PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Ron Paul: "Some Big Events Are About To Occur"


Ari Chi3fs
07-27-2008, 10:39 PM
Ron Paul's entire speech (http://prwallstreet.com/article.cfm?articleID=19246) before the House now follows:
Madam Speaker, I have, for the past 35 years, expressed my grave concern for the future of America . The course we have taken over the past century has threatened our liberties, security and prosperity. In spite of these long-held concerns, I have days--growing more frequent all the time--when I'm convinced the time is now upon us that some Big Events are about to occur. These fast-approaching events will not go unnoticed. They will affect all of us. They will not be limited to just some areas of our country. The world economy and political system will share in the chaos about to be unleashed.
Though the world has long suffered from the senselessness of wars that should have been avoided, my greatest fear is that the course on which we find ourselves will bring even greater conflict and economic suffering to the innocent people of the world--unless we quickly change our ways.


America , with her traditions of free markets and property rights, led the way toward great wealth and progress throughout the world as well as at home. Since we have lost our confidence in the principles of liberty, self reliance, hard work and frugality, and instead took on empire building, financed through inflation and debt, all this has changed. This is indeed frightening and an historic event.


The problem we face is not new in history. Authoritarianism has been around a long time. For centuries, inflation and debt have been used by tyrants to hold power, promote aggression, and provide “bread and circuses” for the people. The notion that a country can afford “guns and butter” with no significant penalty existed even before the 1960s when it became a popular slogan. It was then, though, we were told the Vietnam War and the massive expansion of the welfare state were not problems. The seventies proved that assumption wrong.


Today things are different from even ancient times or the 1970s. There is something to the argument that we are now a global economy. The world has more people and is more integrated due to modern technology, communications, and travel. If modern technology had been used to promote the ideas of liberty, free markets, sound money and trade, it would have ushered in a new golden age--a globalism we could accept.


Instead, the wealth and freedom we now enjoy are shrinking and rest upon a fragile philosophic infrastructure. It is not unlike the levies and bridges in our own country that our system of war and welfare has caused us to ignore.


I'm fearful that my concerns have been legitimate and may even be worse than I first thought. They are now at our doorstep. Time is short for making a course correction before this grand experiment in liberty goes into deep hibernation.
There are reasons to believe this coming crisis is different and bigger than the world has ever experienced. Instead of using globalism in a positive fashion, it's been used to globalize all of the mistakes of the politicians, bureaucrats and central bankers.


Being an unchallenged sole superpower was never accepted by us with a sense of humility and respect. Our arrogance and aggressiveness have been used to promote a world empire backed by the most powerful army of history. This type of globalist intervention creates problems for all citizens of the world and fails to contribute to the well-being of the world's populations. Just think how our personal liberties have been trashed here at home in the last decade.


The financial crisis, still in its early stages, is apparent to everyone: gasoline prices over $4 a gallon; skyrocketing education and medical-care costs; the collapse of the housing bubble; the bursting of the NASDAQ bubble; stock markets plunging; unemployment rising; massive underemployment; excessive government debt; and unmanageable personal debt. Little doubt exists as to whether we'll get stagflation. The question that will soon be asked is: When will the stagflation become an inflationary depression?


There are various reasons that the world economy has been globalized and the problems we face are worldwide. We cannot understand what we're facing without understanding fiat money and the long-developing dollar bubble.


There were several stages. From the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to 1933, the Central Bank established itself as the official dollar manager. By 1933, Americans could no longer own gold, thus removing restraint on the Federal Reserve to inflate for war and welfare.


By 1945, further restraints were removed by creating the Bretton-Woods Monetary System making the dollar the reserve currency of the world. This system lasted up until 1971. During the period between 1945 and 1971, some restraints on the Fed remained in place. Foreigners, but not Americans, could convert dollars to gold at $35 an ounce. Due to the excessive dollars being created, that system came to an end in 1971.


It's the post Bretton-Woods system that was responsible for globalizing inflation and markets and for generating a gigantic worldwide dollar bubble. That bubble is now bursting, and we're seeing what it's like to suffer the consequences of the many previous economic errors.


Ironically in these past 35 years, we have benefited from this very flawed system. Because the world accepted dollars as if they were gold, we only had to counterfeit more dollars, spend them overseas (indirectly encouraging our jobs to go overseas as well) and enjoy unearned prosperity. Those who took our dollars and gave us goods and services were only too anxious to loan those dollars back to us. This allowed us to export our inflation and delay the consequences we now are starting to see.


But it was never destined to last, and now we have to pay the piper. Our huge foreign debt must be paid or liquidated. Our entitlements are coming due just as the world has become more reluctant to hold dollars. The consequence of that decision is price inflation in this country--and that's what we are witnessing today. Already price inflation overseas is even higher than here at home as a consequence of foreign central banks' willingness to monetize our debt.


Printing dollars over long periods of time may not immediately push prices up--yet in time it always does. Now we're seeing catch-up for past inflating of the monetary supply. As bad as it is today with $4 a gallon gasoline, this is just the beginning. It's a gross distraction to hound away at “drill, drill, drill” as a solution to the dollar crisis and high gasoline prices. Its okay to let the market increase supplies and drill, but that issue is a gross distraction from the sins of deficits and Federal Reserve monetary shenanigans.


This bubble is different and bigger for another reason. The central banks of the world secretly collude to centrally plan the world economy. I'm convinced that agreements among central banks to “monetize” U.S. debt these past 15 years have existed, although secretly and out of the reach of any oversight of anyone--especially the U.S. Congress that doesn't care, or just flat doesn't understand. As this “gift” to us comes to an end, our problems worsen. The central banks and the various governments are very powerful, but eventually the markets overwhelm when the people who get stuck holding the bag (of bad dollars) catch on and spend the dollars into the economy with emotional zeal, thus igniting inflationary fever.
This time--since there are so many dollars and so many countries involved--the Fed has been able to “paper” over every approaching crisis for the past 15 years, especially with Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, which has allowed the bubble to become history's greatest.
The mistakes made with excessive credit at artificially low rates are huge, and the market is demanding a correction. This involves excessive debt, misdirected investments, over-investments, and all the other problems caused by the government when spending the money they should never have had. Foreign militarism, welfare handouts and $80 trillion entitlement promises are all coming to an end. We don't have the money or the wealth-creating capacity to catch up and care for all the needs that now exist because we rejected the market economy, sound money, self reliance and the principles of liberty.


Since the correction of all this misallocation of resources is necessary and must come, one can look for some good that may come as this “Big Event” unfolds.


There are two choices that people can make. The one choice that is unavailable to us is to limp along with the status quo and prop up the system with more debt, inflation and lies. That won't happen.


One of the two choices, and the one chosen so often by government in the past is that of rejecting the principles of liberty and resorting to even bigger and more authoritarian government. Some argue that giving dictatorial powers to the President, just as we have allowed him to run the American empire, is what we should do. That's the great danger, and in this post-911 atmosphere, too many Americans are seeking safety over freedom. We have already lost too many of our personal liberties already. Real fear of economic collapse could prompt central planners to act to such a degree that the New Deal of the 30's might look like Jefferson 's Declaration of Independence.


The more the government is allowed to do in taking over and running the economy, the deeper the depression gets and the longer it lasts. That was the story of the 30s and the early 40s, and the same mistakes are likely to be made again if we do not wake up.


But the good news is that it need not be so bad if we do the right thing. I saw “Something Big” happening in the past 18 months on the campaign trail. I was encouraged that we are capable of waking up and doing the right thing. I have literally met thousands of high school and college kids who are quite willing to accept the challenge and responsibility of a free society and reject the cradle-to-grave welfare that is promised them by so many do-good politicians.


If more hear the message of liberty, more will join in this effort. The failure of our foreign policy, welfare system, and monetary policies and virtually all government solutions are so readily apparent, it doesn't take that much convincing. But the positive message of how freedom works and why it's possible is what is urgently needed.


One of the best parts of accepting self reliance in a free society is that true personal satisfaction with one's own life can be achieved. This doesn't happen when the government assumes the role of guardian, parent or provider, because it eliminates a sense of pride. But the real problem is the government can't provide the safety and economic security that it claims. The so called good that government claims it can deliver is always achieved at the expense of someone else's freedom. It's a failed system and the young people know it.
Restoring a free society doesn't eliminate the need to get our house in order and to pay for the extravagant spending. But the pain would not be long-lasting if we did the right things, and best of all the empire would have to end for financial reasons. Our wars would stop, the attack on civil liberties would cease, and prosperity would return. The choices are clear: it shouldn't be difficult, but the big event now unfolding gives us a great opportunity to reverse the tide and resume the truly great American Revolution started in 1776. Opportunity knocks in spite of the urgency and the dangers we face.


Let's make “Something Big Is Happening” be the discovery that freedom works and is popular and the big economic and political event we're witnessing is a blessing in disguise.
SOURCE: House.gov/Paul

SNR
07-27-2008, 10:45 PM
I BELIEVE IN BANYON

Thig Lyfe
07-27-2008, 11:01 PM
I didn't read it, but I assume Ron Paul made some sort of terrorist threat? Is he staging a coup?

banyon
07-27-2008, 11:02 PM
I didn't read it, but I assume Ron Paul made some sort of terrorist threat? Is he staging a coup?

He's threatening to spend some of his campaign money.

banyon
07-27-2008, 11:03 PM
I BELIEVE IN BANYON

patteeu would be the better choice. He's way more consistent. :D

SNR
07-27-2008, 11:05 PM
patteeu would be the better choice. He's way more consistent. :DPatteeu also agrees with Ron Paul for the most part on the economy

Guru
07-27-2008, 11:05 PM
Can he sound any more like Armageddon?

Nightfyre
07-27-2008, 11:06 PM
I like how Paul thoroughly addresses the fact that our standard of living has been propped up by government spending and inflation. Yes, deregulating/cutting gov't spending would ultimately lead to a decline in GDP. However, continuing to sacrifice our dollar is already beginning to create that effect and will compound the issue.

