POLITICS - I have been moved to act

DavidF · Post by **DavidF** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:34 am

First I want to say how much I have come to appreciate the fellowship (albeit one sided as shown by my paltry post count) that I have enjoyed on this board for the last couple of years. Second I want to apologize for yet another OT post on politics, but its an election year and it seems that a lot of us are more then a little frustrated with the state of the Union and our options for candidates for President. I have been discouraged for the last few months waiting for Fred Thompson to step up and make a campaign of it while watching elitists and closet liberals butter up the masses with promises of change. All this time I had written off Ron Paul as unelectable and to extreme based on the opinion of a couple of respected friends. Well it serves me right for not doing my own research. I just spent the last few hours reading his policy papers, examining his voting record and watching youtube videos. Its like a lightbulb went off. He is taking a stand like no one in 200 years, and I am donating to a Presidential candidate for the first time in my life.

I don't 100 percent agree with pulling out of Iraq immediately. We took on that challenge and I think we are obligated to not leave those people in a lurch. But I am willing to sacrifice that issue at the possibility of experiencing the free society that the founding fathers envisioned. If he doesn't win the nomination or run third party I will be writing in his name.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhe ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbq--pFYcLw

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:40 am

Your friends are right, Ron Paul as unelectable and too extreme. We are stuck with John McCain.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:20 am

Only because, most of us, despite all the rhetoric are as willing to compromise our rights as the next guy for a little security. Nice message to send.

McCain may as well be a democrat.

spurgon · Post by **spurgon** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:32 am

Swampman

I too will vote for Paul. Not with any expectation that he will win but rather as a philolosophical/moral statement of what I believe in. When I vote it is as a testament to folks like my father who fought and sacrificed in the meat grinder of WW II. I was "talked out of" voting for Perot when he ran because everyone said he couldn't win or couldn't get anything accomplished because the reps and the dems wouldn't work with him. This guy knows where we stand.........

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
Joseph Stalin

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:34 am

Leverdude wrote:Only because, most of us, despite all the rhetoric are as willing to compromise our rights as the next guy for a little security. Nice message to send.

McCain may as well be a democrat.

+1

I hate to say it, but I would vote for the devil himself over Hillary, as a least the road to hell would be quicker and less painful.

I admire McCain's service to our country in the military and his strength as a POW. But it stops there. After that, he has been of little use, and with the McCain-Feingold law, proved he does not care one wit about the Constitution.

I am slowly coming over to the painful realization that if the GOP runs one of several of their moderate candidates, the only way to send them a strong message is to vote for a third party candidate. No, I know it ends up electing a Dem - so I'm not there yet - but I am tired of the party leaving it's roots and taking us for granted...

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:36 am

The Clinton and Obama mafias will chew McCain up and spit him out. Two many holes in his past for a conservative and not far enough left for a liberal.
Paul's record is great but he doesn't act look whatever as presidential and won't beat either of the two ruthless lefties.
Thompson is my choice in a real world, but it looks like he's not trying

So back to Mitt, Mike and John. Right now on whole country baises Mitt looks to be the most electable (money still counts) and with one of the others as a running mate (not Rudy

) would give the libs a run for their money.
There is still some shaking and sifting going on, so it's not set in stone yet

Dave

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:45 am

I hope I don't have to vote for Mitt. Maybe McCain can pull this off.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:46 am

So far third parties are acts of desperation, kind of like jumping off a bridge to gain recognition. They do siphon voters to change the outcome, but never win.

The message they tried to send dies again like the jumper and country struggels on with the results.
Dave

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:59 am

McCain is a communist with Republican friends, and voting for him would be the same as voting for Clinton or Obama, the only difference being who would be raiding the treasury.

There is no desperation in voting third party, only the hope that the right vote has been cast, and the knowledge that the other 85% of voters are too lazy or too scared to do what is right for the country.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:25 am

Ysabel Kid wrote:
Leverdude wrote:Only because, most of us, despite all the rhetoric are as willing to compromise our rights as the next guy for a little security. Nice message to send.

McCain may as well be a democrat.
+1

I am slowly coming over to the painful realization that if the GOP runs one of several of their moderate candidates, the only way to send them a strong message is to vote for a third party candidate. No, I know it ends up electing a Dem - so I'm not there yet - but I am tired of the party leaving it's roots and taking us for granted...

I am there. A republican is a democrat is a republican is a democrat. They watch each other's back despite the little game they play in public. When you have lived and worked in the DC environment like I have over the last 12 years, you will come to that realization. They are the SAME.

Vote your conscience like a man should and let the cards fall where they may. Perhaps a third party will arise eventually. And when it does, watch the roachs run for their lives.

cubrock · Post by **cubrock** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:24 am

DavidF wrote:First I want to say how much I have come to appreciate the fellowship (albeit one sided as shown by my paltry post count) that I have enjoyed on this board for the last couple of years. Second I want to apologize for yet another OT post on politics, but its an election year and it seems that a lot of us are more then a little frustrated with the state of the Union and our options for candidates for President. I have been discouraged for the last few months waiting for Fred Thompson to step up and make a campaign of it while watching elitists and closet liberals butter up the masses with promises of change. All this time I had written off Ron Paul as unelectable and to extreme based on the opinion of a couple of respected friends. Well it serves me right for not doing my own research. I just spent the last few hours reading his policy papers, examining his voting record and watching youtube videos. Its like a lightbulb went off. He is taking a stand like no one in 200 years, and I am donating to a Presidential candidate for the first time in my life.

I don't 100 percent agree with pulling out of Iraq immediately. We took on that challenge and I think we are obligated to not leave those people in a lurch. But I am willing to sacrifice that issue at the possibility of experiencing the free society that the founding fathers envisioned. If he doesn't win the nomination or run third party I will be writing in his name.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhe ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbq--pFYcLw

+1.

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:05 pm

DavidF wrote:

I just spent the last few hours reading his policy papers, examining his voting record and watching youtube videos. Its like a lightbulb went off. He is taking a stand like no one in 200 years, and I am donating to a Presidential candidate for the first time in my life. .... If he doesn't win the nomination or run third party I will be writing in his name.

Thank you for being responsible and doing your own research, now check out which candidates are members of The CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) for some more inspiration to fight.

Current candidates who are members of the CFR.
Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Hillary Clinton (Bill is a member)
Barack Obama
John Edwards

Congratulations DavidF and good job! My own "light bulb" went on back in July when I was waiting 14 days for a background check. Feels good to wake up don't it? Good thing about Paul and this movement towards his message of individual responsibility and Liberty is, the message of Freedom won't fizzle out after the elections. This movement has grown and will continue to grow after the elections (you won't hear this on Fox). It is only a matter of time before we get our Country back. It would really be nice if it happens this time around, but, alot of people are still hoodwinked by the smoke and mirrors pitting Dems against Repubs. It aint Dems vs. Repubs, it's us vs. government/big business.

"Electability" is a defeatist term/attitude coined by the mainstream media and part of the smoke and mirrors, people either get this or they don't. Remember, our Constitution can't win if you say it won't, if you say it can win, it can.

Now what about all this CFR stuff? If anybody is concerned about The United States of America as a stand alone nation, they should be plenty concerned about the CFR. Be a patriot and do some diggin', Fox and the rest won't be "reporting" on the CFR.

I will be writing Ron Pauls name in as well if I have to.

Thanks, Bunkloco

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:34 pm

IMHO McCain is a Democrat pure and simple. Just look at his record. What about the fact that John Kerry might have used him as a VP? It may have just been rumor but it never got dismissed either. I think anyone in favor of him would be best served if they left his service record out of it. From what I learned in the last election he ran for, or was it the one before that? I can't remember. Anyway from what I remember he was a major screw up who only got anywhere because daddy was an admiral. He crashed a Navy Jet in Pensacola Bay while in training but because daddy was an Admiral he wasn't washed out of the program.

Rusty <><

66GTO · Post by **66GTO** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:41 pm

The primary elections are the time to pull out your checkbook and support the candidate of your choice. If they don't survive the early primaries, they won't be around later for you to vote for them. It doesn't have to be huge bucks. A bunch of little bucks will get the job done.

I have voted with my checkbook for Fred Thompson twice now, hoping he makes it to Super Tuesday.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:44 pm

FWiedner wrote:McCain is a communist with Republican friends, and voting for him would be the same as voting for Clinton or Obama, the only difference being who would be raiding the treasury.

There is no desperation in voting third party, only the hope that the right vote has been cast, and the knowledge that the other 85% of voters are too lazy or too scared to do what is right for the country.

Nice assertion, but no proof. That's foolhardy and irresponsible to fling statements around like that. McCain has not brought earmarks back and while McCain Feingold reeked, he is quite the conservative. A desire to work with the other side of the room is not the mark of a bad politician, especially if everyone's vote is for sale.....GO AHEAD, SPLIT THE VOTE AND HAND IT TO THE REAL SOCIALISTS

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:46 pm

A large bloc of Paul's supporters are the American Nazi Party

Paul is a racist jerk with dingbat isolationists for supporters.

