Ron Paul/Peter Shiff: Full Frontal Assault/Truth is Treason "The Philosopher's Stone"

[Buschb]

For the sake of posterity...Let it be said that we did nothing
I wanted to bump an old thread(had a dead link)...to go back and put this into perspective...'02-'08

Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7sw01_us-economy-the-philosophers-stone_news

This Video was put together not by Hollywood...But by a gent who was on a mission..
a grassroots mission...the cross one bears when they recognize the truth...

There are no sides....only truth


This piece goes into both Peter and Ron warning about the economic crisis...
How all the stimulus wouldn't help and has not helped...UE is rising,dollar falling

The warning was there....No one can say they were not given a heads up...


Why do people ignore the warning

[Kentucky Thinker]

Why do people ignore the warning?

They have too much invested emotionally in the false worldview they've believed in all their lives to actually tune out the talking heads and think for themselves.

[Buschb]

Why do people ignore the warning?

They have too much invested emotionally in the false worldview they've believed in all their lives to actually tune out the talking heads and think for themselves.

Blasphemy... lol

[sisyphus]

Why do people ignore the warning?

They have too much invested emotionally in the false worldview they've believed in all their lives to actually tune out the talking heads and think for themselves.

this is an example of the wrong-headedness of expecting the 'education system' that is run by the promoters of statist ideal, doing the right thing.

[cshoff]

Haven't you heard? The United States is immune to the economic and monetary consequences that other irresponsible countries have suffered. Nothing to see here folks. All is well.

[Buschb]

Haven't you heard? The United States is immune to the economic and monetary consequences that other irresponsible countries have suffered. Nothing to see here folks. All is well.

LOL...I used to think like when I was 13...lol
It can happen to everyone but me...thank god...wisdom comes with a little age

[sisyphus]

LOL...I used to think like when I was 13...lol


Its good to see that you have grown out of it.:think:
Thought takes more work......;)

[Buschb]

Its good to see that you have grown out of it.:think:
Thought takes more work......;)

no comprehemday

[cshoff]

LOL...I used to think like when I was 13...lol
It can happen to everyone but me...thank god...wisdom comes with a little age

Yep. We can spend, spend, spend, and monetize, monetize, monetize, and inflate, inflate, inflate, all with no worries. I don't know why you tinfoilers keep trying to make it out like we have problems here. :naughty:

[sisyphus]

no comprehemday

sorry, I forgot what the definition of is, is............

[HoracioMendez]

Guys like Ron Paul predict bad **** all the time, so eventually they'll be right.

[Buschb]

sorry, I forgot what the definition of is, is............

lol

[cshoff]

Guys like Ron Paul predict bad **** all the time, so eventually they'll be right.

So what are all of these wrong predictions he has made? I'd be curious to read through them. And since, according to you, he makes them "all the time", you must be intimately familiar with them and more than willing to provide some links, no?

[Buschb]

Guys like Ron Paul predict bad **** all the time, so eventually they'll be right.

Spoken like someone who yet has excepted the 50 plus trillion in unfunded obligations...
It did take awhile to get to this point

[sisyphus]

Guys like Ron Paul predict bad **** all the time, so eventually they'll be right.

What is this? A hit-and-run post?:)

No reason, position, or support...Hmmm

[HoracioMendez]

I'll be honest, it's late and I'm way too lazy to look up facts right now.

[cshoff]

I'll be honest, it's late and I'm way too lazy to look up facts right now.

Facts? If you had facts, you'd post them up. I'm willing to bet you've never read or listened to even one of Ron Paul's or Peter Schiff's speaches all the way through.

[Thanatos144]

Gee more lets pat eachother on our back cause we believe the hypocrite Paul thread............He can talk the talk but cant walk the walk.

[HoracioMendez]

Facts? If you had facts, you'd post them up. I'm willing to bet you've never read or listened to even one of Ron Paul's or Peter Schiff's speaches all the way through.
I have. I actually like Ron Paul. He's just a bit gloomy at times. Plus his stance on a few things **** me off.

[cshoff]

Gee more lets pat eachother on our back cause we believe the hypocrite Paul thread............He can talk the talk but cant walk the walk.

Gee, more nonsensical ramblings that contribute nothing of substance to this thread or to the forum. :rolleyes:

[Thanatos144]

Gee, more nonsensical ramblings that contribute nothing of substance to this thread or to the forum. :rolleyes:

The thread is of no substance so why does my posts have to be?

[cshoff]

The thread is of no substance so why does my posts have to be?

Why don't you address the points made in the OP rather than come in hear and attack the people posting in the thread? If you don't like Ron Paul or Peter Schiff, then fine. Don't bother replying to the thread. If you don't like the points made in the OP, then address them.

[Thanatos144]

Why don't you address the points made in the OP rather than come in hear and attack the people posting in the thread? If you don't like Ron Paul or Peter Schiff, then fine. Don't bother replying to the thread. If you don't like the points made in the OP, then address them.

The points ....lets see shall we? It is about economics and how evil spending is even though Paul is a huge spender .......that about work? Shiff might turn out the same

[Buschb]

I have. I actually like Ron Paul. He's just a bit gloomy at times. Plus his stance on a few things **** me off.

Well just concern yourself with the value of the dollar...
everything else is irreverent if we can't borrow or print or tax...to fund the shenanigans

[Thanatos144]

Well just concern yourself with the value of the dollar...
everything else is irreverent if we can't borrow or print or tax...to fund the shenanigans

Guess Paul should think about that the next time he shoves pork in a bill huh?

[Buschb]

The points ....lets see shall we? It is about economics and how evil spending is even though Paul is a huge spender .......that about work? Shiff might turn out the same

this has been hashed out
one day I feel you will be working hard for this cause

[Thanatos144]

this has been hashed out
one day I feel you will be working hard for this cause

Sure I am all for spending cuts.......Lets first cut Paul and all the hypocritical fat like him?

[Buschb]

Guess Paul should think about that the next time he shoves pork in a bill huh?

When one ruins their reputation and comes out for the good cause...You can live you life quite freely

[Ninjacorpse]

The thread is of no substance so why does my posts have to be?

So your admitting to trolling?

[sisyphus]

Well just concern yourself with the value of the dollar...
everything else is irreverent if we can't borrow or print or tax...to fund the shenanigans

In the '30s the gold standard was eliminated. In the 70s the reserve increased the fractional.
The further away we get from the standard, the more the fed will be able to destroy with more bad policy.

[Buschb]

, the more the fed will be able to destroy with more bad policy.

Xsmackly...

[JohnRandolph]

Gee more lets pat eachother on our back cause we believe the hypocrite Paul thread............He can talk the talk but cant walk the walk.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm191/JohnRandolphSouthronPartisan/broken_record.jpg

[cshoff]

The points ....lets see shall we? It is about economics and how evil spending is even though Paul is a huge spender .......that about work? Shiff might turn out the same

There you go. Now, all that you will have to do is prove your premise. You make the assertion that Paul is a "huge spender", so it should be easy enough to compare his spending habits with others in Congress and prove that he spends much more than everyone else.

We'll be awaiting the links you provide.

[JohnRandolph]

The thread is of no substance so why does my posts have to be?

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm191/JohnRandolphSouthronPartisan/troll-1.jpg

[Thanatos144]

So your admitting to trolling?

I am admitting to injecting an opposing view and common sense in this love fest.

[Thanatos144]

There you go. Now, all that you will have to do is prove your premise. You make the assertion that Paul is a "huge spender", so it should be easy enough to compare his spending habits with others in Congress and prove that he spends much more than everyone else.

We'll be awaiting the links you provide.

Would it matter? It has been proven many times and still you dont see it so would it really matter?

[johnrocks]

Good OP Busch.

[kenpoman]

eventually RP has to be right about something....
law of averages demands it.

doesen't make RP smart, just lucky.

hell, even Obama is right occasionally.

[Thanatos144]

eventually RP has to be right about something....
law of averages demands it.

doesen't make RP smart, just lucky.

hell, even Obama is right occasionally.
Blasphemer!!!!!! How dare you sully the name of.........which Messiah is this thread about again?

[kenpoman]

There you go. Now, all that you will have to do is prove your premise. You make the assertion that Paul is a "huge spender", so it should be easy enough to compare his spending habits with others in Congress and prove that he spends much more than everyone else.

We'll be awaiting the links you provide.

so your justification is " everyone else does it too"?

hell, no wonder Obama got elected.
the American voter is proving to really be just that dumb.

[kenpoman]

Blasphemer!!!!!! How dare you sully the name of.........which Messiah is this thread about again?


in the name of
Ran Paul the father
Ron Paul the son
Ron Paul the holy spirit

honestly, the difference between his supporters and Obama's
is what now?

[kenpoman]

Ron Paul:

the solution for life's tough choices.
let him think for you.

[johnrocks]

Hatred for Ron Paul stems from one issue, other than that, he's the perfect conservative, even Ann Coulter said that she thinks he's the perfect conservative outside of his views on f/p, sad that so many are clouded because of this, I actually see more love for Joe Leiberman here by some so called conservatives and he is as liberal as Kennedy was.

[kenpoman]

Hatred for Ron Paul stems from one issue, other than that, he's the perfect conservative, even Ann Coulter said that she thinks he's the perfect conservative outside of his views on f/p, sad that so many are clouded because of this, I actually see more love for Joe Leiberman here by some so called conservatives and he is as liberal as Kennedy was.

the one issue is he's an idiot.

[johnrocks]

the one issue is he's an idiot.

You may think it's "idiot" but when it comes to being the conservative on the issue, he has the higher hand.

[adroit]

Guess Paul should think about that the next time he shoves pork in a bill huh?

Keep on displaying your ignorance of the earmarking system, it's enjoyable.

[johnrocks]

But go ahead and damn the one who has championed free market capitalism steadfast for his entire career, dating back 30 years, his unwavering support for the second amendment and his devotion to individual rights and State sovereignty because he doesn't share your views on liberal interventionism, stand tall LBJ and Henry "Scoop" Jackson, your biggest fans are now...."conservatives"!:dance::dance::dance:

[Thanatos144]

Hatred for Ron Paul stems from one issue, other than that, he's the perfect conservative, even Ann Coulter said that she thinks he's the perfect conservative outside of his views on f/p, sad that so many are clouded because of this, I actually see more love for Joe Leiberman here by some so called conservatives and he is as liberal as Kennedy was.

The one issue is blatant hypocrisy of Paul. In all things he says and then does cause they never seem to be the same thing.

[adroit]

But go ahead and damn the one who has championed free market capitalism steadfast for his entire career, dating back 30 years, his unwavering support for the second amendment and his devotion to individual rights and State sovereignty because he doesn't share your views on liberal interventionism, stand tall LBJ and Henry "Scoop" Jackson, your biggest fans are now...."conservatives"!:dance::dance::dance:

It's ok, they just don't understand what earmarks are.

[adroit]

The one issue is blatant hypocrisy of Paul. In all things he says and then does cause they never seem to be the same thing.

You must have such a blissful existence.

[kenpoman]

You may think it's "idiot" but when it comes to being the conservative on the issue, he has the higher hand.

so he's an allegedly conservative idiot.
that changes the equation how?

