The Paul File

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Eso

How anyone can call Obama a black nationalist when he has absolutely iGNORED the black community and their needs, when unempolyment in the african-community is a whopping 16% is beyond me. He pays far more attention to the hispanic community than his black 'brother's and sisters'. Give me a break! Shaniqua should hide his damn ass! I think Obama is a disgrace but for the right reasons. I mean its right up there with the absurd idea that he's a 'socialist' or a democrat for that matter. Give me a fucking break. Obama is brought and paid for and he's serving his constituents...Goldman Sachs etc etc.

Anyone who thinks he will do anything for the mass of americans who are suffering right now or that he consider's them more than his bloody golf is simply kidding themselves. I disagree with some of Ron Paul points but I would try him over Obama every day and twice on Sunday.

Both you and Tiassa should stop smokin the crack, crack is whack.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

What puzzles me is what exactly is there so wrong about Paul policies for those who oppose him, cutting spending, having sound money, getting of wars, defending constitution and civil liberties, having a free markets and so on. Maybe the medicine is too hard to swallow when things have gone too far and they let the big brother take care of everything.

Oh god don't mention THAT list! Dem's decry Paul because he's more progressive than any of their establishment, corporate loving candidates. Please don't talk about 'reality', we all have to stick to our gang colors and all that rubbish, even if the gang will sell you out for JPMorgan shares. Oh well. Obama ran on 'that' list, so don't remind the dems of how they're being systematically screwed by their own party who are so close to republicans that they share each other's underwear.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Wasting time is exactly what seems to be going on. I'm starting to think these aren't really Paul supporters, but provocateurs whose chosen mission is to discredit the Congressman, his campaign, and his supporters.

Keep on dreaming

Like Ron Paul's anti-abortion position. I can see how that is libertarian: the fetus is what deserves liberty, and the woman is just a vessel otherwise undeserving of any consideration other than what gets the fetus into the world alive. For Paul, as I understand it, the stance is an aesthetic outcome based on his work as an OB/GYN. I have never heard him detail the questions of liberty pertaining to both the fetus and the woman.

This is what I was pointing for, ranting againts libertarianism again rather than actually discussing what the man himself advocates.
Ron Paul is personally against the abortion for the reasons you mentioned + he has christian values, but, hes position in politics about abortion is different story, in his opinion its a matter of state, not federal. Afterall, US is a republic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHm4UF0EJWo

But thats not important since he is libertian, right ?

Ron Paul 1988 about education, IRS, healhcare, deficit&debt, defence, social security...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew

It seems nothing has change much in politics, same problems year after year.

But deficit and debt doesnt matter, right ?

Ron Paul predicting the mess US is now as early as 2002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ&feature=related

Sure, that bonker just got incredible lucky, right ?

And gay marriage and abortion, those are really important issues in these elections, like there isnt bigger problems around.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Oh god don't mention THAT list! Dem's decry Paul because he's more progressive than any of their establishment, corporate loving candidates. Please don't talk about 'reality', we all have to stick to our gang colors and all that rubbish, even if the gang will sell you out for JPMorgan shares. Oh well. Obama ran on 'that' list, so don't remind the dems of how they're being systematically screwed by their own party who are so close to republicans that they share each other's underwear.

Yes, I guess they are scared shittless and same time hoping that Obama can deliver...deliver what ? More debt and inflating dollar down to tubes.

 

[joepistole]

Yes, I guess they are scared shittless and same time hoping that Obama can deliver...deliver what ? More debt and inflating dollar down to tubes.

Well there is good reason to be shitless. Only the idiot faction of the Republican Party doesn't understand that little fact. Two, the suggestion that inflation is the issue, just shows your profound ignorance of the issues at hand. Show me some evidence of excessive inflation or weakness in the dollar. The issue is deflation not inflation. The dollar has increased in value, not devalued as you and others like you think.

Another thing you might want to be aware of, in this country we do not have a king. Obama does not make the laws. Congress makes the laws. Just how is it Obama has spent more than his predecessor and the Republican Congresses since 2000? He hasn't - one of those little facts again.

 

[The Esotericist]

@Eso

How anyone can call Obama a black nationalist when he has absolutely iGNORED the black community and their needs, when unempolyment in the african-community is a whopping 16% is beyond me. He pays far more attention to the hispanic community than his black 'brother's and sisters'. Give me a break! Shaniqua should hide his damn ass! I think Obama is a disgrace but for the right reasons. I mean its right up there with the absurd idea that he's a 'socialist' or a democrat for that matter. Give me a fucking break. Obama is brought and paid for and he's serving his constituents...Goldman Sachs etc etc.

Anyone who thinks he will do anything for the mass of americans who are suffering right now or that he consider's them more than his bloody golf is simply kidding themselves. I disagree with some of Ron Paul points but I would try him over Obama every day and twice on Sunday.

Both you and Tiassa should stop smokin the crack, crack is whack.

Oh, I whole heartily agree. I am glad you got my point. I was simply driving at, that no matter what the old man personally "felt" or how you wanted to paint him, the nation is how the nation is going to be. His feelings be damned about the whole thing. "Paul is a racist," "Paul is a bigot," "Paul is a homophobe," whoopee! As we see with Obama, it's immaterial as far as policy is concerned.

For me, the issues that are most of concern are a debt based finance system and a fiat currency system that can be manipulated by a fascist collaboration of government and private banks. This, after all is what the "occupy wall street" protests, are at their heart, all about.

Likewise, we need a medium of exchange which can't be robbed of its value by banks and governments. If you work all year for $100,000 and then the Gov./Banks inject that amount into the economy, what does that do to the value of your labor? Well, eventually it will bring people out in the streets if they keep doing it enough. Essentially, Ron Paul is campaigning against the system being able to do this. Robbing the people of the value of the work. I believe that is the most important issue at stake here.

The early 1970s saw institutional involvement. The Conference of the Finance Ministers of the Islamic Countries held in Karachi in 1970, the Egyptian study in 1972, the First International Conference on Islamic Economics in Mecca in 1976, and the International Economic Conference in London in 1977 were the result of such involvement. The involvement of institutions and governments led to the application of theory to practice and resulted in the establishment of the first interest-free banks. The Islamic Development Bank, an inter-governmental bank established in 1975, was born of this process.

The first modern experiment with Islamic banking was undertaken in Egypt under cover without projecting an Islamic image—for fear of being seen as a manifestation of Islamic fundamentalism that was anathema to the political regime.[citation needed] The pioneering effort, led by Ahmad Elnaggar, took the form of a savings bank based on profit-sharing in the Egyptian town of Mit Ghamr in 1963. This experiment lasted until 1967 (Ready 1981), by which time there were nine such banks in country.

This section requires expansion.

In 1972, the Mit Ghamr Savings project became part of Nasr Social Bank which, currently, is still in business in Egypt. In 1975, the Islamic Development Bank was set up with the mission to provide funding to projects in the member countries. The first modern commercial Islamic bank, Dubai Islamic Bank, opened its doors in 1975. In the early years, the products offered were basic and strongly founded on conventional banking products, but in the last few years the industry is starting to see strong development in new products and services.

Islamic Banking is growing at a rate of 10-15% per year and with signs of consistent future growth. Islamic banks have more than 300 institutions spread over 51 countries, including the United States through companies such as the Michigan-based University Bank, as well as an additional 250 mutual funds that comply with Islamic principles. It is estimated that over US$822 billion worldwide sharia-compliant assets are managed according to The Economist. This represents approximately 0.5% of total world estimated assets as of 2005. According to CIMB Group Holdings, Islamic finance is the fastest-growing segment of the global financial system and sales of Islamic bonds may rise by 24 percent to $25 billion in 2010.

The Vatican has put forward the idea that "the principles of Islamic finance may represent a possible cure for ailing markets."

I agree completely with this. We need banking that isn't debt based, which doesn't rely on "usury" to operate. Or at least a free and open market which isn't monopolized by government cartel.

But, yes, you are right. The bureaucrats, media and the elites are in control now. No matter who gets elected or what they want to do, policy never really changes. There really isn't much point in even going to the polls. You are better of going out to the streets and marching!

 

[Billy T]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Some posting here seem to think that libertarians do not agree with this. Specifically are claiming Ron Paul does not. - Would reduce other's liberties.

I know little about Ron Paul, but would like to see some evidence that he disagrees with Chief Justice Holmes, if he does.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Well there is good reason to be shitless. Only the idiot faction of the Republican Party doesn't understand that little fact. Two, the suggestion that inflation is the issue, just shows your profound ignorance of the issues at hand. Show me some evidence of excessive inflation or weakness in the dollar. The issue is deflation not inflation. The dollar has increased in value, not devalued as you and others like you think.

Profound ignorance ? Ok, thats your opinion.
Dollar increased value against what ? Not against gold thats for sure and that is said to be the best measury against any currency. Food prices raise up every two or three months and its estimated to cost 6% more after a year, thats what I call inflation specially when wages are dragging far behind.
Could it be we are now in "deflationary state" because the banks are sitting on top of those free dollars (0% interest rate) or/and using those to fix up balance sheets, using those for god knows what "casino bets".
Just wait when all those dollars work trough the system.

Another thing you might want to be aware of, in this country we do not have a king. Obama does not make the laws. Congress makes the laws. Just how is it Obama has spent more than his predecessor and the Republican Congresses since 2000? He hasn't - one of those little facts again.

Facts, thats another word you like to use a lot, and this time in vein, since I just said more debt, which is happening right now.
Oh, no king in US, ok. Playing silly games now ?

 

[joepistole]

Profound ignorance ? Ok, thats your opinion.

No that is fact. And odds are it is not your fault. I would wagger you are just repeating what you have heard elsewhere and have little knowledge of business - most people fall into that category.

Dollar increased value against what ? Not against gold thats for sure and that is said to be the best measury against any currency. Food prices raise up every two or three months and its estimated to cost 6% more after a year, thats what I call inflation specially when wages are dragging far behind.

Nice rhetoric, but where is your proof? Two, there are other things that affect the price of gold other than inflation. Just who is giving you the estimates on food prices? Because those numbers are not showing up in anything used by the professionals.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

Could it be we are now in "deflationary state" because the banks are sitting on top of those free dollars (0% interest rate) or/and using those to fix up balance sheets, using those for god knows what "casino bets".
Just wait when all those dollars work trough the system.

Facts, thats another word you like to use a lot, and this time in vein, since I just said more debt, which is happening right now.
Oh, no king in US, ok. Playing silly games now ?

The reason we are in a deflationary state is because money is not being spent. But banks are not the real reason. Corporations and the middle class are not spending money. That is the problem. We have an excess of wealth accumulation. We need a little wealth redistribution to get the economy back on track. As a result we have a surplus of goods and services, including labor. What is needed in this economy is more demand for goods and services.

That is why you hear talk of another stimulus plan. Government in these instances should step in and start reducing that excess supply by purchasing goods and services; thus giving the economy a kick start. Once businesses can be assured that there is enough demand to warrant investment, they start spending. And the economy will pick up. But Republicans will never allow another stimulus for a number of reasons. So we face a very real prospect of another depression if Democrats do not take over Washington in the next election cycle.

Now this part is probably going to go over your head, because it is a bit complicated. It does not fit neatly into an emotional sound byte or Republican/Tea Party politics. But the money pumped into the economy by the Fed can be just as easily removed from the economy. The Fed pumped money into the economy by buying debt. The Fed can just as easily sell debt and take money out of the economy - the reverse of what it has been doing. And it can change the bank reserve requirments which will take money out of the economy as well. You guys seem to get the part where the Fed can expand the money supply. But for some reason, you don't seem to be able to understand the Fed can also reduce the money supply.

 

[786]

^Why is money not being spent?

When the Fed reduces money supply- whenever that may be- the affect on the economy will be tremendous. This is exactly how it creates bubbles waiting to burst. Anyways I know that you agree with textbook economics which is practically full of nonsensical ideas so I can understand.

 

[786]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Some posting here seem to think that libertarians do not agree with this. Specifically are claiming Ron Paul does not. - Would reduce other's liberties.

I know little about Ron Paul, but would like to see some evidence that he disagrees with Chief Justice Holmes, if he does.

Ron Paul agrees with this.

 

[Tiassa]

Why does Ron Paul hate the Constitution?

Somehow I don't doubt that, it is, after all, when all is said and done, a piece of federal legislation.

It took me about six tries to figure out that sentence, and you're too clever by far.

Actually, I meant that in voting for DoMA, as he says he would have, he would have voted to violate the Constitution. Although now that I think about it, he might have objected to the three-fifths compromise because the government shouldn't have forced the states to overvalue Negro slaves, or something like that. ("Three-fifths? That will kill jobs!")

You'll note that Paul cited "Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause". This seems a novel construction, but I doubt it is original.

Still, though, it is not an interpretation true to the actual Full Faith and Credit Clause:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.​

The Constitution explicitly entitles Congress to prescribe standards for establishing the credibility of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, but it doesn't actually empower Congress to pick and choose which specific acts, records, or proceedings are acceptable.

The judicial history of Article IV, Section 1 has largely pertained to the authority of state courts; I'm not certain what Rep. Paul thinks he has to support his argument that IV.1 empowers Congress to select which acts, records, and proceedings in the states deserve full faith and credit. I think what such a position is, in the end, is another of those "libertarians" trying to shape reality, pretending that one's own view of who is or isn't worthy of full and genuine consideration in society is how things have always been or supposed to have been.
____________________

Notes:

The Constitution of the United States of America. 1992. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. October 3, 2011. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

 

[eyeswideshut]

No that is fact. And odds are it is not your fault. I would wager you are just repeating what you have heard elsewhere and have little knowledge of business - most people fall into that category.

Whatever, like you have original ideas about economics and not being affected by others ? See, even top economists cant agree so how could we ?
Oh, but you got all the facts...

Nice rhetoric, but where is your proof? Two, there are other things that affect the price of gold other than inflation. Just who is giving you the estimates on food prices? Because those numbers are not showing up in anything used by the professionals.

About gold, like demand ? And why is demand high for gold ? And about food, I see it with my own eyes when I buy it and about the 6%, just hear it today in radio newscast. But I guess they were repeating some forecast from unprofessionals or something.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

Giving me goverment links, thats rich.

The reason we are in a deflationary state is because money is not being spent. But banks are not the real reason. Corporations and the middle class are not spending money. That is the problem. We have an excess of wealth accumulation. We need a little wealth redistribution to get the economy back on track. As a result we have a surplus of goods and services, including labor. What is needed in this economy is more demand for goods and services.

That was what I was saying, bailout money went to banks and they are not lending it to middleclass and to business because they are fixing the bad bets they made, so how can middleclass or business spend ?

That is why you hear talk of another stimulus plan. Government in these instances should step in and start reducing that excess supply by purchasing goods and services; thus giving the economy a kick start. Once businesses can be assured that there is enough demand to warrant investment, they start spending. And the economy will pick up. But Republicans will never allow another stimulus for a number of reasons. So we face a very real prospect of another depression if Democrats do not take over Washington in the next election cycle.

Stimulus after stimulus, nice. Lets see how all that turns out.

Now this part is probably going to go over your head, because it is a bit complicated. It does not fit neatly into an emotional sound byte or Republican/Tea Party politics. But the money pumped into the economy by the Fed can be just as easily removed from the economy. The Fed pumped money into the economy by buying debt. The Fed can just as easily sell debt and take money out of the economy - the reverse of what it has been doing. And it can change the bank reserve requirments which will take money out of the economy as well. You guys seem to get the part where the Fed can expand the money supply. But for some reason, you don't seem to be able to understand the Fed can also reduce the money supply.

Ok, for how long will investors buy debt, forever, up to 100 trillion or something, fiat money is a confidence game and what I´m hearing is that its running out because the impotence of the goverment/congress to cut spending.
Basic rule is not spend more than you can afford, but I guess its going over their heads in washington.

I will leave it to this since this thread is about Ron Paul, I let him answer.

About Debt limit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGXbKsFH_sI&feature=related

Stimulus 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue8RzGoVHsg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xderHvi5mDU

 

[786]

The Constitution explicitly entitles Congress to prescribe standards for establishing the credibility of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, but it doesn't actually empower Congress to pick and choose which specific acts, records, or proceedings are acceptable.

The judicial history of Article IV, Section 1 has largely pertained to the authority of state courts; I'm not certain what Rep. Paul thinks he has to support his argument that IV.1 empowers Congress to select which acts, records, and proceedings in the states deserve full faith and credit.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

.... that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage.

So he supported the Act to support state's individual laws regarding same sex marriage. He's not 'selecting' anything, he's giving states the right to define marriage as they wish recognizing all of them
So you are right they can't 'pick and choose' which is 'acceptable' thus RP supported the bill so that all state laws were 'acceptable', without picking and choosing.

How marriage is defined 'federally' will have no affect on the states. Leaving it to the states, in essence he protected same-sex marriage from being out-lawed by the federal government, you should be happy

Precisely why he was against Federal Marriage Amendment. But I agree DoMA was bad legislation. Its shaky ground, trying to protect State rights probably was why he voted for it. Is defining marriage itself unconstitutional, I don't know but it would be nice if they didn't. And if you watch RP debate he said basically that Federal Government has no business dealing with marriage. I think he would support a repeal of this bill given that an alternative bill that protects other states right to define marriage as they wish comes into play.

 

[joepistole]

^Why is money not being spent?

It pays to read.

When the Fed reduces money supply- whenever that may be- the affect on the economy will be tremendous. This is exactly how it creates bubbles waiting to burst. Anyways I know that you agree with textbook economics which is practically full of nonsensical ideas so I can understand.

No this is not how bubbles are created. This is how the economy has been managed for the last 70 years. Yes I do agree with empirically derived economics. It really beats the old crystal ball and old wives tale economics which you have advocated.

When the economy recovers the acts as appropriate to curb inflation and prevent sudden disruptions in the economy. Interest rates will rise and money supply will get tighter. It sure beats the hell out of the old boom and bust cycles that preceeded modern economics.

 

[Trippy]

It took me about six tries to figure out that sentence, and you're too clever by far.

Flatterer :')

Actually, I meant that in voting for DoMA, as he says he would have, he would have voted to violate the Constitution. Although now that I think about it, he might have objected to the three-fifths compromise because the government shouldn't have forced the states to overvalue Negro slaves, or something like that. ("Three-fifths? That will kill jobs!")

You'll note that Paul cited "Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause". This seems a novel construction, but I doubt it is original.

Still, though, it is not an interpretation true to the actual Full Faith and Credit Clause:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.​

The Constitution explicitly entitles Congress to prescribe standards for establishing the credibility of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, but it doesn't actually empower Congress to pick and choose which specific acts, records, or proceedings are acceptable.

The judicial history of Article IV, Section 1 has largely pertained to the authority of state courts; I'm not certain what Rep. Paul thinks he has to support his argument that IV.1 empowers Congress to select which acts, records, and proceedings in the states deserve full faith and credit. I think what such a position is, in the end, is another of those "libertarians" trying to shape reality, pretending that one's own view of who is or isn't worthy of full and genuine consideration in society is how things have always been or supposed to have been.
____________________

Notes:

The Constitution of the United States of America. 1992. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. October 3, 2011. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

I'm not sure what response to offer other than 'Interesting', and that yeah, that would seem to delegitamize at least some of what has been discussed.

 

[786]

@joepistole

I find nothing empirical about it. In fact I believe its a bunch of hogwash- precisely why they couldn't 'empirically' see the crash coming.

 

[joepistole]

@joepistole

I find nothing empirical about it. In fact I believe its a bunch of hogwash- precisely why they couldn't 'empirically' see the crash coming.

Why am I not suprised you would write that? Have you ever opened a credible book on economics? I would wagger not. I think that is pretty clear from your posts.

 

[786]

Why am I not suprised you would write that? Have you ever opened a credible book on economics? I would wagger not. I think that is pretty clear from your posts.

Credibility based on the very people someone is challenging. How does that work?

 

[Trippy]

70% of Israeli Jews were born in Israel. How long does a people have to be in a place, for their rights to kick in?

I missed this the first time.

I wasn't actually commenting on the legitamacy of one parties claim over the other.