At least I have the courage to post my name, proof.

We cut off japanese oil to give them no choice but to attack us.

Dadgum. Did they forget to lock the doors at the insane asylum? Which History Channel do you get, the one from the alternative universe?

See, shapeshitter, here’s a compadre of yours, flinging more monkey crap and making a complete ass out of himself. Congratulations, you are the weakest link.

It has become historically accepted that FDR knew of the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance but did nothing to stop it (aside from sending most of the carriers out to sea ahead of the attack).

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

It has become historically accepted that FDR knew of the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance…

Y2K; if you repeat something over and over, eventually you can regard it as “accepted”, no matter how false it might be.

I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with.

That statement doesn’t even mean anything. This is one of the areas where he acts like a politician. He probably doesn’t agree with them on any number of things, not least their conspiracy theories, but he doesn’t want to say that flat out and lose their support. So he hedges. He’s human, what else is new? He is still the best candidate the Republicans have to offer.

As far as what he plans to do, I would think that much is obvious: Bring the troops home, veto unconstitutional legislation, eliminate abuses of executive power and use the office of the President to bring the issues that actually matter to the forefront of public discussion. Congress will act if the President convinces the people to demand it.

Sure, I sent some $$ to BO (Barrack Obama?)a few months back and so far, I’m liking this RP…I have never voted Republican and never will…

And on the basis of his supporters, you wonder why more conservatives and Republicans haven’t embraced him!

The government never lies!

Nobody here says that!
In the real world, there are more choices than “The government never lies!” and “I support Ron Paul.”

…he’s for Hemp Farming…he’s just looking for the $$$ by sitting on the fence…

So, he’s in favor of harvesting the hemp farmers!
Sweet!

Wanting to find out what went wrong on 9/11 is different from thinking it “was a plot to create an excuse for war”. Please link or quote the “rant” you speak of; otherwise, it’s just more libel.

Proof: I don’t think using Hitlary and the Breck Girl as examples for Republican conduct is such a good thing!

For better or worse, they represent 2/3 of the Dems frontrunners. The fact that they were caught in a rare moment of honesty is just icing on the cake!

I also favor giving Paul a public forum, so that the public will see who he really is,

Hell! Give him a sitcom! Even the Geico cavemen got one of those!
The point is, that if there are two serious candidates in a debate of twelve wannabees, serious debate cannot take place because of the noise and clutter of all the “vanity” candidates.

I won’t bother debating your childish remarks.

Because your facts won’t even stand up to childish remarks! You should see me when I really have to think about my arguments! (Besides, it allowed me to put in the mad cow joke! Pardon me for expecting the Ronettes to have a sense of humor!)
Wow! 2.4 million dollars from a nation of 300 million plus. It’s like every man, woman and child in the U.S. donated seventy-five cents apiece to get Ron Paul elected!
That’s a real ground swell! I spend more than that on dental floss, which, coincidentally, excites me more than Ron Paul!

Congress will act if the President convinces the people to demand it.

That’s not the President’s job; neither is it his job to surrender to the sworn enemies of our way of life, be they Dems, the MSM or Islamic terrorists.

Just because John Birchers support him doesn’t make Ron Paul a supporter of all their views. They have some things in common, that’s all. For example, they share a respect for the constitution. Why don’t you just focus on Ron Paul’s message rather than try to smear him indirectly by what a supporter might believe? You have to remember, politicians will take anyone they can get. Believe me, Hillary Clinton would welcome John Birchers with open arms.

You say:
“Of course, Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was a plot to create an excuse for war in Afghanistan/Iraq…”

This isn’t true. Listen to this interview to hear his position:

http://www.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=88843f40-d80f-4316-aa51-48064bc0d163

I notice that the author of this “piece” does not put his name on it. That however, will not protect him. His computer can still be traced. This is libel, pure and simple. It is about time someone filed a lawsuit against people who spout lies in print. I hope you have a lot of cash because a lawsuit can get pretty expensive, especially when you have no defense on your side. Being a “blogger” does not give you the right to print defaming lies about people.

Why is it that all of the people who are against Ron Paul can only attack him for things he did not say, or stances he does not support. Now, I don’t say everyone has to like the guy, but if you are going to say something against him, at least let it be based on truth and facts.

Slow down, learn about the Dr. and find out WHY his supporters are so enthusiastic about him. All he wants to do is: stop needless killing, help the poor, end monetary inflation, stop government invasions on our civil liberties, protect the economic sector from expensive wasteful regulations, bring down prices for all, protect the incoming generation from being burdened with crushing debt, protect our young people from a possible draft, and stop letting the government take billions of dollars a year from the lower and middle classes and give it to the upper 1%. So what is so wrong with that?

Who wants the opposite of any of that?

If you want to learn HOW go to lewrockwell.com find the Ron Paul file and READ.

This isn’t really that hard folks. His supporters like him because he is trustworthy, has a great track record and will actually make changes that are great for this country. Or do you think bombing another country will fix all our problems here?

Before you can fix a problem you must understand it. Show me another candidate who understands as much economics as Ron Paul does.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly the same answer Hillary gave when she was asked about her cattle futures profits; when asked if anything illegal or unethical led to those profits, she answered: “There’s no evidence of that.” As lawyers, Hillary and Paul know how to weasel out of things.

So your response is to call him a liar. You’re presented with evidence that contradicts your current opinion, and your response is to dismiss it. You’re free to call him a liar and spin his own words, but you should back it up with something better than a weak Clinton comparison.

WTF,LTF? You can string together words like

elitist monarchical self-indulgent orientation

but you can’t say:

“I’m sorry. I was mistaken.” ?

worthy of…arrogance

How about the arrogance of someone delusional enough to accuse someone of deleting his posts when he merely looked on the wrong thread? How gauche would you have to be to not apologize for the accusation?

Even “Read-My-Lips” Bush I was a fairly unknown quantity, other than the fact that he was Reagan’s veep!

All this talk about Ron Paul being in sympathy with the John Birch Society and being excluded from debates begs the more critical question, the only truly important question: Let us assume every political belief of Ron Paul was 100% in harmony with conservative beliefs, which is impossible because nothing even close to 100% of conservatives agree with each other on anything; none of this matters if Ron Paul does not have the leadership qualities, communication skills and personality that excites the electorate. It is not the fault of the electorate if Ron Paul lacks the necessities to garner sufficient support among conservatives and right of center moderates to make him a serious candidate.

If we want to make an intelligent choice for the Republican Party nominee, we better stop squabbling (Making noisy arguments over a petty matters); we better push forward a serious candidate with the necessities mentioned to get the nomination with the unanimous support of the party and able to gain the White House, or be faced with the disgusting alternative of, “Ladies and Gentlemen, President Hillary Clinton.”

While at this moment I think Fred Thompson appears to have more of those necessities that any of the other Republican candidates, he needs to stop playing games, announce his candidacy and see if he is a serious contender within the party and the nation or just a Hollywood actor that absent a tightly written script is an empty suit.

Still, the more the public gets to hear what they have to say, the sooner the fools will be weeded out,

Maybe a reality show, like that house they put MC Hammer and Ron “the Hedgehog” Jeremy in. We could hear whatever they wanted to say and they would have the same impact on the election as if they were actually in it!

Mike: I didn’t call him a liar; I called him a weasel. He gave a dishonest answer, in that if he really believed that 9/11 was a govt conspiracy, he should have said so outright, and if he really believed that the terrorists were responsible, he should have said that, but he gave a weasely answer, to cover all his bases. You are the liar, sir.

He has said on the house floor BEFORE 9/11 that our foreign policy would lead us into trouble. He has said after 9/11 that our foreign policy played a significant role in bin Laden attacking us. These two facts contradict the claim that the man thinks it was an inside job. Yet, you perpetuate the false claim.

He doesn’t need to state what he believes in the interview, it’s already been established that he feels our policies are to blame.

So you said he’s a weasel, and likened him to Clinton. I’m sorry, but the only weasel I see here is you in making such a bogus claim in defense of another bogus claim.

