Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul wins Louisiana

page: 21
83
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Perhaps you should watch this video, where Ron Paul explicitly states he doesn't want to end the Fed.

Who's wrong about HIS policies, you or him?




“I’ll tell you what we could do. Even with my book, it doesn’t call for the end of the Fed because it would be chaotic if we ended the Fed. Too many people depend on it. All I want to do is get rid of the monopoly.”


Central Banks have existed for hundreds of years:
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Not according to the never wrong, never dishonest Ron Paul though:


This idea that we need a Federal Reserve to run things or a central bank — that is just a modern times.

edit on 1-5-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


He doesn't say he doesn't want to end it. He says he wouldn't end it right away because that would cause chaos.
You have to wean off of things like that.

Seriously, how did you miss that and where is common sense. You really thought he meant like overnight it would be gone. Trust me he wants to and would end the fed. He didn't write the book "End the Fed" for nothing. Maybe you should do a little reading.. though you have a video and can't seem to comprehend it so I am not sure what good reading would do.

No.. wrong again. Central banks are a new thing. You aren't even capable of comprehending the sources you post so maybe you should give up. There is an absolute difference between what was considered a central bank then and today. You know it and I know it. Why are you arguing. Banking hundreds of years ago cannot be compared to banking today in the least and you know what Dr. Paul means when he is talking about central banking. What is your point exactly anyway? That they worked out marvelously back then? Even if you were right rather than manipulating the truth are you saying that they are a good thing because they may have existed hundreds of years ago?



Seriously. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
edit on 1-5-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-5-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Dr. Fixer, if there's anything that needs to be fixed is your avatar. That Bugs Bunny face and t-shirt is stupid. It's bad enough, you say all kinds of insulting things about Ron Paul and his supporters, but do you have to pose as a clown to do it?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Don't be an ass.

Paul says he doesn't want to end the Fed. Full stop. It couldn't be more clear.

As for your idiotic assertion about Central Banks, China had a central bank and paper money Hundreds of years ago. Here, since you can't yourself figure out how to scroll down on Wikipedia:


Prior to the 17th century most money was commodity money, typically gold or silver. However, promises to pay were widely circulated and accepted as value at least five hundred years earlier in both Europe and Asia. The Song Dynasty was the first to issue generally circulating paper currency, while the Yuan Dynasty was the first to use notes as the predominant circulating medium. In 1455, in an effort to control inflation, the succeeding Ming Dynasty ended the use of paper money and closed much of Chinese trade. The medieval European Knights Templar ran an early prototype of a central banking system, as their promises to pay were widely respected, and many regard their activities as having laid the basis for the modern banking system. As the first public bank to "offer accounts not directly convertible to coin", the Bank of Amsterdam established in 1609 is considered to be the precursor to modern central banks.[4] The central bank of Sweden ("Sveriges Riksbank" or simply "Riksbanken") was founded in Stockholm from the remains of the failed bank Stockholms Banco in 1664 and answered to the parliament ("Riksdag of the Estates") thus making it the oldest central bank still operating today.[5] One role of the Swedish central bank was lending to the government,[6] which was likewise true of the Bank of England, created in 1694 by Scottish businessman William Paterson in the City of London at the request of the English government to help pay for a war. The War of the Second Coalition led to the creation of the Banque de France in 1800.


If you read the words, not just look at the pictures, you might learn a thing or two.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


You are the one being an ass.
He never meant he would shut it down "full stop" that would be impossible and cause mass chaos. If you ever thought that that was your own lack of common sense.

You and I both know what he means by central banking. Those banks you are talking about from hundreds of years ago ARE NOT the same as what we are talking about. You know it and I know it you just want to argue.

We are talking about national and international banks using fiat currency. It's pointless to talk to you because you play dumb so effectively that it's impossible. Either you can be a real person and admit there is a difference and you actually knew what Dr. Paul was saying and you can recognize the difference between "central banks" hundreds of years ago that served a couple hundred people with gold and silver and banks in an age where you can move money that isn't backed by anything real, electronically around the world in seconds (from a central bank) or you just admit that you don't understand.

Also you know damn well that when he said he would end the fed he didn't mean overnight, and you know damn well that would be impossible.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Go read all of that again. Paul states that Central Banks are arrogant because they try and control the economy, which he claims is a new idea. Go listen to his words. He's not just talking about the fiat currency issue, but government control of the economy. He repeats that mantra ad inifinitum. Central Banks have been working with governments for hundreds of years in the exact way Paul claims is new. It's a convienient lie, but it's a lie.

As for the Fed thing, Paul believes competion would end the Fed (no proof needed for Paultards), but he himself would not end the Fed. He doesn't want to end the Fed... He thinks his ludicrous plan would make it irrelevant and thus gradually disappear, but that's a long way from the simple-minded "End the Fed" # his supporters often claim he would do/wants to do.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hab22
 


Pot calls the kettle black and gets two stars for it.

It's a free-for-all in here.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


You don't know what you are talking about.
You are trying to compare apples and oranges.
What you are discussing is the concept of central banking, not actual central banking. It is a microcosm. Those examples from hundreds of years ago might have been the first step in the process, but central banking as you and I know it and as it is being referenced (as an actual realized central banking, real central banking) is something that was impossible at the time. Far too many constraints technologically.


Sorry it just does not make your argument.

As for the Fed thing, you and I both know you are full of it on that one.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Just FYI Dogmatic Libertarianism isnt a party line.......Nice attempt tho...



In politics, the line or the party line is an idiom for a political party or social movement's canon agenda, as well as specific ideological elements specific to the organization's partisanship.

wiki

In this case, the party would be a social movement, namely libertarianism. Ron Paul's every word reflects his wallowing deeply in Rothbardian Libertarianism. 'Dogmatic' is my own addition, to reflect the fact that libertarians of Ron Paul's ilk treat their social theories as irrefutable and unchanging truth, warranting a comparison with the "revealed" truths of religious dogma, ie, the virgin birth and others.
edit on 5/1/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: punctuation



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


A) It's no more of a waste than anything else on ATS

B) He's not a threat as he's unelectable, nationally, no matter the delusions of his fanatics
C) Why? Because his ideas, his ideology is fundamentally wrong-minded and dangerous

So, I don't see him as a threat, as a Presidential candidate, but I do see a very real threat to America, if people believe his rhetoric and believe that his ideas are legitimate.



Well said.

I find it discouraging that so few of Mr. Paul's supporters seem familiar with his actual views, and how strange they are to legitimate researchers and experts.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

I didn't really need links.



If you can't be bothered to post links or back up your assertions with facts, then your posts are of no Interest anyway.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


Ok what do you want links on. It is just basic knowledge it isn't something that has to be dug up. It's info that you can just type into google and read about. It was never questioned. That's why there isn't really a need to research it. Why do I need to waste time proving something that is undeniable to someone that is arguing for the sake of arguing?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

I didn't really need links.



If you can't be bothered to post links or back up your assertions with facts, then your posts are of no Interest anyway.


Most of "your facts" that you have stated in this thread are not "fact", but propaganda to smear Ron Paul (the good ole captain has the same problem with that). Funny thing, I have seen both Republicans and Democrats use the same talking points...wonder what you are all afraid of.

reply to post by The Sword
 


The third is from me.


(and don't get all self righteous on us, I have seen you sling the crap around a time or two)
edit on 1-5-2012 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


Hell yeah!!!!!!!!
edit on 1-5-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by UKTruth

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


Do you have the numbers???

Or am I just supposed to believe that he "won"???


Ron Paul's main goal right now is to reduce the amount of delegates Romney gets...he was projected to get 5 out of Louisiana...so if Romney gets more than 5, that is a win for Romney.


This is the most ridiculous post I think I have ever seen in this election process. So, Romney wins if he gets 6 delegates? Even if Paul gets more??? Wow, that's some logic.


Do you understand the difference between winning the state and "a win" for an individual???

I'm not sure you do.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Do you understand the difference between winning the state and "a win" for an individual???
I'm not sure you do.


I understand a win for Ron Paul and liberty, and a loss for your pride.
I can guarantee that.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Do you understand the difference between winning the state and "a win" for an individual???
I'm not sure you do.


I understand a win for Ron Paul and liberty, and a loss for your pride.
I can guarantee that.


I don't understand where my "pride" comes into this.

I find it funny people think me commenting on politics is somehow personal...it is no different than me commenting on a sporting event.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Do you understand the difference between winning the state and "a win" for an individual???
I'm not sure you do.


I understand a win for Ron Paul and liberty, and a loss for your pride.
I can guarantee that.


I don't understand where my "pride" comes into this.

I find it funny people think me commenting on politics is somehow personal...it is no different than me commenting on a sporting event.


It definitely is personal for you, why else would you be so upset about this?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by hab22
 


Pot calls the kettle black and gets two stars for it.

It's a free-for-all in here.


LOL yeah I just gave it another one because he's right, I couldn't help myself.





new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join