Ron Paul??: Social Security, Third Rail of Federal Budget

[huskerdewd]

You have no Idea of what Ron Paul stands for his reasoning ability and ideas are better thought out than most all other politicians. and of course he couldn't win with the closed minded ideas like how he can't win so we should vote for Mccain instead. He also wasn't supported by the bias Fox news corporation which is the neo-conservative right

[TheBradRules]

He may not be perfect. But he's the only one fighting against the New World Order.

[thepie8u]

i would argue with you but its just easier to call you stupid. your fucking stupid.

[Ralphdraw3]

thanks for watching... what is the cult doing these days?

[cclodfe]

I think you need to research Ron Paul's views a little more in depth regarding social security & healthcare. He realizes that we can't just end social security overnight and leave entire generations who have paid into it with nothing. He wants to open it up to the private sector and allow younger generations to opt out of social security if they so choose and invest in the private sector. He believes we can fund this if we adopt a more peaceful foreign policy.

[Ralphdraw3]

"privatizing" government functions has been a complete disaster in almost every area. "Privatizing" social security is similarly stupid. Just ask people, who unwisely or unwittingly, sunk all of their retirement into 401K's and the stock market - they have lost about 40% of their retirement.

THE STOCK MARKET IS RISKY - VERY RISKY. And the average person is just not that smart about investing. WE NEED SOCIAL SECURITY.

BTW who is particularly unwise about investing? YOUNGER GENERATION

[cclodfe]

He has said that we need to concentrate on securing our own borders and working on our nations infrastructure instead of spending $ on foreign occupations(blowing up bridges in Iraq and rebuilding while ours at home are falling down) and forcing our "democracy". He believes other nations will try to emulate our govt when they see democracy works(instead of ramming it down thier throats with bombs and bullets). Our interference in the middle east has caused most of the mess we are in now.

[Ralphdraw3]

I believe, after reading some of Ron Paul's news letters, that Paul is a racist, homophobe and xenophobe. And this not surprising coming from a white, male Republican from Texas.

[spume111]

i agree with thepie8u, you're an idiot. ron paul is a socialist? hahaha you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. perhaps you missed the debate when he said he'd end social security...you didn't read his book?...perhaps you should have put down the audacity of idiocy and opened your eyes to what is happening nowadays

[thepie8u]

spume, retarded people like ralph here will just look more and more retarded the more nonsense like this video they put out. you need not give more credit to DR. Paul for all the wonderful things he would do for this country and all the things he is attempting to do today. the campaign for liberty will never stop

[Ralphdraw3]

Your YouTube channel is retarded. You have ONE FRIEND and no videos uploaded!!!!

You Stink - just like Ron Paul's Republican party stinks... pee -yu

[Ralphdraw3]

Spume - you channel stinks worse than "thepie8"'s

What a bunch of jokers you Paul-heads are..

[whippoorwillss]

I comented on ur other vid...but I like to hear all sides. so here I am agine. andyes I agree...no impeachment stand...hummm. If he had rallyed behind Dennis.....I must find out why...thanx for the bug in the ear. btw, gold and silver are hardly ever a bad play.

[copenhagen1221]

What are you talking about?

1) Most people who support Ron Paul now did not support George Bush (at least in his second election).

2) Ron Paul is a LIBERTARIAN...the opposite of a socialist. He wants to get rid of welfare, privatize social security, and privatize health care.

[Ralphdraw3]

Ron Paul is a Republican... he runs as a Republican on the ballot and he calls himself a Republican in the House of Representatives...

[copenhagen1221]

yes, he is officially a Republican. But if you look at his actual stance on the issues (and take into account the whole him running for president in 1988 under the Libertarian Party) you will see that he really is a Libertarian. He supports repeal of Drug Prohibition, ending the War in Iraq, repealing the Patriot Act. The list is endless. He might "be" a Republican, but his views line up most closely with the Libertarian Party.

[Ralphdraw3]

Ron Paul is officially Republican

And the Republican party - OFFICIALLY - SUCKS..

[blookup]

You Officially suck.

[Ralphdraw3]

thanks for watching!!!

you're officially blocked

[jackrabbithanna]

This guy is lying.....Ron Paul is a libertarian and would reduce the role of government drastically. He has publicly stated that he would phase out all government welfare programs. And remember the Federal Reserve is causing the current economic downturn and Ron is absolutely committed to its gradual dissolution. He also wants to bring the troops from most foreign bases and return them to the U.S.A.

Ron Paul is the best possible person to get the US out of this mess if he were to become pres

[roxtar10870]

Can you name ONE fiat currency that HASN'T fallen apart eventually?

You sir are obviously constitutionally challenged. Read it some time, it'll make you cry to see how far away from it our government has gotten.

[Ralphdraw3]

It looks to me like the problem we have in this economy is massive amounts of debt - by everyone - individuals, businesses and governments. We do not have inflation - across the board - and we do not have deflation.

BTW where is Ron Paul on Social Security?? the same place Ronald Reagan was 20 years ago?

[zjroyall07]

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; cont...

[zjroyall07]

...and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."- George Washington

[ralphosize]

zjroyall07:

Excellent quote. Sure to be lost on ralphdraw though. Washington himself could return in the flesh and he'd berate him for not having joined the Democratic Party.

[Ralphdraw3]

Let's review:

The choice in November was between Your Big Mac and my Big O...

I chose "O."

