GENIUS FORUMS

Daybrown,

Ron Paul harkens back to some mythic American nuclear family golden age.

I don’t think he suggests that, although he does believe in many absurd religious ideologies. He clearly states laws and regulations should be imposed by the state governments, and the federal government should have no say. So he is basically saying that a president doesn't have the right to run people's lives according to his own beliefs, which is good because Ron Paul has many absurd beliefs. Basically, his political ideology takes precedence over his religious ideology. His libertarian dogma is holding him back...

It’s not a question of whether Ron Paul is right, but whether THEY think he's nuts. If they think he will take over, they'll quit buying US treasury notes, and the run on the dollar will begin. Of those who are now running, Hillary has their confidence more than any other.

I’m not all that concerned if Ron Paul gets voted in, I’m more interested in debating whether or not his criticisms are correct. Because if they are correct, then just having him in the media, repeating himself over and over is sure to cause a sort of osmosis in the minds of those around him.

His outlook on monetary policy, foreign policy, and other libertarian ideals is what I’m interested in talking about.

Polite discourse appreciated Ryan. But if the economy keeps on stumbling along and the corporate mass media keep on telling sheeple what to think, which is not something they do very well, then whatever Ron Paul thinks will go in the same basket with Nader, John Anderson, Ross Perot, etc with other footnotes on the process.

Its only if there is some kind of severe economic crisis, that interferes with the presentation of football and beer, will the sheeple get off the couch and look for new ideas. The housing foreclosure rate could do that. I know of one property that went into foreclosure proceedings, but the official paperwork was never filed so that it never showed up on the list of defaulted property on the bank records. We got it for back taxes, and moved a pair of dykes in to take care of the place.

We have our eye on another which will be up for grabs in March. YMMV depending on where you are. Charlie's sister owns a house in Tuscon she cant sell, and thankfully there, the grass dont need mowing. But there seems to be a business emerging in some areas to come thru to make the property look like its being taken care of to prevent the valuation of the whole neighborhood from falling below the remaining balance on the mortgages.

Neither Ron Paul, nor any candidate I've seen, have said a word about this.

Daybrown,

We have our eye on another which will be up for grabs in March. YMMV depending on where you are. Charlie's sister owns a house in Tuscon she cant sell, and thankfully there, the grass dont need mowing. But there seems to be a business emerging in some areas to come thru to make the property look like its being taken care of to prevent the valuation of the whole neighborhood from falling below the remaining balance on the mortgages.

The big problem in addition to the credit crisis, inflation, and the destruction of the US currency is that people continue to build gigantic houses far from the urban areas, and then they are forced to drive into the city everyday with luxury cars that have a very poor fuel economy. Despite the raising cost of oil and global warming, many Americans still prefer luxury cars and trucks with poor fuel economy.

Much of the housing crisis stems from the working poor living in excessive material conditions to make their toil seem rewarding. And their entire house of cards is dependent on them keeping their precarious well paying job, as well as keeping their precarious romantic relationship functioning.

Ibanez wrote:Ok, if you believe in discrimination and segregation then I guess you would have no problem with repealing it. However, the issue is really not to convince me that discrimination is legitimate, but rather the voters. If Ron Paul became a GOP front runner that article is widely available and a journalist/reporter will pick up on it instantly and write about. He’s going to have a hard time convincing minorities (Africans, Hispanics, women, etc) that businesses have a fundamental right to refuse applications from them.

Me having the freedom to run my private institution the way I see fit has nothing to do with segregation or discrimination. It's a slippery slope when we impose forced integration. What if the Federal Government stepped in and said all KKK members were allowed to attend all privately funded Black institutions. How well do you think that would go over? Besides, the Federal Government and State Governments discriminate and segregate all the time, e.g. affirmative action, and other social programs.

Ibanez wrote:

Sanctity of Life Act wrote: The Act declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.
Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.

That's all well and good, but what it basically does is overturn Roe V. Wade meaning the abortion issue is turned back to the states where it ought to be. In no way does that Act make abortion a Federal Offense.

Ibanez wrote:Yes, he uses the states right line to discriminate. Texas has the right to regulate sexual conduct? Wow, what happened to his libertarian stance shouldn’t he have said Texas should have no concern with what people do, after all it’s liberty! You know why he wanted the jurisdiction to be declined and go to the state?

