Did Ron Paul Win Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri?

[Danielsgb]

Did you see this?
Give Dr. Paul a $4.20 donation to show your support leading up to April 20th.


The $4.20 on 4/20 Movement for Ron Paul


The 420 Message

Cool sites about sending a message to politicians who support legalizing Cannabis.
For the price of a Big Mac, it can make a difference.
Daniels


The 420 Message Statistically it is reported that there are 30 million people in the United States that use Marijuana, which is approximately 10% of the population. It is however approx. 36% of the total votes cast in the 2008 Presidential Election. It screams the question, Why is Marijuana still illegal in the USA?

Because these 30 million people have simply never united to make their voices heard. The 420 Message is a movement started to do just that. It is designed to very simply send a strong message to ALL Politicians that the time has come to actually make a change that matters. This is not about making it legal for a bunch of stoners to get high. It is about building a positive future in the United States and creating new jobs, even new industries. Are you aware that the US has spent 14 Billion Dollars importing Hemp from Canada? That the first car built by Henry Ford had a body made from Hemp (stronger than fiberglass) and that it ran on Hemp Oil (bio-fuel)? That Hemp can be used to make paper & clothing. There are over 100 known positive uses of Marijuana/Hemp beyond the positive medical uses, it is time that this taxpayers money pit be abolished once and for all.

The war on drugs has failed and there is absolutly no sound reason why Marijuana is listed as a schedule 1 drug. All that needs to happen to make a positive change is to change the schedule rating. And yet here we are in what some believe to be the best Country on Earth with our Courts and Prisons swelling to the bursting point over what is very clearly a victimless crime. Taxpayer Dollars wasted every day over a plant that could actually help us out of our current economic stress.

How can we help you ask? The 420 Message is a very simple movement, all you need to do is Donate $4.20 to Politicians of YOUR choice on 4-20-2012. Want to Donate more? Do so in 420 increments, $4.20, $42.00, $420.00, etc. If each of the statistically mentioned 30 million Marijuana users donated just $4.20 it would equal $126 Million Dollars. That is a Message that the Politicians will understand. Even better would be to donate $4.20 every week from now till April and even beyond if you are so inclined to do so? Simple actually, you'd only be giving up say a BigMac once a week.

Get involved, Ask the questions, Make YOUR Donations to Politicians that support Marijuana Legalization. In the current Presidential Election it is very clear that only one candidate supports this, Dr. Ron Paul. But The 420 Message is not trying to promote a single candidate and we believe that this should not be limited to just the Presidential Election. Rather it should extend to ALL elected Government Officials, National, State and even County.

It is clearly time for a change and as one of the largest minorities in this great country, it is time for us to send the message. Make your voices heard, tell every one you know about the 420 Message, spread the word, make the donation, tell the Politicians how YOU feel !!!

It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.
Samuel Adams

[video=youtube;xEEy1gLjWOo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xEEy1gLjWOo[/video]
[video=youtube;R-wTcdey6C8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-wTcdey6C8&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL[/video]

 

[Dan Kone]

Except for the spamming I disagree with you. You would think more aggressive marketing tactics like gorilla marketing wouldn't work, but to the contrary it is incredibly effective.

Product marketing and political marketing are not the same. In product marketing name recognition trumps anything else. Not the case in politics. The most effective political ads are negative ads a candidate puts out against his opponent. That in essence is increasing an opponents name recognition, but doing it in a negative way. And it works. It actually works better than anything else. People buy products that they think are the best. That's associated with name recognition directly on a subconscious level. Familiarity = more trusted. Politics is the opposite in many cases. People aren't voting for the candidate they think will be most effective, they are voting for the guy they hate the least most of the time.

Also, even the most horribly annoying product ads do not build an association with ineffectiveness. Those "head on" ads being the perfect example. Everyone universally hates those, but they were highly effective. What they did not do is build an association with being ineffective. They did build an association with fixing a headache. When Ron Paul supporters build an association with insanity, that is not the desired association.

So when you have people aggressively spamming and generally acting like nuts, you're building a negative association that does not help. That's why most political ads are not actually about the candidate putting them out, they are about the opponent. It's a different set of rules than product advertising.

Sadly, most of the time when people hit the booths they vote for the candidate who's name resonates the most.

Actually it largely depends on the association they've built up. People will vote for anyone but the candidate they recognize the most if they've built up a negative association with that person.

As for the yelling, remember passion inspires more passion.

No one wants to be associated with the crazy guy screaming on the street corner. When was the last time you saw a crazy person randomly screaming at people in public and walked up to him and had a serious conversation with him about his views? Maybe if you were really board and thought it would be amusing, but it's not something people take seriously.

 

[Dan Kone]

I get it, you guys have said this hundreds of times, but you should let Ron Paulers have their Ron Paul threads. You aren't a Ron Paul supporter so what they say/do in the Ron Paul threads should have no effect on you.

If they kept it to the Ron Paul threads, I'd agree with you. But they don't. And they are extremely rude about it. So now I'm going for more of a scorched earth strategy. I've declared jihad on these annoying lunatics.

 

[desert dude]

If they kept it to the Ron Paul threads, I'd agree with you. But they don't. And they are extremely rude about it. So now I'm going for more of a scorched earth strategy. I've declared jihad on these annoying lunatics.

That's pretty funny. Good luck.

 

[sync0s]

Product marketing and political marketing are not the same. In product marketing name recognition trumps anything else. Not the case in politics. The most effective political ads are negative ads a candidate puts out against his opponent. That in essence is increasing an opponents name recognition, but doing it in a negative way. And it works. It actually works better than anything else. People buy products that they think are the best. That's associated with name recognition directly on a subconscious level. Familiarity = more trusted. Politics is the opposite in many cases. People aren't voting for the candidate they think will be most effective, they are voting for the guy they hate the least most of the time.

Also, even the most horribly annoying product ads do not build an association with ineffectiveness. Those "head on" ads being the perfect example. Everyone universally hates those, but they were highly effective. What they did not do is build an association with being ineffective. They did build an association with fixing a headache. When Ron Paul supporters build an association with insanity, that is not the desired association.

So when you have people aggressively spamming and generally acting like nuts, you're building a negative association that does not help. That's why most political ads are not actually about the candidate putting them out, they are about the opponent. It's a different set of rules than product advertising.



Actually it largely depends on the association they've built up. People will vote for anyone but the candidate they recognize the most if they've built up a negative association with that person.



No one wants to be associated with the crazy guy screaming on the street corner. When was the last time you saw a crazy person randomly screaming at people in public and walked up to him and had a serious conversation with him about his views? Maybe if you were really board and thought it would be amusing, but it's not something people take seriously.

I don't know your expertise in marketing, but for the sake of not being argumentative I'll accept your premise. The problem is just being a Ron Paul supporter has had the stigma of being nuts long before the crazed supporters annoyed you to death, simply because of media association of Ron Paul being "crazy uncle Ron."

You listen to talk radio and most people are scared to call up those shows and openly admit to being a Ron Paul supporter. I guarantee this also scares people away from voting for him in the primaries/polls/etc.

 

[Parker]

If what I'm saying is false, it should be really is to prove. All you have to do is tell me something about Ron Paul you disagree with. It should be very easy. No free thinking human agrees with another human 100% of the time. If you do agree with Ron Paul 100% of the time that is proof that you are not thinking for yourself.

Why are you making silly conclusions and lying? Just another childish control freak. Trying to force an absurd viewpoint with nothing to back it up. Just because you say so, right. You're too dumb to believe.
I haven't read a post saying someone agrees with Ron Paul 100 percent yet you keep bringing it up like its a fact. But that's another thing you can't back up. Go ahead point to a couple posts proving your point? Why believe you, you'll say anything without proof. You'll even make the same stupid statement again I bet. If one thing is for sure fools keep going back to the poisonous well.

Actually I can point to two pieces that made the financial crisis possible and the bailouts necessary. Without those two pieces of legislation, none of this would have been possible.

The first one is Gramm-Leech-Bliley which removed the great depression era regulation (glass steagal). Glass Steagal prevented commercial lending institutions from participating in Wall St gambling so we would not have another run on the banks like we did in the great depression. And when we deregulated the banks removing those safeguards, we had exactly that, a run on the banks. When we had big government making sure those things were separate, we never had a problem, but when we decided government was too big and we needed to get government out of the way of business, within ten years we had a run on the banks which nearly took the whole economy down and did cause a massive recession.

The second was commodities futures modernization act. Government was too big and we didn't need the nanny state regulating every little thing Wall St sold. So we decided to let Wall St regulate itself when it came to certain exotic financial products like psudo-insurance on bundled mortgages. So Wall St decided to give the insurance on these bundled mortgages all AAA ratings no matter how bad the mortgages were. This allowed banks to hand out all the mortgages they wanted to, because no matter how shitty they were, they could sell them so they wouldn't be held financially liable for them. So this is what made it possible for the banks to hand out all these bad mortgages. It was because they were no longer responsible for people defaulting on them. This would not have been possible before we deregulated CDC's and CDS's.

