Today on Blogcritics
Home » Backlash Continues Against Ron Paul Movement

Backlash Continues Against Ron Paul Movement

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Beneath the still surface of the apparently secure nomination of John McCain as the Republican candidate, supporters of Ron Paul are still fighting the system and doing what they can to influence the process. It appears to be an uphill battle, with many of their efforts devolving into little more than delaying tactics and spreading chaos, and in many cases generating a hostile backlash from the party establishment which is harming efforts to move the party in a more pro-liberty direction.

As GOP conventions are held in state after state, the tactics of the Paul supporters have become clear enough to be predictable and for entrenched party forces to counter them. The basic procedure is to try to take over the convention from the floor with the objective of forcing a vote to throw out any results from committees which did work in advance, kick out the sitting leadership and install new leaders and handle delegate nominations and platform resolutions from the floor. Using Roberts Rules of Order as their shield, the Ron Paul forces introduce motions from the floor and demand counted votes when voice votes don't immediately go their way. If they manage to win the first few procedural votes they attempt to use the momentum to force votes on convention rules and throwing out convention executives and starting things over from scratch. If their votes fail, they begin introducing more and more procedural motions in hopes of disrupting the convention and creating so much chaos that nothing gets done, a tactic which angers a lot of people who might otherwise support them.

Since the Paul delegates are usually numerous, but still a minority, they count on some mainstream delegates voting with them in sympathy. With many Republicans leaning towards libertarian principles this was a good strategy, but as their tactics have become more disruptive and hostility towards them spreads they are having a harder and harder time winning over those who might normally have been sympathetic. Republican moderates who are also dissatisfied with the stranglehold of the religious right on the party find themselves having to choose between the extremist devil they know and the extremist devil they're meeting for the first time, and the attraction of the pro-liberty reforms offered by the Paul movement is increasingly being outweighed by some of their more unpalatable ideas and their disruptive methods.

Every week since I last covered this issue in early May, there have been one or two state conventions, and as they have progressed, the party insiders have become more organized and Ron Paul forces have made less and less progress promoting their agenda. Their successes in district conventions in the Spring were followed by the hasty cancellation of the Nevada convention, and since then it has been harder and harder for them to get their voice heard or win delegates to the national convention.

The hostility of party insiders and convention managers to the Ron Paul supporters and their tactics has now spread to the point that any motion from the floor is looked at as a potential attack on the convention and even when the motions are reasonable they are shut down as quickly as possible for fear that if delegates are allowed to make motions and support builds for them it will lead to a takeover of the convention.  Backlash against Paul supporters has started to follow a consistent pattern of further excluding the mass of delegates from the decision making process. In the effort to control the perceived rebellion, convention procedures which ordinarily would have permitted meaningful input from the delegates are replaced by more reliance on committees and closed-door negotiations, turning the convention into little more than a pep rally.  This trend became disturbingly clear over recent weeks as similar reports came in from conventions all over the country.

In Hawaii a tightly managed convention basically shut down Paul disruptions and railroaded through the establishment agenda.

In Georgia Paul supporters had insufficient numbers to sway the convention, and found themselves essentially shut out. As their efforts from the floor were voted down they ended up leaving the convention and achieving little or nothing.

In Colorado the party insiders were ready in advance and distributed fliers identifying Ron Paul supporters by name as troublemakers planning to disrupt the convention. The convention was presented with a prepared slate of delegates for the national convention and with mainstream libertarians alienated by the fliers, Paul supporters couldn't pull enough votes to block passage of the hand picked slate of delegates.

In Minnesota — where the GOP national convention will be held this fall — Ron Paul himself was not given time to address the convention and made a speech to supporters outside the hall instead, and inside the hall there was a strong backlash against procedural motions and attempts to disrupt the convention. Once again those who might have supported the reformers were driven away by the antics of Paul supporters and as a result all of their efforts failed. As one delegate commented, they were "completely shut out of the process."

In Indiana Paul supporters ended up stymied and marginalized and once again reduced to raising procedural issues and resorting to causing what disruption they could. They found themselves ill-prepared for the level of organized opposition which they faced from the 'blue hairs'.

One of the few remaining conventions is in Texas, where Paul supporters had some of their largest successes in the various district conventions. Paul supporters in league with some mainstream Republicans have filed a lawsuit to try to prevent the state party from running the GOP convention in a way which will pretty much shut-out input which hasn't been pre-approved by party insiders. Their contention is that the plan to run most of the convention under the authority of the temporary Chairman and executive committee appointed prior to the convention is a violation of Texas election law and that the first order of business ought to be to elect new leadership. I don't know Texas election law well enough to say whether they have a case, but it certainly seems much more reasonable to run the convention that way. They also have concerns about irregularities in various district convention, a knife which cuts both ways because there seem to be as many instances where Ron Paul supporters abused the process as there are of abuse by party insiders.

That this lawsuit has attracted support from more than just the Paul faction is significant. The involvement of some county officials and mainstream Republicans in the suit is a reminder that the attempts at reform are most effective when they are undertaken in ways which benefit everyone who wants to put the party back on track, not just the more extreme elements drawn in by the Paul campaign. The Texas GOP has been dominated by a faction from the religious right which took over in the 90s, and the large body of traditional Republicans in the state are tired of absolutist politics and hanging the future of the party on what ought to be secondary issues to core Republican values of individual liberty and small government. We all know it's time for reform in the party, but being conservatives we're leery of reform which is too quick, too radical, and takes us too far towards another extreme.

The Texas state GOP convention is coming up on June 12 through 14 in Houston. I'll be there liveblogging and filing regular reports where I can. With any luck I'll get bumped up from alternate to delegate, though that may end up coming at the expense of some of the Ron Paul supporters if party insiders follow through on their plans to decertify Paul activists in advance and to require all delegates to sign some sort of McCain loyalty oath. Whatever happens, it's shaping up to be a much more exciting and contentious convention than the state has seen in many a year, and I'll be there doing what I can to help move things in a positive direction where liberty has a voice — and, of course, I'll be there to tell the story.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • Sheila

    Well very interesting article, like the GOP has been so wonderful and respectful of the Ron Paul Supporters, NOT. As a Ron Paul Republican, I strongly suggest that the GOP stop pretending as if they are the one’s wronged here. Give us a break, why not spend the time working with your SECURED nominatee on reading the teleprompter. If only the GOP would stop allowing Karl Rove to run the party, we might have a chance of retaining the White House with a total reform of our own party. Face it, the GOP has placed our entire system of process into a world of corruption and special interest, we are not about to walk away from this process without an ETHICAL fight for what is right. Let’s see how the ethics play out, McCain advisers should take note 20% of his own party don’t support him.

  • Chris H

    What the GOP fails to realize is there are many Ron Paul supporters out there who are not Republicans. People like me are watching very closely and seeing what kind of party the GOP is. The way they treat our movement, will depend on if I join the party. I think Ron Paul should abandon the GOP and start a new party. Because the way it looks from here, the GOP is a party for old people that would rather go to war than be free. The internet is changing things, buckle up.

  • http://www.thecharminitiative.wordpress.com Georgia Delegate

    Sorry, Dave, but Ron Paul’s supporters didn’t ‘disrupt’ the Georgia Republican Convention as you state here. We were all duly elected delegates and, as such, were participating in our party’s convention no differently than any other delegates.

    It was not Ron Paul’s supporters who claimed that McCain was like Jesus Christ, that was Georgia Republican State Chair Sue Everhart. It was not Ron Paul’s supporters who refused to allow a call for ‘division of the house’ on a vote to approve Newt Gingrich’s “American Solutions” platform, that was acting chairman Randy Evans, who was Newt’s former counsel. And lastly it was the state GOP themselves who voted to change the rules on Friday afternoon without a quorum of delegates present in order to keep Ron Paul’s supporters from making nominations from the floor on Saturday in opposition to the state GOP’s list of nominees to the National Convention.

    Because of reporting like yours the Republican establishment believes were are rogue outliers in the Party bent on causing havoc rather than genuine conservatives who are frustrated with our Party’s contradictory and unprincipled leadership. The ‘backlash’ to which you refer here comes not because Ron Paul’s supporters are wrong, but is instead a result of Republicans angry that RP supporters won’t just shut up already about how far off course our Party has strayed.

    Ron Paul supporters are not a nuisance, Dave Nalle, we are a reality check to a GOP establishment that seems hell-bent on shooting itself in the head. It is high time the party quit trying to resist us, as we’re the only ones fighting to get the gun out of its hand.

    Georgia Delegate

    P.S. For those who are interested there is 30 minutes of video footage of the Georgia convention at thecharminitiative(dot)wordpress(dot)com. Unfortunately it doesn’t show Sue Everhart’s McCain/Jesus remark, nor does it show the Ron Paul supporters standing to vote for suspending the rules to allow for floor nominations. What it does show is Randy Evans’ condescension toward those who foolishly thought they were at a political convention where open debate was allowed.

  • GINNY

    We love this! Your panties are all in a knot, and we’re making you uncomfortable. Get used to it.

  • Larry B.

    Are you serious when you write that Paul supporters are harming efforts to move the party in a more pro-liberty direction?
    The only pro-liberty promises I have heard from Republicans (or from Democrats for that matter) are coming from Ron Paul! If Paul supporters don’t make noise, our civil liberties are going to continue disappearing faster than unbiased reporting in the media.

  • Chris

    You know Dave, all us supporters of Ron Paul that are supposedly so “disruptive” I really hope that everyone who is a supporter of the good doctor still vote for him in November and really disrupt the establishment! As far as us harming moving the party in a more pro-liberty direction, what do you have to say about John McCain who wants to restrict free speech and even wants blogs to go through government approval before they can be posted. How exactly is that pro-liberty?

  • DJ

    Cherry Picking: The Executive loves it, the Mass Media runs with it, but the people aren’t going to buy it.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    So, apparently the primary characteristics of Ron Paul supporters are that they cannot read and are bizarrely paranoid. That’s the only way I can explain the first series of posts here, because they seem to have come to the conclusion that I’m attacking their movement, when the opposite is the case here.

    As should be clear from the article, I think the Ron Paul movement has something very positive to contribute to the GOP. My concern is that it’s being thrown away because their tactics are driving away the allies they need to actually break the stranglehold of the blue hairs and change the party. That’s why it’s all about ‘backlash’.

    Dave

  • Paula

    This is America and all voices should be heard. The GOP is going down the wrong path, I still can’t believe they backed McCain, he is a minibush. Ron Paul supporters see this, the rest of the country sees this except for the GOP. Ron Paul supporters by the numbers are getting involved in their local GOP and we are enthusiastic. Ron Paul inspires people like Obama inspires people, except Ron Paul has the track record to prove it. Obama is going to clean McCains clock in debates, because McCain is an empty shell. Ron Paul is the only candidate that I will continue to support, he walks the walk…its the message he brings to the American people. Ron Paul cares what happens to this country.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Sorry, Dave, but Ron Paul’s supporters didn’t ‘disrupt’ the Georgia Republican Convention as you state here. We were all duly elected delegates and, as such, were participating in our party’s convention no differently than any other delegates.

    Where did I say that here? The only thing I said about the Georgia convention was:

    In Georgia Paul supporters had insufficient numbers to sway the convention, and found themselves essentially shut out. As their efforts from the floor were voted down they ended up leaving the convention and achieving little or nothing.

    Which was based on the article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Now, based on your comments I see that they downplayed what went on at the convention, and that the Paul supporters there did engage in much the same strategy as they employed at other conventions which many have viewed as disruptive.

    Personally I think it’s reasonable to do some things from the floor. The problem is that based on past experience the convention managers have concluded that if they allow the RP supporters to get away with any motions from the floor that’s a first step to a complete takeover of the convention, which is a crappy situation for all of us, but one which the RP folks are ultimately responsible for creating.

    Dave

  • Shannon

    This is totally and completely untrue. Yes, lots of Ron Paul supporters discussed this a long time ago but the Ron Paul campaign decided that that was not the right thing to do. The campaign, above all else, wants us to act with integrity and to do this would not be taking the high road.

    I was just at my republican state convention, were you? The McCain people were the ones who used the rules against us. They used Stalin-style tactics such as handing out ballots that only had one name on them and they would not count any write ins. (They always got 100% of the vote, sound familiar?) They tried to use Robert’s Rules to cut off all debate or dissent. They even walked out in order to prevent any form of debate (which is the whole point of going to the convention at all) and they “lost” people’s paperwork and wouldn’t let them participate. Why are people not writing about that?

    We have always acted with dignity. We have played by their rules without using them against them. If you don’t believe me, tell me one single time when we have actually used Robert’s Rules in order to disrupt the convention?

    And also, you speak about how we’re creating “backlash” you couldn’t be further from the truth. At my convention I’ve heard a ton of people saying how they were McCain supporters and after seeing the McCain campaign’s actions they decided they were in the Paul camp. Every convention we go to people come over to our side and it’s BECAUSE we act with integrity and it’s not politics as usual. That’s why we fight.

  • Martina

    In Indiana, we did the only thing we could do: stood to vote no in opposition to the hand picked selection of delegate, electors, and committeemen. We didn’t cause a scene or disruption.

    The utter shocked look on people’s faces from the surprise of us daring to disagree with the party was discouraging to me. I didn’t go to the convention to be a rubber stamp sheep. I’m a part of the team when the team follows the rules.

    Funny thing is, we’re not enemies. Most of the Republicans I know in Indiana can’t STAND McCain, and only barely tolerate Daniels. Why is it they just can’t see that we’re on the same team?

    I hope Texas gets some headway with their lawsuit. I’m thankful in my county/district, the leaders are respectful, excited about having us involved, and are true conservatives. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s the case state or nationwide.

  • Clavos

    Ron Paul lost.

    Move on.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Clav,

    Dave writes yet another of his Ron-Paul-and-GOP-internal-politics screeds, with the usual predictable response.

    I’m done even reading them. Let’s all move on!

  • steve r

    I am just old enough to recall that similar charges and countercharges circulated about the Goldwater people during the times prior to his finally securing the GOP nomination.

    So will it always be when a failing, flailing entrenched smug atherosclerotic gerontocracy finds itself unexpectedly — and these things always understandably are unexpected — challenged by the young turks, in any organization at all times and in all places throughout history.

    Apparently McCain “would rather be right than President.” Recall that strategy worked out so well for President Henry Clay.

    The GOP of the neocon establishment ilk needs some years out of power in the desert for the surviving elements to come to terms with the egregious failings of the past decade or so.

    What is fascinating to me is that it took the Democrats decades longer in power unchallenged to become as arrogant, cynical and abusive of office as the GOP became since 1994. I hate to say anything nice about them then or now, but I have to wonder why. Perhaps it was the messianic zeal of the religious element who felt that they had a divine mandate to rule in all senses of the word.

    It would be better in the long run so as to avoid having the message mixed when the November rout occurs, if McCain were to pick one of the cloned dwarfs who stood with him on the stage to be his running mate. Thank goodness Ron Paul has ruled out running with McCain so long as McCain holds the positions he does. That forecloses the possibility that the electoral discrediting of the GOP in 2008 will be confounded in the popular mind with the views of authentic Republicans in the Taft/Goldwater/Paul tradition.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    This is totally and completely untrue. Yes, lots of Ron Paul supporters discussed this a long time ago but the Ron Paul campaign decided that that was not the right thing to do. The campaign, above all else, wants us to act with integrity and to do this would not be taking the high road.

    The truth is that this the description of tactics being used by both sides in this article is based on what’s actually happening at the state conventions.

    I was just at my republican state convention, were you?

    If you had bothered to read the article you’d know it’s not until next week.

    The McCain people were the ones who used the rules against us. They used Stalin-style tactics such as handing out ballots that only had one name on them and they would not count any write ins. (They always got 100% of the vote, sound familiar?) They tried to use Robert’s Rules to cut off all debate or dissent. They even walked out in order to prevent any form of debate (which is the whole point of going to the convention at all) and they “lost” people’s paperwork and wouldn’t let them participate. Why are people not writing about that?

    If you had read the article you’d know that this is what I’m reporting on. This is the backlash mentioned in the title.

    We have always acted with dignity. We have played by their rules without using them against them. If you don’t believe me, tell me one single time when we have actually used Robert’s Rules in order to disrupt the convention?

    Follow the links.

    And also, you speak about how we’re creating “backlash” you couldn’t be further from the truth. At my convention I’ve heard a ton of people saying how they were McCain supporters and after seeing the McCain campaign’s actions they decided they were in the Paul camp. Every convention we go to people come over to our side and it’s BECAUSE we act with integrity and it’s not politics as usual. That’s why we fight.

    What you’re describing here is backlash against the backlash, and I guess that’s a good thing – but the problem is that it doesn’t get anything accomplished.

    Dave

  • Another Georgia Delegate

    @ Georgia Delegate

    The McCain camp didn’t have much of a choice but to change the rules to supercede Robert’s Rules. They had to make a decision that would bring about the most good to the majority of the party. Allowing the Paul people to make nominations from the floor in opposition to the ones that were already chosen by the nominating committee would have been a disaster. The convention would have never ended. The same is true with all the other state conventions. The GOP leadership has to “bend” the rules so to speak in order to prevent the Paul people from taking over or from influencing other delegates that may or may not understand certain GOP positions/resolutions. I thought Randy Evans did a superb job of “quelling the rebellion” even though as it turned out, the Paul people didn’t have a majority. Contrary to popular opinion, the purpose of the state conventions is NOT to elect national delegates…those are already elected by the nominating committee. The purpose is to celebrate the Republican Party, and every four years, we celebrate the Republican nominee for President. If you want to be a national delegate, you have to earn it.

    Knowing that, you have to admit that the Paul people were treated very fairly. The Paul people were the ones that were disrupting the convention and even booing the chairman. When things got out of hand, or when a Paul person was contesting a resolution that absolutely did NOT need to be contested, Randy Evans would politely and professionally rule their motion “out of order” or even turn their mic down. One guy was hauled off by security I think because he wouldn’t shut up, and he seemed to be threatening the chairman. This is the kind of stuff that we (and especially the chairman) had to put up with. And we weren’t going to tolerate it. As they say, “desperate times call for desperate measures”.

    Look, McCain wasn’t my first choice, but as the primaries progressed, it was clear that he was the choice of the majority of the Republican Party. At that point, I knew that I had to align myself with his candidacy and support him. That is what you need to do. Join the Republican party or create your own party. As of now, you really don’t belong in the GOP.

    Support McCain!

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Odd, that last description doesn’t sound like the prior claim of Paul supporters “acting with dignity and respect”.

    Clearly there are two very different perspectives here.

    I do think that our last Georgian is off-base in suggesting that the convention is for no purpose but to celebrate the party and candidate. There ought to be provisions for reasonable challenges to delegates and to changing the slate of delegates at the convention.

    The nominating committee process allows for very little input, and those who aren’t part of the in-group do deserve some sort of voice, and the convention may be the only place they can be heard. So they ought to be heard – but their demands should be reasonable and not disruptive and they shouldn’t be trying to completely take over conventions. There needs to be a process where the factions can meet part way and work out a compromise which benefits everyone fairly.

    Dave

  • Jack D

    To all you McCainiacs

    What should be important to everyone is whoever gets picked should fulfill their job according the country’s rule book, the Constitution.

    When you are watching professional sports everyone expects the judges to not take sides or have their own agenda. They are expected to make sure that both sides stick to the rules. I don’t see why a President or any other person “SWORN” to uphold and defend it should have a “platform” The platform has been laid out since 1776 and if the rules are to change, there are appropriate ways to do it and that doesn’t mean voting for the next Dictator because you like the platform of that Dictator.

    For those of you that think America is a Democracy or that the Federal Reserve is Federal, please do your country and the rest of us a favor by staying home on election day. You are far too uninformed to be choosing our next leader. America is a Republic and the Federal Reserve is privately owned with 12 member banks.

    For those of you who just can’t figure out what it is going through the minds of the Paul supporters I would suggest for starters watching the online videos Overview of America and America Freedom to Fascism.

    I think I can speak for most Paul supporters when I say that living in this country is like being on an ice burgh where the majority of the people want to ride it out while the Paul people are screaming from the roof tops to get off the burgh and into the boat but Americans think the boat is too nutty of an idea. We have been playing this game of arguing over Democrat versus Republican with each having their left or right platform and we then tend to vote based on that and forget all about the Constitution as do our leaders.

    We are just trying to save the country from things that you are not yet aware of. Please understand this. Please just watch the videos and the light just might come on in your head.

  • Doug

    My wife and I donated the max allowed for Ron Pauls campaign. I joined the local RP meetup group. My wife and I went door to door handing out RP campaign material. This from a couple who has never voted for a presidential candidate before. We’re watching the GOP’s action to determine if they deserve our support.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Jack, you express brilliantly (if accidentally) why so many of us are frustrated with the Ron Paul supporters.

    First, there’s the condescension. Do you honestly think that the rest of us don’t want to follow the constitution? That we don’t know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? The problem here is that you want to follow an edited version of the Constitution and ignore the parts you don’t like. As for the Federal Reserve, we all know what it is, but that doesn’t mean that we agree that it’s a bad thing. Most libertarians think that privatizing government institutions is a GOOD thing.

    Then there’s the videos you mention. Twaddle from Alex Jones and other JBS stooges. Most of us aren’t interested in being part of the lunatic fringe.

    It’s not that we’re unware of the problems in this country, it’s that we want real solutions to real problems, not fantasy solutions to paranoid problems.

    Dave

  • http://www.DouglasTaxes.com Brad F

    With Barr in the race, McCain can’t win… So make your choice republicans, Barr Or Obama?

    The Ron Paulers will never support McCain unless water boarding is implemented as the newest GOP recruiting tool.

    Ron Paul has his own party, It’s the Libertarian Party.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    My wife and I donated the max allowed for Ron Pauls campaign. I joined the local RP meetup group. My wife and I went door to door handing out RP campaign material. This from a couple who has never voted for a presidential candidate before. We’re watching the GOP’s action to determine if they deserve our support.

    So what would make them ‘deserve’ your support? Giving Ron Paul the nomination despite the fact that he didn’t win even close to a majority of the primary vote or the delegates? If that’s your standard then you’re not being realistic.

    Would you be satisfied if the party platform looked somewhat more reasonable than it has since 1964 and if Paul got a decent speaking slot at the national convention? At this point that’s about all you can realistically hope for. More change might be possible in an off-year.

    Dave

  • Mike

    Up here in Washington the McCain supporters walked out of the convention, attempting to break the quorum so we couldn’t debate resolutions. We spent 45 minutes counting people, then when we still had enough people to continue, they all came rushing back in from the hallway. They proceeded to stall another 45 minutes while they could all return, and by then we didn’t have enough people vote to extend the convention.

    Who’s being disruptive here?

  • Doug

    They would deserve our support by 1) recognizing the party has drifted far far away from it’s platform of smaller government and more liberties, and 2) follow their own GOP rules.

    You mentioned that the Fed can’t be all bad because it’s privatized, and that that is what libertarians’ goal is. That’s incorrect, libertarians goal is for a free market. for instance if the government passed a law requiring you to buy your chicken from Tyson’s that would indeed be a product produced by a private company but it would be a far cry from being a free market. Its the same with the Federal Reserve and their product (The Federal Reserve Note).

  • Greg

    Keep up the good work everyone! Obama is a shoe-in for the presidency and I thank you all for your efforts to make that even more likely.

    To the Republicans: your lying, incompetence, greed, and nepotism have shown the country your true nature..

    To the Paulestinians: your complete detachment from reality and incredible tenacity will disrupt the GOP machinery and siphon off votes.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you!

  • Mike

    Dave says:

    “So what would make them ‘deserve’ your support? Giving Ron Paul the nomination despite the fact that he didn’t win even close to a majority of the primary vote or the delegates? If that’s your standard then you’re not being realistic.

    Would you be satisfied if the party platform looked somewhat more reasonable than it has since 1964 and if Paul got a decent speaking slot at the national convention? At this point that’s about all you can realistically hope for. More change might be possible in an off-year.

    Dave”

    Treating us like Republicans would be a start. Not being an RP supporter, I am sure that you’re not aware of the constant GOP and media treatment that we’ve been getting from the beginning of the race. The conventions are just more of the same. Turn away and mock the Ron Paul supporters, and forget the fact that all these people were elected to their positions. And now we have resistance to letting us run for local PCO and smaller seats. They’re changing the rules or telling us we can’t file to run, or any number of other things to try to stop us from being on the ballot.

    Again, who’s being disruptive here?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    They would deserve our support by 1) recognizing the party has drifted far far away from it’s platform of smaller government and more liberties, and 2) follow their own GOP rules.

    How do you measure the first, and how do you enforce the second?

    People from every wing of the party have been expressing concern for years that the party is not holding politicians accountable for their actions. We keep hammering that issue and yet the voters keep reelecting the same useless fools.

    As for enforcing their own rules, it seems to me like the party has been operating conventions on an unwritten set of rules for years, and the problem is that they don’t conform to the expectations and assumptions of newcomers who want things to be run differently and will settle for nothing less than absolute control.

    You mentioned that the Fed can’t be all bad because it’s privatized,

    I didn’t say anything like that, actually.

    Dave

  • Carol

    The backlash of which you speak has certainly not been very politic. I mean, the GOP has merely solidified the poor perceptions that Ron Paul supporters had of it, and offending them to the point of voting for Bob Barr seems a bit like shooting themselves in the foot.

    Indeed, the McCain worker who said that McCain didn’t want the Ron Paul vote and they should all “get lost” is very likely to get exactly what he wished for.

    But McCain has never been the sharpest tool in the shed….

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Treating us like Republicans would be a start.

    You miss my entire point here. The actions of Ron Paul supporters are having negative consequences for other GOP activists too.

    Not being an RP supporter,

    What makes you think I’m not? I’ve been a libertarian since before most of RP’s supporters were born. I’ve campaigned for him and voted for him and donated money to his campaigns. What I do not support is pseudolibertarians from the John Birch society using extreme tactics which are driving the GOP back into the arms of the relgious right.

    I am sure that you’re not aware of the constant GOP and media treatment that we’ve been getting from the beginning of the race.

    I’m fully aware of the complaints about it. The evidence to support those complaints is pretty sketchy, especially when it comes to persecution in the MSM. Paul got way more exposure than any of the other also-rans.

    The conventions are just more of the same. Turn away and mock the Ron Paul supporters, and forget the fact that all these people were elected to their positions. And now we have resistance to letting us run for local PCO and smaller seats. They’re changing the rules or telling us we can’t file to run, or any number of other things to try to stop us from being on the ballot.

    Now this is a new story. I’d love to hear more about it. Can you provide any sources or definite information that I can follow up on?

    Dave

    Again, who’s being disruptive here?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    You know Dave, all us supporters of Ron Paul that are supposedly so “disruptive” I really hope that everyone who is a supporter of the good doctor still vote for him in November and really disrupt the establishment!

    That extra hand-motion to throw invalid ballots in the trash might create a rash of carpal tunnel syndrome, I guess.

    As far as us harming moving the party in a more pro-liberty direction, what do you have to say about John McCain who wants to restrict free speech and even wants blogs to go through government approval before they can be posted. How exactly is that pro-liberty?

    I’d say that’s a self-serving, bullshit interpretation of things McCain has advocated. I’m no fan of his campaign finance reform ideas, but they certainly didn’t include direct government censorship of any form of private individual speech.

    Dave

  • http://del.icio.us/autofyrsto Tim

    Good constructive criticism. Helpful discussion in the comments. I think what we really need is for more people like those in comment #3 to post full videos of their conventions so that we can all judge for ourselves who is acting with integrity and who isn’t.

    I support Ron Paul all the way and I encourage all bona-fide objections Republican Convention resolutions and procedures. Just because something takes up time, that doesn’t necessarily make it unethically “disruptive”. Getting it right takes time.

    On the other hand, I do not support strategically using a rule as a means to some other end for which it was not intended. If a cleanly run convention yields a result that one finds unfavorable, then I guess one has to either live with it or leave the party.

    For people to best judge for themselves whether the Republican party is running clean conventions, we need to see more videos like the one posted in comment #3.

    I don’t think it matters that John McCain is the “presumptive” nominee. What matters is who is willing to show up for these conventions and who is willing to fight hardest for their preferred candidate within the letter and spirit of the rules of the party.

  • Helen

    There is a point in Ron Paul’s most recent book that I think is very important, that being that the extreme enmity that Americans have for each other at election time is premised upon the realization that both parties absolutley will operate outside the rulebook. Americans fear great harm coming to them as a result of what the other party will do to them if it should be elected.

    Ron Paul reminds us that the constitution forbids the government from doing harm to any of us. If the president and congress were abiding by the constitution, no one would have anything to fear by the other party getting elected. The worse thing that could happen is for the electorate to be a bit annoyed with the government, not actually harmed by them.

    The Democrats rightly fear what the Republicans will do outside the constitution and the Republicans fear what the Democrats will do outside the constitution. We get to choose bewteen having our property seized or having our civil liberties eliminated. Nice choice….

    But since neither party wants to commit to playing by the rulebook, since their power comes from playing outside the rulebook, not playing within it — and since they are both too cowardly to openly denounce the rulebook — we have a nation that will continue to be divided against itself.

    It is only the Libertarians (with both large and small l’s) and Constitutionalists who demand that government play by its own rules. That concept has become so foreign to Americans as to now seem kooky. But would it really be so hard to do…?

  • acptulsa

    Another Georgia Delegate said, “Look, McCain wasn’t my first choice, but as the primaries progressed, it was clear that he was the choice of the majority of the Republican Party. At that point, I knew that I had to align myself with his candidacy and support him. That is what you need to do. Join the Republican party or create your own party. As of now, you really don’t belong in the GOP.”

    Not too long after McCain was “crowned”, I added the numbers up and found that McCain and 9iu11iani together managed eight million votes and Romney, Huckabee, Paul and Thompson together got about eleven and a half million votes up to that point. How do you figure you are in the minority by not preferring McCain? Are you happy your neocon bosses carefully split the conservative vote? Does this please you? Are you sure there’s enough difference between him and Obama to be worth fighting for?

    If we won’t get behind McCain does it really mean more than that we think for ourselves? And if this is the reason you say we don’t belong in the G.O.P., isn’t that sad?

  • JP

    I think this is the last Nalle blog I will read. Im sure you can find something to write about other than desparaging Paul supporters while touting McSame. How many McCain Points are you earning with your blog Dave? Guys like you *rely* on us for your hits because you can’t discuss real issues. Im done feeding into it.

  • Lumpy

    JP. As far as I can tell this article isn’t even vaguely about McCain. He’s just mentioned in passing in the first paragraph.

    BTW liberty is still liberty even if it doesn’t come with Ron Paul and the fascist agenda of the birchers attached to it.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I think this is the last Nalle blog I will read.

    Did you actually READ this one? I doubt it.

    Im sure you can find something to write about other than desparaging Paul supporters while touting McSame.

    Where do I tout McCain? I’m indifferent to him.

    How many McCain Points are you earning with your blog Dave?

    I didn’t realize they were giving out points. Where do I collect them?

    Guys like you *rely* on us for your hits because you can’t discuss real issues. Im done feeding into it.

    If I just wanted hits there are easier ways to get them, though the comments of B5 and Pretty Ricky fans are at about the same intellectual level of most Ron Paul supporters.

    Dave

  • http://evilbankers.com Drumz

    Hah – right, Dave. The whole party is out of line and you only expect Ron Paul’s supporters to take the high road? This is politics baby. Don’t be such a pussy.

  • Huckans

    Dave,
    I notice you didn’t respond to the Washington convention comment (#24). And what did you say about the Fed that was different than the Tyson example? Also, I could give you countless examples of the media’s and the GOP establishment’s poor treatment of Paul. I am shocked that you deny this persecution. It started with Saul Anuzis.

    Cheers

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    You’d think I’d get sick of the “Nalle writes about Paul, then random Paul supporters bitch him out” routine by now. I’d have thought so too. We were both wrong.

  • http://www.dinksfinance.com James

    Interesting. Aren’t the tactics you describe what anyone would do? After all, politics in America is a contact sport.

    I think many people consider the paulites “annoying” or “hostile” because of ideological differences within the party e.g. libertarian vs. more mainstream philosophy.

  • Bill Moore

    It’s interesting to watch those that make rules and laws squirm when they are put into a situation where they have to abide by them themselves.

    Strange how Ron Paul supporters following their own goals within the rules is considered disruptive while McCain folks breaking the rules in order to protect unwritten rules is considered acceptable.

    I too will be there in TX as a delegate and I have had the bylaws in my bathroom as reading material for months. I hope the rules are followed.

  • Jeremy Blosser

    Their contention is that the plan to run most of the convention under the authority of the temporary Chairman and executive committee appointed prior to the convention is a violation of Texas election law and that the first order of business ought to be to elect new leadership. I don’t know Texas election law well enough to say whether they have a case, but it certainly seems much more reasonable to run the convention that way.

    Texas Election Code Sec. 174.094 & .095

    § 174.094. ORGANIZING THE CONVENTION. (a) The state
    chair is the temporary chair of the biennial state convention.
    (b) The temporary chair shall call the convention to order.
    (c) The temporary chair shall prepare a list of the names
    and residence addresses of the delegates and any alternate
    delegates to the convention and shall deliver the list to the
    convention.
    (d) The convention shall select a convention chair and a
    convention secretary. The convention may select any other officers
    considered necessary to conduct the convention’s business.

    Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by
    Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, § 186, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

    § 174.095. CONVENTION BUSINESS. After the convention is
    organized, the convention shall conduct its business.

    The law is pretty doggone clear. The court agreed.

    You touched on it, but it needs to be made abundantly clear that the Ron Paul people did not start even this fight in Texas, they have basically been reinforcements. This particular issue has been raised for something like 12 years, but this is the first time people have been fed up enough to go to court. The lawyer in the case, Gary Polland, is himself an outspoken McCain supporter. There are affidavits filed from at least one Huckabee voter and someone else I know supported Thompson and then Romney.

    Despite this there’s really no question the media and party establishment are going to try to paint it as a Ron Paul issue. It’s just too hard for some to believe that we honestly just want respect for the law and fair debate and fair votes, and for the majority to win while respecting the rights of the minority. It is not some kind of parliamentary trick to ask the rules be followed when they aren’t, people have just been abusing them so long they barely remember what they are.

    They also have concerns about irregularities in various district convention, a knife which cuts both ways because there seem to be as many instances where Ron Paul supporters abused the process as there are of abuse by party insiders.

    Can you please cite one example of abuse by Paul supporters?

    The irregularities in question are not minor, by the way. Nueces County added unelected delegate and threw people out when they complained. They’ve been continuing that abuse ever since. Now the 13th Court of Appeals has ordered Nueces County Chairman Mike Bertuzzi to grant access to the copies of precinct convention minutes as required by both Party rule and TEC so we can hopefully get to the bottom of just how bad it was.

    More details available here.

  • John

    It appears to be an uphill battle, with many of their efforts devolving into little more than delaying tactics and spreading chaos, and in many cases generating a hostile backlash from the party establishment which is harming efforts to move the party in a more pro-liberty direction.

    The only group preventing the Republican party from moving in a pro-liberty direction is the Republican party. They openly want to go the other direction.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    This is one of the two worst articles I’ve ever read. The other one was on this site also. The entire article is based on lies and a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Ron Paul delegates are not disrupting GOP conventions. They are being shut out of the conventions with all manner of dirty tricks.

  • RM

    To stand up for ourselves is disruptive. To stand up for the rule of law is disruptive. To do anything that the Republican party doesn’t approve of beforehand is going to be considered disruptive. To do ANYTHING in any manner, shape or form that the Republican party decides is soooo 5 minutes ago, is going to be declared disruptive.

    So what’s your point?

    Why the hell would I care if the Republican party leadership was happy anyway? When was the last time they gave a rats ass about the rest of us? Considering that McCain is their darling child, it’s obvious to any sane and cognitive amoeba that this whole presidential race is a sham. So if you want to live on your knees, then by all means, be very very careful not to ripple the water.

    @Another Georgia Delegate
    If you want to be a national delegate, you have to earn it.

    National delegates are elected (in a fair convention) at the state convention, by their fellow state convention delegates. It’s not something you earn.

    Dave, keep working and honing that journalistic skill. Some day, who knows, you may just have a marketable skill.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Strange how Ron Paul supporters following their own goals within the rules is considered disruptive while McCain folks breaking the rules in order to protect unwritten rules is considered acceptable.

    No, the behavior of the party insiders is considered oppressive and abusive, not acceptable. And don’t label them all as McCain supporters. They are mostly supporters of their own interests and little power bases and have no real connection to McCain and certainly don’t get their marching orders from him.

    Dave

  • Scott

    As a supporter of Ron Paul I will never vote for John McCain. I might even consider swallowing the blue pill in as protest vote.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    SYou touched on it, but it needs to be made abundantly clear that the Ron Paul people did not start even this fight in Texas, they have basically been reinforcements. This particular issue has been raised for something like 12 years, but this is the first time people have been fed up enough to go to court.

    I go into this in detail in my other recent article which frenzied readers have largely ignored.

    Can you please cite one example of abuse by Paul supporters?

    IMO the events in SD25 are as much an abuse of the process as anything which party insiders did to Ron Paul supporters. Totally taking over a convention and then throwing out all the non RP delegates and replacing them with Ron Paul delegates is exactly the same kind of abuse of the system as the evil overlords were practicing at other conventions. And there’s also a legitimate concern about any convention where Paul got delegates assigned to him far out of proportion to his showing in the primary vote. That means that voters who did not support Paul are being disenfranchised.

    The irregularities in question are not minor, by the way. Nueces County added unelected delegate and threw people out when they complained.

    There are worse stories from other states. I probably ought to do a whole report on Colorado where they had cops dragging people out of the convention.

    They’ve been continuing that abuse ever since.

    IMO the wrost abuse – which I reference in my other article – is the violations of the open meetings act when the credentials committee refused to let Ron Paul supporters sit in and observe their proceedings. A clear and blatant violation of Texas law.

    Now the 13th Court of Appeals has ordered Nueces County Chairman Mike Bertuzzi to grant access to the copies of precinct convention minutes as required by both Party rule and TEC so we can hopefully get to the bottom of just how bad it was.

    I assume that’s on the agenda for Monday’s hearing. If anyone has contacts among the plaintiffs I’d love any info I can put into an article about the outcome of the suit.

    Dave

  • Soapbox Empress

    Declare Your Independence!! Stop “Gang Mentality” Politics!! Say Eff U to the Democrats and Eff U to the Republicans! Register as an Independent!! What is the point of “party” allegiance?

    I think Ron Paul would get more support if he could get proper air time to get his message across. The political race definitely isn’t a fair race when exposure is directly related to money, which is a breeding ground for corruption. I would be curious to know who would win if they all had a limit on how much they could spend. I mean a real freakin’ limit.

    Check this out.

  • Tom deSabla

    So this is Dave Nalle’s “work”?

    Well, I don’t want to get too personal, but I have skimmed the article and browsed the comments, and:

    “The problem here is that you want to follow an edited version of the Constitution and ignore the parts you don’t like. As for the Federal Reserve, we all know what it is, but that doesn’t mean that we agree that it’s a bad thing. Most libertarians think that privatizing government institutions is a GOOD thing.”

    Then later, when someone said…

    “You mentioned that the Fed can’t be all bad because it’s privatized,”

    you responded

    “I didn’t say anything like that, actually.”

    Actually, it was very like that. I must point out that since you apparently don’t agree that the Fed (central bank) is a bad thing, then you are at odds not only with Ron Paul, but also Thomas Jefferson.

    Therefore, it is you who finds the Constitution wanting, since it contains no provisions for a central bank and specifies the use of gold and silver as money, and it is you who think that you know better than Paul and Jefferson.

    Sorry Dave, but I’m going to have to go with those other guys over you on monetary economics. Nothing personal about it.

    As for this comment on McCain…

    “I’m no fan of his campaign finance reform ideas, but they certainly didn’t include direct government censorship of any form of private individual speech.”

    What kind of doubletalk is this? “…they certainly didn’t include direct government censorship of any form of private individual speech”? Well, gee, so what? They certainly didn’t require anyone’s balls to get cut off either – and for that we’re supposed to be so grateful?

    The point here, which Dave hopes that no one gets, is that EVERYTHING ELSE but that, including all public speech by all private individuals and all financial support by private individuals, IS in McCain’s freedom-seeking missile sights.

    Dave Nalle was never a libertarian. I don’t buy that for a second. It’s a typical tactic – pretending that he “used to be a libertarian, till he saw the error of his ways” blah blah blah. Oh, please – we’ve heard this tired old refrain a million times before and it’s so obviously a load of bullcrap.

    He’s a statist, and obviously doesn’t have a clue – not a freaking clue what is wrong with this country. Either that or the truth is far worse – he DOES know the truth deep down, but just doesn’t have the guts to admit it to himself or to others.

    What’s amazing is that every prediction that Paul and the Austrians have made is coming true right now, and these statists just can’t face it. They have resorted to stomping their feet with their fingers in their ears, shouting “I can’t hear you!!” over and over. The juvenile behavior of the mainstream GOP when faced with strong Ron Paul support at straw polls and state conventions is a case in point. Many cases in fact.

    It’s no wonder Paul supporters are trying to take over. They should take over. Mainstreamers and their pipe-sucking statist visions have destroyed our economy with their elitist, inflationary, warlike policies, and all the real adjustments that have been delayed for so long are headed this way fast for a totally unprepared America to deal with.

    Meanwhile, people like Nalle are still spinning their stupid propaganda webs to make sure that as few people as possible will be prepared.

    That’s not a legacy I’d want.

  • Clavos

    “skimmed” and “browsed” huh?

    So much for your opinion; that’s as far into your comment as I found it necessary to go.

    Typical paulbot propagandist.

    He lost; get over it.

  • Chris

    My experiences were the exact opposite at the WA state convention. It was the GOP establishment that was subverting order. We tried to count when it was obvious they did not have 2/3 and they would not allow a count. But they demanded a count, they got it, to protest a quorum count that they did not think we could meet. They wasted 2+HOURS on these tactics meant to shut down debate on substantive issues like Real ID and NAIS. If anything, a lot of McCain delegates defected for us to win that quorum vote (the one they got the roll count on that we won 2 to one–talk about frivolous counting). I believe that many of the McCain delegates started to wake up that day. They also violated state law in not allowing us to chose 19 of the delegates.

  • http://www.ronpaul2008.com JBlund

    I’m a lifelong Republican. Over the past 8-years, I’d grown so disappointed in the “big government, anti-freedom” Republican Party exemplified by George W. Bush that I considered leaving the party for the Libertarian Party.

    Ron Paul gave me hope that the Republican Party could return to its roots: fiscal conservatism, pro-freedom, pro-Constitution.

    I’m a Republican delegate in Texas. As such, I have the right to speak my mind at the convention.

    If the convention becomes nothing more than a “shut up and do as the party leaders tell you” affair, why bother having a convention at all?

    I won’t be voting for McCain- he is just too much like Bush, and I won’t be opening my checkbook anymore until the Republican Party gets back to what it says it stands for…

  • joe

    Fuck you to the establishment GOP and McCain supporters. You and your fascist’s ilk are the disruptive ones! Go to hell! Yaw right, I’m going to vote for someone who believes in Global Warming and giving amnesty to millions of illegals! Ha! Barr/Root 2008! Kiss my ass former Republican ass!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Actually, it was very like that. I must point out that since you apparently don’t agree that the Fed (central bank) is a bad thing, then you are at odds not only with Ron Paul, but also Thomas Jefferson.

    Thomas Jefferson was not our only founding father. He was one of the most notable ones, but so were Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, both of whom supported a central bank.

    Therefore, it is you who finds the Constitution wanting, since it contains no provisions for a central bank and specifies the use of gold and silver as money, and it is you who think that you know better than Paul and Jefferson.

    You see, unlike you and so many Ron Paul supporters, I’ve actually READ the Constitution, not just some cribbed notes on it published by the JBS.

    The Constitution does not in fact specify the use of gold and silver as money when issued by the federal government. What it does say in Article 1, Section 10, is that the states may not issue paper money or any kind of debt instrument or currency except for gold and silver, specifically because that power is reserved for the federal government, which is given the power to “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof.” And that does not specify what the money should be coined of – it could be made of paper or eagle feathers so long as the value is regulated by the Congress.

    What’s more, the idea of a national bank has been upheld by the Supreme Court over and over again. Surely they still teach McCulloch vs. Maryland in High School government classes?

    The point here, which Dave hopes that no one gets, is that EVERYTHING ELSE but that, including all public speech by all private individuals and all financial support by private individuals, IS in McCain’s freedom-seeking missile sights.

    Really? Perhaps you could enumerate for me exactly where those limitations are in the McCain -Feingold act? Here’s a copy of the law for your reference. It might be a good read. BTW, the only restriction on contributions or speech by individuals under the act is the change in the amount they can donate. But look it up for yourself, don’t take my word for it.

    Dave Nalle was never a libertarian. I don’t buy that for a second.

    My libertarian credentials are a matter of public record. Go find an old copy of Liberty Magazine with my name on the masthead, or send me $20 and I’ll ship you one of my old campaign yard signs.

    It’s a typical tactic – pretending that he “used to be a libertarian, till he saw the error of his ways” blah blah blah. Oh, please – we’ve heard this tired old refrain a million times before and it’s so obviously a load of bullcrap.

    When did I say I ‘used’ to be a libertarian? I still am a libertarian. I just don’t think that libertarianism is limited to a single brand name approved by Ron Paul and the JBS.

    He’s a statist,

    I’d love to see your reasoning here. Being critical of Ron Paul supporters automatically makes me a statist? Does being critical of the Iraq War automatically make one a terrorist?

    and obviously doesn’t have a clue – not a freaking clue what is wrong with this country.

    There’s a lot wrong with the country – so much that I find wasting effort going after imaginary 9/11 conspirators and ranting about the CFR to be shameful wastes of the resources we need to set things right.

    Dave

  • Randy Dixon

    Mr. Nalle is trying to make a good point. We, the Ron Paul Republicans, will make more progress if we work with the party regulars than if we work against them. The problem, that Mr. Nalle doesn’t seem willing to acknowledge is that most of the old guard don’t have any intention or desire to work with us. We don’t “disrupt conventions” because that is our choice, if we do it, we do it because we have little choice. We are ignored, challenged and stonewalled when we try to work with many of them and to work within the normal process. We cooperate when we can, work for the party when we can, and fight when we have to. Mr. Nalle says that our efforts are counterproductive, but he doesn’t give us a viable alternative other than to quit fighting and take whatever scraps of representation, which is often none, that the party establishment wishes to grant us. This isn’t acceptable.

    Let’s face it, this is a fight for the soul of the party. We reject the neo-con agenda, for those who are neo-cons, and there are many in the leadership positions of the GOP, there will be no acceptance of us. We will also not accept their positions, so there will be conflict. Currently, they hold the reins, but the conservative Republicans, including the Ron Paul Rebublicans, but also many others, represent the silent majority of the party and the neo-con days are numbered.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    RAndy, I think you have some good points. But many of the old guard would like to work with you, but have been scared out of doing so.

    Their leaders tell them that Ron Paul people are coming to assault the party and stage a takeover. You then act like that’s exactly what you have in mind. They take that as confirmation of your hostile intentions and react accordingly.

    The party leaders and insiders may indeed be at fault, but Ron Paul supporters are playing into their hands by acting exactly like the agents of chaos they are accused of being.

    We reject the neo-con agenda, for those who are neo-cons, and there are many in the leadership positions of the GOP, there will be no acceptance of us. We will also not accept their positions, so there will be conflict. Currently, they hold the reins, but the conservative Republicans, including the Ron Paul Rebublicans, but also many others, represent the silent majority of the party and the neo-con days are numbered.

    Another Paulite with this same garbage about neocons. Do you know who the neocons are? No one in a position of power in the Texas GOP is likely to be a bonafide neocon. There are a lot of folks from the religious right and some people who are very conservative, and some who like a lot of traditional republicans believe in an assertive foreign policy, but none of them are former socialists who believe in a quasi-stalinist foreign policy and building an American Empire. Real neocons are a tiny minority of the party and are mostly a bunch of policy wonks in think tanks with little or no real power.

    Damn I’m tired of seeing leftists and paulites misusing that term.

    Dave

  • Aaron

    Ron Paul’s supporters are not messing up the conventions, we are standing our ground and fighting to get our party back. We are working within the party rules and at every turn getting messed over by the entrenched neocons who currently hold power in the GOP.

    The conservatives in the Republican party just won’t stomach John McCain as the nominee because he doesn’t represent us and he has no shot at winning in November. The GOP is setting us up to fail.

  • Aaron

    Ron Paul’s supporters are not messing up the conventions, we are standing our ground and fighting to get our party back. We are working within the party rules and at every turn getting messed over by the entrenched neocons who currently hold power in the GOP.

    The conservatives in the Republican party just won’t stomach John McCain as the nominee because he doesn’t represent us and he has no shot at winning in November. The GOP is setting us up to fail.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Are you a conservative or a libertarian? They’re not the same thing, you know.

    Dave

  • http://retirerinos.blogspot.com Jim Wilson

    Mr Nalle,
    I don’t believe you were at the MN convention. I was. It was the party regulars who introduced temporary rules that were against state party constitution, regarding percentages (knowing we were about 40%, they raised debate to 66%). It would take 66% of the people to modify that rule that was there from the start.
    It was the conservative people around me who didn’t understand the parliamentary moves at the beginning of the question then later saw the desperation of the GOP calling the question after a motion was brought forth, NO DEBATE at all, the WHOLE convention.

    I covered some of the underhanded tactics at my blog. They didn’t even allow republicans to run for national delegate, only the ones they wanted to go through. No nominees from the floor, that took…you guessed it, 66% of the counted delegation body.

    Additionally, you cannot “hide behind Robert’s rules”. If you don’t like them, change them. We utilize the rules to operate the convention.

    It’s too bad that the state party chairman (Ron Carey) violated party bylaws by endorsing a candidate (Huckabee) as well as providing isolational treatment to one candidate and preferential treatment to another. Carey sent the entire delegate body name and address to the McCain camp warning them they better get people to the convention or the “Paulites” will take it over. Rumor has it the McCain camp paid delegates to come, and paid for their hotels as well.

    Funny, all we wanted to do is change the rules to A) allow delegate nominations from the floor
    or
    B) allow our delegates to be on the ballot.

    We wanted nothing else other than our delegates on the ballot (and we can win or lose on our own merits, not the state party picking the winners months in advance.

  • http://www.lettertogop.com Kenny

    READ IT,SIGN IT and SPREAD IT mccains campaign is over

  • Kyle

    It’s very refreshing to see a libertarian stand up to the Ron Paul cult. I’m no libertarian – I find the ideology to be naive and unrealistic, much like, say, Communism – but I have to say Dave Nalle has caused me to respect genuine libertarians (as opposed to Paultards) a bit more.

  • Tom deSabla

    Clavos, you fool – my “skimming and browsing” is more intellectually productive than if you were to study the article for a year.

    My question to you is, if we are all Paulbot propagandists – then how, specifically and factually, does that propaganda differ from the Constitution?

    ***
    Steely Dan for Kyle:

    Kyle, you wouldn’t even know a cult if it was deep within your plan, and what you find refreshing I can’t understand.

    Are you in denial he – re?
    pretending Dave’s the ma – an?
    You’re logic’s mighty que – eer
    better get a brain sca – an

    **

    Dave – Hamilton and Adams didn’t understand economics as well as Jefferson, and they were simply wrong. The proof is in the pudding here; we’re staring down the barrel of the collapse of the international banking system right now. Volcker himself has confirmed as much. If central banking were so great, and such an advance over the international gold standard, then it shouldn’t be happening.

    History supports Jefferson, and delaying the collapse of fiat systems by decades does not somehow make them stable. Not to mention that they hand the nations currency supply over to banks, thereby allowing the common man (who actually produces something) to fall further and further behind the banking class.

    As to your other comments on constitutional money…they are juvenile and ignorant.

    First off, everyone knows the founders did not like paper money – that’s why there was a coinage act of 1792 specifying the “Spanish Milled Dollar” as the official currency unit of the United States.

    Second, one cannot coin money out of anything but metal. Your statement here is absurd.

    Third, and most importantly, we can easily deduce from that very same part of the constitution that there is no federal constitutional power to create money out of thin air at will. It’s very simple! There can be no such power, because if there were, then there would never be a need to “borrow money on the credit of the United States”, now would there?

    No, and there is NO WAY AROUND THIS REASONING.

    As to McCain, does anyone think that McCain-Feingold is his last and only assault on political speech? I didn’t specify McCain- Feingold anyway, you did. It’s a matter of public record that McCain opposes talk radio and many other forms of expression, and will work with the other side to enact more and more stupid legislation to regulate them.

    C’mon Dave HE’S ALREADY DONE A BUNCH OF THIS STUFF, SO WHY PRETEND OTHERWISE?

    As to this:

    “My libertarian credentials are a matter of public record”

    Yes they are, Dave, and your record of actually defending people’s freedom is weak to non-existent. Who cares who you used to work for anyway? What have they ever achieved?

    Finally, as to this:

    ME “He’s a statist,

    DAVE I’d love to see your reasoning here. Being critical of Ron Paul supporters automatically makes me a statist? Does being critical of the Iraq War automatically make one a terrorist?

    ME My reasoning is that too much government – period – is clearly the problem in this country. Nothing else really comes close. So, if someone supports anti-libertarian candidates like McCain, and attacks pro-freedom, pro-constitutional candidates like Paul (and his supporters) who actually want to cut the state down some, then they are a statist.

    Nalle is supporting the state here, make no mistake about it.

    ME and obviously doesn’t have a clue – not a freaking clue what is wrong with this country.

    DAVE There’s a lot wrong with the country – so much that I find wasting effort going after imaginary 9/11 conspirators and ranting about the CFR to be shameful wastes of the resources we need to set things right.”

    Well, suppose you give us some specifics about what is wrong with this country. Let’s hear your solutions, since Paul’s are wrong, and his supporters are a cult or whatever. Don’t be coy man. Being a conservative, surely there is some part of government you would cut?

    Ok then, what? Where? How much? When? How about “conservative” McCain? What’s he going to cut? When? Where? How much? Either of you worried about the dollar? No? What are your plans to shore it up? Let us hear them, Dave.

    This falling dollar is eating Americans alive Dave, what is your solution? I look forward to hearing about it, since Paul and his tards don’t know what they’re talking about. The drug war is destabilizing Mexico Dave – what are your plans? What are McCain’s? Ron Paul’s plans are public record – end the drug war. How about oil? It’s a good thing that McCain is so much more advanced economically that Paul and his supporters, he’ll fix everything for us and it’ll be “morning in America” again, right?

    Ha Ha Ha!!!

    Please, Dave, argue with me some more!!

    Ha Ha Ha!!!

  • dddienst

    The more they tighten their grip the more districts will slip though their fingers.

    It is the fact that the party bosses are trying to keep the decisions out of the hands of the ELECTED delegates and force feed their hand picked agenda that is fueling the outrage. It doesn’t take much because today there is a lot of outrage to go around from the actions of this presidency to the congress ignoring the constitution and ceding their authority to the executive branch. AND now the party telling the delegates what they stand for instead of the other way around.

    As this continues I expect to hear one day that the president has decided to disband the congress as being irrelevant.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Kenny, that letter is so idiotic and so poorly reasoned that I plan to write an entire article devoted to it if I have the time today.

    Dave

  • Jeff

    DAMN DAVE!!! Tom owns you!!!

    But really, what are your solutions? Or McInsane’s? And with a track record like theirs, you telling us you think that the Fed./Central Bank, is a good thing for America? How so? Use specifics, us PaulBots love details….

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave – Hamilton and Adams didn’t understand economics as well as Jefferson, and they were simply wrong.

    For all his personal shortcomings, Hamilton was arguably one of the greatest economic minds of the 18th and 19th centuries. He had a better understanding of capitalism, credit and the market economy than any contemporary except for Smith and Mill. By comparison Jefferson could barely balance his own checkbook. Read some history. You might sound less ignorant.

    The proof is in the pudding here; we’re staring down the barrel of the collapse of the international banking system right now. Volcker himself has confirmed as much. If central banking were so great, and such an advance over the international gold standard, then it shouldn’t be happening.

    We will not and cannot return to the gold standard. The results would be economically devastating for anyone who isn’t hoarding gold. There would literally be a revolution – and not the happy LOVE kind. If Paul were elected even HE would not return us to the gold standard, regardless of his claims. He might get rid of the Fed, but the treasury would have to step in to fill it’s role or another institution would have to replace it.

    History supports Jefferson, and delaying the collapse of fiat systems by decades does not somehow make them stable. Not to mention that they hand the nations currency supply over to banks, thereby allowing the common man (who actually produces something) to fall further and further behind the banking class.

    Pure classist bullshit. Are you sure you’re a libertarian and not a marxist? It constantly amazes me how these Paul supporters claim to be libertarians yet spout all this marxist rhetoric. Call yourself an anarcho-socialist and show your true colors.

    As to your other comments on constitutional money…they are juvenile and ignorant.

    As demonstrated by your inability to read even the quotes I provided from the Constitution correctly.

    First off, everyone knows the founders did not like paper money – that’s why there was a coinage act of 1792 specifying the “Spanish Milled Dollar” as the official currency unit of the United States.

    That would explain why virtually every state issued paper money, not to mention private banks. Which is why a year before your coinage act the first bank of the US was established, with private ownership and the deliberate establishment of a national debt. But yes, we were more or less on a gold or silver standard for the first hundred years of our history. The problems which this created periodically are legendary. You should read up on them.

    Second, one cannot coin money out of anything but metal. Your statement here is absurd.

    Intentionally absurd. Did you not see the part about ‘regulating the value’ of money? That means that the coins need not be of full intrinsic value.

    Third, and most importantly, we can easily deduce from that very same part of the constitution that there is no federal constitutional power to create money out of thin air at will. It’s very simple! There can be no such power, because if there were, then there would never be a need to “borrow money on the credit of the United States”, now would there?

    Circular logic seems to be your speciality. Printing fiat currency IS borrowing money. It’s just borrowing it from the people and the national economy.

    No, and there is NO WAY AROUND THIS REASONING.

    If you choose to call it reasoning.

    As to McCain, does anyone think that McCain-Feingold is his last and only assault on political speech? I didn’t specify McCain- Feingold anyway, you did. It’s a matter of public record that McCain opposes talk radio and many other forms of expression, and will work with the other side to enact more and more stupid legislation to regulate them.

    Really? Provide some sources for this assertion.

    Yes they are, Dave, and your record of actually defending people’s freedom is weak to non-existent. Who cares who you used to work for anyway? What have they ever achieved?

    Admittedly the LP hasn’t achieved a hell of a lot. But my past writings are also available. Read some of them sometime.

    ME My reasoning is that too much government – period – is clearly the problem in this country. Nothing else really comes close. So, if someone supports anti-libertarian candidates like McCain, and attacks pro-freedom, pro-constitutional candidates like Paul (and his supporters) who actually want to cut the state down some, then they are a statist.

    That makes no sense at all. It’s the same logical fallacy I pointed out earlier. I can be a libertarian and still not support Paul or his supporters. Paul isn’t the official brand name of libertarianism.

    It’s my opinion that more progress in reducing the size of government will be made under a McCain administration than under and Obama administration. There will never be a Ron Paul administration no matter what you or I do.

    Well, suppose you give us some specifics about what is wrong with this country. Let’s hear your solutions, since Paul’s are wrong, and his supporters are a cult or whatever. Don’t be coy man. Being a conservative, surely there is some part of government you would cut?

    First off, I didn’t say I was a conservative. Second, I didn’t ever say Paul was wrong – well certainly not on everything.

    Ok then, what? Where? How much? When? How about “conservative” McCain? What’s he going to cut? When? Where? How much? Either of you worried about the dollar? No? What are your plans to shore it up? Let us hear them, Dave.

    I’ve written extensively on where I’d begin to cut the budget. Go read those articles. McCain would likely start by eliminating farm subsidies. IMO that’s as good a place as any.

    This falling dollar is eating Americans alive Dave, what is your solution? I look forward to hearing about it, since Paul and his tards don’t know what they’re talking about. The drug war is destabilizing Mexico Dave – what are your plans? What are McCain’s? Ron Paul’s plans are public record – end the drug war. How about oil? It’s a good thing that McCain is so much more advanced economically that Paul and his supporters, he’ll fix everything for us and it’ll be “morning in America” again, right?

    Again, I don’t necessarily disagree with much of what Paul proposes, but Paul is not electable and will not even be nominated. It’s much more important to work on influencing McCain and the GOP to stop the Democrats. We need to keep the country from being destroyed before we can save it.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    But really, what are your solutions? Or McInsane’s? And with a track record like theirs, you telling us you think that the Fed./Central Bank, is a good thing for America? How so? Use specifics, us PaulBots love details….

    What exactly is their negative track record? Keeping interest rates low? Reducing the inflated value of the dollar to improve our balance of trade? Hatred of the monied elite and their association with the fed is not in fact a meaningful indictment of fed policies, it’s just classist ranting.

    Dave

  • Jeff

    track the value of the US Dollar prior to the establishment of the FED and compare it to the current value… try that track record on for size.

    or for that matter since your such a studied guy on gold backed currency… why not compare the history of golds purchasang power through the years vs. our current fiat money. or study up on the THREE previous central banks that exsisted in the US.

    the market is what should regulate interest rates not a private banking institution. Allowing private banking to create “easy money” in the form of low interest…only creates false prosperity and hence bubbles that will ALWAYS BURST.

    Are you claiming that the housing and credit problems are created naturally by the market?

    next you will tell me that fractional reserve banking is the only true way for an economy to grow….

    do the math and the research on fiat money…it has never, EVER in its history held it’s value…gold/silver on the other hand.

    But the best argument can be found in the Federalist/Anti-Fed Papers…and the Constituton….Jefferson as you say was not the only founder, just as Hamilton was not either…but it is Jefferson’s and Madison’s ideas that did win the day. And in the end the Constitution does not grant the authority to establish a Central Bank.

    this link is fun reading it is Andrew Jacksons Bank veto message to congress, give it a read, his words and reasons are far better then ours against a central bank.

  • Jeff

    after you track the values…go ahead and read the Fed’s charter….they are doing a bang up job!!

    lol

  • Kyle

    do the math and the research on fiat money…it has never, EVER in its history held it’s value…gold/silver on the other hand.

    You bet. Gold has sure done a bang-up job of holding its value

  • Jeremy Blosser

    I posted more significant info in the other comment thread, but this bit isn’t relevant there:

    IMO the events in SD25 are as much an abuse of the process as anything which party insiders did to Ron Paul supporters. Totally taking over a convention and then throwing out all the non RP delegates and replacing them with Ron Paul delegates is exactly the same kind of abuse of the system as the evil overlords were practicing at other conventions.

    I may not have done the same thing they did, and perhaps you and I will agree to disagree on what constitutes abuse of the process (more on that below), but I don’t think it can really be said that having an honest majority and voting that majority’s will is anywhere near the same thing as falsifying records and tossing people. I commend the “losers” in SD25 for playing by the rules.

