Forum Post: Paul Supporters vs Obama Supporters
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 1:28 a.m. EST by MikeyD
(581)
from Alameda, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Looking at the Best Comments Today section, it seems that this is what it has boiled down to, with the Obama supporters mostly coming out on top.
Given the divisive nature of these ideological conflicts, I propose one of two possibilities to rectify the situation
Option 1
Simplify the demands to avoid requests for the basic tenants of Libertarian ideology or Socialist ideology, instead focusing only on something both camps can agree on, like fighting corruption.
Option 2
We could set up an MMA style ring towards the north end of the park, with each camp chosing a champion from among it's members. Two men enter, one man leaves, and the followers of the losing ideology either acquiesce or leave.
Open to other suggestions.
Cant we both agree on cutting the military significantly? And avoiding these crazy unnecessary military ventures?
Yes, we have to end these damn wars!!! Ending the Fed would facilitate that because the Fed "creates" the money to fund the wars.
[Removed]
Not quite. He wants to drastically slash the military-industrial budget, close all US bases overseas, end all of the wars, bring all troops home, and spend more for border patrol, with NO fences and walls.
you are a republican sack holder
[Removed]
Stop holding sacks
Paul has the right tact, being pro-liberty in general, and is definitely superior to the covert CIA agent o(b/s)ama in that way but I don't think his overall ideology can capture the spirit of the 99%, though it is impossible to imagine how he could be defeated by a CIA agent in the next election.
Thing is, none of that should matter. We know the elections are rigged and this should be an apolitical, pro-society, pro-freedom movement more than anything.
Agreed that this movement should be issue oriented and remain non partisan. Once it becomes partisan, everyone may as well just join one of the parties and work for them.
I'm down with option 1, honestly, but we've agreed on it a hundred times and yet it keeps coming up.
The President is fairly irrelevant, in the grand scheme. What the Tea Party had right, is that you need to aim for Congress first and foremost. What the TP had wrong, though, is that you can't do everything you intend to overnight.
A duel with ball and powder pistols?
"A day without blood is like a day without sunshine." Joker, "Full Metal Jacket".
:^)
1) I don't smoke pot, but it would be great to slash spending on a useless "War on Drugs". 2) Bring the troops home and disband a standing army. We do not need anything other than guard and reserve with the technology we have. Those were the only things I have seen on this post but I would like to add: 3) Land Tax to replace the income tax
Monkeys would throw feces on each other in such a situation. We humans, of course, are not that civilized.
Absolutely... option 2 :) Social Libertarians
[Removed]
Lets just come together for the single purpose of eliminating the Federal Reserve.
That is a libertarian position man. Nationalizing it would be the "socialist" one.
Nationalizing isn't socialist. You could say nationalizing and printing for public works projects still isn't socialist. Nationalizing and printing whatever is necessary to provide welfare for a bare majority to turn against the middle class would be pretty socialist.
I think the conversation will eventually end up at the realization that instead of money being diverted out of the economy to pay interest on debt currency in order to finance yachts, mansions, and assassinations, we could instead use that very same money to build 21st century infrastructure and in that fashion create a rising tide that lifts all boats in a way that Reaganomics couldn't ever have.
You really think that to be a true Capitalism we need must cede the creation of money to a private bank? Then what did we have before 1913, Socialism? Hardly. How could we have had the industrial revolution? Prior to the Federal Reserve Bank the US has only had a central bank two other times. It is not needed.
Now it goes like this, the congress approves a budget then borrows the money to fund it. Here's how it could go, the congress approves a budget and prints the money to fund it. Weather we print it or the Fed does it is still new money that comes with the risk of inflation. The difference comes down to this. If we borrow it, it is debt the government must pay it back with interest. If we print it there is no debt.
How is it Socialism to refuse to enslave the country to privately held foreign banks?
I agree with your sentiments. If we're going to print for deficit spending, we might as well just outright do it instead of letting a privately owned central bank do it and charge interest.
Well, that's why the Fed must be abolished. They are a private corporation. The creation of our money supply was outsourced and privatized. That's unconstitutional. You don't nationalize the Fed, you get rid of it and return the nation's money supply to the We the People.
Congress is the agent of We the People. Nationalizing it would be returning it to us.
The reply function is not working below your last post so I'll answer here.
What you don't seem to understand is that the Federal Reserve Bank would cease to exist if we return to the constitution. The fed exists to create fiat money (money created out of thin air) and to charge interest on it. It is a looting operation. We agree that the constitution mandates that the control of the currency is give to congress, alone. However, the constitution also mandates that no STATE shall use anything but gold and silver coin as a tender in payment of debt (article one, sec 10). These prohibitions and mandates apply to GOVERNMENT, not We the People. As it stands now, the Fed has a monopoly on currency in the United States. That means that barter is illegal. The founders never intended for any such system. Competing currencies are also a good thing as the market decides the value therein rather than a rigged system controlled by banksters.
No, I just disagree. The USA can have a constitutional central bank. The privately owned fed is obviously a fraud and abomination, but I can not support the idea that there should be no central bank. That just makes us even more vulnerable to market attacks by the ultra-wealthy and nations which retain one. That is precisely why RP gets away with advocating abolishing the fed without getting shot, because it would benefit the people who are fucking this country up.