Now when all these fraudulently packaged mortgages did start to fail and people started to figure out what these products were, the economy crashed. But rather than the damage being limited to Wall St and the Real estate market, it nearly destroyed every major bank in America because thanks to Gramm-Leech-Bliley, they were aloud to gamble their customers money on Wall St and were invested up to their eye balls in these fraudulent products.

Like I said. You don't get it. You want to treat symptoms. In order to solve problems intelligent people treat the cause.
If you keep going out in the cold without a coat on you're so dumb you think as long as you can take cold pills its okay. How about putting on a coat you dumbass, lol.

NEVER has it worked when a lendor lowers the standards. NEVER.
You're so ignorant I'll make it a simple as I can. Although I have said the same before but you childishly ignore it.
All these years lenders said we wont make mortgage loans to people with
1. Zero to low down payment
2. bad history of repayment
3. Not enough income to make the payments
Because they knew it was bad risk. But you're so smart you know better right. Why the thing to do to solve this housing crisis according to you is just lend these same down and out economic drunks a mortgage loan. That'll solve the problem right? They magically become responsible and repay their loans on time and their income will increase like it never has before. Boy are you stupid. The mortgage industry wont do it now because unlike you they haven't suffered irreversible head trauma.
The only reason they did it before was they were insured by the people. They knew they were covered.

Now when you keep accusing me of parroting TV talking heads and not doing my own research when I have facts to back up everything I'm saying, while the only proof you have is the words of Ron Paul, you make yourself look incredibly ignorant and only reinforce my claim that you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

You're lying again. I have always provided proof yet you lie otherwise because that's what losers do. This is one of the few times you have came up with anything except childish drivel. Too bad you're wrong on this too. Two points you made that didn't cause one thing. They did however speed up the time frame and amount of the failure.

Once again you lie and say I parrot Ron Paul because you're too much of a coward to address the facts I use. I do follow the Austrian School of economics.

I realize you prefer blindly accepting conservative rhetoric over facts. But you can't curse away the facts. The facts exist no matter how many times you call me a dumb twat. Deal with it.

You haven't presented any related facts to the CAUSE you complete moron. Deal with the facts.

make yourself look incredibly ignorant and only reinforce my claim that you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

That's because you're a lying little pussy who can't address the facts. You finally refer to a couple things but they in no way were the cause.
You refuse to address the points because you know you cannot refute them. So you try to inject talking head points that are unrelated to the actual cause. Or maybe you're just stupid or both.

You realize that in almost every case a bankruptcy restructuring is just a polite way of saying "massive layoffs" and the result of all those solutions you mentioned results in massive layoffs.

You do realize you're full of shit again don't you.

If it were up to you, GM would have failed, millions would have lost their jobs,
and GM would likely be a very minor auto company (if they existed at all) who just sold off most of their brands to the companies who could afford to buy them at that time, mainly honda and toyota. But thankfully big government stepped in and loaned them money. Now GM is the number one auto company in the world and everyone got to keep their jobs! Socialism! Fuck yeah!

Another lie of yours. Many would have found their way to other jobs in the automotive industry. What kind of a dumbass thinks when a car company goes under that means people stop buying cars? Except a fool like you.
See this is what control freaks like you do. You try to use the fear factor to scare people, whether it be the evil muslim in the Middle East or the threat of a horrible death because not everyone has health care.

And again I'll repeat this and you'll refuse to address it because after all you're a pussy,
Why does GM get to be appointed and not earn the number one slot? Because the failure you worked for, crowned them king. Plain and simple, they didnt earn it.
Why couldn't the well run companies take over, then the general public wins since quality and a fair price is the goal of the purchaser and not making jobs for others. Since when does someone pay more for a product because it will help others get paid more?
But children like you are always looking to get bailed out when you fail cause you're not man enough to admit your mistakes and not man enough to accept the personal responsibility that comes with it.

You don't look at two things, at what cost and, who gets left out. In this case the cost was to the tax payers and the ones who lost were the ones who worked hard and ran their company well and didnt need to get bailed out.

The proof is the American economy from 1940-1980. It was the peak of American economic strength for the citizens of the country. It was also the most regulated market in our history. Tax rates were at record highs, especially on the ultra wealthy. The middle class was at an all time high in wealth and size, poverty and crime were low, people could live normal lives without excessive debt. Home ownership was high. And America was the greatest economic superpower in the world.

