^me too

1/27/2008 4:12:32 PM

Here is a video progress report on the campaign by our man Paul....

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=T0nJH6zB9VM

1/28/2008 1:14:33 AM

Finally got around to doing my political research...Ron Paul gets my vote!

1/28/2008 3:05:01 PM

now pass it on to your friends.

1/29/2008 8:55:46 AM

1/29/2008 9:00:46 AM

Did Ron Paul win Louisanna?

Or is that some sort of rumor?

1/29/2008 3:35:29 PM

^Been tryin to figure out the same thing

Apparently LA has the most screwed up process on the planet.

Ron Paul thought he was going to win but there was some kind of pro-life/pro-family fusion slate that was run on the ballot at the last second (sounds suspicious? I dont know. . . ) and thats what won. However LA did not totally count all of the votes yet and has not made an official announcement as far as i know.

i honestly cant make much sense out of it.

1/29/2008 5:05:55 PM

1/30/2008 4:21:14 PM

And then there were 4. Guiliana drops out.

1/30/2008 6:48:36 PM

Do you think Ron Paul will pick up Giuliani's votes?

1/30/2008 6:58:34 PM

this is the worst debate i've ever ever seen

1/30/2008 9:31:18 PM

Haven't been watching it -- what's going on?

1/30/2008 9:32:24 PM

THE GOLD STANDARD.

1/30/2008 9:33:34 PM

^^ ron paul has answered i think 2 questions...and he was cut off during one of them

i can't even speak i'm so angry, i'm on tears thinking this is what america has come to

1/30/2008 9:37:58 PM

Ron Paul looked bored through out the entire thing

1/30/2008 9:41:51 PM

huckabee too, i love paul, but i want to be very clear, this is a fundamental problem for me. huckabee was fucked out of this too ( and i absolutely do not like him )

1/30/2008 9:44:30 PM

I thought that WHEN paul got to speak he made some pretty good points and made just about everyone else look like a Douchebag politician.

especially when Romney and Mccain were bitching at each other over Iraq and then Paul came in and probably made the best point of the entire debate.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 9:59 PM. Reason : nm]

1/30/2008 9:58:53 PM

Too bad Paul and Huckabee don't have a shot

1/30/2008 10:07:50 PM

I agree. They showed arnold and nancy more than paul and huck. But it is cnn and they are gushing to get mccain in.

He looked like an old man rambling with romney's misqoute.

Then paul got the zinger after the dust settled.

1/30/2008 10:12:10 PM

Yeah i thought he was having a stroke at the very beginning when he was stuttering

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:29 PM. Reason : nm]

1/30/2008 10:28:23 PM

Ron Paul was cut because he does annoying shit like talk about the Gold Standard.

Thats right, the solution to America's economic problems is reinstating the Gold Standard.

Worst candidate possible.

1/30/2008 10:43:06 PM

Then how about allowing the other candidates to tear it to shreds, then? if it is just the dumbest idea ever, how about letting people put him in his place?

It's much easier to suppress an idea than prove it wrong.

1/30/2008 10:45:07 PM

^^hahahaha

1/30/2008 10:49:07 PM

^^^Didn't you already try to defend that earlier in this thread. Why come back?

Gold standard is the shit

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:50 PM. Reason : arrows]

1/30/2008 10:49:18 PM

Its a dumb fucking idea that was destroyed long ago that wouldn't even be feasible without completely ruining the American economy and debating it is a fucking waste of time.

If a candidate went on and said "I believe sleeping with a virgin cures AIDS", should everyone stop and come up with a ten point proof on why he's wrong ? No.

1/30/2008 10:53:47 PM

Really? It was destroyed long ago? By who? The government? You know, the very institution which has everything to gain by manipulating the money supply at its own whims? The very institution that has managed to take the dollar to 4% of its value in less than 75 years? Really?

1/30/2008 11:01:46 PM

Quote :

"Its a dumb fucking idea "

Well despite that conclusion, something will eventually have to be done. This ever-increasing inflationary spending is destroying our currency. A fiat system that is getting abused as much as ours is going to fail with catastrophic results.

Time will tell. We may eventually be forced into a commodity currency system again when the dollar loses its final drops of consumer faith, and people refuse to be taken in again by a fiat currency.

1/30/2008 11:02:28 PM

agree to disagree i guess.

Whats so bad about not having inflation, and not having to deal with the fed.

