digg

Join DiggAbout

Ron Paul on Mad Money with Jim Cramer watch!

youtube.com — Best interview yet!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cmapes2, on 12/15/2007, -29/+343Excellent interview. This is the most balanced, fair, and true interview yet. I'm sure it was the final push that many undecided needed to join the Ron Paul camp.

    Go Ron Paul 2008!
    • romistrub, on 12/15/2007, -3/+94Ahhh... why does he sound... so... angry!?!? IT'S LIKE HE TALKS IN CAPS! Is that why it's called "mad money"? It's ***** with my mind!
      • Abjure, on 12/15/2007, -1/+19His voice... it reminds me of Steve Balmer!
        • hiphoc, on 12/15/2007, -1/+11Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers
          • martalli, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6The Fed, The Fed, The Fed, The Fed, The Fed, The Fed, The Fed, The Fed, The Fed!
          • taylbx3, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2The Establishment Media, The Establishment Media, The Establishment Media, The Establishment Media, The Establishment Media!
      • Araxen, on 12/15/2007, -71/+81. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
        2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights
        3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class
        4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes
        5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment
        6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations
        7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens
        8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns
        9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system
        10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state

        http://wwjv4.com/republicans/10-reasons-not-to-vot ...
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/15/2007, -2/+16Come back when you learn how to think for yourself. Realize why voting for things when they are not in the power to be voted upon (Under the powers enumerated in the Constitution).
          • yaddayaddayoda, on 12/15/2007, -3/+1If only people would read and learn about that, we would suddenly be surrounded by crowds of people who were up in arms about what has been happening in this nation.

            ... No we wouldn't. The Simpsons comes on in like five minutes.
        • kedohmen, on 12/15/2007, -1/+181. Um, what?
          2. Um, no. He personally doesn't believe in Abortion, but believes it is also an issue to be decided state by state...also, he's not going to say "no you can't reproduce"
          3. How? No taxes=more money for working class=more saving, investing and able to get health care
          4.Again, how? See my answer to number 3.
          5. I don't think so, it would open up the free-market for smaller companies to play with the big dogs, so they won't be beat down by big business paying off a congress person to pass legislation ageist a certain industry -example, Sugar is now too expensive to use in soft drinks,m so they use hfc, why? becausue the company that invented HFC paid off the right folks inwashington to put an embargo on sugar, so only a certain amount of sugar can come into this country, thus raising the price o sugar. i realize this is a question on the environment, but this is an example of how "government protection and policy" effects our pockets and industry.
          6. Um, getting out of the Middle East, N. Korea and leaving Iran alone, how would this piss off the world? I can see it pissing off one country, but why should we care? We should care about ourselves first and others second.
          7. Again, no. He doesn't care what you do. And feels the govt shouldn't implement laws for or against "minority" or "majority" groups. The constitution says we are ALL created equal.
          8. What's wrong with liking guns? He wants to prtect the 2nd.
          9. No. The educational system has been failing since 1980 when, surprise surprise, the Dept. of Education was created.
          10. um, no. If it's in the Constitution he will protect it.
          11. You're a Troll douche who need to think for himself and question authority.
          :)
        • njcarlos, on 12/15/2007, -1/+151. Does he not value equal rights or does he not value Federally administered privileges and collectivist policies?
          2. Does he deny women the control of their bodies or does he allow that to a more manageable level of gov, like the state?
          3. How would he be disastrous for the working class? Care to elaborate or just keep making baseless comments?
          4. Again, his tax plan is NO tax plan. He would eliminate income tax (already unconstitutional), and do this by cutting spending to reasonable levels.
          5. Again, provide some facts. Take Anarkelncarnate's advice and think for yourself.
          6. He would proliferate a negative image? You mean by withdrawing our occupying bases? You mean by not intervening in domestic policies of other nations? You mean he wouldn't conduct, allow, or promote covert coups of foreign nations? Seems a bit positive to me, at least from the perspective of other nations.
          7. Once again...what? Facts over ***** please.
          8. Unnatural? You mean the right to own a gun is an unnatural obsession? #8 seals your fate as a partisan hack.
          9. Pouring money into the educational system doesn't WORK... if it did, you wouldn't be admitting to its sad state.
          10. Do you have evidence of this? He has blatantly stated that government should have no say on religion. He even disagrees with Federal support for marriage, a concept he believes is religious and has no place in governmental policy matters.

          http://www.thinkforyourselfyoudumbass.com/10-reaso ...
          • yaddayaddayoda, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4Wish I was one of those folks with five digg accounts, so I could digg you up multiple times! You go dude!
        • themastersb, on 12/15/2007, -0/+8Is that you Frank? if it is ***** YOU!
        • mactaggart, on 12/15/2007, -1/+181. Araxen is tragically sad, or angry. Or both.
          2. Araxen is parroting someone else's incorrect bullet points.
          3. Araxen doesn't understand the issues discussed in those points.
          4. Araxen is trying to keep people who support some other candidate from defecting.
          5. Araxen likes to use overly dramatic - yet unfounded - terms, like " irreparable", "unnatural" and "butcher".
          6. Araxen fails to notice the irony of someone slandering a candidate to promote a Christ-centered political blog that champions abortion rights.
          7. Araxen is obsessed with a fear of guns.
          8. Araxen does not understand that the federal government has grown without any Constitutional basis, or that that fact has meaning.
          9. Araxen would be well served to see how badly lower earners are treated under the current effects of inflation.
          10. Araxen should probably try to explain the sad string of misinformation in the above post, or admit that no research was done.
        • yaddayaddayoda, on 12/15/2007, -1/+10>>7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens

          You know, "affirmative action" is widely considered to be "reverse discrimination" against plain old WASP males. Let's pick on a government job for example. If two people are to be considered for the job, under affirmative action quotas, the government agency doing the hiring is forced to hire the minority even if they are less qualified for the job than the plain old white guy. Then if the minority person happens to not have the skills to do the job, they can't be fired... Then the agency has to hire the more qualified person anyway just to get the job done.
          Quotas suck. Government hiring should be done purely on the basis of ability and should be colorblind.
          If you are about to digg this down, I have seen this happen. I work in an industry that is tightly controlled by the government and has forced quota hiring that reverse discriminates. I would love it if we lived in a perfect world, but giving a minority an unfair advantage just creates more racial strife, not less. And if I am not free to hire who I want, when I want, am I free?
          • yaddayaddayoda, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Doggone timer ran out on me.
            ...Then the agency has to hire the more qualified person anyway just to get the job done. (Or you could be like Oregon DOT and just *don't* do the job, or else have 15 people standing around and two actually know what is going on and working.) I have seen job sites where you have four or five people that they were required to hire, but don't know which end of a shovel to use... it leads to more government bloat and wasting taxpayer dollars, *our* dollars. All of this when they claim they cannot afford to take care of the basic infrastructure of the state and the bridges are crumbling. So the solution? Propose a $12 "trip fee" on each car commute. On public roads.

            This is called the rule of unintended consequences.

            My point is that you treat everyone fairly and equally, you keep government small (as small as possible and still able to do its job), and you make government accountable for the money that it spends (our money). The result is that you have cut down on waste: you can still pay for social programs that are genuinely needed (indeed, you may be able to expand some), you can take care of infrastructure, and the taxes remain low causing the economy to do well. Bill Clinton almost had it right (gasp!) but I believe he cashed in too far on the "peace dividend" and made the military too small. The result of this is that when you need to build the military back up (for good or faulty reasoning) then the money is spent by Bush. This adds to the "blame Bush" chant, warranted or not, because he was the one who spent the money. This may have been deliberate foresight on Clinton's part, and if so, it was brilliant.
        • kss42, on 12/15/2007, -17/+1Diggers need to stop burying people just because they aren't on the Ron Paul bandwagon. Here's someone who comes onto the site, clearly states his concerns, and provides a link to a more detailed list with more links to actual legislation (Did you follow any of those links, njcarlos? Did you, kedohmen?), and what happens? He gets crushed under the churning tide of Ron Paul evangelists. You have the right to choose your candidate, but we all have the right to hear both sides. Just please think twice before exercising your Digg-given right to censor your peers.
          • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -1/+16The guy is a troll. That's what you do to trolls. Numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10 are flat lies and are meant to mislead people. With number 2 you could say the same about all the other candidates but about men. Number 8 is obviously an insane smear (you know, like maybe back that up with a pic of Ron Paul near a Ted Nugent like arsenal) (even a bow and arrow?)
            This guy has no concerns, he just wishes to smear Dr. Paul.
        • nitramlliw, on 12/15/2007, -1/+7looks like you just wrote a massive load of FAIL
      • TheDudeofLIfe, on 12/15/2007, -1/+45I will vote for the first time in my life. This vote is for Ron Paul..I am 36 years old.
        • shaggy25, on 12/15/2007, -48/+3Wasted vote.

          • diggduggjoe, on 12/15/2007, -2/+11The only wasted vote is a vote that does not ring true to your soul. Can a vote for a bastard really be worth something due to the guy winning? Is voting for the winner better than voting for the best person available?
          • LeopardGirl420, on 12/15/2007, -5/+5He's a loser for not voting ever in his life until now but HEY at least he's on the right track now and in support of a great candidate!
          • p0tent1al, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1Shaggy, LeopardGirl, your both idiots. I'm sure that either voting for the idiot Bush, or the Idiot Kerry really makes a huge difference.
          • BESTenemy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Wasted comment.
      • FredSpeaking, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2It's his gimmick. O'Reilly goes off on ignorant rants. Olbermann attacks O'Reilly ad nauseum. They're all contrived.
        Every TV personality has to have a gimmick -- or at least that's what some manager probably told him.
    • quarkie, on 12/15/2007, -46/+5Common Jim... why don't you talk to him about the Gold Standard (aka... worst idea ever)
      Talk about sniffing the throne.
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 12/15/2007, -4/+20A lot of people would disagree that having a gold standard would be a bad idea.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/15/2007, -0/+8Exactly. Gold is no worse than money with no backing. In many ways, it's superior, but it requires auditing. Better to have competing currencies and independent auditing. Private alternative currencies already permit third parties to inspect their stores because it fosters trust, so why can't we get the same kind of accountability from our government??
      • GhostyBoy, on 12/15/2007, -2/+24If an alternate legal tender was introduced today, and it was backed by gold and protected from inflation, would you still hang on to your dwindling worthless paper money while everyone else bought up real money?

        Would you laugh like a fool at their financial security while your worthless greenbacks disintegrated in your hand and even more countries stop accepting them?
        • SiNN4R, on 12/15/2007, -0/+9Not to mention that gold would be tax exempt.
        • quarkie, on 12/15/2007, -12/+6Gold has value because its shiny. Do you think gold has some sort of magic properties that mean the price of it relative to other goods cannot change?
          How is it protected from inflation? The value changes based on the supply like anything. What happens when the demand for gold increases? Or if a brand new supply of gold was found in the world?
          How is this protected?
          • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7Gold has it's value because it's rare, not shiny. Fools gold is shiny. No value there. Hell, aluminum is shiny. So what magical properties to federal reserve notes have that give them value?
          • PeppermintPig, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7Yes, gold is relatively stable. It's protected from inflation because of scarcity, but you can also reinforce the value by minting it. There's more than just gold. There's silver, platinum, etc. The market on metals fluctuates, but printing a design on a piece of paper and flooding the marketplace with it serves to destroy the wealth of those who possess these fiat notes because they're so easy to create. You can't create gold out of lead, but you can print some words on paper and get people to believe it has worth, through force or persuasion.

            What makes these greenbacks magical? Monopoly enforcement.
          • GawtMilk, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1http://goldmoney.com/en/charts/0usd120.png
          • quarkie, on 12/15/2007, -1/+0@ GawtMIlk
            I have some stocks to sell you in 2000. They've increased in value multiple times over the past few years, and hence are a guaranteed investment safe from inflation.

            (your chart purposely starts at the end of a big commodities depressions and hence shows no decrease in the value of gold... check the value of gold from 1980 to 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commodities_Dep ...
        • babar77, on 12/15/2007, -4/+3So you trade it for a deflation prone hard currency. Might I remind you it is deflation, not inflation that's caused most of the world's worst economic crises - such as the Great Depression.
        • Brad324, on 12/15/2007, -1/+7gold will never lose its shininess. The price relates to supply, and supply alone. I don't know how the gold market would crash.
          • PeppermintPig, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4Something about not being able to create or destroy matter comes to mind. At this point we have many people who think the dollar is worth having, but not out of any natural or 'honest' value. Gold has value because it can't be replicated with a 'copy machine', at least currently. Enough foreign markets are saying the dollar is not worth bartering in, so enjoy it while it lasts. Money should serve the people and facilitate wealth growth. We should not be serving the money makers.
        • quarkie, on 12/15/2007, -3/+0@Brad324.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gold_price.png
          ya me neither

          @babar77
          wasting your time man....
          • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4@quarkie..... So you mean to tell me that if you had 80$ in 1920 and you could either a. put it in a bank and draw interest until 2007, or B. buy 4 20$ gold peices and put them in a safe deposit box. For that matter how is the fed being able to print money to give to banks to loan to you helpful to you if the very act of printing the money debases it? If you believe that the more money available the better, then why would competing currencies be harmful?
          • quarkie, on 12/15/2007, -3/+1Actually I'd take the interest.

            Lets price this out.
            In USD in 1920, $80 bought 4 ounces of gold (source ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_as_an_investment). Those ounces are now worth $2400

            $80 in 1920, at 4% interest is now worth $4000
            so: a) you're wrong.

            b) i wouldn't do either because... Currency is not an investment... it is a medium for exchange.

            If I had $80 to invest rather than buying a stupid commodity I'd invest it in the dow. In 1920 the Dow was actually at 80, now its at 13000. That means my $80 is worth $13000.

            You are an idiot.


          • quarkie, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1Correction!

            my math is horribly wrong (apparently the carrot operator doesn't work in windows calc).
            Breakeven for gold versus savings is roughly 4.3% (i.e. thats worth around the same as gold) and that's not unreasonable for yields on highly rated debt.
            So, if you want to take gold as an investment... be my guess.
          • armachd, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1..But wouldn't the $4000 you made through interest have much less purchasing power now than it did in 1940?
          • tsarstruck, on 12/15/2007, -0/+0@quarkie

            Actually, if you want to get technical about it, if you bought those gold coins straight from the mint in 1920 and put them in a safety deposit box, to a numismatist, they would now have a retail value of $800-1000 each in their mint condition. (Not far from your melt value projection) BUT, if by chance they happened to have been minted in San Francisco and not Philadelphia, they would be valued at $42,500-$95,000 each. We could take it one step further and suppose you bought your coin in 1921. A mint condition $20 gold coin from that year brought $1,495,000 at auction in August of '06!

            I'm not making an argument for buying gold over trusting the US dollar. I just thought this would be an interesting tidbit of information to maybe fuel the debate a bit more. I'm not an economist, nor will I pretend to be like some sill people around here.
      • cmapes2, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3So you are saying a solidly backed currency system is a less desirable idea then a system based on no solid value?

        I really hope you aren't one of those "newer must be better!!!" idiots. Maybe you should research the economic climate around when the gold standard was abandoned and the actual reason why it was abandoned.
      • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4Why not have both? If quarkie is right then his mighty reserve notes will be worth way more than gold. That would just leave us with our worthless gold.
    • redfox2600, on 12/15/2007, -2/+16Although I agree the gold standard isn't good would you rather have the debt base system we are currently using?
      • colincornaby, on 12/15/2007, -14/+2Um, debt based system? Gold based systems can still incur the same sorts of debts we have now.
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/15/2007, -2/+13Learn about how money is created. What he means is not the debt that is incurred but rather that the money system we have today is based upon debt for the creation of money.
        • quarkie, on 12/15/2007, -7/+2Yes you can have debt with a hard currency, but the supply of money would be a lot less liquid.
          If you want every dollar backed by a limited resource you can only have a limited number of dollars.... for an increasing number of people in the world. When combined with economies that are rapidly growing (China, India, Brazil, etc..), you have more and more people competing over the same dollars as they attempt to accumulate more.

          Example:
          So I have money, I lend it to you to start a business. You make money off of someone else and pay me back.
          I have more money, you (hopefully) have more money, your customer has less money. Its a zero sum game.

          So in this case, the only way to become more wealthy is to take wealth from others. Rather than a currency that is used as a tool within the economy to facilitate trade, while the market pushes towards greater efficiencies so as to improve the wealth of others.
          I'll take the Fed thanks.
          • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3Do you wanna buy a bridge in minnesota? I happen to have one I could let go even for worthless federal reserve notes.
          • PeppermintPig, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3It should be up to the market. If you want to use paper, go ahead.

            If the point was to print money to satiate a demand, then they have gone too far because the value of the dollar has declined. The solution is not to print more money, but to be a better monetary architect with useful denominations, or a multiple metal currency.
          • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -3/+0"Do you wanna buy a bridge in minnesota? I happen to have one I could let go even for worthless federal reserve notes."

            Sure. Will you sell it for $1? Because if it's really worthless then there's no difference between $1 and $1 million right? It's all imaginary currency. It's good for nothing!

            "a multiple metal currency"

            Why the ***** should that be worth anything? How is that any less of a "made up" currency than the dollar?
          • RapeSlut, on 12/15/2007, -1/+0Sorry quarkie you're not allowed to make that decision. Ron Paul already has.
          • Renniks, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1The concern for a growing population and a limited supply of gold is an idea that is just not thought through enough. The market place will adjust to the new distribution of wealth like it always does, by adjusting prices. They will go down. And the entrepreneurs who can innovate and make a profit with the new lower price scheme will be the ones to prosper. This is what capitalism is all about ladies and gentlemen.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4Yeah, because you have a government spending more than it has. That's an accountability problem. Fractional reserve banking can happen with gold as well, so long as you don't seek auditing.
        • quarkie, on 12/15/2007, -1/+0debt is not bad... it is necessary to run a lot of business and to make large purchases....
          Runaway debt is.

          Cash inflows tend to be small and semi-constant.. cash out flows tend to be in large lumps. Hence the whole idea behind "financing"
        • Talena, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2So you say a 9,1 trillion debt is just a good investment?
    • ronpaulbeatoff, on 12/15/2007, -28/+5What, exactly, was excellent about it? It was seven minutes of Ron Paul & Jim Cramer agreeing that they don't like the way that the Fed deals with monetary policy. You're just a Ron Paul fanboy who thinks he's King Midas.
      • cmapes2, on 12/15/2007, -1/+10No, I am an American fanboy; I am a concerned American that appreciates that fact that a very viable presidential candidate actually understands the severity of the economic situation in this country. If you don't agree with what has been said you really need to pick up a book or two and learn how economics really works, because if you understand there should be no reason why you would disagree with his message.

        Until then don't go around labeling individuals you have absolutely no idea about, it makes you look just as you are: ignorant.
      • cmapes2, on 12/15/2007, -0/+10And he may not be king midas, but at least everything he touches doesn't turn to *****, like most other politicians around.
    • ronpaulbeatoff, on 12/15/2007, -37/+2You idiot fanboys make me hate Ron Paul.
      • mikesbaker, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3its spelled fanboi idiot! god learn to spell on the netz ok?
    • LeeSoong, on 12/15/2007, -4/+30What a great discussion - Explaining exactly why every for-profit business and foundation should be backing Ron Paul:

      What good is earning profits, or making investments - if the very Dollar you are earning evaporates and becomes worthless?

      For anyone who plans to retire, for anyone who wants more buying power with each and every dollar - Ron Paul is the one and only choice for 2008.

      http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about
    • jmpeagle, on 12/15/2007, -5/+19how is being pro-Ron Paul being fair and balanced? Fair and Balanced interviews don't exist. Either the interviewer is obviously against or obviously for the candidate he's interviewing.

      Also, you obviously haven't seen the interview he did at google if you think this one is the best. This one talked about only one issue, the google one talked about 30+ issues.
      • cmapes2, on 12/15/2007, -2/+14It is fair and balanced because if you research the actual facts behind the FED, you will see that what is being said is completely true. In most other interviews in which Ron Paul has been interviewed, they would try to attack him when he states facts that are against the myths of the status quo. Just look at all the media BS'ing about the CFR and NAFTA.

        Since that imbalance of misinformation was not present here, I consider this interview fair and balanced. Sensible, right?
        • myuu, on 12/15/2007, -4/+6Actually being fair and balanced has nothing to do with "telling the truth".
    • themastersb, on 12/15/2007, -10/+7how come Jim Cramer always yells?
      • digihoffa, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5IT'Z BILLY ZAYNE$ FOR OXY CLEAN LOLZ
      • tsos2, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4Because it's Cramer's MAD MONEY.... It's the "character" for his show.
    • stealthmoe, on 12/15/2007, -3/+11If Jim Cramer is down with Ron Paul, I'm down like the syndrome!
    • TomJoad, on 12/15/2007, -9/+3I don't know how fair it is. Paul is fed questions by someone with a very similar view point. and that guy is annoying as *****
      • JeffD, on 12/15/2007, -2/+5Cramer is awesome. You lose.
        • Talena, on 12/15/2007, -1/+2His ideas might be good, but please stop screaming!
        • johngr, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Do you mean Jim "Print That Dough" Cramer? Really?
    • kaelyiesta, on 12/15/2007, -2/+5I don't think it was completely fair, seeing as how the guy was praising him so much. I plan on voting for Paul, but even I know that this wasn't unbiased. A fair debate would have left the editorial out and just had facts. Still, I agree with everything Cramer set up for Ron Paul to knock down, and I'm glad that he gets to talk about this in front of such a large audience.
    • enginbeering, on 12/15/2007, -2/+6Haha, this was the exact opposite of fair and balanced. But it was nice to see a pro-Ron Paul interview for once. And all the better from a badass like Jim Cramer.
    • Pritchard, on 12/15/2007, -2/+3Fair and Balanced? How? This guy wholly and completely supports Dr. Paul, and is promoting his ideals over others and criticizing others on their policies and campaigns. That's not fair and balanced, unless fair and balanced means sucking up to Dr. Paul.
  • xexkxex, on 12/15/2007, -13/+105Very nice!
    • Dylson, on 12/15/2007, -5/+6Dugg.
    • blackeagle613, on 12/15/2007, -1/+2indeed... I have always respected jim cramer
    • banmaster, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5Sorry, but when did Bob Goldthwait start hosting a show about finance??
  • glpav2, on 12/15/2007, -8/+216Wow, that was absolutely fabulous. This is just the latest in a slew of financially-interested (and capable) people endorsing Ron Paul's monetary policy ideas. This won't be the last either.
  • gregharmon, on 12/15/2007, -8/+170I enjoyed this interview. I hope I'm not wrong in thinking that the type of people who watch this show, are the type of people who are highly likely to be voting.
  • Atomic561, on 12/15/2007, -15/+233This was an AMAZING interview!!! Cramer let Ron Paul speak his mind and they both seemed to agree on the same economic views.

    Abolish the FED!!!

    Ron Paul '08!
    • golfguy2788, on 12/15/2007, -9/+4I don't quite understand how we can just abolish the fed.... the U.S. economy needs oversight. However I do agree 100% that there needs to be some form of oversight of the fed. Go Ron Paul!
      • NewGTGuy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7It states in the constitution that the over-site for regulation of the money supply lies with Congress. The FED is a private "non-profit" Delaware company who's interest earnings go straight to the private member banks.

        Keep in mind, none of the people who control this are voted into office. We have no choice.
    • Talena, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Abolishing the fed would be good, but I thought the income tax was known to be optional, because there is no law that requires you to pay it? or am i wrong?
      • NewGTGuy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4You are correct. The supreme court ruled that the 16th amendment gave congress no new taxing authority.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constit ...
      • NSResponder, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1Well, be careful on that one. Even if the tax is unconstitutional, there is a de facto *power* that the IRS wields, and unless you have millions to spend on litigation, they will crush you like a bug.

        -jcr
  • TheTaoOfBill, on 12/15/2007, -10/+240Jim Cramer is going to die of a stroke one of these days. But damn does this man speak the truth. He and Ron Paul make a great pair in this interview.
    • breezytrees, on 12/15/2007, -2/+3**puts hands on hips** "We are soooooo much in common ron paul" "WE are booooooooth youtuuube sensaaaations"

      kudos to ron paul for actually maintaining his composure...
  • nlke182, on 12/15/2007, -9/+73Vote for Paul and get the troops home http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC6D6uiLrgQ
    • Nosnevets02, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Good lord, what a moving video. I get chills every time I see Dr. Paul yell at the moderator, "NO! I take my marching orders from the Constitution!"
      The world would truly be a better place if more people were like Dr. Paul.
  • Spike10111, on 12/15/2007, -10/+110The FED will go down in flames under a Paul presidency!
    • geoboy, on 12/15/2007, -1/+23I already have a bag of marshmallows in anticipation!
      • hiphoc, on 12/15/2007, -0/+41/22/09 lets take our marshmallow and sticks to DC for the roast. If Dr Paul doesn't win, bring your pitchforks and torches and lets do this Frankenstein style cause either the Fed is gonna go down, or America is gonna go down. Guess which one I choose?
    • odigity, on 12/15/2007, -0/+14Kennedy was assassinated while trying to bring down the Fed. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but it is food for though. I'm voting for Ron Paul, but I also hope he picks a great running mate. :( I also hope I'm wrong about the causation.
      • johnandersonii, on 12/15/2007, -1/+7The obvious solution would be to pick a running mate that is even more pro-freedom, small government & sound money minded than Dr. Paul is. Oh, wait, where the heck are we going to find that guy?
      • NewGTGuy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3I agree. He is created some much needed waves in this corrupt government. He is waking so many people up I sometimes fear for his safety.

        If he goes down, there could be violence in the streets --> enter marshal law... :(
      • megarobotguy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3Hey Odigity,
        I'm interested about Kennedy's assassination relating to the Federal Reserves. Can you share any links that would backup that statement? THanks in advance!
        • NewGTGuy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1This is a pretty fringe site. But is does explain the story.

          From the site below:

          [paste]
          Most people know that the FEDERAL Reserve bank is creating the US dollars. But the truth is that the Federal Reserve is not federal at all, but owned by twelve super-wealthy International Banking families, such as the Rothschild’s and the Rockefellers. This is a well hidden secret, but can even be verified in “Encyclopedia Britannica”, and in this article, as we shall see. This setup is against the US Constitution, as the government is supposed to create our money (the 16th Amendment), which in its turn should be backed up by gold and silver.

          What JFK did was to create interest-free government money, backed up by the silver reserve, contrary to the Federal Reserve money, which is not backed up by anything as you will find out if you continue reading. He wanted to pay off the US debt this way. Apparently aware of the secret behind the Federal Reserve, he decided to go back and follow the Constitution. Of course, this was a very dangerous thing to do, because if he was allowed to continue, it could put the International bankers out of business in the long run. So this was even more serious than to reorganize the CIA.
          [/paste]

          http://www.illuminati-news.com/kennedy-assassin.ht ...
        • NewGTGuy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Here is Kennedy's executive order for the above:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
    • dukeeeey, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4the fed wont go down without a fight
      except some false flag terrorism or something
      • NewGTGuy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Agreed. They will then blame lack of security, institute marshal law, and give us all a national id card.

        These guys really do think way ahead. This is why I think we will see some violence with the next one. Too many people know what is going on.

        I really don't think the NWO saw the internet coming.
  • cashman57, on 12/15/2007, -9/+123Can you imagine having lawful money again?
    • PeppermintPig, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Well, we do have legal, useful money with the Liberty Dol... err, well, Ron Paul needs to fix that too!

      Seizure of the Liberty Dollar coins has elevated their value, proving that gold can retain value when minted in certain forms, and by reputable businesses.
      • NewGTGuy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1The problem with the liberty dollar is you must pay capital gains on any fiat money made with gold and silver fluctuations.

        This is what needs to be changed.
    • Spudster, on 12/15/2007, -3/+2Not really no.
    • downlowfunk, on 12/15/2007, -1/+0Well if the Dollar is Destroyed and something like the liberty dollar comes along well all be poor except those that can obtain the limited supplied currency. I have 100,000 USD. if the dollar goes bad, I guess I could make a fire for the night. hopefully silver will allow me to obtain the new currency as I have a few pounds of it.
    • superfuxxorr, on 12/16/2007, -1/+1Lawful or not, the cup of coffee I buy with it will still taste the same.
  • Alsis8xmy, on 12/15/2007, -8/+70The FEDs days are numbered, this marks the beginning of the end for the FED, see ya!!
    • strafefire, on 12/15/2007, -3/+17Unless they do to Paul what they have done to every president that has opposed them, and try to assassinate him.

      I hope to god that doe not happen, but I totally believe that Mr. Paul should be using some of his campaign money to hire a couple of bodyguards until the Secret Service takes over.....and maybe keep them when the SS takes over too...
      • odigity, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7I believe there are some in the grassroots movement that are already talking about hiring security after he does well in Iowa (Jan 3). Also, many of them would take a bullet for Ron Paul. They are that patriotic.
        • jasqwerty, on 12/15/2007, -8/+1>>after he does well in Iowa
          LOL, on rontards... The delusions sure are grand. He's polling horribly and doing nothing about. He's either going to finish 5th or 6th. Neither are these are "doing well" in a conventional sense of the word.
        • BillORights, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1And your candidate is.......? Let us know so that we may scrutinize their record.
    • arjung, on 12/15/2007, -7/+2one of the few times you can put an apostrophe after a word and you missed it!
      FED's not FEDs days are numbered.
    • hiphoc, on 12/15/2007, -0/+8Once people realize the reason why they are broke is because of Fed policies since 1913. There is gonna be hell to pay. There wont be enough steroid scandals and other bread and circus to distract the American people from burning down the fed.
    • diggingaround, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6I truly hope that you are right... every single U.S. president who wanted to shut down that privately own corporation, was killed. Just Google "Money Masters" and you'll find some interesting stuff that will make your blood boil...
  • garryw, on 12/15/2007, -23/+6Did you ever see Romney on Cramer? Cramer actually applied for a job at Mitt's firm before he was ever on TV.
    • Goodanswer, on 12/15/2007, -3/+8That just shows you that Mitt Romney has no idea/ doesn't care about the financial system of this country. Also, the fact that MR might be just fine with the status quo and doesn't want to change the bludgeoning of the middle class so he can continue on.

      If you always do what you have always done
      You will always get what you have always gotten.
      GA-
  • Bossobass, on 12/15/2007, -11/+178W-O-W I never thought I'd see the day where a financial segment on TV would feature a candidate for the Republican nomination who knew anything about the Fed and US monetary policy, who was calling for an A-U-D-I-T of the Fed and our gold inventory!!!!!

    You gotta love this Ron Paul guy. You gotta donate some cash to his efforts. You gotta get the hell out there and VOTE for him.
    • AceTracer, on 12/15/2007, -22/+1No.
      • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -1/+6free country. . just vote on principle
      • forgiste, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4you clearly don't understand the issue.
    • hiphoc, on 12/15/2007, -0/+10Yea, interesting Idea... Audit and investigate and agency that keeps inflating and busting the US economy over and over again? You dont say?
  • mournsanity, on 12/15/2007, -11/+204www.teaparty07.com

    /obligatory Tea Party plug
  • Jinru919, on 12/15/2007, -8/+75Best interview yet! We'll see how Glenn Beck's interview goes, I'm sure Ron will be able to fight back anything Glenn throws at him.

    Even the troops want out!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOzahhgVVSY (watch to end)
    • skews13, on 12/15/2007, -16/+4i like how becomming an ex alcoholic,drug addict,i just found jesus through the mormon church,radio dj.makes you an expert,accept running your mouth.
    • hiphoc, on 12/15/2007, -3/+3Glenn Beck will try to boondoggle DR Paul. Guarantee he will hit him with conspiracies.... Oops Beck talks about the NAU. So Beck will not bring up the NAU. I bet he will bring up Alex Jones and try to smear Paul on that issue.
    • --c3--, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1when is the Glenn Beck going to air?
  • alargegun, on 12/15/2007, -7/+96First Peter Schiff, now Jim Cramer? Ron Paul is picking up some strong financial endorsements.
    • Tommyhawk, on 12/15/2007, -2/+8Don't forget Jim Rogers...
    • fitzfan, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Cramer hasnt given his endorsement yet, he has invited all candidates onto his show. Rudy and Mitt were also on already.
      • odigity, on 12/15/2007, -3/+5True, it wasn't an explicit endorsement. He fell 0.001% short of that. :) Which might be the correct action, ethically, for a journalist. It's pretty obvious Cramer agrees with everything Ron Paul had to say, though.
        • jasqwerty, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4>>t's pretty obvious Cramer agrees with everything Ron Paul had to say, though.
          Then you either don't understand the policies of Paul or the views espoused by Cramer. They're radically different, even the reasons behind their agreement today. Cramer doesn't like the FED because he felt they're weren't manipulating the markets enough, Ron Paul hates them just for that reason. Enemy of my enemy, etc...
    • Tangeuray, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Yea Hollywood to Wallstreet is about to scream for Ron Paul...Just watch
  • holtzdoggy, on 12/15/2007, -8/+45Take THAT MSM! Cramer is a media darling, so maybe Ron Paul will not be treated as a kook when they see that his ideas on the Fed are in alignment with Cramer.
    • latrosicarius, on 12/15/2007, -5/+9Dugg down because I don't understand where you got the idea that people believe Ron Paul is a "kook".
      • spaceman84, on 12/15/2007, -2/+15PEOPLE don't generally believe he's a kook. Most don't have any idea who he is. The mainstream media however, tries to portray him that way for not towing the Republican party line.
        • quarkie, on 12/15/2007, -13/+3No people believe he's a kook.
          People at my office saw him on mad money and used the word "crazy" multiple times.
        • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -1/+6That's because you most likely work at the federal reserve bank. lol
          people at my office see him and think......... Where's the catch?
      • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -4/+1I get that idea from talking to people who don't work at gas stations.
        • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1so you can't get any advice from your parents?
        • odigity, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3Actually, here in New Hampshire, I stopped for gas once and went inside to find the guy behind the counter reading Ron Paul's book on foreign policy. :)
    • jasqwerty, on 12/15/2007, -11/+2>>in alignment with Cramer
      And that makes him LESS of a kook somehow? Oh man...
      • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Yes, because this guy is so nuts..... was he foaming at the mouth earlier? Why would they put such a excitable guy on a show called "mad money" I mean come on shouldn't they use one of the corpses from kudlow and company.
  • Atvdude, on 12/15/2007, -11/+87O.K.... So who is the KOOK??

    I'd say those that have not been paying attention to what the Federal Reserve has been doing.. both FOR THE GOVERNMENT...AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR DOLLAR VALUE...

    While gettin rich themselves with ZERO oversight!!!

    BooYAH to Cramer for letting the truth OUT!!

    Wake up voters... Dr. Paul is neither in the dark ages, or a kook... he is in fact a GENIUS who has been foretelling the future of things like IRAQ.. THE DOLLAR COLLAPSE... THE MORTAGE BUBBLE... all YEARS before they happened...

    Listen up and vote this guy into office... and we the people will really see some benifits come OUR WAY for a change!
    • sadfly, on 12/15/2007, -6/+1Please explain to me why the value of the dollar matters anyway. Lower dollar value means more exports. The devaluation of the dollar is simply the natural result of the United States importing more than it should have the past decade. We are finally paying the piper.
      • etcimon, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1The US doesn't have much to export except for war tools. With the industry going in asia, it just runs it's money on multiple forms of investments with what's going on over there. Haven't you heard of wall str.? If the dollar goes down you only end up with less to exchange, less assets to make investments on, and thus the boss doesn't have anything to pay you with.
        • sadfly, on 12/15/2007, -2/+0China is able to export so much because they intentionally devalue the yuan so their goods are more competitive. A business is thus able to get a ***** ton of yuan per dollar and can buy lots of chinese, lead filled toys. The same logic applies to the US dollar; a devalued dollar means foreigners are able to get more dollars per foreign currency and so US goods are cheaper. I find it ironic that Ron Paul is praising the virtue of the markets even though the markets are driving down the dollar Ron Paul is so ardently defending.
        • thecoolestguy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2--I find it ironic that Ron Paul is praising the virtue of the markets even though the markets are driving down the dollar Ron Paul is so ardently defending.---

          The markets are not driving down the dollar. The fed is intentionally driving the price of the dollar down by printing dollars. The price of the dollar is artificially moderated by the printing press of the federal reserve cartel. The more dollars are printed = the less the value of each dollar.
    • thecoolestguy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3sadfly,

      if you have $5000 saved in a bank, and the dollar devalues by 10%, that means 10% of your wealth dissappears.

      When the Fed and banking system creates $2 trillion dollars, that is a transfer of wealth from all those who have saved up cash, and the government and banks that creates the new cash. It's like couter-feiting. It's exactly the same principle.


      • sadfly, on 12/15/2007, -0/+0Yeah I think we are on a different page here. I'm talking the international value of the currency (how much it is worth in comparison to other currencies).
        You are talking about inflation. Of course inflation is bad. Most economists think that there is an optimal rate of inflation though, usually 2-3% that maximizes the standard of living by balancing inflation and growth.
      • Nexus974, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1And if you buy $5000 worth of gold and saved it?
    • Phoster, on 12/15/2007, -3/+1Well he's a kook for believing segregation and state religion are ok if they aren't done a federal level. Also, for all his libertarian talk he's against gay rights and abortion. He is an extremist idiot.
  • AaronS2000, on 12/15/2007, -8/+64This may have been the best Mad Money segment yet. I knew Cramer already knew what he was talking about, but now I know he sees all of the angles. +1
  • grunk, on 12/15/2007, -4/+55Game changer.
    Harvard MBA Cramer may have some influence on MSM. Maybe Tim Russert will see this and deign to give RP an interview.
    • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -16/+3No successful investor takes Jim Cramer's stock picks seriously. Not a single one. Cramerwatch has put him up against a monkey to see who was better at picking stocks. So far they are neck and neck. The end.
      • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4Hows about Peter Schiff then? He make enough for you?
      • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -6/+1Warren Buffet and Peter Lynch are the only active investors worth paying any attention to. Stick with Fidelity and Magellan and you'll be find. You're probably better off playing the lottery than betting on "Cramer's picks."
        • jasqwerty, on 12/15/2007, -3/+3>BAWWWWWWWWWWWW

          More butthurt crying. What, did you get a major assraping on something Cramer made a down call about?
          • petrodollar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+1I gotta laugh at you poors who think you can beat the market with stock picks from a nationally syndicated tv talk show, let alone one hosted by a guy who hasn't beat the market since 1985.
  • Tangeuray, on 12/15/2007, -5/+80Id like to see huckster/Romney or even Giuliani talk about monetary policy...I bet they would look like idiots compared to RP!!!!
    • spyd3rweb, on 12/15/2007, -2/+21They ARE idiots compared to ron paul.
      • odigity, on 12/15/2007, -4/+2Maybe, maybe not. I think your premise that they're idiots because they don't understand things might be flawed. It may be that they benefit from the status quo. They are CFR members, afterall. Of course, they could be both idiots and liars at the same time. :)
    • johnandersonii, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4I seriously don't think Guliani or Huckabee can even begin to talk about our monetary system because I'm not entirely sure they know how it works, and which actions cause which effects under which conditions. I've been reading about this stuff for a while and I barely have a grasp on the complexities of a financial market. Romney I think has a better idea about how a market works than Gulliani or Huckabee, you don't keep a fortune like his and grow it without some sort of clue. He's still lightyears behind Ron Paul on the subject though.
  • noyritus, on 12/15/2007, -6/+39best jim cramer segment i've ever seen! Except that time he sliced himself playing with a bowie knife...
  • cakeychan, on 12/15/2007, -9/+28A++++

    Visit The Paulunteer - Ron Paul for President Grassroots Newsletter
    Paulunteer(dot)com
    • BabyWookie, on 12/15/2007, -3/+9A++++?

      This isn't eBay, bud.
      • WilliamDavis, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Negative: Comment took too long to read, and was damaged when it arrived.
      • etherreal, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1pwnt.....
  • cashman57, on 12/15/2007, -6/+36I would like to see every single candidate for president on the Jim Cramer show and see how fast and loose they play with him.
    • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -3/+1Why? It has about as much bearing on reality as an episode of MILFhunter.
      • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Are you saying that from the point of view that the people don't elect the president? just wondering
        • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -2/+0Are you one of these delusional poors who thinks Wall Street cares what Jim Cramer says?
  • faxxy, on 12/15/2007, -8/+44This is one the best RP interviews yet. Ron Paul is going to be on Glenn Beck next Tuesday! Share this with your investor friends and blogs.

    Introduce RP newbies to this:

    http://KickApathy.com

    .
  • dissident, on 12/15/2007, -30/+9who decides what makes the front page on digg? Why is this story not on the front page? Does digg censor? Every story that gets more then 100 diggs should hit the front page immediately.
    • MillionsLivio, on 12/15/2007, -11/+4I've seen several Ron Paul videos and stories that I have posted in just go away and never make the front page, I've also seen some make the front page and then randomly disappear. Something is up..
      • ronpaulbeatoff, on 12/15/2007, -6/+5Yes, the something that is up is that people aren't interested in the articles that you're posting.
      • BabyWookie, on 12/15/2007, -2/+3LOL. Welcome to Digg.
      • mike17032, on 12/15/2007, -8/+1Thats what happens to spam, it gets buried.
      • j.carcinogen, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Its politics. When something is wildly popular there is always a dedicated opposition (even though the minority) to it, like the Wii was last year. Lots of Wii articles and it was popular but there were people that felt like Wii was digg spam so they buried it.
        • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Exactly, and now we have every 13yr old douche on digg on our bury brigade........ just post the stuff mon-fri before 3 pm. at least until the winter break.
    • latrosicarius, on 12/15/2007, -5/+2It doesn't work like that. It's a lot more complex than just a digg count to get it on the front page. If you don't like this article, don't read it, don't post in it, and go digg up a Hillary article.
    • dissident, on 12/15/2007, -8/+3it just so happens it hit the front page a couple minutes after I posted, but I've seen equally good videos and articles never make the front page, and other stuff already on the front page deleted for no apparent reason. I don't like that type of behavior.. people don't have to view the article if they don't want to, but they should have the choice to. The arbitrary deleting makes me wonder.. they need to tweak their system so it doesn't happen as often and more articles get a fair chance to hit the front page.
      • ronpaulbeatoff, on 12/15/2007, -3/+5As far as I'm concerned, the never-ending Ron Paul articles on Digg are annoying. There are like two/page, every day. So, maybe the answer to your question is, digg is a news aggregation site, and not every wants ALL RON PAUL, ALL THE TIME!!!
    • j.carcinogen, on 12/15/2007, -0/+7One can argue that people are actively burying RP stories because they don't like anything that promotes something that is not their guy. I'd rather believe that and don't think it is an active policy of Digg to side with mainstream media in hopes to get bought out at a high price and keep it easy for Big Media to control... but we will see.
    • Pritchard, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1Digg has nothing to do with this. Stop conspiring against free media, you conspiracy theorist.
  • bcmiller, on 12/15/2007, -11/+63Great interview,
    what is funny if you understand their respective positions is that they are in violent agreement for opposite reasons. Cramer would like more tinkering and Ron Paul would like no tinkering with our money. Cramer is only down on the Fed because they are not propping up Wall Street fast enough. They gave a quarter point rate cut that inflated the money supply and made my savings account worth less money. Dr. Paul wanted a no point cut so the market could correct itself and the market should set the rate and Cramer wanted a half point cut to inflate the money even more and help dig out the stock market.

    I'm for Ron Paul so I'm not going to argue about great press like this excellent interview. But, before you start calling for a Paul/Cramer Ticket understand that this is a case of "the enemy of your enemy is your friend".

    The best bull market investment tip in the world right now is this one! http://teaparty07.com make a small investment of $100 to $2300 on Sunday to http://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate and you may see a return of every dollar you would have ever paid to both FICA and the IRS for life! Plus your money would hold it's value and you would have your freedom back.

    Best money you could ever spend.
    • jasqwerty, on 12/15/2007, -15/+3You don't understand how even something as basic as the fed funds rate effects the economy...
      • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -2/+6And I am willing to bet you don't understand how it doesn't.
  • RonPaulitics, on 12/15/2007, -4/+47Awesome!

    Canada's with you Ron Paul! I just hope your message resonates here as strong as it is down south (and west to those in Alaska).

    And to his supporters (and soon to be supporters)....REGISTER AND VOTE!!!

    cheers to Freedom!
    • limitGov, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6If illegal Aliens can vote for Democrats in American, Canadians can vote too!.....
      • stoanhart, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1As a Canadian, I've always wondered how that works. Don't you need something like a social security number to vote?
    • Cynikk, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0As a Canadian I would love to see Ron Paul as your next President.

      No war, more freedom, and monetary reform are all great ideas and I'm so shocked that he isn't a favorite to win. C'mon what is wrong with you Americans? Wake up before its too late!
  • MrFunions, on 12/15/2007, -1/+31He seems to get the best coverage on the financial shows/networks. They all love his monetary stances
    • WilliamDavis, on 12/15/2007, -0/+13I'm not so sure they *all* love his stances, but he's probably the only candidate that can engage them in a meaningful conversation.
    • hiphoc, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2They realize that the economy is going bust and their fortunes will be wiped out. So yea, they love Ron Paul for selfish reasons.
  • paulverize, on 12/15/2007, -6/+29@garryw



    Mitt Romney's big bucks helped him buy Clear Channel. This is all I need some idiot pumping junk out to Clear Channel listeners to get himself elected. It is bad enough listening to the Clear Channel morons now.

    Go Ron Paul

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com
    http://www.teaparty07.com
    http://www.dailypaul.com

    Get involved, lets get Ron Paul elected!!

    • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Plus clearchannel has the crappiest music stations in the world.
  • Hockey13, on 12/15/2007, -5/+29Jim Cramer has very good ideas and he is often overlooked because he is a bit eccentric. People need to see this video.
    • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -15/+1Jim Cramer is a worthless piece of *****.
      • fitzfan, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5I can guaranty he is worth more than you.
        • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -6/+0It's not hard to make a lot of money when someone hands you $25 million to invest. And I can "guaranty" you my portfolio after taxes matches or outperforms any aggregation of Jim Cramer's stock picks over the past 20 years. Hope this helps.
      • jasqwerty, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3Put up or shut up then butthurt *****. Jim Cramer has run successfully a multiibillion dollar hedge fund for years, and is a multimillionaire himself, while you're a ***** nobody.

        Put up transaction confirmations over a 5 year period, let's see it buddy, let's see if you managed to even outperform the market in general.
  • RedMullet, on 12/15/2007, -3/+6The only better segment of Mad Money, ever, was the segment where Cramer, talking about the vast number of unbought new homes in California's "inland empire", said we needed something like FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act for Real Estate, that we needed to plow all those empty houses under!
    • Todamont, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1FDR was a complete fascist, what we need is to undo some of the damage he did to America by turning it into a welfare state.
  • mrzack, on 12/15/2007, -4/+23Ron Paul is Money $$$$
  • dissident, on 12/15/2007, -3/+20I wonder how far the banksters would let him go if he did get elected before they'd simply pull a John F Kennedy on him. People underestimate how much power central banks have. They basically, along with the corporations they own/control, run the country and the world.
  • aubdawg08, on 12/15/2007, -20/+6can someone explain to me why there are almost 100 more diggs than actual views of the video?
    • kinerry, on 12/15/2007, -0/+10the view count lags
    • dissident, on 12/15/2007, -13/+5because it has the words "Ron Paul" in the title.
    • 1town, on 12/15/2007, -1/+11Because 100 ninjas watched it without leaving a trace.
    • fatjack, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4Well, one of the diggs is because I watched the interview on CNBC already.
    • n8glenn, on 12/15/2007, -4/+3We have to digg Ron Paul stories quickly before they disappear off of digg. Yeah, maybe we're "breaking the rules" by digging before we watch, but Ron Paul's message is the only thing standing in the way of complete fascism in this country. Maybe you don't care, but I don't want my baby to grow up to a life of slavery, I don't want her to be destitute, to be arrested for saying the wrong thing. This aint about Ron Paul, it aint about me and you, it's about the future of our country and the nation that we're going to leave to our children. So with that in mind, f**k digg, and f**k anyone and anything else that stands in the way of saving this country.
    • sestalker, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Because they watched it live?
  • T8erT0T, on 12/15/2007, -11/+9Paul for Pres, Kramer in the cabinet
  • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -16/+1http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_on...ney_12_14_2 ...
  • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -27/+3Jim Cramer is an idiot windbag, and cramerwatch.org put to rest the notion that his stock picks are worth anything. He had one good year right after he graduated b-school, but he has never repeated that success and it now appears (unsurprisingly) that he just got lucky. The only people who think he gives good advice are trailer trash with no money to invest anyway. Efficient markets FTW.
    • jasqwerty, on 12/15/2007, -2/+6So what succesful multi-billion dollar hedge fund have you run for 3 decades?
      Oh right, you haven't done jack ***** ever...
      • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -4/+3How are those multibillion dollar hedge funds doing right now? How many of them dodged the subprime crisis? People who actually use the stock market wisely - to earn steady returns over the long run - know that market timers and stock pickers like Cramer are worthless *****. That's why you're much better off with an index fund like Spartan than with you are with 99.9% of all actively traded mutual funds. And you're even better off if you just collect dividends and pay your 15% tax (thanks, Bush!), because then it doesn't matter what the market is doing on any given day, or even any given year. People with money know this. Thanks for revealing to the world that you're not one of them.
        • jasqwerty, on 12/15/2007, -2/+2>>Oh right, you haven't done jack ***** ever...
          Thanks for talking out of your clueless ass some more, not that the world wasn't plainly aware of this already.
        • quarkie, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1Andy Redleaf, Whitebox:
          "SOMETIME in the next 12 to 18 months, there is going to be a panic in credit markets,” Andy Redleaf, a 50-year-old hedge fund manager, wrote to investors in December 2006. “The driver in the credit market panic of 2007 or 2008 will be a sudden, profound and pervasive loss of faith in the alchemy of structured finance as currently practiced."

          Subprime fallout killed quant funds whose models were inefficient in the market.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/15/2007, -3/+2petrodollar is right. Spiders are where it is at. The DOW is increasing over time and buying the spiders get you where you need to go. Then on the side pick some specific stocks that are in areas that you know a great deal about and understand the industries. That is your best bet for investing.
        • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1The best place to invest by far is in narcotics. Suck that wall street! thank you for skyrocketing the price feds!!
        • thecoolestguy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1EditorResponse is right on the money, I wish he understood why Ron Paul is necessary for western civilization to avert total collapse.
  • MrFunions, on 12/15/2007, -4/+30I'm willing to bet this one single interview is going to boost his campaign tremendously
    • drenader, on 12/15/2007, -12/+4I am willing to bet my life and $5 million dollars that in the end it still doesnt matter.
      • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -2/+1I wish that was a stupid bet you were taking. Why are you people so non receptive?
  • Zlorp, on 12/15/2007, -15/+4Ron Paul for Jesus!!

    with the economy becoming a major concern and focus amongst candidates, maybe this will give Ron Paul a chance to finally shine
    • mediaspree, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3What Would Jesus Vote For?
      • SiNN4R, on 12/15/2007, -2/+7Endless war and blowing up minorities.
        • Zlorp, on 12/15/2007, -3/+3dont forget reducing our freedoms under false pretenses
        • EditorResponse, on 12/15/2007, -1/+1If a guy tells you that the only way to heaven is through him do you think he is going to help you out much in a situation that is less than dictatorial? I am not knocking Christianity...all the religions are that way.
        • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1How are we less than dictatorial now?
  • DuffyDirect, on 12/15/2007, -19/+4jim cramer lied on cnbc on 9/11 saying he 'personally' saw that it was just a small Cessna-type plane that hit the world trade tower, and then he sold off his stock.
    • ScionAltera, on 12/15/2007, -2/+7Video or it didn't happen. I wasn't watching CNBC on 9/11, but I'll believe you if you can link me to the video.
      • DuffyDirect, on 12/15/2007, -8/+2well, the only way I can get a transcript or video from squawk box from 6 years ago is if i pay for cnbc.com membership, and im not doing that to satisfy a curious digg commenter, so i guess "it didn't happen". you can do it if you want, i don't know why you suspect my veracity, it's not like libeling a tv personality worth $100 million+ with his own tv show by ranting about him on a message board is going to satisfy some evil plot in my head.
  • laplacian, on 12/15/2007, -3/+38I never thought I'd see such a lively interview on a topic such as monetary policy.
    • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -9/+1I don't think I've ever seen a more empty-headed interview on the topic of monetary policy.
      • reduxien, on 12/15/2007, -2/+2I don't think I've ever seen a better example on the topic of you being a complete douchebag.
        • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -1/+3You're right, we shouldn't question the fed, we should just have faith that george w and his cronies have our best intrests at heart.
  • GhostyBoy, on 12/15/2007, -7/+25We are winning...
    • BabyWookie, on 12/15/2007, -6/+1Who? What?
    • HigherLogic, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." I assume that's the winning going on.
  • stephbangm, on 12/15/2007, -6/+32If the majority of Ron Paul supporters actually vote in the Primaries, we would most likely win. Even if only 5-10% of the public support Ron Paul like the official polls say, only about 5-10% of the population vote in the Republican Primary! That's why it's critical that we have to work hard right now. Just a few people could make or break this election!
    • jasqwerty, on 12/15/2007, -13/+3The polls are of likely republican primary voters, not of the general public (Republican/Democrat/Voting/Non-Voting) you dimwit...
      Under 500 hours now until Ron Paul starts losing primaries in epic failure 6th place landslide finishes.
      • twojciac, on 12/15/2007, -2/+3dimwit? The polls are geared towards republicans, but many independents and democrats are switching party lines to vote for RP in the primaries. Likely voters is also laughable... they never release the stats on the number of people who admit they aren't going to show up to a primary. Nationwide in 2000 it was 9% of registered dems and in 2004 it was 13.4% of registered repubs.
        • jasqwerty, on 12/15/2007, -3/+1>>but many independents and democrats are switching party lines to vote for RP in the primaries

          I don't think you understand how primaries work...
          You can't just go vote in whichever one you want from year to year. If you mean that many democrats are actually now registered republicans, you're living in la-la land, as many rontards are apparently.
        • numb, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1jasqwerty: You're mistaken. In states that have open primaries you can vote in the primary even if you're not a republican. In states with closed primaries non-republicans have to change their party affiliation which is trivial to do.
          • jasqwerty, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1And how many states have open primaries?
            >> which is trivial to do
            Not really, but that besides the point. The democrats haven't seen a decline in registered voters, and Republicans haven't seen an increase.
      • odigity, on 12/15/2007, -1/+5Amazing how you can be so right about the polls and so wrong about the conclusion to draw from them. It is because the polls are of "likely republican primary voters" (read: those who voted in 2004/2006 republican primaries, hard core bush fans), that they vastly underrepresent the voting strength of Ron Paul, who has drawn independents, democrats, greens, libertarians, and many Republicans who have been disenfranchised since the neocons went nuts after 9/11.
        • jasqwerty, on 12/15/2007, -3/+1>>read: those who voted in 2004/2006 republican primaries

          WRONG

          Surprise surprise, another confused rontard who doesn't even understand the polls he's talking about and spouts off. At least you're not as retarded as the OP who thinks the polls are of the general public.
    • Orangewarp, on 12/15/2007, -0/+0Well, I'm not so sure. I'm an independent leaning Democrat and I like Paul. If there are other people like me they wouldn't be registered as Republican and wouldn't be able to vote in the primary. I was wondering, does anyone know what the break down of Ron Paul supporters are?
  • bixel, on 12/15/2007, -11/+2Is there a transcript???, cause this guy wins a gag for having the WORST VOICE EVAR
  • grunk, on 12/15/2007, -12/+5This interview was in Ron Paul's wheel house.
    • MikeFallopian, on 12/15/2007, -6/+1And Cramer was in Ron Paul's pants... Paul makes some good points here, I'd love to see more oversight of the fed. But the idea that we should abolish it and go back to the gold standard is pretty out there.
      • Tommyhawk, on 12/15/2007, -0/+5Sigh... He doesn't want to go back to a gold standard. The gold standard was a government construct. He wants the market to decide what the currency should be. If people chose to use gold as money then so be it. If gold fell out of favor they would use something else.
        • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3He has said numerous times that you can't just end the fed in a day or week. He knows that competing currency would kill debt based money fairly quickly.
      • thecoolestguy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3Since Nixon took the US off the gold standard in 1971, median wages have barely increased. For the 25-34 demographic, median wages are actually lower today than they were way back in 1972, 35 years ago.

        That median wages were higher in 1972, in a time before multi-GHz processors and the internet, than they are now is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS.

        Getting off the gold standard means the government can expand money supply to pay for big budgets that make politicians and their friends (Halliburton, Pharmaceuticals) rich.

        “In the 34 years before Nixon closed the gold window, the money supply in the U.S. grew less than two fold. In the 34 years after Nixon’s action, the money supply expanded 13 fold. “

      • rexblade, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Actually there alot of interesting ideas 1 that i heard was having the money backed by roads or public buildings. Check out the vid money from debt on you tube i think that was the name.
  • millerz1897, on 12/15/2007, -4/+23What is the Fed? What are they talking about?

    Find out here: www.whatisthefed.com
  • stephbangm, on 12/15/2007, -4/+35One of the best interviews I have ever seen with Ron Paul! I hope people are beginning to wake up to see the Federal Reserve's complicity and corruption. So if you're a Ron Paul supporter, the absolute best thing that you can do is become a delegate. We have to become delegates to get Ron Paul the GOP nomination; As delegates, we'll be picking the GOP nominee just like the electors in the electoral college pick the President; Delegates determine and decide who the GOP nominee is---it's that critical!

    Become a Delegate or Ron Paul will NOT be President

    http://delegate.notlong.com
    ^
    Approved by the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee: Jeff Greenspan, Regional Coordinator
  • ronpaulbeatoff, on 12/15/2007, -55/+9YES! Let's all get together and beat off to Ron Paul! There aren't enough Ron Paul videos on Digg!
    • ronpaulbeatoff, on 12/15/2007, -21/+2OMG!!! It was totally the *best* interview ever!!! He took seven minutes to say that he thinks we should change the way that the fed deals with monetary policy!!! Now I see why you lamerz have turned digg into nothing put articles about Ron Paul and complaints that there aren't enough articles about Ron Paul!!! Where's my box of tissue?
    • wutitang, on 12/15/2007, -2/+6Oh my god can it be that people actually might agree with Ron Paul?! Or is it just too ***** amazing to you that people actually support Ron Paul?
    • rexblade, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Lets beat off to bashing Ron Paul and Americans who care. NeoCons make me hard...
    • NewGTGuy, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1"beat off?"

      1987 called, they want their phrase back!
  • Syric, on 12/15/2007, -25/+12A very informative interview, but it was kind of a circle jerk. What I mean is Cramer didn't do anything but praise Paul, nor did he ask difficult questions (which I know he wants to, because he's no libertarian when it comes to the Fed); it was all just "Why are you so awesome?" But if you look at this as a policy speech from Paul and not an interview, it had some good soundbytes and statements.
    I'm all for checks and balances and oversight of the Fed, but personally I think abolishing it would be a huge mistake. The country was a shambles before strong centralized banking came about.
    Mild Digg for the entertainment and for the info, but not for the message.
    • JustinTX, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4The "problem" that the Federal Reserve was billed as our savior from is the scam called Fractional Reserve Lending. Long story short, fractional reserve lending allows banks to lend money they don't have (and charge interest). When people came to the bank to withdraw their deposits, they found their deposits weren't there... not even by a long shot. The Fed is nothing more than a banking cartel which pretends to ensure that we can't have another run on the banks.

      If you abolish the Fed you must also abolish fractional reserve lending. No fractional reserve lending, no run on the banks, no need for a central bank.
      • petrodollar, on 12/15/2007, -6/+3That's an incredibly simplistic and superficial view of the Great Depression - that it was all about people going to the bank one day and realizing "the money wasn't there." Did you learn economics from a children's book?

        By the way, if all the people who sold their stocks during the crash of 1929 had held onto them, they would have earned on average a 17x ROI within 12 years. Instead they bought high and sold low - precisely what you should NOT do.
        • quarkie, on 12/15/2007, -1/+6Most of the people were buying stock with borrowed money and couldn't make the margin calls. This forced them to liquidate their portfolios and hence caused more supply on the market and lower prices (forcing more people to liquidate).

          So a lot of the people couldn't hold on to their investments because people lent them the money to buy the stocks and those who lent the money forced them to sell so they wouldn't lose their lent capital.
        • JustinTX, on 12/15/2007, -0/+8It may be simplistic but it was written in a few minutes for a Digg comment. I did say "long story short" didn't I?

          The Great Depression was caused by a great many things but to insinuate that banks lending money that didn't exist (which happened before the Great Depression) wasn't a major factor is erroneous.

          ...and is Economics for Dummies a children's book? I just read the Cliff's Notes.

          (Hah! The Cliff's Notes on a For Dummies book! I kill me! I should be an economist comedian!)
          • quarkie, on 12/15/2007, -1/+0The great depressions was more caused by deflation than inflation.
      • reaganluver, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1hmmm ... and who made the decision was it to make these margin calls. Could it be our trusty friends in the banking industry? Wouldn't that allow them to use their capital to buy all the stocks dirt cheap? The point is that if we didn't have that system in place and capital wasn't going to people who shouldn't be recieving it; there would have been no crash.
    • EzraT1, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2No I think your wrong the great depression was shortly after the federal reserve act in 1913.
    • rexblade, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2The Fed and the International banks came into being through deception murder and manipulation (ex-financing both sides of all the major wars of our time suspected of murdering Abraham Lincoln and plotting the sinking of the Titanic.)The Fed LOVES wars and they gladly will loan all the money governments want to pay for it. That goes for both sides of the war. Check out "history of the Rothschilds" or history of the Federal Reserve.
  • lookonup, on 12/15/2007, -11/+30Ron Paul the Revolution. Hope for America NOW.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.