jomama, you are so naive. you simply posit a world of I of guess small mom and pop businesses with virtually no big government run by nice little libertarians without a lot of money like yourself. history, although not naive libertarian theory, has shown over and over unregulated markets lead to a small group of wealthy folks who control all the money and who are not nice little libertarians like yourself. they conspire together to rig markets and will screw nice little libertarians like yourself. without minimum wage laws, unions, immigration laws and other laws you would be working for sub minimum wages for them or starving take your choice. oh,well Deckard says you are nice guy, so peace.
I tend to put abolition of nearly all restrictions on capital markets, labor laws, income taxes, civil rights laws, and basically the entire modern regulatory state as well as modern foreign policy iin some bizarre-o attempt to return to the warped and failed policies of the 1890's as a more "critical issue facing our nation" than the replacement of metal detectors with body scanners at airports. Forest, trees, etc. But that's just me.
According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees. As part of the bailout of AIG, Goldman Sachs received over $12 billion in taxpayer funds; ostensibly to prop up the weakened financial sector and failing American economy. Almost half of the money then flowed to more than 30 other organizations, many of which were overseas. To add insult to injury, Goldman Sachs announced this year that it would lay off over 1000 Americans as it shifts some operations to Singapore. The savings will be at least a billion dollars next year. This is after the company reported a $2.3 billion profit in just the first three-quarters of this year.
You just said yourself that the rich rig markets in their favor. Throughout history, there have never been unregulated markets -- from the days of the Romans, through the feudalism of the dark ages, and on the the mercantilism and neo-mercantilism of the past 400 years. Perhaps minimum wage laws, immigration laws, etc. are big business's way of rigging markets today? Has that thought not crossed your mind? I didn't mention labor unions, because I'm a libertarian supporter of voluntary labor unions. Perhaps what the government should do is limit the scope of its power and authority as a means of preventing the wealthy and influential from rigging markets in their favor. It isn't like we can just get rid of markets entirely. Perhaps you're the one who is naive.
I've said this elsewhere, but, for everybody attacking Paul, is there really any better representative/Senator that is any better? I'd think the same petty attacks made against Paul could be similarly directed toward any of the 535.
And like I've observed, what does "better" even mean? The fact that Paul's ideologically consistent for 20 years means jack crap, because his ideology's nuts. David Duke's been consistent in his rantings for 20 years, so has Bachmann for 4 among others. Heck, take my senator, Amy Klobuchar. She's a Democrat, so there's things she supports that I don't. But I don't think she's that inherently bad - heck, she'd probably make a better president than Paul, not that that's an accomplishment.
If I had a dollar for every time you've responded to me, I'd have slightly more money than if the same applied to everybody else. "Better" is entirely subjective. You get the point.
what is the "no true scotsman" card? i never have and i fully support the call to end the fed. why are you asking me? im not rhad. that being said, i believe it is due to his opposition to pauls economic policies. on pretty much every other key issue he seems to agree w/ paul, but his economic policies are so disagreeable to rhad that he is unable to support him in any way. again, im not rhad, but thats what i think he would say...since you are asking me. and im curious too? are you still supporting mitt "bling-bling" romney like you did in 2008 after you dropped your support of paul? and i still find it puzzling that someone could go from representing paul as a delegate in the 2008 republican convention to being a vehement critic of pretty much everything he stands for. you have to admit that is quite a "flip-flop", which perhaps explains why you are a romney supporter!
this is the best thing you have ever typed - even by your standards this post is just total rambling non-sense. totally awesome brah!:grin: and how do you know how much money i make?
why wouldnt they donate to someone who is going to turn america into the corporate free-for all/rape-fest that many claim he will? maybe they know that under a paul presidency the corporate welfare/crony/warfare state they enjoy under republicans and democrats will evaporate? perhaps they know that the government will no longer be there to subsidize and be held liable for their failures? i know you are...but what am i?