You see, the malicious credit environment that has been created has inflated our standard of living but is completely unsustainable because it increases the standard of living through bubbles, such as the margin loan bubble of the 1920s; the tech bubble of the late 90s and the housing bubble we see today.

Additionally, government spending eats up resources and devotes them to projects regardless of their societal efficiency. The market, on the other hand, devotes them based on their societal efficiency through the means of spending.

Bailing out failing industries also must come to an end. It may prop up the system for now; however, they always come back for another bailout. The examples are endless. Amtrak was supposed to be self-sufficient within three years of its inception in the 70s. We have consistently bailed them out or subsidized them every two to three years. Airlines are similar in plight. Lockheed Martin had to be bailed out in the 70s and now they continue to receive ridiculous defense contracts. These are just a few examples. Now we are talking about bailing out freddie mac and fannie mae? We are talking about increasing the national deficit by 50% or another $5 trillion. Who are we kidding? What are we going to do when THEY come back? Can the dollar take that kind of hit?

Nightfyre
07-27-2008, 11:08 PM
Can he sound any more like Armageddon?

TBH, I don't disagree that the economy will continue to degrade with the current leadership of fiscal and monetary policies.

Guru
07-27-2008, 11:10 PM
TBH, I don't disagree that the economy will continue to degrade with the current leadership of fiscal and monetary policies.

Not saying he is wrong but going about it the way in he did in that speech isn't going to gain him a lot of support. JMHO

Nightfyre
07-27-2008, 11:15 PM
Not saying he is wrong but going about it the way in he did in that speech isn't going to gain him a lot of support. JMHO

I imagine if I thought Paul was a fringe loon with little to no concept of reality (which I don't;) I could see myself going "Here we go with alarmism from a loon again." I just hope congress has enough intelligence to understand that without pressing action in the opposite direction of which they are headed, we will be in a world of hurt. Unfortunately, Congress has an average IQ ~75 by my estimation.

Guru
07-27-2008, 11:20 PM
I imagine if I thought Paul was a fringe loon with little to no concept of reality (which I don't;) I could see myself going "Here we go with alarmism from a loon again." I just hope congress has enough intelligence to understand that without pressing action in the opposite direction of which they are headed, we will be in a world of hurt. Unfortunately, Congress has an average IQ ~75 by my estimation.
Congress is a complete waste of space. they don't work for the people anymore.

Nightfyre
07-27-2008, 11:23 PM
Congress is a complete waste of space. they don't work for the people anymore.

I agree. They work so they can get reelected by buying out their constituency with "free stuff;" which of course is just deeply deferred stuff.

Ari Chi3fs
07-27-2008, 11:24 PM
I read that intelligence believes another terrorist attack will happen on American soil in late October... most likely a car bomb or something... at a VERY populated area... perhaps vegas or a big sporting event.

Stumbleupon toolbar showed me a page with it on it last night... said that terrorists will most likely NEVER use planes again, because they know most citizens won't just sit there anymore.

Also, it said that ALL of our policies toward terrorism are reactionary and NOT proactive.

markk
07-28-2008, 12:13 AM
He's threatening to spend some of his campaign money.

haha

what, two blimps in 2012?

Silock
07-28-2008, 03:37 AM
Can he sound any more like Armageddon?

If you're not bracing yourself for a rough time in the coming years, you're living in some sort of delusion.

He makes it sound bad because it's the TRUTH. And this time, the truth is very, very ugly.

JohnnyV13
07-28-2008, 05:59 AM
Wow. Just Wow. That speech is filled with so many unsubstantiated assertions I don't even know where to begin. Also Paul makes a lot of rather radical presumptions about economics.

For example, Paul blames the united states for "causing worldwide inflation". HELLOOOOO, the United States is not the sole cause of worldwide inflation and certainly it isn't as if inflation in foreign currencies never existed until they began financing US debt.

Gee, latin american nations have a LONG history of using inflation as their primary tax method since their governments were so corrupt, inflation was their most reliable way to obtain spending money because they couldn't rely on tax collectors not to take bribes.

To highlight another "logical leap", Paul seems to blame high gas prices on the weak dollar. This assertion is ridiculous. If our gas prices were driven primarily by a monetary problem, you would see GAS PRICES DROPPING in foreign currencies. As far as i know, that's not happening. Instead, everyone's paying higher gas prices. This reality suggests more of a supply/demand problem.

And, throw in the fact that demand in china and india outstripped most projections for the first five months of the year, despite large increases in world oil prices, you must conclude that the primary cause is concern about demand.

Yet Paul wants to blame fiat money and Central reserve banking. I suppose those twin demons also cause male pattern baldness and erectile dysfuction.

If Paul constantly predicts that the sky is falling, eventually disaster WILL come to pass and Paul will be correct. That happy coincidence doesn't mean, however, that Ron Paul is the guy that you turn to in order to fix the mess.

HonestChieffan
07-28-2008, 07:23 AM
Poor Ron. Gloom. Despair. These were the best of times and the worst of times....

Guru
07-28-2008, 07:49 AM
If you're not bracing yourself for a rough time in the coming years, you're living in some sort of delusion.

