The question is what is the alternative? Look at the shocks to the economy in the 1800s after the abolition of the Second Bank of the US.

Recessions have been less shallow and of shorter duration on average with the Federal Reserve in place and post Depression Keynesian economics.

What do you want instead? A Central Bank controlled by congress or the president of the United States? Every president I can remember wanted lower rates even when lower rates were not the best decision for teh economy as a whole.

101 wasted votes.

This video might change your opinion: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

He ended the day with 4.2 million :thumbsup

If Ron Paul gets the nom and is elected you will not have to worry about 2257 anymore. :2 cents:

I like books better.

What's your best recommendation for a book on "the world is secretly controlled by foreign jewish bankers. Why the money supply should be limited by the amount of a pretty gold metal we dig up"?

yeah, because we will be too busy fighting WW3 setoff by the US pulling out of the UN and every other treaty it has ever signed.

It's one of the great thing about wacko candidates, they never have a hope of getting elected so they never have to consider the true ramifications of their policies.

We are already in WW3 because of those treaties. Just because you do not see people being killed does not mean they are not.

Who do you believe would be a better candidate?

lol.. You think the religious right prefer Guliani? Or Mormon Romney? Or fake ass Holywood Thompson?

he is soft and gooey and spews on about constitutional rights and getting away from the war?! lol Well, why dont we wait and see.. constitutional rights and getting away from the war.. yeah, thats so bad.. Republicans all want to go attack Iran, isnt that what they say on Fox News? :rolleyes:

His chance of winning are obviously slim, he is anti-establishment and thats not good if you want to win... but he if wins, to believe that he wont be able to change anything or wont go along with things he doesnt believe in is ridiculous... Ofcourse he ll sometime have to compromise and wont be able to do certain things without approval of congress but you better believe that he ll put an end to the Neocon agenda and there will not be an Iran war.. Amongst many other things..

Btw why dont you tell us which candidate you like? Im sure you are very passionate about a certain someone or else you woudnt be in this thread posting like you do..

I never heard of Ron Paul before, but after this thread and digging around on his website, watching the videos about what he's all about, I was sooo excited, I made a donation :)

What do the producers of the documentary recommend as an alternative to the Federal Reserve? since that is what I posted that you replied to.

Got some friends who are die hard Ron Paul fanatics. Looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Hopefully he doesnt wind up a Ross Perot

lol the irony.. vote for any other candidate other than Ron Paul or maybe Kucinich and there will be WW3.. Dont you hear the war drum yet? You seem to be assuming that Ron Paul is the only Republican that wants out of the UN... I guess they are all wackos uh.. The UN couldnt be more corrupt, the US pick and choose what they like about it and disregard what they dont like.. They werent UN treaties before 1945 and this is not what started the 2 world wars..

this is great, his name recognition is not that good that's why he doesn't do well in national polls (though that is improving with media coverage) but people who DO hear him more often than not warm to his message and ideals

because they know something is very wrong and they want change

And RawAlex, Nixon was elected to end the Vietnam war, Eisenhower was elected to end the Korean War, Republicans have a strong antiwar, non-intervenionist foreign policy tradition and he is offering to take the party back to this tradition

even Bush in 2000 used to talk about a Humble foreign policy and No Nation Building, HA!

No, there are many who say "leave the UN", but very few candidates have come out and said "let's leave the UN" because in the end, having a way for the world to speak, even if it is raised voices over a large room, is still better than the alternatives.

Saying "I will take us out of the UN" is a clear indication that he doesn't understand the implications of such an act. Pre-the UN was the time that we had two world wars. Post UN, what we got was the cold war, which wasn't a war at all because nobody was getting shot or bombed. The existence of the UN is a benefit to almost all. The current battle against Muslim Extremists is in part because they don't have statehood and no way to be held accountable for their actions, in places like the UN.

It's easy to toss out all sorts of nutball ideas when you have no chance of getting elected.

he is not going to fck with their social security he is going to preserve it and will ensure the dollar maintains its value so we dont see all this inflation....

he will give young people the chance to OPT OUT of the system, thus over time the system becomes redundant but he will make sure who are dependent get what they're entitled to because he would save billions on spending overseas

We don't usually agree on much but I agree with you on this.