By the way, Im fairly sure Ron Paul has said that he wouldn't be able to institute this immediately. It would have to be gradual, etc.

Its not really been destroyed and proven unfeasible. JFK introduced liberty dollars that were silver,and matt kramer?? (the mad money guy on TV) totally supports Ron Paul and wants to go back to the Gold Standard too.

as far as your point on the Virgins and Aids. Can you come up with reasons on why we should stick to our current system that is hopelessly inflating our money?

1/30/2008 11:04:23 PM

Quote :

" Really? It was destroyed long ago? By who? The government? "

By the fact that there doesn't exist enough gold on the planet to cover the wealth of the United States therefore necessitating the invention of an entirely new economic system that really is slightly different then fiat currency.

Don't play devil's advocate just because you hate the government.

Earthdogg, you're absolutely right. We need to stop reckless deficit spending and end government borrowing. Then we need to have targeted tax cuts to spur the economy. The value of the dollar will improve with as the economy begins to recover.

Also, for fucks sake, stop making credit so easy for irresponsible people to get.

1/30/2008 11:06:19 PM

there's "not enough gold?" Wouldn't that then imply that the cost of gold would go up in order to meet the break-even point? There is no set dollar-worth of gold per gram/ounce/whatever...

I'll readily admit that I don't fully understand the gold argument either way, but the notion of "not enough" sounds totally foolish to me.

1/30/2008 11:10:26 PM

Quote :

"Whats so bad about not having inflation, and not having to deal with the fed. "

Well, seeing as how the federal reserve bank is credited by historians and economists alike as one of the major factors of American financial power I think that it should stay. See Niall Ferguson or for a personal conversation on the matter take the highly recommended History of Financial Institutions with Professor Lee Craig. Both are amazing minds.

Also, while inflation is awful at high levels, at about 3% it encourages consumer spending which is of course what powers our economy.

Furthermore, the current decrease in the value of the dollar has decreased our trade deficit. People complain no matter what.

The Au standard will never return. It's really a moot point.

1/30/2008 11:14:43 PM

Well the price of gold would have to be artificially set at a much higher point to cover just the money in circulation in the US alone.

In the gold standard, you can hand in your government-issued note for its worth in gold at anytime.

Then, the value of gold would vary depending upon the amount mined/discovered/lost and the cost of other material items would adjust accordingly. What would change is the ability of central banks to control money flow to steer the economy.

Now people argue that the introduction of gold AND silver would negate that effect a bit but they ignore that the US is heading towards being primarily a services based economy and they also ignore what happens to gold when two trading countries have a deficit between them (gold follows the surplus).

1/30/2008 11:17:18 PM

Quote :

"What would change is the ability of central banks to control money flow to steer the economy."

From what I understand of the arguments for the Gold Standard, that would be kind of the point. It prevents central banks from artificially manipulating the currency.

There's plenty of fair arguments against it - and you bring up one yourself, about currency account deficits brought on by trade imbalances. Which means a single-specie standard is probably impractical in today's world.

In fairness, however, Paul hasn't been arguing for putting the U.S. back on the gold standard - he's argued for re-legalizing specie-backed currency. Thus, if a bank wishes to issue silver notes instead of U.S. dollars, it would in theory be allowed to. Assuming a well-regulated system to root out fraud, I fail to see why this would be the end of the world.

1/30/2008 11:21:43 PM

Quote :

"In fairness, however, Paul hasn't been arguing for putting the U.S. back on the gold standard - he's argued for re-legalizing specie-backed currency. Thus, if a bank wishes to issue silver notes instead of U.S. dollars, it would in theory be allowed to. Assuming a well-regulated system to root out fraud, I fail to see why this would be the end of the world."

Exactly. His actual position is an asset standard. He uses the notion of the gold standard to give a constitutional backing to his policy.

This is a fundamental difference in policy, which SandSanta is too fucking assheaded to even think about the possibility of. That is, the market can STEER ITSELF without the intervention of a central bank to smooth out bumps in the economy.

1/31/2008 2:01:41 AM

Oh ok, what are you going to back the currency with in a Gold-Standard then? Wishes and fishes?

And noen

You are the definition of a psuedo-intellectual prick. You're not just a giant tool, you're the entire Home Depot. The definition of irony is going to be you and I arguing merits of the Gold Standard with me providing solid information backing my point and you relying on your word and vast (incomplete) knowledge as credit that you even belong in the conversation.

