# What If "They" Are Lying to Us about Ron Paul?



## Cowboy

Another great video and hopefully it will go viral. 


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zyo10lusCY&feature=player_embedded"]What If "They" Are Lying to Us about Ron Paul?      - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Brien

Easiest way to marginalize someone who is perceived as a threat is to have the media ignore anything they say or label their common sense policies kooky.  Ignore that he predicted most of the crap that is hitting this country.  Label him anti-military because he doesn't think soldiers and sailors should be expended on building other nations, that money spent building other countries would be better spent building our own.  

The media picks the president, not the people.


----------



## squerly

Great Video!


----------



## Doc

Brien said:


> Easiest way to marginalize someone who is perceived as a threat is to have the media ignore anything they say or label their common sense policies kooky.  Ignore that he predicted most of the crap that is hitting this country.  Label him anti-military because he doesn't think soldiers and sailors should be expended on building other nations, that money spent building other countries would be better spent building our own.
> 
> The media picks the president, not the people.


Well said Brien!!!!!


----------



## FrancSevin

What if?
What if?
What if?
What if?
What if?
What if?
What if?
What if?
What if?

I like the good judge but his presumptive 90 second intro reminds me of a reality TV series on ghosts and appirations.

What if gravity were an illusion?
What if we are all just figments of our imagintions?



,,,,,,,,,,
What if aliens came here in the distant past?

Makes no more sense than my question....
What if they come and take Dr Paul back?

I like Ron Paul but he is more of a Ben Franklin than a Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln. And right now, we need one of those guys.


----------



## Cowboy

FrancSevin said:


> What if?
> What if?
> What if?
> What if?
> What if?
> What if?
> What if?
> What if?
> What if?
> 
> I like the good judge but his presumptive 90 second intro reminds me of a reality TV series on ghosts and appirations.
> 
> What if gravity were an illusion?
> What if we are all just figments of our imagintions?
> 
> 
> 
> ,,,,,,,,,,
> What if aliens came here in the distant past?
> 
> Makes no more sense than my question....
> What if they come and take Dr Paul back?


 Thats your opinion Franc, but you cant deny they are all very good questions to most we will never get straight answers to.


----------



## tiredretired

We need whomever has the best chance of beating Barry Hussein come November.  Be that the devil himself if need be, but whomever can do the job.


----------



## FrancSevin

Cowboy said:


> Thats your opinion Franc, but you cant deny they are all very good questions to most we will never get straight answers to.


 

What if they......... I love it

"They" is such a vague pronoun.

We can get straight answers. Question is who believes and acts on them.  I doubt you could put most Americans in the group because most Americans don't really want to know those _answers. _

Ron Paul has only placed one bill thru congress in 20 years. He may have all the answers but so far he hasn't convinced many in Congress to follow him. I would suggest that speaks to his leadership, not his intellect.

But the results are the same.  Bottom line is that Paul does well with college kids (maybe because of his stand on drugs) so  NH college towns loved him. he also did well in Iowa on social issues.  Iowa is the same state that supported  Obama and then John Edwards last go around.

 I would love to see him in Romney's cabinet, especialy now that Newt doesn't stand a chance to be anywhere near the oval office.
Secretary of the Treasury would be a good fit.  Bet the Fed gets an audit then.


----------



## Cowboy

He is getting far more support then from college kids Franc not to mention Military and very high up I might add. 

 The problem is the voters that caused all of the problems we have today have not pulled their heads out of their butts yet and figured out its theior fault, but it is gaining support from them to a little bit at a time. Yes I am talking about the baby boomers and it includes myself as well as many others on this forum. Its still along time untill the fat lady sings, either get on board with fixing the country or sit back and enjoy more of the same and continue to bitch about it.


----------



## FrancSevin

Cowboy said:


> He is getting far more support then from college kids Franc not to mention Military and very high up I might add.
> 
> The problem is the voters that caused all of the problems we have today have not pulled their heads out of their butts yet and figured out its theior fault, but it is gaining support from them to a little bit at a time. Yes I am talking about the baby boomers and it includes myself as well as many others on this forum. Its still along time untill the fat lady sings, either get on board with fixing the country or sit back and enjoy more of the same and continue to bitch about it.


 
Cowboy, I was speaking specifcaly about his wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. Quatifyable results. Exit poll facts if you will. Presumptions about SC and Florida are poll speculations. A whole nuther matter.

As for voters gettng ther head out of their butts, I would suggest you expect too much. So how about dealing in reality.

Even Ron Paul himself does not expect to win the nomination. But he does expect to influence the debate. On that he has been extremely successful.

But for now the winnowing of GOP candidates has narrowed the real field to two who can not just beat Obama in a debate, which will be entertaining to watch most assuredly, but beat him in November.

If Bari could overcome his relationship to Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and his indicted neighbor all while hiding behind his smile a host of voter fraud and an ambiguois set of creditials, garnering 53% of the popular vote, I don't think we can expect much in the way of intelligence from a majority of the voting public.

So all great ideas aside, we need the GOP candidate to be attractive, even in a vain way, as well as convincing in their arguments. There are only two who can convincinly prove they have gotten things done in government on a large scale. 

