Denver - The Libertarian Party has nominated former Congressman Bob Barr as its candidate for president for the 2008 election.
"I'm sure we will emerge here with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," Barr stated in his victory speech shortly after being selected as the Party's nominee. "I want everybody to remember that we only have 163 days to win this election. We cannot waste one single day."
More than 650 Libertarian delegates met in Denver from May 22 till the 26 for the 2008 Libertarian National Convention. After six rounds of voting Sunday afternoon, Barr was selected as the Party's presidential nominee.
"We're proud to present to the American voters Bob Barr as our presidential nominee," says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis. "While Republicans and Democrats will fight for their own power in November, Libertarians will fight for Americans. Bob Barr is one of the strongest candidates in the Party's 37-year history, and we look for him to have an enormous impact in the 2008 race. Republicans and Democrats have good reason to fear a candidate like Barr, who refuses to accept the 'business-as-usual' attitude of the current political establishment. Americans want and need another choice, and that choice is Bob Barr."
The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.
he's gonna fuck over McCain in November
despite my persistently confirmed belief that all lolbertarians are naive, short-sighted, anti-social dogmatists, i would take a million ron pauls over one huck
then i can email EB links to the NY Times to swift boat FoC's 2036 senate run :bow
whether or not barr has an impact really depends on Ron Paul endorsing and supporting him over McCain, I would think. Paul's the rockstar in that movement, not barr.
despite my persistently confirmed belief that all lolbertarians are naive, short-sighted, anti-social dogmatists, i would take a million ron pauls over one huck
Ron Paul isnt that bad, as much as you try to say. I know you know this but have to keep up the act for Internet LOLs. Alot of you guys would probably vote for Ron Paul over Hillary the way yo guys talk about her.
What's the worst thing that would happen if Ron Paul were president?
a rise in corporatism; a lack of strong environmental regulations; bad currency investments and money policy (greenspan's been bad enough); potential damage to federal institutions i want to see reformed and strengthened (DoE, NEA, FDA, EPA, NASA); no chance of meaningful roosevelt-styled economic regulations:o :lol
if michigan's residents can't find the money to buy decent roadwork from halliburton, fuck 'em!
Is NASA actually relevant nowadays? Are they still doing [/could they still do] unique research that has substantial utility in practical terms?
you mean in terms of immediate profit potential -- i.e. the golden calf of all lolbertarians? no. in terms of longterm scientific achievement and social inspiration? yes.
oh sweet jesus, foc. please: never make an analogy again.
You know what would be really inspirational to me? Not having 33% of my wages that I earned taken away from me, so i buy stuff for myself.
But I guess that's not quite the same as broken Mars Rovers churning out out big JPEGs of red rocks.
i am getting very tired of pointing out the grossly obvious with you, although i find it hilarious that you consider the federal government to be directly analogous to a for-profit consumer-focused corporation. disingenuous similarities aside, here you go: the ps3 is a retail item sold to a largely homogenous niche market. nasa is not. the ps3 needs immediate profits to remain viable; there is nothing in nasa's charter that specifies that. lastly, the audience for the ps3 is directly self-selecting; nasa's is not in any meaningful way.
The work NASA does is very important long-term, especially since other countries are thinking the same thing. Sure they move slow, but considering the budget cuts they get all the time, I'm not shocked.
Is NASA actually relevant nowadays?
The work NASA does is very important long-term, especially since other countries are thinking the same thing. Sure they move slow, but considering the budget cuts they get all the time, I'm not shocked.
Such as?
I'm still waiting for an answer to APF's question.QuoteIs NASA actually relevant nowadays?
The work NASA does is very important long-term, especially since other countries are thinking the same thing. Sure they move slow, but considering the budget cuts they get all the time, I'm not shocked.
Science in the United States is really in a bad way. IIRC even super colliders are losing funding, and larger better ones are being built in other countries. Scientists are not like the military, the only way we can hold them is with the funding to let them run with their ideas. It took a dire situation like WWII to drive our last great think tank to us in 30s and 40s; once they all leave the US over the next few years over public and govt ignorance over the importance of scientific progress, I am not quite sure how we'll ever get them back.
This isnt an argument for NASA so much as an argument against selfishness and ignorance masked as short-term practicallity.
