PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Trust



Tylerdurden
09-06-2011, 05:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXNqcYh0MpA&feature=player_embedded

wardd
09-06-2011, 05:19 PM
paul was stupid then and he hasn't improved with age

RonW
09-06-2011, 06:01 PM
wardd--
paul was stupid then and he hasn't improved with age

You got your pictures confused wardd, that is a picture of Al Gore and in that case you are correct...

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-06-2011, 06:15 PM
We need a 77 year old president like we need another aperature in our backsides. And for every rational idea Paul has had he has 20 irrational ones. Not even the craziest, most zealous right-winger wants to live in an America that is a replay of the 1880s.

RonW
09-06-2011, 06:33 PM
Good ad. Ron smacked Rick big time. It won't help, though.

Don't bet on that...Perry is as phony as Bachmann and is the globalists ace in the hole in case the big -0-
continues to disappoint, which he will. As people find out who perry really is he will slide down and out, just like bachman will
who paid for 4,000 of the 4,800 votes she got in Iowa..

Well better go feed and water the stock, stage is due anytime.....HUH Chuckie....

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-06-2011, 07:23 PM
Well better go feed and water the stock, stage is due anytime.....HUH Chuckie....

Your knowledge of history is about as lame as your knowledge of our constitution.
In the 1880s we had child labor. Little kids working in mills and mines for as long as 12 hour. Little kids got sick and died and were mamed on the job just like adults. The average work week was six 12 hour days and sometimes more. The average lifespan for a man was 48 years. Lots of TB, typhoid and cholera. Cholera was hell on infants. Orphanges in big cities were usually loaded. In some cases kids were turned over to orphanages so they wouldn't starve. So forget about the movie images. Life was often brutish, nasty and short even as The Golden Age allowed bankers and business men to live like gods.

RodSBT
09-06-2011, 07:30 PM
Your knowledge of history is about as lame as your knowledge of our constitution.
In the 1880s we had child labor. Little kids working in mills and mines for as long as 12 hour. Little kids got sick and died and were mamed on the job just like adults. The average work week was six 12 hour days and sometimes more. The average lifespan for a man was 48 years. Lots of TB, typhoid and cholera. Cholera was hell on infants. Orphanges in big cities were usually loaded. In some cases kids were turned over to orphanages so they wouldn't starve. So forget about the movie images. Life was often brutish, nasty and short even as The Golden Age allowed bankers and business men to live like gods.

Back up your claims with some facts Chuck. Show us where RP wants to do all those things you claim above.

RonW
09-06-2011, 08:24 PM
Poor old chuckie is a little confused....quite a few of our founding fathers lived to be in their 70:s and even 80"s
even old daniel boone that lived a hard life lived to the ripe old age of 86.
And most people back then worked way less then 6 months out of the year.
You see they didn't owe their souls to the banks and utility companies as well as the government.

AND NO CHUCKIE CAN'T BACK UP HIS STATEMENTS ABOUT RON PAUL, HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND FREEDOM AND LIBERTY,
BUT DOES UNDERSTAND UNION DUES.........

ccmanuals
09-06-2011, 08:33 PM
What is it about Reagan that sends shivers up the spine of the right? I just don't get it. I personally thought he was a very ineffective POTUS.

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-06-2011, 08:48 PM
Back up your claims with some facts Chuck. Show us where RP wants to do all those things you claim above.

I've seen Paul numerous time break out his a-bomb defense when he is backed into a corner. He says, "there's nothing about that in the constitution" or words to that effect. That can be said about a huge number of laws now being enforced. Laws that most sensable people would not want to do without.
I didn't intend to say say Paul is trying to bring about the above but his liberterian philosphy would eliminate so much federal authority that the result would be something close to an 1880 America. No control over foodstuffs,medications, public health, the environment, mineral extraction, the banking system, the exploitation of federally owned lands. And on and on.
Anyone that thinks Ron Paul's America could come to fruition and their lives would not be drastically altered must be on something.

Keith Wilson
09-06-2011, 08:54 PM
And most people back then worked way less then 6 months out of the year.LOL!! Somebody desperately needs to read a little history.

