Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul Spam Traced to Reactor Botnet
Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? writes "Ars is reporting that the Ron Paul spam has been traced back to the Reactor botnet. According to the SecureWorks report, which originally identified the spammer, someone calling themselves nenastnyj was behind it and their botnet control server has been shut down. The Ron Paul campaign has previously denied any connection with this spam campaign."
His voting record suggests otherwise.
I told you all Ron Paul was a saint. Ron Paul would never stoop to spamming. He is right on par with a god, in fact he may be a god (the tests are still being run). Any of you jerks who thought that this stuff was official hate the constitution and what to see the the declaration of independence used as toilet paper. I hate anyone who thinks any ill of Ron "OUR MESSIAH" PAUL!! GET IT!
I got a catholic block.
but even if you trace it to a spammer does it really prove the campaign had anything to do with it? Do you think viagra is behind the v1 4ga spam you see in your inbox? Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..
There are still tons of kiddies unable to vote and barely able to read and write flooding the web2.0 sites with ron paul crap.
On another note, I am Canadian. To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide. I am not only sick of Ron Paul, but of the whole 2008 election. I was sick of it back in 2006.
Canada has a minority government. It could go into an election at any time really. Most people are concerned about the bills and policies of the government currently in power. It makes no sense to spend more time agonizing over some potential policies of guys who will never be elected while ignoring the government and representatives currently making the decisions.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Paul gives more than vague promises. He has a long, principled voting record.
Will he be an imperial president? No.
Will he be able to change the USA into some libertopia. No.
He can exercise veto power.
He can issue pardens.
He can bring the troops home.
That will be more than enough for me.
I know many people think that Ron Paul doesn't have many real supporters and that it is mostly internet bots, but when Barack Obama visited Arizona State University to give a speech there were literally almost as many people with Ron Paul signs and t-shirts than Barack Obama even though Ron Paul wasn't even visiting that day. Make no mistake these supporters definitely are real. Unless of course all those people on campus are actually bots...
Creative Demolition
I mean, if I were operating a botnet and sending out spam, and I wanted to protect my business interests I'd vote Ron Paul.
Not that Ron Paul is 'pro botnets' or anything absurd like that, but his policies and philosophy would be more hospitible to their business model than nanny-states and government-monitoring of all communications.
If I had a botnet, why wouldn't I use it to promote my candidate of choice during its free time?
What was the content of the spam? Was it spamming Diggs for Ron Paul articles, comment spam, or did everyone get emails promising if you vote Ron Paul your dick gets bigger?
I've said it before, but to me, as a former Republican, Ron Paul represents the party which most people believe they are voting for when they vote Republican. Trouble is that if he actually won, he would try to implement their public platform rather than continue Bush's private one. Also and more importantly, I believe that the leaders of that party need to have a candidate who will allow the many crimes of the last 7 years to go unpunished, so they need a person they already own. (that's also why McCain and Huckabee don't have many 'big' endorsements or money, btw).
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Amen.
I like their focus on the Gold Standard.
Hilarious.
There is not enough gold on the whole planet to cover the money now in circulation, much less the Nine Trillion dollar debt!
Dog is my co-pilot.
Legally, unsolicited political messages are not considered spam. Unless they try to sell a product.
IN the US as I understand the pertinent federal laws.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
good man fall, or just showing his true colors?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Erm, not at $1 and ounce, no. But at some multiple. If it has to be $2,800 per ounce then people will not both exchanging dollars for gold with the government, because they can get gold cheaper elsewhere. But the effect of tying the dollar to *something* will be just as strong. At least if we stick with it, it won't be $3,100 next year and $3,300 the year after that. Just because a return to the gold standard can't undo the last 90+ years of inflation is no reason not to do it.
Cause basing your currency on the pricing of a commodity is somehow more secure than the faith and trust of the government.
Had a look at just how much the currency has been inflated since the Federal Reserve was established? For extra credit, can you tell us who benefits from inflation?
Great understanding of economics there, pal.
Ever heard the phrase "not worth a Continental"? Any idea what it refers to?
The gold and silver clause was written into the constitution because the framers had recent, painful experience with the dangers of fiat currency.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Yes, I've read it. He's the only politician I can remember in my lifetime whose votes match his words 100%.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
That's interesting because Nenastnyj means something like "cloudy weather man" in Russian.
Clearly, this incident with the spammer supporting Ron Paul will be spun, by his competitors, into a gotcha.
Please do your yourself -- and your nation -- a favor. Avoid the above method of selecting political candidates. Ignore gotcha's, glamor, and glitz. Do not vote along party lines.
Instead, research the voting history, the policy proposals, and the honesty of the candidates in the 2008 race for president. You can easily find this information at the quality news sites like "The Washington Post". Hopefully, Rupert Murdoch will open the web site of the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) to the public before the election in 2008. The WSJ has some of the best in-depth reporting in the industry, but the WSJ web site is currently open only to subscribers.
So what about all of the donations coming into Ron Pauls website? Spam as well? If so, I want some of that spam in my inbox!!
Hello folks and welcome to today's second round of The Slashdot Moderation game where we take the long way of saying Mod Parent Down.
We've seen a lot of trolls, flamebaiters and thread hijackers today, but we work hard to only bring you the top-tier. Tonight's guest is explosivejared,
Explosive Jared writes:
I told you all Ron Paul was a saint. Ron Paul would never stoop to spamming. A great start, will this turn into an Ironic statement, a joke, an insightful look into Ron Paul... mystery is afoot and my attention is gathered! He is right on par with a god, in fact he may be a god (the tests are still being run). oh, we may have a problem. Bringing religion into a Slashdot debate is a hot topic. Maybe if you give us a link to these "god tests" you won't scare your audience away! Any of you jerks who thought that this stuff was official hate the constitution and what to see the the declaration of independence used as toilet paper. Well, I don't quite understand you but it sounds like you just brought politics and religion together. Warning sir, you are headed for a mega-disaster. You may not be able to bail out of this one. For karma's sake say something witty, something intelligent, SOMETHING! I hate anyone who thinks any ill of Ron "OUR MESSIAH" PAUL!! GET IT! Wow... I was panicked too, but man, I think you cracked wide open on that one. I tried to help, but unfortunately your Karma was just swallowed by a nuclear reaction between religion and politics. While Slashdot is currently banning your fuzzy-ass to the underside of a bridge, I will invite you and everyone else to join us for another installment of...
The Slashdot Moderation Game!
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but assuming you're not, then have you ever heard of hyper-inflation? It happens -- usually when a government is heavily in debt and wishes to pay off its obligations by making lots of money. Not that that would ever happen here, after all, we're only something like 9 trillion in debt -- couch cushion change.
...his policies and philosophy would be more hospitible to their business model... Ummm...not meaning to be impolite, but are you on crack? The whole problem with spam is that it intrudes on someone else's private property. Ron Paul is a very strong defender of private property. He would be their worst nightmare.I guess that the only thing left for Russians is to try and influence elections in the US, since they had absolutely no chance to do that at home.
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
Correct. Racism != prejudice. Racism is a belief that your race is superior to that of others. Usually this also means that you think your race should get preferential treatment over others, but that's not necessarily so. Prejudice is just that -- prejudging someone based on external factors that can -- but do not necessarily include -- race.
Supporting the abolition of affirmative action -- i.e., hiring, promoting or admitting into school, etc., on the basis of racial quotas -- as Ron Paul does is also not racism. If anything, the entire concept of affirmative action could arguably be viewed as racism since there is some underlying notion that minorities would otherwise be unable to gain schooling or employment were it not for racial quotas. I think that underestimates the abilities of minorities to the extreme.
My blog
Not saying I endorse him or his policies, but Huckabee has raised only 2 million and is actually ahead in some poles. I don't know about you, but I want a president that can do the most with the least. If Huckabee could run the government with the same financial prudence he has shown in his campaign, that would be awesome. I expect with the rise in polls that will most likely change. He probably won't turn down the money from anyone. But, it sort of shows what could be done.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
He can also create a much broader awareness of important issues that are normally overlooked. For example, the US has a very fragile economy because of national debt and a currency that is no longer backed by a gold standard. This often gets overlooked, but a guy like Ron Paul could make the nation aware of it.
Seek and ye shall find.
Great. Another ignorant, fear-mongering post.
Ron Paul is Pro Liberty and Individual rights! How on earth can you get "against homosexual rights" from that?! He wants to get the federal government out of the marriage business entirely!
In regards to religion, please show me one article written by Dr. Paul http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm
where he puts religion above the law and the Constitution.
I'm curious about what you mean by "principled" voting record. Is talking about leaving things up for the "states to decide" while trying to ban abortion on the federal level principled? Is talking about the need to remove power from corporations while at the same time sponsoring bills to repeal worker safety laws, the minimum wage, and federal antitrust law, plus dozens of other laws, even including child labor and overtime laws, principled? What about his earmarks for the local shrimp industry while decrying those evil politicians wasting out money? What about proclaiming himself as a purveyor of libertarianism while trying to outlaw flag-burning?
I'd be all for the kind of candidate people think Ron Paul is, but this guy ain't him. Aside from that, you also have to take into account his lunatic economic theories, his stance regarding the Internet, and complete withdrawal from all international organizations. I mean, Jesus. I see all these people talking about how great he is, and then very fre of them seem to actually be aware of, you know, his actual record.
Surprisingly enough, good economies require good economic policy. Unfortunately, that's not as simple as a gold standard. Historically, inflation occurs regardless of whether there is a precious metal or other substance backing the currency. Incidentally, you are aware that there isn't enough gold for the government to buy enough for 100% backing of the currency, right? Also, if you set the exchange value for gold at higher than the current market price, all you've done is ignored the problem and made an empty promise until such time as inflation makes the price of gold rise past your set value -- at which point the problem isn't any easier.
Really? Last I checked, plenty of economies have had trouble both with and without backed currencies. As far as I can tell, the recipe for a strong economy is sound political and economic policy. There is no magic, and no easy answers.
(I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but it's in spite of, not because of, his ridiculous gold standard ideas.)
He can bring the troops home.
Heck, Congress could theoretically do that in a week if they really REALLY wanted to. It would be like using a sledgehammer on the executive branch and military, but it could be done.
Just set the military budget to $0 and legislate no troops permitted in Iraq.
(I did say sledgehammer, the results wouldn't be pretty)
I am a World of Warcraft subscriber, and saw this junk spam posted on our forums today. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=3270769489&sid=1
Well, here's a fine column on that website you linked that should give you a hint. He also voted to ban adoptions by gay couples, and more. Look harder. Look closer at the laws he's sponsored in that post as well.
-jcr If you actually look at his voting record:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296
Just take the first item on the list, abortion. He's stated time and time again that abortion policy should be left up to the states to get a wider appeal, but as you can see, he continuously voted to have the federal government intervene in abortion policy.
He's a liar and flip-flopper just like the rest of them.
> Anti-women supporters? What are you talking about?
:]
They're supporters that look exactly like normal women, but explode in a burst of gamma radiation when they come into contact with a woman. Probably a lot like your typical Digg user
IANRP ( I Am Not Ron Paul), but I'm going to put words in his mouth based on my understanding of his positions.
2597 and 1094: It's what the man believes, and it's consistent with basic biology (A fetus is alive, and it is unarguably human. You can legitimately argue whether or not it should have full legal protections identical to an adult, and that's a discussion we should have, but creating a mythical transformation point from non human to human somewhere between conception and birth is a laughable failure to grasp high school biology). He could argue the Constitutionality based on the Congressional power to conduct the census (The power to count a thing by necessity includes the power to determine what does and doesn't count as that thing). Regardless of your beliefs on the issue, a straight up or down vote on a bill like this in Congress (or my preference, state legislatures) is almost infinitely preferable to the current situation where 9 old lawyers answerable to no one decide whatever the hell they feel like and impose it on all the rest of us. Paul's bill, crackpot as it seems, would force a settlement of the issue so we could get on with other things in this country instead of this same tired fight coming up every election and dividing us yet again.
1095: Put an end to a blatant violation of the 10th amendment. Government should follow the law. Christ, you'd think the last 7 years would have made that PAINFULLY obvious to everyone.