Uh, I'm not interested in this pseudo debate over whether or not we should have a NASA; personally I'm more interested in why you said NASA specifically, as IIRC something thatwas underfunded[edit] needed to be reformed and strengthened.
i am getting very tired of pointing out the grossly obvious with you, although i find it hilarious that you consider the federal government to be directly analogous to a for-profit consumer-focused corporation. disingenuous similarities aside, here you go: the ps3 is a retail item sold to a largely homogenous niche market. nasa is not. the ps3 needs immediate profits to remain viable; there is nothing in nasa's charter that specifies that. lastly, the audience for the ps3 is directly self-selecting; nasa's is not in any meaningful way.
So your excuses for NASA are the following
1. NASA doenst make a profit.
2. NASA doesnt need a profit because of its charter. Never mind that we are in fact debating the merit of NASA to begin with.
3. NASA's audience doesnt get a choice.spoiler (click to show/hide)Sounds great. I want to create a charter that says I get lots of tax money so then you cant debate the merit of it because it's in the charter. LOLOLOLOLZ[close]
putting in that list was a mistake, but in case you missed the caveat: it was off -the-top of my head. i like my tax dollars going to nasa.
no, idiot, those are my reasons nasa isn't the playstation 3, and why your analogy is spurious. you are almost impossibly stupid.
could chop a camel right in its hump and drink all its milk.:lol
Way to be extremely vague. Didnt Sony use the same excuse with the PS3? "It has lots of potential, so its really worth it guys. Trust us."
no, idiot, those are my reasons nasa isn't the playstation 3, and why your analogy is spurious. you are almost impossibly stupid.
I never said that NASA was the PS3.
because nasa has the name, the public awareness, the organizational structure, and the charter?
because nasa has the name, the public awareness, the organizational structure, and the charter?
Lots of private organization or companies have said things.
Progress costs money, distinguished mentally-challenged fellow.
because nasa has the name, the public awareness, the organizational structure, and the charter?
Lots of private organization or companies have said things.
because nasa has the name, the public awareness, the organizational structure, and the charter?
Lots of private organization or companies have said things.
and i am fine with them doing it in ADDITION to nasa. again, i believe most folks -- like you -- are too short-sighted or narrow-minded to invest in things that do not offer immediate or direct profit, but i want you paying for it nonetheless because you are not independent of society, and societies persist based on long-term visions produced by the educated and the elite. if you are offended at having your society-backed currency and society-backed freedoms and society-backed leadership "extorting" the money and property you have only because the same social contract permits it, you might consider adjusting your expectations to something more in line with your education. otherwise, quit acting like the exchange of goods, services, and currencies are the sole fundament of society and culture, and find some other venue to validate your anti-intellectualism. i am sorry that freedom and currency don't really exist aside from social consensus, but there you go!
because nasa has the name, the public awareness, the organizational structure, and the charter?
Lots of private organization or companies have said things.
and i am fine with them doing it in ADDITION to nasa. again, i believe most folks -- like you -- are too short-sighted or narrow-minded to invest in things that do not offer immediate or direct profit, but i want you paying for it nonetheless because you are not independent of society, and societies persist based on long-term visions produced by the educated and the elite. if you are offended at having your society-backed currency and society-backed freedoms and society-backed leadership "extorting" the money and property you have only because the same social contract permits it, you might consider adjusting your expectations to something more in line with your education. otherwise, quit acting like the exchange of goods, services, and currencies are the sole fundament of society and culture, and find some other venue to validate your anti-intellectualism. i am sorry that freedom and currency don't really exist aside from social consensus, but there you go!
Just dont be surprised when your society-backed science turns out to be anything but.
because nasa has the name, the public awareness, the organizational structure, and the charter?
Lots of private organization or companies have said things.
and i am fine with them doing it in ADDITION to nasa. again, i believe most folks -- like you -- are too short-sighted or narrow-minded to invest in things that do not offer immediate or direct profit, but i want you paying for it nonetheless because you are not independent of society, and societies persist based on long-term visions produced by the educated and the elite. if you are offended at having your society-backed currency and society-backed freedoms and society-backed leadership "extorting" the money and property you have only because the same social contract permits it, you might consider adjusting your expectations to something more in line with your education. otherwise, quit acting like the exchange of goods, services, and currencies are the sole fundament of society and culture, and find some other venue to validate your anti-intellectualism. i am sorry that freedom and currency don't really exist aside from social consensus, but there you go!