And even from a more selfish perspective the countries with veto power in the security council are in a great position.

the UN is partly responsible for the mess in Iraq, it was because Bush was enforcing those UN resolutions LOL.....

plus, the whole organization is corrupt as HELL

who funds most of it? US taxpayers, when will you people realize the US government is BROKE and is borrowing billions a day to maintain deficit spending?

if you had to cut your family budget, the UN would be seen as a non-essential item

The war on Drugs is demanded by the people in general. It is a failing war due to the money lost if the war ever won.

You want to end the Security Council or the entire UN? World Health Organization? UNESCO? Industrial Development Organization? Food and Agriculture Organization? Atomic Energy Agency (I can guess on that one)

yes Colin, I would leave immediately if it was up to me, so would Paul I guess or at least stop funding/subsidizing them, it's a disgrace..

I think what is most scary is that these Ron Paul people have turned you into a mushroom. They keep you in the dark and feed you shit.

Are you suggesting that if the US left the UN tomorrow, suddenly there would be no deficit? You don't think that having 150,000 soldiers actively fighting a way in Irak is in any way contributing to that situation? Would you say that when the Clinton Adminstration was lowering the overall debt and balancing the budget that they did it by not being in the UN?

Seriously, you need to stop reading campaign literature and move on to the hard stuff like Dr Seuss books.

I agree there is a lot that is wrong with the UN. There are advantages and disadvantages though. For me, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Besides, US popularity in the world is pretty low. It would only go lower by pulling out of the UN. They hate Bush worldwide. They'd hate Paul for pulling out of the UN even more.

Due to UN resolutions.......

there has never been a serious effort to pay off the National debt

you claim to be enlightened yet you want US taxpayers to subsidize/fund organizations that you think are "good" (when they're really not and full of corrupt and war mongering global elites), im afraid the party is over.

alot of people would love the US to have a non-interventionist foreign policy and it would make the US safer and more prosperous.

Who brought the UN resoltutions? Think past the end of your nose man.


No, and there never will be as long as the republicans keep giving huge tax breaks to their rich friends and continue to spend money like drunk sailors on shore leave. Simple math, if you take in less money and spend more money, you end up with debt. It isn't any good for them to keep blaming "Tax and Spend Liberals!" when in fact most of the debt is run up by "Don't tax but spend like crazy anyway" conservatives. Again, think past the end of your nose.

The question is simple: What is the alternative? Take all that UN money and use it for, what, more military spending so we can go off all over the world and spank that bad people, because we have no formal way to talk to them, no formal way to use peer pressure to keep things from getting out of hand? It is amazingly simple to say "leave the UN" but without a serious consideration of the alternatives, it is like a starving man turning down a hamburger because he doesn't eat meat on Fridays.

Ron Paul stands for the Constitution, freedom, liberty and prosperity, the very ideals that America was founded on

This is why he's popular. he doesn't want to run your life or the economy, he wants to protect your liberties, THAT is the function of the Federal government originally envisioned but sadly special interests have taken over.

The non answer.

here's some more coverage on the not so newsworthy event... :winkwink:

----
Longshot White House hopeful Paul takes in $4.3 million

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential longshot Ron Paul became an Internet fund-raising sensation this week by bringing in $4.3 million in 24 hours through a Web drive by supporters.

The fund-raising by Paul, a Texas congressman who is the only Republican to oppose the Iraq war and who has argued for a limited government, was almost as much he took in from July to September. During that time period, he raised $5 million.

But Paul has been outpaced by Republican rivals who have raised tens of millions of dollars. Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, raked in more than $6.5 million during a daylong telephone marathon in January.

"The message is powerful and the level of frustration in this country that people are sick and tired of what they're getting," Paul told the MSNBC network on Tuesday. "They don't like the war and they don't like the economy. And they like the answers that I've been giving."

