A new conspiracy?

[greg334]

I got into an online conversation with a Ron Paul supporter and wonder if I am too used knowing that the FDA is nothing more than a puppet organization. This supporter, I call Jane was a foul mouth girl that said I was brain washed - here is what her reasoning is.

She contends that there is a conspiracy between the FDA, the Bush administration, the soda companies and the big Pharma companies. She said the conspiracy is to poison us and then have the Pharma companies find ‘cures’ for what made us sick.

She points to one product that should never been approved – Aspartame

NO LIE.

She claims there is a connection between all of these companies and Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration has been helping them put this in more products.

OK I think there is a problem with the FDA, seeing it from the inside for a while, and I also think that fast tracking of drugs, extending patents and revising policies in both the last two administrations has not really been a good thing for us, the consumer. But on the other hand, I know the history of the three companies involved with this 'conspiracy' on the manufactures end and would not put it past them, like the Medicare part D cr*p they sold to the public.

AND

Beside I stop drinking all sodas for a number of reasons, one is I can’t have sugar and they don’t make soda with Splenda other then Pepsi and it don’t taste right (Coke test marketed it for a while but according to this girl, they pulled it off the market because of the relationship with Aspartame manufactures). I can’t have anything else; I get sick with other sweeteners.

 

[RLENT]

This supports, I call Jane was a foul mouth girl that said I was brain washed - here is why.

I was tracking with ya until the above statement .... dunno what it means - and I don't know who Jane is ......

It sorta doesn't make any sense - did you leave out a couple of key words ? Doesn't quite read right .....

I don't know that there is a specific conspiracy (as apparently "Jane" stated ?) between the parties as mentioned - anyone who is familiar with the whole sordid tale of NutraSweet's approval by the FDA - headed then by FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, (who later became the senior medical consultant for Burson-Marsteller, the hack PR firm retained by G.D. Searle to promote NutraSweet) could certainly say that the ethics of many of those involved (public and private officials) are ..... somewhat questionable (perhaps the understatement of the decade, if not the century)

Yeah - there is a problem with the FDA - alot of the medicos who sit on various review panels have vested interests by virtue of the fact that their research is funded by the drug pushers .... err ..... I mean drug companies ......

There is little doubt that the drug companies have the ear of many officials in goverment - both elected and non-elected. The elected folks are always trolling for campaign donations - and the drug companies have very, very deep pockets. The non-elected bureaucrats are mindful of what they will be doing after leaving government (like getting a high paying job in the private sector)

As far as the drug push .... err, I mean companies ..... themselves goes .... well that's a scary bunch without a doubt .....

Their collective trade association's (PhRMA) motto is "Disease is our enemy. Working to save lives is our job."

Think about it for a minute - if diseases were actually eradicated .... no one would buy their products ..... they would be out of a job .... their companies would have no purpose .... and their stock (and stock options) would be worthless ......

No .... methinks that di$ea$e is very much their "friend" ..... the more of it the better - more opportunity for profit$, more executive bonu$e$. etc. Particularly disease$ that have no cure .... only treatment$.

Speaking of which - guess who the head of PhRMA is these days - Billy Tauzin - the former Louisiana Representative (R) and head of Ways and Means (.... certainly no Bill Archer that's for sure.) If Billy had gotten off his butt and really taken a leadership role, we might now have gotten rid of the income tax and have a national sales tax instead. But I digress.

Pardon me, while I go put on my tinfoil hat.

BTW, want a natural sweetner with no side effects that doesn't alter your blood sugar levels then try Stevia - it had a funny taste (meaning different than sugar) at first but I got used to it without much trouble.

 

[greg334]

rlent,
Sorry about that, I corrected it.

I wasn't clear on the conversation or the person but she was one of the most foul mouth supporters of Ron Paul I have yet to meet. She used words that would make a sailor blush but she was to the point on her reasoning - all a conspiracy to make us sick and to make us spend money getting well.

As for the sweetener, I tried them all (including the ones that we can't get here) and the only one that does not effect me is Splenda. Stevia does not get me sick but puts me to sleep. I don't know why I get sick with some of them but I do.

"Speaking of which - guess who the head of PhRMA is these days - Billy Tauzin"

Yea I heard, I'm still on their mailing list and get their PAC cr*p all the time. It amazes me that people don't know how much money is spent on congress and how it all works with the big Pharma companies.

 

[Turtle]

Splendariferous

Diet Rite soft drinks are sweetened with Splenda.
Cola, Red Raspberry, White Grape (my favorite), Tangerine (second favorite), Pink Grapefruit, Black Cherry, Lemonade, Mango Melon, Strawberry Kiwi, Iced Mocha, Fruit Punch, Golden Peach.

Others include:
White Rock: Diet Cola, Diet Ginger Ale (good stuff), Diet Lemon Lime.

Hansen's Diet Soda: Tangerine Lime, Peach, Kiwi Strawberry, Black Cherry.

Crystal Light brand bottled drinks: Lemonade, Raspberry, Iced Tea with Lemon, Strawberry Kiwi, Peach Iced Tea.

SoBe Lean bottled drinks: Cranberry Grapefruit, Tropical, Peach, Citrus, Orange Carrot, Peach Tea, Green Tea.

Diet Big-K (Kroger private label): Diet Lemon-Lime, Diet Root Beer, Diet Fruit Punch, Diet Cola, Diet Cherry Cola, Diet Dr. K (their Diet Dr. Pepper), Diet Ginger Ale.

Diet V8 Splash bottled drinks: Tropical Blend, Strawberry Kiwi, Berry Blend.

There are a few others, of course, I just can't think of what they are. But these, anyway, are the ones I look for. Mostly, I try to go with the Diet Rite stuff, but, because it's more readily available, I still drink some Diet Mt Dew.

 

[RLENT]

Hey Greg,

I got it now. It's too bad that you had the misfortune of meeting someone who apparently doesn't possess a good enough command of the English language (or enough commonsense) to make her arguments and voice her support for a candidate without being foul-mouthed. Obviously she lacked any understanding of PR.

My guess is that she is probably in the extreme minority of RP's supporters. I know she certainly doesn't represent my views.

While I don't necessarily buy into an actual "conspiracy" as she does, I am under no illusions that there are many individuals and organizations that derive their livelihoods (and in some cases, fortunes) from things that aren't particularly good for their fellow man.

Stevia does not get me sick but puts me to sleep. I don't know why I get sick with some of them but I do.

That's interesting - I haven't had any problem myself with it - but then we are individuals - and all are different, to some degree or another.

I did have that problem with sugar - I used to drink 1 to 2 pots of coffee per day - each cup with a couple of spoonfuls of sugar. It wasn't a problem when I was younger - but after doing it for 15 or 20 years, my adrenal glands had finally had enough ..... I'd get up in the morning, have a couple of cups and about 6 hours later would go comatose ..... I'd be totally exhausted (after doing essentially nothing) and I'd basically collapse - have to lay down and sleep for 4 to 6 hours.

I cut the coffee to a cup or two per day and switched over to Stevia ..... and no more problems. Of course, a year or two ago I discovered that White Chocolate Mocha at Starbucks (with an extra shot ) ..... but that's whole 'nother problem (... the cholesterol)

 

[highway star]

The "Paulies" are certainly aggressive. At the restaurant I had dinner yesterday a guy sitting by himself starts a conversation with the random couple at the table next to him. Within 30 seconds it was the whole "google Ron Paul" spiel. They do seem to have passion. Kinda like the Jehova's Witnesses.

 

[greg334]

Well I met a lot of his supporters and most are good people but then you get the '9/11 conspiracy Rosie' type people who are angry with their life and show that anger a lot. I have tried to have discussions with a few just to see where they stand and the hatred that they have is just unbearable at times so I can to the conclusion that they don't know what they really stand for if they stand for anything at all. I think that the death threats that were made to some entertainers from supporters of Ron Paul really bothers me.

As for the candidate, he says a lot of good stuff and I read today I read a lot of his record. Would he make a good president? Well I just don't know.

 

[RLENT]

The "Paulies" are certainly aggressive.

I try and avoid making generalized categorizations about supporters of any candidate (particularly one's using a media made-up name that could be considered perjorative) - simply because a generalization will never be "true" - since it avoids specifics - and specifics are always where truth lies. I'm sure that many of Dr. Paul's supporters are quite passionate - just as some of Rommney's, Clinton's, Huckabbe's, Obama's and Guiliani's (fill in name of your favorite candidate here) are.

As a Paul supporter I wouldn't say that I have been "aggressive" - I haven't really mentioned Dr. Paul on EO (other than a reply to someone who brought his name up) ..... and I'm not out at restaurants or anywhere else starting conversations with people that I don't know.

I've known of Dr. Paul and what he's about for probably better than 10 or 15 years. He is utterly unique in terms of those serving in government - if ya wanna know why that is, the data is out there - inform yourself.

Basing one's opinion of a candidate and what they are about on what one supporter (or a dozen, or a hundred for that matter) says or does would be a really lazy way (not mention likely being highly inaccurate) to inform oneself about said candidate.

I what I do find interesting are the efforts of the mainstream media to paint Dr. Paul as some kind of wacko - particularly Fox News - which, in the case of several people (Chris Wallace and Sean Hannity, for starters) has been almost ..... rabid ..... in their efforts. So much for "Fair and Balanced" .....

If one really knew the guy, one would know that these characterizations are so far divorced from reality that it largely discredits those making them - rather than the person they are making them about.

I used to believe that Fox News might be different than the rest of the Mainstream Media .... they aren't .... same wolf .... just a slightly different set of sheep's clothing.

What is truly unfortunate is the kind of coverage all the mainstream media is offering - they've been doing it so long that that the American people have largely become numb and just suck it down like so much pablum .....

The coverage is largely focused on the "horse race" from early on - rather than focus on the real issues and an in-depth treatment and discussion of each candidates position on a wide variety of issues and detailed specifics of how exactly they would solve the problems confronting this country, they focus on trivial and frivolous matters .... the price of a candidates haircut, what musical instrument a candidate plays, what a candidates purported religion is, ad nauseum ......

Along with trying to "predict" who will win and the constant focus on the so-called "front-runners" - if they were really doing their job they would be less focused on who will win and more focused on ensuring that the American public was fully informed on all candidates and their full positions prior to making their individual choices.

And they let the candidates get away with trite "soundbite" answers - because it dovetails with the format and "product" the media is pushing - which in no way leads to a truly informed electorate.

This lowers true political discourse which is what the country really needs - if there is to be any hope at all that it survive another 200+ years ...... rather than a dumbed-down population, whose attention is focused on "fluff" as opposed to the real issues that need to be addressed in order for this country to not self destruct.

As far as death threats go ..... dunno anything about them .... first I've heard of it .....

At any rate, it's really an irrelevant matter - if it were Dr. Paul or someone actually associated with his campaign making them - then it would be relevant. Apparently, his message - which is largely based on the idea of individual freedom - appeals to a broad enough audience that a few wackjobs say they are for him (inspite of the fact that he'd probably be the first to lock 'em up and toss the key). Even Heros have fleas ....

Timothy McVeigh was a former member of the armed forces - doesn't mean that all those that are, or were, in the service are homegrown terrorists - or that they in anyway espouse or approve pf his views and actions.

On the 9/11 conspiracies aspect .... yeah there's a fairly significant percentage of the US population that is convinced of it or at least has doubts that the government isn't being totally straight with the public. Me ? .... I haven't seen any real true evidence of it personally and won't be buying until I do. On the otherhand, I am fairly aware of the past history of this country and am not such a wide-eyed "true-believer" in our government that I would discount the possibility ..... the government IS NOT the country - they are two totally different things. Alot of folks get that confused.

