I actually think a RP presidency would be good for America. I can't imagine how a long-term libertarian US would work, but for even 2 terms, RP would pave the way for 3rd party candidates. And at the least, he's very candid in his views, something not a single presidential contender for at least the past few decades can be accused of.

And the loudness of money is partially why we need someone like RP in office. He pretty much has the guts to stand up for his beliefs (as exemplified by his voting records), so I think he'd deflate a lot of the special-interest types floating around Washington.

12/27/2007 1:59:43 AM

Yes.

He'll save the environment through strong private property laws.

Because you know, Georgia Pacific truly cares about the quality of its land and its habitability by other species.

12/27/2007 2:06:46 AM

Actually, if you look at the major US corporations who are doing WELL:

Subaru has the first zero impact plant in the world, and its here in the US. They built it not because it saves the trees, but because it will save them an ENORMOUS amount of money over the life of the plant. No worries of cleanup costs, federal regulations or any of that. Plus they have massively lower energy costs.

Toyota has similar plans for enhancing most if not all of their US plants.

Microsoft will be a carbon neutral company in the next 10 years (thats the plan anyway)

Just as has been predicted by most market people, when the market makes enviro-friendly tech affordable, it will be adopted. Federal mandates will only slow and stagnate the process of development and implementation.

To say that strong property laws won't help the environment is a little head-in-the-sand ish (no pun intended there ) For your example of Georgia Pacific we are talking about chemical storage safety. Being that a spill or mishandling of such material could affect ground water, and the surrounding property, it would certainly be within the realm of those laws, and would be much more clearcut in how it would be dealt with in the court systems.

You have to realize too that today we know far more about the ecological impact of industrial waste, and learn more everyday, making the property law route more and more justified in dealing with it.

12/27/2007 2:26:50 AM

Quote :

"realize that all the free goodies provided to them by Federal funding would cease."

lol, free!?? that's a good one.

Quote :

"As well as their economic protections from being completely bulldozed by wealthier citizens."

yeah, the gov would hate to lose their monopoly on bulldozing citizens.

12/27/2007 9:07:18 AM

Neither Subaru or Toyota are major US corporations. They are Japanese, which have been miles ahead of US companies as far as green technology goes, for years. A major part of this being that Japan is a small island and they have to become more efficient/clean or the country turns into a huge cesspool of pollution like LA.

12/27/2007 10:01:15 AM

Free in their context.

Don't be retarded.

12/27/2007 11:16:39 AM

free in what context? the only context I can provide is the context of me paying hundreds of dollars a month to the fed, and never seeing even a fraction of it in return....let's not even get started on paying SS taxes that I will, in all likelyhood, never see at all.

you're the one who's being retarded guy.

[Edited on December 27, 2007 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

12/27/2007 11:39:57 AM

Yes but in the context of being poor, services received are payed by wealthier citizens.

The idea behind what I'm saying is that people receiving more then they pay want to willing give it up thinking they'll gain more, when in fact, they end up loosing more.

Dig?

12/27/2007 11:47:34 AM

Most of the things the fed collects taxes for would be better run at the state level.....for example, it doesn't make sense to me for fed taxes to be collected from all states just to have portions of that divvied up in the congress, in the form of earmarks or appropriations, just to be given back to certain congressional districts or states. Cut out the middle man, and its a win win....states can do what they deem necessary with the funds, and the individual taxpayer has a bigger say in the process.

12/27/2007 12:02:58 PM

Except that most state's can't afford to maintain their highways much less provide consistent care across the board.

You'd then have a situation where the richest states provided much better services then the poorer states, and especially the very poorest states. Without a federal government playing cop, these states could also then exert influence to continue to improve their situation. These sort of trends lead to economic spirals that don't have an out.

See: Detriot for an example of a possible reality of that sort of system.

And again, the poor get the shaft, and the rich continue unabated.

I just love this wonderful irony of supporting Ron Paul and libertarians in general.










ps- you fall into the class that would be adversely affected.

pss- These arguments were made a hundred and twenty years ago.

