Silkroad Online Forums

Whose country? Americans don't say "chaps"!!

Anyway, unfair taxes such as income taxes. So you can see why they're shooting for having the IRS and income tax removed. Looks like I worded my other post wrong, but meh.

yeah china has a large market. we need to trade smart I dont think anyone wants lead in their products

wow, let's go back to the japanese internment camps shall we? or right after 9/11. god knows that if the minority fucks up, the whole race is to blame.

the lead scare was unfortunate, but cutting trade off from china is just stupid.

its not a simple "lead scare". And cutting trade with china would be riduculous 95% of the stuff we use comes from china anyway

Nuklear, it's not where liberals "fail". There are many different types of views on government. Ron Paul seems to be a laissez-faire type of guy, while I'm more of a utilitarian.
And, forgive me, but I still don't understand why a corporation would build our schools, manage benefits, keep a clean environment, and maintain roads. What do they have to gain? Money? The government can't pay them enough to make it worth their while without taxes. Advertisement? Make the company more popular? I dread to think of what will happen if advertisement becomes the founding block of our schools. For example, do you think that if McDonalds gave kids a "good education" and told them how unhealthy their food is, that the kids and their families would go there later? They won't. So McDonalds will tell them whatever it takes to increase their own business.

Furthermore, if a company is advertising all over the place thanks to their control of [insert element of modern society here], it means that they have to be getting enough money to make it worth their while. Either A) we end up spending as much as taxes as a whole or B) small businesses stand less of a chance of surviving and thriving or C) suddenly there isn't enough profit involved and education, sanitation, and transportation are neglected.

In modern society, taxes are certain. You're taxed one way or another, unless you're on the top, and doing the taxing. The following is a rough example. In an early civilization, whoever knew how to create fire the best or was the strongest would become leader of the group. People want power by nature, so there will always be a leader, one reason that communism just doesn't really work. And what do you think the leader wants now that he's dominant over the rest of the tribe? Will he settle for simple pride? Or will he get some more materialistic goods from being leader, because he can? If you get rid of official taxes, there are always unofficial taxes, or just ways in which your money is taken.

Who do you think makes up a government? The government has to pay the people who make it up.

Good luck, you seem like a smart enough guy, and try to convince those Huckabee voters to vote for Paul. I'll still remain undecided though. Might as well go try out that candidate calculator.

Take government out of the equation. Now a demand has risen for someone to fulfill the tasks that govt doesn't do. I didn't say corporations, I said companies. Entrepreneurs and companies are going to fill the gap. Since people don't pay taxes for education that money will go towards tuition fees if necessary. Let's go with your McD's analogy. Just like when I described how companies would build roads there's a reputation, ultimately money, incentive for them to do a great job. Add in competition from neighboring schools or competing companies and there's more incentive to be great and to keep striving for greatness. All this competition applies to teachers, material taught, ethics, health, etc. So your worry about bias, though founded, is almost moot. I could easily see them build a restaurant inside the school but they'd have to offer other choices or they'd get no customers (children).

So? Then they should continue to do what they're doing or find something that isn't being provided or provide something of higher of quality.

That's a huge stretch. There's always going to be a need for education because people need/want to learn. Always a need for sanitation...that's self-explanatory . Public transportation may not always be needed but where there is a market for something someone will provide it.


I still ultimately disagree with taxes but with a govt as big as we have something has to support it. Which is why we should cut all the fat off govt. About govt paying salary, there's an author named Donald Kirchinger who wrote Government Without Taxes. I haven't read it and couldn't find specifics online but at least one person has an idea.
I'm fairly new to the libertarian movement so while I don't know the ins-and-outs I do have a good understanding of the mindset. I have yet to come across a govt program that couldn't be done as good or better than in a free market economy.

Gulliani dropped out.

John Edwards is dropping out too.

I'm a little sad Edwards dropped but it's no surprise. He wasn't polling strong enough and was getting diddly for MSM coverage.

*updated with the contestants left. What are you guys thinking now?.
Personally - wow at Rudy. He came from the beginning where quite a few people assumed that he would be the Republican nominee, to dropping out after not doing so fantastically in the Florida primaries where he was betting all his money. He didn't manage his campaign too fantastically, did he?

Yeah not one of his better moves

The race has been mostly boring. Since McCain came back in style the race has pretty much been set. Unless there's a spoiler at the rep convention it looks like the unremarkable McCain v. Dem. It's easy to see why our country has declined the way it has, it's a nation by the people. Unfortunately, our people are Farking stupid. I can't wait 'til ~30 years has passed when most of the baby boomers are dead so we can start electing people that aren't the same ole. Who knows, maybe we'll be corrupt then too. Ideally, I can't wait til a state secedes. No more fed fucks in my biz.

It would seem the framers of democracy had it right when they made the constitution...keep the power out of the hands of the general populace because quite frankly they are complete and utter retards. But then again, what can you expect from the largest most diverse republic on earth?

Where Americans lack in voting, they more than make up in other government participation compared to the next leading democracies, i just wish that we could get better voting records as well. Sadly only the radicals of the parties vote in primaries, and then like 60% vote in the general election... sad really.

Farking california went to hilary. this is bullshit why are people voting for her.

not being sexist but it is most likely the women are voting for her because she is a woman.

she is fake.

