board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Wed 26 Sep , 2018 3:40 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 345 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed 19 May , 2010 3:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
Good news everybody. The Republican Party is taking the first tentative steps away from the neoconservatives that were dominant. Randall Paul, son of Ron Paul, won the Kentucky Republican Senate Primary against a candidate backed by the Senate Minority Leader, Rudy Giuliani, and Dick Cheney.

He's not as good as his dad, but still he's poised to be the best person in the Senate.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 19 May , 2010 8:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
When I heard that Rand Paul won last night I raised a glass and broke out into a broad smile. :cheers:

This article explains why.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com ... rters.html

Quote:
The likely Rand Paul victory in the Kentucky Republican primary today should give Democrats a very good chance of winning in the fall because supporters of Trey Grayson, Paul's main opponent, really don't like him.

Some primaries play out in such a way that party loyalists view several of the candidates favorably and just choose the one they like best. That was very much the case with the recent Democratic contest in North Carolina. But in Kentucky we find that Paul's supporters hate Grayson, and that even more Grayson's supporters hate Paul.

53% of likely Grayson voters for today have an unfavorable opinion of Paul to only 23% with a positive opinion of him. More importantly though just 40% of Grayson voters say they'll support Paul in the general election if he wins the Republican nomination with 43% explicitly saying they will not.

Paul is going to have some serious work to do to unify his party around him, especially because his supporters have gone out of their way to poke Grayson (and by extension his voters) in the eye. Whether the Democratic nominee is Dan Mongiardo or Jack Conway there's going to be an opportunity to pick up the Republican voters necessary to pull an upset this fall. Democrats winning in Kentucky in a tough political climate for the party is not something you would expect- but neither is Republicans winning in Massachusetts in any political climate. 2010 is really shaping up as the year of the unexpected in politics.


So not only do we get rid of Jim Bunning but the GOP seems to have done the Mad Hatter routine and embraced the Tea Party candidate with Paul. All this could well point to a Democrat taking what should have been a sure Republican Senate seat this fall.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 20 May , 2010 2:52 pm 
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar

Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 6910
Location: Silly Suffolk
I'm sure I read somewhere that Paul campaigned on a anti abortion, anti gay marriage platform. If that really is true - and I'm not claiming it is - it seems a strange brand of libertarianism

_________________
Image
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 20 May , 2010 3:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
There are many reports all over the place on Randall Paul. Since I'm not in the state of Kentucky I didn't get all the news, but I didn't notice him campaigning on that specifically. It's possible he did and I have insufficient information.

Now here is a Democrat who gives an honest approval for Randall Paul's victory.

Who's Afraid of Rand Paul?

Robert Scheer wrote:
Count me as one lefty liberal who is not the least bit unhappy with the victory by Rand Paul in Kentucky’s Republican primary for the US Senate. Not because it might make it easier for some Democratic Party hack to win in the general, but rather because he seems to be a principled libertarian in the mold of his father, Representative Ron Paul, R-Texas, and we need more of that impulse in the Congress. What’s wrong with cutting back big government that mostly exists to serve the interests of big corporations? Surely it would be better if that challenge came from populist progressives of the left, in the Bernie Sanders mold, but this is Kentucky we’re talking about.

Rand Paul, like his dad, is worthy of praise for standing in opposition to the Wall Street bailout, which will come to be marked as the greatest swindle in US history and which was, as he noted on his website, an unconstitutional redistribution of income in favor of the undeserving rich:

“Federal bailouts reward inefficient and corrupt management, rob taxpayers, hurt smaller and more responsible private firms, exacerbate our budget problems, explode national debt, and destroy our US dollar. Even more importantly, any bailout of private industry is in direct violation of the Constitution. It is a transfer of wealth from those who have earned to those who have squandered.”

Of course the joker in the deck is the word principled before libertarian, and, as many online commentators have noted, Rand Paul is a bit more inclined to waffle on an interventionist foreign policy than is his father. While he would have insisted on a declaration of war before the US invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, he argues that Afghanistan, where the 9/11 attack was planned, was a legitimate target but that Iraq was not. In either case, as he insists correctly, a Congressional declaration of war was constitutionally required:

If I had been in the US Senate I would have stopped them and said no more, we will have a vote. We will declare war with Afghanistan. We will declare war with Iraq. I would have voted for a declaration of war with Afghanistan but I would have voted against a declaration of war with Iraq. But I would have made them vote. And that’s the problem, they no longer pay attention to the rules.”