[Edited on December 27, 2007 at 12:59 PM. Reason : >.<]

12/27/2007 12:58:52 PM

retard, highways are federally funded. no one (not even Dr Paul) wants to remove the highway system from federal control, that WOULD be disasterous.

Funny, Detroit happened with the Fed being there. I thought thats supposed to be your example of what happens if its not? What about New Orleans for the past 75 years? Or for that matter most of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, West Virginia?

According to you, none of these states should be in the predicaments they are because the fed is there for them. Oh wait, no, they aren't. The poor ALREADY GET THE SHAFT.

You don't seem to understand that the poorest states have their federal funds vaccumed out to other places, which is, in several instances, why they have been poor states for so long. If you leave the money within the state, it will give most (especially the ones I listed) more money to work with per capita. It will also require the states to stop relying on federal bail outs to get by and will force them to deal with their own problems.

If you scale back federal gov't, they at least get LESS of the shaft, and are more empowered to do something about it.

As for the "These arguments were made a hundred and twenty years ago."

You act like that's inherently a BAD thing. Lots has changed over the last century that makes those arguments much more powerful in practice. You have much more gender and race equality in the work place, far better nationwide infrastructure for everything from power to transportation, a more sound and diversified economy and a more stable population.

Your argument almost parallels what happened with the dot-com bubble. That somehow because we are in a new age, old tenants of sound business practice no longer apply. Which is not only not true, but everytime we as a country have drastically deviated from our founding principles, we've gotten ourselves into pretty deep shit as a result.

[Edited on December 27, 2007 at 1:23 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2007 1:21:10 PM

Quote :

"You'd then have a situation where the richest states provided much better services then the poorer states"

well, the "poorer" states as you put it, would have less people to serve, and therefore require less funding. And for essential federal services the states could be taxed a percentage of their tax base, so you have the "richer" states contributing more than the "poorer" states.

Quote :

"you fall into the class that would be adversely affected. "

don't think so....I firmly believe I can manage my money better than the government. I'd say the epitome of being affected adversely would be paying thousands of dollars into a SS program for which i will receive nothing.

I could see the people who use federal aid as a crutch being put in a spot, but:

1. allowing people to become dependent on entitlement programs was a big mistake in the first place

2. States can and will create assistance programs that cater to their citizens instead of having blanket policies which will both be better for the people using them, and easier to run.

Quote :

"And again, the poor get the shaft, and the rich continue unabated. "

how is that any different than the current state of things anyway?

12/27/2007 1:30:48 PM

Well in the current system, the economically viable states support a standard of services in less economically viable states.

In your system said states would fend for themselves and they'd have to drastically rollback state government provided services.

Population and wealth aren't in linear proportion. Yes, more population supports more public money, but in reality it supports a lot more public money.

Compare the fiscal budgets of California and North Dakota, for instance.

Federal funding, in theory, distributes money in a way to maintain a national standard of sorts. We could argue and nitpick how effectively (or not effectively) it does that but returning to a more primitive form of government is not going to make poverty and the social issues associated with it go away, its simple going to remove any tools we have to deal with it at a national level.

Now, you could argue that States fending for themselves is an ideal situation as successful models would be duplicated, but economically speaking those states would then be competing not only with other states, but other nations that have absolutely no trouble using central governments to dictate their own policies.

The global economy is too complicated to make State vs Federal arguments on economic terms.

Social issues such as abortion, on the other hand, maybe.

12/27/2007 2:14:00 PM

Quote :

"it does that but returning to a more primitive form of government is not going to make poverty and the social issues associated with it go away, its simple going to remove any tools we have to deal with it at a national level. "

first of all, decentralized /= primitive. nobody said it was going to make anything go away, and it won't remove the tools, just allow for more flexibility and local control

Quote :

"Now, you could argue that States fending for themselves is an ideal situation as successful models would be duplicated, but economically speaking those states would then be competing not only with other states, but other nations that have absolutely no trouble using central governments to dictate their own policies."

states would not be competing any moreso than they are now. You seem to think that we're talking about doing away with the federal governmetn all together, and talking more of states functioning as individual countries w no central government.....that's not the case. There are just alot of things that state govenments could do better/cheaper than the feds.

