# Ron Paul 2012



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

YouTube Video


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

YouTube Video


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

YouTube Video


----------



## Chubby (Dec 13, 2011)

Why do you care about UCA's politics?  You are Canadian.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

Chubby said:


> Why do you care about UCA's politics? You are Canadian.


 
I could give a shit about the UCA, but I do care a great deal about the USA. In case you didn't know, 70% of our exports go to the U.S. We get dragged into most of your wars, including the war on drugs. Our Domestic policy and foreign policy is influenced by yours. Most importantly, we share common heritage and a continent. I have plenty of family in the U.S. My ancestors faught in the American Revolution and the war of 1812 (both sides).

Plus I don't want Disney Land to go broke before my kids visit...

What Happens to the U.S. matters to Canada.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

Chubby said:


> Why do you care about UCA's politics? You are Canadian.


 
You know I laughed real hard when I read your post, but I did not nearly express it enough.

You know the C is not really that close to the S on the keyboard. Can you name the 51 States and their capitals (I can)? Are you really American? I mean I know you were probably born there, but are you American? I think another poster mentioned something about you beeing from another planet...


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> You know I laughed real hard when I read your post, but I did not nearly express it enough.
> 
> You know the C is not really that close to the S on the keyboard. Can you name the 51 States and their capitals (I can)? Are you really American? I mean I know you were probably born there, but are you American? I think another poster mentioned something about you beeing from another planet...



51 states?   Where the fuck have I been?   Who got the other star Puerto Rico?


----------



## Patriot1405 (Dec 14, 2011)

hoyle21 said:


> 51 states?   Where the fuck have I been?   Who got the other star Puerto Rico?



^^^lmao!!


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> You know I laughed real hard when I read your post, but I did not nearly express it enough.
> 
> You know the C is not really that close to the S on the keyboard. Can you name the 51 States and their capitals (I can)? Are you really American? I mean I know you were probably born there, but are you American? I think another poster mentioned something about you beeing from another planet...



Jokes on you, fuckstick.  There is only one e in being.  

Plus, there's only 50 states.  Unless you consider Canada the 51st.


----------



## MDR (Dec 14, 2011)

Ron Paul is a lost cause with no real solutions to anything.  Lot of rhetoric with no substance.


----------



## Chubby (Dec 14, 2011)

*


vancouver said:



			You know I laughed real hard when I read your post, but I did not nearly express it enough.
		
Click to expand...

*


vancouver said:


> *You know the C is not really that close to the S on the keyboard. Can you name the 51 States and their capitals (I can)? Are you really American? I mean I know you were probably born there, but are you American? I think another poster mentioned something about you beeing from another planet...*
> 
> **


*united Corporation of America. My heart is more american than some natural born american, who care more about their party than country.*


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

hoyle21 said:


> 51 states? Where the fuck have I been? Who got the other star Puerto Rico?


 
52 states then, Canada and Puerto Rico!!


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> Jokes on you, fuckstick. There is only one e in being.
> 
> Plus, there's only 50 states. Unless you consider Canada the 51st.


 
Hey Zaphod, you know what's worse than a guy who can't spell? A rich guy with a great life who can't spell. Let me know if you need any help on your trailer payments, it wouldn't be a government sponsored loan, just straight charity...

Oh and I guess you can read between the lines, that fucking amazes me. It's a running joke that Canada is the 51st state...(you got it!). Good job Mcfly!!!

Will Canada become the 51st state?

You can only find it referenced a few thousand times on the net...


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

Chubby said:


> *united Corporation of America. My heart is more american than some natural born american, who care more about their party than country.*


 
Oh the UCA!!! Yes they sell a great product. Hope, Freedom, opportunity. You know, all that good shit you can't find in a Wall Street tent...


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Oh the UCA!!! Yes they sell a great product. Hope, Freedom, opportunity. You know, all that good shit you can't find in a Wall Street tent...



The found your mom in a Wall Street tent.  She was keeping dicks warm with her mouth and ass.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Hey Zaphod, you know what's worse than a guy who can't spell? A rich guy with a great life who can't spell. Let me know if you need any help on your trailer payments, it wouldn't be a government sponsored loan, just straight charity...
> 
> Oh and I guess you can read between the lines, that fucking amazes me. It's a running joke that Canada is the 51st state...(you got it!). Good job Mcfly!!!
> 
> ...



So you're just a guy that can't spell?  

He spells that poorly in three languages, too.  

Sie wird immer meine kleine Hündin.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> So you're just a guy that can't spell?
> 
> He spells that poorly in three languages, too.
> 
> Sie wird immer meine kleine Hündin.


 
Fausse-couche!

Hor auf, so laut in dieser nervigen sprache zu reden.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> The found your mom in a Wall Street tent. She was keeping dicks warm with her mouth and ass.


 
Mom, get out of there, how many times have I told you, that's Zaphod's and LAM's Job!!!


----------



## Thee_One (Dec 14, 2011)

MDR said:


> Ron Paul is a lost cause with no real solutions to anything.  Lot of rhetoric with no substance.




They are ALL rhetoric (the politicians).

At least RP's is GOOD rhetoric.


----------



## secdrl (Dec 14, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> The found your mom in a Wall Street tent. She was keeping dicks warm with her mouth and ass.


----------



## secdrl (Dec 14, 2011)

MDR said:


> Ron Paul is a lost cause with no real solutions to anything. Lot of rhetoric with no substance.


 

This ^^^ What Ron Paul doesn't understand is the United States has interests and influence worldwide! Ron Paul is a complete tool. Just yesterday, the Iranians practiced a military drill where they practiced shutting down the Hormuz Canal. Essentially disrupting oil exports worldwide. According to RP's policies, we just need to stay out of it and let them be. Ridiculous.

Iran has called for the immediate destruction of Israel (Little Satan) and the United States (Big Satan) He says the Iran is NO threat to the United States and we shouldn't be concerned. 

When it comes to national security, RP is more dangerous than Obama attending a Klan Rally.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 14, 2011)

Chubby said:


> *united Corporation of America. My heart is more american than some natural born american, who care more about their party than country.*


You're just like Forest Gump if he didn't do anything useful and wasn't quite as intelligent.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Mom, get out of there, how many times have I told you, that's Zaphod's and LAM's Job!!!



It's called sub-contracting.  She's so cheap it only made sense.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Fausse-couche!
> 
> Hor auf, so laut in dieser nervigen sprache zu reden.



Englisch ist auf Deutsch.  

French is for faggots.


----------



## secdrl (Dec 14, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> Englisch ist auf Deutsch.
> 
> *French is for faggots*.


 
..when have the french ever been tough guys??


----------



## ExLe (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> You know I laughed real hard when I read your post, but I did not nearly express it enough.
> 
> You know the C is not really that close to the S on the keyboard. Can you name the 51 States and their capitals (I can)? Are you really American? I mean I know you were probably born there, but are you American? I think another poster mentioned something about you beeing from another planet...


 







Backfire...


----------



## ExLe (Dec 14, 2011)

Chubby said:


> *united Corporation of America. My heart is more american than some natural born american, who care more about their party than country.*


 
I fear Big Government way more than Big business...


----------



## Thee_One (Dec 14, 2011)

ExLe said:


> Backfire...




OUCH! dude that must have sucked


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> It's called sub-contracting. She's so cheap it only made sense.


 
So then you and LAM have been sucking cock down there on Wall Street, my mother just works your breaks...

OK thanks for the clarification


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2011)

ExLe said:


> I fear Big Government way more than Big business...



They are joined at the hip, really.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> So then you and LAM have been sucking cock down there on Wall Street, my mother just works your breaks...
> 
> OK thanks for the clarification



Your mother has been working the whole time.  I'm just collecting the money.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

Thee_One said:


> OUCH! dude that must have sucked


 
Hmmm....are those watermelons...


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> Your mother has been working the whole time. I'm just collecting the money.


 
I want my cut...


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I want my cut...



I'll get right on that.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> I'll get right on that.


 
Thanks.


----------



## Thee_One (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Hmmm....are those watermelons...




The fruit or her bewbs?


----------



## Woodrow1 (Dec 17, 2011)

MDR said:


> Ron Paul is a lost cause with no real solutions to anything.  Lot of rhetoric with no substance.




No real solutions?

Ending the drug war(letting states decide to legalize) and regulating drugs like alcohol isnt a solution????  Best solution i've seen...THE ONLY solutions i've seen.

Ending the unconstitutional wars which have been bleeding America dry and causing other countries to absolutely hate us.....that isn't a solution?  Last I checked all the other candidates want more war....

He wants to leave gay marriage up to the states....best damn solution i've seen.   Have the other candidates offered anything of substance to this? NO!

He wants to cut 1 TRILLION dollars the 1st year in office from spending.   THAT isnt a solution???  What have the others offered???? NOTHING!

He wants to end foreign aid.  Another thing that is bleeding the country dry.  Stealing from the poor in USA and giving to the rich in poor countries.   BEST damn solution ive seen!

He wants to bring the troops home from the 900 bases in 130 different countries which is bleeding us dry and causes hate to our country.  Best damn solution ive seen!  The only solution ive seen!

He wants to place the troops on our borders and secure our OWN borders to keep our illegals and threats to our nation.  Building national defense stronger than it has EVER been!   ONLY SOLUTION IVE SEEN!!

I could go on and on....

How does he NOT have solutions??  He is the ONLY candidate with solutions....you sir are BLIND!


----------



## dgp (Dec 17, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> They are joined at the hip, really.


 Sure the fuck are


----------



## Swiper (May 5, 2012)

Ron Paul predicts the future, all comes true.


----------



## Swiper (May 5, 2012)

Ron Paul wins majority of delegates in Iowa, Minnesota contest
By ​Andrew Moran


Des Moines - Is Texas Congressman Ron Paul's strategy of accumulating delegates in the Republican primary process actually working? Recent delegate confirmations suggest that Dr. Paul will come out with the most delegates in Iowa, Minnesota and possibly Colorado.

*Iowa*
Mitt Romney won Iowa. Actually it was Rick Santorum who won The Hawkeye State by a very slim margin. More than three months later, it turns out that Ron Paul will get first place in the caucuses as the delegate selection process continues in most states that have held primaries or caucuses.
The _Daily Register_ is reporting that six to eight of the new Iowa GOP state central committee elected Saturday are Paul supporters or have very close ties to the Paul presidential campaign. Also, A.J. Spiker, Paul???s Iowa campaign vice chairman, is the new Republican Party of Iowa chairman. On top of the original seven he received on Jan. 3, he will garner at least 14 of the 28 delegates in Iowa.
Paul came out with 21.43 percent of the vote and gained 26,036 votes. Both the former Massachusetts Governor and former Pennsylvania Senator defeated the three-time libertarian-leaning presidential candidate in the popular vote, but it seems he will win the delegates in Iowa.
???Anyone who???s followed the Ron Paul movement knows it???s about ideals, not a person,??? said Joel Kurtinitis, a Paul supporter who is one of the new Iowa GOP state central committee members, in an interview with the news outlet. ???It???s free enterprise, individual liberty, a government that???s constitutionally limited.???


