275 comments posted · 113 followers · following 5

11 years ago @ - Raising Cain on the Fa... · 0 replies · +3 points

Problems with Cain:
1.. Herman Cain opposed any outside audit of the fed..

2. Herman Cain supported the TARP bailouts.
(note on tarp) (Now Cain has state that TARP was bad because it was misused. He never says the principle of socializing losses for business is bad. He never argues against corporate welfare. only that this application was bad)

3. More on Herman Cain and bailouts.

My main issue on Herman Cain is here.He is proven time and time again to be a Keynesian. In short he is on the same bandwagon as bush and obama. He thinks government spending can fix the economy. I do not want another Keynesian in the white house. I would like to see someone who believe in the Austrian school of thought get a shot finally.

11 years ago @ Big Government - The Law: What Is Liberty? · 0 replies · +1 points

Personal attack. personal attack.... How about you answer some of my questions below this post instead of fleeing at the first sign of resistance? My points are very valid. Enter debate or lose by default like most everyone else on this website.

11 years ago @ Big Government - The Law: What Is Liberty? · 2 replies · 0 points

Come join the argument then. We are starting with drugs on my response to forconstitution. Come swat a Ronulan. You are probably very good at it and I am very good at playing along.

11 years ago @ Big Government - The Law: What Is Liberty? · 0 replies · +1 points

Lets have a discussion on your problem with Ron Paul. I can problem help because you seem to misunderstand what Ron Paul stands for. Most of your comments I have read so far revolved around your fear and hatred of Muslims and drugs. Both of these problems are probably caused by a lack of understanding of the issues. Your primary misunderstanding would be on Constitutional matters which is funny seeing as how your name uses the word Constitution.

We will start with drugs. Where in article 1 section 6 of the constitution does it give power to the federal government to prohibit the use of drugs? After reading article 1 section 6 go reread the 10th amendment. Tell me what you come up with. If you don't feel like reading it I will just tell you. The federal government has absolutely NO power to prohibit drug use. Not express power, not implied power. No kind of power. It is a brash over extension of federal power and directly violates the constitution.

11 years ago @ - Pennsylvania's Rick Sa... · 0 replies · +2 points

You will never get a response =) No one even tries to make earnest argument against Ron Paul. They know if they try to find his specific flaws they will realize he is the only one who strictly follows the constitution. Then they will have to admit defeat.

11 years ago @ - New Mexico's Gary John... · 1 reply · +1 points

Wrong and wrong. Unless you believe in a "living constitution" that is completely off base. Almost every conservative believes in original intent interpretation.

The commerce clause was meant to maintain trade between states. If you agree the commerce clause can justify the government to criminalize drugs then you would have to believe the commerce clause could mandate healthcare, allow the EPA, allow the FDA and every other government bureaucracy that has anything to do with goods or services. Why wouldn't they be able to? Why couldn't the commerce clause allow the federal government from stopping boeing from moving their company to south carolina under your logic? I honestly can't even follow your logic. What under the commerce clause could even be translated into allows drug prohibition. Please explain. I at least get your sad attempt at using the general welfare clause. But the commerce I have no idea. You sound like a liberal.

The welfare clause is to give the government the power to tax in order to maintain the welfare of the country. Go read what Jefferson had to say, you can learn a lot. It has NOTHING to do with personal behavior, or personal welfare. The constitution gives specific power to the states not the government to make such laws.

Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are opponents of safety nets. Ron Paul who supports ending the drug war is actually the most outspoken, serious candidate to attack our safety nets. So They should both fit into your acceptable category.

11 years ago @ - New Mexico's Gary John... · 3 replies · +1 points

really? Drug prohibition is not in article 1 section 6 of the constitution so how does the federal government have the power to regulate it? Do you approve of alcohol prohibition? At least they amended the constitution as was necessary. It is the same concept. Legal moralism and legal paternalism are not legitimate reasons for government to exercise coercion and those are the only 2 philosophical grounds to ban the personal use of a drug by adults. Could you explain to me why you disagree with Gary Johnsons' drug policies?

11 years ago @ - Flash Mob Roughed-Up b... · 0 replies · +2 points

The memorial needs to be placed in private hands then. If it were a private memorial it would be ok. But to ban dancing on public grounds is ridiculous no matter how many judges agree to it. Think about it. Can they ban dancing on a public sidewalk because it doesn't fit the mood of the town? What authority alllow a judge to ban non offensive non violent behavior. The offense principle does not include annoyances or unpleasant behavior. It is for behavior that is offensive to most people. So they can ban running around naked, yelling profanities, and killing animals at the Jefferson memorial. But no matters how many feds say so, it is not right to ban dancing. It was a good protest.

11 years ago @ - Herman on Hannity: Ame... · 0 replies · +2 points

Oh boy this article just came up. You should read it.

11 years ago @ - Herman on Hannity: Ame... · 1 reply · +1 points

I'll be voting in the election no matter who wins the primary. That was never a problem for me. I will fight tooth and nail to ensure Herman Cain isn't the front runner for the GOP though. So yes I will vote for the not Obama.

Let's talk about Herman Cain though because that's what this argument is about.
In the past he has consistently supported TARP, Bailouts, Stimulus, and secrecy of the fed. That is a fact. And now that he is running for president he is attempting to distance himself from these views. Its a political move. His record is stronger than his rhetoric. He is an actor like the rest of them and this is not an issue that can be let go.
Lets look at the critical error in his logic.
-He has consistently in the past held the belief that an increase in aggregate spending by the government and the manipulation of interest rates by the fed are the best way to fix or maintain our economy. That translates to stimulus, bailouts, and artificially low interest rates that create boom/bust cycles. Is this what the "conservatives" believe in?
-He supported TARP. It was socialization of losses. TARP was socialism. The tax payers ate the losses of a major corporation. And he supported it. He later said he no longer approved of TARP because they picked winners and losers. Not because it socialized losses of huge corporations. So Herman Cain supports tax payer backed corporate welfare. Is this what the "conservatives" believe?

Herman Cain is a man that goes on stage and pretends to be the tea party hero and say's exactly what a Frank Luntz would tell him to say to incite the most cheering. Then he goes home and tries to calculate how the government can solve everyone's problems instead of how to turn people's fates back over to the people.