1) what is the "real" reason you think most folks dislike Paul?
be honest

2) besides his ostrich policies, my personal distrust of him comes
primarily from his supporters. way to much cult of personality for
me.

[kenpoman]

The one issue is blatant hypocrisy of Paul. In all things he says and then does cause they never seem to be the same thing.

I still want to know what the "one issue" is that makes folks
hate his holiness.

[Thanatos144]

Keep on displaying your ignorance of the earmarking system, it's enjoyable.
I shall try to be pleasant so next time please try to know what the **** your talking about before you attempt to insult me. I was showing Paul's Hypocrisy. A fact it seems is lost on you.

[adroit]

I shall try to be pleasant so next time please try to know what the **** your talking about before you attempt to insult me. I was showing Paul's Hypocrisy. A fact it seems is lost on you.

Hypocrisy? By earmarking projects for his district? No hypocrisy there, so you must mean something different...

[Thanatos144]

I still want to know what the "one issue" is that makes folks
hate his holiness.

That would be foreign policy...which is the biggest thing I diisagree with him about. But not the only thing.

[kenpoman]

I shall try to be pleasant so next time please try to know what the **** your talking about before you attempt to insult me. I was showing Paul's Hypocrisy. A fact it seems is lost on you.


Ron Paul is not a hyprocrite any more than his folks are not raving zealots
seeking overly simple solutions to extremely complex issues.

be patient. you've looked behind the curtian of the mighty and powerful Paul
and seen the messiah for what he is - another windbag politician out for
nothing other than himself.

its a hard pill for the faithful to swallow.

[johnrocks]

so he's an allegedly conservative idiot.
that changes the equation how?

1) what is the "real" reason you think most folks dislike Paul?
be honest

2) besides his ostrich policies, my personal distrust of him comes
primarily from his supporters. way to much cult of personality for
me.

Oh, I know why most here dislike him, it's his support of the traditional conservative foreign policy, things like earmarks and racist newsletters are mere diversions, lips are locked around Lieberman tighter here for some and he's liberal as hell, his love of liberal interventionism though is all that matters, screw the part where he supports gun control, cap and trade, government hand outs and stimulus after stimulus, he supports "spreadin mockracy", **** the rest!:dance:

His supporters are normal people , it's a small percentage that; I'll concede; makes it hard for the others, the ones who chased Sean into the studios, the troothers and the ones who tried to take over forums such as this one did far more harm than good and I curse them with all my heart and soul.

[Thanatos144]

Hypocrisy? By earmarking projects for his district? No hypocrisy there, so you must mean something different...

No I dont. He was against ALL PORK oh but it seems only if it isnt his pork. He talks the talk but cant walk the walk. HYPOCRISY if you dont understand the word look it up.

[kenpoman]

That would be foreign policy...which is the biggest thing I diisagree with him about. But not the only thing.

that just where I begin disagreeing with him, too.
but even if there weren't any other issues, that would be more
than enough.

if we MUST put the nation into the hands of fools, I actually prefer
Obama to Paul. he's a more honest fool.

but that's kinda like saying I don't want to drown so set me on fire.

[johnrocks]

No I dont. He was against ALL PORK oh but it seems only if it isnt his pork. He talks the talk but cant walk the walk. HYPOCRISY if you dont understand the word look it up.

My Congressman does the same thing, he opposes the bill, such as the stimulus but says " **** it, it's going to pass so I'm inserting a bridge for my District".

[kenpoman]

Oh, I know why most here dislike him, it's his support of the traditional conservative foreign policy, things like earmarks and racist newsletters are mere diversions, lips are locked around Lieberman tighter here for some and he's liberal as hell, his love of liberal interventionism though is all that matters, screw the part where he supports gun control, cap and trade, government hand outs and stimulus after stimulus, he supports "spreadin mockracy", **** the rest!:dance:

His supporters are normal people , it's a small percentage that; I'll concede; makes it hard for the others, the ones who chased Sean into the studios, the troothers and the ones who tried to take over forums such as this one did far more harm than good and I curse them with all my heart and soul.

his positions on earmarks and racist newsletter are hardly small matters.
except to his supporters.

[johnrocks]

that just where I begin disagreeing with him, too.
but even if there weren't any other issues, that would be more
than enough.

if we MUST put the nation into the hands of fools, I actually prefer
Obama to Paul. he's a more honest fool.

but that's kinda like saying I don't want to drown so set me on fire.

And people thinks we're the purists when you basically said that ONE issue would make you support Obama over Paul, thanks for your honesty though, I'll bookmark this so that when the nest poster calls me a "purist", I can show em what one really is.:cool:

[kenpoman]

My Congressman does the same thing, he opposes the bill, such as the stimulus but says " **** it, it's going to pass so I'm inserting a bridge for my District".


again, that makes it better how?
you're just spinning to excuse that Paul got royally caught
doing what he said he opposed.

making excuses for him doesn't change that.

[Kentucky Thinker]

Hatred for Ron Paul stems from one issue, other than that, he's the perfect conservative, even Ann Coulter said that she thinks he's the perfect conservative outside of his views on f/p, sad that so many are clouded because of this, I actually see more love for Joe Leiberman here by some so called conservatives and he is as liberal as Kennedy was.

If Ron Paul wanted to take out all the Arabs these guys would have such man crushes on him that it would look like a forum for Log Cabin Republicans.

[johnrocks]

his positions on earmarks and racist newsletter are hardly small matters.
except to his supporters.

We're not the ones looking for perfection in him, you just stated in a bookmarked post that foreign policy is THE reason, I'd vote for others who weren't 100% in my camp but you know what, you nailed it, it's foreign policy that separates those of us on the right more than anything,imho.

[johnrocks]

If Ron Paul wanted to take out all the Arabs these guys would have such man crushes on him that it would look like a forum for Log Cabin Republicans.

:))

[kenpoman]

And people thinks we're the purists when you basically said that ONE issue would make you support Obama over Paul, thanks for your honesty though, I'll bookmark this so that when the nest poster calls me a "purist", I can show em what one really is.:cool:

you really stretched that to fit your needs, I gotta give you that.

but if you insist on putting concepts in my mouth I didn't say, we'll
play that game.

Obama, at least, said he intended to spread the wealth around.
and he's trying like hell to do it.

its a twisted form of honesty, but it was there.
his holiness Ron Paul on the other hand....

[adroit]

No I dont. He was against ALL PORK oh but it seems only if it isnt his pork. He talks the talk but cant walk the walk. HYPOCRISY if you dont understand the word look it up.

I know these concepts are a little difficult for you to grasp because you just hate the guy so much, but please do try to keep up.

Paul is against the ridiculous amount of spending the federal government is doing. When he earmarks spending for his district, that's already money that's already designated to being spent. He's not increasing spending. If that money does not get earmarked, it goes to the executive branch of the federal government and they get to spend it however they want. Instead, he is appropriating money that was taken from his constituents back to his constituents. But please, do try to show where the hypocrisy is.

[kenpoman]

We're not the ones looking for perfection in him, you just stated in a bookmarked post that foreign policy is THE reason, I'd vote for others who weren't 100% in my camp but you know what, you nailed it, it's foreign policy that separates those of us on the right more than anything,imho.

looking for, no.
claiming, yes.

shall I link to YOUR post where you said he was perfect except for one
tinsy little pesky thing?

why is intellectual honesty and Paul support mutually exclusive?

[merlin704]

In the '30s the gold standard was eliminated. In the 70s the reserve increased the fractional.
The further away we get from the standard, the more the fed will be able to destroy with more bad policy.

OK, so we get rid of the Federal Reserve. What do we replace it with to handle monetary policy? You know; the supply of money, the availability of money and the cost or rate of interest, in order to attain growth and stability of the economy. Monetary policy rests on the relationship between the rates of interest in an economy, that is the price at which money can be borrowed, and the total supply of money. Monetary policy uses a variety of tools to control one or both of these, to influence outcomes like economic growth, inflation, exchange rates with other currencies and unemployment.

Once again, what do we replace it with to handle these issues? Hey, I believe it has to much power however as well.

[kenpoman]

If Ron Paul wanted to take out all the Arabs these guys would have such man crushes on him that it would look like a forum for Log Cabin Republicans.

proof, sparky?

c'mon, you gotta have something.
to back up such a big bad macho claim.

[johnrocks]

you really stretched that to fit your needs, I gotta give you that.

but if you insist on putting concepts in my mouth I didn't say, we'll
play that game.

Obama, at least, said he intended to spread the wealth around.
and he's trying like hell to do it.

its a twisted form of honesty, but it was there.
his holiness Ron Paul on the other hand....

Your the one who stated....."I actually prefer
Obama to Paul", not me.

You guys say it's not a simple talking point or solution to most things yet when someone challenges the status quo and offers solutions that can't be jammed into a 15 second sound bite, he's dismissed as a liar,a kook or a hypocrite, why don't you go read his articles dating back more than 30 years before dismissing him , I actually know your a smart poster here and I find it sorta weird that your hatred seems so strong when you agree with Ron Paul on far more issues than you disagree with him on, how do I know this, because I actually read your posts and honestly can't think of another single major issue where you disagree with him on.

[kenpoman]

its truly said Paulbot main defense of the emperor being found naked
is that everyone else gets naked, too.

[johnrocks]

looking for, no.
claiming, yes.

shall I link to YOUR post where you said he was perfect except for one
tinsy little pesky thing?

why is intellectual honesty and Paul support mutually exclusive?

Ann Coulter as well as others have stated that, I'll go try and find the you tube.:cool:
ETA, here it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fyC36Yk3B8

[Thanatos144]

soon the name dropping will commence.

[johnrocks]

soon the name dropping will commence.

We're not the one with the 1700 post "chocolate milk" thread.:))

[Thanatos144]

We're not the one with the 1700 post "chocolate milk" thread.:))So your not a member of the forum?

[Kentucky Thinker]

proof, sparky?

c'mon, you gotta have something.
to back up such a big bad macho claim.

Anytime someone calls Paul an "ostrich" or talks about his "head in the sand" foreign policy, it means he is too dangerous to put in power because he doesn't want to kill all the Arabs.

[adroit]

No I dont. He was against ALL PORK oh but it seems only if it isnt his pork. He talks the talk but cant walk the walk. HYPOCRISY if you dont understand the word look it up.

Facts sure do shut you up fast. I love it.

[kenpoman]

Your the one who stated....."I actually prefer
Obama to Paul", not me.

You guys say it's not a simple talking point or solution to most things yet when someone challenges the status quo and offers solutions that can't be jammed into a 15 second sound bite, he's dismissed as a liar,a kook or a hypocrite, why don't you go read his articles dating back more than 30 years before dismissing him , I actually know your a smart poster here and I find it sorta weird that your hatred seems so strong when you agree with Ron Paul on far more issues than you disagree with him on, how do I know this, because I actually read your posts and honestly can't think of another single major issue where you disagree with him on.

