Ron Paul is right we should audit the Feds [Archive]

Miss D

07-08-2009, 04:40 PM

He may be right but they still canned the bill......................:crackhead:

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/275761/Why-Ron-Paul-is-Right-to-
Audit-The-Federal-Reserve?tickers=XLF,GLD,SPY,DIA,TBT,TLT,%5EDJI&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

Ron Paul is right we should audit the Feds

Posted Jul 08, 2009 12:30pm EDT by Peter Gorenstein in Newsmakers, Banking
Related: XLF, GLD, SPY, DIA, TBT, TLT, ^DJI

An amendment based on Congressman Ron Paul’s House bill to audit the Federal Reserves was blocked by the Senate this week on procedural grounds.
Speaking on the Senate floor, Republican Senator Jim DeMint and supporter of an audit said, "allowing the Fed to operate our nation's monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation and a lower quality of life."
Charles Ortel, managing director with Newport Value Partners, an independent research firm, agrees. "Transparency is the key to any market," he says, noting the Fed doesn't mark-to-market its assets, much of it now consisting of the worst toxic debt Wall Street had to offer.
In truth, the Fed doesn't work in complete secrecy - they do release a weekly update which details the size and type of assets on its balance sheet. According to the latest report, the Fed’s balance sheet shrunk to $1.989 trillion, falling below $2 trillion for the first time since March.
And Bernanke backers are inclined to say, give the Fed a break. Those supporters including, Warren Buffett, claim the Fed’s action saved the U.S. from an even greater economic catastrophe.
But Ortel isn’t buying it: "We are well into a major crisis of confidence... those with major league exposure to the dollar and U.S. companies are quietly reducing that exposure," he claims.
If one looks at recent U.S. Treasury auctions, appetite for U.S. debt remains relatively strong. But Ortel says the smart money has little confidence in the future of the U.S. and is instead buying gold and other hard assets

Buzzo

07-08-2009, 04:42 PM

Ron Paul is a rare breed, a man who truly cares about ths country. Everything I see him back, is because he thinks its right. Not because he'll get votes or gain profit from it.

MR TINFOIL HAT

07-08-2009, 04:43 PM

They will never allow the audit. That alone should be enough reason to end the fed. It's your money but you can't see it. LMFAO this shit's ridiculous.

fast83

07-08-2009, 06:12 PM

to bad the media shut him out in the election. im sure he would have walked away with the vote in '08.thats what this goverment feared.

media = owned

351Coupe

07-08-2009, 06:23 PM

Ron Paul is right about a lot of shit.

Slowhand

07-08-2009, 08:55 PM

Ron Paul is a rare breed, a man who truly cares about ths country. Everything I see him back, is because he thinks its right. Not because he'll get votes or gain profit from it.

Don't say that on DFWStangs. They'd rather see this country run into the ground by partisan politics than allow Ron Paul a few seconds to speak.

Sgt Beavis

07-08-2009, 09:45 PM

They will never allow the audit. That alone should be enough reason to end the fed. It's your money but you can't see it. LMFAO this shit's ridiculous.

I'm not so sure. There sure are a helluva lot of Democrats on board with this.

Yale

07-08-2009, 10:01 PM

I'm not so sure. There sure are a helluva lot of Democrats on board with this.

Seriously. 244 cosponsors in the House.

Paladin

07-08-2009, 11:19 PM

I think RP is goofy as hell and would accomplish nothing if elected POTUS, but this seems like it has some merit.

jw33

07-08-2009, 11:32 PM

don't say that on dfwstangs. They'd rather see this country run into the ground by partisan politics than allow ron paul a few seconds to speak.

x2

Slammy

07-09-2009, 01:34 AM

Thats the thing about RP i think. Most people say he is crazy because his ideas are outside the box. That is the kind of change i was thinking about. He is for small government and wants the government to be responsible for its own money and stay out of the peoples. The fact he goes forward with his ideas shows that he isnt out to be popular. I think if he ran again he would get alot more attention, i would def vote for him. The repubs could use a hardcore conservative after the obama spending spree.

Cartman

07-09-2009, 03:39 PM

I think RP is goofy as hell and would accomplish nothing if elected POTUS, but this seems like it has some merit.

and you also think palin is/was a good choice for vp..

Paladin

07-09-2009, 04:59 PM

and you also think palin is/was a good choice for vp..

I think Palin is a ton better than RP will ever be.

mightyp

07-09-2009, 05:16 PM

I think Palin is a ton better than RP or obama will ever be.

you forgot a name.

Paladin

07-09-2009, 05:22 PM

you forgot a name.

Very nice edit.

Cartman

07-10-2009, 12:30 AM

I think Palin is a ton better than RP will ever be.

which goes to show why you and your like thinking party members are where they are now. it is too bad that we will keep falling down that rabbit hole, started with the bush admin and pushed further with obama admin. at least ron paul wants to go what our founding fathers wanted.

Slowhand

07-10-2009, 01:24 AM

I think Palin is a ton better than RP will ever be.

Seriously? That woman is so full of shit, I don't even know where to begin.

Cartman

07-10-2009, 01:33 AM

Seriously? That woman is so full of shit, I don't even know where to begin.

oh he is serious, he thought she could even be POTUS...lol. we would be more fucked with her than we are now.

Vertnut

07-10-2009, 06:17 AM

oh he is serious, he thought she could even be POTUS...lol. we would be more fucked with her than we are now.

That's fucking rediculous...

Vertnut

07-10-2009, 06:18 AM

Don't say that on DFWStangs. They'd rather see this country run into the ground by partisan politics than allow Ron Paul a few seconds to speak.

He can speak, but he's 150 years old, and is NOT a viable candidate for POTUS.

Paladin

07-10-2009, 08:06 AM

which goes to show why you and your like thinking party members are where they are now. it is too bad that we will keep falling down that rabbit hole, started with the bush admin and pushed further with obama admin. at least ron paul wants to go what our founding fathers wanted.

What party are you referring to, the one RP belongs to and I voted for last election? What party do you belong to?

I am conservative and vote for conservative candidates, or at least the most conservative candidate available.

You RP nuthuggers claim to be conservative but I am still seriously doubting that. You all seem to be angry and hate-filled weirdos.

Paladin

07-10-2009, 08:07 AM

Seriously? That woman is so full of shit, I don't even know where to begin.

Opinions vary. Are you a RP supporter? If not, who do you think would do a better job?

Paladin

07-10-2009, 08:07 AM

he can speak, but he's 150 years old, and is not a viable candidate for potus.

x2

07-10-2009, 08:45 AM

He can speak, but he's 150 years old, and is NOT a viable candidate for POTUS.

He might be older than dirt but he has one son running for the senate in 2010 http://www.randpaul2010.com/ and another son planning on running for office locally very soon. They share his political beliefs 100%.

Cartman

07-10-2009, 09:04 AM

What party are you referring to, the one RP belongs to and I voted for last election? What party do you belong to?

I am conservative and vote for conservative candidates, or at least the most conservative candidate available.

You RP nuthuggers claim to be conservative but I am still seriously doubting that. You all seem to be angry and hate-filled weirdos.

RP is what a true Rep used to be, not the shit they are now. He has to pick a side to be on since we all know this is a two party system and the rep party is still closer to the old school ways then the dem will ever be.

Palin couldn't even run her state, which population is barely more than a large city, how would she be better or even on par with who we have now? they are both jokes you just have to keep saying what you say only to try and save face about your choice in last years election.

Vertnut

07-10-2009, 09:59 AM

Paladin

07-10-2009, 10:33 AM

RP is what a true Rep used to be, not the shit they are now. He has to pick a side to be on since we all know this is a two party system and the rep party is still closer to the old school ways then the dem will ever be.

