Ron Paul kicks ass

JAP said: "[SIZE=2]This man is very astute, and he tells it like it is. He knows and understands how the FED manipulates the stock market and is determined to put and end to it. [/SIZE] [SIZE=2]In this Youtube vid, he explains FED manipulation and how the US should get back to a gold standard...[/SIZE] [URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8&mode=related&search"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8&mode=related&search[/URL]= In this video he nails the FED and Bernanke to the wall. I wish Bernanke's response was included... [URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q&mode=related&search"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q&mode=related&search[/URL]= Do you want true, free market trade? Then you had better vote for this man in 2008... I know I am!"

cwms said: "[QUOTE=JAP][SIZE=2]This man is very astute, and he tells it like it is. He knows and understands how the FED manipulates the stock market and is determined to put and end to it. [/SIZE] [/QUOTE] [B]They may even want to stop the rain from falling, but guess what, it ain't going to happen[/B]"

JAP said: "[quote=cwms][B]They may even want to stop the rain from falling, but guess what, it ain't going to happen[/B][/quote] Who are "they"?"

cwms said: "Your post says the Fed wants to put an end to the stock market. "They" being the Fed may even want to stop the rain, but it ain't going to happen in my lifetime or my grandson's lifetime."

JAP said: "[quote=cwms]Your post says the Fed wants to put an end to the stock market. "They" being the Fed may even want to stop the rain, but it ain't going to happen in my lifetime or my grandson's lifetime.[/quote] No it doesn't. It says "Ron Paul" wants to put an end to FED manipulation of the stock market. Read it again."

cwms said: "[QUOTE=JAP]No it doesn't. It says "Ron Paul" wants to put an end to FED manipulation of the stock market. Read it again.[/QUOTE] My apologies. As far as manipulating the market....all the chairman has to do is make a comment like "irrational exhuberance" and the market drops 10%."

newinvestor123 said: "Yeah... Ron Paul, in my opinion, is the best candidate for President, hands down. If there is even a smidgen of hope for him to actually win, I'll definitely vote for him... And I think that there might be. I surf the internet the majority of my time at work, and I frequent sites that are labeled as "Web2.0," such as digg and reddit. I constantly see support for Ron Paul, in articles which frequently make their way to the top of the article listings by way of being 'voted up,' and the comments regarding Ron Paul are almost always positive. These websites are not trivial either - According to Alexa, digg is the 22nd most visited site in North America. In a recent CNBC internet poll on the republican debate, Ron Paul scored the highest on good questions and the lowest on bad ones, so according to the internet community, he has an EXCELLENT chance. I think this election is going to be the first of which that highlights the internet's power to disseminate information and ideas, and enables the masses to separate the political wheat from the chaff. In the past, if you had no money, you had no campaign. Today, if people like what you say and who you are, they do your advertising work for you, and (not to be cliche, but..) Web 2.0 is the enabler. Ron Paul speaks frankly and wisely on a myriad of subjects, the people like him, and they are making a concerted effort to spread the word. And it's working. The interesting thing will be to see exactly how the mass media will react to overwhelming internet support for candidates they do not favor. In the past, they could simply refuse them access to debates, a few people might find out, but not enough to do anything. Now, not long after something like that is leaked, news of it is plastered throughout the internet - And if it is not fixed, an outcry ensues. A sufficient number of people are online now that the internet has graduated from a novelty to a social force which MUST be reckoned with. Of course, this is all just my opinion, and we'll see how things play out, but I have a little hope that someone who is fit to be the President MIGHT actually have a chance at winning. One can only hope. [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18436681/[/url] (The poll) [url]http://www.digg.com/search?s=%22ron+paul%22&submit=Search§ion=news&type=both&area=promoted&sort=score[/url]"

Kloewer said: "This is a great post, JAP. I hope everyone gets a chance to watch the videos. I'll be voting for R.P. if given the chance, as well as any other Libertarians on the ballot. And it's definitely got me thinking about putting some cash into gold. I do have a question for any economists out there. My understanding is that inflation--to a degree--is healthy because of the disparity between price and labor costs. That is, inflation provides companies the prospect of revenue growth ahead of increases in their labor costs--thus giving them an incentive to grow even if their business is otherwise stagnant. So is inflation universally bad, or is there some credence to this arguement?"

JohnL said: "I'm voting for R.P. too."

newinvestor123 said: "[url]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3147940&page=1[/url]"

JAP said: "[COLOR=#000000]FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 8, 2007 ARLINGTON, VA – Congressman Ron Paul's support has soared since the first Republican presidential debate. Conservative commentator John McLaughlin, host of “The McLaughlin Group," cited Ron Paul as having given "the best performance of the debate." In fact, the Paul campaign's apparent strength has many other pundits scrambling to explain it. Paul campaign officials offer the following examples of the candidate's rising success. Since the debate on May 3, Ron Paul: 1. Handily won two post-debate polls posted by event sponsor MSNBC. 2. Placed a close third (18%) in a post-debate poll on the conservative Drudge Report. 3. Won an ABCNews.com online debate poll with 84%. 4. Won a C-SPAN online GOP candidate poll with 69%. 5. Became the third most-mentioned person in the blogosphere, beating out Paris Hilton, according to the reputable Technorati.com. 6. Produced a YouTube.com video that was ranked the 8th most popular overall video, and the most-viewed political video. 7. Was featured, by popular demand, on the front of Digg.com. 8. Generated so many bulletin posts on MySpace.com that the site owner News Corp. blocked all additional posts about Dr. Paul. 9. Became a "most searched" term on Google and Yahoo!. 10. Saw a quadrupling of daily visitors to RonPaul2008.com. "These figures speak for themselves," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul has quickly become a strong contender for the GOP nomination because of his powerful message of freedom and limited government." -30- [URL="http://www.ronpaul2008.com"][COLOR=#800080]http://www.ronpaul2008.com[/COLOR][/URL] [/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000]:) :th_dblthumb2: :) [/COLOR]"

Rickster said: "If those stats are true, we have too many confused and bitter people in the US."

thezster said: "Show me a statistic and I'll show you a figure that has been manipulated to say whatever the statistician wants it to say....."

Rickster said: "Anywhere there is a high concentration of churches, there is a high concentration of crime. Obviously, churches cause crime. Or maybe it is the other way around."

JAP said: "[quote=Rickster]Anywhere there is a high concentration of churches, there is a high concentration of crime. Obviously, churches cause crime. Or maybe it is the other way around.[/quote] Churches cause crime? :signs053: Are you having a bad day today Rick? I only go to church for weddings and funerals."

Rickster said: "haha. I needed a nap. And I avoid funerals and weddings like the plague."

JAP said: "[COLOR=#000000]May 11, 2007 Congressman Ron Paul now has the most YouTube subscribers among the Republican candidates for president. During the last 24 hours, Congressman Paul passed Mitt Romney to take the #1 spot. Paul: 1,961 Romney: 1,889 Giuliani: 1,276 McCain: 1,184 Hunter: 246 Huckabee: 146 Tancredo: 136 Brownback: 65 Gilmore: 26 Ron Paul 2008 YouTube Channel [URL="http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom"][COLOR=#0000ff]http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom[/COLOR][/URL] [/COLOR]"

newinvestor123 said: "[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/paul-said-it.html[/url] [url]http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1622015-1,00.html[/url] [url]http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003585782[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "I could post pro-Ron Paul articles here all day as they are a dime a dozen on the internet right now... Because he has major support! However, the internet community is regarded as being much better informed than your average tv surfing joe, because one must be PROACTIVE when seeking out information on the internet, as opposed to passively watching the television. That said, more people are online than ever before, and I still think that Ron Paul has a (good) chance... And I believe that his chances get better with every televised debate that he's on. Case in point - Remember the latest republican debate on FOX, when you thought Paul was doomed? I just found this clip while perusing reddit.com: [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=D6SfmXigHpE[/url] Now I can understand your hesitance to think that Paul has a chance, but I think that the more coverage he gets, the more people will like him. People are fed up with lying politicians, especially now, when 75% of Americans believe that the country is headed down the wrong path, and Bush's approval rating is at 22%, which, I believe, is the lowest approval rating of any president since they began polling for such things. Paul speaks frankly and clearly, it's obvious that he means what he says, and his track record backs up his integrity 100%. I think people will really begin warming up to him the more they see him. The View is one of the highest rated daytime television women's talk show in the US - I think it's second only to Oprah. Rosie has a huge following, the show is hugely popular, and the only one of them who argued that Ron Paul was wrong was the hollow headed, brainwashed blonde idiot, which is exactly what she looked like on this particular segment. I have never been excited about politics until now, but then again, I have never seen a politician who spoke the truth every time I saw him or her speak..."

Pb3190 said: "JAP, I agree with you that the FED has been messing with the market to some degree... But the market has gone up. I know you have been waiting for a good time to short, but is there anything really wrong with the market going up, even if for the wrong reasons? If Ron Paul follows through on his promise of stopping intervention, could the market not take a large hit? With intervention, the market has continued to move forward. Do the ends justify the means?"

JAP said: "[quote=Pb3190]JAP, I agree with you that the FED has been messing with the market to some degree... But the market has gone up. I know you have been waiting for a good time to short, but is there anything really wrong with the market going up, even if for the wrong reasons? If Ron Paul follows through on his promise of stopping intervention, could the market not take a large hit? With intervention, the market has continued to move forward. Do the ends justify the means?[/quote] In the long term, the ends DO justify the means. We have not had a free market for a long time now. Paul seems to be the only candidate that is aware of this. Everyone else is either ignorant or afraid to rock to boat. Even the UK knows the US stock market is a rigged game. Even though I love his fiscal ideas, his remark about terrorism at the Rebulican debate did not go over well. IMO, he just knocked himself out of the running."

Pb3190 said: "I didn't watch the debate, what was it that he said? I have not really been following anything... Maybe when I can vote I will pay more attention to politics!"

lost said: "Ron Paul is also the leading congressman for the legalization of marijuana... if you look at how he has voted in the past on drug issues he has voted 100% of the time for it.(not direct legalization but issues relating marijuana)"

newinvestor123 said: "[url]http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/31970.exclude.html[/url] [url]http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=2132[/url] [url]http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/18/explaining-the-reaction-to-ron-paul/[/url] [url]http://letters.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2007/05/18/ron_paul/view/index1.html?show=all[/url] [url]http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson[/url] [url]http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=ronpaul2008.com&site1=johnedwards.com&site2=joinrudy2008.com&site3=barackobama.com&site4=gravel2008.us&y=r&z=3&h=400&w=700&range=1m&size=Large&url=ronpaul2008.com[/url]"

LongArm said: "Another problem Ron Paul may have is his age. He'll be 72 in August. When Reagan became the oldest man to become president, he was only 69. And I remember how the media kept harping on the age thing at the time. Perhaps if Paul were 10 years younger, he'd have a slightly better chance."

JAP said: "[quote=LongArm]Another problem Ron Paul may have is his age. He'll be 72 in August. When Reagan became the oldest man to become president, he was only 69. And I remember how the media kept harping on the age thing at the time. Perhaps if Paul were 10 years younger, he'd have a slightly better chance.[/quote] Good point. Isn't McCain also 70 or 71?"

Wangberg said: "i somehow stumbled upon the democratic debate a few weeks ago, and heard the advert for the republican being a week later. I missed it :( This is GREAT stuff though. I really like this guy. i agree with many of his views and would surely vote for him! BTW...who ever said the legalization of marijuana was bad? :stoner:"

Pb3190 said: "[url]http://www.slate.com/id/2165673/?GT1=10034[/url] GOP trying to keep him out of future debates?"

newinvestor123 said: "Yes they are... And they're using his stance on foreign policy and blowback as the reason - Which is total bullshit - I think they're just a bit scared that someone is actually TELLING THE TRUTH and might actually GET SOME VOTES..."

JAP said: "[quote=newinvestor123]Yes they are... And they're using his stance on foreign policy and blowback as the reason - Which is total bullshit - I think they're just a bit scared that someone is actually TELLING THE TRUTH and might actually GET SOME VOTES...[/quote] Also, he wants to change the monetary system and shake down the FED. Institutions, politicians and government organizations are making lots of money. They want things to remain exactly the way they are so they can keep looting the system and the American taxpayer."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=JAP]8. Generated so many bulletin posts on MySpace.com that the site owner News Corp. blocked all additional posts about Dr. Paul.[/QUOTE] I missed this post earlier. News Corp, which owns MySpace, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, one of the most powerful men in the world due to his tremendous international media empire. Guess which side of the political fence he's on? You guessed it - The right. The FAR right... And he is notorious for using his empire to influence the opinions of the masses whichever way he sees fit: [url]http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "I don't believe my eyes... [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.html[/url] The only reason I can see FOX news putting up this piece (which was written by Reason Magazine, not FOX) is that they are attempting to do damage control after Giuliani's ignorant and un-American remarks... Or maybe they are trying to fix their credibility issues (you didn't think FOX was really "fair and balanced," did you?) For whatever reason, it's there, and it's a pretty good pro-Paul article on the Giuliani/Paul exchange. As an aside, it looks like my entire family may be voting for Paul, and I had to twist exactly zero arms to get it that way..."

newinvestor123 said: "CNN on the Paul/Giuliani exchange: [url]http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/250507CNN.htm[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "Bill Maher is also jumping on the Paul bandwagon: [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=vEkjPkXHSEw[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "[url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=92662&page=1[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE[/url] A democratic government is supposed to do the will of the people - But what do the people do when the government manipulates THEM to do it's OWN will? I think that there will always be those in power who have agendas which do not align with those of their constituents, but as of late, I believe the tables have turned against the people and in favor of the government - The corrupt now have a majority. Widespread political apathy and/or a sense of political powerlessness have pervaded American society, and the manipulations of 9/11 by the Administration and subsequent Iraq war is only the first of what may happen if something does not change. I believe that there are relatively few presidential candidates who do not already have their hands in the cookie jar, and fewer still who are unapproachable by those who would use our military for "empire building." Ron Paul is one of those very few. Now that the Iraq war has proven to be a failure, the neocons' credibility has been damaged. It's now time to go in for the kill. It's time to elect someone who will take our country in a completely new direction - The direction that the American people want it to go in, without being manipulated, instead of the direction which is engineered for us. [url]http://www.newamericancentury.org/[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century[/url] [url]http://stopthelie.com/pnac.html[/url] [url]http://www.pnac.info/[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1gNzqyCFC4[/url]"

roarflolo said: "There is only one solution: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution[/url] :th_dblthumb2:"

FirefighterB said: "I just saw the rerun of him on Real Time with Bill Maher and, hell, he did really well. He also, according to Bill, had the best reception of any conservative on his liberal program he's ever seen. He was also very honest about the fact that his chances were slim unless he could raise 100 million dollars. Which, out of all of the candidates, it was neat to see him actually not talk BS about his chances or about "when he gets in office." I don't consider myself a Republican, nor a Democrat, really. I'm pretty damn moderate. However, I really, really like the fact that Paul doesn't BS about things, he doesn't wish wash his positions, and he doesn't lie to me about the dire state our country is in. And, for that, he's definitely going to receive my attention."

newinvestor123 said: "Just in case anyone's wondering about whether the whole "blowback" thesis Paul put forward on the SC GOP debate (which garnered him Giuliani's ridicule) is true or not (although it has been well documented), someone has put together a nice little web page detailing the US's negative foreign policy actions around the world for the last 120 years, which might be worth checking out: [url]http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/world.html[/url] If I were the world, I would be pissed at me too. Ron Paul says we shouldn't be doing things like this."

drdan said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]Just in case anyone's wondering about whether the whole "blowback" thesis Paul put forward on the SC GOP debate (which garnered him Giuliani's ridicule) is true or not (although it has been well documented), someone has put together a nice little web page detailing the US's negative foreign policy actions around the world for the last 120 years, which might be worth checking out: [url]http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/world.html[/url] If I were the world, I would be pissed at me too. Ron Paul says we shouldn't be doing things like this.[/QUOTE] I was going to avoid this conversation not because I do not like Ron Paul (he's actually the most exciting thing coming out of the Republican side besides Giuliani), but I always get my dander up when stuff like this comes along. Although this website may or may not be accurate in its historical record of the bad happenings of US's foreign policy there is no reference made on the good things that America as a leader has done or is currently doing. And do not give me that BS quote that other countries governments spend more per capita on good things than we do, that statistic does not count for the actual American public giving, which is the way we do things here. We as private citizens give rather than our government. The other thing about this website is that hindsight is always 20/20. It is easy to point out things that have been done in the past and say yep that was a mistake. At the time it may have been best for the country with the information at hand. We will never know."

newinvestor123 said: "I thought my last post would ruffle some feathers... Think CNN is unbiased? Think again... [url]http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/missingcomments.php[/url] The more I read, the more I believe the media has already elected the next president. Someone call me a nutzoid conspiracy theorist... [I]Please!!!![/I]"

drdan said: "Well I certainly never said CNN was unbiased :laugh: Whether this is true or not, does it matter? CNN is a business, the news has been a business for years and bias counts for enticing audiences. They are catering to an audience that audience they feel is of a more liberal slant. Do I like it? NO I would prefer to receive unbiased news but instead I have to weed out from both sides and make my own decision. On another point here is a comment from that website and since you follow Ron Paul pretty closely New tell me if he actually said this... Ron Paul. He answered the questions asked. Told the truth. "You don't spread freedom with a barrel of the gun" — best line of the evening Posted By Gor Nishanov, Redmond, WA : June 5, 2007 9:34 pm You don't spread freedom with the barrel of a gun???? Has he missed the last oh I don't know 200 years of history? Although I am a positive thinking individual and I really have a problem with the choice of the phrase War on Terror, the unfortunate reality is that even the greatest country in the world won its freedom with the barrel of a gun."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=drdan]Well I certainly never said CNN was unbiased :laugh:[/QUOTE] That comment was not directed towards you. [QUOTE=drdan]Whether this is true or not, does it matter?[/QUOTE] Of course objectivity matters in journalism - It's one of the cornerstones of a free, democratic society. Here's a nice little quote: [I]...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility[/I] That's taken directly from the Society of Professional Journalists' "Preamble to the Code of Ethics." How truthful or objective was it to remove the public's enthusiastic comments about a Presidential candidate from their website? No, it's not reporting, but shouldn't a news organization's ethics stay withing the bounds of the journalistic code? Of course it should - To stray from that, 50 years ago, would have been unthinkable. Now, it seems to be commonplace. [QUOTE=drdan]CNN is a business, the news has been a business for years and bias counts for enticing audiences.[/QUOTE] How does the removal of those comments further their business interests, except to pander to those who would rather see Ron Paul's direct and honest views removed from the limelight? Obviously, the result of removing comments such as those would mean less exposure for Ron Paul. When a visitor to the website who has no idea who Paul is sees that 95% of those comments are pro Ron Paul, that person would be likely to do some research. I think the status quo knows this, and I think it has them squirming a bit, hence the removal of the comments. Why else? For obvious reasons, it's not due to a lack of storage space. A thousand comments would probably be no more than a few megabytes. Maybe they thought Ron Paul's supporters are spamming the website with responses, and therefore are not valid - Which may be true. He has a large and loyal online following, but is it the duty of the news media to decide what are legitimate comments and what are not? What if 90% of them were legitimate? How could they possibly know? What harm can come from having 100, 1000, or 10,000 pro Ron Paul comments on their website? If they were 90% pro Giuliani, do you think they would have been removed? If I were an objective editor, I would regard the flood of comments as a queue to do a follow up story - Obviously, Ron Paul is what the people want to hear about. And yet, you don't hear much about him on any network... One more thing: This isn't the first time this has happened - FOX did the same thing after the SC Republican debate. Why? [QUOTE=drdan]They are catering to an audience that audience they feel is of a more liberal slant. Do I like it? NO I would prefer to receive unbiased news but instead I have to weed out from both sides and make my own decision.[/QUOTE] Yes, the news media is a business, but when they allow their motive for profit (or politics) to influence their responsibility for fair, objective reporting, that is a problem. The media is here FOR the people and FOR the country - Their profitability and political views of whoever is calling their shots should be secondary. The business supports the society, NOT the other way around. [QUOTE=drdan]On another point here is a comment from that website and since you follow Ron Paul pretty closely New tell me if he actually said this... Ron Paul. He answered the questions asked. Told the truth. "You don't spread freedom with a barrel of the gun" — best line of the evening Posted By Gor Nishanov, Redmond, WA : June 5, 2007 9:34 pm You don't spread freedom with the barrel of a gun???? Has he missed the last oh I don't know 200 years of history?[/QUOTE] Actually, wars have decided borders and national autonomy for all of known history, and guns have been used for the last 700 years. As in all fights, however, there there are aggressors and defenders. Ron Paul's stance is that we have become the aggressors, as per the neoconservative agenda. Worldwide aggression, for any reason, breeds contempt and disdain, as we have already seen, and eventually, when our economy can no longer support the weight of a massive military and world presence, it will fall. (Not to mention all of that foreign debt we owe.. Something like $7 trillion, and growing almost a trillion every year) Oh, and it goes against the principles of the Constitution, which has, since 9/11, become somewhat of a moot point. It seems people just don't care much for the principles that made our country great any more... That said, the poster's quote was not verbatim - Here is what Ron Paul actually said: "We have a lot of goodness in this country, and we should promote it, but never through the barrel of a gun. We should do it by setting good standards, motivating people, and have them want to emulate us. But you can't enforce our goodness, like the neocons preach, with an armed force - It doesn't work. Woodrow Wilson was telling us that about promoting democracy a long time ago - It doesn't work and we have to admit it." [QUOTE=drdan]Although I am a positive thinking individual and I really have a problem with the choice of the phrase War on Terror, the unfortunate reality is that even the greatest country in the world won its freedom with the barrel of a gun.[/QUOTE] We won our freedom against the rule of England after years of unjust taxation, oppression, and massacre. People were starving because England viewed the colonies as a Royal Tax Machine - Our fight was righteous. Now, if the neoconservatives have their way, we will become the aggressors, and their excuse to fight will be for "morality" and the "spread of democracy." If you agree with this policy, then so be it - But I feel that such a policy is horrendously wrong, inherently flawed, and more about greed than anything. If you think our freedoms are in jeopardy and terrorism is bad now, allow the neocons to maintain control for another 20 years... You ain't seen nothing yet. The world will not tolerate an imperialistic US, as Putin recently said. He recognizes the danger, but US citizens are largely ignorant. I know Putin is a dictator who kills those journalists who oppose him, and Russia is still a relatively weak country, but we don't want them as enemies. What are we going to do - Bomb Russia too? The only way out of this is to stop the nation building, concentrate on a defensive military stance, foster a friendly foreign relations and free trade environment, and begin reducing our debt, NOT by fighting more wars. This information is all over the internet, from both credible sources and independent websites. Google is your friend, if you want to find out for yourself. Everything I've said here can be verified. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards[/url]"

Slidingby said: "[QUOTE=Rickster]Anywhere there is a high concentration of churches, there is a high concentration of crime. Obviously, churches cause crime. Or maybe it is the other way around.[/QUOTE] LOL!! - I just bursted out laughing in the middle of my school library reading that!! hahaha!! Rickster for president, because I like your style!! :roll: :th_dblthumb2:"

Slidingby said: "[QUOTE=drdan]I was going to avoid this conversation not because I do not like Ron Paul (he's actually the most exciting thing coming out of the Republican side besides Giuliani), but I always get my dander up when stuff like this comes along. Although this website may or may not be accurate in its historical record of the bad happenings of US's foreign policy there is no reference made on the good things that America as a leader has done or is currently doing. And do not give me that BS quote that other countries governments spend more per capita on good things than we do, that statistic does not count for the actual American public giving, which is the way we do things here. We as private citizens give rather than our government. The other thing about this website is that hindsight is always 20/20. It is easy to point out things that have been done in the past and say yep that was a mistake. At the time it may have been best for the country with the information at hand. We will never know.[/QUOTE] I agree about the hindsight bit with you completely, it is stupid to stand somewhere and preach after the fact, the point of the website, from what I can tell, is just showing the mistakes that have been made and not the positives, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Seriously though, Giuliani can choke on a broomstick for all I care, it's never been so easy for me to look at someone and instantly recognize how much of a scumbag they are, then you actually learn about stuff that he has done. I'm not sure who I am voting for yet but I can tell you one guy that will still be standing in the end, Ron Paul."

