Paul builds campaign on doomsday scenarios

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,037
27,614
898
Seattle
#1
Blame Reuters for the headline, I am merely the messenger.

Paul builds campaign on doomsday scenarios

WASHINGTON, Iowa (Reuters) - The man who might win the Republican Party's first presidential nominating contest fears that the United Nations may take control of the U.S. money supply.
Campaigning for the January 3 Iowa caucuses, Ron Paul warns of eroding civil liberties, a Soviet Union-style economic collapse and violence in the streets.
The Texas congressman, author of "End the Fed," also wants to eliminate the central banking system that underpins the world's largest economy.
"Not only would we audit the Federal Reserve, we may well curtail the Federal Reserve," Paul told a cheering crowd of more than 100 in this small Iowa city last week.
Paul, 76, is facing questions for racist writings that appeared under his name two decades ago, which he has disavowed as the work of "ghost writers."
But Paul's dark-horse presidential bid ultimately could founder, analysts and others say, because of increasing questions about how his unorthodox vision of government would work in the real world.
Republican rivals criticize his anti-war, isolationist approach to foreign policy as dangerously naive, and object to his plans to slash the Pentagon's budget and pull back U.S. troops from overseas.
Non-partisan analysts say his economic proposals - drastic spending cuts, elimination of the Federal Reserve and a return to the gold standard - would plunge the country back into recession.
"Paul appeals to people whose knowledge of major issues is superficial (and) he sees conspiracies where there are none," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group, an analysis firm. "If he does well in Iowa, which is likely, it will be an enormous embarrassment to the Republicans."
However, Paul's calls for a dramatically limited government and a hands-off foreign policy are resonating among voters who have grown deeply alienated from Washington after a decade of war and nearly five years of economic malaise.
"Obama got into office and I can't tell the difference between him and Bush," said Deanna Pitman, a homemaker from Bloomfield, Iowa, citing President Barack Obama's support for policies such as the Wall Street bailout and the war in Afghanistan that began under George W. Bush.
Polls show Paul jockeying for the lead in the Iowa caucuses, and political observers say his organization in the state is unmatched. His campaign stops draw hundreds of enthusiastic supporters, along with undecided voters who are giving him a look.
On the campaign trail, he reaches out to Tea Party supporters on the right and Occupy Wall Street supporters on the left.
Some potential supporters from the left have been put off by Paul's uncompromising support for the free market.
At a campaign stop in this small city of about 7,000, Paul told breast cancer survivor Danielle Lin that insurance companies should not be required to offer coverage to people who are already sick.
"It's sort of like me living on the Gulf Coast, not buying insurance until I see the hurricane," said Paul, whose Galveston-based district was devastated by a hurricane in 2008. "Insurance is supposed to measure risk."
The response left Lin in tears. While her insurance covered her treatment, she said, several of her friends were not so fortunate.
"I watched three friends die because they didn't have insurance," said Lin, a registered Democrat who is looking for a Republican candidate to support this time.
"Nobody can afford private insurance, nobody can. And they're dead."
APOCALYPTIC SCENARIOS
Paul can wax apocalyptic as he warns of the dangers of a diluted currency and a deeply indebted government. His doomsday scenarios often are incomplete, leaving listeners room to fill in the blanks.
He draws parallels between the current situation in the United States and that of the former Soviet Union, whose economy collapsed amid the union's breakup and civil unrest in 1991.
Paul acknowledges that his proposal to avoid that outcome - an immediate, $1 trillion spending cut that would slash the federal budget by more than one-third and eliminate the departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development - could have some unpleasant side effects.
"I'm afraid of violence coming," he told a crowd of more than 600 in Bettendorf, Iowa. "When you see what the government is preparing for, and the arrests and military law, and the demonstrations in the streets, some people aren't going to be convinced so easily that you don't owe them a living."
At the earlier stop in Washington, he said the Federal Reserve was poised to "bail out" the Euro zone, a move that he said ultimately would cause the United States to surrender control of its own currency to the United Nations.
"This monetary crisis is well known by the international bankers. They want the U.N. to come in and solve this problem," he said. "The dollar will probably eventually disintegrate and be taken over. But I don't want the U.N. issuing that currency."
Economists note that Paul's long-standing proposal to return the dollar to a gold standard would force the United States to relinquish control of its currency.
"We would still have monetary policy - it would be set by gold miners in South Africa and Uzbekistan, rather than bureaucrats in Washington," said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist with JPMorgan Chase.
"If you like what OPEC means for oil prices, you'd love what the gold standard would do to financial markets."
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-builds-campaign-doomsday-scenarios-161301486.html


If I didn't think this nutjob could get us all killed, I'd say throw him in office. It would be a hoot.
 

DJ Evel Ed

MayYourCumCrustedCocksBeConstantlyCoveredInCunt
Nov 30, 2003
2,601
75
613
Up your ass!
#2
eliminate the departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development
What about Homeland Security? How redundant is that dept? We have the FBI, CIA, & State Dept. Now they have to carbon copy Homeland Security on everything.

Hey if Obama didn't get us killed, nobody will. The guy has been emasculated by Congress & the Senate. Has he passed ANYTHING that will work? Jeeze.

It's either Ron Paul or the first Libertarian I see.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#3
If I didn't think this nutjob could get us all killed, I'd say throw him in office. It would be a hoot.
Exactly how would he "get us all killed"? By bringing the hundreds of thousands of troops home, instead of overseas? How many Americans have EVER been killed by someone IN Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, or Italy? Think about that question. Almost no one in the history of the United States has come over here and tried to kill us in our own country. You really think Iran has a chance in hell of coming over here and killing us?

Non-partisan analysts say his economic proposals - drastic spending cuts, elimination of the Federal Reserve and a return to the gold standard - would plunge the country back into recession.
I bet those same analysts said the stimulus would work too...

It's either Ron Paul or the first Libertarian I see.
Allegedly Gary Johnson will be running Libertarian. He is making a big announcement on Wednesday morning. Gary Johnson = younger Ron Paul - all the religious stuff - conspiracy nut followers + two terms as Governor + experience running a business.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,996
5,388
838
Wilmington, NC
#4
At a campaign stop in this small city of about 7,000, Paul told breast cancer survivor Danielle Lin that insurance companies should not be required to offer coverage to people who are already sick.
"It's sort of like me living on the Gulf Coast, not buying insurance until I see the hurricane," said Paul, whose Galveston-based district was devastated by a hurricane in 2008. "Insurance is supposed to measure risk."
The response left Lin in tears. While her insurance covered her treatment, she said, several of her friends were not so fortunate.
"I watched three friends die because they didn't have insurance," said Lin, a registered Democrat who is looking for a Republican candidate to support this time.


I consider myself more libertarian and I'd fully support a libertarian for POTUS. Just not Paul. As I've said, the guy is old...in fact, at 77, he'd be the oldest sitting President ever. So...this guy needs to at least be open now about who he'd tab as VP. And it needs to be a 1B kinda guy...he needs to be experienced and carry Paul's wacky views. The only person Paul has mentioned is Judge Andrew Napolitano. Not my idea of strong running mate. I've heard Paul fans talk about anyone from Rand Paul to Jesse Ventura to Kucinich to pastor Chuck Baldwin. I'm itchin to vote for anyone besides Obama...but any one of those VP picks, as it stands now, would not get me out to the polls to vote for Paul. That's not to say Ken-Doll Romney is going to drag me out to the polls any quicker...but at least I consider him more stable than Paul, even if it means voting for a lefty RINO.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,096
3,010
258
Sunnydale
#5
Exactly how would he "get us all killed"?
Because the current way the government has been doing things has kept us safe. Its kept us so safe that 3 thousand people died on 9/11 and now we have to lose our liberties because apparently we are in constant danger. The OP is clearly an idiot, the type that does the same thing over and over and expects a different result.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,037
27,614
898
Seattle
#6
. Almost no one in the history of the United States has come over here and tried to kill us in our own country.
Almost none...because we military stationed all over the world.
 
May 24, 2004
3,238
508
678
Queens, NY
#7
I can re-phrase a couple of the scenarios in that Reuters article into a news tease:

*The UN taking control of our money supply? Find out what one presidential candidate says the global body could do to your money.

*Arab Spring... American Winter? We'll tell you why some believe social unrest could be headed here and how much time you have to get ready.

My point is doomsday scenarios are everywhere and exploit people's fears constantly with great success. Every news tease on FOX "News" has some Doomsday feel to it. Drudge's headlines (especially on Iran) are all Domsdayish. My favorite financial blog Zero Hedge is a non-stop barrage of doomsday prediction. All these sites thrive on it.

So now a politician has decided to embrace the tactic. So what? It beats the phony rah-rah shit that we have now. Or the attack-the-opponent thing that got old 20 years ago.
 

OilyJillFart

Well-Lubed Member
Sep 26, 2008
2,877
1,141
433
#8
Non-partisan analysts say his economic proposals - drastic spending cuts, elimination of the Federal Reserve and a return to the gold standard - would plunge the country back into recession.
If he got himself into a position of power where he could actually touch the Federal Reserve he would find himself dead and being the new JFK-like conspiracy. Nobody is going to fuck with the worlds richest thugs.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#9
We would still have monetary policy - it would be set by gold miners in South Africa and Uzbekistan, rather than bureaucrats in Washington," said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist with JPMorgan Chase.
"If you like what OPEC means for oil prices, you'd love what the gold standard would do to financial markets."
Lies, lies, lies. Obvious liar obvious. That comparison is not an error in this guy's thinking. It is an intentional lie, and a clear item of propaganda against the gold standard.

OPEC's yearly oil output is over 200% of the global strategic oil reserves, government and private put together. (Opec's output is roughly 10 billion barrels, and there are 4.1 bill barrels in reserve, worldwide)

Now let's look at gold. There are an estimated 165.000 tons of gold in the world (the IMF alone holds 3000+ tons). South Africa produces a total of 1200 tons of gold a year (Uzbekistan produces a lot less, this guy just picked it because it sounds more dangerous to trust Uzbekistan with gold prices - China is in fact the largest producer, a little above South Africa). That means that South Africa produces less then 1% of total gold reserves, yearly.

In other words, South Africa could influence global gold prices to the extent OPEC could influence oil prices, if they only produced less than 0.5% of what they actually produce. China, South Africa and Uzbekistan together could influence gold prices to the extent Slovenia can today influence oil prices.

How much can Slovenia influence oil prices, you ask? None. That's how much. Everything this guy said is a lie. Cheap propaganda. Gold is stable, variations in production have very little effect on its price, because we don't actually use up gold, the way we do oil. We still have most of what was produced, throughout the centuries, so the extra production being done today doesn't affect the overall supply all that much.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,037
27,614
898
Seattle
#11
Almost none...because we military stationed all over the world.
That would have made more sense with the word "have" in there...but my point stands.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,323
37,387
628
In a porn tree
#12
The OP is clearly an idiot, the type that does the same thing over and over and expects a different result.
No... that's the definition of insanity not idiocy.

The definition of idiocy is listening to Alex Jones over and over and expecting sanity.
 

afternoonquil

Apology Ostrich
Apr 2, 2011
1,773
864
318
#13
I've seen the 8 hour long 3 part documentary on the back of the dollar bill.

It obvios Ron Paul is a disinformation psych war mole sent by the by the illuminati.

Sometimes I forget some of you aren't epiphanied into the enlightened few. One day the chickens will come home to roast, and you'll thank mr jones for the warnings.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#14
Almost none...because we military stationed all over the world.
Speaking before the senate appropriations committee’s sub-committee on military construction, veterans and related agencies early last year, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Dorothy Robyn referenced the Pentagon’s “507 permanent installations”. The Pentagon’s 2010 Base Structure Report, on the other hand, lists 4,999 total sites in the US, its territories, and overseas.
The United States has the largest defense budget in the world. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Defense has a base budget of $533.8 billion. An additional $130.0 billion was requested for "Overseas Contingency Operations" in the War on Terrorism, and over the course of the year, an additional $33 billion in supplemental spending was added to Overseas Contingency Operations funding.
That's $700 billion per year.

Jay Paxton, a spokesman for Canadian defense minister Peter MacKay told AFP. “This government and the Canadian Forces have no intention of creating large bases in overseas locations,” Paxton added.
Uh oh, Canada must be getting decimated by terrorists constantly...

Terrorism in Canada primarily consists of fundraising for terrorist attacks outside of the country
Huh?

The Constitution of Canada gives the federal government exclusive responsibility for national defence, and expenditures are thus outlined in the federal budget. For the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the amount allocated for defence spending was CAD$18.9 billion
Huh?
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,996
5,388
838
Wilmington, NC
#15
That's $700 billion per year.
Hey, I'm all for "strategically" scaling down our operations overseas and cutting foreign aid. It's got to be done to some degree. I, however, consider Paul's non-interventionism and neutrality about as misguided as Obama spending trillions in stimulus in order to spur economic prosperity for all. I just don't think other countries are capable of playing nice when the big, bad United States takes their ball and goes home. We saw in the 1930's after passage of 4 US Neutrality Acts under FDR and our territory WAS attacked by a foreign country (Japan) and one of our Neutrality Patrol ships was sunk by another foreign country (Germany). Am I saying World War 3 is going to break out once we pull out of all of these countries? No. But the United States is not immune to a regional conflict, or dare I say, a more global conflict going on somewhere in the world. Nor do I think a neutral US has the set of balls to squash a conflict if it escalates too far. You get Paul in there to pull troops/aid out of these countries, and the next liberal President comes in with some major foreign conflict going on that we have no intelligence on (because we're no longer installed there and haven;t been for years) and he wavers and wavers until it spirals out of control.

We've got the resources and infrastructure in these countries already. We need to clean house, no doubt. But the last thing we need to be doing right now is telling the Middle East, among other regions of the world, to fend for themselves and fight their own battles.

Uh oh, Canada must be getting decimated by terrorists constantly...

Huh?

Huh?
Canada is a terrible example. You are aware that Canada is about 1/10th the size of the United States...with nearly 80% of it's people living within 130 km from the US border, right? It's a large country, mind you...but it's a country buried in a nearly uninhabitable arctic tundra.

And why would Canada feel the need to install bases overseas when the stronger, larger country to the south has bases overseas and would likely do anything to defend them if they were attacked?
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#16
Canada is a terrible example. You are aware that Canada is about 1/10th the size of the United States...with nearly 80% of it's people living within 130 km from the US border, right? It's a large country, mind you...but it's a country buried in a nearly uninhabitable arctic tundra.

And why would Canada feel the need to install bases overseas when the stronger, larger country to the south has bases overseas and would likely do anything to defend them if they were attacked?
The reason that I sued Canada as an example is because someone asserted that the ONLY reason that we are not being attacked ON OUR OWN SOIL is because we have thousands of bases overseas. Now, Canada is a free, non-Muslim nation so it would stand to reason that since (allegedly) the only reason terrorists attack us is because they hate freedom, Canada should be feeling some of that hate. Canada also does not have thousands of military bases abroad, so there is another (alleged) reason that they should be getting attacked constantly.

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#17
The reason that I sued Canada as an example is because someone asserted that the ONLY reason that we are not being attacked ON OUR OWN SOIL is because we have thousands of bases overseas. Now, Canada is a free, non-Muslim nation so it would stand to reason that since (allegedly) the only reason terrorists attack us is because they hate freedom, Canada should be feeling some of that hate. Canada also does not have thousands of military bases abroad, so there is another (alleged) reason that they should be getting attacked constantly.

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.
That's all fine and dandy, except that the statement you were trying to disprove is that "the US isn't being attacked on its own soil because of all those bases".

"Canada should be getting attacked" is not a logical consequence of that statement. Canada and the US are not logically inter-changeable elements. When you switched them, without first proving that Canada and the US are in fact logically inter-changeable in this context, you erred against the rules of logic. Sorry, can't switch A and B midway through a proof. That would just be the silliest logic this side of DonTheTrucker's arguments in support of God.

That invalidates your argument. And you really shouldn't try to prove that Canada and the US are the same. That would just be silly, they're obviously very different, in relation to each other as well as the rest of the world. The US is clearly a protector of Canada, and the western world as a whole.

The proper way to argue against that statement would be to ask for a logical basis for it. While I think BIV is absolutely right in what he said, he didn't actually make the case for his statement, he just stated it. Or, since maybe BIV isn't here right now, to tell you all about how the Soviet Union was stopped from expanding across Europe and South Asia, and ultimately defeated, I would be happy to provide you with the historical facts that support his statement.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#18
That's all fine and dandy, except that the statement you were trying to disprove is that "the US isn't being attacked on its own soil because of all those bases".

"Canada should be getting attacked" is not a logical consequence of that statement. Canada and the US are not logically inter-changeable elements. When you switched them, without first proving that Canada and the US are in fact logically inter-changeable in this context, you erred against the rules of logic. Sorry, can't switch A and B midway through a proof. That would just be the silliest logic this side of DonTheTrucker's arguments in support of God.

That invalidates your argument. And you really shouldn't try to prove that Canada and the US are the same. That would just be silly, they're obviously very different, in relation to each other as well as the rest of the world. The US is clearly a protector of Canada, and the western world as a whole.