I already linked you to Ron Paul's rant on ending the Dollar Hegemony

I'll do it again

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

Not to mention, his answer to Anderson Cooper's absurd "would reagon support you hurrrrrrr" question was

-to paraphrase

"REAGAN SUPPORTED THE GOLD STANDARD SO....."

Also

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMe_7-hmHHY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoK6UV4l_4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0vU6dF2uvc

-2 minute mark, legalize gold and silver as currency and begin moving forward to a gold standard.



[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 10:13 AM. Reason : >.<]

1/31/2008 10:12:11 AM

Quote :

"Oh ok, what are you going to back the currency with in a Gold-Standard then? Wishes and fishes?"

Remember how I said specie? This would imply - and follow me here - that virtually any durable commodity could be used as a backing. Gold is typically chosen due to its widely recognized value and relative scarcity, but other candidates include silver, platinum, or any other precious, durable, and relatively scarce commodity you can come up with.

Quote :

"-2 minute mark, legalize gold and silver as currency and begin moving forward to a gold standard."

You realize "legalize gold and silver as currency" is still remarkably different than adopting a gold standard, right? One is the pre-requisite of the other - but they aren't the same.

Look, I'm willing to concede that moving to an official gold (or whatever) standard can have drawbacks. But I fail to see what the problem in legalizing commodity-backed currency is all about, other than something for you to use as a bludgeon to avoid honestly debating other issues of merit.

1/31/2008 11:41:13 AM

^^

Quote :

"You are the definition of a psuedo-intellectual prick. You're not just a giant tool, you're the entire Home Depot. The definition of irony is going to be you and I arguing merits of the Gold Standard with me providing solid information backing my point and you relying on your word and vast (incomplete) knowledge as credit that you even belong in the conversation. "

What, you mean like when I ranted and trolled for several pages about how Ron Paul was a white supremecist and supported Stormfront and never publicly discounted that claim?

Or when my arguments against Ron Paul's position of the gold standard with the indepth responses of :

"THE GOLD STANDARD."
"Thats right, the solution to America's economic problems is reinstating the Gold Standard."
"If a candidate went on and said "I believe sleeping with a virgin cures AIDS", should everyone stop and come up with a ten point proof on why he's wrong ? No."


Oh wait no, that was you, not me.

Dude, you are being the ultimo, supreme ruler of all toolbag trolls here. I'll be glad to throw you another dozen or so public videos of Ron Paul talking about his policy to clarify, along with some hard and fast studies and journal articles to show the merits of an asset standard.

GG getting confused between legalizing competing currencies and the gold standard, way to show your ignorance yet again.

1/31/2008 11:56:23 AM

I don't even want to read anything you write on account of my brain's logic circuits throwing a code at the prospect of /0.

So, here:

1/31/2008 12:02:32 PM

^you do realize the gold standard isn't backing our money with gold per se, right?

if you do, you're not showing it.....if you don't, learn somethning before you go spouting off

1/31/2008 4:31:40 PM

^^suspend for trolling PLZ

1/31/2008 8:43:03 PM

Quote :

""

LOL

1/31/2008 9:23:48 PM

Quote :

" you do realize the gold standard isn't backing our money with gold per se, right? "

Fishes and Wishes, right?

Quote :

" The gold standard is a monetary system in which the standard economic unit of account is a fixed weight of gold. Under the gold standard, currency issuers guarantee to redeem notes, upon demand, in that amount of gold. Governments that employ such a fixed unit of account, which will redeem their notes to other governments in gold, share a fixed-currency relationship. The gold standard is not currently used by any government or central bank, having been replaced completely by fiat currency. However, private currency, backed by gold, is in use. "

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Standard

Quote :

" Definition of the Gold Standard My normally extensive Economics Glossary does not have an entry on the gold standard, so we'll have to look elsewhere for a definition. An extensive essay on the gold standard on The Encyclopedia of Economics and Liberty defines the gold standard as "a commitment by participating countries to fix the prices of their domestic currencies in terms of a specified amount of gold. National money and other forms of money (bank deposits and notes) were freely converted into gold at the fixed price." A county under the gold standard would set a price for gold, say $100 an ounce and would buy and sell gold at that price. This effectively sets a value for the currency; in our fictional example $1 would be worth 1/100th of an ounce of gold. Other precious metals could be used to set a monetary standard; silver standards were common in the 1800's. A combination of the gold and silver standard is known as bimetallism. "

--http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/gold_standard.htm

Quote :

" The gold standard was a commitment by participating countries to fix the prices of their domestic currencies in terms of a specified amount of gold. "

--http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GoldStandard.html

Noen sweetheart,

I skimmed your post, noticed that you again didn't bother linking any sources backing up your flawed assertions, and made the executive decision that you're still a douchebag.