FirefighterB said: "Unfortunately, nationbuilding is something that has happened since the beginning of civilization. Maybe they some of them weren't called "nations" back then, but they were still one in the same. The Neanderthal and Homo Sapien, Egyptians and Hittites, Greeks and Trojans, Romans and Gauls, English and French, Americans and Mexicans/Spanish, etc. I know we all like to think that we're so very smart and evolved nowadays, but it's just not the case. I think the proverbial pissing contest of who is the best, who owns what, and who's the boss is one of those things that will likely take many more years (I'm talking hundreds and thousands) to stop, if it ever does. There were "terrorists" that that hated us since we've become a country. They attacked us and threatened our way of life. Oh, wait, maybe they weren't called terrorists...what were they called? Oh yeah, NATIVE Americans, Mexicans, and Spanish. They attacked our "society" because, lo and behold, we were stealing their land and trying to tell them how to live. What's so different now? Sure, maybe it's not land, per se, that we're stealing now, or maybe it's just not so obvious. But, you can't say we aren't telling them how to live (democracy) or who should govern them. (As an aside, this previous example keeps bringing to mind the explosion of the [URL="http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq71-1.htm"]Battleship Maine[/URL]. This was a "terrorist attack" that was proven to be unfounded, in which we decided to go re-arrange someone's country for our own benefit. Even in this case, we decided to attack the Spanish in Cuba so we could put some puppets up there, instead of actually attacking the country in which we believed "masterminded" the attack. However, the Maine wasn't attacked by terrorists, it caught fire and blew up. Public fervor and fear drove us to attack the Spanish in Cuba. Much like it has driven us to attack the Iraqis and, lo and behold, the reasons that lead us to war have been proven to be unfounded.) So, you know what? Maybe we should just stay the hell out of everyone's business. Or, maybe we should continue policing the world, righting the wrongs, and showing people the wonders of democracy. But, if that's our choice, we've gotta stop being so selective on where we go (only countries benefical to us) and stop thinking everyone is going to just LOVE us for doing it. Accept the consequences. The Canadians, the Chinese, the Austrailans, the Italians, and many other countries that, while they help the world cause through the UN, don't decide to impose their will on other countries without consent or general consensus, don't get attacked like we do. They don't garner as much hatred as we do from the Muslim world, although they do in many of their own imperialistic and colonial territories. The bottom line is, wars are part of our being. However, having a mentality and leadership that keeps us out of everyone elses' business in an aggressive way will go a long way to keeping the people that disagree with us out of OUR business in an aggressive way."

Slidingby said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]Unfortunately, nationbuilding is something that has happened since the beginning of civilization. Maybe they some of them weren't called "nations" back then, but they were still one in the same. The Neanderthal and Homo Sapien, Egyptians and Hittites, Greeks and Trojans, Romans and Gauls, English and French, Americans and Mexicans/Spanish, etc. I know we all like to think that we're so very smart and evolved nowadays, but it's just not the case. I think the proverbial pissing contest of who is the best, who owns what, and who's the boss is one of those things that will likely take many more years (I'm talking hundreds and thousands) to stop, if it ever does. There were "terrorists" that that hated us since we've become a country. They attacked us and threatened our way of life. Oh, wait, maybe they weren't called terrorists...what were they called? Oh yeah, NATIVE Americans, Mexicans, and Spanish. They attacked our "society" because, lo and behold, we were stealing their land and trying to tell them how to live. What's so different now? Sure, maybe it's not land, per se, that we're stealing now, or maybe it's just not so obvious. But, you can't say we aren't telling them how to live (democracy) or who should govern them. (As an aside, this previous example keeps bringing to mind the explosion of the [URL="http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq71-1.htm"]Battleship Maine[/URL]. This was a "terrorist attack" that was proven to be unfounded, in which we decided to go re-arrange someone's country for our own benefit. Even in this case, we decided to attack the Spanish in Cuba so we could put some puppets up there, instead of actually attacking the country in which we believed "masterminded" the attack. However, the Maine wasn't attacked by terrorists, it caught fire and blew up. Public fervor and fear drove us to attack the Spanish in Cuba. Much like it has driven us to attack the Iraqis and, lo and behold, the reasons that lead us to war have been proven to be unfounded.) So, you know what? Maybe we should just stay the hell out of everyone's business. Or, maybe we should continue policing the world, righting the wrongs, and showing people the wonders of democracy. But, if that's our choice, we've gotta stop being so selective on where we go (only countries benefical to us) and stop thinking everyone is going to just LOVE us for doing it. Accept the consequences. The Canadians, the Chinese, the Austrailans, the Italians, and many other countries that, while they help the world cause through the UN, don't decide to impose their will on other countries without consent or general consensus, don't get attacked like we do. They don't garner as much hatred as we do from the Muslim world, although they do in many of their own imperialistic and colonial territories. The bottom line is, wars are part of our being. However, having a mentality and leadership that keeps us out of everyone elses' business in an aggressive way will go a long way to keeping the people that disagree with us out of OUR business in an aggressive way.[/QUOTE] :th_salute:"

drdan said: "[quote="newinvestor123"]Yes, the news media is a business, but when they allow their motive for profit (or politics) to influence their responsibility for fair, objective reporting, that is a problem. The media is here FOR the people and FOR the country - Their profitability and political views of whoever is calling their shots should be secondary. The business supports the society, NOT the other way around.[/quote] Even though we are on opposite sides of the aisle on many topics New, we are closer than you might think. I totally agree with your statement here unfortunately this has not been reality since about 1970. Profits have been getting in the way of news for the last 30 years. Rush Limbaugh and several others have been pointing out the bias of the mainstream media for years. He himself is extremely biased...why??? Profits. It is all about getting viewers and the best way to get viewers, passionate viewers that are going to come back again and again is to have a point of view, a bias that is similar to theirs. The owners of the news media business are liberal and therefore their view of the world and what they feel the majority of people want to here has a liberal slant. Ron Paul does not fit that agenda so when he receives a large amount of comments it affects their bottom line. It makes people think that CNN has a bunch of libertarian viewers, that is not acceptable. So I agree with your statmenet as to the way it should be, unfortunatley - it ain't that way! [quote=newinvestor123]"We have a lot of goodness in this country, and we should promote it, but never through the barrel of a gun. We should do it by setting good standards, motivating people, and have them want to emulate us. But you can't enforce our goodness, like the neocons preach, with an armed force - It doesn't work. Woodrow Wilson was telling us that about promoting democracy a long time ago - It doesn't work and we have to admit it." [/quote] This I agree with, except for the neocon comment; thank you for getting the exact quote. But there again you can see how someone's bias can change the way a quote looks and feels. What is stated here is definitely different than that first quote."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]The Canadians, the Chinese, the Austrailans, the Italians, and many other countries that, while they help the world cause through the UN, don't decide to impose their will on other countries without consent or general consensus, don't get attacked like we do. They don't garner as much hatred as we do from the Muslim world, although they do in many of their own imperialistic and colonial territories.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Nor do their governments go to war using trickery and deception to persuade their people that it is the right thing to do - And if they tried, their people would probably question their motives, unlike what happened after 9/11. Do you remember how, one day, we were hunting Bin Laden, and the next, we were going to Iraq? 9/11 was the neocon's Pearl Harbor - They have been yearning to overthrow Saddam and install their own US influenced government in the region for years. In 1997, the PNAC wrote a letter to Clinton urging him to do just that. All they needed was a catalyst. After 9/11, they seized the opportunity and used American's blind trust in our government and lingering anger from watching the towers fall to garner support with half truths, and the people just nodded their heads. Congress didn't even get the final version of the resolution to declare war until a few hours before the deadline, and many signed it simply so they would not look like they were doing nothing. War in Iraq was a foregone conclusion - Consider this interview with General Wesley Clark, which sheds some light on the Pentagon's agenda (the relevant part is about 1/4 down): [url]http://www.cfr.org/publication/9845/iraq.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F6045%2Fpeter_ackerman[/url] There is a huge pool of evidence suggesting they knew beforehand that the war would be protracted, just as there is much evidence suggesting they knew their reasons for going were false. But they did it anyways, and they lied about it the whole way. Indeed, the White House released a statement just a week ago suggesting Bush would like to stay in Iraq for another 50 years: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/05/31/BL2007053101144_pf.html[/url] They are also building the largest US embassy EVER in the middle of Baghdad, even though the majority of the US (and Iraqi) public wants a complete pullout within one year: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101497.html[/url] Does that sound like the actions of a government whose intentions are aligned with the people's? No. I think they were planning this all along. So what are they really interested in? Oil, money, and power. The middle east is a wild card, and with it's huge oil reserves, it is ripe for the pickings of any group with the military might to take it. I'm sure there are those in power who believe we are going to have a religious war on our hands sometime within the next 50 years, and they may be trying to preemptively stop that before it begins by "democratizing" the region. Or they may just want to get the oil. Or they may have simply wanted Saddam, who has been a thorn in the US's side since the Gulf War, out of the global picture. I personally believe that it was all of the above, but I believe the reasons don't have squat to do with liberating the Iraqi people or hunting Bin Laden, except as a poor attempt at justification. Those in power, who are always interested in more power, knew the people, who are usually only interested in living a comfortable life, would not agree with their reasons for going, so they manufactured some. The rest of the world opposed the invasion for good reason: The justification wasn't there, yet we just went along with it. Like lemmings, we trusted in our government to do the right thing, and we are going to be paying the price of that decision for a long time through increased terrorist attacks, taxes, and decreased personal freedoms. And the latter is the scariest, by far. Here's an interesting story, written by the BBC, on how the Bush administration's plan was to destroy OPEC by privatizing Iraq's oil fields and increasing oil production far above OPEC's quota: [url]http://news[/url]. bbc. co.uk /2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm (remove the spaces) It is widely accepted that global warming is, at least in part, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and in the midst of a public push for alternative energy, the Bush administration wants to destroy OPEC and give us basically free oil. Who does this benefit? Not the oil companies, in particular, because cheap oil is detrimental to their bottom line. Not the people of the world, who would rather be using renewable energy than petrol to preserve our environment. Who, indeed? It would directly benefit the neoconservatives, in that they would have a secure energy supply which they could use to further their military agenda. As it stands now, OPEC holds the cards. If we begin taking over other nations, they have the option of simply cutting off our oil. That effectively limits our nation building potential. When the powers that be attempt to remove limits on their power without public knowledge, people should take heed. If the situation were the same in Australia - Huge military, huge economy, big terrorist attacks, complacent people, warmongers running the government - They may have done the same thing. I don't think America is evil or fundamentally flawed. On the contrary, I believe ALL people are fundamentally flawed, regardless of nationality, race, or religious beliefs. All that is needed is for some group to get enough power, and bad things will always happen, no matter which country you're talking about, no matter who gets the power. This has been the case throughout history. It's why communism doesn't work, and it's why dictatorships are bad. The neoconservatives are beginning to get this power through secrecy and manipulation, and as long as Americans remain complacent, the power will go unchecked. Our government is huge and constantly growing. The democrats and republicans both want more money to fund more programs, which means a bigger government. The democrats want more social welfare, the republicans want more war funds. No one seems to care about the vast foreign debt we have accumulated. They have essentially joined forces in the exploitation of the US citizen, but the average person does not notice. The average person will watch a debate or two, vote for whoever was the "snappiest dresser" or said something they liked, and wonder why, in 30 years, he is paying 50% of his salary to the government in taxes and the rest of the world hates us. Hopefully it doesn't come to that point, but then again, as ML Menken said, "Never overestimate the intelligence of the American people." [QUOTE=FirefighterB]The bottom line is, wars are part of our being. However, having a mentality and leadership that keeps us out of everyone elses' business in an aggressive way will go a long way to keeping the people that disagree with us out of OUR business in an aggressive way.[/QUOTE] I absolutely agree. Wars are a fundamental part of our being, or at least they have been in the past. Call me a fool, but a small part of me hopes that one day, humanity will be able to see the folly in fighting wars for all but defense. Note the word "defense." When we give our military money, it's for "defense spending," not "offense spending." Yet, we are going on the offense, and the PNAC and neocons don't want to stop at Iraq - Refer to the Wesley Clark article mentioned above. Ron Paul is running on a policy of non-interventionism, and I believe he will follow through on his promises. I don't think he can be bought, I don't think he will ever compromise his principles, and I don't think he will ever authorize something that does not represent the will of the people. Basically, he has integrity. That's why I like him. I understand that as long as those pesky remnants of that old reptilian brain are sitting on the tops of our brain stems, there will be a compulsion to fight, to acquire territory, to be number one, to follow the crowd. It's just sad that most people aren't intelligent enough to think with that nifty new cortex, and instead repeatedly base their decisions on the whims of their eons old primal brain. However, simply being stupid is a reason I can excuse as somewhat unavoidable, but a group in power which is intelligently manipulating or ignoring altogether the opinions of the public, which they are, by design, supposed to be serving, in order to further their own agenda is completely unacceptable. It strikes me as utterly perverse, considering that we won our independence and designed our government expressly to guard against just such actions. This wasn't directed towards you FF, I'm just bored at work and ranting a bit, and your comments were pretty good springboards."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=drdan]Even though we are on opposite sides of the aisle on many topics New, we are closer than you might think. I totally agree with your statement here unfortunately this has not been reality since about 1970. Profits have been getting in the way of news for the last 30 years. Rush Limbaugh and several others have been pointing out the bias of the mainstream media for years. He himself is extremely biased...why??? Profits. It is all about getting viewers and the best way to get viewers, passionate viewers that are going to come back again and again is to have a point of view, a bias that is similar to theirs. The owners of the news media business are liberal and therefore their view of the world and what they feel the majority of people want to here has a liberal slant. Ron Paul does not fit that agenda so when he receives a large amount of comments it affects their bottom line. It makes people think that CNN has a bunch of libertarian viewers, that is not acceptable. So I agree with your statmenet as to the way it should be, unfortunatley - it ain't that way![/QUOTE] Yes, I am aware that the news media are businesses, and I am aware that they pander a bit to their intended demographic to keep their ratings up and/or subscription income steady. You are telling me nothing new - My questions below were facetious in nature. However, I highly doubt removal of those comments will, in any way, affect their bottom line, public image, or any other measure that you would like to propose, in any significant way. Unless, of course, someone who contributes directly to CNN's bottom line did not want them there... After all, they were only comments - They represented the views of the public, not CNN, and I'm fairly sure that most people, including whoever is in charge of their website realizes that. Removing comments is not only indicative of bias, it's censorship, and political censorship at that - Which is the worst kind. At any rate, thinking that "It ain't that way!" does not justify either one. If the problem is ignored, in 50 years, what will your great grandchildren tolerate?"

drdan said: "New, You are one of my favorite people on this board especially when we start discussing off topic subjects. You remind me of me 10 years ago. Oh HELL I must be getting old when I say something like that!!!! Your passion for this topic is great and I completely agree with you that censorship of the news sucks, BUT... one day and you may already know it, you will find out that your news has been filtered and censored your whole life and that will not change or it will take a major shift in capitalism to make the change. What will my great grandchildren tolerate? A LOT! We certainly have tolerated much more than previous generations and if the past is any predictor of the future then future generations will tolerate a lot more than us. Now I am not saying it is hopeless (it is for the major news outlets) as we have only just begun to use the great news media equalizer - the internet. The internet is raw news and completely biased opinion from all sides and that is what is the problem with it and also its greatest asset. For the people who really want to know, like you said, just Google it, and you can get both sides of the story and something in between. The news outlets such as CNN and FOX are losing viewers in droves. Unless there is a big news story such as 9/11 no one watches, instead many are turning to the internet as their source of information and news. The free unbiased news will be something you as a consumer will have to uncover. Which sucks, as it is much easier to just have something delivered to you free from bias. Now back to our regularly schedule discussion on Ron Paul and his run for the president however filtered and censored this thread may become. :roll:"

FirefighterB said: "You guys are great. Both of you have great arguements and great points. The thing is, with this new bias and frustration of the American public with our leadership and our media, I am wondering if we're starting to take a turn in our way of thinking. Are we starting to wake up that cortex? I feel like we're getting to the point where we're not going to accept the BS anymore. The numbers of people that are done with "Fair and Balanced" and Dubya and looking for ANYTHING besides them are increasing. Unfortunately, the front-runners in both parties are (IMHO) a bunch of spineless and pandering douchebags. They'll say anything to get elected and, like many other politicians in their past, do nothing when it comes to crunch time except enact their own agendas. Guiliani with his wavering gun and abortion stances and 9/11 terror rhetoric; Hillary and Obama with their knack for having a southern drawl out of nowhere and, at least in Hillary's case, pandering to the anti-war vote when she voted for it without actually reading the entire doctrine; or any of the other yes-men telling me everything will be rosy and wonderful when they get into office."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=drdan]Your passion for this topic is great and I completely agree with you that censorship of the news sucks, BUT... one day and you may already know it, you will find out that your news has been filtered and censored your whole life and that will not change or it will take a major shift in capitalism to make the change.[/QUOTE] That day already came and passed, oh, about a week ago. :laugh: [QUOTE=drdan]What will my great grandchildren tolerate? A LOT! We certainly have tolerated much more than previous generations and if the past is any predictor of the future then future generations will tolerate a lot more than us. Now I am not saying it is hopeless (it is for the major news outlets) as we have only just begun to use the great news media equalizer - the internet. The internet is raw news and completely biased opinion from all sides and that is what is the problem with it and also its greatest asset. For the people who really want to know, like you said, just Google it, and you can get both sides of the story and something in between. The news outlets such as CNN and FOX are losing viewers in droves. Unless there is a big news story such as 9/11 no one watches, instead many are turning to the internet as their source of information and news. The free unbiased news will be something you as a consumer will have to uncover. Which sucks, as it is much easier to just have something delivered to you free from bias.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the internet is the last bastion of truly free speech - But even that might change. There is a great debate on internet neutrality going on right now. The debate is basically centered around a new technology that allows internet providers the ability to identify what is being sent across their lines, and sort is as they see fit. So, for instance, they could allocate more bandwidth to YouTube videos, or less if they liked. The industry claims it would be a more efficient usage of bandwidth, and I certainly don't disagree. However, it is not difficult to imagine that if this technology were made legal for use, that it would be misused in short order. If our government passes bills which indirectly restricts the free trade of information on the internet, which I suspect they may do, then - well - There goes the last unbiased source of information we have. That it would really suck is an understatement. [url]http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Applications_of_net_neutrality[/url] [QUOTE=drdan]Now back to our regularly schedule discussion on Ron Paul and his run for the president however filtered and censored this thread may become. :roll:[/QUOTE] Okay, but one more thing: Today I opened up the Stars and Stripes, the military's newspaper, and I found a nice little letter to the editor inside: [QUOTE=Stars and Stripes][B]America: empire or republic?[/B] A friend of mine claims that Americans don't come from that big place called "America," but from a planet he calls Zog. I told him he was crazy. And yet, sometimes I wonder. Take, for example, the fact that some Americans are talking about "taking back America." But surely, to "retake" something you first have to know what you have lost. The letters page of Stars and Stripes is full of writers screaming at fellow Americans they call "liberals." My friend claims that this is impossible: He has information from an informant from Zog himself that the last real liberal died in 1949. He claims that Zog is actually being controlled by creatures called Neoconis from another planet. These Neoconis have taken control of the capital, they are supported by the Zogian media (nothing more than seamless propaganda), a naive electorate, both political parties, the corporate conglomerates, which include the "military industrial complex," and a strange looking creature called Bill O'Reilly. My friend claims that [the Zogians] were once proud of something they called the "Constitution," the "Bill of Rights," and the "republic," created by a group of wise men who lived long ago. But he claims that these are nothing more than a fading memory - yellowing paper under glass. What they call a "republic" has been replaced by an empire. And it's the non-acceptance or denial of this empire among the Zogians, their media and politicians especially, that has caused confusion, bitterness and suffering. My friend is quite adamant about this. He says they must decide: either for a republic or an empire, they can't have both. Mark L. Warren Wiesbaden, Germany[/QUOTE] Yep. That about sums it up. Now, back to your regularly scheduled program..."

newinvestor123 said: "A pretty good article on Ron Paul: [url]http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01402_taking_ron_paul_seriously.html[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "Rudy Giuliani threatens to whack Ron Paul: [url]http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i20340[/url]"

marbles said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]A pretty good article on Ron Paul:[/url][/QUOTE] I've read a dozen times and heard Paul himself say he wants to abolish the IRS and federal income taxes, and that will be the first thing he would like to do if elected president. What I have not heard is what he will do to raise revenue.....what is the system he wants ? Flat tax ? Fair Tax ? VAT ? Sales Tax ?"

roarflolo said: "Google rocks [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80&NR=1[/url]"

marbles said: "So his solution is to quit spending. :laugh:"

newinvestor123 said: "My guess is that Ron Paul would work with the Legislative branch to sort that issue out, which would, after all, be the right way to go about it. Can you imagine it? Debates that actually MATTER in the House and Senate? What a concept, eh? Here's an article written by him on reducing spending and taxation. In it, he mentions the Fair Tax. There are many systems for taxation, and which one is actually best is debatable. However, one thing I'm pretty sure of - Our current system is certainly not it. [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul347.html[/url]"

marbles said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]My guess is [/QUOTE] You're ready to jump into the booth and press the button next to Ron Paul- R today, and [B]you guess[/B] they would sort it out :rolleyes: He's running for the President of The United States, you should not have to guess about anything. I have watched him dodge the tax question about a dozen times and as someone who dislikes the Fair Tax and a national sales tax, I want to know what HIS plan is.....abolishing the IRS is no small matter and it bothers me when Ron Paul makes a little joke about it and I hear laughter from his audience that is reminiscent of the Unification Church."

newinvestor123 said: "Yes, that is a sticking point with me too. I would like to know what he thinks should replace the IRS, just as you or anyone else with good sense, but unfortunately, I don't have Ron Paul on speed dial. If the big boys ever see him as a threat, I'm sure Paul's views and opinions will be scrutinized every which way, and we'll find out then."