FWIW most of the founding fathers (not all) were from the top of the upper class in America.

RonW
09-06-2011, 09:06 PM
Cuyahoga..-
but his liberterian philosphy would eliminate so much federal authority that the result would be something close to an 1880 America. No control over foodstuffs,medications, public health, the environment, mineral extraction, the banking system, the exploitation of federally owned lands. And on and on.

Humbug..poppycock..The banking system would be controlled by congress, they and they alone have the right to coin money, not the privately owned federal reserve that was established in 1913 and now has delivered us into the 2nd. great depression.
And as for the rest, reread your constitution, it specifically spells out the authority of the federal government,
and plainly states that all other rights of authority belongs to the states, and this is restated again for the 2nd.
time in the bill of rights, called the 10th. amendment.

Bruce Hooke
09-06-2011, 09:07 PM
I heard an interesting point made today about the 1800's that is highly relevant to today. Through the 1800's the US economy swung back and forth in a boom and bust cycle with big upswings and really vicious downswings (recessions). The economy back then was relatively unregulated laissez-faire capitalism and the vicious boom and bust cycle was one of the less pleasant results. By the end the business leaders were begging the government for more regulations to even out the fluctuations. Our current economic downturn is a result of too little regulation, especially in the banking sector. If we shift to even less regulation we can expect more vicious recessions like the current one.

Bruce Hooke
09-06-2011, 09:13 PM
Poor old chuckie is a little confused....quite a few of our founding fathers lived to be in their 70:s and even 80"s
even old daniel boone that lived a hard life lived to the ripe old age of 86.

Yes, some people (especially people from the uppermost classes) lived to a ripe old age back then. With all of our modern medicine we have not done much to extend the maximum lifespan that a person can live to. What we have done is greatly increase the number of people who live to those ripe old ages. Even 80 years ago not so many people made it to 65 years of age. This is partly a result of medical science, especially in the area of infant mortality (I would quite likely be dead twice over if it was not for modern medicine). It also has a good bit to do with workplaces (and homes and public spaces) having gotten a whole lot safer. Time was when our mines looked more like the mines in China do now in terms of the number of people killed in accidents every year. The mills were not much better, nor were sailing ships for that matter.

RonW
09-06-2011, 09:14 PM
bruce-
So, if we shift to even less regulation we can expect more vicious recessions like the current one.

Who said we would shift to less regulation, it is not how much, but proper.
Try repealing the frank dodds garbage bill and reinstating the glass-steagall act..

Bruce Hooke
09-06-2011, 09:15 PM
bruce-

Who said we would shift to less regulation, it is not how much, but proper.
Try repealing the frank dodds garbage bill and reinstating the glass-steagall act..

From what I have seen of Ron Paul's positions he certainly seems to me to be in favor of a lot less government regulation.

BrianY
09-06-2011, 10:04 PM
Your knowledge of history is about as lame as your knowledge of our constitution.
In the 1880s we had child labor. Little kids working in mills and mines for as long as 12 hour. Little kids got sick and died and were mamed on the job just like adults. The average work week was six 12 hour days and sometimes more. The average lifespan for a man was 48 years. Lots of TB, typhoid and cholera. Cholera was hell on infants. Orphanges in big cities were usually loaded. In some cases kids were turned over to orphanages so they wouldn't starve. So forget about the movie images. Life was often brutish, nasty and short even as The Golden Age allowed bankers and business men to live like gods.

Sounds like the outcome of a small government/libertarian/tea party wet dream:

Eliminate the departments of labor, education and OSHA = child labor, 12 hour days and increased rates of workplace injury
Eliminate the department of public health and the CDC = Lots of TB, typhoid and cholera
Eliminate welfare, public housing and other social programs = orphanages loaded with kids that their parent gave up because they could afford to feed or clothe them
Eliminate government regulation of business, banks, etc. = bankers and businessmen living like gods

but that stuff won't happen, right? The individual states will take care of all this stuff, right?

