Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[whodare]

Im 'reaching' back less than 100 years with the Czar.

Ron Paul's central tenant of his campaign is financial reform, something those two desperate needed.



Ron Paul offers financial reform like the Czar did in 1905. Its not going to fix problems, its only going to make them worse.
-

lol your comparing apples to oranges..

russia was a monarchy

america is a republic..

huge difference

thing is you and disco are arguing for more state intervention

problem with that is wether its a democratic(mob elected) oligarchy or a monarch doesn't matter...

the problem is centralization of power, which is exactly the opposite of Dr. Paul's platform and policies...

 

[bentom187]

The mystery of banking :Murray n Rothbard
The mystery of banking: http://library.mises.org/books/Murray N Rothbard/Mystery of Banking.pdf

The supply of money IV
for reference PPM= purchasing power of the dollar
M= monetary supply
D= demand

To understand chronic inflation and, in general, to learn
what determines prices and why they change, we must now
focus on the behavior of the two basic causal factors: the
supply of and the demand for money.
The supply of money is the total number of currency units in
the economy. Originally, when each currency unit was defined
strictly as a certain weight of gold or silver, the name and the
weight were simply interchangeable. Thus, if there are $100 billion
in the economy, and the dollar is defined as 1/20 of a gold
ounce, then M can be equally considered to be $100 billion or 5
billion gold ounces. As monetary standards became lightened and
debased by governments, however, the money supply increased as
the same number of gold ounces were represented by an increased
supply of francs, marks, or dollars.
Debasement was a relatively slow process. Kings could not
easily have explained continuous changes in their solemnly
defined standards. Traditionally, a new king ordered a recoinage
with his own likeness stamped on the coins and, in the process,
often redefined the unit so as to divert some much needed revenue
into his own coffers. But this variety of increased money
supply did not usually occur more than once in a generation.
Since paper currency did not yet exist, kings had to be content
with debasement and its hidden taxation of their subjects.
1. WHAT SHOULD THE SUPPLY OF MONEY BE?
What should the supply of money be? What is the “optimal”
supply of money? Should M increase, decrease, or remain constant,
and why?
This may strike you as a curious question, even though economists
discuss it all the time. After all, economists would never
ask the question: What should the supply of biscuits, or shoes, or
titanium, be? On the free market, businessmen invest in and produce
supplies in whatever ways they can best satisfy the demands
of the consumers. All products and resources are scarce, and no
outsider, including economists, can know a priori what products
should be worked on by the scarce labor, savings, and energy in
society. All this is best left to the profit-and-loss motive of earning
money and avoiding losses in the service of consumers. So if
economists are willing to leave the “problem” of the “optimal
supply of shoes” to the free market, why not do the same for the
optimal supply of money?
In a sense, this might answer the question and dispose of the
entire argument. But it is true that money is different. For while
money, as we have seen, was an indispensable discovery of civilization,
it does not in the least follow that the more money the
better.
Consider the following: Apart from questions of distribution,
an increase of consumer goods, or of productive resources, clearly
confers a net social benefit. For consumer goods are consumed,
used up, in the process of consumption, while capital and natural
resources are used up in the process of production. Overall, then,
the more consumer goods or capital goods or natural resources
the better.
But money is uniquely different. For money is never used up,
in consumption or production, despite the fact that it is indispensable
to the production and exchange of goods. Money is simply
transferred from one person’s assets to another.1 Unlike consumer
or capital goods, we cannot say that the more money in circulation
the better. In fact, since money only performs an
exchange function, we can assert with the Ricardians and with
Ludwig von Mises that any supply of money will be equally optimal
with any other.2 In short, it doesn’t matter what the money
supply may be; every M will be just as good as any other for performing
its cash balance exchange function.
Let us hark back to Figure 3.4. We saw that, with an M equal
to $100 billion, the price level adjusted itself to the height 0A.
What happens when $50 billion of new money is injected into the
economy? After all the adjustments are made, we find that prices
have risen (or PPM fallen) to 0B. In short, although more consumer
goods or capital goods will increase the general standard of
living, all that an increase in M accomplishes is to dilute the purchasing
power of each dollar. One hundred fifty billion dollars is
no better at performing monetary functions than $100 billion. No
overall social benefit has been accomplished by increasing the
money supply by $50 billion; all that has happened is the dilution
of the purchasing power of each of the $100 billion. The increase
of the money supply was socially useless; any M is as good at performing
monetary functions as any other.3
To show why an increase in the money supply confers no
