I was a Paul contributor (2002) before 99% of ET knew who he was. Palin, Paul and Pat Buchanan trade at around a 95% serial correlation. In fact-and I had an associate work high level on her campaign-the GOP was concerned that if Paul had indeed run Third Party that he was going to pick her as Veep and the Paul/Palin combo would render McCain's chances to zero. Many believe that if Sarah herself didn't vote for Paul in the Alaska primary-most certainly her husband did. Palin is as close as you'll ever get to a Ron Paul type on a national ticket. Use your heads. If Big Left Media didn't look upon her as an anti-Federal government, anti-up Israel's ass candidate then the attacks on her would've been minimal. Like Biden's not a kook? Whoever the Leftist Media is against is who I'm for. The day Olberman or the NYT run a puff piece on Palin is the day I look somewhere else. I'm not worried though. That day will never come.
How's this for a novel idea. Don't borrow money from someone else and you won't need worry about what return they want on THEIR capital. I'll give you a clue. Credit card lenders know that folks with truly pristine finances, pay down their balances. If you don't like it then pay cash for dinner, rent your residence and drive a beater. That dynamic worked here for generations, eh?
I am older than Sean Hannity and have seen a hell of a lot more go down in this country than either you(assuming you are below 40) and him. I am well aware that regulation has progressively become more lax since the 80's. This administration is using that weakness to grab even more power beyond what is necessary, something that appears to be going over your head.
I like Ron Paul believe in a free market,But it has to be all the way free.Bush's idea of a free market was no regulation,let them be free and reckless,but when they fail bail them out In a free market there is no bail outs,if you fail you fail and someone else will replace you and do a better job by learning from the mistakes of those who failed. If you want the goverment to save you when you fail then you have to have gov regulation
Of course, you just don't want it to go too far and that is precisely what is happening. A power grab by a bunch of low- lifes.
If ur over 50, gigs, then u would have to know that the position the party of Rush has taken is untenable. U guys are attacking the man. This is a critical error. Attack the plan, praise the man. That is how u defeat a cult of personality. If u attack the man, ur attacking everyone who voted for the man, and that means there is no way to win. Few voted for the plan, because they didn't know what the plan was. Hannity, Rush, et al are digging a grave for the pubs.
So your saying the definition of government now is not what it was in the 18th century? Two main things have changed sense the 18th century when it comes to the government. One is the massive increase in government power and the second is the increase in tax rates. How do you know a truly conservative government with low taxes that abides by the constitution is Obsolete? You have never seen one...
You assume the role of government is to pass resolutions expressing opinions. Ron Paul doesn't think that's an appropriate role for the government.
Think about all of the governments you've ever read about or currently experienced. In virtually every case, it's a matter of "government first, government most important... the people's [apparent] function is to support the government". America in the 18th century was a grand experiment. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"... Rule of law, limited government power and influence in people's lives. The Founding Fathers tried their best to assure our way of life could be defended and maintained. They gave us a Constitution... and guarantees granted by a Bill of Rights. Yet, over the last 200 years.... the Power desires and the nature of government have chewed at and eroded all of the Constitution's promises and guarantees. Therefore... what we have today in the USA is similar to all government-centric societies in the past and present. Without revolution, America will become just another oligarchy with a huge proportion of peasants.... depending upon the government for handouts and subsistence.
You're blowing things out of proportion. Lets look at the average person who is not heavily biased when it comes to politics. It would be fair to say that those people make up the majority of the country. This average person voted for Obama because he thought he seemed like a good guy. After all the majority of people vote for candidates based on first impressions. Also he voted for Obama because he was associated with the opposite party that was currently in control. He did this because of course the country was currently in trouble. Now this average person all of a sudden listens to Limbaugh one day on the radio when he's driving. Limbaugh as usual is going off on Obama. This man will either agree with Limabaugh or disagree. If he agrees then he will most likely have a different attitude towards Obama in the future. If he disagrees with Limabaugh than he will most likely have a negative attitude towards limbaugh in the future. The average person will not all of a sudden despise an entire party because of one loud mouth who is related to that party. The average person will not correlate Limbaugh with an entire party because unlike biased people normal people care about one thing when it comes to politics. They care about what policies the political system creates that either negatively or positively affects their own lives. Just look at how the unemployed have voted in the last 100 years. It doesn't matter which party caters more to the unemployed. The unemployed will always vote for the party not in power because of their current position in life. In a democracy the importance and political impact of "talk" is minuscule compared to how people interpret the affect of the political system when it comes to their own lives.