Once again, proof you're an idiot. The economy was horrible during the war. There was very little of quality to purchase. How could there be when no one was making anything of value. Most of the production was in the war effort.
We had a very good economy after the war since government spending and taxes dropped as they were not needed for the war effort. The people used that many wisely. They produced useable everyday goods and spent their money on that. This was not done during the war and please dont be stupid and say it was.

So there is your proof.
Now, please show me proof of where an industrialized nation has been successful with a free market system.

please show me one that has been successful with out it. We have prospered the longest and are the closest to a free market. When we dont follow free market principles we fail. Please show proof of bypassing the free market working.
I've already provided much proof but being the pussy that you are you dont even refer to it.
Once again
1. Since the Dept of Education has become involved our standing compared to the rest of the world has dropped. The cost to educate a public school student is higher than private school and the private school gives a better education.
2. Since government got involved in the cost of attaining a college degree. Costs have risen. They have grown faster than the cpi or even the silly inflation number people like to use. Strange since demand hasnt outstripped supply yet the costs go up.
3. Since government has gotten involved in the medical Field costs have skyrocketed. All that technology which eventually drives prices down, think computers, big screen tvs, hasn't lowered the cost of medicine. People will go across our borders to purchase the same medicine much cheaper.

but you're for more of the same big government failures? Good thinking asshat.

Please dont address any of these and ignore them completely in your reply. I'd hate to see you grow a pair and actually address the issues. Instead make up some assinine statement about agreeing with the man who has been right more than all the others and somehow turn that into a bad thing.

Actually I have over and over again. I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you. You claimed that Obama passed the bank bailouts into law. That was factually incorrect. The Troubled Assets Relief Program or what is referred to as "the bank bailouts" was enacted into law by president GW Bush in 2008, not by Obama. I can't force you to stop ignoring the facts though.

Thats another thing you lie about, I never claimed Obama passed the law, I said he bailed out the banks. I even mentioned in my post to look what he did. Why do you ignore the bailouts of the European banks? Is it because you're too much of a pussy to address the facts again? answer YES
Here's the thing about childish control freaks like you. YOU dont get to redefine things. First off you're too dumb. Second off you dont know the subject. You probably think the Patriot Act is patriotic or the Free Trade Agreement is actually free trade. It's managed trade just so you know. As dumb as you I can believe you would.

I never once refered to Bushes bailouts when speaking of Obamas bailouts. Do you only think the Banks and the Car companies got bailed out? Just them huh? You really are stupid.

 

[Dan Kone]

I don't know your expertise in marketing,

BFA in graphic design. ~5-7 years experience in various types of professional graphic advertising.

but for the sake of not being argumentative I'll accept your premise. The problem is just being a Ron Paul supporter has had the stigma of being nuts long before the crazed supporters annoyed you to death, simply because of media association of Ron Paul being "crazy uncle Ron."

And his supporters are confirming that association.

You listen to talk radio and most people are scared to call up those shows and openly admit to being a Ron Paul supporter. I guarantee this also scares people away from voting for him in the primaries/polls/etc.

I don't listen to much talk radio, but it seems unlikely that Ron Paul supporters are scared to admit to supporting him. They don't seem like the shy types.

 

[Parker]

BFA in graphic design. ~5-7 years experience in various types of professional graphic advertising.

And his supporters are confirming that association.

I don't listen to much talk radio, but it seems unlikely that Ron Paul supporters are scared to admit to supporting him. They don't seem like the shy types.

You're a serial liar. You'll lie about anything. CNN just had a segment before the debates where they mentioned how enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters are and how knowledgeable they are. They spoke of them talking about the federal reserve. Here's a video of it. But your just a lying piece of filth. You'll deny and deflect. That's what children do.

[youtube]Bf3H88lvmJg[/youtube]

 

[Parker]

I don't know your expertise in marketing, but for the sake of not being argumentative I'll accept your premise. The problem is just being a Ron Paul supporter has had the stigma of being nuts long before the crazed supporters annoyed you to death, simply because of media association of Ron Paul being "crazy uncle Ron."

You listen to talk radio and most people are scared to call up those shows and openly admit to being a Ron Paul supporter.

I dont know where you get your information but you're wrong. I have heard Ron Paul supporters call as well as get cut off just for bringing up the fact they are supporters. Idiots like Rush don't like to be shown up.
I want to hear some recordings showing people calling up scared or too scared to call. I'd really like to see proof of this.

