REP. RON PAUL is +1150 @ WSEX to win REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE

[degenerategambler]

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is not bought and paid for by those looking to steal from you for eternity. For anyone who doesn't understand the banking system, this is a great article.

http://news.goldseek.com/LewRockwell/1192028880.php

Anyone who thinks that the super-rich, the rich, and the wanna-be rich who comprise Wall Street are defenders of prosperity in the name of the middle class is terminally naïve. He is confusing Wall Street with the free market.

The free market is the great friend of all classes. Through the division of labor engendered by private ownership, the free market supplies ever-increasing quantities of goods and services for all classes, but especially the middle class. People in the lower classes can legitimately hope to enter the middle class. A few will become rich.

There is a price for this upward access to greater wealth: the possibility of a fall into poverty. This is a greater threat to the rich than to the middle class. The rich are at the far right edge of the bell-shaped curve. There are few of them. Their position is insecure, for good reason. The free market rewards those sellers who serve consumers efficiently, wasting few scarce resources. Consumers are a fickle bunch. They keep asking sellers, "What have you done for us lately?" There are always many competitors trying to get rich. They are ready to replace today’s rich people. Today’s rich people know this. They are therefore ready and willing to pull up the ladder that enabled them to replace yesterday’s rich.

The free market’s ladder of mobility – upward and downward – is based on these legal principles: open entry of new buyers and new sellers, the predictable enforcement of contracts, and the absence of government favoritism of any special-interest group.

These principles should also govern the monetary system. They have never done so perfectly, and ever since 1914, hardly at all. Because of the tremendous profitability of legalized counterfeiting, fractional reserve banking has always been based on two principles: (1) keeping out new counterfeiters, who would debase the currency through price competition – mass paper money inflation – and thereby end the game of wealth-redistribution from depositors to bankers; (2) the creation of a central bank that protects today’s commercial banks from bank runs by depositors.

The fractional reserve banking system is engaged in a war against depositors and also a war against people on fixed incomes, who are unable to hedge their assets against monetary depreciation. The depositors get their pittance, based on the money they deposited. The bankers then multiply these small deposits through fractional reserve banking and thereby enjoy income from many interest-paying borrowers.

The threat to bankers arises when depositors realize that a bank is insolvent – lent long and borrowed short – and start demanding their money back in currency. This is the nightmare scenario for bankers. They do not want depositors to catch on to the obvious: their money is being used to create multiple loans, meaning multiple new income streams for banks. They do not want depositors to kill the goose that lays the fiat money eggs for bankers. How? By pulling out their money in currency and not redepositing this currency in another bank. Bankers know what happened to over 6,000 small, federally unprotected banks, 1929–32, and they never want to see it again.

Enter the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, semi-private, profit-seeking protectors of the little guy! And just how is the little guy protected? By the full faith and credit of the United States government.

When you think of "full faith and credit," think of the scene in the first "Superman" movie. Lois Lane has just fallen from the top of the Daily Planet’s building. Superman flies upward just in time and grabs her. "Don’t worry, miss. I’ve got you." To which she replies, "Who’s got you?"

As in the case of the cosmic elephant, which is standing on the cosmic turtle, what is the turtle standing on? It’s turtles all the way down.

With the Federal government and the FDIC, their full faith and credit stand on two factors: taxation and the Federal Reserve System. What holds up the Federal government when it can no longer collect enough taxes from the coalition of the unwilling to pay the bills? The Federal Reserve’s fiat money. It’s digits all the way down.

FIAT MONEY AND STOCK MARKET BOOMS

If you follow the financial news media, you will notice how much attention is paid to the Federal Funds rate, which is the overnight bank rate. This is the rate that the Federal Open Market Committee can control directly. The media reports concentrate on this issue: the expectation of another rate cut.

Whenever the FED is raising this rate, the media never warn the public that this policy could send the U.S. stock markets into a bear market phase. The words "bear market" are cited only in sentences that contain the words "little possibility of." But when there is even the slightest possibility that the FOMC might lower the FedFunds rate, market commentators get all twiterpated over the possibility of another upward move of stocks.

This is what I call the asymmetric nature of the financial press: "upward rate move = no problem; downward rate move = boom ahead."

Whenever there is news of slowing employment, the media start talking about the possibility of the FOMC’s lowering the FedFunds rate: "That’s good news for the stock market!" Whenever the employment rate rises, the media start talking about economic growth: "That’s good news for the stock market."

What is bad news for the stock market? Officially speaking, nothing.

Why is the financial press asymmetrical? First, the middle class reads the financial press and dreams of getting rich. Second, Wall Street and its large corporations advertise in the financial press, and therefore shape the content. Financial editors are careful to exercise self-censorship. Unlike the non-financial press, which flourishes on bad news – "If it bleeds, it leads" – the financial press is dependent on the flow of good news: "Buy your piece of the American dream," not "buy your piece of the American nightmare."

For evidence, watch the networks’ evening news shows. The lead stories are bad news for someone. Local news shows love a fire. National news shows love a political scandal. The "bad news leads" format hooks you in the first seven minutes. Then the ads start coming. After the ads, you will get a financial report. If it’s anything significant (Dow up or down over 150 points), NBC’s Brian Williams will interview either the 40-year-old visibly fading woman from CNBC or the 30-year-old rising CNBC starlet with the premature bags under her eyes. He never interviews some grizzled survivor of 40 years of popped bubbles and shattered dreams. They assure the viewers that "time will tell," which means "tune in to CNBC tomorrow."

The FED dominates discussion these days. Will it lower rates? Will it let rates sit? By "rates," the media mean the FedFunds rate.

If the FED lowers "rates" by waving its magic wand – sorry, scratch that – if the FED debases the dollar more rapidly than today, the broad middle class will receive a lower rate of interest in its bank savings accounts. This is great for banks, which can now borrow short at a lower rate, such as 3%, while lending money at 10% to 30% to other members of the middle class and the poor, who are addicted to credit card debt. The spread between borrowed funds and loaned funds widens. This is the dream of the financial sector.

Why don’t credit card rates fall? Because consumers who use credit card debt are not sophisticated. They do not shop for better rates. Even when they do, they do not read the fine print of the new contract, which allows the card company to double or triple the introductory rate if the borrower falls behind on a payment, even a payment to a company in no way connected to the credit card.

Conclusion: a free market society enforces contracts. It does not protect those people who refuse to read their contracts or cannot understand them.

Lesson: if you don’t understand the fine print, don’t sign the contract, e.g., the credit card application.

Lower rates produce an economic boom. Businessmen borrow from banks to take advantage of the expected boom. Banks make more money. But if long-term rates are not higher than short-term rates, banks don’t make much money. Today, long rates are barely above short rates.

Meanwhile, large banks are still losing big money in the subprime mortgage market. The Bank of America and J. P. Morgan Chase are expected this month to declare a combined $3 billion write-down because of subprime mortgages. This brings the total to $20 billion at the world’s largest banks since this summer. This has only just begun. MarketWatch has just started a Subprime Today e-letter option. They see a new trend coming, and they plan to take advantage of it!

Wall Street flourishes when the central bank creates fiat money to buy assets – any assets – that can legally be monetized. This does not include furniture or new cars. It does include the debts of furniture companies and auto companies. It even includes their market-listed shares.

So, when you hear about the "good news" that the FED is about to lower rates, it is not good news if you have money in a bank account or a money market fund.

Wall Street does not care about the plight of the middle-class lender who deposits money at 3% in his bank, only to suffer 2% to 3% price inflation, after paying 20% or more to various governments on the interest received.

The middle-class saver is the loser when Wall Street screams its way into the thinking of the FOMC. Jim Cramer threw a tantrum. The FOMC responded.

The dependence of Wall Street on a continuing stream of new fiat money is very high. If this flow of funds were to cease, Wall Street would go into withdrawal seizures. The various stock markets would plummet. This cannot be allowed, say Wall Street’s many spokesmen. This would "harm America." So, the FED is called on to continue the flow of counterfeit funds, multiplied through the fractional reserve process.