    And there’s also a legitimate concern about any convention where Paul got delegates assigned to him far out of proportion to his showing in the primary vote. That means that voters who did not support Paul are being disenfranchised.

    This is a fallacy, particularly when no one has seen yet how the national delegates actually vote. You are not disenfranchised as a voter if the person elected to represent you does not agree with you on everything. You ARE disenfranchised if the person elected to represent you is tossed and replaced with someone else. You MAY BE disenfranchised if the person elected to represent you doesn’t vote the way you want them to, depending on where on that whole republic-democracy scale we sit, but again, no one has yet seen how these people will vote, and everyone I’ve spoken to is well aware of RPT Rule 38.

    There is a lot more at stake here than the Presidential Nomination. If the grassroots voters want to elect people to represent them who don’t completely line up with one single data point, how is that a foul?

    If you want a contact for the lawsuit and the rest, email the contact link and I’ll get with you.

  • JimmyD

    Absolutely way off on your accounts of Ron Paul supporters and delegates.

    Here in Minnesota, we too were shunned and were up against the old guard, bending and breaking rules. We followed the party’s rules and the old guard did not.

    The old guard lied, cheated and everything else, but we followed the rules. Despite all of that, we still made a huge impact.

    It’s very easy to find commentary like this all around the country. I’m curious how many conventions you’ve participated in, and whether you’re actually able to comment without such bias.

    Its a shame, McCain is clearly an absolute joke.

  • pleasexcuetheinterruption

    First, there’s the condescension. Do you honestly think that the rest of us don’t want to follow the constitution? That we don’t know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? The problem here is that you want to follow an edited version of the Constitution and ignore the parts you don’t like. As for the Federal Reserve, we all know what it is, but that doesn’t mean that we agree that it’s a bad thing. Most libertarians think that privatizing government institutions is a GOOD thing.

    Then there’s the videos you mention. Twaddle from Alex Jones and other JBS stooges. Most of us aren’t interested in being part of the lunatic fringe.

    It’s not that we’re unware of the problems in this country, it’s that we want real solutions to real problems, not fantasy solutions to paranoid problems.

    Dave

    Well said. Couldn’t agree more.

    I should add that the constant reminders of what the constitution says get to be excessive. The absolutely unwavering commitment to limit government to specific, absolutely literal interpretations of the constitution and nothing else, as if the founding fathers would know exactly how to run a government over 200 years in the future, is IMO completely delusional. What is important in our constitution are the principles and the process. Not every little bitty detail of how to run a government and doing nothing beyond that. That’s what we have laws for. If it weren’t, everything west of the Appalachians should be kicked out of the U.S. We can thank Jefferson (one of the signers of the constitution) and the (unconstitutional) LA purchase for that.

    Sometimes I get the impression RP supporters wouldn’t allow the President to hand a poor person a loaf of bread or fly on an airplane or use the service of the secret service because it’s not specifically enumerated in the constitution. What it really comes down to for them though is selectively criticizing the actions of government and selectively proposing solutions, based on their own beliefs, and then using the constitution as a justification for these selected cases.

  • Tom deSabla

    “Call yourself an anarcho-socialist and show your true colors”

    Now, I’m a Marxist? Wait, I thought you said I was a Bircher? Aren’t they supposed to be totally different?

    You’re so busy slurring me you can’t even keep your slurs straight.

    To be clear, the point I was making is that fiat inflationary systems DO hurt the poor and they DO increase the wealth gap between the rich and poor, and they do not promote savings or productivity. Check our manufacturing since 1971 if you don’t believe me.

    Marx loved fiat money, high taxes and central banking. I don’t. Now that I’ve made that clear, let’s address your problems…

    Dave, you’re in deep denial.

    Congress cannot legally and constitutionally coin money out of feathers or make worthless things into money. “Regulating the value thereof” does not imply the authority to clip the coins till they’re worthless. What it means is “make regular” as in make them all the same, so that the value is consistent – that’s all.

    ***

    Dave, you (incredibly) said this?!?

    “Printing fiat currency IS borrowing money. It’s just borrowing it from the people and the national economy”

    What a joke.

    If that is so, then pray tell us how is it paid back?

    The answer is that it isn’t paid back, so it isn’t borrowing. Constitutional borrowing is done by bond, and that debt is paid back, or redeemed. For you to pretend that a fiat money system is constitutional “borrowing” shows that your understanding of the constitution is sorely lacking.

    No, you’re simply wrong again here. The point you are studiously avoiding is that there would be no need to borrow money on the credit of the United States if money could be created out of thin air. Why would Congress need that power to borrow if they could simply create out of thin air all the money they needed?

    This is not circular logic at all. You still have not addressed the point, and I can tell that you won’t address it.

    You cannot state what part of government you would cut because you don’t want to cut anything. You say that cutting “farm subsidies” would be as good a place as any to start? Yeah right. Why don’t you quit faking? You and your psychotic hero McCain aren’t cutting anything and you aren’t fixing anything.

    You also can stop pretending like you agree with Paul on some conveniently unnamed “things.” If you really agreed with him, and this wasn’t a hit piece, you’d say where you agreed with him. You can’t say where you agree with Paul because you really don’t agree, and I think you’re being dishonest to say that you do.

    Dude, I have bested the best, and you are not the best. Your arguments are transparent; and all you’re really doing is scrambling to defend your total lack of inaction. Unfortunately, all you have to defend yourself are specious, unsupported kiddie-constitution arguments that any serious person can see right through.

    It’s over, son, and you lose. Somebody clean up this mess for me please.

  • pleasexcuetheinterruption

    It’s over, son, and you lose. Somebody clean up this mess for me please.

    I just thought I’d inform you that to 99.9% of educated people you sound like a raging lunatic who should be committed.

  • Clavos

    “It’s over, son, and you Paul lost.”

  • pleasexcuetheinterruption

    Beat you to it, but wish I thought of that one. Good one Clavos.

  • Jeremy Blosser

    I should add that the constant reminders of what the constitution says get to be excessive. The absolutely unwavering commitment to limit government to specific, absolutely literal interpretations of the constitution and nothing else, as if the founding fathers would know exactly how to run a government over 200 years in the future, is IMO completely delusional.

    I don’t know of anyone, really, who will claim that times don’t change, or that the Constitution is perfect as it currently stands.

    All most are saying is that if times require different laws, that people should have the courtesy to amend the ones that are there instead of choosing to interpret them to fit the situation. We aren’t a nation of laws these days, we are a nation of relativistic opportunists who condemn or praise identical actions depending on who does them.

  • Tom deSabla

    Another fool comes into MY house?

    ***

    “constant reminders of what the constitution says get to be excessive. The absolutely unwavering commitment to limit government to specific, absolutely literal interpretations of the constitution and nothing else, as if the founding fathers would know exactly how to run a government over 200 years in the future, is IMO completely delusional. What is important in our constitution are the principles and the process. Not every little bitty detail of how to run a government and doing nothing beyond that. That’s what we have laws for.”

    ****

    BWAA HA HA HA!!

    Yeah, being subjected to “constant reminders” on right and wrong often does “get to be excessive” doesn’t it? Yeah, I’m sure it seems “rather excessive” to my 4 year old that I constantly tell her to quit dropping food on the floor.

    Maybe I should ease up a little, and let her regress eh? After all, it’s only an itty bitty detail, right?

    Speaking of regression, isn’t that what we’ve really done? We’ve regressed away from the constitution and individual freedom. The restrictions in the constitution are not “itty bitty details” to be discarded, instead they are hard-and-fast limitations on government power with the sacred freedom of the people at stake.

    People always make good excuses when they slack off and regress, but this is ridiculous. Saying that the Constitution’s exact restrictions shouldn’t apply anymore to actual day-to-day governance is to render it meaningless. Laws are not part of the solution in this country at all; they are part of the problem.

    We do not need more allegiance to laws and less allegiance to the constitution; we need the opposite – more adherence to the constitution and less slavish devotion to foolish laws passed by foolish politicians. Let it not be said that I do not provide examples, so consider speed limits. The are the law – are they not? So, let’s all obey them and see what happens.

    Gridlock happens.

    Reliance on laws over individual freedom is what is “delusional” – not honoring the constitution. I think the evidence is clear; everywhere we have left the constitution, we have sowed disaster.

    We didn’t respect the ban on standing armies; we got imperialism and troops in 140 countries – unsustainable for the long term.

    We didn’t stay with gold and silver; we got Central banking, worldwide inflation, and a totally corrupted economics profession – again unsustainable for the long term.

    We didn’t respect the the need to keep powers to what was specifically enumerated, we got the feds regulating people’s personal gardens under a sick and tortured interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

    We got the drug war, with no power to conduct it, and now the 4th amendment is gutted. A police state is unsustainable too.

    We got a bureaucracy with no constitutional mention, and now we have a whole new set of laws (regulations) to keep track of.

    We got executive orders – not in the literal words of the constitution. One of the first, if not the first, was the one by FDR where he stole the people’s gold from them, so you see how these things work together. Read some of these sometime, they will chill you.

    Nah, I think you’re demonstrably wrong here. The literal, exact, limiting words of the Constitution are way better. They were way better 200 years ago, and they’re way better now. Human nature hasn’t changed one iota in the last 200 years, so I don’t see why the constitution would become any less relevant.

    In fact, pretending we can just “freelance” now, just because 200 years have passed, especially in light of history and current events, is not realistic to me at all. It’s intellectual laziness.

    But, I can see there’s a lot of that going around here.

  • Tom deSabla

    “It’s over, son, and you lose. Somebody clean up this mess for me please.

    I just thought I’d inform you that to 99.9% of educated people you sound like a raging lunatic who should be committed.”

    **

    Like I care what “educated people” think. Ben Bernanke is educated. So is Robert Mugabe, and he has destroyed his country.

    No, pal, it’s called debate. There are usually winners and losers. I declared myself the winner. I have ample reason to do so. Are you having some kind of problem with that? If so, please provide some reasons of your own – some evidence or something, and we can debate.

    D * E * B * A * T * E

    Try it sometime.

  • Kyle

    Tom deSabla is right. A rigid, unwavering, letter for letter interpretation of the original Constitution is the only proper way to govern a country in the 21st century. In particular, we need to rescind the right of women to vote and reinstate the 3/5 compromise.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Now, I’m a Marxist? Wait, I thought you said I was a Bircher? Aren’t they supposed to be totally different?

    Interestingly they’re remarkably similar in some ways. The Birchers did start out in opposition to communism, but they decided to deliberately mimic much of the methodology of international Stalinism to ‘fight fire with fire’. The problem is that they became a little too like the Stalinists and started thinking like them. At heart, Stalinism was a very conservative, even reactionary form of communism and its influence on the JBS was profound, even if they’d never admit it.

    To be clear, the point I was making is that fiat inflationary systems DO hurt the poor and they DO increase the wealth gap between the rich and poor, and they do not promote savings or productivity.

    That’s the inflation, not the fiat currency. There’s no reason why a so-called fiat currency can’t be stable and inflation resistent. Our recent inflation is anomalous. Since the end of WW2 we’ve had fiat currency with a mild, natural inflation which reflects the growth in the economy. Extreme inflation is certainly not inherent in a greenback dollar.

    Check our manufacturing since 1971 if you don’t believe me.

    I’m very familiar with the evolution of our economy away from a post-industrial model to a high-techl, globally integrated system. It has zero to do with inflation or our currency system.

    Marx loved fiat money, high taxes and central banking. I don’t.

    You clearly need to go back and read some Marx. In a true marxist system there would be no need for banks at all, nor would there be a need for currency or taxes.

    Congress cannot legally and constitutionally coin money out of feathers or make worthless things into money. “Regulating the value thereof” does not imply the authority to clip the coins till they’re worthless. What it means is “make regular” as in make them all the same, so that the value is consistent – that’s all.

    LOL. Ok, if you want to reinvent the English language and redefine words I guess you can read any silly thing you want into the Constitution. Trust me as a guy with a MA in English, ‘regulate’ and ‘regularize’ are NOT synonyms. Buy a dictionary.

    ***

    Dave, you (incredibly) said this?!?

    “Printing fiat currency IS borrowing money. It’s just borrowing it from the people and the national economy”

    What a joke.

    If that is so, then pray tell us how is it paid back?

    It’s given back in the form of goods and services purchased with the greenback dollars.

    The answer is that it isn’t paid back, so it isn’t borrowing. Constitutional borrowing is done by bond, and that debt is paid back, or redeemed. For you to pretend that a fiat money system is constitutional “borrowing” shows that your understanding of the constitution is sorely lacking.

    I’d suggest that all of this silliness shows that you have little or no understanding of how paper money works. Perhaps your fear is based in ignorance. That would explain a lot.

    No, you’re simply wrong again here. The point you are studiously avoiding is that there would be no need to borrow money on the credit of the United States if money could be created out of thin air. Why would Congress need that power to borrow if they could simply create out of thin air all the money they needed?

    Because you can only draw your money from the active economy up to a sustainable limit before you end up with inflationary problems. Doh.

    You cannot state what part of government you would cut because you don’t want to cut anything.

    Um, but I already said I’d cut farm subsidies. Then I’d cut all education funding. Then I’d eliminate the War on Drugs. Then I’d privatize welfare and the various other entitlement systems like social security. Finally I’d privatize the military.

    You say that cutting “farm subsidies” would be as good a place as any to start? Yeah right. Why don’t you quit faking? You and your psychotic hero McCain aren’t cutting anything and you aren’t fixing anything.

    McCain is pretty well known for his efforts to cut or eliminate farm subsidies.

    “Subsidies are a mistake, and I don’t believe that anybody can say that they’re a fiscal conservative and yet support subsidies which distort markets & destroy our ability to compete in the world, as well as our ability to get cheaper products into the US” – John McCain

    You also can stop pretending like you agree with Paul on some conveniently unnamed “things.” If you really agreed with him, and this wasn’t a hit piece, you’d say where you agreed with him. You can’t say where you agree with Paul because you really don’t agree, and I think you’re being dishonest to say that you do.

    The places where I agree with Paul should be obvious to anyone with a lick of sense. Obviously we agree on issues like eliminating the state run school system, on repealing the 16th amendment, on drastically cutting government spending. But no, I don’t agree with him on nativism, protectionism or anti-corporatism. Nor do I like his do-nothing position on most civil liberties issues.

    all you’re really doing is scrambling to defend your total lack of inaction.

    I’m proud of my ‘lack of inaction’.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You bet. Gold has sure done a bang-up job of holding its value…

    The value of gold goes up during times of inflation. The gold price was absolutely flat for most of this century, until the super inflation of the late 70s, when it shot up in value to over $600 an ounce. It then steadily declined as the economy improved and then shot up again recently with the current recession. When the economy was at its best in the late 90s the inflation adjusted value of gold was comparable to the price in the 1960s. But of course, if you bought gold in 1983, with inflation you’re still at a loss at the current price. So gold doesn’t necessarily hold its value.

    Dave

  • Kyle

    Dave, I’m really enjoying watching you smack down Paultards, but I’m gonna have to disagree with you on eliminating all education funding. I’m all for trimming the fat so to speak, and allowing free market economics rule most commodities, but education and health care are exceptions. Everyone deserves access to those, and I would think it would be a detriment to our economy in the long run if a portion of the population wasn’t able to afford an education.

    I’m with you on privatizing social security, as long as there was some provision in place for people who couldn’t afford some kind of insurance against unemployment. I’m not sure where I’d stand on privatizing the military. Would they be free to provide services to other nations, like other private businesses?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Kyle, I was talking just about the federal government on the education issue. I don’t think they should play a role in education. It ought to be done by local communities, where I would hope the standard would be to privatize as much as possible and eliminate administration above the level of principal as much as possible,

    As for privatizing the military, I think it would have to be done under some sort of charter arrangement, where the US sponsored private military contractors to give them some protection and accountability. And under those terms hiring out to foreign powers with US government approval would make sense.

    Dave

  • Kyle

    It was my understanding that the DOE really just provided money for scholarships and grants for those who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford education, and really played a minimal if nonexistant role in setting curricula (though I would support the existence of some minimal standards across the board, lest some backwards states try to teach children that the theory of evolution is an evil anti-religious conspiracy or deny them basic health education, for instance). I do agree that the involvement should be kept minimal, though.

    As for privatizing the military, I think it would have to be done under some sort of charter arrangement, where the US sponsored private military contractors to give them some protection and accountability.

    Like Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, Raytheon, et al?

    (Sorry if this is considered a derail. I just felt a break from the paranoid ravings of the Paulbots would be nice)

  • John McCain Forum

    John McCain is JESUS!!!

    And this is a great article. These Ron Paul people need to stop making niose. And for the rest of us, who know McCain is our only chance to carry on the neoconservative legacy, be sure to join the official John McCain Forum and show your support!

  • daddysteve

    The country is going broke. Your grandkids are going to pay my share of the national debt ’cause I’m never going to earn enough. As a 48 yr. old republican, I’ve seen plenty of election cycles. If there is one thing you can be sure of, the two party system won’t support any candidate they think is really about change. Of course I don’t think Americans really WANT change.

  • Huckans

    Dave,

    John Huckans from Post #39 above. Please comment on the points in Posts # 24 and 25. Also, you said in Post#30 about MSM:

    “I’m fully aware of the complaints about it. The evidence to support those complaints is pretty sketchy, especially when it comes to persecution in the MSM. Paul got way more exposure than any of the other also-rans.”

    I mentioned Saul Anuzis to you–did you forget to respond?

    Huckans

  • http://independenttorch.com Huck

    I’m a long time Republican. The GOP party bosses handed us huge losses in 2006 and have pushed forth more RINOs and a nominee that has little real support while totally shutting out conservative candidates. The question is – do they want us conservative Republicans sticking around after November, or do they want us to build up the Libertarian party? So far it looks like they want us to leave and many of us are.

  • pleasexcuetheinterruption

    My Statement:

    “”constant reminders of what the constitution says get to be excessive. The absolutely unwavering commitment to limit government to specific, absolutely literal interpretations of the constitution and nothing else, as if the founding fathers would know exactly how to run a government over 200 years in the future, is IMO completely delusional. What is important in our constitution are the principles and the process. Not every little bitty detail of how to run a government and doing nothing beyond that. That’s what we have laws for.”

    Jerremy Blosser @81 in response to me:

    I don’t know of anyone, really, who will claim that times don’t change, or that the Constitution is perfect as it currently stands.

    Jerremy read the next post by another RP supporter.

    Tom deSabla @ 82

    BWAA HA HA HA!!

    Yeah, being subjected to “constant reminders” on right and wrong often does “get to be excessive” doesn’t it? Yeah, I’m sure it seems “rather excessive” to my 4 year old that I constantly tell her to quit dropping food on the floor.

    This is exactly what I’m talking about. People like this guy who think the Constitution is some kind of moral code.

  • pleasexcuetheinterruption

    A more accurate analogy would be that you tell your kid to stop dropping food on the floor without referring to the constitution (it’s not a specifically authorized power of parents to tell their children what to do in the constitution, where then do they get this power?).

  • Tim

    Well, as I read these comments, there are alot of bickerings going on, and no one seems to be facing the fact that we’re simply all toast.

    We can’t fight the beast – it’s too late. We’ve fought to keep our second amendment pea-shooters, but by electing and financing this government, we’ve given them apache helicopters, F-16s, and nukes, not to mention sarin gas and biological weapons. We’ve fought over taxes and to keep our puny bank accounts, while financing the Bank of International Settlements with our purchasing of frivolities for our comfort and by demonstrating our compliance by accepting an unconstitutional tax collection system.

    Does anyone really think that they’re simply going to give up all the power we’ve given them while we’ve been immersing ourselves in TV, movies, basketball, and Coors Light? And does anyone really think we can fight them as Jefferson suggested far before the advent of super weapons?

    They’ve been only too happy to give us what we want in order to get what THEY want, while we didn’t even recognize, or care, that we were giving it to them.

    And now we’re complaining about the results of what “we the people” have done, or more accurately, have failed to do.

    Wake up? It’s too late – we’ve already been dead a long time.

  • Tim

    Sorry about the repeats – it was slow loading, and I thought it was my PC that was causing the problem….I kept clicking the silly button :-)

    Silly me…..

  • Kyle

    It’s ok. Your computer was probably bogged down by all the Alex Jones YouTube videos you were watching.

  • Meredith Jane

    Dave and all who think like him: delegates are part of the legal process involved in choosing our president-you should actually be thanking we Ron Paul supporters who went to the state conventions to try and retain your liberty-we paid out of our pockets for time and money to be committed to just having our voices heard,(it is quite an expense & ordeal to go thru for the ordinary person) and this is the thanks we get-you know what is so amazing to me? The people who were there as support of McCain don’t really believe in him, they are just supporting him because they feel he is the only choice rather than voting democrat( I talked to a lot of people there and you could also gauge by the applause when they spoke of McCain-very weak/even a reporter commented on that fact)-you guys are going to get what you deserve, if America doesn’t wise up, a lot of people who voted republican in the primaries are going to now switch either to supporting a third party, or Obama-you can thank yourselves, I give McCain very little chance of winning-you will get a president who will only increase our taxes and further do away with our freedoms, hope you guys will be happy with what you have chosen, by refusing to do the right thing and make a stand for truth and honor for your country. At least all the Ron Paul supporters will be able to say, “we did our best” thats a whopping lot more than the rest of you can say. By the way, in spite of people like you Dave, who keep reporting negatively, more and more people are awakening to the truth. Go Ron Paul-you are the man we desperately need for our country’s dignity,economy, and liberty restored.

  • Tim

    Thank you, Kyle.

    I actually can’t stand Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory methodology – and he makes what truth he manages to insert in his ravings look really bad.

    If anything, it’s my lack of blogging experience. I usually don’t participate because of all the hateful and un-intelligent comments.

    Tim

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I kept clicking the silly button

    Tim, what browser are you using? I’ve looked carefully, but I can’t find the ‘Silly’ button anywhere on mine…

  • Tim

    Good one, Dread :-)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    We didn’t respect the ban on standing armies; we got imperialism and troops in 140 countries – unsustainable for the long term.

    There’s no ban on standing armies in the Constitution. That amendment was never ratified. And the only way we have troops in 140 countries is if you count marine guards at embassies.

    We didn’t stay with gold and silver; we got Central banking,

    You do understand that we got a central bank TWO years after the Constitution was ratified, right? Voted on and approved by the same guys who wrote and voted in the Constitution.

    As for making the Constitution the equivalent of the Bible the way so many of the Paulites seem to do, that’s one of the things which makes them pretty weak as libertarians. The Constitution is a very neat basis for a government, but it’s not a truly libertarian document. Libertarianism goes back to principles of natural law which transcend and are more important than the Constitution, which is an imperfect way of trying to represent those basic principles in the form of a government.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    It was my understanding that the DOE really just provided money for scholarships and grants for those who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford education, and really played a minimal if nonexistant role in setting curricula

    About 6% of all funds for public education come from the federal government, through all sorts of grant and aid programs. Things like special needs education, school lunch programs and grants for schools in poor and rural areas account for a lot of it. But there’s some federal money in just about every school and with the money come demands for certain standards and the inclusion of certain elements in the curriculum. Thus you can have a federally implemented program like No Child Left Behind imposed on all the schools nationwide, even though they aren’t directly managed by the federal government.

    As for privatizing the military, I think it would have to be done under some sort of charter arrangement, where the US sponsored private military contractors to give them some protection and accountability.

    Like Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, Raytheon, et al?

    Not exactly. They all bid for contracts to the specifications of the military. I was thinking more in terms of a charter than a contract. Like a Letter of Marque as authorized under the Constitution, where the government assigns authority to a private military force to pursue it’s enemies.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Huckans. Sorry, I don’t see any questions in those posts you reference which haven’t already been answered or really need an answer.

    And I didn’t see any earlier mention of Saul Anuzis. What did you want to discuss about him? I hear he’s received death threats from Ron Paul supporters. Should we discuss that?

    Dave

  • Guy Fawks

    The GOP is fast becoming public enemy #1. The Constitution is layed out to protect true American citizens against its enemies, whether foreign or domestic. It is quite obvious that “We the People”, have a problem with domestic enemies infiltrating our government and committing treason against our liberty. The Constitution is our tool to rid ourselves of these bastard children seizing control of our nation. The present Revolution started as a collective voice of reasoning. However, Americans are beginning to realize that reasoning with these bastard children is not working. But we are definitely not left without recourse. Congress has the right to declare war on the enemies of the United States of America. Ron Paul is a congressman and he is seeing firsthand just what exactly is going on within our government. The American people just need to fully awaken themselves and read between the lines. The Revolution is your last defense on the road leading to tyranny. As you all can clearly see, your voice no longer matters to the establishment. Your back is against the wall and there is only one way out from here on. If you choose not to progress forward in reclaiming your birthright, the establisment will continue using your children to fight their wars, taking your homes, your jobs, and taxing you out of existance. Do not relinquish your right to fight for your freedom. Two hundred and some odd years ago, freedom was obtained, although not without cost. None of you have anything to fear but fear itself.

  • Clavos

    Very impassioned (if somewhat incoherent) plea, Fawks (sic), but what exactly are you advocating?

    You never really say…

  • Huckans

    Huckans here. In your Post #21 you said:

    “As for the Federal Reserve, we all know what it is, but that doesn’t mean that we agree that it’s a bad thing. Most libertarians think that privatizing government institutions is a GOOD thing.”

    To which, Post #25 responded:

    “You mentioned that the Fed can’t be all bad because it’s privatized, and that that is what libertarians’ goal is. That’s incorrect, libertarians goal is for a free market. for instance if the government passed a law requiring you to buy your chicken from Tyson’s that would indeed be a product produced by a private company but it would be a far cry from being a free market. Its the same with the Federal Reserve and their product (The Federal Reserve Note).”

    Your comment to this?

    The first paragraph of your article stated:

    “Beneath the still surface of the apparently secure nomination of John McCain as the Republican candidate, supporters of Ron Paul are still fighting the system and doing what they can to influence the process. It appears to be an uphill battle, with many of their efforts devolving into little more than delaying tactics and spreading chaos, and in many cases generating a hostile backlash from the party establishment which is harming efforts to move the party in a more pro-liberty direction.”

    Post #24 said:

    “Up here in Washington the McCain supporters walked out of the convention, attempting to break the quorum so we couldn’t debate resolutions. We spent 45 minutes counting people, then when we still had enough people to continue, they all came rushing back in from the hallway. They proceeded to stall another 45 minutes while they could all return, and by then we didn’t have enough people vote to extend the convention.

    Who’s being disruptive here?”

    Doesn’t this contradict at least your first paragraph?

    You said in your Post #30:

    “I’m fully aware of the complaints about it (the MSM). The evidence to support those complaints is pretty sketchy, especially when it comes to persecution in the MSM. ”

    Then I asked you in Post #39 (which you did not respond to) and re-asked in Post #92 are you not aware of what Saul Anuzis tried to do in Michigan one year ago? What of the comments by Michael Steele after “The First in the South?” What of Fox News’ TV graphic following the Iowa Straw Poll? What of the AP’s article for the Presidential Trust DIner? What of Fox’s exclusion in the penultimate debate? What of Stephanopoulos’ “that’s not going to happen.” What of Carl Cameron’s “Congressman Paul, yet another question about electability. Do you have any, sir??” (Jan 13) (and don’t forget the tone). What about Anuzis’ buddy on Oct 13.

    Do you need more?

    Cheers.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Ok fine, I’ll give you a response, but the ‘questions’ are still pointless.

    On the Fed. Your comparison to Tyson is ridiculous. The Fed serves an entirely different function. The idea behind making it a joint private/public institution is to not make it a government monopoly and to give the nation’s banking institutions a stake in its existence. This is the way that national banks have been structured since 1792. It IS more of a ‘libertarian’ approach because it’s not just a government body and involves private entities as well.

    On the disruptive thing. The article does cover the oppressive and abusive behavior of some of the party insiders. Their perspective would be that they acted that way because of the threat posed by Paul supporters. Their bad behavior does not excuse the bad behavior of Paul folks. In the same way that some idiots blame all deaths in Iraq on the US because they wouldn’t have died if we hadn’t invaded, don’t all disruptions at these conventions get credited to the Paul supporters because if they weren’t trying to stage their ‘revolution’ then there would have been no misbehavior in response?

    What the hell does Anuzis have to do with anything? I was talking primarily about the MSM. Your examples are lovely, but the truth is that Paul was a fringe candidate polling at under 3% nationwide and was treated exactly like a fringe candidate, and somewhat better than Kucinich and Gravel.

    Dave

  • http://del.icio.us/autofyrsto Tim

    Hey! It’s Tim, Ron Paul supporter from comment #32, checking in.

    Dave! I don’t know where you find the time, but your comments are great! Tom DeSabla is a truly formidable adversary, and you have risen to the challenge every time, despite the fact that the discussion is clearly beyond the scope of the original article.

    As for the meaning of the term “regulate”, here is a very interesting page that discusses the use of the term “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment.

    I can only speculate as to how the term should be applied to the “Coinage Clause”, but it leads me to believe that Tom DeSabla’s argument on this point deserves closer consideration.

    If we apply the modern usage of the term in the phrase “regulate the value thereof,” it becomes a very dangerous provision. Value is subjective to the individual, and in the aggregate is determined only by the market. The only way Congress could “regulate the value thereof” in the modern sense is through decree and by forcefully imposing on the people what the value of a thing ought to be. This may be what “legal tender” laws are intended to do, but not being an expert (yet), I can’t really go into detail on it.

    Tom DeSalle’s proposition, that the phrase allows the government to coin only consistent money, and allows the people to “regulate the value thereof” in the modern sense, is much more palatable. If this was not the intent of the authors, it should have been. The Constitution should be amended to clarify.

    Let me know where I am wrong. I look forward to reading more of your work!

  • huckans

    Huckans here again.

    I think you are clouding the Federal Reserve issue and that the Tyson Food analogy is fairly accurate. We have given a monopoly to a quasi-private cartel to create our money. The Constitution nowhere states that Congress has the exclusive right to create our money (or transfer that exclusive right to another entity).

    Also, the comment from Washington State (Post #24) does, in fact, contradict your first paragraph in the following sense. You said in this paragraph that the tactics of Paul’s supporters “generated” the backlash. From the Washington report, it was clearly the other way around. It was not a backlash but a “forelash” by the GOP which generated the very reasonable feeling of being wronged.

    With regard to one of many many examples of persecution (which you condescendingly referred to as “lovely”), you are putting much too fine a point on whether or not Saul Anuzis is a part of or simply ancillary to the MSM. Let me refresh your memory (I know you will say that you don’t need the refresher, so to preserve your apparently fragile sensibilities you can just pretend it is a refresher for your readers).

    From Wikipedia:

    “On May 16, 2007 Anuzis called for banning U.S. Representative from Texas, Ron Paul from further Republican primary debates after the congressman made a comment on blowback from US foreign policy and 9/11.[1] While this assertion was also made in the 9/11 Commission Report and by CIA specialists on bin Laden, the comments provoked controversy from some who interpreted Paul’s remarks to be critical of America. The Michigan GOP Headquarters was overwhelmed by the volume of phones and emails received in protest because of Anuzis’ petition against Ron Paul’s inclusion in the debates. This caused them to resort to shutting down their phones, taking their “contact us” form and phone number off their website, and callers leaving messages until Anuzis’ voicemail and Blackberry were full. An unofficial petition to ensure Paul appears in future debates garnered more than 12,000 signatures, the official petition garnered more than 7,000 signatures, while Anuzis’ petition had 14 when he decided to withdraw it.”

    The point is that Anuzis was seeking to ban Paul from MSM debates. Your point that Anuzis is not himself part of the MSM and is therefore not a good example of MSM persecution is rather specious. (In fact, I find most of your arguing to be disingenuous sophistry!)

    In addition, Anuzis is a good friend of Tim Skubick (the gentleman in the last link I sent you here repeated for your convenience ). Also, Anuzis founded two telecommunications companies during his “breather” from Michigan politics. Like many political insiders, Anuzis has connections within the MSM and he was hoping that they would do his bidding. Come on, Dave.

    Cheers

  • Russell

    I’m not so much a Dr Paul supporter as I am a firm believer that the government is way too big for it’s britches and it refuses to hear the voice of Us commoners,of which the government is supposed to be made up. He is the only 1 pushing this truth and he,along with his supporters are being made to look like radical fanatics. The more major media tries to show this as being authentic news instead of the Constitutional violations being committed by the vast majority of Our elected officials, the moree they reveal the fact that the government controls what is aired to the public. Those without internet access do not have a clue top what’s truly happening in this country.

  • Guy Fawks

    Clavos,

    What am I advocating? How about a reality check for starters. Obviously you are unable to relate to your fellow Americans. Why should it matter to you if someone elses son or daughter is being sent home from a foreign land, in a body bag? Why should it matter to you that families are having their life savings foreclosed upon? Why should it matter to you that Americas workforce is seeing their jobs being outsourced to foreign countries? Why should it matter to you that the list can go on and on? Really, because after all, you just want to hear what is being advocated. Right? With all that has been said, all that has been done, and all that is seen up to this point, it’s quite hard to believe that anything more than a troll would find the gall to ask, “What are you advocating?” For you Clavos, I don’t know what more I can tell you other than you should consider yourself fortunate that you are not experiencing what many other Americans are now dealing with on a daily basis. Hopefully you never have too!
    The winds of change are blowing across this nation and if you listen very carefully, you’ll understand that the true American spirit rides upon that wind. Crisis has a very unique way of uniting. “It is not the people who should fear the government, but rather the government that should fear its people.”
    One more thing Clavos, indeed, I am passionate about being an American. Do you have a problem with that?

  • Clavos

    Fawks,

    From which part of my question did you infer that I’m “unable to relate to my fellow Americans?”

    Your “reality check” is still nothing more than a complaint, not an advocacy.

    You say you’re “passionate about being an American,” (which property, unless you’re a naturalized citizen, is only an accident of birth), yet your moniker celebrates a British hero.

    Your litany solves nothing, nor does it offer even a single suggestion leading to a solution. My question remains unanswered:

    What are you advocating?

  • Cindy D

    Clav,

    You may want to retract that statement that Guy Fawkes was a British hero. It makes for a better argument on your part.

  • Clavos

    True, Cindy. Historical figure is a better description; I was using “hero” in the generic sense, but it doesn’t fit Mr. Fawkes in any sense.

  • William D Berg

    I agree that the Ron Paul folks should stop being disruptive. They need to follow John McCain’s lead and “cross the aisle” so to speak and work with the establishment Republicans. Just like how when Republicans and Democrats work together they make things so much better.

    Standing your ground has no place in politics and you Paultards should give it up.

  • Bill Moore

    When you start to see a revolution take place here it will be like the revolutions of the 60s…riots in the streets, protests left and right. People are fed up.

    But guess what? Barack Obama is the one who is getting all of the people fired up. It is his ideals that will be the guiding light of those who want to turn the country upside down. It will be like the 60s and socialism will be the underbelly of the revolt. They will have their impact.

    Yet just when you have a whole lot of people fired up and their passion is based on free markets they get surpressed by Republicans! Why? Just because they’re not all that inspired by killing people in the middle east?

    Now you’ll have another generation of Americans inspired by the socialist agenda.

    You all had your chance. The freedom message will take a very marxist(environmentalist) turn and free markets will yet again be surpressed.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Bill, the problem is that the agenda of the Paulistas is kind of hard to tell from the socialist agenda in a lot of areas.

    And I think the best word to describe the historic Guy Fawkes would be’terrorist’.

    Dave

  • Tom deSabla

    Ok, the mess is still here, I see.

    Nalle is still squirming and spitting like a snake, and many others are making sympathetic clucking sounds at him, so…

    Please Standby,

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    DAVE NALLE IS A LYING NEOCON NAZI BASTARD SHILL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT RON PAUL IS THE ONLY HOPE THAT THE COUNTRY CAN SURVIVE. HE’LL PUT THE COUNTRY BACK ON A GOLD STANDARD, SHUT DOWN THE JEW BANKERS RUNNING THE COUNTRY AND RON PAUL WILL KEEP THE NEGROES AND HOMOSEXUALS DOWN.

    THANK GOD FOR A TRUE CHRISTIAN IDENTITY CANDIDATE LIKE RON PAUL.

  • Clavos

    It would appear that Brother Barger has escaped again…

  • Guy Fawks

    Clavos,

    Perhaps I should retract the statement I made about you being unable to relate to fellow Americans. Most of your kind enjoy the status of dual citizenship. Because this year is an election year, you’re suddenly more patriotic and American than those of us who have lived here our entire lives. After you’ve cast your vote to ensure McCain becomes masterpuppet of the empire, it’s back to the homeland for you and your (fellow americans).

    I find it quite humorous that Ms. D, Mr. Nalle, and yourself have so quickly swung into action to run a background check on one Mr. Fawks. I guess the suspicion I stated earlier about you being a troll, has certain validity. Your trio has just compromised itself. Perhaps the three of you should consider using the moniker of “Larry”, “Mo”‘ and “Curly”.

    Once again, you’ve asked me what I am advocating. Tell me, what is it that you think I am advocating? You act, I’m going to react. You cause, I’m going to effect. In the simplest way of putting it, it’s really all up to you and your kind.

    Clavos (Mo), you should really spare yourself all the trouble and just go back to the homeland now. You’re not cut out for Americanism. I know, I know, they told you that it would be easy to pass yourself off as one. They are very misleading. Hell, I would suppose they even misled you into believing that Ben-Gurion is your national hero. Wonder just what it was that he was advocating back then, that has now turned into the genocide of people everywhere (or “goy” if you prefer using the term).

  • Ben

    You’re highly-negative psycho candidate has lost. Get over it!

  • Clavos

    Careful, guy. Each of your comments is more incoherent than the preceding one; soon, even you won’t understand them, which would be a pity, since you left the rest of us a long time ago.

    “Most of your kind enjoy the status of dual citizenship.”

    And what “kind” would that be, Guy?

    “I find it quite humorous that Ms. D, Mr. Nalle, and yourself have so quickly swung into action to run a background check on one Mr. Fawks.”

    You do realize we were talking about the man who plotted to blow up the British Parliament in 1605, don’t you?

    On second thought, maybe you don’t.

    So, when are you going to answer my question?

    What ARE you advocating? Are you ashamed of it? Is that why you don’t answer?

    Maybe you don’t even know what you should be advocating.

  • Dan Miller

    I recall reading somewhere that personal attacks are actively discouraged. Although highly amusing and revealing the characters of their authors, some of the comments here are over the top to the extent of trivializing the notion of civilized discourse.

    Dan

  • Dick

    The curent GOP has NEVER been interested in a “pro-liberty direction”

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Does the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Christian Academy count Dick?

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Okay Al… what did you smoke?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Paranoia can lead people down some strange paths, as with Fawks (sic) recent rant about dual citizenship. I freely admit to having had and given up dual citizenship – I really didn’t want to get drafted. But last I checked being a Lebanese citizen was pretty much the opposite of being an Israeli. No love lost there.

    Dave

  • Guy Fawks

    And it is quite possible that I am talking to the “kind” that actually plotted the attack on America Sept. 11, 2001 and used their dual citizenship to escape justice. Don’t think you can patronize me clavos. Intellectually speaking, you fall way short. You’re still asking the question that has long since been answerd. If you were truely an American, the answer would have been clear. But you’re here as the invader, so not everything is so clear, is it?

    What is clear in this blog is that Ron Paul stands for peace and freedom vs. John McCain who stands for corruption and endless war. But just so that we are a bit clearer on the subject, the revolution doesn’t need Ron Paul to progress forward. That clavos, will ultimately be the thorn in McCains side. He is a broken man and once your kind has ensured his leadership, he will be totally shatterd by all that you people are doing to him.

  • Clavos

    Dave,

    In any case, “Conflict of interest” in that context was a misuse of the concept on the part of Fawks.

    Using myself as an example:

    If, at some point, there is a conflict between the USA and Mexico and both nations take the question to the polls (assuming opposite viewpoints), then whichever way I vote on the question is a conscious decision on my part, and not a “conflict of interest” in the legal sense.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Brother Jet- Re: “smoking” It was really good. Meanwhile, back to Brother Barger in Ron Paul supporter mode, I may have failed to mention that

    I’M A FAITHFUL FOLLOWER OF BROTHER JOHN BIRCH AND
    I BELONG TO THE ANTIOCH BAPTIST CHURCH

  • ronpaulsux

    ronpaul sucks

  • Tim

    Mr. Barger, you’re really not helping anyone, and especially not helping Ron Paul, with your anti-semitic, racist, and homophobic comments.

    I didn’t read in Mr. Paul’s book, nor have I seen in any comment of his, that he supports any of these perspectives you mentioned. If you want to give him a bad name, just continue as you are.

    I don’t mean or intend to get in a discussion or argument with you. This is simply the truth. The best way you could support Mr. Paul is to stay quiet and cast your vote.

    As far as 911 “truthers” and their adversaries, none of us really knows anything. Yes, there are indicators and evidences of all perspectives, but none of us was there when the decision was made and the button was pushed. Whoever did it, it was way bigger than any of our theories or opinions. What’s important now is restoring a limited government, lowering taxes, and re-gaining personal freedoms.

    If our comments don’t have to do with those three issues, they are really just argumentative and non-persuasive.

    Thank you.

  • Clavos

    Tim is posting the same comment on at least two threads…

  • Tom deSabla

    Ok, the purpose of this post is to comprehensively reply to Dave Nalle’s arguments with me and others. I know this thread is getting old, but it’s still the best place to reply to Dave’s “Nalle-apropisms.”

    First off, nobody should be opening their mouths on the Internet to say anything, unless it’s for the purposes of good. Nobody should be trolling around looking for people to attack, mislead, or lie to.

    Yes, it happens by accident sometimes, I know, and I didn’t say there should be a government war on people who have evil intent in the world, but I am saying that when people are arguing about something, like Nalle and his opponents, they both should have the same ends – promoting something positive, good, helpful to society – otherwise they are talking past each other.

    Then, they may legitimately and productively argue about the means to those ends. I say all this specifically to try to put myself and Dave on some kind of same starting page, so we can find out, truly, how and why, and where we diverge in our choice of means and in our arguments advocating those means

    So, I will assume for now that both Dave and I ARE trying to achieve what we each think are positive results in society. In other words, we both mean well.

    The next question is…do we agree on what is positive and good for society? (By the way, when I say society, I mean for all the individuals at large that comprise society, not some kind of “needs/rights of the group” rhetoric or something.)

    Now here, we are going to have some trouble, I predict, because Dave has said that he is a Republican/Liberty Republican. He claims that he HAS libertarian values, and that the reason they differ so markedly from Ron Paul’s libertarian values is because he (Nalle) is right and Paul and his supporters are wrong about the Constitution and wrong in plenty of other ways too.

    Some of Nalle’s comments to illustrate this:

    “the primary characteristics of Ron Paul supporters are that they cannot read and are bizarrely paranoid”

    “you want to follow an edited version of the Constitution and ignore the parts you don’t like”

    “unlike you and so many Ron Paul supporters, I’ve actually READ the Constitution, not just some cribbed notes on it published by the JBS”

    ***

    There’s more than one brand of libertarianism, Nalle says, and his is more sophisticated, smarter, and better than Paul’s.

    ***

    “Well, it’s always possible that they’ll [mistaken Paultards] read some of my other articles and learn something about actual libertarian beliefs and mature away from the dubious version Paul and his followers are peddling”

    “I can be a libertarian and still not support Paul or his supporters.”

    “I didn’t ever say Paul was wrong – well certainly not on everything”

    “the truth is that Paul was a fringe candidate polling at under 3% nationwide and was treated exactly like a fringe candidate”

    ***

    Is there an unbiased definition of libertarianism that we may use to help us determine the veracity of Nalle and myself? I think so. Why not just say that to a libertarian – individual freedom is the highest political value? I think that’s fair; and it also dovetails with idea of what is good and positive for a society or a nation.

    One thing that all libertarians have traditionally agreed on is that

    A. Individual freedom is the key to high living standards and a dynamic and growing economy.

    B. I am unaware of any branch of true libertarian thought that advocates planned economies or central planning in general.

    So, the above should help us determine the “libertarian-ness” of Nalle’s arguments with a decent sense of objectivity – and we’re getting to those arguments soon. But first recall Nalle’s end-purpose in “writing” all this stuff – Nalle is backing McCain and wants all Paul supporters to do the same.

    However, Nalle doesn’t really want all of us. He wants to cull some of the more “extreme” of us from the herd first. Nalle wants us all to know that “extremists,” “Birchers,” “racists” etc, – you know, everyone that doesn’t agree with him – are the reason Paul is an “also-ran.” These people are the problem, and so the “reasonable” Paul supporters should stop listening to us and come support John McCain.

    ***

    I don’t think there is anything in the above that reaches to the unreasonable at all. So, we are here:

    1. Nalle and I both mean well.

    2. Nalle and I both claim to have libertarian values – and the values listed above are undeniably libertarian values.

    3. Nalle does not share or even really respect Paul and his supporters’ views on the Constitution. He certainly doesn’t share or respect mine.

    4. Nalle doesn’t support Paul now, and wants us (well, the more reasonable among us) to support McCain.

    I don’t think a reasonable person could take serious issue with these claims, based on Nalle’s own words in these articles and comments.

    ***

    Now, remember the numbered claims as we descend into specifics.

    Before we do, a common sense type of person might already be groaning under the weight of all this verbiage – and simply want to know: If Nalle is a libertarian, then, if Ron Paul is a libertarian too – why doesn’t he simply support him?

    Nalle’s answers, at various times, are

    (paraphrased but accurate)

    “Paul is an also-ran/has no chance” – “Paul isn’t the right kind of libertarian, like me” – “Paul reads the Constitution wrongly,” and even, “I do agree with a lot of what he says…”

    I find all the above to be sorely insufficient to explain why a libertarian wouldn’t support another libertarian for public office. For Nalle to support McCain over Paul would only make sense if Paul weren’t really a libertarian and/or if McCain really was a libertarian choice too.

    It appears that, to Nalle, pretending Paul isn’t a libertarian is easier than pretending that McCain is. LOL. Both are formidable (I would say impossible) tasks, to be sure, but Nalle’s obvious intention to make the discrediting of Paul do the heavy lifting to balance this equation doesn’t speak well for McCain’s libertarian bonafides.

    At all.

    In any case, let’s look closer at some things that have been said here:

    DN: “For all his personal shortcomings, Hamilton was arguably one of the greatest economic minds of the 18th and 19th centuries. He had a better understanding of capitalism, credit and the market economy than any contemporary except for Smith and Mill. By comparison Jefferson could barely balance his own checkbook. Read some history. You might sound less ignorant.”

    TD response: Nalle is good at supplying facts that appear to support his position, but often they serve more to mislead and obfuscate than illuminate. This is a good example.

    All of his contemporaries agreed that Hamilton was brilliant, and could debate at length on any subject with dexterity. It is further known that they feared to debate him.

    However, the arguments for and against central banking are longstanding and somewhat complex and the jury is still (officially) out on the matter. Hamilton was brilliant, but that does not by itself prove that he was correct in this area of scholarship.

    As to Jefferson barely being able to “balance his checkbook by comparison”…that seems like a bit of a reach to me. Why say it? It seems like a knee-jerk put down, doesn’t it? Just because Nalle agrees with Hamilton, he needs to belittle Jefferson to do it?

    When I read it, at first it seemed like there must be some evidence of personal financial stupidity by Jefferson that only Nalle knows about, and after all he does so much reading and is so learned. I was going to ask what he “had” on Jefferson till I realized it was just “by comparison” with the great Hamilton that Jefferson looked so inept, and so the checkbook comment really didn’t mean anything.

    As for Nalle’s claim that Hamilton had “a better understanding of capitalism, credit and the market economy than any contemporary except for Smith and Mill” – it seems a bit over-the-top. Nalle expects us to believe that his own extensive research revealed the truth of this ambitious claim to him? Unfortunately, I have doubts about the depth of his scholarship. Otherwise, what is his source? I’m going to go out on a limb again and say he doesn’t have one – he is merely expressing his opinion.

    If Nalle were honest, this paragraph would have read thusly:

    I agree with Hamilton, and he was really smart, and so Jefferson, with whom I disagree, must be a big dummy by comparison. And you are a big dummy for disagreeing with me. Go suck eggs.

    TD Orig: If central banking were so great, and such an advance over the international gold standard, then it (global financial instability as detailed by Paul Volcker) shouldn’t be happening.

    DN: We will not and cannot return to the gold standard. The results would be economically devastating for anyone who isn’t hoarding gold. There would literally be a revolution – and not the happy LOVE kind. If Paul were elected even HE would not return us to the gold standard, regardless of his claims. He might get rid of the Fed, but the treasury would have to step in to fill it’s role or another institution would have to replace it.

    TD response: We “will not and cannot return to the gold standard” eh Lord Dave? Izzat so? Perhaps you are unaware that currency collapses happen? And when they do, what do you suppose people have historically flocked to, Lord Dave? Why gold and silver of course. When they do, what are the chances that they will pause for even a second to read the postings of Lord Dave on the subject?

    Pretty slim, I’d say.

    Once again Nalle artfully weaves webs of disinformation, subtly mixing bits of truth into a misleading paragraph. Yes, if we go back on a gold standard, gold holders will benefit; but that doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone else would suffer. Nations, including ours after the Revolutionary War, have returned to a gold standard before, and it certainly didn’t bring about economic destruction at all.

    The much larger point here is that the same thing happens in any economic collapse, which is not an argument against gold or the gold standard, but an argument against destabilizing economic policies that have the end result of forcing gold and silver back into use to serve as money.

    In other words, our current policies – the same ones that Nalle is defending – have coincided with the creation of an unstable global financial system.

    Indeed, why does he, a self-described libertarian, support the Fed, when their “Open Market Committee” sets interest rates by central planning instead of allowing them to be set by the market?

    In any case, whether economic instability brings about the return to the gold standard or not, it quite naturally has the effect of rewarding gold and silver holders and hurting everybody else. Gold and the gold standard are not to blame for that at all.

    Once again, gold, the messenger, gets blamed.

    If Dave had been honest, this paragraph would have read thusly:

    “The gold standard is scary, and no one that I know seems to know anything about how it would work. If we ask someone, people will know that we are stupid, so that’s out and we just can’t do it. Uhhh…Everyone would be doomed! It’s such a bad idea that Paul wouldn’t even do it, even though he said he would. He’s a liar anyway. Even though I can’t prove he’s ever lied. We have the Fed now, and we can’t do without it or something exactly like it. It is what it is. Paul and his tards suk.

    TD Orig: “fiat systems…hand the nations currency supply over to banks, thereby allowing the common man (who actually produces something) to fall further and further behind the banking class”

    DN: “Pure classist bullshit. Are you sure you’re a libertarian and not a marxist? It constantly amazes me how these Paul supporters claim to be libertarians yet spout all this marxist rhetoric.”

    TD Response: So, if you talk about certain people in a society being hurt by a fiat currency system, then you are a “classist” or commie? That doesn’t make much sense to me; what matters is whether what I said was true or not. Dave says it’s bullshit, but here is a partial list of people who agree with me.

    Keynes: “…By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some”

    Greenspan: “An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. ”

    Greenspan: “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation…”

    Puru Saxena: “Central banks are the engines of inflation. Whether it is the Federal Reserve in the US or the Bank of England in the UK, the sole purpose of these institutions is to inflate.”

    Puru Saxena: “Monetary inflation has another other dire consequence; it does not affect everybody in a uniform manner and causes a great wealth-divide. People who get access to this newly available money first, and most importantly BEFORE the remaining population, gain the most as their incomes rise prior to any increases in the prices of things they buy. In contrast, impoverished people in the remote areas of the economy who have not yet received the new money get robbed as they find that the prices have already risen before the new money has had a positive impact on their incomes.”

    James Puplava: “inflation creates no social benefit for society. It is simply a means of redistributing wealth from producers to nonproducers. Inflation creates no new wealth. No new goods or capital stock are created by it. Wealth is simply transferred to those who benefit first from the creation of the new money. This is usually the bankers and the financial system through fractional reserve banking or the government through debt monetization. It takes time for inflation to work its way through the financial system and the economy. Those who receive the new money first profit the most from it. By the time the expansion of money works its way through the system in the way of higher prices, the people are the last to know. ”

    I don’t think that Puru Saxena is a commie, and I know that Puplava isn’t.

    Other non-Marxists who agree with me on this include, but are not limited to

    Richard Daughty “The Mogambo Guru”
    Jefferson
    Ron Paul
    Kurt Richebacher
    Hugo Salinas Price
    Antal E. Fekete

    and of course the Von Mises libertarians too.

    And Me. I said it too MF, and I know my stuff.

    If you want to argue with that roster, you are going to lose. Badly.

    “Classist bullshit” my ass. This fiat inflation dynamic is a well-documented phenomenon and has been acknowledged by serious scholars for many years. It is also basic, common sense monetary economics, but I must conclude that Dave Nalle didn’t know about it – or else why would he attempt to smear me as a marxist for saying it? That would make him a dumbass and a jerk.

    If he did know, then I guess he was just being a jerk to mount such a shrill attack on me for speaking the truth.

    DN: “we were more or less on a gold or silver standard for the first hundred years of our history. The problems which this created periodically are legendary. You should read up on them.”

    TD Response: The “problems” we had until 1913 included steady, sustainable economic growth and no inflation at all.

    AT ALL.

    Since the creation of the Fed, with its charter mandating a stable currency, the dollar has lost over 95% of it’s pre-fed purchasing power.

    Nalle speaks of legendary problems? What about the Great Depresson? That’s pretty legendary right there. Well, we had no Great Depression until we first had the Fed.

    Of course, as Greenspan himself admitted, gold is always blamed when problems happen. So it was then, with FDR blaming “gold hoarding.”

    Hey, wait a minute – didn’t Nalle say that gold “hoarders” would make out if the gold standard were re-established? Hmmm. Nalle appears to agree with FDR on the “problems” gold created. FDR, of course, stole the people’s gold by decree and invalidated gold contracts.

    So, let’s not go around calling people marxists, eh? Dave also said this…

    DN: “There’s no reason why a so-called fiat currency can’t be stable and inflation resistent. Our recent inflation is anomalous. Since the end of WW2 we’ve had fiat currency with a mild, natural inflation which reflects the growth in the economy”

    TD response: I want to get a little bit mean here, show Dave what it feels like, ok?

    Gee Dave, you can’t even spell “resistant,” so obviously you should go get a dictionary. Do some reading, instead of constantly showing your ignorance. Also – DUH – of course there is a very good reason that a “so-called” fiat currency can’t be stable and inflation resistant – it’s called human nature. Would you trust me and a group of my pals with the power to create money at will? No? Well I don’t trust you either – beyatch.

    It doesn’t matter which human or humans are given the power, over time they will abuse it – period.

    There is another reason too; IT’S NEVER HAPPENED IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF HUMANITY.

    DUMBASS.

    Oh and your statement that “Since the end of WW2 we’ve had fiat currency with a mild, natural inflation which reflects the growth in the economy” is a total fabrication too.

    Inflation is a monetary phenomenon; it is not measured by the CPI. It is measured by objective losses to the purchasing power of the monetary unit. The dollar has – again this is a matter of public record – lost well over half its value since the end of WW2, and only a fool or a liar would call that “mild” or “natural.”

    Further, price inflation does not reflect economic growth at all; quite the contrary, when economic growth occurs, the amount of goods and services available to be purchased increases. Hell, that’s almost the very definition of economic growth!

    Now follow me here, because this is very important to understand, IF ECONOMIC GROWTH HAPPENS, AND THE MONEY SUPPLY DOES NOT INCREASE, THE RESULT IS THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY CHASING MORE GOODS AND SERVICES, WHICH EQUALS DEFLATION – NOT INFLATION. IT MEANS A LOWER GENERAL PRICE LEVEL, NOT A HIGHER ONE.

    THE ONLY WAY THAT INFLATION CAN OCCUR ALONG WITH TRUE ECONOMIC GROWTH IS FOR THE MONEY SUPPLY TO OUTPACE THAT GROWTH.

    ECONOMIC GROWTH DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, CAUSE INFLATION IN AND OF ITSELF!

    Nalle is totally and completely wrong, and with all these economic errors mounting up, his libertarian credentials really ought to be questioned. A libertarian with no grasp of economics is no libertarian at all.

    DN: “Circular logic seems to be your speciality. Printing fiat currency IS borrowing money. It’s just borrowing it from the people and the national economy.”

    and then, when I pointed out that such a fantasy falls apart because such “borrowed” money isn’t paid back, he came back with this Nalle-ity

    DN: “It’s given back in the form of goods and services purchased with the greenback dollars.”

    Td Response: Hunh? I wonder how many of you really thought that Nalle was being responsive to my argument here. He wasn’t at all. Now, notice his wording changes subtly – now he says “given back” not paid back. In any case, he’s completely lost here. This statement “It’s given back in the form of goods and services purchased with the greenback dollars.” is complete gobbledygook.

    There are no more goods and services to purchase than there were before. All that has happened is that the people were robbed of purchasing power when that additional money was created. Printing and issuing money does not create additional goods and services automatically to soak up that extra money.

    To be clear – that lost purchasing power is never returned unless the supply of new money and credit becomes restrained enough that the supply of goods and services can grow enough to catch up.

    Now, contrary to Nalle’s assertions, that has NEVER HAPPENED since the passing of the gold standard. The dollar’s purchasing power has been measured for a century, and it’s steady loss is a matter of public record.

    We may safely ignore the CPI, as it has been successively cooked since the 80’s. Again, a matter of public record.

    The point of this is that Nalle started by saying that printing a fiat currency is borrowing money, and I have conclusively proved that it cannot be, because properly borrowed money must be paid back.

    Fiat money creation is not borrowing money; it is creating money out of thin air, and so does not involve anyone forgoing purchasing power so that someone else might use it. Naturally, such a dynamic is inflationary.

    Nalle puts the final nail into his monetary economics coffin thusly:

    TD orig. “Why would Congress need that power to borrow if they could simply create out of thin air all the money they needed?

    DN: Because you can only draw your money from the active economy up to a sustainable limit before you end up with inflationary problems. Doh.”

    TD response: This is total crap. “draw your money from the active economy”? Hunh? Please. Stop it Dave, you’re killing me here. What Dave appears to be saying, somehow, in a backwards and stupid way that makes no sense the way he said it, but will when I fix what he said, is that the government can print (draw?) money, but only so much, or else we get inflation. However, borrowed money, presumably from somewhere else, will somehow not cause inflation. When it circulates through the economy. As it will. As it must, or there would be no point in borrowing it to begin with, right?

    After all, you borrow money to spend it, not to sit it in the bank. Even if you call it investing, that money must be used/spent in order to get active and make the interest that you’re expecting. Either way, it’s going into the economy and will affect prices, period, which makes Nalle really really confused.

    Any new money that goes into circulation and stays there, regardless of whether it was printed or borrowed, is chasing prices in exactly the same manner.

    The original point where Dave and I differ is whether there was a Constitutional power to create money out of thin air. My reasoning is that if that were the intention, then there is no need to borrow what you can create. Yet, there is a constitutional power to borrow. My point still stands unrebutted.

    Not to mention, I am uniquely positioned to understand the real, actual process of Federal government borrowing, because I am close to someone who works in the Domestic Finance dept. of Treasury. We are very familiar with the way that actual borrowing is done, so we can only stand agape at Dave Nalle’s fruit loopy contortions claiming that fiat money creation is somehow constitutional borrowing.

    He is wrong, period, and any argument to the contrary is simply not in good faith and should not be tolerated by anyone on this board.

    DN: “gold doesn’t necessarily hold its value”

    TD: Yes, you can say that if you cherrypick your starting and ending dates like Nalle did. However, why not use a longer scale, like say a hundred years, or more, and see if the same claim sticks.

    No. He’s wrong. Gold DOES “necessarily hold it’s value” for the long term. Who cares if, during one 20 year period in modern history, there were losses if you bought and sold at exactly the wrong times?

    Note that Nalle sounds exactly like the “statists” that the young Greenspan warned of.

    Kyle: “I’m all for trimming the fat so to speak, and allowing free market economics rule most commodities, but education and health care are exceptions. Everyone deserves access to those, and I would think it would be a detriment to our economy in the long run if a portion of the population wasn’t able to afford an education”

    TD Response: Nalle says he is a libertarian, and Kyle loves him. However, if Kyles really cares so much that every American have access to good education and good health care, he should adamantly oppose those areas being controlled by government.

    Kyle seems not to notice that it is precisely the goods and services that government controls that end up in such short supply.

    Why else would the Canadian health care system result in them flocking here to see doctors? After all, their system is government-run, and it is supposed to ensure access for all?

    No Kyle. IT IS LIBERTARIANISM 101 TO REALIZE THAT GOVERNMENT CONTROL DOES NOT ENSURE ACCESS TO VITAL SERVICES, IT ONLY RESTRICTS THAT ACCESS, CREATES MORE GOVERNMENT JOBS, AND INCREASES THE OVERALL COST TO THE CONSUMER.

    If you don’t know this, then perhaps you are not fit to comment on this board. You are doing no one any good.

    pleasexcuetheinterruption: “[I disagree with]People like this guy (deSabla) who think the Constitution is some kind of moral code.”

    Td Response: So, according to this person, the Constitution has nothing to do with morality, and provides no direction on it?

    The only way that can be true is if enslavement and tyranny have nothing to do with morality.

    So, by this take on the Constitution, we could dump it, declare a monarchy or martial law, and the morality of our society would be unaffected. If martial law would have no affect on morality, then I’m a monkey’s uncle.

    Morality has to do with generally accepted concepts of right and wrong. The Constitution is supposed to constrain and limit the power of government. If that power were less limited, or unlimited, is this poster saying that would not affect the morality of the society?

    Things government does can be moral or immoral, just like things that individual people do. Suggesting that the document that governs government is not a moral document, or contains no moral code is both stupid and ignorant.

    Kyle: (to Tim)”Your computer was probably bogged down by all the Alex Jones YouTube videos you were watching.”

    Td Response: Kyle, you’re an intellectual pygmy and a catty little b!tch too. Who the f are you to put down Tim or Alex Jones? Could you please, please, provide something that Jones has said that is wrong? (Tim can defend himself easily)If you can’t do that, I must ask you and everybody else to stop bringing him up.

    After all, if you can’t say what he’s wrong about, specifically, then why use him to discredit someone? Again, Kyle, you have no business posting anywhere if you aren’t trying to improve the world somehow. If all you’re doing is sniping for the sake of sniping, and you have no real arguments, you should turn off your computer and read a freaking book.

    DN: “There’s no ban on standing armies in the Constitution.”

    TD response: The constitution and the founders provided for the activation of the militia to defend our nation.

    A militia is totally different from a standing army. You don’t plan for both, and they didn’t.

    Here are some quotes to clarify:

    Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

    Alexander Hamilton: ” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”

    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

    “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins”

    ***

    The constitution is a document of enumerated powers. If the power to raise a standing army is not specified, then there is no such power, and that thing which there is no power to do – is forbidden.

    This conclusion is further buttressed by the specific mention of the militia in the Constitution, and the Militia Act of 1792, which specifies that all able bodied men between 18 and 40 make up the militia.

    DN: “we got a central bank TWO years after the Constitution was ratified, right? Voted on and approved by the same guys who wrote and voted in the Constitution.”

    TD response: Those early central banks did not assume dictatorial control over interest rates, nor did they, in the presence of the gold standard, assume total control over the money supply. It is those functions, now the province of the fed, that offend libertarian sensibilities regarding central planning and individual freedom.

    No one is truly free when some fed bureaucrat can devalue their money (life savings?) with a computer keystroke. The fact that all the nations of the world are doing makes no difference whatever. It’s still fundamentally wrong, and unsustainable over the long term.

    DN: (in response to Huckans)

    “And I didn’t see any earlier mention of Saul Anuzis. (TD: Why not? – I saw it) What did you want to discuss about him? I hear he’s received death threats from Ron Paul supporters. Should we discuss that?”

    Td response: Yes, Dave, let’s discuss these “death threats.” Your (Sol’s) evidence please? Did Sol ever provide any? No? Well, what Sol did and said IS a matter of public record; and these “threats” are phony BS – that’s right I said they are bullshit fabrications. They are NOT part of the public record; they are just something that someone said was said, and NO PROOF was ever provided.

    To me it just sounds like more statist lies. Who threatened YOU Dave? What did they say? Was it really credible? Oh, the terrible threats were deleted?

    Please.

    In any case, let me remind you pal, that every person has the right to defend themselves against aggression, no matter what the source. If you go around agitating people, or groups of people, including governments, to steal from me, and my kids, and make every and anything we do illegal, and lock us up,

    then you are directly threatening me. Perhaps you have forgotten this inconvenient fact?

    This whole “Paul supporters make death threats” thing is a smokescreen. It’s total bullshit. The real threat obviously comes from the state and it’s apologists. Since the Paul supporters are standing up to this threat, they have become a target for lame smears and phony accusations.

    Meanwhile Nalle tries to play both sides, saying on the one hand

    “who says I’m not {a Paul supporter}?”

    and on the other he’s just an “also-ran” who received only the media treatment he deserved. Nalle says in post #30 that

    DN: “The evidence to support those complaints (media bias against Paul) is pretty sketchy, especially when it comes to persecution in the MSM”

    Td response: Pretty sketchy hunh?

    You’re a God Damned liar Dave Nalle. You know better.

    Shame on you. Huckans provided all the evidence anyone could need in his various posts, and the information is all over the Internet. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has detailed that lack of coverage too.

    Part of what’s fueling the Paul movement now is resentment against the MSM – apparently you are the only libertarian who finds the evidence of it to be “sketchy.”

    By the way, “sketchy” is cop talk. What’s next Nalle, are you going to start talking about “perps” and maybe some more “tools” for law enforcement and homeland security? You don’t sound like any libertarian I’ve ever heard, which is why I doubted your sincerity from the beginning. Those doubts have hardened.

    DN: “This is the way that national banks have been structured since 1792. It IS more of a ‘libertarian’ approach because it’s not just a government body and involves private entities as well.”

    TD response: National banks have not retained the same functions since 1792, so that point is invalid, and to say that central banking is in any way libertarian is complete and total bullshit.

    Exclusive control of interest rates and the money supply by private interests is not the same as privatizing trash pickup or something like. The issue is choice; when one has no choice and must accept and use the money, it makes no difference if that money is supplied by the government or a private bank – the result is in no way libertarian.

    Before I move over to the newer threads, let me conclude by apologizing for the length of this post, and thanking everyone who is still paying attention.

    Tom deSabla

  • Kyle

    Wow… this guy really IS in love with hearing himself talk. Should there be a rule against spamming comment boards with 10-page screeds?

  • Kyle

    Here’s the Cliffs Notes version for everyone who (rightfully) skipped over that self-important tripe:

    Kyle, you’re an intellectual pygmy and a catty little b!tch too. Who the f are you to put down Tim or Alex Jones? Could you please, please, provide something that Jones has said that is wrong?

    There you have it. Tom deSabla is a true believer of the Alex Jones variety of cult-like conspiracy lies. Of course any rational person who knows about Alex Jones knows that he is a raving lunatic who believes that all-powerful-yet-unnamed elites are conspiring to slaughter 80% of humanity, enslave the rest, and take dominion over the earth as they find the secrets to immortality and go on to conquer the universe (I wish I was making this up). Don’t worry though, as long as he keeps bullhorning the Bilderberg Group and you keep buying his merchandise, we can defeat the evil

    So yeah, as I’ve said before: no wonder this crackpot likes Ron Paul.

  • Tom deSabla

    Kyle, what are you wasting space for?

    I asked you for something specific that Jones has said that is wrong, and you took 167 words to say nothing.

    Still no quotes, still nothing concrete, just more of your opinions and slurs.

    Totally unresponsive. I guess you just don’t do this very well, do you Kyle?

    Again, please stop worshipping Lord Dave and go read a book. You and Clavos can do it together.

  • Kyle

    Tom, notwithstanding the fact that Alex Jones is wrong about EVERYTHING, I just gave you a quick summary of Alex Jones’ latest propaganda piece Endgame. It’s paranoid conspiracy woo of the highest order, and if you don’t consider that something that Alex Jones is wrong about, then you are far more irrational and brainwashed than I had originally thought.

  • Another Georgia Delegate

    Tom deSabla:

    I must say, you make some very interesting and convincing points. I’ve actually never thought of some of the things you talked about like central banking and the gold standard. Why don’t we talk about those things at the GOP breakfasts? I’ll have to read up on those things. Thank you for your expose.

    Another Georgia Delegate

  • Tom deSabla

    Oh yes, I’m sure that the GOP will fix everything over breakfast, since it’s going to be “morning in America” again when McCain beats Obama.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    After the way they’ve treated Ron Paul, you’ll forgive me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for the old-guys-who-like-war party to keep their word on anything.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    After the way they’ve treated Ron Paul, you’ll forgive me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for the old-guys-who-like-war party to keep their word on anything.

    And yet Ron Paul remains part of and continues to support the GOP in general principle and continues to encourage his supporters to work within the party. If you’re such a big fan of Paul why are you so hostile to his own beliefs?

    BTW, I just discovered DaSabla’s endless comment. I’d respond, but I’m still at the Texas GOP convention actually trying to promote liberty through the poilitical process.

    Most of his comment is twaddle and he seems to have a real talent for pointing out the obvious and acting as if it’s some sort of dramatic revelation. It basically seems to come down to him accusing me of being both a libertarian AND sensible and then shaking a remonstary figure at me. But I’ll respond to some of his points later.

    Dave

  • Tom deSabla

    “Tom, notwithstanding the fact that Alex Jones is wrong about EVERYTHING, I just gave you a quick summary of Alex Jones’ latest propaganda piece Endgame”

    Sorry Kyle, I just don’t trust your summaries. I asked for actual quotes.

    DN: “Ron Paul remains part of and continues to support the GOP in general principle and continues to encourage his supporters to work within the party. If you’re such a big fan of Paul why are you so hostile to his own beliefs?”

    I am a registered Republican, so I think that means that I AM working within the party.

    Of course, I can criticize my party for any good reason, just like Ron Paul has done.

    So, once again, you make no sense, but that’s ok, Dave, we’re all getting used to it.

    DN: “…I just discovered DaSabla’s endless comment. I’d respond, but I’m still at the Texas GOP convention actually trying to promote liberty through the poilitical process. Most of his comment is twaddle and he seems to have a real talent for pointing out the obvious”

    Yes, Lord Dave, by all means, use the political process to work towards liberty, however, please do not pretend that you have an exclusive on promoting liberty.

    Frankly, I don’t really think you’re promoting liberty, I think you’re promoting yourself.

    As for my talent in pointing out the obvious, I must thank you for saying that. You’re right, I do point out the obvious. Why do I do it? Because there are a lot of people out there who do not get the obvious.

    For example, I would think that your economic ignorance is obvious to anyone who reads your tripe, but apparently some people don’t realize it, so – I go to work, pointing out the obvious.

    Yes everyone, please do examine the debate between Lord Dave and myself, and judge for yourself who is spinning the twaddle.

    Thanks for the time!

  • Lumpy

    As far as I can tell daSabla has bo particular insight on ecomo.ics except to promote a ridiculous and antiquated system which is completel unsuited to a complex modern economy. paper monet is becoming ibsolete and he wants to move the clock evem farther backwards. his luddism is laughable.

  • Kyle

    I think it’s pretty easy to judge which one of you two is the deranged nutter.

  • Surfer

    Guy Fawkes a hero? Depends on your point of view, and more importantly, what your view was at that time.

    If you were a radical Catholic schooled in the early Jesuit tradition of terrorst activity in support of Rome’s bid to restore Catholicism to those countries that had rejected it, I guess he was a hero.

    Truth is, guys like Fawkes were misguided religious fanatics … the original Christian equivalent of the suicide bomber.

    Fawkes and the other plotters wanted to blow up the houses of parliament and the king and his family, and thus destroy one of the early democracies of the modern world.

    The fact that Catholics had no rights in Britain at the time can be put down to the fact that many of them wanted to destroy the system of democracy that had evolved in England and return the Crown and control of the country to the iron-fisted religious rule of Rome – which in effect would have made it a puppet state.

    Which is why Catholics were expressly barred from the right to bear arms in the English Bill of Rights (only protestants were given that right). It’s also why no British monarch could be a Catholic.

    Like I say, all depends on your point of view.

    But our Guy Fawks on here is celebrating a man who was willing to use extreme violence to bring down a government, and who sought to destroy democracy by returning England to the tyranny of a brutal, merciless and at the time murderous religious dictatorship (the Church in Rome).

    Perhaps he needs a new moniker.

  • Surfer

    De sabla: “This falling dollar is eating Americans alive Dave, what is your solution?”

    That’s just the kind of idiotic response I’d expect from someone who just supports thois nonsense by rote.

    The truth is, the artificially high value of the US dollar is partly what’s fucked the US economy.

    The only way the US can survive is through it’s ability to export, and the dollar’s high value effectively ended that.

    Thanks to its fall, American farmers, businesses and corporations are once again finding export markets around the world for everything from cherries to motor vehicles.

    US-built aircraft once again look attractive to airlines … meanwhile the European Airbus conglomerate is being really hard hit by the high value of the Euro.

    The dollar has dropped down to just about where it should have been for a long time, but wasn’t.

    Machinations on Wall St and in Washington shouldn’t be seen as good economics.

    Besides, if you buy American you’ll notice not one skerrick of difference at the supermarket, the gas pump or the auto dealer than you would have a year ago.

    Anyone who wants to point to the rise in fuel prices, no way: it’s the same all over the world. That has nothing to do with the US economy or the falling dollar.

    Once again, much of it’s down to speculative trading on Wall St.

  • Tom deSabla

    “Besides, if you buy American you’ll notice not one skerrick of difference at the supermarket, the gas pump or the auto dealer than you would have a year ago”

    ****

    Hunh?

    If “not one skerrick of difference” is supposed to mean that we’re paying the same prices for food and energy as we did a year ago, then I cannot agree. Yes, one can buy a car pretty cheaply, because they can’t sell any, and they’re desperate.

    However, with partially shutting down production, as GM is already doing, I don’t see these temporarily low automobile prices as sustainable for the long-term.

    As to the dollar helping our exports, we really don’t export much anymore, and I hardly think that our reeling domestic automakers are in a position to suddenly acquire market share around the world, just because of a falling dollar.

    Denial is really deep around here…

  • Jordan Richardson

    Skerrick?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Damn, Lumpy. Are you off your meds and having seizures or something?

    Perhaps he needs a new moniker.

    Or perhaps he actually has exactly the right one.

    Surfer, as usual you’re dead on about the dollar and the balance of trade, except:

    Besides, if you buy American you’ll notice not one skerrick of difference at the supermarket, the gas pump or the auto dealer than you would have a year ago.

    Except that the rise in the price of gas has caused a rise in the cost ofd some other goods, especially produce.

    Anyone who wants to point to the rise in fuel prices, no way: it’s the same all over the world. That has nothing to do with the US economy or the falling dollar.

    This weekend I actually had a Paulista confront me and claim taht the weak dollar was solely responsible for the rise in gas prices. I had to give him a little math lesson and point out that there’s no way that the decline in the dollar could be responsible for more than about a third of the increase in the end price of gas.

    Dave

  • Kyle

    As to the dollar helping our exports, we really don’t export much anymore

    Though our trade deficit has increased in the last two years, our exports have increased about 30%, from 120 to 160 billion, roughly. What is your definition of “not much”?

  • STM

    Dave: “Except that the rise in the price of gas has caused a rise in the cost ofd some other goods, especially produce.”

    It’s marginal Dave.

    I know, because it’s exactly the same here. Fuel prices have gone up just the same as they have in the states. I’m now paying 40 cents more per litre for diesel on what I was paying six months ago. Our fuel prices are marginally higher than yours, but far less than Europe.

    Yes, grocery prices have gone up. But not that much.

    It’s possibly worse in Australia than the US, because our produce tends to come fresh from farm to table, or at least quicker than it does in the US simply because the logistics are easier – 20 million people in a country that is a food bowl for the Asia/Pacific region, against a country of 300 million bringing a lot of stuff in. But this whole country relies totally on the trucking industry to move stuff long distances from state to state and farm to table.

    If you have Aldi in the States, shop for all your packaged goods there but your meat and fruit and vegies elsewhere, and you’ll probably be saving a bit on what you were paying a year ago.

    And to Kyle, who questioned skerrick :) I’d say it’s an Irish word transplanted to Australia, like so many words we use, and means an amount so small it’s hardly worth mentioning.

  • STM

    Dear Tom,

    You entitled to any point of view you like, but that doesn’t mean it’s right and without seeing what’s going on outside your own country, you are sounding more and more like a goose with every statement.

    I live in Australia, where there had been virtually no US-built cars on the road since the 1960s.

    GM and Ford have had their own divisions in Australia since the 50s, and the cars they build are locally designed and nothing like those you’ll see in the US (except the Pontiac G8, which is a rebadged Holden Commodore being exported from Australia to the US as a left-hand drive). There were plenty of Japanese, European and Korean cars on the road, but there were no US built cars until recently.

    Now, the market has turned a bit and there are quite a few US-built brands on the road here – one of my mates recently bought a Chrysler 300c – and they are right-hand drive, which means Detroit has invested in the infrastructure to build them that way.

    Some US growers and manufacturers are using the falling dollar to their advantage. My wife is – for the first time – now buying American fruits that are currently out of season in Australia, and given the amount of cherries, starwberries and what have you moving off the shelves here over the southern-hemisphere winter, those US growers who are doing it will be making a decent quid out of it.

    The cherries and straberriesv are selling at 7 bucks for a bit over half a pound, so they’re not cheap either.

    There are now a lot of American clothes and American-made goods in the shops (actually made in the US, not just branded).

    We are just one country. If that’s happening all over the world, then the US economy won’t be in anywhere near as bad a shape as the doom and gloom merchants like Tom would have us believe.

  • STM

    And Tom, the falling US dollar is nothing to do with oil prices. It’s supply and demand, low (or in this case, static) production from OPEC and speculators in London and New York making a killing on oil futures.

    As evidence, ff the Australian dollar is strong and rising, but the US dollar is falling, how come I’m forking out the exact same amount of money for fuel-price increases as you??

    As Dave points out, the real reason food prices have risen in the 1st world developed nations like the US, Canada, Europe and Australia is that fuel prices have gone through the roof.

    It impacts everything from international shipping and airfreight costs to intra-national freight and fuels inflation.

    It’s got nothing to do with the dollar falling.

    Like I said, the falling dollar can only make the US stronger, not the other way around because it means Americans can do what they do best and what made them great in the first place: make quality stuff and sell it. Quality never goes out of fashion, as Levi’s will tell you.

    Do some real fact-finding on this and see how the global economy really works instead of repeating the bollocks you so often hear around the traps in America from people who think that a US dollar at artificially high levels is good for the US economy.

    The only thing it really hurts is the egos of some Americans who think America just has to be biggest and best at everything.

    In most cases, that’s true and it’s fair enough. But in this case, when it comes to the greenback, less is more, believe it or not.

  • STM

    More little skerricks of facts on the traitorous gunpowder plotter Guy Fawkes.

    Famous English bodgied-up election poster: “Vote 1 Guy Fawkes … the only man ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions”.

    Our Guy Fawks would probably not be happy to know that effigies of Mr Fawkes are burned on bonfires all over the old British empire each year on November 5 (not in Australia, though, where we celebrate the Queen’s birthday instead because half the country is Catholic. I think a few live Englishmen get thrown on the bonfire each year, but no effigies).

    You have to make sure the stuff you make Guy from isn’t toxic, because as it goes up in flames, it can bugger up the hot baked potatoes and chestnuts.

  • Tom deSabla

    “Like I said, the falling dollar can only make the US stronger, not the other way around because it means Americans can do what they do best and what made them great in the first place: make quality stuff and sell it.”

    Yeah, that’s just peachy, for the less than 10% of us who work in the manufacturing business, hahaha!

    Unfortunately, most of those “American made” products that you say you’re seeing down under are not really made by Americans, but by outsourced labor. I would think you’d know that.

    Further, a falling dollar eats away at the purchasing power of each and every American citizen, so to say that it makes us stronger is crap. Crap with a really cool-sounding Aussie accent maybe, but still crap.

    Also, we’ve already had long periods of manufacturing growth happen at the same time as a stable currency provided increasing purchasing power for all Americans. For over a hundred years, finally culminating in 1913, we had manufacturing growth and INCREASED purchasing power.

    Your “inflate our way to economic health” prescription is flawed. If it were true, Zimbabwe would be an export powerhouse instead of an economic basket case. They WERE the breadbasket of Africa before the Mugabe inflation. If your thesis were true, then why didn’t their exports climb, instead of drop as their currency weakened?

    Riddle me that one, mate.

  • Tom deSabla

    “the market has turned a bit and there are quite a few US-built brands on the road here – one of my mates recently bought a Chrysler 300c – and they are right-hand drive, which means Detroit has invested in the infrastructure to build them that way.”

    Perhaps you are unaware that Ford and GM are walking corpses? Their bonds are junk, their pension obligations are unmanageably huge, and they have been losing total market share for years.

    I am not a gloom and doom merchant. We must be honest about what the problems are before we can fix them. I am all about solutions; but they all involve more freedom and less government, so statists have trouble absorbing them.

    But, I will keep trying…

  • Tom deSabla

    Kyle, you said:

    “Though our trade deficit has increased in the last two years, our exports have increased about 30%, from 120 to 160 billion, roughly. What is your definition of “not much”?”

    Just because a nominal number goes up, does not necessarily equal growth Kyle. The dollar itself has fallen over 20% over the same time frame, so of course nominal export numbers would have to go up at least that much just to denominate the same amount of actual exported goods.

    I think you would do better to focus on the deficits, debts, and obligations that are still increasing.

  • STM

    Tom, the falling dollar doesn’t equate to inflation.

    So it’s not about that at all.

    The Aussie dollar is stronger than it’s been since the late 1970s, when it was worth about a pound sterling and one dollar US, but we have underlying inflation in this country of about 4 per cent.

    In fact, a strong economy can be one of the causes of inflation. The US inflation rate is not particularly high.

    You’re really showing your lack of knowledge mate when you try to compare this to Zimbabwe’s inflation and its demise as the food bowl of Africa.

    Prior to inflation running at cricket-score levels, Robert Mugabe’s ruling Zanu/PF party nationalised a lot of industries and forcibly took away the farms that were run by white farmers and black employees, and gave them to party thugs who had no idea of how to farm. People on here will tell you drought was a factor too, but the farms had been run before through longer, more extended periods of drought, just as they are in Australia, so I blame one factor: the taking of the farms.

    Very bad analogy that one.

    One of the main problems with the US economy has been easy availability of credit, and if you read my posts properly, you’ll see that I specifically said US-manufactured goods, rather than those manufactured elsewhere under US labels.

    I get the feeling you’re not 100 per cent sure what this is all about, or how it all works.

    And Tom writes: “Perhaps you are unaware that Ford and GM are walking corpses”.

    In the US perhaps, but not in Europe and Australasia, both in terms of products (which are quite different to those available in the US) and sales.

    Maybe in the US, they’re just cutting back to production levels that are both manageable and sensible, and putting some resources into some decent car designs that also reflect the times.

  • STM

    Tom writes: “Further, a falling dollar eats away at the purchasing power of each and every American citizen”.

    Tom, the purchasing power of the US dollar hasn’t been impacted domestically by its fall.

    It impacts when you buy foreign-made goods.

    Food prices are up marginally because fuel prices have gone through the roof (and these have nothing to with inflation, the fall of the dollar, or US fiscal policy).

    But if it wasn’t for those two factors (which are being felt in every developed country around the world, BTW, including here), you’d hardly notice any difference in the purchasing power of the dollar inside the US provided most of the stuff you consume or wear actually comes from the US itself or from countries with a lower-valued currency than the US dollar.

    I know exactly how it works, having lived through a period when the Aussie dollar was down to being worth 60-70 cents US.

    It made no difference to what I did or could do with my wage here. It only made a big difference when I went on an overseas holiday as the exchange rate is measured against the greenback on a global standard and at the time was very poor, which had a knock-on effect when I wanted to change to other currencies like the pound sterling or the euro that were holding their own.

    It seems to me that when it comes to the falling dollar, a lot of Americans who don’t have much of an idea of how the economy really works are panicking without good reason.

    What you’re experiencing in the US is what the rest of us are experiencing.

  • Clavos

    “For over a hundred years, finally culminating in 1913, we had manufacturing growth and INCREASED purchasing power.”

    Natural result of the Industrial Revolution, which took place from the late 18th to the early 19th century, and boosted the economy of the entire world, not a result of conditions peculiar to the US.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Ford and GM are hardly walking corpses. Their assets if managed halfway competently and separated from the burden of their ridiculous union negotiated pension obligations would be enormously viable commercial properties. GM’s leadership in the area of hybrids and alternate fuel vehicles and Ford’s massive presence in the international market are enormously valuable. They just need to get rid of the unions and get some competent management.

    Dave

  • Tom deSabla

    “Tom, the falling dollar doesn’t equate to inflation.”

    Yes it does – by definition. I’m sorry that you don’t know this.

    “a strong economy can be one of the causes of inflation”

    No it can’t. I’m aware that many people believe this, but it still isn’t true.

    “the purchasing power of the US dollar hasn’t been impacted domestically by its fall”

    Yes it has. I’m sorry that you don’t realize this. The silliness of your statement is further exposed by the fact that most of the goods we purchase here in America ARE foreign-made goods anyway. Everything we can’t import is and has been rising in price for quite some time already.

    Let me clarify what inflation is for you. Inflation is strictly a monetary phenomenon. It is defined as:

    “an increase of the supply of money and credit relative to the amount of available goods and services resulting in a rise in the general price level.”

    Economic growth does not cause it, because economic growth means there are more goods and services to purchase. In the absence of an increase in the supply of money and credit – an increase in the amount of goods and services will result in LOWER PRICES, not higher ones.

  • Tom deSabla

    “”For over a hundred years, finally culminating in 1913, we had manufacturing growth and INCREASED purchasing power.”

    Natural result of the Industrial Revolution, which took place from the late 18th to the early 19th century, and boosted the economy of the entire world, not a result of conditions peculiar to the US.”

    Sure Clavos. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to. When something bad happens, it’s gold’s fault; but when 100 years of something good happens, it has nothing to do with gold.

    Right. And the constant mention of gold and silver in the Constitution means nothing, and everything is fine, and McCain is a great American.

    Blah blah blah. You’re a addict in denial.

  • STM

    Tom: says: “… ‘a strong economy can be one of the causes of inflation’ … no it can’t, I’m sorry you don’t know that.”

    Maybe you should call up the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia (the equivalent of the fed), who is trying to bring down underlying inflation running a bit over 4 per cent, and which has largely been fed by the mining boom in Western Australia and which has the Australian economy at its strongest point in years.

    It was also very strong when the Aussie dollar’s value was down on current levels by 10-20 cents against the greenback, as that rise to near parity in the two currencies is a recent thing.

    The RBA has been trying to slow the economy down by increasing interest rates, to rein in spending as wages growth and spending power is huge in this country right now even with the $A dollar rising.

    So maybe you should forward you economic theories to the RBA. I’d be glad of a few mortgage interest rate cuts to speed the economy up again.

    Only problem with that is that is that it won’t deal with the inflation.

    So the RBA seems to be of the view that a strong economy does cause inflation, and needs to be slowed down.

    But they’ve obviously got the wrong bloke running it Tom and you should apply for the job.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Right. And the constant mention of gold and silver in the Constitution means nothing

    Another classic example of why no one takes you seriously. Have you even READ the Constitution? Or are you using some sort of special edited and enhanced version the rest of us are unfamiliar with?

    The words ‘gold’ and ‘silver’ each occur exactly ONCE in the Constitution, in the same sentence – which we’ve discussed before – in Article I, Section 10. Which refers to restrictions on the creation of money by state governments. That’s it. No endorsement of a gold or silver standard for federal money. No special paean to the wonderfulness of hard currency. Nothing about stockpiling gold to finance the country. Nothing about minting federal coinage from gold or silver. Nothing about requiring payment of debts to the government in gold or silver. None of that silly stuff is in the Constitution AT ALL.

    Dave

  • Pablo

    Leave it to the great Dave Nalle to defend the Fed printing money of of thin air. If you ever took the time to study fractional reserve currency and the people that invented it, you might come to realize that it is the biggest pony show ever created to fleece the public of their hard earned money. Once again you side with the criminals that are in power.

    STM,

    I usually ignore you, as I find most of your opinions to be absurd, particularly in the area of rights. However I will make an exception in this case as your comment about currency exchange rates not affecting the cost of living of Americans so completely ridiculous that I must make a comment here. I am a forex trader, and one of my areas of expertise is in the forex markets. Perhaps you might want to find out how much of the consumables in America come from abroad before you open your mouth about something you know nothing about. The fact is that the forex exchange rates effect the cost of almost everything here in the good ole usa, from gasoline, to food, to electronics etc.

    I thought you were ignorant about rights, however your conclusions about money is truly amazing.

    This statement by you STM sums it all up:

    “you’d hardly notice any difference in the purchasing power of the dollar inside the US provided most of the stuff you consume or wear actually comes from the US itself or from countries with a lower-valued currency than the US dollar.”

    For your information STM with the exception of the Cable, and the occasional bumping up of several currencies such as the Looney or Aussie, virtually
    ALL currencies in the world have a lower valued currency than the USA.

    Your words speak for themselves STM

    Oh I will put back my tin foil hat now bubba

  • troll

    Tom – while I appreciate your analysis this is a bit much:

    As to the dollar helping our exports, we really don’t export much anymore…

    take a look at trends in coal and nuclear reactor exports for examples – not to mention ‘expertise’ and ‘personal services’ at something like $47 billion/year

    …and what with world hunger and all the future looks bright for the mega food producers as well

  • troll

    I am a forex trader…

    …you are a whore – but then everybody’s gotta eat

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    If Tom’s a forex trader I see a big future for him at whatever his backup job is – Burger King or Kinkos or Home Depot.

    And Pablo, again, unless one accepts your paranoid insanity about the wealthy doing things maliciously just to be evil even when those actions are against their own interests, then there’s not much reason to be worried about the forces which manage our currency system and money supply.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Adding to Kyle’s and troll’s responses to this statement by Tom:

    “As to the dollar helping our exports, we really don’t export much anymore.”

    According to this late 2007 report from the U.S. Department of Commerce:

    “Through August 2007, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 11.6% year-to-date to $1,054 billion (that’s more than one trillion, folks), while imports increased 4.3% to $1,526 billion.”

    And, from the same report:

    “Exports comprised 11.5% of U.S. GDP in the second quarter of 2007. To put it in historical terms, exports were 9.4% of U.S. GDP five years earlier (Q2 2002), and 5.0% 40 years ago (Q2 1967).”

    So, Tom, it would appear that in fact we really do export a lot still. In fact, more than ever before.

    You’re all wet, Tom.

  • Cindy D

    I believe it is Pablo and not Tom who is the forex trader.

  • Surfer

    Pablo may claim to be a forex trader, which I doubt anyway, but if he is he does it simply as a profit-taker and his knowledge of it and how it impacts the global economy obviously stops there.

    What he is saying has a grain of truth, but most of it is crap.

    I offer as proof at least some boots-on-the-ground experience: unlike our resident conspiracy theorist, I have lived in Australia, the UK and (brifely) the US, where despite almost constant fluctuations in the value of those three currencies as they stack up against each other over the past, say, 30 years, there is very little difference in both GDP and purchasing-power and not much noticeable difference in living standards.

    The key to all this beyond profit-taking on the foreign currency exchange markets is what is known as purchasing-power parity – which he doesn’t once mention. There are those variables pablo mentions, but forgets to explain PPP: the cost of housing, clothes, cars, food, in different places which actually tend to even everything out.

    This purchasing power exchange rate equalises the purchasing power of different currencies in their home countries for a given basket of goods. But, you know, we can take it way beyond that to include all kinds of factors like mortgage interest rates, the cost of luxury cars, the price of a Big Mac, an iPOD, a kilo of apples, a litre of petrol, and so on and so forth.

    Pablo ought to know this, since the CIA uses it as part of its formula for working out GDP and living standrads of various countries.

    IE: If I earn $A150,000 in Sydney, and the $A is buying me, say, US89 cents, I can still do as much with that in Sydney as I could with US$150,000 in New York, perhaps even more – despite the disparity in the value.

    Same goes for the UK and Europe. My 60,000 pounds in London, or my 100,000 euros in Lisbon, will buy me the same roughly as those two figures quoted above in those two places.

    As Pablo also knows, since he spends so much time in Thailand, the value of the baht means I can go to Bangkok to live and earn in pure exchange rate terms about a quarter of what I earn in Australia, but will still live like a king in Thailand.

    PPP.

    Everything finds its own level, which is what the US dollar has done finally after being at too-high levels for far too long.

    As usual, Pablo talks through his arse. If he is a forex trader though, and anyone is thinking of dabbling in the market to make a quid, I suggest you ask around a bit to make sure you don’t have pablo doing your business for you.

    He doesn’t appear to know much about the global economy, which I would think would be a prerequisite for a forex trader.

  • Tom deSabla

    Economic growth can only – ONLY mean that more goods and services are being produced.

    Nothing else would make sense as a definition, because, for example, more money can be printed or issued at will, and isn’t real growth. More people working cannot automatically equal economic growth, unless those additional people are producing more goods and services in the aggregate.

    So, again, for the last time, and I really don’t give a skerrick what kind of propaganda central banks put out for consumption by rubes…

    Unless more money and credit shows up to bid on that increased volume of goods and services, the general price level must fall.

    The only way for more money and credit to show up is for central banks to create more money and credit – no other entity can do it.

    That is Econ 101, my friends, and there is no sense arguing about it. It’s like arguing over 2+2.

    ***

    To Dave:

    “The words ‘gold’ and ‘silver’ each occur exactly ONCE in the Constitution, in the same sentence – which we’ve discussed before – in Article I, Section 10.”

    You’re right here Dave, and I was totally wrong about the Constitution repeatedly mentioning silver and gold. What happened, (for those who can stop celebrating and salivating enough to care, that is) is I became briefly confused between the mention of gold and the multiple mentioning of direct taxes/capitations.

    I knew this might happen, and I apologize to everyone for the error. I am pretty good on the Constitution, especially on it’s purpose, but a stupid error did creep in – sorry.

    Of course, seizing on this small inadvertent error does not mean, as Dave would like everyone to believe, that our new republic was born in complete acceptance of fiat paper money.

    To finally dispose of his misleading psuedo-claims:

    It makes no sense to say that the Constitutional mention of gold and silver are not meant to ensure their use as money. Let’s look at Nalle’s reasoning for a minute – He claims that the restrictions are only meant for the states, and that the Federal government was ALL ALONG able to print money out of thin air.

    If effectuated, which of course it never was, this would result in a silly situation, with states issuing gold and silver money alongside fiat paper from the federal government. That is the situation that would have resulted if Nalle’s interpretation of the Constitution were correct.

    Does anyone buy this? If you do, you better check your meds. First off, without modern-style legal tender laws, WHICH WE DIDN’T HAVE AT THAT TIME, THEN NO ONE WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S PAPER MONEY.

    Also, as if anyone needed any more proof, Nalle’s contention withers in the face of the Constitutional power to borrow. If he were correct, then the federal government could print fiat money up from day one,

    AND THERE WOULD NOT BE A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO BORROW. WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO BORROW IF YOU COULD CREATE OUT OF THIN AIR WHATEVER YOU NEEDED?

    Nalle’s insistence that the Constitution is intended to permit a purely fiat money system is flawed, and at this point, I must conclude that it is also dishonest – he knows better. There is too much information out there on the Founders and on gold and silver as money. He is counting on those lazy people who can’t be bothered to go read up on the issues.

    Also, he issues straw men to confuse those lazy people, like implying that I have said:

    “No endorsement of a gold or silver standard for federal money”

    The Constitution does not need to endorse something – if there is no power to do something, then not doing that thing is endorsed by that absence of power.

    “No special paean to the wonderfulness of hard currency”

    Again, the Constitution was never supposed to issue “special paeans” to anything. Again, it’s a document of enumerated powers, which Nalle is artfully avoiding here. It’s simple – if there is no power to do the thing – you can’t do it.

    “Nothing about stockpiling gold to finance the country”

    Nobody said anything about stockpiling gold to finance the country. I sure didn’t. A total red herring by Nalle here. He’s trying to sow confusion.

    It should be noted that our government, after taking the gold from the people, DID stockpile it as a reserve asset. Central banks do that – so what? Libertarians never told them to do it – we want the gold in the hands of the people, where it belongs.

    The fact that Dave Nalle doesn’t want that, or worse, doesn’t care, is just one of many clues that he is not a libertarian.

    “Nothing about minting federal coinage from gold or silver”

    No, but they did do that in the Coinage act of 1792. Obviously it was still a pretty high priority.

    “Nothing about requiring payment of debts to the government in gold or silver”

    Again, a straw man. I never said anything about the Constitution requiring that.

    ****

    Nalle’s arguments are like detonating a nuclear bomb, they clarify nothing, and simply create chaos and confusion. There is no real substance other than – “everything is basically fine, nothing unconstutional is going on, and anyone who says otherwise is ignorant”

    ****

    Again, sorry for my error everyone, I will strive not to let it happen again.

    Unfortunately, there are posters here, Nalle included, whose entire philosophy and worldview are one huge error – when do we get their correction?

    chirp….chirp….chirp….

    …?…

  • Tom deSabla

    Clavos, your brain is leaking again…

    “Through August 2007, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 11.6% year-to-date to $1,054 billion (that’s more than one trillion, folks), while imports increased 4.3% to $1,526 billion.”

    and

    “So, Tom, it would appear that in fact we really do export a lot still. In fact, more than ever before. You’re all wet, Tom”

    ****

    You just don’t “get” inflation do you?

    You just don’t freaking get it at all.

    Let me help you out – when exports increase 11.6% year over year, MEASURED IN NOMINAL DOLLARS, but the dollar loses that much or more in value OVER THE SAME TIME SPAN, then THERE IS NO GAIN IN EXPORTS.

    DO YOU FREAKING GET THAT, OR ARE YOU STUPID?

    And, in any case, a trillion dollars is just 1/13th of (supposed)GDP. It is only slightly over the amount we are borrowing every single year to continue to fund our enormous government operations. It is only one 9th of the debt, and only 1/60th of our unfunded obligations.

    A trillion is a lot of money, sure, but my point is simply that nominal number increases must be adjusted for the loss of purchasing power of the currency they are denominated in.

    The larger point is that some supposed rising tide of exports isn’t going to save us from suffering the consequences of all the stupid statist things we’ve done to get where we are now.

  • Clavos

    First of all, Tom, those were US Dept. of Commerce figures adjusted for inflation.

    Secondly, I notice you conveniently skipped over another quote from the same report, because it would have knocked a hole in your comment, since by virtue of how they’re compared, it’s obvious inflation is automatically null:

    “”Exports comprised 11.5% of U.S. GDP in the second quarter of 2007. To put it in historical terms, exports were 9.4% of U.S. GDP five years earlier (Q2 2002), and 5.0% 40 years ago (Q2 1967).”

    But, I agree with you, Tom. I AM stupid. Stupid for taking you seriously and responding to your bullshit.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I am pretty good on the Constitution, especially on it’s purpose,

    I’d be rather curious to hear what you think the purpose of the constitution is, especially in relation to natural rights.

    Of course, seizing on this small inadvertent error does

    Your ‘inadvertent error’ sure looked a lot like an attempt to misrepresent the content of the constitution and slip a fast one by the readers, your incredibly lame excuses not withstanding.

    not mean, as Dave would like everyone to believe, that our new republic was born in complete acceptance of fiat paper money.

    Nice straw man argument. Where did I say that? What I have actually been saying is that the constitution does not exclude the option of issuing a legitimate paper currency, likely in the context of the time to be backed by specie, but certainly with the potential to be backed in other ways.

    If you are aware of the history of the period, the British had been issuing paper pounds for about a hundred years and the experiment had proven to be very successful. They were backed by gold, but not at a 100% valuation, and there had been no significant problems and they were the model which other currencies of the time were following.

    It makes no sense to say that the Constitutional mention of gold and silver are not meant to ensure their use as money.

    Again, that’s not what I said. What the constitution does actually say is that states can’t issue paper money, clearly reserving that right solely for the federal government. I never said anything resembling what you suggest above.

    Let’s look at Nalle’s reasoning for a minute – He claims that the restrictions are only meant for the states, and that the Federal government was ALL ALONG able to print money out of thin air.

    That’s not my reasoning, that’s specifically what it states in the Constitution. It restricts states to issuing gold and silver coinage and does not place a similar restriction on the federal government. End of story.

    Also, as if anyone needed any more proof, Nalle’s contention withers in the face of the Constitutional power to borrow. If he were correct, then the federal government could print fiat money up from day one,

    There’s not one word in the constitution which says that this is not correct.

    AND THERE WOULD NOT BE A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO BORROW. WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO BORROW IF YOU COULD CREATE OUT OF THIN AIR WHATEVER YOU NEEDED?

    A specious argument. Printed paper money has to be based on something, even if it is based solely on the credit strength of the government, and that means that government still needs to be able to borrow money.

    Nalle’s insistence that the Constitution is intended to permit a purely fiat money system is flawed, and at this point, I must conclude that it is also dishonest – he knows better.

    I certainly do, and since I never said anything like what you claim here, I’m starting to agree with Clavos that you’re not worth the time to argue with, since you’re arguing with your strawmen, not with anything I actually said.

    Dave

  • Pablo

    I am starting to like Tom deSabla’s comments more and more even if he did write for the emperor of the Universe’s rag in DC.

    I agree wholeheartedly that Mr. Nalle frequently tries to sow confusion and bs in his frequent rants.
    And I too do not believe for one second that he is a libertarian, and is much more akin to the neo cons that are attempting to establish a new world order.

    Surfer:

    Your not worth responding to so I wont, except to say that the only one who lives like a King in Thailand is the King.

  • Surfer

    Pablo: “blah blah blah …. The only one who lives like a king in Thailand is the king”.

    What absolute bollocks.

    Don’t try and snow me like you try to do with everyone else on here. I’ve been up there working on occasion and have friends who live there and earn much less than they do in Australia but do just as much with it.

    You go there for work, do you, or other things? Holidays perhaps? Just Phuket? Obviously you haven’t spent much time in Bangkok lately if that’s what you really think.

    Mate, you are just so full of nonsense it’s laughable. Apart from the fact that you come across as the least informed, most patronising and condescending poster ever to darken these threads, you appear to live in some kind of parallel universe that bears no relation whatever to reality.

    You consistently seem to distort the truth for your own ends, which is usually to pointscore against others, which is why I took an instant dislike to you – like a lot of people on here – and chose way back to ignore you, as I can smell a rat even across cyber space.

    And if you knew anything about exchange rates you’d know all about PPP in calculating these things and how important it is beyond cold hard money terms.

    I’d bet London to a brick the only foreign currency exchange you are engaged in is swapping US dollars for fat bankrolls of baht on your frequent trips to Thailand.

    Why don’t you do us all a favour and spare us lesser mortals your obvious wit and intellect ’cause we don’t need it.

    Either take a hike, or take the big splinter out of your bum and start interacting normally.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I think the only plausible explanation for Pablo is that he actually lives on another planet but his computer somehow got connected to the internet on this one.

  • Pablo

    Fortunately for me Surfer I do not write on here to win a popularity contest, and I could care a whit of what you think of me, or frankly anything else.

    As to taking an instant dislike to someone, well it took only a post of yours for me to reciprocate, however as I said I not only could care less that you dislike me, I will revel in it for a bit.

    As to where I have travelled in Thailand. Chiangrai, Phrae, Udon Thani, Ubon Ratchathani, Khon Kaen, Lampang, Lamphun, Chiangmai, Mai Hon Song, Sisaket, Nongkai, Bangkok, Pattaya, Phuket, Rayong, Ko Chang, Ko Samui, Ko Tao, Surathani, Ko Lanta, Ko Phangan, Roiet, Ayuthaya, and quite a number of other places that I am sure you have never heard of bucko. I mostly go to Thailand to get away from people such as yourself, and for the most part I am successful.

    One thing that I can say that is in both our favor Surfer boy, is that the feeling it mutual, just how I like it. :)

  • Tom deSabla

    Dave, you said that printing fiat money is borrowing.

    It isn’t, and it never was.

    You are wrong, your economics are wrong.

    Clavos, when you first quoted those figures, you said nothing about them being adjusted for inflation – now you say they were.

    Ok, but real inflation is measured by losses in objective purchasing power of the currency. If those figures were adjusted by the CPI, then they are bullshit.

  • Pablo

    Dread,

    Unfortunately for me I do not live in another planet, how I wish that I did, for the number of numbskull, brainwashed, cretins that I share it with is not particularly fun for me. At the moment I am having a difficult time deciding whether I dislike “conservatives” or “liberals” more, it is kind of a toss up, and am leaning towards disliking the liberals more, for one reason.

    The conservatives are obvious wolves, but the liberals are wolves in sheep’s clothing, I prefer a predator to show his or her teeth, much more than one under the guise of being your friend is really out to give ya the shaft.

    just my two sense worth Dread, btw do you sport dreadlocks, I highly doubt it. You could certainly use a big fat joint of sinsemilla buddy. ;)

    Oh and by the way Dread, I cant stand your country of origin, and dream of the day when your Queeenie, you know the german one, kicks the ole proverbial bucket, along with all her fascist kin.

    bye bye
    Pablo

    Oh and yes I have visited your police state a number of times.

  • Pablo

    Dave, you said that printing fiat money is borrowing.

    No Davey printing fiat money is nothing more than making something out of nothing, in the case of fiat currency it is a whole lot of something. If I had the printing presses that the privately held FED has I could own the world too.

    A quick count of those on here that seem to dislike me.

    STM oh yeahhhhhhhh baby
    Dread Right on
    Lumpy your adorable
    Clavos the elite peon
    Davey boy I couldn’t be happier about that one
    Just One Man Oh how I miss him
    Surfer hang ten bubba

    If I left anyone out, my apologies.

    I must be doing something right! Don’t worry I am not going away, and to those above, thank you from the bottom of my heart, It is a pleasure for me to be disliked by YOU. :)

  • Pablo

    Oh and Surfer,

    A few words of advice bucko:

    Sell USD/CAD at market (my price is 1.0123)
    Target: Open (should make at least 200 pips, maybe up to 600.

    Stop: Open (if you use my margin you should not get nervous if it
    goes against us a few hundred pips)
    Margin: 3%
    3% means to trade 3 mini lots if you have a 10k account.

    I am still long the EUR/USD at: 1.5640
    NEW Target: 1.5610 (this will be a 30 pip loss)
    Stop: Open
    Margin: 2%

    cheers boy

  • STM

    Pablo: “You could certainly use a big fat joint of sinsemilla buddy.”

    OK, so now we know what the problem is …

    And this guy’s helping to fix the dollar’s exchange rate??

    “Buy US dollars now now!”

    Pablo: “No, bucko, just one more toke … sorry, where are we again bubba?”

  • Pablo

    That the best you can do STM? It figures

  • Tom deSabla

    You know something else?

    This sudden focus on rising exports is a joke. It’s nothing more than an attempt at misdirection from the fact that the entire economic worldview of Nalle and his sidekicks has been exposed as completely dead wrong.

    It’s just fiddling around while Rome burns.

    Exports could BE rising anyway – so what?

    It’s not like they’re going to rise so much that they somehow resolve the imbalances in the world financial system – the imbalances that everybody in the financial world seems to know about except you ostriches with your heads in the sand.

    Dave Nalle has already demonstrated that his entire economic worldview is total garbage. When he says something ignorant and is called on it – he changes the subject or just doesn’t respond at all with anything of substance. Only with insults and misdirection.

    When I make a mistake, however small and irrelevant, I admit it.

    Dave cannot admit any of his many huge, fundamental mistakes, because he is dishonest. Clearly, he is a faux-libertarian troll and saboteur who has been concocting and perfecting his pseudo-factual bullshit for years.

    The only people he is of any use to are statists, because at every turn, instead of choosing freedom or defending it, all he really does is make elaborate yet, in the end, insubstantial excuses for the status quo – all the while demeaning and insulting those who oppose him.

    Oh, and Clavos? I thought you said that those export figures were adjusted for inflation?

    I followed your link, just on a hunch that you were lying – AND YOU WERE, YOU FREAKING CREEP!

    They WERE NOT adjusted for inflation.

    You are a God Damned Liar just like Dave Nalle.

    Wow.

    The depths you guys will sink to in order to suck up to the state. Talk about whores.

    Anyone who wants to match my accuracy and veracity against fools and liars like Dave Nalle, Clavos, Kyle, and the Fool-Down-Under, please, be my guest – it’s all here, all the stupidity and ignorance, all the mean-spiritedness, all the hatred of freedom and of those who stand up for it.

    Yep, just read through these exchanges – it’s all here for anyone to see. Dave Nalle and his merry band of suckups are a bunch of haters spreading disinformation and outright lies. The whole series of articles was born out of an evil and covetous desire to smear Ron Paul while garnering web traffic from his supporters.

    Despite Nalle’s claims, he is not a libertarian, and does not understand what libertarianism is – not even after all his years lurking around the movement.

    The long train of evidence here on this board is conclusive and could lead to no other conclusion.

  • Pablo

    I am afraid STM has been taking lessons fro Lumpy. :)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    But he has better spelling…

  • Pablo

    Clavy and Davey are two peas of the same pod. Like chameleons pretending they are something that they are not. Intelligent yes, nice vocabularies and sentence structures too, but only fool those that are already foolish. I have been on to their game for some time, mostly amused by it.

    They always opt for the status quo, as their primary purpose is to obsfucate (sorry for the spelling error Clavy baby) what is really going on in the world, particularly in the arena of US politics.

    They perouse the forum, one following the other, which is why in the past I have thought maybe they were a couple! Never overtly attacking the other politically, as they are allies in falsehood, and denigration of those of us that are aware. Which is where most of my acridness comes from on this site. As from the moment I first started posting, they both came out of the dark in their attack modes, with Dave’s snobbery, and Clavy’s pompousness, being snide at every opportunity, and attempting to use their dumb name calling, such as tin foil hat, or paranoid, or whatever phrase comes to mind at the moment to instill doubt in the reader as to the veracity of others claims.

    They fool only the foolish, and the fascist amongst us, and I actually enjoy their denigration of me, as I know I am on the right track!

    You go boys!!

    just my two sense worth Clavy

  • Tom deSabla

    Editor – please do not remove Clavos’s post with the link to the export data.

    He claimed the data were adjusted for inflation and they weren’t.

    I want everybody to be able to verify that he lied.

    Of course, if he didn’t lie, then he’s a total, complete

    oh, what’s that word he likes so much again?

    OH YEAH – MORON.

    I mean, he posted the data, not Lew Rockwell, so he had absolutely no excuse for not knowing that it HAD NOT been adjusted for inflation.

    He claimed, with attitude, that it HAD BEEN.

    So, take your pick, Clavos, are you a liar or a moron?

    HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

  • Pablo

    Oh nooooooooo not Clavy!!! Please say it aint so bubba

  • Pablo

    Now I am waitin for STM to pick up the rear (end) as it were. :)

    Cmon STM show us your stuff, Mr. natural law expert ;)

  • Tom deSabla

    Oh it’s totally so.

    Nobody, but nobody EVER publishes inflation-adjusted data without clearly stating that they are doing so. This was a one page document – there was no other possible place that statement could have been hiding.

    There is no such statement – the data are not inflation-adjusted.

    What was it that Shumpeter said about the first thing a man will do for his ideals?

    Clavos is showing us right now.

  • Pablo

    Clavos is preparing himself, all quiet on the Western Front. STM asleep at the wheel, and Davey, waitin for his boys to front for him. How surprising.

  • Pablo

    Davey said:
    “Printed paper money has to be based on something, even if it is based solely on the credit strength of the government, and that means that government still needs to be able to borrow money.”

    Thats right Davey printed money is based on something, its called PAPER.

  • Clavos

    OK boys, recess is over. Come in off the playground and pretend your adults, now.

    Don’t know (or care) where you got the mistaken idea those Dept. of Commerce figures aren’t adjusted for inflation, Tom, since, unlike me, you don’t cite your sources. (I know, it’s easier that way — you can allege anything you want without fear of contradicting yourself and winding up with egg all over your face).

    However, here’s a link to Commerce’s explanation of how their figures are sourced and adjusted for inflation, as well as various other adjustments, such as seasonal.

    It’s a long document, and would greatly tax your limited reading comprehension, so to help you out, scroll down to page 24, where you will find that the figures for exports and imports are adjusted as follows:

    Imports/exports for goods are adjusted using the PPI, while those for services are adjusted with the CPI.

    Have fun, but don’t strain yourself.

  • Tom deSabla

    He’s dancing around that issue with both feet and hands.

    Just because a government exists, does not somehow provide automatic “backing” for paper money. Not even the fact that a government may have “reserves” of other paper makes their paper money anything but fiat money. Not even supposedly having gold reserves really changes anything either.

    Only convertability/redeemability matters.

    Only if the note is guaranteed exchangeable for something real, at some stable rate of exchange, over time, can it justly escape the label of being a “fiat currency.”

    We weren’t completely fiat until Nixon reneged on Bretton Woods in 1971. Until that time, foreign central banks had the right to redeem their forex dollars for gold, which had the effect of restraining our government quite a bit. The bulk of the losses in purchasing power for the dollar have occurred since 1971.

    Now, of course, things have become totally out of control, with government raging and killing pretty much everywhere you look. As a consequence, we’ve basically lost our grip on reality because our situation almost requires us to be delusional. Otherwise, wouldn’t we be marching on Washington in outrage nearly every single day?

    It’s like Bill Bonner likes to say – people come to believe what they must. So, of course, Nalle has to pretend that everything is fine, perfectly stable, and completely constitutional.

    His statism requires him to pretend that, I guess, otherwise he might end up being what he most hates and fears – a Paultard – like me!

  • Cindy D

    As a consequence, we’ve basically lost our grip on reality because our situation almost requires us to be delusional.

    They say the first step is admitting it.

  • Pablo

    Clavy:
    “OK boys, recess is over. Come in off the playground and pretend your adults, now.”

    Isn’t that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? Oh by the way did ya get a chance to watch the BBC vid on Al qaeda yet? I am just dying to hear your opinion of it. Smirk

  • Tom deSabla

    Sorry Clavos. No sale.

    Again, you originally linked to this document

    You cited this data:

    “Through August 2007, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 11.6% year-to-date to $1,054 billion”

    and claimed it was inflation adjusted.

    The document in question speaks for itself. It is a one page “U.S. Export Fact Sheet” designed, quite obviously to put a happy face on exports. There is no other document at issue here, and the data in that fact sheet was not inflation-adjusted.

    The new document you have so graciously (some might say “desperately” or maybe even “frantically”) linked to merely contains the “Methodology used in Preparing Estimates of Real GDP” and has nothing –

    NOTHING WHATSOEVER

    to do with the non-real (non-inflation-adjusted) export data in the fact sheet you quoted from.

    Did you know this?

    If so, you are, as I have previously accused you of being, a God Damned liar.

    Did you not know this?

    Then you are, with all due respect, (and it ain’t very much at this point, I can tell you that!)

    A FREAKING MORON!

    So I ask you YET AGAIN, Clavos,

    which are you – a liar or a moron?

    HAHAHAHAHAHA

    Answer me [personal attack deleted].

    [Tom, as I believe I may have warned you before, PLAY NICE. Ish. You’re sailing very close to the wind.

    ASSISTANT COMMENTS EDITOR]

  • Pablo

    Uhhh balls in your court Clavy :)

    Im loving it bubba, cant wait to see how ya come out on this one. If you wait long enough Davey boy will come along to the rescue!! yeah ima smirkin

  • Tom deSabla

    I tell you Pablo, they never learn…

  • Pablo

    He’s dancing around that issue with both feet and hands

    I call it squirming, and oh im lovin it. squirmin and a wormin ;)

    Davey where are ya bubba? your boy needs ya, the down under boy strangely quiet on this thread, hmmmm I wonder why.

    He looks real cute on another thread.

  • Pablo

    Tom,

    I been watchin these bozos for months, two peas in a pod with the boy from down under pickin up the rear as it were, Davey pretending to like Ron Paul, then doing everything in his power to denigrate him.

    Daves idea of liberty is installing tin pot dictators in third world countries as long as they are OUR boys, and has said so. Do you think him or
    Clavy lose any sleep over my country killing over a million human beings most of them civilians in the name of Jeffersonian Democracy? I sure don’t.

    Clavy thinks he is an elite! Thats the truly funny one, I really got a kick out of that one. The down under boy actually thinks he knows where rights come from, and actually believes his shit.

    I am very glad that they do not like me, as if they did I would obviously be in the wrong company. I LIKE being DISLIKED by people such as these, and revel in it.

    Snobby, pompous, arrogant, and just plain wrong on the issues of the day, and invariably defending oppression is the name of their game under the guise of being for liberty!

    Balls still in your court Clavy boy.

  • Pablo

    Hmmm,

    Strangely quiet on the Western Front. You guys take your marbles and go home? Awwww cmon lets play :)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You are a God Damned Liar just like Dave Nalle.

    It’s easy to call someone a liar and sling insults on the internet, but I wonder if after being shown to be wrong again and again and again on this thread and falling flat on your face when confronted with actual data, your giant bubble of ego has thinned enough for you to pop your head out and see how foolish your behavior makes you look.

    The depths you guys will sink to in order to suck up to the state. Talk about whores.

    This silly, childish namecalling is about the only form of argument you seem to be able to rely on consistently. The fact that we choose to oppose oppression in more practical and realistic ways rather than ranting unproductively doesn’t make us your enemies, except insofar as your childish ranting discredits the whole liberty movement, I suppose.

    Anyone who wants to match my accuracy and veracity against fools and liars like Dave Nalle, Clavos, Kyle, and the Fool-Down-Under, please, be my guest – it’s all here, all the stupidity and ignorance, all the mean-spiritedness, all the hatred of freedom and of those who stand up for it.

    They should have an easy time doing this, since your consistent inability to back up anything you say is in stark evidence on this thread.

    The whole series of articles was born out of an evil and covetous desire to smear Ron Paul while garnering web traffic from his supporters.

    No, the series of articles was born out of concern that irrational and destructive Ron Paul supporters were going to sidetrack the liberty movement and set it back years by discrediting the efforts of all of those trying to advance a pro-liberty agenda. Despite the hostile response, the articles did attract attention in the right quarters, were circulated among the more rational Paul followers and from what I’ve been told, they’ve had a positive influence in encouraging many to stick with the effort and carry the movement beyond the limitations of the Paul candidacy.

    Despite Nalle’s claims, he is not a libertarian, and does not understand what libertarianism is – not even after all his years lurking around the movement.

    That would be years at the forefront of the movement. And I’d argue that Ron Paul is not, in fact, a real libertarian. No true libertarian could support the John Birch Society or condone the campaigns of lies and deception which it generates. Libertarianism is based in truth and reason, and Paul and too many of his followers have lost their grip on reason and wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them in the ass.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Only if the note is guaranteed exchangeable for something real, at some stable rate of exchange, over time, can it justly escape the label of being a “fiat currency.”

    Last I checked, my federal reserve notes were exchangeable for things like televisions and food and my electric bill – all of which have been relatively stable in value for decades.

    So, of course, Nalle has to pretend that everything is fine, perfectly stable, and completely constitutional.

    There’s just no question. Paper money is constitutional. One of the many shortcomings of the constitution, perhaps. But you can’t wish away what the document actually says.

    His statism requires him to pretend that, I guess, otherwise he might end up being what he most hates and fears – a Paultard – like me!

    I like to think of myself as a recovering Paultard.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Tommy, me boy,

    Both documents are from the US Department of Commerce, both dated 2007, and dealing with data for 2007.

    The first gives the data; the second spells out how the Dept of Commerce compiles ALL its reports and data, and how they adjust the data. They ALWAYS ADJUST EVERYTHING THEY PUT OUT, not only for inflation, but also seasonally and by region, as well as other adjustments.

    They’re not stupid, Tommy boy, they know that comparing apples to oranges has no validity. The link to the methodology spells out all of the above.

    If you don’t believe it, It’s your problem, and I don’t really give a shit, any more than I give a shit about your opinions on me or anything else.

    Paulie,

    I’ve just watched about half of your BBC docudrama. I probably won’t watch the second half, I’m already convinced by it and agree with it.

    It confirms what I figured out on my own months ago: you gringos are losing your “war on terror; the Islamists are gonna kick your gringo asses all the way around the world, and you’re probably right: they are probably being backed by the Rothschilds and Bilderbergers and likely the Bushes.

    I’m greatly interested in seeing how the New World Order will play out. Exciting times!

    Oh, and Paulie, as usual you got it wrong: I’ve never said I am a member of the elite. What I have said is that I am an elitist, which is not the same thing, and which means that I do NOT believe that all men are equal; the elites, as you are so fond of crying about, DO indeed run the world; always have and always will, and it’s a good thing too, because a world run by the peasants would still be in the Dark Ages and a very unpleasant place in which to live.

    One other thing, Paulie: you flatter yourself thinking I don’t like you. I don’t even know you and never will; you’re just pixels on a screen, not even as real as the palmetto bugs in the palm trees down here.

  • Pablo

    Clavy,

    Thank you for proving my point:

    “I’ve just watched about half of your BBC docudrama. I probably won’t watch the second half, I’m already convinced by it and agree with it.

    It confirms what I figured out on my own months ago: you gringos are losing your “war on terror; the Islamists are gonna kick your gringo asses all the way around the world, and you’re probably right: they are probably being backed by the Rothschilds and Bilderbergers and likely the Bushes.”

    Like I have been saying all along Al-ciada is a myth, created by the ruling elite, the peddlers in washington sell only fear, and the peons eat it up. The Cecil Rhodes, Milner Group Chatham House CFR is alive and well and running things, just as I have been asserting all along. Free elections are a fraud, only there to perpetuate the myth that the people decide anything.

    Who in their right mind would ever think that the ruling elite would EVER allow the commmon people to decide their president? It is absurd.

    Osama works for his family, which in turn works for the Carlyle Group, the Blackstone Group, and the CIA takes their orders from them. It is just plain fact.

    And 9/11 was an inside job at the highest levels of our government.

    cheers Clavy
    Pablo

  • Pablo

    One more thing Clavy about pixels on a screen.

    I seem to recall several months ago when i touched a sensitive nerve with you, where you let out quite the expletive. So its not quite as you portray it to be.

    I actually as I have said on numerous occasions that I far prefer civilized debate, and stand by it, however I can be as caustic as the next guy any day of the week if called for. I do not spread the other cheek, and never will.

    Most of the pundits on here far prefer hitting below the belt, and I just respond in kind. I am actually a very civil person, and polite in the extreme in person, however I don’t take shit from anybody, particularly people that have not done their homework as I have.

    You like the world that they are creating according to your own words, I don’t. That seems to be the crux of our current disagreement, and I will continue to put my two sense in when I want to, and welcome civil discussion.

    On this site, I have been called a racist (I am not), an anti-semite (I am not), tin foil hat and paranoid (I am not), and have only responded in kind. I could give a damn what race or religion those that rule are.

    I believe in treating human beings with respect and dignity, however I will never take shit from anyone without sending it back whence it came.

    cheers
    Pablo

  • STM

    Pablo: “Oh and yes I have visited your police state a number of times.”

    Lucky they didn’t lock you up.

    You’re the kind they love to stick in the Tower Of London and leave to rot in chains.

    Also, the rack is still used as a way of getting confessions from the accused, and the main form of capital punishment is of course to to be hung, drawn and quartered (Yoive’ probably seen it on Braveheart … “Ye can rip oot me innards, but yi’ll nivver tak me freedom!”).

    That’s particularly nasty. You also have to watch the cameras on every tree and every street corner, especially in Sherwood Forest at night.

    Anyone who is a solid citizen is now transported to Australia to anoy the f..k out of us.

    Yes, shocking place that UK.

    And of course, everyone knows the US isn’t a police state, especially the millions rotting in jail for minor offences.

  • Clavos

    You’re welcome, Pablito. You say:

    “Who in their right mind would ever think that the ruling elite would EVER allow the commmon people to decide their president? It is absurd.”

    Of course they wouldn’t, Pablo! Why on Earth would you want them to?

    Surely, you don’t want the peasants running things; my God, man, the world would go to hell in a handbasket!

    Let the peasants build the cars, grow the food, make the clothes and shoes, collect the garbage, etc.

    Let’s keep the Skull and Bones guys on the top.

    Oh, and by the way, my kid sister is an executive with the Carlyle group. Should I start being careful about what I say around her? She says she’s some sort of “analyst,” but when pressed, mostly says she can’t talk about her work.

  • Pablo

    Clavy

    YAWN

  • STM

    “I do not spread the other cheek, and never will.”

    ??????

  • Pablo

    STM,

    I know that particular comment went over your head.

  • STM

    Well, no, mate, it didn’t … that’s why I stuck 4 question marks at the arse-end of it. It was quite funny though Pablo :)

  • Clavos

    Speaking, as we have been, of imports and exports, ABC News had an interesting feature on last night’s broadcast about how the high price of shipping triggered by the runup in oil prices is motivating a number of small and medium size companies with overseas manufacturing facilities to close them up and move their operations back to the US.

    According to ABC, this is a rapidly growing phenomenon, which is not only positively affecting the balance of payments, but the employment picture as well.

  • Kyle

    Pablo: “And 9/11 was an inside job at the highest levels of our government.”

    loooooooooool

    If it was 2002 or early 2003, there MIGHT still be an excuse for believing such idiocy. It is now 2008. Anyone STILL peddling this dishonest paranoid nonsense has absolutely zero credibility in any sort of political debate.

    Then again, I’ve been accused repeatedly of being a CIA disinfo agent who gets paid to post online, so you probably shouldn’t listen to me *rolls eyes*

  • Kyle

    Also, is it even possible for figures regarding exports as a percentage of GDP not to be adjusted for inflation? You can at least try to say that the raw numbers aren’t adjusted, but the number as a percentage of that year’s GDP has to be.

  • Pablo

    I dont have any credibility with Kyle? Oh noooooooo,
    please say it aint so bubba.

  • Tom deSabla

    Clavos:

    you said, of the two links you provided:

    “Both documents are from the US Department of Commerce, both dated 2007, and dealing with data for 2007.

    The first gives the data; the second spells out how the Dept of Commerce compiles ALL its reports and data, and how they adjust the data. They ALWAYS ADJUST EVERYTHING THEY PUT OUT, not only for inflation, but also seasonally and by region, as well as other adjustments.”

    ***

    Clavos, you have answered my question. You are not a moron. You are a liar.

    I say this because you have already been CAUGHT LYING, and have now LIED AGAIN.

    You were given a chance to withdraw the claim that you made in post # 178 regarding the “U.S. Export Fact Sheet” you linked to in post # 173 – but you did not do so, perhaps because it would have meant admitting you were a moron – but hey, who really knows what makes a liar lie?

    You said in post #178 that this piece of data from the “Fact Sheet” – “Through August 2007, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 11.6% year-to-date” – was adjusted for inflation.

    It wasn’t.

    Anyone who spends much time looking at economic statistics and data knows that when data are inflation adjusted – that fact is clearly indicated by calling it “real” or “inflation-adjusted” or “in 1995 dollars” or something like.

    It wasn’t. As I said in post #204, this “Fact Sheet” was clearly designed only for showing export growth. It didn’t even mention imports at all.

    When I called you on it in post #190, you responded by providing a link to a document -“Updated Summary of NIPA Methodologies” – and directed us to page 24.

    Everything in that part of the document, specifically including everything on that page, deals with, and ONLY WITH – “Methodology used in Preparing Estimates of Real GDP”

    Perhaps you don’t think anyone knows what “REAL GDP” is, Clavos?

    Real GDP IS inflation-adjusted. The same document also talks about how they compute “Current Dollar GDP” which is not inflation-adjusted. The very fact that they put out those two different estimates – easily verifiable by looking at the document – proves that you have now lied yet again – twice in fact.

    You just said in post #212 that “The first [Export fact sheet linked to in post 173] gives the data; the second [Updated Summary of NIPA Methodologies] spells out how the Dept of Commerce compiles ALL its reports and data, and how they adjust the data. They ALWAYS ADJUST EVERYTHING THEY PUT OUT”

    The information on page 24 regarding adjustments to import and export data ONLY APPLIES TO ESTIMATING REAL GDP, and so DOES NOT spell out “how the Dept of Commerce compiles ALL its reports and data.” That’s new lie #1.

    THE VERY TABLE CONTAINING THE INFORMATION IS CLEARLY MARKED:

    “Methodology used in Preparing Estimates of Real GDP”

    SO YOU COULD NOT HAVE MISSED IT.

    THE FACT THAT THEY COMPUTE BOTH REAL AND CURRENT DOLLAR GDP IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE BEA MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT “ALWAYS ADJUST EVERYTHING” FOR INFLATION. CURRENT DOLLAR CALCULATIONS, BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION, ARE NOT INFLATION-ADJUSTED.

    That proves new lie #2

    GAME OVER DUDE.

    YOU LIED AND YOU GOT CAUGHT.

    DON’T COMPOUND THINGS BY CONTINUING TO LIE.

    HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

    ***

    As to me calling people names, I didn’t start that behavior. Here’s a small, partial list of what either Clavos, Dave, or Kyle have called other posters.

    whore
    deluded
    bizarrely paranoid
    can’t read
    crackpot
    deranged nutter

    I could go on, but you all get the point.

    As to why I called Dave a liar – I called him a liar because he essentially denied any MSM persecution of Ron Paul.

    Please. For someone so knowledgeable, and a libertarian to boot, to NOT ADMIT that Ron Paul got screwed? The evidence is everywhere. I myself provided the source “the Project for Excellence in Journalism.” Nalle said he found the evidence to be “pretty sketchy” and I called him a liar.

    I stand by that claim, even if he is first lying to himself so he can then lie to everyone else.

    As to being hard on Clavos – hey, I only gave him the same choice he gave Ron Paul – either a liar or a moron.

    Clavos chose to be a liar, and no one made him do that. He had to discredit me so badly that he stepped totally over the line – the line that Nalle is more artful about crossing – the line between arguing wrongfully and deceptively against freedom, as Nalle does so adroitly, and outright lying.

    As for calling him a female dog – I went a little far there – ish, maybe, but after catching him in a direct lie after all the other crap these clowns have been slinging…

    Clavos had it coming.

    Clavos is the one who should certainly be warned – IF NOT BANNED – for his intentional and willful lies.

  • Pablo

    Tom,

    Oh and dont forget TIN FOIL HAT, oh yeah and PARANOID, they just love that one! They love to dish it out, but run for cover or comments editor when someone gives it back to em. Typical hypocrites.

    Let me illustrate a classic example with Davey boy, he calls those of us that question what happened on 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a negative context, however he subscribes to another conspiracy, you know the one where they removed all the evidence contravening federal law on 9/11 that some guys in a cave in Afghanistan planned and carried out the most successful attack on our soil in history.

    The hypocrisy of these guys knows no bounds.

    I pull up a chair and wait for the fireworks.

  • Tom deSabla

    Can we not dispense with the issue of Dave Nalle’s veracity with this one quote?

    “Last I checked, my federal reserve notes were exchangeable for things like televisions and food and my electric bill – all of which have been relatively stable in value for decades.”

    ***

    Again, the master obfuscator ducks the argument that he is supposedly responding to – this quote of mine:

    “Only if the note is guaranteed exchangeable for something real, at some stable rate of exchange, over time, can it justly escape the label of being a “fiat currency.”

    Ok, let’s be clear – Nalle isn’t really quibbling with this definition of mine. Yet. What he is doing for now is trying to imply, without actually saying it outright, that our present currency meets the definition.

    But, again, notice the subtle changes when he spits it back out…

    I said a non-fiat note must be GUARANTEED to be exchangeable for something real, at some stable rate of exchange, over time.

    He says that, last time he checked, his “federal reserve notes were exchangeable for things like televisions and food and my electric bill – all of which have been relatively stable in value for decades”

    So they were exchangeable – we’ll give him that, but they were not and are not guaranteed to be exchangeable at a stable rate.

    That is what a gold and silver standard was – the money itself was redeemable for actual gold and silver at a guaranteed rate of exchange.

    That, of course, is not what Nalle is describing; he’s merely saying that people have always accepted his FR notes, and that food, tv’s and energy have been “relatively” stable in “value”

    “last time he checked.”

    How many “outs” does he give himself here?

    Why does he say “value” and not price when discussing his electric bill and his food? It’s weird, and I think it’s part of his defenses that he’s developed over the years.

    That’s why whenever someone tries to call him on what he says, he always says, “I didn’t say that” because he didn’t – well, not exactly.

    He’s such a weasel-worder.

    In any case, can’t we all agree that TV prices are not really the issue here? Food and energy are how we live – and their prices HAVE NOT “remained relatively stable for decades,” as Nalle claims,

    unless he means “relative” to a rocket ship powering into space.

    He must know about the inflation in food and energy prices, because he can’t be rich enough that he never buys his own food or gas, or pays his own bills.

    These rising food and energy prices are not a matter of opinion – they are chart-popping, wallet-busting reality – everywhere.

    Dave Nalle, stripped of his weasel-worded deniability clauses, says that food and energy prices have been stable for decades when they haven’t, and that our money isn’t really fiat money when it so obviously is.

    It is clear that he MUST know better.

    Isn’t that lying?

  • Pablo

    Well at the very least weasling something he is an expert at. :)

  • troll

    (Tom – I called Paul a whore…just for the record

    and I meant it in the best possible way)

  • Pablo

    Troll,

    Yep and your just a nameless troll hiding under the “bushes” where u belong fella.

  • Tom deSabla

    Whatever, troll, we can fill the gap with plenty of other pejoratives if we need to prove that point again. I’m not really in the mood right now to apologize to the Nalle crew for accidently attributing your word to them,

    but I’m sorry I didn’t give you proper credit, ok?

    If you’re one of that crew, then please, talk to me, not down to me. Prove me wrong if you can; but if you can’t, be decent and admit it. Learn something. Don’t try to belittle me using lies and abuse like Dave and especially Clavos have done.

    You already know what will happen if you do.

  • troll

    Tom – I refer you to #170

  • Tom deSabla

    troll, you said:

    “take a look at trends in coal and nuclear reactor exports for examples – not to mention ‘expertise’ and ‘personal services’ at something like $47 billion/year”

    Listen, I think it’s wonderful if we export more, if we are, but there aren’t a whole lot of American jobs being produced by exporting coal and nuclear reactors. I’m not saying our companies shouldn’t be exporting; I’m saying that there are only a few industries doing it, and it’s mostly things like planes, and military stuff.

    And some things we don’t even really make here, but that are made by U.S. companies, so it gets counted as an export.

    As for coal, and nuclear, we’re going to need our coal ourselves soon if we don’t get busy building our own nuclear reactors right here at home.

    I don’t really see exporting coal as a long-term export growth sector that will benefit the average American worker, do you?

    I don’t know how beneficial this growth in personal services and “expertise” is either, because, unless our personal services are better and cheaper than the other guy’s, I don’t see some great rebound coming from that sector either.

    The thing about expertise, is that once other people get to see it enough, they can do it too. The Chinese proved that when they stalked our carrier group in the Pacific recently. Also, our computer expertise – now most of the customer service and programming work is done by non-Americans or offshore.

    The point is, troll, our problems come from too much government, in every area of life.

    If you don’t realize that, then we may not have common ground to start from. Exports notwithstanding, we cannot rebuild a dynamic economy with federal state and local governments sitting on our fucking chests like they are and increasing the money supply like they have – we’ll never get up off the ground.

    You have to realize this to credibly discuss anything political, really. The size and scope of government that we have now is simply unsustainable, and increasing exports, (to the extent they are actually increasing in real terms) while nice and all, is simply irrelevant to that overarching fact and all the dire implications that flow from it.

    Go to Daily Reckoning. Read some of their stuff, and you’ll get a taste of where I’m coming from. They put out several books, including “Empire of Debt.”

    Exports? A red herring.

    The issue of “rising exports” is nothing but a distraction from the very crucial monetary issues that Ron Paul was trying to explain and clarify, and Dave Nalle is trying to obfuscate.

    By the way, what do you think of Clavos lying about his precious export fact sheet numbers being adjusted for inflation?

    Don’t you condemn that?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Tom, I hope you don’t use that kind of language in the Washington Times, or wherever it was you said you write for.

    Since you seemed to be wondering, there’s nothing in our comments policy that says you can’t lie. It is a commonly-used, albeit unethical, debate strategy, as our ‘betters’ in Washington know. Someone caught lying in Congress will usually be spanked on the wrist (and tacitly applauded), whereas a Congressperson who was to call one of his fellow elected representatives a witless &^$#ing bozo with a brain the size of a gnat’s @#$% would likely be thrown out of the Capitol for a few days or weeks to think about what he did.

    Similarly, we encourage – but do not, except in extreme circumstances, enforce – a certain level of civility in the comments space. This doesn’t penetrate to some people, as witness this particular thread, although Pablo is usually savvy enough to know just how close to the line he can step. You, Tom, do not appear to be quite that smart, and so I warn you again to watch your step, or you will start to see your comments being rather heavily edited.

    Cheers,
    Assistant Comments Editor

  • Pablo

    Dread,

    I took my lessons from Dave.

  • Tom deSabla

    Really?

    (yawn)

    Well…I guess I could stop cursing…

    We’ll see.

    It does look a bit like you’re taking sides.

    Insulting me, aren’t you? Well, then…

    Frankly, I don’t care much for what you say, Mr./Ms. Assistant comments editor, and pray don’t concern yourself with how I write for the Washington Times. Unlike you, their editors have always treated me with dignity and respect.

    I just know this – if you start censoring me for speaking the truth and denouncing the proven liars lurking on your board with your obvious approval, you can take your little blog and stuff it right down the toilet.

    Ya got me?

    I don’t need you.

  • Pablo

    Tom,

    I hope you stick around, as I like your comments, and your engaging writing style.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    As to why I called Dave a liar – I called him a liar because he essentially denied any MSM persecution of Ron Paul.

    Tom, you throw the world ‘liar’ around without apparently understanding the meaning of the word. For someone to be a liar they need to knowingly make a statement which is untrue. I have yet to see any evidence which doesn’t support my assertion that Paul got about the right amount of coverage for a candidate polling at 2-3% nationwide – maybe more than was proportional, even. In fact, he got more coverage than other candidates polling at the same level like Kucinich or Gravel. Show me a statistical analysis which shows Paul getting less coverage than a third tier candidate deserved and I’ll admit to being mistaken.

    Your problem here is that you have a romanticized view of the Paul candidacy and it leads you to a fanciful view of how he should have been treated by the media. The problem is that if you put aside the romance and wishful thinking, the facts don’t support your viewpoint.

    Please. For someone so knowledgeable, and a libertarian to boot, to NOT ADMIT that Ron Paul got screwed? The evidence is everywhere. I myself provided the source “the Project for Excellence in Journalism.” Nalle said he found the evidence to be “pretty sketchy” and I called him a liar.

    I’ve looked at the data at the Project for Excellence in Journalism – at least what I could find since you didn’t provide a link. Almost none of their analysis includes Paul, and those assessments which do include information on him as an afterthought. The only story I can find that even mentions Paul covers a single week in February and barely mentions him. They really are guilty of neglecting Paul, even if the rest of the MSM isn’t.

    The truth is that if you do a search for any candidate you’ll find that his advocates are whining about not enough media coverage or negative media coverage. Paul’s hardly alone. And some of them have some pretty good statistics to back up their claims.

    Plus everyone who’s tried to do an analysis has done it slightly differently, and the results vary greatly based on when the analysis was done and what media sources were included. When Paul had his big fundraising events he got a hell of a lot of MSM coverage. At other times he didn’t. But what’s consistently true is that he didn’t get LESS coverage than other candidates polling at about the same level.

    Or do some research yourself. Do a search on google news – not the web, just the news section which is mostly sources in the MSM. Do a search for the entire year of 2007. Here are the results:

    Barack Obama 65,900
    Hillary Clinton 65.000
    John McCain 41,000
    John Edwards 37,600
    Mitt Romney 36,100
    Rudy Giuliani 31,600
    Joe Biden 22,300
    Fred Thompson 16,100
    Bill Richardson 15,900
    Mike Huckabee 15,300
    Ron Paul 10,200
    Kucinich 8090
    Mike Gravel 6370

    Based on this, the guy who ought to be complaining is Mike Huckabee, who did pretty
    well in the Republican primary, yet had less
    press coverage than people who dropped out without winning a delegate. As for Paul, his coverage seems about right. Or maybe a bit generous. McCain outpolled him 10 to 1 or more yet only got 4 times the media coverage.

    And then take a quick look at the months of December and January when Paul really hit his stride as far as fundraising and advertising. McCain has 27,300 mentions, Paul has 7,700. Huckabee had 23,400 mentions. Romney had 27,200. As a percentage that breaks down like this:

    Paul: 9%
    Huckabee: 27%
    Romney: 31%
    McCain: 31%

    Paul had a higher percentage of the media coverage than he got in any of the polls in that period and comparable with the best showings he had in the popular vote in any state.

    And don’t even try to argue that the media coverage was negative. Check some of the articles if you want to duplicate my searches. They were generally very positive.

    Dave

  • Guy Fawks

    Nalle,

    Get it right. McCain got four times the “zionist controled media coverage!” Paul’s campaign was intended to benefit Americans whereas McCains campaign is about an endless middle-eastern war. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor. Please leave out the petty insults, Guy, it demeans the debate and yourself]

  • Kyle

    Hahahaha… I see Pablo is not only a truther, but a racist one at that, who is still parroting the “some guys in a cave” talking point from years ago. Are you not going to disavow such disgusting rhetoric from your most vocal supporter here, Mr. deSabla? After all, you’re smart enough not to believe in that nonsense… right?

  • Kyle

    Re: Fawks’ latest post:

    It seems deSabla has an anti-Semitic tin-foil-hatter on his side as well as a 9/11 Truther. No wonder he identifies with Ron Paul.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    @ #236:

    Just for the record, Tom, I was not insulting you. In saying that you were not as smart as Pablo on this thread, I was not denigrating your intelligence but merely making an observation that you are not as adept as he is at gauging and testing the limits of what is acceptable on BC.

    In choosing to have a hissy fit in response to my friendly warning, you’ve pretty much confirmed my assessment of you.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    @ #240:

    Kyle, in all fairness, I believe Pablo was referring to the incident in 2003 wherein the combined might of the US armed forces spent a few days pounding the shit out of a cave system in Tora Bora in the belief that bin Laden was holed up there.

    Don’t really see what’s racist about that.

  • Kyle

    “…that some guys in a cave in Afghanistan planned and carried out the most successful attack on our soil in history”

    That was the statement made. That those who planned and executed the attacks were just “some guys in a cave”, rather than college educated, highly trained terrorists. That mischaracterization is thrown around willy nilly by the Troof movement in an attempt to paint the hijackers as incompetent, primitive patsies who could not possibly have been the brains behind the operation. I call that racist.

  • Pablo

    Kyle,

    Call it what you will, I never made reference to skin color which is what constitutes racism bubba.

    I call it extremely naive of those of you that think that the pentagon’s airspace could ever be penetrated like that.

    By the way if ANYONE trained them it was our own intelligence agencies. How come no demotions? How come no responsibility, other than to create another agency with the label “homeland” security.
    For the record Kylie, do you recall anyone in your immediate family, or friends or acquaintances EVER hear the US called das Homeland before 9/11? I sure didnt.

    IF and I say IF Bin Laden was responsible, my opinion is that he did it in conjunction with not only his family, but in the employ of his families business partners here in the good ole USA.

    You call me paranoid, I call you naive. You have your opnion and I have mine, since neither of us were the perpetrators, it is all just conjecture anyways, unfortunately I do not think that you have the humility to admit the obvious.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I call it extremely naive of those of you that think that the pentagon’s airspace could ever be penetrated like that.

    Pablo, the aircraft couldn’t have taken more than a few seconds to make it all the way across the Pentagon’s airspace and into the side of the building.

    Compare that to the minutes it would have taken to realize that there was a threat, get the message to the airfield, get crews into planes, get the planes taxied and airborne and flown to the Pentagon.

    Simple math.

  • Clavos

    But it doesn’t fit the conspiracy scenario, Doc…

  • Kyle

    Pablo,

    If you think I haven’t heard every single one of your arguments a million times, then YOU are the naive one. Needless to say they are all completely ludicrous and baseless, and rely on paranoia in place of knowledge and rational thought.

    But maybe you expected Flight 77 to have been shot down by the secret underground SAM launchers scattered around the Pentagon’s front lawn. Lol.

  • Pablo

    big YAWN for ya Kyle, try using more than one or two sentences, as your like a broken record. I do know however that it makes you sleep better at night denigrating me. Sweet dreams baby. Uncle Sam is keepin ya all safe and cozy, no worries, slumber time.

  • Kyle

    Just to point out more of the sheer unimaginable idiocy of Pablo’s remark about “Pentagon airspace”: there is a fucking AIRPORT like a quarter of a mile from the Pentagon.

  • Pablo

    Kyle,

    Almost two sentences this time! and with a fuckin too dude! You go boy.

  • Pablo

    Oh and on the subject of 9/11 did any of you out there catch the unhonorable Senator Hatch talk about guys like me today? It truly made my day. He even used the tin foil hat term too, and compared those that are criticizing the big brother FISA bill with “tin foil hat” guys that think 9/11 was an inside job. I tell ya comin straight from the horses mouth, put a big ole smile on this boys face.

    Somethin tells me also, (I know I like to conjecture alot) that Kylie boy just adores someone like that fascist Hatch. Talk about taking innocuousness as the face of evil, Hatch take the cake.

    I am still smiling :) :) :)

  • Kyle

    Since we have derailed Dave’s comments board quite a bit now, I’d like to invite Pablo to do his best job of convincing me that 9/11 was indeed an “inside job” in private. Feel free to email me [personal contact info deleted] and show me the shocking evidence you’ve amassed. I can’t wait to be shocked – SHOCKED! – and amazed.

    [Kyle, I’m afraid we don’t allow the posting of personal contact details in the comments space. It’s for your own protection as you never know who might be reading…

    If you have a personal blog or, as Pablo suggests, a forum you frequent (we have one here at Blogcritics, BTW), feel free to post a link to that and lock horns with him that way.

    ASSISTANT COMMENTS EDITOR]

  • Pablo

    RE Pentagon on 9/11

    Here is a link to a physics forum where just these sort of things are being discussed. Have a look if you are interested, an interesting read if nothing else.

    physics forum on 9/11 pentagon attack

  • Pablo

    Kyle,

    Well that is quite an admirable invitation ole boy.

    First you denigrate me for weeks, calling me every name in the book, full of contempt, arrogance and spite. Now you want me to take PERSONAL time just for you Kylie boy, as if I could give a fuck, what you think about anything. I dont. Do your own damned homework, I not only do not owe you the time of day for an explanation considering your demeaning comments, your obvious closed mind to boot; take a hike.

  • Clavos

    Until I just dropped in, I think you two are the only ones reading this thread this evening.

    Kyle, I admire your tenacity, but wonder about your sanity; after all, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    Put another way, Kyle: there’s no point in wrestling with a pig; you both get all muddy, and the pig likes it.

  • Kyle

    “If you have a personal blog or, as Pablo suggests, a forum you frequent (we have one here at Blogcritics, BTW), feel free to post a link to that and lock horns with him that way.”

    Fair enough. I’d recommend JREF (forums.randi.org), but Pablo will be chewed up and spit out there. That place is the bane of Troofers’ existence.

  • Pablo

    Clavy baby,

    That was the most clever personal attack yet, I admire you for your cleverness, thats about it however.

    cheers
    Pablo

  • Pablo

    I do find it amusing however, I have never said that 9/11 WAS and inside job. What I have said and continue to believe is that it is MY opinion that it was. I find it amazing that as everyone has opinions about everything, that those that disagree with my OPINION take such offense at it. I do not KNOW what happened on that fateful day anymore than anyone of you do, and thats a fact! Yet the berating continues unabated. Kind of reminds me of guys that attack gays, that are latent homosexuals.

    It is obvious to me that Kyle is having doubts about his own beliefs, so at first he attacks my OPINION, then he suckers up to me as if we are buddies and wants me to take my time out for him personally. I write on here for one reason fellas, its a world wide forum, and as such is seen by many people. I could care less what Clavy thinks about the price of peas in China, or that he thinks he is an elite, or that Kyle is having his own doubts about his government, thats his problem not mine.

    So you go on attacking Clavy. I would maybe agree with your style, if I said I KNOW what happened on 9/11 and understand your contempt. However since it is only my opinion, the way that you constantly attack me only shows me that you enjoy belittlement. I could care less.

  • Kyle

    And 9/11 was an inside job at the highest levels of our government.”

    Backpedaling, are we?

  • Pablo

    No dear Kyle,

    I more than almost anyone here making posts, use the term IM MY OPINION, unlike Davey boy. And it is my opinion that 9/11 was an inside job. I know you have a hard time comprehending, so I am taking the time out just for you, cuz I know your sensitive, and I most certainly don’t want to disturb your delicate self esteem.

    As to your charge of racism, which I have already responded to, I hopped over to dictionary.com so that I could give you a clear and concise definition of what this word means, just for YOU Kylie.

    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

    Race has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of these cave dwellers. They have only in the last several decades come out of the stone age, that is not due to their skin color, but has more to do with their culture, and lack of sophisticated technology. If they were whiter than you, I would still be of the same opinion Kylie boy.

    I wonder why I detect such rancor from you, I just happen to have a different opinion than you on probably just about everything! However you seem a little bent out of shape by my opinions and politics. I can’t say I am sorry, cuz I am not.
    I suggest you take a deep breath of fresh air, and fondly remember the last time you had a main squeeze in your arm brother.

    cheers
    Pablo

  • Cindy D

    Pablo, Pablo, Pablo!!!!!

    You seem like a nice person! A person I might like. So stop already! Enough with the conspiracy stuff!

    Sure there are conspiracies and sure your government is run by a bunch of horse’s asses. And with the utmost certainty I despise W. as much or even more than you do and I think he’s insane (though not in a literal sense).

    It seems like the government is against you for a lot of better reasons than a conspiracy warrants.

    So, become active in something that does some good, for Pete’s sake! But the conspiracy thing just comes from a place where there is not any limits based on reason or critical thinking.

    You people wind each other up into a fare-thee-well over details that could be explained any number of ways. The people you are listening to are not physicists or physics scholars (in that blog there). Look for some actual physicists or physics scholars is what I advise, instead of a “physics blog” where anyone can post.

    That is all for now.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan Miller

    Cindy D

    I must take issue with the following:
    Sure there are conspiracies and sure your government is run by a bunch of horse’s asses.
    What do you have against horses? We have nine of them, and they are intelligent, gentle and sweet creatures; every one of them. Please don’t refer to them as “bitches” either. We have three of them, and they too are wonderful.

    I would suggest alternative terminology. Otherwise, I will be compelled to send PETA after you and, if that doesn’t work, then the Intergalactic World Order.

    Dan

  • Cindy D

    Damn you Dan!

    That’s likely because you are aligned with The Conspiracy! You people can’t tell the difference between a horse and a horse’s ass! If you call those things horses. Whoever heard of a horse that walks upright?

    And stop calling me Cindy D dammit! Do I address you as Dan Miller? Not that there is anything wrong with calling me Cindy D. I mean it is my name and all. I mean it’s perfectly justified especially if you are a New Universe Order conspiracy person (as I hear that is how they talk).

  • Cindy D

    And apparently hearing things and reading things serves as proof.

    Pablo? What do you think?

  • Pablo

    Cindy, Cindy, Cindy,

    You seem like the kind of person I might like in person too! I will make a deal with you about me not posting stuff about conspiracies dear.

    If you will read either in electronic or printed media, either one of these books in their entirety, I will stop writing about conspiracies for one month!

    Fair enough? The books are The “Bilderberg Group”, by Daniel Estulin, OR “Tragedy and Hope, a History of the World in Our Time by Prez Clinton’s self professed political mentor, and Professor of History at Georgetown University, the late Carrol Quigley. I would recommend the Bilderberg Group however, as it is not 1600 some odd pages like Quigley’s is, but only a few hundred. Also I happen to like Mr. Estulin very much personally and correspond with him on occasion, and its much more contemporary.

    Theres my offer on the table Cindy. I am not asking you to agree with these authors, only to take the time out to read one of them. I know, I know your are quite sure in your own mind, that such a devious plan bye the ruling elite to take over the world is only in the mind’s of delusional and paranoid people. Indulge me dear, and I will stop talking about conspiracies on this site for a month! Imagine, if you will a whole month of not having to see ole Pablo and his ranting about the CFR!!!

    btw I have a torrent of Tragedy and Hope I would be happy to post on a site, so that you can download it.

    There you have it my offer.

  • Pablo

    Cindy,

    Oh yeah one other book I would do it for too. “Synthetic Terrorism” by Webster Tarpley, who also imho wrote the best book ever on the Bush dynasty.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Oh yeah one other book I would do it for too. “Synthetic Terrorism” by Webster Tarpley, who also imho wrote the best book ever on the Bush dynasty.

    Both published on a mimeograph machine in his mother’s basement.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Look for some actual physicists or physics scholars is what I advise, instead of a “physics blog” where anyone can post.

    That seems unlikely, since real physicists and engineers just laugh at what Pablo calls ‘truth’. It’s in the pathology of conspiracy dementia to avoid environments where their assumptions are challenged and to instead just seek reinforcement from other like minded types.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    Okay Pablo, if you say so. But, don’t then ask reasonable people why they consider your ideas ridiculous.

  • Pablo

    Cindy,

    Oh you mean people such as Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga? Or maybe former Defense Minister of Germany Andreas von Bulow? Or perhaps Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson, who publicly before the Arizona State Senate only last week called for a new investigation on 9/11.

    Did you mean those kind of reasonable people dear?

    Perhaps you were referring to former CIA employee Ray McGovern, or perhaps you meant member of the Japanese Diet Yukihisa Fujita who has publicly come out in Japan questioning who was behind 9/11.

    Or maybe you were referring to the father of Reaganomics former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts?

    Reasonable, yes Cindy quite reasonable.

  • Pablo

    Sigh, I guess that means you won’t read one of the books. Oh well, can’t win em all Cindy dear. :)

  • Pablo

    Dave,

    Actually Synthetic Terrorism was published by Progressive Press and was on the best selling list at Amazon.com for well over 6 months bubba.

    Oh Dave? How is the shill business going? How is the pay for your line of work anyways? I heard Armstrong Williams made well over a quarter mil for his shilling. I suspect however you get paid considerably less.

    Oh and Davey? As far as engineers I put in a lil link for ya with just such people who happen to agree with my analysis, for your criticism. Enjoy Davey. I make money the old fashioned way bubba, I work for it.

    Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

  • Pablo

    Oh and Dave? If your not getting paid for what you do, you not quite the brightest kid on the block that you present yourself to be bubba. I am sure if you cant find the right url for the boys that pay for that sort of work I can find it for ya :). I want 10% though, I think thats only fair.

  • Clavos

    “Actually Synthetic Terrorism was published by Progressive Press and was on the best selling list at Amazon.com for well over 6 months bubba.”

    Hmm…

    “Amazon.com Sales Rank: #67,538 in Books”

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    Pablo, I do what I do out of a desire to make this country better and more free stop the spread of destructive disinformation. You choose to side with those whose ideology of lies and hate can only lead to authoritarianism despite their false lipservice to liberty.

    Dave

  • Kyle

    Bahahaha… he’s pulling the A&E911 crap. That site lists any random freshman physics student, wingnut tenured professor, or flat out FICTIONAL CHARACTER that someone submits. There’s a hilarious video on YouTube where someone shows how they signed up “Mike Rotch” by making up a bunch of credentials and sending in a pic of a Holocaust denier.

    Rest assures for every architect or engineer who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, there are 100 who know it’s not.

  • Kyle

    Oh you mean people such as Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga? Or maybe former Defense Minister of Germany Andreas von Bulow? Or perhaps Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson, who publicly before the Arizona State Senate only last week called for a new investigation on 9/11.

    Did you mean those kind of reasonable people dear?

    Perhaps you were referring to former CIA employee Ray McGovern, or perhaps you meant member of the Japanese Diet Yukihisa Fujita who has publicly come out in Japan questioning who was behind 9/11.

    Or maybe you were referring to the father of Reaganomics former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts?

    LOL

    First of all, when a Troofer lists a high profile person who “agrees” with them, often they focus on a specific segment of a quote which seems to indicate agreement, when in fact the person in question completely rejects the 9/11 nuttery. In the rare case that the person does think something is up, they really have no factual basis to go on.

    Now, second, and most importantly: What relevant expertise do any of these people have to make their opinion more valid than those who have actually studied the 9/11 attacks and/or spent time at ground zero?!

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    Or you could just read this book and avoid critical brain damage.

    Dave

  • Pablo

    Dave,

    That was almost funny! And ummm tell me Davey who is it that I hate?