I guarantee this also scares people away from voting for him in the primaries/polls/etc.

You're talking out your ass. You can't guarantee that.
People get this silly notion in their head so they make up things to fit the incorrect stereotype.

 

[Parker]

BFA in graphic design. ~5-7 years experience in various types of professional graphic advertising.

This has little to do with economics. No wonder you don't know shit. You're a cartoonist.

And his supporters are confirming that association.

because control freaks like you love to group people since a group is easier to control than individuals. Lets face facts you get hammered on the issues so you make things up about an entire segment of people. I can only imagine what you say about minorities and women in private.

I don't listen to much talk radio, but it seems unlikely that Ron Paul supporters are scared to admit to supporting him. They don't seem like the shy types.

Holy shit dude. You got something right. Amazing simply amazing.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

Dan doesn't even read peoples responses, he just repeats the same baseless bullshit over and over again hoping that some fellow retard will for some insane reason actually agree with the stupid shit he comes up with. He is by far the worst person on these forums. He calls others spammer when he spams nonsense constantly. It is a waste of time to argue with someone like that.

 

[Parker]

If they kept it to the Ron Paul threads, I'd agree with you. But they don't. And they are extremely rude about it. So now I'm going for more of a scorched earth strategy. I've declared jihad on these annoying lunatics.

Its good that you admit you're being a troll. Shame that the one you share a brain with unclebuck, a mod, gave a like to your admitted troll post. He's pretty much a tool, not troll but he does that too.

He does have a job to do as far as stopping trolling especially since he mentioned the Ron Paul posts as trolling. Nothing wrong with being trolling as long as one agrees with you right, unclebuck?

That's the thing, no matter who is in charge they are human and make mistakes and need to be corrected. people have to speak out to make change. Otherwise you get more of the same failed status quo.


well unclebuck you going to take down this post and the troll post too?

 

[deprave]

I see dan as the only one really spamming tbh, sure some people post vids and talk about Ron Paul too much maybe that can be annoying sure I give you that, but as far as Dan goes he intentionally spams videos he doesn't even watch himself with the sole intention of being annoying like a child. This child like behavior is the worst kind of spam there is. Dan is also a major contributor to Ron Paul threads being so active and part of the discussion because he argues with people and bumps the threads non-stop, I would guess that Dan has more posts to Ron Paul threads then anyone, I think its fair to see that Dan/UB and others like them are actually the cause of the Ron Paul threads popularity. If it wasn't for them the Ron Paul threads wouldn't go on forever.

So I do thank you for your haterism , Ron Paul haters, for your contribution in keeping this discussion active and lively and spreading liberty. Resulting to child like spamming tantrum is just pathetic though.

 

[Parker]

Dan doesn't even read peoples responses, he just repeats the same baseless bullshit over and over again hoping that some fellow retard will for some insane reason actually agree with the stupid shit he comes up with. He is by far the worst person on these forums. He calls others spammer when he spams nonsense constantly. It is a waste of time to argue with someone like that.

You're right. Just like the 16 year old kid who just copied and pasted that he and his ilk liked to agree with. Just a troll and his recent post proves it. Nothing wrong with arguing, people don't always agree. But when one doesn't even address the issues another makes as well as make things up about an entire group of people, its rather pointless and silly.

 

[UncleBuck]

unclebuck, a mod, gave a like to your admitted troll post.

"troll" is a word that is used WAY too loosely.

as i told you before, you and dan are adults and can defend yourselves.

dan understands that there is nothing wrong with ronald spamming within ronald threads. it is ronald spamming outside of ronald threads that he objects to. and i agree with him.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

I see dan as the only one really spamming tbh, sure some people post vids and talk about Ron Paul to much maybe that can be annoying sure I give you that, but as far as Dan goes he intentionally spams videos he doesn't even watch himself with the sole intention of being annoying like a child. This child like behavior is the worst kind of spam there is.

Yah he was trying to spam RP hater videos and hes such an idiot that he was posting videos of RP supporters.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

"troll" is a word that is used WAY too loosely.

as i told you before, you and dan are adults and can defend yourselves.

dan understands that there is nothing wrong with ronald spamming within ronald threads. it is ronald spamming outside of ronald threads that he objects to. and i agree with him.

Actually he was spamming RP videos in the Obaaaaammmmaaaa thread. You threatened to close the thread not because of him, but because we were staying on topic and posting too much Obama-sheep related information.

 

[Dan Kone]

Why are you making silly conclusions and lying?

If I'm lying then prove me wrong. It's very simple. I've yet to hear one Ron Paul supporter anywhere mention a single issue they disagree with him on. Even after I've called you out on it you still can't do it. If I'm wrong and you guys are capable of independent thought, prove it. It's quite simple. You say I'm lying yet you're proving my point at the same time. Either except that you're a mindless cult member or prove me wrong. It's not complicated.

Like I said. You don't get it. You want to treat symptoms. In order to solve problems intelligent people treat the cause.

I listed exact causes of the economic crash. With out those two deregulation bills, the economic crisis would not have been possible. That is not addressing symptoms, that is in fact the cause. When you remove the safe guards that protect us from economic instability, it makes it more likely that our economy will become unstable.

If you keep going out in the cold without a coat on you're so dumb you think as long as you can take cold pills its okay. How about putting on a coat you dumbass, lol.

lol @ your meaningless metaphors. I listed a bunch of specific laws that allowed the economic crisis to become possible, you respond with nothing more than cheap rhetoric.

I've noticed you didn't actually dispute anything I said, you just went strait to your talking points. That's because you don't really know what you're talking about and I do.

NEVER has it worked when a lendor lowers the standards. NEVER.
You're so ignorant I'll make it a simple as I can. Although I have said the same before but you childishly ignore it.
All these years lenders said we wont make mortgage loans to people with
1. Zero to low down payment
2. bad history of repayment
3. Not enough income to make the payments

And those loans would not have been possible until we deregulated Wall St allowing banks to not be liable for the mortgages they handed out.

Citing specific laws and their implications > cheap rhetoric

Because they knew it was bad risk. But you're so smart you know better right. Why the thing to do to solve this housing crisis according to you is just lend these same down and out economic drunks a mortgage loan.

Seems as if you've completely failed to comprehend my post. That's not at all what I said. What I said is that these loans were only possible because we deregulated Wall St, allowing Wall St to buy these shitty loans from the banks, bundle them, then sell them as AAA rated investments. They were rated as safe investments because we passed a lot "getting government out of the way of business", allowing them to decide what a safe investment was, so they scammed us. Without the ability of banks to sell these loans, they could not have given out the bad loans in the first place because they would have been financially responsible for them.

All factually correct and proven statements. But of course you'll ignore all that and continue to pretend I said things I never said.

That'll solve the problem right? They magically become responsible and repay their loans on time and their income will increase like it never has before. Boy are you stupid. The mortgage industry wont do it now because unlike you they haven't suffered irreversible head trauma.

It's not magic. It's called regulation. We used to regulate what kind of products Wall St could sell as safe investments, but then we deregulated that market, allowing Wall St to regulate themselves. They then scammed us out of trillions of dollars. It doesn't require super powers to stop them from doing this. Just a majority vote in congress.

Once again you lie and say I parrot Ron Paul because you're too much of a coward to address the facts I use. I do follow the Austrian School of economics.

You're not using any facts at all. You're calling me names and then following it up by reciting talking points and rhetoric. You're making broad meaningless generalizations while I'm citing specific laws. It's pretty easy to see who knows what they are talking about and who's just copying what Ron Paul is saying here.

You haven't presented any related facts to the CAUSE you complete moron. Deal with the facts.

Sure I did. It's a fact that the commodities futures modernization act deregulated Wall St allowing them to sell bundled mortgages backed by fraudulent psudo-insurance with a false investment rating. It's a fact that Gramm-Leech-Bliley allowed the banks to buy up this psudo-insurance. It's a fact that when these mortgages failed and it was time to collect this insurance money all at once, they couldn't pay up and this led to the market crash.

See, those are facts. "you're an idiot" is an opinion, not a fact. Gramm-Leech-Bliley is a fact. Understand the difference now?

Once again, proof you're an idiot. The economy was horrible during the war.

lol. More proof you have no clue what you're talking about and all you know how to do is recite what Ron Paul has told you to think.

During the war GDP and unemployment returned to pre-crash levels and middle class income was rising. By every metric, the economy had returned to pre-depression levels by 1942. GDP had recovered by 1938 and unemployment followed.

Thanks for showing us all how brainwashed you are though. Saves me the trouble of doing it myself.

 

[deprave]

[video=youtube;1nr0q28M5nI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nr0q28M5nI&feature=related[/video]

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

Look hes still going. no shame.