Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Yes it does. Thank you.
Did Ron Paul Win Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri?
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..."
"...avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty."
Washington
"...avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty."
Washington
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that about sums it up.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
"Ron Paul is batshit crazy" - Carne Seca
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I like how he says "republican liberty" and calls him self a libertarian while introducing libertarian ideals as something new that has somehow always been associated with ruthless free-market capitalism. It is like he wants to reinvent liberalism into a conservative thing. The scary thing is that people consider it blasphemy to call bullshit. It really is a cult. So Ron Paul paints himself as the only guy who believes in personal liberty. Will we see "personal liberty" next to "small government" and "tax cuts" as the ideals that the GOP stands for from now on?
Aside from that, he doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning this election. The only thing I like about him is that the GOP apparently hates him.
Really Rawn Pawl? Get rid of the EPA? The environment getting in the way of the profit margin of the rich people you represent?
mame
Well-Known Member
What proof do I have? OK, how about this: Without the auto bailout, GM likely wouldn't exist today, right(since you say we should've "let the losers fail" I'm assuming you agree with that statement)? Well right now, because of said bailout, GM is now the number one automaker in the world. They aren't merely existing. They've already taken the top spot and they're seeing growth in both emerging markets and the US.
And you dont "let market corrections happen" when an economy develops into magneto trouble, because the economy will continue to stall until debt levels go down and aggregate demand goes up. Sure, that happens eventually but leaving market forces to their own devices is 1) slow (think Japan's lost decade), and 2) hurts long term growth prospects. The second is the most important point, because hurting our growth prospects presumably increases the burden of public debt. You care about our nations debt? Then you should be worried about maximizing GDP growth to go along with any revenue increases and/or spending cuts...
Actually, internal discussions within the WH at the time indicated that the WH was split. Some advisors pressed for a bigger package but others were worried about the bond vigilantes and so the WH figured a smaller package would be better than a larger package because if it was too small they could just go back for more (and if they were right about the bond market reactions - which they weren't BTW - they'd have a harder time controlling the effects of having too large a package).
edit: obviously the WH was retarded in their choice, because the bond vigilantes never showed and now stimulus seems to be a political impossibility.
You're a liar.
I think for myself. You're just a stupid little kid who has to lie about others because you're a loser who supports failure yet you can't own up to it.
Hows the economy? you wont answer
Hows the unemployment level? did it get to 8 percent like the ones you said were right? you wont answer
How did getting he troops out in 16 months go? you wont answer
First off you imbecile. The housing market was regulated until you get your head out of your ass you wont see it. You heard a talking head say otherwise, did zero research, which is your m o. Then spewed bullshit like it was the truth.
No lending institution lent money to people with low to no down payment, a bad credit history and low earning power. UNTIL the market was manipulated and regulated. Besides a dumb twat like you who else would make those kind of reckless loans in the free market? NO ONE. That's why it didn't happen in the free market. The loans were backed by the people through freddie and fannie. On top of that Banks had to "qualify" for doing other forms of business by making those reckless loans.
Lying again. I already answered different to what you have lied about. Dont let those facts get in the way either. Again some may fail, or bankruptcy being restructured, or bought up by others. Not everyone looses their job. But keep lying.
You ignorant dick smoker. The mini depressions recovery had nothing to do with the start of FDRs depression. That was caused by the Federal Reserve artificially setting interest rates lower than market which caused mal investment. Stay in the shallow end and drink more kiddie urine instead of trying to swim with the big boys.
I've already given you proof you mindless twat. all you come up with is mindless banter.
Which statement wa false. point it out or STFU
Being an ignorant dick smoker as you are it is no wonder you missed it. Continuing to bail out the banks AND the way he did it, through the man he hired, Geithner, as well a bailing out banks in Europe is what your man did. Are you going to tell me no banks were bailed out in Europe either you lying sack of turtle shit?
btw Congress didn't tell Obama how to accomplish this either. that's something else you don't know
Show me proof going away from the free market has ever worked? The housing industry worked alot better with government intervention.
You haven't said anything factual. You just bullshit like this through an entire post and dont provide facts.
You haven't pointed out what I said that was factually incorrect except to say "you're wrong" without pointing to what was wrong.
I would ask for proof and not some talking head statement you heard on the news and took as fact without backing it up.
if you're talking about how Obama handled bailing out banks here as well as initiating the bailing out of European Banks I'm still waiting.