Palin couldn't even run her state, which population is barely more than a large city, how would she be better or even on par with who we have now? they are both jokes you just have to keep saying what you say only to try and save face about your choice in last years election.

Keep throwing your vote to RP and candidates like him and allow idiots like Obama to get elected. The reason I voted Republican is becuase McCain was by far the best choice of the two vianble candidates available. I could have voted for Fred Thompson and thrown my vote away like you RP nuthuggers did, but then I would be no better than you guys.

Please provide evidence that she didn't "run her state".

I have no clue what you are talking about with your last "sentence". LMAO!

Sean88gt

07-10-2009, 11:28 AM

Seriously. 244 cosponsors in the House.

WTF?!:mad:

Can it be brought back up (or will it?)

slow06

07-10-2009, 11:33 AM

Keep throwing your vote to RP and candidates like him and allow idiots like Obama to get elected. The reason I voted Republican is becuase McCain was by far the best choice of the two vianble candidates available. I could have voted for Fred Thompson and thrown my vote away like you RP nuthuggers did, but then I would be no better than you guys.

IMO - You are never throwing away your vote if you are voting for who you believe should be POTUS. It is a two party system because people believe like you do and they vote for the lesser of two evils instead of the person they really think should be in that position.

Paladin

07-10-2009, 12:16 PM

IMO - You are never throwing away your vote if you are voting for who you believe should be POTUS. It is a two party system because people believe like you do and they vote for the lesser of two evils instead of the person they really think should be in that position.

It is a free country, so you can vote for who you want. Do you understand that RP supporters who vote for him or sit out and claim to be conservative are allowing the far left crazies to elect their people in? How does anyone who claims to be conservative stomach that?

Is there anyone worse for this country than Obama, Hillary, or Edwards would have been? I mean, even Rudy Guiliani would have been better than them, right?

I am all about getting conservative and decent people in the WH, but a very close second is preventing the secular progressive liberal candidates the Democraps are throwing at us from getting in.

slow06

07-10-2009, 03:17 PM

It is a free country, so you can vote for who you want. Do you understand that RP supporters who vote for him or sit out and claim to be conservative are allowing the far left crazies to elect their people in? How does anyone who claims to be conservative stomach that?

Is there anyone worse for this country than Obama, Hillary, or Edwards would have been? I mean, even Rudy Guiliani would have been better than them, right?

I am all about getting conservative and decent people in the WH, but a very close second is preventing the secular progressive liberal candidates the Democraps are throwing at us from getting in.

I think you should vote for the person you think could run this country the best, not the guy who will screw it up the least.

Right, you can vote for whoever you want. I completely understand your point, my position is an idealist one and it can create consequences like "taking votes" from McCain and getting Obama voted in. IMO the Ron Paul supporters are making a difference, they are voting for a person they believe should be president and not getting locked into the asinine idea that there ore only two options.

I just wonder how elections would change if everyone that voted for Obama/McCain voted for the person they though should be President instead of giving into pier pressure. Would we see a more prominent third candidate arise that ?

I just wonder how man people voted for Obama/McCain that really wanted to vote for someone else but followed your mindset. I believe there would be a significant impact on the election results and it would encourage other people to look more closely into other candidates.

Paladin

07-10-2009, 03:25 PM

I think you should vote for the person you think could run this country the best, not the guy who will screw it up the least.

Right, you can vote for whoever you want. I completely understand your point, my position is an idealist one and it can create consequences like "taking votes" from McCain and getting Obama voted in. IMO the Ron Paul supporters are making a difference, they are voting for a person they believe should be president and not getting locked into the asinine idea that there ore only two options.

I just wonder how elections would change if everyone that voted for Obama/McCain voted for the person they though should be President instead of giving into pier pressure. Would we see a more prominent third candidate arise that ?

I just wonder how man people voted for Obama/McCain that really wanted to vote for someone else but followed your mindset. I believe there would be a significant impact on the election results and it would encourage other people to look more closely into other candidates.

I wanted to vote for the most conservative candidate available who had a chance of winning. I had hoped during the primaries that Thompson would win since he was my first choice of all the Republicans. I have said it before, I would have voted for RP if he had gotten the Republican nomination. RP was better than any of the Democratic candidates, but he was by far the worst of the Republicans IMO.

slow06

07-10-2009, 03:34 PM

I wanted to vote for the most conservative candidate available who had a chance of winning. I had hoped during the primaries that Thompson would win since he was my first choice of all the Republicans. I have said it before, I would have voted for RP if he had gotten the Republican nomination. RP was better than any of the Democratic candidates, but he was by far the worst of the Republicans IMO.

Well then we agree. You voted for McCain (presumably) because you though he was better than Ron Paul, I think you should have.

Tell me this, had RP gotten the Republican nod and McCain had run anyway (Unlikely I know) who would you have voted for? Would have then voted for RP just because he was more popular?

You voted for the person you liked the best and that is fine, but to the RP supporters who did the same you mock them? Why, because they are the "minority", because meaning there are less of them, unable to make a legitimate run for office?

Cartman

07-10-2009, 03:39 PM

No offense, but you're talking out your ass. Please show us how she hasn't "run her state"? How many states has your precious Ron Paul run?

why would he take a step back from where he is now? admit it, though we all know you guys can't, you were wrong about her from the start. you backed an almost dead horse with a jackass for a running mate.

Paladin

07-10-2009, 04:07 PM

Well then we agree. You voted for McCain (presumably) because you though he was better than Ron Paul, I think you should have.

Tell me this, had RP gotten the Republican nod and McCain had run anyway (Unlikely I know) who would you have voted for? Would have then voted for RP just because he was more popular?

You voted for the person you liked the best and that is fine, but to the RP supporters who did the same you mock them? Why, because they are the "minority", because meaning there are less of them, unable to make a legitimate run for office?

I would have voted for the Republican candidate over any of the Democratic candidates in the last election. If Fred Thompson (my first choice) had tried to run as an independent and RP was the Republican nominee, I would have voted for RP because he would have then passed my "electablitiy" test.

If you are just going to go for who you think would be the best candidate, why limit yourself to the 7-8 people who ran as candidates and not some people who would make a great POTUS? Why not pick your Uncle Billie who is even better than RP? Hell, my BIL would be an excellent POTUS and so would've my recently deceased FIL. You know why, because they have NO chance of getting elected, that is why.

Paladin

07-10-2009, 04:24 PM

why would he take a step back from where he is now? admit it, though we all know you guys can't, you were wrong about her from the start. you backed an almost dead horse with a jackass for a running mate.

How ironic you say that!

Do you know how many people have been elected to POTUS from being a Congressman like RP? How many have been Senators like Obama, McCain, Thompson, Edwards, H. Clinton, and many other who were running? How about Governors like B. Clinton, Bush, Palin, and Carter?

Check out the numbers and see just from that alone what RP's chances are from previous history and get back with me, okay? How is it that there are way more Congressmen/women than governors or Senators and yet Senators and Governors keep getting elected in far larger numbers than Congressmen? HMMMMMM.......:cool:

Vertnut

07-10-2009, 04:54 PM

why would he take a step back from where he is now? admit it, though we all know you guys can't, you were wrong about her from the start. you backed an almost dead horse with a jackass for a running mate.

Who else were we too back? We had a choice between McCain and Obama. I'd back her right now. For you to say she would be worse than what we have, shows you really don't pay attention to what's going on. You need to stick to Arkansas football...they suck, but at least you know something about it.

Cartman

07-10-2009, 10:02 PM

Who else were we too back? We had a choice between McCain and Obama. I'd back her right now. For you to say she would be worse than what we have, shows you really don't pay attention to what's going on. You need to stick to Arkansas football...they suck, but at least you know something about it.

wow, great one, you have nothing to say other than try and talk trash about a topic other than the one being talked here...lol.

you had a 3rd party to choose from, granted we all know it would do no good, just like anybody that voted for obama in this state, it was a throw away vote. for a dem to win texas he would have to be someone really special.

maybe if more people stood up and voiced their concerns of this broken two party system maybe we could have had a real choice for POTUS.

Cartman

07-10-2009, 10:04 PM

How ironic you say that!

Do you know how many people have been elected to POTUS from being a Congressman like RP? How many have been Senators like Obama, McCain, Thompson, Edwards, H. Clinton, and many other who were running? How about Governors like B. Clinton, Bush, Palin, and Carter?

Check out the numbers and see just from that alone what RP's chances are from previous history and get back with me, okay? How is it that there are way more Congressmen/women than governors or Senators and yet Senators and Governors keep getting elected in far larger numbers than Congressmen? HMMMMMM.......:cool:

that proves what? that palin still couldn't run her state, which is why she left before her term was up. if she quit early there she would have quit 60 days ago as vp.

Paladin

07-10-2009, 10:17 PM

that proves what? that palin still couldn't run her state, which is why she left before her term was up. if she quit early there she would have quit 60 days ago as vp.

Please provide the evidence or at least the logic of why you keep saying she "couldn't run her state" or else you will be labeled another in a long line of idiots.

Taylor

07-10-2009, 10:43 PM

Slammy

07-11-2009, 12:08 AM

Voting a party you dislike into office just to keep a party you dislike more out of office is about the stupidest fucking voting logic I've ever heard.

thats what i was thinking, i thought the point of voting was picking the candidate that you believed in and vote for them. if you vote for somebody you dont like just because they want you to believe that its your only choice sounds alot like control to me.

I didnt like mccain or obama, i liked RP only because he has close to the same ideals i do and i as a person will stand by my beliefs. Being able to make a decision and stand by it while not giving into peer pressure is a sign of true strength i always thought.

5point0pony

07-11-2009, 12:19 AM

Voting a party you dislike into office just to keep a party you dislike more out of office is about the stupidest fucking voting logic I've ever heard.

This discussion has been covered for months, even before the actual election. To each his own

32VfromHell

07-11-2009, 01:41 AM

i dig ron pauls domestic policies, but good god, that man shouldnt have a thing to do with foreign policy.

SlowLX

07-11-2009, 01:57 AM

i dig ron pauls domestic policies, but good god, that man shouldnt have a thing to do with foreign policy.

Nor should any Libertarian...that's why I'll never be a full fledged Libertarian.

Vertnut

07-11-2009, 05:46 AM

i dig ron pauls domestic policies, but good god, that man shouldnt have a thing to do with foreign policy.

Preach it! Anytime you get into a conversation with an RP supporter, they never discuss his (very) obvious shortcomings in some of his policies. They always tell you what they like, but don't want to acknowledge his huge flaws. As we now know with the "messiah", sometimes you don't just get the "T-bone" of the cow, but you get the entire rotting, stinking carcass with it...

Paladin

07-11-2009, 10:58 AM

Voting a party you dislike into office just to keep a party you dislike more out of office is about the stupidest fucking voting logic I've ever heard.

It's not about party, it's about the quality of the candidate. I couldn't care less about party especially since I have voted for candidates from both parties. There was a huge difference in the quality of candidates between McCain and Obama.

Please feel free to vote for Mickey Mouse if you choose, but stop claiming to be conservative if you do. There is no way a true conservative would vote for RP, Mickey Mouse, or any other non viable candidate and allow Obama or some other ultra liberal into office.

I assume you are a RP nuthugger, correct?

It just keeps seeming more and more that the RP nuthuggers have no more thought process than the liberals. LMAO!

Paladin

07-11-2009, 11:03 AM

i dig ron pauls domestic policies, but good god, that man shouldnt have a thing to do with foreign policy.

The other problem I see is that he would never be able to get any of his domestic policy implemented. He would be like a city councilman we had here in FW who had grand ideas and was very kooky. At first, several other city councilmen would second his motions and allow him to voice his opinion, only to find out he would stab them in the back by pulling some weird idea or alienate them by saying rude or odd things. It didn't take long for him to NEVER get a second on his motions and he was completely neutered. He had alot of ideas for his constituents but got NOTHING done becuase of his "kookiness". This is exactly what would happen to RP IMO.

Taylor

07-11-2009, 12:28 PM

I assume you are a RP nuthugger, correct?

It just keeps seeming more and more that the RP nuthuggers have no more thought process than the liberals. LMAO!

lol. Anyone who disagrees with you is either an RP nuthugger or Obama worshipper. I love it.

You have a truly screwed up thought process yourself.

Paladin

07-11-2009, 01:10 PM

lol. Anyone who disagrees with you is either an RP nuthugger or Obama worshipper. I love it.

You have a truly screwed up thought process yourself.

Are you going to answer or not?

Vertnut

07-11-2009, 02:58 PM

Are you going to answer or not?

Apparently...not.

Paladin

07-11-2009, 06:15 PM

Apparently...not.

I think it's funny when people will engage in debate when it is comfortable and then try and switch the topic and not answer questions when it gets uncomfortable.

Taylor

07-11-2009, 07:26 PM

Are you going to answer or not?

Apparently...not.

I think it's funny when people will engage in debate when it is comfortable and then try and switch the topic and not answer questions when it gets uncomfortable.

God forbid someone not stay on this website 24/7 to answer your questions.

You did not even ask me a relevant question. No I am not an "RP nuthugger" but I would vote for him before I vote any quasi-liberal like McCain into office.

Paladin

07-11-2009, 07:51 PM

God forbid someone not stay on this website 24/7 to answer your questions.

You did not even ask me a relevant question. No I am not an "RP nuthugger" but I would vote for him before I vote any quasi-liberal like McCain into office.

Okay, who did you vote for in the last election?

Taylor

07-11-2009, 07:53 PM

Mickey Mouse.

88Kaufmann

07-11-2009, 07:57 PM

I think Mickey gets increasingly popular every election.... :biglaugh:

Paladin

07-11-2009, 09:28 PM

Mickey Mouse.

That's what I figured. You comment on others choices without giving your own. There is a word for that type of person and it isn't very flattering.

Taylor

07-11-2009, 10:03 PM

It was a joke. Who I voted for is irrelevant to our discussion. I can tell you this much: it was not either of the 2 major parties.

Fox466

07-11-2009, 11:44 PM

It was a joke. Who I voted for is irrelevant to our discussion. I can tell you this much: it was not either of the 2 major parties.

So, basically, you continue to be a chickenshit that won't take a stand by saying who you voted for? Instead, you prefer making allusions to whom you may have voted for and insisting your vote doesn't matter?

Typical fucking spineless lib...

Slammy

07-12-2009, 04:01 AM

I love people who say ron paul is way too old

DOB
Ron Paul - August 20, 1935
John McCain - August 29, 1936

Do the math....LMFAO

Taylor

07-12-2009, 05:03 PM

I love people who say ron paul is way too old

DOB
Ron Paul - August 20, 1935
John McCain - August 29, 1936

Do the math....LMFAO

I know right? And how old was Reagan? IIRC within 2-3 maybe 4 years of both McCain and Paul when he was in office.

Vertnut

07-12-2009, 05:56 PM

I know right? And how old was Reagan? IIRC within 2-3 maybe 4 years of both McCain and Paul when he was in office.

Reagan was about to turn 70 after his inauguration in '81. The press had a fucking field-day with his age. In 2012, both of the gents you speak of would be considerably older. A man starting his term at 76 years old, is a little too old. He can't keep up with the pace of the office.