PDA

View Full Version : for all the mccain/obama fans...read up!


BHAM
09-24-2008, 01:18 PM
do say we didnt tell you so! :mad:
statement by Ron Paul

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

• Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

Paladin
09-24-2008, 01:51 PM
Man, I am changing my mind. RP for President! :rolleyes:

exlude
09-24-2008, 01:54 PM
I know you're not a fan of him, but you can't help to nod your head to a lot of those points.

Paladin
09-24-2008, 01:57 PM
I know you're not a fan of him, but you can't help to nod your head to a lot of those points.

I think the guy is a complete nut and wouldn't trust him to drive my Focus, so there is no way I would trust him to be President.

There is no way he would ever get one thing he proposes done because of his "oddness" and a vote for him is a vote wasted.

Avery'sDad
09-24-2008, 02:06 PM
I think the guy is a complete nut and wouldn't trust him to drive my Focus, so there is no way I would trust him to be President.

There is no way he would ever get one thing he proposes done because of his "oddness" and a vote for him is a vote wasted.

Better than the alternative.

I bet you think Bush really won both elections. :rolleyes:

BHAM
09-24-2008, 02:15 PM
I think the guy is a complete nut and wouldn't trust him to drive my Focus, so there is no way I would trust him to be President.

There is no way he would ever get one thing he proposes done because of his "oddness" and a vote for him is a vote wasted.

there is no such thing as a wasted vote :confused: if you feel that is the right vote for you then its surly not wasted.... i see you are narrow minded with this last comment

MadMax404m
09-24-2008, 02:20 PM
BHAM we all have agreed RP has great Economic policies, but it is his other policies that worry most. His economic policies are spot on, but how do you have a booming economy without interacting with the rest of the world who takes our buisness and vise-versa? Again RP would be an exceptional ecomonics teacher, but in my opinion he is not cut out for the presidency due in large part of his wacked-out foreign policy.

exlude
09-24-2008, 02:23 PM
I think the guy is a complete nut and wouldn't trust him to drive my Focus, so there is no way I would trust him to be President.

There is no way he would ever get one thing he proposes done because of his "oddness" and a vote for him is a vote wasted.

Yeah, I get that. Hell, I'm on the fence about him myself. I was speaking purely of some of his points. He's right about a lot of stuff, imo. Could he actually get it done? Doubtful. But it's a good letter.

46Tbird
09-24-2008, 02:32 PM
I think the guy is a complete nut and wouldn't trust him to drive my Focus, so there is no way I would trust him to be President.

There is no way he would ever get one thing he proposes done because of his "oddness" and a vote for him is a vote wasted.I see you responded with Republican Party Anti-Ron Paul Talking Points™ 1.2a, 4.1, and 5.3c. Well played sir!

BHAM
09-24-2008, 02:33 PM
this should answer your questions

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Foreign_Policy.htm

ayzo
09-24-2008, 03:04 PM
BHAM we all have agreed RP has great Economic policies, but it is his other policies that worry most. His economic policies are spot on, but how do you have a booming economy without interacting with the rest of the world who takes our buisness and vise-versa? Again RP would be an exceptional ecomonics teacher, but in my opinion he is not cut out for the presidency due in large part of his wacked-out foreign policy.

Well that's the whole point Paul makes:

"As long as we live beyond our means, we are destined to live beneath our means. And we have lived beyond our means because we are financing a foreign policy that is so extravagant and beyond what we can control, as well as the spending here at home, and we're depending on the creation of money out of thin air, which is nothing more than debasement of the currency.It's counterfeit. And it is a natural, predictable consequence that you're going to have people benefit from it and other people suffer."

It's by spending $900 billion pear year maintaining our empire, spending too much money at home, taxing people's income, and then using the federal reserve to print off the difference in the debt we owe that is destroying our economy and the dollar.

It's one thing to build up a strong military with weapons, technology and training, it's a completely different one to station them across the world in places like Germany and Japan. If Paul was president he'd still go after Bin Laden but instead of having American troops in Germany maintaining the military bases he would put them on the border and have them support the border patrol.

It's a shame he'll never be president, but at least he's out there talking about this stuff and bringing some awareness to it.

Paladin
09-24-2008, 03:44 PM
Better than the alternative.

I bet you think Bush really won both elections. :rolleyes:

Please explain how he lost? I will refer to him being sowrn in after each election as proof he did. What do you have for your proof he didn't?

Paladin
09-24-2008, 03:46 PM
there is no such thing as a wasted vote :confused: if you feel that is the right vote for you then its surly not wasted.... i see you are narrow minded with this last comment

If you think I am narrow minded with my opinion that a vote for a person who has no chance of winning is a wasted vote, I think you are stupid for voting for someone who has no chance of winning. I am entitled to my opinion about a wasted vote, and I really don't care if someone thinks it is a narrow minded opinion.

