Ron Paul Supporters not welcome in Louisiana GOP

[MSimon]

Umm .... where the hell did communism come into play? This isn't the 70's and 80's anymore, using the invented specter of an invisible enemy doesn't work when everyone has access to the internet.

Dude. It is not a specter. You forget that at one time I WAS a communist. I know it from the inside. And my friend you are blowing smoke. Top to bottom.

Your diversions may work on the ignorant. They will not work on me.

My condolences for your loss.

[MSimon]

Neither party is going to leave you alone, and right now the GOP is going to take more then the Dems are.

Ah. You mean they will take more government programs? Excellent!

[seedload]

The dems spend too much time fighting against each other to actually arrange some sort of dictatorship / authoritarian government. The republicans on the other hand are extremely well organized, they rarely fight each other.

Of course the Democrats fight more. The question of who to take from and who to give to is incomprehensibly complicated. The reason they fight is the same reason that government shouldn't be in that business in first place.

[hanelyp]

A picture of the absolute DISASTER the "great society" has gotten us into, http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/6-char ... -run-amok/

A few scary factoids:

– In the 1960s, there were 18 workers per Medicaid recipient. Today that number is 2.5.

– The number of Americans on disability has risen 19% faster than jobs created during this recovery.

– There are just 1.2 private sector workers per 1 person on welfare or working for government.

– There are now just 1.65 employed persons in private sector per 1 person on welfare assistance.

The figures appear to be specific to Pennsylvania, but I believe they illustrate a typical picture across the US.

On top of that, I firmly believe tax rates are past the futility point on the Laffer Curve, accounting for taxes across all levels of government. Trying to close the gap by raising tax rates will only send the economy into deeper depression.

A graph I ran based on economic activity being depressed 3% for every 1% in tax rate, supported by a study I read, and a reference in "economics in one lesson".


We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.[/img]

[Diogenes]

Simon,

Yet you still vote for them .... interesting.

They have one saving grace for this engineer. They can run the numbers. And they win elections. Since I live in Illinois - unless the polls are close - odds are (today) I will vote for Gary Johnson.

I take local elections the same way I take national ones, case by case basis. I voted for Snow and Collins last time,

Of course you did. The stupidest and most backstabbing members of the Republican party seem to be a perfect match for you. Many's the time I had wished their seats had been taken by Democrats, because then at least they would be labeled properly. I will always prefer a Liberal Democrat to a moderate Republican.

though I can't stand the current GoP party, those two have always seemed level headed and looking for a common sense solution.

And with that statement, you've revealed that you've never had an understanding of political issues at all. The last thing that could be said about them is that they exhibited any sort of common sense, or that any thing they ever did would be a "solution" to any thing. There is a REASON why those two are outliers among the Republicans.

Much to the chagrin of their party leaders. Now that Snow's retired I'm worried on who the GoP will attempt to appoint to run for her seat.

It would be hard to find someone who could do worse. Even a Democrat would do better.

Be careful that your not voting out of some false sense of party allegiance, they rely on that to push their agenda. After all how would you feel if it was your senator that prevented your state from legalizing cannabis?

Yes, by all means we must focus on what is IMPORTANT in this election cycle.

Would you vote for Obama if he ran on a platform of making cannabis a states rights issue and had it de-listed as a schedule I substance?

Do you pay any taxes, or are you still in school? From what you have written, I would guess you have very little interaction with the REAL WORLD.

[Diogenes]

===

I have very rational reasons for calling the Republicans "Christian Democrats" they are the remnant of the Christian wing of the Progressives. They have taken over what was in 1900 a libertarian party.

The Republican Party was founded for one express purpose. To abolish Slavery. Now Simon, you might regard this as being excessively Christian, and the activity of Moral Busybodies, but some people simply regard this behavior as normal when viewed from the natural law philosophy of the rights of man. The notion that we are all equal in the eyes of God was the driving force behind the notion that all men should be equal in the eyes of man as well.

