Further proof that Ron Paul is the most sane person in Washington

What I find truly amazing is that thrust is only just now realizing something the rest of understood when we were in elementary school.

Paper money makes just as sense as the idea that my house is worth less than a tiny amount of shiny rocks.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I personally think a revamped Lincoln Greenback system is the only answer. When you look at all sides, the only answer is to let elected officials control the creation of money out of nothing, and make the process rather involved. It's not a perfect system, but it would be better than the one we have, and no one entity could monopolize money creation (in theory). [/quote]

I always thought we should base our currency on SOJs.
 
A message from Dr. Paul dated 1/12:

He is ranting about our involvement in Israel and calling out Bernake for canceling appointments with hearings for little secret meetings with central banks in Switzerland this week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETx6...orum/thread427558/pg1&feature=player_embedded

I'm sure there is plenty there for the ani-Ron Paul crowd to hate. Why waste so much time trying to expose the Fed when our congressmen should be more concerned about how they are going to "Fix" everything with bailout money and/or getting more bailout money. Right?
 
I love how Ron Paul fans circle jerk to the man. It's hilariously endearing. Not that I have anything against the man.
 
I like what he's saying, but I'm afraid of what he means.

Who is the beneficiary he promised to fight for de-regulization for?
 
[quote name='crazytalkx']I love how Ron Paul fans circle jerk to the man. It's hilariously endearing. Not that I have anything against the man.[/QUOTE]

That's because we haven't had a politician on capitol hill nearly as honest in our lifetime, or your parents lifetime. It's worth jerking off to.
 
Ron Paul to Bill Maher: America's drug war must end.

With video.

Congressman Ron Paul is the most conservative, grandfatherly man to ever be admired by America's marijuana enthusiasts. On Friday night's episode of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, he reminded those who may have been suffering an impaired short-term memory at that late hour why, exactly, they should like him.

Speaking live from Clute, Texas, the libertarian-leaning Republican did what few other members of Congress will and openly called for the United States' War on Drugs to be abolished.

"What about when FDR came to office in '33," asked Maher. "One of the first things he did was repeal prohibition. He said we can't afford this anymore. Well, we have prohibition in this country. ... When he was making radical changes he said look, we're serious now. We're going to make serious changes and people like liquor."

"Well, in this country, people like pot," said Maher to a wave of cheers and applause. "If we ended that prohibition, that would be a giant pooling of money."

"I don't like pot," said the congressman. "But I hate the drug war, so I would repeal all of prohibition. But, I wouldn't even bother taxing it. People have the right in a free country to make important decisions on their own lives. If they want to make mistakes, they can. They just can't come crawling to the government to get bailed out or taken care of if they get sick.

"I believe in freedom of choice in all that we do, as long as the individual never hurts anybody else. So that means I would get rid of all the federal laws. I would dispose with the drug war. We're spending tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars on this, then we march into places like California, override state laws, arrest sick people and put them in prison."

"It makes no sense whatsoever," he insisted.

"Amen, stoner," joked Maher.
Click to expand...
 
You mean all this time... I've been toking for terrorism!? :hot:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If you smoke weed, Al Queda wins.[/quote]
 
[quote name='The Crotch']I hate the fact that I get this joke.[/QUOTE]
I never saw this response. I thought I was all alone in the universe.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2V50AS7K0

309808335v1_350x350_Front_Color-YellowGold.jpg
 
My favorite: "We have a total misunderstanding of credit versus capital".

Is it just me or is he basically talking about a currency change coming and/or NWO type stuff?

Absolutely loved how MSNBC hosts were pretty much speechless, and tried to down lplay/write him off like the media has done all along.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']My favorite: "We have a total misunderstanding of credit versus capital".

Is it just me or is he basically talking about a currency change coming and/or NWO type stuff?

