Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[vanfullofretards]

show some respect Van

I will when she exposes her... well, you know



btw why dont you show some respect for the people that were in the planes that crashed into the WTC?
But lets not turn this into a 9/11 thread.

[10sicz.chick]

I will when she exposes her... well, you know



btw why dont you show some respect for the people that were in the planes that crashed into the WTC?
But lets not turn this into a 9/11 thread.

what? When did they find solid evidence that there were people on the planes when they hit the building?

[10sicz.chick]

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

[russell jones]

Here's something for you liberty lovers! A chance to create your own utopia:

http://www.freestateproject.org/

[theme from the bottom]

just out of curiosity, do you paul supporters really still think this guy stands a chance of becoming president?

[lord_casek]

just out of curiosity, do you paul supporters really still think this guy stands a chance of becoming president?

we're hoping. do you think (insert your smarmy candidate here) stands a chance? well, so do we.

[10sicz.chick]

the doubters always ask "do you really think he can win" or say "there is no way he can win"
to say or ask this is to miss the point entirely.
We hope he can win.
More importantly his role is a figure head for revolution....something this country has not seen in a very long time.
More importantly he is a figure head for a higher level of consciousness of what is really is really going on in the world.
As one of his supporters say...the answer to 1984 is 1776.
It is so friggin obvious that 1984 is at its early stages now.
The machine creates a smoke screen of freedom.
Let us free you from the responsibility of having free speech (political correctness taken too far)
Let us free you by making it consistently more difficult to bear arms legally.
Let us free you from the burden of having choice.
Let us free you from the responsibility of having more money and the burden of what to do with it.
Let us free you of personal responsibility.


Ron Paul is not a man....He is a way of thinking, a way of living.

[theme from the bottom]

we're hoping. do you think (insert your smarmy candidate here) stands a chance? well, so do we.

please elaborate on "smarmy candidate."

[lord_casek]

please elaborate on "smarmy candidate."



mccain, hillary, obama, romney, 9/11.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

[theme from the bottom]

err...ok?
i believe you've used "smarmy" out of context.

[MayorMeanBeans]

Ron Paul is not a man....He is a way of thinking, a way of living.

haha

[thinksmall]

Iunos if you're being sarcastic Mayor, but it's true. Laissez-faire.

[lord_casek]

err...ok?
i believe you've used "smarmy" out of context.


Adjective

S: (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=smarmy&i=0&h=0#c) (adj) buttery (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=buttery), fulsome (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=fulsome), oily (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=oily), oleaginous (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=oleaginous), smarmy, soapy (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=soapy), unctuous (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=unctuous) (unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating in manner or speech) "buttery praise"; "gave him a fulsome introduction"; "an oily sycophantic press agent"; "oleaginous hypocrisy"; "smarmy self-importance"; "the unctuous Uriah Heep"; "soapy compliments"

oleaginous

Of or relating to oil.
Falsely or smugly earnest; unctuous: oleaginous flattery.

[theme from the bottom]

im fully aware of the definition of smarmy. you havent given any sort of explanation for your use of the word. especially when you didn't even specify a candidate in your original post.

give examples or fail.

[lord_casek]

im fully aware of the definition of smarmy. you havent given any sort of explanation for your use of the word. especially when you didn't even specify a candidate in your original post.

give examples or fail.

did i fucking have to? the rest of the candidates are globalist elites who only want what is in their best interest, not yours or mine. their tongues wag, but their actions speak differently.

so, you want me to specify? obamas wife is CFR. he's for socialized medicine. real trouble. mccain was part of the keating five, his wife was indicted on drug charges, hillbilly and mena + all the murders committed while they sat in the whitehouse. nothing else needs to be said. mittwitt, a fucking criminal who wants to take away your guns and follow bush's plans to stay in the middle east.

what else do you want me to say about these whitewashed mannequins?

[10sicz.chick]

don't forget clinton beinging recruited into British Intelligence

[lord_casek]

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

or the bonus: hillary being backed by mann coulter.
big surprise right? especially after rupert (my cock is in hannity's mouth) murdoch
supporting hill-bill financially for over a year.

[Juan Fuentes]

the USA should break up in two parts, a Ron Paul part and a NWO part...let's see who ends up in concentration camps...

[10sicz.chick]

someone needs to force feed zombie coulter some chicken n biscuits. self righteous whore. She is determined to solidify her place in cfr/bildeberger by sucking ass. She is so stupid to think that they woke sacrifice her.

[angelofdeath]

^^ haha, word

[El Mamerro]

Ron Paul is not a man....He is a way of thinking, a way of living.haha

Double haha (hahahaha)

Seriously, I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul... don't agree with him on a lot, but dude is straight up with his shit and I admire that. But damn if you guys are making it waaaaay easy to dismiss his following. The fervency and obsessiveness over your candidate has gone from helpful to detrimental to his image.

Carry on though.

[theme from the bottom]

did i fucking have to? the rest of the candidates are globalist elites who only want what is in their best interest, not yours or mine. their tongues wag, but their actions speak differently.

so, you want me to specify? obamas wife is CFR. he's for socialized medicine. real trouble. mccain was part of the keating five, his wife was indicted on drug charges, hillbilly and mena + all the murders committed while they sat in the whitehouse. nothing else needs to be said. mittwitt, a fucking criminal who wants to take away your guns and follow bush's plans to stay in the middle east.

what else do you want me to say about these whitewashed mannequins?


that still doesnt fit the definition of smarmy. in fact, you gave a list of synonyms for the word. the definition paraphrased is relating to a false sense of earnestness. that covers all politicians, but just the same, poor choice of words.

and if you had paid attention to out past discussions, you would know that none of those mentioned by you are my candidate.

fail.

www.merriamwebster.com

[theme from the bottom]

funny though, seeing that even his supporters have basically surrendered to the fact that he is simply not going to win, this thread seems to have turned more into a republican/libertarian meet and greet thread.

and you were all so enthusiastic in the beginning!

[10sicz.chick]

Double haha (hahahaha)

Seriously, I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul... don't agree with him on a lot, but dude is straight up with his shit and I admire that. But damn if you guys are making it waaaaay easy to dismiss his following. The fervency and obsessiveness over your candidate has gone from helpful to detrimental to his image.

Carry on though.

may i ask what you don't agree with him on?

[10sicz.chick]

funny though, seeing that even his supporters have basically surrendered to the fact that he is simply not going to win, this thread seems to have turned more into a republican/libertarian meet and greet thread.

and you were all so enthusiastic in the beginning!

i personally don't know anyone who actually thought he would win, we all hope though. Him winning is only the icing on the cake. Social change and enlightenment though political/financial reform has always been the cake.

[thinksmall]

that still doesnt fit the definition of smarmy. in fact, you gave a list of synonyms for the word. the definition paraphrased is relating to a false sense of earnestness. that covers all politicians, but just the same, poor choice of words.

and if you had paid attention to out past discussions, you would know that none of those mentioned by you are my candidate.

fail.

www.merriamwebster.com

Wait huh. Who you going for then. I'm not searching.

Anyways I vanted to pvlay a gvame, a gvame of gvuessing.

My guess says your choice is either be Hillary, Kucinich, or Huckabee. But Huckabee is stupid, and Kucinich doesn't have the 'chance-to-win' capability that requires your support. So it's Hilary.

I win?

[El Mamerro]

may i ask what you don't agree with him on?

His hairstyle. Dude needs a bitchin' mohawk.

[theme from the bottom]

lol, yeah because we all know that getting rid of the federal reserve is a brilliant idea.

[10sicz.chick]

lol, yeah because we all know that getting rid of the federal reserve is a brilliant idea.

oh don't worry about that, he just doesn't want it to be a private corporation and makes sure it under the control of the government so that when the government wants to audit the books....a full disclosure is provided in a timely manner.

Also he wants to insure that a money doesn't cost more to produce than its monetary value is. Every dollar has debt attached to it. That debt is paid for with more paper money. So it is a never ending cycle of debt.

[thinksmall]

An outstanding amount of economists believe that the federal reserve system is terrible. The federal reserve goes against laissez-faire economy fundamentally.

Sure you may not believe that the people who run it are up to no good, but you should know that it does no good. Ha..

You should really study economy, even briefly, before going obanuts on a big portion of the economists community.

[lord_casek]

lol, yeah because we all know that getting rid of the federal reserve is a brilliant idea.


are you rush limbaugh's nephew or something?

[yumone]

I have to admit having so many foolish people supporting Ron Paul for the wrong reasons makes me slightly embarrassed to like him so much. (not directed at you Casek you're alright, sometimes...)

[Theo.Huxtable]

I just wanna say that Mitt Romney's grin at other candidates while they speak is a little creepy.

[lord_casek]

I just wanna say that Mitt Romney's grin at other candidates while they speak is a little creepy.

that's what happens when "i am robot" comes to life.

[angelofdeath]

i always giggle when people defend the very institutions, (the fed in this case) that has created all most of our problems in the last century.

[lord_casek]

thought some of you might enjoy reading this and observing the similarities..

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.[4]

[10sicz.chick]

i always giggle when people defend the very institutions, (the fed in this case) that has created all most of our problems in the last century.

i don't giggle, because its sad. This institutions are familiar, comforting and become habit like many things do. Breaking habits are scary, painful, rebounds are common, often require new ways of thinking or replacement with constructive/healthy habits. The process is lengthy and arduous.


oh....arduous, bubble letter time.

[10sicz.chick]

thought some of you might enjoy reading this and observing the similarities..

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.[4]


This is scary....time to move to militia camps.

For those of you who haven't read:

Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future)
I have found it to be thought provoking.





The five bullet points of the introduction:

Introduction

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering—even in "advanced" countries.

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it may eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: there is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.

4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence: it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can't predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a political revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.

5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

[the.crooked]

His hairstyle. Dude needs a bitchin' mohawk.



on fuego [sic]

[theme from the bottom]

An outstanding amount of economists believe that the federal reserve system is terrible. The federal reserve goes against laissez-faire economy fundamentally.

Sure you may not believe that the people who run it are up to no good, but you should know that it does no good. Ha..

You should really study economy, even briefly, before going obanuts on a big portion of the economists community.


funny, my brother has his masters in economics and has been working with and in the "economists community" for some time now. i've heared quite the opposite from him and every single one of his colleagues. the jist of it being that doing away with the federal reserve would create the biggest disaster our nation has ever been through.

[angelofdeath]

"the jist of it being that doing away with the federal reserve would create the biggest disaster our nation has ever been through"

the federal reserve has caused the purchasing power of the dollar of 2008 to be worth $.04. inflation is a killer. it kills capital. eliminating the fed would have to be done in phases. first you would legalize competition in monetary units. make gold and silver legal tender again.
if US were put back on the gold standard, government would be checked. it couldnt travel the world being the world police. it would be held accountable on spending because it couldnt print money. the people would have the power.

if that is bad, i guess you are right the fed is a bad thing. especially to beltwayites. if you want a government that cradles you from birth to death, and has endless wars, then yeah, the fed is a great thing. the first central bank in england was created especially for the king to finance wars.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Well only the US Congress has the ability to have everyone agree completely on an issue and have it go forth as the truth. So I wouldn't put much into the fact that your brother disagrees.

And since I doubt your brother is the leading expert on these issues I'll stick to the overwhelming evidences that supports the fact that this country is better off without a private bank controlling our economy from the shadows. C'mon man, even your brother has to admit that it is a little too trustworthy, right?

[angelofdeath]

most 'economists' tend to support the big brother state. they are the ones that urge you to only buy stocks. and that they can never go down. they also never predict recessions and only predict growth.

economists are like stockbrokers who are like barbers. to a barber you always need a haircut. so it is with the fed. you always need their guidance on monetary matters. they say they can make a dollar act like gold, yet have destroyed the dollar. and people still defend it all based on fallacy.

[10sicz.chick]

"the jist of it being that doing away with the federal reserve would create the biggest disaster our nation has ever been through"

the federal reserve has caused the purchasing power of the dollar of 2008 to be worth $.04. inflation is a killer. it kills capital. eliminating the fed would have to be done in phases. first you would legalize competition in monetary units. make gold and silver legal tender again.
if US were put back on the gold standard, government would be checked. it couldnt travel the world being the world police. it would be held accountable on spending because it couldnt print money. the people would have the power.

if that is bad, i guess you are right the fed is a bad thing. especially to beltwayites. if you want a government that cradles you from birth to death, and has endless wars, then yeah, the fed is a great thing. the first central bank in england was created especially for the king to finance wars.

dead on!

Viva la Revolution!

[thinksmall]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USACPI1800.png

[theme from the bottom]

"the jist of it being that doing away with the federal reserve would create the biggest disaster our nation has ever been through"

the federal reserve has caused the purchasing power of the dollar of 2008 to be worth $.04. inflation is a killer. it kills capital. eliminating the fed would have to be done in phases. first you would legalize competition in monetary units. make gold and silver legal tender again.
if US were put back on the gold standard, government would be checked. it couldnt travel the world being the world police. it would be held accountable on spending because it couldnt print money. the people would have the power.

if that is bad, i guess you are right the fed is a bad thing. especially to beltwayites. if you want a government that cradles you from birth to death, and has endless wars, then yeah, the fed is a great thing. the first central bank in england was created especially for the king to finance wars.



Hey, this is Theme's brother, the one with the master's in Economics. I'm not a beltwayite, but I do work in the financial sector and I read a lot of literature on finance and economics. So I feel a have a decent grip of the issues, and there isn't a lot of support among economists for eliminating the Fed. I don't know of any serious serious economists that support it.

What do you mean when you say that the Fed has caused the purchasing power of the dollar in 2008 to be worth $.04? I'm not clear what this number means. Are you talking about the exchange rate? If you are then your numbers are way off.

As for the Fed printing money to finance wars, that's not what it does. If it did, the US government wouldn't be running a budget deficit - they would just print more money. The Fed has nothing to do with foreign policy. We fought the Spanish American War while we were on the gold standard, so I don't see how going back on it would keep us from being the world police.

As far as inflation, you're right that inflation kills capital, but is this something you're really worried about? You say that economists are the only people who urge you to buy stocks. Well stockholders tend to have a lot of capital, so they're the ones who would be most hurt by inflation.

You're also correct that going back on gold would virtually eliminate inflation, but the Fed can also do this. It ended the inflation of the late 70s and early 80s by limiting the growth of the money supply.

Listen, I'm not trying to say that the Fed is the greatest or most democratic institution ever. But you guys seem to have no idea what it actually does. If you think the Fed is "controlling our economy from the shadows," maybe you're just not reading the right media. There are a whole slew of magazines and newspapers that report on the Fed's every move.

I think the Iraq war was possibly the greatest mistake in the history of our country. I think that personal liberty is under threat because of the Patriot Act. I just don't see what the Fed has to do with any of this.