I think it's obvious Paul finds the law a bit ridiculous, but that is besides the point. The Federal Government does not have the Constitutional Authority to intervene in social matters such as this. Again, it's a slippery slope.

Ibanez wrote:He wants gays to be punished for being unchristian and decadent beings to the core. If good ol’ Ron Paul is as much about freedom as possible why didn’t he also cry out in that article about liberty being violated by the Texas state statute?

Are you dense? He wants nothing of the sort. He just doesn't want the Federal Government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong when it doesn't have the Constitutional authority.

Ibanez wrote:Sorry, a completely totally private education system is hard to accomplish. Even Chile can’t eliminate the public schools, people still attend them. Yes, a private institution can teach whatever they want, but public institutions are another matter. Public schools shouldn’t be teaching kids pseudoscience. However, I do realize out of all the western industrialized nations the US is the lowest in people that believe evolution and surveys done each year show more and more people doubting evolution. So I can understand the desire for this pseudoscience.

This isn't about teaching creationism over evolution. It's about school prayer and things that are specifically spiritual matters, which the Federal Government has not right to stick their nose into. What if a teacher added a half an hour of meditation in the morning, or discussions on the nature of Reality in the afternoon? Do you think they should go to jail for that? Spirituality is just as important to developing a child into a healthy well rounded individual as anything else is. Obviously not everyone will agree with the programs of every single school, but that's why local government is so important for healthy diversity. You can't get that when the Federal Government imposes it's will on state and local communities. That is tyranny of the majority, the main reason the USA is a Constitutional Republic and NOT a democracy. Like I said before, freedom is risky, but when you look at history it is by far the best alternative.

Ibanez wrote:I understand your fear of reality and how it perverts your perfect ideology. It’s ok, you can ask former communists how to recover from a shattered perfect ideology.

The only time free societies fail is when they move away from their original intent. It's ironic how you easily point out how communist and socialist ideologies have failed, and that is exactly what I and Ron Paul are speaking against! I agree freedom is risky, but when you look at what history has to say it's obviously the best option.

On a side note, what country are you from?

Whatever, if Ron Paul cannot get the support of congress, it wont matter if he gets elected. The mass media does all it can to keep the races as close as possible so as to motivate the partisans to buy as much advertising as possible. This is great for their bottom line, but results in a system that cannot produce an elective mandate to do anything.

Machiavelli says that republics work as long as the pie is increasing. but when it comes time to cut back, that is accomplished either with draconian tyranny or with anarchy. Or both- with the system breaking down to various degrees in various areas. Local populations that see some resource worth defending will organize to do that.

The power elite has promoted diversity in the effort to keep the sheeple divided, and thereby less attentive to what they are doing to the system. But then, when concerted effort is needed to keep it together, each ethnicity looks after its own instead. Ron Paul has focused on the whites, but they are also splintered among religion, sexual orientation, and economic class.

.

Ron Paul will win by a landslide

As a general election candidate Ron Paul will win a
50 state landslide against any Democratic nominee.

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=207908

.

Tomas wrote:.

Ron Paul will win by a landslide

As a general election candidate Ron Paul will win a
50 state landslide against any Democratic nominee.

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=207908

.

I feel your passion. I remember feeling that way about Goldwater. But in my world, he lost, and so will Ron Paul. Read Gibbon; there were a few honorable men who nonetheless became emperor. The only way Marcus Aurelius was able to save his ass was by going to the Danube Frontier to direct the legions against the Dacians, and staying there. The Roman version of the CIA, the Praetorians, butchered all the others, not that different from what the CIA did to JFK.

I’m not really going to respond to each of your replies instead I will just sum up my position on Ron Paul.

As for a slippery slope, the formation of any type of hierarchy is a slippery slope.

Nick Treklis wrote:The only time free societies fail is when they move away from their original intent. It's ironic how you easily point out how communist and socialist ideologies have failed, and that is exactly what I and Ron Paul are speaking against! I agree freedom is risky, but when you look at what history has to say it's obviously the best option.

Not really. No, I’m point out the communistic ideology failed because it didn’t deal in reality, much like Paul. I mean he uses similar tactics to what communists did. The Communists talked about bringing freedom and prosperity to the workers. Similarly Paul rambles on about how "freedom is universal" and "freedom is revolutionary." He knows these words mean relatively little he just throws them out for an emotional response, because after all who would disagree with freedom, peace, liberty, and prosperity? Then people can come up with a nice shitty little comeback of those who are against Paul are against freedom, peace, liberty, and prosperity.