Several historical matters come to mind ..... the Gulf of Tonkin, MK-ULTRA, and COINTELPRO for starters .... not to mention our governments support (or at least failure to oppose) of some of the most despicable characters history has ever known ...... lest we all forget.

If you want to know what a candidate (including Dr. Paul) is all about then inform yourself - everyone here is pretty internet-savy - shouldn't be too tough - the data is out there - on all on the candidates.

If you fail to do so, then be prepared to accept the consequences. It's your country - and you and your children's future.

(BTW, Greg you do know that Dr. Paul has been for repeal of the 16th Amendment and elimination of the income tax for a long, long time. Alot longer than certain candidates who just recently found "religion" on the issue ...... food for thought ....)

 

[greg334]

Rlent,
Yes I know but he has not come up with a viable solution for a replacement.

Now don't get me wrong, I lean toward his ideas on many subject but the one thing I wanted to point out that I think he has the right idea is what happen to the Rosa Parks medal and his refusal to vote or vote for it. I think his position is right on, not because of parks herself but the idea we must have these medals and it is not congresses job to hand them out. Make sense?

(and if you know the real truth behind her life here in Detroit you would agree that more should have been done for her so she didn't live in the mess she did).

 

[highway star]

Rlent,
My comment did suggest a stereotype. But as we all know, most stereotypes have some basis in truth. Another example. As opposed to the traditional bumper sticker, I was passed a couple of weeks ago by a pick-up truck with a sandwich board sign as long as the bed and about 4 feet high with large flags in all 4 corners of the bed. The google Ron Paul signs are everywhere!

The libertarian type candidates do seem to attract the, um, passionate. It's reminding me of my high school days when McGovern ran on a platform of ending the war and legalizing weed. His supporters were motivated, to say the least.

 

[RLENT]

I understand what you are saying about a viable solution.

However one could say that the Fair Tax is not a "politically viable" solution - in that it committed the cardinal sin of touching the third rail of American Politics - the Social Security System.

Getting this country to change from an income tax - which was actually pushed at it's inception by the super-rich in this country (you figure out why ..... it sure wasn't because they wanted to give away THEIR wealth - no, they wanted to confiscate yours and mine - and they largely have succeeded in that end) alone is a huge change to get the public to accept - let alone taking on an issue that allows one to positioned as wanting to steal some little old ladies retirement.

Leo (Linbeck) and the boys (Linder, et al) were told this at the outset - but they ignored the advice - afterall, they "knew best". As a result, despite being introduced in 1999 the bill has never even been voted on in committee. Reason why ? Most pols are savvy enough to know that screwing with Social Security can be the kiss of death.

Edit: Add to that, at one point they had some problems with their numbers (as in they didn't add up) and that created a bit of a creditability problem (like when Linder testified and got taken apart ..... I think I still have the video lying around on one of my hard drives or a backup tape somewhere ....) Dunno what the current status is on this though - been awhile since I was following it.

The really smart thing to do would have been to just get rid of the income tax and replace it with a sales tax. As the Income Tax and the IRS is by and large universally hated by the American populace, doing this was not totally beyond the realm of possibility. The economic prosperity that would have flowed from that alone likely have paved the way for reforming Social Security into something that was sustainable (private investment accounts)

But the republocrats failed to get it done - even when they held the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. Tells ya something about WHO THEY REALLY ARE ..... RINO's (Republicans In Name Only)

While I certainly support reforming Social Security and I would support any legislation that moved this country to a sales tax and got rid of the income tax and the IRS, the history of the those at the helm of the Fair Tax doesn't inspire alot of confidence .... even so, they may well get it done .... stranger things have happened.

Make sense?

It absolutely makes sense - these morons we send to DC are into so many frivolous and trivial things that they fail to do the really hard work and persist - until they get acceptable consensus on problems - the real problems that confront this nation - not bullcrap fluff that some special interest is pushing.

It's sort like having the dam cracking up river - the cracks are widening, the water is starting to squirt out and the thing's about to burst and release a flood ..... that's gonna wipe you and your neighbors out - and everyone is standing around trying to figure out where it might a good place to plant the flowers this year ..... it's a level of mutual insanity that almost is beyond belief.

 

[RLENT]

Rlent,
My comment did suggest a stereotype. But as we all know, most stereotypes have some basis in truth. Another example. As opposed to the traditional bumper sticker, I was passed a couple of weeks ago by a pick-up truck with a sandwich board sign as long as the bed and about 4 feet high with large flags in all 4 corners of the bed. The google Ron Paul signs are everywhere!

Yeah - I've been seeing them all over the place too, as well as homemade signs that simply say "Ron Paul 2008"

The libertarian type candidates do seem to attract the, um, passionate.

That's probably because by and large their candidacy's are based on the idea of personal freedom and individual liberty - the very thing that this country was founded on - given that it is the natural state of man, it is a incredibly powerful concept and, at least in my book, worthy of some passion.

It's reminding me of my high school days when McGovern ran on a platform of ending the war and legalizing weed. His supporters were motivated, to say the least.

Heheheh .... yeah I'd imagine ....

 

[greg334]

However one could say that the Fair Tax is not a "politically viable" solution - in that it committed the cardinal sin of touching the third rail of American Politics - the Social Security System.

Rlent,
I wonder where the social security is touched. I read HR-25, I read the book and all the other stuff several times but I don’t recall touching social security as part of the fair tax. The revenue going to social security is estimated to go up beyond the adjustment for inflation but outside of that, I can’t find anything – did I miss something?

The one thing that I keep stressing is we need something to actually make the change, what it is may not be the fair tax but here is why I think the fair tax is better than any other proposals I have yet seen – simplicity.

Now this sounds stupid in a way but after having classes on the federal budget, the tax system and other federal things, I can not agree with a system that I have to file a return or have deductions. The reason for any real reform is to have a change in the system from an income derived system to a consumption driven system and deductions and returns defeat the purpose.

Simplicity!

I read several proposals, flat tax, sales tax vat tax and all that but I have yet seen the complete change in the tax system as I have with HR-25. Everyone of the proposals I read builds oin the IRS, builds on a collection system that is in place already and there is no streamlining of the system at all to reduce cost. With HR-25, it seems that there is a change from the let’s go get them to a collection at the retail level which is already in place.

Simplicity!

The thing many miss with the fair tax is that it is very hard to avoid paying the taxes. The retailers who collect the tax get a small percentage, the states who handle the tax get a small percentage but the advantage to us, the people is great.

For me, it is a boom. I figured out that my 2006 revenue would have been greater by $6000 at the same time I would have given the federal government about 80% of what I did in my return.

Just for the record, you know and I know that we are not entitled to any money we put into the social security system and I would like to see it phased out for people of my age. I know by the time I am able to collect, I will be either dead or there will be no money so phasing it out and allowing me to use my money without a tax burden would allow me to prepare for a retirement of some sorts.

I came to this conclusion – with our present state of affairs and the spending out of control, there is no reason why we can’t try it in the form it is being presented to us as. If it works – that’s great but I doubt it would fail.

 

[mrgoodtude]

Great thread!!
Dr Paul won my favor some time ago, Currency inflation counterfeits prosperity & destroys poor
sucked me in.
As he sits at the bottom of the heap in Iowa the question of who's ideals are most similarly aligned and I lean toward Huckabee...
Am I delusional?
Mike

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Great thread!!
Dr Paul won my favor some time ago, Currency inflation counterfeits prosperity & destroys poor
sucked me in.
As he sits at the bottom of the heap in Iowa the question of who's ideals are most similarly aligned and I lean toward Huckabee...
Am I delusional?
Mike

Yes you are! Huckabee is the most lib of the bunch. Getting ready for more tax and spend welfare loving if he gets in. IMO, little difference between him and B.Hussein Obama.