True, to wax warmly about a potential Republican libertarian senator is an act of desperation for a liberal who still hopes that the federal government might be moved by the embattled band of progressive Democrats in Congress to put the power of the federal government at the service of the needy. But when has that happened recently? With a commanding Democratic majority in Congress and a former community organizer as president, the focus of economic policy in this time of enormous economic pain has been on saving the bankers who created this mess.

With the Democrats trusting our well-being to the likes of Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, who under President Bill Clinton did so much to enable Wall Street greed, would it not be good to have at least one Republican senator questioning the Washington spending spree? Yes, Rand Paul is bad on a lot of social issues I care about, and no, I don’t embrace his faith in the social compassion of unfettered free markets. But the alternative we have experienced is not one of a progressive government properly restraining free-market greed but rather, as was amply demonstrated in the pretend regulation of the oil industry, of government as a partner in corporate crime. It is the power of the corporate lobbyists that is at issue, and it is refreshing that candidate Paul has labeled Washington lobbyists a “distinctly criminal class” and favors a ban on lobbying and campaign contributions by those who hold more than a million dollars in federal contracts.

Heresy, I know, but it is only thanks to Ron Paul, the father and hopefully the mentor of the potential Kentucky senator, that we got a congressional mandate to audit the Fed’s role in the banking bailout. How bad could it be to have another irascible Paul in the Congress?

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 20 May , 2010 4:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
Robert Scheer asks this crucial question

Quote:
How bad could it be to have another irascible Paul in the Congress?


The answer to that would be it depends on how honest Paul is about what he believes as a libertarian. Libertarians have badmouthing the various Congressional Civil Rights laws passed during the Sixties. Paul did so yesterday. But today it all hit the fan and Paul is looking like the extremist he is so he puts out a press release trying to straddle a very pointed fence saying he supports the Civil Rights Bill while still blasting an overreaching government.

If Paul is going to lie about his true beliefs to get elected, another lying Paul in the Congress would be a terrible thing to have. If Paul is going to be truthful and take responsibility for his positions without lying, I would view it as a valuable public service shining some needed attention on libertarian extremism. If that happens, he would serve a valuable purpose for this nation.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 20 May , 2010 9:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
It seems that David Frum is quite upset about Rand Paul's victory. While there are Democrats cheering because they think a Randall Paul victory is going to give the seat to Democrats, he's upset that it will give the seat to Democrats. And for all the Democrats talking about how nutty Randall's ideas are, Frum is saying how nutty Randall's ideas are.

It's fascinating who agrees with David Frum these days. Of course, Frum has been shown to be wrong on just about everything. And like the Democrats he allegedly opposes, Frum thinks a Democrat victory is better than a Randall Paul victory.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 25 Aug , 2010 4:06 am 
Daydream Believer

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Posts: 5778
Location: Pac Northwest
The future of Republicans.....John McCain :scratch: I thought the tea party wanted to throw all the old guard out especially those who crossed party lines at any time. Watching the right is like watching Sybil...you never know who's going to show up.

_________________
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 03 Nov , 2010 11:37 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14169
Duh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 03 Nov , 2010 12:06 pm 
Daydream Believer

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Posts: 5778
Location: Pac Northwest
I predict in 2012 Obama will get re-elected...the Dems will win back the house.

Why do I say such things...


Recent history...unless Boehner handles it differently than Newt...which I don't predict will happen.

_________________
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 03 Nov , 2010 5:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
I would agree with the first part that Obama will be re-elected in two years. And if Palin is the nominee the second part of your statement could also come to pass. If it is a more moderate than Palin, then the GOP could hold onto the House in 2012 although i would expect the Dems to make progress and cut the margin they hold the majority by.

Since the Dems keep the Senate for two more years, the result that made me happy yesterday was Rand Paul winning the Senate seat in Kentucky. Although you could not help but notice that even in this year of the GOP tsunami, he still ran behind the percentage that McCain won the same state by in 2008. I wonder why that happened? You would think not only would Paul have won by at least the percentage that McCain took Kentucky by but the GOP tsunami would have added at least five points to his margin of victory. But the opposite happened.

Just the same, Rand Paul is going to do two wonderful things for all of America over the next few years. He gives us a male edition of Sarah Palin to make fun of and act as a living parody of a politician. And as a bonus he continues to expose libertarianism for all to see. He is really doing the nation a great public service. Better a little pain now than a lot of pain down the road. ;)

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 03 Nov , 2010 7:22 pm 
You are hearing me talk

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Posts: 2592
Location: Great Lakes
How did your guy do, SF?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 03 Nov , 2010 10:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
Ara-anna wrote:
I predict in 2012 Obama will get re-elected...the Dems will win back the house.

Why do I say such things...


Recent history...unless Boehner handles it differently than Newt...which I don't predict will happen.


That's interesting.

I read on another forum a counter-analysis. The suggestion is that the Democrats are playing a very long game and Obama, as part of it, has been playing to lose.

It goes something like this:

Whoever holds the presidency after the 2012 election will be in a very bad position, because it will be that party that has to deal with the bust of Social Security in 2016 (if not sooner). The winner in 2012 is the ultimate loser. If Hillary had won the 2008 primary she would have lost the general election. Republicans would have won in 2008, and after a spectacularly bad four years Democrats would have won in 2012 making them the ultimate loser.

Instead Obama beat Hillary in 2008, meaning that the Democrats won in 2008 and the Republicans will win in 2012. This scenario only works if President Obama is different from Candidate Obama. Ever since the election he's gone from being a source of inspiration to either a fool, a coward, or corrupt. He's been consistently alienating some of the traditional bases of the Democratic Party (such as gay rights, or feminists) while his big achievement was a version of health care reform that most progressives have to hold their nose when declaring it one of his big achievements.

There was a very interesting comment on a NYtimes opinion piece concerning women being more willing to vote Republican. Since I can't make a link to a comment I'll paraphrase it here. A woman who identified herself as a former DNC delegate said she can barely stomach voting for the democrats anymore due to:
*misogynistic tactics used against Clinton in the 2008 campaign (which apparently still lurks unhappily in some women's memories)
*freely slung accusations of racism to anyone who does not support Obama past or present
*democratic/liberal assertions that Islam is religion of peace, while, to any western woman's perspective, it is polluted by the subjugation and abuse of women
*reproductive rights no longer hold the sway over female voters that they once did, either because they believe them to be ironclad or they have developed pro-life leanings to whatever modest degree
*Democrats have done little more for women than have Republicans in the past 30+ years

I'll add to that how it was Obama voters who enabled Prop 8 to pass in California, it was a Republican Judge who overturned Prop 8, and it was a Republican plaintiff who launched the first successful attack against "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

Unless there's a major turn around in the economy, and along with that Obama taking firm stands on other traditional Democrat issues he's ignoring, lots of people are predicting Obama as a one term president.

You don't rise to the top of the political pyramid by thinking only in the short term. In South Carolina, Alvin Greene got 30% of the vote while the Green Party candidate got 10%. One would think that Greene, being such a sorry excuse for a candidate, would cause people to go Green, but in the long run that would hurt the Democrats far more because it would open people up to the idea of a third party challenging the two party system. That would also explain why, in 2008, the Democrats didn't support when Bob Barr had legal standing to keep McCain off the Texas ballot. Turns out that Obama didn't need that twist, he won with McCain getting Texas, but enforcing the rules on McCain would have set an unwanted precedent for the long term.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 04 Nov , 2010 12:26 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
from DaveLF

Quote:
How did your guy do, SF?


Thanks for asking Dave. It was close and a real nail biter but he won and will be sitting in the legislature as a State Representative. The final vote was 14,000 for him while his opponent got 895 votes. For those keeping count, he got 95% of the vote. I am not sure if that is before or after the AV vote was counted but it does represent 100% of election day voting precincts.

Its been very difficult to summon any enthusiasm for posting on internet message boards arguing politics. When you are involved in a real life campaign as campaign manager and put in a good 60 hours each week for months, it pretty much gives you your politics fix. In January I will be the chief of staff in his office so that will be new and different. I taught government for 33 years - now I get to actually do government.

Its the difference between managing a fantasy football team and getting to actually run a NFL team. I am looking forward to it. Doing battle in real life with real opponents has a quality that the keyboard can never quite give you.

As for 2012, Social Security will only be an issue in the next decade if the Congress refuses to pop the cap on the 106K$ level for FICA deductions while keeping the current benefit levels. Its pretty simply math and a rather easy fix. That would be of course for those who have a desire to save the system and not destroy it.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 04 Nov , 2010 4:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
The Democratic Party won't let the Republican Party die. If they did, a party with different beliefs from the Republical-Democratic Party might replace it. In order to maintain the illusion the'll even have change over from one party ruling to the other party ruling.

If it looks like the Republican Party is actually in danger, the Democratic Party will save it.


Steven Greenhut: GOP gets undeserved second chance

Quote:
President Barack Obama saved the Republican Party from itself. In a two-party system, when one party makes a mess of things, the only choice is to reward the other party and hope that, eventually, one of the parties learns the right lessons. The Democrats received a well-deserved comeuppance, although the populist tide fizzled at the California state line. Our voters apparently are bigger gluttons for punishment than those in the rest of the country.

The GOP should thank its lucky stars that John McCain was not in the White House, or else it would be the Democrats who would be celebrating an Election Day rout. McCain supported the same basic noxious policies as Obama (cap and trade, health care reform, big bailouts, military expansionism) even if he wouldn't have gone to the same extreme as our current president on the domestic stuff.

Speaking at a recent luncheon in Costa Mesa, California's conservative conscience, U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Granite Bay, said, "The American people are about to give Republicans a second chance that we know we don't deserve."


Called this one.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 04 Nov , 2010 5:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
The Republican Party deserves the strongest possible accolades praising itself for its decisions that led to its comeback on Tuesday night. In point of fact, Barack Obama and his actions had little to do with anything since the Republican Party made a decision almost two years ago to the day to oppose him and do everything they could to paint him as a failure. Obama was the only US President in this century to do something positive about health care reform for anyone but the poor. His actions helped prevent a deep depression. His actions saved a few million jobs.

But none of that matters because the Republicans played their cards far better than Obama and the Dems did. While the Dems were concerned about getting something done in Washington the GOP made the political decision to be political and put up political obstacles to everything the Dems wanted to do --- even when they originated as Republican ideas.

The GOP showed us that they know how to play hardball in pure politics better than the Dems know how to do.

I only hope some of the Dems were taking notes and learned something from it. From the remarks from President Obama yesterday, he did not.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 04 Nov , 2010 9:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
You would think they are dancing in the streets in the Republican sector of Washington. But all is not as rosy as you might otherwise think.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44676.html

It seems they did not win nearly enough and there is blame being assigned within the circle of power.

Is this the shape of things to come???

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 05 Jan , 2011 8:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
Well, the Republicans took over the House today, but the Senate remains Democratic.

Obama is in a good position as a result - he can have the Senate do all the opposition for him and he can appear to be above the fray. Bills supported by one party will die in the other chamber and Obama can honestly say he didn't kill any legislation.

It remains to be seen whether House Republicans or Senate Democrats get the greater share of the blame.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 16 Feb , 2011 4:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
On Civil Liberties, War, Crony Capitalism: Ron Paul Is Saying Some Things Democrats Should Be Saying

Quote:
He may have been hinting to a cheering crowd that he will run again for the Republican presidential nomination—a prospect the crowd found appealing, as Paul won the conference’s straw poll with ten times as many votes as Sarah Palin.

That unsettled some CPAC attendees. The defenders of the conservative orthodoxies of the moment—as opposed to the Old Right stances Paul echoes—can’t figure out his appeal. To their view, he’s off-message on everything from the war on terror to Wall Street. And they dismiss his backers as hooligans.

But what unsettles mainstream conservatives ought to interest mainstream progressives.

Indeed, those who would like to see the Democratic Party stand for something other than a soft variation on Republicanism might want to take a few cues—no, not all their cues, just a few—from Ron Paul.

...

It happens that I disgree with the amiable Texan on a lot of more points than we share. For instance, I’m not with him getting rid of entitlement programs. And while we may agree cutting military aid to foreign despots, we disagree about cutting humanitarian aid to foreign children.

But Paul’s willingness to defend civil liberties without apology, to criticize dictators and the US policies that support them, to call for bringing troops home, to attack the military-industrial complex and to condemn bank bailouts and crony capitalism is not just on target. It’s compelling.

If Democrats are interested in identifying themselves as anything more potent than a kinder, gentler variation on mainstream Republicanism, if they recognize that drab managerialism does not excite the American people, if they want not only to win elections but to make those wins mean something, they should borrow the best lines from Ron Paul’s text.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 18 Feb , 2011 6:50 am 

Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2420
Location: Queensland, Australia
I've nothing against Paul, but I think that the movement that he represents needs to start thinking about a new leader. I like statesmen with age and experience behind them, but I think that your late 70s is getting on a bit to be starting a Presidential campaign.

_________________
[Space for Rent]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 20 Feb , 2011 4:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
Randall Paul. Andrew Napolitano and Gary Johnson, currently out of office but have held office. Also Peter Schiff, but he lost his primary.

The current economic crisis has shown the utter emptiness of both Right Keynesian and Left Keynesian economics, and brought other ideas forward. In a way it is a shame, because those other ideas could have prevented the Great Keynesian Depression we are now in.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 345 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group