Let's see if Pedro pulls out Donald Rumsfeld's "Known Unknowns" speech. The difference between him and the people he says are ruining America is practically non-existent. I hope he doesn't out your wife as a spy.
I did answer it TFK Question: If Ron Paul doesn't think the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, are you as a Paul supporter ready to abandon your conspiracy claims to help his campaign? ANSWER do you see me talk about it at all anymore (The answer is NO). IMO it's done the results are what we now see happening around us .... no point talking about it , time to move on and fix the results. (The RESULTS OF WHAT WAS DONE USING THE ATTACK TO THIS COUNTRY) I set it up knowing Trplsec , does not believe all is above board with 9.11 same as you don't believe that it is either. Only a fool would think otherwise and I don't this Trplsec or TFK are fools. It's not a simple yes no answer. But if you want a definitive one ... my answer is .... It's no longer important , the damage is done and I already have put it behind me and have abandoned trying to convince anyone there was a conspiracy. It's a waste of time. What Ron Paul did was to not commit political suicide.
Yes he did .... :bears: That question was a blatant hit where he even asks Paul to tell people NOT to support him. Paul handled that the best possible way.
That's a bunch of crap, Petre. Your inability to answer yes or no, instead of saying it's no longer important, just makes it clear you haven't yet read what opinion you're supposed to have on whatever conspiracy sites you copy and paste your opinions from. The question was do you still believe in the 9-11 conspiracies, even though Paul has said he doesn't. Nobody asked whether you think it is important or not. Answer the question that was asked. Don't pull Politics 101 and answer questions with questions, or answer questions that weren't asked, avoiding the actual question. So, one more time, I'll ask... A simple yes or no will do. TFK
We are. You were asked a question, I just wanted an answer. Instead I get a song and dance. Just like a politician. TFK
petre aka the artful dodger paul did handle that question beautifully btw, as he did to the question of electability, that question was frankly a slap in the face, i was even insulted
It's an insult to all the people , not just Paul or his supporters. This is how big corporations squash change that is against their interests my friends.
There was no song and dance .... it's just not a simple yes no answer and this isn't a court of law. It's a discussion. You just didn't get the answer you wanted , but I clearly answered it.
i def agree, that question was ridiculous but he handled it well talking about him being a constitutionalist and all what i really like about paul is when he talks economics, hes the only one that that talks about monetary policy and the austrian model of the business cycle and i like how he talks about the issues as if they are interconnected, which they are, in terms of economics problem is most people probably have no clue as to what the fuck hes saying
You were asked a simple yes or no question, and instead of a yes or no answer, you pull your Bojangles act and answer Trp's question with another question, then answer a question that wasn't asked. And in spite of the question being asked numerous times, you still refuse to answer it. And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously. Why can't you answer his simple question? I think it's because you haven't read your opinion on another site yet, so you have no idea. TFK
[edit] Austrian School The Austrian School of economics rejects the suggestion that the business cycle is an inherent feature of an unregulated economy and argues that it is caused by intervention in the money supply. Austrian School economists, following Ludwig von Mises, point to the role of the interest rate as the price of investment capital, guiding investment decisions. In an unregulated (free-market) economy, it is posited that the interest rate reflects the actual time preference of lenders and borrowers. Some follow Knut Wicksell to call this the "natural" interest rate.[1] Government control of the money supply through central banks and regulations allowing Fractional-reserve banking disturbs this equilibrium such that the interest rate no longer reflects the real supply of and demand for investment capital. Austrian School economists conclude that, if the interest rate is artificially low, then the demand for loans will be higher than the actual supply of willing lenders, and if the interest rate is artificially high, the opposite situation will occur. This misinformation leads investors to misallocate capital, borrowing and investing either too much or too little in long-term projects. Periodic recessions, then, are seen as necessary "corrections" following periods of fiat credit expansion, when unprofitable investments are liquidated, freeing capital for new investment. The Austrian theory also predicts that the imposition of artificially low interest rates, and the resulting increase in the supply of fiat credit, generates (is) inflation, which obliges the central bank to increase the supply of credit yet further to maintain the artificially low interest rate, thus prolonging the "boom" and worsening the inevitable "correction." In Austrian theory, depressions and recessions are positive forces in-so-much that they are the market's natural mechanism of undoing the misallocation of resources present during the “boom†or inflationary phase. Austrian School economists point to the dot-com investment frenzy as a modern example of artificially abundant credit subsidizing unsustainable overinvestment. In the Keynesian view, this Austrian theory assumes that the "natural" rate of interest is unique at any given time and cannot be affected by policy. To Keynesian economists, this rate is only unique if the economy is assumed to always be at full employment. If the economy is operating with less than full employment, i.e., with high unemployment above the NAIRU, then in theory monetary policy and fiscal policy can have a positive role to play rather than simply creating booms that necessarily collapse on themselves. It should be noted that, in the Austrian School, the natural interest rate is not affected by the employment rate and the absence of full employment is typically attributed to government interference in the labour markets, such as minimum wage laws, employment regulations, and taxes levied against employers, which prevent the employment market from fully clearing. taken from wikipedia, sure its wikipedia, but i still love it
And that is why I have said for a long time that the correction of housing and the following credit boom is going to be very ugly and long ... longer than most want to realize... it's also why I NOW (over the past 4 years when I started) advocate PM's and commodities as the best investment. Without elimination of the fiat system and return to a gold standard our money is doomed. The "FedRes" of course , does not want this.
The others are giving the people the feel good answers about how they'll do this or that for health care and our economy , but they don't tell you how. (And when they do make suggestions like Hilary's latest plan , it so obviously flawed it's ridiculous and will only exacerbate serious underlying problems) A National Healthcare program sounds great until you realize it will only make a bad system worse and untimately is unsustainable with the USA already on the brink of insolvency while talking about spending more money. No 30-90 second sound bite will explain the problem we currently have in this country with health care as it is now a very complex issue. One those that are making promises now to correct will make excuses for later why they can't and why a bad system got worse. Since the 80's, Pauls message on this has been the same and now , today he has been once again proven right. Part I <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/287IQ_7Qj_0&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/287IQ_7Qj_0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> Part II <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4woPtYzDEG8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4woPtYzDEG8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> Part III <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qoazzRDALYw&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qoazzRDALYw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> Part IV <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZSBWVDukUuw&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZSBWVDukUuw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
i stopped watching after i heard michael moores voice, i hate that fat bastard using his movie sicko was a stupid move for whoever made this film i think
btw hillarys plan will cost like 70 billion and only save the people like 37 million (or was that billion??) either way, wheres the difference come from?? oh yeah, fucken higher taxes i urge everyone to see through this fraud and not vote for her crying ass
In theory, a national healthcare plan in America is a great idea. In reality, it'll never work, and will end up bankrupting the country. Can you guys name anything that the government doesn't screw up? Can you name any solution the government comes up with other then to raise taxes? Do you really want the government controlling yet another aspect of your life? The Government's role should be reduced, not growing. TFK
Which is precisely why you should support Ron Paul. :bears: Any National healthcare program right now is completely doomed to failure because we're already broke and depend one massive foreign investment just to keep operating this country and the war! The Social Security and Medicare programs that should be fully paid for are in deep shit because these assholes have been looting the money for years and with the advent of the baby boomers retiring ... there is going to be a huge problem making good on this entitlement. What needs to be done is exactly what Dr Paul prescribes ... Government needs to be reduced and spending needs to be cut on a massive scale or you are going to find you're older relatives in dire straights from dependence on a failed program they spent their lives PAYING IN TO :flip:
what pisses me off is that im paying into social security for MY retirement, yet by the time that rolls around all the money i put in will be gone and ill never get it back fuck universal healthcare, thats for lazy ass, take no responsibilty for themselves assholes
Hey Petre, how about we start the week with another question that you won't answer.. Ron Paul stated that vote fraud played no role in his finish in New Hampshire, and he also signed off on his Iowa tally as being legitimate. Do you agree with Ron Paul? Or is Ron Paul completely naive, misguided and trusting?
C'mon Trplsec ... what question did I not answer ... You should restate that I did not give you the answer you wanted. That happens when people disagree on a subject. Even so .... if you look back with honesty , you'll see I answered the question pretty thoroughly.
Neither ... Like always , he's handling it the best way possible. And that's not to waste time looking for tracks that have already been thoroughly covered. Did I fuck up again and not answer yes or no ? Ron Paul also stated that he knows Vote Fraud is not beyond "these people". So add 2+2 .... Now a question for you .... Do you think HILLARY won the electronic vote fair and square ?
Wait a second.. I asked if you agree with Paul and you say "Neither"???? WTF.. Answer the damn question. Paul stated the he doesn't think fraud played a role in the results. Do you agree with that? There are only two possible answers to a yes or no question.. (However, much like the first question, I got exactly the response everyone on the board expected)
Is that what you said ??? .... NEITHER you do realize that OR gave me 2 choices to pick from , don't you ? I agree with what he's done , but not that there was no Vote Fraud. I do not believe Ron Paul is naive , misguided or too trusting. He made a tactical move and IMO it was absolutely the right choice.
So you think Ron Paul is lying to improve his chances.. Excellent answer. Regarding Hillary, I think the huge difference between polls and results should lead the other Democrats to investigate and move forward with a recount. However, what I find terribly ironic is that you suddenly put any degree of validity into MSM polls. This seems like another case of you touting information when it feeds your conspiratorial nature.
