My point entirely. EVERYONE, regardless of whatever "label" that someone wants to give them, should be treated the same.
Like I say... once white men are lynched for being white and straight people are murdered for being straight... maybe we can revisit those Hate Crimes "special rights" you're so upset about.
And for the record... White Straight men ARE protected by hate crimes laws. They usually just mention "Sexual Orientation, Race and Sex."
So... "Straight, White Male" would qualify for those protections if that's what the crime is attacking. Like... I dunno a horde of angry Latina Lesbians burns down a Nascar event to kill as many white straight men as they can... well, that's a hate crime too.
I'm sorry that you are so oppressed. I truly want everyone treated the same and I do not believe in special categories for crimes. Are not all crimes with a victim hate crimes? But I digress this is not the thread for it.
Ron Paul is for states rights on the state to determine where they stand. He thinks government should stay out of marriage. For what its worth I have much more to worry about if two guys get married, more power to them. I used to be totally against it when I voted Democrat but I woke up when I went Libertarian, power to the people. Rock on with your gay self. I think you have a right to be critical of the issue but this election is too important to not see the whole picture.
No. No they're not. Nobody robs a bank because they hate money. Nobody drives drunk and kills kids because they hate children of sobriety. And if you kill your wife for the inheritance, you did it for the money, not because you hate women.
But if you choose a random Muslim person and attack them, you do it not only to hurt that person but to send a message of hate to their whole community. When you bomb a gay club... you don't just do it to kill the people in there, you do it to send a message of fear to all the other gay people.
And THAT is what hate crimes legislation is about.
Ron Paul is for states rights on the state to determine where they stand. He thinks government should stay out of marriage.
Well... he says that. But I'll bet you that when he got married... he got a marriage license and registered with city hall and I'lll bet you that he took the tax breaks and wrote of Rand as a dependent.
I think you have a right to be critical of the issue but this election is too important to not see the whole picture.
I wish I had a nickel for every time I've been told "yeah, I get it, homo... you want your rights... good for you...but this isn't the time for it.... go sit at the back of the bus like a good poof and wait your turn."
Screw that. Not happening. I'm not waiting any longer. All those "libertarian" people telling me agree with liberty and everything.... so long as it's their's and not mine. Nope. Sorry. (that's a lie, I'm not sorry and I'm not sorry that I'm not sorry)
I'll show you the same consideration you show me. And I'll vote with my OWN best interests at heart and I won't give a toss about yours.
I am simply shocked by the amount of people that don't understand the differences you point out. It is as if they are purposely not understanding the distinctions so they can call him a bigot and racist.
Well good for you... just "simply shocked."
It's almost as if you purposely forget all those special rights and stuff you have so you can insist that inequality doesn't exist.
what the fuck are you talking about?
How is it bigotry to want people to be free to be idiots on private property?
Explain it to me please.
as far as the rest, I think everyone deserves the right to be unhappy..er...I mean married...You don't know anything about me. What in any of my posts would indicate that I do not believe there is inequality? what about any of my posts would have you believe that I am against your right to be married? My point was they use bigotry and racism as words to describe Paul and they purposely miss the actual distinction and reasoning behind the decision to support something or not... Kind of like you just did. Paul works inside the federal government...and he doesn't believe that the federal government should be in the business of marriage...that is up to and including telling states they must acknowledge marriages from other states. I think it is dumb, but I understand he isn't doing it because he secretly hates gay people...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You might want to make a graceful exit in this thread, you are reaching now.
Not exactly a reach. What's the deal with Ron Paul supporters? They think the guy walks on water.
It wasn't a "reach" at all.
But just like the whole "are you talking about Hate Crimes" noise, the moment you point out how their positions aren't workable in the real world, they start to sputter and act like.... that.
I wonder if Ron Paul and his son aren't wistful for the days of when everything was in order and everyone knew their place. You know, like maybe the 1950's or 1920's. Back when everything was black or white, no shades of gray. Or maybe, Ron Paul would like to see the "United" states of America be Balkanized, where every state has their own rules and regulations and a weak central government. Ask Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia how that worked out. And then ask yourself whether A. Ron Paul would support Rick Perry and Texas seceding, for State's rights and B. whether he would make all of these same arguments as a private citizen and not as a Congressman, making his living off the taxpayers while sucking from the teat of Government.
Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. Paul, and make your argument with your own hard earned money and not mine. But I digress.
And I would ask, what benefit is there from auditing the Fed? What would the end result be? And from whence would you start? Since 1776? Maybe it should be 1789? No, how about after the Civil War, maybe 1866 or so, after the dust settled? No, no, maybe it should be since Wilson and the League of Nations? Naw, how about after Wounded Knee? No way man, the true malfeasance didn't start until after the labor riots in the 30's. Naw, I think it should start after the Carter Administration took office. All that wasteful spending of deploying missiles to Europe. Nope, it should start with Clinton and all that cocaine that was flown into Arkansas and having that poor chap murdered in the White House and disposed of in a park rolled in a carpet. And Ken Starr! How much did he cost again? No, but excuse me, it should really start with W. taking office and funding the Valerie Palme outing. I mean yellow cake in Nigeria? Can you imagine? Those pesky Iraqis. Yellow cake! And mushroom clouds! Oh my! (Iran is next, war is good for the defense industry and certain unemployed folks). Would Ron bring back the draft?
Please, audit the Fed. That's a plank in your platform?
Yup, lets go back to the rich can take care of themselves and fuck everybody else. And we'll call it State's rights and rugged individualism. The difference now is that there is no where else you can go to be "free", "individual" or "rich." The 1% don't want your kind.
Please point me to all the legislation introduced by Sir Ron that cuts funding to Israel, and all foreign funding in general, or pretends to address half of what he campaigns on. He, more than most, has the power to do such a thing.
I wonder if Ron Paul and his son aren't wistful for the days of when everything was in order and everyone knew their place. You know, like maybe the 1950's or 1920's. Back when everything was black or white, no shades of gray. Or maybe, Ron Paul would like to see the "United" states of America be Balkanized, where every state has their own rules and regulations and a weak central government. Ask Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia how that worked out. And then ask yourself whether A. Ron Paul would support Rick Perry and Texas seceding, for State's rights and B. whether he would make all of these same arguments as a private citizen and not as a Congressman, making his living off the taxpayers while sucking from the teat of Government.
Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. Paul, and make your argument with your own hard earned money and not mine. But I digress.
And I would ask, what benefit is there from auditing the Fed? What would the end result be? And from whence would you start? Since 1776? Maybe it should be 1789? No, how about after the Civil War, maybe 1866 or so, after the dust settled? No, no, maybe it should be since Wilson and the League of Nations? Naw, how about after Wounded Knee? No way man, the true malfeasance didn't start until after the labor riots in the 30's. Naw, I think it should start after the Carter Administration took office. All that wasteful spending of deploying missiles to Europe. Nope, it should start with Clinton and all that cocaine that was flown into Arkansas and having that poor chap murdered in the White House and disposed of in a park rolled in a carpet. And Ken Starr! How much did he cost again? No, but excuse me, it should really start with W. taking office and funding the Valerie Palme outing. I mean yellow cake in Nigeria? Can you imagine? Those pesky Iraqis. Yellow cake! And mushroom clouds! Oh my! (Iran is next, war is good for the defense industry and certain unemployed folks). Would Ron bring back the draft?
Please, audit the Fed. That's a plank in your platform?
Yup, lets go back to the rich can take care of themselves and fuck everybody else. And we'll call it State's rights and rugged individualism. The difference now is that there is no where else you can go to be "free", "individual" or "rich." The 1% don't want your kind.
Please point me to all the legislation introduced by Sir Ron that cuts funding to Israel, and all foreign funding in general, or pretends to address half of what he campaigns on. He, more than most, has the power to do such a thing.
Sleep tight.
Peace.
how about starting in 1913, you know...when the federal reserve was created. You may want to read about the system before discussing the merit of an audit.