300: See above, just change Article 3 for Amendment 10. State courts were supposed to be primary (read the Federalist papers and see for yourselves, even the big government Federalists promised that order of court supremacy in order to get the Constitution ratified)
We the People Act: See Amendments 1 and 10, especially 10. Not a power given to the federal government, courts or no courts. IIRC, 3 of the ratifying states had established state religions when the Bill of Rights was adopted, so it clearly was not intended to prevent states from making up their own minds on the subject. I'm not saying this is the way things should be, but unless there is an amendment to fix it, it's the law of the land and government should obey it.
"Against homosexual rights" and "supported laws to discriminate against homosexuality federally": More like against allowing the Federal government to have any say on or knowledge of the matter of who people sleep with one way or the other. Although I admit I haven't dug as deeply into this aspect of his record, so if you can contradict me on that interpretation I'd be interested to see your evidence.
Paul is a long way from perfect, but even the positions I violently disagree with him on are rationally argued and internally consistent with respect to his understanding of the Constitution, which overrides all other considerations for him. After 8 years of the Constitution being "just a goddammned piece of paper", I think restoring that principle to government is the absolute priority. We can sort out differences in opinion later, once our freedom to have differences in opinions is safe again. (Military Commissions Act, Homegrown Violent Radicalization act etc.)
He's a liar and flip-flopper just like the rest of them.
Actually, you're the liar. Ron Paul's votes on this issue are consistent with his stated position: he votes against federal funding for abortion (since he votes against federal funding for anything not authorized by the constitution), and he votes to allow the states to set their own policy on the matter.
As for changing his position, the only issue I can name where Ron Paul has changed his stance is on the death penalty: he used to be in favor of it, but given the number of death row convicts who have been exonerated by DNA evidence, he no longer supports it. I don't have a problem with that.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
While I don't like the conservative approach, I do like the way Paul appears to be his own man with his own opinions. --Which, incidentally, is why I doubt he has any real chances in the American stage drama of politics. He seems like an idealist who doesn't play well with others. The military industrial complex doesn't want guys like that calling the shots. -Calling the army home from Iraq? No, that's not going to go over well with the Powers That Be, (and I'm not talking about the current administration). Unless the whole system is pulled apart and all the many, many criminals put away, people who work within a belief system which doesn't recognize that the whole game is a sham which lives and breathes on the vapors of corruption are not going to make much head-way. It's a shame. Ron Paul for all the points I don't agree with, looks for all intents and purposes like what a real politician should be. We don't see too many guys like that. --And when we do see them begin to make real progress, they seem to die in small airplane crashes. I wonder if he realizes this.
-FL
The e-mail excerpts are below:
Ron Paul isn't hijacking the party because he is closer to the 1996 Republican Party platform (and previous years) than any other Republican candidate. It was Bush and friends who hijacked the Republican Party in 2000. Here are some excerpts from the 1996 platform that are either missing in the 2000 platform, watered down, contradicted by other portions of the platform, or just ignored by Bush and ultimately removed in the 2004 platform:
This is the Republican Party that I grew up with and knew and loved. I stopped calling myself a Republican in 1999 because, among other reasons, Bush refused to commit to a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.
Ron Paul worked to nominate Reagan over Ford in 1976. Ron Paul is the torchbearer of what Reagan stood for (although Reagan did not live up to his words).
After the Democratic Party became the Communist Party at the turn of the century and went on to dominate the first half of the century, the Republican Party responded by becoming the anti-Federalist Party after WWII. Ron Paul is trying to steer the Republican Party back toward those days of 1952-1996. That's getting back on track, not hijacking.
The main difference between Ron Paul and Reagan is foreign policy -- the Reagan Administration, in its fight against communism, armed the most radical elements of Afghanistan and created the Taliban, which of course ended up harboring Osama bin Laden. Ron Paul wishes for the U.S. to not repeat that mistake.
