Ron Paul: Inception

[pearljamrox2]

Tell me five ideas that Ron Paul would like to initiate that make him worth considering as president.

Here are five ideas, in no particular order, that Ron Paul has that differentiate him from any Republican candidate and President Obama:

(1) Scale back federal spending to 2000 levels, which includes financing government operations by excise taxes and eliminating most federal agencies.
(2) Eliminate the Federal Reserve.
(3) Nonintervention foreign policy.
(4) Withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO.
(5) Opposes and would repeal the Patriot Act, presidential autonomy, and warrantless domestic surveillance.

The president and all other Republican candidates: (1) do not want to scale back spending to 2000 levels or eliminate federal agencies; (2) do not want to eliminate the federal reserve; (3) do not support nonintervention foreign policy; (4) do not support free trade (by withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO); and (5) support the Patriot Act, presidential autonomy, and warrantless domestic surveillance.

So, if Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum run against Barack Obama and your realistic choice is Romney/Santorum or Obama, the issues indicated above will not be handled different by any of them. In essence, you don't have a choice on these issues unless Ron Paul is a candidate for president.

Interestingly, Ron Paul was apparently endorsed by Stephen Colbert, DL Hughley, Norm McDonald, Joe Rogan, Oliver Stone, Vince Vaughn, and Snoop Dogg (I'm not saying that means anything, I just think it's interesting).

6) Civil liberties (End the war on drugs)


This is big to me. One of the reasons I hate the Republican party so much is because they are hypocrites. They always are saying how the government should stay out of our lives, and how democrats want a nanny state that needs to tell everyone what is best for us. They don't want the government touching their money, or their guns. They don't like regulations. They like to talk about states rights an awful lot. But republicans have no problem telling other people how to live their lives(when it doesn't affect them personally). Anything they find morally wrong,(abortion, gay marriage, drugs, prostitution, etc...) republicans have no problem with government telling us how to live in these instances.

It's why I like Ron Paul so much. He offers a fair trade off. As a left leaning independent, I can live with his fiscal policies if I gain more personal freedom. I think that is a fair compromise. That's why I say, the only candidate that can keep me from voting for Obama is Ron Paul. Otherwise...the Republicans can stuff it.

[oVo]

[...] he's an absolute nut when it comes to foreign policy [...]

I have more appreciation for Ron Paul's thoughts on foreign policy
than the hawkish attitude of Mittens, Rickity or the Newt.

Flexing military muscles by exporting more forces globally and blowing up stuff
with high tech ordinance is not a policy that benefits anyone.

[BigBallinStalin]

[...] he's an absolute nut when it comes to foreign policy [...]

I have more appreciation for Ron Paul's thoughts on foreign policy
than the hawkish attitude of Mittens, Rickity or the Newt.

Flexing military muscles by exporting more forces globally and blowing up stuff
with high tech ordinance is not a policy that benefits anyone.

Except for the people who make that high tech ordinance
and for the guys who oversee its consumption

[oVo]

I'm sure worms and flies also have an appreciation for such policies.

[saxitoxin]

Scott, you'll be happy to know that Jan's (my homosexual nephew) wife, who is a USA citizen, attended a Republican Party caucus in the State of Washington a few hours ago. Jan had heard there was a caucus but was focused on the first syllable of that word so thought it was something else. Nonetheless, Candy (his wife), still wanted to go.

Anyway, it was flooded with Ronulans who created disturbances by calling points of order and various motions of parliamentary procedure to the great consternation of the chair. She shot this video after an argument had erupted from Ronulans who refused to sign the pledge of party loyalty.

[youtube][/youtube]

[Phatscotty]

The caucus process can get complicated. My strategy has always been to just pound it out.

[saxitoxin]

The caucus process can get complicated. My strategy has always been to just pound it out.

Yes, that's my strategy in the bedroom.

[Phatscotty]

The caucus process can get complicated. My strategy has always been to just pound it out.

Yes, that's my strategy in the bedroom.

When I pound, I POUND!

[Juan_Bottom]

Tell me five ideas that Ron Paul would like to initiate that make him worth considering as president.

Here are five ideas, in no particular order, that Ron Paul has that differentiate him from any Republican candidate and President Obama:

(1) Scale back federal spending to 2000 levels, which includes financing government operations by excise taxes and eliminating most federal agencies.
(2) Eliminate the Federal Reserve.
(3) Nonintervention foreign policy.
(4) Withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO.
(5) Opposes and would repeal the Patriot Act, presidential autonomy, and warrantless domestic surveillance.

The president and all other Republican candidates: (1) do not want to scale back spending to 2000 levels or eliminate federal agencies; (2) do not want to eliminate the federal reserve; (3) do not support nonintervention foreign policy; (4) do not support free trade (by withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO); and (5) support the Patriot Act, presidential autonomy, and warrantless domestic surveillance.

So, if Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum run against Barack Obama and your realistic choice is Romney/Santorum or Obama, the issues indicated above will not be handled different by any of them. In essence, you don't have a choice on these issues unless Ron Paul is a candidate for president.

Interestingly, Ron Paul was apparently endorsed by Stephen Colbert, DL Hughley, Norm McDonald, Joe Rogan, Oliver Stone, Vince Vaughn, and Snoop Dogg (I'm not saying that means anything, I just think it's interesting).

6) Civil liberties (End the war on drugs)


This is big to me. One of the reasons I hate the Republican party so much is because they are hypocrites. They always are saying how the government should stay out of our lives, and how democrats want a nanny state that needs to tell everyone what is best for us. They don't want the government touching their money, or their guns. They don't like regulations. They like to talk about states rights an awful lot. But republicans have no problem telling other people how to live their lives(when it doesn't affect them personally). Anything they find morally wrong,(abortion, gay marriage, drugs, prostitution, etc...) republicans have no problem with government telling us how to live in these instances.

It's why I like Ron Paul so much. He offers a fair trade off. As a left leaning independent, I can live with his fiscal policies if I gain more personal freedom. I think that is a fair compromise. That's why I say, the only candidate that can keep me from voting for Obama is Ron Paul. Otherwise...the Republicans can stuff it.

Best most agreeable post of all time.

[thegreekdog]

Tell me five ideas that Ron Paul would like to initiate that make him worth considering as president.

Here are five ideas, in no particular order, that Ron Paul has that differentiate him from any Republican candidate and President Obama:

(1) Scale back federal spending to 2000 levels, which includes financing government operations by excise taxes and eliminating most federal agencies.
(2) Eliminate the Federal Reserve.
(3) Nonintervention foreign policy.
(4) Withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO.
(5) Opposes and would repeal the Patriot Act, presidential autonomy, and warrantless domestic surveillance.

The president and all other Republican candidates: (1) do not want to scale back spending to 2000 levels or eliminate federal agencies; (2) do not want to eliminate the federal reserve; (3) do not support nonintervention foreign policy; (4) do not support free trade (by withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO); and (5) support the Patriot Act, presidential autonomy, and warrantless domestic surveillance.

So, if Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum run against Barack Obama and your realistic choice is Romney/Santorum or Obama, the issues indicated above will not be handled different by any of them. In essence, you don't have a choice on these issues unless Ron Paul is a candidate for president.

Interestingly, Ron Paul was apparently endorsed by Stephen Colbert, DL Hughley, Norm McDonald, Joe Rogan, Oliver Stone, Vince Vaughn, and Snoop Dogg (I'm not saying that means anything, I just think it's interesting).

6) Civil liberties (End the war on drugs)


This is big to me. One of the reasons I hate the Republican party so much is because they are hypocrites. They always are saying how the government should stay out of our lives, and how democrats want a nanny state that needs to tell everyone what is best for us. They don't want the government touching their money, or their guns. They don't like regulations. They like to talk about states rights an awful lot. But republicans have no problem telling other people how to live their lives(when it doesn't affect them personally). Anything they find morally wrong,(abortion, gay marriage, drugs, prostitution, etc...) republicans have no problem with government telling us how to live in these instances.

It's why I like Ron Paul so much. He offers a fair trade off. As a left leaning independent, I can live with his fiscal policies if I gain more personal freedom. I think that is a fair compromise. That's why I say, the only candidate that can keep me from voting for Obama is Ron Paul. Otherwise...the Republicans can stuff it.

Best most agreeable post of all time.

I also agree with the post, except that the Democrats also want to keep drugs illegal.

Anyway, that's the point of Libertarianism - get the state out of your lives in both a social perspective and an economic perspective. And that's Ron Paul's point as well.

[Phatscotty]

just came across this
https://www.facebook.com/GreekAmericansforRonPaul

and a newer Ron Paul ad

[Juan_Bottom]

Anyway, that's the point of Libertarianism - get the state out of your lives in both a social perspective and an economic perspective. And that's Ron Paul's point as well.

Dude, Libertarians are vampires that feed on irrational future concepts. To eliminate most of the government would be to eliminate society. You can't just end disease research or College funding. And the Libertarian party's idea that "you should only pay taxes for services that you will use" is the deal breaker for everyone. Can you imagine an America where all of your neighbors refuse to pay for police, roads, or the military? This is why Ron Paul is a Republican.

This is a true Libertarian:

[BigBallinStalin]

Anyway, that's the point of Libertarianism - get the state out of your lives in both a social perspective and an economic perspective. And that's Ron Paul's point as well.

Dude, Libertarians are vampires that feed on irrational future concepts. To eliminate most of the government would be to eliminate society. You can't just end disease research or College funding. And the Libertarian party's idea that "you should only pay taxes for services that you will use" is the deal breaker for everyone. Can you imagine an America where all of your neighbors refuse to pay for police, roads, or the military? This is why Ron Paul is a Republican.

This is a true Libertarian:

Please hold while I shit out an equivalent straw man argument...

[Juan_Bottom]

Uhhh... dummy, I didn't make that up. I listened to Mark Hinkle explain it on the radio at the recommendation of someone from this site. He said that you should only pay for services within your government that you will use. If you don't use highways you should be able to opt out of paying for it. The same with social security ect.

[BigBallinStalin]

Uhhh... dummy, I didn't make that up. I listened to Mark Hinkle explain it on the radio at the recommendation of someone from this site. He said that you should only pay for services within your government that you will use. If you don't use highways you should be able to opt out of paying for it. The same with social security ect.

Ah, therefore:

"Dude, Libertarians are vampires that feed on irrational future concepts. To eliminate most of the government would be to eliminate society. You can't just end disease research or College funding. And the Libertarian party's idea that "you should only pay taxes for services that you will use" is the deal breaker for everyone. Can you imagine an America where all of your neighbors refuse to pay for police, roads, or the military? This is why Ron Paul is a Republican."

[Juan_Bottom]

He is a Republican.

[Crazyirishman]

So I was reading some Ron Paul stuff tonight, in one source it said that he wants to get rid of the IRS, and in another sources, he wants to audit the FED. Now, if these are both true, how the f*ck is that supposed to happen? if he cuts the IRS, who's going to audit the FED, or would he audit it then get rid of the IRS? Im confused on this.

Also he seems to be violating the one rule of 'centralized bank fightclub', dont talk about getting rid of centralized bank fight club as that usually does not bode well for the person calling for the end.

[Phatscotty]

So I was reading some Ron Paul stuff tonight, in one source it said that he wants to get rid of the IRS, and in another sources, he wants to audit the FED. Now, if these are both true, how the f*ck is that supposed to happen? if he cuts the IRS, who's going to audit the FED, or would he audit it then get rid of the IRS? Im confused on this.

Also he seems to be violating the one rule of 'centralized bank fightclub', dont talk about getting rid of centralized bank fight club as that usually does not bode well for the person calling for the end.

not tyranny at all

[Phatscotty]

[Crazyirishman]

So I was reading some Ron Paul stuff tonight, in one source it said that he wants to get rid of the IRS, and in another sources, he wants to audit the FED. Now, if these are both true, how the f*ck is that supposed to happen? if he cuts the IRS, who's going to audit the FED, or would he audit it then get rid of the IRS? Im confused on this.

Also he seems to be violating the one rule of 'centralized bank fightclub', dont talk about getting rid of centralized bank fight club as that usually does not bode well for the person calling for the end.

not tyranny at all

?????

[Phatscotty]

So I was reading some Ron Paul stuff tonight, in one source it said that he wants to get rid of the IRS, and in another sources, he wants to audit the FED. Now, if these are both true, how the f*ck is that supposed to happen? if he cuts the IRS, who's going to audit the FED, or would he audit it then get rid of the IRS? Im confused on this.

Also he seems to be violating the one rule of 'centralized bank fightclub', dont talk about getting rid of centralized bank fight club as that usually does not bode well for the person calling for the end.

not tyranny at all

?????

I don't know I'm sure that comment was related to the chatter just before that somehow, but now upon a second reading I can clear up the confusion. The IRS and the FED were both created at the same time, just a couple months apart, and in the closing minutes before midnight on the last night Congress met when most had already gone home for Christmas. The are both part of the same system of control. The last thing we would trust them to do is audit each other, and it's more likely if we got rid of one institution it would just mimic its purpose in the other.