Also, your reference to the Balkans in terms of states rights is laughable.
the dollar has lost 96% of its value since the fed was created. but yeah, how america gets its money should never be checked...just keep printing it and spending through bust cycles that were caused by spending that propped up and gave false value to entire portions of the economy.
But you are right, attacking Ron Paul is the solution...let's keep voting for Keynesian A (democrat) or Keynesian B (republican)...it has worked up until now...probably will work on into the future right?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You might want to make a graceful exit in this thread, you are reaching now.
Not exactly a reach. What's the deal with Ron Paul supporters? They think the guy walks on water.
It wasn't a "reach" at all.
But just like the whole "are you talking about Hate Crimes" noise, the moment you point out how their positions aren't workable in the real world, they start to sputter and act like.... that.
it was a reach because you have no idea how he would react to those situations...It is akin to saying I bet Ron Paul would kill a monkey if the sun blew up...there is no way to prove that type of statement. You are just making your own assumptions about what he would or wouldn't do...what if the crime was she tried to kill him?
Saying that marriage and the federal government shouldn't be intertwined is saying just that...and while he doesn't address each situation, there are solutions to each issue you raise...or is a government licensed marriage the only way those things can be done?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
it was a reach because you have no idea how he would react to those situations...It is akin to saying I bet Ron Paul would kill a monkey if the sun blew up...
Except no... it's not.
If he was actually against the government being "involved in marriage" then he wouldn't have one of those "government-recognized marriages."
You can try to derail it with "monkeys blowing up the sun" all you want.
But you know that I'm right. And it's killing you.
there are solutions to each issue you raise...or is a government licensed marriage the only way those things can be done?
Yes. In fact the only way those things can be done is with a federally-recognized, licensed marriage.
There are no "contracts" or "willis" or "extra hoops for the homos to jump through" that will give us access to over 1300 rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, resources and perks that straight people get.
How lame is it that my husband and I have been together for 19 years and yet Britney Spears got that many more rights by staggering into a chapel drunk with some guy she knew a few years before?
Now can you please educate yourself and stop being such an embarrassment?
there are solutions to each issue you raise...or is a government licensed marriage the only way those things can be done?
Yes. In fact the only way those things can be done is with a federally-recognized, licensed marriage.
There are no "contracts" or "willis" or "extra hoops for the homos to jump through" that will give us access to over 1300 rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, resources and perks that straight people get.
How lame is it that my husband and I have been together for 19 years and yet Britney Spears got that many more rights by staggering into a chapel drunk with some guy she knew a few years before?
Now can you please educate yourself and stop being such an embarrassment?
What the fuck are you talking about...I am not specifically saying homos need to jump through hoops...I am saying that EVERYONE WILL HAVE TO ACCOMPLISH THE THINGS THAT A LICENSED MARRIAGE DOES NOW DIFFERENTLY...jesus christ it is like you are just ignoring everything that is written...
When have I ever written in these forums that I am against gay marriage? when? point to it...I am simply stating that marriage should not be something that is given benefits by the state...it shouldn't need a fucking license. You are preaching to the choir...if the only way for people to have those extra privileges is through marriage (I would say that solutions for the other problems are out there) then everyone should be able to get married...would you please try to follow the point before you attack it.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
it was a reach because you have no idea how he would react to those situations...It is akin to saying I bet Ron Paul would kill a monkey if the sun blew up...
Except no... it's not.
If he was actually against the government being "involved in marriage" then he wouldn't have one of those "government-recognized marriages."
You can try to derail it with "monkeys blowing up the sun" all you want.
But you know that I'm right. And it's killing you.
you aren't right, my guess is you are the type that just talk louder in an argument and think you "won"
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I am not specifically saying homos need to jump through hoops...I am saying that EVERYONE WILL HAVE TO ACCOMPLISH THE THINGS THAT A LICENSED MARRIAGE DOES NOW DIFFERENTLY...
Except there is NOT A WAY for that. If you want that... then great... put an end to marriage. But we both know that's not going to happen.
I am simply stating that marriage should not be something that is given benefits by the state...it shouldn't need a fucking license.
When have I ever written in these forums that I am against gay marriage?
Well you haven't and I didn't accuse you of that.
But you're doing that Utopian thing where instead of being "against it" they say "we should just do something like... do away with marriages altogether and re-write a few thousand pieces of legislation... that would be easier, right?"
When have I ever written in these forums that I am against gay marriage?
Well you haven't and I didn't accuse you of that.
But you're doing that Utopian thing where instead of being "against it" they say "we should just do something like... do away with marriages altogether and re-write a few thousand pieces of legislation... that would be easier, right?"
not easier, the right thing to do, which would be to remove an ancient religious ceremony from the books...if that isn't possible than (of course it is actually possible), everyone should be able to be married in the eyes of the government...that is what I was saying.
and technically it would be easier to have one law "whatever the president says goes" but we don't have that either
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I wonder if Ron Paul and his son aren't wistful for the days of when everything was in order and everyone knew their place. You know, like maybe the 1950's or 1920's. Back when everything was black or white, no shades of gray. Or maybe, Ron Paul would like to see the "United" states of America be Balkanized, where every state has their own rules and regulations and a weak central government. Ask Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia how that worked out. And then ask yourself whether A. Ron Paul would support Rick Perry and Texas seceding, for State's rights and B. whether he would make all of these same arguments as a private citizen and not as a Congressman, making his living off the taxpayers while sucking from the teat of Government.
Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. Paul, and make your argument with your own hard earned money and not mine. But I digress.
And I would ask, what benefit is there from auditing the Fed? What would the end result be? And from whence would you start? Since 1776? Maybe it should be 1789? No, how about after the Civil War, maybe 1866 or so, after the dust settled? No, no, maybe it should be since Wilson and the League of Nations? Naw, how about after Wounded Knee? No way man, the true malfeasance didn't start until after the labor riots in the 30's. Naw, I think it should start after the Carter Administration took office. All that wasteful spending of deploying missiles to Europe. Nope, it should start with Clinton and all that cocaine that was flown into Arkansas and having that poor chap murdered in the White House and disposed of in a park rolled in a carpet. And Ken Starr! How much did he cost again? No, but excuse me, it should really start with W. taking office and funding the Valerie Palme outing. I mean yellow cake in Nigeria? Can you imagine? Those pesky Iraqis. Yellow cake! And mushroom clouds! Oh my! (Iran is next, war is good for the defense industry and certain unemployed folks). Would Ron bring back the draft?
Please, audit the Fed. That's a plank in your platform?
Yup, lets go back to the rich can take care of themselves and fuck everybody else. And we'll call it State's rights and rugged individualism. The difference now is that there is no where else you can go to be "free", "individual" or "rich." The 1% don't want your kind.
Please point me to all the legislation introduced by Sir Ron that cuts funding to Israel, and all foreign funding in general, or pretends to address half of what he campaigns on. He, more than most, has the power to do such a thing.
Sleep tight.
Peace.
in a somewhat feeble attempt to get this thing back on track before i participated in derailing it, I will post this to Halifax again in the hopes of a response --
how about starting in 1913, you know...when the federal reserve was created. You may want to read about the system before discussing the merit of an audit.
Also, your reference to the Balkans in terms of states rights is laughable.
the dollar has lost 96% of its value since the fed was created. but yeah, how america gets its money should never be checked...just keep printing it and spending through bust cycles that were caused by spending that propped up and gave false value to entire portions of the economy.
But you are right, attacking Ron Paul is the solution...let's keep voting for Keynesian A (democrat) or Keynesian B (republican)...it has worked up until now...probably will work on into the future right?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Thanks for sharing the links on foreign aid and seccession and banking. However, it appears to me that since 1913 when the Fed was created, that there has been many legislative changes to and oversight of the system, with Congress and their respective committees playing key roles. Again, I will ask what would the purpose of an audit be? To what end? To eliminate the Fed? What, if anything, replaces it? Who would you trust to conduct the audit? Certainly not the federal government. Congress? Price, Waterhouse, Coopers? Accenture? And if central banking, as a concept, is so bad, why then the creation of central banking long before 1913, in Britain and Sweden? Is the Fed the cause of the dollar losing 96% of its value since 1913? Really? Just trust the free markets, they solve everytthing.
