This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Mike Krieger On Why He Supports Ron Paul

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Mike Krieger of KAM LP

Why I Support Ron Paul

Now consider that an ideologue is not necessarily a fanatic.  What he does is adjust most of his ideas to circumstances, without recognizing the opportunism latent in such ideological adjustments.  The opportunism of a great statesman, on the other hand, rests on principles.  What John Morley once wrote about Edmund Burke may be applied to Churchill: “He changed his stand; but he never changed his ground.” Or what the aged Metternich once wrote: that an idea is like a fixed gun in a fortress, ready to fire and to hit error in one straight direction; but a principle is like a gun mounted on a fixed but revolving base, capable of firing at error in all directions. 

- John Lukacs in Churchill: Visionary, Statesman, Historian

Ron Paul

I hold a deeply held view of Ron Paul as an honorable, genuine and trustworthy American statesman.  In fact, I cannot really think of anyone else in the tepid cesspool of American politics today whom I could even remotely categorize as a statesman as opposed to a run of the mill politician (or ideologue as Mr. Lucas puts it).  Mr. Lucas moves on to explain that to an ideologue it is current ideas that matter, while to a statesman it is certain principles that matter.  He states that an ideologue’s view of the world and its inhabitants is political, while to a statesman it is historical.  These simple sentences are what I believe inherently separate Ron Paul at his very core  from everyone else currently running for president.  This is merely what separates the man’s character from the others.  This is reason enough to consider him, but not reason enough to vote for him.  His ideas about liberty, war and economics also separate him from the pack and it is his strongly held principles on these subjects that in my view make him the only one capable and with enough conviction to help heal this country’s wounds, get us back on the right and moral path and foster real change as opposed to a campaign slogan.

Why the Elite Establishment or TPTB Hate Ron Paul      

In case you have been asleep under a rock for the last few months let me fill you in.  The elite in this country that control all forms of mainstream communication in the United States as well as both fake political parties are having a panic attack in response to Ron Paul’s surging popularity.  There is a simple reason for this.  On the important issues, the issues that affect your freedom and economic future he does not tow the party line of TPTB.  As I have written about endlessly for almost five years now, the Federal Reserve is the mechanism of American empire and this institution’s policies are the primary reason the middle class in America is on the verge of being completely destroyed.  It is the mechanism for transferring wealth and power to a smaller and smaller faction of the population through persistent inflation.  As Keynes wrote: “Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” 

Remember, the Fed creates dollars out of thin air and then forces countries to accept this counterfeit, backed by nothing, and consistently devalued money for their resources.  While many people now understand this concept, what most U.S. citizens still do not seem to understand or want to accept is that it is not in the national interests of other countries to accept this certain to be vaporized currency for their hard produced goods.  Fortunately for us, there is a solution to that.  Support (or install via coup) if necessary despotic puppet regimes around the world to accept this monetary system.  Our Federal Reserve system and indeed our way of life is supported through the barrel of a gun pointed at every other “sovereign” nation on the planet.  If you step out of line you will be deemed a terrorist state and we will single you out and fight for sanctions on you and then if none of that makes you fall in line we will start bombing you.  We will say that you commit atrocities against your people and you probably do (although we were also probably your ally recently despite the atrocities).  Make no mistake about it.  Every country we every go after militarily relates to defending the Federal Reserve system.  Since oil being priced in dollars is the key to the system, we are always on the verge of invading oil producing countries that we do not already have under puppet control.  Israel is merely another U.S. colony.  We defend it so vociferously not because of the Jewish lobby but because they are a strategic asset in the oil rich Middle East that we use to defend the Federal Reserve system and the American empire.     

If you Attack the Federal Reserve you are Racist, Anti-Semitic and Possibly a Terrorist 

Let me fill you in on a little pattern that I have noticed.  In American politics you are allowed to criticize pretty much anything except the Federal Reserve system.  This is the third rail of American politics.  Why?  Because this is by far and away the most important issue on planet earth.  Republicans will run around yelling about cutting back on government and preserving “freedom” but they NEVER EVER attack the Federal Reserve.  The only time we have ever seen this in recent memory was this political season in the Republican primary and that is only because opportunists like Rick Perry saw it was a popular issue.  Ron Paul on the other hand means business when it comes to the Fed.  He has been criticizing it for decades and it is not just talking points.  He is the only one out there that actually understands how the monetary system works and how it is destroying this nation.

So isn’t it interesting that whenever a popular movement with anti-Fed elements comes out it is not attacked based on the ideas, but it is immediately categorized as racists or anti-Semitic.  Why?  Because TPTB want to be able to turn people off as quickly as possible.  They know that if people actually do a little research they will see the truth.  This is why the tea party was branded that way immediately by the mainstream media fake left.  This is also why Ron Paul is being attacked the same way.  They do not want to talk about the substance of ant-Fed arguments.  They want the whole thing to disappear as quickly as possible. 

What also has been very interesting to see is how the mainstream media fake right went after OWS.  OWS is a huge deal in American history because it was when elements on the other side of the political spectrum really started to attack the Fed and banking system for the first time.  Sure many, many of the ideals behind the tea parry and OWS are totally different, but what is far more important and dangerous to TPTB are the similarities.  Both are against bank bailouts and have anti-Federal Reserve elements.  Thus, the media had to attack them as well.  They used the “lazy, ignorant, imbecile meme” for these guys. 

Ok, so now we have their entire playbook. Any popular movement is not to be listened to.  If it comes from the heartland it is to be categorized as being dominated by “racists, anti-Semites and survivalists.”  If it emerges from the urban areas on the coasts it is to be deemed as being dominated by “ lazy, unemployed, morons who are probably high on drugs and want free stuff.”  Most important to TPTB is that these two groups remain separated and the goal is to create as much animosity between them as possible so they never realize they agree on the key issues.  Divide and conquer is being used on American citizens in America.  This tells me one thing.  The criminals in charge on Wall Street and Washington D.C. are afraid.  Very afraid.     

I am Jewish and I Support Ron Paul…There are MANY of us

When I saw this http://www.businessinsider.com/morning-joe-there-is-2011-12 the other day, where Joe Scarborough basically labeled Ron Paul supporters as anti-Semitic I became infuriated.  First of all, I have been a Ron Paul supporter for years and I am well connected to many of his key supporters all over the country.  I think I might have an idea as to whether they are anti-Semitic or not and they are certainly not.  Meanwhile Scarborough hasn’t been in the Ron Paul circles but yet…“On Morning Joe this morning Joe Scarborough revealed that he's always heard from friend who support Paul that there is an underlying strain of anti-semitism to Paul events, which some in the past have tied to Paul's anti-Wall Street, anti-Fed views.”  Huh?  This is journalism?  Some anonymous friend says Ron Paul rallies are anti-Semitic?  Who is this friend and why doesn’t he come out publicly?  This is like a middle school rumor-mill. Sadly, that is what the mainstream media has devolved to nowadays.   

When I saw this clip I felt the need to respond.  These sorts of tactics are going to backfire big time.  It got me so riled up it inspired me to write this email as well as to make the decision to dedicate much more of my time this year to politics rather than the markets.  2012 is a year to fight these guys in that realm and I plan on being relentless.  This clip was an insult to me as someone who is Jewish and to all of those Jews I know personally that support Mr. Paul.  What is so ironic about this whole anti-Semitic argument is that the guy that is seen as the most influential figure in Austrian economics (the economic perspective that Ron Paul adheres to) is Lugwig Von Mises.  Guess what?  He was Jewish.  How about Murray Rothbard, the economist that  popularized Austrian economics in the last couple of decades?  Also Jewish.  Then during Ron’s 2008 run his economic advisor was Peter Schiff.  Another Jew.  For an anti-Semite this guy sure surrounds himself with a lot of Jews.  To those that hear something on mainstream media or read one of the newsletters and become turned off I ask one thing.  Read his books.  They are short.  If you still feel turned off at least it is on the actual issues and then I can live with that conclusion.

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Views are “Dangerous.”  Dangerous to Who?

There is one issue where the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) will actually engage Ron Paul on the issues and that is foreign policy.  They try to portray him as an “isolationist” but in reality he is Anti-Empire.  He believes in strong national defense he just doesn’t believe in constant preemptive war.  He also points out that it is hypocritical to support one totalitarian regime while bombing another.  For these rational views he is attacked vehemently by the likes of Gingrich.  The dirty little secret however is that some of Ron Paul’s strongest support emanates from the U.S. military.  This makes sense.  At the end of the day, most of these war mongers in both the Republican and Democrat party have never fought in a war and they know their kids would never be sent overseas to die, yet are such tough guys and war mongers with OTHER PEOPLE’S KIDS.

The fact that the military is strongly supportive of Ron Paul’s foreign policy is so terrifying to the elite cowards in this nation that CNN resorted to outright censorship the other day. When this active duty soldier who has been serving his country for the last ten years in war time started to discuss his criticism of American war mongering he was immediately cut off.  See this incredible clip here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TSxm2V8aVQ&feature=g-all-u&context=G2989....

Oh so you think this guy is a one off?  Nope.  Check this out.    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012  The armed forces are Ron Paul’s three biggest supporters.  Look at who is backing Romney.  Wall Street has clearly made a bet on who its next puppet will be.

Why Ron Must Run Third Party

I support Ron’s attempt to get the Republican nomination even though I recognize that hell will freeze over before the Republican establishment allows him be chosen.  Nevertheless, it is a smart move as he is exposing the lack of ideas amongst the Republican field and exposing them as the empty suits that they are.  Other than him, they will all be puppets of TPTB just like Obama.  I think that simply his running is changing the debate and converting more people to his perspective.   

So the big question is what should he do after the Republicans choose their new Wall Street puppet Romney.  In my opinion, he must run as a third party candidate.  No matter what he will not be returning to Congress so this is really his last shot and I actually think he can win as a third party candidate.  Just imagine a debate between Romney, Obama and Paul.  How will they respond to Paul’s strong defense of civil liberties.  Or his attacks on the Federal Reserve system.  Or his anti-preemptive war stance?  They can’t and it will expose Romney and Obama to be the same guy on the important issues at play today.  They will be shown once and for all as the empty suits that they are.  Even if he doesn’t win, turning this whole thing around will not happen overnight.  It is a process and him running as a third party candidate will further expose the two party system as the sham that it is and further accelerate the demise of both parties.  In fact, I already think that by 2016 the Democratic party will be essentially a shadow of its former self and the Republicans may be as well if they continue on the path they are on much longer.  To paraphrase Shakespeare.  The tides in the affairs of men are changing.  Neither political party can comprehend it.  

Finally, let’s remember that it is both bought and paid for parties that hate Ron Paul and that is because he is the only genuine threat to the establishment.  As soon as this man topped the polls in Iowa the mainstream media went into total freak out mode.  Watch this clip that shows how both the fake right and fake left media portrayed the Iowa caucus in 2008 and now 2012.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soHAOVZzXtA&feature=watch_response

Finally, Jon Stewart several months ago joked about how the media systematically ignores Ron Paul.  http://www.infowars.com/jon-stewart-scolds-media-for-ignoring-rep-ron-pa...

Welcome Aboard    

In conclusion, I want to welcome the hundreds of new people on my email list.  Those that are joining come from all over planet earth, in every field imaginable and I believe represent key players in helping to create a new and better world.  So welcome all of you to the list and feel free to forward this and every other email I write to as many people as possible.  We have a moment right here and right now.  Let’s do some good.

Peace and wisdom,
Mike

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:33 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

I chose option #1, but I would have chosen #2 if there were any significant number of people ready to fight an all out shooting revolutionary war against the predators-that-be.

However, at a deeper level, my observations of the astronomical level of stupidity and "normalcy bias" that humans generally practice, that the only likely chance for honesty, liberty, justice, productivity and individualism is the existence of a viable "frontier" where individuals can simply go to and be left alone.  The lack of any real frontier on earth today is the reason the whole planet is spiraling down the tubes.  This is also why the predators-that-be have made sure space habitation has not been allowed to develop.  They know that once man can live in outer space, all the best people will simply LEAVE the predators, parasites and sheep to occupy earth.  And good riddens to them.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:42 | Link to Comment LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

Please tell Simon hi for me when he gets back from his finding lost Moche Cities expedition.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 19:55 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

Simon who?  What is Moche Cities?

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:50 | Link to Comment smiler03
smiler03's picture

The Sovereign Man. Moche Cities are large connrbations with many coffee shops, Chile is full of them.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:13 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

Oh.  I don't know Simon personally, and I'm not an advocate of him either.  But at least I understand what you mean now.

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 14:30 | Link to Comment LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

Moche culture was pre-columbian and  left a lot of pottery depicting act of sexual perversion.  Pretty sure it was the Inca that wiped them out.

that was a achealogical cheap shot at Simon.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:17 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

4. Become a tax-consuming mole working to undermine the legitimacy of the criminal cartel d.b.a. "government."

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 01:59 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

How will anyone be able to differentiate such a "mole" from the Ignorati (AKA Sheeple)?

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:45 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

"His ideas about liberty, war and economics also separate him from the pack..."

2 outta 3 and he still doesn't understand that he needs to get money out of politics, if he is to ever have a chance of holding a higher office.

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 02:01 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

A lot of "money" would find better things to invest in if Govt was smaller and hence less able to supply largess to parasites.

Expand yer thinking.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:46 | Link to Comment Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Any thoughts on this?

 

"There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency.... The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.... The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation."

 -- Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001

http://libertyrevival.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/ron-paul-supports-globalization-and-one-world-currency/

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:49 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

A little too utopian for me, perhaps.  I seems all he is saying is FREE markets work and voluntary contracts and private property matter. 

Go Ron.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:21 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

I don't see anything Utopian in that ideology, as it's all true.

While Utopia is impossible by definition, freedom isn't. It's just unlikely at the present time.

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:53 | Link to Comment j.tennquist
j.tennquist's picture

Yes.

Gold, the great unifier.

It's gonna happen soon.  Ron Paul or not.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:11 | Link to Comment Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Is there enough gold to have a gold-backed world currency? He calls it commodity money, silver is better-like JFK was moving towards.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:43 | Link to Comment bernorange
bernorange's picture

Sure - at the right price definition.  I suggest reading the following paper from the CATO Institute:  Is the Gold Standard Still the Gold Standard among Monetary Systems?

However, you should understand that Ron is not currently advocating a one world gold currency.  He has been championing a more free market solution called competing currencies.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:00 | Link to Comment css1971
css1971's picture

You just pay electronically in grams. No need to "back" anything.

The British pound for example was simply a unit of weight of silver.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:15 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

JFK was not moving towards silver. He already had that power.  He gave it to his treasury secretary with EO 11110.

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth

(This is G. Edward Griffin's take on it.)

pods

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:26 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

I like you pods you always provide something worth while.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:12 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

Well I have done a 180 on the EO of JFK.  It feels good to think that someone was trying.  It did for me, and I was bummed out after reading that piece, and the EOs.  Seems plausible to me.

I am even a bit leery of Griffin, whom I found by watching his documentary "World Without Cancer."  Griffin outlined the Jekyll Island thing pretty well in TCFJI, but Mullins "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" was much harder hitting, IMHO.  The main think I took from Griffin that I had not realized before was that the FED was beneficial for BOTH the bankers and the government.  Once the gold peg was removed, the government was no longer restrained by taxes when it came to spending.  And well, the bankers just like to make money out of thin air.

Appreciate the compliment.  ZH rocks, and I like the bazaar atmosphere, where you can learn anything on any day.

pods

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:53 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Pods, I encourage you to look deeper into this supposed JKF & silver-backed-money theory --- you will find that there is actually nothing there, and JFK was NOT in any way whatsoever "taking on the Fed" with any executive order.

This wild theory, which ONLY got started in the 1990s due to much misinformation being endlessly bounced back and forth on the internet, is nothing but a gross misinterpretation of the monetary history of the 1960s.  In actually, silver certificates were and had been ALREADY issued for almost 100 years before JKF came on the scene, and his signing of the executive order pertaining to them and authorizing the printing of them (and to US Notes as well) were merely a rote formality demanded by the laws of the time, and were simply a measure, taken periodically by almost every president, to authorize the printing of new notes to replace those that had been withdrawn from circulation due to wear.  There was absolutely, positively NOTHING "anti-Fed", or pro-silver, in anything that Kennedy did as president, and the theory that Johnson was ushered in to rescind Kennedy's actions in regards to silver certificates is merely a distortion of monetary and financial events that were already in progress at the time, as the rising price of silver in the early and mid-1960s was already making the  further issuance of US silver coins (and silver certificates) an increasing drain on the government's silver stockpile and a financially unfeasible program.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 23:40 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

See my link above. I have looked into it and accept as fact that at best JFK was merely continuing the practice required by law.

At worst, he delegated his authority (from the earlier EO IIRC) to his treasury secretary.  

The Griffin link I put up talked about this in depth.

pods

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 23:52 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Thanks Pods --- I had overlooked the link, but will check it out here shortly.

I get very frustruted at reading that particular bit of misinformation/conspiracy theory endlessly on the internet, when the facts are so clearly to the contrary.  Some of these rumors and theories really take on a life of their own on the web, that is for sure!

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 00:01 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

I absolutely agree.  When I came upon the EO 11110 story, I was motivated.  It meant that someone who attained ostensibly the highest position of power in the land actually gave a shit and wanted to right the ship.

When I read the EO, it sounded pretty obscure, as most lawyer talk does.  Looking deeper I came upon the Griffin piece, and knowing his reputation, gave it a solid look.  It does make sense.

Now I just do my part trying to take down the system by staying out of debt, and instructing all who will listen how a debtor pays banks for the privilege of using their own credit.  Tough sell, but slowly we can re-educate people into seeing how they enslave themselves.

pods

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 02:07 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

More likely, it was the folks running the Exchange Stabilization Fund...

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 02:01 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

"someone was trying"?

In my mind ANYONE, who wants to abuse the powers of the Office of the President of United States to make it illegal for any US citizen/subject/slave to hold gold overseas, and hence out of reach of the totalitarian US State, DESERVED THE FUCKING HOLE THAT GOT BLOWN INTO HIS TREASONOUS HEAD ON NATIONAL TELEVESION!

Laws and taxes are for the little people, not the members of the TPTB – is the documented practice and might as well be the Klan mantra of the descendents of Joseph Kennedy.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:15 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

my opinion on this, is that if it were anyone else's quote, there would be some attention paid to the words used. . .

I know that I smell the global agenda in these words, particularly given the date of March 2001. . . should they have been ascribed to the Newt more recently, there'd be some raised eyebrows at least.

good find sir, hopefully keep the conversation ball rolling.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:18 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

Him using the term "globalism" is eye raising, but as I recall, it was not quite so polluted a word as it is now.  And he did speak of the usual suspects and denounced their required oversight.

pods

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:34 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

That's one of those words with an evolving definition that's become a "code-word" for TPTB.

He likely used it to counter the smear that he's an isolationist. Not to mention, back before the days of world wars, globalism (free-trade) was the force that raised the standard of living for all.

I once ran across a globalism statistic from that time that not only astounded me, I've yet to find anyone who could even make a guess anywhere close to the answer. The statistic?

"What year did the volume of world trade return to its pre-WWI level?"

cue the Jeopardy music...

...

...

...

...times up!

I can't remember the exact year given, but I think it was 1993 (it was one of the years during Clinton's first term).

If that doesn't put the destructive power of war in perspective, nothing will.

This is why we can't have anything nice.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:51 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I've been watching the political discourse since prior to the, shall we say, ramping up in 2001 - particularly from such areas as the PNAC dudes and their "letters" to the president(s) with their "wish list" agenda - politicians use words like dog whistles to each other, much in the same way those "hand signs" are used by those "in the know" internationally. . . so yes "globalism" being used in March 2001 is an agenda, in my opinion, related to NAFTA, the Security & Prosperity Agreement seeking to "unite" Canada, US & Mexico, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_Prosperity_Partnership_of_Nort...

the website promoting this, with all the leaders smiling together in the lovely sunshine, has since disappeared - but the agenda is rolling forward, albeit in an altered fashion. . . Texas is a main player in this story, started in Waco, Texas - so yes, Paul using these words are. . . interesting, at least.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 23:53 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

I agree the agenda is still moving, albeit in the dark of night.  The SPP was the Eurofication of North America.  I think I even remember that website.  It got (on the surface) stopped after the CAFTA debacle et all.

I do think that RP using that term, and meaning what you ascribe to it, flies in the face of the latter part of his statement of decentralizing control.  The one world currency was another weird term, but he did speak of that as being freely arrived at, and probably meant to infer gold.  

To me, I don't care if we use silver, gold, copper or anything else that is freely arrived at, and which cannot be cornered by central banks (the danger with gold), or be used within a fractional reserve banking system.  

Progress will be slower as capital will be tougher to secure, but fractional reserve banking means inflation, and that steals from everyone and enriches those who originate it the most.  Even gold within a fractional reserve system will lead to the same problems of boom and bust, with certain players trying to game the system to further their influence and control.  

pods

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 01:27 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

you make good points pods, thanks - do you remember the Trans-Texas Corridor & the NAFTA Super Highway from Mexico to Canada?  Bush was all over that one

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

while I have no idea at this stage what RPaul's information or opinion was/is on this subject - as I've said before, I'm not a voter, and I haven't done the kind of research I would do IF I was a voter - but I do know that using the "globalism" words prior to sept. 2001 was rather rare, and "noticeable" to those who paid attention - many folks I hung out with at the time had lists of politicians (global) who used the word in public. . . sounds rather silly now, as it is so ubiquitous, but it was introduced to the public over time, as most things are.

interestingly enough, found this Perry vid of him talking about the Highway and about his recent Bilderberg Conference "calling" - he is such a tool, ha - so it appears to be still on the "wish list":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdhph3pwXk

your points about a world currency being "freely arrived" at (as per RPaul's words) make me wonder at just how a global currency could be "freely" installed. . . force seems to be the only "language" that's global any more, and even though I realise banks are apparently stocking up on gold, I wonder how nations will be able to extricate themselves from the fractional reserve system(banks), given it is actually gaining even more "territory" going forward. 

ah well, I guess I'll stick with my own small world, keeping it simple, producing stuffs of value, barter & trade & pay attention as I go, same as ever.

take care.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:47 | Link to Comment Peter K
Peter K's picture

You know the Bamster is in trouble when muppets like Kreiger are promoting Ron Paul. If I were Paul, I'd be embarassed:)

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 00:50 | Link to Comment S.N.A.F.U.
S.N.A.F.U.'s picture

If you were Paul, then you would have the wisdom to understand that even flawed individuals can be attracted to the message of peace, liberty and prosperity.  And you would not be embarrassed at all, but would instead feel lucky to have the chance to deliver that message to so many.

Just because some skin-heads may agree that 2+2=4 doesn't mean that the math teacher teaching that truth to every child willing to learn should be embarrassed.  On the other hand, to be someone who thinks the teacher SHOULD be embarrassed just because some skin-heads agree with the truth?  Well, that WOULD be an embarrassment.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:47 | Link to Comment CulturalEngineer
CulturalEngineer's picture

I sent the following to his campaign this morning which I hope will be of interest... and hope may be of interest to many here as well:

Dear Dr. Paul,

I have received patent for a capability which I believe will have great impact on lobbying.

And while expressly a neutral utility I'm convinced this could be of great assist to advancing your agenda. 

In brief system makes very, very small contributions as easy as clicking a button in an email.

Could those matter?

TO give an idea of scale and small money... 25 cents a couple of times a week times 150 million voters equals over $7 BILLION per 2-year election cycle!

As you've noted, Dr. Paul... you agenda is actually supported by most Americans.

This may be path to enactment of much of that agenda!

I copy below a brief snippet of an email to a potential 'angel' which has prompted an upcoming meeting later this month:

"I'm assuming you already have some understanding of the basic mechanism behind the Pooled-User-Determined-Account but I'll be happy to answer any questions.... i.e. a sort of online-based cash card making possible a simple, one-click microtransaction(and importantly not only a microtransaction)... especially in the political area (but again importantly not only in the political area).

These are transactions not now feasible. And it is this (patented) capability that stands at the root of what I suggest is a very valuable (and perhaps inevitable) network.

(note: With your experience you may be familiar with Clay Shirky's well considered arguments concerning why he believes Internet micropayments haven't and won't gain traction. His arguments are good... but DON'T apply in this context which I'll also explain if interested)

I believe its a reasonable expectation that with this capability in place as a neutral utility that sooner-or-later... and for any of a number of possible motives (which I'll be happy to expand upon)... almost everyone... or at least a very significant percentage... will at some time decide to utilize this account and this network for those dedicated purposes... (and its a capability which will not be available elsewhere).

Bootstrapping it into existence is obviously a critical question and a central part of the discussion, but from a strict business standpoint I suppose the first question must be: Is it a network or a capability worth building at all?

First... I believe this leads to a large and importantly... a persistent user-base.
And because the system can handle other transactions as well I believe it can anchor the user to the system for other Internet transactions.

This alone makes the patented capability a very valuable commodity... even were it only offered in a licensing situation to an existing pay system that wants to stabilize and enlarge its base of users.

But while to be considered... this is not the optimal configuration.

I believe that by orienting itself in its inception as a dedicated account for political and charitable contribution... that a 'donor network' can be catalyzed that will capture a significant portion of the charity and campaign services sector (especially in auditing, tax, regulatory compliance, FEC reporting, data-mining and various technical services)... and that it can further capture a significant part of the corporate/charity sponsorship market.

This network then becomes THE target for a multitude of interests that want to reach it.

These aren't the only potential monetization sources but I believe form a strong core.

There's another hook which I believe is important... and while at first I suppose it could seem like a negative for an investor... I believe is actually an advantage.

I'd like to see... from the beginning... and under some suitable formulation... a plan whereby the User-base essentially "owns" 50% of the enterprise with a possible pre-designed exit strategy for founding investors upon maturation of the network via buyout by the user-base. I understand this may be a bit unusual but I think it can cement both the catalyzation of the network and help secure monetization. And, for the excessively ambitious... lead to an ability to undercut other paysystems by taking its monetization OUT of the transaction itself... and so come to dominate the entire Internet transaction landscape. (Might as well think big!)

-end of copy-

This can make the 'money bomb' a much more frequent occurrence.

And this ability for individuals to lobby their government is a fundamental for preserving freedom.

I'd welcome the support and/or interest of your office. (and, of course, connections with VC's and/or others interested in getting this up and running would be welcome).

Make no mistake... this is a game changer!

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:31 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

I'd like to make a suggestion to you, and I am familiar with many techies and their mental make-up so please don't take this the wrong way, but you must simplify what you are saying for the layperson who will read this.

If you had started this with "I can make a money bomb a much more frequent occurrence" I think the rest would have gone more smoothly.

You get the idea. 

Those are my two inflation adjusted cents.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:54 | Link to Comment smiler03
smiler03's picture

I bet you a Trillion Dollars that it won't be read. 

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 00:58 | Link to Comment S.N.A.F.U.
S.N.A.F.U.'s picture

"25 cents a couple of times a week times 150 million voters equals over $7 BILLION per 2-year election cycle!"

LOL!

If he had 150 million voters behind him, he wouldn't need even a single penny in donations. :-)

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:50 | Link to Comment fonzanoon
fonzanoon's picture

Forget it. The markets will go up. Unemployment will improve. Morale will improve and this banana head will be re-elected.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:50 | Link to Comment Gubbmint Cheese
Gubbmint Cheese's picture

No concerns about the JBS influence?

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:53 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

I ultimately don't care who the Repub nominee is as long Obama is unseated. I'm hoping for Ron Paul and I've donated to him and all that shit. 

If Gary Busey ran against Obama I would vote for Busey in the general election.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:02 | Link to Comment j.tennquist
j.tennquist's picture

And what, pray tell, is wrong with Gary Bussey???

He seems to have the same intellectual advancement and cognitive abilities of the average senator or representative.

 

 

 

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:23 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:13 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

lol, as if any of those other guys would be any different than Bush III.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:19 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

ahhhh yes, the "anybody but the last guy" vote - getting increasingly more popular these last few "election cycles" - I wonder if that's. . . . . . . the plan.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:46 | Link to Comment Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

Equally amusing to me is the relationship between US presidential intelligence and US government control.  The tighter the US gov grip, the dumber the president. 

Honestly I don't know why people think Obama is intelligent.  He's a good speaker, sure, but what else is there?  Nothing.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:35 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

what else is needed for the post?

hmmm, come to think of it, after Dubya, even being "a good speaker" isn't a requirement. . .

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 02:11 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Obama is not a good speaker, he is an skilled reader.  Take away his prepared text and he makes "strategery" seem an eloquent and commanding manipulation of the English language... 

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 03:34 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

which really kinda underscores the notion that any president is merely a figurehead to focus the attention of the voting public's anger when things continue to devolve into fascism, hmm?

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 03:39 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

I think I have always subconsciously felt that that was the case to some degree, but my similar suspicions along those lines were REALLY brought to the surface during the presidency of the Shrub --- and made glaringly obvious during the ongoing presidency of the Usurper.

"Puppet strings we can believe in!"

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:53 | Link to Comment Marc45
Marc45's picture

I do like some of Ron Paul's economic ideas although they're a mismash of tea party, libertarianism mixed with some very conservative ideology.

What I don't like is he is a rabid religious conservative and while he may talk of liberty and small government, he is totally in favor of dictating religious ideology including a pro-life agenda.  How does this fit in with liberty and freedom?

After giving this a lot of thought, I actually prefer the god of money to be worshipped rather than some man-made religious ideology.  At least money doesn't tell me who to pray to or what to do with my body.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:58 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

Wow. You may wish to take a break from Glenn Beck.  Oh, and the god of money is The Bernank.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:02 | Link to Comment Marc45
Marc45's picture

I'm pretty liberal so I wouldn't go near Glenn Beck for anything.  I was being a bit facetious about the god of money.

My point is that when a candidate says they are for liberty, the constitution and freedom and then they also have a position advocating prayer in schools, no abortion, etc., then I question this stark conundrum.  Sorry to rain on your parade.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:05 | Link to Comment j.tennquist
j.tennquist's picture

Gee, advocated positions based on beliefs.

I can see your point now... totally incongruent with liberty and freedom.

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:25 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

Wow, red herrings.  Ron Paul does not advocate forcing prayers in school - he would be absolutely revolted at the thought!  He does have a personal belief, it seems, that a fetus is a human being with rights (which is an error on his part), but he does not advocate the federal government (or local governments) prevent or punish anyone for abortions.  He only says that state governments *could* have laws regarding abortion.  Yes, I disagree with that, because a fetus is not a sentient being (the basis for laws against murder, assault, etc).  But you are just wrong on the facts about Ron Paul.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:22 | Link to Comment King_of_simpletons
King_of_simpletons's picture

Ron Paul should run as a third party candidate. If not all of his supporters should vote for him as a "write-in candidate". A movement for "write-in" candidacy must be started at the earliest. It is better than voting for some dumb fuck or Mickey Mouse.

Three NH newspapers endorse Ron Paul: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/04/three-nh-newspapers-endorse-ron-paul/

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:28 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

to be more clear, RPaul's Sanctity of Life bills would "define" the zygote as having "human rights" that negate the woman's right to choose, based on her own personal history and desires, and would allow "States" to decide how they would like to "punish" those who in any way "interfered" with the zygote's "right to life."

Mammalian zygotes eventually develop into a blastocyst, after which they are more generally termed an embryo, and then a fetus.

also:

In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define human life as beginning from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction and effectively negating Roe v. Wade. Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Such laws would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments. Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from adjudicating abortion as well as same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols. The Act would make federal decisions on those subjects nonbinding as state precedent, and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.

http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/ron-paul/12/abortion-and-birth-contr...

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:03 | Link to Comment mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

How does being against abortion run counter to freedom?  First freedom is right to have a life, no?

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:56 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I believe the topic in question is when does this life begin, and who has the right to define this, with laws.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:40 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

What prayer in schools?  One of the reasons Ron Paul is attractive to me is because he doesn't push his religious agenda.  He believes in separation of church and state.  Does he also believe in life at conception? Yes but that is his thing. I highly doubt that his amendment would pass but I at least understand his reasoning for it and that is because he believes unborn children are the true minority with no voice and he thinks they need liberty the most.  I don't agree but he elucidates that clearly enough for people listening.  It's not just some mystical mumbojumbo about angels and fairies and talking bushes.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:00 | Link to Comment Marc45
Marc45's picture

You are quite wrong about this.  Go to his website an do some research please.

Paul advocates allowing public schools to have prayer (although you don't personally have to participate).  This is NOT separation of church and state since public schools are by definition paid for by the state.

To be clear, if Ron Paul didn't have this religious bent or want to legislate reproductive rights, then he would get my vote.  Just don't tell me what I read on his website isn't true (that's even worse).

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:05 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

I believe that he is in support of allowing GROUPS of students to gather in public schools to pray, NOT school-wide or  whole-classroom prayer.  But I think it is clear that such a position is, in any event, of supremely little importance to him personally or politically, and is merely a talking point to sway Southern Bible-thumpers to his side, for which I do not give him any credit, but neither am I seriously concerned.

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 06:51 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Here you go Marc45 and this is exactly what I would expect to be his position:

Religion

Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Religion

You are misled or are misleading.  The point is don't tell them they can't pray on their own but more importantly don't force them to by having it announced over the loud speaker every morning for prayer time.

I understand some people think this is problematic but how is allowing someone to express their religion in a prayer somehow a problem?  People think allowing prayer in school is unconstitutional but taking away their first amendment right isn't somehow?  That is not a separation of government power from religion; instead that is a freedom of expression issue.  What is the alternative; not allowing people to speak at all about politics in school because that promotes political agendas?

I think you are just mixing the issue of state religion with freedom of expression.  Allowing prayer, in my mind, is like allowing any lifestyle to fit children into the school instead of exclude them. Perhaps veganism is an example would you ban vegans because it's a lifestyle that other people may not agree with and don't want the state to promote? 

I never said what you read wasn't true incidentally you seem quite easily offended with little cause.

As an example of his actions though you can see that his non-participation in "congressional prayer groups/sessions" is where he really stands.  I believe he has said, and I can't find the quote, that the bible teaches humility in expressing one's religion and that it is a private matter between the believer and their god.

Also, as an example, I never hear him talking about god or religion unless directly asked, or when he referenecs war to it being "unjust" and not the christian principle of just war.  I can't think of any time where I felt that his position was bible thumping and that includes his abortion position.

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 10:21 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

Shine the light of truth!

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:00 | Link to Comment smiler03
smiler03's picture

Hi Temporalist. You said somewhere that you like somebody's posts (Pods maybe?). Well I like yours too, so there.

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 06:32 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Thanks I just try to be fair minded which isn't always easy.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:37 | Link to Comment my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

Why not allow tiny human beings to have life and liberty, too?

Maybe you would be as staunchly for life if you had witnessed a gruesome partial birth abortion as Dr. Paul has.

Letting states decide is better.  

I know I will get down arrows for this, but can you answer WHY a developing human who just happens to live inside someone else has LESS rights to exist?  I want a legitimate answer to that.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:40 | Link to Comment my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

The problem with abortion is that it involves TWO human beings, not just a woman, but also a child.  I am a woman who has 3 living children, 1 who died shortly after birth, and had two miscarriages.  So don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.  

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:06 | Link to Comment smiler03
smiler03's picture

Edit: I wish I hadn't written this so I deleted it. 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:00 | Link to Comment Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Religious conservative, rabbid or not, he has explicitly laid out that the Federal government has no business in the pro-life agenda, but is to be reserved for the state.  Adam Kokesh captures this point nicely to a tubby liberal - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD3Kn6A02Jo

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:06 | Link to Comment samsara
samsara's picture

Complete BS.   His personal beliefs of (say) abortion would be subservient to his belief of the Constitution and what  the gov is allowed to dictate.

His thoughts (correctly) on drugs are exactly the same.  He is certainly not in favor of using drugs BUT,  BUT he KNOWS that the Gov should have no right to dictate to you what you should and shouldn't do.

ie  A REPUBLIC

the other guy was correct,  stop watching the false witness Beck.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:45 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Ron Paul does want to pass an amendment to life at conception.  His words "I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting “the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,” and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

Again I'm trying to provide facts not spin.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:58 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

me too.  +1

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:49 | Link to Comment Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

Ron Paul, the doctor, the person, is pro-life....which means he would never perform an abortion on his own children or inside his office as a physician.

Ron Paul the politician would overturn Roe v. Wade....but would leave it up to the states on whether or not abortion should be legal.

In other words, Ron Paul refuses to impose his personal views on other people, which is entirely consistent with his actions.

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 02:21 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Make no mistake, abortion is murder.  OTOH, convicting womyn for having a say/control over their own wombs is totalitarian. 

What the real question should be:  "How is it, that in the 21st Century, womyn cannot support their own offspring?  And WHY, is the Y-chromosome contributor STILL being allowed to say: 'Wham bam, thank you Ma'm'??"

Responsibility, the watchword going forward...

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:54 | Link to Comment Marc45
Marc45's picture

edit

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:54 | Link to Comment SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

Good article Mr. Krieger.  I will be forwarding it on to others.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 16:56 | Link to Comment kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

I think Jim from Min got this right.  The only thing that would make this election interesting, is if Willard (big hair) Romney has to go one on one with Ron Paul.  I'd love to see that.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:48 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Mitt can't think for himself.  Remember "You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do."  This coming from a "leader" that wants to be president.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gmatoBjWW0

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 02:08 | Link to Comment indio007
indio007's picture

You wanna know what's really sad...?He has a law degree from Harvard and still needs someone to hold his hand.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:05 | Link to Comment ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

"I hold a deeply held view of Ron Paul as an honorable, genuine and trustworthy American statesman.  In fact, I cannot really think of anyone else in the tepid cesspool of American politics today whom I could even remotely categorize as a statesman as opposed to a run of the mill politician"

Ditto.

In the land of NO TRUST we need more like Ron Paul.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:10 | Link to Comment Piranhanoia
Piranhanoia's picture

2 problems I can see.  1. They won't invite him to a debate because he would expose the crap people don't hear on TV. 2. You talk as though this system can be saved with most of the rest of the high ups being completely corrupt and the financial system being beyond broken to insolvent and irreparable. A haircut is better than the guillotine. 

 3rd party is right.  The two have gone bankrupt.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:12 | Link to Comment Triple A
Triple A's picture

always enjoy reading Mikes articles, always simple and on point.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:15 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

RON PAUL!

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:24 | Link to Comment TooBearish
TooBearish's picture

reality bloz -Robo Romney it is and Barry gets another term....o bother

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:24 | Link to Comment Pancho Villa
Pancho Villa's picture

The ironic thing is that older voters seem to shy away from Ron Paul because they are afraid that he will cut their entitlement programs.

But when the US is forced to inflate, it is older Americans that will be hurt the most because their fixed-income investments will become practically worthless.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:43 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

Yeah, no kidding!  They've already been shafted BIG TIME by the complete fraud of turning CPI into pure fiction.  You think they'd listen and realize the only way the USSA will have money to pay them is if they stop the endless wars and militarism.

Plus, Ron Paul is probably the only one who would try to restore honesty in government statistics.  Everyone else will just make them even more dishonest.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:25 | Link to Comment YHC-FTSE
YHC-FTSE's picture

+1

Well, I've just read the best article of 2012, after reading the worst (Surprisingly, Charles Hugh Smith). 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:40 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

Two choices:
#1:  Ron Paul 2012.
#2:  Neo-nazi banana-republic USSA with nukes.

Amazing anyone has any doubt how to vote.  Sheesh!

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:48 | Link to Comment earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

ron paul, should and will,... unmistakably, "keep on message", period!

the federal reserve banking system [1913] is/was always an empty shell - the dual mandate of the fed was never to be, only until 1977 [ford/carter?],... when congress stated in explicit terms that employment was imperative for its existence

the us treasury is told/requested by congress to allocate funding for the economy - in turn the treasury must go through the nat'l engraver of currency, which then forwards the request for funds to the frb's --- the tbtf banks then buy the newly minted/digitized debt at said borrowing cost [the frb's makes no money - just a tool for tptb/tbtf banks

plain and simple,... thus the tbtf banks lend the money at profit and leverage up every transaction to infinity --- the tbtf's have brothers and sisters, and their nieces and nephews all over euroland because of todays globalization past and present wars which have bonded them well-too-do as america's legally [family?] adopted cousins tied to our hips from the inception [ww1?]

ron paul running as an independent is unthinkable --- do you really want another 4 years of obama? anything is better [imho] 

his chances of winning are there,... and his message is resonating throughout america --- try as you/others will,... the american people are not dummies - quite the contrary, they see what's happening to their personal freedoms and rights

at best we should let ron paul play his hand out til the last primary has sunset, and then talk strategy if need be

thanks tyler/mike  

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:50 | Link to Comment John Law Lives
John Law Lives's picture

Mike,

" In my opinion, he must run as a third party candidate."

You might want to consider the position this would put Rand Paul in if Ron Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate.  Rand Paul would certainly campaign for his father in such an event.  If Ron Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate and ends up costing Mitt Romney (assuming he is the GOP nominee) the general election, Rand Paul will be viciously targeted and attacked by the GOP.  Rand Paul is a bright young man with big ideas, but he could be savaged by the GOP if this happens.

BTW, the attacks on Ron Paul are no worse than those lobbied against Pat Buchanan after Pat won the 1996 New Hampshire Primary.  In fact, Buchanan was attacked more viciously by the GOP than Ron Paul has been thus far.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:56 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

I've heard that before and who give a fuck?  The fucking Pirate Party is coming, and the Tea Party, and a thousand other parties to tramp all over these old establishment slave drivers of both parties that just want their sycophantic power wielding cabal to live one more day.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 19:07 | Link to Comment John Law Lives
John Law Lives's picture

"I've heard that before and who give a fu--?"

Rand Paul cares if he wants to remain viable as a Republican.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 19:14 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

He won because of the Tea Party.  If the Republican party becomes obsolete he won't need to care is what I was trying to say.  You are thinking in classical party terms, the old status quo not the tomorrow future politics.

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 19:25 | Link to Comment John Law Lives
John Law Lives's picture

"If the Republican party becomes obsolete he won't need to care is what I was trying to say."

 

Perhaps you might consider listening to the attached file before you theorize any further.  Rand Paul was specifically asked his opinion re. his father running as a 3rd party candidate.  Rand Paul said "I don’t think it’s a good idea"...

 

http://commission-underground.com/sen-_rand_paul_on_3rd_party_run_i_dont...

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:25 | Link to Comment Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

If Ron stays in the hunt and is close, you may be right-he may stay out to protect the future of Rand as his successor. This movement may not ripen and come to fruition until 2014-2016. let's hope we still have a country by then. If RP gets smashed in New hampshire and South carolina  -it may be time tio abandon the party and run 3rd party. Again, such a run may be premature, but we may be running out of time.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:41 | Link to Comment Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

What a steaming load of shit.

Ron Paul was trounced in Iowa, deservedly so. He has NO fucking chance at the republican nomination or the presidency. I hope the narcissist runs third party after he loses the GOP nod. That way, people will be able to truthfully say that the fool handed the 2012 reelection to Tarbaby.

Ron Paul is an extremely dangerous pacifist. He fucking ACHES for Iran to get nukes. That blind idiot deserves to be put in a strait jacket and locked away in an asylum.

The miracle is that the fool hasn't already drowned taking a shower.

FUCK RON PAUL

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:44 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

You are a flat out liar.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:01 | Link to Comment Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

Sticks and stones.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:03 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

"What are the contents of Smokey1's cranium", Alex.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:14 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Smokey1

While I do not want Iran to have Nukes,if they do not already have them,it really is a moot point.

No way in hell they launch ONE, if they did even Ron Paul would make  them a sea of glass.

You call 21% of the vote, and less than 3500 votes trounced??,Santorum spent $35k on his campaign, and Romney spent $800.+ per vote, and would up winning buy 8 votes?

Recieved LESS votes than in '08,  and paul was trounced?,not good at math huh?.

He got ALL the 40 and under votes.I agree a 3rd Party run is a Perot II,so that cannot work.

My fervent hope is the Military finally say's no more, and removes O from office, along with many others.

Allowing a real chance to survive, which we do not have at the moment.

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:51 | Link to Comment Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

DosZap,Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

I agree, Iran would not dare to launch a nuke.

But they would EAGERLY give nukes to fringe terrorist groups--Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas and dozens of others. There are tens of thousands of terrorists (ie--suicide bombers) who would rejoice at being chosen to plant a suitcase nuke in Times Square or the Rose Bowl when it holds 100,000 or so spectators.

Iran will absolutely not hesitate to distribute (sell) the material and technology of nuclear weapons once they have them ready.

Ron Paul's views are not only naive, his views are suicidally dangerous. Lest you think the Islam people may not have anyone volunteer to do the dirty work, please take a couple minutes to check out this link.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 19:49 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

How can anyone be so stupid to believe the most insane and idiotic ideas spewed by complete liars?  According to your theory, Iran will give terrorists 150 nukes to go blow the crap out of every country on earth... EXCEPT for the USSA.  That's right, those countries are not trashing or invading or bombing Iran, so Iran will make sure they fry.

You really must be kidding, right?  It is precisely behavior like the USSA practices that gives them a LEGITIMATE REASON to want to nuke the USSA.  If the USSA left them alone, they'd have ZERO interest, just as they have ZERO interest in nuking the other 150 countries on the planet.

Wake up and think for yourself.  Try to figure out WHY people might want what they want.  Take yourself for example.  If one of your neighbors keeps throwing rocks through your windows, dumping trash on your hard, hitting your car with a sledge hammer... that might make you angry at him, and dream about kicking his ass.  But you won't feel that way about your neighbor on the other side, will you?  WOW.  How difficult is that to understand?  Duh!!!  Grow a freaking brain.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:08 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

I would love to see Smokehole1 even try to explain to us the meaning, and the relevance, of the famous saying "War is the health of the State".

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:18 | Link to Comment moondog
moondog's picture

They keep us in fear to conform. Smokehole1 belongs to the MSM following herd, but so do all of the sheep. Critical thinkers are a dying breed I fear...

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:38 | Link to Comment Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

You are clueless. A fool. Beyond hope.

The USA has global trade interests, that, while fairly straightforward, are light years beyond the capacity of a dunce like you to comprehend.

It's stupid cocksuckers like you who always blame America first. If only all citizens had your wisdom to see that Ron Paul is the solution to worldwide peace and everlasting financial prosperity in this country.

Your rock-throwing analogy is especially pathetic, but speaks volumes to your nonexistent intellect.

I never said, nor implied, that Iran had any desire for 150 countries to be nuked. The fact that you would deduce that from my comment goes directly again to your single digit IQ.

There are reading comprehension courses available on the internet, and I suggest you sign up for a couple of them. It will not improve your IQ, which you are stuck with, but the courses may help you understand straight forward posts on this site, like my earlier post.

For the record, you feeble-minded turd, I say that Iran would LOVE to provide Al Qaeda or Hamas or numerous fringe terrorist groups mired in hatred, the nuclear means with which to attack THE USA. In case you are not aware,  there is precedent (9/11) for attacks on this country, you stupid worm. Do you think Bin Laden would have passed on the opportunity to use a nuke ?

Let's be candid. It doesn't make two shits WHY terrorist groups hate this country. That is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that they DO hate this country, and they act accordingly. And you and Ron Paul want to arm them.

JFC, you are one stupid shit. Why not just STFU instead of openly displaying your ignorance ?

Respectfully,

Smokey1

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:59 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Let's be candid. It doesn't make two shits WHY terrorist groups hate this country. That is irrelevant.

Wow.

 

Utterly

Fucking

Wow

 

Such monstrous disingenuosity and profound cluelessness is .... just impossible to even try to logically respond to.

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 02:35 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Let's be candid. It doesn't make two shits WHY terrorist groups hate this country. That is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that they DO hate this country, and they act accordingly.

 

This is were yer train of logic left the rails, bonehead -- it is entirely RELEVANT, you just do not want to contemplate the notion that their hatred is JUSTIFIED!  Not to you Akak, but the nimnull that generated the spew...

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:16 | Link to Comment Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

smokey1 - a classic example of someone who drinks the coolaid  -who for years blindly accepted the propaganda spoon fed him, and who has been too lazy to spend the time to research the truth (which has been readily avaialble for years thanks to the internet). You are also a classic example, not only of laziness, but of stupidity  - as even if your only source of information was government sponsored (or fascist corporate sponsored )propaganda, anyone with a brain  could have figured out that much of what was spoon fed  was pure bullshit.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:53 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

It is actually getting to be quite humorous to see him rhetorically flop and flail in desperation as he tries to counter the intelligence and accumulated knowledge of many ZHers here with his laughably weak and absurd corporate media talking points and propaganda --- "They're coming for us! (and it doesn't matter why!) The terrorists are under your bed RIGHT NOW, the EVILDOERS hate us for our freedoms!  We have to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here!  It is the END OF THE WORLD if the USA does not pursue our "national interests" and invade EVERY SINGLE NATION ON EARTH!  THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING, TERRISTS ARE EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!"    LOL!

The DoD is really not getting their money's worth from this one.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:13 | Link to Comment smiler03
smiler03's picture

+1 Thanks for your post. I was going to respond too but you are much more succinct than I :O)

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 00:39 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Only a propagandist would claim that the why doesn't matter because they do not rely on rational arguments. Facts and arguments just get in the way and muddy the waters. Unfortunately for Smokey, this crowd is fairly well inoculated against this sort of thing which makes his efforts largely ineffectual. 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:09 | Link to Comment honestann
honestann's picture

If the USSA has "global trade interests", then they should... ummm... let me see now...  well, I guess they should trade.  To overthrow their government (in 1953 and now again) is not trade.  To blockade is not trade.  To threaten is not trade.  To bomb is not trade.  Yes.  The USSA should trade.  What a concept.

I don't blame america --- the people, except for morons like you to defend the predators-that-be and predator-class who currently control what the military does.  You really should distinguish "regular folks" from "the leaders/government".  They are not the same (even though far too many are now sheeple like you).

No, you didn't say Iran wanted to nuke 150 countries.  But your LOGIC positively does.  Your point was, if the USSA doesn't invade and bomb Iran, then Iran might give a nuke to a terrorist to deliver to our door.  The implication was, if a country doesn't attack, invade, bomb Iran, then Iran will have them nuked.

My response shows how STUPID that notion is.  The only thing that might make someone in Iran dream about nuking the USSA is... the fact that the USSA has been screwing them over for decades... overthrowing their elected government in 1953... preventing them from free trade now... invading countries all over the mid-east and killing hundreds of thousands to possibly one million innocents... to cutting off trade with them now... to threatening to invade, attack and bomb them now.  Like my (hopefully fictional) example about your neighbor was intended to show...

THE ONLY REASON THEY MIGHT WANT TO NUKE THE USSA IS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE USSA DESERVES IT.

Not us.  Not the population.  The predators in government, who are simply agents of predators in large corporations (the military-industrial-medical complex).

My point was, which you should have understood if you know how to read and comprehend (try one of those courses you mention), was this.

Those 150 other countries don't worry about being nuked by Iran because... they haven't been totally screwing Iran over for 50+ years.  The implication of that is this.  If the USSA would leave Iran alone, they wouldn't have any interest in us either, except possibly as a customer for their oil.

Wake up and smell reality.  And stop watching mainstream media liars (though you should be smart enough to see through their endless lies and gross distortions).

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 00:52 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

You reference 9/11 as justification for all this insanity and illegality? Fail. As a degreed engineer that signed the AE911Truth petition, I can only conclude that you are either: 1) brainwashed or 2) an agent for TPTB. Which is it?

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 02:39 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

My FRNs are on soap in the lobes! :>D

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 10:45 | Link to Comment Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

A degreed engineer? Really ?

You must be very important person.

Signing the AE911 Truth petition PROVES it.

A FEMALE engineer? I suspect you are a carpet muncher.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 00:58 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

LOL. 

You really must try harder Smokey. You're not even warm.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 01:41 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

I notice you didn't answer my simple question.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:55 | Link to Comment my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

CIA created/nurtured Al Qaeda, Taliban.

ISRAEL helped create Hamas.

Don't believe me?  Do some serious research!

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:59 | Link to Comment Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

idiot  -they are a far saner nation than we. Their very existence is continuously threatened by the greatest military power in the history of the planet  and you wonder why they are not concerned . The christian evanglelical wacko dispenstionalists in America run in the tens of millions  -they activeley preach Armegeddon and End Times theology and you are concerned about Iran? match of John Hagee or Richard Land of the southern baptist convention against any ayatollah or Mullah and you will find no comparison  -the Muslims are tame, sublime and moderate compaired to any Evangelical  -including the fake evangelical Bush and his cadre of jewish Neocon extremists.

I can give you hundreds of Old testmant quotes of extremism, hatred and mass murder of their enemies  -but I have yet to find any in the Koran. Read the talmud if you want real hatred and prejudice.

You are stupid and ignorant. But don't despair, because of the orwellian media you have plenty of company.

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:32 | Link to Comment Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

I am not atheist, but I care not for religion.

But the fact that you say that evangelical Christians are more dangerous than Islamic extremists is absolutely stupefying. You may be the stupidest,  most clueless person ever to hold forth on a blog in the history of the internet.

I mean, to try to advance your pathetic argument by citing chapters in a fairy tale (Holy Bible ) is overwhelming evidence of the weakness of your position and of your self-delusion.

