PDA

View Full Version : School me on Ron Paul....


ADD
12-03-2007, 06:27 PM
I'm playing his role in this faux-presidential debate thing we're doing in Government class, gonna be fun :cool: Political nerds, give me the scoop.

JRA
12-03-2007, 06:28 PM
Put on some googles so Div doesn't Peter North in your eyes.

DethMaiden
12-03-2007, 06:28 PM
1. Disagree with Bush on everything.
2. Delegate all authority to the state governments.
3. Abolish most federal departments.
4. Reduce taxes.
5. Fuck Giuliani in the ass.

That's about it.

ADD
12-03-2007, 06:30 PM
Put on some googles so Div doesn't Peter North in your eyes.
Noted. :cool:

ADD
12-03-2007, 06:30 PM
1. Disagree with Bush on everything.
2. Delegate all authority to the state governments.
3. Abolish most federal departments.
4. Reduce taxes.
5. Fuck Giuliani in the ass.

That's about it.
But does he have a workable plan to make it easier for foreign bands to tour the States?

DethMaiden
12-03-2007, 06:31 PM
But does he have a workable plan to make it easier for foreign bands to tour the States?

Unfortunately I don't think any of the candidates know what's really important :allan:

EDIT: But since his whole thing is "the people can govern themselves, they don't need government agents everywhere checking up on them", customs and border agents and shit would probably be a lot more lax.

ADD
12-03-2007, 06:33 PM
Let it be known that I have high expectations for this thread. If non-political topics can suddenly erupt in 5 pages worth of political bitchslapping and Peter North pictures, then one with a political aim to begin with should damn near make the server explode.

ADD
12-03-2007, 06:34 PM
Unfortunately I don't think any of the candidates know what's really important :allan:

EDIT: But since his whole thing is "the people can govern themselves, they don't need government agents everywhere checking up on them", customs and border agents and shit would probably be a lot more lax.

I'm liking that. So is this guy like a Libertarian Republican or something?

DethMaiden
12-03-2007, 06:35 PM
I'm liking that. So is this guy like a Libertarian Republican or something?

Yeah. He actually ran Libertarian in '88.

ADD
12-03-2007, 06:36 PM
Yeah. He actually ran Libertarian in '88.
Aww what the hell so he has no chance of winning. Fuck well at least he can maybe win a high school debate under the alias of a politically-ignorant metalhead :flame:

DethMaiden
12-03-2007, 06:37 PM
Aww what the hell so he has no chance of winning. Fuck well at least he can maybe win a high school debate under the alias of a politically-ignorant metalhead :flame:

You're unfortunately probably right. I mean, his internet legions can spout about how much fundraising he has, which is all good and well, but it can't change public opinion as much as public opinion needs changed. We have less than a year. Hopefully what he's doing is paving the way for future non-shitty candidates.

powerslave_85
12-03-2007, 06:39 PM
1. Be completely batshit insane.
2. Have no opinions on anything; just say the government shouldn't be involved in it.
3. ???
4. Profit

ADD
12-03-2007, 06:39 PM
internet legions

VICTORIOUS AND STRONG :shred: :shred: :shred:

Too obscure but whatever.

DethMaiden
12-03-2007, 06:40 PM
1. Be completely batshit insane.
2. Have no opinions on anything; just say the government shouldn't be involved in it.
3. ???
4. Profit

Alright, I like Ron Paul a lot, but :lol: :lol: :lol:

ADD
12-03-2007, 06:40 PM
1. Be completely batshit insane.
2. Have no opinions on anything; just say the government shouldn't be involved in it.
3. ???
4. Profit

I'll be sure to mention quarterly projections :party: :allan:

SomewhereInTime72
12-03-2007, 06:50 PM
According to him his "platform is the constitution." Just say "constitution" over and over again.

Div
12-03-2007, 06:53 PM
But does he have a workable plan to make it easier for foreign bands to tour the States?


Well he did attend a priest concert in the 80's so....




but what specifically do you want to know?

es156
12-03-2007, 08:07 PM
But does he have a workable plan to make it easier for foreign bands to tour the States?

If any candidate were to ever make a statement to this effect, they would automatically get my vote.

:light:

JRA
12-03-2007, 08:17 PM
Well he did attend a priest concert in the 80's so....




So that's why PS_85 hates him.:D

es156
12-03-2007, 09:17 PM
So that's why PS_85 hates him.:D

:lol:

ChildrenofSodom
12-03-2007, 09:28 PM
I'll give it to yah straight, yo.

Ron Paul is all in favor of improving relations with foreign nations. I imagine, the majority of the bullshit restrictions on international travel will be removed. I dont know the specifics, but I would imagine this administration's fascination with scaring the people and its policy selectively choosing who can enter this nation, are the only things causing these touring problems.

Ron Paul's whole platform can be broadly explained this way:
1. Government involvement in the private lives of Americans is the number one reason we have so many problems in this nation.
2. The government's policy of policing the world is the sole reason our troops keep getting killed and terrorists keep attacking us.
3. The government should protect civilians, protect individual freedom, and follow the Constitution.