Governor Romney
and 
Former speaker Newt.

However,,,,,,,
Newt would throw free market principles under the bus to save his standing in the polls. He would go back on his promise not to go negative to save his ass, just because the debate heated up. His detractors had warned us,,,and they were right.
As for me, I very much believe in the free enterprise system. So, I have turned my back on him for it.

Mitt is like the weather, not reacting to criticism, while continuing his consistant message. And of the two Romney is the one who will place Bari on defense. In truth, if he is smart, Romney can use the Bain capital experience to prove the worth of capitalism as Obama tries to condem it. 
And Obama will be stuck with his defending record while at the same time, Romney can brag about his.

I did not support Romney before but unless Santorim catches fire, my support goes to Mitt.
This is a primary election,not the national one. So I cansafely promise to vote for the GOP nominee.
So far in the Primary it has seemed to be anyone but Mitt. Until recently.

Huntzman, Perry(each unlikely), Santorum, Newt, Paul, Romney. That's the lineup

Pick one, I'll vote for him in November.


----------



## thcri RIP

FrancSevin said:


> Mitt is like the weather, not reacting to criticism, while continuing his consistant message. And of the two Romney is the one who will place Bari on defense. In truth, if he is smart, Romney can use the Bain capital experience to prove the worth of capitalism as Obama tries to condem it.
> And Obama will be stuck with his defending record while at the same time, Romney can brag about his.




Bain Capital Experience???  Really?  Do you really think the Dems are not going to jump on this one.  I think Barack would have a hay day


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE"]When Mitt Romney Came to Town[/ame]


----------



## FrancSevin

thcri said:


> Bain Capital Experience??? Really? Do you really think the Dems are not going to jump on this one. I think Barack would have a hay day
> 
> 
> When Mitt Romney Came to Town



Gime a break, Of course they will jump on it. You act like it was a secret that somehow got out maybe? Did you think the left didn't know?

Amazing 

Geez, if Romney isn't ready to defend Bain Capital he is naive as a newborn. Don't you get it, Capitalism verses Socialism, that is the essential debate of our next election.

I would suggest Mitt had better be prepared for the conversation.
Or did I miss something here?

BTW, Most of the people in that film lost their jobs long after Mitt left the company.  A little fact the producers didn't portray with any degree of honesty.  But then are you really surprised to hear that?


----------



## thcri RIP

FrancSevin said:


> Gime a break, Of course they will jump on it. You act like it was a secret that somehow got out maybe? Did you think the left didn't know?





You sound so sure of yourself.  The video may or may not be true or partially true.  My opinion is if Romney is the Republican choice Obama is back in for another 4 years.


----------



## Av8r3400

What is the ratio of people that gained employment versus the ones that lost, via Bain Capital involvement?


----------



## Av8r3400

thcri said:


> My opinion is if Gingrich or Paul is the Republican choice Obama is back in for another 4 years.



Fixed it for ya.

Works both ways, Murph.


----------



## Cowboy

FrancSevin said:


> Gime a break, Of course they will jump on it. You act like it was a secret that somehow got out maybe? Did you think the left didn't know?
> 
> Amazing
> 
> Geez, if Romney isn't ready to defend Bain Capital he is naive as a newborn. Don't you get it, Capitalism verses Socialism, that is the essential debate of our next election.
> 
> I would suggest Mitt had better be prepared for the conversation.
> Or did I miss something here?
> 
> BTW, Most of the people in that film lost their jobs long after Mitt left the company. A little fact the producers didn't portray with any degree of honesty. But then are you really surprised to hear that?


 


Av8r3400 said:


> Fixed it for ya.
> 
> Works both ways, Murph.


Yup you smart -------- truly amaze me sometimes, no offence but its folks like you that have things so figured out you cant see the forest for the beach. A vote for Romney is just as bad as having Obama, but then again some folks biggest fears are falling off their billfold.


----------



## thcri RIP

Av8r3400 said:


> Fixed it for ya.
> 
> Works both ways, Murph.




If Romney is the Republican candidate Paul pulls out and goes on the Independent ticket.  Obama wins because the votes are split up too much to overcome Obama's.


----------



## Av8r3400

I believe I called it several months ago, already.  The fix was in long, long ago.

The fact that Paul would run independent (thus splitting the anti-Obama vote) proves he is not someone I would trust as far as I could throw him.  Romney is not everything to all on the right, certainly not to me, but he is better than Obama.  Paul should be able to see this, as well as see he can not win either the nomination or a presidential election.  (I put Gingrich in the same sinking boat)

(I'll be happy to eat those words if he wins in Carolina _and _Florida.)


----------



## 300 H and H

Well many respectfully diagree...

Ron Paul is in this race to the end. He has the people on the ground and the money to do it. His base is broading every day. He will soon be the only one standing with Romney at convention. Then, I guess we will see. To say he should droop out is not going to happen. He has not said that I am aware of that he is considering a third party run. He may not have to consider it at all. Time will tell. But I am far from counting him out just yet. Romney will have his hands full....

Regards, Kirk


----------



## FrancSevin

thcri said:


> You sound so sure of yourself. The video may or may not be true or partially true. My opinion is if Romney is the Republican choice Obama is back in for another 4 years.


