Don't Think Ron Paul Is Being CENSORED? WATCH THIS

DriftingByTheStorm

blackredyellow wrote:

Unfortunately, presidential debates are about the "Ten-Word Answer", not 5 minute explanations that put casual observers to sleep.




Maybe if he was polling at respectable numbers, he might get more attention from the mainstream media. TV stations aren't a public service, they won't waste time on someone who doesn't have a chance to get elected.

and conversely, which NO ONE on here EVER says,

MAYBE IF THE MEDIA FUCKING COVERED HIM, HE WOULD DO BETTER IN THE POLLS!!!!

Its a circular argument, and it sucks!

When they DO cover him it is ALWAYS WITH A NEGATIVE SPIN.

The sheeple will swallow what they are told to swallow.
The media say "Ron Paul = Crazy", the sheeple say, "Oh. Yeah that Ron Paul guy. :rolleyes: "

pffft.

floyd1975

This thread is just one more reason that Congressman Paul is labeled a lunatic by the vast majority of voters.

Kel Varnsen

If this guy has so much money, and he feels his message is not getting out, why doesn't he do some Ross Perot style prime-time infomercials?

MasterFramer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

and conversely, which NO ONE on here EVER says,

MAYBE IF THE MEDIA FUCKING COVERED HIM, HE WOULD DO BETTER IN THE POLLS!!!!

Its a circular argument, and it sucks!

When they DO cover him it is ALWAYS WITH A NEGATIVE SPIN.

The sheeple will swallow what they are told to swallow.
The media say "Ron Paul = Crazy", the sheeple say, "Oh. Yeah that Ron Paul guy. :rolleyes: "

pffft.

It doesnt matter bro... Ron Paul is a troll and the people of the United States dont vote for stange looking people to be president. Sad as it is, it is true.

I roll my eyes at Ron Paul because of his social issues and he HAS NO CHANCE IN HELL, not because he doesnt get love from the media.

DriftingByTheStorm

Kel Varnsen wrote:

If this guy has so much money, and he feels his message is not getting out, why doesn't he do some Ross Perot style prime-time infomercials?

He doesn't have that much money.

Campaigns are expensive, and he has only pulled in around 20 million total.

The big guys pulled that in 1st quarter.
:(

Whatever, re: ron paul = troll, no chance in hell.

Ron Paul started a movement in this country, and change is a brewing. REAL change.

I am low an Ron's chances, but i am BIG on the chances for liberty at this point. things are looking good.

Number 18

MasterFramer wrote:

I roll my eyes at Ron Paul because of his social issues and he HAS NO CHANCE IN HELL, not because he doesnt get love from the media.

That's funny, I roll my eyes at him because his rants about monetary and fiscal policy make me want to puke. The guy is obviously dependent on a majority of his supporters not being able to deduce macroeconomical conclusions.

I'll give him credit for trying to break down party lines.

DriftingByTheStorm

Number 18 wrote:

That's funny, I roll my eyes at him because his rants about monetary and fiscal policy make me want to puke. The guy is obviously dependent on a majority of his supporters not being able to deduce macroeconomical conclusions.

I'll give him credit for trying to break down party lines.

YOu don't think he is "on the money" about fiscal policy?

I GUESS YOU DON'T THINK THE ECONOMY IS IN TROUBLE?

OR YOU MUST DRINK THE FED RATE-CUT KOOLAID?
WTF, PEOPLE!


Maybe you don't value the opinions of people like Franklin or Jefferson or Jackson, or Reagan, or Kennedy, but they ALL WERE STRON SUPPORTERS OF HARD CURRENCY ... i doubt you give a fuck about Reagan or have an attention span long enough to handle watching this, but if you can get through the first 5 minutes, you might see that people other than Ron Paul have been seriously concerned about the state of our currency and economy.

Hell. Even Kennedy made an executive order to make SILVER CERTIFICATES legal tender again!

firstquartermoon

I haven't heard anything from RP that makes me want to vote for him. He wants to dismantle the federal government (good or bad is personal opinion) and send us back. WAY back. Giving states the power to create their own laws. Cutting off all ties from the rest of the world. Wrangling up and deporting every illegal currently in the country and spend more money on closing our borders than educating our children.
Please, if you support RP, tell me what about him is appealing?

Number 18

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

YOu don't think he is "on the money" about fiscal policy?