Also, I am fine with requiring that commerce be conducted with regulated mediums of exchange as long as it is Congress doing the regulating as per their duty in the Constitution. Otherwise you can not appropriately assess a sales tax, which is my preference for primary means of funding the government.
No, abolishing it would be. The fed is a private corporation formed to funnel wealth away from the people. What you nationalize is the money supply, just as our founders intended.
Abolishing the fed means free market competition of currencies, which will be dominated by the existing oligarchs. TERRIBLE idea, even if Ron Paul supports it.
Nationalization is the way to go. The Constitution specifically delegates power over the currency to Congress and that is how it should be unless you want to pass an amendment in support of private currency competition.
The creation of the Fed was done to PRIVATIZE the nation's money supply. That's why you have to end the Fed and return to the constitution.
I got a better idea. How about we stick to the point of the Occupy movement , end the corruption in our government and on Wall street. Then tackle the things we don't all agree on.
If ending the Fed is not part of the Occupy movement then it is only because many do not understand the threat it poses. Corruption of Wall Street, DC, and State Capitals are only a symptom of a Federal Reserve system that requires a specific rate of personal economic failure. This is not controversial to any economist. It is simply a mathematical certainty that is very poorly understood by the general public.
I think most people would agree, but how can anyone abolish the Fed legally? Even our Congress lost that authority unfortunately.
Educate me. How did Congress loose the authority to repeal a bill? Otherwise, can't the president put an end the fed by ordering the treasure department to begin printing money?
I'm not a lawyer, but the Federal Reserve Act gave a private entity the power to print money which was the sole purpose of the treasury. This is not something the President would have authority to overturn. The only way to change this would be to go through the Supreme Court. This process is way above my pay grade and if any movement wanted to end the Fed, it would take a lot of money and a lot of people working together.
I entirely agree. It would be allot of work but the achievement would cap the efforts of every protest movement in the US from 1913 on. Each movement has at its core the grievance that the system requires a certain number of the population to fail.
This system is the direct mathematical byproduct of the Federal Reserve.
Read my reply to EndTheFedNow.
Erm, hello, the Fed is the hub of the bankster wheel. The Fed loaned 16 TRILLION to corporations (many of them European) and did it by inflating the dollar (which means prices rise for us and we pay interest on that additional debt). You cannot fix Wall Street without getting rid of the Fed.
The Fed is not the Hub of anything. It's merely a tool the banks use to rob us. End the Fed, great. Now what ? The elite throw piles of money at our politicians to create new laws or another Central Bank for them to exploit.
Want to know how to get back at the elite, Destroy their entire world. Make them live a life of misery... Take away the one thing they cherish the most. Their Power.
We can't run a sustainable nation if we must create money exponentially. A constitutional amendment banning the formation of a Central Bank is all we need. If we take all the money from the bankers and chop off their heads but leave a central bank it is simply a matter of time before the wealth of the nation is again in the hands of a few.
Yes, the Fed is the hub of the wheel. They have control of issuing money. Our monetary system was privatized in 1913 with the creation of the Fed. We need to nationalize our currency as the constitution mandates.
Have you ever considered the possibility that you are wrong ?
It is a fact that the fed is privately owned. They post private property signs on their property. What exactly do you think he is wrong about?
Why is the Fed privately owned ?
Not on this issue because I know what the Fed is and what it does. It's merely a matter of being educated on the topic. You, too, can learn.
This is why Ron Paul supporters and Libertarians are laughed at. I'm not disagreeing with you. I know what the fed is and how corrupt it is also. You are just incapable of seeing the big picture. You are to brain washed with END THE FED , RON PAUL 2012 ! to use any common sense.
Obviously we need to take back all the wealth that has been stolen from us via the privately owned fed. Most megacorps have more debt than assets and if you cut off their supply of money they are bankrupt.
And you think Ending the Fed will take back the wealth ? You don't think the elite will come up with a new scam and bribe our politicians to make new laws and create new government agencies that will allow them to do it ?
I don't support ending the fed because I think that would leave us more vulnerable to the oligarchs than we already are. I think it should be nationalized.
I think seizing their assets is how you take back the wealth. Nationalizing the fed is a good start, but their yachts, mansions, and stakes in various businesses need to be seized and equitably distributed to the people because they were obtained through fraud and don't rightfully belong to them.
Also, I think they need to be jailed for their crimes. Most members of the mainstream media are complicit, as are most Republicrats, and numerous actors in various intelligence agencies, the DoJ, FBI, ATF, private merc companies like Blackwater, and various other organizations like PNAC, MoveOn and Bilderberg. We're talking about arresting a couple million folks realistically.
tr289, understand this. If the Fed is nationalized their is no longer any federal debt.
A central bank is needed unless you want to change the monetary system, and that's not going to happen ! So a Central bank is needed. Nationalizing it is my preference also but I'm no expert. I will leave that up to the people that truly know.
As for seizing wealth, a wonderful idea but wont go over well with the Public. I'm not against rich people. I'm against rich people that corrupt and buy our politicians. If we keep looking for revenge we will never fix the problem.
^^^^^THIS