 
That's a rather mean thing to say. I'm hardly sure of myself.

But the video has been out for a while and already debunked. And any Republican that supports it is simply soiling his drawers. For it indicts the system Conservatives worship. Free enterprise.

What Karl Marx renamed as "Capitalism."

Of this I am sure, Newt, who could have pulled it off, will now not have the wind at his back were he to be the nominee. And he has only himself to blame.

No less than Thomas Sewell,for whom I have great respect, has said, "_There are no guarantees, no matter whom the Rrepublicans vote for in the Primaries_." He believes Newt has "_the best track record and should be that man."_ Based on this little propagandish movie I must repectfully disagree. 

This is hard for me. I was a rabid Newt supporter. My wife works on one of his committees and has met with him. It is not an easy choice.

So, Sure of myself?, No. But damm sure anyone who faults what is essentialy a cornerstone of conservatism, ie; *Free Market principles*, all for political gain, is suspect.

You still haven't explained how this film Newt's endorsing PAC published says anything for which Romney wouldn't be prepared. I say Mitt should simply defend capitalism and let people judge his record in his participation of it. I say he ought to be quite prepared to do that or he isn't ready for the big leagues.

This is not his Achilles heel. It is, in point of fact, his strength.

Today I heard a lefty compare Mitt to Bernie Madolf, saying that this was the bad side of capitalism. Implying that somehow making a losing operation profitable was akin to stealing from investors by deceit. A strawman argument. Thievery is not a capitalistic method and has nothing in common with free enterprise. But the left would sure like voters to believe it does. They keep insisting on the making that false indictment. Just as they insist that an investor or entreprenuer's focus should be the creation of employment.

Thanks to Newt's apparent vengeful madness, I believe Governor Romney now has a wonderful opportunity to explain the difference. I hope he does. Before he has to argue the point with Obama in front of a debate moderator like George Stephanopolis or Wolf Blitzer.

Romney will then have the wind at his back going into those debates. Assuming the President has the naughty bits to meet him on that field.

And two years form now, Chris Mathews and Rachel Maddow will be found explaining how the Gingrich movie was actually a sly trick to get that very argument before the American voter and fool them into voting for the GOP.


----------



## Cowboy

Av8r3400 said:


> I believe I called it several months ago, already. The fix was in long, long ago.
> 
> The fact that Paul would run independent (thus splitting the anti-Obama vote) proves he is not someone I would trust as far as I could throw him. Romney is not everything to all on the right, certainly not to me, but he is better than Obama. Paul should be able to see this, as well as see he can not win either the nomination or a presidential election. (I put Gingrich in the same sinking boat)
> 
> (I'll be happy to eat those words if he wins in Carolina _and _Florida.)


 Where do you keep coming up with the "fact" that Paul will run as a third party candidate? 

  How many times does he have to say , No I am not even considering it because I dont WANT to, period, yet he keeps getting drilled by the dumbass media to make folks think thats what he is going to do. That is a ploy by them to discredit him to any republican voter base that might be thinking about voting for him. They have nothing else to attack him with, they tried the 20 year old papers to prove he was a rascist and that backfired because he wasn't even the author of them. 

They continue to act like he is not even in the running because neither party in politics WANT him to win, that has nothing to do with the voter base including Democrats and independents that beleive in him. This short vid I posted in another thread says it all. But bottom line is even the fact that Romney has won Iowa and HH are bogus as well due to voter fraud but I guess you cant see that either. 


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cILGviTOTI&feature=player_embedded"]Jon Stewart on MSNBC on New Hampshire Ron Paul 2nd      - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Bamby

_Romney is just another corporate scumbag. Is everyone aware he was a recipient of a Ten Million Dollar Bailout !!!!_



> “The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10  million,” the ad says. “The rest of us had to absorb the loss … Romney?  He and others made $4 million in this deal. … Mitt Romney: Maybe he’s  just against government when it helps working men and women.”
> The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more  complicated, but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw  several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC, which had taken  over Bain’s failed creditor, the Bank of New England.
> 
> 
> Romney aides pushed back strongly on the Democratic charge that Bain  & Co. received anything like a TARP-style “bailout.” While the FDIC  is a government agency, it is funded by deposit insurance payments  rather than taxes. The agency agreed to reduce Bain & Co.’s  liability to the Bank of New England, but didn’t pump new funds into the  flagging firm. Other Bain creditors also took a haircut in order to  avert the company’s collapse.
> 
> 
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58952.html#ixzz1hqSHP532




FYI, real conservatives file for bankruptcy, or seek investors, the fed is not the way!


----------



## thcri RIP

Av8r3400 said:


> I believe I called it several months ago, already.  The fix was in long, long ago.
> 
> The fact that Paul would run independent (thus splitting the anti-Obama vote) proves he is not someone I would trust as far as I could throw him.  Romney is not everything to all on the right, certainly not to me, but he is better than Obama.  Paul should be able to see this, as well as see he can not win either the nomination or a presidential election.  (I put Gingrich in the same sinking boat)
> 
> *(I'll be happy to eat those words if he wins in Carolina and Florida.)*




Ok I am stealing information here from a friend but but but I am sure it will be ok.  I just don't think Ron Paul should be taken so lightly.  