The Houston obstetrician-gynecologist has been a fierce critic of the Iraq war, calling for withdrawing U.S. troops. He also has said free trade deals and international groups like the World Trade Organization threaten U.S. independence.

Paul's campaign set a goal of raising $12 million by December 31. His spokesman Jesse Benton called Monday's results a record for online fund-raising in a single day for the primary nominating contest for the November 2008 presidential election.

The online drive for Paul was done to coincide with a day in British history when rebels, including Guy Fawkes, plotted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Fawkes was captured and tortured to turn in his brethren.

While the Paul campaign and a top supporter who helped organize the online drive, Trevor Lyman, said they were not advocating such violence, they argued the lawmaker's candidacy was about taking back control of the government.

"Ron Paul is the only one who talks about our Constitution, our founding document," Lyman said in a telephone interview. "We want America as it's been."

Paul has registered only in single digits in most opinion polls. But he recently spent $1.1 million on advertising in the early primary voting state of New Hampshire.

"His success in fund-raising shows that he's tapped into some deep attitudes of dissatisfaction in the electorate, but that doesn't mean that that financial ability will translate into votes in the primaries," said Anthony Corrado, a government professor at Colby College in Maine.

You have way too much time on your hands and you suck at making drama, you try way to hard and you just look stupid. Sorry buddy I know your a looser so it makes you feel good to get attention on GFY but damn. :2 cents:

Mainly Ron Paul wants to stop spending money overseas and instead spend it at home. Makes sense to me.This issue is so important, I really don't care about the rest. I see no candidates clearly advocating getting out other than Ron Paul and it could get him enough votes to win from people who don't ordinarily vote (the majority of people in the US) and/or independents.

That said, I think we are at a shit or get off the pot point in US History. We either need to take over the middle east, or get out.

Ron Paul is for getting out. That is what I want. I think the American Empire is going to have some rough times ahead and I don't want to have anymore pissed off people from the middle east that we bombed on false pretenses attacking America. The longer we mettle is stuff over there with troops and/or the CIA the more of this we will have. We should pull out quickly and decisively and shut down all our bases over there and let them sort it out themselves so we can take care of our own.

On the other hand, if we are going to stay in the middle east it is time for some serious attacking. Let's stop this "terror" BS and have a leader with some balls come out just say that we are America and we are going to take control of the last remaining oil fields and if you don't like it you can talk to our Nimitz class super carrier parked outside your country. At least then we would be honest to our troops who are disillusioned with all this "terror" talk as much as we are back home, because we can all see that it is BS.

Ron Paul is a long shot though which sucks... I saw on one of the fund raising polls that he got a majority of his funding from military personnel.

All Empire's collapse!! not good...

no one is truly a longshot when they have $10m cash in hand, he is going to promote his message in New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, Michigan and South Carolina, he is buying radio, tv ads and stuff so dont worry about that, he can grow support very easily

also he is NOT a long shot according to the betting markets - far from it!

the polls are asking registered republicans from 4 years ago, they're not accurate

What betting market? I want to see. I trust those much more than some Fox news poll....

More non-answer. I notice that in any spammy political campaign. As soon as the tough questions come out, they shills fold like cheap tents and ignore the questions.

Pathetic.

I don't give a fuck about attention. I do give a fuck though about people using what is suppose to be an industry style board and turning it into a pathetic attempt to raise money for a candidate that makes Ralph Nader look mainstream.

Britain's biggest bookmaker William Hill has drastically slashed Ron Paul's odds of becoming president from 66/1 to just 12/1, putting him on course to go head to head with Rudolph Giuliani for the Republican nomination, which will be decided in the next six months.

After initially writing off the Texas Congressman as a fringe candidate, the establishment media are finally having to admit that Paul's meteoric rise over the last 10 months have turned him into a frontrunner with a real chance of claiming victory should his growth curve continue.

Ron Paul is now ahead of John Edwards and John McCain in the betting and is closing in fast on Barack Obama, Al Gore, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney, according to William Hill's odds.

Oct 29. Washington Post: Ron Paul 3%
Oct 31. Newsweek. Ron Paul 3%
Nov 2. CNN. Ron Paul 5%

McCain would get 3x as many votes today as Paul and who considers McCain to have much of a shot at this point? Paul is 6th in all 3 polls. Not impossible but highly unlikely and definitely a longshot. I mean, come on he is trailing Huckabee in the polls at this point.

first point is those polls are asking registered Republicans from 4 years ago and they're not accurate

look at the latest New Hampshire poll with Paul on 7.5%, even this is understated because half the voters in the state are independents and it's an open primary, just like Iowa is an open caucus also lots of people are registering as Republicans with the express intention of voting for Paul.

he is winning most of the Republican Straw polls, so when actual people show up, they're voting Paul. wait for election day and dont believe manipulated national polls which have been wrong countless times before

i dont think that makes it a valid comparison

I believe in liberty
I am against central banks
i am against "entagling " foreign alliances
i want the national debt gone
i am for states rights and limited government

and despite this , i still wouldnt put myself on the same level as jefferson..:2 cents::thumbsup

that's great news, so you'll be supporting Ron Paul then and not one of these candidates out of the machine :thumbsup

also interesting you mentioned Huckabee and McCain, who's campaigns are nearly BROKE.

Huckabee has raised some real money online but no where near as much as Ron Paul, he might be able to stay the course in Iowa but he is simply unable to campaign anywhere else. ditto McCain, he can't effectively campaign and it's only a matter of time until they drop out along with Tancredo and Hunter

so that leaves Thompson, Rudy, Paul and Romney, those 3 will split the vote nicely for Paul and take votes off each other, believe me

it's last man standing and Paul supporters will make sure he has enough cash... cash is KING...

Speaking of straw. You are grasping at it!

LONGSHOT = low odds. At this point, no matter how you look at it, Paul's odds of getting the nomination are low. No, they are not zero but they are low.

Hell, the most oft-used description of his campaign right now is "longshot".

Nov 6, 2007. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential longshot Ron Paul became an Internet fund-raising sensation this week by bringing in $4.3 million in 24 hours through a Web drive by supporters.

Reagan's odds were once LOW
Bill Clinton's odds were once LOW
Buchanan's odds were LOW before he WON New Hampshire

trust me, it's not the be all and end all, this is going to be last man standing and who has the best funds/organization and committed supporters, especially in the early states

the rabid neocon candidates will split the vote nicely for Dr. Paul he might only need 25% of the vote to win!

Paul's cash will give him every chance if they use it well and ive no doubt they will

Cash isn't king. Ask Howard Dean... remember him? I love this piece from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_...tial_candidacy

Essentially, he raised the most money, he used the internet to get noticed, and was doing well, until this magic moment... third in Iowa!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc

Suddenly, everyone remembered that he was a marginal candidate, and his campaign fizzled and died.

You are 100% right. Mccain and Huckabee aren't doing very well. And Ron Paul is even doing worse. McCain is destroying Paul in the polls. How much error do you need to explain for this latest poll from the Washington post?

Nov 1. McCain 19% Ron Paul 3%

Giuliani is kicking McCain's ass. McCain is kicking Ron Paul's ass.

"Grass Roots" = "Grasping at Straws"

the difference is Dean was the FRONT RUNNER and FELL.

front runners are always vulnrable to a defeat and fizzling out. same could happen to Rudy in Iowa and New Hampshire. Kerry's star rose very quickly

Ron Paul will Break through, he is no where near to taking off yet.

This just in from CNN:

Low single digits (ie, a number lower than 5).

You would only point this out if you agreed with me that Ron Paul's odds are low and that he is a longshot. Why are you debating me then? His odds are low and he is a longshot. Occasionally longshot candidates win. There are a few examples of that and it occasionally happens.

I'm not saying he can't or won't win. I'm saying he is a long-shot candidate. His odds are low. What are they realistically? 5% or so.

McCain has been around forever and has good name recognition, Ron Paul will kick his ass in the early states once he spends his money and he will be out of the campaign in no time, 100% guaranteed

I am not arguing with you...

keep underestimating Paul, that is EXACTLY how they want it! :winkwink:

Good luck