PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul calls Paulson and Bernanke FASCISTS - LOVE IT, LOVEIT, love it



Spartacus
04-04-08, 05:36 PM
(he doesn't say the word, but it's there)

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=7925

Rajiv
04-04-08, 10:02 PM
embedding




<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jbi-0Tg1b_g&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jbi-0Tg1b_g&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Nervous Drake
04-05-08, 12:08 AM
.

Slimprofits
04-05-08, 11:41 PM
Paul published this on his website last week:


March 30, 2008: On Money, Inflation and Government (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst033008.htm)

The Federal Reserve, a quasi-government entity, should not be creating money or determining interest rates, as this causes malinvestment and excessive debt to accumulate. Centrally planned, government manipulated economies always fail eventually. The collapse of communism and the failure of socialism should have made this apparent. Even the most educated, well-intentioned central planners cannot plan the market better than the market itself. Those that understand economics best, understand this reality.

Starving Steve
04-06-08, 06:33 PM
Paul published this on his website last week:

Yes, central banks have made gross errors throughout the world, and Zimbabwee's hyper-inflation and chaos is only the latest example of how bad things can get. But the collapse of Bear Stearns and the collapse of structured investment vehicles, toxic mortgages, the derivatives nightmare, the freeze-up of the bond market--- all of this argues strongly for re-regulation of the banks.

Never forget that it was the de-regulation of banks by the repeal of the Glass-Stegel Act that has caused this mess, and government is called upon, once again, to bail-out the capitalist system. This is where this Ron Paul just doesn't get it.

And one more issue with this Ron Paul dude: He wants to spend for defence--- more on top of the mountain of trillions already spent for defence in the U.S. Again, this Ron Paul, like all the other Republicans, just doesn't get it. His plan for going onto the gold standard is more like a fairy dream.

But Texas produces these types of idiots, and Ron Paul is definitely the most likeable of the bunch down there. :D

Rajiv
04-06-08, 07:01 PM
And one more issue with this Ron Paul dude: He wants to spend for defence--- more on top of the mountain of trillions already spent for defence in the U.S.

This is not correct.

From " War and Foreign Policy“ (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/)"


We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.



From "National Defense (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/national-defense/)"


A defense policy designed to keep Americans safe should start with the idea that we must secure our borders from those who would cross them to do us harm. Currently, the United States maintains hundreds of thousands of troops in more than 100 foreign countries. In many cases, they are there to defend foreign borders. Maintaining such a global empire drains nearly one trillion dollars from the U.S. economy each year, while offering very little real security for the American people. What’s worse, our U.S. Border Guards are sent overseas to places like Iraq while our own borders remain porous and vulnerable.

.
.
.
A defense policy for the United States should first seek to make Americans safer. A foreign policy of non-interventionism overseas will be the first step in reducing threats to the U.S. My policy will enable us to focus our resources where they belong: in defense of the United States and the American people. An America-first defense policy will not go abroad seeking monsters to slay, but will deter through strength and lead by example.

Slimprofits
04-06-08, 07:59 PM
Never forget that it was the de-regulation of banks by the repeal of the Glass-Stegel Act that has caused this mess, and government is called upon, once again, to bail-out the capitalist system. This is where this Ron Paul just doesn't get it.

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) voted against H.R. 10, A.K.A. the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll276.xml), a.k.a. the bill that repealed the Glass-Steagal Act.


But the collapse of Bear Stearns and the collapse of structured investment vehicles, toxic mortgages, the derivatives nightmare, the freeze-up of the bond market--- all of this argues strongly for re-regulation of the banks

Or perhaps these examples are arguements for a currency that wouldn't be possible to manipulate in such ways? I interpret that as being one of Paul's main bullet points (another one being where Rajiv corrected you, military spending and national defense). Maybe such a currency isn't entirely realistic in 2008 (I don't know), but try as you and others might, Ron Paul is one of the few people in elected Washington over the last decade that this mess cannot be pinned on.

I mean, you're seriously going to defend the majority of Democrats on any of this financial mess or any of the others (pick 'em)? President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act into law and nominated six Fed. governors including re-appointing Greenspan during this team. And that is just for starters...

Just to make this clear, I have no qualms with bashing the elected, corrupt, assholes on either side of the aisle. We're not rooting for football teams here, this is the future of the country at stake.

FRED
04-06-08, 08:30 PM
Just to make this clear, I have no qualms with bashing the elected, corrupt, assholes on either side of the aisle. We're not rooting for football teams here, this is the future of the country at stake.

Exactly. Think this guy isn't putting his career at risk?


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6-qThuhHXrs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6-qThuhHXrs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Or these guys? (http://www.appraiserspetition.com/)

Some day we may all be called upon to sacrifice something for our country versus for those who run our country.

Starving Steve
04-06-08, 08:47 PM
This is not correct.

From " War and Foreign Policy“ (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/)"



From "National Defense (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/national-defense/)"

So Ron Paul wants to spend on a fortress America.

As if America isn't a fortress now, he wants to spend more on the fortress.

This is an example of how convoluted Republican thinking is. To spend more to save money......

Ah yes, the Republicans and their deficits: "We will grow our way out of them," or "Deficits don't count."

And speaking of deficits--- for defence, for fortress America, for other Republican waste like nation-building and empire--- just how would your Ron Paul pay for the Bush deficits now? Or would those deficits be passed on to our children?

Oh yes, deficits don't count because the more we spend on fortress-building, the less we spend in the end on military adventures. Sounds great! Can I try understanding this with a crack-pipe in hand? :D

And this kind of convoluted thinking is from your Ron Paul, Republican--- the best of the Republicans. :rolleyes:

Spartacus
04-06-08, 09:10 PM
I'll skip the setup and just give you the punchline ....

stop digging

Rajiv
04-06-08, 09:12 PM
And speaking of deficits--- for defence, for fortress America, for other Republican waste like nation-building and empire--- just how would your Ron Paul pay for the Bush deficits now? Or would those deficits be passed on to our children?


Could you please document your statements on the words you are putting in Ron Paul's mouth?

From Debt and Taxes (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/)


Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.

We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

By the way, I am not a Ron Paul supporter -- currently there is no one running that I support politically.

But please be accurate before posting and imputing staements and thoughts that may in fact not be correct.

Starving Steve
04-06-08, 10:51 PM
Just reading from Ron Paul's 2008 campaign site: "True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes."

So now I have this problem: If Ron Paul is going to be a tax-cutter, how are the deficits left by the Bush Administration going to be paid?

And then he proposes a gold standard. Lovely. :rolleyes:

But as I said, Ron Paul is the best of the Republicans. The worst: Arthur Laffer, George Bush, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernankee, and Dick Cheney.:eek:

Slimprofits
04-07-08, 03:12 AM
Starving Steve, do you refer to the Internet Bubble as the "Clinton Economic Miracle" or a similar moniker?

Rajiv
04-07-08, 09:15 AM
how are the deficits left by the Bush Administration going to be paid?
Steve,

I thought the Bush administration deficits were supposed to be paid for by Iraqi oil! :rolleyes:

From the "The $2 Trillion Dollar War (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12855294/national_affairs_the_2_trillion_dollar_war/print)" interview with Joseph Stiglitz


Paul Wolfowitz actually claimed that the war would pay for itself with oil revenue.
You have to wonder: What reward should he receive for such acumen? Bush made him president of the World Bank.

Starving Steve
04-08-08, 09:09 PM
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) voted against H.R. 10, A.K.A. the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll276.xml), a.k.a. the bill that repealed the Glass-Steagal Act.



Or perhaps these examples are arguements for a currency that wouldn't be possible to manipulate in such ways? I interpret that as being one of Paul's main bullet points (another one being where Rajiv corrected you, military spending and national defense). Maybe such a currency isn't entirely realistic in 2008 (I don't know), but try as you and others might, Ron Paul is one of the few people in elected Washington over the last decade that this mess cannot be pinned on.

I mean, you're seriously going to defend the majority of Democrats on any of this financial mess or any of the others (pick 'em)? President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act into law and nominated six Fed. governors including re-appointing Greenspan during this team. And that is just for starters...

Just to make this clear, I have no qualms with bashing the elected, corrupt, assholes on either side of the aisle. We're not rooting for football teams here, this is the future of the country at stake.

As I said or implied above, "Ron Paul is the best of the Republican breed." But I have this problem here with Republicans: They are selfish; they are arrogant; they have the sensitivity of a cactus; they are nationalistic; many are downright xenophobic; and their economic proposals are laughable because the details are omitted.

Be that as it may, I still like Ron Paul. That is to say, I am a liberal, and I like Ron Paul who is at the opposite end of the political spectrum.

However, if it came to a choice between Ron Paul and Obama, or even between Ron Paul and Hillary, I would vote for the Democrats because I want to see national health insurance passed in the U.S. It is time for a change. "Si, se puede cambiar los E.E.U.U."

But don't worry about me voting against Ron Paul because Ron Paul has already lost. His campaign went no-where.

Perhaps, in hindsight, Ron Paul should have run as a Libertarian as a third party candidate. Then, he might have gotten more support because people are beginning to hate the Demos and the Republicans both. The country is crying-out for change.

The lesson in this: Ron Paul should get as far away from the Republicans as he can get. The Republicans are going to be out for fifty years in the wake of this economic mess.