Jump to content

Ron Paul Revolution!!!!


vanfullofretards

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

No, I'll get it for you. But you clearly are stupid that you can't read it for yourself and see for yourself from the official source. I mean seriously, it really just shows your level of intelligence. I'm not even trying to be a dick but that's the cold hard facts here. You're a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let's make this VERY clear. which i've already elaborated on in previous posts....

 

here...

 

Also, your point about the military was a good one and I agree with it somewhat, in that those who've donated to RP in 2008 represent a small minority of the military, as well as the fact that most of the military doesn't vote and is conservative. That's probably true, but also keep in mind that many veteran and inactive military also supported RP in the 2008 campaign as well.

 

here...

 

On your point about the military support also, once again RP is leading in donations among the GOP candidates in 2011... his active duty donations more than doubles all of the GOP candidates COMBINED. This also occurred in 2008.

 

and here...

 

You are either skimming through my posts and not reading entirely or you just have poor reading comprehension. Romney is most definitely leading the funding of the GOP candidates, but what I was referring to was not the overall funding. I was actually clearly referring to the military donations for 2011, and I posted my source which was the youtube video. Not an entirely credible and thread worthy source, but I'm certain the numbers are accurate if you do a little research on your own.

 

So to summarize, I've never stated that the ENTIRE MILITARY SUPPORTS RON PAUL. never. It seems to me that this is what you're insinuating, so please read and comprehend what I'm saying. I'll say it for you slowly.

 

 

Ron.... Paul... has... received... the... MOST... (big word coming up) in-di-vi-du-alll... active... duty... military... do-na-tions... to... his... cam-paignnn... in... 2008... AND... 2011... out... of... all... of... the... GOP... con-tennn-derrsss.........

 

In 2011 he also has received more than Barack Obama as well.

 

OK. I hope you understand all of that. Here is the source again:

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q2/C00495820/A_EMPLOYER_C00495820.html

 

you can tally it all up yourself. on the left side are the employers, and on the right side is the donation amount received. i'll work on getting that list for you since you're too retarded to tally the numbers yourself, but it's going to have to wait another day because it's late and i'm done talking to you because your basically a fucking idiot and a BIG waste of my time. it's just like a fucking disease I can't stop responding to your stupidity. i don't really know why, I guess this is entertainment for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does it show individual military donations? The link only shows contributions by employers.

 

You may be right when you say that the individual contributions from service members go to RP more then any other candidate, but your link does not show that. This goes to show that you are not able to come to reasonable conclusions and that you are not able to tell the difference between fact and opinion, which is what I have been saying.

 

 

You should stay off YouTube. Hahaha

Another failure by you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize to others who could possibly be annoyed by the continued conflict here, and I really don't want to hijack this thread.

 

I wish there could be some actual intelligent discussion going on here, even if you disagree with Ron Paul or you don't support him... I DO respect that. If your argument against his policies aren't mainstream media talking points that are accusing RP of being racist, labeling him and lumping him into a category, and are actually fair and comprehensible... I may disagree, argue, and debate with you about why liberty and the constitution is important to me... but for the most part I will agree to disagree and respect your position. I've done this in the past with people here who I personally have felt have a misunderstanding or different perspective of the constitution than myself. Usually after I express myself, I let it go and keep it moving.

 

I also don't normally resort to insulting people or being THAT condescending. I know I do it sometimes, and I hope I've never gone too overboard on anyone here because regardless of the fact that we hold different views I don't want to come across as a dick who thinks he knows everything. I'm still personally very young (turning 26) and am always learning more. Conversations and arguments I've had here with people like christo, frankie, theo, and others that I disagree with have always made me take a step back and rethink my own positions, and I've learned a lot from being here on how other people can reflect and view our world. For the most part I'm sure anyone on here knows that I try to be as respectful as possible. I encourage that here on 12oz crossfire because this place, unlike other forums, actually has a lot of intelligent people who hold a wide range of diverse opinions and there are some VERY good conversations and debates that take place here. I've only been here for a short time, and I've already learned a lot more than I would have visiting forums and websites filled with people who share the same views and just agree with each other all day.

 

I'd like to contribute more to this thread, and I always attempt to contribute something important. I apologize again for the ping pong between me and CILONE but unfortunately it's probably going to continue...

 

I feel this is a very important article from Ron Paul concerning our national debt and why it is important for us to understand what it will mean if America DOES default, and what it will mean if we continue to patch up a flawed system that is already broken.

 

Ron Paul Appeals To America: "Default Now, Or Suffer A More Expensive Crisis Later"

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ron-paul-appeals-america-default-now-or-suffer-more-expensive-crisis-later#comments

 

By Ron Paul, op-ed first posted in Bloomberg

 

Default Now, Or Suffer A More Expensive Crisis Later

 

Debate over the debt ceiling has reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, with each side trying to outdo the other in a game of political chicken. If you believe some of the things that are being written, the world will come to an end if the U.S. defaults on even the tiniest portion of its debt.

 

In strict terms, the default being discussed will occur if the U.S. fails to meet its debt obligations, through failure to pay either interest or principal due a bondholder. Proponents of raising the debt ceiling claim that a default on Aug. 2 is unprecedented and will result in calamity (never mind that this is simply an arbitrary date, easily changed, marking a congressional recess). My expectations of such a scenario are more sanguine.

 

The U.S. government defaulted at least three times on its obligations during the 20th century.

 

-- In 1934, the government banned ownership of gold and eliminated the right to exchange gold certificates for gold coins. It then immediately revalued gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35, thus devaluing the dollar holdings of all Americans by 40 percent.

 

-- From 1934 to 1968, the federal government continued to issue and redeem silver certificates, notes that circulated as legal tender that could be redeemed for silver coins or silver bars. In 1968, Congress unilaterally reneged on this obligation, too.

 

-- From 1934 to 1971, foreign governments were permitted by the U.S. government to exchange their dollars for gold through the gold window. In 1971, President Richard Nixon severed this final link between the dollar and gold by closing the gold window, thus in effect defaulting once again on a debt obligation of the U.S. government.

 

Unlimited Spending

 

No longer constrained by any sort of commodity backing, the federal government was now free to engage in almost unlimited fiscal profligacy, the only check on its spending being the market’s appetite for Treasury debt. Despite the defaults in 1934, 1968 and 1971, world markets have been only too willing to purchase Treasury debt and thereby fund the government’s deficit spending. If these major defaults didn’t result in decreased investor appetite for U.S. obligations, I see no reason why defaulting on a small amount of debt this August would cause any major changes.

 

The national debt now stands at just over $14 trillion, while net total liabilities are estimated at over $200 trillion. The government is insolvent, as there is no way that this massive sum of liabilities can ever be paid off. Successive Congresses and administrations have shown absolutely no restraint when it comes to the budget process, and the idea that either of the two parties is serious about getting our fiscal house in order is laughable.

 

Boom and Bust

 

The Austrian School’s theory of the business cycle describes how loose central bank monetary policy causes booms and busts: It drives down interest rates below the market rate, lowering the cost of borrowing; encourages malinvestment; and causes economic miscalculation as resources are diverted from the highest value use as reflected in true consumer preferences. Loose monetary policy caused the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble, and now is causing the government debt bubble.

 

For far too long, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy and quantitative easing have kept interest rates artificially low, enabling the government to drastically increase its spending by funding its profligacy through new debt whose service costs were lower than they otherwise would have been.

 

Neither Republicans nor Democrats sought to end this gravy train, with one party prioritizing war spending and the other prioritizing welfare spending, and with both supporting both types of spending. But now, with the end of the second round of quantitative easing, the federal funds rate at the zero bound, and the debt limit maxed out, Congress finds itself in a real quandary.

 

Hard Decisions

 

It isn’t too late to return to fiscal sanity. We could start by canceling out the debt held by the Federal Reserve, which would clear $1.6 trillion under the debt ceiling. Or we could cut trillions of dollars in spending by bringing our troops home from overseas, making gradual reforms to Social Security and Medicare, and bringing the federal government back within the limits envisioned by the Constitution. Yet no one is willing to step up to the plate and make the hard decisions that are necessary. Everyone wants to kick the can down the road and believe that deficit spending can continue unabated.

 

Unless major changes are made today, the U.S. will default on its debt sooner or later, and it is certainly preferable that it be sooner rather than later.

 

If the government defaults on its debt now, the consequences undoubtedly will be painful in the short term. The loss of its AAA rating will raise the cost of issuing new debt, but this is not altogether a bad thing. Higher borrowing costs will ensure that the government cannot continue the same old spending policies. Budgets will have to be brought into balance (as the cost of servicing debt will be so expensive as to preclude future debt financing of government operations), so hopefully, in the long term, the government will return to sound financial footing.

 

Raising the Ceiling

 

The alternative to defaulting now is to keep increasing the debt ceiling, keep spending like a drunken sailor, and hope that the default comes after we die. A future default won’t take the form of a missed payment, but rather will come through hyperinflation. The already incestuous relationship between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury will grow even closer as the Fed begins to purchase debt directly from the Treasury and monetizes debt on a scale that makes QE2 look like a drop in the bucket. Imagine the societal breakdown of Weimar Germany, but in a country five times as large. That is what we face if we do not come to terms with our debt problem immediately.

 

Default will be painful, but it is all but inevitable for a country as heavily indebted as the U.S. Just as pumping money into the system to combat a recession only ensures an unsustainable economic boom and a future recession worse than the first, so too does continuously raising the debt ceiling only forestall the day of reckoning and ensure that, when it comes, it will be cataclysmic.

 

We have a choice: default now and take our medicine, or put it off as long as possible, when the effects will be much worse.

 

CILONE, I'll get the list for you. You clearly don't comprehend the way the money is tallied up. I'm sorry you can't understand it, I'll see what I can do to get a list that even a child could understand just for you. I can't promise anything because, me personally... I'm not going to waste my time creating that list for you since all of the data is right there and my point is already proven by the source link, but if I can get someone on a RP forum to do it for me I'll post it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. I hope you understand all of that. Here is the source again:

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q2/C00495820/A_EMPLOYER_C00495820.html

 

Now that you found a link to back yourself up (days later), please explain how the FEC link you so strongly insisted backed you up, does so? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Active duty military in September 2010 (numbers are similar to what is in the military today) = 1,133,699 actual link that is relevant

 

Amount that Ron Paul received from people who listed their occupation as military, per Polifact = $25,000

 

Amount that Ron Paul's people say he received from the military = $34,480

 

For the sake of debate, lets say that everyone who donated money, donated only $200 (which is when they start to list the occupations), which would give RP the maximum number of people who donated, since they did not go lower then $200 for anyone when they figured out those numbers, the maximum number of people who contributed to Ron Paul from the military is only 172 people!!!

 

$200 donations to Ron Paul x 172 service members = $34,4000

 

Never mind that some people gave more then $200, which would mean even less people gave money to him, that would still mean your whole point does not really make any bit of difference.

 

172 people out of 1,133699 people (just active, although you did include retires at previous points) = .00015172%

 

Zig's military point that he tried to make = not much of a point in any way you look at it, unless you are trying to say that the military is not really political.

 

BTW, RPs point of "tells me that these troops want to come home as well because they know exactly what I'm talking about." is not really supported by this data either.

 

 

FACTS!!! nigga, learn to use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nah i'm done with you you're a waste of time and you haven't backed up anything you've said, you just demand proof from other people because you make no sense and can't articulate a consistent argument.

 

was i wrong about the facts I posted here? the facts you called bullshit? can you admit you were wrong about that? i don't think so... i post it days later because i have a life and other shit to do rather than sit here and bullshit with you.

 

i'm done here unless you want to start elaborating more on your Ron Paul hatred, because that's always funny to read.

 

you're telling me i can't use facts, that's fucking hilarious. you called the facts bullshit, you're delusional as to what is actually happening in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not say you were wrong about this link you posted today. I said you were wrong about the link you originally posted, which is the same one you kept insisting was proof of your point. You still have not shown us how that original link from the FEC proved your point. So with out a doubt you are full of shit and you just happened on a article by chance that supported what you said, because if you had it before, you would have posted it.

 

Regardless you and RP do not have a point when both of you say that the military gives more money to RP then any other candidate, because 172 people or less do not mean anything when you are talking about over a million people. It is impossible to draw any reasonable conclusions from that small of a percentage.

 

Go back to playing your video games and trolling for anti-ron paul forums, just like a true ron paul knob slobber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain to me what you THINK my point was? I don't think you even understand what my point was.

 

You still have not shown us how that original link from the FEC proved your point.

 

The point was that he raised more than any other GOP candidate, and President Obama when it came to active military donations. The FEC link absolutely, definitively proves that point. You asked me for a LIST of the military employers from that FEC source and I said I MIGHT be able to get that for you if someone else on RP Forums would do it for me, because quite honestly I'm not going to waste my time doing simple reading and math for you. No one responded to my request for this list... probably because they also see how much of a waste of time doing something like that is. All the information is right there on the page... a list is not necessary. Politifact only further confirms the legitimacy of my original source...

 

Regardless you and RP do not have a point when both of you say that the military gives more money to RP then any other candidate, because 172 people or less do not mean anything when you are talking about over a million people.

 

WTF... are you talking about. The point has nothing to do with how many people are in the military... it has to do with how many active military donated to political candidates and who out of all the political candidates received the most donations. Seriously, WHAT are you talking about?

 

Go back to playing your video games and trolling for anti-ron paul forums, (LMAO ???????????????????) just like a true ron paul knob slobber.

 

Dude... you should go back to Channel Zero because Crossfire... it just aint for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain to me what you THINK my point was? I don't think you even understand what my point was.

 

 

 

The point was that he raised more than any other GOP candidate, and President Obama when it came to active military donations. The FEC link absolutely, definitively proves that point. You asked me for a LIST of the military employers from that FEC source and I said I MIGHT be able to get that for you if someone else on RP Forums would do it for me, because quite honestly I'm not going to waste my time doing simple reading and math for you. No one responded to my request for this list... probably because they also see how much of a waste of time doing something like that is. All the information is right there on the page... a list is not necessary. Politifact only further confirms the legitimacy of my original source...

 

 

 

WTF... are you talking about. The point has nothing to do with how many people are in the military... it has to do with how many active military donated to political candidates and who out of all the political candidates received the most donations. Seriously, WHAT are you talking about?

 

 

 

Dude... you should go back to Channel Zero because Crossfire... it just aint for you.

 

The FEC link you posted shows ALL employers who contributed to RP, not military employers (what the fuck is a military employer?). Unless of course, the Dropkick Murphy's are a military employer. hahaha Read your own link. Show me one person on the link who is in the military!!!

 

Just admit you posted a link that does not show anything you have said it does and also while you are at it, you failed to provide anything to make any of your points. You consistently fail to back up anything you have to say. No one jumps in for you, because you are wrong.

 

The point you tried to make was that the military supports RP because of the donations he has received from them are more then any other candidate, including the president.

 

My counter point was that those donations do not matter, because they only show that a maximum of 172 people (more likely less) donated money to RP and that the military is not political.

 

You failed to provide another point or anything else to back up anything you have said. Just admit you are wrong, if not, GO AWAY, because I am not going anywhere.

 

 

You are not that intelligent and have failed again.

 

Zig + Crossfire = fail, please try again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point you tried to make was that the military supports RP because of the donations he has received from them are more then any other candidate, including the president.

 

That was never the point I was trying to make, my point was simply that the military overwhelmingly supports Ron Paul over every other GOP candidate. The point was proven through the donation numbers for active military of both 2008 and 2011. I don't expect anyone to jump into debates here in support of my arguments, I don't do it for anyone else and to even suggest that I'm expecting that is ridiculous.

 

What YOU'RE twisting my point to become, and insisting on what I was supposedly insinuating with my statement about RP's military support is wrong. If you feel differently, quote me on where I said what you are claiming was my point. It was never my point, because what I've written here is and always will be clear and precise.

 

Part of your counter-point makes sense, and I've already agreed with you that the military overall is not political and does not engage in political support for presidential candidates. I've already agreed with you that a majority of the military is politically apathetic, are you claiming I challenged you on that point? I was immediately in agreement with you, so I can't understand where this resistance from you is coming. Possibly from arguments with other people you label RP slobknobbers? and you are just rushing to judgement about what I believe and what I represent? I have no idea...

 

The FEC link speaks for itself, I really don't need to explain it to your or anyone else any further.

 

Honestly this whole military thing was never even part of my original point that RP isn't fringe. It's a petty thing you happen to be picking on because I think you don't want to respond to anything else I've brought up. Maybe your sticking with what you feel you know best since you have experience in the military and you think you have some sort of credibility on that front. I'd still like to hear you explain how Ron Paul's suggested monetary policies would destroy the dollar, and how the Federal Reserve's policies haven't over the past 60 years. I'd also like to hear you explain a lot of the other stuff you threw out there so wildly, but the only person here that is responsible for proving his points is me obviously. And when I attempt to prove them, my sources are bullshit and my points get incredibly distorted...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The FEC link speaks for itself, I really don't need to explain it to your or anyone else any further."