He makes it sound bad because it's the TRUTH. And this time, the truth is very, very ugly.


Bur Armageddon? No, we are not there yet.

Silock
07-28-2008, 08:25 AM
If Paul constantly predicts that the sky is falling, eventually disaster WILL come to pass and Paul will be correct. That happy coincidence doesn't mean, however, that Ron Paul is the guy that you turn to in order to fix the mess.

You're right. Everything is fine and the gov't is always right, especially where economic policy is concerned. Bailing out everyone that doesn't succeed and placing the burden of that debt squarely on the back of the american taxpayer is SURELY the way to go!

Silock
07-28-2008, 08:26 AM
Bur Armageddon? No, we are not there yet.

He didn't say we were there. Yet.

banyon
07-28-2008, 09:14 AM
Poor Ron. Gloom. Despair. These were the worst of times and the worstest of times....
FYP

beer bacon
07-28-2008, 09:57 AM
He's threatening to spend some of his campaign money.

On new cars for all his relatives?

SNR
07-28-2008, 09:57 AM
If Paul constantly predicts that the sky is falling, eventually disaster WILL come to pass and Paul will be correct. That happy coincidence doesn't mean, however, that Ron Paul is the guy that you turn to in order to fix the mess.Brilliant. Do you have any recommendations?

BigChiefFan
07-28-2008, 10:05 AM
So let's see... stay the course or learn from our mistakes and attempt to correct them?

markk
07-28-2008, 10:32 AM
Poor Ron. Gloom. Despair. These were the best of times and the worst of times....

a tale of the twin cities?

HC_Chief
07-28-2008, 11:03 AM
I like Ron Paul but this speech is nothing more than the same old blather we've received in D.C. over the past x years. Bitch & moan about the "status quo" (of which the person doing the bitching is a MEMBER), without laying out a path for correction. In other words, more hot air.

It's easy to bitch & fling aspersions, it's an entirely different story to lay out a policy to CORRECT the situation. We need more of the latter and no more of the former.

Nightfyre
07-28-2008, 11:39 AM
I like Ron Paul but this speech is nothing more than the same old blather we've received in D.C. over the past x years. Bitch & moan about the "status quo" (of which the person doing the bitching is a MEMBER), without laying out a path for correction. In other words, more hot air.

It's easy to bitch & fling aspersions, it's an entirely different story to lay out a policy to CORRECT the situation. We need more of the latter and no more of the former.

He laid out his plan for the economic crisis...

Nightfyre
07-28-2008, 11:45 AM
Wow. Just Wow. That speech is filled with so many unsubstantiated assertions I don't even know where to begin. Also Paul makes a lot of rather radical presumptions about economics.

For example, Paul blames the united states for "causing worldwide inflation". HELLOOOOO, the United States is not the sole cause of worldwide inflation and certainly it isn't as if inflation in foreign currencies never existed until they began financing US debt.

Gee, latin american nations have a LONG history of using inflation as their primary tax method since their governments were so corrupt, inflation was their most reliable way to obtain spending money because they couldn't rely on tax collectors not to take bribes. Latin American Countries didn't export their debt and therefore their inflation.

To highlight another "logical leap", Paul seems to blame high gas prices on the weak dollar. This assertion is ridiculous. If our gas prices were driven primarily by a monetary problem, you would see GAS PRICES DROPPING in foreign currencies. As far as i know, that's not happening. Instead, everyone's paying higher gas prices. This reality suggests more of a supply/demand problem.
It is partially that and partially that you can purchase oil from OPEC in dollars.


And, throw in the fact that demand in china and india outstripped most projections for the first five months of the year, despite large increases in world oil prices, you must conclude that the primary cause is concern about demand.

Yet Paul wants to blame fiat money and Central reserve banking. I suppose those twin demons also cause male pattern baldness and erectile dysfuction.

If Paul constantly predicts that the sky is falling, eventually disaster WILL come to pass and Paul will be correct. That happy coincidence doesn't mean, however, that Ron Paul is the guy that you turn to in order to fix the mess.

So your brilliant suggestion is to keep on the same tragic course? Continue to create credit bubbles and tax the shit out of savers by weakening their currency? Brilliant.

Silock
07-28-2008, 12:32 PM
I like Ron Paul but this speech is nothing more than the same old blather we've received in D.C. over the past x years. Bitch & moan about the "status quo" (of which the person doing the bitching is a MEMBER), without laying out a path for correction. In other words, more hot air.

It's easy to bitch & fling aspersions, it's an entirely different story to lay out a policy to CORRECT the situation. We need more of the latter and no more of the former.

Like NF said, he laid out his plan. Other than that, he's still just 1 guy, going against the status quo. Yeah, that's REAL popular.

It's not hot air. He votes according to his principles, and that's a rare, rare thing.

markk
07-28-2008, 12:35 PM
Like NF said, he laid out his plan. Other than that, he's still just 1 guy, going against the status quo. Yeah, that's REAL popular.

It's not hot air. He votes according to his principles, and that's a rare, rare thing.

what did his principles say about pocketing all the money people donated for him to spend on a presidential run?