It’s not surprising that he has a cultish following. After all he is spewing a populist anti-elite, anti-federal government, anti-"The New World Order" message so it’s bound to get the disillusioned hooked. After all if people think their life is a shit hole then hearing that someone is conspiring to drag them down it makes them feel better, "hey it’s not my fault, it’s the new world order man!"

Of course, the irony is that Ron Paul is an elitist in a sense too. All the judges and everyone else are incorrect in their decisions and interpretations and Ron Paul is the only one who knows the constitution.

In 88 he ran on virtually the same positions as he is now, but was considered a kook, still is one, but at least he was ignored in 88, mainly because of the lack of the internet and the art of spamming. I mean Paul believes in the legitimacy of the North American Union and also talks about "The New World Order" and these are just conspiracy theories, nothing behind them yet he treats them as legitimate threats. Similarly when asked about re investigating 9/11 he would be for it. Re investigating it for what I don’t know. This information is widely available via YouTube and his writings.

Paul rambles on about the gold standard issue to everyone "we must eliminate the fiat currency system, we need a real currency, we live way beyond our means", etc. Has anyone researched into this or do they take this similar to the freedom rhetoric. It’s not just as clear cut as it seems. There are some economists on each side of the argument, most against.

I’m sure a huge segment of Ron Paul’s support is the young voter crowd, 18-25. Realistically it makes sense, because of his message like I stated earlier populist anti-elite, anti-federal government, anti-"The New World Order." Plus I’m sure he attracts all the conspiracy theorists too that can say, "see he talks about "The New World Order" and a North American Union. I’m not crazy! It has to be real." In essence he’s anti establishment to them. Also Ron Paul can do no wrong because…well he just can’t, according to a majority of his supporters. Now I assume every one of his supporters will now claim to be a constitution expert and economist. Similarly, I’ll be waiting for the conspiracy theories about his failed candidacy too, i.e. Zionist, Big Media, Neocon, etc.

To quote what I heard someone else say…
"There are three things that supporters of Ron Paul seem to have in common:

1) Fundamental mistrust of the government and peripheral institutions.
2) Lack of willingness to understand history, basic economics, government finance, accounting and monetary policy.
3) A pathological belief that Ron Paul will fix everything if/when he is elected President.

What do these three things add up to? An absolute fucking inability to engage with reality."

After watching Meet the Press, it's rather clear that was a disastrous interview for Ron Paul. It makes him look like he condones racism, is a hypocritical dick, and is detached from reality, well unless you consider that a good thing. He seemed surprised when he was asked how he would practically do these things. I guess he couldn't just throw out "freedom" and "liberty" to answer those questions.

Ibanez, I’d like to comment on a few of your statements to Nick.

Ibanez wrote:

The Communists talked about bringing freedom and prosperity to the workers. Similarly Paul rambles on about how "freedom is universal" and "freedom is revolutionary." He knows these words mean relatively little he just throws them out for an emotional response, because after all who would disagree with freedom, peace, liberty, and prosperity?

He uses the word freedom through the context of libertarian political philosophy, which is different to how Barack Obama uses the term, as its more related to big government, social programs, higher taxes, spending borrowed money of future generations and so on. Ron Paul essentially believes that the state would be better off with less government, a view shared by many wise economists such as Milton Friedman and others. Below is a link where Ron Paul comments on Friedman’s death. And even though Paul is a little kooky in ways, he is an educated economist, and has a much deeper perspective compared to any of the other candidates, who all seem to parrot rhetoric and constantly flip-flop.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html

Ibanez wrote:

It makes him look like he condones racism, is a hypocritical dick, and is detached from reality, well unless you consider that a good thing

.

I hope you realize that these efforts from the media outlets illustrate their own biased interest in making Paul looked like a demonized nut case. Because hypothetically, lets say Paul did get elected and he started hacking away at the size of government, the big businesses that receive hangouts at the expense of the middle-class tax-player would be rather indignant. And these companies own the media outlets such as CNN, fox news and so on, so you know there is a lot of influence there. Frankly, I think some of the things Paul is advocating scares the shit out of most people, so it is easier to demonize him than think deeply about his ideas. Moreover, most of the big businesses have a vested interest in having front runners such as Hillary Clinton and Rudy G win because the status quo will remain the same. There is only the illusion of democracy, an illusion of voting. The media outlets are set up to manipulate and distort information in favor of the front runners who support big business.