Before I delve deeper into his platform, I want to point out that those that are against Ron Paul and his goal of reducing government, are wrong to think that more government is the answer. Social Security is ineffective. The income tax is ineffective (sending a poor man to jail because he cant pay his small taxes on one hand, while giving multi-billion dollar tax cuts to oil companies on the other.) Our foreign policy is too expensive and only pisses the rest of the world off. Our monetary policy and shitty dollar are about to cause the economy to collapse. If all of the aforementioned problems have come to light under our seemingly help-oriented social programs and economic policies, dont you think we should try something else?

Ron Paul is a Republican. He has been elected to Congress numerous times as a Republican, and parades the original ideals of the Republican Party: non-intervention, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, following the Constitution, etc. He believes that neo-conservatives like Bush, Cheney, and Hannity have hijacked the Republican party. Beware: dont play partisan politics by saying: "Oh, he's a Republican, he must be a bigoted redneck" or "he ran as a Libertarian, he must be a nutcase without a chance."

Some of you may not like Paul because you think he treats the Constitution like a suicide pact. But look at our history. When was the last time we truly followed the Constitution. Bush disobeys it, and we have the whole fuckdamn world at our throat. Like I said before, if we have run this nation into the ground by ignoring the Constitution, dont you think we should at least try following it? If just for the chance to say we tried?

Ron Paul has won more than half of the GOP straw polls (not on the internet, but in real-life), he has won most of the online debate polls, he recieved more than 4.3 million dollars in donations in one day. As of this past weekend, he has outraised Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney's fundraising numbers for last quarter, with almost a month still to go. Ron Paul has not faired well in "likely GOP voters" telephone polls (a little biased sample group if you ask me), but when the polls were openned to Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, he won.

He has been endorsed by:

Many economists on Wall Street (for his anti-Federal Reserve beliefs).

Entertainers such as wrestlers Kane and Val Venis, Barry Manilow, John Mayer, Doug Stanhope, the creator of Babylon 5, Jimmie Vaughan, Rockie Lynn, Krist Novoselic.

Media personnel such as Tucker Carlson, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Jack Cafferty

Political figures such as Barry Goldwater Jr, Bob Barr, Michael Badnarik, Pat Buchanan, and Ralph Nader. 3

And Ron Paul has recieved more donations from active military personnel than any other candidate

Now to the Issues:

War- Ron Paul is an advocated of a strong national defense, but also a policy of nonintervention. In the war in Afghanistan, Paul advocated using the Constitution (using Letters of Marque and Reprisal) to enter Afghanistan, hunt Bin Laden (both through military operations and a bounty program.) Instead, we entered, looked for Bin Laden, overthrew their government, installed a puppet leader, and then went to Iraq. In the lead up to the Iraq War, Paul was sternly against the invasion because there was no proof of a Hussein-9/11 connection, and there was no proof of WMDs. The Bush administration largely used the UN to justify the invasion, and not the support and advice of the US Congress (as stated in the Constitution.) As it stands how, he is the only presidential candidate that advocates the immediate removal of US troops in Iraq, the immediate hunt for Bin Laden, and the immediate removal of troops from pointless, imperial bases throughout the world. Why do we have troops in Japan? Why do we have troops in Germany? Why do we have missiles in Turkey and Poland? If we didnt spend countless trillions on this empire, we COULD use it to improve health care and other domestic problems here at home.

Economy- Ron Paul is against groups like WTO and the North American Union, because they sidestep the Constitution, and dictate laws upon US citizens without their consent. Instead of "We the People", the US is being told how to function by groups of international elites. Ron Paul opposes NAFTA and CAFTA because they cater to special interest/businesses instead of the citizens. We have seen how these trade agreements have effectively caused a loss of US jobs and the 'raping' of third-world laborers. Along with cutting spending (not only ending the war, but also reforming Social Security and other programs), Ron Paul lower taxes and get rid of the IRS/Federal Reserve. I know as soon as you hear "get rid of IRS" you might get a little defensive, because we wouldnt have all that money to fund social programs. As it stands right now, the federal income tax only pays for the war and the US debt to the Federal Reserve (a government approved group of private bankers who regulate our economy). Ron Paul's stance on state's rights can be used to justify scrapping the income tax, because the majority of our public works projects, health care projects, education programs, roadways, etc etc are already paid for by state taxes.

Social Programs- Ron Paul believes that all Americans should be given the option of leaving the Social Security program (I for one hate losing part of my paycheck to pay for SS, when in truth, it is just being redirected to the space program or the war.) He believes that the reason our social programs dont work is because they only subsidize the poor. The same with illegal immigration. If illegal immigrants know they can come to America, give birth to automatic US citizens, and receive free healthcare/education without paying a penny for taxes, then of course they will keep coming. The reason there are so many illegals in this country is because they know they can feed off the system without ever having to repay the government. Hell, if I was a poor Mexican, I would probably come to America too. Ron Paul wants to end this welfare state, and instead, use the government, in collaboration with private organizations, to improve the lives of poor Americans and rehabilitate criminals.

Abortion- Ron Paul is pro-life, for a good reason. He states that since he is an OBGYN, he is legally responsible for the life of every single unborn child. If, during childbirth, he does something to harm or kill that baby, he could face some extreme legal/financial punishment. Why do we punish a doctor who accidentally kills a baby, yet praise a doctor who purposefully kills a child? I know RP is totally against late term, partial birth abortions (which even the most pro-choice advocate should be against), but I do think that he is also in favor of abortions in the case of incest, rape, and when the mother's life is threatened. His early-term abortion policy is also more lax.

Civil Liberties- Ron Paul is totally against the Orwellian Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the National ID card. He believes that this administration has caused more harm to civil liberties than to terrorism. On the issue of gay marriage-
And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.

Environment- "The environment is better protected under private property rights .... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property Instead of trusting the government to crusade around the world saving the environment, we should punish those companies that cause harm to the environment. I am truly amazed at how mobilized my generation is on this issue. We have so many organizations and individuals that have worked to fix our environmental problems. I trust we can fix it ourselves.


Drugs- Ron Paul advocates ending the War on Drugs, because it is expensive, it does nothing to rehabilitate criminals, it floods our prisons, and lets face it: government policy cannot change public consensus. He is still in favor of the illegality of harder drugs such as cocaine, but Paul is in favor of legalizing medical marijuana, decriminalizing recreational marijuana, and legalizing the use of hemp.

Gun Control- Ron Paul's stance on GC is simple: Gun Control only disarms innocent, law-abiding citizens, while leaving criminals armed and on the streets.

If you have any other questions let me know. But his main points are: more freedom, less imperialism, more respect for Constitution, and less government intrusion.

ChildrenofSodom
12-03-2007, 09:29 PM
You're unfortunately probably right. I mean, his internet legions can spout about how much fundraising he has, which is all good and well, but it can't change public opinion as much as public opinion needs changed. We have less than a year. Hopefully what he's doing is paving the way for future non-shitty candidates.

If people just give up, with still a year to go, then he can never win.

ChildrenofSodom
12-03-2007, 09:31 PM
1. Be completely batshit insane.
2. Have no opinions on anything; just say the government shouldn't be involved in it.
3. ???
4. Profit

1. You like war? You like having less freedoms? Who is the real batshit insane person here?
2. He does have opinions. He just doesnt agree with forcing them on the People. Bush is heavily opinionated, and we have gone to hell beause of it.
3. What?
4. Profit? What are you talking about?

powerslave_85
12-03-2007, 09:32 PM
He can never win.Fixed.

There's a sign stapled to a telephone pole on my corner that says "Lost: One Constitution" and then "Ron Paul 2008" underneath that. I threw up in my mouth a little when I saw it.

ChildrenofSodom
12-03-2007, 09:38 PM
Fixed.

There's a sign stapled to a telephone pole on my corner that says "Lost: One Constitution" and then "Ron Paul 2008" underneath that. I threw up in my mouth a little when I saw it.

WHAT'S YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM??? Every time I mention Ron Paul, you flame him. Is there another candidate running that is better?

powerslave_85
12-03-2007, 09:39 PM
WHAT'S YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM???

Are you seriously getting butt-hurt because I don't like your favorite presidential candidate? :lol:

ChildrenofSodom
12-03-2007, 09:41 PM
Are you seriously getting butt-hurt because I don't like your favorite presidential candidate? :lol:

Nothing you have ever said about RP has made sense.You sound like Sean Hannity or something.

powerslave_85
12-03-2007, 09:46 PM
Is there another candidate running that is better?No. They're all fucking crackpots.

ChildrenofSodom
12-03-2007, 09:47 PM
No. They're all fucking crackpots.

So why do you so vehemently hate Ron Paul? You keep saying that he is batshit insane, and I dont understand why.

powerslave_85
12-03-2007, 09:56 PM
So why do you so vehemently hate Ron Paul?Because people in this country are stupid, and right now they'll latch on to anyone who's not a Republican just because they want change. The problem is that they don't care what KIND of change it is. That's scary and frustrating to me. Everyone likes to talk about how great he is without sitting down to think about the implications of the things he's pushing for or whether they'd be good for the country.

ChildrenofSodom
12-03-2007, 10:00 PM
Because people in this country are stupid, and right now they'll latch on to anyone who's not a Republican just because they want change. The problem is that they don't care what KIND of change it is. That's scary and frustrating to me. Everyone likes to talk about how great he is without sitting down to think about the implications of the things he's pushing for or whether they'd be good for the country.

But Ron Paul is pushing for real change. Change that will help America. Listen to the debates. I cant tell the difference between Giuliani and Clinton, Romney and Obama. They are all puppets. If the American political system hasnt helped us in the past 20 years, dont you think it is time for change? I dont blindly support RP because he just advocates "change." I support him because he has good ideas. And if you think about it, they arent really radical changes. Actually reading the constitution?! The current political focuses more on good looks and business ties than political experience or good ideas. Giving people more freedom? That isnt 'progressive' or 'radical'...its just common sense.

Ron Paul supporters are a cross-section of America: Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Capitalist, Socialist, Potheads, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, blue-collar, white-collar, young, old, conservative, liberal, moderate. You cant pin down RP supporters to one group, because he does not cater to any specific group. He cares about Americans.

Div
12-03-2007, 10:24 PM
I dont blindly support RP because he just advocates "change." I support him because he has good ideas. And if you think about it, they arent really radical changes. Actually reading the constitution?! The current political focuses more on good looks and business ties than political experience or good ideas. Giving people more freedom? That isnt 'progressive' or 'radical'...its just common sense.



:agree:


----

I believe most of the supporters you see now are genuine. Its obvious that his support base actually understands his positions and cares strongly about it, I doubt any other canidate has people supporting them so passionately. Just the fact that he's come this far shows that it's more than a bunch of sheep, especially sense the media hates him. His supporters know how serious it is that he wins and not one of the other globalist shills. I was in agreement with him from the first day he announced he was running, it wasn't a bandwagon movement, atleast for me.


