The Paul File

[pjdude1219]

I also like to study history - including novelized history. Here's an interesting book on the unification of Japan you may like: Taiko.


As for Libertarianism, here's something interesting. I asked a Buddhist priest (I'm staying in a Temple in Japan right now) what he thought of Ron Paul and Libertarianism (I just clicked onto the wiki websites) and he said its good. But that most people can't think like that, although it would be good if they could. Ron Paul he thought sounded like a good person to be POTUS but because he's a Libertarian most people (who can't think like that) probably wouldn't vote for him. He also thought wealthy people shouldn't pay so much in tax and that welfare should be reduced. But, what to do with the really really poor he wasn't sure - maybe the state does need to step in and help. In the past we were talking about wealthy people and he told me they're usually the biggest cheapskates. They'll donate $10,000 which is pocket change to them but ONLY because it's socially expected of them to do so, not one cent more. So, he does agree with the nature of wealthy people being ass holes. He still seems to think they shouldn't have to pay so much tax. Regular people often donate more than is expected. I suppose it's the way of people, probably why really wealthy people are really wealthy to begin with.... anyway, this is a little of a side track.


As for most of history - for the most part people have lived under dictatorial rule and under a number of different illusions (religion being the main one, but the State being a pretty good rival). The USA was an exception, we were Libertarian minded. Freedom FROM the state and control OVER the government is what set our society apart and ushered in prosperity not seen since Rome. That to me seems to be coming to an end as the rise of the State erodes more and more of our individualism and personal rights.

What do you think about the Store owner BEING a bigot? I mean, should that be legal? Should he be fined, imprisoned? What about teaching his children to be bigots? Should that be legal? Should the State play a role there?

IMO the best way to create society is through volunteerism. I am 100% sure that a NON-bigoted store would open up in that town because at the end of the day Blacks need to buy things and someone (maybe a Black American) would have to supply them those things. It's really silly to think otherwise. That the ONLY way blacks could purchase goods is from a bigot forced to sell them. That to me needs a reality check.


Did you know that the US military can now more easily act INSIDE of the USA? You know, in case of Islamic Terrorism.... THAT doesn't bother you .... at all?
You study history, what usually happens to free people?

the Us has never nor hopefully will ever be a libertarian state.

 

[Trippy]

Albiet I used my own example because I don't like the meme of the white guy always being the shop owner.

Tough luck. I don't give a crap about memes, or your opinion of them. It was a straightforward question, it deserves a straightforward answer.

Did you catch the answer?

Yes, I caught the implied answer, however, I'm not after an implied answer, I'm after a direct answer, because your can't squirm wriggle or otherwise oil your way out of a direct answer in the same way you can an implied answer.

Now, are you going to give a direct answer or not?

More like I didn't play along with the 'poor black guy' meme so you couldn't possibly want to read the answer that was clearly there

I don't give two shits about meme's or your opinion of them. What I am interested in is getting a yes or no answer to a yes or no question.

Yes, it's fair to say I have a reason for asking that specific question, and wanting to get that specific question answered, however in all of your squirming you haven't even come close to touching on it (and you have yet to surprise me).

Now, are you going to keep wasting my time based on your second guessings of my motivation, or are you going to give a straightforward and direct question an answer that is straightforward and direct?

 

[786]

Can you tell me how is "I can eject for any reason" implied and not explicit?

 

[786]

Was that the part where you compared a woman to real estate, or backed off on that point for obvious reasons, while splitting your support and opposition of "life at conception" and failing to answer a direct question about government policy when comparing the rights of mother and fetus?

I didn't back off, I just backed of from the use of the word property seeming offensive. But as I said the principle is the same. So I never backed off from the principle.


As for the right of mother vs fetus, perhaps you missed the discussion where I said both have rights over the body, and life itself cannot be taken as that is the fundamental right.

As far as I can tell, this is standard libertarian fare: If your answer doesn't work, collides with functional questions, and evades your own "libertarian" resolution, the reason it doesn't work is obviously that other people don't want to accept it.

Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's supporters.

No quite frankly what you consider rights we don't. The idea that healthcare is a right for example. For example the right to eat at any restaurant.

And this idea of 'womens choice' is bogus coming from people who force others to provide services.

 

[Tiassa]

Ironic Pokies

Ironic Pokies

I didn't back off, I just backed of from the use of the word property seeming offensive. But as I said the principle is the same. So I never backed off from the principle.

As you say. However, the principle is not, as I already explained, the same.

As for the right of mother vs fetus, perhaps you missed the discussion where I said both have rights over the body, and life itself cannot be taken as that is the fundamental right.

This is "libertarian" hair-splitting; the functional result is that the woman is reduced to a reproductive machine. I suppose that makes "libertarianism" easier; the liberty of a reproductive machine is to be a reproductive machine.

Meanwhile, you have failed to explain just how this life-at-conception standard functions under law:

• Ironic, then, that "libertarians" would have the government investigating menses, lest the life-at-conception rhetoric simply be empty words.

• Ironic, indeed, that "libertarians" would have government force hospitalization on women to restrict their governance over their own bodies, lest the life-at-conception rhetoric simply be empty words.

• (See #2773896/26 for examples of what you're suggesting.)​

This is the "liberty" you would create. If life-at-conception installs in a fetus all human rights demanded for those who exist without dependence on another human being for biological function—i.e., an umbilical cord—then due process and equal protection demand that no potential fetal homicide go without investigation. If life-at-conception installs in a fetus all human rights demanded for those who exist without dependence on another human being for biological function, then the risk analysis of mother vs. fetus in life-affecting situations becomes a bureaucratic standard.

Best of luck, then, in your "libertarian" mission to create a police state.

 

[Trippy]

Can you tell me how is "I can eject for any reason" implied and not explicit?

Yes, I can, however I choose not to at this time, because it would be a digression, and you have given me the answer that I want.

Your answer to my question is "I can eject for any reason".

So on that principle, you would have no problems with Tiassa permabanning you from sciforums because he disagreed with your political ideology?

 

[Tiassa]

Not a Punch Line

Really, This Isn't a Punch Line

How do Ron Paul's supporters identify musical talent?

A word of advice to prospective American Idol contestants: vote libertarian.

One day after she announced her support for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Twitter, sales of pop singer Kelly Clarkson's most recent album were surging Friday on Amazon.com.

Sales of Clarkson's album Stronger shot up 442% between Thursday and Friday afternoon on Amazon ....

.... While there's no way to tell whether her support for Paul was the only reason for this jump, the endorsement clearly made a difference for some fans.

"I must admit I have not really followed you but your recent stance on Ron Paul made me check you out," one fan wrote Friday in a review of the album on Amazon. "If you are smart enough to support Ron Paul then you are probably talented too."

"JUST DISCOVERED YOU...BECAUSE OF RON PAUL!" another wrote. "The energy of these songs would be great as Ron Paul event background music."

(O'Toole; boldface accent added)​

As much as it sounds like a punch line, apparently how one votes makes a difference in whether or not others find them talented.

To the one, I get it: A celebrity endorses one's favorite candidate, and one takes another look at his opinion of the celebrity's work. Maybe one decides to tolerate a musical sound they don't normally appreciate, sure. But I fail to see how Kelly Clarkson is any more or less talented because she endorsed Ron Paul. Indeed, being a critic of both Paul and Clarkson, I don't see how my opinion of her music is supposed to get any lower simply because she has endorsed him.

To the other, as a rock and roll child, I find it an interesting perspective; long have politically conscientious rockers shied away from admitting the merits of Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama", long controversial for lines about segregation and Governor Wallace perceived by many as endorsing racism. Once one sets that aside, it's hard to deny that SHA is a standard bearer of its day—it's an awesome song. I wonder how many people actually based their assessment on Skynyrd's talent on how they felt about segregation and understood the lyrics?

