Is Serving The National Interest More Important Than Serving A Political Party?

If so, what are you willing to compromise on?

If not, why not?

 

i love how everyone avoided this thread...

 

Well, I just saw it


And to be fair, no one STILL has said what they would compromise on.

I'll tell you a couple of things I feel I am compromising on by supporting Ron Paul's campaign.

*I am less than happy about the implications of his Libertarian background, with regard to SOME social support programs.

*I am at this point quite opposed to his position against protective tariffs ...but as I told another poster, that might change after I read more of an economics book I recently bought.

Even so, I feel that Ron Paul is the only supportable candidate because he alone among them seems to grasp the significance of the Constitution and also the damage done since 1913 by the Federal Reserve.

 

cheers to that lily!

 

You don't like them either ?

 

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

- Jefferson

 

"Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws." -- Baron M.A. Rothschild

 

"i have unkowingly ruined my country"

woodrow wilson after signing the federal reserve act

 

I wonder if the people on this board know how much of their income tax is used every year only to pay the interest owed to the Federal Reserve.

 

how much?....

 

You said in another thread that economics was your favorite class in college.
Give me your best guess.

 

One should serve neither where such servitude would conflict with an individual's right to have the freedom to engage in any peaceful, honest or voluntary activity. The only legitimate function of government is to secure the inalienable, individual rights of its Citizens under Natural Law.

 

I think there is a conflict between securing inalienable rights and freedom.

 

Then please explain by what mechanism you believe government may infringe upon the rights of people to engage in peaceful, honest, or voluntary transactions/activities.

 

True, but I have no idea... that's why I asked. Care to enlighten me?