The chances of Ron Paul getting assassinated?....

[unknownx]

I came across an article in another forum about Obama issuing an "executive-level kill order against Ron Paul" if he wins the Republican Presidential  Nomination in 2012 (http://www.eutimes.net/2011/11/obama-issues-ron-paul-kill-order-as-russia-prepares-for-war). The article itself is pretty much BS because it lacks a lot of concrete evidence.

However, it got me thinking, IF Ron Paul actually got the Republican Presidential Nomination in 2012 and would eventually win the 2012 Presidential race. What are the chances that he would get gun down by a "lone gunman" like what happened to JFK and his little brother? You have to understand the global banking cartel along with the military industrial complex, and the establishment are getting kind of nervous right now because Dr.Paul is not on their payroll. Paul would actually serve the American people and uphold the constitution unlike the rest of the bought-out kleptocratic maniacs in DC. I would love for Paul to win the Presidential nomination in 2012, but I fear for his life if it were to happened.

[sheikhnguyen]

No surprise to see this was posted at 4.30 in the morning.......
I very much doubt the "global banking cartels and the military idustrial complex" are at all concerned about Ron Paul. Mostly because he has about as much chance of becoming President of the US as Kim Jong Il does.
That said I would be careful what you post here because Waygook is wired directly into the Illuminati Headquaters in the centre of the Earth......

[ovid]

I think chances are that a lone, racist bigot would assassin Obama over any other president.

And like the above poster said, it's highly unlikely he'll ever get elected (he's completely ignored in the big media).

[minamteacher]

He needs to win a primary first (which won't happen). Second, Obama signing an executive order to kill Ron Paul . In other words, I give it a 0.000000001% chance.

[jaakked1]

99.9999999...... percent of people don't care about Ron Paul.

[odie]

99.9999999...... percent of people don't care about Ron Paul.

....and that's exactly why we're in the mess we're in today. If we had listened to Ron Paul, say oh, 1997 and before 9/11, then maybe we'd have an easier time getting through airports today http://youtu.be/BnPV2xea2ro

...or maybe if we'd listened to him about the depreciation of the dollar and the lack of transparency of the Federal Reserve, some of wouldn't have lost our jobs back home http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q

And if you think it's all your own idea not to care about what Ron Paul says, even Jon Stewart would disagree... http://youtu.be/Tb5aGgQXhXo


You don't have to kill off good, honest men nowadays. We've quit thinking/listening so there's no threat to them. I'm just sad that this is how history will remember us.

[terivinix]

No surprise to see this was posted at 4.30 in the morning.......
I very much doubt the "global banking cartels and the military idustrial complex" are at all concerned about Ron Paul. Mostly because he has about as much chance of becoming President of the US as Kim Jong Il does.
That said I would be careful what you post here because Waygook is wired directly into the Illuminati Headquaters in the centre of the Earth......

Looking at the current crop of Republican candidates, maybe Kim Jong-il would have a shot at the nomination. Granted he's not born in the US, but otherwise, why not?

[unknownx]

No surprise to see this was posted at 4.30 in the morning.......
I very much doubt the "global banking cartels and the military idustrial complex" are at all concerned about Ron Paul. Mostly because he has about as much chance of becoming President of the US as Kim Jong Il does.
That said I would be careful what you post here because Waygook is wired directly into the Illuminati Headquaters in the centre of the Earth......

In 7-8 months, I'm going to see to it that you eat your words. Promised.

[Carles]

Most people don't care about Ron Paul because he spouts nonsense. For every good idea the man has, he has 5 stupid simplistic ones. His mantra about returning to exactly what the constitution says is infantile. It was written 200 years ago, the world isn't the same.
The guy loves "freedom" so much he wants people to die from it...... Let's have freedom from government regulation aka companies can sell anything they want and the "free market" will sort out the quality from the dross. Imagine that principle applied to pharmacuticles.
A few of his other gems include. A return to the gold standard........definitly possible once we find the philosophers stone to help make all the extra gold we'll need. That the government should do nothing to help people in disaster situations, we should do what they did in Galvaston for the hurricane in 1901 aka nothing............madness.

[sheikhnguyen]

No surprise to see this was posted at 4.30 in the morning.......
I very much doubt the "global banking cartels and the military idustrial complex" are at all concerned about Ron Paul. Mostly because he has about as much chance of becoming President of the US as Kim Jong Il does.
That said I would be careful what you post here because Waygook is wired directly into the Illuminati Headquaters in the centre of the Earth......

In 7-8 months, I'm going to see to it that you eat your words. Promised.

Are you threatening me because I disparaged Ron Paul?

[Carles]

Most people don't care about Ron Paul because he spouts nonsense. For every good idea the man has, he has 5 stupid simplistic ones. His mantra about returning to exactly what the constitution says is infantile. It was written 200 years ago, the world isn't the same.

Have you ever read the constitution? Which parts are infantile?

The guy loves "freedom" so much he wants people to die from it...... Let's have freedom from government regulation aka companies can sell anything they want and the "free market" will sort out the quality from the dross. Imagine that principle applied to pharmacuticles.

Drugs for you nails?

Pharmaceuticals is a pretty bad example because that industry is one of the most heavily regulated and one of the least efficient. Can you think of a relatively unregulated industry (compared to say; healthcare, education and the financial sector) that is relatively efficient? I can think of many.

A few of his other gems include. A return to the gold standard........definitly possible once we find the philosophers stone to help make all the extra gold we'll need. That the government should do nothing to help people in disaster situations, we should do what they did in Galvaston for the hurricane in 1901 aka nothing............madness.

What are you talking about? How is that different to fiat money?

How did the Federal aid work for hurricane Katrina?

Sorry, I think you missed my point. I wasn't calling the constitution infantile I was calling ron paul's belief that we can use it and only it to run the country infantile. It was written in the pre modern era it is a blue print but could not be used on it's own to run the country. The pharmacutical example was to show what would happen if we got RID of government regulation which Mr.Paul wants to do. Also to have a gold standard we would need to have a set amount of gold in reserve to back up every dollar in circulation, that much gold doesn't actually exist. As for Katrina the responce was slow but when it did get there it helped them, slow as it was it was better than doing nothing at all as Paul advocates.

[Carles]

It was written in the pre modern era it is a blue print but could not be used on it's own to run the country.

Why? It worked quite well. Well into the modern era.

The pharmacutical example was to show what would happen if we got RID of government regulation which Mr.Paul wants to do.

The pharmaceutical industry is a classic example of why govt regulation sucks.

Also to have a gold standard we would need to have a set amount of gold in reserve to back up every dollar in circulation, that much gold doesn't actually exist.

You don't understand what money is.

As for Katrina the responce was slow but when it did get there it helped them, slow as it was it was better than doing nothing at all as Paul advocates.

Find one example where Ron Paul said people shouldn't help disaster victims. He has never said that.

Yes it worked quite well, that is why it had to be amended so many times. It's a blue print and a good one but it is not perfect.
I am unsure of how protecting people from potentially dangerous drugs until they are properly tested sucks. I admit at times it can take too long and needs to be streamlined bt examples abound for why medicine needs regulation, Thalidomide springs to mind. I fail to see how explaining the basis of the gold standard makes me unable to understand money.......
Here is your example of him saying what the government should do it responce to a disaster

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/26/7488430-ron-paul-no-fema-response-necessary

[unknownx]

No surprise to see this was posted at 4.30 in the morning.......
I very much doubt the "global banking cartels and the military idustrial complex" are at all concerned about Ron Paul. Mostly because he has about as much chance of becoming President of the US as Kim Jong Il does.
That said I would be careful what you post here because Waygook is wired directly into the Illuminati Headquaters in the centre of the Earth......

In 7-8 months, I'm going to see to it that you eat your words. Promised.

Are you threatening me because I disparaged Ron Paul?

How am I threatening you? All I said was that in 7-8 months you're gonna eat your words because Ron Paul is going to win the Republican Nomination and eventually the presidential nomination.

[woman-king]

If anything, Obama is the LAST person who would want RP out of the race!

In all likelihood, Romney will get the nomination and give Obama a decent run for his money, but at this point I think Obama's still got it for 2012.  One of the reasons for that is that Republicans feel very lukewarm about Romney and yes, Ron Paul has a strong Libertarian following that could take up a couple percentages of the conservative vote.  It's become a recurring trend in American presidential races--Ross, Ralph, and Ron, helping out the opposing party a bit.  Entertaining, I guess.  I actually rather like Ron Paul and think he's made some good points, but yes, some of his ideas are too out of touch with most Americans' reality to grab ahold of the majority of the voting public.  Things will have to change dramatically in American politics before a third-party candidate ever gets a shot at the White House. 

Will he be assassinated?  I guess any political figure is in danger of that to some extent, but I doubt it.

[sheikhnguyen]

No surprise to see this was posted at 4.30 in the morning.......
I very much doubt the "global banking cartels and the military idustrial complex" are at all concerned about Ron Paul. Mostly because he has about as much chance of becoming President of the US as Kim Jong Il does.
That said I would be careful what you post here because Waygook is wired directly into the Illuminati Headquaters in the centre of the Earth......

In 7-8 months, I'm going to see to it that you eat your words. Promised.

Are you threatening me because I disparaged Ron Paul?

How am I threatening you? All I said was that in 7-8 months you're gonna eat your words because Ron Paul is going to win the Republican Nomination and eventually the presidential nomination.

Sorry dude. Your post seemed a bit menacing especially the "I'm going to see to it " part. I guess I've just had too much coffee this morning.

[Carles]

Yes it worked quite well, that is why it had to be amended so many times. It's a blue print and a good one but it is not perfect.
I am unsure of how protecting people from potentially dangerous drugs until they are properly tested sucks. I admit at times it can take too long and needs to be streamlined bt examples abound for why medicine needs regulation, Thalidomide springs to mind. I fail to see how explaining the basis of the gold standard makes me unable to understand money.......
Here is your example of him saying what the government should do it responce to a disaster

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/26/7488430-ron-paul-no-fema-response-necessary

And now Americans are losing the rights enumerated in the constitution.

The FDA does a relatively poor job of protecting people. They failed with Thalidomide. Then they over reacted by banning a drug that is very effective in the right situation. Just not for pregnant women.

You haven't shown any understanding of the gold standard, or money in general, as far as I can see.

I'll ask you again; where has Ron Paul said "Nobody should do anything" to help disaster victims?

I didn't say nobody, I said we. I also see the disconnect here. You see when I refer to "we" I am refering to the government of whom I consider myself a member. I personally can't do anything to help people in a disaster situation due to a lack of suitable skills, distance etc etc. So I expect the government to respond on my behalf, since I pay for it they are acting as my agents. At least that's how I see it. Government is the collective will of the people.
How exactly is my description of the gold standard incorrect? Explain how it works please, because obviously you seem to understand. Is it not true that the gold standard refers to gold being held in reserve so as to guarantee the value of the money in circulation? Is it not also true that there is not enough gold in the world to guarantee all of the money in circulation now?
As for thalidomide, the FDA never in fact licenced it so they never banned it either. Thus the US never experienced the side effects of thalidomid on pregnant women. What did happen in the US subsequently was the introduction of a regulation that drugs had to be tested to ensure they did not harm pregnant women. So I fail to see how they failed. Indeed I would see the episode as a posotive aspect of government regulation

[Carles]

I didn't say nobody, I said we. I also see the disconnect here. You see when I refer to "we" I am refering to the government of whom I consider myself a member. I personally can't do anything to help people in a disaster situation due to a lack of suitable skills, distance etc etc. So I expect the government to respond on my behalf, since I pay for it they are acting as my agents. At least that's how I see it. Government is the collective will of the people.

The constitution leaves the responsibility for natural disasters up to the individual states. People shouldn't be forced to help out people they have never met, and will never meet. Though, of course, they likely would anyway. Sending cash is a highly appropriate response. FEMA unequivocally cocked up the response to Hurricane Katrina. 

How exactly is my description of the gold standard incorrect? Explain how it works please, because obviously you seem to understand. Is it not true that the gold standard refers to gold being held in reserve so as to guarantee the value of the money in circulation? Is it not also true that there is not enough gold in the world to guarantee all of the money in circulation now?

http://mises.org/resources/614

Throwing a link to a website that discusses the Austrian School of Economic thought does not show me how my description of the gold standard is inncorrect.......
No arguments that FEMA did a terrible job with Katrina, still I think that government has the resources to respond to disasters in a way no one else can. To whom will I send this money you talk about  by the way and what will they do with it?

[Carles]

I can't be bothered explaining the origin of money, what money is, the gold standard all the way through to fiat money and central reserve banking. The second link I posted is purely a historical account. It sets out succinctly what money and the gold standard is. They aren't the same thing.
http://mises.org/daily/3122

I'm well aware of that. I am simply questioning your assertion that I don't understand the gold standard. I am simply asking you to provide evidence to back up what you say.

[unknownx]

Yes it worked quite well, that is why it had to be amended so many times. It's a blue print and a good one but it is not perfect.
I am unsure of how protecting people from potentially dangerous drugs until they are properly tested sucks. I admit at times it can take too long and needs to be streamlined bt examples abound for why medicine needs regulation, Thalidomide springs to mind. I fail to see how explaining the basis of the gold standard makes me unable to understand money.......
Here is your example of him saying what the government should do it responce to a disaster

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/26/7488430-ron-paul-no-fema-response-necessary

And now Americans are losing the rights enumerated in the constitution.

The FDA does a relatively poor job of protecting people. They failed with Thalidomide. Then they over reacted by banning a drug that is very effective in the right situation. Just not for pregnant women.