Rbreb13 said: "National sales tax is the best option, IMO. Then rich tourists, illegals and anyone who buys anything in our country will help support it. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy anything. Although I think food/necessities should be exempt from the tax, that way it will help the poor people better."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=Rbreb13]National sales tax is the best option, IMO. Then rich tourists, illegals and anyone who buys anything in our country will help support it. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy anything. Although I think food/necessities should be exempt from the tax, that way it will help the poor people better.[/QUOTE] Please explain to me why you see a national sales tax as a good thing???? NJ already has a 7% sales tax coming on July 15. It was 6%. We have a huge property tax problem and the percent is going to that. Adding more sales tax will just kill off the business base. I'm all for HANDS OFF the taxes. Politicians need to kill earmarks and spend our money responsibly. We don't need new tax codses, we need less corruption. We need campaign finance reform. We need government to legislate for us. Keep in mind a national sales tax put the same burden on the poor bastards making less the 10K than it does for the guys making 500K+. The lower and middle class must be handled like teflon...NO new tax impacts."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterBSo, you know what? Maybe we should just stay the hell out of everyone's business. Or, maybe we should continue policing the world, righting the wrongs, and showing people the wonders of democracy. But, if that's our choice, we've gotta stop being so selective on where we go (only countries benefical to us) and stop thinking everyone is going to just LOVE us for doing it. Accept the consequences. The Canadians, the Chinese, the Austrailans, the Italians, and many other countries that, while they help the world cause through the UN, don't decide to impose their will on other countries without consent or general consensus, don't get attacked like we do. They don't garner as much hatred as we do from the Muslim world, although they do in many of their own imperialistic and colonial territories. The bottom line is, wars are part of our being. However, having a mentality and leadership that keeps us out of everyone elses' business in an aggressive way will go a long way to keeping the people that disagree with us out of OUR business in an aggressive way.[/QUOTE] Please don't forget we are at the forefront when defending Isreal is the topic. We wear a target on our foreheads. I carry a different view of our problems than many. -Saddam Hussein could have prevented his own demise. -More unified UN could have been more persuasive in making Saddam Hussein comply with inspectors. -In a post 9/11 era Iraq's toying with the UN for 10 years had a different meaning. Saddam had to go...regardless of an Al Queda connection, or lack of. -Bush's war may have had a practical application in many respects but lack of troops at the onset, his poor articulation in speeches, his failure to communicate with the regions leaders created a total fiasco. He failed as a leader. A democracy in that region turned out NOT to be the answer as clearly demostrated by Hamas winning and taking control of the government in Palestine. YIKES! Now a huge power circle around Iran is maintaining impressive control. If you look at hisotry this country has NO reason to ever trust us and this relationship has growth even more explosive. They claim to have moles in this country who will strike if we hit them. Meanwhile Pakistan has a host of wealthy bad guys hiding in tents and caves. Considering all the oil Iran sits on it's scarey that they say they need nuke power while at the same time threatening Isreal's existance. The only thing Iran doesn't have is gasoline ie: refineries. We could cut them off but I think some nations would help'em out. What a mess. I think we're heading for the Planet of the Apes. The only resource that Iran doesn't have is gasoline."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=Harry]Please explain to me why you see a national sales tax as a good thing????[/QUOTE] He means to replace the current system with a flat sales tax, not supplement it. Although there are many variations of a national sales tax, the one that I like is the Fair Tax: [url]http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main[/url] Wikipedia explains it in detail: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax[/url] I think it's doable. The Columbia Tribune recently did an interview with Ron Paul. In it, he briefly talks about the gold standard, Israeli foreign aid, Iraq, and a few other things: [url]http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Jun/20070615News009.asp[/url]"

Harry said: "WOW, I thought the FLAT TAX idea died with Steve Forbes. It's a tax increase for the lower and middle class. If you see tax rates by income level, wealthier people generally pay incrementally more as wealth increases. Historically speaking wealthy people are not paying as much as they have...historically speaking. If I had time today I'm find the website. It goes all the way back to the 1920's. [B]A flat tax tax a huge burden off the rich and shifts it to the lower and middle class. [/B] I know the appeal of dissolving the IRS and "simplifying" the system. It rings nice at campaign time for people not looking at the nuts and bolts. But like every topic there is 2 sides. I don't trust FLAT TAX arguments. The government is too dynamic...constantly changing. I fear a flat tax matching what the lower class pays...then it goes up when the goernment needs money. The bottom line, the tax system is cumbersome but it ain't really broken. It's the corruption and mis-use of our money that IS the issue. We need to hang politician's by their thumbs for every penny of ours they waste. [B]BELIEVE ME: Low at the percentages and funds collected for each level of wealth...and then look me straight in the eye (or PC screen) and tell me a FLAT TAX will work. [/B] Recommendation: Leave [B]Wikipedia.org [/B]out of debates. It's tainted information. The internet community has a hand on adjusting the data posted."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=Harry]WOW, I thought the FLAT TAX idea died with Steve Forbes. It's a tax increase for the lower and middle class.[/QUOTE] The flat tax is different from the Fair Tax. A flat tax taxes household and corporate income at the same rate, regardless of income, which I do not like. The Fair Tax, on the other hand, only taxes consumption. It would replace the federal income tax, real estate tax, capital gains tax, gift tax, and corporate taxes with a flat 23% tax on all new products and services. Buy a new house or car? Pay 23%. Buy a used house or car - Tax free. Buy a computer to trade stocks on? Taxed. Make a million dollars trading? Tax free. Some people think of this as a bad idea because they imagine the 23% would be tacked onto what they are already paying, but that is not the case. The 23% would increase the price of new goods only by a negligible amount, because it would be offset by the elimination of the corporate tax. Most products are usually made by many different companies. A loaf of bread, for example, has the costs incurred from taxes included in the price from the farmer who grows the wheat, the companies which manufacture the seed and fertilizer, the company which bakes the bread, the company which manufacturers the packaging, the companies which transport the bread to the grocery store, and the grocery store itself. All of the taxes paid by all of the companies who manufacture any given product or any small piece of a product are passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices. The amount of taxes you pay are not going to change by going to a different system (unless someone corrupts the system to further exploit the taxpayer) - It's just a more efficient way to fund our government. Proponents of the Fair Tax argue that since it is much more simple, it would free up resources to be invested elsewhere, and would be less prone to exploitation - And it is, indeed, much simpler. The current tax code requires some 60,000 pages to contain it, whereas the entire Fair Tax Act is only 132 pages long. Of course, our current tax code did not start out 60k pages long, but just how complicated can a consumption tax get? Hmm... Would the FAIR TAX transfer money from the poor to the rich, like Harry suggests the FLAT TAX does? No. The basic premise behind it is that the more new stuff you buy, the more taxes you pay. Obviously, the rich buy more new stuff than the poor - So who would pay more taxes? Don't want to pay any taxes? Well, you're shit out of luck, unless you want to live with no electricity and grow your own food... But if you wanted to cut down substantially on your cost of living, you could buy used goods instead of new - Which is what the majority of poor people do anyways. When's the last time you saw a poor person pull up to their new house in their new car? I buy used anyways, and I will probably continue to do so for some time. Of course, the argument is that the cost of the Fair Tax is embedded into the price of the used goods, because just like a loaf of bread, costs are transferred to the buyer of any product. Maybe I just like the idea of not having to pay any taxes myself... It would be interesting to see exactly how that would work out. Another reason I like the Fair Tax is because it is much simpler than our current code. The upper classes can afford to hire accountants and tax experts to exploit loopholes and pay LESS than their tax bracket suggests they should, but obviously, the poor do not have the means to do so - So most pay the full amount. Harry's probably right that the rich pay much more taxes per capita than poor people, but... That's because they're rich, and poor people are... poor. If you compared the household expenditures to taxes paid, I bet you would find that poor people tend to pay a much higher ratio than rich people. The only thing I do not like about the Fair Tax is their prebate system. Essentially, the idea is that since rich people buy more luxury items than the poor, and poor spend most of their money on necessities, the prebate is designed to offset the amount of taxes poor people pay on those necessities by sending every household in America a check. The amount of the check would be based on the total amount of money expected to be spent on taxes at the poverty level. So, for instance, a family of four, regardless of income level, would be sent a monthly check for $525, every month, to offset their tax expenditures. Why they send the check to every household instead of only the poor, I forget... It's been 18 months since I read the book. I don't like this part of the plan, as it basically amounts to an enormous welfare plan. Just do away with it, and lower the tax rate. All that said, Harry's right that a new tax system won't mean squat if the government does not learn fiscal responsibility - But how long have the people been shouting for that, and what has been the effect of all their shouting? Broken promises and outright lies... The government spends and borrows more now than ever before, and no matter what the system of taxation we have, if they spend it, we will pay. Of course fiscal responsibility should come first - This was just an idea put forth as a response to Marble's... er... question. I don't think our tax system is quite broken, but it IS needlessly complicated and cumbersome, and it DOES drain on the resources of the country. Corporations have to pay more to ensure they are complying with the tax laws, Americans have to spend time every year to file their taxes, and of course, the IRS is just fucked up... The Fair Tax is a simpler system which I believe could work. I don't have an economics degree, but to me, it just makes sense. The basic premise is sound, everything else is details..."

newinvestor123 said: "Does this sound familiar? [url]http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/06/ron_paul_exclud.html[/url] [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods72.html[/url] That's because it has happened before: [url]http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41541[/url] Why are people trying to keep Paul from the limelight? I dunno... But it's certainly not because he's not 'credible.' WTF. People want to see Ron Paul, but time and time again, he is held back. It's blatant censorship in my opinion, and the internet enables news of it to spread faster than was ever possible before... [url]http://www.petitiononline.com/rpwi2008/petition.html[/url]"

Harry said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]The flat tax is different from the Fair Tax. A flat tax taxes household and corporate income at the same rate, regardless of income, which I do not like. The Fair Tax, on the other hand, only taxes consumption. It would replace the federal income tax, real estate tax, capital gains tax, gift tax, and corporate taxes with a flat 23% tax on all new products and services. Buy a new house or car? Pay 23%. Buy a used house or car - Tax free. Buy a computer to trade stocks on? Taxed. Make a million dollars trading? Tax free. [/QUOTE] I don't like the plan as a sweeping package. From experience I can tell you that adding 23% to car sales or home buying would simply cripple those industry regardless of suggested savings in other tax changes. I don't understand the assumption that tacking the tax base to job supporting industries is a safe and sane method of income for our government's tax base. more than a decade ago NJ's governor Florio added a luxuary tax to Yacht sales in NJ. Teah he acheived a reasonable level of property tax relief but he strangled the Yacht industry here."

Harry said: "Here's some historical data. Considering where the low and middle class are today, consider how "fair" ~or~ "flat" taxes would simple cream them...US. Percent of Federal Income taxes Paid in 2004 my group [url]http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_T/t4.cfm[/url] History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates [url]http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19[/url] [url]http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=Harry]The bottom line, the tax system is cumbersome but it ain't really broken. It's the corruption and mis-use of our money that IS the issue. We need to hang politician's by their thumbs for every penny of ours they waste.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Vote for Ron Paul. [QUOTE=Harry][B]BELIEVE ME: Low at the percentages and funds collected for each level of wealth...and then look me straight in the eye (or PC screen) and tell me a FLAT TAX will work. [/B][/QUOTE] Without having access to more information, I can't make a judgement one way or the other. I'd be interested in seeing just how much the rich spends on new goods as a percentage of total income vs the poor. However, until I can find that information, that information puts a dent in my pro fair tax views, for sure."

newinvestor123 said: "I found this quote: "By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing." in this video: [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8&mode=related&search=[/url] I will reserve judgment until I hear him expound a bit more on his plans. If his campaign gains steam, I'm sure there will be much mud slinging and ridicule going on, and his specific plans regarding the IRS and FED are sure to be brought to light."

newinvestor123 said: "An in depth interview with Ron Paul: [url]http://www.politicalchowder.com/eps/ep062407.htm[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "Here's a funny video: [url]http://www.speculativebubble.com/politics/ron-paul-morton-downey-jr.php[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "[url]http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/26/news/newsmakers/clinton_buffett/index.htm[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]Does this sound familiar? [url]http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/06/ron_paul_exclud.html[/url] [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods72.html[/url] That's because it has happened before: [url]http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41541[/url] Why are people trying to keep Paul from the limelight? I dunno... But it's certainly not because he's not 'credible.' WTF. People want to see Ron Paul, but time and time again, he is held back. It's blatant censorship in my opinion, and the internet enables news of it to spread faster than was ever possible before... [url]http://www.petitiononline.com/rpwi2008/petition.html[/url][/QUOTE] Well, Ron Paul held his own gathering next door to the forum from which he was excluded - And his turnout dwarfed theirs. According to some reports, there were 1,000 Ron Paul supporters there, as opposed to 800 folks at the other rally. The other rally's organizers claim Ron Paul's supporters only numbered ~600, but even if that were true, it seems to me that 600 people supporting one candidate as opposed to 800 for the other 5 are telling numbers. [url]http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=44940[/url]"

Kloewer said: "I'm not sure any Republican stands a chance next year, but our buddy Ron Paul is gaining some steam. I'd be more comfortable voting for him if he ran as a Libertarian, but then he'd have zero chance with the general public. [url]http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/ron-paul-tops-m.html[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "Awesome... I donated $100 myself a couple months ago, and will probably donate more if his campaign picks up steam. Rudy's in the lead? My God we are a stupid people. I found this comment at that page, about ten down from the top. [QUOTE=Anonymous Commenter]Ron Paul can put this money to use effectively, since he doesn't spend like the corporate candidates do. Those guys have to HIRE people to promote them. Ron Paul simply INSPIRES people to promote him.[/QUOTE] Very true. It'll be interesting to see what happens on August 5th at the Des Moines debate."

newinvestor123 said: "Found this message in my Myspace inbox today, sent to me from someone I do not know: [QUOTE=Some Guy Named Brian] [I]IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR RON PAUL SUPPORTERS!![/I] We all know public media is trying to ignore and pass over some of the important things this man has to say! Well here it is, the simplest way to get his name out there! I have a feeling that if the majority of Americans took their time to understand what this man is about and why the things he say make so much SENSE he would be our next president. So here it is. Simple... yet very effective.. and coming to a city near you. [IMG]http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m199/BearCali805/000_1556.jpg[/IMG] There is one thing we all know! "THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED" Also it has been suggested that using a rubber stamp would be cleaner and better looking. I highly recommend finding a website (vistaprint has been mentioned as a good source for cheap rubber stampers) that will make rubber stamps and using one to mark bills, however if you are on a budget or would like to send some out immediately the marker method is fabulous as well! This is something everyone can do at little to no cost. All you have to do is send your money as usual! BEFORE YOU REPLY OR SEND ME A SAUCEY MESSAGE SAYING "BUT THATS ILLEGAL!!" ; Have you done research supporting this fact? I don't think you have because if you did, it would have led you HERE ; [url]http://www.bep.treas.gov/document·cfm/18/104[/url] and you would have read THIS; Defacement of currency is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code. Under this provision, currency defacement is generally defined as follows: Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. notice "WITH INTENT TO RENDER SUCH ITEM(S) UNFIT TO BE REISSUED" . Clearly, writing Ron Paul 2008 on dollars is meant to be CIRCULATED and is not written on the bill with intent to take it out of circulation. Also it has been written in an area that does not impair the reading of or undertanding of the bill. Now you have no excuse. Start writing (or stamping)![/QUOTE] The mainstream media is underestimating Ron Paul's internet supporters (on purpose?) and their willingness to do what it takes to get him elected, marginalizing them (us?) as a bunch of geeks in their mother's basements spamming the online polls. I think that's a big mistake. People are tired of the status quo, the lies, the deceit, the corruption, and the other candidates on both sides of the aisle just look like more of the same. Will Ron Paul's 'internet support' make a difference? I think so - Those who spend a lot of their time on the internet tend to be better informed, and as time goes on, I believe the word will spread and Ron Paul's campaign will gain steam. All speculation, of course, but then again, $2.4 million ain't chump change, and not too many geeks in their mother's basement have a whole hell of a lot of money to spend..."

Aligator said: "[QUOTE].......maybe we should continue policing the world, righting the wrongs, and showing people the wonders of democracy. But, if that's our choice, we've gotta stop being so selective on where we go (only countries benefical to us) and stop thinking everyone is going to just LOVE us for doing it. Accept the consequences.[/QUOTE] Odd. That statement pretty much sums up my position. After all, who wants an un-policed world? And no one else is gonna do it. If not for the US the world would probably not be using oil at all - or at least not in a quantity that would matter, because we developed the automotive industry. But I don't think we need to stop being selective. We were first and most on the scene in SE Asia for the tsunami, but when the earthquake hit Iran we sent flowers. Good for us. Hutus and Tutsis chopping each other to bit in Congo? Damn, that's tough. Invaded Kuwait??!! Be right there. So step right up, MR Dictator! Run your mouth and shake your fist at the US. You'll be next."

Kloewer said: "Todays WSJ editorial page illustrates a chink in Ron Paul's libertarian armor. Paul, it turns out, has had $400 million worth of earmark requests this year. These include "an $8 million request for marketing of wild American shrimp." This is hardly the fiscal responsibility I want in a leader. I believe Paul is far better than most (if not all) of the other candidates, but this shows that he is not always a friend of the taxpayer."

lil dickie said: "Ron Paul my ass. This guy doesnt stand a chance."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie]Ron Paul my ass. This guy doesnt stand a chance.[/QUOTE] Ron Paul DOES stand a chance.... Albeit a small one... And his chances seem to grow every day... I'd rather vote for the longshot than the lesser of two evils (as long as the greater evil isn't Giuliani, then I might reconsider). Kloewer, could you send me the text of that editorial? I don't have access to WSJ articles... There was another republican debate last night, and of the two online polls that I know of, Paul won them hands down - But of course, that's just because he has a bunch of 15 year old script kiddies using bots to upvote the polls unfairly. And of course, those are the same kids that donated the millions of dollars to put him in front of John McCain's contributions, and of course, they same kids which turn out in droves wherever Paul speaks. Oh, and CNBC saw it fit to remove Paul from their poll, then a I don't doubt there are some people voting twice, but I think that the reality is that the more informed online community are simply better able to separate bullshit from the truth, and they recognize everyone else as consistently full of bullshit and Paul as consistently speaking the truth in an honest and straightforward manner. [url]http://people.monstersandcritics.com/features/article_1339111.php/GOPs_Ron_Paul_tops_Drudge_GOP_debate_poll[/url] [url]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000[/url]"

lil dickie said: "His "Digg.com" popularity wont translate to the mainstream. The guy has been in politics a long time and hasnt really done that much IMHO"

Kloewer said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]Kloewer, could you send me the text of that editorial? I don't have access to WSJ articles...[/QUOTE] Sorry, New, it's at the bottom of my garbage beneath wet coffee grounds and leftover chicken soup. But here's the gist of it: Paul, despite his libertarian leanings, uses earmarks like the rest of congress. Paul's people say the earmarks don't meaningfully contribute to the government's out-of-control spending. WSJ concludes that Paul would still be likely to curb government spending--especially if armed with the line-item veto. That's the way I remember it. If you want a complete copy, you can probably swing by your library and make a copy."

FirefighterB said: "I'm starting to switch from Paul to Bloomberg (should he decide to run). It's hard to deny, or buy off with campaign contributions and election promises, a man that's worth $14 billion. Sure, most don't know him yet, but I'm pretty certain that he's got enough money to make his name heard just about everywhere. He runs NYC like a business and seems to do quite well at being fair. He's a green mayor that understands the importance of energy conservation and environmental conservation. Sure, he's got views that I like and views that I don't. No one is going to be exactly what a majority of the voting public (or, really, the electoral college) likes, but he's done quite well in the city that has the most diverse population in the country."

lil dickie said: "Yep. Im for Bloomberg too. Because he's an indy that could win."

AlfredSokol said: "I think this title is incorrect. I'm sure the OP meant to write "Ron Paul Licks Ass". :go:"

ratAphooey said: "Ron Paul is a little too tied into the 9/11 truthers and the whole Prison Planet crowd for me to take him seriously."

Pb3190 said: "At this point, there are still a lot of possible people who may end up on the ticket. It's one thing to like Ron Paul, but how many of you think he has a real chance come election time?"

ratAphooey said: "He's ahead of Sam Brownback now. [IMG]http://image-hosting.nccw.net/uploads/125.gif[/IMG]"

Pb3190 said: "Ok, ok, Paul is ahead of some people. According to that chart, his support recently dropped a little bit though. And it will take more than 2% to win an election."

lil dickie said: "RP faces the same problems as anyone who is way behind the pack. How to raise money when you arent in first. This guy is nuts to me. - Abolish the IRS - Go back to a Gold Standard - Dump the Federal Reserve Yada, yada, yada."

newinvestor123 said: "The entire way up from the very bottom, RP has faced people who have ridiculed him and said he would never have a chance. Now he's in the middle of the pack, he has more money than half of those guys, and all he's doing is the same thing he's always done - Tell the truth - And guess what!? People actually seem to LIKE HONESTY... *GASP!* That said, I am a realist. I don't think he has much of a chance, but I hold out hope that at the very least, he will get some people's sluggish minds working a little bit. He DOES have some very enlightening things to say that you would NEVER hear out of the mouth of a mainstream politician, if only people would listen a bit and do some research... Abolish the IRS? Fine with me -The Federal Government is far too large for my tastes. Most of what they do could be done much more efficiently by the states anyways. Return to the gold standard? Great! That means that instead of HAVING to invest my money simply so I don't lose 7% every year, I could just let it sit in the bank if I wanted to and IT WOULDN'T LOSE VALUE. EVER. Dump the Federal Reserve? Outstanding! The fiat money system is doomed to failure anyways - Let's just get it over with NOW before it gets out of hand and people REALLY get screwed. My point is that there are other ways to do things... And some of them might even be BETTER... But people have gotten so used to a screwy system that they can't even imagine anything different, and anyone who suggests making big changes gets labeled as a screwball by those who are satisfied with the 'gud enuf' status quo and/or don't have the imagination and/or knowledge to even think such things are really possible."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie]RP faces the same problems as anyone who is way behind the pack. How to raise money when you arent in first. This guy is nuts to me. - Abolish the IRS - Go back to a Gold Standard - Dump the Federal Reserve Yada, yada, yada.[/QUOTE] I'm all for going back to the gold standard. Look at how high the gold commodity has grown since Nixon did away with the gold standard. :( Saying things like "abolish the IRS" and "dump the FED" only appeal to emotions...it'll NEVER happen."

AlfredSokol said: "Man, can they even mine enough Gold to back all this paper?"

newinvestor123 said: "Can I get a woot for [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021301897.html"]taxpayer funded government propaganda[/URL]? Woot! And... [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMIm8qsJupY&mode=related&search="]This is an interesting video.[/URL]"

Corey said: "I am against the gold standard -- or any precious metal standard. We moved away from gold for a good reason -- valuation is based entirely on the amount of gold available. We need something that will increase with the increasing size of the population. Valuation based money? Yes! But base it on long term assets like bridges/tunnels/buildings, et cetera. Have the government sponsor the building of long term public assets like parks, bridges, and what not and base our money off of those assets."

Darren said: "Going back on the gold standard would make the price of Gold skyrocket."

Pb3190 said: "I don't understand how we could base the dollar on public assets Corey. Way back in the past with gold, you could ask for gold in exchange for your paper money. This was solid proof that the paper was based on something of value. How would this work with a public building or bridge? I would think a currency based on an asset that can not be given away to repay a debt would be a bad thing."