You are full of bullshit and a lier. The link has nothing to do with what you have said and you know it.

 

"That was never the point I was trying to make, my point was simply that the military overwhelmingly supports Ron Paul over every other GOP candidate."

 

That was your point, because if it was not, why even bring it up??? 172 people is nothing, it is not even a statistical deviant. You were just throwing RP bullshit out there to con people who will not look up your bullshit.

 

"Honestly this whole military thing was never even part of my original point that RP isn't fringe. It's a petty thing you happen to be picking on because I think you don't want to respond to anything else I've brought up"

 

You failed to make your point with the fringe thing and provided no "real" arguments about why he was not fringe. Also, i have addressed every thing you have brought up and provided valid arguments against them. You just can not hold your own.

 

"I'd still like to hear you explain how Ron Paul's suggested monetary policies would destroy the dollar, and how the Federal Reserve's policies haven't over the past 60 years."

 

This is what you have always tried to steer the argument towards and you get mad because I do not fall for it. the reason i will not discuss it, is because your side has only hypotheticals and nothing historically to prove anything. There is nothing to argue against, so I do not bother. Also, all you will do is cut and paste from the on RP website.

 

"And when I attempt to prove them, my sources are bullshit and my points get incredibly distorted..."

Because your sources are Youtube videos that are RP campaign materials and FEC links that do not show anything related to what you say they do.

Zig = continual failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You failed to make your point with the fringe thing and provided no "real" arguments about why he was not fringe. Also, i have addressed every thing you have brought up and provided valid arguments against them. You just can not hold your own.

 

 

i dont think there is any denying that in todays world, the view of true limited government is 'fringe.' but look at the implications of this. its a sad day when quoting the very law of the land as stated in the bill of rights is considered 'fringe.' this shows how far down the road to serfdom the US is. consider what created this country. the freest people on earth rebelled against 'tyranny' that any libertarian today would DIE to live under. these people were taxed at something like 1% of gdp. and outside cities, laws were largely unenforceable. you could easily escape and evade, move to new territory and live free. living in a state less section of america was not only achievable, it was reality for thousands of frontier folk. and since the government was insignificant at this time, the gdp wasnt comprised of the phony numbers we have today which include government spending as some sort of productive good. consider that this country was created by resistance to its central government, secession from it, and using the combat triad to achieve this freedom. this is literally what created the nation state today known as the US. yet, if someone merely mentions this, they are branded an 'extremist.'

 

point being, its a sad state of affairs when the exact ideals, beliefs and policies which created this country are 'fringe' or 'radical' or 'extremist.' when in reality, the beliefs held by many if not most in this country are some where in the ideological spectrum, between mitt romney/sarah palin and hillary/obama. so the term 'fringe' isnt the most descriptive. but what does it really mean to be 'extreme?' it means that you wont compromise. if means that you hold to various principles and wont give them up. you cling to what is honorable. what is 'extreme' in various other situations? lets take murder. i'd be labeled an 'extremist' because i think all murder is evil, whether its done by government, a criminal or whatever. whether its by a predator drone or a wiffle ball bat. i'd rather stick with the extremists, than the 'moderates.'

 

i missed the whole argument about RP and the military and dont really see a need to go back and go over it, but im assuming its based on some semantical error on either side. i dont think there has been any denying that RP received the most MONEY from individual soldiers atleast in the last race (not sure about this one) which would also lend one to state that the 'military' backs RP the most, as far as putting their money where their mouths are.

 

This is what you have always tried to steer the argument towards and you get mad because I do not fall for it. the reason i will not discuss it, is because your side has only hypotheticals and nothing historically to prove anything. There is nothing to argue against, so I do not bother. Also, all you will do is cut and paste from the on RP website.