His comment is the evidence, and I spun nothing; you lied about that, too. I took his statement as he said it. I realize that politics is the art of making people on both sides of an issue think that you support them, and Paul is simply another politician trying to get elected.

You said he was weaseling (your opinion you gave), which he was not. He frequently answers in manner he did in this interview, and even though he could answer better, I forgive him because guess what: He’s simply not a typical politician. His response to Guiliani during that infamous debate is evidence of this. He could have responded directly and said “No, I’m not saying that America was to blame” like he did afterwards when he was talking to Hannity, but he instead responded went on to clarify his position. That’s how he is. He should work on that, I will agree on that point.

Again: Paul does NOT think 9/11 was an inside job. Those who state otherwise are either lying or haven’t done any fact checking.

shpshftr: You just don’t get it, it is Ron Paul’s job to sell his ideas and demonstrate leadership skills by winning over members of the party and the country, getting them to believe he has the necessities to win and do the job. So far he has failed miserably in that task and all of your attempts at correcting the false image is wasted energy if Paul is unable to sell himself. Even if all your assertions are true and I believe many are, Paul is not capable of inspiring people to follow him – that is his fault. You are naive if you think the Truth and facts will win the day, they won’t, not unless they are promoted by an appealing, competant messenger.

I find your Quote sort of funny after reading what you write. lol It’s so typical of the conflict we consider to be reality and the desires we what to have as a reality.

“It is the mission of each true knight, His duty… nay, his privilege! To dream the impossible dream, To fight the unbeatable foe, To bear with unbearable sorrow, To run where the brave dare not go; To right the unrightable wrong., To love, pure and chaste, from afar, To try, when your arms are too weary, To reach the unreachable star!”

This is one of those fights Neiman. If you think it’s simply another day at the park, your mistaken.

shpshftr

What is your opinion on NAU and the Amero?

I am ideologically opposed to both. However, I am a proponent of free trade, which we have a limited degree of now. It is unnecessary to directly tie our economy to other NA countries, or our currency to, say, the Mexican Peso. There is a reason that different countries have different rates of GDP growth, and we would be stunted by a union with Mexico. Canada, on the other hand, is our #1 oil provider. If that berg wasn’t full of socialists, I’d say we should annex the entire place. (Just joking about that.)

And Matt, Paul has done all the damage that need be done to his reputation. Nobody on SAB, including Rob, has said one thing that is untrue about the good doctor. Why you unicorn-riding idiots ascribe super-powers to Paul is uncertain, but it is important for you to remember where the life rafts are. Your ship is foundering.

I see a lot of reactive chatter here. Many of you are simply “media informed.” That means that you are willing to base your opinions on rumors, partial truths and innuendo.

I see Ron Paul as consistent and honorable. He understands history, and the banking system. He may be the only candidate that can free the us from clutches of the fanatics currently in office that are promoting and forcing the Amero and the NAU (Not C Theories) with little relevant public knowledge. Ron Paul does this by empowering the American people, not by restricting their rights with fear based war tactics.

Want to see truth? Want to understand why things are the way they are? Put all other subjects aside. Do a Google video search for “Money As Debt” and then tell me who you think you should vote for. I vote for Ron Paul on this one subject alone.

shpshftr
I know that there is truth where we often do not like to look; for fear of finding out something about ourselves that is ugly. (It’s time to Empower The People)
shpshftr 2007

skh said this: “Nobody on SAB, including Rob, has said one thing that is untrue about the good doctor”

Rob said this: “Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was a plot to create an excuse for war in Afghanistan/Iraq”

This is false. RP has stated many times that he does *not think this.

Unless, of course, Ron Paul is lying about what he thinks, and only Rob knows the truth about what Ron Paul thinks.

And you say we ascribe superpowers to the good doctor?

Proof… shoots only from the hip

Just trying to be sporting! When the targets are that big and slow moving, can you blame me?

Whistler, your funny. You are missing a ton of information. Granted, 9/11 is so convoluted at this point, it’s more like Waco than anything else. But, in Ron Paul’s defense, knowing the potentials of people with a war for fanatical gain mentalities, with little regard for the “ordinary person,” I would not rule this one out. It’s been done in history too many times. Just because the scale of it is so impossible to comprehend, does not mean it’s impossible.

Follow the money and you will see why 9/11 happened. Other wise your just spouting media hype.

shpshftr
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.

Rob, many of your assumptions are unfounded. How does “I believe 9/11 should be investigated further to uncover all those in the gov’t who screwed up” turn into “I believe 9/11 was a plot by the government to get us into war”? Only with your voodoo logic.

How about this: Ron Paul appears on Alex Jones show, therefore, Ron Paul agrees with Alex Jones. More voodoo. Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that 9/11 was perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. You can ignore it all you want, but it won’t change the truth. The blowback theory that he asserts directly contradicts Alex Jones. (Duh)

How can a warning of a Gulf of Tonkin-type event turn into a warning for a “staged terrorist attack” when the Gulf of Tonkin itself was not staged? Even more voodoo!

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was one that was blown out of proportion used in a misleading fashion to get us into a war. If you think that the government isn’t capable of blowing an event out of proportion or misleading people, look no further than… well… The Gulf of Tonkin incident, WMD, The Maine, etc.

If you disagree with Ron Paul about the war, that’s fair enough. But just to deride someone as a “crank” based on sophisms such as guilt by association and word-twisting is disingenuous.

It is not the fault of the electorate if Ron Paul lacks the necessities to garner sufficient support among conservatives and right of center moderates to make him a serious candidate.

It is true that, sometimes, a little known candidate can sweep in to victory.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton come to mind!

Caveat emptor!

It should be obvious by now that they wear thier lunacy as a badge of honor. Can you spell i-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l-i-z-e them?

Rob, Personally I prefer the silver standard. Fiat currencies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency eventually fail mainly due to lack of oversight. I would rather have a bit more prediction and confidence in my life than my trust in private banks to have my best interests in mind. IE: The Federal Reserve.

So, since we’re in a war, we should forget about how not to be in it, and blindly follow? hahahaha yea…right. So the fact that Ron Paul served as a Ranking Member on the “archaic” House Banking committee automatically disqualifies him on subjects concerning economics? Yea…ok.

Here’s something for you Rob, It kind of spells it out with amazing simplicity but it’s too much to post here. Ok…not that simple. Tell me where it’s wrong, so I might understand my misguided ways.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279 (The Google search I suggested earlier, that you didn’t watch)

shpshftr
The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread.

There must be an awful lot of “moobats” out there to raise 2.4 million in private donations, right? Especially with the highest military support in donations.

It’s fascinating that behaving like the founding fathers intended and not like the current socialists we have become is “insane” to Americans. That is what is truly insane. We overthrew Britian for a 1% tax increase and arrogant government in 1776. Look at us now!

Fred Thompson was involved with Nixon during the Watergate scandal, and has been a lobbyist in washington for years. I know TV doesn’t tell you these things. You think he should run the country?

Anyone here who thinks a republican can win on a pro-war platform is the real “moonbat”. 70% + of the country oppose the war and are already angry at the repubs for thier actions. Look at the elections in the Senate last nov for proof.

schpschftr:

No Neiman, Ron Paul is exactly who we need. No, I am not naive; I am way beyond that now. It is people with your understanding that has brought us to this point: Re: “Vote for most likely to win.” You guys are probably more than 90% of the electorate and haven’t been getting it right lately.

Please try and think before speaking. In essence you are saying that even though I do not think Ron Paul is the right candidate, even on the issues, I should vote for him anyway. Next, you are trying to take the onus off of Ron Paul to step up to his responsibility to win over the voters like me and saying we should vote for him even if he hasn’t won us over because you believe he is right on the issues. We should vote for Paul even though we do not think he can win and we can then feel good about voting for the loser? Does that make any sense?

We better push forward a serious candidate with the necessities mentioned to get the nomination

.

