Can't Deny Ron Paul raised over 3.5 million today

[Len Budney]

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...

Which has nothing to do with whether the dollar is stable or not. All that affects is exchange rates.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

LAK, the big problem in your argument is that welfare-receivers are voters. In fact, they are the staunchest voter type, if there ever was one. And they are not just limited to stay-home breeders either. Large portions of the population are addicted to gov funding in one way or another. There is no magic wand to wave and wish them and their votes away. For a policy to be meaningful, it has to be implementable. What Paul is talking about essentially makes certain he will not be elected. So all the preaching and posturing amounts to nothing. If on the other hand, Libertarians and Anarchists decide to force the issue by armed revolt, to invalidate all those votes by forcible seizure of gov, then we are talking about a civil war, not Pres Elections 2008.

Len, you are partly right that electronic transactions of "paper money" anchored to gold is not impossible. But in modern economies, the control of the money supply is an essential tool, just as interest rates are. Without that control, it would be far more difficult to steer the economy in reasonable ways, i.e. preventing excessive inflation, deflation, recession, and overheating. I certainly do not believe it is in everybody's interests to return to a pre-1929 state of affairs. Greed and fear have to be mitigated at least to some extent, so that the natural fluctuations do not grow into hurricanes. Thus the gold standard would be a big problem and unnecessarily restriction. Its goals can be achieved by simply having voters keep politicians accountable for excessive inflationary spending. Such control is much more easily achievable than the gold standard. Of course, such control cannot be wielded by people who refuse to vote.

[CNYCacher]

Which has nothing to do with whether the dollar is stable or not. All that affects is exchange rates.

Yeah maned wolf, honestly. 
All that a gold standard means is that the .gov can not print more paper money than it possesses in gold.

The first paper money was nothing more than a promise to give the bearer a certain mount in gold.  Instead of carrying gold around with you, you carried the "promissory note" that you could take to the .gov at any time and get your gold back.  Well, if I have a piece of paper that says "This is from the .gov and we will trade you this note for an ounce of gold at any time.", you might be obliged to trade me my piece of paper for a deer skin or something.  And so on and so forth.

[Sergeant Bob]

CAnnoneer,

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.

Gates
makes $6 billion charitable donation

BBC NEWS | Business | Buffett donates $37bn to charity

BBC News | YOUR MONEY | Bill Gates' $5bn donation

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) is the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world


Stingy bastards!

[CAnnoneer]

That was something that irked me too, but for an extra reason. It seems to me a leftist approach to saddle the rich with mandatory charity. People should give if and when they want. And it should not be an obligation or expectation, nor should it be limited to rich people only. If you want to help out, do so. Just don't demand anybody else to do so as a prerequisite to your help.

[K Frame]

"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..."

Why?

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al, earned those millions/billions.

Why should any governmental entity or individual address how they spend their money, which they themselves earned?

At the point at which government, ANY government, starts telling me what I SHOULD be doing with my money is the point at which that government loses me.

[Tecumseh]

Nowhere. He cannot win the Repub nomination.

Well, we're screwed because no Pro-War republican will win the presidency.

And if Ron Paul was pro-war, he might find a few million additional supporters, myself included.   

Are you in the military by chance?  I remember reading that Ron Paul got the most donations from military personnel of any candidates.  If your not in the military, why not? 

[Tecumseh]

That's illegal, of course. When I contributed, I had to give complete contact information and affirm that I'm a US citizen, not a straw donor, etc., etc. Their published statistics all suggest a large number of small donations, rather than the reverse.

Hillary's campaign has already found a solution to that annoying little hurdle: They launder the money through small donors.

Do you have any proof?  I would suggest that you prove this as it is a serious claim. 

This wouldn't just be anti-Hillary projectionism.  You have proof don't you?

  Couldn't we say the same about Fred Thompson?  Or Mitt Romney?  Or some of the other GOP?  Its nothing without proof... so please post some before you post anything else.

[Len Budney]

Do you have any proof?  I would suggest that you prove this as it is a serious claim. 

Hey, Tecumseh! Haven't heard from you since I was banned on THR in the great purge. Good to see you!

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

And if Ron Paul was pro-war, he might find a few million additional supporters, myself included.   

Are you in the military by chance?  I remember reading that Ron Paul got the most donations from military personnel of any candidates.  If your not in the military, why not? 

What do you mean, "why not?"  Is there some reason I should be in the military? 

[CAnnoneer]

Do you have any proof?  I would suggest that you prove this as it is a serious claim. 

This wouldn't just be anti-Hillary projectionism.  You have proof don't you?

Do a search. There was a recent thread on it. Hillary's campaign got contributions from Chinese immigrants to the tune of thousands of dollars per person, when each one of them could not afford it, unless they lie to the IRS. Where did the money come from?

As far as general Clintonian methods and campaign financing "irregularities", do a search for Peter Paul on YouTube. The more you like Hitlery, the more you need to see it.

[roo_ster]

That kind of $$$ in that time span is serious shinola.

Unfortunately, he can't get his support up above the margin of error.

[roo_ster]

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.

I addressed this in a previous thread:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=8716.msg144787#msg144787

Illegal? Not so much.
Not according to the COTUS or precedent as early as Pres. T Jefferson.  We never declared war on the Barbary Pirates, yet TJ sent our boys over there to do their best:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
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."

Naval and land forces sent to tame unruly, threatening Mohammedians by an American president.  TJ, no less.

As much as I would prefer a Declaration of War whenever our boys are deliberately sent out to kill our enemies & break their stuff, I am under no illusion that doing so without a formal declaration is illegal.  TJ had Congress bless his excursion to N Africa with something less than a declaration of war in a manner similar to how GWB had Congress bless his excursion to Iraq.

"Illegal" won't fly since at least TJ.

[LAK]

Mr Irwin,

Why?

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al, earned those millions/billions.

I earned my money too.

Why should any governmental entity or individual address how they spend their money, which they themselves earned?

In the specific context of my post because it seems that these particular folk are very good at spreading their billions overseas - and at the same time are quite happy to see american people (who earn their money as well -  but peanuts in comparison) pay for those who can not or will not work, or suffer health problems for which they can not pay here in our own country.

At the point at which government, ANY government, starts telling me what I SHOULD be doing with my money is the point at which that government loses me.

Well; we share the same basic opinion. You see, the government does not simply appeal to me to spend some of charitably - they steal a portion at source to give it away on my behalf. Under the threat of force if necessary.

Warren and Bill don't have to worry about their next car insurance premium, rent payment, regular preventative dental care, etc etc even after the gov has stolen a slice from them which they have not been able to have someone figure out a way to write it off for them. But Warren and Bill are evidently quite content with a corporate-government run socialist system that steals a big slice from those who do have to worry about such trivialities. While Warren and Bill are happy to send billions overseas.

Of course it boils down to the fact that folk like Warren and Bill do not have a country really; the world is their oyster - they have property all over the world and things like borders and passports are superfluous to them.

A national leader does [edit: now this was a typo and a half - my apologies] NOT have to tell these people what to do; he or she could however simply open his or her mouth and appeal to them.

Charity is a private issue and should come from private funds willingly - not stolen from private funds and distributed by government. Those with greater private wealth have traditionally been the greatest givers, and their concentratiion on their own country - if they actually have one - could eliminate the welfare system and return this country to as it was to start with and remained well into the 20th century.

------------------------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[LAK]

Manedwolf,

All you have basically stated - in typical convoluted illuminist fashion - is that you are a global socialist. It's good for business - and evidently your business.

Glad to have you out of the closet though. And now we know why you really dislike Ron Paul so much

[LAK]

CAnnoneer,

LAK, the big problem in your argument is that welfare-receivers are voters. In fact, they are the staunchest voter type, if there ever was one. And they are not just limited to stay-home breeders either. Large portions of the population are addicted to gov funding in one way or another. There is no magic wand to wave and wish them and their votes away.

We are not a democracy; and it is not "voters" who lead nations -  for very good reason - and precisely why we have the electoral college. If we do not get national leadership to actually lead this country on a straight course it is imply going to be driven along the one the current leadership has it.

Besides, I think you are mistaken in thinking that the majority of people want to remain a welfare state. The media gives this impression, however the media is controlled by the same ruling oligarchy who wish to steer us down the current path. I do not know anyone personally who is happy about having money taken from their income forcebly and given away to anyone. And I know alot of people. Out of the people I meet on the street etc, a more casual basis or at work, the proportion of people that are quite happy to have their money taken is quite low.

For a policy to be meaningful, it has to be implementable. What Paul is talking about essentially makes certain he will not be elected. So all the preaching and posturing amounts to nothing.

It is only not implementable as long as the section of people who lend the key support of confidence to an openly fake political party line and media allow it to continue to exist. It can not last long without it. WE have until election time to pull the rug out from these people and break the hold they have on this country.

If on the other hand, Libertarians and Anarchists decide to force the issue by armed revolt, to invalidate all those votes by forcible seizure of gov, then we are talking about a civil war, not Pres Elections 2008.

The libertarians are not our friends; their platform calls for no borders. No borders - that means they support a North American Union. If the Libertarian Party and the  Anarchists mount an armed revolt in 2008 - I am going to be fighting against them.

We do not want that to happen; we want to have some leaders in Washington that will actually lead this country and detach us from that criminal cartel that is running it now.

----------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Manedwolf]

Manedwolf,

All you have basically stated - in typical convoluted illuminist fashion - is that you are a global socialist. It's good for business - and evidently your business.

Glad to have you out of the closet though. And now we know why you really dislike Ron Paul so much

Uh...okay...

I'm in favor of business, so that means I'm a socialist. Riiiiiiiight.

*cue xfiles music on that one!*

I dislike Ron Paul because he's an out-of-touch loon with ideas that are right out of the 19th century, not the current realities of the world. He's the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich. I dislike his local followers because they're crazy anarchists who deliberately get themselves arrested and make the poor local cops carry them to the cruiser. I think one's been arrested like half a dozen times now.

Any other questions?

[Len Budney]

The libertarians are not our friends; their platform calls for no borders. No borders - that means they support a North American Union...

The North American Union is a socialist concept. You'll never find a libertarian who favors that. It would be more correct to say that libertarians support borders much more strongly than you do: we believe that every man's property is sovereign territory, and every property line a border to be defended, if necessary, with lethal force.

In today's context, BTW, "no borders" suggests a favorable view of illegal immigration. That's not true: we believe that nobody should be allowed anywhere without the permission of the property owner. In particular, for a Mexican to move to Poughkeepsie, he must comply with road-use contracts along the entire route, must have a lawful place to stay, and may not trespass. In effect, each immigrant must be "sponsored," in the sense that a property owner agrees to give him a place to stay, etc.

The vast amount of "public" property is one of the core issues in illegal immigration: since nobody owns the roads, they can travel freely; since government forbids "discrimination", stores and hotels are forced to accommodate them; refusal to rent to an illegal could be prosecuted as discrimination; etc. Private property is the best step toward controlling illegal immigration.

--Len.

[K Frame]

"In the specific context of my post because it seems that these particular folk are very good at spreading their billions overseas - and at the same time are quite happy to see american people (who earn their money as well -  but peanuts in comparison) pay for those who can not or will not work, or suffer health problems for which they can not pay here in our own country."

And that should be Bill Gates or Warren Buffet's responsibility to come in and fix what government screwed up by putting MORE of their money (over what they already paid in taxes of their own) into it... WHY?


"Warren and Bill don't have to worry about their next car insurance premium, rent payment, regular preventative dental care, etc etc even after the gov has stolen a slice from them which they have not been able to have someone figure out a way to write it off for them."

Exactly. They're American success stories. They should be applauded as shining examples to what levels industriousness, intelligence, and skill can take you in America.

That's all.

If Gates and Buffet want to send their money overseas, it's no one's business but their own. Certainly not mine, and certainly not yours.

[Manedwolf]

"In the specific context of my post because it seems that these particular folk are very good at spreading their billions overseas - and at the same time are quite happy to see american people (who earn their money as well -  but peanuts in comparison) pay for those who can not or will not work, or suffer health problems for which they can not pay here in our own country."

And that should be Bill Gates or Warren Buffet's responsibility to come in and fix what government screwed up by putting MORE of their money (over what they already paid in taxes of their own) into it... WHY?

I'd ask the same question. And why is it anyone's call what these people want to do with their money? If Warren Buffet wants to build an ice sculpture for the people of Kenya, it's HIS MONEY!

[Paddy]

"I dislike Ron Paul George Bush because he's an out-of-touch imperialist loon with ideas that are right out of the 19th 18th century, not the current realities of the world. He's the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich King George III. I dislike his local followers handlers because they're crazy anarchists corporate stooge neocons who deliberately get themselves should be arrested, tried, and executed for their treason and crimes against the American people and the world."

There, fixed it for you.

[Manedwolf]

"I dislike Ron Paul George Bush because he's an out-of-touch imperialist loon with ideas that are right out of the 19th 18th century, not the current realities of the world. He's the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich King George III. I dislike his local followers handlers because they're crazy anarchists corporate stooge neocons who deliberately get themselves should be arrested tried, and executed for their treason and crimes against the American people and the world."

There, fixed it for you.

Changing a statement 180 degrees does not "fix" anything. All you did was rewrite it to suit your own world view and skewed politics.

[K Frame]

"All you did was rewrite it to suit your own world view and skewed politics."

What?

He'd NEVER do that!

[charby]

This thread has turned into pure comedy! Keep it up!

[CAnnoneer]

It is only not implementable as long as the section of people who lend the key support of confidence to an openly fake political party line and media allow it to continue to exist. It can not last long without it. WE have until election time to pull the rug out from these people and break the hold they have on this country.

LAK, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Who are these people and how are you going to eliminate their influence? Only about 50% of the eligible actually vote, and among those that do, roughly half goes to each party. Where do the people you are talking about fit in that?

As far as the socialist state goes, it is difficult for me to believe that it does not have a wide support, because gov giveaways in one form or another are the bread-and-butter of Dem campaign promises. They always promise to tax the rich to finance social programs. That's pretty much all they do, and people vote for them, so they must want that.

Len, the Libertarian Party are for open borders according to their website. What you are describing is something very different.