Ron Paul's willfull ignorace and hyprocracy gets folks killed.
in hugh numbers.

and as I've stated before I'm genuinely scared of the cult of personality
his supports have built around him.
that gets folks killed, too.

if you wish to support a hyprocritical political Luddite, that's your business.
but it quickly becomes pot v kettle when you critcize anyone else yet
refuse to see your emperor has no clothes.

like it or not, Paul is a footnote/sideshow in US politics.
nothing more.
and when the next entertaining loony tune comes along his
15 minutes of fame will be over.

he is only even marginally noticable due to his outlandish and frankly stupid
foriegn policy pontifications. which he knows he can get away with due
to his overall insignifigance to the bigger picture.

do I agree with Paul on smaller, less important issues.
some, sure.
I suppose if I looked hard enough I might find I agree with
Hitler on art, Pol Pot on Chinese food, and Stalin on Vodka.

[Long Island Bob]

If Ron Paul wanted to take out all the Arabs these guys would have such man crushes on him that it would look like a forum for Log Cabin Republicans.


great post.

[Thanatos144]

Anytime someone calls Paul an "ostrich" or talks about his "head in the sand" foreign policy, it means he is too dangerous to put in power because he doesn't want to kill all the Arabs.

When you cant succeed with truth you must go to insults huh?

[kenpoman]

Ann Coulter as well as others have stated that, I'll go try and find the you tube.:cool:
ETA, here it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fyC36Yk3B8

so misery loves company.
most folks voted for Obama. didn't make them right either.

[Kentucky Thinker]

When you cant succeed with truth you must go to insults huh?

The only way it could be construed as an insult is if it applies to you.

[Thanatos144]

Facts sure do shut you up fast. I love it.

Maybe they would if any of the ones you keep showing matter .....But oh well they dont cause I already know about the others hypocrisy and I am not the one worshiping a politician.

[kenpoman]

Anytime someone calls Paul an "ostrich" or talks about his "head in the sand" foreign policy, it means he is too dangerous to put in power because he doesn't want to kill all the Arabs.

I asked for proof to back up your posted BS
not more macho BS.

so where's your proof?

[Thanatos144]

The only way it could be construed as an insult is if it applies to you.

Or if you are trying to paint all who see the truth with the same brush like you just did.

[johnrocks]

So your not a member of the forum?

I'm talking about you talking about insults yet spend the majority of your time insulting, sure, he's not an "honored guest" but saying things with such a broad brush like "traitorous", "head in sand" or whatever brings rebuttals, you want to discuss issues find, don't call me an isolationist when we're not and we won't retort with equally insulting blather; hopefully.

[kenpoman]

The only way it could be construed as an insult is if it applies to you.


still waiting on the proof folks who think Paul is a clueless windbag
want Arab genocide.

c'mon sparky. back up the macho BS.

[merlin704]

OK, so we get rid of the Federal Reserve. What do we replace it with to handle monetary policy? You know; the supply of money, the availability of money and the cost or rate of interest, in order to attain growth and stability of the economy. Monetary policy rests on the relationship between the rates of interest in an economy, that is the price at which money can be borrowed, and the total supply of money. Monetary policy uses a variety of tools to control one or both of these, to influence outcomes like economic growth, inflation, exchange rates with other currencies and unemployment.

Once again, what do we replace it with to handle these issues? Hey, I believe it has to much power however as well.

Let's forget about foreign policy. I can debate that issue ALL day. Let's move onto something else. Perhaps my quote above.

[Kentucky Thinker]

I asked for proof to back up your posted BS
not more macho BS.

so where's your proof?

I laid it out as honestly as I can. If you are unaware of Paul's foreign policy position regarding the Middle East, and how most GOP supporters' foreign policy position contradicts it, I suggest you take a closer look at this forum. Proving the obvious is a waste of time.

[kenpoman]

I'm still tickled by the defense tactics for the most holy politican ever:

1) personal insults
2) everyone else does it too
3) accusations of genocidal desires

you folks aren't helping the guy - not at all.

[Thanatos144]

I'm talking about you talking about insults yet spend the majority of your time insulting, sure, he's not an "honored guest" but saying things with such a broad brush like "traitorous", "head in sand" or whatever brings rebuttals, you want to discuss issues find, don't call me an isolationist when we're not and we won't retort with equally insulting blather; hopefully.

Alright I have about had it with you twisting my posts with your lies. I have never Called Paul a traitor! I am ****ing tired of you saying I did. I am also tired of getting banned each time one of you paulbots get offended cause of me expressing an opinion on Paul. If you dont like my ****ing posts ignore me! Otherwise ether debate honestly or shut the **** up!

[kenpoman]

I laid it out as honestly as I can. If you are unaware of Paul's foreign policy position regarding the Middle East, and how most GOP supporters' foreign policy position contradicts it, I suggest you take a closer look at this forum. Proving the obvious is a waste of time.

in short: you got squat but caught with your pants down
making blowhard comments you can't possibly back up.

gotcha.

white flag of intellectual surrender on your part noted.

[Kentucky Thinker]

I'm still tickled by the defense tactics for the most holy politican ever:

1) personal insults
2) everyone else does it too
3) accusations of genocidal desires

you folks aren't helping the guy - not at all.

Pot, meet kettle. :))

[adroit]

Maybe they would if any of the ones you keep showing matter .....But oh well they dont cause I already know about the others hypocrisy

There you go, selective blissfulness. The money is already appropriated to being spent. If Paul doesn't earmark it for his constituents, which is his job to represent them, then the executive branch is going to spend the money. There is absolutely no hypocrisy involved. Now if Paul increased the amount of spending, then there would be hypocrisy.

and I am not the one worshiping a politician.

I'm not worshiping a politician either because I don't even like Paul that much anymore. I got caught up in the excitement last year mainly because it was the first time I truly started getting into politics. I think he's horrible at getting people to listen to him and does a good job at dividing conservatives who for the most part agree on some of the most important issues. I think some of his policy is great, but as a politician, I get annoyed with him.

[Thanatos144]

There you go, selective blissfulness. The money is already appropriated to being spent. If Paul doesn't earmark it for his constituents, which is his job to represent them, then the executive branch is going to spend the money. There is absolutely no hypocrisy involved. Now if Paul increased the amount of spending, then there would be hypocrisy.



I'm not worshiping a politician either because I don't even like Paul that much anymore. I got caught up in the excitement last year mainly because it was the first time I truly started getting into politics. I think he's horrible at getting people to listen to him and does a good job at dividing conservatives who for the most part agree on some of the most important issues. I think some of his policy is great, but as a politician, I get annoyed with him.
You say Paul is better then the rest cause he is like the rest? Thats just not logical.

[johnrocks]

Alright I have about had it with you twisting my posts with your lies. I have never Called Paul a traitor! I am ****ing tired of you saying I did. I am also tired of getting banned each time one of you paulbots get offended cause of me expressing an opinion on Paul. If you dont like my ****ing posts ignore me! Otherwise ether debate honestly or shut the **** up!

Using it as an example, not that you did it, but see how accusations get spread, here we have a couple insulting Paul and his supporters yet whining foul when the same is directed back, frankly I'm tired of it too, wanta clean the slate and discuss issues, great, keep on using flammable code words like isolationists and I'm going to keep on with my rhetoric, until I get "launched" anyway.

[Thanatos144]

Using it as an example, not that you did it, but see how accusations get spread, here we have a couple insulting Paul and his supporters yet whining foul when the same is directed back, frankly I'm tired of it too, wanta clean the slate and discuss issues, great, keep on using flammable code words like isolationists and I'm going to keep on with my rhetoric, until I get "launched" anyway.

You dont like the way I show the truth there is an ignore list it wont break my heart if I am on it. Isolationist is what Non-interventionist is to me. There is no difference though you say there is. Why is there no difference? Cause it will end up with us Isolated and weak. It will be the beginning of our end. Now if this little nugget of truth annoys you please ignore me.

[adroit]

You say Paul is better then the rest cause he is like the rest? Thats just not logical.

Spin much? I said no such thing. Whether or not other congressmen designate earmarks is a strawman and has nothing to do with my argument. He doesn't like federal spending. He's against federal spending. When he earmarks something, IT'S MONEY THAT'S ALREADY SPENT (it is already appropriated). He is returning his constituents money back to their district. There is absolutely NOTHING hypocritical about it.

Alright I have about had it with you twisting my posts with your lies.<snip>

Talk about hypocrisy.

[johnrocks]

You dont like the way I show the truth there is an ignore list it wont break my heart if I am on it. Isolationist is what Non-interventionist is to me. There is no difference though you say there is. Why is there no difference? Cause it will end up with us Isolated and weak. It will be the beginning of our end. Now if this little nugget of truth annoys you please ignore me.

Then stop your whining that we're insulting when we only do what you yourself do. I will start ignoring you on RP threads though, not that it will hurt your feelings but because the "act" has gotten old.

[Thanatos144]

Spin much? I said no such thing. Whether or not other congressmen designate earmarks is a strawman and has nothing to do with my argument. He doesn't like federal spending. He's against federal spending. When he earmarks something, IT'S MONEY THAT'S ALREADY SPENT (it is already appropriated). He is returning his constituents money back to their district. There is absolutely NOTHING hypocritical about it.



Talk about hypocrisy.

If you campaign against Pork yet still put pork in bills means you are a hypocrite. End of story. Any other ways you want to rehash this same truth? Cause no matter how you come at it it is still the truth.

[Kentucky Thinker]

You dont like the way I show the truth there is an ignore list it wont break my heart if I am on it. Isolationist is what Non-interventionist is to me. There is no difference though you say there is. Why is there no difference? Cause it will end up with us Isolated and weak. It will be the beginning of our end. Now if this little nugget of truth annoys you please ignore me.

It is a little nugget of your opinion, not fact. North Korea is isolationist; we are not advocating being like North Korea. We are tired of paying for foreign aid, nation-building and having military presence in most countries in the world.
Do you REALLY believe if we don't tell every other country in the world what to do they will not want to trade with us?

[Kentucky Thinker]

If you campaign against Pork yet still put pork in bills means you are a hypocrite. End of story. Any other ways you want to rehash this same truth? Cause no matter how you come at it it is still the truth.

Can you provide proof of Paul ever adding pork to a bill?

[Thanatos144]

Then stop your whining that we're insulting when we only do what you yourself do. I will start ignoring you on RP threads though, not that it will hurt your feelings but because the "act" has gotten old.

This isnt whining little man this is called being ****ed off at your inference that I called the man a traitor. You I am no longer gonna let you or anyone else get away with these Obama like tactics.

[Thanatos144]

Can you provide proof of Paul ever adding pork to a bill?

Go look it up. You will find it in this forum if you want. I am not your lap dog.

[adroit]

If you campaign against Pork yet still put pork in bills means you are a hypocrite. End of story. Any other ways you want to rehash this same truth? Cause no matter how you come at it it is still the truth.

Can you provide an example of Paul campaigning or speaking out specifically against earmarks?

[johnrocks]

This isnt whining little man this is called being ****ed off at your inference that I called the man a traitor. You I am no longer gonna let you or anyone else get away with these Obama like tactics.

Your doing it here, I didn't say YOU called him a traitor; others have though; it's called an example and then to top it off, you say I'm insulting you then accuse me of acting like Obama...stop it, my sides are killin me!:))

[adroit]

Can you provide proof of Paul ever adding pork to a bill?

Paul earmarks projects all the time for his district. It doesn't matter, because that is money that is already being spent. The pie is a set size. He's making sure his constituents get their portion of that pie. He is not making the pie larger. There is no hypocrisy.

[Kentucky Thinker]

Go look it up. You will find it in this forum if you want. I am not your lap dog.

I didn't think so. Your broad knowledge of Paul's "reckless spending" consists of GOP talking points that were used to demonize the man during the primaries. Because his foreign policy is so hated by most Republicans you are safe on this forum to troll every Paul thread with your uninformed posts.
For your accusations of Paul being such a big spender, your bark is noticeably louder than your non-existent bite.

[adroit]

If someone can give an example of Ron Paul campaigning or speaking out specifically against earmarks, then I'll concede that he is a hypocrite and that I was wrong. I'll even make a new thread stating so.

[Kentucky Thinker]

Paul earmarks projects all the time for his district. It doesn't matter, because that is money that is already being spent. The pie is a set size. He's making sure his constituents get their portion of that pie. He is not making the pie larger. There is no hypocrisy.

Exactly, which is why these guys will never be able to show that he added pork to a bill. They just use talking-point semantics that fly over the heads of most people. They are proof that if you tell a lie enough it becomes truth.

[JohnRandolph]

Alright I have about had it with you twisting my posts with your lies. I have never Called Paul a traitor! I am ****ing tired of you saying I did. I am also tired of getting banned each time one of you paulbots get offended cause of me expressing an opinion on Paul. If you dont like my ****ing posts ignore me! Otherwise ether debate honestly or shut the **** up!

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm191/JohnRandolphSouthronPartisan/Alliswell.jpg

[Thanatos144]

here is some evidence....sorry for taking so long had to use the bathroom

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html

[Thanatos144]

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm191/JohnRandolphSouthronPartisan/Alliswell.jpg

Thats mature and relevant how?

[adroit]

here is some evidence....sorry for taking so long had to use the bathroom

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html

We know he appropriates earmarks. Can you provide evidence that he has ever spoken out specifically against appropriating earmarks?

[Thanatos144]

We know he appropriates earmarks. Can you provide evidence that he has ever spoken out specifically against appropriating earmarks?

I was asked to show it so I did........

[adroit]

I was asked to show it so I did........

Well thank you for doing so.

[Long Island Bob]

We know he appropriates earmarks. Can you provide evidence that he has ever spoken out specifically against appropriating earmarks?

is this like the choclate milk thing?

You know no matter how much money Ron Paul wastes doesn't matter because all we really want to know is how Ron Paul feels about someting (like pork or chaoclate milk) and then we will blindly follow that?

[Thanatos144]

is this like the choclate milk thing?

You know no matter how much money Ron Paul wastes doesn't matter because all we really want to know is how Ron Paul feels about someting (like pork or chaoclate milk) and then we will blindly follow that?

For a man supposedly against spending shouldnt his spending be suspect? Or is all spending bad Unless Paul does it?

[Jabbamagnus]

Not looking good for Mr. Paul. I think he bumbles it in this interview where he tries to explain why he's one of the top GOP Earmark'ers.

I'll admit he lost me.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3796306&referralPlaylistId=playlist

Basically if they are going to spend the money anyway why not get some for my constituents.

[nebcon]

Wow thought this thread was about economics. Silly me...

[adroit]

For a man supposedly against spending shouldnt his spending be suspect? Or is all spending bad Unless Paul does it?

It's not "his" spending. The spending has already been appropriated. The size of the pie has already been decided. He did not dictate the overall size of the pie, nor did he add to it. He cuts his constituents' piece, though. The spending is bad, and Paul agrees with that. It should never have been taken from the tax payers and appropriated in the first place. But, it HAS been appropriated for spending, so Paul earmarks that to go back to the district he represents. If he doesn't do that, it goes to the executive branch and they spend it. He would be a horrible representative if he didn't cut his constituents piece of that pie.

[nebcon]

in the name of
Ran Paul the father
Ron Paul the son
Ron Paul the holy spirit

honestly, the difference between his supporters and Obama's
is what now?

Neither are anywhere near as cult-like as Sarah Palin supporters.

[adroit]

Not looking good for Mr. Paul. I think he bumbles it in this interview where he tries to explain why he's one of the top GOP Earmark'ers.

I'll admit he lost me.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3796306&referralPlaylistId=playlist

Basically if they are going to spend the money anyway why not get some for my constituents.

He bumbles most things when he opens his mouth.

[nebcon]

The thread is of no substance so why does my posts have to be?

Pretty much like all your threads.

[Kentucky Thinker]

It's not "his" spending. The spending has already been appropriated. The size of the pie has already been decided. He did not dictate the overall size of the pie, nor did he add to it. He cuts his constituents' piece, though. The spending is bad, and Paul agrees with that. It should never have been taken from the tax payers and appropriated in the first place. But, it HAS been appropriated for spending, so Paul earmarks that to go back to the district he represents. If he doesn't do that, it goes to the executive branch and they spend it. He would be a horrible representative if he didn't cut his constituents piece of that pie.

adroit, if his detractors acknowledged this simple to understand fact it would completely derail their case against him.

[nebcon]

No I dont. He was against ALL PORK oh but it seems only if it isnt his pork. He talks the talk but cant walk the walk. HYPOCRISY if you dont understand the word look it up.

and if you can't find it, call Senator McCain's office, he'll know what it means.

[adroit]

is this like the choclate milk thing?

You know no matter how much money Ron Paul wastes doesn't matter because all we really want to know is how Ron Paul feels about someting (like pork or chaoclate milk) and then we will blindly follow that?

Ron Paul isn't wasting the money. The money has already been appropriated to being spent. He is fighting for his constituents' piece of the pie. If it was McCain doing this, I would say the EXACT SAME THING.

[nebcon]

Maybe they would if any of the ones you keep showing matter .....But oh well they dont cause I already know about the others hypocrisy and I am not the one worshiping a politician.

Yeah we leave that up to Palinbots.

[nebcon]

Alright I have about had it with you twisting my posts with your lies. I have never Called Paul a traitor! I am ****ing tired of you saying I did. I am also tired of getting banned each time one of you paulbots get offended cause of me expressing an opinion on Paul. If you dont like my ****ing posts ignore me! Otherwise ether debate honestly or shut the **** up!

Do you kiss your mamma with that mouth? Are you saying that the mods favor Paul supporters and are banning you out of favoritism? Didn't learn anything did you?

[cshoff]

:rolleyes:so your justification is " everyone else does it too"?

hell, no wonder Obama got elected.
the American voter is proving to really be just that dumb.

Nope, I never made any justification. I was asking for a poster to prove his accusation. He claimed that Ron Paul was a "huge spender". That would imply that Ron Paul is responsible for more spending than other people in Congress, or that he is at least among the top few in spending. So either put up and prove the premise, or shut up.

And the reason Obama got elected had nothing to do with Ron Paul. Hell, it's no wonder he got elected. Folks are really dumb enough to think Ron Paul is responsible for the outcome of the election. :rolleyes:

[Jabbamagnus]

Ron Paul isn't wasting the money. The money has already been appropriated to being spent. He is fighting for his constituents' piece of the pie. If it was McCain doing this, I would say the EXACT SAME THING.

Yea that's what I was getting from the video I linked on the previous page. I cannot say I agree with doing this. IMO, the government shouldn't be spending on these items anyway. Accepting the money just because it's going to go somewhere so I might as well get some of it, seems like a cop out to me.

[cshoff]

so he's an allegedly conservative idiot.
that changes the equation how?

1) what is the "real" reason you think most folks dislike Paul?
be honest

2) besides his ostrich policies, my personal distrust of him comes
primarily from his supporters. way to much cult of personality for
me.

So you must really dislike Palin and her supporters, huh?

[Thanatos144]

Do you kiss your mamma with that mouth? Are you saying that the mods favor Paul supporters and are banning you out of favoritism? Didn't learn anything did you?

I am an adult and will speak as I like. there are no children here. As for the banning ether our adult enough to deal with what I say or your not. I am done dealing with children.

[adroit]

Yea that's what I was getting from the video I linked on the previous page. I cannot say I agree with doing this. IMO, the government shouldn't be spending on these items anyway. Accepting the money just because it's going to go somewhere so I might as well get some of it, seems like a cop out to me.

How is that a cop out? It's his constituents' money in the first place. It should have never been taken from them. If it's going to be spent, of course it should go back to their district.

[Ninjacorpse]

I am an adult and will speak as I like. there are no children here. As for the banning ether our adult enough to deal with what I say or your not. I am done dealing with children.

Well, if you are having problems in these threads, maybe you should remove yourself from them until you can control yourself.

[Jabbamagnus]

How is that a cop out? It's his constituents' money in the first place. It should have never been taken from them. If it's going to be spent, of course it should go back to their district.

I see it as a cop out in that he's against the government spending it, but seeing that they are he'll take a piece.

Yes it's their money. But by taking the money isn't it a defacto support for the appropriation of that money? So, he can say he's against it and still benefit from it.

[Thanatos144]

How is that a cop out? It's his constituents' money in the first place. It should have never been taken from them. If it's going to be spent, of course it should go back to their district.

Cause it is like a cop saying so the money is all bribe money took from everyone.....I might as well take some since it is all right there....No mater what it is still stealing.

[Thanatos144]

I might be slower I am talking to more important people now........you know women.....No offense guys but I would rather converse with a pretty woman over you dudes LOL

[Ninjacorpse]

Yea that's what I was getting from the video I linked on the previous page. I cannot say I agree with doing this. IMO, the government shouldn't be spending on these items anyway. Accepting the money just because it's going to go somewhere so I might as well get some of it, seems like a cop out to me.

I agree, he may be acting in his constituents best interests, but his actions do not set a good example.

[Jabbamagnus]

I agree, he may be acting in his constituents best interests, but his actions do not set a good example.

Thanks. :D

But we do have to cut him just a little slack. It would be nearly impossible to not have some earmarks. All too often, the public looks at what earmarks they've gotten as a judge of how well their Congressman/Senator is doing. It's sad really.

[nebcon]

I am an adult and will speak as I like. there are no children here. As for the banning ether our adult enough to deal with what I say or your not. I am done dealing with children.

I'm not the one that took a thread about economic predictions and turned it into an infantile hate fest. So when do the anti-Semitic charges start?

[adroit]

I see it as a cop out in that he's against the government spending it, but seeing that they are he'll take a piece.

Yes it's their money. But by taking the money isn't it a defacto support for the appropriation of that money? So, he can say he's against it and still benefit from it.

Let's be practical. It would be all warm and fuzzy to be ideological about it. I admit, I was somewhat of an ideologue in 2007-2008. Conservatives on this board railed against that type of mindset, constantly saying "This is the real world, blah blah blah." You know what, for the most part, they are right.

If Ron Paul, or anyone who is against spending out of control, decided they aren't going to try and allocate ANY money to their constituents they deem unconstitutional, what good would it do? The money would end up in the hands of the executive branch and they would spend it. At the end of the day, the money is spent and the constituents are SOL.