[BigBallinStalin]

So I was reading some Ron Paul stuff tonight, in one source it said that he wants to get rid of the IRS, and in another sources, he wants to audit the FED. Now, if these are both true, how the f*ck is that supposed to happen? if he cuts the IRS, who's going to audit the FED, or would he audit it then get rid of the IRS? Im confused on this.

Also he seems to be violating the one rule of 'centralized bank fightclub', dont talk about getting rid of centralized bank fight club as that usually does not bode well for the person calling for the end.

I haven't read anything by Ron Paul; however, I think Ron Paul is suggesting that they should be audited by private businesses.

[Phatscotty]

even more specifically regular Congressional audit (oversight a least). They do not answer to Congress, of course they do not answer to the people until we send someone there that demands they be held accountable and open their books.

[thegreekdog]

Anyway, that's the point of Libertarianism - get the state out of your lives in both a social perspective and an economic perspective. And that's Ron Paul's point as well.

Dude, Libertarians are vampires that feed on irrational future concepts. To eliminate most of the government would be to eliminate society. You can't just end disease research or College funding. And the Libertarian party's idea that "you should only pay taxes for services that you will use" is the deal breaker for everyone. Can you imagine an America where all of your neighbors refuse to pay for police, roads, or the military? This is why Ron Paul is a Republican.

This is a true Libertarian:

Again, the problem with labels is that they can be taken to extremes. The point of me being a Libertarian is that that group most closely associates with my ideals. If I turn to any other political party or group (Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Communist, Green, Nationalist) those don't closely align with my points of view. There are a number of Libertarian solutions with which I don't agree. For example, I think education should be nationalized and paid for with tax dollars. That's hardly Libertarian. I also think roads, police, fire, national defense, should be paid for by a government (although not the federal government necessarily).

If I could make thegreekdog Party, I would. But I can't.

If you want to discuss specific Libertarian issues/items that I agree with or stuff that Ron Paul agrees with, we can discuss that. Also, Ron Paul is a Republican because only two parties in the United States have the power to help you get elected.

[patches70]

So I was reading some Ron Paul stuff tonight, in one source it said that he wants to get rid of the IRS, and in another sources, he wants to audit the FED. Now, if these are both true, how the f*ck is that supposed to happen? if he cuts the IRS, who's going to audit the FED, or would he audit it then get rid of the IRS? Im confused on this.

Also he seems to be violating the one rule of 'centralized bank fightclub', dont talk about getting rid of centralized bank fight club as that usually does not bode well for the person calling for the end.

not tyranny at all

?????

I don't know I'm sure that comment was related to the chatter just before that somehow, but now upon a second reading I can clear up the confusion. The IRS and the FED were both created at the same time, just a couple months apart, and in the closing minutes before midnight on the last night Congress met when most had already gone home for Christmas. The are both part of the same system of control. The last thing we would trust them to do is audit each other, and it's more likely if we got rid of one institution it would just mimic its purpose in the other.

Part of the deal for a Central Bank to operate is the need for collateral from the nation it "serves". At the time, the US could not tax citizens directly. Thus the need for the 16th amendment.

Even more troubling in the area of the Constitutionality of a Central Bank in the US, a new program is being enacted in the State run US public schools. Get 'em while they are young I guess. I wonder, after students learn about Jackson's war with the Bank how will students rectify this course-

Lesson Description

The Constitution of the United States outlines the basic principles of the U.S. government. This lesson focuses on the express and implied powers of Congress and the power of the Supreme Court to decide whether a law is unconstitutional. In this lesson, students learn about McCulloch v. Maryland, a case decided in 1819 over (1) whether the state of Maryland had the right to tax the Second Bank of the United States and (2) whether Congress had violated the Constitution in establishing the Bank. Students also review the expressed powers of Congress identified in the Constitution and analyze how Congress implements the necessary and proper (elastic) clause to enact its expressed powers. Finally, students use their knowledge of McCulloch v. Maryland and the necessary and proper clause to consider the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve System.

Concepts

Expressed powers
Federal Reserve Act
Fiat money
Implied powers
Necessary and proper (elastic) clause
Precedent
Value of money

Objectives

Students will:

define expressed powers, implied powers, precedent, fiat money, the Federal Reserve Act, the necessary and proper (elastic) clause, and the value of money;
cite examples of the expressed powers granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution;
explain the meaning of the necessary and proper (elastic) clause;
explain the significance of the McCulloch vs. Maryland Supreme Court case; and
give examples of the implied powers necessary to implement various expressed powers.