Lunatic Ron Paul to Oversee the Fed

Rockingham said:
Their appears to be an assumption that their is nothing corrupt occurring at the Fed.

Question: Would we know if their was?

If yes, how? If no, then we can be pretty damn sure corrupt practices are occurring because power and secrecy combined always lead to corruption.
Click to expand...

Question: Is whatever Ron Paul will look for occurring at the Fed?

He is a hardcore woo with an anti-Fed agenda and an ax to grind. He will NOT look honestly for any corrupt practices, but will search for evidence for the deluded nonsense he believes.

Getting Ron Paul to oversee the Fed will not have any more constructive results than having Kevin Trudeau oversee the FDA or having Alex Jones oversee the 9/11 Commission.
 
theprestige said:
An impeachment is just a Senate committee hearing writ large. Its purpose is to decide whether or not the president should be removed from office.

In Clinton's case, the impeachment concluded with him staying in office. How is that not surviving?
Click to expand...

Not,.... quite.

Technically, an impeachment is a HOUSE hearing write large, to decide whether the president should be subjected to a trial in the Senate to decide whether or not he should be removed from office.

Clinton was impeached; the case therefore moved to trial, at which he was acquitted and remained in office.

Which I agree is a pretty good definition of "survived." If the grand jury votes to indict, and then the case collapses at trial and I walk free, in what sense didn't I survive?
 
drkitten said:
Well, you have more confidence in his integrity than I have, if you think he's above active fabrication of evidence to "prove" what he already knows. Or if you think that the rest of the committee isn't simply going to follow his lead on this because they think it would get them headlines.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's going to outright fabricate evidence, but I think it's likely he'll see evidence where there is none.
 
Chaos said:
Sure. He isn´t going to find evidence......
Click to expand...

What an utterly ridiculous and stupid comment.

So you know the results of legal supoenas before they are made and before production of evidence.

All woo to u.
 
mhaze said:
What an utterly ridiculous and stupid comment.

So you know the results of legal supoenas before they are made and before production of evidence.

All woo to u.
Click to expand...

I don´t. But I know that the delusions of a bat crap crazy conspiracy theorist nutcase are so removed from anything possible in reality that there is no way that evidence for them can be found - any more than you will ever find evidence that Obama murdered the Dead Sea or that the Beagle Boys stole Scrooge McDuck´s Number One Dime.
 
Chaos said:
Getting Ron Paul to oversee the Fed will not have any more constructive results than having Kevin Trudeau oversee the FDA or having Alex Jones oversee the 9/11 Commission.
Click to expand...

Or Philip D. Zelikow...
 
Chaos said:
I don´t. But I know that the delusions of a bat crap crazy conspiracy theorist nutcase are so removed from anything possible in reality that there is no way that evidence for them can be found - any more than you will ever find evidence that Obama murdered the Dead Sea or that the Beagle Boys stole Scrooge McDuck´s Number One Dime.
Click to expand...

You've created an almost illegibal ad hominem argument, so let's step through the process.

1. Someone you really don't like is appointed to chair the committee and has supoena power on the Fed.
2. This guy you really don't like produces legal requirements for production from the Fed.
3. Said documents are produced (or are not) and reviewed by committee.
4. If there are constitutional, legal, moral or ethical issues in the documents produced these will be started on.

That's what is actually going to go on, your silly ad hom arguments won't affect it and have no or little relation to reality.
 
drkitten said:
There's a difference between electing representatives and electing idiots. There's no reason that a typical MD can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has. There's no reason a taxi driver can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has. There's no reason a goat can't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul has.

For that matter, there might not be any reason that Ron Paul himself couldn't read a book on basic economics and achieve a better understanding of macroeconomics than Ron Paul currently has. Or a book on the life cycle of zebra mussels. The bar is not set high.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul has authored economic books - but that doesn't count, of course, because he's never read any economic books. :rolleyes:
 
Will Mr. Paul be spending any time further investigating the "North American Union" and "NAFTA superhighway" conspiracy theories which he has, at various times, expressed belief in? Or is he just going to stick to the Federal Reserve for now?
 
BenBurch said:
OK, now we see if The Fed is the evil conspiracy the loons claim it is; If it is, RP will suffer some unfortunate accident.
Click to expand...
Won't make a bit of difference to the Fed conspiracy nuts, any more than the 9-11 commission made on the 9-11 conspiracy nuts.

The result will be a response that the truth is really hidden deeper and a new really thorough investigation needs to be done.
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
Ron Paul has authored economic books - but that doesn't count, of course, because he's never read any economic books. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Anyone can publish a book. Have you actually read Paul’s books, and can you testify to their soundness with regards to economics knowledge and analysis?
 
Sceptic-PK said:
Anyone can publish a book. Have you actually read Paul’s books, and can you testify to their soundness with regards to economics knowledge and analysis?
Click to expand...

Yes I have. And yes I can. What's happening now is proving him correct (or rather the system of economics he's written about).

I thought he was a lunatic (because that's what everyone calls him) until I read his books. Now I think he's one of the most consistent, principled politicians out there. Of course, both sides can't stand him for that.

He's a follower of the theories of the Austrian Economics and his writings don't divert from that in any way I can tell.
 
Last edited:
A Christian Sceptic said:
Yes I have. And yes I can. What's happening now is proving him correct (or rather the system of economics he's written about).
Click to expand...

Your latter sentence indicates that perhaps your former assertion is inaccurate. Paul has an irrational fear of fiat. The economy’s problems were not caused by fiat, and very little of Paul’s ranting about the Fed, the gold standard, inflation, etc have anything to do with the many causes of the financial crisis. I mean, Paul is a freemarketeer if ever we’ve seen one, and lack of effective government regulation/oversight played its own role in the crisis.

A Christian Sceptic said:
I thought he was a lunatic (because that's what everyone calls him) until I read his books. Now I think he's one of the most consistent, principled politicians out there. Of course, both sides can't stand him for that.
Click to expand...

Lunatics will attract others I suppose.

A Christian Sceptic said:
He's a follower of the theories of the Austrian Economics and his writings don't divert from that in any way I can tell.
Click to expand...

The Austrian school aren’t real economists, they’re social theorists masquerading as economists. They provide no formulas or models or anything that can be considered robust economic analysis, which is why they are shunned by the mainstream. Every armchair lunatic bordering on economic conspiracy theorist touts the Austrian school in defence of their poor grasp of economic theory. It can’t be a coincidence!
 
JihadJane said:
Your post gives me a clue about your understanding of what insanity is.
Click to expand...

Do you believe in homeopathy? For a non-doctor, that might just be ignorance. For an MD to believe in homeopathy suggests a level of willful ignorance bordering on insanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom