Can't Deny Ron Paul raised over 3.5 million today

[Len Budney]

Wow, did you come up with that all by yourself? 

Ahhh yes. Can't come up with a decent argument to counter so you resort to petty insults. Great Job.

Don't forget, Fistful is sarcastic. (He really is quite good at it.) He's agreeing with you, is his point. Except that he says Iraqis are a threat to the United States, and you say they aren't. I also say they aren't. They would be a threat if they tried to invade, but it would take them weeks and weeks to get here. We'll have plenty of warning to give them a warm reception at the beach when they land.

--Len.

[Phyphor]

Like they'd even get to the beach.

[MechAg94]

Did we ever actually declare War against the Barbary pirates? 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Like they'd even get to the beach.

Sounds like you and Len don't understand it any better than Ron Paul does.  "They can't invade us, therefore they aren't a threat."

How quickly we forget...   

[Perd Hapley]

Wow, did you come up with that all by yourself? 

Ahhh yes. Can't come up with a decent argument to counter so you resort to petty insults. Great Job.

Don't forget, Fistful is sarcastic. (He really is quite good at it.) He's agreeing with you, is his point. Except that he says Iraqis are a threat to the United States,

Wow, Len.  Thanks.  My only correction would be that "the Iraqis" were not a threat to anyone.  Rather, the former regime was a threat, as was the terrorist-friendly atmosphere it fostered. 

"They can't invade us, therefore they aren't a threat."

How quickly we forget...       

Yeah.   

[yesitsloaded]

Once again I would like to remind y'all of a few things. Saddam was a cruel dictator, but not unlike many cruel dictators all over the world. His regime was harsh, but was secular to the point that he actually was an enemy of radical muslims. He liked to huff and puff, but there was no way in hell he could blow the house down. He wasn't going to attack Israel either, they have over 500 nukes and are crazy enough to use them. He very well might have started another war with Iran...which is bad how? Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq and didn't until we barged in and collapsed their infrastructure with no clue on how to fix it. Afghanistan is a completely different issue that was actually going quite well until we dropped the ball to go play world police in Iraq.

[Len Budney]

Like they'd even get to the beach.

Sounds like you and Len don't understand it any better than Ron Paul does.  "They can't invade us, therefore they aren't a threat."

Broadly true. They certainly pose no existential threat to the US.

How quickly we forget...   

That's a tired line. The threat of a 9/11-style attack was not reduced by invading Iraq. It's the same as it was on 9/10/01. That, plus the fact that they pose no other sort of threat, is why invading Iraq served no defensive purpose. The blather about "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" is the most retarded statement made by a man known for retarded statements. But don't take my word for it--it was Homeland Security who said that Al Qaeda's operational capacity is approximately at 9/11 levels, and a "gut check" says that we're due for another major attack. (Either that, or someone ate too much pepperoni before bed.)

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

Ah, yes, let's argue Iraq all over again.  Your mind is made up and so is mine.  What's the point?  And that's another problem with Ron Paul.  If he was interested in being an actual statesman, he would be offering real solutions to the problems in Iraq, rather than moralizing about what we should have done four fa-reaking years ago. 

Oh, wait, he probably thinks he is offering real solutions.  And that's just as sad. 

[Len Budney]

Oh, wait, he probably thinks he is offering real solutions.  And that's just as sad. 

Arm the populace, fortify the borders, dismantle the empire and institute free trade. Sounds like a real solution to me.

--Len.

[MechAg94]

Did we ever actually declare War against the Barbary pirates? 

Anyone know?  That would seem to be a pretty big precedent from our early years.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
I guess Jefferson didn't see the need to declare war to use the military to protect US interests or initiate regime change.

[Len Budney]

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

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

I guess Jefferson didn't see the need to declare war to use the military to protect US interests or initiate regime change.

Jefferson's own view was that he could use the military in a purely defensive posture, but could not take the offensive without a declaration of war. By his orders, an American frigate captured an attacking Tripolitan vessel, disarmed it, and set them free otherwise unmolested. It was Hamilton (no surprise there!) who argued that a declaration of war was not necessary because Tripoli had formally declared war on the US. Congress apparently agreed, because they passed what amounted to an "authorization of force" but stopped short of a declaration of war.

I think that the Barbary war was a screwup

• , which did somewhat set the stage for 2003, but even so it isn't a direct precedent. Iraq did not declare war on the United States. To say that they have because they don't like us, and say mean things about us, is to beggar the concept of war to the point that we can invade any country whose leader says nasty things about us.

--Len.

• But a purposeful screwup. Hamilton wanted the President to have the power to make war unilaterally in the first place. It's only natural that he would undermine Congressional war-making powers the first chance he got.