Absolutely loved how MSNBC hosts were pretty much speechless, and tried to down lplay/write him off like the media has done all along.[/QUOTE]
No, he's talking about credit versus capital...
 
ron paul is one of the best people for the job. It's sad that he will never have a chance at getting elected.

even if he was nominated (which won't happen) the american people would never elect someone like him, americans today don't want to work for anything and want everything handed to them on a silver platter.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hey, look.

words.[/quote]

America at its finest. My sister said that when she saw a book and had this confused look when the teacher asked her to read pages 50-75
 
Paul's article from a recent http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1116/opinions-great-depression-economy-on-my-mind.html:

Any number of pundits claim that we have now passed the worst of the recession. Green shoots of recovery are supposedly popping up all around the country, and the economy is expected to resume growing soon at an annual rate of 3% to 4%. Many of these are the same people who insisted that the economy would continue growing last year, even while it was clear that we were already in the beginning stages of a recession.

A false recovery is under way. I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner. The economy and stock market seemed to be recovering, and there was optimism that the recession, like many of those before it, would be over in a year or less. Instead, the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954. I fear that our stimulus and bailout programs have already done too much to prevent the economy from recovering in a natural manner and will result in yet another asset bubble.

Anytime the central bank intervenes to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system, a bubble is created that must eventually deflate. We have seen the results of Alan Greenspan's excessively low interest rates: the housing bubble, the explosion of subprime loans and the subsequent collapse of the bubble, which took down numerous financial institutions. Rather than allow the market to correct itself and clear away the worst excesses of the boom period, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury colluded to put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars. Those banks and financial institutions that took on the largest risks and performed worst were rewarded with billions in taxpayer dollars, allowing them to survive and compete with their better-managed peers.

This is nothing less than the creation of another bubble. By attempting to cushion the economy from the worst shocks of the housing bubble's collapse, the Federal Reserve has ensured that the ultimate correction of its flawed economic policies will be more severe than it otherwise would have been. Even with the massive interventions, unemployment is near 10% and likely to increase, foreigners are cutting back on purchases of Treasury debt and the Federal Reserve's balance sheet remains bloated at an unprecedented $2 trillion. Can anyone realistically argue that a few small upticks in a handful of economic indicators are a sign that the recession is over?

What is more likely happening is a repeat of the Great Depression. We might have up to a year or so of an economy growing just slightly above stagnation, followed by a drop in growth worse than anything we have seen in the past two years. As the housing market fails to return to any sense of normalcy, commercial real estate begins to collapse and manufacturers produce goods that cannot be purchased by debt-strapped consumers, the economy will falter. That will go on until we come to our senses and end this wasteful government spending.

Government intervention cannot lead to economic growth. Where does the money come from for Tarp (Treasury's program to buy bad bank paper), the stimulus handouts and the cash for clunkers? It can come only from taxpayers, from sales of Treasury debt or through the printing of new money. Paying for these programs out of tax revenues is pure redistribution; it takes money out of one person's pocket and gives it to someone else without creating any new wealth. Besides, tax revenues have fallen drastically as unemployment has risen, yet government spending continues to increase. As for Treasury debt, the Chinese and other foreign investors are more and more reluctant to buy it, denominated as it is in depreciating dollars.
Click to expand...

What a negative nancy. Everyone knows we had no choice but to bail out everything, and everyone knows things will only get better. Right?
Further proof that Ron Paul is just about as kooky as those nutty conspiracy theorists that think both party's are worthless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He did actually.. The dumbass prevented wages and prices from falling as they must in a correction (though to be fair, it wasn't his idea..He merely continued Hoover's policies). Artificially propping things up sends false signals through the economy.. This can only lead to further distortion and malinvestment by economic players..destroying more wealth and prolonging the corrective process. FDR's constant tinkering and intervention made businessmen incredibly uncertain about the future, and left them unwilling/unable to make long term investments to create real (private sector) jobs. When the government is doing sh!t like this..jumping in and out of different areas of the economy and making tax and regulatory changes on a weekly basis, it pretty much guarantees economic instability will continue for longer than it otherwise would have.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep, I think when company's feel there is even the slightest of possibilities that the government will step in and try to 'stabilize' things, they are going to keep their wings folded and play very conservatively. Not until they feel assured that the government is done rolling economic dice in random sectors will things iron out. That will take years and probably another administration or two.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']He did actually.. The dumbass prevented wages and prices from falling as they must in a correction (though to be fair, it wasn't his idea..He merely continued Hoover's policies).[/quote]
But Hoover didn't start out intervening, did he? Didn't he go hands off and watch the entire economy crumble under him, prompting him to reverse course because he thought, in real time, that what you're advocating for was not working?
 