I GUESS YOU DON'T THINK THE ECONOMY IS IN TROUBLE?

OR YOU MUST DRINK THE FED RATE-CUT KOOLAID?
WTF, PEOPLE!

Did I say that I didn't think the economy is in trouble? Fuck dude. You need to step back and chill. Obviously you don't buy into the "FED RATE-CUT KOOLAID," but calling it that doesn't show that you understand, even in the most remote way, as to why you don't buy into a proven economic tool. So, please, enlighten us with your economic wisdom...

firstquartermoon

Number 18 wrote:

Did I say that I didn't think the economy is in trouble? Fuck dude. You need to step back and chill. Obviously you don't buy into the "FED RATE-CUT KOOLAID," but calling it that doesn't show that you understand, even in the most remote way, as to why you don't buy into a proven economic tool. So, please, enlighten us with your economic wisdom...

Don't worry, yelling and all caps is their version of "facts". At least, so far. Hopefully he'll prove me wrong with properly capitalized sentences.

DriftingByTheStorm

firstquartermoon wrote:

I haven't heard anything from RP that makes me want to vote for him. He wants to dismantle the federal government (good or bad is personal opinion) and send us back. WAY back. Giving states the power to create their own laws. Cutting off all ties from the rest of the world. Wrangling up and deporting every illegal currently in the country and spend more money on closing our borders than educating our children.
Please, if you support RP, tell me what about him is appealing?

Well since you didn't outright insult and attack the man, i'll respond civil. But once again, you are massively misunderstanding his intentions.

First, "sending us way way back", uh you mean to the principles this country was FOUNDED on? Individual liberty and LOCAL government by the people with heavily restricted federal government regulated strictly by the constitution? OMFG! We're gonna die.

Second, Ron Paul has CONSISTENTLY argued for INCREASED CONVERSATION AND TRADE with foreign nations. I don't know HOW you can think he wants to isolate us from the world. You think because he wants to bring ALL the troops home he doesn't want to talk? The troops aren't our ambassadors. WTF? HE ARGUED TO TALK WITH CASTRO AND GOT BOOED IN THE LATINO DEBATE! Where are you getting this notion from? TRADE AND FRIENDSHIP WITH ALL NAITONS, ENTANGLING ALLIANCES WITH NONE!

As far as the illegal immigrants and the educational system are concerned. Once again, WTF? He doesn't want to round em up and send em home, and he doesn't want to build a wall. HE WANTS TO STOP INCENTIVISING illegal immigration. Unfortunately 2\3rds of this message board, most liberals in general, and half the country HAS A FUCKING HARD ON FOR GIVING WELFARE TO ILLEGAL FUCKING IMMIGRANTS! Like i said, i have sympathy for them, and it sucks that they are enticed by employers that will break the law to employ them,BUT WE SHOULDNT SUBSIDIZE THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIONS!

And he jsut WANTS TO GET RID OF THE DEPT. OF EDUCATION, not stop educational spending (which at a state level would need to and would be ABLE to massively increase if we got rid of the income tax, and STOPPED THE FED from ruining the dollar AND stopped waging "war" on nations that pose us no fucking threat!).

He just wants the STATES TO CONTROL IT.
Why? Because all Federal control over education has done is MASSIVELY LOWER THE IQ OF AMERICA.
People can't see that because they are so stupid now, but its true. The literacy rate "way back" (excluding the poor slaves) was MUCH HIGHER than it is now. The number of newspapers and magazines in circulation was hundreds of times higher that it is now.

Public school was invented to cure a NON-EXISTANT problem -- kids not in school. But the federal governments own reports from the era show that NINETY EIGHT PERCENT OF CHILDREN WERE IN SCHOOL!

All the statist wanted was the ability to mold all children in to little fucking widgets to use in their factories. And they wanted to seperate children from their parents and INDOCTRINATE THEM!

callen

jlew24asu wrote:

ron has been given plenty of chances to debate and speak his mind. and guess what....he hasnt done jack shit in the polls. nothing, zero, zip. the media and hte powers that be at these debating functions see this. its a waste of time to give him more air time. people know his message, have heard him speak, and are not voting for him.

the guy is 10 times worse at public speaking then bush.

American votes is in no way related to ones capabilities or whats good for America.....Bush being elected is a prime example.

As to Bush's speaking capability....to divide his speaking abilities by a factor of ten will get you an earth worm.....