If you are smart enough to support Ron Paul then you are probably talented too.

Wow.

Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's supporters.
____________________

Notes:

O'Toole, James. "Kelly Clarkson sales spike after Ron Paul endorsement". CNN Money. December 30, 2011. Money.CNN.com. December 31, 2011. http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/30/news/kelly_clarkson_ron_paul/

 

[Bells]

Really, This Isn't a Punch Line

How do Ron Paul's supporters identify musical talent?

It is cringeworthy.

The cult of celebrity merging with the cult of political following.

The weirdest thing is how many of Clarkson's fans will vote for Ron Paul because she endorsed him? Which is why politicians seek celebrity endorsement, for that fan base. And when I read 'so and so has endorsed so and so', the first thing that comes to my mind is 'who gives a shit?'.. But that cult of personality and celebrity status and vice versa.. And politicians aren't that far behind. The tour bus style of travel, the celebrity hype that surrounds them. And this:

"If you are smart enough to support Ron Paul then you are probably talented too."​

There is no palm big enough for that facepalm..

 

[joepistole]

It is good business for celebrities to endorse people like Paul who has a loyal if not fanatical following. I had not heard of her prior to reading these posts.


The interesting question is, will Paul run as a third party candidate in 2012?

 

[Michael]

As far as I can tell, this is standard libertarian fare: If your answer doesn't work, collides with functional questions, and evades your own "libertarian" resolution, the reason it doesn't work is obviously that other people don't want to accept it.

...an answer colliding with a functional inquiry?

Really?

Oh, the Fed secured the banks to the tune of 13 trillion dollars? Where did you get that? Do you realized, 13 trillion was about the size of the entire US economy in 2008? Thirteen trillion dollars is several fold larger than the US money supply.

OK. this is the third time you've asked me to post this for you.
Bloomberg News:
Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks $13 Billion Undisclosed to Congress

Yes government is the solution to excessive corporate power. You seem to think that eliminating government will some how magically empower the individual. That is the same kind of magical thinking embraced by communism.

MORE Government is the solution to a corrupt government. Yup, that makes a lot of sense :bugeye:

You are correct in stating that government is a tool used by corporate interests to advance their causes at the expense of the people. But people who are unable to act collectively are no threat to corporate power with or without a government.

Two problems:
1) Size and reach of the government into our daily lives.
2) The entire banking system is corrupt and needs to be rebuilt from the ground.

Take a look at history Joe. ALL societies have had or have rules regarding usury. Doesn't THAT tell you something? Money really IS the root of all evil. At one point the Chinese made usury illegal. The Japanese socially placed Lenders at the bottom of society. Islam forbade it. Christianity made it a Sin. Judaism severely restricted lending.... and etc....

Historically humans have a problem with usury AND the founding of the USA attempted to address this.

What's the target? The Federal Reserve.

I don't have a problem with Apple, Google, Microsoft, GM, Ford, etc... what I do have a problem is, is the entire bases of our monetary system. Beginning with the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul has thought about this, and read DEEPLY on the matter for longer than you have been alive. You OTOH have been indoctrinated to think the ONLY possible system that could ever exist is the Federal Reserve of the United States of America. Nothing could ever function better. It's as good as humanity is EVER going to get. You're probably part problem Joe and don't even know it. No wonder you want to elect Obama again. Change is the furthest thing from your mind. What you want is more of the same.

You think all those Goldies and BJ Morgan's Obama hired are going to CHANGE the system they've worked so hard to game? You have go to be kidding. Wake up. Obama is NOT going to change a god damn thing.

Everyone knows it was the BANKS that caused the financial crises. The BANKS Joe. Not Ron Paul. The Federal Reserve set the stage after the Internet Bubble and blew the mother Bubble of all Bubbles. The hosing bubble. It wasn't Apple. Not Google. Not GM. Not Ford. It was GoldmanSux, BJ Morgan, BofA... the SAME CROOKS Team Obama hired to "advise" him on how to rape what's left of the economy.

End The Fed... that's a start.

That by itself would be a good thing, but not enough to remedy all the crazy things Ron Paul says he wants to do.

Corzine pilfered people's bank accounts. Something that has never been done since the East India Tea Company created the first markets. IS HE IN JAIL? No. And he won't be. He pulls a string and puppet Obama squawks something about "Real Change and Hope and Bullshit only a Turd Can Believe In"

So you want change? Make sure you have the right target in sight so you don't wind up targeting your foot instead of the real enemy.

The Federal Reserve.


Why don't you tell me why you think, borrowing money at interest from the Federal Reserve is better for society rather than creating the money directly from the Treasury and spending it interest free directly into the economy interest free. Why is it, you think that when the Federal Reserve magically makes money and charges society interest for the privilege of using it, that this is better for said society.



Some people naturally take to being milked, others don't :shrug:

 

[Michael]

Oh, and you know, the ONLY reason we know a little about what the Fed gets up to is because the ONLY politician who has the balls enough to do something and pried open a tiny crack on the Federal Reserve is Ron Paul. Not Obama. Ron Paul. All the rest of those sellouts and twits could give two shits. They're down scraping and crawling and begging for the banking elite to toss them a couple bucks.

The days of principled men like Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Paine... are gone. In their stead we have dip-shit sellouts like Palin,Bachmann, Clinton, Bush, Obama...

So, if it weren't for those Crazy Ideas... you know, like wanting to know what these private banking f*ckwhits secretly get up to, then we'd have absolutely NO IDEA how bad the Federal Reserve f*cked the American Middle Class. That was Ron Paul, not Obama, Ron Paul. Oh, and it's worth recalling Obama did the opposite! Since starting as POTUS he has hired MORE people from GoldmanSux than any other POTUS in the history of the USA. Anyone with two cents to rub together can peace this puzzle together. He's so f*cking deep in the pocked of Big Banks you can expect NO JUSTICE from his quarter.


It's also worth making a note that I personally have much more to gain from the current system then if it changed. I'm doing relatively well. I'll only do even better, maybe much better, with an Obama second term. Having grown up without any money, it's doesn't mean much to me and I'm more than willing to take my chances in a fare monetary system rather then stay with this one. And lastly, RP isn't going to end the Fed. He's going to appoint a principled chairman and bring in monetary competition.

 

[Michael]

RE: Kelly Clarkston

Oh give me a f*cking break Tiassa.
Oprah endorses Barack on Larry King

Yeah, I bet you were all full of outrage :bugeye:

 

[joepistole]

OK. this is the third time you've asked me to post this for you.
Bloomberg News:
Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks $13 Billion Undisclosed to Congress

Well Michael there is a difference between 13 trillion and 13 billion. You said 13 trillion in your Sciforums post but your reference only supports 13 billion. So your numbers were off by several orders of magnitude.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2883085&postcount=759

And two per your article, 13 billion was the money the banks earned on money loaned to them by the Fed. That is what banks are supposed to do. And why would the Fed report how much money banks earned? That is not their job.

MORE Government is the solution to a corrupt government. Yup, that makes a lot of sense :bugeye:

No that is you creating a straw man. The solution for a corrupt government is for the owners of the government to change government to make it less susceptible to corruption. A lack of government or a smaller government is not going to eliminate corruption. Because surprise surprise, private industry can be corrupt also.

Two problems:
1) Size and reach of the government into our daily lives.
2) The entire banking system is corrupt and needs to be rebuilt from the ground.

As for number one, a nice grandiose claim but where are the specifics? As for number two, again a nice grandiose statement but where is the evidence? Banks along with others did do some stupid things that caused the Great Recession, but they were not alone. And not all banks participated. And it is more than government that is corrupt, private industry is as well.

Take a look at history Joe. ALL societies have had or have rules regarding usury. Doesn't THAT tell you something? Money really IS the root of all evil. At one point the Chinese made usury illegal. The Japanese socially placed Lenders at the bottom of society. Islam forbade it. Christianity made it a Sin. Judaism severely restricted lending.... and etc....

No not all societies have prevented interest from being charged on renting money. Even religious societies have mechanisms for paying interest on the use of money without calling it interest.

Historically humans have a problem with usury AND the founding of the USA attempted to address this.

As much as you may want it to be, the problems we face have nothing to do with the use of interest.

What's the target? The Federal Reserve.

I don't have a problem with Apple, Google, Microsoft, GM, Ford, etc... what I do have a problem is, is the entire bases of our monetary system. Beginning with the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul has thought about this, and read DEEPLY on the matter for longer than you have been alive. You OTOH have been indoctrinated to think the ONLY possible system that could ever exist is the Federal Reserve of the United States of America. Nothing could ever function better. It's as good as humanity is EVER going to get. You're probably part problem Joe and don't even know it. No wonder you want to elect Obama again. Change is the furthest thing from your mind. What you want is more of the same.

You think all those Goldies and BJ Morgan's Obama hired are going to CHANGE the system they've worked so hard to game? You have go to be kidding. Wake up. Obama is NOT going to change a god damn thing.

Everyone knows it was the BANKS that caused the financial crises. The BANKS Joe. Not Ron Paul. The Federal Reserve set the stage after the Internet Bubble and blew the mother Bubble of all Bubbles. The hosing bubble. It wasn't Apple. Not Google. Not GM. Not Ford. It was GoldmanSux, BJ Morgan, BofA... the SAME CROOKS Team Obama hired to "advise" him on how to rape what's left of the economy.

End The Fed... that's a start.

Certainly the banks played a roll in creating the great recession. But they were not alone and would not have been able to change the long held laws were it not for their ability to buy legislation.

But none of that has anything to do with the Federal Reserve. And Obama has already changed things with Dodd-Franks. Now one can legitimately argue that the change enacted thus far has been inadequate. But that is more a function of the power of lobbyists and the Republican Party (Ron Paul's party) than it is with President Obama and the Democrats. It is the Republican Party in the Senate that is preventing the president from fully staffing the new and existing banking regulatory bodies.

Corzine pilfered people's bank accounts. Something that has never been done since the East India Tea Company created the first markets. IS HE IN JAIL? No. And he won't be. He pulls a string and puppet Obama squawks something about "Real Change and Hope and Bullshit only a Turd Can Believe In"
The Federal Reserve.

As per previous posts on the topic, you have no evidence that Corzine pilfered any bank accounts or did anything criminal. At the moment and much to the chagrin of Republicans/conservatives, in this country we require some proof of wrong doing and criminal behavior before we throw people in jail. And again, not that it matters to you but, there is no evidence of any wrong doing or any illegitimate relationship between Corzine and President Obama nor is there any evidence of any involvement of the Federal Reserve in the MF Global collapse.

Why don't you tell me why you think, borrowing money at interest from the Federal Reserve is better for society rather than creating the money directly from the Treasury and spending it interest free directly into the economy interest free. Why is it, you think that when the Federal Reserve magically makes money and charges society interest for the privilege of using it, that this is better for said society.

Some people naturally take to being milked, others don't :shrug:

Yeah some people like being bilked. But it ain't me. Michael it is clear from your above statement that you really don't understand what the Federal Reserve does. The Federal Reserve does not magically create money. It does control the size of the money supply buy buying and selling assets and by controlling bank reserve requirements. And it does many other things as well including interbank clearing house operations. The Federal Reserve just does not print money and dump it out of windows or give it to banks or do any of the many other things Paul and his group would have people believe.

 

[joepistole]

Oh, and you know, the ONLY reason we know a little about what the Fed gets up to is because the ONLY politician who has the balls enough to do something and pried open a tiny crack on the Federal Reserve is Ron Paul. Not Obama. Ron Paul. All the rest of those sellouts and twits could give two shits. They're down scraping and crawling and begging for the banking elite to toss them a couple bucks.

The Federal Reserve is not as secret as you seem to think. They are audited by Congress and by an independent outside auditor as well as internal auditors all the time. And the Federal Reserve fully discloses the minutes of its FOMC meetings - released three weeks after the meeting. And let us not forget that the Federal Reserve chairman is questioned in open meeting by Congress at least twice each year.

The days of principled men like Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Paine... are gone. In their stead we have dip-shit sellouts like Palin,Bachmann, Clinton, Bush, Obama...

Some of those individuals supported a stronger central government (e.g. Ben Franklin). Two, I think it is too early to say that President Obama is a sellout. Has Obama done everything the way many of us would have liked? The answer is clearly no. But then could any of us done any better? May and then may be not. President Obama inherited a mess when he entered office. The economy was collapsing right before our eyes and as if that were not enough, he faced staunch Republican opposition on every effort to prevent the complete and utter collapse of society as we know it.

So, if it weren't for those Crazy Ideas... you know, like wanting to know what these private banking f*ckwhits secretly get up to, then we'd have absolutely NO IDEA how bad the Federal Reserve f*cked the American Middle Class. That was Ron Paul, not Obama, Ron Paul. Oh, and it's worth recalling Obama did the opposite! Since starting as POTUS he has hired MORE people from GoldmanSux than any other POTUS in the history of the USA. Anyone with two cents to rub together can peace this puzzle together. He's so f*cking deep in the pocked of Big Banks you can expect NO JUSTICE from his quarter.

I think you are again a bit factually challenged here. And as previously pointed out, the Federal Reserve is not that secret.

It's also worth making a note that I personally have much more to gain from the current system then if it changed. I'm doing relatively well. I'll only do even better, maybe much better, with an Obama second term. Having grown up without any money, it's doesn't mean much to me and I'm more than willing to take my chances in a fare monetary system rather then stay with this one. And lastly, RP isn't going to end the Fed. He's going to appoint a principled chairman and bring in monetary competition.

This is really not that germane. While you may be willing to self destruct your personal finances, many others are not. And again, the issue is not the monetary system. If anything the US monetary system has saved the nation from financial and economic catastrophe. And Europe would be wise to follow the example of our Federal Reserve and our Federal Reserve chairman.

I don't know what you mean by monetary competition. The US currency is freely traded every market day around the globe in every market. US currecny is only worth what individuals are willing to pay for it each and every day. You cannot get more free market competition than that.

 

[Tiassa]

If you're going to have a hissy cow, at least have a clue, as well

RE: Kelly Clarkston

Oh give me a f*cking break Tiassa.
Oprah endorses Barack on Larry King

Yeah, I bet you were all full of outrage :bugeye:

Nice job missing the point.

Ron Paul ... Ron Paul's supporters.

Here's your hint: Oprah didn't get any more or less talented in my book simply because she endorsed Barack Obama. Indeed, she didn't get any more or less annoying, either.

No, really: If you're going to have a hissy cow, at least have a clue as to why you're having a hissy cow.

...an answer colliding with a functional inquiry?

Really?

Oh, no! Here come Ron Paul's supporters, and they're not happy! And they're certainly not going to answer the underlying questions about their fake libertarianism.

You're a little bit late, Tantrumatic. It's not my fault if Ron Paul's supporters are incapable of reconciling their "libertarian" outlook with the authoritarianism their "libertarianism" requires.

 

[Tiassa]

The Interesting Situation

And when I read 'so and so has endorsed so and so', the first thing that comes to my mind is 'who gives a shit?'

To a certain degree, though, it depends on the endorsement. For instance, if a celebrity image includes some political consciousness, it might be fair to let that endorsement encourage one to look at the situation anew. To the other, even our local darlings Pearl Jam couldn't get me on the Nader wagon in 2000. Coming up, as I did, during a period of political activism in pop music, I respect Pearl Jam's politics; even more, as a liberal, I appreciate them. But the first question to mind when they pled with Seattle concertgoers to vote Nader was, "Why, Eddie? Don't you see what's about to happen?"

There are fair questions celebrity can inject into the political discourse, but Pearl Jam did not magically become any more or less talented as a result.

Besides, I adore bands that tend toward conservative issues, too, and I don't think them any less talented for that. Dee Snider of Twisted Sister doesn't fall any in my talent assessment for being a registered Republican; if he put out an album tomorrow, I'd be thrilled. Ted Nugent doesn't get any less talented for being a conservative jackass; rather, he's always been a jackass, and whether or not "Stranglehold" is a good song has nothing to do with that. The irredeemability of "Cat Scratch Fever" likewise doesn't change.

To the other, one could almost read the CNN Money article as a hit piece against Ron Paul. After all, American media specializes in finding the most outrageous and exemplary stupidity, such as the incoherent crime witness who sounds like a South Park parody of Michael Bay.

In that sense, we might recognize that not all Ron Paul supporters are as ridiculous as those noted in the article. This, of course, would mitigate that odd sensation of, "What? Really?"

But for many, it is not a stretch to connect the sort of fanaticism we read in the CNN Money article to the strangeness experienced when attempting to discuss issues with Ron Paul's supporters.

Flip a coin; it's an interesting situation, to say the least.

 

[Michael]

Look, it sounds like Obama is the man for you two. Vote for him. You obviously like being farmed, all safe and cozy in your little pens. You like what you're getting - so, yeah, vote for a Farmer Obama and line up to get milked. I OTOH will vote Paul. Oh, and as for an Obama win, yeah, I'm going to do very well financially out of an Obama presidency. Much better than under Paul. But, all I can do is vote my conscious, vote for real change, change that might actually alter the statuesque - which is a vote for Paul.

On the academic side of the debate: Joe, you have yet to explain why paying interest (and fees) on money that has been borrowed into existence (via the Federal Reserve) is BETTER than using the same money - INTEREST FREE. What's your case Joe? Why should US Citizens pay interest (and fees) to create their own god damn money?

Second question: Why is it again that you think a BIGGER more powerful corrupt central government is better than a SMALLER neutered one? Because that makes no sense.

 

[joepistole]

Look, it sounds like Obama is the man for you two. Vote for him. You obviously like being farmed, all safe and cozy in your little pens. You like what you're getting - so, yeah, vote for a Farmer Obama and line up to get milked. I OTOH will vote Paul. Oh, and as for an Obama win, yeah, I'm going to do very well financially out of an Obama presidency. Much better than under Paul. But, all I can do is vote my conscious, vote for real change, change that might actually alter the statuesque - which is a vote for Paul.

I never would have guessed you would vote for Paul. And yes, if President Obama is reelected you are just going to have to suffer through a better economy.

On the academic side of the debate: Joe, you have yet to explain why paying interest (and fees) on money that has been borrowed into existence (via the Federal Reserve) is BETTER than using the same money - INTEREST FREE. What's your case Joe? Why should US Citizens pay interest (and fees) to create their own god damn money?

Probably because I don't understand your question or issue here. Money is not borrowed into existence for starters. And I just don't understand the point you are trying to make about interest. It makes no sense to me.

Second question: Why is it again that you think a BIGGER more powerful corrupt central government is better than a SMALLER neutered one? Because that makes no sense.

You are right, it makes no sense. Because you are creating more illogical arguments, a straw man and a false dilemma - a twofer. I don't think a bigger more powerful corrupt central government is better than a smaller neutered one. I have never taken that position. And per previous posts, I prefer a government sized large enough to adequately meet the needs of its citizens, no larger and no smaller. And per previous posts, I want a government free of corruption regardless of its size.

 

[Michael]

I never would have guessed you would vote for Paul. And yes, if President Obama is reelected you are just going to have to suffer through a better economy.

