Simple answer Joseph, we have seen the Rise of the Corporation, especially since the nightmare of the Bush Crime Family. The rich people of these Corporations who were responsible for the control and corruption of the government have no morals. All that matters is the bottom line.
You can see the effects of this immoral predatory capitalism all over America and the world. Starving children in America, skyrocketing taxes (I mean costs) for public education, health care, gasoline, etc.
Our government has been operating without a moral compass for decades and without a moral compass, the rule of law is meaningless.
Neo-conservatism, which follows the philosophy of Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol, along with the modern-day liberals who accept the principle of authoritarianism, provides no moral leadership. And most people in Washington, though influenced by both ideologies in various forms, may not be devout followers or even aware of their influence.
There are no neat categories in which members of Congress can be placed. The Obama administration, though continuing many of the policies of the neoconservatives of the previous administration, is not as visibly run by the neocons at the American Enterprise Institute. But it makes little difference.
The prevailing attitude in Washington has evolved because there has been no moral compass or respect for the rule of law or individual liberty.
Regardless of what party is in power, social welfarism, government regulation of personal nonviolent habits, and foreign military entanglements never change, despite the campaign promises regarding the Constitution or freedom. Policies are dictated by prevailing attitudes and influenced by the ideology of the establishment that supports unlimited government. So-called conservatives' support for preventive wars and so-called liberals' support for social welfare policies always prevail in the moral vacuum that exists. Everything that happens in Washington is done in defiance of the moral precepts that undermine individual liberty.
Without a moral foundation to government policies, the purpose of government no longer has any resemblance to the intent of those who settled our country and rebelled against the tyranny of King George.
The majority of Americans today expect to be taken care of by the government. They care little about where the government will get the resources to satisfy all the needs that might arise. Certainly there's little concern expressed about the morality of a welfare state associated with massive economic intervention. Those who are on the receiving end of the government transfer system, whether it's the wealthy, the poor, or the middle class, don't want to be bothered with the question of whether or not the whole system is based on a moral principle. It would never occur to them that theft and violence are used to carry out these policies.
The transition away from the original notion upon which we were founded, that government was to be strictly limited to the protection of individuals from out-of-control government authoritarians, has been going on a long time. Washington responds to the noise that the voters make and the demand for ultimate security and an economic safety net for all has overwhelmed the cries by some who ask only for their liberty.
The time when government was held in check by the limitations placed in the Constitution has long been forgotten.
The erosion started early, and it could be argued that even the Constitution itself weakened this principle that was embedded in the Articles of Confederation. In spite of the early erosion of personal liberty, it was in the twentieth century that the moral compass guarding our liberties was completely cast aside.
What moral system should government follow? The same one individuals follow. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not bear false witness. Do not covet. Do not foster vice.
If governments would merely follow the moral law that all religions recognize, we would live in a world of peace, prosperity and freedom. The system is called classical liberalism. Liberty is not complicated.
Don't fall for the trap of thinking the rise in the stock market is somehow a rise in your dollar's purchasing power. If I go get a big loan from a bank and put all that money in the stock market I will raise the amount of trading in stocks, prices might go up but, at the end of the day, the money I put into the market was not backed by anything other than un-backed debt so all I did was contribute to inflation and everyone's dollar they have in the bank is worth less. Take my analogy to the full scale and you see how Goldman Sachs gets rich off of inflation and you see why they are willing to give money to Romney to keep the Federal Reserve Printing Fraud going because they make a lot of profit because they get the money first. The problem is that it cheats the American worker and saver by devaluing their dollars in the bank. This is what Ron Paul is explaining as the "inflation tax" Study it out for yourself.
Romney still has a long fight ahead of him. A candidate like Santorum, who cannot even win a Senator election in his home state, can give him such a big challenge shows how much the GOP conservatives dislike the thought that their alternative to Obama is a 4 years presidency of a Mormon.
Arizona has over 6 million residents only over 400k showed to vote. Does this mean the gop is aged into its grave in arizona and other states as well or did we loose some of the votes to accelerate mitts win? The idea any of the gop canidates could cross voters over from obama besides Ron Paul is null and void. Gop dino's keep it up we all get more obama.
You are right. A new poll show's only 1 out of 4 Ron Paul supporters will vote for the GOP nominee if it's not Ron Paul. So if Ron Paul goes third party, Romney will not beat Obama. For President our choice is really only Ron Paul, or Obama. If the GOP does not start supporting ROn Paul, then they will give the win to Obama. I will take that chance, I'm only voting for Paul.
These two wins obviously improve Mr. Romney's chance of gaining the nomination. Now, if he could add to that a personality and a conscience, he would be a better candidate if nominated. For now, he just remains one of the four stooges, less crazy than some, but still lacking in a fiscal plan that will reduce the deficit and obviously clueless about what ordinary people need from a president. He has learned a great deal about some things during the campaining, such as some people are willing to say anything to get elected, and that while his dog may like the wind in his face at 20-35 miles per hour, when it hits 70, many dogs are quite uncomfortable. He will likely keep the First Family dog inside the car (albeit a separate car) during trips to Camp David - that is, if he is not beaten by Obama, which now looks very likely.