 

the austrian business cycle theory not only has 100% correct theories on these issues, it has all of history on its side to prove them.

to deny this is to simply not understand one lick of economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you would want to go back to the days when America was founded? Tell me how does it feel not to use anything that was funded by our government? Roads, sewers, I can go on and on. Because if you use that stuff and you are advocating for a so-called free nation, that makes you a hypocrite. I really like how you changed "fringe" to "extreme" and then made a extereme point of using murder to back up what you are saying. Too bad " fringe" is the right word and the word that fits RP. If a majority of Americans fall within a political boundary, and RP knobslobbers fall out side of that, they are fringe and no matter how much you try to change the argument, "fringe" is the right word to use. And since RP advocates for us to default on the debt, which would leave an untold many of people without jobs and the ability to provide for their families, I will call him and you un-American and against all that America stands for. I already think you are a hypocrite based on your extreme stance against murder and you owning weapons that are only for that purpose. See how easy it is to make extreme statements like you are so fond of doing. Government of that era would be out of place today as the tarriffs and scientific knowledge of that era.

 

As for the military, if you think that a maximum of 172 service members out of over a million, donating money to RP means that the military supports him, you are wrong. If you can not see the numbers for what they are, you are severly blinded.

 

It is kind of hard to counter your point about Austrian economics when you do not say anything except that it is 100% correct. I can counter and say that it is 100% wrong and not provide anything to back that up, just like you did, but I will ask you to show me one comparable nation in this world that has a economy based on Austrian economics that is succeeding? Verbal hypothetical arguments are always easy to use, because they are just opinions, but when you actually have to use real world situations, most of those hypothetical arguments do not hold up.

 

 

I am on my phone, so excuse any typos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost fell for what peoPle like you try to do, which is change the subject or narrowly define the argument to fit your cut and paste agendas.

 

How about instead of arguing about Austrian economics, we talk about RP and his views on the economics of America and not on some Austrian economist who has no play in the policies of present day America?

 

You fuckers sure are tricky and try to switch the arguments to something that does not apply and you can easily defend because it is all hypotectical/opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you would want to go back to the days when America was founded?

Tell me how does it feel not to use anything that was funded by our government? Roads, sewers, I can go on and on. Because if you use that stuff and you are advocating for a so-called free nation, that makes you a hypocrite.

 

 

this statement and logic is extremely troubling.

do i want to return to 18th century life? no. do i wish people lived by the non aggression principle and lived under a non tyrannical government? yes. do i think that living under an essentially non binding grossly less tyrannical (by many magnitudes) government as it was in 1774 would be better than living under the largest government in the history of the world? i think you can answer this question for yourself.

 

you are making a few false assumptions. most notably that the government is responsible for all human progress, which is absolute nonsense. government didnt give us the personal computer, the iphone, indoor plumbing or air conditioning.

 

you see, it is the principles of liberty that dont need to change. society can and does.

for instance, the principle of liberty expressed in the first amendment protects free speech. there is no further elaboration needed. you and i both know that only hand cranked printing presses existed in the 18th century, yet the same principle that protected that is protecting speech printed off on an electronic printing press, or typed on a computer today.

 

 

the other part of your post that is based on faulty logic is that you neglect to address the fact that one does not have a choice whether to use private roads, sewers if they live in a city (i have septic), even down to using cash. why? governments hold a monopoly on roads. governments hold monopolies on waste water services. it is illegal to transact in anything but federal reserve notes. can you really be considered a hypocrite for advocating freedom while you are forced to live under another type of system? i think not. are any of the other myriad of groups advocating change, all 'hypocrites' if they are still forced to live under the existing system?

 

I really like how you changed "fringe" to "extreme" and then made a extereme point of using murder to back up what you are saying. Too bad " fringe" is the right word and the word that fits RP.

 

 

fringe and extreme in these cases are essentially synonymous. and you have continually called me an extremist and fringe in your same arguments and used them interchangeably.

 

but obviously you didnt read what i wrote. i agreed with you that RP is 'fringe.' that is because americans want government to run their lives. RP doesnt. but i think it is folly to deny that he has interjected lots of issues that concern the 'fringe' into the daily debate on CNN, FOX, etc. you never heard any one talk about the FED, monetary policy, etc. before 2007/08

 

 

And since RP advocates for us to default on the debt, which would leave an untold many of people without jobs and the ability to provide for their families, I will call him and you un-American and against all that America stands for.

 

you sound like sean hannity.

this is spin at its best.

if you owe someone a million dollars and your income is 100K. does it make any sense to go and borrow more money to pay back a debt? and if you do this, how does it make your situation any better?

since when did america stand for the USG holding 70 trillion, 4 TIMES THE WORLD GDP, in debt and unfunded liabilities. do you realize that every single american has a debt burden of something in the neighborhood of 300K just to pay off the deficit? this is normal? you cannot solve a debt and spending problem by more debt and spending. you only multiply the problems.