The proper way to argue against that statement would be to ask for a logical basis for it. While I think BIV is absolutely right in what he said, he didn't actually make the case for his statement, he just stated it. Or, since maybe BIV isn't here right now, to tell you all about how the Soviet Union was stopped from expanding across Europe and South Asia, and ultimately defeated, I would be happy to provide you with the historical facts that support his statement.
Thank you for the expalnation, however you have erred in your logic. I used the often spouted premise that the reason terrorists hate us is that we are free and that we are a non-Islamic nation. In both respects we and Canada ARE the same. Arguing from that premise (that we are the same in the aspects that allegedly enrage terrorists), it follows that we should be equally hated since we are roughly equally free and equally non-Islamic. If that premise is true, then Canada should need tons of bases to protect themselves from people thousands of miles away too.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#19
-
And why would Canada feel the need to install bases overseas when the stronger, larger country to the south has bases overseas and would likely do anything to defend them if they were attacked?
Not likely. Certainly. Canada is a member of NATO. We have a binding agreement to go to war for them. We almost ended the world once based on that treaty, and it wasn't to defend an entire NATO country right on our border, it was to defend half a city on the other side of the globe (West Berlin, 1961).
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#20
Thank you for the expalnation, however you have erred in your logic. I used the often spouted premise that the reason terrorists hate us is that we are free and that we are a non-Islamic nation. In both respects we and Canada ARE the same. Arguing from that premise (that we are the same in the aspects that allegedly enrage terrorists), it follows that we should be equally hated since we are roughly equally free and equally non-Islamic. If that premise is true, then Canada should need tons of bases to protect themselves from people thousands of miles away too.
Your last inference is once again incorrect. You're switching the US and Canada, without proving that the US is Canada.

Remember, it's not enough to prove that they are similar. You must prove that they are identical, in every relevant way. Otherwise any logical conclusions based on the premise that (the US is Canada), which you are clearly relying on, is illogical.

Begbie mentioned a relevant way in which the US and Canada are not identical. Address it, or get off the logical high horse. You're wrong, in a way that can be demonstrated using nothing but formal logic.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,996
5,388
838
Wilmington, NC
#21
The reason that I sued Canada as an example is because someone asserted that the ONLY reason that we are not being attacked ON OUR OWN SOIL is because we have thousands of bases overseas. Now, Canada is a free, non-Muslim nation so it would stand to reason that since (allegedly) the only reason terrorists attack us is because they hate freedom, Canada should be feeling some of that hate. Canada also does not have thousands of military bases abroad, so there is another (alleged) reason that they should be getting attacked constantly.
Yet you also compared dollar amounts in both countries' defense budgets. $700B a year to have military bases in every corner of the globe with no attacks ON OUR OWN SOIL and pointed out that the Canadian's only spend $18.9B in defense with no military presence on foreign soil and have faced no attacks ON THEIR OWN SOIL.

Historically, neutrality rarely has ever worked out for the United States. Even dating back to the late 1700's/early 1800's when we were declared neutral during the war between Britain and France and the British started seizing our ships and attacked the Chesapeake. Fast forward nearly 100 years to President Wilson's Neutrality Act of 1914...we wanted no part in the European conflict. We didn't take sides. Even after Germans sank the Lusitania in 1915, we stayed out. Even after the Germans threatened to sink any non-German vessel in the Atlantic..the US gov't stayed the fuck out. And what did we get for 3 years of neutrality? The Germans offered to help Mexico take back Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona in exchange for Mexico's allegiance.

Then came the 4 separate Neutrality Acts during the 30's. In fact, it was partly our neutrality THAT CAUSED Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. How so? The Neutrality Acts FDR passed put an embargo on all shipments of "war" goods and resources to other countries. We didn't want to appear as if we were aiding one side or the other. That's the big "benefit" of being neutral. We halted all shipments of gas, iron, and machinery parts to Japan, who we already had strained relations with. We however, didn't ban shipments of oil to Japan. Japan was heavily dependent on our oil and it was felt that, had we stopped shipping oil there, the Japanese would see that as a provocation. And, us being a neutral country and all, we didn't want that. But, we stopped shipping just about everything that Japan could use for war, and that alone, pissed off the Japs. They thought we cut off supplies because we would interfere with their plans to take Southeast Asia. So they attacked us and tried to knock out our Pacific Fleet.

I can't explain why we just can't be left alone, regardless of whether or not we're engaged in foreign affairs or not. We are a powerful country, with tremendous assets. And even if Paul pulls us out of foreign lands, and focuses on building a more powerful military here in the US...we're still going to be perceived as a threat, as the Japanese thought in the 1940's. There's just no proof that isolationism can work for our country, and in fact, there's evidence we're not the least bit safer. But I guess that's what insanity is...the type that does the same thing over and over and expects a different result. :icon_cool
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,996
5,388
838
Wilmington, NC
#22
-
Not likely. Certainly. Canada is a member of NATO. We have a binding agreement to go to war for them. We almost ended the world once based on that treaty, and it wasn't to defend an entire NATO country right on our border, it was to defend half a city on the other side of the globe (West Berlin, 1961).
Yeah, "certainly" or "absolutely" would be more fitting. We'd treat an attack on Canada as if it were an attack on the United States. And rightfully so.