Remember most unthinking voters only vote for the most popular candidate, not the candidate that makes them think or has a deep, consistent position that could make economic life better in the US. That is why it is so easy to manipulate how people vote, it is like a huge popularity contest for most people. They will blindly follow whichever candidate has the most popularity, a result that can be easily created by media and big business with a bit of manipulative psychology.

Here is another insightful video by Penn and Teller outlining how public polls are rigged to influence how the masses vote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

Ibanez wrote:

Has anyone researched into this or do they take this similar to the freedom rhetoric. It’s not just as clear cut as it seems. There are some economists on each side of the argument, most against.

Yes, I researched it, and he seems correct. Milton Friedman has also warned about the what can happen when the FED starts printing money out of thin air that isn’t backed by anything. And that is one of the reasons why the currency is starting to devalue. And also a huge amount of US economic spending is based on operating with the borrowed money of future generations. So in my view, Ron Paul is merely pointing out the urgency that if significant changes are not made very soon, then the US economy is destined to fall into a huge recession similar to 1979, and the great depression of the 1930s.

Wallace, in his anthro classic, "Culture and Personality" noted that when a system is on the skids, and people's coping skills dont work so well anymore, they engage in "magical thinking". A term he coined. Thus we see Christians await "The Rapture", wicca, tarot, astrology, and of course, messianic figures like Ron Paul who promise to solve all their problems.

And they do indeed have problems. Ron Paul is correct about that. But one of the characteristics of the neurotic mind is an intolerance of ambiguity. With the Fundies, its good vs evil, blessed vs damned. Or GOP vs Democrats, Left vs Right, but whatever, there is no perceived downside to the supported view, and no upside to the perceived opposition.

And I grant that the power elite has so corrupted the system that the restoration of the republic is impossible. Gibbon noted that while the morals must be maintained to keep a republic, every effort to restore them once lost, has failed. Why? One other point he made was that as long as the legions were manned by the sons of the yeoman farmers, who felt they had an investment to inherit from their fathers, and a say in the crafting of the laws, then the republic, and the rule of law, meant something. But as it became an all volunteer army, it took in men from tribes that lacked sound republican traditions or those from the lower orders of the nation who only saw their future within the rights and prerogatives of military service, and if those came at the expense of the lower & middle classes, so be it.

There's been a lotta hype about "home ownership"; but this is no longer the same as the <b>homestead</b> ownership the nation was founded on. The home is only worth what the market value says it is. The homestead however, includes the land and timber to grow the food, heat the home, and provide basic resources that can be brought to the market, so it has value to the homestead owner beyond what the current market value is.

The urban lower classes are only interested in what entitlements can be had from the system, a point of view they share with the power elite, who view their investments and agribusiness only in terms of how much they can get from it. Boys who grow up on the farm, expected to inherit it, and took a longer view. This was understood by the Founding Farmers when they wrote the constitution, and there were many who wanted the nation to remain agrarian in order to preserve the rule of law and the republic.

Some grow up in good families and have values instilled in them even in urban settings. But not a majority. The farm taught lessons about planning for the next season, and produced men who could think ahead, but we dont get that majority from those growing up in the city. Every generation is further from these rural roots, and while some few remain true to the values of their forefathers in urban life anyway, the majority loose a little in every generation.

Athens fought against this with the "Deme", in which every citizen owned some interest in rural land, and had a duty to go out to help manage it and the crops. The wife of Socrates, Xanthippus, was a notorious nag, but all she wanted of him was that he should meet his responsibility to work the land rather than hanging out bullshitting in the Agora all the time.

But because of military success, Athens received lots of POWs to use as slaves to work the land, so the men and their sons quit going out to get the exercise they needed for proper mental development, and the democracy fell into demagoguery.

Daybrown,

The urban lower classes are only interested in what entitlements can be had from the system, a point of view they share with the power elite, who view their investments and agribusiness only in terms of how much they can get from it. Boys who grow up on the farm, expected to inherit it, and took a longer view. This was understood by the Founding Farmers when they wrote the constitution, and there were many who wanted the nation to remain agrarian in order to preserve the rule of law and the republic.