social benefits, let us picture to ourselves what I call the “Angel
Gabriel” model.4 The Angel Gabriel is a benevolent spirit who
wishes only the best for mankind, but unfortunately knows nothing
about economics. He hears mankind constantly complaining
about a lack of money, so he decides to intervene and do something
about it. And so overnight, while all of us are sleeping, the
Angel Gabriel descends and magically doubles everyone’s stock of
money. In the morning, when we all wake up, we find that the
amount of money we had in our wallets, purses, safes, and bank
accounts has doubled.
What will be the reaction? Everyone knows it will be instant
hoopla and joyous bewilderment. Every person will consider that
he is now twice as well off, since his money stock has doubled. In
terms of our Figure 3.4, everyone’s cash balance, and therefore
total M, has doubled to $200 billion. Everyone rushes out to
spend their new surplus cash balances. But, as they rush to spend
the money, all that happens is that demand curves for all goods
and services rise. Society is no better off than before, since real
resources, labor, capital, goods, natural resources, productivity,
have not changed at all. And so prices will, overall, approximately
double, and people will find that they are not really any better off
than they were before. Their cash balances have doubled, but so
have prices, and so their purchasing power remains the same.
Because he knew no economics, the Angel Gabriel’s gift to
mankind has turned to ashes.
But let us note something important for our later analysis of
the real world processes of inflation and monetary expansion. It
is not true that no one is better off from the Angel Gabriel’s doubling
of the supply of money. Those lucky folks who rushed out
the next morning, just as the stores were opening, managed to
spend their increased cash before prices had a chance to rise; they
certainly benefited. Those people, on the other hand, who
decided to wait a few days or weeks before they spent their
money, lost by the deal, for they found that their buying prices
rose before they had the chance to spend the increased amounts
of money. In short, society did not gain overall, but the early
spenders benefited at the expense of the late spenders. The profligate
gained at the expense of the cautious and thrifty: another
joke at the expense of the good Angel.5
The fact that every supply of M is equally optimal has some
startling implications. First, it means that no one—whether government
official or economist—need concern himself with the
money supply or worry about its optimal amount. Like shoes,
butter, or hi-fi sets, the supply of money can readily be left to the
marketplace. There is no need to have the government as an
allegedly benevolent uncle, standing ready to pump in more
money for allegedly beneficial economic purposes. The market is
perfectly able to decide on its own money supply.
But isn’t it necessary, one might ask, to make sure that more
money is supplied in order to “keep up” with population growth?
Bluntly, the answer is No. There is no need to provide every citizen
with some per capita quota of money, at birth or at any other
time. If M remains the same, and population increases, then presumably
this would increase the demand for cash balances, and
the increased D would, as we have seen in Figure 3.6, simply lead
to a new equilibrium of lower prices, where the existing M could
satisfy the increased demand because real cash balances would be
higher. Falling prices would respond to increased demand and
thereby keep the monetary functions of the cash balanceexchange
at its optimum. There is no need for government to
intervene in money and prices because of changing population or
for any other reason. The “problem” of the proper supply of
money is not a problem at all.
2. THE SUPPLY OF GOLD AND THE COUNTERFEITING PROCESS
Under a gold standard, where the supply of money is the total
weight of available gold coin or bullion, there is only one way to
increase the supply of money: digging gold out of the ground. An
individual, of course, who is not a gold miner can only acquire
more gold by buying it on the market in exchange for a good or
service; but that would simply shift existing gold from seller to
buyer.
How much gold will be mined at any time will be a market
choice determined as in the case of any other product: by estimating
the expected profit. That profit will depend on the monetary
value of the product compared to its cost. Since gold is money, how
much will be mined will depend on its cost of production, which in
turn will be partly determined by the general level of prices. If overall
prices rise, costs of gold mining will rise as well, and the production
of gold will decline or perhaps disappear altogether. If, on the
other hand, the price level falls, the consequent drop in costs will
make gold mining more profitable and increase supply.
It might be objected that even a small annual increase in gold
production is an example of free market failure. For if any M is
as good as any other, isn’t it wasteful and even inflationary for the
market to produce gold, however small the quantity?
But this charge ignores a crucial point about gold (or any
other money-commodity). While any increase in gold is indeed
useless from a monetary point of view, it will confer a nonmonetary
social benefit. For an increase in the supply of gold or silver
will raise its supply, and lower its price, for consumption or industrial
uses, and in that sense will confer a net benefit to society.
There is, however, another way to obtain money than by buying
or mining it: counterfeiting. The counterfeiter mints or produces
an inferior object, say brass or plastic, which he tries to
palm off as gold.6 That is a cheap, though fraudulent and illegal
way of producing “gold” without having to mine it out of the
earth.
Counterfeiting is of course fraud. When the counterfeiter
mints brass coins and passes them off as gold, he cheats the seller
of whatever goods he purchases with the brass. And every subsequent
buyer and holder of the brass is cheated in turn. But it will
be instructive to examine the precise process of the fraud, and see
how not only the purchasers of the brass but everyone else is
defrauded and loses by the counterfeit.
Let us compare and contrast the motives and actions of our
counterfeiter with those of our good Angel Gabriel. For the Angel
was also a counterfeiter, creating money out of thin air, but since
his motives were the purest, he showered his misconceived largess
equally (or equi-proportionately) on one and all. But our realworld
counterfeiter is all too different. His motives are the
reverse of altruistic, and he is not worried about overall social
benefits.
The counterfeiter produces his new coins, and spends them
on various goods and services. A New Yorker cartoon of many
years ago highlighted the process very well. A group of counterfeiters
are eagerly surrounding a printing press in their basement
when the first $10 bill comes off the press. One counterfeiter says
to his colleagues: “Boy, retail spending in the neighborhood is
sure in for a shot in the arm.” As indeed it was.
Let us assume that the counterfeiting process is so good that
it goes undetected, and the cheaper coins pass easily as gold.
What happens? The money supply in terms of dollars has gone
up, and therefore the price level will rise. The value of each existing
dollar has been diluted by the new dollars, thereby diminishing
the purchasing power of each old dollar. So we see right away
that the inflation process—which is what counterfeiting is—
injures all the legitimate, existing dollar-holders by having their
purchasing power diluted. In short, counterfeiting defrauds and
injures not only the specific holders of the new coins but all holders
of old dollars—meaning, everyone else in society.
But this is not all: for the fall in PPM does not take place overall
and all at once, as it tends to do in the Angel Gabriel model.
The money supply is not benevolently but foolishly showered on
all alike. On the contrary, the new money is injected at a specific
point in the economy and then ripples through the economy in a
step-by-step process.
Let us see how the process works. Roscoe, a counterfeiter,
produces $10,000 of fake gold coins, worth only a fraction of
that amount, but impossible to detect. He spends the $10,000 on
a Chevrolet. The new money was first added to Roscoe’s money
stock, and then was transferred to the Chevy dealer. The dealer
then takes the money and hires an assistant, the new money stock
now being transferred from the dealer to the assistant. The assistant
buys household appliances and furniture, thereby transferring
the new money to those sellers, and so forth. In this way, new
money ripples through the economy, raising demand curves as it
goes, and thereby raising individual prices. If there is a vast counterfeiting
operation in Brooklyn, then the money supply in
Brooklyn will rise first, raising demand curves and prices for the
products there. Then, as the money ripples outward, other money
stocks, demand curves, and prices will rise.
Thus, in contrast to the Angel Gabriel, there is no single overall
expansion of money, and hence no uniform monetary and
price inflation. Instead, as we saw in the case of the early
spenders, those who get the money early in this ripple process
benefit at the expense of those who get it late or not at all. The
first producers or holders of the new money will find their stock
increasing before very many of their buying prices have risen. But,
as we go down the list, and more and more prices rise, the people
who get the money at the end of the process find that they
lose from the inflation. Their buying prices have all risen before
their own incomes have had a chance to benefit from the new
money. And some people will never get the new money at all:
either because the ripple stopped, or because they have fixed
incomes—from salaries or bond yields, or as pensioners or holders
of annuities.
Counterfeiting, and the resulting inflation, is therefore a
process by which some people—the early holders of the new
money—benefit at the expense of (i.e., they expropriate) the late
receivers. The first, earliest and largest net gainers are, of course,
the counterfeiters themselves.
Thus, we see that when new money comes into the economy
as counterfeiting, it is a method of fraudulent gain at the expense
of the rest of society and especially of relatively fixed income
groups. Inflation is a process of subtle expropriation, where the
victims understand that prices have gone up but not why this has
happened. And the inflation of counterfeiting does not even confer
the benefit of adding to the nonmonetary uses of the money
commodity.
Government is supposed to apprehend counterfeiters and
duly break up and punish their operations. But what if government
itself turns counterfeiter? In that case, there is no hope of
combating this activity by inventing superior detection devices.
The difficulty is far greater than that.
The governmental counterfeiting process did not really hit its
stride until the invention of paper money.

