politico.com— In this interview with Politico, Ron Paul criticizes both Obama on the left AND Palin to the right. He also talks about whether he will run for President again in 2012.
Jul 18, 2009View in Crawl 4
How come citing facts is being self-righteous? And pointing it out when he was right is martyrdom? and it's only bulls**t because you have a different opinion?Dugg up
@TheTaoOfBillYour statistic is not inflation adjusted, mine is. Convert the average 1913 and average 2008 wages into year 2000 dollars. (Or 1980 or 1990 or whatever. I used year 2000) Then you will see that it's 700% not 4000%. You admit there is inflation, so you have no excuse not to use inflation adjusted numbers in any time/money comparison.3300% of your 4000% increase in wages is just the illusion of inflation. Your actual increase in real wealth is only 700%. I'm not debating the effectiveness of New Deal spending, that's not relevent to my point, though you have to wonder how effective it could have been since it never did solve the economic problems it was supposed to. Maybe it would have, given another 10 years, but thanks to WWII we'll never know. Point is, how you spent the money is irrelevent. It wasn't your money to spend.Since 1971 the United States has not settled its foreign exchange deficit. It has been running a stedily increasing deficit from then until now. The United States has already received the goods, and we are holding your promises to pay. It doesn't look like these promises are any good. Every time the Fed creates another dollar it's disrespecting me. (My own government is no better. I'm not excusing their fraud either) So that 700% increase in your weath since 1913 also includes a lot of wealth that was borrowed from me and other foreigners. I'm not sure exactly what that balance is, but I bet it would wipe out at least half of your gains. So you've only trippled your wealth in almost 100 years. What a generous amount your Federal Reserve and Federal government have given you!! hahaha. Think about that. The hard work you and your parents and your grandparents did should have given you something like a 4000% return by now, but you're left holding merely 300%.I no longer believe the US Dollar is a safe store of value. When I take payment in USD, I immediately sell them. As soon as I have enough business to do so I will be refusing to accept USD as payment. If enough people do this, the USD will be worthless. And there's more and more and more of us every day. We're tired of the inflation, and we're tired of being accosted by your prickish federal agents who guard your border when we go down to return your IOUs.When I stop taking USD you're going to have two options: Live without the benefits of my labor and without access to the natural resources of my country, or come up here and take it from me at gunpoint. I have absolutely no delusions about how this would go down. The United States can use force against me and the best I could do is resist. I would lose everything. But if I continue to accept the USD I'll lose everything anyway. Either option is going to cost you. Your standard of living will go down.I like Ron Paul and his supporters because they dislike the situation as much as I do. I love the United States and its people. But just because I get along with y'all personally doesn't mean I'm going to hand over the fruits of my labor to you for free.
He lost all the debates, unless you can explain why he won and lost all 50 primaries. I know one of your big excuses is he got no coverage, but here you are saying he dominated a nationally televised group of debates. Now which is it?
They DO hate that video, don't they? Proves the bullseye nature of Jerry Day's excellent, fair, analysis of the massive bias in the media against libertarian ideas of ANY sort. Wanna see it again, this time, for 2012? Ok, I'll ALREADY give an example...Gary Johnson's never in any polls, but he has<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson</a>clearly expressed an interest in running, and he's sane on the issue of the tax & spend drugwar (unlike Obama & most Republicans). Why not put him in the polls with Gingrich & the others?? Bias. Plain, simple, and obvious. Nobody knows who should be running, but why not include such a credible candidate in the earlier polls? MUST the media just silently assent to things like Fox News already-running Huckabee for 2012? MUST Romney's money be considered all-powerful?? MUST an idiotic hypocrite like Newt Gingrich be considered a serious candidate despite the fact that he'd be guaranteed to LOSE???And I don't know about the rest of you, but after 8 years of Bush-spending, I *love* a Republican with that kind of veto-record on stupid ass spending. If all goes well, he'll have a chance, but only if people insist on less assh**eish media bias & disdain than what was given to previous candidates with any hint of libertarian ideas (not just Dr. Paul, either!). Dammit.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
So, digital, you're talking about the time when our country thrived? You know, before we handed our money system over to the bankers and inflated the size of our government.
If ron ran he would be the first republican president I would vote for. People opened their minds for obama. I can do the same for ron. At this moment I really do not want to vote for Obama. If he had Hillary for vice president I am sure he would win. Split the baliot would bring in the votes.
alwaysturningJul 19, 2009
How come citing facts is being self-righteous? And pointing it out when he was right is martyrdom? and it's only bulls**t because you have a different opinion?Dugg up
perrycarterJul 20, 2009
Woah, slow down there. I don't agree with him either but no reason to go there.
blubullJul 20, 2009
OK, put I don't think RP is a big fan of all the layers of secretaries and departments. You should be able to get unemployment though.
canada2Jul 20, 2009
@TheTaoOfBillYour statistic is not inflation adjusted, mine is. Convert the average 1913 and average 2008 wages into year 2000 dollars. (Or 1980 or 1990 or whatever. I used year 2000) Then you will see that it's 700% not 4000%. You admit there is inflation, so you have no excuse not to use inflation adjusted numbers in any time/money comparison.3300% of your 4000% increase in wages is just the illusion of inflation. Your actual increase in real wealth is only 700%. I'm not debating the effectiveness of New Deal spending, that's not relevent to my point, though you have to wonder how effective it could have been since it never did solve the economic problems it was supposed to. Maybe it would have, given another 10 years, but thanks to WWII we'll never know. Point is, how you spent the money is irrelevent. It wasn't your money to spend.Since 1971 the United States has not settled its foreign exchange deficit. It has been running a stedily increasing deficit from then until now. The United States has already received the goods, and we are holding your promises to pay. It doesn't look like these promises are any good. Every time the Fed creates another dollar it's disrespecting me. (My own government is no better. I'm not excusing their fraud either) So that 700% increase in your weath since 1913 also includes a lot of wealth that was borrowed from me and other foreigners. I'm not sure exactly what that balance is, but I bet it would wipe out at least half of your gains. So you've only trippled your wealth in almost 100 years. What a generous amount your Federal Reserve and Federal government have given you!! hahaha. Think about that. The hard work you and your parents and your grandparents did should have given you something like a 4000% return by now, but you're left holding merely 300%.I no longer believe the US Dollar is a safe store of value. When I take payment in USD, I immediately sell them. As soon as I have enough business to do so I will be refusing to accept USD as payment. If enough people do this, the USD will be worthless. And there's more and more and more of us every day. We're tired of the inflation, and we're tired of being accosted by your prickish federal agents who guard your border when we go down to return your IOUs.When I stop taking USD you're going to have two options: Live without the benefits of my labor and without access to the natural resources of my country, or come up here and take it from me at gunpoint. I have absolutely no delusions about how this would go down. The United States can use force against me and the best I could do is resist. I would lose everything. But if I continue to accept the USD I'll lose everything anyway. Either option is going to cost you. Your standard of living will go down.I like Ron Paul and his supporters because they dislike the situation as much as I do. I love the United States and its people. But just because I get along with y'all personally doesn't mean I'm going to hand over the fruits of my labor to you for free.
Closed AccountJul 22, 2009
He lost all the debates, unless you can explain why he won and lost all 50 primaries. I know one of your big excuses is he got no coverage, but here you are saying he dominated a nationally televised group of debates. Now which is it?
govtdoesnotworkJul 24, 2009
They DO hate that video, don't they? Proves the bullseye nature of Jerry Day's excellent, fair, analysis of the massive bias in the media against libertarian ideas of ANY sort. Wanna see it again, this time, for 2012? Ok, I'll ALREADY give an example...Gary Johnson's never in any polls, but he has<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson</a>clearly expressed an interest in running, and he's sane on the issue of the tax & spend drugwar (unlike Obama & most Republicans). Why not put him in the polls with Gingrich & the others?? Bias. Plain, simple, and obvious. Nobody knows who should be running, but why not include such a credible candidate in the earlier polls? MUST the media just silently assent to things like Fox News already-running Huckabee for 2012? MUST Romney's money be considered all-powerful?? MUST an idiotic hypocrite like Newt Gingrich be considered a serious candidate despite the fact that he'd be guaranteed to LOSE???And I don't know about the rest of you, but after 8 years of Bush-spending, I *love* a Republican with that kind of veto-record on stupid ass spending. If all goes well, he'll have a chance, but only if people insist on less assh**eish media bias & disdain than what was given to previous candidates with any hint of libertarian ideas (not just Dr. Paul, either!). Dammit.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 5, 2009
I'm a Republican and Ron Paul is MY leader.
nofreedom4theusSep 24, 2009
So, digital, you're talking about the time when our country thrived? You know, before we handed our money system over to the bankers and inflated the size of our government.
lostinseganetFeb 21, 2010
If ron ran he would be the first republican president I would vote for. People opened their minds for obama. I can do the same for ron. At this moment I really do not want to vote for Obama. If he had Hillary for vice president I am sure he would win. Split the baliot would bring in the votes.