You were apparently confused... the Repub party being a complete disaster... nominating Big Mac, you threw your vote away, perhaps, on some small 3rd party

[ralphosize]

How is he my big mac? You're the only partisan shill here, willing to vote for a party even though it betrays everything it's supposed to stand for. You can't even find a quote of mine identifying myself as a Republican. I admitted to voting for Buchanan in 2000 (and that was long before his foreign policy sanity really came in demand). But, of course, it was the leftists in your lousy party who denounced him with all their logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, argumentum ad hominem, etc.

[Ralphdraw3]

If you want outlaw political parties, go ahead and try.

At present, we have a political party system - as do most democracies. Our system happens to be a two party system, as no viable 3rd party has emerged.

Get a brain.. stop jabbering nonsense; you have voted for losers in the last three presidential primaries and general elections and still haven't learned your lesson.

[ralphosize]

And what lesson is that? Fall in line behind your sorry-ass Democrats? Your interventionist, utopianist busybody, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac supporting, Balkan bombing, Iraq War supporting, Iran War agitating Democrats?

Outlaw political parties? No, that's more like what your president O-bomb-O would do.

Voted for losers -- huh? You must have voted for losers in the last two elections before this one. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong.

[Ralphdraw3]

What lesson, Grasshopper?

1) you don't always get what you want (most adults have learned this. In life not just in politics.)

2) you are a political loser - the kiss of death

3) you still have a kind of adolescence about you. "I want go here, and there, bouncing from one losing candidate to another.." BTW losing means never taking the responsibility of governing..

[ralphosize]

1. Individuals of principle stick to their principles and vote for the candidate who most closely represents them. When no mainstream candidate comes close to representing them, they abstain from the process and do not take part in the false dichotomy people like you promote.

2. What kind of lowly imbecile thinks they've "won" anything by voting with tens of millions for some politician. Hell, pal, even by your own criteria, you were a loser the last two pres elections.

[ralphosize]

3. I never bounced anywhere. I held onto my beliefs and voted for those who represented them most closely. If they weren't available, I ignored the celebrity proceedings.

Your "choose a side, get out and vote" garbage is reminiscent of the crappy propanda Hollywood "stars" put out today, disgracefully shilling for their Dem flavor of the month. Just accept the world as we've MADE it, and choose a side. Sorry, I pay my taxes, abide the law, but until now nothing has forced me to choose one

[ralphosize]

evil over the other. We'll see what freedom remains intact after O-bomb-O's reign.

[ralphosize]

edit: Morgan, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Lehman Brothers (!).

Shouldn't the egalitarian Big O have said, no thank you, I have an Army of idealists in my base giving me all the financial support I need. Take your ill-gotten, Federal Reserve created wealth and shove it. Nope, didn't do that. Refresh my memory, didn't he also vote for that piece of bad debt transfer legislation the media's calling a "bailout?"

[Ralphdraw3]

How long has the Republican party sucked?

Let go back to Ronald Magnus Reagan:

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Elliot Abrams were in the Reagan and Bush41 administrations. Iran-Contra remember?? Invasion of Grenada and Panama... Rummy meeting with Saddam and giving him WMD..

[ralphosize]

Here are some wars the Democratic Party involved the US in:

World War 1

World War 2

Korea

Vietnam

Bosnia

Kosovo

(still to come -- Darfur? Congo?)

You still haven't answered my question. Did you agree with Clinton's wars in the Balkans?

[ralphosize]

Last: Palin is a joke and so is the bulk of the GOP (from its Manhattan political and intellectual leadership, to much of its slothful base). But what the hell makes Democrats any better on the defining issue of today -- foreign wars that are killing thousands of Americans, stirring up hatred for decades, and bankrupting the country. I don't know why not participating in some go-nowhere procedure would lead you to totally dismiss one of the only reps who's been against all that from the start.

[zjroyall07]

good job ralphosize. i like how you present logic and facts whereas ralphdraw3 is grasping at straws and presents no real concrete argument and his points are baseless.

[Ralphdraw3]

You didn't vote in 2004 either???  LOL

[d0861]

This dude sounds confused. Ditto with all these guys below. Ron Paul is the man.

[hondaboy1976]

Yawn. This guy just doesn't get it. It's not about Paul or the Republican party or Obama, it's about following the Constitution. It's about the rule of law. It's about individual liberty.

[Ralphdraw3]

Lastly, take a look at who co-sponsored this year's impeachment resolution: Robert Wexler. Wexler voted FOR the Iraq War in 2002 (ontheissues(.)org) and took part in the almost universal badgering of Iran.

@@@@

You have NO EXPLANATION as to why Ron Paul didn't call Bush a liar, or why Ron Paul didn't accuse Bush of abuse of power and lying to Congress. Or why Ron Paul DID NOTHING in 2004 amd allowed Bush any EASY path to the White House.

RON PAUL = GIANT WIMP

[losse5656]

The Libertarian movement has always been strange. Bob Barr...a guy who voted for the Patriot Act, was the head of the Libertarian party... what's up with that? There is always some sort of bizarre infighting in the Libertarian party. Like they don't want to win, or get organized

[losse5656]

Ralphdraw3.... I still kind of think of myself as a Libertarian. I also sense something not right about him. Also, his unwillingness to talk about Israel and the Palestinians. As far as Im concerned, you cannot even begin to talk about the Middle East without mentioning Israel, and it seems almost no one has the guts to talk about that. Another thing...what the hell happened to all the money they raised? And the people that were his: " advisors" where questionable.

[Ralphdraw3]

Here is what I sense about Ron Paul: even he, as a politician, stays away from red hot issues (Israel-Palestine etc.), especially those issues that would enrage his constituents. RARELY (almost never) did Ron Paul attack Bush or Cheney directly and by name (both still being popular in Texas from 2004 until 2007). This explains Paul's  opposition to impeachment. Ditto with social security spending (something Reagan didn't touch) and defense spending (which Reagan increased dramatically).