Just dont be surprised when your society-backed science turns out to be anything but.
What does that even mean :lol
That post owned you.
So all the scientific discoveries made by NASA are not scientific? ???
So all the scientific discoveries made by NASA are not scientific? ???
Did I say that?
Don't be surprised when society gives you something as science and it isn't science at all. Kind of like how some parts of america want to give you creationism as science.
Don't be surprised when society gives you something as science and it isn't science at all. Kind of like how some parts of america want to give you creationism as science.
or some parts of america want to give you the gold standard
So all the scientific discoveries made by NASA are not scientific? ???
Did I say that?
which means i shouldn't be concerned about either outcome why?Are you concerned with the teaching of creationism? I mean it is "Society-backed" to use your term.
The people most likely to be in favor of funding NASA adequately are also the same people least likely to be in favor of contaminating science with ideological nonsense.
remember that libertarian corporatism is also idiological nonsense i'd rather not tainting science, even if the folks paying their taxes really DO love the aibo:lol :lol :lol
We can always tell when FoC is losing, he starts shouting 'PROOF?'
We can always tell when FoC is losing, he starts shouting 'PROOF?'
and demanding clarification of simple terms.I honestly dont know what libertarian corporatism is. But im sure its really evil and mean and wants to butt rape you.
We can always tell when FoC is losing, he starts shouting 'PROOF?'
and demanding clarification of simple terms. he's like the Phoenix Wright player who doesn't know how to solve the case and just clicks on every piece of evidence hoping to advance the plot
okay, he is NOT allowed to demand proof until he can demonstrate that libertarianism works
We can always tell when FoC is losing, he starts shouting 'PROOF?'
Do you have any?Quoteand demanding clarification of simple terms.I honestly dont know what libertarian corporatism is. But im sure its really evil and mean and wants to butt rape you.
okay, he is NOT allowed to demand proof until he can demonstrate that libertarianism works
Can you prove that socialism works?
okay, he is NOT allowed to demand proof until he can demonstrate that libertarianism works
Can you prove that socialism works?
where am i suggesting it does? THE WORLD IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.
which means i shouldn't be concerned about either outcome why?Are you concerned with the teaching of creationism? I mean it is "Society-backed" to use your term.
We can always tell when FoC is losing, he starts shouting 'PROOF?'
Do you have any?Quoteand demanding clarification of simple terms.I honestly dont know what libertarian corporatism is. But im sure its really evil and mean and wants to butt rape you.
libertarian corporatism -- the implicit argument to all libertarian economic rationalizations that suggests any regulation is bad, and hence that corporations should go unregulated. see also: the morality of profit.
Let me explain to you how this works. You see, the corporations finance Team America. And then Team America goes out and the corporations sit there in their, ih in their corporation buildings and, and and see that's, they're all corporationy, and they make money. Mhm.
yes i am. i am arguing that society is a REALITY that must be dealt with, not that it is moral or right in any or all circumstances. Libertarianism denies reality, presuming that all men are islands, that liberty exists independent of society, and that economics are a fundamentally objective condition just because they play so nice with numbers.
I'm arguing that different aspects of society should be voluntary. If I don't want to pay for NASA, the Iraq war, creationism or a bridge to nowhere then I shouldn't have to. Very little in a free society should be mandatory, it should be a choice, hence the word freedom.
The people most likely to be in favor of funding NASA adequately are also the same people least likely to be in favor of contaminating science with ideological nonsense.
QuoteVery little in a free society should be mandatory, it should be a choice, hence the word freedom.
IS WRITTEN AS A FACT.
QuoteVery little in a free society should be mandatory, it should be a choice, hence the word freedom.
IS WRITTEN AS A FACT.
fix'd to assist.
Very little in a free society should be mandatory, it should be a choice, hence the word freedom.is written as a fact. Do I need proof to say an opinion.
have we descended into semantic wrangling, now? has it really gotten so bad for you?Have you descended into posting the word "PROOF?" for an opinion.
Haha, cant win? Ignore em. That'll help people take you seriously you fucktard.
QuoteThe people most likely to be in favor of funding NASA adequately are also the same people least likely to be in favor of contaminating science with ideological nonsense.
IS WRITTEN AS A FACT.
I think you'd win if you weren't so stupid.
What can the party do to reverse course?
Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people. That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.
Do you think Obama is an evangelical?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-mari/huckabee-on-the-next-repu_b_103556.html
I don't know that I would call him an evangelical, but I think he's certainly a Christian, he openly declares his Christian faith, and I think some Republicans who try to dismiss that are making a big mistake, and they'll be very naïve if they think they can just assume that all of the faith vote is going to automatically go Republican this year. It is not.
I think you'd win if you weren't so stupid.
We were all winners when he couldn't create his own threads, and had no option to ignore people. Just saying!
I think you'd win if you weren't so stupid.
We were all winners when he couldn't create his own threads, and had no option to ignore people. Just saying!
Hay, IM not the one that unlepered him!
:(
My Econ teacher is a huge libertarian. I really didn't like him before finding out, and now I just can't wait for the semester to end. He and two students in my class just won't shut up.
Economists are soulless anyways.
why you gotta hate the krug
I just thought of something. Since Prole is so anal about charters, where in our charter (The constitution) does it say that it is the federal governments job to advance "longterm scientific achievement and social inspiration"
I think there's definitely a validity in asserting that if funding NASA [/ anything] results in research which is not immediately commercially viable, yet advances research / science on the whole, in a manner that has permeating effects therefore on science and research on the whole, then there is a common public interest in government funding.
I think there's definitely a validity in asserting that if funding NASA [/ anything] results in research which is not immediately commercially viable, yet advances research / science on the whole, in a manner that has permeating effects therefore on science and research on the whole, then there is a common public interest in government funding.
Yeah, NASA doesn't need to produce non-stick frying pans to be valuable to society. It's just a nice bonus.
Yeah..and there really is no good private equivalent that would result if NASA were eliminated.
i see his point, but disagree, taking the tack that arts and sciences must be funded because they elevate us as a society.
Henry Rollins is anti-NASA
he feels the money could be spent on people on Earth much more effectively.
i see his point, but disagree, taking the tack that arts and sciences must be funded because they elevate us as a society.
If the costs of NASA were directly transplanted to other humanitarian efforts, arts, and sciences...I would be hard-pressed to argue which would be more beneficial in the short and long-term. But since the savings on eliminating NASA would likely be used for "defense" or other shenanigans, I would have to disagree with him.
who said you were soulless? I think you're projecting...
he is soulless.
Explore the cosmos and the more practical benefits will follow.
In your opinion what does it need to do?
Why don't you leave the country? Is there not enough private incentive for you to justify spending your dollars on going through the proper motions to move elsewhere?
i see his point, but disagree, taking the tack that arts and sciences must be funded because they elevate us as a society.
Yes, Arts and sciences must be funded, I agree 100% I'm not arguing against that. I'm only saying that we should get a choice on where to fund it. As it is now, we get no choice at all. NASA could fuck up royally and the politicians would just throw more money at it. What about the columbia disaster. Bush gave a speech and said he wants to fund NASA even more.
In a cabin in Manitoba, you can keep EVERYTHING and no-one will care.
i thought we got a choice via proxy. we vote for the people who make the ultimate decisions.
you don't really get much more free market than democracy and the will of the people
i thought we got a choice via proxy. we vote for the people who make the ultimate decisions.
you don't really get much more free market than democracy and the will of the people
It's much easier and efficient to vote with your money. How many giant corporations have fallen in the past two decades and ow many have risen?
Also, I'm not sure why you think the will of the people is the same as free market. Many governments had the will of the people behind them, Nazi Germany, soviet russia etc... And I would never argue that they were very free.
And someone who's a staunch libertarian doesn't care about things like "community"
Aww thanks.QuoteAnd someone who's a staunch libertarian doesn't care about things like "community"
Where do you get this from? This is akin to people calling Ron Paul an isolationist when he wants to trade with every country (The exact opposite of an isolationist).
Aww thanks.QuoteAnd someone who's a staunch libertarian doesn't care about things like "community"
Where do you get this from? This is akin to people calling Ron Paul an isolationist when he wants to trade with every country (The exact opposite of an isolationist).
People get this impression because libertarians emphasize the interests of individuals over communities and societies. Anything that can serve as a political value has to be capable of being instantiated by the fictitious isolated individual. Thus social goods and values tend to be ignored. If someone argues that NASA benefits society as a whole, this will leave you cold; the lone individual's economic liberty is paramount.
The funny thing is that minorities will benefit the least from any sort of collective action and you guys call me a racist.
The funny thing is that minorities will benefit the least from any sort of collective action and you guys call me a racist.
minorities is a fairly specific term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group
by it's true definition, your statement is correct, but i don't think that it's what you're intending.
Aww thanks.QuoteAnd someone who's a staunch libertarian doesn't care about things like "community"
Where do you get this from? This is akin to people calling Ron Paul an isolationist when he wants to trade with every country (The exact opposite of an isolationist).
People get this impression because libertarians emphasize the interests of individuals over communities and societies. Anything that can serve as a political value has to be capable of being instantiated by the fictitious isolated individual. Thus social goods and values tend to be ignored. If someone argues that NASA benefits society as a whole, this will leave you cold; the lone individual's economic liberty is paramount.
Libertarianism describes philosophies which uphold the principles of individual liberty and minimize the role of the state. Libertarians dont ignore the community, they only believe that the best and most free community is one in which humans have the freedom to choose their extent of participation. Look at all the non-profit organizations that thrive. These arent done because the government gives them money, they are thriving because we want to do good for the community. It's very easy to fall into a dangerous trap when you argue for the good of the collective (eugenics, genocide, Iraq war etc...) are all things that happened because we were led to believe that it was for the benefit of the large community. "You need to give up some basic privacy rights because we will find terrorists and save lots of lives" is one thing I hear alot these days. Do you agree with that?
The funny thing is that minorities will benefit the least from any sort of collective action and you guys call me a racist. One could argue that the war on drugs is for the benefit of the large community, after all the end justifies the means right? I want to end the "war on drugs" which unjustly imprisons many low income black men and I'm the racist?
If someone believes that political values should be judged with the community and society in mind, that doesn't mean he has to assent to every governmental policy that is then justified by the public good. Things like forced eugenics, genocide, the Iraq war, and the War on Drugs do not simply follow from emphasizing community interests.
And worrying about the public good doesn't entail ignoring individual rights and liberties--especially since it can be argued that they are a public good too.
If someone believes that political values should be judged with the community and society in mind, that doesn't mean he has to assent to every governmental policy that is then justified by the public good. Things like forced eugenics, genocide, the Iraq war, and the War on Drugs do not simply follow from emphasizing community interests.
So in nazi germany the jews had a choice on wether to participate in the genocide or not? Is that what you are saying?
And yes those things came about BECAUSE we were told it was for the greater good. "If we dont attack Iraq Saddam will get america. Are you un-american?" (aka are you not part of the collective group think?)
I was saying that a communitarian, or anyone who even remotely believes that social values are important, doesn't have to assent to every single policy simply because governments claim they will benefit social values. Maybe the following dialogue will help.
Just because you claim that something will benefit society doesn't mean that it actually will.:lol :lol :lol
And even if it would, that doesn't mean that I have to sacrifice the most fundamental liberties.
I was saying that a communitarian, or anyone who even remotely believes that social values are important, doesn't have to assent to every single policy simply because governments claim they will benefit social values. Maybe the following dialogue will help.
You're right you dont have to support every outcome of the system, but when you support the system you cant be surprised when these things do happen.
I was saying that a communitarian, or anyone who even remotely believes that social values are important, doesn't have to assent to every single policy simply because governments claim they will benefit social values. Maybe the following dialogue will help.
You're right you dont have to support every outcome of the system, but when you support the system you cant be surprised when these things do happen.Just because you claim that something will benefit society doesn't mean that it actually will.:lol :lol :lol
Your argument is "We need to benefit society unless what society wants, doesn't benefit them."
You dont get to decide. Thats my point. Do you think anyone that is receiving the short end of the stick in a collective society wants to be shit upon?I don't recall advocating collectivism. Taking social and community interests into consideration != collectivism.
What system am I supporting again? I have been talking about the individual and how he evaluates political values--whether he evaluates political values which can only be realized by the solitary individual or values which can only be realized by society at large. OR, like most people, both!I'm arguing that the individual is more important than the collective. Are you not arguing against that? You are arguing that some liberties can be sacrificed as long as their is benefit for the greater good.
No it wasn't. Look if medicine is claimed to be beneficial for my health, that doesn't mean the medicine is actually beneficial to my health. It might not be, it has to be proved to be beneficial. And even if it is beneficial, if my taking the medicine harms others, then it might still not be worth taking.
Thus a policy which is claimed to be socially good, might not actually be socially good. And if it harms individuals, then it may be irrelevant.
What system am I supporting again? I have been talking about the individual and how he evaluates political values--whether he evaluates political values which can only be realized by the solitary individual or values which can only be realized by society at large. OR, like most people, both!
I'm arguing that the individual is more important than the collective. Are you not arguing against that? You are arguing that some liberties can be sacrificed as long as their is benefit for the greater good.
Two things, first you have a choice whether to take the medicine or not. So that alone throws your analogy out the window.
.
Second, What do you do when the collective wants the policy that is not socially good (Iraq war etc...).
Also, why is harming individuals irrelevant. You are again saying that the end justifies the means.
This is a problem in any democracy, that's why we have constitutions, to prevent mob rule.
No it isn't since I still have the freedom to assent to or to oppose a particular policy, though I cannot ultimately stop its enactment. Agreeing to take the medicine is analogous to agreing to support a particular policy. (I can be forced to take medication too, in some instanced. The important point is whether I assent or not.)
This is a problem in any democracy, that's why we have constitutions, to prevent mob rule.
Except NASA isnt in the constitution, to go back to the earlier. Many agencies that we have these days are not in the constitution because people interpret it so loosely that it might as well not even be there.
What happens when you dont take medicine?
What happens when you dont pay your taxes as a form of civil protest against what the government is using the money for?
Funding NASA isn't an example of mob rule.Do I get a choice?
What happens when you dont take medicine?
What happens when you dont pay your taxes as a form of civil protest against what the government is using the money for?
I'm not getting your point.
Funding NASA isn't an example of mob rule.Do I get a choice?
I maintain that it doesn't affect my analogy. You still have the ability to agree with or disagree with the policy of taxation, though legally you still have to pay actual taxes.
What happens when you dont take medicine? Nothing
What happens when you dont pay your taxes? Use of force by the state.
Do you see the difference?
No it isn't since I still have the freedom to assent to or to oppose a particular policy, though I cannot ultimately stop its enactment. Agreeing to take the medicine is analogous to agreeing to support a particular policy. (I can be forced to take medication too, in some instanced. The important point is whether I assent or not.)
At the ballot box. Democracy isn't simply mob rule.
I maintain that it doesn't affect my analogy. You still have the ability to agree with or disagree with the policy of taxation, though legally you still have to pay actual taxes.
Come now, taxes and Hitler? Godwin was right or bailout.gif
He was talking about usenet, which as everyone knows is the original wound in the now septic topic of internet libertarianism.
Profit is the incentive for everything whether you Libtards get that or not. :lol :lol Somewhere in the chain someone is getting something out of it.
Profit is the incentive for everything whether you Libtards get that or not. :lol :lol Somewhere in the chain someone is getting something out of it.
Hm, maybe you're right. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601620.html)
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has built a national following largely by preaching an isolationist foreign policy. Stick with your own kind, says the maverick presidential candidate.
There are no laws prohibiting candidates from hiring relatives, though the Federal Election Commission does require family members to be qualified for the job and be paid the going rate for their work.
According to your own worldview, profit is the ultimate and only incentive. So obviously Ron Paul's been working as a member of Congress to line his own pockets.
According to your own worldview, profit is the ultimate and only incentive. So obviously Ron Paul's been working as a member of Congress to line his own pockets.
Profit is not always money. He probably has a personal interesting in freedom, I'll give you that. :lol