 

it seems as though, a debt this high is extreme. but to question it and say..'gee, im PREEEEETTY sure we arent going to be able to pay that back....' a person such as my self is labeled as 'extreme.'

 

I already think you are a hypocrite based on your extreme stance against murder and you owning weapons that are only for that purpose. See how easy it is to make extreme statements like you are so fond of doing.

 

 

haha.

are you really that blinded by your partisan nature that you cannot distinguish the difference between MURDER and SELF FRICKING DEFENSE? no where have i stated i was against all violence, i am merely against initiated force not in self defense. do you understand the difference between murder and self defense? you see, if someone tries to kill me with a .45, i'd sure like to have my .45 to try to shoot him. there is this thing called 'justifiable homicide.' that means, if someone tries to kill me, i am within my rights to kill him in self defense.

 

As for the military, if you think that a maximum of 172 service members out of over a million, donating money to RP means that the military supports him, you are wrong. If you can not see the numbers for what they are, you are severly blinded.

 

i dont tend to say the military supports ron paul. what is undeniable that of the people that gave money to political candidates, RP got the most donations.

say what you will about the rest, i could really care less.

i have trouble believing a guy that is essentially against everything the modern interventionist military stands for would be supported by them. so say what you will about me. i think we agree on this point, even though you seem to just wanting to argue about nothing.

 

 

It is kind of hard to counter your point about Austrian economics when you do not say anything except that it is 100% correct. I can counter and say that it is 100% wrong and not provide anything to back that up, just like you did, but I will ask you to show me one comparable nation in this world that has a economy based on Austrian economics that is succeeding? Verbal hypothetical arguments are always easy to use, because they are just opinions, but when you actually have to use real world situations, most of those hypothetical arguments do not hold up.

 

the ATBC is the only theory that has successfully and sufficiently explained the panics and depressions present in the economy.

 

do you also believe that we have to 'test' the theory of gravity? or do you acknowledge that it is correct? you understand, gravity is a theory, correct?

 

austrian economics is not a system, it is a school of thought. its simply the STUDY of human action. it is a normative science, it is not linked to politics. you can use austrian economics for good or bad. for instance, austrian theory merely states that government manipulation of credit, the monetary unit, etc will cause the business cycle. it doesnt say that the government must cease this activity. you could theoretically be an austrian economics understanding nazi and use the truths espoused by austrian theory to crash the economy.

 

to merely show that excessive money printing and credit will wreck and economy, take a peak at zimbabwe. printing money is inflation. one of its consequences is rising prices and a devalued monetary unit. which is why zimbabwe has billion dollar notes and people taking wheel barrows of this stuff to go buy a loaf of bread. this is simple austrian theory and economics 101... printing money results in it being devalued. and it is being illustrated for all to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sometimes think America should default, then everyone would finally realise how fucked up the situation would get for them, and it would be a great slap in the face of the tea party extremists who seem hell bent on screwing over America.

 

People dont seem to understand it will have a worldwide effect and good luck to America getting any kind of credit facilities at a decent rate if your credit rating gets downgraded, and that will then affect everry American with loans, mortgages etc.

 

If you think a default is the best idea then you are frankly not looking at the bigger picture. Your country would be deemed as more worthless than Greece, who hassnt yet defaulted because the Euro cuurency countries are fighting to stop the same thing happening to the Euro zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sometimes think America should default, then everyone would finally realise how fucked up the situation would get for them, and it would be a great slap in the face of the tea party extremists who seem hell bent on screwing over America.

 

 

i tend to sort sympathize with the first part of your post. it would show everyone how much debt we are in. it would show everyone the reality of the situation. however i think you are drawing the wrong conclusion. am i right in assuming that you think we should just keep borrowing forever and forever ad infinitum and never stop? do you run your household like this?

 

i'll be honest and go out on a limb here and say that i dont think anyone is 'hell bent' on 'screwing over' anyone in this situation. its not the INTENTION, but it is the unintended consequences of fiscal recklessness. no matter what the outcome is, it will be disastrous. if the US borrows more money, that means more taxes taken by force and it means increasing the debt burden on every american. therefore setting the stage for a bigger crisis in a few more years. it also means the FED is going to print more money, therefore lowering the value of those bills in circulation, which in turn will affect the poor more than anyone. imagine if the poor are now dealing with paying 10-15 dollars a gallon for milk?

