Ron Paul too old?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Federal Reserve has never been an issue since its inception, and after Ron Paul brings it up it suddenly becomes an issue. That has very little to do with Ron Paul? Really? The debt is essentially the same. Bush doubles the debt, and then some, during his Presidency and we don't hear a peep about it or any "Tea Parties" until Ron Paul runs for President, and you say that has little to do with Ron Paul?

The public awareness of the Federal Reserve rose after the financial crash of 2008. A lot of people including myself hold the Federal Reserve at least somewhat responsible for what happened. However, this coupled with Anti-Government sentiment, it comes as no surprise that the Federal Reserve is a bigger issue.

Ron Paul has been railing against the Federal Reserve for how long now? If it was because of him, then it would have become a bigger issue when he started to talk about it.

The debt has become an issue all of a sudden because the Republican Party manufactured a crisis (debt ceiling crisis) which completely backfired and blew up in their face. You have a lot of people who are calling for a balanced budget amendment among other things who have absolutely no idea what these things entail.

Again, Ron Paul is not the reason that these things are suddenly issues.

Absolutely laughable. Public awareness rose after the financial crash because Ron Paul had been warning that the Fed was going to cause a crash, and after the crash he was everywhere discussing it. It became an issue when he started talking about it with a soapbox to reach the masses which he didn't have prior to the 2008 elections.

So the debt only became an issue with the recent debt ceiling theatrics? Ever heard of the Tea Party? They were around a few years before the debt ceiling debate, ironically they came around shortly after Ron Paul was discussing the debt in the Presidential election and after Ron Paul supporters held the first modern Tea Party rally.

 

[Auxous]

Gay males hijacked the Ron Paul movement?

Interesting.......But, judging from several of you on this board, I guess you're right.

So, not only does nutter Paul have the troofer loons, the racist stormfront types, the youngin's seeking legal dope and hookers, he now has the perv's.

Way to go Paul!

I salute your ability to draw in the fringers!

No offense, but you are a fucking idiot. Why did you lose your Mod status?

I was a mod?

That's a new one on me.

If you have no clue what you're talking about, ya' might want to just STFU......'cause you just made yourself look pretty damn stupid, yet again.

No wonder "anarchists" get laughed at, and their heads bashed in with billy clubs.

I was a mod........Now that's too damn funny!

Sorry, I thought you were a mod. My bad.

However, you are still a fucking idiot.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Power. The answer I was looking for is power. You both have been dancing around it. They have systems to control things the way they want. Hierarchies (a leader or government or organization who tells people what to do) are implemented to maintain and propagate systems of control. Anarchists oppose the state because they abuse power and consolidate it into authoritarianism, which it then uses to oppress people.

That's also why anarchists are anti-capitalism, because capitalism has been used to oppress people. There is the authority between management and labor, look at the late nineteenth century. Look at wage slavery, in modern times you see it in third-world countries. In fact, sometimes it's possible for corporations to use oppressive tactics one would often attribute to governments. Look up banana republics, and I don't meant the clothing retailer.

That's why some anarchists are opposed to capitalism.

That's why anarchism is defined as being opposed to authoritarian systems of control. That's why they oppose the state, and capitalism because they are both capable of imposing control.

There are no anarchists who are not opposed to capitalism. Those anarcho-capitalists are just laissez-faire capitalists calling themselves anarchists. There's a reason they don't get along with the other anarchists.

Sure.

 

[Woyzeck]

We are not opposed to capital. We are opposed to usury, which create unfair power structures.

Loaning money is not required to make power structures within capitalism.

I am not talking about loaning and dynamic time preferences, am I?

I am talking about economic rents and passive income simply by owning capital.

Usury is money-lending.

 

[Paulie]

The Federal Reserve has never been an issue since its inception, and after Ron Paul brings it up it suddenly becomes an issue. That has very little to do with Ron Paul? Really? The debt is essentially the same. Bush doubles the debt, and then some, during his Presidency and we don't hear a peep about it or any "Tea Parties" until Ron Paul runs for President, and you say that has little to do with Ron Paul?

The public awareness of the Federal Reserve rose after the financial crash of 2008. A lot of people including myself hold the Federal Reserve at least somewhat responsible for what happened. However, this coupled with Anti-Government sentiment, it comes as no surprise that the Federal Reserve is a bigger issue.

No doubt the crash helped bring Fed opposition to the mainstream, but the crash simply vindicated Paul for calling it from the get go. No one was more right about what happened than Paul was.

The media offered pieces here and there about the Fed's role, but not enough to saturate the nation with such an extreme new position to support. Most of what the media mentioned about the Fed's role was from outlets like CNBC, where the most knowledeable about economics and finance are tuned in.

Your average Joe Couch Potato watching his nightly dose of his choice of the Big 3 doesn't really understand why the Fed would have culpability in the collapse, certainly not enough to motivate his fat ass to get off his couch and join a nationwide political movement.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Power. The answer I was looking for is power. You both have been dancing around it. They have systems to control things the way they want. Hierarchies (a leader or government or organization who tells people what to do) are implemented to maintain and propagate systems of control. Anarchists oppose the state because they abuse power and consolidate it into authoritarianism, which it then uses to oppress people.

That's also why anarchists are anti-capitalism, because capitalism has been used to oppress people. There is the authority between management and labor, look at the late nineteenth century. Look at wage slavery, in modern times you see it in third-world countries. In fact, sometimes it's possible for corporations to use oppressive tactics one would often attribute to governments. Look up banana republics, and I don't meant the clothing retailer.

That's why some anarchists are opposed to capitalism.

We are not opposed to capital. We are opposed to usury, which create unfair power structures.

I said capitalism, not capital.

 

[Auxous]

Loaning money is not required to make power structures within capitalism.

I am not talking about loaning and dynamic time preferences, am I?

I am talking about economic rents and passive income simply by owning capital.

Usury is money-lending.

It is also extracted profits from simply loaning capital.

 

[Woyzeck]

I am not talking about loaning and dynamic time preferences, am I?

I am talking about economic rents and passive income simply by owning capital.

Usury is money-lending.

It is also extracted profits from simply loaning capital.

Which is money-lending.

 

[Auxous]

Usury is money-lending.

It is also extracted profits from simply loaning capital.

Which is money-lending.

Nope. Money is not a factor of production.

 

[Woyzeck]

It is also extracted profits from simply loaning capital.

Which is money-lending.

Nope. Money is not a factor of production.

Then the loaned capital is...?

 

[Auxous]

Which is money-lending.

Nope. Money is not a factor of production.

Then the loaned capital is...?

Yes, and extracting economic rents and passive income is wrong.

 

[Modbert]

Absolutely laughable. Public awareness rose after the financial crash because Ron Paul had been warning that the Fed was going to cause a crash, and after the crash he was everywhere discussing it. It became an issue when he started talking about it with a soapbox to reach the masses which he didn't have prior to the 2008 elections.

So the debt only became an issue with the recent debt ceiling theatrics? Ever heard of the Tea Party? They were around a few years before the debt ceiling debate, ironically they came around shortly after Ron Paul was discussing the debt in the Presidential election and after Ron Paul supporters held the first modern Tea Party rally.

Here's what I don't get Kevin.

You tell everyone that Ron Paul is ignored by the media, that he doesn't get opportunities to tell people his message, etc. And yet somehow, all of these people are now aware of the federal reserve and the debt thanks to Ron Paul alone. It's contradictory.

You can't say he gets ignored and then say public awareness about these issues is due to him.

Like I said, you give Paul way too much credit. He deserves a little for being consistent with his views but he's not the reason that these issues have gained awareness.

You bring up the Tea Party. The same Tea Party that wants to cut the debt, but don't want to cut anything but NPR and waste?

I also find it surprising that you're willing to be so dishonest in order to try and prove a point here. Time and time again you have argued (as well as I have) that the Tea Party in it's current form is nothing like the Ron Paul incarnation of it. Furthermore, the Tea Party only got as large as it did because of Fox News and other Conservative media outlets encouraging Conservatives to join the moment. Hence why the Tea Party currently by-and large is made up of people who would be considered the base of the GOP.

