I encourage everyone to watch this video

[ronpaulisright]

Yes it is a Ron Paul video. So I know it's automatically gonna be ignored and treated like garbage. Oh well. But here it is. I'll probably be warned, ignored flamed and made fun of, but oh well, the great ones always are.

mRqO1cRdDLg

[mortimer]

Paul decries the out of control bugetary spending, yet brings back hundreds of millions of dollars to his district in the form of earmarks. Hypocrisy, thy name is Ron Paul.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yes it is a Ron Paul video. So I know it's automatically gonna be ignored and treated like garbage. Oh well. But here it is. I'll probably be warned, ignored flamed and made fun of, but oh well, the great ones always are.

mRqO1cRdDLg

I watched it. My only comment:

:dl:

[ronpaulisright]

I watched it. My only comment:

:dl:

Why is that your only comment?

[Brainster]

I see Paul is still repeating that nonsense (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt) about how the constitution says only gold and silver can be legal tender.

Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters
of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but
gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder,
ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any
Title of Nobility.

Of course, this is binding on the states themselves, not on the Federal Government. Or does Ron Paul believe that the feds can't enter into treaties?

[Blender Head]

Yes it is a Ron Paul video. So I know it's automatically gonna be ignored and treated like garbage. Oh well. But here it is. I'll probably be warned, ignored flamed and made fun of, but oh well, the great ones always are.

mRqO1cRdDLg

Your attempt at becoming a martyr is noted.

[Cleon]

Why?

Why is it important that I watch your video?

[ronpaulisright]

I see Paul is still repeating that nonsense (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt) about how the constitution says only gold and silver can be legal tender.



Of course, this is binding on the states themselves, not on the Federal Government. Or does Ron Paul believe that the feds can't enter into treaties?

Awww, Did da wittle commas confuse you?

[ronpaulisright]

I'm sure ron paul knows a lot more about the constitution than you do brainster!

[Cleon]

I'm sure ron paul knows a lot more about the constitution than you do brainster!

Why do you make that assumption? Have you ever heard Paul debate his ideas with a Constitutional scholar?

[Brainster]

Awww, Did da wittle commas confuse you?

Parse the sentence for us. What is the subject of the clause "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_9777482a10afa68b5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12194)

[ronpaulisright]

Why do you make that assumption? Have you ever heard Paul debate his ideas with a Constitutional scholar?

I didn't know brainster was a constitutional scholar?

What they're basically saying brainster is.... only gold and silver can be tender for payments of debts.

[Cleon]

I didn't know brainster was a constitutional scholar?

I didn't say he was. The "assumption" I was referring to is the one you make about Paul's knowledge of the Constitution. How do you know he knows what he's talking about?

[Brainster]

I didn't know brainster was a constitutional scholar?

What they're basically saying brainster is.... only gold and silver can be tender for payments of debts.

Well I did take Con Law back in my college days, and know enough to get by--Chaplinsky, Griswold, Marbury, etc. But compared to Ron Paul I'm Erwin Chemerinsky.

The subject of the clause is clearly "No State". These are restrictions on what a state can do.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
No State shall grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal;
No State shall coin Money;
No State shall emit Bills of Credit;
No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
No State shall pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

See? It's not all that hard to understand the constitution if you actually parse it out. Oh, sure you've got to look up what a Bill of Attainder is, or an ex post facto Law, etc., but this is the Google era; it's a lot easier now than it was when you actually had to go down to the library to research this stuff.

[ronpaulisright]

whats your point brainster?

[TriskettheKid]

I think it's fairly obvious.

As to Ron Paul's understanding of the Constitution....it's laughable. It really is.

[Cleon]

Why?

Why is it important that I watch your video?

I notice this remains unanswered.

[Tricky]

Yes it is a Ron Paul video. So I know it's automatically gonna be ignored and treated like garbage. Oh well. But here it is. I'll probably be warned, ignored flamed and made fun of, but oh well, the great ones always are.
Tell you what. Why don't you summarize, in your own words, what Ron Paul is saying on that video, just so we know that you understand. Since Ron is not going to respond (here) to anything we say, it would be better if we addressed our questions to you.

My impression is that Ron Paul probably wouldn't want you as his spokesman.

[Brainster]

whats your point brainster?

In terms of constitutional law, is the federal government a state?

The answer to that is no.

Does the constitution require that legal tender created by the federal government may only be gold or silver?

The answer to that is also no.

So Ron Paul is wrong, or he lied. Which do you think it is?

[Blender Head]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_9777482a10afa68b5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12194)

Not to derail (ha) but I don't get this image at all, what the heck is from?