DarkStraw said: "i would think you could do a gold or silver standard... and not have it backed by gold/silver 100% just maby 50% or 20%. If you guys like ron paul you should check out #ronpaul at irc.freenode.com"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=Darren]Going back on the gold standard would make the price of Gold skyrocket.[/QUOTE] I was wondering about that myself. Anyone have any take on exactly how the price of gold would be set? There is a lot of grey area in there, and I haven't taken the time to read up on it - Yet. And [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kU8ZbMYgyc"]here's a pretty funny video[/URL] of some guy stepping on a RP sign in the middle of a RP rally. Apparently, he ripped it away from one of the RP supporters, threw it down, and stood on it. People are calling him some sort of goon, but it looks to me like he's just some crazy guy who wanted to step on an RP sign..."

newinvestor123 said: "Hey, guess what? Ron Paul [URL="http://www.intosanity.com/?p=26"]isn't the only guy[/URL] the news networks seem to be marginalizing... And some interesting 'evidence' that [URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=j2B4lKfPIMM"]ABC edited[/URL] one of their supposedly uncut interviews with John Edwards concerning 9/11.[URL="http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem18.html"]10 Reasons Why Ron Paul Can't Win.[/URL]Damn double posting rule..."

newinvestor123 said: "[url]http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/kucinich-campaign-is-awaiting-abc-news-explanations-for-its-actions/[/url]"

crankitdb711 said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123][url]http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/kucinich-campaign-is-awaiting-abc-news-explanations-for-its-actions/[/url][/QUOTE] :signs047:"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=crankitdb711]:signs047:[/QUOTE] :lamer: Why is there a 10 character minimum?"

crankitdb711 said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]:lamer: Why is there a 10 character minimum?[/QUOTE] LOL, I wasn't calling you a weirdo! And... because Darren doesn't want this to be a forum with all smilies posts and no words lol."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=crankitdb711]LOL, I wasn't calling you a weirdo![/QUOTE] :signs053: But I like smilies..."

newinvestor123 said: "[URL="http://www.sovereignsociety.com/offshore1846.html?src=XSVSH112"]A case for libertarianism...[/URL]"

AlfredSokol said: "George Stephanoplous explains it to [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSlcNqcvdXg]Ron Paul[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "I think you may have gotten your videos mixed up - The one that you linked to shows an escalating series of images on the US's involvement in international conflicts, climaxing with the implied suggestion that we are moving further from liberty and coming closer to totalitarianism with each passing year. It ends with an inspiring and thoughtful speech by Ron Paul on the erosion of liberties along with a call for civil action to wrest our country from the grip of those who prefer a "welfare/warfare" state, return it to the hands of the people, and restore a free society. Thanks for posting it! But yeah, I've seen the [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAh9sp7ebdY"]Stephanopolous interview[/URL]. One of the commenters said it best - Stephanopolous is a "snippy little twit." Stephanopolous is probably right - Ron Paul is probably not going to win - But to just come out and say it like he did, that "It's NOT going to happen," is pretty arrogant, and serves no point other than to ruin an otherwise unbiased, informative, relatively high quality interview."

AlfredSokol said: "YouTube must have screwed me on that one. Sounds like a clip you'd love though. LOL"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=AlfredSokol]YouTube must have screwed me on that one. Sounds like a clip you'd love though. LOL[/QUOTE] You prefer a welfare/warfare state? You don't think our civil liberties are being eroded? You prefer endless wars and a debt based society, which both fund a potential enemy's rise to economic power? You think this makes sense?"

AlfredSokol said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]You prefer a welfare/warfare state? You don't think our civil liberties are being eroded? You prefer endless wars and a debt based society, which both fund a potential enemy's rise to economic power? You think this makes sense?[/QUOTE] No, your post doesn't make any sense."

crankitdb711 said: "[QUOTE=AlfredSokol]No, your post doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE] :laugh: I thought I was going crazy"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=AlfredSokol]Sounds like a clip you'd love though. LOL[/QUOTE] We have debated various topics in other threads, and in a couple of them I exposed some of my views as somewhat eccentric. You have consistently taken the opposite side (which is fine), but this little snippet seems to me to be a jab at the unconventional nature of my views (which is also fine, but warrants a return) as well as an intrinsic statement that you do not share the same views which are espoused in the video due to their assumed eccentricity. However, the video is relatively conventional and expresses ideas which appeal to everyone, regardless of race, religion, or nation - So I distilled some questions based on the ideas presented therein and asked them of you. However, it appears that you did not even watch the video, so you had no idea what I was talking about when I asked you the questions, hence your assertion that my post made no sense. Make sense? If not, I'm sorry, there is nothing I can do for you, and you are doomed to a life of befuddlement... ;)"

AlfredSokol said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]Make sense? If not, I'm sorry, there is nothing I can do for you, and you are doomed to a life of befuddlement... ;)[/QUOTE] Not really. I'm not living a life of befuddlement, nor am I doomed to such an existence. I didn't view the clip. I thought it was the one by Stephanopolus. Apparently it was tagged wrong at YouTube. Your responses don't make much sense to me, and now it seems like you're getting outright hostile. Carry on though. :wave:"

newinvestor123 said: "Ron Paul gets some thestreet.com exposure in an article entitled [URL="http://www.thestreet.com/s/huckabee-takes-unfair-shots-at-ron-paul/markets/marketfeatures/10378481.html?puc=_tscrss&"]"Huckabee Takes Unfair Shots at Ron Paul."[/URL] I didn't watch the debates - But when will these guys learn that Paul doesn't say things which can't be backed up?"

JAP said: "[quote=newinvestor123]Ron Paul gets some thestreet.com exposure in an article entitled [URL="http://www.thestreet.com/s/huckabee-takes-unfair-shots-at-ron-paul/markets/marketfeatures/10378481.html?puc=_tscrss&"]"Huckabee Takes Unfair Shots at Ron Paul."[/URL] I didn't watch the debates - But when will these guys learn that Paul doesn't say things which can't be backed up?[/quote] I saw the debate. Paul is getting more recognition. Judging by the crowds reaction, many people in the crowd were behind him. The other candidates are so rude when they snicker and make snide comments while he is talking. Paul is the only one that tells the truth. Yes, Paul can/does back up [I]everything[/I] that comes out of his mouth."

newinvestor123 said: "Ron Paul [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801653.html"]gets some recognition[/URL] from the Washington Post."

Harry said: "Please post debate schedules if you know them. The news focuses of Rudy and Romney. Right now I don't have a favorite. I always liked Nader...but he's ??? I like Edwards better than Hillary and Obama, but of course "the 2" get all the airplay. If I cant have Nader I'd like Newt...but with Thompson running Newt won't. Right now I'm voting for Kucinich's wife. :) [url]http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2007/02/kucinich.elizabeth.militaryfamilies.speakout.awards_ceremony.2.q4up8z.jpg[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Presidential_Debates%2C_2008"]2008 Republican Debate Schedule[/URL], and for those who are interested, the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Presidential_Debates%2C_2008"]Democratic Debate Schedule.[/URL]"

Harry said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Presidential_Debates%2C_2008"]2008 Republican Debate Schedule[/URL], and for those who are interested, the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Presidential_Debates%2C_2008"]Democratic Debate Schedule.[/URL][/QUOTE] Just give a heads up out when one is on TV again."

newinvestor123 said: "[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY"]Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly duked it out last night[/URL], and Paul held up surprising well... And [URL="http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Ron_Paul"]Encyclopedia Dramatica's take on Ron Paul[/URL] is pretty funny - And so is a lot of other stuff there. Especially the political articles..."

newinvestor123 said: "Apparently, [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/14/war-critics-obama-ron-pa_n_64417.html"]Ron Paul received the second highest amount of campaign amongst the military[/URL], right behind Barack Obama. (Note: I have not verified this yet, but it's likely, since he DID get the highest military donations last quarter.) What do they share in common? They're among the few candidates who are both running on a totally anti-Iraq War stance. Yeah, do you think the military is getting tired over there yet? I spent 12 months in Kuwait, and living in relative luxury compared to how the average soldier lives in Iraq (for 18 months, usually), and it nearly drove me crazy... [URL="http://beta.redlasso.com/Community/ClipPlayer.aspx?i=bb6bd5c3-94d8-49bf-8445-d4e2ab212ba7"]Here's a video of RP explaining his Iraq position during the last Republican debate.[/URL] Note the FOX news moderator attempting to discredit RP's rather inspiring answer, accompanied by Giuliani's dishonorable (and quite disgusting really, considering he is the republican forerunner) snickering into the microphone. Got a Republican debate coming up on Monday."

crankitdb711 said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]... Got a Republican debate coming up on Monday.[/QUOTE] do you know what time and place? i don't see it on your wiki link."

newinvestor123 said: "It's in Fort Lauderdale, FL, but I don't see a time or channel."

newinvestor123 said: "[URL="http://video1.washingtontimes.com/billups/2007/09/them_ron_paul_people.html"]Here's an article on Ron Paul supporters[/URL], in which the author attempts to smear them as almost always "someone kinda cock-eyed who would be perfect for a bit part on Twin Peaks or perhaps a random Jim Jarmusch movie," also saying that they tend to drive "some mud-covered early '90s beater, the backseat so jammed with implausible items that it looks like it belongs to one of those cat hoarder people, and/or Fred Sanford." Whatever. The interesting part of the article are the comments that people wrote in response - Here are a few: [I]"I R a re-pub-lican 2. I be drive a fowd ekplorer, it R a 95 but it sure is shiny, and 4 wheel drive tu! Why heck it even haz them thar leather seats and this thing that makes the air cold. The winders even go up an down when I push this here little button. And yep don't ya know there is one of them Ron Paul stickers on the back! But seriously, Ron Paul draws all kinds of people. Some call themselves democrats, some republicans, some libertarians, some rich and some poor. What draws us to the man is not 'gosh he is cute' star power, it's his message and his honesty. Honesty is good enough for me.." [/I] [U] [/U] [I]"Here's my Ron Paul profile: Male: 50 City: San Jose Marital: Married with kids Profession: Analytics for leading techs/biotechs Navy: Spanish/Russian linguist & cryptologist Army: NBC NCO in National Guard Security: TS/SCI (inactive) Income: $160K Stock Options: Over $1MM Car: Subaru '03 (Paid) IQ: Higher than 95% of Washington Times reporters Active financial backer of Ron Paul Last time I supported a presidential candidate was Ross Perot in 1992. And yes, I have two Ron Paul bumper stickers. I'd love to see Ron Paul join Dennis Kucinich on an Independent ticket though. Except for them and Mike Gravel, the whole lot of Democrat and Republican contenders are owned by corporate globalists, military industrialists, oil cartels, and they follow a Straussian ideology." [/I] [U] [/U] [I]"Hi Ms. Billups, Check out my bragging rights. I have all of these Ron Paul posers beat. I ride a 1991 Bridgestone RB-2 bicycle complete with a sturdy Blackburn rack and grocery bag pannier. I can carry a buttload of implausible items on it, greenhouse gas free (ignoring the methane production of course). I also have a Ron Paul bumper sticker, a "Fight Terror - Ride a bike" sticker, and also a "Don't Steal The Government hates Competition" sticker. Also, if I take a piece of Scotch tape and stretch it just right over my left eye, I have this irresistible cock-eyed, bad boy look that females swoon over. You can take me out on a date if you want. Although, if you want to go in a later than 1990s car, you will have to drive us. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that if I put a baseball card in my spokes, my bike sounds a lot like a Harley."[/I] :roll:"

AlfredSokol said: "Why do you keep bumping this thread? Are you hoping to pretend that there's interest in Ron Paul of this thread? Bumping your own thread is pure spam."

newinvestor123 said: "Actually, this wasn't my thread.... But yeah, I'm bumping this thread in the hope that maybe someone will get interested, do some research, and NOT vote for any of the mainstream douchebags running for President. Trolling other people's threads is purely obnoxious."

newinvestor123 said: "Guess what? [URL="http://www.nyobserver.com/2007/ron-paul-has-lots-money"]Ron Paul is one of the big boys now, if campaign donations are any indication.[/URL] All those guys living in their mother's basement sure do seem to have a lot of extra cash lying around... If you're going to vote, and haven't registered yet, you'll need to do so before your state's deadline runs out. Someone made a nice chart with all the state's deadlines and voter registration forms for easy access, which can be found [URL="http://www.primarilypaul.com/ron-paul-in-the-primaries/"]here.[/URL]"

Kloewer said: "I was driving through Iowa City a couple weeks ago, and someone had hung a sheet from an overpass with the words "Ron Paul Revolution" painted on it. I thought it was interesting since that's sort of the center of the political universe at the moment."

JAP said: "[SIZE=2]I saw the same thing in San Diego while driving on I-5. I waved and beeped at them about 10 times and they went nuts.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2][/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Ron Paul is definitely starting to gain momentum. I'm starting to believe he actually has a shot, so much in fact that I recently donated $1000 through his website last week.[/SIZE]"

newinvestor123 said: "Last week, I noticed Ron Paul signs posted at all the major intersections here in town - And today, I saw a couple homemade Ron Paul banners - One was hung from the sign of a PoFolks restaurant on the main street that recently went out of business, in plain view, up high, for all to see. I need to find out who is putting them up and offer my help... By the way, I donated to his campaign too - $100 a few months ago, and another $100 last week. If nothing else, it will be interesting to see how this plays out...."

newinvestor123 said: "I found out who's putting the signs up - It's a local meetup group, and I've pledged my help. I found [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA"]this video[/URL] on Digg today - It's the best RP video yet. It sums up so many things, and is well worth a watch, whether you like Ron Paul or not. It actually brought a tear to my eye... :th_dblthumb2: I think he may actually have a chance - People are going to see his campaign explode, to the chagrin of those who want another puppet in office."

newinvestor123 said: "[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg[/url] [url]http://www.newsandpolicy.com/news/2007/10/national-review-online-could-dr-paul-really-surpri.html[/url]"

Harry said: "I saw the debate the other night. Ron Paul needs to be more assertive if he's going to have a chance. He was part of the wallpaper. Suprising the words of "Tom Tancredo" impressed me more than anybody in the pack. But sadly Ruddy and Rom got all the news. :("

JAP said: "[quote=Harry]I saw the debate the other night. Ron Paul needs to be more assertive if he's going to have a chance. He was part of the wallpaper. Suprising the words of "Tom Tancredo" impressed me more than anybody in the pack. But sadly Ruddy and Rom got all the news. :([/quote] He is assertive, but he's not rude. Hardly any questions were directed his way. It easy to see how the media focuses on certain candidates and makes them the front runners. Ron is the people's choice. Internet support for this man is overwhelming!"

newinvestor123 said: "Yeah, he's a bit meek, but I thought he did quite well at the Michigan debate - Did you see [URL="http://www.itfrom.us/2007/10/10/ron-paul-at-the-cnbc-michigan-debate/"]these clips[/URL]? Remember now, the hosts of the debates [URL="http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=259970&postcount=1"]consistently give Ron Paul the least airtime and questions[/URL], which helps make him seem like a part of the scenery. But you're right - He's going to have to start asserting himself much more if he's going to appeal to the primal instincts of voters. No one wants a President who appears weak... But I thought he did an excellent job with the few questions and the little airtime he was given on the last debate. As I watched the clips, I couldn't help but cheer as he slammed the "I'd have to consult my lawyers" foolishness."

Corey said: "He consistently gets the most cheering when he does answer. Major media is starting to pick up on the grassroots movement he has ... and he is becoming the underdog favorite. I don't agree with all of his personal beliefs, but anyone that is pro-small government and actually has plans to make it so is good in my book. Personal choices are just that ... personal."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=Corey]I don't agree with all of his personal beliefs, but anyone that is pro-small government and actually has plans to make it so is good in my book. Personal choices are just that ... personal.[/QUOTE] My sentiments exactly. Many of the things he wants to do are unarguably radical, but at the very least, his ideas will get the people thinking, the House and Senate talking, and maybe, just maybe, something good could come out of it."

Harry said: "Watch for reruns on Bill Mahr's show this week. He had a clip and a supportive comment on Ron Paul last night."

newinvestor123 said: "As has been the standard response to Ron Paul's consistent domination of online and text message polls, [URL="http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762/site/14081545/"]CNBC removed theirs[/URL] after the latest debate in Dearborn, MI when Ron Paul received 75% of the votes on positive questions, far outstripping any other candidate's numbers. This has been going on for a few months now - Ron Paul scores incredibly high on any major media network's poll, or the majority of the comments are pro Ron Paul, and they are always removed. The reasons are always cited as the news network's belief that Ron Paul's supporters are insidiously manipulating poll results - i.e. voting multiple times, or some other nonsense. The truth is that the vast majority of people who frequent social networking sites such as Digg and Reddit support Ron Paul and turn out in droves to vote for him, and none of the other candidates can claim the same support from that group of people. The difference, however, is that this time, the editor of CNBC wrote an open letter explaining and defending his actions, which is turning into a dialogue between himself and the Ron Paul community and may actually result in something changing. [URL="http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy125.html"]It didn't take long[/URL] [URL="http://reddit.com/info/2zqtu/comments"]for the "online pro-Ron Paul community" (I wrote and sent this one)[/URL] [URL="http://www.dailypaul.com/node/3362"]to respond[/URL], and respond they did (including myself) in full force, which prompted [URL="http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546"]another reply from the editor of CNBC. [/URL] It will be interesting to see how this plays out."

DarkStraw said: "wow, the daily paul response was just awesome, i loved it! Another reason why i think he gets low numbers in the national poll's is because they only call registered republicans. (and only people with landline phones) which leaves out democrats,libertarians and people who havent voted who will vote for ron paul."

lb19984 said: "even thought i am voting for Ron Paul. EVEN THOUGHT HE IS PRO LIFE, AND REVERSE ROE VS WADE. you do realize that even thought he wont get the republican nomination, wont win the presidency and even if he did, [B][I]he would be shot before he ever steped into the whitehouse.[/I][/B] By the [B]CIA[/B] of course. :bricks:"

DarkStraw said: "I hope you dont think ron paul is oblivious to government corruption. He's not stupid. i think he would at least take some extra precaution to protect himself. Lets not take ron paul for a fool."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=lb19984]even thought i am voting for Ron Paul. EVEN THOUGHT HE IS PRO LIFE, AND REVERSE ROE VS WADE. you do realize that even thought he wont get the republican nomination, wont win the presidency and even if he did, [B][I]he would be shot before he ever steped into the whitehouse.[/I][/B] By the [B]CIA[/B] of course. :bricks:[/QUOTE] He's pro-life, but his position on abortion has no bearing on whether he would reverse Roe vs Wade. What does have a bearing, however, is his belief that the states should make their own laws regarding issues such as abortion, which is a moral issue, instead of the federal government, which, he believes, has no right to legislate morality. That sounds like a pretty good compromise to me - A recent study concluded that [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301370,00.html"]"unrestrictive abortion laws do not predict a high level of abortion, and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence."[/URL]"

lb19984 said: "maybe that was his position but on the cnbc debate on a few days ago he did say that he wnated to reverse roe vs wade and make abortion illegal. At least that is what i heard. he must have changed his position. I am sure that he said that he wanted to reverse Roe vs Wade for sure though."

Corey said: "He wants to reverse Roe v. Wade because it is a federal act. If he reverses it, it will allow states to make laws on it. It is a morale issue, and thus he believes that the federal government should not be involved. I am pro-choice myself, but anything to make the government LESS powerful is a good plan in my book."

lb19984 said: "well if that would be the case i wouldnt really care because wouldnt you technically be able to argue taht it can be legal in any state then? since if it is legal in one it is legal in all? i am forgetting the details on how that all works but yeah... I wouldnt really care cause im in ny and uts deff pro choice. But he'll nevver get elected I cannot imagine what kind of serious recession we would have. It is a complete change in everything. No more income tax, no more subsidization for farmers,No more CIA, no more medicare/medicaide. whatever im not worried about it hes not getting ellected. even thought i will vote for him doesnt make sense i know.:roll:"

Harry said: "[QUOTE=iZING]I've watched Ron Paul for too many years to ever even consider putting him in the White House. He is a fool and nothing but a joke in Washington. Vote for him and you've wasted a vote.[/QUOTE] First poster...HI. {lease put some reasoning behind that remark. For all I know you're Hillary Clinton. :laugh:"

newinvestor123 said: "John Harwood, the editor for CNBC, [URL="http://rawstory.com/news/2007/John_Harwood_After_poll_removal_CNBC_1016.html"]went on the air on MSNBC and made some comments about the flood of emails he received after his decision to remove the poll after the recent MI debate[/URL]. I think Ron Paul's about to begin getting some major recognition..."

newinvestor123 said: "Ron Paul's first positive interview on FOX: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2fU6OqLRCE[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bCRc2ub8hU[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "Ron Paul's finally getting some [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/26paul.html?_r=1&oref=slogin"]good mainstream attention[/URL] - If this keeps up, we might have to petition Darren to change this thread's tense from 'Ron Paul kicks ass' to 'Ron Paul is kicking ass'.... :th_dblthumb2:"

Harry said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]Ron Paul's finally getting some [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/26paul.html?_r=1&oref=slogin"]good mainstream attention[/URL] - If this keeps up, we might have to petition Darren to change this thread's tense from 'Ron Paul kicks ass' to 'Ron Paul is kicking ass'.... :th_dblthumb2:[/QUOTE] I'm an avid TV watcher. I can't say I ever hear his name mentioned. I don't now like Romney. Guilliani, Clinton or Obama. but they get ALL the air time. While Paul has some strong and dedicated niche' grass route support, he needs to pull a rabbit out of his hat."

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=Harry]I'm an avid TV watcher. I can't say I ever hear his name mentioned. I don't now like Romney. Guilliani, Clinton or Obama. but they get ALL the air time. While Paul has some strong and dedicated niche' grass route support, he needs to pull a rabbit out of his hat.[/QUOTE] Agreed. He's gotta start getting his name out in the mainstream if he wants a chance. It was cool to see him (twice) on usually very liberal Real Time with Bill Maher and to see him receive such a warm welcome. He must be hitting a chord with many people if he can get a, usually, extremely liberal-leaning audience to listen to and cheer for his ultra-conservative platform."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]Agreed. He's gotta start getting his name out in the mainstream if he wants a chance. It was cool to see him (twice) on usually very liberal Real Time with Bill Maher and to see him receive such a warm welcome. He must be hitting a chord with many people if he can get a, usually, extremely liberal-leaning audience to listen to and cheer for his ultra-conservative platform.[/QUOTE] Maher is not given him any continued lip service lip like he did Ralph Nader 4 years ago. The media is deciding this election. Heck the media even drove the war mantra before we entered Iraq. The media is pretty damned stupid and I never call ANYBODY stupid."

lil dickie said: "The media makes money from repeating bad news. How sick is that?"

Harry said: "Ron Paul is on Leno uesday night."

newinvestor123 said: "Harry, I believe his "strong and dedicated niche grassroots support" IS going to be the rabbit out of the hat. I just found [URL="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/892703/great_moments_in_u_s_history/"]this clever video[/URL] (man, the Ron Paul girl is hot...) - Apparently, there is [URL="http://www.thisnovember5th.com/"]a grassroots effort to donate $10 million to Ron Paul on November the 5th.[/URL] It sounds like a lot of money, but all it would take is 100k people to donate $100 each to achieve that goal. It would also be the most donations any candidate has ever received on any one day in the history of the US. I'll be donating... [URL="http://livfilms.blogspot.com/2007/09/miracle-beer-diet.html"]I think I'm in love...[/URL]"

Harry said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123] [URL="http://livfilms.blogspot.com/2007/09/miracle-beer-diet.html"]I think I'm in love...[/URL][/QUOTE] You go right on luving Ron...I'll save my luving for Mrs Kucinich. :)"

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123][URL="http://livfilms.blogspot.com/2007/09/miracle-beer-diet.html"]I think I'm in love...[/URL][/QUOTE] Agreed. Did you check her Myspace? Also agreed with Harry on Mrs. Kucinich. That just strikes of a match made in....money or fame."

Rbreb13 said: "Ron Paul is supposed to be on Leno tonite."

sreeja said: "The banking institution can play effective role in money issuing.But i don't want to say nothing about FED."

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=Rbreb13]Ron Paul is supposed to be on Leno tonite.[/QUOTE] I was beat and had a little bit of a buzz on, so I didn't stay up late enough to see this. Any of you guys catch it?"

