Sure, why not? We've about run out of insults for Clinton, anyway.

I do agree with some of Paul's ideas, particularly de-criminalizing drugs.

But I can't get past the idea of abolishing the Federal Reserve system. Monetary policy is important. And having the Board of Governors quasi-independent of a particular president's authority is important.

And I would have to address the de-regulation idea case-by-case. Most of the regulations in effect came as a result of over-reaching by business interests. The fact that the current administration has effectively de-fanged many of the agencies doesn't mean that they couldn't work effectively.

Check my previous post on Kennedy's attempt to take back the money supply from the Fed.

No, I do not agree with an unelectable, privately run firm issuing our currency, controlling interest rates, and bailing out shitty banks.

This is all sold to us as "cushioning the economic blows." I call major bullshit on this. We are going to feel the pain no matter what, and what these cats do makes it worse, ultimately, for the poor. It's inflation, which lowers the value of their already limited cash supply. I fucking hate it. Democrats are supposed to champion the poor. I don't see it in the post-Kennedy era. Modern Democrats seem to me like Tammany Hall Dems in a way. Poverty Maintenance to get votes; keep these people from starving, and the rest will take care of itself.

You mean the one for which you cited no source?

If you want to start a new thread to discuss the Fed, I'll be glad to participate. Bring your lunch.

But for now, I think we've hijacked FTR's thread about Hillary enough.

Here's my bit about the de-criminalization of drugs: In principle, I think it's a good idea. Instead of spending billions of dollars every year fighting an un-winnable war on drugs, we could be making billions through taxation and regulation. By also bringing the production out of the underworld, into the realm of legitimate business we would also be giving the public a cleaner, safer product to use. I also think regulation works a lot better than outright prohibition in terms of keeping dangerous substances away from children. Anecdotal, but when I was a teenager, it was easy to get drugs, because the drug dealers were already doing something illegal, so they had no incentive to restrict who they sold their product to. Conversely, alcohol was difficult to come by unless one swiped it from their parents, or had one of those idiot parents who actually buys it for their kid. Liquor stores have a good thing going, and they know it. They have a product nearly everyone wants, they can sell at a considerable profit, and all they have to do is not sell people under a certain age.

The hang up is this: as far as I know, there's no field test for the various illegal drugs, like there is for alcohol. Alcohol is processed (relatively) quickly by the body, so if a person commits a crime, such as assault or reckless driving and tests positive for alcohol use at the time of arrest, there is concrete scientific evidence to support that the person was under the influence, not just an officer's word. With marijuana, for example, you can test for it, but the chemicals stay in a person's body for weeks after use, so the argument can be made that the person wasn't under the influence at the time of arrest, and the positive test result is due to residual traces from prior use.

I think if a way of field testing for the various kinds of common drugs is found that can prove with scientific data that a person is under the influence at the time of arrest, then that we'll have cleared the biggest hurdle towards decriminalization of drugs.

I usually make it about three paragraphs deep and then your columns start to read like the way Charlie Brown's teacher spoke.

the problem with Ron Paul that i had, was the one or two policies that i did agree with were greatly outweighed by the complete disagreement i had with his other policies.

The biggest one i had problem with his "Give the states more power" policy. In case you haven't noticed. Ohio is not keen on making wise decision in order to improve Ohio economy, nor environmental standards. Locally, from what i have dealt with, our economy is a black hole our local government agencies are for the most part. stupid.

The fear of Ohio getting more power is what ruined things the most for me about RP. Ohio barely exists now, if the state government had more power, Ohio would just turn into a big parking lot for Michigan and Pennsylvania.

If it was left up to the states, you'd have certain states that would just be much more economically successful than other states. At that point the population would move to the economically successful states, making them more successful, while the non-successful states became abandoned basically. Granted it's like that now to a point, but if there were no Fed help or regulations, Ohio would be a ghost town.

