abolish the nwo

4/6/2009 10:20:04 PM

Did something inspire this thread? A statement by Ron Paul? Random blog speculation?

Or just a random thought?

4/6/2009 10:22:13 PM

He'll be long dead by then.

4/6/2009 10:23:21 PM

With an edomite bullet in his brain.

4/6/2009 10:30:32 PM

While I do not maintain my mania I had this time last year, I would still support his 2012 bid.

4/6/2009 10:43:43 PM

the real solution, my friends, is not leadership but rather a fanatical devotion to a strain of economic thought that is the right's equivalent of marxism.

austrian economics=the market is never free enough

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 10:58 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2009 10:58:06 PM

i guess he is as good a sacrificial lamb as any.




actually, palin-jindal would be better

4/7/2009 12:38:39 AM

^^Better than a fanatical devotion to deficit spending and bailout packages

4/7/2009 7:01:48 AM

Quote :

"the real solution, my friends, is not leadership but rather a fanatical devotion to a strain of economic thought that is the right's equivalent of marxism. austrian economics=the market is never free enough"

hehe this comment made me laugh.
I think anyone that disagrees should check out almost anything written by Murray Rothbard.

But, at the same time, I think it is changing. Peter Leeson is technically an "Austrian Economist" and he publishes in reputable journals like Public Choice and the Journal of Political Economy. He was also recently invited to join the Becker Center at the Univ of Chicago (led by such bright folks as Gary Becker and Steven Levitt).


[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 9:48 AM. Reason : ``]

4/7/2009 9:47:37 AM

Quote :

"^^Better than a fanatical devotion to deficit spending and bailout packages"

hmmm yes those who don't like the mighty paul and his ideology are obamamaniacs

Quote :

"hehe this comment made me laugh. I think anyone that disagrees should check out almost anything written by Murray Rothbard."

yes, but you see, the old right is the new left b/c in the french revolution they both would have opposed the monarchy and thus today they have common goals

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 5:31 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2009 5:29:36 PM

Obama, McCain, Bush, Palin, Clinton . . . . .Any of the Democrats or Republicans (except paul and Kucinich) that ran in '08 would have had deficit spending and passed atleast similar bailout packages, that wasnt a reference to Obama but more of a reference to the status quo for the president.


I cant decide if you actually support some of Ron Paul's ideas or if this entire thread is supposed to be sarcastic.

Here is something Dr. Paul is currently doing that I think most would support

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207

Basically he is trying to audit the FED

4/7/2009 6:06:22 PM

Quote :

"Any of the Democrats or Republicans (except paul and Kucinich) that ran in '08 would have had deficit spending and passed atleast similar bailout packages, that wasnt a reference to Obama but more of a reference to the status quo for the president."

noted right-winger and libertarian Dennis Kucinich

Quote :

"I cant decide if you actually support some of Ron Paul's ideas or if this entire thread is supposed to be sarcastic."

Right issues, wrong solutions (except when it comes to the trilateral NWO American Union, which isn't an issue at all).

Have you actually read the basis for his economic ideas? I dare you to parse through Murray Rothbard's babble.

Quote :

"Here is something Dr. Paul is currently doing that I think most would support http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207 Basically he is trying to audit the FED"

yes, but he believes that the fed caused the problems we are experiencing right now because we have a standard currency. people mistakenly think he wants the old gold standard alone w/o actually looking into how maddening the Austrian econ. theories on currency are (hint: the free market chooses GOLD, always). basically, carry it all the way out and there is no longer a national currency and interstate commerce gets really confusing, until we all submit to the superiority of gold.

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 7:55 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2009 7:38:38 PM

Quote :

"noted right-winger and libertarian Dennis Kucinich"

wut? let me rephrase

Any of the Democrats or Republicans that ran in '08 would have had deficit spending and passed atleast a similar bailout packages (except probably Paul and Kucinich).

Quote :

"which isn't an issue at all"

Not an issue because you think no one supports it?