HC_Chief
07-28-2008, 12:50 PM
Like NF said, he laid out his plan. Other than that, he's still just 1 guy, going against the status quo. Yeah, that's REAL popular.

It's not hot air. He votes according to his principles, and that's a rare, rare thing.

Not in this speech he didn't. If he has a plan he should lay it out, rather than simply outline the stupidity of others. State problem, state resolution.

I am a big fan of pragmatism. It's why I like Paul - he typically looks for a workable solution, rather than simply jabber. In this instance however, he does the latter.

Silock
07-28-2008, 01:41 PM
Not in this speech he didn't. If he has a plan he should lay it out, rather than simply outline the stupidity of others. State problem, state resolution.

I am a big fan of pragmatism. It's why I like Paul - he typically looks for a workable solution, rather than simply jabber. In this instance however, he does the latter.

Not every speech is like that, though. This was definitely a "call to action" speech.

HC_Chief
07-28-2008, 01:47 PM
Not every speech is like that, though. This was definitely a "call to action" speech.

I see no call to action; I see "this is f*cked up". A call to action would be "this is f*cked up, but here's how we fix it" ;)

Silock
07-28-2008, 01:50 PM
I see no call to action; I see "this is f*cked up". A call to action would be "this is f*cked up, but here's how we fix it" ;)

No, it's the first stage of the issue attention cycle.

SNR
07-28-2008, 03:02 PM
what did his principles say about pocketing all the money people donated for him to spend on a presidential run?It's still being used to further his ideas

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/

Just because you assume that Ron Paul is a Republican, therefore the Republican Party should get his money doesn't mean it actually works that way. First of all, what he's doing is totally legal. Secondly, all (not some, ALL) would rather Ron Paul spend the money furthering his political philosophy than let McCain waste it on ideas that don't follow in line with Ron Paul's conception of liberty. Ask ANY supporter what they think of the Campaign For Liberty using their donation money and they'll tell you.

And if you still think he's a crook, doesn't matter. You're a dumbass.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2008, 03:30 PM
It's still being used to further his ideas

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/

Just because you assume that Ron Paul is a Republican, therefore the Republican Party should get his money doesn't mean it actually works that way. First of all, what he's doing is totally legal. Secondly, all (not some, ALL) would rather Ron Paul spend the money furthering his political philosophy than let McCain waste it on ideas that don't follow in line with Ron Paul's conception of liberty. Ask ANY supporter what they think of the Campaign For Liberty using their donation money and they'll tell you.
Ayup! I gave $200 and I am still happy to give. If he gave me a refund I'd give it back to his new Liberty group. Afterall, I was a member of his previous group before.

And if you still think he's a crook, doesn't matter. You're a dumbass.

mark sounds like a neocon. Neocons HATE Paul. And we all know their history with truth. There ain't any.
Or he, like many cons gone awry reads NC publications, which are loaded with smear and lies which are accepted uncritically.

markk
07-28-2008, 03:34 PM
It's still being used to further his ideas

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/

Just because you assume that Ron Paul is a Republican, therefore the Republican Party should get his money doesn't mean it actually works that way.

I didn't say that. I don't think the Republican Party should get the money. Where did you come up with that?

He took the money as donations to a presidential campaign. I think that when people give your campaign money you ought to either spend it in the way that you represented as how you were going to spend it, or give it back.

markk
07-28-2008, 03:38 PM
mark sounds like a neocon. Neocons HATE Paul. And we all know their history with truth. There ain't any.
Or he, like many cons gone awry reads NC publications, which are loaded with smear and lies which are accepted uncritically.

No, I'm not a neocon, so the standard plan of attack (label it and kill it) does not apply.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2008, 03:44 PM
No, I'm not a neocon, so the standard plan of attack (label it and kill it) does not apply.
You want to attack, in particular with smear ( exactly what neocons are known for) then expect to get it back. Either that or put the crack-pipes down that you read like the NeoCon Review, Commentary, Weekly Slandered or War Street Journal's OP pages.

Paul happens to be one of the most honest, and ethical congressmen in congress these days. He's literally known for his integrity. Yet, you call him a criminal. Pathetic.

markk
07-28-2008, 03:46 PM
You want to attack, in particular with smear ( exactly what neocons are known for) then expect to get it back. Either that or put the crack-pipes down that you read like the NeoCon Review, Commentary, Weekly Slandered or War Street Journal's OP pages.

Paul happens to be one of the most honest, and ethical congressmen in congress these days. He's literally known for his integrity. Yet, you call him a criminal. Pathetic.

I didn't call him a criminal. I said he collected a lot of money to run for president, didn't spent it running for president, and to me it looks like he plans on keeping it.

Can you call up campaign headquarters and get your money back if you want to?

Nightfyre
07-28-2008, 03:47 PM
You want to attack, in particular with smear ( exactly what neocons are known for) then expect to get it back. Either that or put the crack-pipes down that you read like the NeoCon Review, Commentary, Weekly Slandered or War Street Journal's OP pages.

Paul happens to be one of the most honest, and ethical congressmen in congress these days. He's literally known for his integrity. Yet, you call him a criminal. Pathetic.