Not to mention abolishing Federal Agencies that were created with a good intention in mind. Things like the EPA. I firmly don't believe that the EPA should be abolished, i think it should be heavily re-worked so that it's not just another source of taking money for the government.


I could go on with this.....but i don't think hijacking this thread is a good idea. FTR will yell at me.

the nail has been struck on the head with the old timers comment.

There are field tests to determine the presence of many drugs; law enforcement officers use them all the time.
link

There is also a series of tests that can be done on a subject's hair. These can closely approximate when he or she had those drugs in his or her system. The presence of drugs, say, in the vehicle plus shown by hair to have been present at or near the time of the incident would make a pretty good case. Since the most critical issue is likely in a vehicle, make a restriction like the "open container" restriction many states have for alcohol.

EDIT: Actually, there are tests available for nearly all of the common drugs. It would just be a question of getting them distributed. It would seem expensive at first blush, but cheaper than the wasted effort to stop recreational drug use altogether.drug tests

You're busting my balls, man!

Here's a damn source. You think I make this shit up? I'm not that clever.

RP did not do as good a job as I had hoped in explaining how these kinds of changes need to be made. He said in some speeches that drastic changes need to be made carefully, over time. You can't pull the plug on people who are dependent on gov't aid. Apart from this, my counter to your argument is, what incentive does Ohio have to improve its ways if it has a bailout option? I may be stretching here, but look at what our aid efforts do over in Egypt. We send them billions of dollars a year, with little of it reaching the average Egyptian, and their inept government has enough cash to stay afloat no matter how poorly they run things. It's political money - we want them to like us so they, in turn, stay off Israel's backs. (At least that's the best I can make of this bizarre arrangement.) Here in the US, we centralize aid, and the money becomes political. What kind of hoops will the federal gov't think of next? If you want education money, you gotta adopt fed standards - not a happy compromise for many educators who disliked NCLB and narrow-minded academic standards. If you want money for roads, you gotta enforce the drinking age of 21. Some of these compromises are fine by many people, of course, but my point here is that it's unfair, and ultimately kills incentive for people to come up with solutions in their own neighborhoods, towns, and states. We all hold our breath waiting to see how the next Administration is going to change the game for all of us. Some will win, some will lose, and none of us really have a say.

There's just one problem here. That EO pertained to the Treasury Department. It had to do with currency. The Fed is not part of the Treasury Department, and it does not issue currency.

Kennedy's EO merely delegated the President's authority to issue silver certificates to the Treasury Department.

The so-called "conspiracy" from this is reasonably well dealt with by
this guy.

And here I was, almost liking Kennedy. Thanks for clearing that up.

Technically, you are correct that the Fed does not actually issue the currency. But since they uphold the terms of fractional reserve lending, they basically decide how much money the banks can create from nothing. This is, in effect, the main money supply for our economy. Fractional reserve lending is a seriously risky concept, and it's led us to the very tip of a big iceberg - without exponential growth, the system collapses. We cannot keep it up. It's taught us how to be rich-acting consumers, not thrifty savers. I would abolish the Fed.

And without the Fed there would be no requirement. Banks could be just as foolish as they wanted to be. The Fed was created after the panic of 1907 largely for this reason.

Yeah, there are tests, but if you'll notice, the detection period is for use from anywhere within the past few days for most of them to 28-49 days for marijuana (the drug that I assume most people are concerned about getting legalized). LSD is the only one that has a detection range of within 24 hours. None of those are comparable to a breathalizer test, which can be used as definitive proof of influence at the time of arrest.

I'll concede that you have a point about pairing it with other evidence, but it's still not the nail in the coffin the way a breathalizer is.

do people even realize that Clinton and Obama have identical voting records on Iraq since he was elected to the senate?

If we're voting based on who we like best, then that is one thing. But that is ignorant politics.

Now I'm not saying that Hillary is necessarily better...but if you think she is really THAT much worse than Obama, then you're kidding yourself, and should probably spend more time doing your own independent research, rather than repeating talking points that litter the internet and other media outlets.