[Brainster]

Not to derail (ha) but I don't get this image at all, what the heck is from?

Ron Paul supporters created a similar sign to that, only the letters EVOL were printed backwards, so if you looked at it, the message was Ron Paul Love Revolution. Now the sign says Ron Paul Revolution Over. Not original with me; I first saw it in the CT forum.

[Blender Head]

Ron Paul supporters created a similar sign to that, only the letters EVOL were printed backwards, so if you looked at it, the message was Ron Paul Love Revolution. Now the sign says Ron Paul Revolution Over. Not original with me; I first saw it in the CT forum.

I understand it's not yours, but I never thought about the 'LOVE' and 'OVER' symbolism before.

[ronpaulisright]

I notice this remains unanswered.

It is important to watch it because in every debate his opponents get pwned! Just like any of you guys who step up against Ron in a debate will get PWND!

[ronpaulisright]

In terms of constitutional law, is the federal government a state?

The answer to that is no.

Does the constitution require that legal tender created by the federal government may only be gold or silver?

The answer to that is also no.

So Ron Paul is wrong, or he lied. Which do you think it is?

The founders wanted more power to the states. The United states of america! The states (united states of america) can only have gold or silver as legal tender.

[ronpaulisright]

Ron Paul will pwn any of you on any topic in any debate! Debate him on foreign policy and you will lose! Plain and simple.

[Normal Dude]

Ron Paul will pwn any of you on any topic in any debate!

Aha, I think I know what the problem is here. RPIP, I think you hit the wrong link when you came here. I think you meant to go here:

http://forums.counter-strike.com/

[PatrickSMcNally]

only gold and silver can be tender for payments of debts.

Section 8 of the US Constitution declares that "The Congress shall have Power To ... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..."

Although the Constitution did prohibit states from declaring anything other than gold and silver as legal tender, the US Congress was explicitly granted the authority to determine what shall be legal tender for debt payment without any restriction.

[Tricky]

Ron Paul will pwn any of you on any topic in any debate! Debate him on foreign policy and you will lose! Plain and simple.

Great! Bring him over here and we'll put that to the test.

But I have to wonder why it is that you can't seem to pwn anyone. Don't you study at the foot of the master? Sure, he's polished, but you should at least have some of the logic down by now. Yet you get smashed to bits in every single confrontation. You can't even so much as summarize one of his videos.

So is Ron Paul really that smart, or is it only by comparison to his followers?

[ronpaulisright]

Section 8 of the US Constitution declares that "The Congress shall have Power To ... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..."

Although the Constitution did prohibit states from declaring anything other than gold and silver as legal tender, the US Congress was explicitly granted the authority to determine what shall be legal tender for debt payment without any restriction.

Lets just put it out there. Do you like the gold standard? and if not, what is wrong with it and why is a private central bank better?

[ronpaulisright]

Great! Bring him over here and we'll put that to the test.

But I have to wonder why it is that you can't seem to pwn anyone. Don't you study at the foot of the master? Sure, he's polished, but you should at least have some of the logic down by now. Yet you get smashed to bits in every single confrontation. You can't even so much as summarize one of his videos.

So is Ron Paul really that smart, or is it only by comparison to his followers?

I've smashed you on immigration. You wanna debate foreign policy? You wanna debate immigration you left wing nut?

[Highly Selassie]

Lets just put it out there. Do you like the gold standard? and if not, what is wrong with it and why is a private central bank better? The Federal Reserve is not a private bank.

[PatrickSMcNally]

Do you like the gold standard?

There isn't enough gold in the world at large to substantively lay down a weighted portion of gold to be strictly assigned to every dollar. The gold standard was always based upon a lie in operation, where people pretended to be able to back notes with a fixed gold weight even when the total amount of notes exceeded the available gold. Demands for economic growth always meant that there was a push for increased monetary circulation to support expanding markets without undergoing deflation. As a result the assigned gold weight which coins were supposed to meet was repeatedly violated by goldsmiths manufacturing greater numbers of coins with a reduced weight in gold. The scale of our modern economy is such that it would be impossible to lay down a substantive weight of gold for each dollar to meet without either:

a) Reducing the actual gold weight assigned to each dollar to such a low level as to be meaningless on a practical level, since the assigned gold weight for any single dollar would be to microscopic for anyone to actually collect it on a dollar-by-dollar basis.

b) Shrinking the money supply itself, according to a script which would read like an Alex Jones depopulation scenario with most of the money around the world declared worthless overnight and billions of people suddenly told that they have no money that is recognized anymore.

Neither of these is a working solution to anything.

[Tricky]

I've smashed you on immigration. You wanna debate foreign policy? You wanna debate immigration you left wing nut?
LOL. Ah, the wonders of the internet. One can judge oneself as to one's own brilliance.

[Cleon]

It is important to watch it because in every debate his opponents get pwned! Just like any of you guys who step up against Ron in a debate will get PWND!

That's not only not a good reason, it's not even pretending to be a good reason.

We get it. "Rah rah rah ron paul!"

If that's really all you got, save it. We've heard it before.

[Billdave2]

That's not only not a good reason, it's not even pretending to be a good reason.

We get it. "Rah rah rah ron paul!"

If that's really all you got, save it. We've heard it before.

I know that as an older guy I am not as hip as I used to be, but I thought when you pwned somebody it meant you beat them. But apparantly pwning somebody means they make you look like a blithering idiot. I have to go and study up on this new lingo!

[WildCat]

The founders wanted more power to the states. The United states of america! The states (united states of america) can only have gold or silver as legal tender.
"The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians, or are under the influence of local views" - George Washington

Was he a founder rpir?

[WildCat]

Lets just put it out there. Do you like the gold standard? and if not, what is wrong with it
The gold standard is moRonic. Not nearly enough gold in the world for the US economy.

and why is a private central bank better?
Strawman.

[Spindrift]

Lets just put it out there. Do you like the gold standard? and if not, what is wrong with it and why is a private central bank better?

Did I miss you answering this question: Does or does not the Constitution allow the Federal government to issue non-gold or non-silver legal tender?

[ZenFountain]

Dear gloom and doom Ron Paul video producers, stop using hilariously tacky musical overtures in your youtube videos so I can actually make it though one. Does it need be a prerequisite?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why is that your only comment?

Watch the video. Then you'll understand.

[varwoche]

OK, I finally bit. The background sound track is hilarious!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why do you make that assumption? Have you ever heard Paul debate his ideas with a Constitutional scholar?

Ron Paul is a Constitutional scholar! ;)

:dl:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I've smashed you on immigration. You wanna debate foreign policy? You wanna debate immigration you left wing nut?

Banning in 3....2....1....

[Cleon]

Ron Paul is a Constitutional scholar! ;)

Right, and I'm the pin-up guy for the Skepchick collective. :D

[Hokulele]

I encourage everyone to watch this video


Sorry, I scheduled my lobotomy for some time in December.

[ZouPrime]

... and I encourage everyone to watch THIS video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

[ronpaulisright]

Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home. Do you members want to bring the troops home?

[Chaos]

Am I the only one here who is getting nostalgic and wishes Shanek was back?

[Cleon]

Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home. Do you members want to bring the troops home?

Yep. Have you watched ZouPrime's video yet?

Am I the only one here who is getting nostalgic and wishes Shanek was back?


Say what you will about shanek, but he at least knows how to put together a coherent, reasonable argument for his positions.

[Chaos]

Say what you will about shanek, but he at least knows how to put together a coherent, reasonable argument for his positions.

My point exactly. I mean, sure, he is wrong, and he might be a bit too thin-skinned for one who likes to wade into the thick of debate, but he is sane (at least no less so than most of us), he has an IQ well above room temperature, and he is very likeable personally (outside political debate). None of the latter three can be said about RIPR.

I still have Shanek´s e-mail. Should I ask him to return? :)

[Travis]

Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home. Do you members want to bring the troops home?

No, our lack of support for the Cult of Ron Paul clearly means we want all the US troops to die horrible deaths.

As long as we're pitching strawmen why do you and Ron Paul want the radical Muslims to win?

[ZenFountain]

... and I encourage everyone to watch THIS video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

If someone muxes Never Gonna Give You Up into a Ron Paul video, I'll watch it.

[BPSCG]

Is this the video of the Afghan pipeline?

[BPSCG]

Am I the only one here who is getting nostalgic and wishes Shanek was back?

Say what you will about shanek, but he at least knows how to put together a coherent, reasonable argument for his positions.What Cleon said. With Shanek, you had to think, and you often came away having learned something by engaging him. I miss him a lot; I hope he's doing well.

ronpaulisright, OTOH, reminds me a lot of of 1inChrist.

[Cleon]

If someone muxes Never Gonna Give You Up into a Ron Paul video, I'll watch it.

Well, this is pretty close:

qxitX4UNkxo

[Travis]

Yes it is a Ron Paul video. So I know it's automatically gonna be ignored and treated like garbage. Oh well. But here it is. I'll probably be warned, ignored flamed and made fun of, but oh well, the great ones always are.

mRqO1cRdDLg

What is the background music for this? It sounds somewhat familiar.

