• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

For non RP Bots, why is Ron Paul a Loon?

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Question of the day, why is Ron Paul a loon? I'd love a "non-bots" take on this. Oh and one other question for you to ponder. When you come up with an idea to take care of a solution that is not conventional thinking do you consider yourself a loon?

Thanks!
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
his foreign policy of a complete, immediate 100% withdraw of all troops stationed on foreign soil and cutting off all foreign aid is naive and would be disastrous for both the US and the world.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Ron Paul's ideas are from the 18th century. His plan is to end every government service from food safety to building hiways.
He completely doesn't understand the needs of modern industrial societies.
He is a dangerous dreamer which is why he is a loon.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
His whole take on the Fed is stupid. We have the best economy in the history of the world and he wants to change it all over some stupid conspiratorial thing?

And Loki hit his other stupid idea.

It's been stated a few times: if we can get a good libertarian without some of the crazy libertarian ideas then you could really make some inroads.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: loki8481
his foreign policy of a complete, immediate 100% withdraw of all troops stationed on foreign soil and cutting off all foreign aid is naive and would be disastrous for both the US and the world.
exactly! combine those ideas with the dismantling of the Fed Reserve and a return to a gold-backed currency, and you just begin to scratch the surface of why the man is a complete nutcase. I also think the items in his old newsletters are worth considering as well. AFAIK, he never made a move to stop their being printed, which tells me that they probably had his tacit approval to continue printing racist lunatic filth in his name.

I'm all FOR smaller government, and responsible taxation/spending; but RP's "ideas" for bringing that about are just plain off-the-charts crazy!

So, like I've said before: The man has some interesting ideas, and some of what he's saying is even great! But, all of that is negated by the fact that he's a loon, and none of his "ideas" are realistic!
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
his foreign policy of a complete, immediate 100% withdraw of all troops stationed on foreign soil and cutting off all foreign aid is naive and would be disastrous for both the US and the world.
Well immediate is a strong word, if you'd have paid attention to what he has said in both interviews and debates we can start the withdrawal immediately, but it would take years to accomplish it. At least for the around the world withdrawal. Iraq would take months.

So this would be disastrous? Can you explain how it would be, cause all I see it doing is saving buttloads of money?

Thanks, in advance.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Ron Paul's ideas are from the 18th century. His plan is to end every government service from food safety to building hiways.
He completely doesn't understand the needs of modern industrial societies.
He is a dangerous dreamer which is why he is a loon.
That's an interesting "plan" of course I haven't heard this plan from him you speak of, but nonetheless it's an interesting plan especially considering it's from the 18th century. Those folks in the 18 century must have been brilliant!

Can you imagine thinking of plans that get rid of government programs that won't exist for 100 years? Interesting so Ron Paul got his plans from 18th century prophets?

Oh and I'd like to know what a Hiway is and I'd also like to know how you think they are paid for and built by?
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
His whole take on the Fed is stupid. We have the best economy in the history of the world and he wants to change it all over some stupid conspiratorial thing?

And Loki hit his other stupid idea.

It's been stated a few times: if we can get a good libertarian without some of the crazy libertarian ideas then you could really make some inroads.
Yes this idea that it's the job of the congress and not some conglomerate of independent private centralized bankers to produce issue and coin money is absolutely insane! As most people think everything that derives directly from the constitution is totally nuts, this must be as well.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: loki8481
his foreign policy of a complete, immediate 100% withdraw of all troops stationed on foreign soil and cutting off all foreign aid is naive and would be disastrous for both the US and the world.
Well immediate is a strong word, if you'd have paid attention to what he has said in both interviews and debates we can start the withdrawal immediately, but it would take years to accomplish it. At least for the around the world withdrawal. Iraq would take months.

So this would be disastrous? Can you explain how it would be, cause all I see it doing is saving buttloads of money?

Thanks, in advance.
There are very valid reasons for having troops and equipment staged throughout the world -- reasons that RP seems to ignore in favor of saving a few dollars.

Bringing everyone home would have severe and dire consequences to the security of the US and many other nations around the world (ie. Taiwan and South Korea come to mind).

Also, unless he plans to overturn the Posse Comitatus Act, bringing all of them home wouldn't do a damn thing to bolster border security. Do you want to see armed US soldiers patrolling our borders and streets? Yikes!

I think you and RP need to take an introduction class in military strategery...
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
His whole take on the Fed is stupid. We have the best economy in the history of the world and he wants to change it all over some stupid conspiratorial thing?

And Loki hit his other stupid idea.

It's been stated a few times: if we can get a good libertarian without some of the crazy libertarian ideas then you could really make some inroads.
Yes this idea that it's the job of the congress and not some conglomerate of independent private centralized bankers to produce issue and coin money is absolutely insane! As most people think everything that derives directly from the constitution is totally nuts, this must be as well.
No, most people realize that Congress also has the ability to give the rights of monetary management to others. It's akin to everybody being able to make their own decisions, but also having the ability to name a power of attorney. It's not a difficult concept.

Additionally, it's not an independent banking branch by any means, nor is it private. These claims have been refuted millions of times.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: loki8481
his foreign policy of a complete, immediate 100% withdraw of all troops stationed on foreign soil and cutting off all foreign aid is naive and would be disastrous for both the US and the world.
exactly! combine those ideas with the dismantling of the Fed Reserve and a return to a gold-backed currency, and you just begin to scratch the surface of why the man is a complete nutcase. I also think the items in his old newsletters are worth considering as well. AFAIK, he never made a move to stop their being printed, which tells me that they probably had his tacit approval to continue printing racist lunatic filth in his name.

I'm all FOR smaller government, and responsible taxation/spending; but RP's "ideas" for bringing that about are just plain off-the-charts crazy!

So, like I've said before: The man has some interesting ideas, and some of what he's saying is even great! But, all of that is negated by the fact that he's a loon, and none of his "ideas" are realistic!
Yes, while he has said many times that the gold standard was much better than the fiat system we have now I can not find anywhere where he has stated he wants to return us to the gold standard. I believe he has stated he would like to inject a congressional currency that is more sound than the fiat standard, but hey to each his own. As far as the newsletters, yes we can't give him a break on this one. He shouldn't have denounced politics in 89' and gone back to delivering babies and volunteering at the VA hospital! All the while the newsletter was still being printed and sent out by whomever and he had the gall to not care or read it as those who did the newsletter royally screwed him by embezzling cash directly to their pockets from his Libertarian presidential campaign!

Totally inept of him, I just don't care I accept mistakes people make, well cause unbelievably enough I make some of my own.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system[1] composed of (1) the presidentially-appointed Board of Governors

The Board of Governors have almost no power in this system and the private entity does not need to report to any governmental agency. Congress isn't even entitled to view the minutes in meeting held by this "board". The funniest thing about conspiracy claims to me is that there would be no claims if there were transparency in this operation.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
People act like bankers will not exist under a gold/commodity standard, or that debt will magically go away. These people are so ignorant of history as to make them appear to be complete bufoons. Most do not realize that while government debt was much less, in pure real dollars, state debt was much higher in the 1800s. They also do not realize that many states defaulted on the debt during the 1800s, mostly because they overspent (sounds familiar). In fact, the tale of Scrooge included a joke about American debt. During one of his nightmares Scrooge's fortune was changed from British securities to US ones!

Furthermore, the wealth of bankers was about the same, if not moreso, since they only catered to the rich or businesses. Thus, the argument that bankers only want fiat system to control it is utter stupidity.

What bothers me most about RPBs? Their complete lack of finance, economics, and history knowledge, despite their protestations that they are so intelligent and learned. Most have no fricking clue about what they are speaking of and can easily be beaten to a pulp with knowledge. This is why they will always stay in the vast minority.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: loki8481
his foreign policy of a complete, immediate 100% withdraw of all troops stationed on foreign soil and cutting off all foreign aid is naive and would be disastrous for both the US and the world.
Well immediate is a strong word, if you'd have paid attention to what he has said in both interviews and debates we can start the withdrawal immediately, but it would take years to accomplish it. At least for the around the world withdrawal. Iraq would take months.

So this would be disastrous? Can you explain how it would be, cause all I see it doing is saving buttloads of money?

Thanks, in advance.
There are very valid reasons for having troops and equipment staged throughout the world -- reasons that RP seems to ignore in favor of saving a few dollars.

Bringing everyone home would have severe and dire consequences to the security of the US and many other nations around the world (ie. Taiwan and South Korea come to mind).

Also, unless he plans to overturn the Posse Comitatus Act, bringing all of them home wouldn't do a damn thing to bolster border security. Do you want to see armed US soldiers patrolling our borders and streets? Yikes!

I think you and RP need to take an introduction class in military strategery...
My only questions are: What is stragery? What would happen to South Korea, they are immensely more powerful militarily than North Korea. Are you saying the south would invade and dominate the North if we weren't there? Would this be a bad thing? As far as Taiwan goes you're basically saying our 20,000 troops we have there is a deterrent for the Chinese 3 million man army?

Who is the loon again? God damn I had no idea how much fun this would be!

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system[1] composed of (1) the presidentially-appointed Board of Governors

The Board of Governors have almost no power in this system and the private entity does not need to report to any governmental agency. Congress isn't even entitled to view the minutes in meeting held by this "board". The funniest thing about conspiracy claims to me is that there would be no claims if there were transparency in this operation.
The BoG has almost no control? Really? The BoG controls the policy of the individual reserve banks. Those reserve banks are owned by member banks, which are mostly public companies. Thus, the Fed is nothing more than a bunch of public banks which finance another series of banks, which is controlled by a board appointed by the government and overseen by the government. All actions undertaken by the Fed banks must be approved by the BoG. The setting of the different Fed rates must be approved by several levels of BoG, of which the FOMC is one. The chairman is nothing more than a BoG appointee, who can have their voting rights stripped at any time.

It's lack of transparency is a must. With greater transparency would come more volatility as the markets would move on an moments notice of the FOMC got a cold.
 

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
I think money backed by nothing but debt is a bit loony.

Also the fact that we have 800 military bases overseas and WIDE OPEN borders at home...that's a bit loony too.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
People act like bankers will not exist under a gold/commodity standard, or that debt will magically go away. These people are so ignorant of history as to make them appear to be complete bufoons. Most do not realize that while government debt was much less, in pure real dollars, state debt was much higher in the 1800s. They also do not realize that many states defaulted on the debt during the 1800s, mostly because they overspent (sounds familiar). In fact, the tale of Scrooge included a joke about American debt. During one of his nightmares Scrooge's fortune was changed from British securities to US ones!

Furthermore, the wealth of bankers was about the same, if not moreso, since they only catered to the rich or businesses. Thus, the argument that bankers only want fiat system to control it is utter stupidity.

What bothers me most about RPBs? Their complete lack of finance, economics, and history knowledge, despite their protestations that they are so intelligent and learned. Most have no fricking clue about what they are speaking of and can easily be beaten to a pulp with knowledge. This is why they will always stay in the vast minority.
Wicked, I need to meet some of these people who believe debt will disappear if the Federal Reserve system was dissolved. I hope I haven't lent any of them any money through prosper!
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: loki8481
his foreign policy of a complete, immediate 100% withdraw of all troops stationed on foreign soil and cutting off all foreign aid is naive and would be disastrous for both the US and the world.
Well immediate is a strong word, if you'd have paid attention to what he has said in both interviews and debates we can start the withdrawal immediately, but it would take years to accomplish it. At least for the around the world withdrawal. Iraq would take months.

So this would be disastrous? Can you explain how it would be, cause all I see it doing is saving buttloads of money?

Thanks, in advance.
There are very valid reasons for having troops and equipment staged throughout the world -- reasons that RP seems to ignore in favor of saving a few dollars.

Bringing everyone home would have severe and dire consequences to the security of the US and many other nations around the world (ie. Taiwan and South Korea come to mind).

Also, unless he plans to overturn the Posse Comitatus Act, bringing all of them home wouldn't do a damn thing to bolster border security. Do you want to see armed US soldiers patrolling our borders and streets? Yikes!

I think you and RP need to take an introduction class in military strategery...
My only questions are: What is stragery? What would happen to South Korea, they are immensely more powerful militarily than North Korea. Are you saying the south would invade and dominate the North if we weren't there? Would this be a bad thing? As far as Taiwan goes you're basically saying our 20,000 troops we have there is a deterrent for the Chinese 3 million man army?

Who is the loon again? God damn I had no idea how much fun this would be!
http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/...y/Korean-military.html

Considering that if S. Korea attacked N. Korea China would jump in, I'd say that N. Korea has a much larger military. Even excluding China N. Koreas standing army is much larger.

I had no idea how much fun beating the pulp out of another bot would be!
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

My only questions are: What is stragery? What would happen to South Korea, they are immensely more powerful militarily than North Korea.
Post some figures on each country and then explain to me how you came up with this fact.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
I think money backed by nothing but debt is a bit loony.

Also the fact that we have 800 military bases overseas and WIDE OPEN borders at home...that's a bit loony too.
The US currency isn't backed by debt. Go back to class and learn about liabilities. The US currency is backed by a commodity, the US economy, US military, and US ability to back it.

Agreed about the borders.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
People act like bankers will not exist under a gold/commodity standard, or that debt will magically go away. These people are so ignorant of history as to make them appear to be complete bufoons. Most do not realize that while government debt was much less, in pure real dollars, state debt was much higher in the 1800s. They also do not realize that many states defaulted on the debt during the 1800s, mostly because they overspent (sounds familiar). In fact, the tale of Scrooge included a joke about American debt. During one of his nightmares Scrooge's fortune was changed from British securities to US ones!

Furthermore, the wealth of bankers was about the same, if not moreso, since they only catered to the rich or businesses. Thus, the argument that bankers only want fiat system to control it is utter stupidity.

