View Full Version : Who gives a damn about Ron Paul anyway?
KG6JTB
10-17-2007, 05:11 AM
The only thing Ron Paul has done is create a niche with some voters on the right. That's it. He's never going to get the backing of the party for nomination. It just won't happen.
Grassroots disciples of Ron Paul spewing his message across every Internet board are more ubiquitous than Republican senators cruising public bathrooms. This kind of in-your-face campaigning turns most of us off.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t care for any of the candidates at this point, and we are a long way from Nov 2008.
Ron Paul is proof that Kool-Aid comes in many different flavors.
Dave
KG6JTB
Now tell us how you REALLY feel Dave.
k6bbc
10-17-2007, 05:26 AM
I LOVE HIM! I'M VOTING FOR HIM.
bbc
Looks good to me. Remember, Dean was a front runner early on in '04 and McCain was way ahead early on in '00 and neither won their parties nomination those years. There was a candidate nobody took seriously when McCain was ahead in '00. He's been in office for the last 7 years...
Ron Paul has a better chance than most think. I like him and am keeping an eye on his campaign. Don't count Edwards out either.
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 15 2007,23:32)]Don't count Edwards out either.
He'll be way to busy getting his hair done and having a manacure to be bothered with frivolous things like a presidential campaign.
kf6rdn
10-17-2007, 06:20 AM
Quote[/b] ]Who gives a damn about Ron Paul anyway?
His wife?
k9kjm
10-17-2007, 06:44 AM
IF more people actually did some research and learned what Ron Paul really stands for they would support him.
AND if EVERYONE did that, Guess what? He would win!
Far too many people simply follow the talking heads on TV, The "polls", And listen to other "sheeple"............
From what I have seen so far, I will be voting for RON PAUL!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (wv6z @ Oct. 17 2007,01:39)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 15 2007,23:32)]Don't count Edwards out either.
He'll be way to busy getting his hair done and having a manacure to be bothered with frivolous things like a presidential campaign.
Meow.
AE6IP
10-17-2007, 06:51 AM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 16 2007,22:32)]Ron Paul has a better chance than most think.
right. he's gonna pull 4% of the primary vote in the Republican party instead of 3%.
But what's not to like about Ron Paul:
He's a gold standard nutter.
He's got the strangest possible interpretation of the US constitution.
He's never gotten legislation supporting his supposed positions out of committee.
He brags about getting earmarks that he also brags about voting against the funding legislation for.
Two out of three Libertarians at a recent convention in Nevada refused to support him over the other Republican candidates.
He's failing as a grass roots fund raiser, and his internet campaign is lackluster by comparison to Dean's in '03.
Adjusted for the size of the electorate, he did a far better job of fund raising for his '88 congressional campaign.
ac4ut
10-17-2007, 12:00 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 16 2007,22:32)]Looks good to me. #Remember, Dean was a front runner early on in '04 and McCain was way ahead early on in '00 and neither won their parties nomination those years. #There was a candidate nobody took seriously when McCain was ahead in '00. #He's been in office for the last 7 years...
Ron Paul has a better chance than most think. #I like him and am keeping an eye on his campaign. #Don't count Edwards out either.
I agree with you on Edwards. Don't especially care for him but he looks to be the sleeper to me.
W3MIV
10-17-2007, 12:47 PM
The really worrisome thing about Paul is that most of the objections raised here (and elsewhere) are disturbingly reminiscent of those objections raised against Carter when he ran against all odds.
Pray history does not repeat. Whomever we elect in the coming election is likely to be a "party-breaker" in the sense that both major parties are in total ideological disarray. The only question is, who will be the Whigs of 2008?
W1GUH
10-17-2007, 01:23 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 16 2007,06:47)]The really worrisome thing about Paul is that most of the objections raised here (and elsewhere) are disturbingly reminiscent of those objections raised against Carter when he ran against all odds.
Pray history does not repeat. Whomever we elect in the coming election is likely to be a "party-breaker" in the sense that both major parties are in total ideological disarray. The only question is, who will be the Whigs of 2008?
Quote[/b] ]Whomever we elect in the coming election is likely to be a "party-breaker" in the sense that both major parties are in total ideological disarray.
That would be a desirable outcome. I would expect, though, that whoever it is will be basically more of the same nastiness (and that includes everybody's favorite poster-gal, Hillary) that's been the norm for far too long.
But then, one can dream, I guess.
N3ATS
10-17-2007, 01:57 PM
Go Ron Paul!
WB8MKV
10-17-2007, 02:01 PM
yea...go away
w3bny
10-17-2007, 02:50 PM
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b220/Bunnieman/say_desu.gif
KD6NIG
10-17-2007, 02:53 PM
Sure he doesn't have a chance in.... well you know.
But what the heck, eh? Better than supporting the puppet that most parties put up.
