I am now convinced Ron Paul is the way to go.

[Grendel_Kahn]

I happened to catch the debate last night, and while I have never heard of Ron Paul, I am FIRMLY on board. I have done as much reading as a fll day will allow, and I went to Youtube to watch as much of his speeches as were on there.

This is the first time in my adult life I have looked at a candidate and thought they were honestly telling me the truth. Everything this man said has started the ringing in my ears. He makes sense. He doesn't dodge the questions.

On top of that, I keep looking at the poll numbers and it appeares that he has won every debate by a wide margin, yet I see no press covering this. Why is this? Please look into this man and the things he says. I have been a lifelong Dem, and would NEVER consider voting RED, ( unless they dug up Teddy Roosevelt that is) but this guy seems like the real deal. You HAVE to look up Youtube debates with him


Sorry to stump.

Rob

[keithy_19]

I forget who it was on this boiard who mentioned him before, but it made me check him out and I will gladly vote for the man.

Does he have a legitimate chance? I doubt it. But to me it's better to vote for your heart than just who you think "your" party would like better.

[TooLowBrow]

he DOES look really creepy!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Ron_Paul%2C_official_109th_Congress_photo.jpg/200px-Ron_Paul%2C_official_109th_Congress_photo.jpg

[epo]

As a Democrat, I fucking love Ron Paul. I hope he runs on an independent ticket after the traditional Republican Party rejects him.

[TooLowBrow]

um, he look like before he got the ring and turned into gollum
http://www.tuckborough.net/images/smeagol.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

If the stuff I've found online about the man are even halfway true, nobody in their right mind would ever vote for Ron Paul. If anyone can debunk them, feel free, because they seem pretty ridiculous. If they can't...yikes.

Zoinks! (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5)

Ye Gads! (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html)

Jinkies! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)

[torker]

he DOES look really creepy!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Ron_Paul%2C_official_109th_Congress_photo.jpg/200px-Ron_Paul%2C_official_109th_Congress_photo.jpg
aka Mr. Greenjeans
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I41983-2004Jan23L

[JPMNICK]

he wants to put this country back on the gold standard. right there you know he is a maniac

[epo]

If the stuff I've found online about the man are even halfway true, nobody in their right mind would ever vote for Ron Paul. If anyone can debunk them, feel free, because they seem pretty ridiculous. If they can't...yikes.

Zoinks! (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5)

Ye Gads! (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html)

Jinkies! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)

Mojo - My understanding was that stuff was all too real. The Ron Paul Political Report was a project of his in the late 80's-mid 90's. For some reason he won't release copies of those reports to the Associated Press.

Hmm....

[KC2OSO]

Ron | Fez is the way to go...

[MrPink]

Yeah, I joined the Ron Paul supporters after my candidate (Doug Stanhope) was forced to quit his presidential race. I swore that I wouldn't vote Republican, but I actually agree with this guy.

Just realized he wants to get rid of the IRS, fuckin awesome! I hate my Tax class.

[led37zep]

I was interested in Ron Paul till one of his hard core supporters told me he is the only candidate that realizes 9-11 was a government conspiracy. That shit turned me off the second I heard that shit. Dude just seems a little off to me. I've been meaning to do some research into him, maybe I'll do that tonight.

[PapaBear]

. I've been meaning to do some research into him, maybe I'll do that tonight.
Mojo's links were enough to scare me away (not that I was interested to begin with).

[led37zep]

Mojo's links were enough to scare me away (not that I was interested to begin with).


I don't see myself voting for him either, I just like to learn about the various candidates, especially those on the fringe.

[MrPink]

I was interested in Ron Paul till one of his hard core supporters told me he is the only candidate that realizes 9-11 was a government conspiracy. That shit turned me off the second I heard that shit. Dude just seems a little off to me. I've been meaning to do some research into him, maybe I'll do that tonight.

I don't think that guy ever listened to what Mr Paul had to say. He said that 9/11 was caused by terrorists that were pissed off not because we have freedom (sort of) but that our foreign policy invited them by interfering with their own affairs by force.

[Dudeman]

If the stuff I've found online about the man are even halfway true, nobody in their right mind would ever vote for Ron Paul. If anyone can debunk them, feel free, because they seem pretty ridiculous. If they can't...yikes.