Quote :

"carry it all the way out and there is no longer a national currency and interstate commerce gets really confusing"

that sounds more like Anarcho - Capitalism, aka the purest form of Austrian Economics IMO. I think Ron Paul (being a reasonable man) would also consider the Constitution, which gives congress the right to coin moneys and govern interstate Commerce

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 8:07 PM. Reason : *]

4/7/2009 8:00:59 PM

Quote :

"Not an issue because you think no one supports it?"

i will gladly discuss the New World Order Trilateral Unioninatti and its ramifications with you, but first I must prepare for debate by putting on my debatin' pants and phoning my friends at the Lone Gunman for advice on how to proceed in an orderly manner.

No, seriously, I would love to discuss this issue, as long as I can also tell you why I believe in ghosts (and I do, ask my girlfriend).

Quote :

"Any of the Democrats or Republicans that ran in '08 would have had deficit spending and passed atleast a similar bailout packages (except probably Paul and Kucinich)."

Kucinich wouldn't support demand-side spending?

Quote :

"that sounds more like Anarcho - Capitalism, aka the purest form of Austrian Economics IMO. I think Ron Paul (being a reasonable man) would also consider the Constitution, which gives congress the right to coin moneys and govern interstate Commerce"

i just read this book he did the fwd to and it pretty much says this. also, congress doesn't have a monopoly on coining money in that case, so it still allows for what i mentioned. i mean, it's pretty central to his belief system. it's like saying youre christian and dont believe in the crucifixion.

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 8:10 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2009 8:07:12 PM

Quote :

"i will gladly discuss the New World Order Trilateral Unioninatti"

Im not a conspiracy theorist

if you were trying to get into "enlightened Veteran political debator" vs. "Im only able to quote Ron Paul Videos on Youtube debator" then im sorry, hit up the Campaign for Liberty website

I do think the idea of globalization and needing hiearchies above our current government is a view that a lot of people support. They dont have to be sneaking around, plotting to take over the world to support the idea of an American Union.

Quote :

"congress doesn't have a monopoly on coining money "

right on, other people can print money if they want. Im just not sure its going to compete with a fiat based currency that would work anywhere in America. Listen, Anarcho - Capitalism sounds crazy to me too. It makes me really uncomfortable to think that corporations could basically run everything, these days it seems like they can barely run themselves.

4/7/2009 8:29:40 PM

Quote :

"christian and dont believe in the crucifixion."

so basically a jew?

4/7/2009 8:39:30 PM

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/06/tsa-detains-official-from-ron-paul-group/

TSA Pwnt, stay home.

4/7/2009 9:01:54 PM

to be fair, the guy was being a bit of a douche, but so was the TSA guy

4/7/2009 9:40:59 PM

bump by request

4/28/2011 5:46:10 PM

OH WE BACK!!!! to lose again

4/28/2011 5:55:47 PM

FUCKING WOW


look how far my posts have swung since the original posts in this thread lol


times change I guess

4/29/2011 8:42:20 AM

So who do you support now?

4/29/2011 10:57:18 AM

I kept hoping Woody Harrelson would declare but it looks like he isn't going to.

Don't get me wrong, I still support some of the things Ron Paul says and I'll be watching him and Gary Johnson. But even if they got their party nomination (a big butt) I'm not sure they would get my vote. I definitely won't be a homer like I was in this thread.


So, if I vote it will be for Obama. The other candidates are to scary.

[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 12:13 PM. Reason : .,..l.,.m..j.]

4/29/2011 12:12:46 PM

Obama is anything but safe. I see his administration as a great threat to our way of life - we are at a turning point, and we can pretend there's no problem, or we can move forward with courage.

You need to think about what the President actually can do. He's got full control of the military. Ron Paul could end the wars immediately. Will Obama? As inflation is becoming more and more noticeable, are you comfortable leaving Obama in office? When has he talked about the Fed? When has he really indicated any willingness to do an about face on policy?

I get that things are unstable, and the thought of changing how things are done in major ways seems scary. You just have to understand that we are headed for a cliff. Obama, and his supporters, do not understand the nature of the threat we face. I think you do, though. Get real - Obama doesn't represent you, he's a corporatist, through and through.

4/29/2011 2:51:55 PM

Obama had drawn down troops in Iraq and should draw down troops in Afghanistan. Is it enough? no but it is a step in the right direction.

Obama has shown he is willing to make some cuts and work toward balancing the budget next year. Is it enough? no but it is a step in the right direction (I actually don't like his budget that much, but the Republican's sucked way more). I've actually moderated my views on deficit reduction since the earlier posts in this thread. I would rather see a more moderate, methodical decrease in spending rather than a drastic slash and burn budget. I think it would be better for America in both the short and long term. Also I don't believe all of the deficit can be layed on him alone.



So I will cheer RP on in the debates, because I do like some of the points he makes, and I like when he makes the other candidates look stupid but I doubt I will be giving him money this year.


Obama may be a corporatist but so is nearly everyone else. If there is one thing the Tea Party movement has shown me it is how easily a libertarian movement can be co-opted by corporatists (since some of their policies are nearly the same). It pushed me away enough that I'm not sure I could even vote for RP if he were nominated.

[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 4:25 PM. Reason : not to mention I can no longer stand most libertarian think tank's "analysis"]

4/29/2011 4:08:35 PM

obama isnt a great president, but theres no chance that i'd vote for any of the crazy ass republicans that are gonna pop up.

4/29/2011 4:09:47 PM

Maybe you should get involved this time, then. As long as we let the old people run the process, they'll run the country. This is not the time for apathy and picking the lesser of two evils. People with convictions have the advantage here. We have the unique opportunity to change the course of human civilization, and this time we're wielding a very powerful tool: the Internet.

It's not about adhering to political dogma or a particular leader's beliefs; it's about recognizing that freedom is what drives human progress and that voluntary association is preferrable to state or corporate coercion.

4/29/2011 5:39:11 PM

Quote :

"Obama has shown he is willing to make some cuts and work toward balancing the budget next year."

ye, he's willing to take one page out of the encyclopedia that is our budget. woopty fucking do. He's not willing to cut where it actually matters: entitlements.

4/29/2011 6:43:07 PM

I don't understand this whole "unstoppable debt thing". Despite the best efforts of republicans, we were balancing the budget and beginning to make strides against the debt 10 years ago when a democrat was in office, a republican got elected, started giving tax cuts and getting us in expensive and unnecessary wars, got us deeper in debt troubles, but again, kicking and screaming, Obama will drag the republicans back into a path of austerity. It would be somewhat surprising or unexpected if the exact same scenario had not played out less than a decade ago.

[Edited on April 30, 2011 at 2:46 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2011 2:45:23 AM

^^^Be real. Look at the momentum of the world. I hope you aren't holding your breath.

4/30/2011 9:44:11 AM

Quote :

"Despite the best efforts of republicans, we were balancing the budget and beginning to make strides against the debt 10 years ago when a democrat was in office"

and none of that had any fucking thing to do with the democrat that was in office. it had everything to do with an unpredictable bubble that said democrat did nothing to create that boosted revenues an absurd amount. Said bubble then burst like a motherfucker, and then we got an idiot president who decided he could spend like there was no tomorrow. Without the .com boom, Clinton runs a deficit like pretty much every president before him

[Edited on April 30, 2011 at 4:32 PM. Reason : ]

4/30/2011 4:32:30 PM

As long as the Federal Reserve is there as a backstop, the government will run deficits. If spending meant raising taxes in the short-term on all or most Americans, you can bet people would be holding their representatives accountable.

Quote :

"Be real. Look at the momentum of the world. I hope you aren't holding your breath. "

The world, at least as it pertains to human affairs, is what we make of it. There is no fate or destiny. If the people that understand the problems we face stand up and educate the people around them, then we can see real progress in our lifetimes. If those people say, "wow, the world is in rough shape, and people seem mostly retarded...so fuck it," then we'll proceed towards Idiocracy, or something closely resembling it.

I would not underestimate the momentum of the "liberty movement." When real change comes, it's often triggered by a small but motivated group. Obama, of course, didn't and doesn't represent change; he was a blank slate that people could project their whims onto. Personally, I'd like a real leader for once. Someone that doesn't need a teleprompter and can speak on the cuff because they have a real philosophical foundation to work from. I don't think that's too much to ask.

