Ron Paul Correct yet again....

• BCSbunk

  Ron Paul as usual is absolutely correct.
  
  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/10/ron-paul-barack-obama-is-not-a-socialist/tab/article/
  
  "Obama is a corporatist."
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
  
  Americans are being fleeced by being told we are heading towards Socialism when we really are not at all. In fact we are heading down a much more frightening reality.
  
  Corporatism leads to the right wing extreme side of politics.
  
  Hopefully Ron Paul can get the nomination.
• IggyPride00

  

  Ron Paul does not believe in playing wet nurse to Israel, so therefore could never be elected President or win the GOP nomination.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Ron Paul is almost always correct. That's exactly why he won't get the nomination. He's been my guy for years now but I fear I may never get to vote for him. I mean, I could vote for him but I refuse to vote for a third party candidate unless I feel like they actually have a chance--which could happen someday but certainly hasn't in my voting lifetime.
• IggyPride00

  

  I always enjoy seeing Bernanke cringe during Congressional testimony when it is Paul's turn to question him because he is the only member of Congress that calls out the Fed for inflating the money supply and devaluing the dollar. All other 534 members of congress are clueless as to the destruction the Fed brings to our economy, so naturally Paul looks like the whacky one because he has the nerve to bring it to the attention of the public while his colleagues sit there quietly.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  That's because most of them don't want to point the finger at their peers. Which is one of the biggest problems in our government.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Paul as President? No.
  Paul as Sec. of Treasury? Perhaps.
  
  I think he has some good ideas when it comes to monetary policy, but am more of a skeptic overall towards him.
  I'm also one that does not see the Fed is an overly negative light. But, maybe I'm a minority.
• Footwedge

  IggyPride00 wrote: Ron Paul does not believe in playing wet nurse to Israel, so therefore could never be elected President or win the GOP nomination.

  Americans are waking up to the reality that being in bed with Israel may not be in our best interest.
  
  Bibi's middle finger towards America few weeks ago was another eye opener.
  
  AIPAC is more in more coming under scrutiny.
  
  Also....there are plenty of conservative thinkers that are coming to terms regarding their small government, whenever the expansion of the empire is clearly unsustainable.
  
  Remember, the conservative view encompassed a strong defense, but not until recent decades, a strong offense,
  
  There is nothing conservative at all about initiating blood baths half way across the globe....when our country is not at risk.
  
  Ron Paul has laid an indelable mark on American politics. Even wacko Glen Beck has done a U-Turn regarding expanding empire around the globe. Beck wants to see the defense department costs slashed wayyy down.
  
  Next election season, I look for even more growth from the libertarian base.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I'm also one that does not see the Fed is an overly negative light. But, maybe I'm a minority.

  You may not be but you should be in the minority. And I'm not sure what your knowledge of the Fed is but read up on it, if you still feel the same way then God help you...
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote:

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I'm also one that does not see the Fed is an overly negative light. But, maybe I'm a minority.

  You may not be but you should be in the minority. And I'm not sure what your knowledge of the Fed is but read up on it, if you still feel the same way then God help you...

  It's an alright knowledge, not expect, but better than the average joe. I've had a couple econ courses as well as been to a few events in DC, talked to some former officials and read a few books. Also work with a few economists who specialize in macro econ.
• BoatShoes

  IggyPride00 wrote: I always enjoy seeing Bernanke cringe during Congressional testimony when it is Paul's turn to question him because he is the only member of Congress that calls out the Fed for inflating the money supply and devaluing the dollar. All other 534 members of congress are clueless as to the destruction the Fed brings to our economy, so naturally Paul looks like the whacky one because he has the nerve to bring it to the attention of the public while his colleagues sit there quietly.

  When I've seen Paul question Bernanke, it seemed to me Bernanke was a little dismissive of Rep. Paul; a little bit too dismissive IYAM. cringe wouldn't be the word that came to mind...but to be fair I can only think of one occasion where I caught it on CSpan.
• BCSbunk

  Where are all the defenders of Obama is socialist?
• I Wear Pants

  But...but...but...he's going to steal my stuff and give it to someone else...
• I Wear Pants

  There are three orders in society - those who live by rent, by labour and by profits. Employers constitute the third order. . . The proposal of any new law by or regulation which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with the greatest precaution and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public. . .

  I didn't know which thread to put this in so I put it here. The above is a quote about laws coming from businessmen. It's from Adam Smith, seems he didn't inherently trust businesses as many of you have asserted.
• Footwedge

  IWP....Adam Smith not only invented a great system, but he also spelled out caveats that could and would destroy it. If Smith were alive today, he would be SHH at the utter bullcrap that goes on today.
• queencitybuckeye

  Adam Smith "invented" nothing. He was the first to describe what became known as capitalism. "Invented" capitalism. Jesus. :rolleyes: This would be like saying Franklin invented electricity.
• JU-ICE

  What about a Romney/Paul ticket? Is that even feasible?
• dwccrew

  

  JU-ICE wrote: What about a Romney/Paul ticket? Is that even feasible?

  No. Ron Paul will not run on a ticket with someone that doesn't have an agenda like his.
• fish82

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Paul as President? No.
  Paul as Sec. of Treasury? Perhaps.
  
  I think he has some good ideas when it comes to monetary policy, but am more of a skeptic overall towards him.
  I'm also one that does not see the Fed is an overly negative light. But, maybe I'm a minority.

  I'm in agreement on all counts. Paul would make a good POTUS from a policy standpoint, but his charisma bypass will prevent him from ever getting a sniff of the chair.
  
  People overlook the huge role the Fed played in the boom economy of the late 90s. It has its issues, but it's not 100% evil.
• Footwedge

  queencitybuckeye wrote: Adam Smith "invented" nothing. He was the first to describe what became known as capitalism. "Invented" capitalism. Jesus. :rolleyes: This would be like saying Franklin invented electricity.

  Point taken. Very poor choice of words on my part.
• jmog

  Footwedge wrote:
  
  Remember, the conservative view encompassed a strong defense, but not until recent decades, a strong offense,
  
  There is nothing conservative at all about initiating blood baths half way across the globe....when our country is not at risk.
  
  
  

  If you don't think Afghanistan and even Iraq posed a threat to the US then you really should get off the Kool Aid.
  
  Islamic Terrorism is a real threat to the US, period.
• bigmanbt

  jmog wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  
  Remember, the conservative view encompassed a strong defense, but not until recent decades, a strong offense,
  
  There is nothing conservative at all about initiating blood baths half way across the globe....when our country is not at risk.
  
  
  

  If you don't think Afghanistan and even Iraq posed a threat to the US then you really should get off the Kool Aid.
  
  Islamic Terrorism is a real threat to the US, period.

  Let me guess, they hate us because we are free, because we are different than them, they basically hate everything about us and want nothing more than to see us gone. It certainly has nothing to do with us occupying their lands and trying to tell them what they can and can't do :rolleyes:
  
  Preventive war solves nothing, and if you haven't seen that yet you must have had your eyes closed.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  jmog wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  
  Remember, the conservative view encompassed a strong defense, but not until recent decades, a strong offense,
  
  There is nothing conservative at all about initiating blood baths half way across the globe....when our country is not at risk.
  
  
  

  If you don't think Afghanistan and even Iraq posed a threat to the US then you really should get off the Kool Aid.
  
  Islamic Terrorism is a real threat to the US, period.

  Afghanistan as a state itself, no. The people, al Qaeda, in the state yes. By extension the Taliban, indirectly yes.
  
  Iraq as a threat in 2003, no. Turns out it was not the threat it was claimed.
  
  Secondly, define threat. Threat in terms of the Cold War meant the extermination of whole cities. The odds of that are long today (save the highly unlikely chance the terrorists obtain fissionable material, put together a device and smuggle it in). So, threat today is not the same threat as yesteryear. The killing of a few hundred or thousand Americans, while tragic, is not an existential threat to the U.S. It is a threat, but not one nearly the same as the Cold War.
• BCSbunk

  jmog wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  
  Remember, the conservative view encompassed a strong defense, but not until recent decades, a strong offense,
  
  There is nothing conservative at all about initiating blood baths half way across the globe....when our country is not at risk.
  
  
  

  If you don't think Afghanistan and even Iraq posed a threat to the US then you really should get off the Kool Aid.
  
  Islamic Terrorism is a real threat to the US, period.

  A country (Iraq) that folded in a couple weeks was certainly no threat at all and anyone who says they are might as well just say all countries in the world are threats then.
  
  Afghanistan which struggles to have a central government is a threat to the US?
  
  Yeah which mode of army navy or Air force from Afghanistan could reach the shores of the US with a serious threat?
  
  LOL these guys will believe anything they are told to believe it is amazing.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  bigmanbt wrote:

  jmog wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  
  Remember, the conservative view encompassed a strong defense, but not until recent decades, a strong offense,
  
  There is nothing conservative at all about initiating blood baths half way across the globe....when our country is not at risk.
  
  
  

  If you don't think Afghanistan and even Iraq posed a threat to the US then you really should get off the Kool Aid.
  
  Islamic Terrorism is a real threat to the US, period.

  Let me guess, they hate us because we are free, because we are different than them, they basically hate everything about us and want nothing more than to see us gone. It certainly has nothing to do with us occupying their lands and trying to tell them what they can and can't do :rolleyes:
  
  Preventive war solves nothing, and if you haven't seen that yet you must have had your eyes closed.

  Have you had visions from God that showed you that nothing would have happened had we not gone into the Middle East?
• bigmanbt

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

  SQ_Crazies wrote:

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I'm also one that does not see the Fed is an overly negative light. But, maybe I'm a minority.

  You may not be but you should be in the minority. And I'm not sure what your knowledge of the Fed is but read up on it, if you still feel the same way then God help you...

  It's an alright knowledge, not expect, but better than the average joe. I've had a couple econ courses as well as been to a few events in DC, talked to some former officials and read a few books. Also work with a few economists who specialize in macro econ.

  From all I have read and studied on the Fed I've come to the conclusion that it has to go. The Fed can be used to do very good things (provide liquidity for banks who are strapped for cash) but it certainly hasn't been used that nearly as much as it has been for bad. Artificially setting interest rates, printing money to provide the Congress with money it doesn't have to rack up huge deficits, working behind a veil so no one can see what they are up to and who they give money to. Lot's of problems with the Fed, and I just think we'd be better off without it.