Zoinks! (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5)

Ye Gads! (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html)

Jinkies! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)

yeah, he can say some things about certain topics that sound okay on the surface. but anyone who can look at enough issues and look below the surface sees he is actually a completely unrealistic ideolog. really, look more carefully. to say he is more or less dangerous than bush, is a tough call, but it is on that level.

for example, he wants to get rid of the FDA, abolish the federal reserve and go back to the gold standard, abolish the dept of education, etc. Do you really want to get rid of the FDA???

[Grendel_Kahn]

he wants to put this country back on the gold standard. right there you know he is a maniac

Why? Why is it so crazy to have our economy based on real things? This way we STOP just printing money when we run low. That was the way the Italian government operated in the 60's and 70's when their money was worthless. By going on the gold standard ( again) we eliminate inflation, and give real value to the money we already have. Let us not forget that N. Korea and China have been hoarding our money for the last 15 years. Not the electronic kind. $50 bills $100 bills, bearer bonds and Tbills.

As far as his take on the Rodney King riots...............well...............is he 100% wrong? I was there and I remember. I remember after 3 days of all out war on the streets, every post offoice had lines around the block with people looking for the welfare. I remember it because i saw it. I remember the fear of leaving my brothers house thinking I may not be able to get home fast enough. That and the OJ verdict did more to harm race relations in this country than anything else in recent memory. So, no it doesn't surprise me what he wrote. I think if I go back and look at my journals from that time they might not be too far afield from his point of view.

That's nlot to say these 10 + years I haven't changed. That in the intervening years I haven't developed different sesnsibilities, and general worldview. In a way it's refreshing to see someone admiting to something.

[topless_mike]

Do you really want to get rid of the FDA???

they dont so shit anyways, so why not

[Grendel_Kahn]

they dont so shit anyways, so why not

Well said my good man! Well said!

[TheMojoPin]

What the hell are you guys talking about? Abolishing the FDA makes zero sense, and saying they do "nothing" is completely baffling.

I wouldn't vote Ron Paul for dogcatcher. He makes Perot and Nader looks like gods.

[Yerdaddy]

All I want to know is: what's his stance at urinals?

[TheMojoPin]

All I want to know is: what's his stance at urinals?

Cartwheels. Ron Paul can't be told where to put his pee by THE MAN, maaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnn.

[Crispy123]

What the hell are you guys talking about? Abolishing the FDA makes zero sense, and saying they do "nothing" is completely baffling.

I wouldn't vote Ron Paul for dogcatcher. He makes Perot and Nader looks like gods.

What exactly is the FDA doing that is good for this country??? Republicans are supposed to want less government but this is typical of the "neocon" republican party. Support a government agency that is corrupt and incompetent by dumping more money into it instead of doing away or reforming it.

Ron Paul is going to have to become independent to keep any kind of political career.

[suggums]

Ron Paul is going to have to become independent to keep any kind of political career.

he'd get less attention than the media is already giving him. that's the main reason he runs under the republican banner

[Yerdaddy]

What exactly is the FDA doing that is good for this country??? Republicans are supposed to want less government but this is typical of the "neocon" republican party. Support a government agency that is corrupt and incompetent by dumping more money into it instead of doing away or reforming it.

Ron Paul is going to have to become independent to keep any kind of political career.

Upton Sinclair and Teddy Roosevelt would disagree with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle)

I would ask you this: what would you or Ron Paul replace it with? And you say "...doing away or reforming it" but does Ron Paul say anything about reforming it or is he just proposing we just get rid of it and sniff our own tainted meat from now on?

[TheMojoPin]

Well, I guess I'm total out of the loop. I don't think any government agency is run perfectly or free of needing reform, but see the FDA chalked up as the epitome of big government and being "useless" and hopelessly corrupt and nobody attempting to change or reform it (which is patently untrue) is just something I've never really heard of. Compared to agencies I think are genuine examples of government waste, the FDA is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on my list.

[Crispy123]

Upton Sinclair and Teddy Roosevelt would disagree with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle)

I would ask you this: what would you or Ron Paul replace it with? And you say "...doing away or reforming it" but does Ron Paul say anything about reforming it or is he just proposing we just get rid of it and sniff our own tainted meat from now on?

I don't know that Ron Paul has said anything one way or another and Mojo's links do nothing to provide insight on Ron Paul's stance as they are all reprints of reprints, hearsay, and 3rd and even 4th party accounts of what Ron Paul said or thinks.

