Ron Paul 2012

[LAM]

Not only that, let's say RP does get elected what then? You think congress obstructed Obama, how do you think they will treat RP. RP would probably have to sign executive orders left and right to push his agenda through, which goes against everything he stands for.

anybody that thinks a single person can change a totally corrupt political system which is designed to be that way is delusional. democracy in the US has been corrupted for almost 50% of the time the country has existed and ever since the late 1800's.

 

[Swiper]

Not only that, let's say RP does get elected what then? You think congress obstructed Obama, how do you think they will treat RP. RP would probably have to sign executive orders left and right to push his agenda through, which goes against everything he stands for.

Or how about just going with the status quo like we've been doing for 100 plus years because it's working out so well.

 

[cshea2]

Or how about just going with the status quo like we've been doing for 100 plus years because it's working out so well.

I'm not saying the status quo is working, it's clearly broken. Just pointing out the challanges an outsider would have to deal with if they ever did get in office. Term limits on congressmen would have to come down from the executive. If we had politicians that were only there for 2 years they would be so much more motivated to pass meaningful legislation, or perhaps clean up the tax code.

 

[LAM]

Or how about just going with the status quo like we've been doing for 100 plus years because it's working out so well.

changing the people doesn't change the game or don't you get that by now...how does it change anything in regards to how corporations and capital effect democracy? the system was designed to have exactly what we do today, an oligarchy. and you really think they are going to relinquish power back to the people? LMAO....

changes need to be reality based and not those based on magical thinking....

 

[Swiper]

changing the people doesn't change the game or don't you get that by now...how does it change anything in regards to how corporations and capital effect democracy? the system was designed to have exactly what we do today, an oligarchy. and you really think they are going to relinquish power back to the people? LMAO....

changes need to be reality based and not those based on magical thinking....

flame me all you want.
unlike you I look for solutions. I know it's hard for you to do, but maybe one day you'll post a solution to the problems you talk about. But I doubt it. it's easy to figure out what the problems are , not so much to get solutions.

Paul as potus can make some changes.
do you think he'd kill American citizens with drones, do you think he'd sign the patriot act, Internet "security" act, ndaa, ect... he wouldn't sign any spending bills. tax hikes, wouldn't start wars. he'd bring all troops home. wouldn't bail out wall street. wouldn't raise debt ceiling, and the list goes on and on. not major changes but its a small start, better than what we have.

 

[Swiper]

[video=youtube;JOjK94kwn0U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JOjK94kwn0U#![/video]

 

[heckler7]

changing the people doesn't change the game or don't you get that by now...how does it change anything in regards to how corporations and capital effect democracy? the system was designed to have exactly what we do today, an oligarchy. and you really think they are going to relinquish power back to the people? LMAO....

changes need to be reality based and not those based on magical thinking....

sadly I kinda agree

flame me all you want.
unlike you I look for solutions. I know it's hard for you to do, but maybe one day you'll post a solution to the problems you talk about. But I doubt it. it's easy to figure out what the problems are , not so much to get solutions.

Paul as potus can make some changes.
do you think he'd kill American citizens with drones, do you think he'd sign the patriot act, Internet "security" act, ndaa, ect... he wouldn't sign any spending bills. tax hikes, wouldn't start wars. he'd bring all troops home. wouldn't bail out wall street. wouldn't raise debt ceiling, and the list goes on and on. not major changes but its a small start, better than what we have.

I'm with you too I believe Ron Paul would be our best hope for doing what needs to be done despite his career. Altho I think any president that would go against the establishment would probably be assisinated

 

[Swiper]

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!" -Ron Paul.

 

[LAM]

This is not capitalism!" -Ron Paul.

basic economic principles tell you that the US at this point only vaguely resembles capitalism (at least the 1850s version of Smith's). how long have many of us been saying this?

 

[Swiper]

 

[Arnold]

Yup, like I said in a previous thread this country is headed down the shitter!
No stopping this runaway train now.

 

[Swiper]

[video=youtube;ORt_k7LjGDg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ORt_k7LjGDg#![/video]

 

[secdrl]

I just negged Vancouver.

 

[Swiper]

 

[LAM]

Rand Paul is a joke. he's singling out Obama for political policy that has been carried out for decades. the killing of Americans on American soil isn't new it's just be made public. dozens of US citizens have been killed by the government over the decades and most of them worked for the government.

I fucking hate that little weasel. he's just like his father, constantly stating the obvious. it's like watching Seinfeld.

 

[Swiper]

Rand Paul is a joke. he's singling out Obama for political policy that has been carried out for decades. the killing of Americans on American soil isn't new it's just be made public. dozens of US citizens have been killed by the government over the decades and most of them worked for the government.

I fucking hate that little weasel. he's just like his father, constantly stating the obvious. it's like watching Seinfeld.

you just don't like his because he's singling out the man YOU voted for president, twice lmao. And duh! of course he's singling him out, he's the current president!!

 

[troubador]

Rand Paul is a joke. he's singling out Obama for political policy that has been carried out for decades. the killing of Americans on American soil isn't new it's just be made public. dozens of US citizens have been killed by the government over the decades and most of them worked for the government.

I fucking hate that little weasel. he's just like his father, constantly stating the obvious. it's like watching Seinfeld.

You're a joke, bitching about someone wanting to change what's been wrong for decades, a policy you disagree with, because he doesn't have a D by his name. It's like watching Grumpy Old Men.

 

[LAM]

You're a joke, bitching about someone wanting to change what's been wrong for decades, a policy you disagree with, because he doesn't have a D by his name. It's like watching Grumpy Old Men.

you would be the joke for believing him. it took dozens and dozens of men decades and decades to destroy the US from within. if you notice he just like his father only talks about the problems of the US government but NEVER EVER THE CAUSES or any timelines.

if you actually knew anything about real problem solving and critical thinking then you would know this is the very first step.

all the Paul's have done is found a small niche between the 2 heads of the establishment and they cater to those that don't really know much about US or global history, politics or economics.

 

[Swiper]

you would be the joke for believing him. it took dozens and dozens of men decades and decades to destroy the US from within. if you notice he just like his father only talks about the problems of the US government but NEVER EVER THE CAUSES or any timelines.

if you actually knew anything about real problem solving and critical thinking then you would know this is the very first step.

all the Paul's have done is found a small niche between the 2 heads of the establishment and they cater to those that don't really know much about US or global history, politics or economics.

you're so small minded. there's no hope for you, mr "know it all"

and obviously you don't listen to the Paul's much at all. you probably get your info about them from the mainstream media and tv pundits. otherwise you'd know a thing or two about them. it's clear you know nothing.

 

[troubador]

you're so small minded. there's no hope for you, mr "know it all"

and obviously you don't listen to the Paul's much at all. you probably get your info about them from the mainstream media and tv pundits. otherwise you'd know a thing or two about them. it's clear you know nothing.

Conspiracy theorists tend to think they have knowledge that most do not, that they have some special ability to see what others don't. First LAM says Rand was stating the obvious then claims it's a joke to believe him. It's just a bunch of nonsense so he can get around to telling people he's special and everyone else is stupid. Kinda sad.

 

[Swiper]

 

[LAM]

you're so small minded. there's no hope for you, mr "know it all"

and obviously you don't listen to the Paul's much at all. you probably get your info about them from the mainstream media and tv pundits. otherwise you'd know a thing or two about them. it's clear you know nothing.

your right I don't listen to them or any other politician from any political party. economics is all I care about and that information I get from historical texts and from peer reviewed papers and briefs written by economists and scholars.

I couldn't think of a bigger waste of time then listening to a 3rd rate doctor turned politician talking about "going back to a gold standard" when there isn't one single economists or scholar in the world that agrees with him.

 

[Swiper]

your right I don't listen to them or any other politician from any political party. economics is all I care about and that information I get from historical texts and from peer reviewed papers and briefs written by economists and scholars.

I couldn't think of a bigger waste of time then listening to a 3rd rate doctor turned politician talking about "going back to a gold standard" when there isn't one single economists or scholar in the world that agrees with him.

nah, lets print trillion dollar coin instead lmao! your economists have zero credibility.
gold and silver, its the law of the land. try reading the constitution, moron.

all your brilliant economist got us where we are today. carry on...

 

[Arnold]

all your brilliant economist got us where we are today. carry on...

No bad and corrupt politics did.

 

[Swiper]

No bad and corrupt politics did.

a lot economist don't believe in free ture markets. they want, and have. a gov centralized banking system so they can keep printing money to satisfy their failed Keynesian theory of economics. a lot of economist get money from the gov in the form of grants for their school and employment. they're corrupt like the politicians. if gov cuts spending they lose funding. they have an invested interest in keeping the printing press going to support them. the gold standard would throw a monkey wrench in the current system.

 

[Swiper]

I couldn't think of a bigger waste of time then listening to a 3rd rate doctor turned politician talking about "going back to a gold standard" when there isn't one single economists or scholar in the world that agrees with him.

where has fait money worked? it always fails. you seem to forget about history or simplify too stupid to grasp that.

most if not all of your economist you like to quote and pawn off as your own writings, get money from the gov. so of course some oppose a gold standard. they need gov to keep printing and getting those grants. wake up, they're nothing more than peons leaching off gov. grants.

 

[Swiper]

 

[LAM]

where has fait money worked? it always fails. you seem to forget about history or simplify too stupid to grasp that.

most if not all of your economist you like to quote and pawn off as your own writings, get money from the gov. so of course some oppose a gold standard. they need gov to keep printing and getting those grants. wake up, they're nothing more than peons leaching off gov. grants.

I knew all about fiat currency 25 years ago did you? I read about it books, I didn't "learn" about from a babbling politician that hasn't done one single thing in his career in politics. Can you name one single piece of legislation with Ron Paul's name on it that has benefited anyone?

the simple fact is that the collapse of the Brenton Woods system in the early 70's and the USD going completely fiat is what has allowed the global financial sectors to grow so large and powerful. debt was always "money" but now since the US has monetized every form of debt in the country it all equates to more money and power for them, the most unproductive sector of the US economy. and with the US being the economic powerhouse of global finances since the end of WWII the US FED also is now the most powerful central bank in the world.

so please don't "try" to tell me about finance and what I don't know because I can recite this crap back and forth from memory. I forget more every day on this subject than you know about it.

 

[secdrl]

Negged Vancouver. (again)

 

[LAM]

nah, lets print trillion dollar coin instead lmao! your economists have zero credibility.
gold and silver, its the law of the land. try reading the constitution, moron.

all your brilliant economist got us where we are today. carry on...

wrong again idiot that was your man Milton Friedman who was an economic adviser to good old Red Ronnie Reagan..

Milton Friedman's $8 trillion error

" . . . the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance ? vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.The first of these started when the Nixon administration defaulted on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world. Now, since we have lived beyond our means as a nation for nearly 40 years, our cumulative current-account deficit ? the combined shortfall on our trade in goods, services and income ? has reached nearly $8 trillion. That?s borrowed prosperity on an epic scale.

It is also an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves. Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct.It may be true that governments, because they intervene in foreign exchange markets, have never completely allowed their currencies to float freely. But that does not absolve Friedman?s $8 trillion error. Once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors."

- David Stockman

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse
By DAVID STOCKMAN
Published: July 31, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=0