217 responses to “Ron Paul’s Tea Party Speech”

  1. kkkioe

    Ron Paul’s Tea Party Speech I was suggested this website by my cousin. I'm not sure whether this post is written by him as no one else know such detailed about my problem. You're wonderful! Thanks! your article about Ron Paul’s Tea Party SpeechBest Regards Nick

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. fred the protectionist

    http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/04/15/tea-party-movement-confused-about-taxes-and-the-boston-tea-party/#thankYou

    Here's a good article on the real Boston Tea Party, not the historically re-written version.

    Someone commented: "TEA party takes it's name from the spirit of the event..."

    If a tea party happened today in "the spirit of the event" then people would dress up as muslims, hijack a Chinese container ship, then dump all the containers into the ocean.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    1. fred the protectionist

      http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2009/04/real-boston-tea-party-was-against-wal-mart-1770s

      Another excellent 'historically accurate' Boston Tea Party.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    2. longshotlouie

      You post the best links for revisionist history.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      1. fred the protectionist

        You Libertarian/Neocons are no better then Communists when it comes to rewriting history. The Boston Tea Party was an act of protectionism.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        1. SS

          So what did you think about the speech, freddie?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. fred the protectionist

          It's irrelevant. The tea party movement is a mockery of the Boston Tea Party.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      2. fred the protectionist

        Don't let the Neocons, or the Libertarians, or the Liberals, or the Socialists rewrite history.

        http://buchanan.org/blog/the-war-over-americas-past-4084

        The War Over America's Past

        By Patrick J. Buchanan

        “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

        hat was the slogan of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s “1984,” where Winston Smith worked ceaselessly revising the past to conform to the latest party line of Big Brother.

        And so we come to the battle over history books in the schools of Texas. Liberals are enraged that a Republican-dominated Board of Education is rewriting the texts. But is the rewrite being done to falsify history, or to undo a liberal bias embedded for decades?
        .
        .
        .

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        1. fred the protectionist

          Don't believe the protectionists? Then listen to the free traders: http://mises.org/daily/2435

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  3. Theresa Romano

    I think Sarah Palin is the pied piperess of the one party media run big brother establishment.
    I think big brother was fearful of an internet controlled tea party movement being run by the masses. They couldn't silence Dr. Paul. So they're trying to usurp the movement with this Palin character as the 'leader'.
    I don't like it much.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. longshotlouie

      B I N G O

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  4. Parker

    Thank you, Ron. You are truly an American hero. For everyone else who is TEA: Why is Sarah Palin riding the coattails of this movement? She is in no way qualified to be spokeswoman for this campaign. It belongs to us and people like Ron. With her track record, she is just another Bush. Sure she claims her policies are so conservative but it's easy when you're governing the least populated state. Please do not accept Sarah as a face for this movement. Remember, she quit being Governor. She quit and then came out with a book. Enough said.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

  5. joe perry

    You guys realize that no matter what your opinions are it is not going to change a thing in this world so get used to it....dorks

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 21

    1. Fred the Protectionist

      Wow, I think you just made me have an epiphany. I see the whole world in a different way now.

      I never knew that, thanks.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

  6. longshotlouie

    Ron Paul and the Libertarian Moment

    "Freedom in our time" – is it possible?

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/04/15/ron-paul-and-the-libertarian-moment/

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

  7. Fred the Protectionist

    On MSNBC tonight they were pushing the same old "separation of church and state" junk; using the same old short list of quotes a couple founding fathers made, out of context of course. The most obvious out of context quote was on the Constitution. This is what MSNBC quoted in the Constitution:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." dot, dot, dot.

    They conveniently forgot to add: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    Libertarians are Liberals. They use the same snake in the grass tactics, they are manipulative propagandists, hypocrites and liars. They are also both full to the brim of Atheists and Anarchists. Do you want these devils representing you?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 20

  8. Bud

    Why Won't Obama Replace Federal Judges Appointed by Bush?

    These judges will be invaluable under a Corporatist (Fascist) Regime!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

    1. Fred the Protectionist

      Corporate fascist?

      You a liberal or a Libertarian? So hard to tell these days.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 15

  9. gander

    the gold standard is bad because the supply of gold is fixed and a growing money supply is needed to encourage a growing economy. the supply of mexican babies is growing at an exponential rate. therefore, i think that they would make a good source of money.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8

    1. Nick R.

      Why is a growing money supply needed to encourage a growing economy?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

      1. Kale R.

        Gander, the gold standard is GOOD because the supply of gold is fixed. By printing more money, you create INFLATION. By removing paper money from the economy, you create DEFLATION.

        If fixing our economy was as easy as printing more money, we'd already be out of this mess. Think before you speak.

        And what's this about Mexican babies?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

        1. Fred the Protectionist

          Libertarian say: "Gander, the gold standard is GOOD because the supply of gold is fixed. By printing more money, you create INFLATION. By removing paper money from the economy, you create DEFLATION."

          There's allot of simplistic assumptions there bubba-sticks, my favorite is "removing paper money creates deflation."

          And since when have the pro-growth neocons wanted to create deflation? I was a Libertarian in the 1990's and I vividly remember the Neocons and Libertarians holding hands under their arc-angel Greenspan, wielding his glowing sword and declaring that growth and NAFTA/WTO is all that is good and holy. You changed your tune, liars.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17

          1. EndtheFed

            Fred: "There’s allot of simplistic assumptions there "

            Yep, simplistic assumptions alright. Supply goes up; price goes down. Supply goes down; price goes up.
            Inflation and deflation = supply and demand.

            Simple as that.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3

          2. Fred the Protectionist

            That's right, so as the supply of dollars goes up outside of the US because of the trade deficit (thanks free traders), the value of dollars goes down.....outside of the US.

            Our market is so big it is practically acting like a dual-currency, pretty wierd huh.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

          3. EndtheFed

            Fred said: "as the supply of dollars goes up outside of the US [...], the value of dollars goes down…..outside of the US."

            You're talking about the exchange rate between currencies, not the purchasing power in terms of goods. 'One dollar' worth of euros will buy the same amount of goods as 'one dollar' worth of dollars. The purchasing power remains unharmed.

            Just as a pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of bricks.

            There is a distinction between two seperate currencies, there is no distinction between ounces of gold. An ounce of gold purchased in China is the same as an ounce of gold purchased in the US.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

          4. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say "There is a distinction between two seperate currencies, there is no distinction between ounces of gold. An ounce of gold purchased in China is the same as an ounce of gold purchased in the US."

            If the US went on the gold standard, then we'd export it all because of the trade deficit then flood the world market with gold and drop it's value.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11

          5. EndtheFed

            Okay I'm very obviously having a conversation with a broken record.

            Well Fred, all hope may be lost for you. On the bright side, more intelligent people may actually learn something by reading your arguments and watching them get shut down everytime. Just keep repeating yourself Fred, maybe someday you will find someone as blind as you and you guys can repeat yourselves together.

            Oh, and in the meantime, if you actually decide that you want to know something about the issue you are arguing, try reading Rothbard. A beautiful place for you to start would be the audiobook "what has government done to our money".

            I always like a guy who sticks to his guns, but it's so painful to watch them shoot their own foot when they are blatantly wrong.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

          6. Fred the Protectionist

            The only broken record here are the Ronulans, "Federal Reserve...scratch...Federal Reserve...scratch...Federal Reserve....scratch...Federal Reserve....scratc...."

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11

          7. Forest

            "Gander, the gold standard is GOOD because the supply of gold is fixed."

            Really? So the supply and demand characteristics of Gold actually supercede the Supply/Demand curve? Where in the hell does that happen? Supply doesn't change at all? WOW!!!! Gold is Magical!!!!!

            In addition, what do you think might happen if the worlds largest, and possibly most reviled country/economy moved to a gold standard?

            You don't think foreign countries (China/Russia/S. Africa by proxy) wouldn't want to swamp the United States with gold and throw the US money supply into chaos?

            Come on. Get real. This is why Ron Paul doesn't even support the Gold Standard anymore, too bad cause he spent about 30 years advocating something that he finally realize was... a complete and utter waste of time.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

        2. gander

          a little inflation is a good thing like wine in moderation. during the gold standard deflation was necessary to bring balance during a recession but dumb people, like union members would get all hot in the pants and refuse to accept wage cuts, making the recessions worse. with the current system a recession will usually only create 0% inflation and it is much easier to deny those retards a raise than to lower their income.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

          1. Pomerlaeuberg

            gander, you are a fool, the gold standard is good. Just like asbestos is good.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

          2. Fred the Protectionist

            The gold standard is suicide when you free traders run up a trade deficit of 700 billion a year.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

          3. gander

            if we had a gold standard then it would be impossible to run that kind of trade deficit, it seems like something that you would be for fred.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          4. EndtheFed

            Exactly.
            What he is describing is a symptom of central banking and unlimited monetary expansion.

            The very existence of the gold standard was to protect against things like that.

            If countries use central banking and have a inflationary monetary policy, they can't keep a gold standard for long because one country loses gold to other countries unless ALL central banks inflate at relatively the same pace -- which is amost impossible to maintain. Eventually, a country must either deflate and return to the gold standard, or repudiate on it's obligation to return to the holders of dollars their own property. It is INFLATION that causes this, NOT THE GOLD STANDARD. Fred's claim that "we can't return to the gold standard" only highlights the damage done by inflation and demonstrates the destructive nature of central banking. A a gold standard currency cannot be deflated unless it is first inflated, so any negative effects of deflation can be blamed on inflation.

            The arguments Fred presents against a gold standard are actually arguments FOR the gold standard.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          5. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "if we had a gold standard then it would be impossible to run that kind of trade deficit, it seems like something that you would be for fred."

            Wrong, a gold standard would simply mean we'd export gold instead of dollars. And at 700 billion dollars a year we'd be out of gold in less then 2 years, and be back on paper money in no time. The only thing you'd accomplish is draining US treasury of gold which would weaken the dollar in the eyes of the world.

            In effect, we are sort of on a gold standard right now. I bet some foreign greed-heads think that maybe if they hold out long enough we'd go on a gold standard and they could then exchange their dollars for gold. But you nutballs drain America of gold then that's gone.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

          6. EndtheFed

            Fred, do you think any country could continue to exist with a trade deficit of 700 billion dollars per year? That doesn't even make sense; it's unsustainable. You are blaming gold for the things that inflation causes. 700 billion dollar trade deficits are only feasible because of inflation.

            Economies based on central bank inflation cannot stay on a gold standard unless all of the economies' banks inflate together. If they inflate together, -- OR if they don't inflate --, there is no loss of gold from one country to another. Except in the case of over consumption, which has nothing to do with gold. Actually, it has something to do with artificially low interest rates PEGGED BY THE FED (which discourages savings).

            Your arguments against the gold standard are actually arguments against inflationary central banking.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          7. EndtheFed

            Your arguments always focus on "if we returned to the gold standard from a fiat currency" instead of "gold standard versus fiat currency" which is what we are arguing.

            To return now, it would take some drastic changes and a lot of hurt. The money supply would either have to be contracted to match up with the supply of gold, or more likely, the gold would have to be revalued to correspond with the amount of dollars.

            The hardships of 'returning' to a gold standard from the distortions of a fiat currency have little bearing on the argument of "gold versus fiat" in general.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          8. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "Fred, do you think any country could continue to exist with a trade deficit of 700 billion dollars per year? That doesn’t even make sense; it’s unsustainable."

            Yes I know, one day China is going to need to invade Taiwan with the military-industrial-complex you Free Traders supplied them.

            Libertarian say: "700 billion dollar trade deficits are only feasible because of inflation."

            700 billion trade deficits are only feasible because of trade deficits. Or Aliens, shadow people, contrails, or jews, who knows.

            Libertarian say: "Economies based on central bank inflation cannot stay on a gold standard unless all of the economies’ banks inflate together. If they inflate together, — OR if they don’t inflate –, there is no loss of gold from one country to another."

            Wrong, if the US went on a gold standard the US would be emptied of gold in no time. Then how could you back your currency with gold if you don' got any? Gee wiz Wally, use yer brain.

            Libertarian say: "Your arguments against the gold standard are actually arguments against inflationary central banking."

            If there were no trade deficit, then there would be no inflation. You Free Traders caused the inflation.

            Libertarian say: "The money supply would either have to be contracted to match up with the supply of gold, or more likely, the gold would have to be revalued to correspond with the amount of dollars."

            Then some foreign central bank would trade all their dollars for all US gold reserves, and we'd be out of gold in no time.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          9. EndtheFed

            What part of "revalue the gold to correspond with the amount of dollars" don't you understand? Remember purchasing power?

            I've explained this to you 3 or 4 times now, so I'm convinced that you aren't willing to open your mind beyond "free trade is the devil".

            Oh well.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. AnthonyC

    Fred the Necessary

    I am impressed with how much the arguments for free markets, sound money, and personal liberty have improved. I am definitely using some of these when I talk to family members who still believe Pres. Obama is doing an excellent job, especially my father-in-law. I cannot help but feel that this is in part due to you, Fred. Your opposition to freedom has forced people to be more logical, rational and persuasive in their reasoning. It has help posters crystalized their thoughts and hone them into keen blades of truth and reason. Without any criticism this distillation often does not happen. Without a doubter one cannot truly test what one believes. Thanks. Sometimes debate makes the truth sound stronger.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

    1. Nick R.

      Congratulations to Fred for his help in spreading and strengthening the message of liberty. Every group of like-minded people needs a fearless devil's advocate who will pretend to not understand what others might pretend to understand (or not fully understand), thereby encouraging everyone to analyze and clarify their own thoughts and positions. Thank you Fred, whoever you are.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        In 2005 when I made the switch from Libertarian/Neocon to Pat Buchanan supporter, I started out playing Devil's Advocate, then learned that everything Libertarians believed in was a load of crap. All you got are political mantras and cliches which break down under the lightest scrutiny.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

        1. admin

          There are no comments in the moderation queue so if it hasn't shown up yet it was probably lost due to technical problems. We deleted only one comment over the past few days and it wasn't one of yours.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Ryan

          Bizarre. I saved a copy of it after the first 2 attempts. I just tried it again, and it's still not going through.

          I'll try again.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Ryan

          Fred, open mouth, insert foot.

          Fred says: "All you got are political mantras and cliches which break down under the lightest scrutiny."
          ... A "Pat Buchanan supporter", eh?
          ***
          Pat Buchanan openly endorsed Ron Paul in 2008.
          http://kineticreaction.blogspot.com/2007/10/pat-buchanans-website-openly-endorses.html
          ***
          Pat Buchanan on Ron Paul's, Audit the Fed: ... "Bring on the auditors!"
          http://buchanan.org/blog/ron-pauls-hour-of-power-3232
          ***
          Pat Buchanan says, "Ron Paul’s victory at CPAC may be a sign the prodigal sons of the right are casting off the heresy of neoconservatism and coming home to first principles."
          http://buchanan.org/blog/liquidating-the-empire-3646
          ***
          From the 2008 GOP debates:
          http://buchanan.org/blog/video-buchanan-on-the-debate-ron-paul-is-the-classic-conservative-736
          Oberman: Of the serious contenders this evening Pat, is there one who adheres closest to your conception of classic conservatism?
          PJB: I think the closest is Ron Paul who is a pro-life libertarian, who does not vote for big spending, who opposed the Medicare expansion, who opposed “no child left behind,” who opposed the war in Iraq…
          ***
          PB is endorsing Rand Paul too.
          http://buchanan.org/blog/rand-paul-son-of-ron-could-just-save-the-republican-party-3887

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

          1. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "Pat Buchanan openly endorsed Ron Paul in 2008.
            http://kineticreaction.blogspot.com/2007/10/pat-buchanans-website-openly-endorses.html"

            Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong, the title of that article is "Pat Buchanan's WEBSITE," not Pat Buchanan.

            Pat Buchanan's website is run by For The Cause one-issue wonder Linda Muller, who opposes illegal immigration. One issue wonders like Linda Muller will support anyone who even vaguely seems to be an ally. And whoever owns that kineticreaction blog is a manipulative Ronulan, like all Ronulans he/she is evil, liers, Satanists. All Libertarians are Satanists.

            Libertarian say: "Pat Buchanan on Ron Paul’s, Audit the Fed: … “Bring on the auditors!”"

            So what, that doesn't make Buchanan a foaming at the mouth Libertarian. Buchanan doesn't exercize politics by proxy like you lunatic Libertarians, what he says he means, he has no evil underlying agenda he keeps secret. You fruits don't care about an audit, your real goal is to get rid of the FED. Buchanan just wants an audit.

            Libertarian say: "Pat Buchanan says, “Ron Paul’s victory at CPAC may be a sign the prodigal sons of the right are casting off the heresy of neoconservatism and coming home to first principles.”"

            That's not an endorsement, Satanist-manipulative foaming at the mouth evil Libertarians. Buchanan is happy anyone but an establishment-neocon free-trade/open-borders Republican wins any election.

            Libertarian say: "PB is endorsing Rand Paul too."

            Then perhaps Paul's son isn't a complete foaming at the mouth lunatic like his father. But so what, Buchanan also endorsed George W Bush.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

        4. fred the protectionist

          Make no mistake, Buchanan thinks you Libertarians are loons (and a destructive force in politics) just like me.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        5. Jello

          Fred must be a legend in his own mind.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    2. Fred the Protectionist

      Libertarian say: "I am impressed with how much the arguments for free markets, sound money, and personal liberty have improved. I am definitely using some of these when I talk to family members who still believe Pres. Obama is doing an excellent job, especially my father-in-law."

      I never said Obama was doing an excellent job, I told you i'm a Buchanan paleo-Republican. But between Obama/Socialists and the Libertarian/Neocons, Obama is the least evil. It's almost a tie though.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

  11. EndtheFed

    " gold historically keeps a pretty even value,”

    Yes it does.
    Unless you are talking in terms of the US dollar. In which case it has been anywhere between $20 and $1200 -- A perfect argument against the fiat dollar. The fed has stole enough value from your money that it now takes 1200 dollars to buy an ounce of gold that used to cost $20.

    Fred: "I don’t want to return to 6,000 BC where caveman bartered in flint and copper."

    Have you ever used a debit card? That's how easy it would be to use precious metals as currency.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

    1. Fred the Protectionist

      "he fed has stole enough value from your money that it now takes 1200 dollars to buy an ounce of gold that used to cost $20."

      If the "FED" stole that money then they'd have like 10 trillion dollars stashed away somewhere, that's what happens when you "steal" something, you gain something. Where is all that money the "FED" stole?

      "Have you ever used a debit card? That’s how easy it would be to use precious metals as currency."

      No it wouldn't "be easy". If there were no FED I'd have to spend 20 hours a week studying what my bank is doing with their assets so I could use my debit card.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 19

      1. EndtheFed

        Fred: "Where is all that money the “FED” stole?"

        They spent it. Otherwise, what's the point of inflating the currency? They spent it on propping up businesses that can't survive on their own. When the fed pegs interest rates lower than the market demands, businesses become profittable when they otherwise would have been unprofittable. THEY decide who gets to benefit from the dilution of OUR value. Are you okay with that?

        We won't know exactly what they are doing with our wealth until we get an audit.

        Fred: "If there were no FED I’d have to spend 20 hours a week studying what my bank is doing with their assets so I could use my debit card"

        Why?
        What does the fed do to save you from studying what they are doing with their assets?
        You aren't allowed to know what the fed is doing with it's assets.

        You seem like you are worried about "getting screwed" by "bernie madolfs" but you turn a blind eye to what the fed is doing to your wealth. They loan money that doesn't exist, how can that be better than what Bernie did?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

        1. Libertarian777

          actually about $2.5 trillion of that made up money is sitting on the Fed's balance sheet in the form of mortgage backed securities, US treasury bills etc.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

          1. EndtheFed

            Yeah, they are probably the same mortgage backed securities that contributed to the financial crisis. The same securities that were backed by mortgages that never got paid, and would never have been possible without the fed-created housing bubble.

            The fed kinda puts a whole new spin on 'monopoly money', doesn't it? Maybe the Parker Bros are in on it. Haha. Maybe someday they will allow us to play with real money like adults. lol

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

        2. Fred the Protectionist

          "They (FED) loan money that doesn’t exist, how can that be better than what Bernie did?"

          That's how the banking industry has been working for a thousand years, they loan money from nothing. The Federal Reserve mandates that the banks have 10% in assets of what they loan, and when they go under that amount that it is that big bad interest rate in which they charge banks to loan to each other to get back to that very low 10% number. If there were no FED then those banks could loan an infinite amount of money making what you are complaining about *knock on wood* worse; printing money from nothing; which is exactly what all those private banks were doing before 1913 and how those banks went under and screwed people out of their money on a consistent basis.

          It is the FDIC which promotes this behavior, not the regulating body of the FED.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

          1. EndtheFed

            So you're saying that the government can't be trusted to stop fraud in the private sector for money, so we should allow them to control the entire money system?

            What makes them any more capable of controlling the entire monetary system if they apparently are not capable of recognizing and punishing the occasional fraud?

            Who is punishing THEM for fraud? Wouldn't you say that the average businessman is quite capable of checking the weight and purity of his gold? Even the guy at the pawn shop tests the purity of gold jewelry and weighs it before he buys it. That's how he knows it's value.

            Fractional reserve banking makes all banks insolvent by policy. Do you call that a stable base to the economy?