I think that the FDA is a great idea in theory but the actuality of the agency is something completely different. The bird-flu scandal, mad-cow disease, "illegal" drug policy, and the influence of "Big-Pharm" are some examples of an agency that is full of incompetence and crony-ism. Add HIV/AIDS policy, the medicaid prescription drug flaws, little to no oversight of athletic supplements, steroid scandals and countless other prescription drug problems and you get, in my opinion, needed reform.

How would I do it, is something completely different. Anything would probably be better than what we have now. Im open to suggestions. Honest research and scientific principles rather than "doctored" reports, faith based initiatives, and a divorce from the incestuous relationship with the Pharmaceutical industry would be a place to start.

These problems are documented and here are some links,

an FDA scientists (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/15/60II/main674293.shtml)
the Boston Globe (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/22683.php)
and for you Wikipedia freaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_FDA)

[SouthSideJohnny]

I've been a fan of his for a long time and I'm glad to see there is finally some discussion about him. Unfortunately, Ronnie had it right a few months ago when he told a caller, "Ru Paul has a better chance of getting elected than Ron Paul."

I agree some of Paul's positions would result in drastic change (not that Congress would ever support any of the drastic ideas), but I happy to see at least one of our elected representatives looks at proposed legislation to see first if it's Constitutional. Maybe it's from sitting through law school, but I actually believe that our Constitution lays out a good road map for how our country should be governed. I wish more of our "leaders" actually felt the same way.

I've been reading Paul's materials for a few years, and I never heard him say 9/11 was a governmental conspiracy. Mr. Pink had it right - it was partially caused because of our foreign policy (not to excuse the terrorists in any way).

As much as people talk about wanting change, very few want real change. Our country constantly settles for mediocrity, as evidenced by the leading 3 or 4 candidates in each party.

[TheMojoPin]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"]I don't know that Ron Paul has said anything one way or another and Mojo's links do nothing to provide insight on Ron Paul's stance as they are all reprints of reprints, hearsay, and 3rd and even 4th party accounts of what Ron Paul said or thinks.

Actually, nobody here or anywhere else has been able to prove that the information is false. And as opposed to being "3rd or 4th party accounts," the information came directly from Paul's own organization. If people can debunk it, feel free...but as of yet nobody has.

As for the FDA, like I said, any and all government agencies are far from perfect, but the idea of living without an agency like the FDA, warts and all, terrifies me. Someone like Ron Paul being gung-ho about wanting to abolish it without any kind of plan as to what we'd to do instead is even more terrifying. It's an ongoing issue today of the health dangers of Chinese products, yet people apparently want to dive into a system that would have even less regulation and control than theirs. Again, I can't wrap my head around that.

And reading over his policies, I don't really see anything that progressive about his overall platform. If anything, he's a complete throwback to the also-ran candidates of the 20's and 30's. The man is a social and political dinosaur, yet he's somehow being touted as an "outsider" with "new ideas."

Color me completely baffled.

[Crispy123]

Actually, nobody here or anywhere else has been able to prove that the information is false. And as opposed to being "3rd or 4th party accounts," the information came directly from Paul's own organization. If people can debunk it, feel free...but as of yet nobody has.

No one has proven that it is true either. The information comes from a reporter who supposedly has access to the papers no one else does from his organization or qouted from someone who knows someone thats in the organization, hence 3rd or 4th hand info. In fact the story you site has only one quote from Ron Paul saying, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me," he said. "It wasn't my language at all."

How can I or why would I debunk something that can't properly be attributed to the person who supposedly said it?

[TheMojoPin]

I know that he denied writing it himself (though he claimed that it was ghostwritten, which is much different from "I had nothing to do with that")...that bit of information is all over all the sources I linked to. What's also there is that he confirmed it was indeed an official release of his organization. The man allowed his group to release what amounts to white supremecist drivel even if he didn't write it himself...if that's the kind of ship he runs, why would we want that sort of organization and attention to be running the country?

[epo]

What exactly is the FDA doing that is good for this country??? Republicans are supposed to want less government but this is typical of the "neocon" republican party. Support a government agency that is corrupt and incompetent by dumping more money into it instead of doing away or reforming it.

Ron Paul is going to have to become independent to keep any kind of political career.

You do buy food don't you? Understand that government is in place to serve the greater good and to take care of things that we as individuals cannot take care of ourselves. I can't pave a road, deliver my mail or have the time to perform oversight on food & drug companies.