DriftingByTheStorm

Number 18 wrote:

So, please, enlighten us with your economic wisdom...

I'm done with "chill".
People here are so insulting, and they throw out snide remarks, and chastise and make fun of RP and his supporters. I'm not gonna chill anymore.

Whats the point. The american people, and the people on this boad ... they don't want a civil fucking debate ... they want sensationalism!

So i'll play the game.
Lets go at it.
Come on.
Bring your best fucking argument and insult and cram it down my throat.

I am standing firm on my positions which are entrenched in personal liberty, economic freedom, and peaceful, non interventionist foreign policy.

As far as my great economic wisdom, man i've been talking about the Fed and the dollar and all that ALL over this board for months. There are at least a dozen rock solid books abou how fucked up central bank controlled fiat currency is ... and yet you people think it works because we've "gotten away with it" for LESS THAN 100 YEARS ... and still WE HAD THE FUCKING GREAT DEPRESSION AND THE 70's and the mid to late 80s\early 90s and the late 90s and the year 2002 and now CURRENT.

So. How fucking great is it? It was supposed to get rid of the "business cycles" of the gold standard ... WHICH HAD NOTHING to do with the gold standard.... it had to do with IRRESPONSIBLE BANKS using fractional reserve lending WITHOUT proper disclosure or insurance\rating\regulation.

Instead it has caused MORE cycles of varying intensity, SOME worse, some not so bad ... but ALL OF THEM causing the dollar to get shittier and shittier ...

1929-1939, 1975-1980, 1985-1992, 2000-2002, 2007-???

That's 25 of the last 90 years we've had big economic problems due to the federal reserve.

Is that success?
Is that better than a gold standard?

I'm not gonna explain it all here, because frankly, ya'll just told me america wants fucking cute little soundbytes, and THERE ARE NONE.

You have to do your fucking homework, read a book or two, and dig in to this shit. Monetary policy is DEEP SHIT, and if you begin to grasp it, you realize that Fiat currency STINKS TO HIGH HELL.


"If the American people ever allow banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the corporation that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson


Do you need it spelled out any fucking clearer?
HOMELESS!
notice how jefferson mentions "the corporations that grow up around them" ???

THINK HE KNEW WHAT THE FUCK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT?



Here are some SOUND BITES FOR YOU:

"Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its power but the truth is-the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will."
- Congressman Louis T. McFadden, 1933, Chairman, Banking and Currency Committee


“You have to choose [as a voter] between trusting to the natural stability of gold and the natural stability of the honesty and intelligence of the members of the Government. And, with due respect for these gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the Capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold.” - George Bernard Shaw

“Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value ---- zero.” - Voltaire

"The decrease in purchasing power incurred by holders of money due to inflation imparts gains to the issuers of money--." -- St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, Review, Nov. 1975, p.22

"Without the confidence factor, many believe a paper money system is liable to collapse eventually." -- Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Gold, p. 10

"Emitting bills of credit, or the creation of money by private corporations, is what is expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution." - U.S. Supreme Court, Craig v. Missouri,
4 Peters 410.

"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalistic System was to debauch the currency. . . Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose." -- John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff

"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." -- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

HERE JUST READ THE WHOLE GODDAMN LIST OF quoteS

WERE THESE PEOPLE ALL STUPID FOOLS?
Or is it, as John Adams said, the majority of Americans who live in "downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation" ?

firstquartermoon

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Well since you didn't outright insult and attack the man, i'll respond civil. But once again, you are massively misunderstanding his intentions.

First, "sending us way way back", uh you mean to the principles this country was FOUNDED on? Individual liberty and LOCAL government by the people with heavily restricted federal government regulated strictly by the constitution? OMFG! We're gonna die.

Second, Ron Paul has CONSISTENTLY argued for INCREASED CONVERSATION AND TRADE with foreign nations. I don't know HOW you can think he wants to isolate us from the world. You think because he wants to bring ALL the troops home he doesn't want to talk? The troops aren't our ambassadors. WTF? HE ARGUED TO TALK WITH CASTRO AND GOT BOOED IN THE LATINO DEBATE! Where are you getting this notion from? TRADE AND FRIENDSHIP WITH ALL NAITONS, ENTANGLING ALLIANCES WITH NONE!