We could flip a coin between Obama and Romney. Who cares? This is exactly what the establishment wants. They would love for people to think they actually have a choice. The only choice is really Ron Paul, but it looks like because GOP is so jacked up, the win will go to Obama.
Media bias: Look at the image of the candidates. Of all 4, only Romney is smiling. You people seriously think we're this dumb? Of all the photos you could have chosen, why was Romney the only one smiling looking at the camera when these types of images exist for all the candidates?
The worst here is Ron Paul. You purposely put an image of him up here that looks like he's angry and yelling while right next to the calm, collected, and smiling Romney.
You might not think this is anything, or on the other hand you might know it's everything, but either way, this is the kind of nonsense people talk about when they laugh at the joke the media has become.
You are very perceptive...and not too sensitive like "littleoldguy" said. I find it very disturbing that everyone is getting lots of media attention except for Ron Paul. There are faults with all of these men but I do honestly believe that Ron Paul is the better choice for this country. I wish he would get more attention and I wish he would fight harder to get out his message.
I agree. That is the first thing I noticed. Its probably either the editor or who-ever the editor thinks the image needs to appease. But in mass-media the audience isn't the client. The audience is the consumer who gets shoveled and barraged with targeted programming. Fortunately mass-media is dying as social networks and distributed news feeds grow. But it's gonna take another decade or so. By then maybe Rand Paul will be the new voice.
You are completely correct. By doing everything they can to undermine Ron Paul, they have exposed themselves as complete sell outs, unwilling to give us correct information.
For whatever it worth, I do agree that Ron Paul is a better choice among all candidates. However, I like him because of his idea, not his appearance, even though he's the only one in the picture that doesn't look like a corrupted politician.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
You can see the effects of this immoral predatory capitalism all over America and the world. Starving children in America, skyrocketing taxes (I mean costs) for public education, health care, gasoline, etc.
Neo-conservatism, which follows the philosophy of Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol, along with the modern-day liberals who accept the principle of authoritarianism, provides no moral leadership. And most people in Washington, though influenced by both ideologies in various forms, may not be devout followers or even aware of their influence.
There are no neat categories in which members of Congress can be placed. The Obama administration, though continuing many of the policies of the neoconservatives of the previous administration, is not as visibly run by the neocons at the American Enterprise Institute. But it makes little difference.
The prevailing attitude in Washington has evolved because there has been no moral compass or respect for the rule of law or individual liberty.
Regardless of what party is in power, social welfarism, government regulation of personal nonviolent habits, and foreign military entanglements never change, despite the campaign promises regarding the Constitution or freedom. Policies are dictated by prevailing attitudes and influenced by the ideology of the establishment that supports unlimited government. So-called conservatives' support for preventive wars and so-called liberals' support for social welfare policies always prevail in the moral vacuum that exists. Everything that happens in Washington is done in defiance of the moral precepts that undermine individual liberty.
Without a moral foundation to government policies, the purpose of government no longer has any resemblance to the intent of those who settled our country and rebelled against the tyranny of King George.
The majority of Americans today expect to be taken care of by the government. They care little about where the government will get the resources to satisfy all the needs that might arise. Certainly there's little concern expressed about the morality of a welfare state associated with massive economic intervention. Those who are on the receiving end of the government transfer system, whether it's the wealthy, the poor, or the middle class, don't want to be bothered with the question of whether or not the whole system is based on a moral principle. It would never occur to them that theft and violence are used to carry out these policies.
The transition away from the original notion upon which we were founded, that government was to be strictly limited to the protection of individuals from out-of-control government authoritarians, has been going on a long time. Washington responds to the noise that the voters make and the demand for ultimate security and an economic safety net for all has overwhelmed the cries by some who ask only for their liberty.
The time when government was held in check by the limitations placed in the Constitution has long been forgotten.
The erosion started early, and it could be argued that even the Constitution itself weakened this principle that was embedded in the Articles of Confederation. In spite of the early erosion of personal liberty, it was in the twentieth century that the moral compass guarding our liberties was completely cast aside.
What moral system should government follow?
The same one individuals follow. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not bear false witness. Do not covet. Do not foster vice.
If governments would merely follow the moral law that all religions recognize, we would live in a world of peace, prosperity and freedom. The system is called classical liberalism. Liberty is not complicated.
The worst here is Ron Paul. You purposely put an image of him up here that looks like he's angry and yelling while right next to the calm, collected, and smiling Romney.
You might not think this is anything, or on the other hand you might know it's everything, but either way, this is the kind of nonsense people talk about when they laugh at the joke the media has become.