[quote name='speedracer']But Hoover didn't start out intervening, did he? Didn't he go hands off and watch the entire economy crumble under him, prompting him to reverse course because he thought, in real time, that what you're advocating for was not working?[/QUOTE]

That's a common misconception. Hoover was the one who got the ball rolling on everything in an attempt to fight recession.. He pushed through dozens of subsidies, wage floors, price floors, taxes, tariffs, etc. His policy was the opposite of laissez faire in every respect..and he was largely responsible for turning a garden variety recession into a depression.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']That's a common misconception. Hoover was the one who got the ball rolling on everything in an attempt to fight recession.. He pushed through dozens of subsidies, wage floors, price floors, taxes, tariffs, etc. His policy was the opposite of laissez faire in every respect..and he was largely responsible for turning a garden variety recession into a depression.[/QUOTE]
Right. But he didn't start out that way was my point. And he didn't flip six months in. He espoused free markets as the savior for years before changing course.

I read that Hoover was pissed that Roosevelt was going to take credit for Hoover's finally figuring out that Keynesian theory was going to fix the economy. He certainly didn't start out a Keynesian. I think "Randian" would be most appropriate.
 
I don't think so speed.. Hoover might have paid lip service to limited government just as Dubya did, but in practice he took the opposite approach. The only thing he "stubbornly" clung to was the gold standard. He did not want to abandon it entirely, and this is what likely contributed to his "rigid conservative" image but apart from that, the man was lock step with FDR on economic policy.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Roosevelt made the depression worse?

What a ridiculous premise.[/QUOTE]

It's not an unreasonable viewpoint. I'd like to hear from you why you think FDR made things better. Obviously, this has a direct application to our modern situation, where the government is doing all sorts of crazy things due to the belief they can "fix" the economy.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']I don't think so speed.. Hoover might have paid lip service to limited government just as Dubya did, but in practice he took the opposite approach. The only thing he "stubbornly" clung to was the gold standard. He did not want to abandon it entirely, and this is what likely contributed to his "rigid conservative" image but apart from that, the man was lock step with FDR on economic policy.[/QUOTE]
Not exactly the authoritative source I was looking for, but Wikipedia touches on it.
Hoover's stance on the economy was based largely on volunteerism. From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values. Both his ideals and the economy were put to the test with the onset of The Great Depression. At the outset of the Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach.[34] Critics, such as liberal economist Paul Krugman, who wrote The Conscience of a Liberal, contend that Hoover shared Mellon's laissez-faire viewpoint.[35] Hoover made attempts to stop "the downward spiral" of the Great Depression by hoping that the private sector would recover largely through its own volition.[36] His policies, however, had little or no effect. As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions.
Click to expand...

In the same article, they do talk about how Hoover wasn't the super capitalist that I thought he was though. Looks like you were right on that one.
 
(I apologize for taking so long to post this reply. My computer died a while back, things got busy around here, and just today I was finally able to recover this post off of my old hard drive...)

*massive sigh*

Boy, where do I start? :roll:

Well, I suppose by first stating that I believe Ron Paul and Peter Schiff are correct about most of the things that they say.

Next, I would like to explain why many of the people who like Ron Paul (including me) seem so obsessed with him. It's because we know just how evil the other side is, and Ron Paul is one of the very few people in mainstream politics who knows this too.

By the "other side", we mean the people who say things that are the opposite to what R.P. and P.S. say. These people are in the majority, and come in many forms, some of the more notable being:

"Activists"
"Neo-conservatives"
"Bankers"
"Socialists"
"Analysts"
"Pundits"

Please take note that these people may sometimes sneak in something that R.P. and/or P.S. usually say (in a diluted form, of course), in order win back people who may be drifting over to the "wrong" side.

But before I go on, I must preempt a selection of general statements that usually come up in replies to anything I and others like me post:

"Where's my tinfoil hat?"

"Democrats faked the moon landing!"

"ENRON ENRON ENRON ENRON ENRON ENRON"

"Karl Marx said..."

"(Insert huge number here) doctors/scientists/professors/news agencies/elected officials/best selling authors can't be wrong!"

"And I bet you also love Hitler, don't you?"

Sorry to be so assuming and preemptive, but I know from experience how people that don't like hearing and/or are programmed to hate this stuff behave when they come upon it.

I must additionally point out that although the specific statements that I make might not be entirely set in stone or fallacy -free, there is a general tone that I'm trying to get across, and I would like it very much if we could discuss/argue this rather than honing in on and spinning the stuff that makes the opposite POV look oh-so-incredibly perfect.

Now to move on, I would like to explain some things that we believe to be true:

Natural medicine vs. Modern medicine

On one side, you have a selection of plant-and-mineral based supplements and remedies that, although not all effective or safe, are on average quite effective, safe, and have few side effects. On the other side, you have a selection of patented, highly-profitable, man-made chemical formulas that almost always have one or more side effects ranging from mild-but-irritating to death.

I'm not looking to compare the nitty-gritty of the two right now. I had just wanted to say that one of the things Ron Paul promotes is freedom of medicine. In other words, the freedom to choose any doctor, self-medicate, and refuse treatment.

Many public schools have mandatory vaccine programs, and the FDA is taxing, restricting, and banning natural medicines left and right. You also can't get health insurance unless you get treatment from specific doctors.

I personally don't see the point to this. What's wrong this letting people choose the type of treatment they want? :whistle2:|

R.P. on the matter.

The gold standard vs. Fiat currency

One grows and declines in value as the country does. The other can be inflated at any time by just printing more paper.

R.P. on the matter.

Size of government, and concentration of power

The bigger the government, the higher the taxes.

The more concentrated the power, the less freedom you have.

It really is just that simple. :cool:

A whole section of R.P.'s thoughts on the matter.

The environment

Here is one area where you do need some amount of governmental oversight, since private business, for the most part anyways, sees our world as just one massive pile of potential profit.

However, R.P. is fairly moderate when it comes to this matter. He doesn't approve of wide-reaching "environmental protection" measures like the Kyoto Accord or CARA.

Racism

R.P. Believes that it is a side effect of big government, and there isn't any hard evidence that he himself wrote those infamous newsletters.

Abortion

He's completely against it, plain and simple.

He talks a bit about it in the first part of this video, but there's a lot of other topics that he goes into in that speech as well, if you're interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkVJtz0bNI&fmt=18

Finally, what I consider to be his most important speech ever, exposing, on the floor of the House of Representatives, the greatest evil that exists at the political level - the neo-conservatives.

It's available in text or in video form (below).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aewpvcxAwTk
(See uploader's related videos for the remaining parts of the speech.)​

You likely already know R.P.'s stance on war (summed up, it's not a good thing), and P.S.'s stance on the economy (it hasn't even come CLOSE to bottom yet), so I won't take up any more space with that stuff. I just wanted to clear a few things up about Ron Paul, so maybe you could try and see him in a somewhat better light... ;)

Campaign For Liberty
Peter Schiff's YouTube channel

[/tome]
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Being anti-abortion is totally consistent with Libertarianism.[/QUOTE]

It is. If you believe a fetus is a human.
 
Libertarianism is not a moral system. It's basically "do whatever you want, just don't steal or kill". Ron Paul is an old-fashioned conservative. Family values, honest business practice, etc.
 
I do like how the Tea Party kooks are all like "yay Ron Paul! less government! less spending!" but then they get all pissed off when he says "let's start with the military, talk about a huge waste of money". Because any amount of money spent helping poor people or people without health insurance is too much but billions to kill brown people is A-OK.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Libertarianism is not a moral system. It's basically "do whatever you want, just don't steal or kill". Ron Paul is an old-fashioned conservative. Family values, honest business practice, etc.[/QUOTE]
What are family values?
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']I do like how the Tea Party kooks are all like "yay Ron Paul! less government! less spending!" but then they get all pissed off when he says "let's start with the military, talk about a huge waste of money". Because any amount of money spent helping poor people or people without health insurance is too much but billions to kill brown people is A-OK.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

Another good example I read in an opinion piece this morning (forget which paper website it was) the NY court ruling that the federal government can't ban gay marriage as it violates state's rights.

