Jump to content


Photo

Ron Paul


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#1 JNKish

JNKish

    Member

  • Members
  • 240 posts

Posted 23 August 2011 - 03:35 PM

This weekend, CSPAN televised a Ron Paul speech at the Third Annual Florida Liberty Summit. The speech was given 8/19/2011 at the Rosen Centre Hotel in Orlando, Florida. He spoke about the current tax policy and the Federal Reserve monetary policy. Here's a link to the CSPAN video:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PaulRemar

I know that, historically, Ron Paul has not been popular on this board. Can anyone explain, specifically, why?

#2 mohawk

mohawk

    Member

  • Members
  • 63 posts

Posted 23 August 2011 - 08:53 PM

This weekend, CSPAN televised a Ron Paul speech at the Third Annual Florida Liberty Summit. The speech was given 8/19/2011 at the Rosen Centre Hotel in Orlando, Florida. He spoke about the current tax policy and the Federal Reserve monetary policy. Here's a link to the CSPAN video:

http://www.c-spanvid...ogram/PaulRemar

I know that, historically, Ron Paul has not been popular on this board. Can anyone explain, specifically, why?


I like Ron Paul, but I must take exception to some of his arguments. He is correct, in my view, of his interpretation of the US Constitution and the over-reaching arm that the Federal govt. has extended for some time. His admirable voting record in congress reflects this. I also agree with his understanding of the warning from our founders of becoming involved in "foreign entanglements." He is also correct in that it is a violation of our constitution for a president to take our forces into war without a declaration from the Congress.

Here is where I disagree with Paul's position on foreign policy, which is also the position of the Libertarian party. In the period of the birth and "childhood" of our nation (late 18th and early 19th centuries) there existed no power on earth that could threaten our young nation from afar. Missiles were not invented, much less ICBM's that could be launched across the seas. Heck, men were still fighting with black powder firearms as the cartridge had not yet been introduced. My point is that with the U.S. separated from Europe and Asia by two great oceans, we could afford to take an isolationist approach to foreign policy.

Jump forward a few hundred years and you have the invention of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, chemical) and the delivery systems (ICBMs) to send them around the globe. Now factor in human nature and the inherent enmity between nations (cultures, races, religions) and you have a formula for disaster.

I agree with Ron Paul in that our past history of intervention in world affairs has poured fuel on the flames of jealousy and hatred that exists among certain peoples. However, when you examine closely these enemies of America, you find a common thread. That is an ideology (Marxism, Islam) whose tenets of faith do not allow for peaceful coexistence with the "capitalist pig" or "infidel". It did not require any fuel from us for these flames to burn. It is my contention that even if we held strong to an isolationist policy during the past decades, we would be facing the exact same threats that we face today.

Let's, for a moment, go back to the 1930's. America wanted no part in the affairs of Europe, even after Hitler began his nation grabbing campaign. Sure, we had no choice but to respond to the attack on Pearl Harbor, but what if we limited our response to Japan alone? What if we did not come to the defense of Britain and France? How would Europe look today? How would America look today? Germany's National Socialism was not altogether different than today's Marxism. They shared the same goal of world dominance and would stop at nothing to achieve that goal.

It is clear to most of us on this board that both today's Marxist nations (Russia, China, and their allies - Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and others), and Islamic republics are actively working to achieve their common goal of a world without liberty and freedom, or more specifically, a world without freedom loving countries like the United States, Great Britain, and our allies.

Those of us that love liberty have a choice. Edmund Burke once said "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." When good men see the evil plans of others they can either take action, or wait for action to be taken against them.

Ok, off my soapbox now. :)

-Mohawk

#3 goodcomdeadcom

goodcomdeadcom

    Member

  • Members
  • 334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Greetings, and God bless. I am William, in Idaho Occupation: Welding. Hobbies: Reading, singing in the church choir and three-gun patrol shooting. Bio: Army brat, ex-Navy, former rabid secular humanist, current junior high Sunday school teacher and just glad to be alive and in the service of my Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ.

Posted 23 August 2011 - 10:15 PM

Greetings, and God bless.

Must concur one hundred percent, Mohawk. I agree all down the line with Mr Paul up to the point where he grossly misunderstands the nature of the battle and of the combatants. Islam ain't mad at us because we're messing around on it's turf; it's copping that attitude because it is a glove on the hand of global Communist revolution.
Soylent Green Is Sheeple!!!

#4 watchman92

watchman92

    Member

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 23 August 2011 - 10:40 PM

1. Because he won't win.
2. Because his foreign policies are suicidal. I'm not saying invade every country, but lying back and baring your neck is DEFINITELY not the answer either.