[Jeff Corey]

Not to derail (ha) but I don't get this image at all, what the heck is from?They're going for the dyslexic vote, too.

[timhau]

Yes it is a Ron Paul video. So I know it's automatically gonna be ignored and treated like garbage. Oh well. But here it is. I'll probably be warned, ignored flamed and made fun of, but oh well, the great ones always are.


So are kooks.

If you want to convince us you're not one, why not give us a clear, concise presentation of the main points instead of a 10-minute video? The latter is what we're used to getting from kooks. The former, never.

[ronpaulisright]

radical Muslims to win

How do you think they became radical travis? Because of us!

[Travis]

How do you think they became radical travis? Because of us!

So.......you're saying there were no radical Muslims before the US supposedly did some things they irrationally think were bad? The Islamic conquest of Byzantium and the invasion of Europe was the work of moderates?

[ronpaulisright]

So.......you're saying there were no radical Muslims before the US supposedly did some things they irrationally think were bad? The Islamic conquest of Byzantium and the invasion of Europe was the work of moderates?

What I am saying is our foreign policy in the middle east since the FDR administration is flat out wrong. All across the board. No matter how you spin it is wrong. We've committed war crimes, travesties and disgraced americas name with the stuff we have done in the past 65 years :(

[TriskettheKid]

What I am saying is our foreign policy in the middle east since the FDR administration is flat out wrong. All across the board. No matter how you spin it is wrong. We've committed war crimes, travesties and disgraced americas name with the stuff we have done in the past 65 years :(

Recognition of Israel was wrong? Supporting Israel is wrong?

Diplomatically arranging for us to have some bases in the ME? What's wrong with that?

You're saying it's all been wrong? Every single thing?

[ronpaulisright]

Recognition of Israel was wrong? Supporting Israel is wrong?

Diplomatically arranging for us to have some bases in the ME? What's wrong with that?

You're saying it's all been wrong? Every single thing?


To answer your questions.

yes. yes. HELL yes (what would we think if china had "diplomatically arranged" to have bases in florida?). everything. yes and yes.

[mortimer]

To answer your questions.

yes. yes. HELL yes (what would we think if china had "diplomatically arranged" to have bases in florida?). everything. yes and yes.
So what would you do if we withdrew all our troops overseas and withdrew our recognition and support of Israel, and Israel decided in response to attack us? What would be your stance?

[Cleon]

So what would you do if we withdrew all our troops overseas and withdrew our recognition and support of Israel, and Israel decided in response to attack us? What would be your stance?

Well, at the risk of appearing to defend RPIR, your hypothetical situation doesn't make much sense.

If the US withheld all aid and support to Israel, and pulled all troops out of the middle east, Israel really wouldn't be able to attack us. Their armed forces aren't built or structured for overseas invasions.

[mortimer]

Well, at the risk of appearing to defend RPIR, your hypothetical situation doesn't make much sense.

If the US withheld all aid and support to Israel, and pulled all troops out of the middle east, Israel really wouldn't be able to attack us. Their armed forces aren't built or structured for overseas invasions.

I didn't say 'invade', I said 'attack'. Quite different animals. Israel is quite well equipped to attack US interests outside and inside the US.

[ronpaulisright]

So what would you do if we withdrew all our troops overseas and withdrew our recognition and support of Israel, and Israel decided in response to attack us? What would be your stance?

If we are attacked, congress will declare war on israel, and they'll get their asses hand to them. It would be a bad mistake for israel to attack us. Other countries will come to our aid. The same can't be said about israel. NO ONE will come to their aid.

They attack us first, then BOOM! we go to war because we were attacked by the country of israel!

Do you think china would come to our aid?

[Cleon]

I didn't say 'invade', I said 'attack'. Quite different animals. Israel is quite well equipped to attack US interests outside and inside the US.

Again - assuming all US bases were pulled out of the ME, the only way Israel could "attack" the US would be on a level equivalent to terrorism or guerrilla warfare.

Another reason your hypothetical doesn't make much sense is that countries almost never attack others for reasons of revenge. It's really a pretty stupid thing to do, as there'd be nothing for them to gain by doing so.

[ronpaulisright]

reasons of revenge

you should read up on Hitler and WW2.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Actually, his main attack target (Russia) was over livingspace.

[ronpaulisright]

Actually, his main attack target (Russia) was over livingspace.

So are you ruling out revenge?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Partially. I have no doubt the terms towards France were out of that, but his main goal wsa to RULE THE WORLD. He saw killing off any jew in Europe as a neccesary prequesite, and he needed livingspace inRussia. (Well, not really, but..)..

Revenge isn't quite as important as you think it is.

[ronpaulisright]

Partially. I have no doubt the terms towards France were out of that, but his main goal wsa to RULE THE WORLD. He saw killing off any jew in Europe as a neccesary prequesite, and he needed livingspace inRussia. (Well, not really, but..)..

Revenge isn't quite as important as you think it is.



So if a foreign country invaded YOUR country and killed your father, you wouldn't seek revenge?

[Cleon]

So if a foreign country invaded YOUR country and killed your father, you wouldn't seek revenge?

Oh, FFS.

RPIR, listen to me very carefully. If you learn nothing else from this board, please, please, heed these words and take them to heart.



Adolf Hitler was not Inigo Montoya.

[ronpaulisright]

Oh, FFS.

RPIR, listen to me very carefully. If you learn nothing else from this board, please, please, heed these words and take them to heart.



Adolf Hitler was not Inigo Montoya.

It wasn't about hitler. I was referring to the afghani children who have lost their fathers. They will be EXTREMELY bitter at the united states.

Hitler was the way he was because he got his marbles scrambled fighting in WW1.

[Travis]

How would America protect it's many various interests around the world if we have no military to keep an eye on things? There are numerous resources that need protection, and transportation routes that need to be secured. Withdrawing from all foreign affairs is fine and dandy if you do not have any interaction, let alone massive economic interaction, with the rest of the world. However that is not the case. How would this be addressed?

[ronpaulisright]

How would America protect it's many various interests around the world if we have no military to keep an eye on things?

You have problems if you think it is our militarys job to protect corporate interests. It is not the responsibility of our military to be around the world keeping an eye on things.

Besides that's why we have ambassadors and diplomats. Spreading peace through force and violence? doesn't make sense.

Don't fight israels war.

[Gazpacho]

Why do you make that assumption? Have you ever heard Paul debate his ideas with a Constitutional scholar?
Libertarianism means knowing just enough about the Constitution to think you're an expert.

[ronpaulisright]

Libertarianism means knowing just enough about the Constitution to think you're an expert.

The founders were libertarians :)

[Gazpacho]

History too.

[ronpaulisright]

History too.

They weren't? read what they wrote. Doesn't sound libertarian to you?

[Cleon]

They weren't? read what they wrote.

I have. I have yet to see any evidence that you have, however.

[TriskettheKid]

Libertarians? The Founders?

Tell me:

Have you ever read the Federalist papers? Do they sound libertarian in any sense of the word?

I know I have. I've read them for pleasure, and for class. The Constitution, too. The concentration of my BA in History, you see, was American History. As such, I kept most of my books. So, if you need a copy of the Constitution, Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, James Madison's notes, or anything like that, I'd be happy to try and get them to you so that you can actually educate yourself not only on our nation's history, but on how our government was designed.

[ronpaulisright]

Libertarians? The Founders?

Tell me:

Have you ever read the Federalist papers? Do they sound libertarian in any sense of the word?

I know I have. I've read them for pleasure, and for class. The Constitution, too. The concentration of my BA in History, you see, was American History. As such, I kept most of my books. So, if you need a copy of the Constitution, Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, James Madison's notes, or anything like that, I'd be happy to try and get them to you so that you can actually educate yourself not only on our nation's history, but on how our government was designed.

Thomas Jefferson for example shared many beliefs and ideas that many libertarians share to this day.

[TriskettheKid]

Thomas Jefferson for example shared many beliefs and ideas that many libertarians share to this day.

Separation of church and state?

Continuation of the national bank?

Continuation of the Jay Treaty?

The Louisiana Purchase?

Embargo Act of 1807?

First Barbary War?

These do not sound like the actions of a libertarian.

[ronpaulisright]

Separation of church and state?

Continuation of the national bank?

Continuation of the Jay Treaty?

The Louisiana Purchase?

Embargo Act of 1807?

First Barbary War?

These do not sound like the actions of a libertarian.

Jefferson didn't like the national bank!

[TriskettheKid]

Jefferson didn't like the national bank!

And yet he did nothing to revoke its charter.

[ronpaulisright]

I'll have to check my sources. Stand by.

[TriskettheKid]

I'll have to check my sources. Stand by.

Pardon?

Jefferson took office in 1801. When he left office in 1809, the bank was still there.

[ronpaulisright]

I said STAND BY.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'll have to check my sources. Stand by.

Translation: Wait until I check with the other 14 year old Paultards at school tomorrow.

[ronpaulisright]

What does that TCS ignoramus have to say?

[TriskettheKid]

Guess it takes a long time to check sources.

Except not really.