The losers are those people who trust the banking system and deposit their money. The other losers are those who are on fixed incomes or close to fixity. They pay higher prices for whatever they buy. The resulting boom on Wall Street comes out of their lifestyles.

When Wall Street and its media mouthpieces call for another cut in the FedFunds rate to "keep the American dream alive," they mean the dream of corporate insiders whose stock option plans are being threatened by the readjustment in capital values posed by stable money. They do not mean the broad mass of Americans, whose savings, if any, pays 3%, which barely equal their credit card debt, which charges 15%.

MOST AMERICANS WEAR THREE HATS

Most Americans wear three hats: their thrift hats, their debt hats, and their wage hats.

Their thrift hats are today almost an afterthought. Only 56% of American households actually saved any money in 2004. They don’t have large retirement funds. The average American, as of 2004, had a net worth of under $95,000. That was the median figure: half of Americans above, half below. Of this value, well over 60% was the value of their residences. Retirement? Living on Social Security? Those in the 50 to 75 age range had a median net worth of $171,000. But most of this was the value of their homes. They will have to pay for space somewhere. In terms of liquid assets to invest and live off the earnings, they are in very bad shape. For the data, see the report, "Recent Changes in U.S. Family Finances: Evidence from the 2001 and 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances," Federal Reserve Bulletin (Feb. 2006).

Their debt hats pressure them monthly. They have to pay the bills. They are hard-pressed to save. They worry about meeting their monthly expenses. This gets their attention. If they were to lose their jobs for two months, they would be in trouble. Rising interest rates threaten them. So they are with Wall Street’s call for the FED to lower rates.

They wear wage hats. They are far more worried about losing their jobs than they are about price inflation under 3%. They don’t understand that the means for lowering rates – monetary expansion – threatens to raise prices.

These hats are all present hats. They take precedence over future hats. Retirement is way off in the distance. They’ll think about it tomorrow.

Or the day after tomorrow.

So, when the Wall Street wizards perceive a looming decline in their stock portfolios, they call for the FED to intervene and save the various stock markets. The voters like low interest rates, so they don’t complain.

The wizards get support from the broad masses, who are threatened by the return of monetary expansion. The wizards have their futures tied to the stock market and bond market. They are not interested in the plight of the average American. The fact that price inflation is a threat to the average American’s way of life is of no concern to the wizards.

CONCLUSION

We see today a clash between the long-run interests of the middle class and the short-run interests of those who make their living in the financial markets. Because the process of economic cause and effect is not understood by the media, and because it is not understood by the average American, the wizards of Wall Street get away with their endless pleas to the Federal Reserve System to lower interest rates. Nobody in the mainstream media ever asks: "But how can the FED lower rates, year after year?" The world really does believe in magic. They believe that the FOMC committee merely has to issue a press release promising to lower the FedFunds rate and, wonder of wonders, the rate is lowered cost-free. Nobody asks: "Why not just reduce it to zero?"

[count zero]

"Ron Paul is the only candidate who is not bought and paid for by those looking to steal from you for eternity."

I disagree with this. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are not owned by those people either. And, unlike Ron Paul, they are pro-choice. I also doubt very much that, if confronted with some particularly vindictive act of the feds that clearly oversteps the bounds of rational governance (like arresting Canadian pot seed sellers or British sportsbook managers), Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel would say "Well, too bad for them, I believe in the rule of law."

Guy is just another Republican conservative. Easy to talk up your ideals when there's no chance you'll ever be called upon to put them into practice.

[indio]

Great post degenerategambler. I think that many people are becoming enlightened as to scam that is the federal reserve. The federal reserve act of 1913, installed by Woodrow Wilson , is one of the most treacherous acts ever committed.

Essentially, in an oversimplistic explanation, what the act did was take the gold standard away, which meant the money was "real" and was backed by something tangible, and they replaced it with "promisarry notes" that are created by foreign bankers. Essentially, the foreign banks create money out of thin air, and then they "lend" it to us, with interest. So what happens is they not only get paid back the loaned money, but they get paid interest, for something that they make . One of the bankers who were given control of the money was the Rothchilds. I'm not going to go off on them in this post, but feel free to look into that family.