[lord_casek]

hey, theme's brother: good to have you here. you should grab an account just so we can shoot the shit.

here are some articles you may like to read:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3111659.ece
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold

[angelofdeath]

when the fed was created the US dollar was worth one dollar. to buy that same thing that cost one dollar in 1913 (roughly from 1913-late 1920's) you now need a $1.96. the dollar has declined in value, that is, has been inflated away by 96%.

the fed does print money. governments have 3 ways to grow. they can tax. if they taxed us for everything they spend, the 2nd american revolution would of started around the time of the new deal. they can borrow. right now we borrow something like 2 billion dollars a day from the chinese. or they can inflate the money supply. the increase the money supply, therefore lowering the value of the dollars already in circulation.

without the FED we would not be the worlds police nor have the huge welfare state that we have. they create money out of thin air. the fed buys bonds by placing 0's on the computer screen. or they simply print more money to add to circulation.

the fed could probably technically eliminate inflation, but it cant. the political pressure for easy money and credit is to much. they have not stopped inflation, ever. as i said, we have lost 96% of the dollars value since 1913.
then again, im an austrian type gold bug, so i dont expect much of anyone side with me. the only time the austrians get a mention is when the booms bust.

[lord_casek]

theme broham:

http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986395/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202081200&sr=8-1

[10sicz.chick]

woot. share pictures when ya get em.

There is a picture of my ass and my stencil in my profile.....created just for you.

hehe

[lord_casek]

There is a picture of my ass and my stencil in my profile.....created just for you.

hehe

we need more so we can fully analyze the breadth of your....eh, fuckit. we want to see your tits.

[10sicz.chick]

we need more so we can fully analyze the breadth of your....eh, fuckit. we want to see your tits.



i'll talk to dude about it and see what He thinks.

[lord_casek]

i'll talk to dude about it and see what He thinks.

i'll give you props. extra props if you write "ron paul 2008" on them.

[thinksmall]

There is a picture of my ass and my stencil in my profile.....created just for you.

hehe

:eek: :) :cool:

[thinksmall]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC7uVdf3Zo8&feature=related

This guy is really smart.

Ron Paul Revolution: All over the world!!!

[the.crooked]

Two things-


Themefromthebottom: hear hear.



Casek: you are awesome. hookin up the tits even in crossfire...

[angelofdeath]

haha, casek = pimp
he cant just be happy that there is a chick that likes ron paul, he has to push his luck.

[10sicz.chick]

Hey, As for the Fed printing money to finance wars, that's not what it does. If it did, the US government wouldn't be running a budget deficit - they would just print more money. The Fed has nothing to do with foreign policy. We fought the Spanish American War while we were on the gold standard, so I don't see how going back on it would keep us from being the world police.


If on average, our national debt has been increasing by 1.5 billion dollars a day, then where in the hell is the money coming from to fund our invasion and occupation of Iraq?

We spend IOU's and borrowed money....money from china for example. Our IOU's are the money we print out of thin air....that has no value because it isn't backed by anything but a promise. It cost most money to get a dollar into circulation than the monetary value it yields. Money production is debt production. The Fed is really good at rolling over debt. They charge up one credit card and then get another to pay off the first...meanwhile they are racking up balances on credit cards.

[10sicz.chick]

Oh..and "theme's brother", when you respond, can you dumb it down for me as i don't have a Masters or bachelors in econ and i get a handicap for my blondness.


Hey, this is Theme's brother, the one with the master's in Economics. I'm not a beltwayite, but I do work in the financial sector and I read a lot of literature on finance and economics. So I feel a have a decent grip of the issues, and there isn't a lot of support among economists for eliminating the Fed. I don't know of any serious serious economists that support it.

What do you mean when you say that the Fed has caused the purchasing power of the dollar in 2008 to be worth $.04? I'm not clear what this number means. Are you talking about the exchange rate? If you are then your numbers are way off.

As for the Fed printing money to finance wars, that's not what it does. If it did, the US government wouldn't be running a budget deficit - they would just print more money. The Fed has nothing to do with foreign policy. We fought the Spanish American War while we were on the gold standard, so I don't see how going back on it would keep us from being the world police.

As far as inflation, you're right that inflation kills capital, but is this something you're really worried about? You say that economists are the only people who urge you to buy stocks. Well stockholders tend to have a lot of capital, so they're the ones who would be most hurt by inflation.

You're also correct that going back on gold would virtually eliminate inflation, but the Fed can also do this. It ended the inflation of the late 70s and early 80s by limiting the growth of the money supply.

Listen, I'm not trying to say that the Fed is the greatest or most democratic institution ever. But you guys seem to have no idea what it actually does. If you think the Fed is "controlling our economy from the shadows," maybe you're just not reading the right media. There are a whole slew of magazines and newspapers that report on the Fed's every move.

I think the Iraq war was possibly the greatest mistake in the history of our country. I think that personal liberty is under threat because of the Patriot Act. I just don't see what the Fed has to do with any of this.

[theme from the bottom]

when the fed was created the US dollar was worth one dollar. to buy that same thing that cost one dollar in 1913 (roughly from 1913-late 1920's) you now need a $1.96. the dollar has declined in value, that is, has been inflated away by 96%.

the fed does print money. governments have 3 ways to grow. they can tax. if they taxed us for everything they spend, the 2nd american revolution would of started around the time of the new deal. they can borrow. right now we borrow something like 2 billion dollars a day from the chinese. or they can inflate the money supply. the increase the money supply, therefore lowering the value of the dollars already in circulation.

without the FED we would not be the worlds police nor have the huge welfare state that we have. they create money out of thin air. the fed buys bonds by placing 0's on the computer screen. or they simply print more money to add to circulation.

the fed could probably technically eliminate inflation, but it cant. the political pressure for easy money and credit is to much. they have not stopped inflation, ever. as i said, we have lost 96% of the dollars value since 1913.
then again, im an austrian type gold bug, so i dont expect much of anyone side with me. the only time the austrians get a mention is when the booms bust.


If something that used to cost $1.00 now costs $1.96, then it's roughly twice as expensive. So money has lost half its value, not 96%.

It's true that the value of money has declined, which is another way of saying that the price of things has been rising. But wages have been rising too. I don't know what the actual number is for average income in 1913 and 2000, but I'm sure it more than doubled. So, on average, we're a lot better off than we were in 1913. And sometimes inflation is actually driven by increasing wages.

You're right that the fed prints money (or just creates it electronically). But the Fed does not fund the US government. There's two markets for US government bonds: the primary and the secondary market. This is kind of technical, but it's absolutely crucial to understanding what the Fed does. The primary market is when the government issues bonds -it's the government selling bonds to raise money. The secondary market is when people who have already bought the bonds resell them. The money in the secondary market goes to whoever owned the bond, not the government.

The Fed buys (and sells) bonds in the secondary market. It does not buy bonds in the primary market, precisely because this would be printing money and handing it to the government. And this would cause hyperinflation.

So the Fed is not responsible for the the welfare state and us being the world police. We still fought wars before it was created. And it's true that the Chinese are lending the US government some absurd amount of money, but the Fed has nothing to do with that either.

[lord_casek]

and would you also agree that there is nothing really federal about the federal reserve?
that it is really just another private bank?

[theme from the bottom]

and would you also agree that there is nothing really federal about the federal reserve?
that it is really just another private bank?


Yeah, is has kind of a weird status. Technically the Fed isn't even part of the government. But they do have the power to print money, which anyone else would get thrown in jail for. I guess quasi-governmental would be the best way to describe it.

[lord_casek]

Yeah, is has kind of a weird status. Technically the Fed isn't even part of the government. But they do have the power to print money, which anyone else would get thrown in jail for. I guess quasi-governmental would be the best way to describe it.

check out "the creature from jekyll island" if you get a chance. you might gain some knowledge of the goings on, hell you might be very aware of it.

[angelofdeath]

"So the Fed is not responsible for the the welfare state and us being the world police. We still fought wars before it was created. And it's true that the Chinese are lending the US government some absurd amount of money, but the Fed has nothing to do with that either."

this is not meant in the total literal sense. of course they have money, from taxes and borrowing. but the FED is the last enabler to inflate the money supply, which in turn gives the political class money.
seriously, i know the fed is complicated... but congress issues a bond and the FED buys it by putting 0's on a computer screen.

no, your math is wrong. the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power(more accurately close to 96% of its purchasing power, according to the bureau of labor statitstics itself.
every year, the government prints money, and makes accumulated capital disappear. it penalizes savers.
i find it odd that a econ major does not understand this.

but i think we are missing the main reason to abolish the fed. to end the business cycle. the bust is due. long over due. the fed is trying to prolong the mess it has created. the chickens will come home to roost. we may see a depression again. we may see a time when only the optimists invest in cold, when others are diversifying into canned goods. im not sure, but its not a question of 'if' its a question of 'when.'

[theme from the bottom]

"So the Fed is not responsible for the the welfare state and us being the world police. We still fought wars before it was created. And it's true that the Chinese are lending the US government some absurd amount of money, but the Fed has nothing to do with that either."

this is not meant in the total literal sense. of course they have money, from taxes and borrowing. but the FED is the last enabler to inflate the money supply, which in turn gives the political class money.
seriously, i know the fed is complicated... but congress issues a bond and the FED buys it by putting 0's on a computer screen.

no, your math is wrong. the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power(more accurately close to 96% of its purchasing power, according to the bureau of labor statitstics itself.
every year, the government prints money, and makes accumulated capital disappear. it penalizes savers.
i find it odd that a econ major does not understand this.

but i think we are missing the main reason to abolish the fed. to end the business cycle. the bust is due. long over due. the fed is trying to prolong the mess it has created. the chickens will come home to roost. we may see a depression again. we may see a time when only the optimists invest in cold, when others are diversifying into canned goods. im not sure, but its not a question of 'if' its a question of 'when.'




When Congress issues a bond, the Fed does not buy it. They only buy bonds in the secondary market. This may seem like semantics or some stupid technicality but it's not. The Fed does not print money and hand it to Congress. Your basic argument seems to be that the US government does a lot of terrible things, and the Fed's money allows them to do it, but this is false. The Fed DOES NOT FUND the US government.

As for the math, if prices have roughly doubled, then money has lost half its value. Right? Send me the link to the BLS site.

The political class existed before the Fed was created. We foughts wars before the Fed was created. The business cycle existed before the Fed. The 1800's weren't some Utopia without conflict or classes or recessions. Eliminating the Fed won't change any of this.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Of course not. Nobody is saying that without the FED that the United States would be an economic utopia.

What we are saying is, the people of this country would be a lot better off, without the FED, and after all that is what it's all about.

[iloveboxcars]

i think theme from the bottom's brother is talking in circles for a reason.

[10sicz.chick]

i think theme from the bottom's brother is talking in circles for a reason.

and i still haven't gotten a response or my question answered :(

[theme from the bottom]

If on average, our national debt has been increasing by 1.5 billion dollars a day, then where in the hell is the money coming from to fund our invasion and occupation of Iraq?

We spend IOU's and borrowed money....money from china for example. Our IOU's are the money we print out of thin air....that has no value because it isn't backed by anything but a promise. It cost most money to get a dollar into circulation than the monetary value it yields. Money production is debt production. The Fed is really good at rolling over debt. They charge up one credit card and then get another to pay off the first...meanwhile they are racking up balances on credit cards.



The money comes from whoever buys bonds from the US government. The Chinese government buys a whole shitload of them, as do investors and banks and whoever else.

It's not true that it costs more money to put a dollar into circulation than the monetary value it yields. Why would this be the case? How much does the actual ink and and paper cost?

You're correct that our money isn't backed by anything, but this doesn't matter. As long as everyone agrees to accept it as legal tender, it doesn't need to be backed by anything. Mont countries don't back up their money with anything. This may sound bad, but it's not. When was the last time someone refused your money because it wasn't backed by gold?

The Fed isn't good at rolling over debt, because they're not the ones who issue debt - they don't issue US government bonds.

[thecoldmidwest]

The money comes from whoever buys bonds from the US government. You're correct that our money isn't backed by anything, but this doesn't matter. As long as everyone agrees to accept it as legal tender, it doesn't need to be backed by anything.
If money is not backed with anything, what's stopping those who run the fed from printing as much as they want? Nothing, and that's what their doing. And what's the result? A shit load of inflation. And how does inflation affect the common man? Well, a weeks groceries ten years ago cost $90, now it's $200. Did wages go up enough to make up for it? Unfortunately, no.

Something has to change, and soon.

[theme from the bottom]

If money is not backed with anything, what's stopping those who run the fed from printing as much as they want? Nothing, and that's what their doing. And what's the result? A shit load of inflation. And how does inflation affect the common man? Well, a weeks groceries ten years ago cost $90, now it's $200. Did wages go up enough to make up for it? Unfortunately, no.

Something has to change, and soon.



OK, no one seems to be getting the point that the Fed doesn't just print money and hand it out. If it did do this, that would be a good reason to abolish it. But it doesn't. Sometimes the Fed even takes money out of circulation. This is how it raises interest rates. This is what it did in the 80s to stop the inflation that was getting out of control.

So you're telling me that food prices have increased 122% since 1997? I remember 1997, so I don't really believe this. And angelofdeath is telling me that prices have increased 96% since 1913. Can we start listing sources for our numbers?

Inflation isn't due exclusively to the money supply. The price of food and oil has increased a lot lately, and this is because of things the Fed can't control. The price of food has increased all over the world largely because of increased demand for food, especially from China.

I don't know how I ended up being the defender of the establishment here. I have some pretty radical political views myself. But if you guys really want to change the system, you should at least understand how it works. And it's clear that you don't.

[the.crooked]

I think it is funny, because we are speaking of gold the exact way Theme is trying to get y'all to speak about non backed money.


He is absolutely right though, money is purely just an arbitrary exchange of agreed value. Backing isn't anything more than adding another layer of arbitrary value.


Have any of you ever read "Fetishism of Commodities" by Marx?



Cus ya should. It sorta provides a good way of understanding how a seemingly well placed monetary system always can be reduced to arbitrary value. Cus he starts from there and builds it up.

[Qawee]

Uh oh
if you start quoting marx in here you might be hung.
you know what thread we are in don't you?

[MayorMeanBeans]

most union/office jobs have automatic pay increases of 3% precisely to counteract the effect of inflation. the 70s and 80s were hard times, but 1992 forwards inflation has not become a political issue so much as an economic one (it becomes political when prices grow twice as fast as wages).

http://www.forecasts.org/images/leading-indicator/inflation.gif

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/10/inflation.gif

[10sicz.chick]

You're correct that our money isn't backed by anything, but this doesn't matter. As long as everyone agrees to accept it as legal tender, it doesn't need to be backed by anything. Mont countries don't back up their money with anything. This may sound bad, but it's not. When was the last time someone refused your money because it wasn't backed by gold?

Isn't China on a silver backed monetary system? Doesn't China own the US's ass?

I wasn't there when the US went off the gold standard....but I imagine that citizens were not giving a choice....it seems it was forced upon them. Were you when it happened? Was was the attitude of the country when it was adopted.

[theme from the bottom]

Isn't China on a silver backed monetary system? Doesn't China own the US's ass?

I wasn't there when the US went off the gold standard....but I imagine that citizens were not giving a choice....it seems it was forced upon them. Were you when it happened? Was was the attitude of the country when it was adopted.


China is not on a silver backed system, but it is true that they own a huge amount of US assets.

There have been periods when the "citizens" have supported going off the gold standard. Inflation causes money to be worth less; if you owe a lot of money, you owe less after inflation. So inflation can sometimes hurt creditors (the poor) and help debtors (the rich).

A case in point is the Populist Party in the late 1800's, which represented a lot of farmers. Inflation would raise the price of crops, which helped farmers, and also decrease the value of their debt, which also helped them. So the populists wanted the government to print money to buy crops, increasing the money supply and causing inflation.

I'm not trying to act like inflation is some sort of democratic people power revolution device. And very high inflation is very bad, like Germany in the 1930's. But low inflation is not necessarily bad.

[theme from the bottom]

China is not on a silver backed system, but it is true that they own a huge amount of US assets.

There have been periods when the "citizens" have supported going off the gold standard. Inflation causes money to be worth less; if you owe a lot of money, you owe less after inflation. So inflation can sometimes hurt creditors (the poor) and help debtors (the rich).

A case in point is the Populist Party in the late 1800's, which represented a lot of farmers. Inflation would raise the price of crops, which helped farmers, and also decrease the value of their debt, which also helped them. So the populists wanted the government to print money to buy crops, increasing the money supply and causing inflation.

I'm not trying to act like inflation is some sort of democratic people power revolution device. And very high inflation is very bad, like Germany in the 1930's. But low inflation is not necessarily bad.




Just realized I wrote that backwards. It should say "So inflation can sometimes hurt creditors (the rich) and help debtors (the poor)."

A little counterintuitive, isn't it?

[thecoldmidwest]

OK, no one seems to be getting the point that the Fed doesn't just print money and hand it out. If it did do this, that would be a good reason to abolish it. But it doesn't. Sometimes the Fed even takes money out of circulation. This is how it raises interest rates. This is what it did in the 80s to stop the inflation that was getting out of control.
from 2004:
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/benson073004.html
Dec 07:
http://www.urbandigs.com/2007/12/making_money_out_of_thin_air.html

So you're telling me that food prices have increased 122% since 1997? I remember 1997, so I don't really believe this.
It costs this much more even though we've (my family) switched over to store brand foods/drinks.

I don't know, maybe we buy more now then back then. But not 122% more.

[angelofdeath]

"The business cycle existed before the Fed."

the fed is the sole cause of the boom and the bust.

"one seems to be getting the point that the Fed doesn't just print money and hand it out. If it did do this, that would be a good reason to abolish it. But it doesn't. "

simply put, it does. the fed is run on a socialist model. a group of bureaucrats sit around and try to centrally plan monetary matters from the top down, with conditions changing constantly in the market affecting the lives of millions of people. has the fed seen a situation where they didnt want more money? when the fed artificially lowers the interest rates, they are printing more money.

why do you think coins are made of cheap alloys instead of silver or gold? to see the lack of purchasing power of the dollar all you have to do is look at the gold price. last year the average price of gold was about 750$ an ounce. in 1913, gold was 20 dollars an ounce. that ounce of gold bought a nice suit or a nice handgun. today, that same ounce of gold buys a nice handgun today(a 1911 is about 750 bucks now and it was about 20 back in the day) but instead of 20$ you need 750$ dollars to buy the same gun.

i really dont get why you dont understand that inflation is a way that moscow on the potomac pays for the welfare warfare state. without it, they would have to tax americans at extremely high rates and there would of been a tax revolt on a never before seen scale probably back when the new deal or the great society was enacted.

do you really mean to tell me that you do not know that the value of the dollar has plummeted since the 1930's?

if you look at history, when massive spending took place. during lincolns war of northern aggression, he suspended the gold standard and issued paper money to PAY for his war. FDR confiscated gold from citizens in 1933. have you ever heard the term...'not worth a continental?' that is when the continental congress issued paper money, and soon after the war it was worthless. it is exactly then in 1933, when the first cut was made between the dollar and gold and at this very point is when the dollar started to fall. until the 70's it was illegal for citizens to own gold. why was that? it is because gold prices have always been a gauge of the wrongs that governments are doing to our money.

i highly recommend you get a brief overview of this topic and ditch the defense of socialism and the fed and read murray rothbards "what has government done to our money."

i sincerely believe that abolition of the fed would be to america's benefit. it would end inflation, the business cycle, it would encourage savings and discourage debt, it would severely check the government and not allow it to grow in massive proportions the way it does now WHEN THE FED PRINTS MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR. when the fed loans money they money does not come out of its vaults, it just adds 0's to the account of who is borrowing it. if russia can be de communized, then surely we can ditch our central bank and give free americans back money that they control and that the government can use to exploit us, and rob us.

[angelofdeath]

"Backing isn't anything more than adding another layer of arbitrary value."

i disagree. gold, throughout history has been chosen as the top money and perhaps the most precious thing in the world. granted if the market chose beans for money, i would be a bean standard advocate, but it is safe to say after thousands of years that gold is the commodity of choice.

[lord_casek]

i hope you guys got out and voted in your state today (provided it is a super tuesday state).

[angelofdeath]

most union/office jobs have automatic pay increases of 3% precisely to counteract the effect of inflation. the 70s and 80s were hard times, but 1992 forwards inflation has not become a political issue so much as an economic one (it becomes political when prices grow twice as fast as wages).

http://www.forecasts.org/images/leading-indicator/inflation.gif

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/10/inflation.gif

its sad though.
to say that we have a 'low inflation rate' and that it isnt a big deal is like having a thief come to your house and instead of taking your tv, ipod, kruggerands, and jewerly, he only takes all your shoes and jackets. perhaps we would then be saying... *shrugs shoulders* ' hey, the burglar rate isnt that bad around here...'

[angelofdeath]

"When was the last time someone refused your money because it wasn't backed by gold?

in the US we have no choice to be accept paper money due to the coercive power of the US govt. the dollar is widely accepted because it used to be as good as gold. as you may or may not know the US dollar is on the ropes.

the bad part of fiat money is that it can be inflated, where the people are robbed. i do not support this nor should anyone that favors liberty or favors a small constrained government.

[angelofdeath]

http://goldprice.org/bob/uploaded_images/dollar_USD_Purchasing_Power-753629.gif
http://www.amergold.com/email2/M3_Inflation_467.gif
http://goldseek.com/news/GoldSeek/2007/10-19mh/6.jpg

[lord_casek]

it looks like dr. paul isn't doing so well. been watching the poll results...here only 15% of the counties are reporting...same with other places around the south.

ugh. guess i might stay up for a while and watch, possibly drinking and nail biting.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Nope. This is most unfortunate.

[lord_casek]

Nope. This is most unfortunate.


double edged sword. good for the message, bad for the candidacy.

i can't believe how many people in tennessee voted for hillary.
especially in the south. where are their fucking minds at?

[10sicz.chick]

it looks like dr. paul isn't doing so well. been watching the poll results...here only 15% of the counties are reporting...same with other places around the south.

ugh. guess i might stay up for a while and watch, possibly drinking and nail biting.

cheers....im with you.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

double edged sword. good for the message, bad for the candidacy.

i can't believe how many people in tennessee voted for hillary.
especially in the south. where are their fucking minds at?

Dude we both know the deal.

What the fuck ever.

[10sicz.chick]

Dude we both know the deal.

What the fuck ever.

i feel bad for the younging males who will get drafted for McCains 100 years war if he wins.

[MOE-LESTER]

ron paul is losing in cali, he only has like 4% of the vote.


i cannot believe people are stupid enough to vote for hillary clinton. the bitch is going to raise taxes, enfore more federal law, and just straight fuck up our whole world

and the only republican candidate is McCain.

the worst possible presidential candidates ever, hillary and mccain.


fucking bullshit.

[lord_casek]

ron paul is losing in cali, he only has like 4% of the vote.


i cannot believe people are stupid enough to vote for hillary clinton. the bitch is going to raise taxes, enfore more federal law, and just straight fuck up our whole world

and the only republican candidate is McCain.

the worst possible presidential candidates ever, hillary and mccain.


fucking bullshit.

i'm glad you're pissed, we all need to be pissed. ron paul supporters or not.
this isn't the first time we've been let down by our countrymen.
the majority are just led around like dogs on a leash.

i would leave this country, but i would still have family here and i can't let it all go down like this without staying to try and protect them.

i came to the dance with her and i'll leave with her.

[angelofdeath]

funny thing about the mccain vs hillary thing though.

i have a friend (this also applies to the mainstream neo cons too) who said he would support rudy against hillary. now he said he wont vote if mccain is the nominee. i dont really understand the difference, rudy is just as liberal or more liberal than mccain.... but that is how they think. all the talking heads were all about rudy, then as soon as mccain started making ground....they now dont like someone equally as liberal?

[10sicz.chick]

i'm glad you're pissed, we all need to be pissed. ron paul supporters or not.
this isn't the first time we've been let down by our countrymen.
the majority are just led around like dogs on a leash.

i would leave this country, but i would still have family here and i can't let it all go down like this without staying to try and protect them.

i came to the dance with her and i'll leave with her.

McCain won California? That totally doesn't make sense.
I still think that if we could of gotten Ron more exposure that He would of done much better.

We need to fix this situation in 4 years.

[.coma]

does anyone else have a problem with the media "projections" of the winners before the polls final tally?

[theme from the bottom]

"The business cycle existed before the Fed."

the fed is the sole cause of the boom and the bust.

"one seems to be getting the point that the Fed doesn't just print money and hand it out. If it did do this, that would be a good reason to abolish it. But it doesn't. "

simply put, it does. the fed is run on a socialist model. a group of bureaucrats sit around and try to centrally plan monetary matters from the top down, with conditions changing constantly in the market affecting the lives of millions of people. has the fed seen a situation where they didnt want more money? when the fed artificially lowers the interest rates, they are printing more money.

why do you think coins are made of cheap alloys instead of silver or gold? to see the lack of purchasing power of the dollar all you have to do is look at the gold price. last year the average price of gold was about 750$ an ounce. in 1913, gold was 20 dollars an ounce. that ounce of gold bought a nice suit or a nice handgun. today, that same ounce of gold buys a nice handgun today(a 1911 is about 750 bucks now and it was about 20 back in the day) but instead of 20$ you need 750$ dollars to buy the same gun.

i really dont get why you dont understand that inflation is a way that moscow on the potomac pays for the welfare warfare state. without it, they would have to tax americans at extremely high rates and there would of been a tax revolt on a never before seen scale probably back when the new deal or the great society was enacted.

do you really mean to tell me that you do not know that the value of the dollar has plummeted since the 1930's?

if you look at history, when massive spending took place. during lincolns war of northern aggression, he suspended the gold standard and issued paper money to PAY for his war. FDR confiscated gold from citizens in 1933. have you ever heard the term...'not worth a continental?' that is when the continental congress issued paper money, and soon after the war it was worthless. it is exactly then in 1933, when the first cut was made between the dollar and gold and at this very point is when the dollar started to fall. until the 70's it was illegal for citizens to own gold. why was that? it is because gold prices have always been a gauge of the wrongs that governments are doing to our money.

i highly recommend you get a brief overview of this topic and ditch the defense of socialism and the fed and read murray rothbards "what has government done to our money."

i sincerely believe that abolition of the fed would be to america's benefit. it would end inflation, the business cycle, it would encourage savings and discourage debt, it would severely check the government and not allow it to grow in massive proportions the way it does now WHEN THE FED PRINTS MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR. when the fed loans money they money does not come out of its vaults, it just adds 0's to the account of who is borrowing it. if russia can be de communized, then surely we can ditch our central bank and give free americans back money that they control and that the government can use to exploit us, and rob us.



I'm not sure if you're even reading my posts, beacuse I already responded to a lot of these points.

"the fed is the sole cause of the boom and the bust."

There were recessions in 1820-1821, 1837-1843, 1847-1849, and 1858-1860, with expansions in the years between. This was before the Fed was created.

"has the fed seen a situation where they didnt want more money? when the fed artificially lowers the interest rates, they are printing more money."

The Fed lowers the interest rate by printing money, and it raises the interest rate by taking money out of circulation. It did this in the early 80s to curb inflation. I already mentioned this. The Fed also raised the rate in 1994, 1999-2000 and 2004-2006.

"do you really mean to tell me that you do not know that the value of the dollar has plummeted since the 1930's?"

You're correct, the value of a dollar has declined since the 1930s, but wages have risen even more. We already discussed this. Do you really think people are poorer today than in the 1930's?

"have you ever heard the term...'not worth a continental?' that is when the continental congress issued paper money, and soon after the war it was worthless."

Yes, I've heard the term. This is why we took the power to print money away from Congress and gave it to the Fed.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that the Fed doesn't fund the government. I'll write it one more time. THE FEDERAL RESERVE DOES NOT FUND THE US GOVERNMENT.

I've also never heard the Fed described as a socialist institution. In fact, it's dedicated to preserving American capitalism.

"during lincolns war of northern aggression..."

Lincoln's war of northern aggression, eh? Do you really want to discredit yourself this badly?

[theme from the bottom]

angelofdeath, look again at the chart you posted titled "Value of a $1 Federal Reserve Note in 1913 Dollars." Notice that the value of a dollar actually increased during the 1930's, a time of rampant poverty. Do you see why the value of a dollar doesn't necessarily reflect whether people are better off or not?

[angelofdeath]

"This is why we took the power to print money away from Congress and gave it to the Fed"

congress never had the power to print money, only to coin money and gold and silver are only supposed to be used as legal tender.

as for the business cycle, see mises' theory of money and credit. the fed caused the great depression.


as far as the fed being a shining beacon to defend american capitalism... i think i need not reply to that. if you think that a socialist institution, one of the first tenants of marxism, and an institution that decides what to do with money, how to control it, at a bureaucratic level and not a market level, is a capitalist institution then i dont know what to tell you.

you are really honestly think that the federal reserve has nothing to do with the money that the US government uses. it is hilarious. they buy bonds with credit created out of thin air. yet they do not print money nor is inflation a means that governments use for funding. outstanding.
i really cant continue on with this debate.

[El Mamerro]

I still think that if we could of gotten Ron more exposure that He would of done much better.


I think you guys got him plenty of exposure. Unfortunately big zeppelins, internet celebrity status, and REVOLUTION posters just annoyed and alienated people.

[theme from the bottom]

"This is why we took the power to print money away from Congress and gave it to the Fed"

congress never had the power to print money, only to coin money and gold and silver are only supposed to be used as legal tender.

as for the business cycle, see mises' theory of money and credit. the fed caused the great depression.


as far as the fed being a shining beacon to defend american capitalism... i think i need not reply to that. if you think that a socialist institution, one of the first tenants of marxism, and an institution that decides what to do with money, how to control it, at a bureaucratic level and not a market level, is a capitalist institution then i dont know what to tell you.

you are really honestly think that the federal reserve has nothing to do with the money that the US government uses. it is hilarious. they buy bonds with credit created out of thin air. yet they do not print money nor is inflation a means that governments use for funding. outstanding.
I really cant continue on with this debate.



Yeah, this argument is getting pointless. I'm sick of repeating myself.

If the Fed is responsible for the business cycle, how do you explain the recessions and expansions before it was created?

If inflation is such a killer, how do you explain the fact that prices fell during the Great Depression? Wouldn't this mean that everyone was doing great?


The following are both quotes from you:

"have you ever heard the term...'not worth a continental?' that is when the continental congress issued paper money, and soon after the war it was worthless."

"congress never had the power to print money, only to coin money and gold and silver are only supposed to be used as legal tender. "


As far as the Fed buying bonds to finance the government, do you remember what I wrote about the primary and secondary markets? Probably not, you don't seem like much of a details guy. Well read it again.

And if you really believe that the Fed is socialist, I don't even know where to begin.

[lord_casek]

I think you guys got him plenty of exposure. Unfortunately big zeppelins, internet celebrity status, and REVOLUTION posters just annoyed and alienated people.

at least he never took money from a lobbyist. it was all grassroots.

[lord_casek]

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


http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/election/bubble-bubble-toil-and-trouble/

god help us all.


and another


http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/supertuesday/2008/02/ron-paul-backer-cries-foul-in.html

[DonCheadle]

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 23, 2007

Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system.

A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend.

He still basically wants to dismantle the public schools(which, after the epic failure of 'no child left behind' might be a good thing) but what will be next?

............some serious Jesus schoolin'. especially in the south.

I have no problem with this, I think it's funny. Some people may object. It's about freedom, and I respect that.

[scaryletters]

thank god this sociopath isnt getting any delegates so far. everybody's so amazed by the fact that he's a republican against the war that they dont look at how hard-line and right wing his other positions are. id kill myself before voting for either mccain huckabee or romney, but jesus..ron paul isnt that much different.

[lord_casek]

thank god this sociopath isnt getting any delegates so far. everybody's so amazed by the fact that he's a republican against the war that they dont look at how hard-line and right wing his other positions are. id kill myself before voting for either mccain huckabee or romney, but jesus..ron paul isnt that much different.

are you joking? ron paul is pro-constitution, pro liberty, doesn't take money from lobbyists, a gun rights supporter, wants to repeal the anti-american patriot act, wants to stop the spying on americans..i could go on.

none of the other candidates care about these issues. they like the power. they will expand the powers that bush has set up...

you're just a knitwit.

[scaryletters]

and the fed is a necessary evil...people believing that the us economy would do better without the fed are probably the kind of retards that think communism is advisable.

[lord_casek]

and the fed is a necessary evil...people believing that the us economy would do better without the fed are probably the kind of retards that think communism is advisable.


again, you're a knitwit.

[scaryletters]

hah look at his stance on immigration, the 14th ammendment, and gays then. and being a strict follower of the constitution is like being a strict follower of the bible, inflexible and stupid. id use it as toilet paper.

[lord_casek]

hah look at his stance on immigration, the 14th ammendment, and gays then. and being a strict follower of the constitution is like being a strict follower of the bible, inflexible and stupid. id use it as toilet paper.


wow. so, you want our economy to bust because we support every single person who wants a free ride in? while tons of people are waiting to do it the proper way? you would support someone who breaks our country's laws?

wow.

and the constitution is what gives you the freedoms to say the things you want on the internet and in public. it's what gave your ancestors the rights they had. people fought and died for that piece of paper. you better wake up fast before you run into someone like me in the streets and start talking your commie trash.

and as far as gays: you know what "bug chasers" are?

[angelofdeath]

"and the fed is a necessary evil...people believing that the us economy would do better without the fed are probably the kind of retards that think communism is advisable."

the united states of america did totally fine without a central bank for most of its history. during times of hard money, prices fell, purchasing power went up, and inflation was not a factor in governments drive to imperial greatness. when congress gave its money coining power to an extra government body, it opened the door to massive inflation and declining value of the US dollar. the US government now has under their control a magic money making machine called a printing press.

if me and casek got together and came to your house and said '' hey, we can solve your problems. we have this printing press. we'll print up some money and you can spend it.' what would you think? would it be counterfeit? the fed is nothing more than the hugest legalized counterfeiting operation in american history.

just as constitutions and laws put limits on governments police powers, the gold standard puts extreme limits on governments ability to spend borrow inflate and create wacky socialist programs that rob citizens of freedom. the gold standard makes governments run tight ships.

alan greenspan even had it right at one time....

""An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense – perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire – that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. . . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."

[10sicz.chick]

hah look at his stance on immigration, the 14th ammendment, and gays then. and being a strict follower of the constitution is like being a strict follower of the bible, inflexible and stupid. id use it as toilet paper.

you are misinformed.

what is your knowledge of his stance on:

abortion

immigration

gays.

[thecoldmidwest]

U.S. Constitution
Article 1 Section 10
"No state shall...make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts"

[10sicz.chick]

This is just so ridiculous. We have citizens voting for people that do not uphold the constitution. We have citizens complaining when someone does. We have a government that is unconstitutionalizing the constitution. WTF are the rules EXACTLY in this country? Fuck it then burn the damn thing and create a new set of rules that these willy nillys will abide by. Right now we are some sort of lawless society where laws are being claimed, but there aren't valid and the laws we are suppose following and being called outdated or too restrictive.

[lord_casek]

kudos.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I think you guys got him plenty of exposure. Unfortunately big zeppelins, internet celebrity status, and REVOLUTION posters just annoyed and alienated people.

Who cares? People should be beyond that. It isn't about the supporters or what they do. It's about the message and what the man is about. Which is all grade a stuff, and unlike most of the people left. You know where Ron stands.

What should annoy and alienate people are the fact that we are running around starting wars with everybody. We are losing all of our civil liberties and our economy is in a tail spin.

[*TOPTACO]

1874...could buy you alot then.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/toptaco/25CSCAN.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/toptaco/25CENTSCAN2.jpg
not for sale....

[I was born here]

That is sick. My dad had a two dollar bill once, but I ended up buying something at the corner store with it. :lol:

[angelofdeath]

"Lincoln's war of northern aggression, eh? Do you really want to discredit yourself this badly?"

alright, i cant let this go.
i'll step back in.

discredit myself? are you a lincoln apologist? are you also a bush apologist? the things lincoln did are even more despotic than the actions taken by george bush. being behind the deaths of 600K people in an illegal war, suspending habeus corpus, income taxation, conscription, declaring martial law in a sovereign state, arresting maryland state legislatures for political views along with the mayor, and police chief, confiscating guns, destroying private property, shutting down 300 northern newspapers, suppressing free speech, holding elections at bayonet point, deporting a US senator because he held different political views... and me denouncing this tyranny, i am discrediting myself?

"There were recessions in 1820-1821, 1837-1843, 1847-1849, and 1858-1860, with expansions in the years between. This was before the Fed was created."

is it ironic of me to note that specie payments were also suspended? or need i say that a national bank was in charge from 1816-1833? the panic of 1837 was caused because of inflationary actions by the central bank earlier, along with jackson and his specie circular deal. the fractional reserve banking and loose credit came home to roost when specie was demanded. which in turn gave us a depression to follow. the 1819 panic was due to non specie backed borrowing due to the war of 1812. (i forgot, inflation isnt used to pay for anything)

the gold standard has never led to a depression like the collapse of 1929. wait, wasnt the fed supposed to prevent that from happening?

[angelofdeath]

getting 'served' by posting fed press releases?
i always love how people dont like to actually debate politics they just like to get mad and talk about starting some 'beef.'

[lord_casek]

yeah, i was kinda thinking theme's bro got "served".
oh well, i guess those economist types are always the same type of robot.

[GLIK$]

im still thinking that freight writers suck at everything. fuck politics

[lord_casek]

fella, you got served by your bullshit right wing recycled literature getting negated with cold hard facts. half of his response questions you overlooked and were (in my opinion) afraid to answer. instead, you just substituted it with more of the same shit that you read from -insert super righty name here's- literature. you're arguing with someone with real credentials. i wonder if you have any of your own.

beef? aww caman little guy, i wouldn't really go out and diss one of your silly little freight trains. i'm far too famous and above that. the only way i would really diss your newjack graffiti would be if i just ran right over it and clouded out the backround. i do that all the time, and it's never personal.

you be good, young man.

you have no idea who angelofdeath is, do you? dude, leave the graffiti talk outside of crossfire, anyway. start acting your age.

/not trying to be an ass, i'm just sayin'..

p.s.: ask your brother to come back here. it was pretty interesting seeing what an economists perception of things is.

[theme from the bottom]

yeah, i was kinda thinking theme's bro got "served".
oh well, i guess those economist types are always the same type of robot.


no quite casek.
look again and tell me who substantiated their argument with facts and who did not.

then again, you conspiracy theorists are always the same type of wack jobs.

[10sicz.chick]

"Lincoln's war of northern aggression, eh? Do you really want to discredit yourself this badly?"

alright, i cant let this go.
i'll step back in.


thank you for stepping

[lord_casek]

no quite casek.
look again and tell me who substantiated their argument with facts and who did not.

then again, you conspiracy theorists are always the same type of wack jobs.

chill out with the insults, man. we can act like gentlemen here, right? there are other threads for arguing and insults.

[theme from the bottom]

you have no idea who angelofdeath is, do you? dude, leave the graffiti talk outside of crossfire, anyway. start acting your age.

/not trying to be an ass, i'm just sayin'..

p.s.: ask your brother to come back here. it was pretty interesting seeing what an economists perception of things is.

nope, no clue. i know that im superior to him in style writing, though.

you're right though, i should leave the graffiti out of crossfire.

though, it's funny that you insult someone by calling them a robot and then ask for them to come back.

...and im the one who should start acting my age? perhaps you should take your own advise.

[theme from the bottom]

oh well, i guess those economist types are always the same type of robot.

chill out with the insults, man. we can act like gentlemen here, right? there are other threads for arguing and insults.


Main Entry:hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthaiDate:13th century 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

[lord_casek]

nope, no clue. i know that im superior to him in style writing, though.

you're right though, i should leave the graffiti out of crossfire.

though, it's funny that you insult someone by calling them a robot and then ask for them to come back.

...and im the one who should start acting my age? perhaps you should take your own advise.

well, i didn't mean to insult him by calling him a robot. it just seems like they all kinda say the same thing. i thought about calling him a "broken record" but that is insulting.

anyway, deflate the graffiti ego for a bit and come back to reality.

i actually think it's pretty cool to talk to people that share your ideals. it lets me in a little to that side of life.

[theme from the bottom]

the reality is my graffiti ego isn't ever going to deflate. the same goes for my antagonistic personality.

[thecoldmidwest]

nope, no clue. i know that im superior to him in style writing, though.

you're right though, i should leave the graffiti out of crossfire.

though, it's funny that you insult someone by calling them a robot and then ask for them to come back.

...and im the one who should start acting my age? perhaps you should take your own advise.

The fact that your bringing graffiti into a political argument says alot...

[theme from the bottom]

The fact that your bringing graffiti into a political argument says alot...

oh, i dont deny the fact that graffiti has nothing to do with this thread. nothing at all. but as my above post states, i like to get a rise out of people, and that sure seemed to work.
as far as arguing politics, im not denying in the slightest that im far too ignorant in the grand scheme of that game to really get in on the argument. that's why i alley ooped it to my brother.

just the same, ya'll are right. there's no room for it in here.

all apologies to you and your fellow paulites.

[lord_casek]

oh, i dont deny the fact that graffiti has nothing to do with this thread. nothing at all. but as my above post states, i like to get a rise out of people, and that sure seemed to work.
as far as arguing politics, im not denying in the slightest that im far too ignorant in the grand scheme of that game to really get in on the argument. that's why i alley ooped it to my brother.

just the same, ya'll are right. there's no room for it in here.


it'd be really cool if your bro picked up "the creature from jekyll island"

[10sicz.chick]

chill out with the insults, man. we can act like gentlemen here, right? there are other threads for arguing and insults.

its kewl...some peeps still stick with establishment text and still believe vespucci and columbus have significant discover relevance when it come to the new world.


things i have learned:

what most think is liberal is actually conservation ie to conserve
what most think is conservative is actually liberal ie

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

President Paul addresses both and if you can't see that then you are a lamb.

[the.crooked]

WOOOOO RON PAUL





WOOOOO

[the.crooked]

President Paul?

I didn't even see that.



awesome...

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Couldn't fit that all into 1 post? Too bad Google wasn't on the ballot.

[the.crooked]

I didn't notice the President Paul thing until I made the first post.


Yes, it is too bad isn't it?

[El Mamerro]

Who cares? People should be beyond that.

Unfortunately, they're not. If you wish to become elected to exert some change, you have to play the game, whether you like it or not.


It isn't about the supporters or what they do. It's about the message and what the man is about.

On a subconscious level, if I see some people supporting a candidate, and these people are behaving in ways I find annoying or disagreeable, I would be equating myself to these people by supporting the same candidate. I would think that the same kind of mindset that's leading these people to behave that way is the same mindset that would lead them to choose that candidate... this in turn would lead me to believe that supporting this candidate makes me a douchebag, and therefore I won't.

[Ferris Bueller]

Well, there's no need to worry about Romney now. So it's McCain, Paul, and Fuckabee.

[thecoldmidwest]

On a subconscious level, if I see some people supporting a candidate, and these people are behaving in ways I find annoying or disagreeable, I would be equating myself to these people by supporting the same candidate. I would think that the same kind of mindset that's leading these people to behave that way is the same mindset that would lead them to choose that candidate... this in turn would lead me to believe that supporting this candidate makes me a douchebag, and therefore I won't.

..And your decision ends up being based on what other people think of you.

[El Mamerro]

No, it ends up being based on what I think of myself. As in, do i want to be the kind of person I consider annoying?

[thecoldmidwest]

Should I go to the Obama thread and point out how a large part of his supporters are douchebags, because the main reason he's receiving their support is because he's half black?

[El Mamerro]

Go right ahead. It's been implied many times there already.

By the way, douchebags is probably a little harsh, I don't think you guys are douchebags. A little fanboy-ish annoying, maybe.

[lord_casek]

Go right ahead. It's been implied many times there already.

By the way, douchebags is probably a little harsh, I don't think you guys are douchebags. A little fanboy-ish annoying, maybe.
maybe it's a little annoying, but ron paul started conversations at dinner tables about politics, he started young people reading about things like the federal reserve and guns rights, he accomplished something none of the other candidates could because they are much too busy bickering about being lawyers for wal-mart and representing slum lords.

[thecoldmidwest]

I know that there are many people who genuinely like Obama because he wants government run health care, or whatever other positions he takes that appeal to his supporters. I just think that you shouldn't base your opinion of any candidate on his supporters is all.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

maybe it's a little annoying, but ron paul started conversations at dinner tables about politics, he started young people reading about things like the federal reserve and guns rights, he accomplished something none of the other candidates could because they are much too busy bickering about being lawyers for wal-mart and representing slum lords.

Seriously man. I'm going to try to use a quote that AOD usually uses. Mother fuckers are worried about a leaky faucet when the whole house is coming down.

I mean yeah I guess the reason to ignore the one candidate that could lead us out of this mess is because some of his supporters are so passionate about him you find them annoying. Yeah....I guess it's me who thinks ass backwards.

[10sicz.chick]

I know that there are many people who genuinely like Obama because he wants government run health care

Obama: "and for my next trick I am going to pull billions of dollars out of my ass to pay for my government paid for healthcare and when my ass runs dry....well I'll just print the money out of thin air"

[russell jones]

We already pay more per person from taxes to not have universal healthcare than Euro countries with it.

[thecoldmidwest]

We already pay more per person from taxes to not have universal healthcare than Euro countries with it.
Denmark
The total tax wedge is 44.2% for the average wage earner

Germany
The total tax wedge is 50.7% for the average wage earner

France
The total tax wedge is 48.3% for the average wage earner

US
The total tax wedge is 30.0% for the average wage earner

-Googled from various sites

[thecoldmidwest]

edit..

[10sicz.chick]

hehe...Ron Paul or not...we are so going to reclaim this country

[russell jones]

Denmark
The total tax wedge is 44.2% for the average wage earner

Germany
The total tax wedge is 50.7% for the average wage earner

France
The total tax wedge is 48.3% for the average wage earner

US
The total tax wedge is 30.0% for the average wage earner

-Googled from various sites

Although these are undoubtedly true statistics, they say nothing about how much each country spends on healthcare. Let me help you...

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif

Refer to this article for a detailed description why:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10

[MY ROTTING LIVER]

http://swordattheready.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/ron-paul-doa.jpg

Just an update on the delegate count:
John McCain 721
Mitt Romney 278
Mike Huckabee 195
Ron Paul 14

[lord_casek]

hope isn't over

[angelofdeath]

"hehe...Ron Paul or not...we are so going to reclaim this country"

soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box.
in that order.

i think we are somewhere between the jury box and the cartridge box and have thought so for a long time. but no one cares about the jury box and the people are too indoctrinated to nullify anything because of what the judge tells them.

as one of my favorite authors said....(im paraphrasing a little bit) 'america is at a unique crossroads. its to late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.'

[thecoldmidwest]

Although these are undoubtedly true statistics, they say nothing about how much each country spends on healthcare. Let me help you...

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif

Refer to this article for a detailed description why:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
-Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

[thecoldmidwest]

hope isn't over
There still is hope..

We shouldn't brush aside a candidate like Paul. This may be America's last opportunity to reverse at least some of the damage done.

Regardless of what happens, I'm writing his name in on the ballot in November...

[10sicz.chick]

"hehe...Ron Paul or not...we are so going to reclaim this country"

soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box.
in that order.

i think we are somewhere between the jury box and the cartridge box and have thought so for a long time. but no one cares about the jury box and the people are too indoctrinated to nullify anything because of what the judge tells them.

as one of my favorite authors said....(im paraphrasing a little bit) 'america is at a unique crossroads. its to late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.'

brilliant !

[lord_casek]

speech at CPAC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-394482822561610486&q=cpac+ron+paul+duration%3Amedium&total=22&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
part1, two and three are listed beside it.

[russell jones]

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
-Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

Paul's statement is not a good answer to the figures I posted, since there are not actual facts sited, just conventional wisdom, which is often wrong, and anecdotes. I don't want to hijack this thread off topic, so I will stick to Ron Paulisms here by stating that his statement illustrates the biggest problem with many of his philosophies and policy recommendations, in that they are based on what was, rather than what is. The spiraling cost of health care may be due to HMO's and government interference to a certain extent, but they are also due to the price of new medical advancements, one of which has made my life livable. In other words, what was worked then, but we have to think about what is and work from there.

[lord_casek]

dr. paul reads more books in a month than you do in a year.
i think he knows what he's talking about....

see his CPAC speech for further illustration.

[shai_hulud]

After the Iowa primary, me and the.crooked were talking about the concept of corporations entering into social contracts with the populace. We never continued the conversation, but I'd be interested in what the neo-libertarians have to say about that.

Like it or not, corporations are causing a lot of the problems in the US by way of lobbyists. You guys advocate smaller government and free markets, but who do you think is going to step in? That's right, the people with the money. Do you think that they're going to do any better of a job than a central government?

I'm not being a devil's advocate...well, okay, maybe I am. But it's a legitimate question, and one that I'm posing from a third point of view to the Ron Paul supporters and to the.crooked.

Crooked, I like the idea of social contracts, but I feel that I'd like it a lot more if we could discuss the details.

[russell jones]

dr. paul reads more books in a month than you do in a year.
i think he knows what he's talking about....

see his CPAC speech for further illustration.


With all due respect to the guy, I read more books in a month than probably anyone you know. I'm a college proff, it's kind of my job.

But that is irrelevant to the argument at hand. It doesn't matter how many books one reads, but rather the soundness of their arguments. So if you want to debate the merits of my statements, please do, but leave me as a person out of it.

[lord_casek]

With all due respect to the guy, I read more books in a month than probably anyone you know. I'm a college proff, it's kind of my job.

But that is irrelevant to the argument at hand. It doesn't matter how many books one reads, but rather the soundness of their arguments. So if you want to debate the merits of my statements, please do, but leave me as a person out of it.

i thought you were a chemist? or is that browner? no matter.
you're right about books, in a way. his job is to know what's up, too.
so it is somewhat relevant.

what that CPAC video, you might find it pretty interesting.

[russell jones]

I would probably relate better to something written, videos are too difficult to skim through to get the main points.

[lord_casek]

I would probably relate better to something written, videos are too difficult to skim through to get the main points.


only about 25 minutes. eat a hot pocket and watch it.

[angelofdeath]

"You guys advocate smaller government and free markets, but who do you think is going to step in? That's right, the people with the money. Do you think that they're going to do any better of a job than a central government?"

well, i'll submit that some corporations have 'excessive' power because of government monopoly privilege, welfare, contracts, etc etc. but perhaps you could elaborate more on this line of thought.

the main difference between a government and a corporation is its coercive power. governments exist for coercion. you must follow their rules to live in the US or under the governments jurisdiction. if you dont pay taxes, and you resist arrest for not paying said taxes, you go to jail or you are killed. governments force you to do various other things besides taxation. they regulate you, control your life in various ways, control what you can consume, how to raise your kids, and send you to foreign wars. if you try to stop any of this coercion, it will essentially mean your death if you forcibly resist.

but any voluntary institution is a totally different critter. churches exist for people of faith. they cannot force you to come to the church, and if they do, they should be penalized for exercising coercion over you. but think about it. stopping or halting a voluntary institution is much easier, relatively, than trying to resist the state. the above church goes belly up when people lose interest in religion. the private university goes under when people lost interest in education. the walmart goes under when people dont want to buy their goods.
companies that make profit, do so off by pleasing customers. companies would not be in business if the voluntary choice of individuals in a free market place didnt buy their product or service.

[MY ROTTING LIVER]

Church doesn't provide clean water, Walmart doesn't come when your house is on fire, and the private University isn't building any highways to rural communities.

[angelofdeath]

your right, because governments as a rule have monopoly over that. but private industry can do it much better and they should be able to have the opportunity too.

but your argument is pretty bad if that is the only reason you have for not favoring laissez faire.

[thecoldmidwest]

Paul's statement is not a good answer to the figures I posted, since there are not actual facts sited, just conventional wisdom, which is often wrong, and anecdotes. I don't want to hijack this thread off topic, so I will stick to Ron Paulisms here by stating that his statement illustrates the biggest problem with many of his philosophies and policy recommendations, in that they are based on what was, rather than what is. The spiraling cost of health care may be due to HMO's and government interference to a certain extent, but they are also due to the price of new medical advancements, one of which has made my life livable. In other words, what was worked then, but we have to think about what is and work from there.
And what was happens to be alot better than what is, and what is my become much worse when the government takes total control..

[shai_hulud]

I don't know if I've ever explained my past with Libertarians in this thread, but I think I will just for the sake of being the "guy who's been there and done that and has a t-shirt to show for it."

In my view, most of the people who advocate smaller government are proposing Minarchism. Here's a wiki-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

It's based on the theory of a minimalist government that simply maintains infrastructure and law and order, but does not interfere with the lives of the individuals or with the affairs of sovereign nations. This is something that I advocate, as well. To a point.

What I am trying to explain to the majority of people who are head over heels in love with Ron Paul is that, in a sense, what he's advocating is borderline anarchy. You take away the DOT (Department of Transportation), you're pretty much putting the roads in the hands of Bechtel or Halliburton. You scale back the military, something like Blackwater is going to take its place. Would you want Nabisco to decide what is safe and healthy for you to eat? Or for Glaxo to decided that 3% of test subject mortality for its new pill it spent billions developing is an acceptable risk for a return on its investment? Or for Dow to decide that if n-amount of dioxin from smokestacks isn't killing people THAT QUICK, then maybe a little more won't hurt?

This is where I have a serious problem with people who want to take away federal oversight and put it in the hands of the free market.

As I have said before, I was raised in a pretty orthodox Libertarian enviroment. It definitely had an effect on who I am today. I spent a good portion of my life as a anarcho-collectivist, partially as a reaction to and in homage of certain aspects of my upbringing. I believe in individualism and personal responsibility, but I also have a very strong sense of altruism that guides me, as well.

What I fear is when people see what I consider to be the Neo-Libertarian movement to be a panacea, they don't realize that it presents as many questions as it answers. When I hear people say, "Oh, don't worry...the free market is going to step in and take care of that..." I always shudder.

Some good examples of deregulation would be...the S&L crisis, subprime housing loans, Enron, PG&E, Worldcom...also, stop to consider that oil production hasn't gone down, but prices have gone up by close to three hundred percent in the last ten years. Why? Why is that? Would the world be a better place for laissez faire? Or would it be leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse?

I'm not trying to be the devil's advocate to be a jerk...I just want you guys to come down off the high a little bit and see what the free market will do if it's left to its own devices. It's not a pretty picture.

You guys can go ahead and yell at me all you want. I have no better system to offer you (Minarchism?), but just because this guy wants to end the war and decriminalize pot doesn't mean he shouldn't be held up to some very serious scrutiny.

[the.crooked]

After the Iowa primary, me and the.crooked were talking about the concept of corporations entering into social contracts with the populace. We never continued the conversation, but I'd be interested in what the neo-libertarians have to say about that.

Like it or not, corporations are causing a lot of the problems in the US by way of lobbyists. You guys advocate smaller government and free markets, but who do you think is going to step in? That's right, the people with the money. Do you think that they're going to do any better of a job than a central government?

I'm not being a devil's advocate...well, okay, maybe I am. But it's a legitimate question, and one that I'm posing from a third point of view to the Ron Paul supporters and to the.crooked.

Crooked, I like the idea of social contracts, but I feel that I'd like it a lot more if we could discuss the details.

See, here is the thing to me,


Paul will accomplish none of the tasks he would set out to do because of the structures in which he would try to enact this change.


And beyond that, I agree that were many of his plans implemented it would only quicker put us into the corporate/governmental question than what you and I were even talking about. I was talking about fundamentally changing the definition of a corporation such that moral viewpoint and societal progression are built into the way we interact with said institutions.

I think that the best way of conceptualizing this change would be through a recognition and acceptance that through many complex pathways our governmental structure is tied to a certain economic structure which necessarily creates a correlation between the entities of the economic domain and the governmental one. In this day in age, it comes as an interaction between policy maker and lobbyist. And the two will never separate again. We may limit the amount and type of interaction that the two entities may have (corporate and governmental) but we are deluding ourselves to think they are logically independent of one another.

And Paul's push for an archaic laissez faire model of economics and governance would only increase the speed with which the line between economic and governmental structure is lost. And without the oversight that could be maintained through the larger surface area of having more federal programs.

Basically, like Russel has said, and as I have said, time and time again. Dude is just straight up old. Libertarianism of his type is dead in so much as it can no longer adequately be a model of societal democratization and liberalism.

As far as a potential model between corporate governance and the will of the people, I will again refer to google. Not in the usual fan boy sense I do, but very specifically.

Look at their business model. They do not generate much profit of beta programs it produces. It still maintains most of its revenue through ad brokerage and acquiring space within which to advertise online. Yet they have tons of beta start ups that are incorporated into its overall structure.

How can Google afford to maintain all these small projects while never turning much of a profit off of them other than the space the pages they are contained in is created? In two ways, through public approval of their actions as reflected in their stock values, and by turning themselves into infrastructure.

When you become access to information what type of entity are you? Something integral at this point to the social lives of the technological world, yet something beyond just a corporation selling a product. Google is selling the progression of society through the integration and development of technological innovation and policy to reflect the ever changing status of technology in society. Their perfect execution of influencing the FCC policy through the spectrum bid is a perfect example. Google opened up the proprietary paradigm that contemporary wireless providers have been working under. By entering what might as well have been a false bid in the auction they forced not only other providers to pay a higher price to even agree to the policy changes, but also to assure that Google would not enter into a new market as a provider and cause unwanted competition. The providers are already getting fucked right now by people who are defaulting on their bills just like the mortgage creditors across the world. So you know for damn sure they did not want a company like Google to enter into an already transitional and faltering technological market with the type of development capitol that Google has.

So what is Google I ask you?

Yes they are a Corporation in the classical sense, but in another way they are redefining the very relationship between corporation and society. By making their livelihood dependent on society's continued appreciation of its innovative developments, they have resituated themselves as necessary to the continued effective functioning of the technologically advanced world.


I'm just saying, Google didn't get me into an uncalled for war, nor tried to seriously restrict the conceptual and active freedoms of my life.


I am also not so stupid as to delude myself into an inherent conception of freedom to human existence. Like anything else that is the product of our cognition it is a logic imposed on a random world.

At least I can see some neat shit with things like Google. What does Ron Paul get me? The even faster fucking of the American public by divorcing it from whatever conception of democratic representation it knows? PPLLLLeeeassse.


When casek and all them cats say your takin america back, ya'll are right. You are takin it back, to over 250+ years ago only to forget the very principles we abandoned in the Articles of Confederation in favor of a faith that they will some how magically work to fix a world inconceivable by the architects of the doctrines ya'll work under.

[the.crooked]

One could easily trace, in different ways, how government is formally (mathematically) tied to any given economic entity.

[thinksmall]

I don't think you guys have studied laissez-faire enough. I feel like what you both have said is almost what a pr agent would have you guys believe - on the surface. Though I'm not gonna risk arguing with you guys and making the system appear completely false. So you should read at mises.org. Fyi, Ludwig von Mises was a classical liberal. There's also been a lot of manipulation of the parties.. whatever that may mean to you.

I think you bended Paul's words too. Paul doesn't want to separate the economy and the government. Also, with your logic, wouldn't more government activity in economy lead to a completely different system of government and economy?

Also, Google is an interesting thing. A Wired magazine article wrote about how Google and how, in the future, there may be only one computer with millions of monitors. Which is kinda cool and kinda scary.

[shai_hulud]

I know PLENTY about laissez faire economy. Way too much about it, in fact.

The only two people who I think have a firm grasp on what Ron Paul represents are casek and AOD. The rest of you are repeating what Ron Paul tells you, and THAT'S what makes me think you don't really understand what he's proposing...much as you claim that I'm repeating what a PR person has told me.

I don't mind getting rid of government agencies such as the Fed (I know, it's a private bank, but it's goddamn close to being a federal institution), but there has to be some kind of logical, effective replacement. Telling me that the market is going to fill the vacuum does NOT reassure me...in fact, it terrifies me.

BIG BUSINESS DOESN'T CARE ABOUT PEOPLE. It's that simple. Laissez faire would probably work in the 1800's when it was a agricultural/artisan/small industry economy, but if you remove the checks and balances from the equation at this point in history, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

All I'm saying is that you've proposed HALF of the equation. Saying that the rest is going to take care of itself is the height of blind, arrogant optimism.

It's like all the kids I used to see coming to my old squat. We grew vegetables, had a grey water system, did food banks, dumpstering, composting...we tried to be as self sustaining and off-the-grid as practicable within an urban enviroment.

So, these kids would come in, and be talking about "Anarchy this, fuck the system that, kill cops, smash the state.." But, they would sit around all day and get drunk and complain that there was no TV for them to watch. We'd say, "Exactly! Here's a shovel, go dig some beds for the radishes and then turn the compost with the pitchfork," and they'd say, "I don't want to do any stupid hippie farm work...this place sucks, there's no TV and all you guys do is read and talk about politics."

So, when all these kids that ramble on about Austrian economics and laissez faire and gold standards, I start to hear all the so called "anarchists" that used to show up and not understand what anarchy actually meant. It means taking responsibility for your own life and your own destiny, so you don't need cops or government. It means being self sustainable.

Judging by the number of kids that I saw sitting around like a bunch of retarded bums when there was plenty to do, I really, really doubt that this country is prepared for the kind of personal responsibility Ron Paul advocates.

[lord_casek]

you left out several people, shai.

some1, 10sicz, iloveboxcars, and a few more.

no matter, though. i think AOD is the most informed, though.

[shai_hulud]

What I'm trying to say is that what Ron Paul is proposing is a cure of sorts, but it's also an enormous shock to the system.

[lord_casek]

What I'm trying to say is that what Ron Paul is proposing is a cure of sorts, but it's also an enormous shock to the system.

yeah. i know.

i gave my neighbor, who was somewhat into paul, a nice dvd produced for the election.
he came back to me and said that he had watched it, and loved ron paul's ideas, but it was scary.

his ideas do scare people. in a good way, mostly. but thta's because our system has been left to its own devices for so long that people don't know what to do when confronted with real liberty.

[shai_hulud]

Also, I'm not going to be the guy who sits there and calls Ron Paul names. I think he's incredibly smart, and I definitely agree with him on certain points. My concern is based on whether people of my generation (20-40) who are gung-ho for this guy are willing to sacrifice some of the things laissez-faire culture doesn't allow for.

As I said, there's a few people on this board who are more than prepared to live a self-sustaining lifestyle. The vast majority would probably be fucked, and some of the people in the Ron Paul camp fall into that group. I just want them to carefully consider whether they're in for a penny (end the war, free the weed!), or a pound (getting rid of a great deal of social services they take for granted).

It's important stuff to consider.

[the.crooked]

ahhh, cmon guys. i wrote some great stuff up there.



no one's even gonna respond?

[shai_hulud]

Im tired, and I need some time to digest it. So far, I agree with what I read.

I'm not all that up to date on Google, but most of their code for the online applications is open source/GPL, correct?

As far as thinksmall's comment-

Also, Google is an interesting thing. A Wired magazine article wrote about how Google and how, in the future, there may be only one computer with millions of monitors. Which is kinda cool and kinda scary.

That's more or less what the internet and the new generation of web-capable cellphones is preparing us for. It's called Grid computing. It's kind of like going back to the past of computing...think mainframes and terminals, but instead of paying for processor time on a mainframe and storage in a tape archive, you pay for bandwidth from a local server cluster, and store files locally. Processors are at a point where they're not going to get much more powerful unless they're used in a cluster fashion...think dual/quad cores, but on a much, much larger scale. Check out some of the larger SGI machines for examples of this concept in practice. Computers are eventually going to turn into very small client/type appliances in the not too distant future. There's always going to be the option to have high-performance towers for the geeks and gamers, but for most everyone else the appliance of choice is probably going to be a laptop or tablet of similar size, and a smartphone for mobile use...eventually smartphones are going to catch up to the point where they will be virtually interchangeable with home computing appliances. Google is working with a lot of developers to make this possible...the idea is that your computer will always be where you are. There's some mobile/remote desktops being developed based on the KDE desktop platform that are the first wave of this. It will be interesting to see whether Microsoft sees open source platforms like KDE as the future or as the enemy...because whether Microsoft likes it or not, KDE is here to stay, and the sooner that Microsoft realizes it's better to cooperate and assimilate as opposed to try to compete with and confound open source, the better it will be for developers and standardization.

Before you start saying how this is Big Brother's wet dream, consider that the internet was originally funded and developed by DARPA.

Okay, back to the Ron Paulness.

[the.crooked]

Shai, when we are less tired you should dig on my new thesis stuff.

Casek too.


perhaps a lil three way intarnet talk action.

[shai_hulud]

I'm on AIM a lot of the time, but casek....well, he's a little hard to reach on the old AIM phone.

Most of the AIM conversations me and casek have seem to end up being about graffiti for some reason. If you can deal with that, then you might find it interesting.

[the.crooked]

I've talked to him about all this business before.


But I have come clearer thoughts at this point.


you should check the new attachments in the general philosophy thread.

a 1.5 and a 2 page document. quick reads at some points dense, but whatevs.

[the.crooked]

oh, and it is gonna be titled;

"oh hai. im n ur intarnetz, makn senz uf ur contnt."

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I can't tell who has who's dick in there mouth at this point.

[lord_casek]

I can't tell who has who's dick in there mouth at this point.


what's that all about?

[Qawee]

I can't tell who has who's dick in there mouth at this point.

*their

[shai_hulud]

I can't tell who has who's dick in there mouth at this point.

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

If that's directed at anything that I said, this is why some of Ron Paul's supporters make me wonder what's really going on. Whenever someone points out something they disagree with in his platform, they get really defensive and call people unpatriotic, or fascist, or stupid.

Well, I'm none of the above. What I AM is capable of is objective thought. Maybe some of you should try it once in a while.

If you're concerned about where this country is headed, look at this site-

http://www.campaignmoney.com/

There's listings for all the major candidates and campaign contributors in there...how much they donated, to who, and in what years. It may take a little research, but the information is there.

Next, find out what bills and proposals were on the table when the most money was changing hands. Might surprise you.

Then, write some letters. To congress, to the candidates, and to the CEOs or PACs that were donating the money, and tell them that you noticed a pattern in the funding based on proposed legislation, and you would like to hear their side of the story. Tell them you believe in representative government where every single vote counts, and that it's high time that we ended the reign of "the best government money can buy." There's not a lot you can do to legislators outside of your area, but tell corporations that if your vote doesn't count, then your dollar certainly does...and that you'll take your business elsewhere.

Then, watch the spin. They'll tell you anything BUT the truth. I guarantee it.

We have an open government of sorts, but it takes some work (read- PATRIOTISM) to actually put it into practice.

Expecting Ron Paul to waltz into the White House and changing the way our current system works from the top down is a pipe dream. It's going to take some work from the people, as well.

[the.crooked]

If you all are interested in the relationship between lobbying parties and congressional voting patters, I suggest you all take a look at my stepdad's book.

It takes a few congresspeople and their voting histories, and compares it to where they take jobs at after they finish their terms.


If you all are interested, let me know and I will pm you the info. Not gonna put the step-pops on blast here.

[shai_hulud]

Like Dick Cheney and Halliburton?

Oh, wait...that was preemptive.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

what's that all about?

I don't know. Just saying how I feel after reading the last page or so.

*their

Thanks my dude. As Ja Rule would say "Where would I be without you".

Feel free to correct any mistakes I've made thus far as well. :lol:


What the heck is that supposed to mean?

If that's directed at anything that I said, this is why some of Ron Paul's supporters make me wonder what's really going on. Whenever someone points out something they disagree with in his platform, they get really defensive and call people unpatriotic, or fascist, or stupid.

Well, I'm none of the above. What I AM is capable of is objective thought. Maybe some of you should try it once in a while.

I didn't call anyone anything you've just claimed I had said. It wasn't solely directed at you. It was directed at all the patting on the back that was going on here, tis all. As far as being "unpatriotic", or "fascist", or "stupid". I wouldn't put myself in any of those categories either, but that's my opinion. Just as I am sure you wouldn't throw yourself into any of those categories, it's all a matter of perspective I suppose.

If you're concerned about where this country is headed, look at this site-

http://www.campaignmoney.com/

There's listings for all the major candidates and campaign contributors in there...how much they donated, to who, and in what years. It may take a little research, but the information is there.

Next, find out what bills and proposals were on the table when the most money was changing hands. Might surprise you.

Thank you. I did not know such a site existed. I'm bookmarking this right now and will be using it in the future.


Expecting Ron Paul to waltz into the White House and changing the way our current system works from the top down is a pipe dream. It's going to take some work from the people, as well.

I highly doubt that anyone that supports Ron Paul thinks that everything Ron Paul wants to implement will surely happen. I know I don't. However the idea that he is against such agencies that are extremely shady and are probably responsible for terrorism at home as well as abroad (ie: CIA, Federal Reserve). Alone gives me confidence in him over every other candidate.

I could go on and on about the things that I approve of Ron Paul and why I approve of them, but it is pointless, all of it has been said before, and all of it will be said somewhere else, most specifically here.

As far as doubting that this world could work the way Ron Paul wants it too is beyond me. He's heavily devoted to the medical field due to his past, so I'd bet money on the fact that he has a better grasp on health care and how to improve the current system then let's say.... Hilary Clinton. His foreign policy is far beyond any other Republican nominee that is left, and he clearly isn't manipulated by his faith, or he doesn't use his faith to manipulate people into voting for or against him or someone else. Last but not least as far as economics are concerned, it may not be my strong point, but I just find myself saying "that's a good idea" almost everytime he speaks on the issue.

I won't lie though, I'm one biased motherfucker.

EDIT****
I just had seen crooked's post after I had posted this and I'd like to read the book, send a PM my way puhleeez.

[shai_hulud]

Well, this is good. What I wanted was to get people to actually talk about what Ron Paul is saying. I rarely get this kind of reaction from most of the Ron Paul folks I talk to in person, ha ha. At the risk of offending some people, I'll try to make a comparison.

It's like a white guy who has dated white girls his whole life, suddenly meeting a black girl who he falls in love with and has incredible sex with and so forth. You look at it as, well, good for him...glad to see that he is happy. You like her, but after talking to her you realize there's a few things you don't see eye to eye with her on, but overall, it's your friend's girl, and he's dated a few real losers in the past. At least she seems to mean well, in spite of the differences.

But, your friend's stuck on this girl, in a big way. She's so different from anyone he's ever met and so in tune with some of the things he thinks but never says, that when he sits there and gushes, "Isn't she great?" to you over and over, you say, "Yeah, she's cool...good for you."

He says, "Dude, she's the best thing since sliced bread! Everything she says is so intelligent, and she wants to help people...I know she seems a little old fashioned, but that's the way she was raised..." and so on. You think, "Man, this guy used to really be critical of the people he dated, what the hell?"

So you say, "Well, overall I think she's cool. Some of the things she says make me wonder about her a bit, but no one's perfect..."

Of course, he presses you to tell you what she said, so you quote her on a couple things, and say, "Look. It's really all about you and your happiness, but this is how I feel. I've been around the block, I've heard this before, and it makes me wonder. That's all."

He then says, "Oh, that. Yeah. Whatever, that was taken out of context, and besides, that's just some shit her friends were saying. She can't be responsible for what her friends say, right?"

"No, but she can decide who she wants to hang out with. Look, at the end of the day, what really matters is that you're happy, and that you're getting a lot out of the relationship, and she's teaching you new things. I just don't want you to get hurt."

That's where things get ugly. He accuses you of salting his game, and not liking his girl, and being racist, and being close-minded, and so on when all you really said was that you didn't agree with her chapter and verse.

Change the girl to Ron Paul, black to Republican, and the guy to the Berkeley liberals who support him, and you pretty much get the idea.

[El Mamerro]

That was fucking spot on.

[angelofdeath]

damn, step away from the forum for a couple days....

i gotta agree with one of shai's main points on this thread. i dont buy the corporate stuff that he is saying, but i do agree with his point about some of ron paul supporters. in fact tucker carlson said the very same thing all the time when the debates were going on. that he isnt quite sure that all of the lefties and more statist types that are saying good things about paul really support him. after all if he had his way he would dismantle alot of things that the lefties hold dear.

but to be honest, i cant get mad if a certain type of person likes ron paul. one of my pet peeves has always been the stoner 'libertarian' or more properly, libertine. well all know them... the guy who is like...'legalize drugs? WTF? where do i check? whats his name again?' or the people who are like... 'you gotta support drug legalization or prostitution legalization, but you also have to do drugs and pick up prostitutes!'

i never have much cared for those types. but whatever. i think honestly ron paul got as much support as he did because of his real deal anti aggressive war/non interventionist stance. he allied people like me and kucinich supporters. or pat buchanan types with san fran hippy types. i think its neat really, because the ideas of liberty do cross boundaries. that being said, there are few that really really believe in liberty. that is quite obvious by ron pauls' low national poll numbers. alot of people have just made it a point to say that the other candidates arent anti war, ron paul is, so lets elect him and end the war, then we can start bickering about other stuff. whatever, thats cool, but i personally dont think the war is the end all issues going on today. its definately in the top 3, but its tied with some others.

i've always been realistic about his chances, but that doesnt stop me from defending him and supporting the guy. i have a long line of lost causes running through my blood. revolutionary war and confederate soldiers. (eh, liberty won the first time) even an anti leninist from russia. i know deep down the american public does not want liberty. that they do not value freedom. and that they want more wealth redistribution, abridging of civil liberty in the name of safety, more intervention overseas, more oppression of the free market and more inflation. that is quite obvious as they keep voting in socialists and neo cons. i think the this is just the beginning of the ron paul revolution and just might start spreading the seeds of liberty throughout the country. there are literally dozens of candidates running for office on ron paul's platform now. the grass roots effort is amazing. it would be nice to see an old right form in congress again. to block the advancement of the state. but in the end, i know the only answer to this countries problem is governments reset button, the second amendment.

[lord_casek]

i'll be right alongside
http://i26.tinypic.com/30hwkyt.jpg

[shai_hulud]

I would never challenge AOD or casek for two good reasons-

1. I think they really DO believe that this is the best path for the country to take at this point in history. I don't, but I respect them for doing their homework and being pretty consistent over the years. Actually, I think you could set your watch by AOD. He's that reliable. casek seems to have shifted a bit more to the right, but he's always been willing to listen to what I have to say.

2. They have guns.

If anything, I want to try to find out who's really for Ron Paul and who's in it for a minute, and why people are so starstruck by him. I have to admit, he looks really refreshing in contrast to the status quo.

[thinksmall]

LOL!

[lord_casek]

I would never challenge AOD or casek for two good reasons-

1. I think they really DO believe that this is the best path for the country to take at this point in history. I don't, but I respect them for doing their homework and being pretty consistent over the years. Actually, I think you could set your watch by AOD. He's that reliable. casek seems to have shifted a bit more to the right, but he's always been willing to listen to what I have to say.

2. They have guns.

If anything, I want to try to find out who's really for Ron Paul and who's in it for a minute, and why people are so starstruck by him. I have to admit, he looks really refreshing in contrast to the status quo.

what made me a ron paul follower is watching his speech titled "neo-conned"
you can watch the vid on google video or find the text if you feel like it.

[shai_hulud]

CHUNKA CHUNKA CHUNKA to the gun.

Also, I haven't see casek blinding people with science as much lately. The dude is a monster with the facts and figures, but lately he's been telling people to just read for themselves.

I don't mind doing that, but what I want to know is what he thinks and what informs that opinion. I can usually take a pretty educated guess, but sometimes I just want to hear the point summed up so I don't have to do a lot of reading between the lines.

*edit- Thanks, I'll check out the speech.

[lord_casek]

what i've been reading for the past several years has made my viewpoint change.

i used to be uneducated about such things as to what a real conservative was, way of thinking, etc. i used to hate guns because all i saw was dipshit kids (wiggers) running around acting afool.
i used to think money meant something and my vote actually counted. i started reading and watching what was going on.

started lifting the veil off of my eyes for myself.

number one is 9/11: when i saw that shit go down while watching the news that morning, i knew that what i had heard alex jones predict a couple of months earlier was real. i had dismissed him as crazy in july of '01 when i heard him say it.

number two: i was watching fox news after 9/11. i didn't know any better. about 6 months after i started watching it, i realized that we were being lied to by them because of what i was reading in papers from abroad and govt. documents. then i learned about media deception and intelligence plants in media (operation mockingbird)

number three: i kept reading and reading. ran into machiavelli. understood so much more of the neo con agenda and tactics.

number four: ron paul and real republicans (like AOD). they changed me forever. i'll never be the same. ever. i don't have all of the answers, but i have a more of an understanding of it than your common citizen.


there's more, but that was a good summary.

[angelofdeath]

word man, if there was a way to play that neo conned speech on prime time television slots, i think ron paul would actually be the republican nominee or even president!
that is definately one of his best speeches.

[shai_hulud]

I'm probably never going to be a Republican. (I'm registered Green, in case you're wondering.) That doesn't mean I wouldn't rule out voting for a Republican I liked, though.

I've spent a lot of my life believing that if people would take some initiative and responsibility, that we could do away with a lot of laws and bureaucracy. I don't advocate getting rid of social programs entirely, but I think that when it starts to be a way of life as opposed to a safety net, then it's a bad thing. Then again, some of the old folks I help out NEED SSI, and have paid into it for all these years...so, they deserve a return on their investment. It only seems fair.

As I get older, I notice that black and white starts to seem more grey to me. Maybe I need new glasses.

[Iron_Lung]

unfortunately Ron Paul didnt get that much support in my state's primary but i swear by driving around this city youd think by the amount of signs that everybody and their mother was down with him.

im sort of confused.

[lord_casek]

unfortunately Ron Paul didnt get that much support in my state's primary but i swear by driving around this city youd think by the amount of signs that everybody and their mother was down with him.

im sort of confused.

we all are. there are only ron paul signs around where i live. in yards, not in the medians.
i just saw some hillary signs on the monday before super tuesday.



shai: the more i read into the older ways, the more i realized that i am conservative. i didn't think i would ever be what people think of as a conservative. i smoke pot, i used to write graffiti, i curse, i drink sometimes, i don't go to church.

but, i do believe in mans rights. i believe in holding your own, protecting your family, actually owning your property instead of paying rent on what is rightfully yours, not getting into shit in other parts of the world and sending our boys out to fight someone else's war, etc.

[angelofdeath]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abBVoeD5ZCs

A Visitor From The Past
by Thelen Paulk

I had a dream the other night I didn't understand.

A figure walking through the mist with a flintlock in his hand. His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed. He took off his three cornered hat and speaking low, he said:

"We fought a revolution, to secure our liberty. We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny. For future generations, this legacy we gave, in this, the land of the free and the home of the brave. You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun. Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one. On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent. Although you have no voice in choosing, how the money's spent."

"Your children must attend a school that doesn't educate. Your Christian values can't be taught, according to the state. You read about the current news in a regulated press. You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the foreign I.R.S. Your money is no longer made of silver, or of gold. You trade your wealth for paper, so your lives can be controlled."

"You pay for crimes that make our Nation turn from God in shame. You've taken Satan's number, as you've traded in your name. You've given government control, to those who do you harm."

"So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm. And keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail. Harass your fellow countrymen, while corrupted courts prevail. Your public servants don't uphold the solemn oath they've sworn. They defy and rape the nation, and leave it's fabric tattered and torn."

"Your leaders ship artillery and guns to foreign shores. And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people's wars. Can you regain the freedom for which we fought and died?"

"Or don't you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride? Are there no more values for which you'll fight to save? Or do you wish your children to live in fear as a slave?"

"People of the Republic arise and take a stand! Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land! Preserve our Great Republic, and God Given Right! And pray to God, to keep the torch of Freedom burning bright!"

As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from whence he came. His words were true, we are not Free, we have ourselves to blame. For even now as tyrants trample each God Given Right, we only watch and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight.

If he stood by your bedside, in a dream, while you're asleep, and wonders what remains of our Rights he fought so hard to keep, What would be your answer, if he called out from the grave;

IS THIS STILL THE LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE?

[lord_casek]

that was in the back of my mind when i was replying to shai.

haha.

[Iron_Lung]

[QUOTE=lord_casek;6089358]we all are. there are only ron paul signs around where i live. in yards, not in the medians.[QUOTE=lord_casek;6089358]

in my area, they are in the medians AND the yards, and i live in a Republican state. i mean, i know why he's not getting much coverage or votes but shit, thats a whole other thread ...

today, me and a friend were trying to understand the one thing that rulers understand about controlling the population that everyone else doesnt get-so that it could be utilized for some good.


update: we are still peasants.

[lord_casek]

http://www.revolutionmarch.com/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMliyeIDp4

[OR-]

mothafuckin weirdos diggin ron paul. love it.

[Some1]

go away

[I was born here]

Fuck Christian values.

[lord_casek]

Fuck Christian values anyway.

have fun with your new fuhrer.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I don't see how me thinking this way has anything to do with Ron Paul. I'm not going to say that I've thought this way since the day I was born, but most of the feelings I've had about most of these issues has been the same for quite some time. Ron Paul was just the first politician that I've come across that actually put all of it together.

Of course I also don't believe in everything he says. I differ with his opinion on some issues, but there is not one other candidate that I believe could do as good a job as him, and I still say that not one other person we have to choose from will be able to turn this ship around in a faster and more orderly fashion.

These are just my feelings though, and obviously not to many people agree.

[I was born here]

OBAMA?

No man, I'm a bit for RP. If I could, I'd probably vote for him.

Yes, parents would have a choice where to send their kids to school, I just don't like

religious superstition being taught to children. After all, we should be in the age of reason.

[lord_casek]

OBAMA?

No man, I'm a bit for RP. If I could, I'd probably vote for him.

Yes, parents would have a choice where to send their kids to school, I just don't like

religious superstition being taught to children. After all, we should be in the age of reason.


dr. paul wouldn't want you to be taught anything that wasn't relevant.

[Larry Pubes]

casek, i love how you insist on referring to him as "dr. paul" all the time.

i also dig the 'fuhrer' comment...very nutshellish of you.

[lord_casek]

casek, i love how you insist on referring to him as "dr. paul" all the time.

i also dig the 'fuhrer' comment...very nutshellish of you.

he's a dr. would you rather me call him "ron" or how about "big r"? that work for you?
'cause i'm here to accommodate you.

[Larry Pubes]

sure, anything but "dr. paul". in fact i'd prefer if you called him ronald, or ernest, or ronnie ernest or ron-ron-mc-ronnie-ron. do it. dooooo it.

[the.crooked]

I like Big R personally.

[the.crooked]

How bout R Peezy?

[MY ROTTING LIVER]

How about Professor X?

[the.crooked]

Naw, hes a lil more magneto lookin to me. Seein as he has hair and all.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.ronpaulmarch.com/

Going to try to get off from work to get down with this....

As far as trying to cut Dr. Paul down those last few attempts all fail, hard.

Oh yeah, /nohomo.

[10sicz.chick]

http://www.ronpaulmarch.com/

Going to try to get off from work to get down with this....

As far as trying to cut Dr. Paul down those last few attempts all fail, hard.

Oh yeah, /nohomo.

already made all my arrangements to go except for the plane ticket. As soon as the date is set, i will make reservations. we will be in a huge RV plastered with Freedom movement icons and such.

Anyone else going?

[thinksmall]

"Public education doesn't make the grade:Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader" 2008
http://www.thedepaulia.com/story.asp?artid=2606&sectid=4
[may not mean much, but it's an icebreaker.]


"[Einstein] wrote that the spirit of learning and creative thought were lost in strict rote learning."
http://www.worldtopix.com/albert_einstein.html

"Rote learning is a learning technique which avoids understanding of a subject and instead focuses on memorization. The major practice involved in rote learning is learning by repetition. The idea is that one will be able to quickly recall the meaning of the material the more one repeats it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_learning

"If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved ... We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better." - Jay Greene
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/stossel/story?id=1500338

"When learning happens, the schools and teachers take the credit; when it doesn't, the students get the blame. The words change a little, from bad and stupid to 'culturally disadvantaged' and 'learning disabled.' The idea remains the same. Only when the results are good will schools and teachers accept the responsibility."
- John Holt

"The child who knows, we don't have to worry about; he will be an A student. How do we find out when, and what, the others don't understand?"
- John Holt

John Holt has a best-selling book that is titled [I]How Children Fail. He also wrote How Children Learn, and published the magazine [I]Growing Without Schooling.

John Taylor Gatto is great too, btw.

Ron Paul '08.

[angelofdeath]

10sicz.chick,
i'll be up there with a couple buddies.

[APDFanClub]

...he wants to get rid of the FBI and CIA. i like him, don't get me wrong, but you cant be saying shit like that

[the.crooked]

"Public education doesn't make the grade:Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader" 2008
http://www.thedepaulia.com/story.asp?artid=2606&sectid=4
[may not mean much, but it's an icebreaker.]


"[Einstein] wrote that the spirit of learning and creative thought were lost in strict rote learning."
http://www.worldtopix.com/albert_einstein.html

"Rote learning is a learning technique which avoids understanding of a subject and instead focuses on memorization. The major practice involved in rote learning is learning by repetition. The idea is that one will be able to quickly recall the meaning of the material the more one repeats it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_learning

"If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved ... We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better." - Jay Greene
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/stossel/story?id=1500338

"When learning happens, the schools and teachers take the credit; when it doesn't, the students get the blame. The words change a little, from bad and stupid to 'culturally disadvantaged' and 'learning disabled.' The idea remains the same. Only when the results are good will schools and teachers accept the responsibility."
- John Holt

"The child who knows, we don't have to worry about; he will be an A student. How do we find out when, and what, the others don't understand?"
- John Holt

John Holt has a best-selling book that is titled [I]How Children Fail. He also wrote How Children Learn, and published the magazine [I]Growing Without Schooling.

John Taylor Gatto is great too, btw.

Ron Paul '08.


And how many of these people study pedagogy, let alone have looked at it through out the years?

Would you people believe in the strength of the nation's families to educate the nation's children, such that they can compete in a global market?


We have been in a steady decline in terms of science and mathematics for years.

How are we going to go from that... to no educational system, and then fucking magically to a nation of those who learn "no matter what." The John Holt statement about "the child who knows" is fucking retarded.


Consistent and perfectly applicable logics are a dime a dozen between. But that which is genius us not something easily found. Removing any sense of standard will only slow the rate at which that genius is found.


America is already a nation of idiots.

Getting rid of what little potential to change that we have is not going to help at all.


Anyone who wants to bitch at me about public schools and otherwise can suck my left nut.


I lived it. And I lived it in Texas, pre-no child left behind.


I am the prototype of Bush's national education policy.

So fuck off everyone who didn't come from that.




My point being, I have gone from bullshit school districts, to private catholic school, up to nice public school district. And the one thing that I can say, is thank god I had that educational process at all.


The notion of removing a federal education program is fucking stupid.




ugh.



/drunk and angry at the world.

[angelofdeath]

the federal education programs along with increased government (like welfare that has incentives for people to not marry, to have kids and not raise them, etc etc) are the source the dumbing down of america.

[the.crooked]

You mistake it, it is not the concept of federal education which is dumbing America down, it is the lack of concern towards correct academic implementation.

I don't mean to put this in a rude way, but how long ago was it that you were in school?

[the.crooked]

and I don't mean higher ed.

[MY ROTTING LIVER]

I pay almost double the taxes of my married-child having-home owning peers at work and our incomes are similar. The system is set up for people that create the nuclear family and if you've ever been to the projects, you'd know that the "welfare state" you're talking about isn't creating any paradise. You people live in a dream land that will never come to be and thus will always have a struggle to pat yourselves on the back for. The common ground for your idealism is the negative of what is, not a genuine ideal to strive towards. Just like Christian conservatives claiming to be prosecuted by some mysterious god hating "liberal" force, your ideas can't live without being martyrs.

My girlfriend lived in Zimbabwe where public schooling doesn't exist, only private schools. She said entire communities can't read and write and their intelligence reflects it. I'm not talking about the rural villages, I'm talking about the people in working class type of jobs (for over there). If you're against public schooling entirely, I doubt you've really thought out the impact it will have. If you're more or less for vouchers, I won't hate your idea because I'm by no means a fan of current schools, but those vouchers are still paid through taxes.

[shai]

Thank you!

This is another point I've tried to make, and was met with sunny smiles and blind optimism.

"Get rid of federal taxes, and you can kiss the Department of Trasportation and public education goodbye. What do you propose to replace these with?"- typical question I ask a Ron Paul supporter

"It will be taken care of. The free market will step in."- Ron Paul supporter

"So you're saying that you'd rather replace the DOT with Bechtel or Halliburton, and have to directly pay then to repair your local infrastructure at whatever the market will bear? Or, you'd replace public schools with parochial schools, and have your kids taught that the universe is about 7,000 years old and that abortion is a crime?"- Point

"Dude...that's not gonna happen. When the free market...free market...free market..."- Counterpoint

I start to zone out in a hypnotic trance after hearing the phrases "free market, "read Mise", "Austrian economics" and "gold standard" repeated over and over. Then, I start to wonder what the hell is going to happen in America in the next twenty years.

[lord_casek]

Thank you!

This is another point I've tried to make, and was met with sunny smiles and blind optimism.

"Get rid of federal taxes, and you can kiss the Department of Trasportation and public education goodbye. What do you propose to replace these with?"- typical question I ask a Ron Paul supporter

"It will be taken care of. The free market will step in."- Ron Paul supporter

"So you're saying that you'd rather replace the DOT with Bechtel or Halliburton, and have to directly pay then to repair your local infrastructure at whatever the market will bear? Or, you'd replace public schools with parochial schools, and have your kids taught that the universe is about 7,000 years old and that abortion is a crime?"- Point

"Dude...that's not gonna happen. When the free market...free market...free market..."- Counterpoint

I start to zone out in a hypnotic trance after hearing the phrases "free market, "read Mise", "Austrian economics" and "gold standard" repeated over and over. Then, I start to wonder what the hell is going to happen in America in the next twenty years.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/index.html

http://www.devvy.com/notax.html

[shai]

Casek- You do realize I am not including you in that statement, right?

Well, consider yourself indemnified. Mostly it's directed towards some of the punk (looking) kids I see with Ron Paul buttons on. I initiate conversations with them to see whether they are really up to speed on his platform and not just going with that whole teenage "DOOD FUKKK THE CIA FBI AND IRS" line of reasoning.

You really believe in him. You know what I think. 'Nuff said.

[lord_casek]

Casek- You do realize I am not including you in that statement, right?

Well, consider yourself indemnified. Mostly it's directed towards some of the punk (looking) kids I see with Ron Paul buttons on. I initiate conversations with them to see whether they are really up to speed on his platform and not just going with that whole teenage "DOOD FUKKK THE CIA FBI AND IRS" line of reasoning.

You really believe in him. You know what I think. 'Nuff said.


i just read a neat article about "if marijuana were legalized" they could tax it like smokes
and reap in $38 billion a year.

and while i'm not a big tax advocate, i do agree that "sin taxes" could help a ton with our declining economy.

[shai]

And I know that is one tax that you would gladly pay (chuff, chuff). In Berkeley, I think the only taxes collected are the business and property taxes the clubs pay. Outside of that, it's still undeclared income.

I have no real disagreements with anyone who genuinely supports any candidate who has done the research and weighed the possibilities. It is, after all, a free country.

What I'm doing is more like a litmus test, I think.

[lord_casek]

it's good to explore your options.

[angelofdeath]

I pay almost double the taxes of my married-child having-home owning peers at work and our incomes are similar. The system is set up for people that create the nuclear family and if you've ever been to the projects, you'd know that the "welfare state" you're talking about isn't creating any paradise. You people live in a dream land that will never come to be and thus will always have a struggle to pat yourselves on the back for. The common ground for your idealism is the negative of what is, not a genuine ideal to strive towards. Just like Christian conservatives claiming to be prosecuted by some mysterious god hating "liberal" force, your ideas can't live without being martyrs.

My girlfriend lived in Zimbabwe where public schooling doesn't exist, only private schools. She said entire communities can't read and write and their intelligence reflects it. I'm not talking about the rural villages, I'm talking about the people in working class type of jobs (for over there). If you're against public schooling entirely, I doubt you've really thought out the impact it will have. If you're more or less for vouchers, I won't hate your idea because I'm by no means a fan of current schools, but those vouchers are still paid through taxes.


before the prussian public schools were brought to america, travelers said they encountered the most highly educated people they have met. the welfare creates poverty. they started a 'war on poverty' in the 1960's, they subsidized it, and the poverty rate has not reduced one damn bit. they actually got more of it.

i think the federal government should be out of schooling completely. that is what the constitution and common sense dictates. local public schools should be run as the local tax payers want them run. i would be much happier with just eliminating the dept of ed and then arguing about the merits of local public schooling at a later date.

[angelofdeath]

Thank you!

This is another point I've tried to make, and was met with sunny smiles and blind optimism.

"Get rid of federal taxes, and you can kiss the Department of Trasportation and public education goodbye. What do you propose to replace these with?"- typical question I ask a Ron Paul supporter

"It will be taken care of. The free market will step in."- Ron Paul supporter

"So you're saying that you'd rather replace the DOT with Bechtel or Halliburton, and have to directly pay then to repair your local infrastructure at whatever the market will bear? Or, you'd replace public schools with parochial schools, and have your kids taught that the universe is about 7,000 years old and that abortion is a crime?"- Point

"Dude...that's not gonna happen. When the free market...free market...free market..."- Counterpoint

I start to zone out in a hypnotic trance after hearing the phrases "free market, "read Mise", "Austrian economics" and "gold standard" repeated over and over. Then, I start to wonder what the hell is going to happen in America in the next twenty years.

i just think you have no faith in humans, shai. you seem to think that people cannot exist without big bro taking care of their business and the only reason for thinking this is simply because they have done it for so long. perhaps you think that art, energy, housing, water, science didnt exist before the federal government?
how do you think most long roads were operated during the 19th century? they were private roads. but all that aside, if the DOT was eliminated, localities would do what they do best, and monopolize the roads just like the feds do. i'd much rather have a state or county controlling roads than the feds, and for the most part they do. but if washington had it their way, they would control everything.

i think there are much bigger fish to fry right now than to worry about ron paul supporters being roads' socialists' or roads' capitalists' right now.

[thinksmall]

Crooked, John Holt and John Gatto teach pedagogy. lol. John Holt and John Gatto were both teachers. John Holt's books mostly consist of direct observations from the classroom. John Gatto does too, he just doesn't write 300 pages about it with the smallest but important details.

The "child who knows" quote has a lot of context behind it also. I'm sorry for quoting that without quoting one of his whole books. BTW, he also said that metaphorically. The "A child" doesn't necessarily mean a child who gets A's.

I've been to a school where they spank kids in the assembly hall with the entire school watching. But I would never have mentioned that to prove the point you tried to prove. Aren't you just contradicting me anyways? You didn't mention the other Holt quote that said what you just tried to prove. Are you selective?

Anyways, it's hard for some winners to understand what it feels like losing. That is one of the reasons why public education is wrong. The idea that if you can't walk down one road, you should fall of the sidewalk is terrible (given that there are many roads, but those are sealed off).

Competing schools with a correct economical context is the best thing there is when it comes to public schools. Obviously we don't know the 'super-curriculum' yet. Can't competition find it for us?

^I have my doubts about this. I also truly believe that a super-curriculum cannot exist unless it guides the child through his or her ENTIRE life: from conception to death. Which I cannot agree with. For a more solid version of prosperity, the best option available is choice. (note the word option and its relative, choice. lol.)

[shai]

i just think you have no faith in humans, shai. you seem to think that people cannot exist without big bro taking care of their business and the only reason for thinking this is simply because they have done it for so long. perhaps you think that art, energy, housing, water, science didnt exist before the federal government?
how do you think most long roads were operated during the 19th century? they were private roads. but all that aside, if the DOT was eliminated, localities would do what they do best, and monopolize the roads just like the feds do. i'd much rather have a state or county controlling roads than the feds, and for the most part they do. but if washington had it their way, they would control everything.

i think there are much bigger fish to fry right now than to worry about ron paul supporters being roads' socialists' or roads' capitalists' right now.

The point about my not having much faith in people directly stems from the socialist/welfare model that has been around since FDR and the New Deal. You ARE right on target as far as how I feel about that.

As far as local taxes taking care of roads, cool. Got no problems there. What about the Interstate and US highway systems, though?

What I envision is something like medieval England, where the troll demands a piece of silver, lest none shall pass.

/yesheavyirony

As far as the education issue, well...I see both sides of it. Rote teaching didn't work too well for me, but I'm no dummy. However, I had a lot of teachers who thought I was remedial, or that I was autistic, or that I needed drugs...in the end, I just was better off learning at my own pace. I think I learned a hell of a lot more AFTER school than I did from school. I mean that as in, when I was a student, I would go home and read...also, once my formal education ended, that didn't mean I didn't stop learning. In fact, I would say quite the opposite has proven to be the case.

I think they meant well, but they were well-meaning within a set of guidelines that are tantamount to holy scripture. What's funny is that teaching models are constantly being updated and the old ones are often considered archaic, if not barbaric.

I'd like to hear what some of the teachers of 12 oz. have to say about this.

[angelofdeath]

"What I envision is something like medieval England, where the troll demands a piece of silver, lest none shall pass."

i used to think that on alot of things before my opinions became more 'radical.'
then i started thinking that those arguments are the same arguments used for communism. the point being... on things like healthcare, roads, etc, some argue that 'no one will be able to travel' or that 'no one will be insured' etc etc. but in the end its also an argument for nationalizing food. why those capitalists wont allow people to eat unless they pay! but as it goes most people make out ok. and those that are indeed poor off (im not talking about wheel chair bound types) would rather spend their money on lottery tickets or alcohol than feeding their family for the week. (ex girlfriends family, no joke)
so once i started looking at the forest instead of the trees, alot of things made sense.

but im not trying to skirt the road socialism issue.
the 'internal improvements' argument goes back real far. back to the original granddaddy liberal (classical) thomas jefferson and grand daddy neo con/statist liberal, alexander hamilton and their debates on the issue. the interstate highway system was supposed to be a defense measure. that is how they got funding for it.
but it is in the states best interest to build decent routes to trade. the US is a great free trade zone. that is the one of the best things that the constitution did, create a free trade zone.
but atleast if they want to build roads that span the country, write an amendment giving the feds jurisdiction. as of right now, they dont.

[shai]

There was a great deal of irony in my statement. As a matter of fact, you could probably have picked up my statement with a magnet if you had wished to do so.

I don't really like arguing with you, AOD, because you really DO know what you're talking about, and I'd say that 80% of the time we're on the same page, ideologically speaking. I won't go as far as saying you're always right, but it's mostly a matter of perspective.

This country has come a long way since the "40 acres and a mule" days. I think the New Deal and set-asides have done less to help people, and more to appeal to their sense of entitlement because they feel "the system" has left them behind, and it owes them a fair one.

But, do we throw it all out and hope for a brighter, tax free tomorrow where everyone has enough because the market is capable of producing at the levels the market demands? Or do we try to find a third path?

That's why I'm trying to get conversation going here about the things that don't seem as cut and dried, in my mind. A lot of the Ron Paul folks tell me that "he listens to the people..." So, let me be the voice of dissent that makes you question him enough to say, "That's all well and good, but...what if (fill in the blank) happens, and causes (fill in the blank)? What's your contingency plan in that case?"

I'm not trying to poke holes in the guy, but I'm saying, "These are my concerns, what about me? How is this going to affect/benefit/screw me in the next four years?"

It would do some of you some good to look at him as just another politician. Yes. what he proposes is striking, and if you haven't heard it all before, very revolutionary. But, it's a little out of step with America in the year of our Lord 2008.

[the.crooked]

Crooked, John Holt and John Gatto teach pedagogy. lol. John Holt and John Gatto were both teachers. John Holt's books mostly consist of direct observations from the classroom. John Gatto does too, he just doesn't write 300 pages about it with the smallest but important details.


Fair enough.


My point was that there must be some base. Some sense of public curriculum.

I think Holt's point about the child who knows is more inline with what we are saying rather than in favor of eliminating public education as a whole.

I did fine in school, because, like shai, I did my own thing. I made sure teachers understood I didn't care about grades but actually about learning.


But the students, who need the help, can only be helped if there is something to help them with.


Another thing about so called vouchers and letting "competition" model curriculum, etc:

Public institutions can not refuse the service of education to a child based on skin color, religious background, etc. But a private institution such as a private school, can. They, as any business does, reserve the right to refuse service to any patron, without question.

I went to a catholic school for one semester. The reason I didn't continue to go there, was because I did not get any financial aid. Why did I not get financial aid? Was it because we had too much money? I should think not, a single mother and her child do not make enough money to support the costs of me going to that school. I didn't get it because they knew I was atheist. Circumstantial as that may sound, it was clearly evident during discussions with the administration of the school and other faculty and staff that monetary desicions were based with a certain ideological bias behind them.


There is no reason to assume this type of action will not happen in this utopic vision of free market education you guys are proposing.

AOD nailed much of my problem with the things you guys discuss when he said that Shai has no faith in people. Absolutely right. People do nothing to show me that they know on the whole what is best, or that they in their limited insight will think about the larger whole when making decisions. I have no faith in people to care about universal adequacy and access in private education when we can't even make it happen publicly.

Do you think any private institution that can make more money by keeping class sizes small and giving better educations to people who will pay the msot for it will help all those who are in need now? No, if anything it only furthers the potential gap between those whom education needs to be fixed to help and those who already have the help they need.

[the.crooked]

It would do some of you some good to look at him as just another politician. Yes. what he proposes is striking, and if you haven't heard it all before, very revolutionary. But, it's a little out of step with America in the year of our Lord 2008.

A winner is you.

[shai]

I really don't want to steal any of this guy's shine, for the record. I think any candidate who gets young people involved and wanting to vote and working for change is a good thing. I actually like Obama for the same reason.

If what I'm saying doesn't resonate with what you feel, then feel free to pass on it. I'm not an expert, just a skeptic.

The reason I think Ron Paul is a worthy phenomenon to examine is the fact that I live in Berkeley, and a lot of people are actually jumping ship to the Republican party to support his campaign. In the rest of the country, that wouldn't really interest me, but in Berkeley it's pretty significant.

[thinksmall]

I think Shai wins.

[shai]

thinksmall- It's not about winning or losing.

Oh, SNAP! It's a presidential election. Haha, silly me. My bad.

When certain people (read- lifelong radicals and progressives) start voting Republican in Berkeley, you better believe I'm gonna notice. Not only are they voting Republican, but they don't really seem to think it's all that big of a deal...or be paying attention to the entire slate this guy is pushing. THAT'S shocking. These are people who have been pushing for stuff like public health programs and social services for the homless and mentally ill for decades...it's a pretty big shift.

Or, maybe I'm not as conservative as I thought.

What I think is that he's charismatic by NOT being charismatic. His sincerity, plain talk, and congressional record are appealing to people who see politicians as commodities that can be bought or sold. I'm not so cynical as to feel one way or the other, it really depends on the situation. I basically think people will vote for the candidate who has values that resonate with their own.

So, finding out all these lefties and radicals I've known for a while are closet Libertarians who believe in the free market/gold standard is a revelation on the level of, say...finding out your dad is gay.