            Fractional reserve banking is not what i was referring to when I said that the fed creates money out of thin air. If you were not aware that the fed creates money out of thin air, then that explains why you don't seem to understand inflation and deflation, or the confiscation of wealth the fed enables. Maybe I missed something, but should you be taking sides so quickly in an argument that you don't yet understand?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

          2. EndtheFed

            The fed creates money that doesn't exist before fractional reserve banking has anything to do with it. That money that is then handed out into the market becomes exponentially increased as banks lend it according to fractional reserve policy. So when the fed creates a trillion dollars out of thin air, the malinvestment and mis allocation in the market has the potential to become 10 trillion. 10 trillion based on nothing. Talk about a house of cards. Talk about living beyond your means.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          3. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "So you’re saying that the government can’t be trusted to stop fraud in the private sector for money, so we should allow them to control the entire money system?"

            I didn't say that, Anarchy-boy.

            Libertarian say: "Fractional reserve banking makes all banks insolvent by policy. Do you call that a stable base to the economy?"

            Fractional Reserve is how banks have been operating for almost a thousand years now. Are you a Christian who is against banks in general? Hey i'm all for that, usury is bad.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

          4. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "The fed creates money that doesn’t exist before fractional reserve banking has anything to do with it. That money that is then handed out into the market becomes exponentially increased as banks lend it according to fractional reserve policy. So when the fed creates a trillion dollars out of thin air, the malinvestment and mis allocation in the market has the potential to become 10 trillion. 10 trillion based on nothing. Talk about a house of cards. Talk about living beyond your means."

            I wouldn't want to be the bearer of bad news, buttah, that's how banks have been operating for almost a thousand years now.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

          5. EndtheFed

            Fred said:
            " that’s how banks have been operating for almost a thousand years now"

            Nice work defending fractional reserve banking as if we weren't clearly discussing the fed. Try an stay on topic, or did you change your argument on purpose?

            By the way, to claim something is "good" on the sole basis that "it's been doing this for X amount of time" is a logical fallacy. Time doesn't mean something is right, or better than something else. You must determine causation.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    2. Julia

      I just heard about this and thought I'd share.
      H.R.4759 - To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

      http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4759/text

      oh and there seems to be something wrong with the sound money page( not sure where to post so I'll include it here)

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      1. Citizen

        Julie,
        Yep this is the Unions wanting to raise protectionist barriers.

        "Fred the Protectionist" is probably giddy with excitement now

        Oh by the way...
        Obama signed Executive Order # 13502 this past Friday night
        (under the transparent cover of darkness)
        mandating that only Union Shop Companies can bid on future Federally funded construction projects.
        There goes another 20% rise of tax payer funded inflation and another "bought and paid for" political campaign

        The deceitful Hope and criminal Change keeps on giving!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. Fred the Protectionist

          At least the Unions aren't promoting their own slavery, that's your job.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

          1. endthefed

            You promote your own slavery when you support the federal reserve. You are not entitled to keep the value of your rightfully earned money because the fed can take it through inflation. How is that any different in effect than slave labour?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

          2. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "You promote your own slavery when you support the federal reserve."

            Conspiracy theorist. Or may jew hater, I dunno, your all so mentally unstable. I've been reading allot about the "Jewish Question" on the internet. Seems like Jews were pioneers of the banking industry for a thousand years (including fractional reserves + usury), it's what kept them getting kicked out of countries. I guess people don't like usury.

            How does one bitch about fractional reserve banking and not mention usury? Makes no sense.

            Libertarian say: "You are not entitled to keep the value of your rightfully earned money because the fed can take it through inflation."

            When the FED deliberately inflates the money supply nobody profits, thereby nobody loses.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

          3. EndtheFed

            fred said:
            "When the FED deliberately inflates the money supply nobody profits, thereby nobody loses."

            Haha, okay then fred. Looks like you've made up your mind without understanding the issue. Nobody can show you the light unless you want to see it. You're free to think as you wish, just do us a favour and stop spreading your opinion as if it's a fact when you clearly and consistently have no logical argument to back it up, or any convincing sentiments that show how you could have arrived at such an opinion.

            That's called spreading mis-information. If you can't tell libertarians exactly WHY they are wrong, then you have nothing but an opinion, and everyone has one of those.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

          4. Fred the Protectionist

            The only thing that suffers from inflation is savings, but the American culture has been warped to a point that nobody saves, therefore nobody is harmed.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

          5. EndtheFed

            Fred said:
            "but the American culture has been warped to a point that nobody saves"

            That couldn't have anything to do with the artificially low interest rates pegged by the fed though, right Fred?

            Lol you're comical. Go waste someone elses time.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          6. Fred the Protectionist

            Why don't you just come out and say you don't like the Fed cause it's run by Jews. Why all this foreplay?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  12. Tony

    Fred, I sit back and read all the posts, and your the only one trying to impose fault in the man. In the debates fox and even his own party tried to exclude him or make a mockery out of him. And the tea party movement behind him was all a big joke, now both sides of the isle are trying to claim them specifically palin. Dr. Paul has been saying exactly the same thing since 1977 and hasnt deviated from it, and everything he says is for "US, we the people" for us to be free, and yet to disagree with him. I watched the debates, and what little time they gave him, he showed his memory and IQ is way above all the other morons who dont have a clue about history or even basic moral. They all ran on more war and regulation, yet there for change Obama has sure brought change hasn't he. Just the fact they tried excluding him shows how slimey they are, Ron Pauls change would mean the end of the take for most of them and they know it. End the Fed means much more than the words, it means markets and people buying and spending would determan interest rates and costs instead of constant bubbles that make it look like were flurishing and make people spend and invest, then crash when the fed feels like cashing in on it. The gold standard is and ideal, commodity backed dollar that would make it worth more than just the paper it's printed on, using the term gold standards use for the expression because gold historically keeps a pretty even value, however any commodity could be used. If Ron Paul ran in 2012 his only hold back will be the media and his own party to shut him up, but more people are discovering this great man and my money says if he ran in 2012 even with being all the strategy to keep him out, he would win. And all the people will be kicking themselves for not voting for him when they get there live and liberty back. Another man to listen to is peter schiff , he predicted the same thing in 2006 as Dr. Paul did in 2002 about what was to come in 2006-2007.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

    1. Fred the Protectionist

      "The gold standard is and ideal, commodity backed dollar that would make it worth more than just the paper it’s printed on,"

      If you think dollars are so worthless then why do you have dollars? Just give it away if it's so worthless.

      "using the term gold standards use for the expression because gold historically keeps a pretty even value,"

      No it hasn't.

      "however any commodity could be used."

      No thanks, I don't want to return to 6,000 BC where caveman bartered in flint and copper.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12

      1. EndtheFed

        Fred: "If you think dollars are so worthless then why do you have dollars?"

        Do we have a choice? With congressman Paul's competing currencies bill, we do.

        Right now, we don't. We have legal tender laws which means you are being forced to hold a store of value which is subject to dilution at any time, for any reason, and you have no say in the matter.

        They are only worth something because people know they can exchange them for real goods. It's a faith based system, like religion. "In god we trust". Except it's not god who we are trusting in, it's the federal reserve; we're trusting them not to debase the currency to the point where people begin to refuse dollars as payment because they know that by the time they spend them, they will have lost a substantial portion of their purchasing power. The fed has dissolved 96% of the value of the dollar since 1913, so I'd say they aren't very trustworthy. Why should we continue to grant them this monopoly on currency?

        Why do we have the freedom to choose our own faith-based religion, but not our own currency? Would you put up with a government that says you MUST be a chrstian?

        The fed is a violation of our economic liberty.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

        1. Fred the Protectionist

          A) No such thing as economic liberty, Constitution gives the power to tax meaning you don't have your Libertarian version of economic freedom.

          B) Nobody likes Atheists.

          C) Long term low inflation rate over 100 years is the same thing as 0% inflation rate. You anarchists want private banks who issuing their own currency, you might as well bring Bernie Madolf out of jail and give him control over a bank so he could screw more people.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

          1. EndtheFed

            A) ...As long as you're OKAY with the government having unlimited access to the value of the money you are being forced to hold. Not all of us are down with legal plunder.

            B) Huh?

            C)...As long as you consider 96% of monetary value to be "long term low inflation rate". Keynesians say a low long term inflation rate is good for the economy because it accomodates the increased demand for money resulting from gradual increases in productive capacity. This is not true. As the prodctive capacity of the economy increases the demand for money in a gold-standard economy, the value of a unit of gold increases. It's as simple as that. There is no need for an increasing supply of money. In the gold standard economy, money APPRECIATES in value as productive capacity drives the prices of goods down. What's wrong with that?

            Fred: "You anarchists want private banks who issuing their own currency, you might as well bring Bernie Madolf out of jail and give him control over a bank so he could screw more people."

            A bank note from a private bank is a contract that serves as proof of the existence of REAL money (like the dollar used to). The federal reserve notes are not backed by anything and therefore the real money doesn't need to exist. It's fraud. The fed is your madolf. As peter Schiff said, Bernie Madolf should be the chairman of the federal reserve. He would be great at it.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

          2. Fred the Protectionist

            "A) …As long as you’re OKAY with the government having unlimited access to the value of the money you are being forced to hold. Not all of us are down with legal plunder."

            Take that up with the Constitution, it gives Congress unlimited access to the value of money.

            "B) Huh?"

            Huh?

            "C)…As long as you consider 96% of monetary value to be “long term low inflation rate”."

            Yes we all know, Libertarians are bad at math, the simple concept of compound interest is just waaay over your head. Could also explain why Libertarians think population growth is no big deal.

            "A bank note from a private bank is a contract that serves as proof of the existence of REAL money "

            No, a bank note is worth even less then a dollar note. The dollar has the full faith and credit of the government of the United States. A bank note has full faith and credit of some fat greedy bank'ster who you pray won't go Bernie Madolf'in.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          3. EndtheFed

            Fred: "it gives Congress unlimited access to the value of money."

            Yes, congress, as in "representatives of te people", not the federal reserve. The fed is unconstitutional. Does it say that congress can dole out it's constitutional responsibilities? No.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          4. EndtheFed

            Fred: "A bank note has full faith and credit of some fat greedy bank’ster who you pray won’t go Bernie Madolf’in"

            And what happens if he does go "madolf"? He gets investigated by government agencies and punished for fraud. In other words, a bank note has the full backing of the US government, and the rule of law. It wouldn't be very consistent of us to punish those people and turn a blind eye to the fed, now would it?

            You won't trust the government to punish a small amount of (easily detectable) fraud, but you trust them to have absolute control of money as the solution. That's illogical.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          5. EndtheFed

            Fred: "the simple concept of compound interest is just waaay over your head"

            You're saying that in order to protect from unnecessary monetary dilution we should all invest to earn compound interest and offset the effects. What if you're poor?

            Congratulations Fred, you just had a breakthrough. You just realized why inflation doesn't effect everyone equally, and is a means of wealth distribution from the poor to the rich. Nice work.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          6. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "The fed is unconstitutional."

            No it's not.

            Libertarian say: "Does it say that congress can dole out it’s constitutional responsibilities?"

            Common sense, which ALL libertarians lack, says congress must dole out it's constitutional responsibilities.

            When the Senate declares war, do you expect only Senators to shoulder muskets and start shooting? Of course not, that's silly.

            When Congress setups the post office, another constitutional duty you Libertarians ignore, do you expect only Congressmen to hop in their little clownmobiles and deliver mail to you? Of course not, that's silly.

            When Congress passes an excise tax, do you expect only Congressmen to go around and become revenuers? Of course not, that's silly.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          7. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "And what happens if he does go “madolf”?"

            Well if your a Libertarian, you do nothing and let Madoff screw as many people as possible.

            Libertarian say: "He gets investigated by government agencies and punished for fraud. In other words, a bank note has the full backing of the US government, and the rule of law."

            Wrong, you Libertarians are against regulation. You would do nothing, anarchists.

            Libertarian say: "You won’t trust the government to punish a small amount of (easily detectable) fraud, but you trust them to have absolute control of money as the solution. That’s illogical."

            One guy fell through the cracks, Big Bernie, and according to Libertarian Logic (anarchy) that means all laws are bad. That's like Atheist Logic; if you sin once you cannot be for family values and you have to be a Son of Satan forever.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          8. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "You’re saying that in order to protect from unnecessary monetary dilution we should all invest to earn compound interest and offset the effects. What if you’re poor?"

            In 1626 a Dutchman purchased to-be New York City area for 60 guilders. In 1912, before the Jewish Federal Reserve, there must have been inflation cause New York City in 1912 was worth more then 60 guilders.

            OMG! Inflation before the FED! How can this be?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          9. EndtheFed

            Fred said:
            "Common sense, which ALL libertarians lack, says congress must dole out it’s constitutional responsibilities."

            HAHAHAH

            Looks like you missed the "understanding the point of a constitution" boat.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          10. Fred the Protectionist

            You Libertarians know nothing about the Constitution, or common sense.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

          11. EndtheFed

            All you can do is brand all libertarians bad, you have no arguments of substance or else you would address the principles and explain your points instead of making attacks.

            It is pretty obvious that you are not here for constructive discussion. You are here to either A) oppose commentors and kick up some action in the comment area, or B) just here to argue because you are irrational. Either way, I have no more time for goofs. Go about your misinforming ways, but don't expect anyone to ever take you seriously. It never takes long to uncover the truth about trolls.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

          12. Fred the Protectionist

            I'm curious. How does one complain about fractional reserve banking then not say a single word about usury?

            The purpose of fractional reserve banking is simply to expand usury operations, one cannot exist without another. Is your real beef against usury?

            How does an atheist complain about usury? You know what? You're all stupid.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    2. AnthonyC

      Tony,

      Again, Fred is entitled to his opinion and may even choose to express it here. I have stated my belief that he is a troll who enjoys starting arguments. I may be wrong. If he does truly believe what he writes then we should instead offer him convincing arguments, using reason, logic and the Constitution to enlighten him to see the truth. If we can convince him then we will better able to convince are neighbors, community leaders and local politicians.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        Fine, give it a shot. How will ending the Federal Reserve automagically get rid of the national debt, trade deficit, bailouts, poor'dom, and cure cancer?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11

        1. AnthonyC

          Thanks, Fred, we will. Appreciate your support. No one said that ending the Fed won't be difficult. In fact, Dr. Paul explicitly says it will be difficult in the short term. That is why most politicians cannot bring themselves to do it. It is unpopular with their constituents because it asks for discipline. It is the long term benefits that we are trying to secure: sound money, no debt, free commerce, etc. Of course it is easier to spend and put everything on credit. That is what the average American does in his personal life. It is harder to save, to sacrifice, to defer for long term goals. But shouldn't we try to be a better country? Your reference to cancer is particularly good. Just because finding cures for various cancers is difficult (to say the least) should we acquiesce?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

        2. EndtheFed

          Fred: " How will ending the Federal Reserve automagically get rid of:"

          "the national debt"

          I've already explained this to you. If politicians couldnt rely on inflating the money supply, they would need access to real resources instead of printing them out of the press. Put a limit on their unlimited inflation and you put a stop to excessive spending. The national debt is due to the keynesian fantasy of unlimited government spending. Removing the fed will force the government to live within it's means.

          "trade deficit"

          If we don't produce goods to exchange for trade goods, then we must pay for our consumption with money. If you don't have unlimited access to money, you must curb some consumption and trade within your means, or else nobody would be paid for their goods and they would cease trading with the US.

          "bailouts"

          As with the last two, if they can't print the money, they can't afford to throw around trillions of dollars in bailout money because they would have to get it from borrowing or taxation. As it stands, they can afford to bailout their friends because they have access to the value of YOUR MONEY and you can no longer protect it's value by holding gold.

          "poor’dom"

          Inflation is a transfer of wealth from OUR pockets into theirs. Stop inflation, and you preserve the value of everyones dollars, including the poor. Actually, since the poor often don't invest large amounts of money into the stock market and hide their profits from the taxman in off-shore tax havens, they have very few ways to counter-act the effects of inflation. In other words, the poor are hit the hardest by inflationary monetary policy.

          "cure cancer"

          I'm sure you added this one in sarcastically, but in reality ending the federal reserve would help combat and maybe even help cure cancer. As with gold, the inflationary policies of the fed result in a lowered purchasing power which drives up the price of real goods in terms of dollars. 'Real goods' includes medical supplies and equipment. Getting rid of inflationary policy will stop the decrease in medical equipment that 1 dollar can afford.

          It all comes down to purchasing power.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

          1. Fred the Protectionist

            "Put a limit on their unlimited inflation and you put a stop to excessive spending."

            The FED has no authority to print money and give to Congress, and it never has.

            "If we don’t produce goods to exchange for trade goods, then we must pay for our consumption with money. If you don’t have unlimited access to money, you must curb some consumption and trade within your means, or else nobody would be paid for their goods and they would cease trading with the US."

            No such thing as "Curb Consumption" or "Trade within your means". The US economy isn't a person, it is a collection of persons. Unless of course your a fascist or commie and think you can force people to stop buying stuff.

            "As with the last two, if they can’t print the money, they can’t afford to throw around trillions of dollars in bailout money because they would have to get it from borrowing or taxation."

            The FED has no authority to print money and give to Congress, and it never has.

            The poor'dom and cure cancer thing was sarcasm, but it doesn't surprise me you actually responded in all seriousness.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

        3. EndtheFed

          Fred:"The FED has no authority to print money and give to Congress, and it never has"

          We don't no who they give it to because we aren't allowed to audit that part. How convenient.

          Fred: "The US economy isn’t a person, it is a collection of persons"

          Then we can collectively live within our means, which is what inevitably happens when no one will lend you anything because you never paid them back.

          Fred: "The poor’dom and cure cancer thing was sarcasm, but it doesn’t surprise me you actually responded in all seriousness."

          Forty thousand Americans die each year as a result of having no health insurance. This is not because the government failed to mandate it until now. It's because the dollar doesn't buy as much medical equipment as it used to due to unending inflationary monetary policy. As a result, medical care is becoming more and more expensive to hand out.

          Wealth confiscation and distribution is a serious issue. Wake up.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

          1. Fred the Protectionist

            "We don’t no who they give it to because we aren’t allowed to audit that part. How convenient."

            Conspiracy theorist

            "Then we can collectively live within our means"

            Communist

            "Forty thousand Americans die each year as a result of having no health insurance. This is not because the government failed to mandate it until now."

            I'm pretty sure destroying the middle class with open-borders/free-trade had a big part to play in that, not your Austrian School conspiracy theories.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

          2. EndtheFed

            If this is what you call an argument, then you have basically admitted defeat.

            Thanks for comin' out.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          3. Fred the Protectionist

            I like your, "collectively live within our means" to solve the trade deficit thing. That's funny, commie-boy. What do you suggest; put a gun to people's head and force them to stop buying things and stuff?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          4. EndtheFed

            Fred said:
            "What do you suggest; put a gun to people’s head and force them to stop buying things"

            I've already told you. End the fed. When our creditors don't get paid back, they will cease trading with the US. This will force the people to live within their means.
            I'm sorry if you don't like the economic reality that debts must be eventually paid for, but your proposed solution is an unsustainable disaster.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

          5. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "I’ve already told you. End the fed. When our creditors don’t get paid back, they will cease trading with the US. This will force the people to live within their means."

            Oh the, "Make America poor until people can't afford to purchase consumer items" plan. You're already doing that with your free trade, no need to end the FED to reduce aggregate demand.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          6. EndtheFed

            fred said:
            "no need to end the FED to reduce aggregate demand"

            In other words, "we need the fed to create unsustainable market bubbles"

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

          7. Fred the Protectionist

            There was no bubble, you free traders just made Americans poorer.

            The bankers who leveraged thought the 2000's was to be a bright decade where the fruits of open-borders and free-trade would multiply infinitely. That's what happens when you leverage, you think the future is bright.

            Guess what? The bankers were thrown 2 curve balls.

            1) In 2005 the Americans rejected Amnesty, which means no population growth, no increased demand for housing.

            2) Free Trade destroyed aggregate demand by making Americans poorer.

            ...and a thousand other minor things like new oil demand from China, socialists rising in power making things less efficient thanks to you lunatic Libertarian/neocons.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

    3. Citizen

      God Bless you Tony

      Thanks for telling Fred what real!

      I believe Fred is simply a Left Wing Serial Blogger task with disrupting serious debate... He make NO Sense and has never put forth any tangible arguments.
      We should simply ignore his rants
      Again Thanks

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        No i'm a full Pat Buchanan paleo-Republican who sees you Libertarians as the primary obstacle to reforming the Republican Party so the real Republicans can kick out the Socialists, militant atheist, white haters from power.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

        1. EndtheFed

          Weren't you aware that Pat Buchanan endorsed Ron Paul and called him the closest thing to a real republican?

          Haahah.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

          1. Fred the Protectionist

            Weren't you aware that Buchanan believes, like I do, that Libertarianism leads to Statism:

            http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-does-libertarianism-lead-to-statism-415

            haha

            http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-free-trade-and-funny-math-678

            "Free Trade and Funny Math
            by Patrick J. Buchanan – February 27, 2007

            To the devout libertarian, free trade is not a policy option to be debated, but a dogma to be defended. Nowhere is this truer than at that lamasery of libertarianism, the Cato Institute..."

            Satanists.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

          2. EndtheFed

            Quit pretending, we all know now that you and buchanan are closet Paul fans.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

          3. Fred the Protectionist

            Manipulative snake in the grass Satanist Libertarian.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

        2. fred the protectionist

          You lunatic Libertarians are evil propagandists.

          I like how many of my posts have been deleted by your propagandists.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    4. mark

      VERY GOOD!!!! Ron Paul 2012!!!!!!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  13. Bottomline

    This is another great speech that Dr. Paul has made. He is ready to be president. He should never shy away from being a 2012 presidential nominee. Because he is a common sense conservative and is very principled.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  14. ken

    Anyone in congress looking into this?

    Jailed Whistleblower: US Lawmakers Held Offshore UBS Accounts

    Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez discusses his interview with UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld one day after Birkenfield’s Tax Day clemency request to President Obama.

    http://tinyurl.com/y64ce28

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  15. AnthonyC

    Fred the Protectionist

    Fred, you're a troll. You have every right to write your opinion in these forums but I believe you do so to only to incite people and start arguments. I think you like to tick people off, you get off on it. It's sad so please stop. As one who believes in personal liberty and responsibility, I would not ban you but you obviously aren't for personal liberties, free markets or anything else that most people on this forum believc so why post here? Unless, you're a troll.

    Sincerely,
    AnthonyC

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

    1. Fred the Protectionist

      You hide your anarchist beliefs under the propagandist phrase "personal liberty and responsibility." You're true goal isn't "Liberty or Responsibility."

      What's responsible or liberating about being addicted to drugs, screwing someone of the same sex, getting screwed by a thousand Bernie Madolfs, and spending an hour a day starring at a currency exchange board on every street corner cause there are now thousands of currencies you got to worry about now. That's not liberating and responsible.

      gee wiz.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11

      1. gander

        it is so very liberating to see drug addicts die of overdoses, homos die of aids, and idiots lose all their money in ponzi scams and commit suicide. why do you love keeping these people in society fred? why do you want to protect them against themselves? will it take a drug addict homo to rape you and give you the hiv before you finally come to your senses?

        stop living in a bubble. the scum of society will wipe themselves out if only we let them. and for all of you who think that baby jesus would be against such a thing, look at what his daddy did to soddom and gommorah.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Fred the Protectionist

          Hypocrite, you speak like a Fascist, but you won't go all the way. What about the negros and jews? They're a stain on society too, wanna wipe them out? Didn't think so, hypocrite.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      2. AnthonyC

        Again, you have the right to your opinion and may even post it here. Ironic that most here are willing to defend your right to do so. You are welcome, by the way :)

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

        1. Fred the Protectionist

          The neo-Confederates (free traders) aren't willing to "die for someone's right to speak", they're willing to kill for their beliefs.

          I hate it when people say that, it's so lame, "I'll die for your right to free speech". no your not, geez duderonomy.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

          1. AnthonyC

            Fred,

            You are right, maybe they aren't willing to die. But I wrote "defend your right" not die for right. There is a difference. Call me unpatriotic, but I would only die for my loved ones. That does not include you.

            PS "Duderonomy?" Seriously?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  16. Thomas Jefferson and the American Revolution - Free Ebook

    This ebook in my opinion is by far the best about Thomas Jefferson. It covers many different years and aspects of Thomas Jefferson's Life and the American Revolution. There is some very valuable information in it, that I haven't found anywhere else, for example about the reason for Jefferson's and Adam's death exactly 50years after the declaration of independence.

    It is written from a strongly Pro-Jeffersonian point of view. In other words, it is written from an accurate perspective. :)

    Enjoy:

    http://canng.com/articles/cscent.pdf

    A Common Scent
    (A Historical Novel about Thomas Jefferson
    showing who fought for liberty and who fought
    for selfish reasons in the American Revolution)
    by
    Steffan Stanford

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

    1. Kale R.

      Don't advertise crap here, whether it's free or not. Your post is irrelevant.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        You dare mock our God Thomas Jefferson? Away with thee, fiend!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  17. mark

    RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!!!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  18. Female

    I respectfully submit this comment to your consideration.

    If you really believe in liberty with responsability, care about the law, justice and respect for human life and all its potential you work to accomplish this:

    -return the balance between civil and military population to what keeps a society viable and healthy, mentally and physically.

    -real control of the economy, making it simple, efficient and simple.

    -real control of extremist power and abuse of power, which means cut the propaganda and insane manipulation crap.

    -if what people want is A SHOW ABOUT WAR IN REAL TIME, and make money on it, then pick a deserted land in the planet, NO WEAPONS AT HAND, and fight until you drop, have it displayed world wide with the marvelous hight tech of today AND billions of viewers DONATE for the political campaigns and the next round of weaponry.

    -if you really want ABORTION TO STOP, then stop the endless and 'al gusto' wars, but above all, stop incubating the WAR virus in your defenseless females and the developing babies. Because you might be creating a mental chain reaction whose end result is NOTHING GOOD. Bilogically speaking, terrorism may be the result of that. Would I get research funding to show that? of course not, it would be an inconvenient truth.

    AND NO, I am NOT a Gore supporter or an eugenicist or a wacko political follower or a fanatic religous preacher.

    BUT, I hold the truth close to my values, as is humanly possible.

    The irony of the present world is that our rulers NEED guidance, SO! there you have it.

    Period!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    1. Citizen

      Female,

      Thanks for that perspective, a little out there but pity.
      Keep reading and blogging, its good for the soul
      Take Care

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Bud

    Obama's Tax Breaks for the Middle Class -- JUST CRUMBS!

    Under Obama, as with Reagan and Bush, the Rich are
    still getting millions of dollars (EACH!) in tax breaks!
    The average Middle Class family is only getting a few
    hundred dollars per year -- JUST CRUMBS!
    WAKE UP PEOPLE! YOU'RE BEING PLAYED!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

    1. David Smith

      @Bud

      What is it with people who can't do simple math?

      A millionaire pays millions more in taxes than a middle class. Why should they get an equal or smaller tax break?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      1. Kale R.

        David's got a point. Give a loaf, get a slice. Give a slice, get some crumbs. That's how it works.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      2. Fred the Protectionist

        Because you'll never win elections, that's why.
        .
        .
        .
        .
        [...]. It's like talking to children.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  20. Vaughn

    About Ron Paul's age, i'm of the opinion that he is probibly the hardest working, most energetic member of Congress right now!!!!! i mean during the 2008 election the guy even took the time to make a video interview with a COLLEGE STUDENT in his dorm room.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  21. Alex

    Ron Paul is the greatest politician America has had in the past 60 years. Man, I sure do hope he runs for President again! But, the real reason for the popularity of the Tea Party and the Palin cult worship is to merely divert any attention of the sheeple from the true freedom and liberty revolution started by Ron Paul.

    The PTB simply can't have Ron Paul in a prominent position of power as his efforts will put them out of a job and they'll not have the control they so much love. Beware of the Tea Party- it's controlled opposition, completely lacking in substance. Palin, the Tea Party puppet messiah, is just too stupid to provide any substantial alterations in the current direction of the ship of state. Would she end the wars? No, she LOVES the military. Would she end the Fed? I don't think she knows what the Fed is. She can't even run her own state without quitting and she certainly can't even run her own house! Would she work to end the IRS? Considering that she says we should pay our fair share of taxes (which to me means zero taxes) I doubt she'd repeal the 16th Amendment.

    Beware of the Tea Party- it's completely fake and controlled by the PTB.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

    1. Fred the Protectionist

      He's not a politician, he's an idealogue.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11

      1. jody

        Fred you are right. Ron Paul is not a politician in the sense that he will say whatever he thinks will best suit his reelection purposes. You are also right that he is an ideologue in the sense that he is a principled man, has a clear idea of what he believes and holds to those ideals. But the definition of Ron Paul, which you missed, is that he is a citizen-statesman, of the order the founders envisioned serving in public office. He is a successful, functional member of society outside the world of politics who has devoted himself to the service of the nation. It is understandable that you struggle to categorize him, since his type is exceedingly rare in our current system, and in a corrupt and cynical world, not easily understood.

        By the way, Ron Paul's ideology is "Obey the Constitution." I would think that ideologues of that sort should be agreeable to all of us, since as a matter of course, all public officials swear an oath to ally themselves with Constitutional ideology.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

        1. Ryan

          Hear, Hear!
          Well said, Jody.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

        2. mark

          RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

        3. Fred the Protectionist

          He's an idealogue not a citizen-statesman. He's been in Congress most of his life now, how can he be a "citizen-statesman" you radical freaks.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

          1. David Smith

            @Fred the Deceptionist

            Now come on. A radical troll calling anyone else radical is pointless (as have been all of your other empty statements).

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

          2. Fred the Protectionist

            Are you calling the Founding Fathers, The Constitution, and the Republicans from 1865-1920 radical? (never mind don't answer that).

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

    2. jody

      Alex you make some good points but you miss the larger one. The larger point is that the tea party movement is not yet entirely corrupted by GOP infiltration and that in order to prevent it from being so, people like you need to get involved and prevent the PTB (as you say) from hijacking the movement. Understand who your friends and enemies are. Right now the Tea Party movement is still your best friend. But if you continue to denigrate the movement and write it off, soon your statements about the movement will become a prophecy realized.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        The Tea Party movement is entirely corrupted by GOP influence.

        A) The real Boston Tea Party wasn't a tax protest, so there is no connection to today's "Tea Party". But the neocon propaganda machine has programmed the people to think so, even you Ronulans. So even from the start the Tea Party's very name is corrupted by neocon influence.

        __i) In the real Boston Tea Party, the ones who dressed up as Indians and dumped the tea overboard were mostly employees of smuggling companies owned by such people like Samuel Adams. The first shipment of tea coming to Boston was cut-rate tea that was taxed at much lower rates then before, this cut rate tea would have put the smugglers like Samuel Adams out of business. They were "protecting" their jobs.

        __ii) Even if the Boston Tea Party were a tax protest then it was vaguely about "taxation without representation" then guess what? Today we have taxation WITH representation. So you can't name your movement after that either, haha, sorry buddaroos.

        B) Sarah Palin is the leading figure in the Tea Party, and she's a neocon (well how you neocons would describe a neocon, call it orthodox-neocon). She's an orthodox-neocon.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

    3. jody

      Alex you make some good points but you miss the larger one. The larger point is that the tea party movement is not yet entirely corrupted by GOP infiltration and that in order to prevent it from being so, people like you need to get involved and prevent the PTB (as you say) from hijacking the movement. Understand who your friends and enemies are. Right now the Tea Party movement is still your best friend. But if you continue to denigrate the movement and write it off, soon your statements about the movement will become a prophecy realized.

      Maybe you should attend Tea Parties to promote Ron Paul. In my opinion the Tea Party movement sprang from the remnants of his 2008 presidential campaign and is still extremely favorable to him. Let's work to keep it that way.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  22. Citizen

    Dr. Ron Paul has been saying the same thing for THIRTY 30 YEARS!!!
    Finally people are listening.
    END THE FED / SOUND MONEY / CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

    END THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
    BRING THE TROOPS HOME AND CLOSE THE OVERSEAS BASES

    DECLARE AMERICA A NEUTRAL COUNTRY

    CUT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS 20% A YEAR UNTIL THEY ARE GONE
    >> Social Security, Medicare-Medicaid<<

    Go Ron Raul!!!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

    1. mark

      REVOLUTION----RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  23. Free Me

    There is no way Ron Paul can win presidency.... he just makes too much sense.
    TOO MUCH SENSE. my gosh. the madness in washington must stop.
    I hope that he reconsiders and actually makes another run for prez...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

    1. 1111cb

      He can win. People are listening.