South Carolina


----------



## Cowboy

thcri said:


> Ok I am stealing information here from a friend but but but I am sure it will be ok. I just don't think Ron Paul should be taken so lightly.
> 
> 
> South Carolina


 Exactly but most just beleive the hype that the major media continue to spout, which is pure BS. Main stream media will anoint the next big government republicans as our "choice" because they will tell us he is the only one that is "electable". Do people realize that 1144 delegates are needed to win the Republican nomination? Romney has 14 pledged delegates. Ron Paul has 10 and Santorum has 7 despite the fact that Romney has won two states and everyone is telling us it is over, it aint even began yet.


----------



## joec

Iowa's delegates are technically un pledged as they are free to vote as they wish at the convention.


----------



## Cowboy

joec said:


> Iowa's delegates are technically un pledged as they are free to vote as they wish at the convention.


 True but that also brings down the others total as well. My point is its a long time to go and far from over like most like to claim.


----------



## 300 H and H

That's exactly right Joe. I go to county convention on March 10th. The state convention isn't till May or June, I think.

Like Cowboy says it's far from over yet. RP has active BODIES in all the states willing to work for free for his cause. Mitt only has money and the media. We'll see who wins, especially if the press really blunders, and it become obvious that something is going on and the fix is in. Then see how many more people will get on RP's side of the fence. If they keep ignoring and rebuffing RP, it may in the end, actually help his cause. The only thing that can flip flop faster than Mitt is probably the press. They have ratings to worry about. And credibility or lack of it would cost them, wouldn't it?

Regards, Kirk


----------



## joec

In all honesty even Fox cut away from Paul during his speech after New Hampshire if you didn't notice. My choice was Huntsman who hasn't gotten much press at all other than to say he doesn't have a chance. This whole run looks like an episode of Housewives to me as I've yet to hear anything from any of them on what they will really do other than Paul. Now I agree with a lot of what Paul says however other things turn me flat off. All the rest to me are a bad joke really, in they stand for nothing really with no new ideas just want to take us back to the 80's in what they say. Folks the good old days aren't all they are cracked up to be if you looked at them honestly.


----------



## 300 H and H

OK Joe,

So turns you flat off anyway? Is it real or just the media that has you so sure? I respect your opinions, by the way...

I still have two women down in the house and am spending way to much time at the key board, and to much coffee....

Regards, Kirk


----------



## Cowboy

joec said:


> In all honesty even Fox cut away from Paul during his speech after New Hampshire if you didn't notice. My choice was Huntsman who hasn't gotten much press at all other than to say he doesn't have a chance. This whole run looks like an episode of Housewives to me as I've yet to hear anything from any of them on what they will really do other than Paul. Now I agree with a lot of what Paul says however other things turn me flat off. All the rest to me are a bad joke really, in they stand for nothing really with no new ideas just want to take us back to the 80's in what they say. Folks the good old days aren't all they are cracked up to be if you looked at them honestly.


 Hell Joe Fox has been as bad or worse then any of them from the get go from what I have seen, only recently they seem to be acknowleging that he is not to be ignored. When it comes to the major Media there are none that could be called unbiased IMHO.

   Thats why I look for other sources, and even then you have to sort through their own agenda for the truth, beleive it or not sometimes you can actually find it if you look hard enough.


----------



## joec

300 H and H said:


> OK Joe,
> 
> So turns you flat off anyway? Is it real or just the media that has you so sure? I respect your opinions, by the way...
> 
> I still have two women down in the house and am spending way to much time at the key board, and to much coffee....
> 
> Regards, Kirk


 
Though I watch cable news including Fox. I've also read some of their web sites. I've yet to find any of them that spells out what they will do to turn this country around other than Paul that is new. Most want to return to the trickle down model which has been a complete failure in my opinion. I see nothing in regards to bringing manufacturing back to the US other than some of the stuff not covered by the press by the current administration. I vote based on ideas that can be done and at this moment have heard little of nothing from the candidates including Huntsman.


----------



## 300 H and H

Thanks, but I was refering to Ron Paul specifically. I agree with your assesment by the way...

Kirk


----------



## tiredretired

300 H and H said:


> OK Joe,
> 
> So turns you flat off anyway? Is it real or just the media that has you so sure? *I respect your opinions, by the way...*
> 
> I still have two women down in the house and am spending way to much time at the key board, and to much coffee....
> 
> Regards, Kirk



I as well, Joe.  I know we don't agree all the time, but most of the time anyhoo.


----------



## joec

300 H and H said:


> Thanks, but I was refering to Ron Paul specifically. I agree with your assesment by the way...
> 
> Kirk


 
As for Paul I agree with much of his libertarian ideas on the Constitution. I also agree with his idea the US shouldn't be the police force of the world also. Now where I have problems in not with his ideas but his point of view on what to do to change that. He is much more an isolationist than I am. He also feels if you have problems making it regardless of the reasons, tough shit.. If it isn't spelled out in the constitution and specifically in the bill of rights then it doesn't exist in his mind. What do we pay congress to do then, they pass legislation all the time that changes the laws of this country, supposedly in the guide lines of the constitution though many aren't. They stay laws, in effect until the SCOTUS says they aren't constitution. 

I guess my main problem with Paul is the world isn't simply black and white but has a lot of gray tones between the two. So basically many of his answers are no current with the current world wide situations.


----------



## FrancSevin

Bamby said:


> _Romney is just another corporate scumbag. Is everyone aware he was a recipient of a Ten Million Dollar Bailout !!!!_
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, real conservatives file for bankruptcy, or seek investors, the fed is not the way!


 
As I understand it, FDIC funds are collected as insurance againsta bank failure. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Recieving a paymet from the FDIC is no differet than receinig a payment from any government agency where you paid in,like flood insurance or a federaly backed mortgage.

And since all have to pay in under the FDIC mandate, any who qualify can receive compensation. It is not a bailout to do so.

Would you consider anaccident claim payment from Allstate a "bailout?" Well, essentialy that is what the article dishonestly called it.


Being a conservative does not mean you cannot recieve what is due you, simply because it comes from a government entity. In true conservatism, the FDIC would not exist,but it does. We all depend on it, pay for and use it.
In this case I believe Bain received a settlement from a Government insurance entity. That's just business. Conservatism has nothing to do with it.

Thisis about Ron Paul. So just to reconnect, I do not believe he has a problem with the FDIC. It is considered one of the best run agencies in the Federal Goverment, operating witha good model and consistantly with a surplus, even during the recent upheavals.


----------



## Bamby

FrancSevin said:


> As I understand it, FDIC funds are collected as insurance againsta bank failure. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
> Recieving a paymet from the FDIC is no differet than receinig a payment from any government agency where you paid in,like flood insurance or a federaly backed mortgage.
> 
> And since all have to pay in under the FDIC mandate, any who qualify can receive compensation. It is not a bailout to do so.
> 
> Would you consider anaccident claim payment from Allstate a "bailout?" Well, essentialy that is what the article dishonestly called it.
> 
> 
> Being a conservative does not mean you cannot recieve what is due you, simply because it comes from a government entity. In true conservatism, the FDIC would not exist,but it does. We all depend on it, pay for and use it.
> In this case I believe Bain received a settlement from a Government insurance entity. That's just business. Conservatism has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Thisis about Ron Paul. So just to reconnect, I do not believe he has a problem with the FDIC. It is considered one of the best run agencies in the Federal Goverment, operating witha good model and consistantly with a surplus, even during the recent upheavals.



I'm calling your bull it is and was a bailout the FDIC only covers losses up to 250 thousand in a single bank.



> What are the basic FDIC coverage limits?*
> Single Accounts (owned by one person with no beneficiaries): $250,000 per owner
> 
> 
> Joint Accounts (two or more persons with no beneficiaries): $250,000 per co-owner
> 
> 
> IRAs and other certain retirement accounts: $250,000 per owner
> Revocable trust accounts: Each owner is insured up to $250,000                          for each unique eligible beneficiary named or identified                          in the revocable trust, subject to specific limitations                          and requirements.
> 
> 
> Is it possible to have more than $250,000 at one                             insured bank and still be fully covered?
> 
> 
> You may qualify for more than $250,000 in coverage at one insured bank                         or savings association if you own deposit accounts in different ownership                         categories. The most common account ownership categories for individual                         and family deposits are single accounts, joint accounts, revocable trust                         accounts, and certain retirement accounts.
> 
> 
> From December 31, 2010 through December 31, 2012, all noninterest-bearing                          transaction accounts are fully insured, regardless of the balance of the                          account and the ownership capacity of the funds.  This coverage is available                          to all depositors, including consumers, businesses, and government entities.                           The unlimited coverage is separate from, and in addition to, the insurance                          coverage provided for a depositor’s other accounts held at an                          FDIC-insured bank.
> 
> 
> 
> A noninterest-bearing transaction account is a deposit account where:
> 
> 
> interest is neither accrued nor paid;
> depositors are permitted to make an unlimited number of transfers and withdrawals; and
> the bank does not reserve the right to require advance notice of an intended withdrawal.
> *Note:* Money Market Deposit Accounts (MMDAs) and Negotiable Order of Withdrawal                          (NOW) accounts are *not* eligible for this temporary unlimited insurance coverage,                          regardless of the interest rate, even if no interest is paid.
> 
> 
> https://www.fdic.gov/edie/fdic_info.html


And now getting back to topic.....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&feature=player_embedded"]The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul      - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CityGirl

FrancSevin said:


> .
> 
> What Karl Marx renamed as "Capitalism."


 


  Back pedaling here because this sentence caught my attention.  I'd never heard this and needed to check the veracity.  What I found is that Karl Marx did not coin the term Capitalism but that the first known use of the term was in 1850, in french, in Louis Blanc's Organization of Labor  and the term was first used in English according to The _Oxford English Dictionary_ (Vol II, p 863)  in 1854 by *William Makepeace Thackeray* in his novel, _The Newcomes _while Marx introduced the term in 1867 with his publicatio of Das Kapital.

