new thread
What would his platform be?
would he pledge to end discrimination in the workplace towards long hair males?
He would have to be in the Libertarian party, as they are the only individualists around (in other words, they give equal rights to everyone irregardless of anything, as opposed to collectivists). And this could only happen if Ron Paul wins this year. Because if he doesn't, then don't expect to regain habeas corpus, and expect the Bill of Rights to be slowly eroded in the name of an illusion of security.
We may think Republicans and Democrats are different, but they're very similar in many principles. And if you think the Democrats are going to withdraw from Iraq, then look at what the proposed budget for 2008/9 was. The democratic congress voted for an INCREASE in funding of over 100 billion in addition to the money already going to Iraq for this year. They're obviously lying. But then again they all have records as flip flops anyway...all except Ron.
See my link below for a recording of Ron Paul in Congress in 2002. The ONLY republican, and almost the only Democrat against the war in Iraq before it started, predicting all of the calamities to ensue.
in most cases yes, but I see Barack Obama as a shining light in a very troubling times.
I think he is the best hope for this country atm imho. I'm an independent, but registered as a dem so I can vote in my states democratic primary.
it's definitely Time for a change. let's hope he gets the nomination and not Hillary.
Obama's policies do not solve the budget deficit, do nothing to stop the fed from printing money and devalueing the dollar (in fact, he doesn't really address monetary policy at all that i've seen).
What's more is he's a collectivist and vies for expanded government. The equation is simple. As government expands, our freedoms contract. So if we're talking about a more liberty for longhaired men, then this doesn't really fit in.
Trying to restore freedom and increase the government don't work at the same time.
He's just another collectivist promoting the welfare state. To quote: "The time has come for universal health care in America." Well I've got news for you. America can't afford Universal healthcare. If you study the government reports carefully, you'll realise that 1) America doesn't follow international GAAP principles. 2) Government budget reports in no way list entitlement obligations. A category of future expenses and liabilities that are always mentioned on any companies report. If you think the deficit is 9 trillion, it's actually 50 trillion when you count everything the next generation will owe the current generation, because the government doesn't set aside funds for future entitlement obligations.
When you realise your country is 50 trillion in debt, and losing about 4 trillion every year, under International GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) then suddenly EVERYTHING that the democrats (and Republicans in some cases) say about universal health care, and all their other government programs come about as impossible. And only one person talks about this: Ron Paul.
It's not even so much an issue of what's right, even though in terms of personal liberties and the constitution, Ron Paul is the greatest advocate. It's more to do with the fact that all of these promises are economically IMPOSSIBLE, unfeasible, and what's worse, unnecessary. And in the middle of calling for bigger government spending, Obama wants to REDUCE taxes? That's just suicide!
So either the promises you hear will never come to fruition, or the government will continue to borrow from China, and print dollars, killing the value of your currency, and creating inflation which kills the middle class.
Besides, if you read between the lines, you'll realise his foreign policy of withdrawing from Iraq is only temporary. In the long term, he plans to pursue the same expansionist and imperialistic goals as Bush has.
Democrats are known to be strong supporters of civil rights. the case of the highschool student in Texas is in a Republican stronghold.
do a little research on the great hair debates of the 1960s and you'll see that the ACLU was involved and that if the ACLU had been eliminated like your guy Paul, and others have suggested you'll would've ended up having to conform to military haircuts during the time you were in school.
don't believe me ask some of the older long hairs on this board who are at around 55 or so.
Likelihood is, if Ron Paul were to be elected, not only would the military be far more free than now, but there would be less people serving there.
The ACLU is, as far as I know, not a governmental organisation. This means that if Paul were to come to power, he would not only do nothing against the ACLU, he would likely insist that doing anything against this union was unconstitutional. For all we know, he probably whole-heartedly backs it, given the libertarian that he is.
Besides, the whole point is that the Democrats and Republicans of today are VERY different to those 40-50 years ago. They have become far more similar, and far less pro-freedom. If you want freedom, elect a libertarian. It's that simple. Individualists believe the government can get its power only from the people. Collectivists like Obama believe the government can issue laws of its own. Individualists believe rights are intrinsic. Collectivists believe that the government grants rights. But if the government has the authority to grant rights to certain individuals or groups, then it also has the power to take it away.
In the libertarian sense, the main role of government should be to protect our rights and freedoms, NOT to govern us, which is basically most long-hairs' wet dream (I think).
Now lastly, when I say I'm for Ron Paul, and you notice that he happens to be a Republican, that doesn't mean I agree with Republicans! In any other circumstance I would far prefer Democrats to Republicans, but Ron is such an odd one out on the Republican side, that he even beats the Democrats on the whole freedom and rights issue. He only joined their party because he said that to run as a Libertarian is inelectable, and he had to join one of the two mainstream parties.
