• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The case against Dr. Paul

If that was dash's point, I surely missed it. But I don't think so. He is practically salivating - in his exaggerated and amusingly polemical way - over the prospect of a diminished America. America's dominance is a bad thing in dash's rant.


I think dash wants a total collapse of America because then he can sell all the gold and silver he in investing in and make a fortune.
That is why he is salivating. He wants to make money off an economic catrostophe. Call it the Atlas Shrugged complex.
 
I think dash wants a place to repost his blog entries, since no one reads his site. ;)

http://dashxdr.blogspot.com/2007/12/myth-of-american-military-power.html


I think the technical term for that is "Spam."
Needless to say,the guy knows crap about military affairs.
Yes,you could use ICBM'a against ships,but an ICBM is cheaper then a Nimitz Class Carrier,but Anti Shipping missiles are cheaper yet, and a lot more effective.
What gets to me is how dash is actually looking forward to a world dominated by Authroritarian dictatorships like China (openly one) and Russia (whose facade of democracy is getting thinner all the time. Maybe they should just Crown Putin Valdamir the First of the Putin dynasty and be done with it.)
 
The whole "The world will finally be free under China" thing fascinates me, now that more than one poster has brought it up.

Is that a popular thing in some circles? I almost wish we could create a separate thread for that, the Chinese Utopia theorists.
 
FactCheck.org rips Paul a new one:

"Wrong Paul: Fantasy, fallacy and factual fumbles from the Republican insurgent"

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html

The only thing they have on him is the NAFTA highway criticism.

The other criticism is hardly significant.

1 trillion to 700 billion is hardly significant, and Homeland Security is quite relevant to the so-called war on terror as are the new implementations at the border, including new passport technology and screening techniques.

As for Ronald Reagan..., so Ron Paul doesn't like Ronald Reagan, but Ronald Reagan liked him... Especially ironic, given the other Republicans are always yapping about Ronald Reagan, yet Ron Paul was the only one to receive an endorsement.

In fact, I think Giuliani was described by Reagan as insane, or something along those lines.
 
1 trillion to 700 billion is hardly significant, and Homeland Security is quite relevant to the so-called war on terror as are the new implementations at the border, including new passport technology and screening techniques.

What about this:

So it turns out that what Paul says is a trillion dollars for a "foreign operation" includes a lot of things that seem pretty domestic to us. For example:

  • [*]The entire U.S. Border Patrol
    [*]Every military base in the United States and all the 1.4 million full-time military personnel (not just those serving overseas)

    [*]Background checks for new immigrants
    [*]Inspections of incoming cargo
    [*]All airport security programs
    [*]The issuing of U.S. passports
    [*]The FBI's counter-terrorism unit
    [*]92 percent of the interest payments on the national debt
 
The idea that some Ronulans proclaim that we can eliminate the deficit by withdrawing all American troops from every overseas base just does not ass up in cold,hard,figures.
Even if it was desireable,which I doubt.
We have tried Isolationism in the past,and it did'nt work. It won't work now.
 
Gold + Silver [Taken from other forum]

Everyone on the forum seems to believe that Gold and Silver will go to the moon (and maybe back). And, then as an aside, they speak of gold and silver backing the economy. There is little attempt, if any, to tie the two statements together.
If they are not going to be tied togther then why would they/will they go sky high.
If gold is not going to be used to back the currency then why should it be inflated to such extremes?
I can understand silver going much, much higher because of possible manufacturing shortages, etc.

Would someone please explain?

I had faith silver would balloon in value anyway, regardless of whether it becomes a backing for any currency. This is due to reading Theodore Butler's archives and other supporting evidence that silver is drastically undervalued at the moment.

In the case of silver there is evidence in the COT that there is price manipulation going on to keep silver down. Butler speculates that the Chinese are holding the price down. Somewhere I just read a theory, perhaps Butler's, that the Chinese have a vast amount of silver and are using it to control the silver market. They can sell silver short and keep the price down. They have so much silver they can cover the short selling -- they're not naked shorts.

Also historically the gold/silver ratio is around 15 to 1. Now it's around 53 to 1 and dropping. In the crust of the earth there are 19 units of silver for every 1 unit of gold. Silver is being used up in industrial applications, gold is either stored or made into jewelry for the most part. There are huge aboveground hoards of gold, the aboveground hoard of silver has supposedly been eaten away until there is very little left.

Butler's argument is that silver's price is artificially held down, the vast hoard of refined silver has been used up, so it's only a matter of time before the price explodes in value when free market forces finally win out. Industrial users of silver are often only using a trace amount of silver -- say inside computer chips -- so they are insensitive to the price of silver. They'll pay whatever it costs since their profit comes from the finished product. So there will be a period before mining can be ramped up to handle silver demand where silver will shoot up in price.