JFC get off the labelling binge. It really hurts your credibility on this site, imo.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2008, 03:48 PM
I didn't call him a criminal. I said he collected a lot of money to run for president, didn't spent it running for president, and to me it looks like he plans on keeping it.

Can you call up campaign headquarters and get your money back if you want to?

You implied it by using the word "pocketing" the money. Take some responsibility for your communication. It was innuendo.

I don't care to have my money back. In fact I may give more to his new group when I can.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2008, 03:48 PM
JFC get off the labelling binge. It really hurts your credibility on this site, imo.

shut up

markk
07-28-2008, 03:52 PM
You implied it by using the word "pocketing" the money. Take some responsibility for your communication. It was innuendo.

I don't care to have my money back. In fact I may give more to his new group when I can.

So why was $3.5 million transferred to his congressional campaign, when he has no opposition in that race? the money's still in his pocket. He pocketed it. As yet, it hasn't come out.

Do you anticipate him spending $3.5 million on his congressional race? Where's the money going to go after that?

I figured you for a smiling rube, who wouldn't want the money back, but rather couldn't wait to give more. But I remember reading people on the internet who participated in his campaign complaining that no money was being spent while they were raising tons, and losing primary after primary. There were and still are people out there who are upset.

The campaign should refund anyone's money who asks for it. In fact, they should contact every individual donor and require them to Opt-In for the money to be used for another purpose.

Anything less cannot be spun as ethical. This applies to any campaign not just Paul's.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2008, 03:54 PM
So why was $3.5 million transferred to his congressional campaign, when he has no opposition in that race? the money's still in his pocket. He pocketed it. As yet, it hasn't come out.

Do you anticipate him spending $3.5 million on his congressional race? Where's the money going to go after that?

I figured you for a smiling rube, who wouldn't want the money back, but rather couldn't wait to give more. But I remember reading people on the internet who participated in his campaign complaining that no money was being spent while they were raising tons, and losing primary after primary. There were and still are people out there who are upset.

The campaign should refund anyone's money who asks for it. In fact, they should contact every individual donor and require them to Opt-In for the money to be used for another purpose.

Anything less cannot be spun as ethical. This applies to any campaign not just Paul's.

smear...and all unproven

The complaint, as I recall, was that he didn't advertise enough.

SNR
07-28-2008, 03:55 PM
I didn't call him a criminal. I said he collected a lot of money to run for president, didn't spent it running for president, and to me it looks like he plans on keeping it.

Can you call up campaign headquarters and get your money back if you want to?That's way too difficult. When they get money, they lump it together and spend from the fund. They don't decide that they're going to spend SNR's money on campaign venues and Joe Blow's money on paid workers.

Plus a good portion of the millions of dollars were already spent on the actual presidential campaign. How do they determine who gets what?

markk
07-28-2008, 03:58 PM
That's way too difficult. When they get money, they lump it together and spend from the fund. They don't decide that they're going to spend SNR's money on campaign venues and Joe Blow's money on paid workers.

Plus a good portion of the millions of dollars were already spent on the actual presidential campaign. How do they determine who gets what?

Those are good questions. It's probably uncharted territory because most campaigns actually spend the money they take in rather than shifting it to other purposes.

What's to stop someone from running a campaign for profit as a fund raiser for a political interest group? That's what's essentially happened here. Hoodwinked minions were bilked of millions for someone who apparently, given the lack of spending, wasn't very serious about trying to win the election.

markk
07-28-2008, 04:00 PM
smear...and all unproven

The complaint, as I recall, was that he didn't advertise enough.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/ron-paul-bob-ba.html

But Paul has since transferred $10,000 to his nonprofit organization and a hefty $3.5 million of that money into his congressional campaign, which might seem unnecessary to some because he has no Democratic (or Libertarian) opponent in the November general election for his 11th House term.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2008, 04:01 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/ron-paul-bob-ba.html

But Paul has since transferred $10,000 to his nonprofit organization and a hefty $3.5 million of that money into his congressional campaign, which might seem unnecessary to some because he has no Democratic (or Libertarian) opponent in the November general election for his 11th House term.

Oh so the LA says it. So it must be true. LOL!

markk
07-28-2008, 04:05 PM
Oh so the LA says it. So it must be true. LOL!

That's all you've got, huh?

What would you think if it were true? Do you think it's ok to do that? Why do you think all those millions were funneled into a campaign where he's running unopposed?

Hydrae
07-28-2008, 04:09 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/ron-paul-bob-ba.html

But Paul has since transferred $10,000 to his nonprofit organization and a hefty $3.5 million of that money into his congressional campaign, which might seem unnecessary to some because he has no Democratic (or Libertarian) opponent in the November general election for his 11th House term.

I could be wrong but I thought there was a Repulican push to take over his seat. In other words, there may not be a D or L for him to run against but he has to win the primary portion first.

As to left over money, how often have you heard of such an issue? Heck it seems like most politicos nowadays borrow so much that they are in up to their eyeballs when they get done. See Hillary for a great example of this issue.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2008, 04:11 PM
That's all you've got, huh?