Some grow up in good families and have values instilled in them even in urban settings. But not a majority. The farm taught lessons about planning for the next season, and produced men who could think ahead, but we dont get that majority from those growing up in the city. Every generation is further from these rural roots, and while some few remain true to the values of their forefathers in urban life anyway, the majority loose a little in every generation.

Yes, I agree. It seems to me that the US is on the brink of collapse. All the signs are there - An increasingly big government, an unsustainable foreign policy abroad, a debased currency caused by the FED increasing the money supply, a failing housing market, a globalized open market extending into developing countries that has caused prizes of many commodities to drop to such low prices that the US government is forced to subsidize, a constant inflow of illegal immigrants taking advantage of the welfare state, and education system.

And it seems that Ron Paul is probably the only candidate that truly understands how dire the economic situation is, so I can understand how a cult following has formed around him, especially with young intellectuals who sense that something is terribly wrong with the state of the economy.

And most of the popular candidates seem fairly naive as to how serious the economic situation has become; especially on the republican side – they still talk as if suicide terrorism is still the most serious threat to the country….

I agree that Ron Paul sees the scope of the problem Ryan, but he's not latched onto the solution. If small government is good, then lets get rid of social security as well. Its just welfare for everyone over 62, and Medicare is socialized medicine for seniors. But he dont dare go near that even tho that system is a huge part of the welfare burden on the economy.

One way to go forward that will lower oil prices and support the American nuclear family middle class lifestyle would be to empty the prisons and send all those thugs in uniform over to the Persian Gulf to simply seize Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Saudi oil. Grab all the hookers off the streets and draft them into brothels to go with the thug troops. If we provide the pussy, they will shape up and be the kind of good boys we want, yet willing to murder on a moment's notice if need be.

Is Pau, or any of them gonna do this? So- alternatively the middle class is going to keep on downsizing. and at some point, a demagogue will rise from among the oppressed masses to start dragging the bastards out to be shot. Either that, or total anarchy following economic collapse. Well, some places will remain organized anyway, but all the major metro areas will be war zones.

Daybrown,

One way to go forward that will lower oil prices and support the American nuclear family middle class lifestyle would be to empty the prisons and send all those thugs in uniform over to the Persian Gulf to simply seize Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Saudi oil. Grab all the hookers off the streets and draft them into brothels to go with the thug troops. If we provide the pussy, they will shape up and be the kind of good boys we want, yet willing to murder on a moment's notice if need be.

Daybrown, I actually believe that a US occupation of two other oil-rich countries would drive oil prices up, and accelerate the rate that the US goes bankrupt. Remember, it is costing 12 billion per month for the US to be in Iraq, and that is on borrowed money so the interest is very high. Plus the occupation creates more terrorists and hatred for the US. The US has to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries and simply allow the free markets to work. Have you noticed that the other G8 countries do not send troops abroad to secure their oil supplies? They simply buy their oil off the open market like everyone else. American’s oil neurosis is part of the problem in my view.

If small government is good, then lets get rid of social security as well. Its just welfare for everyone over 62, and Medicare is socialized medicine for seniors.

Actually, he has spoken out and expressed his disapproval towards the social security and medicare system, as he realizes that it is unsustainable in the long term, and unconstitutional. But I think he is being realistic as he cannot change the entire system all at once. In his view, the quickest changes that can be made are to the American Foreign Policy. He makes the point that the US has troops in 130 different countries in 700 bases. His argument is that maintaining the US empire, and trying to police the world is too expensive, and the tax payer shouldn’t be forced to fund such an operation.

America doesn’t have any faith in the free markets, the government feels the need to constantly meddle, control, send troops to other countries, put up sanctions on others, assassinate leaders of other countries and so on. Their behavior is essentially anti-free markets.

One could argue that the US military campaign has actually contributed to the reduced commerce, trade, and friendship for the US, thus partly causing the economy to become sluggish. Ironically, the US caused the very thing they were trying to prevent through acting with a military effort. And Ron Paul seems to understand this, he speaks about a strict non-intervention policy, which the democrats only pretend to support. In my opinion, like the republicans, the democratic front runners would be quick to start another war under the right conditions as well, whereas Paul would be much more reluctant.

