No stage presence, no granite chin, no vinyl-shiny hair, no caps on his teeth, no "soul for sale" sign when you look deep in his eyes, just substance, no flash. How do we know he'll bend over in front of the Wall St. crowd and toss a tube of K-Y over his shoulder while assuring us that all will be well as long as we support the military industrial complex?
Guess lot's of folks will be sticking with Mitt Romney.
No stage presence, no granite chin, no vinyl-shiny hair, no caps on his teeth, no "soul for sale" sign when you look deep in his eyes, just substance, no flash. How do we know he'll bend over in front of the Wall St. crowd and toss a tube of K-Y over his shoulder while assuring us that all will be well as long as we support the military industrial complex?
Guess lot's of folks will be sticking with Mitt Romney.
The more the religious right highjacked the republican party over the last decade plus, the more disilliusioned I became. I don't want to hear what Rick Santorumand his ilk wax on about Christian values and nonsense like that. I just want smaller, more efficient, effective federal government and better use of my tax dollars. Along comes Sarah Palindrome and Michelle Bachman and I just had to tune out...seriously, we can't even muster an intelligent candidate. So I stopped paying attention. But I've been paying attention to this thread and I have yet to hr something from Ron Paul that I disagree with. He may have drawbacks, but I've yet to figure out what they are.
Thank you very much Luko! You have just made this whole thread worth the time invested, just stay tuned and maybe you can get as amped about this guy as I am. While it's fun to banter with Amos, its kinda like preaching to the converted. I learned alot about libeterianism from him lol. Anyhow thanks Luko and don't hesitate to post any good stuff you find in here. Same for anyone else.
Hey Wes, I'm the frickin choir. Ron's just a little boring. What we really need if for more liberal airheads to join in and try to argue against his positions. They trip on their tongues and its very amusing.
Over the past year I've really taken off my blinders and I think the "left"/"right" wing corners they have painted us into are what will be the eventual down fall of our great nation. Just doing some light research you can find out that the founding fathers warned us of all this. Don't dare quote them though, you'll be called a fringe lunatic for *** like that. Anyhow thanks for the words of encouragement Doug! Feel free to post your favorite Ron Paul stuff brother!
Tea Party, moral majority, Ross Perot? All the same sentiment. The masses of reasonable people must either penetrate one of the extremes, or be patriots in other ways. I'm all about other ways, but I would hope saner minds prevail.
Hey Wes. I'm hearing more and more liberals, those who are liberal only on the issue of war, defending Paul. Not a chance he could get the Rep nomination, but he might be able to swing some of the anit-war faction, and it is large, to see things more conservatively. Too many liberal democrats are democrats because of one particular issue.
Hey Wes. I'm hearing more and more liberals, those who are liberal only on the issue of war, defending Paul. Not a chance he could get the Rep nomination, but he might be able to swing some of the anit-war faction, and it is large, to see things more conservatively. Too many liberal democrats are democrats because of one particular issue.
I'll go one further, I'd say he has a decent chance if he makes a third party run. Alot of liberals are pissed off that Obama is continuing that assault on the middle east. Everyday more and more conservatives wake up and realize being republican and being conservative have nothing to do with each other. The decimation of the US economy/value of the dollar, continues no matter which of these parties are in office and the people are waking up to this fact.
Tea Party, moral majority, Ross Perot? All the same sentiment. The masses of reasonable people must either penetrate one of the extremes, or be patriots in other ways. I'm all about other ways, but I would hope saner minds prevail.
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. - Thomas Jefferson 1787
Hopefully in our time this bloodshed can be more metaphoric than literal.
In lighter news the past few weeks I've become a Thomas Jefferson junkie lol.
I would like to see the spirit of patriots totally envelope the Republican Party. A third party movement only gets you a presidency. I would like to see the Ron Pauls of the country take over that party.
I would like to see the spirit of patriots totally envelope the Republican Party. A third party movement only gets you a presidency. I would like to see the Ron Pauls of the country take over that party.
I think a Ron Paul presidency would really help that rally. We just need more people to open their eyes. A little freedom will lead to the desire for more.
Over the past year I've really taken off my blinders and I think the "left"/"right" wing corners they have painted us into are what will be the eventual down fall of our great nation. Just doing some light research you can find out that the founding fathers warned us of all this. Don't dare quote them though, you'll be called a fringe lunatic for *** like that. Anyhow thanks for the words of encouragement Doug! Feel free to post your favorite Ron Paul stuff brother!