    As far as authoritarianism, take a good hard look around ya bubba. From puttin motion and face recognition cameras everywhere, drones that fly over cities, to locking citizens up without due process, to torturing human beings, to attempting to get rid of habeas corpus, to havin to pee in a bottle to get a job washin dishes to prove to the state your blood is pure enough, to warrentless wiretaps, and granting immunity to companies that break the law. Yeah bubba, tell me all about it.

    Freedom my ass davey, and your one of the main disinformation guys on this site. You have never fooled me for one second brother. Its a family affair aint it bucko? Sure it is.

    If you dont like what I say, dont respond, oh but you cant help yourself can ya? No you can’t. False lip service to liberty, you bet you are.

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    For what it’s worth, Kyle, Paul Craig Roberts actually does seem to support the truthers. He apparently went off his nut in the late 90s and seems to have basically become a Bircher. He’s got a variety of loony ideas. 9/11 conspiracies are just the beginning of his craziness.

    Dave

  • Pablo

    Davey,

    I see your throwin out Popular Yellow Journalism again. Publisher: Hearst (August 15, 2006)

    Nooooooooo they dont work for the CIA……..hehehehe, just like you dont bubba or your mom.

    Gimme a break, and with Chertoff’s cousin too! One big happy totalitarian family….sure davey, im waitin for you to quote Daniel Pipes again hahaha.

    Your amazing, but I will tell you this bubba, I am smarter than you, more well read than you, and infinitely more of a caring, decent, honest man than you will ever be. Have a nice day mr Cia man.

  • Pablo

    Oh by the way regarding Mr. Daniel Pipes. I sent him an email recently because he called Jeff Rense a neo nazi. Now being the nazi HATER That I am, and an avid fan of his, I challenged Mr. Pipes to show me anywhere where Mr. Rense in any way endorsed national socialism (nazi). Sure he has some guys on there that question whether or not 6 million jews were killed. I have no opinion one way or another on that, however I am very well read on the subject of Nazis, and find them particularly evil. He smeared the man plain and simple. I also challenge YOU davey boy or your side kick clavy to show me ONE instance on rense.com’s site where in any way whatsoever he EVER condoned, respected, admired, or liked Adolph Hitler. He is constantly against fascism, and totalitarisanism in ANY of its forms whether on the left (communism) or on the right (fascism). I left the message on his blog, of course it is moderated, and I told him, that if he did not publish my comment, which I knew he would not, that it was enough proof for me as to what kind of a man he is. SMEAR. Your very similar bubba, you smear every chance you get. I will NEVER stop speaking my mind, and I could give a good god damned what you think about anything. I hope I make myself clear Davey. Oh and by the way, one small caveat.

    I recently exposed the fact on here publicly that my daughter was brutally murdered, and left in a shallow grave for 12 long years. Yes I did notice who offered condolences, and you and Clavy boy showed me just how much you care about others. YES YOU DID. Thank you for showing me your stuff davey boy, and that goes for you too Clavy.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “Sure he has some guys on there that question whether or not 6 million jews were killed. I have no opinion one way or another on that…”

    Interesting.

  • STM

    I reckon in the course of my work I saw a total of about 5000 pictures taken on 9/11 and during the weeks following that documented quite explicitly the nature of what had happened.

    Anyone who actually saw all that (or in reality even just saw what happened on the day and in the aftermath, beamed into our lounge rooms/offices in all its gory detail) will be in no doubt that the information released by government and law enforcement agencies in relation to 9/11 is accurate down to the minutest detail.

    Apart from the fact that al-Qaeda claimed credit for the attack and any cover-up on this scale would be almost impossible to keep secret, the key issue for me as a piece of evidence here is both compelling and a no-brainer.

    If it was a stooge-up (and seriously, the US government is not going to kill thousands of its own citizens and knock down iconic skyscrapers and the world’s biggest defence building – its own – just to stage an excuse to go to war), why is virtually every government around the world now spending billions of dollars they’d rather not be spending on huge airport/airline security operations??

    Any travellers among you would know exactly what I mean. Including you Pablo – Bangkok is pretty heavy going these days. But the security checks I saw at Frankfurt and Lisbon and the extremely heavy presence of state police and very heavily armed Gurkha police at Singapore airport last year was pretty convincing stuff, let me tell you.

    That’s the trouble with the troofers’ mad claims.

    When you look at this in its entirety, those claims simply don’t make sense on any kind of rational level.

    Was the US administration culpable though?

    Yes, but only to the extent that a) they didn’t think it could happen and b) US foreign policy and the administration’s unwillingness to talk with (or be more sensitive to some of the claims of) arab states and terrorist organisations might have led to a lot of anger towards the US in certain parts of the world.

    (It’s worth noting here that many Americans are sub-consciously very isolationist and Amero-centric in their world view, including even many well-informed Americans, and the bulk therefore don’t really understand why this is so.)

    Talking can achieve plenty, no matter how you feel about those you’re talking to, especially if you want to break the impasse: witness the IRA disarmament and Britain’s decision to negotiate directly with “terrorists”.

    Truth is, it’s really important that we don’t look at these things only from our own perspective – as one man’s terrorist really is another’s freedom fighter, even when we don’t believe that to be the case.

    So does that excuse what they did then?

    No, but it does go some way to explaining why they did it.

  • Kyle

    Pablo: Michael and Ben Chertoff are not cousins, and even if they were… so what?

    As for that book, I find it to be a rather parochial look at the issue anyway. The best material is the compiled work of Mark Roberts, who has absolutely encyclopedic knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. His material is archived here.

    Ryan Mackey is another really good source as well, and is also very knowledgeable about the events. They used to frequent the JREF forums – not sure if they are still around. Those forums are probably the best source of information about the attacks that I have come across.

  • Pablo

    Does that make him a nazi Matthew? It may make him in your mind wrong, but that is not an endorsement of national socialism. I make the same challenge to you. Perhaps you like the laws that they have in Canada and parts of Europe, where it is against the law to question official history. I call that totalitarian and wrong. If a guy wants to write that girls with bobby sox on rule the world, or were responsible for torture in another decade, more power to em. I call that freedom of speech, and there is NO official history, if there is we are all in deeper trouble than I thought.

    What makes a person a nazi, or a racist, is saying so. I stand by rense. He has never endorsed totalitarianism in any of its virulent forms, I cannot say the same of DAVE NALLE. Just my two sense worth guy.

    Daniel Pipes is a phony, and a guy who smears a good man’s name, and he is not man enough to admit it. Kind of like a guy in the KKK saying there are no racists in the organization, Daniel Pipes saying there is no conspiracies, and being a lifetime member of the CFR. Sure.

    It does not surprise me that Dave likes him, not one bit, and it should not surprise you that I can’t stand Pipes.

  • Pablo

    “Because the manager of public relations for Popular Mechanics didn’t respond to repeated calls from American Free Press, I called Benjamin Chertoff, the magazine’s “senior researcher,” directly.

    Chertoff said he was the “senior researcher” of the piece. When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, “I don’t know.” Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter further, he told me that all questions about the article should be put to the publicist – the one who never answers the phone.

    Benjamin’s mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, “Yes, of course, he is a cousin.”

    Christopher Bollyn

    [Edited]

    I never did get your opinon or comment on Orin Hatch Kylie, I sure am interested in what you think of him. Also nobody commented on his excellent rant about 9/11 truthers on the floor of the US Senate yesterday. That was rich!

    Also no one commented on Michael Reagan openly calling for the murder of a 9/11 truther on his radio show recently. Do you guys support that? If not why not condemn it? Openly calling for killing someone on national radio, that has a different OPINION than he does. Any of the mainstream media report on it? HMMMM I wonder why not? Not a story? Oh yeah but Imus was. Sureeeeeeee

    Someone is gettin scared out there, and guess what? It aint me!

  • Pablo

    STM
    “If it was a stooge-up (and seriously, the US government is not going to kill thousands of its own citizens and knock down iconic skyscrapers and the world’s biggest defence building – its own – just to stage an excuse to go to war)”

    No FDR didnt know about Pearl Harbor before did he? He didnt sacrifice over 2000 innocent american boys to go to war did he. No The Gulf of Tonkin wasnt staged was it? NOOOOOOOOOO the US government would never sacrifice its blood now would it? Just ask the 3,000 some odd souls and hundreds of thousands of boys that have been maimed for NOTHING. Sure STM. The FACT is that MANY wars and instances of provocation have been induced and staged, domestically as well as internationally. Do I believe there is a Moslem radical terrorist movement? YOU bet I do, I just happen to BELIEVE that it has been cultivated by US and British Intelligence agencies. That is MY opinion, I dont know it to be a fact, I am not an intelligent agent. Ask Dave, maybe he knows. smirk

    My opinion is that FEAR is the best way to motivate people politically particularly against their own interests, being freedom. I think people such as Cheney, and Rumsfeldt, and the drug runner Armitage, their currency is fear. You get people scared they give up their rights. What is so hard to understand about that???? Tell me STM I am all ears

  • Pablo

    Oh and for the record fellas. I dont care if a plane or a missle or a cherry bomb hit the pentagon. I dont care if the planes with Osamas boys inside caused those towers to fall, I still BELIEVE regardless of those particulars that it was an inside job. If they come out tomorrow and show a 60 second clip of a plane flying directly into the pentagon, (as opposed to the 1/4 second clip we were shown on national tv, that showed zilch, and they said here this proves it now!) I still think that the neo-cons planned it and carried it out, particularly with their reference to a new pearl harbor in the PNAC document.

    Thats my opinion thats all. You dont have to agree with me or respond, but you keep on responding, so I will keep on writing in response to your comments. Just ignore me, I am harmless. Davey cant help himself, either because he is on the payroll, or trying to be. I will stand and defend my beliefs as long as I have air to breathe. I do not say they are the truth, it is simply what I believe.

  • steve

    hello dave ive responded to this game numerous times. THIS IS ALL THAT MATTERS SIR NO MATTER WHAT YOUR RATINGS ARE ETC===you need to be consumed by this if your interested in holding on to your wealth as dr. paul has spoken the god honest truth for years and he has just squeazzed the noose a little more dave i dont give a rats ass about any of your feeble comebacks about spelling etc as what a lame excuse as that is the usual comeback to deflect from the facts the situation is facts and more facts as dr. paul keeps hammering the same message home day after day week after week year after year your lame excuses are not an issue as your a non issue sir here is whats matters most endless devalued dollar situations sir vaporizzzzed stock market i mean he called it years ago what more does it take??? as i shorted the nyse and made a wadddddddddd due to the no brainer actions of george w. bush===i know ya know its no brainer i hope ya have that much logic [personal attack deleted] as you are a logical thinking katttt i hope my question is very simple to you, do ya like where your country has taken ya???????????? do ya enjoy your civil libertys being raped from ya is there anybody else that has a clue running for the prez??? dave its beyond beating ron paul into the ground as the situation is starting to crumble for the neo con punks as the good dr has exposed their game as just check your next food bill [personal attack deleted]!!!! game over sir ron has em by the balls and speaks the truth===spin it anyway ya want to on this man as he is no doubt the 2nd coming no matter how ya want to dismiss it i mean dave how can ya even go to the other side of festering i mean are ya not concerned for the future of your children as i have 2 and this god forsaken situation we are in IS SOMETHING YOU LIKE?????????????? [personal attack deleted] anyhow enjoy filling up your fuel tank and get to liking your food prices like having less money at the end of the week enjoy catch ya on the rebound dude as you have no logic!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as ya refuse to see the logic of the good dr. paul as how could this honest man hurt us as at least he could get the rudder in the right direction sir im not saying all would be right but hope ya enjoy the choices left as what a bought and paid for bunch of spewwage puppets later red

  • Pablo

    Might I be wrong? Sure I might be wrong. However the Bush Junta has only itself to blame. The put Bill Clinton under oath to testify about a sperm stain, yet when this nation is under attack, even in Executive Session the prez and his side kick wont take an oath, not only that they HAVE to testify together. Sure, and I was born yesterday. Try that with the cops. From originally not wanting a commission, then naming Dr. Strangelove, to a CFR packed commission. To Condi Rice coming on national tv days after the attack saying “ohhhhh we never imagined that terrorists would EVER fly airplanes into buildings” Sure condi.

    To carting off against federal law evidence of a crime scene, to not ever indicting Osama for the crime, to Osamas family being in business with the bush’s for YEARS, and the benevolent Carlyle Group. Whos the fool? ME??? I dont think so. I got a secret for ya. “THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES”!!

    So you go on thinkin what you think, I think your extremely naive, and I will go on thinkin what I do, and you can call me paranoid all you want.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Thats my opinion thats all.

    You keep saying that, Pablo, as if adding that caveat somehow sets you apart from everyone else. Of course what you write here is your opinion: on a blog like this, what else would it be?

    We take it as a given that what Dave, Clavos and the rest write is their own opinion too. They don’t need to advertise the fact.

    A politician doesn’t stand up to make a speech and preface it with “In my opinion…” either, and nor does a debating captain. Style-wise, it’s actually very amateurish and clumsy to qualify an argument that way.

  • STM

    I don’t believe the US needed any excuse to go to war against Iraq, particularly. I don’t necessarily agree with it all, but what excuse did they need?

    I lived in Iraq as a kid, and Iraqis I remain in contact with have told me that they wanted to greet the coalition as liberators.

    Remember, with Iraq, despite alliances of convenience made by the US with people like Saddam, you are talking about a murderous regime that had a few really nasty party tricks – like feeding people feet-first into industrial paper shrdders. Most Iraqis lived in absolute fear of the Baathists. The real resistance to coalition occupation came in the aftermath, when secular nationalists appaled by incidents like Abu Ghraib and the US conduct of the “peace” took up arms for very different reasons than did the islamic fudamentalists.

    There was another incident early in the piece that caused some problems. Despite the fact the US troops were ordered not to wave the flag – literally – in Baghdad, an American soldier climbed a statue of Saddam near the Palestine Hotel and covered Saddams’s head with the Stars and Stripes. Iraqis were crestfallen by that and one handed the troops and Iraqi flag to put up with it.

    This is the kind of stuff many Americans still don’t understand. Whether intended or not, and I’m sure it wasn’t, an action like that gives the signal: “We’re conquerors – here to rule over you”. However, had they put the old pre-baathist Iraqi flag up, it would have signalled: “We’re liberators – here to free you”. Too late, damage done …

    So it’s what happened afterwards that really caused problems – and at Abu Ghraib in particular. Probably the greatest piece of US military incompetence in American history was to put a bunch of reservists from Small Town, Doodad County, USA in charge of one of the most politically sensitive missions in history (many of those people hadn’t been outside their own state prior to going to Iraq).

    Yes, I do know about the Gulf of Tonkin, and I do know also that FDR, while conscious that an attack on the US might be imminent, also wasn’t 100 per cent sure of when or how it might launched, nor where despite the warnings.

    The other piece of historic US military incompetence was that despite knowing that a Japanese attack on the US might be imminent, the Pearl Harbour garrison decided to ignore “them new-fangled radar” warnings about the approaching Japanese air attack.

    I’m also aware that Winston Churchill sacrificed Coventry to a devastating German air raid during the blitz on Britain, because not to have done so would have tipped off the Germans that the Poms had broken their ULTRA codes.

    However, all of those things have since come out in the wash.

    Nothing’s been revealed about 9/11 except for what we’ve known all along – that a pack of dangerous, fanatical idiots launched an attack on the US and used hijacked jets to achieve their aims.

    The rest of it is just so-called “truth” and conspiracy theory – which, sadly, no matter how much some people want to believe it, just doesn’t make it fact.

    You’ll never convince me Pablo … I’ve seen what I’ve seen, which is more than most who weren’t actually working on the ground on that day, and I believe what has been presented about 9/11 is the truth.

    That doesn’t mean you should trust the US government though on everything. There’s plenty of history that suggests you should be sceptical.

    I apply that to all governments, including my own.

    But sceptical doesn’t necessarily translate to conspiracy.

  • Pablo

    STM,

    In my opinion Al qaeda is a myth, I suggest humbly that you take a look at “The Power of Nightmares” a BBC documentary, made by the guy who also filmed a movie on Edward Bernaise, the biggest propagandist in history. Also it wasnt Al qaeda who made the claim it was Osama, AFTER he denied it. If it was him (I have my doubts) he is a liar either way. I do not take the words of liars about anything of substance, thats what LYING is about, no credibility, in fact in a court of law if you can establish someone is a liar, their testimony dont count.

    I submit this url audio link to you STM pertaining in particular to the Moslem Brotherhood, by Mr. Dave Emory who has been exposing and combatting fascism for over 35 years. He is extremely articulate, and well versed in his subject matters. Just listen, you dont even have to read, sit back and listen to something new, that you might now have known about before. I DISLIKE genocide, and murder as much as you do STM, I want the culprits punished, I want to live in a world where people that do such terrible things are held to account. Here is the link it is in realaudio format.

    Dave Emory compendium on the Moslem Brotherhood

    Dave Emory’s main site

    By the way I have been listening to this man for over 25 years, oh and by the way he does not believe that the towers collapsed due to a controlled demolition, or a fan or Alex Jones, as I am.

  • Pablo

    Dread,

    Your criticism is noted and I agree with it. I will say this however, that Davey frequently represents his opinion as FACT, at least that is how I interpret it, thus I have made a point of referencing my comments as opinions, obviously they are, as are Dave’s. Thanks for the advice.

  • troll

    for the experts on the subject –

    assume for a moment that conspiracists are correct and the world’s political economy is manipulated by a ruling elite ‘skull and bones’ style…assume that 9/11 was a black op sanctioned by that elite to justify restrictions on liberty…assume that the CFR is tasked with intellectually justifying and selling the program of the ruling elite…assume that some information system is watching your every move monitoring your keypad extrapolating your thoughts…assume that the ‘quarantine camps’ have already been built along abandoned stretches of old route 66:

    are there practical plans of action that conspiracists recommend – ?

    Paul – on another issue – while your rants are usually pretty clear your statement: “Sure he has some guys on there that question whether or not 6 million jews were killed. I have no opinion one way or another on that…” is ambiguous

    care to clarify what you’re talking about – ?

  • Cindy D

    Dan,

    A couple of your so called “horses” showed up at my house last night. Now I have this picture as proof of what you are up to. You aren’t fooling anyone Dan.

  • Kyle

    Oh and for the record fellas. I dont care if a plane or a missle or a cherry bomb hit the pentagon. I dont care if the planes with Osamas boys inside caused those towers to fall, I still BELIEVE regardless of those particulars that it was an inside job. If they come out tomorrow and show a 60 second clip of a plane flying directly into the pentagon, (as opposed to the 1/4 second clip we were shown on national tv, that showed zilch, and they said here this proves it now!) I still think that the neo-cons planned it and carried it out, particularly with their reference to a new pearl harbor in the PNAC document.

    So in other words, you are completely immune to evidence to the contrary, and will believe that it is an inside job no matter what, despite the lack of any real, hard evidence.

    And regarding the PNAC document: that’s a brilliant point. Because if I was going to stage the mass murder of 3,000 American citizens as part of an attempt to justify a military buildup, the first thing I would do would be to explain the plot in a public document.

    See, stuff like that is why Truthers are beyond rehabilitation. How do you cure such a blatant lack of logic and critical thinking?

  • Clavos

    I’m glad to see you’re on board with that, Cindy.

    I’ve had some serious misgivings about Dan from the git-go.

    I mean, Panama?? Who in their right mind picks the remote reaches of Panama to live unless they’re up to no good and hiding something?

    Horses.

    Yeah, right.

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    I recently exposed the fact on here publicly that my daughter was brutally murdered, and left in a shallow grave for 12 long years. Yes I did notice who offered condolences, and you and Clavy boy showed me just how much you care about others. YES YOU DID. Thank you for showing me your stuff davey boy, and that goes for you too Clavy.

    Pablo, I don’t like to discuss personal business in this forum. I read the article and as the father of a teenage girl I was touched the tragedy which you and your family must have experienced. However, dropping that bit of information and then following it up here seems to me like a manipulative and exploitative use of the event to gain sympathy. I did not respond in order to avoid saying this, but since you brought it up again, I think it reflects very poorly on your character. Sort of like accusing people of being CIA agents and paid shills. Personal attacks with no basis in fact, generated solely to irritate.

    Dave

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    Oh and for the record fellas. I dont care if a plane or a missle or a cherry bomb hit the pentagon. I dont care if the planes with Osamas boys inside caused those towers to fall, I still BELIEVE regardless of those particulars that it was an inside job.

    So what you are admitting here is that what I’ve said all along is correct. That for you, as with most truthers, this is a matter of faith not of reason, and no amount of facts or data or exposures to reality or reasoned arguments will sway you because you’re just as irrationally fanatical about your beliefs as any muslim fundamentalist or crazed gay-bashing Phelpser.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Dave,

    Is it “Phelpser,” or “Phelpsist”?

  • Cindy D

    There is a reason the Cult of Scientology has targeted Ron Paul’s followers on You Tube with messages like “find out for yourself” and “get the facts”. Whenever you search you tube for “Ron Paul” you will get the scientology ads at what I find to be a significant rate.

    What better place to market a cult than among those who don’t use critical thinking skills to discern facts from fantasy.

  • Pablo

    No Davey,

    The reasons I believe what I do have nothing to do with how the buildings came down, that is what most truthers concentrate on, it has never been my forte.

    I think what I do, because of the connections between the bin laden family and the bushes, the difference between the timeline that Cheney was in the bunker, as per Norman Minettas sworn testimony, the PNAC document, the fact that the culprits had top secret codes as was evidenced by Angel is next, the glaring ommissions, and lies of the commmission, what I know about the Moslem Brotherhood, NORAD standing down, the obvious false testimony of NORAD officials, the lies of Condi Rice, the unfolding of a police state apparati, the connections between the CFR and the Rockyfellers with the actual building themselves, Larry Silversteins obvious slip up on PBS, and his reaping of several billion dollars with very little in relationship up front money, hell I could go on all fuckin day.

    That is why I do not care how or why the buildings came down. If Osamas boys were in the cockpit, they were in the employ of of their corporate masters.

    So the answer to your last post is NO Dave my beliefs have nothing to do with emotions or irrationality, but are based on reason. Nice try though, as you always do try your best to cast doubt on either the mental state or emotional state of those that you argue with, instead of using reason.

    As to my personal tragedy, I wan not looking for sympathy, I was relating it in context in one of my comments when it naturally came out. However the fact that you made no mention of it along with your sidekick, showed me something very clear about you guys, which is why I referenced it above.

    Are you 100% sure of your position Davey? If you are your a fool with a closed mind. If you are not, have you ever listened to Dave Emory as I have suggested about the Moslem Brotherhood? Have you ever picked up and read a book such as Tarpleys’s? You are the one with the closed mind bucko, not me. You certainty only shows me your complete ignorance, and/or shilling in this matter. If your mind was any more closed, you would be completely ignorant.

    Just my two sense worth bucko

    Pablo

  • Pablo

    Troll,

    Not particularly, the point of that particular post, was to show the lack of character of Mr. Daniel Pipes, and how he had no compunction to smearing a good man’s name. Now if Davey boy is going to come along and say that I smeared him, it is not in the same ball park. This is a forum for opinions and oftentimes heated debate. As he frequently talks down, and misrepresents others, I respond in kind.

    I again make the same challenge however, anyone out there that is interested, show me ONE instance of Mr. Rense condoning, approving, liking, or in any way supportng Nazis, I would like to see it. However I know no such information exists, because he is as anti nazi as I am.

    Do I believe there was a holocaust? You bet I do. Do I believe that Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and others were rounded up, held worse than caged animals, and gassed? You bet I do. Some people question (I am not particularly interested) it, that by definition does not make them nazi lovers. It means they question official history, which I will always support, and additionally will defend those that would even say that (for instance) the american indians were never given smallpox. I do not believe that, but I will defend their right to express their opinion of history no matter how much I might disagree with it, unlike those fascists in Canada and parts of Europe, that put someone in jail for stating their opinion, that should send chills down the spines of all of us freedom lovers.

    I wanted to add a few more reasons about 9/11. The fact that the Pakistani intelligence agency had been thouroughly infiltrated and controlled by the CIA for years, and that there were credible reports of the head of that agency personally wiring Mohammed Atta money prior to the attack, coupled with the fact that on the morning of 9/11 Senator Phill Graham, and former head of the CIA were having breakfast with this same man, also leads me to believe that this was an inside job.

    Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that the Pakistanis CREATED the Taliban. These are a small part of why I do not care about how the buildings came down as a criteria for my beliefs.

    Almost all of the wars that have been started in the last 100 years were started with provocations, indeed false flag operations, to generate fear and support among the populous. As I have stated categorically, I may be wrong, will Davey make the same claim? Methinks not, and I am the one with a closed mind, and irrational. Methinks not.

    Dave if your not a paid shill, you ought to be, as 9/11 is only one issue of the day that I have seen you use character assassination, berating, and leading people astray on a constant basis. Whether it is with Dr. Paul, or the FED, or the CFR, or the Constitution, you are always there putting your dirty little two cents in, and NEVER admitting as I have on numerous occasions that you are wrong. As I have said I have never been fooled by YOU bubba, you have no compunction over a million innocent people being slaughtered in your name. You have no problem with tin pot dictators in other countries, as you yourself have said. This is why I have said that I think you are a shill, and if your not you should be. Although I never heard back from Badnarik, about the CFR, I would bet that he more agrees with me than you, about the FED too, and more than likely about 9/11.

    You try to present me as a lunatic fringe, when in point of fact millions and millions of americans do not believe that the government is telling the truth about 9/11, but DAVEY does!! Oh yes he does, lock, stock, and barrel. You go boy.

  • Cindy D

    Pablo,

    Any chance you would be interested in answering the question troll posed @#297?

    Assuming everything you are saying is true:

    are there practical plans of action that conspiracists recommend – ?

  • Kyle

    So what it comes down to, is that Pablo, in the absence of ANY hard, physical evidence, clings to a laundry list of truther talking points that were all debunked YEARS ago (some, like the PNAC document and Silverstein’s “slip up” are particularly hilarious, because they rely on a belief that the evil conspirators are so incompetent that they routinely announce their real intentions in public, either on television or in a publicly available policy document). Thus is the mind of a truther. Just like flat-earthers, moon hoax believers, or Holocaust deniers, they rely on faith and preconceived notions of the nature of government and power to justify their accusations and beliefs, rather than hard physical evidence.

  • Pablo

    Cindy,

    Practical plans hmmm. I do not know about other coinspiracy people particularly. What I recommend? Well since I obviously think that the voting boxes are rigged, and have said so on numerous occasions, that is not an option. Calling a spade a spade (no kylie i wasnt referring to black people) is a start.

    Demanding through whatever means you can muster, accountability for our public officials is another. I particularly like the folks over at loosechange.org, who go out in the street and contront various public officials and globalists with cameras, then post them on youtube. I also like how they demonstrated outside of the Bilderberg conference in Chantilly VA a few weeks ago.

    I dont have the answers quite frankly, and I am doing everything on a personal level of ex-patriating soon, as quite frankly I am tired of swimming upstream, and fighting what seems to be a losing battle. I want to live out the rest of my life in another place, enjoy some sunsets, have some romance if I am lucky. So no Cindy I do not have the answers, and never implied or said that I did. I believe the vast majority of people particularly in this country are sheeple, and make the mistake of thinking the government is there to either help them or protect them, when nothing could be further from the truth.

    Supposing Cindy, that you subscribed to some or most of what I have been saying, hypothetically that is, what would you suggest doing?

    Kyle,

    Your debunkers have all been debunked numerous times by people far more articulate and knowledgeable than me. Silverstein’s gaffe, was blatantly obvious, “pull it” does not refer to firefighters, these were human beings, not ITS, he reaped billions of dollars for a hundred million dollar investment. There are visual recorded countdowns available online of them counting down to building 7 collapsing.

    PNAC and the neo-cons behind it with reference toT a Pearl Harbor like attack needed for their agenda to proceed speaks for itself. They got what they needed. As to Saddam’s quest for weapons of mass destruction, there is not a country on the face of the planet that does not seek them, either overtly or covertly. How ironic it is that my county is the only one to ever use them, and particularly against civilians. The particular strain of anthrax came directly out of the Army’s biological warfare institute at Ft Detrick Maryland, that also is a fact, but they just cant quite catch the culprits. Sure. This was not only a terrorist attack, but one of the highest order, sent directly to legislators, Daschle, and Leahy.

    Just yesterday, Gore Vidal came out publicly and said that Bush had ended the USA as a Republic, I concur. You apparently dont. Each to his own bubba.

  • Pablo

    Oh and Kyle, if you would like direct evidence that “pull it” is a demolition term, I can provide that too, but first do your own homework on it, as I have, and I am talking about demolition sites, that deal specifically with that industry, not conspiracy sites.

  • Kyle

    “Demanding through whatever means you can muster, accountability for our public officials is another. I particularly like the folks over at loosechange.org, who go out in the street and contront various public officials and globalists with cameras, then post them on youtube. I also like how they demonstrated outside of the Bilderberg conference in Chantilly VA a few weeks ago.”

    LOOOOL

    So, public harassment and posting videos on YouTube is your plan. The revolution is nigh!

    Bahahahahahahahahaha

  • Kyle

    “Your debunkers have all been debunked numerous times by people far more articulate and knowledgeable than me. Silverstein’s gaffe, was blatantly obvious, “pull it” does not refer to firefighters, these were human beings, not ITS, he reaped billions of dollars for a hundred million dollar investment. There are visual recorded countdowns available online of them counting down to building 7 collapsing.”

    – Silverstein did NOT reap billions of dollars. He is required to REBUILD on the sites, which will cost him far more than the insurance payout he received (he has also had to pay the lease on the land in the meantime). He has lost a substantial amount of money overall due to the attacks.

    – “Pull it” referred to the firefighting operation. The collapse was anticipated and the firefighters pulled back from the building, which is why not one single person died when the building collapsed.

    – You are contending that not only did Silverstein somehow have the authority to give a demolition order to a fire department, but that he admitted this on television.

    – Several other WTC building were pulled (which, btw, means “pulled down with cables”, not “blown up”) to prevent an eventual collapse, and that fact is widely known and not hidden at all.

    In short, your talking points are all completely ridiculous, which is why only a small fringe group of people believe them. But whatever, have fun in your fantasy world where everything is under the control of evil forces beyond our power to stop.

    I wonder whatever happened to that Tom deSabla guy. I wonder what he thinks of all this…

  • Kyle

    “Kyle,

    Your debunkers have all been debunked numerous times by people far more articulate and knowledgeable than me.”

    Let me guess: people like David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, Judy Woo[d], and Jim Fetzer? Are those the kinds of people you look to for rational and critical analysis of events?

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    Just to clear a couple of curious things up. I notice that Pablo has taken to having what appear to be conversations with himself.

    On the 9/11 issue he suddenly started declaring that he didn’t use the collapse of the towers as evidence of conspiracy or controlled demolition, despite the fact that no one here attempted to challenge his beliefs on that basis.

    And then he strangely told us we had to defend rense.com despite the fact that no one but him on this thread had ever brought the site up.

    It’s like he lives in a different reality.

    Dave

  • Pablo

    Yes I do Dave, thank you. The actual reference howerver had to do with one of your favorite debunkers Daniel Pipes, who has no compunction about smearing a good man’s name.

  • Clavos

    The wheels are starting to come off…

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    Um, Pablo. I’ve mentioned Daniel Pipes, or at least his book, a sum total of one time several months ago. How does that establish this profound relationship between us which you seem so obsessed with?

    Dave

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Look Nalle- Pablo is on to your game. Refresh my memory. He’s a Ron Paul supporter? A Bircher perhaps? Or just an independent nutjob, which is of course a position with which I personally could readily identify.

  • Upset

    I’m upset, Ron Paul did not even appear on the ballot in california and there was no place to write his name in. WHAT A SCAM!!!