Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

LOL

My poor little storch, as I’ve said jumping out of a plane at 20,000 feet without a parachute is the kind of disastrous you’d seem to contemplate.

TOO REPEAT - My problem with the right wing libertarian argument about the FED is that they seem to want to take a hammer to the system without having a viable alternative and what’s worse they don’t seem to care that they don’t have a viable alternative it seems like another case of ideological beliefs outweighing rational thought.

 

Balbus,

I believe I asked you to present some kind of detailed explanation as to how cutting off the flow of our money which goes to central banksters is going to be disastrous. In your next post, focus on an answer to that question.

You seem to be of the mind that once a ripoff is established, it somehow falls under the Grandfather Clause. I'm here to tell you that it doesn't. It falls under the catagory of crime.

But back to the point: Explain how stopping money from going into the wrong hands, and back into the hands of the people who actually earned it is going to be a problem, if you would, please . . .

 

You know, I never really came right out and asked you whether or not you believe we're being ripped off. So, why don't you clear that up for everyone.

Do you believe there's a theft going on?

 

Ok, while you're trying to figure out a way to answer those questions, I'm going to do some more house-cleaning.

 

I don't think Ron Paul's standings on a lot of issues are sustainable and in fact will hurt the US in the long run if not immediately. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ron Paul (if he were elected) to get in to office and fall incredibly short of a lot of his promises. Presidents who have promised less have failed to do what they want.

I think the President is a guise that people use to blame their problems on. The real issue in DC is a GOP congress that filibusters in order to get NOTHING accomplished on purpose.


Ron Paul also wants to cut PUBLIC EDUCATION among other federally funded agencies and programs. I think it should be blatantly obvious how much of a bad idea this is. He wants the states to take care of these issues, but the states are in worse position to pay for these programs than the Fed.

I just think that while I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of points he makes, he does it in a way that is not sustainable and is not nearly as stable a headfigure as somebody like Obama is. (whether you agree with me here or not is moot)

The US is about to weather a huge storm of change in the world. We need either a unifying figure or someone that is going to draw the line in the dirt between the bigots/haters (Republicans) and everybody else that doesn't see the main issues in America as Gays, Abortion and Not Enough Money For a Third TV

Basically, we need someone to make us realize the values of our MORALS and what is GOOD/RIGHT thing to do versus the GREED and MONEY ORIENTED MINDSET that has corrupted people higher up on the chain. When we start to realize the levels of abundance that the poorest people in America live in, we take power away from the powers that be. That being said, someone like Obama still has these morals (or acts like he does - good enough in chair) and he also has the will to fight for universal healthcare and helping the poor enjoy some of the overabundance that America suffers from.

I have a serious problem with a candidate that says they will not fight for universal healthcare or to fight child starvation in the US because of their belief that they did not EARN otherwise. Motherfucker, this is fucking AMERICA. Remember that Bible that you thump so god damn much? There's waaaaayy more in it than how you think it is teaching you to hate.

 

Sme guy in my class said he liked Ron Paul the other day and I was like offended and I dunno why

 

You're right, the free market is a fantasy. So it's high fuckin' time the US stopped letting that fantasy not only run our banking system, but be in charge of the entire supply of US money.

 

I believe everything Ron Paul supports is right in human nature and for the sake of our country. The establishment needs to be destroyed and Ron Paul is the man to do this. Decriminalize drugs, take us out of the useless wars, prevent future ones, stop taxing because it is stealing, and restoring America to the country it was years ago. Ron Paul is the only man who can save this country. Obama is corrupted and so is Mitt Romney, so regardless Obama will win in that race. If he doesn't win this year he better run again because he will save this country!

 

Just curious which year in our past is the one you wish the US be restored to?

 

1963

 

It's not a matter of returning to a year past, but instead returning to the rule of law, and laws which are not written to favor one group over another.

From the St. Louis Federal Reserve (Money Base):

August 2008..........$869,000,000,000
December 2011...$2,900,000,000,000

 

Storch

I wish you’d read my posts rather than getting all heated, shouty and huffy, your not doing your arguments any favours.

OK to repeat – I understand you don’t like the present system and I said repeatedly THAT IS FINE.

But and it is a BIG BUT – right wing libertarian’s don’t seem to have viable alternatives or they have ideas that would actually seem to be replacing the bad with the worse.

I’ve put that to you several times now and you don’t seem to dispute it you just carry on in your rants oblivious to any criticism.

As I’ve said to me it would seems fool hardy to jump out of a plane at 20,000 feet without taking a parachute, something you seem not only willing but happy to do.

 

Indie

TOO REPEAT - My problem with the right wing libertarian argument about the FED is that they seem to want to take a hammer to the system without having a viable alternative and what’s worse they don’t seem to care that they don’t have a viable alternative it seems like another case of ideological beliefs outweighing rational thought.

 

Balbie:

So, if its' broke don't try to fix it? Just adapt and live with it?

To repeat:

From the St. Louis Federal Reserve (Money Base):

August 2008..........$869,000,000,000
December 2011...$2,900,000,000,000

 

Balbus,

I find it rather intersting, in a dull sort of way, that you interpret my questions to you as an expression of huffiness, shoutiness, and heatedness. They're just questions, Balbus.

Now, instead of playing hide and seek with me again, just answer my questions, and in the order in which they appear.

1. Do you believe that there is a theft going on concerning the unratified sixteenth amendment and the the unconstiturtional Federal Reserve system?

2. Explain to everyone how shutting off the flow of unearned money to a non-federal entity, and returning it to the rightful owners equates to a disastrous tragedy. How is that possible?

Now, if that seemed huffy to you, then maybe debate just isn't your game, Balbus.

 

That has never been done, and may in fact be impossible.

Unless, of course, you leveled the populace legally, such as in a true Communistic system.

Which I am of course in favor of . . .

 

LOL – sorry storch but you only have to look at your posts to see you come across as huffy, if as you claim you are not then I suggest you tone down the aggressive posturing.

The problem is that your questions make no sense in the context of what I’ve said and explained.

As I’ve said you obviously don’t like this system and that’s fine but what is your alternative? As I’ve said I’m broadly in favour of Central Banking Systems (I think the only real opposition to them comes from the loons of the Austrian School).

I think virtually every country in the world has some form of central banking system. Other than the FED, here are just some of the most important -

European Central Bank (ECB)
Bank of England (BoE)
Bank of Japan (BoJ)
Swiss National Bank (SNB)
Bank of Canada (BoC)
Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)
People’s Bank of China (PBC)

Full list on wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_central_banks

They are responsible for overseeing the monetary system for a nation (or group of nations) through active duties such as managing interest rates. They normally have a set mandate to bring about such things as currency stability, low inflation and/or full employment. Central banks usually also have supervisory powers, intended to prevent commercial banks and other financial institutions from reckless or fraudulent behaviour. Central banks also generally issue currency, function as the bank of the government, regulate the credit system, manage exchange reserves and also act as a lender of last resort during times of bank insolvency or financial crisis.

To me the problem comes with who sets the mandate and the regulations. As I’ve said before a lot of the problems that places like the US and UK are facing at the moment are due to neoliberal ideas becoming dominant. This I’m afraid extended to some of the central banks one of the worst neoliberal influences (in my opinion) was that of the right wing libertarian and friend of Ayn Rand - Alan Greenspan - who in my opinion should be up on charges of crimes against humanity.

But the problem you haven’t actually explained how this would work and what system you’d have in place after you get rid of the FED.

 

storch

I’m not saying I’d keep the FED I’m asking what would you have instead of the FED, if as I suspect that you’d have an even worse system then in that case I think many people would choose the bad over the worse.

You I’m sure would claim it wouldn’t be worse, but you put up no rational or reasonable argument to back that theory up only assertions.

I mean it the same with other right wing libertarian ideas, the example of the environment has come up several times already, the RWL solution to environmental issues seems to be to get rid of regulations and regulatory bodies (or replace them with much weaker ones) and let the ‘free market’ decide the outcomes. As many have explained the outcome of such a system is more likely to make a bad situation worse.

The same kind mentality seems to be at work in relation to the FED.

I’m all for reform or change but I wouldn’t jump out of a plane a 20,000 feet without a parachute but instead only an ideological theory that hitting the ground wouldn’t hurt.

 

If patterns are any indication at all, I'm going to have enough time to make breakfast, eat it, and do up my dishes.

Later, then.

EDIT: I underestimated you.

 

Balbus,

You really need to stop characterizing the challenge and the challenger, and meet the challenge.

You obviously didn't focus on the questions I put before you.

Let me put it to you this way:

Why are you talking about the need to reform something when that something is a crime? Crimes are found out, and then they're prosecuted. What does reform have to do with anything about criminal activity?

Why can't I get you to admit that a crime has taken place, and continues to take place?

Also, I'm not affiliated with any political entities. I understand that you like to attach peoples' questions to ideologies, but it would be better if you just answered the questions put to you.

So, once again:

Do you admit that there is a crime taking place? And since you have made the claim that stopping the theft will result in tragic disaster, why don't you explain the dynamics of such a disaster?

No more characterizing me or my questions. Just answer them, if you would.