What would you think if it were true? Do you think it's ok to do that? Why do you think all those millions were funneled into a campaign where he's running unopposed?
You mean is that all you've got? One little paragraph with no details. Lol! Project much?
You wanna believe it. That's obvious.

And I don't need much more than to know 2 things:
• Paul is known for his integrity, honesty and ethics no matter what some, who are corrupt, have tried to say to bring him down.

• to know that I got an email from the campaign discussing the different legal ways left that were being looked at for dealing with any leftover money. They weren't sure what was the best way to go and were checking into the legalities. The MSM is just the wrong source.

I'm not here to debate it. I'm defending the man on his known track record.
If I no longer respond don't think I agree.

Sincerely,
A smiling rube.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2008, 04:15 PM
I could be wrong but I thought there was a Repulican push to take over his seat. In other words, there may not be a D or L for him to run against but he has to win the primary portion first.
He won the primary for his seat already.

As to left over money, how often have you heard of such an issue?

Good point. Having gobs of leftover money is probably a first time. This is uncharted territory. Everyone in advertising knows that when you do work for a campaign you get paid up front in full. Because if they're out of the race, there's no money left. So the politico's who write the laws didn't cover such an event, naturally.


LOL! LOL! LOL!

JohnnyV13
07-28-2008, 04:42 PM
Latin American Countries didn't export their debt and therefore their inflation.

Do you get all of your economic knowledge from Ron Paul's ravings????? OF COURSE latin american countries exported their inflation. Any nation that participates in the world banking system ends up exporting their inflation if they expand their currency. SOMEONE has to purchase that government's securities. Unless you literally "print money" rather than expand credit, OR your government debt is purchased entirely by domestic financial institutions, you WILL export your inflation if it occurs.

Generally, those government securities are purchased by private financial institutions because governments usually have a better default rate than individuals and most corporations. In the case of notoriously unstable latin american countries, their inflation has been subsidized by the IMF (international monetary fund) purchasing that debt, despite the high risk.

Certainly, US credit problems creates far more impact on world financial markets than any other nation since we have the largest economy. But, "exporting inflation" is hardly a unique phenomenon.

These facts give rise to another point. Ron Paul acts as if there is no limit to a nation's ability to inflate their currency unless they back it with gold. If a nation expands their money supply by issuing government securities, their ability to inflate their money is limited by the willingness of others to purchase those securities. Of course, this is easier than physically expanding the supply of gold, but there ARE limits.


It is partially that and partially that you can purchase oil from OPEC in dollars.

Gee. Lets look at WHY OPEC has historically demanded that oil transactions occur in dollars. For one thing, the dollar has been a relatively stable currency. But another more obscure reason is the "insurance" fucntion that many people worldwide have come to use the dollar to obtain.

To apply it specifically to OPEC nations, they want dollars because they know that their top down authoritative regimes are subject to rebellion. The vast fortunes of those at the top of those systems are secured by the knowledge that if they are toppled, they have a fortune in dollars in foreign banks to run to if they are forced to flee.

This insurance function gives the dollar a price support beyond the american economy's ability to produce goods. As far as I know, no one has reliably quantified this effect on US currency. Yet, this effect has been recently weakened by US credit problems PLUS the euro's emergence as competition for this function. For example, OPEC recently has started taking Euros as well as dollars for oil transactions.

The Yen used to be the primary competion for the "insurance" function, but the yen got wiped out as an "insurance" currency by the Nikkei collapse in the early 90's.

But, getting back to the orignal point, if this monetary effect were the primary cause behind high oil prices, then Europe would be getting FALLING oil prices due to the strong euro. That's not happening. The primary reason for oil prices is concern about future demand. You won't see oil prices stabilize until the higher prices cause hits to the demand from india and china.

What's truly terrifying is, so far, that chinese and indian demand has been relatively price insensitive. That suggests the demand increases have been driven by the small population segment in those countries that are truly loaded. What happens if globalization allows the larger masses to demand oil? 4 bucks a gallon will be the good old days.


So your brilliant suggestion is to keep on the same tragic course? Continue to create credit bubbles and tax the shit out of savers by weakening their currency? Brilliant.


I fail to see how you extract "maintain the status quo" from "Ron Paul isn't the guy to fix the mess". You notice i don't dispute that there's a mess. What I dispute is Ron Paul's diagnosis.

markk
07-28-2008, 04:52 PM
You mean is that all you've got? One little paragraph with no details. Lol! Project much?
You wanna believe it. That's obvious.

And I don't need much more than to know 2 things:
• Paul is known for his integrity, honesty and ethics no matter what some, who are corrupt, have tried to say to bring him down.

• to know that I got an email from the campaign discussing the different legal ways left that were being looked at for dealing with any leftover money. They weren't sure what was the best way to go and were checking into the legalities. The MSM is just the wrong source.

I'm not here to debate it. I'm defending the man on his known track record.
If I no longer respond don't think I agree.