 

[mrgoodtude]

Yes you are! Huckabee is the most lib of the bunch. Getting ready for more tax and spend welfare loving if he gets in. IMO, little difference between him and B.Hussein Obama.

Cool then Larry who do you favor and why?
I am open to all possibilities or at least the lesser of all evils

 

[RLENT]

Good call Hawk .....

The Huckster recently "got religion" on the tax issue and got on the FairTax bandwagon (probably for campaign financing reasons)

However examine his record as Gov ..... tells a little bit different story on his view on taxes .....

I'm kinda funny that way I guess - I tend not to go by what people say but what they do.

Yeah, yeah sure .... once the Huck gets in he'll be a different Huck I swear it, promise ......

 

[RLENT]

I wonder where the social security is touched. I read HR-25, I read the book and all the other stuff several times but I don’t recall touching social security as part of the fair tax.

Well, I'd have to review the current legislation - but in the original bill (HR2525) that Linder introduced, payroll taxes (those taxes used to fund Social Security) were repealed - thereby funding Social Security thru a sales tax. ...... if that ain't touching Social Security ...... brother, I don't know what would be.

A quick look on THOMAS and I see that this aspect remains unchanged in the current legislation, HR25.

While I might (or might not) agree with that as a philosophical premise, the fact remains that as a political premise, this is screwing with the funding mechanisim of Social Security - and opens the door to having your head handed to you on a platter, politically. Anyone (on the opposition side, against tax reform) who knows even a little about PR and positioning would be licking their chops on this one ..... you could have a field day.

The revenue going to social security is estimated to go up beyond the adjustment for inflation but outside of that, I can’t find anything – did I miss something?

Ahhh well .... yeah I guess .... looks like it.

The one thing that I keep stressing is we need something to actually make the change, what it is may not be the fair tax but here is why I think the fair tax is better than any other proposals I have yet seen – simplicity.

Yup, I'm all for that - simplicity that is. The simple thing to have done would to have been to replace the income tax with a national retail sales tax - and avoid complicating the issue with Social Security.

Now this sounds stupid in a way but after having classes on the federal budget, the tax system and other federal things, I can not agree with a system that I have to file a return or have deductions.

Me neither - I'm with ya all the way here.

The reason for any real reform is to have a change in the system from an income derived system to a consumption driven system and deductions and returns defeat the purpose.

I would absolutely agree. That's why the Flat Tax was and is a bad, bad idea.

I read several proposals, flat tax, sales tax vat tax and all that but I have yet seen the complete change in the tax system as I have with HR-25.

Everyone of the proposals I read builds on the IRS, builds on a collection system that is in place already and there is no streamlining of the system at all to reduce cost.

Well I was never a fan of Dick Armey's Flat Tax - thankfully he retired and hopefully him and the idea are fading into oblivion ..... where it belongs .....

There have been other proposals for a national retail sales tax - back in '97 Congressman Dan Schaefer (R. Colorado) introduced HR 1325 - I think this might have been the original .... and it required a supermajority (2/3 of the House and Senate) to raise the tax rate once passed. (Is that currently in the Fair Tax ?)

Since then there have been others - I think Tauzin carried the torch for awhile, and most recently Jim DeMint (R-SC) had a bill .... although I don't know if he's introduced it this session.

With HR-25, it seems that there is a change from the let’s go get them to a collection at the retail level which is already in place.

Yup - all for that .... you just have to understand that Leo Linbeck and Jim Linder weren't the originators of this idea - they just took it ..... and further complicated it by throwing Social Security into the mix - and made it less likely to get passed. Bad idea.

The thing many miss with the fair tax is that it is very hard to avoid paying the taxes. The retailers who collect the tax get a small percentage, the states who handle the tax get a small percentage but the advantage to us, the people is great.

