Who owns the fed

GodisEnergy · 23rd October 2008, 03:59 PM

who owns the federal reserve bank?
Are there shares ,and who owns them?

dudalb · 23rd October 2008, 04:03 PM

The Union of Stonecutters.

PhantomWolf · 23rd October 2008, 04:37 PM

try here

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm

Cl1mh4224rd · 23rd October 2008, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

who owns the federal reserve bank?

No one.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Federal Reserve System [...] is a quasi-public (government entity with private components) banking system composed of (1) the presidentially appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and (5) various advisory councils.

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

Are there shares ,and who owns them?

I think only for the low-level private banks. Those shares would be owned by the same people that can own a share of any other company: you, me, Bill Gates, etc...

tomwaits · 23rd October 2008, 04:39 PM

This guy:

defaultdotxbe · 23rd October 2008, 04:44 PM

5 seconds of investigoogling:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/genera...q/faqfrs.htm#5

moon1969 · 23rd October 2008, 04:44 PM

Let me guess. State of Israel and the Rothschild family. Or Boris Berezovsky or George Soros? Them greedy joos even if Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Rockefeller family or Warren Buffet are not joos. Oh you people don"t hate the joos no you only hate freemasons and "zionists". CT people better read what paranoid people in Nazi Germany did to other people. Since there probaly going to be another Great Depression.

moon1969 · 23rd October 2008, 04:48 PM

People should blame Alan Greenspan for the economic crisis. Alan Greenspan had a major role in the housing "bubble". Still that doesn"t proove that the FED is evil. Phil Gramm works for UBS and not the FED.

moon1969 · 23rd October 2008, 04:49 PM

Barack Obama because his economic advisor is the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker.

moon1969 · 23rd October 2008, 04:59 PM

Maybe Franklin Raines does? What does David Duke think about Franklin Raines who is a black man? If people call David Duke racist then there must be a conspiracy?

Thunder · 23rd October 2008, 05:49 PM

Die Schmutzige Juden?

GodisEnergy · 23rd October 2008, 08:11 PM

ron paul said hes not sure who actually owns the fed?

The president chooses between 5 candidates for chairman of the fed right .
So who chooses those 5 candidates?

TheRedWorm · 23rd October 2008, 08:30 PM

Me, har har har.

Wildy · 23rd October 2008, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

Die Schmutzige Juden?

"Schmutzige" is a noun?

JoeyDonuts · 23rd October 2008, 10:49 PM

"Awww, baby - no more Schmutzige. 15 is my limit."

Gazpacho · 24th October 2008, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by moon1969

.

Who are you talking to?

CurtC · 24th October 2008, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by moon1969

People should blame Alan Greenspan for the economic crisis. Alan Greenspan had a major role in the housing "bubble". Still that doesn"t proove that the FED is evil. Phil Gramm works for UBS and not the FED.

Greenspan had a major role in the housing bubble, in that he persisted in keeping the prime rate low, which made large global investors desperate to find another place to safely invest their money at a higher yield. I can't blame Greenspan, though, for what they then did - fall in love with mortgage-backed securities so much that they couldn't see the flaws they should have seen.

Bad loans were made because banks had already loaned money to everyone who was actually qualified for a loan, but the large investors were hungry for more, more, more. So they kept dropping the requirements for getting loans.

abenja1 · 24th October 2008, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

ron paul said hes not sure who actually owns the fed?

The president chooses between 5 candidates for chairman of the fed right .
So who chooses those 5 candidates?

Ron Paul owns the Federal Reserve. It's so obvious

F
E
D
E
Ron
pAul
L

R
E
S
E
R
V
E

See see its the symbolism of the Illuminati... I mean Lord Ron Paul

sleeplessdwarf · 24th October 2008, 10:32 AM

After listening to Carl Rove blame fear of Obama winning for the current dow drops, I wonder if these politicians sometimes start CTs on purpose to play on the minds of the weak.

Edx · 24th October 2008, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by sleeplessdwarf

After listening to Carl Rove blame fear of Obama winning for the current dow drops, I wonder if these politicians sometimes start CTs on purpose to play on the minds of the weak.