Dear Mods,

I'd like to point out that I provide information backing everything I say Hooksaw style, with the exception being I'm not linking obviously biased information. Unless off course, linking Ron Paul's own piece in a Ron Paul thread is biased. I also want to point out that every time I argue with Noen, he doesn't bother to come up with his own information, but rather read the one sentence he understands in my material and find issue with that.

[Edited on February 1, 2008 at 10:54 AM. Reason : >disclaimer<]

2/1/2008 10:52:44 AM

Quote :

"Paul is also vocal in his opposition to inflation, arguing that the longterm erosion of the dollar's purchasing power arises from its lack of commodity (such as gold) backing, which would restrain excess "printing" of money and consequent devaluation.Paul says he "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard,"[118] but would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove sales taxes on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money)"

I should have said when ron paul speaks of the gold standard, he isn't speaking of gold per se, just backing currency with something of value instead of printing it on a whim.

[Edited on February 1, 2008 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

2/1/2008 11:26:42 AM

Clearly

You haven't clicked on the youtube links I provided.

The ones where he says that at the very least he wants to back currency with gold before transitioning to the gold standard.

Also, gold standard IS the backing of currency with gold. And Ron Paul had a Tom Cruise style rant for five minutes at the CNN debate about the gold standard.

you dolt.

christ.











ps- There's nothing else that you could peg a currency on, unless you supported the Silver Standard.











pss- stop posting

2/1/2008 11:33:49 AM

I was on Ron Paul's site, and he said the Vietnamese because westernized and not communists.

I like Ron Paul's stance on practically everything EXCEPT his foreign policy. If it weren't for that, I'd be all for him.

2/1/2008 3:33:58 PM

^ The US being "the policemen of the world" isn't just a punchline. Our credibility has taken enormous shots lately for foreign policy decisions. Then their's the $1 trillion spent annually to fund all of our military bases abroad. That's just ridiculous. I agree we'd piss a lot fewer people off if we didn't occupy their countries. We'd also not be spending ourselves into debt.

2/1/2008 5:41:05 PM

I meant to say, Ron Paul said, "... the Vietnamese became westernized and not communists." And I thought it was an ignorant statement because we know that Vietnam is basically controlled by China's deep pockets.

But, anyways... Yes, I agree that we need to stop butting into other people's business. But, we've already stepped into the poop. We have to clean it off before we leave. I just don't want us to leave innocent Iraqi's to die. It sounds like that's Ron Paul's plan.

Guess how many grandfathers I have living today? ZERO
Guess how many uncles on my mother's side are still living today? ZERO

Why? Because after the Vietnam war, the Hmong (minority ethnic group who lived in the mountains) became targets of genocide. My family aided the CIA during the war, but after the war, they were left to fend for themselves. Anyone who did not denounce democracy and embrace communism were immediately imprisioned and executed.

My parents ran through the jungles and fled to across the heavily guarded Mekong river to Thailand refugee camps. Communist soldiers patrolled the river for fleeing political refugees. Anyone caught swimming across was shot on spot.

My mom can't swim. The only reason my mom survived was because a stranger helped carry her over the river with two sealed empty milk jugs. My dad swam across in the middle of the night. His best friend didn't make it. The swift water swept him away. My wife was born in the middle of the jungle while her mom and dad fled from the communists. I'm glad to be born an American, but the stories of genocide that my parents tell are haunting.

We have responsibility for lives in Iraq. If you are humane, you won't allow the same to happen to the Iraqis.

That's all.

[Edited on February 1, 2008 at 7:29 PM. Reason : the untold truth about Vietnam]

2/1/2008 7:19:50 PM

The untold truth is that would have happened regardless of our intervention. We just ALSO lost tens of thousands of american lives in the process too.

2/1/2008 8:35:17 PM

^^wow, thats messed up, and thats why I agree with you, i wish though we didnt go in the first place

2/1/2008 10:08:42 PM

Quote :

"I like Ron Paul's stance on practically everything EXCEPT his foreign policy. If it weren't for that, I'd be all for him. "

Too bad for us Barry Goldwater is no longer around.

2/2/2008 12:41:47 AM