As far as the illegal immigrants and the educational system are concerned. Once again, WTF? He doesn't want to round em up and send em home, and he doesn't want to build a wall. HE WANTS TO STOP INCENTIVISING illegal immigration. Unfortunately 2\3rds of this message board, most liberals in general, and half the country HAS A FUCKING HARD ON FOR GIVING WELFARE TO ILLEGAL FUCKING IMMIGRANTS! Like i said, i have sympathy for them, and it sucks that they are enticed by employers that will break the law to employ them,BUT WE SHOULDNT SUBSIDIZE THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIONS!

And he jsut WANTS TO GET RID OF THE DEPT. OF EDUCATION, not stop educational spending.

He just wants the STATES TO CONTROL IT.
Why? Because all Federal control over education has done is MASSIVELY LOWER THE IQ OF AMERICA.
People can't see that because they are so stupid now, but its true. The literacy rate "way back" (excluding the poor slaves) was MUCH HIGHER than it is now. The number of newspapers and magazines in circulation was hundreds of times higher that it is now.

Public school was invented to cure a NON-EXISTANT problem -- kids not in school. But the federal governments own reports from the era show that NINETY EIGHT PERCENT OF CHILDREN WERE IN SCHOOL!

All the statist wanted was the ability to mold all children in to little fucking widgets to use in their factories. And they wanted to seperate children from their parents and INDOCTRINATE THEM!

1. The whole local government controlling their own states thing didn't work out too well, which is why the federal government stepped in. If a state decided to bring back slavery, guess who'd be brought in to stop it? The FBI, which is one of the organizations he wants to eliminate.
2. Once again, he wants Corporations to speak on behalf of our country, like I said before. Also he doesn't want to bring all of our troops home. He's still going after Bin Laden, and not only that, but from his Website:
H.R. 3216 would authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal, naming private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to fight against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas.
He wants to outsource our wars to corporations, too? Sounds Great.
3. From his website:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
He wants to Physically secure our borders with a metaphysical object?
Website:
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
So what truly makes an American if being born here doesn't count? Now, people who sneak into the country to have their children born here, of course that's not the best option, but being born here is the only thing that "real" Americans have. Does that mean that we should all be deported, leaving the original colonizing peoples their country?
Also, to think that illegal immigrants come here just to be on welfare is idiotic. Yes, there are illegal immigrants who don't want to work that are on welfare. But there are plenty of white people in the same situation.
4. So there was no problem with literacy "way back when". (As long as you only count wealthy white people) And again, the report that you "qoute" (Yes, I know putting the word qoute inside qoutations is a little ironic) Does it include slaves? Poor people who weren't counted as "People"?
And what sort of things are they being indoctrinated with? Evolution?
Also, so there were more magazines and newspapers. So what? You want more trees cut down so everyone can have a say? And plenty of people have a say on the internet (and you can find some literate ones out there, you just have to dig, so don't bash me on this point.)
And the reason the average IQ is lower (and some experts are even wary of using IQ as a measure of intelligence) is because people who have higher IQs have fewer children (about 1.2). So maybe evolution doesn't want "Brainy" people, and is fazing them out?
Anyway, thanks for laying out a few ideas, even with the caps-lock and bold fonts.

Number 18

You can quote people all you want. In theory, yeah, it all sounds great. And, yes, it is true that if people lose faith in a currency not backed by gold it will become worthless.

1. Just because you've been talking about the Fed and the dollar all over this board for months doesn't give you any credibility as to your economic knowledge.

2. Show me an example of a country that has a long tradition of economic prosperity that does not have a central bank and whose currency is not pegged to another country's.

3. I'll let you have the Great Depression as an example where the Fed screwed up. However, Keynesian Economics had not yet been introduced. There was a small recession from 1973-1975 and that was due to another unknown phenomenon called stagflation. There was no recession from 1975-1980 - real GDP increased in each of those years. There was another small recession from 1981-1982 due to the S&L crisis. Again, there was no recession from 1985-1992. But there was from 1991-1992. And then, we have not had a decrease in real GDP since then.

But hell, I guess GDP numbers don't mean a thing. So just throw some more outdated quotes at me and we'll call it good...

DriftingByTheStorm

firstquartermoon wrote:

1. The whole local government controlling their own states thing didn't work out too well, which is why the federal government stepped in. If a state decided to bring back slavery, guess who'd be brought in to stop it? The FBI, which is one of the organizations he wants to eliminate.