I respect your opinion, but I think you might be wrong about Obama. what he is saying is people are sick of the division that is occuring in our country, for example the "Red and blue states" issue and other things which have divided us.
you brought up healthcare and the problem is that it has become a business and runned by corporate HMO's who could care less if you live or die. recall the case of the girl who passed away recently because she didn't get her liver transplant in time, but Cigna decided at the last moment due to pressure from nurses unions(collectivism as you call it again ;-)to pay for the operation. Obama, like Edwards wants to change that, so when you, or me, or anyone else gets sick we don't have to worry about whether we can pay for it right there or not.
Now, from what I know about the Libertarians is that they are basically old school Republicans. the party was formed in 1971 and while I may agree with some issues with them I don't think it would be practical to return to the pre-20th century method of running the government in the 21st century, at least not at the Federal level.
my problem is that they don't criticize corporations who would be exempt from government regulations if we returned to a libertarina style of Government.
the problems we have with corporations now, with the outsourcing is due to deregulation. Libertarians want to get rid of ALL regulations.
now, can you cite some examples in this day and age where libertarianism actually has been tested and worked for the benefit of all within any community and not just a few?
I can't cite any examples because Libertarianism has never been tested in this day and age, unfortunately might I add. Why has it not been tested? Because Governments are huge bureaucracy, and the peter principles dictate that not only are they doomed to expand, they become more and more incompetent as they do "Everyone rises to their level of incompetence".
Regarding health care. Look at the UK. They have the NHS (Universal health care), and what happens? Quality of health care is lower than Belgium, for example, which doesn't have universal health care, in fact it's been in the news that many people have come from the UK to France and Belgium to do operations.
Not only is the quality falling, but the amount of doctor's mistakes is on the rise.
And what's the worst thing about it? The queues. You could wait several years for an operation. In fact, I've seen cases of queues extending up to 5 years. Why? Because there's no competition.
So while I can't cite any success with Libertarianism, this is only because it's never been tested.
Collectivism (THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE UNIONS, ONLY THE GOVERNMENT) however has been tested all over the world, and so far, the more collectivist it gets, the worse it gets.
I didn't think you could.
are you from the UK originally? if not, where are you getting this info from?
I just conversed with someone from Liverpool who says the exact opposite of you and they informed me that while there might be a slight wait for general checkups, for emergencies you are seen right away. when I asked them what they would prefer, the US system or theirs they chose theirs.
if you're getting this info from talk-radio that's your first mistake. unless you have experienced it first hand as a former Brit or know someone from the UK that has then you have no facts to back up your claims.
you sound like an alright guy, but a bit naive imho. I think you should ask some of the British citizens who post here regularly about healthcare in the UK.
Jack, Probably not in my lifetime but history and fashion are cyclical and it may happen again. There were several long haired Presidents in the 19th century. Most notably Thomas Jefferson!
peace, jonalbear
We already have. Washington was a long hair and a few other Founding fathers wore their hair long.
I think he meant int he modern world. Back then long hair was far more conventional, and freedom of expression was in many senses far better.
Is Ron Paul up for that!
Cheers,
John.B
Most of the libertarians I've talk to about this issue would say that Government should not regulate hair length, however they think that an employer has the right to decide how their employees look not the Government,so it wouldn't help much in the employment sector.
in other words if an employer tells you he just changed the dress code policy and you have to get a crewcut or you're fired then you would either have to comply or quit.
in an idealistic world your hair should be your own and no one elses, Government, or corporatons should NOT stipulate what your hair length should be.
Or, HER platform? And no, that's not an endorsement for Hillary. She's not a long-hair anyway!
I really don't see it happening. I think the general population would think "Why is he/she spending so much time on their hair when they have a country to run." I think it's the same type of reason we won't ever have a president running marathons and competing in body building, people want the president to spend all their time fixing our country and not doing things for their own enjoyment or appearance. I think that might be why Hillary has short hair.
It is evident--from everything I have seen on tv--that these politicians have
to be 'acceptable' to as wide an audience as possible so
no man serious about winning would ever take a chance on running for president
with long hair. No beards--not even a goatee, not very long side taps, not even a five o clock shadow.
They have to be everything to everyone and middle of the road. Nothing too far out in any direction.
Amen
It could happen only if there were some big changes in society that resulted in long hair on men becoming the way 70% of American adult men have their hair. That could happen but it would probably take a long time.
We have already had men with long hair as president, it was just a long time ago : )
What would be funny is if someone managed to campaign by plastering his hair down and keeping it up under a hat or something, then right after taking the oath of office, he pulls his hat off and all of a sudden it's someone who looks like EdG standing there, "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa look at me; I'm you're f***ing President!!!"
You mean, would we have a longhair run for president *again*. If long hair became a common style as it was just after the revolution, then yes.
It's also remotely possible that a Native American might run. Ben Nighthorse Campbell leaps to mind, although AFAIK he never had presidential ambitions he was a senator.
The answer to your question is in the Senate, the
Governor's mansions of the 50 states, and various other high offices.