Now any problems you may have with a government agency is likely not with the job function of the agency, but rather their performance. Sure, the last 7 years our federal government has sucked. But America elected a dude who made it clear from the start that he didn't respect the function of government to begin with.

So Bush's results are completely expectable. Ron Paul hates government....I hate to tell you Ron Paul fans...but he would shit the bed just as bad as Bush.

[Dudeman]

The FDA (or any government agency that does things on a large scale that individuals can't do alone) is necessary. That's why human beings have developed governments.

A person like Ron Paul, libertarians, and many Republicans are all going to have a hard time running or reforming these programs because if your belief is that they are by definition bad or usless, you won't run or reform them properly.

It is sort of like FEMA during Katrina. Bush et al. are all so anti-government (in theory), so they don't feel the need to put professionals in charge of those departments. Instead we get Brownie.

[Crispy123]

You do buy food don't you? Understand that government is in place to serve the greater good and to take care of things that we as individuals cannot take care of ourselves. I can't pave a road, deliver my mail or have the time to perform oversight on food & drug companies.

Now any problems you may have with a government agency is likely not with the job function of the agency, but rather their performance. Sure, the last 7 years our federal government has sucked. But America elected a dude who made it clear from the start that he didn't respect the function of government to begin with.

So Bush's results are completely expectable. Ron Paul hates government....I hate to tell you Ron Paul fans...but he would shit the bed just as bad as Bush.


I said the FDA is a good idea in theory. I hate to tell you the failings of this particular agency go back farther than the last 7 years. It was created about 100 years ago to make sure drug labels and ingredients were accurate and now it regulates what drugs are legal and what ones aren't. I think that the main problem is that when to many hands are involved with getting drugs or food to peoples plate or bodies then the more corruption and polticizing is going to happen and the results are worse than before.

I want my food to be free of poison, for sure. I don't trust the FDA to do that completely for me though. If I suspect bad food, chemicals, or hormones are in food I will buy from somehwere else or, if I have to, grow and procure my own by my own means. The Federal government in particular plays too large a role in our lives anymore and I will always want less of it.

Ron Paul is a politician and I don't for a minute trust any of them. I can only go by what I hear from him though. I don't trust the media or bloggers either and I am not going to take what they hear or read from "someone" about "someone else" at face value. It's like Dave Chapelle says, "if you can produce a video that shows him doing what you said, with him holding photo ID and his grandma there to verify that it's him" then I don't believe it.

[sailor]

I know that he denied writing it himself (though he claimed that it was ghostwritten, which is much different from "I had nothing to do with that")...that bit of information is all over all the sources I linked to. What's also there is that he confirmed it was indeed an official release of his organization. The man allowed his group to release what amounts to white supremecist drivel even if he didn't write it himself...if that's the kind of ship he runs, why would we want that sort of organization and attention to be running the country?

i don't know anything about the guy, but we disqualify someone because of one error by a subordinate? crazy talk.

[TheMojoPin]

i don't know anything about the guy, but we disqualify someone because of one error by a subordinate? crazy talk.

For something that bad? Personally, yes, I would. That's like one slur short of being hate speech. And again, his official comments on state that it was "ghostwritten," which is pretty different from him denying that he had nothing to do with it. This thing was released as a major report under the banner of his organization...it's not a little oopsies that got out or a memo or e-mail that was acidentally leaked...this was written up for public release for as many people as possible.

If people are fine with it, hey, go ahead, it's a free country. I just know it's my main reason for not trusting him because by my personal standards it shows that he and the people he surrounds himself with completely shit the bed at being decent human beings.

[Yerdaddy]

I said the FDA is a good idea in theory. I hate to tell you the failings of this particular agency go back farther than the last 7 years. It was created about 100 years ago to make sure drug labels and ingredients were accurate and now it regulates what drugs are legal and what ones aren't. I think that the main problem is that when to many hands are involved with getting drugs or food to peoples plate or bodies then the more corruption and polticizing is going to happen and the results are worse than before.

I want my food to be free of poison, for sure. I don't trust the FDA to do that completely for me though. If I suspect bad food, chemicals, or hormones are in food I will buy from somehwere else or, if I have to, grow and procure my own by my own means. The Federal government in particular plays too large a role in our lives anymore and I will always want less of it.

Ron Paul is a politician and I don't for a minute trust any of them. I can only go by what I hear from him though. I don't trust the media or bloggers either and I am not going to take what they hear or read from "someone" about "someone else" at face value. It's like Dave Chapelle says, "if you can produce a video that shows him doing what you said, with him holding photo ID and his grandma there to verify that it's him" then I don't believe it.

I'm sorry but this is pure ideology you're talking. You gave a laundry list of scandals involving the FDA, some I agree with you are problems and some I've never heard of, but you've not given any evidence that the agency does more harm than good. So any talk of scrapping the agency, or living without it, is fantasy. Maybe you're a subsistance farmer or a survivalist and can sustain yourself on wild berries and live rabbits, but I'll go out on a limb and say that to expect the other 300 million Americans to live that way may have some negative impacts on the economy. I for one have stock in beaver pelts and human flesh so I secretly hope Ron Paul wins and we do switch to his post-apocalyptic anarchy system that's working out so well for Iraq. But if we do decide to keep our economic system then Americans need an oversight body to protect us from defective foods and drugs. Each one of your examples is a demonstration of the kinds of threats we face in the absense of the FDA. Who does Ron Paul - or who do you - suggest would fill the roll of monitoring food and drugs for safety - the companies that tried to sell us those bad products you listed in the first place?

Talk of eliminating essential government agencies in the name of "less government" is ideology. Like other ideologies it's guaranteed to be false and it's proven to be dangerous. Like Dudeman said, Bush ran on the conservative principles of less government and what we got was an unqualified political appointee and slashed budgets at FEMA and the agency proved to be completely inept at doing its job when Katrina hit. That's what implimentation of "less government" usually really means: starving the agencies that don't fit the ideological worldview of the administration in charge.

In the case of the FDA issues you list - how would "less" FDA have protected Americans from mad cow, bird flu, HIV-AIDS, the bad drugs of "big pharm" companies? In most of those cases the problem is that the agency didn't do its job - it's a crime of ommission, not commission. So reform that focusses on omitting all of part of the agency would only guarantee more ommission, would it not?

I'm with you on the need for reform of the FDA. It is too suceptible to influence of companies with an interest in less FDA oversight - less regulations. In other cases I think there's too much regulation. But the way to reform a vital agency like the FDA is to go into the problem with an open mind. To go take the mantra "less government" and apply it to the FDA is just going to get more people killed and injured. Which is all ideology is good at doing either. That's why my motto is "less ideology".

And before I get accused of being for governmet solving everyone's problems and all that bullshit, here's my take on government: It's a necessary evil. There are things the government can do better than the private sector for a number of reasons, but basically because the public interest would be in conflict with any private interests that might otherwise fill the role. Some examples:

Military - what would keep a private army from taking over the government?

Police - what would keep private police forces from becoming a criminal gangs?

Education - who would educate poor students who couldn't pay? (I know poor schools are worse than rich or middle class districts, but if education were market-based I propose there would be no schools at all for poor neighborhoods.) And what would schools teach? In much of the country you'd have Saudi-like fundamentalist Christian madrassas filling that void.

Food safety - you tell me.

These and other functions of a modern society need to be public sector for the same principles that we have a representative democracy rather than direct democracy - nobody's got the time or resources to perform these functions for themselves. And in the same way, however well or poorly the governement runs wars, fights crime, educates children or protects us from poisoned food and drugs is a reflection of how well or poorly we elect people to govern these systems, or how much time we devote ourselves to working on these problems ourselves. If we spend more time tracking the DUIs of starlets than we do actually looking into the problems of the FDA or the FCC or the logic of launching a proposed war then we'll get the kind of government we have today. And if we choose ideological quick-fixes like "less government" then we'll get more of the same. And the Bush administration should illustrate this more than any president in recent history.

[Crispy123]

I'm sorry but this is pure ideology you're talking. You gave a laundry list of scandals involving the FDA, some I agree with you are problems and some I've never heard of, but you've not given any evidence that the agency does more harm than good. So any talk of scrapping the agency, or living without it, is fantasy.

Damn...you're going to make me have to back up my position. First, let me point out that I said the FDA in its original role was alright with me. I believe that a federal agency should be watchdogging the manufacturing and labeling of foods and drugs.