3. Because he won't win.

#5 Guest_That One Guy_*

Guest_That One Guy_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 August 2011 - 03:38 AM

I find his wanting to abolish the Fed also suicidal. When you abolish the Fed, then what? He hasn't provided a solution, at least that I've seen, other than 'tear it down'. Will control of monetary policy go to the already-corrupt politicians, or worse yet, perhaps UN control? Ron Paul isn't going to win anything, anytime soon... But if he actually did, control of fiscal/monetary policy would be taken away and placed in the hands of another agency controlled by yet another entity. The Fed is a separate entity and should be kept that way. Abolition of the Fed is tantamount to abolishing our national and economic sovereignty -- exactly what the enemy country's want. What it needs a good cleaning, not a wrecking ball.

His Iran policy is a complacent joke that jeapordizes the lives of millions. Staying out of foreign affairs I can understand -- but if you don't have a presence in regions around the world as he would like to see, then what? Then those regions will eventually fall in Russian/Chinese hands.

If he's still serious about running, I predict he will go independent -- which will simply take votes away from the Republican contender. Other than that, Ron Paul in my mind is a man of slogans -- and is dangerous. A lot of his fans seem to be quite pushy and cultish'ly loyal.

#6 watchman92

watchman92

    Member

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 07:28 AM

Eliminating the Fed is not a bad idea, but it has to be coupled with returning to the gold standard. And that's virtually impossible for the U.S. to do right now, as there's too many dollars out there. First, we would have to have an extremely DEFLATIONARY policy, sucking in hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars, which would necessarily create an economic recession/depression. And only after we had decreased the money supply to a manageable amount, could we return to being pegged to the gold standard.

#7 SJL

SJL

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,320 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 August 2011 - 10:39 AM

This weekend, CSPAN televised a Ron Paul speech at the Third Annual Florida Liberty Summit. The speech was given 8/19/2011 at the Rosen Centre Hotel in Orlando, Florida. He spoke about the current tax policy and the Federal Reserve monetary policy. Here's a link to the CSPAN video:

http://www.c-spanvid...ogram/PaulRemar

I know that, historically, Ron Paul has not been popular on this board. Can anyone explain, specifically, why?

Ron Paul strikes me as the pimped libertarian, degenerated by corruption, infiltrated by the communists.

I once talked to a libertarian and spoke about the need to free ourselves to grow food, medicines and what not, in our garden, and not just recreational drugs. He went on a gay like rant instead about the need to enjoy drugs. He was not even listening to my point so obsessed and reduced to perversion his interests were. This is when I realized that something was really wrong.

Then Soros supported drug use.

What is going on, and the TParty is not immune to being affected to the "independent" "the government convening has nothing to teach me", type attitude, is a general flow of corrupt printing of moneys in the US to fill the coffers of the communists via a service/recreational/drugs/prostitution industry to the politbureau who use the mafyas to make that money and buy the arms from the communist soviet military.

None of our taxes are shaped to ultimately funnel the spending habits of our government spoiled brat bureaucrates into our arms and defense, and, instead, it is going into a Politicaly Corrected gadgetery of "industries" of criminals who eventualy ship the drug profits and wealth storage to places like Russia and social sattelites, recycling it into the maintenance of their KGB soviet elites and their arms industries.

The government is becoming corrupt and utterly stupid. Liberals are about to give up under the pressure because they have become aware of their own shortcomings lately and will not have government aid. They will give up on every endeavor, having failed everything, cursing down every avenues and haven they thought they were good at, and drink the kool aid. They will spend along with the government bureaucrat demoralized idiots all their moneys on SEIU services, drugs and what not, all funneling ultimately to the Soviets.

When to a tax payer 1 billion is a lot but to the government bureaucrate's business nothing, we have obviously a strange imbalance in purchasing power. Inflation will not be allowed. So we will be poor and destroyed. This money, this huge debt is built to buy out "thin air" prostitute services, ie. a laundering machinery, which then goes to feed the arming of the pimp, the Soviets.

Government is bad and corrupt, yes, but this wealth of the government only needs to be reoriented toward the good, towards a valid private industry in the US, and this is not happening.

Reducing government just like that is not going to cut it, except to save the investments of China into the Soviet Union or what not. Heck, they'd love us to save money for the "right" reasons, ie. so that we conserve it for them, that is.

Ron Paul is again counting the numerator (size of government) and not counting the denominator (where that size can spend its money on). (Although small governments do tend to be humbler, more efficient and what not).

I could care less if cop A or B does not deserve his pay or is a jerk, so long that this "drug money" goes into my military coffers here at home.

However Ron Paul will go after CIA narco operations but then proclaim to be antiwar when KGB narco operations happen to the benefit of the KGB. WHy?

As JRN says, all these people always end up promoting the weakness of America and defending suspicious foreigners and enemies.

THis is why I am a nationalist and will leave aside for a minute how this money is "made" or destroyed. THe money is here, whether it is bad or good, it is here, it can be forgiven and reoriented towards national defense. Why send it to CHina? Russia? ANd what is it with Bush saying bigotedly about "jobs Americans do not do"? What kind of language is that?

THere is something wrong with people like this, and, Ron Paul is not different than BUsh Jr. in that free trade aspect of things. Libertarians are frequent visitors of Mexico and Beijing.

#8 SJL

SJL

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,320 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 August 2011 - 10:50 AM

Eliminating the Fed is not a bad idea, but it has to be coupled with returning to the gold standard. And that's virtually impossible for the U.S. to do right now, as there's too many dollars out there. First, we would have to have an extremely DEFLATIONARY policy, sucking in hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars, which would necessarily create an economic recession/depression. And only after we had decreased the money supply to a manageable amount, could we return to being pegged to the gold standard.

The gold standard is going to happen on its own when the paper will not buy much. THere might be 2 or 3 economies developing in the US. A govermnent voucher for a meal replaces the money. So our government is already running its own currency. Merchants set the price up to the rest of us according to what government vouchers pays them. THere is an arrangement and this is why airport food is so expensive. The rest of us cannot afford it but the government worker is afforded his meal.

Ultimately having gold and stuff to barter as currency is going to become the norm and inflation will occure.

The Feds, as a blessing spending for the government, will autodestruct. If it does not support the arms industry and its own protection, and, instead, supports drugs and the SEIU and funneling of moneys to dubious obscure arms areas of the world, it's like a woman giving her old money to some pimp before she dies, so that he can buy arms and rule.

It's horse hookie.

We still need an institution which will bless our nation in righteous or defense nationalist spending system, even if cultic in nature, and that is to be the Feds role, but right now the actual "building" and those infiltrating it are corrupt and of low quality. Our high quality bankers are not here, and I do not know if we have any. It's so stupid the way Congress is now saddling itself with the responsability for bad loans given to SEIU activists and drug dealers who do not pay the mortgages and what not.

#9 watchman92

watchman92

    Member

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 11:50 AM

The gold standard is going to happen on its own when the paper will not buy much. THere might be 2 or 3 economies developing in the US. A govermnent voucher for a meal replaces the money. So our government is already running its own currency. Merchants set the price up to the rest of us according to what government vouchers pays them. THere is an arrangement and this is why airport food is so expensive. The rest of us cannot afford it but the government worker is afforded his meal.

Ultimately having gold and stuff to barter as currency is going to become the norm and inflation will occure.

The Feds, as a blessing spending for the government, will autodestruct. If it does not support the arms industry and its own protection, and, instead, supports drugs and the SEIU and funneling of moneys to dubious obscure arms areas of the world, it's like a woman giving her old money to some pimp before she dies, so that he can buy arms and rule.

It's horse hookie.

We still need an institution which will bless our nation in righteous or defense nationalist spending system, even if cultic in nature, and that is to be the Feds role, but right now the actual "building" and those infiltrating it are corrupt and of low quality. Our high quality bankers are not here, and I do not know if we have any. It's so stupid the way Congress is now saddling itself with the responsability for bad loans given to SEIU activists and drug dealers who do not pay the mortgages and what not.


Yes, I am worried though that the government will "outlaw" gold or the holding of it. Didn't they do something like that in the 30's under FDR? One of them did it during extremely tough economic times, if that happens kiss all contingency plans goodbye or simply bury that in your backyard until it's safe, but I don't see how you'll be able to buy anything with it.

#10 Babs

Babs

    Member

  • Members
  • 155 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Inland Northwest

Posted 24 August 2011 - 03:20 PM

Ezekiel 7:19 (NASB Version)
‘They will fling their silver into the streets and their gold will become an abhorrent thing; their silver and their gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD. They cannot satisfy their appetite nor can they fill their stomachs, for their iniquity has become an occasion of stumbling. "

#11 Guest_That One Guy_*

Guest_That One Guy_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 August 2011 - 04:27 PM

Ezekiel 7:19 (NASB Version)
‘They will fling their silver into the streets and their gold will become an abhorrent thing; their silver and their gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD. They cannot satisfy their appetite nor can they fill their stomachs, for their iniquity has become an occasion of stumbling. "


Thank you for bringing that one up. Proverbs 30:7-9... One of my favorites.

#12 Brutus

Brutus

    Member

  • Admin
  • 691 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mississippi

Posted 25 August 2011 - 07:20 AM

I could get behind Ron Paul except for his stance on foreign policy and defense.

No, I don't like us being involved everywhere in the world, but Paul's prescription would be national suicide. The best path lies somewhere in the middle.

:)
Yes Virginia, the Russians are STILL the bad guys.

#13 Brutus

Brutus

    Member

  • Admin
  • 691 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mississippi

Posted 25 August 2011 - 07:23 AM

Off topic for this thread, but.....

Going back to the gold standard won't solve much.

The GS didn't prevent the Great Depression or any of the other recessions and panics that occurred back during the years when we were on it.

The only thing that will get the currency right in this country is proper valuation of things and proper accounting.

:)
Yes Virginia, the Russians are STILL the bad guys.

#14 watchman92

watchman92

    Member

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 25 August 2011 - 10:19 PM

Off topic for this thread, but.....

Going back to the gold standard won't solve much.

The GS didn't prevent the Great Depression or any of the other recessions and panics that occurred back during the years when we were on it.

The only thing that will get the currency right in this country is proper valuation of things and proper accounting.

:)


It would immediately handcuff the political leaders from being able to cause hyperinflation, which is what's going on right now. It would stop them from devaluing the dollar right now. You don't think that's worth it? I haven't read enough about the 29 crash to speak confidently about its causes, but it seems fairly intuitive that having a currency backed by a real precious metal would be a heck of a lot better than one backed by... nothing at all.

#15 Brutus

Brutus

    Member

  • Admin
  • 691 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mississippi

Posted 26 August 2011 - 08:12 AM

watchman,

Having the currency backed by gold means nothing when there's a huge bubble in a major segment of the economy. The gold standard can do nothing to prevent over-valuation of real estate, for example, that leads to a crash in the housing market.

Currency is only a medium of exchange. If, for example, you make $20 an hour and a loaf of bread costs $2, it can be said that a loaf of bread is worth one-tenth of an hour of your labor. Conversely, it can be said that one hour of your labor is worth ten loaves of bread. Having a currency backed by a so-called "precious" metal doesn't have anything to do with it. The currency is merely the common denominator by which we make transactions - a common unit used to represent the value of other things.

What really ends up screwing people - regardless of whether there's a gold standard or not - is when that loaf of bread inflates to $10 for no valid reason while your pay stays at $20 an hour.

It's all about the accounting. "Precious" metal-backed currencies are relics of the past that should have been relics LONG before they were. Gold and silver have very little intrinsic value because they have very little utility in the real world. They only have value because people THINK that they're valuable and are willing to pay exorbitant prices for them.

There is no greater testament to the stupidity of mankind than the fact that people are willing to pay $1,800 an ounce for something that can't feed you, can't clothe you, can't shelter you, and can't protect you.

It's all about the accounting. Gold means nothing.

:)
Yes Virginia, the Russians are STILL the bad guys.

#16 Hiltop

Hiltop

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts
  • Location:West Michigan
  • Interests:Survival ,Music

Posted 26 August 2011 - 12:52 PM

I plan on a Ron Paul primary vote unless Palin gets in ... even with his isolationist penchant ... it's time for an American for America as a leader ... these wars that drag on for a decade are not rational to me anymore anyway.

#17 Brutus

Brutus

    Member

  • Admin
  • 691 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mississippi

Posted 26 August 2011 - 03:23 PM

I plan on a Ron Paul primary vote unless Palin gets in ... even with his isolationist penchant ... it's time for an American for America as a leader ... these wars that drag on for a decade are not rational to me anymore anyway.

I think Paul is a good guy, sincere and all, but I also think he's dangerously naive regarding the intentions of Russia and China.

I've never heard him say it, but I'll bet that he's firmly in the camp that believes there will never be another war between great powers due to the interconnectedness of the modern world. Many believed the EXACT same thing just before WWI.

:)
Yes Virginia, the Russians are STILL the bad guys.