 

[oldbluedog]

Sadly, Dr. Paul is once again cast aside for the more "groomable" candidates.

 

[bentom187]

^ yup sold out venu's wherever he goes, the meadia trying their best to ignore this in MI [YOUTUBEIF]mZp5ZgO1JAc[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[draztik]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/iran-...nces-will-accept-payment-gold-instead-dollars
Iran Moves Further To End Petrodollar, Announces Will Accept Payment In Gold Instead Of Dollars

Much has been spun in recent weeks to indicate that as a result of collapsing trade, Iran's economy is in shambles and that the financial embargo hoisted upon the country by the insolvent, pardon, developed world is working. We had a totally different perspective on things "A Very Different Take On The "Iran Barters Gold For Food" Story" in which we essentially said that Iran, with the complicity of major trading partners like China, India and Russia is preparing to phase out the petrodollar: a move which would be impossible if key bilateral trade partners would not agree to it. Gradually it appears this is increasingly the case following a just released Reuters report that "Iran will take payment from its trading partners in gold instead of dollars, the Iranian state news agency IRNA quoted the central bank governor as saying on Tuesday."

 

[draztik]

Those hung up on the hyper inflation theory, what happens when everyone stops accepting the dollar for trade and wants gold? That's a lot of dollars and they all have to go somewhere.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

wheres the obfuscation?

wheres the sophism?

your whole argument rests on a serious misconception and
hypothetical problems...



Dr Paul likes the gold standard but it you look at the bill he has introduced it has nothing to do with the gold standard.

its all about monopoly and the fed controlling all the "legal" currency.

here read up


http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/co...ound-money-by-legalizing-competing-currencies




ill admit the dollar collapsing during the hearing is a bit sensationalist but the last sentence rings true.









to address the hypothetical problem, particularly gold reserve/gdp ratio and the limit to the amount of gold available...


your splitting hairs(like what i did there )

your focus is only on gold when in reality silver, platinum, copper, nickel, palladium, ivory, diamonds, rice, corn, oil, etc etc could be used to back multiple different currencies under this bill, with technology today it certainly is possible...






lol yea legislation, after a few years of squabbling, should hold spending back.

does it?

come on DB you cant seriously be telling me that a vicious out of control pit bull(fed gov) can really be trusted to walk it self safely down the street...


there is a reason the founders wanted a republic(rule by law)

and again heres too more arguments against federal monopoly on currency creation.












And lastly from a very wise man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

Let's get past the pitch and on with the models that reflect the same obstacles we endured, then reformed. Then, let's hear whether Ron's tweaks might mitigate these obstacles we're not only familiar with, we understand the causes and effects.

Or, let's hear whether Ron eschews tweaks and prefers to ride whatever storms his regressive policies brew.

Not as easy as it sounds. The man purported to be unwavering in his ideology appears to meander on fundamental planks like "gold standard" and "end the fed". Not unlike a man who's put little thought beyond the stump, has to get attention so he inserts gloom and doom, then moderates when asked, "are you fucking kidding me?"

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

20 presidential debates - worthless

39 debate attacks -

0 debate attacks against Romney - priceless.

In 2008, 19 of 25 Ron Paul delegates defected. This time, there's a new plan. Ron Paul will deliver his delegates to one candidate, the candidate of choice.

This is what pundits have speculated for months. Up to now, we've heard visions of staunch Paul supporters demanding their candidate be heard at the Republican convention. Now it's starting to look like Ron Paul won't demand a showdown between the platform and the planks.

He'll just hand delegates over to Romney on the handshake that Romney won't ignore Ron's issues in Mitt's policies. Should Mitt lose MI, a late entry could spoil the mother of all flip flops.

Best wishes and don't say this wasn't predicted.

 

[SwampNug]

Hate to break it to you guys, but every president has to work within the confines of congress. Currently it is over half filled with idiots who refuse to work, and Ron Paul belongs to this party. He will simply hand his delegates to romney. Get your heads out of your ass and vote democrat-theyre the only ones with the balls to support legalization efforts. Lets give Obama the house and senate so he can get the job done. The positive sides to his presidency have been pushed aside by the media and republicans. Do your homework and stop believing in false candidates. Romney was picked 4 years ago to be the nominee and that is that.

 

[bentom187]

http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-02-08/ron-paul-winning-the-battle-for-delegates/

The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign released the following statement regarding the results of yesterday’s election results. See comments below from Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Manager John Tate.