Although Adam Smith is remembered posthumously as The Father of Capitalism, he never knew of the term.  The term 'capitalist' was first used in English in 1792 in Travels in France by Arthur Young and in french by  A.R.J Turgot in  Reflections on the Formation and the Distribution of Riches LXIII-IV, 1770.  

Well dang, I coulda just used this link instead of the 6 I used to synopsize above...http://books.google.com/books?id=gQ...ur young capitalist+travels in france&f=false

Anyway, to set the record straight, Marx didn't coin the term but Louis Blanc, who used it in 1850, was a french socialist so I guess that pretty much serves Franc's intent.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled program and thanks for the learning experience.


----------



## CityGirl

oops, Sorry Bamby!  Back to topic!


----------



## FrancSevin

Bamby said:


> I'm calling your bull it is and was a bailout the FDIC only covers losses up to 250 thousand in a single bank.
> 
> And now getting back to topic.....
> 
> The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul - YouTube


Not Bull Bamby
_From their mission statement: _
_"To protect insured depositors, the FDIC responds immediately when a bank or thrift institution fails. Institutions generally are closed by their chartering authority – the state regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The FDIC has several options for resolving institution failures, but the one most used is to sell deposits and loans of the failed institution to another institution. Customers of the failed institution automatically become customers of the assuming institution. Most of the time, the transition is seamless from the customer's point of view."_
http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/index.html

I don't know a lot about this particular Bain deal but I believe it involved the transfer sale a failing bankand some outstanding loans. FDIC would facilitate that.
George Soros bought a state bank of Indiana under the same type of deal. FDIC funds made it happen.  

FDIC is not in the habit of giving away money but if it does, as this case might be construed, it is not federal money or taxpayer money. It is a businees deal. 
Not a bail out.
Making the charges of a $10 million "bailout" false on the face of it, or at least misleading.

And Thanks for the Clarification Citygirl. I didn't say "coined the phase" But I get you fine point. Marx did make the term widely acceptable and used as a result of his writings.
Always good to get the whole stoy. Thanks


----------



## Bamby

joec said:


> As for Paul I agree with much of his libertarian ideas on the Constitution. I also agree with his idea the US shouldn't be the police force of the world also. Now where I have problems in not with his ideas but his point of view on what to do to change that. He is much more an isolationist than I am. He also feels if you have problems making it regardless of the reasons, tough shit.. If it isn't spelled out in the constitution and specifically in the bill of rights then it doesn't exist in his mind. What do we pay congress to do then, they pass legislation all the time that changes the laws of this country, supposedly in the guide lines of the constitution though many aren't. They stay laws, in effect until the SCOTUS says they aren't constitution.
> 
> I guess my main problem with Paul is the world isn't simply black and white but has a lot of gray tones between the two. So basically many of his answers are no current with the current world wide situations.



_Joec please read and consider the following from  Dr Paul Craig  Roberts
_
Only the blind do not see that the US government is preparing to  attack Iran. According to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, “Active war  preparations directed against Iran (with the involvement of Israel and  NATO) were initiated in May 2003.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28542


 Washington has deployed missiles directed at Iran in its oil emirate  puppet states, Oman and the UAE, and little doubt in the other US puppet  states in the Middle East. Washington has beefed up Saudi Arabia’s jet  fighter force. Most recently, Washington has deployed 9,000 US troops to  Israel to participate in “war games” designed to test the US/Israeli  air defense system. As Iran represents no threat unless attacked,  Washington’s war preparations signal Washington’s intention to attack  Iran.


 Another signal that Washington has a new war on its agenda is the  raised level of Washington’s rhetoric and demonization of Iran. Judging  by polls Washington’s propaganda that Iran is threatening the US by  developing a nuclear weapon has met with success. Half of the American  public support a military attack on Iran in order to prevent Iran from  acquiring nuclear capability. Those of us who are trying to awaken our  fellow citizens start from a deficit that the minds of half of the US  population are under Big Brother’s control.


 As the International Atomic Energy Agency’s reports from its  inspectors on the ground in Iran have made clear for years, there is no  evidence that Iran has diverted any enriched uranium from its nuclear  energy program. The shrill hype coming from Washington and from the  neoconservative media is groundless. it is the same level of lie as  Washington’s claim that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass  destruction. Every US soldier who died in that war died in behalf of a  lie.
 It could not be more obvious that Washington’s war preparations  against Iran have nothing to do with deterring Iran from a nuclear  weapon. So, what are the war preparations about?


 In my judgment, the US government’s war preparations are driven by three factors.

One is the neoconservative ideology, adopted by the US government, that  calls for the US to use its superior military and economic position to  achieve world hegemony. This goal appeals to American hubris and to the  power and profit that it serves.


 A second factor is Israel’s desire to eliminate all support for the  Palestinians and for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Israel’s goal is to  seize all of Palestine and the water resources of southern Lebanon.  Eliminating Iran removes all obstacles to Israel’s expansion.


 A third factor is to deter or slow China’s rise as a military and  economic power by controlling China’s access to energy. It was China’s  oil investments in eastern Libya that led to the sudden move against  Libya by the US and its NATO puppets, and it is China’s oil investments  elsewhere in Africa that resulted in the Bush regime’s creation of the  United States Africa Command, designed to counter China’s economic  influence with US military influence. China has significant energy  investments in Iran, and a substantial percentage of China’s oil imports  are from Iran. Depriving China of independent access to oil is  Washington’s way of restraining and boxing in China.