Paladin
09-24-2008, 03:47 PM
I see you responded with Republican Party Anti-Ron Paul Talking Points™ 1.2a, 4.1, and 5.3c. Well played sir!

It just so happens to be my personal opinion. Where are those talking points BTW?

Paladin
09-24-2008, 03:50 PM
Yeah, I get that. Hell, I'm on the fence about him myself. I was speaking purely of some of his points. He's right about a lot of stuff, imo. Could he actually get it done? Doubtful. But it's a good letter.

If we went over every one of his points in detail and removed my opinion of him being a nut, maybe I wouod agree with some. But hell, I have some pretty good ideas, Al P, 01WC, you, and many others do also. We all have just as much chance of getting them enacted as RP does though.

Paladin
09-24-2008, 03:51 PM
BHAM we all have agreed RP has great Economic policies, but it is his other policies that worry most. His economic policies are spot on, but how do you have a booming economy without interacting with the rest of the world who takes our buisness and vise-versa? Again RP would be an exceptional ecomonics teacher, but in my opinion he is not cut out for the presidency due in large part of his wacked-out foreign policy.

Well said!

I would have added that he would be a good economics teacher at a community college, but whatever. :D

46Tbird
09-24-2008, 04:01 PM
If you think I am narrow minded with my opinion that a vote for a person who has no chance of winning is a wasted vote, I think you are stupid for voting for someone who has no chance of winning. So how would you feel if you lived in California, where a vote for McCain/Palin is (by your definition) a wasted vote?

Or what if you were an (insert any name but McCain here) supporter living in Texas, but knows that no matter what your vote is, the TX electoral vote will go for the person you intend to vote against?

It is un-American and just plain DUMB to assert that a vote for a losing candidate is a wasted vote. It is a vote for the person you support that did not win an election, nothing more and nothing less.

I suppose you prefer a pre-war Iraq type Democracy, where the only candidate on the ballot was Hussein. Hey, at least there were no "wasted votes"! :rolleyes:

1fastdem
09-24-2008, 04:17 PM
Palidin - glad you see the reason to what RP is saying here. And you all are right about his being nutty in other areas.

But to say a vote is wasted if not for a major party isn't true. No vote made is wasted. Wasted is not to vote. By your theory my vote would be wasted because Obama cannot carry Texas. And any McCain vote willl be wasted in California since he wont prevail there. Remember both our parties began as 3rd parties either as a single issue party (GOP - abolition) or out of a general disgust of the current system that was in place and wanted a smaller gov (Dems - I know it's ironic)

You could make a case that today there is enough disgust for a real 3rd party to emerge. I think it will be one of the areas if it does:

a. A single issue party based around FISCAL conservativism from both parties and the RP-type folks.
b. A split in the Rep party between the pro-business and religious right
c. a split between mod Dems. vs. the left.

I personally think everyone should vote their gut.

1fastdem
09-24-2008, 04:18 PM
So how would you feel if you lived in California...

Man I take too long to type. you beat me while I was writing mine... :)

MadMax404m
09-24-2008, 04:30 PM
Well that's the whole point Paul makes:

"As long as we live beyond our means, we are destined to live beneath our means. And we have lived beyond our means because we are financing a foreign policy that is so extravagant and beyond what we can control, as well as the spending here at home, and we're depending on the creation of money out of thin air, which is nothing more than debasement of the currency.It's counterfeit. And it is a natural, predictable consequence that you're going to have people benefit from it and other people suffer."

It's by spending $900 billion pear year maintaining our empire, spending too much money at home, taxing people's income, and then using the federal reserve to print off the difference in the debt we owe that is destroying our economy and the dollar.

It's one thing to build up a strong military with weapons, technology and training, it's a completely different one to station them across the world in places like Germany and Japan. If Paul was president he'd still go after Bin Laden but instead of having American troops in Germany maintaining the military bases he would put them on the border and have them support the border patrol.

It's a shame he'll never be president, but at least he's out there talking about this stuff and bringing some awareness to it.

We are already going after Bin Laden, read up on the Pakistani problems we are having.

Stationing our Military across the world benefits us. We put our military in Germany and Japan after WW2. Why did we do this? Well if we would have done it after WW1 we would not have had a WW2. Our military presence in other countries has more of an effect than most care to look into.

Vertnut
09-24-2008, 04:32 PM
Better than the alternative.

I bet you think Bush really won both elections. :rolleyes:
Oh boy. Here we go... :rolleyes:

fast83
09-24-2008, 07:43 PM
rp '08 would have been great but i think we are going to get dumb and dumber
or dumb and dip.