But hes doomed by that very fact. They will never let anyone who can even halfway think or have an opinion get into that office anyway. If he does any better, he'll be informed quietly to toe the party line, lest they ensure something will come out to discredit him.
If you're going to play the game, you need to know all the rules, including the unwritten ones.
But hey, at least when its all over and we're complaining still about how the government is ran, you can at least point to your "don't blame me, I voted for the other guy" bumper sticker on your car.....
KG4JYD
10-17-2007, 03:26 PM
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,23:51)]He's a gold standard nutter.You do realize that the gold standard was determined by the Founding Fathers because they were sick of inflation, right? Are you calling them "nutters" too?
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,23:51)]He's got the strangest possible interpretation of the US constitution.He supports the original meaning of the Constitution. I guess you think that is wrong too.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,23:51)]He's never gotten legislation supporting his supposed positions out of committee.He can't control what his fellow members of Congress do.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,23:51)]He brags about getting earmarks that he also brags about voting against the funding legislation for. The budget has already been decided at that point. The money will be spent somewhere, so he tries to get it spent in his district. And he votes no for every unbalanced budget.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,23:51)]Two out of three Libertarians at a recent convention in Nevada refused to support him over the other Republican candidates.No, Libertarians have a bylaw that says they cannot support anyone outside of their party. Since Ron Paul is running in the GOP he doesn't get a lot of support from the Libertarian Party.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,23:51)]He's failing as a grass roots fund raiserWrong again. He had the only positive increase in his fund raising on the GOP side in Q3, and traditionally Q3 offers a slump in funds. Also he has more donations from the military than any other GOP candidate. And he is #3 or #4 for cash on hand with no debts. That is not a failure by any stretch of the imagination.
Oh, and again, I'm calling you out as a troll.
KG4JYD
10-17-2007, 03:40 PM
Quote[/b] (KG6JTB @ Oct. 16 2007,22:11)]I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t care for any of the candidates at this point, and we are a long way from Nov 2008.
Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it's not happening. Too many people in America ignore politics for whatever reason but don't realize it's happening whether they are paying attention or not. And the results of these events will have a direct effect on everyone's life. So it would be prudent to pay a bit more attention.
Why am I for Ron Paul and not someone else?
It is easy. He supports my view more than any other candidate so far. To me, all the others both Republican and Democrat are pretty much the same.
The Democrats want a large fiscal government, the Republicans want a large social/moral government. Bottom line is that they both want more government control over our lives.
Ron Paul is the only one who is for shrinking government.
Will he win? Probably not. I will still vote for him though. Many people will not vote for someone simply because they think they will not win. That is not a reason to hold back a vote. Yes, it is nice to vote for the winning team, but the right thing to do is vote for who you think is right, not for who is most popular.
I vote not to be part of the 'in' crowd. I vote for the person who best supports my views no matter how unpopular they are.
He's not drawing republican votes, he's doing exactly what he is supposed to do.
winkwink http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
KI4PEQ
10-17-2007, 05:04 PM
Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Oct. 16 2007,23:26)]I LOVE HIM! #I'M VOTING FOR HIM.
bbc
Don't say that too loud. People will think the two of you meet in airport public restrooms.
Ron Paul is defying all of the conventional wisdom. He is right about the blessings of economic freedom and he is right about the blessings of individual liberty.
Ron Paul has taken the moral and intellectual high ground -- and stood his ground.
Parasites, control freaks, and people who fear change hate Ron Paul. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,10:07)]Parasites, control freaks, and people who fear change hate Ron Paul. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Ding, ding ding!!!!!
We have a winner!
N3ATS
10-17-2007, 05:23 PM
I just love how this "insignificant" candidate gets people all wrapped around the axle!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Go Ron Paul!
AE6IP
10-17-2007, 05:42 PM
Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Oct. 17 2007,08:26)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,23:51)]He's a gold standard nutter.You do realize that the gold standard was determined by the Founding Fathers because they were sick of inflation, right? Are you calling them "nutters" too?
It wasn't, and it didn't. To think that it would work now when only one country would return to it when it didn't work when most of the Western world used it is the nuttery.
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,23:51)]He's got the strangest possible interpretation of the US constitution.He supports the original meaning of the Constitution. I guess you think that is wrong too.
No he doesn't. The early supreme court, which was made up of men who were founders, made decisions that Ron Paul disagrees with. His view of the constitution doesn't match that of either Jefferson or Madision, to name two.
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,23:51)]He's never gotten legislation supporting his supposed positions out of committee.He can't control what his fellow members of Congress do.
He can't get them to cooperate with him either. If he can't do it when he's one of them, and his party is in the majority, how could he possibly do it as president?