What bothers me most about RPBs? Their complete lack of finance, economics, and history knowledge, despite their protestations that they are so intelligent and learned. Most have no fricking clue about what they are speaking of and can easily be beaten to a pulp with knowledge. This is why they will always stay in the vast minority.
Wicked, I need to meet some of these people who believe debt will disappear if the Federal Reserve system was dissolved. I hope I haven't lent any of them any money through prosper!

There are many bots who think that without the Fed then there wouldn't be any debt. I have refuted that many times, which is why I highlighted the above.

 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system[1] composed of (1) the presidentially-appointed Board of Governors

The Board of Governors have almost no power in this system and the private entity does not need to report to any governmental agency. Congress isn't even entitled to view the minutes in meeting held by this "board". The funniest thing about conspiracy claims to me is that there would be no claims if there were transparency in this operation.
The BoG has almost no control? Really? The BoG controls the policy of the individual reserve banks. Those reserve banks are owned by member banks, which are mostly public companies. Thus, the Fed is nothing more than a bunch of public banks which finance another series of banks, which is controlled by a board appointed by the government and overseen by the government. All actions undertaken by the Fed banks must be approved by the BoG. The setting of the different Fed rates must be approved by several levels of BoG, of which the FOMC is one. The chairman is nothing more than a BoG appointee, who can have their voting rights stripped at any time.

It's lack of transparency is a must. With greater transparency would come more volatility as the markets would move on an moments notice of the FOMC got a cold.
You're right the board of governors have control just no oversight from the government.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is an independent federal government agency.[28] The Board of Governors does not receive funding from Congress, and the terms of the seven members of the Board span multiple presidential and congressional terms. Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, he or she functions mostly independently. The Board is required to make an annual report of operations to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.[29] The law provides for the removal of a member of the Board by the President "for cause."[23] The Board of Governors is responsible for the formulation of monetary policy. It also supervises and regulates the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and US banking system in general.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

My only questions are: What is stragery? What would happen to South Korea, they are immensely more powerful militarily than North Korea.
Post some figures on each country and then explain to me how you came up with this fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea

Created in 1948, following the division of the Korean Peninsula by occupying Soviet and U.S. forces, the Republic of Korea Armed Forces is one of the largest standing armed forces in the world with a reported personnel strength of 5,187,000 in 2006 (687,000 active force and 4,500,000 regular reserve).[1]
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system[1] composed of (1) the presidentially-appointed Board of Governors

The Board of Governors have almost no power in this system and the private entity does not need to report to any governmental agency. Congress isn't even entitled to view the minutes in meeting held by this "board". The funniest thing about conspiracy claims to me is that there would be no claims if there were transparency in this operation.
The BoG has almost no control? Really? The BoG controls the policy of the individual reserve banks. Those reserve banks are owned by member banks, which are mostly public companies. Thus, the Fed is nothing more than a bunch of public banks which finance another series of banks, which is controlled by a board appointed by the government and overseen by the government. All actions undertaken by the Fed banks must be approved by the BoG. The setting of the different Fed rates must be approved by several levels of BoG, of which the FOMC is one. The chairman is nothing more than a BoG appointee, who can have their voting rights stripped at any time.

It's lack of transparency is a must. With greater transparency would come more volatility as the markets would move on an moments notice of the FOMC got a cold.
You're right the board of governors have control just no oversight from the government.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is an independent federal government agency.[28] The Board of Governors does not receive funding from Congress, and the terms of the seven members of the Board span multiple presidential and congressional terms. Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, he or she functions mostly independently. The Board is required to make an annual report of operations to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.[29] The law provides for the removal of a member of the Board by the President "for cause."[23] The Board of Governors is responsible for the formulation of monetary policy. It also supervises and regulates the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and US banking system in general.
Ohhh, so now you're finding out that the BoG has complete control over the Fed system, but now you're saying no oversight. When, in fact, your own cut and paste job from Wiki states that a governor can be removed.

So if there is no oversight, then why are there annual reports to Congress *and* the ability to be removed? That sounds pretty fucking similar to having oversight, no?

Nah, it's just my imagination that if they fuck up in their job they can be removed. Silly me, that's not oversight, it's undersight!!!
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

My only questions are: What is stragery? What would happen to South Korea, they are immensely more powerful militarily than North Korea.
Post some figures on each country and then explain to me how you came up with this fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea

Created in 1948, following the division of the Korean Peninsula by occupying Soviet and U.S. forces, the Republic of Korea Armed Forces is one of the largest standing armed forces in the world with a reported personnel strength of 5,187,000 in 2006 (687,000 active force and 4,500,000 regular reserve).[1]
Guess you're already toast! I have already refuted that SK has a bigger army than NK. Go back to the books.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY