Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/27/11 05:00 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Don't think so. he is a old man who wants to push to many outdated policies that wont work in todays world. his views on fixing the economy is LITERAL SUICIDE. getting rid of the Federal Reserve and going back to hard currency (gold or precious metals ) which wouldn't work at all becasue there isn't enough of it tp work anymore and the current gold reserve backed system works just fine.

Actually, it would put the money back in control of the american government, as opposed to the self-admitted private bank that is the Federal Reserve. They actually said they are a private bank in an interview with David Schumacher in Economics USA.

That kind of power to a private organization is WAY out of line.

At 1/23/12 08:11 PM, soulblud wrote:

At 12/27/11 05:00 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Don't think so. he is a old man who wants to push to many outdated policies that wont work in todays world. his views on fixing the economy is LITERAL SUICIDE. getting rid of the Federal Reserve and going back to hard currency (gold or precious metals ) which wouldn't work at all becasue there isn't enough of it tp work anymore and the current gold reserve backed system works just fine.

Actually, it would put the money back in control of the american government, as opposed to the self-admitted private bank that is the Federal Reserve. They actually said they are a private bank in an interview with David Schumacher in Economics USA.

That kind of power to a private organization is WAY out of line.

The central issue for Ron Paul about central banking has little to nothing to do with it's status as a public / private entity. Ron Paul wants to ultimately ELIMINATE the fed. But to do that, Paul knows that the fed's formerly secretive actions need to be opened to public scrutiny. The Fed is only barely less private than any other Agency associated with the federal Government, and Giving the congress the power to do what the Fed does would not result in any better monetary policy.

It MIGHT result in fewer instances of bailouts for foreign central banks and private banks, assuming that central banking decisions are made less secretively, but it would certainly result in greater pressure for expansionary monetary policy, even when devout keynesian technocrats would admit it isn't called for.

If Wiemar republic style inflation is the price we have to pay for not lining the pockets of the oligarchy, I'll pick the oligarchy: sorry. Then again, we might very well get that regardless.

On the issue of gold. The idea of a shortage of gold is contingent upon the idea of there possibly being a shortage of money in the economy. Both ideas are absurd.

The gold standard has nothing to do with actually being able to trade in gold coins. It is simply a way of preventing governments from monetizing debts by requiring all bills issued by a government to be redeemable by a legally specified amount of gold or silver.

The dollar / gold ratio can be set at anything, though obviously the current market price for bullion makes the most amount of sense.

Not my first choice in the primary, but if he gets the nomination, I'd easily pick him over the incumbent.

Ron Paul is definitely my political hero. It is very rare we disagree on anything, which is bad considering how much I usually accuse party people of being sheep. He's also very honest and truly believes what he preaches, so to speak.

At 12/27/11 08:24 PM, Familyguy666 wrote: Section 1032-

UNITED STATES CITIZENS.-The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Enough said. Stop trying to scare everyone with those lies. Not a myth.

Don't know if anyone has responded to this already, but that just means a US citizen doesn't have to be detained by the military itself. That doesn't mean a US citizen can't be detained at all.

At 1/31/12 01:24 PM, zeo131 wrote: Don't know if anyone has responded to this already, but that just means a US citizen doesn't have to be detained by the military itself. That doesn't mean a US citizen can't be detained at all.

If a person is detained by a domestic US force (like the police) then the 4th Amendment applies. The 4th Amendment and its jurisprudence are pretty clear that detention (with the exception of rare circumstances and only for a short time) is not allowed.

At 1/31/12 10:26 AM, morefngdbs wrote: JUst seen this article by Ron Paul.
He rightly places blame for the continuing problems with America's financial mess right where it belongs.
Too bad the only Presidential candidate with an actual grasp of how serious the problem is & the only one with a clue how to slolve it won't stand a chance !
http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold -silver-Giving-Free-Money-to-Banks-Does-
NOT-Stimulate-the-Economy%20.aspx?langue =en&article=3793921786G10020

Ugh, this is making me take Ron Paul less seriously, either he's actually gone to a University and is just trying to convert average people who haven't taken a college class in US history or he's just geniunly brainwashed by the joke that is the Mises institute interpreting history.

The Depression of 1920 is not forgotten because it was so quickly recovered, it's forgotten because it's just the economy converting from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy, as commercial factories would stop building war materials due to the decreased demand for it by the government, so it was a transitionary phase, and there were depressions before that and again no one brings them up despite them always happening due to the same goddamn reasons especially overproduction and opening up investments to the average person by dropping interest rates.

Probably the reason why Libertarians keep bringing that historical event up is because the subsequent Great Depression was a complete failure of Libertarian economics and a success of Liberal economics, Hoover was known as the goddamn "Great Economist" and his prescription for the Depression was just do nothing and wait till next year when the economy rebounds, the years go by and the economy has yet to rebound, and did not until FDR came into office. This is why people like Hayek stopped being an influential voice in economics and politics until the later Conservative boom and why people like Keynes became so influential simply because they made predictions, Keynes turned out right and Hayek turned out wrong.

Then I keep seeing this attempt to bring back the Gold Standard, dear god look at history people when Andrew Jackson and Ullysses Grant tried to back up more of America's currency with hard specie they caused Panics on their own, it's not a good idea especially since we don't have enough gold for the amount of dollars in circulation.

At 2/1/12 11:31 AM, morefngdbs wrote: You need to live under a rock out in the great northern woods of western Canada, to not know the banks are resposible for this crisis...still going since 2008 !

And the libertarian response to this is...? Deregulate the banks? Let them handle this on their own?

At 2/1/12 11:31 AM, morefngdbs wrote: You need to live under a rock out in the great northern woods of western Canada, to not know the banks are resposible for this crisis...still going since 2008 !

Well no shit the Federal Reserve is one of the reasons for the crisis, mostly because of the Bush Administration setting the interest rate so low and Bill Clinton's bill that made it easy to get a home. What I'm saying though is that whenever I've seen Libertarians reference US HIstory they have no idea what they're talking about, and on top of that bringing up really old idea's as though they were new despite them being tested forever and failing, that is what I was criticizing, my post had nothing to do with the crisis.

At 1/31/12 10:33 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: RP finished the primary with 7% of Florida votes with him only getting 6 delegates.

oh yeah he is gonna win!

Clearly stated by ron paul himself his campaign is to spread the message.

he didn't even campaign in florida and barely in SC .

Ron Paul is a cool dude he'll probably win maine , texas , nevada.

The more I read your post the more I think you're just a troll .

At 2/2/12 12:30 AM, Chiklay4 wrote: Ron Paul is a cool dude he'll probably win maine , texas , nevada.

You are out of your mind if you think he'll end up with one delegate.

The more I read your post the more I think you're just a troll .

No. He's just seated well within the realm of reality, something that seems quite elusive for the average Paul fan. It's all Mises, cake, and utopia for them.

sure some of his ideas are okay but do we really want the male equivalent of the crazy cat lady from the Simpsons as president?

At 2/2/12 09:38 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Warforger, have you ever read this book.

Have you ever taken a college course on US History?

I will post a link to part of it...just hit next page at the bottom to move on.
It is really telling in it lays out with historical fact the problems of today all being caused by Governemnt(s) & using banking in an attempt to 'fix' the problems that were created by these Governments & are still being manipulated today. It explains fiat currency to be the same as counterfeiting, only done by our Government & banking elites...as opposed to criminals ~;)

I'm assuming it's more jokes and complete ignorance of professional historians, just read on one of your links that the Panic of 1907 was made to centralize banks, it was the same thing as the Panic of 1893, caused by overproduction and not enough foreign mouths to get that surplus, while JP Morgan did end the panic by buying out Tennesse Coal he did not start it. The Federal Reserve was more for to help distribute currency better because the Gold standard had proved unreliable (and by then pointless as the US Greenback was worth just as much as the Gold dollar) and that state and bank currency too unreliable and confusing to determine their worth.

I love the part where in the begining of the 1900's Government economists were sayiong theat the dollar was artificially hold gold to a high of $35.00 an ounce & removing its "backing" would cause gold to collapse to as low as $8 dollars....L O L ! Man did they ever not know what they were talking about.

That wasn't a bad prediction at the time if I get what you're saying (which I bet is just a regurgitated one sided opinion) because again President's Grant and Jackson had tried to put more hard specie in the economy and it just created panics, it was assumed this would happen in the 1900's (not the whole century, the decade) because the population was growing and gold doesn't grow on farms, the only problem was that extensive mining all around the world had enough gold to account for it, but like say Oil today there is only a limited amount of it in the world and eventually the demand is going to outpace the supply. Of course this became pretty apparent in 1929 when the banks failed due to everyone crowding in them removing their deposits of gold that it isn't a very smart system.

Anyway if you've got some time, its a wordy read.
http://mises.org/money/3s1.asp

That's the thing, while I don't know that much about Economics I know alot about history, and from what I know I can tell Mises is heavily biased and doesn't take any professional opinion seriously but its own.

you want to elect a person who wants to get rid of paper money, reenact DADT, who pretends that he knows what he's talking about, and has a political fanbase of old white men or 11 year olds like you

Ron Paul's supporters are willing to elect a racist who's bros with the grand wizard of the kkk and wants to restructure the country based on Ayn Rand's political philosophy because they think he'll legalize weed. I love this country.

At 1 hour ago, GAYDADBUTTFAG wrote: Ron Paul's supporters are willing to elect a racist who's bros with the grand wizard of the kkk and wants to restructure the country based on Ayn Rand's political philosophy because they think he'll legalize weed. I love this country.

Truer words have never been spoken. But seriously, this is how Paul and his supporters come off...

At 49 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1 hour ago, GAYDADBUTTFAG wrote: Ron Paul's supporters are willing to elect a racist who's bros with the grand wizard of the kkk and wants to restructure the country based on Ayn Rand's political philosophy because they think he'll legalize weed. I love this country.

Truer words have never been spoken. But seriously, this is how Paul and his supporters come off...

the part that won me was where he said no to iraq, wants to stop spending so much on war, and not pass any more legislation that allows people to be put in jail with out fair trial...

it is very easy to put it in the way gaydadbuttfag wrote, but I could then retort with 1 more:

Obama's supporters are willing to elect a corporate puppet who is bros with Goldman Sachs and only pretend to be a peace loving new dealer because they think he is going to bring about "change".

as for flip floppin botox face Romney, cheating space nut Gengrich, and frothy Muslim hater Santorum, they take even less effort.

At 10 hours ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: Obama's supporters are willing to elect a corporate puppet who is bros with Goldman Sachs and only pretend to be a peace loving new dealer because they think he is going to bring about "change".

as for flip floppin botox face Romney, cheating space nut Gengrich, and frothy Muslim hater Santorum, they take even less effort.

I dunno. Based on the lack of nuance in yours, and the nuance oozing out of Gaywhateverbuttman's post, you still need to try harder.

Sure you may have ecapsulated some irony, but you haven't really bottled up how the country views the entire support base.

obama killed bin laden nuff said

Since this is related somewhat to Ron Paul, do any of you find it somewhat strange that they stopped counting votes in the Maine Caucus at 84% declaring Mitt Romney the winner? Ron Paul was in second place, only behind Romney by some 150 votes. Wouldn't that mean that the race is too close to call until they get to 100% of the votes?

Maybe its just me, but that seems really odd...

Even anarchists should support a ron paul presidency.

At 14 minutes ago, maseman33 wrote: Even anarchists should support a ron paul presidency.

I'm not sure you're doing the whole "anarchy" thing correctly.

He doesn't like the idea of separation of church and state.

Yeah, fuck that guy.

At 1 day ago, Camarohusky wrote:
I dunno. Based on the lack of nuance in yours, and the nuance oozing out of Gaywhateverbuttman's post, you still need to try harder.

Sure you may have ecapsulated some irony, but you haven't really bottled up how the country views the entire support base.

well, to match the Nuance level of his post, and cover what the average American thinks of Obama's followers, I would have to say Socialist Nazi from Kenya, but that would make me feel... dirty.