The above quote is what I said and it does not mean the one most likely to win no matter what they believe, the necessities are: 1. While no one will hit the mark 100%, the nominee must hold Conservative beliefs and credentials. 2. They must be able to communicate a message effectively to the voters and eventually the nation (Reaganesque). 3. They must have a personality that will appeal to a sufficient number of voters to get the nomination and win the office. Otherwise, what the hell good is there in having the right positions on issues if no one votes for you. Ron Paul, to my mind, has the personality of a wet dish rag having been in the sink a month or two, even when he says the right thing he is irritating, condescending and not at all appealing to me beyond a very few issues.

You Paulites are still missing it: All these side issue are pointless, because Ron Paul cannot communicate his message in a way that will sway enough people to vote for him to even show up as a statistic in the upcoming presidential race. Paul is not an appealing candidate! I admit Lincoln (No I was not old enough to vote for him) had a high pitched voice, looked like a gorilla and was cut from very crude timber, but in a day when most politicking was conducted via the print media, his speeches and views made it possible for him to gain the White House. Today, we are in a multi-media generation and the sound of the voice, speech patterns, physical appearance and star qualities are necessary to win votes and in every category Ron Paul fails to make the grade. That may not get us the best elected officials, but it is reality!

I know you Paulites don’t like the truth, but no matter how you fight against false impressions and lies and try and present Paul’s message – the candidate has thus far failed to connect with conservatives, the party and the country. It is his responsibility to breakthrough, he is not making any progress so far. Keep fighting, keep trying to help him get his message out, but pray Paul gets a personality transplant or he is dead meat!

Top candidates are bought and sold by interest groups. Obama is in the lead because he has cut huge deals for companies in the past (screwing American taxpayers as usual).

Ron Paul has raised all of his money by personal donations. Your point is actually a reason why you should not elect the other candidates. Ron Paul has no debts from the election binding his hands when he comes to office. He can focus on doing what is right for the people, like a politician is supposed to do.

Proof – Nice attack on a spelling error. Are you 15? I won’t bother debating your childish remarks.

Ron Paul the only candidate you can trust

With respect to Ron Paul’s position on 9-11 conspiracy theories:

On the Mike Gallagher radio show on 7/19/07 Ron Paul said:

“Some people try to twist what I say and turn it into that, and I think some of my supporters lean in that direction, but that’s not my position. I do think government’s basically inept. I mean we were spending $40 billion a year collecting intelligence and a lot of information was out there. We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes but not land them, and nobody would pay any attention. So, I don’t think that’s a conspiracy. I think that’s a lot of bureaucracy that doesn’t work very well. And, then when we have government investigations, whether it’s 9/11 or assassinations, I think the main goal is to protect the government and to protect their ineptness – not – and that is a lot different than saying ‘Oh they conspired to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war in the Middle East whether they had anything to do with 9/11 or not.’ I don’t see it that way, but I believe some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn’t something that was deliberately done.” http://ronpaulaudio.com/

With respect to the John Birch Society:

The modern conservative movement owes much to the ideas circulated by the John Birch Society. Many JBS graduates went on to found their own organizations and/or publish books and newsletters that were heavily influenced by JBS thinking.

FBI files pertaining to the JBS (and many of its arguments) have been released and offer a unique perspective.

For a report on the Birch Society based, primarily, upon first-time released FBI documents and files, see:

JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY REPORT:
65-page Report consisting of 7 Chapters as follows:

JBS Report Chapters 1 thru 4: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1

(1) FBI Evaluations of Robert Welch and the John Birch Society

(2) FBI vs JBS on Internal Security Status of the U.S.

(3) FBI vs JBS on Communist Infiltration of Clergy and Religious Institutions

(4) FBI vs JBS on Communists in the Department of Health, Education, Welfare

JBS Report, Chapter 5: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-2

(5) FBI vs JBS on Dr. Harry A. Overstreet as a Communist Sympathizer or Dupe

JBS Report, Chapters 6-7: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-3

(6) FBI vs. JBS on Civil Rights Movement — including Alan Stang’s 1965 book, It’s Very Simple, and, Highlander Folk School as a “Communist Training School”

(7) FBI vs JBS on Persons JBS Claims To Be “Experts” on Communism
(includes discussion of Dan Smoot, W. Cleon Skousen, David Gumaer, Julia Brown, Lola Belle Holmes, among others)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT MY RESEARCH:

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/home

DAN SMOOT REPORT:

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/dansmoot:casestudyofaconspiracyexpert

More info available from: Ernie1241@aol.com

Proof: I don’t think using Hitlary and the Breck Girl as examples for Republican conduct is such a good thing!

skh.pcola, (last words to you, the sad person, in response to your last diatribe)

Yep…thought so… No problem, you are very predictable. Typical of someone that is just mad at everything. I also discovered your not a Neocon! Hell, you’re not a conservative either! Nor a Democrate, Republican, Libertarian, paleoconservative, paleolibertarian, nativist, protectionist, Trotskyist, orthodox Marxist, Bolshevik-Leninist or even a psychic medium! The list is endless.

You may not even be a Bush supporter!!! You have no affiliation. I would bet you’re not even an economist. Though I’d fall for that eh? If you were, you would know about it. The beauty of anonymity! lol

I do give you the benefit of a doubt however. You are a sad and conflicted person. Disabled in some way? You ingest conflict as sustenance and have no real substance at all. You have my sympathy.

shpshftr
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Huh. If we are 5%, then you are your merry band are <.5%. You apparently don’t grok that you are fringe supporters of a fringe candidate who has absolutely no chance of ever gaining the candidacy.

Everything else is just to tweak you morons. Because it is easy and fun. All of you idiots are the same…lockstep, intone mantra, righteous indignation, moral superiority, etc. If you are looking for applause here, you will be disappointed, Buttboy.

Re: Military donations.
http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/124/127/

This details the donations. The link at the bottom is the government page for your proof of authenticity.

Re: War support
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/27/poll-support-for-iraq-war-reaches-new-low/

CNN article outlining the poll. The link leads to the poll results, for your proof of authenticity.

A leader is a man willing to stand on principal, not some coward who attempts to appease everyone to get voted back into office. That is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Lol, those donations total about $11,000. Still at 2.4 million. Keep trying.

Go look at the link, rocket surgeon. Very few donations from “private individuals” are listed. I only snipped a portion.

That means you have nothing to argue, sir.

That’s rich, coming from a Paul supporter. Go look at the link, Chris. Tell me how many donations from private individuals YOU can find. I guess your urban legend is just a myth, after all.

Rob, It isn’t the group I agree with most of the time. They do tend to be somewhat, umm “verbose.” I think it comes from a long period of not being heard and disregarded as inconsequential.

It’s the Guy that talks about empowering people, getting out of illegal wars, reversing bad foreign policies and understanding the banking and tax systems and how money motivates “The Dark Side.” These are very high priorities for me. I no longer side with the “Wind Blown” politicians anymore. They tend to lie a lot.

Neiman and Rob; I’m not saying you should vote for anyone. I am just giving you my opinion. Geesh… Kinda taking this personally aren’t you? I am all for any candidate that makes higher priorities out of these topics I’ve stated. So far, Ron Paul is the only one openly taking about all of them. I would love to have him pretty like Obama, Kick ass like Regan, 6’6″ of Texas cowboy rated #1 by GQ and an unparalleled orator. But I’ll take principled, honest, and well educated over any/all those any day. Looking for someone that doesn’t exist is the same as being idle. Maybe the standard should change.

Besides, it’s been so long since there has been truly good leadership; leadership with the rights of the people in the forefront of the discussion, not what government can give them. I’m not so sure we would recognize good leadership even if it was staring us right in the face.

To dislike the candidate because of people that like him, regardless of how much you agree with him or disagree with them; seems somewhat shallow to me. If you disagree with him, all I am saying is that you and I have different priorities. I’m am NOT saying you are wrong…maybe just a little misguided… (JOKE)

Hey Neiman, “1. While no one will hit the mark 100%, the nominee must hold Conservative beliefs and credentials.” What does that matter if what they do once they get there is the opposite? I think RP would do exactly what he says he will do. I do not believe that of any the other candidates. Money rules them.

“2. They must be able to communicate a message effectively to the voters and eventually the nation (Reaganesque).” What good is that if what they DO is in direct conflict with the Constitution and hidden from the public?