This is exactly so. I've had a number of thoughts on this subject, but not much time lately. I feel like I haven't done my homework here, since I'm behind on watching all these great clips you've posted. Let me see if I can summarize some things that are on my mind, and I'll be getting back to them with some historical perspectives I've picked up recently, and some I'll have to dig out.
1) There are those who profit from this left/right dichotomy, and they push the poles as far apart as possible.
2) Sheep, which are found on both sides of the fence
3) breaking down the categories: a: Liberals, 1. True Liberals 2. bleeding heart liberals 3. socialists 4. communists
b: Conservatives, 1. True Conservatives 2. Neo-Cons , who break into a couple of groups, but more on that later.
On another, but related note, there is something that really worries me about Ron Paul; he makes too much sense! I'm saying this in the perspective of Calvin Coolidge, who's ideas made a lot of sense to the folks at the time, and then everything just got worse.
As I said, I have some thoughts, and references on the subjects above, but will need to try and find some time today or tomorrow.
Lastly, I'm thrilled to see the input from Beatnic and Laker, some good ideas there. Beatnic, I've noticed that a lot of folks I know, including my wife, have said they'd vote for Ron Paul, but if he can't get it, then they'd go with Obama. Seems strange on the surface, but some of what I hope to address sort of clears up at least part of it. I kind of wish Xmacro had been able to hang with us. I, for one, don't think anyone was baiting him, he's a mystery to me. If I express an idea, he hits back with all this "move-on.org" nonsense, it's like he's been hypnotized to hear this stuff whenever certain subjects come up. I haven't the foggiest what move-on is saying, thought they'd faded out after the last election cycle. Not much I can do about that, but, I'll try not to stick anyone in a box either.
Here's where I think Ron Paul has a very tenuous grasp of reality, just two examples which made me write the guy off.
1. He wants to go back to the gold satndard. At current prices, that would leave everyone with just over 400 dollars perperson, calculating what we have in reserve (numbers available through the National Treasury website) and our current population. Face facts, gold bugs, it is now impossible, based on population and the inability to stabilize the commodity price, to go on a gold standard. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasyland.
2. He claims to support the Constitution of the United States to the letter, then promotes the private minting of money to compete with the federal mint, thinking that people would prefer precious metals in their change. First off, the Constitution specifically states that the government is responsible for the minting of money. Period. To allow private minting of money would therefore be unconstitutional and supposedly against what the man states he believes in implicitly. Secondly, he has a poor grasp of the opinions of the average American, who doesn't care what his or her money is made out of, so long as Walmart will take it.
Now, the man may have some good ideas, but these two insane ones are hard for me to look at, and make me disregard anything the man says. Until he starts being sane about things, he will never get my support.
Thanks for the kind words Amos... but I agreed a long time ago not to get involved with the political forum anymore.
I have been reading and watching this thread with great interest and I have been unable to stop myself from making a comment or two without getting into the neat of the conversation.
I can't wait to get back and read your post when you flesh out the points you made in this last one. Sheep, and labels... two things I have been going off on for some time. I will be keeping a mostly silent vigil of this thread.
I guess maybe some of his ideas are too scary or foreign to some Republicans, but I am rather surprised that he hasn't been greeted somewhat like Obama was for the Dems. He has a lot of thought and substance in his views, maybe that scares some of the behind the scenes power brokers who like to pull the strings of the people in charge and they worry they couldn't do that with Ron Paul?
Here's where I think Ron Paul has a very tenuous grasp of reality, just two examples which made me write the guy off.
1. He wants to go back to the gold satndard. At current prices, that would leave everyone with just over 400 dollars perperson, calculating what we have in reserve (numbers available through the National Treasury website) and our current population. Face facts, gold bugs, it is now impossible, based on population and the inability to stabilize the commodity price, to go on a gold standard. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasyland.
2. He claims to support the Constitution of the United States to the letter, then promotes the private minting of money to compete with the federal mint, thinking that people would prefer precious metals in their change. First off, the Constitution specifically states that the government is responsible for the minting of money. Period. To allow private minting of money would therefore be unconstitutional and supposedly against what the man states he believes in implicitly. Secondly, he has a poor grasp of the opinions of the average American, who doesn't care what his or her money is made out of, so long as Walmart will take it.
Now, the man may have some good ideas, but these two insane ones are hard for me to look at, and make me disregard anything the man says. Until he starts being sane about things, he will never get my support.
1: He has said that our money should be based on "commodity-backed currency through a gradual reintroduction of hard currency, including both gold and silver:. In other words, the paper in your wallet should be backed up by something real. Get it?