 What we are witnessing is a replay of Washington’s policy toward  Japan in the 1930s that provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  Japan’s bank balances in the West were seized, and Japan’s access to oil  and raw materials was restricted. The purpose was to prevent or to slow  Japan’s rise. The result was war.


 Despite the hubris in which it wallows, Washington understands the  vulnerability of its Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and would not risk  losing a fleet and 20,000 US naval personnel unless it was to gain an  excuse for a nuclear attack on Iran. A nuclear attack on Iran would  alert both China and Russia that they could suffer the same fate. The  consequence would be that the world would face a higher risk of nuclear  armageddon than existed in the mutually assured destruction of the  US-Soviet standoff.


 Washington is getting all of us in over our heads. Washington has  declared the “Asia-Pacific” and the South China Sea to be areas of  “America’s national interest.” What sense does this make? It makes the  same sense as if China declared the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean  Sea to be areas of China’s national interest.


 Washington has deployed 2,500 Marines, promising more to come, to  Australia in order to do what? Protect Australia from China or occupy  Australia? Encircle China with 2,500 Marines? It would not mean anything  to China if Washington deployed 25,000 Marines in Australia.


 When you get right down to it, Washington’s tough talk is nothing but  a silly pointless provocation of Washington’s largest creditor. What if  Washington’s idiocy causes China to worry that Washington and its UK  and European puppets will seize its bank balances and refuse to honor  China’s holdings of $1 trillion in US Treasury bonds? Will China pull  its balances from the weak US, UK, and European banks? Will China decide  to strike first, not with nuclear weapons, but by selling its $1  trillion in Treasury bonds all at once?


 It would be cheaper than war.


 The Federal Reserve would have to quickly print another $1 trillion  dollars with which to buy the bonds, or US interest rates would shoot  up. What would China do with the $1 trillion in newly printed paper? In  my opinion, China would dump it all at once in the currency market,  because the Federal Reserve cannot print euros, UK pounds, Japanese yen,  Swiss francs, Russian rubles, and Chinese yuan with which to buy up its  newly printed currency.


 The US dollar would take a beating. US import prices–which now  include, thanks to offshoring, almost everything Americans consume–would  rise. The hard-pressed 90% would take a further beating, endearing  their Washington oppressors to them to an even greater extent. The rest  of the world, anticipating nuclear war, would flee the dollar, as  Washington would be a primary attack target.


 If the missiles aren’t launched, Americans would wake up the next day  a bankrupt third world country. If the missiles were launched, few  Americans would wake up.


 We, as Americans, need to ask ourselves what all this is about? Why  is our government so provocative toward Islam, Russia, China, Iran? What  purpose, whose purpose is being served? Certainly not ours.


 Who benefits from our bankrupt government starting yet more wars,  picking this time not on defenseless countries like Iraq and Libya, but  on China and Russia? Do the idiots in Washington think the Russian  government does not know why Russia is being surrounded with missile  bases and radar systems? Do the Washington morons really believe that  the Russian government will fall for its lie that the missiles are  directed against Iran? Only American idiots who sit in front of Fox  “news” could possible believe that the real issue is an Iranian nuclear  weapon.


 How much longer will the Russian government permit the US National  Endowment for Democracy, a CIA front, to interfere in its elections by  financing opposition parties led by the likes of Vladimir Kara-Murza,  Boris Nemtsov, and Alexei Navalny, who organize protests of every  election that Putin’s party wins, alleging without any evidence  whatsoever, but providing propaganda for Washington, who no doubt pays  well, that the election will be and was stolen?


http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=28571
 In the US, such activists would be declared to be “domestic  extremists” and be subjected to rough treatment. In Amerika even  anti-war activists are subjected to home invasions by the FBI and grand  jury investigations.


 What this means is that “the criminal state of Russia” is a more  tolerant democracy than the US, or for that matter, Amerika’s puppet  states in Europe and the UK.


 Where do we go from here? If not to nuclear destruction, Americans  must wake up. Football games, porn, and shopping malls are one thing.  Survival of human life is another. Washington, that is, “representative  government,” consists only of a few powerful vested interests. These  private interests, not the American people, control the US government.


That is why nothing that the US government does benefits the American people.


 The current crop of presidential contenders, except for Ron Paul,  represent the controlling interests. War and financial fraud are the  only remaining American Values.


 Will Americans again give the sheen of “democracy” to rule by a few by participating in the coming rigged elections?


 If you have to vote, vote for Ron Paul or for a more extreme third  party candidate.


 Show that you do not support the lie that is the  system.


Stop watching television. Stop reading newspapers. Stop spending  money. When you do any of these things, you are supporting evil.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/01/11/the-next-war-on-washingtons-agenda/


----------



## joec

Bamby said:


> _Joec please read and consider the following from Dr Paul Craig Roberts_


 
I'm sorry Bamby, I'm not following what any of this has to do with my statement about Paul other than to back up what he says. Now I don't agree with Roberts or Paul on either of these things as there are other ways to handle them beside war or isolationism as I stated. The world is not black or white but a lot of shades of gray between the two extremes.