 

the US will default one way or another. there is no possible way to pay the debt back. they will not cut spending. governments always grow until the point of collapse. the question is do we want to delay the inevitable of the debt crushing everyone? or do we want to deal with it now? put this in alcoholic terms. should you just quit now and deal with the consequences of being an alcoholic or should you keep on drinking in order for you to keep doing what you are doing?

 

the real question is whether the US defaults on its debts now (no way they can pay it back, because they wont cut spending) or will it default in the form of paying back its debts in less valuable money? they already did this in 1971 when they closed the gold window. how will this affect the poor, or say the retired on social security when their checks cant buy anything because the value of their money is worthless?

 

as far as im concerned, i say keep on borrowing, keep on spending. USG: collapse.

 

and good luck to America getting any kind of credit facilities at a decent rate if your credit rating gets downgraded,

 

this is probably the best argument FOR default.

the last thing the USG needs to be able to do is borrow more money.

you cant fix an alcohol problem by continually drinking more alcohol.

 

If you think a default is the best idea then you are frankly not looking at the bigger picture. Your country would be deemed as more worthless than Greece, who hassnt yet defaulted because the Euro cuurency countries are fighting to stop the same thing happening to the Euro zone.

 

 

you are actually convincing me that default IS the best idea. i say let the USG go bankrupt, hopefully it will shut down and stop tyrannizing the populace. let them fall. :D

 

but in reality, you are missing the forest for the trees. the USG does not 'default' if they are not allowed to borrow more money. they bring in enough money each money to pay the military, pay social security, AND TO SERVICE THE DEBT. etc. the problem is, no one will allow the bloated parts of government to die on the vine.

people say its crazy if we just capped spending at LAST years level. that is to extreme. people say its extreme to eliminate the income tax. but the truth is, if income taxes were gone tomorrow, the federal government would still be the size it was under the last year of bill clinton. and need i remind you this was still the biggest government on earth. there is absolutely no reason why we cannot start bringing home troops from around the world, stop bombing libya, and cut away the useless waste and departments that do nothing but oppress the people and distort markets. we'd still live under the biggest government in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wont just be the government that wont have credit facilities, American banks wont be able to borrow to help small businesses, people needing new homes, it isnt something that will just affect the governments ability to obtain credit.

 

Im not saying the government doesnt need to cut back on spending, it completely does, but the way to raise capital is remove all the Bush tax breaks for higher earners and corporations. The Republican option puts all the pressure on the lower and middle classes and that isnt fair when the top 2% get everything and dont give anything back.

 

You actually had a surplus before Bush came into power so after the Republicans fuck up the country they then refuse to come to a universal approach to correcting what they essentially started. Not to say Obama hasn't been spending too much as well, he isn't blameless but he took on a sinking ship.

 

with a default they will still be able to borrow money, but the rates at which the government and US financial institutions get money would be horrible rates and that will ultimately get passed on to the American public, a default really is not the best idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your whole argument is based on opinions, which are yours and what you believe. There is nothing to suggest that your opinions are right or wrong, since they are founded on hypothetical situations. I can say the opposite is what will happen, but there is nothing to say that I am right.

 

To suggest that there should be less government because that is what was in place in the past, is being extremely naive to the complexities of today's world. There us nothing to say that big business will not ruin America with it's unbridled capitalistic urges. That is what I think will take place if we do as your kind wants us to do. Can I prove it? No, but you can not prove it will not happen either. That is my point, we can go round and round in this topic, but without substaniative proove or theory, it is all based on hypotheticals and opinions. And austrian economics are surprisingly void of any kind of mathematical equations compared to other economical theories.

 

You like to lump people into categories like you saying I watch hanity, but the truth is I have never seen one thing from him. I have tOld you that before.

 

I do not think people like you who support the debt ceiling being raised will ever be able to understand the point of, what good is balanced budget or anything else, when people are dying because they can not get medical care, they are starving because they can not afford food, and the unemployed or those working for slave wages are suffering just because companies can do make more money then they will ever need.

 

BTW I will never agree with you about the weapons thing. No need to continue that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...