Andrew Moran​A duo holding a Ron Paul Revolution sign during the Occupy Toronto protest.

Like this image






1​​
*Minnesota*
Santorum was declared the winner of the 2012 Minnesota caucuses by claiming 44.95 percent of the vote. However, Paul will once again receive at least 20 of the state???s 40 delegates ??? 14 remain unpledged.
Last week, Paul supporters swept the three district conventions by winning nine of the nine delegates to the national convention. The North Star State is expected to hold conventions from May 4 to May 5 where 13 National Convention delegates will be selected.
On Election Night, the 12-term Texas Congressman was second place by only getting 27.15 percent of the vote and receiving 13,282 votes. Despite Santorum being the winner, his campaign only got two delegates.
*Colorado*
In the Colorado Republican caucuses that were held on Feb. 7, Dr. Paul was last in the popular vote (11.8 percent, 7,759 votes), but according to the Paul campaign, supporters captured 12 delegates and 13 alternate delegates. The Centennial State maintains 36 delegates; 33 of which are tied to the caucuses.
Furthermore, representatives from the state operations believe it can win over even more delegates from Santorum in the Paul-Santorum coalition that was formed, which grabbed 20 delegates compared to Romney???s estimated 16.
Two Paul supporters will now serve on the Rules Committee and the coalition even unseated Colorado State Party Chairman Ryan Call, a known Romney supporter, from his position as the Delegate Chairman.
???Ron Paul???s victories today declare his delegate-attainment strategy to be a success and they demonstrate that the media and Washington pundits are undercounting his delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa,??? said John Tate, Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Manager, in a press release.
*State of Campaign*
In the first quarter of fundraising for 2012, the Paul campaign raised close to $10.4 million ??? March alone raised more than $2.6 million. The campaign has nearly $1.8 million on hand and maintains zero debt.
Please note that the figures do not include the $1.4 million Tax Day money bomb.
???These ample funds also will help us compete even harder in Texas, where Ron Paul is the only Texan, veteran, and authentic conservative running,??? said Jesse Benton, Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman, in a press release. ???I want to thank Ron Paul???s contributors, who are almost exclusively small-donation supporters and who continue putting their trust in Dr. Paul, his message, and his organization.???
Even _MSNBC_ is confirming these numbers from Iowa and Minnesota. It also reported that Paul supporters in Texas are mimicking President Warren G. Harding???s campaign after winning the Republican nominating convention after entering with the fewest delegates.
On Tuesday, five states will hold their respective primaries. Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island have a total of 231 delegates at stake. Paul has held several town hall meetings in the aforementioned states ??? plus states where future primaries are going to be held ??? where thousands of supporters attended.​Ron Paul wins majority of delegates in Iowa, Minnesota contests


----------



## LAM (May 5, 2012)

Swiper said:


> Ron Paul predicts the future, all comes true.



All Ron Paul does is state the obvious and that history repeats itself, Nostradamus he is not.  95% of the things RP wants to do the POTUS can't accomplish, not with out Congress.  and Congress is the revolving door between politics on the Hill and US large firms.  50% of ex-politicians from the Hill go work for large firms once they leave office.  RP brings up all those topics but never states why these things are done, and they are all done for a reason.

the US backs Israel because it is the only democratic/capitalist country in the middle east.  democracy is the precursor to capitalism which then results in increased national debt to the IMF/World bank and other money lenders.  this is what has happened to every single country that has been liberated from communism.  the only country's not in debt to the IMF/World bank or international money lenders are either communist, arab or islamic states.

foreign aid has the exact opposite effect on a country, it impedes progress and disrupts the natural growth process of a country and economy.  the wealthy country's don't want the 3rd world country's to progress which is why they keep sending them aid.

when it comes to governments and policy everything is done for a reason


----------



## Swiper (May 5, 2012)




----------



## LAM (May 5, 2012)

lots of us predicted the housing crash, it was painfully obvious.  I worked at several different mortgage company's from '95 to 2005 in various states as did several dozen of my friends.  we all witnessed it go down, we used to call each other and laugh as to how in the fuck some of these loan apps were getting approved, it was ridiculous.

in a healthy economy homes are supposed to appreciate with:
inflation
real income growth
as the cost of borrowing capital decreases

* in a normal economy you would see home values appreciate at maybe 4-5% a year in a "boom" year.  in bubble city's like here in Vegas or Phoenix, homes were appreciating at 20-30% a year depending on the zip code.  a basic guideline when purchasing a home is that the sale price should be no more than 2.5x the annual income.  so a person making 50K a year with not much debt should easily be able to pay the note on a home that was purchased for 125K.

the US gov does not protect it's citizens (yes I know that rather obvious).  in terms of economics unlimited capital is allowed to flow into the US.  when the capital gains rate was changed in 1997 home turnover immediately started to increase which also causes homes to appreciate.  foreign investors helped to artificially drive US home prices up as did US investors/speculators and home buyers.

Real Estate Charts: Graphs of inflation-adjusted, historical housing prices.


----------



## Dale Mabry (May 6, 2012)

He's got my vote as long as Romney has no chance.


----------



## Swiper (May 8, 2012)

[h=2]Ron Paul Dominates Maine, Nevada State Conventions[/h]Written by  Thomas R. Eddlem



[*=center]font size 




[*=center]Print 
[*=center]Email






Ron Paul forces staged organizational coups this weekend in Nevada and Maine, where they won a majority of the delegates who will represent their states at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. In addition, Paul won most of the delegates thus far selected by the Iowa GOP. The coups follow up Paul campaign victories a week earlier in Louisiana and Massachusetts, where Paul supporters dominated district caucuses.
In Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney won the primary by a huge margin earlier in the year, all Ron Paul supporters chosen as delegates to the national convention are pledged to vote for Romney on the first ballot. In Nevada, most of the Paul delegates are bound to support Romney on the first ballot. However, in other states, such as Maine and Iowa, the delegates are not bound by the earlier state contests.
The _Portland Press-Herald_ reported May 5 that Paul supporters in Maine succeeding in electing their own state convention chairman over the GOP establishment's choice by a mere four votes, demonstrating their clout and setting the tone for the rest of the convention. ???Paul supporter Brent Tweed edged Charles Cragin 1,118 to 1,114 in a very close vote,??? the_ Portland Press-Herald_reported.
The two-day convention then went on to elect as delegates 21 Paul supporters who will comprise 87.5 percent of the state's 24-member delegation to Tampa. This lop-sided Paul victory occurred despite a narrow official Romney win of about 100 votes in caucuses earlier in the year (though there were numerous voting irregularities that could have changed the vote total). Paul supporters have essentially taken over the Maine GOP, though some Paul supporters found the term a bit dramatic. ???Takeover is strong word; we???re all registered Republicans here,??? Paul supporter Matthew McDonald told the _Bangor Daily News_. ???But Chairman Webster called Ron Paul supporters wingnuts, he saw us as a fringe minority; now we hold the power of the convention.???
In Nevada, the same happened May 5-6. The Ron Paul campaign won 22 of the 28 Nevada delegates and gained control of much of the state and municipal party leadership. And Paul supporters accomplished this despite threats from the Republican National Committee not to nominate too many Ron Paul supporters and some fraud by Romney supporters. Some Romney supporters at the Reno convention distributed a fake slate of Ron Paul supporters seeking delegate spots to blunt the Paul assault. ???The list included some Paul supporters but hidden among the Paul supporters were obvious Romney supporters,??? according to Ray Hagar of the_Reno Gazette-Journal_.
Because Romney won the caucus earlier in the year, the RNC faxed a letter last week demanding that ???an authorized representative of the presidential campaign that the delegate or prospective delegate professes to support should be allowed to confirm whether or not the delegate is an actual supporter??? of the campaign he's nominally representing. In other words, the RNC demanded that ???Romney??? delegates be selected by the Romney campaign, rather than merely Ron Paul delegates who have pledged to support Romney on the first ballot. 
But the state convention did not bow to the RNC, and Nevada Ron Paul Chairman Carl Bunce sloughed off the letter as ???a creative writing assignment given to them by the Romney campaign to threaten the Paul supporters and Ron Paul campaign. It???s ridiculous. It is nothing more than a veiled threat.??? The _Reno Gazette-Journal_ revealed, ???No matter who is elected as national delegates, 20 of them will be bound by RNC rules to vote for Romney on the first ballot at the national convention, and eight will vote for Paul.??? But that doesn't mean delegates would be bound to their alleged candidate after the first ballot. 
Ironically, the Ron Paul campaign is benefiting from changes many state GOP organizations made in their convention rules in 2009-11. Many of these rule changes were enacted to benefit former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (see here and here), who was the presumed nominee with what most believed to be the best party organization in every state from his 2008 run. But Ron Paul had retained his organization from the 2008 race, and is out-organizing Romney supporters. 
In Iowa, where the state GOP has not yet held its state convention but did select some delegates this weekend, the_ Des Moines Register_ reported that most of them are Ron Paul supporters: ???Of the 13 delegates and 13 alternates elected today [Saturday, May 5] for the national convention, just one has publicly endorsed Mitt Romney for president ??? Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad. And just three others publicly supported Rick Santorum, who won the Iowa caucuses but is no longer in the race.... Ten of the 13 [delegates] have expressed public support for Paul, such as by donating money or volunteering for his campaign.??? The _Des Moines Register_concluded that ???Paul, who won third place in the Iowa caucuses, could end up with the best Iowa representation at the national convention when it comes time to vote for the GOP presidential nominee.???
Ron Paul Dominates Maine, Nevada State Conventions


----------



## Swiper (May 8, 2012)

LAM said:


> lots of us predicted the housing crash, it was painfully obvious.  I worked at several different mortgage company's from '95 to 2005 in various states as did several dozen of my friends.  we all witnessed it go down, we used to call each other and laugh as to how in the fuck some of these loan apps were getting approved, it was ridiculous.
> 
> in a healthy economy homes are supposed to appreciate with:
> inflation
> ...



since you've predicted the housing crash, you must have made a ton of money betting against the market, uh?


----------



## LAM (May 8, 2012)

Swiper said:


> since you've predicted the housing crash, you must have made a ton of money betting against the market, uh?



I have this thing called a properly developed superego.  i have spent my entire life protecting people not harming them, that being the case I certainly did not bet against the housing market.  I don't need money that bad to buy a bunch of crap that I don't need that doesn't really change my life for the better.

I did make a ton of money as a mortgage broker from '94 to '05 and along the way broke just about every rule and guideline that there was by telling borrowers everything that I knew and even showing them the rate sheets from the lenders to see how bad they were getting screwed when they weren't getting the lowest rate allowed under their financial circumstances.  and everybody that got a cash-out refi had to sit through hours of me telling them about the system, not many want to go through that process more than once.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 29, 2012)

this is great

Amazing RON PAUL Interview MUST SEE!!! - YouTube


----------



## Swiper (Aug 29, 2012)

nice ^^^

"When government tries to protect us from ourselves it becomes a tyrannical state"   -Ron Paul


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 29, 2012)

he could probably do a fairly decent job of it but i hate romney too much to risk not casting my vote for obama. it makes me feel sick but that's how it is.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 29, 2012)

Ron Paul Supporters Revolt in Tampa - NYTimes.com


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 29, 2012)

"Fuck You, Tyrants!": Ron Paul Supporters Rebel on Convention Floor | Mother Jones


----------



## Swiper (Sep 1, 2012)

Proof the RNC is a bunch of fucking dictators!