[Rupperov91]

Is Shiff's crazy dad still in jail and does his son still support his not paying taxes?

[nebcon]

Cause it is like a cop saying so the money is all bribe money took from everyone.....I might as well take some since it is all right there....No mater what it is still stealing.

Earmarks aren't illegal.

[Thanatos144]

Earmarks aren't illegal.

All Taxes are legal .................

[nebcon]

Let's be practical. It would be all warm and fuzzy to be ideological about it. I admit, I was somewhat of an ideologue in 2007-2008. Conservatives on this board railed against that type of mindset, constantly saying "This is the real world, blah blah blah." You know what, for the most part, they are right.

If Ron Paul, or anyone who is against spending out of control, decided they aren't going to try and allocate ANY money to their constituents they deem unconstitutional, what good would it do? The money would end up in the hands of the executive branch and they would spend it. At the end of the day, the money is spent and the constituents are SOL.

Given that Republicans have all but given up on the concept of reducing the size of government, which is the origin of the problem, I find it hard to get upset about Pauls earmarks. Compared to bailouts, amnesty and cap and trade from McCain.

[cshoff]

Let's be practical. It would be all warm and fuzzy to be ideological about it. I admit, I was somewhat of an ideologue in 2007-2008. Conservatives on this board railed against that type of mindset, constantly saying "This is the real world, blah blah blah." You know what, for the most part, they are right.

If Ron Paul, or anyone who is against spending out of control, decided they aren't going to try and allocate ANY money to their constituents they deem unconstitutional, what good would it do? The money would end up in the hands of the executive branch and they would spend it. At the end of the day, the money is spent and the constituents are SOL.

Earmarks are only bad when Ron Paul takes part in them. McCain, the most vocal opponent of pork spending in Congress, was forgiven and even cheered on by most of these folks after he voted for the biggest barrel of pork ever. There is no greater level of hypocricy than that displayed by the so-called "conservatives" here that mock Ron Paul every chance they get.

[nebcon]

All Taxes are legal .................

No, not all taxes are legal.

[nebcon]

God forbid Republicans might actually get outraged by the massive federal confiscation of wealth which is then distributed to the states in the manner that it is.

[bloods vs crips]

OK, so we get rid of the Federal Reserve. What do we replace it with to handle monetary policy? You know; the supply of money, the availability of money and the cost or rate of interest, in order to attain growth and stability of the economy. Monetary policy rests on the relationship between the rates of interest in an economy, that is the price at which money can be borrowed, and the total supply of money. Monetary policy uses a variety of tools to control one or both of these, to influence outcomes like economic growth, inflation, exchange rates with other currencies and unemployment.

Once again, what do we replace it with to handle these issues? Hey, I believe it has to much power however as well.

I think the Constitution might have addressed this....

[nebcon]

Is Shiff's crazy dad still in jail and does his son still support his not paying taxes?

Wow you are learning to dig up irrelevant dirt as well as a Republican. This board must be rubbing off on you.

[bloods vs crips]

Ron Paul's willfull ignorace and hyprocracy gets folks killed.
in hugh numbers.

and as I've stated before I'm genuinely scared of the cult of personality
his supports have built around him.
that gets folks killed, too.

if you wish to support a hyprocritical political Luddite, that's your business.
but it quickly becomes pot v kettle when you critcize anyone else yet
refuse to see your emperor has no clothes.

like it or not, Paul is a footnote/sideshow in US politics.
nothing more.
and when the next entertaining loony tune comes along his
15 minutes of fame will be over.

he is only even marginally noticable due to his outlandish and frankly stupid
foriegn policy pontifications. which he knows he can get away with due
to his overall insignifigance to the bigger picture.

do I agree with Paul on smaller, less important issues.
some, sure.
I suppose if I looked hard enough I might find I agree with
Hitler on art, Pol Pot on Chinese food, and Stalin on Vodka.

I think you seriously underestimate the number of Paul supporters that have and are in the process of getting into legislative bodies.

On your final point, I don't see how economics, which gets him hours of air time nationally, is a "smaller, less important issue."

[merlin704]

I think the Constitution might have addressed this....

Let me guess, Article 1; Section 8? Nope don't see that in there. Try again...

[bloods vs crips]

I see it as a cop out in that he's against the government spending it, but seeing that they are he'll take a piece.

Yes it's their money. But by taking the money isn't it a defacto support for the appropriation of that money? So, he can say he's against it and still benefit from it.

the difference, in my mind, is that he really hopes the bill itself doesn't pass. Most Congressmen want the spending bill to pass.

[bloods vs crips]

Is Shiff's crazy dad still in jail and does his son still support his not paying taxes?

He supports the idea of there being no income tax. He pays taxes himself and encourages others to do the same.

He also supports his father. The ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

I encourage girls not to date idiots. My sister dates an idiot. I still support my sister.

[bloods vs crips]

All Taxes are legal .................

is this a joke?

[bloods vs crips]

Let me guess, Article 1; Section 8? Nope don't see that in there. Try again...

really, so where do you think Congress got the authority to do so BEFORE the Federal Reserve began?

[Jabbamagnus]

the difference, in my mind, is that he really hopes the bill itself doesn't pass. Most Congressmen want the spending bill to pass.

Yea that's probably true.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning him for these earmarks. What gets me is when he tries to explain why he took them, he sounds a little off when he speaks about we should have more earmarks to keep the money out of the hands of the Executive branch.

[Rupperov91]

Wow you are learning to dig up irrelevant dirt as well as a Republican. This board must be rubbing off on you.

Hey, if there's a guy out there that wants to take a look at the idea of no income tax, and support me not filing a return, I'm willing to take a look at him..............

[merlin704]

really, so where do you think Congress got the authority to do so BEFORE the Federal Reserve began?

I understand what the role of Congress is, however, you are just giving me the same half-assed answer all Libertarians give. Article 1; Section 8. No where in there does it address how Congress is to handle Monetary Policy, only how to collect money.

What do you replace the Federal Reserve with to handle monetary policy.

[adroit]

Yea that's probably true.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning him for these earmarks. What gets me is when he tries to explain why he took them, he sounds a little off when he speaks about we should have more earmarks to keep the money out of the hands of the Executive branch.

I agree, he's a HORRIBLE communicator.

[bloods vs crips]

Yea that's probably true.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning him for these earmarks. What gets me is when he tries to explain why he took them, he sounds a little off when he speaks about we should have more earmarks to keep the money out of the hands of the Executive branch.

that's because he sucks at speaking, and probably didn't think about how earmarking actually looks to people.

Couple that with his rabid supporters and I can see why millions shut him off.

[nebcon]

Let me guess, Article 1; Section 8? Nope don't see that in there. Try again...

What about if it isn't specified it goes to the states or the people is hard to understand.

[nebcon]

Hey, if there's a guy out there that wants to take a look at the idea of no income tax, and support me not filing a return, I'm willing to take a look at him..............

Well you came to the right place. Can't repeal it right away (intermediate step of a flat tax), but it would be nice eventually.

[bloods vs crips]

I understand what the role of Congress is, however, you are just giving me the same half-assed answer all Libertarians give. Article 1; Section 8. No where in there does it address how Congress is to handle Monetary Policy, only how to collect money.

What do you replace the Federal Reserve with to handle monetary policy.

oh you want an opinion? I thought you were asking for where the authority came from.

Ok, I would expect Congress to create a committee specifically for this purpose. They would basically be charged with the same duties as the FED. I submit the entire process would be a lot easier if the FED itself wasn't constantly manipulating the market. It gives out artificial signals, which in turn makes it difficult to manage.

Of course I want a massive change in banking in general to a far more conservative and less riskful system. The Committee could increase the fractional reserve requirements. They could stabilize rates. Hopefully they would be able to set up seperations between safe deposits and investment deposits. Or banks would at least be required to inform depositors that certain accounts are invested and others are kept in holding earning NO interest.

The biggest problem with our current policy is that it drives down the value of the currency, disincentivizing savings and encouraging debt. It's completely unsustainable.

[bloods vs crips]

Well you came to the right place. Can't repeal it right away (intermediate step of a flat tax), but it would be nice eventually.

actually we could. I would mandate a 25% decrease in federal spending annually, until we get to Clinton's first term budget. That would afford us the opportunity to eliminate the federal income tax, and still break even.

[nebcon]

that's because he sucks at speaking, and probably didn't think about how earmarking actually looks to people.

Couple that with his rabid supporters and I can see why millions shut him off.

I don't know too many people left on this board that are rabid supporters, and the ones that are, I don't see as being that unreasonable. You can't even talk about issues that are in line with the Constitutionalist/Libertarian view around here without being labeled a "Paulbot" whether you are one or not. Yeah so what, I agree with him on a lot of things. That goes for Schiff, Johnson and a number of others.

[nebcon]

actually we could. I would mandate a 25% decrease in federal spending annually, until we get to Clinton's first term budget. That would afford us the opportunity to eliminate the federal income tax, and still break even.

That would be interesting. If it really was that practical, I say do it.

[cshoff]

I don't know too many people left on this board that are rabid supporters, and the ones that are, I don't see as being that unreasonable. You can't even talk about issues that are in line with the Constitutionalist/Libertarian view around here without being labeled a "Paulbot" whether you are one or not. Yeah so what, I agree with him on a lot of things. That goes for Schiff, Johnson and a number of others.

Yep. The fact of the matter is, Paul was the best candidate running in 2008. I don't know of anyone who has made him their candidate for 2012. In fact, I doubt he will even run. I'm trying to figure out how some of these "deep thinkers" can bridge the gap between agreeing with Paul on a lot of policy positions to him being "the messiah". :think:

[nebcon]

Yep. The fact of the matter is, Paul was the best candidate running in 2008. I don't know of anyone who has made him their candidate for 2012. In fact, I doubt he will even run. I'm trying to figure out how some of these "deep thinkers" can bridge the gap between agreeing with Paul on a lot of policy positions to him being "the messiah". :think:

If there is a creepy, over the top cult around here, it's the Palin supporters.

[DCinNC]

You know Ron Paul is not some kind of genius neither is Perter Schiff. They are both brilliant however. People that say Ron Paul has had this prediction for awhile would be correct. The reason why he has been fighting this monetary system for so long is because of it's very predictable and unavoidable consequences.

If you understand the business cycle and Austrian Economics this sort of thing will not surprise you at all. It's like watching a country full of idiots slowly commit suicide. And then mock you when you try to tell them what they are doing is dangerous. I admire Ron Paul for his temperament. I could never stay that calm when people were throwing arguments against me that were founded purely in partisan rhetoric or utopian fantasies rather than logic.

I wonder if some people on these forums will ever see the light. Honestly some people view politics like football, they root for their favorite team no matter what it does. Other people simply lack courage and will not question their beliefs, beliefs that were probably given to them by someone else who never questioned them. While others are simply too invested in erroneous thinking, and their ego is what they are trying to protect. In order to do this they will resort to illogical arguments, name calling, and blatant falsehoods rather than take an honest look at what is going on around them.