As for the sheep who just vote for anyone whos along certain party lines... they don't start coming out until after the primaries anyway and go "oh well so-and-so was nominated as the republican/democrat, i guess ill vote for them now".



You can go to www.ronpaullibrary.org for an exhaustive documentation of his policies. Most people say he just has ideas with no plan to back them up, when infact he's the only one who actually does have a plan.

EvilCheeseWedge
12-04-2007, 02:18 PM
Most people say he just has ideas with no plan to back them up, when infact he's the only one who actually does have a plan.

Wonder what his plan to win is? ;)

ChildrenofSodom
12-04-2007, 06:18 PM
Wonder what his plan to win is? ;)

I like how anti-Ron Paul people never really discuss his views, only his 'chances-of-winning.'

DreamEvil001
12-04-2007, 07:09 PM
I for one hate losing part of my paycheck to pay for the SS

Nazi bastards! :eek:

Div
12-04-2007, 07:44 PM
this is for ADD:


if you're going to do a school project speaking as someone then you'll be better off listening to the actual person talking than a bunch of metal nerds on a forum.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

its a bit long, but if you watch it youll get a good idea of who he is and how he stands on the issues and be able to school everyone else when you present yourself.

powerslave_85
12-04-2007, 08:24 PM
As it stands right now, the federal income tax only pays for the war and the US debt to the Federal Reserve (a government approved group of private bankers who regulate our economy).We're in debt because of poor fiscal policy by the current administration. Having a massive budget deficit means we need to borrow from someone, either a US central bank or a foreign one. Either way, we go deeper into debt. The Fed does not control the economy, it's merely acts to stabilize inflation. If the government is spending too much, the Fed has to lower the interest rate. Lower interest rates mean less money, and that leads to increased unemployment and other things. So, it's the Fed's job to try and correct a struggling economy, not cause it. A semi-autonomous organization like the Fed is there to keep politicians from trying to use the economy as a political tool. Eliminating the Federal Reserve and going to a gold standard would completely cripple our country's ability to deal with inflation.

Nick
12-04-2007, 08:41 PM
For me Ron Paul is the only decent candidate on either side of the spectrum.

ChildrenofSodom
12-04-2007, 08:53 PM
We're in debt because of poor fiscal policy by the current administration. Having a massive budget deficit means we need to borrow from someone, either a US central bank or a foreign one. Either way, we go deeper into debt. The Fed does not control the economy, it's merely acts to stabilize inflation. If the government is spending too much, the Fed has to lower the interest rate. Lower interest rates mean less money, and that leads to increased unemployment and other things. So, it's the Fed's job to try and correct a struggling economy, not cause it. A semi-autonomous organization like the Fed is there to keep politicians from trying to use the economy as a political tool. Eliminating the Federal Reserve and going to a gold standard would completely cripple our country's ability to deal with inflation.

In theory the Fed should control inflation, but it actually causes it. And I would like to believe that the Fed keeps politicians in check, if history didnt show that they were cut from the same cloth.

powerslave_85
12-04-2007, 08:56 PM
In theory the Fed should control inflation, but it actually causes it.Got a source on that? And I don't mean something off his website.

And I would like to believe that the Fed keeps politicians in check, if history didnt show that they were cut from the same cloth.So, instead of having our economy influenced people who are buddies with politicians, you'd rather it was run BY politicians? Giving Congress authority over monetary policy is an utterly terrifying thought.

Div
12-04-2007, 09:11 PM
American Monetary Policy 101


- Congress is empowered by the Constitution to coin and regulate money.
- Congress illegally grants that power to a privately owned bank AKA Federal Reserve
- The Federal Reserve is not a federal institution but a private bank, about as "federal" as FedEx
- Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air and loans it to the gov with interest.
- YOU are taxed by the IRS to pay for the inflation the government owes the fed on the fake money
- The FED defaces the value of the money by constantly printing more, and as you can see the dollar is now weaker than the canadian dollar and the euro
- You get a nice throbbing cock up the ass while rich bankers make off with your cash and leave the economy in ruins.

Our country got along just fine before the FED came along, and people weren't reduced to wearing loincloths and hunting mastadons to survive.

powerslave_85
12-04-2007, 09:33 PM
-The board of governors is an independant government agency, like NASA or the CIA, not a private corporation. Its members are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
-Again, it's not the Fed's fault that new money has to be created or that more money has to be loaned to the government. It's the administration's fault for creating poor fiscal policy that results in an ever-increasing budget deficit.
-AGAIN, if the government wasn't borrowing from the Fed, it'd be borrowing from other countries. The Fed only holds about $700 billion of the $9 trillion national debt.

hot_turkey_ed
12-04-2007, 10:04 PM
Aww what the hell so he has no chance of winning. Fuck well at least he can maybe win a high school debate under the alias of a politically-ignorant metalhead :flame:

He has a decent chance of doing something unexpected in New Hampshire but I'd be really surprised ( as much I personally like otherwise) if he goes much further than that.