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Sep 1, 2012)

Little Wing said:


> this is great
> 
> Amazing RON PAUL Interview MUST SEE!!! - YouTube



WTF!  The only one in the room capable of any halfway intellectual discourse was Ron.  The rest of'em were like animals.  The host was the biggest douche of all.


----------



## Little Wing (Sep 1, 2012)

^ and the host died of lung cancer. RP is still kicking.


----------



## Swiper (Sep 4, 2012)

Ron Paul will be on the Jay Leno show tonight.


----------



## secdrl (Sep 4, 2012)

I got excited for second. Thought Vancouver was back.


----------



## charley (Sep 4, 2012)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...............................


----------



## secdrl (Sep 4, 2012)

Seriously...ya'all need to get over this Ron Paul crap. He has NO chance of winning the election. Cry about it all you want, make excuses, whatever...He has zero chance of winning. A write-in vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama. 

And honestly, I like Ron Paul. There are many things that he says that I agree with it and think some of his policies would greatly benefit the United States. But, once we realized that he isn't going to win, and there's no possibility for him to grab the nomination, why not get behind the GOP candidate, Mitt Romney?

Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum all were running against Romney and now they're solidifying there stance behind them. It's time for Ron Paul and his supporters to back Mitt Romney.


----------



## Swiper (Sep 4, 2012)

secdrl said:


> I got excited for second. Thought Vancouver was back.



no clue what ur talking about,  care to explain yourself?


----------



## Swiper (Sep 4, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Seriously...ya'all need to get over this Ron Paul crap. He has NO chance of winning the election. Cry about it all you want, make excuses, whatever...He has zero chance of winning. A write-in vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama.
> 
> And honestly, I like Ron Paul. There are many things that he says that I agree with it and think some of his policies would greatly benefit the United States. But, once we realized that he isn't going to win, and there's no possibility for him to grab the nomination, why not get behind the GOP candidate, Mitt Romney?
> 
> Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum all were running against Romney and now they're solidifying there stance behind them. It's time for Ron Paul and his supporters to back Mitt Romney.



who in their right mind would vote for someone who doesn't share their believes?  Makes no sense to me.

 you keep saying you'd vote for him but he has no chance, what if everyone who said that actually voted for him? ya think he would have had a chance? I sure do.     

so ur voting for the same type of politicians that created this mess and expect change?  lol it's not gonna happen.


----------



## secdrl (Sep 4, 2012)

Swiper said:


> no clue what ur talking about,  care to explain yourself?



No, thanks. Before your time, rook.


----------



## secdrl (Sep 4, 2012)

Swiper said:


> who in their right mind would vote for someone who doesn't share their believes?  Makes no sense to me.
> 
> you keep saying you'd vote for him but he has no chance, what if everyone who said that actually voted for him? ya think he would have had a chance? I sure do.
> 
> so ur voting for the same type of politicians that created this mess and expect change?  lol it's not gonna happen.




I keep saying I'd vote for him? Please post up the numerous occasions where I've said I'd vote for him? Again, in true liberal fashion, you're taking my context and twisting it in a direction that would benefit your position.

Of course you should vote for the candidate you like. But, he's not the nominee. He has no chance. By voting for a write-in candidate, you're influencing either side. Ron Paul, and every other libertarian candidate has never won a presidential election via write-in.

Something tells me you're 22 years old with a couple tideye t-shirts in your drawer next to your dime bag of weed.


----------



## Swiper (Sep 4, 2012)

secdrl said:


> I keep saying I'd vote for him? Please post up the numerous occasions where I've said I'd vote for him? Again, in true liberal fashion, you're taking my context and twisting it in a direction that would benefit your position.
> 
> Of course you should vote for the candidate you like. But, he's not the nominee. He has no chance. By voting for a write-in candidate, you're influencing either side. Ron Paul, and every other libertarian candidate has never won a presidential election via write-in.
> 
> Something tells me you're 22 years old with a couple tideye t-shirts in your drawer next to your dime bag of weed.



LMAO!!! don't forget about my fading Obama poster on my wall too. lol

you say you LIKE Ron Paul, my mistake.  

BTW  I'll be voting Gary Johnson.


----------



## secdrl (Sep 4, 2012)

Swiper said:


> LMAO!!! don't forget about my fading Obama poster on my wall too. lol
> 
> you say you LIKE Ron Paul, my mistake.
> 
> BTW  I'll be voting Gary Johnson.



You're voting Gary Johnson but you're profile info. says RonPaul2012.com.


----------



## Luxx (Sep 4, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Seriously...ya'all need to get over this Ron Paul crap. He has NO chance of winning the election. Cry about it all you want, make excuses, whatever...He has zero chance of winning. A write-in vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama.
> 
> And honestly, I like Ron Paul. There are many things that he says that I agree with it and think some of his policies would greatly benefit the United States. But, once we realized that he isn't going to win, and there's no possibility for him to grab the nomination, why not get behind the GOP candidate, Mitt Romney?
> 
> Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum all were running against Romney and now they're solidifying there stance behind them. It's time for Ron Paul and his supporters to back Mitt Romney.



I still want to see what he has to say tonight.


----------



## hoyle21 (Sep 4, 2012)

It's about moving the party.   Every vote for Romney is telling the republican party you're dumb enough to vote for any idiot they nominate as long as there is a R in front of his name.

If Johnson can get 15 percent of the vote you don't think the republicans as a party would move in that direction?

The country in the long run would be better off, even if it were to bring 4 more years of Obama.    We survived 8 of Bush, we can survive 8 of Obama.


----------



## secdrl (Sep 4, 2012)

hoyle21 said:


> It's about moving the party.   Every vote for Romney is telling the republican party you're dumb enough to vote for any idiot they nominate as long as there is a R in front of his name.If Johnson can get 15 percent of the vote you don't think the republicans as a party would move in that direction?The country in the long run would be better off, even if it were to bring 4 more years of Obama.    We survived 8 of Bush, we can survive 8 of Obama.


No, we can't take another four years of Barack Obama. There is a stark difference in ideals between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Barack Obama is looking to radically change the foundation of this country. Something George W. did not.


----------



## Luxx (Sep 4, 2012)

secdrl said:


> No, we can't take another four years of Barack Obama. There is a stark difference in ideals between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Barack Obama is looking to radically change the foundation of this country. Something George W. did not.



But mrs Obama says he got your back. lol


----------



## hoyle21 (Sep 4, 2012)

secdrl said:


> no, we can't take another four years of barack obama. There is a stark difference in ideals between george w. Bush and barack obama. Barack obama is looking to radically change the foundation of this country. Something george w. Did not.



b.s.


----------



## troubador (Sep 4, 2012)

secdrl said:


> No, we can't take another four years of Barack Obama. There is a stark difference in ideals between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Barack Obama is looking to radically change the foundation of this country. Something George W. did not.



The difference is always something Obama hasn't done yet.


----------



## secdrl (Sep 4, 2012)

troubador said:


> The difference is always something Obama hasn't done yet.



Correct me if I'm misreading, but you're saying that Barack Obama hasn't transformed the United States or at the very least, put it on the path to just become a third world socialist nation?


----------



## troubador (Sep 4, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Correct me if I'm misreading, but you're saying that Barack Obama hasn't transformed the United States or at the very least, put it on the path to just become a third world socialist nation?



I don't see how he's changed direction from where it was already going. I doubt Bush would have done something like Obamacare but Romney already has. What actual changes has Obama made to alter the path of the U.S. that aren't similar to something Bush or Romney have already done?


----------



## Little Wing (Sep 4, 2012)

there's a petition to get Betty White to speak at dnc... what i think would be even better is if Obama gave Ron Paul his 15 unedited minutes the republicans robbed him of.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 4, 2012)

Swiper said:


> Proof the RNC is a bunch of fucking dictators!



It's time for the libertarian party to rise up, that's total bs....and petty childlike behavior blocking Ron Paul signs and tearing it out of the guys hands...


----------



## Little Wing (Sep 4, 2012)

the teleprompter said the ayes have it before vote was even spoken.


----------



## Swiper (Sep 4, 2012)

Paul is not going to run as a third party and didn't  endorse  Gary Johnson on Leno. I thought maybe he would.  they have the same political views. doesn't really matter anyway Paul supports are going to vote Johnson anyway.  it's about the message, not so much the person.


----------



## secdrl (Sep 4, 2012)

troubador said:


> I don't see how he's changed direction from where it was already going. I doubt Bush would have done something like Obamacare but Romney already has. What actual changes has Obama made to alter the path of the U.S. that aren't similar to something Bush or Romney have already done?




Well, Romney did it without raising taxes. That's the biggest difference.

I agree that country has been pretty messed up under both democratic and republic leadership, but in my opinion, Obama is implementing policies that reflect massive amounts of government control and more restrictions on individual freedoms. I know it wasn't ratified, but if he's reelected, he'll take another stab at all out gun restriction.

Under previous administrations, we may not have been liked or popular; but, we were respected and feared. Under Obama, we're a joke to our adversaries. I just don't think this guy has a positive vision for America.


----------



## secdrl (Sep 4, 2012)

Swiper said:


> Paul is not going to run as a third party and didn't  endorse  Gary Johnson on Leno. I thought maybe he would.  they have the same political views. doesn't really matter anyway Paul supports are going to vote Johnson anyway.  it's about the message, not so much the person.




I forgot to DVR it. Did he bash the GOP or Romney at all? How was his attitude towards everything that's been going down?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Sep 5, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Well, Romney did it without raising taxes. That's the biggest difference.  *Yeah, he saved that for the next guy.*
> 
> I agree that country has been pretty messed up under both democratic and republic leadership, but in my opinion, Obama is implementing policies that reflect massive amounts of government control and more restrictions on individual freedoms. I know it wasn't ratified, but if he's reelected, he'll take another stab at all out gun restriction.
> 
> ...




I don't know what you guys think is going to happen if Romney is elected.  Romney or Obama, it doesn't matter, that debt clock is going over $20 trillion.  SS, Medicare, and Defense account for every penny that is taken in in tax revenues and neither one will touch these programs significantly.  Just servicing the old debt will cost $4 trillion over 4 years, that's one of the primary reasons it has surged under Obama.


----------



## LAM (Sep 5, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Under previous administrations, we may not have been liked or popular; but, we were respected and feared. Under Obama, we're a joke to our adversaries. I just don't think this guy has a positive vision for America.



the US has no adversaries, and you would understand this if you ever bothered to read the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance as the DOD clearly stated that in black & white.  but it's much easier to have tv and politicians tell you what to believe as that takes no effort.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 5, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> I don't know what you guys think is going to happen if Romney is elected.  Romney or Obama, it doesn't matter, that debt clock is going over $20 trillion.  SS, Medicare, and Defense account for every penny that is taken in in tax revenues and neither one will touch these programs significantly.  Just servicing the old debt will cost $4 trillion over 4 years, that's one of the primary reasons it has surged under Obama.