[LAK]

Mr Irwin,

Call them the Build n' Bugger, the Viertel Reich - whatever you please. Personally, I don't really care what they call themselves - what anyone else calls them by or tags them with.

Len,

Certainly; were Al Kidya and the so-called "jew haters" and others claimed to desire to "wipe [the state of] Isreal off the map" were who and what people are led to believe - they would have wiped out the most prominent and easiest targets first.

Funny - they haven't hit the biggest, fattest sitting ducks right in their own neighborhoods.

[Manedwolf]

Oh, wait, he probably thinks he is offering real solutions.  And that's just as sad. 

Arm the populace, fortify the borders, dismantle the empire and institute free trade. Sounds like a real solution to me.

--Len.

So an armed populace would have stopped airliners flying into buildings?

[Len Budney]

Oh, wait, he probably thinks he is offering real solutions.  And that's just as sad. 

Arm the populace, fortify the borders, dismantle the empire and institute free trade. Sounds like a real solution to me.

So an armed populace would have stopped airliners flying into buildings?

If some of the armed populace were present on the plane in question, then yes. Which is why government should be out of airline security: among other things, it would remove the federal prohibition of armed guards/pilots/passengers on planes.

Conversely, invading Iraq before 9/11 would not have stopped airliners flying into buildings. Nothing the federal government has done, before 9/11 or since, would have stopped airliners flying into buildings. So Ron Paul's solution would have helped on 9/11, where Bush's have not addressed that problem, while making all sorts of other problems much worse.

--Len.

[LAK]

The anti-war label pinned on Ron Paul is so much BS. Funny how the attacks, smears, omissions and jokes from just about all the media are typical of the left style.

It is really sickening to watch a true patriot and intelligent man like Ron Paul being denegrated while many who should know better are scratching their heads over their "real choices" out of the watered down trash being fronted for their eager consumption.

Was someone expounding on some old hat biz called assymetrical warfare? Nothing new; and Ron paul is certainly not ignorant of such things. It seems now that he has been further reduced to some kind of country doctor whose sophistication and professional career has been limited to delivering babies in farmhouse bedrooms.

I still would like to know how someone who flies commercial airliners into buildings can get onto the planes - but not the passenger manifests. That is interesting.

[Manedwolf]

Intelligent?

Yeah, like a tenured professor out of touch with reality is "intelligent".

In a world where currencies now represent the price people are willing to pay for global goods, resources, products and services in millions of transactions every second, he babbles about a 19th century gold standard.

He might as well be talking about bringing back two-digit phone numbers and local exchanges with a voice operator in the age of the internet. Completely out of touch!

[Len Budney]

In a world where currencies now represent the price people are willing to pay for global goods, resources, products and services in millions of transactions every second, he babbles about a 19th century gold standard.

The ignorance of that comment is breathtaking. Hint: a gold standard does not mean that funds transfers will involve a man carrying sacks of gold on a burro. The only difference on a gold standard is that government won't be inflating the living daylights out of our currency. Rather, a dollar saved really will be a dollar earned, instead of steadily-shrinking.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

In a world where currencies now represent the price people are willing to pay for global goods, resources, products and services in millions of transactions every second, he babbles about a 19th century gold standard.

The ignorance of that comment is breathtaking. Hint: a gold standard does not mean that funds transfers will involve a man carrying sacks of gold on a burro.

--Len.

No, you're not understanding that the value of currency no longer has anything do with precious metal held by the US government.

It's GLOBAL goods and services! It's an infinitely complex web of world currencies that change as the perceived value of resources, goods and services from various countries change, from buyer to seller and all the middlemen. A transaction I just made for 1000 SDcards from Hong Kong was priced according to the fluctuation of the petrodollar vs. the yen based on the world oil situation and the perceived value of those SDcards on the world market, the political situation in Beijing, the Olympics, the weather conditions affecting shipping between the Pacific Rim and the US mainland... And my transaction was one of millions that occur per second, those transactions changing the value of other transactions, moving the world currency and goods exchange rates like Brownian motion in a liquid.

It is GLOBAL. It was way beyond gold held in US vaults a long time ago. The dollar is the petrodollar, traded and hedged and bet for and against as a global commodity, and right now in danger of losing dominance to the Euro. It has zero to do with gold. That's completely out of touch.

[CAnnoneer]

Understandably, Paul's supporters are just as out-of-touch as he is.

I freely admit that some of his ideas are good, e.g. gun rights, the dismantling of the empire, a more US-centric policy, more freedom and less socialism. Due to them, I seriously considered voting for him, and am still agonizing over it. But, a lot of the stuff that he says sounds downright kooky because the kind of reforms he is talking about are either already impossible (e.g. the gold standard nonsense) or would take so many years (e.g. cultural changes necessary to abolish the welfare state) that he really should not be talking about them right now if he wants to be taken seriously. The disconnect with modern economic, demographic, and political reality is so pronounced at least in part of his statements that I find myself doubting his sanity at times. That is a dealbreaker, no matter how attractive other parts of his stance are.

[LAK]

Manedwolf,

It's global alright; global corporate-government socialist style. Ron Paul simply represents it's old antithesis - distinct nation states. If you think our country can somehow dance with this devil and walk away from the parts it does not like - like complete civilian disarmament, etc - you are the one completely out of touch.

What is at stake here is the survival of our nation. The issues Ron Paul address are te crux of the matter. We have a choice; either embrace the global village ideology and join the workforce on th big plantation - or detach ourselves from it.

The monetary system is the first element of control over any nation.

[LAK]

CAnnoneer,

The sudden dismantling of the welfare state should not be as catastrophic as you imply. There is plenty of work in this country, and plenty of people that were they not spoon fed public money would have to go out and work - or NOT EAT. Period.

There is also plenty of private wealth in this country; all we need is a national leader who can open his or her mouth and challenge the Bill Gates, the Warren Buffets et all, and ask them to start rendering charity to their fellow citizens as opposed to sending it overseas. It is about time someone who can actually lead this country challenged these people and asked them to which country they have allegiance to. Which people.

The first step would be to boot out of this country every single illegal migrant identified. And that subject is as relevent and as good an example of the process as any.

In late 2001 when people like myself - and plenty of others - were stating it was absolutely necessary to do this and to secure our border, some responded much as you are doing now to the effect that it would be "an impossible task" and "take too long" etc. It's been six years now; and instead of moving towards better security of our nation in this way, including economically, these people have been allowed to stay here, more flood in, and we are being steered into a political union with Mexico and Canada.

Do you want your country or not? Is Rudy or Hillary going to put a stop to this? Obama? Any of the others?

Ultimately to say that Ron Paul is "out of touch", is some kook, or whatever other silly injective conjured up, is to embrace with open arms a North American Union. To becoming just another province in the global village, and to kiss your constitution and rights goodbye. To give them away.

Anyone who thinks we are going to continue to participate in the global village, run by a global criminal cartel, it's manipulated monetary system and "economics", and somehow thinks we are going to keep our constitution and rights is really dreaming.

[Len Budney]

In a world where currencies now represent the price people are willing to pay for global goods, resources, products and services in millions of transactions every second, he babbles about a 19th century gold standard.

The ignorance of that comment is breathtaking. Hint: a gold standard does not mean that funds transfers will involve a man carrying sacks of gold on a burro.

No, you're not understanding that the value of currency no longer has anything do with precious metal held by the US government.

I understand perfectly: that's the entire problem. Government itself severed that connection precisely so they could crank up the printing presses (metaphorically  ) to fund out-of-control spending without corresponding tax increases.

It's GLOBAL goods and services! It's an infinitely complex web of world currencies...

A gold standard is quite simple: absolutely nothing changes, except that the government is no longer capable of inflating the currency. The dollar is exactly as before, except that it's stable.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

What is at stake here is the survival of our nation. The issues Ron Paul address are te crux of the matter. We have a choice; either embrace the global village ideology and join the workforce on th big plantation - or detach ourselves from it.

Yes, perhaps we can go back to handcrafted pewter goods and woodcraft, and row them out to the global bulk freighters when they pass close enough...to be exchanged for weighed amounts of gold. 

It's painfully obvious whom has had no exposure to international business. Who hasn't been able to see a company's global balance sheet scrolling new numbers by the second, as complex as nature itself, now.

It's no longer a guy counting coins and writing in a ledger, hate to tell you.

Anyone who thinks we are going to continue to participate in the global village, run by a global criminal cartel, it's manipulated monetary system and "economics", and somehow thinks we are going to keep our constitution and rights is really dreaming.

Oooooh...Is that the shadow government? Or the illuminati? 

[Len Budney]

It's no longer a guy counting coins and writing in a ledger, hate to tell you.

 

By now we all know that you hate Ron Paul to the marrow of your bones, but why actually say silly stuff like that? Hard currency is handled no differently than fiat currency. The only difference is that one isn't allowed to increase the money supply by waving a wand and moving a decimal point. Electronic banking is unaffected, transfers and bookkeeping are unaffected, etc. NOTHING changes, except that inflation falls to zero and stays there.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

And you're still not grasping the basic fact that the petrodollar, Euro, pound sterling, yen, etc...are all now intrinsically linked in the global flow of trade, constantly varying in relation to each other as the perceived value of various goods and services change with developments up to the second.