Ron Paul on Fox Business News 7/16/08 watch!
youtube.com — Ron Paul discusses inflation and how it's really just a hidden tax.
RonPaulNews- 982 diggs
- digg it
- mediaspree, on 07/16/2008, -7/+179Oh sure, NOW they put him on TV.
- tacojohn48, on 07/17/2008, -2/+19It isn't on real TV, it is on fox business.
- JettaMan, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Fox Business NEWS isn't political.
- rz8472, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2literally 5000 people watch FOX Business, and I'm betting that 90% of them are neocons.
- Netwatcher, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5I'm not sure whats more sad?
The fact that the only people who will put him on TV now are Fox Business News
... OR ...
The fact that OP had to watch Fox Business to know this was on.
- XxtraLarGe, on 07/17/2008, -0/+11Yeah, I was just about to say he gets more face time on TV now that he dropped out of the race.
- richmomz, on 07/17/2008, -1/+7Yes, now that he's no longer a threat there is no need for a media blackout any longer.
- axiomata, on 07/17/2008, -0/+21Dugg for the shot of inflation analogy at the end.
- XxtraLarGe, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2The other strange thing is how when I search for Ron Paul stories every couple of hours, and suddenly something from 4-6 hours pops up, like this one: http://digg.com/politics/GOP_Asks_For_Advice_Onlin ...
It's no wonder that more of Ron Paul's stories seldom make it to the front page. - JMScheib, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1What?
- kidal25, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2I really hate the media. F*CK FAUX NEWS!!!
- reaperhatch, on 07/17/2008, -4/+3Time is running out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WkH1vU9XZs- userperson, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1That rules!
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4058
- userperson, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1That rules!
- userperson, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3"Oh sure, NOW they put him on TV."
They do not believe him to be a eminent threat so it's okay now. - Hangly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4He's definitely a ratings booster.
- axiomata, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3Sure, if ratings took into account youtube views.
- Hangly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2I think they gauge popularity based on the number of emails they get.
- tacojohn48, on 07/17/2008, -2/+19It isn't on real TV, it is on fox business.
- Thinbev, on 07/16/2008, -11/+117He's been preaching this exact same message for over 20 years in Congress.... Finally, America is starting to listen to the freedom message. Finally.
I predict that in a couple of years, the Campaign For Liberty will explode! People are going to understand that freedom works best and big government will always screw up. It doesn't matter who is President; McCain, Obama, or even Gandhi! As long as we have big government and a paper money Federal Reserve system, the people will always suffer.
I urge everybody to join www.CampaignForLiberty.com.- rolf, on 07/17/2008, -0/+12Some days, I'm optimistic and on some days, I think we're going to go the way of Rome: knowing where the republic/empire is headed but collectively not having the will to steer it before it reaches the ditch.
- PapaZit, on 07/17/2008, -12/+4Let me jump in and emphasize that there is a difference between so-called big government and irresponsible big government. You may detest the fiat monetary system, but the reality is, the federal reserve doesn't realistically create these problems, it is legislated, and the duty of the Fed is to do its best to minimize the problems of inflation and overspending. I'd rather not bail out these banks, but the reality is, if they don't it's going to be a much worse. We wouldn't be in this mess if the industry and government subsidized programs were properly monitored and regulated. You can't privatize profits and socialize losses.
The federal reserve is an easy target, but even those who wants to eliminate it couldn't do so for a great many years, like 50-100 years. The damage has been done. Eliminating the Fed and the IRS will only make us worse off. A conservative estimate of our debt is 9 trillion dollars and increasing everyday.- JettaMan, on 07/17/2008, -0/+9Wrong. You have to let people and businesses (including banks) be punished when they do something stupid. If you allow them to get away with stupid they keep doing stupid.
- Rednik2011, on 07/17/2008, -11/+1Thanks for being the voice of reason in this Ron Paul circlejerk. Dugg.
- Thinbev, on 07/17/2008, -0/+9With all due respect, your opinion is Utopian. What you don't understand is there is no such thing as "responsible big government". It's impossible and unsustainable. Even if "the industry and government subsidized programs were properly monitored and regulated" by Einstein, Gandhi, and Jesus, how can you assure that those people in the industry and government will ALWAYS properly monitor and regulate things? What happens in 5,10,20,50 years? What happens when they get out of office or grow old and die?
The bottom line is politicians are people and people always make mistakes. Perfect people don't exist. Perfect politicians don't exist either. Why put all this power and control into the hands of a few people who could screw it up for the rest of us? Bottom line: Big government always fails and will never work.
We need sound money and a principled small federal government that will limit its power, spending, taxing and follow the constitution. We need to elect politicians who would limit their power and stop colluding with big business.
If our government wasn't so big and powerful, big businesses wouldn't be sending their lobbyists to D.C. to pass unconstitutional laws and regulations that benefit them. If our government followed the Constitution, big businesses wouldn't be able to benefit from laws and regulations and they will be forced to participate in the free market like everybody else... We would all be much better off.
America will ONLY prosper if we elect principled, pro-Constitution, small government people to local, State, and Federal government. I think we can do it. It's our only hope - ostracize, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7Regardless of whether or not there is a difference between big government and irresponsible big government, big government always contains an awesome amount of power like the kind the Fed wields against the world economy. I have no doubt, like you, that the Fed is doing the best they can with what they've been tasked with but the bottom line is it isn't working:
"Since today's paper money achieves its status by government declaration and not by its value in itself, eventually total power over the economy must be granted to the monopolists who manage the monetary system. Even with men of good will, this power is immoral, for men make mistakes, and mistakes should never have such awesome consequences as they do when made in the management of money. Through the well-intentioned mismanagement of money, inflation and depression are created. Political control of a monetary system is a power bad men should not have and good men would not want."
Eliminating the Fed and the IRS flat out would be disastrous, agreed. But we need to take steps NOW to abolish them. It's like paying interest on a credit card bill. If you're going deeply in debt, you don't just keep paying the debt, you take drastic measures to cut the spending by cutting up your card ASAP. Then you pay it off. Keeping the Fed means we keep this perpetual debt system and we never get better.
- silentboom, on 07/17/2008, -6/+75He's saying more to help this country than many presidents have said in their lifetimes, will anyone listen? I am preparing for the worst but hoping for the best.
- austang, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4honestly people shouldn't be allowed to vote until they've spent a minimum of 10 hours reading digg articles.
Average americans are stupid retards that vote for whoever the guy on fox tells them to.
thats if our votes are even counted....- quesi, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Why would we count them, when their machines can tell us who got the most votes?
- du4l1ty, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1honestly people shouldn't be allowed to vote until they've spent a minimum of 10 hours community service for reading reading digg articles.
Average digg readers are stupid retards that vote for whoever the digg herd tells them to.
thats if our votes are even counted....
- austang, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4honestly people shouldn't be allowed to vote until they've spent a minimum of 10 hours reading digg articles.
- Stryder81, on 07/17/2008, -8/+106Oh how people are going to be kicking themselves for not voting for this man ...
- JeremyGrieves, on 07/17/2008, -2/+39He's the only one giving the gods honest truth and has been consistently.