      One thing a love about this abolish the IRS- what really has upset me over the years is why I only get tax free savings if I gamble my money on the stock market to retire, but if I save it for retirement in a safe interest bearing bank, then they tax my savings to the point its worthless as a savings vehicle.

      Why are the stock markets fed by this IRS tax policy and no one questions it?
      Why can't I put retirement money wherever I choose?
      Why has no Republican ever challenged this and other problems with the IRS interfering with free enterprise except Ron Paul?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

      1. mark

        Iv'e sent money to Ron Paul and bought the Revolution bumper stickers. United we can!!! Send money to help the fight!! Ron Paul 2012!!!!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    2. mark

      United WE Can!!! Ron Paul 2012!!!!!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  24. Kale R.

    He was introduced as a Presidential Candidate..? Is he running in 2012?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    1. Ryan

      He hasn't decided yet. But supporters are naturally pushing him to do so.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      1. Kale R.

        The poor man is pushing 74 years old. The American public might be frightened by his age to actually elect him. For some god forsaken reason, that's become an area of importance to general public. Remember Obama vs. McCain? Let's face it.. the country is getting dumber. The issues are becoming less important, the peoples attention spans are becoming ever smaller. I just hope this Tea Party movement is passionate enough to bring Ron's undying message to light and have the unknowing public finally wake up and pay attention to the direction their country is headed in.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        1. 1111cb

          McCain shows more signs of age and forgetfulness, inability to handle a presidential schedule and Presidency ages people fast.

          Ron Paul has not shown issues like that. One person in their 70's is not like another.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

          1. Kale R.

            Be that as it may, I'm still saying the unthinking majority of this country will see an old man vs. a very young Barack Obama in 2012, I assume. I'm just hoping people who aren't his supporters atleast hear him out for what he has to say. If not, well.. I guess we can look forward to further crippling of this country 'till 2016.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

          2. Ryan

            @Kale R
            That isn't a real problem at all; Ron Paul has huge support from the youngest of voters. More than Barack Obama does. The youth see that the current administration is deficit spending and they will have to pay for it. Over the next two years their support for Ron Paul will only grow, just as our deficit will continue to grow under Barak Obama's fiscally reckless policies.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  25. Dionne Heilman

    Dear America,

    In this website http://homepages.umflint.edu/~dheilman I expose a Federal Conspiracy lead by President Clinton and the People’s Republic of China whom are guilty of conceiving a system to steal from America and it is this system that is destroying the United States economy. We have all witnessed the great advancement in technology. However, the development and control of these technologies are the result of back door government agreements from which President Clinton and the People’s Republic of China have utilized to defraud the American people.

    America needs your assistants to stop this corruption and to preserve our Constitution.

    "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
    McAfee Tracer-CHINA IS HACKING MY COMPUTER!!!!!

    Share this album with anyone by sending them this public link:
    http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=159511&id=680791438&l=3db3afa067

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9

    1. 1111cb

      I am not sure why everyone is tagging this as dislike- you state facts in your post. They even found computer viruses that were being downloaded into our computers from those phote frames made in china that display digital photos.

      Clinton was well known for selling secrets to other countries and Bush put us in debt to China to pay for the war. Our country is being sold out by interests influencing our government. It is why we need someone like Ron Paul to restore our financial health.

      It is also why we are finally devoting more attention to national security issues in the computer realm. We are very vulnerable and the biggest bomb in the world will not stop a 3rd world hacker.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        All Free Traders made this happen, all free traders like Ron Paul.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  26. Wade Bowers

    As we are winning the cause of freedom and liberty those who have broken the law will inevitably be brought to justice. Ron Paul should sponsor a bill which offers clemensy to all government and law enforcement personnel who expose their fellow conspirators now.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  27. Tony

    Fred your obviously a moron, take all the gold out of fort knox, thats nothing what he's saying at all. He wants a commodity backing the dollar, be it gold or something else or the moneys not worth the paper it's printed on. Free trade creates competition and keeps prices down, electronics is a good example of this.
    The Fed creates the interest rates and prints money while lowering interest rates and tie it up when they increase it. Sarah palin's taking credit for the tea party movement when Ron Paul's been the major eye opener of the people. It's funny how Fox news did all they could as well as other media to keep him out of the spot light when he ran for president, yet he's the one they turn to for answers.
    Every thing Dr. Paul has predicted has come to pass and people like you will always be part of the herd that believes more government means a better life.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

    1. Libertarian777

      very true, although Ron Paul does state the Constitution says only gold and silver may be used as legal tender, he has said in the past that it doesn't really matter if its actually gold or silver, but more that there is competition in currencies. i.e. the PEOPLE get to choose what form of payment they believe in, and is backed by something of value {not just more debt}.

      If e.g. California (HAHAHAHA) issued gold backed currency, and New York issued platinum backed currency, US consumers would have a choice of which currency they wished to conduct transactions in. If the sorry state of affairs in CA resulted in the state government devaluing the currency (by modifying the amount of gold backing each CA $, and NY did not, then the NY currency would be comparatively more valuable, and less people would use CA $.

      Of course in that case the CA state government would try and enact legal tender laws to FORCE California residents or CA based transactions to use CA state currency only, but that is exactly why Ron Paul is advocating repealing legal tender laws, to prevent that. If they can't force you to use their decreed currency, then the state government HAS to limit spending or they will have a currency run (or they could tax you to death, but that's another issue, which is why he wants to repeal the 16th amendment too).

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        "If e.g. California (HAHAHAHA) issued gold backed currency, and New York issued platinum backed currency, US consumers would have a choice of which currency they wished to conduct transactions in. If the sorry state of affairs in CA resulted in the state government devaluing the currency (by modifying the amount of gold backing each CA $, and NY did not, then the NY currency would be comparatively more valuable, and less people would use CA $."

        It would be Anarchy, like before the Federal Reserve, and more people would be screwed leading to politicians running for office to bring the Federal Reserve back. America has been over this with a fine toothed comb multiple times, you regressive asfaces.

        Either there is going to be a FED or, the 'FEDs' are going to heavily regulate the hundreds of different competing currencies so people don't get screwed by a plethora of private banks and socialist states. You regressives will accomplish NOTHING!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11

        1. EndtheFed

          Fred: "Either there is going to be a FED or, the ‘FEDs’ are going to heavily regulate the hundreds of different competing currencies so people don’t get screwed by a plethora of private banks and socialist states"

          "so people don't get screwed"

          So you think the only thing that can protect us from being "screwed" is either government-granted monopoly on currency, or heavily government regulated competing currencies?

          Government is not the solution to everything.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

          1. Fred the Protectionist

            The Libertarian Party is full of tricksters, scammers, and Bernie Madolfs just dying for the chance to screw people so they can make a buck.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

          2. EndtheFed

            ... And so is every government party.

            Which is exactly why we need to vote for someone as principled as Ron Paul. At least that way we know what we can expect.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

          3. Fred the Protectionist

            "At least that way we know what we can expect."

            A thousand Bernie Madolfs, yes that's what we can expect with Libertarians.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

        2. David Smith

          @Fred the Deceptionist

          "You regressives will accomplish NOTHING!"

          And, as long as you continue screaming at yourself, YOU will continue to accomplish nothing but being ass-backward.

          http://www.shepherdslayer.com/why-are-progressives-so-regressive

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        3. EndtheFed

          Fred: "that’s what we can expect with Libertarians."

          A baseless accusation.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    2. Fred the Protectionist

      "He wants a commodity backing the dollar, be it gold or something else..."

      Again I know more about Ron Paul then the Ronulans. Ron Paul specifically wants gold to back the dollar which means our gold reserves would be gone in less then 2 years and we'd be back on the non-gold paper money.

      Why in the hell do you think gold was put off the dollar in the first place? France wanted to exchange dollars for gold. Hey, blame France, it's what neocons are best at, hey blame anyone but yourselves.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8

      1. EndtheFed

        Fred: " Ron Paul specifically wants gold to back the dollar"

        No he doesn't. Did you read his competing currencies bill?

        Fred: "our gold reserves would be gone in less then 2 years and we’d be back on the non-gold paper money"

        Ever hear of purchasing power? It's real simple.
        As the demand to hold gold increases and the supply of gold remains relatively constant, the price of gold increases. (As would any good). THEREFORE there could never be "not enough gold" because as it's demand increases, it takes more units of currency to buy a unit of gold. This means that the value of gold would simply expand to meet whatever quantity was demanded. This is the beauty of real money. The price of gold would represent the amount of demand for it in the market.

        Furthurmore, developing capital equipment increases the productivity of manufacturers allowing them to produce more for their buck. Combine this gradual increase in productivity with the relative stability of the gold supply and you get money that appreciates in value. The limitations of the commodity are exactly what makes it appealing as a currency because the supply cannot be doubled over night (diluted in value). Mining gold is a costly and time-consuming process.

        These two economic facts would ensure that there would always be enough gold for the economy. The notion that there "isn't enough gold" is a fallacy perpetuated by mis-informed people.

        Congressman Paul's competing currencies bill allows for people to continue using the fiat US dollar if they wish. So you should not be against the bill; if you wish to conitinue sacrificing the value of your wealth at the whims of the federal reserve, be our guest. The smart money will be in gold.

        Fred: "Why in the hell do you think gold was put off the dollar in the first place?"

        Because nixon (the watergate criminal) declared that we are all keynesians now, and removed the gold standard in 1971. The dollar has lost something like 2 thirds of it's 1971 value to date. Keynesianism has failed.

        I hope you weren't stuffing your retirement dollars into your matress.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

        1. Fred the Protectionist

          "No he doesn’t"

          Yes he does, unless he's being a deceptive propagandist. Noooo, he is, dang. *hangs head*

          "As the demand to hold gold increases and the supply of gold remains relatively constant, the price of gold increases."

          Wrong, the opposite is true. As we export gold because of the massive trade deficit (thanks free traders), that would increase the amount of gold outside the US thereby decreasing it's value and foreigners demanding more gold per "backed gold dollar". Like everything you Ronulans claim or say, the opposite is true.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

          1. EndtheFed

            It's basic 'supply and demand'. Econ 101.

            If supply is constant:
            If demand goes up, price goes up.

            Fred: "that would increase the amount of gold outside the US thereby decreasing it’s value"

            Did you make that up?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

          2. Fred the Protectionist

            That's right, gold worldwide is basically static, so either the price would remain constant or it would go down outside the US, if we theoretically exported it all with this massive trade deficit. It wouldn't go up.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

          3. EndtheFed

            Fred: "so either the price would remain constant or it would go down outside the US"

            By "gold is static", you mean "the supply of gold is constant". By "if we exported it all", you mean "if the demand to hold gold went up". Supply and demand.

            If the supply of a good is constant and the demand for that good goes up, price rises. Econ 101.

            Scarcity of supply relative to demand raises prices. You are either forgetting about the effects of demand, or you are saying that demand would be unchanged. If the world could suddenly exchange their US dollars for gold, the people who go through with the exchange would represent an increase to the worldwide demand for gold. Who would want to hold a withering store of value like the dollar when you can hold a stable store of value like gold? This is why the legal tender laws are essential to the big government gravy train. Without these laws, people would be able to switch their wealth during inflationary periods to a store of value that is not subject to dilution at the whims of the fed. A connection to real money protects against wealth confiscation.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          4. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "By “gold is static”, you mean “the supply of gold is constant”. By “if we exported it all”, you mean “if the demand to hold gold went up”. Supply and demand."

            IF we exported all our gold cause of the trade deficit, then the value of gold outside the US would go down cause we'd flood the worldwide market. Inside the US it would go up because supply would be down, but it doesn't matter what happens inside the US, what happens is the foreign exchange rate and the foreign exchange rate is what foreigners determine the value of gold is at.

            The only thing you free traders would do with a gold standard is export all the US gov reserves in gold, then we'd be back on paper money in less then 2 years. Are Libertarians foreign agents? Ching Chong Wong... I speak your language, your Chinese foreign agents, I hear China has lots of dollars and would love to exchange those for gold.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          5. EndtheFed

            Fred: "IF we exported all our gold cause of the trade deficit, then the value of gold outside the US would go down cause we’d flood the worldwide market"

            You still don't understand the affects of demand do you? You would only run into that problem if you fixed the price of gold. If the gold that is being held by the US is to be exported, it must be demanded. This means that the overall price would remain unchanged as a result of "flooding the supply" because the increase in supply is met with an increase in demand. When an increase of demand occurs to a good that has a limited supply, the PRICE GOES UP.

            Besides, isn't it safe to assume that americans would want some of that gold too? It simply would not be "all exported". The price would be bid up until there was enough molecular grams of gold to go around. This 'problem' you envision would be a characteristic of the fiat money system because (if it was true) it would never be given an opportunity to occur had we not destroyed the link to gold. Once again, gold proves to be the more stable currency, and you present an argument in favour of fiat money that turns out to be an argument against fiat money.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          6. Fred the Protectionist

            A) Americans won't be able to buy that gold held in government reserves used SPECIFICALLY TO BACK THE DOLLAR with your precious gold. That gold would be exchanged for dollars.

            B) If Ron Paul were to magically win the presidency, and if Ron Paul cloned himself a couple hundred times and installed himself in Congress. And if Ron Paul and his clones magically got rid of the Federal Reserve then backed the d0llars with gold, then the US gold reserves would be empty in less then 2 years, and then we'd be back on non-gold backed paper money cause see, the FEDS would no longer have any gold to back money with, it'd be all in China's treasury. Are you a Chinese agent, propagandizing here in America?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          7. EndtheFed

            Fred said:
            "That gold would be exchanged for dollars"

            Are you saying Americans have no dollars?

            Fred said:
            " the FEDS would no longer have any gold to back money with, it’d be all in China’s treasury"

            If all of the gold is in China's treasury then we`d use silver. When the gold is being held in a treasury and not being sold, it is effectively taken out of the supply. So if china had all of the gold, it would cause the price of gold to sky rocket and the demand for gold to disappear. What's the point of having all the gold if no one wants it?

            Gold is money. Money has demand because it serves it's holder as a medium of exchange. If the gold loses it's ability to be a useful medium of exchange, it no longer has value to us as money. That value would simply be placed in some other money, like silver, or more likely a basket of monies.

            The wealth of a society is not how much money it has, it's how much resources it has. The money simply represents the resources in a more marketable form to enable exchanges that a barter economy couldn't support. You can't have unlimited money because you don't have unlimited resources. Expanding the money supply doesn't magically create new resources. It simply dilutes the value of each unit of currency already in existence because there are now more units representing a constant supply of resources.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          8. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "If all of the gold is in China’s treasury then we`d use silver. "

            Oh so you want to export all the silver too, why don't you export America's mojo too while your at it.

            Okey Smokey *retard smile while thumbs up*

            Libertarian say: "So if china had all of the gold, it would cause the price of gold to sky rocket"

            nooooo, if China had all of our gold, then it would flood the world market and gold would drop like a rocket pointed DOWN.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          9. EndtheFed

            I keep saying yes, you keep saying no, but all that really matters is the merits of your argument. You have presented none. Mine speaks for itself.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          10. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarians are like Algore, everything you say the opposite is true.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      2. Citizen

        Fred...
        Again you've totally missed the point of a Gold Standard!

        Dr. Paul knows that it would End the Fed and Congresses spend thrift profligate ways.
        Put a stop to Political largess and payoffs.

        Sound money is the antithesis of what your Government Tyranny mindset,

        But of course you are a Statist, In Government You Trust FRED!
        God Bless

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        1. Fred the Protectionist

          Libertarian say: "Sound money is the antithesis of what your Government Tyranny mindset,"

          You mean like what the Confederate States of America did? Your beloved confederates went through like 1,000% inflation. Strange how it is the Libertarians who are guilty of what they accuse others of doing.

          Libertarian say: "But of course you are a Statist"

          Libertarians empower the Statists. http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-does-libertarianism-lead-to-statism-415

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          1. EndtheFed

            Fred: "You mean like what the Confederate States of America did? Your beloved confederates went through like 1,000% inflation."

            I'm not sure how true your statement is, but regardless, have you heard about what Japan has done? What Germany has done? What was done in the US during the great depression? It's tried and true, keynesianism has failed. Stimulus spending doesn't work. Inflating the currency doesn't create any new resources, it simply dilutes the value of each existing unit of currency. I've seen pictures of Germans throwing bundles of currency into a furnace because it provided more heat by burning the paper it was printed on than by spending it on wood to burn. During hyperinflation the currency is returned to it's natural value -- paper.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          2. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian cries: "Hyperinflation".

            Ronulans have been crying hyperinflation for decades now, never happened. It never happened because you don't understand anything.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          3. EndtheFed

            It never happened. That's your answer.

            Thanks for comin' out.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          4. Fred the Protectionist

            The money the fed printed is outside of the US, therefore it only inflates US dollars in the eyes of foreigners (it only effects our imports not US produced goods). OIL is the best indicator of the full faith and credit of the dollar OUTSIDE the US.

            The perpetual trade deficit keeps those dollars outside the US, only a trade surplus would bring those dollars back to "inflate" our money supply. And that'll never happen with free traders running the country.

            Actually the only way those dollars would come back into the US is if a simultaneous collapse of the dollar hit around the world, then those dollars would come flooding back into the US. Then you'd get your hyperinflation, but then again you Ronulan nutballs would claim the FED somehow magically did it, when in reality free trade did it.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          5. EndtheFed

            Fred said:
            "then again you Ronulan nutballs would claim the FED somehow magically did it, when in reality free trade did it."

            Free trade didn't allow unlimited dollars into the market.
            The fed did.

            Therefore the fed created the problem. Case closed.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          6. EndtheFed

            Fred said:
            "only a trade surplus would bring those dollars back to “inflate” our money supply"

            ... OR the creation of new money. lol

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          7. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian Lunatic say: "Free trade didn’t allow unlimited dollars into the market. The fed did."

            Free Trade caused a massive trade deficit which forced the FED to print more money less we be forced to barter in Euros and Pesos. In effect it's your fault, case closed.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          8. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian lunatic say: "OR the creation of new money. lol"

            lol lol lol lol lol...

            Those dollars are outside the US, meaning only a trade surplus or a worldwide dumping of the petro-dollar would create hyperinflation.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. David Smith

    @Fred the Deceptionist

    It sounds like you forgot how to think before you began typing. Also, free trade is not the poblem, socialist programs are. Minimizing welfare and other 'keep-em-down' programs and bringing back a free trade system would enable even the poorest of the poor to prosper.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

    1. Fred the Protectionist

      No, free trade makes more poor. You must be blind not to see the truth.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

      1. EndtheFed

        Protectionism is isolationist. Recent “Buy American” plans have upset Canadians, a huge part of trade in the US. More recently, Canada has made efforts to expand trade with other nations, like China.

        Protectionism is government intervention that seeks to determine “winners” and “losers” in a market. Obviously, the people who continually “win” in the market will favour protection. As a result, all ‘losers” suffer. Unfortunately, the winning team has profits very concentrated, and the losing team has losses very dispersed — this is why you have more lobbyists pushing for protectionism than against.

        Protectionism is inefficient. When an industry needs to be propped up in a market it is because it is less competitive than other players in that market. By “protecting” that industry, you remove any incentive for domestic players to become competitive on a global scale. Often times, as with Japanese automobiles, government tools simply don’t work as they were intended, and they end up hindering domestic industries instead of helping. In the case of Honda, government induced quotas simply tipped the balance of supply and demand to make the cars more scarce and higher priced; and therefore able to be sold at a higher profit. As a result of US protectionism, Japanese auto-makers became more competitive on the global market.

        Protectionism makes no economic sense. There are always benefits to trade. With trade, two nations can consume more than they can produce. Read about comparative advantage, absolute advantage and the gains from trade. Government actions that tip the gains from trade in favour of one of the traders will simply initiate game theory mechanics as the traders attempt to anticipate future government interventions that will affect them. Trade relations are harmed.

        Protectionism is the reason North American cola tastes so much worse than other places and is so much more fattening. The “protected” sugar industry creates cheaper (unhealthier) alternatives. The (very few) producers of sugar then make an increase in profit per unit, while the (very numerous) North American consumer then has one less choice in the market, and therefore pays more than he would have with no “protection”.

        Fred, you are entitled to your opinion, but you should do more to back it up if you expect the knowledgable members of this site to believe you. What exactly is the benefit of protectionism, as you see it?

        Don’t say more jobs. More jobs in an uncompetitive industry just increases the mis-allocation of resources that could have been invested into a competitive industry that would benefit consumers and increase the soundness of the economy as a whole. If “jobs for the sake of jobs” was a good idea, then why don’t we just have the government pay us all to build widgets that we don’t have a use for? Jobs need to be productive.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        1. Fred the Protectionist

          Guess what, ever since NAFTA/WTO the middle class is disappearing, the poor getting poorer and the very few rich getting richer. Everybody knows this but you free traders, that's why free traders can't win elections.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

          1. EndtheFed

            NAFTA is not true free trade. It's regulated trade. A true free trade bill need not be thousands of pages in length.

            Ron Paul is against membership in organizations like the UN and WTO.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

          2. Fred the Protectionist

            There you go, the same old generic Ronulan reply, "it's not free trade, it's managed trade."

            It does lower Tariffs, which destroys jobs. You nutballs would completely eliminate Tariffs thereby destroy ALL jobs. You're worse then NAFTA/WTO.

