Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Metacomet who wrote (52679)	11/10/2007 2:43:58 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 78402

'If he could be elected strictly on his stance on the Constitution, Iraq and fiscal common sense, he would be a no brainer.' Agree absolutely with your intended meaning, but can't we dispense with the 'no brainer' expression? ... aaargh i hate that, how about 'thinking man's choice' ... no wait, you people down there are letting the ladies vote too now, aren't you, better think this out before general release ... still, note that key word in the last there is 'think', and for that most find they need a brain There are plenty of mexicanos who see sense in libertarian arguments, more all the time ... always did in the field of foreign affairs, the military is prohibited in the constitución from passing the borders, under serious penalty ... in economics, campesino society is quite classically liberal at the same time it is highly social/tribal in a familial sense, complex long story that, and evolving all the time, but scratch an ejiditario and you'll find a capitalist who just needs convincing that the system will let him operate as such in fair and open manner In re the twisted xenophobia, Paul is deluded by the cultural milieu he grew up in, no more i think, as he appears logical in other respects ... your educational system has failed you greatly with the propagation of myths that just aren't so

To: Metacomet who wrote (52679)	11/10/2007 2:44:02 PM
From: AlphaRomero	Respond to of 78402

He's alot better than the Establishment guys who own Goldman-Sachs stock! (aka: training grounds for future Central Bankers, both US and Canadian). He is also in favor of legalizing drugs as a strict Constitutionalist, which would bring more peace and prosperity to the USA-Mexico border region, on both sides, by removing the criminal financial incentives. (I know such dramatic government policy/legal changes would not happen overnight, but if you're not at least moving in the right direction you may never get there) Are we off-topic Slan?

To: Metacomet who wrote (52679)	11/10/2007 5:00:34 PM
From: roto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78402

"Paul is interesting." I think Paul is a curiosity. Just a week or so ago, I ran into one of his disciples here in Idaho..it was my lemming experience of the day. the Paul disciple was prept with the goodies, free cd's & all, but sht...no cookies, no chocolates. I was just blindly curious with masked suspicions. I was not aware that Paul is actually a 'Constitutionalist'...not a Libertarian as some here observed, not a Republican (no public love left for the repub's although he probably has a Texas "R" tattooed somewhere on his backside). it is odd he sold himself as a republican to obtain political office...now he has morphed into a questionable mark of some character that sells well on the street. anyway, as a Constitutionalitist, which according to Wikpedia, is "The term Constitutionalism refers to the position or practice that government be limited by a constitution, usually written, that is superior to statutes, treaties, executive and judicial actions, and the constitutions or laws of sub-jurisdictions. The term may also refer to a movement or effort to enforce such a legal order, usually called constitutional compliance. Constitutionalism is also concerned with the principles of constitutional design, which includes the principle that the field of public action be partitioned between delegated powers to the government and the rights of individuals, each of which is a restriction of the other, and that no powers be delegated that are beyond the competence of government." my question to the 'Ron Paul Idaho lemming- on- the- street' was how would this affect my quality of life here in Idaho in regards, let's say, property zoning or water rights. guess what? none of that will matter as the 'long ago' Constitution is very explicit and minimizes all governance that rests outside the Constitutional parameters including, I am sure, a lot of good government (if there is any such as good government left). after this conversation, I suppose Ron Paul's 'intentions' would be the adoption of Laissez Faire* politics. in my 'today's opinion, it is bad to suffer the wrongdoings of unfettered capitalism & now people in this country may want to blindly embark on a path of Laissez Faire politics as a return to political sanity. my statement & question to the Ron Paul profit was that the Constitution has been amended with the original 'Bill- of- Rights' setting the precedent for all future amendments. the Constitution is therefore a 'living' document that allows for the future necessities of the nation; furthermore, states rights are certainly guaranteed if not expressly forbidden by the Constitution driving forth other laws for the welfare of it's people. is this not correct? (if there are errors of Constitutional 're- design' they are solely my fault. my 'Civics' was long ago & I am pissed that this republican pariah Ron Paul is trying to re- package himself/ & emerge as a beautiful flower.) I read of Ron Paul & see his merry minions of legionnaires mucking up the public airwaves & thoroughfares with their propaganda. my issue with all these polliwog bs's such as Paul is their capacity to lie about anything/ all things to gain fame or political office. Paul is just another political puke singing a different song but selling the same old shit.