2: "At current prices, that would leave everyone with just over 400 dollars perperson." Yes, instead of owing $45,000? 3: Constitution specifically states that the government is responsible for the minting of money. Period. The key word being "responsible". Both of these issues are rather minor and would hardly qualify him to be accused of insanity. JMO
2. He claims to support the Constitution of the United States to the letter, then promotes the private minting of money to compete with the federal mint, thinking that people would prefer precious metals in their change. First off, the Constitution specifically states that the government is responsible for the minting of money. Period. To allow private minting of money would therefore be unconstitutional and supposedly against what the man states he believes in implicitly. Secondly, he has a poor grasp of the opinions of the average American, who doesn't care what his or her money is made out of, so long as Walmart will take it.
Now, the man may have some good ideas, but these two insane ones are hard for me to look at, and make me disregard anything the man says. Until he starts being sane about things, he will never get my support.
Just to add to what beatnic is saying by going back to a gold standard you take inflation/deflation to a minimum impact. Also I would urge you to do some research on the federal reserve (you may hate me if you do but at least you'll know.)
I think you're confusing commodity trading and minting. According to the government gold and silver are not money. Doesn't this one sentence cause your arguement to fall appart?
Just curious who you do support since two fairly minor issues will disqualify someone.
People are always afraid of anyone who has what they think are “extreme” views. Obama just appointed someone who’s said he’s in favor of a national sales tax. Do I think that’ll happen? Probably not. Do I think we’ll go back to the gold standard if Ron Paul were elected, probably not. Do I think he’ll be able to automatically withdraw all of the troops, probably not. Would I vote for him? Probably. Yah gotta look at the candidate as a whole.
I have done some research into the fed. You do realize that the fed is the only entity standing between Congress and the Senate and the money presses, right? To back anyone who want's to get rid of that intermediary is scary at best. While I may support more controls on the fed, to get rid of it, espescially now, would be insane.
I am not confusing commodity trading and minting. The man wants private mints, which would be unconstitutional. The government is right, at least in this period in history. All money is is an agreed upon medium of exchange, which right now, almost completely world wide, is promisary notes. While people may trade precious metals as a commodity right now they are not money, by definition.
Congress, according to the Constitution, is not only responsible for minting money in the United States, but were given exclusive right to determint it's composition.
Being as this is a Ron Paul thread, I do not want to hi-jack it by promoting who may support, but let's say it isn't anyone who wouold waste time with unobtainable unconstitutional platforms like Mr. Paul.
I have done some research into the fed. You do realize that the fed is the only entity standing between Congress and the Senate and the money presses, right? To back anyone who want's to get rid of that intermediary is scary at best. While I may support more controls on the fed, to get rid of it, espescially now, would be insane.
I am not confusing commodity trading and minting. The man wants private mints, which would be unconstitutional. The government is right, at least in this period in history. All money is is an agreed upon medium of exchange, which right now, almost completely world wide, is promisary notes. While people may trade precious metals as a commodity right now they are not money, by definition.
Congress, according to the Constitution, is not only responsible for minting money in the United States, but were given exclusive right to determint it's composition.
Being as this is a Ron Paul thread, I do not want to hi-jack it by promoting who may support, but let's say it isn't anyone who wouold waste time with unobtainable unconstitutional platforms like Mr. Paul.
Couldn't disagree more... much easier to hold the ELECTED officials accountable for the money than the secracy that is the fed, whose private investors make more money the more they print/loan.
Ok I did some searching and found the stuff you're talking about with minting.... Brilliant IMHO gives a community a chance to protect it's currency from out of control federal spending. The bill you were refering to wouldn't allow you to pay taxes with any currency other than federal notes, so you'd still pay taxes would just have a safeguard of your choosing between you and deflation/inflation.
By all means if you've found a candidate that supports the constitution better than Ron Paul promote away my friend.
"All money is is an agreed upon medium of exchange" I guess my problem lies there. I just think that all money should be backed by something real.
Ok beat, suppose someone went through with this crazy scam of a currency backed by a stable commodity..... how would the super rich control inflation/deflation to become even more rich?
(I know you're itching for a debate so I'll help.)
Comments
Guess lot's of folks will be sticking with Mitt Romney.
Anyhow thanks for the words of encouragement Doug! Feel free to post your favorite Ron Paul stuff brother!
Hopefully in our time this bloodshed can be more metaphoric than literal.