Better economy for who - some poor sap who has to act as a greeter for Walmart? I'm positioned well in Asia (sort of straddling the West and East) I suppose a good place to be as the flow of prosperity flows out of the USA on over to Asia :shrug:

Probably because I don't understand your question or issue here. Money is not borrowed into existence for starters. And I just don't understand the point you are trying to make about interest. It makes no sense to me.

How was money created before there was a Federal Reserve. Why should the American public pay a private bank interest when it could, at the very least, pay itself interest. Milton Friedman was opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve. He's an "Economist" (ooo aahhh) and a nobel laureate.

Also to note:

Joseph Stiglitz – former head economist at the World Bank and a nobel-prize winner – said yesterday that the very structure of the Federal Reserve system is so fraught with conflicts that it is “corrupt” and undermines democracy.

Bernanke Is Either Not Very Bright or Not Very Honest. He Admits He Doesn’t Know Why We Have a Weak Economy … But He’s the One Who Weakened It

Brutally honest, Bernanke admitted that he had no clue what was actually causing the current fragility in the U.S. economic recovery. While the FOMC statement assigned blame outside of the U.S., pointing at Japan along with rising food and oil prices, Bernanke was put on the spot by a reporter who noted the inconsistency behind that explanation and a lowering of long term forecasts. Bernanke took the hit, admitting only some of the factors were temporary and that he didn’t know exactly what was causing the slowdown, but that it would persist. “Growth,” said Bernanke, “will return into 2012.”

One would think the "Scientist" In Chief would have a clue....

Former chief IMF economist Simon Johnson:

The Federal Reserve is an enormously powerful institution, which doles out tens of trillions of dollars – many to foreign banks and governments (and see this and this) – without democratic input of any nature whatsoever. While Fed apologists say that the bank’s “independence” must be preserved, the fact that the Fed has sent trillions overseas shows the Fed is somewhat independent of American interests.

Economics Professor and monetary expert Randall Wray told me thatwe should end the regional Federal Reserve banks, as they have such terrible conflicts of interest, strip out all regulatory power from the Fed (since it doesn’t believe in regulation, anyway), and implement monetary policy with a very small staff. He is not opposed to moving operations over to Treasury and/or the FDIC.

Professor of economics Steve Keen said that he would pretty much limit the Fed to being a clearing house between different banks. I

Economists: End Or Drastically Downsize the Fed

I thought you said Economics was a "Science". Here we have hundreds of Professors of Economics, many nobel laureates who are in favor of ending the Federal Reserve system, or the very least, shrinking it down to a tiny staff with little power.

OR maybe you agree with that douche bag Paul Krugman when he suggested that a Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic Slump? Do you agree with that douche bag Joe? Is that how Economic "Scientists" do things?

Yeah, but it's "Ron Paul" who is the crazy one :bugeye: The MAIN policy I support of Ron Paul is to END THE FED - just like those Professors of Economics and nobel laureate.

ON a different tract, suppose a State like Michigan, who is admittedly f*cked, wanted to print it's own currency, interest free, would you support the Citizens in the State of Michigan having the right to do that?

 

[Michael]

New Nobel Laureate Warned Against Obama Stimulus Package, Calling It ‘Surprisingly Naïve’

ANOTHER "Economist" the 2011 Nobel Prize winner calling to END THE FED.

Thomas Sargent, the New York University professor who was announced Monday as a winner of the Nobel in economics … cites Walter Bagehot, who “said that what he called a ‘natural’ competitive banking system without a ‘central’ bank would be better…. ‘nothing can be more surely established by a larger experience than that a Government which interferes with any trade injures that trade. The best thing undeniably that a Government can do with the Money Market is to let it take care of itself.’”

Yeah, 'Crazy' Ron Paul and his 'Crazy' Ideas..... try again



In short, Ron Paul (who probably deserves a Nobel Prize himself has studied this relationship with society for decades and has been calling to End the Fed for years ... he even wrote a book called ................END THE FED!!!