“3. They must have a personality that will appeal to a sufficient number of voters to get the nomination and win the office. Otherwise, what the hell good is there in having the right positions on issues if no one votes for you. Ron Paul, to my mind, has the personality of a wet dish rag having been in the sink a month or two, even when he says the right thing he is irritating, condescending and not at all appealing to me beyond a very few issues.”

What good is that if they are lying scoundrels that look and sound good? So you vote for personality, looks, and large numbers of people approving of him. Not necessarily their actions and consistency. Ok, I have no problem with that! I vote on the issues. Ron Paul has, what I consider the right take on my top 5 issues. And I believe he is as honest as they come. That used to be popular in 1861-1865.

Shpshftr
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?

< >

Oh yes, a “thorough review”. Too bad 9/11 families don’t agree with that. Are they “cranks” and “conspiracy nuts” as well?

And of course, Ron Paul couldn’t possibly be telling the truth when he says that he wants to find out what went wrong and who screwed up, could he? As a person who sees that government is inherently cumbersome and often inept, finding out who screwed up fits right in with his beliefs.

Meanwhile, the whole “government conspiracy” lie that you continue to promote directly contradicts his position.

< >

Actually, it is true evidence that he’s not beholden to the corporations that spend millions on the “top tier” candidates. Also, it is true evidence that others such as Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson etc, are even more on the margin. Do you agree with that?

skh.pcola,
You do mine and I’ll do yours. But I don’t know, it has some big words in it…Keep google handy!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

You….you…mean person you!

shpshftr
Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.

Well, let’s see.

I support gun rights.

I support small government, less spending, and less taxation.

I oppose race based programs like affirmative action.

I oppose social programs like welfare.

I oppose gay marriage.

I oppose illegal immigration.

Am I a lefty, SKH? Or are you the radical for supporting stupidity from George Bush? You be the judge.

Ron Paul has raised millions by using the internet. The people on the internet spread his message because they believe it. Most of his popularity is from the debates and his appearances on various shows, in which people support his ideas and donate money to him.

If his campaign contributions keep coming, he will be able to afford television advertising in the primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. He has a big following from the turnout at the Iowa rally and a big following in true conservative New hampshire.

If he suceeds in these primaries the media will be unable to ignore him. Once he starts speaking to the general masses you will see many more “moonbats”. The campaign is already spreading like wildfire.

Chris:

Do you think torture and detainment without habeus corpus (like Guatanamo) is acceptable to get results in Iraq?

Yep! If it saves American lives like my grandson and nephew or had saved my son, I am in favor of a little good natured torture.

Actually, his real name is, Got Any Proof?

shpshftr: You people just don’t get it at all. Ron Paul has to prove himself to the party and the nation, no on has to or should support any candidate unable or unwilling
to prove they not only have the right ideas, but what is required to get elected and getting their ideas implemented. Until the the Paulites need to stop smacking around those that do not support Paul and ask why he hasn’t been able to sell the Ron Paul product.

By the way, Ron and Whistler are big time drug dealers for their loyal followers, I get a free key of sugar and one of caffiene every week to just to keep me awake and agitated against the moronic Left.

“War mongers,” huh? You leftard in sheep’s clothing, you. The point about the JBS isn’t that they are “right-wing,” it is that they are fringe jackasses and kooks like you and your insane klown posse. At this point, it isn’t ideological about you cranks, it’s about your mental instability.

That $2.4 million keeps getting thrown around as though it means something.

Let’s put that in perspective! To win the office of Mayor of New York City (for you Ronettes, that’s one city out of the whole country!) please read the following very carefully!

In the 2001 mayoral race, Mr. Bloomberg spent $75 million, compared with the $16 million spent by his opponent, Mark Green.

NYT
In the story I linked to, he spent another $46.6 million through October of ’05, with another month to go before the election.

$2.4 million? Mayor Bloomberg probably spent that in a fortnight to get elected in one city. Get real, Ronettes!

I’m so sorry. You mistake me for someone else.

You’re right! I quoted you…it could have been anybody!
I think you’ve mistaken a number of people here for “someone else”. For example, the straw man about the “status quo”. There are more than two alternatives. It is not “either Ron Paul or the Status Quo“. Must we smack down every false dichotomy posted here? It’s not you’re either in favor of getting a doctorate degree or slow dancing with Rosie O’Donnell ?… I’m sorry! It just does not compute!
Now, maybe in your mind Ron Paul is the only alternative to the status quo, but with thinking people…not so much!

Lol, buttboys? Anyone who opposes is a leftist! The government never lies! You people are truly the lost.

Well, at first I thought debating you would get you to see some of the positive qualities of Ron Paul.

It seems you are a group of childish warmongers who comprise about 5% of the population at best.

Continue clamoring on on how a constitutionalist conservative is insane.

Membership in the CFR is the litmus test of patriotism and the paradigm of supranationalism their purpose since before WWII. Inconsistent with independence and sovereignty, your defense of the internationalism of the CFR reveals much about those who carry its drinking water.

“Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.”

“In my view the Trilateral commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power–political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical. All this is to be done in the interest of creation a more peaceful, more productive world community. What the Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. They believe the abundant materialism they propose to create will overwhelm existing differences. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future.”

—Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies

shpshttr up there is a professional when it comes to satirical commentary.

Shapeshitter, anybody who uses “conservative” with neo- and paleo- prefixes is a leftard socialist. It’s true. Google it!

And your moral righteousness isn’t very convincing. Why don’t you round up your Paulette butt-boys and scurry back to your Batcave, or wherever your ilk hang out? You’ve got nothing, n-o-t-h-i-n-g, to offer in the way of factual data to support your lunacy. Lithium, boy. You doods needs a steaming cupful.

At least I have the courage to post my name, proof.

Here, I’m not just a name, I’m a franchise! This way no one mistakes my opinions for those of someone with a similar name. (The main reason I chose my nom de cyber in the first place!)Fear had nuttin’ to do with it!
But, thanks for playing!

I’m beginning to think all you guys are on drugs! It’s that, or you just like to hear yourself talk, or both. hahahaha This place is so full of Neocons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative calling themselves conservative. It’s hard to know if you even understand what you believe!

Re: Rob (A wanna be social conservative, yet uninformed), skh.pcola (Lost in his idolization of name calling), Proof: (One that has no proof and shoots only from the hip), Neiman: (Looks Count)..to name the noisiest ones… lol

I think you guys mean well, but truly this is not a discussion based on what is known, but rumor and a whole bunch of socially programmed BS. You sound like “militarist social democrats.” Or maybe paleoconservatives… Though I will give some the benefit of a doubt, some may just like conflict as sustenance and have no real substance at all. How’s that for name calling?

Shpshftr
Eagles may soar, but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines. <-amazingly appropriate for this group.

Spoken like a Neocon in denial! hahaha…skh.pcola That must take practice! Facts? You don’t need facts…obviously…

shpshftr
All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand.

Sweet video. I saw it was 47 minutes long, and since I am an economist, I don’t think I need cartoons to explain how our monetary sytem operates. You might, though. I’m sure there are lies and half-truths in there, so make sure you ask a grown-up about anything before you accept it as fact.

Further, the jackass loon who made that ‘toon is an execrable Canuck who is a certifiable loon…which is why you are so smitten by his tripe, surely. Go here: http://www.paulgrignon.com/ and click on “Videos.” Then read some of the pablum that Monsieur Grignon espouses.

See, you moonbats trot out crap like this to “prove” your points, and it is nothing but childish playground pranks. If you have a transcript of the cartoon, I’d read it. Cartoons as proof? Pffft!

SKH – A quick question. Do you think torture and detainment without habeus corpus (like Guatanamo) is acceptable to get results in Iraq?

I guess you didn’t Google it then, huh? How does it feel to be a rabid supporter of a loser, loser? Hop on your pink unicorn and go for a ride, because Paul is taking all of you insipid children for a rough one.

And besides, you bring your facts, I’ll refute them. Rob put the post up, and all y’all have done is whine like the little beeyotches you are. Cite some proof for your ridiculous assertions, or pack it up. [Great opportunity for a "pack it up" joke, but...]

Did you actually read the article, proof? Comments? Or more childish remarks?

Fred Thompson moved to block the investigation against Nixon. A lobbyist and man involved directly with government corruption is your salvation?

Or a conservative who wants to scale back government, reduce taxes, give the market back to America, close the borders, stop imperial nation building, and empower the states like originally intended by the constitution?

Tough call.

Chris in Thorofare – Al Qeada is a small group of islamic radicals.

Al Qeada is but one small group. How do you address all of the other groups and individuals that make up the Islamic terrorism movement? What are we going to do about it?

It’s funny that you only focused on Al Qeada. I brought up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier. That guy is a Twelver. This ties into what I was referring to earlier about not even recognizing the enemy.

There are not millions of muslims out to bomb america.

Didn’t say that. I’m referring to the radicalized 10 to 20 percent of Muslims. There are over a billion Muslims in the world so we conservatively have a couple of hundred million who hate us with a passion.

Please don’t continue to misstate my words.

The terrorists are angry at our presence in Saudi Arabia, a land they consider holy and with the treatment of the palestenians by Isreal, our ally.

And they’ll be angry about it for hundreds of years.

We pulled out of Saudi Arabia in 2003, fyi.

He also believes we should attempt more diplomatic relations with the middle east.

What does that mean?

He uses Vietnam as an example. We trade peacefully with the vietnamese, despite the vicious war we had with them years ago.

So in Vietnam, we pulled out and then watched as the communists slaughtered millions, and now we trade with them.

So in Iraq, he wants us to pull out and watch as the Islamics slaughter millions, and then we can trade with them.

I don’t like that plan.

Gotcha, and I concur 100%.

Vich says:

Actually, it is true evidence that he’s not beholden to the corporations that spend millions on the “top tier” candidates.

I guess you haven’t actually, you know, gone and looked at the individual donations, eh? Because really, you won’t find many individual names on his list. It is primarily populated by teacher’s unions, trial lawyers, big corporations, small corporations, government employees, etc.

Thanks for playing though, crackpot. It’s been fun. Here’s your parting gift: pfffft!

SKH – A quick question. Do you think torture and detainment without habeus corpus (like Guatanamo) is acceptable to get results in Iraq?

Yes. They aren’t American citizens, and we are in a war. They have the rights conferred by the Geneva Conventions, which we are in compliance with.

You may not even be a Bush supporter!!!

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you really this stupid? It’s already been well established–countless times–that Bush doesn’t derive wide-spread blind support from most SAB readers.

You ingest conflict as sustenance and have no real substance at all. You have my sympathy.

You pitiful little wretch. I’m not the idiot trolling blogs that I don’t agree with, hoisting myself on my own petard (rhymes with “retard,” so you should grok that), and being rancorous like you and your brethren. I don’t need or want your symapthy, nor do I wish to give you any…your dumbassedness is self-inflicted.

I would bet you’re not even an economist.

How much would you bet? Care to bring in a third-party, neutral moderator to hold the cash while my CV is authenticated? I’ll require at least a $500 bet to do this.

Al Qeada is a small group of islamic radicals. &heellip;There are not millions of muslims out to bomb america.

Just…wow. The ignorance of the American Left and the Paulettes in overwhelming at times.

Ron Paul believes our foreign policy over the last 50 years has a lot to do with events leading up to 9/11. &heellip; He also believes we should attempt more diplomatic relations with the middle east.

You have the mind of a 6-year old. So does Ronny. Idiots.

We trade peacefully with the vietnamese, despite the vicious war we had with them years ago.

That war wasn’t against a fanatical group of homicidal retards. Plus, the Vietnamese aren’t currently in a global jihad to kill off civilization. Can’t you brain stems use analytical thinking at all?

I’m done with you Ron Paulette cheerleading asswidgets. You are losers now, you will be losers up to the election, and you will always be losers. Go look for chemtrails and chupacabras…your odds will better for success.

Islamic terror groups know by the U.S. Government:

Abu Sayyaf (1991-present; Islamist separatists; the Philippines)[2]
Based in the southern islands of Jolo, Basilan, and Mindanao.
Branched off of the Moro National Liberation Front.
Allegedly partnered with Jemaah Islamiyah and Al-Qaeda.
Aden-Abyan Islamic Army (Yemen)[2]
Adolat – Uzbekistan[citation needed]
Akromiya – Uzbekistan[citation needed]
Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Late 1970s-present; Islamists; Egypt)[2]
Seeks to establish Islamist state in Egypt. Usually targets secular establishments, government buildings, police, the military, minorities, tourists, and “morally offensive” buildings.
Armed Islamic Group (1992-present; Islamists; Algeria)[2]
Seeks to establish Islamist state in Algeria. Began operations in 1992 after the Algerian government ignored election results that gave victory to Islamist political parties.
Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades[2]
Ansar al-Islam (December 2001-present; Islamists; Iraq)[2]
In Arabic, “Supporters of Islam.”
Also known as “Partisans of Islam or Helpers of Islam.”
Al-Qaeda (1988-present; Islamists; Afghanistan, Pakistan, and worldwide)[2]
In Arabic, “the foundation”, “the base”, or “the database” kept by intelligence services of anti-Soviet Afghani fighters.
Also known as Qa‘idat al-Jihad, Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places, World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, Islamic Salvation Foundation, and the Osama bin Laden Network.
Related: Alneda (former web site), As-Sahab (affiliated public relations organization),
Cells: Buffalo six, Hamburg cell,
Asbat al-Ansar (early 1990s-present; Lebanese Sunni Islamists; southern Lebanon)[2]
In Arabic, “the League of the Followers.”
Acronym for “Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya,” or Islamic Resistance Movement.
Jama’at al-Tawhid wa’al-Jihad/Al-Qaeda in Iraq – Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Sunni network, operating in Iraq
on U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations
Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement – al-Qaeda linked separatist group in China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region aiming to establish an Islamic state. Banned by China, along with related groups East Turkestan Liberation Organization, World Uighur Youth Congress and East Turkistan Information Center[3][2]
Egyptian Islamic Jihad – Egypt (active since the late 1970s)[2]
Fatah al-Islam – Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp, Lebanon; splittered from Fatah Uprising in 2006.[citation needed]
Hamas – West Bank, Gaza Strip. Listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States[2]
Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) – Pakistan and Kashmir[2]
Hizb-an-nusra – Uzbekistan[citation needed]
Hizb ut-Tahrir – international (legal in Britain and Australia)[citation needed]
Hezbollah – Lebanon; Listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Israel, and the United States[2]
Hizbul Mujahideen – Pakistan and Kashmir[2]
Hofstad Network – Netherlands[citation needed]
Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain – Defunct[citation needed]
Islamic Movement of Central Asia – Central Asia (affiliated with Al Qaeda)[citation needed]
Islamic Movement of Tajikistan – Tajikistan[citation needed]
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan – Uzbekistan[2]
Jaish-e-Mohammed – Pakistan[2]
Jaish Ansar al-Sunna – Iraq[citation needed]
Jama’at al-Jihad al-Islami[citation needed]
Jemaah Islamiyah – Southeast Asia[2]
Jihad Rite – Australia (linked with Al Qaeda. Founded in 2001)[citation needed]
Jundallah – Iran and Pakistan (affiliated with the USA and Al-Qaeda)[2]
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi – Pakistan[2]
Lashkar-e-Toiba – Pakistan[2]
Maktab al-Khadamat – Afghanistan – Defunct
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group – Morocco and Spain[2]
Moro Islamic Liberation Front – (Islamic separatists; the Philippines)[2]
Palestinian Islamic Jihad – Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip[2]
People Against Gangsterism and Drugs – South Africa[2]
Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat – Algeria
Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan – Pakistan[2]
Students Islamic Movement of India – India[2]
Takfir wal-Hijra – Egypt/Sudan/Algeria[2]
Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi – Pakistan
Turkish Hezbollah – Kurdish organization operating in Turkey[2]
Turkish Islamic Jihad – Turkey[2]

hahahahahaha, Just had to laugh at that last one from skh.pcola. lmao

The pitiful little wretch shpsftr

I see that I have taught you a new word, Nimrod. I suppose that means that you don’t want to put up or shut up, huh? Figures. You want to try again, since you are the screeching simian for tonight’s entertainment?

I said, in response to your playground taunt:

How much would you bet? Care to bring in a third-party, neutral moderator to hold the cash while my CV is authenticated? I’ll require at least a $500 bet to do this.

Come on, girlyman. Make me some money, since you are a mongoloidian imbecile. You are the one who raised the issue of betting that I’m not an economist, back it up. Ron Paul is an idiot who has a train of idiots leaving slime trails wherever he goes.

“Ron Paul has raised all of his money by personal donations.”

Do you even try to be informed before you start foaming at the mouth for Ron Paulie? Here’s a small portion of his most recent quarterly contributions (from the website linked above from your fellow Paulette cheerleader):

SUGARLOAF UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 150.00
SUN CITY REPLACEMENT WINDOWS LLC 500.00
SUNY POTSDAM 156.00
SWA 100.00
SYMANTEC 500.00
SYNCHROME TECHNOLOGY 500.00
SYSTEMS ENGINUITY 1,240.00
TAYLOR PROTOCOLS INC 2,300.00
TCEQ 100.00
TEAMSIXSTARCOM INC 500.00
TEKSYSTEMS 300.00
TELECOM AMERICA SERVICES 201.00
TELERESULTS INC 1,000.00
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 1,150.00
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY 250.00
TEXAS BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS 150.00
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY 236.00
TEXAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AUSTIN I 175.00
THACKER ENTERPRISES 1,000.00
THALES TTS INC 250.00
THE ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORAT

Do those look like individuals? Do they? Will you extend the identical illogic to other candidates, or does a candidate have to be a has-been, wannabe Prez candidate to get a pass from you retards?

It is wise for you to stick to namecalling and guilt by association. It makes you look desperately uninformed, but at least you can’t be sued. Whereas when you make statements that are demonstrably false, intending to hurt a public figure’s reputation, you can.

Not that RP ever would, but just in case.

Who is shouting down criticism, gentlemen?

Nobody here! You’re free to make all the inane arguments you’re capable of!
BTW: If that’s your A game, then I’ll send in my back benchers. It’s over! Take your $2.4 million, buy a pizza for half of Ron’s supporters and have the other guy buy the beer!

Thompson’s membership in the Council on Foreign Relations disqualifies him as a candidate for President of the United States unless you would prefer more of the same international entanglement that has ‘turned the framers upside down…’

If this is true, I’m for it. Free enterprise economics is based on individual demand, not central control, so it would be a whole lot better than the succession of monarchs, dictators and self-indulgent politicians who presently run things. It would be real freedom, not the BS the present rulers keep trying to sell us.

The CFR is not an organization that believes in free enterprise. They seek money the easy monopolistic way in the mercantilist tradition.

From your comment, you will be receiving an invitation to join shortly as it is an elitist monarchical self-indulgent orientation that seeks people like yourself for membership. If you are worthy of their arrogance they have plans for you…

What the Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved.

If this is true, I’m for it. Free enterprise economics is based on individual demand, not central control, so it would be a whole lot better than the succession of monarchs, dictators and self-indulgent politicians who presently run things. It would be real freedom, not the BS the present rulers keep trying to sell us.

You see, Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower were all politicians. That should tell you something, if you are able to think for yourself.

Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was a plot to create an excuse for war in Afghanistan/Iraq (and thinks a staged attack to create an excuse for war with Iran is imminent).

Please indicate the source where he explicitly stated that. Thank you much.

LTF: Everyone makes mistakes. Simple courtesies are always appreciated!

One of the things I find most appealing about Ron Paul is that if you read the US Constitution and interpret it as meaning exactly what it says, then you understand pretty well what his position is on any given issue.

As to monetary policy,
“No State shall… emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…”
and
“The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”

There you have it. Nowhere in the federal government’s enumerated and limited powers is it authorized to print unbacked currency and it is most definitely not authorized to confer that power on a private banking cartel.

You may not believe, as I do, that the honesty and direct accountability of commodity money would solve most of our current economic troubles. A system based on an endlessly inflatable currency is, in a very real way, a blank check for government. Money is power and all restraint has been removed, leading to the pandering, meddling, welfare/warfare state we see today.

You may think that the Federal Reserve Banking system is a really great thing and all this gold and silver talk is antiquated nonsense. If so, your argument is with the US Constitution, not with me or Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has said many times that if you disagree with the rules, change them in the agreed upon manner; amend the Constitution. However, if you choose to allow men to interpret or ignore it as it suits their particular purpose, you have the rule of men, not the rule of law, and that, is a dangerous place to be.

dph,

You don’t read particularly well, do you?

I didn’t ask for a regurgitation of Dr. Paul’s tedious tirade. I’ve seen the videos. Paul’s “questioning” of chairman Bernanke was what prompted my disdain for Paul’s silly yammering in the first place.

What I’m looking for is a detailed account of what he proposes to actually DO about the Federal Reserve System. What structure or organization would he replace it with? How would it operate? What would be the transition time involved, and what sort of economic or financial response worldwide could be expected? After all, like it or not, the US dollar is, de facto, the world’s means of storing and transferring value, which is the precise function of any currency. If you are going to dis-assemble and replace that means of storing and transferring value, you ought to be able to establish conclusively that you know just what the hell you’re doing. Most people I know of who are expert and experienced in financial and monetary matters aren’t all that impressed with Paul’s proposals… whatever those actually consist of.

Similarly, if you are going to advocate for so momentous a change, I think you ought to be able to fully articulate your proposal and understand its full ramifications. So far, you’ve failed rather miserably on both counts.

R108,

Rhetorical devices aside, there is a proper place for “magic bullets.” It is NOT, however, aimed squarely at the goose that continues to lay golden eggs.

Unless Paul and his disciples can demonstrate that they know what they’re talking about, have something positive to offer as an alternative to what they are criticizing, and understand the potential consequences of what they propose, there is little reason to take any of what they say seriously.

dph,

For now, I am merely trying to define the subject matter, and thus the parameters of our discussion.

Obviously, you are contending that the Fed ought to be abolished. I am going to argue that until the effects of doing so, the consequences, are fully examined and understood, and until a suitable alternative is found, that any serious consideration of ought to be withheld.

There are other pertinent issues besides constitutionality (no, my agreement here was no absolute!) and the inflationary effect, issues which we will need to examine with care. But for now that pretty well covers it.

That said, I’ll give you the first swing, since you are the one arguing for change.

Incidentally, how much gold is there, and how much money is currently in circulation?

Islamic terrorists? The subject is Ron Paul and the JBS.

If you want to make this into a discuusion about RP and foreign policy, do lke the OP, and start out with a typical misconception.

Then you can get your answers regarding the Federal Reserve and “Islamic” terrorism, whatever that is.

However, my first instinct to deal with “islamic terrorism” is to have all Republicans executed, for creating and supporting the status-quo that created them in the first place.

Thanks for asking. Please drink this Kool-Aid and let the Constitutional loons run the sanitarium for a change.

Man, someone is paying you instigators well! Perhaps that is where McCain’s money has all would up: to blog hitmen.

You’re all dismissed. I’m sending another $100 to RP.

The answer to the problem of govt spending does not lie in the way value is assigned to the dollar. The answer is to ask less of the govt, so that it will spend less of our money. When the supply of money is determined by the demand for it, not by social or political agendas, then sanity will be restored. Think about it; we value gold and silver in dollars, not the other way around. Chaining our money supply to the amount of certain metals in existence is economically stupid, unless you want to return to medieval economic levels.

By your logic,You have no idea of what my logic is, dude. and I don’t disagree in the case of manufactured goods,It works with any commodity on the free market. demand for highways should cause their supply to increase. If highways were in the free market, that would be true, depending on the cost/benefit situation. Since we have chosen to have them be in the govt area, along with national defense, free market forces don’t apply. Do you really not know this? No coercive taxation and subsidies should be necessary, right? Since there is a demand for both highways and oil, the taxation isn’t coercive. It’s only in social spending that we are coerced to spend our money in ways we might not choose to do. So, on the oil supply, all we need to do is demand more and it will be created? If it weren’t for enviro-influenced legislation, that would be true. BTW, highways aren’t subsidized, because we want them, as a matter of fact, where I live, we want more highways built than local govt will allow, which is a sore point. Subsidies are for things that we don’t want, but that the govt thinks we should have anyway, like ethanol as a motor fuel. Is Paul promising to get rid of all enviros and their legislation?

You really should take a first-year econ class; I shouldn’t have to waste my time and energy educating you.

Rick D. Day – Speaking of ducking issues, about 139 responses back I asked YOU, “So what does your candidate do, besides offer to act as tool of the establishment?” or some such….

Well…?

I know you’re talking to someone else here, but I had to laugh at your “ducking issues” claim. This is how you show concern for Islamic terrorism:

If you are satisfied with the status quo, and still support BushCo/God/Flag/War (tm) be seated. Quietly play with your toes – while banging them with large rocks.

This was a great way of showing me and others that you are a not serious person. It would be a challenge to duck the Islamic terrorism issue any more clearly than you already have.

So, dip, your political goal is to eliminate technological society and return the human race to a paleolithic level? Good luck with that, moron.

Poor poor Republicans.

These under-30 status quo apologist whine-ohs have been breastfed to the ‘entertainment’ of right-wing radio a *bit* too much, if they actually think that ad hominim and condescending commentary is what now goes for political dialog.

Personally, I find it amusing when you Republicans eat your young.

Please, keep this thread going until December of ’08. When you all come up for air, you can figure out what we call “The First Husband” Bill Clinton.

/snicker

Does that make it right? Does that make it the best possible solution? I think not. Who decides where to draw the line between government provided “services” and free market services? You? You and any number of idiots you can sell on the notion of a free lunch? Either you have free markets and the rule of law or you have tyranny. Period.

dph,

I had not got to your comments yet, but, unwittingly, you’ve done most of the work for me. Your quote above illustrates exactly why the candidacy of Ron Paul, despite the fierce devotion of lemmings like you, is ultimately going nowhere.

Anyone, with even a modest knowledge of American history, understands that our system of governance was designed not for the autocrat, but to elicit compromise and accommodation from all.

I may well agree with Dr. Paul on a constitutional or philosophical level that our Federal Reserve System is beyond the bounds of a strict constructionist interpretation of what can and cannot be undertaken by the federal government, but neither Paul, nor you, his supporters, can or will discuss the details of his proposed alternatives, the mechanism and timeline for their implementation, and most importantly, what effect his proposals would have on domestic and international markets and trade.

I chose the subject of the Federal Reserve and monetary policy not just because my education and my business experience revolve around markets and finance, but to demonstrate that for all the calliope noise and pretty lights of the Paul campaign, the little man behind the curtain pulling the levers and playing the keyboard is near-sighted, tone-deaf, and ultimately oblivious the the real world that exists on this, our side of that curtain.

Our Federal Reserve system may not be strictly, constitutionally kosher, but it has worked quite well indeed since WWII. The dollar is still the world’s medium of exchange, and you and Dr. Ron Paul have yet to detail any compelling reason to change that system, much less described what and how you would change it to. Talk about tyranny!?

In a system designed for the raucous discussion of the practical effects of policy initiatives, as well as the academic distinctions, what you have offered simply isn’t good enough.

Bat One,

Well, that was a kind of a sort of a slightly less insulting response. Thank-you. I am perfectly willing to discuss this topic to the best of my ability, realizing that I am a fallable human and inherently of limited understanding and knowlege on any topic. I would hope that you realize the same is true of yourself. In the spirit of greater understanding for both of us, let’s give it a go.

Anyone, with even a modest knowledge of American history, understands that our system of governance was designed not for the autocrat, but to elicit compromise and accommodation from all.

Actually, the original intent of our system of governance to establish very definite limits on government’s ability to enforce compromise and accomadation. The founders were well aware of the dangers of pure democracy. Once a simple majority or a politically influential minority begins to use the coercive power of government to pick the pockets of and control the behavior of the minority, no one is safe.

Our Federal Reserve system may not be strictly, constitutionally kosher, but it has worked quite well indeed since WWII. The dollar is still the world’s medium of exchange

I suppose if you consider the destruction of 97% of the Dollar’s value since the inception of the Fed as “working quite well” then we haven’t got much to discuss. Limitless creation of unbacked currency has eventually destroyed the currency’s value every time it has been tried before. Are our Fed money masters superior to every other society that has tried it? Simply because the collapse has not run it’s course completely does not mean it will not happen.
My understanding of Ron Paul’s position is that a transition period will doubless be necessary. He has suggested a dual money model (gold backed and fiat FRNs) that allow individuals in a free market to choose to use and save the money in which they have the most confidence.
As for possible ramifications, we could speculate endlessly on effects and impact on various aspects of the world economy but in a system as complex and interdependent as ours, it can only be speculation.
One thing we can be certain of is that abolishing the Fed would immediately halt monetary inflation and it’s associated ill effects.

dph,

First of all, let’s make sure that we are speaking the same language and talking about the same things. Your argument, as I understand it, is that the US should abandon the Federal Reserve system because it is unconstitutional, and because the Federal Reserve fosters inflation which eats away at the purchasing power of the US dollar. Interest rates, and just as importantly, the size of the US money supply, would then be left entirely to the vagaries of the free market, or perhaps to the partisan whim of 218 Congressman and 60 Senators.

Is that essentially your position?

you want to return to Colonial era practice of of individuals making their own currency. Thanks for playing “How big a moron can dph be?”,

If you chose to create your own money, that would be your right. If you established a reputation for reliably redeeming it in gold or silver or whatever was promised, you might be successful. I would wish you well.

The US Federal government is also legally empowered to “Coin money.” I would be very happy if they would again do so. My issue is with an unconstitutional banking cartel creating unbacked paper currency in unlimited quantity.
You do realize that our Dollar was backed by silver until 1965 and by gold internationally until 1971, right? That is, until the Fed enabled the creation of so much currency as to make redemption impossible. That’s a pretty long “Colonial era.”

Take a look at a long term inflation chart. Notice anything happening around 1971?

Bat One,

Your argument, as I understand it, is that the US should abandon the Federal Reserve system because it is unconstitutional, and because the Federal Reserve fosters inflation which eats away at the purchasing power of the US dollar.

Yes, as well as enabling massive government expansion through borrowing.

Interest rates, and just as importantly, the size of the US money supply, would then be left entirely to the vagaries of the free market, or perhaps to the partisan whim of 218 Congressman and 60 Senators.

The money supply would be determined by the issuer’s ability to redeem in specie.
Interest rates would be determined by market demand for credit.

Goodbye, rickie. We will be here, as always, when you toddle back through.

Because I am not “arguing” with you. I am heaping derision upon you. I understand you Paulettes are dense, did not think you were entirely without perception.

Long story short, you want to return the population of North America to the financial conditions of 1770. Not going to happen. People are not going to revert to living on a 1/4 acre and working as serfs for the few people who control the “monetary system”. For better or worse we have a functioning economic/monetary system, and your plan to step back 300 years to the age serfdom just ain’t agoing to happen. Hence, no wonder you are a Paulette.

Oh, and thanks for the graph. It clearly indicates that expansion of the global economy has risen sharply since 1970.
Ever occur to you that there are more products produced and sold/purchased during that period and continuing through today?
Ever occur to you that average personal income/real wealth has risen steadily since 1900, and rapidly since the 1950s?
Ever occur to you that economies are not static, rigid, non-interacting entities? That when you cut the legs out from under one, others follow it down?

Mutual assured destruction. It ain’t just for thermonuclear weapons any more.

Yes, as well as enabling massive government expansion through borrowing.

dph,

NO! The Federal Reserve System may be one of the mechanisms by which the federal government borrows, but it is by no means the only such vehicle.