Rbreb13 said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]I was beat and had a little bit of a buzz on, so I didn't stay up late enough to see this. Any of you guys catch it?[/QUOTE]I heard it was short but I fell asleep before he came on. Leno is on pretty much past my bedtime."

newinvestor123 said: "Here it is: [URL="http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Ron_Paul_get_shoutout_from_Sex_1031.html"]the Leno interview[/URL]."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]Agreed. Did you check her Myspace?[/QUOTE] No, I didn't - The video of her taking off her clothes, coupled with the video where she speaks intelligently about libertarian principles (may have been read from cue cards - I wouldn't be surprised, but meh), coupled with the one of her shotgunning a beer was all I needed to declare that she is the ultra hotness."

newinvestor123 said: "[URL="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1678661,00.html"]Time did an article on Ron Paul[/URL] - At the end, in response to whether or not he would support another Republican if he doesn't get the nomination, he is quoted as saying: [I]"Those people who support me wouldn't believe it," he says. "If I said, 'Giuliani's a great guy, and he'll reduce subsidies and bring the troops home'? I couldn't do that." Even nerd revolutions don't surrender."[/I] :laugh:"

lil dickie said: "Good article. It points out several times how Paul is mainly supported by losers. [quote] Representative Tom Tancredo, another long-shot G.O.P. candidate, tells me that after a debate in New Hampshire, one of his staffers walked up to a guy in a shark costume and asked him if he was a Ron Paul supporter. "No. They're all nuts," replied the shark. "I'm just a guy in a shark suit." There is a subset of [B]Paul supporters who believe 9/11 was an inside job by the U.S. government[/B]. And there are anarchists as well: They've picked Nov. 5, Guy Fawkes Day, for a fund-raising drive.[/quote] [quote] "His supporters are the equivalent of crabgrass," says G.O.P. consultant Frank Luntz. "It's not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff. They just like him because he's the most anti-Establishment of all the candidates, the most likely to look at the camera during the debates and say, 'Hey, Washington, f--- you.'"[/quote] Then they go on to explain how hes trailing in the polls, and explain how he doesnt think he will win. [quote] [B]Paul doesn't expect that he will win the nomination[/B], and he has no interest in running as an independent again. But he also doesn't see himself endorsing one of the other Republicans in the general election. "Those people who support me wouldn't believe it," he says. "If I said, 'Giuliani's a great guy, and he'll reduce subsidies and bring the troops home'? I couldn't do that." Even nerd revolutions don't surrender.[/quote] At least Paul is realistic about his chances."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie]Good article. It points out several times how Paul is mainly supported by losers. Then they go on to explain how hes trailing in the polls, and explain how he doesnt think he will win. At least Paul is realistic about his chances.[/QUOTE] Ron Paul supporters aren't losers. Well, some inevitably will be, but the same can be said for any political candidate. If there is any one difference between Ron Paul and mainstream candidates' supporters, I think it is that we are not SHEEPLE. We see the obvious bias in the mainstream media, and we don't like it, so we don't watch it. Most of us have done our own independent research, and we have looked as far back into Ron Paul's past and as deep into his opinions as we can, and we like what we see. Many of us are well versed in economics, and we recognize that in that area, Ron Paul knows what the hell he's talking about. Most of us are tired of our tax dollars being used to further a neoconservative imperialistic agenda, and we would rather the troops just come home. We see our troops in over 200 countries around the globe, and we see that for what it is - An empire overextending itself militarily, financially, and politically. Most importantly (and this is the big one), we are tired of lying scumbag politicians who, regardless of what they say, invariably sell us out to the highest bidder. We see what Ron Paul stands for, we see that he has stood for the same thing for 30 years, and we think he is one of the very few politicians who is concerned with the future of the US and its people AND has the intellect, knowledge, and political know-how to help to bring balance to a corrupt federal government. We know, as Ron Paul does, that most of the things he wants to do will probably not be accomplished, and we are fine with that - But we would welcome the debates and controversy that would stem from a Ron Paul Presidency, because we believe the American people need to wake the hell up before this country goes completely to shit on the apathetic heels of people like YOU. And yeah, he probably won't get the nomination. If it comes down to Giuliani vs Clinton, wouldn't that be great? Two warmongers, one a neoconservative idiot and the other a socialist... Whoopee!"

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]Most of us are tired of our tax dollars being used to further a neoconservative imperialistic agenda, and we would rather the troops just come home. We see our troops in over 200 countries around the globe, and we see that for what it is - An empire overextending itself militarily, financially, and politically. Most importantly (and this is the big one), we are tired of lying scumbag politicians who, regardless of what they say, invariably sell us out to the highest bidder.... ...And yeah, he probably won't get the nomination. If it comes down to Giuliani vs Clinton, wouldn't that be great? Two warmongers, one a neoconservative idiot and the other a socialist... Whoopee![/QUOTE] New, I COULDN'T AGREE MORE. Very well put, sir. I can't say I agree with all of Paul's agenda (who can say that they totally agree with everything that ANYONE else believes?), but I think out of the available choices, he's the best. I think that, unfortunately, he isn't getting the attention that he deserves because of the reach-arounds that go on with the front-runners and the media. Seriously, do I give a flying f*** that Obama isn't wearing his flag pin anymore when American lives are being lost in Iraq? F-no! Do I give a s*** that Clinton has a Sopranos-esque commercial when this government seems hell-bent on attacking Iran and inciting a religious powder keg? Not when we don't seem to care that North Korea actually HAS nukes and HAS the ability to send them to Los Angeles. Why don't we seem to be worried about that? Oh, because there is nothing of value there, N. Korea has a HUGE army, and, oh yeah, they have the Chinese and Russians that would likely back them, meaning we'll likely get beat up badly. This country is on a scary path, yet we're too worried about what's happening in OTHER countries. I agree with Paul: the terrorists don't hate us for our freedoms (they aren't bombing the Canadians or Aussies), they hate us for having boots on their soil. I really am afraid if our choice is between Rudy and Billary. Because I think Paul is going to probably not make it, I PRAY that Bloomberg runs. He's a level headed, smart businessman that has the money and charisma to get his name out there and really give the other front-running panderers a solid fight. I love this country and I worry about our future. I don't think that Clinton nor chest-thumper Giuliani have what it takes to head us down the right path."

lil dickie said: "Ron Paul doesnt support abortion...even in the case of rape. Thats a bit out there."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie]Ron Paul doesnt support abortion...even in the case of rape. Thats a bit out there.[/QUOTE] Ron Paul doesn't support abortion morally, but politically, he is neutral on the issue. Explanation: He doesn't support the federal government's "right" to legislate it one way or the other - He wants to return the decision back to the states."

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie]Ron Paul doesnt support abortion...even in the case of rape. Thats a bit out there.[/QUOTE] Agreed. But, and I'm biased as a man, but that's one of the things I'd suffer over having Rudy in office. He's okay with abortion, but he wants to kill off lots of American soldiers by following the "fighting them there before we have to fight them here" mantra. I enjoy guns. Bloomberg is strict on gun control. But, I'd suffer more gun controls to, again, have other parts of our ailing country fixed. Again, no candidate will have EVERYTHING that I want and I won't agree on every issue. I'm just picking my battles."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie]Ron Paul doesnt support abortion...even in the case of rape. Thats a bit out there.[/QUOTE] That's not as "out there" as you think. One of the magezine shows did a piece of a kid who was the product of a rape. The kid was WONDERFUL charming little boy...not the seed of a demon. Ron Paul doesn't personally support abortion but he embrasses a state's right to have whatever law they want on the issue."

Corey said: "I e-mailed the Ron Paul campaign on the abortion issue, and basically they told me exactly what NewInvestor just said -- Ron Paul is personally against it, but even if he did, he believes that it is a moral, and therefore a state, issue -- not something the federal government should have control over. So while I disagree with him, I do feel he is right. It should be a state issue."

newinvestor123 said: "He also wants to abolish the income tax, which I think [URL="http://www.populistamerica.com/freedom_from_the_income_tax"]is a great fucking idea...[/URL]"

JAP said: "LET'S GO RON! :th_dblthumb2: ----------------------------- WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $3.5 million in 20 hours. [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_po/paul_fundraising"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_po/paul_fundraising[/URL]"

FirefighterB said: "Dunno if this site has been put up on this thread, but it's pretty good in a couple ways: RP supporter and great info about the housing debacle. (Care of Scottlarock) [URL="http://housingpanic.blogspot.com/"]HousingPANIC[/URL]"

Mark said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]Oh, because there is nothing of value there, N. Korea has a HUGE army, and, oh yeah, they have the Chinese and Russians that would likely back them, meaning we'll likely get beat up badly. [/QUOTE] Russia will never help N. Korea. It is not the USSR. It is all over now. Now it is the state which is interested only in its own economic interests. And it is not interested in beggary N. Korea. Even China is unlikely to go farther diplomatic measures. No one needs N. Korea, except for South Korea. Russia will oppose a military conflict. Where would refugees go? Just to the empty Siberia in Russia. So don’t force – and Russia has an army – but suitable only for conducting defensive warfare on its territory. To think about Russia as about the USSR – it out of date, the world changes. Now in Russia there are antirecessionary politicians using the support of population. But soon more liberal one will exchange them and the dialog with the world would be built otherwise. Politics is politics, but to earn at developing markets of BRIC is possible today."

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=Mark]Russia will never help N. Korea. It is not the USSR. It is all over now. Now it is the state which is interested only in its own economic interests. And it is not interested in beggary N. Korea. Even China is unlikely to go farther diplomatic measures. No one needs N. Korea, except for South Korea. Russia will oppose a military conflict. Where would refugees go? Just to the empty Siberia in Russia. So don’t force – and Russia has an army – but suitable only for conducting defensive warfare on its territory. To think about Russia as about the USSR – it out of date, the world changes. Now in Russia there are antirecessionary politicians using the support of population. But soon more liberal one will exchange them and the dialog with the world would be built otherwise. Politics is politics, but to earn at developing markets of BRIC is possible today.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that Russia and China would SUPPORT N. Korea, but I'm willing to bet they sure as hell would be pissed that we're getting aggressive in their backyard. Hell, Russia is pissed that we want to set up our missile defense network right on the other side of their fence in Eastern Europe. Why wouldn't they be pissed if we're launching attacks in N. Korea?"

newinvestor123 said: "[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAwvlDJgJbM[/url]"

JAP said: "[quote=newinvestor123][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAwvlDJgJbM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAwvlDJgJbM[/URL][/quote] OMG, I was just about to post the same thing! :th_dblthumb2: From today's meeting. Ron Paul [I][B]owns[/B][/I] the FED and Bernanke. I don't even think Ben understands what Paul is talking about, or cares. :laugh: This man is the ONLY choice for president."

newinvestor123 said: "This is a speech Ron Paul gave before the House in February of this year: [QUOTE=Ron Paul]Transparency in monetary policy is a goal we should all support. I’ve often wondered why Congress so willingly has given up its prerogative over monetary policy. Astonishingly, Congress in essence has ceded total control over the value of our money to a secretive central bank. Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had no constitutional authority to do so. We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress– and thus the authority to establish a central bank never was given. Of course Jefferson and Hamilton had that debate early on, a debate seemingly settled in 1913. But transparency and oversight are something else, and they’re worth considering. Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve. There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported. The role the Fed plays in the President’s secretive Working Group on Financial Markets goes unnoticed by members of Congress. The Federal Reserve shows no willingness to inform Congress voluntarily about how often the Working Group meets, what actions it takes that affect the financial markets, or why it takes those actions. But these actions, directed by the Federal Reserve, alter the purchasing power of our money. And that purchasing power is always reduced. The dollar today is worth only four cents compared to the dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve started. This has profound consequences for our economy and our political stability. All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation’s poor and middle class. This leads to political turmoil. Even before a currency collapse occurs, the damage done by a fiat system is significant. Our monetary system insidiously transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to the privileged rich. Wages never keep up with the profits of Wall Street and the banks, thus sowing the seeds of class discontent. When economic trouble hits, free markets and free trade often are blamed, while the harmful effects of a fiat monetary system are ignored. We deceive ourselves that all is well with the economy, and ignore the fundamental flaws that are a source of growing discontent among those who have not shared in the abundance of recent years. Few understand that our consumption and apparent wealth is dependent on a current account deficit of $800 billion per year. This deficit shows that much of our prosperity is based on borrowing rather than a true increase in production. Statistics show year after year that our productive manufacturing jobs continue to go overseas. This phenomenon is not seen as a consequence of the international fiat monetary system, where the United States government benefits as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency. Government officials consistently claim that inflation is in check at barely 2%, but middle class Americans know that their purchasing power–especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition– is shrinking much faster than 2% each year. Even if prices were held in check, in spite of our monetary inflation, concentrating on CPI distracts from the real issue. We must address the important consequences of Fed manipulation of interest rates. When interests rates are artificially low, below market rates, insidious mal-investment and excessive indebtedness inevitably bring about the economic downturn that everyone dreads. We look at GDP numbers to reassure ourselves that all is well, yet a growing number of Americans still do not enjoy the higher standard of living that monetary inflation brings to the privileged few. Those few have access to the newly created money first, before its value is diluted. For example: Before the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, CEO income was about 30 times the average worker’s pay. Today, it’s closer to 500 times. It’s hard to explain this simply by market forces and increases in productivity. One Wall Street firm last year gave out bonuses totaling $16.5 billion. There’s little evidence that this represents free market capitalism. In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods. Today that dollar is worth $5.15. Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar. We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord. GDP purportedly is now growing at 3.5%, and everyone seems pleased. What we fail to understand is how much government entitlement spending contributes to the increase in the GDP. Rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by hurricanes, which simply gets us back to even, is considered part of GDP growth. Wall Street profits and salaries, pumped up by the Fed’s increase in money, also contribute to GDP statistical growth. Just buying military weapons that contribute nothing to the well being of our citizens, sending money down a rat hole, contributes to GDP growth! Simple price increases caused by Fed monetary inflation contribute to nominal GDP growth. None of these factors represent any kind of real increases in economic output. So we should not carelessly cite misleading GDP figures which don’t truly reflect what is happening in the economy. Bogus GDP figures explain in part why so many people are feeling squeezed despite our supposedly booming economy. But since our fiat dollar system is not going away anytime soon, it would benefit Congress and the American people to bring more transparency to how and why Fed monetary policy functions. For starters, the Federal Reserve should: Begin publishing the M3 statistics again. Let us see the numbers that most accurately reveal how much new money the Fed is pumping into the world economy. Tell us exactly what the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets does and why. Explain how interest rates are set. Conservatives profess to support free markets, without wage and price controls. Yet the most important price of all, the price of money as determined by interest rates, is set arbitrarily in secret by the Fed rather than by markets! Why is this policy written in stone? Why is there no congressional input at least? Change legal tender laws to allow constitutional legal tender (commodity money) to compete domestically with the dollar. How can a policy of steadily debasing our currency be defended morally, knowing what harm it causes to those who still believe in saving money and assuming responsibility for themselves in their retirement years? Is it any wonder we are a nation of debtors rather than savers? We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon.[/QUOTE] I still have yet to find a compelling reason why Ron Paul should not be President. Source: [URL="http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr021507.htm"]http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr021507.htm[/URL] And some more Google trends fun -[URL="http://www.google.com/trends?q=Ron+Paul%2C+Mitt+Romney%2C+Rudy+Giuliani%2C+Fred+Thompson%2C+John+Mccain&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2007&sort=0"] Search trends for the Republican candidates.[/URL]"

FirefighterB said: "Excellent post, New. I agree. I haven't found a serious reason to not vote for him, either."

newinvestor123 said: "Ron Paul's fundraising is gaining him some good exposure - [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URgXOJm1P6w"]Here's a link to an interview[/URL] he had with Kudlow and Company last night, and [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cilwld5fj48"]here's a link[/URL] to the post interview commentary."

newinvestor123 said: "He [URL="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8540706587792587923&q=face+the+nation+ron+paul&total=33&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0"]was interviewed this morning on Face the Nation[/URL], and it went very well."

Rbreb13 said: "Awesome, he came off very well."

matrox said: "If he gits the nomination he will have my vote. He is the only one who is not talking shit.:wave: :wave:"

Harry said: "I travel the open-minded road. After seeing the Mclaughlin Group on Sunday I have great hesitation on Paul's pledge to pull all of our troops out of Iraq. NO candidate is going to pull all the troops. It ABSOLUTELY isn't going to happen. John Mclaughlin did an (re) eye-opening report on the huge oil reserves in Iraq that may very well surpass Saudi Arabia's capacity. Right now a US Corporations control the Iraqie oil fields and infrastructure at a key time. Massive military cities are built and operate just to protect and maintain these oil operations... ...there is NO WAY IN HELL the US is pulling out of Iraq in the next decade. Ron Paul's play on "passions about the war" is disconnected with what is really going on. We CANNOT leave Iraq. And if there was any consideration of leaving, Iran's language and influence in the region has dashed that. Morally should we be in another country controlling the oil? I say no. But I also say we are in no position to leave militarily, politically, or economically. China, Russia and he USA are all positioning for strangleholds on natural resources."

FirefighterB said: "I would agree with what you're saying under the current government and the front-running candidates. However, I think Paul is serious about getting out of Iraq; whether they have oil or not. See, here's where I think why: Paul isn't for big business. We can EASILY reduce our dependence on oil. However, special interest groups (like HAL and every oil company) don't WANT that to happen. Sure, BP will run some pretty commercials talking about them devoting 1/10,000,000 of their profits to green energy, but they're not stupid. They know where their money is invested and what their cash cow is...OIL. The only reason we haven't moved off oil and other fossil fuels for a MAJORITY of our power needs is because we'd be cutting of the proverbial cash lifeline of many of America's HUGE companies if we did so. So much of the infrastructure; refineries, pipelines, gas stations, etc., is devoted and only utilized in PETROLEUM. They don't want to lose all of that money and no major candidate (possibly Paul included) wants to shoot all of those jobs in the back of the head. (Although, IMHO that is a HUGE problem with the US these days...workers don't diversify and, if you kill an industry, they don't adapt). Anyway, I've just watched a program on the History Channel that had all sorts of alternatives to fossil fuels. They had a car that runs on compressed air for 600 miles (it might be the gas/compressed air mix, but either way). It costs $2 to fill the tank and, if you make the power to compress that air with green energy, you're just fine. They had a heat generated power-tower (I'm sure it had another name) that used a super tall smoke-stack shaped tower surrounded by a large "greenhouse" that funneled warm air from the greenhouse through turbines into the tower. They figured out how many (I'm tired and don't remember exactly, but Wyoming needed TWO) of these that we'd need and we wouldn't need ANY other source of power. But, you know what? It costs money to make these towers and big oil would lose EVERYTHING (as well as many power companies). Hell, how would they charge for energy that's basically free? It's all money based. You're seriously telling me that with ALL of the intelligent minds on this planet, we can't HONESTLY figure out how to live green? We can. Big business won't allow it. And, out of the candidates, Paul seems like one of the extremely rare ones that doesn't seem to have any allegience to big business."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]I would agree with what you're saying under the current government and the front-running candidates. However, I think Paul is serious about getting out of Iraq; whether they have oil or not. See, here's where I think why: Paul isn't for big business. We can EASILY reduce our dependence on oil. However, special interest groups (like HAL and every oil company) don't WANT that to happen. Sure, BP will run some pretty commercials talking about them devoting 1/10,000,000 of their profits to green energy, but they're not stupid. They know where their money is invested and what their cash cow is...OIL. The only reason we haven't moved off oil and other fossil fuels for a MAJORITY of our power needs is because we'd be cutting of the proverbial cash lifeline of many of America's HUGE companies if we did so. So much of the infrastructure; refineries, pipelines, gas stations, etc., is devoted and only utilized in PETROLEUM. They don't want to lose all of that money and no major candidate (possibly Paul included) wants to shoot all of those jobs in the back of the head. (Although, IMHO that is a HUGE problem with the US these days...workers don't diversify and, if you kill an industry, they don't adapt). [/QUOTE] Today Saudia Arabia hinted it will not announce an increase of production at the next Opec meeting. This is very telling. The Saudi's tends to move the curve on present and future demand... ...If America get's fed up enough with high prices to the point that alternative technology will go into full gear then the Saudi will dump excess crude into the market. Even with crude in the 90's and gas around $3 America seems very unsure as to what direction it is going. Historically if you look at our gasoline crisis all the way back to the 1970's we've been all talk and little action. Gasoline and heating oil will have to be WAY up for a prolonged period just to jump start real resolve in instituting alternative energies. Yeah we've done STUFF, but that is expected with advancing technology. Nobody is taking the ball and running with it. At this point we are dabbling in ethanol and hydrogen. Battery assisted cars still make a small percent of motor vehicles. We are 10 to 15 years away from the necessary infrastructure in alternative energy to make a complete pull out from Iraq practical, and that is IF we get aggressive with alternative energies. Pulling out now benefits Iran, Russia and China and suffocates our economy. We CANNOT easily reduce our dependence on oil or we would have done it already. We also can cut ourselves off from oil and expect alternative systems to pop up in such an expeditious fashion as to prevent our economy from collasping. Oil in America is like alcohol for an alcoholic. We have to hit rock bottom before we will even consider fighting our dependence. If Paul is serious about getting out of Iraq whether they have oil or not, he is not making rational plans. I'd rather hear Paul say he will begin AGGRESSIVE alternative energy programs to get us out of Iraq...but then again, nobody says that. Nobody in government want to verbally connect the dots...that our presence in Iraq is for oil. Real and suave politicing can't can erase that."

Rbreb13 said: "I watched that show too. [QUOTE](I'm tired and don't remember exactly, but Wyoming needed TWO)[/QUOTE]California needs 65 of them! lol"

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=Rbreb13]I watched that show too. California needs 65 of them! lol[/QUOTE] Thanks for the refresher, Rb. I was tired and semi-intoxicated and forgot. That "seems" like a lot, but how many power plants are there in operation in CA? I also remember on one of those shows them saying that a solar array that covered 100 square miles (which seems huge to say, but could easily fit out in NV somewhere and no one would notice) could power the entire US. It only seems excessive because the current systems have been put into place before many of us were born or increased slowly through growth. Imagine telling a person in the 19th century how many power plants, electrical lines, roads, airports, cars, planes, etc., etc. we would need to appease the population of the future. They'd have flipped then talking about something we don't even consider now."

Corey said: "[QUOTE=Harry] Historically if you look at our gasoline crisis all the way back to the 1970's we've been all talk and little action. Gasoline and heating oil will have to be WAY up for a prolonged period just to jump start real resolve in instituting alternative energies. Yeah we've done STUFF, but that is expected with advancing technology. Nobody is taking the ball and running with it. At this point we are dabbling in ethanol and hydrogen. Battery assisted cars still make a small percent of motor vehicles. We are 10 to 15 years away from the necessary infrastructure in alternative energy to make a complete pull out from Iraq practical, and that is IF we get aggressive with alternative energies. Pulling out now benefits Iran, Russia and China and suffocates our economy. We CANNOT easily reduce our dependence on oil or we would have done it already. We also can cut ourselves off from oil and expect alternative systems to pop up in such an expeditious fashion as to prevent our economy from collasping. Oil in America is like alcohol for an alcoholic. We have to hit rock bottom before we will even consider fighting our dependence. [/QUOTE] It is pretty simple economics. Fact 1: There is plenty of oil available in Canada, which would move production into a politically stable location (and drive oil prices down). The issue? Environmental politics. Fact 2: 2/3 of the earth is under water. Life started under water. 99% of the sea floor hasn't ever been seen. To think there isn't significantly more oil down there is stupid. Peak oil my ass. So lets see -- we have an economy ... nay, a world ... that is oil addicted and an entire industry based on the discovery, extraction, and production of crude oil. So which is cheaper: developing an entire new industry (i.e. 'alternative energy') or simply changing the means of extraction (i.e. deep-sea drilling)? Yeah. Peace out Canadian caribou. Don't get me wrong -- I think it is a real shame. We have a real chance to turn this world around and make a change with alternative energy. Unfortunately, economy takes the path of least resistance. I just don't see it happening."

Rbreb13 said: "If they ever figure out a way to get at it in an economically feasible way. Oil Shale could supply our needs for centuries to come. [B]20 TRILLION [/B]barrels in CO, WY and UT. [QUOTE]Badaili states there are over 16,000 square miles of oil shale land in the Green River formation. Each acre holds 2 million barrels of oil - it's the most concentrated energy source on earth, according to the Energy Department. So here's a free math lesson for Badiali: There are 640 acres in a sq mile; 16,000 sq miles = 10,240,000 acres. 10,250,000 * 2,000,000 barrels/acre = 20,480,000,000,000, or Twenty Trillion Barrels!! Badaili uses a Energy Department claim that 1.5 to 2 trillion barrels might ultimately be retorted out of the rock in the formation. (That's more than the current total global reserve of light sweet crude.) [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.oilcrisis.com/shale/[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "Harry, there are MANY other sources of energy that the US could use to fulfill it's ENTIRE energy needs and then some without using one drop of middle eastern oil. I see what you're saying about the global resource grab, and I totally agree that that is happening - But don't kid yourself - The reason we want that energy is NOT because we need it, but because we want to maintain control over the oil so we can continue selling it in dollars. Iraq wasn't really about acquiring the oil, although that was a nice side effect (and I'm sure the oil companies were pushing for it just as hard as the neocons; iraqi oil = easy oil). Invading Iraq was about establishing a democratic foothold in the Middle East in order to "stabilize the region," (as per the PNAC's website) and making sure that Iraq's oil was sold in dollars instead of euros in order to maintain global dollar hegemony. There is a global shift underway to replace the dollar with... something else. Our enemies, which control much of the world's oil reserves, have begun the shift, and if that shift is powerful enough, neutral countries will follow. It sure doesn't help that we've pissed everyone off during the last ten years, either... I don't think this shift can be averted, but it can be mitigated by getting our finances and foreign policy in order, which means, essentially, pulling out of Iraq and letting another country take the helm of the regime-crushing World Police Tank."

FirefighterB said: "I remember reading about that, Rb. But, doesn't it take a few years (5+) to "bake" or treat/break down the shale to make it into oil? I agree with what you say, Corey. We aren't going to change to alt energy because it's "too hard." It'll cost too much, cost many jobs, and put some of the largest companies in the world out of business (or, at least, put a serious dent in incomes)."

Rbreb13 said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]I remember reading about that, Rb. But, doesn't it take a few years (5+) to "bake" or treat/break down the shale to make it into oil? [/QUOTE]Thats why I added the "economically feasible" statement. Right now there are I think 3 companies working on the problem of extraction. Shell is one I know of for sure and one is a privately held company. Exxon was here bigtime in the 1990's but they abandoned the area in 1997 I think it was. It'll be awhile before we see some progress but I know for a fact they're working on it."

Harry said: "Corey wrote... [QUOTE]It is pretty simple economics. Fact 1: There is plenty of oil available in Canada, which would move production into a politically stable location (and drive oil prices down). The issue? Environmental politics.[/quote] I'm not sure what you're contributing to my points with your widely known facts. My point was that the U.S. is not going to take it;'s hand off the oil spicket in Iraq. It doesn't matter what other sources present with. I agree. Actually that region is a good investment. Mexico import supply nearly equals that of Canada right now, but Mexica is expected to be a dry hole in 5 years. [quote]Fact 2: 2/3 of the earth is under water. Life started under water. 99% of the sea floor hasn't ever been seen. To think there isn't significantly more oil down there is stupid.[/quote] Everyone thinks there is more oil at the ocean floors. It's just more difficult and costly to find and extract. New oil sources are being found but at a exponentially diminished rate based on increased world demand. [quote]So lets see -- we have an economy ... nay, a world ... that is oil addicted and an entire industry based on the discovery, extraction, and production of crude oil. So which is cheaper: developing an entire new industry (i.e. 'alternative energy') or simply changing the means of extraction (i.e. deep-sea drilling)? Don't get me wrong -- I think it is a real shame. We have a real chance to turn this world around and make a change with alternative energy. Unfortunately, economy takes the path of least resistance. I just don't see it happening.[/QUOTE] You're preaching to the chior. We will be usung oil until is it exhausted in the far distant future. I'm not sure what you're contributing to my points with your widely known facts. My point was that the U.S. is not going to take it's hand off the oil spicket in Iraq."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=Harry] My point was that the U.S. is not going to take it's hand off the oil spicket in Iraq.[/QUOTE] Your point directly contradicts Ron Paul's stance that were he elected President, we would simply pull out of Iraq. Since the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and has the final say in what they do (especially when an action would require LESS funds than the alternative), this implies that he is lying. Do you think he is lying about pulling out of Iraq? If the President wanted to pull the armed forces out of any given area, is there a damn thing anyone can do to stop him? Maybe I'm missing something here..."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]Your point directly contradicts Ron Paul's stance that were he elected President, we would simply pull out of Iraq. Since the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and has the final say in what they do (especially when an action would require LESS funds than the alternative), this implies that he is lying. Do you think he is lying about pulling out of Iraq? If the President wanted to pull the armed forces out of any given area, is there a damn thing anyone can do to stop him? Maybe I'm missing something here...[/QUOTE] It's politics. He's either lying, not telling whole truth, or not considering all the circumstances that would engulf him when in office. I'm from NJ. I'm used to seeing people making promises when running for governor and then flip-flopping as soon as they get in office "because of new information". Even George W wasn't into "nation building". George H. said "no new taxes". We know how all candidates talk out of both sides of their mouth. A major troop withdrawal is always possible...but a 100% troop withdrawal is not possible. Our presence at Iraqie oil facilities is a long term proposition, abstractly similar to our presence at the North Korean border. We just can't abandon Iraq in and shape or form. Such talk is merely a play on American's passions. "I" want us out of Iraq but I realize why the current "oil situation" requires our presence. I also realize the severe economic affect it would have here at home if we simply upt and left Iraq. As a person who posts on an INVESTOR forum I have softened on Rudy. I LUV his tax policies for the benefit of my wallet. I do not want any democrat yanking us out of Iraq AND taxing us up the wahzoo...especially capital gains."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=Harry]It's politics. He's either lying, not telling whole truth, or not considering all the circumstances that would engulf him when in office. I'm from NJ. I'm used to seeing people making promises when running for governor and then flip-flopping as soon as they get in office "because of new information". Even George W wasn't into "nation building". George H. said "no new taxes". We know how all candidates talk out of both sides of their mouth. A major troop withdrawal is always possible...but a 100% troop withdrawal is not possible. Our presence at Iraqie oil facilities is a long term proposition, abstractly similar to our presence at the North Korean border. We just can't abandon Iraq in and shape or form. Such talk is merely a play on American's passions. "I" want us out of Iraq but I realize why the current "oil situation" requires our presence. I also realize the severe economic affect it would have here at home if we simply upt and left Iraq. As a person who posts on an INVESTOR forum I have softened on Rudy. I LUV his tax policies for the benefit of my wallet. I do not want any democrat yanking us out of Iraq AND taxing us up the wahzoo...especially capital gains.[/QUOTE] Harry, I don't think you've done enough research on Ron Paul to substantiate your viewpoint. He is a free market fundamentalist and non-interventionist, and securing our oil through military means flies in the face of both of those principles. His view is that the free markets (provided they are truly free, which they are not right now) should determine the price of oil, and if the price of oil become too high for the economy to handle, free markets will determine the most profitable, practical solution. He espouses free trade and no entangling alliances or embargoes, which is a great idea as far as I'm concerned, as government intervention where it was not necessary is a big reason for why we are having most of our problems in the first place. As he says, there are always consequences and repercussions for our actions overseas, and if we continue to meddle, we will continue to bear the unforeseen consequences of our meddling. I think he knows what he's doing in terms of the good of the nation, oil, Iraq, and foreign policy, more so than any other candidate. If the choice is a dichotomy, I fully agree that we need to just pull out rather than stay in to protect our "interests." I would not, however, disagree with leaving a contingency force of around 5,000 for Iraqi training purposes, but I think that is very unlikely to happen with 90% of the candidates. If we have to take a little economic pain as a result of our ill-conceived plans on Iraq, then so be it. I am all for suffering the consequences of our bad decisions now, rather than forestalling and compounding those problems through more of the same flawed policies and logic that got us into the problem in the first place. As for whether he is lying or telling half truths, one of the biggest reasons I support him is because of his consistency. He has supported the same basic values of the constitutionalism and small government during all ten of his terms in Congress, his voting record clearly backs that up, and yes, I think he would pull out of Iraq ASAP. His reasoning on the Iraq War is that since there was no Congressional declaration of war, it is illegal and unconstitutional, and therefore should be ended as soon as possible, and he is adamant and relentless on those views. For reference, watch [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY"]a few of his many speeches[/URL] [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzFMo6w-hsk"]in the House on the Iraq War (especially watch this one)[/URL], and you will see what I mean. With Ron Paul, I think that what you see is what you get, and what you see is something that our government desperately needs right now - government restraint, the RULE of law, and a return to the solid principles of the Constitution. If Congress wants to make a formal declaration of war, then it would be Constitutional, but to sidestep the Constitution like they did, no matter how one looks at it, is a bad thing. MOST politicians, of course, do talk out the side of their mouths with half truths, convoluted answers, and outright lies, but I believe that Ron Paul is a rare exception. Either he is an astoundingly good sociopathic liar, or he is telling the truth, and I tend to believe the latter. I don't think he is playing on the passions of the American people in any regard. Rather, I believe that he himself feels very passionately about his (well informed) views on what is actually good for the country. Comparing him to either of the Bushes is like comparing apples and oranges. As for Giuliani - Again, I don't think you've done enough research. You might want to [URL="http://www.newsweek.com/id/42460"]check out who his foreign policy team consists of[/URL] before you consider endorsing him. It's very neocon heavy, and includes the infamous [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz"]Norman Podhoretz[/URL], who is regarded as the godfather of the neoconservative movement, and is openly lobbying for pre-emptive war with Iran. He thinks WWIV has already begun with the "Islamofacists" and wants to take the war to them. Indefinitely. A vote for Giuliani is probably a vote for war for at least the next decade or two; a continuation of what Bush, Cheney and Rummy began five years ago, a vote for what the neoconservatives have been pushing for for at least a decade: Imperialism. And you like Giuliani because of his stance on taxes? Need I remind you that of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the only one who has consistently voted for lower taxes, and is the least likely to raise taxes in any form? And don't forget, wars cost money - Money which must be raised through taxes and more borrowing. If anyone is talking out of the side of his mouth, it's Giuliani. I only hope that the mainstream media is biding their time in pointing out to the American public the reality of what would likely come from a Giuliani presidency (or a Hillary one, for that matter), because they sure as hell aren't doing so right now..."

JAP said: "[quote=newinvestor123]Harry, I don't think you've done enough research on Ron Paul to substantiate your viewpoint. He is a free market fundamentalist and non-interventionist, and securing our oil through military means flies in the face of both of those principles. His view is that the free markets (provided they are truly free, which they are not right now) should determine the price of oil, and if the price of oil become too high for the economy to handle, free markets will determine the most profitable, practical solution. He espouses free trade and no entangling alliances or embargoes, which is a great idea as far as I'm concerned, as government intervention where it was not necessary is a big reason for why we are having most of our problems in the first place. As he says, there are always consequences and repercussions for our actions overseas, and if we continue to meddle, we will continue to bear the unforeseen consequences of our meddling. I think he knows what he's doing in terms of the good of the nation, oil, Iraq, and foreign policy, more so than any other candidate. If the choice is a dichotomy, I fully agree that we need to just pull out rather than stay in to protect our "interests." I would not, however, disagree with leaving a contingency force of around 5,000 for Iraqi training purposes, but I think that is very unlikely to happen with 90% of the candidates. If we have to take a little economic pain as a result of our ill-conceived plans on Iraq, then so be it. I am all for suffering the consequences of our bad decisions now, rather than forestalling and compounding those problems through more of the same flawed policies and logic that got us into the problem in the first place. As for whether he is lying or telling half truths, one of the biggest reasons I support him is because of his consistency. He has supported the same basic values of the constitutionalism and small government during all ten of his terms in Congress, his voting record clearly backs that up, and yes, I think he would pull out of Iraq ASAP. His reasoning on the Iraq War is that since there was no Congressional declaration of war, it is illegal and unconstitutional, and therefore should be ended as soon as possible, and he is adamant and relentless on those views. For reference, watch [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY"]a few of his many speeches[/URL] [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzFMo6w-hsk"]in the House on the Iraq War (especially watch this one)[/URL], and you will see what I mean. With Ron Paul, I think that what you see is what you get, and what you see is something that our government desperately needs right now - government restraint, the RULE of law, and a return to the solid principles of the Constitution. If Congress wants to make a formal declaration of war, then it would be Constitutional, but to sidestep the Constitution like they did, no matter how one looks at it, is a bad thing. MOST politicians, of course, do talk out the side of their mouths with half truths, convoluted answers, and outright lies, but I believe that Ron Paul is a rare exception. Either he is an astoundingly good sociopathic liar, or he is telling the truth, and I tend to believe the latter. I don't think he is playing on the passions of the American people in any regard. Rather, I believe that he himself feels very passionately about his (well informed) views on what is actually good for the country. Comparing him to either of the Bushes is like comparing apples and oranges. As for Giuliani - Again, I don't think you've done enough research. You might want to [URL="http://www.newsweek.com/id/42460"]check out who his foreign policy team consists of[/URL] before you consider endorsing him. It's very neocon heavy, and includes the infamous [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz"]Norman Podhoretz[/URL], who is regarded as the godfather of the neoconservative movement, and is openly lobbying for pre-emptive war with Iran. He thinks WWIV has already begun with the "Islamofacists" and wants to take the war to them. Indefinitely. A vote for Giuliani is probably a vote for war for at least the next decade or two; a continuation of what Bush, Cheney and Rummy began five years ago, a vote for what the neoconservatives have been pushing for for at least a decade: Imperialism. And you like Giuliani because of his stance on taxes? Need I remind you that of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the only one who has consistently voted for lower taxes, and is the least likely to raise taxes in any form? And don't forget, wars cost money - Money which must be raised through taxes and more borrowing. If anyone is talking out of the side of his mouth, it's Giuliani. I only hope that the mainstream media is biding their time in pointing out to the American public the reality of what would likely come from a Giuliani presidency (or a Hillary one, for that matter), because they sure as hell aren't doing so right now...[/quote] Very nice post New. You should be on with Lou Dobbs! :laugh: Ron Paul is the ONLY choice. :th_dblthumb2:"

FirefighterB said: "Agreed, New. Very informative and well said. Here's [URL="http://www.slate.com/id/2177886/?GT1=10636"]another reason I F-ING HATE the front runners[/URL]. (Sorry for the language, but this shit REALLY pisses me off). She's planting her questions at media ops and setting up these situations to make her look better. What a fuggin snake. Paul doesn't seem like the person to do petty shit like this to try to win support. While he doesn't receive the media scrutiny and I don't put him on a pedestal of perfection, he doesn't strike me as a bullshitter. This, as I've stated before, is one of my BIGGEST reasons for picking him. I'm tired of lying douchebags that are only doing things to win the popular support and never coming through with the REAL issues. I don't know what's worse: that she did this or the fact that a portion of the American public doesn't see through her BS and feels that she is a sincere person."

Harry said: "newinvestor123 wrote... [quote]Harry, I don't think you've done enough research on Ron Paul to substantiate your viewpoint. He is a free market fundamentalist and non-interventionist, and securing our oil through military means flies in the face of both of those principles. [/quote] My guess is the even geroge W Bush would have said that in 2000. I'm only pointing out one obvious flaw in Paul's platform...one BIG flaw...we can't undo Iraq...we can't float and wave that oil supply away on an iceberg. The democrats are playing the same game..."get troops out". They position themselves to "look like" they're cutting funding for the war but in reality wouldn't dare. [quote] As for Giuliani - Again, I don't think you've done enough research. You might want to check out who his foreign policy team consists of before you consider endorsing him. It's very neocon heavy, and includes the infamous Norman Podhoretz, who is regarded as the godfather of the neoconservative movement, and is openly lobbying for pre-emptive war with Iran. He thinks WWIV has already begun with the "Islamofacists" and wants to take the war to them. Indefinitely. A vote for Giuliani is probably a vote for war for at least the next decade or two; a continuation of what Bush, Cheney and Rummy began five years ago, a vote for what the neoconservatives have been pushing for for at least a decade: Imperialism. And you like Giuliani because of his stance on taxes? Need I remind you that of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the only one who has consistently voted for lower taxes, and is the least likely to raise taxes in any form? And don't forget, wars cost money - Money which must be raised through taxes and more borrowing. If anyone is talking out of the side of his mouth, it's Giuliani. I only hope that the mainstream media is biding their time in pointing out to the American public the reality of what would likely come from a Giuliani presidency (or a Hillary one, for that matter), because they sure as hell aren't doing so right now...[/quote] As a northern New Jerseyan I've watched Guiliani since he was the prosecutor who debreeded NYC of organized crime...no small feat. Also it was on Guiliani's watch that Manhattan sustained a magnificent transformation. Whatever gridlock prevented previous mayors of ignoring problems, Guiliani did the unthinkable....and undoable. "Firefigher", politics and even 9-11 aside, ask New Yorkers how Guiliani transformed the city. As for Rudy's evil neocon foreign relation team...the liberal slanted Newsweek cherry picked someone they can call rotten apple. The team is hardly "heavily neocon". Some circles are identifying that Podhoretz choice was used to take some weight off Rudy's pro-abortion stance in thr republican arena. The team is listed here. [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/the-war-over-the-wonks.html[/url] Admittedly, politically a guy like Podhoretz can be a liability. But in diplomatic circles he makes it possible for Rudy to speak softly and carry a big stick. American elections impact international politics. Remember how fast those American hostages got freed when Carter was signing out and Reagan was signing in? Having a presence of military passiveness stepping into the White House could have an adverse reaction with security abroad."

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=Harry] "Firefigher", politics and even 9-11 aside, ask New Yorkers how Guiliani transformed the city. [/QUOTE] Harry, I actually have done this quite a bit. I actually used to be a pretty big Giuliani supporter, until I really started learning about him. According to many New Yorkers I talked to, they felt that he "transformed" the city by turning it into a police state. Cops had free reign and they abused many civil liberties, driven to results by him and his police chief commissioners. Speaking of police commissioners, there's Bernard Kerik, his right hand man from 00-01. He was appointed to the position WITHOUT a college degree (a requirement for anyone above the rank of Captain since '85) AND with his main qualifications being that he was Giuliani's driver and bodyguard. Great choice, Rudy. Bypass the laws AND put your buddy in power; your buddy that is in all sorts of trouble these days for ethics violations and for using an apartment donated to emergency workers at Ground Zero to bang women. I don't deny Giuliani had some great things he did for NYC. A lot of this was brought about by the sacrifice of civil liberties and through a larger, more aggressive police force (usually pretty anti-conservative things). Much the "transformation" started before he ever took office, though. Much like the markets, it takes awhile for changes to filter through. For Giuliani's benefit, many of these changes became apparent when he got into office. And, if we're going to bring 9/11 into it, he didn't do anything that great or that any true leader couldn't do while sleepwalking. Hell, we thought Bush sounded great standing down there at Ground Zero, huh? Look what happened. The main reason I don't support him is because he's the one that looks the most prepared to take us to war with Iran. He's going to use an awful lot of fear mongering about 9/11, which he seems to spout something about EVERY time he's on camera to rile up his supporters, to "scare" the American population into attacking this "aggressor." Face it: we're the bully on the block. We want people to do things our way and we want to stay on top of the pile. Except, on day, the bully gets taken down by the little guy that gets fed up. Iraq is giving us one hell of a bloody nose and Iran would take us down, if not for the count. Hell, look at what war mongering did to the great empires that preceded us. Do we look like we're in the same boat now? Paul doesn't have this agenda and for that, among many other reasons, he's got my vote."

Harry said: "FirefighterB wrote... [quote]Harry, I actually have done this quite a bit. I actually used to be a pretty big Giuliani supporter, until I really started learning about him. According to many New Yorkers I talked to, they felt that he "transformed" the city by turning it into a police state. Cops had free reign and they abused many civil liberties, driven to results by him and his police chief commissioners. Speaking of police commissioners, there's Bernard Kerik, his right hand man from 00-01. He was appointed to the position WITHOUT a college degree (a requirement for anyone above the rank of Captain since '85) AND with his main qualifications being that he was Giuliani's driver and bodyguard. Great choice, Rudy. Bypass the laws AND put your buddy in power; your buddy that is in all sorts of trouble these days for ethics violations and for using an apartment donated to emergency workers at Ground Zero to bang women. I don't deny Giuliani had some great things he did for NYC. A lot of this was brought about by the sacrifice of civil liberties and through a larger, more aggressive police force (usually pretty anti-conservative things). Much the "transformation" started before he ever took office, though. [/quote] You last line is totally wrong. Koch, while a popular personality didn't do much to improve quality of life in the city, and Dinkins did less. In fact a lot of police force incidences happened on Dinkin's watch...so it wasn't unique to Rudy's administration. I never saw Rudy as someone who infringed on civil liberties. Most of the street hookers and drug dealers disappeared. 42nd Street went from porn slum to family enetrtainment zone. And let's face it...EVERY politician brings in their cronnies. It kinda comes with the job. I grew up in Paterson NJ. Every new Mayor and every new Sheriff brings in their own people. It's always been like that. If you look at the other presidential candidates who haven't managed as a mayor or a governor, you'll find cronnies on their staff. In today's polarized and dirty politics the cronnies are targets now. I can't say I'm against banging women. :) I think if more leaders at home and abroad where doing this that the world would be a little mellower. Did the majprity of American's condemn Bill Clinton? No they didn't...it was his lie that got the attention. I'm not concerned about a tough president in a dangerous world where newer technology makes more effective weapons for the bag guys. I don't know what is going to happen in Iran...but if it doesn't happen from within it will HAVE TO happen from someone. "Isreal must be wiped from the face of the earth" and "we want nukes" are two pretty horrific statements coming from a terrorist state...and oil state at that...one that has wealth and power becasue of a natural resource."

Harry said: "FirefighterB wrote... [quote]Face it: we're the bully on the block. We want people to do things our way and we want to stay on top of the pile. Except, on day, the bully gets taken down by the little guy that gets fed up. Iraq is giving us one hell of a bloody nose and Iran would take us down, if not for the count. Hell, look at what war mongering did to the great empires that preceded us. Do we look like we're in the same boat now? [/quote] Admittedly Bush's diplomacy was horrid. With everything going on he should have been talking with nations constantly. Another president could have executed the same war with different results. Bush failed to send in enough troops...Bush failed to leave Saddam's security forces in place. Points reaffirmed by Colin Powell. Amercans have anmesia where Iraq is concerned. They forget that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist who was funding families of human bombs in Isreal. Saddam Hussein's true WMD was his oil wealth. Bush is accused by many Americans of cherry-picking intellegence, meanwhile many forget that most of our government officials supported the war. Even the UN recognized Saddam Hussein as a threat as illustrated by a list of resolutions. The UN always gave deadlines WITHOUT ultimatums which Saddam Hussein played off of. They kept drawing the line and Saddam Hussein kept steppinng over it. Hussein WAS suppised when we invades as evident by him hidding in a rathole. I not a fan of the front runners either. But our system is what it is. Rudy and Hillary are the same beast in regards to foreign policy. They only differ at home where Hillary will tax and spend and Rudy won't. Bill Clinton even said at the end of his presidence that Saddam Hussein was dangerous and would have to be dealt with eventually."

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=Harry] I never saw Rudy as someone who infringed on civil liberties. Most of the street hookers and drug dealers disappeared. 42nd Street went from porn slum to family enetrtainment zone. [/QUOTE] I can understand that, Harry, but you've gotta admit that being a white male isn't really on the list of police targets. It was mostly minorities civil liberties that were infringed upon. [QUOTE=Harry] And let's face it...EVERY politician brings in their cronnies. It kinda comes with the job. [/QUOTE] Agreed here, too. However, it's a point between putting in SMART cronies, or dumb, power-hungry cronies. Bush and, apparently Rudy, don't seem to pick the right type or have good options. Paul strikes me as entirely too intelligent to let things get so dicked up. [QUOTE=Harry] I can't say I'm against banging women. :) I think if more leaders at home and abroad where doing this that the world would be a little mellower. Did the majprity of American's condemn Bill Clinton? No they didn't...it was his lie that got the attention. [/QUOTE] Jeez, Harry, if you think I can say anything bad about it either, you're nuts. :whacky011: However, I DO take offense to the guy taking over something that was given by other people to aid the workers assisting at ground zero. Would you donate a money asset to assist the workers at Ground Zero if you could? Probably so. Would you donate it if you knew a high ranking official with plenty of money (hell, he's got enough to pay $221k in fines for being a crook) was going to use it to cheat on his wife? Um, I sure as hell wouldn't. As for Bill, I agree with the fact that he lied was the problem. I honestly don't give a rat's ass about any of these politicians' personal lives. It DOES piss me off if they're going to fuck me, while they're fucking someone they shouldn't. [QUOTE=Harry] I'm not concerned about a tough president in a dangerous world where newer technology makes more effective weapons for the bag guys. I don't know what is going to happen in Iran...but if it doesn't happen from within it will HAVE TO happen from someone. "Isreal must be wiped from the face of the earth" and "we want nukes" are two pretty horrific statements coming from a terrorist state...and oil state at that...one that has wealth and power becasue of a natural resource. [/QUOTE] I am concerned about a tough President. I happen to agree with Paul that having a tough president that is tells the rest of the world how to live is a HUGE part of the reason we worry about terrorism. I don't think Iran is NEARLY as aggressive (or able to carry out that aggression) as the Bush Admin and media make them out to be and I'm DAMN SURE they aren't as able to cause the U.S. as much harm as a nuclear missile armed North Korea is. N. Korea HAS nukes that can reach the west coast. Sure, saying those things about Israel is pretty scary. However, they've been saying those things for YEARS and nothing serious has happened. Even though I'm a supporter of Israel, I don't think we need to be making the moves for them. They've got a pretty bad-assed military and can take care of themselves. . We don't need to be pissing off the rest of the world acting on impulse for things we THINK might happen because all it is going to do is spur the radicals to MAKE things happen. [QUOTE=Harry] not a fan of the front runners either. But our system is what it is. [/QUOTE] Making statements like that is exactly why our system continues to be "what it is." The lethargy of people who think things can't be changed amazes me. Sure, the change might not be immediate, but it can happen. There used to be more than two main parties (the Whigs comes to mind) in this country. There is the potential for there to be something different than what we've had, but only if people get out of their polarizing party mindset."

newinvestor123 said: "Harry, ever read Freakonomics? If not, you should. It's a very interesting, well written book in which Steven Levitt logically examines and explains social phenomena from an economist's standpoint. One of the things he explores in the book is the drop in US crime in major cities in the 1990's, and he focuses on NYC, which saw the fastest drop. What he found was that the "broken window" policy and CompStat actually had little effect on NYC crime. Instead, the largest factors in NYC's crime rate decline were Roe vs Wade in 1973, more police, and the bursting of the crack bubble. Many kids which would have been born in 1974, many of them into less than ideal families and circumstances - High risk kids - were aborted. Guess which age group, statistically speaking, commits the most crimes? 16-24. Lo and behold, crime peaked in 1990 as that demographic group shrank in size (three years before Mr. 9/11 took office) and continued to decline from that point. The reason NYC's crime rate declined faster than other cities, he points out, is that New York was both an early adopter (it was among five states that legalized abortion in 1970, before Roe vs Wade) AND it had unusually high abortion rates. Levitt also shows that innovative policing strategies very rarely have a significant impact on crime, but hiring more police officers ALWAYS does. Although the police department's manpower continued to expand under Mr. 9/11, it was his predecessor, Dinkins, who began the hiring binge in 1990. By the time Dinkins left office in 1993, the police force had expanded 25%. The final reason for the decline was the bursting of the crack bubble. Just like the Tech Bubble in the late 90's, cocaine prices peaked in the 80's, and as it's use became more widespread, dealers began undercutting each other, profits vanished, and all of a sudden, no one wanted to shoot anyone else (or be shot)to protect their turf in a low profit business. I think both CompStat and Broken Windows are good policies, but it does not appear that they had the effect on crime that Mr. 9/11 claims they did. It seems that he was just in the right place at the right time, and of course, he took full credit for every bit of the drop in crime. Hell, he even fired his first Police Commissioner after 26 months on the job when the police chief got on the cover of Time, supposedly because Bratton was stealing his spotlight... Giuliani is taking a hard stance on Iran. He has said that he will not, under any circumstances, allow Iran to go nuclear. He says that war with Iran is "less dangerous" than a nuclear Iran. Iran, on the other hand, has stated that no matter what, they are going nuclear (as in power plants, not bombs) time and time again, and I believe them. They claim that the right to use nuclear energy is granted to them as signatories of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, and they are correct - It is, as long as they don't use it irresponsibly. So yes, from the way things look now, a vote for Giuliani is a vote for a war with Iran, regardless of whether the program they build is capable of producing weapons grade uranium or not. Which brings me to my next point... If they had a nuclear weapon, would they ever use one against anyone? I highly doubt it. Any fool can see that a war between any modern western nation and Iran would end very badly for Iran, and Iran is, at the very least, any fool. For them to attack, directly or indirectly, ANY nation would be sovereign suicide, no matter who it was, because the rest of the world would come to the rescue and easily destroy them. Would Iran ever openly attack Israel? I highly doubt that too. Israel's military (thanks largely to our foreign aid) is much more advanced than any of their neighbors, and they could easily destroy any one of them at any given time, including, of course, Iran. As for the whole "wiping Israel off the map" thing, that is not actually be what Ahmadenijad said. It was a mistranslation which was quoted over and over by both the right as part of their propaganda for a war with Iran and news agencies to grab shocking headlines. A direct translation is: "[URL="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16218.htm"]The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,[/URL]" with the "regime occupying Jerusalem" being the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism"]Zionists[/URL], which is a political movement, not a country. Still the mistranslation came from Iran's own press release, but it is clear that Ahmadenijad never said "wipe off the map" or "Israel." It's a bit of a weak case, but honestly, how much sense does it make for Ahmadenijad to say such a thing while the neocons are obviously stepping up war propaganda to garner support to invade Iran? None. If he actually said what he was widely quoted as saying, he would have been asking for an ass kicking, and no one likes to get their ass kicked. He does not like Israel to be sure, but I don't think he plans to bomb the shit out of the entire country and "wipe it off the map" as many would have us believe. As an aside, did you know that one of the most popular TV programs this year in Iran was a (state produced) [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118912609718220156.html"]miniseries about an Iranian saving the lives of Jews during the Holocaust[/URL]? There is a clear distinction between the majority of Jews and the minority Zionists in Iran, and it is the Zionists who are disliked, while the Jews are accepted. Actually, Iran is home to 25,000 Jews, the largest population in the middle east outside of Israel. The show is propaganda, of course, but it is propaganda directed against the Zionists."

FirefighterB said: ":signs013: Hit it on the head, New. :th_coolio: I read Freakanomics and totally forgot about that. I believe it to be the truth, as well. Not that Giuliani is the only candidate to claim successes gained mostly on someone else's actions, but it's another reason I don't trust him. I don't think we, or anyone else in the middle east, truly has to worry about Iran. I don't think they are nearly as big of a threat as our media and this administration paints them to be. We're more of a threat to them than they are to anyone else. One sad part is that NYC is set for another crime wave, or at least a substantial increase, in a few years. They've been missing recruiting goals for police officers by substantial amounts because the bean counters think that enough GOOD people would WANT to come work for the NYPD with a starting salary of $25,100 and, even if they did, that they'd STAY when Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island are starting cops anywhere from $50k-$70k. Add it to the withering economy and job market and the city is gonna be in trouble. There is now a citywide hiring freeze on all non-essential jobs because they see a couple billion dollar deficit on lower Wall Street bonuses (hell, the CITY OF NEW YORK knows there are problems ahead in the markets coming), fewer real estate transactions, and declining prices. I just hope I get hired before they have to freeze essentials, too."

Harry said: "newinvestor123 wrote... [quote]Harry, ever read Freakonomics? If not, you should. It's a very interesting, well written book in which Steven Levitt logically examines and explains social phenomena from an economist's standpoint. One of the things he explores in the book is the drop in US crime in major cities in the 1990's, and he focuses on NYC, which saw the fastest drop. What he found was that the "broken window" policy and CompStat actually had little effect on NYC crime. Instead, the largest factors in NYC's crime rate decline were Roe vs Wade in 1973, more police, and the bursting of the crack bubble.[/quote] I just researched "Freakonomics" online and I an nowhere as impressed by it as you are. It is that "you want to believe it?" Freakonomics in ficticious non-fiction. It connects dots that shouldn't connect. I don't live in the blogisphere that wraps myself up in such mumbo-jumbo. Guilliani's term was from Jan 1 1994 to December 31 2001. Now look at these statistics. [url]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm[/url] And living in the suburbs I have my own experience. New York did indeed get safer under Guilliani...many slum neighborhoods are gone. Corporate sponsors have helped this progress along. The subways are even clean that's to the broken window's approach! They used to be covered with graffitti. If Freakonomics told me that the criminal element could't afford to live there any more I would buy that. [quote]Would Iran ever openly attack Israel? I highly doubt that too. Israel's military (thanks largely to our foreign aid) is much more advanced than any of their neighbors, and they could easily destroy any one of them at any given time, including, of course, Iran. As for the whole "wiping Israel off the map" thing, that is not actually be what Ahmadenijad said. It was a mistranslation which was quoted over and over by both the right as part of their propaganda for a war with Iran and news agencies to grab shocking headlines. A direct translation is: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," with the "regime occupying Jerusalem" being the Zionists, which is a political movement, not a country. Still the mistranslation came from Iran's own press release, but it is clear that Ahmadenijad never said "wipe off the map" or "Israel." [/quote] Come on! That link is from "the Information Clearing House". You are pulling up liberal rag junk-material to support your argument. You say "Would Iran ever openly attack Israel?" What difference would it make? Since Ayatullah Khomeini, Iran [B]has[/B] been attacking Isreal through it's intermediary Hezbollah. Please read the history of Hezbollah and get caught up. In the short 2006 war Hezbollah proved suprisingly imposing."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB] I read Freakanomics and totally forgot about that. I believe it to be the truth, as well. Not that Giuliani is the only candidate to claim successes gained mostly on someone else's actions, but it's another reason I don't trust him.[/QUOTE] You believe the revisionist history provided by Freakanomics? :dazed052:"

FirefighterB said: "It's not revisionist history, Harry. It's a fact that abortions were legalized by Roe v. Wade, a fact that a large portion of crimes are perpitrated by 16-24 year olds, and it's also certain that many unwanted/unplanned children that would have been born into impovershed families and bad households were aborted, never having the chance to be raised poorly. This type of upbringing usually leads to a life of crime, so is it that hard to postulate that it could result in lower crime? Harry, I'd say that researching it online is not really a good enough way to make an enlightened decision on the book. You're going to read skewed opinions online, so why don't you get the book and make your own after seeing the full argument? Again, I (we) agree that UNDER Giuliani NYC got safer, cleaner, and more prosperous. However, I (we) believe that this happened MAINLY due to things that were set in motion by people other than himself, although he sure will claim all of it. Check out the Wikipedia on [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat"]CompStat[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows"]Broken Windows.[/URL] If you notice, these BOTH were started by William Bratton, BW when he was head of the Transit Authority and CS when he was Commissioner. Actually, if you read down, BW was started in 1990 BEFORE Giuliani became mayor. Also, if you read down about half way in the "Critics of the Theory" section, you'll see it's mention of Freakanomics. As for Iran waging war through Hezbollah; it's possible. But, don't you think it's more likely that Hezbollah is driven more by the fact that we provided Saddam with weapons for the war with them and our backing of Israel, a target they can reach that would entice us to making a very bad decision (eg, Iraq or, inflaming the entire Muslim region by another war, this time Iran)? Or maybe because we're there stuffing democracy and the western way of life down their throats because we want cheap oil and want to feel like good "humanitarians." (Oops, excuse me Rwanda and Somalia. Sorry to step on you, Darfur. We're too busy bringing democracy to Iraq and getting cheap oil to help you out. Kindly get out of the way, would you? Okay, fine. Here's some grain. Will you leave us alone now?) Listen, that anecdote is not trying to say we should or shouldn't be world cops. I'm actually in the middle on the issue, although I'm leaning toward leaving people alone and letting the UN take care of everyone else's problems. But, I have no problem doing it if we decide that we're going to be fair about it and help EVERYONE equally. Not just the countries that benefit us the most. P.S. Read [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah"]Hezbollah's[/URL] goals on their Wiki (sorry to whore out Wiki, but it's pretty accurate): Hezbollah's three main goals are to eradicate Western colonialism in Lebanon, to bring to justice those who committed atrocities during the war (specifically the Phalangists), and to establish an Islamic government in Lebanon.[9][10][11][5]"

Harry said: "FirefighterB wrote... [quote]It's not revisionist history, Harry. It's a fact that abortions were legalized by Roe v. Wade, a fact that a large portion of crimes are perpitrated by 16-24 year olds, and it's also certain that many unwanted/unplanned children that would have been born into impovershed families and bad households were aborted, never having the chance to be raised poorly. This type of upbringing usually leads to a life of crime, so is it that hard to postulate that it could result in lower crime?[/quote] Please tell me you don't believe in that nonesense...I'll be so disappointed. To say crime fighting tactics didn't change crime but ABORTION did is nut. It's also decietful politics. [quote]Check out the Wikipedia on CompStat and Broken Windows. If you notice, these BOTH were started by William Bratton, BW when he was head of the Transit Authority and CS when he was Commissioner. [/quote] Wikipedia? Come on. :sad010: Your trying hard simply to discredit Rudy but ya can't hide the improvement that occured on his watch... 1993-2001 ...even with abortion. [url]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm[/url] While this link doesn't break down New York's population my age group, there certain isn't any post Roe v. Wade drop. [quote]As for Iran waging war through Hezbollah; it's possible.[/quote] It's possible? If your simply going to dispel facts you shouldn't be having these debates. It's absolute FACT. People on this forum shouldn't puddy over lack of knowledge with abstract concepts that are false. [quote]Listen, that anecdote is not trying to say we should or shouldn't be world cops. I'm actually in the middle on the issue, although I'm leaning toward leaving people alone and letting the UN take care of everyone else's problems. But, I have no problem doing it if we decide that we're going to be fair about it and help EVERYONE equally. Not just the countries that benefit us the most.[/quote] Let the UN take care of everybody's business? My friend, please investigate France's stance towards Iran America is the beautiful idea. We are the model of the bastion of freedom and liberty. Do you want an organiation that consiists of China and the Russian Federation making decisions for us. If we didn't have these non-freedom loving countries on the UN security council Saddam Hussein would have easily been pressured to stand-down. The Iraq war never would have happened. The UN is as polarized as the republicans and the democrats are right now. [quote]P.S. Read Hezbollah's goals on their Wiki (sorry to whore out Wiki, but it's pretty accurate): [/quote] ...accurate only if you're researching the micration of monarch butterflies. :roll: Real news not meddled with... [url]http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/iran-is-teeming-with-hypocrisy/2007/11/13/1194766673369.html[/url] [url]http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=1323[/url] [url]http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnL15361814.html[/url] [url]http://www.spcm.org/Journal/spip.php?breve3187[/url] [url]http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/14/africa/ME-GEN-Syria-Israel.php[/url]"

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=Harry]Please tell me you don't believe in that nonesense...I'll be so disappointed. To say crime fighting tactics didn't change crime but ABORTION did is nut. It's also decietful politics. [/QUOTE] Well, you'll have to be disappointed then, Harry. I'm not trying to be a proponent for the abuse of abortion, but it is solid fact that 1. Abortion occurs and 2. That many children that were aborted were either unwanted or the parents believed they were unable to care for the children. Now, it's also pretty solid fact that growing up unwanted/unloved and in poverty can lead to a life of crime. If you take people that would grow up in these environments out of the population, you pretty likely lower the crime rate. Hell, if you can get these morons saying that all of these aborted babies would work migrant worker jobs, you damn sure can say that they'll rob my ass and sell drugs. [QUOTE=Harry] Wikipedia? Come on. :sad010: Your trying hard simply to discredit Rudy but ya can't hide the improvement that occured on his watch... 1993-2001 ...even with abortion. [/QUOTE] You should probably read the book before you tear it down and call it deceitful politics. You're claiming Wikipedia is not a valid source, yet you say that you "just researched Freakanomics online." It actually has no political agenda or bearing and was written before Rudy even decided to run for President, so it wasn't written to "discredit" him. Secondly, I NEVER said that improvement didn't occur under his watch. I just said that HE was not directly responsible for nearly as much as he claims he was. If you are saying that based purely off crime stats, then Bloomberg has done an EVEN BETTER job than Rudy and is a better mayor/leader/crime fighting ninja. Maybe he should run for President? (If he does and Paul doesn't get the nomination, he's got my vote in a heartbeat). Heres: some non-Wiki articles that shoot apart the greatness of Broken Windows: [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46381-2005Jan29.html"]Washington Post[/URL] [URL="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4520866"]NPR[/URL] This one is from Atlantic Monthly and hits some of the same things that "Rudy's" great plan did...except it was from 1982 [URL="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/_atlantic_monthly-broken_windows.pdf"]Atlantic Monthly[/URL] As for Compstat; Bratton designed it (along with the original Broken Windows, although that was before Rudy) and he was put in place by Rudy. So, I can concede his wisdom on that, but its effects ALONE were not drastic. Crime was already headed down from a peak in 1990, 4 years before Rudy took office, according to the chart you put up. If you follow something like that in the stock market, wouldn't you call it a "trend?" [QUOTE=Harry] While this link doesn't break down New York's population my age group, there certain isn't any post Roe v. Wade drop. [/QUOTE] Umm, are we looking at the same chart. Just as New said; if you take the age statistics of who causes the most crime (16-24 year olds) and add that to the year 1973, you get, wow, 1989. 1989 would be the first year that, if abortion hadn't been legal and never happened, the person born in 73 would be reaching 16; the beginning of that main age range. And, oh my, look at the drops from right about that point. Plus, as New stated, the "crack bubble" was beginning to burst. I don't think Mayor Rudy was the one that caused that. Another circumstance that had its effects pan out while Rudy was in office that he wasn't responsible for, but makes him look good to clam it's benefits. Also, look at the economic conditions around that time. Take a gander at your S&P or Dow chart around those years. What happens in 1995-on as opposed to previous years? Looks like things really took off in the market, huh? Think all of that extra Wall Street action had any effect on this city? Maybe all of the extra tax dollars had something to do with the city turning around? [QUOTE=Harry] It's possible? If your simply going to dispel facts you shouldn't be having these debates. It's absolute FACT. People on this forum shouldn't puddy over lack of knowledge with abstract concepts that are false. [/QUOTE] What are you talking about? According to the [URL="http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/"]Council on Foreign Relations[/URL], Hezbollah is Lebanese. [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm"]This BBC article[/URL] says they have HAD ties to Iran, but it doesn't say anywhere that I can see that the Iranians are still actively involved in running Hezbollah. Jeez, Harry, you in the CIA and have access to special documents that we don't know about? Again, I said it's possible and I don't doubt that there is some meddling going on. But, do I (or, even you) think we need to go attacking Iran to root out this organization of evil doers (using W-lingo)? Hell no. We CAN'T. It's an enemy we can't beat. Hell, this should be obvious by now with the fact we've, um, forgotten about our, ah, old enemy. What was their group's name? Oh yeah, al-Qaeda. I forgot their name. Haven't we so handily taken care of them in, ah, what's that country we attacked because that one guy hung out there? Damn, I'm just so terrible with names. Oh, yeah, Osama. You want to go to war with a country that is WAY more powerful than Afghanistan and would, likely, have a MUCH greater negative reaction to get a "group" when we can't even find the guy (and his dialysis machine) this whole fuckin thing started over? Get real. We can't do it. We can't beat an enemy that doesn't have a set military, a set uniform, or set boundaries NOW and we haven't in the past, so why should we try to do it with an ALREADY WEAKENED military and a demoralized populace. [QUOTE=Harry] Let the UN take care of everybody's business? My friend, please investigate France's stance towards Iran America is the beautiful idea. We are the model of the bastion of freedom and liberty. Do you want an organiation that consiists of China and the Russian Federation making decisions for us. If we didn't have these non-freedom loving countries on the UN security council Saddam Hussein would have easily been pressured to stand-down. The Iraq war never would have happened. The UN is as polarized as the republicans and the democrats are right now. [/QUOTE] NO! I don't want ANYONE else making decisions for us. That's why I support Ron Paul. He'll get us the hell outta there! No more UN, no more NAFTA, no more NATO, no more other letter-abbreviated organizations. I agree that America is the greatest country on this planet (I'm biased, obviously). However, I don't think everyone else WANTS or is READY for what we have here. We can't go around the world forcing other people to adopt our great way of life. For a guy that talks about loving freedom, you sure seem keen on wanting to shove it down other countries throats. We need to get the hell out of their business militarily and take the Ron Paul approach: Assist them through diplomacy. Remove the sanctions. Get the hatred for us off the table. Maybe then these countries will let their own freedom ring from within, much like we did about 231 years ago. As for Saddam standing down under UN pressure; maybe so, but I doubt it. He hadn't previously, so why would he later? And, you know what, if it could have been done without us, it would have saved a ton of American lives and maybe Iraqi lives, if a civil war didn't break out anyway. But, personally, I think Saddam's iron fist is all that was keeping the Iraq as we know it together. We're trying to keep a country together that was FORCED together in 1920 out of three different groups by another "nation:" The League of Nations. We're fighting for a "country" that didn't used to exist and only did recently through the strict rule of a military dictator. [QUOTE=Harry] ...accurate only if you're researching the micration of monarch butterflies. :roll: [/QUOTE] Wiki is researched by the people that run the website and they try to take out untrue information as quickly as possible. To make Wiki sound like some made up leftist propaganda is a bit far. I'm enjoying the debate, Harry. I'm not trying to just bash Rudy. I think Hillary is as bad, or worse, than he is. But, I don't like him one bit. :th_dblthumb2:"

newinvestor123 said: "A concerned citizen has paid for a full page ad in USA Today, "with a right hand placement in the first section - NEWS." It will begin running on the 21st of this month. In the words of Borat, "It'sa very nice..." [url]http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=37965[/url] Oh, and as for securing our energy supply, click on [URL="http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-trends/a-sick-graph-2/"]this link.[/URL]"

Harry said: "FirefigherB wrote... [quote]You should probably read the book before you tear it down and call it deceitful politics. You're claiming Wikipedia is not a valid source, yet you say that you "just researched Freakanomics online." It actually has no political agenda or bearing and was written before Rudy even decided to run for President, so it wasn't written to "discredit" him. [/quote] The book has no "direct" political agenda yet it is being used for political agenda "indirectly". The writers are perpetuating sales via internet blog sites. 5 more books may come out with 5 more theories in regards to NYC crime stats. I have no compultion to read such material. This week coffe is good for ya...then it''s bad...then it's good... I tend to trust my experiences, information and insights. Don't forget I am the guy in the monority who recognizes the fantasy world of politics being wrapped around global warming. The earth has a cycle and it is manifested into being the fault of the repiblicans. [quote]I just said that HE was not directly responsible for nearly as much as he claims he was. If you are saying that based purely off crime stats, then Bloomberg has done an EVEN BETTER job than Rudy and is a better mayor/leader/crime fighting ninja. Maybe he should run for President? (If he does and Paul doesn't get the nomination, he's got my vote in a heartbeat).[/quote] Claims are politics. The republicans fought for a balanced budget for years and Bill Clinton took credit for it when it happened. You may not give Rudy all the credit but he is certainly deserving of some of the credit. BTW: The New York that Rudy handed off to Bloomberg was a GIFT compared to the one that Dinkins handed to Rudy. Bloomberg got the gift-wrapped box...he just put the pretty bow on it. [quote]What are you talking about? According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Hezbollah is Lebanese. This BBC article says they have HAD ties to Iran, but it doesn't say anywhere that I can see that the Iranians are still actively involved in running Hezbollah. Jeez, Harry, you in the CIA and have access to special documents that we don't know about?[/quote] Please... [url]http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0723vipkittrie0723.html[/url] Ties between Iran and Hezbollah are common knowledge. [url]http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_hezbollah_e1b.htm[/url] The recognizing this is essentially denying a cancerous problem in the middle east. [quote]You want to go to war with a country that is WAY more powerful than Afghanistan and would, likely, have a MUCH greater negative reaction to get a "group" when we can't even find the guy (and his dialysis machine) this whole fuckin thing started over?[/quote] If we attack iran it won't be with ground troops. It'll be an air assult, which will not tax our army on strenght. I don't want this to happen...I want Iran to go in the direction of North Korea. Also Bin Ladden is not on dialysis....that as disinformmation that was since dispproven. He is assumed to be in a bubble tribal province on Pakistan...probably in his own rat hole. [quote]As for Saddam standing down under UN pressure; maybe so, but I doubt it. He hadn't previously, so why would he later? And, you know what, if it could have been done without us, it would have saved a ton of American lives and maybe Iraqi lives, if a civil war didn't break out anyway. But, personally, I think Saddam's iron fist is all that was keeping the Iraq as we know it together. We're trying to keep a country together that was FORCED together in 1920 out of three different groups by another "nation:" The League of Nations. We're fighting for a "country" that didn't used to exist and only did recently through the strict rule of a military dictator.[/quote] I have very strong feelings about Iraq. We didn't execute the war well. We didn't stablize exisiting security in the country. The UN inspection agencies UNSCOM and UNIMOVIC were routinely blocked and toyed with. The UN should have been tougher. The UN could have pervented war, and Saddam Hussein easily could have kept himself in power and avoided conflict. [quote]We need to get the hell out of their business militarily and take the Ron Paul approach: Assist them through diplomacy. Remove the sanctions. Get the hatred for us off the table. Maybe then these countries will let their own freedom ring from within, much like we did about 231 years ago.[/quote] We agree on more than you think. I want Paul, but you better have a "plan B" if he doesn't get the republican nod. This debate merely sarted out with me pointing out that Paul couldn't yank us out of Iraq. We can pull out troops, but unless these is a strong security force keeping opppsition forces attached to Iran, Syria, Russia and China out of there, we will remain there in "some" numbers. [quote]Wiki is researched by the people that run the website and they try to take out untrue information as quickly as possible. To make Wiki sound like some made up leftist propaganda is a bit far. [/quote] I use WIKI from time to time but am very wary where politics is involved. The internet community at large is too opinionated and polarized. I am NOT a Bush fan but am dismayed at the amount of misinformation on the internet and media at large. It seems no one is fair and balances in regards to history and facts."

FirefighterB said: "If Paul doesn't make it through the primaries, I'm going to PRAY that Bloomberg decides to run as an independent. While not a drastic in his measures of change as Paul, I think he'll do a pretty good job. Much more so than, if it comes down to, Hillary or Giuliani. He's a smart business man. He's wealthy enough that he doesn't need any special interest money to get elected, he's green on the environment, he's done a great job with NYC, he's a philanthropist (donated $165 million dollars to various charities last year alone) and he's very articulate and well spoken. If he doesn't run, then I don't know what I'm going to do. I don't agree with staying militarily involved in Iraq. I also don't think we should be attacking Iran, at least until we have tried, as Paul wants, to open the doors of diplomacy. We have had sanctions against them for so long and always said that, to ease them, they must go our way or the highway. I'm sure it also doesn't make them love us and it certainly hasn't worked, so I'd like to try the other way. I think we've had terrible foreign policy for so long that it has caused many of these hatreds. If we would just do as Paul proposes and open up diplomatically while drawing back our military from others' business, we might have better luck. If not, at least we tried and we won't have left ourselves in any worse of a position than we are now."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]If Paul doesn't make it through the primaries, I'm going to PRAY that Bloomberg decides to run as an independent. While not a drastic in his measures of change as Paul, I think he'll do a pretty good job. Much more so than, if it comes down to, Hillary or Giuliani. [/QUOTE] I like Bloomberg...he hit NYC with some pretty heft property taxes though. Corporations have a coping mechanism...the small guy doesn't. And with the unrest in the middle east and people hating us for our relationship with Isreal, is the world ready for a Jewish U.S. president?"

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=Harry]I like Bloomberg...he hit NYC with some pretty heft property taxes though. Corporations have a coping mechanism...the small guy doesn't. And with the unrest in the middle east and people hating us for our relationship with Isreal, is the world ready for a Jewish U.S. president?[/QUOTE] I just heard about the property taxes. Definitely not the best move and goes against one of my reasons for liking him. As for the Jewish president, I don't know. I'd like to think we're able to handle such things, but who knows. Of course, this seems to be the year that it's possible, with a black candidate and a woman running and doing pretty well, maybe it's the type of shift away from white, male, Christian leaders that many Americans are ready to make."

newinvestor123 said: "[url]http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/350/preview.html?[/url]"

Hiram said: "I thought this page was good for stock news: naeq.net"

lil dickie said: "[QUOTE=Hiram;59047]I thought this page was good for stock news: naeq.net[/QUOTE] I don't. I prefer [url=http://www.cnbc.com/]CNBC[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "Someone has created a [URL="http://paulcash.slact.net/?save_the_republic=true"]spreadsheet which uses technical charting indicators to track Ron Paul's donations[/URL] - Should be interesting to see [URL="http://www.teaparty07.com/"]how much he gets today[/URL] - Hopefully, donations will top the last fundraising drive in November, and the media will pick up on the story."

newinvestor123 said: "I just watched a Ron Paul interview on economics, the gold standard, monetary policy, runaway government spending, and the growing class divide. The entire interview is about 25 minutes long, but the interviewer does not interrupt him much, and Ron Paul is allowed to lay out his views on these issues in detail. This is, I think, the best Ron Paul interview to date, because he's not being interrupted by some ignorant commentator looking for a soundbite, and it focuses on the realities of the US's current situation, which no one else is doing. If you wonder why he has experienced such a groundswell of support, or if you just want to learn about his views on these issues in more detail, watch all three segments of this interview. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz689NHcAKo&NR=1[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_B2STQuUXA[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52_SOeDVIQk[/url]"

lil dickie said: "God...I just watched those videos. This go would be so bad for business if he was actually elected. He is going to push "savings" and an end to consumerism. Say goodbye to profit."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie;59730]God...I just watched those videos. This go would be so bad for business if he was actually elected. He is going to push "savings" and an end to consumerism. Say goodbye to profit.[/QUOTE] On the other hand, it can be argued that it would be good for the economy because people would be more likely to open their own businesses - With their savings."

lil dickie said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123;60067]On the other hand, it can be argued that it would be good for the economy because people would be more likely to open their own businesses - With their savings.[/QUOTE] Maybe. I didnt think the argument about gold was too compelling. He was like if I drop a piece of gold to the bottom of the sea and find it later it will be worth a lot. If I drop a 100 dollar bill it wont! The gold you dropped would gain value because of historical significance and so would the 100 dollar bill!"

Heather said: "I doubt that would stimulate many people to "open their own business" based on anything. People have the power to open their own businesses now and many choose not to - and for good reason I'm sure. It's a lot easier to just work somewhere, put in your 9-5 or whatever, accumulate a few weeks of paid vacation etc. Most aren't motivated enough to take on the responsibilities of being a business owner. Being on the hook for your own livelyhood is going to be way too much for the average American, they want to be coddled."

lil dickie said: "Tighter credit controls will mean less businesses are launched. "Easy money supply" helps stimulate business development."

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=Heather;60129]I doubt that would stimulate many people to "open their own business" based on anything. People have the power to open their own businesses now and many choose not to - and for good reason I'm sure. It's a lot easier to just work somewhere, put in your 9-5 or whatever, accumulate a few weeks of paid vacation etc. Most aren't motivated enough to take on the responsibilities of being a business owner. Being on the hook for your own livelyhood is going to be way too much for the average American, they want to be coddled.[/QUOTE] I definitely agree with this. Most people wouldn't risk starting a business; nor could we really afford to have eleventy-billion new businesses start up. However, it's not necessarily the point that EVERYONE has to start a business. If one person starts a successful one, it would necessitate employees that the "coddled" could still get their 9-5 fix at."

PharmD29 said: "This guy is a joke in my book. His Utopian views will simply never work. He tells people what they want to hear instead of what needs to be done. It is impossible to please everyone and it is also a lot harder to be Commander and Chief than a lot of people give credit for."

Kloewer said: "[QUOTE=PharmD29;60257]This guy is a joke in my book. His Utopian views will simply never work. He tells people what they want to hear instead of what needs to be done. It is impossible to please everyone and it is also a lot harder to be Commander and Chief than a lot of people give credit for.[/QUOTE] Wow...how turned around backwards you have it. Paul speaks and votes based on painful truths. It's the other candidates that spew promises like socialized health care--Paul doesn't support these schemes because he knows they put the nation in jeapordy, despite the fact that they are popular among most of the country's idiot voters."

PharmD29 said: "[QUOTE=Kloewer;60260]Wow...how turned around backwards you have it. Paul speaks and votes based on painful truths. It's the other candidates that spew promises like socialized health care--Paul doesn't support these schemes because he knows they put the nation in jeapordy, despite the fact that they are popular among most of the country's idiot voters.[/QUOTE] Well although I disagree, if it came down to Paul vs. ANY democrat then throw me a life raft because I am jumping on your ship with you haha. I still like him better than any of the lefties. I still can't believe the spending bill has a 700 million dollar bike trail in Minnesota earmarked into it!!!!"

newinvestor123 said: "Tim Russert had Ron Paul on for an in depth interview earlier today. In the interview, Russert asks some hard questions, and Paul responds in his typical fashion - Straightforward, with a ton of common sense. He also expounds on much of his platform, including foreign policy, fiscal policy, the role of the CIA, FBI, federal education, and the role of government in general. The interview also explores some seeming inconsistencies in Paul's campaign, and Paul straightens them out fairly well. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA&feature=related[/url]"

lil dickie said: "What are you making political posts at an investing forum for...hypocrite!"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie;60336]What are you making political posts at an investing forum for...hypocrite![/QUOTE] This coming from someone who [B]started his own political thread[/B] in an investing forum? You just falsely accused me of being a hypocrite and exposed yourself as one all in the same breath! LOL!"

newinvestor123 said: "FOX news, being the incredibly biased network that they are,[URL="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018075.html"] has banned Paul from participating in an upcoming Republican forum[/URL], despite the fact that he is both polling higher and raising more money than some of the candidates who were invited."

Aligator said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123;60479]FOX news, being the incredibly biased network that they are,[URL="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018075.html"] has banned Paul from participating in an upcoming Republican forum[/URL], despite the fact that he is both polling higher and raising more money than some of the candidates who were invited.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/december2007/291207paul.jpg[/IMG] I asked Ron what he thought of it. I had my camera with me at the time.:) As usual he was confused...."

newinvestor123 said: "For FF, an article on Bloomberg. [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901476_pf.html[/url]"

Harry said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123;60330]Tim Russert had Ron Paul on for an in depth interview earlier today. In the interview, Russert asks some hard questions, and Paul responds in his typical fashion - Straightforward, with a ton of common sense. He also expounds on much of his platform, including foreign policy, fiscal policy, the role of the CIA, FBI, federal education, and the role of government in general. The interview also explores some seeming inconsistencies in Paul's campaign, and Paul straightens them out fairly well. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA&feature=related[/url][/QUOTE] I was quite shocked with Paul's scrambled and jumbled answer regarding all the earmarks he propagated for Texas. He got caught in a fishnet with that question. There was no smooth response. Also, I'm still critical of his philosophy to bring our army home from all over the world. That was a bit of overkill on Paul's part. There is NO DOUBT that CHina and Russia would fill that vacuum in a heartbeat. Paul should have narrowed his focus to perhaps...the north Korean border."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=Harry;60745]I was quite shocked with Paul's scrambled and jumbled answer regarding all the earmarks he propagated for Texas. He got caught in a fishnet with that question. There was no smooth response. Also, I'm still critical of his philosophy to bring our army home from all over the world. That was a bit of overkill on Paul's part. There is NO DOUBT that CHina and Russia would fill that vacuum in a heartbeat. Paul should have narrowed his focus to perhaps...the north Korean border.[/QUOTE] Agreed on the first part. There is a valid, legitimate reason for those earmarks, and Paul certainly bungled the explanation. And yeah, bringing the military home from all over the world, even to me, sounds a bit overkill. I think Paul would institute a phased withdrawal from the Middle East, which would probably take 3-6 months. I think the Iraqi government would get their asses in gear and get some shit done, and I think the people, jubilant that the US occupation is coming to an end, will grab their AK-47s and take to the streets for some good old fashioned self policing. Or maybe the country will devolve into chaos, terrorists will take over, and we can REALLY go and kick some ass - None of this pussy footing around, building up democracies crap. But I doubt that will happen. As for filling that vacuum in a heartbeat - Maybe they would, but let's reason this out. But if we're having all these problems with Iraq, how well do you think China would fare? I doubt Iraqis would just put their weapons down and let China take over their country, and after watching us for the last five years, China knows that there is no way they could take over that country while adhering to the Geneva Conventions. The only way China could take Iraq would be to treat everyone as if they were a combatant. That probably wouldn't go over too well with all of us humanitarians in the developed nations who buy their crap and keep their economy afloat. Combine that with a weak dollar and strong Yuan (making Chinese crap less competitive on the markets), and boycotts would fly. Afghanistan.... Maybe - But the same oversight would keep China from doing much there as well. As long as China is economically dependent on the rest of the world for their growth, they aren't going to do squat. Russia, on the other hand, I don't know about. They could possibly take it over - Who knows. They already laid claim to the North Pole... lol. But if the strongest military in the world, with a defense budget about four times larger than China and Russia combined can't do it, what makes you think either of them would be successful? Sheer manpower? It's possible, but I think they both would be mired in the moral implications of nation building, and I don't think they would get much further than we did, regardless of how many people they put on the streets."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123;60750] As for filling that vacuum in a heartbeat - Maybe they would, but let's reason this out. But if we're having all these problems with Iraq, how well do you think China would fare? [/QUOTE] No no, I didn't mean to allude that China and Russia would fill the vacuum in the same manner that we did...they would just up their presence (ante') in regards to a working relationship for the purpose of dominant business partners for crude oil for competing economies. China "and" Russia has already sided with Iran and provided weaponry and components for a nuclear industry...not to forget missles by China. While oil reins as the number one world energy commodity we will have a presence in the middle east and more specifically Iraq. Meanwhile the caucas in Iowa brings misdirected dreams to the American people in regards to ethanol because Iowa is a CORN state."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=Harry;60754]No no, I didn't mean to allude that China and Russia would fill the vacuum in the same manner that we did...they would just up their presence (ante') in regards to a working relationship for the purpose of dominant business partners for crude oil for competing economies.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm sure they would - But so would everyone else. We would all have a shot at getting a working relationship going with Iraq and Afghanistan, and they would probably go with whoever gave them the most incentive to cooperate - Or, they could be smart about it, and trade with everyone. [QUOTE=Harry]Meanwhile the caucas in Iowa brings misdirected dreams to the American people in regards to ethanol because Iowa is a CORN state.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I've switched my stance on ethanol... I still don't think it's as bad as most people make it out to be, but it's definitely a shitty choice given what we have to work with. Politicians as usual, raping the taxpayers to fund their ill conceived plans... [QUOTE=Harry]China "and" Russia has already sided with Iran and provided weaponry and components for a nuclear industry...not to forget missles by China.[/QUOTE] So did we!"

lil dickie said: "Ron Paul finished [B]fifth[/B] in the Iowa Caucus."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie;60763]Ron Paul finished [B]fifth[/B] in the Iowa Caucus.[/QUOTE] Which is a corn state. Paul is against corn subsidies. I expected him to do better than fifth, but 10% is still a respectable showing for a state that is heavily dependent on subsidies. If he does no better in New Hampshire, that will probably be it for the Paul campaign. We'll see."

Rbreb13 said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123;60765]Which is a corn state. Paul is against corn subsidies. I expected him to do better than fifth, but 10% is still a respectable showing for a state that is heavily dependent on subsidies. If he does no better in New Hampshire, that will probably be it for the Paul campaign. We'll see.[/QUOTE][url]http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IAREP[/url]"

Harry said: "Regardless of my dissection of opinion, PAUL does appeal to me. Oddly on the democratic side Edwards is starting impress me. His philiophy is ounding more like Ralph Nader's every day in regards to corporate America running government. America has a short memory but I'm still not over the drug companies writing their own drug plan."

newinvestor123 said: "[url]http://angryflower.com/paulvk.html[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PqL2hotdbM[/url] Everyone should watch [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE"]this interview of the head of the Government Accountability Office, David Walker, on The Glenn Beck Show.[/URL] Everyone should watch this interview, regardless of whether you are a Ron Paul supporter or not, because the issue of US insolvency is one which is likely to profoundly affect every American in the coming decades. We have spent and continue to spend far beyond our means, and all of that money must be repaid some day through increased TAXES. THIS is the bedrock of almost every one of Paul's arguments, from withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, to abolishing or greatly downsizing multiple federal agencies, to returning to the gold standard in order to ensure that our debt never reaches this level again. Understanding this issue is tantamount to understanding Paul's ideas. Unfortunately, no one else is talking about this or even seems to care. Paul is the ONLY candidate addressing this issue, and since balancing our budget would require things which are not... agreeable to most Americans, he will probably continue to be the only candidate doing so."

Aligator said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123;61128]..........all of that money must be repaid some day through increased TAXES..........[/QUOTE] I am sure you mean to say increase tax [I]revenue[/I]. We on the Republican side mostly believe that revenue may be increased while decreasing the tax rate, and there is some recent history to support that case. I am simply unable to get my mind around this gold standard argument. I read all the words, know the meaning od all the words, but in the end must confess to having almost no understanding of the subject. Which puts me on the same plane as Al Gore with respect to global warming. Maybe I should get the Nobel Prize for Economics.:th_SmlyROFL:"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=Aligator;61156]I am sure you mean to say increase tax [I]revenue[/I]. We on the Republican side mostly believe that revenue may be increased while decreasing the tax rate, and there is some recent history to support that case. I am simply unable to get my mind around this gold standard argument. I read all the words, know the meaning od all the words, but in the end must confess to having almost no understanding of the subject. Which puts me on the same plane as Al Gore with respect to global warming. Maybe I should get the Nobel Prize for Economics.:th_SmlyROFL:[/QUOTE] Yeah, I meant increasing tax revenue. According to the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve"]Laffer Curve[/URL], there is a certain percentage of taxation that will return the most revenue to the government, and this percentage is dynamic - It is constantly changing due to the fluctuating nature of the economy. Tax too much, and you stifle economic growth, which eventually leads to less revenue. Tax too little, and you get less than maximum revenue. This seems to me to be true for obvious reasons, and will remain true whether Republicans, Democrats, or a pack of cigarettes are in office. The difference is on which side of the point of equilibrium the tax ratio is at when taxes are raised or lowered - At least according to the Laffer Curve. Personally, I ALWAYS err on the side of lower taxation, due to my belief that government NEVER uses money as efficiently as a free economy - Therefore as little money as possible should go to it. Many economists peg the taxation percentage where maximum revenue is achieved at somewhere between 65% and 85%, which helps to cement my belief that many economists are really fucking retarded. :) As for the gold standard, maybe [URL="http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm"]this article[/URL] will help a bit."

newinvestor123 said: "[URL="http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=688"]Here's a transcript of a speech[/URL] that Paul gave to the House in 2002 that also might help."

newinvestor123 said: "Alligator, did those articles help? Here's a video of a SGT in the Army who is risking UCMJ action to openly support Ron Paul: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDZLK8xXBRw[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yybFGh1sUcQ"]Ron Paul still kicks ass![/URL]"

scottlarock said: "too bad ron paul doesn't have a snows ball's chance in hell :( Republicans get Shady McCain. He's full of all kinds of shady business dealings and scandals. Keating 5 and this more recent sex scandal."

newinvestor123 said: "Would McCain really be a republican if there weren't a sex scandal involved somewhere? :laugh:"

lil dickie said: "Why would you bring this trash thread back from the dead? Ron Paul is not going to be President in your lifetime or anyone elses. Dude is an idiot and so are his followers."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie;64548]Why would you bring this trash thread back from the dead? Ron Paul is not going to be President in your lifetime or anyone elses. Dude is an idiot and so are his followers.[/QUOTE] You mean like my math and history professors, both of whom hold doctorates and support Ron Paul? Get a life dipshit. I know Paul isn't going to be President for the simple fact that people like you aren't the exception to the rule, they ARE the rule. Ignorance and stupidity - It's the easy way through life, eh?"

lil dickie said: "Only "geniuses" understand Ron Paul. Keep on telling yourself that!"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie;645]Only "geniuses" understand Ron Paul. Keep on telling yourself that![/QUOTE] Obviously, I never said I was a genius, I just called you ignorant and stupid. :wave: And as an aside, I don't "follow" Ron Paul, I support him. He's not a fucking prophet (although he's absolutely correct on many issues, and I suspect his predictions on our economy, the dollar, and foreign affairs will be proven correct), he just tells it like it is, which is exceedingly rare in politics."

lil dickie said: "You know what....you are entitled to your opinion. Good luck on the Ron Paul campaign. :th_dblthumb2:"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie;65052]You know what....you are entitled to your opinion. Good luck on the Ron Paul campaign. :th_dblthumb2:[/QUOTE] What a shocker. I would delete my comment in the other thread, but frankly, I think I deserve to have the last word after putting up with so much BS from you over the last six months. However, if you want to leave it at that, the white flag is a-flyin. If nothing else, I give you props for being consistent. :wave:"