[Edited on April 30, 2011 at 5:04 PM. Reason : ]

4/30/2011 4:49:46 PM

Quote :

"it had everything to do with an unpredictable bubble that said democrat did nothing to create that boosted revenues an absurd amount. Said bubble then burst like a motherfucker, and then we got an idiot president who decided he could spend like there was no tomorrow. Without the .com boom, Clinton runs a deficit like pretty much every president before him"

I wish that you would do even a tiny bit of research before you claimed things like this, it would be really nice if you provided some sort of evidence. The increase in government revenue had little to do with the relatively small impact of the dot com bubble, and much more to do with the tax increase that Clinton pushed through:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year"

5/1/2011 12:07:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juqm94sUV_E

5/2/2011 9:24:04 AM

So are you guys worried about how the death of Bin Laden is inevitably going to bring the truther conspiracies and new conspiracies about whether or not he's dead or had been dead for 10 years to the fore among a lot of your supporters, thus making you not look like a serious operation?

Is he going to stop going on Alex Jones since he's supposed to be a Serious Candidate now?

[Edited on May 2, 2011 at 3:15 PM. Reason : x]

5/2/2011 3:15:32 PM

Quote :

"So are you guys worried about how the death of Bin Laden is inevitably going to bring the truther conspiracies and new conspiracies about whether or not he's dead or had been dead for 10 years to the fore among a lot of your supporters, thus making you not look like a serious operation?"

It's hard to take anything the government tells you at face value when they've demonstrated such a propensity to sell the people out for monetary or political benefit. I think it's peculiar how the government seems to invite conspiracy theories by not really disclosing full details or confusing the people with conflicting information.

If being a skeptic is to be discouraged, while being a complacent bonehead that believes anything fed to them by the media is acceptable, then I suppose that's a sad commentary on our society. Unfortunately, you're probably right.

5/3/2011 5:55:13 PM

anti-abortion = anti-youth/progressive/liberal/libertarian vote

Libertarians need to ditch this old man and get a real candidate. The time is right.

[Edited on May 3, 2011 at 5:58 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2011 5:57:53 PM

The abortion issue is a distraction. I would prefer that Ron Paul was not anti-abortion or religious at all, but he's proven that he will do the right thing in the face of tremendous political pressure. Gary Johnson would be preferred, all things considered.

5/3/2011 6:18:40 PM

If you wanted to sacrifice what you believe for a candidate who has a shot at winning, you might as well vote for Obama.

5/3/2011 6:20:35 PM

A vote for Obama is a vote to allow the military industrial complex to continue unchanged. A vote for Obama is a vote to continue ignoring the mounting economic problems we face. I would prefer that Ron Paul be pro-choice and not religious at all. Unfortunately, that's not the case, but I'm willing to prioritize based on what the President actually has the power to change.

5/3/2011 6:56:28 PM

A vote for Obama is a vote that matters.

5/3/2011 7:06:13 PM

I'd rather give my vote to a third-party and do my part in lending them legitimacy than vote Democrat or Republican.

5/3/2011 7:19:23 PM

Because we know how strongly their path to legitimacy has become, they have gone from unnoticed wackos, to unnoticed wackos who the republicans can steal a few ideas from and pretend to pander to.

5/3/2011 7:21:53 PM

I never said I was voting for Ron Paul.

5/3/2011 7:26:04 PM

ok still unnoticed wackos

5/3/2011 9:19:00 PM

Nader's extremely intelligent.

Even still, I'd rather vote for a wacko with balls than a Republican or Democrat who's too intertwined in the two-party conglomerate to do anything meaningful.

[Edited on May 3, 2011 at 9:22 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2011 9:20:50 PM

I'm going for Obama, he still needs more time to fix the education system.

[Edited on May 3, 2011 at 9:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2011 9:25:20 PM

You're...joking. Yeah, you're obviously joking.

5/3/2011 9:47:46 PM

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

- John Quincy Adams

5/5/2011 10:29:10 AM

CNN POLL: RON PAUL HAS BEST CHANCE TO BEAT OBAMA

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/05/cnn-poll-still-no-front-runner-in-the-battle-for-the-gop-nomination/

The time is right. No one has the fund raising ability that Ron Paul does. Obama will have the entire establishment on his side, of course, but he doesn't have a loyal base driven by principle rather than appearances.

5/5/2011 8:05:39 PM