Ron Paul is the
Actually, you're the liar. Ron Paul's votes on this issue are consistent with his stated position: he votes against federal funding for abortion (since he votes against federal funding for anything not authorized by the constitution), and he votes to allow the states to set their own policy on the matter. Here's the summary: 12/06/2006 Abortion Pain Bill NV
05/25/2005 Overseas Military Facilities Abortion Amendment N
04/27/2005 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act N
10/02/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
06/04/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
07/20/2000 Abortion Funding Amendment N
07/13/2000 Family Planning Assistance Funding amendment N
06/22/2000 Prison Abortion Funding Amendment N
05/18/2000 Oversea Military Abortions Amendment N
04/05/2000 Partial Birth Abortion Act Y
07/29/1999 Abortion Funding Amendment N
06/30/1999 Child Custody Protection Act N
06/09/1999 Overseas Military Abortion Amendment N
06/08/1999 Prohibition of Chemically Induced Abortion Amendment Y
10/08/1998 Contraceptive Amendment Y
08/06/1998 Abortion Funding Amendment N
07/23/1998 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
07/15/1998 Child Custody Protection Act N
06/24/1998 Chemical Inducement of Abortion Amendment Y
05/20/1998 Abortion Private Funding Restoration Amendment N
10/08/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
09/04/1997 International Family Planning amendment Y
03/20/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
02/13/1997 Population Planning bill N Here's the summary:
Yes, some are bans against funding, which is consistent with his position, but I'm going to cull to show the ones that specifically go to my point: 10/02/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
06/04/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
04/05/2000 Partial Birth Abortion Act Y
07/23/1998 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
10/08/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
03/20/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y Note that during these votes, the Roe v. Wade decision was in effect as the supreme law of the land due to the Supreme Court, rendering all of these yes votes a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Yes, they later upheld the most recent vote, but he knew he wouldn't get the votes until Bush's stacking of the Supreme Court happened.
So then the question comes up -- when is it OK to violate the Constitution? Is the Constitution interpreted by people or by the Supreme Court?
...on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada. If you think this is true, you should consider where a significant amount of your country's fresh water comes from, and who controls said land upstream. The economic and environmental decisions made in this country can affect your water supply.Ride recklessly only when safe to do so.
Why? The value is purely speculative. It is faith based on both counts.
What?
"i knew people would start giving their very exaggerated, very uninformed, superficial analysis of his beliefs."
As opposed to his supporters very exaggerated, very uninformed, superficial analysis of reality?
"i don't see why it should matter to anyone that he doesn't have as many supporters as other candidates."
They don't call it an election for nothing.
"can anyone provide a more in-depth analysis of his beliefs?"
Take Article I, rip out the General Welfare Clause, and pretend that Section 10 applies to the federal government as well as (if not "instead of") the states.
Remove Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
That's really about it.
Nonsense. His intention to return jurisdiction over abortion to the states doesn't require him to ignore the fact that today, it's a matter over which the federal government claims power. What? Huh? Is that your excuse? I'm in awe. He votes on everything else that the feds claim power over pretty consistently against, completely ignoring your logic above. For that I'm pretty impressed by him. That I found a pretty bad hole in his program doesn't mean those other actions are wrong. The feds are WAY too powerful, and I consider myself pretty far left (though, a decentralizationist left). In fact, he's probably the closest of any of the mainstream candidates to my positions for what the federal government should be doing, Democrats included, though I'm registered Green. I may find it useful to vote for him for the federal government so long as he never touches what the state and local governments do, which I actually believe, other than on the abortion issue, he would do. That he has this flaw is what gives me pause. Their decisions are final.
Oh really? I'm sure that many people in this country will be very distressed to learn that Plessy v. Ferguson is still the law of the land, then. So much for integration. (Oh, wait.. Plessey was overturned in Brown v. Topeka.)
Try again.
-jcr Plessy was the law of the land until Brown. What's your point? Anybody who violated Plessy (although the nature of Plessy is hard to violate, due to its construction and decision) while Plessy was in effect violated the Constitution. They should only have passed the laws after it had been tested by the Supreme Court. As a strict constructionists, you would have to defer to the Supreme Court on the matter before declaring anything Constitutional or not, since that's one of the things the Constitution strictly defines.
There's "shouldn't be unconstitutional/constitutional" and there's "what is unconstitutional/constitutional". The former is what you and I can hold opinions on. The latter is the purview of ONLY the Supreme Court once it has come to a decision on it, as it had done in Roe v Wade. If the Supreme Court hasn't heard it, then it's the lower court's temporary purview, but the question isn't definitely answered until the Supreme Court hears it and decides. And then it is only in effect until and if they overturn it. It's an interesting secular system that goes against what people typically think of if they are religious, but I happen to think it's pretty well thought out!
FWIW, Huckabee has a natural Evangelical audience that has been waiting for a candidate to get behind. couple that with having good oration skills and a good bit of charm, and Huckabee is getting literally millions of dollars in free exposure from the media about the new darling candidate. Bully for him, but once/if people manage to get past the charm, they'll notice some of the pretty significant skeletons in the closet.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
Paul and gay/black/jewish/other minorities:
My understanding is that Ron Paul is against ANY laws that divide people into certain sub-classes and then grant those specific groups additional rights based on their minority class. He believes that all people are individuals with equal rights and that there should be no laws that give extra protection or financial benefit to specific groups.
Think about the following hypothetical statements:
Crimes against white people by non-whites should be punished more severely in order to reduce crime against them.
White people should be given preference in hiring and admissions over other people of greater qualification in order to raise their socioeconomic status.
We should assist in the defense of and ally ourselves with white nations who are threatened by non-white nations.
White people should be allowed to form organizations that exclude non-white people from joining.
Tax dollars should be used to help fund organizations specific to white people.
Of course, to vote for the above ideals would be considered the height of racism in America. But if you change 'white' to some minority, you run the risk of being labelled as a racist for being against them.
There are a lot of well-intentioned laws passed every year that aim to prevent minority abuse. But in protecting one class of people at the expense of another, you just expand the problem. Ron Paul consistently votes against laws that grant additional rights to a particular class of people at the expense of the rights of the rest.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - Justice Clarence Thomas
I need no excuses. You're the one who's tried to tar Ron Paul as a liar, and failed to do so. Your claim, your burden of proof. I already met your burden of proof with his contradiction: that he's for non-intervention, specifically on the abortion matter, with what states should be doing ala a more strict interpretation of the tenth amendment than the Supreme Court holds (which is ok, I'm fine with that as it's not a violation in itself), which he stated in the CNN/Youtube debate, for example. All the while, he has a voting record of intervention in every instance Dilation and Extraction came up on whether or not to be banned. As far as I know, that's not a power of the federal government. The commerce clause doesn't provide that, for example. I would think the tenth amendment would take over. States can handle their own murders -- why not abortion policies?
This is the third time I've repeated myself, in a slightly different way, just so that it's in the same post and that perhaps it might sink in if presented slightly differently. At this point, you can choose to believe whatever you want. I know that most reasonable people will look at your responses to my posts and ponder at how efficiently you've selectively quoted me and not even addressed my arguments. At this point, probably the majority just think you're trolling.
Consider the burden of proof as still being on me all you want, but if you want to convince people that I haven't proven it, then you should actually try rebutting them directly. In another post, you did try once, but you just created a huge contradiction with the rest of his program. As that's a contradiction, I'm not left with anything to argue against from your angle.
If an individual were able to take out trillions of dollars in loans and claim that's what he's worth and then hand that debt down to his children to pay, would you have much respect for that individual?
Every Federal Reserve Note is a Dollar that the US Government borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank against your ability to pay taxes. Think of what it means for someone other than yourself to create debt that YOU have to pay? That makes you a slave in a way doesn't it? And that "deficit" thing? They talk about it all day long on the news... what does it mean exactly?
Ultimately what getting off the Gold Standard has done is replaced a check book with an unlimited credit card. We know what happens when individuals do it. Why would we expect less disasterous problems when a Government does it!? (Yes, it's possible to NOT go crazy into debt using credit cards... but they aren't doing it.)
The Federal Reserve Bank is *NOT* a branch of the U.S. Federal Government... they may OWN the U.S. Federal Government (and through that government, they own you) but they are NOT the U.S. Federal Government.
The Gold Standard is a checkbook. Being on the Federal Reserve is a credit card. Think about it.
How is affirmative action NOT racism? The whole idea is to give opportunities or funding only to people with specific colour skins.
No examination of background occurs... If they really wanted to 'help previously disadvantaged people' then a white kid with two generations of family who worked the mines should be _just_ as eligible as a black kid from the same background.
Again, affirmative action exists to benefit people of specif races only and explicitly excludes other equally disadvantaged people purely on the basis of their race. It's plain and simple racism, just with a fancier name.
The issue is that when run by the FTC, as the vote authorized, the government is judging speech by its content. The FTC - the Federal Trade Commission - would be judging whether or not the speech is commercial, ie: trade oriented. And judging speech by its content is a first amendment violation.
The FCC, by contrast, would only be judging what type of communication it is. The FCC has a long history of banning certain types of communication: broadcasting on certain frequencies, or using too much power, etc. These don't violate the first amendment.
A formal legal opinion was expressed by Judge Edward Nottingham ( after the vote ): "There is no doubt that unwanted calls seeking charitable contributions are as invasive to the privacy of someone sitting down to dinner at home as unwanted calls from commercial telemarketers...The FTC has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban from his home, thereby entangling the government in deciding what speech the consumer should hear." In summary, Ron Paul made his decision based on first amendment issues. It is not clear that the issues of privacy or property rights even made it onto his screen.
BTW, all of the above is from memory. I can't find anything on the net explaining why he voted against it.
PS: sorry about the 'crack' comment.
WRONG!
The fed artificially lowered interest rates by way too much. This allowed people to either drastically lower their monthly payments or be able to buy a much more expensive home for the same monthly payment. This became a national trend.
In areas with a limited housing supply, home prices rose drastically so that the higher price with the lower interest rate yielded the same monthly payment. Some people cashed out massive profits, but at the expense of the buyer who would see their home value plummet to it's previous value in five years.
In areas with plenty of builders and land to put homes on, people began building huge quantities of larger, more lavish homes. Individual home prices didn't go up, but median home prices did. Fueled by low monthly payments, people bought homes that they could never afford at the rates from just a few years earlier.
This, in turn, LED to the incredibly lax bank lending standards in some areas. Previously, banks required hefty down payments, good credit and proof of income to give a loan. But with homes appreciating at double digit rates (again, caused by artificially low interest rates), it looked like a sure thing that the outstanding loan would be under 80% in two years. Fifty year, interest only, reverse amortization, it didn't matter, the house would out-appreciate ANY loan.
Then the fed comes back in, raises the rates back up and BAM, people default like crazy because they can't refinance their ARMs at anything close to the old rate.
Yes, there was bad business practices and greed all around, but the root cause of the whole thing was bad interest rate manipulation by the federal reserve.
I think it was probably one of two things:
It was either a rival trying to make Ron Paul look bad, or it was one of Ron's diehard missionaries trying to 'spread the word of Ron Paul' in a way that irritates the largest number of people possible. Some of his disciples are very, very prone to doing that.
I know the Church Of Ron Paul has infested Youtube like a VD sort of plague. Don't get me wrong - I don't think Ron Paul is a bad guy, but some of his followers are absolutely obnoxious if you dare criticize their messiah in any way. I questioned if he may be too old for the Presidency, and got some pretty mean responses. (Some at least tried to give a rational reply, but there also was a lot of ad hominem and strawman fallacy getting tossed around.)
Greed wouldn't have mattered if they couldn't get the loans, and the loans wouldn't have even existed without the interest rate manipulations. When the federal funds rate is low it encourages people to take out loans and do more risky investing. All that money tries to find a home somewhere, and it causes a bubble. It's one of the most predictable aspects of the modern economy.
Blaming the financial problems of the past few years on greed is stupid; it's not as if greed just started showing up in people recently.
Ultimately there is just one magical attribute which gold possesses that a fiat currency does not...
Scarcity.
It's this scarcity which prevents inflation. Without the scarcity of something like gold, the politicians will always be able to simply print another... well, we're now into the trillions. How soon will we have to use zillions? How many zeros is that?
Essentially the real problem is Fractional Reserve Banking. It's basically legalised counterfeiting... A Ponzi scheme of massive proportions. The switch to full reserve banking is needed to prevent inflation along with the gold standard or some other way of preventing the arbitrary creation of money and therefore the theft of a person's time and effort.
Those of you with a Libertarian bent can switch to a gold or other commodity based standard today. There are several Digital Gold Currencies which would insulate you against inflation.
Deleted
No, fall. The 2000 primaries were terrible to him, and he changed in agonizing increments since then from principled maverick to administration lapdog. I mean, this is a man who was literally beaten by a rumor that the kids he had adopted were really illegitimates. After having bled and fought for this country (and served it in many capacities) that has got to be devastating. After that, he started to listen to all the wrong advice, and lost his instinct for being different (since it punished him so much in the election and even afterward).
Every person has a breaking point beyond which disillusionment and cynicism are inevitable. Public service (no matter how much, or how deservedly we pile on to politicians) is a fairly dehumanizing and unforgiving profession. That the guy finally lost his way is no reflection of his "true colors" in any legitimate sense I can think of.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
You don't seem to understand the difference between racism and racial discrimination. They are also not the same thing. Discrimination is where there is preferential treatment for one race over another, while racism is the belief that your race is superior to that of others.
Affirmative action is racial discrimination, for sure. Whether or not it is racism depends on whether you believe that the underlying reason for it is that minorities can't obtain employment, advancement or schooling is due the minorities' inabilities or due to external forces beyond the minorities' control. It's a fine line, and there is at least some degree of underlying assumption by many who support affirmative action that minorities cannot succeed in the current environment due to problems within their own ranks. That belief, IMHO, is racism.
My blog
Also, "promoting the general welfare" does not equate to "ensuring the general welfare". You "promote" it, in America, by giving everyone the opportunity to make something of themself. If Social Security is such a great idea and necessary function of our government, then why did it take 150 years to put it into place? Well, here's some choice quotes by our founding fathers:
VERY true, but the unfortunate reality is - you're preaching to the choir here. There's a reason Ron Paul has been most successful in the "Internet community". The more intelligent, intellectual types can follow the reasons behind some of his "more radical" beliefs, like abolishing the federal reserve, and phasing out the IRS. But those concepts require a fair bit of reading and long-term thinking to see how they're plausible.
By the same token, avid net users who read blog sites and news sites (like Slashdot!) are FAR more likely than average to select a candidate based on their individual stances, vs. voting for them "just because they told a funny joke" or "were the most stylishly dressed" during a TV appearance.
I used to think I could vote for Ron Paul, until I heard him call abortion murder.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Part of the e-mail exchange that I did not include was about the history of the two-party system.
The Federalist/Whig/Republican Party is the Party of Hamilton and represents central government and central banking. It is the antithesis of freedom. I call it the fascist party.
The Democratic Party was the Party of Jefferson and represented anti-Federalism and libertarianism. It got seduced by Communism at the turn of the century.
Thus, starting around 1900, the choice was between fascism and communism.
After WWII, the Republicans adopted a marketing strategy. To counter communism, they put on the cloak of the old Democratic Party, libertarianism/anti-Federalism, while secretly still being fascist/Federalist. It worked -- I was seduced, at least until 1998 when a lot of information started pouring onto the Internet. Even Ron Paul was seduced, as he campaigned for Reagan in 1976.
In 2000, the Republican Party started throwing off the cloak, and returned to naked power/fascism/Federalism.
A side note I forgot to mention -- the Democratic Party, which became the Communism Party around 1900, became the Party of Death around 1970.
In addition to being seduced by the Republican cloak of libertarianism, Ron Paul was also pro-life, so those two facts together made the Republican Party a better fit for him. After his failed bid for the presidency in 1988 as a Libertarian Party candidate, he realized he needed to run under one of the two major parties, and stuck with the Republican Party into which he was seduced in the 1970's.
In the presidential debates this year, Ron Paul keeps repeating how Eisenhower, Nixon, and even Bush claimed they were anti-war. Ron Paul is trying to tap into what Republican voters thought they were voting for in the past.