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,23:51)]He brags about getting earmarks that he also brags about voting against the funding legislation for. The budget has already been decided at that point. The money will be spent somewhere, so he tries to get it spent in his district. And he votes no for every unbalanced budget.
Actually, earmarks don't work that way, and he has voted for unbalanced budgets.
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,23:51)]Two out of three Libertarians at a recent convention in Nevada refused to support him over the other Republican candidates.No, Libertarians have a bylaw that says they cannot support anyone outside of their party. Since Ron Paul is running in the GOP he doesn't get a lot of support from the Libertarian Party.
But we're talking about little-l libertarians who are Republicans at a Republican convention that was dominated by little-l libertarians, so that doesn't apply.
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,23:51)]He's failing as a grass roots fund raiserWrong again. He had the only positive increase in his fund raising on the GOP side in Q3, and traditionally Q3 offers a slump in funds. Also he has more donations from the military than any other GOP candidate. And he is #3 or #4 for cash on hand with no debts. That is not a failure by any stretch of the imagination.
It's interesting that the "GOP" qualifier is suddenly appearing on all the Ron Paul spin stories. He's not the only one to have a positive increase in Q3, even in the GOP, and the 20k or so he raised from the military hardly qualifies as a "success".
Quote[/b] ]Oh, and again, I'm calling you out as a troll.
Of course you are. It's what people on the intarwebs do when they can't refute the arguments raised against their position.
AE6IP
10-17-2007, 05:45 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,10:07)]Ron Paul has taken the moral and intellectual high ground -- and stood his ground.
Allowing publication under his name that made him appear to be a racist when it served his purpose and disowning the publication when it didn't is hardly 'moral high ground'.
Asking for earmarks and then voting against the enabling legislation, knowing that it would pass anyway, and then bragging about both is hardly 'moral high ground'.
He's just another congress critter.
Marty,
Try this site while you are compiling. I am sure you will have fun.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/
By the way, who do you think is the best candidate so far? I am sure you have developed an opinion other than the one against Paul in your research.
Inquiring minds want to know.
AE6IP
10-17-2007, 08:31 PM
Quote[/b] (al2n @ Oct. 17 2007,11:23)]Marty,
Try this site while you are compiling. I am sure you will have fun.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/
By the way, who do you think is the best candidate so far? I am sure you have developed an opinion other than the one against Paul in your research.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks, but I have enough fun shooting down Ron Paul nuttery here to cover all of my compiles.
I already answered your questions. You can practice searching QRZ to find the answers.
Yes, you answered by not answering. Which is an answer of sorts, but is not an answer to the question.
You know who is running for President. Of all the choices you have out there, which one would you be most likely to vote for?
Or will you not vote at all?
AE6IP
10-17-2007, 11:26 PM
Quote[/b] (al2n @ Oct. 17 2007,13:48)]Yes, you answered by not answering. Which is an answer of sorts, but is not an answer to the question.
You know who is running for President. Of all the choices you have out there, which one would you be most likely to vote for?
Or will you not vote at all?
Your memory is incorrect.
I answered by answering. Even the two questions you've just asked.
N3ATS
10-17-2007, 11:37 PM
Marty did answer that question. He said it's too early to tell. He will probably wait until the primaries are over to make his choice. It's a lot easier then. Like picking cherries!
So Marty, who did you vote for in 2004? And don't tell me it's no one I would recognize, either.
Throw out a name.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,09:45)]He's just another congress critter.
He is much, much more than "just another congress critter" because you seem to be obsessed with congressman Paul -- more than all of the other congress members put together.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,22:51)]He's a gold standard nutter.
You are a Federal Reserve nutter, BTW. The private institution that brought us the Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression and now the 4 cent Dollar -- er, I forgot there is no Dollar anymore. I mean the 4-cent Federal Reserve Note..
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,16:26)]Quote[/b] (al2n @ Oct. 17 2007,13:48)]Yes, you answered by not answering. Which is an answer of sorts, but is not an answer to the question.
You know who is running for President. Of all the choices you have out there, which one would you be most likely to vote for?
Or will you not vote at all?
Your memory is incorrect.
I answered by answering. Even the two questions you've just asked.
You say it is too early to tell who you will vote for, which is a non-answer.
I am not asking you to cement your vote, just asking for your opinion. You do have opinions don't you?
Of the candidates that are out there, which one has caught your interest the most so far?
It is not a hard question. Should not be hard to answer.
AE6IP
10-17-2007, 11:55 PM
Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Oct. 17 2007,16:37)]Marty did answer that question. He said it's too early to tell. He will probably wait until the primaries are over to make his choice. It's a lot easier then. Like picking cherries!
So Marty, who did you vote for in 2004? And don't tell me it's no one I would recognize, either.
Throw out a name.
It is too early to tell, and since CA has no influence on the party candidate selections, I will wait until the parties have chosen to start determining.