Ron's comments on seccession are laughable. To equate the original 13 colonies seceeding from Britain or the former Soviet republics breaking apart with Rick Perry's comments that its okay to talk about it because people are so angry with the federal government. Who are these angry people? Is that really the same thing to you? Taxation without representation and oppressive, communist/stalinist regimes on the one hand and what, Obamacare/stimulus on the other? One and the same? Wink, wink, nod, nod, legal discrimination disguised as state's rights. I know who this appeals to and why its said.
Ron's desire to curtail foreign aid to the Middle East, while admirable, won't happen. The defense industry and the jewish lobby will make sure of that. Just rhetoric that appeals to and fires up his base. Personally, I would put the world on notice that the US is cutting ALL foreign aid 10% a year for 10 years in order to get our finances in order but to put everyone else on notice that they need to get their own acts together. Nations that trade with one another and develop their economies together are much less likely to go to war and have us get involved.
Going backwards isn't the solution.
All in all, I'd be willing to bet that you and I have more in common than differences or that we'd at least agree on a number of different issues. But that's what both parties and most of those in Washington fear the most.
Thanks for sharing the links on foreign aid and seccession and banking. However, it appears to me that since 1913 when the Fed was created, that there has been many legislative changes to and oversight of the system, with Congress and their respective committees playing key roles. Again, I will ask what would the purpose of an audit be? To what end? To eliminate the Fed? What, if anything, replaces it? Who would you trust to conduct the audit? Certainly not the federal government. Congress? Price, Waterhouse, Coopers? Accenture? And if central banking, as a concept, is so bad, why then the creation of central banking long before 1913, in Britain and Sweden? Is the Fed the cause of the dollar losing 96% of its value since 1913? Really? Just trust the free markets, they solve everytthing.
Ron's comments on seccession are laughable. To equate the original 13 colonies seceeding from Britain or the former Soviet republics breaking apart with Rick Perry's comments that its okay to talk about it because people are so angry with the federal government. Who are these angry people? Is that really the same thing to you? Taxation without representation and oppressive, communist/stalinist regimes on the one hand and what, Obamacare/stimulus on the other? One and the same? Wink, wink, nod, nod, legal discrimination disguised as state's rights. I know who this appeals to and why its said.
Ron's desire to curtail foreign aid to the Middle East, while admirable, won't happen. The defense industry and the jewish lobby will make sure of that. Just rhetoric that appeals to and fires up his base. Personally, I would put the world on notice that the US is cutting ALL foreign aid 10% a year for 10 years in order to get our finances in order but to put everyone else on notice that they need to get their own acts together. Nations that trade with one another and develop their economies together are much less likely to go to war and have us get involved.
Going backwards isn't the solution.
All in all, I'd be willing to bet that you and I have more in common than differences or that we'd at least agree on a number of different issues. But that's what both parties and most of those in Washington fear the most.
I don't think he was necessarily comparing the situations of secession with today, but I think what he was saying...or the way I took it is that talking of secession isn't necessarily un-patriotic.
as far as an audit of the federal reserve goes....yes there is oversight but that does not include any decisions made on monetary policy which affects not only the people here in the United States but around the world.
I think the purpose of a federal reserve audit would be to make monetary policy clear and expose (not necessarily negative) the agreements that the federal reserve has made with other central banks and the reasons behind those decisions.
ultimately we can disagree on the need for the federal reserve...One good side affect of ending the fed system would be to not allow the government to endlessly wage war by simply running a deficit and borrowing ...and don't you find it interesting that every new dollar has debt attached to it. That the Fed can literally create money out of thin air? Yes, I believe the fed is the leading cause of the devaluation of the dollar with things like QE2. Remember, it is not a government agency and while there is partial government oversight it largely can play as fast and loose as it would like.