We're going to have to start taking all the Albobs out to the deep woods and let them try to find their way to the SS office from there kind of like the Natives used to do....


----------



## Decker (Sep 5, 2012)

Ron Paul offers simple explanations for complex topics.  That's his appeal.

Why study constitutional jurisprudence when you can just read the constitoooootion (imagine Ron Paul, in that faggy grover-like voice) and get all your answers?

Why study economics when all you need to know is that gold is the only true money?

Why study government when it's true that government curtails all freedoms and devalues true money?

Paul is a waste of space.  He's been in the government, which he hates, for some 30 years and he's passed only one piece of insignificant legislation into law.

He's been warning the US about hyperinflation for 30 years.  I'm still waiting on that one.


----------



## Decker (Sep 5, 2012)

secdrl said:


> Correct me if I'm misreading, but you're saying that Barack Obama hasn't transformed the United States or at the very least, put it on the path to just become a third world socialist nation?


That's a ridiculous statement.


----------



## troubador (Sep 5, 2012)

Decker said:


> Ron Paul offers simple explanations for complex topics.  That's his appeal.
> 
> Why study constitutional jurisprudence when you can just read the constitoooootion (imagine Ron Paul, in that faggy grover-like voice) and get all your answers?
> 
> ...



Why form an argument when you could just state conclusions?


----------



## Swiper (Sep 5, 2012)

secdrl said:


> I forgot to DVR it. Did he bash the GOP or Romney at all? How was his attitude towards everything that's been going down?



he said nothing new. might b on YouTube now.  he has always been nice to mitt.  it seems like they have respect for each other. I know Ann romney and carol Paul (ron pauls wife) have become good friends during the campaign season.


----------



## Decker (Sep 5, 2012)

troubador said:


> Why form an argument when you could just state conclusions?


Wow!  You just turned the tables on me.

So I take it you're a Ron Paul supporter?

How unfortunate.


----------



## Swiper (Sep 5, 2012)

Decker said:


> Ron Paul offers simple explanations for complex topics.  That's his appeal.
> 
> Why study constitutional jurisprudence when you can just read the constitoooootion (imagine Ron Paul, in that faggy grover-like voice) and get all your answers?
> 
> ...



the constitution means nothing to u.  I get it. 

try studying about austrian economics. maybe you'll learn a thing or two. that's what Paul believes in.  u obviously don't know much about the man and libertarian ideas. 

incase you've haven't noticed  we've been loosing our freedoms for a long time.  but I guess u like govt intervention in ur daily life as much as possible. 

I wouldn't judge a Politician on how many laws they pass. just the opposite. repealing laws is much better. 

inflation?  really?   take a look at prices in the  past compared to today.  look at income too.


----------



## Little Wing (Sep 5, 2012)

Ron Paul was cut from speaking at rnc because he was not willing to support or endorse Mitt Romney.

Paul admitted his lack of a RNC speaking slot was probably because he refused to endorse Romney

Ron Paul: His Future Will Not Be Third Party, But the GOP is Not His Party Either, and He Thinks Gary Johnson is "Wonderful" - Hit & Run : Reason.com


----------



## Decker (Sep 5, 2012)

Swiper said:


> the constitution means nothing to u.  I get it.
> 
> try studying about austrian economics. maybe you'll learn a thing or two. that's what Paul believes in.  u obviously don't know much about the man and libertarian ideas.
> 
> ...


The constitution means quite a bit to me...the great and glorious living document shaped by the times and the Supreme Court.

Austrian economics is for luddite dullards.  The US has been off of the gold standard for 40+ years.  Austrian Economics is useless.  Try Charatlism.  I've found that most Libertarian thinkers are free loaders with a very limited understanding of life in general.

Losing our Freedoms?  Yeah, Social Security - freedom from elderly destitution.  Medicare- freedom from elderly medical treatment, public education...freedom from ignorance...but I know what you mean.  Bush and by extension, Obama, have crapped on aspects of our constitutional rights.

Yeah, let's get rid of regulations!  Or at least stop enforcing the regulations on the books.  That worked so well for our financial markets the last few years.  

We need regulations.  Imagine a football game without refs and rules.  Why is that so hard to see?


----------



## Decker (Sep 5, 2012)

We've been flirting more with deflation than inflation recently.  No COLAs for some of the past years.


----------



## Decker (Sep 5, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> I don't know what you guys think is going to happen if Romney is elected.  Romney or Obama, it doesn't matter, that debt clock is going over $20 trillion.  SS, Medicare, and Defense account for every penny that is taken in in tax revenues and neither one will touch these programs significantly.  Just servicing the old debt will cost $4 trillion over 4 years, that's one of the primary reasons it has surged under Obama.


The federal government is not funded with tax dollars.  It's not like the US is printing trillions of dollars to cover the debt.  The federal government is self financing.  Gov. spending creates dollars.  Taxes destroy dollars.

Debt is necessary to society's economic well-being.  Deficits are necessary.  When the government takes dollars out of the economy to balance the budget, boom goes the dynamite, and we are hit by recession.  Clinton balanced the budget and Bush got the recessionary result.

The US's capacity to create dollars through spending is infinite in theory limited only by inflationary concerns.  We are not concerned with inflation from that angle.  In fact, the only phenomenological proof of inflation is tied to energy and its costs.


----------



## heckler7 (Sep 6, 2012)

Bump for Ron Paul


----------



## Dale Mabry (Sep 6, 2012)

Decker said:


> The federal government is not funded with tax dollars.  It's not like the US is printing trillions of dollars to cover the debt.  The federal government is self financing.  Gov. spending creates dollars.  Taxes destroy dollars.
> 
> Debt is necessary to society's economic well-being.  Deficits are necessary.  When the government takes dollars out of the economy to balance the budget, boom goes the dynamite, and we are hit by recession.  Clinton balanced the budget and Bush got the recessionary result.
> 
> The US's capacity to create dollars through spending is infinite in theory limited only by inflationary concerns.  We are not concerned with inflation from that angle.  In fact, the only phenomenological proof of inflation is tied to energy and its costs.



Of course debt's necessary.  But at some point you have to look at something like our debt and realize it's unsustainable.  Our healthcare system is fucked and terrible.  Fighting all of these unjust wars is pointless and yielding nothing but bad PR for us.  Of course the government isn't funded with tax dollars but tax dollars are the dependent variable of the large experiment that is out economy.  When more money goes in to something than comes out of it you have to cut the cord.  

We've all heard that it takes money to make money, but at some point every good businessman has to know when to cut and run.  The net yield from our economic system is negative and getting progressively worse.  And if our government was self financing we wouldn't be in so much debt to China.

Even if you ignore defense look at SS and Medicare.  Our problem isn't that the moneys from these programs wasn't invested well or that healthcare is so expensive.  Our problem is that the natural result of making shitty food cheap and making it easy for people to do no physical activity on a daily basis is poor health that can't be fixed with medicine.  Something like 80% of our medical costs go to preventable chronic disease.  You can't throw money at that situation as it inevitably leads to throwing more money at it down the road.  These are all poor investments and directly linked to poor financial decisions our government makes.  These poor financial decisions are either going to need to be fixed in the form of removing farm subsidies and requiring physical activity (Not going to happen), or throwing more money at the problem which will eventually lead to higher costs.  Those costs are going to have to be offset with taxation.  Look at what happened with cigarettes.  People didn't all of a sudden start reading research and realize they were bad, the cost of cigarettes went from $1.20 a pack to like $8 and people lost interest.  Those that didn't paid a higher price and that money went to help fund the downstream consequences of their actions.  Taxes don't destroy dollars, they influence behavior and should be used accordingly.  Don't want companies outsourcing jobs?  Provide tax incentives to stay here or hammer companies who outsource with higher taxes to offset the savings they make by hiring overseas and they will stop doing it.


----------



## LAM (Sep 6, 2012)

Decker said:


> Clinton balanced the budget and Bush got the recessionary result.



Clinton balancing the budget had nothing to do with the 2001 recession. 

the recession of 2001 was purely based on the markets and over investment in the tech sector when that bubble burst it effected capital far more than labor.  those of us that work and were working in the tech sector then know of this first hand.  our sales at Agilent decreased from 20B to 1B in 3 quarters while our entire payroll was over 1B.    we were the largest manufacture of telecom test equipment in the world.  needless to say that lead to massive layoffs, etc.

some recession have similar causes of others while some do not.  the recession in the early 80's had to do with high inflation and the fact that tax brackets had just been adjusted in the late 70's and that bumped many into higher brackets.  this helped to fuel the fallacy of supply-side tax cuts "working" when there were many more underlying factors at play.  in economics there is never one cause just like there is never one solution, the "magic bean theory" just doesn't exist in reality and that one simple change can turn an economy around.  sadly many believe this time and time again


----------



## Swiper (Sep 12, 2012)

[h=2]Gary Johnson on All But Three Ballots[/h]September 12, 2012
The Libertarian Party reports that Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in at least 47 states, plus the District of Columbia.
The party is involved in litigation to get him on the ballot in the three remaining states, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where a judge ruled last week that Johnson could not appear on the ballot because he also ran as a Republican in the state?s February presidential primary.
Johnson is already on the ballot in two more states than the 2008 Libertarian nominee, Bob Barr.
[FONT=Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif]Barr, a former Georgia congressman, won just 0.4 percent of the national vote. But in Missouri and North Carolina, the two closest states in 2008, he won enough votes to flip the outcome.[/FONT]

Gary Johnson on All But Three Ballots - Reason 24/7 : Reason.com



[FONT=Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif]Would be nice to see him in the debates so the nation can see a different political view on govt. The powers that be will never let that happen.  it's goes against the two big govt political parties [/FONT]


----------



## Decker (Sep 13, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> Of course debt's necessary.  But at some point you have to look at something like our debt and realize it's unsustainable.  Our healthcare system is fucked and terrible.  Fighting all of these unjust wars is pointless and yielding nothing but bad PR for us.  Of course the government isn't funded with tax dollars but tax dollars are the dependent variable of the large experiment that is out economy.  When more money goes in to something than comes out of it you have to cut the cord.
> 
> We've all heard that it takes money to make money, but at some point every good businessman has to know when to cut and run.  The net yield from our economic system is negative and getting progressively worse.  And if our government was self financing we wouldn't be in so much debt to China.
> 
> Even if you ignore defense look at SS and Medicare.  Our problem isn't that the moneys from these programs wasn't invested well or that healthcare is so expensive.  Our problem is that the natural result of making shitty food cheap and making it easy for people to do no physical activity on a daily basis is poor health that can't be fixed with medicine.  Something like 80% of our medical costs go to preventable chronic disease.  You can't throw money at that situation as it inevitably leads to throwing more money at it down the road.  These are all poor investments and directly linked to poor financial decisions our government makes.  These poor financial decisions are either going to need to be fixed in the form of removing farm subsidies and requiring physical activity (Not going to happen), or throwing more money at the problem which will eventually lead to higher costs.  Those costs are going to have to be offset with taxation.  Look at what happened with cigarettes.  People didn't all of a sudden start reading research and realize they were bad, the cost of cigarettes went from $1.20 a pack to like $8 and people lost interest.  Those that didn't paid a higher price and that money went to help fund the downstream consequences of their actions.  Taxes don't destroy dollars, they influence behavior and should be used accordingly.  Don't want companies outsourcing jobs?  Provide tax incentives to stay here or hammer companies who outsource with higher taxes to offset the savings they make by hiring overseas and they will stop doing it.


