First Republican Debate Tonight

[Jedi8246]

That is just plain ignorance. I laugh.
That is nothing like what Ron Paul wants.

Ron Paul wants states to have virtual total independence from the Feds when making their laws.

Not total independence. Just the appropriate amount. Keep the Fed out of matters that should convern them.

[Wamitoria]

Ron Paul wants states to have virtual total independence from the Feds when making their laws.

Wrong.

Source?

[Terra Agora]

Wrong.

Source?

Source that he does?

[Jedi8246]

Source?

Source that he does?

[The Parkus Empire]

Ron Paul wants states to have virtual total independence from the Feds when making their laws.

Not total independence. Just the appropriate amount. Keep the Fed out of matters that should convern them.

Which is just about everything from his point of view.

[Lacadaemon]

Wait your telling me he doesn't ask chairsatan probing questions? Lol hes the only one who does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV6MElf8xpo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s2rWQxDK8c

The first one is in March the second is from awhile ago.

Fuck me, no he does not. He babbles on about shit like 'what is money' & 'why don't you think gold is money'. It's not a store of value RP get over it.

And I'll give you an example of him throwing softballs. Back in 2008 just after Lehman collapsed, the Fed started to pull liquidity from the markets intentionally. Normally under those sort of circumstances a central bank should be adding liquidity like a motherfucker, because well, that's sort of the main reason for having them. But not that time. Was Ron Paul aware of this nugget? Yes he was. Did he ask Chairsatan why he was actively trying to crash the markets? No he did not.

Or has he ever really asked about the Feds purchase of GSE bonds? Again no. And here's the thing, buying those as part of QEI was of extremely dubious legality since they aren't actually backed by the full faith and credit of the US, so it's likely that the Fed has gone off the reservation here. But any questions about that from Ron Paul? Nope. Deafening silence is all you hear from him.

Then there's the whole Maiden Lane fiasco. Or the dodgy swap lines. Or Brian Sack's little operation chaos down at the NY Fed. Never mentioned. I could go on.

He knows about all of those things, and never ever brings them up. Instead it's the usual: "Interest rates are too low, gold is money blah blah blah blah".

If Ron Paul was really concerned about the Fed (and there is a lot to be concerned about to be honest - thank you A. Greenscam), he'd mention at least one or two of these things at least once in a while. And if he really wanted to end the Fed. he'd be nailing the Chairsatan every time he saw him with this kind of stuff.

Ron Paul is a team player. His appointed role is court jester in this little drama is all. But don't confuse him with a serious person.

[Augarundus]

If Ron Paul was really concerned about the Fed

You know he's a member of the Austrian School, right?

[Lacadaemon]

If Ron Paul was really concerned about the Fed

You know he's a member of the Austrian School, right?

So what? He still isn't bothered by the Fed. He's actually one of its biggest defenders.

[Terra Agora]

Wait your telling me he doesn't ask chairsatan probing questions? Lol hes the only one who does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV6MElf8xpo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s2rWQxDK8c

The first one is in March the second is from awhile ago.

Fuck me, no he does not. He babbles on about shit like 'what is money' & 'why don't you think gold is money'. It's not a store of value RP get over it.

And I'll give you an example of him throwing softballs. Back in 2008 just after Lehman collapsed, the Fed started to pull liquidity from the markets intentionally. Normally under those sort of circumstances a central bank should be adding liquidity like a motherfucker, because well, that's sort of the main reason for having them. But not that time. Was Ron Paul aware of this nugget? Yes he was. Did he ask Chairsatan why he was actively trying to crash the markets? No he did not.

Or has he ever really asked about the Feds purchase of GSE bonds? Again no. And here's the thing, buying those as part of QEI was of extremely dubious legality since they aren't actually backed by the full faith and credit of the US, so it's likely that the Fed has gone off the reservation here. But any questions about that from Ron Paul? Nope. Deafening silence is all you hear from him.

Then there's the whole Maiden Lane fiasco. Or the dodgy swap lines. Or Brian Sack's little operation chaos down at the NY Fed. Never mentioned. I could go on.

He knows about all of those things, and never ever brings them up. Instead it's the usual: "Interest rates are too low, gold is money blah blah blah blah".

If Ron Paul was really concerned about the Fed (and there is a lot to be concerned about to be honest - thank you A. Greenscam), he'd mention at least one or two of these things at least once in a while. And if he really wanted to end the Fed. he'd be nailing the Chairsatan every time he saw him with this kind of stuff.

Ron Paul is a team player. His appointed role is court jester in this little drama is all. But don't confuse him with a serious person.

I've heard him talk about the liquidity crisis before I just dont remember when.
He wrote an article on the GSE http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul282.html
Tbh now that I think about it your right on the other things. I dont know the reasoning in why he wouldn't call them out on it. Maybe he think's he's to old to do something like this and that its easier just to spread "the message." Either or I'll look into it a little.

[Terra Agora]

You know he's a member of the Austrian School, right?

So what? He still isn't bothered by the Fed. He's actually one of its biggest defenders.

Lukewarm critic not a defender.


He can do more (like to said) but I think that either A) he'd rather talk about monetary policy B) with limited time to talk thats the main problem he see's or C) he would just press that subject until chairsatan cracks.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I'll most likely read the Wiki article and watch Jon Stewart and Colbert talk about it tomorrow.

[Lacadaemon]

I've heard him talk about the liquidity crisis before I just dont remember when.
He wrote an article on the GSE http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul282.html

When he talks about the liquidity crisis it's a general thing to do with the overall 'credit crunch' - and he normally puts it in terms of 'if we had proper money and interest rates it wouldn't have happened'. What I'm talking about is the Fed operating directly contrary to its intended function, with damaging consequences to the wider economy, for reasons unknown. If he's really an anti fed champion, he'd dig into that, don't you think?

Likewise his stuff about GSEs. He's opposed to the concept of Fannie/freddie - which is fair enough. But I'm talking about the Fed conducting market operations outside it's legal authority. Again, that's the sort of stuff an anti-fed crusader would want to bring up don't you think?

Tbh now that I think about it your right on the other things. I dont know the reasoning in why he wouldn't call them out on it. Maybe he think's he's to old to do something like this and that its easier just to spread "the message." Either or I'll look into it a little.

Look into it: These and other questions about his fiscal probity have been asked before. And the answers aren't very flattering to his public persona.

[Lacadaemon]

Lukewarm critic not a defender.


He can do more (like to said) but I think that either A) he'd rather talk about monetary policy B) with limited time to talk thats the main problem he see's or C) he would just press that subject until chairsatan cracks.

I used to think that he was a lukewarm defender too. But then I realize he's set himself up as the center of a sham opposition movement where he can make sure it's not effective. Why else team with Barney Frank (another one that talks out of both sides of his mouth) for a toothless audit the Fed bill.

He's had ample chance to nail Chairsatan and make him crack, and he's never even tried.

[Delator]

States should have the right to ban abortion. Derp.

He'd have it so states could throw you in prison for not going to church.

you are a liberal

You're a towel.

---

These "debates" are amusing. Three of the five aren't even current office holders.

How does that speak to their electability if they can't even "stick around" on their home turf?

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Quickly misread as "First Republican Date Tonight," was wondering what it was about Republicans that would make it so special.

[Tekania]

2) No, he isn't a theocrat, and he believes that violates the Bill of Rights.

You're right, he's not a Theocrat... Theocrats believe the government to be headed by God... Paul is a Dominionist, he had hired many Christian Reconstructionists to work on his staff. Dominionism (Christian Reconstructionism) believe it is the duty of the civil government to enforce God's laws... though unlike a Theocracy they do not believe God directly rules over the nation, rather it is the nations duty to rule towards God.... Which means little, as the practical effect is the same and just as abhorrent to our principals of Liberty... That's one of two reasons I can't stand RP, the other being he's a racist bastard.