For example I don't think Iran will do anything right now to stop the flow of oil from them. Their currency has taken a nose dive, they can't refine the oil they have into gas or any usable product in country so are forced to send it out. Now if they start a war under the current situation they are cutting off their nose to spite their face as my mother used to say. They are a lot of things but they aren't stupid as they are smart enough to figure out they can't defeat Saudi much less Israel in an all out war and the US could take both out inside of one bomb run so it is back to pragmatic solutions. They have no choice to go with it or cease to exist period.

Now I am sure not for war, tired of the US being forced to prop up the rest of the world but really can't do anything about it personally either. As for voting for Paul, no GOP candidate will get my vote and odds are I will chose not to vote for a president again as I did last time. That is unless the Republican party continues to piss me off as well as their minions then I will vote for Obama this time as a protest to the stupid people of this country.


----------



## loboloco

Actually, Bamby, the US has been "prepared' to go to war with Iran since before the fall of the Shah.  It is called war gaming.  We are also prepared to go to war with every other country on earth.  also called war gaming.  The article leaves out the main reason we would go to war with Iran though, and that is the fact that it represents the largest threat in a volatile region and has repeatedly stated its willingness to attack the US and its allies.


----------



## Danang Sailor

"The narrower a man's mind, the broader his statements."
--Charles Dickens

What basis does an economist have for claiming expertise on the military and matters of national defense?  Dickens
statement has even more bearing when an expert in one field presumes to speak with the same authority in a vastly
different field.  To top it off, Dr. Roberts is one of the foremost proponents of the theory that 9/11 was "an inside job" and
that all the facts in the 9/11 Commission report are bogus.  It's hard to take anything this man says seriously.

And as for risking the loss of the entire 5th Fleet and 20,000 sailors and Marines?  To the Iranian Navy?  Whatever this
guy is smoking it must be, to quote George Carlin, "really good shit"!  And comparing the situation in the Persian
Gulf to our actions regarding Japan in the '30's is, to say the least, disingenuous; remember who it is that is now
threatening to blockade the Straits of Hormuz and interfere with China's access to Iranian oil.  Hint:  It isn't us!

Even if _something_ this man says turns out to be even _somewhat_ correct he has destroyed his credibility with his totally
ridiculous assertions.


----------



## 300 H and H

Joec,

Thought you might like this, if you have not seen it yet anyway. Uncle Pat?

http://www.lewrockwell.com:80/buchanan/buchanan208.html

Regards, Kirk


----------



## joec

300 H and H said:


> Joec,
> 
> Thought you might like this, if you have not seen it yet anyway. Uncle Pat?
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com:80/buchanan/buchanan208.html
> 
> Regards, Kirk


 
Nope I sure hadn't seen it but did get a good laugh out of it. Pat Buchanan is another libertarian and preached pretty much what Paul does which both come from the Barry Goldwater school of politics. 

My uncle if this is what you mean was Pat Robertson the preacher not Buchanan.


----------



## 300 H and H

ooooppppssss....


But I think the artical is a realistic veiw of how the race will unfold.

Kirk


----------



## joec

300 H and H said:


> ooooppppssss....
> 
> 
> But I think the artical is a realistic veiw of how the race will unfold.
> 
> Kirk


 
I don't doubt it. Oh and if Buchanan was my uncle he would just be another crazy uncle in the family loaded with them.


----------



## Kane

joec said:


> Now if they start a war under the current situation they are cutting off their nose to spite their face as my mother used to say.
> 
> 
> As for voting for Paul, no GOP candidate will get my vote and odds are I will chose not to vote for a president again as I did last time.
> 
> 
> 
> That is unless the Republican party continues to piss me off as well as their minions then* I will vote for Obama this time as a protest to the stupid people of this country*.



But *joec*, if you vote for Obama, wouldn't that be cutting off your nose  ...  like yo' mother used to say?


----------



## joec

Kane said:


> But *joec*, if you vote for Obama, wouldn't that be cutting off your nose ... like yo' mother used to say?


 
Nope because it would make me feel good knowing it would give you something to cry about for another 4 years.


----------



## Kane

joec said:


> Nope because it would make me feel good knowing it would give you something to cry about for another 4 years.



Put country first,* joec*.  Country first.


----------



## joec

Kane said:


> Put country first,* joec*. Country first.


 
I am Kane he is better than the other choices.


----------



## Danang Sailor

joec said:


> I am Kane he is better than the other choices.



Joe, even "None of the Above" is a better choice than the Obamessiah!


----------



## Kane

> I will vote for Obama this time


At least from now until next November we will know exactly how you stand.  No more need for innuendo or distraction.


----------



## FrancSevin

Kane said:


> At least from now until next November we will know exactly how you stand. No more need for innuendo or distraction.


 


Like this is a surprise. The false objectivity was apparent and dripping from every post.So now that you ar e the poster child for the Baby Boomer Progressives Joec, it is safe to explain why Bari is a better choice over the GOP. However this thread is about Dr Paul so I'll give you the easy one first.

Why is he better than Ron Paul?


----------