what good is being off the gold standard if in real dollars people get poorer every day without ever losing a dime...I looked at a study the other day that compared prices for raising a child to 17 1960 compared to today and it was mind blowing the numbers that were adjusted for. Basically they said that the increase in today's dollars adds up to a 22% increase...from 185000 to approximately 225000...what they don't tell you is that the dollars they adjusted for were actually 13500 back in 1960...That screams at me something has to change...50 years from now is 225000 going to be adjusted for inflation at that same rate...will everyone be a millionaire for fucks sake? Our money is worth less and less everyday and it is terrifying to think this trend can actually continue into the future...I don't know if that made sense, but I haven't slept more than about 2 hours in 2 days(actual insomnia is the worst ever) and am a bit cranky and am starting to see little green men
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
This past Sunday a group of us were out canvassing for Ron Paul. The people were very receptive and many said they were either voting for him or leaning that way.
We can win this, just have to swim upstream a bit against MSM.
Comments
I'm sorry that you are so oppressed. I truly want everyone treated the same and I do not believe in special categories for crimes. Are not all crimes with a victim hate crimes? But I digress this is not the thread for it.
Ron Paul is for states rights on the state to determine where they stand. He thinks government should stay out of marriage. For what its worth I have much more to worry about if two guys get married, more power to them. I used to be totally against it when I voted Democrat but I woke up when I went Libertarian, power to the people. Rock on with your gay self. I think you have a right to be critical of the issue but this election is too important to not see the whole picture.
Well I AM a prince.
But I wasn't the one who brought it up.
I find it hard to believe you care much. But ok.
No. No they're not. Nobody robs a bank because they hate money. Nobody drives drunk and kills kids because they hate children of sobriety. And if you kill your wife for the inheritance, you did it for the money, not because you hate women.
But if you choose a random Muslim person and attack them, you do it not only to hurt that person but to send a message of hate to their whole community. When you bomb a gay club... you don't just do it to kill the people in there, you do it to send a message of fear to all the other gay people.
And THAT is what hate crimes legislation is about.
Well... he says that. But I'll bet you that when he got married... he got a marriage license and registered with city hall and I'lll bet you that he took the tax breaks and wrote of Rand as a dependent.
I wish I had a nickel for every time I've been told "yeah, I get it, homo... you want your rights... good for you...but this isn't the time for it.... go sit at the back of the bus like a good poof and wait your turn."
Screw that. Not happening. I'm not waiting any longer. All those "libertarian" people telling me agree with liberty and everything.... so long as it's their's and not mine. Nope. Sorry. (that's a lie, I'm not sorry and I'm not sorry that I'm not sorry)
I'll show you the same consideration you show me. And I'll vote with my OWN best interests at heart and I won't give a toss about yours.
what the fuck are you talking about?
How is it bigotry to want people to be free to be idiots on private property?
Explain it to me please.
as far as the rest, I think everyone deserves the right to be unhappy..er...I mean married...You don't know anything about me. What in any of my posts would indicate that I do not believe there is inequality? what about any of my posts would have you believe that I am against your right to be married? My point was they use bigotry and racism as words to describe Paul and they purposely miss the actual distinction and reasoning behind the decision to support something or not... Kind of like you just did. Paul works inside the federal government...and he doesn't believe that the federal government should be in the business of marriage...that is up to and including telling states they must acknowledge marriages from other states. I think it is dumb, but I understand he isn't doing it because he secretly hates gay people...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
And if Ron's wife dies... I'll bet you that he'll be just fine taking her pension's survivor benefits and inheritance.
So... he kinda DOES think the government should be involved in marriage. But just his. Not mine.
You might want to make a graceful exit in this thread, you are reaching now.
Yeah, you hate it when people point out the glaring holes in your belief in "simplistic yet unworkable solutions to real problems," donchya?
Not exactly a reach. What's the deal with Ron Paul supporters? They think the guy walks on water.
It wasn't a "reach" at all.
But just like the whole "are you talking about Hate Crimes" noise, the moment you point out how their positions aren't workable in the real world, they start to sputter and act like.... that.
Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. Paul, and make your argument with your own hard earned money and not mine. But I digress.
