WTF Since when was a 40% vote enough for a motion to pass or stall

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
71,688
23,415
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
Some of his stuff is really quite awful, IMO.

This is brilliant though. And I can appreciate that he has his own opinion about things and is brave enough to say when his Party is wrong.

Okay, full disclosure. One of his books was just a compilation of all his speeches. I probably only read like 50% of it, cause it was meh. End The Fed was really good.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
how do you simply end the fed? you'd need a time machine to reverse that
no one claims it would be simple. transitioning away from it would be just as difficult as transitioning to it and a few other things would have to change but it's certainly doable
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Because the dude makes a ton of sense. You really should read some of work...

Yeah the dude makes some good stances on things, but he also makes some stances that I think are idiotic, detrimental, and out-right bat shit insane.
 

Casper

Bobbert Cheapstein
Oct 6, 2009
8,299
365
41
Yeah the dude makes some good stances on things, but he also makes some stances that I think are idiotic, detrimental, and out-right bat shit insane.

End the Fed is a short read. Worthwhile to take a look. It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know about the Fed or the banking system, but it does say a lot about Ron Paul.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
I've been following his stance on a few things, one being the federal reserve. I like the idea of more oversight/accountability, but I'm not sure on the whole "end the fed" campaign he's been on..
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Read the book sir! Its like 200 pages.

9cyPFQbgCnrhuk16HVmUN2kCo1_500.jpg
 

Atan Nolme

Flaccid Member
Oct 14, 2004
6,388
12
0
Karningul,Eriador, Endor
I'm fine with that, since it was the Framers intention.

Show me where it says Separation of Church in the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Oh that's right, it isnt in any of those three documents. It's in a private letter from Jefferson to an Anti-baptist group in Connecticut.
 

Atan Nolme

Flaccid Member
Oct 14, 2004
6,388
12
0
Karningul,Eriador, Endor
Government shall make no law in respect of a religion.

Quote all of it, not just the part you agree with.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This originally applied only to the federal government. So if Pennsylvania wanted an official religion (i.e. Quakerism), they could. Just as Massachusetts did enact socialized medicine with out affecting the other 49 states. Several of the original colonies ( Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland to name three) had official religions which you had to belong to in order to have property rights and the right to cast your vote in an election.

It wasn't until the progressives got involved (Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)) which changed this. The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.