“We are thrilled with the yesterday’s results. Our campaign to Restore America continues to gain ground, and we are poised to pick up even more delegates from Minnesota and Colorado adding to our delegates in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

“As people across the country view the results of yesterday’s contests, it is important to consider a few facts that have not been clearly reported. Not one single delegate was awarded yesterday, instead the caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado were the very first step in the delegate selection process. And there are still over 40 states left to go. The Ron Paul campaign plans to continue to vie for delegates nationwide.

“There are a few significant takeaways from yesterday’s contests to remember:

1) The Missouri primary means nothing. It was a non-binding beauty contest, and the contest that matters in the ‘show me’ state won’t take place for another month. The Ron Paul campaign is well positioned to win delegates in Missouri’s caucus a month from now.

2) As in Iowa where not 1 of the 28 delegates has been awarded yet, in Colorado and Nevada the Paul campaign will do very well in the state delegate counts. We will have good numbers among the actual delegates awarded, far exceeding our straw poll numbers.

3) In Minnesota where we have finished a solid second, we also have a strong majority of the state convention delegates, and the process to elect delegates has also just begun, the Paul campaign is well-organized to win the bulk of delegates there.

“We are confident in gaining a much larger share of delegates than even our impressive showing yesterday indicates. As an example of our campaign’s delegate strength, take a look at what has occurred in Colorado:

In one precinct in Larimer County, the straw poll vote was 23 for Santorum, 13 for Paul, 5 for Romney, 2 for Gingrich. There were 13 delegate slots, and Ron Paul got ALL 13.

In a precinct in Delta County the vote was 22 for Santorum, 12 for Romney, 8 for Paul, 7 for Gingrich. There were 5 delegate slots, and ALL 5 went to Ron Paul.

In a Pueblo County precinct, the vote was 16 for Santorum, 11 for Romney, 3 for Gingrich and 2 for Paul. There were 2 delegate slots filled, and both were filled by Ron Paul supporters.

We are also seeing the same trends in Minnesota, Nevada, and Iowa, and in Missouri as well.

“We may well win Minnesota, and do far better in Colorado than yesterday’s polls indicate.

“In the latest national poll from Reuters/Ipsos Poll, Ron Paul places a strong second with 21 percent, gaining ground on his main competitor nationally, Mitt Romney, whose support seems to be fading at 29 percent. Congressman Paul’s support has grown by 5 percentage points nationally since January, while Romney has seen a 30 percent decline in his support since January.

“This poll follows a January 30th Gallup Poll showing Dr. Paul within the margin of error of defeating Obama. Also, a January 16th CNN/ORC Poll showed Congressman Paul and Obama in a virtual tie in a general election showdown.

“Yesterday’s contests were significant, but not a decisive or a conclusive end to this race. Our campaign will keep pushing forward and continue to take our message of liberty all the way to the convention. This race after all is about delegates, not about beauty contests.”



hes in no pinch. no reason to be making deals with mittens.

 

[whodare]

20 presidential debates - worthless

39 debate attacks -

0 debate attacks against Romney - priceless.

In 2008, 19 of 25 Ron Paul delegates defected. This time, there's a new plan. Ron Paul will deliver his delegates to one candidate, the candidate of choice.

This is what pundits have speculated for months. Up to now, we've heard visions of staunch Paul supporters demanding their candidate be heard at the Republican convention. Now it's starting to look like Ron Paul won't demand a showdown between the platform and the planks.

He'll just hand delegates over to Romney on the handshake that Romney won't ignore Ron's issues in Mitt's policies. Should Mitt lose MI, a late entry could spoil the mother of all flip flops.

Best wishes and don't say this wasn't predicted.

Running back to your conspiracies now?

 

[itisme]

Those hung up on the hyper inflation theory, what happens when everyone stops accepting the dollar for trade and wants gold? That's a lot of dollars and they all have to go somewhere.

I am caught up on the out of control spending on all the Overseas wars, Drug War, EPA, IRS, FDA, UN, Mandated Healthcare, Foriegn Aid, IMF/FED are drawing in the money supply and not loaning......those are the problesms that cause the symptom HYPER INFLATION. All of those #$% are powerful supressive sources all over our communities. That is why Bentom187 posted an incredible video MONEY MASTERS FULL on youtube that shows how the BANKERS EXPLOIT ANY SYSTEM! None are perfect and neither is Ron Paul. He just sees, or helped me to see, we need the CONTROL back.

