This is interesting, but why haven't I heard about this on the nightly news?

Do you still think someone is NOT controlling the media?

I mean, this IS BIG NEWS.

WHERE IS IT?

Now he's wondering just how much of that displeasure from Washington is being generated by the perceived White House alarm over his Cold Case Posse investigation checking out suspicions raised by area tea-party officials that Barack Obama may use or try to use fraudulent documents to be on the 2012 presidential ballot in Arizona.

Rand hated libertarians. She called them (incorrectly) the "hippies of the right". Some objectivists fancy themselves "libertarian", but Rand's Objectivism is not libertarian. Modern Objectivist rags like "Reason" constantly insult and misrepresent libertarians.

You're right that modern American Economics isn't rational. That's because it's fascist, not capitalist. Any semblance to capitalism was destroyed by the abandonment of a gold standard in favor of fiat money. (it was Tricky Dick Nixon who closed the "gold window", btw)

"Atlas" is an okay novel (and Rothbard liked it) but it is not libertarian. There's a great satirical play about Rand by Murray Rothbard called "Mozart Was A Red". You'd like it. Check it out on Youtube.

Rand hated libertarians. She called them (incorrectly) the "hippies of the right". Some objectivists fancy themselves "libertarian", but Rand's Objectivism is not libertarian. Modern Objectivist rags like "Reason" constantly insult and misrepresent libertarians.

You're right that modern American Economics isn't rational. That's because it's fascist, not capitalist. Any semblance to capitalism was destroyed by the abandonment of a gold standard in favor of fiat money. (it was Tricky Dick Nixon who closed the "gold window", btw)

"Atlas" is an okay novel (and Rothbard liked it) but it is not libertarian. There's a great satirical play about Rand by Murray Rothbard called "Mozart Was A Red". You'd like it. Check it out on Youtube.

Where do you find the authority for government regulation of business in the Constitution? (the closest you'll find is the interstate commerce clause) If you've ever read Ron's economic works, he's thoroughly opposed to the big banksters and opposed the bank bailouts. The RAM plan is not 'pie in the sky'-it is restoring Constitutional limits on the regime that have been thoroughly eroded by fascists for 100+ years.

The Constitution does not secure to anyone liberty to conduct his business in such fashion as to inflict injury upon the pubic at large, or upon any substantial group of the people.

You can hate Ron and libertarians in general all you want, but Ron's been proven right time and time again. Serious libertarians (not the Reason/LP types) thoroughly oppose the merging of business and government (which Moussolini called Fascism). There's a BIG difference between corporatism and laissez-faire capitalism (as in night/day difference).

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-trillion-dollar-man-232900554.html

COMMENTARY | I have followed politics for a long time, and there is never a shortage of politicians promising the world and not delivering. After my recent review of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan I detailed why this plan is "all sizzle and no steak" and how an additional 9 percent federal sales tax would give the weak consumer driven economy an immediate heart attack. I believe we already collect enough in taxes, seemingly more than enough, and our problem is almost entirely based around our federal government's spending habits.


Voters should take 10 minutes to read The Plan to Restore America proposed by presidential candidate Ron Paul. Many of Paul's closest supporters might not think it goes far enough, while others who don't mind a ballooning national debt might think it cuts too much and that is why this is the best plan for restoring America.


It's well balanced. It cuts most federal spending back to the levels of 2006 (I'm sure we can all remember life way back in '06) and it saves tax dollars by ending the wars and stops providing any foreign aid. However, Social Security gets increased funding each subsequent year in the Paul presidency as does Medicare, military retirement funding and veterans' benefits.

More importantly this plan is necessary. Without real major changes in defining what the role of our federal government ought to be, we will not be able to achieve prosperity in America again. Even Rush Limbaugh agreed in saying, "Genuine, big spending cuts are the only thing that is going to bring us back into some semblance of ideas. Now, these aren't (just) Ron Paul's ideas. They are ours."

This Trillion Dollar Plan is not a guess, nor a long-term projection. It doesn't make a weak yet hopeful promise to see results 10 years down the road, it delivers immediately by making the cuts in one budget year and would provide a surplus budget before the end of his first term in office.


I like when promises come in written form and from the only honest and consistent candidate running for president in 2012. And since the budget would be in surplus during Paul's first term it would make it easy to judge his presidency when it comes time for re-election. If the debt ceiling isn't raised and my taxes aren't higher, I'll know that you are the real deal; a characteristic that I wouldn't apply to either Barack Obama or George W Bush.

When judging what is truly important this election cycle voters should be focused on two things: Is the candidate trustworthy, and does the candidate know how to fix what's wrong with America? After reading this Plan to Restore America, I feel I have found the answer to both, and I believe that you will too.

Who says Gingrich will be they GOP nominee???

I love that song!

Not to mention the Looney Left love to give out plea bargains and let the criminals go free which also encourages this kinda of thing.

Oh Yeah... and in the leftist utopian society everyone being homeless would keep this kind of thing from happening..

But atleast you would know that people like Oblahma and his millions in wall street cash would really be looking out for you..

I wish to throw this in as a question about ethics and morality (they mean the same thing, btw)

I was at a party or something, and someone had a sick relative, say a child or a father. Everyone was supportive, I said, I'll say a prayer, but I'm an atheist, I must warn you. They said, more than one and they all agreed, at the party, where almost everyone else was religious, Christian at that, that my prayer will still count, maybe more than a regular Christian's prayer, seeing that I am not a believer.

We went home. I did not do the prayer, thinking that what's the use? I truly don't believe that it would have mattered in any way at all.

NOW. Please try to decide this question either by removing yourself from religion and atheism; or by considering the tenets of both, and not just of one or the other. I mean, you need to answer the question that follows below, but you must examine it from both atheistic and religious views; and give an answer that satisifies both. Not two answers, each of which satisfies either or the other. But one answer, with an explanation perhaps, which ONE answer gives a satisfactory answer to both the religious and the atheists in this above situation.

The question:

Did I do the morally right thing, the ethically right thing, by promising a prayer for the benefit of a religious person; and did I do the right thing by intentionally never saying the prayer.

This is an ethical question, that's how I mean it for you to consider it. Your answer must not be contingent on the fact whether the sick family member for whose benefit I told I'd say a prayer, got better or not.

--------

As a moral question, you may treat the topic in any way you like, for instance as a question within cultural norms and expectations, or as a question as in the domain of individual's moral obligations as determined by him.

Newt was deferred from serving in Vietnam because he was enrolled at Tulane University and he had children...Also he was impaired with flat feet and short-sightedness...True but non the less funny!! Kind of fits doesn't it....

apparently not,,,lol

let me guess,about nearly seven years ago!

OMG,that's a Real First!
A politician cheating on his Wife!

all of the other airlines got out from under union contractual obligations and I don't see a shortage of pilots flying for them or an increase in accidents based on the pay scale.. Nice try though..

some high school dropouts have become stock brokers.

Employee pay may be cut. “When they go in and file bankruptcy, then American can set the employee contracts anyway they want.”