In lighter news the past few weeks I've become a Thomas Jefferson junkie lol.
1) There are those who profit from this left/right dichotomy, and they push the poles as far apart as possible.
2) Sheep, which are found on both sides of the fence
3) breaking down the categories:
a: Liberals, 1. True Liberals 2. bleeding heart liberals 3. socialists 4. communists
b: Conservatives, 1. True Conservatives 2. Neo-Cons , who break into a couple of groups, but more on that later.
On another, but related note, there is something that really worries me about Ron Paul; he makes too much sense! I'm saying this in the perspective of Calvin Coolidge, who's ideas made a lot of sense to the folks at the time, and then everything just got worse.
As I said, I have some thoughts, and references on the subjects above, but will need to try and find some time today or tomorrow.
Lastly, I'm thrilled to see the input from Beatnic and Laker, some good ideas there. Beatnic, I've noticed that a lot of folks I know, including my wife, have said they'd vote for Ron Paul, but if he can't get it, then they'd go with Obama. Seems strange on the surface, but some of what I hope to address sort of clears up at least part of it. I kind of wish Xmacro had been able to hang with us. I, for one, don't think anyone was baiting him, he's a mystery to me. If I express an idea, he hits back with all this "move-on.org" nonsense, it's like he's been hypnotized to hear this stuff whenever certain subjects come up. I haven't the foggiest what move-on is saying, thought they'd faded out after the last election cycle. Not much I can do about that, but, I'll try not to stick anyone in a box either.
1. He wants to go back to the gold satndard. At current prices, that would leave everyone with just over 400 dollars perperson, calculating what we have in reserve (numbers available through the National Treasury website) and our current population. Face facts, gold bugs, it is now impossible, based on population and the inability to stabilize the commodity price, to go on a gold standard. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasyland.
2. He claims to support the Constitution of the United States to the letter, then promotes the private minting of money to compete with the federal mint, thinking that people would prefer precious metals in their change. First off, the Constitution specifically states that the government is responsible for the minting of money. Period. To allow private minting of money would therefore be unconstitutional and supposedly against what the man states he believes in implicitly. Secondly, he has a poor grasp of the opinions of the average American, who doesn't care what his or her money is made out of, so long as Walmart will take it.
Now, the man may have some good ideas, but these two insane ones are hard for me to look at, and make me disregard anything the man says. Until he starts being sane about things, he will never get my support.
I have been reading and watching this thread with great interest and I have been unable to stop myself from making a comment or two without getting into the neat of the conversation.
I can't wait to get back and read your post when you flesh out the points you made in this last one. Sheep, and labels... two things I have been going off on for some time. I will be keeping a mostly silent vigil of this thread.
I guess maybe some of his ideas are too scary or foreign to some Republicans, but I am rather surprised that he hasn't been greeted somewhat like Obama was for the Dems. He has a lot of thought and substance in his views, maybe that scares some of the behind the scenes power brokers who like to pull the strings of the people in charge and they worry they couldn't do that with Ron Paul?
2: "At current prices, that would leave everyone with just over 400 dollars perperson." Yes, instead of owing $45,000?
3: Constitution specifically states that the government is responsible for the minting of money. Period. The key word being "responsible".
Both of these issues are rather minor and would hardly qualify him to be accused of insanity. JMO
I think you're confusing commodity trading and minting. According to the government gold and silver are not money. Doesn't this one sentence cause your arguement to fall appart?
Just curious who you do support since two fairly minor issues will disqualify someone.
I am not confusing commodity trading and minting. The man wants private mints, which would be unconstitutional. The government is right, at least in this period in history. All money is is an agreed upon medium of exchange, which right now, almost completely world wide, is promisary notes. While people may trade precious metals as a commodity right now they are not money, by definition.
Congress, according to the Constitution, is not only responsible for minting money in the United States, but were given exclusive right to determint it's composition.
Being as this is a Ron Paul thread, I do not want to hi-jack it by promoting who may support, but let's say it isn't anyone who wouold waste time with unobtainable unconstitutional platforms like Mr. Paul.
Ok I did some searching and found the stuff you're talking about with minting.... Brilliant IMHO gives a community a chance to protect it's currency from out of control federal spending. The bill you were refering to wouldn't allow you to pay taxes with any currency other than federal notes, so you'd still pay taxes would just have a safeguard of your choosing between you and deflation/inflation.
By all means if you've found a candidate that supports the constitution better than Ron Paul promote away my friend.
(I know you're itching for a debate so I'll help.)