Div
12-04-2007, 11:36 PM
-The board of governors is an independant government agency, like NASA or the CIA, not a private corporation. Its members are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
-Again, it's not the Fed's fault that new money has to be created or that more money has to be loaned to the government. It's the administration's fault for creating poor fiscal policy that results in an ever-increasing budget deficit.
-AGAIN, if the government wasn't borrowing from the Fed, it'd be borrowing from other countries. The Fed only holds about $700 billion of the $9 trillion national debt.


But what if the government just doesn't borrow at all? Wouldn't it be better if we just live within our means and not get ourselves into debt? Its a given that owing trillions to the Chinese isnt a good thing, Paul says that we need to spend only what we can afford, that Washington wastes too much money subsidizing this and borrowing for that, and if we cut wasteful spending we can work on getting out of debt. I mean obviously the war is a huge money waste, so are some federal agencies that really don't do anything. Right there you would save huge amounts of money.

Even if you don't believe his plans would work, he does seem to be the only canidate whos honestly concerned about our (and future generations) debt. I don't understand why you're so bitter towards Dr. Paul, but he's gotta atleast get some credit for trying. There have to be atleast a few issues you agree on, it can't be all bad, right? Could you atleast agree he would make a much better president than Bush?

zgodt
12-05-2007, 07:08 AM
You people and all your political threads. :tp:

EvilCheeseWedge
12-05-2007, 07:50 AM
I like how anti-Ron Paul people never really discuss his views, only his 'chances-of-winning.'

What makes you think I'm anti-Ron Paul?

Although, for the record, his whole North American Union thing sorta makes him sound like a tin-foil wearing crazy.

EvilCheeseWedge
12-05-2007, 07:54 AM
Our country got along just fine before the FED came along, and people weren't reduced to wearing loincloths and hunting mastadons to survive.

Yup, but thanks to people like Alexander Hamilton (founder of the first national bank), early Americans, including Revolutionary War vets were basically conned into selling their war bonds to him and his buddies (such as Robert Morris) who would later push legislation through allowing them to redeem war bonds for large value at government expense, while only buying them from people for cents on the dollar.

EvilCheeseWedge
12-05-2007, 07:58 AM
Wouldn't it be better if we just live within our means and not get ourselves into debt?

That'd be nice, but is it really a reality? Can you imagine, say, a town getting slammed by a hurricane, but the federal government saying, "Well, sorry, we can't afford to do anything, the budget is pretty tight as it is and we might need this money for a new road or something later." I'm not saying there's anything wrong with fiscal responsibility, however, I just think the ability for the federal government to go into debt is one that should not be taken away.

Div
12-05-2007, 08:17 AM
Yup, but thanks to people like Alexander Hamilton (founder of the first national bank), early Americans, including Revolutionary War vets were basically conned into selling their war bonds to him and his buddies (such as Robert Morris) who would later push legislation through allowing them to redeem war bonds for large value at government expense, while only buying them from people for cents on the dollar.


Yep, and that traitor was shot dead.

That'd be nice, but is it really a reality? Can you imagine, say, a town getting slammed by a hurricane, but the federal government saying, "Well, sorry, we can't afford to do anything, the budget is pretty tight as it is and we might need this money for a new road or something later." I'm not saying there's anything wrong with fiscal responsibility, however, I just think the ability for the federal government to go into debt is one that should not be taken away.


Well I'd assume in situations like that they could cough up a little money if the states didn't have any, but theres plenty of other places to cut spending besides ruined towns. I think in general the trend of having congress go "hey, we can't really afford this 5 million dollar grant to a group of scientists studying wether or not goldfish can blink" would be a good thing.

ChildrenofSodom
12-05-2007, 10:13 AM
So, instead of having our economy influenced people who are buddies with politicians, you'd rather it was run BY politicians? Giving Congress authority over monetary policy is an utterly terrifying thought.

Politicians are held accountable to the people, bankers are not.

SomewhereInTime72
12-05-2007, 10:17 AM
Politicians are held accountable to the people, bankers are not.

If anything, the Bush administration has shown that basically the opposite is true.

powerslave_85
12-05-2007, 10:20 AM
This is going to sound elitist, but I don't care: Congress and the people don't know jack shit about the economy. I'd rather leave monetary policy to people who have spent most of their lives studying the way our economy works than to some yahoo junior congressman or crooked Senator with lobbyists in his pocket.

JRA
12-05-2007, 10:35 AM
I'd rather leave monetary policy to people who have spent most of their lives studying the way our economy works than to some yahoo junior congressman or crooked Senator with lobbyists in his pocket.

I agree.

ChildrenofSodom
12-05-2007, 10:39 AM
Although, for the record, his whole North American Union thing sorta makes him sound like a tin-foil wearing crazy.

I hear alot of people say that. But the truth is, the NAU isnt a conspiracy theory. Lou Dobbs talks about it ALL the time on CNN. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U) It even has its own government site. (http://www.spp-psp.gc.ca/menu-en.aspx) The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America was concocted by the Canadian, Mexican, and American presidents.

The NAFTA Superhighway, or the Supercorridor (http://web.archive.org/web/20060112064548/http://www.nascocorridor.com), is the plan to expand and unite American, Canadian, Mexican roadways. Nafta

I dont believe, nor do I think that Ron Paul believes, there is this huge New World Order plan to take over the Western World with this, but it is still kinda scary that our leaders are allowed nullify state's rights and national independence, and are not required to report to Congress. Like Paul has said before, there have already been funding bills tacked on to other bills (called riders) that would take small steps towards this 'NAU', and there have been moves within some state legislatures to try to stop the creation of the highway.

It really isnt a conspiracy theory. It is supposed to be common knowledge. NAFTA and CAFTA were meant to give more power to governments to regulate international commerce, and deregulate their friends in big business. The next step was to improve transportation between nations. There are no evil figures lurking the shadows. The truth is, you haven't heard much about it, and the idea of it being true (which it is) is just shocking. Unlike most conspiracy theories, there are no assumptions or leaps of faith to be taken in order to make this sound plausible. Its right in front of your nose.

ChildrenofSodom
12-05-2007, 10:43 AM
This is going to sound elitist, but I don't care: Congress and the people don't know jack shit about the economy. I'd rather leave monetary policy to people who have spent most of their lives studying the way our economy works than to some yahoo junior congressman or crooked Senator with lobbyists in his pocket.

Umm...You dont think bankers have special interests too? Quite the opposite! Who the fuck do you think makes the most money off the Fed? uh...Bankers! And to just says "bankers know more than I do, let them do it" seems rather simpleton to me. There are many many different theories in economics and ways of running economics. Ron Paul has studied the Austrian Economic Model for more than 30 years. He isnt an amateur.

And this is OUR economy. Why do we need some elite, untouchable, unaccountable special-interest banker controlling our ENTIRE economy? Doesnt that seem kinda crooked to you? Why shouldnt the person that controls our economy be held more accountable to the people? The average person doesnt know anything about economics, but there are people like Ron Paul who do know a little something.

ChildrenofSodom
12-05-2007, 10:44 AM
If anything, the Bush administration has shown that basically the opposite is true.

We can impeach Bush if we wanted. We cant impeach Federal Chairmen of the Federal Reserve.

ChildrenofSodom
12-05-2007, 11:02 AM
Ron Paul is a ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. I think he knows a little bit about how the economy and the Federal Reserve works. His biggest beef with the Fed, besides its constitutionality, is that sinces its creation in 1913, it has overwhelmingly failed in its efforts to stop inflation. Todays dollar is worth a mere 4 cents compared to the dollar of 1913. Stopping/slowing inflation is one of the few things that Congress has mandated to the Fed, and it has failed miserably. It is not just this administration's financial policies.

It is the whole idea that a third party can print money at the drop of a hat. Yes, we can blame Bush for digging us deeper into debt with this war, but if Congress truly controlled the money, it would be much easier to just say NO! If we had a literally-limited budget, then we would be forced to cut spending and live within our means. We could borrow money from third parties for national emergencies, but this current system in which a bank can just write a check and then the American people are forced to pay out the ass for it, HAS TO STOP! .

Watch this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=nj9KHJRRUbQ) Direct confrontation between Bernanke and Ron Paul.

Div
12-05-2007, 03:09 PM
I hear alot of people say that. But the truth is, the NAU isnt a conspiracy theory. Lou Dobbs talks about it ALL the time on CNN. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U) It even has its own government site. (http://www.spp-psp.gc.ca/menu-en.aspx) The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America was concocted by the Canadian, Mexican, and American presidents.

The NAFTA Superhighway, or the Supercorridor (http://web.archive.org/web/20060112064548/http://www.nascocorridor.com), is the plan to expand and unite American, Canadian, Mexican roadways. Nafta

I dont believe, nor do I think that Ron Paul believes, there is this huge New World Order plan to take over the Western World with this, but it is still kinda scary that our leaders are allowed nullify state's rights and national independence, and are not required to report to Congress. Like Paul has said before, there have already been funding bills tacked on to other bills (called riders) that would take small steps towards this 'NAU', and there have been moves within some state legislatures to try to stop the creation of the highway.

It really isnt a conspiracy theory. It is supposed to be common knowledge. NAFTA and CAFTA were meant to give more power to governments to regulate international commerce, and deregulate their friends in big business. The next step was to improve transportation between nations. There are no evil figures lurking the shadows. The truth is, you haven't heard much about it, and the idea of it being true (which it is) is just shocking. Unlike most conspiracy theories, there are no assumptions or leaps of faith to be taken in order to make this sound plausible. Its right in front of your nose.


"Haaaaaaaaaaaay gaiz this is SEEKSTER from arlingtun texus, u be done thar consparisy LOL?"


I was in complete awe that redneck could even operate a computer.



Anyway guys, remember that the EU was considered a "conspiracy" at first, and they celebrated their 50 year anniversary recently. But wait, the EU hasn't been around for 50 years, so what were they celebrating? Oh turns out 50 years prior to the date of their celebration was when the Treaty of Rome was signed. What was the Treaty of Rome? It was a pact for food, oil, transportation, etc. to be united in Europe. So see, the EU was formed long before they officially changed their maps, and long before they even began public talk of it. The same trends are following here, it starts with international trade/transportation pacts, and all goes down hill from there. BTW, there was a ValueVoters debate back in September where all the second tier canidates attended, one of the questions asked about the NAU and ALL the canidates answered saying they were aware of it and they opposed it (uh huh, sure they do).