You haven't shown any understanding of the gold standard, or money in general, as far as I can see.

I'll ask you again; where has Ron Paul said "Nobody should do anything" to help disaster victims?

I didn't say nobody, I said we. I also see the disconnect here. You see when I refer to "we" I am refering to the government of whom I consider myself a member. I personally can't do anything to help people in a disaster situation due to a lack of suitable skills, distance etc etc. So I expect the government to respond on my behalf, since I pay for it they are acting as my agents. At least that's how I see it. Government is the collective will of the people.
How exactly is my description of the gold standard incorrect? Explain how it works please, because obviously you seem to understand. Is it not true that the gold standard refers to gold being held in reserve so as to guarantee the value of the money in circulation? Is it not also true that there is not enough gold in the world to guarantee all of the money in circulation now?
As for thalidomide, the FDA never in fact licenced it so they never banned it either. Thus the US never experienced the side effects of thalidomid on pregnant women. What did happen in the US subsequently was the introduction of a regulation that drugs had to be tested to ensure they did not harm pregnant women. So I fail to see how they failed. Indeed I would see the episode as a posotive aspect of government regulation

We were on a gold standard until 1971 when Nixon took us off because the wars were draining our reserves. Being on a full fiat currency status allowed to go into deficit and fund all the war we want. On a gold standard, it would be very hard for a country to go to war because you can't print gold. During WWI and WWII, we were off the gold standard and during the 30's, FDR started confiscating people's gold in order to go to war. There is enough gold to guarantee all of the money in circulation IF it's priced at the correct value. With the amount of money the central banks are printing these days, gold has to reach a level or $20,000/oz to cover all the fiat currency that's in circulation right now. Do yourself a favor and read Alan Greenspan 1967 essay on "Gold and Economic Freedom" (http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm). This was before he sold out and became head of the federal reserve.

[Carles]

Yes it worked quite well, that is why it had to be amended so many times. It's a blue print and a good one but it is not perfect.
I am unsure of how protecting people from potentially dangerous drugs until they are properly tested sucks. I admit at times it can take too long and needs to be streamlined bt examples abound for why medicine needs regulation, Thalidomide springs to mind. I fail to see how explaining the basis of the gold standard makes me unable to understand money.......
Here is your example of him saying what the government should do it responce to a disaster

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/26/7488430-ron-paul-no-fema-response-necessary

And now Americans are losing the rights enumerated in the constitution.

The FDA does a relatively poor job of protecting people. They failed with Thalidomide. Then they over reacted by banning a drug that is very effective in the right situation. Just not for pregnant women.

You haven't shown any understanding of the gold standard, or money in general, as far as I can see.

I'll ask you again; where has Ron Paul said "Nobody should do anything" to help disaster victims?

I didn't say nobody, I said we. I also see the disconnect here. You see when I refer to "we" I am refering to the government of whom I consider myself a member. I personally can't do anything to help people in a disaster situation due to a lack of suitable skills, distance etc etc. So I expect the government to respond on my behalf, since I pay for it they are acting as my agents. At least that's how I see it. Government is the collective will of the people.
How exactly is my description of the gold standard incorrect? Explain how it works please, because obviously you seem to understand. Is it not true that the gold standard refers to gold being held in reserve so as to guarantee the value of the money in circulation? Is it not also true that there is not enough gold in the world to guarantee all of the money in circulation now?
As for thalidomide, the FDA never in fact licenced it so they never banned it either. Thus the US never experienced the side effects of thalidomid on pregnant women. What did happen in the US subsequently was the introduction of a regulation that drugs had to be tested to ensure they did not harm pregnant women. So I fail to see how they failed. Indeed I would see the episode as a posotive aspect of government regulation

We were on a gold standard until 1971 when Nixon took us off because the wars were draining our reserves. Being on a full fiat currency status allowed to go into deficit and fund all the war we want. On a gold standard, it would be very hard for a country to go to war because you can't print gold. During WWI and WWII, we were off the gold standard and during the 30's, FDR started confiscating people's gold in order to go to war. There is enough gold to guarantee all of the money in circulation IF it's priced at the correct value. With the amount of money the central banks are printing these days, gold has to reach a level or $20,000/oz to cover all the fiat currency that's in circulation right now. Do yourself a favor and read Alan Greenspan 1967 essay on "Gold and Economic Freedom" (http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm). This was before he sold out and became head of the federal reserve.

That was exactly my original point. There is so much money in circulation right now that a return to the gold standard would be physically impossible. Unless you did a drastic revaluation of all the currency's in the world, which is of course impossible. As for war you are preaching to the choir.