That would be a CT in itself wouldnt it?

sleeplessdwarf · 24th October 2008, 11:01 AM

Good point. Old habits die hard, some harder than most.

Normally I would not have even noticed, but since I started actually pulling for Obama, I pay more attention to the opposite side more. This really screws up the current CT of AJ and the NWO followers though. I mean ofc Bush was NWO, and now they accept McCain and Obama are NWO, so why would Rove, who is for sure NWO install fear about Obama? Even McCain gives a half hearted effort in the race.

moon1969 · 24th October 2008, 11:02 AM

Ron Paul does.

dudalb · 24th October 2008, 11:12 AM

And I see Paul is screaming about the Fed again this morning.

zaphod2016 · 25th October 2008, 02:40 PM

The Federal Reserve is the source of many facts and fictions, and it seems to me as though quite a few people have latched on to Ron Paul as the unofficial spokesman of every woo theory they can find.

For those interested in separating the wheat from the chaff regarding the Fed, this thread might be useful. I would also ask my fellow Paulians to actually read his book before misrepresenting his positions.

Paul is not a 9/11 truther, nor the secret owner of the Fed, nor the 2nd coming of Christ. However, he is a very smart guy with some good ideas. Please remember that anonymous lunatics on the message board do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Paulian agenda.

Gazpacho · 25th October 2008, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

However, he is a very smart guy with some good ideas.

His ideas are the same old libertarian proposals, which are so politically destructive that he would probably be hung from a meat hook if he ever got a chance to implement them. He is an income tax conspiracy theorist and routinely gives opinions about laws that show he has not read them (including the Federal Reserve Act, the Internal Revenue code, and the Rosa Parks Congressional Medal Act). Not what I would call a sign of intelligence.

zaphod2016 · 25th October 2008, 03:15 PM

Any politician sucks when you look closely enough. However, when it comes to my take on foreign policy, the drug war, the role of government, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, he aligns with my views better than McCain or Obama combined. I would also note that he differs from the Libertarian platform in a few key places, especially in regards to monetary reform.

If you would like to bash Paul, here is some information I find especially disturbing:

1. His newsletter scandal, in which some extremely racists comments were made under his name, and not repudiated until years later

2. His pandering to the religious right, especially in regards to abortion or his views on evolution

3. His "let the market resolve it" position on environmental concerns, which I strongly disagree with

Like I said, look closely enough, and these guys (and gals) all suck. But Paul already lost the race. My concern now is salvaging the positions and opinions on which I agree with him, and pushing forward with them.

/derail

abenja1 · 25th October 2008, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

Any politician sucks when you look closely enough. However, when it comes to my take on foreign policy, the drug war, the role of government, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, he aligns with my views better than McCain or Obama combined. I would also note that he differs from the Libertarian platform in a few key places, especially in regards to monetary reform.

If you would like to bash Paul, here is some information I find especially disturbing:

1. His newsletter scandal, in which some extremely racists comments were made under his name, and not repudiated until years later

2. His pandering to the religious right, especially in regards to abortion or his views on evolution

3. His "let the market resolve it" position on environmental concerns, which I strongly disagree with

Like I said, look closely enough, and these guys (and gals) all suck. But Paul already lost the race. My concern now is salvaging the positions and opinions on which I agree with him, and pushing forward with them.

/derail

You also have to consider that Paul does hang out with the loons. And then they say he is one of them. And Paul never disputes that. He is also a JBS member, one of the most notorious right wing organizations of all times (they even accused Eisenhower of being a Communist!). The problem is that it seems if Ron Paul was elected president, everything would be Ron Paul's way. He wouldn't reach across the aisle in anyway. He doesn't understand that gov't has to get involved in things when it's necessary. But his demeanor seems to want all gov't to be out of everything.

Gazpacho · 25th October 2008, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

Like I said, look closely enough, and these guys (and gals) all suck.