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:15 pm

BlaineG wrote:

A large bloc of Paul's supporters are the American Nazi Party Paul is a racist jerk with dingbat isolationists for supporters.

I think the term your refering to is non-interventionalist, not to be confused with isolationist. Possibly a mistake, but dingbat? Come on BlaineG inform me, don't insult me. And please inform me of the large bloc of Nazi supprtors, are we talking 15? 100? millions? And how exacltly is Paul a racist jerk? Seems to me if one champions individual freedom there isn't room to be racist. In other words, individuals rights and freedoms are championed -NOT- groups of individuals.

BlaineG wrote: (in another post)

Nice assertion, but no proof. That's foolhardy and irresponsible to fling statements around like that.

So what's not foolhardy and irresponsible about Nazis racists and dingbats with no proof? I think we're trying to help each other here, educate me, help me understand.

Bunkloco

DavidF · Post by **DavidF** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:35 pm

BlaineG wrote:A large bloc of Paul's supporters are the American Nazi Party Paul is a racist jerk with dingbat isolationists for supporters.

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."
Thomas Jefferson
Isolationist.....Not exactly.

Just because a bunch a A..holes happen to agree with him doesn't mean Paul condones their actions or beliefs. Paul simply stand by the constitutional principle that it is none of the FEDERAL governments business.

"Ron Paul, the Real Republican?

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

By Radley Balko

* E-MAIL STORY
* PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

When you read about a vote in Congress that goes something like 412-1, odds are pretty good that the sole "nay" came from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He so consistently votes against widely popular bills, in fact, that the Washington Post recently gave him the moniker "Congressman 'No.'"

Paul isn't a reflexive contrarian--he doesn't oppose just to oppose. Rather, he has a core set of principles that guide him. They happen to be the same principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce -- with a premium on peace.

When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.

For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly. "

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:02 pm

Mike Huckabee.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:09 pm

In the end the media will decide who gets elected. I will vote for whichever Republican is still in the fight in November.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:12 pm

Dont forget we vote in the Primaries. "Super Tuesday" in my state, IIRC Feb 5th.

Check your state.

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:18 pm

Swampman wrote:In the end the media will decide who gets elected. I will vote for whichever Republican is still in the fight in November.

It doesn't taste good rolling around on my tongue, but that about sizes it up
for me too.

Neither side can afford to go with the heart of it's base, it's the middle of
the road, non informed, vote for the catchy name people who really decide
who wins in these elections. Makes my belly turn

Thats the only reason money wins these things, the more times your name is
repeated in the media the more likely you'll win

stretch · Post by **stretch** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:33 pm

You go, DavidF!!

Ron Paul is the first guy running for president in years who's
not gonna whore himself to the major media and rich corporations,
and has the record in Congress to prove it. He's a breath of fresh air.
That's why the major media is alternately making fun of and then
ignoring him.

He's also one of the few people who did NOT vote for the Patriot Act.
That alone puts him head and shoulders above most elected officials
in this land.

I'm voting for him, I'm stumping for him, and I urge anyone who
thinks the US Constitution is NOT dead, and values liberty and
freedom to do the same.

-Stretch

ursavus.elemensis · Post by **ursavus.elemensis** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:03 pm

Too many things I don't agree with Ron Paul about, and the first on eis the FED. How exactly would returning to the gold standard work?

Huckabee is a liberal Democrat who would install the worst kind of socialism. He'd try to do to this country what FDR and LBJ never got around to doing. My religion is between me and God, and Huckabee can butt out and keep his liberal ideas to himself. He'd destroy the moral fabric of this nation by trying to make us all dependent on the government. McCain is an elitist who no more believes in the U.S. Constitution than Osama Bin Laden does. McCain believes in United States of John McCain, just like his good buddy John Kerry only believed in the United States of John Kerry. I'm not voting for someone I can not support just so someone else who would be equally awful might not win. I voted for Bush in 2000 because of Al Gore, and I voted for Bush again in 2004 because of John Kerry, and I'll never vote for someone I don't support ever again.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:22 pm

Bunk and David: Sorry, but my opinions are not any more crazy than your's were

You've formed your opinions and I've mine

DavidF · Post by **DavidF** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:53 pm

BlaineG wrote:Bunk and David: Sorry, but my opinions are not any more crazy than your's were You've formed your opinions and I've mine

I don't recall anyone calling your opinions crazy.

I do find it interesting that anyone who adheres to a strict interpretation of the Constitution is now "crazy" or a "dingbat".

All you can do is vote your conscience and principles, I am just no longer to willing to accept the compromises offered by the other candidates.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:16 pm

Went through this Paul thing before with reference to his comments of non intervention verses defense. Most here are aware and either checked the reference or didn't want to, weather it was mind set or or lack of give a-----
The bottom line if you are not deaff and blind is he lacks the ability to make decisions dealing with national security - that he confuses defense with non intervention. His voting record while showing determination to follow his interpatation of the constitution shows a stubborness that may be good at home won't work internationaly. Don't think so try that approach with your wife.
He also come across when confronted -take it or leave it-try that at home too.
He is a isolationist because his lack of international abilities will back us up to the border and trigger trade retaliation.
Flat *** pull out of Iraq---most of the dems wouldn't be that abropt and probably change that stance when held resposabile with national security.
Blind stubborness is his strength

While Paul kicks McCain on the constitution, McCain has the better sense of world affairs-both the greater of the compromise than any of the rest of the rep but Fred with the ideas of Ronnie and the personality of Truman has strength and vision.
Got a little to political here -sorry-just getting to the point after much research that Paul scares me

Dave

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:26 pm

DavidF wrote:
BlaineG wrote:Bunk and David: Sorry, but my opinions are not any more crazy than your's were You've formed your opinions and I've mine
I don't recall anyone calling your opinions crazy.

I do find it interesting that anyone who adheres to a strict interpretation of the Constitution is now "crazy" or a "dingbat".

All you can do is vote your conscience and principles, I am just no longer to willing to accept the compromises offered by the other candidates.

Ok......substitute any word that means "I don't approve of" that doesn't offend you......... Let's argue valid points instead of using "offense" as a playing card....

I am just no longer to willing to accept the compromises offered by the other candidates.

Then be prepared to accept a President that you will disapprove of way more than the Republician candidate.

All you can do is vote your conscience and principles

I agree......But you should be realistic, as well........

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:34 pm

With after thought Paul would not even be a good cabinat member. Paul runs on a set of tracks anything outside of those tracks he is does not do well with. He is telling you want you want to hear, but can this kind of attitude get enough to go along with him either at home or internationally.
The more considerations entered into the formula the less desirable he looks.
Dave

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:54 pm

stretch wrote:You go, DavidF!!
Ron Paul is the first guy running for president in years who's
not gonna whore himself to the major media and rich corporations,
and has the record in Congress to prove it. He's a breath of fresh air.
That's why the major media is alternately making fun of and then
ignoring him. -Stretch

I agree. Paul's every opinion could as well be that of Washington or Jefferson or Madison, as far as it's roots in the Constitution, and it's being based on principle, rather than seeing which way the political wind is blowing. I think Paul would win HANDS DOWN over Hillary or Obama, IF the Republicans had the gonads to nominate him - most Democrats I know (the nice guy/gal who has just 'always' voted Dem, or has union pressure, or thinks the Republicans are 'too willing to destroy freedom to find pot smokers') really don't LIKE Hillary or Obama, so they would vote for Paul, and his anti-war stance would be a plus for many. Even gay's like him once they find out his position against 'gay marriage' is simply an outgrowth of his position that the government shouldn't have the power to marry ANYBODY - that is the function of the church.

Trouble is, most of us want the government to sanction or preferably subsidize whatever we like to be or do, whether it be heterosexual marriage, automobile manufacturing, farming, doctoring, or whatever, and Paul doesn't want the government to do all that, whether through giving tax 'breaks' from taxes that are illegitimate to begin with, or regulating us all to death. We want breaks for ourselves for OUR kind of work or marriage or play, yet we want to regulate the stuff OTHER people do.

We get what we deserve.

I do agree that Paul doesn't seem like the kind of guy who is a military 'whiz' but I'd offer several thoughts there. If we actually WERE a non-interventionist nation, our military decisions would be very easy - 'Leave us alone and prosper - #u(& with us and you die.' Admittedly we aren't likely to become non-interventionist quickly enough to make his job that easy were he elected though. Also, think about this - he would have MANY military experts to actually run things for the inevitable and ongoing 'conflicts' we're having. I seriously doubt Bush does much himself along the military leadership line other than land a plane for a photo op; good guy, but not a warrior any more than Paul is.

I'm NOT turned off by Huckabee's Christianity like some, because it isn't like he's going to get elected and declare martial law and all athiests shot at dawn, and all Jews and Catholics required to become Baptists. He's just a guy who uses his Christian faith to guide him in life - big deal. To me, that is a good thing, as long as he's not a "sell-out" who will cede the Church's authority to the government. We've all seen the type - instead of good old fashioned preaching and role modeling and getting along with other faiths, they turn Morality over to the legislature, and use the force of Government to recruit 'believers' by legislating their particular church's beliefs into law. That is fine for crime (involves direct harm to others) but not for vice (only harming themself).

Huckabee seems solidly pro-gun like Paul, and definitely NOT like Guliana, McCain, or Romney, so I'll vote for either Huckabee or Paul. The others only promise a slow cooking of the frog vs. voting Dem, which at least might turn up the temperature enough some voters would start to jump.

Maybe they'll team up for prez and viceprez - ha!

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:22 pm

Reading thru the thread its obvious that the Republicans dont need to put up a valid good candidate. Any old schmuck will do & most of us will vote for him simple because he's not a Democrat, not by name anyway.
Its sad but the fact seems to be that its not the Democrats fault. Its ours for failing to vote in the best man because he dont fit in the right party.
I wont vote for a lesser candidate as long as theres one who has consistently voted according to the constitution.

Blind loyalty to a political party is killing our country. We have a chance here & I wont ignore it at the request of the party that has failed me. He should be the premeir Rep candidate, but he cant be, because the republican party does not represent conservative Americans, even tho conservative Americans stubburnly refuse to dump them as deserved.

It really dont much matter, theres very little likleyhood that the republicans can win after the mess they got us in. The only way we wont get a Democrat in office is if we wake up & support RP en-masse, he will still likely lose but at least I'll be able to honestly say I supported the only real American candidate.

You guys can vote for whoever you want. But dont cry if the next Rep president is another do nothing, go with the flow, follow the leader type.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:27 pm

Caco wrote:With after thought Paul would not even be a good cabinat member. Paul runs on a set of tracks anything outside of those tracks he is does not do well with. He is telling you want you want to hear, but can this kind of attitude get enough to go along with him either at home or internationally.
The more considerations entered into the formula the less desirable he looks.
Dave

Dont listen to him. Look at his record. Our President & Gov't are suposed to run on a set of tracks & not go outside them. Those tracks are the Constitution. There are no considerations that require them to leave the road made clear by the Constitution. When they do that we get where we are today. If your not happy with how things are & the direction we are headed RP is the only choice.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:32 pm

Leverdude wrote:Reading thru the thread its obvious that the Republicans dont need to put up a valid good candidate. Any old schmuck will do & most of us will vote for him simple because he's not a Democrat, not by name anyway.
Its sad but the fact seems to be that its not the Democrats fault. Its ours for failing to vote in the best man because he dont fit in the right party.
I wont vote for a lesser candidate as long as theres one who has consistently voted according to the constitution.

Blind loyalty to a political party is killing our country. We have a chance here & I wont ignore it at the request of the party that has failed me. He should be the premeir Rep candidate, but he cant be, because the republican party does not represent conservative Americans, even tho conservative Americans stubburnly refuse to dump them as deserved.

It really dont much matter, theres very little likleyhood that the republicans can win after the mess they got us in. The only way we wont get a Democrat in office is if we wake up & support RP en-masse, he will still likely lose but at least I'll be able to honestly say I supported the only real American candidate.

You guys can vote for whoever you want. But dont cry if the next Rep president is another do nothing, go with the flow, follow the leader type.

Let's say the impossible happens and Paul IS the POTUS.....convince me that he can carry out a Libertarian agenda against the wishes of a congress that won't support him....could be the first time the Republicians and DemoCraps ever got together...........Lest you think I'm not paying attention, what kind of SCOTUS would we have today if Kerry and his gang had picked the last two? There are two or three more just waiting for a Dem to get elected so they can resign and have the SCOTUS lean left as hell again..... Go tell McCain ( and I really don't care for him, either) to his face he's not a Real American what with all he went thru for this Country......

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:38 pm

"most of us will vote for him simple because he's not a Democrat"

As a gun owner and a Christian, I have no other choice. I can't vote for a democrat, and I won't vote for a 3rd party.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:53 pm

Swampman wrote:"most of us will vote for him simple because he's not a Democrat"

As a gun owner and a Christian, I have no other choice. I can't vote for a democrat, and I won't vote for a 3rd party.