And I would ask, what benefit is there from auditing the Fed? What would the end result be? And from whence would you start? Since 1776? Maybe it should be 1789? No, how about after the Civil War, maybe 1866 or so, after the dust settled? No, no, maybe it should be since Wilson and the League of Nations? Naw, how about after Wounded Knee? No way man, the true malfeasance didn't start until after the labor riots in the 30's. Naw, I think it should start after the Carter Administration took office. All that wasteful spending of deploying missiles to Europe. Nope, it should start with Clinton and all that cocaine that was flown into Arkansas and having that poor chap murdered in the White House and disposed of in a park rolled in a carpet. And Ken Starr! How much did he cost again? No, but excuse me, it should really start with W. taking office and funding the Valerie Palme outing. I mean yellow cake in Nigeria? Can you imagine? Those pesky Iraqis. Yellow cake! And mushroom clouds! Oh my! (Iran is next, war is good for the defense industry and certain unemployed folks). Would Ron bring back the draft?
Please, audit the Fed. That's a plank in your platform?
Yup, lets go back to the rich can take care of themselves and fuck everybody else. And we'll call it State's rights and rugged individualism. The difference now is that there is no where else you can go to be "free", "individual" or "rich." The 1% don't want your kind.
Please point me to all the legislation introduced by Sir Ron that cuts funding to Israel, and all foreign funding in general, or pretends to address half of what he campaigns on. He, more than most, has the power to do such a thing.
Sleep tight.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
how about starting in 1913, you know...when the federal reserve was created. You may want to read about the system before discussing the merit of an audit.
Also, your reference to the Balkans in terms of states rights is laughable.
the dollar has lost 96% of its value since the fed was created. but yeah, how america gets its money should never be checked...just keep printing it and spending through bust cycles that were caused by spending that propped up and gave false value to entire portions of the economy.
But you are right, attacking Ron Paul is the solution...let's keep voting for Keynesian A (democrat) or Keynesian B (republican)...it has worked up until now...probably will work on into the future right?
here is an article about Paul's most recent effort to cut funding
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... d_pakistan
http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/21/ron- ... -american/
here he is discussing secession and the banks...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
it was a reach because you have no idea how he would react to those situations...It is akin to saying I bet Ron Paul would kill a monkey if the sun blew up...there is no way to prove that type of statement. You are just making your own assumptions about what he would or wouldn't do...what if the crime was she tried to kill him?
Saying that marriage and the federal government shouldn't be intertwined is saying just that...and while he doesn't address each situation, there are solutions to each issue you raise...or is a government licensed marriage the only way those things can be done?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Except no... it's not.
If he was actually against the government being "involved in marriage" then he wouldn't have one of those "government-recognized marriages."
You can try to derail it with "monkeys blowing up the sun" all you want.
But you know that I'm right. And it's killing you.
Yes. In fact the only way those things can be done is with a federally-recognized, licensed marriage.
There are no "contracts" or "willis" or "extra hoops for the homos to jump through" that will give us access to over 1300 rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, resources and perks that straight people get.
How lame is it that my husband and I have been together for 19 years and yet Britney Spears got that many more rights by staggering into a chapel drunk with some guy she knew a few years before?
Now can you please educate yourself and stop being such an embarrassment?
What the fuck are you talking about...I am not specifically saying homos need to jump through hoops...I am saying that EVERYONE WILL HAVE TO ACCOMPLISH THE THINGS THAT A LICENSED MARRIAGE DOES NOW DIFFERENTLY...jesus christ it is like you are just ignoring everything that is written...
When have I ever written in these forums that I am against gay marriage? when? point to it...I am simply stating that marriage should not be something that is given benefits by the state...it shouldn't need a fucking license. You are preaching to the choir...if the only way for people to have those extra privileges is through marriage (I would say that solutions for the other problems are out there) then everyone should be able to get married...would you please try to follow the point before you attack it.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
you aren't right, my guess is you are the type that just talk louder in an argument and think you "won"
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Except there is NOT A WAY for that. If you want that... then great... put an end to marriage. But we both know that's not going to happen.
Except it is... and it does.
Well you haven't and I didn't accuse you of that.
But you're doing that Utopian thing where instead of being "against it" they say "we should just do something like... do away with marriages altogether and re-write a few thousand pieces of legislation... that would be easier, right?"
not easier, the right thing to do, which would be to remove an ancient religious ceremony from the books...if that isn't possible than (of course it is actually possible), everyone should be able to be married in the eyes of the government...that is what I was saying.
and technically it would be easier to have one law "whatever the president says goes" but we don't have that either
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
how about starting in 1913, you know...when the federal reserve was created. You may want to read about the system before discussing the merit of an audit.
Also, your reference to the Balkans in terms of states rights is laughable.
the dollar has lost 96% of its value since the fed was created. but yeah, how america gets its money should never be checked...just keep printing it and spending through bust cycles that were caused by spending that propped up and gave false value to entire portions of the economy.
But you are right, attacking Ron Paul is the solution...let's keep voting for Keynesian A (democrat) or Keynesian B (republican)...it has worked up until now...probably will work on into the future right?
here is an article about Paul's most recent effort to cut funding
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... d_pakistan
http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/21/ron- ... -american/
here he is discussing secession and the banks...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Ron's comments on seccession are laughable. To equate the original 13 colonies seceeding from Britain or the former Soviet republics breaking apart with Rick Perry's comments that its okay to talk about it because people are so angry with the federal government. Who are these angry people? Is that really the same thing to you? Taxation without representation and oppressive, communist/stalinist regimes on the one hand and what, Obamacare/stimulus on the other? One and the same? Wink, wink, nod, nod, legal discrimination disguised as state's rights. I know who this appeals to and why its said.
Ron's desire to curtail foreign aid to the Middle East, while admirable, won't happen. The defense industry and the jewish lobby will make sure of that. Just rhetoric that appeals to and fires up his base. Personally, I would put the world on notice that the US is cutting ALL foreign aid 10% a year for 10 years in order to get our finances in order but to put everyone else on notice that they need to get their own acts together. Nations that trade with one another and develop their economies together are much less likely to go to war and have us get involved.
Going backwards isn't the solution.
All in all, I'd be willing to bet that you and I have more in common than differences or that we'd at least agree on a number of different issues. But that's what both parties and most of those in Washington fear the most.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-announces-retirement-congress-162110444.html
I wonder if this will help let America know how serious he is?
I don't think he was necessarily comparing the situations of secession with today, but I think what he was saying...or the way I took it is that talking of secession isn't necessarily un-patriotic.
as far as an audit of the federal reserve goes....yes there is oversight but that does not include any decisions made on monetary policy which affects not only the people here in the United States but around the world.
I think the purpose of a federal reserve audit would be to make monetary policy clear and expose (not necessarily negative) the agreements that the federal reserve has made with other central banks and the reasons behind those decisions.
ultimately we can disagree on the need for the federal reserve...One good side affect of ending the fed system would be to not allow the government to endlessly wage war by simply running a deficit and borrowing ...and don't you find it interesting that every new dollar has debt attached to it. That the Fed can literally create money out of thin air? Yes, I believe the fed is the leading cause of the devaluation of the dollar with things like QE2. Remember, it is not a government agency and while there is partial government oversight it largely can play as fast and loose as it would like.
what good is being off the gold standard if in real dollars people get poorer every day without ever losing a dime...I looked at a study the other day that compared prices for raising a child to 17 1960 compared to today and it was mind blowing the numbers that were adjusted for. Basically they said that the increase in today's dollars adds up to a 22% increase...from 185000 to approximately 225000...what they don't tell you is that the dollars they adjusted for were actually 13500 back in 1960...That screams at me something has to change...50 years from now is 225000 going to be adjusted for inflation at that same rate...will everyone be a millionaire for fucks sake? Our money is worth less and less everyday and it is terrifying to think this trend can actually continue into the future...I don't know if that made sense, but I haven't slept more than about 2 hours in 2 days(actual insomnia is the worst ever) and am a bit cranky and am starting to see little green men
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
We can win this, just have to swim upstream a bit against MSM.