12/27/2007 2:32:17 PM

Quote :

"Federal funding, in theory, distributes money in a way to maintain a national standard of sorts. We could argue and nitpick how effectively (or not effectively) it does that but returning to a more primitive form of government is not going to make poverty and the social issues associated with it go away, its simple going to remove any tools we have to deal with it at a national level. "

In reality, it vaccuums money out of poor states and into rich states. And away from the people and into corporate entities. It ends up working the same way public school systems do. The rural poor get shitted on more and more, while the urban elite get better and better educations.

There's no arguing or nitpicking. It doesn't work, its gotten worse over time and it's not getting any better.

Quote :

"Now, you could argue that States fending for themselves is an ideal situation as successful models would be duplicated, but economically speaking those states would then be competing not only with other states, but other nations that have absolutely no trouble using central governments to dictate their own policies. "

This is one of the founding principles of our country. We are a united states of america. Competition is good, and by moving the bureaucracy to a local level, you allow states to adapt faster and become more dynamic in a global economy.

Keeping the federal bloat in place on complicates the global economy even more. Removing the ridiculous federal trade regulations would make interstate and international commerce much more efficient, cheaper and would remove barriers to entry for smaller companies across the nation.

If you want a nanny-state, there are plenty to choose from. This country was founded on personal responsbility and freedom. That means freedom to fail as well as succeed, and there have been tens of millions of eager immigrants from around the world for centuries who have dreamed of such an opportunity.

12/27/2007 2:57:00 PM

Quote :

" In reality, it vaccuums money out of poor states and into rich states. And away from the people and into corporate entities. It ends up working the same way public school systems do. The rural poor get shitted on more and more, while the urban elite get better and better educations. There's no arguing or nitpicking. It doesn't work, its gotten worse over time and it's not getting any better. "

Uhhh actually it would seem that budget distribution is fairly lockstep with state population:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/8_6.xls

And alas, just because I know you love to blow ass

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

Seriously noen. stop arguing with me. Ever.

12/27/2007 9:01:11 PM

so, then, what about budget intake? Is that fairly even? If so, then it stands to reason that, you know, the states are getting fucked by a middle-man in there somewhere...

Moreover, looking at it "by state" is deceptive for the purposes of population. If bumfuck nowhere is getting a bridge to nowhere, I'd hardly call that a "plus" for big government

12/27/2007 9:04:04 PM

You can be as bitter as you want to be about government but don't for one second fool yourself into thinking the common man has a prayer under a libertarian system.

12/27/2007 9:09:36 PM

So then, how did we get our current system, exactly? The gentle benevolence of the elite? Blind luck? Do please, enlighten us ignorant peasants as to how we managed not to regress into a permanent feudal state despite far less government 100 years ago. Or how we even managed to establish the status quo, as, according to you, the elite would control everything without it.

12/27/2007 9:14:46 PM

Easy

We had this same fucking argument a hundred and twenty odd years ago.

States rights faggots lost.

Empire was born.

WWI

WWII + influx of jews

grats, you now live in the richest nation on the planet.



in a nut shell.

12/27/2007 9:20:09 PM

Somehow I'm inclined to believe you're oversimplifying a bit.

12/27/2007 9:24:52 PM

A few things may have happened in addition but I mean.

12/27/2007 9:25:51 PM

actually, the "States rights faggots" didn't lose. They had the anti-States rights faggots beat the shit out of them and them force them to accept it. There is a distinct difference.

12/27/2007 9:27:05 PM

^^ I mean that even by your own "nutshell" history, you're overselling your whole, "Under libertopia, the common man doesn't have a chance" meme. Obviously, they had a little more influence into policy than you're conceding is otherwise possible if we got from point A (then) to point B (now).

12/27/2007 9:30:03 PM

How exactly am I overselling 'libertopia' (what the hell does this even mean?)

12/27/2007 9:48:17 PM

No, you're overselling the notion that under the libertarian utopia ("libertopia") the common man wouldn't stand a chance. Obviously, we had a lot less government 100 years ago, and even given the chronology you lay out, it would seem that your assertion that, "the common man wouldn't have a prayer" is an overstatement.

12/27/2007 9:52:13 PM

SandSanta: from your own source

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/287.html

Federal spending per capita. You'll notice that the least populated and wealthiest states are all in the top ten. And that the states with the lowest income, most poverty stricken regions (notably, the ones I pointed out) are all FAR down the list.

Yes these states get more money than they pay in, No its still not even close to proportional to the rich states. So yes it's still a fucking vaccuum effect. Tell me how many years you've spent in MS, Lousiana and Alabama?

HAHAHAHAH GOD I LOVE WHEN YOU TALK OUT OF YOUR ASS.

12/27/2007 9:56:10 PM

^^^Well, you're acting as if Ron Paul somehow gets elected, he'd actually singlehandedly turn the US into some sort of socio-economic free-for-all nation.

What will likely happen and what needs to happen is that the unchecked growth in the federal government takes a few steps in the opposite direction.

[Edited on December 27, 2007 at 9:56 PM. Reason : sddf]

12/27/2007 9:56:23 PM

Quote :

"You can be as bitter as you want to be about government but don't for one second fool yourself into thinking the common man has a prayer under a libertarian system."

Good thing we have big gov't run by America's aristocracy in Washington DC to look after the common man

btw the argument for federal gov't concerning being the "richest" country in the world is kind of arbitrary.

12/27/2007 10:00:26 PM

^^Exactly Bobby, exactly. Its not that anything will change or reverse. It's that things will slow down their expansion and come into a little more balance.

12/27/2007 10:04:28 PM

Quote :

" http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/287.html Federal spending per capita... "

Actually, that would be "State Spending Per Capita, Fiscal Year 2005, February 1, 2007"(actual link title) found under the link heading "State Tax Policy and Data" and is useful for, well, DICK, in this argument.

Quote :

" You'll notice that the least populated and wealthiest states are all in the top ten. And that the states with the lowest income, most poverty stricken regions (notably, the ones I pointed out) are all FAR down the list. Yes these states get more money than they pay in, No its still not even close to proportional to the rich states. So yes it's still a fucking vaccuum effect. Tell me how many years you've spent in MS, Lousiana and Alabama? HAHAHAHAH GOD I LOVE WHEN YOU TALK OUT OF YOUR ASS. "

Actually, lets refer to the correct graph shall we? The one that rates states based on federal income tax collected vs federal dollars given. You know, the entire federal funding structure, or as you lovingly put, 'funnel.'

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

Top 10:

New Mexico
Mississippi
Alaska
West Virginia
North Dakota
Alabama
South Dakota
Kentucky
Virginia
Montana

These states actually received more federal funding then they payed through income taxes and by no means are they the wealthiest or most populous. Reverse 'funnel' maybe? Like a triangle? Maybe? Thoughts? kisses.

All the antagonism in this thread actually makes this even more entertaining as apparently most of you have no real idea how federal funding is spent other then the fact that we're running a massive deficit (thanks to a president voted for by some of the same very people in this thread) and have an administrative belief in a defunct 'trickle down' theory.

[Edited on December 27, 2007 at 10:21 PM. Reason : >.<]

12/27/2007 10:19:49 PM

dude, you apparently still dont comprehend that its the PER CAPITA dollar that matters, not the total state expenditure. Which is why the data I pointed to does matter.

You have poor states with a LOT of people in them. By your theory, the poor states should be getting more money PER INDIVIDUAL since they are the ones that need help, but instead the wealthier states get more tax dollar spent on them per person.

Your argument is equivalent to saying that China is the best country in the world because they have the highest (insert numerical value here). Completely ignoring the fact that the have a billion citizens.

Also, I've never voted republican before, I've never supported the reagan ideal of trickle down economics, and I never supported the current administration. I think a large majority of the Ron Paul supporters would say the same.

And the entire point of this is, even IF your argument was correct (which its not), then we should be seeing the poor states rise out of the slums and become more balanced with the rest of the nation. But instead they fall further and further behind. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.

[Edited on December 27, 2007 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2007 10:45:53 PM

I would make an exception for Alaska b.c you would have to pay me to live there also.

12/27/2007 10:50:54 PM

Quote :

" You have poor states with a LOT of people in them. By your theory, the poor states should be getting more money PER INDIVIDUAL since they are the ones that need help, but instead the wealthier states get more tax dollar spent on them per person. "

Well I admit that there's a slight gap in my understanding in that I couldn't quite figure out if that per capita number encompassed only State expenditures per resident, State and Federal expenditure per resident, or just Federal. My guess is that its only State spending (as the title suggests)which would make sense with Alaska being number 1 (sup oil handouts and low population density).

If that includes federal funding, then you'd be right. I simply don't think it does as it doesn't correlate with the other graph. And even if you were right, it would suggest that the disparity between rich and poor states would be even greater if you took away federal redistribution of income taxes which heavily favor less economically viable states.

12/27/2007 11:01:06 PM

That only makes my point even more valid

Look at the charts for the sales tax collections by state (there is no correlation, some of the poorest states pay the most per capita, some of the richest pay the least)
Or the ones for gross tax collections (poorest states have the least obviously, but its a FAR greater disparity than the federal funding gap)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/279.html

Same for income tax, property tax and most of the other state taxes. Based on that, the poor states should be recieving far more federal aid to "balance out". But its not even close.

So my point still stands. All the federal aid in the world hasn't helped these states raise themselves out of poverty. If anything, they have depressed the ability of people to bring themselves out of poverty.

Try getting a bank loan for a small business in California, New York, Mississippi and Alabama. You will see light years difference. The interest rates in the latter two states will be considerably higher, the chances of even getting approved will be MUCH lower, and the startup failure rate is significantly higher. One of the best ways to promote more business risk is to lessen federal aid and promote an open market.

[Edited on December 27, 2007 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2007 11:18:32 PM

Quote :

" Look at the charts for the sales tax collections by state (there is no correlation, some of the poorest states pay the most per capita, some of the richest pay the least) Or the ones for gross tax collections (poorest states have the least obviously, but its a FAR greater disparity than the federal funding gap) http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/279.html Same for income tax, property tax and most of the other state taxes. Based on that, the poor states should be recieving far more federal aid to "balance out". But its not even close. "

The bottom 20 correlate to the top 20 receiving aide.

Quote :

" So my point still stands. All the federal aid in the world hasn't helped these states raise themselves out of poverty. If anything, they have depressed the ability of people to bring themselves out of poverty. "

Your original point was rich states currently suck money out of poor states in a 'funnel' effect and clearly that isn't the case. All three charts, when lined up and in proper context support that your original idea isn't what's actually happening.

Quote :

" Try getting a bank loan for a small business in California, New York, Mississippi and Alabama. You will see light years difference. The interest rates in the latter two states will be considerably higher, the chances of even getting approved will be MUCH lower, and the startup failure rate is significantly higher. One of the best ways to promote more business risk is to lessen federal aid and promote an open market. "

Most banks are now national chains, not local. How you are approved absolutely has nothing to do with where you live but your background and business case. Maybe you mean that it would be easier getting a business case for a personal enterprise approved in a larger market and that would be true.

Look, I'm not going to try and justify a welfare state to anyone. I'm simply stating that without federal funding, the weakest states would have it even worse then they do now and all the data I've pointed out to you clearly, and I mean clearly shows this is the case.

I also will say that I don't adhere to the economic principle of 'tough love' in assuming that economically poor regions can fix themselves with no outside guidance. Short of natural resources being available in abundance, this has never been the case.

[Edited on December 27, 2007 at 11:41 PM. Reason : >.<]

12/27/2007 11:39:19 PM

Quote :

"Your original point was rich states currently suck money out of poor states in a 'funnel' effect and clearly that isn't the case. All three charts, when lined up and in proper context support that your original idea isn't what's actually happening. "

Yes, it is the case when you look at it as a per-capita rate, instead of geographic rate.

Quote :

"Most banks are now national chains, not local. How you are approved absolutely has nothing to do with where you live but your background and business case. Maybe you mean that it would be easier getting a business case for a personal enterprise approved in a larger market and that would be true. "

You obviously haven't spend much time in any Rural town. And definitely not in the south. You better damn well believe your ability to get a loan is heavily dependent on your business location. To even suggest that it doesn't matter is absolutely absurd.

Here's an FDIC report for you showing the growth of small business loans from Consolidation of major banks from 93-97, let me bold the pertinent rates for you

Non-MSA Counties 93-95 97-97
Overall growth (rate in percent) 12.18 12.65
Growth due to consolidatorsa 0 .15 -0.43
Growth due to other banks (offset) b 12.03 13.08
Existing banks 10.51 11.09
New charters 1.52 1.99
Small MSAs
Overall growth 9.19 10.43
Growth due to consolidatorsa -0.14 -0.36
Growth due to other banks(offset) b 9.33 10.79
Existing banks 8.36 9.26
New charters 0.97 1.53
Large MSAs
Total net change 4.81 10.32
Growth due to consolidatorsa -0.52 -0.84
Growth due to other banks (offset) b 5.33 11.16
Existing banks 4.38 10.17
New charters 0.96 0.99

Next if you go look at banks by state, you will notice a couple of trends. Banks in wealthy states have steadily increased over the past 10-15 years. Banks in poor states have been almost completely stagnant. They are much more risk averse than in other areas of the country.

Quote :

"I also will say that I don't adhere to the economic principle of 'tough love' in assuming that economically poor regions can fix themselves with no outside guidance. Short of natural resources being available in abundance, this has never been the case."

That's funny, North Carolina has done an about face in the last 50 years without any new natural resources. As have many other regions, it just takes a large amount of capital investment and long term infrastructure development.

12/28/2007 12:29:19 AM

I held an internship (data entry bs, but still good conversations loan officers), and had an Aunt that worked for CitiGroup International branch in Turkey that dealt with VC type high risk loans for not just rural, but third world development.

First and foremost, arguing with data from small towns and rural regions vs large, established markets on face value is silly. Of course its easier to get loans in a bigger city and as a result more loans are handed out. However, if I can come up with a solid business case for a Coffee shop in Elizabeth City, I'd have as much chance of getting a loan for it as I would a Coffee shop in Charlotte - key phrase being solid business case. There's no extra form that needs to be stamped by five different people. In fact, there are loans geared specifically for starting businesses in rural areas as well as special considerations that maybe granted by local and state government.

We can't argue the fine points of these types of loans as it differs from region to region based on a wide variety of factors. All I can say is that its a lot easier to get a loan today then it was ten years ago, regardless of location and the money is there provided you can guarantee a ROI.

Quote :

" That's funny, North Carolina has done an about face in the last 50 years without any new natural resources. As have many other regions, it just takes a large amount of capital investment and long term infrastructure development. "

The triangle area and Mecklenberg(sp) County yea, eastern NC not so much. However I wouldn't peg NC as particularly wanting with its three well respected Universities (two of which have Engineering departments no less). I also think I stated "I also will say that I don't adhere to the economic principle of 'tough love' in assuming that economically poor regions can fix themselves with no outside guidance and the Academic environment of this State makes that condition impossible to meet.





Post Note:

I was going to point out the portion of the state budget which comes from Federal grants but fuck looking through local government web pages.

Here's a census Bureau breakdown for 2005:

SUMMARY TOTALS FY 2005 AMOUNT
DIRECT EXPENDITURES OR OBLIGATIONS
RETIREMENT / DISABILITY PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS (DR) 21,478,203,091
OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS (DO) 10,897,290,292
DIRECT PAYMENTS OTHER THAN FOR INDIVIDUALS (DX) 1,205,706,770
GRANTS (BLOCK, FORMULA, PROJECT, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS) (GG) 12,958,870,327
PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS (PC) 4,911,570,812
SALARIES AND WAGES (SW) 7,710,725,867

TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES OR OBLIGATIONS 59,162,367,159

EXHIBIT
TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES OR OBLIGATIONS - DEFENSE 9,404,089,006
TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES OR OBLIGATIONS - NON DEFENSE 49,758,278,153

OTHER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
DIRECT LOANS (DL) 924,535,023
GUARANTEED/INSURED LOANS (GL) 4,972,760,977
INSURANCE (II) 22,357,230,248


[Edited on December 28, 2007 at 1:30 AM. Reason : >.<]

12/28/2007 1:28:01 AM

anybody see Paul's reaction to Bhutto's death? I can't watch it now, but it seems to be creating quite the stir. Objective summary anyone?

12/28/2007 10:43:20 AM

"...we've been supporting the Musharraf government, and hes a military dictator who overthrew an elected government. We just gave him 10 billion dollars over the last 7 years - hes only supported by 8% of the people and that does annoy some people. And theres so many factions over there - theres the bhutto faction, musharraf faction etc- and it just gives incentives for people to resort to violence and im opposed to that. We dont need to be further involved over there, we shouldnt have been supporting this military dictator anyway..."

i typed that from the cnn video. its a fade in/fade out type audio so thats all they have posted.

12/28/2007 10:52:00 AM

huh, alot of people seem to be really twisting his words....like always i suppose

12/28/2007 11:22:59 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJm8XNIjf4k

Ron Paul on CNN's Situation Room talking about Bhutto.

12/28/2007 11:33:35 AM

Ron Paul's speech sounded 1000x more intelligent and more thoughtful then President Bush's standard

"the terrorists that blew up the prime minister woman is evil and wants to destroy democracy and freedom in Pakistan. USA #1"

12/28/2007 12:08:31 PM

I cringed yesterday when I heard a Pakistani guy say that the elections had to go on or else "the terrorists would win"

12/28/2007 12:21:18 PM

funny thing is the US brokered a deal to get Bhutto back into pakistan only to create the illusion that they had a working democracy.....they were still backing musharev (sp?) to win the election. This puts quite a damper on that...

the US positions on these matters are comical. Musharev took power in a coup and runs a democracy only in name.

and what about Saudi Arabia? Some of the worst human rights violations take place there, they don't have anything near a democracy, but Bush was hesitant to even criticize the jailing of the woman who got raped....Why? because they play nice with the US. The gov could care less if any given country is a democracy, as long as they cooperate with us. they just use the democracy thing as a basis for anything they want to do. The whole thing is a joke really.

[Edited on December 28, 2007 at 1:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/28/2007 1:03:55 PM

the man has the worst negative rating of any of them....like 75% of his own party view him in a negative light...damn...

12/30/2007 7:15:39 PM

And yet, plenty of non-Republicans seem to love the guy. Hell, maybe he's doing something right...

12/30/2007 8:47:39 PM

Quote :

"Ron Paul on CNN's Situation Room talking about Bhutto"

Terrific segment..thanx!

Ahh wouldn't it be great to be a neutral country with a scary kick-ass military?

12/30/2007 11:12:07 PM

Hey look

Isolationism

You'd think after two world wars we'd stop talking about it.

BUT THATS NOT THE REASON THOSE WARS STARTED

right right.

Just about how we should return to the gold standard as well, eh?

12/31/2007 12:07:36 PM

^What are you even talking about, now?

12/31/2007 12:11:00 PM