Not to mention all the revenue that would be collected from illegal activities - that simply isn't being collected now. It's fairly safe to say that few drug dealers pay income taxes on their earnings. Nor do armed robbers. Nor any other type of criminal - but they all buy stuff as part of their daily lives.

For me, it is a boom. I figured out that my 2006 revenue would have been greater by $6000 at the same time I would have given the federal government about 80% of what I did in my return.

Yeah - there's little doubt that it's way better what we have now.

Another thing that most people don't get is the effect it (or any other retail sales tax) would have on this country's competitive position in the world.

The cost of the income tax and compliance with the Internal Revenue Code is built into the cost of everything that is made in this country. It's a hidden cost you don't really see.

Those foreign companies who make stuff elsewhere that is then imported into and sold here in the states don't have that expense in the cost of their goods - thereby making their goods more competitive than ours that are produced here.

Shift government revenue production away from an income tax and to a sales tax and the stuff we make here now just got more competitive at home - and on the world market - by about 30% or so.

You would think the morons in DC could figure this out .... it ain't that tough.

Just for the record, you know and I know that we are not entitled to any money we put into the social security system

Nor is there any actual "Social Security Trust Fund" as in an real account somewhere with actual money deposited in it - it's merely just an entry on a book keeping ledger ...... the money ain't laid aside somewhere - Social Security is funded out of the general revenue fund receipts on an ongoing basis.

and I would like to see it phased out for people of my age. I know by the time I am able to collect, I will be either dead or there will be no money

There isn't any money now .... it's just a shell game .... one that would get a normal citizen throw in jail for a decade or more.

so phasing it out and allowing me to use my money without a tax burden would allow me to prepare for a retirement of some sorts.

What a novel concept - allow individuals to be responsible for there own future ..... Sing it brother !

I came to this conclusion – with our present state of affairs and the spending out of control, there is no reason why we can’t try it in the form it is being presented to us as. If it works – that’s great but I doubt it would fail.

I have no problem with the inherent workability of the proposal (provided all the numbers jive) - only with political reality of making such a large change and taking on an unnecessary issue (Social Security) - which is a distraction from eliminating the Income Tax and the IRS. Leo and Linder have had ten years and both Houses and the Executive Branch to get it done - so far they haven't.

If you remember early in the Bush administration they floated the idea of eliminating the income tax and the IRS. Was one of several big things they were considering tackling.

Bush appointed a panel to "study" it (if ya wanna stop something in government all ya have to do is propose to "study" it - it's guaranteed to put the brakes on) The panels appointees were pretty hand-picked to deliver a very specific outcome - kill any proposal to end the income tax and abolish the IRS .... and they delivered in spades.

Sometimes folks who say they are for "X" really aren't - and will engage in all manner of mischief to sabotage what they claim to support.

 

[RLENT]

As he sits at the bottom of the heap in Iowa the question of who's ideals are most similarly aligned and I lean toward Huckabee...

Mike,

Of course who you support is totally a personal decision ..... but methinks that any calculation that is predicated on "I'll support who I think can win - rather than the candidate who I feel is best for the country ..... because the media says he don't have a chance" does not serve this country well.

But hey that's coming from someone who voted for Ross Perot twice

If the Iowa Caucus determined who will actually be Pres we could forego all the hoopla that's going to occuring over the next months - thankfully it doesn't .... and we won't.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Cool then Larry who do you favor and why?
I am open to all possibilities or at least the lesser of all evils

1) Fred Thompson... what you see is what you get; which is classic, southern wisdom. He's the Constitutionalist of the Republicans. His philosophy is simple... get the federal government out of babysitting, and get them back to what the Constitution dictated.

2) Mit Romney... a very frank and successful businessman. Never will be caught in a scandal. He has a conscience! Successful as governor of one of the most liberal states. He gets things done!

3) Rudy Gulliani... what he's done to NYC is enough for me to vote for him! We all know his stance on terrorists. He will not be easy on them!