So if Obama swapped parties you'd vote for him?

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:58 pm

ursavus.elemensis wrote:

Too many things I don't agree with Ron Paul about, and the first on eis the FED. How exactly would returning to the gold standard work?

Bear with me here, I am by no means an economic whiz. The system we have now is a central bank, we've had them in the past and a few were abolished by past Presidents, last one I believe was Jackson. This Federal Reserve (and as I understand there is nothing Federal about it) is privately owned. The Federal Reserve sets interest rates, and has those rates/loans backed up by the real Feds, our government.

Following is from "Bradly in DC" from another forum.

"In short, when the government spends more than it earns (especially in times of war), the Fed "monetizes" the debt (buys it with money it creates out of nothing) which is the only cause of inflation (the loss of purchasing power of the dollar).

This inflation helps those who get the money first (the Fed, large money center banks and their special interests) at the expense of those who get the new money later or not at all but suffer the consequences of the loss of purchasing power of the monetary unit (higher prices, falling value against other currencies, etc.).

The artificial manipulation of the interest rates is the cause of the credit-induced boom and bust cycles in the economy."

And this from "brandonyates" also on another forum.

Money is any token or other object that functions as a medium of exchange. Money can be a dollar bill, a money order, or a number in a bank account.

Currency is one form of money. Currency in common form is paper bills and coins.

Historically, people traded in tangible assets. For example, someone would trade a cow for labor to build a house. Eventually people realized it would be more effective to have a universal commodity that could be used for trade. This way, if the person who wanted your cow could not build your house, they could give you the universal commodity in exchange for the cow. You could then exchange that commodity with someone else to build your house.

For a long time, gold was the universal commodity that people traded in. At some point in time, someone decided it would be more efficient to simply have peices of paper representing the gold, and trade in this representative paper instead of the actual gold.

In 1913 the Federal Reserve was created. This was the 3rd central bank of the united states, the previous two were abolished. The federal reserve was created as a "quasi-public" bank. What this means is the federal reserve members are not directly elected and they have no oversight by the federal government. The President appoints the members to the Fed's Board of Governers, but has no oversight beyond that. Some say this is unconstitutional because the constitution only gives congress authority to create currency.

Since the birth of our nation the US dollar was pegged to a certain quantity of gold. Originally, a US dollar was worth 24.75 grains of gold. In 1933, the US gave up on the gold standard.

From the US treasury website...

"Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy."

Because our currency is no longer backed by anything, the federal reserve can print paper money at a whim, with no oversight by the american people or american government. When the Fed prints money, it makes the actual value of the money already in circulation less. When the government needs money, the Fed simply prints it and gives it to them. This is what Ron Paul refers to as the "inflation tax" The government gets money, and the money you have will now buy you less. It is the invisible tax. The rampant printing of money and the government overspending it what is causing our coming financial collapse.

Now about getting back to the gold standard (a more stable, equal system) it is accomplished by:

People would begin to have gold accounts that they would use to buy and sell. The ownership of the gold would be transferred back and forth using checks, debit cards, paper certificates (currency), and a few coins, just like with FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes).

When you went shopping you would start to see two prices, one in FRNs and one in a certain weight of gold.

If the Fed inflated the number of FRNs you would see the FRN prices rise while the gold price would stay roughly the same.

You would begin to prefer the gold price, so you would want to be paid in gold too.

How could the Fed stop the flight to gold? Only one way. Stop inflating the number of FRNs.

Now then, any other candidate speaking about this? Naw, right now they're telling us how giving us back a fraction of our money will solve/help this current recession. A band-aid when the system needs surgery.

Hope this helps, Bunkloco

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:07 pm

Let's say the impossible happens and Paul IS the POTUS.....convince me that he can carry out a Libertarian agenda against the wishes of a congress that won't support him....could be the first time the Republicians and DemoCraps ever got together...........Lest you think I'm not paying attention, what kind of SCOTUS would we have today if Kerry and his gang had picked the last two? There are two or three more just waiting for a Dem to get elected so they can resign and have the SCOTUS lean left as hell again..... Go tell McCain ( and I really don't care for him, either) to his face he's not a Real American what with all he went thru for this Country...... Wink

I think he could & would certainly keep them in check better than most others that see nothing wrong with compromising their suposed principals just to get along.
McCains a real American as far as his citizenship & I'm greatful for his service, but none of that can erase his unAmerican stance on many fronts, not the least of which are his anti gun tendencies. I dont see him keeping a Liberal Congress in check, more likely he's pow wowing with them already. If the oportunity presented itself I'd have no issues telling him to his face that I find his stances unAmerican.

I simply have zero faith in the Republican party anymore. Since forever I supported them just because they talk the talk I like to hear. I'm not scholarly in anyones estimation but I'v learned to look a bit at how people act & what they do instead of what they say when theyre trying to convince you of something. A little looking made me shake my head, a lot made me decide not to support anyone I dont trust.
I trust the Democrats more than Republicans these days. I dont like what they stand for but at least theyre open about their socialist agenda & hatred of freedom & guns. I trust them to do as they say & take away what I value if given the chance. I dont trust the mainstream Rep party to protect my rights anymore than I do the Dems.

Funny, but RP,s been a Republican for years & years yet he's branded a Libertarian now that the Republicans aint conservative anymore.

But thats fine, liberty was a founding principal of our nation, its not so predominant anymore. We ought to work to rectify that I think.

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:00 pm

BlaineG wrote:

Let's say the impossible happens and Paul IS the POTUS.....convince me that he can carry out a Libertarian agenda against the wishes of a congress that won't support him....could be the first time the Republicians and DemoCraps ever got together...........Lest you think I'm not paying attention, what kind of SCOTUS would we have today if Kerry and his gang had picked the last two? There are two or three more just waiting for a Dem to get elected so they can resign and have the SCOTUS lean left as hell again..... Go tell McCain ( and I really don't care for him, either) to his face he's not a Real American what with all he went thru for this Country......

I can't convince you RP will carry out a Libertarian (Constitutionalist) agenda, but looking at Pauls voting record and writings he would continue to champion our Constitution. Victim-disarmament bill comes up (gun control), big V-E-T-O. With an explanation why, against our Constitution. Another terrorist attack on our soil, bang, hunt down the ones responsible (Letter of Marquis and Reprisal), not invade a country, and probably ask us gun owners to be vigilent as well not tell us "go shopping and pay attention to some multi-colored alert system". Natural disaster ala Katrina, again, citizens bear your arms and keep yourself and neighbors safe, not wait for Federal help and pay Blackwater to come patrol your neighborhood.

I've looked into the other candidates and their material on their websites (mostly stances but not Constitutional solutions) and I've seen them laugh and snicker at Ol' Paul when he speaks of Constitutional solutions as well as advice given by our founding fathers and I haven't read or heard any of them (except Paul) talking about my responsibility and what true Liberty involves. This speaks volumes to me. As far as bringing the "parties" together, the guy can win any argument with our Constitution, not beliefs or how it should be, but again, OUR Constitution, that good ol' document that we as Americans should all live by, how could any argue with our Constitution and call themselves Americans? As for McCain, I also appreciate his service (as well as all past and presently serving) and may have voted for him years ago, but not anymore.

Thanks for your insights, Bunkloco

Mojo · Post by **Mojo** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:10 pm

Imagine what would happen if all the people that believe in Ron Paul's message would pony up and vote for him despite their fear that he doesn't have a chance. Our best chance at turning this country around is to send a STRONG message to the career politicians in D.C. that we are sick and tired of the same old routine and demand that this country take a new direction. What better place to start cleaning house that at the top? Sure, there would be upheaval and infighting but if the voice of the American people remains strong and united they would have no other choice than to go with the flow. We Americans can either help build the momentum necessary to turn this country in a new direction or lay back and complain for another four years. Personally, I'm voting for Ron Paul. At first, I didn't think he had a chance but over the past few months that has changed. I am now working as a precinct leader for the Ron Paul campaign and spending most of my free time handing out literature and posting signs. If he doesn't get elected, it won't be because I didn't do my part.

crawdaddyjim · Post by **crawdaddyjim** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:37 pm

I am voting for Dr. Paul in the primary. If he should get the nod I will vote for him in the general. But I will not let the SOCIALISTS gain ground just to show the CORPRATISTS that I am angry at them. And as such will vote for the Republican if I have to.

It has been pretty good so far having a do nothing congress. At least they haven't screwed us up too much. Kinda like that balance.

JerryB · Post by **JerryB** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:09 am

Hey Blackhawk,do you think that all of us in here Arkansaw can swing enough votes for our man Mike?

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:13 am

If RP has the Nod for the first or second position, I'll vote for him, but I won't vote him as a third party and hand the election to the 'Crats...

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:31 pm

Jerry, maybe but I ain't made my mind up just yet. He (Huckabee) is the top candidate in my book and that's because I don't think Ron Paul is a type of person that will go on the offensive if our nation is ever attacked again. He does try to follow along with items going against the Constitution, but I think Mike would too, and I don't feel like he'd (RP) be apt to go after those that help support the enemies of America. IE: Husein(sp), etc... I was taught to hit first rather than set back and wait for the fight to come to me and I'm just not sure RP is aggressive enough when it comes to going after those that will bring the fight to us. Right now he states he'd pull all military forces out of the middle east and I'm just not for that right now. Not enough has been done in my book. On the same hand I do agree with what he's stated about our forces being in Europe and Korea. We should not be the defensive forces in those countries, but more they should be staging points for us to deploy from.

Johnny

horsesoldier03 · Post by **horsesoldier03** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:29 pm

Well I definately agree that Ron Paul is unelectable. You will never get a majority to support him and after his poor performance in the last debate that I seen, I wont either. I was for Mike Huckabee, however several of his positions on key issues are a little out there. Right now, I think I will vote for Fred Thompson. However, who knows what may happen once the primaries are over. Best policy for now is to wait and see whos names get on the ballots. I just hope we dont shoot our self in the foot by having alot of independants in the race. I for one am to blame for Bush Sr. only getting one term because I voted for Perot. Personnally if there is an independant that runs i hope it comes from the Democratic party so that it doesnt split the republican votes.

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:33 pm

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:17 pm

Ron Paul is the only conservative in the race. Any other choice elects a liberal and/or a socialist.

We've had to endure 15 years of liberal/socialist rule. I, for one, don't like how it's turning out so far.

Isn't it time that somebody with American values, who has the best interests of America and her People at heart, was in the oval office?

Paul has got my vote, and if he doesn't make it through the primaries I'll write him in.

One of the republican/democrat/liberal/socialist heads of the hydra will be elected, but I'll be able to sleep knowing that I didn't vote to continue feeding our future to evil.

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:43 pm

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:29 pm

Idahoser wrote: Ron Paul is not a conservative, by the way, he's a Libertarian. I like a lot of that and hate some.

The people who would consider the Libertarian party 'except for their position on ____' (usually the relegalization of drugs) are funny, because they'll turn around and vote Republican despite despite THEIR position on the environment, or Democrat despite THEIR position on welfare, or etc.

Sad to say, if Thomas Jefferson himself was running for election, we have a sizeable population who wouldn't vote for him because they'd label him as 'unelectable' (which is usually a labeling done by the big east coat media who we should know enough to mistrust). Of course, he had many positions at odds with today's Democrats (wouldn't have been for welfare, government-run healthcare, or gun control) and with today's Republicans (wouldn't have been for laws regulating drug usage or alcohol on Sunday). When you get down to basics, most of us like to be left alone, but most of us can't resist the temptation to tell/force others what to do. The R's & D's both stay in office by brokering regulatory power and tax priveleges. Paul's Libertarian leanings mean he isn't into that at all.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:31 pm

I'm going to vote for Huckabee next week and (I'm guessing) McCain in the November election. As a Christian and a gun owner I have to do what I can to prevent a democrat from being elected.

Ron Paul will just end up being another Ross Perot.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:56 pm

Ron Paul is not a conservative, by the way, he's a Libertarian. I like a lot of that and hate some.

Sure he is. Thats part of our problem. People seem to think Republicans are conservative. Some are but today most are definately not.

Conservativism or for that matter liberalism are not party specific.

Conservative means, "if its not broke dont fix it"
Liberal means "Lets see how many ways to Sunday we can twist things & redefine them"
Course theres much more to it than that but both ideals can be traced back to one or the other.

There used to be conservative, liberal & moderates in each party. Back when a persons actual thoughts & beliefs labled them as such. Now all we hear about are the non existant Conservative Republicans & the all too real Liberal Democrats.

RP is as conservative as it gets. If the Constitution covers it fine, if it dont its not the Feds buisness. Cant be more conservative than that.

If McCain wins its because people dont care who gets elected as long as its their party. He'll sit down with Sarah Brady & rob you of your rights quicker n the NRA.

I hope you guys are wrong because if RP isn't on the ballot theres nobody to vote for. I cant vote for McCain or Rudy & doubt I'll be able to vote for Mit or Huckabee, none are Conservative & the first 2 oughtta be Democrats anyway & are only on the Rep ticket because Rep dont equal conservative or pro constitution let alone pro gun.

POLITICS - I have been moved to act

POLITICS - I have been moved to act

Re: More politics-I have been moved to act