Please don't display further you mind-numbing stupidity by saying there is no hatred in the Koran nor verses there advocating violence. You may as well scream to the world that you are a fucking retarded mongoloid.

 

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:38 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

You may as well scream to the world that you are a fucking retarded mongoloid.

Having one here already is more than enough, thank you.

 

No, wait, I take that back --- mongoloids, in my experience, are never filled with the kind of hysterical fear and rabid hatred that you consistently display in your vile, pro-status-quo, pro-warmongering rants in this forum.

 

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 02:43 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

So, in your small, narrow view, the Crusades were about Christians going to Jerusalem for a picnic?  As many have pointed out to you, the CIA deposed the legitimate, ELECTED Govt of Iran in 1953 to place the Shah on the peacock throne!  Ignorance, thy name is Smokey1.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:38 | Link to Comment QuietCorday
QuietCorday's picture

Iran would not give Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or Hamas nukes for the simple reason that all these organisations are radical Sunni Muslim groups, and Iran is majority Shia and Persian. Iran has also experienced suicide bombing attacks by radical Sunni minority groups within its own borders in the last three years, and a fair number of Iranian Shia have been killed.

Iran is all too aware of the Arab Gulfie desire to eradicate the possibility of a "Shia Crescent" in the Middle East; I doubt Iran would arm groups that could be bought to fire those sold nukes back on Tehran. The Iranian elite is convinced the US is funding radical Sunni Muslim groups to attack and bomb Iranian interests and cities.

Even with the more likely candidate of Hezbollah as a receiver of an Iranian nuke, I would suspect the leadership would be very tentative to accept it as the consequences of such a move becoming known in certain circles would probably kick off another Lebanese civil war and may even result in Southern Lebanon being wiped off the map entirely. Hezbollah, I do not think, would take such a risk. Firing rockets into Israel is one thing; having Israel discover they have a nuke is something else entirely.

And Israel would find out. Their intelligence networks vis a vis key players in Turkey and Pakistan are suggested to be rather developed.

Iran is, essentially, ostracised, which probably explains their fevered panic. 

Disclaimer: I am not Iranian, nor Muslim, nor an apologist for the Iranian elitel, but the picture is far more nuanced than is often portrayed in the West.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:24 | Link to Comment Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

Quiet Corday,

I do not concur.

Iran openly undermined the Iraq war, funding and arming  fanatics in the murder of Americans.

With regard to the particular ethnic faction of Islam (Sunni vs Shia), in the overall scheme, in my opinion, it is a distinction without a difference. That distinction would politely be ignored for the greater good (whacking the USA).

While I agree that Iran would not arm any group that would turn the nukes against Iran--kind of obvious---I do think that it is extremely plausible that nukes would find their way into terrorist groups that would not hesitate to take out LA or NYC.

Thanks for your thoughts. It's refreshing discussing the issue with an intellect, as opposed to a shit-for-brains SavvyInDallas or a K street whore like akak, or a Ron Paul honker smoker like honestann.

 

 

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 02:51 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

How prudent of you to ignore inconvenient facts that make your argument more tenuous.  The Shite/Sunni, Arab/Persian dichotomies are very real to the playas involved.

Leave them alone to kill each other, remove the oil from underneath the dead bodies -- THAT should be US policy, not focus their wrath on the United States.  Very brave of you to "volunteer" other people's children to fight in foreign wars in order to make YOU feel more safe!

In the final analysis, when the Grim Reaper comes for you, NO ONE will be able to do a d@mn thing about it -- DEAL WITH IT!

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:17 | Link to Comment moondog
moondog's picture

AMEN!! Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all the folks on Fox agree!! I'm with you friend, all these assholes need to stop thinking so much about shit and let the smart people over at Fox tell us what to think. Fuckin' yeeehah! Let's make the middle east a giant sheet of glass already! Hey friend, are you from Beaver, OK? You talk alot like my buddy Randy. http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2188

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:59 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Can't nuke Iran that's where the oil is.  That is the reason they want to make them the enemy.  Ironic though, if they were treated as friend instead of enemies for the past 60 years the US probably would own it all by now.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 19:25 | Link to Comment Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

Right. Just like we own Europe, since we've had allies there for the past 60 years.

      Fool.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:45 | Link to Comment Whalley World
Whalley World's picture

In a previous article Doug Casey discusses getting out of Dodge as the USA goes "full retard".  I am relieved that i live outside the USA but am still too close for comfort bing here in Canada.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:56 | Link to Comment Biggvs
Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:05 | Link to Comment fiftybagger
fiftybagger's picture

Silver For The People – The Blog 1/5/12

http://brotherjohnf.com/  

Zerohedge – Mike Krieger On Why He Supports Ron Paul
Kerry Lutz – Ed Steer of CaseyResearch Gives You More Golden Reasons
The Chronic Failure of Britain’s Monetary Policy
U.S. Dollar and Currencies: Review and Outlook
Gartman admits a bad call on gold, but that’s not GATA’s grievance
Trading Silver in the Dead of Night
Hitler(Dimon) bested by Stalin(Sprott) precious metals cartel parody
Harvey Organ – Record Deposits at ECB?Hungary CDS hit record levels/Italy and Spanish bonds rise again
The Crushing Weight of New Laws and Federal Tax Codes
Peter Schiff – Was 2011 the End of the Gold Rush?
Patriot Radio Newshour – Thursday, January 5, 2011
Is $5,000 Gold a Myth?
Becky Akers – From Democracy to Dictatorship
King World News – President of Pento Portfolio Strategies
Nicholas Lemann of the New Yorker on Ron Paul: A Critique
Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War
King World News – Hathaway – Decline in Gold & the Shares Has Run its Course
King World News – Pento – Expect $7 or $8 a Gallon Gasoline if Iran Closes Straits
Playing the ‘Free Markets’ Canard and the Myth of Self Regulation – Jesse’s Café Américain
Three investments that you want to avoid
Hungary faces crisis as traders fear bond debt default
GoldSeek Radio interviews GATA Chairman Bill Murphy
Munknee – These 8 Analysts See Gold Going to $3,000 – $10,000 in 2012! Here’s Why
Fearful Investors Stash Money in Luxury Goods
Ranting Andy – Dilution, American Style
Ever Wonder Why You Never Get Called Back For That IT Job?
Zerohedge – EURUSD Dips Below 1.28 As All Hell Breaks Loose In Italian Financials
The Hyper Report – Jan 5, 2012 – Exposing Elite Shenanigans
Seasonal Adjustment Pushes Initial Claims Below Expectations At Least Until Next Week’s Revision
Meet the Mainstream Press
Bob Chapman – Pressure Put On Massive Governmental Debts By Fed
Europeans Fleeing To Gold
FSN – Martin Armstrong: Capital Controls Coming in the US
FSN – Ann Barnhardt: The Financial System House of Cards Is Ready to Topple
The Little Currency That Couldn’t
Silver Update 1/4/12 W For The Win

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:15 | Link to Comment pynchon
pynchon's picture

I SUPPORT RON PAUL BECAUSE I HAVE SHORT POSITIONS ON EVERYTHING

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:49 | Link to Comment tahoebumsmith
tahoebumsmith's picture

I'm with you Mike, pretty sick and tired of the Ron Paul witch hunt the MSM has been running. Oh and how delighted they were that they could campaign for Rick Santorum all week with non stop lobbying on every channel just to make sure Ron Paul wouldn't win Iowa. It was a joke, flip from channel to channel and all you saw and heard was how NOBODY Rick Santorum was surging. And for you pricks at FOX News, especially Brett Baier and Bill O'Reilly I hope you understand how many Americans you are degrading with your shallow remarks about Ron Paul and how he is a nut case. Bill answer this on your show if you would please, you made the point several times how only 1 of Ron Paul's 600+ Bills ever turned into law. What if they had passed the 100+ laws he proposed to regulate the FED , the Banks , Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, his attempts to back the currency by gold or his efforts to change the repeal to Glass Steagall? Guess what Bill? Maybe if they had just listened to Crazy Uncle Ron we wouldn't be a bankrupt nation that now has to monetize its own debt to survive and run ponzi schemes to cover past obligations. People need to wake the fuck up and end this nonsense before there is no way out of the hole they are digging. So good luck with the Liberals in NH... They aren't going to buy into your VPT " Vote protection team" campaigns. Here is a clip from last weeks episiode of Run Sheeple Run...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMKRPqUJg4w

 

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 19:03 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Seriously if there is a real fucking racist, homophobe, xenophobe, islamophobe it's that inbred dimwit frothy fuckwad Scrotorum.  And the news wants to paint that piece of subhuman ooze better than Ron Paul?

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:31 | Link to Comment krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel...? (Scrotus for Potus!)

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 18:55 | Link to Comment Archduke
Archduke's picture

I'm flabbergasted by the amount of toady sycophantic projection going about ron paul.

every other blurb is about a litany of praise of qualities ascribed to him: trustworthy,

honourable, gentlemanly.   this reads like recited party praise of lenin, mao, or hitler.

an endless seriously inarticulate tirade going on about his virtues of intellectualism.

 

and while he does have some radical proposals, it seems like every disenfranchised

demagogue on the street is more than willing to identify with the underdog and fill in the

holes and policy vaccum with their own ideals, ideas, and idyoms.   it's no surprise that

zh as a contrarian blog would hit the mark on underdog affinities, but zh has also been

traditionally high on critical thinking.  let's not lose it and lose our cool just now.

 

personally I think he's a dangerous opportunistic mish mash of some bold new ideas

and some half-thought and barely understood iconclast trendy right-wing pandering.

end the fed? -sure.   scrap fractional reserve and revert to a gold standard?  -whatthefuck?

the other scary part is his campaign base and structure smells of brownshirtism to me.

I was to go on gut instinct, I'd say he's a narcisstic mythomaniac, a liar, and a rat.

but what the hell do I know?  I don't have any more basis to judge him than those who

laud him.  bottom line is nobody really knows where this guy stands, not even him.

 

anyways, let's show some measure and composure.  (as this post reads like a paid advert).

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:31 | Link to Comment Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

I know where he stands. he knows where he stands. Anyone with a brain knows where he stands. you don't know, because from the mindless dribble and stupidity of your post, you are obviously a retard.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:12 | Link to Comment krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

Don't disparage retards in this manner. He's obviously much lower on the IQ scale...

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:36 | Link to Comment Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

Well said, Archduke.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:22 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

LOL!

 

Yeah, Archduck was really "fair and balanced".  ;-)

"We distort, truth denied"

USA!!  USA!!  USA!!  USA!!  USA!!  USA!!  USA!!  USA!!

 

LOL

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:15 | Link to Comment krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

You don't have a sewer full of methane to crawl into and spare the planet your ridiculous spewings via ZH? The trailer park does not allow unauthorized use of their wireless, please sign off...the planet...permanently.  If weeds grow on your grave we'll be sure and salt them into oblivion, much like your posts...

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:59 | Link to Comment Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

Ha ha. You're funny.

Your wit is hilarious.

Everybody is laughing hysterically.

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 03:01 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Hmm, but you're pathetic.  It's obvious to all that you have NOT thought your principles, (assuming you have some!) through to their logical conclusion(s).  Might does NOT make right, and though your paranoia might help you survive fighting some enemies, your positions guarantee that there will be more where they came from.  Grow some eyes in the back of your head, you're gonna need'em!

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 02:57 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Start here and get some ammunition if yer gonna participate in (well, you know):  http://reason.com/

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 19:17 | Link to Comment Cynthia
Cynthia's picture

I imagine that I am like most progressives in that I hate the fact that Ron Paul opposes labor unions, worker rights and minimum wage laws. After all, these are the only weapons workers have to maintain some sort of reasonable balance of power between themselves and their greedy and power-hungry bosses in management. Plus I find it absolutely deplorable that he wants to shut down the Department of Education and other federal agencies that provide much-needed social services to ordinary Americans. But to me, Ron Paul’s strong opposition to corporatism, militarism, the national security state and a Federal Reserve that’s shrouded in secrecy and steeped in cronyism all far outweigh any opposition he has for using the power of government to create a fair and equitable workplace and provide a secure and dependable social safety net for Americans from all walks of life.  
 
And as many in the antiwar and civil libertarian community have pointed out to me, the president can’t shape domestic policy without consent of Congress, unlike he can with regards to foreign policy. So even if Ron Paul wants to rid the workplace of labor unions, worker rights and minimum wage laws, and shut down the Department of Education and other federal agencies that provide much-needed social services to ordinary American, he can’t do these things without the full consent of Congress. And because Obama has made the very fascist move to invoke the state secrets privilege in order to protect our Wall Street bankers from persecution, not only is the president free to shape foreign policy without consent of Congress, but he is now also free to do this with regards to banking policy.  
 
It’s bad enough that we have a president who has given himself the unchecked authority to wage endless and unjust wars against sovereign nations, but it’s even worse that because of Obama’s very fascist move to further militarize our civilian police forces and lock up our civilian population indefinitely without due process, we also have a president who has given himself the unchecked authority put a bullet through the head of our civil liberties!  
 
Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that has expressed any interest in rolling back many of the very fascist powers that Bush and Obama have given themselves and all future presidents, and restoring our Constitutional Rights back to where they were prior to 9/11. Plus as a very wise and insightful blogger from Hamburg, Germany has pointed out to me, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that can push the Overton window back to the Left. For this reason alone, he gets my support!

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 19:20 | Link to Comment Cynthia
Cynthia's picture

Let me also mention that Ron Paul, as far as I can tell, has nothing against corporations, per se. He just opposes corporatism, which means that he opposes corporations being able to buy politicians in order to rig the game of making money in their favor and to prop themselves up with taxpayer dollars when they are incapable of surviving on their own in a competitive marketplace.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:40 | Link to Comment Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

As a progressive, you must surely understand that almost all of these federal agencies are duplicated in almost every state of the union.  They are redundant, expensive and impede their corresponding state agencies who are closer to the people they regulate.

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 03:03 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

I suggest you read:  "Economics in One Lesson", ISBN:  978-0-517-54823-3, by Henry Hazlitt

in order to find out WHY minimum wage laws are nonsensical (for starters!)

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 23:30 | Link to Comment S.N.A.F.U.
S.N.A.F.U.'s picture

Glad you're on board the Liberty (or at least the Anti-New-Tyrannies) Express.  But if I may disagree with some of your points:

"opposes labor unions"

Paul has nothing against labor unions (voluntary associations of workers).  However, he does not believe in the government giving them any special legal rights that any other worker or random group of workers doesn't also have.

When you give labor unions special rights, you take away my rights, because I will NEVER join a union.  As a potential employee or contractor, I speak for myself, and I make decisions for myself.  I don't subjugate myself to some union boss, nor pay (union dues) for such a "privilege".  (It's like paying to be enslaved.)

When you give labor unions special rights, you also take away the rights of employers.  And many people such as myself despise the thought of ever employing ANYONE in this country because to become an employer is a massive legal liability.  (Federal union laws are one drop in a very large sea of federal anti-employer garbage.)  A lot more people would choose to become employers and give others jobs if it were not for this.

You can listen to Peter Schiff talking about this general topic (government discouraging employment) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QfybDGCJME

"worker rights and minimum wage laws"

<spock voice>Impressive.  You manage to contradict yourself in the space of 6 words.</spock voice>

worker rights: If someone is worth $5/hr and a potential employer knows it and is willing to pay them $5/hr, well, it's their right to choose to accept that job at $5/hr.

minimum wage law: Cancel the above worker rights.  The employer ain't going to pay $10/hr if the worker can only produce $5/hr of value.  The right to work (enter into a voluntary agreement between worker and employer) is the most basic of worker rights.  Minimum wage laws remove that most basic right for many of our most financially vulnerable people.  (Leave it to the government to kick a man when he's down.)

Paul wants to give workers ALL of their rights (and none of anyone else's).  (And you can generalize that from "workers" to "every individual in the entire country" and it remains just as true.)

"these are the only weapons workers have to maintain some sort of reasonable balance of power between themselves and their greedy and power-hungry bosses in management"

No - if my job pisses me off, I let them know I'm leaving.  Let them come groveling with appropriate concessions if they want me back.  (And this isn't just "internet tough guy talk" -- I've actually done this.)

I know that can't work for everyone, but that's only because the difference between their salary and their value to their employer is already so tiny that if they ask for more it's better to just replace them (or eliminate the job entirely).  But that is how it HAS to work, because to do anything else steals rights from someone.  For example, say worker A demands something but they really aren't worth it so the employer lets them go and replaces them by hiring worker B who is willing to work without said demand.  Now go back in time and somehow force the employer to satisfy worker A's demands instead -- now you just forcibly stole worker B's chance to get a job.  You have also made the economy function less efficiently, which makes us all poorer.  You can try to "fix it" with special union laws, minimum wage laws, unemployment payments, etc. -- but that just makes our economy even LESS efficient, which just drives more jobs overseas (and worker A and worker B are then BOTH unemployed).  And there is a horrible feedback that happens where, the worse things get, the more government tries to "fix it" by tinkering with things it shouldn't tinker with, and therefore things get even worse.  Rinse and repeat.

Please, please, please, please:  Pick up an economics book and read it -- something like "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
[I see StychoKiller beat me to it.  But it doesn't hurt to 2nd "the killer's" suggestion.]

"Plus I find it absolutely deplorable that he wants to shut down the Department of Education and other federal agencies that provide much-needed social services to ordinary Americans."

Freedom is deplorable?

The Department of (mis)Education doesn't provide ANY social services -- they don't teach a single child.  They just boss the states around.  The states really don't need that kind of "help".  The Dept. of Ed. is 100% overhead, making it one of the most obvious and least painful cuts in federal spending there is.  The fact that it is completely unconstitutional is also a pretty good reason to get rid of it.

I up-arrowed your second post to try to counter some of the down-arrows.  Your second post was actually perfectly fine (as were a number of things in your first), but I think some people down-arrowed it without even reading it because they figured it was more of the same stuff that they didn't like in your first post.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!