No.

You are not understanding what I am saying.  The US has an infinite capacity to create dollars limited only by inflationary concerns.  There is no unsustainable debt.  It's a matter of values ... not spending.

The US healthcare system is not limited by governmental spending.  The high healthcare costs lie elsewhere.  

Dale, you're the funniest guy on this site.  But I'm not going to tackle the Randian bullshit you're printing in that third paragraph where people just happen to get what they deserve.  Throwing money at a situation happens to work.  The only time it does not work is when the money managers are fucking crooks.   If you want to get into a debate about the culpability of the fucking slime cigarette industry and its predation of the public, I'd be happy to be part of that.

Taxes do destroy dollars in the economic sense.  The US does not depend on tax revenue to pay its bills.  The major and, as far as I'm concerned,only purpose taxes serve is to stop the accumulation of wealth.  It is, as you pointed out, a behavioral exercise.  Your point that taxes influence behavior does make sense.  And it is not inconsistent with my ultimate point about taxes.


----------



## Decker (Sep 13, 2012)

LAM said:


> Clinton balancing the budget had nothing to do with the 2001 recession.
> 
> the recession of 2001 was purely based on the markets and over investment in the tech sector when that bubble burst it effected capital far more than labor.  those of us that work and were working in the tech sector then know of this first hand.  our sales at Agilent decreased from 20B to 1B in 3 quarters while our entire payroll was over 1B.    we were the largest manufacture of telecom test equipment in the world.  needless to say that lead to massive layoffs, etc.
> 
> some recession have similar causes of others while some do not.  the recession in the early 80's had to do with high inflation and the fact that tax brackets had just been adjusted in the late 70's and that bumped many into higher brackets.  this helped to fuel the fallacy of supply-side tax cuts "working" when there were many more underlying factors at play.  in economics there is never one cause just like there is never one solution, the "magic bean theory" just doesn't exist in reality and that one simple change can turn an economy around.  sadly many believe this time and time again


You are incorrect. I can prove that balanced budgets cause recessions.  You cannot prove your point.  You can only offer up anecdotal evidence to prove your point.  If you have any real proof, I'd like to see it.  Don't interpret this as disrespect.  I was slammed by Monetary Sovereignty too.

http://rodgermitchell.com/TotalPublicDebtvsRecession.png

http://rodgermitchell.com/totaldebtvsinflation.png


----------



## Decker (Sep 13, 2012)

Swiper said:


> *Gary Johnson on All But Three Ballots*
> 
> September 12, 2012
> The Libertarian Party reports that Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in at least 47 states, plus the District of Columbia.
> ...


What the hell are you trying to say?


----------



## Decker (Sep 13, 2012)

heckler7 said:


> Bump for Ron Paul


Ron Paul is a Randian moron.  Don't waste your time son.  Get an education.  Paul is a diversion.


----------



## Swiper (Sep 13, 2012)

Decker said:


> What the hell are you trying to say?



I'm saying the two parties rep and dem support a huge expanding govt. it would be nice to see a small govt candidate in the debates, so people can see how phony the two main parties are.   do you understand what the hell I'm saying now?


----------



## Swiper (Sep 13, 2012)

Decker said:


> Ron Paul is a Randian moron.  Don't waste your time son.  Get an education.  Paul is a diversion.



the same can be said about you, but I won't say it......


----------



## Decker (Sep 13, 2012)

Swiper said:


> I'm saying the two parties rep and dem support a huge expanding govt. it would be nice to see a small govt candidate in the debates, so people can see how phony the two main parties are.   do you understand what the hell I'm saying now?


Not really.  The federal government is huge.  Giant.  Did I say it's big?  It is.  My dong is not even in competition with its size.  That means it's huge.

Small government dreaming is a romantic throwback.  It's not possible in modern society.  We have to work with what we have.  It's best you marry yourself to that understanding.


----------



## Decker (Sep 13, 2012)

Swiper said:


> the same can be said about you, but I won't say it......


Right.  Ron Paul is a visionary whom tells it like it is.  You're a child.  Keep reading.


----------



## LAM (Sep 13, 2012)

Decker said:


> You are incorrect. I can prove that balanced budgets cause recessions.  You cannot prove your point.  You can only offer up anecdotal evidence to prove your point.  If you have any real proof, I'd like to see it.  Don't interpret this as disrespect.  I was slammed by Monetary Sovereignty too.
> 
> http://rodgermitchell.com/TotalPublicDebtvsRecession.png
> 
> http://rodgermitchell.com/totaldebtvsinflation.png



it was a speculative bubble those graphs prove nothing.  the financial sector is built on speculation and risk there have been asset bubbles throughout US history following periods of technological advances or new business opportunity (like the bogus securities sold backed by mortgages in the 2000's).  it has happened repeatedly in the US and most other industrialized country's in the west and Japan over the decades.  

the 2001 recession was the end result of that which started with the 1996 Telecommunications Act which required the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECS) to unbundle their networks and provide access to new entrants, both for voice telephony and broadband Internet access.  this combined with the increasing numbers of dot.coms and rising stock share prices allowed the use of speculative capital to fuel over-investment in that sector.  in a nut shell there is only so much of an increase in productivity seen in an economy like the US based mainly on the service sector.

Bubbles, Crisis and Policy
Franklin Allen
Wharton Business School
http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~allenf/download/Vita/bubbles.pdf

and here is some data of some recent account balances of OECD country's.  based on your theory any country with a surplus should go into recession yet it did not happen.

Public Deficit by Country | Global Finance

and here is historical budget information from the US from 1789-2015.  there is absolutely  no correlation between a balanced budget and recessions as there are many years with a budget surplus and no recession.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions 
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html


----------



## Dale Mabry (Sep 14, 2012)

Decker said:


> No.
> 
> You are not understanding what I am saying.  The US has an infinite capacity to create dollars limited only by inflationary concerns.  There is no unsustainable debt.  It's a matter of values ... not spending.
> 
> ...



I don't believe people get what they deserve and I hate Ayn Rand, my thoughts are more Darwinian/Lamarckian.  When it comes to health and making smart decisions, that is typically what happens.  We are beyond genetic determinism with what we know about human health.  When I am talking about 80% of health costs, I am including cancers and such.  The way we are throwing money at the problem via pharmaceutical interventions that will never work is a waste.  The system has to be blown up.  Our entire system is run via subsidies that come directly from tax dollars.  So, in essence, when you pay your taxes you are investing in a system where people can do whatever they want and they have to rely on a system that doesn't work.  It will never work because that's not how evolution by natural selection works and humans are very much a part of that.  You could probably halve the deficit by removing the costs of Type 2 diabetes for 10 years, and that's only 1 disease which is obviously caused by lifestyle.  I'm not saying that leveling the playing field by removing subsidies will even work, people will still eat garbage, which is where taxes have the opportunity to save $$$.  It's just like preventative maintenance on a car, you put the small increments of money in up front and it saves you major money on repairs down the road.  In the same way, the cure for cancer lies in prevention, once you have it you're fucked, at least with what we have now.  You could very easily improve that situation, but taxes would be necessary to do that.   Pharmaceutical companies are driven by profit, not a divine urge to help you with your disease.  If that was their primary force they would be researching diet and exercise rather than researching drugs that can't compete with either.  Our entire society from top to bottom resists survival of the fittest.  You see this with stupid people cutting off their arm with a chainsaw and using the manufacturer.  It's also why I am for things like pell grants because the fittest don't necessarily come from the luckiest sperm.

This quote sums it up for me, " The only time it does not work is when the money managers are fucking crooks."  Any time human beings are involved there will be crooks.  Since we are human beings it will happen every time.


----------



## LAM (Sep 14, 2012)

Decker said:


> Taxes do destroy dollars in the economic sense.  The US does not depend on tax revenue to pay its bills.  The major and, as far as I'm concerned,only purpose taxes serve is to stop the accumulation of wealth.  It is, as you pointed out, a behavioral exercise.  Your point that taxes influence behavior does make sense.  And it is not inconsistent with my ultimate point about taxes.



taxes also give a fiat currency value when it has no intrinsic one by nature.  you can not take a fiat currency to a bank and redeem it for say gold or silver, it's nothing except worthless paper in that aspect.  there has never been a no-tax society that uses a fiat currency in world history.

the USD was taken completely fiat so it's prior debts could be reduced via monetary inflation and no gold had to be given in exchange for those USD's paid out.  the combination of fiat currency's, central banks and rehypothecation is the biggest banking scam ever.


----------



## Arnold (Sep 14, 2012)

why do we keep talking about Ron Paul? our government does not want him in office therefore he never will be.

we get two choices each election, a democrat and a republican, pick one if you care or if you really think it matters.

and even if Ron Paul won the popular vote they would find a way to make him lose just like they did Al Gore.


----------



## hypo_glycemic (Sep 14, 2012)

There's a reason why a Libertarian hasn't ever been president (nor ever will be)-- It looks good on paper, but would lead into a dictatorship.

There's a purpose for Government.


----------



## Swiper (Sep 14, 2012)

hypo_glycemic said:


> There's a reason why a Libertarian hasn't ever been president (nor ever will be)-- It looks good on paper, but would lead into a dictatorship.
> 
> There's a purpose for Government.




how so?


----------



## Swiper (Sep 14, 2012)

Decker said:


> Not really.  The federal government is huge.  Giant.  Did I say it's big?  It is.  My dong is not even in competition with its size.  That means it's huge.
> 
> Small government dreaming is a romantic throwback.  It's not possible in modern society.  We have to work with what we have.  It's best you marry yourself to that understanding.



perfect example of a "sheep" ^^^^


----------



## hypo_glycemic (Sep 14, 2012)

Swiper said:


> how so?



How so what?


----------



## Swiper (Sep 14, 2012)

hypo_glycemic said:


> How so what?



how would a libertarian president lead to a dictatorship?


----------



## LAM (Sep 14, 2012)

Decker said:


> Not really.  The federal government is huge.



when people make this statement they need to elaborate as it's quite vague and ambiguous.  do they mean small as in the number of people it employees? small as in the amount of GDP it contributes to consumption (currently about 20% of GDP)? 

considering that the corporation is a product of government there has yet to be a country with small government and many large firms in world history as they rely on it.  with out government most of the large firms or MNE's in the US would not exist.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 18, 2013)

*How The Government & Media Cheated Ron Paul*

[video=youtube;YXlWiTPn7pQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YXlWiTPn7pQ#![/video]


----------



## LAM (Feb 18, 2013)

Swiper said:


>



Ron Paul -  $41,077,461 
Ron Paul: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Representative 2012 | OpenSecrets

Romney
$446,135,997

Obama
$715,677,692

2012 Presidential Race | OpenSecrets

* capital choose who it wanted to be POTUS and it wasn't Ron Paul.  when the supreme court decisions gave capital the same "rights" as the individual in the US, democracy died....