Not all of them suck to the point of counseling people to do things that could land them in prison.

zaphod2016 · 26th October 2008, 01:11 PM

Gazpacho: One man's crime is another man's civil disobedience. I will agree to disagree.

abenja1: I think of Paul as my generation's Barry Goldwater, or Ross Perot, or some sort of weird hybrid of both. I knew perfectly well from the get go that winning the election was a 1-in-a-million shot, and in all honesty, aside from constant vetos, I'm not sure what President Paul could have actually done once in office. That said, I consider the campaign an enormous success, based on the amount of television appearances Paul continues to have, and the number of people aware of the campaign.

As far as him being the champion of the crazies goes: this is 100% true. And as this campaign proves, guilt-by-association gets more play than any debate on the issues ever will. Just ask William Ayers or George Bush.

Gazpacho · 26th October 2008, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

One man's crime is another man's civil disobedience.

People who engage in civil disobedience understand that they are breaking the law. Ron Paul tells people the opposite.

zaphod2016 · 26th October 2008, 03:29 PM

I don't understand what you mean. Every time I have seen Ron Paul address the tax protester issue, he discusses it in the context of civil disobedience. And although a fierce critic, Paul himself pays his taxes, and makes no secret of this.

It sounds to me as though the tax protester movement has misrepresented him.

In either case, I hear you loud and clear: no to Ron Paul.

Edit: perhaps this comes from this story:

Quote:

Representative Ron Paul, the Texas doctor with the libertarian streak who is seeking the Republican nomination, has taken on an economic adviser with very close ties to people who assert that the income tax is illegal.

Dr. Paul announced that his new economic adviser is Peter Schiff [...] the son of Irwin Schiff of Las Vegas, now serving his third federal prison sentence for tax crimes. He is also the author of such books as “The Federal Mafia,” which asserts that federal judges are paid off by the Internal Revenue Service, and other books describing the federal government as a criminal organization that illegally extracts income taxes. [...] Peter Schiff, however, said that he pays his taxes.

Looks like more guilt-by-association to me. Furthermore, I'd be happy to debate the tax protester movement if you like, but we should start a new thread.

defaultdotxbe · 26th October 2008, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

I don't understand what you mean. Every time I have seen Ron Paul address the tax protester issue, he discusses it in the context of civil disobedience. And although a fierce critic, Paul himself pays his taxes, and makes no secret of this.

It sounds to me as though the tax protester movement has misrepresented him.

In either case, I hear you loud and clear: no to Ron Paul.

Edit: perhaps this comes from this story:

Looks like more guilt-by-association to me. Furthermore, I'd be happy to debate the tax protester movement if you like, but we should start a new thread.

the problem is the concept of civil disobedience has been bastardized in modern times, when it was once used to protest the rightness of the government its now used to protest the authority of the government

thoreau understood that you have 2 choices, pay taxes or go to jail, he chose to go to jail, it seems many people nowadays think "civil disobedience" is a carte blanche to break whatever laws you want without consequences, and ron pauls use of the term may be irresponsible unless explains what it actually means

zaphod2016 · 26th October 2008, 03:55 PM

In his book, Paul is extremely clear regarding the benefits, AND potential consequences, of civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience is, by definition, an illegal act.

I would argue that any supporter of Paul who has failed to educate themselves regarding this point is a liability to the movement. And although unfortunate, I don't see how Ron Paul himself can be blamed for it. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to let his positions be known.

I don't mean to bombard the thread with Paul-aganda. If you oppose him, I respectfully disagree. I just hope you oppose him for reasons based in fact, not misrepresentation.

dudalb · 26th October 2008, 06:26 PM

Zaphod, Ron Paul has so much baggage that you should consider that maybe you can find a better spokesman for the ideas you agree with.

zaphod2016 · 26th October 2008, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Zaphod, Ron Paul has so much baggage that you should consider that maybe you can find a better spokesman for the ideas you agree with.

I agree 110%. This is why I appreciate honest criticism, because it helps me to see where we lose the majority. If you've been following it, there are actually a few dozen "Paulians" running for Congress, most of whom have adopted a more moderate agenda, and all of whom are better public speakers.

I love Paul, but he is "whiney", and let's face it- a bit of a downer. But repackage the ideas in a Reagan or Obama, and I think there could be serious gains made. Politics aside, I think Obama's campaign has been professionally executed, and all politics junkies have a lot to learn from him.

se7ensnakes · 5th August 2009, 06:10 PM

Gazpacho and you know enough to know if paul is correct about the income tax or not?
Gazpacho you are an expert on income tax right, expert enough to criticize Ron Paul, please tell me What is the subject of the income tax?

JoeyDonuts · 5th August 2009, 08:27 PM

What dark magic is this, that brings this thread back from the dead?

timhau · 5th August 2009, 09:09 PM

Behold the resurrective power of Paultardism.

The Platypus · 5th August 2009, 09:28 PM

I don't understand this obsession with Ron Paul these cult minions have. He is quite far from the brilliant, all knowing, messianic figure they worship...

And this obsession with the fed obviously comes from his white supremacists affiliations, as does the 911 cults obsessions with The Fed, as they were claiming The Fed is run by the Joos and part of their control system for decades, long long before 911.

linusrichard · 7th August 2009, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by se7ensnakes

Gazpacho and you know enough to know if paul is correct about the income tax or not?
Gazpacho you are an expert on income tax right, expert enough to criticize Ron Paul, please tell me What is the subject of the income tax?

Why do you want to necropost this thread, when you have already abandoned a perfectly cromulent thread on the income tax? Is it because it's easier to post in a thread in which you haven't already been pwnt? This is my working hypothesis.

23rd October 2008, 03:59 PM	#1
GodisEnergy Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 387	Who owns the fed who owns the federal reserve bank? Are there shares ,and who owns them?
GodisEnergy Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 387

23rd October 2008, 04:37 PM	#3
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,893	try here http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

23rd October 2008, 04:38 PM	#4
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by GodisEnergy who owns the federal reserve bank? No one. Originally Posted by Wikipedia The Federal Reserve System [...] is a quasi-public (government entity with private components) banking system composed of (1) the presidentially appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and (5) various advisory councils. Originally Posted by GodisEnergy Are there shares ,and who owns them? I think only for the low-level private banks. Those shares would be owned by the same people that can own a share of any other company: you, me, Bill Gates, etc...
	Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 23rd October 2008 at 04:39 PM.

23rd October 2008, 04:44 PM	#6
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	5 seconds of investigoogling: http://www.federalreserve.gov/genera...q/faqfrs.htm#5
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

23rd October 2008, 08:11 PM	#12
GodisEnergy Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 387	ron paul said hes not sure who actually owns the fed? The president chooses between 5 candidates for chairman of the fed right . So who chooses those 5 candidates?
GodisEnergy Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 387

23rd October 2008, 04:03 PM	#2
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,782	The Union of Stonecutters.

23rd October 2008, 04:39 PM	#5
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	This guy:

23rd October 2008, 04:44 PM	#7
moon1969 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,288	Let me guess. State of Israel and the Rothschild family. Or Boris Berezovsky or George Soros? Them greedy joos even if Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Rockefeller family or Warren Buffet are not joos. Oh you people don"t hate the joos no you only hate freemasons and "zionists". CT people better read what paranoid people in Nazi Germany did to other people. Since there probaly going to be another Great Depression.

23rd October 2008, 04:48 PM	#8
moon1969 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,288	People should blame Alan Greenspan for the economic crisis. Alan Greenspan had a major role in the housing "bubble". Still that doesn"t proove that the FED is evil. Phil Gramm works for UBS and not the FED.

23rd October 2008, 04:49 PM	#9
moon1969 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,288	Barack Obama because his economic advisor is the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker.

23rd October 2008, 04:59 PM	#10
moon1969 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,288	Maybe Franklin Raines does? What does David Duke think about Franklin Raines who is a black man? If people call David Duke racist then there must be a conspiracy?

23rd October 2008, 05:49 PM	#11
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Die Schmutzige Juden?

23rd October 2008, 08:30 PM	#13
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Body: Michigan, Heart: Chicago Posts: 3,884	Me, har har har.
	__________________ See I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve. -Joker Working them to death is murder. Making them live like pigs and dying from disease is murder. Shooting them next to a ditch is murder. Digging them up and burning them to hide your murder, is extra credit evil. -beachnut

23rd October 2008, 08:51 PM	#14
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,921	Originally Posted by parky76 Die Schmutzige Juden? "Schmutzige" is a noun?
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff

23rd October 2008, 10:49 PM	#15
JoeyDonuts Frequencies Not Known To Normals Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Parts Unknown Posts: 10,636	"Awww, baby - no more Schmutzige. 15 is my limit."
	__________________ _{EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!}

24th October 2008, 12:09 AM	#16
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by moon1969 . Who are you talking to?

24th October 2008, 07:15 AM	#17
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Originally Posted by moon1969 People should blame Alan Greenspan for the economic crisis. Alan Greenspan had a major role in the housing "bubble". Still that doesn"t proove that the FED is evil. Phil Gramm works for UBS and not the FED. Greenspan had a major role in the housing bubble, in that he persisted in keeping the prime rate low, which made large global investors desperate to find another place to safely invest their money at a higher yield. I can't blame Greenspan, though, for what they then did - fall in love with mortgage-backed securities so much that they couldn't see the flaws they should have seen. Bad loans were made because banks had already loaned money to everyone who was actually qualified for a loan, but the large investors were hungry for more, more, more. So they kept dropping the requirements for getting loans.
	__________________ Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.

24th October 2008, 09:27 AM	#18
abenja1 Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by GodisEnergy ron paul said hes not sure who actually owns the fed? The president chooses between 5 candidates for chairman of the fed right . So who chooses those 5 candidates? Ron Paul owns the Federal Reserve. It's so obvious F E D E Ron pAul L R E S E R V E See see its the symbolism of the Illuminati... I mean Lord Ron Paul
abenja1 Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 780	__________________ My Blog: http://andrews-views.blogspot.com/ JihadJane actually thinks its okay for truthers to call for the murder of people they disagree with. 911-Investigator believes that Jews should have no rights of any kind, even those dictated by the Constitution.

24th October 2008, 10:32 AM	#19
sleeplessdwarf Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Lower 48 Posts: 199	After listening to Carl Rove blame fear of Obama winning for the current dow drops, I wonder if these politicians sometimes start CTs on purpose to play on the minds of the weak.
	Last edited by sleeplessdwarf; 24th October 2008 at 10:34 AM.

24th October 2008, 10:40 AM	#20
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	Originally Posted by sleeplessdwarf After listening to Carl Rove blame fear of Obama winning for the current dow drops, I wonder if these politicians sometimes start CTs on purpose to play on the minds of the weak. That would be a CT in itself wouldnt it?
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242

24th October 2008, 11:01 AM	#21
sleeplessdwarf Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Lower 48 Posts: 199	Good point. Old habits die hard, some harder than most. Normally I would not have even noticed, but since I started actually pulling for Obama, I pay more attention to the opposite side more. This really screws up the current CT of AJ and the NWO followers though. I mean ofc Bush was NWO, and now they accept McCain and Obama are NWO, so why would Rove, who is for sure NWO install fear about Obama? Even McCain gives a half hearted effort in the race.

24th October 2008, 11:02 AM	#22
moon1969 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,288	Ron Paul does.

24th October 2008, 11:12 AM	#23
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,782	And I see Paul is screaming about the Fed again this morning.

25th October 2008, 02:40 PM	#24
zaphod2016 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Beaches of Florida Posts: 1,035	The Federal Reserve is the source of many facts and fictions, and it seems to me as though quite a few people have latched on to Ron Paul as the unofficial spokesman of every woo theory they can find. For those interested in separating the wheat from the chaff regarding the Fed, this thread might be useful. I would also ask my fellow Paulians to actually read his book before misrepresenting his positions. Paul is not a 9/11 truther, nor the secret owner of the Fed, nor the 2nd coming of Christ. However, he is a very smart guy with some good ideas. Please remember that anonymous lunatics on the message board do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Paulian agenda.

25th October 2008, 02:53 PM	#25
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by zaphod2016 However, he is a very smart guy with some good ideas. His ideas are the same old libertarian proposals, which are so politically destructive that he would probably be hung from a meat hook if he ever got a chance to implement them. He is an income tax conspiracy theorist and routinely gives opinions about laws that show he has not read them (including the Federal Reserve Act, the Internal Revenue code, and the Rosa Parks Congressional Medal Act). Not what I would call a sign of intelligence.
	Last edited by Gazpacho; 25th October 2008 at 02:54 PM.

25th October 2008, 03:15 PM	#26
zaphod2016 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Beaches of Florida Posts: 1,035	Any politician sucks when you look closely enough. However, when it comes to my take on foreign policy, the drug war, the role of government, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, he aligns with my views better than McCain or Obama combined. I would also note that he differs from the Libertarian platform in a few key places, especially in regards to monetary reform. If you would like to bash Paul, here is some information I find especially disturbing: 1. His newsletter scandal, in which some extremely racists comments were made under his name, and not repudiated until years later 2. His pandering to the religious right, especially in regards to abortion or his views on evolution 3. His "let the market resolve it" position on environmental concerns, which I strongly disagree with Like I said, look closely enough, and these guys (and gals) all suck. But Paul already lost the race. My concern now is salvaging the positions and opinions on which I agree with him, and pushing forward with them. /derail

25th October 2008, 07:12 PM	#27
abenja1 Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by zaphod2016 Any politician sucks when you look closely enough. However, when it comes to my take on foreign policy, the drug war, the role of government, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, he aligns with my views better than McCain or Obama combined. I would also note that he differs from the Libertarian platform in a few key places, especially in regards to monetary reform. If you would like to bash Paul, here is some information I find especially disturbing: 1. His newsletter scandal, in which some extremely racists comments were made under his name, and not repudiated until years later 2. His pandering to the religious right, especially in regards to abortion or his views on evolution 3. His "let the market resolve it" position on environmental concerns, which I strongly disagree with Like I said, look closely enough, and these guys (and gals) all suck. But Paul already lost the race. My concern now is salvaging the positions and opinions on which I agree with him, and pushing forward with them. /derail You also have to consider that Paul does hang out with the loons. And then they say he is one of them. And Paul never disputes that. He is also a JBS member, one of the most notorious right wing organizations of all times (they even accused Eisenhower of being a Communist!). The problem is that it seems if Ron Paul was elected president, everything would be Ron Paul's way. He wouldn't reach across the aisle in anyway. He doesn't understand that gov't has to get involved in things when it's necessary. But his demeanor seems to want all gov't to be out of everything.
abenja1 Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 780	__________________ My Blog: http://andrews-views.blogspot.com/ JihadJane actually thinks its okay for truthers to call for the murder of people they disagree with. 911-Investigator believes that Jews should have no rights of any kind, even those dictated by the Constitution.

25th October 2008, 10:36 PM	#28
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by zaphod2016 Like I said, look closely enough, and these guys (and gals) all suck. Not all of them suck to the point of counseling people to do things that could land them in prison.

26th October 2008, 01:11 PM	#29
zaphod2016 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Beaches of Florida Posts: 1,035	Gazpacho: One man's crime is another man's civil disobedience. I will agree to disagree. abenja1: I think of Paul as my generation's Barry Goldwater, or Ross Perot, or some sort of weird hybrid of both. I knew perfectly well from the get go that winning the election was a 1-in-a-million shot, and in all honesty, aside from constant vetos, I'm not sure what President Paul could have actually done once in office. That said, I consider the campaign an enormous success, based on the amount of television appearances Paul continues to have, and the number of people aware of the campaign. As far as him being the champion of the crazies goes: this is 100% true. And as this campaign proves, guilt-by-association gets more play than any debate on the issues ever will. Just ask William Ayers or George Bush.
	Last edited by zaphod2016; 26th October 2008 at 01:28 PM.

26th October 2008, 02:54 PM	#30
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by zaphod2016 One man's crime is another man's civil disobedience. People who engage in civil disobedience understand that they are breaking the law. Ron Paul tells people the opposite.
	Last edited by Gazpacho; 26th October 2008 at 02:55 PM.

26th October 2008, 03:29 PM	#31
zaphod2016 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Beaches of Florida Posts: 1,035	I don't understand what you mean. Every time I have seen Ron Paul address the tax protester issue, he discusses it in the context of civil disobedience. And although a fierce critic, Paul himself pays his taxes, and makes no secret of this. It sounds to me as though the tax protester movement has misrepresented him. In either case, I hear you loud and clear: no to Ron Paul. Edit: perhaps this comes from this story: Quote: Representative Ron Paul, the Texas doctor with the libertarian streak who is seeking the Republican nomination, has taken on an economic adviser with very close ties to people who assert that the income tax is illegal. Dr. Paul announced that his new economic adviser is Peter Schiff [...] the son of Irwin Schiff of Las Vegas, now serving his third federal prison sentence for tax crimes. He is also the author of such books as “The Federal Mafia,” which asserts that federal judges are paid off by the Internal Revenue Service, and other books describing the federal government as a criminal organization that illegally extracts income taxes. [...] Peter Schiff, however, said that he pays his taxes. Looks like more guilt-by-association to me. Furthermore, I'd be happy to debate the tax protester movement if you like, but we should start a new thread.
	Last edited by zaphod2016; 26th October 2008 at 03:35 PM.

26th October 2008, 03:45 PM	#32
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by zaphod2016 I don't understand what you mean. Every time I have seen Ron Paul address the tax protester issue, he discusses it in the context of civil disobedience. And although a fierce critic, Paul himself pays his taxes, and makes no secret of this. It sounds to me as though the tax protester movement has misrepresented him. In either case, I hear you loud and clear: no to Ron Paul. Edit: perhaps this comes from this story: Looks like more guilt-by-association to me. Furthermore, I'd be happy to debate the tax protester movement if you like, but we should start a new thread. the problem is the concept of civil disobedience has been bastardized in modern times, when it was once used to protest the rightness of the government its now used to protest the authority of the government thoreau understood that you have 2 choices, pay taxes or go to jail, he chose to go to jail, it seems many people nowadays think "civil disobedience" is a carte blanche to break whatever laws you want without consequences, and ron pauls use of the term may be irresponsible unless explains what it actually means
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

26th October 2008, 03:55 PM	#33
zaphod2016 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Beaches of Florida Posts: 1,035	In his book, Paul is extremely clear regarding the benefits, AND potential consequences, of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is, by definition, an illegal act. I would argue that any supporter of Paul who has failed to educate themselves regarding this point is a liability to the movement. And although unfortunate, I don't see how Ron Paul himself can be blamed for it. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to let his positions be known. I don't mean to bombard the thread with Paul-aganda. If you oppose him, I respectfully disagree. I just hope you oppose him for reasons based in fact, not misrepresentation.

26th October 2008, 06:26 PM	#34
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,782	Zaphod, Ron Paul has so much baggage that you should consider that maybe you can find a better spokesman for the ideas you agree with.

26th October 2008, 10:56 PM	#35
zaphod2016 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Beaches of Florida Posts: 1,035	Originally Posted by dudalb Zaphod, Ron Paul has so much baggage that you should consider that maybe you can find a better spokesman for the ideas you agree with. I agree 110%. This is why I appreciate honest criticism, because it helps me to see where we lose the majority. If you've been following it, there are actually a few dozen "Paulians" running for Congress, most of whom have adopted a more moderate agenda, and all of whom are better public speakers. I love Paul, but he is "whiney", and let's face it- a bit of a downer. But repackage the ideas in a Reagan or Obama, and I think there could be serious gains made. Politics aside, I think Obama's campaign has been professionally executed, and all politics junkies have a lot to learn from him.