What did I tell you about scratching the surface. Its like when you scratch your ass. A temporary fix but it doesn't solve the problem. Come back when you find out what Obama did to the bailouts. Did you miss the point about Obama bailing out european banks too?
LMAO You havent come up with any facts. Just a bunch of half assed conclusions drawn on speculation. You wouldnt know a fact from pussy. You havent had much practice if any with either.
Not terrible bad people necessarily. Just a dumbass . Since when is following the constitution is crazy? Since when is having gold as a competing currency in order to have sound money crazy? Since when is not spending more than you take in crazy? Since when is not manipulating the free market like we saw in the housing industry which put us in this horrible economic spot a crazy?
Go ahead and try to answer those questions.
But yea we'll listen to your half baked posts with nothing to back it up right?
This is incorrect. Have you never heard of anyone declaring bankruptcy and restructuring? Have you never heard of anyone being purchased by another company like Chase did to WAMU.
here's the point you miss because you stop thinking. At what cost? Why couldn't the other companies be number one? Are you saying only GM could be number one? The others were obviously better since they didnt fail. So instead, the losers are rewarded using the tax payers money and while the stronger and better companies didn't get their fair chance all because the president waved his hand and annoited someone (his buddies) the winner. Bush did the same thing. The argument over Obamas bailouts by the two faced repubs wasn't over, it shouldn't be done, but who gets the money. Meaning which of their buddies would get the handout.
LMAO STFU and quit posting. Japan has failed for the one reason. They have not let the market corrections take place. I think the count is up to 10 bailouts . TEN
Your statement may be the worst every about economics on this forum.
just when i thought it wouldn't get worse you post this. The free market bottoms out quick because it doesn't get propped up and bailed out. We saw that with the mini depression in the early 1920's. It lasted 2 years, Unemployment went from 12 to under 4 while government spending and taxes were cut by 40 percent over that time. It doesn't languish like Japan is still doing.
Why quote GDP as it is another meaningless government statistic the talking heads use. Let government hire a supervisor and someone to dig a ditch. Then fill back up the ditch. Guess what? GDP increases hip hip hurray we're saved jobs are created yeaaa
Yet nothing is accomplished. Except guess what? The taxpayers loose money they would have spent wisely. Instead they give it to inefficient government. We know for a fact government is inefficient. When we spend the money it creates jobs. When government spends the money they create debt since the people are forced to pay for it.
Government has an almost endless supply of our money. You got that part right.
It seems to me that Ron Paul is the only non corrupt candidate and I am surprised he has been allowed to get this far without being found hung in his garage. The media has tried not to mention Ron Paul unless they are attacking him. This is because he is the only one who can't be corrupted. The mainstream media is completely controlled. Its the same in the UK, you think you have democracy because there are 2 main rival parties. The media focusses on these 2 choices and there seems to be a big battle going on. Yet no matter who gets voted in, the wars continue seamlessly, like it makes no difference at all. Democracy is largely an illusion. Obama gets in, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize, but why? What changed? The wars actually increased! Truly Orwellian. The truth is that the media controls what people believe, the media is controlled by big business, they put into power who they want in power and they generally own the big players in both main parties. They literally can't lose. They can destroy the reputation of anyone who looks like a threat, yet they have failed with Ron Paul because he is a genuinely incredible man. The RP campaign uses the internet to promote which is why they are desperately looking for ways to censor the internet. The western world is heading to a very dark place. At least Ron Paul provides a glimmer of hope and least he is for real. If I was in the US he would get my vote regardless of whether I thought he could win or not. All the other candidates are essentially the same thing, corrupt elite wankers who were already sold out at birth. I stopped submitting myself to the media brain washing quite a while back, it took a while to come out of it and see the world as it is.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. – Thomas Jefferson
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin
“I'm convinced that you never have to give up liberties to be safe. I think you're less safe when you give up your liberties.”
― Ron Paul
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to
whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson
"War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures." Ron Paul
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” Ron Paul
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin
“I'm convinced that you never have to give up liberties to be safe. I think you're less safe when you give up your liberties.”
― Ron Paul
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to
whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson
"War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures." Ron Paul
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” Ron Paul
You made that up Ron Paul is a republican with libertarian leanings. He has never mentioned it is a new though process either.
You made that up to to fit a twisted agenda. I want to see some proof of this.
You spew bullshit and it is not a cult, You cannot attack his policies because they have been proven successful in the past so you make shit up. Not one thing about policy in this entire childish rant of yours.
Show me any of the other candidates who do. I cant wait to hear your bullshit on this.
War on Drugs ring a bell? Who supports doing away with that and allowing the adults to be personally responsible? I'll help with your answer no one but Ron Paul.
The GOP is just as lost as the dems are. They both believe in big federal government running the lives of adults.
You dont get to make the call about if he wins or not. If he doesn't, we all loose as nothing much will change unless you are the buddies of the ones in power. Wake up!
You are right on one thing, the big government GOP control freaks, as well as the big government control freak dems dont like him either.
Because you dont believe in candidates that favor personal responsibility. Even though your idiotic posts claims there are other candidates who do. They do only when they choose to allow the people too.
Can't sue the company because the EPA says that company met the guidelines. When you hold the company accountable they either take care of business or go out of business. Does that little pea brain of yours think with the age of information we live in now and all the means we have to acquire proof companies wouldn't be held accountable?
As much shit as I give you mush brains I hope some watch the debates and tell me what they disagree about when Ron Paul speaks and why. If you would quote his wording as closely as you possible can and not what the media or the turtle fornicators say his words are. I dont think that is asking too much.
I'd really love to know what the disagreement is about. Gonna run for a while and take care of the non turtleturd blueberry.
I'd really love to know what the disagreement is about. Gonna run for a while and take care of the non turtleturd blueberry.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
The reason that most Ron Paul supportes believe in most of his stances on individual issues, is because he votes on basic principle. Economically, he never votes for taking money from one group and giving it to another, he believes in economic freedom. On Foreign Policy, he believes in the golden rule and the idea that we should only use violence to defend ourselves. On social issues, he believes in free choice. He stands by these basic principles unlike the other politicians, so his views on certain issues are predictable and always in line with the founding beliefs of this nation. This is why you cannot convince a Ron Paul supporter to change his mind. We don't discuss politics to individually debate whatever issue. We believe in something much deeper, which is the message that we can all be free and control our own lives. Freedom is powerful and we will never stop fighting for it.
"What’s so maddening about hearing Romney or Gingrich talk is that there’s someone standing there saying things, but there’s no soul in it. These are not free men. These are power men. Not that Romney or Gingrich don’t have souls. They do. They are men just like you and I. But they have practically forfeited their souls to try and attain power, to control others with spin and talking points and contradictory statements like “I want to cut the budget and expand the military!” and they’ll say it with a polished tone and a straight face, just like a soulless recording. Their humanity is so buried under the mountain of lies they have told themselves, that neither they themselves nor you can even sense their souls in the human continuum. The scene of a human body speaking but no soul communicating can drive a free man mad." Rafi
"What’s so maddening about hearing Romney or Gingrich talk is that there’s someone standing there saying things, but there’s no soul in it. These are not free men. These are power men. Not that Romney or Gingrich don’t have souls. They do. They are men just like you and I. But they have practically forfeited their souls to try and attain power, to control others with spin and talking points and contradictory statements like “I want to cut the budget and expand the military!” and they’ll say it with a polished tone and a straight face, just like a soulless recording. Their humanity is so buried under the mountain of lies they have told themselves, that neither they themselves nor you can even sense their souls in the human continuum. The scene of a human body speaking but no soul communicating can drive a free man mad." Rafi
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
If what I'm saying is false, it should be really is to prove. All you have to do is tell me something about Ron Paul you disagree with. It should be very easy. No free thinking human agrees with another human 100% of the time. If you do agree with Ron Paul 100% of the time that is proof that you are not thinking for yourself.
Actually I can point to two pieces that made the financial crisis possible and the bailouts necessary. Without those two pieces of legislation, none of this would have been possible.
The first one is Gramm-Leech-Bliley which removed the great depression era regulation (glass steagal). Glass Steagal prevented commercial lending institutions from participating in Wall St gambling so we would not have another run on the banks like we did in the great depression. And when we deregulated the banks removing those safeguards, we had exactly that, a run on the banks. When we had big government making sure those things were separate, we never had a problem, but when we decided government was too big and we needed to get government out of the way of business, within ten years we had a run on the banks which nearly took the whole economy down and did cause a massive recession.
The second was commodities futures modernization act. Government was too big and we didn't need the nanny state regulating every little thing Wall St sold. So we decided to let Wall St regulate itself when it came to certain exotic financial products like psudo-insurance on bundled mortgages. So Wall St decided to give the insurance on these bundled mortgages all AAA ratings no matter how bad the mortgages were. This allowed banks to hand out all the mortgages they wanted to, because no matter how shitty they were, they could sell them so they wouldn't be held financially liable for them. So this is what made it possible for the banks to hand out all these bad mortgages. It was because they were no longer responsible for people defaulting on them. This would not have been possible before we deregulated CDC's and CDS's.
Now when all these fraudulently packaged mortgages did start to fail and people started to figure out what these products were, the economy crashed. But rather than the damage being limited to Wall St and the Real estate market, it nearly destroyed every major bank in America because thanks to Gramm-Leech-Bliley, they were aloud to gamble their customers money on Wall St and were invested up to their eye balls in these fraudulent products.
Now when you keep accusing me of parroting TV talking heads and not doing my own research when I have facts to back up everything I'm saying, while the only proof you have is the words of Ron Paul, you make yourself look incredibly ignorant and only reinforce my claim that you are incapable of thinking for yourself.
I realize you prefer blindly accepting conservative rhetoric over facts. But you can't curse away the facts. The facts exist no matter how many times you call me a dumb twat. Deal with it.
You realize that in almost every case a bankruptcy restructuring is just a polite way of saying "massive layoffs" and the result of all those solutions you mentioned results in massive layoffs. If it were up to you, GM would have failed, millions would have lost their jobs, and GM would likely be a very minor auto company (if they existed at all) who just sold off most of their brands to the companies who could afford to buy them at that time, mainly honda and toyota. But thankfully big government stepped in and loaned them money. Now GM is the number one auto company in the world and everyone got to keep their jobs! Socialism! Fuck yeah!
The proof is the American economy from 1940-1980. It was the peak of American economic strength for the citizens of the country. It was also the most regulated market in our history. Tax rates were at record highs, especially on the ultra wealthy. The middle class was at an all time high in wealth and size, poverty and crime were low, people could live normal lives without excessive debt. Home ownership was high. And America was the greatest economic superpower in the world.
So there is your proof.
Now, please show me proof of where an industrialized nation has been successful with a free market system.
Actually I have over and over again. I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you. You claimed that Obama passed the bank bailouts into law. That was factually incorrect. The Troubled Assets Relief Program or what is referred to as "the bank bailouts" was enacted into law by president GW Bush in 2008, not by Obama. I can't force you to stop ignoring the facts though.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Well said.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
What does that mean specifically? What's your definition of non-corrupt? I hear people say that about him, but I don't understand why you are saying it. Ron Paul has made millions in profit off of his position in congress. He's accepted lobbyist PAC money every time it's been offered. He's got an accountable to no one superpac where he runs smear campaigns without his name on them. He accepts the money from any and every industry that has offered it to them. He's even accepted campaign money from known white supremacy groups.
So what do you mean he's the only non corrupt candidate? Because corporations do not offer him as much money because they know Ron Paul can't win that means he's some how less corrupt than other politicians? I don't get that.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
You aren't talking about the constitution, you are worshiping a politician.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Dan, if you really want to understand, then you should at least watch this video and read these two articles. Take off whatever bias you have against us and truly take the time to read this information and tell me what you think. This is the reason why we are so dedicated to our cause:
[video=youtube;eUXNfk4MMlI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUXNfk4MMlI&feature=youtu.be[/video]
http://settlersofsamaria.org/vote-ron-paul-free-israel/
http://www.examiner.com/ron-paul-in-charleston/the-secret-behind-ron-paul-s-devoted-following
Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others. – William Allen White
An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he a establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. – Thomas Paine (1795)
Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. – Thomas Paine (1776)
Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. – William Penn (1693)
The spirit of truth and the spirit of freedom – they are the pillars of society. – Henrik Ibsen (1877)
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? – Thomas Jefferson (1801)
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. – Winston Churchill (1903)
The strength of the Constitution, lies in the will of the people to defend it. – Thomas Edison
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Patrick Henry
The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. – Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 BC
Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free. – Harry Browne
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. – Noam Chomsky
The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills. – Thomas Jefferson