Dubstepforum.com

deadly habit wrote:it'd be nice to see bob barr on a ticket again, though paul always gets the college hipster support by people who never follow his actual politics

This is because "he wants to legalize drugs".

secret door wrote:

deadly habit wrote:it'd be nice to see bob barr on a ticket again, though paul always gets the college hipster support by people who never follow his actual politics

This is because "he wants to legalize drugs".

pretty much, unfortunately

deadly habit wrote:while we're on the subject of politics, me and my buds at work have been hunting for an answer regarding my great state of new york's lobbying policies to no avail
does anyone know if an agency (specifically the DEC in this case) can be directly lobbied, or if it has no limits like a politician/party in regards to the amounts lobbyist groups can contribute

As far as I know lobbying is still protected under the first amendment, Obama signed some new orders into effect a couple of years ago though, it talks about them here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/ethics/

Those only affect a certain branch of government though, it would depends who the agency you're talking about answers to.
There is also a kind of grey area as sometimes it's called lobbying, sometimes it's called advocacy. There's a difference but the 2 are closely related: http://www.ebasedtreatment.org/treatmen ... s-lobbying

wormcode wrote:

deadly habit wrote:while we're on the subject of politics, me and my buds at work have been hunting for an answer regarding my great state of new york's lobbying policies to no avail
does anyone know if an agency (specifically the DEC in this case) can be directly lobbied, or if it has no limits like a politician/party in regards to the amounts lobbyist groups can contribute

As far as I know lobbying is still protected under the first amendment, Obama signed some new orders into effect a couple of years ago though, it talks about them here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/ethics/

Those only affect a certain branch of government though, it would depends who the agency you're talking about answers to.
There is also a kind of grey area as sometimes it's called lobbying, sometimes it's called advocacy. There's a difference but the 2 are closely related: http://www.ebasedtreatment.org/treatmen ... s-lobbying

yea one of the lovely things about ny is it's one of the only states with no lobbying limits when it comes to politicians or parties
trying to find out since currently the non profit i work for is waiting on an impact statement come round june 1st from the DEC and one of the energy companies it could potentially have adverse effects on just coincidentally opened an office a block from the DEC in Albany a little too recently...
trying to find an answer to this has been a pain to say the least bouncing between federal and state laws and trying to find who we could contact for a legit answer
ahhh politics and the fine print heh

Anjin wrote:

Genevieve wrote: With Ron Paul, the country stands the best chance of getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

He's the black sheep but he's still a politician. Would he really make any drastic changes if he became elected?

Nope. It's just the 'best chance' of getting rid of the fed, how good that chance is is totally up for debate.

Though he would just be president, I think a president IS capable of shifting national attention to certain issues through their media presence and perceived 'status'. How much is actually gonna get done is a different story.

I'm mostly happy to see him run because he's actually the only candidate to talk about corporatism and central banking, so if anything, I just hope people look into that. Him winning isn't my first concern at all. Though seeing as the president is in charge of the troops, he would be able to get the troops located across the world home, which isn't just good for America but for the whole world.

pkay wrote:http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mc ... -revealed/

If anything he had said outside of this had ANY racial undertones, I'd be inclined to agree that he's racist. His political career has always been the exact opposite of what was said in those newsletters. So I'm inclined to believe that they weren't written by him.

deadly habit wrote:

secret door wrote:

deadly habit wrote:it'd be nice to see bob barr on a ticket again, though paul always gets the college hipster support by people who never follow his actual politics

This is because "he wants to legalize drugs".

pretty much, unfortunately

If Bob Barr is as libertarian as he claims to be (which I doubt) he would wanna legalize drugs as well.

As for the actual legalization of drugs. Ron Paul never said he would be capable of legaizing them. He only said that the federal government should stay out of the state's right to regulate their own drug laws.

Ron Paul's a lot more consistent with his views than Bob Barr is and has gone into more detail into why he believes what he believes in decades in congress.

Genevieve wrote:Though seeing as the president is in charge of the troops, he would be able to get the troops located across the world home, which isn't just good for America but for the whole world.

Not so sure on this one. I'm not down with all the death and destruction brought by the us military, and I'm totally done paying for it, but you may come to miss the stability provided by the exercise of us power. Or not, hopefully not!

nowaysj wrote:

Genevieve wrote:Though seeing as the president is in charge of the troops, he would be able to get the troops located across the world home, which isn't just good for America but for the whole world.

Not so sure on this one. I'm not down with all the death and destruction brought by the us military, and I'm totally done paying for it, but you may come to miss the stability provided by the exercise of us power. Or not, hopefully not!

What stability?

So, who gets the nomination? Magic underpants, or nailin palin?

Genevieve wrote:What stability?

The stability you may come to miss.

nowaysj wrote:

Genevieve wrote:What stability?

The stability you may come to miss.

Western involvement in the Middle East has made the world a less stable place so, I'll probably like the stability once the troops are gone.

Are you so sure stability will be achieved by the US exit?

nowaysj wrote:Are you so sure stability will be achieved by the US exit?

With time, sure. Some things may get messy (which they already are), but not in a way that will affect either us or the US. But I'd rather let the people clean up their messes on their own.

Which people, which messes? Think their all british in origin?

I'm very keen on his foreign policy. his general attitude when it comes to those topics are brilliant

however I pretty much wholeheartedly disagree with the majority of everything else he says

secret door wrote:

deadly habit wrote:it'd be nice to see bob barr on a ticket again, though paul always gets the college hipster support by people who never follow his actual politics

This is because "he wants to legalize drugs".

wow how extremely pessimistic... i find that this forum tends to pick apart a topic and immediatley attempts to label it as a cliche.

Ron Paul though I think speaks alot of truth, i agree with alot of what he says. He's a realist he understands maintaining an empire never ends well.This is what could be the ticket to prolonging American domincance in terms of the economy. You have to remember America and the UK are pretty much dependant on the Service Industry because its their 'comparative advantage'. Everyone crying out to hang the bankers don't realise that their country will be left in tatters if they leave.

Ron Paul understands that America needs to be self sufficient in manufacturing meaning all forms of industry from primary to secondary need to be revitalised.
Cuts need to be made and a good start is the war machine.

jigglypuff wrote:

secret door wrote:

deadly habit wrote:it'd be nice to see bob barr on a ticket again, though paul always gets the college hipster support by people who never follow his actual politics

This is because "he wants to legalize drugs".

wow how extremely pessimistic... i find that this forum tends to pick apart a topic and immediatley attempts to label it as a cliche.

How was what I said pessimistic? Or were you referring to deadly habit?

jigglypuff wrote:

secret door wrote:

deadly habit wrote:it'd be nice to see bob barr on a ticket again, though paul always gets the college hipster support by people who never follow his actual politics

This is because "he wants to legalize drugs".

wow how extremely pessimistic... i find that this forum tends to pick apart a topic and immediatley attempts to label it as a cliche.

Ron Paul though I think speaks alot of truth, i agree with alot of what he says. He's a realist he understands maintaining an empire never ends well.This is what could be the ticket to prolonging American domincance in terms of the economy. You have to remember America and the UK are pretty much dependant on the Service Industry because its their 'comparative advantage'. Everyone crying out to hang the bankers don't realise that their country will be left in tatters if they leave.

Ron Paul understands that America needs to be self sufficient in manufacturing meaning all forms of industry from primary to secondary need to be revitalised.
Cuts need to be made and a good start is the war machine.

The country is in tatters no matter who becomes president. In terms of manufacturing, theres no way we can compete in industrial output with china. Our whole union and wage system is no where near China's. People work for 1/4 of the amount of money in China that any factory worker in america could legally work for.

Politicians like Paul, and others before him like Ralph Nader, cannot succeed on a patriotic idealist ticket. History has proven this. American voters like broad minded party politics, not extremes, no matter how visionary or not. He won't get middle america's vote, and the two coasts traditionally vote heavily democratic.

So who gets the nomination!?

seckle wrote:

jigglypuff wrote:

secret door wrote:

deadly habit wrote:it'd be nice to see bob barr on a ticket again, though paul always gets the college hipster support by people who never follow his actual politics

This is because "he wants to legalize drugs".

wow how extremely pessimistic... i find that this forum tends to pick apart a topic and immediatley attempts to label it as a cliche.

Ron Paul though I think speaks alot of truth, i agree with alot of what he says. He's a realist he understands maintaining an empire never ends well.This is what could be the ticket to prolonging American domincance in terms of the economy. You have to remember America and the UK are pretty much dependant on the Service Industry because its their 'comparative advantage'. Everyone crying out to hang the bankers don't realise that their country will be left in tatters if they leave.

Ron Paul understands that America needs to be self sufficient in manufacturing meaning all forms of industry from primary to secondary need to be revitalised.
Cuts need to be made and a good start is the war machine.

The country is in tatters no matter who becomes president. In terms of manufacturing, theres no way we can compete in industrial output with china. Our whole union and wage system is no where near China's. People work for 1/4 of the amount of money in China that any factory worker in america could legally work for.

Politicians like Paul, and others before him like Ralph Nader, cannot succeed on a patriotic idealist ticket. History has proven this. American voters like broad minded party politics, not extremes, no matter how visionary or not. He won't get middle america's vote, and the two coasts traditionally vote heavily democratic.

its possible.. trade with china doesn't have to exist on the scale it does today .. if your in a trade deficit it wouldn't be a bad idea to impose quotas and tariffs . therefore goods imported become expensive and they would have to be produced at home, govnt could subsidise manufacturing industries like China do. they could artificially control the value of the dollar much like what the chinese do with the yuan.

I think what paul implies is that the global economic system is not fair and with the US blindly consuming, borrowing and destroying, other nations are actively growing due to the american failure of production and hyper consumption.

nowaysj wrote:So who gets the nomination!?

Honestly depends on who runs and if the tea party tries to get a candidate in the picture.

I don't support any of these persons but here is who I think stands the best chance for the republicans

1) Mitt Romney - the only electable republican that is in the ring so far. If republicans were smart they'd get behind him early and start compiling their base
2) Sarah Palin - Very popular amongst republicans. Literally a mobile fox news channel.... which will be her downfall for fringe voters.
3) Anonymous Random Tea Party Drone - They could make a ham sandwich a viable candidate. Republican party is very weak right now a properly handled tea party member would do well.
4) Lindsey Graham - relatively young for the republican party, his dirty laundry is out in the open already, well spoken
5) Ron Paul - Enough support to be worthwhile but ideas would drive away the general republican party therefor rendering him unelectable

Honorable Mention: Bobby Jindal- one of the better republicans around right now but its unclear if he's gonna run.

personal opinion is that no republican stands the slightest chance baring something on the scale of 9-11 happening under Obamas watch