. Stuart Feild from Arkansas wrote on Facebook:
'"In nature, the weak are weeded out and don't get to reproduce. You'd think essentially the same thing would happen with policies that don't work at all? Or am I too full of wishful thinking?"
Actually the opposite tends to happen with bad policies and programs, and it is precisely because government is unnatural.
In the free market it's easy to tell if something is working because it makes money. The money can be used to sustain the program and if it makes enough money it will grow. If it doesn't make money, it will go away because it can't sustain itself. That is also what happens in nature. The weaker animals can't feed themselves or keep up with the environment and they die away or fall victim to others species. The free unregulated market is a direct extension of the natural order.
A government policy or program doesn't need to make money, it's already funded, so it doesn't matter if it works or not, it can continue indefinitely. If it makes a politician look good, they will spin it and it will get more money. When it doesn't work, the politician can claim the program is under funded. Either way the tendency in government is always to grow. Since success is not directly linked to the growth rate, the growth is always unnatural.'
'"In nature, the weak are weeded out and don't get to reproduce. You'd think essentially the same thing would happen with policies that don't work at all? Or am I too full of wishful thinking?"
Actually the opposite tends to happen with bad policies and programs, and it is precisely because government is unnatural.
In the free market it's easy to tell if something is working because it makes money. The money can be used to sustain the program and if it makes enough money it will grow. If it doesn't make money, it will go away because it can't sustain itself. That is also what happens in nature. The weaker animals can't feed themselves or keep up with the environment and they die away or fall victim to others species. The free unregulated market is a direct extension of the natural order.
A government policy or program doesn't need to make money, it's already funded, so it doesn't matter if it works or not, it can continue indefinitely. If it makes a politician look good, they will spin it and it will get more money. When it doesn't work, the politician can claim the program is under funded. Either way the tendency in government is always to grow. Since success is not directly linked to the growth rate, the growth is always unnatural.'
Paul ahead of Clinton and Obama in Nevada!
This is excellent news! In Nevada, Ron Paul got more votes then every other contender except Romney. (This is partially due to a strong Mormon influence in Nevada.) This is excellent news! So, with this news in mind, why are Guiliani, Thompson, and Hunter still in the race? I mean, up to this point, they've pretty much lost to Paul and they are out of money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
