Recent content by paul1454

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't #3 "stable" and not "progressive"? Posted via VolNation Mobile

I agree completely with this. And, for what it is worth, I am a former Marine. Posted via VolNation Mobile

Don't you mean hoorah? We ain't the army. Posted via VolNation Mobile

Agreed Posted via VolNation Mobile

I'm surprised that people can go so far in politics without having the faintest clue as to the contents of the constitution. Posted via VolNation Mobile

1. By issuing bonds that are purchased by the federal reserve. 2. Treasury (federal agency) and federal reserve banks (private) 3. Since the early 1900s. 4. I'm assuming they are left-leaning governments [if I had to guess the reason you are asking], but I have no idea. 5. I didn't know...

What's funny us that the recession technically ended in June of 2009, when only 45.6 billion in stimulus had been spent. Gonna be hard to claim that 800+ billion was necessary to prevent another great depression when less than 10% pulled us completely out....... Posted via VolNation Mobile

I understand where you guys are coming from, but I just don't see how this is such a big deal. Posted via VolNation Mobile

How is the ranking of Obama innaccurate?....he won the Nobel prize for crying out loud [insert hint of sarcasm here]. Posted via VolNation Mobile

I'm with you. The basics of economics are very intuitive. It is a shame that we have so many politicians Running our country without any such intuition. Posted via VolNation Mobile

That's a pretty funny video. As an aside, just in case someone wants a more in-depth explanation, here is a good one from Russ Roberts (the GMU economist). . Posted via VolNation Mobile

On a somewhat related note, I'm curious as to the basis for the claim that the supreme court should not allow partial birth abortions. Certainly, I do no support them, but I'd love to hear the thoughts of others that think allowing them is somehow a hit on the SCOTUS. Posted via VolNation Mobile

Shouldn't felons be permitted to vote in light of the right to vote, people be able to scream "fire" in a public theater in the the name of free speech, and others be able to sacrifice humans to the gods in the name of religious freedom?......come on pal, not everything is so black and white...

Really? Why would that be too many? I suppose it is because the greater the supply of attorneys, the lower the cost of legal assistance. Adding to the supply of lawyers doesn't seem so bad to me. Posted via VolNation Mobile

Isn't that what the supreme court's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause was for? Posted via VolNation Mobile