And as far as the FED goes;

Federal Income Tax Table Rate vs. Inflation Over Time

__________1.9 _____________1.9 ___________0.7 ___________1.8 ______________________10-Year Multiplier

YEAR - Cost of HOUSE - Cost of Loaf of BREAD - VALUE of $1 - Fed. & State Income Tax Rate % - Time Span

1776 ------ $1,000 ----------- $0.01 ------------- 1.00 -------------- ZERO ------------------------
1913 ------ $1,000 ----------- $0.01 ------------- 1.00 -------------- ZERO ----------------------- 137 years of no change First year of income tax
1923 ------ $1,900 ----------- $0.02 ------------- 0.70 -------------- 0.5% ----------------------- 10 years
1933 ------ $3,610 ----------- $0.04 ------------- 0.49 -------------- 0.9% ----------------------- 10 years
1943 ------ $6,859 ----------- $0.07 ------------- 0.34 -------------- 1.6% ----------------------- 10 years
1953 ------ $13,032 ----------- $0.13 ------------ 0.24 ------------ 2.9% ------------------------ 10 years
1963 ------ $24,761 ----------- $0.25 ------------ 0.17 ------------ 5.2% ------------------------ 10 years
1973 ------ $47,046 ----------- $0.47 ------------ 12 ------------- 9.4% ------------------------ 10 years
1983 ------ $89,387 ----------- $0.89 ------------ 8 --------------- 17.0% ----------------------- 10 years
1993 ------ $169,836 ----------- $1.70 ----------- 6 ------------- 30.6% ------------------------ 10 years
2003 ------ $322,688 ----------- $3.23 ----------- 4 ------------- 55.1%* ---------------------- 10 years
2005 ------ $400,000 ----------- $3.50 ----------- 4 ------------- 58.0% ------------------------- 2 years
2013 ------ $613,107 ----------- $6.13 ----------- 3 ------------- 100 % ? --------------------- 10 years


The U.S. Federal Income Tax Rate has consistently increased 80% every 10 years.

*Federal Income Tax Rate 22% + FICA 7% + State Income Tax 7% + Medicare 1%



But people keep denying these things because the majoirty won't talk about it, and as we all know, mob rules, right?

zgodt
12-05-2007, 09:09 PM
*Federal Income Tax Rate 22% + FICA 7% + State Income Tax 7% + Medicare 1%



But people keep denying these things because the majoirty won't talk about it, and as we all know, mob rules, right?
I don't know about the majority, but I will deny that 22% + 7% + 7% + 1% = 55.1%, the mob be damned.

zgodt
12-05-2007, 09:20 PM
This is going to sound elitist, but I don't care: Congress and the people don't know jack shit about the economy. I'd rather leave monetary policy to people who have spent most of their lives studying the way our economy works than to some yahoo junior congressman or crooked Senator with lobbyists in his pocket.
No, it does sound elitist, and I can't agree. People are poorly informed about the economy and how it affects them, and that is a problem. But the solution to the problem is NOT to take economic decisions out of their hands -- never that. Economics experts are notoriously bad at acting in the best interests of the people they purportedly serve (instead, they act in the interests of the people they actually serve: the rich).

Div
12-05-2007, 09:28 PM
I don't know about the majority, but I will deny that 22% + 7% + 7% + 1% = 55.1%, the mob be damned.


I forgot this part from the source I copied from :hecho: :

"If one includes Sales Taxes, Property Taxes, Gas Taxes, Excise Taxes,DMV Taxes, Death Tax, etc. That must be at least another 10%!"

Therefore 22 + 7 + 7 + 1 + 10 * 1.8 = 55


atleast that's the only way I see of getting 55 out of those numbers, not sure where the .1 came from tho

zgodt
12-05-2007, 09:44 PM
I forgot this part from the source I copied from :hecho: :

"If one includes Sales Taxes, Property Taxes, Gas Taxes, Excise Taxes,DMV Taxes, Death Tax, etc. That must be at least another 10%!"

Therefore 22 + 7 + 7 + 1 + 10 * 1.8 = 55


atleast that's the only way I see of getting 55 out of those numbers, not sure where the .1 came from tho
(a) If you want folks to take your numbers seriously, you should indicate (and if possible link to) your source.
(b) What is the logic behind multiplying by 1.8? And assuming there is a logic behind it, what is the logic behind only multiplying the last 10% by 1.8, rather than the whole thing?
(c) Judging by the tone of the passage you've included in quotes... to me this sounds increasingly like crackpot "conservative" propaganda, rather than a dispassionate economic analysis.

EvilCheeseWedge
12-06-2007, 12:22 PM
Economics experts are notoriously bad at acting in the best interests of the people they purportedly serve (instead, they act in the interests of the people they actually serve: the rich).

Which has been true in America since before the United States officially existed. Again, I'll point to Robert Morris, a major American financier, who even ended up elected to the Constitutional Convention. While on one hand, he is painted as a sort of "hero" for at times even personally supporting the American Revolution (paying soldiers out of his own pocket) - when you examine where his money is form, why he has it, and what he would then do with his political ties, his actions become far less heroic. It's kind of ironic that the two principal figures that wanted a national bank (Morris and Alexander Hamilton) essentially schemed together to enrich themselves and their friends along the way, often at the expense of average Americans, and even war veterans.

They were also both behind the first domestic tax, a tax on whiskey, which resulted in the Whiskey Rebellion. Hamilton stated that he, "wanted the tax imposed to advance and secure the power of the new federal government." When in reality the tax made it increasingly difficult for small whiskey producers to compete with larger ones, whom the tax favored, despite claims from Hamilton that the tax was fair.