Jason + Shelby love silver. I believe their hope is that usury/debt based economics will fail and in the aftermath a new currency will be created that is backed by gold and/or silver. The reasoning is the world will collectively wake up to the excesses of fiat based money, and will only tolerate a new currency that is not subject to the whims of corrupt governments run by politicians seeking only to buy their re-election.

If a new currency is to be created, backed by PM's, it certainly won't be the USA doing it. I think there is ample evidence the USA's gold has been sold off. Ditto for the silver hoard. I think Europe has also gotten rid of it's PM's. Perhaps China does have huge amounts of gold and silver and will issue a new international currency based on either/both. China has historically mistrusted paper money, and prefers actual bullion. They accepted only bullion for tea back in the 1800's. Then the British managed to get China addicted to opium. Opium was made in India, shipped over to China, and sold to the Chinese in exchange for silver bullion. The Chinese government tried to stop the trade, but it was hopeless. China lost vast amounts of silver. I think the Chinese love silver and gold and they remember lean times.

Gold is also manipulated. The USA has a strong motivation to demonize gold. In the 1970's the USA completed its default on the gold-backed dollar. Since then the dollar has been an IOU Nothing, whose value consists of the collective faith of anyone holding dollars. You can't redeem the dollar for anything real like some fixed amount of silver or gold. The USA has engaged in a concerted effort to dupe people into believing gold is a relic of the past and a worthless yellow metal. They've also been instrumental in manipulating the gold price. I believe the Fed's open market operations are used to sell gold shorts. Also the Fed has managed to get the government to loan out most, or all, of the gold stored at Fort Knox. GATA put in a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal a couple weeks ago asking for an independent audit of all the gold held by the US government.

Gold and silver are havens against inflation. When governments go crazy printing their fiat currencies, some people seek safety with precious metals. This activity has only just started -- only a tiny percentage of people are actually buying gold + silver. Meanwhile governments are racing each other to pour fiat currencies into the global economy to keep the party going.

There is a tipping point where people just stop believing in the dollar. Once that happens the crash will occur very quickly. Everything will go to the moon, priced in dollars, not just gold and silver. But because gold and silver are so good as a store of wealth, I suspect more money will be parked in them. Also investors looking to capitalize on "the next big thing" will see the rising price of both and will buy into it. Google's strugging, people want returns, why not turn to precious metals? It's an ongoing process.

I'm trying to convey that even without a government choosing to back a currency with gold or silver, both are set to continue going up in value for the forseeable future.

Honestly I would be surprised if any government today were to create a currency backed by a PM. I wonder if some private cartel might do it though, in competition with global fiat currencies. I would think a trustworthy currency would win out in the marketplace. We don't have a free market under the US empire regime. The US empire does whatever it has to to keep the dollar as the world's reserve currency. With the US out of the picture, who knows? Maybe a solid currency backed by PM's could be introduced.

India would certainly support a currency backed by gold, their people have a lot of the stuff. I think China would like silver, I think they've still got a lot. Americans seem to love their dollars and probably won't support any PM backed currency voluntarily. Only after the US economy collapses would people be forced to accept such a replacement. If you don't accept it you stay poor. If you accept it, you can eke out a livelihood.

-Dave
 
Dvorak's column: Using the Internet as a weapon

John C. Dvorak

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/John+Dvorak's+Second+Opinion

BERKELEY, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Nobody knows what caused the cut cables in the Mediterranean that interrupted Internet service to parts of the Middle East last week, but there are now conspiracy theories galore written by bloggers and pundits.

Wake up, people! You have to start getting it into your heads that the US economy is toast. The government is running around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to keep the party going. While you're waiting for PROOF and wasting your time debating the facts, the world is going on about its business. If you had your wits about you you'd realize my bothering to post this information here in this forum is a gift. You can educate yourselves and take action while you still can.

You completely misunderstand Ron Paul. You assume adopting his policies would tank the economy. You've got it wrong. The economy is already bankrupt. Ron Paul represented someone who understood the facts staring us in the face, and he would know how to go about bringing a speedy recovery. Instead we'll be lucky if we can avoid some awful combination of fascism and socialism.

-Dave
 
Last edited by a moderator:
John C. Dvorak

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/John+Dvorak's+Second+Opinion



Wake up, people! You have to start getting it into your heads that the US economy is toast. The government is running around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to keep the party going. While you're waiting for PROOF and wasting your time debating the facts, the world is going on about its business. If you had your wits about you you'd realize my bothering to post this information here in this forum is a gift. You can educate yourselves and take action while you still can.

You completely misunderstand Ron Paul. You assume adopting his policies would tank the economy. You've got it wrong. The economy is already bankrupt. Ron Paul represented someone who understood the facts staring us in the face, and he would know how to go about bringing a speedy recovery. Instead we'll be lucky if we can avoid some awful combination of fascism and socialism.

-Dave

A little copyright infringement, but who cares if the economy is going to tank?

I hope to FSM that I do misunderstand Ron Paul. If I do misunderstand him then he's not a fringe loony, but I'm pretty sure I understand him perfectly well.
 
What about this:

So it turns out that what Paul says is a trillion dollars for a "foreign operation" includes a lot of things that seem pretty domestic to us. For example:
The entire U.S. Border Patrol

Subtract 7.8 Billion

Every military base in the United States and all the 1.4 million full-time military personnel (not just those serving overseas)

The bases here must support our operations overseas, including but not limited to training, research and development, and recruitment costs to replace dead and injured soldiers.

Background checks for new immigrants

These are paid by the potential new immigrants.

Inspections of incoming cargo

WMDs because we couldn't find them in Iraq. Subtract 67 Billion.

All airport security programs

Directly tied to the so-called 'war on terror'.

The issuing of U.S. passports

Technically, I pay for my passport.

The FBI's counter-terrorism unit

Subtract 1.5 Billion, and don't forget they tap your phone to listen for terrorists abroad. In fact, they track terrorists worldwide and had a budget increase since 9/11.

92 percent of the interest payments on the national debt

Subtract 150 Billion

And don't forget to add 24 Billion not reported by the DoD, spent by the Department of Energy to develop and maintain nuclear warheads.

Add to this a "Black Budget" which is not reported at all.

Add 2 Billion spent by the Department of Justice on counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence, and add 1.8 Billion by the DEA which is busy in Afghanistan.

The original figures don't include the fact that the Department of State budget for 2008 is not 25 Billion as predicted by Higgs, but instead 34 Billion, so Add 9 Billion to the figure.

Since the figures were references to the figures in 2006, you have to adjust for today. Most military programs and operations have had their budget increased, just like the the Department of State. So the figure is actually significantly higher.

Even if Ron Paul is off by 200 Billion (a realistic figure), he is still 80% accurate.
 
The bases here must support our operations overseas, including but not limited to training, research and development, and recruitment costs to replace dead and injured soldiers.
But also support new things.
Subtract 1.5 Billion, and don't forget they tap your phone to listen for terrorists abroad. In fact, they track terrorists worldwide and had a budget increase since 9/11.

One wonders why.


Subtract 150 Billion

Only if he pays it off + principal.

And don't forget to add 24 Billion not reported by the DoD, spent by the Department of Energy to develop and maintain nuclear warheads.

Add to this a "Black Budget" which is not reported at all.

Add 2 Billion spent by the Department of Justice on counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence, and add 1.8 Billion by the DEA which is busy in Afghanistan.

The original figures don't include the fact that the Department of State budget for 2008 is not 25 Billion as predicted by Higgs, but instead 34 Billion, so Add 9 Billion to the figure.

Since the figures were references to the figures in 2006, you have to adjust for today. Most military programs and operations have had their budget increased, just like the the Department of State. So the figure is actually significantly higher.

Even if Ron Paul is off by 200 Billion (a realistic figure), he is still 80% accurate.

Except we sorta need half of that. Kinda. :|
 
The idea that some Ronulans proclaim that we can eliminate the deficit by withdrawing all American troops from every overseas base just does not ass up in cold,hard,figures.
Even if it was desireable,which I doubt.
We have tried Isolationism in the past,and it did'nt work. It won't work now.

Let's see your figures. I already showed you mine

The budget deficit is estimated to be 250 Billion for '08.
 
The only thing they have on him is the NAFTA highway criticism.
That to me is significant in itself. The "North American Union" and "NAFTA superhighway" stuff is demonstrably false, and yet Mr. Paul apparently buys into it. This is not good.

These sorts of myths can do real damage to trade if enough folks start believing the myth.
 
Only if he pays it off + principal.

I think you misread my post. When I say 'subtract', I mean subtract from the estimate. So if Ron Paul quoted 1 trillion, and you subtract 67 billion this means you are still paying 67 billion to inspect incoming cargo for WMDs, and Ron Paul's estimate is off by 67 billion, thus his estimate should have been 933,000,000,000 dollars.

Except we sorta need half of that. Kinda. :|

Like I said, you can keep all that, and Ron Paul is still 80% correct in his estimate.
 
That to me is significant in itself. The "North American Union" and "NAFTA superhighway" stuff is demonstrably false, and yet Mr. Paul apparently buys into it. This is not good.

These sorts of myths can do real damage to trade if enough folks start believing the myth.


Maybe. Compare to the criticism on the facts of the other candidates, for a better frame of reference.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom