Wow! Ron Paul Gives Blue Print to Peace Prosperity and Liberty!

Truly a sad day in American history.
For 40 years his message has not changed, yet his message fell on deaf ears. He believes deeply in what our founding fathers built for us, and in the details of the contract.
One of the most qualified candidates, whose message was hardly noticed. More qualified than, heck almost every candidate I can think of. A veteran, a doctor, an author and a congressman. He has dedicated his life to serving his country and its people.
I only hope his sons will have his vision and continue to be a voice of reason in the Whitehouse. I wanted to vote for you in 08 and 12.

Top notch speech from a top-notch politician. There isn't too many of those in the United States left.

Ron Paul....Who cares. He can't save us!

Originally posted by ninetysixufo
Ron Paul....Who cares. He can't save us!

The knowledge he shares can save us if we use it, well at least some of us who have prepared for whats coming. But your right many will die unprepared in unbelief...

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by ninetysixufo
Ron Paul....Who cares. He can't save us!

The knowledge he shares can save us if we use it, well at least some of us who have prepared for whats coming. But your right many will die unprepared in unbelief...

Hardly.

No serious people (scholars, historians, economists, politicians, etc.) subscribe to his fantasies, because they are delusional and wrong-headed.

Paul supporters make the legion of Obama supporters look sane and rational.

I love Ron Paul! He seams to be the only one out there with any morals! I got to take a look today on Yahoo News (I know, Im shaking my head in shame as well) and found out who had sexual affairs that are serving the public and it seams to me that this country has become morally bankrupt since we keep on pluggling in the same half-lit bulbs (voting for the same people that have not a clue in the world).

reply to post by longlostbrother

No serious people (scholars, historians, economists, politicians, etc.) subscribe to his fantasies, because they are delusional and wrong-headed.

Paul supporters make the legion of Obama supporters look sane and rational.

You mean all those scholars, historians, economist, politicians etc. that screamed the economy was stronger then ever right before the 2008 crash and called Ron Paul (among others) a kook for saying it was going to crash? You mean those geniuses? The ones that have been wrong every time while Ron Paul as been right?... You mean all those idiots that keep telling us we are in recovery as tens of thousands continue to get laid off daily? You mean the idiots whose failed Keynesian philosophy has led us to the brink of disaster we are at right now but continue to tell us everything is just fine and getting better... Yeah oooookkkkkk... Troll much do ya?

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

No serious people (scholars, historians, economists, politicians, etc.) subscribe to his fantasies, because they are delusional and wrong-headed.

Paul supporters make the legion of Obama supporters look sane and rational.

You mean all those scholars, historians, economist, politicians etc. that screamed the economy was stronger then ever right before the 2008 crash and called Ron Paul (among others) a kook for saying it was going to crash? You mean those geniuses? The ones that have been wrong every time while Ron Paul as been right?... You mean all those idiots that keep telling us we are in recovery as tens of thousands continue to get laid off daily? You mean the idiots whose failed Keynesian philosophy has led us to the brink of disaster we are at right now but continue to tell us everything is just fine and getting better... Yeah oooookkkkkk... Troll much do ya?

edit on 19-11-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

I mean that even if you subtract all scholars and politicians and everyone else that ever missed the 2008 crash, you'd still have more scholars that don't support Paul than do.

His philosophy is joke.

No Paul...err... supporters... are able to defend it other than to say, "I choose to believe that liberty is always the best" and other pithy nonsense.

The fact is that no one, from any party or persuasion, except US Libertarians, and a few anarchists, think deregulating weapon manufacturer's lobbyists or banking lobbyists or oil company lobbyists or pharma or Monsanto, etc., is a reasonable idea.

Because they all LOVE regulation?

No.

Because they all know, from Republican to Democrat to Green to... well pretty much everyone, they all know that businesses can't self-regulate, that lobbyists don't have your best interests in mind, etc.

They also know that allowing businesses to form monopolies has been tried in the past, with disastrous results... and they know that defunding elementary school for the poor isn't even vaguely in line with what the Founding Fathers believed... neither is the deregulation of the banking industry.

Paul ...errr... supporters... absolutely refuse to discuss this crap, other than to dismiss with with such naively hopeful responses about how they, "believe" that "liberty" is amazing, etc., because they KNOW it's nonsense.

On top of that, the idea, one of Paul's biggest boneheaded ideas, that a Libertarian governement should make moral laws based on the bible, is just so absurd as to be laughable.. in fact many people have laughed at it, and him...

This nation of 300M+ needs to regulate businesses, even more than it already does.

Put that another way, the history of US bubbles and financial collapses are not a history of over-regulation and businesses self-regulating.

Paul and his ideas are ridiculous. Which is why no one voted for him and them, in meaningful numbers.

reply to post by longlostbrother

I mean that even if you subtract all scholars and politicians and everyone else that ever missed the 2008 crash, you'd still have more scholars that don't support Paul than do.

If you subtract all the scholars that missed 2008 and or predicted the opposite of what happened you have a big fat 0! Every single idiot that missed 2008 are the ones who don't support Ron Paul along with Jim Rodgers Gerald Celente and Peter Schiff despite their track records of being correct especially on the economy and finances...

Your ridiculous premise that Ron Paul supporters cannot defend the principles of liberty is simply laughable and shows you are just trolling. History has proven Ron Paul correct time and again. The most prosperous time in America is when we had a relatively free market despite government regulation.

Idiots want to claim deregulation does not work and then point to recent events in the most regulated economy in history of politicians giving politically connected cronies like the banksters perks and calling that deregulation and then trying to claim free markets don't work because of it when it has nothing to do with a free market. Again completely laughable communist crack smokers who repeat the same non-sense over and over and think that somehow makes it true...

In a free market everyone has equal opportunity and government does not intervene in favor some over others or protect markets for their cronies regulating the competition out of the market...

The only joke here is your posts!

reply to post by hawkiye


This is one of those posts that catches you out.

Either you're very young, you're lying to push propaganda, or you're absurdly ignorant about what you're talking about.

Industry is NO WHERE NEAR as regulated as it was in the 1970s, especially the banking industry...

It was deregulated, wildly in the 70s, then deregulated again in the 1980s. Then again in the 1990s.

There have been some new regulations, but those have MOSTLY been designed to regulate NEW PRODUCTS.

I was just watching RT, where a banker was explaining that bank regulations were at least four years behind traders, and the banker was calling for MORE regulation, because things like high-frequency trading is essentially the wild west.

In fact MOST of the financial products that exist now, where most of the money is "created" in the market, didn't even exist a few decades back, and let me tell you they are pretty much completely unregulated.

And even when they ARE regulated, banks conspire against regulators, and bank lobbyists, the same people Paul supporters would completely unleash, are often responsible for writing the regulation for their own economies.

This is one of those great Libertarian lies: we're living in a highly regulated economic environment.

BS.

reply to post by longlostbrother


This doesn't even touch on the deregulation of the utilities, television and radio. Both of which have negatively impacted the daily lives of most Americans. The free market is a myth and never truly attainable, because it's natural end state is monopoly.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by hawkiye

 

This is one of those posts that catches you out.

Either you're very young, you're lying to push propaganda, or you're absurdly ignorant about what you're talking about.

Industry is NO WHERE NEAR as regulated as it was in the 1970s, especially the banking industry...

It was deregulated, wildly in the 70s, then deregulated again in the 1980s. Then again in the 1990s.

There have been some new regulations, but those have MOSTLY been designed to regulate NEW PRODUCTS.

I was just watching RT, where a banker was explaining that bank regulations were at least four years behind traders, and the banker was calling for MORE regulation, because things like high-frequency trading is essentially the wild west.

In fact MOST of the financial products that exist now, where most of the money is "created" in the market, didn't even exist a few decades back, and let me tell you they are pretty much completely unregulated.

And even when they ARE regulated, banks conspire against regulators, and bank lobbyists, the same people Paul supporters would completely unleash, are often responsible for writing the regulation for their own economies.

This is one of those great Libertarian lies: we're living in a highly regulated economic environment.

BS.

Fools always point to a few politically connected banksters getting perks from their politicians and cry see free markets don;t work... We haven't had a free market in nearly a 100 years! A few politically connected corps get what is called deregulated while the rest of the industry and markets are highly regulated to protect the cronies from real competition. Thats where you get the to bigs to fail. If they weren't protected they would have gone out of business instead of getting bailouts! That is anything but a free market! And it is compelety laughable that there is less regulation then in the 70's but young communist mush heads keep repeating such non-sense over and over....

Many journalists claim that the U.S. economy since the late 1970s has been very free, with little regulation; that this absence of regulation has caused markets to fail; that there was a consensus in favor of little regulation; and that, now, this consensus is fading. On all these counts, the reports are false. Specifically, the U.S. economy has not been free since before the New Deal of the 1930s.

What was the nature of this new regulation? The biggest growth came in so-called "homeland security," where spending more than quintupled, from $2.9 billion in 1980 to $16.6 billion in 2007 (all in real 2000 dollars). The second-largest growth rate was in regulation of finance and banking, where spending almost tripled, rising from $725 million to $2.07 billion. Together, regulation of homeland security and of finance and banking now account for over half of federal regulatory spending.

The Myth of Less Regulation since the 70's

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by hawkiye

 

This is one of those great Libertarian lies: we're living in a highly regulated economic environment.

BS.

Fools always point to a few politically connected banksters getting perks from their politicians and cry see free markets don;t work... We haven't had a free market in nearly a 100 years! A few politically connected corps get what is called deregulated while the rest of the industry and markets are highly regulated to protect the cronies from real competition. Thats where you get the to bigs to fail. If they weren't protected they would have gone out of business instead of getting bailouts! That is anything but a free market! And it is compelety laughable that there is less regulation then in the 70's but young communist mush heads keep repeating such non-sense over and over....

Many journalists claim that the U.S. economy since the late 1970s has been very free, with little regulation; that this absence of regulation has caused markets to fail; that there was a consensus in favor of little regulation; and that, now, this consensus is fading. On all these counts, the reports are false. Specifically, the U.S. economy has not been free since before the New Deal of the 1930s.

What was the nature of this new regulation? The biggest growth came in so-called "homeland security," where spending more than quintupled, from $2.9 billion in 1980 to $16.6 billion in 2007 (all in real 2000 dollars). The second-largest growth rate was in regulation of finance and banking, where spending almost tripled, rising from $725 million to $2.07 billion. Together, regulation of homeland security and of finance and banking now account for over half of federal regulatory spending.

The Myth of Less Regulation since the 70's

edit on 21-11-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

[slaps forehead]

If you think that the only problems are a ... let me quote you here, "a few politically connected banksters getting perks" you are as even more clueless than I'd imagined.... Ron Paul people... they all think they're so clever yet all know so little about the stuff they lecture everyone else on... endlessly...

The WAY that these "banksters" get politically connected is through their money and influence. Considering the scope of something like LIBOR or the S&L scandal, you can't believe all of those involved were born rich?

So if those involved weren't born rich, they made they're money then used it to gain influence, and to keep others from gaining influence.... and these thousands of corrupt bankers and business men... who you call, "a few politically connected banksters" those thousands of people involved in gaming the system, by corrupting politicians, often with bribes through lobbiests, the people you want to deregulate, so if all of those people, not born rich aren't controllable by regulation and laws, what amazing Libertarian philosophy will stop a high-frequency derivitives trader, or firm, who's unregulated, from destroying their investors money?

And if there's no protection for investors, who will help them when these predators attack?

And if there's no social safety net, on top of that, what then?

Religious charity?

Or maybe they can all sit around a campfire and sing songs about the glory of the invisible hand that refuses to feed their children?

Do you know what robber barons are?

Do you know what Adam Smith said about the Division of Labour?

Maybe you know what he said about markets? That they should be made fair, an only IF they are made fair will competition work...?

As for quoting the CATO institute and thinking you understand the history of regulation LMFAO. You think a Libertarian think tank is gonna argue that there's LESS regulation? Talk about slitting your own throat.

Find a proper source and try again.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Nice references and cites... Oh wait you didn't post any... Sigh! Typical clueless commie thinks parroting media propaganda trumps facts.... The Cato Institute is just one sources of many and if you think they are a bogus source great but your word is meaningless without any evidence to back it up. I promise you I know history better then you and better then most I spent years studying it... repeating media propaganda seems to be your forte and has nothing to do with real history...

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Nice references and cites... Oh wait you didn't post any... Sigh! Typical clueless commie thinks parroting media propaganda trumps facts.... The Cato Institute is just one sources of many and if you think they are a bogus source great but your word is meaningless without any evidence to back it up. I promise you I know history better then you and better then most I spent years studying it... repeating media propaganda seems to be your forte and has nothing to do with real history...

edit on 22-11-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Poor you. You don't know enough about Adam Smith to know if it's true or not huh?

And you can't find a NON-Libertarian source to back up your crap can you??

"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life... But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it."

- Adam Smith

"The establishment of perfect justice, of perfect liberty, and of perfect equality is the very simple secret which most effectually secures the highest degree of prosperity to all the three classes."

-Adam Smith

Can't get more anti-Libertarian than that....

But please, post a link to another Libertarian think tank or right wing blog... that'll show me...

reply to post by longlostbrother


Says the guy who has posted no links... More dribble with no evidence... Sigh. You don't even know the meaning of the word Libertarian... I see no point in further arguing with ignorance...

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Says the guy who has posted no links... More dribble with no evidence... Sigh. You don't even know the meaning of the word Libertarian... I see no point in further arguing with ignorance...

edit on 22-11-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Should I post a link to Wealth of Nations?

archive.org...

There you go.

Now, maybe try posting some evidence that's not from a Libertarian think tank to back up your Libertarian nonsense...?

It's gonna take you a while to read the Wealth of Nations though, so...

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Says the guy who has posted no links... More dribble with no evidence... Sigh. You don't even know the meaning of the word Libertarian... I see no point in further arguing with ignorance...

edit on 22-11-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Should I post a link to Wealth of Nations?

archive.org...

There you go.

Now, maybe try posting some evidence that's not from a Libertarian think tank to back up your Libertarian nonsense...?

It's gonna take you a while to read the Wealth of Nations though, so...

Got news for you i have read it pal and And Adam Smith the plagiarizer is not the be all end all of economic thought. It in fact is full of errors. You point to a book you think proves something but you fail to point out what you think it proves. I am sure you other Idol is Marx...

The things Ron Paul speaks about are proven in history and even in the current day. He has been predicting for nearly 40 years and been uncannily accurate that speaks volumes. Since we're pointing to books try reading Hyack Friedman and Rothbard and learn something about real economics and what has actually worked and not worked in history and is currently not working today.

By the way stop whining and labeling things as libertarian sources like there is something wrong with that. Facts are facts! Try and refute the source with some actual evidence instead of avoiding it and trying to label it as bad. Typical mush brained pseudo wannbe commie tactics anything that does not agree with their BS emotional false paradigm gets a label and is proclaimed bad STILL WITH ZERO EVIDENCE!

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Says the guy who has posted no links... More dribble with no evidence... Sigh. You don't even know the meaning of the word Libertarian... I see no point in further arguing with ignorance...

edit on 22-11-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Should I post a link to Wealth of Nations?

archive.org...

There you go.

Now, maybe try posting some evidence that's not from a Libertarian think tank to back up your Libertarian nonsense...?

It's gonna take you a while to read the Wealth of Nations though, so...

Got news for you i have read it pal and And Adam Smith the plagiarizer is not the be all end all of economic thought. It in fact is full of errors. You point to a book you think proves something but you fail to point out what you think it proves. I am sure you other Idol is Marx...

The things Ron Paul speaks about are proven in history and even in the current day. He has been predicting for nearly 40 years and been uncannily accurate that speaks volumes. Since we're pointing to books try reading Hyack Friedman and Rothbard and learn something about real economics and what has actually worked and not worked in history and is currently not working today.

By the way stop whining and labeling things as libertarian sources like there is something wrong with that. Facts are facts! Try and refute the source with some actual evidence instead of avoiding it and trying to label it as bad. Typical mush brained pseudo wannbe commie tactics anything that does not agree with their BS emotional false paradigm gets a label and is proclaimed bad STILL WITH ZERO EVIDENCE!

edit on 23-11-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Yeah, you know how the Libertarians all hate Adam Smith.

As for you pushing a Libertarian source (who seems to be the only one you can find making your outrageous claim) and then saying, "facts are facts" - again I beseech you, find another source for that fact, one without such an obvious bias.

I'll be waiting...

And of course you trot out Hyack and Rothbard - lol... they didn't even agree with each other (something Libertarians that learn via the Daily Paul forum seem to always ignore...) So which of them is correct?

Hayek is barely a Libertarian even in theory, and Rothbard is as dogmatic and inflexible as any other ideologue .. maybe you prefer him...

Yet again, another Libertarian, looking down his nose at the rest of the world, thinking he's sooooo clever... "if only people would listen to smart people like me and Ron Paul... and liberty... and gold... and no Abortions and ...and... "

All so typical..

Good speech, but how do you get through to the people that don't want peace and prosperity?
Until that happens these type of speeches are useless.