Posted on 09/27/2007 11:13:55 AM PDT by jmeagan
That is true.. Also Ron Paul joined an Unconstitutional military.. That would be the Air Force.. There is nothing in the Constitution about an Air Force...
That is not the impression you would get if you watch some of the videos on you tube. Maybe you could start with the one where he met with google employees.
****There is a loon over on a forum I used ot post on who’s a big ron paul supporter, and this guy went as far as saying that communism isn’t all that bad.****
Every campaign gets its share of wackos. Like the ones here that have to put up the same photo shop pics on every Ron Paul thread.
***This same loon blindly follows everything that ron paul says, and has gone as far as issuing false accusations...*****
Like you do in some of your comments on RP’s record.
***ron paul’s record:
He has never voted to raise congressional pay. (Yet he willingly accepts those pay raises without question)***
You know his state of mind when he gets his paychecks?
****He has never taken a government-paid junket. (He just let’s his donors pay for them instead)****
I think that is against the law. If so, you are definitely making a false accusation with that statement.
***He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. (He has never voted to stop the legislature from taking powers that are not theirs either)*****
That would be unconstitutional, so you are making another false accusation.
****(Yeah bills like the one calling for term limits.....Funny how he doesn’t live up to his principals since he’s now in his 10th term and is currently running for re-election along with his presidential campaign)*****
Actually he is in his 6th consecutive term right now. The other 4, one was for only a few months, happened in the 70’s and 80’s. As far as I know he has never run promising to term limit himself. Term limits would only be effective if they applied to all congress people.
How about the collective wisdom of 70% of the people in the US?
****IF your pet village idiot somehow gets elected, and he brings all of the troops home, the terrorists WILL see it as a sign of weakness and they WILL attack us again and again and again on our own soil.****
Nonsense. How many times have we been attacked here, by Muslim terrorists, in the last 15 years? 9/11 was almost the perfect storm for the terrorists. You and the rest of th pro war people have an irrational fear that 9/11 could happen over and over again. Very few terrorist attacks kill as many as 100 people.
****Letters of marque has been outlawed by international treaties. So what will be the “blowback” from that policy?***
First of all, under a RP presidency, he would be getting us out of treaties which restrict what we can do to protect our country.
*****Your senile hero thinks our foreign policy for the last 50 years has caused the blowback that resulted in the 9/11 attacks. He fails to realize that our policies has nothing to do with the war that we’re fighting. To the muslims we are “non-believers”, and according to the koran we are to be killed.*****
Well our support of the Shah did give us the first nation headed by a radical Islamic government. Our support of the people in Afghanistan against the Russians gave us the MOST radical Islamic government, the Taliban.
I don’t think all Muslims think that all infidels are to be killed. Actually Iran, the next target of the pro war people, was the only Muslim country that expressed outrage at the 9/11 attacks. Fundamentalist Christians are a fairly small part of the overall Christians. E.g. most Catholics practice a form of birth control, other than the method approved by the Church. Saudi Arabia is the Muslim country that does the most to support radical Islam by funding Wahibism around the world.
“However, it would stop the inflation by the Fed, which is a hidden tax on everyone.”
****Uh huh
You mean all that intrest the Fed collects that gets dumped into the treasury each year?*****
Instead of showing your ignorance, you could do a bit of studying on the gold standard. Read some books by the Austrian economists or spend a little time on the Supply Side Forum. Or for a quick fix, watch Ron Paul’s video on you tube about the Fed.
If the evident and obvious truth bothers you, don’t comment. You aren’t required to comment.
Libertarians have their own party and should run on it.
“That is not the impression you would get if you watch some of the videos on you tube. Maybe you could start with the one where he met with google employees.”
Ah yes those staged youtube videos. And IF you were to look at the websites of the people who support him it IS the impression that it’s nothing more than UFO abductees, conspiracy nuts, and hillary supporters who are backing him.
Just have to read lew rockwell, democratic underground, dailykos, prison planet, conspiracy planet, etc to see it.....But I don’t expect those of your brainwashed by the pied piper BS to be able to objectivly see it for yourselves.
“Every campaign gets its share of wackos. Like the ones here that have to put up the same photo shop pics on every Ron Paul thread.”
Well ron paul has cornered the market on whackos, so I doubt that there is any left over for the other campaigns.
“Like you do in some of your comments on RP’s record.”
ron pauls record is a sham, and it’s stupid people like you who can not see it.
“You know his state of mind when he gets his paychecks?”
I know that he hasn’t refused his paychecks.
“I think that is against the law. If so, you are definitely making a false accusation with that statement.”
NOW it’s against the law, but I’m sure that just like others in congress he’s found loopholes in the system.
“That would be unconstitutional, so you are making another false accusation.”
It’s unconstitutional for congress to mandate how the troops are deployed, yet your false idol isn’t out there whining about how congress is overreaching it’s powers.
“Actually he is in his 6th consecutive term right now. The other 4, one was for only a few months, happened in the 70’s and 80’s. As far as I know he has never run promising to term limit himself. Term limits would only be effective if they applied to all congress people.”
Nice spin. So he’s “principled” enough to push for term limits, but not “principled” enough to live upto what he preaches?
“How about the collective wisdom of 70% of the people in the US?”
70% by who’s poll? Kinda funny since it’s been proven that polls can be manipulated based on the wording of the questions, as well as the region of where the poll is taken. And any poll that was paid for by an intrest group can not and should not be considered accurate since the polling company will try it’s best to get the results it’s clients want.
What is the demographic breakdown of these 70% polls? Where were they conducted? How many people were polled?