----------



## Swiper (Feb 18, 2013)

LAM said:


> Ron Paul -  $41,077,461
> Ron Paul: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Representative 2012 | OpenSecrets
> 
> Romney
> ...



It all comes back to the media blackout of Paul. you can't get many donations if no one knows you're a top tier candidate.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 18, 2013)

*Ron Paul to host daily radio program and podcast*


Just because he?s retired from politics doesn?t mean Ron Paul is slowing down: the former congressman from Texas and three-time presidential hopeful will soon have his own spot on national radio.
Dr. Paul, who retired from Congress earlier this year after a failed bid at the Republican Party?s nomination for president, has inked a deal with the Courtside Entertainment Group that will let him broadcast brief one-minute radio commentaries twice a day across the country. Dr. Paul?s segments will also be compiled for a weekly podcast, available to download for those who miss his daily addresses.
_"There's no questioning the fact that Ron Paul is one of today's most impactful leaders. His thoughts and opinions have created a significant and loyal following that has made its presence known throughout the country,"_ Norm Pattiz, founder of Westwood One and Courtside Entertainment Group, says in a press release this week.
Dr. Paul, 77, says in a statement that he?s _?very excited_? to be presented with an opportunity that will let him ?_take the message of freedom to more people than ever, especially now when our country needs it so much.?_
_"Radio and podcasting are a much more powerful means of communication than speaking on the floor of Congress. I welcome this chance to work with Norm and Courtside and interact with America in a new way, delivering a message that is timelier than ever and a philosophy that people are clearly hungry to hear more about,?_ he says.
According to Courtside, Dr. Paul?s daily dispatches will be carried on an array of networks and on the Web and will begin March 18_. ?His new radio show for Courtside and his digital presence via podcasting create a platform that will be hugely successful,?_ predicts Pattiz.
Since retiring from Congress earlier this year, the former representative has remained politically outspoken, speaking publically in recent weeks about the United States? involvement in the African nation of Mali and the ongoing funding of foreign wars. His son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), was chosen by members of the Tea Party faction to speak to the country Tuesday evening to rebut US President Barack Obama?s State of the Union address. Rep. Paul ran against Pres. Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections.
http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-radio-courtside-252/


----------



## LAM (Feb 18, 2013)

Swiper said:


> It all comes back to the media blackout of Paul. you can't get many donations if no one knows you're a top tier candidate.



top tier for who?  you forget who runs the country, the people with all the wealth and not the ones making 1980's wages...that is the entire purpose of neo-liberal economic policy, to concentrate wealth and political power.  the left & the right are 2 heads of the same beast with only minor differences between them, it's that's why RP or anybody like him will never stand a chance.


----------



## cshea2 (Feb 18, 2013)

Not only that, let's say RP does get elected what then? You think congress obstructed Obama, how do you think they will treat RP. RP would probably have to sign executive orders left and right to push his agenda through, which goes against everything he stands for.


----------



## LAM (Feb 18, 2013)

cshea2 said:


> Not only that, let's say RP does get elected what then? You think congress obstructed Obama, how do you think they will treat RP. RP would probably have to sign executive orders left and right to push his agenda through, which goes against everything he stands for.



anybody that thinks a single person can change a totally corrupt political system which is designed to be that way is delusional.  democracy in the US has been corrupted for almost 50% of the time the country has existed and ever since the late 1800's.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 18, 2013)

cshea2 said:


> Not only that, let's say RP does get elected what then? You think congress obstructed Obama, how do you think they will treat RP. RP would probably have to sign executive orders left and right to push his agenda through, which goes against everything he stands for.




Or how about just going with the status quo like we've been doing for 100 plus years because it's working out so well.


----------



## cshea2 (Feb 18, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Or how about just going with the status quo like we've been doing for 100 plus years because it's working out so well.



I'm not saying the status quo is working, it's clearly broken. Just pointing out the challanges an outsider would have to deal with if they ever did get in office. Term limits on congressmen would have to come down from the executive. If we had politicians that were only there for 2 years they would be so much more motivated to pass meaningful legislation, or perhaps clean up the tax code.


----------



## LAM (Feb 18, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Or how about just going with the status quo like we've been doing for 100 plus years because it's working out so well.



changing the people doesn't change the game or don't you get that by now...how does it change anything in regards to how corporations and capital effect democracy?  the system was designed to have exactly what we do today, an oligarchy.  and you really think  they are going to relinquish power back to the people?  LMAO....

changes need to be reality based and not those based on magical thinking....


----------



## Swiper (Feb 18, 2013)

LAM said:


> changing the people doesn't change the game or don't you get that by now...how does it change anything in regards to how corporations and capital effect democracy?  the system was designed to have exactly what we do today, an oligarchy.  and you really think  they are going to relinquish power back to the people?  LMAO....
> 
> changes need to be reality based and not those based on magical thinking....



flame me all you want.
unlike you I look for solutions. I know it's hard for you to do,  but maybe one day you'll post a solution to the problems you talk about. But I doubt it.   it's easy to figure out what the problems are , not so much to get solutions.

 Paul as potus can make some changes.  
do you think he'd kill American citizens with drones, do you think he'd sign the patriot act, Internet "security" act, ndaa, ect...  he wouldn't sign any spending bills. tax hikes, wouldn't start wars. he'd bring all troops home. wouldn't bail out wall street. wouldn't raise debt ceiling,  and the list goes on and on.  not major changes but its a small start,  better than what we have.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 2, 2013)

[video=youtube;JOjK94kwn0U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JOjK94kwn0U#![/video]


----------



## heckler7 (Mar 2, 2013)

LAM said:


> changing the people doesn't change the game or don't you get that by now...how does it change anything in regards to how corporations and capital effect democracy?  the system was designed to have exactly what we do today, an oligarchy.  and you really think  they are going to relinquish power back to the people?  LMAO....
> 
> changes need to be reality based and not those based on magical thinking....


sadly I kinda agree



Swiper said:


> flame me all you want.
> unlike you I look for solutions. I know it's hard for you to do,  but maybe one day you'll post a solution to the problems you talk about. But I doubt it.   it's easy to figure out what the problems are , not so much to get solutions.
> 
> Paul as potus can make some changes.
> do you think he'd kill American citizens with drones, do you think he'd sign the patriot act, Internet "security" act, ndaa, ect...  he wouldn't sign any spending bills. tax hikes, wouldn't start wars. he'd bring all troops home. wouldn't bail out wall street. wouldn't raise debt ceiling,  and the list goes on and on.  not major changes but its a small start,  better than what we have.


I'm with you too I believe Ron Paul would be our best hope for doing what needs to be done despite his career. Altho I think any president that would go against the establishment would probably be assisinated


----------



## Swiper (Mar 3, 2013)

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!" -Ron Paul.


----------



## LAM (Mar 3, 2013)

Swiper said:


> This is not capitalism!" -Ron Paul.



basic economic principles tell you that the US at this point only vaguely resembles capitalism (at least the 1850s version of Smith's).  how long have many of us been saying this?


----------



## Swiper (Mar 5, 2013)




----------



## Arnold (Mar 5, 2013)

Yup, like I said in a previous thread this country is headed down the shitter!
No stopping this runaway train now.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 8, 2013)

[video=youtube;ORt_k7LjGDg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ORt_k7LjGDg#![/video]


----------



## secdrl (Mar 8, 2013)

I just negged Vancouver.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 15, 2013)




----------



## LAM (Mar 15, 2013)

Rand Paul is a joke.  he's singling out Obama for political policy that has been carried out for decades.  the killing of Americans on American soil isn't new it's just be made public.  dozens of US citizens have been killed by the government over the decades and most of them worked for the government.

I fucking hate that little weasel.  he's just like his father, constantly stating the obvious.  it's like watching Seinfeld.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 15, 2013)

LAM said:


> Rand Paul is a joke.  he's singling out Obama for political policy that has been carried out for decades.  the killing of Americans on American soil isn't new it's just be made public.  dozens of US citizens have been killed by the government over the decades and most of them worked for the government.
> 
> I fucking hate that little weasel.  he's just like his father, constantly stating the obvious.  it's like watching Seinfeld.




you just don't like his because he's singling out the man YOU voted for president, twice lmao.  And duh! of course he's singling him out, he's the current president!!


----------



## troubador (Mar 15, 2013)

LAM said:


> Rand Paul is a joke.  he's singling out Obama for political policy that has been carried out for decades.  the killing of Americans on American soil isn't new it's just be made public.  dozens of US citizens have been killed by the government over the decades and most of them worked for the government.
> 
> I fucking hate that little weasel.  he's just like his father, constantly stating the obvious.  it's like watching Seinfeld.



You're a joke, bitching about someone wanting to change what's been wrong for decades, a policy you disagree with, because he doesn't have a D by his name. It's like watching Grumpy Old Men.


----------



## LAM (Mar 15, 2013)

troubador said:


> You're a joke, bitching about someone wanting to change what's been wrong for decades, a policy you disagree with, because he doesn't have a D by his name. It's like watching Grumpy Old Men.



you would be the joke for believing him.  it took dozens and dozens of men decades and decades to destroy the US from within.  if you notice he just like his father only talks about the problems of the US government but NEVER EVER THE CAUSES or any timelines.  

if you actually knew anything about real problem solving and critical thinking then you would know this is the very first step.

all the Paul's have done is found a small niche between the 2 heads of the establishment and they cater to those that don't really know much about US or global history, politics or economics.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 15, 2013)

LAM said:


> you would be the joke for believing him.  it took dozens and dozens of men decades and decades to destroy the US from within.  if you notice he just like his father only talks about the problems of the US government but NEVER EVER THE CAUSES or any timelines.
> 
> if you actually knew anything about real problem solving and critical thinking then you would know this is the very first step.
> 
> all the Paul's have done is found a small niche between the 2 heads of the establishment and they cater to those that don't really know much about US or global history, politics or economics.



you're so small minded. there's no hope for you, mr "know it all"   

and obviously you don't listen to the Paul's much at all.  you probably get your info about them from the mainstream media and tv pundits.  otherwise you'd know a thing or two about them. it's clear you know nothing.


----------



## troubador (Mar 15, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you're so small minded. there's no hope for you, mr "know it all"
> 
> and obviously you don't listen to the Paul's much at all.  you probably get your info about them from the mainstream media and tv pundits.  otherwise you'd know a thing or two about them. it's clear you know nothing.



Conspiracy theorists tend to think they have knowledge that most do not, that they have some special ability to see what others don't. First LAM says Rand was stating the obvious then claims it's a joke to believe him. It's just a bunch of nonsense so he can get around to telling people he's special and everyone else is stupid. Kinda sad.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 29, 2013)




----------



## LAM (Apr 29, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you're so small minded. there's no hope for you, mr "know it all"
> 
> and obviously you don't listen to the Paul's much at all.  you probably get your info about them from the mainstream media and tv pundits.  otherwise you'd know a thing or two about them. it's clear you know nothing.



your right I don't listen to them or any other politician from any political party.  economics is all I care about and that information I get from historical texts and from peer reviewed papers and briefs written by economists and scholars.

I couldn't think of a bigger waste of time then listening to a 3rd rate doctor turned politician talking about "going back to a gold standard" *when there isn't one single economists or scholar in the world that agrees with him*.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 29, 2013)

LAM said:


> your right I don't listen to them or any other politician from any political party.  economics is all I care about and that information I get from historical texts and from peer reviewed papers and briefs written by economists and scholars.
> 
> I couldn't think of a bigger waste of time then listening to a 3rd rate doctor turned politician talking about "going back to a gold standard" *when there isn't one single economists or scholar in the world that agrees with him*.



nah, lets print trillion dollar coin instead  lmao!   your economists  have zero credibility.  
gold and silver, its the law of the land. try reading the constitution, moron.  

all your brilliant economist got us where we are today.  carry on...


----------



## Arnold (Apr 29, 2013)

Swiper said:


> all your brilliant economist got us where we are today.  carry on...



No bad and corrupt politics did.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 29, 2013)

Prince said:


> No bad and corrupt politics did.



a lot economist don't believe in free ture markets. they want, and have. a  gov centralized banking system so they can keep printing money to satisfy their failed Keynesian theory of economics.  a lot of economist get money from the gov in the form of grants for their school and employment.   they're corrupt like the politicians. if gov cuts spending they lose funding.  they have an invested interest in keeping the printing press going to support them. the gold standard would throw a monkey wrench in the current system.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 29, 2013)

LAM said:


> I couldn't think of a bigger waste of time then listening to a 3rd rate doctor turned politician talking about "going back to a gold standard" *when there isn't one single economists or scholar in the world that agrees with him*.



where has fait money worked?   it always fails. you seem to forget about history or simplify too stupid to grasp that. 

most if not all  of your economist you like to quote and pawn off as your own writings, get money from the gov.  so of course some oppose a gold standard. they need gov to keep printing and getting those grants. wake up, they're nothing more than peons leaching off gov. grants.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 30, 2013)




----------



## LAM (Apr 30, 2013)

Swiper said:


> where has fait money worked?   it always fails. you seem to forget about history or simplify too stupid to grasp that.
> 
> most if not all  of your economist you like to quote and pawn off as your own writings, get money from the gov.  so of course some oppose a gold standard. they need gov to keep printing and getting those grants. wake up, they're nothing more than peons leaching off gov. grants.



I knew all about fiat currency 25 years ago did you? I read about it books, I didn't "learn" about from a babbling politician that hasn't done one single thing in his career in politics.  Can you name one single piece of legislation with Ron Paul's name on it that has benefited anyone?

the simple fact is that the collapse of the Brenton Woods system in the early 70's and the USD going completely fiat is what has allowed the global financial sectors to grow so large and powerful.  debt was always "money" but now since the US has monetized every form of debt in the country it all equates to more money and power for them, the most unproductive sector of the US economy.  and with the US being the economic powerhouse of global finances since the end of WWII the US FED also is now the most powerful central bank in the world.

so please don't "try" to tell me about finance and what I don't know because I can recite this crap back and forth from memory.  I forget more every day on this subject than you know about it.


----------



## secdrl (Apr 30, 2013)

Negged Vancouver. (again)


----------



## LAM (May 2, 2013)

Swiper said:


> nah, lets print trillion dollar coin instead  lmao!   your economists  have zero credibility.
> gold and silver, its the law of the land. try reading the constitution, moron.
> 
> all your brilliant economist got us where we are today.  carry on...



wrong again idiot that was your man Milton Friedman who was an economic adviser to good old Red Ronnie Reagan..

*Milton Friedman's $8 trillion error*

"    . . . the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance ? vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

    This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.The first of these started when the Nixon administration defaulted on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world. Now, since we have lived beyond our means as a nation for nearly 40 years, our cumulative current-account deficit ? the combined shortfall on our trade in goods, services and income ? has reached nearly $8 trillion. That?s borrowed prosperity on an epic scale.

    It is also an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves. Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct.It may be true that governments, because they intervene in foreign exchange markets, have never completely allowed their currencies to float freely. But that does not absolve Friedman?s $8 trillion error. Once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors."

- David Stockman

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse
By DAVID STOCKMAN
Published: July 31, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=0


----------



## Swiper (May 2, 2013)

LAM said:


> wrong again idiot that was your man Milton Friedman who was an economic adviser to good old Red Ronnie Reagan..
> 
> *Milton Friedman's $8 trillion error*
> 
> ...



we don't have free markets nor do we have true capitalism.   how can you say that system has failed?   I'm more of a Mises, Hayek supporter not so much Milton.


----------



## Swiper (May 2, 2013)

*The Case for the Gold Standard*

*by David Stockman*​_Recently by David Stockman: Crony Capitalism Strikes Again_​

​

​
_This talk was delivered at the New York Historical Society on May 8, 2011._
It took 200 years to build and perfect the classic gold standard system; then it was destroyed in about seven weeks when the Guns of August 1914 thundered across Europe; and now I am allotted seven minutes to resurrect it. Fortunately, Churchill?s defense of democracy also applies to the daunting task at hand: To wit, the classic gold standard is the worst possible monetary system ? except for all of the alternative inflation-generating, savings-destroying, debt-breeding, bubble-emitting and boom and bust-prone systems which have been tried in the 100 years since its demise. Hence, we offer six present day monetary vices which are curable by gold:


First, the gold standard wouldn?t have allowed the US to incur nearly 40 straight years of massive current account deficits and to live high on the hog for decades by running a $7 trillion tab against its neighbors. Indeed, before Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman instituted their floating rate fiat money contraption in August 1971, nations were compelled to live within their means. Chronic profligacy and current account deficits resulted in a drain of gold abroad, causing a domestic contraction including tighter credit, higher interest rates and deflation of prices, wages and demand ? pressures which encouraged a speedy return to virtuous living and payments balance.
The gold standard tamed the demon of debt by delegating the pricing of money to the marketplace of savers and borrowers, not to an administrative board of interest rate riggers and manipulators. Consequently, a national leveraged buyout wasn?t possible under gold: the sky high interest rates needed to induce extra savings tended to harshly discourage binges of cheap money borrowing. Thus, the national leverage ratio ? the sum of public and private debt divided by GDP ? was 1.6 times in 1870, and was still 1.6 times a century later. Since 1971, however, the Fed has found repeated excuses to drive real interest rates toward zero or negative ? a maneuver which has generated explosive debt growth the easy way; that is, not by coaxing it from savers but by manufacturing bank credit out of thin air. Consequently, America had a full-fledged LBO and now its leverage ratio is off the charts at 3.6 times GDP. This means that our $15 trillion national economy is being crushed under $52 trillion of debt ? a figure $30 trillion larger than would have obtained under the golden constant.


The gold standard was an honest regulator of Wall Street greed. Under gold, we did not seek Bernanke-style faux prosperity by levitating the Russell 2000; nor did we crucify Main Street on a cross of obscurantist theory like the Taylor Rule whereby the Fed naively gifts Wall Street with limitless zero-cost funding for leveraged speculations in commodities, currencies, derivatives and equities; nor did we punish people who invest in savings accounts out of an abundance of caution while placing a central bank "put" under those who speculate with reckless abandon. Moreover, unlike the Fed?s money bubbles and crashes, which heavily punish Main Street, the so-called "panics" of the gold standard era ? those of 1873, 1884, 1893 and 1907 ? had the opposite aspect. They were largely sequestered on Wall Street and were rooted not in gold but in the glaring defects of the civil war era National Banking System. The latter drained nationwide banking reserves to the Wall Street call money market where it periodically fueled stock buying manias ? but these episodes were quickly ended when deposits reflowed back to the country banks at harvest time, causing call money rates to soar and panic to supplant euphoria on the stock exchanges.
The gold standard made the world safe for fractional reserve banking. To be sure, banking ? which is to say, scalping a profit from the interest spread between loans and deposits ? is the world?s second oldest profession. While arguably doers of god?s work, banksters become positively dangerous when backed by a sugar daddy central bank ? like the Fed or the People?s Printing Press of China ? willing to supply all the reserves needed for the endless inflation of bank credit and the destructive asset bubbles which follow. Under the gold standard, by contrast, commercial bank deposits and currency notes were convertible into gold on demand, and central bank reserve injections into the banking system were firmly checked by requirements to cover such liabilities with gold at a 35-50 percent ratio. Indeed, the folly of the Fed?s recent manic reserve creation was even foreseen by the father of fiat money, Milton Friedman of Chicago, and by its grandfather, too ? Irving Fisher of Yale. Both supported 100% reserve banking in lieu of the monetary discipline of gold. So give us gold or give us 100% reserve banking ? but not fractional reserve gambling halls superintended by a Princeton math professor with a printing press.


The gold standard made the world safe for fiscal democracy because chronic budget deficits generated immediate pain. If financed from savings, deficits caused higher interest rates and squeezed-out private investment; and if financed by central bank credit, they caused a deflationary drain on gold. Nowadays, however, central banks have become monetary roach motels ? places where treasury bonds go in but never come out. Consequently, sovereign debt has been drastically underpriced, causing Washington lawmakers to borrow lavishly and without fear.
Finally, the gold standard protected Main Street from the boom and bust of credit cycles. Such disturbances never issue from the people?s work, saving, investment and enterprise, but always and everywhere they originate in the banking system and the speculative precincts of Wall Street. So the central bankers? "Great Moderation" is a myth ? refuted by the compelling evidence that these gosplanners of fiat money do not tame the business cycle but intensify and exacerbate it is. Their printing presses fueled the stagflationary 1970s, the real estate bust of the late 1980s, the dot-com frenzy which followed, history?s greatest housing bubble which came next, and the "risk-on" mania of recent months. Among all the arguments against gold, the claim that it would worsen the business cycle is, on the evidence of 40 years now, surely the most specious.
_May 9, 2011_​_Former Congressman David A. Stockman was Reagan's OMB director, which he wrote about in his best-selling book, _The Triumph of Politics_. He was an original partner in the Blackstone Group, and reads LRC the first thing every morning._​Copyright ? 2011 David A. Stockman
The Case for the Gold Standard by David Stockman​


----------



## LAM (May 2, 2013)

Swiper said:


> we don't have free markets nor do we have true capitalism.   how can you say that system has failed?   I'm more of a Mises, Hayek supporter not so much Milton.



capitalism has been perverted in the US and every other country in the world since day 1, since the transition from mercantilism in the late 1800's.  we never followed the foundation of capitalism as was spelled out by say Adam Smith and others.  and since capital has the natural advantage over labor what is the end result when the table is constantly titled towards capital?  the complete and utter subjugation of labor by capital and that's where the US is today.  top down grants from the FED in the form of QE only makes the existing problem worst not better.

everybody understand the problem with the FED but the problem with Ron Paul's message is it's not realistic.  to end the FED in the US would come at the expense of the entire global financial system and global economy and the powers that be don't exactly want to live through the mess they have made. they are saving that "fun" for future generations to endure.


----------



## Swiper (May 3, 2013)

[video=youtube;CmqIerOV3EM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CmqIerOV3EM#![/video]


----------



## LAM (May 3, 2013)

Swiper said:


>



you do realize that global think tanks have stated everything Ron Paul has and more for the last 30-40 years?  he doesn't say anything new, he only states the obvious.


----------



## Swiper (May 4, 2013)

secdrl said:


> Negged Vancouver. (again)



this ones on me, I already negged Vancouver for ya.  lol 






[video=youtube;hjVs6NfR9vE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hjVs6NfR9vE#![/video]


----------



## Swiper (Aug 4, 2013)

Turn Off Your TV. Turn On the Truth. - The Ron Paul Channel


----------



## min0 lee (Aug 4, 2013)

*Ron Paul*​


----------



## IronAddict (Aug 4, 2013)

Ron Paul 2012, go!


----------



## Swiper (Aug 21, 2013)




----------



## jmoe (Sep 4, 2013)

I am a proud supporter of RP, and just subscribed to his channel, although I haven't been able to tune into it yet due to work.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 10, 2014)

*"What is Constitutional Money?" with Edwin Vieira -- Ron Paul Money Lecture Series, Pt 2/3*


Start at 3 mins.










*KNOW YOUR MONEY*

*History of United States Currency*

Early American colonists used English, Spanish and French money while they were under English rule. However, in 1775, when the Revolutionary War became inevitable, the Continental Congress authorized the issuance of currency to finance the conflict. Paul Revere made the first plates for this "Continental Currency." Those notes were redeemable in Spanish Milled Dollars. The depreciation of this currency gave rise to the phrase "not worth a Continental." 




After the U.S. Constitution was ratified, Congress passed the "Mint Act" of April 2, 1792, which established the coinage system of the United States and the dollar as the principal unit of currency. By this Act the U.S., became the first country in the world to adopt the decimal system for currency. The first U.S. coins were struck in 1793 at the Philadelphia Mint and presented to Martha Washington. 

The government did not issue paper money until 1861. In the interim years, however, the government did issue "Treasury notes" intermittently during periods of financial stress, such as the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846, and the Panic of 1857. 

During this same period (1793 - 1861), approximately 1,600 private banks were permitted to print and circulate their own paper currency under state charters. Eventually, 7,000 varieties of these "state bank notes" were put in circulation, each carrying a different design! 

With the onset of the Civil War, the government--desperate for money to finance the war--passed the Act of July 17, 1861, permitting the Treasury Department to print and circulate paper money. The first paper money issued by the government were "demand notes" commonly referred to as "greenbacks." In 1862, Congress retired the demand notes and began issuing United States notes, also called legal tender notes. 



Under Congressional Acts of 1878 and 1886, five different issues of "silver certificates" were produced, ranging from $1 to $1,000 dollar notes. The Treasury exchanged silver certificates for silver dollars because the size and weight of the silver coins made them unpopular. The last series of silver certificates was issued in 1923. However, the last series of modern silver certificates produced were the series 1957B/1935H $1 notes, series 1953C $5 notes, and 1953B $10 notes. 

During the period from 1863 to 1929, the Government again permitted thousands of banks to issue their own notes under the National Banks Acts of 1863 and 1864. These were called "national bank notes," but unlike the earlier "state bank notes," they were produced on paper authorized by the U.S. government and carried the same basic design. 

In 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, establishing this nation's Federal Reserve System. This Act authorized the Federal Reserve Banks to issue Federal Reserve Bank notes. In 1914, the Federal Reserve Banks began issuing Federal Reserve notes--the only currency still being manufactured today by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. 

http://www.secretservice.gov/money_history.shtml


----------



## Swiper (Mar 10, 2014)

*Federal Reserve's Transfer of Wealth, Dr. Edwin Vieira*


----------



## Swiper (Mar 10, 2014)

[h=1]Interpreting the U.S. Constitution, Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.[/h]


----------



## Swiper (Mar 10, 2014)

[h=1]Why the Federal Reserve Must Be Abolished[/h]


----------



## Swiper (Apr 18, 2014)




----------



## LAM (Apr 20, 2014)

Swiper said:


> *Federal Reserve's Transfer of Wealth, Dr. Edwin Vieira*



So do you finally understand why I despise the financial sector?


----------



## Swiper (Apr 20, 2014)

LAM said:


> So do you finally understand why I despise the financial sector?



yes but you're despising the effect not the cause. your not liking them should be directed at the federal reserve and the federal govt. for creating policies that gives them the ability to act the way they do. 
 For example: In a free market there would be no FDIC to insure bank deposits, so the banks would have to be more accountable to their customers. If people knew their deposits weren't federally insured up to $250,000 they'd do some research to find a reputable bank that won't gamble with their money. The FDIC gives the banks the ability to do what they do because the customers don't care, their cover either way, there's no accountability.  Without the FDIC insuring bank accounts the banks would have to compete to be the most transparent and trustworthy to gain and retain customers. 
That's just one example just image how much more the "free market" is distorted with the thousands of rules and regulations there are in the financial industry. the financial industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the world.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 20, 2014)

Swiper said:


> yes but you're despising the effect not the cause. your not liking them should be directed at the federal reserve and the federal govt. for creating policies that gives them the ability to act the way they do.
> For example: In a free market there would be no FDIC to insure bank deposits, so the banks would have to be more accountable to their customers. If people knew their deposits weren't federally insured up to $250,000 they'd do some research to find a reputable bank that won't gamble with their money. The FDIC gives the banks the ability to do what they do because the customers don't care, their cover either way, there's no accountability.  Without the FDIC insuring bank accounts the banks would have to compete to be the most transparent and trustworthy to gain and retain customers.
> That's just one example just image how much more the "free market" is distorted with the thousands of rules and regulations there are in the financial industry. the financial industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the world.



The FDIC is there because the banks want it there.  They don't want to be held accountable.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 20, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> The FDIC is there because the banks want it there.  They don't want to be held accountable.



exactly that's why we need to get rid of it.


----------



## Swiper (Sep 21, 2014)




----------



## LAM (Oct 6, 2014)

Many countries do not have deposit insurance it but they also have financial sectors that function very different from the U.S.  The U.S is on the extreme end of everything.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 6, 2014)

the financial industry is the most regulated industry in the US.


----------



## LAM (Oct 6, 2014)

Swiper said:


> the financial industry is the most regulated industry in the US.



Not hardly much of it is voluntary and financial products are so complex in nature the Feds don't have enough skilled people to monitor activities or have the man power to go through data which can easily take tens of thousands of man hours.  Considering that the entire U.S economy has been financialized it needs to be heavily regulated, history clearly shows that the financial sector in the U.S is highly exploitative in nature.  Many countries around the world don't even like fucking with the U.S financial sector because essential to compete with the shenanigans that goes on they also have to deregulate to the same degree or risk getting plundered themselves.  Most of the innovation that took place since the 80's is nothing more then legalized forgery since the financial sector can legally create new forms of money to create artificial profits that don't actually create anything of physical value and only exist in financial systems and move explicitly via financial channels.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 7, 2014)

LAM said:


> Not hardly much of it is voluntary and financial products are so complex in nature the Feds don't have enough skilled people to monitor activities or have the man power to go through data which can easily take tens of thousands of man hours.



One example is derivatives.


Good to see you back on the board, LAM.


----------



## MI1972 (Oct 8, 2014)

The most unregulated is the FED, and for that the most powerful.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 8, 2014)

MI1972 said:


> The most unregulated is the FED, and for that the most powerful.



And most distructive to the economy.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 16, 2014)

*Ron Paul: "All I Want For Christmas Is A (Real) Government Shutdown"*


The political class breathed a sigh of relief Saturday when the US Senate averted a government shutdown by passing the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill. This year?s omnibus resembles omnibuses of Christmas past in that it was drafted in secret, was* full of special interest deals and disguised spending increases*, and was voted on before most members could read it.
*The debate over the omnibus may have made for entertaining political theater, but the outcome was never in doubt.* Most House and Senate members are so terrified of another government shutdown that they would rather vote for a 1,774-page bill they have not read than risk even a one or two-day government shutdown.
*Those who voted for the omnibus to avoid a shutdown fail to grasp that the consequences of blindly expanding government are far worse than the consequences of a temporary government shutdown. A short or even long-term government shutdown is a small price to pay to avoid an economic calamity caused by Congress? failure to reduce spending and debt.*
The political class? shutdown phobia is particularly puzzling because a shutdown only closes 20 percent of the federal government. *As the American people learned during the government shutdown of 2013, the country can survive with 20 percent less government.*
Instead of panicking over a limited shutdown, a true pro-liberty Congress would be eagerly drawing up plans to permanently close most of the federal government, *starting with the Federal Reserve*. The Federal Reserve?s inflationary policies not only degrade the average American?s standard of living, they also allow Congress to run up huge deficits. Congress should take the first step toward restoring a sound monetary policy by passing the Audit the Fed bill, so the American people can finally learn the truth about the Fed?s operations.
*Second on the chopping block should be the Internal Revenue Service.* The federal government is perfectly capable of performing its constitutional functions without imposing a tyrannical income tax system on the American people.
*America?s militaristic foreign policy should certainly be high on the shutdown list.* The troops should be brought home, all foreign aid should be ended, and America should pursue a policy of peace and free trade with all nations. Ending the foreign policy of hyper-interventionism that causes so many to resent and even hate America will increase our national security.
All programs that spy on or otherwise interfere with the private lives of American citizens should be shutdown.* This means no more TSA, NSA, or CIA*, as well as an end to all federal programs that promote police militarization. The unconstitutional war on drugs should also end, along with the war on raw milk.
*All forms of welfare should be shut down,* starting with those welfare programs that benefit the wealthy and the politically well connected. Corporate welfare, including welfare for the military-industrial complex that masquerades as ?defense spending,? should be first on the chopping block. Welfare for those with lower incomes could be more slowly phased out to protect those who have become dependent on those programs.
*The Department of Education should be permanently padlocked.* This would free American schoolchildren from the dumbed-down education imposed by Common Core and No Child Left Behind. Of course, Obamacare, and similar programs, must be shut down so we can finally have free-market health care.
*Congress could not have picked a worse Christmas gift for the American people than the 1,774-page omnibus spending bill. Unfortunately, we cannot return this gift. But hopefully someday Congress will give us the gift of peace, prosperity, and liberty by shutting down the welfare-warfare state.

*http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-15/ron-paul-all-i-want-christmas-real-government-shutdown


----------



## dogsoldier (Dec 16, 2014)

If a real shutdown happens, the biggest fear of the Washington Political class is people may finally wake up and realize, WE DON"T REALLY NEED THEM!


----------