- muckemuck, on 07/17/2008, -0/+36The GOP won't admit they've made a huge mistake.. the GOP wants to continue running down the wrong track, so why should the little people act any differently? They'll continue to ridicule Ron Paul even though all the current events are proving him right and proving that the candidates who laughed at him and mocked him in the debates (Romney, McCain, Guilliani) were just plain wrong.
- meuse, on 07/17/2008, -1/+21I voted for the man, but I regret not donating more and doing enough to spread the word.
- Hangly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6Don't beat yourself up. The game is rigged.
- onetimer, on 07/17/2008, -18/+5Does he support scientific research yet? Anti-trust laws? Child labor laws? NASA? The FDA? Evolution?
Sill not regretting it.- homah, on 07/17/2008, -4/+9Privately funded, sure.
No.
Yes.
edit -- Who is digging me down simply for answering his questions? You guys are funny. :) - onetimer, on 07/17/2008, -9/+3Well that's just too bad. Unfortunately, leaving scientific research in the free market would be detrimental to any kind of research that isn't profitable in the short term.
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1997/nsb97186/nsb ...
I respect his anti-war and legalization of marijuana position, but scientific research is my #1 issue and I can't support a man who wants to abolish grants for scientific and medical research. - analogkid01, on 07/17/2008, -2/+11Maybe there's another way to get research funding without resorting to government-sanctioned robbery? There are plenty of citizens, like you and I, who would gladly donate money that is otherwise wasted (in the form of taxes) to companies performing valuable scientific research.
- onetimer, on 07/17/2008, -10/+3We're never going to be able to have a rational debate if you keep equating taxes as "government sanctioned robbery" Do you use roads? Those were funded with "government sanctioned robbery". I'm not here to debate the merits of your objectionist "taxes is robbery" platitude.
And LOL if you think "private donations" are going to sufficiently replace billions of dollars, let alone ensure that the money is allocated efficiently as an agency such as the NIH could. - userperson, on 07/17/2008, -2/+4@onetimer
the ends justify the means, YAY!!!
It's okay to make you fund abstinence only sex ed. & foreign wars at the point of a gun too! YAY!!!
Yeah, 'cause who would know better how to allocated funds efficiently, better than gov't? /s - onetimer, on 07/17/2008, -7/+2Yes userperson, we either have to fund scientific/medical research AND foreign wars, or none of them. Like you implied, those are the only two options.
I can only assume you are not familiar with how the grants are allocated. Agencies such as the NIH and NSF are run by scientists who work in the respective industries, so yes, I feel they know best how the funds should be allocated.
Please don't confuse the objectionist platitude "taxes is money stolen at gunpoint!!!" with any kind of valid fact that can be used as a justification. - userperson, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3@onetimer
I'm sure they'll keep the research, and let the unimportant stuff go...
You think the way your industry works is efficient?, and you don't want to have it completely transformed? color me surprised.
I'm sure they're very efficient and completely objective. They are scientists. They have no bias like the rest of us. Kinda like politicians vs. regular humans (well that last part was a bit much, but the point remains).
If one does not pay their taxes, they will be fined. If one refuses to appear in court, they will come after them. If one tries to defend themselves against unlawful kidnapping, they will be shot. If you try to escape you could also be shot. It is the threat of force to get money -- don't ***** with cheese and call it a burger. Men with fancy hats and pretty titles taking ***** -- see mugger.
But we're not super intelligent scientists, how dare we feel like we should have a right to our property when you and your colleagues can use it so much more wisely.
The ends justify the means, YAY!!! - sugarazor, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2"It's okay to make you fund abstinence only sex ed. & foreign wars at the point of a gun too! YAY!!!
Yeah, 'cause who would know better how to allocated funds efficiently, better than gov't? /s"
There's a huge difference between things like that and scientific/medical research. Abstinence only education and the War in Iraq are statistically proven failures, so our money should not go to them. Medical research is responsible for saving millions upon millions of lives and that's exactly the kind of thing tax dollars should go to.
It's all or nothing with some of you Paul fanatics, which just doesn't make any sense to me. - userperson, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3@sugarazor
If something is valuable to you or to me, we'd be willing to pay for it.
To an extent we already do pay for research when we purchase certain drugs.
If we're willing to pay, it seems foolish, and an unnecessary expenditure above the fact to force people.
Of course if you're back to the "millions upon millions of lives" it will save. We're back to ends justifying means. Some say the same thing about foreign wars, e.g. "We're fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here." and perhaps to some extent abstinence to the extent it avoids STDs & abortions (while remaining 'moral')
In all cases we don't get to make the decision. We get the choice between two or more power hungry assholes who will almost inevitably make poor decisions, listening to lobbyist instead of us.
I am no expert on scientific research, like our friend above, but perhaps he and his people are wrong, and their is a more efficient way to use money and actually save more lives? Shouldn't people be able to pursue that instead, or at least try other methods? As it is now we are forced to fund one way or one approach to how research should be distributed. Perhaps there's a way which could save money and thus save millions of more lives?
There is always an excuse. "It saves lives" well what if in the process it takes lives? more lives than it saves? When people have money taken they cannot freely pursue their own best interest. The safer car they want to buy takes a little longer to pay for. Insurance is that much more out of reach.
Still "saves lives" is not its own justification. What if people could live longer, but would have to all live in poverty and squalor? Some might enjoy shorter lives in greater luxury.
What choices should people be allowed to make? As the system currently works, force (or the threat of force) is required to fund these things. Are all of them worth shooting a person over? Would you shoot people over them? If you would not shoot people for this, it seems hypocritical to empower those who would. - sugarazor, on 07/17/2008, -2/+3I just can't understand how someone could oppose medical research. It's exactly the kind of thing that tax dollars SHOULD go to. Again, you go back to your War and Abstinence education examples, but I've already explained that those are failed policies, abstinence-only sex ed especially.
Some of you guys treat taxes like Digg's pirates treat illegal downloading - you shouldn't have to pay and that's that. And hey, if you can get away with it, more power to ya, but don't pretend like you're making some grand statement - you just don't want to pay money.
I will be the first to concede the point that our tax code is the most mind-numbingly stupid system on the planet that needs to be fixed, but eliminating it all together and relying on people to donate to things in the private sector would NEVER work. You really think your average joe is going to hand over any money to medical research, highway funds, police, fire departments, schools, airport traffic control, or environmental protection if he doesn't have to?
It's like a new generation of hippies with some of you guys, you think electing Ron Paul and just doing your own thing will make everything groovy - I'm sorry, but it won't. I really wish it would, I swear to you, if it would, I would be right there with you guys, but I'm just not a dreamer anymore. If we took all the policies that Ron Paul represents, the basic structure of this country would collapse. - userperson, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2@sugarazor
You'd think it was because we don't care, but actually we care a lot. We're sadist, and get sexual gratification from suffering ... of any sort really, which is why we want to reduce civilization to its knees ... ohhh yeahhh! /s -- sorry, words are fun
Did you not read what I wrote? ... I'm all in favor of medical research. Add to that schools, roads, courts, defense, and most anything you can think of ... I have a problem with force.
I'll pay for all kinds of things... People do everyday voluntarily.
Do steal from shops? If you don't is it because you're afraid of getting caught or because it's wrong?
If you really think private donations won't work then
A) a bunch of charities need to stop wasting their time
B) then we should have a better system that donations, or just donations
I'm not average Joe, so I can't say what he'll do. I think he'll pay for what's important to him. You seem to be distressed about this stuff and that's just in theory; so it's important to you. Are you so much smarter/better off than the rest of us?
I know if we don't maintain the countries structure how will the politicians get their bribes/tribute? If it's important people will pay.
If you're really worried about things collapsing don't hassle me & mine. We're not generally the ones piling all this junk on the government's 'to pay for' list.
Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, or not a good one. The liberty campaign is useful, sort of step in the right general direction, but I'm not betting on them accomplishing all that much. Not for lack of passion and trying. It's just that governments incentives are just wrong.
Everybody's been taught to have this huge blind-spot it seems. "Only government can _____" , "It's important that gov't ____ ", "without gov't ______ will explode". Gov't is just a group of people. People can do most anything gov't can. Yet, it's always "We NEED this.", "People need to be FORCED to pay for ____ because they need it." as if they are children. People act in their own interest, if allowed to. They general want/need/require/desire, medical research, schools, roads, etc. etc.
Thanks for your queries. - sugarazor, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2So what do you propose? Privatizing all schools, roads, courts and defense and running them like businesses? I don't really know if I want my future children attending Verizon Wireless High for $5,000 a year. I don't want toll booths every mile on Halliburton Highway. Look, I get it, business is business, survival of the fittest and all that, but I don't want to live in that world. I'm not the ultra-left hippie "let's just do it all together maaaaaan" and I'm not the ultra-right "DO IT YOURSELF, LOSER!" As always, the answers are in the middle.
Your shop analogy is a little fuzzy. I understand, you're voluntarily paying for a product you want. But what happens when people don't want to pay for things? You might, but do you REALLY think that everyone is just going to set aside a few dollars every week for roads, schools, the environment, medical research, scientific research, police, fire departments, paramedics, army, navy, air force, marines, national guard, dog catcher, parks, and the literally THOUSANDS of things that are paid for via tax dollars? Seriously, if you answer "yes," you're kidding yourself. I agree, those dollars could be spent in MUCH better ways than they are, but I don't see how you expect to get that money without taxes. People go into a store and pay for a product that they take with them. No one's going to go to the Highway Store and just give them their money to fund the roads.
I just don't know what it is you're proposing here. If you could outline an idea, I'd love to hear it, but I just don't see where you plan on holding up the country's infrastructure through private money. Yeah charities, I know, but how much money is donated to charities every year? Enough to pay for all interstate highways?
I'm sure I'll sound like the socialist here, but there are things that only government can handle - public safety issues being the most notable. To me, a lot of your ideas seem to go beyond those of a Libertarian and more like those of an Anarchist. They're great ideas in theory, but human nature will never allow them.
And trust me, I'm not saying I'm better off or smarter than anyone, probably worse off than most and less intelligent than a lot of people engaging in these types of discussions. - userperson, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1You answer your own questions. I'm not sure your children will attend Verizon High, and if Haliburton decides to too many inefficient toll booths, you'll not travel their highway.
Some people you want to work together with as neo-hippies, still others are losers and you want to tell to "DO IT YOURSELVES". That's the beauty with freedom, you can pick and choose.
Shop analogy was bad.
Language issue. Voluntary i.e. not forced.
You voluntarily exchange goods for services. It's not required like taxes.
People pay for what they need/want/are able to . If you think it's unjust for if someone else who is unable to pay to go without, then you can pay for them, or request others to. Depending upon circumstances you should/it's in your interest.
Taxes do pay for THOUSANDS of things. The tragedy, as you so note, is that money could pay for MILLIONS of things if budgeted properly. When allowed to operate freely it's surprising what's possible. How much do you pay for your digg membership? Google? Yahoo? etc. etc.
With much of this you keep assuming a fixed or close system. Where one change does not affect others. e.g. If less taxes are taken for these things, there will be more capital in the economy available to deal with such ideas. If gov't inefficiency is eliminated, again more capital.
Libertarianism and Anarchism are not mutually exclusive, or I've heard the terms used in such ways.
You keep talking about how people will forsake their own interests, and ignore their everyday behavior. I think you have some misperceptions about human nature. Are YOU inherently violent? Do you assault people on a daily basis?
Much of this is theoretical. This all well, good, and a funny giggle, but whenever someone advocates government action to fix a thing, they set the possibility of such freedoms further back and likely inadvertently harm themselves and others by giving power and money to those who are unable, and in some cases uninterested in using it efficiently.
I'm a POOR advocate for such ideas.
Though if you can have an open mind and not dismiss the ideas before they're presented, Most of my ideas are stolen (again poorly) from the same (or similar) sources:
http://is.gd/HX6
http://is.gd/AX4
Thanks for your attention.
- homah, on 07/17/2008, -4/+9Privately funded, sure.
- azbmr, on 07/17/2008, -1/+23I'm still voting for him. I don't give a ***** who the nominee is. It is my right--especially since I don't think either of the current nominees would be good a President.
- jcm267, on 07/17/2008, -15/+3You might as well vote for Mickey Mouse or one of the many heroes of Ron Paul's base (Alex Jones, David Duke, Lew Rockwell, John Walker Lindh), it's a wasted vote either way.
- card51short, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6Thanks for your opinion. I feel a vote for McCain or Obama or anyone I don't like is also a wasted vote.
- azbmr, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4Yea, which is more "wasted" a vote: someone I think will be a terrible President or not voting entirely? Sounds to me like my statement is clear. When did people get confused between voting for the winning guy and voting for who they want to be President?
- skyshock1, on 07/17/2008, -0/+13It's not too late to vote for him. The General election is still a ways off and I'll be voting write-in or absentee or what have you as long as I can vote for Ron Paul.
- klasifyde, on 07/17/2008, -6/+55Wake up america! This is the only man in congress that can see what is wrong in Washington! Maybe just maybe the delegates at the rnc will have the backbone to vote no confidence in mccain and get this man the nomination.
- userperson, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7"This is the only man in congress that can see what is wrong in Washington!"
I respectfully disagree, he's the only who wants to do something about it, which sadly is why he will fail.
Sorry hell hasn't frozen over, I don't see one good man correcting this system, which has been broken or has been breaking since it's inception.
Ron Paul generally tells the truth and has integrity. - frozenpxl, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2"Its called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." Carlin was right, there are some dumb Americans. They don't want to wake up. Most people can't comprehend the idea of a small government, because they've grown so accustomed to its massiveness.
- userperson, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2Doesn't matter... Americans could be wide awake.
Size of government and/or the ability to grow it / take more money for more things one of politicians' greatest powers. They have so many incentives to use this power, and so few to curtail it.
95% of politicians will come this conclusion explicitly or implicitly, Right or Left it doesn't matter who you vote for Americans can try their best, they're not 'dumb', there's no one to vote for. Perhaps a few exceptions, and the consequence for electing them could be worse than the status quo. They will bring gov't services to a halt, and since they have prohibited replacements...
- userperson, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2Doesn't matter... Americans could be wide awake.
- userperson, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7"This is the only man in congress that can see what is wrong in Washington!"
- Jeezopete, on 07/17/2008, -10/+30Join and make a real change for Freedom and Liberty!
www.campaignforliberty.com
July 12, 2008 10,000-15,000 Patriots gathered in Washington DC to defend the Consitution!
Freedom brings people together! Join us! We are fighting for your rights and your liberty!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57925480@N00/26607791 ...- BrandonMills, on 07/17/2008, -9/+2Most people in your own forums even guess more like 8,000 at most, and many say under 5,000.
Stop drinking your own Kool-Aid.- userperson, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Indeed, it doesn't matter if you are right in your views, just that you are popular.
If you're ever going to succeed at anything you have to start somewhere... 'um I mean join the majority.
- userperson, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Indeed, it doesn't matter if you are right in your views, just that you are popular.
- BrandonMills, on 07/17/2008, -9/+2Most people in your own forums even guess more like 8,000 at most, and many say under 5,000.
- dbarsell, on 07/17/2008, -10/+31Finally. An anchor person on Fox that actually listens to and understands what Ron Paul has been warning Americans about for decades. Great interview. Thank you. Now join the r3VOLution at www.CampaignForLiberty.com
- reed311, on 07/17/2008, -17/+5I thinking you just hit the nail on the head. "Warning about for decades". This man has been WRONG for decades and just now people should listen to him? If you listened to him in 1987 and invested in gold, you would have lost 50% of your investment when the price of gold crashed. If you listened to Ron Paul, you would think that the Constitution is "replete with references to God" and that "life begins at conception". Not sound advice if you want to appear educated in a debate.
- homah, on 07/17/2008, -2/+9It's pretty natural for a doctor who witnessed abortions as a young man to believe that life begins at conception. That being said, his political belief is that abortion is a state issue.
I don't think RP is perfect. I don't think he is a modern day prophet. What I do know, however, is that he is more consistent than the two (major) presidential candidates. He isn't afraid to express his beliefs, regardless of how unpopular they may be, and stand by them. He votes on bills based on their constitutionality way more than McCain and Obama.
If you want to nitpick based on a single comment he made about the Constitution being "replete with references to God," I'd love to know who the hell you are voting for, because no one is a perfect politician, but RP is as close to that as I've ever seen. - onetimer, on 07/17/2008, -8/+3Just because it's "natural" to him doesn't make it right. And no, it's not a state issue for the same reason that slavery isn't a state issue. States rights don't trump individual rights, and the 14h amendment insures that.
- homah, on 07/17/2008, -2/+3My point was that his personal belief that life begins at conception is different from his political view that it is a state issue.
I don't know that I would consider killing another human being an individual right, but I am certainly no Constitutional expert. Regardless, I know that no legislation against abortion is going to stop it, so I don't make it a priority when considering which candidate to vote for. I couldn't tell you what McCain and Obama's stances on abortion are. - btschul, on 07/17/2008, -2/+11I am really tired of this ***** argument against Ron Paul: "He is against a woman's right to choose." You didn't use those exact words, but you insinuated that his stance on abortion was a bad thing. Lest get a few things straight:
1. Ron Paul is an OB/GYN that has delivered over 3000 babies. In his professional medical opinion, life begins at conception. It is not a religious thing, it is his PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL OPINION. He knows more about when life begins than you do.
2. He does not want to ban abortion. He believes in leaving it up to the states, which is the constitutional thing to do. So, he is not infringing on anyone's rights. He is following the constitution.
3. Do some research before you bash Ron Paul, and unless you are some sort of deviated socialist/communist/totalitarian prevert you will probably find that he is the best candidate for the job. - onetimer, on 07/17/2008, -6/+3Blah blah blah yet again both your arguments boil down to justifying his "life begins at conception" belief because "OMG HE's DELIVERED LIKE A MILLION BABIES"
That fallacious argument doesn't take into account that he is among a minority of doctors and scientists who hold that view.
And no, it's not up to the states to dictate what you are allowed to do with your own body. It's and individual right and to let the states infringe upon it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL with regards to the privacy clause of the 14th amendment. "states rights" has been used by religious conservatives for decades as a "nudge nudge wink wink" red-herring to promote their religious agenda. - zephc, on 07/17/2008, -4/+2onetimer, where is XXXXXXXXXXXXXX ? I don't see him posting - is he busy giving you a handjob?
- btschul, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2"he is among a minority of doctors and scientists who hold that view. "
Of course he is. Only the moral, honest doctors hold that view. If you were a doctor and you were getting paid a couple hundred dollars an hour to do a simple job like smash little babies (that may or may not be alive), would you speak out against it? No, it's easy money! - onetimer, on 07/17/2008, -5/+3"Of course he is. Only the moral, honest doctors hold that view. If you were a doctor and you were getting paid a couple hundred dollars an hour to do a simple job like smash little babies "
Your posts betray your ignorance of abortion and the issue as a whole. Please at least try to educate yourself on the process before you continue to make an ass out of yourself debating it.
Here is what Dr. Paul submitted a bill to give rights to:
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg - btschul, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2"Your posts betray your ignorance of abortion and the issue as a whole."
Could you elaborate?
Putting aside whether or not you believe a zygote is alive or not, think about it like this: Even if it is not alive now, it will be alive within 9 months. Without interference, it will become a human being. If your mom had wanted an abortion, wouldn't you say that would be an infringement on your right to life? Even if you weren't alive at the time that you were destroyed, your right to life would still have been taken away, would it not?
All of this is irrelevant, though, because Ron Paul does not want to ban abortion. - onetimer, on 07/17/2008, -4/+4"Could you elaborate?"
Your belief that abortion is "smashing babies"
"Putting aside whether or not you believe a zygote is alive or not, think about it like this: Even if it is not alive now, it will be alive within 9 months. Without interference, it will become a human being. "
So you're now justifying it on POTENTIAL for life? I guess masturbation should be outlawed as well, as each of those spermatozoa had the potential to become alive! Without interference? Nope, 15-20% of abortions naturally miscarriage anyways.
"If your mom had wanted an abortion, wouldn't you say that would be an infringement on your right to life? Even if you weren't alive at the time that you were destroyed, your right to life would still have been taken away, would it not?"
If I wasn't alive, how could I have a right to something I didn't even have?
"All of this is irrelevant, though, because Ron Paul does not want to ban abortion."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108 ... - btschul, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2You have to admit that at some point this (http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg ... comes to life. At some point within a 9 month period, this (http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg ... becomes this (http://www.solarnavigator.net/animal_kingdom/anima ... ) When? Please, you know so much about this, please tell me exactly when a zygote comes to life. You can't argue that it doesn't happen. The baby comes out alive, so at some point it goes from non-living to living. Unless you know exactly when that happens, how do you know you are just killing a group of cells and not a baby.
"All of this is irrelevant, though, because Ron Paul does not want to ban abortion."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108 ...
That bill bans partial birth abortion, which is when the abortion is performed in the late 2nd to early 3rd trimester, when the baby is moving around and is almost certainly alive. It does not ban all abortion. - onetimer, on 07/17/2008, -4/+2Of course it comes to be "alive" at some point. Most scientists (as well as legal scholars) accept this point to be around the 8 week period, when the brain of the fetus becomes active and it gains consciousness.