If there are people who want to vote for Rep. Paul, be sure to check out his website ( ronpaul2008.com) to see if you need to register by a deadline to be able to vote in the primary of your particular state. I know that New York has a deadline of this friday on Oct. 12th. In some states, if you are not registered as a republican, you will not be alowed to vote in the republican primary.

if there is anyone here that wants to defend the federal reserve act, i would certainly enjoy reading that point of view, as i'm curious as to why anyone could think that was a good thing, but i will respectively read someone's opinion.

As far as a response to Count Zero's critisism of Paul, i wont really get into the Marc Emery thing, although if it was quoted by a spokesman, chances are the details of the situation might have been vague, but i do know that Paul wants to abolish the DEA, so things like that woudn't occur.

As far as the whole pro-life/pro-choice issue, lets not start that debate, but i think you need to realize Zero that Paul, who is a gynecologist and has delivered more than 4,000 babies, has stated that to protect liberty, we must protect life. So even though his personal view is pro-life, from a legal standpoint, all he has maintained, is that abortion should be a state by state legislative policy. He doesn't believe that the Federal Government should impose a federal law on that issue, because it is not stated in the constitution that the Federal Government has that authority, which would be consistent in his strict constitutional adherence.

So while he believes that abortion should not be federally legalized, he also feels that the federal government should not have the authority to make it illegal either, which would give complete legislative power in that area, to the respective states. Hence, it would probably be legal in NY, MA,CA,CT, NJ,IL, and a few others, and be illegal in others. I'm assuming your a pro-choice person Zero, and would still find this distasteful, but i just wanted to clarify the position.

[indio]

Originally Posted by count zero

"Ron Paul is the only candidate who is not bought and paid for by those looking to steal from you for eternity."

I disagree with this. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are not owned by those people either. And, unlike Ron Paul, they are pro-choice. I also doubt very much that, if confronted with some particularly vindictive act of the feds that clearly oversteps the bounds of rational governance (like arresting Canadian pot seed sellers or British sportsbook managers), Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel would say "Well, too bad for them, I believe in the rule of law."

Guy is just another Republican conservative. Easy to talk up your ideals when there's no chance you'll ever be called upon to put them into practice.

Um, i think your a little confused as to these candidates ideology. Paul wants to ELIMINATE overzealous feds by eliminating many of their departments, while Kucinich wants to EMPOWER the federal government and give them even more power than they already have. Thats why i'm a tad confused about your vindictive act of feds scenario. Heck, i can remember Paul wanting to legalize drugs and pot 20 years ago when he ran for president 20 years ago on the Libertarian ticket. You can still find clips at you tube of the old Morton Downey Jr. show with him debating the likes of Lisa Sliwa and Downey as they attacked him for his drug legalization policy.

Never forget, that it was your hero FDR, that granted J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI almost complete autonomy and greatly expanded powers. I find it a little odd that one would credit someone (kucinich) as being a candidate to be "level headed" in regards to overzealous feds, when it's common sense that when you increase the size and numbers of these agencies, it's naturally going to become more intrusive and powerful. And Kucinich would increase the size of government enormously, as all socialists love to do.

[degenerategambler]

" So what happens is they not only get paid back the loaned money, but they get paid interest, for something that they make . One of the bankers who were given control of the money was the Rothchilds. I'm not going to go off on them in this post, but feel free to look into that family."


Indio, It is almost frightening when you look into the history of some of these families. Look at the Bush family tree, Preston was a prince of a fellow, one of fathers of the central bank if memory serves me correct?

[count zero]

"Paul wants to ELIMINATE overzealous feds by eliminating many of their departments, while Kucinich wants to EMPOWER the federal government and give them even more power than they already have."

This commits the fallacy of the fourth term, invalidating your argument. Do you think the government that Ron Paul wants to eliminate is the same government that Dennis Kucinich wants to empower? It is not. Dennis Kucinich, rest assured, does not want to empower the FBI and the CIA and in particular the DEA and the War On (Some) Drugs. Therefore, I am unmoved by your bleatings. While I understand that you are opposed in the extreme to the sort of government envisioned by Dennis Kucinich and others that you humorously and mistakenly call socialists, you must not, for reasons of intellectual responsibility, conflate this with the evils of current or recent governments, ones that you clearly understand people are likely to reflexively view with suspicion -- the CIA and the FBI and the DEA, for example.

Obviously, per our previous encounters, I believe in government as the only viable rallying point behind which clear-thinking people can respond to the emerging oligarchy/corporocracy. All they have to do is stop voting for the corporate candidates and start voting for real people who will take as their mandate the greatest good for the greatest number. You evidently disagree with that, but fallaciously implying that Kucinich wants to expand the evildoing of the current criminal administration is not playing by the rules of discourse.

Really, as I read your posts, I find myself wondering what sort of world you envision. Anarchy? I doubt it; the arguments against anarchy are many and good. But if not anarchy, then, by definition, some sort of government. But then who decides how much government is too much? Ron Paul? OK, we won't take any money from the rich, and we won't give any money to the poor. But what about building a highway with tax money? Should the poor who didn't contribute a cent be allowed to drive on it? And are you really comfortable with the idea that, in the absence of government involvement, it will be the likes of Enron and GE who decide who gets a job (hint: Juan and Gupta and Wang Ling) and who eats cat food for dinner (hint: Billy Bob, Joe Bob and Chantelle)?

Properly conceived, government is just people getting together and deciding what to do in an organized way. At this time and place in history, of course, it is considerably less than that. It is a circus of thuggish self-interest. But if we turn over all power to the people with money -- a process which is well under way and which, in a perfect Libertarian world with the absence of external controls, would surely escalate to the max -- can any sane person imagine that this condition would improve? Please.

One last thing. Do you notice how the first thing you guys are always on about is money? You are not Libertarians because you want to free the noble human spirit from the grasp of a pernicious form of social organization; you're Libertarians because you want to hold onto every last dime. You guys are so hung up on money that you don't have time to think about what's happening to your neighbors; your motto seems to be, if they're gonna drown, stick a hose in their mouth. Your fellow capitalist Ray Kroc was fond of that one. Ray Kroc got rich by inflicting a measurable decline in health and happiness on the entire USA, but to you lot that's a totally swell result, since getting rich is the only reason for living and anyone dumb enough to eat at McD's deserves whatever they get.


"[Ron Paul believes] to protect liberty, we must protect life."

Let Ron Paul tell that to his death-crazed Texas constituents who have made that state's government the most bloodthirsty (relative to the behavior of the other states) in American history, because it's certainly not an argument against choice. Life begins at birth. No culture in recorded history has ever thought otherwise, and no amount of halfwitted ranting by a bunch of sexually-deviant money-grubbing TV preachers is going to change that. I read Ron Paul's description of the events that led him to be anti-choice, and it was embarrassing. I want a leader who is motivated by logic and clear thought, not someone who instantly succumbs to the pathetic fallacy (reasoning from emotion) the first time he sees an abortion.

[indio]

You say life begins at birth, and then say no culture in recorded history has ever thought otherwise. You obviously need a history lesson, but i just want to clarify your view to make sure i understand. You believe a 7 month old fetus, that has arms, legs, and organs is not a living thing because it hasn't been born yet? YIKES.

There are SO many of your points that i would love to respond to, but it got weird when you started talking about who gets to have a job and who gets to eat cat food, and then you dropped some names like billy bob, joe bob, and chantelle. Like i'm supposed to be convinced that without excess government, people in very rural, or very urban areas are doomed to starve because every job will be farmed out to exploited labor to central america(juan), gupta ( india) and china/korea/malaysia ? ( wang ling). WHAT A KROC !

And then you imply that all our desires for personal liberties and personal responsibility and choice is just a rouse for us because all we really are interseted in is money and that makes us greedy, selfish, capitalists, who don't care about anything or anyone else. Incredibly ridiculous, although the likes of Marx and Jules Nyerere would be proud of you. It just so happens, that money is the way that essential goods and services are paid for, and how one is entitled to earn, and what he can do with his earnings, and what he can keep that he has purchased with his earnings is very essential to being free. If I choose to give to others, i will give to whom i want, how much i want, and why , and i will not do it out of fear of reprisal or force or imprisonment because someone else is granted the authority to tell me what i can do for a living, what i can buy, what i can keep, and who i have to give to.

You asked what kind of world i want to live in?, well lets make a very simplistic example of the difference in our preferred worlds.

I want to dig a 10' x 10' hole in my back yard, and i want it 10 feet deep.
I don't want to dig it myself, because of either time constraints or physical limitations. So i advertise that i need someone to dig my hole, and that i am offering $400 to do it. Someone answers my ad and looks at where i want to dig my whole and agrees to do it for $400 because he thinks thats a fair trade of his labor for the compensation, and he would like to do it. I tell him that he is solely responsible in case he injures himself, and he, being a free thinking adult, agrees to accept any risks involved. He wants to dig for 12 hours as he wants to finish his task quickly, i tell him it doesn't bother me, as i am paying upon completion of the task. Thats called liberty of contract, and was upheld by our supreme court for many years, all the way up until the '30s. That is a simple example of my world...freedom. Now lets try this scenario in your world.

I want to dig a 10' x 10' hole in my back yard, and i want it 10' deep. I don't want to dig it myself, because of time constraints or physical limitations. So i advertise that i need someone to dig my hole, and that i am offering $400 to do it. Someone answers my ad and looks at where i want to dig my whole and agrees to do it. I tell him that he is solely responsible in case he injures himself, and he, being a free thinking adult, agrees to accept any risks involved. As he begins to dig the whole, the local building inspector stops by and informs me that i need a permit to dig a hole in my back yard, so the hole digger must stop digging, as i must go get a hole permit and that costs me $25. So now that i have a permit, the hole digger begins again, but now, i get stopped by the workers compensation board. They say that although he accepts all risks, i still must buy a workers comp policy to protect him if i want to continue. So i go get a workers comp policy for the week at $125. Then i am told, that i am required to get liability insurance, in case anyone who walks through my backyard( even though i have signs and tape up) falls into the hole and hurts himself. so i go buy some liability at $75. Then, a union official stops by, and tells the hole digger that only a union member is allowed to dig holes in this town. So he has to go pay some union dues of $100, to be able to finish his task. So he digs, and he gets halfway done, and is really looking forward to finishing, but the union stewerd stops by again, and tells him that union workers are only allowed to dig for 6 hours a day, so he is required to come back tomorrow to finish ( although he wants to continue). So we wait until tommorow to start digging again. Right before we commence, someone from the Endagered Species Act stops by, and sees that a rare type of beetle has been living where i have dug our hole, and that since my back yard is this beetles natural habitat. I am ordered to stop and i am fined $500 for disrupting it's habitat. I now, cant finish digging, but i want to pay the man who dug half the hole, something for his troubles. So i pay him $300, but as i am doing so, another agent comes by and informs me that i must take $30 out for his retirement, $45 for state taxes, and $75 for federal income tax. Just as i am ready to give up, someone from yet another agency realizes that i have very special soil in my back yard, and that my back yard is needed to grow a special plant needed for the good of the masses to grow mangenized radishes that can be used to fuel environmentally friendly mopeds. So the government forces me out of my home, razes my house, and creates a government owned radish farm. All under the statute of emminent domain.
Thats an example of your world........ tyranny and theft through bureaucratic bullshit.

[count zero]

OK, for starters, you take exception to me claiming you're motivated entirely by financial self-interest, not by political ideals, then you spend the entire rest of that (third) paragraph explaining how money is everything, and by God you'll do whatever you have to to hold onto yours. Which is it?


" liberty of contract...was upheld by our supreme court for many years, all the way up until the '30s....[Now] the government forces me out of my home, razes my house, and creates a government owned radish farm. All under the statute of emminent [sic] domain. Thats an example of your world."

The situation in your ludicrous, self-pitying example did not arise before the 1930s because the population density was so much lower then, not because people were blessed with better government. The necessity for laws varies proportionally with how close together people live. Thus, people who live in the remote desert can dig all the holes they want, and people who live in Manhattan can't dig any holes at all. People who live in a hamlet where everyone knows everyone else can hire a hole-digger off the street on a handshake basis; people who live in a city probably have to hire a union hole-digger because the big-city hole-diggers have banded together to assure acceptable wages and working conditions (the good-faith assurances conferred by personal acquaintance generally being absent) -- which I presume is their right in a Libertarian world. All this seems elementary and unavoidable to me. When there are a lot of people with conflicting needs in a small space, you have to compromise, you have to have rules that may frustrate some people. What's your alternative?

You call this outlandish, made-up story an example of the way government operates in "my [cz's] world." Well, let me give you a real example of my world: I can drive down the unspoiled coast of my home state for hundreds of miles without seeing a McMansion, a fast-food joint, an evangelical church or any other offensive structure. That's because my enlightened fellow citizens decided they'd rather have the unspoiled coast than the housing developments, and fuck the bidnissmen and developers who every day of the year file their desperate petitions and lawsuits aimed at undermining for their own profit what everyone knows 99.9% of the people in my state want, i.e., the unspoiled coast. I consider cutting these evil fuckers off at the knees to be a noble act, and it was, and is, accomplished by citizens acting through government. How could it have been accomplished otherwise? How could it have been accomplished with a government whose attitude is "you boys work it out among yourselves?" By picketing the housing developments? By boycotting Reverend Larry? Don't make me laugh. Without government to wield a big stick, the coastline of my state would look like Virginia Beach, a place for you fearless Libertarians to peddle crotchless panties and tee-shirts with tits (disclaimer: characterization of Virginia Beach based on a one-day visit in 1967) while you whine about anyone who points out that the greatest good for the greatest number is not being served. Thanks, but no thanks. I hardly consider myself a friend of bad government; I disapprove of the DEA and the CIA, and I'm pretty sure I disapprove of the FBI. But I'm four-square behind the Coastal Commission that's preventing you from opening your McDonald's or digging your hole at my local beach.


"You say life begins at birth, and...no culture in recorded history has ever thought otherwise. You obviously need a history lesson..."

So show me. Show me the human culture that unequivocally treats the unborn as people. Hint: if you don't find one in the developed world over the last fifty or a hundred years, you might as well give up, because the truth is that in primitive cultures, not only fetuses, but real live babies, are just plain killed when they are not wanted or can't be supported, and no one whines about Jesus or the sanctity of life. It's the way things are. As for your shock that I can be so dismissive about a fetus with arms and legs, here's a news flash: the laws of this country and virtually every country in the civilized world have no problem with a person visiting a doctor and having that fetus with arms and legs cut into pieces. Not a pretty picture, and no doubt education and marginalization of the likes of the Catholic church would be a better alternative, but like it or not, legal abortion is the clear preference of the mainstream, and the law of the land. It's you who are the deviant.

BTW, didn't the last retarded criminal executed by Ron Paul's bloodthirsty home state have arms and legs too? Guessing you're not gonna get as weepy over him.

[robin]

lol


i honestly dont know what to say. it made me laugh out laugh a few times, which isnt easy to do.


i also agreed with most of it. even though im not sure that means i have to disagree with the count either, on some points.

either way 2 thumbs up b/c it was very rational and made me laugh

[robin]

BTW, didn't the last retarded criminal executed by Ron Paul's bloodthirsty home state have arms and legs too? Guessing you're not gonna get as weepy over him



great point.

[GoodKarmaGuy]

YouTube - Ron Paul: A New Hope

[indio]

Originally Posted by robin

BTW, didn't the last retarded criminal executed by Ron Paul's bloodthirsty home state have arms and legs too? Guessing you're not gonna get as weepy over him



great point.

No, i am not going to get weepy over the execution of a CONVICTED MURDERER. For you to compare a totally innocent 7 month old fetus, to a convicted murderer who took the life of someone else as an adult is so obnoxious that i question why i would ever lower myself to engage in any further dialouge with you zero.

I will agree that some convicted and sentenced to death are innocent or have been framed, and that is a HUGE problem. But lets be realistic, 97% of people sentenced to death are murdering scumbags who deserve to be killed. For you, or anyone to try to and make me out as hypocritical, because i cry for the unborn and not a convicted killer is so lame. Just for the record, although i believe philosophicaly in executing murderers, i dont agree with the death penalty in practice, only because i believe that 1 innocent person executed is way too many, and i believe the door should be left open for the innocent to prove their innocence, and hopefully, the guilty will never be freed and will one day recieve their true judgment.

This has become personal for me, since i had a son die in the womb, but still had to be delivered at 7 months. For you to view him as a non-existant thing has sickened me so much that this will be my last post here. You have now inspired me, because you have convinced me that all socialists are godless rats, that i will take pleasure in inflicting as much pain on every socialist rat that i come across.


Maybee, im getting overdramatic since i'm incredibly drunk at the moment i am writing this, but i would like to say to the many people who regularly post here, that it has been my pleasure to talk sports, and exchange in dialouge with everyone here. I wish everyone here at Major Wager the very best of luck, and i wish you and your families good health, happiness, and prosperity.

This is indio, signing off for the final time

to all....................................god bless, and good luck.

[degenerategambler]

Indio, you sobered up now and ready rejoin the party?

[Buck Swope]

This is a sharp post:

Ron Paul on the Mother of All Bailouts

[Uncle B]

So, Ron Paul is still running for President this election???


I thought he was done for....But, i was just driving back from picking up lunch, and, i am serious here, a big ass grasshopper slammed into my friggin windshield......I turned on the windshield washers to get the thing off my window, and all that did was put a big green and brown smear right down the passenger side windshield....And, i swear to God, it looked just like Jesus on the cross, just, green and brown and tilted a bit to the right, like maybe a vespa had bumped into the cross and made it tilt just a foot or so.


Anyways.... I am looking at Jesus on my windshield, and all of a sudden, i start seeing sign post after sign post after sign post, with a big white and blue "Ron Paul For President" on it.


It almost seemed as though a Jesus on a stick appeared on my windshield, just so i'd realize Ron Paul was still in the race...Even though, i really don't know shit about Ron Paul anyways....And, never intended to vote for him to begin with.


Anyways, Jesus is gone, cause it's raining now...But, i'm guessing Ron Paul is still here at least, eh? Whats he running as, Independant?

[Uncle B]

Holy crap, everyone is seeing Jesus this week....This chick even found an edible Jesus....


'Cheesus': Woman Sees Jesus In Cheeto


I actually still have a few pieces of my Jesus stuck to my windshield wiper...But, i doubt it would be newsworthy now....Damn rain...

[skilled27]

I will be voting for Ron Paul.

[Uncle B]

Originally Posted by skilled27

I will be voting for Ron Paul.

Really?


Just out of curiousity, what exactly is it about Paul that makes you want to vote for him as President?

Seriously, i am just curious...I really don't know much at all about the guy.

[skilled27]

B, here is an excellent page for a quick summary of what he is for and against.

Ron Paul on the Issues

For one the guy is neither a republican or democrat. As stated earlier he has to pick one side because he wouldn't be taken seriously otherwise. I am against the 2 party system in that I believe that it does nothing but divide our country. The vast majority of people are somewhere in between the 2 parties anyway, whats the point other than it gives the media stuff to bicker about? But this really has nothing to do with why I love Ron Paul.

He is for the fair tax. The fair tax would lift a multi billion pound burdensome gorrilla off the back of America which is the income tax system (I'm sorry accountants, you can find work elsewhere and its in the best interest of the country).

He is against the war on drugs. We should make drugs legal in this country and quit spending billions on the war on drugs that is not working. Spend some money on education and help for addicts but dont criminalize them.

He is anti abortion except for in the instance of when the mothers life is in danger. All of his abortion views are in line with mine.

There are so many issues he believes in that exactly mirror my beliefs its unreal. The man's beliefs are more so a reflection of mine than any other person running by far.

He is for avoiding double standards and actually following international law.

Finally he is a Christian. Everyone already knows my religious beliefs and this important to me.

I could go on and on. He would make the perfect president.