#18 kulthur

kulthur

    Member

  • Members
  • 348 posts

Posted 26 August 2011 - 05:07 PM

I agree with the critics of paul's foreign policy and his economics and his drug policy and his libertarianism, although I sympathize with his patriotism and his frustration - to the extent that the latter are not predicated on the former. The warning against tangling alliances is not applicable any longer for the reasons Brutus points out. For example, recognizing the Sino-Soviet threat, who could replace it if we withdrew or even seriously curtailed our involvement in each region? The Euros cannot create a credible military because they cannot afford one - and just look at Libya. The Japanese are in a similar position. All advanced economies are in our situation or in worse shape, unless their population is under 40 million and they export gigantic amounts of raw materials. China is a mirage and depends as much or more on foreign markets than the British crown ever did. Paul's gold standard would radically undermine the flexibility of monetary policy and would undermine the dollar's reserve currency status. His drug policy would remove a healthy constraint on humans' innate inability to resist profound temptation. I can't see how anything he advocates would improve anything. Plus he can't win.

#19 SJL

SJL

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,320 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2011 - 08:54 PM

It would immediately handcuff the political leaders from being able to cause hyperinflation, which is what's going on right now. It would stop them from devaluing the dollar right now. You don't think that's worth it? I haven't read enough about the 29 crash to speak confidently about its causes, but it seems fairly intuitive that having a currency backed by a real precious metal would be a heck of a lot better than one backed by... nothing at all.

That's my take too. Currently our system favors the blowing of money over "vapor projects". No one in their right mind would give a piece of hard gold for that, or it would be very limited. There is a psychological angle to this. The thing is that gold was born out of the barter trade, ie. the trade of useful life saving goods, and, then, instead of being cut in little pieces, paper was made backed in gold. That makes some sense to me if we are to slow down spending on vapor potemkin projects where whoever pays pays, and not some other guy who is going to pay off that debt via socialistic handover debauchery, like a dad pretending to fix a bad son's gambling habits.

#20 watchman92

watchman92

    Member

  • Members
  • 719 posts

Posted 26 August 2011 - 10:19 PM

watchman,

Having the currency backed by gold means nothing when there's a huge bubble in a major segment of the economy. The gold standard can do nothing to prevent over-valuation of real estate, for example, that leads to a crash in the housing market.

Currency is only a medium of exchange. If, for example, you make $20 an hour and a loaf of bread costs $2, it can be said that a loaf of bread is worth one-tenth of an hour of your labor. Conversely, it can be said that one hour of your labor is worth ten loaves of bread. Having a currency backed by a so-called "precious" metal doesn't have anything to do with it. The currency is merely the common denominator by which we make transactions - a common unit used to represent the value of other things.

What really ends up screwing people - regardless of whether there's a gold standard or not - is when that loaf of bread inflates to $10 for no valid reason while your pay stays at $20 an hour.

It's all about the accounting. "Precious" metal-backed currencies are relics of the past that should have been relics LONG before they were. Gold and silver have very little intrinsic value because they have very little utility in the real world. They only have value because people THINK that they're valuable and are willing to pay exorbitant prices for them.

There is no greater testament to the stupidity of mankind than the fact that people are willing to pay $1,800 an ounce for something that can't feed you, can't clothe you, can't shelter you, and can't protect you.

It's all about the accounting. Gold means nothing.

:)


So you're disagreeing or agreeing with me that a gold-backed dollar would stop (or slow down radically) hyperinflation? The money supply exploded after we de-pegged it, the point isn't how valuable it is, the point is how finite it is. You can't make more dollars than you have gold in case people want to redeem them. Now, if people want to redeem their dollars, what do they get? Nothing, because you removed another layer, you removed a backstop.

And bubbles don't just 'occur'. The housing bubble was intentionally created by communists in the government, just like many other bubbles before it, just like the dollar bubble right now.

You mention a loaf of bread suddenly "inflating", well why would it inflate? Supply and demand determines price, UNLESS somebody's messing with the currency by DEVALUING it. And the only way you devalue currency is by making more of it, which is also a supply and demand issue. How can you do that with gold? You virtually can't.

People aren't paying $1800 because gold can or cannot feed them, they're paying it because they want something whose value WON'T CHANGE rapidly, which conversely means they anticipate the dollar's value changing extremely rapidly, in a DOWNWARD direction, which is something a (literally value-less) paper currency can do when you print it like toilet paper. Believe it or not, the actual material something is made out of holds value, it's why paper is worth less than silver or gold, it's why people as far back as a thousand years ago used gold and silver as money. Obviously precious metals can't house, clothe, or feed you, but it can buy you a house, buy you food, buy you a gun, and buy you clothing. It is their finite quality that holds hyperinflation in check when backing up currencies and their beauty as a rare precious metal that maintains their value.

The Bible even mentioned 3 times of wealth: gold, land, and livestock. It is almost intuitively easy to understand why each of those three would never lose their value.