Where you get this "Libertarian" crap from, I do not know. By modern standards, the Republicans were from the very beginning a collection of Religious nut-jobs who believed in a moral right and wrong, and their intentions were to support that which was right, and to oppose that which was wrong.

And of course we have the secular remnant of the Progressives - The Democrats. Copperheads.

We have in effect a one party state with two factions - both authoritarian. Just ask Diogenes about that (at least he claims that for the Republicans).

We have a supposed two party system, whereby all of one party (Democrats) wants to loot the government for power and goodies, and a large chunk of the second party (Moderate Republicans) wants to do the same thing, but not quite as obviously or quickly.

As I have observed time and time again, a man can be sent to Washington as a Conservative Republican, but after a sufficient period of exposure to that crap pit, they "evolve" into people willing to spend other people's money just so long as they are in charge of distributing the goodies.

Tom Coburn is even showing signs of being absorbed by the other side. This "liberal evolution" can only be counteracted by one thing of which I can conceive. A much Higher turn over rate. We need nationally imposed term limits. Keep shuffling the Senators and Reps through the system before that sh*t gets a chance to stick to them.

Make them live in the world their legislation creates, and it will help them make better legislation. (Or help prevent them from making bad legislation.)

We don't need a government doing something. We need a government doing less. The Republicans have the Ryan Plan. Not very good but the alternative is the Democrats who have no plan.

I don't remember the details of the Ryan plan, but I have a great deal of respect for Paul Ryan, and at the least I would expect his plan to be plausible. At least he doesn't live in Magic tooth fairy fantasy land like the Democrats do.

[Diogenes]

I don't want to sound harsh, but what economic plan?

You'll be lucky to hear it so long as you stick with the major media and left wing sources. The conservative economic plan is based on property rights and freedom for each man to keep the fruits of his labors, lifting himself up. As opposed to the leftist plan of demonizing the "winners", taking from the producers to give to the parasites.

Umm .. I'm not liberal .... or did you miss that.

I stick to internet news from multiple sources, strange the UK reports seem to be the most level headed. The dem's have a faulty plan that involves cutting back and closing tax loopholes established during the Bush presidency. They've actually laid it out (being a democratic executive they kinda have to). The GOP has done nothing but say "we're going to stop the spending but we don't raise any taxes", when asked exactly what their going to cut ... they haven't actually said it, only mentioned "welfare programs for freeloaders".

Earlier I said out the US financial situation, outlays are too high and income is too low. You can't cut your way out of that, and both parties know this. Romney won't say exactly what he's planning on cutting due to whatever he says, it'll piss off some voters and he stands to lose support. Thus instead he'll just keep waiving a hand. He wouldn't decide any of that anyway, he'll be told what his budget will be and what he's allowed to propose to be cut. Just like the congressmen(women) will be told what to vote for.

For what it's worth, I am very much in favor of tax increases for certain industries, and ex governmental officials. Glenn Reynolds has been commenting a lot recently about this idea, and I like his plan.

Since Movie Actors and people in the Hollywood film industry have a solid opinion that people should pay more in taxes, I would very much like to see a tax on the movie and entertainment industries. It needs to be so huge that we can reach their philosophical limits on what they believe is fair taxation.


While we're on the subject, I believe copyright law has gone way too far. When the US Constitution was written, Copyrights and Patents were given equal protection. (20 years for both) But over time, Copyright protection has been continuously extended till now it is something like 80 years or more.

As one of my friends is constantly pointing out to me, Patents are given for something that is of real and useful benefit to mankind, while copyrights are given for such non-essentials as songs, poems, books or other forms of creativity that are nice, but do not provide nearly the benefit to mankind as does something which is patented.

I would very much like to see Copyright protection cut back to 20 years. If celebrities were required to spend more time working for a living rather than collecting royalties while lecturing the rest of us on our moral obligations to support the Welfare state, then perhaps they would have a more sensible outlook on life.

About the most sensible thing I've heard from an actor is this:

“You shouldn’t speak until you know what you’re talking about. Reporters ask me what I feel China should do about Tibet. Who cares what I think China should do? I’m a f—king actor! They hand me a script. I act. I’m here for entertainment. Basically, when you whittle everything away, I’m a grown man who puts on makeup.”’

[hanelyp]

One tax I could go for on the entertainment industry, a base copyright term as short as 5 years, with exponentially progressive renewal fees for additional 5 year terms. Under those terms Disney might keep copyright on the old Micky Mouse films, if they could afford to pay through the nose for it.

[palladin9479]

Umm .... where the hell did communism come into play? This isn't the 70's and 80's anymore, using the invented specter of an invisible enemy doesn't work when everyone has access to the internet.

Dude. It is not a specter. You forget that at one time I WAS a communist. I know it from the inside. And my friend you are blowing smoke. Top to bottom.

Your diversions may work on the ignorant. They will not work on me.

My condolences for your loss.

Ahh so your still running scared from the cold war, explains much. Why someone with such reasoning ability is able to abandon it so quickly on certain issues. You've been infused with fear and that fear overrides everything else.

Communists are not taking over the world, Red Dawn was just a movie. To everyone else in the world you sound crazy when you bring up the "Red Scare" comments.

I could get you to do whatever I wanted by simply painted the opposite with the label "Communism" or "Socialism" (the same thing in your mind). You would then blindly run away in utter terror.

[choff]

The historian Anthony C. Sutton wrote some interesting books about the financing of Soviet communism. Interestingly both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks had a congress in London at a place called Tavistock lane.

[seedload]

Since Movie Actors and people in the Hollywood film industry have a solid opinion that people should pay more in taxes, I would very much like to see a tax on the movie and entertainment industries. It needs to be so huge that we can reach their philosophical limits on what they believe is fair taxation.

I think this was said a little bit in jest, but I am pretty sure that this would constitute coercive use of the taxing and spending clause in order to violate first amendment rights - something you would obviously oppose.

[Diogenes]

Since Movie Actors and people in the Hollywood film industry have a solid opinion that people should pay more in taxes, I would very much like to see a tax on the movie and entertainment industries. It needs to be so huge that we can reach their philosophical limits on what they believe is fair taxation.

I think this was said a little bit in jest, but I am pretty sure that this would constitute coercive use of the taxing and spending clause in order to violate first amendment rights - something you would obviously oppose.

The tax system has been used in a coercive fashion for a very long time now. Mostly this has been done by Liberals wanting to "punish" people whom they don't like anyway. It might be wrong, but my side didn't open this door.

As for it being a first amendment issue, they can say anything they like. Taxing them more, or reapplying previous taxes that were repealed would not prevent them from expressing their "people need to pay more taxes" opinion. It would just make them less hypocritical when they do so.

I believe the Hollywood industry has a severe disconnect from ordinary people. As has been pointed out, Money comes easy to them, (compared to people who actually have to work for a living.) and they really don't appreciate the difficulty of how ordinary people acquire money. (Most) Ordinary people can't collect continuing royalties on work they did decades ago.

But I appreciate your point.


"The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy."

Exactly. They just need a dose of their own medicine.

[Diogenes]

One tax I could go for on the entertainment industry, a base copyright term as short as 5 years, with exponentially progressive renewal fees for additional 5 year terms. Under those terms Disney might keep copyright on the old Micky Mouse films, if they could afford to pay through the nose for it.

I think copyright holders (led by music and movie industries) have lobbied congress for the last century to grant themselves excessive indulgence in our legal system. Their goal has been to become "rent collectors" without the need of having to produce any new useful good or service.

I think this indulgence has produced detrimental effects to our Society and this exploitation of the system needs to stop. Not so long ago I posted an article regarding how absurd this exploitation has become.

[Skipjack]

I think the current copyright laws are absurd.
90 years after an authors death?! And then everything is copyrightable and it is totally diffuse with no regulation at all.
They make patents obsolete by now. Patents are much more strictly regulated and are only valid for a maximum of 20 years. I dont see why the same time limitation should not apply to a copyright, which is not regulated and very vague and pretty much getting to the point where it is harming the economy by blocking new developments.