Actually, if Ron Paul was actually elected by the people, I suspect he would be assassinated within the first month of his term. There is no way that the special interest groups, big business, Israeli lobbyists and so on would put up with his strict libertarian principles. It would be like if you gave a spoiled child an excessive allowance every week at the expense of his brother’s labor, and then suddenly took it away. The spoiled child would lash out at you with great hatred and resentment with the intent to do harm and eliminate you.

I wont quibble with your analysis Ryan. All our bets regarding Ron Paul at this point assume the economy will keep on muddling thru without a sell off of the dollar or global economic panic. If that happens, then a figure who stands outside the mainstream mentality tends to be selected for leadership of whatever order remains to be managed.

But note, its costing us 50grand a year to keep the thugs in prison. We could just as well send them to take over and guard the oil. It aint like we dont have enuf thugs. We mite drop a bunker buster on the Haj and let everyone know what an ass Allah is while we are at it.

There was a huge flap in India after a mosque was destroyed, but when they looked under the rubble, yes indeed, the mosque had been built on a the site of a Hiindu temple that was destroyed by the Jihadim. They've been at it for centuries.

But of course, if the economy keeps on going despite how bad it looks, nothing this dramatic will be done. The more likely scenario is the destabilization of emerging economies that have been driving up the demand for oil. Assassinate Bhutto; put Pakistan back on the road to anarchy with Afghanistan, and all the oil they would have bought is redirected to consumers in the USA and EU.

Maybe send in forces, Blackwater, CIA, US army, whatever, to take control of the Nigerian oil, and let the rest of central Africa go on back to the anarchy of the stone age. Whatever oil they've been buying will go back to the global market. Fund sepratest movements in Indonesia, and knock them out of the game.

But devalue the dollar so that the Chinese make less money selling to the American middle class, so it will cut back on auto production and gasoline consumption. They already hold trillions of US debt, so if the dollar tanks entirely, they'll be left holding the bag. They know that. President Hillary will go to China and work out a new trade deal,

The cost of socialized medicine will be born by the taxpayers, but taken off the payroll costs of transnationals, so American made products will have a lower price in the global market. Yes, we've passed Hubbard's peak, but lotsa economies will be in ruins while the American middle class keeps on muddling thru like always, and the rich get richer.

Daybrown,

But note, its costing us 50grand a year to keep the thugs in prison. We could just as well send them to take over and guard the oil. It aint like we dont have enuf thugs. We mite drop a bunker buster on the Haj and let everyone know what an ass Allah is while we are at it.

How about letting the criminals free to allow them to do what they wanted to do before they were locked up. IE; sell marijuana, mushrooms, LSD, cocaine or whatever. Moreover, the intelligent citizens will stay clear of the drug trade, and the stupid ones with emotional problems will self-destruct, which puts far less strain on the system anyway. The problem with socialist paternalistic governments is that they take care of the inferiors and the genepool gets stupider over time, that is the beauty of libertarian thinking, it seems cold and heartless, but ironically, it is of the highest form of compassion because it has the genetic integrity of humanity at heart.

I tend to fundamentally disagree with the view that criminals should be used to maintain the US empire because many of them don’t make good soldiers. They sell drugs because they don’t want to work or do labor. Also, I fundamentally disagree with the assumption that the US has the right to meddle in the affairs of other countries to maintain their empire.

They already hold trillions of US debt, so if the dollar tanks entirely, they'll be left holding the bag. They know that. President Hillary will go to China and work out a new trade deal,

Yes, the Chinese, Japanese, and other Arab investors are caught in a bit of an investment quagmire because if they sell off US treasury bonds too quickly, they’ll be worth nothing on the open market anyway, so its in their best interest to simply wait it out, and see if the US can possibly turn itself around, although I suspect its probably too late, as the causal forces have already been sent in motion…

Although, it might not be a total collapse, maybe just a really bad recession that will force the US to reevaluate their way of doing things. The recession may force the US to sort of reinvent themselves on the world stage, and they could serve as an exemplar on what not to do, and what happens when leaders with poor economic understanding, and a low emotional intelligence are in charge.

Ibanez wrote: I’m not really going to respond to each of your replies instead I will just sum up my position on Ron Paul.

Right, it's much easier to continue making blanket statements and ignore the facts without having to actually deal with the issue in a logical manner. Don't worry, I wont be as cowardly as you.

Ibanez wrote: No, I’m point out the communistic ideology failed because it didn’t deal in reality, much like Paul. I mean he uses similar tactics to what communists did. The Communists talked about bringing freedom and prosperity to the workers. Similarly Paul rambles on about how "freedom is universal" and "freedom is revolutionary." He knows these words mean relatively little he just throws them out for an emotional response, because after all who would disagree with freedom, peace, liberty, and prosperity? Then people can come up with a nice shitty little comeback of those who are against Paul are against freedom, peace, liberty, and prosperity.

What a superficial comparison. Nevermind the fundamental difference between communism and the political philosophy of Ron Paul and the Constitution. It's not even worth a response.

Ibanez wrote: It’s not surprising that he has a cultish following. After all he is spewing a populist anti-elite, anti-federal government, anti-"The New World Order" message so it’s bound to get the disillusioned hooked. After all if people think their life is a shit hole then hearing that someone is conspiring to drag them down it makes them feel better, "hey it’s not my fault, it’s the new world order man!"

Why so long-winded. We could just sum it up as Pro-Constitution.

Ibanez wrote: Of course, the irony is that Ron Paul is an elitist in a sense too. All the judges and everyone else are incorrect in their decisions and interpretations and Ron Paul is the only one who knows the constitution.

Cry me a fucking river. Wahhhh Ron Paul hurts my feelings because he says he knows more than me. You're a fucking pussy dude. Face it, we are all elitists in some way or another. What matters is how knowledgable or wise the elitist is. But we both know that's not the real issue here. It's all about protecting that massive ego of yours so you can keep living in a dream world.

Ibanez wrote: In 88 he ran on virtually the same positions as he is now, but was considered a kook, still is one, but at least he was ignored in 88, mainly because of the lack of the internet and the art of spamming. I mean Paul believes in the legitimacy of the North American Union and also talks about "The New World Order" and these are just conspiracy theories, nothing behind them yet he treats them as legitimate threats. Similarly when asked about re investigating 9/11 he would be for it. Re investigating it for what I don’t know. This information is widely available via YouTube and his writings.

You are one ignorant son of a bitch. Seriously, have you ever picked up a history book? If there is one thing that man has been hell-bent on accomplishing since the dawn of civilization it's World Domination. Alexander the Great and The Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, The Roman Catholic Church, Imperialism, Napolean and France, Nazi Germany, the list goes on and on. Go ahead and block out Reality. It wont stop history from repeating itself.

Ibanez wrote: Paul rambles on about the gold standard issue to everyone "we must eliminate the fiat currency system, we need a real currency, we live way beyond our means", etc. Has anyone researched into this or do they take this similar to the freedom rhetoric. It’s not just as clear cut as it seems. There are some economists on each side of the argument, most against.

Blah blah fucking blah. Come back with a real argument and then you might get a response from me.

Ibanez wrote: I’m sure a huge segment of Ron Paul’s support is the young voter crowd, 18-25. Realistically it makes sense, because of his message like I stated earlier populist anti-elite, anti-federal government, anti-"The New World Order." Plus I’m sure he attracts all the conspiracy theorists too that can say, "see he talks about "The New World Order" and a North American Union. I’m not crazy! It has to be real." In essence he’s anti establishment to them. Also Ron Paul can do no wrong because…well he just can’t, according to a majority of his supporters. Now I assume every one of his supporters will now claim to be a constitution expert and economist. Similarly, I’ll be waiting for the conspiracy theories about his failed candidacy too, i.e. Zionist, Big Media, Neocon, etc.

Still got nothing eh?

Ibanez wrote: To quote what I heard someone else say…
"There are three things that supporters of Ron Paul seem to have in common:

1) Fundamental mistrust of the government and peripheral institutions.

Now wonder you are so fucking stupid. You believe everything everyone tells you.

Ibanez wrote: 2) Lack of willingness to understand history, basic economics, government finance, accounting and monetary policy.

You're fucking with me right?

Ibanez wrote: 3) A pathological belief that Ron Paul will fix everything if/when he is elected President.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I've never heard anything even remotely close to what you said here come from the mouth of a Ron Paul supporter. It's obvious no singler person can "fix everything". What the fuck does that even mean?

Ibanez wrote: After watching Meet the Press, it's rather clear that was a disastrous interview for Ron Paul. It makes him look like he condones racism, is a hypocritical dick, and is detached from reality,

I can see how from the perspective of a person who doesn't have the ability to use logic, and blocks out Reality might think so.

Ibanez wrote: He seemed surprised when he was asked how he would practically do these things. I guess he couldn't just throw out "freedom" and "liberty" to answer those questions.

Whether he changes every single policy in a way he sees fit doesn't matter. It's about the turning of the tide.

We continually see posters characterized as psychologically dysfunctional. I dont think anyone would argue that the voters are any more rational. How do you run a democracy without a rational electorate? How often do we see the discourse carried on here, or anywhere else in a reasonable manner?

Its fine to say we should follow the Constitution, but if you dont have a rational electorate, that aint gonna happen. The elite that gets elected, despite what they say publically, know they didnt win because of a more rational position, nor do I see that when empowered they actually then show us any.

We live in a sea of ambiguous and unreliable reports, but no matter who the leaders are, they act as if they think they know what is really going on. In Senate hearings on Cspan, time and again, I've seen senators defer to Sen. Biden's opinion, and time and again, I've seen him get to the nub of the matter, making witnesses squirm. Yet, his support in the party and among the voters is hardly more than a niche market; he simply does not have the necessary emotional appeal to get elected.

Nevertheless, if by some quirk the other Democratic party candidates destroy each other and he ended up with the candidacy, I dont doubt that he could, in the debates with the GOP candidate, no matter who among those we now see, get the support of enuf independents to actually win. But even if he did, how much of a mandate for rational policy could he get from Congress?

We will see; a lot can happen before the next election. I'm glad that Ron Paul is out there with ideas that are outside the limits of GOP group think. But as his positions get parsed out here, and in the media, I think the logical inconsistencies will be so obvious that the electorate, as irrational as it is, will see them.

If there is any serious economic problems before November, I can see the electorate may wake up to a greater appreciation of reality and think beyond the sound bytes that now pass for discourse. But at the same time, economic difficulties could spin so far out of control as to threaten the dissolution of the Untied States of Denial.

Pimp My Ride -- by Tucker Carlson agrees with the OP.

.

Meet the Press's Tim Russert, who seemed to have taken too much ritalin last week, seemed to be on prozac today.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/a ... 18101.html

.

Tomas wrote:.

Meet the Press's Tim Russert, who seemed to have taken too much ritalin last week, seemed to be on prozac today.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/a ... 18101.html

.

I didnt pick up on that, but it makes sense that Ron Paul is a loose canon on the ship of state who is very likely to blow huge holes in the first class accomodations of people like Russert.

Which, however, is not the same thing as turning the ship around.

The S.S. Ron sinks.

brad walker wrote:The S.S. Ron sinks.

Yup, taking that boat down the Mississippi River from Iowa thru the Katrina remains of New Orleans and sailing in the Gulf of Mexico (fighting the illegals trying to climb on board) around Florida up to New Hampshire and waiting for the Diebold computers to count the ballots.

At least, Dennis Kucinich has noticed the voting irregularities and called for a recount. (Too bad he's a small-fry and the events have washed him away) anyways the show must go on!

Obama versus the Clinton Machine. Diebold wins again. The stupid, American populace. We're off to never-never land.



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

what I found quite ironic is the interview with Laura Ingraham where Paul points out the unintentional blow back of excluding him from the Fox Debates, which he compared to American foreign policy, and how it actually gives him more coverage in the media, and allows him to spread his message. So every time the establishment tries to silence him, it actually gives him more power and popularity.

He compares this phenomena to how the CIA overthrows a particular dictator to put another US supporting one in its place, but eventually the new dictator turns on them, and becomes a bigger nuisance than the first dictator that they originally overthrew or assassinated.

Or the effort of the US military to destroy all the terrorists by invading countries, which results in actually promoting and encouraging the recruitment of new terrorists.

"All tyrants deny causality in favor of a much more crude emotionally-driven decision making process."
Ryan Rudolph

.

Antiwar "Lefts" embrace ultra-right Republican candidate Ron Paul

That Paul can be construed as an "antiwar candidate," is a measure of how far to the right the American political and media establishment has moved.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan20 ... -j22.shtml

.

...