• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

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

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
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

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Thanks, but I was refering to Ron Paul specifically. I agree with your assesment by the way...

Kirk
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
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. :wink:
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
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

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
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

New member
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

Silver Member
SUPER Site Supporter
.

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.
cdwink.gif
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
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
 
Last edited:

Bamby

New member
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

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
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

Well-known member
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

nullius in verba
GOLD Site Supporter
"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.

 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Joec,

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

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. :flowers:

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

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
ooooppppssss....


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

Kirk
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
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. :yum:
 

Kane

New member
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

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
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. :yum:
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
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?
 
Top