Furthermore, as you should know, borrowing by the federal government is authorized by Congress, most notably liberal, Democrat Congresses past who found the deficit spending of the now-discredited Keynesian school an appealing rationalization for spending money they did not have.

This is not to say that deficits are always to be avoided. That’s simplistic nonsense. Spending $10 billion on a war is far more justifiable than spending the same $10 billion on Massachusetts’ “Big Dig.” Besides, my point was not to get bogged down in an irrelevant (to this discussion) argument about deficit spending and borrowing. Neither of which is germane to an examination of our Federal Reserve System and monetary policy.

So… we are back to the questions of constitutionality and inflation… at least for now.

Oh, and thanks for the graph. It clearly indicates that expansion of the global economy has risen sharply since 1970.

What it clearly indicates is rising prices in dollars. Nothing more.

Ever occur to you that there are more products produced and sold/purchased during that period and continuing through today?
Ever occur to you that average personal income/real wealth has risen steadily since 1900, and rapidly since the 1950s?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
I think you may be confusing concurrency with causation.
And of course everyone lived in caves until the Fed came to rescue in 1913?

Ever occur to you that economies are not static, rigid, non-interacting entities? That when you cut the legs out from under one, others follow it down?

Using a stable medium of exchange actually strengthens the support of economies. Money is the life blood of commerce. Uncontrolled monetary inflation vastly complicates economic calculation of risk and so hinders growth.

2H9,

Apparently summer school classes are over.

Rickie,

How’d that GED program work out for you? Learn anything?

Proof, that was a clever play on words, but clever words do not civility make. Not only do you condescend, but you take delight in polarizing any discussion.

Got news for you. Life is not a gigantic Super Bowl game where you join your comrades on one side of the field and derogate the opposition. It is more significant than that.

Why would you and your cohorts have “unused valium” on hand to donate to “Ronettes?” Got more than you’re supposed to have there, Bucko?

Maybe there’s a reason why you use it and the “Ronettes” don’t, viz., to calm the stresses inherent in a dog-eat-dog lifestyle.

Personally, I prefer to chill with a Beethoven sonata
rather than swallowing a “dog.”

Paul: I’d say there’s no evidence of that.

He didn’t say it didn’t happen; he just said that there was no evidence of it happening. This is just weaseling by Paul, IMO.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly the same answer Hillary gave when she was asked about her cattle futures profits; when asked if anything illegal or unethical led to those profits, she answered: “There’s no evidence of that.” As lawyers, Hillary and Paul know how to weasel out of things.

No apology necessary. I just wanted to be sure I was looking in the right place.
Do what you need to do and we’ll continue at your convenience.

What is an econ geek?

Like a computer geek, only they get off on economics.

Rickie (66.44.207.33)- Don’t lose that number.

Pray tell, what will you replace it with?

Well, real money might be an option (as defined by our Constitution and more specifically, the coinage act of 1792).

LTF: Sounds like you know nothing about economics, except for what your leftie friends tell you, and they don’t know anything about economics, either.

Again, pray tell, what will you replace it with?

And yes, Proof. I apologize for not finding the right thread back from being interrupted. I had a local technical problem and a discussion with my ISP support.

Thanks, for your understanding…

Niiice. Another CTist crops up. Membership in the CFR is indicative of nothing other than expertise in some area, it isn’t an indictment of a person’s character (although it’s plenty for some mentally unstable folks).

shpshftr – That’s why I asked the question.

That still doesn’t make sense. I know what I had said. You didn’t really need to repeat it.

It appears your non-support has much to do with RP supporters.

The “RP supporters” are telling us what Ron Paul believes, are they not? Many of you do a swell job of telling us exactly where Ron Paul stands on a number of issues. I was simply recognizing that effort and then informing you that I can’t support your candidate.

My concerns are ignored, belittled, and then sidestepped. You guys are not after my vote. You have instead chosen to burn bridges with those of us who believe that our national security is at stake from a growing Islamic threat.

Or was it simply meant as a form of “Raid?” lol

What?

Lol, those donations total about $11,000. Still at 2.4 million. Keep trying.

That $2.4 million keeps getting thrown around as though it means something. Even John McCain, whose campaign is imploding right now, has managed to get into the tens of millions (those stories putting Ron Paul ahead of McCain in “cash on hand” are misleading, Paul has more money on hand because he hasn’t spent as much not because he’s raised more).

Again, Ron Paul is a marginal candidate at best.

Vich, have you seen this video?

A little bit of inconvenient truth, no?

Do any of you Paulites ever feel dumb being part of a mob like this? As a conservative, I’ve never been able to buy into this kind of group think.

I actually think Ron Paul’s hordes have a point about some things. Like folks trying to exclude Paul from debates. He’s a candidate, a Representative and a member of the GOP. There’s no reason why he can’t be heard at these debates.

That he’s a crank with a lot of cranky things to say but few actual policies to deal with the problems we’re facing is true, in my estimation. But he deserves to have his fair say.

Following a hopeless war that was based on a lie that is bankrupting the country and killing Americans is not strong, it is foolish.

Man, there’s a lot of stupidity in that one sentence.

A) It’s not hopeless. The surge is having some positive effect.

B) What lie? WMD’s? Please. That’s so 2004. Our intelligence said Iraq had WMD’s. Our President based his decision to go to war on that fact (among others). After we got there, it turns out our intelligence was wrong. Hardly a lie.

C) Bankrupting our country? Global defense spending, meaning all the money spent on the military in all the nations of the world, still isn’t as much as we spend on entitlements in one year. Which isn’t to say that we’ve got money to burn, but clearly Iraq spending is a drop in the bucket compared to our overall spending problems.

D) Of course the war is killing Americans. But then, so are automobile accidents. And attending public school Chicago. Did you know that more students have died in the Chicago public school system, YTD, than soldiers have died in Iraq? It’s true.

It’s amazing what you learn when you grasp reality. You Ronettes are fun! It’s like whack-a-mole!

As one who worked in intelligence for some time, I admire your rhetoric: play loose on a few facts, incite the readers. Thanks for a good laugh; I suspect the Paul supporters are wise to you.

I suspect Ron Paul supporters aren’t wise to much of anything.

It’s the Guy that talks about empowering people, getting out of illegal wars, reversing bad foreign policies and understanding the banking and tax systems and how money motivates “The Dark Side.” These are very high priorities for me. I no longer side with the “Wind Blown” politicians anymore. They tend to lie a lot.

You know, if Ron Paul understood foreign policy at all and would quit trying to take America back to the gold standard, I’d actually support him. I’m all for a return to limited government and stricter adherence to the Constitution.

But the thing is, we’re in a war, and we can’t afford Paul’s naivete right now. Or his archaic grasp on economics.

Well sure, now that Paul is getting called out on this, he’s backpedaling.

Wake me up when he isn’t a regular on that fruitcake Alex Jones’ show.

in a debate of twelve wannabees, serious debate cannot take place because of the noise and clutter of all the “vanity” candidates.

Well, to be honest, some thought Lincoln was a “wannabe” candidate in 1860.

Vich, how did you feel when the mad mullahs of Iran said they wanted to “investigate” the holocaust?

Paul is calling for this investigation not to find out what went wrong (even though that’s what he claims). There’s already been a thorough review of that. What Paul is trying to do is pander to the conspiracy nuts he clearly wants as a constituency, which is why he goes on shows with Alex Jones.

I’m sorry, but Ron Paul doesn’t get to spread innuendo about what really happened on 9/11 and then get to file it all away with a “I just want to go over what went wrong” comment.

Too bad 9/11 families don’t agree with that.

A bunch of people who were truly victims, but are now trying to perpetuate both their 15 minutes of fame and their ability to cash in on that tragedy. Truly grotesque.

I think I’ll pick “Retarded Cranks” for $800 please, Rob.

And your answer is: Which 2008 candidate has absolutely no chance at either winning either the nomination or the election for the Presidency despite a well-organized mob of mouth-breathing supporters willing to shout down any criticism of him?