Note the IMF can draw on our gold supply at $42.20 an ounce with SDR's. We need CONTROL back and hperinflation is a result of out of control spending. The Gov't has confiscated gold and silver before, what makes you think they wouldn't again. Then the IMF can buy it legally for $42.20 an ounce.

IMF SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS, GOLD FOR 42.20 OUNCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IURJgxRgv9Q

Special Drawing Right (SDR) Allocations
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/faq/sdrallocfaqs.htm

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Running back to your conspiracies now?

Interesting you mention conspiracy. How do 4 different entities; Mitt, Ron and their respective pacs all get it right? Early in the primary, Newt Gingrich asked Romney to cease negative ads. Romney said it was illegal to communicate with his pac. As soon as Santorum's numbers rose, Romney's pac bombed him with attacks.

Ron Paul arguably doesn't have the percentages that Newt/Santorum had/have, if only temporarily. This might have something to do with it.

Will be interesting to see if Virginia is anything like the previous states. Newt and Santorum aren't on the ballot so it's Mitt vs Ron Paul all the way.

 

[itisme]

If Ron Paul don't get the El Presidente spot.....Gary Johnson runs.

at and he can VP up with him Ron Paul supportors are hate the WARS more than anything.

I am not Ron Paul as much as I am inline with his principles, even the ones I can't follow. What he is offering is the change I think we need. Ending wars is always good, less killing.

Its the RACKET that supplies the Elite with trillions.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Haven't heard too much of Johnson. His poll numbers have been too low to make the debates. Has a good record as two term governor.

 

[draztik]

I am caught up on the out of control spending on all the Overseas wars, Drug War, EPA, IRS, FDA, UN, Mandated Healthcare, Foriegn Aid, IMF/FED are drawing in the money supply and not loaning......those are the problesms that cause the symptom HYPER INFLATION. All of those #$% are powerful supressive sources all over our communities. That is why Bentom187 posted an incredible video MONEY MASTERS FULL on youtube that shows how the BANKERS EXPLOIT ANY SYSTEM! None are perfect and neither is Ron Paul. He just sees, or helped me to see, we need the CONTROL back.

Note the IMF can draw on our gold supply at $42.20 an ounce with SDR's. We need CONTROL back and hperinflation is a result of out of control spending. The Gov't has confiscated gold and silver before, what makes you think they wouldn't again. Then the IMF can buy it legally for $42.20 an ounce.

IMF SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS, GOLD FOR 42.20 OUNCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IURJgxRgv9Q

Special Drawing Right (SDR) Allocations
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/faq/sdrallocfaqs.htm

I agree with you itisme I think hyper inflation is inevitable, my question was really directed towards those who can't grasp the concepts you and I see clear as day.

 

[Cojito]

If I was killing people for some pussy, id want some porn stars, not virgins.

me too.

You speak of the beliefs of wahhabism, an extreme sect of islam. Since ron paul is not a wahhabi, your kind of reaching, but I get your point.

reaching? i never referenced Ron Paul. that's all you bro.

you: Despite evidence for evolution, there is no evidence there is no god, and there never will be. You can't prove a negative.

me: i don't have to prove anything. i make no claims about sky gods. i just ask for the evidence, the proof. so far, it remains elusive.

you: you really dont think is distorted/ironic to not have to prove anything, yet require proof in the next sentence? cmon man.

me: "no. how could i prove claims i am not making?"

you: "why should anyone have to prove anything to you?".

me: "because they're making outrageous claims about the world we live in. if a bearded man says we get virgins and rivers of honey in paradise if we wage jihad and kill some infidels, then he'd better have some compelling evidence for that. i don't want to kill innocent people, lose my life, and then find out there are no virgins waiting for me. that would really suck. we are basing policy, our lives, on these kinds of silly claims."

as a current casualty of the drug war, I haven't got to enjoy so much as a bowl pack in over a month...

bummer. i'm sorry to hear it.

 

[itisme]

I agree with you itisme I think hyper inflation is inevitable, my question was really directed towards those who can't grasp the concepts you and I see clear as day.

I knew you were in the right boat. I just took a chance to go off your question as I wanted to express once again how the IMF/FED are robbing us. PEACE

 

[bentom187]

i posted this previously, but you guys seem to enjoy money masters,so here is bill still's newest movie "the secret of oz" . Its kind of a condensded version of money masters but with a twist.

[YOUTUBEIF]U71-KsDArFM[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[dagnabit]

DB has convinced me.
SANTORUM 2012 !!!!!

Thanks DB