“Nonsense. How many times have we been attacked here, by Muslim terrorists, in the last 15 years? 9/11 was almost the perfect storm for the terrorists. You and the rest of th pro war people have an irrational fear that 9/11 could happen over and over again. Very few terrorist attacks kill as many as 100 people.”
We’ve been attacked more than just 9/11.
And there are numerous terror attacks that have killed 100 or more people.
Go stick your head back in the sand.
“First of all, under a RP presidency, he would be getting us out of treaties which restrict what we can do to protect our country.”
So you’re OK with willful violation of international law as long as it’s your false idol?
“Well our support of the Shah did give us the first nation headed by a radical Islamic government. Our support of the people in Afghanistan against the Russians gave us the MOST radical Islamic government, the Taliban.”
Yeah some support for the Shah......It wasn’t until that idiot peanut farmer hung the Shah out to dry that the radicals took over.
And you are wrong about Afghanistan as you are wrong about everything else.
“I don’t think all Muslims think that all infidels are to be killed.”
Obviously you don’t “think” because it says so right in the koran that all infidels must “die by the sword”.
The gold standard is not used in any other country – so nowhere is it a “matter of confidence.” [Even still, if you do the math, you will find that the US’s 8,200 tons of gold reserves (@735/oz.) = $193 billion of gold reserve for an M3 of $10,000 billion = only 1.93%.]
They traded dollars for gold only because they knew our reserves were depleted and that the money supply was so great in relation to that gold reserve they could maintain a run that would force the abandonment of the gold standard and the subsequent appreciation of the price of the gold they were accumulating. If the reserve was a higher percentage of M3 they could only expect that the U.S. would continue to meet the demand and a subsequent depreciation or stagnation of the price of the gold they were accumulating.
ONLY if the world believed we had a gold reserve sufficient to meet all demands and to defeat any protracted (dollars-for-gold) redemption scheme designed to force us to abandon that standard and drive the price of gold up again.
"We could also do a quasi gold standard.... If the price of gold is increasing, we would print fewer dollars or take more dollars out of circulation."
After the Civil War, dollars in circulation constituted almost the entire money supply. Even in 1960, dollars in circulation (including checking accounts) was about 50% of the money supply and today it’s below 15%. (See bottom chart in my Post #310.) All money being fungible, merely reducing dollars in circulation - without a reduction in the overall money supply - during a rise in the price of gold, would be insufficient to defeat dollars-for-gold redemption demand/schemes.
In short, the confidence that a currency was “as good as gold” never existed when gold reserves were such a low percent of the total money supply (not just dollars in circulation). You must raise one or lower the other.
If gold reserves can’t be increased sufficiently, do you really want a 3rd world style government devaluation of the dollar to reduce the entire money supply?
If you insist on dealing only with dollars in circulation, do you suggest outlawing withdrawals from none M1 accounts (such as savings, money markets, CDs, etc.) to prevent using that money to make dollar-for-gold redemptions?
Actually a few smaller countries are flirting with a gold standard, but they are too small to be a reserve currency.
*****They traded dollars for gold only because they knew our reserves were depleted and that the money supply was so great in relation to that gold reserve they could maintain a run that would force the abandonment of the gold standard and the subsequent appreciation of the price of the gold they were accumulating. If the reserve was a higher percentage of M3 they could only expect that the U.S. would continue to meet the demand and a subsequent depreciation or stagnation of the price of the gold they were accumulating.*****
I don’t remember the exacting timing of this, but sometime in the 60’s we went to a two tiered gold pricing. The central banks could exchange gold for dollars at the official rate. Then there was a different price in the market for everyone else. The market price was higher than the official price, so France and Belgium turn in dollars for our reserves and then sold the gold on the open market to make an immediate profit.
“If we would return to a gold standard, the value of gold would be exactly the same 10 years from now as it is today.”
ONLY if the world believed we had a gold reserve sufficient to meet all demands and to defeat any protracted (dollars-for-gold) redemption scheme designed to force us to abandon that standard and drive the price of gold up again.
You are forgetting about supply and demand. People need dollars for commerce. If there are too many dollars in circulation, the price of gold will go up. If there are too few dollars in circulation, the price of gold will go down. IF the price of gold is going up, the fed drains dollars from the world supply. If the price of gold is going down, the fed increases the dollar supply.
*****After the Civil War, dollars in circulation constituted almost the entire money supply. Even in 1960, dollars in circulation (including checking accounts) was about 50% of the money supply and today it’s below 15%. (See bottom chart in my Post #310.) All money being fungible, merely reducing dollars in circulation - without a reduction in the overall money supply - during a rise in the price of gold, would be insufficient to defeat dollars-for-gold redemption demand/schemes.******
Of course when I said lower the amount of dollars available I was talking the whole money supply. It would be foolish, to take dollars our of circulation and do the opposite by say lowering the reserve requirements for banks.
*****In short, the confidence that a currency was “as good as gold” never existed when gold reserves were such a low percent of the total money supply (not just dollars in circulation). You must raise one or lower the other.*****
What killed the gold standard was LBJ’s guns and butter during the Nam war. When the price of gold started to rise in the commercial market he just kept printing more dollars when the price of gold was saying there were too many out there.
*****If gold reserves can’t be increased sufficiently, do you really want a 3rd world style government devaluation of the dollar to reduce the entire money supply?*****
We could use the price of gold as a signal to either increase of decrease the money supply. The Fed could set say a $10 range for the price of gold. When gold was nearing the upper limit, the fed would decrease the money supply and vice versa when it was approaching the lower limit. No third world country could devalue the value of a dollar, we can only do that ourselves.
The RP gold standard economic policy, like the RP nonintervention foreign policy, is nothing more than a pipe-dream!
The RP gold standard economic policy, like the RP nonintervention foreign policy, is nothing more than a pipe-dream!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.