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-06-2011, 10:37 PM
Cuyahoga..-

Humbug..poppycock..The banking system would be controlled by congress, they and they alone have the right to coin money, not the privately owned federal reserve that was established in 1913 and now has delivered us into the 2nd. great depression.
And as for the rest, reread your constitution, it specifically spells out the authority of the federal government,
and plainly states that all other rights of authority belongs to the states, and this is restated again for the 2nd.
time in the bill of rights, called the 10th. amendment.

The Federal reserve don't print money, bubba, that's just some right-wing nonsense from REDNEK America. It's the Controller of the Currency that prints the dough. It's a branch of the federal executive as I recall. Just because you never heard of it don't mean it doesn't exist. And I don't think the job of Controller of the Currency has ever been challenged in court so for now it's constitutionally acceptable.
There will be a test on Friday. Bring a #2 pencil.

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-06-2011, 10:41 PM
From what I have seen of Ron Paul's positions he certainly seems to me to be in favor of a lot less government regulation.

If that is all you got from Paul's ramblings you certainly weren't paying very close attention and your comments will certainly not make much of a dent in the conciousness of those that follow him.

Tylerdurden
09-07-2011, 06:31 AM
s
I heard an interesting point made today about the 1800's that is highly relevant to today. Through the 1800's the US economy swung back and forth in a boom and bust cycle with big upswings and really vicious downswings (recessions). The economy back then was relatively unregulated laissez-faire capitalism and the vicious boom and bust cycle was one of the less pleasant results. By the end the business leaders were begging the government for more regulations to even out the fluctuations. Our current economic downturn is a result of too little regulation, especially in the banking sector. If we shift to even less regulation we can expect more vicious recessions like the current one.

Now to get your revisionist history back on track.

An unbiased chart of the boom bust cycle from 1775 to 1943 http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/bb/issue/5069/download/85250/1943chart_busibooms.pdf

It becomes pretty clear that those who paint the Federal Reserve system as a savior are full of **** as most everything else the statist has to say.
If you will take care to note that during the times of the early central bank the swings were almost as vicious as during the time of the fed and those times that we were with a system the founders envisioned the swings were moderate and natural. Idiots want to paint a picture of sound money as dangerous as could be but the facts speak otherwise. Sound money and sound enforcement of law against fraud and criminality take the danger of swings and moderate than considerably. Only when fiat money rules and criminals of wealth go unchallenged do you have the issues statists use as a weapon. Just as we have season so does any economy. It cannot be avoided only moderated by fair and equitable management and the holdings of citizens at large.

RonW
09-07-2011, 07:21 AM
My, My, MY, it is no wonder that we have the kind of discussions that we do in the bilge,
it is because there are those and plenty of them that just has no idea what so ever...
Tyler is trying to educate bruce, and my buddy chuckie really surprised me with this..


The Federal reserve don't print money, bubba, that's just some right-wing nonsense from REDNEK America. It's the Controller of the Currency that prints the dough. It's a branch of the federal executive as I recall. Just because you never heard of it don't mean it doesn't exist. And I don't think the job of Controller of the Currency has ever been challenged in court so for now it's constitutionally acceptable.
There will be a test on Friday. Bring a #2 pencil.

Don't even bother showing up for the test friday chuck, it would be just a waste of time....

Well here is the dirty rotten truth chuck.....The federal reserve is not a branch of the government, but a privately owned
corporation that was established in 1913.There are as I recall 5 federal reserve banks under the federal reserve.
And yes the federal reserve owns the printing presses and decides how much money to print along with
how much credit to create in the credit markets.This is all called fractional reserve banking, and where the term
fiat currency comes from. The money and credit they create goes out to the 5 fed banks and then sold to all
the other banks. This is where the banks get their money from, not your savings book.
This where allen greenspan allowed the credit markets to overinflate in the 90's.
This is why deficit spending by the government is bad......very bad....
the banks are borrowing from the federal reserve, and buying government bonds instead of loaning the money to the public..

You guys can not discuss economics until you have a basic understanding of how the system works.
And to bust your bubble one more time.....FDIC you know the part of the gov, that insures your savings
in case there is a run on the banks..........Well this is also a private corporation and the money is put into it by the banks
as a percentage of their deposits. Kinda like a self insured...Well they are broke too..........

I would advise you read ron paul's book end the fed.....and then we can talk..

Tylerdurden
09-07-2011, 07:45 AM
Chuck is god for a laugh being one of the most ignorant believers in the propaganda matrix. What do you expect from a guy who comments on threads while admitting he only reads the title. Dudes still on dial up so we know he never watched the above video while quoting directly from the DHS coloring book. He definitely has a little more classical education than Wadd so he has the ability to pull it off with the most naive readers where Wadd doesn't.

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-07-2011, 11:20 AM
I was wrong but so are you, ronnie. The federal government could hardly turn the printing of US money over to a private entity like the Federal Reserve. Money is printed by the US Treasury's Office of Engraving and Printing and distributed by the Federal Reserve bank. That's a big difference from what you dug up on REDNEKNETWORK. org. Why you spreading all those redneck fantasies, bubba? All the correct answers to the test are on Wikipedia.

RonW
09-07-2011, 12:17 PM
Yep chuckie you are wrong and still are wrong.....You are under a false illusion if you think our treasury secretary timothy geitner is in charge of the printing presses and the credit markets. ...Why do you think ben bernake the head of the federal reserve is called helicopter ben, it is due to his printing of
money and devaluing the american dollar...think you had better do more reserch before you look silly arguing with me.........

Untill then this site may help you......www.grosslyuniformedliberals.com

wardd
09-07-2011, 12:36 PM
Comparison to Federal Reserve NotesBoth United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Notes) are parts of the national currency of the United States, and both have been legal tender since the gold recall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102) of 1933. Both have been used in circulation as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them came from different statutes.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note#cite_note-USTfaq-23) United States Notes were created as fiat currency, in that the government has never categorically guaranteed to redeem them for precious metal - even though at times, such as after the specie resumption of 1879, federal officials were authorized to do so if requested. The difference between a United States Note and a Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note represented a "bill of credit" and was inserted by the Treasury directly into circulation free of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt purchased by the Federal Reserve, and thus generate seigniorage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage), or interest, for the Federal Reserve System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System), which serves as a lending intermediary between the Treasury and the public.


the treasury can issue money directly

RonW
09-07-2011, 12:47 PM
good post wardd, now do you understand it......

and this is the best part....


United States Notes were created as fiat currency, in that the government has never categorically guaranteed to redeem them for precious metal

Now where is keith saying anyone that would use the word fiat currency isn't worth listening to let alone discussing economics with.........

and some of you may begin to understand where Ron Paul is coming from..

wardd
09-07-2011, 12:56 PM
good post wardd, now do you understand it......

and this is the best part....



Now where is keith saying anyone that would use the word fiat currency isn't worth listening to let alone discussing economics with.........

and some of you may begin to understand where Ron Paul is coming from..

it's still legal tender and i bet you wouldn't refuse them

wardd
09-07-2011, 12:58 PM
seems some people think money has value in and of itself and not for it's agreed purchasing power

John Smith
09-07-2011, 01:03 PM
What is it about Reagan that sends shivers up the spine of the right? I just don't get it. I personally thought he was a very ineffective POTUS.

Reagan, or the Reagan they like to remember, is a myth. His "worshippers" appose raising taxes, but he did so many times. They oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants, but he granted it. The oppose deficit spending, but it was his standard operating procedure.

Rick Perry supporting Al Gore was a long time ago. It is far from the best thing to hold against Perry, as there are so many more recent things one can hold against him.

TANSTAF1
09-07-2011, 02:16 PM
Reagan started with what was then the biggest tax cut in history to get us out of Jimmy's malaise. He then got snookered by Tip who promised but did not deliver spending cuts in return for tax hikes. If all parts of the immigration bill Reagan signed had been enforced, we would have little immigration or a lot of employers would have face criminal prosecution.