Talk of eliminating essential government agencies in the name of "less government" is ideology. Like other ideologies it's guaranteed to be false and it's proven to be dangerous. Like Dudeman said, Bush ran on the conservative principles of less government and what we got was an unqualified political appointee and slashed budgets at FEMA and the agency proved to be completely inept at doing its job when Katrina hit. That's what implimentation of "less government" usually really means: starving the agencies that don't fit the ideological worldview of the administration in charge.

I agree. My personal ideaology is that less government is always better. I know the reality is that each party has there own ideas of what government out to be doing and where to stick its nose. That is why I am not a registered Republican or Democrat. I am not loyal to one party and, in fact, like that the country will be exposed to different economical & political, policies and strategies. Of course, they should be in line with the Constitution of these United States. If I were going to reform federal agencies across the board I would make the appointment process different for office at these agencies so that some level of education and experience was needed.

In the case of the FDA issues you list - how would "less" FDA have protected Americans from mad cow, bird flu, HIV-AIDS, the bad drugs of "big pharm" companies? In most of those cases the problem is that the agency didn't do its job - it's a crime of ommission, not commission. So reform that focusses on omitting all of part of the agency would only guarantee more ommission, would it not?

I'm with you on the need for reform of the FDA. It is too suceptible to influence of companies with an interest in less FDA oversight - less regulations. In other cases I think there's too much regulation. But the way to reform a vital agency like the FDA is to go into the problem with an open mind. To go take the mantra "less government" and apply it to the FDA is just going to get more people killed and injured. Which is all ideology is good at doing either. That's why my motto is "less ideology".


I think this agency has got a hand, either as an omission or commission, in some of the biggest factors that are the downfall of a majority of Americans. From obesity with the daily recommended food and calorie intake; to cancer and other terminal illnesses with the cozy relationship in the tobacco and pharmaceutical industry and the regulatory process for treatment drugs; to alcohol, prescription drug, and illegal drug abuse with criminalizing instead of treatment and the only readily available treatment being "faith" based, this agency has way to much influence and has used it irresponsibly. I am an advocate that states take over this role and legalize or not based on the voting and regulatory procedures for each individual state. The federal government should ensure that products are what they say they are and enforce interstate commerce laws.

And before I get accused of being for governmet solving everyone's problems and all that bullshit, here's my take on government: It's a necessary evil. There are things the government can do better than the private sector for a number of reasons, but basically because the public interest would be in conflict with any private interests that might otherwise fill the role. Some examples:

Military - what would keep a private army from taking over the government?

Police - what would keep private police forces from becoming a criminal gangs?

Education - who would educate poor students who couldn't pay? (I know poor schools are worse than rich or middle class districts, but if education were market-based I propose there would be no schools at all for poor neighborhoods.) And what would schools teach? In much of the country you'd have Saudi-like fundamentalist Christian madrassas filling that void.

Food safety - you tell me.

Wow, I can't believe that your pro-government wiping your ass and breathing for you. :wink::wink::wink:

Yes, government is necessary but it doesn't have to be "evil". As it stands right now there is way to much of it and I do honestly believe that people with too much power can become "evil". I think that the separation of the Federal Gov't and State Gov't was originally intended to help decentralize that power but lately the federal government has consolidated it to dangerous levels, so much so that America today is not the democracy that was set up by the founding fathers.

Military service should be mandatory for a period of 2 years. Police are a gang but a volunteer force is necessary to supplement the professional police. Im not saying all cops are bad but they are a band of brothers and as long as the community is actively involved in safety and order then abuse will be at a minimum. Education is something I don't even know how to begin to address. I just know that our system is not anywhere close to be near the best.

Food and drug safety, as this thread has taken a detour into, is something I think should be a top priority and needs immediate overhaul. As I have said, the federal government should be involved in regulating labeling and truth in advertising. States should be involved in manufacturing, growing, and harvesting. As a country we have outsourced food production we need to start producing more at home. Yes this will initially be bad for the economy but in the long run it will be better as we will have more control over the food supply. My personal ideology is that we should move to "organic" and natural foods and if we produced our own food domestically we would have a more "green" footprint.

Outsourcing should be done for the manufacturing of our technology not for our food. Im not saying that we should be all growing our own food. I am saying we should know where our food is coming from and as a country be able to make our own food. I think we need to focus on the health and education of our citizens, attract the best immigrants from around the world, and continue to come up with modern technological and mechanical innovations and export our ideas around the globe.

[TheMojoPin]

I agree with everything you've just said.