13th Amendment To The United States Constitution - Slavery Abolished ... maybe you are the one who needs to get a grip on reality. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, remember? Even if he was a racist and wanted to overturn the constitution, do you see 2\3rds of congress approving the repeal of the 13th ammendment? Either way your problem shouldn't be with states rights on this. I'm so sick of slavery being brought up as an argument over states rights.

firstquartermoon wrote:

2. Once again, he wants Corporations to speak on behalf of our country,

How is wanting to TALK with other nations and not make war with them "letting corporations speak on behalf of our country"? Corporations can say whatever the hell they want. You want to ban them from talking to foreigners? :rolleyes: ... where the HELL are you pulling this corporations speaking for America crap? He wants ambassadors and statesmen to speak to foreign nations.
And FYI, all of our little wars are highly profitable to GE and Lockheed and Haliburton ... i would call that "speaking" for America. :rolleyes:

firstquartermoon wrote:

He's still going after Bin Laden, and not only that, but from his Website:
H.R. 3216 would authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal, naming private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to fight against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas.
He wants to outsource our wars to corporations, too? Sounds Great.

Ok. You're right. He wants to leave troops overseas to do the ONE thing they should be doing right now. Going after the ONE known guy who allegedly is behind the 911 attacks. So you think that is a bad idea :rolleyes:

As far as Letters of Marque and Reprisal go, Article I Section 10 of the constitution prohibits the STATES from issuing them, but NOT the federal government. So i can't see any reason to be pissed about that.

And NO, the CURRENT administration has outsourced the war to Blackwater. Ron Paul apparently wants to PAY UPON COMPLETION OF AN ACT. Ie ... not just hand money to blackwater, but say, "bring me his head." basicaly.

What is so wrong with that? You don't believe in an old fashioned "bounty"? Hell we have a bounty on Osama right now.

firstquartermoon wrote:

3. From his website:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
He wants to Physically secure our borders with a metaphysical object?
Website:
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
So what truly makes an American if being born here doesn't count? Now, people who sneak into the country to have their children born here, of course that's not the best option, but being born here is the only thing that "real" Americans have. Does that mean that we should all be deported, leaving the original colonizing peoples their country?
Also, to think that illegal immigrants come here just to be on welfare is idiotic. Yes, there are illegal immigrants who don't want to work that are on welfare. But there are plenty of white people in the same situation.

Guess i'll have to eat my words. This may be Ron Pauls only "flip flop" because i believe i have heard him argue that physicaly securing the border is not the answer. Though, if he is truly freeing up enough money to do this, AND to disuade illegal immigration in the first place, why not? At least its not wasting trillions of dollars on wars. Can't we have a secure border? Do you fundamentaly disagree with securing the borders? Can we at least try, before we give up? Shit how long has the war on drugs gone on with no real results? Lets at least give it an old fashioned heave-ho. I personaly don't think Ron Paul is hard line on a border fence, but i think he does want border patrols. As for birthright citizenship, that was an ammendment to the constitution made to allow SLAVES to have children who are citizens, not protect every fucking illegal immigrant in the world from coming here. Again, do your homework. Maybe the ammendment has outlived its usefulness? Just maybe? And i don't think they come here "just to be on welfare", i said, "they are enticed by jobs that employers illegaly give them" ... but YOU DON'T ENCOURAGE THEM BY GIVING THEM WELFARE!

firstquartermoon wrote:

4. So there was no problem with literacy "way back when". (As long as you only count wealthy white people) And again, the report that you "qoute" (Yes, I know putting the word qoute inside qoutations is a little ironic) Does it include slaves? Poor people who weren't counted as "People"?
And what sort of things are they being indoctrinated with? Evolution?
Also, so there were more magazines and newspapers. So what? You want more trees cut down so everyone can have a say? And plenty of people have a say on the internet (and you can find some literate ones out there, you just have to dig, so don't bash me on this point.)
And the reason the average IQ is lower (and some experts are even wary of using IQ as a measure of intelligence) is because people who have higher IQs have fewer children (about 1.2). So maybe evolution doesn't want "Brainy" people, and is fazing them out?
Anyway, thanks for laying out a few ideas, even with the caps-lock and bold fonts.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here man.
I'm not gonna argue all this crap about evolution and breeding habits ... you know as well as i that there can be more than one cause of a problem ... and i'm not gonna go beat this fucking slavery crap to death again either ... like i said, i'm so fucking sick of pussy ass liberals throwing slavery in the face of every person who disagrees with current federal imperialism. Yeah slavery sucked. It was a huge and gross violation of fundamental principles of the constitution. It doesn't mean that because we once had slavery that everything the constitution stands for is wrong. And the constitution doesn't give the federal goverment power to control the education of the state's citizens ... and people (yes, unfortunately excluding blacks who had been recently freed from slavery) were on the average more literate than they are now ... by leaps and bounds, actualy.

So.
???

DriftingByTheStorm

Number 18 wrote:

Show me an example of a country that has a long tradition of economic prosperity that does not have a central bank and whose currency is not pegged to another country's.

Have you actualy read the history of European central banking?

From Austria, to the Netherlands, to England proper ... ALL of them had HUGE downfalls when the switched to pure fiat currency.

How about the Romans? how did they do?

You want to argue basicaly, that since we have, in the "Keynesian" age, become better at playing this stupid shell game that we are beating the house?

As you said yourself, "In theory, yeah, it all sounds great".
How can you not see the perverse nature of your own arguments.

Fiat currency has CONSISTENTLY proven to be a DISASTER.

Only in the last 100 years has the world been able to "fake it" by making the game increasingly more complex ... and ultimately EXTRACTING THAT WEALTH FROM YOU!

Maybe you think everything is smashing, but what you CANT see is where and how you would be living today if you had all the wealth that you had HONESTLY accumulated in your life with out it being stolen by inflationary policies.

You sound like you know what you're talking about, or atleast you throw out a lot of numbers.

But ask yourself this, what the FUCK does "Real GDP" have ANYTHING to do with The Fed and what we are talking about?

The DEFINITION of Real GDP is that it is INFLATION ADJUSTED!

OF COURSE the economy is fucking growing! (or atleast one would HOPE it always is) ... Americans are smart (sometimes), innovative, and the population has histioricaly grown ... of COURSE the raw output would increase ... INFLATION ADJUSTED.

But you just quoted a number which flat IGNORES the problem we are addressing.


???????????????????????????????????????????

I'm not even gonna argue the "outdated quotes" bullshit.

If you think history doesn't fucking repeat, you don't know shit about history. Our founding fathers weren't stupid, and it wasn't "in theory". THEY TRIED PAPER MONEY. REMEMBER THE TERM "GREENBACK"? Yeah ... WE STILL USE IT!

But they found it to be a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE DESTRUCTIVE SYSTEM! "NOT WORTH A CONTINENTAL" ??? RING A BELL?

George Washington, of the massive inflation brought by WAR AND INFLATION TO FUND THE WAR: "A wagon load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon load of provisions."

Who gives a fuck about Real GDP if no one in THIS country can afford the goods.

Thomas Jefferson in 1786, AGAIN refering to INFLATION and THE WAR IT PAID FOR:

"Every one, through whose hands a bill passed, lost on that bill what it lost in value during the time it was in his hands. This was a real tax on him; and in this way the people of the United States actually contributed those ... millions of dollars during the war, and by a mode of taxation the most oppressive of all because the most unequal of all."

So again.

WHAT SOUNDS GOOD IN THEORY?

Because it is PROVEN not to work.

And it is being proven again RIGHT NOW!

What does the dollar index say these days?
And the REAL irony, the dollar index is weighted against a basket of OTHER WORTHLESS PAPER MONEY.

PFfft.
Our money sucks so bad that its not even worth what other worthless crap was worth 20 years ago. Its actualy 25% less valuable than every other major fiat piece of junk currency out there. So if it's 25% less valuable than other INFLATIONARY currencies in 30 some years, how much REAL inflation have we seen? 30%? 40%? 50%?

Gold and oil are now DOUBLE.
SEems like the answer is 50%

huh?

Good in theory, huh?

MasterFramer

Drifting - dont you have anything better to do? Wow... just wow.

Number 18

I can't even follow your arguments. First you try to bring out some point about recessions with false information. Then you say "OF COURSE the economy is fucking growing!" The very definition of a recession is a shrinking economy. Now apparently you don't see the value in adjusting for inflation when talking numbers, so fine. Let's use nominal GDP. When you use nominal GDP, we have not had a recession since 1938 - been a real rough 70 years in terms of nominal GDP - someone make it stop...

firstquartermoon

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

13th Amendment To The United States Constitution - Slavery Abolished ... maybe you are the one who needs to get a grip on reality. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, remember? Even if he was a racist and wanted to overturn the constitution, do you see 2\3rds of congress approving the repeal of the 13th ammendment? Either way your problem shouldn't be with states rights on this. I'm so sick of slavery being brought up as an argument over states rights.


How is wanting to TALK with other nations and not make war with them "letting corporations speak on behalf of our country"? Corporations can say whatever the hell they want. You want to ban them from talking to foreigners? :rolleyes: ... where the HELL are you pulling this corporations speaking for America crap? He wants ambassadors and statesmen to speak to foreign nations.
And FYI, all of our little wars are highly profitable to GE and Lockheed and Haliburton ... i would call that "speaking" for America. :rolleyes:




Ok. You're right. He wants to leave troops overseas to do the ONE thing they should be doing right now. Going after the ONE known guy who allegedly is behind the 911 attacks. So you think that is a bad idea :rolleyes:

As far as Letters of Marque and Reprisal go, Article I Section 10 of the constitution prohibits the STATES from issuing them, but NOT the federal government. So i can't see any reason to be pissed about that.

And NO, the CURRENT administration has outsourced the war to Blackwater. Ron Paul apparently wants to PAY UPON COMPLETION OF AN ACT. Ie ... not just hand money to blackwater, but say, "bring me his head." basicaly.

What is so wrong with that? You don't believe in an old fashioned "bounty"? Hell we have a bounty on Osama right now.



Guess i'll have to eat my words. This may be Ron Pauls only "flip flop" because i believe i have heard him argue that physicaly securing the border is not the answer. Though, if he is truly freeing up enough money to do this, AND to disuade illegal immigration in the first place, why not? At least its not wasting trillions of dollars on wars. Can't we have a secure border? Do you fundamentaly disagree with securing the borders? Can we at least try, before we give up? Shit how long has the war on drugs gone on with no real results? Lets at least give it an old fashioned heave-ho. I personaly don't think Ron Paul is hard line on a border fence, but i think he does want border patrols. As for birthright citizenship, that was an ammendment to the constitution made to allow SLAVES to have children who are citizens, not protect every fucking illegal immigrant in the world from coming here. Again, do your homework. Maybe the ammendment has outlived its usefulness? Just maybe? And i don't think they come here "just to be on welfare", i said, "they are enticed by jobs that employers illegaly give them" ... but YOU DON'T ENCOURAGE THEM BY GIVING THEM WELFARE!



We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here man.
I'm not gonna argue all this crap about evolution and breeding habits ... you know as well as i that there can be more than one cause of a problem ... and i'm not gonna go beat this fucking slavery crap to death again either ... like i said, i'm so fucking sick of pussy ass liberals throwing slavery in the face of every person who disagrees with current federal imperialism. Yeah slavery sucked. It was a huge and gross violation of fundamental principles of the constitution. It doesn't mean that because we once had slavery that everything the constitution stands for is wrong. And the constitution doesn't give the federal goverment power to control the education of the state's citizens ... and people (yes, unfortunately excluding blacks who had been recently freed from slavery) were on the average more literate than they are now ... by leaps and bounds, actualy.

So.
???

1. But who's going to enforce this when the states decide what they're going to allow and disallow? Fine, forget slavery. Let's say state X says it's okay to execute the differently-abled (I think that the new OK term). Do we just have to go along with it?
2. I'm against private armies. Period. I don't care who pays them. To say, "Kill this person and we'll pay you." Are we going to take responsibility for the collateral damage they do? I'm against Blackwater, and I'm against this.
3. I don't know where he's going to get the money without any money being colelcted on a federal level. As far as birthright citizenship, does that mean that everyone born in this country has to apply for citizenship? And to argue that they aren't here for welfare, and in the same breath complain that they are being enticed here for welfare (with all caps again)? I don't get it. If they're not here for welfare, why bring it up?
4. Yes, let's just forget that we had slaves, and that they weren't considered people, weren't counted in a census, and were generally ignored. Let's forget all of that, and let's forget the poor people too, because we have to stop bringing that up. But on the other hand let's use studies that only sampled the upper-class.
And you really think that the upper-class was more literate than they are today?
Seems hard to believe to me.