[segits]

Obama's men: Biden and Emanuel both supported the Iraqi Invasion/War.

[Ralphdraw3]

AP: Obama To Close Guantanamo, Give Detainees U.S. Trials

Obama is expected to propose a new court system, appointing a committee to decide how such a court would operate. Some detainees likely would be returned to the countries where they were first captured for further detention or rehabilitation. The rest could probably be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts

[69donj]

Dude, first we like Ron Paul because he represents the founding fathers' ideas. And second, listen to Peter Schiff.

[Ralphdraw3]

Peter Schiff liked Ronnie Reagan -

Reagan was the biggest spender and the biggest deficit spender of the last 50 years - next to Dumbya Bush.

When will the Republicans get their ideology straight?? BTW - Reagan didn't dare go near Social Security either.. he didn't even mention it in "speeches".

[69donj]

DUDE I DON'T LIKE RONALD REAGAN he was a kiss-ass to big corporations.

[69donj]

o and by the way I aint no republican, I don't even believe in these 2-party system but I have been called libertarian a lot of times.

[Ralphdraw3]

Good, you're a Libertarian -

there isn't a single Libertarian in Congress.

Libertarians are guarenteed to lose in elections, as all other third parties lose.

[Schmauey]

Fail. Ralphdraw3, read the numerous essays and campaign literature from Ron Paul himself (not from various bloggers which paraphrase him) about his solutions for Social Security. Watch some YouTube videos of his speeches on the topic.

Better yet- read his book "The Revoution- A Manifesto" before you deign to criticize this man for standing up for our Constitution. And, while it's still a Bestseller 9 months after its release, you don't have to buy it- you can read it on the 'net for free.

[Ralphdraw3]

Fail Schma...

I don't care what RP talks about... politicians love to talk. Or what RP writes about... words are cheap.

WHAT HAS HE DONE IN CONGRESS REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY - OTHER THAN STRENGTHENING IT?

If RP was interested in "standing up for the constitution", he would have introduced articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney years ago..

[qanazir]

The only thing special about Ron Paul, is that he knows the internet exists.

Other than that he just a religous libertarian.

[PizzaGod]

RP realizes people are dependent on SS, so he understand you can't end it overnight.

He wants young people to be able to opt out of SS as a way to end it.

He also favors privatizing SS because it does not belong in the Federal Government.

___________________________

As I have pointed out to you before, RP voted with Dennis on the impeachment bills.

It is up tot he committee to get them out, Pelosi is on record for killing those articles.

[zjroyall07]

don't waste your time. I've made this point as well and this guy just doesn't get it

[Ralphdraw3]

As I have pointed out -

RP has opposed impeachment of Bush for years - never introduced or cosponsored a single bill of impeachment.

Then, WAY, WAY too late RP reluctantly voted in LATE 2008 for one of the Kucinich impeachment bills.

massive wimp-out - RP - mega phony

[Ralphdraw3]

How much money will it cost the federal government to convert from a S.S. system to a private system - over a decade or so?

It will cost over $100 billion at least...

[zjroyall07]

OK then what do YOU suggest? Because according to you if we stay with SS you're a socialist( like Obama wants to do) and if you privatize it, it'll be too expensive and it's too risky b/c of the stock market

[roadhouse108]

he's unelectable due to the ignorance of voters, not his stance on issues.Yes he did try to do the impossible-educate the naive voters.Who got Obama in ? Dumb ass college kids who want change? From what mom and dad feeding them-housing them..Why change just stay democrat and the govt.will do it for you.The others were the undreducated-wever voted b4 inner city blacks.Foolish kids and undereducated folks just who I'd want deciding a election.Stop voting a party and vote a canidate and Paul wins.

[Ralphdraw3]

No, the Republicans (not all the voters) wanted the war in Iraq and they still want to stay in Iraq and believe that Bush was telling them the truth about Iraq...

They - the Republicans - will support the war as long as their taxes aren't raised to pay for the war and their kids aren't drafted to fight the war.

Ron Paul was too dumb to realize this - or didn't really care that he was destined to lose..

[bochap21]

You are referring to the NeoCons who are in charge of the republican party. The vote on Nov 4 was a total rejection of the NeoCon ideology. Not all the republicans are neocons, certainly not Ron Paul. He didn't really care if he lost, but at least his message, whether you agree with him or not, went out.

[Ralphdraw3]

The others were the undreducated-wever voted b4 inner city blacks.Foolish kids and undereducated folks just who I'd want deciding a election.

@@@

You're not talking about the Republican primaries - where RP was running. Ron P. would have been talking to Republican: the elite, the wealthy, the educated, the rational, the old and wise etc..

RON PAUL STILL GOT HIS ASS KICKED IN THE PRIMARY

[osiris33]

he's scared of more than that... he's scared of Bush... where was he during the impeachment hearings???? he's a phony bro

[zjroyall07]

Calling Ron Paul a socialist is the epitome of ignorance. Please do your homework before spewing your idiocy. Paul wants to actually use the social security assets for the seniors instead of allowing the government to borrow 185 billion a year from the program. Thus the Social Security Preservation Act, HR 219 that he pushed that you so skillfully said he wouldn't touch on the subject. You sense a lack of commitment/courage, I sense a lack of logic on your part.

[Ralphdraw3]

Why would Ron Paul want to protect a socialist and redistributionist and wasteful government program like Social Security???

Why wouldn't Ron Paul be trying to end this awful GOVERNMENT program?

[zjroyall07]

People that paid into the program with good intentions should be able to get their money back. In fact, he wants to phase out Social Security by cutting spending and stop government borrowing for frivolous gov't programs to provide for the current beneficiaries while allowing young people to opt. out of paying into the program. Again the ignorance continues.

[Ralphdraw3]

Where is Ron Paul's legislation on this? I don't see it listed...

And what happens when the stock market crashes, your bank goes bankrupt (wiping out your savings), and your company goes belly up and it can't pay your pension?

[JJaguars84]

I think your arguments against Ron Paul can be used doubly against Obama. Also, if you want to talk about the current economic crisis, it was created by the Democrats and their desire to make owning a home a fundamental right, which it is not. If you want a perfect candidate, Ron Paul is far from it. Your points against Paul, although semi-valid, are almost nit-picky. Change does not come all at once my friend. It comes slowly. Ron Paul beats Obama and McCain by a mile.

[Ralphdraw3]

Greedy lenders and the greedy housing industry were all too happy to go along with sub-prime loans.

Then the greedy and unethical "financial industry" bundled and hide these dangerous loans and sold them to unsuspecting (and greedy?) third parties.

Greedy and unethical credit rating companies deliberately over-rated the soundness of the loans.

The biggest actor in the sub-prime mess was COUNTRY WIDE - a private company - which was not forced by government or anyone to loan money

[cw2992]

end the fed = end war

[Ralphdraw3]

Why not just end the war??? - and lots of money...

Too politically risky, eh??

[cw2992]

i fight for both. I vote fund and attend all end the war and end the fed rallies. End the fed is a more permanent fix.

[Ralphdraw3]

The war is the greater injustice and harm...

I would aim for that first..

[bochap21]

The war would not be possible without the Fed. You end the Fed, you end everything, ie Wars, Economic bubbles, the whole lot. The Fed provide a mechanism for the government to tax the people without them knowing to fund a war that is unconstitutional. No fed, no funding, no war.

[CANTvoteHillary]

Are you talking about establishing another Ft. Knox??? with gold or silver which will back up the currency? And how many trillions of dollars in gold and silver would one need?

[cw2992]

well when gold is 10k an oz it wont take much.

It would just be a competing currency. Everyone is free to choose which one they want to save spend or accept. I want to audit fort Knox and get the gold back from the criminal banksters who have stolen all of it.

[ewigkase1]

after what ron paul said about obama on cnn after the win. I feel the guy is a nut like nader. nader said on the real news show that Obama was not a good organizer(then why did he win). I scene a touch of jealousy and ego thats why non of these candidates will never win.

[Ralphdraw3]

My thought exactly - I was thinking of doing a Nader/Paul video. Two men virtually powerless but with big egos and very big ideas. But both men, in the end, are charlatans - great talkers but not good on action and organization or persuasion.

[ewigkase1]

yea they have a lot of good stuff to say to a point. they are smarter then most average candidates. but once you dont agree with them then you will be attacked. I dont mind some of there policy's it is there approach which makes them no different then any other ron "paul"ition. I bugs me that them and there followers think they are perfect. thats why I wish we had a 3rd party or 4 party system then they would go thought the same criticism as the rest like Obama and McCain. it would expose them

[Ralphdraw3]

I think both men are intellectually arrogant, and, as you say, when you disagree with them you are attacked personally.

And both men - since they know so much ( or know it all...) - are loners. They don't need or seek allies or confidants. It is always curious to me how Nader dumps the Green Party when ever he feels like or how he snatches unknown people to run as his Vice President. Or how Nader does virtually no organizing (certainly in non-election years).

[bochap21]

Regarding social security, which specific bill are you referring to? Also, please don't trust wikipedia's description of the issues. For example, if you vote no against the PATRIOT act, it does not mean you are not a patriot.

[Ralphdraw3]

Ron Paul on S.S.

Social Security earnings limit repeal (cosponsor): Repealed the earnings limitation on Social Security. Seniors now continue working after retirement without being penalized.

Social Security Preservation Act. H.R. 219, 2007-01-04, originally H.R. 219, 1999-01-06, cosponsored since H.R. 857, 1997-02-27. Invests the Social Security surplus "trust funds" in marketable interest-bearing obligations and certificates of deposit, essentially insuring the integrity of the surplus

[bochap21]

We had a silver standard before. Ron Paul didn't say he wants to go back to the gold standard, he said that to refer to a specific point in time where money had real value. He wants to get rid of the Fed's ability to print money out of thin air which causes the inflation and the malinvestments that causes all the economic bubbles to form.

[Ralphdraw3]

The inflation in housing sector was caused - not by the Fed printing money - but incredibly easy mortgage credit. Lenders were giving out loans like candy. And then investors - stupidly and carelessly - were buying the mortgages. Thus everyone who wanted a house could get a loan - driving the price of homes way up.

[bochap21]

"incredibly easy mortgage credit" is equivalent to Fed printing money. Where do you think the lenders got the money from? Check out fractional reserve banking or the mandrake mechanism.

[Ralphdraw3]

No it is not -

it used to be far more difficult (regardless of the rate of interest) to qualify for a mortgage - far more cash down; higher incomes requirements and better job history to qualify; far smaller risk for ultimate lender (i.e. smaller debt and smaller houses).

[PizzaGod]

You are correct, and government regulation forced these types of loans helping to cause the housing bubble that recently burst.

[bochap21]

You obviously don't understand what fractional reserve banking means do you? Let me ask you, where do you think the bank gets the money to lend from, or rather where does the bank gets its billions of dollars to lose?

[Ralphdraw3]

where does a bank get its money from? depositers and savers and investors...

But you're right - I am not a genius like Ron Paul - the genius who didn't get off his ass in 2004, but let the Bush/Cheney catastrophe continue - without opposition for another four years. BTW WHERE WAS RON PAUL IN 2004? PICKING HIS NOSE? BUYING GOLD RESERVES. The genius who didn't back impeachment until late 2008!!! Ron Paul is an opportunist and a charlatan - a lot like Ralph Nader in this respect.

[zjroyall07]

Because he voted late to impeach Bush doesn't mean that he wasn't opposed to his administration. Just like Obama was supposedly opposed to the war but voted late for a timetable withdrawl also while voting to fund the war. Where was his courage or leadership. Why don't you hold Obama to the same degree of scrutiny?

[Ralphdraw3]

Where was Ron Paul in 2004? or 2005 or 2006 or 2007? No Republican DARED to challenge the Great George Bush in 2004??? not even the Prophet-Seer Ron Paul? was up with that?

Ron Paul's opposition is half-hearted, useless and phony... lots of speeches and no action..

BTW the Dem. Congress voted for a timetable for withdrawal of troops - Bush vetoed it.

[ralphosize]

Ron Paul challenged Bush and the Neocons long before 2004. You can read transcripts of his speeches, articles, etc, at antiwar(.)com. Contrarily, people like O-bomb-O's VP, Chief of Staff, and chief foreign policy advisor (Dennis Ross), were all very much in favor of the Iraq War. Rahm even said it was a good idea in a 2005 interview with Russert--he would have agreed with it even if Saddam had had no WMD. Rahm was also instrumental in putting down antiwar Dems in 06. Google Emanuel Counterpunch

[Ralphdraw3]

Why no bills of impeachment from Paul?

Why no run for president in 2004?

Does Ron Paul EVER accuse Bush of lying to Congress about Iraq - directly?

[ralphosize]

Any attempt to impeach would have been ceremonial and ineffective. Who would Bush have been replaced with? The foreign policy concensus of either party is dominated by War Party thinking. Again, look at Emanuel's efforts to crush antiwar Dems for the 06 midterms. He didn't run for President in 04 because the moneyed powers that be would have destroyed any campaign in a tenth of the time they did in 08.

[Ralphdraw3]

Any attempt to impeach would have been ceremonial and ineffective.

@@@@

BALONEY - KRAPP... now you are spinning just like Nancy Pelosi... even a failed attempt at impeachment would have been healthy for the country, the Congress and protecting the constitution..

[ralphosize]

7/10/03 speech on the house floor:

watch?v=aewpvcxAwTk

He has said without fail, without contradiction, that Iraq is an unconstitutional war without causus belli. It was far more appropriate to criticize the entire War Party machinery that solely point the finger at Shrub and act as if his removal or discrediting would change the catastrophic foreign policy concensus inhabiting the beltway. If the war is illegal, that means Bush -- or his proxies -- lied.

[Ralphdraw3]

WHY NOT LEAVE THE CRUMBY, CORRUPT, WAR-MONGERING, EMPIRE-BUILDING REPUBLICAN PARTY - particularly the rubber-stamp Republicans in the Congress???

Republican Sen. Jim Jeffords did it - he became an independent. Ron Paul wimps and stays with the nutso Republicans from 2002 until 2007.

RP - Charlatan/Phony

[ralphosize]

What bunk. Obfuscation and misdirection. RP could have left the GOP and joined a party calling itself the Imperial War Party -- as long as he voted the way he voted, and made the speeches he made, that is utterly irrelevant. Unlike the majority of Senate Dems and a large contingent of powerful House Dems (like O-bomb-O's VP and COS), he stood against it from the beginning, subjecting himself to vicious smears from his own party (and the sizeable numbe of War Democrats).

[ralphosize]

Why didn't all those antiwar Democrats leave that party when a majority of Party Elders voted for/spoke for/defended the obvious lies behind that war? For that matter, why didn't they leave after Clinton bombed the Balkans (which was every bit as unnecessary and unconstitutional as Iraq)? You can only smear somebody with words like charlatan or phony if they lie, deceive, obfuscate, when Ron Paul has been 100% consistent on the issues throughout. O-bomb-O and his warmongering staff are the liars

[ralphosize]

And did you not watch any of the Republican primaries? RP's famous rebukes of Guiliani and McCain's AIPAC-drawn foreign policies? How the hell would he be able to challenge them in such a public forum, in front of millions, in so honest a way if he'd left the party? They already did all they could to suppress him. As should be obvious to any observer of American politics and foreign policy, Dem or GOP is irrelevant. They're both arms of the War Party. RP is one of the only people who's resisted

[ralphosize]

And Kucinich, despite his big govt preferences, is another honorable man in that Den of Thieves. Funny that he has expressed great admiration for Paul -- unlike the smear merchants and Israel-firsters (Marty Peretz) who occupy the power positions in Dem govt and media.

[Ralphdraw3]

What a farce: Ron Paul is trying to sell isolationism to the political party of empire and military aggression.

YOUR REPUBLICANS heard RP jabber and then voted for the war-mongering McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee.. Perhaps RP should jabber at the elite of the party - the NeoCons Kristol, Podhorwitz, Libby, Wolfowitz Rev. Hagee and Rev. Robertson etc...

BTW Neo-Cons are New "Conservatives" - they are REPUBLICANS. The Neo-Cons are not Democrats or "liberals". Get a clue and stop lying..