But with everything I've been reading over the last few months, I don't even have a tiny clue as to why you think Ron Paul even remotely thinks along those lines. He's a complete "throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of guy.

[Crispy123]

I agree with everything you've just said.

But with everything I've been reading over the last few months, I don't even have a tiny clue as to why you think Ron Paul even remotely thinks along those lines. He's a complete "throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of guy.

Honestly, all Ive seen him talk about is Iraq. The LA riot paper has some disturbing claims in it but to be fair the country was in a pretty messed up frame of mind at the time. I haven't seen or heard him make any racist statements. I like the idea of less government, period. I voted for Nader and Perot. Unfortunately people who think remotely like I do are kind of nutty but then again so is everyone. Rudy and Hillary are probably going to be the choices, it will be interesting to see who the other "parties" nominate.

[TheMojoPin]

Honestly, all Ive seen him talk about is Iraq. The LA riot paper has some disturbing claims in it but to be fair the country was in a pretty messed up frame of mind at the time. I haven't seen or heard him make any racist statements. I like the idea of less government, period. I voted for Nader and Perot. Unfortunately people who think remotely like I do are kind of nutty but then again so is everyone. Rudy and Hillary are probably going to be the choices, it will be interesting to see who the other "parties" nominate.

There's a lot out there about his general theories and policies, a lot of it from the man himself.

I agree with the idea of inserting a significant 3rd party candidate into the later debates and such, at least to mix things up a little. That's why I voted for Nader, though I definitely agree with and support most of his social activism over the decades. I didn't think Ralph would ever actually be able to be president, nor a very good one if somehow he won, but I wanted him and his issues being on a forum and scale that it would essentially force the major candidates to acknowledge them before the American people.

[Yerdaddy]

Fair enough. I just have a couple of questions - that can be left rhetorical if you prefer.


I think this agency has got a hand, either as an omission or commission, in some of the biggest factors that are the downfall of a majority of Americans. From obesity with the daily recommended food and calorie intake;


What's the problem with this? Is it that they should do something different with the reccommendations or do more to convince people to live by them?


to cancer and other terminal illnesses with the cozy relationship in the tobacco and pharmaceutical industry and the regulatory process for treatment drugs; to alcohol, prescription drug, and illegal drug abuse with criminalizing instead of treatment


Re: tobacco, alcohol and illegal drugs - I think those are the mandates of other agencies, ie. DEA, ATF and other Justice Dept branches, whereas the FDA is Dept Agriculture I think. But since you're talking about the government as a whole the point is still relevant.


and the only readily available treatment being "faith" based, this agency has way to much influence and has used it irresponsibly.


I'm really curious about this point. If you're talking about treatment being faith based, do you have any more details? I ask because I'm a recovering alcoholic and I only found the recovery center I needed - without the 12 Steps - because the city government that sentenced me for my DUI to classes also funded the recovery center and because of this funding, and because the government - I'm not sure if local or federal - had determined that the 12 Steps were fundamentally religious so it couldn't include them if it was to recieve funding. I think this is the only reason I was able to find a non-spiritual recovery that I needed. This may have changed with Bush's faith-based initiatives, but I don't know. I'd be curious though if you know anything more.


I am an advocate that states take over this role and legalize or not based on the voting and regulatory procedures for each individual state.



I think that the separation of the Federal Gov't and State Gov't was originally intended to help decentralize that power but lately the federal government has consolidated it to dangerous levels, so much so that America today is not the democracy that was set up by the founding fathers.


Re: more state government/less federal government - Considering people seem to pay much much less attention to state politics than national politics how do you figure people would effect more influence over their state FDA bureaocracies and regulations, for example, than a single federal one?

Re: domestic food production - Unless there's been a drastic change in the last few years since I looked at my almanac the US still produces the vast majority of its food and in fact is one of, if not the largest food exporter in the world. I think there are a few select fruit and vegetable crops imported, mostly from Latin America and Candada, and that's been the case for decades - since some Latin American countries were once nearly plantations run by American companies. Agriculture is also one of the few whole industries that the US government maintains protective tarriffs on - which we're constantly getting into trade wars with Europe and other countries for unfair trade practices. It's also the most subsidised sector of our economy. I think that's bad policy, but I think to get even more of our food grown at home you're talking about more of the same. I think it's a better idea to focus on reducing the influence of companies over the regulatory agencies, and the elements of trade agreements that mandated bringing quality control and monintoring of trading partners up to our standards. That's been resisted by companies and pro-business governenments, including ours, as too expensive an thus a barrier to trade and so these things aren't enforced. I'm rambling again, but that's my take on food. Then again I may never eat food in America again so I'd just assume let you homebodies decide what to do for your own dinners. I know where to get my fresh puppy burgers and rat dogs.

[Crispy123]

Fair enough. I just have a couple of questions - that can be left rhetorical if you prefer.

I would never let you get away with asking rhetorical questions!!!

I definitely am an "ideologue". I have my opinions of America and its people and the way I think we should be headed. I will admit I am a novice, I have never held political office, and I am not a scientist or an engineer. I also don't just sit back and talk out of my ass. I try to serve my fellow man and make a living to support my family.

The FDA is just one of a number of agencies that are all interlinked and are causing problems in this country. I am from Florida and drugs are a big problem here, so is the governments handling of drugs. That is part of the reason why I am interested in this discussion. The obesity problem is also very apparent here at all of the tourist traps and beaches. I may be talking out of both sides of my mouth when I say that the FDA should be a lot more limited in its role and scope and then blame them for the obesity problem but I definitely think their whole food pyramid and recommended daily allowance are influenced by the food corporations. There is no distinction between men, women, and children and no distinction between whole grain and processed foods. I blame the American people for not caring but this agency which was tasked with bringing this information to the public did so in a shoddy unscientific manner.

I'm really curious about this point. If you're talking about treatment being faith based, do you have any more details? I ask because I'm a recovering alcoholic and I only found the recovery center I needed - without the 12 Steps - because the city government that sentenced me for my DUI to classes also funded the recovery center and because of this funding, and because the government - I'm not sure if local or federal - had determined that the 12 Steps were fundamentally religious so it couldn't include them if it was to recieve funding. I think this is the only reason I was able to find a non-spiritual recovery that I needed. This may have changed with Bush's faith-based initiatives, but I don't know. I'd be curious though if you know anything more.

I am basing this on my experience with rehab in the mid 90's and some friends of mine in the last couple of years in the military. It seemed like the 12 steppers and Scientoligists had the monopoly on this kind of treatment in the 80's and 90's and with the current administrations creating another office (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/), passing "faith-based" legislation (http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/CAREAct2003.html), and winning legal battles at the Supreme Court (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070625-6.html) it seems to be a return to this trend.


Re: more state government/less federal government - Considering people seem to pay much much less attention to state politics than national politics how do you figure people would effect more influence over their state FDA bureaocracies and regulations, for example, than a single federal one?

Re: domestic food production - Unless there's been a drastic change in the last few years since I looked at my almanac the US still produces the vast majority of its food and in fact is one of, if not the largest food exporter in the world. I think there are a few select fruit and vegetable crops imported, mostly from Latin America and Candada, and that's been the case for decades - since some Latin American countries were once nearly plantations run by American companies. Agriculture is also one of the few whole industries that the US government maintains protective tarriffs on - which we're constantly getting into trade wars with Europe and other countries for unfair trade practices. It's also the most subsidised sector of our economy. I think that's bad policy, but I think to get even more of our food grown at home you're talking about more of the same. I think it's a better idea to focus on reducing the influence of companies over the regulatory agencies, and the elements of trade agreements that mandated bringing quality control and monintoring of trading partners up to our standards. That's been resisted by companies and pro-business governenments, including ours, as too expensive an thus a barrier to trade and so these things aren't enforced. I'm rambling again, but that's my take on food. Then again I may never eat food in America again so I'd just assume let you homebodies decide what to do for your own dinners. I know where to get my fresh puppy burgers and rat dogs.

I think Americans need to get more involved in the political process period. This is supposed to be a representative democracy. Although Im pretty sure people participate more in local politics than national on average the national elections get more media attention.

As far as bringing things to the State level I don't know that it would be any better in terms of influence but why do we have a Florida Dept of Agriculture and a US Dept of Agriculture. It seems kind of redundant and unnecessary. If food safety and security can be done at the State level then why have a massive federal agency? Different parts of the country have different needs, resources, and economical interests and different parts of the country may feel differently about the use of pesticides, animal hormones, and genetically engineered crops. There are probably arguments for both but this is where my personal ideology comes into play, I want less federal government involvement. If anything the Federal Agency should do what you propose and keep the corporations & trading partners in line and manage trade agreements.