I don't know about Perry yet. Yes, his support for HalGore was along time ago. But Reagan was a New Dealer, FDR supporting liberal Democrat at one time. Perry's recent views are Ok except on immigration, but that is a critical issue.

The one thing we can say about Ron Paul is that his views are consistent. I like his views on fiscal and constitutinal matters. His other views, including important ones like Iran having nukes, not so much.

Tylerdurden
09-07-2011, 04:41 PM
These guys don't like Ron Paul for one reason. He is a principled man who actually lives by his principles. That is outside their comprehension.

wardd
09-07-2011, 04:45 PM
These guys don't like Ron Paul for one reason. He is a principled man who actually lives by his principles. That is outside their comprehension.

lots of principled men in the past have done evil things

i'd like a lot of pragmatism in the mix

if it doesn't work change, not a lot more of the same

Glen Longino
09-07-2011, 04:51 PM
These guys don't like Ron Paul for one reason. He is a principled man who actually lives by his principles. That is outside their comprehension.

More simplistic gobbledygook from the Doomster!
Move along!

RonW
09-07-2011, 04:52 PM
wardd -
if it doesn't work change, not a lot more of the same

So I take it you are ready for a change, once again....

wardd
09-07-2011, 04:53 PM
wardd -

So I take it you are ready for a change, once again....

what hasn't worked and why hasn't it worked?

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
09-08-2011, 06:21 AM
It looks like Perry's a little angry about Paul bringing up his record. It seems he wants to be elected based on the strength of his hairstyle.

http://i.imgur.com/PMSBK.jpg

TANSTAF1
09-08-2011, 07:34 AM
I understand Paul won a straw poll on who won the debate, but while I think he did as well as the others I don't think he won it, although I have no opinion on who did. if I was pressed I would say Newt but he's just hanging in there so he can payoff campaign debt. For a first debate Perry did Ok (especially since everyone was gunning for him), but just OK and he needs to develop some better answers and not looks so nervous. Certainly Perry's hair was better than Bachmann's although on one close up I noticed onbe strand oout of place on Mitt's. He needs to speak with his hair stylist and Michelle needs to fire hers along with Rollins and the rest of her staff.

Bruce Hooke
09-08-2011, 07:56 AM
If that is all you got from Paul's ramblings you certainly weren't paying very close attention and your comments will certainly not make much of a dent in the conciousness of those that follow him.

That is not all I've gotten from his ramblings. It is just the point that seemed relevant at the moment.

I don't think a sledge hammer would make the least dent in the consciousness of ardent followers. I am more interested in speaking to those who might have not taken a close look at Paul's positions and might not realize how extreme many of his positions are. Those who are already hooked on Ron Paul are so sold on him that nothing said by anyone who is not an ardent follower of him is likely to change their opinion in the least. Fortunately, as past presidential elections have demonstrated, Paul has a small band of very ardent and vocal followers but he is completely unable to win over the much larger number of voters necessary to win a national election.

TANSTAF1
09-08-2011, 08:16 AM
I am not an ardent follower of Paul. In fact I only recently put him on my radar screen. While I agree with many of his fiscal and constitutional positions, most people who have become accustomed to the federal government doing everything and can't imagine anything different and it is difficult to explain how things could be dramatically in 30 second sound bytes including how to transition from our current baby sitted situation to one of self reliance and private charity.

RonW
09-08-2011, 08:24 AM
I am more interested in speaking to those who might have not taken a close look at Paul's positions and might not realize how extreme many of his positions are. Those who are already hooked on Ron Paul are so sold on him that nothing said by anyone who is not an ardent follower of him is likely to change their opinion in the least.

Not really....unfortunately Ron Paul is so speaking so far over the heads or knowledge of the average american in politics,
constitution and economy that it is not funny..And that may hurt him...

RonW
09-08-2011, 08:56 AM
Norman Bernstein-

I'm going to break my silence only briefly here,

Why the silence ? I always look forward to your political views. Sooo informative..

I almost agree with your analyzation of the due process at hand..It is now a 3 way race, in no particular order--
Romney, Paul and perry...and I think perry will sink like a rock as more people find out who and what he is as well as open his mouth..
As I said in another thread, newt will be entertaining ...and straighten out the commentators..

TANSTAF1
09-08-2011, 09:14 AM
Norman Bernstein-


Why the silence ? I always look forward to your political views. Sooo informative..

I almost agree with your analyzation of the due process at hand..It is now a 3 way race, in no particular order--
Romney, Paul and perry...and I think perry will sink like a rock as more people find out who and what he is as well as open his mouth..
As I said in another thread, newt will be entertaining ...and straighten out the commentators..

Actually I think Paul did explain that a silver dime was now worth $3.00 (according to him).

As for minimum wage jobs, I think such a job is better than none. I think Perry should also explain that the cost of living is lower in TX.

I appreciate a Lefty's view take on the debate. I would also hope you can make a brief return and comment on tonight's campaign speech, but do keep it brief.

RonW
09-08-2011, 09:51 AM
Norman--
His point was indeed clever, although he didn't mention whether the inflation was in the price of gas, or the price of silver.


Maybe, just maybe his point was actually the devaluing of the dollar...

Hey norm only 8 hours to go....get the snacks ready...

Tylerdurden
09-09-2011, 06:27 AM
Rick Perry Fears Ron Paul Today’s headlines say it all:
Drudge Report (http://drudgereport.com/): “UP IN HIS FACE: PERRY GETS AGGRESSIVE…”
UK Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/sep/08/rick-perry-ron-paul-photos): “Rick Perry and Ron Paul get intense during Republican presidential debate”
The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/8/perry-vs-paul-texas-sized-war/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS): ”Perry vs. Paul: A Texas-sized war – Off-camera confrontation captures tension”
Here’s the photo that has everyone talking:
http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/RTR2QXNK_560.jpg (http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/RTR2QXNK_560.jpg)
Does Rick Perry looked worried to you?

TANSTAF1
09-09-2011, 06:49 AM
No.

Tylerdurden
09-09-2011, 07:24 AM
No.

Are you telling me your supporting the Dominionist Perry?

TANSTAF1
09-09-2011, 07:49 AM
Nope, jest sayin' he doesn't look worried.

But as I have said before I like Paul's fiscal and constitutional views, but his foreign policy worries me. Quite frankly he could nto do much with his fiscal and constitutional views, but he could make this world very unsafe for us.

Besides while he may move the yard line, there is no way he is going to win.

So once again we are left with a choice of the lesser of two evils.

When Paul loses who is your second choice or are you going to sit it out and help Obama win? for people who are truly prepared like you I suppose there is some merit to that. the collapse will come even faster.

RodSBT
09-09-2011, 09:04 AM
..So once again we are left with a choice of the lesser of two evils...

As long as the American public practices this form of voting we will continue to have evil in the oval office. Clear and simple.

And as far as RP's foreign policies go, if we had been following the constitution in 2001 9/11 would never have happened.

We don't need hundreds of mil. bases spread over 100 + countries to be safe. By doing so we have compromised our safety at home and have run up debt to the tune of trillions of dollars and with wars abroad costing us $1 trillion per yr. we have sunk our own ship the same way previous empires have.

You vote for the perry's and the obamas and romneys and the... all you get is the same pile of $h!t with a new swarm of flies.

Bobcat
09-09-2011, 09:13 AM
snip

And as far as RP's foreign policies go, if we had been following the constitution in 2001 9/11 would never have happened.



Please explain this statement. I am not sure exactly what you're saying.

RonW
09-09-2011, 09:16 AM
RodSBT-
And as far as RP's foreign policies go, if we had been following the constitution in 2001 9/11 would never have happened.

We don't need hundreds of mil. bases spread over 100 + countries to be safe. By doing so we have compromised our safety at home and have run up debt to the tune of trillions of dollars and with wars abroad costing us $1 trillion per yr. we have sunk our own ship the same way previous empires have.


AMEN the southern border has been open for at least 30 years...

RonW
09-09-2011, 09:18 AM
bobcat-
Please explain this statement. I am not sure exactly what you're saying

It is called secured borders and legal immigration..as well as non interferance into foeign nations that have not attakced us..

ccmanuals
09-09-2011, 09:18 AM
I think Perry should also explain that the cost of living is lower in TX

what leads you to believe this?

Bobcat
09-09-2011, 09:31 AM
bobcat-

It is called secured borders and legal immigration..as well as non interferance into foeign nations that have not attakced us..

So is your theory that the highjackers would have been stopped or that they would not have even been interested in attacking the USA?

If the former, how do you reconcile Paul's call in the debate to leave security to the airlines and abolish federal oversight of aviation security?

RonW
09-09-2011, 09:41 AM
bobcat...
So is your theory that the highjackers would have been stopped or that they would not have even been interested in attacking the USA?

Both..


If the former, how do you reconcile Paul's call in the debate to leave security to the airlines and abolish federal oversight of aviation security?

Sure I do...homeland security started off with tom ridge who went on t.v. and said you need a flashlight, extra batteries, drinking water and duct tape..
Now it has became a bloated goat to the tune of approx. $70. billion a year, divide that figure up between the taxpayers and see what you get..
We have laws on the books for foreign nationals coming into this country at international airports..So the airports would have their own security and a lot less cost, and they would not be moronich abusive clownish tsa agents. Why harass american citizens flying within the continental U.S.
And who would pay for this security, the people that buy plane tickets that's who...not all the taxpayers with a police state program that is unconstitutional.

RodSBT
09-09-2011, 11:03 AM
So is your theory that the highjackers would have been stopped or that they would not have even been interested in attacking the USA?

If the former, how do you reconcile Paul's call in the debate to leave security to the airlines and abolish federal oversight of aviation security?

Federal over site of aviation security didn't work on 9/11. Some of the high jackers were stopped at one of the terminals by security and higher authorities i.e the liability lawyers told sec. to let them through, didn't want to look un PC. They played the game of telling airline passengers for years, in case of a high jacking do what the highjackers tell you and we (the fed gov) will come and save you. Didn't work out so well. By preventing passengers from exercising their constitutional right of self defense they (the fed. gov) became accomplices to the crime.

If we had been following the constitution from the beginning our fed. gov wouldn't have been stuffing their noses in everyone elses' business i.e. cia et al screwing with international geopolitics. Following the constitution we wouldn't have the fed. reserve screwing up our money, financing the above BS and then sending us dimwits the bill.

We would have sound money, a fed. gov that worked for the people instead of for self interest, strong borders, a strong military that would actually secure OUR borders instead of foreign nations borders (let them fix their own problems). Think of the savings that could be spent here at home where it matters instead of the gov. waste, military adventures ....not to mention the bale out of wall street and banksters that do nothing but suck the life out of this country.

Arizona Bay
09-09-2011, 11:50 AM
Coulda woulda shoulda.... simplistic TP party, selfish, anarchist thinking, absolutely no concept of the interconnection and interdependence of things.

But the Messiah Ron Paul has come to save you

Good luck with that

Gerarddm
09-09-2011, 12:04 PM
Well, a humbler foreign policy as Ron Paul advocates isn't a bad thing. Obama is doing a lite version of that now, viz Libya.

RP says hell, trade with everybody, and I agree: I have absolute faith that capitalism can cheerfully corrupt any society, no matter how closed.

It is his rigid constitutional views and naively simplistic fiscal policies that turn me off, in fact.

RodSBT
09-09-2011, 02:07 PM
Coulda woulda shoulda.... simplistic TP party, selfish, anarchist thinking, absolutely no concept of the interconnection and interdependence of things.

But the Messiah Ron Paul has come to save you

Good luck with that

With all due respect this is a pile of bull dung!

Go study up on the what the constitution is and says and then look up anarchy. With any luck you may become enlightened.

wardd
09-09-2011, 04:19 PM
With all due respect this is a pile of bull dung!

Go study up on the what the constitution is and says and then look up anarchy. With any luck you may become enlightened.

what does the constitution say about net neutrality?