And no, given the way you guys misuse information, I'm not telling who I voted for in 2004. Sorry, but you're going to have to respect the privacy of the ballot.
KG4JYD
10-17-2007, 11:56 PM
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,10:42)]The early supreme court, which was made up of men who were founders, made decisions that Ron Paul disagrees with. His view of the constitution doesn't match that of either Jefferson or Madision, to name two.And many of those men were throwbacks to the Bristish parlimentary system who didn't understand what a Constitutional Republic is. And please show me where RP and Jefferson disagree.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,10:42)]He can't get them to cooperate with him either. If he can't do it when he's one of them, and his party is in the majority, how could he possibly do it as president?Why would one want to cooperate with people who are looking to pass unconstitutional legislation? Why would one want to cooperate with big government statists? Why would one want to cooperate with those who are in the back pocket of lobbyists for special interests? Why would one want to cooperate with people who are against most of what this country was founded on?
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,10:42)]Actually, earmarks don't work that way, and he has voted for unbalanced budgets.When? Prove it.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,10:42)]It's interesting that the "GOP" qualifier is suddenly appearing on all the Ron Paul spin stories. He's not the only one to have a positive increase in Q3, even in the GOP, and the 20k or so he raised from the military hardly qualifies as a "success".No, he had the largest rate increase. In other words his Q3 had a better take than Q2. No one else on the GOP side did.
AE6IP
10-17-2007, 11:57 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,16:39)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,09:45)]He's just another congress critter.
He is much, much more than "just another congress critter" because you seem to be obsessed with congressman Paul -- more than all of the other congress members put together.
You seem to be obssessed with the word "obssessed" which obviously doesn't mean what you think it does.
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 12:00 AM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,16:40)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,22:51)]He's a gold standard nutter.
You are a Federal Reserve nutter, BTW. The private institution that brought us the Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression and now the 4 cent Dollar -- er, I forgot there is no Dollar anymore. I mean the 4-cent Federal Reserve Note..
Sorry, no. I'm not at all a fan of the reserve.
Nor am I naive enough to find it at all responsible for the Twenties or the Great Depression which was world wide.
Moving the US back to a gold standard unilateraly wouldn't cure inflation by the way. If you bothered to check your history you'll find that the US suffered plenty of inflation when it was on the gold standard.
That's a large part of the reason why gold standard nuttery is nuttery: it denies the obvious.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,15:57)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,16:39)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,09:45)]He's just another congress critter.
He is much, much more than "just another congress critter" because you seem to be obsessed with congressman Paul -- more than all of the other congress members put together.
You seem to be obssessed with the word "obssessed" which obviously doesn't mean what you think it does.
I can spell the word right Monsieur Obsession. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,16:00)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,16:40)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 16 2007,22:51)]He's a gold standard nutter.
You are a Federal Reserve nutter, BTW. The private institution that brought us the Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression and now the 4 cent Dollar -- er, I forgot there is no Dollar anymore. I mean the 4-cent Federal Reserve Note..
Sorry, no. I'm not at all a fan of the reserve.
Nor am I naive enough to find it at all responsible for the Twenties or the Great Depression which was world wide.
Moving the US back to a gold standard unilateraly wouldn't cure inflation by the way. If you bothered to check your history you'll find that the US suffered plenty of inflation when it was on the gold standard.
That's a large part of the reason why gold standard nuttery is nuttery: it denies the obvious.
I have actually had to read through the boring minutes of the bored Board back in the 20's when Strong was at the table, so I am really quite aware of the way in which the US and Britain led the World into unsupported expansion of money and credit in the 1920's as well as how it all came unraveled in a perfect storm of credit collapse and trade tariffs.
I pause now for you to begin using Google to appear smart to stupid people and stupid to smart ones.
KG4JYD
10-18-2007, 12:08 AM
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,17:00)]Moving the US back to a gold standard unilateraly wouldn't cure inflation by the way. If you bothered to check your history you'll find that the US suffered plenty of inflation when it was on the gold standard.
That's a large part of the reason why gold standard nuttery is nuttery: it denies the obvious.
It might or might not, I am not an economist nor do I pretend to be.
However, the gold standard will prohibit the government (or the Fed) from printing money willy nilly, which DOES cause inflation.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,16:55)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Oct. 17 2007,16:37)]Marty did answer that question. He said it's too early to tell. He will probably wait until the primaries are over to make his choice. It's a lot easier then. Like picking cherries!
So Marty, who did you vote for in 2004? And don't tell me it's no one I would recognize, either.
Throw out a name.
It is too early to tell, and since CA has no influence on the party candidate selections, I will wait until the parties have chosen to start determining.
And no, given the way you guys misuse information, I'm not telling who I voted for in 2004. Sorry, but you're going to have to respect the privacy of the ballot.
Funny how you like to be critical of others opinions and yet you are afraid to give your own.
Surely there is someone out there who has you thinking "I like what that guy/gal has to say".
Or are you nothing more than a party sheep? Will you with hold your opinion because you have not been told who to vote for by some talking head?
Are you a Ditto Head?
Or a Lib Bot?
Or someone who can form an opinion on their own and has the courage to speak their mind?
N3ATS
10-18-2007, 01:53 AM
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,18:55)]And no, given the way you guys misuse information, I'm not telling who I voted for in 2004. Sorry, but you're going to have to respect the privacy of the ballot.
LOL. Embarrassed by your choice huh? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Afraid your guy might take a little flak from us, huh?
N3ATS
10-18-2007, 04:24 AM
Was it this guy? (http://politics1.com/socialist04.htm)
Or maybe this guy? (http://politics1.com/wwp04.htm) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 04:47 AM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,17:08)]I have actually had to read through the boring minutes of the bored Board back in the 20's when Strong was at the table, so I am really quite aware of the way in which the US and Britain led the World into unsupported expansion of money and credit in the 1920's as well as how it all came unraveled in a perfect storm of credit collapse and trade tariffs.
And this explains the gilded age of the 1890s and the collapse that followed it how, exactly?
The Fed had very little to do with the problems of the '20s, which had more to do with stock speculation and margin credit than with monetary policy and nothing to do with the inflationary run up to the 20s, much of which was due to WW-I.
That inflationary run up, by the way happened when the US was still on the gold standard and some of it happened before the Fed was created. So much for a gold standard as a control of inflation.
You may have read the minutes of the fed Board meetings, but you certainly weren't paying attention to what was happening in the rest of the world.
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 04:54 AM
Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Oct. 17 2007,17:08)]However, the gold standard will prohibit the government (or the Fed) from printing money willy nilly, which DOES cause inflation.
Nope, not that either. There are at least two ways by which governments "get around" the gold standard, when they are on it, to print more money.
But that's not even slightly relevant in the 21st century. Do yourself a favor and compare the change in the money supply to the inflation rate over the last 30 years. You'll find they don't correlate at all.
So a return to the gold standard would be a drag on, but not a prevention of monetary supply inflation, which isn't relevant as a source of inflationary pressure.
And that's if the whole world went on a gold standard. The US unilaterally going on a gold standard wouldn't even have that drag, but would still have all the downsides.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,20:47)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,17:08)]I have actually had to read through the boring minutes of the bored Board back in the 20's when Strong was at the table, so I am really quite aware of the way in which the US and Britain led the World into unsupported expansion of money and credit in the 1920's as well as how it all came unraveled in a perfect storm of credit collapse and trade tariffs.
And this explains the gilded age of the 1890s and the collapse that followed it how, exactly?
Exactly by breadth and magnitude, both of which were increased after we had a "lender of last resort" and after we had "scientific control of money and credit."
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 05:01 AM
Quote[/b] (al2n @ Oct. 17 2007,17:14)]Funny how you like to be critical of others opinions and yet you are afraid to give your own.
It would be if I were. I share my opinions openly and widely when I have them. I've shared my opinions of Ron Paul freely here, after all.
Quote[/b] ]Surely there is someone out there who has you thinking "I like what that guy/gal has to say".
Actually I've answered that question. Look it up. It's on QRZ.
Quote[/b] ]Or are you nothing more than a party sheep? Will you with hold your opinion because you have not been told who to vote for by some talking head?
Don't you ever get tired of being that wrong?
Quote[/b] ]Are you a Ditto Head?
Or a Lib Bot?
You know, if you really can't tell, it's no surprise at all that you've been so easily taken in by Ron Paul.
Quote[/b] ]Or someone who can form an opinion on their own and has the courage to speak their mind?
Not only that, but someone who's not afraid to not have an opinion.
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 05:03 AM
Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Oct. 17 2007,18:53)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,18:55)]And no, given the way you guys misuse information, I'm not telling who I voted for in 2004. Sorry, but you're going to have to respect the privacy of the ballot.
LOL. Embarrassed by your choice huh? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Nope.
Quote[/b] ]Afraid your guy might take a little flak from us, huh?
Afraid? Nope. Certain? yup. Denying you the opportunity? Live with it.
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 05:09 AM
Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Oct. 17 2007,21:24)]Was it this guy? (http://politics1.com/socialist04.htm)
Or maybe this guy? (http://politics1.com/wwp04.htm) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
How come you didn't pick the one guy running (http://politics1.com/pfp04.htm) I'd actually met?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 05:14 AM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,21:58)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,20:47)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,17:08)]I have actually had to read through the boring minutes of the bored Board back in the 20's when Strong was at the table, so I am really quite aware of the way in which the US and Britain led the World into unsupported expansion of money and credit in the 1920's as well as how it all came unraveled in a perfect storm of credit collapse and trade tariffs.
And this explains the gilded age of the 1890s and the collapse that followed it how, exactly?
Exactly by breadth and magnitude, both of which were increased after we had a "lender of last resort" and after we had "scientific control of money and credit."
There's a fancy Latin name for the fallacy in your implication.
But I'll just settle for pointing out that most economists and reputable historians point out that the Great Depression was just another one in the boom and bust cycle that had been long running and attribute the breadth and magnitude to it being the first one of a truly world-wide economy.
The then-infant fed is only blamed by people who limit their understanding of history to the minutes of a handful of board meetings.
The irony here is that there's plenty to dislike the fed for, but you're fixating on something that wasn't even their fault.
It's much more enlightening to take a look at how Greenspan's fed has helped create the financial mess we're currently in.
KL1ZB
10-18-2007, 05:29 AM
I'm voting for Dr. Paul.
Its amazing how much support he is getting yet for some reason the media is totally oblivious to this, scary actually.
N3ATS
10-18-2007, 05:37 AM
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 18 2007,00:09)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Oct. 17 2007,21:24)]Was it this guy? (http://politics1.com/socialist04.htm)
Or maybe this guy? (http://politics1.com/wwp04.htm) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
How come you didn't pick the one guy running (http://politics1.com/pfp04.htm) I'd actually met?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I thought he was in prison?
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 05:40 AM
Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Oct. 17 2007,22:37)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 18 2007,00:09)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Oct. 17 2007,21:24)]Was it this guy? (http://politics1.com/socialist04.htm)
Or maybe this guy? (http://politics1.com/wwp04.htm) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
How come you didn't pick the one guy running (http://politics1.com/pfp04.htm) I'd actually met?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I thought he was in prison?
I met him, briefly, before he was framed.
We had common interests in those days, although he is a decade older than I.
KG4JYD
10-18-2007, 06:30 AM
Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Oct. 17 2007,22:29)]Its amazing how much support he is getting yet for some reason the media is totally oblivious to this, scary actually.
That is starting to change. Watch this brief clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2fU6OqLRCE
N3ATS
10-18-2007, 06:51 AM
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 18 2007,00:40)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Oct. 17 2007,22:37)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 18 2007,00:09)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Oct. 17 2007,21:24)]Was it this guy? (http://politics1.com/socialist04.htm)
Or maybe this guy? (http://politics1.com/wwp04.htm) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
How come you didn't pick the one guy running (http://politics1.com/pfp04.htm) I'd actually met?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I thought he was in prison?
I met him, briefly, before he was framed.
We had common interests in those days, although he is a decade older than I.
Yes, I heard about him. But I don't know much about the man.
Framed? Really?
kc7jty
10-18-2007, 07:01 AM
The media and the government are two of the biggest players. They scratch each other's backs.
Ron Paul does not fit into the machinery of the status quo, the corrupt self perpetuating politics that are permanently entrenched within America. He is a rogue, he is a real person with strong beliefs and values. He will be ignored by all who will lose if he prevails. And if he ever makes substantial gain to where he is a serious contender he will scare the crap out of them.
ae4pc
10-18-2007, 11:48 AM
http://home.nc.rr.com/taipei/You.jpg
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,21:14)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,21:58)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,20:47)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 17 2007,17:08)]I have actually had to read through the boring minutes of the bored Board back in the 20's when Strong was at the table, so I am really quite aware of the way in which the US and Britain led the World into unsupported expansion of money and credit in the 1920's as well as how it all came unraveled in a perfect storm of credit collapse and trade tariffs.
And this explains the gilded age of the 1890s and the collapse that followed it how, exactly?
Exactly by breadth and magnitude, both of which were increased after we had a "lender of last resort" and after we had "scientific control of money and credit."
There's a fancy Latin name for the fallacy in your implication.
But I'll just settle for pointing out that most economists and reputable historians point out that the Great Depression was just another one in the boom and bust cycle that had been long running and attribute the breadth and magnitude to it being the first one of a truly world-wide economy.
The then-infant fed is only blamed by people who limit their understanding of history to the minutes of a handful of board meetings.
The irony here is that there's plenty to dislike the fed for, but you're fixating on something that wasn't even their fault.
It's much more enlightening to take a look at how Greenspan's fed has helped create the financial mess we're currently in.
The Federal Reserve system has resulted in increased, broader, and longer economic distortions. The foregoing problems caused by influxes of new World Gold and Silver, international mercantilism and an ill-executed bi-bimetallist policy were small, brief and regional compared to what we have had since.
I pause now for your renewed Google efforts.
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 04:58 PM
Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Oct. 17 2007,23:51)]Yes, I heard about him. But I don't know much about the man.
Framed? Really?
That's my opinion, yeah. I'd only met him briefly and I was young, but even at the time it didn't strike me as the sort of crime he'd committ.
It's been a long time since I thought about it and I don't remember any of the details though, so I'm not going to try and make a case.
Those of us who were politically active in the '70s tend to be amused by the johnny-come-latelies telling us about lost rights and political persecution.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 18 2007,08:58)]Those of us who were politically active in the '70s tend to be amused by the johnny-come-latelies telling us about lost rights and political persecution.
Give it a rest. This late-coming pretense is sickening.
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 05:05 PM
Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 18 2007,00:01)]The media and the government are two of the biggest players. They scratch each other's backs.
Ron Paul does not fit into the machinery of the status quo, the corrupt self perpetuating politics that are permanently entrenched within America. He is a rogue, he is a real person with strong beliefs and values. He will be ignored by all who will lose if he prevails. And if he ever makes substantial gain to where he is a serious contender he will scare the crap out of them.
When I was young, I had the good fortune of knowing Montana's Senator, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield. Into the seventies, you could still easily find honorable men in the Senate and even the House. Mansfield was such a man.
Later I would campaign actively for Max Baucus when he first ran for the same position. Max's rhetoric was not at all different from yours.
Max turned out to be less than stellar.
Ron Paul strikes me as much closer to Max Baucus than to Mike Mansfield, except less capable of accomplishing anything.
Y'all have been suckered by the rhetoric of convenience.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 18 2007,09:05)]Y'all have been suckered by the rhetoric of convenience.
More succinctly, we are not suckered by your late-arriving pretensions. You know as well as I that you are completely focussed on slaying Internet dragons.
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 05:15 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 18 2007,10:09)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 18 2007,09:05)]Y'all have been suckered by the rhetoric of convenience.
More succinctly, we are not suckered by your late-arriving pretensions. You know as well as I that you are completely focussed on slaying Internet dragons.
Good ole McGraw, unable to answer arguments, drops, as usual, immediately into ad hominem.
The sad thing, McGraw is that since Paul stands no chance of ever being elected, you'll never get to see the proof of how badly you've been suckered.
WB2WIK
10-18-2007, 05:33 PM
From http://www.theatlantic.com this morning:
>Paul’s third-quarter financial disclosure report is sprinkled with supporters whose self-descriptions of their occupations are unusual, to say the least. Wade Talkington of Panama City, Fla., who donated $1,000 to Paul, lists his occupation as “tax slave to the Federal Govt.” Erik Hovden of Olalla, Wash., is the “Head slacker in Chg” at Simpson LLC, and housewife Pamela Schuberg of Moorpark, Calif., a $2,300 donor, lists her employer as “our children.”
Donald Cowles lists himself as self-employed and his occupation as simply “Capitalist.” On the opposite end, David Cameron of San Jose, Calif., lists his employer as “Looking for Work” and his job as “Unemployed.” Still, Cameron has given a total of $1,900 to the campaign.
Griswold Draz of Wellfleet, Mass., a $500 donor, is a self-described “curmudgeon,” and Andrew Maul of Pittsburgh, Pa., is a “Citizen Fighting Tyranny.” Others are more coy. James Harper of Vancouver, Wash., a $600 donor, offered “guess? ;)” as his occupation.
Starchild, a San Francisco-based escort and exotic dancer who ended up on Paul’s list as “Star Child,” contributed $300.<
I love it.
WB2WIK/6
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 18 2007,09:15)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 18 2007,10:09)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 18 2007,09:05)]Y'all have been suckered by the rhetoric of convenience.
More succinctly, we are not suckered by your late-arriving pretensions. You know as well as I that you are completely focussed on slaying Internet dragons.
Good ole McGraw, unable to answer arguments, drops, as usual, immediately into ad hominem.
The sad thing, McGraw is that since Paul stands no chance of ever being elected, you'll never get to see the proof of how badly you've been suckered.
You made no argument, but offered a new pretense of sincerity to obfuscate the obvious nature of your need to bolster your ego by appearing smart on an Internet forum. I am sure it sucks that I know this.
We are still waiting to hear who Marty feels is the best Presidential Candidate in the running so far.
For someone of such strong opinion, you seem to be lacking.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,22:03)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Oct. 17 2007,18:53)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 17 2007,18:55)]And no, given the way you guys misuse information, I'm not telling who I voted for in 2004. Sorry, but you're going to have to respect the privacy of the ballot.
LOL. Embarrassed by your choice huh? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Nope.
Quote[/b] ]Afraid your guy might take a little flak from us, huh?
Afraid? Nope. Certain? yup. Denying you the opportunity? Live with it.
Translation of Marty's comments: I can dish it out, but I cannot take it.
KL1ZB
10-18-2007, 07:34 PM
What happens when the the Diebold machines declare Bush the winner???
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 10:18 PM
Quote[/b] (al2n @ Oct. 18 2007,11:54)]We are still waiting to hear who Marty feels is the best Presidential Candidate in the running so far.
For someone of such strong opinion, you seem to be lacking.
I've actually answered that question as well.
You really need to use the search box until your memory improves.
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 10:21 PM
Quote[/b] (al2n @ Oct. 18 2007,11:56)]Translation of Marty's comments: I can dish it out, but I cannot take it.
It really sucks for you that I won't give you ammunition to turn this in to ad hominem doesn't it?
If you had backed a better candidate you wouldn't be wasting so much time attacking people who pointed out his flaws.
For you, I suggest Barek Obama.
AE6IP
10-18-2007, 10:26 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 18 2007,10:44)]You made no argument, but offered a new pretense of sincerity to obfuscate the obvious nature of your need to bolster your ego by appearing smart on an Internet forum. I am sure it sucks that I know this.
Actually, McGraw, you're not paying attention again. I've already mentioned the comparison between Max Baucus and Ron Paul some while back.
And I have made an argument: Ron Paul's rhetoric reads like Max Baucus' did back in the 70s, but in retrospect, I can now see the signs in Baucus' rhetoric that I didn't see then.
I'm sorry you've been hoodwinked McGraw, and I wish you could open your mind enough to understand how, but I'm not at all surprised that you were or that you can't.
kc7jty
10-18-2007, 10:52 PM
Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Oct. 18 2007,12:34)]What happens when the the Diebold machines declare Bush the winner???
8 more years.
kc7jty
10-18-2007, 11:12 PM
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 18 2007,10:05)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 18 2007,00:01)]The media and the government are two of the biggest players. They scratch each other's backs.
Ron Paul does not fit into the machinery of the status quo, the corrupt self perpetuating politics that are permanently entrenched within America. He is a rogue, he is a real person with strong beliefs and values. He will be ignored by all who will lose if he prevails. And if he ever makes substantial gain to where he is a serious contender he will scare the crap out of them.
When I was young, I had the good fortune of knowing Montana's Senator, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield. Into the seventies, you could still easily find honorable men in the Senate and even the House. Mansfield was such a man.
Later I would campaign actively for Max Baucus when he first ran for the same position. Max's rhetoric was not at all different from yours.
Max turned out to be less than stellar.
Ron Paul strikes me as much closer to Max Baucus than to Mike Mansfield, except less capable of accomplishing anything.
Y'all have been suckered by the rhetoric of convenience.
if I happen upon 2 arguing in the street, like most I will form an opinion even though I don't know which is more in the right.
Such is the case with Ron Paul & I. The stench of the alternatives has driven me to hope in him, but unlike many I won't vote for I don't feel qualified, or knowledgable enough about him to do so.
He does seem to be driven by libertarian ideals and not just some opportunist fancy.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 18 2007,15:21)]Quote[/b] (al2n @ Oct. 18 2007,11:56)]Translation of Marty's comments: I can dish it out, but I cannot take it.
It really sucks for you that I won't give you ammunition to turn this in to ad hominem doesn't it?
If you had backed a better candidate you wouldn't be wasting so much time attacking people who pointed out his flaws.
For you, I suggest Barek Obama.
It is Barack, not Bareck.
For someone who likes to nit pick spelling, I would have expected more.
Hukd on foniks werkd fer me!
AE6IP
10-19-2007, 01:11 AM
Quote[/b] (al2n @ Oct. 18 2007,17:09)]It is Barack, not Bareck.
my bad.
Good to know you're going with the man, though.
Quote[/b] (al2n @ Oct. 18 2007,16:09)]It is Barack, not Bareck.
Lay off the legumes OM, and you might not be so gassy.
W2ILP
10-19-2007, 01:24 AM
It might be worthwhile hearing what Ron Paul has to say even if he has no chance of being nominated. I listened to him and I agree with some of his observations although not all of his recommendations. In a way this is how I felt about Ross Perot when he spoke.
If more people would listen to more people maybe there might be enough people who don't just vote for familiar names...like Bush or Clinton.
w2ilp (Interesting Logical Politicians)...deserve our attention even though in a mass democracy they can't appeal to the masses or collect enough campaign money.
N3ATS
10-19-2007, 04:47 AM
Obama is just another Congress Critter. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
KG4JYD
10-19-2007, 05:38 AM
His policies are more like Barry Goldwater. And BTW, Barry Jr actively supports Ron Paul.
kc7jty
10-20-2007, 02:12 AM
The alphabet news did a piece on RP tonight. They clearly stated he wants to do away with social security. He doesn't stand a chance. AARP will see to that.
Grab that third rail Ronnie the jolt is deadly.