And PS85, monetary policy will always be in reach of at least the people, or Congress to some degree. To put something above the system would be a terrible idea, and almost certainly unconstitutional. Even the Federal Reserve is not above control, as Congress could repeal the laws that establish the Federal Reserve, however unlikely that would be. What you said is essentially a startling rebuke of democracy in general, as there are almost always people more informed then you, or any other "average American." Where would your logic end? There has always been a fear of the "unthinking masses," as some of the founding fathers referred to the American public, and that fear is at least partially responsible for institutions such as the electoral college. Would you also revoke the people's right to vote, because they are certainly not as informed as they could be?

EvilCheeseWedge
12-06-2007, 12:32 PM
Ron Paul is a ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. I think he knows a little bit about how the economy and the Federal Reserve works. His biggest beef with the Fed, besides its constitutionality, is that sinces its creation in 1913, it has overwhelmingly failed in its efforts to stop inflation. Todays dollar is worth a mere 4 cents compared to the dollar of 1913. Stopping/slowing inflation is one of the few things that Congress has mandated to the Fed, and it has failed miserably. It is not just this administration's financial policies.

Is that his biggest argument against the Fed? Inflation? Inflation is a worldwide phenomenon, not limited to just America. What about the fact two world wars have been fought since 1913? Besides, inflation is kind of a moot point if people's wages and budgets keep up to it, which for the most part, they do here. If tomorrow milk costs $15/gallon and we receive no more compensation, and prices continue to climb, while wages remain the same, then yes, we'll have an inflation problem. But otherwise, I think it's a bit rash to say the Fed has "failed miserably" with regards to inflation. Plus fiscal policy can only go so far. Perhaps inflation today would be more in check if we weren't involved in two wars, yet the Fed doesn't have the power to dictate that.

It's kind of like saying Congress mandated the Fed to cure cancer, and because all they have to show for it is "research" but no real cure that they have "failed miserably."

powerslave_85
12-06-2007, 10:13 PM
Okay, CoS, your sig is just ridiculous.

SomewhereInTime72
12-06-2007, 11:03 PM
Okay, CoS, your sig is just ridiculous.

You know who else was right about Iran? Anyone that didn't work for FOX.

ChildrenofSodom
12-06-2007, 11:08 PM
Okay, CoS, your sig is just ridiculous.

Its meant to be sarcastic.



Hillary Clinton and Obama didnt take nukes off the table...:hmm:

DethMaiden
12-07-2007, 06:01 AM
You know who else was right about Iran? Anyone that didn't work for FOX.

:lol: :lol:

ChildrenofSodom
12-09-2007, 08:09 PM
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo&feature=related

Shit man....this is awesome.

powerslave_85
12-09-2007, 08:27 PM
Wait wait wait...Ron Paul has a BLIMP now?? That changes everything. I guess I was wrong about him.

ChildrenofSodom
12-09-2007, 08:44 PM
Wait wait wait...Ron Paul has a BLIMP now?? That changes everything. I guess I was wrong about him.

No. Ron Paul doesnt have a blimp. His supporters have a blimp.

Lets face it: it may sound like a crazy idea, but when Romney, Clinton, Giuliani, and Obama have these mega-bucks, celebs supporting them, and the mainstream media sucking their balls, Ron Paul supporters are trying anything and everything to get his name out.

powerslave_85
12-09-2007, 08:53 PM
Yeah, but seriously...a fucking BLIMP??

EDIT: HAHAHAHA. Another board I'm on just started a Photoshop thread on the blimp. So far this is the best one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/powerslave_85/ceiling_cat.jpg

Div
12-09-2007, 09:05 PM
No. Ron Paul doesnt have a blimp. His supporters have a blimp.

Lets face it: it may sound like a crazy idea, but when Romney, Clinton, Giuliani, and Obama have these mega-bucks, celebs supporting them, and the mainstream media sucking their balls, Ron Paul supporters are trying anything and everything to get his name out.


come one week from now we'll see who really has the mega bucks :D

ChildrenofSodom
12-09-2007, 09:10 PM
Yeah, but seriously...a fucking BLIMP??

EDIT: HAHAHAHA. Another board I'm on just started a Photoshop thread on the blimp. So far this is the best one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/powerslave_85/ceiling_cat.jpg

Its their money. Ron Paul's campaign has nothing to do with it. 100% grassroots. Give him a fucking break...you make it sound like political activism is taboo.

And think about it...you know how many million people will see that thing?

ChildrenofSodom
12-09-2007, 09:11 PM
come one week from now we'll see who really has the mega bucks :D

Fuck yeah! I asked off that day...Gonna sit at the PC and watch the numbers go up. :D

zgodt
12-09-2007, 10:19 PM
Wait wait wait...Ron Paul has a BLIMP now?? That changes everything. I guess I was wrong about him.
You didn't realize he's a lunatic? ;)

ChildrenofSodom
12-10-2007, 03:53 AM
You didn't realize he's a lunatic? ;)

You're a fucking lunatic. Ron Paul didnt even buy it. He had NOTHING to do with it.


You guys have a fun time in 09 when you're carrying your fucking national ID cards and watching as your friends and family are carried off to war. If you cant see how Ron Paul is the best candidate out there, then you are politically hopeless.

hot_turkey_ed
12-10-2007, 06:13 AM
:ugly:

:stop: