tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post2173440566212442050..comments2023-10-30T09:23:42.803-05:00Comments on Some Assembly Required: SAR #11289Charles Kingsley Michaelson, IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04364694465614330540noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-68077030181728552742011-10-19T14:03:27.627-05:002011-10-19T14:03:27.627-05:00Patrick,
Respectfully, I think you missed my poin...Patrick,<br /><br />Respectfully, I think you missed my point. I said he would never receive the Republican nomination - because all those folks with deep pockets control the Republican party - not that Mr. Paul won't receive their money. <br /><br />I find many of Mr. Paul's ideas very appealing. . . but about the individual freedom thing. Near as I can tell, a basic tenet of the "individual freedom" part Mr. Paul's ideology appears to be that the economic "playing field" is level for everyone. Since that is patently not the case, from the get-go I'm highly skeptical of the catchy "individual freedom" thing and leery of any candidate that tosses-around that kind of rhetoric. On other fronts, I'm also bit confused about the "individual freedom" thing as an effective method of governance. Case in point, Mr. Paul want's to effectively get rid of the FDA. He's in favor of "free market" methods to enforce safety. Free market methods are the reason US-made plywood is among the poorest quality in the world. Same can be said for US-sourced honey. . . so call me HIGHLY skeptical. CERTAINLY the FDA and many agencies need to be reformed but in my view, first and foremost, that means eliminating corporate influence, not the regulatory authority. Mr. Paul's notions of wholesale elimination of agencies appears more to me like a knee-jerk ideological response justified by cherry-picking examples of real problems. The result being a policy that throws the baby out with the bath water.kwarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-88490513908704110602011-10-18T16:25:58.125-05:002011-10-18T16:25:58.125-05:00kwark,
ron paul has NEVER IN HIS CAREER taken a c...kwark,<br /><br />ron paul has NEVER IN HIS CAREER taken a corporate campaign donation. if your first impulse wasn't to ridicule him you would notice that his proposed cuts to the federal bureaucracy are part of a SYSTEMATICALLY different approach to governance, one that is based in individual freedom. he would cut the police state, end our wars (including the war on drugs), and the federal reserve system which makes our financial sector a cartel. the great elizabeth warren wouldn't do nearly as much to stop the processes that have actually brought us to this position. why not take a look at the forest before hacking at the trees?Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917783856850835411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-90899115235444375072011-10-18T13:35:51.098-05:002011-10-18T13:35:51.098-05:00Oh, I agree that potatoes, properly prepared, can ...Oh, I agree that potatoes, properly prepared, can be nutritious - I grew up on meat and potatoes, gravy and veg, followed by fruit pie. But today a potato is either french fried or baked and loaded. kwqark is right - the loss of profit to contributors is the decision making point. Take the gravy away from someother state.<br /><br />Which explains the defense budget.<br /><br />ckmCharles Kingsley Michaelson, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04364694465614330540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-64605354608836213002011-10-18T12:57:57.555-05:002011-10-18T12:57:57.555-05:00RE: "Them". One is left to wonder how M...RE: "Them". One is left to wonder how Mr. Paul arrives at his "solutions. <i>". . . freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006 levels the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget. . ."</i> Pulled straight out of his ass but, what the hell! <i>"The EPA would see a 30% cut, the FDA 40%. . . </i>. That'll work, so underfund them that none of your corporate donors ever has to worry! <i>. . .foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars."</i> Which ALONE guarantee that Mr. Paul will never receive the Republican nomination - too many influential CEOs/corporate donors profit from those programs. I'm waiting to hear Mr. Cain question Ron Paul's patriotism because he wants to cut military spending!kwarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-88867634426785854172011-10-18T12:34:37.059-05:002011-10-18T12:34:37.059-05:00RE: "Politics Illustrated". Well, the d...RE: "Politics Illustrated". Well, the dear senator from Maine is partially correct (about the nutritive value and preparation issues). The fact that these are Republicans complaining because the Government will spend LESS sets the hypocrisy bell ringing. It's only bad if producers (read potential donors) in some OTHER state(especially the blue ones)are receiving money or if it's going directly to poor folks without a corporate intermediary siphoning-off it's share.kwarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-62378980274515708592011-10-18T09:53:28.606-05:002011-10-18T09:53:28.606-05:00It's 'funny' how almost anything done ...It's 'funny' how almost anything done by the conservatives is to protect democracy, and the same efforts by the liberal sphere are a threat to the republic. Voter outreach is just the latest wrinkle, but I recall efforts to influence education policy branded the same way.TulsaTimenoreply@blogger.com