I normally could care less, but because the US government has now become illegal and unconstitutional the Democratic system is a threat to my liberty and freedom. The only way to protect myself is to try and get the truth out there. Sometimes I wonder if it is a lost cause.

[bloods vs crips]

I don't know too many people left on this board that are rabid supporters, and the ones that are, I don't see as being that unreasonable. You can't even talk about issues that are in line with the Constitutionalist/Libertarian view around here without being labeled a "Paulbot" whether you are one or not. Yeah so what, I agree with him on a lot of things. That goes for Schiff, Johnson and a number of others.

I don't know of one idiotic supporter of Paul on this forum. However, I was heavily involved in his campaign, and the morons I met out there were out of touch with reality. I can't begin to explain away the ridiculous ideas some of these people had. What's worse, some of them would be speaking at his rallies before he came out.

[johnrocks]

I don't know of one idiotic supporter of Paul on this forum. However, I was heavily involved in his campaign, and the morons I met out there were out of touch with reality. I can't begin to explain away the ridiculous ideas some of these people had. What's worse, some of them would be speaking at his rallies before he came out.

Yeah, I did some local volunteering and the word "moron" is the most civil word I can use here too, for every vote they may have got, they destroyed at least 10 votes.

[nebcon]

I don't know of one idiotic supporter of Paul on this forum. However, I was heavily involved in his campaign, and the morons I met out there were out of touch with reality. I can't begin to explain away the ridiculous ideas some of these people had. What's worse, some of them would be speaking at his rallies before he came out.

I really don't know how you avoid that. You can police the people you hire directly and have speak at the rallies, but anybody can show up at a rally. If he had more mainstream support, perhaps those people would fade into the background as they do for the two majors most of the time. It's not as if those people don't show up at events for other candidates.

[Long Island Bob]

Yeah, I did some local volunteering and the word "moron" is the most civil word I can use here too, for every vote they may have got, they destroyed at least 10 votes.

I'm glad you see that.

[merlin704]

oh you want an opinion? I thought you were asking for where the authority came from.

Ok, I would expect Congress to create a committee specifically for this purpose. They would basically be charged with the same duties as the FED. I submit the entire process would be a lot easier if the FED itself wasn't constantly manipulating the market. It gives out artificial signals, which in turn makes it difficult to manage.

Of course I want a massive change in banking in general to a far more conservative and less riskful system. The Committee could increase the fractional reserve requirements. They could stabilize rates. Hopefully they would be able to set up seperations between safe deposits and investment deposits. Or banks would at least be required to inform depositors that certain accounts are invested and others are kept in holding earning NO interest.

The biggest problem with our current policy is that it drives down the value of the currency, disincentivizing savings and encouraging debt. It's completely unsustainable.

I agree that the Fed has to much control over our economy and I welcome Ron Paul's idea to audit the Fed Reserve. I also believe that the government should not be in charge to handle monetary policy...being as they can't even manage to handle the Post Office or any other mundane task. Truthfully, I have no idea what to replace the Fed Reserve with however, I believe the system needs to be fixed.

[Jabbamagnus]

If there is a creepy, over the top cult around here, it's the Palin supporters.

Statements like these makes me have no sympathy for you when people refer to those supporting Ron Paul as Paulbots, or what ever.

If you seek to have legitimacy, attacking another group of supporters won't get you it. At least in my eyes.

[Thanatos144]

geee these things go on and on and on ,,,,,,,I think it funny that you all bitch about others spending yet have no problem with your guys spending. You are all as much hypocrites as those you say you are against. At least I have been honest in my stands.

[nebcon]

I'm glad you see that.

We should not be held responsible for the actions of those people, yet we are.

[cshoff]

geee these things go on and on and on ,,,,,,,I think it funny that you all bitch about others spending yet have no problem with your guys spending. You are all as much hypocrites as those you say you are against. At least I have been honest in my stands.

So who's spending is a problem? Is the securing of earmarked funds wrong when Ron Paul does it? Is it wrong when other Congresspeople do it? Is it wrong when that money doesn't get used for earmarks and is spent indiscriminately elsewhere? It seems as though the only person you have a problem with for securing earmarked funds is Ron Paul. I've yet to see you call out anyone else for it. Apparently, you are willing to hold Ron Paul to a much higher standard than the very candidates that you vote for. Yeah, that's some real honesty there.

[Long Island Bob]

We should not be held responsible for the actions of those people, yet we are.

the guy is a magnet for freaks.
any gop candidate is a magnet for born-again types
obama is a magnet for marxists.

all is fair in love and politics

[johnrocks]

the guy is a magnet for freaks.
any gop candidate is a magnet for born-again types
obama is a magnet for marxists.

all is fair in love and politics

Sad to say this but there is a lot of truth in your posts, I remember talking to a small group of undecided voters at a park here, their eyes lit up when I talked about his stand on a variety of issues;from guns to economics to foreign policy, then a "troofer" would open his rat trap and you could literally feel the energy and optimism being sucked out of the gathering, I detest em, I really do.

[Thanatos144]

So who's spending is a problem? Is the securing of earmarked funds wrong when Ron Paul does it? Is it wrong when other Congresspeople do it? Is it wrong when that money doesn't get used for earmarks and is spent indiscriminately elsewhere? It seems as though the only person you have a problem with for securing earmarked funds is Ron Paul. I've yet to see you call out anyone else for it. Apparently, you are willing to hold Ron Paul to a much higher standard than the very candidates that you vote for. Yeah, that's some real honesty there.

Get off your high horse. I Am against nothing but hypocrisy in this thread that seems rampant with it. Earmarks should go. Period. If the spending is important they can make a bill for it. The sneaking of spending into other bills is thievery.

[nebcon]

Statements like these makes me have no sympathy for you when people refer to those supporting Ron Paul as Paulbots, or what ever.

If you seek to have legitimacy, attacking another group of supporters won't get you it. At least in my eyes.

First of all, I would not have mentioned it, were it not for the abuse that all of us seem to be taking. I was responding in kind to an extent.

Secondly, I have good reason for that sentiment, based on debates on this very message board. Including one outrageous incident where she received absolutely shameless credit for a change in healthcare legislation, that was entirely the doing of the good people that stood up at town hall meetings this past summer. You so much as mention she has a damn hair out of place you are labeled a misogynistic, piece of Liberal trash. Not even civil disagreements with any of her statements are tolerated. I have said that I don't believe she is the best candidate and been INSTANTLY called a Liberal and told that I simply hate her.

NOT ONCE! Have I ever, called anyone or group on this board anything close to a Nazi, anti-semite, traitor, troop hater or idiot. Yet that and more have been hurled at my group for more than a year on this board. So DO NOT presume you know all of what is going on in these discussions.

I AGREE WITH SOME OF THE MAN'S POLICIES, AS i DO SEVERAL OTHERS. I defend those ideas because they are ideas, concepts and policies that I hold as well, and have since before I even heard of Ron Paul. I am not a "bot" of any kind, there is no justification for the label. Nobody that knows me personally would think otherwise.

[cshoff]

Get off your high horse. I Am against nothing but hypocrisy in this thread that seems rampant with it. Earmarks should go. Period. If the spending is important they can make a bill for it. The sneaking of spending into other bills is thievery.

Then perhaps you should change your tone from "Ron Paul shouldn't be trying to secure earmarks" to "earmarks should go, period". That would certainly make your faux outrage much more believable. To do otherwise would be hypocritic.

[johnrocks]

Get off your high horse. I Am against nothing but hypocrisy in this thread that seems rampant with it. Earmarks should go. Period. If the spending is important they can make a bill for it. The sneaking of spending into other bills is thievery.

Then he votes against a bill with nary an earmark of his in it concerning the "War on Terra" but loads of other people's pork and/or earmarks and he get's cursed for that too, with some on here, he's in a no win situation, but let's talk Lieberman and the lips get wet,lol.

[Thanatos144]

Then perhaps you should change your tone from "Ron Paul shouldn't be trying to secure earmarks" to "earmarks should go, period". That would certainly make your faux outrage much more believable. To do otherwise would be hypocritic.

The thread is about Paul.

[nebcon]

Get off your high horse. I Am against nothing but hypocrisy in this thread that seems rampant with it. Earmarks should go. Period. If the spending is important they can make a bill for it. The sneaking of spending into other bills is thievery.

and you still show that you have little understanding of how they work. It doesn't matter where they are placed, it is money already allocated. It will be spent regardless of the bill that it is attached to.

[cshoff]

The thread is about Paul.

Wrong. This thread was about a video that contained speaches from Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. You turned into a Ron Paul bashing thread, which is why you have been called on it every step of the way.

[Thanatos144]

Then he votes against a bill with nary an earmark of his in it concerning the "War on Terra" but loads of other people's pork and/or earmarks and he get's cursed for that too, with some on here, he's in a no win situation, but let's talk Lieberman and the lips get wet,lol.

cause it is hypocrisy. He loaded those bills with his pork cause he knows it will pass and then voted no on it. Thats even less honest than just having earmarks in a bill.

[Long Island Bob]

Sad to say this but there is a lot of truth in your posts, I remember talking to a small group of undecided voters at a park here, their eyes lit up when I talked about his stand on a variety of issues;from guns to economics to foreign policy, then a "troofer" would open his rat trap and you could literally feel the energy and optimism being sucked out of the gathering, I detest em, I really do.

Which is why I hope Peter Schiff keeps ron Paul in the background.

[johnrocks]

and you still show that you have little understanding of how they work. It doesn't matter where they are placed, it is money already allocated. It will be spent regardless of the bill that it is attached to.

Lot of folks don't understand, I used to not and good libertarian conservatives like Jeff Flake doesn't help matters with his crusade either,imho.

[cshoff]

cause it is hypocrisy. He loaded those bills with his pork cause he knows it will pass and then voted no on it. Thats even less honest than just having earmarks in a bill.

Where? What bills? Show us what pork Paul added to these bills? Do you understand that earmarked funds are different than pork that is added to a bill?

[johnrocks]

Which is why I hope Peter Schiff keeps ron Paul in the background.

I hope he doesn't attract that element, I "think" he's got just enough moxie to tell em how the cow eats cabbage if they try though, if you catch what I'm trying to convey here.;)

[nebcon]

the guy is a magnet for freaks.
any gop candidate is a magnet for born-again types
obama is a magnet for marxists.

all is fair in love and politics

Which is why it shouldn't be an issue. We all have to live it.

[johnrocks]

cause it is hypocrisy. He loaded those bills with his pork cause he knows it will pass and then voted no on it. Thats even less honest than just having earmarks in a bill.

Ok, he is a hypocrite for doing it, what else you got because I will bet my front row seat in hell that Congressmen who are supported in the GOP here, does the exact same thing; like my Congressman, course, he supports the same type foreign policy you do so does that give him a pass or should he be cursed and replaced for being a "hypocrite"? ( I'm using your definitions here, not mine)

[nebcon]

Get off your high horse. I Am against nothing but hypocrisy in this thread that seems rampant with it. Earmarks should go. Period. If the spending is important they can make a bill for it. The sneaking of spending into other bills is thievery.

You really need to do some reading on earmarks and how they work. Seriously. Not a deflection, it just doesn't work the way you think it does.

[Thanatos144]

From his own mouth that earmarks go to his district even though he voted no on it......

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508604,00.html

It is a transcript.

Do you trust the fool now?

[cshoff]

From his own mouth that earmarks go to his district even though he voted no on it......

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508604,00.html

It is a transcript.

Do you trust the fool now?

Has anyone here claimed that Ron Paul was not securing earmarked funds for his district? Links?

[Long Island Bob]

Which is why it shouldn't be an issue. We all have to live it.

people always have been and always will be judged by the company they keep.

It is not an evil plot by Paul's political enemies. It is human nature and a fact of life.

John McCain had no problem distancing himself from Rush Limbaugh.

[Jabbamagnus]

First of all, I would not have mentioned it, were it not for the abuse that all of us seem to be taking. I was responding in kind to an extent.

And that makes it right? Because people ridiculed those that supported Ron Paul, it's now ok for the Ron Paul supporters to do the same to the Sarah Palin supporters? I'll drop this as it's not contributing to this thread's topic.

Either way I can agree that some of Ron Pauls ideas seem like good ones. His communication of these idea could use some polishing. Peter Schiff seems to be a better communicator, perhaps he will be able to get these ideas out there.

[Thanatos144]

Has anyone here claimed that Ron Paul was not securing earmarked funds for his district? Links?

Just stop. Your making me dizzy.

[johnrocks]

people always have been and always will be judged by the company they keep.

It is not an evil plot by Paul's political enemies. It is human nature and a fact of life.

John McCain had no problem distancing himself from Rush Limbaugh.

That is our(libertarian types) paradox, we want freedom, freedom for the Don Blacks of the world as well as troofers or anyone else to express themselves, then, those same types attach themselves to us, just because of that and we're supposed to denounce them, how can we do that and remain true to our beliefs? That is something I guess we'll always have to deal with and probably lose because of, people want honesty and consistency but don't seem to be able to handle the ugly part of it well.

[cshoff]

Just stop. Your making me dizzy.

In other words, no. Nobody here has made such a claim.

[johnrocks]

And that makes it right? Because people ridiculed those that supported Ron Paul, it's now ok for the Ron Paul supporters to do the same to the Sarah Palin supporters? I'll drop this as it's not contributing to this thread's topic.

Either way I can agree that some of Ron Pauls ideas seem like good ones. His communication of these idea could use some polishing. Peter Schiff seems to be a better communicator, perhaps he will be able to get these ideas out there.

I respect what your trying to convey but this has been going on so long here, I don't see it stopping....political blowback I guess.;)

[Jabbamagnus]

I respect what your trying to convey but this has been going on so long here, I don't see it stopping....political blowback I guess.;)

Yea I understand, I still don't have to like it. ;)

I can usually find something to agree on, with even the most die hard Libertarian. Heck I probably agree with them on a lot of issues. Most of which are at the top of my issues list. Spending, Taxes and Gun Rights.

[Thanatos144]

In other words, no. Nobody here has made such a claim.

You know why dont you try being honest. I just proved that Paul put earmarks in a bill then voted no on that bill cause he knew it would pass. I am done with you.

[Thanatos144]

Yea I understand, I still don't have to like it. ;)

I can usually find something to agree on, with even the most die hard Libertarian. Heck I probably agree with them on a lot of issues. Most of which are at the top of my issues list. Spending, Taxes and Gun Rights.

Libertarians like tax....They want pot taxed and prostitution taxed....They are pro tax.

[johnrocks]

Libertarians like tax....They want pot taxed and prostitution taxed....They are pro tax.

There you go, broad brushing again, I guess the tears will flow the next time we do it to you though. First off, those two issues are State issues to us and second, it's mainly the conservatives and liberals that support legalizing that want to tax it, most libertarians just want it legalized, screw taxes...err....no pun intended.:shifty:

[Long Island Bob]

That is our(libertarian types) paradox, we want freedom, freedom for the Don Blacks of the world as well as troofers or anyone else to express themselves, then, those same types attach themselves to us, just because of that and we're supposed to denounce them, how can we do that and remain true to our beliefs? That is something I guess we'll always have to deal with and probably lose because of, people want honesty and consistency but don't seem to be able to handle the ugly part of it well.

In fairness
1. Nobody ever joined the Republican party at a marijuana smoke in.

2. Ron Paul did not say "regardless of why they attacked us we must now kicked their unholy asses but we should forget about nation building and other forms of mission creep."


IOW ya brought a lot of it on yourselves. (remember I was a libertarian.)

[johnrocks]

Yea I understand, I still don't have to like it. ;)

I can usually find something to agree on, with even the most die hard Libertarian. Heck I probably agree with them on a lot of issues. Most of which are at the top of my issues list. Spending, Taxes and Gun Rights.

I understand and that is why you don't get caught in the cross fire here, we know a good guy when we see em and so do the conservatives that argue with us at such a fever pitch;)

[Thanatos144]

There you go, broad brushing again, I guess the tears will flow the next time we do it to you though. First off, those two issues are State issues to us and second, it's mainly the conservatives and liberals that support legalizing that want to tax it, most libertarians just want it legalized, screw taxes...err....no pun intended.:shifty:

John you are not even all that libertarian...your more confederate......You would perfer there no federal government.

By the way Wanting to tax something must mean you are pro tax cause wanting to finish a war means I am a warmonger right?

[Jabbamagnus]

There you go, broad brushing again, I guess the tears will flow the next time we do it to you though. First off, those two issues are State issues to us and second, it's mainly the conservatives and liberals that support legalizing that want to tax it, most libertarians just want it legalized, screw taxes...err....no pun intended.:shifty:

Yea I understand this.

[cshoff]

You know why dont you try being honest. I just proved that Paul put earmarks in a bill then voted no on that bill cause he knew it would pass. I am done with you.

And you went to all that trouble to prove something that nobody ever disputed. Sounds like a wonderful use of your time.

[Thanatos144]

And you went to all that trouble to prove something that nobody ever disputed. Sounds like a wonderful use of your time.

You asked for that proof!!!!!!!!!!! Now choke on it.

[johnrocks]

In fairness
1. Nobody ever joined the Republican party at a marijuana smoke in.

2. RonPaul did not say "regardless of why they attacked us we must now kicked their unholy asses but we should forget about nation building and other forms of mission creep."


IOW ya brought a lot of it on yourselves. (remember I was a libertarian.)

Since we're talking "in fairness", I gotta say, although you have stated many times you were once a Libertarian, in all the time I've been a member here, I have not caught a hint of Libertarian in you, most don't change so radically, what's up with that? Not saying we don't agree a lot, it's just on the issues that shout libertarian as opposed to any other type conservative; from drugs to foreign policy to monetary, I just haven't seen it.
Marijuana; to most of us(and I'm a registered Republican) are not registered Libertarian, some are but most are Republicans; that I've met anyway and some; a tiny few from what I've seen are Democratic; is more an individual liberty or responsibility issue, to some, it's a State's rights issue, it's not even that big of an issue for the vast majority, sure, we debate it, some may even go on sit ins but most are just regular ol' people like you and me.

He discusses the reasons why our foreign policy is flawed, it's a liberal indoctrination that conservatives have now embraced, most of us older guys are merely "Goldwater type Conservatives", again, it's not a simple issue that can be put in a 20 second soundbite and talking about bringing things on themselves, I think you may need to do some self assessing of the GOP, they are the ones who have been rejected and getting their asses kicked since 2006, it needs voters like me(a Republican) more than I need it, they may need to address that than in knocking our ideology at every given chance they have.

[Long Island Bob]

In fairness
1. Nobody ever joined the Republican party at a marijuana smoke in.

2. Ron Paul did not say "regardless of why they attacked us we must now kicked their unholy asses but we should forget about nation building and other forms of mission creep."


IOW ya brought a lot of it on yourselves. (remember, I was a libertarian.)

Oh, and then there is that whole "end the Fed" thing.

You KNOW I see a lot of truth in those arguments but let's face it, that attracts a lot of tin-foil hat conspircy theory types too.


let's see
- actively recruiting pot heads
- saying "the attacked us over here because we are over there" (and failing to follow up with a statement about our current need to kick their asses)
- "end the fed"


What kind of folks did you THINK you would attract?

[Thanatos144]

I think your confused about the Confederates, at least in the sense of the CSA. They had a Federal Government after seceeding from the USA. They even had a President, VP and other secretary positions.

Though I don't think I've ever seen John call for no federal government. Limited, yes.

......Your point again? Oh you dont like the idea of my use for the name....Well I guess I could say Anti united states but that sounds like he hates the country and not just the federal government ......How about pro Fed death?

[johnrocks]

John you are not even all that libertarian...your more confederate......You would perfer there no federal government.

By the way Wanting to tax something must mean you are pro tax cause wanting to finish a war means I am a warmonger right?

Again, your ass/u/ming, I support a government, just not nearly the size it's been in generations, take the size back to where it was 10 years ago and I'd be happy.

But we're not the ones who want to tax it, you didn't read that part?

[johnrocks]

......Your point again? Oh you dont like the idea of my use for the name....Well I guess I could say Anti united states but that sounds like he hates the country and not just the federal government ......How about pro Fed death?

And just to think, your tears were shorting my computer just a few hours ago about us being the uncivil ones. Bookmarked for posterity.

[Thanatos144]

Again, your ass/u/ming, I support a government, just not nearly the size it's been in generations, take the size back to where it was 10 years ago and I'd be happy.

But we're not the ones who want to tax it, you didn't read that part?I am assuming nothing I am only stating a observation based on many of your posts. You want the Federal government dismantled and for us to no longer be United. Thats not very Libertarian.

[Long Island Bob]

Since we're talking "in fairness", I gotta say, although you have stated many times you were once a Libertarian, in all the time I've been a member here, I have not caught a hint of Libertarian in you, most don't change so radically, what's up with that? Not saying we don't agree a lot, it's just on the issues that shout libertarian as opposed to any other type conservative; from drugs to foreign policy to monetary, I just haven't seen it.
Marijuana; to most of us(and I'm a registered Republican) are not registered Libertarian, some are but most are Republicans; that I've met anyway and some; a tiny few from what I've seen are Democratic; is more an individual liberty or responsibility issue, to some, it's a State's rights issue, it's not even that big of an issue for the vast majority, sure, we debate it, some may even go on sit ins but mot are just regulat ol' people like you and me.

He discusses the reasons why our foreign policy is flawed, it's a liberal doctrination that conservatives have now embraced, most of us older guys are merely "Goldwater type Conservatives", again, it's not a simple issue that can be put in a 20 second soundbite and talking about bringing thinging on themselves, I think you may need to do some self assessing of the GOP, they are the ones who have been rejected and getting their asses kicked since 2006, it needs voters like me(a Republican) more than I need it, they may need to address that than in knocking our ideology at every given chance they have.

1. I have always been very cosnervative on fiscal policy

2. I was a long time "liberaltarian" (hedonist) on social policy, butahving ason changed my views on letting pushers roam the streets (legalize it, maybe: decriminalize it? Over my dead body.)

3. Regarding foreign affairs I switched from being very liberal (anti-Reagan) to very hawkish on 9-11. somewhere around here I still have photos of myself doing human rights work. (Confronting Thai soldiers who had stopped shooting protesters and were arresting the survivors . . . real "Year of Living Dangerously" stuff.)



In fact until the left went all humorless and politically correct I used to consider myself "fiscally conservative but liberal on everything else. I registered Libertarian, ran for (minor) office that way and won (6 write -in votes lol)

[johnrocks]

Oh, and then there is that whole "end the Fed" thing.

You KNOW I see a lot of truth in those arguments but let's face it, that attracts a lot of tin-foil hat conspircy theory types too.


let's see
- actively recruiting pot heads
- saying "the attacked us over here because we are over there" (and failing to follow up with a statement about our current need to kick their asses)
- "end the fed"


What kind of folks did you THINK you would attract?

Most;98% are not the extremists that you seem to want to attach to us. But discussing those things is simply being more in line with the Constitution, it's sad that you would think that is so outlandish.

[Thanatos144]

And just to think, your tears were shorting my computer just a few hours ago about us being the uncivil ones. Bookmarked for posterity.

I started off civil. Hell still am being civil.

[Long Island Bob]

Most;98% are not the extremists that you seem to want to attach to us. But discussing those things is simply being more in line with the Constitution, it's sad that you would think that is so outlandish.

I just think it makes Ron Paul a magnet for freaks.

[bloods vs crips]

I agree that the Fed has to much control over our economy and I welcome Ron Paul's idea to audit the Fed Reserve. I also believe that the government should not be in charge to handle monetary policy...being as they can't even manage to handle the Post Office or any other mundane task. Truthfully, I have no idea what to replace the Fed Reserve with however, I believe the system needs to be fixed.

you don't manage it, that's the whole problem.

[johnrocks]

1. I have always been very cosnervative on fiscal policy

2. I was a long time "liberaltarian" (hedonist) on social policy, butahving ason changed my views on letting pushers roam the streets (legalize it, maybe: decriminalize it? Over my dead body.)

3. Regarding foreign affairs I switched from being very liberal (anti-Reagan) to very hawkish on 9-11. somewhere around here I still have photos of myself doing human rights work. (Confronting Thai soldiers who had stopped shooting protesters and were arresting the survivors . . . real "Year of Living Dangerously" stuff.)



In fact until the left went all humorless and politically correct I used to consider myself "fiscally conservative but liberal on everything else. I registered Libertarian, ran for (minor) office that way and won (6 write -in votes lol)

I'll just state that I'm not the liberal on foreign policy, in fact, I agree with the American Conservative Union's views to a large degree as late as in 2000.

"U.S. culture has neither the necessary ruthlessness for empire nor the sustained arrogance for power. Rather than trying to make everyone a good democrat in a nasty world where even good neighbor Mexico is still mostly authoritarian, conservatives have sought a more modest, republican role-protecting America's just interests and pursuing friendly relations with all who do not threaten them. George Bush and the GOP Congress are following the historic and traditional conservative policy when they reject missions not in the national interest such as an indefinite commitment of U.S. troops to Bosnia and Kosovo. Their policy of pursuing American interests rather than pursuing internationalist dreams is wise policy and sound principle. That might not be "greatness" to those with imperial pretensions but it is the proper a role for a republic, and it does not take a "great" war to do it right. Let the debate begin".

I really like this part too....

"Neither world policeman nor global scold fit the American republican character. It is true that U.S. progressives have historically seen "their own fate bound up with America's greater role in the world" and that its founder Herbert Crowley specifically believed that a vigorous foreign policy involvement was critical to their mission for a centralized domestic national policy":cool:
http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_foreign.asp

[johnrocks]

I just think it makes Ron Paul a magnet for freaks.

On this we agree, freaks did flock, that is our paradox, how do we stop that and still stay true to our message?:think:

[bloods vs crips]

You know why dont you try being honest. I just proved that Paul put earmarks in a bill then voted no on that bill cause he knew it would pass. I am done with you.

what you've proven is that he earmarks bills, something that no one has ever disptued. What you haven't proven is that you know what an earmark is.

[Ninjacorpse]

:lol:

[johnrocks]

I am assuming nothing I am only stating a observation based on many of your posts. You want the Federal government dismantled and for us to no longer be United. Thats not very Libertarian.

Oh, that's why I thought you had called me a traitor, you didn't, you just claim I want the Country to dismantle, my bad.:rolleyes:

[bloods vs crips]

Libertarians like tax....They want pot taxed and prostitution taxed....They are pro tax.

you have no idea what you are talking about

[Long Island Bob]

On this we agree, freaks did flock, that is our paradox, how do we stop that and still stay true to our message?:think:

Well if you stopped deliberately registering voters at smoke ins that would be a pretty good start.

I gotta go

[cshoff]

You asked for that proof!!!!!!!!!!! Now choke on it.

No, I asked for proof of the pork you claimed Ron Paul inserts into bills:

Where? What bills? Show us what pork Paul added to these bills? Do you understand that earmarked funds are different than pork that is added to a bill?

I never asked for proof that Ron Paul tries to secure earmarked funds for his district, nor did I ever claim he didn't paricipate in said practice. This all comes down to you having a fundemental missunderstanding about the difference between earmarked funds and pork barrel spending.

[johnrocks]

Well if you stopped deliberately registering voters at smoke ins that would be a pretty good start.

I gotta go

I never did that and don't know any that did anymore than Reagan campaigned at Klan meetings even though they endorsed him.

[johnrocks]

My point? You are using it wrong at least in any normal sense.

He just does it to get a "rise" out of us then moans and whines when it is thrown back in his face. I've encountered women on their "monthlys" who are easier to deal with.

[bloods vs crips]

Well if you stopped deliberately registering voters at smoke ins that would be a pretty good start.

I gotta go

I never saw or smelled pot at any of the dozens of Ron Paul rallies I worked and attended. The whole drug angle is something pushed on us to discredit the group.

If you guys want a real smoking gun, you should look into the truthers or the FEMA camp consipiracy theorists. There are way more crazies in those rallies than people just wanting to get their habit legalized.

[bloods vs crips]

He just does it to get a "rise" out of us then moans and whines when it is thrown back in his face. I've encountered women on their "monthlys" who are easier to deal with.

he doesn't do it to get a rise, he does it because he actually thinks his statements have sound logic. It's far worse.

[johnrocks]

I never saw or smelled pot at any of the dozens of Ron Paul rallies I worked and attended. The whole drug angle is something pushed on us to discredit the group.

If you guys want a real smoking gun, you should look into the truthers or the FEMA camp consipiracy theorists. There are way more crazies in those rallies than people just wanting to get their habit legalized.

Yeah, those troofers ruined it for most here, I gotta say. On other issues, a person can agree or disagree, a troofer opened his rat trap and all I wanted to do is vaporize him , I could not tell you how many eye rolls(:rolleyes:) I witnessed when one of those yahoos talked;against our pleding; it costs us plenty of support here, this is "right wing" Heaven where I live and that crap just didn't cut it.

[Jabbamagnus]

As far as the OP question, why were they ignored?

Heads in the sand? Dismissing it as crazy talk? Insanity?

I'll admit up until the last year or two of Bush, I was mostly blind to just how crazy our monitary policy has been.

[johnrocks]

As far as the OP question, why were they ignored?

Heads in the sand? Dismissing it as crazy talk? Insanity?

I'll admit up until the last year or two of Bush, I was mostly blind to just how crazy our monitary policy has been.

Probably went counter to the status quo of both sides, it can't be placed inside a 30 second soundbite.:think:

[bloods vs crips]

Yeah, those troofers ruined it for most here, I gotta say. On other issues, a person can agree or disagree, a troofer opened his rat trap and all I wanted to do is vaporize him , I could not tell you how many eye rolls(:rolleyes:) I witnessed when one of those yahoos talked;against our pleding; it costs us plenty of support here, this is "right wing" Heaven where I live and that crap just didn't cut it.

man, at RP's DC rally, with thousands in attendance, one of the guest speakers went on and on about FEMA death camps and little colored stickers on mailboxes that was code for whether you were gonna be shot or not.

This was one of his speakers!! My brother and I just started laughing and the girl behind us got upset.

At one of the conferences for running campaigns, the speaker kept talking about how homosexuality itself should be illegal, and even intimated that those "affected" by it should be physically dealt with.

What really blew me away most, is that RP didn't believe half of the **** his speakers were saying. I couldn't get beyond it. I later started to question whether or not the entire campaign was designed specifically to keep us from being involved in the national scene.

[Jabbamagnus]

Probably went counter to the status quo of both sides, it can't be placed inside a 30 second soundbite.:think:

That too. :D

All too often if you don't fit into the two parties or go against some of their policies, you are labeled as a crazy person and dismissed.

Hey isn't that Rule #5 in the rules for radicals? :D

[nebcon]

And that makes it right? Because people ridiculed those that supported Ron Paul, it's now ok for the Ron Paul supporters to do the same to the Sarah Palin supporters? I'll drop this as it's not contributing to this thread's topic.

Either way I can agree that some of Ron Pauls ideas seem like good ones. His communication of these idea could use some polishing. Peter Schiff seems to be a better communicator, perhaps he will be able to get these ideas out there.

Sorry. Maybe it's my German portion with it's temper, but I have a point at which I have to respond. Sitting idly by while poster after poster suggests that you "hate jews" because you want less foreign aid to Israel, is not my idea of enjoying my time here.

The point is, the behavior of Palin supporters on this board is far closer to any reasonable definition of a political "bot" then Paul supporters on this board. I'm not responsible for whoever shows up at a Paul rally. I voted for him in my May primary, but did not know much about him even two months prior and I've never been to a rally. I still get pegged as one in some blind fashion because I express similar ideas.

I am civil to those that treat me civilly, but I refuse to be walked on.

[nebcon]

Libertarians like tax....They want pot taxed and prostitution taxed....They are pro tax.

Some suggest such on a state level. Not federal.

[nebcon]

You would perfer there no federal government.

There's only one Anarchist on this board that I know of, John isn't him.

[adroit]

cause it is hypocrisy. He loaded those bills with his pork cause he knows it will pass and then voted no on it. Thats even less honest than just having earmarks in a bill.

Who the **** cares if he "loaded pork" into the bill. You're clearly not understanding how the system works. The amount of spending is already appropriated. He's not adding any additional spending. He's not being hypocritical. If he doesn't cut his constituents' their piece of the pie, the executive branch gets to spend it however they want. You're either blinded by your hatred or just simply ignorant. I would argue for this practice whether it was Paul, McCain, Palin or Pelosi doing it. It took me a little while to understand it as well, so I have faith you'll be able to put your mind around it eventually.

p.s. earmarks take up <2% of the budget.

[Jabbamagnus]

Sorry. Maybe it's my German portion with it's temper, but I have a point at which I have to respond. Sitting idly by while poster after poster suggests that you "hate jews" because you want less foreign aid to Israel, is not my idea of enjoying my time here.

No problem. You just caught me in a bad mood and you must have struck a nerve.