Comments on: Ron Paul-Alan Grayson bill to audit the Federal Reserve makes headway

By: Robert Milnes

Robert Milnes — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:01:42 +0000

“RP wasn’t endorsing a party, but a particular candidate.” I beg your pardon. First of all he’s a REPUBLICAN who ran for president last year. Former LP presidential candidate. Endorsed the CP candidate last year. So he’s about as inconsistent and chameleon-like as you can get. That’s not trustworthy or reliable or anything worthwhile. So who knows whether he was endorsing the candidate and/or the party? Secondly, he’s a diversion of valuable third party/independent time, energy, $ etc. So Shun the SOB, I say.

By: Robert Milnes

Robert Milnes — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:35:37 +0000

I wouldn’t ask Ron Paul to support my favorite candidate because that would be me. I say shun Ron Paul. That would thwart the skinny little counterrevolutionary fossilized prick.

By: spinnikerca

spinnikerca — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:15:59 +0000

The problem is where the bill is located — inside a bill that in itself is unacceptable. It will be interesting to see if it plays out, but right now Obama’s whole power grab for the fed and to chop up ’systemically significant players’ at whim is being held up because Ron Paul’s bill is in it. I see a couple of potential outcomes I like. 1) the Ron Paul amendment causes Obama’s power grab to be rejected, or 2) Ron Paul’s amendment passes so at least within a year we have better evidence of what is going on. (If 2 can happen without passing Obama’s bill, that would be my own preference.)

As for Ron Paul and supporting him: I do and I will and I don’t really care what someone who wanted him to support THEIR favorite candidate says about it.

Further, while I agree Chuck Baldwin is no Ron Paul, how can you possibly say Barr was better? RP wasn’t endorsing a party, but a particular candidate.

By: Third Party Revolution

Third Party Revolution — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:26:09 +0000

I’d say right now that the bill will fail. Even if it passes congress, Obama will veto it.

By: Robert Capozzi

Robert Capozzi — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:24:15 +0000

while the Paul/Grayson bill has made impressive progress, I don’t like the odds of its becoming law. The House leadership and most of the Senate are unlikely to sign on.

By: Robert Capozzi

Robert Capozzi — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:21:57 +0000

around, yes, I’d agree that Rothbard WAS an inquisitor, but not for “counter-revolutionaries.” His inquisitions mostly involved his seeking out those Ls who didn’t agree with HIS peculiar ideas.

Hmm, I guess we all do that to some extent, although MNR did it with much rancor.

By: Robert Milnes

Robert Milnes — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:04:12 +0000

My I.Q. has been tested more than once at around 140. I have been called a troll before. I’m not much of an economist, Marxist or otherwise. But my antennae & radar work pretty good when it comes to progressive/revolutionary v. counterrevolutionary. Whatever reasons Ron Paul has for being ballot access reformist, anti-war, non-interventionist & anti-Fed etc. are counterrevolutionary. I do not trust Ron Paul as far as I can spit.

By: NewFederalist

NewFederalist — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:08:48 +0000

Milnes is either a brilliant troll or a hardcore Marxist to bitch about Paul being “counter-revolutionary” when he is close to landing a blow on the jaw of the real tyrants that control this county.

MN Independent… you’re not even close!

By: Richard Winger

Richard Winger — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:51:19 +0000

Any news story from October 30 is out-of-date. Even the Financial Times of Great Britain is covering this story. I have a link to the Financial Times story of today at Ballot Access News, in the post about Ron Paul’s surprising success with the fed audit bill.

By: MN Independent

MN Independent — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:31:07 +0000

Holy hell, who cares about Ron Paul’s stance or lack thereof on some piddly libertarian issues? He’s on the eve of jumpstarting the most important legislation this country has seen in a longtime: the bill to expose the criminal banking cartel. Besides, he’s always been one of the friendliest in Congress to third parties. I don’t care if he was a member of the Anti-Third-Party-Satanist Party right now. It’s the bill attacking the Fed that matters.

By: Robert Milnes

Robert Milnes — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:43:04 +0000

aroundtheblockafewtimes, I’m not familiar enough with the Rothbard/counterrevolutionaries situation you describe to answer. However I am convinced Ron Paul lands in the GOP/CP area of reaction/counterrevolution. Evidently his schpiel is so refined he gets a pass by the GOP and the libertarians-except for a few. The tell was his endorsement of Baldwin. The dividing area between counterrevolutionary and revolutionary/progressive is the area between CP and LP. This is why it is so difficult for any CP/LP coalition or fusion. & 2 different parties have evolved. Yet there is a lot of commonality between the LP & GP. So I only know who libertarians should NOT rally around-Ron Paul.

By: Aroundtheblockafewtimes

Aroundtheblockafewtimes — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:57:42 +0000

Wasn’t Rothbard the chief inquisitor regarding counter-revolutionaries within the libertarian movement? And didn’t Rothbard strongly support Ron Paul? Seems counter-intuitive to me that Paul is a counter-revolutionary. So, Mr. Milnes, whom should libertarians rally around?

By: Graey

Graey — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:14:10 +0000

If folks would bother to look at news of the bill they would see an Oct. 30 Bloomberg report that the bill was gutted and is useless now. Ron Paul is going to have to try to get the original wording back into it as an amendment. If this is headway then it’s doomed.

By: Born Again Non-Voter

Born Again Non-Voter — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:51:26 +0000

The Constitution Party is more analogous to Israel than to the Taliban.

The CP claims to want a western-style Christian democracy; i.e., a democratic “Christian state” that respects the rights of non-Christians.

Much like Israel claims to be a democratic “Jewish state” that respects the rights of non-Jews.

Are such things even possible? You tell me.

By: Robert Milnes

Robert Milnes — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:34:15 +0000

Morgan, to me, Ron Paul has been discredited long ago. But he keeps getting a pass. Because of certain aspects of his positions such as ballot access and anti war. But those positions come with a whole lot more baggage usually associated with the GOP/CP. But he has camoflaged himself with a past association with the LP. He has already damaged any progressive/revolutionary movement in the USA & is in a good position to continue to do so esp. if he runs again in 2012. If fools support him to the tune of 35 million like they did in 2008, it will have a similar effect on the LP race i.e. suck the air out of support & contributions & redistributing it to the GOP. How rightists hate redistribution of wealth yet here is a good example. But it is wealth FROM the anti war people, leftists, progressives & libertarians so it is ok. Well, I say it is not ok. Do not support Ron Paul. Despite his positives he is overall a counterrevolutionary influence. We do not want or need Ron Paul. anti-war rightists should support the LP, NOT Ron Paul.