Skip to comments.Ron Paul Your Spaceship Called, They're Ready To Beam You Up
Posted on 02/25/2010 9:30:03 AM PST by 1rudeboy
Whenever I post something negative about Ron Paul (which is just about every time I post about him), I get the NASTIEST comments and emails. He doesn't have a lot of supporters but those that do support him do so with a passion. That isn't particularly bothersome, after all people should have some passion. Problem is Ron Paul is a "drooling crazy " type. This guy must have of fallen out the crazy tree and hit every branch on the way down.
Today while he questioned Fed Chair Ben Bernanke Paul turned on his Crazy overdrive and made some absolutely batty allegations about the [F]ed, including accusing them of participating in the Watergate Scandal.
(Excerpt) Read more at yidwithlid.blogspot.com ...
man I hate to agree with you rudeboy but I have to on this one.
This guy’s site always makes my computer crash. Does anyone else have a problem with that site?
Don’t be a hater!
Soooo off-topic, but every time I see a post of yours I click on your profile page. It never fails to make me laugh!
The claims aren’t “outrageous” at all. Paul asked legitimate questions, such as the Watergate angle, which have been raised by mainstream historians and journalists for decades. Some of us don’t treat Ben “socialist” Bernanke as a god.
For fear of getting flamed...I don’t understand why Ron Paul gets such a bad rap.
After all, I agree with most of what he stands for and at least, unlike the majority of politicians in DC, his actions match his words.
Who could be against:
- Smaller government
- Fiscal responsibility
- Less taxes
- Less spending
- Closing our borders and enforcing immigration laws
- Auditing and dissolving the FED
- free trade without agreements (NAFTA/CAFTA)
- supports Israel
- nonintervention of other countries
- defederalization of the health care system
- belief in the rights the Constitution and Declaration of Independence give us
I know he may seem kooky with some of the things he’s said, but last I checked, a lot of what he’s said is coming true.
If you want to paint Bernanke as a socialist, there are better ways to do it than by asking him if he loaned money to Saddam Hussein.
I don’t think so.
The Fed is scared to death of real transparency exactly because they have these sorts of skeletons in their closets.
It isn’t a matter of whether or not Bernanke is a “socialist.”
It is a matter of whether or not the Fed is authorized to conduct foreign policy. They’re not.
Did you see this?
The funniest part about Paul in that committee hearing yesterday was his shrewd reasoning that “Congress should be given the opportunity to eff things up like Greenspan did.”
IE8 has a problem with his site. It is always reloading his page due to some error.
Paul didn't asked whether "he" loaned money to Saddam. He asked whether the Fed did and whether Bernanke (as current head of the Fed) would open up the records on this issue and others. The question of whether Bernanke, as head of the Fed, would open the records about possible past corrupt pratices of his agency is no legitimate than the question of whether he is a socialist. Congressmen ask these questions all time about past behavior and the federal government has had many, many investigations to uncover such behavior, such as the recent Emmett Till investigation.
BTW, you apparently do not think Bernanke is a socialist? Why?
Congress has the authority to do so, per the US Constitution.
The Fed does not.
Congress gave the authority to Fed, if you recall.
Ron Paul owes his current prominence to the fact that the Republican Party, for the last twenty years, has been so totally asleep at the switch on the issue of limited government.
Yes, they did. And they can take it right back, because it is only a law, passed by Congress.
That, and the fact that the vast majority of Republicans are as clueless as rocks about how the real world of finance works.
Starting with this irrational and unsupported belief that there exists such a thing as a “free market.”
Correct, and the best way to do that is to stop barking like a moonbat.
From where I'm sitting, he apparently has enough to have kept him in office for many years. I don't agree with a lot of his foreign policy, but what you're saying doesn't line up with observable reality.
Assuming your premise, though dubious, is true--what does this irrational American belief in the free market have to do with Ron Paul?
Are you talking about the Texas shrimp industry?
In order to limit government, we must first expand it . . . there is no way otherwise to combat the pernicious influences of the free market, that doesn’t exist anyway.
Bernie Sanders keeps getting re-elected also, that simply means he is popular in his district.
So most of the emails you get against Ron Paul come from people who live outside of his district, and who he doesn't represent?
Add his "surrender" foreign policy to this belief in bigger government via earmarks and you have one mixed up politician who thinks dissolving the Fed (he could really care less about any audit) is the answer to our economic challenges. That tape of him questioning Bernake would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Ron Paul does NOT supprot Israel. You are delusional if you think he does. He is a 9/11 Truther. He is an isolationist. There is little in what he espouses that a true conservative agrees with. He long ago feel off the deep end
very true, but not necessarily in that order or frequency.
L. Ron Paul has gone so far to the right, that he came back out on the far Left. (Worm Hole related)
Great site if you want to wait 297 minutes for it to load, then, when you finally get it to work, it constantly reloads until your computer commits suicide by jumping off the table.
Why Ron Paul gets a bad rap? The conservative movement boils down to three legs—fiscal con, social con, neocon. Paul doesn’t vote with the socons or the neocons. End of story.
Paul does his job as an elected representative by forwarding on to a congressional budget committee requests from residents or groups in his district to have some of the money, that they paid in taxes, returned to the district. That money is in a federal budget that he voted against because of the unconstitutional spending contained in it.
No win situation for him with you delusional Paul-haters - he forwards on the requests and he's responsible for pork... he doesn't, and he's failing to do the duties of his office.
Add his "surrender" foreign policy...
Just like my personal "surrender" policy I have with my neighbors - I'm a paranoid idiot who "knows" my neighbor is a threat to me (he has guns!), but I haven't went next door and killed him yet, which is allowable under the local version of the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War that you neocons love so much.
You clowns better hope Dr. Paul is right about foreign policy (hint: he is), because your precious little American Empire is going the same way as the Roman one, and for the same reasons.
The most fundamental reason why there is no free market is that the Fed is constantly playing with the money supply for various purposes and intents - most of which turn out to be ill-advised and counter to what a free market would actually do.
For example, right now, they’re trying desperately to re-inflate the housing bubble. It would be better to simply allow it to deflate and collapse, purge the banks run by idiots and allow capital to be re-allocated to those who don’t have their heads up their asses. But no, the Fed is intent on keeping the idiots at all levels of the housing market in the market - which is completely contrary to the ideal of a free market.
The only way we could approach a free market in the macro economy of the US would be to eliminate the Fed and grow the money supply based on the overall size of the economy - on a simple, rule-based system.
Where's the shrimp?
When/how did they do that? Be specific.
You're as confused as Ron Paul. You think earmarks are constitutional. Apparently, you also think it is his duty to ensure that the fedgov continues to spend more money than it takes in. How you justify this nonsense is laughable.
....but I haven't went next door and killed him yet, which is allowable under the local version of the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War that you neocons love so much.
Neocons? Preemptive war?
No wonder you're so defensive. You're on the wrong forum. Here's what JimRob had to say about anti-war moonbats like Ron Paul:
Hey, if you don't like FR and or our support the war policies leave. Go find a website that supports your unfortunate, short-sighted and misguided antiwar efforts. It's really that simple.
In case you antiwar Paulistas haven't noticed, Free Republic supports the war effort 100%. Many of our chapters protest against the antiwar moonbats either weekly, monthly or whenever the opportunity arises. The DC Chapter has been protesting against the antiwar moonbats EVERY Friday night at Walter Reed for three years.
Free Republic has co-sponsored several cross country caravans and hundreds of rallies in cities all across the country and in DC against the antiwar moonbats and in support of our Commander-in-chief, our troops, the war effort and our Gold Star and Blue Star families, many of whom are FReepers.
When you are supporting antiwar moonbats you are working against Free Republic's mission, hurting our efforts, hurting our families who have lost loved ones or have loved ones involved in the fighting, hurting our troops, damaging their morale, working against our efforts to defeat the enemy, and, in fact, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Antiwar moonbats are the domestic enemy. Antiwar moonbats willingly give aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime. In my book, that's tantamount to treason. Ron Paul is an antiwar moonbat. You figure it out. If antiwar moonbats are the enemy and Ron Paul is an aid and comfort supplying antiwar moonbat, then Ron Paul IS the enemy!
If you Paulistas are looking for support on FR for an antiwar moonbat who is giving aid and comfort to our enemies, you're nuts! Free Republic will NEVER support antiwar moonbats!
As far as our official policy on Ron Paul is concerned, it's the same policy we have for his antiwar moonbat allies the traitors Harry Reid, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, CodePink, International Answer, et al and their flaming antiwar spam monkeys. Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!
Where the hell did you guys ever get the idea that enemy supporting antiwar moonbats would be welcome on FR?
That plain enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
168 posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:22:47 PM by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
To me, that says all that needs to be said.
Lasts for five hundred years? OK.. another 250 to go.
When they executed swap agreements to prop up other nations’ currencies and banking systems.
Not part of their mission, not part of what the Congressional act creating the Fed authorizes them to do.
It supported the banking system. It reduced the interest rate on dollar loans. How did it support their currencies?
Not part of their mission, not part of what the Congressional act creating the Fed authorizes them to do.
Congress didn't authorize the Fed to deal with other central banks? Are you sure about that?
Per 12 USC 358, the Fed has the authorization (upon a vote of the FOMC) to open accounts with foreign banks. This does not give them the authority to support foreign currencies (or use swaps and derivatives to support the US dollar through foreign currency transactions) and/or to support foreign banking systems.
They’ve abused their authority in this area before in the 60’s through the early 70’s to support the US dollar, in concert with the US Treasury’s “Exchange Stabilization Fund.” Google (or use your favorite search engine) to go read up on the history of Roosa and Carter bonds.
The Fed’s position is that the enabling legislation doesn’t prohibit the action, and they’ve done these sorts of swaps before with the concurrence of the US Treasury, therefore it’s okey-dokey to do it again.
In the crisis of 2008, the Fed provided massive dollar liquidity to foreign banking systems because they conduct a huge amount of their international settlements in the reserve currency - the USD. These other foreign central banks allowed themselves to get into a position where they were unable to meet liquidity requirements in dollars, and without being able to access huge pools of liquidity, they faced some real sticky problems.
That’s tragic, but it isn’t our problem.
Here’s a paper from the BIS which makes this more clear:
And here’s the money quote from therein:
“In providing US dollars on a global scale, the Federal Reserve effectively engaged in international lending of last resort. The swap network can be understood as a mechanism by which the Federal Reserve extends loans, collateralised by foreign currencies, to other central banks, which in turn make these funds available through US dollar auctions in their respective jurisdictions.33 This made US dollar liquidity accessible to commercial banks around the world, including those that have no US subsidiaries or insufficient eligible collateral to borrow directly from the Federal Reserve System.”
The Fed is in no way authorized to prop up foreign commercial banks, or foreign commercial banking systems.
Ron Paul Your Spaceship Called, They’re Ready To Beam You Up...LOL.
I think the FreeRepublic PTB keep some of these Paulbots around for entertainment purposes..
Courtesy of FReeper 50mm.
Am stocking up
I thought that odd also, No Reply link
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.