Hillary for President

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

What's that?

It means we aren't on the gold standard any more. Libertarians and John Birchers work themselves up into a lather about the gold standard but gold is itself an arbitrary measure of value. It's tough for the John Bircher nuts to find any well-respected modern economists to agree with them about the gold standard. I generally think their arguments against fiat money are based on uneducated fear-mongering rhetoric.

NOTE: I do agree with Libertarian arguments on certain other subjects - just not on their obsession over the gold standard.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

It means we aren't on the gold standard any more. Libertarians and John Birchers work themselves up into a lather about the gold standard but gold is itself an arbitrary measure of value. It's tough for the Libertarians to find any well-respected modern economists to agree with them about the gold standard. I generally think their arguments against fiat money are based on uneducated fear-mongering rhetoric.

NOTE: I do agree with Libertarian arguments on certain other subjects - just not on their obsession over the gold standard.

I can't understand why people aren't concerned with printing money that has no real value. It is true precious metals fluctuate in price, but the fluctuation is more of an indication of the strength (or lack thereof) of the dollar. People buy gold when they are lose confidence in the dollar. Since the dollar has no value (except your confidence in the government to honor the note) it has to fall if we lose confidence. Inflation (the weakening of the dollar caused mostly by printing too much money) hurts the poor and middle class much more than the rich. Poor people aren't able to diversify. The purchasing power of their meager income is greatly diminished. Most people worry about a politician's tax policies. I'm much more worried about inflation. Why we allow the government to write bum checks is beyond me.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

It means we aren't on the gold standard any more. Libertarians and John Birchers work themselves up into a lather about the gold standard but gold is itself an arbitrary measure of value. It's tough for the John Bircher nuts to find any well-respected modern economists to agree with them about the gold standard. I generally think their arguments against fiat money are based on uneducated fear-mongering rhetoric.

NOTE: I do agree with Libertarian arguments on certain other subjects - just not on their obsession over the gold standard.

I hope I'm not being confused with a Bircher. I was raised in a cult, I wouldn't be foolish enough to join another one willingly.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I hope I'm not being confused with a Bircher. I was raised in a cult, I wouldn't be foolish enough to join another one willingly.

BlueHair, I was wondering if you've been watching the Republican debates and what you thought of Ron Paul's presence. Especially in the second debate, the moderators were really harsh with him, implying that he's not a Republican and should not be seeking the nomination. He nearly got shouted off the stage when he suggested that our overly-interventionist policy set the stage for 9/11. It's true that he's extreme, but I think it's unfortunate that his notions of return-to-limited-government are being received this way by the party.

[BarbaraGordon]

This poll came out the 17th. You can see the entire thing at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...elease_web.pdf

It was sponsored by FoxNews but conducted by Opinion dynamics. The poll has all kinds of good questions.

look at this number on Hillary. 55% of Americans (76% of Republicans) think she'll say whatever she has to in order to win the nomination. The other candidates are in the 20s and low 30s.

[il Padrino Ute]

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Mr. and Mrs. Clinton discussed those poll results.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

BlueHair, I was wondering if you've been watching the Republican debates and what you thought of Ron Paul's presence. Especially in the second debate, the moderators were really harsh with him, implying that he's not a Republican and should not be seeking the nomination. He nearly got shouted off the stage when he suggested that our overly-interventionist policy set the stage for 9/11. It's true that he's extreme, but I think it's unfortunate that his notions of return-to-limited-government are being received this way by the party.

I haven't seen any of the debates. My wife and I have 70+ hours of Tivo we've been trying to catch up on the past few months. Paul sounds like an interesting character though. You've sparked my interest. I'm going to read up on him in the next couple of days.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

I'm tired of hearing how liberals are more compassionate. They are compassionate with other people's money. If they really cared so much, wouldn't they open their own wallets? I remember reading about compassionate John Kerry's tax returns and the measly amount he donated to charity. Instead, he wants to take MY money and help the poor with it. Not all democrats are this way, but it seems way too common, IMO.

And secondly, read about Hillary Clinton. From both her enemies or her friends. It becomes pretty clear that on a personal level, she is a pretty vindictive person. So in her political life, she is compassionate, but on a personal level, she is vindictive? Seems a bit odd, don't you think? The truly compassionate people I know show their compassion in their daily interactions with others, not just with platitudes they spout.

You mean like Jimmy Carter? And Bill Clinton?

It's interesting how these ex-presidents compare to recent GOP ex-presidents.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You mean like Jimmy Carter? And Bill Clinton?

It's interesting how these ex-presidents compare to recent GOP ex-presidents.

Bill Clinton is insincere. He is all about image. Always has been and always will be.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Ah, it looks like my persistence has paid off. The mystery of "Dr." Lawrence Britt has been revealed by Ryan Cragun, a blogster sympathetic to much of what you believe. Here he unveils the great "Dr.":

Ryan Cragun's Blog

The pertenent info:

"As it turns out, Dr. Lawrence Britt is actually just ‘Lawrence Britt,’ a contributor to Free Inquiry, a magazine published by The Council for Secular Humanism. The article is freely available online. But as far as Mr. Britt being a political scientist, there is no reference to this in Free Inquiry. In fact, it says he is writing a novel to be released in 2004. While Lawrence Britt may have come up with these points, I’m hesitant to accept his analysis without the confirmation of actual political scientists. If his 14 points were published in a peer reviewed journal, I’d believe them. As they stand - propaganda!"

Another writer sympathetic to your cause, Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, wrote this of Britt's 14 points:

"The Britt article started with what is happening in the U.S. and then crafted a description of fascism that only highlights those points that will support the thesis. This is a logical fallacy (the false notion that things that are similar in some aspects are identical in all aspects)."

His full review can be found here:

Reviewing Britt's 14 Points

So he's neither a political scientist nor a doctor, and is prone to logical fallacies.

Even if this guys credentials are suspect or non-existent, he has done a decent job of outlining what the consensus within the establishment of political scientists say constitutes a fascist regime. I got my masters degree in comparative politics and international relations and those points are right on about fascism.

However, since political science is a social science one must always talk in qualitative terms rather than quantitative terms. Which is where your criticisms of patriotism vs. nationalism/xenophobia and others come in. Basically it is a question of degree and IMO the US is not close.

Blue Hair does have a point that some actions of the Bush Administration fall closer to the line of an authoritarian regime, particularly the habeas corpus issues, wiretapping. A few policy actions does not a fascist make, but it is a worrying trend.