[ralphosize]

He did, smart guy, and if you'd read any of his articles (or watched the video link I provided), he not only criticized the Neocons (something you movement Dem shills use as an undefined epithet), he named them BY NAME -- Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, and the rest of that cabal. And was hastily denounced for it by the Smearbund--using cowardly insults like you (isolationist, anti-Israel, and, of course, anti-semite).

[Ralphdraw3]

And was hastily denounced

@@@@

LOL hastily denounced by who?  Republicans perchance?

[ralphosize]

Wrong again. Hastily denounced by all segments of the media, including Democratic stalwarts like Marty Peretz and his Neo-Liberal, pro-war, pro-Zionist smearsheet The New Republic.

[ralphosize]

Forgot to mention, Mr. Peretz, supporter of the Iraq War and CEO of the Smearbund, was (and presumably still is) a strong supporter of Mr. Obama. I'm sure he was delighted to see a one-time citizen of Israel and veteran of the Israeli Army will now be the big O's gatekeeper.

[Ralphdraw3]

So is "terrorist" Bill Ayers!!! perhaps even Jeremiah Wright..

[Ralphdraw3]

he named them BY NAME -- Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, and the rest of that cabal.

@@@@

But is wasn't worth the trouble of impeachment

or running against Bush in 2004...

better to give "blistering" speeches on the floor of the House for 6 years... and then run a doomed campaign in '08

great strategy!!

[ralphosize]

Who would have replaced Bush?

The War Party is much bigger than Bush. The whole ugly political class, including your Democrats, should be thrown out of office, but, because Money Talks, there are only scumbags and charlatans in either party to replace them.

Did you support Clinton's wars in the Balkans? Or do you support "humanitarian" intervention in Darfur?

[ralphosize]

You get a clue. Read a damn article on the neoconservative movement and its luminaries--even the Wikipedia article. Neocons have their ideological roots in Trotskyism, ie, anti-Stalinist, or anti-communist left, eventually graduating to become "Scoop Jackson Democrats". Founding fathers like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, and their modern day torch carriers (Kristol, Frum, Krauthammer, et al), have nothign in common with GOP base social conservatives. They are pro-abortion,

[ralphosize]

pro multicultuarlism, pro illegal immigration (and unchecked legal immigration), pro Big Biz, pro Big Govt, anti-Xtian (except where useful, ie Christian Zionists like Hagee). The only thing that differentiates them from the neo-liberal elite (as distinguished from the antiwar left), is a belief in the aggressive use of military force against any enemy of the Israeli state.

Article by Michael Lind on neoconservatives:

antiwar(.)com/orig/lind1(.)htm­l

[ralphosize]

The GOP base demonstrated pathetic stupidity and servility to the moron in the White House, but then they're not really that different from the Dem base (who now openly excuse O-bomb-O appointing Iraq war supporters and Iran War agitators to the highest tiers of his govt).

And all you can do is insult Paul because he didn't join Robert "Iraq War Supporter" Wexler in some quixotic impeachment campaign that would have replaced Bush with -- who? Another War Party functionary.

[ralphosize]

Lastly, selling "isolationism". Paul made it clear he's a non-interventionist, favoring free trade with all, entangling alliances with none -- and lunatic, Wilsonian democracy crusades FOR none.

But I guess you supported Clinton's wars in the Balkans? And maybe you support the calls I keep hearing about the need to "do something" in Darfur, up to and including, as former O-bomb-O advisor Samatha Power advocated, intervening militarily. Well, as long as it's for "humanitarian" purposes.

[Ralphdraw3]

Lastly, selling "isolationism". Paul made it clear he's a non-interventionist, favoring free trade with all, entangling alliances with none

@@@

RON PAUL IN 2004: WHERE THE F@#% WAS HE??? SLEEPING? TAKING A BREATHER? ALLOWING BUSH TO WALTZ IN FOR A SECOND TERM...

EXPLAIN RON PAUL'S THINKING IN 2004....

me thinks Ron is an opportunist...

[Ralphdraw3]

how about joining Kucinich in that quixotic effort - could Ron Paul manage that??? or Bruce Fein?

[Ralphdraw3]

I suspect that you, Ron Paul and many Paul-heads are bigots....

just a feeling I get...

[ralphosize]

Re bigot:

Ad hominem with ZERO factual support--another thing Neocons and Neolibs have in common. Here, let me prove my unbigoted cred by listing black, homosexual, and Jewish writers who've made the same points I have:

Black: William N. Grigg, Wilton D. Altson

Gay: Justin Raimondo

Jewish: Uri Avnery, Aaron Glantz, Joshua Frank, Leon Hadar

All, or almost all, enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters. Perhaps you're bigoted?

[Ralphdraw3]

have nothign in common with GOP base social conservatives.

@@@

More baloney -

There is a strange but strong alliance between rightwing Christians/rightwing Jews.

Even your rightwing Christian Hagee spoke before AIPAC!!!

[ralphosize]

Prove it's baloney. Instead of lazily spewing Democratic Party broadsheet, read a couple articles/histories of the neoconservatives, and see if you can refute what I (or Michael Lind) wrote.

Hagee's not mine, smart guy. I have spoken against, financially supported people who spoke against, and voted for people who spoke/voted against nutters like this. You, Dem charlatan, have not, and would never do the same against so-called reps of Your movement, like O-bomb-O or "bomb Iran" Hillary.

[Ralphdraw3]

I have spoken against, financially supported people who spoke against, a

@@@@

How about Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Dr. Dobson, Rod Parsley??? not to mention Jack Abramoff...

Face it, your party sucks big-time... you and Doc Paul are on the Republican Titanic trying to make a 90degree turn LOL

And you voted for Dumbya Bush in 2000 and 2004, right!!!

[ralphosize]

Wrong again. I voted Buchanan in 2000 and didn't vote in 2004.

You evidently choose to ignore everything that I wrote in the previous comments by suggesting I would have voted for either faction of the War Party in 04.

And this past election I voted for Chuck Baldwin. Surprise, he's a "tradionalist Xtian" (even a Baptist minister!), and he has stood against Iraq from day one -- unlike the power blocs in your lousy Dem leadership.

[Ralphdraw3]

Wrong again. I voted Buchanan in 2000 and didn't vote in 2004.

@@@

O.K. so you lost in 2000 with Buchanon; who did you vote for in the general (not Dumbya)?

And you didn't do schitt in 2004? sort of like Paul - you just sat on your hands.

Now, in 2008, you have lost again... with Ron Paul...

You are 0 for 3 in the last 3 presidential elections.. not a good record..

[ralphosize]

Buchanan 2000, Reform Party, general election.

What, listen to the Hollywood dips and movement partizans like yourself and vote Kerry? Iraq War supporting Kerry? A man who said Saddam was a dangerous tyrant that needed to be removed? As I thought I had made clear in this interminable thread, I vote on principle, not for the lesser of evils. Most Americans have been 0 for all elections because the monopoly parties only churn our garbage candidates. It's nothing more than a wrestling match..

[ralphosize]

...a paradigm you evidently want to continue with crappy old movement-identity politics. Hey, looks like Hillary's going to be O-bomb-O's SECSTATE. Isn't that wonderful. Ms. "Annihilate Iran" herself.

Here's Albert Gore back in the early 90s, criticizing Bush Elder for not doing ENOUGH about Saddam's WMD pursuit and "ties to terrorists" (huh? terrorists operating against the US? -- or our "indispensable Mideast allies?)

watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

[Ralphdraw3]

And this past election I voted for Chuck Baldwin. Surprise, he's a "tradionalist Xtian"

@@@@@@@@

BTW voting for Chuck Baldwin is even a bigger waste of time than voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primary.

It would be like me voting for Ralph Nader... what a waste; and the Christian Wingnuts that run your party - Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Dr. James Dobson, Gary Bauer etc...

your party is a stinking, staggering mass of flaming agony..

[ralphosize]

So, I guess O-bomb-O should have gotten the vote? I actually loosely considered it in lieu of Mccain (a nut on foreign policy, and big govt liberal domestically) until he groveled before AIPAC and selected Bomb and Balkans Iraq War supporter Joe Biden to be VP. Yes, I was willing to overlook O's kind words for marx, hitory as a race hustler, community organizing shakedown artist, and recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse and vote for him solely because he'd been against Iraq--but then

[ralphosize]

he, like I kind of figured he would, disappointed me. Got to keep the Money Masters like Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Peretz happy, after all.

[Ralphdraw3]

If you are disappointed in O, You better start planning for 2012 -

you got - Sarah Palin

Bobby Jindahl

Newt Gingrich is still hanging around etc..

(RP is getting long in the tooth and seems to have absolutely no support within the Republican party - besides his wimp problem)

[ralphosize]

The only wimp (or, let's say, unprincipled scumbag) is somebody who runs on an antiwar ticket and then appoints nothing but bloothirsty war supporters to his administration. Somebody who purports to be for civil liberties but then votes to reauthorize Patriot. Somebody who tries to strike a populist note with the electorate but then accepts as his biggest donors the Federal Reserve supported Wall Street cabal that caused, in concert with Fannie and Freddie, most of this mess.

[ralphosize]

And, of course, votes for the Wall Street bailout.

I vote my principles and conscience, and if neither of the monopoly parties offers a suitable candidate, I go third party or stay home. You, obviously, couldn't care less about voting on principle.

[Ralphdraw3]

if neither of the monopoly parties offers a suitable

@@@@@

So you disagree with Ron Paul - he is a member of the REPUBLICAN party...

poor RP.... duped by the Neo Cons

[Ralphdraw3]

their modern day torch carriers (Kristol, Frum, Krauthammer, et al), have nothign in common with GOP base social conservatives.

@@@

REALLY???

HOW ON EARTH DID THEY ALL END UP IN TOP LEADERSHIP POSITIONS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY??

BTW - don't look now, but Bill Kristol was just MCing the Republican governors national conference today. and guess who spoke - good ole Sarah Palin..

your party is so screwed and so screwed up...

[ralphosize]

HOW ON EARTH...

*

Money talks. Who owns the papers, the TV stations, etc? Who owns National Review, The Weekly Standard, or other Fake Conservative, Israel-first publications? They have succeeded in convincing a large number of base GOPers (like the New Republic has convinced a large number in the Dem base), that America and Israel are indistinguishable, and that the Arabs over there hate us just because, and the best thing to do is either starve 'em (blockade, etc) or kill 'em.

[Ralphdraw3]

I thought the MS media was liberal... controlled by elite liberals... socialists like the New York Times..etc..

BTW how many REPUBLICAN Senators voted against the authorization of force???

ZERO, I believe - your party SUXS;

When your party was in the majority in the Congress, did they do ANY investigation of Bush and Cheney

ZERO, nada - your party is a bunch of incompetent sheep..

[Ralphdraw3]

Money talks. Who owns the papers, the TV stations, etc? Who owns National Review,

@@@@

WHAT IS WRONG WITH MONEY TALKING?? money is good!!!, greed is good!!!; the free market... free speech... etc..etc.. If you are rich, you deserve to have a big huge megaphone to spread your speech while the rest of us, lowly and poor, mess around with You Tube videos etc..etc..