Good Hillary gets nomination = Republican will win the election.

god I hate her but obama has to win

Cuz he got some head...shit

And I voted Obama because he will win and am democrat

Ya but who is the republican who's going to win? Mccain? because he is only republican in name on alot of issues he has a democratic stance so......

Huckabee is a wack job and a criminal so i deffinately wouldnt vote for him (if i could)

point being hillary would be really easy to beat if mitt is the republican candidate imo. but from the way its gone since super tuesday mccain is winning and huckabee is just leeching votes away from mitt

Thing is, no one knows for sure who the democratic nominee will be - Hilary and Barack are both doing relatively the same right now; at the very least, enough for there to still be real competition. In most previous years, by this point, everyone would already know who the Democratic and Republican nominees would be by this point, and the rest of the primaries would be more or less just a formality.
With Hilary and Barack, though - yesterday's Super Tuesday primaries only exemplifies that point. Barack overall won more states, but with Hilary's win of NY, she ended up with more delegates. So who knows. I'd vote for Barack over Hilary, though. I don't like alot of her policies, and to me, she just seems like the classic stereotype of the politician who doesn't give a damn about her country whatsoever.

That's true of history but not this time. While voting numbers are still low compared to population this is an epic year in elections...even if people are still voting for the same old and with their asses.

Have to disagree, man. In these primaries the Dems have gotten 2-3x more people to vote than the Reps. Add the fact that 70% of people want out of Iraq, the extreme opposite of McCain, and you have a guaranteed win for the Dems.
I still can't decide who's the lesser evil. I'm leaning towards Obama but must confess I don't know much about his positions. Anyway you put it America loses. McCain a neocon, Hillary a neocon in disguise and partly liberal, and Obama who's a liberal and is promising change but all these establishment people have endorsed him.

I do agree that, besides Paul, Mitt is the one that would come closest to beating the Dem. Conservatives really like trust and Mitt is just a flipflopper.
It's too bad that the mainstream candidates all have a bit of liberal in them.

QFT

Its a bad sign. It shows that there arn't any outstanding leaders that people like.



I saw a couple of her speeches on tv, they sound so fake and corny. She looks like she has stuff to cover up

I like McCain's history and background and I like Obama's youth. I think they would make good running mates if they weren't on opposite parties.

I am really wondering what you people see in Ron Paul. He's obviously not winning anything and even some candidates that were getting more votes than he did have already dropped out.

Simply put, I'll be voting for Paul because I want more freedom and liberty. Obama is the opposite of that and McCain is a warmonger and I don't support that mentality. It's a vote on principle.

You have a point if you put it that way about Obama and McCain.

But I dont understand how restraining the government will ensure liberty and equality for all.

I'm gonna be pissed and disappointed in the US if Ron Paul is president. we can do so much better than that, and as far as i'm concerned the last thing we need is another republican president. Obama FTW.

most of you forgot the Clinton years
milk 1$
gas 1$
income 5-10$hr thats the lowest paying jobs
Either way
national health care
is A massive PLus
imagen if you where offered a job 50$an hr but no health care
10 weeks into the job you break your leg not only do you sit in the waiting room for longer durations then the guy with the paper cut but the doctor himself will not even treat you with respect knowing that he cant charge max on your insurance,
And if you do have insurance same incident but bleeding is at its peak and nearest hospital doesn't attend you because they don't get covered by your insurance
while being transfered you die

with options to choose your doctor still at your hand
and if the career is federal they pay for your schooling

where is the bad idea there style fixed the economy in depression,

+ we will advance medically maybe the end to almost all those pathetic ribbons

police
firemen
doctor?

You only need to look at the definition to understand.
http://www.answers.com/liberty?cat=biz-fin&gwp=13

I asked before, once generally and once specifically, why you feel that way of both Obama and Paul. Please don't evade it again by using generalizations. That only tells me you're uninformed/misinformed.
Also, loved that you used the generalization of 'just because he's in this group.' People should be judged on individual merits...but what do I know?

I'll talk about silver's health care later but just want to say that I wouldn't include police in the examples of where socialism has done us right.

The republican party as a whole, the last few years (not only G. Bush Jr), has driven up taxes and the economy has been in chaos.
I like Obama's war stance better. I like his healthcare views and plans better than Ron Paul's. I see him more, he seems more open, I have not once seen him unable to answer a critical question nor hesitate to give a respectable answer. Ron Paul, in my eyes, is a joke. You don't see him on tv. You don't hear about him on tv or radio. Maybe if you know exactly where to look, but on CNN, I haven't even heard his name once. I don't like his persona. I don't like his style of public speaking; there's something about it that epic fails at keeping me attenative. (This coming from the few youtube vids I have seen you post.)
I don't like Hilary, either, if you're going to say I'm only picking on RP. Hilary's husband might have been a good president, but she seems like she's in it only for the title, and she's overly defensive and needs to mention repeatedly who she has supporting her so that she feels secured.

I thought gop was for tax cuts

the gop loves tax cuts...

So, Itomani, he's a joke because he's not covered on TV/radio and you don't like his 'persona' (which I partly agree with in that he's not very good at speaking with a lot of people)? That just doesn't make sense to me. I find it hard to believe you've become so critical with someone you admit to hardly know.
This is probably the best interview with him and comprehensive list on most of his positions.
Code: Select all
As I've said before, I have little problems with people feeling different about things than I do, but it's when they disagree without fully understanding the 'issue' where I must protest and inject some knowledge.