Tea partiers like the states rights things, but are conflicted as they hate gay marriage. Which gets to the hypocrisy of the whole movement. They're only against big government when they aren't in power. Many of them would have no problem with "government interference" if it meant banning gay marriage, keeping gays out of the military, getting prayer and creationism in school, banning abortion etc. etc.
 
There's a new Gallup poll that just came out. The concerns of the Republican party are almost the same as the concerns of the Tea Party.

So, again, what makes the Tea Party distinct? How are they different from the base of the Republican party?
 
Nothing as they ARE the base of the Republican party. Again, most of them had little problems with big government when Bush (who shared their values etc.) was in office. But now that there's a "muslim socialist" in office, big government is the worst thing in the world.

I really don't think there are a lot of long-term libertarians at tea party rallies. It's mostly a bunch of social conservatives who are against government now that the other side has the power.
 
[quote name='Clak']What are family values?[/QUOTE]

The way things used to be before the 1960's. No promiscuity, no abortion, no affairs, no homosexual marriage, no open homosexuality, and so on. Think "Pleasantville", but not so weird and Hollywoodized.

It can't be enforced, Ron Paul doesn't want to enforce it, but he and his family practice and encourage it.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"

^ I cannot confirm who originally said this, but I like the quote anyhow...

Also, the Tea Party movement has nothing to do with Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty. I kind of suspect it's a false flag operation (please see my set of stock reponses to this kind of claim on Page 4 before you bother replying with one yourself) meant to draw people away from the Campaign. It showed up pretty much out of thin air, and has been heavily featured in the mainstream media. Plus, neocon Sarah Palin (check her policies - she's insanely pro-war) has openly endorsed it... :oldman:

And although R.P. once ran for president under the Libertarian banner, he no longer calls himself one. He's a "staunch supporter of the Constitution" these days. No real definable label, although "old right" or "constitiutionalist" would be a lot closer than "libertarian".

As for his son Rand Paul, he's getting much more attention in the mainstream media than his father is. In a recent (and decent sized) Time magazine article about Rand, Ron was mentioned once, very breifly. This is because Rand's policies are much weaker than his father's (again, spare me the conspiracy B.S. - everything I believe is the result of fully examining BOTH sides of the issue).
 
Didn't Ron Paul vote for the Stupak amendment? Isn't that doing more than 'practicing and encouraging it'?

Look, I don't agree with a lot of Ron Paul's positions on things. But there are a lot of things I can agree with him on. We should come to a consensus on the things we agree on (Bush's warrantless wiretapping, the war on drugs, the iraq war, DADT, etc.) I think I saw Paul and Barney Frank working together to cut defense spending.

Check out this article which argues this pretty well:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/28/crazy
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']The way things used to be before the 1960's. No promiscuity, no abortion, no affairs, no homosexual marriage, no open homosexuality, and so on. Think "Pleasantville", but not so weird and Hollywoodized.[/QUOTE]
Lol. Before 1960, homosexuals didn't exist, and men never cheated on their wives.
 
[quote name='dorino']Lol. Before 1960, homosexuals didn't exist, and men never cheated on their wives.[/QUOTE]

Before 1960, homsexuals didn't parade down Main Street, and affairs weren't discussed on national television.

"Family values" may not necessarily have been totally rock solid back then, but at least the opposite values weren't constantly in your face.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Before 1960, homsexuals didn't parade down Main Street, and affairs weren't discussed on national television.

"Family values" may not necessarily have been totally rock solid back then, but at least the opposite values weren't constantly in your face.[/QUOTE]
Yes, damn them, talking about things we don't want to hear! DONT TELL ME ABOUT IT AND IT GOES AWAY
 
If you're talking about the morals and privacy thing in relation to adultery, sure.

If you're talking about them in relation to homosexuality....not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top