[Terra Agora]

2) No, he isn't a theocrat, and he believes that violates the Bill of Rights.

You're right, he's not a Theocrat... Theocrats believe the government to be headed by God... Paul is a Dominionist, he had hired many Christian Reconstructionists to work on his staff. Dominionism (Christian Reconstructionism) believe it is the duty of the civil government to enforce God's laws... though unlike a Theocracy they do not believe God directly rules over the nation, rather it is the nations duty to rule towards God.... Which means little, as the practical effect is the same and just as abhorrent to our principals of Liberty... That's one of two reasons I can't stand RP, the other being he's a racist bastard.

Actually he believes its civil duty to uphold the constitution.

[Tekania]

You're right, he's not a Theocrat... Theocrats believe the government to be headed by God... Paul is a Dominionist, he had hired many Christian Reconstructionists to work on his staff. Dominionism (Christian Reconstructionism) believe it is the duty of the civil government to enforce God's laws... though unlike a Theocracy they do not believe God directly rules over the nation, rather it is the nations duty to rule towards God.... Which means little, as the practical effect is the same and just as abhorrent to our principals of Liberty... That's one of two reasons I can't stand RP, the other being he's a racist bastard.

Actually he believes its civil duty to uphold the constitution.

Yes, in so far as to prevent the federal government from interfering in the state's duty to enforce Christian Moral Law. You can claim otherwise, but unlike you I actually listen to the guy and to who he chooses as advisors. I'm not mind bogglingly stupid. I've been fighting against Theonomists and Dominionists most of my life, I recognize them.

[New Rogernomics]

Actually he believes its civil duty to uphold the constitution.

Yes, in so far as to prevent the federal government from interfering in the state's duty to enforce Christian Moral Law. You can claim otherwise, but unlike you I actually listen to the guy and to who he chooses as advisors. I'm not mind bogglingly stupid. I've been fighting against Theonomists and Dominionists most of my life, I recognize them.

He's the most sane Republican, in fact I would consider voting for him if I could. But then I probably wouldn't vote, I don't really like the Republicans or Democrats, independents are the best bet.

[Terra Agora]

Actually he believes its civil duty to uphold the constitution.

Yes, in so far as to prevent the federal government from interfering in the state's duty to enforce Christian Moral Law. You can claim otherwise, but unlike you I actually listen to the guy and to who he chooses as advisors. I'm not mind bogglingly stupid. I've been fighting against Theonomists and Dominionists most of my life, I recognize them.

Which is in the constitution. If a state wants to ban abortion (moral law crap etc) they can.

I've been fighting pick unicorns with rainbow wings,I recognize them. My grand pappy fought them. I still fight them. My son will fight them as well.

EDIT: I found that darn Christian!
He's one of those damn economist Christians trying to take over the world! You were right all along!

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'm pleasantly surprised. Fox actually asked substantive questions.

[Farnhamia]

I'm pleasantly surprised. Fox actually asked substantive questions.

Get any substantive answers back, did they?

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'm pleasantly surprised. Fox actually asked substantive questions.

Get any substantive answers back, did they?

No, but Fox can't help if the participants are dumbshit losers.

[Hydesland]

Back in 2008 just after Lehman collapsed, the Fed started to pull liquidity from the markets intentionally. Normally under those sort of circumstances a central bank should be adding liquidity like a motherfucker, because well, that's sort of the main reason for having them. But not that time. Was Ron Paul aware of this nugget? Yes he was. Did he ask Chairsatan why he was actively trying to crash the markets? No he did not.

Because Ron Paul supports things like that! He views it as correcting a financial bubble, and he views almost any injection of liquidity ever as setting a dangerous moral hazard. It's hardly surprising.

[Hydesland]

But Ron Paul is one Austrian "economists" who have no idea what a ARIMA is.

Eh? I don't demand that any economist be an econometrician.