Does anyone know what song that is that runs from 4:00 - 7:00?

So here's Schiff's logic:

1. Government gave free cheap money to banks
2. The non-government banks fucked themselves over with it
3. Therefore government should be removed from the equation

Anyone see the issue with that chain of logic?

Does it get better when his metaphor for the situation poses Government as an adult, and the private banks as children?

Yes, yes, I understand that it's the free cheap money he thinks is the issue, but isn't there some sort of "personal responsibility" that conservatives are supposedly big on? Shouldn't the people who abuse the treat be the ones to blame for their own idiocy?

The banks didn't have to spend all their money on crazy derivatives and securities backed by questionable mortgages that they freely and knowingly loaned out to people with insufficient means to cover the loans.

They could've invested in gold, or automobile plants, or agribusiness, solar panels, or a shoe factory -- something that would've helped correct the US's terrible trade imbalance that they, by the simple virtue of being privately owned, naturally would understand better than anyone in government, even if that government employee was formerly the CEO of Goldman Sachs?

Government, business, they're all made of people. They're all capable of doing things wrong, and businesses have proven time and again that they need adult supervision, or they will try to set up Schiff's opening parable, with lowly middle-class people standing in for the Asians.

Speaking of that parable, it sounds to me like it was lifted from the socialist revolution -- workers doing a little redistribution of wealth from management, as it were.

Maybe he knows deep down this conservative philosophy is BS, and that it's as important to "spread the wealth around" as it is for people to be "free" to get suckered by fat Americans.

I'd like there to be less government intervention, more incentives to businesses who do "the right thing" and RIDICULOUSLY HARSH PUNISHMENTS to those who do not. Seems like we're missing that punishment part completely if banks that fuck up over and over and take advantage of people over and over are given money by the government freecheap at all.

Government officials who pass crappy legislation should also be held responsible. More transparency all around would be good in my opinion.

Oh for the love of god, any time the economy fucks up everyone blames the goddamn government. No one pays attention to the fact that its regulator bodies which would have averted these problems were basically lobotomized at their core in the name of free markets and deregulation. Yet when the effects back fire we must deregulate even more and do away with more regulations.

Banks and corporate business think about delivering abnormal profits for their shareholders NOT to make sure the economy doesn't collapse on itself.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, December 29th, 2008 12:31am PST - promote requested by rottenseed.

I love the way Paul supporters rationalized away, or were not at all concerned by, his racism.

>> ^qualm:
I love the way Paul supporters rationalized away, or were not at all concerned by, his racism.


Who's racism? Ron Paul's racism? Um. Are you referring to that thing a long while back about that newsletter from the 90s and 80s with his name on it and some totally other person who wasn't Ron Paul wrote the racist articles?

I agree it was a big mistake of RPs to leave his name on those newsletters without reading and approving the content, but he never wrote those articles. Don't be petty.

Correction: He stated he never wrote those articles -- that were in the RON PAUL REPORT -- once they surfaced, during his run for president. It's a laughable claim.

^I guess if you only read Huffington Post or Daily Kos (the liberals' Fox News) for your news, then it would be laughable. But, think about it for a second. If Paul endorsed -- or worse wrote -- those articles, then why lie about it now? If he was so publicly and outwardly racist in the 80s and 90s, why not be so outwardly and publicly racist now? Why deny it?

Is it because he was running for the highest public office? Well, he's not any longer. Also, he's been a public figure who has held public office for a long time, so that argument seems a bit shaky.

Read RP's own words about racism (skip to the last paragraph for his philosophy on healing racism): http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html - that doesn't sound like an outwardly racist to me.

I'm not a liberal, I'm left-wing -- there is a huge difference. And I've never visited either of those milky websites.

It's not hard to conjecture why Ron Paul is lying -- he's a racist who was running for president.

^To my point above, qualm, he's no longer running for president, so why lie anymore? That, and he has been running for public offices since the 1970s, which predates those articles, so why would he write openly and outwardly racist articles in the 80s and 90s? He wouldn't because that would make no sense.

You really expect for Rong Paul to just come out and admit that he lied? I know you're not serious.

Sure it would make sense at the time. Ron Paul was on the wacko fringes back then too. The Ron Paul Report (and other incarnations) pandered to a certain loathsome fringe demographic that exists in your country. These types have always been drawn to, not repulsed by, racist rhetoric.

What a horrific, disdainful quote by Ron Paul. The American people are the American government - why would he disrespect the people like that?

"In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/

>> ^qualm:
You really expect for Rong Paul to just come out and admit that he lied? I know you're not serious.
Sure it would make sense at the time. Ron Paul was on the wacko fringes back then too. The Ron Paul Report (and other incarnations) pandered to a certain loathsome fringe demographic that exists in your country. These types have always been drawn to, not repulsed by, racist rhetoric.


I'm glad you speak with such blanketed conviction about these fringe groups, which shows more of a agenda riddled bias than a fresh critical perspective. Still, I'm not sure we're on the same page here. You still haven't answered my questions above, except to say you think the reason why Ron Paul would be blatantly racist in the 90s and not so today is because he was on the wacko fringes back then, too? I'm completely lost. You say "too", so I suppose you mean he's still on the wacko fringe today, so that would prove my point above that he would also be racist today (part of that wacko fringe agenda, you know?) and therefore be willfully writing racist articles. But he's not.

To the contrary, he's writing against racism citing it as a problem of the heart. In his book (Revolution: The Manifesto) he writes a great deal against racism and points out the evils of government sponsored racism, such as why we have a ban against drugs like marijuana (which was motivated against Blacks, Mexicans and Jews). But, no, you claim he's putting all of this effort (even adding it into his book) because he's afraid to admit that he lied. I'm not sure your Daily Kos logic will work on me.

Sorry, I can't take you seriously. I think the excerpt in my previous comment contains strong evidence that Paul was indeed the author of those articles.

>> ^qualm:
Sorry, I can't you seriously.


I can't you seriously, either. Good show.

Ok, clown. Fair enough.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by campionidelmondo.