            NAFTA/WTO only goes halfway to economic destruction, you Ronulans would take us the whole way to economic destruction.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

          3. EndtheFed

            Fred: " You nutballs would completely eliminate Tariffs thereby destroy ALL jobs"

            There are many things wrong with this assessment.

            First of all, if you actually listen to what Ron Paul says before you jump to disagree with him, you would know that Paul's favored method of taxation is the tariff.

            There is a difference between protectionist tariffs that unfairly prop up an uncompetitive firm on the world market, and fair tariffs that affect all firms equally during import/export activity. Protectionist tariffs determine winners and losers in the market due to political influence as opposed to having them determined by their competitive and efficient use of resources in the market. Protectionist tariffs disperse harm among consumers for the concentrated benefit of a few firms (corporate welfare). Since consumers are the base of the economy, more harm than good is done.

            More jobs would be created if government would allow our industries to evolve into competitive players on the world stage. Competition is a staple of capitalism. The competitive firms survive. If your firm can't survive without government protection it should be liquidated so that those resources can be re-allocated to a firm that is operating competitively. The mis-allocation of resources into propped-up government-protected industries is malinvestment that harms our economic potential, thereby making us less competitive over all and perpetuating the export of our jobs. Protectionism disrupts the division of labour mechanic that allows two countries to consume more than they can produce by trading with one another. Less trade means less gains from trade.

            Example:
            If I'm quicker to mow a lawn than you, and you are quicker to trim hedges than me, I could mow both of our lawns and you could trim both of our hedges and we would both save time. By "protecting" my hedge trimming job, I give up the time I would have saved if we divided our labour. Protectionism is inefficient. I could have used that lost time as a resource in the production of another good to increase my overall economic potential.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          4. EndtheFed

            Fred: ” You nutballs would completely eliminate Tariffs thereby destroy ALL jobs”

            You are assuming that ONLY tariffs (and therefore, the government) can protect jobs.

            Being competitive protects jobs. Investing our resources into goods that we do not have a comparative advantage to produce simply retards our economic activity and reduces the amount of jobs our economy can maintain. Besides, trade increases market share. Increased market share means a need for increased production, which leads to increased jobs.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          5. EndtheFed

            TYPO
            My previous example should have read:

            If I mow lawns quicker than you trim hedges, and you are quicker to trim hedges than I am to mow lawns, I could mow both of our lawns and you could trim both of our hedges and we would both save time. By “protecting” my hedge trimming job, I give up the time I would have saved if we divided our labour. Protectionism is inefficient. I could have used that lost time as a resource in the production of another good to increase my overall economic potential.

            This situation could play out if I have a bigger lawn mower than you, and you have a better hedge trimmer than me. Our equipment is our capital resource. By becoming competitive on the global market in more industries, we could afford to invest in more capital resources. This is one way to grow an economy soundly.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          6. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "First of all, if you actually listen to what Ron Paul says before you jump to disagree with him, you would know that Paul’s favored method of taxation is the tariff."

            No, Ron Paul is deliberately vague on that point. In one speech you'd think he was all for excise taxes to run the government, in another speech he will use the word "tariff and excise taxes" to run the government. He's an Austrian School nut, meaning he would prefer to run the government entirely on excise taxes.

            Libertarian say: "There is a difference between protectionist tariffs that unfairly prop up an uncompetitive firm on the world market, and fair tariffs that affect all firms equally during import/export activity."

            No sh*t sherlock. I told you I use to be a Libertarian, but i'd rather live with government intrusion then live in a country where 90% of the people are earning slave wages.

            Libertarian say: "Protectionist tariffs determine winners and losers in the market due to political influence as opposed to having them determined by their competitive and efficient use of resources in the market."

            It's so easy for the critic who doesn't hold political power to say that, and the Libertarians hold almost absolute-zero political power. Absolute power corrupts right? Well absolutely no political power makes you quite the angels of purity of thought; clean as the wind driven snow. Hehe.

            The rest is nothing but a free trader's rant which everyone outside your clique knows is not true.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

          7. EndtheFed

            Fred: "I told you I use to be a Libertarian, but i’d rather live with government intrusion then live in a country where 90% of the people are earning slave wages."

            Go ahead and present your stats and evidence that libertarians would create a 90% slave economy. I'm sure this will be more interesting than your idea of supply and demand.

            Fred: "The rest is nothing but a free trader’s rant which everyone outside your clique knows is not true."

            Then you concede. I give you a detailed argument complete with facts and backed by economic theory, and all you can come up with is "free trade is bad, everyone knows it". Nice try, though.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          8. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "Go ahead and present your stats and evidence that libertarians would create a 90% slave economy. "

            The CSA. Everyone knows Libertarians are the biggest Confederate apologists.

            Libertarian say: "Then you concede. I give you a detailed argument complete with facts and backed by economic theory,"

            No you spew a bunch of Libertarian/Neocon free-trade propaganda and theory from the 1990's which has turned out to be a complete lie, Algore. Welcome to 2010!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          9. EndtheFed

            Yeah, funny how that "propaganda" was the only theory to both explain and predict the financial crisis, the dot com collapse, and the housing bubble while all of your keynesians were claiming the that "fundamentals of the economy " were "sound".

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          10. Fred the Protectionist

            You Libertarians not only get your verbs wrong, you also got your nouns wrong.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          11. EndtheFed

            You can make fun of my english after you grasp supply and demand.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          12. Fred the Protectionist

            You libertarians have a problem with grasping reality.

            Politics done by proxy. You blame the Federal Reserve because you can't face the fact that your theories on free trade are WRONG.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          13. EndtheFed

            Fred said:
            "your theories on free trade are WRONG."

            ... In your opinion.

            Or did you simply forget to provide the facts to back that up?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          14. Fred the Protectionist

            Why all these elaborate conspiracy theories about the FED? Wouldn't it be easier to just blame the Jews like the good old days? You know a Jew does run the FED, at least that would make sense: Fed--->Jew--->Problem. See, everyone can understand it.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. Fred the Protectionist

    "End the Fed!" Whootpy do. Even if we went on a magical Gold Standard (which isn't really a gold standard), and even if there magically wasn't a 700 billion dollar a year trade deficit would would empty Fort Knox of gold in less then 6 months, and even if law makers would magically remove the 16th amendment, the government could still tax your chimerical-magical gold currency at high enough rates to; keep military everywhere around the world; keep social security; socialize medicine, basically everything the feds are doing now.

    There is no Magic Bullet to cut spending other then cut spending.

    And the reason the middle class is disappearing while the rich are getting richer is because of your free trade, Ron Paul.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 22

    1. Citizen

      Fred...
      Not again, your advocating TAXED Trade over Free Trade, as the solution of our national problems, you can not be serious! More taxes is not the solution and you know it!

      But I do think Dr Paul is getting through to even you...
      "There is no Magic Bullet to cut spending other then cut spending."
      CUT THE SPENDING!!! YES
      Yes Fred your getting infected, stay on dude!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        No you nutballs think that if the Federal Reserve disappeared tomorrow then there would be no more overspending which leads to the national debt.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12

        1. EndtheFed

          If there was no federal reserve the politicians would have limited resources at their disposal. They would need to have access to the ACTUAL resources they needed, instead of trying to print them out of thin air (which amounts to stealing value from dollars held by you and me and spending it on their own agenda). Deficit spending would have to be funded through borrowing and taxation, both of which are dependant on forces outside of the realm of absolute government control. Borrowers need willing lenders, and taxation requires a further taxable public.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

          1. Fred the Protectionist

            "Deficit spending would have to be funded through borrowing and taxation"

            Guess what Kemosabe, Deficit spending is funded by borrowing and taxation; breaking news huh.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

          2. EndtheFed

            Fred: "Deficit spending is funded by borrowing and taxation; breaking news huh."

            ... And inflation (which was the main thrust of the argument).

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

          3. Fred the Protectionist

            Ending the Fed would accomplish nothing other then create a chaotic plethora of private+government currencies and a thousand Bernie Madolfs. Anarchy is what you like, isn't it, that's your goal.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

          4. EndtheFed

            Fred: "Ending the Fed would accomplish nothing other then create a chaotic plethora of private+government currencies and a thousand Bernie Madolfs"

            How so?
            Explain why this would occur.

            It's not very difficult to calculate the value of one currency in terms of another. It's called an exchange rate.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          5. Fred the Protectionist

            Libertarian say: "It’s not very difficult to calculate the value of one currency in terms of another. It’s called an exchange rate."

            No thanks, I don't feel like studying the exchange rates 20 hours a week just to buy a big-mac.

            Anarchist.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. EndtheFed

            Fred said:
            "No thanks, I don’t feel like studying the exchange rates 20 hours a week just to buy a big-mac."

            So you admit you just go along with keynesianism because it's the easiest thing for you to do. Good job being a sheep.

            Ever hear of a computer? They have this ability to be able to compute the exchange rate of a currency into several different currencies in a matter of fractions of a second.

            Don't work too hard though, Fred.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          7. Fred the Protectionist

            Regressive say: "So you admit you just go along with keynesianism because it’s the easiest thing for you to do. Good job being a sheep."

            Welcome to the 21st century! *open arms*

            We don't have to worry about indian raids, rain, snake oil salesmen, child sacrifice, and whether or not our gold coins are really made of lead.

            Friggin' regressive Anarchists, you think regulation or law happens in a vacuum and for no purpose whatsoever other then to tick you regressive Anarchists off.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. David Smith

    Thank You! I'll definitely be voting Ron Paul in 2012. And this time it looks like the 'alternative' media is too big for there to be a blackout. So the mainstream really won't have much choice other than to cover him!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  31. jody

    Just got back from DC. Saw Ron Paul's speech. He killed it as usual. I only went to this event because Paul was speaking. Otherwise I would have stayed here in NY and gone to the 8th Ave. rally.

    It is encouraging to see that Ron Paul has come a long way in three years in terms of national recognition. But sadly way too many people still don't get it. Every time I hear Palin mentioned associated witht the Tea Party movement I get a migraine. I'm taking a lot of Ibuprofen these days.

    America I'm begging you. Wake up. Be smarter than this. Sarah Palin is not the answer. She is a GOP invention. She offers us nothing solid. Turn your backs on the Rino's and double talking politicians. There is too much at stake in these critical times to be indulging the Sarah Palins of the political world.

    Promote Ron Paul and other candidates that know, love and obey the Constitution. Beware and denounce the frauds that are good at saying the right things during election years but whose words and deeds are not consistent otherwise.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

  32. David Aiello

    One of my favorite videos of Ron. That last gesture at the end was extraordinarily spritely for a man of his age, and was rather funny as well. Looks like a man who's got the energy to make a 2012 run, no? I think it's clear at this point that he's merely avoiding the 2012 question until after the 2010 election. He doesn't want to make it appear as though his focuses are elsewhere. This is going to be fun :)

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

Leave a Reply