Regardless, this point is long after the time of conception and which is why Ron Paul's attempt to legally define life at conception and to grant rights to zygotes (the same rights we have, making their destruction murder. Essentially a de-facto ban on abortion, or even the morning after pill, illegal nationwide for that matter) is wrong.
"That bill bans partial birth abortion, which is when the abortion is performed in the late 2nd to early 3rd trimester, when the baby is moving around and is almost certainly alive. It does not ban all abortion."
Regardless, if Paul believes abortion is a states right, then why would he vote for a bill that puts it in federal jurisdiction.
Even so, it is this 2nd to 3rd trimester when complications can develop that can put the mothers life in danger if she has to give birth. To outlaw a procedure is essentially taking away the mothers ability to do something to prevent a risk to her life and is irresponsible. - btschul, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2It is obvious that I am not going to change your point of view and you are not going to change mine, so instead of arguing anymore, I will go my way and you can go yours. You can go and continue to be ignorant and bash Ron Paul, and I will go and continue to spread the word and try to help save the nation. Goodbye.
- onetimer, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2I can only assume that your lack of counter argument and childish "remain ignorant" comment is a concession to my points.
You know, I have had this same argument with plenty of die-hard paul supportes, and at least most of them in the end admit to not liking his particular view on the matter.
For the record, I have a B.S in Biology (same as paul) and wouldn't mind answering any more questions you had about life. - btschul, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2I am not conceding, I am saying that we could do this forever, and I have better things to do.
"Of course it comes to be "alive" at some point. Most scientists (as well as legal scholars) accept this point to be around the 8 week period, when the brain of the fetus becomes active and it gains consciousness."
Even if you find the average time that a fetus "comes alive", there will always be an exception. Even if you figure it out, what's the difference between killing the fetus one second before it comes alive and killing it one second after it comes alive. When would you suggest we allow the fetus to be killed? - onetimer, on 07/17/2008, -3/+2Well, if you insist, i'd advocate something like 6 weeks, in which case 100% of the zygotes don't have any brain functions and aren't conscious. They have the same level of awareness as bacteria.
Doesn't matter though. Even 6 weeks (which by the time the fetus has millions and millions of cells) is still vastly different then a 12-celled zygote seconds after conception... - Midtowner, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1FWIW, Planned Parenthood v. Casey outlines the law here, and simply put, there are two competing interests when it comes to abortion. On the one hand, you have the reproductive freedom of the mother to do with her body what she wants to do. On the other hand, there's the compelling state interest in protecting life.
That compelling state interest in protecting life (according to O'Connor writing for the SCOTUS) kicks in at the point of viability (when the fetus can survive outside the womb). At that point, the state can do anything -- even completely proscribe abortion.
The "health of the mother" (whatever that is) is the limiting factor on the state's interests. We don't know exactly how far that health of the mother thing can take us as none of this has really been litigated.
Abortion is one of those topics where reasonable and intelligent people can differ. IMHO, it's a philosophical difference rather than a factual one which is the real issue. It's an issue which won't be solved by someone being able to prove oneself right or wrong.
- homah, on 07/17/2008, -2/+9It's pretty natural for a doctor who witnessed abortions as a young man to believe that life begins at conception. That being said, his political belief is that abortion is a state issue.
- reed311, on 07/17/2008, -17/+5I thinking you just hit the nail on the head. "Warning about for decades". This man has been WRONG for decades and just now people should listen to him? If you listened to him in 1987 and invested in gold, you would have lost 50% of your investment when the price of gold crashed. If you listened to Ron Paul, you would think that the Constitution is "replete with references to God" and that "life begins at conception". Not sound advice if you want to appear educated in a debate.
- radiofriendly, on 07/17/2008, -6/+15That was so perfect (short and sweet for our sick/sad culture)!
- LumpyRevolution, on 07/17/2008, -12/+17I believe in God and I believe in Ron Paul. I also believe that Ron Paul is a modern day prophet. l love this man.
- Slick37c, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7Modern day prophet? Relax. Just a bit.
- JigoroKano, on 07/17/2008, -1/+7I find your words frightening.
- badogg, on 07/17/2008, -3/+9You lost me at believing in God
- ptFoe, on 07/17/2008, -24/+2More Ron Paul quotes -
why can't the year still be 2008? going to 2009 is just a way of us having to pay more tax.
Evolution is also another Tax FUD. - smittie, on 07/17/2008, -23/+5Ron who?
- Protonz, on 07/17/2008, -2/+7Google Ron Paul
While you are at it, look up John Galt- smittie, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Google humor.
While you are at it, look up satire.
- smittie, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Google humor.
- Protonz, on 07/17/2008, -2/+7Google Ron Paul
- meuse, on 07/17/2008, -2/+19Keep giving those international bankers hell, Ron!
- koob, on 07/17/2008, -2/+29Ron Paul vs. Ben Bernanke from earlier this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldETRlhiXk
- skyshock1, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4Ben Bernanke looks like a complete chump in that video. Ron lashed Bernanke soundly and left him running off w/ his tail between his legs.
- 0nslaught, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3While on the topic of Ron Paul vs. Ben Bernanke
"Ron Paul vs. Ben Bernanke 7-16-08.flv"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT0txlTod8w
Ron Paul: "Most economists recognize inflation is monetary...what we need is more value in our money...Inflation is a tax...Fed Reserve is biggest taxer in country...Every time people complain of higher prices, they should say 'I'm paying a tax' (CNBC talking over Ron Paul so people can't hear his testimony over the normal tv channel)
Bernake: "Congressman I couldn't agree with you more....that inflation is a tax." - Hangly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2When I saw that I knew for sure we were in serious trouble. Bernanke just doesn't seem very intelligent.
- SurrealEstate, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Bernanke is NOT dumb, he's just in a no-win position and he knows it. He's been forced to play the hand of his predecessors, which is akin to a tiring person treading water in open sea. My gut feeling is that he's desperately hoping things hold together until 2010, when he can possibly get out of the mess he's in.
- Hangly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1It's like a game of musical chairs, isn't it.
I imagine the music in this game sounds a lot like either Yakkety Sax or the Imperial March.
- svensko, on 07/17/2008, -24/+9Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution...
- homah, on 07/17/2008, -7/+5I like tacos.
- userperson, on 07/17/2008, -4/+8This is why you shouldn't request Ron Paul as your high-school science teacher. Besides he's better at history and political science anyhow.
- ThickGreenPuke, on 07/17/2008, -5/+21this is why democracies never work. people can't get their priorities straight. he is not going to come to your house and put a gun to your head and tell you to become creationists. ***** retard!
- svensko, on 07/17/2008, -9/+4True but my job is _literally_ going to be based around evolution and genetics. I'd find it very insulting for the president to think that my work doesn't even exist.
- SlowelyFadeAway, on 07/17/2008, -3/+7Would you rather:
A. Be insulted by an intelligent president who can fix the economy
B. Not have a job at all because of the ***** economy
Yeah, that's what I thought.
And for the record, Obama doesn't believe in evolution either, so who else are you going to vote for? - userperson, on 07/17/2008, -3/+3@svensko
Right or wrong, It's important not to insult people. /s
Who gives a *****? unless he's banning science.
Though I suppose you know Ron Paul, he's all about making your choices for you, and banning stuff.
Maybe that's your problem, you what him to tell you it's okay to believe in evolution...
I know it makes you sad, he hurt your feelings.
How about I give you a gold star instead, will that make you feel better? - r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -2/+4Oil prices are skyrocketing, our troops are being killed in Iraq, the economy's heading to a recession...but oh, none this really matters, because what's important is that some random internet ***** named svensko finds Ron Paul's personal opinions "insulting".
People like you shouldn't be allowed to vote. - john2kx, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4Still, I think I'd find it more insulting and immoral for the president to allow today's current policies to stand, and for my savings to be continually eroded away by the decreasing value of the dollar.
Comparing this to whether the president believes in evolution... I wholeheartedly believe in evolution, but I couldn't possibly care less what he thinks of evolution!!
Our economy (and our country) is on the brink of collapse, and there are still people concerned with issues like this.. It's almost depressing. - ostracize, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5The difference is Paul won't stop you, even if he personally doesn't believe it's a valid research discipline and scientific application.
- icdapoakr, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5It's a shame he doesn't believe in evolution, but I think his integrity as a politician overlooks this fact.
How do people not believe in evolution? There's so much evidence to prove it, but that's another topic to argue over. - XanderDee, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4Ron Paul does not believe you should smoke weed and drink and smoke and sleep with hookers too. But he wants you to do what you want and let your local and state government decide what's right and whats wrong. The federal government is there to make sure no one can stop you from believe one thing or the other.
- newguy96, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1FREEEEEEE SPAAAAAAAAMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! woohoo :D
gig gig gigidy!
- BrandonMills, on 07/17/2008, -25/+6Please keep your Libertarian circle jerk to the politics section? If it's got politican candidates in it, it's political. Period. End of story. Save the Business and Finance section for people who aren't running for any kind of office.
- richmomz, on 07/17/2008, -0/+12The topic is on inflation and the problems with the Federal Reserve system, and has NOTHING to do with politics or election related material. Just because the video happens to have a congressman in it doesn't mean that it automatically belongs in the political section. If you had actually viewed the content, you would understand this.
- chester27, on 07/17/2008, -3/+19Did anyone notice how the anchor stifled back a laugh at 1:47, when Ron Paul suggests restraining the Federal Reserve?
- Hangly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7Fox people are congenitally retarded. What else is new?
- evodevo1, on 07/17/2008, -2/+5Could someone explain what the discount window is and how the Fed auctions off money? Ron Paul keeps talking about the Fed making up money out of thin air, partly through the auction process. But is this really what happens? What about the details of how the money is created and do they have to pay it back? Thanks!
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Hard stuff to follow. He has books available for free downloads from his website. I'd like him to do more lectures on these topics.
- donotclickjim, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Legit question. They do it by printing it then charging a percentage that must be paid back over time. Kinda like how we take out mortgages for homes only banks get better rates. E.g. http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/provider ...
EDIT: But to RP's point, which I agree, our currency doesn't mean crap unless everyone thinks it does because it is only backed by our word. The value of the dollar is dropping because foreign investors are loosing interest in it and moving to stronger currencies (e.g. the euro). Everyone cracks on the FED Reserve (which I think is a scam too) but the IMF is another entity to question. - JewelD, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4Forget Paul's books - read any intro economics text - find one on half.com or Amazon. Seriously guys, this is all pretty basic stuff to know.
Or, just google it.
The "discount window" is (I believe) the discounted interest rate for money the Fed lends to banks - I believe this is the rate charged by the FRB for overnight loans. These loans are made to help cover banks' reserves when they make loans to people and businesses.
The auctions are Treasury Bill auctions - like big savings bonds.
Do you borrow money? Have a credit card? Student loan? Mortgage? Car loan? Then you, my friend, are expanding the money supply, too. Chances are though, the war deficit is far more to blame right now. Guns vs. butter, as they say.
Anyone remember Bill Clinton? He balanced the budget. We weren't in debt. We actually had a surplus. It can be done, and we did it recently. We are not in dire trouble, we just have a bunch of greedy, power-hungry bullies in charge right now.
Please be smart and help vote them out. But PLEASE - educate yourselves for real, instead of depending on processed brain cheese from politicians.
We have seen the enemy, and it is us.
- Disneyisevil50, on 07/17/2008, -9/+1I think Ron Paul should clone himself, freeze himself for 35 years, and then run for president on the Paul Paul ticket.
- ThickGreenPuke, on 07/17/2008, -2/+6man you are really certain that US would exist in 35 years.
- analogkid01, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3I shall call him...Mini-Paul...
- timidlikerivers, on 07/17/2008, -3/+8Oh how I miss him.
- skyshock1, on 07/17/2008, -0/+7Dude. He's not dead.
- 1longtime, on 07/17/2008, -5/+6I like Ron, but that seemed oversimplified and shallow to me...
Why won't anyone discuss the actual logistics behind moving our currency to a "commodity" (ie-- gold). It really isn't as simple as tying the US dollar to gold. Tons of logistical problems.- calebian, on 07/17/2008, -1/+11well when they give only 3 min of air time its hard to get all the problems of america across.
- orxor, on 07/17/2008, -1/+6It's easier than trying to fix Keynesian economics with more Keynesian economics. The switch to gold back currency wouldn't happen overnight, but for starters Ron Pauls plan to make gold backed currency a legal currency would start the process. It would not be possible to now back the dollar with gold, but there's no reason why a competing currency can't be created. If it's really a free market (it's not but we're told it is) people should have a choice as to which kind of money they use.
- richmomz, on 07/17/2008, -2/+7Tons of logistical problems? We were on a gold standard for almost 200 years until 1971 and it worked just fine. Nixon did away with it when the costs of the Vietnam war started getting out of control, and replaced it with a fiat paper system that granted him the ability to print unlimited funds. But with this seemingly endless source of wealth comes the spectre of inflation. The system nearly collapsed in the late 70s and was only rescued by raising interest rates to double digits and triggering a deep recession. Now inflation has caught up with us again, but this time it is much more serious as it is coupled with a serious banking crisis which prevents them from implementing their previous solution of jacking up interest rates. In other words - we are screwed. Ron Paul is the only guy in Washington that gets it.
- cswake, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4He's explained that the best way to do it is to legalize competing, *private* currencies into our marketplace and letting them ease in while pulling the dollar out.
- mfc5200, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Sure,
but you could still take steps in the right direction. For instance, you could effectively have the dollar be as "good" as gold by making inflation the Fed's #1 target. They should be shooting for -1%o 1% inflation every year, with 0% being the goal. They can now, with the current tools at their disposal, attempt to achieve this, and that would be a good start, creating a stable currency.
In many ways such as this, it is "theoretically" possible that a Fiat currency could be better than a commodity backed currency. Because while the US government has no say into how much gold is in the world, they sure as hell could control the money supply of dollars and thus inflation. - ostracize, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Paul laid it out in full right here:
http://mises.org/books/caseforgold.pdf - Thinbev, on 07/17/2008, -0/+4We don't have to tie the Federal Reserve Notes to gold... We just need to allow competing currencies. Just like we have the choice to pay with cash, check, credit card, or PayPal, we should be given the choice to use different "brands" of money that are commodity backed.
I don't know about you guys, but I'd much rather get paid in a currency that couldn't be debased by a few secretive bankers...
- RTPMatt, on 07/17/2008, -10/+5I'm voting Obama at present, can someone show me his showing of fiscal responsibility on this level? I like what Ron Paul says here, it makes sense to me now. I would like to know the stance of a real candidate.
- MRoCkEd, on 07/17/2008, -1/+15He doesn't know *****. Neither does Mccain.
- btschul, on 07/17/2008, -1/+11Please don't vote for Obama. Especially if you don't know his stance on important issues like this one.
- richmomz, on 07/17/2008, -0/+17Unfortunately Obama has said virtually nothing on these topics. He has acknowledged that there is an economic crisis but has not addressed the CAUSES of the crisis (inflation, runaway government spending, etc.) To be fair though, McCain is no better.
The mainstream candidates simply refuse to address these issues. Whether it is intentional or out of ignorance, I do not know.- btschul, on 07/17/2008, -0/+8He knows the cause of the problem, he just hasn't said "Too much govt. spending is the problem" because HE IS GOING TO INCREASE GOVERNMENT SPENDING. He has all kinds of new social programs he wants to set up, and he even wants to use our tax money to pay welfare to poor people in OTHER COUNTRIES. (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_supports_b ... He won't talk about it because he knows his plans for the country will make it worse.
- richmomz, on 07/17/2008, -0/+9BOTH candidates will increase government spending - the only difference is how they will go about it. McCain will borrow and print the money he needs (triggering more inflation) while Obama will raise money the old fashioned way by taxing everyone to death. Either way, you and I are screwed.
- Thinbev, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3I don't think you'll be able to find anything on this subject and Obama... However, I found many speeches on YouTube where he uses the words "change" and "hope" ;)
I also suggest you watch this video about how our money works: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-905047436 ...
Hope this helps.
- bunghole999, on 07/17/2008, -4/+35I am proud to say I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. Ron Paul's anti-central government, anti-federal reserve, anti-corporate fascism message did not go over well with our corporate masters, and that is why he was squashed by the mainstream media. Barrack Obama was NOT squashed by the media. Just another clue that Barrack is a puppet..... SO ... I have a dream... that one day the US Presidential election will be integrated and diverse... we will have a black, white, and female puppet. Long live diversity! Goodbye Freedom
- davidwasman, on 07/17/2008, -4/+1Yes, everyone! Let's follow the advice of someone who calls themselves a bunghole!
- bunghole999, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1But David, I need TP for my bunghole !!! Do you have TP ? Many more will come after me ! And are you man or woman? You say you was (sic) a man ? wasman ? Are you nowwoman ? TP !
- davidwasman, on 07/17/2008, -4/+1Yes, everyone! Let's follow the advice of someone who calls themselves a bunghole!
- mtxprime, on 07/17/2008, -2/+5preach brotha preach !
- Lazydriver, on 07/17/2008, -13/+8These comments suck.
- Disneyisevil50, on 07/17/2008, -3/+7your comment sucks
- tacotruck08, on 07/17/2008, -4/+24RON PAUL. STILL CHANGING AMERICA.
- ismellfunny, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2I don't have a caps lock anymore. I changed it to RON PAUL MODE
- richmomz, on 07/17/2008, -3/+13Inflation is taxation, and the Federal Reserve is the biggest tax man out there, worse than the IRS. After 30+ years of non-stop monetary erosion, the American economy is almost tapped out. Ron Paul is the only person in Washington that gets it.
- JigoroKano, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Kerry said this when he ran in 2004.
- davidwasman, on 07/17/2008, -19/+3Seriously, guys...He lost. It's ok to move on, you know.
- Hangly, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3Right, because everything is fixed and we don't have to worry about it anymore.
Oh wait, no it isn't.
Out of curiosity, move on to what?
- Hangly, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3Right, because everything is fixed and we don't have to worry about it anymore.
- calebian, on 07/17/2008, -1/+11Ironic how a broken record is the solution for a broken America. Ron, your my hero. You never change the truths you believe in.
- wtfbatman, on 07/17/2008, -20/+4God, all of you ron paul supporters are walking brochures full of nothing i want to read about, because just like how no president that is currently running will change anything, neither will ron paul. Wake up and smell the reality.
Now, let us wait and see how many Ron Paul supporters bury this comment.- richmomz, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4Ok. Buried.
- deetank, on 07/17/2008, -2/+5Yeah, ***** what the Ron Paul supporters have to say. They're always babbling about freedom or what's wrong with this country and how Ron Paul will fix it...just stfu already! I want more of the same, let me continue to bow down to the flag in peace.
- wtfbatman, on 07/17/2008, -1/+0In case you haven't noticed, everyone babbles about what's wrong with this country and our freedoms. Take a number.. It's Ron Paul's turn right now.
- btschul, on 07/17/2008, -4/+13It escapes me how this man did not win the nomination. It is simply mind-blowing. Are the majority of Americans just stupid? I don't get it. He has the answers to almost all of our problems, but he just gets ignored.
- richmomz, on 07/17/2008, -2/+7Complete media blackout. There was barely a peep in the MSM when he shattered the one day fundraising record for a presidential candidate. The powers that be did not want the American sheep.. er, people, believing that he was a viable candidate.
- deetank, on 07/17/2008, -1/+6It shocks me too, but at the same time it doesn't. My eyes have been opened to how stupid and apathetic Americans are.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1I imagine there are many high IQs pondering this as we write. It seems people are often not their own best friends. My guess is it has something to do with bringing people along at just the right speed. Major candidates get enough coverage to go slow and find a comfort level with the audience. Third party types or Media underdogs have to speak too fast and vehemently. Ross Perot did the best job that I know. He had tv presentations with simple charts that seemed to work fairly well. He was able to slow things down and keep people watching.
- scamper22, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Politician1 - I believe in having a fair system and freedom. I want you to have the power to affect your own future.
Politician2 - I promise you free healthcare, good pensions, good jobs, safety from terrorism, help to get you to own your home, more funding for education
Voter - Politician2 is giving me more stuff. I will vote for him/her.
That's democracy folks. If you wanted freedom, you should have stuck to the constitution.. but you'd rather have democracy
- tonyteetime, on 07/17/2008, -2/+9It's good to hear a voice of reason amid all these financial madness! Keep on preaching RP!
- DaDrake, on 07/17/2008, -4/+4I strongly disagree with the bear stein bailout but the entire idea that the fed shouldn't have a plan for Freddie and Fannie Mae is ludicrous. For one, both of these companies haven't delt with high-risk loans, which IndyMac was well known for (and punished for). Secondly, the reason why this government sponsored company was set up was to help Americans obtain affordable mortgages.
Many elude to the fact tha without government backing, FFM would fail. This is true; and mortgages would rise back up to 12-16% as they were in the 70s. But, that doesn't mean the government is sponsoring an unprofitable company or a company that is overvalued. In fact, the reason why mortgages need assistant is because they take so damn long to see returns. Banks do not want to have their capital used on 35+ year loans. The bond market in the 80s allowed banks to sell mortgages to huge banks (like FFM) which repacked them as bonds that would pay out in 5, 10, 15+ years; this frees up capital for banks (economy grows) and it BRING INVESTORS to the market.
So without this backing... its either Americans pay 12-16% per loan or around 5%. It really is that simple... do we value affordable and fair mortgages?
I think it should be said that I seriously doubt FFM will go under; most of their decline has been a result of other companies in their sector that have dealt with sub prime lending (which FFM didn't). I am confident that increasing the needed capital to back the mortgages from 1.6% to near 3% would offset any realistic housing crash.- barnsaton, on 07/17/2008, -3/+1Long post is looooooooong.
- OgonGuitarist, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Short attention span is short.
Forgot the ADHD meds?
- OgonGuitarist, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Short attention span is short.
- strafefire, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under the guise of helping homeowners afford homes [that many should not have had to begin with] were REALLY created to have a place where banks can LEGALLY place their bad loans and clean up their balance sheets. That is it.
- DaDrake, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Do you actually believe that? They didn't deal with subprime lenders and so far, the defaults range for 0.45-0.66% (meaning, a healthy number of debtors are still paying their bills).
- donotclickjim, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1I don't agree that mortgages would rise back up to 12-16% range. My mortgage is solely funded by a local bank at a better than average rate. And no, it isn't sold off to a larger company I asked. Also, FFM was created to get more home owners but the evidence is inconclusive: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/annual0 ...
- Nubaulz, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Awesome comment. I completely agree with everything you wrote here. Normally, I think corporate welfare is just as evil as personal welfare, but in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's case, they are victims of other lending institutions sketchy practices. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae wouldn't back a mortgage that didn't include 20% down payment and 1%-2% in reserve (I can't recall the exact percentage in reserve).
Like you said, if Freddie and Fannie fail, future mortgages for everyone will be very difficult to obtain/finance. Hence, they need to be bailed out by the government. This is actually a good use of taxpayer money. - Hangly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3There are approximately 600 billion dollars in circulation right now. How much will the bailout cost? How many hundred billion?
You're talking about devaluing the dollar by perhaps up to 10% overnight. How will all the countries that hold dollars in reserve react to that? They'll drop the dollar as fast as they can, that's what they'll do, flooding the market with hundreds of billions more and driving its value into the basement. Everyone's savings and salaries will end up getting cut in half.
This idea that "FDMA is important we must do something" is irrational. Understand what that something is and what the effects of doing it are first. First do no harm, and all that.
Sometimes the only way to save a patient is by amputating a limb. Right now the cancer is mostly confined to the housing market. The rational thing is to isolate the problem and not allow it to spread.
- barnsaton, on 07/17/2008, -3/+1Long post is looooooooong.
- mm911, on 07/17/2008, -10/+5Fox News are the devil!!! What?! Ron Paul is on?!!! FOX NEWS IS AWESOMES!!!!@@@
- paulmer2003, on 07/17/2008, -8/+3Only 200 views? Meh.
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -1/+3YOUTUBE VIEWS AREN'T UPDATED IN REALTIME YOU *****.
How many times am I going to have to post this message in my lifetime?
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -1/+3YOUTUBE VIEWS AREN'T UPDATED IN REALTIME YOU *****.
- tonyteetime, on 07/17/2008, -3/+9"Inflation is taxation, and the Federal Reserve is the biggest tax man out there, worse than the IRS"
Inflation , the Fed and IRS are all synonymous. The fed is the pimp and the the IRS is the whore working for the fed. - homah, on 07/17/2008, -9/+6[comment about Ron Paul that has nothing to do with the article/video]
- visionaryIX, on 07/17/2008, -3/+7What an anoying voice that woman has.
- alphaterminus, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5But I'd still tap it like ANWR.
- gluecode, on 07/17/2008, -8/+4The woman interviewing Ron Paul is hot!
- skyshock1, on 07/17/2008, -6/+3"Former presidential candidate"?
I was under the impression he was still a candidate...- donotclickjim, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3No, he dropped out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGm7hKyou6I
His movement lives on though: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ - john2kx, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1he ended his candidacy a few weeks back.
- Protoman, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1So why are people still talking about him?
- john2kx, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Because he ***** rocks.
- Hangly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Not for a couple weeks.
- donotclickjim, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3No, he dropped out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGm7hKyou6I
- Ventolin, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3She must have blinked her eyes over a thousand times.
- Sarevok9, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4Was it just me, or was that the ONLY 'fair and balanced' news coverage I've ever seen fox do.... granted they only gave him about 1:45 seconds of talking time, and he didn't say anything 'new' (that he hasn't been saying since before he started his run for president)... But on the same note, the chick took him fairly seriously... Odd. This either means that Fox is addressing the problem, or the show is going to get canned.
- thecoolestguy, on 07/17/2008, -2/+5Ron Paul rules. Having him on TV is a strange shot of intelligence and wisdom injected into a landscape filled with incompetence. Imagine if people like him were in office for 4 decades, how much fiscal discipline we'd see.
- hillaryj, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1dugg mainly because ron paul is a huge advocate of mpp
- statix, on 07/17/2008, -2/+6hot chicks that dig ron paul are hot.
- mrASSMAN, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2ugly chicks that digg ron paul are.. still ugly.. unfortunately.
- ismellfunny, on 07/17/2008, -4/+1You know.. sometimes I wish I was a girl when I hear talk about Ron Paul. Then I would be able to get pregnant just for the shot of having him near me if the stars aligned and he delivered my baby.
- Fragowell, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2...the *****?
- insomniac8400, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3Paul 2012!
- Protoman, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1He'll be almost 80..
- insomniac8400, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1And he still will be our only hope.
- DGSK387, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2My Birthday + Ron Paul = Dugg
- lebaige, on 07/17/2008, -3/+1Commodity linked money was a big reason for the Great Depression. When price changes became out of control, there was no way to adjust the money supply to compensate. Fiat money systems work. Take a look at inflation since the move away from the Gold Standard.
- Hangly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5Where do they get these newscaster bimbos?
"Yyyyyeeeeeooooow were pretty excited about the fact that yeeoouww think the Fed..."
Gah.
She is hot though. - XanderDee, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2It is my hope that people that read this go out and buy gold or silver to protect themselves from the coming economic collapse. If I save one person then I am happy as it matter to that person that read this and acted.
I would like to respond to consistent belief from people I meet that gold and silver is not money but a shiny metal used for jewelery or industrial use and purchasing it is just paranoia.
First off gold and silver has been money a lot longer than paper dollar have been money and every time in history paper money goes to zero wiping out virtually everyone that does not see it coming. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Next to consider me paranoid for buying gold and silver only goes to show people do see what's wrong but refuse to believe it however lets examine the word paranoia.
Paranoia is the fear of an event or action take by others that is impossible or unlikely.
Thus you would call me "paranoid" for thinking that that the government and banks will print to much money thus causing fast moving inflation. So what you are saying in effect is it is impossible or unlikely that our government and banks will do that. :)
So let me ask a question?
How is the Federal government going to pay the interest let alone the principle on the debt of $9.5 trillion?
How will the government pay for the $56 in unfunded liabilities to medicare and social security?
How will the government pay for Freddy and Fanny?
How will the government pay for FDIC when they run out of money shoring up failed banks?
Greenspan - "[gold] protects savings from confiscation though inflation"
Voltaire - "Paper money always seeks its intrinsic value - zero."
Got Gold? -
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