Sincerely,
A smiling rube.

your favorite phrase cognitive dissonance applies here.

we have a couple of people who say they've looked at the election reporting records and that he's not only had millions left over but he funneled them out of his presidential campaign. maybe they are lying, but if they were it's a matter of public record and would not be hard to disprove.

you don't want to condemn the action, in case it turns out to be true - whatever he did is, to you, ethical by default.

if i say that i love freedom and hate neocons, will you send me money? I'm running for president. Promise. See, I wrote "Me for President" on this Post-It.

Guru
07-28-2008, 04:54 PM
He didn't say we were there. Yet.

Yeah, I guess that is true.

If this is Armageddon though. That make BO the antichrist though. heh

BucEyedPea
07-28-2008, 04:59 PM
did you say something, mark?

JohnnyV13
07-28-2008, 05:09 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/ron-paul-bob-ba.html

But Paul has since transferred $10,000 to his nonprofit organization and a hefty $3.5 million of that money into his congressional campaign, which might seem unnecessary to some because he has no Democratic (or Libertarian) opponent in the November general election for his 11th House term.

I don't have a real problem with this under the "rules of the game".

Actually, a big campaign fund for an unopposed or weakly opposed congressional seat is hardly unique to Ron Paul. Many strong incumbents end up in this position.

Generally, these guys donate that money to candidates in hotly contested campaigns. If their canditate wins, then that person owes the donor big favors (read congressional votes).

I highly doubt Ron Paul's acolytes would object to him using their donations to expand his influence (and agenda)in the House.

In an interesting side note, sometimes these guys will even donate to cross party candidates to eliminate in party competitors. One example was the aptly named "Dick" Gephardt who was the largest contributor to Rick Lazio's Senate campaign in 2000. Of course, his obvious purpose was trying to block HIllary's Senate bid, because he had ambitions for the democratic prez nomination.

SNR
07-28-2008, 05:10 PM
Those are good questions. It's probably uncharted territory because most campaigns actually spend the money they take in rather than shifting it to other purposes.

What's to stop someone from running a campaign for profit as a fund raiser for a political interest group? That's what's essentially happened here. Hoodwinked minions were bilked of millions for someone who apparently, given the lack of spending, wasn't very serious about trying to win the election.That I will agree with you on, but that's more because the campaign was very poorly administered. With the money Ron Paul's committee had AFTER the New Hampshire primary (his last minute money bombs would not be able to directly affect campaigning and finance towards Iowa and NH in time) that was enough to open campaign offices and hire more workers in a few states that he could have won (Maine, Minnesota, Montana, I definitely think Michigan with their economic problems would have loved his message) but he kept a tight hold on the bank to keep his campaign running until the last few primaries. It lasted, but as they looked back, they see that more could have been done. Kind of like how Herm's team plays football against great teams.

But again, you use the work "hoodwinked" but I'm not allowed to say you called Paul a thief. So Paul "hoodwinked" those poor supporters of his who liked his message and then didn't use all the cash on the trail so he could keep it himself, but he's not a thief? Please let me know what he did. You say he did something wrong and deceptive, what was it?

At the very least, I think we can rule out the "hoodwinked" option. The primary process is over. If the cash is his and he's not going to give it back to the donors, why would he continue speaking across the country and write a book (two coming up) along with staying on the trail by making TV appearances and interviews, and make speeches like this in Congress? I don't call that "hoodwinked" I would call that not giving up. He says this is a freedom revolution. So let's see it go towards more congressman and political workers who emphasize his message, rather than just let it die.

In my opinion, that's for more efficient to gaining progress for your ideas than say, Mike Gravel, who makes youtube videos with Obama girl and attempts to gain nominations for third parties that don't want him. When nobody's listening to you, it's time to step back and organize efforts to make people understand (i.e. what Paul is doing) and not just speak louder and continue to be made a fool of (Gravel).

BucEyedPea
07-28-2008, 05:22 PM
Also, SNR, Paul didn't get some better, more heavyweight players on his campaign as advisors until later in the primaries. Some of those he did much better in than say NH. States like PA and MN even. I never felt he had a real shot anyway, and was suprised at the money he even raised. I was just hoping.

I'm still glad to have in Congress...and this money for his new group is going to help elect more like minded congressmen. Our best bet is changing congress anyway.

Ari Chi3fs
07-28-2008, 05:33 PM
Wow. Douchebaggery abounds large in this thread.

SNR
07-28-2008, 05:55 PM
Wow. Douchebaggery abounds large in this thread.Put'em up... put'em uuuuup

BucEyedPea
07-28-2008, 06:41 PM
If Paul constantly predicts that the sky is falling, eventually disaster WILL come to pass and Paul will be correct. That happy coincidence doesn't mean, however, that Ron Paul is the guy that you turn to in order to fix the mess.

Look I know you support Keynesian economics and so naturally oppose Paul whose economic school does not support Keynesianism. But did you know that Paul predicted what we're in right now 5-6 years ago. It's come to pass. Even Kudlow pointed this out on his show—that Paul was ahead of everyone else on what is currently happening. ( which includes Greenspan's inflation and bubbles.) Still Paul admitted, on the same show, that no one really knows when things could unravel altogether, just at some point they have to if we keep on our current course.