The current form of the Tea Party did not come about until after President Obama took office. You and I both know this. However, in your rush to give Ron Paul more credit than he deserves, you ignore that.

 

[Woyzeck]

Nope. Money is not a factor of production.

Then the loaned capital is...?

Yes, and extracting economic rents and passive income is wrong.

I was asking what the loaned capital was if it wasn't money.

 

[Auxous]

Tea baggers =/= Ron Paul supporters.

 

[Auxous]

Then the loaned capital is...?

Yes, and extracting economic rents and passive income is wrong.

I was asking what the loaned capital was if it wasn't money.

I don't understand.

Money does not create anything.

 

[Woyzeck]

Yes, and extracting economic rents and passive income is wrong.

I was asking what the loaned capital was if it wasn't money.

I don't understand.

Money does not create anything.

If money is not the loaned capital you are referring to, then what comprises the loaned capital?

 

[Auxous]

I was asking what the loaned capital was if it wasn't money.

I don't understand.

Money does not create anything.

If money is not the loaned capital you are referring to, then what comprises the loaned capital?

Interest, if I am understanding you correctly.

 

[Woyzeck]

I don't understand.

Money does not create anything.

If money is not the loaned capital you are referring to, then what comprises the loaned capital?

Interest, if I am understanding you correctly.

So we're back to where we started and usury is money-lending.

 

[Paulie]

Absolutely laughable. Public awareness rose after the financial crash because Ron Paul had been warning that the Fed was going to cause a crash, and after the crash he was everywhere discussing it. It became an issue when he started talking about it with a soapbox to reach the masses which he didn't have prior to the 2008 elections.

So the debt only became an issue with the recent debt ceiling theatrics? Ever heard of the Tea Party? They were around a few years before the debt ceiling debate, ironically they came around shortly after Ron Paul was discussing the debt in the Presidential election and after Ron Paul supporters held the first modern Tea Party rally.

Here's what I don't get Kevin.

You tell everyone that Ron Paul is ignored by the media, that he doesn't get opportunities to tell people his message, etc. And yet somehow, all of these people are now aware of the federal reserve and the debt thanks to Ron Paul alone. It's contradictory.

You can't say he gets ignored and then say public awareness about these issues is due to him.

Like I said, you give Paul way too much credit. He deserves a little for being consistent with his views but he's not the reason that these issues have gained awareness.

You bring up the Tea Party. The same Tea Party that wants to cut the debt, but don't want to cut anything but NPR and waste?

I also find it surprising that you're willing to be so dishonest in order to try and prove a point here. Time and time again you have argued (as well as I have) that the Tea Party in it's current form is nothing like the Ron Paul incarnation of it. Furthermore, the Tea Party only got as large as it did because of Fox News and other Conservative media outlets encouraging Conservatives to join the moment. Hence why the Tea Party currently by-and large is made up of people who would be considered the base of the GOP.

The current form of the Tea Party did not come about until after President Obama took office. You and I both know this. However, in your rush to give Ron Paul more credit than he deserves, you ignore that.

Right now, today, we're talking about the media ignoring his campaign. Before campaigning started, Paul seemed to be pretty well respected by the media. Cavuto used to be cold to him, and then after the crash he was very friendly.

It's interesting that they were so open to him off campaign season, willing to actually publicly give him credit for calling the whole mess, and then all the sudden he's nobody once it's time to start covering the election.

They choose when to cover him (I say USE him), and when not to, as it fits their apparent agenda.

The current form of the Tea Party is a beautiful manipulative tool for the establishment, i.e. Dick Armey, along with the media, to take a groundswell of increasingly popular ideas that began with Paul's 2008 campaign, and twist it around to use it to their own political advantage.

 

[Auxous]

If money is not the loaned capital you are referring to, then what comprises the loaned capital?

Interest, if I am understanding you correctly.

So we're back to where we started and usury is money-lending.

Yes, profiteering off of it or earning a passive income is wrong.

This debate is old as dust.

I am an atheist, but I like the Story of Jesus and the money lenders.