Ron Paul on Glenn Beck
El_Kabong
Posts: 4,141
it was a pretty good interview, he kept him on after the break to talk about the federal reserve.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/01/gb.01.html
you don't have to scroll down too far for it.
while i don't agree w/ him on things, especially domestic issues and certain regulation aspects... foreign policy wise and on the federal reserve he's on it!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/01/gb.01.html
you don't have to scroll down too far for it.
while i don't agree w/ him on things, especially domestic issues and certain regulation aspects... foreign policy wise and on the federal reserve he's on it!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Indeed! Thanks for posting this.
Fuck them.
Yeah, I hear you. I am just simply amazed by the amount of people who think continuing the war until all terrorists are eradicated is a plausible goal.
Especially when you're arming (paying off), and creating tons more at the same time..
insurgents in Iraq 2003: 5000
insurgents in Iraq 2008: 70,000+ and growing
woohoo...Go Bush go!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Yet current American foreign policy and the federal reserve are based on the same logic as those "domestic issues" and "regulation aspects". Might want to examine why you agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy and on the federal reserve, why you disagree domestically, and what principles you're invoking in the process.
I love Glenn Beck..he's slightly psychotic but he's not a prick like O'Reilly.
That was a great interview with Ron Paul. Although it made me angry considering it falls on deaf ears.
we can agree on that
I'm curious as well. What domestic policies of his do you not agree with?
i don't think markets can really regulate themselves like he does, for one.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Then how could he be "right" on the Fed?
That makes no sense to me... The fed is all about regulating markets....
Please fill me in, if I am missing something.
They're not insurgents, they're freedom fighters.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
it was the federal reserve who privatized water in bolivia or where ever it was and made it illegal to collect rain water?? no, it was the greedy corporation.
and i understand that could be considered a foreign policy issue, but home, like enron and the countless other corporate frauds, abuses, rip offs, crimes....i don't think less regulation will right itself.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I see what you are saying. You said regulate "markets" earlier which confused me a bit.
However, what happened in that country sounds to me like it would be a property rights issue, more than a market issue.
Corporations don't make water collection illegal. Governments do, and I can guarantee RP wouldn't be behind such a program. Also, it sounds like the government probably had some hand in making market competition for water illegal also. Without knowing more details it's hard for me to form an opinion though.
yeah, i worded that original post poorly.
but i think 'free-market' capitalism and the money helped that government see the money as more important than their ppl.
i know rp wouldn't be for the privatizing of water and making collecting rain water illegal, but he seems to be for less to no regulations but here, on a local level. i think if there were no regulations on corporations then some would abuse it in various ways.
what would be there to keep certain corporations in check?? some show constantly they will act criminally, the free market doesn't stop nike from underpaying their labor, or nestle from using cocoa plantations that use child slaves, coca cola....the free market stops none of these or any of the other corrupt businesses
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
You are right... sort of. It's not so much a free market issue as a property rights issue.
Read this...
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/240/respect-for-property-rights-necessary-for-freedom/
Here are a couple of key quotes for those that might be trolling and/or too lazy.
So if one were to extrapolate "law" from this position it could be even more harsh on polluters and abusers than a "Carbon Tax". If someone is polluting our water, it's my opinion that a law based off of the above quote would shut that company the fuck down.
/shrug
At least it's a "pure" position heh. Not like the debate over alternative fuels. Ugh.
Corn is suck for energy creation. Democrats are for corn. Fuck the democrats. Hemp should be used over corn, but that also isn't that great.
i like a lot of what he means, i know his intentions are good, i just don't know that those are the steps i want to take.
but these were some good points
Increasingly, though, the government is usurping our property rights, in one fashion or another. It is fair to say that we are in a sense losing true property ownership. In many cases, the government prevents us from doing with our property what we would like, essentially making the land worthless. Yet government still manages to tax us at rates which rival rent for the pleasure of being forbidden from using the land. Some of the laws are ostensibly "environmental" in nature, others reflect a desire for "fairness," while still others make claims of simply being "good for everyone." While these laws may be good for the big-government bureaucrats, they are bad for almost everyone else. In fact, these laws amount to regulatory takings, which are prohibited by our Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
i think a big part of paul's problem is how his views are misunderstood or put forth by the media. i remember one of the first things i saw of him was an interview and the interviewer asked about refusing to see medicare/caid patients, rp said it was true and something brief about not relying on the government for that...and that was it...nothing about all the other ways he helped ppl get the care they needed...and my impression was 'what a dick'
and its horrible the way he was treated in debates most of the time and how rudy and mccain and others would twist what he said to ron paul wants to trade w/ al qaeda in hopes they will stop
i'm glad he got as much support as he did, wasn't there a bet that he'd never get even 5% in a primary?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I can give you a few things right of the bat, but it probably is not what you were thinking of:
1. Without fiat money, wallstreet suffers immensly in that the scope of their financial power becomes GREATLY limited.
What i mean by this is these companies accquire and maintain their stranglehold based on EXTREME LEVERAGE only made possible by fiat money. If all of these corporations required legitimate ASSET backed currency to drive their operations, they would find funding MUCH tougher to come by.
2. Even more importantly, the ELIMINATION OF THE INCOME TAX would VASTLY shift the power structure in America. If you read the ORIGINAL letter written to congress by President Taft for his suggestion of what ultimately became the 16th Ammendment, you would see and understand that the original intention was to tax CORPORATIONS ONLY, and NOT the citizenry. Taft even explained that while the efficiency of the corporation was one of the greatest modern contributions to economies, that corporations were also, so it seemed, possibly dangerous of being one of the greatest evils, and therefore taxing them in to a disadvantage would provide some level of safeguard against this threat.
Therefore, it is important to understand that, once the corporations became taxed and the citizens & sole proprietorships\partnerships became freed from the burden of taxation ... it is most probable that America would actualy see a shift back to the NON-corporate form of business ownership.
At the VERY least, such "inequity" of taxation (actualy not an inequity, because the tax is for the PRIVELAGE of doing business as a corporate entity!) would put a HUGE dent in the bottom line of the corporation -- as by removing the personal income tax, the corporate tax would most likely increase -- thus making it both less desirable to start, and also consequently it would put a damper on the ability of the corporation to EXPAND ... as their capital accumulation for such endeavors would be greatly hindered.
Of course,
i'm sure you can think of a few problems that such arangements bring up as well ... [like, corporations jacking up their prices to account for this? and i would want to argue back that sole proprietorships could then undercut them, but how many soleproprietorships make cars and cellphones?]
::sigh::
If I opened it now would you not understand?
YOU SEE!!! You can make a fucking point. Just gotta ween you off of that Youtube/Conspiracy drug.
I joke.
Help me out... why the love?
Because he's one of the rare politicians who doesn't seem interested in telling me how to live my life, how to run my business, or how to use my property.
getting rid of the Fed
Income Tax
Social Security
and the CIA
are all HUGE, in my book.
Honest money is at the top of my list though.
If I opened it now would you not understand?