[ralphosize]

Money is good if you can make it without using a taxpayer-subsidized central bank to provide you excessive leverage, and sorrowful, "diversity-promoting", Barney- Frank-boyfriend-inhabiting GSEs to take away the standard risks of lending by promising that the Big Ole Govt will come in and buy any old mortgage you make, regardless of the creditworthiness of the borrower. The less creditworthy the better! And if you DON'T give that poor man the mtg to buy that $500K house, we'll call you a racist.

[Ralphdraw3]

Why didn't all those antiwar Democrats leave that party when a majority of Party Elders voted for/spoke for/defended the obvious lie

@@@@

Senators Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller both left the Democratic party!!! Because the party was NOT WAR-MONGERING ENOUGH.

Voting against the authorization of force:

Pelosi

Kucinich

Conyers

Waxman

Dingell

Re: RPaul's deception - he claims to defend the constitution then refuses to support impeachment of Bush/Cheney for violating the constitution - RP Bullschit

[Ralphdraw3]

If the war is illegal, that means Bush -- or his proxies -- lied.

@@@@@

Then why does Ron Paul sit on his ass during the entire political season of 2004??? If there is a reckless liar in the White House - member of his own party in fact.

Why no articles of impeachment from Mr. Paul? Why no co-sponsoring by Paul of Kucinich's bills of impeachment?

[bochap21]

"far smaller risk for ultimate lender"

Now I'm confuse. Are you talking about the lender (the banks) or the borrower (the people who lose their homes) ? The Fed prints new money EVERYTIME the borrower (people who borrow money to buy something) borrows from the Bank.

[Ralphdraw3]

I am talking about the banks and the financial institutions:

Banks and lenders SHOULD ALWAYS be careful when lending large amounts of money - regardless of the money supply or Fed policy.

in the present situation, NOBODY WAS CAREFUL - NEITHER THE LENDERS, THE RATING AGENCIES, THE "BUNDLERS" ETC..

[bochap21]

"SHOULD ALWAYS be careful when lending large amounts of money"

Why should they when they are not loaning out money in the bank but money printed out of nothing by the Feds. Please read up about fractional reserve banking. Banks are not loaning out money from depositers, saver or investors, they are loaning out money created out of nothing.

If you had a printing machine to print money for giving out loans, why would you be careful when lending out large amounts of money?

[CANTvoteHillary]

If the US currency were "created out of nothing" there would be massive inflation - especially for imported goods.

Inflation has not occurred. How do the RP geniuses explain this lack of inflation for ALL GOODS (not just housing)...

[bochap21]

US is not the only currency that is "created out of nothing". There is massive inflation and deflation with the Fed. Look at the housing prices, crude oil prices, gas prices. The value of those goods didn't change but their prices fluctuate so rapidly these days because the value of the dollar fluctuate rapidly.

[Ralphdraw3]

Gas prices have been going up due to:

1) wars in the Middle East

2) increasing world wide demand for oil (from China and India, most notably)

get a clue.. you still can get lots of cheap junk at Walmart... no inflation there.

[bochap21]

Yes, the price of gas has been increasing partly because of demand and supply but the main mediator of the rapid price fluctuation is due the consequence of a flexible currency. If you normalize the price of gas to the price of gold or silver (stable currency) you find that there is only a slight increase in the price of gas.

As for cheap junk at Walmart, it wasn't as cheap as before. Inflation measures the relative increase in price, not whether things are cheap or not.

[Ralphdraw3]

Give your ideas to the Saudis - they are looking for a stable currency to price their oil by. Perhaps the Saudis are watching You Tube and will pick your idea up...

BTW Another reason the price of oil and gasoline has been going up in the US. US production of oil has been declining; forcing the US to import more oil.

[bochap21]

Not my idea. Its in the constitution.

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Sad, somehow the constitution doesn't mean anything anymore.

[Ralphdraw3]

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;

@@@@@

ART. 1, SECTION 10, are powers prohibitted by Congress to the individual states. NO INDIVIDUAL STATE can enter into a treaty with a foreign country, no individual state can coin money EXCEPT gold and silver coin in payment of debts etc...

[bochap21]

Insist only gold and silver. The founders knew the evils that a fiat currency will bring.

[cclodfe]

The fed sets the interest rates that banks borrow money. Interest rates should be naturally low during times of excessive consumer saving (because lendable money is abundant) and naturally high when high net volumes of consumer credit are extended (because lendable money is scarce). If the fed lends money to banks at a 1% interest rate they are giving away free money. Banks in turn will loosen their credit requirements due to the availability of cheap money. There is no transparency of the Fed.

[tito45]

Ron Paul wants to bring all troops home from all foreign nations. This would significantly reduce spending. Gold standard is logical and puts real value to a currency.

[Ralphdraw3]

why not silver or copper???

or diamonds?

[bochap21]

diamonds have no real value. Also, you cannot split a diamond into smaller parts where the value of each part is a fraction of the whole. Copper is just too abundant to be used as money.

[bochap21]

Another reason to go with gold or silver is because the US constitution says that only gold or silver should be legal tender. Ron Paul is probably the only politician so far that respects the constitution.

[ewigkase1]

wont to know who started paper currency? it was someone who worked on the constitution. give up yet?

his name was Benjamin Franklin.

but that guy knows nothing about the constitution right.

[Ralphdraw3]

and eliminate Social Security? yes or no...

[bochap21]

Yes. Get rid of social security. He said so in his multitude of speeches.

[Ralphdraw3]

"said so" in speeches???

Ron Paul has been in Congress for almost 2 decades. What has he been doing all this time regarding S.S.?